Patrick Fitzgerald Smear Countdown

[squeegee]

@Evil One

I don’t personally know how deep Plame was at one point, but if she is willing to pose in Vanity Fair magazine, it couldn’t be that far.

You do know she was pictured in Vanity Fair after her cover was blown, right? And the picture wasn’t exactly full frontal or anything.

[SteveG1]

@PatriotX

PReviously, the USG has used a theft law to punish leakers:

… So there is a precedent. One from this Administration no less.

The way I read it, the leak is covered by the words “converted” and “conveyed”. But, we would still have to connect the dots to the right person (the source). We can accuse all the others involved, but unless we get a “mister big” it will happen again. And again.

[elucidator]

Just saw Ken “Mealymouth” Mehlman on Mute The Press. Other than a tireless effort to focus attention on Joe Wilson and divert from Rove, he expressed complete confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald, the lawbot. So, we are safe to presume, no smears yet from the offical Republicans. If and when it comes, it will be seen first on deniable sources, such as Little Green Turdballs, and so forth.

[PatriotX]

@SteveG1

The way I read it, the leak is covered by the words “converted” and “conveyed”. But, we would still have to connect the dots to the right person (the source). We can accuse all the others involved, but unless we get a “mister big” it will happen again. And again.

Well there’s this section too, “Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted.” Of course it has “intent” and “knowing” issues.

[SteveG1]

@PatriotX

Well there’s this section too, “Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted.” Of course it has “intent” and “knowing” issues.

Coming from the Cooper testimony, one quote stands out, and is directly attributable to Rove - the part where Rove says “I’ve already said too much”, which in my mind means he KNEW it was wrong and did it anyway.

[elucidator]

Not neccesarily. Its also the kind of thing one says to imply an especial candor and openness. Or to stroke a reporter’s ego, to suggest that one is held in very high regard, and that one has an exceptional relationship with the speaker. Kind of like, I couldn’t say this to just anybody, but you being who you are…

[SteveG1]

@elucidator

Not neccesarily. Its also the kind of thing one says to imply an especial candor and openness. Or to stroke a reporter’s ego, to suggest that one is held in very high regard, and that one has an exceptional relationship with the speaker. Kind of like, I couldn’t say this to just anybody, but you being who you are…

Slight difference of opinion. I think he did it deliberately and with full knowledge, in an attempt to start a smear and to lie (yet again) to all the stupid voters out there.

[The_Hamster_King]

@John Mace

But we need to strike #4 unless you put some bounds on it. As it is, that could mean almost anything.

How about: “Allegations of incompetance fabricated out of whole cloth, or derived from hearsay, or based on hyper-critical scrutiny of his work.”

If he really has done a bad job and there’s evidence to prove it … that doesn’t count as a smear.

But if there are unsupported allegations of incompetance – that counts as a smear. Or if the core of his case is fundamentally sound, but he has made some niggling error that then gets blown out of proportion – that’s a smear too.

My list of possible smears wasn’t intended to be exhaustive. I can think of several other ways he could be smeared that I didn’t include in my original post. For the purposes of the bet, how about:

Fitzgerald will be accused of one or more of the following:

1. Some form of bias that seems to explain why he’s “out to get” the White House. (Democrat, liberal, friend-of-a-friend with Joe Wilson, has a Muslim brother-in-law, etc.)

2. Some character flaw that has no bearing on the case at hand but makes him look bad. (Drunk, pederast, caught shoplifting as a teenager, etc.)

3. Incompetance as described above. Either by innuendo or nit-picking.

There needn’t be a paper trail back to the White House. (After all, a large part of what Fitzgerald is doing is trying to establish just such a paper trail with respect to Joe Wilson.) But it needs to be picked up by The Free Republic and taken seriously by the freepers.

Of course all good smears have some kernal of truth to them. So it’s hard to define them completely objectively. But, you seem to be acting in good faith in this, as am I. I’m not going to call “smear” at the first negative mention of Fitzgerald in the right-wing press. It’ll have to be pretty blatant for me to claim victory. And I’m assuming that if it’s that blatant you’ll concede gracefully.

I’d actually be happy to pay $50 to have my faith in the Republican party renewed … even marginally.

Are we on?

[NurseCarmen]

Has it begun?

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could hold hearings on the use of espionage cover soon after the U.S. Congress returns from its August recess, said Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little.

Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.

Vague, but containing no real information. Has anyone heard the reasons behind Roberts’ review?