Until someone gets a target letter, nobody's getting indicted.

Is it just me, or is this the most boring fucking whdunit ever? I mean, when all is said and done, who the fuck cares? Imagine you're the scriptwriter trying to turn this snoozer into a television treatment -- where's the action, the glitz, the conflict? All you have are a bunch of flabby uninteresting politicos and journalists calling each other names and denying everything while blaming other people for the whole mess.

Add to that the fact that it's not even clear a crime was committed at all, and I'm left wondering why this complete zero of a nothing is still hitting headlines.

God, am I right there with you Monty. This thing was boring and ridiculous *before* it happened.

Watergate had a break-in. Iran-Contra had guns, terrorists and insurgents. Lewinsky had blowjobs, and *everybody* loves blowjobs.

This? This has negative interest to anyone but inside baseball pukes, and masturbating KosKids.

I was yawning before, I'm still yawning now.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

My bet is Fitzgerald says no evidence of a crime being commited, no indictments.

From what I understand, Fitzgerald doesn't even intend to issue a report on the whole thing so we can figure out what happened. All this speculation at least has the potential to be realized one way or the other if indictments are handed down. We can make fun of Marshall or eat crow or whatever.

But no indictments and no final report is just too much like lauraw's first car dates, if you follow.

I was gonna say the judge would have to give Fitsgerrald special permission to make a report public, but that would sound like a gave a shit about this stupid thing, which like Dave and Monty, I don't.

Sorry...I've haven't been paying attention. I guess this is just the type of story that will make the KosKids wet. I don't really give a shit at this point...The whole thing is painfully ridiculous.

It's my understanding that Fitzgerald cannot issue a report because it would violate the law. Either he issues indictments or he doesn't. That's all there is to it.

And I'm putting odds on that he doesn't. There isn't anything on anyone that would stand scrutiny of a criminal trial despite the stylings of the NYT and other media 'elites.'

What y'all are missing is something even NEWSWEEK is getting. It's all about how the White House manipulated the media in the lies leading up to war.

Those of you who wonder if there is even a crime can go back to the words of President Bush. Haven't got the quote handy, but back when he was saying he was going to get to the bottom of this, he said a serious crime was committed.

And then the CIA referred it to Justice. Doesn't sound like jaywalking to me.

I'm still predicting indictments. Heck I'll take even odds from anyone.

Thing is, even if Libby and/or Rove did all the things that the NYT/KosKids/AP et al think that they did, it STILL doesn't mean a that a crime was committed under the statutue designed to proctect agents. An essential element of that crime is Plame's status as of the time of the leak and I have yet to read anything that clearly disposes of that question. I tend to think that she wasn't, but what I've seen is not conclusive.

I have to care. If this turns out wrong, I got to be nice to tubino :(

I disagree - there will be indictments, and you're all going to love it and think it's painfully exciting when it happens. I just hope Joe Wilson remembers to bring his wife's lipstick to his jailhouse wedding, so he looks good for the pictures.

Wishful thinking? Definately. But I'll look like a friggin' genious if it happens, and no one will remember I said anything if it doesn't.

Besides, it's not like I'm saying this on my blog.

"I don't know. I'm having a hard time seeing what Fitzgerald could prove with regard to the underlying matter. Let's say Russert says he didn't tell Libby and Libby says he did. It's he said, he said. How can you prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt?"

There could be emails, agreement by reliable witnesses... and then there's still talk of a conspiracy case stemming from the Airforce One trip to Africa, with a classified memo looked at by several folks... could be proven LOTS of different ways still, I think.

And there are LOTS of thorougly entertaining theories out there on the case -- real Le Carre stuff. I still think this could make a great movie with the right scriptwriters and casting.

And kinda sorta related, Larry Wilkerson had his McNamara Moment about the 'cabal' that hijacked foreign policy.

Still not exciting enough?

"An essential element of that crime is Plame's status as of the time of the leak and I have yet to read anything that clearly disposes of that question. I tend to think that she wasn't, but what I've seen is not conclusive."

I think the CIA referral of the case is a good starting point. They made the case that a crime was committed, and they were in the position to know.

No evidence, but I can't help but think this is your CIA at payback time.

But really, it's about the NUKES.

Man, if Weasal wins his bet, one conditon of "toning it down" outta be no two posts in a row. Make him take a breath every now and then.

Also, when I look over to the left at 'recent comments,' I don't want to see more than one Tubino at a time. Sometimes I look over there and it's like all him.

There's a lot of good medications for bi-polar manic logorhea, nowadays. Consult your physician.

It's all about how the White House manipulated the media in the lies leading up to war.

*yawn*

Yeah, "lies".

I hate to tell you, but you have no Fifth Amendment rights WRT grand jury testimony. Testify or go to jail for contempt, those are your only choices.

A slimey media whore and partisan hack uses his wife's influence as his ticket to smearing the Bush administration.

The administration tells reporters that this guy is a liar and outs his desk jockey wife for abusing her position. The Senate Intelligence Committee agrees that Wilson is full of shit. British intelligence concurs.

I say bravo to whoever outed Plame. The only two people who should be indicted in this scandal are Wilson and his wife.

Sigh.

I spent a goodly part of yesterday evening and this morning trying to get Little Tub to understand what really happened to the $8.8 billion in Iraq. I thought we were getting close - the signs were there, like throwing in non-topical accusations, and moving of the goalposts.

Now he's jumping in on this thread, and I have to believe that Spongeworthy was right - we'll never stop hearing about the $8.8 billion.

Captain Ned,

I don't think so. I think you can plead the fifth at any time you're compelled by the state to give evidence against yourself, whether before a grand jury, criminal court, congressional hearing, what have you.

What they can do is offer you immunity, transactional or use, and then you have no fifth amendment right to not testify because they're saying the testimony will not be used against you, or you're just immunized against prosecution for the crime completely.

For many people who just don't want to talk but aren't targets of the investigation they'll offer immunity to take away your fifth amendment right, and then, indeed, you can either talk or face contempt.

I suppose it's not quite legal to say "I take the fifth because I'm afraid I'll perjure myself, or you'll accuse me of perjury at least," because, well, you're not supposed to perjure yourself anyway and the fifth amendment doesn't allow you to not talk just because you don't want to lie.

But anyone suspected of a crime can say "I don't want to answer because you might find some crime to charge me with based on my answer."

It looks bad to refuse to talk to cops or plead the fifth, but really, when the state is investigating you, it's probably best to shut your mouth and take whatever damage to your reputation you might suffer. It's better to be suspected by the community of committing a crime you may be innocent of than to be convicted by the state for perjury or obstruction of justice.

And I don't think they can get around that just by saying "You're not at this time a target of investigation."

The whole point of the fifth is to allow someone to clam up rather than beign compelled to give evidence that WILL make him a target.

The privilege against self-incrimination applies in grand jury testimony. What remains legally vague is whether and to what extent the Miranda privilege against compelled statements applies in grand juries.

Regardless, it is the policy of the Department of Justice to give certain warnings, called "Advice of Rights" to persons called before a grand jury as a a "target" or "subject" of the grand jury investigation. Here is the form of Advice of Rights from the US Attorneys' Manual:

1. The grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of Federal criminal laws involving: (State here the general subject matter of inquiry, e.g., conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955).

2. You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you.

3. Anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding.

4. If you have retained counsel, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire.

See US Attorneys' Manual § 9-11.000 GRAND JURY.

Ace is correct. It's common for prosecutors to grant transactional or use immunity, but until they do, you can take the Fifth.

With immunity, of course, the risk of "self-incrimination" goes away and you must answer the questions.

If you aren't immunized, the practical problem (iin the federal system) is that you can't have a lawyer present to tell you when to shut up. You are allowed to excuse yourself to go talk to a lawyer waiting in the hall, but you have to know when to do that.

geoff said "I spent a goodly part of yesterday evening and this morning trying to get Little Tub to understand what really happened to the $8.8 billion in Iraq. I thought we were getting close - the signs were there, like throwing in non-topical accusations, and moving of the goalposts.

Now he's jumping in on this thread, and I have to believe that Spongeworthy was right - we'll never stop hearing about the $8.8 billion."

Go back to the other thread, wherein I try to get you to understand that your faith-based approach to accounting ('he said he gave it to them, so I guess we have to take his word for it')

Why in the world do you think you know "what really happened to the $8.8 billion in Iraq"? You are such a trusting soul.

You never explained the incredible haste in requisitioning the cash, or what evidence there is that the cash was in fact delivered, needed, allocated. Why did Bremer supposedly give them all this cash?

And when you read the post on the $8.8B on the other thread, read this to remind yourself why it matters.

Why in the world do you think you know "what really happened to the $8.8 billion in Iraq"? You are such a trusting soul.

The paper trail for the delivery of the cash to the Iraqi government has never been in question. So I'm confident that the money got that far. Saying that it didn't is an unsupported and probably libelous allegation. Unless, of course, you have some evidence otherwise.

Why did Bremer supposedly give them all this cash?

Because they have a cash-based economy, and those were the amounts that were budgeted for the ministries. It's just that simple. Again, the paper trail to the ministries is intact and has never been an issue - it is the verification of the Iraqi's use of the money that is being criticized.

What good were reichmarks after Berlin fell?

geoff said, "Because they have a cash-based economy, and those were the amounts that were budgeted for the ministries. "

BUDGETED?

From the Waxman rept:
"The Special Inspector General reported that “CPA OMB personnel were unable to provide supporting documentation or explain significant differences between the spending plans, budget disbursements, and cash allocations.” These discrepancies left over $1 billion in allocations to Iraqi banks unsupported by ministry spending plans."

Or here:
"According to KPMG, “[t]he BSA [Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit] reported that total disbursements for the Provincial Treasuries visited during the period amounted to approximately
$1,000,000,000.” However, the auditors found “no supporting documentation available at Provincial Treasuries for disbursements made by the CPA on behalf of Provincial Treasuries.”

Well, there's $2B already...

Elsewhere from the Waxman report:
"Once the cash from the Federal Reserve arrived in Iraq and came under the control of U.S. officials at the Coalition Provisional Authority, the cash was spent and disbursed with virtually no appropriate financial controls."

Notice that it does NOT say, once the cash left the control of the CPA after being disbursed to Iraqi ministries..."

See if this makes it clearer:
"Because of the lack of proper financial controls, there is no reliable accounting of how the Iraqi funds under U.S. control were spent or disbursed."

That's referring to the entire $8.8 BILLION.

Yet you choose to believe that the money was in fact disbursed properly to the Iraqi ministries.

Why? It must be the audit, right? Hmm....

"When the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction audited North Star’s work, the Special Inspector General found that North Star did not perform any review of the CPA’s internal controls:

In October 2003 a $1.4 million contract was awarded to North Star
Consultants, Inc. that required the contractor to perform a review of
internal controls and provide the CPA a written report of their evaluation.
The North Star Consultants did not perform a review of internal controls
as required by the contract. Consequently, internal controls over DFI
disbursements were not evaluated."
-----------
Okay, no review. No real audit. No controls. No reliable accounting of how the Iraqi funds under U.S. control were spent or disbursed.

That only leaves faith, geoff. You are a man of great, great faith.

And so far we keep tossing around $8.8B.

"Due to the lack of proper controls, there is no reliable accounting of how the
$19.6 billion in Iraqi funds was spent and disbursed during the period of U.S.
control. There is, however, growing evidence that there was significant waste,
fraud, and abuse of these Iraqi funds."

Oops. $19.6 B without reliable accounting.

I'm sure you can work up the faith for that too, geoff.

"CPA officials transferred $10.9 billion in DFI assets to Iraqi ministries. Of this amount, the Special Inspector General tried to audit how $8.8 billion in cash was expended. The Inspector General reported that these funds were transferred to Iraqi ministries without proper oversight or accounting controls."

So could some of the supposedly-transferred funds have been pushed in and back in a slush scheme? Some for the Iraqi minister, some for someone else?

Could be. There's no evidence otherwise. What we DO know is that “the CPA disbursed over $8.8 billion in DFI funds to the Iraqi ministries without assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for.”

No evidence. Only faith. The disbursal might have gotten no further than a scribble on a notepad, and a dufflebag on a plane back to the US. All we have is faith.
--------------------
Mr. Willis, the former CPA official, corroborated the findings of the Special Inspector General. According to Mr. Willis, the state-run Iraqi Airways, which had not been operational for a year, had 2,400 employees on the payroll, when the airline should have had a staff of 400 or fewer. Mr. Willis said that once the cash was turned over to the ministries, there were no CPA controls on or tracking of the funds: the transfer of cash was “all based on trust.”76 Mr. Willis concluded that in the absence of any accounting system, Iraqi officials skimmed funds as the cash went through the system. In his view, there was “leakage of assets all over the place.”
------------------
Hmm... All over the place. But only on the Iraqi side of course -- if you only have faith. "Mr. Willis said that once the cash was turned over to the ministries, there were no CPA controls on or tracking of the funds..." Well Mr. Willis said... but what evidence is there that the cash WAS turned over to the ministries? All I have is Geoff's faith.

Could there have been a sweet deal? Are humans only human?!? "We'll overlook the lack of any accounting of what you do with the funds, Mr. Iraqi minister, but we'll expect a little compensation for our trouble." Sure, I made it up. But what is there to show it didn't happen like that? I don't care if it's Brooklyn, Chicago, or Baghdad -- people are people, greed is human, and all we have to go on is faith -- or an investigation.

I have no evidence of a CPA crime. You have no evidence of it being turned over. You have trust. I don't. I expect evidence. Verify. And yes, I'm talking about ALL of it. Everything that is not properly accounted for.

NOW do you get it?

Everything that is not properly accounted for.

Would this include Hillary's fancy book keeping with the shindig cash illegally redirected to her campaign so she could dodge campaign finance law?

Once there was a lucky fox who was put in charge by Farmer Geoff of a nice henhouse with 8.8 hens. The hens weren’t the fox’s hens, or Farmer Geoff’s either, but the fox had the charge of disbursing the hens to another farmer, Farmer Ali, who was the rightful owner of the hens.

The fox was under virtually no controls, but he knew it wouldn’t look good to simply tell Farmer Geoff that the hens had been handed over. He made up his own rule. He would be required to employ a little bird to observe the handover.

But that might be rather restricting, he thought, so instead of a counting crow like KPMG, he employed a canary, NorthStar, who couldn’t count, and was in fact completely blind. Some said there really was no NorthStar.

A short time later, the hens were all gone. Rumors were heard that maybe the fox hadn’t turned all the hens over to Farmer Ali.

The local village idiot and potato farmer, Tuber, was particularly insistent on this point, and questioned Farmer Geoff. Farmer Geoff had heard the rumors, but proudly pointed out that the fox had voluntarily made his own observing-bird rule. True, Farmer Geoff admitted, the canary hadn’t actually counted any hens, but the fox had said the hens were handed over, so it was all fine. Tuber was just trying to make the fox look bad. If there was a problem, it was probably just a problem over at Farmer Ali's place, where the henhouse doors were notoriously ill-fitting.

Tubino:

I am restricting this discussion to only the $8.8 billion delivered to the Iraqi ministries. Not that I wouldn't enjoy talking about the other monies in a follow-on discussion, but I'd like to lay the $8.8 billion to rest.

The $1 billion dollars you mention is interesting (it is the same $1 billion in both quotes, BTW, not $2 billion), but is not part of the $8.8 billion.

"Because of the lack of proper financial controls, there is no reliable accounting of how the Iraqi funds under U.S. control were spent or disbursed."

This should be read "were spent or disbursed by the Iraqi ministries." Which you have consistently misread., although it is explicitly stated throughout the Waxman report. Even the Waxman report agrees that the $8.8 billion was delivered to the ministries . They said (p. iii):

CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries that had no internal or financial controls in place to handle such an influx of funds.

So your cherished source does not contest that the money was delivered. In fact no one, not the UN, the Iraqis, or anyone in the US has accused the CPA of failing to deliver the $8.8 billion in budgeted funds to the ministries.

So if you'd like to move on to the $1 billion, I'd be happy to look into it. Otherwise, if you're going to make completely unfounded accusations, I can just drop it.

So Farmer Geoff went and asked KPMG (the counting crow? for real?): "Hey, I know that Mayor UN asked you to keep track of those hens, at least during 2004. What did you see?" The counting crow charged an exorbinant fee and then said:

Iraqi Ministries were primarily funded by the DFI during the period from 1 January 2004 to 28 June 2004. The CPA distributed DFI funds directly to the MOF in accordance with monthly funding requirements agreed by the CPA and the MOF. Thereafter, DFI funds were redistnouted by the MOF to other Iraqi Ministries in accordance with the 2004 Iraqi National Budget. We agreed the following disbursements from the DFI to the MOF accounting records during the period from 1 January 2004 to 28 June 2004: January $ 727,775,529 February 508,812,129 March 900,000,000 April 600,000,000 May 530,000,000 June 1.791.400.000 S 5.057.987.658 We also agreed these disbursements (11 in total) to the MOF bank account. denominated in US dollars, at the Central Bank of Iraq We were informed by the CPA that transfers in June 2004 were larger than previous months to ensure the Interim Government of Iraq had sufficient funds to meet obligations subsequent to the transfer of authority.

So Farmer Geoff thought, well that ought to that Tuber fellows mind at rest. But this was never to pass . . .

Oops, I take it back - the two billions don't appear to be the same. Back to the mines.

geoff, I agree with you, sort of, about where the words matter in the Waxman report.
-------------------
geoff: 'This should be read "were spent or disbursed by the Iraqi ministries." '

Yeah, well, either it should read that way, OR this passage...

CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries that had no internal or financial controls in place to handle such an influx of funds.

should read, "CPA officials REPORT THAT THEY gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries ...

And I say that because nowhere in the report am I able to find any indication of evidence of the handover of cash. I only see the CLAIM. If I am missing it, or if you can locate it elsewhere in the wide world, I will admit I've overdone my claim.

What I *do* find in the report is evidence that the amounts [said to have been] given to Iraqi ministries do NOT correspond to budgets, plans, contracts.

In my little work world, where there are audits of govt funds, the idea that just saying that you gave the hens to someone else would suffice is LAUGHABLE.

But it is also stunningly obvious that if the CPA was not under any auditing obligation other than the self-imposed one, then the whole system was set up to be open to graft, corruption, theft.

So maybe I'm missing it, but all I see that you have to go on is FAITH. You still haven't addressed that, and are claiming that there must be nothing wrong because the report doesn't specify blah blah blah.

Go back and look at my longer post. I'm pointing out that over and over, it is the $8.8 billion to the ministries that the Waxman report says it has no reliable accounting for! NO RELIABLE ACCOUNTING! I believe you cannot prove (normal auditing sense) the transfers took place at all. If the claim is that $1B changed hands, it could have been half a B for the ministry, half a B skimmed by people on both sides. That possibility is consistent with the report as I read it.

And that is why I keep harping on this. You're still skating on thin faith to maintain the cash transfers really took place as claimed. If I'm wrong on that, I repeat, I'll retract. But your faith ain't enough.

The Waxman report shows that a lot of chicken feathers were found around Farmer Geoff's henhouse. You say that's normal when chickens are transferred. I'm saying it's another reason not to take on faith that the rest of the chicken was in fact delivered.

When I lived in Spain, I learned that you could get a better price on some retail products by mentioning that you don't need a receipt. Some sellers kept a second set of books for black market sales, and avoided taxes, and passed the savings on to you, so to speak.

I have also been offered deals (here in the US) by shop employees where it was obvious what was going on: employee meets you in a lot to sell you an item for 30% of retail, pockets the money, and the item is missing in an eventual inventory.

To me that is how the world works when controls are inadequate. I see no reason not to think the same logic would be at work between CPA and Iraqi ministry. "If you agree to say you got a billion, but get half a billion, we'll agree to give you half a B with zero accountability, meaning we won't ask what you did with the fictional billion. You probably have some expenses you'd like to cover. Just give us some budget adding up to a billion, even if you have to invent employees and services. Deal?"

Call me a cynic. You trust. I ask where is the verification?

Well, we've got that presumption of innocence thing going for us, which says that we don't assume that people are guilty. And our libel laws say that we don't accuse government officials of embezzlement unless we can demonstrate that it was a justifiable belief. And then we've got morality, which says you don't drag a man's name through the mud without proof of his villainy.

As noted above, KPMG reconciled the 2004 payments to the Iraq ministries, so there's no question that the CPA made the payments in that year. [They also note that the payments were in accordance with the Iraqi National Budget, without out any mention of a billion dollar discrepancy.] I don't know if KPMG looked at 2003, and I'm not going to bother looking into it until someone tells me that there's credible evidence that the payments weren't made.

And then the CIA referred it to Justice.

I think the CIA referral of the case is a good starting point. They made the case that a crime was committed, and they were in the position to know.

My understanding is that the CIA is obliged to make the referral to the DOJ any time something classified slips out. No crime necessary and no prosecutorial calculus implied.

I'm with the folks who find the whole thing beyond dull. If Plame's work with the CIA was supposed to be a secret, it was extremely poorly kept long before Wilson got his panties in a wad.