Heard Josh "tectonic plates" Marshall speak at a Kerry party today:

[calimary]

Thought people here would like to know what he said, since he had teased, before he bailed on vacation, about a story he was working on with Wayne Madsen and a few others, that - he said - would "shift the tectonic plates in this city where I hang my hat" (meaning Washington). Just FYI, really:


It was on conference call. We were in West L.A. He's still doing the cliff-hanger thing about his "shift the tectonic plates" story. After remarks, and some opening questions from the guy who was handling the phone interview, it was opened up to more questions, so I took a crack at it. Asked him about this, specifically what the tectonic plates were, and did it have anything to do with the Plame investigation.

Here is the gist of what he said:

He expects his story to come out "in the next several weeks" (dammit!) and stated that all he was willing or able to say about it was that "it's intelligence-related," and "manipulative intelligence." He further said he wouldn't be breaking any story about the Plame business first, but that it'd probably be in some other major publication first.

He took a few more questions, and then I tried again.

He said the NYTimes had an item in the last couple of days about the investigation and that Fitzgerald was expected to be coming out with something "in the next several weeks." He said they've done a very good job keeping leaks out. He said other journalists did not feel like they were in the hot seat (even those I specifically referred to - bsides Novak - who had been given the goods). He said while some Democrats have questioned whether this is a serious investigation, he's sure it is. He also said the underlying crime here is "an intent crime." If anybody pleads the 5th, he said, it'll be hard to bring a case, and - as he put it - "I have heard that a lot of that is going on." He further said he didn't feel he had a great deal of insight into what's going on, but he said he felt it had been an aggressive investigation, and the fact that they, in effect, had bush in a deposition for 70 minutes is a sign of that. He said a lot of people thought that was just dotting i's and crossing t's, but - as this wasn't technically a deposition, but in essence to depose a president, he said you don't depose a president "just for the hell of it."

An answer, but a whole lotta non-answer at the same time. Sorry I couldn't get anything with more teeth to it.

Just my two cents here - seems to me that it might be almost a "win" for us good guys even if the reporters in question do take the 5th. The nature of taking the Fifth Amendment is to avoid self-INCRIMINATION. Repeat - self-INCRIMINATION. So if you have to take the fifth about something, it's because you have something to hide/protect/shield yourself from. It's a passive signal that something is NOT on the up-n-up. It's almost a tacit admission of guilt, even while you admit no guilt. You take the fifth and people say - oh REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLLLYYYY??????? EITHER WAY, you do not come out clean. In fact, taking the fifth, seems to me - the NON-legal NON-scholar that it makes you look as though you may be even more guilty than you, in fact, actually are. Because, after all, if you've done nothing wrong, then you don't need to seek any protection from any amendment.
----------

BY THE WAY... he ALSO talked about cheney a little bit, too. Said that he feels it's "as close to impossible as anything is - that he'll be taken off the ticket." For several reasons: nowadays, he said, it's pretty much impossible for an incumbent president to drop his veep from the ticket. "You just can't," as he put it. Marshall said that, objectively, cheney is "a big hindrance" to the ticket, but the republi-CON right wing sees cheney "as a symbol of their clout." The people mentioned most often as likely replacements are more centrist and therefore "would cause big problems with the right." Furthermore (and I thought THIS was MOST interesting and a VERY compelling reason, considering human nature and this kind of group we're talking about), the problem here is the "real signal" that removing cheney would clearly telegraph: that the candidacy is in trouble. Marshall said if they junked cheney, "it'd be so damaging to republi-CON morale." (All together now - BOO HOO HOO!!!!! Cue the violins!)

He made some comments about Kerry's foreign policy and potential foreign policy team - maybe Rand Beers to replace contradicta, and how it would mark an improvement over what we've got now in two ways - much more along the lines of what bush-the-first was into - as far as building international coalitions, AND ALSO because this pResident no longer has any credibility with nations or people, and nobody trusts him. Even if he "converted" and started running the Iraq fiasco and everything else in more of what the Democrats have pushed for, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, because he has still squandered any and all trust overseas. As he put it - bush "has almost no credibility with anybody in the world" - and that "most international leaders and most people just don't trust this pResident."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. If he is onto a story as big as he alludes to, I hope he does a good job

avoiding any unfortunate accidents. And I mean that.

As far as telegraphing that the candidacy/ticket is in trouble, even strong Bush supporters here (N. Dallas) recognize the ticket is in trouble, even if most of them probably still expect it/him/them to win. Many now recognize there is a substantial possibility they will lose, and that is a big change for around here.

[buycitgo]

2. so COOL!

afa the investigation, how close is Fitzgerald to the WH?

one of the things John Dean emphasized in his article of almost a year ago, re: civil suit by Wilson, was how feckless the first Watergate investigations were, the ones by career DOJ lawyers, cause they kept the WH apprised of what was going on?

I know there's no special prosecutor, and how do we know that Fitzgerald's office isn't beholden to Ashcroft/Bush?

great questions for JMM; makes me wonder what will come of this, especially given the allout smear job going on now against Wilson

he's going to be on Lehrer tomorrow night, btw

[calimary]

8. I've now heard two people of credibility on this, Marshall & John Dean

each saying, independently of the other, that Fitzgerald is an honorable guy. Dean said (in a speech to a local ACLU group) that Fitzgerald isn't one of the inside-the-Beltway boys and knows/cares little about the political dynamics therein. He's from NYC and Chicago. While he's a Republican, his credentials, AND his credibility are both regarded as beyond reproach. I've heard this from others as well. Including some Chicago people who post here, who say he really went to town on - who was it - then Governor Ryan or some such person? Dean even said that he suspected that ashcroft rather wishes that Fitzgerald was NOT on the case.

[Tatiana]

23. Yes, Fitzgerald's specialty is corruption.

He was very thorough in investigating, gathering evidence, and exposing numerous scandals that not only brought down Governor Ryan in IL, but many of his staff in high-level positions.

[olddem43]

3. Isn't the way investigations deal with fifth amendment

takers is to grant them immunity from prosecution and then compel testimony? That way they get to the top.

[blm]

4. That's a heckuva report, calimary.

You're a great listener. And a great rememberer. heheh ;))))))

[calimary]

11. Thanks, but I had a notepad and a tape recorder to help me.

[kohodog]

5. Calimary, Please post

this in the Plame thread. The tinfoil hats have come off and we're back to the issue at hand.

Great post though. thanks!

[calimary]

9. Did that first - it's post #103 on Plame thread #10.

I just cut-n-pasted it here, for general dining and dancing pleasure.

[Straight Shooter]

6. People take the Fifth for all kinds of reasons

Not least of which is to protect someone else, or to prevent retribution. It's easy to trace where damaging information originates.

It doesn't mean a person is necessarily avoiding incriminating themselves, especially in light of the current administration's habit of going into "search and destroy" mode whenever any negative info is revealed. bush, et al., exert so much effort destroying the messenger that everyone forgets what the message was to begin with.

[buycitgo]

7. true, BUT, remember when Clinton didn't want to talk about

the BJ, etc?

the wingnuts AND the media screamed and screamed and screamed that, if he didn't have anything to hide, WHY did he want to avoid going before the GJ?

think the media will call for similar actions on the part of their bosses this time?

for that matter, will the DEMS even bother, disgusting wimps that they are

Democratic Party=Achordate Party

[calimary]

13. Understood. However, if you take the fifth, there's always a slight

scent of - HMMMMMM...

It's an immediate red flag, for WHATEVER reason. People who do that here may avoid immediate legal problems, but they'll very likely wind up LOOKING BAD. And since perception is so key anymore, the perception will be negative. It'll simply make 'em look bad. And I'd bet a few people will come out and say so. And, hey, I used to be a reporter myself, and as such, I too had the understanding that you protect your sources to the point that you face jail time for doing so. For many observers, however, it still leaves an odor behind - that something's fishy. Because here, it's concealing the identity of someone who tipped you off about something that is potentially treasonous, not about some informant that'll help you bust a crime. In this case, it's some informant who may have COMMITTED a crime.

[sandnsea]

19. No, I think self-incrimination

I don't think you can plead the 5th for any other reason. "...tend to incriminate myself." Which isn't to say you would incriminate yourself, just that your answers could be twisted that way. I think.

[Wilber_Stool]

10. I think that once you take the 5th

before a grand jury, they can through you in the hoosegow. Gives you a little time to decide how much you don't want to talk.

[merh]

16. They cannot throw you in the hoosegow for taking the 5th before a

grand jury. The reason you take the 5th is because you have the right not to incriminate yourself. It is in no way a crime to take the 5th.

[kiahzero]

26. Right...

You will get thrown in for not revealing your sources, which is not something that the Fifth protects.

[merh]

27. That's the 1st amendment and you are correct, the judge can

toss the poor member of the media (won't call them journalists cause they ain't - I took journalism courses and they violate all the rules of journalism) in jail if he refuses to give up his source, especially since this involves national security interests.

Contempt of court.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

12. thanks for this

"an intent crime" - he must be referring to the fact that the law states there has to be intent to out an operative. I can't make that argument go in my mind, that someone could argue "I outed her, but my intent was to discredit her husband rather than out her" -- that doesn't make much sense to me... but, come to think of it, Joe Klein's piece in Time said she was involved in a WMD sting operation that, according to those long Plame threads (which I don't read anymore), could have involved Halliburton. So, if that were shown to be true, the intent would have indeed been to out Plame as well as discredit her husband.

Interesting. Thanks again.

[calimary]

14. Thanks back atcha! And welcome to DU!

And yeah, knowing all that, and the Joe Klein speculation, too, it strikes me as almost a "buy one, get one free" type of political hit. They wanted to "get" Joseph Wilson, to teach him a lesson for exposing them as liars, AND to send a chilling message to others of his ilk not to cross them - or else (this is something Wilson himself has speculated about) AND, realizing who his wife was, a way to "get" her, too, PARTICULARLY if they got wind that she was onto something that'd be REALLY damaging if exposed - like maybe cheney and halliburton selling WMD components all over the map to any ol' terrorist-sympathizing nation that had enough money to pay the asking price. After all, cheney DID complain about the regulations against this type of thing while he was still CEO at Halliburton, before becoming bush's running mate.

[MattNC]

15. awesome

He's quickly become one of my favorite political commentators.

[demgrrrll]

17. It seems that they are playing out many of their possible defenses in

the media right now. I sense desperation in their movements,
trying to throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
I would bet someone will be indicted.

[merh]

18. Thank you for the update.

"He expects his story to come out "in the next several weeks" (dammit!) and stated that all he was willing or able to say about it was that "it's intelligence-related," and "manipulative intelligence." "

Could this be related to the FBI translator? Hasn't she said that non-agency translators were providing information to the admin that was not accurate.

Very interesting, thanks again.

[ramblin_dave]

20. Marshall is working with Madsen?

I believe Marshall is very credible, he seems to insist on high standards in his reporting. I know Madsen's stuff gets quoted a lot here but I became wary of him after he published an article claiming the pope was concerned Bush may be the anti-christ. Can you imagine Marshall doing such a story? But really, you're sure Marshall said he was working with Madsen?

[calimary]

21. I remember reading this in Talking Points Memo.

But Madsen apparently isn't the only person he's working with, on this. By the way - Marshall said as soon as he got off the phone with our group, he had to go do an interview - for that very "intelligence-related" article. He wouldn't say who it was.

[KoKo]

22. Thanks much, Calimary. I wondered if it isn't the "Niger Documents."

Josh has had several articles about this, digging deep and posting articles back to Sy Hersh's infamous "Stovepiping" article several months ago.

There seems to be something he's trying to lead us to about WHO forged the original Niger Documents about "yellow cake" which were used by intelligence. There's dispute about whether British Intelligence has something more or was it relying on the same ones as the CIA. Also tracking down WHO forged them seemed to be key in Hersh's article and in some of Josh's parsing. Josh can be a confusing read for me, and I often have to re-read what he says over and over to get his point.

I, as many DU'ers who read his Blog, have been waiting for the "shift of the tectonic plates." It can't come to soon for us...but maybe other reports like 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence had to come out to lay a foundation for the news in people's minds?

I also think Joe Wilson has been all over the place defending himself to keep the story alive. So maybe it's a CIA revelation of the forger and maybe it's so huge and shocking that they are trying to keep it under wraps until the appropriate moment, and Wilson is keeping the story out there to prepare folks. Maybe it's gotta break in a very well known, well read newspaper or magazine for it to get the coverage they hope for. Josh's Blog wouldn't exactly shatter the government...

Fingers crossed. But, I do wonder who forged those documents and don't have a clue although I think Cheney was very remotely suggested by some DU'ers here who were parsing Josh's original article about it.

Probably not likely Cheney, but maybe his henchmen who also leaked Plame's name?

[ljm2002]

29. That makes sense to me...

...that the story is about who forged those documents. And if it traces back to our government, and in particular to this administration... given that the documents were used to justify going to war... remember, Bush used the fact that the British had such documents... but if he and his minions were in fact the source of the forged documents... well you can see how that might get them in a pickle... one can but hope.

Okay that's it, tha's my vote. Now we'll just have to wait and see. (tapping fingers impatiently on desk...)

[Jack Rabbit]

24. "Manipulative intelligence"

Perhaps his story isn't about the Plame caper at all. Perhaps Washington press has the goods on the Bushies about the way intelligence was manipulated prior to the war. This would elaborate on Seymour Hersh's story about the Office of Special Plans from May 2003 and on a report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on pre-war intelligence that "suggested" that policy makers put pressure on intelligence analysts to write reports that fit the junta's pre-determined plans for war against Iraq.

If one can name names, dates and cite specific evidence, that would be more explosive than anything having to do with outing Ms. Plame. If that information were to come out, it would show conclusively that the Bushies knew they were lying about Saddam's military capability and his associations with terrorists prior to the war. John and Teresa could start measuring for the drapes in the White House.

[Renew Deal]

25. Thanks for this.

You did a great job. :yourock:

[The Night Owl]

28. Exciting reading

Kick!

:kick: :nuke: