Dinner with Plame
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The White House Correspondents Association will have its annual dinner on April 29 this year, and Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have been invited. By ABC News.
No kidding.
Plame, the former CIA operative whose outing by columnist Robert Novak sparked a U.S. Justice Department probe that has already sent one reporter to jail and brought a White House official under indictment, may take that role this year. It is unlikely she will be seated next to Novak, but perhaps Bush may have a good view of her from the dais.
She and Wilson will be guests of ABC News.
If Bob Novak outed Plame, what is Fitzgerald doing with these others? Oh, he has nothing. And Scooter Libby was not indicted because Plame's name was disclosed; in fact, there is still some dispute over whether releasing her name violated any law. But that's E&P.
We don't know why ABC News would invited Wilson and Plame, who right now are only technically newsworthy and are behind what ostensibly one of the noisiest hoaxes so far in this young 21st century: the Joe Wilson scandal™. Perhaps Terry Moran is a groupie, or at least a fan of the Spy vs. Spy 'toons from the old '70s MAD Magazine. Intrigue, you know.
Also from E&P, we learn that Dinner host Steven Colbert's selection was the idea of the WHCA president, C-SPAN's Steve Scully. (After hours after hours of viewing that network over the past twenty years, that notion is appealing.)
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Who's on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — Comments (8) »
Dinner with Plame 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
invited them because the President is scheduled to be there; a little of the MSM sharp-stick-in-the-eye. Why else?
and have him seated at the Plames' table.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/
And then the President should award Hitchens the Medal of Freedom for his excellent and tireless work defending the Iraq War. (Although Hitchens retains some of his old-time Leftism on other issues, he is very talented at debating and refuting the critics of the Iraq War.)
She'll be about as deep undercover on April 29 as she's been for the last nine years. Actually she's more covert now, because she doesn't drive to CIA Headquarters every weekday. She retired with her CIA 20-year service benefits. DNC retirement benefits? Don't know.
I hate all of this type of thing.
Shame on ABC for making the invitation.
Shame on the Wilsons for accepting.
Awful.
said yesterday that Fitzgerald knows who "outed" Plame and took some jabs at him as well. Here's the article:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-novak20.html
It would be sweet to be a fly on the wall at that dinner!
Do you think she will hide her identity at the dinner as well as she did in Vanity Fair with the magic scarf and sunglasses?
Prosecutor Fitzgerald yesterday condoned the perjury committed last September by several members of a jury that convicted former Illinois Republican governor, George Ryan. Just as Fitzgerald distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable leaking of national security secrets, he is now also ratifying perjury that helped him to secure Ryan's conviction by the lying members of his jury. They all lied in questionnaires inquiring about any past involvements in police and court proceedings. It is their "Guilty" verdict that protected them from being prosecuted for perjury by Mr. Fitzgerald.
for all his eloquence and critical gifts, if you lie down with unreconstructed Trotskyites, you might wake up with something unpleasant.
The supposed "perjury" of those jurors was things such as a juror who checked off that she had never been involved in a legal proceeding, when in fact she had been in divorce court once. When I think legal proceeding I think Criminal court or Civil court, it doesn't suprise me that Divorce court might slip someone's mind.
Also, there was someone who had to appear in court in 1962 on a DUI charge. So the guy forgot a traffic court appearance from 44 years ago? B.F.D.
None of this background stuff seems the least bit prejudicial, and if you imagine yourself as US attorney wanting to prosecute this stuff for perjury, all I can say- good luck with that.
The idea that someone would lie to GET INTO JURY DUTY is absurd on its face.
PS- George Ryan got exactly what he deserved. Six little children burned to death because of his corruption. If anything he got off easy.
could get Rush to sit with them. Or Mary Matalin (who I still want for press secretary!)
Great choice for press secretary! a verbal smack down delivered daily to the press corps.
But I would call him a reconstructed Trotskyist. He's abandoned the Left on many areas, primarily foreign policy. He remains anti-clerical, and anti-Israel, among other things. But he's hardly a Trostkyist anymore. Heck, he's even criticized the Lincoln Brigades for furthering the Soviet cause in the Spanish Civil War.
Judge him by his words and deeds since 9/11. He's a very changed man when it comes to American foreign policy.
They had a round table debate kind of thing going with a 'moderater' egging them on. I was surprised Carville could still walk when she was finished. He was bloodied and bruised (figuratively of course).
One of the sweetest things though: I saw an interview with him where they asked him about marrying her. He said he couldn't explain it, but he loved her, and that he knew.
Another advantage of having her for press secretary: If David Gregory ever got too far out of line, not only would he have Matalin tearing into him, the Ragin' Cajun would finish grinding any large chunks left over.
....characterized by Fitzgerald as "throwing sand in the eyes...." of the legal system. The lying jurors he is nowq protecting did the same thing by concealing from the system their previous experience with it.
he has expressed that he believes Bush is on the side of "progress," waging a war against reaction, and that the left is blind to this out of its visceral, personal hatred of the man. He hasn't changed that much. He's still the same rumpled, tippling (if also amusing and erudite) village atheist who wrote "The Missionary Position."
the perjury charge on Libby is garbage doesn't mean that there's any merit to the notion that these jurors are somehow guilty of perjury. The idea for example, that someone intentionally lied about a 1962 traffic court appearance in order to get on jury duty is never going to fly.
If your point is that Fitz was out of bounds in contorting a perjury charge on Libby, great, no disagreement. But if you actually think these minor discrepancies in the juror questionaires in the Ryan case really warrants perjury charges, you are greatly misguided.
I won't refrain from praising him because his other positions are wrong. Our security is the most important issue right now.
You're ignoring very important work he's doing. Just read any of his articles on the war at www.hitchensweb.com
His articles on other subjects are not always good, but his articles on the war are unapologetically pro-war, and reveal every single nasty bit of hypocrisy in the Leftists who oppose the war.
Our country could use a thousand more men like him right now.
ABC news is the biggest employer of former Clinton administration staff. They also give jobs to the kids of Democratic cronies such as Helperin and Cuomo.
Everyone thinks that CBS is the most biased when in actuality it is ABC. They are just not as obvious about it. When Ted Koppel was doing Nightline the fastest it took me to totally debunk what he was saying was 15 seconds. That was when the BBC got busted for spinning the MI-6 reports saying that the Blair government "sexed" up the reports to get the House of Commons to approve going into Iraq. Nightline ran the whole BBC "line" the very same day that it was announced that the BBC got busted for their biased reporting and were under investigation. All I had to do was pull up the story on the BBC's own webpage and BLAMMO, Ted's report blown to smithereens. Of course Ted made no mention that everything he used in that report was shown to be the product of bias at the BBC.
...the lawyers on both sides and the court to question prospective jurors on the effect that their previous contact with the judicial system had on their attitudes towards it. There is no reason for future jurors to reveal embarrassing information about their past now that they know that lying about it will cause them no trouble.
Did anybody in the media invite Monica Lewinsky during Clinton's presidency?
I thought Hillary did to keep her away from Bill.
Seriously did our "fair & (un)balanced" media invite her, or is it only Bush that gets such treatment?
someone is inviting Tom Maguire.