Judy Miller Protecting Lewis Libby (And Anyone Else?)

Times reporter Judith Miller has elected to go to jail rather than cooperate with Special Counsel Fitzgerald in his investigation into the Plame leak.  The NY Times account poses a few questions to which we have answers.

Mr. Fitzgerald also said in the court papers that the source for both Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify that person, nor say whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Mr. Cooper told the judge today while he had been told his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality, he would only act with a specific waiver from his source, which he said he got today.

Well.  If Mr. Fitzgerald believes he has received a waiver from Ms. Miller's source, presumably he also believes he knows who Ms. Miller's source might be.  And maybe we do too - if we can trust our news resources, Mr. Cooper was protecting some other source, and Ms. Miller is protecting Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Last Nov 25, the WaPo told us this:

Several reporters have given limited depositions about their conversations with [Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis I.] Libby in the days before the Novak column was published. All did so at the urging of Libby, who has told the prosecutor he heard about Wilson's wife's employment from someone in the media, according to lawyers involved in the case. Two news organizations, Time magazine and the New York Times, have gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals to fight subpoenas for reporters' testimony.

The WaPo also told us this in Oct. 2004:

Fitzgerald has questioned four reporters about their conversations with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and is seeking to question a fifth, New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald has been told by reporters that either the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up in their phone conversations with Libby or it was introduced by the reporters. The reporters are from Time magazine, The Washington Post and NBC.

During a July 12, 2003, conversation, according to a source involved in the investigation, Time reporter Matthew Cooper told Libby that he had been informed by other reporters that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. Libby, the source said, replied that he had heard the same thing, also from the press corps.

Cooper's lawyer, Floyd Abrams, declined to comment on his client's conversation with Libby. On Wednesday, Cooper was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify about conversations he had with people other than Libby about Wilson's wife.

So as of October, Matt Cooper had testified about Libby, but was protecting some other source; Ms. Miller, as of November, was still holding out on Libby.

Now, let's thicken the plot - might Ms. Miller have some other source than Libby, a source as yet unknown to Fitzgerald?  Perhaps, I say *PERHAPS*, she is unwilling to negotiate some form of limited testimony on the Libby question because she does not want to become exposed to wider ranging questions about who else she may have spoken with.

Perhaps a legal eagle familiar with how these negotiations are handled can shed some light on this - Cooper, for example, obviously limited his cooperation to one source last fall.

And yes, the notion that both Cooper and Libby had heard about Ms. Plame from other reporters does muddy the waters.  Which reporters, and what was their source?  Or was it Georgetown cocktail party chit-chat, as Clifford May suggested?

Developing...

MORE:  The Walter Pincus story is interesting - here, he tells us that Lewis Libby was not his source, but that his source had identified himself to Fitzgerald, freeing Pincus to testify.

And here is what Pincus wrote on Oct. 12, 2003 that earned him an opportunity to spend some time with Mr. Fitzgerald:

On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.

In this telling, Ms. Plame was not named, nor was she covert.  And, per Pincus, the source of that story has identified himself to Fitzgerald.

Let's say this - if Novak had been given exactly those details, he could have added Ms. Plame's name by finding Joe Wilson's on-line bio (now gone, but not forgotten); his discussions with the CIA spokesperson who failed to dissuade him from publishing may have led to the upgrade from "analyst" to "operative". [Mr. Pincus offers more details here].

Just sayin'.  Obviously, other explanations are also in play.

UPDATE:  Evidently I have more confidence in the WaPo's reporting than they do.  From their account of today's activities:

It was not immediately clear whether the same person was a source for both Miller and Cooper. Although Fitzgerald has said the source has waived confidentiality, the prosecutor has not identified the person.

William Branigin has the byline - c'mon, check the archives!

UPDATE 2:  A headscratcher in the WaPo editorial from Thursday:

Yesterday, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who has already testified about one source, agreed to testify about another after this second source personally released him from his pledge.

Ms. Miller's attorney said she did not have such a release from her source and did not consider the general waivers obtained by Mr. Fitzgerald from several public officials to be sufficient.

Well, Lewis Libby reaced agreements with the other four reporters, according to the WaPo.  So, why can't he get ahold of Ms. Miller now?  Or was the WaPo wrong about Ms. Miller, back when they seemed so sure?  That might explain their silence now.

Comments

[SteveMG]

The scales are dropping from my eyes.

Cooper got his information from Libby. Novak probably too.

But Libby got it (allegedly) from the press. He was passing on rumors he had heard (so he says) from other reporters.

Makes sense. Clifford May has stated (others too) that it was cocktail talk that Plame was in the CIA. "Hey, who's the hot blonde?" "Plame, you know she works for the CIA?"

But now it's Miller Time. It's not Libby and it's not Rove (sorry Creepy).

SMG

[Dave J]

Please remind me why we should care about this D.C. "Drama"?

I can say for a fact no one outside of the Media a nd a few Blogs do.

[Seven Machos]

Only in Washington DC would anyone EVER consider Valerie Plame a "hot blonde." Washington -- Hollywood for ugly people, where the beer goggles need to be extra thick, where a "4" is a "7" and a "7" is a perfect "10."

[Armin Tamzarian]

I'll put $10 on Wilson or Plame as the source of the leak. Any takers?

[Fresh Air]

I dunno. I suspect there is only one source. Matt Cooper holds the keys to the jail for Ms. Miller. Once he makes his grandiose tesimony, her information either becomes superfluous or redundant, e.g. Cooper will clear the case for Miller, thus allowing her to become St. Judith while washing her conscience clean. And all of this because Norman Pearlstine actually decided it was best to obey the law. Figures a Republican would.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Only in Washington DC would anyone EVER consider Valerie Plame a "hot blonde."'

Well, when a President of the U.S. can't do any better than Monica Lewinsky....

[SteveMG]

Dave:
"Please remind me why we should care about this D.C. "Drama"?"

I'll toss out 4 in 60 seconds (okay, I'm not at TM's skill level; _several_ 60 seconds):

(1) We have the outing of a covert CIA operative that probably cost us several hundreds of thousands of dollars to train. There's goes my tax contributions for the past, er, 5 years;

(2) We have the outing of a CIA agent possibly as political retaliation against a critic of the White House;

(3) We have the outing of a person who risked her life for the country going overseas as a CIA agent. Little dramatic here; but many CIA agents literally put their lives on the line for us. I don't think we want to go around outing them. Not a good recruiting tool for future applicants.

(4) We have possibly the government going after critics for no other reason than they (possibly) exposed malfeasance.

SMG

[Fresh Air]

SteveMG--

Come on, man. Parlor games are expensive!

[PersonFromPorlock]

Well, when a President of the U.S. can't do any better than Monica Lewinsky....

Ms. Lewinsky isn't all that bad looking - and after all, we're talking about a guy who doesn't know which end of a woman is the cigar end....

[TM]

We are scraping underneath the Clue Barrell now, but today's WaPo has an interesting tidbit:

On Saturday, Rove's attorney said that Rove spoke with Cooper during the critical period in July 2003, just after Wilson's piece appeared, when reporters were calling the White House to ask questions about Wilson's assertions. But he said that Rove did not reveal Plame's identity and that Fitzgerald has assured him Rove is not a target of the investigation.

...Cooper's source has also waived Cooper's promise of confidentiality.

OK, we got confirmation today that Fitzgerald was telling the truth about the confidentiality waiver, but...

In the course of making the case for Karl, why did his attorney *not* mention the waiver, if, in fact, Karl is the fellow Cooper was protecting?

That seems like a strong point to have overlooked. Unless Karl has not waived confidentiality.

Thoughts?

[Abu Qa'Qa]

Anyone who believes that the NYT and Time/Warner would protect Karl Rove from public humiliation, during the height of the 2004 campaign is really into smoking medical marijuana.

[BoghRD]

I just want to hear from the vaunted mediaDemocratic Party of professional journalists that cocktail hour gossip counts as an unimpeachable source...

By the way, what 007 trolls around Washington D.C. (I guess I have to limit that question to American 007s). What was our intrepid spy doing that was soooo super secret. The Left keeps talking up that her exposure resulted in her spy rings exposure. In D.C.

[SteveMG]

Fresh Air:
Look, I don't think, in Gertrude Stein's immortal words, there's any "there there".

Appears to me that Libby was the source. Or at least _a_ source. And there really appears to be little evidence of any wider willful actions on the part of the W.H. Looks like Libby (or whoever) shooting the breeze with reporters, passing rumors and hearsay.

But this was potentially a bigger scandal than the denouement appears to render.

I won't accept government officials - even ones I voted for and support - retaliating against critics by violating the law.

That didn't happen here (it appears); but I want to make sure.

SMG

[Lion]

Rove's attorney had, indeed, previously disclosed that Rove had made a written waiver of confidentiality. I think one outcome that is not entirely unlikely is that we don't have an "outing" at all. There are a number of sources (Cliff May, Novak himself) who say that it was common knowledge around town that Plame worked for the CIA. First somebody tells a reporter that Plame influenced the decision to send Wilson, somebody else says "hey--she used to work undercover overseas," and a third guy, in response to questions, says "Jeez, you mean you heard that too?" and before long you have what used to be called a circle jerk. You could give all the players truth serum, and all of them would deny that they outed an undercover operative. And they'd believe it.

[Fresh Air]

TM--

Rove's lawyer said he waived confidentiality. I think that ends that line of inquiry.

Here's my latest thinking, TM: Miller says her source has signed a waiver, but asserts it must have been "coerced" by the White House, therefore it doesn't release her from her obligation to the source.

Doesn't this strike you as funny? The White House is apparently desperate to get out the name of the source. While the NYT is desperate to protect him!

I am predicting the source is a State or CIA type, former Democrat and longstanding feeder of misinformation about the Bush Administration. That is the only explanation as to why the NYT would go to the barricades on this.

The perfect candidate is Greg Thielman, though there are surely others.

[creepy dude]

-In the course of making the case for Karl, why did his attorney *not* mention the waiver, if, in fact, Karl is the fellow Cooper was protecting?-

Actually Luskin did say Rove signed the waiver. See your own July 4 post, i.e.[Luskin said Rove] "signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him."

And Cooper's source could do a last minute release (nice guy/gal) since Cooper's notes had already been turned over.

[TalkLeft]

Libby gave authorizations to all reporters to disclose his identity and their conversations eons ago.

But maybe it's Dick Cheney. Joe Wilson raised that possibility in his book.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Does it get better than this? I wonder what the next evolution in this nonsense will be.

[Beldar]

Fresh Air wrote,

I am predicting the source is a State or CIA type, former Democrat and longstanding feeder of misinformation about the Bush Administration. That is the only explanation as to why the NYT would go to the barricades on this.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's at least as likely that Ms. Miller's source or sources are the same as Cooper's; that Ms. Miller is absolutely determined to be a "martyr" for her views as to what she thinks the law ought to be (but clearly isn't); and to the question of whether she's been released from any commitment of confidentiality that she ever made, she just refuses to take "yes" for an answer.

[TM]

See your own July 4 post, i.e.[Luskin said Rove] "signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him."

Oh, for heaven's sake! Why did I even bother to re-read that post *and* the WaPo story!

Well, let's add a new WaPo reporeter to the mix - Charles Lane, from Nov 2004:

Cooper, too, initially negotiated a deal to testify about his contacts with I. Lewis Libby, an aide to Vice President Cheney; but, after that, Fitzgerald asked for additional testimony, apparently based on new information he had developed about Cooper's contacts.

Fitzgerald wants Miller to testify about her talks with Libby, even though she never wrote a story about Plame. Libby has signed a letter saying he waives his anonymity, but Miller still refuses to talk. Her position is that no such waiver under pressure from a prosecutor can ever be voluntary.

He may just be recycling older WaPo reporting, but at least they stuck to their story for a while.

[BumperStickerist]

The underlying question permeating the atmosphere is of a different nature. It's this:

What kind of pictures does Tom Maguire have such that he's averaging 3+ Instalanches per week?

I mean, seriously, the mind boggles:

A picture of a Knoxville-based blender repairman pulling a battered dog tag out of Glenn's Waring Chili Red WPB04 Professional Series Blender?

A Tennessee tagged Mazda RX-8, license plate, NNOTECH, with a bumper sticker that reads "My Other Digital Camera is Also a Nikon" parked in front of a Chrisian Science Reading Room?

A picture of Glenn with Juan NonVolokh?

More importantly, can I get tack sharp yet inexpensive 20x30 prints of them from ExposureManager?

At a discount.

Just Curious.

and, Tim's previous mentioned point about the unlikelihood of the NYT protecting Rove or - gasp - Cheney remains operational.

[Gerry]

"In the course of making the case for Karl, why did his attorney *not* mention the waiver, if, in fact, Karl is the fellow Cooper was protecting?"

Tom, are you confusing what Luskin said with what the WaPo reported? Here's Newsweek:

Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove “never knowingly disclosed classified information” and that “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.” Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury “two or three times” and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. “He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else,” Luskin said.

(From the post on my site-- shameful plug)

[Seven Machos]

I have a small, minor point to make. Valerie Plame is a CIA OFFICER. Anyone who gives an officer information is an AGENT.

There. I feel better.

[Jon H]

"Doesn't this strike you as funny? The White House is apparently desperate to get out the name of the source. While the NYT is desperate to protect him!"

Maybe Miller's source has information about *her* that would be damaging to Miller and the Times?

After all, she *was* closely allied with Ahmad Chalabi.

It wouldn't look good for the Times if, say, it came out that, before the war, she was working for the INC and/or the Vice President's office, planting bogus evidence in stories about Iraqi WMD, in order to foment an invasion.

[Toby Petzold]

Beldar's right about Miller choosing martyrdom. She is widely perceived among the Left as a sell-out on Iraq, and this is probably just her way of trying to regain her street creds with them.

I keep asking the anti-Bush people why they think that outing Plame was either an efficient or effective way of punishing Wilson. It's Wilson who insists on that rationale for what happened, but it just doesn't ring true.

Anyway, what's the moral of the story? Don't contribute money to the Gore campaign and then put the name of your easily-uncovered cover job on the accompanying FEC documentation.

[Gerry]

And I see others pointed it out. So the only thing of value in my comment was the shameless self-plug.

:-/

Feel free to wax it, Tom.

[Jim E.]

"Anyone who believes that the NYT and Time/Warner would protect Karl Rove from public humiliation, during the height of the 2004 campaign is really into smoking medical marijuana."

Riiiight.

That conveniently overlooks the fact that Judith Miller is a pro-Bush lackey. It also ignores how Lawrence O'Donnell, an actual liberal pundit, kept his mouth shut until a holiday weekend NINE months after said election. Why didn't O'Donnell pipe up sooner?

[Fresh Air]

Beldar & Co.--

I considered the martyr card. I don't know the two have to be mutually exclusive. She can be a martyr and protect her source, knowing that once Cooper testifies her jailing is moot. Agree on the "street cred" thing; lefties think she is Exhibit A as to why the press has been soft on the administration. LOL.

[Jon H]

"It also ignores how Lawrence O'Donnell, an actual liberal pundit, kept his mouth shut until a holiday weekend NINE months after said election. Why didn't O'Donnell pipe up sooner?"

I actually think the press gets hooked on the drama, and wanted to see how it played out.

[Mac]

Miller apparently stated that she wouldn't recognize the waiver because it was coerced from the source's employer and that strikes me as truly odd. The usual suspects such as Libby, Rove, etc. don't strike me someone who could be described as "coerced by employer" types. They're too high powered or would have simply resigned long ago if they were worried about it. No, this would indicate someone who needs his or her job or the something from their employer.

[Jim E.]

"She is widely perceived among the Left as a sell-out on Iraq, and this is probably just her way of trying to regain her street creds with them."

Yeah, by not testifying about her secret source -- a source that could hurt the Bush adminsitration -- Miller's really helping her "street cred" against the anti-Bush crowd. That makes no sense. By not testifying, Miller is HELPING Bush, or a member of the administration, stay out of hot water, genius. This is just yet another reason the anti-Bush left hates Miller.

[creepy dude]

-I keep asking the anti-Bush people why they think that outing Plame was either an efficient or effective way of punishing Wilson-

I don't think it was effective at all at punishing Wilson-it was so anti-effective Rove's been to the grand jury more than once. Like all things Bush it was stupid, incompetent, and a net negative for the country.

It was effective at ruining Plame's work with the CIA- and do we really know what her position re: Iraqi WMDs pre-war was anyway? She probably wasn't in Cheney's office all that much, else they never would have outed her.
Maybe she was a potential whistleblower.Maybe the goal was to retaliate against Plame, not Wilson!

Why did Novak see fit to publish that little nugget anyway, Toby?

[Jon H]

"She can be a martyr and protect her source, knowing that once Cooper testifies her jailing is moot."

Only if Cooper's evidence applies to the same person or persons.

If Miller's source is someone else, then her evidence is still needed.

[Seven Machos]

Jim: Could the fact that the Supreme Court had not decided Miller's and Cooper's imaginary "journalistic privilege" case have anything to do with the silence of journalists? Would it matter to you that the judge did not order Miller and Cooper to talk or face jail until recently?

Also, do you really have any reason to believe that Lawrence O'Donnell is a guy with inside knowledge? I mean, besides the silly hair...

[Jon H]

"Maybe the goal was to retaliate against Plame, not Wilson!"

Or maybe against all those troublesome CIA analyst types.

Hey, they could slap down Wilson *and* the noncooperative CIA analysts. That's a twofer! It was probably irresistible.

"Why did Novak see fit to publish that little nugget anyway, Toby?"

Especially if "everyone knew" Plame was CIA. If it was "common knowledge", then I'm sure Novak would have known, so why bother?

[Seven Machos]

Jim -- When the source turns out to be a lefty, will you do an about-face and go on about how noble Ms. Miller's actions have been?

[Jim E.]

"Would it matter to you that the judge did not order Miller and Cooper to talk or face jail until recently?"

You are incorrect. The judge issued his ruling over a year ago. Only now that the Supreme Court appeal is over, Miller is facing the music. They have been in contempt for a long, long time.

I have no clue what O'Donnell "really" knows, but I do know he kept his mouth shut until last Friday even though he supposedly had inside info for a long time.

I couldn't really understand your first two questions, so I can't respond.

[Seven Machos]

Jim -- If they've been in contempt for so long, why did Ms. Miller just go to jail today?

Perhaps you should investigate the U.S. judicial appeals process, particularly in relation to not-yet-decided cases, and particularly before you try to tell others they are "incorrect."

I do admire your chutzpah.

[Jim E.]

"Jim -- When the source turns out to be a lefty, will you do an about-face and go on about how noble Ms. Miller's actions have been?"

No. I value national security over partisan politics. Plame's name really was leaked, people. The motivations behind that leak are secondary.

I find it strange that the Republican special prosecutor has inspired so little trust among you all. He he liberally biased, perhaps?

Novak's sources were from the administration, so we already know that several (conservative) people were acting unethically, even if what they did was perhaps technically legal. If we find out it was a right-winger like Rove behind all of this (or a right-winger has perjured him/herself), will you admit how scummy he and this adminsitration is?

[Jim E.]

"If they've been in contempt for so long, why did Ms. Miller just go to jail today?"

Um, the appeals process?

They were originally sentenced to 18 months in prison, but Miller's only facing 4 months because the sentence can only last as long as the grand jury is in session and her appeals took over a year.

Perhaps you should "investigate" before questioning my grasp of the legal process. You think she was found in contempt just today????

[Moe Lane]

"What kind of pictures does Tom Maguire have such that he's averaging 3+ Instalanches per week?"

Hey, Glenn's just doing what the rest of us are: handing off coverage of the ongoing beating of this particular dead horse to somebody with the intestinal fortitude to still keep an eye on the proceedings...

[Seven Machos]

No, Jim, because, as the prosecutor has himself indicated, "no crime has been committed" in relation to the underlying facts. The only criminals here are two contemptuous journalists.

As an aside, I especially like the leftish people who try to connect this with the ado about Jeff Gannon and the "Downing Street Memo." The fact is, this administration is not craven and not evil and not "scummy," despite the best efforts of the left and many in Big Media to portray it as such.

[Seven Machos]

Jim -- If that was their sentence then, why didn't they go to jail then? Martha Stewart is appealing her sentence, but she spent time in jail. What about all the criminals currently in jail who wish to appeal?

I take it that you are about three years shy of a law degree.

[Arturo]

Follwing Beldar and Tony Petzold's ideas of "martyr"dom and regaining "street creds":

I see short-term hardship and the potential for enormous long-term gain for Miller. She nobly heads off to jail until October, 3-4 months or so, and comes out with, well, what?

A lucrative book deal, for sure, probably a TV dramatization or maybe even a movie, big-ticket speaking engagements and a lifetime of cable news show talking-head-itry.

This will be worth millions. If she just spills now, even though it looks like she credibly could, everyone will forget about her in a few weeks.

Not many journalists get such a chance for canonization. This is her opportunity to join the ranks of Woodward and Bernstein and she just may be willing to take the risk.

[Lion]

Contrary to Creepy Dude, I think the whole episode has been enormously effective and a huge success. Time Magazine and one of its reporters have been humiliated, a New York Times reporter reposes in jail as we speak, Joe Wilson has been exposed as a serial liar and has been dropped as a media darling like a hot rock, and the Supreme Court has settled the question of a federal shield for journalists. Not bad, not bad at all. Well done, Karl.

[Jon H]

" Martha Stewart is appealing her sentence, but she spent time in jail. "

Whether you go to jail pending appeal, or not, is up to the judge.

It also, obviously, has something to do with when the appeal is filed.

I think Martha *chose* to go to jail immediately, and get it over with, rather than waiting for her appeal.

[Jon H]

"This is her opportunity to join the ranks of Woodward and Bernstein and she just may be willing to take the risk."

Maybe. Depending on how the case goes, she could come off looking like a stooge for nasty people who abused their power.

[Seven Machos]

Yes, Jon. Sentencing is up to the judge. Clearly, then, if the two reporters were not in jail, then the judge did not sentence them to jail.

Q.E.D.

[Arturo]

"Maybe. Depending on how the case goes, she could come off looking like a stooge for nasty people who abused their power."

Yes. Agreed. That's what differentiates a risk from an inevitability.

I am being highly speculative here of course, and approaching this from a possibly inappropriate branding/advertising perspective.

But people, and companies, are willing to take big risks when there's the potential for big gains.

Never misunderestimate the power of name recognition. Opportunities like the one gaping at Miller don't come easy or often.

Is she, or are her advisors, objective and coldly calculating enough to see the upside in this? I don't know. I'm just saying that upside is there, and this otherwise-kerfuffle could be the thing that pulls Miller's face out of the crowd.

Trial by fire, suffering, iconoclastic rebellion, oppression... followed by triumph and redemption. Makes a good story.

I suppose the real test will be in 5+ years or so, when we can compare the public importance of Matt Cooper vs. Judith Miller.

My money's on Miller.

[Jim E.]

SM,
Neither Miller nor Cooper is a "criminal." Both were charged with -- and Miller is serving time for -- "civil" contempt. There's a difference, Mr. Perry Mason.

Martha Stewart agreed to go to prison before her appeal was completed. You can "investigate" this one, too, Judge Wapner.

Please provide the citation where the prosecutor has claimed definitively that "no crime has been committed." If he's already made that conclusion, why is he still investigating? Please let us know, Nancy Grace. (Seriously, you need to provide evidence for this one.)

From tomorrow's NYTimes: " Judge Hogan held the two reporters in civil contempt in October." I thought they were found in contempt over a year ago. I stand corrected. Still, I was mostly correct in saying Miller wasn't held in contempt just today, and you remain totally wrong, Lance Ito.

Are you always so wrong about everything? My advice: learn how to use google before ridiculing the adults that actually know the basic facts of the case at hand. Thanks!