Come Again?

While admiring Jay Rosen's vivisection of the NY Times, which is struggling to address (contain?) the Judy Miller debacle, we recalled happier days at the Times. 

This excerpt is from Joe Wilson's "The Politics of Truth", p. 355.  Joe Wilson himself takes us back to 2003:

En route, down a long windowless corridor [inside the Times building] with offices on either side, doors sporting the names of Times writers, we ran into veteran Timesman Robert Semple. David [Shipley] explained that I was "the one who wrote the article on what he didn't find in Africa," and Semple, turning to me, said, "So, you're the one who turned our paper around." The Times had been mired in the scandal surrounding Jayson Blair, the fraudulent journalist whose reporting had been questioned by a number of colleagues.

Welcome aboard, Captain Hazelwood!  We aren't even going to mention the now-buried Nick Kristof questions, with his unsatisfying response.

MORE:  I would like to note my *caveatted* theory about the recent "discovery" of Miller's notes - maybe, MAYBE, they were in the physical possession of the Times Company, despite their earlier explanations to the judge and prosecutor that the Times had no material with which to respond to a subpoena (both Matt Cooper and TIME were appellants, as was Judy Miller, but the NY Times Company was not.)

Concealing evidence would be naughty, wouldn't it?  Since I have no reason to think that the Times lawyers are anything but top professionals, I have no basis for alleging that the Times legal side was aware of any notebooks that might have been responsive to some prosecutorial inquiries.  And why would I suggest that the Times was non-responsive for (possibly) sitting on a June notebook, when the Miller subpoena was for conversations, notes, and meetings in July?

But the timing of this discovery is striking, as is the absence of Times reporting on what might be viewed as a significant story.  So maybe the current reporting rule inside the Times newsrooms is "Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies".

I know others have researched the legal status of Judy Miller's notes - I would welcome some shamelessly self-promoting links on that topic just about now.

UPDATE:  "emptywheel" touches on the legal issues while speculating on an insurrection at the Times:

Here's Daniel Engber's quick description of the law on reporter's notes:

It's a murky issue, and one that hasn't been fully resolved in court. According to the work-for-hire doctrine prescribed by the federal copyright statute, the employer who paid for the production of a work is considered its owner. In general, any notes, tools, or other materials that were created in the process of producing that work also belong to the employer.

He goes on to say that NYT claims its journalists own their own notes, even while he shows their application of this standard has been inconsistent. At the very least, though, we would expect consistency between news outlets in this case. If Time Magazine can be held in contempt, then presumably the NYT would be held in contempt if they refused to turn over the same kind of materials.

To some degree, this is moot. We know Judy has notes of her conversation(s) with Scooter Libby. But we have no reason to believe she sent emails about her conversation to her NYT editor. And it was only Cooper's emails, after all, that Time released.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

bingo! TM

Kristof pulled a Judy Miller!

[Rick Ballard]

To be fair, "turned this paper around" may refer to a turn of 360 degrees. Of course "turned this paper around, put the nose down and slammed the throttles full ahead" would be a lot more accurate but it is the NYT so accuracy is... well, you know.

[kim]

I wonder why Fitz hasn't subpoened the records of the New York Times.

Once, twice, many times a lady. Has she gotten sick or is this dotage? I'll blame the virus of inherited privilege.
===============================================

[kim]

And can a corporation plead the 5th?
====================================

[kim]

Calame, Calame mucho.
Why can't you tell us just what the hell is going on?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.
Please my fine editor.
Just lay it out, it is there, you can hide it no more.
===============================================

[Jon H]

"I wonder why Fitz hasn't subpoened the records of the New York Times."

He did ask for all the Times' notes relevant to the Judy Miller issues, but they said she had retained posession of them all.

Which is interesting, because supposedly the recent batch of notes she 'found' and turned over to Fitzgerald had been found in the Times' Washington offices.

[Dwilkers]

The New York Times has experienced a turn-around?!?

Who knew?

[clark]

"Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies".
Does not now nor has ever applied to Paul Krugman.

[emptywheel]

TM

Not technically relating to the legal status of the notes. But I explore here why it is that Jill Abramson is lying (and correcting reporters' work) about whether Judy published the content of her meeting with Libby.

[topsecretk9]

hah---
Times is in a pickle...they haven't been standing by Judy...Judy been covering their and Kristof's ass...and meanwhile their reporting reflects it

and so we wait, wait, wait for the coming story, but now that the ankle bitters have been at...the story we wait, wait, wait for is a disaster in the waiting...oh I feel sorry for the NYT'ers that have been set-up these last few years!

the straight dope today, just ain't gonna hold up to the past

[Geek, Esq.]

Murray Waas's latest:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1011nj1.htm

Shorter version: Scooter's screwed.

[Billy]

That new wASS article does a great job of recycling old news. I especially like his whole premise claiming that Libby never gave Miller an uncoerced waiver as the reason why Miller was in jail...all Libby's fault.

Too bad wASS left out the real reason Miller stayed in the slammer:

"KURTZ: I talked to people at the "New York Times" who are angry and confused about this. They say, understanding -- look, many journalists have used confidential sources. Most of us have not gone to jail. They say you could have had something approaching the same deal before she went to jail. You and Judy Miller took an absolutist position -- we cannot possibly betray the source -- by going to jail and what happens at the end? She takes the waiver and testifies before the grand jury.

ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them."

From: CNN "Reliable Sources interview"

Waaaaa Waaaaa Wass.

[Geek, Esq.]

Did you read the part where Libby concealed his June conversation with Miller from investigators?

That's obstruction of justice, and it's a crime.

[Billy]

Refresh my memory, what did Miller testify to in regards to the June 23 Libby conversation?

[topsecretk9]

sigh

Was Waas confused squaring Judy (and Bennet and Abrams) on Lou Dobbs..better yet did he ask

here is a helpful primer for Waas..

Earlier this year Pincus answered a subpoena to testify in the investigation of former weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee. He was deposed by prosecutors. “I took the journalist’s privilege 117 times,” he says. In other words, he didn’t answer any questions that would reveal sources.

“I believe journalists can be called to testify before a grand jury and civil cases, too,” Pincus says. “It’s a responsibility of a citizen to respond to subpoenas. I don’t think reporters should get a total pass.”

He adds: “I am perfectly willing to appear, but I will not answer any questions that would give away a source. There’s a big difference between being called and answering questions.”

Why does the Post intend to file a motion to quash this subpoena? Why not answer it and testify—but only to questions that would not reveal a source?

“Because we know the questions he [Fitzgerald] wants to ask,” Pincus says. “We’ve been in discussion for six weeks.”

---note to Waas, give up the waiver beat...
Concealed? hmmm...look see, I FOUND some notes..and they do reflect that we did not talk about Plame!

oh wait who said all this exactly, Tate?

[Seven Machos]

Come on, Geek. It's October. You are a 2L now! You've got to do better than this, man.

First of all, you know of no evidence that Karl Rove or Scooter Libby lied to anyone or obstructed anything. YOU KEEP COMING UP WITH ALL THESE CHARGES OUT OF THIN AIR. What's next? Construction without a proper permit? Tampering with a smoke detector in an airplane lavatory? At best, this is a he said/she said situation. In such a politically charged case, no reasonable prosecutor would charge anyone for lying unless it was egregious and obvious because it's impossible to know who lied.

If you were Rove's lawyer, or Libby's lawyer, would you counsel that either man testify two -- three? four? -- times if either is a target of the investigation? Would you counsel either to lie?

That would be almost the dumbest thing ever, second only to staying with the administration for a second term when such a politically-charged grand jury is meeting if you are, in fact, culpable for the underlying crime at issue. Are you suggesting that Rove is a total moron? I thought you think Rove is a genius. I thought Bush is the moron. WHICH IS IT, MAN? PLEASE, Lefties: keep your demonology straight and logically coherent.

Face it, Geek: your blind hope that Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or SOMEBODY in the Bush administration will get indicted has caused you to take leave of your common sense.

[Kate]

Geek, did Mr. Waas accompany Mr. Libby to the Grand Jury sessions and to the discussions with the FBI.

If not, we need to consider Mr. Waas' sources. They could be attorneys with an agenda. Or they could be from Mr. Fitzgerald's office. Since it is illegal to leak Grand Jury testimony, it would seem like Mr. Fitzgerald has a problem with leaks.
Maybe he could indict himself.

[topsecretk9]

steve

"If you were Rove's lawyer, or Libby's lawyer would you"

at first I thought you were going to finish with

"answer Murray Waas's call"

[kim]

Here's more conjecture: Whodunnit? Richard Clarke, the modern Mark Felt.
==================================================

[kim]

Who owns Joe's work in Africa?
===============================

[Jim E.]

Seven wrote (yelled?) to Geek: "YOU KEEP COMING UP WITH ALL THESE CHARGES OUT OF THIN AIR."

Actually, Geek linked to an investigative journalist who published a story in a respectable publication (National Journal). The journalist in question, Waas, has earned the respect of TM himself. In other words, while not necessarily conclusive, the article Geek linked to is certainly not mere "thin air."

[topsecretk9]

kim...

you sly dog

[topsecretk9]

jim e

relax

Waas got a scoop and took the spin...who wouldn't?

this make you feel better

[kim]

This is still fun even though it may not turn out the way I hope.

Do you suppose Fitz is a Hitchcock fan?
========================================

[Jim E.]

I think it's the screaming Seven Machos who needs to "relax," not me. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[kim]

And I agree, this Waas thing is just the latest gasp attempt to spin it against the administration. They'll hope for a public opinion victory that they cannot get in court. Even when this is over, it won't be.

Suppose Nixon had prevailed way back then. Do you think it would have faded into the midsts of time? Do you think Mark Felt would be revealed?
==========================================

[topsecretk9]

kim...

They'll hope for a public opinion victory that they cannot get in court.

At this point, after all the medias smoke and mirrors...do you think the L side will let them get away with it?

[Jim E.]

The Huffington Post -- and I know few of you here give a crap what they post -- is reporting that the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg news are each working on stories with the same hook: FitzGerald's target is Cheney.

Just passing along the speculative info, don't flame me for bringing up a relevant Plame rumor.

[kim]

They are so tattered after that summer of Free Speech Hogwash. I know it didn't hit the public's consciousness big-time, but to those for whom it is important, this is a devastating blow to old media credibility.
==========================================

[Seven Machos]

Not screaming, Jimmer. Just don't like html tags. Also, as much as you hate to agree with me, I think any reasonable observer here would agree that Geek has a history of coming up with all manner of charges against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby every time he reads the newspaper.

[kim]

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your House down.

Cheney has been among the more adamant that Joe was FOS.
=================================================

[Jim E.]

"Just don't like html tags."

Aww, that's too bad. Cuz it linked to a real story, not thin air. Or as you would put it: IT LINKED TO A REAL STORY, NOT THIN AIR.

"I think any reasonable observer here would agree that Geek has a history of coming up with all manner of charges against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby every time he reads the newspaper."

I don't agree.

But I do think that you reflexively defend this administration about everything Plame related, usually with name calling (as opposed to evidence, or cogent arguments). If Rove's indicted, you're still going to eat a hat via a video link (so we can witness it), right?

[Seven Machos]

Jimmer: You are better than this. I didn't say I didn't read the article. The implication is that I don't like putting things in italics, or bold, or anything else. Good old caps for me.

I don't think I was the eat-a-hat video link guy. Perhaps I was. I'm sure you will go back and dig it up either way. I expect nothing less.

If I eat a hat, it will be a chocolate hat, with white icing. Then, if you stick around, I'll strip down to a thong and show you my best club moves.

But Jim: face it. Rove will not be indicted. You are dreaming. What will you eat when I am proven right? Except crow, I mean?

[Jim E.]

On Hardball tonight, the panel was talking about the latest Plame news, focusing on Rove and Libby, Rove and Libby, blah blah blah.

Then they started wondering who was Novak's first source, the original leaker. Andrea Mitchell piped up and said something along the lines of (quote from memory): "We don't know who the original leaker was, but it could be someone other than Rove and Libby -- a name that hasn't been talked about a lot. In fact, I think that's most likely."

Chris Matthews, tool that he is, ignored this tantalizing lead and went onto another Plame related issue. Mitchell seemed (emphasis on "seemed") to hint that she knows who the original leaker was. At the end of the segment, while talking about a different Plame related issue (the classified state department memo), she went out of her way to point out that Fleischer had seen the memo. Hmmm.

Anyways, take it for what it's worth. I know Mitchell has a fan-club of sorts on this website (for comments she never said), so I thought you'd appreciate a summary of something she did say. Unfortunately, neither Matthews nor any of the other panel members asked Mitchell to elaborate.

[Seven Machos]

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger." -- Robert Novak

[Jim E.]

SM,
I've never said or predicted that Rove or any other Bush official will be indicted in this Plame mess.

You on the other hand, have confidently and repeatedly made grand predictions, including that only Joe Wilson will be indicted.

I'm not the one who should be worried about eating crow, buddy.

[topsecretk9]

Kim--

with the same hook: FitzGerald's target is Cheney.

wasn't that the jig to begin with? they huffed and puffed, only their wind blew back

[Jim E.]

Is Scooter known as a "partisan gunslinger"? I wouldn't think so -- I kind of assume (with zero evidence) that he's NOvak's first source.

Has Colin Powell been in front of the grand jury? That would be an interesting twist, to say the least.

Fleischer would definitely fit the bill as a partisan, so he would seem out of the running (despite my subjective interpretation of Mrs. Alan Greenspan's comments tonight).

Of course, all the searching for someone who is "not a partisan gunslinger" rests upon treating Novak as a credible source. Eh.

[pollyusa]

This is new, from Waas.

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame.

Interesting that Waas characterizes the converstaion as crucial.

Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003

[topsecretk9]

--a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003

oh I'll bet it was...don't take the bait

[Seven Machos]

A CRUCIAL CONVERSATION? Oh my.

[topsecretk9]

what I should have said...the bait Judy...you've taken enough!

[SteveMG]

"A crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003"

Which, of course, was well before Wilson's op-ed piece was published and presumably before the W.H. Iraq Group was gearing up to go after, er, respond responsibly to his libel, er, charges.

Not new, but it bears repeating: Miller learned about Wilson's forthcoming piece and went to Libby to get some information on it. Miller, doing research on Wilson, discovered he was married to Valerie Plame. Plame was known by Miller as a result of her contacts and work reporting on WMD issues for the Times.

Miller first broached Plame's name to Libby.

From there, all hell broke loose.

SMG

[topsecretk9]

smg- close

do you think she called as a favor for a friend?

[Jim E.]

Maybe, but I think that's what SM would call THIN AIR.

[topsecretk9]

what I should have said was...a friend called her and put a bug (well a whole lotta bugs) in her ear..and some other bugs called too!...so she made a call

[SteveMG]

"do you think she called as a favor for a friend?"

Don't know. She took notes so I assume it was in her capacity as a reporter. Maybe a friendly one but still a professional one.

NY Times knows this. Keller has put a quash on it to limit damage. After all, Times has been the recipient of dozens if not hundreds of leaks from those in the CIA disgruntled with W.H. policies. Lots of classified info has made its way onto the front pages of the Times over the years.

SMG

[TM]

Re the Waas article - other than his unsupported use of the word "crucial", and his nailing down some details about how often Libby testified, this is roughly what I was saying in "Judy Remembers" on Oct 8.

As to whether this is perjury, or obstruction - obviously, it depends on what they discussed, how Libby testified, and whether their chat is material (if Libby goes with "I forgot", but the June 23 talk is forgettable, well, there you are).

At a minimum, this causes a raised eyebrow from Fitzgerald. At a maximum, I would think it could be a perjury/obstruction count. But we don't have enough to know.

Andrea Mitchell piped up and said something along the lines of (quote from memory): "We don't know who the original leaker was, but it could be someone other than Rove and Libby -- a name that hasn't been talked about a lot. In fact, I think that's most likely

Kill me now. Rove is clearly not Novak's first source (unless he is both Novak's first and second source - maybe Rove said to Novak, "I heard that too, when the words were coming out of my mouth and into your ears two days ago".

And we have had several leaks that Libby is not Novak's source. Sure, that might be phony, but she is not exactly breaking news here.

And, as Jim notes, *GREAT* follow-up by Chris Matthews.

[topsecretk9]

poor Judy...always taking that bait!

[SteveMG]

"a friend called her and put a bug (well a whole lotta bugs) in her ear."

Gotcha this time.

Friend with a first name Joe? Or a last name Plame?

[Billy]

Jim E. -
Whenever you start a post with "On Hardball tonight..." that is not a good sign.

And regarding Andrea Mitchell, she is the one who said "On Hardball" several months ago that Valarie Plame's occupation was common knowledge in DC circles.

I have never eaten crow, but Joe Wilson is about to go down along with several others (and not Rove or Libby).

This is bigger than even Chris Matthews can imagine.

[topsecretk9]

Billy--

oh yeah

[Jim E.]

Hey, look, we have a winner with Billy. That's why I took the time to write: "I know Mitchell has a fan-club of sorts on this website (for comments she never said)."

[topsecretk9]

sm- I'm thinking it starts with a K

[topsecretk9]

to be fair and to give props to Jim E....he did,

and I think I am most fond of his his discription of Chris..."tool" I believe

[kim]

One wonders why Chris didn't ask her if Plame's occupation was common knowledge in DC circles.

Naw, who cares about unimportant minutiae like that.
================================================

[CaseyL]

Wasn't Andrea Mitchell one of the reporters Rove shopped the story to in the first place? Funny that she now says she doesn't know who the 'original' leaker was. Wouldn't she have asked Rove what his source was?

And how on earth do people get from a GJ investigation that's called in Rove, Libby, and Miller - with Libby coaching Miller on her testimony, Miller suddenly remembering meetings a month before the one she's already testified to, and the investigation working its way up the WH food ladder to Cheney's office - how do people get from there to thinking Plame or Wilson is a target of the investigation?

I mean, jeez: I've heard of building castles in the air, but that one's more like trying to furnish the thing and move in.

[kim]

Well we start with Joe wilson being a liar and an unprincipled opportunist and we proceed from there.

Just like Fitz.
==================================================

[jerry]

I'm tempted to conclude Rove is testifying four times because he's lied, in one manner or another, three times. Maybe I'm wrong.

[topsecretk9]

rose colored air

[topsecretk9]

did i say rose?
i meant rove

[kim]

And speaking of castles in the air, what do you think of the great pile of stone-faced free speech lies Miller and the NYT have told lately, or the roomful of spun fantasies promoted by them all summer.

The leaker was Rapunzel.

Hardly a partisan gunslinger, but how did you guess his name?
========================

[kim]

Idiot, it's Rumpelstiltskin.
================================

[topsecretk9]

yes jerry, he has lied one maybe 3...but Fitz still doesn't have an enough for an indictment..4th time Fitz won't have any evidence...cuz it will be thrown out

[SteveMG]

As Kim notes, if this was ONLY about Rove and Libby and the White House Iraq Group, how do you explain the NY Times near silence on this story?

No Dowd, no Krugman, no Herbert, no Rich. Nada. And very little reporting from its national security staff.

The dog that didn't bark or fetch the paper?

SMG

[topsecretk9]

In his rage drove his right foot so far into the ground that it sank in up to his waist;

[kim]

You don't hear Joe thumping his own drum much lately, either. How unusual.
==========================================

[topsecretk9]

Kim--

do you think the reluctance is...too many mirrors? everybody does it! so surley must the rest

[topsecretk9]

Kim--

nobody care about his year late senate response letter...but thankfully they didn't hear his wife was not clandestine

[topsecretk9]

then in a passion he seized the left foot with both hands and tore himself in two.

[pollyusa]

Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy.
WSJ 10/12/05

The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are working on stories that point to Vice President Dick Cheney as the target of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.
Huffington Post

[Seven Machos]

Casey -- I take it you are not an attorney.

[Billy]

Jim E.

"Hey, look, we have a winner with Billy. That's why I took the time to write: "I know Mitchell has a fan-club of sorts on this website (for comments she never said).""

Andrea never said what? I know she said that Plame's job was common knowledge because I saw it when she said it. So what are you talking about? Thanks.

[Seven Machos]

A broader conspiracy to...what?

Gotta hand it to you, though, Polly. You sure do know how to use those HTML tags to sock it to us Bushitler toadies.

[topsecretk9]

pollyanna, I mean polly usa

7:05 to 8:08 what took you so long...

"...but perhaps a broader conspiracy...> perhaps?

[topsecretk9]

A broader conspiracy to...what?

perhaps..perhaps..perhaps

[pollyusa]

Thanks Machos, thought you might be interested.

[kim]

Funny, Top. I can see Brer Fox and the Tarbaby, too, but I'm just not sure who Brer Rabbit is.
===============================================

[MeTooThen]

This is getting so lame.

Really.

"It's obstruction of jutice, and that's a crime."

You don't say.

Gee, and I was all scared and upset and everything.

It was so, scary and all, once that was written like that.

Terrifying, really.

...

And someone is working on a story that Cheney is the target of the special prosecutor?

You don't say.

Hell, there are scores of people working on stories every f*ing day that Cheney kills kittens, drains their blood, for ZioNazi Halliburton McHurricane Satanic rituals.

I mean come on.

Someone is working on a story?

...

Look.

Joseph Charles Wilson IV is a liar.

Valerie Double-O-Plame was "outed" by Who's Who for crying out loud.

I have been wrong before, but on this one, I don't think so.

Libby might have run afoul of the GJ on a he-said/she-said testimony issue, or some similar charge.

But this is going to end people, and soon.

And no, for the umpteenth-millionth time, RovEvil will not be indicted.

The ones in potential jeopardy are the NYT, Ms. Judy, Joe and the Missus.

Sorry.

"It's a crime."

Sheesh.

[ordi]

JoeDuke/Duck has an interesting comment over at MacMind.

The NYT has a new article (10/12/05) that says nothing new, but this was interesting:

' In another development, four senior House Democrats wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald in a letter dated Oct. 12, urging him to issue a final report to Congress when he concludes his inquiry. Such a report, they said, should address 'all indictments, convictions and any decisions not to prosecute.'

The letter was signed by the top Democrats on their respective committees: John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Judiciary Committee; Jane Harman of California, Intelligence Committee; and Tom Lantos of California, International Relations Committee. The letter was also signed by Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel's policy subcommittee.

A report, the letter said, would assure the public that 'the investigation of this serious matter has been undertaken with utmost diligence and has been free of partisan, political influence.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/1...ics/ 12leak.html

What are the Dems on the Intelligence and International Relation committees worried about? No WH indictments so they want an explanation of "and any decisions not to prosecute." Why not just wait until his report comes out?

Plus it seems like the NYT put an article out that says a whole lot about nothing.
JoeDuck | 10.12.05 - 12:17 am

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/macsmind/112897679627384803/#54754

[ordi]

I wonder why the left was not sure that "It's obstruction of jutice, and that's a crime." back in 1998?

[kim]

Yeah and if there are no indictments of White House personnel they are going to use Fitz's info to show that the investigation was influenced by partisan politics. They may not succeed but it will still become an article of faith among the leftists.

See how they delude themselves into impotence?
===========================================

[kim]

Yet more evidence of clear consiences at the White House. Why get the man with the single most incorruptible reputation in America to run your investigation if you are hiding something?

And again, two sides are 'impeding' justice, one is not, though you don't see much of Langley's roadblocks. The problem for the Miller in cahoots with Libby crowd is why is he encouraging testimony, and she has not been. As circumspectly as they can possibly do it, the White House has helped move this along, Miller and the NYT have slowed it and attempted to put a humongous spin on it.

I'm still suspicious of a CIA plot, though Joe is so crazy this could be all his, and Val even essentially irrelevant(what an irony). But I think the bottom line is a MSM plot against the White House.

PERJURY

Cooper, Miller, and Wilson.
==========================

[Jim E.]

Billy wrote: "Andrea never said what? I know she said that Plame's job was common knowledge because I saw it when she said it. So what are you talking about? Thanks."

Andrea never said that Plame's job was common knowledge. While you claim to have personally saw her say just that on Hardball, it's not true. Hardball has transcripts, and she's never said any such thing. In fact, Mitchell on Hardball has said just the opposite. That is, she has explained the seriousness of blowing the cover of Plame, something that wouldn't make sense for her to explain if she'd ever claimed Plame's identity was "common knowledge."

This Andrea Mitchell canard has been tossed around on righty blogs (including this one -- more than once) with zero evidence. Which is why I referenced it in my earlier post. It ain't true.

[Jim O'Sullivan]

Am I the only person around who can't get any handle whatsoever on this story?