Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Can We Go Home Now? | Main | Is There No Barking Because It's A Dog? »

October 22, 2005

Comments

clarice

I vote for Fitz' not having known about the meeting in advance and that Libby's memory of it was as deficient as Miller's.(It was as forgettable for him as it was for her.) I also vote for the proposition that no prosecutor in his right mind would base such a high profile white collar criminal case on Miller's notes or testimony unless he wanted to go down in the history books as a book end with Ronnie Earle.

SteveMG

A cat lover?

I knew this Fitzgerald guy was trouble the first time I saw him.

Out of control special prosecutor. Prosecutorial abuse, witch hunt.

Attica, Attica, Attica.

At about this stage of this controversy, it seems to me that we're basically left to posting one liners or doing Jon Stewart impersonations.

SMG

clarice

SMG--We could tootle down to the journo waterhole (the Ebbitt Grill) talk loudly about made up secret inside info and laugh tomorrow when it is breathlessly reported as true and garnered from well-connected anonymous sources..LOL

clarice

Have fun..MSNBC 's MTP website has a spot where you can offer up a question to this week's participants. I said Timshould ask himself about why he's being weasely about his role in this. Why don't you ask him to do the same? ;) I forgot to send him Tom's analysis..why don't you?

kim

He knew. He's sniffing out intent.
====================================

paul

Stephen Hayes has another article today:

"One good leak deserves another..."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/244chpdw.asp

Interestingly it points to the fact that Andrea Mitchell was the reporter who broke the story of the Inquiry in to the leaking of the Plame name.

So, she also has publicly admitted to knowing the Wilson's personally. she also gets the CIA info as to the progress of the investigation. There is something much larger than Valerie Plame at the CIA. Who are her cohorts?

I find this connection between NBC and this Plame affair beyond credulity. wilson, at one point, made more appearances on Countdownin one year, that Jordan graced Sports Illustrated in a lifetime.

NBC has gone out of their way, in focus of the story, and the presentment of the facts to elevate Wilson as a 'victim', as opposed to a player. Maybe a news decision, but when you Washington Beureau Chief/Russert is one of the sources, and their star Washington correspondent, Mitchell knows the Wilson's...something funny is happening.

Have they become the televised version of the NYT?

clarice

Paul, I beg you, go to the MTP website--where they ask you what questions you want posed this week..send that in--The msm has played a rotten game in this. They are intimately involved in this story, covering up what they know and continuing on as if they can fairly report it, which they cannot. Let NBC know they have to come clean or suffer for it..

macranger

Still, from a legal standpoint, not much here.

A lot of "he said, she said, they said,...."

Oye!

However, about those NBC phone logs.....

(shhhhh)

EricH

CIA, or a faction in it and outside, i.e., the VIPS, pulled a sting on the W.H.

And the W.H., Libby in particular, fell for it.

My guess is that Rove, because he's worked in the field of politics where things like this happen, was too smart to fall for it.

Corn was in on it too. He tried to pull a similar type sting about a decade ago with Victor Navasky. But they got caught.

Doesn't excuse - in any way - any violations by Libby or Rove or Hannah or whomever.

EH

macranger

Paul,

You've hit the gist of the Plame Game. Ah, the "MSN/CIA" juggernaut, still crazy after all these years.

Go Porter, go.....!

 topsecretk9

I am still just boggled as to why the Wilson Report didn't make it's way to the White House. If they had had it, they would have been able to call bs a lot sooner.

clarice

What nbc phone logs? Folks, if Mac ends up bound and gagged, it's because I did it to punish him for slipping out tiny tantalizing hints and then running..LOL

L. S. Larry

So a big piece of Fitz's case is resting on the memory and notes of Judy Miller? This Judy Miller....?

"For some reason none of us had a tape recorder, so on the flight back to Casablanca we compared our notes from the one interview we’d had with a Moroccan general a few hours before. We wanted to be sure the phrases we’d scribbled down were accurate. But there was a problem. Judy had many more quotes in her notebook than I and another reporter had in ours. And Judy’s were much better. Then I realized why. I’d done a lot more homework on that particular story than she did, and I was asking much more detailed questions. She’d written them down, and now she thought they came from the general, but many of the quotes actually were from … me."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9742110/site/newsweek/


Or things like this from her own mouth...

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1129943058-JzIsQY6OhYRH2NrG57ZdLA


Or her own Editor's.....

""Judy seems to have misled" Times Washington bureau chief Bill Taubman about the extent of her involvement, Keller wrote.

Taubman asked Miller in the fall of 2003 whether she was among the reporters who had gotten leaks about the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.

"Ms. Miller denied it," the newspaper reported in a weekend story. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051022/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation_30;_ylt=Ah59Imb5dR4lsBiS9DGaJyFZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Case dismissed!

kim

The smart ass shyster sitting next to a blonde engrossed in a romance waxed on his brilliance. She finally looked up and let him know that for $50 she would ask him no question he could answer. He rose to the challenge, she took the money, and went back to her book.
==========================================

Beto Ochoa

Can you say set up?
I like the way you say that.
Let's go to the land of Make-Believe with the Neighborhood Trolley.
X the Owl: Well Henrietta, I think we have a patsy.
H. Pussycat: What's a meow meow patsy?
X the Owl: Well Henrietta, it's someone to hang a problem on.
H. Pussycat: What's a meow meow problem?
X the Owl: Well Henrietta, it's the media.
H. Pussycat: meow Oh meow God meow! Not the meow meow media! We're meow meow doomed!

kim

And hand in hand, on the edge of the sword,
They danced to the song of the loon.
===========================================

macranger

Heh....

The Corner:

"Re New York Times and Conason and their pieces on Fitzgerald, he will be judged on his actions, including the significance and quality of any charges he may bring.

Translation. "If that dope doesn't charge in the way we think is appropriate there will be a firestorm!"

I hope Pat is enjoying his weekend with a cold one.

clarice

When they do, remind them will you that when Harkin's guys were caught taping a rival's campaign strategy meeting. Fitz refused to prosecute.

He seems to be able to recognize the difference between political jockeying and criminal activity --and, if so, perhaps he can give Earle a cram course .

Kate

MSNBC makes me nervous. On Hardball last night David Schuster had a breathless report that Fitzgerald is investigating the whole reason for going to war. He is going to unmask the whole sorry scene.

Chris Matthews was so excited and he got his guests excited too. Finally, the WAPO guy warned everyone not to get too excited about the Schuster piece.

I'm a GWOT and Bush supporter and it made me very nervous.

clarice

Kate, for a couple of years I put "Not" in front of all conventional wisdom publiched by the msm and that why I turn out to be on the right side of the issue..Every time they open their mouths whisper to yourself--"Yeah, like the 2004 exit polls", turn off the tv and do something more satisfying.

At best they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about . At worst, they are lying partisan hacks.

cable guy

MSNBC makes me nauseous. Ignore David Schuster. He is a hack which is part of the reason why Fox News canned him. Since that termination, he has been a very angry little boy. He has found a nice home with the MSNBC wackos...too bad for them nobody watches MSNBC (it often loses in the ratings to CNN's Headline News).

Kate

Clarice & Cable guy--thanks for the encouragement. The Washington Post guy looked very uncomfortable about Schuster's report and quickly batted it down, much to Chris Matthew's disappointment.

clarice

How would Fitz investigate all our reasons for going to war? And what would he do with that? LOL

What utter crap.

Kate

According to the report, Fitzgerald went to Rome to examine the Niger intelligence reports.

From this, Schuster reported that the SP is investigating a pattern of the Administration using false intelligence and leaks to go to war.

That was what Matthews said.

kim

The reason was to remove a real and present danger.
===================================================

Jim E.

Kate,
I don't know if it'll make you feel better or not, but I saw the Schuster report, too, and Schuster's conclusion that Fitz was going to make a frontal assault on the entire war was sensationalistic. The WashPost reporter was correct to point out that Fitz is known for being thorough, and that it's quite a leap to suggest that the GJ was going to pursue the war justifications in a criminal charge. I thought he subpeonad the Niger docs; I don't think he traveled to Italy. Either way, that part of the report was pretty lame.

However, I thought another aspect of Schuster's report was interesting. He reported (if I recall correctly) that the White House dossier on Wilson began in earnest in March 2003. I didn't think they started it until June or May 2003. If true, that might actually be relevant for the Plame matter.

clarice

I have never heard the Fitz went to Rome to examine the documents.

Since Wilson repeatedly lied about having seen them at a time when he could not have,if Fitz actually is looking into that, it does not bode well for Wilson:

Remember either he (a) lied about seeing them, or(b) someone showed him classified documents which he was not entitled to see, or (3) he saw those documents before the CIA got them--and the last possibility raises Hersh's Stovepipe story (that the docs were forged by rogue ex-CIA agents and slipped in with genuine documents to embarrass the Administration) to a new level-

kim

Wasn't Joe initially interviewed by FBI or Fit'z agents after he'd rowed back on exposing the forgeries but before he was publically exposed as a liar about that? One wonders what confabulatory phase he was in then?
===========================================

Lesley

"Confabulatory Phase"

Another Kim classic. LOL.

clarice

I don't recall Wilson saying when he and Plame were questioned. If anyone can help on this, I'd be interested.

Andif anyone can find a report on Fitz going to Rome to examine the documents, I'd be interested in that, too.

Whyare the docs in Rome? Weren't they given to Langley and then transmitted to the IAEA? Did the Italians get the originals back for their investigation?

Jim E.

I've found the transcript. Schuster did NOT report that Fitz went to Rome.

"SHUSTER (voice-over): Some sources confirm that Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald requested and received an Italian Government report on forged documents... According to Italian sources, the sealed portions of the report conclude, the fraudulent papers were created by associates of Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi ran the exiled Iraqi National Congress, a favorite of Bush administration hawks, including Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, Scooter Libby."

Here's the part I personally thought was significant:

"SHUSTER: And legal sources tell MSNBC that prosecutors have evidence showing the White House interest in Joe Wilson as early as March 2003, four months before reporters revealed his wife worked at the CIA."

Although I suppose "interest" is less interesting than "dossier," as I wrote above. But I did remember the date (March 2003) correctly.

Kate

Clarice-Schuster said Fitzgerald examined the documents from Rome. I'm not sure if Fitzgerald traveled to Rome or not. I'd have to check the transcript. Jim E. saw the same report and thought Fitzgerald subpeoned the docs. I'd have to review the transcript to confirm what Schuster said, but I'd defer to Jim that perhaps he reviewed them but did not review them in Rome.

clarice

If the WH had begun a dossier on Wilson in March of 2003, I hope they fired the person who prepared it for it is obvious to me that in May and June when his charges were first aired by a credulous (or complicit) Kristof and Pincus the WH seemed to be quite genuinely in the dark about the envoy and his mission..

kim

Much gracious, Lesley.

I'll bet even the Italians don't have originals(see TANG memos). Didn't Rocco claim the provenance was murky?
=====================================

Jim E.

Heck, while I'm at it, I'll also post what the WashPost reporter said:

"VANDEHEI: If I can go back to the point you guys were just talking about, you know, we shouldn`t hyperventilate too much about that report, about asking for those forged documents, because this guy is a very thorough investigator who may be trying to get all of these different pieces of information to have a full portrait so that he can base his indictments or whatever findings he has based on that.

It would be shocking, and I think we would all be totally surprised if he was going to go above and beyond what his license was here and that was to look at whether anyone knowingly leaked the identify of Plame, to go back and look at pre-war intelligence and did Bush mislead the American people into war. I mean, that would be breathtaking."

topsecretk9

SHUSTER: And legal sources tell MSNBC that prosecutors have evidence showing the White House interest in Joe Wilson as early as March 2003, four months before reporters revealed his wife worked at the CIA."

All the details are so convoluted at this point, but I thought I read that there was a memo in and around march, and then when the stories (Kristof and Pincus) started there was a request to "Update" that memo (and i think it originated as a letter, rather than a memo)

FTR---N O T S T A T I N G A S F A C T

just occurred to me from my memory


clarice

Why would they have been interested in Wilson in 2003? I don't recall a word about him anywhere before the May Kristof-Pincus blitz of lies.

Jim E.

Wilson made CNN appearances in March 2003, before the war started. In one appearance, Wilson said the fact that the IAEA immediately recognized the Niger docs as forged (which they had just done) "tainted" the entire U.S. case for war.

For that, Wilson went on the Nixon adminstration's, er, I mean BUSH administration's enemy list.

topsecretk9

Not positive, but I think it was in reference to intelligence of other African countries

topsecretk9

CLarice

this is a good one to re-read!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25?language=printer

Kate

Jim-I think Wilson was monitored more because of his claims that Vice President Cheney sent him on the trip. I don't see it as nefarious that the Vice President's office would take an interest in him.

Certainly, Clinton was much harsher on his critics. He was also more successful in discrediting his enemies since he had the support of the media. Ah, the good ole days when discrediting ones enemies was a good thing.

clarice

Thanks, TS--
In the meantime..I couldn't find anything about him in March of 2003--but I found this interview with Moyer in Feb 2003--and he was simply blathering the old Euro-DoS crapareeno about how we had ulterior motives (Likud's) in attacking Baghdad, that blah blah there's no peace in the ME until the Pali-Israeli dispute it resolved. Stale, stupid, but certainly not so controversial as to raise an eyebrow. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html

Cecil Turner

According to Italian sources, the sealed portions of the report conclude, the fraudulent papers were created by associates of Ahmed Chalabi.

Now that makes a lot of sense. Chalabi ginned up some obvious forgeries, which could only discredit the case for war, because . . . why?

I think Wilson was monitored more because of his claims that Vice President Cheney sent him on the trip.

Wilson implied the VP had a closer relationship with the decision than was actually the case, but never, as far as I can tell, claimed Cheney sent him on the trip.

clarice

Cecil, I believe that report is CRAP. Despite the CIA and left smears of Chalabi he is a brilliant man who would not engage in this. Crap..The last report I saw on this is that the Italians believe that Russo, working with French Intelligence created the docuemtn, and that report at least makes sense. If the idea was for this to surface as a fraud while we were arguing the case for invasion before the UN, who would have had a greater interest in discrediting our case than France? The argument would then go to then why didn't it surface until later? To which the answer is--because Bush got tired of the Security Council game and France's stall and went in without a Council Resolution.

I do not know that this final Italian report answers the forgery question, but I am certain the Chalabi theory is the same crap as the claim he was spying for Iran ..Nonsense.

Jeff

Jim E. - Could you provide a link to the transcript for Hardball. I didn't see it on msnbc. Thanks.

I will remain skeptical of the Italians' conclusions until I can see what they base them on for myself, especially since there is some reason to think they have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Shades of the SSCI . . .

Jeff

clarice - With your rather quaint and very personal-sounding defense of Chalabi, I'm starting to wonder whether you're not Judy Miller in disguise.

clarice

Remember Cecil--these were crude forgeries and were obviously designed to be easily spotted as such.


Jeff, I promise you I am not JM. But Neither am I a dope who believes the CIA crap abour Chalabi.The CIA hated Chalabi because he warned them the coup they fostered some years ago was going to fail and it did..they continued nevertheless to rely on their anti-Chalabi humint idiots(or doubles on the ground). Remember the CIA's last fairy tale about Ahmed:That he gave the Iranis our secret code and they found this out because the Iranis said so in that very code.
"icksnay on the odecay ecausebay heytay nowkay we avehay it"LOL

Now, undoubtedlty there are people who believe such a cockamamie story. I am proud to say that I am not with that short bus crowd.

SteveMG

Jeff:
You're sceptical (to understate it) about the SSCI report and its exoneration of Bush, about the Butler Report and its exoneration of Blair and Bush and about the Silberman/Robb commission report and its exoneration of the entire W.H.

In the above situations, you demand to inspect primary sources before signing off to them.

But here you uncritically accept (or appear to on the surface) second hand reports and allegations re Chalabi?

What are we missing?

SMG

Cecil Turner

Despite the CIA and left smears of Chalabi he is a brilliant man who would not engage in this.

Not sure forging documents would be beneath Chalabi. After all, he was trying to start a war (it's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition). However, I suspect he'd have managed to produce something that actually helped his cause, or at least was plausible. The fact that it was immediately debunked by IAEA (and derided as "clumsy," etc.) is a pretty good indicator that it was meant to discredit, which suggests an anti-war group.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I thought another aspect of Schuster's report was interesting. He reported (if I recall correctly) that the White House dossier on Wilson began in earnest in March 2003.'

That's straight from Joe Wilson's book. He claims that Cliff May must have heard about his wife as a result of this 'work up'. That all the info had been circulated in 'neo-con' circles

boris

Wilson implied the VP had a closer relationship with the decision than was actually the case, but never, as far as I can tell, claimed Cheney sent him on the trip.

The phrasing was ambiguous and the common English spoken interpretation of the construct implied Cheney's participation in the decision. Careful parsing reveals a Clintonesque non-claim.

Professional journalists based administration inqueries on the Cheney implication of the quote so either professional journalists are not very good at English or knowingly misstated, or both.

macranger

Just thought I pass this along.

The actual investigation (into the leak) was over in October of 2004. Most of the time after that was "tooling around" with Miller and Cooper and their 'obstructions'.

Blame it on the MSM ability to rehash news and make it up because they think we don't pay attention.

Jeff

SMG - Let me try again, since you appear to have gotten a sense diametrically opposed to the one I meant. Here's what I said:

I will remain skeptical of the Italians' conclusions until I can see what they base them on for myself, especially since there is some reason to think they have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Shades of the SSCI . . .

The "Italians' conclusions" referred to in the thread above were that Chalabi's shop or associates were involved in or actually did the forged documents. I am, for now, skeptical of that claim (assuming that's the claim). So, far from uncritically accepting claims about Chalabi's involvement in the forgery, I am skeptical of those claims until i can have a look at what we're talking about. As for the Italians, credible (which does not mean indubitable) reporting has tied SISMI to the circulation, if not the origin, of the forgeries. Hence my comment about Italy having a dog in the fight, that is, they may want to cover their own ass and push a highly polemical line of interpretation as neutral fact with the stamp of approval of the government. Hence shades of the SSCI . . .

Chefrad

[Fitzgerald] once went to considerable trouble to adopt a cat." 

Let's hope he is never investigates Bill Frist. The latter also went to great trouble to adopt cats. Lots of them. Then he killed them in med school experiments.

Cecil Turner

Careful parsing reveals a Clintonesque non-claim.

Concur. And as it was essential to his case, it's doubtful it was an accident. Maybe not a lie, but misrepresentation.

Hence shades of the SSCI . . .

I was with you right up to that bit. Unless you can explain why Sens Rockefeller, Levin, Feinstein, etc. signed off on it, I think the SSCI report is getting a bad rap.

Lesley

AJStrata/ Miller Implicates Kristof

macranger

"And except that this really is a crisis for journalism. Maybe it‘s inside baseball, but journalism has been laid bare and what people have seen is not very pleasant. And the situation at the “New York Times,” all of the controversy over Judith Miller—there is going to be testimony tomorrow. She is supposed to testify about whether or not there should be a shield for journalists. These are not good times for journalists."....

Andrea Mitchell Hardball 10/18 - sensing the writing on the wall....

A.C.

Fitzgerald worked for Mary Jo White, eh? That puts him in the middle of every terrorism case of note through the 90s. He must have more than a passing interest in the backstory here.

SamAm

TM, I've seen nothing that indicates Russert enters the scene early enough to aid Libby's case for innocence. Russert's role may be unsavory, but that doesn't make it exculpatory.

 topsecretk9

Lesley==

per Aj

Responding to Keller's criticism, Miller told the newspaper, "I was unaware that there was a deliberate, concerted disinformation campaign to discredit Wilson and that if there had been, I did not think I was a target of it."
"As for your reference to my 'entanglement' with Mr. Libby, I had no personal, social or other relationship with him except as a source," Miller said.

because contrary what the likes of Matt Cooper were telling her about the "war out on Wilson", Judy had already had a meeting with Libby did not see it! So next meeting with Libby, Judy asks about the rumors she is hearing about the "war out on wilson" and tipped Libby and the rest to NOT TAKE THE BAIT!

clarice

Aj. It's altogether possibleJM got the names from Kristof..or from someone else in the newsroom who had infoon Kristof's sources for his earlier articles on the "envoy". And that may be how those names got in her notebook.
But IIRC your scenario on their testimony conflicts with the timeline as we had heard it from waas--not that it discredits yours..just that there is a conflict..As I recall, the reports were that It wasn't until after Libby and Judy had testified that Fitz got hold of the log and JM remembered she might have more notes..she got them and returned to testify again.

Now waas could well be wrong. I believe the SS prepared and sent over the logs , including June's right away. I had earlier surmised that Libby did not take the stand and testify without reviewing all the WH discovery documents, noted the meeting and testified about it. But IIRC, her subpoena asking for later dates had already been issued and was the topic of the court fight..perhaps Fitz just tried a hail Mary asking her about that conversation even if was outside the period in the subbpoena.And then he got her notes..Bennett probably just wanted the contempt citation lifted.

Mr. Potato

Russert spoke with Libby on July 3rd. The only other meeting earlier, that we know about, was Libby with Miller on June 23rd. However, earlier general info about the Niger trip was published in articles in May & June where Wilson himself was the source.

At the June 23 meeting where Miller went to interview Libby it appears Libby's knowledge of Wilson's trip was limited:
1) It is not clear Libby knew who was sent to Niger since it appears per Miller that Libby referred to a "clandestine guy".
2) Libby said VP did not know of Joe Wilson's trip.
3) Miller has written in her notebook "Wife works in bureau?" It is not clear what that meant. 'Bureau' would normally refer to FBI. Miller said she BELIEVES it was the first time she heard that Wilson's wife worked at bureau. And based on Miller's memory, it could have been a question she wrote down to ask.

As for the July 8 & 12 meetings:
1) Miller said it wasn't until the July 8 & 12 meetings where Libby played down Wilson's trip.
2) Miller had "Flame" written down in he notebook at a later date (not June 23 meeting) and she did not think it came from Libby.
3) While discussing the July 8 meeting with the GJ, Fitzgerald asked Miller if she could recalled discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. She said she had but could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred.
4) Miller also says "My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative,""

Libby could have learned about the "clandestine guy" from reading the May/June articles where Wilson was the source. The wife discussion was not at all clear based on Miller's notes or selective memory.

Finally, as TM has said before, Russert denied telling Libby 'Valerie's name' or that she was 'covert', but Russert has not denied saying 'Wilson's wife works at the CIA and was involved in sending Joe'.

I don't know how much Libby knew by June 23rd, but it seems like several reporters knew just as much, if not more, when asking the WH about it around that time period.

clarice

Sam Am--Where did Russert get the information from? And when did he get it?

I agree with Mr. Potato, the reporters knew more about the case than the WH did.

And why? Because I think this was a well-orchestrated campaign in which Kristof and Pincus were either dupes or complicit.

 topsecretk9

Clarice

If Libby testifies to June 23, since he acknowledges doing so, does that allow for Fitz to ask about it, outside of the scope...Libby has already testified to it and waived

ordi

Top,

Like I post at Mac's:

I agree when you wrote: contrary what the likes of Matt Cooper were telling her about the "war out on Wilson", Judy had already had a meeting with Libby did not see it! So next meeting with Libby, Judy asks about the rumors she is hearing about the "war out on wilson" and tipped Libby and the rest to NOT TAKE THE BAIT!

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall reading someone at CIA did not like what was being done. So they snitched to the WH or some other authority. I think I read it somewhere this past week. Do you know the source of what I‘m recalling this from?

If what I recall is true then it's possible Fitz not only has JM refuting the Rove was being mean to Mr. WILSON, he also has the CIA employee telling him Mr. Wilson's TEAM does not play nice with the Home Team. If the CIA employee and/or JM told the WH or other authorities about the plot being hatched , it could be why Rove wrote to Hadley he “Didn’t take the Bait!” Being forewarned is being forearmed!

 topsecretk9

BTW

Clarice, I found and interview of Wilson and Wass, and in it Wilson says he did not testify to GJ and they were interview by Ftizgerald early on separately. August 4, this year and at that point he had not talked to Fitz in a year and a half.

I posted at Mac.

 topsecretk9

Ordi,

I saw your post there and posted what you are recalling in the back of mind! It exists!

 topsecretk9

And yes Ordi, Fitz was crawling all over Langley

"...Agents investigating the matter have been increasingly apparent at CIA headquarters in Langley over the past three weeks, officials said. "They are still active," a senior official said..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25?language=printer

 topsecretk9

also clarice, what I posted to ordi at mac might explain the mention earleir today of March 2003

ordi

Top,

Sorry I should have checked Mac's prior to posting here.

I also posted this at Mac's:

If the CIA employee and/or JM told the WH or other authorities about the plot being hatched, it could be why Rove wrote to Hadley he “Didn’t take the Bait!” Being forewarned is being forearmed!

Is it possible CIA employee and/or JM give the WH the other teams playbook and Fitz also was given a copy of the handbook! If true, That would be Delectably Delicious! It would be like Wilie Coyote dropping the anvil on his OWN head! LOL

 topsecretk9

the cherry on top!

oldie but goodie

""My only regret about the Vanity Fair photo is that after all my wife and I have been through on this, that she had to be clothed as generic blonde in order to deal with the genuine concern that some wacko on the street might easily identify her," he said. "It was just in the interest of personal security."

Had nothing to do with protecting her cover, and what the heck is a "generic blonde"?

 topsecretk9

ordi

over to mac

clarice

top--

[quote]If Libby testifies to June 23, since he acknowledges doing so, does that allow for Fitz to ask about it, outside of the scope...Libby has already testified to it and waived[/quote]

Yes, that would be logical..But as to her notebook the subpoena wouldn't cover it. Still, I figure Bennett considered this, figured Fitz (who still had a contempt order hanging over Judy's head) would easily get a new subpoena, and decided to just turn it over..

topsecretk9

Clarice,

Did you see the interview where wilson said they had not been before GJ, said in 8-04-05

clarice

No, ts, but that is consistent with what I read--he and Plame were interviewed early by the FNI, but not witnesses before the gj/

if the inquiry is confined to the leak of Plame's name, why do you think Judy's subpoena ALSO required her to provide all documents relating to Iraq's efforts to pay uranium.

Salon's Jake Tapper notes that all the NYT attacks on Judy's credibility give Scooter a major break just in case Fitz had any notion of charging him on the basis of anything JM testified to..http://blogs.abcnews.com/downanddirty/2005/10/the_old_gray_la.html In other words, everyone who worked with her says she's not credible.

Mickey Kaus puts this down to the Time's dilemma--what do they want more to smear Miller or get Scooter convicted? LOL

clarice

Ahem--(fat fingers and tired eyes lead to typos)--should read Iraq's efforts to BUY uranium...

clarice

Interesting take on Libby in this (and why there have been no leaks from his office);

[quote]"Lots of witnesses want to put out their own spin'' after appearing before grand juries by talking to the media. "But Fitzgerald has been tougher, almost scaring the witnesses'' not to talk. "It's rare for a prosecutor. He's even done it to the press.''

Toensing also tried to shoot down some of the gossip about Fitzgerald's 22-month-old investigation, such as the idea that after such a lengthy probe that involved an epic battle with powerful media companies and White House figures, he has to bring charges or appear a failure or a fool.

"That's a horrible, horrible thought. The decision to indict or not to indict should be an equal decision," she said. "It should never be in a prosecutor's mind that I spent two years on this case, so I'm going to indict.'' [/quote]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/23/MNGAQFCQJ61.DTL


The pressuring witnesses not to take explains why we've heard so little from the witnesses and his refusal to play the game of leaking to selecteed reporters tidbits to scare other witnesses is a rare sign of character in this place.


clarice

Ahem--not to "talk" (not not to take)

robert lewis

Word is that the CIA has provided Fitzgerald with the names and identities of CIA agent(s) and "assets" who were killed as a result of Rove and Libby's loose lips (the eight sealed pages in the appeals opinion that kept Judy Miller in the clink). The death sentence provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917 might be triggered.

clarice

RL--Really? And where exactly does that "word" come from? Wilson , I suppose, tha man of a thousand discredited stories.

If the CIA actually had her running any operations they should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone stupid enough to marry this windy poseur, is too stupid to sun an intelligence operation.


About that gold star--I'd be astonished if it had anything to do with her and not, say, some operation in Afghanistan in which she had no involvement whatsoever.

clarice

"run", not "sun" *blushing for my non existent typing skills*

robert lewis

Discredited stories? Wilson? Hmmmm- seems Wilson said no Nigerian yellowcake. Turns out he told the truth; Bush and Cheney were the ones spreading the discredited stories - like Saddam and al-Qaeda link - or Iraqi WMD's - or that Valerie Plame picked Wilson - or "restoring dignity" to the White House - or that Miers was "the most qualified." How may lies do you swallow before your stomach turns, dude? Hannah and Wurmser have already cut deals with the prosecutor - who's next? Libby or Rove? And who can they flip on? Dick and George, that's who. If the NY Daily News story on Bush reaming Rove was accurate - then Bush lied to Fitzpatrick when he said he didn't know who the leaker was. Felony obstruciton of justice. Bye-bye.

mary mapes

Word is that the CIA has provided Fitzgerald with the names and identities of CIA agent(s) and "assets" who were killed

still not sure why the CIA allowed an "outed" agent (aldrich and cuba mishap) continue using her "outed" cover, I thought they were supposed to be tricky

clarice

RL--You must have failed to read the SSCI reports on Wilson http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_pat-roberts.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
And this:

clarice

RL--and this http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

robert lewis

Oh, no, I read them. Giving credence to anything that Pat Roberts had inserted into the report is something else entirely. however. More bad news from Washington Post, Clarice:

"Weeks after he took over the investigation 22 months ago into the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald got authority from the Justice Department to expand his inquiry to include any criminal attempts to interfere with his probe.
The letter specified that he could investigate and prosecute "perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and intimidation of witnesses."

Fitzgerald knew where this was going to wind up within a month of taking on the investigation. And now he's tieing up the loose ends before putting the crooks in a Federal pen.

clarice

Actually,I think he was just seeking to make explicit what was certainly implicit in the delegation of the AG's powers to him.

And on the public record to date, the only liar (even under oath) is Wilson.

robert lewis

WIlson - oh, you mean the guy George H.W. Bush called "a hero" for his work in Gulf War I?? As for lies, what about Karl Rove? First three times at Grand Jury he "forgot" about talking to Cooper, until his e-mail confirming same was discovered. Perjury charge #1 for Karl.

What about Scott McCellan? He said the charges aGainst Rove and Libby are
"ridiculous" - then said he had asked them, and they had "nothing to do with the leak."

What about Bush saying, "Anybody in my administration who had anything to do with the leaks, - they will be taken care of." Or is that BushSpeak for promoted rather than prosecuted??

robert lewis

WIlson - oh, you mean the guy George H.W. Bush called "a hero" for his work in Gulf War I?? As for lies, what about Karl Rove? First three times at Grand Jury he "forgot" about talking to Cooper, until his e-mail confirming same was discovered. Perjury charge #1 for Karl.

What about Scott McCellan? He said the charges aGainst Rove and Libby are
"ridiculous" - then said he had asked them, and they had "nothing to do with the leak."

What about Bush saying, "Anybody in my administration who had anything to do with the leaks, - they will be taken care of." Or is that BushSpeak for promoted rather than prosecuted??

Ghost Dansing

"Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group." Wall Street Journal

Little was written about the White House Iraq Group. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was secretive. Much later some newspaper articles mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.

Throughout those seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words. But the truth didn't matter the Republican administration.

The whisper-campaign against Wilson has left them and the Karl-Scooter tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

For Karl and Dubya to get what they wanted most, slam-dunk midterm election victories, and for Scooter and Dicak to get what they wanted most, a war in Iraq for reasons predating 9/11, their real whys for going to war had to be replaced by fictional ones that could be more easily sold. The U.S. wouldn't be invading Iraq to further Rovian domestic politics or neocon ideology; it would be done instead because there was a direct connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and because Saddam was on the verge of attacking America with nuclear weapons. The facts and intelligence had to be fixed to create these whys; any contradictory evidence had to be dismissed or suppressed.

Scooter and Dick were in the boiler room of the disinformation factory. Dick's repetitive hyping of Saddam's nuclear ambitions in the summer and fall of 2002 as well as his persistence in advertising bogus Saddam-Qaeda ties were fed by the rogue intelligence operation set up in his own office. Dicka and Scooter built their "case" by often making an end run around the C.I.A., State Department intelligence and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Their ally in cherry-picking intelligence was a similar cadre of neocon zealots led by Douglas Feith at the Pentagon.

One of WHIG's goals, successfully realized, was to turn up the heat on Congress so it would rush to pass a resolution authorizing war in the politically advantageous month just before the midterm election.

Joe Wilson wasn't a player in these exalted circles; he was a footnote who began to speak out only after Saddam had been toppled and the mission in Iraq had been "accomplished." He challenged just one element of the W.M.D. "evidence," the uranium that Saddam's government had supposedly been seeking in Africa to fuel its ominous mushroom clouds.

Based on what we know about Scooter and Karl hysterical over-response to Mr. Wilson's accusation, he scared them silly. They were hiding something much bigger.

kim

Clarice: The three gold stars in '03 are Northern European names.
=================================================

clarice

Thanks, Kim-- Ghost Dansing woulld it be too much trouble for you to share the wource of that quote with the rest of us?

clarice

[i]S[/i]ource, I mean. not wourse..

kim

CT has the starry link at 7:44 AM today on the 'Fight or Plea' thread.
==============================================

clarice

Thanks--it's Ghost's post for which I'd like a source.

jlukes

I love reading this right wing nonsense. It is the best comedy stuff ever. This must be what being on LSD is like. You guys should start a comedy show. I am not kidding. You see most comedy is about unexpected talk that is so off tangent and so crazy that it is funny, thanks for the laughs
PS Have a merry Fitzmas next week and may the frog marches begin

topsecretk9

Ghost pasted this diatribe here too? Must have seen Wilson's plea for help at DU.

Ghost Dansing

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112907415441266084-VDsI1ez92Qlr0_XPP5IbwfiUKHI_20051111.html?mod=blogs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9&notFound=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group

clarice

Looks like the DUmmies are responding to the call to arms! LOL

kim

Zombies: Present Arms.
======================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame