Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Jane Hamsher's Rolodex | Main | "It's Just A Mess For Everyone Involved" »

December 03, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83426578f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sometimes Nothing Is A Real Cool Hand:

» (Open Trackback) Weekend Round-Up from The Right Nation
Good news from Pakistan: the No. 3 official of al-Qaida, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse. Pakistan's president later confirmed the militant leader's death: "Yes indeed, 200 percent", he said. Deta... [Read More]

» Picking up honesty and putting it in its place from Classical Values
I'm all for restoring honesty. But the prestigiously named RestoreHonesty.com, originally set up by Joe Wilson (and which Glenn Reynolds noted was paid for by Kerry campaign) doesn't look very honest these days. I mean phentermine Buy Online Pharmacy? ... [Read More]

Comments

kim

It is not as if we have the full testimony of Miller and Cooper, who's information seems to be so critical to the judges. Will we have to wait for defense before we hear why their testimony is so all-fired important?
==================================================

Kate

Look for more and more stories about how the Bush Administration is dreading the Libby trial and how they wish Libby would plead and be done with it.

Translation:

It is really the media that is dreading this trial. Of course, they control the message and believe they can control the damage, but there are far more media outlets now.

Not good for the media, not good.

kim

What we got here, is failure to communicate.
=============================================

JM Hanes

My own theory is looking better and better. Fitz already knew he was going for the ancillary crimes back in Feb. '03, but he avoided confirming that decision publicly because he had to give his "suspects" a reason to lie.

He was still deliberately implying that national security charges were in play at his press conference announcing Libby's indictment. If you parse his words carefully, however, and also compare them to the language in the actual indictment, you'll find a lot of wiggle room for deniability on that score.

Kate

JM Hanes: full employment for Fitz. Is it a sting or is it entrapment?

Gary Maxwell

What BS. And just for the record Laurence O'Donnell may be the biggest idiot of all in this whole mess ( just could not type kerfuffle). It was classified because no one took the time to review it and now there is NOTHING the least bit classified or even of much interest in those 8 pages.

Anyone want to start alying the pictures of Fitz and ronnie Earle side by side and start looking for obvious family resemblances?

kim

Please, Fitz, surprise us all. Get the bad guys.
=================================================

JM Hanes

TM
Speaking of scores, you should pass your O'Donnell item along to Mickey Kaus, so that he can factor it into Mr. O's official batting average.

JM Hanes

Kate
When does entrapment turn into a sting? When the Deputy Top Dawg gives you permission to go for it.

DougJ

Most likely, the eight pages contain information about Wilson's misdeeds. That's the part of the case that is most sensitive for the CIA: the fact that the husband of one of its own operatives was working for a foreign intellignece agency! That will be tough to explain and I can see why there has been so pressure to keep those portions redacted.

When those "mystery pages" are released, the public will see what this probe has really been about.

danking

Will David Corn be called by the Libby defense to find out who told him Plame was a CIA NOC?

Wasn't his story the first to describe Plame as such?

Isn't it relevant to Libby's defense?

Neo

Why is it that as I read this, my mind didn't see this whole story as even a bad episode of the old TV show "The FBI" with Efrom Zimbalist, Jr. Rather, it keeps reading like a scene for Les Miserables.

All this started with a "non-crime". All the "crimes" occurred during the investigation.

Imagine if this had targeted some group like AARP, NARAL, NRA, ACLU, NOW or the Church of Scientology. Their officials and staff brought before a grand jury until some information mismatched and they all went to jail for "investigatory crimes."

This is sad.

Simon

More evidence Fitz is investigating the wrong column.

All Novak (and his sources) said was she worked for the CIA. Which was true. Was that sensitive information? Hard to believe someone with a desk job at HQ was worried people would find out they are CIA.

What is potentially illegal is outing a covert agent, or in this case, revealing the classified information that she used to be covert.

That means investigating Corn's sources, which, for the http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823>column in question, was mostly Wilson.

kim

Is Fitz failing to see the forest for the trees. Well, remember, we are looking at shadows on the wall. We really don't know what Fitz is seeing. But why I should believe in an omniscient prosecutor when I'm skeptical of such a deity, I don't know.
=============================================

maryrose

I agree with Gary. Lay those pictures of Fitzgerald and Earle side by side because both are over-zealous prosecutors who have to justify their existence and the amount of money that has been invested in this. Neither has a substantial case and both are to proud to admit it. Beware the justice system. Even today they are still whining about the redistricting in Texas. It's because the dems lost that battle and have to continue to press to have it there way.

DougJ

Wilson is going down. Libby walks.

The only question at this point is who Wilson takes with him. Pincus? O'Donnell? Russert? All three? Okay, maybe all three is wishful thinking. But I can dream, can't I?

DougJ

Maryrose, why is it that when the Dems don't like something, they take it to the courts? I guess it is because they can't win elections the usual way. But look at what we have going on right: politically motivated investigations of lobbyist Jack Abramoff (forgive me, but you can't put a guy in jail for having stupid clients, no matter how much his emails piss you off), a poitically motivated SEC investigation of Bill Frist, as well as the complete sham investigaitons of Libby, Rove, Cunningham, DeLay.

It's atrocious really that this is allowed to go on.

maryrose

I like how you think Doug and I agree with your assessment.

Jim E.

TM wrote: "The underlying crime is not really there. Put another way, Lewis Libby is an idiot (but we knew that)."

Such a pity, then, that Libby lied repeatedly and obstructed the investigation for no good reason. This is the caliber of person helping guide our nation?

Even more of a pity that you folks think this line of reasoning makes any sense at all.

Jim E.

DougJ,
None of the investigations you cite were instigated by the Democratic party. None.

And Cunningham pleaded guilty. I suppose, like Libby, Cunningham is dumb and pleaded guilty to a crime he never committed. Pity he's going to prison so willingly.

Jim E.

Anyone else want to vouch for Cunningham's innocence?

richard mcenroe

Jim E. — Cunningham had more integrity even in his resignation than Murtha. Look at the speculation Murtha had his little outburst to smokescreen his own ethical lapses... for that matter, a journalist with any integrity would look at who else Cunningham's sugar daddies had on their payroll. Fortunately, Souther California is short on those.

...and of course, Reid and Dorgan are really wishing their own party had not gone after Abramoff now, and no doubt more of the minority party will soon be following them.

Frist cleared his dealings three times with the Senate Ethics Committee. In writing.

Libby was charged as a sacrificial goat, nothing more. I'll be gobsmacked if he's convicted, even with a DC jury.

As for DeLay, this is going to be another Hutchison farce. Ronnie Earle used indicting him as a campaign fundraiser, for God's sake; how can you say this was not politically motivated?

Tom Maguire

My own theory is looking better and better. Fitz already knew he was going for the ancillary crimes back in Feb. '03, but he avoided confirming that decision publicly because he had to give his "suspects" a reason to lie.

I am stealing that, thanks.

Such a pity, then, that Libby lied repeatedly and obstructed the investigation for no good reason. This is the caliber of person helping guide our nation?

Even more of a pity that you folks think this line of reasoning makes any sense at all.

I'm open to suggestions, but my current guess is that Libby was not sure of her status and invented his "Plamed for the very first time" story to cover himself.

boris

My suggestion:

Libby was the self selected countermeasure for the conspira-seeking fitzssle. He knew what he was doing when in answer to a poorly worded question he expounded the bafflegab sure to draw fire.

Libby: I didn't recall that I had ever known

Known What?

Libby: What Russert was telling me

Since Russert claims he didn't tell Libby anything, the link to Plame, while implied, is FUBAR.

Russert: Did you know Wilson's wife is the real life prototype for the Sydney Bristow character on Alias?

Libby: Wow, I'm suprised, I don't recall ever knowing that !

So Russert "tells" Libby something he didn't actually say and Libbt is suprised.

poputonian

Now, just one minute.

I know you're only poking fun at O'Donnell's expense, but some people seem to think you've ordained the war cabal's innocence.

Let's look at what Fitzgerald said in mid-November, responding to the Dow-Jones action:

"In reviewing Rule 16 material discoverable by Mr. Libby, it is clear that, while the volume of material may be fairly discrete in light of the nature of the charges, a significant amount of that material is classified. It is anticipated that the classified material produced as discovery will be governed by a separate protective order, and the Government has proposed such a protective order to the Court with the consent of Mr. Libby's counsel."

So, are you dinging O'Donnell because the classified information is behind door number two (other material the judges reviewed), instead of door number one (the eight redacted pages)?

Fitzgerald also said in the final response: Secrecy is necessary for other material in the court ruling to .. protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation."

clarice

Secrecy is necessary because as I suspected quite some time ago there was nothing behind that classified curtain and Fitz has known that for some time and failed to notify the court of that.

Simon

What was classified was that Plame was covert.

But Libby et al. didn't tell Novak that.

Wilson (it appears) told Corn that.

Simon

("was" meaning used to be covert in the '90s)

JM Hanes


TM
"I am stealing that, thanks."

Anything for the cause (such as it is)!
I spelled it out in previous comments on 20 Nov and 05 Nov.

pollyusa

Something interesting from WAPO.

There is a new WAPO out that states that the Viveca/Luskin conversation occured in early 2004.

This article goes on to say that Rove's first Grand Jury testimony was after the Viveca/Luskin conversation and Rove did not disclose the fact that he spoke with Cooper during that testimony.

One person familiar with the case said the Novak-Luskin conversation is not what prompted Rove to change his testimony in the case. In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004. In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame.
WAPO 12/03/05

poputonian

Judge Tatel: "That said, without benefit of the adversarial process, we must take care to ensure that the special counsel has met his burden of demonstrating that the information is both critical and unobtainable from any other source. Having carefully scrutinized his voluminous classified filings, I believe that he has."

So, the judges carefully reviewed the "voluminous classified filings," which would seem to indicate they actually exist.

maryrose

Right again Clarice, nothing behind any of the doors, nothing classified. Hope you had a nice birthday!

Cecil Turner

In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame.

Which begs the question: did Rove ever testify that he did recall talking to Cooper about Plame? ISTM we're mostly relying on Cooper's side of that conversation, even though it appears that he forgot the lead-in at least.

By the way, did anyone else get a chuckle out of that WaPo story? The bit starting here had me rolling:

"There's no way that Viveca Novak knowingly, wittingly gave up a confidential source to Robert Luskin," Kelly said.
The only thing it lacked was the "Vivica had nothing to do with the matter" denial. [What, reporters gossiping about confidential sources? Inconceivable!]

clarice

Thanks, Mary.

I know this is off point, but as long as we are talking about reporters..how stupid do you have to be before the claim of bias, not ignorance, is warranted to explain awful reportage?I complained about this to the editors, but I doubt they'll print it and I have to vent:


The L.A. Times carries a piece today which begins http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-niger3dec03,0,4700538.story?coll=la-home-headlines :

[quote]WASHINGTON -- The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: How the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion. The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war -- and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger... [/quote]

Here's the problem with that lede.

(a) We never relied on the forged documents. As is well known, we relied on independent intelligence from the UK of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in AFRICA and the Butler Commission established that the British intelligence did not rely on the forged documents or a PURPORTED SALE FROM NIGER TO IRAQ of uranium .

(2) The documents did not inspire us "to send a former ambassador to the nation of Niger." As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence observed we never received those documents until EIGHT MONTHS AFTER the Wilson trip to Niger.


These are not minor errors and they involve well-known facts long on the public record.The misreporting is so bad as to constitute journalistic malpractice.

DougJ

"Jim E. — Cunningham had more integrity even in his resignation than Murtha."

Amen, R-Mac. I just don't thnk what Cunninghamd did -- essentially accept gifts from lobbyists -- was all that bad. Yes, some of the gifts were embarrassing (the period commodes come to him), but surely if we dug through the gifts Pelosi and Murtha have received we would things just as bad or worse.

Cunningham, like DeLay and Libby and Scanlon, is guilty primarily of being a Republican. Apparently, that's a jailable offense nowadays.

pollyusa

The new WAPO looks to be damaging to both Rove and Luskin.

Ther new information on the timing of the Viveca/Luskin conversation must be coming from Viveca's side.

It looks like Luskin knew about Rove telling Cooper in early 2004 and still Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame.

DougJ

"The new WAPO looks to be damaging to both Rove and Luskin."

Oh, please. There is no turn this case can take that the moonbats won't describe as harmful to Rove. The day Fitz dismisses all charges against Rove and Libby, I'm sure you'll be saying that Rove is in more trouble than ever.

pollyusa

DougJ

I can only assume that you are uninterested in the new information in the Washington Post article regarding the timing of the conversation between Viveca Novak and Luskin.

Why you would feel it necessary to refer to me as a moonbat is unclear.

cathyf
he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame.
The WaPo is being cute again. If Rove said, "I don't remember talking to any reporters about Plame" or "I didn't talk to anyone not authorized for classified info about Plame, as far as I can recall" then sure, their paraphrase "he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame" is technically correct. But so is "he did not recall talking to the Easter Bunny about Plame." The WaPo construction implies that Rove volunteered something about Cooper specifically in the GJ testimony, which would makes his testimony implausible, as opposed to a construction that states that Rove said nothing about Cooper at all.

cathy :-)

DougJ

Sorry I called you a moonbat, pollyusa. But it is annoying how liberals seize upon every scrap of evidence -- even exculpatory evidence -- in the Rove case and say "Aha, he's guilty."

The truth is that there was no underlying crime here on the part of the White House. Unfortunately, it looked for a time as though Fitz was going to prosecute people, in effect, for having bad memories. With Woodward's and now Viveca Novak's testimony, that looks increasingly unlikely. One can only hope that the probe will shift its focus to the work Joe Wilson did on behalf of European intelligence agencies.

topsecretk9

Funny, I thought the WAPO was "worser" for Cooper.

"but it was not as closely guarded a secret as Time editors now believe it should have been."

clarice

I love when the media reports on itself--I think they need a National Commissioner of babblegook to cut thru the crap--

pollyusa

Apology accepted Doug.

We definitely look at the Plame story from different angles.

Here is why I think this WAPo story from VandeHei is damaging for Rove.

First:
The article closes in on the date of the Viveca Novak/Luskin conversation. Since the article states that the conversation occured before Rove's 1st Grand Jury testimony in Feb 2004, the conversation must have occured in Jan or Feb 2004.

Second:
The article states that "In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame."

This is important for 2 reasons, it implies that Rove was asked about talking to Cooper in his 1st GJ appearance and second we know that Rove's lawyer already knew about Cooper.

Third:
The email comes up again. The article says that

The e-mail was written from Rove's government account, which investigators searched early in the inquiry. It is unclear why the e-mail was not discovered at that time.

Maybe it was discovered by investigators early in the investigation, maybe not. If not why not?

I have thought it possible that Investigators might haver known about Rove's conversation with Cooper. Waas had this:

decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in large part because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove,

The same sources said Ashcroft was also told that investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview.

DougJ

Polly, before you start celebrating Rove's "demise", you really should read a little about what Joe Wilson was really up to. Here's a good place to start

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4970

arrowhead

"It looks like Luskin knew about Rove telling Cooper in early 2004 and still Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame."

Luskin could have talked to Novak about the Cooper conversation and Rove could still claim not to recall that conversation. We know that the matter did not become critical until the very end of the gj based on the Fitz/Luskin meeting on the eve of the Libby indictment. It looks like Luskin hastened to "remind" Fitzgerald at the last minute that the basis for the brief conversation instigated by Cooper was welfare reform - not speculation about Wilson/Plame. Regardless of the timing of the Luskin/Novak conversation, I don't see how Fitzgerald gets from those facts to his theory that the WH conducted a campaign to ruin the sainted Wilsons.

Truzenzuzex

pollyusa:

Second:
The article states that "In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame."

This is important for 2 reasons, it implies that Rove was asked about talking to Cooper in his 1st GJ appearance and second we know that Rove's lawyer already knew about Cooper.

It also implies that Rove and Luskin conspired to allow Rove to perjure himself and obstruct justice.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Luskin is an officer of the court, and he cannot knowingly be complicit in perjury and obstruction without facing the same criminal liability as Rove.

A more reasonable explaination would be that Rove actually didn't remember it, and even the rumor Luskin heard from Novak didn't help his memory. The idea that they found the memo confirming Rove's conversation before he first testified and still lied about it to the grand jury is patently absurd.

clarice

I did a quick google on Tom Hamburger one of the 2 LAT reporters who co-authored the piece of merde I cited above and notice that he was on a recent PBS program where he was introduced as someone who'd been closely following this case.

LOL..Do you have to flunk some really easy intelligence test to make it in the msm?

Neuro-conservative

I don't understand how this affects the veracity of his testimony. Can't he have heard about Cooper's testimony from V-Nov, Luskin, and the tooth fairy but still not independently remember it himself? This gets back to a point that has been made here many times -- it is not a crime to have a fallible, non-autistic memory. Just ask Bill & Hillary Clinton.

anon

This DougJ character who has been posting here recently is a lefty who lives over at John Cole's blog. Check it out if you don't believe me.

His "rightwing nut" ramblings here are his version of a joke that he boasts about over at Balloon-Juice.

He is a troll. Ignore him.

TM should ban him.

Rick Ballard

No, actually DougJ is the same DougJ who posted at Totten's place for a good long time, has posted at Simon's place regularly and is remarkably consistant in his complete disdain for lefties. Maybe the tone has become a bit more strident over time but dealing with seditionists (no one on this board at the moment merits that term) is wearisome. As is reading dull lies written by incredibly dull people.

Anon of anon email might be construed as being that very type.

anon

Rick,

Sorry for boring you, but I'm almost sure that the DougJ at JOM is the same DougJ at BJ.

I may be wrong.

maryrose

I am new to this site and feel as though Doug has been to coin a phrase" fair and balanced."

Rick Ballard

Maryrose,

Maybe "fairly unbalanced" might be closer. Cunningham does belong in jail. If he's a Moby then he's so good at it that he has defeated the purpose.

At least I'm reminded of why I never go to Balloon Juice.

DougJ

Rick, yes I am the same DougJ of whom you speak. I know of Joe Gandelman's Balloon Juice blog, but I do not read it regularly. It appears that I have a doppleganger there.

I am sorry if I have become strident towards some of the lefties. I do have friends who are lefties but I find that when it comes to politics some of them have become so "sure" of their "positions", such as they are, as to be unbearable.

pollyusa

DougJ

I try to read all the articles from the left and the right. I had already read the article you referenced, but thanks for pointing it out..I am interested in any and all information. I know the right hopes that Wilson will be implicated in some way, but I just haven't seen any indication that Fitz is headed in that direction.

Jim

Luskin could have talked to Novak about the Cooper conversation and Rove could still claim not to recall that conversation.
We know that the matter did not become critical until the very end of the gj

I have to disagree on this point. I think the Cooper/Rove conversation has been a central feature in the investigation for a long time. Certainly since Cooper was subpoenaed in the fall of 2004 and maybe before that.

It looks like Luskin hastened to "remind" Fitzgerald at the last minute that the basis for the brief conversation instigated by Cooper was welfare reform

Again, I think we disagree here. I don't think Fitz forgot that Rove characterized the Cooper/Rove conversation as being about welfare. Cooper stated "A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform."

Truzenzuzex

The idea that they found the memo confirming Rove's conversation before he first testified and still lied about it to the grand jury is patently absurd

Neither the WAPO article or I said that Rove found the memo before he first testified. The article says:

In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004

And I agree with you on the point that Luskin's and or Rove's actions here don't make sense.

DougJ

Polly, I appreciate your open mindedness. I have been accused of becoming "strident" towards lefties. I shouldn't have called you a moonbat. My sincere apologies.

Rick Ballard

DougJ,

I'm glad that it wasn't you. I am sympathetic to a growing stridency given the level of bad faith argument that was occurring on Totten's blog in particular. There are only a couple of people here that descend to the level that many dropped to at Totten's. Bad faith begets hyperbole and I have been as guilty as anyone in overreacting to obvious propagandists.

I'm sorry that Cunningham has to go to jail but he went too far. Selling a vote is different than writing a letter. That said, I doubt that we will see the end of the misuse of the justice system any time soon. It's the only hope the dying party has left.

DougJ

I'll admit that Cunningham belongs in jail, but so do many Democratic lawmakers who will never go through any sort of investigation.

topsecretk9

Clarice
Tom Hamburger is the same LA Times writer that get his info from Wilson.

maryrose

Some of my best friends are liberals. Ienjoy hearing both sides of an argument or debate.

arrowhead

"I think the Cooper/Rove conversation has been a central feature in the investigation for a long time. Certainly since Cooper was subpoenaed in the fall of 2004 and maybe before that."

polyusa - Once again, regardless of whether a conversation was "a central feature" in an investigation, Fitzgerald is still faced with the same problem: no underlying crime, no conspiracy to smear the Wilsons. No matter what Novak may say she discussed with Luskin, that does not change Rove's lack of "recollection" of the conversation with Cooper.

Fitzgerald had his opportunity all through the term of gj1 to bring an indictment against Rove and didn't. My guess is that he tried to get him for releasing "confidential information" and was unable to get the gj to go along with him. Now it appears that he's determined to wring out a perjury indictment against Rove for not recalling this apparently memorable conversation with this unimpressive "journalist" from Time. This is not why he was appointed to investigate the Wilson/Plame matter. It's unbecoming and a gross waste of time and money.

clarice

TS--Really?
How interesting.
Well, I wrote his editors about this piece of B.S. I doubt they'll publish it, but let's keep hope alive.

Where can I find the connection between him and Wilson--Maybe I'll keep writing about him for a while. Looks liks a fertile field.

(Did the LAT fire all its editors? How did such crap make it par=st them?)

owl

Get em Clarice. Reading that LAT article made my ears steam to such a point, I think I vented strongly on Murtha over at Polipundit. That piece was all known lies.

owl

And on that subject of lies, why in this universe would we be expected to believe Cooper after his behavior and who he was married to in the midst of an election?

owl

I still think the spouses of too many of these reporters are in the picture.

clarice

Instapundit noticed someone else smelled the mendacious pile at the LAT..http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/006087.html#006087

DougJ

The LAT must be the most blatantly biased paper in the entire country. And that's saying something given the existence of the NYT and Washington Post. Their vendetta against Arnold is laughable.

Truzenzuzex

polyusa:

Neither the WAPO article or I said that Rove found the memo before he first testified.
You are right. I don't know where I thought I read that, but after re-reading what you wrote I see that I must have imagined it. Sorry.
And I agree with you on the point that Luskin's and or Rove's actions here don't make sense.
Ah, now it's my turn for a "gotcha". I didn't say or imply Luskin and/or Rove's actions didn't make sense. To the contrary, If we assume Rove really didn't remember the Cooper conversation, their actions make perfect sense.

Besides, if they were going to get caught in a lie, why would Rove have waived Cooper's confidentiality agreement? He surely didn't have to, and if you are assuming a conspiracy, his lawyer would have surely recommended that he not release Cooper. Why would Luskin want to get disbarred and possibly charged with obstruction just to help Rove?

MJW

I wonder if Libby's lawyers have weighed in on whether the redacted portions of Fitzgerald's brief should be released. On the one hand, it allows Fitz to once again present his case against Libby; I doubt if a brief intended to convince judges that the case was serious enough to jail reporters includes a lot of exculpatory evidence. On the other hand, the contrast between what was thought to be in the redacted section, and what apparently was actually there, tends to cast the investigation in an unfavorable light.

kim

DJ, I believe I went round and round with one of your doppelgangers on polipundit, probably about the Swifties. That's one of the raeasons I worried that you were pulling my chain about Wilson. What you seem to know about Joe matches what I know I feel about him. I drag a huge Joe chain around begging people to pull on it.
=======================

DougJ

"I drag a huge Joe chain around begging people to pull on it."

I do too. So it is possible that my belief in the theories about his working for foreign intelligence are the result of someone having pulled on mine. But I think not -- I really think he is going down.

richard mcenroe

So let me see if I understand this properly now.

Fitz apparently decided early in the investigation that he was not going to be able to charge anyone with criminally outing Plame.

Fitz then apperently went on with his investigation in the hopes that he would catch someone out in contradictory statements for which he could charge them... in his investigation for which he could not prove an original crime.

In other words, since he couldn't prove one crime, he would help them commit another so he could catch them.

If this guy was a beat cop, you'd have to check him for a throw-away piece every time he left the precinct house.

Cecil Turner

So it is possible that my belief in the theories about his working for foreign intelligence are the result of someone having pulled on mine.

Well, I'd be skeptical of any theory based on that American Thinker article. Most of it looks to be uncheckable, and one of the few verifiable contentions was just plain wrong:

But every government involved already knew the truth about the bogus document, because it showed incorrect names of Niger officials. A single telephone call to Niger would have established that fact.
Not even close. As the SSCI report pointed out (p.47), there were "no obvious inconsistencies" in the names and dates. And in fact, the day before they took the decision to send Wilson, the embassy answered that question exactly:
On February 18,2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal “provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger’s uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions. [emphasis added]
Some of the other contentions in Lewis's piece are plausible, but that big stinker just won't flush. Similarly, the Waas piece PollyUSA quoted has this brilliant bit:
Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely the result of a hoax.
Which, a year after the SSCI report, is so obviously wrong (and slanted in Wilson's favor) that it makes me unwilling to accept any other characterization from him. In short, there's a lot of disinformation floating around, most of which leads to pat answers about obvious perfidy on the part of either Rove or Wilson. I suspect the answer is a lot less black-and-white.

kim

Richard, there is no such thing in the world as good as a good cop, and nothing so bad as a bad cop. I have found it difficult to believe that a bad cop could rise to the top of his profession, but I like your characterization. Maybe not so evil as unable to distinguish right from wrong in front of his face, but great for busting what he's pointed at. I have given him more credit than that, but you are amusing.
==================================

maryrose

I have to diaagree with Doug and Kim . Much as I would love to see Wilson exposed for the poseur and fraud that he is , he ia a non-player in this indictment and this investigation
.He is a civilian and as such he can say or do whatever he likes. A small fish in a big pond who wants to be a big fish.

kim

It's pretty black and white that Joe is living in a fantasy world. I don't know about Rove; more like he's living the dream.
==========================================

pollyusa

Cecil

Which begs the question: did Rove ever testify that he did recall talking to Cooper about Plame?

This article has the information about Rove's testimony that he did tell Cooper about Plame.

Rove has at some point testified that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper, according to two lawyers involved in the case. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say when Rove gave this testimony.
WAPO 7/23/05

kim

Maybe he's a civilian, but he seems to know, certainly claimed to know, more than a civilian should. In other words, de jure civilian, de facto operator. Whether or not he operated within a cabal is the only important question. Fitz is bright enough to understand that; what is his will?
===================================================

maryrose

Here's hoping Wilson is involved in a cabal. Ihope Fitzgerald will stand up to the lies and subterfuge coming out of Wilson's camp.

clarice

Richard, he does seem to have engaged in some on the line practices...here and elsewhere. It doesn't rise to entrapment, but to have suggested he was dealing with a national security breach--the subject of his referral--when he long knew he wasn't suggests he was trolling for someone, anyone to indict on anything.

pollyusa

Truzenzuzex

It also implies that Rove and Luskin conspired to allow Rove to perjure himself and obstruct justice.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Luskin is an officer of the court, and he cannot knowingly be complicit in perjury and obstruction without facing the same criminal liability as Rove.

This is where we went on different tangents regarding "making sense". I was referring to this comment. I was agreeing with you when you said the implication that Rove and Luskin conspired.. didn't make sense.

Besides, if they were going to get caught in a lie, why would Rove have waived Cooper's confidentiality agreement?

Cooper and the other reporters didn't consider the general WH waiver legitimate. This article details the series of events that concluded in the Rove waiver. This all occured on the day Cooper was to go to jail.

Also remember that TIME magazine had already agreed to release Cooper's notes and emails, which implicated Rove, to Fitz.

Cecil Turner

Thanks Polly (BTW, here's a working link). And
here's another from the same time frame paraphrasing Luskin's version:

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue.
And sorry, but second-hand anonymous sources are a bit too nebulous for me to take as evidence Karl's version matches Cooper's.

Cecil Turner

Cooper and the other reporters didn't consider the general WH waiver legitimate.

They also didn't think it worth tracking down a specific one until facing the prospect of jail time. Further, some media theorists claim the "privilege" not to divulge sources is the media's (since the effect they seek is the perception of confidentiality for future sources), not the source's. Combine that with the slipshod handling of this supposedly deep cover information, and the moral high ground on source protection appears to be a case study in situational ethics. (Where, not surprisingly, Republican administration officials can expect less protection than other sources.)

TomJ

second-hand anonymous sources are a bit too nebulous for me for me to take as evidence Karl's version matches Cooper

The source is Luskin, who is not anonymous. Why are you suggesting otherwise? And if you're claiming that Luskin is not to be trusted as a reliable source, then you should explain why Rove is allowing his lawyer to mislead the public. Or why Rove would hire a lawyer who would do such a thing.

As far as matching versions, Luskin has pointedly declined to indicate that there is any discrepancy between the two versions with regard to the core issue: Rove told Cooper that Plame=CIA.

Where, not surprisingly, Republican administration officials can expect less protection than other sources.

Any official who is exploiting that protection in order to get away with deceiving the public has forfeited any right to be protected. Nevertheless, Cooper (and other reporters) kept providing that protection for the period that mattered: the period preceding 11/2/04. In other words, the coverup worked.

Rove didn't get less protection than he deserved. He got more.

kim

And just why, TJ, do you suppose they went to all that trouble to protect Rove?
==================================================

Cecil Turner

The source is Luskin, who is not anonymous. Why are you suggesting otherwise?

The point of the second link is that Luskin gives a slightly different version from the first (which quotes two anonymous lawyer sources, which Polly quoted above). Do try to keep up.

By the way, you seem to be dodging the question of whether or not you're a.k.a. Jukeboxgrad.

TomJ

why, TJ, do you suppose they went to all that trouble to protect Rove?

For a variety of different reasons, some less honorable than others (much like various people supported the war for various reasons, some less honorable than others).

I think Cooper kept quiet because he's an honest person and he felt he was keeping a promise. I predict he will eventually realize, and admit, that his judgment was poor, and he had a duty not to protect a government that was lying to the public.

I think Miller and Woodward kept quiet because they are owned. Novak (R) is also in that category.

For various other people (V Novak, Cooper's editors) I'm less willing to guess a motive, but it's probably some combination of the motives I just mentioned.

Why do you suppose they went to all that trouble to protect Rove?

kim

I think they are protecting first, themselves, second,Joe and his lying meme. I hope, nearly pray, Fitz can and will pierce those protections, with or without the help of Rove's and Libby's defense teams.
===============================================

kim

I might add that in the middle of all this protection racket the one thing that clearly is not being protected, is the truth.

And what else, besides beauty, is worth protecting?
=============================================

kim

I loved JBG, but he was a junkyardog, protecting even my junkyard. If TJ is JBG, he's either been to the vet to get tutored or the obedience school to be taught manners. Not quite as sound in wind or link, either. You've not seen ten feet of column inches from TJ, yet.
================================================

maryrose

Tom J you are drinking the kool-aid of the left right now. Look how fellow reporters at theNYT turned on JM the minute they found out who her source was. Republicans never get the confidentiality they were PROMISED by reporters because the agendas differ. There is no hidden agenda with republicans. They are merely Tough On Terror!

owl

TomJ
"Any official who is exploiting that protection in order to get away with deceiving the public has forfeited any right to be protected. Nevertheless, Cooper (and other reporters) kept providing that protection for the period that mattered: the period preceding 11/2/04. In other words, the coverup worked."

Says who? I keep hearing that first sentence spouted by the reporters. Biggest crock of them all. "Forfeited any right" sure sounds like the high ground but unfortunately, I see nothing but low ground where it concerns all these reporters. Do you think I believe Cooper? Why would I? If this was deep cover to explain a situation, why was he taking all these notes? Why did he then go out and write a hit on his source? Then fake a 'I will never testify' and then run a campaign against his source? This is the person that is making the decision about who forfeits rights? When pigs fly.

kim

Toot for ToT.
=============

kim

He is simply deluded to think they were protecting Rove. It diverts him from the real question, which is: Who and what are they protecting? Shareholders? Their editors? The truth? Oh my living God,forsooth on these sayers!
======================================

maryrose

Owl,
You are totally correct in your argument re: cooper. I don't believe or trust him either.

DougJ

TJ: Put down the Kool-Aid and slowly back away.

Truzenzuzex

Pollyusa:

This is where we went on different tangents regarding "making sense". I was referring to this comment. I was agreeing with you when you said the implication that Rove and Luskin conspired.. didn't make sense.
OK. Just to clarify what I meant, I am saying that it is not a reasonable conclusion that Rove and Luskin both were aware of Cooper's conversation prior to Rove's appearance before the GJ and deliberately failed to disclose it when asked.

I suppose it is technically possible that Rove deliberately lied and just didn't inform Luskin of his lie until long after his original appearance. Frequently though, a defense lawyer would resign as council under such a circumstance. What I am saying is that basically, there is no evidence we know of that supports the conclusion Rove deliberately gave false testimony.

Cooper and the other reporters didn't consider the general WH waiver legitimate. This article details the series of events that concluded in the Rove waiver. This all occured on the day Cooper was to go to jail.
What Cooper "considered ... legitimate" is utterly irrelevant to its legitimacy. From a legal standpoint, Rove's release was unquestionably legitimate in every way. Cooper's interpretaion was Cooper's problem, not Rove's.
Also remember that TIME magazine had already agreed to release Cooper's notes and emails, which implicated Rove, to Fitz.
Exactly, which further begs the question - why would Rove knowingly place himself in legal jeopardy when he knew that fact of his conversation with Cooper would be disclosed?

Remember, Cooper was subpoenaed to testify back on May 21st, 2004 and Rove didn't testify until Oct. 15th of 2005. Rove already knew Cooper was likely to be forced to talk. Are we to believe he lied anyway? Should we further believe that Luskin would have failed to inform his client that the case law was against a successful legal challenge by Time and the NYT?

In sum, the answer to all the above is clearly "not likely."

TomJ

I think they [reporters] are protecting ... Joe

In the period before the election, the White House told us Rove wasn't involved. Cooper knew that Rove was, indeed, involved. Cooper decided not to tell us this until much later. In what way did this amount to protecting Joe, rather than protecting Rove?

Republicans never get the confidentiality they were PROMISED by reporters

These Republicans did indeed get the confidentiality they were promised, during the period that counted, the period that ended on 11/2/04. The coverup worked, in other words.

There is no hidden agenda with republicans

If Rove had no hidden agenda in speaking with Cooper, why did he ask Cooper to hide Rove's role?

Do you think I believe Cooper? Why would I?

One reason to believe Cooper is that his account is essentially corroborated by Luskin. Another reason to believe Cooper is that his account is essentially corroborated by the email he wrote minutes after getting off the phone.

If this was deep cover to explain a situation, why was he taking all these notes?

There's nothing wrong with the fact that Cooper took notes. On the contrary. Why would you sugggest otherwise?

Why did he then go out and write a hit on his source?

He didn't. A hit on his source would have said this: "guess what Rove told me."

and then run a campaign against his source

Telling the truth in response to a subpoena is hardly running a campaign. Anyway, Cooper delayed that "campaign" until after 11/2/04. That is a very important fact, which people like you seem unwilling to grasp. This decision by Cooper arguably had very large consequences.

clarice

They protected from public view the fact that Joe was a lying joke--along with the VIPS.Dana Milbank was the first to expose what the press corps knew about them but only after the election when they were almost all rooting for Kerry.

Doubt that? Except for Sue Schmidt there wasn't a single major piece telling the public what the SSCI said about Joe's story--and yesterday the LAT continued repeating his lies as if they were true.

DougJ

Listening to TJ and Polly, I wonder is there any theory so implausible that it would strain the limits of liberal gullibility. Oh, well what do you expect from people who buy into the theory of evolution?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame