Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Why Should You Care About Reporters' Reading Disabilities? | Main | The PDBs Would Have Been Easier »

March 22, 2006

Comments

Jim E.

TM,
Leopold quotes directly from the the court transcript. Jeffress said: "This is some person not in the White House." I wouldn't take much of what Leopold "reports" too seriously, but I am willing to trust that he is able to quote a transcript correctly.

Leopold's article says that news reports have increasingly focused on Armitage as the source in recent weeks "based solely" on Bradlee's comments to Vanity Fair. That's true as far as the print media. But Leopold fails to mention that another simple reason that Armitage has been focused on as of late--at least on the blogs--is that "Armitage" fits the redacted spaces in court documents while "Hadley" is too short. It seems that Leopold ought to address that major discrepancy. After all, it seems to single-handedly undercut his article.

topsecretk9

JimE

The Armitage and Hadley stacked on top of each other illustrate your point (at least in my browser)

Another reason Armitage gets heavy focus? He still won't answer his telephone and say "No, it is not me"

narciso

Armitage is interesting. Part of the Powell clique;
he spent the '90s, working the Azeri oil lobby, like Jim Baker, & Carlucci. In a different time he'd be one of the mysterious cabal on '24.

Jim E.

Hadley hasn't offered a clear-cut denial, either. Still, Armitage seems the heavy favorite at this point.

Patton

Went back to Fitz's response to Libby motion for reporter data...missed this the first time.

So why would Pincus have to deny Woodward had told him about Plame??

Fitz informs us the Pincus had submitted an affidavit swearing that he learned of Plame no earlier then July 12th.
Pincus now has to stick with that affidavit, even though Woodward is now alleging Pincus might just have submitted a false affidavit.

Jim E.

Woodward has never alleged that Pincus might have submitted a false affidavit.

topsecretk9

Hadley hasn't offered a clear-cut denial, either.

Hadley was playful, but everyone forgets...because he was so playful (while in China) a staffer issued a denial.

ArmItage on the otherhand, has issued nothing.

Patton

Well this is what Woodward swore to:

Woodward's statement said he testified: "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."

Pincus has denied this.

Patton

From Woodward:
""I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. Pincus does not recall that I passed this information on."""

Woodward does not also state that Pincus had submitted an affidavit to Fitzgerald affirming he learned of Plame on 12 July, but that certainly contradicts Pincus's affidavit.

topsecretk9

I am pretty sure John Podhoretz caught this...that's why Pincus had himself quoted so many times saying he didn't remember this at all.

[So he did - Pod link.]

clarice

Well, there we have it perjury and obstruction! Couldn't possibly be a mistake.

Woodward also says it is possible he told Libby in late June though he has no specific recollection of that.

If one person(Libby) is charged with a lack of high autism, why not all?

Jim E.

Woodward isn't sure that Pincus ever heard him, and has said so.

So I repeat: Woodward has never alleged that Pincus might have submitted a false affidavit.

topsecretk9

Woodward isn't sure that Pincus ever heard him

yeah, Woodward got Walter's smoke signals that Wooward just threw Walt under the train...

kim

Oh, sure, Jim E. but the implications of Woodwards statements are that Pincus's are not true. Is it allegation or is it deduction?
====================================

Patton

""Woodward isn't sure that Pincus ever heard him""

Why was he yelling across the room??
Was Pincus in a coma?

WEll based on Woodwards testimony and Pincus's affidavit, I AM suggesting Pincus affidavit is suspect and needs further investigation, thus all subpeonas on TWP should be honored.

Patton

Jim E.

Just where has Woodward stated that Pincus may not have heard him.

All I have seen is Pincus saying that 'Woodward said' he may not have heard him, which is a pretty self serving statement. But where is Woodward quoted? And did he swear to it to Fitz?

Sue

It would explain why Pincus wasn't interested in what the SAO told him about Wilson's wife.

topsecretk9

Patton

I think it was an Editor&Publish article Walter was whining too as soon a Woodward said he'd testified to it...talk about allege...Walt actually comes to that about Woodward (that Woodward lying)...any how after Walter whining Woodward responds that it is possible that Walt didn't here him and then says that is that is what Walter says, then WoodW believes him.

\Shoo...sure glad Woodward gave Pincus a heads up that he may have a problem. Becuase you know how much Fitz loves "press reports" to fill for an investigation.

topsecretk9

too = to
here = hear

and I am sure there are more so put in am equal

topsecretk9

One more time

Walt blames WW, says WW didn't say it. WW says okay it's possible Walt didn't hear me, WW also says if that is Walts version then I'll believe him.

Sue

Top,

You need another cup of coffee. ::grin:: WW?

cathyf

TSK9 -- I think "WW" is Robert (Bob) Woodward. Do I get a prize if I'm right? Or maybe I need some more coffee?

cathy :-)

Patrick R. Sullivan

If we can trust Jason Leopold to copy from the transcript, here's another falsehood from Fitzgerald:

'...my understanding is that was a reference that everyone knows it, that Mr. Wilson is the unnamed ambassador," Fitzgerald said. "Mr. Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed ambassador until July 6.'

How could Fitz not know about the EPIC speech in June?

And then there's something of a confession of error here too:

'...frankly there is a very limited number of reporters that we found out who had known it. I can't represent we know every reporter because we took seriously the attorney general guidelines.'

And, by so doing, limited his ability to find out the truth.

topsecretk9

cathyf wins

WoodWard. Bad choice.

Tejano C

OT

I will be entering an indeterminate period of radio silence (or, in Bauer-speak, "going dark").

I've got a line on some extra copies of "Red Dawn" if ya get bored on your break. Enjoy!


cathyf

This is a curiosity question for lawyers: are court officers bound to tell the truth in court filings, and liable for purjury and/or obstruction charges if they do not?

Because the statement that PRS highlights above seems to fit the perjury+obstruction criteria that Fitzgerald invented to indict for the Libby-Cooper conversation even better than the Libby-Cooper conversation does.

cathy :-)

richard mcenroe

Hadley, Armitage — From the POV of Libby's defense, either is good and both might be better, since multiple suspects widens the range of reasonable doubt and further weakens the supposition that Libby had any reason to lie, yes?

topsecretk9

Pat -- put it this way

--How could Fitz not know about the EPIC speech in June?--...frankly there is a very limited number of reporters that we found out who had known it.

A room full of press and lobbyists walking out the door with scandal marching orders and a program that doesn't pass the "smell test"

Ok, like the MIB thing, I think they didn't/don't even know about EPIC

kim

It's just pretty goddamned discouraging that with all the resources of the taxing authority of our federal government, Fitz ended up so pitifully ignorant. How did this child get left behind?
=================================

Sue

Spend a few minutes reading this document by http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906J.shtml>Jason Leopold. We could have one of those contests where instead of finding what is wrong with the article, you could find what is right.

I'll change the rules and start with this

The CIA, State Department and National Security Council officials said that early on they had passed on information about Wilson to Cheney and Libby that purportedly showed Wilson as being a "womanizer" and that he had dabbled in drugs during his youth, allegations that are apparently false, they said.

The article is written in February 2006. Surely by then Mr. Leopold had read Mr. Wilson's book.

clarice

Well, the SPIC speech was given in a remote place---downtown DC--and until a few weeks ago the tape of his remarks (and confession he wa the source of Kristof and Pincus' piece) was available online to anyone who checked the website. One of those deep, dark secrets so impossible to ferrit out with a trainload of crack FBI agents on the case.

clarice

EPIC, not SPIC

and ferrEt not ferrit..Sheesh ts is typolitis catching?

Patton

This former analyst who attended the EPIC speech says Wilson said alot more off the stage...he wasn't shy about admitting directly he WAS the Ambassador from the articles:

RAY McGOVERN
Do You Know the Ambassador?
"When introduced to former ambassador Wilson at the June 14 conference,
I wasted no time asking him-rather naively, it turned out-if he knew who
the former U.S. ambassador who went to Niger was. He smiled and said,
"You're looking at him." "

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10202005.html

So Wilson was definitely public as the source as of June 14th.

clarice

The transcript of the Q and A after the speech confirms that Wilson said he was the former ambassador referred to in both those pieces.(The cite to the transcription of the EPIC appearance is in this article). http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3345

Gary Maxwell

How did this child get left behind?

Im I have to admit to thinking recently you have been in a slump. But with this line drive in the gap I am thinking a 39 game hitting streak is on the cusp. I laughed out loud.

Lew Clark

I think there is a semantics play on "White House" here just like they've played with "covert". What does "White House" really mean. Is it a building where people work. You work there your "White House". You work across the street, your not "White House". Or is it the meaning I've always given it. "White House" means the President or someone speaking for the President, doesn't matter where their office is physically located. Because if you wanted to play games, couldn't you say "Someone, not in the White House" to describe the President, because when he said it, he was on Air Force One, not in the White House?

kim

I've not been very amused, lately.
====================

Gary Maxwell

One of my first days on JOM awhile back I can remeber someone bringing up the EPIC speech. I read it and thought it odd, since it was delivered in the third person. But Clarice is right, the Q & A makes it abundantly clear that Joey Wilson told anyone who would listen that he was that Ambassador.

Funny I noticed the other day that WEilson never truly was an Ambassoador. Acting Ambassador due to a resignation or something. Probably helps explain his "fish story" that got bigger as he retold it.

Patton

Fitz must think something isn't real until its published in the NYT.

kim

I really had a lot of faith that the wise ol' Fitz was figuring it all out. I'm very disillusioned about the chances of the truth of Plamegate getting out. Especially when Fitz folds.
===================================

noah

OT, but congratulations to American Thinker for the so far excellent pieces on the long war and the putdown of the scandalous "Jew Lobby" piece from Harvard.

Mr. Dunn asserts that AQ in done in Iraq. This seems so obvious that I keep wondering why the left can't see it. Even if Iraq were to descend into civil war, only the shia faction is even remotely compatible with islamofascism.

Rick Ballard

Kim,

Cross your fingers for Chairman Hyde to call hearings if the indictment is tossed. Joe and Val in the witness stand under oath may yet come to pass.

Sue

Can someone link to the Kristoff piece in May 2003? I can't seem to find it anywhere. :(

[link]

kim

I keep my spirits up by resurrecting my wacky thought of weeks ago that Fitz was using the defense to investigate the press because he was constrained from doing so. But that would require Fitz to be a non egoist and an artist, and the odds of that happynstance dwindle daily.
================================

clarice

cathyf, lawyers are considered "officers of the court" and it is unethical for them to misrepresent factual matters to the court. Judges hold government lawyers to even higher standards.

Now the EPIC speech never made it to the WaPo or NYT, but if the crack FBI investigators had googled, I do not see how they could have missed it.

topsecretk9

Sue


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

Sue

Thanks, Top.

kim

Yup, RB, or maybe DOJ will pursue it. If Joe et al are not punished, what's to prevent the next such disinformation scam? There have been consequences and damages. There have been crimes and torts. One of them, in my opinion, is the use Fitz has put to my money to miscarrry justice. A mule would carry justice more reliably, economically, and rationally.
=======================================

Sue

Now all I need is Jeff to show back up. I'm locked and loaded. ::grin::

kim

Be well disciplined. We don't want any friendly fire infingements.
======================================

Jeef

He was acting ambassador in Iraq. Actual ambassador in Africa. And so, if all these reporters knew from EPIC on, how come they didn't name him?

topsecretk9

Jeef did...wonder why he needs to type in his name?

topsecretk9

he said...you know the ANONYMOUS Ambassador in the paper? That's me...

no said "name him" the point was KNOW him.

Sue

From Tom's link...seems Fitz is getting frantic to stop the investigation of who leaked Plame's name...if we are seeking the truth, wouldn't that be relevant to an investigation into who leaked her name? ::grin::

Fitzgerald argued that Libby's attorneys are routinely circumventing the facts surrounding the case against Libby, which is about perjury not who first unmasked Plame Wilson's identity.

clarice

Plus *hiss* he hired lawyers better than Lynn Stewart to defend him..That's so un-fa-ir..

cathyf

Clarice, do you think you could give spew warnings? You are a dangerous woman!

cathy :-)

Sue

Leopold's article makes it sound like UGO is being protected because UGO is cooperating with Fitzgerald. Another protected whistleblower? He could join Charlie Sheen in the whistleblower club...

clarice

UGO's being protected because he doesn't fit Fitz' crackpot story line.Period.

cathyf--sorry--OTOH a recent German medical study shows cranky, nasty people live longer than those who always display a sunny disposition. (I come by it honestly. My 87 year old mother visited this weekend and I think she's a mah jongg shark cleaning out the meager savings of her fellow south Florida condo dwellers.)

Patton

The only way this makes sense if if John Kerry is UGO and recognized Plame as the agent he escorted into Cambodia on Nixons orders.

clarice

Last night somewhere online I read something which strikes me as true:You can take the "whistleblower" being attacked line seriously only if you believe that the Wilson "forgery " story is true.That is, if you think he really established that Wilson unmasked a major lie by the WH to take us into war.

If you acknowledge that the forgery story is false, you can see that the WH was more interested in dealing with the lies themselve than with exacting some sort of revenge on Wilson.

I think there's a lot to be said for that argument.

Sue

Libby's team has filed new documents. Motion to Compel.

Patton

Jeff has hinted in the past that Wilson was provided information on the forgeries at the 19 February meeting ...apparently thinking Wislon could claim he knew enough to call them forgeries with seeing them.

But, in Wilsons own book he admits he didn't get that information at the 19 Feb meeeting:

From Wilsons own book regarding the February 19th meeting:

""It would have been of keen interest to me to know who might have signed the contract on behalf of the Niger government, but no information was provided on this either.""""


Gary Maxwell

OOPS! Guess I was wrong. Joey was Ambassador to Gabon and also a little volcanic island off the western coast of Africa under Clinton. He was only acting Ambassador in Iraq under the first King George! I should have dug deeper.

clarice

Sue, are the documents on Libby's Bd yet? If not, where can we find them?

Sue

Clarice,

They are on Pacer.

Gary Maxwell

My own limited experience in the court system and judges tend to expect the officers of the court ( both sides ) to work out most items and not make the judge referee every call. The way they tend to enforce such self discipline is to decide who is being unreasonable and whack them with a 2 X 4 in a ruling. Since the Defense keeps filing motions to compel, agreements are not coming on their own. Who is the unreasonable party? It will be interesting to see if the Judge sends a signal soon, as in " Play nice and share your toys" ...

Sue

From the motion...maybe we now know why they wanted the notes of Powell's from September 2003...

testify about a September 2003 meeting at the White House during which he is reported to have commented that everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife works at the CIA. At the same meeting, Mr. Powell also reportedly mentioned a 2002 meeting during which Ms. Wilson suggested her husband for the CIA mission to Niger.

Gary Maxwell

OT Charlie Sheen suggests 911 was "staged". NO I am not making this up. He is not the President his dad just palys one on tv. Paraphrasing, he says the collapse of the buildings looked like controlled demolitions and the planes did not look like commercial airliner he had been on. Whoa! The rumors of the strength of the new designer drugs on the street are true!

Sue

Gary,

That Charlie Sheen believes that is not news. That someone would give him the space to share his views with us...now that is news.

Sue

When Rick shows up, I have sent the Motion to him to post on his site.

Tom Bowler

I'm very disillusioned about the chances of the truth of Plamegate getting out. Especially when Fitz folds.

I'm with you Kim. Either Fitz folds his tent or the judge dismisses the charges. Either way we'll have eight or ten years of having to listen to the mainstream press report this as a scandal cover up in the evil Bush White House.

Gary Maxwell

BTW to loop back to the major topic here most times, the article mentions that Sheen joins a growing list of folks who have expressed doubt about 911 including

Ray McGovern

Dont that beat all.

Gary Maxwell

Direct quote:

"Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern,..."

Now does that also make Larry Johnson "highly regarded"? Just wondering who gets to decide who is highly regarded. Anyone in VIPS?

Sue

Anyone associated with Larry Johnson is dog heap, as far as I'm concerned.

clarice

Thanks, Sue. I installed something that makes it possible for me to put that in an html format but have misplaced the instructions,,URGH..and, of course, I forgot how to do it.

Gary Maxwell

So was Clinton getting advise from Wayout Ray? Whom did he advise? Or is this a bit of resume inflation?

Patton

So is there any red meat in this filing?

Gary Maxwell

I google found this little tidbit about Ray:

The department Ray heads at the School deals with the biblical injunction to “speak truth to power,

Anybody know book and verse of the Bible where it says this? Maybe it says "moveon" too?

Rick Ballard

Motion to compel in HTML can be found here.

I was out for a bit and will be for a bit more. Good hunting.

larwyn

Dependably, the Dems go "A Bridge Too Far"

See point 3 and LOL!

The New Mexico Democratic Party is calling for President Bush’s removal from office.

Party Chairman John Wertheim said Tuesday that delegates to Saturday’s state party convention supported a call for the president’s impeachment largely because of “perceived abuses of power and corruption in the Bush administration.”


He listed as examples of abuses of power, warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens [1], the misstatement of facts preceding the invasion of Iraq [2], and the scandal surrounding the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide in connection with the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative [3].

I have numbered the talking points to show how completely suicidal this emotion driven drivel is.

Click here: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Fly By 03/22/06 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1525#comments


Sue

Larwyn,

The best part is where they admit impeachment isn't going to happen, they just want to make a statement.

Lew Clark

Well Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are highly regarded on the Left and they question 9/11, as well as the Holocaust and that round earth thingy. So expect the next breaking news to be Charlie Sheen and Cindy Sheehan holding hands and chanting "Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus and Bush lied and people died (sailing ships off the edge of the world)!"

cboldt

Off topic - Fitzgerald asks for clarification on the March 10 Order re: production of PDB's, and requests adjustment of production schedule.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601079/posts>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601079/posts

cboldt

Sue -


Libby's Motion to Compel [Doc 68] is linked and discussed at http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/many_are_called.html>http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/many_are_called.html

dorf

Clarice: The FBI computer system prob does not allow access to google. :)

topsecretk9

I just heard a fox news radio update that the CIA is crabbing and saying they can not comply ( I think to what Walton said they could do - partial), that the request as it is is a huge distraction in a time of war and if they had to comply they could only muster up 2 people to work on it and that is not near enough to complete the job?

That was a paraphrase, but huh?

cathyf
The way they tend to enforce such self discipline is to decide who is being unreasonable and whack them with a 2 X 4 in a ruling. Since the Defense keeps filing motions to compel, agreements are not coming on their own. Who is the unreasonable party?
This comment raises a different question. What sort of risk is Fitzgerald in from pissing off the judge with the weakness of his writing? I mean the comparison is very striking -- Team Libby is so good that it makes Fitzgerald look even worse. If I were Judge Walton, I would have this little voice in my head whispering, "You know, if you were to rule against Fitagerald on the constitutional thing, you wouldn't have to read anymore of this crap."

cathy :-)

Sue

Holy cow, Top. Color me embarrassed. The document should have been the one filed yesterday, Motion to Clarify.

Sue

I had a Libby moment. I read the Motion to Compel as if for the very first time. ::grin:: I swear, the stuff sounded familiar but I would have sworn I was reading a new document.

Gary Maxwell

Yesterday I said that I could not figure out a reason for Libby to lie and did not think anyone had made the case either. Today his lawyers follow my lead to wit:

Mr. Libby Is Entitled To Demonstrate that He Had No Motive to
Lie to the FBI or the Grand Jury
The third independent reason why Mr. Libby is entitled to the documents
requested in this motion is because they are relevant to issues of motive. First, Mr. Libby
had no intent to lie because he did not believe that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was
classified. Second, Mr. Libby was not part of a conspiracy to harm Mr. Wilson by
disclosing his wife’s CIA affiliation and thus had no reason to cover up such
involvement. Third, Mr. Libby did not believe anyone who worked closely with him had
done anything wrong and thus had no motive to lie to protect anyone else.
By way of example, this motion requests documents from other
government agencies that relate to whether an Administration plan to punish or discredit
Mr. Wilson existed. The government may argue that such a request should be denied
because Mr. Libby has not been charged with any conspiracy-based offenses. But such
an argument is beside the point. The defense is entitled to make an affirmative showing
on this point to support the argument that Mr. Libby lacked any motive to lie to the FBI
or the grand jury, and needs the requested documents to do so adequately.

maryrose

Gary:
Thank you. These statements totally support my position but they raise this question-Is there any proof{which LIbby's lawyers are requesting} that there was a concerted effort to get back at Joe Wilson. Wilson himself started this rumor and to my knowledge no one has any paper or proof that this is so. Did I miss something here.? All I heard was Blowhard Wilson wanting Rove frog-marched out of the WH.

clarice

It would break my heart to believe that if there had been a conspiracy, "I heard that, too" and"Mrs. Wilson works at the Bureau" would be the best they could do.

cboldt

topsecretk9 ...


I just heard a fox news radio update that the CIA is crabbing and saying they can not
comply ...


http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/jason_leopold_k.html#comment-15288962>See "just above" for link to court filing.

clarice

dorf, Everything I've read about the FBI computer system--even the very costly new one--indicates you may be right.

clarice

cboldt, thanks for putting that in html format and linking to it..

JohnH

I am so depressed. I can't work. I can't eat. I can't sleep.

This case is going to go into the trash can, and reporters will never take the stand.

topsecretk9

Thanks Cboldt

Libby aside, I don't get that the Govt can only rustle up 2 people and even using those two will be a burden.

clarice

And then there is the question of whether privilege will be asserted..(See the pleading). I don't think J. Walton will take kindly to this claim--after all the CIA started this case with the (hasn't seen the light of day yet) referral letter..

Jeff

Could you explain that, clarice. I have a very different reading of the significance of Fitzgerald's latest filing. But you're the lawyer.

cathyf
I don't get that the Govt can only rustle up 2 people and even using those two will be a burden.
Yeah, well, that's just number 2673 on the list of reasons why this fiasco should never have happened. The CIA does have more useful things to do with its resources than assist a citizen in exercising his 6th amendment rights in defending against charges of high bafflegab and low autism.

cathy :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame