Powered by TypePad

« Democrats' Latest "NewD irection" | Main | Tackling Toensing »

September 16, 2006


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Latest Libby Filings!!:



It is so convenient to focus on that one July 14/03 Novak column and his intitial source, while ignoring all of the other contacts between Adminstration officials and the Press.


I agree with Marcel, everyone knows the Government is not allowed to speak to the press about some lying tea-sipper and his desk jockey wife.

Other Tom

It also seems convenient to ignore the fact that every administration in the nation's history has had innumerable contacts with the press, and the further fact that in each and every known contact regarding the Wilson/Plame affair, the administration told the truth, and that no crime was committed. Wilson, on the other hand, repeatedly did not tell the truth at all.


Clarice's piece is superb as she weaves us through the dead end backroads that Fitzgerald journeyed.

I'd still like to know who convinced him of the 1x2x6 theory. Someone got to him on that one. Or he let himself be taken.

Congrats and thanks Clarice.



Thanks, Steve.
TM I can't open the pdf file on Libby's response.


Hate to be the pedant but doesn't Clarice's piece contain a glaring tho insignificant error when she talks about Woodward bumping into Libby in a hallway?


In this layman's opinion, once again Libby's attorneys make Fitz look petty.

Clarice: Good job of following the twists and turns!


Well? Woodward bumped into Pincus not Libby IIRC.


Libby's team has NAILED him.(The last paragraphs in the filing about all the goofy experts the gov't relies on is a classic!) And Clarice's piece has exposed the selective nature of letting Armitage--who forgot about Woodward--off the hook, while threatening Libby with 25 years in prison--on an extremely weak case that now relies on the "memory" of Tim Russert.


Reggie Walton needs to act like an adult and send the boy to the woodshed.

It would also help if Russert did the right thing and stepped up to the plate and stated publicly that this farce should end.


slightly OT>Saddam's Man in Niger

What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa?
by Christopher Hitchens
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02

A good long read, and too much to post here... go read and then think of Wilson's lies!

alright here's one point I never heard before...

So widely recognized was the quality of his performance that, when inspections were proposed again in 2000, even Kofi Annan proposed renominating him for the task. (The appointment of Ekeus was overruled by France and Russia, who insisted on Hans Blix.) I might add that the experience also introduced Ekeus to what might be called the underside of Iraqi tactics on WMD: He was once offered a straight bribe of $2.5 million, to his face, by Saddam's deputy Tariq Aziz, and he took part in the debriefing of the Kamel brothers--Saddam's in-laws--when they defected from Iraq in 1995 with conclusive evidence of a state-run concealment program for WMD facilities. Ekeus remembers being met by Zahawie when he first arrived in Baghdad to begin Iraq's post-1991 disarmament, and being told by him that, having met in the past as diplomats, they were now enemies.


I also think it is disingenuous to claim that Fitz is "seeking" a twenty-five year prison sentence. The charges might theoretically carry such a sentence but would such a sentence actually be imposed under sentencing guidelines? Inquiring minds want to know.


noah, to the best of my recollection, Woodward said he bumped into Libby in the WH hallway and Pincus in the hallway of the WaPo.


I too, loves Clarice's piece. Great Work!
Glad it was on the Free Side!


I read C. Hitchens' piece too Bob, and Stephen Hayes' long treatment of the bogus phase II report as well. This week's WS is a definate keeper!

Feldman, Hitchens and Hayes have the liars on the run!


clarice, now that rings no bells for me at all. However you have certainly followed this thing closer than I have! Nice article except that paragraph was a little jarring.



Are you getting reaction to your piece, outside of here?

Is that something that happens? I'm completely clueless about such things.


Lucianne posted it as a must read and it is on Free Republic. It is getting good reviews in those places--well, those readers are more inclined toward supporting my view, aren't they?

It's not on Memorandum or technorati yet but the day is young.


Marcel/Marceau,> World's greatest mime.


Clarice, you fabricated something out of whole cloth. Provide the evidence that Woodward said he bumped into Libby in the hallway or the Weekly Standard is going to get quite a few letters demanding an immediate correction.

Sorry, honey, but you can't get away with "my best recollection" not when you are writing a factual account. So cough it up or you're going down


One question that has bounced around in my brain for a while ..

if Ms. McCarthy was "fired" from the CIA for unauthorized meetings with reporters .. what was Ms. Plame and Joe Wilson doing with Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who was interested that no WMDs had yet turned up in Iraq, a particular expertise of Ms. Plame I'm told ?

Perhaps this explains that "suspension" I've seem to remember.


Whoa Adam...if it is an error it is not born of malice towards anyone. Indeed it would be exculpatory for Libby I would think. We are talking justice here aren't we?


Clarice, you've hit the bigtime girl. The kind of folks who don't have time for blogs will be reading this with great attention.

Brit, Fred and Bill will be quoting from it on Monday--much to Juan's chagrin.

And I imagine it will bring a smile to the VPOTUS's face--not to mention Libby and his team.


Exculpatory for Libby if true, I should say, if he heard from Woodward what he was alledgedly leaking to others before he is alledged to have leaked to them!


no, Noah, we are not. We are talking about a fact that has never been reported and a former attorney who excoriates the left for it's problems with fact. So this is serious. you can't have it both ways


So cough it up or you're going down

And who exactly will be taking Clarice down? Some anonymous poster who doesn't have the decency to sign his name on such a threat? I don't think so.

If Clarice made a mistake, it'll be corrected. This anecdote has no influence on the entire narrative she recites.

Woodward mentions at least one conversation/meeting that he had with Libby after the Armitage revelation (Link).">">Link). Perhaps Clarice confused that hall meeting with this interview.

In any event, whether it was a hallway meeting or a formal interview, it has no effect on the story.

I hope you're as concerned with the numerous - dozens if not hundreds - of mistakes that the press has disseminated over this matter? Such as that Cheney saw Wilson's report?

And you'll be "taking down" those journalists too.



Nice try steve. But spare me the bullshit. You can't go after the left blogs and the Times and other reporters for the way they reported this case and then write a story and make up a fact. she made it up and now she needs to correct it and admit it. She and you would be doing the same damn thing if the story appeared in The Nation.

And anonymous? My name is Adam Abromowitz. What's your name?


sorry steve. another error on your part. those who say cheney saw wilson's report based it on sources. Clarice made a factual statement and failed to attribute it to anyone. so there's a big differnce


Adam...if it is not true (ie that Clarice inadvertently wrote "Libby" instead of "Pincus")...then that is not making shit up...its just a silly error.

But if it is true then it is significant and I am wondering why I have never heard anyone comment on it before IIRC. So I would need some documentation before I will fully believe it.

If it is a silly error Clarice does need to correct it in my opinion as humbling a thing that might be.


Clarice made a factual statement and failed to attribute it to anyone. so there's a big differnce

If Ms. Feldman made a mistake - or the Weekly Standard - it needs correcting.

You've accused Clarice of deliberately and maliciously fabricating something. That's a serious charge and you have no evidence for it.

How do know that the error was solely on Clarice's part and not an editing one? You are aware that during the editorial process that stories get mangled? How do you know it was a deliberate mistake and not Clarice conflating two different events?

Reporters make mistakes. Editors make mistakes. Things get mangled during the process.

Before you go around threatening to "take people down", you better be sure you have your facts.

In any event, whether Woodward met Libby in the hallway or had an interview - and the evidence seems to be the latter - is marginalia in this story.

My name is - and has always been - on my e-mail address but I would also give my name if I ever accused anyone of falsifying information.




Outstanding sure Rush will be talking about it for at least an hour on Monday!

This paragraph containing one of Fitz's arguments caught my attention:

One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the "source" to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the earlier source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a "whistleblower". . . . The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Fitz's words, but it sounds like a CYA. This is how I interpret the above: "Wilson was a whistleblower, but I'm not claiming here that the way in which he exposed the White House's misconduct was done correctly."

It seems correctly or incorrectly refers to the verb sought and not to the verb perceived.

Is this how you read Fitz? If so, then is this an inadvertent clue that perhaps Joe's July 6, 2003 Op-ed revealed classified information?


Don't EVEN start me on the errors--or should we say lies-- that the left has made concerning this case--vicious lies let's add. The biggest being every word that has ever come out of the Wilson-Plame's mouths, followed closely by David Corn's reporting.

Clarice has doen a magnificent job, and her piece passed the fact checkers and editors at the WS. Woodward has made a number of public statements on this case and his contacts with Libby, so unless you know of every single one--I's keep my venom to myself, you pathetic little troll.

All the Wilsonistas are now being served a big slice of humble pie. And you all deserve it, and more. What you've tried to do is a disgrace. Deal with it.


Woodward's testimony (Post 11/16/05)

"Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."'

My guess is that Clarice (or the Weekly Standard) erred in this. Instead of a hallway conversation, there was an interview between Woodward and Libby about two weeks after Armitage told Woodward about Plame.



And I don't think the issue is strictly whether Woodward met Libby in a hallway or had an interview with him. It's whether Woodward told Libby that Armitage had informed him about Plame sending her husband to Africa! (Which is what he allegedly told Pincus).


it's a rather big error and you are playing it down. Bumping into Libby in the hallway would lend more credibility to the notion that Libby passed on idle gossip as opposed to willfully leaking during a prescheduled interview. I think Clarice knew this and she screwed up bigtime by not fact checking it.


Clarice, remember we are talking about Clinton liberals here. 'Bumping into someone in the hallway' to them means that sex occurred.
At least in the Clinton White House.


Noah, despite the accusatory tone of your remarks, I have double checked, and you are right:the conversations occurred per Woodward by phone and then in person on June 23 and June 27--not in the hallway. The error is completely mine and I am mortified. I have notified the WS and I take full responsibility. I do not however, think it detracts one whit from my argument.


It's whether Woodward told Libby that Armitage had informed him about Plame sending her husband to Africa! (Which is what he allegedly told Pincus).


But the charge made by one person is that Clarice "fabricated" the hallway meeting and that she's going to be "taken down" because of it.

You can't just threaten people like that without evidence. We all undertand this is a blog and posters go over the top but there are even limits on a blog. Once you cross them, you'll be challenged.

Putting aside the hallway/formal interview nonsense, there's no "there there."

Clarice says in her piece:

"[T]hat his [Woodward's] notes indicate he might well have told Libby what he'd heard from Armitage, but that those same notes do not show Libby as having responded."

That's what Woodward told the Post he testified to.

The Post:

Woodward "also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV."

And, of course, Woodward learned about Plame from Armitage.



Rest assured adam ant. If Clarice did make a small error, she and the WS will make a correction in a very timely manner--unlike the NYT and the WaPo who still have egg on their faces for much of their misleading reportage.

And after all is said and done, Clarice's work will remain a very damning document against the lies and hatred that you and your fellow moonbats have spewed against the Bush administration for the last three years.


silly error? HA! So I guess Wilson made a silly error when he said Cheney saw his report


I think Clarice knew this and she screwed up bigtime by not fact checking it.

Well, you're qualifying things.

If you wish to claim that she erred, or she didn't fact check properly, that's fine.

But you must realize that when you charge someone with deliberate fabrication and then state that they'll be "taken down", that that is a quite different charge.


Reverse the situation. I'm sure you've made mistakes, gotten dates or names wrong. If someone outright accused you of fabrication and then said "You're going down", you'd be a little peeved?

Let's go to our corners and cool off a bit.




The source of Adam Bom's confusion: Libby passed on idle gossip as opposed to willfully leaking during a prescheduled interview

Other way 'round bom brain. This is where Woodward tells Libby what he learned from Army about Plame.


Clarice, check back upthread before you talk about my "accusatory" tone. Adam definitely was in my opinion. I was defending you.

Now I did accuse you of being disingenuous when you write that Fitz is "seeking" a twenty-five year prison term. Hey, I call 'em the way I see them.

You might want to thank me for bringing the error to your attention...because someone besides your acolytes here surely would have.

And I agree that it is an inconsequential error and it does nothing to detract from your argument.


You realize SMG, that we're likely dealing with one of Jason Leopold or Larry Johnson's sock puppets.


well there you go. One error opens the door to many others. And we've found many others already. the story has lots of factual holes. Looks like Clarice will be getting the left-wing's version swift boat treatment. Ahoy!


No wonder da bom thinks it's a big deal!

Completely misunderstands the entire point and get's it exactly back asswards. Hallway or interview mox nix for info going from Woodward to Libby.


Excuse me, verner, but you're out of line. I am who I say I am and I have no problem attaching my name to this. maybe it scares you to know that there are lots of folks in the left blogs beside Jeff who are paying attention. Don't try to suggest the Johnson or Leopold thing. check my IP. Heck, I'll give you my phone number


One error opens the door to many others

There you go! Look in the mirror.


I apologize noah. My remarks should have been directed to adam.


lots of folks in the left blogs beside Jeff who are paying attention

Too bad you're not ome of them.


Marcel Marceau. ROTFLMAO!!!


Steve, I agree with your argument above. But I have seen many people on this blog say the same exact things when someone on the left writes something that they think is flawed. I guess you could say I am just giving your camp a dose of your own medicine. And you know I am right when I say that people on this blog waste no time hurling accusations and threats against others regarding this case


One error opens the door to many others. And we've found many others already.

Such as?

Let's call your bluff.



Thank you Clarice. On the whole, I am a great admirer of yours. But I have a pedantic brain!


I notice the biggest debunker today is Jeff debunking Corn.


And you know I am right when I say that people on this blog waste no time hurling accusations and threats

Call that one too.


that Fitz is seeking 25 years. please. Fitz hasn't even gone to trial yet. And as an attorney Clarice should have known better. Fitz never ever said anywhere the punishment he was seeking agaisnt libby because the goddam case hasn't even made it to a jury or courtroom yet. Duh.

Rick Ballard

What has Tom done that he should be punished by the appearance of stupid trolls? It would seem mete and just that Mercury be the responsible party within the pantheon for judging conduct within the blogosphere. Does he summon annoying yet harmless demons from Hades by name - "send Tic to JOM today, that'll teach 'em" or is there a defined rota in Hades, a wheel with Tic and freaknik and Adam's name incribed upon it, with no selection as to which of the witless will be sent forth?

I haven't the background in Roman theology to make a guess but I hope that Tom makes whatever act of contrition is required for Mercury to send his minions back to their regular domicile.


The charges in the indictment carry a 25 year sentence. It is thus fair to say that he is seeking "a twenty-five year prison term".


Adam still needs to 'splain how the difference between hallway gossip and a phone call or interview reflects on Libby when the info about Plame would have come FROM Woodward.

Adam clearly thinks the direction was from Libby to Woodward and hence the mode of passage indicates motive, intent, or premeditated conspiracy.


Adam still needs to 'splain how the difference between hallway gossip and a phone call or interview reflects on Libby when the info about Plame would have come FROM Woodward


How would Clarice's "fabrication" of a hallway meeting instead of a formal interview affect the larger narrative?

Woodward's testimony is that Libby never mentioned Plame to him. Instead, he stated that it was possible - although he couldn't remember - that he brought up Wilson and Plame to Libby.

Whether this discussion happened in a hallway or in a room or by phone is meaningless. The substance of the interview and not the location is the key.



Clarice, it's not up to the prosecutor to say what he is seeking n terms of years spent behind bars. It's up to the jury to deliver a verdict and a judge to sentence. So you're wrong. And apparently not a very good lawyer. The right thing would have been to say that, if found guilty, Libby could be sentenced to 25 years, the maximum. It's the judge who does the sentencing. But you manipulated your readers into believing that Fitzgerald said he was seeking this sentence because it fit your narrative.


BTW Clarice, good article.

Somebody like Jeff might quibble that the Libby Cooper difference in Fitz focus was not who brought it up, but that Libby claimed he sourced it to another reporter and Cooper claimed he did not.

Thomas Morrissey


Very well done,

"You cannot wear blinders and suggest someone kept you from seeing the whole picture."

Fitz should have that line Tattooed on his forehead.


Do Not Feed Them. was wonderful! Loved it. You only had a couple of pages to nail them and you did a great job on Mama Corn and Matthews.

Tim Russert: Which leaves the final witness. Libby testified that he believed Russert was the first to tell him of Plame and her connection to Wilson. Russert apparently has no notes of the conversation. He seems to have been the only reporter named in the indictment whom Libby called on July 10, 2003. The call was to complain about MSNBC's coverage of the Bush administration. Libby seemed to think that, in the course of this, Russert told him about Plame and said "everybody knew." Russert has been tight-lipped about the substance of the conversation, but there has been wide speculation that Libby called to heatedly complain of the anti-Semitic tone of Chris Matthews's reporting. Matthews says that if so, Russert never conveyed the complaint to him.

Like a lightbulb....that last sentence. That is exactly why Matthews keeps repeating that Russert didn't tell him! I still believe that Matthews was the real culprit that mislead the FBI/Fitz. captured a lot of tiny details that get lost in the big picture.

Cecil Turner

The charges in the indictment carry a 25 year sentence. It is thus fair to say that he is seeking "a twenty-five year prison term".

It certainly is. And conflating Woodward's alleged Pincus/Libby meetings is a minor error on a related issue (both leading to a somewhat plausible path for Libby hearing it from reporters as he claimed--either directly from Woodward or second-hand from someone talking to Pincus). Overall a superb summary.

Back on topic, misremembering details of who talked to whom in this tangled mess seems to've reached pandemic proportions. I hadn't heard of the memory studies, and in particular was interested in the apparently relatively common "source misattribution error." I'll enjoy perusing a transcript of Dr Bjork's testimony . . . if he testifies. I found Fitz's filing weak, and thought Libby's was stronger both on the law and basic fairness. It'll be interesting to see how Walton rules.


Thanks, Boris. But as you know my view is that whatever the differences in their recollections the fact remains that Cooper's contemporaneous notes show no reference to the matter having been discussed by either of them which at a minimum means that both could have misrecollected the conversation entirely. (And Time's records indicate other Time reporters were well aware of Plame's identity--Indeed, we know Cooper's co-author Calibressi was on the phone with Wilson before and after the Cooper-Libby discussion>) All of which means when Cooper completes his testimony the only rational response from the jury if "WTF?"


Ha! When they show up and start picking at knits, you know you've hit where it hurts.

Nice work!!

except - now all of DU et al will show up here to post their drivel.


Adam says: ""silly error? HA! So I guess Wilson made a silly error when he said Cheney saw his report""

WOW, what an incredible ridiculous analogy!!

The location of the Woodward/Libby meeting is inconsequential.

Whether Cheney saw the report was at the heart of Wilsons allegation that he reported it to Cheney and Cheney ignored it.

I can only assume Clarices' article is soo good, you can't come up with an actual SUBSTANTIVE argument.


Thank you all.

Thomas Morrissey

No, Clarice is right about the 25 years.

Given the horrible,terrible,nasty,underhanded doubleplus super-evil nature of the crime,and the volumes of evidence against Libby, the judge would have little choice but to give him the maximum sentance.

The public outcry would be too great were he not to do so.

Rick Ballard

CNN felt it proper to include this:

If convicted on all counts, Libby could be sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison and fined up to $1.25 million.
in this piece, published October 31, 2005 - soon after Fizzlemas, if memory serves. Of course, ABC News beat them by three days when they mentioned 30 years in the sub headline for this story.

I guess the maximum sentence was more important then than it is now.


Yep, and the next Monday after FizzleFriday, Reid shut down the Senate over "Phase II" because the moonbats needed something to console them.

Wilson's a liar

Clarice - nice job. But there are still many questions unanswered. I think you especially let Matt Cooper off much too lightly. His "War on Wilson" article got much more play in Washington and around the media than did David Corn's piece. The Nation is still considered a leftwing fringe rag. But Time Magazine isn't. And now we find that Cooper's own notes provide not a shred of evidence of any such "War on Wilson." We've known for some time now that he called Karl Rove, not the other way around. It's pretty clear now that his story was a complete fairy tale, and Cooper has never been sufficiently called to account for it. The fact that he is married to a top Clinton/Gore/Kerry media advisor should have set off alarm bells everywhere, but somehow it didn't.


All that's true. If I had Time's notes and the gj testimony, undoubtedly I could have made a stronger case about why the Cooper counts are unlikely to even make it to trial--surely the evidence will undercut the prosecution case, I think.

But the article is well over 6,000 words and is merely a summary for the non-obsessive reader.


Adam - Vitriol aside - your pathetic attempt to denigrate Clarice is a true window into the soul of the Left in our country.

You pick one "error" re: Fitz seeking a 25 year sentence - the whole MSM part and parcel that has fed this laughable excuse of a "outing" to the public has used that same statement - and others as posted above - to push the meme that Libby was a very bad boy, and Fitz is the good boy come to wreak justice. Clarice used the common meme spewed by your compatriots. So I gather you will be going to them as well and correcting THEIR errors? I'll wait with bated breath.

And your other "error" of where Woodward spoke with Libby - location, location, location. BFD. How exactly does that change the tone of the investigation? Not.One.Whit.
And Clarice has done the admirable - she corrected the mistake.

On the other hand, you found 2 measly ass errors, and you spewed lies about members of this forum which you have yet to elaborate on - even though you have been asked several times.

So who is the more admirable, a vitriolic, 2nd grade poster presenting vatuous errors about a piece that is formidable and will end up being the truer story?

Or a well known lawyer that has corrected a minor error in an otherwise superb rendition of the pathetic Non Crime Of the Century?

Go back to your sandbox and take your fleas with you.


Clarice, it's not up to the prosecutor to say what he is seeking n terms of years spent behind bars. It's up to the jury to deliver a verdict and a judge to sentence. So you're wrong.

Not exactly. When a guilty verdict is rendered a sentencing recommendation is filed by the prosecutor. He indeed says how many years he wants behind bars, and very often gets them.

You are a nit-picker Adam. IMX people here want to be called on their mistakes, own up to them, and learn new things. Note Clarice's reaction to your hissy fit. It's fascinating that your tantrum is over nothing of substance, which is the hallmark of the left.

Now to prove how fair and balanced your are, please link to similar outrages your have posted on left wing blogs challanging each one of the facts they have gotten wrong in this matter.

Take your time; we'll wait.


Clarice's WS article is well written - lawyerly, completely one-sided but a great read. Someone from the other side is writing an inevitably one-sided book. Does anyone know of a relatively objective analysis of this subject?


Peeuw - It just occurred to me that I do believe the stink of smelly socks has again permeated the board.

Excellent how they work in tandem these days - Good Cop/Bad Cop - still huffing those stinky socks.


What I noticed, Clarice: it's condensed enough that readers (who are not plameologists) can get the total picture - their eyes won't glaze over 2/3 of the way through it, but the essential points are covered.

That is what makes it powerful and a threat to the left. People will read it and grasp what has actually happened. The reason these lies have been able to keep going is that the truth is so complex, and it is in bits and pieces here and there.


PS: Jason Leopold and his ilk are pushing the meme that "We don't know if Army leaked first or if Libby did".

Hence the puppets above that are disputing that point in Clarice's article. If Clarice was right - then by golly, there goes their "WH Conspiracy" which they are still clinging to by their dirty sock threads.

I think that explains the vitriol thrown at Clarice, the obvious anger at Clarice's piece, the Left-think Fitzmas "ain't over yet"....blah blah blah....sock puppets.


""correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.""

This is entirely Fitz BS.

Even if Wilson told the entire truth, it is not MISCONDUCT to dismiss one intelligence report (Wilsons) for other intelligence information (Britain).

It happens all the time in intelligence. Once person may report something but someone else with better access and better information may be different. Thats why it is an ANALYSIS.

It would be perfectly acceptable for Bush/Cheney to say, YES, we read Wislons report, but believed it to be entirely incomplete and unconvicing and decided other intelligence sources were more reliable and had a better track record.
END OF STORY, unless you are wed to the Democrats meme' about Bush intentionally lied.



You did a really magnificent piece here! I was so impressed with how you managed to explain, in only two paragraphs, the effect of the combination of Kristoff, Pincus, and Wilson's pieces and at the same time debunk them!

Your use of the word 'muted' was brilliant when referring to Wilson's own piece. He had laid the groundwork through Kristoff and Pincus, so that Alan Colmes (and the other usual suspects) could point to Wilson's OWN words and say 'he never said that!'

To get that point across has been a struggle for everyone else in less than two pages, and you did it in two paragraphs.


And, of course, the rest of the piece as well. Fitzgerald's less than thorough investigation that never turned up Woodward, took its clues from press reports, prejudged 'good' leaks vs 'bad' ones, blindfolded itself, and ended up in a place where justice has become a joke.


Clarice is going down. She said 25 years when it really should be 30 years.


I'll let Adam fill you in on the Gajillion other mistakes Clarice made.


Sarcasm off. Don't want it the bleed down into any other following posts.


Could be. But whether it was in the hallway or on the Woodward's account he concedes he may well have raised the matter and he did it AFTER Army told him.

Elsewhere in the fever swamps, the latest is that Rove and Armitage worked together to out Plame.


When Rush, Hannity and Brit get hold of this...

Did anyone send it to Drudge? Everyone makes fun of Drudge, but they read it!!


The most compelling part of the Fitz opposition was in part III (altho my eyes did glaze over at the end) where he said there was no reason to bring an expert in to talk about something that is common knowledge(how memory works). That certainly is the current state of the law as I understand it (but don't be misled by the idea that every lawyer knows the "current state of the law" because other than on our own cases, we don't.) Fitzy then sounds a little stupid when arguing that the expert could confuse the jury - also the typical argument on this sort of discovery motion, but one that sounds paranoid in this context.

Hopefully this case won't get to the point where Libby needs a memory expert.

The bottom line at this point seems to be that either Fitzy has something we don't know about - which is increasingly doubtful given all the scrutiny, or he will try and let this fizzle out. The problem is, 4 months is not a lot of time for a good fizzle.


Thank you Syl. Only the posters here know how much dross and spin surrounds every factual assertion and how hard it is to accurately explain it. I can tell you I stared at the page for a long time on that "muted thing"..I am delighted that you appreciate the detour around the Wilson planted minefield.



Elsewhere in the fever swamps, the latest is that Rove and Armitage worked together to out Plame.

Well, if they're going to believe that Rove and Armitage would work together when it's known that Armitage didn't like Rove at all, they should rethink their position re Saddam and Osama!


We could play that if--then game for days.

If--we have to inspect every single container instead of relying on other methods to assure our safety no matter that it will tie up commerce hopelessly--then we had every right to take the WMD assessment which represented the consensus thinking of all domestic and credible foreign intel services.

Wilson's a liar

BTW, did anyone watch Law & Order last night? It was a lame, ham-handed attempt at a fictional version of the Plame affair. A ruthless hatchet-man aide to a congressman outed an undercover narcotics cop to get back at her father who was a rival pol. The cop was promptly murdered. The cops traced the leak back to the hatchet-man and he was arrested. He accused the DA's office of a political witchhunt (in this case, the DA is Republican and the congressman was a liberal Democrat.) Then at trial an email suddenly appeared showing that the reporter who ran the story got it from another reporter, not from hatchet-man. But it turned out that hatchet-man had a mole in the DA's office who tampered with the computer to produce the email. This was an episode from last season - a bit ironic to see it run again now.

The media fantasy about this case will never be over. They really thought they had The Evil One in their grasp and he somehow got away. This only confirms to them how powerful and evil he really is, not that they were idiots for believing the fantasy in the first place.


Well, if they're going to believe that Rove and Armitage would work together when it's known that Armitage didn't like Rove at all, they should rethink their position re Saddam and Osama!

Tee Hee

Cecil Turner

he said there was no reason to bring an expert in to talk about something that is common knowledge(how memory works).

I thought Team Libby rather handily demolished that argument with this one-liner:

"Misattribution is far more common than most people realize."
Not sure that works as a legal argument, but it passed the common-sense test.

Hopefully this case won't get to the point where Libby needs a memory expert.

No kidding. It's high time someone pulled the plug on this thing. Or, even better, appoint a second special prosecutor to look into Wilson's leaking and he and his wife's interaction with the DC press corps. Might as well get entertainment for both sides.


I quit watching L&O long ago because of these story lines - IMO they have an agenda. I am fed up with agendas in my entertainment. I watch animal planet.



Great article!

You make an argument that this entire affair has been a malicious attempt by the entrenched civil servants to preserve their perogatives. People disagree not with your confusion, but with whether a meeting you accurately depict happened in a room or a hallway.

Kind of silly, if you think about it.

You are obviously correct when you say that Libby is facing 25 years in prison. It's also true he probably will get fewer, even if he is convicted on all counts.

I understand that you and Jane are former prosecutors, and that quite a few articles have reported the likely sentence as the additive maximum sentence allowed by statute.

Heck, most news articles and prosecutors describe it that way. But under the (no longer mandatory) sentencing guidelines, he'd probably get under three years.

Back in April, I got distracted and went through the sentencing guidelines.

If I got it correctly, his likely as opposed to maximum possible sentence was under three years.

Lexis took me to the sentencing guidelines, and I got distracted.  Although they are not currently (and probably will never be) relevant, I’m dropping some links here because the likely punishment is much lighter than I’ve seen reported elsewhere. And hey, I wasted my time—why not waste yours?

Applying the guidelines, we arrive at an offence level of 14 (17 if the obstruction/perjury confused the prosecutor a lot (§2J1.2(b)(2))) for each count.  Because Fitzgerald has indicated that all of the offences were part of a common criminal scheme, the number of counts does not affect the sentence.  This corresponds to a recommended sentence of 15-21 (24-30) months.  Quite a change from the thirty-plus years you hear bandied about.

I invite the conspiracy-minded to spend some time thinking about these grounds for departure.



Someone sent me this ( I have a feeling it's photoshopped):>Emma Peel

Terry Gain

As one who has been waiting for the real scandal to be told of how Joe Wilson- with the help of the MSM -spread lies about POTUS in a time of war I really enjoyed Clarice's article in the WS.

Adam's "hallway" complaint is a painfully stupid attempt to distract from the seriousness of the case Clarice's makes
about the weakness of Fitzgerald's case and the unreasonableness of pursuing it to trial.

But I do think Clarice detracts from her own case and opens the door to further attacks when she states that Fitgerlad is seeking a 25 year sentence merely because that is the maximum punishment upon conviction. We lawyers know the maximum punishment is reserved for the "worst offence by the worst offender."

Even if Libby is found guilty, and it appears more and more unlikely that he will be, there is no way any prosecutor-even one as incompetent as Fitzgerald would seek a lengthy prison sentence. Suggesting that Fitzgerald is seeking the maximum is to employ the same kind of hyperbole that the MSM uses against Bush every day. It detracts from an otherwise great article.


How many times have we heard Ray McGovern quote that bible verse etched into the granite at Langely?

And ye shall seek the truth and the truth shall set you free

Well Joe Wilson cast the first insult so I prefer Thomas Jefferson!

I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”} Thomas Jefferson to Jon Jay, 1785.ME 5:95, Papers 8:427

Jefferson is smiling at you now clarice...AWESOME!


Thanks, Rocco.

Terry, Rick has pointed out how the press reported the indictment. Do you truly suppose that Fitz did not pump up the number and nature of of counts JUST to get that point across...That Libby's were serious, serious offenses which warranted a long sentence and substantial fine? Since it is obvious that's what he did, the sentencing guidelines and what their practical affect seem a negligible point.
These multiple charges were designed to affect the public view of Libby and deepen contempt for him. And largely did.



Sorry. conclusion not confusion.

This thing (the keyboard, obviously) is confusing.


You must have installed that popular Clarice version of spell check.

The comments to this entry are closed.


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