Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Martin And Harlow - Timing Is Everything | Main | The first 3 witnesses in the Libby trial »

January 26, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83512a2c669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Neil Lewis of the Times - Get The Wax Out:

Comments

Fresh Air

I would have to give them credit: It's by both design and incompetence.

Good Captain

Standard Operating Procedure for the Times. What this says to me in an indirect way is to confirm this blog's weak assessment of the Prosecution's initial presentation.

Good Job!

Tom Bowler

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! New York Times dead wrong about Iraqis trying to get uranium from Africa!"

You were thinking they might report something like this instead? Look for them to stoke public outrage over an acquital.

david buchner

are you trying to say that a direct conversation is the only way to exhibit an intense interest? maybe you should think that out.

Cromagnon

I think Maguire's head is gonna explode if Scootie-boy is convicted, which looks more likely than not at this point. Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew

MMR

Captains and Founders? The assessment is becoming the answer. Fitz isn't really trying and should be prosecuting a crminial conspiracy, space alien NDA aside.

Plame sent alot of memos, which were required reading, at which point the reader was accused of leaking and then it was explained it's Joe's wife, legal. Aquitals and pardons are constantly brought up.

Martin

Actually I agree with you TM-but remember that Libby was having breakfast with Miller of the...New York Times.

Maybe Lewis has got stuff in his vaults...

Patrick R. Sullivan

I would swear that when I read this yesterday:

'M it seemed not helpful to us. It explained something to me about why he got sent.'

That the 'not' wasn't in there. I'm seeing that as if for the first time.

Is it because the two sentences are contradictory with the 'not', or did Marcy add it later?

Cecil Turner

are you trying to say that a direct conversation is the only way to exhibit an intense interest?

Let's see. She said she “doesn’t remember any specific response.” They talked about answering Wilson at length and didn't mention Ms Wilson, there are written copies of the talking points and she is conspicuously absent, and Martin didn't ever remember either Libby or the VP bringing it up. Yeah, that's pretty intense.

Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.

topsecretk9

--Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.--

HA!

sad

Regarding the confusion of Martin about the June 7th vs June 11th date: is it possible that she Tivoed or recorded the show in question and watched it several days later?

sad

Sorry, the prvious post should have read July rather than June dates.

dmh

So we really down to the memory defense, with testimony (so far) that at least two people mentioned that Plame was Wilson's wife and that all things Wilson were of intense interest to Libby and Cheney. All this to a DC jury. I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

PaulL

Sorry, sad, your correction wasn't fast enough. I'm afraid you're going to be indicted for two counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction, unless you turn over Cheney.

sad

PaulL
I'm in big trouble then because I have previously posted here that I think he's hot. Sounds like I can expect a firing squad.

PaulL

dmh,

Like we've been talking about for days, all lefties and MSM types are conflating interest with Wilson's lies and interest in his wife. Interest in wife was almost but not quite non-existent.

Tony B

It reminds me of a comedian I once saw (I don't recall his name) who said he had a physical where the doctor asked him if he'd ever tried sugar or PCP.

Dan S

TM, you are incorrect about one thing. As supported by testimony, that NYT statement is not true in any sense supported by logic.

"intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV"

For a logical statement including and to be true, both parts must be true. For that statement to be logically true, the conjunction would have to be "or."

NYT can try to argue it's true because half of it is true, that half after that 'and' (which is exactly what I would expect from them, since it's clear that journalists are not required to take even a basic course in logic), but it just isn't so by the rules of logic.

I suspect YOU know this, but the way you stated it doesn't make it clear (at least to me).

danking70

I'm looking forward to seeing Harlow on the stand.

I wonder who else he spoke with besides Martin, Novak, and Mitchell.

and we do know that he told Martin and Novak about Plame. Will Fitz bring up his NDA's too?

068

Logically true: Plame was CIA(dad Air force NSA) and Wilson was CIA(dad, Spain, diplomat).

half of it is true.

Ranger

So we really down to the memory defense, with testimony (so far) that at least two people mentioned that Plame was Wilson's wife and that all things Wilson were of intense interest to Libby and Cheney. All this to a DC jury. I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

Posted by: dmh | January 26, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Yeah, of course the problem is that the prosecution has put on four witnesses so far, so by your count at least two have struck out. Oh, and all four have serious discrepencies between their FBI statements and their GJ testemony. One of them even was surprised by his own GJ testemony, and another colluded with the real first leaker before his FBI statement.

Yep, a great opening to the case so far.

Aelfric

Deceptive reporting from the NYT? You don't say?

Query: if the NYT was to attribute Libby quotes to a "former Hill staffer" is that deceit or just a clever disguise?

hit and run

Dan S:
TM, you are incorrect about one thing. As supported by testimony, that NYT statement is not true in any sense supported by logic.

"intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV"

Ah but......

Libby was intensely interested in Mr. Wilson for his lies.

AND

He was intensely interested in Ms. Wilson.........until he laid eyes on Ms. Cruz.

Still deceptive, but logically consistent?

Daddy

It seems to me that an undeniable example of "intense interest" is the testimony concerning the visit by Tom Cruise and the lovely Penelope (Thx for the pix PeterUK). But as far as there being any evidence or testimony indicating "intense interest" by Cheney/Scooter concerning Ms Plame, Nada.

Dan S

H&R,

You're right, one cannot ignore the Cruz factor.

It's a Cruz we must bare.

Carol Herman

The media "soldier's on."

You'll notice that what the media wants is to ruin our resolve. And, they have no intention of reporting the truth at all. THE TRUTH IS THAT VALERIE PLAME PLANTED THIS STORY; with the "halp" of the CIA, to get BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

Of course, Dan Rather also stepped in. But all his "efforts" did was a back lash. And, he lost his job. (No treason charges, though.)

So, you'll notice the media still has a free field.

And, it seems the elites, within the black community, who've been "elevated," all seem to work from Al Sharpton's dog-eared playbook. In it? It seems ALL BLACKS want revenge! Without caring about the costs of this "novelty."

I'm not very hopeful about Reggie Walton. Not since I saw how he TOLD WELLS, "it will be suicidal for Libby NOT to testify." Where do judges get the ability to go against the Constituiton, I do not know.

But then I still cannot fathom why the Vatican thought the cardinals could dispense with logic. And, allow pedophile priests access to alter boys. (Yet, the latest story out of Boston is that the diocese is closing 12 more parishes.)

I guess lawyers think people can leave their religion, but the cannot stop paying lawyers money FOR DRECK. So schools keep producing these bums. And, a lot more of them! Given how affirmative action works.

The more fanagled, however, Fitzgerald goes, probing up the asses of fools, the more likely this case will ultimately stand in bold relief. (It seems, blacks, and browns. Lesbians and gays. Who have benefitted from affirmative action, can see no downside.)

I see plenty.

It also seems its not enough just to drop your subscriptions to these "fully laden elite bombs." They seem to shrug off the business model (just like the lawyers), that to exist in the markeplace, and profit, you need satisfied customers. Not elites, with enough rope to lynch a Jew.

Ya know, it wasn't a successful approach, either for the germans. And, africa has yet to come up with one country that shows signs of middle-class black life that flourishes. Darfur? You want to solve that one? Won't see daylight, as the freaks own Academia. And, kids aren't taught the lessons they need in life.

windansea

Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew

I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

two more spun out by the hamsterwheel

Javani

Cro-magnon writes,

"I think Maguire's head is gonna explode if Scootie-boy is convicted, which looks more likely than not at this point. Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew"

I'd venture that to be ironic overstatement but given sometimes posters here I bet you believe that.

Tom, the "intense" and "obsess" memes originally source from Mr. Wilson's high opinion of his importance, scandal-mongering, and partisanship. Context is avoided, one never reads Cheney was intensely interested in Wilson..""...because Wilson claims Cheney hid vital information from the American public which Cheney denies."

I've read the NYTimes semi-regularly over the years but see it more and more as almost totally worthless as to Washington D.C. politics. The staff editorial board are amateurs too.

hit and run

You're right, one cannot ignore the Cruz factor.

Not with me around, one cannot.

Daddy - and when you think about it -- there wasn't really all that much intense interest in "Joseph C. Wilson IV". I mean, yeah, interest in "that lying bastard former diplomat asshat". But only Mr. Wilson thought it was of importance that HE was the asshat -- that is, he convinced himself that the administration was out to get HIM because HE was someone to be reckoned with. That if anyone else had made the trip and made the charges, the administration could have just looked the other way...

SaveFarris

Millbank is even worse. He seems to think that the Administration admitting that Fridays are dumping grounds for unpleasant news is somehow a huge scoop.

Memo to Mr. Millbank: it's been obvious for quite">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Out_The_Trash_Day">quite some time that Friday is "Trash Day".

Patton

The problem for the lefties with the first witnesses (Which they are apparently completely unable to grasp) is that Libby's defense is not:
^^^I never heard of Wilson or his wife until Russert told me^^^^^^

It is that he FORGOT the information about the wife.

Now, given the testimony of all the witnesses so far.

1. Grossman: Forgot about telling Libby about the wife when he was interviewed by the FBI. Told the FBI he was on the phone with Libby and then told the GJ he was face to face.

2. Grenier: Can't remember telling Libby about the wife, but had a sinking feeling in his gut that he may have. Never mentioned it to the FBI, nor the GJ but has better recollection this particular week.

3. Schmalls: Doesn't have any memory of telling Libby about the wife, but had her married name written on a piece of paper
that was once in the room with Libby.

4. Martin: Remembers telling Libby that Wilsons wife sent him to Niger, but says he made no gesture, sound, or response to her information (thus we don't even knew if he heard her) and she's not sure exactly when it occurred.

These are the same people who claim Cheney accepts poor information as fact (i.e. Iraq WMD).
The are Fitz facts witnesses that were going to testify that they told Libby this deeply unforgettable information, that they all then forgot.

Carol Herman

So far, America has won her wars. Europeans would all be under hitler's thumb, too. If we didn't come through and rescue those birds.

Of course, europeans don't have much to show for leadership, except their aristocrats. And, elites. Who let no one IN to their "inner sanctums."

While in America it's still a feast. Because, so far, for all their "trying," the donks are at the losing end of their long parade.

Can Libby lose? Well, the only reason there's "mileage" in that statement is because so many people have lost faith in the black man. Quite a journey! If you factor in the Civil War. It's outcome. And, how southern red necks kept blacks from achieving the status as human beings.

You might think Martin Luther King got civil rights legislation passed, all on his lonesome. But that's not true! And, the south got beaten back becuause plenty of whites, all over this country, thought that affirmative action would lead to good things.

Heads exploding? Seems at Duke you can see academics swimming off in the wrong direction. And, yesterday, when Reggie Walton "explained" to Wells, that he purposely withheld the testimony of experts, who could explain "memory gaps," ... What I saw, instead, is just another black man, with lynching rope. Sad. But what can you do?

If Libby loses? He's just one guy. The media still didn't "take down the president," as they did with Nixon. And, the numbers in congress has changed. The donks no longer sit in the driver's seat. Unless you're confusing pelosi with being an able driver. (Nah. She can't handle it. And, if you saw her at NASCAR, you'd see why.)

But the Net THRIVES. Even the lunatics on their hampster wheels, come HERE. They're not getting their "words out" on the editorial pages of the New Yuk Times. Because no one reads that crap.

While here it falls to the minority efforts; a chance to show the Internet lets everyone share their own opinions. While "exploding heads," is not what you'd call a future bet worth anything at all. Heck, if the donks were really winning, Dan Rather would still be in his anchor chair. The left just doesn't know how to count its losses. Not even in museums.

hit and run

PaulL:
Sorry, sad, your correction wasn't fast enough. I'm afraid you're going to be indicted for two counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction, unless you turn over Cheney.

I'm with you Paul.

::wipes sand from eyes::

maryrose

Wilson is miffed because he isn't deemed important enough. That nugget alone was worth the price of admission.

Al

Agree with Dan S above - literalists canNOT say that someone is interested in A and B if it is not true that he is both interested in A and interested in B.

Patton

Here is how Fitz stated Greniers testimony would go in the indictment:

""On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask
about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.""

Did Grenier actually testify to that or has Fitz been cooking the books??

Rick Ballard

If you want to examine logical imperfection, take a look at Fitz's NDA motion. Fitz substantiates his assertion that Wells 'opened the door' in Wells' opening statement by stating that Libby had nothing to fear by returning to the same argument in the subjunctive that he used in the presser. "If" a law was violated, "then" Libby had a reason to lie. That's very weak argumentation if actual facts exist that substantiate a law having been broken.

He may be trying to tie this to the offer of immunity to Fleischer but I think it more probable that he listened to his first witnesses and decided he had to have the "big case" in evidence in order to have a chance on the little case.

mariposa

--Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.-- [posted by Cecil Turner -- Mariposa]

HA!

Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 26, 2007 at 11:27 AM

. . .

TS, I second that!

CT, that's a classic wit you have there, fella -- you managed to sum up the whole argument in one funny line, at that.

topsecretk9

Rick

Talk left has some opinions about this...

This is a defensive motion on Fitz' part. He's reacting to Wells' claim in opening statements that Libby had no motive to lie. Previously, Fitz had alleged Libby's motive was not to lose his job. But Wells claimed Libby was not concerned with losing his job. Fitz thinks these agreements constitute new proof...

...I'm not sold on this motion. There's no linkage to Libby's focus on the agreements at the time he was interviewed by the FBI or testified to the grand jury. I could see it if Fitz had evidence of a conversation Libby had with someone about his fear that his comments to reporters violated the non-disclosure agreements. But, those agreements are standard for people in sensitive government positions. Had he re-read them or been reminded of them before his interviews with FBI agents or grand jury testimony?

Without evidence that Libby was concerned about the non-disclosure agreements at the time of his statements, I don't think the mere existence of them establishes motive.

I'm sure Team Libby will file a response in opposition. From the defense perspective, what other arguments do you see in opposition?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/1/26/3207/68938

Patton

Yeah, with a background like Libby's; I'm sure he feared going on welfare if he had to leave the White House.

Javani

"Millbank is even worse."

I read your link. It was pretty awful. It portrayed a glee of revelation at the most mundane political/media practices. Little twists of truth and framing here and there that would be unkown to those who haven't followed the testimony in this case as posted by EW and others.

The major media narrative there was something wrong about Cheney and Libby responding to allegations made against them seems very strong in white liberal chattering-class circles. Look how the writer deploys some "Niger" trickery to detract from revelations the CIA firmly believed in the existence of Iraqi WMDs. It seems to be an article of faith with these people that they must pin a "Bush Lie" on WMDs and discussion cannot be tolerated because so much of their adversarial political identity is invested in the narrative.

But on the positive side reporters of even the most partisan ilk will read that piece amazed the writer thinks he is revealing anything so secret.

Ranger

And NDAs are a joke now considering how much leaking is going on in DC. Haven't heard of a single Intel person going to jail for releasing classified info to the press in a while.

Javani

TS,

Big smile on my face when you just laid down this text:

"This is a defensive motion on Fitz' part. He's reacting to Wells' claim in opening statements that Libby had no motive to lie. Previously, Fitz had alleged Libby's motive was not to lose his job. But Wells claimed Libby was not concerned with losing his job. Fitz thinks these agreements constitute new proof... "

Ha Ha. Fitz is killing me. He alleges in opening a financial motivation, predictably the Defense responds there was none. Only in the context of this affair wherein merely the fact Cheney and Libby would respond to allegations against them is treated as abhorrent can a Defense response to a Prosecution allegation be framed as a tactic somehow unethical or opening up discovery again.

Fitz has been assimilated. I know he wants to win, but respect man, respect!

topsecretk9

Mariposa

That Tuner kills me. He's wicked good.

windansea

Fitz has been assimilated.

I'm not sure if he at one with The Borg or just trying to salvage his rep

MaidMarion

From around June 11, 2003 until about July 7, 2003, it truly was irrelevant to the WH that Plame had been involved in sending her husband to Niger. All that they really needed the world to know, and were interested in getting out, was that the CIA was behind the decision to send Wilson to Niger. It didn't matter one iota that Plame was involved...

On July 8, 2003, Andrea Mitchell states on a program (I forget which) that CIA operatives were responsible for sending Wilson to Niger. Yet this same evening, her compadre Chris Matthews starts fomenting the lie on "Hardball" that it was at the behest of the VP's office...and even gets (guest) Senator Rockfeller to concur whilst (guest) David Gergen is trying to set the record straight.

It seems to me that even as late as July 7, 2003, the fact that Plame had sent her husband was still irrelevant from the WH's perspective. Reporters (eg., Mitchell and Gergen) were attempting to correct the record that it was a CIA generated mission, not something requested by the VP's office.

It was Chris Matthews, on July 8, who was doing his best to keep the impetus of Wilson's July 6th Op-Ed piece and MTP appearance alive. I'm beginning to wonder whether the discussion Libby had with Russert on or about July 10 went something like this:

"Hey Tim, have you noticed that Andrea Mitchell is reporting one thing and Matthews another? Andrea's got the story right...the CIA decided to send Wilson to Niger. How 'bout telling Matthews to knock it off?"

clarice

Do you suppose that Chris has some personal stake in this black op or has he simply gone over the bend.

Patton

Does anyone have a website that debunks mathews on a daily basis???

I don't watch his program much, not worth the effort and it seems like it would be a full time job to correct his errors.

I would think if you wanted to e-mail MSNBC with complaints, you should also e-mail that Microsoft guy.

Carol Herman

Well, so far the case hasn't even been handed to the jury.

And, it's possible, with all the twists and turns; that it won't even get there!

If I didn't once serve on a jury (civil court), where this wasn't the outcome, I'd have no idea. But I don't bet on "lawyering."

Unless you want me to say Martha Stewart's calamity was put in place by her own choice of a dog for an attorney. Someone she knew from her country club circle. But, she still got hung out to dry. Her judge was black. And, the jury, in her case, inferred a great deal from her clothing. (They hated her!)

But Martha took it all in stride. Lifting her wallet off the table. So justice went awry. And, it stands a good chance of doing so here. In which case? We'll add an elite black man to the Ito dancers. It's not a plus for lawyering, though.

And, so far? I think Libby gets major donations. So it's more than just his own wallet that's on the table.

And, Wells won't go quietly into "that goodnight," either.

What we have is a case of the media looking to take out Bush; with the same tools they used to take out Nixon.

Also in the background, scribbling away? I'd bet Woodward's worried that he no longer looks all that good. Given that he committed treason, ya know? And, he wasn't helped by Mark Felt's exposure, either. Mark Felt didn't even have to die, first. To expose Woodward.

If you think America's amused that the media is still up to its old tricks, I beg to differ.

There's nothing on Fitzgerald's folk, except Libby. And, the judge? Another black man, who benefitted from affirmative action. Who shows up with lynching rope.

OR? The judge wanted this case to be heard. And, it's possible we can't even read his cards? But judge Ito's dancers await.

Meanwhile, Chris Matthews' career sees daylight in a Saturday Nite Live, opener.

And, when wilson's story really breaks? It's gonna go back to 1999. When Bubba was president. And, it's gonna involve the french. And, the italians. Who've been betting against Bush for years, already.

I wish them all to be boxed with Litvinenko.

clarice

Check out this one--Did they put the headline on a different story and mismatch them? Was the LAT reporting on another trial in a different universe?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby26jan26,1,7000069,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation>WTF?

clarice

Check out this one--Did they put the headline on a different story and mismatch them? Was the LAT reporting on another trial in a different universe?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby26jan26,1,7000069,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation>WTF?

Ranger

Matthews is guilt addled at this point. He voted for Bush in 2000 and probably feels that everthing that has happened since then is his personal fault. If only he had voted the other way, none of this would have ever happened.

clarice

Check out this one--Did they put the headline on a different story and mismatch them? Was the LAT reporting on another trial in a different universe?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby26jan26,1,7000069,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation>WTF?

clarice

Check out this one--Did they put the headline on a different story and mismatch them? Was the LAT reporting on another trial in a different universe?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby26jan26,1,7000069,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation>WTF?

danking70

Hey Clarice,

Have you been hitting the wine before the dinner party's supposed to start?

Ranger

One interesting thing to note about the word usage in various reports. The MSM keeps useing discredit to describe responses to Wilson and charges to describe Wilsons statements. Discredit has a strong negative sense to it, implying unwarranted criticism. Similarly, charges has an official sound to it, giving an air of authority to Wilson's statements. Just read each story and change Discredit to Respond and Charges to Allegations and the whole tone of the story changes. The power of language.

sbw

Clarice's RETURN key must be chattering... or she's very, very upset.

Ranger

I think the server is hanging up. I thought it was going to time out on me a couple of times too.

Billy Bob

Are there witness lists for the prosecution and defense that set forth the order of "will call" and "may call" witnesses?

If so, could someone post a link.

Lacking such a list, is there a consensus on the upcoming witnesses for prosecution and defense?

TIA.

clarice

Sorry--It's JOM , not me this time.

Dan S

Need to sic Patterico on that one, Clarice.

danking70

I'm just teasing Clarice.

you can double, triple, quadruple post whenever you want to.

Same goes for all the misspelled words.

Patton

Re-reading Wilsons original OP-ED shows the fallacy of the lefts thinking, and Wilson thinking so gighly of himself:

""If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.""

So Wilsons' one week trip to Niger a year earlier was in his mind the be all end all on Iraq and WMD. George Tenet blew that out of the water by pointing out that the NIE had 6 main reasons the CIA believed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and NONE OF THEM was the uranium from Africa issue.

Dan S

That's pretty darned wide of target even for LATimes. Just when I think NYT is bad, LATimes sets a new standard.

Don

"This is deceptive reporting, whether by incompetence or design."

OH VEY! YOU WANT DECEPTION! YOU CAN'T DECEPTION!

Try this White House Press Briefing 10/7/03:

"MR. McCLELLAN: Okay. Now I'll go. Let me remind you, that when this was initially reported, it was still not clear that there had been leaking of classified information at that point.

Q When was that clear?

MR. McCLELLAN: But the process was looked at. Then the CIA looked at this and they reported it to the Department of Justice. And the process worked. The process was followed. Now we are focused on doing everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the bottom of this. The President -- no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President of the United States. And the sooner the better.

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them. "

Enlightened

Boy Howdy would I love to see Patterico take on the LAT on that fubar'd article.

clarice

danking--not even time to drink a drop--even with scratching the notion of hollandaise sauce for the wellingtons.
Tonight's menu made by these old hands and increasingly feeble brain:
onion soup with cheese souffle
Green apple risotto with seared foie gras and fig and balsamic wine reduction

Mini beef wellingtons with potato gratin and asparagus
Berry cobbler with shortbread

(I haven't done this for a while and I pray I remember the choreography and don't burn the house down.)

boris

Clarice, this if from your WTF link ...

"So I was saying, 'Who sent him? Who is this guy?' " Martin testified. "I remember Bill Harlow saying his name was Joe Wilson, he was a charge in Baghdad, and his wife works over here."

That presentation does not indicate any role in the mission beyond a comfort factor in the CIA selecting him. As I speculated earlier "We have used him before and he knows the region and his wife works here".

There is no hook for Libby and Cheney to pay attention to the wife factoid wrt countering Joe Wilson and the MSM disinfo and false accuasations.

Enlightened

Don - Nice try. Too bad you are wrong again.

Why don't you search a little harder and produce their indictments proving otherwise - please jump all over that would ya?

PS: Richard Armitage - Unindicted Leaker.

patch

If the NY Times reports wrongly often enough, I expect the line at Tradesport (now 67.5% probability of a Libby conviction) to shift to about 90%; then I sell and make back all my losses from the 2006 elections.

Anybody remember Maurice Stans?

Back in the seventies he was on trial in NYC for various finanacial misdealings concerning the 1972 Nixon reelection. If you read the NY Times faithfully (I did); Mr. Stans was headed for Danbury Federal prison.

Surprise! Surprise! Mr. Stans was found not guilty. One of the jurors years later wrote a letter to the editor saying that the NY Times had been reporting on a different trial.

This should be interesting.

Patton

Yes DON, the whole point of the briefing is that the WERE NOT INVOLVED IN LEAKING THE IDENTITY OF A COVERT AGENT.

We all know that the Plame identity was 'leaked' if you can call it a 'leak'
by Armitage, a guy that opposed the liberate of Iraq.

Dan S

Don,

Are you saying that press briefing isn't quoting someone accurately?

clarice

Boris, yes--Isn't is amazing how the media brains fill in the ambiguities and gaps with what they hoped to see there?

Patton

Don,
If anyone has damaged out intelligence, it was Larry Johnson when he announced publicly to the whole world yesterday that the CIA routinely uses former Ambassadors to go on CIA missions.

WAY TO GO LARRY! HOW HARD WILL IT BE FOR AL QUEDA TO GET A LIST OF FORMER AMBASSADORS?

How many will now be targeted by terrorists thanks to Larry Johnson?

Don, call Fitz, let him know Larrys leaking again.

topsecretk9

Here's Matt Apuzzo on the Immunity deal

..."I didn't want to give him immunity. I did so reluctantly," Fitzgerald said in court Thursday. "I was buying a pig in a poke."

Defense attorneys are skeptical. Fleischer is expected to testify Monday against Libby, who is accused of lying and obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation. Attorneys are preparing court documents demanding to know exactly what Fleischer promised in exchange for immunity.

"I'm not sure we're getting the full story here," defense attorney William Jeffress said in court...

...The deal Fitzgerald made was unusual enough that Libby's defense lawyers questioned whether it could be true. They suggested that Fitzgerald got a secret summary of Fleischer's testimony - a deal they want to discuss with jurors when Fleischer takes the stand against Libby on Monday.

Defense attorneys said they will ask U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to force Fitzgerald to reveal what Fleischer promised him. Fitzgerald told Walton that no promises were made.

there more in the stroy

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16549607.htm

Patrick

Carol Herman, why would the fact that the Judge in Martha Stewart's case was black make any difference? You can make the case that she got screwed because she was a high profile rich woman, but are you suggesting that she got screwed because the Judge was black?

If not, you should clarify the point. If so, I dissassociate myself with those remarks. Sheesh.

PeterUK

The politically correct cretin does not seem to be able to get his head round the fact that it is MRS Wilson and MS Plame.

Dan S

I don't even read Carol anymore. She defines incoherent.

Javani

""George Tenet blew that out of the water by pointing out that the NIE had 6 main reasons the CIA believed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and NONE OF THEM was the uranium from Africa issue.""

Maybe a reason why some CIA folk want payback on Libby for forcing Tenet to sign an apologia.

Though I enjoyed Tenet's jibe at Wilson, though a little too nuanced for the reflexive Bush haters to pick up upon.

Don

No, I'm saying since you folks have no problems when the White House lies straight to your face; au contraire, you defend their right to lie to your face to the death, why worry about a little NYT deceptive reporting?

boris

Isn't is amazing how the media brains fill in the ambiguities and gaps with what they hoped to see there?

It's what I call hindsight blindness. Any fragment of their storyline invokes the entire construct. In the studio last week the recording engineer said he prefered to mix vocals on songs he didn't already know the lyrics to. When he already knows the lyrics he "hears" too much from his brain when he really needs to hear exaclty what is coming from his ears.

Don

Honestly-now that you know Rove was one of the two SAOs cited by Novak, how can you possibly interpret McCllelan's statement as anything but a bald faced LIE.

Ok, with parsing that would Clinton blush, you can wriggle around it.

But honestly. They lied to you and you don't care.

topsecretk9

Patton

You know that is kind of true. WIlson and Johnson are so desperate to be relevant they don't even care who they harm in order to do so.

Notice Chavez is threatening to throw out the US Ambassador - and Larry supposedly used to work in South America.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well Don, I expect it is because the lies and misreporting of the NYT and others has caused you to think that the WH lied to you when in fact the press was leading you down the garden path.

Enlightened

None of the men McClellan spoke about LEAKED, so how again did McClellan LIE?

Don, seriously go back to TO and play with Jason for awhile. I think he is in earnest anticipation of the Rove Indictment coming down in about oh, 24 hours or so.

Don

"Then the CIA looked at this and they reported it to the Department of Justice. And the process worked. The process was followed. Now we are focused on doing everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the bottom of this."

Don

So that's why Rove made 5 separate trips to the grand jury! He was just "focused on doing everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the bottom of this."

Helpful fella, that Rove!

Enlightened

Got it...It's Jason wearing his Don socks.

Don

Oh-and you got about 1 weekend left for your dream that Libby never leaked or authorized a leak, since that's exactly what's Fleischer going to testify to on Monday!

clarice

Why wasn't he charged then, Don? He didn't think he'd leaked anything and obviously the SP Javert didn't think he'd lied about that.

Cecil Turner

Honestly-now that you know Rove was one of the two SAOs cited by Novak, how can you possibly interpret McCllelan's statement as anything but a bald faced LIE.

Oh, now Novak's an unimpeachable source, eh? Riiiight. And since when is responding "I heard that, too" even confirmation, let alone sourcing? Like Wilson's initial BS claims to've debunked the forgeries, no honest person could possibly have connected the actual report with the hyped fantasy. And bad news for ya . . . nobody leaked any actual classified information, because Plame's work was one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. Further, if Joe Wilson were honestly interested in the actual cause, he wouldn't have to look any farther than the nearest mirror.

And personally I thought Curly's irony was a bit hamfisted, but . . . (Ya never know how hard to hit those things.)

Javani

Don:

""No, I'm saying since you folks have no problems when the White House lies straight to your face; au contraire, you defend their right to lie to your face to the death, why worry about a little NYT deceptive reporting?""

1. You talking to me?

2. Who cares what a spokesman said once and presumably later retracted or muddled over.

3. "White House?" I care what Bush says. He "lied" about amnesty among other things. I don't like him--does this fact oblige me to join the Borg and believe he lied to me about WMDs?

4. Who here is defending anybody to lie?

5. Thank you for no strange references to black people, same I can't say for one other poster here

Don

Are you denying Rove was one of the 2 SAOs referenced in Novak's July 14 column?

PeterUK

Daddy,
You're welcome,just you H&R and Libby remember she's my love slave.
I was right about the concentration factor,wasn't I?

sad

So that's why Rove made 5 separate trips to the grand jury! He was just "focused on doing everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the bottom of this."

Exactly right!! And you notice he wasn't indicted, which means Fitz invented even less about his conduct than he did about Libby.

Sara (Squiggler)

Okay, we need to do a recap of anything we know now that we didn't know before these first four witnesses testified.

I admit that I'm having trouble because, unfortunately, my back is in major flareup and my brain and pain are at odds with each other.

It seems to me that more and more it seems the CIA is the true culprit here in broadcasting without caveat about our gal Val. Harlow seems to be the source for everyone and if the CIA isn't concerned about broadcasting her name, why would the recipients of the info think it a problem to repeat the info? At least Libby asked what could be passed on.

Next in line would be those at State.

By the time the WH/OVP get the straight skinny on the Wilson trip and who was the "former Ambassador" it seems to be well known to many that he is Joe Wilson and that he was considered okay because the CIA had used him before and his wife was vouching for him. And oh BTW, she carries weight with us because she works here.

But, for those much more familiar with the whole case, I think we need to start a list of factoids that we learn or are confirmed that are in addition to what we already knew from the filings, etc.

Don

"And since when is responding "I heard that, too" even confirmation?"

So you know talk around town is Cecil Turner is one dense sumbitch...

Karl Rove

I heard that too.

Enlightened

"So I was saying, 'Who sent him? Who is this guy?' " Martin testified. "I remember Bill Harlow saying his name was Joe Wilson, he was a charge in Baghdad, and his wife works over here."

Why would Bill Harlow, for no apparent reason in this instance, qualify his statement that it was Baghdad Joe that was sent by the addendum "and his wife works over here"?

To me, this sounds like someone is defensive about the fact Joey boy was sent and the OVP found out, and to CYA they added in the nepotism as if that would explain/sanction the action.

More people were wondering WHY Baghdad Joe, than were wondering WHO in the hell is Val.

topsecretk9

cboldt

I noticed your comment about getting the transcripts and springing for them (I hear ya) - would you consider putting a pay-pal or donation link on No Easy Answers so we can contribute to that effort? It's an idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame