Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Libby Trial - Mystery 'Witnesses' | Main | Feel Free To Explain The NSA Deal To Me »

January 17, 2007

Comments

clarice

From your mouth to God's ears..and may I say that same thought has occurred to me.Even without naming sources--remember Fitz blinsided her at her last gj appearance and she couldn't remember--Miller can say that with more reflection and time to review her notes she did speak to a number of other people before June 23 who did tell her about the connection.

Knyce

Most people have missed that Wilson's dad was CIA in Spain. Wilson grew up with him while he was a diplomat there. It's a 'normal' thing for those legacies to be followed up by a CIA operations officer husband or wife. That is part of the culture at CIA and in the Directorate of Operations. Marriages, etc are just work.

Wilson was supposedly not a CIA operations officer because he had a contract. It might be a new way of covering up that he actually is a CIA operations officer and this would explain his wife's order for the contract work at the directorate of operations. His father was a diplomat too, so why whould there be a difference if he was working for CIA? Plame and the CIA should make this obvious to everyone.

The intelligence community would have said this is obvious. The foreign service community would have said this is obvious.

These convewrsations about Plame would have been normal, including whether she was going to use him like the CIA trainer used Aimes and Howard. Theyr'e all RPCVs.

Richard Michaels

I see you're still ignoring Iraq, global warmening, bushitler's clubbing of baby seals, and Borat Obama's candidacy.

Cocoon much?

/idiot troll

cathyf

Well, I wouldn't want to ignore them all so I'll pop in to say that I think "global warmening" trips off of the tongue oh so pleasingly... ;-)

knyce

Iraq needs more Malkins to help, like Afghanistan.

Okay, they club the seals to lay claim to land rights, which leads to the global warming thing, but, is Obama gay?

daveinboca

Forgotten in all the brouhaha is the fact that Patrick Fitzgerald knew on the 10th of April that Armitage was the leaker, yet with all that status and power as Independent Prosecutor at stake, initiated the investigation on April 17th.

PF is just another careerist prosecutor like Mike Nifong.

windansea

aw look...Munchausen is commenting at firedoglake

52 Joe Wilson says:

January 17th, 2007 at 7:43 am *

As you may have already guessed, Valerie and I are keeping a very low profile these days. We don’t want to do anything to interfere with Mr. Libby’s time in the sun.
But be sure that I am lurking here watching all the great blogging and commentary, grateful that there are so many who understand what this is all about, and who care. Cheers to you all. Joe


Terry Gain

"PF is just another careerist prosecutor like Mike Nifong."

There is some truth to this but it depends on answers to the following questions:

1. Was Plame a covert agent?

2 If not, why wasn't the case dropped when that was established, i.e. pesumably near the outset of the investigation.

3. If so, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted?

4. Did PF determine whether Plame was a covert agent?

5. If not, why not?


I'm sorry if I have trod on previously tilled ground, but I don't know if these questions have been definitively answered.

Patton

I would think a good question for the FBI investigators would be:

Mr. FBI man, would your investigation have taken a different turn if Mr. Armitage had told you during his first interview that
he not only intentionally told Bob Novak, but that he had also told a Mr. Bob Woodward, another purported reporter
all the way back in mid June.

Would that have changed the direction you took in attemtping to discover who was the first to provide information on Plame to the media?

FBI Man: Uhhh, I don't recall.

Libby lawyer: Well, Mr. FBI Man, if you had known that Mr Armitage was the first to reveal Plame to a reporter, and was the one who 'outed' her to Bob Novak, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PURPOSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION??

Patton

And then, Mr FBI man, you might have found that Bob Woodward had that very information when he talked to Scooter Libby, my client on TWO occasions and according to Mr Woodward, may very wekll have mentioned it to Mr. Libby!

Would we even be here today, if you guys did something right for once? Don't you have terrorists to go after or something?

I am through with this fool.

sad

Anyone who knows poetry by heart or all 79 titles of Star Trek couldn't forget who said what when about Joe Wilson's wife.

Shertaugh should meet my husband. He doesn't remember conversations at all unless it is about something he finds significant yet he can sing and recite every bit of Monty Python or any cartoon he watched when he was a kid complete with accent and inflection. Idle gossip is in one ear out the other, job stuff is in to stay and can be dug out at will.

clarice

. Was Plame a covert agent?

Fitz says that's irreleveant and will not introduce any evidence to that effect though he will try to slip in that suggestion at every opportunity.
Toensing who does know what she's talking about has reviewed the requirements for the IIPA and "covert" and says she was not, particularly since whatever her name and title at the agency may have been the agency failed to do everything in its power to keep her identity secret.
In any event it was well past five years since she was stationed abroad, another requirement for the IIPA--the only applicable statute--to cover her.

2 If not, why wasn't the case dropped when that was established, i.e. pesumably near the outset of the investigation.
That's for the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate.

3. If so, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted?
A good question--also for the OPR along with the prosecutor's contentions that it was irrelevant to consider whether Wilson or his allies leaked this information because as Fitz said there are "good leaks and bad leaks"

4. Did PF determine whether Plame was a covert agent?
He does not claim that she was.

5. If not, why not?
More work for the OPR

Patton

Given the most likely make-up of a DC jury, the liberals want all witness responses be put in the form of a 'Yo Mamma' statement.

Lew Clark

Me! Me! Let me answer Terry.

1. No. Not at the time of the Novak article nor 5 years prior. So, by the law, NO!

2. It was not dropped because it was always political not criminal. If the administration directed the AG to order it dropped the Dems/MSM would have convicted Bush/Rove/Libby/Laura and the twins, of every crime on the books and a few future crimes in the court of public/political opinion. As much as, I believe, they hate it, the administration must let this travesty of justice run it's course.

3. Armitage/Powell are the good guys in Left/MSM world. You don't charge the good guys with "not-crimes".

4. Yes he did. The answer was no, and he ran away from prosecution under the IIPA (the only law he could prosecute "outing" a CIA employee under) like it was a snake.

5. See 4. He did and realized he was SOL on prosecuting a "real crime". So he went for the not-crime of perjury and obstruction. Because he based his future career on being the Watergate Prosecutor of the 21st century and he wasn't going to let a little thing like lack of a crime stop him.

Martin

Just for sanity's sake, remember that Fitzgerald was only appointed well AFTER the DOJ knew about Armitage.

Lew Clark

I posted before I read Clarice's answer. So you have the the brilliant legal answer (Clarice), and then the ramblings of a senile retired DoD type (me).
Go with Clarice if you want to win the office pool!

cboldt

-- I don't know if these questions have been definitively answered. --


They haven't, and they won't be.


My year-old take on the case is that DOJ took for granted that the referral was righteous, at least to the extent that they didn't make it their job to question the CIA report. That left "who leaked" as the line of question for DOJ to investigate. And Libby isn't the only casualty of DOJ not calling out the CIA as liars, Miller went to jail, etc.


By now, that cluster-fark has evolved into a massive can-o-worms that nobody wants to open.

Other Tom

Pardon me for having got quite far behind, but is materiality still an issue in this case, at least as to the perjury count? If not, how was it disposed of--was there ever any motion practice on this issue? Could materiality possibly be an issue of fact for the jury (I would certainly think it is exclusively for the judge)?

clarice

I should add that the prosecution obviously considers Armitatge's blabbings to be inadvertent and innocent although Novak's own statement says Armitage encouraged him to write it in his column. And Libby never initiated the topic with Russert (by Russert's statement) or Cooper (who says he called Libby and raised it) and no one knows what the story was with Miller who obviously had wind of the Wilson-Plame-CIA connection before she spoke to Libby at a meeting to debrief her on her work in Iraq in which case whatever he said was incidental to discussing the NIE.
Yet Fitz was persuaded their was a WH "conspiracy" to out Plame--based I take it on notes written in invisible ink to reporters not yet known.

clarice

**there was a WH..* (not their)

maryrose

Lew Clark and clarice-Your take on the workings of Fitz's mind are exactly correct. The similarities between Fitz and NiFong are frightening as are their motives.

Tina

MaryRose: Last night on Brit Hume's special report, Fred Barnes made this very comparison, that Fitzy is looking more and more like Niphong. He knew who the leaker was from the get-go, but would not let go of this case. He is the first commentator I have heard make the comparison, the first of many I hope.

clarice

Comey was his friend and colleague.review his confirmation hearing after Comey had a friendly chat with Schumer and tell me he had not promised Schumer he'd appoint Fitz knowing full well that Fitz would never give up the investigation (and this--after Armitage was known). Obviously it took Comey and Fitz a few days to realize that because Fitz was on the DOJ payroll and therefore banned from being statutorily named as a SP to figure out a way around the Statute and then shortly afterward to change the scope of his powers to include process crimes. (They knew it was process crimes they were hunting from the outset but like telling Armitage to shut his trap, the ballet hid the fact for sometime that they knew before Fitz was appointed that the reason for the appointment--to track down who leaked to Noval and to see if the IPA had been violated in doing so--had no basis in fact.

Tom Maguire

Just for sanity's sake, remember that Fitzgerald was only appointed well AFTER the DOJ knew about Armitage.

I am about three-quarters sympathetic to this point - if Ashcroft at al had had any guts, they could have pulled the plug themselves.

But Fitzgerald was pretty clearly brought in to poke around the perjury/obstruction issue,so he did.

That said, I would love to see just how Fitzgerald presented this to the judges that jailed Miller and I willgoad cboldt by re-asserting my suspicion that Fitzgerald misled the court and, hmm, failed to emphasize the improbability of any charges other than perjury/obstruction.

Had he made clear that he was jailing reporters in pursuit of a perjury charge, maybe they would have re-balanced the scales. Maybe.

clarice

I am in full agreement, TM.

(P.S> Please contact Lance at the earliest so I can post tomorrow on the live blog thread.)

fedconserv

Well, it was a community after all!

1. Yes, Plame was a cia operations officer, paramilitarily trained, by her own admission in 'Vanity Fair' that killed people in Iraq and was later confirmed by two cia operations officers who went to 'the farm' with her; Larry C. Johnson and Jim Marcowski(sp). This was denied by CIA because she worked in the Operations Directorate that payed her husband to go on a contract by her order and because her boss was Mr. Foley; the same name as a the asassinated USAID(CIA) agent Foley in Jordan.

2. The case was not dropped and a criminal conspiracy prosecutor Fitz, (who unfortunately has a thing for politicians, like the President's resigned counsel) was appointed because of murders in Iraq and elsewhere. This was followed by legal action by the Plames.

3. Armitage was not prosecuted because he did nothing wrong, but Fitz wouldn't do his job.

4. PF is irrelevent at this point. He has passed on a criminal conspiracy before his eyes AS HE PROSECUTES. Plame's status is only relevent to the damage control.

5. PF made a determination. Plame was denied officially by the CIA. She admitted who she was on her own at 'Vanity Fair.' She tried to get people to 'leak her,' all high US government officials, so she could blame them for the criminal conspiracy and murders.

Eveyone thinks Plame hid everywhere but her psychiatrist. She has severe psychiatric problems. It's common for operations officers to claim this just before retiring for medals and benefits. The real intelligence community is made of psychiatrists, not the operations officers. Yes, federal employees sometines go on 'little journeys' during their service. It's mostly the cash theyr'e after. Plame could not have been more predictable or disappointing as an operations officer.

Office pool?

clarice

Let me repost what I said --this time more clearly and articulately (I hope).

Comey was Fitz' friend and colleague.Review his confirmation hearing which occurred after Comey had a friendly private chat with Schumer and tell me he had not promised Schumer he'd appoint Fitz knowing full well that Fitz would never give up the investigation . This chat followed by lovefest took place after Armitage was known. Obviously it took Comey and Fitz a few days to realize that because Fitz was on the DOJ payroll he was not eligible to b statutorily named as a SP. They then took a few days to figure out a way around the Statute and set up an appointment under which Fitz had even less supervision and control than had the independent prosecutos which Congress had scrapped for its obvious tendency to allow out of control with hunts.Shortly afterward the two changed (or "clarified" if you will_ the scope of his powers to include process crimes. (They knew it was process crimes they were hunting from the outset but like telling Armitage to shut his trap, the ballet hid the fact for sometime that they knew before Fitz was appointed that the reason for the appointment--to track down who leaked to Noval and to see if the IPA had been violated in doing so--had no basis in fact.

hit and run

sad:
Shertaugh should meet my husband. He doesn't remember conversations at all unless it is about something he finds significant

Shoot, that's nothing. My wife will ask me to go get something out of the office -- I stroll on over, get there, and scratch my head and say, "What did she say again?". So I go back and ask. She tells me, I stroll again, get there and say, "Wait, where did she say x was? In a drawer? In the cabinet?" And I head on back and ask again, and my wife, frustrated, gets up and gets it herself.

I mean well. I really do.

JohnH


Testimony:

Russert: Libby did not leak to me that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative.

Libby: I did not leak to Tim Russert that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative.

But since Libby may have lied when he said that he heard it from Russert "as if for the first time", he obstructed Fitzgerald's efforts to find out if Libby leaked when he spoke to Russert. How is that?

Same deal with Matt Cooper.

Since Libby is not charged with lying in reporting what he said to reporters other than Cooper and Russert, and since by the testimony of Cooper, Russert and Libby, he did not leak to them, where is the obstruction?

Patton

Well, if Bush pardons Libby, he should also pardon Joe Wilson at the same time.

Just have a pardon order drawn up on Wilson and state on it that his crimes are still classified and thus cannot be revealed to the public, but its really really, frogmarch bad.

Ha ha ha

clarice

John H , I take it Fitz' argument is that--notwithstanding he never pursued Armitage very much nor any of the "good leakers"--if only Libby had not said that he'd heard it first from Cheney and then "as if for the first time" from Russert--he would surely have been able to prove that Dick Cheney commanded a secret army of operatives whose sole job consisted of getting revenge at truthseeker Munchausen by letting the world know what Munchausen had been blabbing all over the world to burnish his own thin credentials as a WMD expert.

I find the argument not pursuasive but well ....

cboldt

-- I would love to see just how Fitzgerald presented this to the judges that jailed Miller and I willgoad cboldt by re-asserting my suspicion that Fitzgerald misled the court and, hmm, failed to emphasize the improbability of any charges other than perjury/obstruction. --

My speculation has been that releasing the presently sealed and redacted material will not reveal any more of Fitz's presentation/logic than we already have in FN15 of the August affidavit to Judge Hogan. The pundits and observers have that footnote (and maybe other similar ones) with which to characterize Fitz's motive as "misleading," "disingenuous," or "proof of covert status."

I've felt, based on the record, that the only thing Fitz had was false statements, and that it's a prosecutorial judgement call as to overlooking or prosecuting a witness who lies their ass off.

Expecting Fitz to "out the CIA" or "whitewash the investigation into WH activity," if either outcome is what DOJ and the administration were hoping, is pretty cheap. But Fitz is a big boy who accepted the appointment. He should have read the tea-leaves and gone for the white-wash. He's going to learn that there is no such thing as justice.

I'm hoping the revisit to the CADC 04-3138 case will illuminate what the courts would have done if the only viable charges were false statements. But in the end, I think the courts would have had no option but to prosecute the indictment, even if Miller's testimony was not available to the grand jury. IOW, the stakes involved in Fitz's "misleading" affidavit are Miller's testimony, not the entire case against Libby (or against Rove).

clarice

If one were inclined one could make out a scenario that the folks behind this imbroglio in a demitasse cup finessed Ashcroft .

First assume that Armitage's admission found its way from the DOJ ratline to the hill.Someone just happens to leak to Andrea Mitchell the fact of the referral. (I think someone in DoJ if you want to know my suspicion.)Then Judiciary minority spokesmen Schumer and Conyers start putting pressure on the recusal. At the same time with all the skill of a regular Fenton Communications operations a credulous or complicit press keep playing up Corn's dramatic invention of a brave whistleblower whose wife's a covert agent . The Adminstration is then portrayed as liars who manipulated intel to get us into war AND people so uncaring of national security as to have done this even though it placed in grave danger untold numbers of CIA operatives around the world.

All of this was baloney, of course, but it made it increasingly difficult not to turn over the matter to Comey.

Patton

News media won't highlight it, but Hilliary today said she'd stop protecting the Iraqi government and allow them to be assasinated in order to get them to comply with her wishes.

And Bush is the brutal torturing fascist??

Patton

Apparently Hilliary subscribes to the philosphy of screw their hearts and minds, if you got them by the ballz, their hearts and minds will follow.

Sounds like she'd enjoy waterboarding a few guys at Gitmo...ooops sorry, she only threatened the lives of the innocent Iraqis trying to bring freedom to their country. She hasn't threatened the actual terrorists yet. Kind of like he husband killing a million innocent Iraqis while letting the bad guys rape pillage torture and build palaces.

Happy now BTW, Iraq comments provided...

maryrose

So BTW -you and Hil like kissin cousins. I always knew it-birds of a feather...

sad

News media won't highlight it, but Hilliary today said she'd stop protecting the Iraqi government and allow them to be assasinated in order to get them to comply with her wishes.

They might, but in terms of how "strong and courageous she is, while bringing a refeshing candor to the debate".... Then they will itemize her many qualifications as a potential Commander in Chief.

Just sayin

Javani

No matter how nice the NYTimes acts,


Judy will be destroyed on the stand.

clarice

cboldt, I disagree about the Miller opinion. I have tried a couple of times to copy and paste portions of that opinion but it only creates comuper problems for me.

At the outset the majority opinion indicates the purpose of the subpoenas was to ascertain whether one or more reporters received information about "a covert agent" in violation of tha law.

In another portion it takes about the DoJ guidelines to which Fitz was bound.
(b) says that before subpoenaing a reporter the DoJ must ascertain that it has made all reasonable efforts to find out the information elsewhere and those efforts were unavailing.
Knowing that Armitage leaked to Novak, Fitz had to have done much more than he did to probe who else Armitage spoke to --like subpoenaing his records. He didn't . So any calim made to the court that he complied with this guideline was hockum
(d) of the guidelines says it reporters should be subpoenaed only to authenicate the accuracy of their published reports. As we know, Miller published nothing on this subject.

maryrose

Hil , like her husband Bill{cue the albatross} doesn't care how many of the Iraq people or leaders are killed.

Lew Clark

I have always wondered why Miller really went to jail. It could not have been to protect Libby. Libby had given permission to "tell all". And, out of jail, once Fitz had narrowed it to Libby, she "told all" (in her bumbling way). So, your left, IMHO, with three choices. 1. She went to jail in order to be a media hero, giving up her freedom to protect the non-existent constitutional freedom of the press to protect sources. 2. She went to jail to protect someone else (Armitage?) who she knew had spilled the beans waaaaay before Libby, but had not given permission to "rat". or 3. She is really as dingy as she appears and also hard of hearing and heard "Yale" instead of "jail" and thought she was getting a scholarship to nail that Yale Law Degree she always wanted.

Walter

Clarice,

From the February hearing:

I can't represent we know every reporter because we took seriously the attorney general guidelines. But any reporter we knew about we give over. If the point is to find out the extent of knowledge of the reporters, we can't do more than tell them every reporter we know about.

So, Fitzgerald isn't saying that he followed the guidelines; he merely seriously considered them.

clarice

Let's suppose for fun that Armitage, wanting to eat in this town again, has given Miller a waiver to disclose he mentioned Plame to her before she spoke to Libby and that she is asked again about other sources in her notebook.

clarice

Walter, my point re Armitage is that Fitz never even fully investigated the role of non-reporters to meet the DoJ guidelines which require that before supoenaing reporters he had to show that he'd fully exploited every available avenue to find the source of the leaks and could not proceed further without the reporters' testimony.

Sue

Lew,

This is what Judith Miller said:

Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.

I don't think she went to jail to protect Libby or anyone related to the outing of super-duper spy, Valerie Plame. I believe she went to jail to protect her sources on her reporting regarding WMDs, which would have shown up had she turned over her unredacted phone records, appointment books, etc. There is something in there she didn't want Fitz to see, maybe to do with the Holy Land Foundation case?

irl

'liars who manipulated intel to get us into war AND people so uncaring of national security as to have done this even though it placed in grave danger untold numbers of CIA operatives around the world.'

The plan before the war was to leak the covert CIA WMD operations officer training and use the war to get rid of it. Later, leak that Dr. Rice's degree was why and sell out the schools who taught the operations officers(yes, all those Presidents were hired by CIA). Rice and Bush's relationship at the mansion, by themselves, with some alcohol, close friends, studying WMD. The operations officers murdered were mostly foreign.

Porcelain cup? Why should it be larger and in glass? This is intricate, but not confusing.

Baron Abrams instead of Baron Wilson? That movie with McGyver star was pretty neat.

I researched the CAD things and ended up with Justice Powell in Branzburg?

Cheap? It confirmed that Fitz doesn't work for justice, just to put politicians in jail. The CIA was nearly outed by Congress, but that failed. All the analysts now work at DOD. The operations officers at DOD are getting the same domestic law enforcement rights as the the CIA. Maybe this was planned.................

The purpose of the subpoenas was to have Congressmen banned from serving on committees for five years, ending their careers.

The Ashcroft recusal? He knew what happened.

Information about covert agents? They are talked about every day by millions of people.

clarice

PUK, DO you know where I put my decoder ring?

SP

Ya, it's right over here..............

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6cYKKKxX_bk&refer=home

But NSA(hint) is military. It's like they are turning into CIA. Run by Congress. Funded by Congress. It's just a 'puzzle palace!'

A PUK code is the universal unlocking thinf for a cell phone?

cathyf

Lew, maybe Armitage was Miller's source. But I think it is more likely that Miller learned about Plame from one of the "leetle peeple." One or more of her long-term WMD intel sources in the CIA, State, DoD, etc. Somebody who would have been at the same level, or a little above or below, who went to meetings with Plame. Somebody like the anonymous DoS guy who reported that he went to a meeting where Plame, the "CIA managerial type", introduced her hubby.

Those people would have known who Plame was, and would have known that she wasn't covert, and would have probably found the whole deal darkly funny and gossip-worthy. And most importantly, I firmly believe that for a good journalist, those are the sources that are worth going to jail for.

SP

Why did your cap thing say CTV? Huh? That's been happening alot lately. Maybe it's bad like Lucifer or somethin' and I better hide and stuff..............

Javani

"Nick Kristof met with Mr. and Mrs. Wilson over breakfast in May 2003"

It could be easily argued by the article you hyperlink that it was Kristof's wife, not Wilson's, who attended the breakfast.

clarice

Yes, we thought that earlier but other things came along--forgot which--that made it clear (probably some statement by Kristof) that it was indeed Plamw.

cathyf
It could be easily argued by the article you hyperlink that it was Kristof's wife, not Wilson's, who attended the breakfast.
Indeed. And an organization with the resources of the FBI could have dispatched with that ambiguity in Sep/Oct of 2003. That they were so uncurious means that Fitzgerald committed perjury when he claimed in a court filing that the purpose of the investigation was to ascertaine who talked to reporters about Mrs. Wilson's employment under what circumstances.
Sara (Squiggler)

Anyone who knows poetry by heart or all 79 titles of Star Trek couldn't forget who said what when about Joe Wilson's wife. Of course, I don't know if that's true. But it may make for some empassioned discussion for a day or so about a slanted, rather than "insightful," article.

This is ridiculous. Anyone who has lived with an extremely brilliant person knows what flakes they are. My Mother had a tested IQ of over 170 and she could recite every poem she'd ever memorized back to her toddler days but she couldn't go an hour without losing something or needing someone to remind her of something. She used to tell me that if I needed something to put it in writing so she could read and remember, that just telling her was futile. This included day to day things like "don't forget lunch money," or "I need a ride at 4 pm." Her mind was always out in the stratosphere somewhere and running about 3 months ahead of everyone else. She wanted to take me out of school one day to come home and help her find her glasses, which became one of those family laughfest stories since her glasses at the time were sitting on top of her head.

She,like me, would remember she'd heard the story before, but probably wouldn't be able to say from who or remember the punch line and yet she could recite Dickens "A Tale of Two Cities" almost in its entirety without notes (not like me).

clarice

Javani..I do think the VF article also hyperlinked by Tom resolves that--Plame was at the meeting with Wilson where they met Kristof.
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php>A little lunch

Lew Clark

Cathy,
You and Sue are getting really close to the "thing", not the person, that Miller was afraid of disclosing. If I knew that we really knew what that thing was, I'd have to kill all three of us. But since, luckily, we're just a bunch of amateur neocons who only speculate and really don't know the "big secrets" like jrl, I won't have to do that.

cboldt

-- I disagree about the Miller opinion. I have tried a couple of times to copy and paste portions of that opinion but it only creates comuper problems for me. --

Yeah. I know the feeling. Try http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf <- that one.

I said that the only thing hanging in the balance was Miller's (didn't say it, but "and Cooper's" too) testimony before the grand jury. You disagree?

On a re-read of my previous, I want to clarify the hypothetical alternative history I was describing. If Miller wasn't compelled, and Fitz crafted a hypothetical alternative indictment that alleged false statements, the courts would still provide a venue to prosecute the hypothetical alternative indictment.

clarice

That's the one I tried, cboldt--there is an html format of it and it screwed up and locked my pc four times

Whatever language the court used, it relied on cases which involved in at least one instance a reporter being a witness to a crime..reading their explication of that and their opening remarks that Miller and Cooper were believed to have been told the identity of a "covert agent in violation of the law", I think it safe to suggest that had they known instead the issue was whether Libby had lied about whether reporters told him the identity of a person who was not overt -- after Armitage told Woodward and Novak-- they would have acknowledged they were dealing with a far different fact issue. And I feel certain that if the Court knew Armitage had in fact told one reporter this information and the Feebs hadn't even subpoenaed his visitors' log or asked him if he'd told others, the Court would have thrown the SP out on his ass.

cboldt

-- the Court would have thrown the SP out on his ass. --

Not clearly responsive to my point or question. Not that I care, just saying ...

clarice

I don't see a question. I read your post as saying had Fitz been utterly forthcoming the Miller court would still have upheld the subpoena ruling and my response as saying why I don't think that is necessarily the case, cboldt.

topsecretk9

Javani..I do think the VF article also hyperlinked by Tom resolves that--Plame was at the meeting with Wilson where they met Kristof.
A little lunch


TM said Hubris said:

2. The Vanity Fair article describing the circumstances under which Nick Kristof first met Joe Wilson and learned his Niger story had a vague pronoun reference when it reported that Wilson met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife in May 2003. (Whose wife? Ms. Kristof is also a journalist). But yes, Valerie was at the conference that weekend when Nick and Joe got together.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09/hubris_interest.html

MJW

cboldt, you say My speculation has been that releasing the presently sealed and redacted material will not reveal any more of Fitz's presentation/logic than we already have in FN15 of the August affidavit to Judge Hogan.

My question is, what do you think Fitz said to the appeals court about Armitage? It seems to me that no matter what he said or didn't say, it would reveal a good deal more about Fitz's presentation than we already know.

Reading the appeals court opinion, and particularly Tatel's concurring opinion, leads me to the firm conclusion that the court believed a violation of national security had likely occurred, yet as far as we can see from the unredacted portion, none of the justices even alludes to the possibility that a violation was committed by anyone except Libby and the (unnamed) Rove.

PeterUK

Clarice,
Looks like they are trying to close down the London School of Economics and the College of Europe.No more nuclear testing in Regents Park.

Sue

I'd have to kill all three of us.

::YIKES::

But since, luckily, we're just a bunch of amateur neocons who only speculate and really don't know the "big secrets" like jrl, I won't have to do that.

::WHEW::

Patton

Isn't the point here regarding the journalists that Libby claimed to the investigators and the GJ that he told the reporters (Miller/Cooper) that he had heard about Wilsons wife from other reporters.

Fitz is claiming that Libby lied when he said he had heard about it from reporters (and not that that statment is true or false, but did he actually mouth those words).

Well, if Libby had provided solid information on Plame, one would think these reporters would have published the information (Russert even said it was such a blockbuster revelation, it was impossible not to remember it and rush it into print or on the air (But that didn't happen).

So Miller and Cooper are both going to have to clearly remember Libbys' words, WORD FOR WORD to insure he never said he heard it from other reporters.

If they cannot clearly without hedging recall the conversation on cross examination, how could you possible have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

Patton

Fitz's ultimate point would be that Libby's supposed lie would have caused Fitz to search for other reporters that knew Plame was CIA even though Libby knew he hadn't heard it from a journalist.

But if Fitz had actually follwed Libbys supposed lie...Fitz may have found Woodward.

So even if Libby totally and completely intended to lie, it could only have helped, not hindered the investigation.

cboldt

-- I don't see a question. --


I said that the only thing hanging in the balance was Miller's (didn't say it, but "and Cooper's" too) testimony before the grand jury. You disagree?


-- I read your post as saying had Fitz been utterly forthcoming the Miller court would still have upheld the subpoena ruling --


I believe you.

cboldt

-- My question is, what do you think Fitz said to the appeals court about Armitage? --

I think he said nothing about Armitage. Fitzgerald already had Novak's testimony to piece together with Armitage's, and the appeal was to obtain judicial enforcement of a subpoena to compel reporters other than Novak to testify before the grand jury.

Extraneus

Both Fitz and Nifong are involved in spectacular cases, with super high public awareness, and can thus be scrutinized by bloggers and anyone else paying attention, but it kinda shakes your faith in the justice system to think what prosecutors must do to normal anonymous people on a routine basis under the media radar.

clarice

We can never be sure how all the court would have voted had there been a more complete disclosure, but it is clear to me Tatel would have voted against sustaining the subpoenas had he known the prosecution was not trying to find out who had leaked the i.d. of a covert agent in violation of the law.

MJW

Yet, cboltd, clearly Fitz went beyond merely saying that reporters, like everyone else, were required to testify if called before a grand jury. He built a case as to why, even if reporters are held to higher standard, they should still have to testify in this case. And the foundation of his case was that something REALLY BAD occurred that trumped any first amendment concerns. The appeals court decision shows that the judges believed something really bad occurred, yet the judges seemed oblivious to the significant fact that it would have occurred regardless of the actions of Libby or Rove. I find that odd. I find it odd that you don't find it odd.

Mark Flowie

Well, now that she got rid of the NSA.

I leaked Plame researching a murder.......

MJW

Adding to my previous comment:

In Fitz's affidavit, he spent three pages of single-spaced type explaining the history of the case, starting with the State of the Union address. If Fitz didn't include the sourcing of Novak's column (and I'm not saying he didn't), it was a calculated decision.

cboldt

-- I find it odd that you don't find it odd. --


My hashing of the appeal

clarice

Wa Po beats bloggers re voir dire--This is by far the best story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701270.html

Javani

Clarice:

Have they released the exhibit lists? Do they include the British articles showing Joe sticking his nose into the "Dodgy Dossier" affair before Joe's article? Didn't this alarm many in the government and they inquired then into Joe and his trip? And if they didn't doesn't this mean they are incompetent? Wouldn't have British intel rung up the Americans and ask who the hell this "Ambassador" was?

Obviously important, but IMO. The Senate INtel panel didn't go into that at all.

clarice

The Court order says that after exhibits have been presented to the jury--at the end of the day--counsel shall post them in an email where they will be available for publication/public view.

JohnH

Great story, Clarice. Why don't they impanel a jury like Congress chooses committees--51% on one side and 49% on the other. Everyone is on one side or the other.

If they find jurors who haven't heard enough about the case to sway their opinions, they might as well certify them as retarded.

cboldt

-- If Fitz didn't include the sourcing of Novak's column (and I'm not saying he didn't), it was a calculated decision. --


The omission that should get under your skin is absence of proof of "covert" or "classified" status. Finding Novak's source doesn't close the investigation, especially when there is evidence that Libby and Rove were leaking too. Russert's testimony contradicted Libby, for example, and Cooper contradicted Rove. The affidavit contains evidence that suggests Libby is a lying leaker.


Just because Armitage is a known leaker doesn't make Libby and Rove into non-leakers.

Patton

""Just because Armitage is a known leaker doesn't make Libby and Rove into non-leakers."""

It also means Joe Wilson, Joe Tribune from wasaw Wisconsin, that fat guy on the corner and perhaps YOU are also LEAKERS.

But what does that have to do with finding out who leaked to Novak?

Are you saying Fitz had carte blanche to interview all 10,000 journalists and all 2 Million federal employees to see who else is a leaker.

clarice

THE VALERIE PLAME COMPENSATION ACT (I am not kidding)



"Culture is the passion for Sweetness and Light, and (what is more) the passion for making them prevail."
- Matthew Arnold
Buzz
Justice Hands Over Terror Monitoring To FISA Court:
jimwilson: I've only got one thing to say... This is more motivation for me...
Haditha Attorney Claims Pentagon Has Misled Public:
oki: Doesn't a "pardon" indicate a belief that they are guilty?...
Pilots Blast $400K Jury Award To "Profiling Victim":
choosesomething: How come I can't be question for 2 hours, I could use...
YouTube Now Has "Undercover Mosque" Unabridged:
morninggloryseed: Looks like FOX picked up the story: American-Born Imam Spews Message of Hate...
"Penis-Mouth" Webb To Give Democrat SOTU Rebuttal:
Captain America: Webb has the biggest ego of any human on earth. Come to...
More Comments >>


And...


The Week's Overlooked News Items As Selected By Our Correspondents

Articles
Bill To Give Plame Pension Despite Age Requirement
Justice Hands Over Terror Monitoring To FISA Court
Haditha Attorney Claims Pentagon Has Misled Public
Pilots Blast $400K Jury Award To “Profiling Victim”
NYT Blames Saddam Hanging For Shiite-Sunni Conflict
“Penis-Mouth” Webb To Give Democrat SOTU Rebuttal
Palestinian Parliament Has Been Effectively Shut Down
Will The Burkini Save Muslims From Rapacious Aussies?
Castro “In Serious Condition” After 3 Failed Operations
UK Jury Sees Videos Of Accused Subway Terrorists
WaPo Says Voting Rights Act Being “Twisted” In Case
YouTube Now Has “Undercover Mosque” Unabridged
Trial Begins For 6 Would-be London Subway Bombers
Saddam’s 2 Trial Mates Are Hanged And Decapitated
Ahmadinejad Tours Nicaragua With Daniel Ortega
Nifong Was Rebuked Early And Often About Ethics
Abscam Murtha Pledges To Block Funding Of Surge
New Orleans “Struggles” To Regain Its Black Character
Red Cross Finally Allows “Red Crystal” Symbol For Israel
The Blotter Blots Out Nancy Pelosi’s Min Wage Break
Al Jazeera Reporter Arrested For Fabricating Video
Missed News Items For the Weeks Of Jan 14 - 20
In Baghdad Hillary Clinton Calls Iraq War Un-winnable
Ahmadinejad Takes “Dictators Tour” Of South America
DVD Sold In London Mosque: Jews Will Be Exterminated
Cindy Sheehan’s Entourage Includes Mom Of Terrorists
Mike Nifong Officially Off Duke Rape Case - Updated!
Pelosi Exempts Company In Her District From Wage Hike
Rangel And Pelosi Bicker Over How To Tax The Rich
Whites Protest Soaring Murder Rate In New Orleans
White House Denies New Dem Congressman’s Stories
Barbara Boxer Attacks Condi Rice Over “Childlessness”
Terrorists Claim To Have Fired Chemical Missiles At US
Hugo Chavez Vows To Continue After His Term Ends
US Forces Storm Iran Consulate In Northern Iraq
Duke Rape Accuser Changes Her Story - Yet Again
Pelosi Says Trying To Save Iraq Sends Wrong Signal
China Attacks Terrorists With Ties To Al Qaeda
Troop Surge Was Recommended By Iraq Study Group
Leak Investigations Blocked By Lack Of Cooperation
MN Kids Kicked Off School Bus For Speaking English
Rep. Ellison Says US Must End “Occupation” Of Iraq
Wives Of Castro’s Prisoners Beg Cindy Sheehan For Help
Four More Of Bush Judges Give Up On Confirmation
ACLU Sues Rhode Island Police For Arresting Illegals
Pentagon Confirms Gunship Attack On Somali Terrorists
A Duke Professor Defends Her (Racist) Outrage
The WaPo Demands Free Legal Aid For Illegal Aliens
Australia Vetoes Construction Of A New Mosque
Anti-War Propaganda’s “Dead Soldier” Is Still Alive

More Articles >>

Links
Ann Coulter
Lucianne
American Thinker

S & L

Register
Login
Privacy
Contact
Get The T-Shirt!




Web S&L

Bill To Give Plame Pension Despite Age Requirement

Some folks over at Free Republic (including Mo1 and Deport) uncovered this legislation up for passage by Congress.

Apparently, the brilliant Valerie Plame decided to quit her job at the CIA exactly 20 years and seven days after beginning her employment there.

But she seemingly wasn’t aware that she had neglected to meet the age requirement as well. So now she wants that to be given her for her wonderful service to our country:


INTRODUCTION OF THE VALERIE PLAME WILSON COMPENSATION ACT — (Extensions of Remarks - January 16, 2007)

[Page: E118]—


SPEECH OF
HON. JAY INSLEE
OF WASHINGTON
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007
(more at http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-in-congress-to-give-valerie-plame-pension-early)

clarice

Sorry all that extra stuff got copied--It's the Valerie Plame Compensation Act I wanted.)

HerbieWilkers

...if Bush pardons Libby, he should also pardon Joe Wilson at the same time.

HAH! That would be nasty.

It would have the added benefit of complicating His Excellency the Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's Civil Suit.

BDS sufferers would go nuts. I like it.

clarice

Hi Herb/Long time no see. How's tricks?

pagar

Maybe off-topic somewhat, but it does pertain to one of the players. And I, at least, hadn't seen it before:
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-in-congress-to-give-valerie-plame-pension-early

pagar

That's what happens when you type slow. Got beat again. Sorry for my post after Clarice's.

MJW

cboldt: The omission that should get under your skin is absence of proof of "covert" or "classified" status.

Can't I have both?

You seem to believe, as I do, that Fitz didn't really have a reasonable chance of indicting for violations of the IIPA or Espionage Act, and that he was always after false statements and perjury. But in his affidavit, Fitz, under the section titled "The Need for the Reporter's Testimony," refers to both statutes as possibly applying to Libby if only he could get Miller's testimony. I doubt Fitz actually believed either statute applied. I suspect Fitz claimed they might because he though it would increase his chance of winning in the appeals court. If I'm correct, Fitzgerald lied to the court in a sworn affidavit; a crime on the same level as that which Libby is charged. Fortunately for Fitz, the crime is essentially unprovable. I do, however, believe we'll find more circumstantial evidence in the redacted portions of the affidavits and opinion.

lurker

I don't think this bill for Valerie Plame should be passed.

lurker

Oh!

I see that James Webb has been chosen to provide a "Democrat Response" to Bush's SOTU.

Bet his speech will be just as bad as whomever spoke after Bush's Surge speech. Was it Durbin that spoke after this speech?

sbw

Durbin.

cboldt

In the February 10, 2006 CIA annuity calculation letter to Plame ...

Our records show that since January 1, 1987, you have acquired 6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service. Following is a list of your federal service: Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ð(P/T 40), from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006--total 20 years, 7 days.

sad

Perhaps the bill in question regarding Plame's early compensation should involve full discussion of her employment history, positions held, dates, classification, duties, etc... Debated openly on the floor would be the most democratic, would it not?

clarice

MJW That's how I read the portion of the affidavit I was able to see. It's interesting to suppose how Miller or Plame could have had any information which would have shed light on whether either of those statutes had been violated. It surely suggests he was telling the court that Plame was covert or her a employment classified secret which revealing would violate federal law.And, of course, that they had evidence that Libby or Rove had been the leaker.

cboldt

INTRODUCTION OF THE VALERIE PLAME WILSON COMPENSATION ACT
Congressional Record - January 16, 2006 - Extension of Remarks

clarice

Yes, Cboldt--and when were those 6 years 1 month and 29 days?

Wish I knew.

topsecretk9

--Posted by: HerbieWilkers | January 17, 2007 at 04:47 PM--

HERBIE? Where you been... I've missed you!

MJW

The Valerie Plame Wilson Compensation Act is probably a go-nowhere stunt, but it would be interesting to see it debated on the floor of the House.

sad

Didn't she leave work to be a full time Mom, or sue some people? Guess that legal defense fund isn't paying all that well. Why doesn't the hairdo get some modeling gigs?

clarice

House is till on the market. Book going nowhere. Oh, boo hoo

topsecretk9

For these reasons, and under these distressing conditions, Mrs. Plame Wilson voluntarily resigned from the Agency.

Notice this little stunt comes on the same day they responded in their civil suit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame