Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Saturday Night Libby | Main | Editors At The WaPo? »

February 04, 2007

Comments

po - PoliticaObscura

Russert is a big question mark. I assume Libby's team has a plan A and a plan B depending on how is testimony goes...

windansea

Yes..Go Peyton...because you beat the Patriots (who beat my Chargers) in one of the best comebacks ever.

Martin

Please explain again why Fitz was wrong to bring lots of counts against terrorists, b/c I still didn't see an explanation and it's just so goofy a charge...

Carol Herman

So, Fitz is filing, with the judge, to put in the PINCUS article! To show "Libby's state of mind." And, to "argue," that in spite of Fitz' "little case," Libby's knowledge is much broader!

Um. If so, why isn't the man being tried on the "bigger supposition?" Why has the judge allowed Fitz to get away with so much mischief?

Yes, Clarice. It's good to know Espy got off! But, given that what he went through certainly hurts recruitment efforts for any president to get "top talent," where's the advantages to "getting off," after your life is ruined by innuendo, and fiction? Presented by "indpendent persecutors." Or "special" ones. (Those are the ones who don't have to "file reports.")

Yes, tomorrow will be interesting. Though from where I sit? I don't see Judge Walton as a prince among men. Just someone willing to sit on the truth. And, let the adversarial nature of our court system "play itself out."

And, tomorrow, what are we also waiting for? To see if RULE 29 chops some of Fitz' charges (against) cooper off the table? Or if David Sanger isn't the "mystery witness" Fitz wants to call? (Because supposedly he is fighting to quash a subpeona?)

I sure hope Ted Wells can pull this listing ship to a safe harbor. (Yes. He did so for Espy!) Glad, Clarice, you added that in to one of your posts.

Carol Herman

Not an earth shattering TYPO. But the NYTIMES reporter attempting to quash his subpeona from WELLS. Not Fitz! At least I think so.

If nothing else it's costing the NYTIMES lots of money "protecting" their reporters, when it comes to testifying. (Is Bennett the "go to guy?) No wonder "profts" at the NYTIMES is off by $658-million-dollars for '06. Not just due to "bad property purchases" in Boston, either.

Patrick R. Sullivan

What a piece of work is this man Fitzgerald!

He claims in pretrial motions that he won't be introducing these WaPo articles. With that in mind, the Defense crafts a strategy. Hearing that strategy, Fitz decides he does want to introduce them; Bait and Switch.

Not to mention that he's admitting he put Libby in a perjury trap. Let him think there's IIPA jeopardy--when they know there isn't--and see if he'll craft a story to avoid IIPA jeopardy that can be argued was a lie. The umpire threw sand in the eyes of the batter.

po - PoliticaObscura

If Fitz gets the articles in, the defense should also get in the other 5,000 or so other articles in all of Libby's folders...

Mike Dikta

Bears 37
Indy 9

DA BEARS!!!!

windansea

I'll take that bet Coach

po - PoliticaObscura

Martin wrote: "Please explain again why Fitz was wrong to bring lots of counts against terrorists, b/c I still didn't see an explanation and it's just so goofy a charge..."

Geez, Martin how thick are you? Playing fast and loose and silly and ridiculous with charges pisses off the judge and feeds into the anti-American attitudes of, well, people just like you.

If Fitz has 15 charges he can nail a terrorist with and put him away forever, he should just do it. That way the terrorist won't be able to join you on your ACLU/CAIR field trip to Mecca you've been planning for next spring.

There is no use going with 1000 charges if it pisses off the judge and makes successfully putting a terrorist's butt in jail harder. A life sentence on 15 charges will do nicely, thank you.

JM Hanes

po

The moral of this story? Don't keep anything in your files that you don't endorse "without qualification."

hit and run

Hey - I'm pulling for the Colts.

But - we have friends that just adopted a little girl from Korea.

Um, they decided to have a welcome party/dedication.

To-freakin-night.

Are you kidding me?

This poor little girl is going to be starting out on the wrong foot with a number of people.

po - PoliticaObscura

And strike what I wrote in response to Martin, I shouldn't have written it.

I'd like it expunged from the record...

Thank you your honor...

Martin

P.O.- I have seen no evidence of any "reprimand" from a judge. Just put or shut up-that's all I'm asking.

MCL

Sorry if this has already been addressed, I've read most but certainly not all of the comments on the previous threads.

From the FDL summary of the Bond testamony in the previous thread:

Z What did he tell you VP told him
DB Libby told us that VP told him that AMb's wife worked in CP division. Libby explained that CP stood for Counter Proliferation.
Z Did Libby tell you where he tought VP learned this.
DB Yes–VP told him he received it from someone at CIA. He believed VP had learned it from Tenet. However he was not certain if it was Tenet or someone else.
Z Did Libby tell you what happened to memory.
DB He forgot it. When he heard it from Russert in July that he learned it for the first time. Not until Fall 2003 that he realized he learned of it in June 2003.
Z When he learned name of former Ambassador
DB Claimed to have learned as Joe Wilson,when he read Joe Wilson's op-ed on July 6. That's what he told us.

If Libby did not learn that the former Ambassador was Wilson until July, it's easier (for me at least) to understand how he could forget about the connection between the Ambassador and the CIA wife provided by the VP a month earlier.

Martin

MCL-if you believe Libby didn't know who Wilson was until July 6, well...

you definitely belong here.

clarice

MCL--That is correct..all the previous article were ex-envoy or something..Even the SP has made a point of Wilson having dropped the mask on July 6.

windansea

wow..martin is even smarter than Fitz!!

Patton

Martin, once again. No one argued that Fitz shouldn't charge 1,000,000 counts, what they objected to was Fitz couldn't provide evidence for all those counts.

And besides charging terrorists with crimes just makes them mad and makes the attack us...haven't you heard. We are supposed to be nice, to talk to them, understand their feelings, undestand why they hate us and embarce their culture and don't act like ugly Americans. Ohh, look who I'm preaching to......

Carol Herman

po - Politcal obscura ...

In your post above, you said that Fitzgerald, by "over-charging" would piss off the judge.

I've yet to see that proven true. Walton seems to be more a partisan slinger, so far, than anything else. "Like a referee who tosses sand into the batter's eyes." When Fitz gave his presser? Was his baseball anology a tip of the hat to what he "signalled" Walton? I presume Walton was watching, ya know.

Heck, we've got Fitz' word that J.Miller received "esp" signals from the personal letter, Bennett made sure Libby would be forced to write. While, on the side, he was negotiating with the NYTimes to cover all of her legal expenses.

It's just amazing to me the stuff I've accummulated, just reading things here; that have NEVER made their way into print! What's that about? Isn't purposeful "ommission" also considered a crime?

If Reggie Walton is a "fair" judge, then wrestling matches are never thrown. Never fixed in advance. Never. Ever. But, I'm willing to wait. To see. Because I do learn new stuff every day. And, I don't think I'm as good as FATE as reading things that happen t'marra. (Nor do I believe humans are responsible for the weather. Global Warming? I blame those darn butterflies that flutter their wings in a warm climate. And, the cold air blows in Chicago.) Cold air in Chicago? That's new news? Who knew?

I really do wish some posters got out of the ad hominem business. (It's like going to a sporting event, and the bozo behind ya just keeps spilling his beer.)

steve

Reading all the stuff about Fitz's motions to get articles into evidence and his theories about Libby's motives, I would like to make a modest proposal:

When prosecutors charge purely process crimes of obstrution or perjury, with no underlying offense, their own state of mnd throughout the investigation should be subject to examination in court. In other words, Wells should be able to call Fitz as a hostile witness and get out before the jury exactly how Libby threw sand in his eyes how he was tricked and misled, etc.

There are a few attorney work-product issues here, I know, but if we can screw around with defendants' Sixth Amendment rights by convicting them on crimes for which they haven't been formally charged...

JM Hanes

Bring back Janet Jackson. Go Colts!

cboldt

-- No one argued that Fitz shouldn't charge 1,000,000 counts, what they objected to was Fitz couldn't provide evidence for all those counts. --

The judge suggested that instead of having 154 discrete actions being provided to show one count of conspiracy, that the prosecution might settle for 26 (associated with the alphabet from "A" to "Z") discrete actions. Investigators had uncovered many many actions that were indicative of conspiracy on the part of the bombers, and not all of these instances (indicating planning and conspiracy) would be necessary to show that the bombers had in fact conspired to commit the actions that were in fact pulled off.

There was sufficient evidence to convict on the count. Defendants Hage, Odeh, al Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were found guilty at the conclusion of the trial, and the convictions were upheld on appeal. At least one other defendant in the case pled guilty to the count.

Clarice posted this ...

In one of Fitz' earlier cases he filed over 100 counts of obstruction--the judge made him cut that way back. McCarthy worked under Fitz, he fully knew what kind of prosecutor he was.

... in response to a post by azaghal. The general tenor of the exchange is criticism of Andy McCarthy for defending Fitzgerald. The casual reader should come away thinking that both Fitzgerald and McCarthy are skunks.

MayBee

I can see why the Libby team was concerned about the jury instructions that mentioned the definition of perjury without stating Libby needed to have lied specifically about the issues in the indictment to be found guilty.

Bond testified that Libby told her (claimed) that he didn't know Wilson's name until the Op-ed. Martin finds that quite compelling. Yet Libby is not charged with anything regarding that statement, and we have ample evidence Fitzgerald was willing to change on the slightest discrepancy.

JM Hanes

Billy Joel. Man, has he been rode hard, or what? Bring back Jackson. Go Colts!

Patton

Martin, Pete, etc. I hope you caught John Edwards on Meet The Depressed this morning.

Especially his statement that it was actually officials FROM THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATIONS that convinced him that Saddam was an imminent threat and that Saddam possessed WMD.

Ohh, and be sure to catch Hilliary's 2003 Code Pink speech..its a doozy.

clarice

cboldt , following a cite today back to some old posts, I found this one of mine:
"A three-day summation of his case against Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was typical of Fitzgerald. He delivered the summation -- for a case whose record spanned 22,000 pages, with an additional 20,000 pages of exhibits -- just from notes.

''It was masterful," said Andrew C. McCarthy, one of Fitzgerald's trial partners in the ''Day of Terror" case, in which 11 defendants stood trial.

The jury agreed. The ''Blind Sheik" was sentenced to life, and Fitzgerald, fearing that Abdel-Rahman would try to incite violence among his followers from prison, used a never-before-applied law to have Abdel-Rahman incarcerated in isolation.

Some critics fault Fitzgerald for such moves, accusing him of abusing his power and going beyond what is necessary or appropriate.

He took heat for his handling of a 2002 terrorism case in which he set out to prove that Enaam Arnaout, director of the Islamic charity Benevolence International, was funneling money to Al Qaeda.

The staff of the independent Sept. 11 Commission criticized Fitzgerald's methods. ''Although effective in shutting down its targets, this aggressive approach raises potential civil liberties concerns," they wrote."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/19/pursuing_the_cia_leak_profile_of_a_tough_smart_lawyer/?page=2>Javert
< href=

clarice

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/19/pursuing_the_cia_leak_profile_of_a_tough_smart_lawyer/?page=2>Javert

clarice

Syl still can't post and asked me to post this for her.
"My law enforcement and classification info guy told me this when I
brought
up the subject...

On FBI interview technique, where lead questioner is the one who takes
notes, the other does not. This is standard procedure in law
enforcement
and for the most part it works. The second FBI agent is there to note
body
language, facial expression, other things, which cannot be concentrated
on
if also taking notes on actual statements.

Nothing nefarious about it. (I remember some talk in another thread
where
one agent's notes thereby couldn't impeach the interviewer's notes.) If
there's a discrepancy, memory has to be used. It would help, of course,
if
all interviews are videotaped, assuming the tape does not break during
the
questioning. Still would use the two-person interview technique as
well.

---------

Cheers

Syl"

Dan S

You might mention to your contact that "tape" is now a figure of speech. You can record straight to mini-disks and such, and the tech is moving fast. Disks don't break in the same fashion that tapes once did.

I'd think video recording would not only produce better evidence, but it would serve as additional protection to the agents themselves.

Assuming, that is, they do indeed have nothing to hide.

I used to assume that.

TCO

Those articles are going in, either summarized/redacted or in toto. They directly pertain to a point that Libby has tried to make: that he thought the investigation was only about Novak. These articles speculate or claim that the investigation is about all leaks to reporters. The articles were printed from the internet (not just part of newspapers), were underlined (therefore presumably read), and then retained. They are great evidence. They are going in, in some form. And they will do a good job to show that weak-reed, Clarice-type defense of Libby's is in danger. He can wiggle...but the jaws are closing. Good news for those of us who don't want liars in our Republican Party.

vnjagvet

TCO:

At this stage of the case (government's case in chief), these will only come in properly in severely redacted form or as a summary, IMO.

If they come in substantially unredacted the "big case" is in play, and, I believe, it will be an abuse of discretion to limit Libby's defense to the "small case".

No instruction to the jury to consider it only for Libby's "state of mind" or "motive" will be effective.

clarice

Amen..And it strikes me as an act of desperation to even try to at this late date.

Rick Ballard

"Assuming, that is, they do indeed have nothing to hide.

I used to assume that."

The vast majority have nothing to hide. The vast majority also presume that if someone is speaking to them then the probability that they are hearing a misstatement, an inaccuarate recollection or a lie approaches 1.

There is very little 'fun' to the job and law enforcement has been tightly circumscribed (in theory) by courts which have tended to interpret certain 'protections' more liberally than common sense would dictate. Law enforcement evades the circumscription by adopting methods which attempt to level the playing fields with their opponents. Law (or process) continues to push justice out of sight and trials become venues to test knowledge of process.

That said, I don't believe that there is any less reason for an honest person to trust law officers today than there was in 1950 or 1850. There is no reason to trust them more, either.

And there is no reason to trust that a court will deliver anything more than a judgement as to the adequacy of the lawyers knowledge and understanding of process.

Safest play?

Keepa you mouth shut. Always has been.

Patton

(And go Peyton).

Who's Peyton? Is he testifying tomoorrow.
man this case is confusing....:-)

boris

Keepa you mouth shut. Always has been.

All the so called motives for Libby to lie are actually motives for Libby to shut up.

Patton

"""It would help, of course,
if all interviews are videotaped, assuming the tape does not break during
the questioning. """

Yeah, those new fangled tape machines, when did they come out, like 25 years ago. Did you ask Wyatt Earp if the person noting body language might be helped by TAKING NOTES ABOUT WHAT BODY LANGUAGE WAS DISPLAYED WHEN A CERTAIN QUESTION WAS ASKED!

Gimme a break. No wonder the FBI hasn't been able to get their computer system up and running in 15 years.

Although I shouldn't be too hard on the FBI, videotap has only been around since the 50s. And they probablty have not even heard of a DVD yet...and I swaer to God, I haven't had the tape break once on my DVR.
Must be some good tape.

MayBee

Boris- Yes! They were also motives for Libby to not have done it in the first place, as well as motives for Libby to feel comfortable in telling the FBI his best recollection of what happened.

cboldt

-- The staff of the independent Sept. 11 Commission criticized Fitzgerald's methods. --


I thought I had all of the 9-11 Commission report(s) and statements, but I missed the two big monographs, including the "Monograph on Terrorist Financing" that discusses the Enaam Arnaout/Benevolence International Foundation case.


Fitz certainly had a part in the charging decision, and Ashcroft made a point of giving Fitz high credit for the indictment. But I think, after reading about this case (it hadn't registered with me at all until tonight), it's unfair of Julie Hirschfeld Davis (of the Baltimore Sun) to single Fitz out for the "change in attitude" toward disrupting terrorist financing, and the concomitant concerns about infringing civil liberties. It isn't just "Fitzgerald's methods," similar instances of aggressive DOJ pursuit of suspected terrorist financiers and/or sympathizers can be found in other jurisdictions, too.


And although the Enaam Arnaout case ended with a whimper, it may be that the charging decision was righteous ...


Matthew Epstein on Enaam Arnaout on National Review Online


The evidence submitted by the government included communications between Arnaout and Osama bin Laden showing Arnaout to be a senior al Qaeda lieutenant, involved in coordinating weapons purchases, financial transactions, and training camps.


Judge Conlon barred the proffered evidence, invoking a legal technicality -- hearsay. ...

TCO

Clarice (1630): The act of desperation was the attempt to say that Libby could not have made a purposeful lie as he knew he was in the clear as he knew (thought) the investigation was only about Novak. Was always a wonderfully strained argument and the direct evidence that he read articles prior to testifying that talked about the investigation going after the whole pattern of leaking, puts a ki-bosh on this silly rationalization. I used to think Clarice was so smart. Now I see her as less so. And as not willing to look evidence in the face. The articles are going in, as is or edited. And I'm fine with them not opening up the larger case. THey do a great job of blowing up Clarice's strained defense. Go truth, get Libby!

lurker

Clarice has done a fantastic job bringing out the truth in this case and that this case is all about nothing. So far, her predictions have come true after two weeks in court.

Let's see if Fitz has anything new this weekthat proves Libby beyond reasonable doubt. He hasn't so far.

lurker

And TCO, you must really, really want Libby convicted that bad.

Carol Herman

There was a deposition done with Bill Gates, and the VIDEO playback made him look awful.

So, recommending "tape" still might not have been the cure.

As to copies of internet articles, that passed eventually through Libby's hands, you've got no guarantees of the "timing" at which this was handled. Or if they weren't part of lots of other papers. (BIG CASE.)

As to the explanation that one agent takes notes, while the other just uses their eyes to gather information on body language ... must mean that EIKENRODE was in the room with Deborah Bond.

You might also want to guess that when Deborah Bond went to type up her "notes" she could have done a rough draft. But this is NOT indicated. What seems to have happened to our legal system, however; is that the FBI has found ways to do evidence gathering that isn't fair. Or as one poster wrote: THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BROWSE THE GOAT TRAIL. Without having to turn over any rocks, elsewhere.

And, what they do is use "cases" to gain access to "fame." Which shoots their careers UP A LADDER. In a trajectory. (Actually, Guiliani was a prosecutor who separated himself out from the "bunch" by getting some wall streeter convicted.)

To the average citizen, however, this stuff has never been made clear. There's no 'connection of dots," let's say from the time RICO was used against the mafia (because agents couldn't get planted inside the families?) And then RICO escaped. And, is in "general use" now.

While judges are all appointed by politicians. (Though some have to run in elections.) Until the most recent one, I used to see judges running unopposed. And, now, under each name you can choose "no," instead. I doubt most people would pick that option. "No?" To a pig in the poke?

Tomorrow will be interesting. Since Fitz' game plan still seems to charge Libby with the BIG CASE. And, limit Libby's defense to the SMALL one. Appeals? Takes years.

One reason the press just keeps up it's partisanship, might be to convince Americans, that if they want it stopped? They have to vote for hillary.

cboldt

I was never a fan of "Prince" (now "Artist formerly known as 'Prince'"), but he just put on one heck of a good live show at the Superbowl. He's got a darn good voice, and a good steady hand on the guitar. Well done!

Rick Ballard

Boris,

Addington's proffer of the fact that he gave Libby a copy of the IIPA can be used as rebuttal for an assertion of mens rea concerning that element by Fitz. I wonder if Libby might waive a/c privilege for Tate in order to get corroboration of their declaration prior to the FIB interview? Should he do so, Tate could also testify to the level of review done with Libby regarding the NDAs and to their agreement that Libby was not in jeopardy with respect to disclosure of classified information.

That would be an interesting tack whether Libby chooses to testify or not.

clarice

Rove waived a/c privilege with his counsel to get before the gj how Rove was able to find the missing memo.

MayBee

Libby's team already indicated Tate was ready to testify regarding Judy's negotiations with Fitz.

Harv3

Colts by 12! Professionally well-done. Bears out-classed, big time.

topsecretk9

--Libby's team already indicated Tate was ready to testify regarding Judy's negotiations with Fitz.--

AND to testify about the statement that Bond forgot about and when reminded remembered she forgot to write it in her notes.

JM Hanes

I'm really looking forward to Tate's turn on the stand!

Pofarmer

The Bears definately looked Haphazard, at best. Almost felt sorry for Grossman, almost.

clarice

Byron York on the now you see it now you don't classified/covert status of Plame and why it's making it hard to believe there will be justice in this case,

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTdlMmE3MDkzZTkzZDMzZjgzMWJiNWY4MTk3ZmMzZTU=>covert shmovert

pete

"Martin, Pete, etc. I hope you caught John Edwards on Meet The Depressed this morning.

Especially his statement that it was actually officials FROM THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATIONS that convinced him that Saddam was an imminent threat and that Saddam possessed WMD."

What on earth would make you think that I give a damn what Edwards said?

pete

Martin

"P.O.- I have seen no evidence of any "reprimand" from a judge. Just put or shut up-that's all I'm asking."

The folks here don't shut up. Facts don't concern at all. Not one bit.

pete

Martin

In Patton's following remarks you can see his pathology.

"And besides charging terrorists with crimes just makes them mad and makes the attack us...haven't you heard. We are supposed to be nice, to talk to them, understand their feelings, undestand why they hate us and embarce their culture and don't act like ugly Americans. Ohh, look who I'm preaching to......"

He immediately extrapolates to nonsensical extremes. It's a protection mechanism that has developed to shelter his feeble mind from having to deal with the more subtle and nuanced reciprocity of the real world. If all problems have simple answers regardless of whether they respresent an extreme or not then he is as smart and competent as anyone else. Rather simple actually ... as expected.

topsecretk9

--The folks here don't shut up. Facts don't concern at all. Not one bit.--

The firedoglake moderator's - you know the ones who constantly protect laker's gentle ears , delete everything unless it conforms to the echo bliss- maitain unity in the swamp - emailed Pete...you are to back home THIS INSTANT young man!

pete

Wow that post of topsecrets was something else. I have heard the tangential speech and loose associations of schizophrenics but this is the first time I have seen it in print. Wow ... from a clinical perspective ... wow.

Larry

Da Bears played like s***, but were right in it till the TD intercept. I never saw such sorry tackling. Colts played well and deserved to win. :(

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame