Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Libby's Theory Of His Defense | Main | Russert, Semi-Live »

February 07, 2007

Comments

Fitzmas

Fitz!

The Libby trial is the end of the beginning. There has been enough testimony and posturing by counsel allowing informed and objective observers to understand that this investigation is ongoing with Libby being only the first leg of a long and painful journey for our country.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

[Actually, I think this trial represent the beginning of a short and painful journey back to reality by some of our friends on the left.]

Patrick R. Sullivan

--------quote---------
F: In late September or October, did you bring it to VP's attention?

L: Went to him and said I didn't talk to Novak, added I learned about it from Tim Russert. He tilted his head a bit. I may have said that I talked to other reporters.

F: You're not sure?

L: I don't recall. What was important was telling him I did not leak to Novak, and I heard it from Russert, who said all reporters knew it.
---------endquote---------

Bye, bye to the Russert perjury charge, if either Rove or Cheney support Libby having mentioned Russert to them.

Martin

Well Libby testified in the grand jury that he told Cheney he learned it from Russert (no word whether Cheney responded 'I told you that on June 12, dumbass'). So Libby's pretty invested in his little Russert tale. And that was played to the jury this morning.

Pete

Keep hope alive.

Russert can lose the case for Libby.

clarice

Why has Fitz filed a motion to prevent Libby from getting information about his accommodation with Russert for his testimony (esp who was in the room when they took his deposition)? Why has Fitz filed a motion to preclude Mitchell's testimony and to prevent Libby from introducing her "everybody knew" tale?

pete

"If Russert rocks the court with the news that, although he did not discuss Valerie Plame with Libby he may have said something about Joe Wilson's wife,"

If fairies intercede in Iraq BushCo will be vindicated.

12th Harmonic

I don't get your logic. Presumably, Fitz knows what Russert's testimony will be before he calls him as a witness. It isn't credible that a prosecuter as experienced as Fitz would risk a case on a witness that might testify in a surprising way.

OTOH, if Russert were a witness for the defense, your theory might be plausible.

Martin

Really Sullivan?-well you can count out Rove-unless trashing the guy who you need to save your ass in your opening statement is the new brilliant.

And Cheney's even worse-so Fitz asks Cheney -did you correct Libby that you already told him that or did you forget too?

That's just one reason Cheney is no way taking the stand.

obsessed

Reading JustOneMinute is like watching The Sopranos ... crooks and killers as protagonists.

Another Bob

12thH: So far, Fitz has had several witnesses that it's fair to say testified in surprising ways. Fitz has also shown an aversion to the "whole" truth.

JM Hanes

12th Harmonic:

"I don't get your logic."

Call it one of the joys of cross-examination.

clarice

Libby never trashed Rove. As I suspected youhave problem with comprehension.

Why is the prosecution attempting to foreclose the defense from raising the fact that it never subpoenaed Mitchell who said "everone knew" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation?

Another Bob

"trashed Rove"

I'm also fairly sure that, absent something that puts Rove in legal jeopardy, Rove does not give one damn what Libby's people say about him.

Fitzmas

Correct Clarice, Ted Wells was the one who threw Karl under the bus.

maryrose

Fitz wants what he wants when he wants it. He'd preclude everything about Mitchell Gregory et al if he could. But he can't -ergo the motions.

pete

"Reading JustOneMinute is like watching The Sopranos ... crooks and killers as protagonists."

It's more like an avoidance-of-reality-based show.

lida rose

"Why is the prosecution attempting to foreclose the defense from raising the fact that it never subpoenaed Mitchell who said "everone knew" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation?
Posted by: clarice"

Are Gregory and Mitchell on the defense witness list?

And when you say "forclose," do you mean in some Fitzgerald court filing?

centralcal

Clarice, forgive me once again as an outsider to legal ins and outs ...

But don't Fitz's filings suggest a weakness in his presentation, and no small amount of worry too?

Martin

Not quite Another Bob- haven't heard another word about Rove from Libby's peops since the opening statement have you? Somebody nipped that defense right in the bud.

steve

Clarice-
Aren't you the lawyer?
What does Mitchell's 'everybody knew' have to do with Libby's alleged perjury/false staements/OOJ?

IANAL, so can you tell me what relevance it has? Even if everybody else knew, even if you and I knew, it still doesn't explain the contradiction between Russert's he said and Libby's he said, does it?

Or Ari's testimony that Libby told him 3 days before Libby Madonna'd it, and learned it as if for the very first time...

Let's assume EVERYBODY else in America knew. Don't we still have Libby saying one thing and a bunch of people saying the opposite?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Really Sullivan?'

Modus ponens, Martin. If...then.

You can look it up.

Dan S

*repeats over and over... "do not feed the trolls, do not feed the trolls, do not feed the trolls"*

Ranger

Do you think maybe Fitz suddenly realized that Mitchell covered State, where Armitage works, and maybe they talked about something between June 11th and July 10th? And then maybe Mitchell had a converstation with Russert, or with Libby or with both?

roanoke

Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?

Link to photo

Also some FDLers are worried that in emails supposedly produced last minute by the White House(some 250 pages worth) there is confirmation in an email that Libby told Rove about the Russert "Plame works for CIA" phone call.

But that's FDLers and wouldn't Fitz have to know about the email and if Wells has something like that wouldn't he have to let Fitz know?

clarice

No, Fitzmas, but again you demonstrate a complete inability to understand anything more complicated than a cartoon.
Wells said that Libby feared that the WH was defending Rove and scapegoating him. And so far--in the prosecution's case--we have the fact that Rove confirmed Plame to Novak(not Libby), that nevertheless McClellan vouched for Rove, not Libby; that Libby had sought and received from the VP a note indicating he would not allow Libby who'd been tasked with rebutting Wilson's lies (see York today for about them) to be scapegoated to protect Rove.

Nothing in any of this constitutes a "trashing" of Rove, except in your playpen.

Sue

Dan,

Why not? The trolls are hungry. And while we await Little Russ, entertainment is in order. Bring in the court jesters. ::grin::

Ranger

Not quite Another Bob- haven't heard another word about Rove from Libby's peops since the opening statement have you? Somebody nipped that defense right in the bud.

Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 09:35 AM

Well, Martin, maybe that's because it's been the prosecution's turn to present. But it's been going so badly for Fitz, I can understand why you might think it's been the defense's turn.

[LOL]

JM Hanes

Clarice:

I thought Fitzgerald was the one trying to put Fleissner on the stand. Maybe he got cold feet and is trying either to accomplish the same thing through a motion, or preclude TeamLibby from impeaching his witness in advance?

I wasn't aware that Fitz had moved to preclude Mitchell. Can you point me in the right direction? [Fodder for hilarity, I know].

I'm not sure I wasn't mistaken in my impression that Fitz wanted Fleissner to testify about deals w. journalist. His latest motion seems to be directed at salvaging Bond's testimony (not having included Tate/Libby dermurrers about faulty memory, document review etc.). Sounded like he doesn't want any retired FBI types telling jurors this was unusual or irregular.

cboldt

-- don't Fitz's filings suggest a weakness in his presentation, and no small amount of worry too? --

Those qualities can be imputed to filings by either side in a battle.

This case has been hard fought by both sides. One aspect that makes it unusual is the way in which "covert status" and "lying to investigators" are intertwined. The defense is best off making the outcome turn on "absence of leak of classified information."

Jane

Anyone else notice that the moonbats come out when things start looking bad for them? Or maybe they all just sleep til noon.

steve

Clarice:" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation"

Isn't that what the rumored mystery witness will do- expalin why they didn't go after Gregory? I though I'd read somewhere that the reason they didn't go after him is that there's no crime- since Ari didn't learn about it "officially" there's no possible IIPA charge, and that DOJ procedures call for not subpoenaing "journalists" except as a last resort...

Or are you really suggesting that they subpoena somebody as part of an investigation, even if there's no underlying crime?

Fitzmas

OT - Clarice, your comments are so eye popping that you made the Ny Times Fitz/Scooter crossword puzzle!

Down
1. WH press corps stud
2. Graham legacy
4. Veggie brand
5. Mr. October
6. sex _____
8. wintery speech
10. fictional FBI agent
11. do with blanket
13. Menace's neighbor
15. comes after belch
17. F. Scott_____________
18. child's toy
19. Spiro Agnew
23. VP Spinzone
25. Mandatory RSVP
26. synonymous w/ liveblogging

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2007/02/this-crossword-puzzle-is-too-easy.html

clarice

Steve, it is getting really hard to post..If Mitchell knew and Gregory knew (per Fleischer) the defense should be able to bring that out in cross of Russert.How reasonable is it to assume that two people who knew this never told him? Russert says he didn't tell Libby because until Novak's column he didn't know.
But Wilson was on MTP on July 6, interviewed by Mitchell and another colleague Matthews was megaphoning Wilson's lies.

windansea

LOL...our baby pixel seals think the case is over already and Wells is just going to throw up his hands and say "you win"

y'all might want to read Fitz's latest brief to see how worried he is about what's going to happen when Team Libby takes the mound

Ranger

Jane,

I am sure it is all part of a carefully crafted information plan. They got their marching orders this morning to hold fire until just before Russert takes the stand, then deluge the "enemy" with distracting posts to allow "their side" to craft the narrative during Russert's time on the stand.

Martin

Ranger-just who do you think the defense is going to call?

You're not still believing Cheney is going to testify do you?

Dan S

Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?
Posted by: roanoke | February 07, 2007 at 09:38 AM

Lame testimony?

pete

Martin

"But it's been going so badly for Fitz, I can understand why you might think it's been the defense's turn."

Cheney says the prosecution is in it's "last throes".

Rick Ballard

"Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?"

You want I should Vinnie over to splain?

Chi parla non sa, chi sa non parla.

JM Hanes

Summary of Fitgerald's Document 271:

Summer is the season
When kids, for no reason,
Slam till they almost splinter
Doors they leave open all winter.

clarice

JMHanes, Sunny Day has redone the latest filings in html form and gave the cites on the Libby Filing thread

roanoke

Dan S.-

Lame testimony!

Ha perfect comeback-I thought I had something better-but no that's just too good-LOL!

steve,

In Libby's Grand Jury testimony Libby quotes Russert as saying "everybody knew." Russert ends up sounding like Andrea Mitchell who works for Russert and it shows a chain of possession as to who Russert likely heard it from.

Funny how everyone is sounding like Andrea Mitchell, Colin Powell, Russert, Libby.

"Everyone knew it". Everybody is coming up with that quote and it might be because virtually everyone did-except for-

Matt Cooper. He had to google it.

centralcal

From TVNewser:

Bill Hemmer on FNC, 12:15pm:

"This is not usually how Tim Russert is seen on television. The host of Meet the Press at NBC on Sunday morning arriving moments ago at the U.S. District Court in Washington...

Russert is on crutches. Not quite sure why that's the case..."

> Update: 12:48am: WP on Nov. 17: "Russert broke his right ankle Tuesday night while playing with his mutt, Buster the Wonder Dog. Buster and his owner were chasing each other on a stairwell inside the house when the 'Meet the Press' host -- carrying research papers and dry cleaning -- tripped and fell..." Ten weeks later, and he's still in a cast?

Jane

Anyone else having posting problems?

Florence Schmieg

The trolls are here because it is lunchtime at the trial. They seem like really mean, small people.

Ranger

Martin,

Why wouldn't Cheney testify? If he would be good for the prosecution, you can be sure that Fitz would have called him. As it is, it sounds like his directives to his staff were to stay focused on the facts, and don't get sidetracked by gossip. That can't hurt Libby.

Jane

Ranger,

Ugh. If they just weren't all so damn predictable. There is no entertainment value at all.

clarice

I was having problems posting Jane, but it seems to have resolved itself.

centralcal

Jane, yes I am having trouble too.

Tried three times to tell Dan S how excellent his "lame" remark was. lol.

Charlie (Colorado)

Why has Fitz filed a motion to prevent Libby from getting information about his accommodation with Russert for his testimony (esp who was in the room when they took his deposition)? Why has Fitz filed a motion to preclude Mitchell's testimony and to prevent Libby from introducing her "everybody knew" tale?

Because he wants to win more than he wants libby to have a fair trial?

Dan S

Flo,

Don't forget the polychromatic hair. Trolls need to be a spectacle.

roanoke

Rick-

Are you suggesting Russert's one step closer to getting fitted for cement boots!?!!

Florence Schmieg

Also, I think Russert's great weight causes considerable stress on his legs and feet. Thus, he might need to use crutches longer than others do.

Patrick

Hey, I want to thank Buckhead too! He did a tremendous job, and is truly a great living American.

Love,

Katie

windansea

Also, I think Russert's great weight causes considerable stress on his legs and feet.

his head weighs 40 kilos

Fitzmas

Russert is Cheney's boy, Libby is expendable in the big scheme of things.

roanoke

centralcal-

Thanks for the back story.

Dan S

Gee, thanks, Centralcal... so now my remarks are lame.

*wanders off to sulk over a sandwich*

I try to cover for the missing H&R and look at the thanks I get.

roanoke... thanks for not calling it lame. :P

Charlie (Colorado)

Lame testimony?

I wish I'd have said that.

clarice

Shucks Charlie pretend you did.

Charlie (Colorado)

Re Russert's ankle: sadly as one gets older, an ankle fracture can be hard to heal. As I know to my displeasure.

windansea

Emptywheel and the firepups are worried that Libby is a flight risk and they are writing their congress criters

:)

Dan S

You know, on thinking about this, is there a pattern we should be noticing? Someone mentioned Sopranos...

To wit, prosecution witnesses:

Miller: reluctant to testify, jailed for 85 days, loses job, testifies.

Cooper: reluctant to testify, loses job, testifies.

Russert: reluctant to testify, breaks leg, testifies.

Hasn't the media noticed? They're all reporters too!

roanoke

Fitzmas-

Liberals calling Russert a "propagandist for the Administration" is just stupid.

His background doesn't bely that and he is defensive about that. I saw him say something to that effect on a show like Charlie Rose

But Jane Hamschler is posting last night at Huffington that he can rehabilitate himself by testifying against Libby to prove that he's not "their" boy.

You people are sick. His reputation can be saved with you people by putting another human in jail for what exactly?

Cecil Turner

Russert is Cheney's boy . . .

Visited your blog. Not sure what's funnier, the cluelessness on the NIE "insta-declassification" (that started in early June and stretched into mid-July) or the continued reliance on Jason Leopold. In either event, it's a public service (kinda like the Onion, except subtler).

Fitzmas

throwing sands in the eyes of justice is a serious crime if you ask me

roanoke

Can't somebody send Chris Matthews a dog to play with?

hit and run

Schuster?

clarice

I expect google bombing and running a spoof site is okay though, Fitzmas?

hit and run

I just got the "prove you are human" thing.

The secret code?

fvuuck

Honest to goodness truth.

Ranger

throwing sands in the eyes of justice is a serious crime if you ask me

Posted by: Fitzmas | February 07, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Yes, and we should all wonder why Fitz didn't bother to find out who else Armitage leaked to before he indicted Libby under the theory that Libby lied because he was the "first leaker."

centralcal

While you're waiting around for the trial to start again, head over to NRO - Byron York has a new post at "The Corner" about who in the media was supoenaed (sp) and who wasn't, and what it all might mean.

windansea

Flight risk? Cheney or Libby?

Hello, International Court? I’d like to report some war criminals on the loose outside their native country…

They could go to Paraguay. Paraguay already has a no extradition for war crimes thingy goin’ on. Bush already bought land there, and there are some kind of U.S. troops there

mmmkay

hit and run

throwing sands in the eyes of justice is a serious crime if you ask me

And yet Fitzgerald is a free man. Is that your point?

Dan S

throwing sands in the eyes of justice is a serious crime if you ask me

Posted by: Fitzmas | February 07, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Alert the Media! Please!

Rick Ballard

"Can't somebody send Chris Matthews a dog to play with?"

Non male! Not bad! Would a pit pull or a mastiff work better?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

If Russert is "key" then Wells is prepared for him. Even if all Fitz does is give Russert a chance to repeat his "20-minutes-of-testimony, which occurred in Russert's lawyers office. NOT IN FRONT OF THE GRAND JURORS.

For laymen? Could me we will see Fitz trying to limit what Wells could attempt to ask "because it wasn't brought up in Direct."

While after subjecting jurors to 8 hours of "radio listening," (where they got to use their eyeballs, and do a BOND. Which is "scan for body language.) What will it do to jurors to watch "A 3 CARD MONTY?"

Tricks like this would work far better in a law school setting, I think. Then in a court room with so many people watching.

I know Dan S says he got raked over the coals. But was the "greater world watching?"

Seems to me jurors are gonna want to KNOW!

It's gonna be up to the judge to referee this madness. No wonder people stay tuned.

Tomorrow? Should be a full day for Wells, to cross. Again, if he handles the CLOCK, as well as he can handle Russert, I'd guess the "clock" can play a part in Wells' plans, too.

Is the media prepping that Russert can say "yes," about Libby's recollection? By saying he wasn't asked about "phone call #2?" (Again, why did Fitz play the tapes? I can't read the strategy.) I know. Strategy spells itself out over time.

topsecretk9

Cecil

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned, but I sure would love to hear your thoughts on Byron York's article today.

I recall that you were the astute observer that point out the super quick - eyebrow raises - turn around on the "lots of french contacts" email.

roanoke

Rick-

My vote would be for a non-neutered pit bull. They could slobbber over each other.

Dan S

"While you're waiting around for the trial to start again, head over to NRO - Byron York has a new post at "The Corner" about who in the media was supoenaed (sp) and who wasn't, and what it all might mean.

Posted by: centralcal | February 07, 2007 at 10:13 AM"

He's just stealing ideas from JOM again :P

clarice

York's latest on Wells' effort to point out disparate treatment of different reporters--easy off if Fitz thought they helped his case; 85 days in jail if he thought they didn't and Fitz' effort to keep this from jurors by arguing in his latest filing that jurors should know that he was under DoJ constraints:
"Well's plan is two-fold. One is to suggest that Fitzgerald cracked down hard on some reporters and let others off easy because Fitzgerald was more interested in proving his own theory of the case than in finding out what happened. The other plan is to concentrate on NBC reporters in an attempt to impeach Russert by suggesting that he must have known about Mrs. Wilson if David Gregory, and possibly Andrea Mitchell, knew.

What does Fitzgerald say? In a new court filing, he argues that he was constrained by Justice Department guidelines concerning when prosecutors may subpoena members of the media. "It is important that the jury be informed that the government was not free to obtain any information it desired from any and all reporters it chose to subpoena," Fitzgerald argues, "but was obligated to act with restraint, and with a view toward accommodating the needs of members of the media." Fitzgerald has asked the judge to give the jury a special instruction explaining that prosecutors had to tread carefully when issuing subpoenas to journalists.

Would anyone really believe that? Fitzgerald played the hardest of hardball with some reporters who received leaks, while with others — Gregory and Dickerson and possibly others — he laid back. Libby's lawyers have a good question"


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EyZjRiNWU4YzFmOWQ4ZDczYTAzMGI2MTk4MmFlODc=>Would anyone believe that?

Sara (Squiggler)

I am not caught up yet and have just finished reading thru the other thread. Anyone flash on Bush naming Gates to head Defense being a move to "clean up" this DIA/CIA mess? Gates, former head of CIA, 25+ years in the Agency, knows it probably better than almost anyone. Just asking?

JM Hanes

cboldt:

"Those qualities can be imputed to filings by either side in a battle."

While it's true that Fitzgerald has been trying to have his case and eat it too all along, this latest motion -- coming right on top of an attempted news dump is looking pretty desperate to me. Is there a term for gray mail when the Prosecution does it? All of his pre-trial motions were directed at constraining this trial to a (very!) little case. He clearly abandonned that ship last week, and now here he is, back on board, bailing like crazy.

It's also true that I'm not willing to give Fitzgerald the same benefit of the doubt that you apparently do (or were you ambiguously disclaiming just such doubts yesterday?). The elegance of the Defense filings, however, demonstrates that the kind of careening back and forth we've been getting from the SP is not simply an occupational hazard. Fitzgerald has consistently attempted to prosecute this case by judicial ruling, not by trial. I, personally, believe he's been teetering on the edge of his ethical obligations as an officer of the court to do it.

Chants

Piling on:

throwing sands in the eyes of justice is a serious crime if you ask me

Posted by: Fitzmas | February 07, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Well, that catchy little pre-trial cliche certainly got you to throw away any presumption of innocence.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Funny, no one yesterday said anything about Libby's "voice" demeanor. But from transcripts I've read, he seemed:

To never lose his temper

Never bad-mouthed Wilson

Said he heard the word "boondoggle" from Kessler (FBI). And, remembered, he sat down afterwards, disappointed that the Veep's message still wasn't getting out. This wasn't about a boondoggle, either.

I'll bet the "radio" effects of listening to audio could be similar to listening to a baseball game, playing out. (I used to hate it when my dad listened, and I was just a kid.) Then, I remembered that Ronald Reagan could take a mic, and do, as if live, a mesmerizing "baseball game.")

Sometimes, what we lose? We're just not there. But, again, Fitz had a strategy in mind, with the tapes. Does the sound of Libby's voice change the fact that he comes off legitimate?

roanoke

hit and run-

Schuster?

LOL! Naaa obviously Matthews is too nimble for Schuster-hard to believe -I know.

Matthews the smartest at MSNBC-it's scary.

Jim E.

TM wrote: "So however credible Russert may be, he can't resolve the question of whether Fleischer is confused, Miller is making stuff up."

If you take Fleischer and Miller independent of Russert, this might be true. But assuming Russert clearly contradicts Libby's testimony, I think Russert could bolster, in a cumulative way, the testimony of Fleischer and Miller. That is, if the jury believes Russert (and therefore thinks Libby is lying), it might also make them believe Miller and Fleischer, too.

centralcal

Probably, Dan S. But I particularly like the clean, detailed way Wells gets his info across to the jury. Not being able to have hear his opening statement, I am pleased with the snippets that have been reported so far, especially when contrasted to Fitz's convolutions and contortions. The one below is from Byron today:

"In his opening argument, defense lawyer Ted Wells said,


Now, you will find that the Government went out and did ask David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell if they would submit to an interview. And both of them told the Government, we don’t want to be interviewed. We don’t want to talk about it. What did the Government do? They did not subpoena Andrea Mitchell. They did not subpoena David Gregory. They just said we don’t want to be interviewed. That was the end of it. Twenty-two minutes with Russert, they don’t ask him. David Gregory, I don’t want to be interviewed, no subpoena. Andrea Mitchell, I don’t want to be interviewed, no subpoena."

Jim E.

Maybe it's already been mentioned upthread, but Tweety dropped the F-bomb on Imus this morning.

clarice

centralcal, that is from Fitz' latest filings--that's why he says he needs the jurors to hear about the DoJ constraints on him (HEH)

A compilation of the discussion on the other thread about the Wilson timeline:


February 07, 2007
Timeline for Wilson's mission has been wrong
Clarice Feldman

From the outset, Joseph Wilson IV has insisted he was sent to Niger at the Vice President's behest. As more facts about the trip became known and the Vice President vehemently denied this claim, the scenario appeared that the CIA sent him after Cheney raised a question in an intelligence report, and that the Vice President was utterly unaware of the Mission to Africa.

This notion was reinforced when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) reported that the agency managed to act remarkably quickly, approving the trip so close in time after the inquiry.

But we have just learned in the course of the Libby Trial that even that timeline is wrong:


(a) Plame recommended her husband for this trip before the vice president even asked about the report;


(b) the SSCI never knew this because the CIA never turned over her memorandum of recommendation to the committee.


Why did the agency hold back this information and allow this misstatement of fact to sit on the public record for so long?


Captain Ed and Byron York have the details. York writes:

The accepted version of events is that Vice President Dick Cheney got things started when he asked for information about possible Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa. After that request, CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson suggested sending her husband to look into the question, and after that, the CIA flew Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate. But the new documents suggest that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip before the vice president made his request. In other words, Joseph Wilson's visit to Niger, which everyone believes was undertaken at the behest of the vice president, was actually in the works before Dick Cheney asked his now-famous question. And if that is true, our current understanding of the chronology of events is wrong. [...]


A CIA official told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "offered up [Joseph Wilson's] name" for the job, and the Senate report quoted the e-mail written by Mrs. Wilson saying, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."


According to the Senate report, Valerie Plame Wilson sent her e-mail on February 12, 2002 - the day before the vice president was briefed on the African uranium matter. The discrepancy between the two dates seems glaring, but was not included in the Senate report. That is because, according to a source familiar with the committee's investigation, the CIA did not include the document in the materials it turned over to the committee. Senate investigators apparently never knew the exact date of the vice president's request, so they never knew it came after Plame's e-mail.

What does the new information mean? On February 12, 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency released - inside the government, not publicly - a report covering the Africa uranium issue; its title said that Niger had "signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad." CIA officials told Senate investigators the report spurred requests for information from both the State Department and the Department of Defense. Knowledgeable sources speculate - and they stress, they are speculating - that those inquiries from State and Defense were made on the 12th, the day the Defense Intelligence Agency report was sent around, and that Valerie Plame Wilson, in suggesting her husband be sent to investigate, was reacting to those requests, and not to the vice president's question, which came the next day. In this new version of events, Dick Cheney was the last guy to request more information, not the first; the notion that his request started the whole affair seems wrong.
Captain Ed writes :

I've written at length about the lack of credibility Wilson has on this topic. He has misrepresented his own findings for political purposes, a conclusion that this trial has reinforced. Now it looks like he has lied about the nature of his assignment from the beginning. It did not come from a request by Cheney, but apparently as an independent initiative of his wife in reaction to intelligence developed outside of her discipline -- which calls into question the motives of both parties from the beginning.

Posted at 11:27 AM | Email | Permalink

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/timeline_for_wilsons_mission_h.html at February 07, 2007 - 01:22:43 PM EST>Plame recommended Wilson before Cheney ever asked anything

centralcal

It's all about ratings, Jim E., all about ratings. The far left wing only understands vulgarity, profanity and name calling, and that is MSNBC's new demographic.

danking70

Russert arrives on crutches.

Wonder if he's been on any recent hunting trips.

Dan S

CentralCal,

I find Wells legal prose to be tremendously clear and concise. In that it's exceptional. I would love to hear him talking too.

But I wasn't referring to Wells stealing ideas from here, I was referring to York doing that! :) With tongue in cheek.

maryrose

DanS ,roanoke,and H&r;
You guys are cracking me up today! I say send a Doberman to Oehlberman and Shitzu to Matthews...

topsecretk9

Via Captain Q

Wilson, the man who received that assignment, would almost certainly have been that clandestine source. He had, as the memo describes, "ties to the Nigerien government," which he himself has argued as the reason why his wife promoted him for the job. In any case, he was the one who went to Niger and reported back that the Nigerien PM believed that the Iraqis had indeed attempted to smooth the way for uranium sales in the future. The memo of the 14th would apply to few men outside of Wilson.

I've written at length about the lack of credibility Wilson has on this topic. He has misrepresented his own findings for political purposes, a conclusion that this trial has reinforced. Now it looks like he has lied about the nature of his assignment from the beginning. It did not come from a request by Cheney, but apparently as an independent initiative of his wife in reaction to intelligence developed outside of her discipline -- which calls into question the motives of both parties from the beginning.

Does this explain why Libby said to Miller "some clandestine guy"?

danking70

"But that's FDLers and wouldn't Fitz have to know about the email and if Wells has something like that wouldn't he have to let Fitz know"

It's Fitz's role to conduct the investigation and had the e-mails. It's not the defense's job to read them for him.

Another Bob

I know the idiot Olbermann and Matthews predated this, but is MSNBC's dropping any pretense of fairness a conscious decision of Dan Abrams'?

Also, has anyone bothered looking at CourtTV's coverage of Libby trial? This morning's coverage was pure pap.

roanoke

Jim E.

That happened this morning?

I read somewhere that his producers were making fun of him and saying that-

He'd wear a diaper and drive 900 miles to kidnap Cheney-and that's why he got so mad.

I though it was a made up story but that was the supposed excuse for him dropping the F-bomb.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I went to NRO and checked out Byron York's article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRkZDFjMzU2NTc1NTYyM2Q0MWVmMGI4MGNmYzFlNDY=

What struck me is the DATE of February 2, 2002 where "plame e-mailed her boss to recommend her husband be sent to Niger." (No. Boss' name is not given. So I ask? ALAN FOLEY?

Then I noticed, yesterday, that Valerie Plame was PUNISHED. And, was told she would not get a salary for one year! And, after that she'd have to resign. Time this happened? 2002.

Is that the "secret" behind hiding her status? (I know. Time will tell.)

clarice

I think that "wear a diaper and drive 900 miles" shtick has now permanently entered the lexicon.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame