Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Was Valerie Plame Covert? | Main | David Gregory Held Hostage, Day II »

March 08, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834698eff69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fitzi's Dishonor:

» Why Libby can still have been guilty of perjury even though no one was prosecuted or convicted for leaking about Plame from BeldarBlog
My honored friend Patterico has privately chided me from time to time in the past for putting too much of my energies into writing comments on other blogs, whether his or someone else's, when I ought to channel that energy into more posts on my own blo... [Read More]

Comments

Martin

He stole the strawberries too.

Pete

The Russert affidavit is either false or not. If the affidavit is false then you right wingers should do something about it like prosecuting Russert.

On the other hand if it is not outright false and can be debated in front of a judge, then Fitz did nothing wrong by responding and citing an instance where Russert did not protect the confidentiality of a source.

Note that Fitzgerald may not have wanted to tip off the specifics of this case to Libby who was lying and obstructing justice.

Patrick

Pete, come on. If Fitz "didn't want to tip off Libby," that still doesn't give him license to proffer a false affidavit. I suspect that you wouldn't accept Libby lying for a greater cause. You're being ridiculous. If the affidavit is untrue, you should be outraged. If you believe it is true, you should show us some reason you hold that belief.

I won't hold my breath.

Pete

The Libby confession about leaking to Cooper is pretty interesting because initially Rove did not confess to doing so.

Was Libby covering up for Rove?

Other Tom

OK Pete, thanks for the advice--I guess we right-wingers will prosecute Russert right away.

The point raised by lifelong Democrat David Boies, and many others who are not blinded by partisanship, is that whether Libby lied or not, he wasn't obstructing anything at all. But I don't expect Pete to address this issue forthrightly, any more than he could bring himself to be forthright about Dick Cheney and the "reconstituted nuclear weapons." It isn't that Pete is hostile to the truth; he's simply indifferent to it.

Patrick

And by the way, the "rightwingers" on this site have no authority to prosecute. Or did you miss that in civics class?

I can't believe you would write that. You should be embarrassed. I suspect you are not.

clarice

Swear me in and I'm on it!

OTOH these are good things to remind the OPR of.

Pete

What proffer? Fitz rebutted the argument.

You folks are coming up with tortured arguments. Face it Fitz won and your guy was convicted for perjury and obstruction. If Fitz did anything improper you have remedies for it, but I'm not holding my breath.

Other Tom

"Was Libby covering up for Rove?"

Apparently the Special Prosecutor doesn't think so. He's gone home. But if you left-wingers think so, you should prosecute Rove.

Other Tom

Our remedy, if needed, is a pardon. Deal with it.

Frank Lee

Gonzalez did just fire 8 U.S. Attorneys for what he claims were "performance issues."

So is the White House too scared to fire Fitz or do they approve of his performance?

Jim E.

In a previous thread, TM said he expected the defense to file papers alleging prosecutorial misconduct at a later time.

My questions:
1. I'm left wondering why they haven't already done so. Wouldn't this be something they'd want to formally allege *prior* to a verdict? Appeals are usually tougher to win than the case itself.

2. If Libby's own defense attorneys never do formally allege prosectutorial misconduct against Fitz, will that give TM pause, and will TM subsequently withdraw his accusations against the special prosecutor? (Or will Wells and Jeffress become his new targets?)

3. Isn't this all a long-winded way of saying that Fitz should have allowed Libby a way to constantly change his sworn testimony to better conform to the testimony of other witnesses?

Patrick

Yeah, Libby was convicted, but that doesn't change the fact that Fitz offered a false affidavit to the court, and for that he should be ashamed, if not subject to some discipline from the bar.

Any remedy for Fitz's transgression is held by Libby, who may have an appeal argument based on prosecutroial misconduct, or Judy Miller, who was thrown in the hoosegow for three months based on Fitz's false representations.

Nd here's Libby leaking to Cooper "Yeah I heard that too, but I'm not even sure it's true." Ruthless, isn't it.

Other Tom

Why fire him? He's gone home; his investigation is over.

Frank Lee

Why did they fire the other 8?

Tom Maguire

Note that Fitzgerald may not have wanted to tip off the specifics of this case to Libby who was lying and obstructing justice.

Uh huh. Libby testified in March 2004; the affidavit was from June 4, 2004.

Maybe Fitzgerald was worried that Libby would invent a time machine?

Anyway, Pete, you were going to get back to me on your opinion of prosecutors lying. And I were hoping for something more substantive than "gee, you righties ought to deplore this".

Oh, well - I won't pretend my hopes were high.

topsecretk9

But if you left-wingers think so, you should prosecute Rove.

HEH.

Charlie (Colorado)

The Russert affidavit is either false or not. If the affidavit is false then you right wingers should do something about it like prosecuting Russert.

Pete, I'll admit that we on the Right have many magnificant and eldritch powers, like the ability to cloud the minds of the Clinton Administration's intelligence operation in order to get them to propose and pass the Iraq Liberation Act years before Bush was even in office, but the ability to file an indictment and prosecute is not one of them.

Charlie (Colorado)

So is the White House too scared to fire Fitz or do they approve of his performance?

Do the name "Archibald Cox" ring a bell?

Why did they fire the other 8?\

Why did Clinton fire all 80-odd?

topsecretk9

Don't forget the lost notes - the smartest man in the room was unable to put up his lead investigator (who most probably was leaking crap to Waas - on a leak investigation) because curiously he lost his notes.

Charlie (Colorado)

"magnificent"

Spelling isn't one either.

Frank Lee

Left wingers don't control the Department of Justice-that's still in right wing control.

So if the DOJ doesn't reprimand Fitz, it can only mean he don't need no stinkin' reprimanding.

Tom Maguire

TM said he expected the defense to file papers alleging prosecutorial misconduct at a later time.

Did I say "later", or "when appropriate"? Whatever.

2. If Libby's own defense attorneys never do formally allege prosectutorial misconduct against Fitz, will that give TM pause, and will TM subsequently withdraw his accusations against the special prosecutor? (Or will Wells and Jeffress become his new targets?)

3. Isn't this all a long-winded way of saying that Fitz should have allowed Libby a way to constantly change his sworn testimony to better conform to the testimony of other witnesses?

Geez, give up the decaf.

As to (3), no, it is a long-winded way to say that Fitzgerald ought to file honest documents. His letter to the defense is inexplicable, and was well past the time Libby might have changed his story.

As to (2), the likelihood of my withdrawing this based on the subsequent actions of others (as opposed to, for example, new facts) is tiny - I have no idea what motivations, pressures, and recourse Libby's defense team has (e.g., maybe they will be told to go easy on the DoJ and the DoJ won't oppose a pardon).

But do stop by with the many retractions that are no doubt piling up at the lefty sites who predicted that Fitz would flip Libby and go after Cheney, and I will consider it.

Sue

Was Libby covering up for Rove?

I've always thought so. It wasn't proven though so I guess we will both remain unsure.

hit and run

Charlie:
Pete, I'll admit that we on the Right have many magnificant and eldritch powers, like the ability to cloud the minds of the Clinton Administration's intelligence operation in order to get them to propose and pass the Iraq Liberation Act years before Bush was even in office, but the ability to file an indictment and prosecute is not one of them.


Well, can we rightwingers at LEAST pass a non-binding resolution?

Well frak it.

I guess all we got left is to speak truth to power.

Pete
Uh huh. Libby testified in March 2004; the affidavit was from June 4, 2004.

Maybe Fitzgerald was worried that Libby would invent a time machine?

Libby could have further testified. Other people (e.g. Rove) also testified after June 4 2004. At that time Rove and Libby were suspected of making up cover stories.

Anyway, Pete, you were going to get back to me on your opinion of prosecutors lying. And I were hoping for something more substantive than "gee, you righties ought to deplore this".

Oh, well - I won't pretend my hopes were high.

I don't know what you are referring to (maybe you are confusing me with someone else). If you are alleging that in this case the prosecutor lied, then you have not made the case for it.

Sue

3. Isn't this all a long-winded way of saying that Fitz should have allowed Libby a way to constantly change his sworn testimony to better conform to the testimony of other witnesses?

Like he did so many others involved in this case? Why, yes, yes I do think he should have allowed Libby to change his testimony to conform to what others were testifying to.

Frank Lee

Next stop: Fantasy land.

Who, praytell, would tell Libby to "go easy" on the DoJ?

Jim E.

"But do stop by with the many retractions that are no doubt piling up at the lefty sites who predicted that Fitz would flip Libby and go after Cheney, and I will consider it."

Huh?

Charlie (Colorado)

Nah, H&R, there's lots left to be done -- the appeal, for example. Just not Pete's imaginary approach.

Jim E.

Sue wrote: "yes I do think he should have allowed Libby to change his testimony to conform to what others were testifying to."

Yes, Fitz does appear to have been very forgiving to those who returned with "evolved" memories in this case. Very forgiving. Almost like he didn't want to prosecute anyone. Maybe Libby ought to sue Tate (or whomever his first attorney was).

Jane

Why fire him?

Fire him? Let's appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and indict him. Call the Grand Jury!

Other Tom

"Why did they fire the other 8?"

Read a newspaper, pal. I'm not gonna do your homework for you.

Walter

Fitzgerald doesn't just make an argument that Libby obstructed his investigation into "who leaked". That would be troubling, not only because he knew "who leaked", but also because his only indication that "Libby" leaked in a manner differing from his statements in any significant manner came from articles such as the War on Wilson? and the 1x2x6 nonsense.

More troubling to me, Fitzgerald has stated that he convened the grand jury at least in part to investigate whether "Libby lied to the FBI". That is, Libby obstructed an investigation of the truthfulness of his statements to the FBI by repeating the statements he made to the FBI.

As I've mentioned before, Fitzgerald recently won a conviction for obstruction of justice against a person who refused to answer questions before a grand jury.

I understand that there are those (Welcome back, CboldT!) who accept this result as a function of one's obligation as a citizen to be helpful when called upon by police.

But I think it's a far cry from "threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication" or a person who "withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories" which calls to mind (to my mind at least) affirmative physical acts that inhibit the ability of the judicial system to come to the correct decision.

I understand that the law as written allows a conviction for "withholding" or "misrepresenting" one's own "oral testimony". I just think it's bad policy. It bespeaks a lack of confidence in our investigatory agencys' ability to interpret suspects' statements and detect falsehood therein.

clarice

Power w/out responsibility--that's what the opposition wants..Power to dooctate the war operations, power to deprive the president of all his powers, icnluding the absolute right to pardon, even power to megaphone every piece of propaganda like the Gitmo horrors, so well documented by Burlingame today in the WSJ. And when it comes to being responsible for their actions...forget it.

Patrick R. Sullivan

High in any discussion of Fitz's tenuous relationship to the truth ought to be his suggestion--in his unanswered rebuttal--that Cheney had shared his annotated NY Times Op-ed with Libby. Because two of the jurors pretty clearly bought it.

I'm guessing the Wells is going to bring that up in his motion for a new trial. That if Fitz had evidence that he did he should have produced it--say, by calling Cheney as a witness and having him so testify.

Also, I'm guessing that the Eleven Happy Campers and their St Valentine's Day Massacre will be mentioned in any such motion.

Sue

Yes, Fitz does appear to have been very forgiving to those who returned with "evolved" memories in this case.

That's what I've always liked about you Mr. E. Capable, when you want, of seeing that which is right before your eyes. Those evolving memories were certainly interesting. And the only one telling the same story, start to finish is indicted. Maybe that was the key? If you changed your story, even though it could not possibly be correct without someone else changing their story, you got a pass?

Sue

Those evolving memories were certainly interesting.

I failed to note my favorite evolving memory. The one that was felt. A felt memory.

Frank Lee

My newspaper is full of lies since it printed Gonzalez op-ed.

My point is it's a little ridiculous to charge Fitz with prosecutorial misconduct while the DOJ is in the midst of canning 8 U.S. attorneys for what they claim is "poor performance".

If they're firing crappy U.S. Attorneys but leaving Fitz unscathed, it means somebody has it all wrong: So is it the DOJ or Maguire?

Tom Maguire

Who, praytell, would tell Libby to "go easy" on the DoJ?

Is it "Stupid Day" today, or am I uncharacteristically insightful and cryptic?

I can easily imagine a scenario where a high level DoJ official whispers to Libby's team that if Libby does not make a stink about Fitzgerald's dubious conduct, the DoJ won't get all balky about Libby's pardon application.

Folks (OK, F Lee not Bailey) do realize that in the normal process, pardon applications get reviewed by DoJ? Remember the Marc Rich debacle, where the President just approved the pardon without the customary review and squawking?

Is this idea all that complicated?

As to people changing their testimony - do citizens have an absolute right to come back to the grand jury with a new story, or is it by invitation only? I thought the prosecutor controlled the process, but apparently Jim E believes otherwise.

An example would be Grenier - I would not be surprised if he obstructed the investigation by lying in 2004 when he said he had no memory of telling Libby about Plame. His goal - go away, don't bother me.

Later, he saw his civic duty (and saw Libby slipping away), so he changed his story. Whatever.

Of course, the opposite may be true - Grenier followed the story in the press, knew no one could contradict him, and invented a lie to help nail Libby.

Libby was convicted, so its all good for libs - lies at the CIA are not an issue.

stevesh

"Power w/out responsibility..."
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2007 at 08:34 AM
---------------------------------------------

Clarice, excellent article by that very name, treating journo-school MSM:

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/feb05/journalism.htm

danking70

I'm surprised that Novak hasn't commented yet on the grilling he got from Russert about not fighting his subpoena.

Does he even know?

Frank Lee

So you can easily imagine a scenario where the DoJ is deals with felons to keep mum about lawbreaking by the DoJ in return for a pardon?!

With friends like you, what enemies does the administration need?

Alcibiades

So is the White House too scared to fire Fitz or do they approve of his performance?

I think that they should. I think they are too scared.

Why fire him? He's gone home; his investigation is over.

This one is, but as Clarice and others have documented, he's been using these methods for a long time in his role as US Attorney.

He's about to use the same methods on Conrad Black; it's not at all clear a crime has been committed there, either.

The reason for firing the others, I suspect, is that the Democrats are planning on trying to bring people up for all kinds of trumped up charges in the investigations they are about to start initiating right and center. And having learned with Fitz, the Bush Admin has finally wised up and doesn't want people of his ilk around.

Johnny

"I can easily imagine a scenario where a high level DoJ official whispers to Libby's team that if Libby does not make a stink about Fitzgerald's dubious conduct, the DoJ won't get all balky about Libby's pardon application."

That hardly paints the administration in a flattering light.

Do you think that's proper behavior from the DOJ?

Great Banana

So you can easily imagine a scenario where the DoJ is deals with felons to keep mum about lawbreaking by the DoJ in return for a pardon?!

This type of approach seemed to have worked for Clinton.

cathyf

As I have already pointed out, given the standards set for perjury, I think that the AG should go to a grand jury and ask for indictments for perjury against Fitzgerald in the matter of his affadavits to the appeals court.

And indictments against Fitzgerald, Eckenrode and Bond for conspiracy to suborn perjury.

1) Their agreement with Russert specifically included that they would hide the fact that Russet talked freely to Eckenrode. When NBC filed the false affidavit, that went from simply helping Russert lie to the public to conspiracy to commit perjury.

2) Using Russert's hectoring of Novak as evidence of Russert's state of mind, it is obvious that once Russert talked to Eckenrode, he was a prime candidate for being blackmailed by anyone who knew that he had spoken to Eckenrode freely, without a subpeona, or indeed without seeing any ID proving that Eckenrode was who he claimed he was. And sure enough, after Eckenrode told Russert what story the FBI wanted, Russert changed his story to match what he had been told. The "losing" of the notes from the first interview are strong evidence of the conspiracy.

3) In the case of conspiracy to suborn perjury, it is not necessary for the perjury to actually happen to be convicted of the perjury. So even though Fitzgerald and the NBC lawyers conspired successfully to keep Mitchell from having to lie under oath, if the affidavit is true -- that Mitchell would have committed perjury if forced to testify -- then Fitzgerald (and probably the NBC lawyers) are still guilty of conspiracy.

4) According to the federal sentencing guidelines, suborning perjury gets a heavier sentence if it results in indictments, verdicts, or expenditures of large amounts of government resources.

The only question in my mind is whether the AG should supervise this prosecution personally, or should, following the guidelines for special prosecutors, name a distinguished independent prosecutor who is in a position to prosecute wrongdoing within the FBI and the Dept of Justice.

Johnny

Right. And comparing the Bush administration to the Clinton administration is certainly brave new territory for Bush defenders.

Has it really gotten that bad?

Great Banana

"I can easily imagine a scenario where a high level DoJ official whispers to Libby's team that if Libby does not make a stink about Fitzgerald's dubious conduct, the DoJ won't get all balky about Libby's pardon application."

That hardly paints the administration in a flattering light.

Do you think that's proper behavior from the DOJ?

No, they should be investigating Fitzy on their own. but, just b/c something ought to be, does not mean that it is.

Something you must remember, the vast majority of people working at agencies like DOJ are lifetime civil-service employees. The political appointees don't usually change the institutions all that much and their are plenty of high-level non political appointees in any agency who do their own thing - witness the rogue CIA sending Joe Wilson to "investigate" the niger issue. Witness basically the constant leaks from the CIA against the admin, etc.

Thus, it is easy to believe that some high level, non-political appointee, could make this kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge deal to protect Fitzy and/or the DOJ's image.

Great Banana

Right. And comparing the Bush administration to the Clinton administration is certainly brave new territory for Bush defenders.

Well, when the left stops idolizing Clinton and longing for the days of Clinton, we'll stop pointing out that everything the lefties claim make Bush so evil now, Clinton did 10 times worse.

Jim E.

TM wrote: "I thought the prosecutor controlled the process, but apparently Jim E believes otherwise."

Please don't put words into my mouth. Thanks.

As I previously wrote on another thread, it is up to the discretion of the prosecutor. A witness can request to reappear before the GJ. It's ultimately up to the prosecutor whether they're allowed to do so. But given what we know in this case -- I'm thinking mostly of Rove, but I think Armitage, and one other witness (Grenier?) fits the bill, too -- Fitz has shown a willingness in this case to grant such requests and allow people to volunteer themselves back to the GJ.

topsecretk9

--Please don't put words into my mouth. Thanks.--

Biting MY tounge. ahem Bennett ahem.

clarice

I doubt that the DoJ would make a deal depending on his keeping quiet about prosecutorial misconduct. If the President doesn't feel guilt for what his naivete wrought I'd be astonished. He knew Armitage was undercutting him and did nothing. He knew Tenet was playing games and did nothing. He knew Ashcroft was a ninny and did nothing. He should have figured out soon after his appointment that Fitz was off the tracks and did nothing.

I love Bush for his decency, but the first rule for every leader, is that if you permit perfidy in even small things to go unpounished it will grow..and he did and it did.

Frank Lee

CathyF at least is on the right track if you really believe Fitz is so bad.

Maguire apparently believes Bush let Fitz run roughshod over Libby and will now seek a deal with Libby to keep the misconduct "on the QT" in return for a pardon.

An ingenious plan. Reminiscent of Judy Miller's scheme to spend time in jail for contempt rather than risk imprisonment on some other charge.

Jim E.

"Biting MY tounge. ahem Bennett ahem."

It must be obscure comment day around here. ???

Charlie (Colorado)

If they're firing crappy U.S. Attorneys but leaving Fitz unscathed, it means somebody has it all wrong: So is it the DOJ or Maguire?

No, you moron, it's you: do you remember the furor that followed Nixon firing Archibald Cox? Whatever the statutes might say, it is for all practical purposes impossible for the President to fire a special prosecutor.

topsecretk9

Mr. E

Bob Bennett. CNN. YOU. Anyways, doesn't matter.

SlimGuy

Sometimes I wonder if the reason there are no notes from Eckenrodes call to Russert is simply due to the fact he was calling as a source for Russert rather than as an investigative interview.

Then someone tried to reverse the lens at a later date.

Frank Lee

Clarice already set Maguire straight.

Jane

I just can't even imagine the moonbat's response if anyone in this administration called Fitz on his dishonesty, now or then. So the disingenuousness of suggesting such a thing is rich.

If the media wasn't in the tank for the moonbat's they would be salivating at this story. But then again the media largely is this story.

A nice touch would be the appeals Court, spanking Mr. Fitzgerald, loudly and soundly while making a referral to the bar.

But I won't hold my breath.

Alcibiades

Slimguy - what do you mean by a source for Russert? You mean, sound him out?

ARC: Brian

it is for all practical purposes impossible for the President to fire a special prosecutor.

Yep, if Fitz were shown on national tv strangling cute puppies, the President would still not be able to fire him. The MSM would immediately start questioning if Rove had shipped puppies to Fitz house. I question the timing!

Fitz will never be fired. I hope at some point they might turn the funding spigot off.

Fantasy World moment. Fitz decides he likes being special prosecutor so much, that he declares himself the permanent Special Prosecutor and starts investigating the next administration (Dem in my fantasy). He'll let the DOJ read about it in media reports.


Jim E.

Ah yes, the first day I remember you posting around here. I tried to make a humorous comment, you flipped out, and screamed (in caps) what a liar I was.

Ahem. I seem to recall you apologized weeks later for your over-the-top lameness.

SlimGuy

Slimguy - what do you mean by a source for Russert? You mean, sound him out?

Posted by: Alcibiades | March 08, 2007 at 09:17 AM

No I mean as in anonymous source for Russert.

Someone on Fritz's team was leaking to the press.

topsecretk9

Dishonor Russert #2 don't forget - he brain farted on his super special presidential treatment with lawyers present sans GJ.

MikeS

What did Fitz know and when did he know it? Seriously.
Fitz claimed that, before he called for a Grand Jury, Libby was “telling stories” that didn’t fit the evidence as Fitz understood it. I don’t think that is true.

The most damning story Libby was accused of telling was this:

On or about July 11, 2003, over the phone
A reporter (Russert) told Libby that he (Russert) knew about Plame.
Libby refused to confirm.
Libby didn’t immediately recall that he had heard about Plame before conversation.
Russert told Libby "all the reporters know"

What Fitzgerald knew:
On or about July 11, 2003, over the phone
A reporter (Novak) told Libby the he (Novak) knew about Plame.
Libby refused to confirm.
(so far identical to the Libby statement)
Libby had no memory of the Novak conversation.
Russert denied speaking about Plame.

Given that these two telephone conversations were similar in content, and took place at approximately the same time, I'm surprised the SP didn't investigate the possibility that Libby confused the two calls.

topsecretk9

Mr. E

I did. I was just snickering at your adversity to words in mouths NOW!!!!

topsecretk9

--I'm surprised the SP didn't investigate the possibility--

Seriously, you are? He didn't investigate anything beyond Get Rove - Get Cheney - otherwise he would have been as through as the AP and taken a gander at Armitage's appointment calendar - or Armitage's multiple witness tamperings.

Tom Maguire

Please don't put words into my mouth. Thanks.

Fair enough - here is what you wrote yesterday:

Also, I think there's an argument to be made that Libby's lawyers (not Wells, the guy he had before -- Tate?) botched this. It's only a hunch, but my guess is that Armitage and Rove's testimony evolved from appearance to appearance. I'd bet that what Rove "remembered" in the fall of 2003 was a hell of a lot different than what he was testifying to in his fourth (or was it fifth?) GJ appearance in the summer of 2005. Seems like Fitz was very forgiving to witnesses who changed their stories. Who knows, maybe Libby's wondering whether he should have run back to the GJ two or three more times. Maybe Fitz was looking for reasons not to indict.

OK, not a very compelling hunch. But I do wonder what Libby and his wife think of Rove right now. And I wonder if Libby has second thoughts about not going back in front of the GJ. (As I recall, Rove volunteered to go back.)

And a bit later, this:

As you yourself concede, Rove had the ability to volunteer to testify. Armitage also volunteered to go back. Libby chose not to, even as he saw Russert being dragged back -- much like Rove saw Cooper being dragged back. Like I said, perhaps Libby wasn't well served by his attorney.

I was sufficiently surprised to wonder this:

I would love to see a cite for that - my impression was that Fitzgerald never called him back because he wanted to indict on the testimony he had. I had no idea Libby could have demanded another appearance.

And I now see your reply:

He could have requested, not demanded. We know that Rove, for example, requested, and was granted, an additional chance to talk to the GJ. My point is that we know Fitz has shown a willingness to use his discretion to allow witnesses to revisit their testimony.

Glad we cleared that up. As to evidence that Libby did or did not request a new appearance, we have yet to see any.

mshyde

This whole scenario would have been put if
Ms.Plame had come forward at the get go and
rendered the so-called outing moot.
Washington D.C. should be renamed Salem.

jwest

Jane Hamsher, the paragon of free and open discussion, has linked to this article.

Her “money shot”:

“….Joe Wilson was, in fact, right. The next one who accuses him of lying better produce some friggin' uranium pronto, know what I mean? “

Tom Maguire

Here's a surprise - Frankie and Johnny were lovers... or at least, Frankie Lee and Johnny share the same IP address.

I expect they will be back under yet more guises - the banning software is not hard to circumvent here, unfortunately.

And if they come back as just one person, they will be welcome. Probably still ignorant and rude, but welcome.

Other Tom

Produce uranium? Why? Why not just produce the SSCI report? Seems that'll do just fine. And just for the record, let me be the "next one to accuse him of lying": Joe Wilson is lying. And I have no uranium to produce.

sylvia

No doubt in my mind that Libby was his own worst enemy in his testimony. Some here say that his testimony made no sense, hence he must be telling the truth. However, even if if he was telling the truth, he should have been smart rnough to realize how unbelievable it sounded, and taken great pains to clarify it, or squelch some of it, as in the uneccesary comments in Count 5.

Other Tom

Hey Frank--you just got outed. File a lawsuit.

Alcibiades

Glad we cleared that up. As to evidence that Libby did or did not request a new appearance, we have yet to see any.

Perhaps he was simply unaware that this was a possibility. It has to be unusual in any case.

I'd read he didn't get a Washington attorney until he was in trouble already, after his appearance.

sylvia

"Frankie Lee and Johnny share the same IP address"

Yes Tom, you can even post with the same ID as someone here. People did that to me a lot. Maybe you could work on some way to prevent that at least - only one same ID with the same addy on the page allowed.

Wap

Fitz won't even prosecute a criminal conspiracy happening as he does his investigation.

topsecretk9

Hamsher is also not happy that the jurors would like a pardon. She's lecturing them to shut their traps.

Sue

Top,

I can't take myself back over there. Not even for the humor of it.

I am going to visit EW, though. When I get around to it. I promised the crew over there to stay away unless more indictments were issued, in which case I'd be back to eat my crow, cold with a dash of salt, please. I figure it would be worth the trip to rub in that I was right on one thing at least. ::grin::

SlimGuy

Question for the legal types here.

Since the babbling jurors at least give the impression the were considering the Bigger Picture Valarie outing issue contrary to the limitations that I thought were in the jury instructions can Walton order nullification of the jury verdict and declare a mistrial?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Is it just me, or has David Corn subtly changed his story of how he outed Valerie Plame as a CIA spy:

' When I saw the reference to his wife as a CIA spy, I called Wilson and asked about that. He was livid about the column. He would neither confirm nor deny anything. But, he said, if the information in the Novak column was accurate--if she were a CIA operative--then her cover had been blown and that would have serious consequences. If the information was wrong, then she had been falsely branded a spy.'

So, now it's Joe was pushing Corn to publicize his wife's spydom (or not). How does this help protect her identity?

hit and run

Here's a surprise - Frankie and Johnny were lovers... or at least, Frankie Lee and Johnny share the same IP address.


Forget the IP thing.

So help me, defiling Donna Douglas in this way will NOT be tolerated.

SlimGuy

It would seem that if Walton can legally quash the verdict , its a win win for everyone.

Fritz and the left of center types on the jury can all live happily ever after with "don't blame me I voted against Bush" tshirts.

sylvia

"can Walton order nullification of the jury verdict and declare a mistrial?"

Yes we need more discussion on whether and when Fitz knew Plame was not covert. If she was not covert, the trial is basically false arrest in my opinion. And even it is a grey area about her status, I still think the same applies. I mean, there's not much else to help Libby out at this point anyway, we might as well ponder this.

Alcibiades

So, now it's Joe was pushing Corn to publicize his wife's spydom (or not). How does this help protect her identity?

Has nothing to do with covering her ass. Corn has seen the way the wind is blowing when even the WPost denounces Wilson as the liar and blowhard he is, and he's covering his own. Notice how well this new narrative fits in with the tidbit from the Woodward/armitage tape we heard, about how Joe was blowing his horn all over. Also Corn realizes he was used; and was quite happy to be used. But now that respectable media conventional wisdom shows him up for the ass he is, he doesn't want to be that ass anymore.

Other Tom

Slimguy, earlier I posted my thoughts on this issue as I remember federal practice from ten or more years ago. Someone else confirmed my recollection. The short version is that in the federal courts you cannot use post-verdict juror comments for any purpose unless they disclose bribery, actual fraud or intimidation, or they reveal that a juror made a materially false statement or omission in voir dire. Juror statements revealing that they were confused about the facts, the law or the jury instructions aren't admissible.

Just for some background, things are quite different in the California state courts. As a result, post-trial proceedings often involve races to get to the jurors, get them (often with the aid of leading questions and encouragement) to make statements undercutting the verdict, preparing affidavits for them to sign, and reopening the whole mess. I very much prefer the federal practice.

Alcibiades

It would seem that if Walton can legally quash the verdict , its a win win for everyone.

Right. And we all believe that Walton has the cojones and the strong minded independent streak to do that.

He'll probably do almost precisely what the prosecutor asks for, as far as sentencing goes, even though this guilty verdict came down to his mistake in allowing Fitz's state of mind incriminating evidence from Cheney against strong objection from the defense.

lurker

Captain Quarters posted: No Pardon In The Near Future

Then we get

Get a Grip Mr. President

Excellent ideas, J. Peter Mulhern

Someone needs to generate a petition for everyone (except martin, spartacvs, re-pete, et al) to sign and send it to the White House and DoJ.

MikeS

What Fitz knew
Fitz implied that he was suspicious of Libby’s statements because they contained information that might be exculpatory if Libby were charged under the IIPA.
For example:
Libby said “reporters were telling us (the White House) about Plame.
What Fitz knew:
Reporters were telling the White House about Plame and asking for confirmation.

Libby stated that he confirmed the Plame stories to reporters only by saying he heard it from other reporters.
What Fitz knew:
Libby didn’t confirm the Plame story at all according to Novak, Woodward, and Pincus(?) He did confirm according to Cooper. (not confirming at all would seem to be even more exculpatory than Libby confirming that he heard it from reporters). What is suspicious about not confirming at all?

boris

OT: cannot use post-verdict juror comments for any purpose

Any? Juror statements that reveal decisions by the judge had unintended consequences forseen by defense should be taken into account IMO. Hope they are.

In addition to improper use of the articles esp annotated by Cheney, there is my suspicion that the jury convicted Libby on some counts based on no matter what he said to Cooper he misled the GJ about what he really knew at the time. IOW convicting a crime not charged.

clarice

OT, I think that is a perfectly accurate statement of the effect of post trial juror statements in federal court. OTOH when the defense argues it was error to have admitted over its objection the Cheney marked op ed and the 1x2x6 article they can use the juror statements to show that what they feared would happen, did happen.

At least one juror has said he/she didn't believe the Libby was busy w/ other matters defense . There ,too, it might be used to buttress the defense claim that the Ct erred in keeping the defense from entering most of the CIPA material when Libby declined to testify.

cathyf
...or they reveal that a juror made a materially false statement or omission in voir dire.
Probably this Collins clown could be questioned on this point. He published the first draft of his book on the puffington host mere hours after the verdict, so obviously he was busy writing it during the trial. The whole "Oh, gee, sorry I forgot to mention that I wanted to be on the jury so that I could influence the other jurors to come up with both the verdict and the way of reaching it that accrues to my monetary benefit" thingy is a pretty glaring omission.
sylvia

The other charge used for Fitz's investigation is this : Title 18, section 793.

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, ...relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits ...the same to any person not entitled to receive it...

I suppose even if the "covert" law didn't pan out, Fitz still had this one. Still where was the evidence that Fitz was pursuing any particular "document" in Libby's case? Without a particular document and the disclosure of the content of that SPECIFIC document to, say, Russert, not just "I heard that too", I don't see how this charge applies from the getgo. If no underlying charges apply, why was this case against Libby allowed to proceed? Just curious. And is this issue able to be appealed?

sylvia

"that the jury convicted Libby on some counts based on no matter what he said to Cooper he misled the GJ about what he really knew at the time"

Boris, that was a question I had too but I just looked that up in the indictment. As you can see, say at the beginning of count 5, there is language that all undelined statements from the testimony can be judged as false statements, so they count against Libby too and are fair game, even if they are not part of the specific charges.

Curly Smith

I don't see a problem. Fitzgerald and the FBI must have met the high standards of the Justice Department since you don't see mass resignations or protests. Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor in the country, he's a prosecutor's prosecutor, his honor and integrity are beyond question else you'd hear questions from the Justice Department.

Just as the Walter Reed scandal tells you all you need to know about a National Health System, Fitzgerald's performance tells you all you need to know about our "Justice" Department. Way to go Fitz! You're the Man!

Jim E.

sylvia,

With regards to the "Title 18, section 793," Fitz never prosecuted on that point. I think this had to do with the Libby/Miller breakfast meeting at which Libby arrived with part of the insta-declassified NIE. If it hadn't yet been declassified *and* if Libby had handed the paper to Miller, I think that's where this charge could have come into play. But nothing came of this.

lurker

The Wilsons say goodbye to DC via Hot Air AND
plan to sue CIA if CIA refuses to let Valerie Plame publish her book:

Goodbye DC

While Libby goes through the appeal process, those sentencing dates still loom. Dan Reihl heard from MSNBC that Libby would remain free on bail until appeal. So if Judge Walton decides that Libby be sentenced jail time, will he still be required to spent jail time while his appeal process is pending?

sylvia

Here's the language from the indictment:

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson’s wife by the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):
a. Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:

libmeister

Joe Wilson lied, the SSCI Report makes that very clear. It was so clear that even the left-leaning Washington Post said in so many words that Wilson is a freakin' liar.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

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

Traffic

Wilson/Plame