Judy Miller Walks, Will Talk

The NY Times confirms early accounts from Knight Ridder:

Jailed Times Reporter Freed After Source Waives Confidentiality

By DAVID JOHNSTON and DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released from a Virginia detention center this afternoon after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter, the paper's publisher and executive editor said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the criminal inquiry. Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify. 

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

OK, Lewis Libby had been everybody's pick for months, so there is no surprise there.  But who knew the Times could execute so lovely a pirouette?

The Times' publisher, Arthur M. Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller's decision to testify, just as it backed her earlier refusal to cooperate. "Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

Why did it take so long for Ms. Miller to receive this waiver?  The Times explains the process to us:

Her willingness to testify was based in part on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby earlier this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

...The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations between Ms. Miller; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

But the discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to Ms. Miller's lawyers more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September, saying that he believed her lawyers understood that his waiver was voluntary.

Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly.

Let me claim an "I told you so" point here - I had argued (point 3) that blaming Libby for the inability to work out a waiver deal may have been a bit unfair - negotiating these waivers can't be easy, and the specter of a witness conspiracy charge hangs over them.

[And why did Miller's attorney wait until late August to call?  Why not when she was jailed in July, or anytime after she was found in contempt last fall?  Was she running out the clock (see below)?  I Boldly Predict that our friends on the left will note eagerly that John Bolton visited Ms. Miller sometime before mid-August.  Hey, maybe I have been ignoring the wrong theory, recently moved forward by Arianna herself.]

Now, how broad will Ms. Miller's testimony be?

In written statements today, Ms. Miller and executives of The New York Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Mr. Keller said that Mr. Fitzgerald had cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice.

This may tie in to my guess that perhaps Ms. Miller is attempting to run out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury.  It is not news that under DoJ guidelines, Ms. Miller's subpoena was quite narrowly directed towards her conversations with one specified official.  And since Fitzgerald's grand jury has a month to run, running out the clock at this point should be easy - for example, Ms. Miller can (*HYPOTHETICALLY*) testify that she told Libby about Ms. Plame, refuse to discuss the basis of that knowledge, and leave Special Counsel Fitzgerald with the challenge (per DoJ guidelines) of exhausting all reasonable means to ascertain her source before he re-subpoenas her.  Presumably Fitzgerald could battle Plame-fatigue and extend his grand jury, but at a minimum, Ms. Miller has deferred the threat of criminal contempt.

So Judy is out - will Kevin Drum hit his trifecta?  Is Judy in the last month of running out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury?  Time will tell!

ERRATA:  The Times should try harder to get the details right:

New details about the case have emerged in recent months. Karl Rove, the president's senior political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, both discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters, according to testimony provided by Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, and by others. But neither of the White House officials is known to have mentioned Ms. Wilson by name or to have mentioned her covert status at the C.I.A.

Based on his own account, it was Cooper that told Libby about Ms. Plame.  Excerpt after the break.

UNCLEAR TO WHOM?  J Pod makes an excellent point in response to the Johnston/Jehl assertion that "Much about Ms. Miller's role in the matter remains unclear" - it's not unclear to the Times editors.  Note to Bill Keller - whenever you are ready to talk, we are ready to listen.  [A Lightbulb!  Someday, when Judy's role reaches the level of "All The News That's Fit To Print", Keller can run her story in Times Select!]

UPDATE:  We are slipping the John Bolton theory into a mini-update within the main post - since he visited Miller before mid-August, and her lawyers initiated the jail break in late August, we can suspect anything.  And since we are speculating about Ms. Miller's motivations, let's add the obvious - Jail's a bitch, even if you are... well, anyway, there is a good reason that the threat (or reality) of jail prompts people to talk - we aren't all Susan MacDougal.  Maybe the role of First Amendment champion, the prospective book deals, and the reputational rehabilitation all paled under the flourescent lights and jail food.

And the WaPo has lots - apparently, Libby told Miller a little on July 8, and more on the 12th or 13th.  Since Matt Cooper of TIME told Libby about Plame on July 12 (Date Check in the continuation), his role remains important.  From the WaPo:

According to a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller in July 2003, the subject of Wilson's wife came up on two occasions. In the first, on July 8, Miller met with Libby to interview him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the source said.

At that time, she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

My tip - keep on eye on Murray Waas, who has been on this story like A Rod on a hanging curveball.

My thought - Libby's version seems awfully convenient - by July 8 he had heard that Wilson's wife was involved, but had *not* heard where she worked?  Who separated those factoids, which seemed to travel together in the famous INR memo which described Ms. Wilson's role in her husband's selection?  An obvious guess - Libby was being smart/slick/disingenuous/manipulative when he told Ms. Miller that he did not know the background of Wilson's wife - he knew, all right, but he wanted to get her poking around, and gossiping all over town.  Well, if lying to a reporter is a crime, lock up Washington.

And that said, those factoids were (arguably) separated in Novak's column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

Maybe Novak was a pawn in a similar manipulation - A senior Administration official told him "Cherchez la femme", and he uncovered her CIA connection on his own.  (The second Admin official, reported to be Rove, allegedly provided confirmation with an a comprehensive, in-depth "I heard that, too".)

OK, one more guess - Libby knew Wilson's wife was with the CIA but concealed that when he spoke with Miller on July 8.  Once he heard the CIA connection flow back to him from Cooper, he delivered it, courtesy of the TIME tip-laundering service, to Miller.  And let's not leave Tim Russert out of this - maybe Libby double-sourced his leak before passing it back to Miller.  (Here is Liptak of the Times on Russert's intriguing deal with the prosecutor).

Slick for Libby, small bit of a bummer for Karl, and frustrating as all get out (we imagine) for Fitzgerald.

UPDATE 2:  Here is a revised version of the Times story, which adds a bit of detail about the Libby-Miller conversations.  However, since they don't provide dates, we can't drag Cooper into it:

Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said.

[Long skip, and...]

According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.

DATE CHECK:  Libby spoke with Rove on Friday, July 11 and met with Libby the next day.

Cooper Told Libby About Plame:

MR. RUSSERT:  You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor.  In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby.  Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney.  I have never discussed that conversation until now.  In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background.  On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger.  On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger.  Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Did you interpret that as a confirmation?

MR. COOPER:  I did, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER:  No, he didn't say that.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you said it to him?

MR. COOPER:  I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  And that she worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER:  I believe so.

Comments

[SteveMG]

This must have always been about Fitzgerald - or members of the grand jury - veering off into uncharted waters during Miller's testimony. Asking her about sources on not only la affair Plame but other matters, lots of other matters. And that Miller's real - in all senses of that word - fear was having to reveal dozens and dozens of contacts and officials over the years who gave her classified information.

All this over Libby? Doesn't make sense.

SMG

[Jeff]

Points of interest in the NYT article, best as I can tell: there were multiple conversations between Miller and Libby that week, not just the one breakfast meeting; and despite the repetition (from Jehl's earlier article) about the things Keller refuses to talk about, we know that Miller did reporting on Wilson and did indeed try to write a story about it, don't we?

Two other things. I'm skeptical of the "Libby's not a monster" line of interpretation. He knew for months and months that Miller was facing jail on account of him -- surely he (his lawyer) could have gotten assurances from Fitzgerald long ago that he would not charge them with obstruction or whatever (that happened back in Sept. 2003, perhaps) if Libby told Miller, "No, no, really, I really really want you to testify and not go to jail on account of me. Really." This doesn't, of course, mean that Libby's a criminal. He could just be a horrible human being.

I also can't imagine Miller seriously has any hope of running out the clock. Unless I'm mistaken, Fitzgerald can just convene a new grand jury, or extend this one, right? And by now she must know that he's serious, and the longer she drags it out, the longer she drags it out for herself. But maybe she doesn't realize that, or some assumption I'm making is wrong.

[topsecretk9]

the philly Inquirer characterizes the "waiver" confusion like this...

"...She was released after she had a telephone conversation with the Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, sources said. In that conversation, Libby reaffirmed that he had released Miller from a promise of confidentiality more than a year ago, sources said..."

I am just not buying the "waiver" confusion bit, Cooper did this drama too, I guess it sells papers and magazines though...

Tom Maguire exceprts it

"Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

and John Podhoretz sniffs at it...

A DEMENTED PARAGRAPH IN A NYTIMES STORY [John Podhoretz]
The story now up on its website about the Judy Miller matter reads, in part: "Much about Ms. Miler's role in the matter remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she had tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson."

Wait, hold it. Her "role in the matter" isn't in the least "unclear" to the editor of the newspaper website in which that sentence appears. Bill Keller could insert a few sentences of what he knows with his red pencil. So the sentence is a lie. The Times could reveal everything it knows about this now, could have a year ago, could tomorrow. It is deliberately withholding information from its readers and bizarrely covering its own tail by writing about its own decision as though it were writing about another newspaper. There's something, I don't know, creepy about it.
Posted at 09:59 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#078055

[owl]

I agree. Not buying "but this waiver is good.....now" that Cooper and Miller both offer. Neon lights might have worked better.

Not only did they both do this, Time and NYT's editors gave a good performance of a complete rat-out, blogged by JJ a couple of weeks ago. Skip the neon and just use front pages.

[Frank IBC]

The timing of this is interesting - why does it just happen to come out the day after the DeLay indictment? Are the Democrats trying to "flood the zone" or are the Republicans hoping that the bigger story of DeLay's indictment will bury the smaller story of Plamegate?

[Dwilkers]

It doesn't make sense.

Why go to jail for so long if she was only going to come out right at the end - when she was within shouting distance of the grand jury expiring - and testify? If all that was necessary was a more specific waiver from Libby, and he was willing to give her that, why didn't they do it months ago?

I don't see it. This doesn't add up.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "Based on his own account, it was Cooper that told Libby about Ms. Plame."

I don't think that characterizes it correctly at all. Cooper says that Libby was a confirming source for him -- Libby confirmed that he'd heard about the supposed role Wilson's wife played in Wilson's Niger trip.

Frank IBC wrote: "The timing of this is interesting . . . Are the Democrats trying to "flood the zone"?"

Yeah, the Democrats are behind the timing of all of this. Is that a joke? In terms of timing, Miller may have realized that between the Hurricanes, the Supreme Court stuff, Frist, and now DeLay, that no one this side of Lou Dobbs really gives a crap that she was in jail. If she was hoping for some sort of widespread sympathy on her behalf to shame/pressure Fitzgerald into letting her out, she may have figured out that she wasn't going to get much more coverage. Or maybe Fitzgerald promised to pursue criminal charges against her. Either way, her "principled" (cough, cough) stand apparently did have an expiration date after all. All those previous NY Times editorials on her behalf are now inoperative.

[topsecretk9]

okay. it is official. Blog comments can be frickn' funny!

"Neon lights might have worked better."

and to think these communication failures and confusions were by intelligent enlightened COMMUNICATION experts! Not to mention the speedy attempts to clear it all up. Millers attorney must be Amish...PICK UP THE PHONE? Something like this..."Say Libby's attorney, just heard that Cooper was just as confused by "full waiver" versus "full full waiver" as Judy is and say I was thinking maybe we could get a "full full waiver" too?

No. It is all about Judy protecting "additional" sources and just what Ms. Jusy was gonna write.

[topsecretk9]

Jusy? that is her porn name.

[Jim E.]

"Jusy? that is her porn name."

I just vomited a little.

[StuckinCali]

This is a joke. I still don't understand Miller's motivation, but Sulzberger and Cooper and the editors at Time loved the attention. They are pretending that they are defenders of one of our civil liberties even though the sources signed a universal waiver almost two years ago. It is a text book example of the MSM's separation from reality. The NY Times, the LA Times, Time etc. have had steadily decreasing circulation to go along with their loss of credibility and they want to go through this charade so that they can pretend that they are doing something historic like the Pentagon Papers.

[TM]

Dwilkers - I added a line noting that Fitzgerald has been threatening Miller with criminal contempt. By testifying about Libby, she removes that threat. If her testimony suggests she has some other source, Fitzgerald has to re-initiate the whole subpoena process. For example, Cooper got subpoenaed for Libby, struck a deal, and then got hit with a second subpoena for Rove. Of course, it is highly likely that Rove had testified at that point, so Fitzgerald was in compliance with the DoJ guideline obliging him to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before subpoenaing a reporter. That would (presumably) not be the case here, if Miller had some other source - Bolton, for example, has not testified.

Jeff - whether or not Libby is a monster, it was Miller's lawyer that initiated the negotiations in late August.

Why no phone call in late March? Or even July, after she went to jail?

And that is a great point from J Pod.

[Jeff]

Don't have time right now, but there's major news in the WaPo's account.

[SteveMG]

Put yourself in Judy Miller's spot.

You've been covering WMD issues for more than a decade, not only with this administration but the Clinton W.H.

Over those years, like any good reporter, you've developed dozens of sources, put together alot of dots, talked to hundreds of individuals.

Clearly, over that time you've been privy to a great deal of classified information, information leaked by government officials for a host of reasons, some petty, some large, some accidental.

Would you like to have to testify to a grand jury about whether and how you've received classified information?

Question: Does anyone wish to wager that Miller knew Plame's identity more than a decade ago? That through her contacts with the CIA or NSA, through hard work, she was able to determine Plame's status? No leaks, no inside dope; just plain hard work.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

I've been saying all along that this has been a bit of kabuki theater--a display of Potemkin principle.

Judy wanted to go to jail--she had to martyr herself to save her ruined reputation as a journalist. This stint in jail is the best thing that's happened to her since Curveball.

As far as wild speculation as to why she's stopped protecting Bush administration folks, maybe the whole "rats off a sinking ship" metaphor applies.

[topsecretk9]

quick question for those more familiar...

Does Floyd Abrams work with Robert S. Bennett, or is Bennett a new attorney and is he the one representing Clinton against Paula Jones?

[Jim E.]

"is Bennett a new attorney and is he the one represent[ed] Clinton against Paula Jones?"

Yes and yes.

[topsecretk9]

well to my notion the only nugget sorta worth mentioning in WAPO is the Judges words (what do I know though)

"In July, when Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered Miller to jail, he told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092901974_2.html?sub=AR

[topsecretk9]

thanks Jim E.

[Jim E.]

The speculation about why Judy is willing to speak now is worthwhile (did she want to be a martyr? Is she really trying to cover-up her own crimes? etc.). Miller's motives are complicated, and she's not a journalistic hero at all.

But I think Libby's side in all of this needs to be speculated about, too. In June or July, Miller and Cooper made it abundently clear that neither of them would accept the general waivers. The world also knew that Fitzgerald wanted to know about Miller's conversation with Libby. It was the conversation -- not the source -- that was secret and confidential. Isn't it strange that it took all of one morning (or was it a few days) for Cooper to get his "personal" waiver, yet it took one month for Miller to get hers? Why wouldn't Libby have lifted a finger to make sure Judy wasn't in jail because of him, and what the hell took so long once Libby did lift his finger? Cooper wasn't even in jail, and things happened way more quick for him. Why would a jailed reporter get less deference? Perhaps it's because Libby doesn't want her to speak.

Tomorrow's NY Times reports that Floyd Abrams (Miller's previous lawyer) disputes the account being floated by Libby's lawyer that Libby had always made clear that he was okay with Miller testifying. Abrams claims that (quoting the Times verbatim, not Abrams): While "Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive." Abrams account, if true, would actually bolster Judy's claims of standing on principle. Abrams account makes it look like Libby wanted Judy to stay in jail and keep her mouth shut.

This turn of events also bolsters Arianna Huffington's credibility -- she wrote awhile ago that Judy was trying to negotiate a way out of jail.

[Seven Machos]

This is all really simple. Judy Miller knows that she will spend a long time in jail because Fitzgerald can convene another grand jury and/or bring actual charges against her. She's lost her battle and the war. Hence, she has to talk.

You can almost sense the desperation in the liberals -- like Geek, Esq., above -- hoping, praying that this has anything to do with anyone in the Bush administration.

Sorry, kids. There's no timing here other than the timing of the rest of Judy Miller's life, which she probably wants to spend outside of prison.

[topsecretk9]

yes I agree that it looks like the clock ran out. I mean yes, Abrams could dispute this and that, but Miller replaced him (as Jim E says) so obviously Miller isn't too happy with him.

The general waiver vs. voice on the phone waiver doesn't work after Cooper got his. I mean Coopers' set the timeline on that lame excuse.

As for Arianna, what the heck does rehashing her own rumor info have to do with credibility? I mean she did pass it on, as in "someone close told me", so if her someone was wrong that wouldn't necessarily hurt her credibility either... she prefaced as a rumor. Actually, that is all Arianna has done. I mean other than calling the detention center all she has done is pipeline her insider trading on her site.

[Jeff]

TM - Yeah so? What I'm saying is, if my name is Lewis Libby and I'm neither a criminal nor a horrible human being, when it is clear that Miller is facing going to jail on account of some conversations with me, I go out of my way to talk to Fitzgerald, Miller's lawyers, Miller herself to make sure that doesn't happen. Now maybe, just maybe, Miller wouldn't have gone for it; maybe she saw it playing out very differently, in some way, than it actually did. But I'd try anyway. And it's pretty clear that Libby did not try. Indeed, the WaPo story suggests so much bs-ing, with Libby's lawyer, speaking of the August contact with Miller's lawyer,

"We told her lawyers it was not coerced," Tate said. "We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration."

Surprised? Come on. We knew, they knew, Libby knew. And he did nothing.

The big news in the WaPo story, by the way, is the account of Libby's side of the story, presumably via Tate on background. The biggest item is that it appears to say that Libby's story is that he told Miller about Plame, and not vice versa. During their July 8 meeting

she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

By the time they talk on the phone four or five days later, Libby's got a firmer claim (again, by Libby's own account):

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

It's impossible to know how much of this is true. But if it's an accurate rendition of Libby's story, it means Libby is not pointing the finger at Miller as a source of information. How this jibes with the reports that Libby has said he learned of Plame from Tim Russert, I don't know. And here's another question: is it normal that Miller and Novak would have virtually the exact same question about why Wilson was selected? Was this just a natural line of questioning for a reporter, or might they have been prompted to ask such questions?

Two other interesting items in the WaPo piece. It says that the agreement reached between Fitzgerald and Miller's lawyers on the scope of the questioning may confine it to conversations with Libby. Not very definitive. Second,

One lawyer said it could become clear as early as next week whether Fitzgerald plans to indict anyone or has negotiated a plea bargain,

which is the first time I've heard anything like that about a plea bargain.

[Jon H]

Seven Tacos writes: "You can almost sense the desperation in the liberals -- like Geek, Esq., above -- hoping, praying that this has anything to do with anyone in the Bush administration."

Desperation?

Desperation?!?!

Frist, DeLay, Abramoff linked to a mob-style hit, the Abramoff-connected Administration hack who was recently arrested, and now Judy is testifying tomorrow, so the Plame case should come to a close shortly.

Desperation? Hell no, our cup runneth over.

[The Heretik]

Judith Miller most likely plays a variety of roles in this sad saga. What happens when "reporters" believe themselves players in the halls of power is that the public ends up getting played. Judith Miller has a rather ignominious history as a conduit of "information" the veracity of which recently has been dubious at best. The joke that this woman stood for any journalistic principals in covering "the news" in the past is only now exceeded by the hilarity of righteously covering her vulnerable butt.

The truth in this matter was going to come out sooner or later. In this case it is later, because delay is always the last tactic of the losing side. Who exactly is revealed on that losing side we will now find out.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Huge new scoop. A new story at the Washington Post finally reveals Libby's version of his conservations with Miller. It appears to vindicate Miller of any wrongdoing. Libby told Miller about Plame, not vice versa. Libby may be in a lot of trouble. Click on my name to see the story (and my take on it). Sorry for the blatant self-promotion, TM.

[Truly Shamless Self-Promotion would include a perma-link like this - I see some good points, and some meriting an attempt at rebuttal. TM.]

[Anonymous Liberal]

Sorry, apparently I missed Jeff's comment. He beat me to the punch. I largely agree with his analysis of the WaPo story, though.

[clarice]

Libby had signed a waiver. The judge told her she had a waiver. And we are to believe she went to jail because her lawyer didn't think to clarify what she claims wasn't clear to her?

If I were Libby I'd be furious at Judy. She let him hang in the wind and incur further legal costs for this game.

And I agree absolutely she doesn't want to have to tesify about what she knew from non-WH sources, didn't care what that meant to Libby and is just running out the clock.

The deal in DC is reporters give some information and get some. The only people she and Cooper and their bosses cared about in all this was themselves.
And though it has been public for some time that the prosecutor knew who she'd talked to (Libby), I still see the press reporting falsely that she was not testifying because she wanted to protect the name of her source..If she's protecting anyone's name , that name isn't Libby. GRRRRRRRRRR

[pollyusa]

And here's another question: is it normal that Miller and Novak would have virtually the exact same question about why Wilson was selected?

Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure?
Newsweek 7/05

[Seven Machos]

But Jonnie, I thought Dan Rather's Kinko's files were going to be the end for the conservative movement.

Then, I thought that the Downing Street Memo was going to be the disaster to end all disasters for Republicans.

Then, I thought it was going to be the fake turkey at Thanksgiving in Iraq. Or maybe that was before the other two, I'm not sure.

Once, I thought it was going to be Bush's DUI. Another time I thought it was the Florida Supreme Court's sophmoric attempt to intervene in federal elections.

I could go on and on. Color me jaded about all these worse-than-Watergate scandals that are going to put Democrats back in charge, Jonnie.

[Seven Machos]

How, indeed, Polly? Is it possible that Fleischer and Bartlett knew the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip? If they did, and they suggested that others look into said bureaucratic origins, WOULD THAT BE A CRIME?

I don't blame Newsweek. It has been publsihing leftist cant for years now and its editor comes from a great Communist family. But, Polly: are you a little late to the party in terms of our understanding of the applicable law, perhaps?

[Jon h]

"I could go on and on. Color me jaded about all these worse-than-Watergate scandals that are going to put Democrats back in charge, Jonnie."

When did I say anything about that? Perhaps that'll happen, perhaps not. In the meantime, we get to watch some corrupt GOP crook bastards put through the wringer. That'll make the next 3 years of Bush almost tolerable.

[Jeff]

pollyusa - Right. So when exactly were Fleischer and Bartlett doing this? On July 7 already? By the 8th Miller is asking Libby, and when did Novak start asking? And who starting the prompting when becomes an important question to answer. The point, of course, is not that that is a crime in and of itself, but it sure helps to fill in the picture. More generally, Seven Machos, I wouldn't condescend to pollyuse so much on this one. I suspect she knows more about the case than you do. I will agree with this: I too am jaded that all these worse-than-Watergate scandals have not put the Democrats back in charge. I blame the Democrats, mostly.

[Jeff]

Two other quick comments. TM - Your erratum is misleading, Cooper didn't tell Libby about Plame, he brought her up, which is different. Yours is no more precise than the Times', which is strictly speaking accurate, though misleading.

The other thing is that there is a fascinating post up by Murray Waas here, indicating that his own earlier reporting played a significant role in getting the negotiations between Miller's and Libby's people going. I think I remember reading that piece and thinking that much of it sounded like a signal from one to the other. Waas says we'll hear the backstory from him.

[jc]

If I were Libby and I had already given a blanket waiver, I would think that she was protecting someone else by going to jail, and not me. But maybe I am missing something here.

[Beldar]

Tom, I don't understand your "running out the clock" theory.

Extending the term of the current grand jury, or reconvening new ones, isn't a big deal. It's a minor inconvenience at worst for Fitzgerald. There is no real clock. There's no deadline. Judith Miller could have rotted in jail for years.

She has no leverage. Zero. She's had none since the Supreme Court denied certiorari, and she had very little even then.

I can't rule out the possibility that she thinks there's a clock or that she thinks she has leverage — or that she thought those things up until this week. But those would be delusions if she has or ever had them.

You're making this too complicated, I think. It was just a capitulation, long overdue.

[ordi]

Maybe I am missing something but exactly how is it Libby and his lawyers responsibility to keep Judy out of jail?

1)The Judge told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.

2) Isn't it HER Lawyers job to keep her out of jail? Wasn't HER Lawyer in the court room too when the Judge told her she was mistaken.

Maybe that is why she hired Robert Bennett.

How is it Libby's fault or problem that she has bad counsel?

Beldar your a lawyer aren't you? AM I m issing something here?

[ordi]

Jim E wrote:

Abrams account makes it look like Libby wanted Judy to stay in jail and keep her mouth shut.

That makes no sense. Shut her up only to release her from confidentiality later?

[Seven Machos]

I'm telling you Dems: if you would drop all these scandals, adopt the War on Terror wholehog, and promise fiscal sanity (and a tough immigation policy), you would win in 2006 and beyond in a romp.

Luckily, you have Hillary, who wants to campaign on the policy I just outlined.

Unluckily, you are all apparently nitwits and you want ONLY scandals, ALL the time, you hate the war on terror, you want higher taxes but you want to sweep fiscal sanity (and immigation) under the rug. Hence, your joke candidates get beaten by a very mediocre George W. Bush.

You also have allowed the ENTIRE South to become Republican. Which Red States will Hillary win in 2008?

But, yeah, anyway, "outing" a CIA hack? That's going to register with the Ameriacn people. Let's concentrate all our energy on non-scandals. Because that worked for the Republicans so well from 1994 to 2000.

[Ed Poinsett]

I'm a solid red state Bush supporter, but Seven Machos nails it. DEMS get off the smear and scandal train, it goes nowhere. It makes you look callous and childish. Get serious about the Islamist threat and sound fiscal management and you have a winning message. You only have to listen to adults like Zell Miller and Ed Koch. Enlist Sam Nunn. Your dependence on spoiled brats like Mikey Moore, Howie Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer and Babs Streisand to deliver a straight, simple message to the American people is suicidal.

[Jim E.]

TM,
Libby was a confirming source for Cooper. Your ERRATA post is incorrect -- seems "you should try harder to get the details right." As the Times wrote, Libby did discuss Ms. Wilson with reporters. How is that wrong?

Since you bring it up yet again later in your post (albeit on the much narrower point that Cooper mentioned her CIA employment, which still doesn't make the TImes paragraph wrong), how about some evidence?

[ordi]

Arianna ain't buying what Judy is selling.

Arianna Huffington: Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050930/cm_huffpost/008116;_ylt=AiDKQN4s50UOD2JgmFq09ais0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

[ordi]

Lets try again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050930/cm_huffpost/008116;_ylt=AiDKQN4s50UOD2JgmFq09ais0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-> Arianna's article

[spongeworthy]

I may be way off base here, but it's looking to me like Miller's not really worried about her conversation with Libby regarding Plame. Since we've heard a few times that the investigation has veered some from it's original course, I'm wondering if it's other subjects she doesn't want to discuss.

Doesn't her agreement with Fitzgerald limit her to Plame only and no other sources? Am I reading too much into reports that the investigation strayed outside Plame alone some time back? What else could they be looking into that would fall into the scope of Fitzgerald's mandate? Does he even have one he has to stick to?

[Appalled Moderate]

So, what are the odds, gang. Once Judy Miller tells her story, are we really going to know the truth?

And does anyone understand why Libby still has a job, when it has been apparent for the longest time he was knee deep in this?

[Jim E.]

"What else could they be looking into that would fall into the scope of Fitzgerald's mandate?"

Good point. Fitzgerald also started looking into a story whereby he seemed to accuse Judith Miller of tipping off an Islamic-charity/terrorist-group that they were going to be raided by the FBI or something. (Judy, what an American!) She won that court case, which was a tangent of the Plame investigation. Maybe she needed to make sure that he couldn't ask her any questions about that case.

[spongeworthy]

Or, as Arianna suggests, maybe about prior contacts between Miller and the VP's office. Of course, that's pretty far outside the scope as I understand it.

I read Arianna's piece after my earlier post and, since I'm thinking along the same lines, I would like to disavow this entire line of inquiry. I Just Say No to moonbattery.

[Pollyusa]

Seven Machos

I mentioned nothing about A CRIME or the applicable law here. I answered a question posed upthread. Actually I made no comment at all, just showed the question and the sourced quote.

Jeff

The LATimes story now in archives relates the custody of the INR memo. Powell probably the source here. This was on July 7, 2003

Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One. It is believed that all officials in that part of the aircraft had high-level security clearance

Bartlett and Fleischer were on AF1 and had the clearance.

[cathyf]

Jeff:

The biggest item is that it appears to say that Libby's story is that he told Miller about Plame, and not vice versa.

Go back and read much more carefully. The report said that Libby's information was that: Wilson's wife got him sent to Niger. And the report specifically claims that Libby had no idea of her name or her job. So if the conversation went something like:

Libby: "Wilson's wife seems to have been the one responsible for the CIA choosing him."
Miller: "Yeah, makes sense, she's a CIA WMD analyst."

Would you characterize that conversation as "Libby told Miller about Plame" or would you characterize it as "Miller told Libby about Plame" ?

cathy :-)

[Dwilkers]

AM-

"So, what are the odds, gang. Once Judy Miller tells her story, are we really going to know the truth?"

Probably not, but this sure puts the pressure back on Fitz to wrap this thing up IMO. Its already been going on about 1 year longer than it should have it seems to me.

[Geek, Esq.]

Larry Franklin is going to plead guilty to violating the Espionage Act for the AIPAC scandal. You can bet that if there are any indictments, violations of the Espionage Act will be amongst the charges.

[Jim E.]

TM,
Um, the part you excerpt shows that:
1. Libby discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters, as the Times paragraph (which you critiqued) correctly said
2. Libby was a confirming source for Cooper

Libby already knew about Ms. Wilson. Cooper may have brought her up, but that doesn't mean he was "telling" Libby anything he didn't already know. Libby was a confirming source for Cooper, not the other way around, as you are repeatedly implying.

You are wrong, the Times' paragraph is correct. Given your wrongness, I'm surprised you aren't again giving out the e-mail address of the Public Editor so your minions can e-mail him to (incorrectly) say the Times is wrong. Admit a mistake, man.

[Jeff]

cathyf - That was imprecision on my part. I should have said that Libby brought up Plame to Miller. I do find it weird that you say read more closely and then introduce a gigantic piece of speculation, which, in fact, doesn't jibe with the rest of what we learn: in their second conversation, on the 12th or 13th, Libby tells Miller that has has learned she had a role in sending him and that she worked for the CIA. It's possible, I suppose, that he was just confirming for her what you speculate she categorically told him. But that seems implausible to me. That said, however, what we've got in the WaPo story is Libby's current story, presumably via his lawyer. Isn't it odd and suspicious that we finally get this story on the very eve of Miller's testifying and not before? Is Libby trying to let Miller know what he testified to? Why wait until now?

Slightly more plausible is that in the second conversation, Libby tells Miller Plame works for the CIA and Miller tells him that she's an undercover operative. But I'm still skeptical of that.

[TM]

Well, since Jim E and Jeff are leading a reader revolt on the question of whether Cooper told Libby about Plame, I excerpted the relevant section in the post, and here:

MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Did you interpret that as a confirmation?

MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?

MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER: I believe so.

Or, for emphasis added:

MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?

MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER: I believe so.

Now, I guess Jeff and Jim are arguing that because Libby did not stare at Cooper, slack-jawed, and say "I had no idea", he was confirming Cooper's account, which is almost like "telling" him.

Well, Libby did *not* tell him. Cooper told Libby.

One might even argue (and I will) that "I heard that" does *not* mean "I can vouch for that", or "That is accurate". Maybe Libby had heard it from Russert, too - people hear a lot of things.

I'll accept that Libby confirmed to Cooper that a rumor about Wilson's wife was floating around. Since Cooper had heard the something similar directly from Rove the day before, he proceeded, pretending he had two sources, and good for him. But I am under no obligation to play along, nor do I choose to.

[Jim E.]

"I'll accept that Libby confirmed to Cooper that a rumor about Wilson's wife was floating around."

Looks like reader TM thinks TM is wrong, too.

[Geek, Esq.]

To clarify, that Cooper told Libby about Plame doesn't mean that Libby found out about Plame from Cooper.

I could tell TM that the Moon revolves around the Earth. I would be telling him that, but he wouldn't be finding that fact out from me.

Cooper found out about Plame from Rove. It is almost a metaphysical certainty that Libby didn't find out about Plame from Cooper.

[boris]

It is almost a metaphysical certainty

Sort of like "almost pregnant"

[Geek, Esq.]

Okay. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Appalled Moderate]

Remind me, someone. What plausible course of events keep Libby out of jail at this point, based on what we have been told?

The key issue is whether Libby told anyone of Plame, knowing at the time his lips are flapping that she is covert and that the other person was not entitled to that information.

Interesting, WaPo saying that Libby never talked to Novak. That means his first source is somebody else. Are we about to get a "least likely suspect" revelation? Good God, Watson!

Personally, I think there's a possibility that Jeff Gannon and John Bolton -- on orders from Rove -- both told Novak separately. Arianna needs to get on this, now.

[boris]

she is covert

Living under her own name and identity and openly working at CIA headquarters.

knowing at the time

Assumes facts not in evidence, a no no for someone claiming to be moderate ...

... unless you're just looking for an excuse to be appalled.

[jerry]

Libby has finally freed Miller of her very public "obligation" to him because he's under pressure from Fitzgerald.

I'd bet he's about to flip on higher White House officials.

[Geek, Esq.]

Now that's a theory I hadn't heard before.

Doesn't seem very plausible--this WH is almost Nixonian in the way it deals with those who betray the family, er, the administration.

[robert lewis]

What's not to get? My money is on both Rove and Scooter getting indicted, not for revealing Plame's identity, but rather for lying about it to federal investigators. Can you spell M-A-R-T-H-A S-T-E-W-A-R-T? THere is little or no doubt that Rove, Libby and possibly John Bolton will be indicted. More fascinating is what Dubbya said in his 100+ minute interview with Fitzgerald, and what Cheney may have said. I don't believe that Bush could go for over an hour with a smart prosecutor and not tell at least one fib. And, as we all know from the Stewart case - you don't have to be under oath to be charged with lying to a federal offical. When Fitzgerald's indictments issue, you'll be able to roll a bowling ball thru the West Wing and not hit anybody.

[Geek, Esq.]

I don't dare get my hopes up like that.

[JayDee]

Seven machos urges Dems to "adopt the war on Terror wholehog " and Ed Poinsett agrees Dems have to "get serious about the Islamist threat"....I'm wondering in these days of rude awakening, do even the remaining neocon believers have any clue what they mean by this?

Do they mean our Endless War in Iraq where yesterday Gen. Casey testified that combat ready Iraqi battalions have dropped from three to one in recent months. We've got all of 700 battle ready Iraqis ready and willing to stand up so we can stand down.

What in the holy hell does the War on Terror even mean to those who claim to be serious about it? I'm seeing the Repubbies dissipate in front of our eyes like a bunch of cheap hucksters being blown around the Dust Bowl.... still yelping that the Dems are too weak on terror. How irrelevant do all these politicians have to become before we finally unite against the entire lot of them - Repub & Dem?

This admin now has become a sideshow of crooks reaping the whirlwind - it looks like it will be a looooooong running show and couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of criminals. But meanwhile, there's a country to be run. Who the hell's going to do it?

[Jeff]

TM - My original was, I think, twofold: first, you don't actually pick out an error in the Times. The Times does not say that Libby told Cooper. I agree the Times is imprecise. But so are you. Saying that Cooper told Libby makes it sound like Cooper gave info to Libby info that Libby did not have before, which is not clear, at best.

There are two distinct issues: what can be proven in court, and what we think happened. Leave aside the first. As of the 12th, Libby, by his own account, has already told Miller that the White House is working with the CIA looking into the origins of Wilson's trip. You really think he got all his info from reporters? It would also be interesting to know the timing on the 12th-13th, as to when he spoke with Cooper and when he spoke on the phone with Miller.

[TM]

You are wrong, the Times' paragraph is correct.

I am continuing to try and imagine that Jim E has a valid point here, and I guess it is this - it is true, as the Times reports, that both Libby and Rove had talks with Cooper in which Wilson's wife was discussed.

I, at least, think it is very misleading to leave it at that - the standard account is that Rove told Cooper about Plame, whereas, by Cooper's account, he told Libby.

Ok, they are both "discussions". But I stand by my point that Rove and Libby played very different roles in those discussions, a point the Times ought to clarify.

Put another way, readers familiar with the Cooper-Rove discussion may have concluded that Rove is guilty of something; by failing to highlight the major difference between the two conversations, the Times is pretending that Libby is equally guilty.

As to my post, to placate Jim E, I should not have implied that the Times got the details wrong; I should have said that the Times needs to present the details with a bit more context, so as to avoid being correct but misleading. maybe I should have used the word "disingenuous". Thanks for the help.

This would all be relevant if the Times was preparing a legal brief, or contesting a perjury charge. But since it pretends to be a newspaper, if they present a situation deceptively, I will use words like "wrong" and "not right", even if the Times' cute phrasing lets them blur distinctions they would prefer to avoid.

[Appalled Moderate]

Boris.

It's your contention Plame wasn't covert. Fine. You're entitled to your position. But it isn't shared by Fitzgerald or the courts that ruled on sending Judy to jail.

Who are you gonna believe? The prosecuter who's been staring at this case for a couple of years? the judge that considered the issues in the case? Or the word of a commenter who takes his name from a Bullwinkle cartoon.

It might be appalling, but I'll take the words of the courts on the applicable law, unless I have good well-briefed arguments to the contrary. Can't take just your word, boris. Wouldn't be prudent.

[cathyf]

I do find it weird that you say read more closely and then introduce a gigantic piece of speculation

It's not speculation at all. It is the one thread which has remained consistent throughout this whole story: that the folks discussing this back in 2003 thought that the significant piece of information was the Wilson's wife got him sent to Niger, and that said wife's name, employer and job description were trivial details. That's what Novak said. That's what the NYT amicus brief said. That's the simplest interpretation of the fact that the CIA press aide confirmed to Novak that she was a CIA employee before he checked records. (Since it would have been illegal and a firing offense for him to confirm to Novak that Plame was a CIA employee if he had known she was classified as covert.) The simplest explanation is that all of these people were flapping their jaws because they did not suspect that Plame was covert, and the reason that they did not suspect is because they knew that she had a non-covert job.

I'm still really pissed that nobody seems to care that to the CIA "sooper-dooper top secret" means "takes about 10 minutes to figure out using google." What the heck were they doing connecting classified assets like a NOC employer to someone who drives in and out of a CIA parking lot everyday?

cathy :-)

[robert lewis]

Was Plame covert or not? Well, her employer, the freakin' Central Intelligence Agency, considered her to be a covert agent to the extent that the CIA, part of the Executive Branch of the US government, filed a criminal complaint with the Department of Justice, another agency in the Executive branch, alleging that one of the CIA's covert assets had been exposed contrary to law. Just who exactly do you think should decide who covert agents are, Bob Novak?

[Geek, Esq.]

TM, are you seriously suggesting that Libby and Rove, the two individuals working jointly to handle the WH's damage control on Wilson, weren't coordinating their efforts? That Libby didn't already know about Plame before he spoke to Cooper?

Please.

[Jim E.]

cathyf wrote: "It's not speculation at all."

Well, you did make up an entire conversation out of thin air, quote marks and all.

[nittypig]

And here's another question: is it normal that Miller and Novak would have virtually the exact same question about why Wilson was selected?

Let's see, the CIA sends someone with no WMD experise at all, no agency experience and some diplomatic experience to investigate WMDs. And he's a loyal democrat, who proceeds to pull a htachet job on the administration, so it's pretty clear THEY didn't push to send him. Any good reporter (although I'm not sure that all of the principals should be granted that title) should be asking why they would have chosen him. No obvious qualifications, and certainly not on the ins with the administration.

[Jim E.]

TM,
You continue to state that "Cooper told Libby." You continue to be wrong.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote about the Times: "It pretends to be a newspaper."

You really should consider reigning in your Times hatred. If it is not a newspaper, what is it, exactly?

It's a sucky newspaper, perhaps, but certainly a newspaper.

[Jeff]

nittypig - You pretty much prove my point. You reiterate precisely the administration spin (nittyrobot?), some of it true, some not, to the effect that Wilson was unqualified for the job. No reporter would have come up with that description on their own. So the suspicion arises that the reporters were led down the trail of that question. After all, as pollyusa noted above, we know that Fleischer and Bartlett were doing this with reporters aboard AF1 at the same time Novak and Miller were asking their question. I just suspect Novak and Miller were more on the ins with the administration than those silly AF1 reporters, and so they were put on the trail sooner. This also fits with the increasingly clear fact that Miller is worried -- perhaps crucially worried -- not about testifying about Libby, but about testifying about some other source(s).

[cathyf]

Well, you did make up an entire conversation out of thin air, quote marks and all.

Fair enough -- what I was trying to say was that it's not speculation that from the beginning all of the actors except for Joe Wilson have said that and/or acted as if Plame's name, employer and job description were trivial details.

The imagining quotes part isn't speculation, but instead is an assertion of a counterexample to your claim. Your claim was that Libby telling Miller that Wilson's wife got him sent to Niger constituted "Libby told Miller about Plame." I am showing that your claim is false -- that Libby is claiming that he didn't know "about Plame" at this point, so he is certainly not admitting to telling Miller "about Plame." I am checking my logic for internal consistency: is there a possible way for the conversation to have proceeded such that Libby told Miller that Wilson's wife got the CIA to send Wilson to Niger without "Libby telling Miller about Plame." Yes, it is possible, so your claim is disproven via counterexample. (Ok, to be more precise, your claim is not false, but it is vastly overstated.)

Remember Fitzgerald is supposedly investigating "White House officials" who were supposedly "outting CIA agents." You can't say, "aha, found one" if the White House official having the conversation didn't yet suspect that the person in question worked for the CIA. Libby telling Miller that Joe Wilson's wife got the CIA to send Wilson to Niger does not constitute proof that Libby knew that she worked for the CIA or that Libby was telling Miller that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, let alone that Libby was telling Miller that Wilson's wife was a CIA covert agent.

I still believe that the theory which fits the data best is that Miller, Cooper, Novak, Libby and Rove neither knew nor cared that Plame was a covert CIA agent until Joe Wilson started throwing around accusations on the op-ed pages of the NYT. A variation on the theory that fits the data just as well is that Miller, as a reporter investigating WMD intelligence, was the only one of those people who had any interest in Plame beyond her role in getting Wilson sent to Niger. This has been Novak's claim from day one -- if he had realized that Plame was supposed to be covert, he would have been a lot more circumspect in his report. Now you can attack Novak's credibility from several sides, but that still doesn't change the CIA's astonishing incompetence in hiding Plame's identity in the first place. That's something that anyone with google can see, and doesn't rely on anybody's credibility.

cathy :-)

[TM]

7:42 AM

Would you characterize that conversation as "Libby told Miller about Plame" or would you characterize it as "Miller told Libby about Plame" ?

Troubling news for cathyf - I may be channeling her, because I had that very thought. Just because we learned a bit about what Libby told Miller, it does not follow that we know what Miller told Libby.

As to why the Libby's lawyer would leak the version he chose - good question.

The Boltonites have the easy answer - the WH does not want to encourage speculation into what Judy knew, and how.

As a non-Boltonite, I would stay with the idea that Libby carefully leaked tidbits to Miller, and thinks he stayed inside the law.

[Geek, Esq.]

If that's the case, then Scooter needs to reacquaint himself with conspiracy law.

[Tm]

You really should consider reigning in your Times hatred

Don't rain on my tirades! I will rein in my Times hatred when they end their reign of misinformation and deceit!

(Which we thought had happened when Raines left).

TM, are you seriously suggesting that Libby and Rove, the two individuals working jointly to handle the WH's damage control on Wilson, weren't coordinating their efforts?

I am seriously ducking that - IIRC, they were both spending that week on "16 Words" damage control.

As to the idea that Rove and Libby had a media strategy - put out little hints, and let the ace reporters uncover the truth about Ms. Plame - maybe Rove just blew it when he talked to Cooper, and Libby stuck to the script with Miller.

But good luck proving a conspiracy. It is not exactly illegal for Rove and Libby to discuss media strategy, and proving criminal intent will continue to be an obstacle.

Well, lacking a smoking e-mail, or something.

[Geek, Esq.]

That's the entire point--the 16 words damage control included their efforts to smear Wilson.

From the testimony that's been gathered, they didn't hint--they blabbed.

Intent to conspire can be inferred--just like intent in any other crime can be. The fact that the two WH politicos assigned to do damage control over the 16 words also happened to be the two people feeding the press confidential information about the wife of Joe Wilson is not a coincidence, nor would it likely be taken as such by a jury.

[boris]

efforts to smear Wilson

About lies he had published and the implication that he was sent by Cheney.

By Setting The Record Straight With The Truth.

Of course you want to believe that the truth was classified and therefore the administration had no choice but to sit there and take it on the chin. Lovely.

I claim that was the plan all along, the admin would have to either take it or spring the trap. You can mind read Rove, well I can mind read the Wilsons..

[boris]

It's your contention Plame wasn't covert.

No it is not. She was living under her own name and identity and openly working at CIA headquarters. That is a simple obvious fact, not a contention at all. If in some technical sense she is considered a covert operative by the CIA that is a separate issue dealing with internal CIA procedures that I am not even supposed to know about.

In otherwords ... her status as a covert operative might be a secret, but the fact that a person goes to work everyday at the CIA is not.

How did her classified status become public knowledge? That's the most likely focus of the investigation.

(A) Wilson's wife got him the gig
(B) Wilson's wife works at the CIA
(C) Wilson's wife is a covert operative

I have no idea which (if any) of those revelations would be illegal. You are entitled to your own opinion based on fervent BDS fed hopes but I have not seen one shred of coherent interpretation to support the notion that anybody knows for certain.

[BR]

I love whodunnits and TM, thanks for your great research. That 7/17/05 Cooper/Russert transcript is so revealing. Boris, I just loved yours at 01:40 PM above. Exactly!

From another view, I'm looking at the Iranian mullahs at their Friday propa.... I mean, prayers, and other end-users of uranium with stated intent to use it against the US and Israel, some of whom might already be in possession of Niger uranium. The CIA and IAEA both previously reported Iraq already had 500 tons of it, partly from Niger (obviously with France's Cogema Co.'s collusion during sanctions, since Cogema controls the uranium mines in Niger - as attested by Wilson). In whose hands is it now? And here we are, speculating on who told what to whom in the press and their WH contacts, soap opera style. There was grave negligence on the part of Plame and her seniors in the CIA, along with the ex-CIA VIPS members, playing politics when they should have been investigating the real world. Their smokescreen is pulling us as citizens into their fog. Despite the fun of putting the pieces of the puzzle together, I wish Fitzgerald's investigation gets to the bottom of it all and soon. And I trust we have able people in the Pentagon and other national security agencies who are looking outward.

[Escbc]

What I can't understand is why Miller went to prison if Libby gave her written permission to testify??
Does she deny that he gave her a written release. It seems real simple to me in that if he gave her a written release and she went to jail anyway then he is in the clear and she must be suspected of having other reasons for refusing to testify.

B.Crossett NM

[kim]

All the hullaballoo about Libby, and now they're trying to tell us that it was never about him anyway?

And I don't think the key to Miller's leaving was Fitz's agreement to limit questioning. We've yet to see what he says he gave up. Instead we get vague huffing from Miller's camp which basically says she thinks she is still above the law, and doesn't have to answer certain questions. This is whistling past the graveyard, and spectors are about.

I'm betting on the rule of law.

And we still have Joe's treacherous lying and a press which doesn't want the story out.
==========================

[free dating services]

I think somewhere the things are not mentioned clearly. It raises the doubt when you can't understand why Miller was sent to jail when Libby gave her written permision totestify.
This left me guessing for a while.

[kim]

'Cuz Pinch has gone mad.
=====================

[Alisa]

udachi v novom godu!

[vimax]

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

[vimax]

Kill two birds with one stone.
Possible Interpretation: Accomplishing two things with a single action.
Possible Interpretation: Refers to doing two things at once, or multi-tasking.

[Rolex Watches]

Nice blog keep it up :)

[Digital Cameras]

good one

[enlargement]

We are the best selling herbal penis enlargement pills in the world. Take you chance now and gain up to 3 or 4 inches in length!

[Morgan]

MORGAN TRADING LIMITED

WE BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE BASICALL GOOD !!!

WE BELIEVE EVRYONE HAS SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE !!!

WE BELIEVE IN HONEST AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT !!!

WE RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT EVERYONE AS A UNIWUE INDIVIDUAL.

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WANT TO BE TREATED!!!

SPECILA OFFER:FOR 3 UNITS{FROM ANY BRAND AND MODEL}SELLING PRICE WILL BE 300 DOLLARS,WITH ALL FEES FOR DELIVERY INCLUDED !!!

THANKS YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

OUR OFFICE WILL BE OPEN FOR ALL YOUR WUESTIONS FULL TIME 24 FROM 24 HOURS INCLUDING WEEKENDS.

WE WILL RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS AS SOON AS WE RECIEVE YOUR MAIL.

VERIFY US FROM THE UK GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. WWW.UKDATA.COM

END OF LINE PRODUCTS !CELL PHONES MORGAN TRADING LIMITED DECIDE TO EMPTY STOK !!! WE ONLY HAVE LIMITED STOCKS,SO GET THEM WHILE YOU CAN!LOW PRICES !!!!

BRANDS FOR SALE!!!NOKIA,MOTOROLA, SONY ERRICSION,SAMSUNG,IPODS,LAPTOPS AND XBOX !!!ALL PRODUCTS ARE NEW BRAND NEW,COME IN THEIR ORIGINAL SEALED BOX,WITH 1 YEAR INTERNATIONAL WARRANTY,FROM THE MANUFACTURE,ENGLISH,SPANISH,HUNGERY AND FINLAND MADE.

SHIPPING:WE SHIP ALL GODS BY FEDEX,1-3 DAYS DELIVERY TO YOUR DOOR STEP,TRACKING NUMBER WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU UPON CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT.

{ALL FEES P&P INCLUDED}SHIPPING THROUGH FEDEX 1-3 DAY DELIVERY NO CASH ON DELIVERY.

EMAIL:[email protected] or [email protected]
PHONE NUMBER:+447031945280.

LAPTOPS PRICE LIST:

SONY VAIO A217S-- 100GB-- 512MB RAM-- XP HOME-------------$300
SONY VAIO B1VP-- 40GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP PRO--------------$330
SONY VAIO T370P/L-- 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP----------------$200
Dell Inspiron 700m ===$1020
Dell Inspiron 700M for Home (Pentium M 1.70GHz, 512MB, 40GB)== $550
Dell Inspiron 2200 for Home (Celeron 1.50GHz, 256MB, 40GB)== $400
Alienware Area-51 5300 - P4 530J 3 GHz ===$490
Alienware DHS 5 (Athlon 64 1.8 GHz) ===$590
Alienware Aurora ALX SLI ==== $400

IPOD PRICE LIST:

Apple MA099LL/a 2GB iPod Nano - Black $100
Apple Computer iPod Nano 2GB White $110
Apple Computer iPod Video 30GB White $95
Apple iPod 20GB (Color Screen) $162
iPod Nano 2GB (Black) $120

PLAYSTAION PRICE LIST:

play station 1......... $120
play station 2 ....$150

XBOX PRICE LIST:

x_box 360.........$200
Xbox Video Game System Console $150
Xbox 360 Core System $100
Xbox Zenith 5' TFT LCD Screen $50
Xbox 360 Platinum System $120
Xbox 360 "Premium Gold Pack" Video Game System $130
Xbox 360 "Core Sports Bundle" Video Game System $195

NOKIA PRICE LIST:

NOKIA 6600(UNLOCK)-- US$200
NOKIA 6210(UNLOCK)-- US$80
NOKIA 6230i(unlock)--US$160
NOKIA 6250(UNLOCK)-- US$110
NOKIA 6500(CR)UNLOCK--US$90
NOKIA 6510(UNLOC)-- US$125
NOKIA 6590[C/R]UNLOCK--US$75
NOKIA 6310(UNLOCK)-- US$110
NOKIA 6310i(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 6610(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 6800(UNLOCK)-- US$110
NOKIA 7110(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 7250(UNLOCK)-- US$160
NOKIA 7260(UNLOCK)-- US$180
NOKIA 7650(UNLOCK)-- US$120
NOKIA 7270(UNLOCK)-- US$220
NOKIA 7280(UNLOCK)-- US$250
NOKIA 8310(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 8390 1900 MHZ --US$95
NOKIA 8800 AT JUST $140usd
NOKIA 9300 AT JUST $160usd
Nokia N70 At JUST $140usd
NOKIA N80 AT JUST $180usd
NOKIA N90 AT JUST $200usd
NOKIA N91 AT JUST $220usd
NOKIA N92 AT JUST $245usd

SAMSUNG PRICE LIST:

SAMSUNG SGH-N620-- US$59
SAMSUNG SGH-A800-- US$69
SAMSUNG SGH-A300(UNLOCK)-- US$79
SAMSUNG SGH-R210-- US$69
SAMSUNG SGH-N100(UNLOCK)-- US$89
SAMSUNG SGH-N400(UNLOCK)-- US$89
SAMSUNG SGH-T100(UNLOCK)-- US$69
SAMSUNG SGH-S307 850/1900--US$110
SAMSUNG SGH-T500 Champagne-- US$100
SAMSUNG D500 AT JUST $160usd
SAMSUNG D600 AT JUST $180usd

MOTOROLA PRICE LIST:

MOTOROLA Talkabout192-- US$59
MOTOROLA V51-- US$79
MOTOROLA V50-- US$79
MOTOROLA V70-- US$79
MOTOROLA V60-- US$79
MOTOROLA V60i-- US$79
MOTOROLA T720-- US$79
MOTOROLA Accompli 008-- US$79
MOTOROLA Timeport 280-- US$79
MOTOROLA V300[UNLOCK]C/R-- US$100
MOTOROLA V400[UNLOCK]C/R-- US$115
MTOROLA T720 C/R[CINGULAR]--US$80
MOTOROLA V600---US$120
MOTOROLA MPX 220 AT JUST $120usd
MOTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST $160usd
MOTOROLA V661 AT JUST $145USD
MOTOROLA V3 RAZ JUST $200USD

SONY ERICSSON PRICE LIST:

SONY ERICSSON T310(UNLOCK)-- US$69
SONY ERICSSON T39m(UNLOCK)-- US$79
SONY ERICSSON T66(UNLOCK)-- US$79
SONY ERICSSON T616 850/1900 --US$180
SONY ERICSSON R520m(UNLOCK)-- US$89
SONY CMD-Z5-- US$89
SONY ERICSSON R380 World-- US$89
SONY ERICSSON R380s-- US$69
SONY ERICSSON T68m-- US$79
SONY ERICSSON T610-- US$109
SONY CMD-MZ5-- US$139
SONY ERICSSON P800(UNLOCK)-- US$180
SONY ERICSSON P900(UNLOCK)---US$200
SONY ERICSSON P980i(UNLOCK)---US$200
SONYERICSSON P990 JUST $210USD
SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST $140usd
SONY ERICSSON W900i AT JUST $220usd
SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST $125usd

IF YOU HAVE ANY QEUSTION PLEASE CONTACT US:
IMPORTANT:DO NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE MODELS AND PRODUCST,NUMBER OF UNIT YOU WISH TO BUY AND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

THANKS
MORGAN TRADING LIMITED
+447031945280
EMAIL:[email protected] or [email protected]

[hallard fred]

Hallard Fred (Sales Manager)
Motto Tech Store Limited.
Motto Tech Store High Rise
215,Sulaimuh,Ikoyi Road,
Lagos,Nigeria.
P. O. Box 00907
Email:[email protected]
Or [email protected]

we are mobilephone dealer,we sell various brands of phones at a very cheap price,our phones are of international standards and brand new and also carries a one year waranty.here are some of the phones we have in stock:===========

O2 XDA Atom......Price $220
BenQ-Siemens P51.........Price $220
BenQ P50.............Price $210
ETEN M600............ Price $240
ETEN G500...........Price $20

MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST......... $120USD
MTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST ............$130USD
MOTOROLA MPX 200 ..................$125USD
Motorola V70..........$105
Motorola V80..........$115
Motorola V525.........$139
Motorola V300.........$130
Motorola V400.........$125
Motorola V500.........$130
Motorola V600.........$140
Nokia N92.............$200
Nokia N91.............$190
Nokia N90 ............$170
Nokia 8800....$170
Nokia N70.....$150
Nokia N71.....$155
Nokia N72.....$160
Nokia N80.....$165
Nokia N93.....$220
Nokia 1100....$55
Nokia 2100....$45
Nokia 2300....$60
Nokia 3100....$65
Nokia 3108....$60
Nokia 3200....$75
Nokia 3230....$85
Nokia 3300....$70
Nokia 3310....$30
Nokia 3315....$35
Nokia 3330....$60
Nokia 3350....$45
Nokia 3410....$45
Nokia 3510....$50
Nokia 3510i...$80
Nokia 3595....$45
Nokia 3610....$60
Nokia 3650....$130
Nokia 3660....$120
Nokia 5100....$80
Nokia 5140....$110
Nokia 5210....$70
Nokia 5510....$105
Nokia 5550....$70
Nokia 5170iR..$60
Nokia 6020....$110
Nokia 6670....$105
Nokia 6630....$130
Nokia 6100....$95
Nokia 6108....$100
Nokia 6220....$105
Nokia 6230....$110
Nokia 6260....$120
Nokia 6310....$90
Nokia 6310i...$100
Nokia 6500....$100
Nokia 6510....$60
Nokia 6600....$125
Nokia 6610....$100
Nokia 6630....$130
Nokia 6170....$120
Nokia 6650....$100
Nokia 6800....$105
Nokia 6820....$110
Nokia 7200....$140
Nokia 7230....$120
Nokia 7250....$120
Nokia 7250i...$130
Nokia 7260....$135
Nokia 7280....$155
Nokia 7600....$155
Nokia 7610....$150
Nokia 7650....$140
Nokia 8250....$100
Nokia 8310....$120
Nokia 8910 Titanium...$150
Nokia 8910 Black...$165
Nokia 8910i...$130
Nokia 8890....$125
Nokia 8850 Special Edition....$115
Nokia 8850 Gold Edition....$120
Nokia 8855.....$115
Nokia 9210 Communicator....$140
Nokia 9210i Communicator......$145
Nokia 9500 (communicator)...$165
Nokia 7210 Turquoise...$100
Sony Ericsson Z1010.....$150
Sony Ericsson Z200......$100
Sony Ericsson Z600......$140
Sony Ericsson S700......$145
Sony Ericsson K500i.....$150
Sony Ericsson K700i.....$155
Sony Ericsson P800......$155
Sony Ericsson P900......$160
Sony Ericsson P910i.....$160
Sony Ericsson w800......$165
Sony Ericsson w800i.....$170
Sony Ericsson w900......$180
Sony Ericsson w900i.....$190

PDA's
HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 ..... $190
Asus MyPal A716 ........$175
HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350........$185
Toshiba Pocket PC E405..........$120
Sony Clie PEG-TH55............$155
Toshiba Pocket PC E800 ................$220
PalmOne Zire 72....................$120
PalmOne Tungsten E..................$90
PalmOne Tungsten C............. $140
PalmOne Zire 31......................$65
palm Treo 650........................$190
treo 600.............................$150
Treo 650............................$160
Treo 700w.............................$20

SIDEKICK 2.....$140

Nextel 6510TM------- US$110
Nextel i730-------- US$85
Nextel i733-------- US$95
Nextel i736------- US$105
Nextel i830------- US$115
Nextel i860-- ---US$125
Nextel i930------- US$130
Qtek phones
Qtek s200.....$100
Qtek 9000.....$120
Qtek 8310 ....$170
Qtek 8300.....$180
Qtek 9100.....$185
Qtek 8100.....$195
Qtek s110.....$190
Qtek s100.....$180
Qtek 9090.....$185
Qtek 8020.....$195
Qtek 8010.....$160
Qtek 2020i....$200
Qtek 2020.....$190
Qtek 8080.....$120
Qtek 8060.....$130
Qtek 1010.....$120
Qtek 7070.....$210
Vodafone 904t 3G flagship model is just.... $150
Vodafone 904SH.......$170
vodafone 905SH...... $180

PLAY STATION 1.......$100USD
PLAY STATION 2.......$140USD
MICROSOFT XBOX 360....$160usd

Apple ipod 60 gb video.......$120usd
Apple ipod 30 gb........$60usd
Apple 20 GB iPod Nano......$60usd
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A...$70usd
Apple 40 GB iPod photo......$80usd
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A..$70usd

Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A...$100usd
Apple 60 GB iPod photo .....$55usd
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A...$95usd
Apple 512 MB iPod ShuffleMP3 Player...$50usd
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A...$70usd
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano.....$90usd
Apple 60 GB iPod Vidoe....$150usd
Apple 30 GB iPod Vidoe......$110usd
Please feel free to contact us with your Quotation and Location
Email – [email protected] Or [email protected]
Thanks
=====
Hallard Fred (Sales Manager)
Motto Tech Store Limited.
Motto Tech Store High Rise
215,Sulaimuh,Ikoyi Road,
Lagos,Nigeria.
P. O. Box 00907
Tele: +23418121013
Email:[email protected]
Or [email protected]

[kenneth]

We are accredited Company from the UK and we have all brands of MobilePhones,Ipods,xbox 360, Sidekicks,Nextels phone,Laptops for sell at cheap andaffordable prices, they range from Nokia/Samsung/LG/SonyEricsson/Motorola/Alcatel/panasonic With Bluetooth, all Brands and Models of Nextel Phones, we want you to get back to us with your quote so that we can begin a good business relationship. Note that they are all Brand New T2 Euro specs,unlocked, no operator logo, an in their original sealed boxes, With 1 year international warranty from the manufacturer, English & Spanish manual, Finland made.
We want to assure you that you will never regret buying from us because it will be a 48 hours delivery to your doorstep via FedEx Courier service.And the Tracking number shall be sent to you upon acknowledgement of your payment.
Kindly acknowledge the reciept of our mail and get back to us.
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]

SONY VAIO A217S-- 100GB-- 512MB RAM-- XP HOME-------------$290
SONY VAIO B1VP-- 40GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP PRO--------------$320
SONY VAIO T370P/L-- 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP----------------$190
SONY VAIO A215Z 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP------------------$2300
SONY VAIO A397XP-- 80GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP----------------$290
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP---------------$230
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP---------------$330
SONY VAIO FS295VP 80GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP---------------$330
SONY VAIO FS215Z 100GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP---------------$330
SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP-----------------$430
SONY VAIO B1VP-- 40GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP PRO-------------$190
SONY VAIO T370P/L-- 60GB HD-- 512MB RAM-- XP PRO----------$380
SONY VAIO LAPTOP-- VGN-A117S---------------$280
Toshiba Tecra 8200 (laptop)
850MHz Notebook with WiFi for onfiltered== $280
Dell Latitude C400 (laptop)
Ultra Lightweight 866MHz for onfiltered===$370
ThinkPad T42 2373 - Pentium M 735 1.7 GHz -(laptop)
RAM 512 MB - HD 40 GB - CD ===$560
ABS Mayhem G3 notebook Athlon (laptop)
64 3200+ 512MB 60GB/7200 CDRW/DVD 15.4'
Windows XP Home ====$750
AVERATEC 3150P - Athlon XP-M 1.33 (laptop)
GHz - 12.1" TFT===$480
Toshiba Tecra M4-S435 (laptop)==$1200
Acer TravelMate C314XMi Tablet PC ==$1200
Dell Inspiron 700m ===$1000
Dell Inspiron 700M for Home (Pentium M 1.70GHz, 512MB, 40GB)== $730
Dell Inspiron 2200 for Home (Celeron 1.50GHz, 256MB, 40GB)== $570
Alienware Area-51 5300 - P4 530J 3 GHz ===$560
Alienware DHS 5 (Athlon 64 1.8 GHz) ===$560
Alienware Aurora ALX SLI ==== $380
Apple MA099LL/a 2GB iPod Nano - Black $100
Apple Computer iPod Nano 2GB White $110
Apple Computer iPod Video 30GB White $85
Apple iPod 20GB (Color Screen) $152
iPod Nano 2GB (Black) $110
play station 1......... $110
play station 2 ....$120

x_box 360.........$180
Xbox Video Game System Console $140
Xbox 360 Core System $90
Xbox Zenith 5' TFT LCD Screen $40
Xbox 360 Platinum System $110
Xbox 360 "Premium Gold Pack" Video Game System $120
Xbox 360 "Core Sports Bundle" Video Game System $85

NOKIA 7380 and 7280(unlock) $140 and $133
NOKIA 3230(UNLOCK)--US$115
NOKIA 3310(UNLOCK)-- US$32
NOKIA 3330(UNLOCK)-- US$65
NOKIA 3360(UNLOCK)--US$70
NOKIA 3410(UNLOCK)-- US$55
NOKIA 3510(UNLOCK)-- US$65
NOKIA 3510i(UNLOCK)-- US$85
NOKIA 3530(UNLOCK)-- US$140
NOKIA 3560 AT$T --US$90
NOKIA 3650 TIRBAND --US$130
NOKIA 5100(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 5125(UNLOCK)--US$50
NOKIA 5165(UNLOCK)--US$50
NOKIA 5210(UNLOCK)-- US$120
NOKIA 5510(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 6090(UNLOCK)-- US$140
NOKIA 6100(UNLOCK)-- US$90
NOKIA 6600(UNLOCK)-- US$180
NOKIA 6210(UNLOCK)-- US$70
NOKIA 6230i(unlock)--US$150
NOKIA 6250(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 6500(CR)UNLOCK--US$80
NOKIA 6510(UNLOC)-- US$120
NOKIA 6590[C/R]UNLOCK--US$70
NOKIA 6310(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 6310i(UNLOCK)-- US$90
NOKIA 6610(UNLOCK)-- US$90
NOKIA 6800(UNLOCK)-- US$100
NOKIA 7110(UNLOCK)-- US$90
NOKIA 7210 Turquoise(UNLOCK)-- US$110
NOKIA 7250(UNLOCK)-- US$150
NOKIA 7260(UNLOCK)-- US$170
NOKIA 7650(UNLOCK)-- US$110
NOKIA 7270(UNLOCK)-- US$210
NOKIA 7280(UNLOCK)-- US$240
NOKIA 8310(UNLOCK)-- US$90
NOKIA 8390 1900 MHZ --US$90
NOKIA 7600(UNLOCK)--US$160
NOKIA 8910 Titanium-- US$90
NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION-- US$100
NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$90
NOKIA 8910 Black-- US$100
NOKIA 9210 Communicator-- US$100
NOKIA 9210i Communicator-- US$100
NOKIA 8910i-- US$140
NOKIA 9500 AT JUST $185usd,
NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$110,
NOKIA 9300 AT JUST $150usd,
Nokia N70 At JUST $130usd
NOKIA N80 AT JUST $170usd
NOKIA N90 AT JUST $180usd
NOKIA N91 AT JUST $210usd
NOKIA N92 AT JUST $240usd
SONY ERICSSON
SONY ERICSSON T200(UNLOCK)-- US$45
SONY ERICSSON T100(UNLOCK)-- US$35
SONY ERICSSON R600(UNLOCK)-- US$55
SONY ERICSSON T20e(UNLOCK)-- US$55
SONY CMD-J70(UNLOCK)-- US$55
SONY ERICSSON T20s(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SONY ERICSSON T28s(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T28 World-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T29s-- US$80
SONY ERICSSON T600-- US$80
SONY CMD-J7-- US$80
SONY CMD-J6-- US$80
SONY ERICSSON T300(UNLOCK)-- US$80
SONY ERICSSON T306 850/1900 --US$70
SONY ERICSSON T68i TIRBAND -- US$90
SONY ERICSSON T65-- US$90
SONY CMD-J5-- US$60
SONY CMD-Z7-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T310(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SONY ERICSSON T39m(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T66(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T616 850/1900 --US$170
SONY ERICSSON R520m(UNLOCK)-- US$85
SONY CMD-Z5-- US$85
SONY ERICSSON R380 World-- US$85
SONY ERICSSON R380s-- US$65
SONY ERICSSON T68m-- US$75
SONY ERICSSON T610-- US$105
SONY CMD-MZ5-- US$135
SONY ERICSSON P800(UNLOCK)-- US$170
SONY ERICSSON P900(UNLOCK)---US$180
SONY ERICSSON P980i(UNLOCK)---US$180
SONYERICSSON P990 JUST FOR ...$200USD
MOTOROLA
MOTOROLA Talkabout 191-- US$15
MOTOROLA C330-- US$55
MOTOROLA C331[UNLOCK]FACT RB US$30
MOTOROLA C332[UNLOCK]FACT RB US$30
MOTOROLA V66-- US$65
MOTOROLA v66i-- US$75
MOTOROLA Talkabout192-- US$55
MOTOROLA V51-- US$75
MOTOROLA V50-- US$75
MOTOROLA V70-- US$75
MOTOROLA V60-- US$75
MOTOROLA V60i-- US$75
MOTOROLA T720-- US$75
MOTOROLA Accompli 008-- US$75
MOTOROLA Timeport 280-- US$75
MOTOROLA V300[UNLOCK]C/R-- US$90
MOTOROLA V400[UNLOCK]C/R-- US$110
MTOROLA T720 C/R[CINGULAR]--US$70
MOTOROLA V600---US$110
MOTOROLA MPX 220 AT JUST $110usd,
MOTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST $150usd,
MOTOROLA V661 AT JUST $135USD
MOTOROLA V3 RAZ JUST FOR..$160USD BLACK COLOR,
SAMSUNG
SAMSUNG SGH-N620-- US$55
SAMSUNG SGH-A800-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-A300(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SAMSUNG SGH-R210-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-N100(UNLOCK)-- US$85
SAMSUNG SGH-N400(UNLOCK)-- US$85
SAMSUNG SGH-T100(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-A400-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-S100(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-A200(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SAMSUNG SGH-T400-- US$85
SAMSUNG SGH-S300(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SAMSUNG SGH-A500-- US$140
SAMSUNG SGH-T500 Champagne-- US$90
SAMSUNG SGH-V200-- US$100
SAMSUNG SGH-T200-- US$100
SAMSUNG SGH-R225 TRIBAND --US$90
SAMSUNG SGH-S307 850/1900--US$100
SAMSUNG S105[USED]TRIMODE--US$40
SAMSUNG V205[USED]TRIMODE--US$55
SAMSUNG D500 AT JUST $150usd,
SAMSUNG D415 AT JUST $110usd
SIDEKICK II AT JUST $90usd,

ALCATEL One Touch 501-- US$45
ALCATEL One Touch 311-- US$40
ALCATEL One Touch 701-- US$50
ALCATEL One Touch 511-- US$60
ALCATEL OT525-- US$40
ALCATEL One Touch 512-- US$7
ALCATEL One Touch 715-- US$65
AUDIOVOX 8000 F/R US$60
AUDIOVOX 8100 F/R US$65
PANASONIC
PANASONIC GD35-- US$35
PANASONIC GD52(UNLOCK)-- US$45
PANASONIC GD67(UNLOCK)-- US$45
PANASONIC GD92(UNLOCK)-- US$65
PANASONIC GD90(UNLOCK)-- US$65
PANASONIC GD93(UNLOCK)-- US$65
PANASONIC GD75(UNLOCK)-- US$75
PANASONIC GD55(UNLOCK)-- US$75
PANASONIC GD95(UNLOCK)-- US$75
PANASONIC GD87(UNLOCK)-- US$70
PANASONIC GU-87 TRIBAND-US$90
PANASONIC G-51 TRIBAND-US$120
PANASONIC 210/310/320 REFUR-US$20
SIEMENS
SIEMENS C45(UNLOCK)-- US$35
SIEMENS C45(UNLOCK)-- US$35
SIEMENS C55(UNLOCK)-- US$45
SIEMENS M35i(UNLOCK)-- US$55
SIEMENS M50(UNLOCK)-- US$45
SIEMENS S45i(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SIEMENS S40(UNLOCK)-- US$85
SIEMENS SL42(UNLOCK)-- US$85
SIEMENS ME45(UNLOCK)-- US$75
SIEMENS SL45-- US$65
SIEMENS SL45i(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SIEMENS SL56 C/R[UNLOCK]TRIMODE-US$90
SIEMENS S55(UNLOCK)-- US$65
SIEMENS S55 Camera(UNLOCK)-- US$35
KYOCERA 2235 (NEW) $80.00
KYOCERA 2135 (NEW) $60.00
KYOCERA 3035 (NEW) $60.00
KYOCERA 2035 (NEW) $70.00
KYOCERA 2255 (NEW) $60.00
KYOCERA 1135 (NEW) $60.00
KYOCERA 2035 [R/B] $50
STARTAC 7868 [F/R] us$60
VOLCON V-8160 [F/R] US$80
NEXTEL
i60c -- 45UDS
i90c -- 90USD
i95cl -- 125USD
i30sx -- 50USD
i88s -- 65USD
i35s -- 25USD
i58sr --70USD
i2000 -- 55USD
i830--115USD
i860--125USD
i930--145USD
NEXTEL i930 AT JUST $105usd,
NEXTEL i860 AT JUST $105usd,
SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST $135usd
SONY ERICSSON W900i AT JUST $215usd
SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST $120usd

SIDEKICK II AT JUST $95usd,
SAGEM PRODUCT
MY S-7 $155
MY X7 $125
MY X 8 $145
MYC5-2 $115,
NEXTEL 1930 JUST FOR...$115USD
NEXTEL i870at JUST FOR ..$135usd
NEXTEL i450 JUST FOR ..85usd
NEXTEL 1860 JUST FOR ..$105USD

SIDEKICK 2 JUST FOR ..$115USD

Send ur email at [email protected]
TelePhone # : +447024021466

[joan]

We sell all kinds of electronics expecially mobile phones we well in whole sale and in piece, a good buyer should contact us through our contat address and our phone number. MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST $130 MOTOROLA RAZOR V3x AT JUST $1500 NEXTEL i930 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $130 NEXTEL i860 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $100 SONY ERICSSON P910i MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $165 MOTOROLA MPX 200.........$180 NEXTEL I860 AT JUST ......$100 NEXTEL I930 AT JUST .....$130 NOKIA 8800 AT JUS.........$180 NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION-- US$160 NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$170 NOKIA N92 AT JUST .......$200 NOKIA 3310 AT JUST ....$35 NOKIA 6230 AT JUST ...$120 Sony Ericsson K500i, $100 Sony Ericsson S700i $140 Sony Ericsson: Z1010 $150 nokia 6630 at just $130 samsung E700 AT JUST $140 SAMSUNG E715 AT JUST $140 SAMSUNG E 800 AT JUST $150 NOKIA 9300 AT JUST $180 NOKIA 7280 AT JUST $130, NOKIA 7610, AT JUST $120 Nokia 8801 For $300 nokia n90 is $180 nokia n91 at just $210 nokia 9200 is $170 Nokia 8801 For $300 Nokia N-Gage....$180 USD Nokia N-gage QD.$160 USD Nokia 7710......$210 USD Nokia 6680......$280 USD Nokia 6680......$180 USD Nokia 6681......$180 USD Nokia 6060......$190 USD Nokia 6111......$190 USD Nokia 6630......$190 USD Nokia 6230i.....$110 USD Nokia 6260......120 USD Nokia 6270......180 USD Nokia 3200......40 USD Nokia 3220......60 USD Nokia 3300......60 USD Nokia 3660......70 USD Nokia 5100......60 USD Nokia 5140......70 USD Nokia 6100......50 USD Nokia 6108......60 USD Nokia 6220......70 USD Nokia 6230......90 USD sony ericsson W800i is $180 O2 XDA Atom--- Price $220 Sonyericsson k790------ Price $150 Motorola A12000---------$210 BenQ-Siemens P51--- Price $200 BenQ P50-----Price $225 NEC e636---- Price $140 ETEN M600---- Price $250 ETEN G500----- Price $200 Tomtom Navigator PDA For $300 Sonyericsson W900--- Price $200 Samsung D600--- Price $200 I-Mate Pocket PC.....320 i-mate PDA2k..$337 i-mate JAM......$340 I-Mate...$333 i-mate JASJAR.....$340 Kinpo iDo S600.....$330. BenQ P31........$330 BenQ M350......$339 BenQ M315......$322 BenQ Z2.......$311 BenQ P30......$324 BenQ P50.....$321 NEW XBOX 360 PREMIUM EDITION ..$340 Microsoft Xbox 360 Core ..$290 Sony Playstation 2(PS2)...$80 ipod 60GB mp3 - 190 USD$ U2 Special Edition ipods - 100 USD$ ipod Photo 40GB mp3 - 100 USD$ ipod 40GB 4th GEN mp3 - 100 USD$ ipod 40GB 3rd GEN mp3 - 90 USD$ ipod 30GB Dock Case Remote - 80 USD$ ipod 20GB 4TH GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 30GB 4th GEN mp3 - 75 USD$ ipod 20GB 4th GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 15GB 3rd Gen mp3 - 65 USD$ ipod 15GB 4th GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 10GB 4th GEN mp3 - 65 USD$ ipod mini - All Colors - 60 USD$ PDA's HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 $190 Asus MyPal A716 ========$175 HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350 $185 Toshiba Pocket PC E405 $120 Sony Clie PEG-TH55 ====$155 Toshiba Pocket PC E800 $220 PalmOne Zire 72========$120 PalmOne Tungsten E ====$190 PalmOne Tungsten C ====$140 PalmOne Zire 31 =======$165 Palm Treo 650==========$340 AND MANY MORE PHONES IN STOCK AND OUR BULK PRICE IS MORE LESS SO YOU CAN CONTACT US ON [email protected] or contact number 23418949371 THANKS AND GOD BLESS

[joan]

We sell all kinds of electronics expecially mobile phones we well in whole sale and in piece, a good buyer should contact us through our contat address and our phone number. MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST $130 MOTOROLA RAZOR V3x AT JUST $1500 NEXTEL i930 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $130 NEXTEL i860 MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $100 SONY ERICSSON P910i MOBILE PHONE AT JUST $165 MOTOROLA MPX 200.........$180 NEXTEL I860 AT JUST ......$100 NEXTEL I930 AT JUST .....$130 NOKIA 8800 AT JUS.........$180 NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION-- US$160 NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION-- US$170 NOKIA N92 AT JUST .......$200 NOKIA 3310 AT JUST ....$35 NOKIA 6230 AT JUST ...$120 Sony Ericsson K500i, $100 Sony Ericsson S700i $140 Sony Ericsson: Z1010 $150 nokia 6630 at just $130 samsung E700 AT JUST $140 SAMSUNG E715 AT JUST $140 SAMSUNG E 800 AT JUST $150 NOKIA 9300 AT JUST $180 NOKIA 7280 AT JUST $130, NOKIA 7610, AT JUST $120 Nokia 8801 For $300 nokia n90 is $180 nokia n91 at just $210 nokia 9200 is $170 Nokia 8801 For $300 Nokia N-Gage....$180 USD Nokia N-gage QD.$160 USD Nokia 7710......$210 USD Nokia 6680......$280 USD Nokia 6680......$180 USD Nokia 6681......$180 USD Nokia 6060......$190 USD Nokia 6111......$190 USD Nokia 6630......$190 USD Nokia 6230i.....$110 USD Nokia 6260......120 USD Nokia 6270......180 USD Nokia 3200......40 USD Nokia 3220......60 USD Nokia 3300......60 USD Nokia 3660......70 USD Nokia 5100......60 USD Nokia 5140......70 USD Nokia 6100......50 USD Nokia 6108......60 USD Nokia 6220......70 USD Nokia 6230......90 USD sony ericsson W800i is $180 O2 XDA Atom--- Price $220 Sonyericsson k790------ Price $150 Motorola A12000---------$210 BenQ-Siemens P51--- Price $200 BenQ P50-----Price $225 NEC e636---- Price $140 ETEN M600---- Price $250 ETEN G500----- Price $200 Tomtom Navigator PDA For $300 Sonyericsson W900--- Price $200 Samsung D600--- Price $200 I-Mate Pocket PC.....320 i-mate PDA2k..$337 i-mate JAM......$340 I-Mate...$333 i-mate JASJAR.....$340 Kinpo iDo S600.....$330. BenQ P31........$330 BenQ M350......$339 BenQ M315......$322 BenQ Z2.......$311 BenQ P30......$324 BenQ P50.....$321 NEW XBOX 360 PREMIUM EDITION ..$340 Microsoft Xbox 360 Core ..$290 Sony Playstation 2(PS2)...$80 ipod 60GB mp3 - 190 USD$ U2 Special Edition ipods - 100 USD$ ipod Photo 40GB mp3 - 100 USD$ ipod 40GB 4th GEN mp3 - 100 USD$ ipod 40GB 3rd GEN mp3 - 90 USD$ ipod 30GB Dock Case Remote - 80 USD$ ipod 20GB 4TH GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 30GB 4th GEN mp3 - 75 USD$ ipod 20GB 4th GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 15GB 3rd Gen mp3 - 65 USD$ ipod 15GB 4th GEN mp3 - 70 USD$ ipod 10GB 4th GEN mp3 - 65 USD$ ipod mini - All Colors - 60 USD$ PDA's HP IPaq Pocket PC H4150 $190 Asus MyPal A716 ========$175 HP IPaq Pocket PC H4350 $185 Toshiba Pocket PC E405 $120 Sony Clie PEG-TH55 ====$155 Toshiba Pocket PC E800 $220 PalmOne Zire 72========$120 PalmOne Tungsten E ====$190 PalmOne Tungsten C ====$140 PalmOne Zire 31 =======$165 Palm Treo 650==========$340 AND MANY MORE PHONES IN STOCK AND OUR BULK PRICE IS MORE LESS SO YOU CAN CONTACT US ON [email protected] or contact number 23418949371 THANKS AND GOD BLESS

[emic]

Hello Buyer,
For sell all brand New Mobile Phones, Ipods, Sidekicks, Nextels
phone Nokiaif you want to purchase any of our company item send your Email****[email protected]
pLAY STATION
pLAY STATION 1 AT JUST************************ $90USD
PLAY STATION 2 AT JUST************************ $100USD
PLAY STATION 3 AT JUST************************ $110USD
XBOX
MICROSOFT XBOX 360 AT JUST******************** $140usd
SIDEKICK
SIDEKICK III AT JUST************************** $130usd
SIDEKICK II AT JUST*************************** $120usd
iMate
iMate Jasjar**************************$150usd
iMate K-Jam***************************$110usd
iMate PDA2k***************************$130usd
iMate Windows Mobile Pocket PC Phone****$155usd
NEXTEL
NEXTEL i930 AT JUST*************************** $110usd
NEXTEL i860 AT JUST*************************** $100usd
MOTOROLA RAZOR
MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST********************* $130usd
MOTOROLA MPX 220 AT JUST********************** $130usd
MOTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST********************** $140usd
NOKIA
NOKIA N93 AT JUST******************** $200usd
NOKIA N92 AT JUST******************** $180usd
NOKIA N80 AT JUST******************** $150usd
NOKIA N91 AT JUST******************** $180usd
NOKIA 8800 AT JUST******************* $130usd
NOKIA 7200 AT JUST******************* $120usd
NOKIA 6260 AT JUST******************* $120usd
NOKIA 9500 AT JUST******************* $150usd
NOKIA 7210 AT JUST******************* $130usd
NOKIA 9300 AT JUST******************* $140usd
NOKIA N90 AT JUST******************** $160usd
NOKIA 8800 AT JUST******************* $130usd
SONY ERICSSON
SONY ERICSSON P800 AT JUST******************** $110usd
SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST******************* $140usd
SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST******************* $135usd
SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST******************* $120usd
SONY ERICSSON W800i AT JUST******************* $140usd
SONY ERICSSON P910i AT JUST******************* $140usd
SONY ERICSSON K700i AT JUST******************* $130usd
SONY ERICSSON K750i AT JUST******************* $120usd
SAMSUNG
SAMSUNG D400 AT JUST******************* $130usd
SAMSUNG D600 AT JUST******************* $180usd
SAMSUNG D500 AT JUST******************* $150usd
SAMSUNG D415 AT JUST******************* $130usd
TREO 600 AT JUST*********************** $120usd
TREO 650 AT JUST*********************** $130usd
TREO MOBILE PHONES
TREO 600 UNLOCKED GSM PDA CELL****************$120usd
TREO 270 PDA/PHONE WIRELESS*******************$200usd
TREO 650 PDA/ PHONE 32MB PALM OS 5.4 WRLS CDMA***$1500usd
Treo 650 GSM Smartphone***********************$250usd
TREO 650 PDA/PHONE 32MB PALM OS***************$120usd
Treo 650 GSM Quad Band World Phone/PDA********$120usd
Treo 650 (Camera Phone)***********************$100usd
Treo 600 PDA Phone (Verizon Wireless)*********$110usd
Treo 650 PDA Unlocked GSM Cell Phone without**$120usd
Treo 650 Palm OS Phone for Sprint*************$130usd
Treo 270 Color PDA/GSM/GPRS Cell**************$140usd
IPODS
NEW APPLE 60 GB VIDEO IPOD***********************$140
NEW APPLE 30 GB VIDEO IPOD***********************$120
APPLE 20 GB IPOD U2 SPECIAL
EDITION***********************$73
APPLE 30 GB IPOD PHOTO
M9829LL/A***********************$73
APPLE 4 GB IPOD
NANO***********************$60
APPLE 2 GB IPOD
NANO***********************$60
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI BLUE
M9802LL/A***********************$64
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI PINK
M9804LL/A***********************$64
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI GREEN
M9806LL/A***********************$64
APPLE 6 GB IPOD MINI BLUE
M9803LL/A***********************$68
APPLE 6 GB IPOD MINI SILVER
M9801LL/A***********************$68
APPLE 20 GB IPOD
M9282LL/A***********************$69
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI PINK
M9435LL/A***********************$49
APPLE 40 GB IPOD
PHOTO***********************$40
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI SILVER
M9160LL/A***********************$49
APPLE 60 GB IPOD PHOTO
M9830LL/A***********************$86
APPLE 60 GB IPOD
PHOTO***********************$49
APPLE 512 MB IPOD SHUFFLE MP3 PLAYER
M9724LL/A'''''''''''''''''''''''US$56
APPLE 4 GB IPOD MINI BLUE
M9436LL/A***********************$49
APPLE 6 GB IPOD MINI GREEN
M9807LL/A***********************$64
For sell all brand New Mobile Phones, Ipods, Sidekicks, Nextels
phone Nokiaif you want to purchase any of our company item send your Email****[email protected]