On Nov 1, James Taranto of the WSJ unearthed a CNBC transcript which suggested that, according to Andrea Mitchell anyway, Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was not a total mystery to interested reporters. From "The Capitol Report", Oct 3, 2003, just following the news of the criminal referral which moved this story onto the front pages:
Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
Seems pretty clear, yes?
Apparently not. Ms. Mitchell was asked about this very exchange on "Imus in the Morning". NewsMax has a partial transcript, and we are deeply grateful (go to their site and click on an ad, won't ya please?):
IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context.
IMUS: Oh, it was?
MITCHELL: It was out of context.
IMUS: Isn't that always the case?
MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."
And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.
I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.
IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.
IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: Yes.
IMUS: Did you mention . . .
MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.
IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .
IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.
IMUS: When was the Novak column?
MITHCELL: The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.
IMUS: So this was well after that?
MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.
IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?
MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.
IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?
MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.
IMUS: Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.
MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .
IMUS: Bingo.
MITCHELL: Bingo.
Well. I would hate to think that either Mr. Taranto or myself took her comment out of context, for political reasons or any other, so I have provided a fair use transcript of her interview below the fold (and I continue to plug "Lexis a la Carte" for the low budget sleuth - registration is free, the searches are free, and the chance to hammer these people with their own words is priceless. And at $3 a download, it is the equivalent of two cups of coffee, but so much more fun.)
And to further help out Ms. Mitchell, let's add a bit of context right here, with a partial excerpt:
MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn't sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?
MITCHELL: No. And you know, there's a lot of rumor. There's been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don't know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president's office. These have been denied. But it's really...
MURRAY: Right.
MITCHELL: ...inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we're talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.
MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
Emphasis added - in the first question she clearly distinguished between leaks occurring before and after the Novak column. Yet one question later, she completely misunderstood the point and answered as if Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was widely known *after* the Novak column?
So her current story is what, exactly? Let's paraphrase the answer she would like us to believe she had in mind:
"...the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger, *after* Novak's column came out."
Oh, for heaven's sake, why the qualifier? I will hazard that after Novak's column, Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was widely known, period.
Well, she and Lewis Libby can compare notes as to how their recovered memory therapy is going. If they can remember to get together.
Now, it is true that Ms. Mitchell has, on other occasions, denied knowing of any connection between Ms. Plame and the CIA. So why would she, uhh, misremember? Fortunately, she provided the motive for her faulty memory in her chat with Imus:
MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."
And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you.
You're darn right it didn't come up. And as both you and Tim made perfectly clear when rehearsing your cover-up covering this story last Oct 29, the fact that the connection between Wilson and his wife did not come up represented an absurd lapse in journalistic standards. Let's roll that tape:
RUSSERT: Well, ironically, when I was asked about this [the Wilson and wife story], I said, if I had known this, I would have told Andrea Mitchell. I would have told Pete Williams.
MITCHELL: In fact, Tim, you would have called me and said, `You hosted "Meet the Press" and questioned Joe Wilson and covered the agency and you didn't know that the wife--what's going on with you?'
RUSSERT: And I did call Neal Shapiro, the head of NBC News, and say, `You know, we have this high-level viewer complaint about what's on cable,' and that--you know, that was the extent of my sharing information with Neal Shapiro.
GREGORY: Wait...
RUSSERT: If I had known something with--then I would have said to Neal--and Neal would have said, `Get to the cameras.' Or you know what? Actually it is so sensitive...
MITCHELL: We would have decided not to...
RUSSERT: ...I would have even talked--we would have talked it through and said...
MITCHELL: Right.
RUSSERT: ...`Hey, what about this?' or `Should we check her status?' It's easy to say that in hindsight, but I...
MITCHELL: In fact, we should tell...
Uh huh. That is just what the NBC journalists should have done. It might have diminished the impact of the story - "CIA Spouse says, 'CIA right, White House wrong' " - but it's what they should have done. Or, if Ms. Plame's status at the CIA could not have been disclosed, it might have meant that Andrea would have to pass on the interview.
Fortunately, Ms. Mitchell now realizes that she didn't know about any such Wilson and wife connection, so the journalistic issues never could have arisen. That's the ticket.
Oh, she is going to be one fine witness for the defense. At a minimum, she buttresses the notion that memories are failing all over Washington. Hey - perhaps she will inspire Libby to adopt a "Something in the water" defense.
Sorry - it will take more than this denial to get her off the list of Reporters Who Knew Valerie". And she has good company, with Hugh Sidey and Martin Peretz, among others.
MORE: Yes, while disclosing the possible motivations for the Wilson story, NBC might have wanted to offer the caveat that Wilson had become an advisor to the Kerry campaign in May 2003. Well, that tidbit escaped their sleuthing, too:
Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges.
She will be a great witness.
Fair use excerpts below the fold.
UPDATE: Too funny.
Copyright 2003 CNBC, Inc. CNBC News Transcripts October 03, 2003 Friday:
Possible criminal outing of CIA agent
GLORIA BORGER, co-host:
There was good news on the economy today with jobs rising for the first time since January. But the White House was preoccupied with the rapidly moving investigation into the possibly criminal outing of a CIA agent.
ALAN MURRAY, co-host:
Joining us now, NBC's Andrea Mitchell. Andrea, thanks for being with us.
ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC News): Thank you.
MURRAY: We have news that a memo was sent today to the White House, asking for information about this leak very quickly. In fact, there's a deadline set for next Tuesday. Looks like they're trying to move rapidly on this, right?
MITCHELL: They are. They are trying to narrow the focus of the investigation, and try to wrap it up as quickly as possible. And truth be told that if they are going to find anything and the track record on these leak investigations is that they rarely do, because journalists don't want to disclose their sources. But if they do find something, they want to do it as quickly as possible. And in this case, you've got a very small universe. All they have to find out is who are the people at the CIA who first talked to Bob Novak? We pretty well know that. That's been disclosed. And who were the people who talked to Novak and to at least these two other reporters from Newsday who have been mentioned in the White House memo, and that should be easily ascertained.
BORGER: Andrea, can you sort of explain to us how this story, which really started in July--I mean Ambassador Wilson wrote his piece criticizing the administration on July 6th. A week later, Bob Novak writes his column, talking about Ambassador Wilson's wife, and here we are at the beginning of October, and suddenly it's news.
MITCHELL: Well, it does seem a little mysterious. Why all of a sudden is there some political agenda going on? And obviously, there is a lot of politics going on here.
BORGER: Really?
MITCHELL: You know, shocking that politics would be taking place here in Washington, and there's a lot of hypocrisy on all sides. I mean, this is a situation where Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been calling for a special counsel. The very people who all during the Clinton years fought and fought and fought, she most primarily, fought against having a special counsel. And Republicans who always said, you know, that the Justice Department cannot handle this are saying, 'Well, why can't John Ashcroft handle this?' You know, just substitute Janet Reno's name for John Ashcroft, and you see just how silly all this appears on the surface.
But why did it take so long? July 6th, Joe Wilson comes out and discloses that he was, indeed, the secret envoy who went to Niger for the CIA, and this is an op-ed on a Sunday morning in the New York Times. Well, Saturday night, we see that this is coming, so I was substituting on "Meet The Press," and called Wilson and said, 'Would you come on?' And we had him come on the show, so he's also on television. Now that certainly was a double whammy as far as the Bush administration was concerned. Interestingly, Bob Novak was also one of my invited on that guests on that program a different subject, so they clearly met for the first time, Wilson and Novak that day.
BORGER: That's interesting.
MITCHELL: Great ironies. That week, I followed up. We did a report on NBC.
BORGER: Did Wilson's wife come, by the way, to the studio or not?
MITCHELL: Not at all.
BORGER: OK. All right. Just thought I'd ask.
MITCHELL: Separate lives. So that week, on the 8th of July, I did a story on "Nightly News" about Wilson's allegations focusing on Niger, the uranium, not focusing on any issue involving his spouse. Then on the 14th, the bombshell from Novak, which was the revelation which clearly he says came from two administration officials--he wrote that in his column--that she was a covert--rather an operative, as he put it, at the CIA. The clear implication that she had somehow been involved in getting him to take this assignment and in somehow positioning him, that this was part of the overall attempt of the CIA to go up against the White House and to challenge the president's policy. So this is where it fits within the ongoing wars which are only becoming more heated between the Cheney-Bush White House, Rumsfeld hard-liners on weapons of mass destruction, and the more skeptical analysts and operatives, CIA officers, covert officers at both the CIA and the State Department.
We should point out that I did do a story after that, on July 21st. I interviewed Wilson, did a story on the fact that he was now alleging that there was an attempt to bring his wife into it, that this was an administration attempt to intimidate him. So it was on the air in July. But then the CIA secretly asked the Justice Department to look into this. The Justice Department took its sweet time, frankly, came back to the CIA and said, 'Answer these 11 questions: Was she covert? Was there a possible violation?' Eleven questions had to be answered prima facie. The CIA responded to the Justice Department. And last Friday, as we reported at the time, the Justice Department said, 'OK, we're going to proceed and investigate.' That's why the lag time.
MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn't sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?
MITCHELL: No. And you know, there's a lot of rumor. There's been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don't know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president's office. These have been denied. But it's really...
MURRAY: Right.
MITCHELL: ...inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we're talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.
MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
MURRAY: All right. Andrea, thanks very much for being with us.
MITCHELL: My pleasure.
He wasn't scoring points. He was tap dancing - mostly upon your head and shoulders. To all of our great delight.
Let me guess. You were one of the people who voted to keep Evander Holyfield on Dancing With the Stars, right?
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 06:25 PM
It's going to take more tha Prosecutor Clousseau's ham sandwich indictment to get me to agree to "smartest guy in the room" - unless we're talking about a phone booth. Perhaps his ace interrogators have finally asked Ambassador Munchausen if there might be some small, tiny possibility that Mrs. Wilson's employment was not exactly treated as a State Secret avec la famille, les amis occasionnels et les étrangers complets.
A question that needs an answer is "when did Fitzgerald understand that the underlying potential charge was without merit".
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 06:30 PM
First report I saw says Libby's lawyers are making a first Amendment case--
Clarice, I believe that you are referring to Libby's lawyers comments about resolving evidentiary questions pertaining to the First Amendment --- basically, issues surrounding the question of how much access to the journalists involved in the case the defense would have.
That being said "I lied to the grand jury, but I was exercising my first amendment rights in doing so" is a novel defense that I hadn't yet considered.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 06:31 PM
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | November 10, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Puke
Clarice is an attorney and does not make the kind of mistake you inferred ( although you do ALL the time).
I am guessing that she also does not care much about what you think about her legal theories, she is just too polite to say so. Unlucky for you that I was not raised as well.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 10, 2005 at 06:36 PM
This poor woman will leap out of the witness chair sobbing hysterically when the defense is finished with her lying ass
Posted by: Marion Wormer | November 10, 2005 at 06:40 PM
All Libby has to do is show that 'I heard that too' needs no qualifiers.
except that Libby isn't using Rove's excuse of "I heard that too." He isn't claiming that Cooper volunteered the information about Wilson's wife, and that he (Libby) just affirmed the existence of a rumor. And he didn't claim to have said "I heard that too" to Russert --- indeed, his testimony was precisely the opposite.
So, not withstanding any question of validity of your argument as an argument, I'm afraid that its not relevant to the known facts of the case at hand.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 06:41 PM
Not the point.
The Libby-Cooper dialog is in the indictment and there's no there there. How smart is that?
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 06:46 PM
boris,
I wonder if Fitzgerald had "5" in the "total indictments brought" office pool?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 06:50 PM
The Libby-Cooper dialog is in the indictment and there's no there there. How smart is that?
boris, the "there" that is "there" is Libby's claim that he told Cooper he was only repeating what he had heard from other reporters.
to wit:
(I would also note that this question was asked by someone on the grand jury.....)
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 06:52 PM
You still don't get it.
That's what Cooper confirmed.
Libby and Cooper agree on the fundamental point of their conversation.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 06:55 PM
You seem to be claiming that Libby is being charged with "lying to Cooper"
Didn't think even you were that dumb.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 06:56 PM
"Of course, Libby's pardon petition could consist of "Jabberwocky" written in Sanskrit, and Bush would pardon him."
This would be a nice outcome for you p.luk. You are probably the only person in North America who would be capable of translating it.
Posted by: TP | November 10, 2005 at 07:03 PM
Re-read Libby's answer again...legalities aside. He is right. A summary version:
Reporters are nothing but gossips and whores who intentionally distort peoples words and are blind to their blighted contribution to our society.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 07:04 PM
That's what I got form it at least.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 07:05 PM
Let's see if I have what the righties (some of them) are arguing here:
1. Libby, a former trial lawyer, is smart enough to not have lied in the blatent manner which the indictment against him alleges. Therefore he must be innocent.
2. Fitz is stupid.
Do I have that right?
Posted by: Jim E. | November 10, 2005 at 07:05 PM
nah... Fitz is autistic - we try to not make fun of people like that. He's still trying to find out who leaked Plames name while wading around in a swamp of leakers.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | November 10, 2005 at 07:12 PM
Boris, that is not what Cooper confirmed... allow me to quote from the indictment...
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:17 PM
JimE,
1. I wouldn't argue Libby is innocent. His attorneys are going to do that. I would argue that he has a right to a fair trial and that an indictment is not a conviction.
2. Fitz is very smart, but my guess is that even he would not claim infallibility.
Posted by: TP | November 10, 2005 at 07:20 PM
P. Luk,
You are basing your arguments on facts? What facts? You haven't seen the evidence, you have seen snippets of GJ testimony that Fitzgerald used to make the charges. You could very well be right in your analysis, but you don't have facts to back it up. That is, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren't.
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 07:25 PM
"If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified"
and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert,
why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it
and not assert it as something you knew?
Jim E.,
How smart is a prosecutor to make a compound unintelligible question the basis for a perjury indictment? That question is gibberish.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 07:25 PM
Do I have that right?
well, its true, but it not central to the righties argument, which is:
Joe Wilson is evil incarnate. Therefore, any allegation against him is necessarily true, because no explanation other than "evil" is possible when the subject is evil incarnate. Furthermore, any effort made against Joe Wilson is good because any effort made against evil incarnate must be good, and any theory that defends Wilson' enemy is good, because any theory that defends those who are good is necessarily good in and of itself.
Once you understand the simple rule that Joe Wilson is evil incarnate, you will understand why even the most bizarre theories and off the wall speculations are treated as if they were sacred text that must be celebrated....
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:26 PM
P. Luk,
Does that only work on righties? Could I not take your post, remove Wilson's name and insert Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby and come up with the same ending? You are unwilling to see anything but an evil theory as to why the WH was pushing back.
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 07:34 PM
p.luk,
Actually, the argument is that he is a blowhard being used by the Kerry campaign to embarrass the Bush Administration. : ^ )
Posted by: TP | November 10, 2005 at 07:34 PM
P. Luk,
Actually, I can only speak for myself, but I don't see Wilson as evil. I see him as a clown, who just happened to get lucky. How do you see him?
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 07:36 PM
Rick --
"A question that needs an answer is "when did Fitzgerald understand that the underlying potential charge was without merit".
I'll take this one: Feb. 6, 2004 when, in response to a request for clarification from Fitz, the Acting Attorney General confirmed that the Special Prosecutor's authority was not limited to investigating the particulars of the alleged disclosure alone.
He was appointed in Dec. '03, and I suspect he already knew that there was no underlying exposé charge to be made by the time he finished his initial review of the case.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 10, 2005 at 07:37 PM
Clarice, I believe that you are referring to Libby's lawyers comments about resolving evidentiary questions pertaining to the First Amendment --- basically, issues surrounding the question of how much access to the journalists involved in the case the defense would have.
Some people are confusing the First and Sixth Amendments--the 6th will surely come into play when the defendant (Libby) argues that he is entitled to question the reporters about more than the Prosecutor did..The 6th BTW refers to the right of a defendant to defend himself by knowing the charges and evdence being raised against him
Posted by: clarice | November 10, 2005 at 07:37 PM
That question is gibberish.
That's what originally made me wonder if Libby didn't see an opportunity in Fitz's questioning to essentially answer in riddles that would be impossible to prosecute successfully. Thus drawing the conspira-seeking Fitzle to the Libby countermeasure and protecting the administration from further attack.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 07:38 PM
what Cooper confirmed
"I heard that too"
Means the same thing. Deal with it.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 07:43 PM
Sue....
You are basing your arguments on facts? What facts? You haven't seen the evidence, you have seen snippets of GJ testimony that Fitzgerald used to make the charges. You could very well be right in your analysis, but you don't have facts to back it up. That is, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren't.
Sue, you are absolutely right. I'm basing my arguments on the facts that we have at hand.
If you prefer -- since it may well fit better with the overall feeling of most of the commenters on this thread --- I can go into full-blown Democratic Underground mode, discussing vast conspiracies centered on the Carlyle group, and citing the Socialist Workers Weekly as a source of factual information.
Or I can continue to discuss the facts concerning the case against I Lewis Libby.
I mean, we really don't even know who outed Valerie Plame to Bob Novak -- let alone whether "everybody knew" that Wilson's wife was CIA, or whether this whole thing is part of a vast left-wing-CIA conspiracy to destroy George W. Bush OR its part of a massive cover-up of the manipulation of intelligence including the forgery of the Niger documents at the behest of Dick Cheney --- or if its just a case of "loose lips sink ships."
And since I know I'm not going to convince anyone here that the Niger documents were forged by the same people Karl Rove hired to forge the Killian memos, I try to stick to the facts that are known about the Libby case. :)
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:43 PM
Killian memos
There's a leak in your tin foil hat.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 07:45 PM
Dan and Mary still think they're real. Even Newsmax won't hire them now.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 07:46 PM
Does that only work on righties? Could I not take your post, remove Wilson's name and insert Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby and come up with the same ending?
sure, if you go to Democratic Underground, or even the diarists and commenters at Daily Kos, I think that would work.
I guess I was hoping that this site was not another right-side equivalent of DU or Kos diaries. Silly me.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:48 PM
There's a leak in your tin foil hat.
obviously, I need to figure out a way to make my smilies much larger.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:49 PM
I got it. First remove Joe Wilson from Puk's 4:26 pm post and insert instead "Pluk" in each instance. Then replace "evil incarante" with "Idiot savant" again in all places. Of course where it just says "evil" instead put "idiocy".
Tell us more about him than he does about the poster community here.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 10, 2005 at 07:50 PM
Some people are confusing the First and Sixth Amendments--the 6th will surely come into play when the defendant (Libby) argues that he is entitled to question the reporters about more than the Prosecutor did..The 6th BTW refers to the right of a defendant to defend himself by knowing the charges and evdence being raised against him
some people don't realize that this is a case in which the interests of the 1st and 6th amendment are likely to collide.
I mean, come on Clarice, not even you could possibly assert that Libby's lawyers are considering a defense which consists of "Lewis Libby had the right to lie to the Grand Jury under the First Amendment"
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 07:53 PM
Boris,
I'd love to hear "I understood the question to mean" from Libby on the witness stand. I believe that you may be correct about Libby's answer. I wonder how long he stared at Fitz (if it was Fitz) before answering. If I parse the question to the nut of "why was it that you were so deliberate" then I can parse Libby's response on the basis of the questions initial conditional "If".
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 07:53 PM
But Andrea's one of the GOOD (Democratic) PEOPLE... it's okay for her to lie like a cheap Persian rug...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | November 10, 2005 at 07:59 PM
pluka -
"Remember, the issue of whether "everybody knew" about Wilson's wife is not relevant to this case."
Of course it is, otherwise Libby couldn't contend he was hearing about it from reporters. What Mitchell knew is esp. relevant since, as she has repeatedly stated, it would go from her mouth to Russert's ears, thereby calling Russert's credibility -- which is central to the charge, and thus the defense -- into question.
"now, where is Russert's focus on the NAME again?"
I'll raise you one: where exactly is the focus on what he actually did, as opposed to what he says he "would have" done in one hypothetical situation or another?
Your description of the "righties" argument is such a disappointment! Apparently, your talent for channeling everyone from Fitz in DC to Mayaki in Niger has its limits after all.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 10, 2005 at 08:02 PM
I'd love to hear "I understood the question to mean" from Libby on the witness stand.
Rick, would you care to provide us with what you think Libby could say that would get him off the hook for what he said in his response.
Like this little gem (which I didn't include in my original excerpt)
And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
(and do keep in mind the date of the Cooper conversation that this refers to in your answer.)
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 08:07 PM
p.luk.
Actually that's what Libby said to Russert. He just forgot.
Posted by: Syl | November 10, 2005 at 08:08 PM
pluka-
"some people don't realize that this is a case in which the interests of the 1st and 6th amendment are likely to collide."
Guess who wins!
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 10, 2005 at 08:09 PM
p.luk.
Anyway, you're missing the basic POINT. That's disinformation to make the hearer thing he's hearing something for the 2st time.
That's why Libby probably forgot it was Russert he said that to instead of Cooper.
OR, like Russert and his 'would have said' scenario, that's what Libby would have said so he thought he did.
Next!
Posted by: Syl | November 10, 2005 at 08:11 PM
Actual question parsed:
And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him,
you don't know whether it's true or not,
you're just telling him what reporters are saying?
Libby's actual response parsed:
Yes, that's correct, sir.
And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true.
I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know –
I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
GIGO cubed
Ask a stupid question.....
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 08:21 PM
off
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 08:25 PM
I don't often comment here but I find the changing dynamic of the posts interesting.
Shortly after Libby's indictment the libs here were cocky, spoke in authoritative, sweeping terms and were quite convincing, while the cons were parsing every little phrase and saying how little anything meant until people like Russert etal were under oath.
Now the shoes seem to have exchanged feet and the libs are parsing and fretting talking about the meaningless of statements unless they're under oath, while the cons are sounding kind of cocky.
It could of course be meaningless but it is interesting to go away for a few days and then come back.
Incidentally, do any of you regular posters have either real jobs or lives? Nothing personal, but how can you spend so much time on this stuff and still feed yourselves?
Posted by: Barney Frank | November 10, 2005 at 08:51 PM
The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 08:51 PM
TM,
On your list of reporters, shouldn't you note those with close associations with people who might well have professional reasons to know Plame's work?
For example, Cliff May hangs out with the PNAC crowd, including ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, along with any number of people in the administration who could have, yes, passed him an unauthorized leak of her association with the CIA. Who told Cliff?
Andrea Mitchell is, of course, Mrs. Greenspan. Who told Andrea? Might that have been an illegal leak as well?
Marty Peretz? Doesn' have the tight PNAC connections of Cliff May, but as a hawk he may have hung out with that crowd.
The point, TM, is that these journalists you mention are part of a social circle which could include leaky gossipers with top secret clearances.
Which is rather different from the idea that it's just been common knowledge among gossipy reporters who heard it on the grapevine.
If Dan Froomkin said he knew, I'd believe it was common knowledge. But the people you list are tight with the administration hawks and one or two connections away from someone who could, and would, leak her association with the CIA.
There is no reason to think these people learned by seeing her drive into the CIA, and seeing her at a party with her husband. These people don't do that kind of reporting. Cliff May isn't even a journalist anymore, he's a hack and apologist.
This would certainly explain why Mitchell would want to change her story. And it would explain why Cliff May has never been more fothcoming with who told *him*. If they give up who told them, that would start a whole 'nother investigation.
So - can you dig up any names that do not fit this profile?
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 09:44 PM
Just a note--Hume didn't think Mitchell's tap dance was very convincing either. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175227,00.html
and he does note that Vallely and Wilson had certainly had opportunities to share the green room in the specified period:
____________
"But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12,[2002] when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another."
___________________________
Posted by: clarice | November 10, 2005 at 09:48 PM
I wrote: "Which is rather different from the idea that it's just been common knowledge among gossipy reporters who heard it on the grapevine."
Let me put it this way. Given your list of reporters and their connections, claiming that Plame's CIA job was common knowledge is a little bit like Martha Stewart claiming "everyone knew what was up with ImClone stock", and giving as examples a bunch of people who just happen to have also had close ties with Sam Waksal.
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 09:49 PM
Jon--it's a city where the connections between the press and the government is so tight a chart of connections would have little open space.
Pincus' wife was a high profile Clinton appointee.
Beers and Clarke were Clinton holdovers who worked with Wilson ,a Clinton appointee to the NSC..
Matt Cooper's wife is Mandy Gruenwald, a Hillary Clinton consultant.
I find it hard to believe that Clarke and Beers didn't know Plame and what she did, and from there it's a small leap to believe Kerry's Chris Lehane knew and from there to believe that Lehane told some folks in the press.
Indeed, I think Wilson ?and Plame's social and press connections were more immediate than any connections PNAC had to Wilson or Plame..or knowledge about them.
Posted by: clarice | November 10, 2005 at 09:54 PM
no, just pointing out that you are more interested in "scoring points" than you are in a rational discussion of this issue.
I guess that means you are not going to backup your specific claim that started this:
But Russert testified that not only didn't he not tell Libby that Wilson's wife was CIA, he didn't know it at the time the conversation took place.
This opens up the strong possibility that Russert co-operated with FitzG in setting a "perjury trap" for Libby --- i.e. Libby tells the FBI that Russert was his source, FitzG tells Russert what Libby is claiming, Russert denies it, and FitzG asks Russert to issue a denial that gives Libby enough room to fashion his lie around that denial.
I am very interested in the details of Russert's testimony, so I am eager to see your source for this.
Posted by: TM | November 10, 2005 at 09:58 PM
"Jon--it's a city where the connections between the press and the government is so tight a chart of connections would have little open space."
Then find me someone without such close connections to potential leakes. A Dan Froomkin.
Cliff May is simply not credible. He's a whore. He's not a journalist, he's a shill, with every incentive to lie and no reason not to. He's a think tank trust fund welfare baby, guaranteed a fat income regardless of his reputation or credibility.
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 09:58 PM
clarice writes: "I find it hard to believe that Clarke and Beers didn't know Plame and what she did, and from there it's a small leap to believe Kerry's Chris Lehane knew and from there to believe that Lehane told some folks in the press."
Then why is everyone on TM's list noticably hawkish or tight with the Bush administration?
If word was getting out through the Dems, wouldn't that list be a little more... bipartisan?
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 10:09 PM
P. Luk,
You missed the point entirely. You have no facts. You have speculation based on snippets of GJ testimony. That would be like convicting Delay on Earle's indictment. Come to find out, Earle didn't even have the document that he based the indictment on. I'm just cautioning you to not put all your eggs in the indictment basket. :)
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 10:11 PM
Then find me someone
Get your own.
He's a whore
You're not his type.
Posted by: boris | November 10, 2005 at 10:12 PM
Jon H
Cliff May told the investigators who told him. He just hasn't told us. Except for the fact he was a Democrat.
so there's one for ya.
Posted by: Syl | November 10, 2005 at 10:14 PM
From what he writes, I'd guess Froomkin is not on anyone's A list, jon..but the links to reporters are infinitely stronger on the Dem(that is to say Wilson) side and it is those folks(i.e. Russert and Cooper) I suspect of lying when they say they didn't "know..I have no reason to suspect those (like May and Barnes) who say they did know are making it up.
By the way, on the First Amendment issue--I went back and checked, and I seem to have misremembered Libby's counsel's statement re the 1st amendment and want to clarify what he said:
(WSJ)"William Jeffress Jr., an attorney for Mr. Libby, told a federal judge last week that he expected significant First Amendment issues that could delay the start date of the trial. While he declined to elaborate further, defense attorneys involved in the case and First Amendment advocates said Mr. Libby's lawyers would almost certainly want to go beyond the scope of the areas covered in testimony the reporters have provided to a grand jury."
--------
I always thought there would be a Sixth Amendment problem here--while the Ct limited what Fitz could go into with reporters, surely it cannot continuie that limitation against a criminal defendant...
This is the stupidest case I've seen in a long time. The problems respecting a successful prosecution leap off the page..When will someone give it the hook?
Posted by: clarice | November 10, 2005 at 10:16 PM
Sue--
FYI...Larry is being his polite self again.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 10:23 PM
TS9,
Wow. I wished I had saved mine. They might be valuable some day. :) He is definitely unhinged.
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 10:30 PM
I just followed the link (helpfully provided by TS9) over to redstate and read speculation about whether Larry Johnson was having an affair with Valerie Plame. Nice stuff, that. Yep, totally on point and quite helpful. And certainly what Larry Johnson means by saying he "personally" knows Plame. Pathetic. And TS9 is happy to link to it?
P.S. But since such classless innuendo about the personal lives of political opponents are TM's bag, maybe he'll put a link on the main page?
Posted by: Jim E. | November 10, 2005 at 10:33 PM
Jim,
I visited Mr. Johnson's blog site and posted a question. I got 2 personal emails from him, rather than addressing me on the blog site, telling me how stupid I was, a bonhead, etc. That is why TS9 posted the link, because of my personal encounter with the not so sane Mr. Johnson.
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2005 at 10:36 PM
Jon H
Then why is everyone on TM's list noticeably hawkish or tight with the Bush administration?
People like, say David Corn or others in love with Wilson's story (namely reporters) are going to step up to the plate throw Wilson out there...NOT UNLESS THEY'RE PUT UNDER OATH.
By the By all....Wilson's attorney sent a FORMAL (not his goofed up one with his clients email attached on a Saturday!) demand letter to various people.
Wanna take bets?
If another person comes out, and Wilson hasn't filed, then what does that say?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 10:38 PM
boris writes: "You're not his type."
No, I won't dress up in the black uniforms and jackboots he likes so much.
"Cliff May told the investigators who told him. He just hasn't told us. Except for the fact he was a Democrat."
Oh, he did? News to me. Have a link?
All I've seen is this:
"That wasn't news to me. I had been told that - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."
Well, gosh, most of Cliff May's war-hawk daddies fit that description.
"the links to reporters are infinitely stronger on the Dem(that is to say Wilson) side"
But they haven't said they knew Plame was CIA.
The people who have said they knew, and that it was common knowledge, are all Iraqs hawks and Bush shills.
So TM is just building an excellent case that administration hawks, thinktank hawks, and their fanboys are generally cavalier with classified information.
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 10:41 PM
Jim E
Nice spin. The link was to a "detailing" of the typical threatening, vitriolic and abusive email LCJ is fond of sending, if you read the comments then well that is your own problem.
...but I posted it to SUE with no other commentary. WHY smartbutt,?
because Sue was the recipient of an exact email detailed by your trusted brother Larry C. Johnson.
How many of these have you received from TM?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 10:44 PM
Batchelor's a loon.
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 10:48 PM
LCJ is a dick and a loon
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 10:50 PM
JonH:
Batchelor's a loon
Well, we all can't be as reasonable and sober-minded as you, as your posts amply demonstrate.
You set a very high Olympian standard of thoughtfulness and insight.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | November 10, 2005 at 10:51 PM
oops..I guess I feel prey.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 10:54 PM
Well, gosh, most of Cliff May's war-hawk daddies fit that description.
What are you guys so afraid of?
Take note all. The new meme. If it comes from a conservative no matter how un-impeachable the source is it's a lie
However, this approach poses a problem. The MSM is in the hottest of seats..what do you think happens when the cameras DIM?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 11:04 PM
I'm really tired..If you guys take a vote after AI go to sleep , please tally me as follows:
(a) Mitchell is full of it; I do not credit her latest recalled memory and would call her to testify as an adverse wqitness were I Libby.
(b) Vallely was telling the truth; and we have more evidence that the facts in the referral letter upon which the prosecution was based and Miller and Cooper were forced to testify was false..whether or not Fitz knew that these were false..
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2005 at 11:07 PM
You missed the point entirely. You have no facts.
Sue, unlike what Delay is being charged with, perjury is pretty much cut and dried. Unless Fitzgerald deliberately took Libby's statements out of context, I can't see how anyone could believe that he didn't deliberately lie to the grand jury.
There are two questions I'm interested here.
1) Is Libby guilty of the crimes that he is charged with? I think its glaringly obvious that the answer to that question is "yes."
2) Will Libby be found guilty of the charges? That remains to be seen, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that, absent the exclusion of key evidence found in the indictment, that Libby stands an ice-cubes chance in hell of being acquitted.
Our host spoke of an "oh come on" moment in perjury trials -- the moment when a claim is made that is so at odds with the facts that the jury no longer considers the witness credible.
Lewis Libby's "oh come on" moment is his assertion that when Russert (allegedly) told him that about Wilson's wife being CIA, it came as complete news to him.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 10, 2005 at 11:13 PM
italics off
I think.
Posted by: EricH | November 10, 2005 at 11:13 PM
"perjury is pretty much cut and dried."
Cite your source! This contrary to everything I have read on the subject.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 11:17 PM
"This contrary to everything I have read on the subject."
Then you should be reading better sources.
Posted by: Jon H | November 10, 2005 at 11:26 PM
Then you should be reading better sources.
What is your source? Jon H. Inquiring minds are waiting?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 10, 2005 at 11:29 PM
TS9,
Perjury can be cut and dried if the question is clear and evidence is profered that the response is intentionally false.
If you are asked "Were you in Reno on April 12?" and you reply "No, I was at home in New Jersey." and then a casino security film is profered showing you reading a newspaper with the front page visible while standing in front of the casino sign, that would be pretty cut and dried.
Alternatively, if you have to bring in an English professor to diagram and explain the question it may be a little tougher sale to the jury.
Libby's indictment lays out a set of facts concerning when (and from whom) he learned about Mrs. Wilson that make the idea that he lied to the investigators or the GJ rather preposterous. The indictment appears to ask us to believe that Libby believed that there existed some sort of rule of omerta concerning everyone else who was questioned. If that is Fitzgerald's intent, then he's definitely not the brightest guy in the room.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2005 at 11:58 PM
Jon H and Puke...this is what your comrades said then...a NYT'er to NTY'r
Perhaps the most egregious reporting came the day the story first broke, when journalists speculated as to whether or not Bill Clinton would be impeached for perjury or have to resign as president. As James Naughton wrote in Sunday's New York Times, "Never mind that no one has been charged with any crime in this case, that perjury is hard to prove, that even if it were proved it might not be found in these circumstances to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors." Forget all that. The press was out, from day one, to hang the president, and -- for now at least -- there's no stopping them.
You're beacons and forefathers may be found : HERE
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 12:07 AM
TS9,
There was phsical evidence in that instance. Unless Russert and Cooper have given Fitzgerald tapes there is only their word and perhaps their notes. If they keep notes like Ms. Miller did their is only their word. A swearing contest.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 11, 2005 at 12:13 AM
Rick--
Yes I know. I was merely trying to point out that PUKE (aka p.Luk) and Jon H were basing their pontifications and declarations on nothing more than conjecture...
I was not speaking to the Clinton case, bit rather showing Puke and DCo the prevailing wisdom on the subject.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 12:35 AM
Libby's indictment lays out a set of facts concerning when (and from whom) he learned about Mrs. Wilson that make the idea that he lied to the investigators or the GJ rather preposterous.
You seem to be forgetting that Libby also lays out information concerning what Libby did after he was told -- but before he says he heard it from Russert.
Now, this is Libby on his conversation with Russert....
in fact, its 'rather preposterous' that Libby is not lying.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 11, 2005 at 12:44 AM
amphetamines anyone?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 12:48 AM
Yes I know. I was merely trying to point out that PUKE (aka p.Luk) and Jon H were basing their pontifications and declarations on nothing more than conjecture...
Top, you are right, I should have made it clear that in this case (as in the hypothetical cited by Rick) perjury is not that complicated. In a case where a witness is being deliberately evasive (e.g. a witness who says something along the lines of "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is") proving perjury is much more difficult.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 11, 2005 at 12:53 AM
Do you guys remember September 12, 2001,when there were celebrations in the streets of Jordan over the heroes of Al Queda who had blown up the American infidels and the Jews. That was after eight years of Clintonian/Wilsonian containment/starvation policy "based on now 'false, fraudulent and lying' WMD intelligence.
Today, now that "demons" like Cheney and Libby had the guts to get rid of a dictator, stop the starvation of "oil-for-food" and live with decision of actually having American soldiers lay down their lives with other Arabs in defense of their rights of self-determination and our long-term national security, the Jordanians did not celebrate the bombing of American interests today. Instead they were on the street condemning the same terrorists they thought were heroes just four years ago.
In France, on the other hand, the French are still waiting for Chirac to come out of his hole and condemn the terrorism.
Libby was involved in promoting and defending a foreign policy that is finally and honestly attempting to change the face of the middle east.
The bottom line is Libby should be pardoned...his actions will, if convicted, result in his losing his right to vote, but it will have been to secure the right of 24 mil arabs to vote...
Does anyone know where we can contribute to Libby's defense fund.
Posted by: JAZ | November 11, 2005 at 12:54 AM
AH Puke...now we see what you ( and your ilk do)----side step a direct question
"cite your source"
and just sort of glob on the "cons" post.
Clever, but coward. And indicative.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 01:00 AM
Jaz
Well noted, by me--
f Jordan over the heroes of Al Queda who had blown up the American infidels and the Jews.
Now that the lefties have adopted this policy (particularly their anti-Semitism) they have effectively pitted themselves against other countries that will take a no tolerance policy towards terror!
Jordan's actions will illustrate-- the luxury experienced at GITMO. I am pretty sure they won't give a fuck.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 01:17 AM
AH Puke...now we see what you ( and your ilk do)----side step a direct question
I wasn't side-stepping anything. I made a categorical statement that I shouldn't have, and I admitted it.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 11, 2005 at 01:25 AM
PL,
You need to run the logic of what you just posted through a functioning cerebral unit. Drop the journos and reflect upon whether Libby would rely on some sort of omerta on the part of WH personnel and a CIA briefer.
I'm leaning toward the idea that this indictment might be a rerun of the prosecutorial trick of rolling upward. If so, I think Fitz stubbed his toe. This isn't a cheap Illinois poll selling drivers licenses for campaign contributions.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 11, 2005 at 01:26 AM
" If so, I think Fitz stubbed his toe. This isn't a cheap Illinois poll selling drivers licenses for campaign contributions."
How about like prosecuting the Al Qaeda bombings of the embassys in Africa?
Posted by: Jon H | November 11, 2005 at 01:36 AM
Pluk
WHERE? if you did good for you, but I can not see that in the comments at all. Would you point to the comment where you admitted it?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 01:48 AM
Help me? I have no idea where Jon H. was going with his 10:48 post.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 01:52 AM
oh, that was me, i meant 10:36.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 01:53 AM
pluka-
"I made a categorical statement that I shouldn't have, and I admitted it."
Well, that's a start anyway.
"Will Libby be found guilty of the charges? That remains to be seen, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that, absent the exclusion of key evidence found in the indictment, that Libby stands an ice-cubes chance in hell of being acquitted."
Maybe that's because, unless you're Ronnie Earle, prosecutors don't put exculpatory evidence in their indictments. You don't even have to be the smartest guy in the room to figure that one out. I hate to tell you this, but the prosecutor doesn't get to hide much up his sleeves, and the indictment is about as good as his case will ever get. It better be convincing; there's no room for ambiguity, either legally or tactically, and once issued, it's also the only case he gets to make -- unless the defendent's atty's are incompetent. If you relied solely on indictments, you'd get a conviction every time.
The larger part of the equation that you just don't seem to get is what we call a trial, where the prosecutor's case will ultimately depend on how his witnesses, not his assertions, stand up to cross-examination.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 11, 2005 at 02:49 AM
Barney -
"Incidentally, do any of you regular posters have either real jobs or lives?"
LOL! It's called multitasking.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 11, 2005 at 02:55 AM
JM Hanes...I, like you, welcomed this...but a careful scroll proves this untrue. This is the typical tactic. Admit nothing, explain nothing, just say you did thereby side stepping any responsibility to answer the hard questions.
I would be willing to overlook it, if P.Luk weren't always spouting superior knowledge, unnecessary attacks and invective when it gets too tough.
COLD WATER ALERT:
Parade Raining;
Hunkered down for almost all of October while a grand jury considered his fate, Karl Rove has rebounded as a visible presence at the White House over the last two weeks, according to administration officials and Republican colleagues. He is running meetings and pursuing candidates for the 2006 elections - and, associates say, devising long-term political plans that suggest he does not believe he will face future legal trouble despite the C.I.A. leak investigation in which he has been involved.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 03:00 AM
DAMN:
A senior administration official said Mr. Rove was back "in a good mood," sending off rapid-fire e-mail, sticking his head into meetings uninvited and acting in a familiar, mischievous manner.
"He's Karl," the official said.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 11, 2005 at 03:03 AM
P.Luk: You seem to be forgetting that Libby also lays out information concerning what Libby did after he was told -- but before he says he heard it from Russert.
I assume by the first "Libby," you mean to say "Libby's indictment." However, if you actually mean Libby, you're probably correct: If Libby had denied the various discussions you enumerate, don't you suppose he would have been indicted on that very direct false statement instead of the roundabout accusation of lying his reaction to what Russert told him?
Given that Libby evidently didn't deny his previous official sources of information about Plame, and given that he emphasized that "I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said," isn't possible Libby was attempting to convey his thought process in not revealing the officially obtained information to Russert?
As I've pointed out before, the "inconguous reaction" accusation is somewhat puzzling, since Fitzgerald claims Russert never revealed Plame's employment. So, one element of the charge is that Libby lied about his response to something that never occured.
Also, wouldn't you, P.Luk, be a little taken aback if Russert admitted he had revealed to Libby that Plame worked for the CIA? Does that mean you didn't previously know Plame's employer?
Posted by: MJW | November 11, 2005 at 03:24 AM
I said a week or so ago that if Libby pleads he is Horatio at the Bridge. If he fights he's in the vanguard. The hard rain appears to be falling on the MSM, and Joe is running for his rubbers and mackie.
That's my cite. Or incite.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | November 11, 2005 at 06:05 AM
If Libby had denied the various discussions you enumerate, don't you suppose he would have been indicted on that very direct false statement instead of the roundabout accusation of lying his reaction to what Russert told him?
From the indictment:
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
the "portions alleged as false" include the part of the text I presented in my previous post.
And on the very next page, you will see
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:...
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;
so, it appears to me that Libby is being indicted on "that very direct false statement".
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 11, 2005 at 08:48 AM
p.luk,
Libby was found not guilty yesterday. : ^ )
Posted by: TP | November 11, 2005 at 09:02 AM