Powered by TypePad

« Smooth Sailing With The Captain | Main | Practical Problems With Perjury »

November 07, 2005

Comments

topsecretk9

the John Batchelor show should be interesting tonight, as Thomas General McInerney joins Vallely---and this Batchelor teased that he emailed Victor Davis Hansen...and look whose in the line up tonight too!

http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/

xm anyone?

JJ

LOL!

Jim E.

I wonder how long it will be before someone, against all logic, comments on this thread that Vallely's long-suppressed allegations will somehow help Libby's defense.

Anonymous Liberal

I think you put far too much faith in Vallely's story. If this were true, I think Vallely would have told this story a long time ago. He probably would have told Fitzgerald too. Why wait till after a scandal has dragged on for years and a man has been indicted?

Also, the fact that Vallely hasn't backed down despite Wilson's threat means absolutely nothing. It was an empty threat. It's almost impossible for a public figure (like Wilson) to successfly sue someone for defamation. Public figures must prove not only that someone lied about them, but that the person maliciously lied. But that doesn't even matter in this case, because Wilson would have no way of proving that Vallely is lying. There were no other witnesses to the conversation. It would be impossible for Wilson to prove that he didn't say what Vallely accuses him of saying.

So what you have here is a story emerging very late in the game, by a partisan, that can't be refuted and puts the teller of the story in no legal jeopardy. Believe Vallely if you want, but there are a lot of reasons to be very skeptical of his account.

Jim E.

I'm an agnostic on the Vallely v Wilson thing, but I do think TM's spinning about Vallely's false memory is, well, awesome.

Out of curiousity, does Vallely explain why he waited over two years to tell his story?

Rick Ballard

Anyone up for a pool on when the Demsm takes note (other than Fox)? Here is the Google News search results for Vallely Wilson as of the time stamp on this comment.

I'm leaning toward Dec. 16, 2013 at the moment but I may change my mind.

topsecretk9

1st---Does Batchelor have a cold, or does he always sound like Thurston Howle

Vallely- Will not retract...says wifes work came up when his wife said what she did in DC---"very casual conversation in a very small room, sharing things about careers"

Farrah says he received a formal letter from lawyer

No one will retract

McInerney totally vouches...

owl

uh, Anon, you missed "the General and his WIFE". That makes 2, TM.

topsecretk9

Farrah makes the salient point...if the report (the Wilson report) is classified when it is sent over to the white house (and to this day no?), how is it that this information is classified for everyone but Joe Wilson

I'll be waiting for Victor Hansen

owl

ts, keep talking since I can't get it!

p.lukasiak

Had the General been cutting this story from whole cloth, he surely would have taken the trouble to check his dates and do a bit of oppo research on Wilson, in which case, he would have said that they met in the late summer or early fall of 2002.

geez, when I tried to explain to people that the minor inconsistencies in the Killian memos demonstrated their authenticity, nobody bought it! :)


ordi

Jim E Wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before someone, against all logic, comments on this thread that Vallely's long-suppressed allegations will somehow help Libby's defense.

Vallely claims makes NO Difference concerning the charges agaisnt Libby. Libby WAS NOT Charged with outing Ms Plame and/or her status. So,Jim E explain your logic on how Vallely's claim would help Libby.

Rick Ballard

ordi,

I agree with you about Libby's case. I'd just like to know how Inspector Jo.. er Prosecutor Fitzgerald missed finding out that Supersecretcovertagent Valery Plame was using a job at the CIA as cover.

Wasn't he investigating who outed Plame? Isn't that what Andrea Mitchell reported that the referral was all about?

topsecretk9

Loftus, Wilosn says email is denying via email to John

1982 law does not apply to Loftus, back pedaling..saying it is different to mention works at agency.

Loftus admits it not probably not slander

trying to make a big deal about the timeline, Valley and Mc are saying certain it was in 2002---Mc says fall..

sorry for typos-- going too fast

topsecretk9

Vallely
says his wife was with him on 2 ocassions

he is sticking to it

says they were not called before grand jury

ordi

Rick,

This is one question I have wondered about. Isn't that what Andrea Mitchell reported that the referral was all about?

How do we know AM got the truth or was reporting the truth about the referral? Has anyone seen a copy of it? Since it is classifed, I doubt it is out there. So how do we know what was actually referred?

TM

Out of curiousity, does Vallely explain why he waited over two years to tell his story?

He figured the whole thing would blow over, is what he told Hannity.

I completely agree with Anon Lib re a defamation suit - Wilson's email to his lawyer suggested that Vallely's date confusion might be the key to victory, but Vallely can just change his story (which he has).

Well, from his bio, I would guess he is around 65 (he graduated West Point 1961), so he may simply be slowing down.

Hoewever, he has 58 Lexis transcript hits for Jan-Oct 2004, versus 18 hits for Jan-Oct 2005.

So maybe he just wants to get back in the mix.

Well, its a faith based-initiative - I happen to beleive that Ms. Plame's status at the CIA was no big deal (that is the whole 'how covert is she if her hubby is advertising himself as a contract consultant to the CIA?' argumant), so it would not surprise me if Wilson mentioned her in passing.

Obviuosly, folks who are convinced that she was still covert and that Wilson respected this will believe differently.

clarice

If she wasn't covert and if Wilson "outed" his wife repeatedly, the entire investigation was based on fraud--I can't wait to see if Dow Jones wins its suit to unseal the redacted papers on which Fitx obtained the order to compel the reporters' testimony. If it contains false statements about her status, about the danger to operations abroad...we will have a very interesting kerfuffle--And if those assertions were made, who made them?

TigerHawk

One thing's for damn sure: this Plame/Wilson leak thingy is way too complicated for Sean Hannity to understand.

topsecretk9

2 occassions in GR with Wilson

loftus-- Jed Babbin investigation Ms. wilson...how tasked her to get wilson, and the investigation leak...

ordi

I am still listening to John Batchelor. He now has Jed Babbin on speaking about Plamegate. It sounds like Babbin will post further info on this at http://www.spectator.org/index.asp later tonight.

topsecretk9

Vallely said he expected Wilson would implode because it was pretty known knowledge and he just can't believe that this has come to this--guess he didn't expect indictments

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I've suspected that Val's "leave of absence" might have been an administrative suspension since I first heard of it. She knew she was no longer covert and made an assumption that the status change was reflected in her records - and it may have been, somewhere. The "referral" may be based upon improper record keeping. Remember the initial reaction by the CIA fellow when he first talked to Novak? First, no big deal and then a call back?

Something is very stinky here.

topsecretk9

Loftus pretty sure that the law didn't apply or some such, babbin looking into referral (bogus) and who have tasked

holy moly...multi tasking with chix nugs, younins report on australia, and he querying on photo shop and this shooo

topsecretk9

oh this was rich...loftus took issue babbin calling wilson a clown ...um loftus...what in the hector do you think wilsons' been calling cheney and bush?

topsecretk9

TM

Wilson used his age as an excuse for not remembering things right, he said it was his right at 50 or some such, right???

owl

"Wilson the Outer"...this is what the Resident TV watcher has always said and half of it happened on NBC/MSNBC. The world just gets too small with the connection to Vanity Fair and a spy picture as the cherry on top.

r flanagan

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT RUSSERT KNEW ABOUT VALERIE BEFORE LIBBY CALLED IT'S WHAT RUSSERT
said TO LIBBY DURING THE CALL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE IRRELEVANT-IF-TRUE FACTS PLAY WELL IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION . AND ACCEPT THAT IT'S "GOOD" POLITICS TO CON JOE LUNCHPAIL INTO BELIEVING THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME LEGAL MERIT.

NOT REALLY A LIE, JUST THROWING SAND IN THE UMPIRE'S EYES.

DOES KINDA UNDERMINE RESPECT FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM BUT HEY WE'RE ELECTING SOME GOOD JUDGES.

topsecretk9

steven hayes...speaking on Levin...been on all sides of the issue...talking about how quickly flipped...some translation from a Iraqi doc...saddam talking about his cooperation with al queda in NYTImes (know?)...

topsecretk9

now, I meant...not sure if this was right, but apparently the doc mentions saddams meeting with? al aqueda (again it was something like that so don't come bite my ass if I have it wrong) and the doc mentions osama getting out of sudan

ordi

Top,

I was listening too. Glad I am not the only one that was wondering about saddam talking about his cooperation with al queda in NYTImes. Is this something NYT report recently or in the past?

topsecretk9

not saddam, one of saddams son meeting

clarice

rick, I think you're right about a misclassification and I think if we see the redacted pages in the Miller case they'll show her at a higher classification that she should have been at.

Loftus is an idiot--trust me on that. He bills himself as a former federal prosecutor yet he never brought a case while at OSI nor even when I worked with him there developed one that could be brought.

Wilson is a public figure. To win a slander suit he'd have to show that Vallely made the statement maliciously and that it was false and that it harmed his reputation..what reputation? What malice? What harm to his reputation by this statement? What reputation? The SSCI discredited him on every point. Pincus corrected every single thing he initially reported Wilson told him..and under pay to view Kristof "clarified" Joe's story. Give me a break.

topsecretk9

seemed like what he said, it is coming or just came out, Iraqi doc translated...and hayes was saying how this just slams levin, right?

ordi

Was he talking about Docs US Mil found in Iraq that have not been release yet. I know Hayes has been attempting to get docs that are already declassifed released. Was this what he is talking about?

topsecretk9

Clarice

even Loftus had to hymn and haw on a suit...he didn;t think there was one

clarice

Steven Hayes has written extensively of AQ links to Saddam in the Weekly Standard--google will take you to his stuff. Laurie Mylroie, much maligned by Clarke et al, has written Saddam's Revenge which is also good.

topsecretk9

Ordi

not sure..I can't listen multi task...maybe, it is out, I mean that would be huge, no?

topsecretk9

Clarice
they were saying it was just translate and in the New york times...not his personal

ordi

Top,

It would be huge! I recorded it so I am going to go back over it and see.

clarice

I can't understand what you're saying about Hayes--I know that we had a big shortage of translators and gajillions of file cabinets full of important documents we captured in Iraq..Are you saying some were just translated showing more AQ/Saddam ties?

topsecretk9

Ordi...

good that you recorded it

I think he talking about this...

"On June 25, 2004, the New York Times reported on an internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) document that discussed relations between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. The document, authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community, reports on meetings between bin Laden emissaries and Uday Hussein in 1994. The document further reports that the Iraqi regime agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast sermons from an anti-Saudi cleric. The IIS document advises that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." And when bin Laden was ousted from Sudan in 1996, the document reports that Iraqis were "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/323epqda.asp

ordi

TOP,

BINGO! DAMN YOUR GOOD! That is exactly the article Hayes was speak about. See, You multi-task pretty damn good!

ordi

Here is the link to Jed Babbins article at Am Spec. It is entitled The CIA Disinformation Campaign

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8993

topsecretk9

ordi

my friend called, did Victor Hansen on yet??

Rick Ballard

For those pasting in URLs - here is a HTML primer that is easy to follow. The first few times that you try it, right click the link and open it (in a new window) in Preview to make sure that it works. Don't forget the closing tag.

ordi

Top,

Sorry, I quit listening. I did not realize VDH was going to be on. I recorded most of it. Once it stops recording I will go back and listen for VDH.

topsecretk9

I don't think he has been on yet.

MJW

In the previous Plame thread (Case Against Rove), a WSJ article was mentioned in which a media attorney suggested that in Libby's trial the judge would carefully weigh the reporters' 1st amendment rights against Libby's 6th amendment rights. Now that the D.C. Circuit has disallowed the reporters' confidentiality claims in Wen Ho Lee civil trial, I think Russert, Cooper, and Miller should prepare themselves for some rather vigorous cross-examination.

clarice

You bet!

topsecretk9

Odri--
I've lost my connection.

MJW

A question for Clarice and other legal types,

I was wondering about something related to Miller's GJ testimony. According to her NYT account of her testimony about the June 23, 2003 conversation, when she was asked about the parenthesized "Wife works at bureau?" comment in her notebook, she offered a couple of guesses as to what she might have meant. My question is, would she be allowed to make such guesses in a trial? It seems like there ought to be some objection (like "calls for speculation," or similar) to prevent possibly prejudicial testimony that's not based on a reasonably clear recollection. It also seems like that protion of the notebook should not be able to be offered into evidence, since it would lack proper foundation if Miller, herself, didn't know what it meant. (I realize that how I think the law should work and how it actually works are often two very differnt things.)

Rick Ballard

Given motormouth's pride in his wife's position at the CIA as verbally expressed in Green Rooms, I would think that a careful study is going to be made of who was on with him any time he appeared on NBC or MSNBC. Or before him, around him or after him.

MJW,

I think the odds just went up on it being tossed in pre-trial motion. The fine attorneys posting here may tell me I'm crazy but the case against Libby just a sprung leak in the gas tank in the court of public opinion.

topsecretk9

former Clinton Ambassador Joe Wilson told Vallely and his wife, Muffin, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Does anyone else see the irony and/or humor here? Can you imagine Wilson calling "MUFFIN" a big fat liar?

clarice

MJW..I don't think any of us understand what Judy said --given our most lengthy recitation--her post GJ report--As I understand it in any event their conversation is not in issue (no perjury charge re it as I recall)..

But it looks like Dabbin is thinking like I am re the referral (probably the source of the info in the redacted affidavits in the Miller case:

_________________

The American Spectator adds more details to the puzzle of who authorized Wilson's trip and who referred the Plame non-outing to the Department of Justice: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8993

[quote]
A source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Valerie Plame -- who suggested her husband for the Niger mission -- was too low on the CIA totem pole to have approved and paid for the mission. The source also told me that Judith ("Jami") Miscik, then the CIA"s deputy director for intelligence, was the person who signed off on the Wilson mission. Plame's WINPAC directorate was under Miscik in the chain of command. Miscik was fired by new CIA director Porter Goss late last year during Goss's housecleaning in which Deputy Director John E. McLauglin resigned and Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt retired.

The CIA, through one of its spokesmen, declined to comment on whether it was Miscik or someone else because of pending legal proceedings. And, in context with other information, it appears that Miscik would not likely have been the one. Logically the person who approved the Wilson mission would have had to be some senior person in the Operations Directorate, possibly the now-retired Pavitt.

Regardless of who started the mission, the CIA responded to the Novak column by sending a classified criminal referral -- the allegation of criminal conduct requesting a formal investigation -- to the Justice Department. When it did so, it had to have known that Plame's status was not covert (as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) and probably knew " it is an intelligence organization, after all " that Wilson had blabbed his wife's identity around town. Why, then, was the criminal referral made? Who approved it? Such actions had to be approved at least by the CIA general counsel and probably by CIA Director Tenet or at least his deputy, McLauglin. Why did they do that knowing what they must have known?

The December 30, 2003 letter from Deputy Attorney General Paul Comey appointing Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor, says, in part: "I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" What was the allegation? If it were made falsely -- say with the knowledge that Plame's identity wasn't covert or had become public -- the person who made the referral may have committed a serious crime. [/quote]


clarice

Dabbin, too, asks for an investigation. Amen to that.

clarice

Add Fox's Judge Napolitano to the list of people who knew--per Dabbin:

[quote]Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA, ret.) is one of Fox's senior military analysts. Gen. Vallely confirmed to me that nearly a year before Robert Novak's July 2003 column revealed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, former Clinton Ambassador Joe Wilson told Vallely and his wife, Muffin, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. This revelation, published last week on John Batchelor's ABC talk show (and repeated Monday night on John's show), blew more holes into Joe Wilson's tattered credibility and raises important questions about the CIA's actions. (Fox's Judge Andrew Napolitano had said on the air that a FNC colleague had told him of Plame's CIA employment; Vallely didn't recall being Napolitano's source.)[/quote]

MJW

Rick Ballard,

I wish they'd start filing some motions soon. I'm hoping for a paper blizzard. I actually suspect the issue of Miller's testimony concerning June 23, 2003 might figure prominantly, since if what Miller said in her NYT aricle is accurate -- as I think it likely is -- Fitzgerald misreprested her testiomony in the indictment. I can't help think that'd be a major No, No.

I don't know how much faith I have in Vallely, though I hope what he says is true.

I wonder if Libby's attrneys will wait a while before filing motions so that if Fitzgerald just happens to follow them by filling a new indictment, it will be obvious he's pulling a Ronnie Earle. (Yes, I am too cynical. Deal with it!)

ordi

Top,
You wrote: Can you imagine Wilson calling "MUFFIN" a big fat liar?

Would that make her a Bran-ded Muffin?

topsecretk9

I am reposting this for Rick...it made me think of his "hostess" using the "twinkie" defense post...

former Clinton Ambassador Joe Wilson told Vallely and his wife, Muffin, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Does anyone else see the irony and/or humor here? Can you imagine Wilson calling "MUFFIN" a big fat liar?

topsecretk9

Ordi-

get out of my head!

ordi

Top,

Great minds think alike!

topsecretk9

Victor Davis Hanson, told WorldNetDaily his own green-room encounter with Wilson revealed a man who is unusually free with personal information to strangers.

Former Time magazine correspondent Hugh Sidey told the New York Sun in a story published Sunday. "[Plame's] name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time...

...Hanson, a Hoover Institution fellow and National Review columnist, told WND that like Vallely, he had a casual but unusually frank conversation with Wilson in the Fox News green room before appearing on the air with the ambassador some time, he believes, in early 2003.

But contrary to a report, Hanson said Wilson did not disclose his wife's CIA employment.

Nevertheless, Hanson found the first-time encounter to be revealing, describing Wilson as being very "indiscreet" and "unguarded" with personal information, rambling in a "stream of consciousness" manner.

"It was almost as if he were bored; he was non-stop talkative and sort of self-absorbed," Hanson said.

"When I left, I seemed to know a lot about Joe Wilson that he had spontaneously offered to a stranger."

While Wilson did not tell Hanson anything of his wife's CIA connection, Hanson was a witness to an intense 30-minute conversation between the ambassador and The Nation magazine Editor David Corn, who apparently were meeting for the first time.

---too lazy to do Rick's hyper-link

Ordi- Yes they DO!

ordi

Here is the link to the WND Article

Top,

I am like you, sometimes I just get lazy and don't want to or feel like formatting HTML! Sorry, Rick but it is the truth.

ordi

Here is the link to the WND Article

Top,

I am like you, sometimes I just get lazy and don't want to or feel like formatting HTML! Sorry, Rick but it is the truth.

ordi

Here is the link to the WND Article

Top,

I am like you, sometimes I just get lazy and don't want to or feel like formatting HTML! Sorry, Rick but it is the truth.

ordi

Here is the link to the WND Article

Top,

I am like you, sometimes I just get lazy and don't want to or feel like formatting HTML! Sorry, Rick but it is the truth.

ordi

Sorry for the MULTIPLE Posts! I have NO CLUE what happened! I was having connection difficulties! At least Rick got his HTML request filled. LOL

topsecretk9

Oh Ordi, don't you just hate it when that happens! Soon there will be like 300 posts and it will be over! And you were just doing me a favor ( it is weid when it puts up multiples, there is no indication) Thanks!

Chants

Seems worth repeating.

You can say that again.

If you said it once, you said it a thousand times.

Is there an echo?

The Clone Wars.

Makin' Copies!

(Sorry Ordi, couldn't resist.)

clarice

I thought ordi had the shakes or something--Niters.

ordi

Did I mention I work at Kinkos. LOL

Kate

Valley did not wait 2 years. I recall him saying that earlier. It just didn't get much play.

As for his leave, his son died in the military. I believe it was a state side training accident.

Syl

I doubt Wilson controlled his mouth everywhere else except FoxNews. CNN and MSNBC have green rooms as well, no?

If Vallely's recollection reaches the consciousness of others, it may jog their memories as well. Most would simply shrug and tell themselves they don't want to get involved, but you never know.

Oh, another point to remember re Valery's status at the time of the referral is that the Vanity Fair article said the CIA started the process of moving her off NOC status in the spring of 2003. True or not, I don't know. But if true, the referral looks even more suspicious.

And, speaking of the referral, WHO leaked it to Andrea Mitchell? Another question that someone needs to ask the CIA. Justice denies leaking it.

Ordi

Did I mention I work at Kinkos.

LOL!!

Syl

r flanagan

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT RUSSERT KNEW ABOUT VALERIE BEFORE LIBBY CALLED IT'S WHAT RUSSERT
said TO LIBBY DURING THE CALL.

It's called reasonable doubt. If Russert didn't know, then of course he couldn't tell Libby and Libby made up the whole thing.

But if Russert did know, then he could have told Libby and forgot he did so. Libby was basically saying that Russert knew. How would Libby know that Russert knew unless Russert told him. Just a wild guess? Doubtful to a jury.

kim

And just what are the chances that Russert didn't know some aspect of the whole affair that presented Valerie Plame to Libby 'as if' he had not known it before? That's perjury? Not among my peers.
============================================

Tollhouse

And so, after our lovely Fitzmas celebration, the bills start to come due.

That Fitz, he sure does run a crackerjack operation, first rate investeegator I say.

kim

I still think he's after reporters. Libby's defense can ask them questions he can't. I know it's a perverse theory, but there's been a lot of perversity, or at least tortiousness in the mess already. Torquey is dorky. Tortuosity?

I just know there's a good joke in there somewhere.
====================================

kim

How about 'Turn of TV Ents'?
==============================

kim

A general uproar and wheeled battalions, or wielded battleaxes.

Don't Muff it!
====================

p.lukasiak

When I first heard the Vallely story, I thought there might be some possibility of it being true, given Vallely's long association with the intelligence community. Wilson may have felt that Vallely could be trusted with that information.

But for that very same reason (his connections with the intelligence community, and the complete politization of the CIA under Goss, one must also consider the possibility of a disinformation campaign --- especially given that all of these people Wilson supposedly told about his wife are right-wingers.

Then, when Vallely was caught in a flat out lie, and had to change his story....well...

Dwilkers

Yeah well. More confirmation that Wilson is a blowhard.

I suppose that might change the political calculus of GossipGate but frankly I doubt it. Libby's under indictment for perjury.

Anyone that doesn't understand that Wilson is serial liar, a really bad husband, a partisan hack and apparently suffering from narcissistic personality disorder by now probably either doesn't care that much about this or is in some serious denial. Anyone else struck by how sick it is that this guy runs around tossing out his wife as personal validation? I mean, that's just sick. Sad too.

What this makes clear to me though is Plame's status really was known by everybody. E V E R Y B O D Y. So with all the people that knew why hasn't there been a big laugh fest in the media about the whole thing?

Tollhouse

Two thoughts come to mind.

The first and easist one is that the varied media types simply don't like the adminstration and are keeping quiet for that reason. Unlikely and much too conspiratorial.

The second is probably more correct, with a prosecutor going around indicting people for having poor recollections of events from years ago involving a crime that didn't happen, threatening 30 years of prison time, I'd guess that any lawyer worth the price paid would advise them that the best course of action would be to volunteer nothing.

And so here we are.

p.lukasiak

It also seems like that protion of the notebook should not be able to be offered into evidence, since it would lack proper foundation if Miller, herself, didn't know what it meant.

dream on. Fitzgerald will ask what is in the notebook, and what Miller understood it to mean within the context of the conversation. Defense attorney's will be able to challenge that understanding -- asking her something along the lines of "But you are not certain if that is a reference to the CIA or not, are you?"

The relevance of the June 23 conversation is that it demonstrates that Libby was aware of Wilson's wife's connection to the intelligence community, providing circumstantial evidence that "as if for the first time" was a lie. Far more crucial to the case is that Miller will testify that Libby told her that Wilson's wife was CIA on July 8. This, of course, is just two days before the conversation with Russert that Libby claims he heard about Wilson's wife's CIA connection "as if for the first time."

The big question for me is whether the parts of the conversation with Miller in which Libby lies about the CIA's role is allowed in as evidence -- my guess is that it will be, but Fitzgerald will only be able to use it to show that Libby was concerned about "disloyalty" in the CIA, and won't be allowed to attempt to impeach Libby's credibility with it.....

unless, of course, Libby takes the stand. Then, suddenly, Libby's lies to Miller can be tied to his motive for lying and obstruction.

Libby's biggest problem is that he will be destroyed if he takes the stand -- but without his denials that he committed perjury, his defense rests on impeaching the credibility of the witnesses called by FitzG.

Appalled Moderate

p.

A defense lawyer in this case is likely to shoot for jury nullification, rather than a verdict on the merits. I can see this trial being a case of competing character assassinations, because that would be Fitz's way of counteracting that strategy. Hence, Dick Cheney will be visiting he courtroom, as will Joe Wilson and (who knows) Valerie Plame, who may finally be allowed to speak in her own voice.

clarice

Tollhouse,Vallely said he didn't come forward because he thought the case was so stupid it wouldn't go anywhere and there was no need to come forward..And frankly, it is stupid.

I have figured out a decent strategy for Libby to get this thing over fiast, one which has no downside, gives him momentum and sets the framework in the public eye. Maybe I'll tell. Maybe I wont.

Tollhouse

Vallely is only a point in my favor. He comes forward AFTER the indictments come down, when it's presumably much safer legally.

I've asked before but I don't recall seeing anyone answer it, but Fitz's grand jury has recessed right? Did he get an extension? A new jury? Can he continue to indict people?

boris

evidence that "as if for the first time" was a lie

Libby told Fitz he knew about Val officially. The "as if" is not lying about not knowing, it's just implausible that he "forgot".

Fitz is charging that he lied about what he said to reporters and is primarily using the impausible statements to discredit Libby's version and credit the reporter's.

What Fitz seems to be missing is that Libby is not explicitly saying "I forgot" which would be implausible. His statements also contain the implication that he is witholding confirmation on the subject which makes no sense in the contexts of "not knowing" or "having forgotten". The argument can be made that Libby's statements are a rambling description of his mental process to deceive the reporter about his own state of knowledge and act "as if hearing for the first time".

clarice

The gj was released. He says he has some administrative stuff to clear up and if he needs another gj I understand he can use an existing one.

Bob in Pacifica

I'm sure the next thing that the General and any other witnesses will do is to get their decorated butts down to Fitzgerald's office to be sworn in to testify.

This sudden recollection, two years too late, suggests that Vallely has either not paid any attention to this, is lying, or has a memory problem of his own, which would suggest that he has a future in the current administration.

Appalled Moderate

Boris:

I think some of the Cooper stuff in the indictment could support your thesis, but not this from the Russert portion:

"And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.

boris

I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said

Your part and my part are not consistent.

How can someone deliberately withold information they don't know or have forgotten. Therefore your part is a less articulate version of "acting as if ..."

Bob in Pacifica

I'm sure the next thing that the General and any other witnesses will do is to get their decorated butts down to Fitzgerald's office to be sworn in to testify as to their recovered memories.

This sudden recollection, two years too late, suggests that Vallely has either not paid any attention to the Fitzgerald grand jury goings-on, is lying, or has a memory problem of his own, which would all suggest that he has a future in the current administration.

As for Vallely the man, his own bio says:

"Paul E. Vallely retired in 1991... was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army... He has served on US security assistance missions on civilian-military relations to Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Central America with in-country experience in Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala."

Let us reflect on "in-country experience" of the "civilian-military" kind in Indonesia (the murder of 250,000 to a million during the Suharto coup), El Salvador (brutal murderous civil war with dead squads), Panama (cooptation of Torrijos, Noriega, drug-smuggling, then the coup), Honduras (more death squads), Guatemala (deaths squads).

Before he shares with us his secret conversations with Joseph Wilson, perhaps he could tell us what he did during his tours overseas.

boris

Another way to paraphrase Libby's statement:

"I didn't want to let on that I already knew so I thought to myself 'this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning' so he wouldn't catch on"

p.lukasiak

First off, thanx appalled moderate for explaining to Boris what "as if" meant.

Boris--Libby did not tell FitzG that he knew officially, and pretended to Russert he didn't know. Libby initially denied knowing about Wilson's wife prior to hearing it from Russert, then when confronted with the evidence of his conversation with Cheney, changed his testimony to (paraphrase) "I forgot THAT conversation, so when I heard it from Wilson, it came as a surprise."

*****************

I've asked before but I don't recall seeing anyone answer it, but Fitz's grand jury has recessed right? Did he get an extension? A new jury? Can he continue to indict people?

The Grand Jury that indicted Libby expired, and could not be extended. Libby can still indict people by using a pre-existing grand jury, or by empanelling a new one. He has signalled, however, that any new indictments would be handed down by a grand jury that is already seated.

boris

Libby did not tell FitzG that he knew officially

I have read otherwise. If we disagree on such a fundamental point further discussion is obviously pointless.

p.lukasiak

"I didn't want to let on that I already knew so I thought to myself 'this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning' so he wouldn't catch on"

that isn't his testimony. You can't ignore the rest of what Libby said, i.e.

at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.

Nor can you ignore the context in which this conversation took place --- AFTER Libby had already told the FBI, and testified before the grand jury, that he was unaware of Wilson's wife until he heard it from Russert.


boris

Tags Off

boris

You do know what paraphrase means ???

Jim E.

boris' comment at 6:36AM is unintentionally hilarious. Libby not only lies to federal investigators and grand juries, but according to boris, Libby also lies in thought-balloons to himself.

The comments to this entry are closed.