The NY Times reports on the fund-raising effort by the Libby Legal Defense Trust:
...the managers of the fund-raising effort on behalf of Mr. Libby say they have already reached the $2 million mark and expect to increase the pace when they start a fund-raising Web site. "It's a particularly excellent start," said Mel Sembler, the chairman of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.
Well, then - I'll personally pledge some of the proceeds from this fundraising push.
Oh, whatever - let's go double or nothing!
Contact info here:
Libby Legal Defense Trust
2100 M Street, N.W.
Suite 170-362
Washington, D.C. 20037-1233
you'd think that with all the suffering and injustice in the world, that wingnuts would have something better to contribute toward than the defense of a liar who outed a CIA agent who was working to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists.
But the wingnuts hate America so much, and like terrorism so much, that they flock to the defense of Libby.
After all, if it wasn't for their buddy Osama, they couldn't say "9-11" whenever someone pointed out what a bunch of vile, greedy, and dishonest scumbags the people they support are.
Osama bin Libby --- the morphed wingnut hero!
Posted by: p.lukasiak | February 04, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Any idea how to get access to Fitzgerald's affidavit which was also partly unredacted yesterday?
Posted by: Jeff | February 04, 2006 at 08:26 AM
I reject the proposition that unmasking a Dem political operative helps Bin Laden. I know that Bin Laden apparently believes (and with good reason - considering that the MSM is probably his only source of information) that that the Democratic Party is aligned with him - enemy of my enemy and all that - but it is an inaccurate representation.
It is only the insignificant Koslandian wing of the Dem party (and certain party propaganda organs) that actually could be considered FOBLs. One couldn't expect a man cowering in a cave (or, more probably, a smear on a cave wall) to be able to make such a distinction but it is unjust to smear the entire Democratic Party (on most days) by association with OBL due to his pronouncements.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2006 at 08:44 AM
You'd think that with all the suffering in the world, the moonbats would have something better to do than to contribute to the defense of a liar who was working to get WMD into the hands of terrorists.
You'd think all of us would have better things to do with our money than to contribute to a public investigation of the corruption in the CIA, the Press, and the Democratic Party. Wait, keep spending it Fitz. We'll match.
And how about some table scrapings for the White House factotum who got grilled over the email glitch?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 08:56 AM
Yuck, Billy Joel! Say, how come I'm no longer directed to a place to "sign in" when replying, and am thus left to type in name and email address? What happens to the Libby defense coffers when the charges get dropped?
Posted by: jerry | February 04, 2006 at 09:00 AM
But keep in mind that pluk is a card carrying member of said Koslandian minority. His anger is palpable.
Posted by: noah | February 04, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Noah,
That's true but his efforts are better directed toward raising insignificant amounts of money to mount campaigns against moderate Democrats - that's where the true future of Koslandia lies.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Is it anger at this admittedly bullshit outing of Plame, or is it anger that Joe's meme is collapsing. Whatever gave it any life beyond SCCI is beyond me, except as increasingly delusional thinking about the War on Terror, the Iraqi adventure, and George W. Bush, and the political movement he has strengthened and tapped, deep in hoi terra polloi.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 10:34 AM
The thing is, getting Libby - a guy hardly anyone ever heard of before this and nobody on the right really seems to even care about except as a piece in a chess game - on some technicality charge, no less, seems pretty important to that crowd. I find it kind of hard to comprehend, since you know the harder they fight on this one, the more hypocritical they'll prove themselves when and if the real case - the NSA case, a real case of partisans selling out national security - gets rolling.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 04, 2006 at 10:52 AM
There's supposedly a million more worthy causes, but this is the second time TM has pimped for Libby donations. I still haven't seen the overwhelming reader demand for the need to contribute to a the defense fund of a rich man who has rich friends in high places.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Once again, Intrinsic, you may have just jumped on the inherent spring of all that anger.
It's just been realized that Rove, in his role as the Mad King Pinch the IIIrd, has just landed a cream pie in the face of the opposition.
==================================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 10:56 AM
"the NSA case, a real case of partisans selling out national security"
This assumes only Democrats are concerned about warrentless wiretaps, which is false. Newsweek had just had a story that included conservative Republicans within the administration that were queasy about the illegal taps.
How does knowing about the existence of warrentless wiretaps harm national security? No one is anti-wiretap.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Illegal? When did they have a ruling they were illegal? I missed it.
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Personally, I doubt the motives of those on the left supposedly concerned about "warrentless wiretaps." I don't believe they'd be concerned at all if a Democrat were president, for example, and I'm beginning to think the "concern" is in fact more than just a BDS impeachment fantasy, but the laying of a defense for the NYT.
And as to how it harms national security, I thought Porter Goss was pretty clear this week, but I guess maybe the Director of the CIA might be too partisan a figure to be credible on such a matter. Maybe the NYT would be a better judge of it.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 04, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Jim E.,
I woudn't rely too heavily on the Rep minor league camera hogs. The Chairman of the Intelligence Committee seems to have a different take.
Btw - one reading of this is that Sen. Roberts is sending it as a gentle reminder to Specter and McCain - both of whom are egos thinly covered with skin.
Dear Arlen & John,
Get bent.
Your friend & colleague,
Pat
in 19 pages.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Ex: I don't believe they'd be concerned at all if a Democrat were president
Check Andy's comment at the corner ...
I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHO THE PRESIDENT IS
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 11:29 AM
p.luk,
That ranks right up there with the head of the NAACP calling Bush and the GOP nazis. Bound to win elections for ya'. Can I be the 1st to encourage you and your friends to continue along this vein?
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 11:41 AM
"I doubt the motives of those on the left supposedly concerned about 'warrentless wiretaps.'"
Of course, my entire point is that it isn't just the "left" that is concerned.
The left has a rich history of distrusting intrusions of privacy and government power. (This is true of real conservatives, too.) In fact, TM has nicely mocked the left for its recent concern about the CIA. And if you don't think principle gets in the way of partisanship, take a look at the protests at the 1968 democratic convention, or at the 2000 demoncratic convention. Or Rick Ballard's above comment about how he think Daily Kos represents a left-wing circular firing squad.
Of course partisanship plays a role. It would be silly to assume otherwise. But there are real republicans, like Comey, like Bob Barr, like Grover N. that are concerned, too. And in terms of the Democratic critics of the warrentless wiretaps, their principles and partisanship can also overlap.
And Republican Roberts isn't exactly non-partisan himself, so that's a funny link.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 12:02 PM
I mean, does anyone think the left does NOT believe in a right to privacy??
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 12:03 PM
...this is the second time TM has pimped for Libby donations.
Third time.
Good point about Cliff May, BTW 9on some other thread), but Russert is a bit more prominent a newsie.
Posted by: TM | February 04, 2006 at 12:06 PM
And Porter GOss is a complete hack. He was fetured in a mocking segment in farenheit 911, and that was before he was named to the CIA post.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 12:09 PM
"Russert is a bit more prominent a newsie."
Totally agree.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 12:09 PM
FBI files...Hillary...ring any bells?
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 12:12 PM
"How does knowing about the existence of warrentless wiretaps harm national security? "
How does naming a CIA desk jockey harning national security? Especially since the informal CIA damage assessment showed no harm and the CIA was not even concerned enough to do a formal damage assessment. Val could not even handle the stress of taking care of her two babies...and you want us to believe she was some deep cover badass agent? LOL!!!!
Posted by: Lou Grunt | February 04, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Well that does it for me. I love Goss. If Moore mocked him, he has to be the good guy.
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 12:13 PM
"Well that does it for me. I love Goss. If Moore mocked him, he has to be the good guy."
You do remember that Moore spent most of the 2000 campaign mocking the Democrats, right? Did your head just explode?
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 01:04 PM
ya gotta admire the terrorist-loving wingnuts here.
In order to advance Osama's cause, they actually have convinced themselves that an upstanding prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald would lie to the court about Plame's covert status. Valerie Plame continued to work on keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists right up until the time Libby and Rove made sure her covert status was revealed publicly -- and the terrorists sympathizers who support Libby are glad she was stopped.
These Libby supporters do have a lot in common with the islamo-fascists. Lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, but lying about outing a covert CIA agent trying to protect the US from terrorists is perfectly OK.
Sheesh!
Posted by: p.lukasiak | February 04, 2006 at 01:16 PM
No, Mr. E., I must have missed his mocking of democrats in the 2000 election year. Which hapless democrats did he scorn? Card carrying NRA democrats?
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 01:23 PM
Oh, and Mr. E., if you truly want to see my head explode, move on to the next obvious extension of your post that Mickey Moore is not a partisan hack. That might accomplish it.
And just so you don't think I 'suddenly became silent'...I'm leaving for the afternoon. Other activities are calling for my attention.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Sue | February 04, 2006 at 01:28 PM
Regardless of what anyone considers to be the legality of whatever the NSA is actually doing, the leakers and the NYT clearly violated the law. It would be the height of hypocrisy to pretend to be concerned about the national security implications of the "outing" of Valerie Plame and yet not be even more concerned about the NSA leaks. I think it might lead to valid questions about one's patriotism, personally, Moore's mocking of Goss notwithstanding, as if that were a significant fact.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 04, 2006 at 01:37 PM
p.luk: Hate to tell you this, but Val worked for President Bush and VP Cheney. Unfortunately, she chose to act like a partisan, nepotistic adversary when she suggested her partisan, incompetent husband for a trip instead of a cleared expert in the field who would do more than sip tea and write New York Times editiorials.
Your fantasy that she was some covert hero stopping incoming nuclear weapons with her bare hands is a joke.
Posted by: Kate | February 04, 2006 at 01:38 PM
You do remember that Moore spent most of the 2000 campaign mocking the Democrats, right? Did your head just explode? :
See, half the time Moore is criticizing the left, how hypocritical of the right to say that Moore is a left-wing, America-hating nut! "Real conservatives", like anyone who can think straight, know that the warrantless wiretaps "issue" is just the latest incarnation of the argument about when executive power trumps congressional power, and when it does not. As it's subject to debate, any assertions of illegality can only ever be opinion, and never fact (where some see illegality, others might just as easily see a President's responsibility to circumvent any impediments - FISA process - when national security is at stake).
"Real conservatives" are unlikely to get too alarmed if Bob Barr or others lose their way now and again.
Posted by: jerry | February 04, 2006 at 01:39 PM
"...that an upstanding prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald would lie to the court about Plame's covert status..."
Well Fitz lied at his press conference about Libby being the first to talk to a reporter about Plame, and that was well after the Miller subpeona, so lying about her covert status is not a stretch. In fact at the press conference Fitz refused to say she was covert...he went with the "classified position" angle. No wonder he was shaking and sweating during that entire press conference.
By the way, I don't think Fitz lied, I just think he is an incompetent investigator.
However, I am sure the NSA leaker will not be so lucky as to have Fitz "hot on his trail".
Posted by: Lou Grunt | February 04, 2006 at 02:07 PM
I sure hope these donations to the Libby Defense Fund are not tax deductible. It would be the ultimate horror if one penny earmarked to help Palestinians buy more rockets and suicide vests went to this much less noble cause.
Posted by: Lew Clark | February 04, 2006 at 02:09 PM
"...the warrantless wiretaps "issue" is just the latest incarnation of the argument about when executive power trumps congressional power..."
How dare the President exercise his Constitutional rights (actually duties) as Commander-in-Chief. NSA issue = Dems fighting for terrorist rights = Dem seat losses in '06. Keep coming with those phoney scandals...they backfire everytime. I think the Dem leadership is on Rove's payroll.
Posted by: Lou Grunt | February 04, 2006 at 02:10 PM
The left has a rich history of distrusting intrusions of privacy and government power.
Damned straight.
That's why in the '70's they overreacted to the military keeping an eye on anti-war protesters, to the FBI, and to Nixon. They've always been agin the CIA.
In the '70's the Left basically tied the governments hands.
It's time to loosen the ropes a bit.
For every overreaction, there is a correction that follows. Watch for it.
Posted by: Syl | February 04, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Extraneus:
Once again you have hit the nail on the head. I can't imagine NYT and the left's disappointment when they found out they weren't going to get Rove. All they could snare in their net was Libby on some perjury trap charges. Ashcroft never should have farmed this out. Fitz in his desperation, looks for partisan judge Tatel and then jails Miller, remember now stictly because he distrust Libby not because Val was covert. This whole mess stinks to high heaven. Prosecution grasping at straws obviously and now NYT starting a campaign to cover their rear-ends in the NSA leal. Go Goss GO; nail these leakers. Wilson a whistleblower ' my aunt fanny'
Posted by: maryrose | February 04, 2006 at 02:44 PM
"In the '70's the Left basically tied the governments hands."
Laws were passed.
"It's time to loosen the ropes a bit."
Fine. Pass some laws. Would you trust President Hillary to use the NSA on wiretaps with zero oversight?
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Would you trust President Hillary to use the NSA on wiretaps with zero oversight?
After the travel office, Foster, Troopergate, nuke secrets, ICBM secrets, Chinese campaign contributions, ignoring OBL, Monica, Paule, Kathleen, Juanita ... ad frakkin nauseum ...
It's Hillary wiretapping terrorists that we're supposed to be afraid of?
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 03:02 PM
Not to mention all the IRS audits, Waco, Elian and Ruby Ridge.
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Sue,
In 2000, Michael Moore campaigned for Ralph Nader. As Nader has pointed out, much of MOore's campaigning for him consisted of "mocking" Democrats. This isn't a secret history or anything, it's common knowledge, and it's strange that you would have "missed" it. A partisan Dem would not work to ensure that a Democrat was denied the presidency.
Please let me know if any head exploding has commenced.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 03:11 PM
It was an early AbleDanger that allowed her to understand the cattle futures market with such prescience.
========================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 03:18 PM
"It was an early AbleDanger that allowed her to understand the cattle futures market with such prescience."
Now, now - that was straight bribery. The only "intelligence" involved was the lack thereof in selling herself so cheap - and so transparently.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2006 at 03:33 PM
It is obvious from her subsequent behaviour that the money was for a frivolous want and that it didn't touch her basic needs.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 03:39 PM
boris,
Trouble connecting dots much?
Posted by: Jim E. | February 04, 2006 at 03:43 PM
miss the point much
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 03:45 PM
You, JimE, missed the point that apparently, in comparison to Bill or Hillary, Bush is trustworthy.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Kim, in comparison to another Clinton co-presidency I would welcome serious attention to national security. Putting up with their other shennanigans just comes with the territory. Even Hillary needs to be free from dangerous constraints to deal with national threats.
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 04:05 PM
Also one might expect the Republicans "concerned" about the NSA program to remain "concerned" when Hillary does the same. Expect the Democrat legal pundits to once again see the light like they did before during the 1st Clinton co-presidency.
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 04:15 PM
LG, I suspect her layoff had more to do with the ravages of post-partum depression than the stress of twins. Then again, I'm speculating on very little information. Were she not complicit with her husband, I suspect she was most devastated by the publicity unleased upon her by her desparate cad of a pitiful excuse for a husband she had allowed cupidity to pierce and infest her with, the unfortunate wench.
========================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Condi vs Hillary. Who has, and can keep, the moral high ground?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 04:24 PM
And integrity in public service will command a higher and higher premium as people become aware that you can't count on special prosecutors for ultimate justice any more.
================================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Condi vs Hillary. Who has, and can keep, the moral high ground?
which one had sex more often with a sitting president?
my guess is Condi, since according to the wingnuts Hillary is a lesbian, and Condi is not, and how could a non-lesbian resist Commander Codpiece?
Posted by: p.lukasiak | February 04, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Concern over domestic wiretapping is well warranted, so to speak. As are other Executive branch incursions on both legislative & judicial prerogatives. Things like establishing faith based intitiatives by Executive order when it became clear that Congress would not pass enabling legislation spring to mind, along with attempting to bypass judicial review in any number of instances. I know that the profligate, routine, use of National Security Letters at the bureaucratic level to gain secret access to otherwise protected information really worries me.
Unfortunately, the Dems have been crying wolf so long, so loud and so often about everything from war to gossip, and their pluka style complaints have been so viciously over the top so much of the time, that they can hardly be heard any more over the din of their own making.
There are two absolutely fundamental issues in play here, and they complicate each other:
1) There is the shifting balance between the three branches of government. There will never be any true equilibrium in that regard, but the events of 9/11 and a succession of vacancies on the Supreme Court have thrown the stakes into high relief. Law enforcement will always want more power -- there's practically nothing in the patriot act that hasn't been on Justice Dept wish lists almost since inception -- and the issue of accountability transcends administrations, or should.
2) There is the radical change to law enforcement's mandate which has yet to be explicitly addressed in public dialogue. We have tasked law enforcement, and therefore the Executive Branch itself, not with the apprehension and punishment of crimminals, but where terrorism is concerned, with the prevention of crime itself. This is the legal equivalent of stepping out of one universe and into another, and it has enormous consequences.
Those who have excoriated the President for not connecting the 9/11 dots have compromised their ability to fault him for doing what is so obviously necessary to make sure that failure is not repeated. Those who cavalierly dismiss privacy concerns as partisan, will be -- perhaps literally -- in no position to complain about lack of oversight when the unscrupulous take advantage, as they will, of the tools now so willingly granted in the name of national security.
What escapes me is why the Democrats cannot seem to quit beating their own heads against the Presidential wall when they could so easily design a whole pro-active platform centered on privacy issues. In addition to being at the heart of the pro-choice position (which could take a back seat rhetorically), such matters have become relevant to constituents across the partisan boards who worry about everything from identity theft to surfing for porn anonymously. Libertarians now sitting on the putatively conservative side of the fence would probably be the first leap over it should the Dems start lobbying for, say, a constitutional privacy amendment.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2006 at 04:39 PM
I should have added apologies for length to the above!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Ok, my problem is the lack of sincerity in the privacy "concerns". Another Clinton co-presidency bothers me at a whole different level beyond cell phone privacy. There was no effective "oversight" with the first one and there will be none with the second either. The critics here about denouncing the NSA program don't fear it's abuse by Hillary, they see Bush as the enemy and would gladly risk another 911 if they could destroy the remainder of this administration and it's legacy.
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 05:09 PM
JHM,
There is no one left with the integrity to present such a proposal and not be laughed out of public life.
There were adequate written safeguards to have prevented the Clintons from having the FBI deliver opponents personal files to Miz Hillary. There were adequate procedural rules to prevent Clinton from having the IRS investigation of Cisneros transferred to DC for quick burial. There are very specific IRS regulations that prevent the agency from using an investigation as a club against administration opponents, the rules did not prevent that from happening either.
You can make rules and laws for the rest of eternity and it will be to no avail if power is entrusted by the electorate to people who lack the character and integrity that the office demands.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2006 at 05:12 PM
I mean, does anyone think the left does NOT believe in a right to privacy??
Not when it comes to beliefs, associations and personal finance, it doesn't.
p.luk! Heard from Lucy Ramirez lately? She should be able to wrap up this impending impeachment all nice and purdy by next Fitzmas.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | February 04, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Boris
Would it be fair to say you don't fear NSA abuse by Bush, and see Hill as the enemy?
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2006 at 05:37 PM
And hey, let's fix whatever laws might be outdated and make sure no president can tyrannize us with phony national security excuses. I'm all for it, but I for one just don't see the left as having any moral high ground on this issue. Citing Bob Barr as their great ally is just cover; you know they think he's a doofus, and many on the right probably do, too. Is any Democrat in Congress who knows any of the details of this "program" calling for it to be stopped, by any chance? Have any of them yet taken Jane Harmon to task for her statement that "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities"? By the way, did Moore mock her in 2000, too?
Anyway, I know it's a Libby thread. Hopefully we'll be talking about a more important trial or two before 2/07.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 04, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Rick
If we could count on the character and integrity of our elected officials, we wouldn't need rules at all. If the success of democracy depended on the character and integrity of elected officials, we'd already be out of business. Morality contributes mightily to good governance, but our ultimate refuge is the system of checks and balances which distributes power among ordinary mortals of unknown and sometimes unforseeable character.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2006 at 05:57 PM
Would it be fair to say you don't fear NSA abuse by Bush, and see Hill as the enemy?
What NSA is doing comes nowhere near abuse by Bush or Hillary. Also I suspect if anything another Clinton co-presidency would be more procactive on national defense than last time and my concern would be another clown cabinet like Albright, Reno, Elders and Christopher.
our ultimate refuge is the system of checks and balances
FWIW I disagree regarding the executive branch. It's already term limited and domestically constrained. Checking the president in a way that would prevent abuse by another Clinton (or Nixon) would render it ineffective for national defense.
BJ's 1st term ... shame on BJ
BJ's 2nd term ... shame on voters
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2006 at 06:56 PM
Integrity, integrity, integrity.
Have I got a candidate for you. Certified by his own mother. For Bedlam's Take.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 04, 2006 at 07:00 PM
Palooka, you jerk your own integrity from your codpiece with your lewdness and suspiciousness.
////////////////////////////////////////////
Posted by: Petar D. Hauyst. | February 05, 2006 at 12:18 AM
I love Libtards screeching about Libby...meanwhile:
This has got to be the best three part article I have ever read that exposes the evolution of the Democommie Party!!!:
THE SHADOW PARTY!!!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15392&p=1
Posted by: Lug | February 05, 2006 at 01:38 PM