Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The NSA Program | Main | The Faith Based Community In Action! »

February 05, 2006

Comments

kim

Empty Wheel is tilting at fantastic ones.
==========================================

Sue

Well, that was almost anticlimatic. Unless, of course, you wanted to practice reading the word REDACTED.

Lew Clark

Just a note on this WINPAC/Counterproliferation thing. Even though Empty Wheel and others thinks this is a slam dunk. WINPAC=non-covert; Counterproliferation=covert. That is as silly as the Corn meme. "She works at CIA so, of course, she is a covert agent."

Granted, a covert agent working on WMDs would be more likely to work for Counterproliferation than WINPAC. But not everyone assigned to Counterproliferation is a covert agent. Not by a long shot.


Beto Ochoa

Mr. Justice Douglas wrote in the majority opinion on Brady V Maryland 1963
“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
The principle of Mooney v. Holohan is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly…”

This may be a situation where Mr. Libby has been targeted by a prosecutor whose' office is compromised at some level. The level of opposing statements by Mr. Fitzgerald is alarming yet illuminates the compromise suspicion. Why would Mr. Fitzgerald bring this charge, a charge that with every new release of information appears to be a contrivance? The judge seems absolutely bamboozled by the prosecutions statements of findings to the court and is expressly of the opinion that he is dealing with a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Mr. Fitzgerald gives this same impression in his statement to the press last October; yet in answer to the December 14th request by Mr. Libbys lawyers to turn over any evidence of the claims made to the court that Ms Wilson was covert or not, Fitzgerald first answers by saying "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." and later saying "We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information."

What the hell is he talking about? The very genesis of this investigation was the violation of the IIPA and if that was never “fully” investigated then what has been going on all this time?

It is a violation of title 18 if the prosecutor has manufactured a crime to a federal grand jury and it appears now he has. Mr. Libbys first, fourth and fifth amendment rights have been violated as well.

Who got to Fitz’ and how did they?

Lew Clark

I've only read about this Redacted dude lately. But reading all the stuff released lately, I'm convinced that Libby, Rove, Cheney, Miller, Cooper, Novak, etc. etc. are off the hook, but this Redacted dude has a lot of explaining to do.

kim

Like I said on another thread, BO, it seems Fitz is either corrupt or stupid.
========================================

Sue

Just out of curiosity, does a whistleblower have to be telling the truth? If someone is afforded whistleblower status and it turns out later that not everthing you whistled about was true, do you lose that status?

Rick Ballard

Sue,

I don't find it anticlimactic at all. It's an opportunity to follow Fitz's logical train of thought (that's the little one with "Lionel" in big letters on the engine - easy to find as it's running on a circular track).

He is proceeding from a premise that the 16 words had to refer to Niger. Hust absolutely had to. Because then, Joe "Whistleblower" Wilson was performing a great public service by coming forward with the findings of his exhaustive investigation in Niger and that is very important because Niger = Africa and Niger has uranium mines therefore Niger is the only possible "source" that the Brits could have been referring to "and" the phony docs were found out in a split second by the eagle eyes at the most reputable IAEA so the President must have been lying and felt the need to cover up his lie by outing Valery Plame.

It's actually a miniature Lionel engine running on HO gauge track in a very tight circle - and he's been a jerk following it since day one.

Lew Clark

I'm with Rich. To be a "whistleblower" you have to have expose criminal conduct by government officials. Fitzgerald admits that he had bought off on the "Bush Lied" story. And that makes Wilson a hero and Bush, Cheney, Rove and their little dog "Scooter" a bunch of lying crooks. That answers a lot about the conduct of his investigation from that point on.

The other part, which I can't cut and paste from the document is, Fritz's admission that he has no evidence that Libby knew Plame was protected by IIPA. There are two explanations for this. The six or more government officials that told Libby she worked at CIA didn't know either, or, more believable, there is no evidence Libby knew she wasn't protected by IIPA, because Libby knew she wasn't.
Now maybe, somewhere in the "Redacted" are the documented proof she was covered. I doubt it. I think by this point Fitz also knew she was not covert. But dammit, he also "knew" the White House was dirty and Joe Wilson rescues homeless puppies, and he was gonna prove it!

Kate

Didn't Novak tell us that we'd all be chuckling and wondering what all the fuss was about when he finally revealed his source. Somehow, doesn't sound like Libby, sounds more like Armitage--you know, one of the good leakers.

Jim E.

Doesn't it look like the last name of the reporter starts with the letter 'M,' 'N,' or 'P.'? I can see a vertical line at the beginning of the space. (I suppose it could also be a number of other letters with a vertical line, too, but I think it might be Novak.)

Lew Clark

Yep Kate,

And Woodward implies that his source(s) told him she was not covert and it was all Mickey Mouse political "much to do about nothing".

topsecretk9

I might be confused, but does Libby fit into the "no partisan gunslinger" category?

Jim E.

On the bottom of page 4 of the affadavit, where it talks about Wilson speaking with reporters, there's a redaction in the middle of the sentence. In her article, clarice said she'd bet money that the redacted portion said something along the lines that Wilson and wife, Valerie Plame, spoke with several reporters. I think clarice is wrong.

I would like to agree with part of Cecil Turner's suspicion in a previous thread. Cecil thinks the redacted portion is a clause related to Wilson himself, perhaps something along the lines of "and who wasn't ever required to sign a confidentiality agreement."

While I have no clue what the redacted clause says, it can't be referring to another person. If it were referring to another person, there should be a comma after the word "trip." Since there isn't, the missing words refer to something specific about Wilson--not anther person.

topsecretk9

so many little nit picks to keep track of, but wasn't the "no gunslinger" a former official too?

Sue

Why on earth would that portion be redacted if it merely said he wasn't required to sign a confidentiality agreement? What was secretive about that? Obviously he didn't sign one or he would have been in trouble for writing the op-ed to begin with.

Jim E.

I wonder if any of the Rathergate/kerning experts can play with the affadavit. It seems like there are several places where one could plug certain phrases into the retacted areas. For instance: "Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times" seems like a pretty good fit on pg. 9.

Syl

I still think the redacted reporter could be Miller. She didn't testify until later, but Libby probably already had.

Syl

Also, Libby said re Miller the same thing he said re Cooper--that he had told her he'd heard it from reporters and didn't know if it were true.

Jim E.

"Why on earth would that portion be redacted if it merely said he wasn't required to sign a confidentiality agreement?"

Well, I have no idea what the redacted portion says, only that it refers to WIlson, and not another person.

Jim E.

Syl,
Since the document we're discussing is about Judith Miller, we know it's not referring to Judith Miller. The document basically says Libby spoker to Cooper, Miller and [redacted].

Syl

nevermind.

Jim E.

OK, I no longer think it's Robert Novak. I think it's Walter Pincus. This is why:
1. "Walter Pincus of the Washington Post" is almost identical in length to my original guess (yes, I know about prop font, kerning, etc. -- I'm relying on my eyeballs) and thus fits well on page 9.
2. On the page 3 redaction, the Walter Pincus redaction works. The redaction ends at the beginning of a line, and leaves only about 4 or 5 spaces. In that space "Post" would fit nicely, whereas "Times" would not.

Syl

Well, excuse my earlier brain fart. Now let me have another one.

Pincus. If Libby said he told Pincus, and Pincus said he didn't, that simply shows that Libby is lying about everything to fitz and would be a reason to point it out in the document.

Syl

Sheesh. Two cross-post instances betwixt me and Mr. E.

Lew Clark

Oh no!

We've been reduced to divining what hides behind the "redacted" door. We'll be total nut cases by the trial (as if we weren't already).

My guess. Everywhere you see "redacted" there is a statement by Fitzgerald. "Just kidding! Wink wink, nudge nudge. Know what I mean?"

Jim E.

This is weird: at the top of page 12, a former female employee in the communications staff in OVP, testified that she heard in June or early July 2003 that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA. Who did *she* hear it from?

And who is she? Mary Matalin?

kim

A Multicephalic Redactyl just crawled out from underneath the bed.
======================================

topsecretk9

Pincus. If Libby said he told Pincus, and Pincus said he didn't, that simply shows that Libby is lying about everything to fitz and would be a reason to point it out in the document.

Libby 'fessed up to it, or we should be able to pull a name from Fitzgerald's list.

I dunno, but Pincus considered his source to be casual and not planting a story and Pincus didn't believe him (which I still think is weird, why not?)

Maybe Libby, being fully honest fessed up to a conversation with Pincus, but because Pincus didn't consider it a leak the interpretations of all that was discussed varied (and we know Pincus was able to way limit questioning)

Could be a case of Libby saying more about a discussion than Pincus.

I've been of the mind that reporters have all been squirelly in their responses.

Sue

Actually, rather than redacting something about a confidentiality agreement it says,
"and therefore was under no obligation to actually tell the truth".

Teehee...my guess is as good as anyones.

Unless he described Plame as his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert operative with the CIA, working in WMD, it doesn't fit that Valerie is the redacted portion.

Something else, though, just because we are only seeing the redacted portion won't Libby and his defense lawyers see the unredacted portion?

Gary Maxwell

Is it just me? Cuz it sure seems that with every peel of a layer of onion here two things are certain, a strong odor is given off and even through the stinging eyed tears, things do look like this is a prosecution that is not going to be trial in 07, not Lewis Libby despite his name being second on the court case.

What about all that triumphant caterwalling that our leftie friends were putting on display just about 36 hours ago? Where is it now?

Gary Maxwell

Strike first "not".

Sue

Which reporters, besides Miller and Cooper filed motions to have their subpoenas quashed?

topsecretk9

Based on my noodling in photoshop and Word, JimE is right "Walter Pincus of the Washington Post," fits and "Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times" is too long.

Walter Pincus of the Washington Post,
Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times,

Of course this is not scientific

TM

On timing, Wilson published his op-ed on the 6th; by July 8, Novak was ranting to "Wilson's friend" about Plame and Wilson in their sidewalk encounter.

So, if Libby had spoken to Novak by then, how in the world did he source that back to Russert?

Or did he just flat-out deny leaking to Novak?

And either way, how does that stay out of the indictment?

The Pincus alternative does avoid all these questions.

Cecil Turner

I wonder if any of the Rathergate/kerning experts can play with the affadavit.

I couldn't make anything out of it. However, it looks like a couple capitals are in there (maybe italicized) and possibly a lower case with a dangling bit just before the end. I tend to agree with Jim E. that it might be the name of some organization (possibly a news outlet), but I can't make anything sensible fit.

Dwilkers

Fascinating.

I just finished a couple hours reading the linked pages and studying the associated comment threads. We are really getting into the arcane.

You guys have done some amazing work TM. I'm going to have to digest a bunch of that over a few days I suspect.

topsecretk9

Hey, just a thought...but could the portion on page 4 be referring to another source...like Rand Beers.

Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and Mr. Rand Beers, a former National Security Council Official spoke to several reporters...

or some such.

topsecretk9

On the Rand Beers thing, that may be why Fitz. is buying into "whistleblower" --and why he never cared to disturb the "Chicken Body" and it explains p.4 as backgrounder

Does this makes sense?

clarice

Still away with little time to play with it..does
and his wife, Valerie Plame or some other iteration fit the redaction space?

Jimmy's Attack Rabbit

****Note to Future Historians****

The event known as "Nada-gate" should be considered as a narcotic. Be advised that the continued contemplation of a "Nada-point", or "Nada-points", can cause nothing but the need for another.

clarice

Rand Beers certainly has been one of the people I strongly suspect as Wilson's shopping partner. Also try Richard Clark.

Surely, Wilson needed someone else to establish his credibility--

p.lukasiak

a couple of points....

1) Pincus could have contradicted Libby's claims about their conversation -- Libby claims he told all the reporters he spoke to that he'd heard about 'wilson's wife' only from other reporters. Pincus, who did speak to Libby about Wilson's wife, is probably contradicting that claim.

2) Viget makes an good "typographical" case that the missing name on page 2 is Kessler because "Pincus" is too short. However "Pincus," would probably fit.

3) re: (And hey, did Woodward tell Pincus in June, or didn't he? Woodward says yes, Pincus says no.)

actually, there accounts are now consistent. Woodward claims that he told Pincus literally "in passing" -- Woodward was walking past Pincus who was working at his desk. Woodward says that Pincus's reaction consisted of one word "What?", which Woodward originally interpreted as meaning "Really? That's interesting", but which Woodward now concedes could have simply meant "I didn't hear what you said."

Woodward's story about Pincus has always been suspicious, IMHO. If Woodward thought Pincus knew, he would have assumed that Pincus had told Downie and the Post lawyers -- especially given all the legal stuff that was going down with the Post. So, if Woodward really thought that Pincus had told Downie, there would have been no reason for Woodward to not have told Downie himself -- indeed, he would have been expecting Downie to ask him about it.


p.lukasiak

Which reporters, besides Miller and Cooper filed motions to have their subpoenas quashed?

paragraph 98 makes it clear that someone from the Washington Post was being supoenaed. Pincus's own account makes it clear that he was supoenaed in the summer of 2004 -- and this supoena is dated August 2004. Pincus's own account also says that arrangements were made to talk to FitzG, and he did so in September 2004.

this strongly suggests that Pincus was being supoenaed along with Miller -- and that is what most of the redactions were about.

topsecretk9

If Woodward thought Pincus knew, he would have assumed that Pincus had told Downie and the Post lawyers -- especially given all the legal stuff that was going down with the Post.

Not necessarily. Woodward was collaborating on this (Wilson/Plame) reporting with Pincus and asked Pincus to keep his (Woodwards) name off the byline. And there is nothing to suggest that Pincus would unilaterally involve Woodward without Woodward's permission.

clarice

I love the last sentence of the WSJ article:
But the information Mr. Fitzgerald provided the appellate judges takes pains to use language mirroring that of the law, describing Ms. Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years."

Last night Rick noted that only Tatel had been taken in by fn 15--I have to wonder though. Jailing reporters for failing to reveal their sources is so unusual I doubt the Ct of Appeals would have gone along with believing Fitz' claim of need, even though two of the judges rejected Tatel's test.
Can we say with certainty, Fitz' dance of a hundred veils didn't mislead them? And if they felt it did, how happy will they be to know they were misled?

clarice

Correction:

I doubt the Ct of Appeals would have gone along withOUT believing Fitz' claim of need, even though two of the

I'd have to rereview the Miller opinion to be sure they weren't taken in somewhat by the dance..

p.lukasiak

Not necessarily. Woodward was collaborating on this (Wilson/Plame) reporting with Pincus and asked Pincus to keep his (Woodwards) name off the byline. And there is nothing to suggest that Pincus would unilaterally involve Woodward without Woodward's permission.

there was no "Pincus/Woodward" collaboration at the time in question (in June 2003, before "any other reporter" was known to have been told about Plame.) In fact, Woodward stayed away from the story until right before the indictments were handed down. The "keep my name out of your reporting" request from Woodward came much later than June 2003 -- IIRC, in October, when Pincus was preparing the piece in which he revealed that he had been a leak recipient himself.

Lew Clark

Clarice points to something I wondered about. Can Fitzgerald be sanctioned if he misled the court into believing he had more than just the word of his reporter buds. I assume not.

Maybe Libby could file civil suit after this is over. But that has little chance.

The good news for Libby is, that after he's not convicted, his new job as book writer and talk show guest is not near as ulcer causing as the job he had.

clarice

Courts do not take kindly to counsel misleading them. Lawyers are considered officers of the Court, and even something like failing to bring to a court's attention an apposite case can lead to rebuke and sanctions.

They hold government counsel to even hgigher standards.

The DoJ has an Office of Professional Responsibility which investigates charges of ethics violations by DoJ employees. In Illinois where Fitz was investigated by a District Court Judge on similar ethics violations, the Ct of Appeals halted the inquiry on the ground that the Dist. Ct lacked jurisdiction (google Newsmax for details).

IMO had the blind sheik in the WTC bombing case had better counsel, Fitz would have been in similar hot water--he got him convicted on his cooked up conspiracy grounds where the record was clear--he had refused to participate in the bombing.

Jeff

Jim E. - That is a beautiful takedown of clarice's claim that Plame is named in the redacted section on p.4 as a source for Kristof and Pincus.

Jeff

It's remarkable to me how much different the actual document looks from what I expected after only reading about it in clarice's rendition.

clarice

If the redaction on p. 4 simply notes that Wilson was not bound by a confidentiality pledge--and it may--don't you think it
might have occurred to someone that Fitz' theory was that Wilson could make up whatever shit he wanted to about a CIA mission and any response was potentially barred by the IIPA or Espionage Act? And don't you suppose one of the bright lights in the judiciary should have observed how absurd that was?

And, of course, if that was the case, why did it not occur to the Prosecutor of the hour that if Plame played a role in selecting Wilson under these terms, maybe there was something funny--something very partisan and dishonest going on?

And when exactly did Fitz' obligation to inform the Court of the SSCI's findings on Wilson's charges come up? I don't have my bookmarks with me..did the SSCI report come up while the appeal was still pending? If it did, he had an obligation to bring it to the Court's attention.

clarice

Well, thank you TM!!The SSCI report came out a MONTH before the Fitz affidavit..and I recall nothing in it about the "whistleblower" being blwn, do you?

MaidMarion

Jim E.,

How about Chris MATTHEWS...would that name fit the redaction? If my memory serves, I believe he talked to Fitzpatrick but don't recall when.

Didn't Mary Matalin leave Cheney's office a few months after Novak's article? Also Ari Fleicher...would FLEICHER fit?

malcolmjames

You've got to be smoking crack if you think Fitzgerald is anything but professional and competent. His case has most likely progressed well past the question of whether or not a covert United States national security asset was compromised as political payback to whether there are actual war crime charges that can be brought up here.

The Niger documents were crude forgeries that fit conveniently into the pre-determined story line of Iraq and WMDs. The anthrax that was mailed around the country was another brick in the wall of deception that has thus far defined the Bush years. Lie, cheat, steal. That's the GOP motto these days, isn't it?

This White House is corrupt, through and through. That's a given. They will go down, and they will go down hard. We are a nation of laws, and for a party that spoke so often of the "rule of law" during the '90s, you all seem to have changed your tune under Bush Co.

Syl

I see another moonbat has never even read the indictment.

topsecretk9

This describes Woodward and Pincus relationship

"At the time, the Bush White House was telling the world that America had to invade Iraq to root out weapons of mass destruction. Pincus quoted sources saying that there was “a lack of hard evidence.” And they also said the White House had “exaggerated intelligence” to back up its drive toward war.

Pincus was uniquely positioned to delve into the intricacies of the weapons question. At 70, he had been reporting on national security for 25 years at the Post. Along the way he had cultivated sources in Congress, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the scientific community. For decades, he has been close to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Yet the Post buried Pincus’s March 16 story on page A17. It took help from Bob Woodward to get the story published at all.

“His support gave the editors the guts to run it,” says Pincus. “They think I am a crusader and get on kicks.

Woodward, working the same sources for his forthcoming book on the war, put his name at the bottom of the March 16 story.

Pincus had been writing about the buildup to theinvasion for months, along with Post writers Dana Priest, Karen DeYoung, Barton Gellman, and others who gathered at “war meetings” every day."


and here is Editor & Publisher

"Walter Pincus, the longtime Washington Post reporter and one of several journalists who testified in the Valerie Plame case, said he believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to.

"He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that," Pincus said today. [...]

"In October, I think he did come by after I had written about being called and said I wasn't the only one who would be called," Pincus said, adding that he believed Woodward was talking about himself, but did not press him on it. "Bob and I have an odd relationship because he is doing books and I am writing about the same subject."

---I am not positive Editor & Publisher is quoting Pincus as saying Woodward asked him to keep him out of the reporting post October, but from the first article it is clear that were working the same soucres and suggests they were collaborating on various similar stories during all relevant time periods, so I don't think it is a stretch (unless they quit talking June 2003 to October). But mostly, like Pincus says, he did not involve Woodward at Woodward's request.

boris

You've got to be smoking crack if you think Fitzgerald is anything but professional and competent.

You otta know.

topsecretk9

The anthrax that was mailed around the country was another brick in the wall of deception that has thus far defined the Bush years.

oh lordy.

Kate

I would guess the woman in the VP's communication officer is a Jennifer Millerhouse, not Mary Matalin.

malcolmjames

I'm not sure if I'm the "moonbat" you were referrring to, but I've read everything Fitzgerald has put together on this case.

He's got Libby dead to rights right now. He intentionally resisted charging him with a violation of IIPA or the Espionage Act because he knows there is a conspiracy at work here.

He dropped the hammer on Libby as a shot across the bow of the co-conspirators: Rove, Cheney, Bush, Hadley, Rice, Fleisher, etc.

Taking the nation to war under wholly manufactured and ficticious pretenses is illegal. It is illegal to lie to congress. It is illegal to invade a sovereign nation that has not attacked us. This entire war is illegal and the manner in which the nation was dragged into it was immoral and illegal.

Fitzgerald refused to give the Libby defense team everythig they wanted because he wants to hold his cards close to his chest. He's got Libby for perjury, obstruction, and making false statements. He could just as easily have slammed him with a violatio of Title 18 section 793, possibly even section 794, if we're lucky.

An example needs to be made of the traitors in the White House: sacrifce national security interests in the name of political expediency, and you lose your life. Plain and simple.

malcolmjames

As for the anthrax mailings, don't any of you find it the least bit suspicious that the White House began taking Cipro on September 11th? The public didn't learn about the anthrax mailings until October 7, nearly a full month later.

The anthrax was mailed by someone sympathetic to the administration's desire for war with Iraq. The hand written letters were made to look as if they were written by an Arab by saying "death to Israel" and the like. Very crude, but in the emotionally vulnerable atmosphere that followed 9/11, very effective.

The public became very aware of WMDs and Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy were almost successfully assassinated. It also quickly pushed the corporate media into full obedience and support of the endless war.

It was Cheney's shadow government that ordered the anthrax mailing as a way to continue the artificial cassus belli that was 9/11. All stage managed, all pre-planned, and all designed to manufacture public support for an unnecessary and illegal war.

If that makes you made, then imagine how you'd feel if you learned that Pat Tillman was murdered for his political views? It happened.

clarice

No one thinks it odd but me that one month after the SSCI report debunks entirely Wilson's story, Fitz repeats the tale in his affidavit to the Court?

I guess J. Tatel who confuses press reports from evidence overlooked Sus Schmidt's report, the only one I recall that reported this accurately.

Lew Clark

I forgot about Libby mailing all that Anthrax around. Why didn't Fitz go after him on that? Not in his jurisdiction?

clarice

malcolm, you deserve a diary page of your own on Kos. Meantime you are eating up bandwidth here where we know better.

boris

find it the least bit suspicious

Suspicious ??? you mean like the airliner fuselage at Salman Pak?

narexbyrnsphdetc

"IMO had the blind sheik in the WTC bombing case had better counsel, Fitz would have been in similar hot water--he got him convicted on his cooked up conspiracy grounds where the record was clear--he had refused to participate in the bombing."

Man, I do feel very sorry for both the Blind Sheik and Libby. Damn, you Fitzgerald! Why do you hate America?

boris

Another example of why those without the irony gene ought to stay away from sarcasm.

rob

Turns out:

But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

heh. looking forward to tom's response.

p.lukasiak

Jim, Jeff, malcolm...

please stop by over at The Next Hurrah, where we are having a rational discussion about the Fitzgerald affidavit.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/02/how_many_times_.html#comment-13659610

clarice

You may think that is is irrelevant that someone so noxious as the sheikh was falsely convicted. First, injustice should always be abhored. Secondly, the entire way the case was handled-beginning with the Gorelick wall and concluding with the jailing of a bunch of patsies and one fall guy (the sheikh) helped hide the indisputable fact that this was an act of war by Iraq in which the ringleader escaped to Baghdad.

clarice

rob, TM can speak for himself. I say that if he had proof she worked overseas within the 5 year period (a) he never showed it to the Court, and (b) now that he's been asked to provide it to the defendant he's claiming he doesn't have all the documentation about this and in any event it's irrelevant to his case.

I put this is the same smoke and mirrors category as the hooey he peddled at his press conference..or the references in the indictment to her being a classified employee , reference which seem to be yet another attempt to put lipstick on a pig.

narexbyrnesphdetc

"that this was an act of war by Iraq in which the ringleader escaped to Baghdad."

Ummm, no. The World Trade Center bombings were Al Queda.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/ramzi-yousef/

But, uh - I think I've finally come to the conclusion that there will be no arguing with ya. You can believe whatever you need to there, Clarice .... I'm backing away slowly with my hands held up now.

ed

Hmmm.

People wondering about Fitz might want to take a harder look at the guy who appointed him.

Comey.

Interesting isn't it that Comey refused to certify the NSA wiretaps? And that the administration had to go to Ashcroft, who was in a hospital at the time, to get him to certify them? Interesting that Comey and Fitz used to work together in New York and were friends. Interesting that Comey was eased out of a job and wasn't feted like most departing high level executives.

That Comey has come out publically against the NSA wiretaps.

I think if you really want to look at Fitz, you'll have to first start with Comey.

Also.

Has Karl Rove been indicted yet? I've got a bet going on about that.

topsecretk9

narex
please stop by over at The Next Hurrah, where we are having a rational discussion about the Fitzgerald affidavit.

I'm sure the invitation applies to you as well. You should take them up on it.

clarice

Wasn't his aide, Margolies, once an aide to Ted Kennedy?

p.lukasiak

People wondering about Fitz might want to take a harder look at the guy who appointed him. Comey.

gee! there should be some way to place a historical marker on this post --- the first effort to "Swift Boat" Comey....

maryrose

Clarice:
Thank you for all your hard work this weekend and for your excellent article.
This whole situation re; Tatel and Fitz is very un-nerving. I'm starting to lose faith in our justice system. Is this the kind of process that happens every day? Do you get an idea and then twist and turn the facts until you are vindicated. We really have to stop this out of control special prosecutor nonsense. Now they want one for Katrina. Yes it was a sad bad day when Ashcroft turned this over and when the CIA referred it to the DOJ. I saw Rockefeller now trying to spin that Bush is revealing too much about the NSA when he's probably one of the original leakers. We need term limits or some leaders we can believe in instead of these charlatans playing at politics.

richard mcenroe

Boris — That airliner fuselage was for training very hairy, unhygenic flight attendants. Every reasonable person knows that.

non a miss

That Feldman link has some citations at the end of her article that reference a paragraph 9 and a paragraph 94 that I can't seem to find the original documented context or text from any of her links. If anyone has it, it would be helpful...or am I just missing it in the original links? Thanks for your help.

Rick Ballard

94. In deciding whether to issue subpoenas to reporters, I have carefully weighed and balanced the competing interests of the First Amendment and the public interest in the dissemination of ideas and information and the countervailing interests in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice: namely determining whether a crime was committed and whether someone should be prosecuted for that crime. One key factor in decidingwhether to issue a subpoena has been whether the "source" to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the earlier source.(Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a ”whistleblower" (e.g. the source for the September 28 Washington Post column). The First Amendment interests are clearly, different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who,-correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House. Indeed, failure to take effective steps to identify such sources might chill future whistleblowers such as Wilson, thus impairing "a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues." (28 CFR Section 50.10.) We have also not issued subpoenas to date where the reporter may have relevant information but it is not shown to be likely that the reporter does REDACTED or where the information is not essential to determining guilt or innocence of a crime reasonably likely to be charged

Rick Ballard

THE FAIRTALE

9. The "leaks' under investigation must be viewed in the context of a controversy concerning the content of the State of the Union address delivered by President George W. Bush on January 28,2003. In that speech, President Bush stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Those remarks, since referred to colloquially as the "16 words," were called into question by a series of articles in the spring of 2003, including several ultimately sourced in part to Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson, a retired career State Department official who had been posted to a number of different African countries, had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that yellowcake uranium had been sought or obtained by Iraq from Niger. (The CIA commissioned Wilson to take this trip after me CIA received inquiries from the Vice President about the allegation that uranium had been sought from Niger, but the Vice President himself did not request such a trip.) Wilson reported to the CIA that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. After the State of the Union speech, the International Atomic Energy Association revealed in March 2003 that documents apparently evidencing efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger were demonstrable forgeries. Thereafter, over the course of spring 2003, the "16 words*' controversy attracted greater media attention. Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and REDACTED spoke to several reporters, including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, who wrote articles on May 6 and June 12 respectively concerning Wilson's trip to Niger, without naming Wilson. The articles called into question the accuracy of the "16 words." Those news stories generated significant conversation within and between the Office of the Vice President, the CIA, the State Department and the White House as to the circumstances under which Wilson's trip was undertaken.

non a miss

Rick many thanks, but do you have a link to the original source of that paragraph or could you direct me to it? I'm just having a brain freeze moment I guess and not sure what the original document is from.... Thanks.

clarice

Fn 15 is here..http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

Keep going and you'll find the paragraph of the affidavit Rick cited--all of this is from Fitz' affidavid in the Miller case.

clarice

Fn 15 is here..http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

Keep going and you'll find the paragraph of the affidavit Rick cited--all of this is from Fitz' affidaviT in the Miller case.

Rick Ballard

non a miss - it's the Fitz affidavit that Tom has linked above a couple of times.

An easy loading and copiable rendition of the affidavit can be found via this post at Flares.

Tom,

Feel free to copy the affidavit from Flares to your own sidefiles.

PS - That is a scanned copy of the PDF and there are certainly errors that were not caught by me in proofing.

clarice

Thanks,maryrose.
I know of no better system. But no matter how good any system is, it still depends on people.Trust but verify...A lot of the things we've been racking our brains about seem to be answered here by a whole lot of dissembling and legerdemain.

Fresh Air

Rick,

That about crystallizes the whole thing, doesn't it? Fitzgerald was so busy running his 150 or whatever cases in Chicago and deposing administration hotshots that he couldn't be bothered to read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, which if he had, would have told him his whole premise was utterly wrong.

Busy guy.

clarice

On Tradesports, the odds of a Libby conviction remains in the 42 and a fraction odds while the odds of a Rove indictment by March 31 dropped over 4 points and is now slightly over 12%.


Rick Ballard

FA,

too busy

Hmm - ya know - life is a crap shoot and if you get a chance to shave the dice sometimes you take it - if you are of a certain ehical mindset.

And, maybe, if you have a nice shiny legal toy with rather large political ramifications and the potential for a rather large payoff down the road - if the dice come out right - maybe you get a bit less cautious in your shaving.

'Course if you're not too good at shaving you wind up sweating like a pig at a press conference while a Federal Judge wipes his own forehead.

I wonder how grateful President Kerry would have been.

larwyn

AJStrata has new post up -
He thinks is Mrs. James Carville.

Which makes a lot of sense considering James' service in Clinton's Admin/Social Scene.

Hillary had all those FBI files,
so what's a little "scuttlebutt"
about Amb Wilson's wife job
between friends???


The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Plame Source In VP’s Office
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1297#comments

Very inexperienced commenter here-
why don't my links show blue and
work as links here - they do on other sites????
Tks for continuing my education.

clarice

larwyn consider yourself lucky. Blogtype takes my gorgeously constructed posts and turns them into posts full of typos and illiterate grammatical errors.Especially after midnight.*wink*

Kate

I'm wondering if Fitz will keep his focus on the Libby case or go for broke and indict Rove just in time for the 2006 election.

I had some faith in Fitzgerald, but I am less and less thrilled with his work as more and more is revealed.

clarice

Now that we have a cut and pastable version of the Fitz affidavit it is even clearer that he was pulling wool over the court's eyes.

Read this portion:

The First Amendment interests are clearly, different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who,-correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House. Indeed, failure to take effective steps to identify such sources might chill future whistleblowers such as Wilson, thus impairing "a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues." (28 CFR Section 50.10.) We have also not issued subpoenas to date where the reporter may have relevant information but it is not shown to be likely that the reporter does REDACTED or where the information is not essential to determining guilt or innocence of a crime reasonably likely to be charged
Isn't he suggesting to the court that the crime he is talking about, a violation of the IIPA...and that at a time when he surely knew that Law had not been violated?

MJW

rob: But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Well, as Clarice has already mentioned, Fitzgerald has yet to produce evidence of this, even when Libby's lawyers practically begged him to do so.

Furthermore, Fitz has a tendency to rewrite statutes to make them easier to prosecute. IIPA requires more than that the person has done "covert work overseas" during the previous five years, it requires the person was "has within the last five years served outside the United States." Serve clearly implies more that a brief trip, it means (quoting the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary) "to go through a term of service; to do duty as a soldier, sailor, senator, juror, etc." In other words, someone who is stationed outside the U.S. For those who wish to dispute this point, I suggest a simple challange: using your favorite seach engine, search for the phrases such as "serving overseas," "serving abroad," etc. You'll find pages and pages of matches. Now, find a few examples where such a phrase is used is anything other than the context of a long-term assignment. If you can, I'll reconsider my position.

Another example of Fitz's personal legislative amendment process is a footnote on page 28. He says, "If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 if the information is considered 'information respecting the national defense.'" Wow, that's a pretty strict law! Knowingly disclose and information respecting the national defense, go to prison. But the version congress passed prohibits willfull disclosure of "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." The highlighted section makes it a bit harder to prosecute; especially given that Fitzgerald admits he "has no evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

clarice

Kate, Fitz will be fighting off ethics charges , not indicting Rove..

clarice

Well, if I had time today I'd be collecting all the misstatements of law and evidence Fitz has made so far to he Miller Court and the public and drafting a letter to DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.

Kate

I recall reading a very complimentary article in one of the liberal newspapers last fall on Fitz (where there any other kind?) . A colleague of Fitzgerald said that Fitzgerald decides early on if he thinks you are guilty and he will get you even if he ends up getting the person on a different charge.

The person said this very complimentary as a tribute to Fitz' doggedness, but it left me chilled. But this supports his strange pursuit of Libby and his even stranger pursuit of Rove.

Kate

clarice-good. I trust your judgement on this. There were a few weeks in December when it looked bad for Rove. I always felt that if he did not indict him in October, he never would. He wanted to I think, badly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame