Powered by TypePad

« Who Are The Sources? | Main | Rally The Pundits! (Cont.) »

February 25, 2006

Comments

clarice

It came up now because in responding to Libby's discovery request someone noticed some stuff was obviously missing, a search was made, the archival problem uncovered, and Fitz must inform Libby that he is not certain this is everything because of that problem.

Jeff

clarice - Are you talking about what occurred in court yesterday, or about Fitzgerald's January 23, 2006 letter to LIbby's team? I hope it's not the latter, because then you're incorrect. The context of Fitzgerald's remark is qualifying his remark informing Libby that he is aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against Libby that has been destroyed. And if you're talking about what Fitzgerald said at yesterday's hearing, I'm just curious how you know the explanation for it all. Or if you are just making a best guess; then I'm curious what the basis for that guess is.

clarice

I think that although Scooter's formal discovery request wasn't filed until a week later--1/31/06--the parties had been negotiating discovery issues informally prior to that time, and I certainly believe both statements are related to that.

MayBee

The WH most likely told Fitzgerald's office there was an archiving problem, no? So they get to work on recovering the files, and in the meantime Fitzgerald responds to Libby's discovery request accordingly, as clarice says. Now the pages have been recovered.

Barry  Dauphin

The story that keeps on giving. Is there any way to turn this story into a public corporation and sell shares on the NYSE?

Jeff

clarice - I remain curious about what the basis for the explanation you propose is. Also, I would really like to hear your explanation for the relevant paragraph in Fitzgerald's January 23 letter to Libby. Grant that the parties were involved in negotiations over discovery then. For all the world, the paragraph appears to me to have to do with the question of whether evidence related to Libby had been destroyed. Fitzgerald says he is unaware of any, but then says that out of an abundance of caution he should mention that not all emails were preserved according to the normal archiving process. Are those succeeding sentences, which are part of the same paragraph, totally unrelated? But anyway, I remain curious as to how you know things transpired the way you say they did. Has that been reported on? Do you have inside information? Or is it just the most likely scenario, given your experience as a lawyer?

clarice

Rick's working on that.

Jeff, fn 2 of the 1/31 motion for discovery makes clear that Fitz was already turning over documents. The motion deals only with issues that were in dsipute between the parties. Counsel is required by the rules to try to resolve these discovery issues informally before seeking court relief.

clarice

For all the world, the paragraph appears to me to have to do with the question of whether evidence related to Libby had been destroyed
It is a defense for not turning over documents (emails) which otherwise Fitz was required to turn over to the defense:You can have it if we can find it.

Patton

Jerry, Don't worry...If the Attorney General gets in the way, Fitz can just fire him. He doesn't work for him anymore, he's above the law, beyond the law, he ain't takin' orders from nobody.

Besides, I am sure you are anxiously awaiting Dan rathers next blockbuster (err forged) story on the Bushies.

At least when we claimed Clinton was sodomizing the hired help, he actually was sodomizing the hired help.

Patton

Someone correct me if I'm wrong..


Recently I heard an interview with Tim Russert who claimed that if he had known that Valarie Plame was Wilsons wife BEFORE the Novak column, then that was 'blockbuster' information and he would well remember it.

BUT,

Looking back, it appears when Novaks column was published, NO ONE CARED about the Plame info.
In fact, his article went uncommented on until David Corn, two days later stated that the Bush White house may have outed a covert agent to Bob Novak.
Corn published this based on discussion he had with Joe Wilson.

SO IT APPEARS WILSON WAS BEHIND PUBLICISING THE IDEA THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD OUTED HIS WIFE.

There was no firestorm or feeding frenzy when Novak published, all was quiet until Corn pushed the story line based on Wilsons own input.

On a side note, a careful reading of Novaks orginal article, Noval does not say that the adminstration officials told him that Plame was a agency operation (That appears to have come from the CIA). The officials only told Novak that she recommended him, not revealing her employment status - -she could have been a consultant, a regular employee, etc.

Patton

And let's not forget, Andrea Mitchell interviewed Joe Wilson on July 6th - BEFORE Novaks article.

Then she claimed she knew about the wife CIA ties...but she didn't tell her Boss? Timmy Russert

Then she found out Timmy told the FBI he knew nothing...then Andrea had to change, err modify, her story.

lonetown

The 250 emails or 250 pages of email (whichever), probably represent 1 -2 days of email for a VP of a country of our size.

In the place I work a department head with a staff of 20 could easily get 100 business related emails a day.

Thus it seems likely to me some lackey put the wrong file address in the Outlook panel to auto archive.

A little file search and voila!

To me, we are down to the odds that one days email will produce a gem/turd.

kim

It's a great big steaming turd, isn't it Patton? It's good to see that you can smell it, too. I'm marinated in it and can't tell whether the blossoms sprouting from it stink or not.
==============================================

Patton

Here is another completely weird item.

When Fitzgerald indicted Libby, he said that Libby was the first government official to disclose Plames status and that revealing such information was very damaging not only to Plame, but'TO US ALL".

NOW, HOWEVER..

When we learn that it was actually another government official who 'outed' Plame first to Bob Woodward...ALL OF THE SUDDEN THIS UNDISCLOSED GUY:
THERE IS ""no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges""""
ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE.

So we smear Libby saying he outed Plame and damaged our security, but the guy who ACTUALLY did the deed shouldn't have his reputation sullied!!!!

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS??

Now the leaker turd who damaged all our security has become the 'source' with a solid reputation who shouldn't be sullied.

kim

I can explain it all. There is this book out by Maguire and Feldman that has the ins and outs explained, not justified. Their raw data is archived and the best part of the book is that it is interactive and unending. Who could ask for anything more?
==============================================

Patton

Here is another little doozy that I have to get out of my head.

Fitzgerald says he believes the reporters over Libby when it comes to what they talked about....but Fitz doesn't seem to be concerned that the reporters may be lying to protect other sources.

BUT WHY WOULD SOME REPORTER NOT REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE FIRST LEAKER THAT TALKED TO RUSSERT (IF HE DID).

Well, given the courts position, maybe Russert felt that this person didn't deserve to have their reputation sullied. I mean the judge is willing to deny Mr Libby his defense and Constitutional rights to protect the leaker of National Security information and not sully his reputation - Russert could be doing the same thing.

How would Russerts actions be any different then what the judge just did.
Now Russert knows he can lie on the stand and Libby can't bring in the first leaker to out Russert because the court denied him the right to even question him or know who he is.

Patton

I can think of alot of questions I would have for the entire NBC News room regarding the July 6th meeting when Wilson was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MTP.

My first question would be was Valerie present? Did she meet Andrea? Did they talk? Had they talked before?

Did anyone ask Joe how he ended up being sent by the CIA?

kim

I'm gonna nominate you for foreman of the jury. Don't worry, Libby's high-priced legal talent is just as outraged as you are.
==========================================

Kevin B

Let's see, 250 e-mails, (or 250 pages)

To: Dick
cc: (...list of 20 people..)
Subject: Secret Plans

Hows the secret plan re Wilson going?

Reply to All:

Fine!

Reply to All:

Sure?

Reply to All:

Yes!

Reply to All:

Ready next Tuesday?

Reply to All:

Absolutely


Etc, etc

And how long will it take to reach 250 e-mails, (or pages)? Especially with all the addressing information. The final reply to all could be 100 pages by itself, and all it would add to the info is 'Bye'.

I'm sure everyone who uses e-mail has had similar conversations, so don't hold out to much hope for any devastating info from these.

clarice

Patton,It is wackier and wackier by the moment.
Let's put it this way:I can think of a persuasive logical opening statement for Libby, but the only one I can think of for Fitz sounds like the kind of thing that leads to being put in a locked ward.

kim

Partial quiz answer-Chickamaunga.
================================

Patton

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you just heard a great speech from the prosecutor about national security, the need to keep the Nations secrets and the need to tell the truth.

But what you didn't hear is that it wasn't Mr Libby who first revealed Valerie Plames identity to a reporter, and you will not hear who that was, because this court and this prosecutor don't want that leaker sullied, nor exposed to public or your scrutiny. You had a government official going around town leaking government secrets, and this prosecutor was hired to deal with that individual, instead, he goes after my client for having a different recollection then a reporter. I guess you are to believe reporters alsways get everything right, unless you've actually read their work and found their right about hald the time.

And of course no one likes lying, especially when unaccountable prosecutors lie in indictments claiming my client was the first to reveal Valerie Plame and then has that assertion proven completely false. Yet we won't be able to tell you the truth about what really happened, because, just like Katrina, this government believes it knows what's best for you, what to tell you, and what to conceal from you.

Florence Schmieg

Jerry, Jeff, Jim E. What is it with the letter J?

Sue

Patton,

Objection.

Sustained.

Libby's defense team won't be allowed to mention UGO. Not relevant.

Lew Clark

To add to what lonetown and kevin B said. I worked for the federal government for 35 years. We kept "files". Way back when - paper files, then electronic files. Every document generated eventually ended up in a file or got destroyed. In fact there was a system for purging files. A lot of routine stuff went away after a year, some five years. "Important stuff" lasted forever. Now documents related to a specific case/project had no problem finding their way to the right file. But it was hell determining where general correspondence should go. I dealt with some correspondence that had to be duplicated a dozen times in order to end up in the dozen files it related to.
With the advent of computers, searches by keywords made that easier. But the documents still had to be converted to an electronic format that was "searchable" by whatever system you were using.
You always ended up with an administrative type in charge of the files whose primary concern was the files. Then you had "officers" working the projects, who were always promising to get around to archiving their "papers", but with more important things to do.
This is probably as simple as: first request comes in, admin person goes to archived emails and they are a mess. Very busy Cheney, Bush, Rove, Libby, etc. have been very sloppy about archiving their emails in the proper way. So they give what they can get/screen quickly, with promise to go through "everything" and get it to the prosecutor as soon as possible. When Fitzgerald's office asks "Why not right away", he is told, not everything is archived the way it should be. That is, not neatly formatted/searchable. Leading to his statement "Not all emails archived through standard procedure". That was not a big deal to him, as he alluded, because he works for the government too, and knows about the vast volume of records and how "messy" general correspondence, versus specific documents can get.
Now the VP's office has gone through the time-consuming and tedious task of reviewing every email that came in and went out of the office during that time period, and come up with 250 pages that may, or may not, be pertinent.
No conspiracy to withhold evidence. Just real world paper shuffle.

clarice

Nor will Fitz be able to mention "classified" or "national defense"

Figure out his opener.

Sue

Clarice,

I can't. His opener will not be what his presser was, for sure.

topsecretk9

So we smear Libby saying he outed Plame and damaged our security, but the guy who ACTUALLY did the deed shouldn't have his reputation sullied!!!!

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS??

Explain to me how Libby was the first official to leak Plame and obstructed the investigation...but because Woodward comes out of the closet it turns out Fitz "obstructed" his own investigation.

In other-words...how can Fitz charge Libby with throwing sand in the Umpires face, when the Umpire was wearing a blindfold to begin with.

clarice

Isn't that speshul?

topsecretk9

Since Fitz has decided this UGO is "protect-able" this may be an indication that Rove is in the clear.

Given the circumstances of how the UGO came to be known, it would be harder for Fitz to say whet Rove did was worse no?

clarice

For months Tradesports has calculated the chance of Rove being indicted at about 10%.

Sue

I think Fitz overplayed his hand with the damage to national security statements. In light of UGO not being important, I'm going to say Valerie wasn't that important. Unless of course, UGO found out about Valerie from Joe or Valerie, in which case, there would be no violation of IIPA or Espionage with UGO. Since Libby found out through official channels, that would make a difference in how he perceived Libby's outing.

clarice

A long time ago, someone here--and I think it was TM--observed that in all the things going on at the time, Valerie's name and position was hardly a first rank memorable bit of knowledge..It only looks to be so after the fact.
As someone else noted Novak's disclosure was little remarked on until Corn got our his disinofrmation pen and went to work on the chapter One:The outing of a Secret Agent in revenge against a whistleblower (a fictional story from the get go).

clarice

Um--"until Corn got ouT his"

larwyn

Lordy, flu that resulted in many in cable news' absence last week has moved West. Run away from anyone clearing their throat, or getting hoarse at work tommorrow - send them home or by end of week your firm or depatment will be on skeleton crew. Since last Sunday
this virus has infected 4 of my family's homes. It blossomed for me
beginning in midst of FNL.

So staring at words that appear to written in another language.

CLARICE,
Caught your post of link on shipping chart of WaPo at A J Strata. I added a comment as WaPo
used Rotterdam as last Port "over
there" with next Port of Call a
USA port. It is more complicated than that.

Off for more "hot and sour" soup.

clarice

Saw that by chance..Hot and sour soup is a perfect thing to take, larwyn.

topsecretk9

I bet the "too busy, bigger fish to fry" defense is the story-line intended, but what do wanna bet the CIA assesses this info too hot to handle on their own ---as in, they're are in no hurry to reveal just how "ginned up" that pdb intel really was. ---contrary to the admin "twisted" intel meme.

That would be fun. The Admin's been accused of "twisting" intel, but take a look at the PDB's and turns out it the "twisting" came pre - packaged with a big red CIA bow.

clarice

It has been reported that the pdf's were far scarier than the stuff shared with Congress..

topsecretk9

Clarice
There is a bit of a rock and a hard spot...if the intel is indeed far scarier and dire contra the leaky disgruntled version, I wouldn't exactly describe that as another PR coup for the CIA.

They are already under the gun for getting every important intelligence assessment wrong...revealing their scary information they provided had more influence on defense decisions is not another failure they'd like to broadcast, reveal or own (again)

--I know we said all this really bad stuff, but we didn't think the Administration would, you know, believe or act on it---

Isn't this a scene in a movie...the guys goofs and a huge car crash ensues and chaos break loose and he sorta carefully and quietly simpers off with no notice

topsecretk9

I guess what I'm saying is, Libby may well like to show how busy he was but I bet he'd like to show to all those critics...you've critiqued the Admin for the decisions made, well take a good hard look at the all the shit the CIA gave us to work with and tell me what you think we shoulda done.

clarice

All that's true--but back to the case--and again I repeat, only because out attention is drawn to it does Plame's name/relationship to lyin Joe seem important.These pdf's--or at least the portion on which Libby was briefed are the best evidence that he had far greater concerns on his mind that Plame or Cooper or Russert..

Rick Ballard

I wonder if the request for the PDBs might be a historical marker? As in "We knew Joe was a lying sack of crap from day one and if you look at this PDB of X date you'll note that it confirms Saddam's contiued funding of and participation in the Libyan nuclear program."

Btw - Libya is a country on the continent of Africa. Said country really, really did acquire uranium from Niger for a clandestine nuclear program. Ask elBaradei, he can tell you - if you can wake him up.

maryrose

Patton:
I am as outraged as you are. I can't believe this is happening. I've racked my brains and can't figure out why they would protect this original leaker. Libby on orders from his superiors is permitted to give out information. All info about who knew what when should be revbealed. Libby did not target Plame. That is Corn's invention aaided and abetted by Joe. Because this investigation was so secret no one at the White House was discussing it and no one would talk to Rove. All this secrecy has proven to be their undoing. That and not being able to claim the 5th. So cooperation has come with a steep price except for the person on tape. He appears to have gotten a sweetheart deal. This whole fiasco needs to be shut down. It;s a witch hunt not a legitimate inquiry. This must not be allowed to happen again. Absolutely no supervision-Sheesh!

maryrose

Larwyn:
Hope you feel better. Hot toddies work well too or green tea.

clarice

IF he gets this, I suspect it may not be with that level of detail. That is, the court may determine he is allowed to use the tenor of these things and the volume as defense but that the govet can provide him with summaries well redacted to remove a lot of the identificable details.

I.E. June 1, reports*******major attack planned****port city in next 10 days****Major European Capitol under threat of Biochem attack ***


Perhaps that would resolve the issue fairly for the defense without creating an security problem, but those of you who are more familiar with intel than I might have a clearer idea.

JM Hanes

Clarice --

The PDB's may be the real sleeper here; small wonder that Walton deferred that ruling pending further study.

How does the Prosecutor simultaneously argue that Libby is a liar, but that his notes alone should be sufficiently credible without corroboration to adequtately establish his defense? If Walton denies such corroboration to Libby, is he not then compelled to limit any related line of atttack from the prosecution?

topsecretk9

As in "We knew Joe was a lying sack of crap from day one and if you look at this PDB of X date you'll note that it confirms

Well it isn't a stretch to think "very busy" is the preferred strategy meme, I mean it's not like these powerhouse attorneys aren't pro's at chess and poker. Chesser - Pokess

clarice

JMH, the discovery motions Walton has deferred are all very difficult one and may have profound effects on any trial--making that motion to dismiss look like a more appealing, cleaner way to dispose of a loser faster and cheaper...Litigation is rarely Perry Mason stuff, it's attention to details like this and the willingness to slog through every comma, page and piece of paper.

topsecretk9

My ignorance, but has Fitz seen/read/privy to the PDB's in question?

topsecretk9

Actually, I don't think that is dumb question...seeing as he hasn't bothered to read Libby's notes.

clarice

I have no eason to believe that he has? Why should he, they weren't listed in David Corn's outline of the case, were they?

JM Hanes

I'd just like to observe that in almost every legal case of note, and in my own admittedly limited experience, the judge (not even the jury!) is always the real wildcard.

Rick Ballard

Claric ,

You ow m a n w k yboard. The coff d finit ly short d som thing on this on .

JM Hanes

That would be e, e, e, e, ee, e, e, e, e, e for a total of $480K.

clarice

Take it out of the Golden Book--

larwyn

Maryrose,
Stock up on horseradish, chinese
mustard, hot peppers and Tabasco sauce if this hits in your city.

They are only things you'll be able to taste and that may allow you a breath thru your nose.

Am doing hot cran raspberry juice & greer tea with cinnamin stick otherwise tastes like hot water.

clarice

There's something in hot and sour soup that's particularly good for you--the combination of vinegar and hot broth and pepper oil for one thing..It beats chicken soup and noodles by a mile for really bad flu and colds..

Sue

Another Rovian plot? Get the PDBs released but in order to get them released we need a patsy? And Libby took one for the team? Okay, I'm not buying it either, but whoah...talk about Rove at his best. ::grin::

richard mcenroe

Perhaps I'm too used to the ways of the MSM and the solons of the Potomac but if there was anything in there damaging to Cheney, wouldn't it have leaked already?

clarice

In the Sieboldt case, Judge Walton dismissed a civil suit by a translator against the FBI because he said her legitimate discovery requests could not be met without disclosing national secrets.
Should he hold that Libby is entitled to the PDBs for her defense, logic would require that he tell the government it must produce them or drop the prosecution.

Specter

jerry would think it is a conspiracy...

Specter

...but would say that he never said it...

Larry

narexbyrne:
"Wow, I think the timing of the emails is suspicious, so I get labeled a dope-smoking, incontinent anti-Semite? Nice. When do I get accused of hating America? Is that next? "

Aha! Narex, you have revealed youself by your non-denial denial, the non-denialness of which means you ARE a dope-smoking, incontinent ant-semite! Maybe you DO hate America, now that you bring it up?

Steve J.

Others have speculated that the emails may finally answer the questions about ....

The Yankees unprecedented collapse in the 2004 ALCS.

:-)

Larry

"ant-semite", result of crossbreeding emmet & shemit(e). Sorry, antI-semite*

lonetown

I was able to get a peek at the emails and it IS explosive. It seems Mr. Libby was working a deal with a Nigerian who wishes to transfer large amounts of money (yellow cake money?). Apparently this Nigerian just needs a safe confidential contact to make the transaction. What better than an aide to the VP?

PeterUK

narexbyrne
"Wow, I think the timing of the emails is suspicious, so I get labeled a dope-smoking, incontinent anti-Semite? Nice. When do I get accused of hating America? Is that next? "

What a whiner, at least you haven't been dragged screaming to the top of the step pyramid and had your heart ripped out,that means they like you,not a lot, but it's a start

larwyn

I am definitely lost today
but I did find this bit.
Talk about Stoooopid!

It’s the Messenger, Not the Message

By Marc Schulman
Commenting on the op-ed by Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz in the Washington Post, Glenn Greenwald says this:


. . . the very last people from whom we ought to be hearing sermons about the importance of free expression and a free press—and about the accompanying duty of the press to publish even those ideas which provoke controversy, outrage and offense—are Bush supporters, who are plainly engaged in a serious crusade to punish any journalists who express ideas which they dislike or which they believe produce undesirable consequences
http://americanfuture.net/?p=1401
Click here: AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » It’s the Messenger, Not the Message

Patton

Rick,

I don't see how the judge could possibly deny Libby the PBDs, since Libby has allready read them, had maintained an above Top Secret clearance and would keep them in a SCIF at the lawyers.

The only possibly reason the judge could refuse is because he fears the President will not turn them over...BUT, that should not be the judges call. If he's entitled, he's entitled regardless of the Presidents final decision.

And of course the lamestream press will never tell us the truth. They will keep their own cover story regardless of the facts.

Have you ever heard the press say, Saddam would never work with Al Queda, since Saddam was secular and they are religious extremists? YEAH, UOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD THAT A MILLION TIMES FROM THE TALKING HEADS.

But did any of them also tell you that Saddam had for years been supporting a religious extremist terrorist group in Syria....NO, that's because it wouldn't fit their template, so it has to be ignored.

Lew Clark

Well Steve,

ARod is a staunch Republican who does not work in the White House. He was probably Novak's and possibly Woodward's source. Which would account for his dismal performance in the ALCS. When your sweating a firing squad for being a traitor, baseball just doesn't seem as important as it once did.

clarice

The fact that executive privilege might be claimed does not seem to me to be reason for denying the request for the PDB's if they are relevant to a defense. Indeed, the judge did not rule that. I think he was just thinking out loud.

JM Hanes

When Judge Walton does his thinking out loud in a hearing, can his comments be included in the subsequent appeal?

Sue

JM,

Anything on record can be considered. If what he said was in the transcript, then yes, it can be included in an appeal.

MayBee

I actually am against the PDBs being released to the defense. It seems to me there was some Congressional thing-- was it Roberts' or Bolton's confirmation hearings- where Congress was asking for the PDBs. I saw it as a chink chink chinking away of the power of the President to have an absolutely confidential briefing.
Unless the defense can prove it is absolutely needed- perhaps Libby can remember specifically what it is he is looking for and have that one part released.
Otherwise, I can't imagine they would be central to his case, and I don't like the precedent it would set.

Patton

If the PDB had a note from Bush on the margin on the NIGER slide:

"Libby, get Wilson." GWB

FITZ WOULD HAVE HAD IT LEAKED LONG AGO AND THE JUDGE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE IT AT TRIAL.

THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Just because the PDBs help Libby, and not the prosecution, is not Libby's fault, nor problem.

JM Hanes

MayBee

Which is why the PDB's may represent a nearly bullet proof appeal. No way the WH will release them, for the very reasons you cite (& with which I agree). Yet they are uniquely relevant to Libby's case, and as such, his request cannot be discounted out of hand as gratuitous maneuvering

Patton

OK, here's the scenario:

Cooper calls Libby, testimony is provided
by Cooper about the conversation. Libby takes the stand and says, I don't recall that being how the conversation went, but I DO REMEBER WHEN HE CALLED I HAD JUST REVIEWED THE PDB WHICH INCLUDED AN IMMEDIATE TERRORIST THREAT WHICH HAD BEEN UNCOVERED AGAINST THE BUILDING WHERE MY SISTER WORKS. The terrorist plan had specific dates, times and even the schedules for the guards duty times.

Objection your honor, no such PDB has been put into evidence by the defense. Request the defendents repsonse be stricken as non responsive. He's probably lying about that too.

clarice

The harder question is whther redacted summaries will be sufficient and whether the WH if asked to produce them would do so..
I think the more he ponders these difficult questions (don't forget the press depositions and other nutcrackers in the pile), the more appealing that Motion to Dismiss is..And that may be heard first..

clarice

By first--I mean before he's set to decide the other pending issues.

JM Hanes

Sue

Thanks. That's why I wondered if Judge Walton may regret airing his concern about potential invocations of privilege in court.

MayBee

JM Hanes-
Good point.
A paraphrase of Libby's lawyer's quote: the judge needs to worry about giving our defendent a fair trial, not about what the President may do.
And I think it's true.

I'm also with Clarice about the press depositions and the deference Fitzgerald gave the journalists. How can you compare the words of one man who has been pressured by the President to fully cooperate with the words of journalists who have been given about 50 different exemptions from having to make a full disclosure?
On a similar note, I guess we all know why the guys from Newsday were never called to testify, and why Fitzgerald was so delicate with Woodward. He cared about their stories as much as he cared about what Valerie's neighbors had to say.

JM Hanes

Logically, the Motion to Dismiss should come first in this case, where it might not in others. The very viability of Fitz authority to conduct any prosecution at all is at issue here, where under ordinary circumstances, that question wouldn't arise. It would certainly help Judge Walton avoid burning his fingers on one hot potato.

Sue

JM,

I am not a lawyer, I only play one on tv. ::grin:: Seriously, my only experience with legal stuff is in the state civil department. The criminal and federal stuff is above my pay grade. However, and you need someone above me to clarify this, there is probably something along the lines of preserving for it appeal. If the defense didn't object to it, they might not be able to use it.

JM Hanes

Considering the apparent expertise on Libby's bench, make that one hot potato after another.

clarice

Also Cliff May, Marty Peretz, etc etc..He didn't care what any other reporters said they knew only those Libby thought had told him..Now if one hundred journos knew, how likely is it really that Cooper and Russert didn't? And in any event, how likely is it that Libby simply forgot which ones had told him or had told other people who told him that they'd heard it from reporters?

Stupider and stupider.

And then I know that Wilson blabbed this all over the place, too. For one thing to shoe his bona fides--"My wife is with the CIA and knows about such things?" Why do you think he was the only speaker at the EPIC program to list his wife by her professional name? Because many of the people there knew who she was and what she did is my guess.

JM Hanes

Afraid I don't even register a blip on the pay grade scale, myself.:)

Beto Ochoa
Stupider and stupider.
I just bought the Cliff Notes guide to the Ames/Plame/Wilson Affair and those were the only words inside.
MayBee

I'd still love to know what got Wilson/Plame invited to the Dem Senate conference where he met Kristoff. Or what he said that made him a keynote speaker at EPIC. I'm with you, Clarice, I don't think he gets attention from those groups without a CIA wife (and her ex-CIA friends).

clarice

EPIC was largely funded by what seems to have been a pro-Baathist crowd and some Saudi money plus a dribble from useful idiots. It was created to protest the OFF restrictions on Saddam.
Certainly it was a way to pay him off. And McGovern of the VIPs was also a featured speaker.

As to the Senate Conference, I'd bank on Beers being the coordinator. I think the plan for the disinformation campaign had already been hatched with the Kerry campaign by then..

JM Hanes

More from Cliff Notes:

Obstruction Charge = D.I.Y.Pandora's Box

Rick Ballard

JMH,

It's like the All Star game. The guys throwing batting practice are starters for most teams and the starters are trying to determine who pitches first based on the number of Cy Young's on the mantle.

Meanwhile Fitz is hoping that the blinking doesn't turn into a nervous tic and Judge Walton is doing a daily Bible study on "Let this cup pass, oh Lord".

It's gonna get called on account of rain before the first batter enters the box.

JM Hanes

I'm beginning to get the impression you don't think this thing is going to make it to trial, Rick.

Seems like a pretty safe bet till you remember there are judges involved. That's when sure things start looking like jump balls to me.

MayBee

Wow, now I can start talking about a conspiracy. Between Beers, the Kerry campaign, Wilson's EPIC claim that the Blair government would fall, and the British MPs that put secret documents in the hands of a Dem fundraiser during the election to hurt Bush and Blair...I could really get going. But I'll resist.

I would like to think that Fitzgerald at least read Wilson's EPIC speech, so he at least knows the kind of whistleblower he was protecting. And what Libby was pushing back against, and why people might have been talking about someone who was so obviously seeking attention.

MayBee

Sorry, I know I'm going back to well-covered territory.

Rick Ballard

JMH,

I don't think Judge Walton is terribly afraid but I don't think that he would feel that justice was not served by booting the case. I assume judges to be rather impartial and indifferent but I don't presume them to be blind to a real stinker when they see one. My bet is on a lame rebuttal by Fitz - who really does want this to die by TKO, if he has a brain in his head.

There, now we have baseball, basketball and boxing metphors in three posts. Next up has to use a sports metaphor with with a different sport's name beginning with "B".

Don't complain - it's easier than doing these in iambic pentameter.

TAC, Inc. has standards to maintain.

clarice

I hope you're right, Rick, though it will gall Andrew McCarthy no end. He really let his friendship for Fitz color his coverage.

larwyn

OT
But good for a laugh - put whole
comment at On The Waterfront II.

Saudi Shipping Company “Controls” 9 US Ports

Hope someone jumps on this for use
at next hearing - really makes the Schummy and Hillary more foolish.

That is to say the Saudis "control" these ports as much as the UAE’s Dubai Ports World ever will.But it’s funny that our one party media hasn’t mentioned this Saudi-owned company, NSCSA, or its operation in even more ports than the UAE will have a berth.Maybe the press don’t know about them, as the company’s only been around since 1979.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/

PeterUK

Mr Ballard,
It all seems somewhat of a racket(Badminton)

MayBee

I don't see Walton booting the case. I see a long drawn out battle over journalists' priviledge and forcing/not forcing Wilson to testify. Eventually a settlement and a fine (ala Clinton's perjury deal). No strike for the Libby team, and not gutter ball for Fitzgerald, but perhaps a spare.

Rick Ballard

Mr Uk,

I would say that it is more of a 'six spades' reply to a 'two club' opening.

Fitz has a forlorn deuce of spades in his hand and the horror is beginning to dawn upon him. There will be no 'double down' in this match.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame