Thank You, Jeralyn

Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft is hosting the much-sought 42 page transcript of the Feb 24 Plame hearing.

A bit of background here and here.

Comments

[TalkLeft]

Tom, you are very welcome. I upped my storage limits with my hosting service so I hope to be able to continue posting actual documents as I receive them.

[topsecretk9]

Thanks Talk Left!

[topsecretk9]

TM's call

Jefress:...Mr. Libby recalls that he said that, mentioned that the wife worked at the CIA and that other reporters know it.

The Mrs.

[topsecretk9]

Wow, it's pretty fascinating, as I am reading through how utterly under reported - particularly Jeffress on reporters and the tape- has been especially since there has been about 250,000 devoted to the 5 lines on the emails.

[topsecretk9]

250,000 words, sorry

[MJW]

Many thanks to TalkLeft for providing this transcript. I've looked forward to reading it for a long time.

[Daddy]

God Bless the Internet. What a revolution in honesty to be able to examine the original source documents at your leisure, rather than having to rely on fallible journalistic middlemen. I'm half way through the Instapundit's new book and he wisely highlights this great leap forward. Thanks to all you guys who keep diligently posting this stuff so that hoi polloi like me can self educate ourselves.

[kim]

Again, just why is revelation of the name of Woodward's source such a live wire. It seems to me that If Libby is not allowed to use that person's testimony then reversal on appeal is going to be a slam-dunk. Speaking of which, how about Tenet?
==================================

[kim]

Boy, if you really want to feel inadequate this fine friday morning, go watch Chris Bliss juggle on Powerline.
===========================

[Patton]

Now come on, let's not blame the mainstream media.

I am sure that say if CBS did a hit piece on President Bushs National Guard service, then posted the related documents to, say, a web site as proof, it would simply show what a great job the mainstream media does
of locking down there stories and getting all their facts right.

[kim]

More proof that the MSM is right. Libby hasn't denied their accusations.
===============================

[topsecretk9]

I'm 3/4 of the way through but one thing is for sure, Fitz could use a Cathyf consultation on analogies..."nuclear bomb"?

[larwyn]

CENSURE HEARING - Senate Judiciary Committee on CSPAN NOW.

Bruce Fein -for Censure
Frm Dep Att Gen
GOP Counsel Iran Contra
"President's actions preposterous"

Lee Casey - Against
Frm Justice Dept Off, Office
of Legal Counsel 92-93

John Dean - For Censure
"you should hear from the Darkside"
(Apparently a Sen from Texas walked out and must have said something about Dean and his book writing)
Dean said "My new book doesn't come out until this summer"

John Schmidt - Against & good Dem
Frm AG Clinton 94-97
worked for Dem Mayor of Chicago
Wrote Article against

[Sue]

Yeah! For the senator from Texas, whichever one it was, Kay Bailey Hutchison or John Cornyn.

[danking70]

Thanks Talk Left.

Now not to hijack a thread or anything but it seems like our friend Mr. Waas has published a "magnus opus" on Plamegate.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/3/30/171229/158

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

[larwyn]

Tuned in late. Also as witness:
Robert Turner - against
Centr for Nat Sec Law, Assoc Dir.

Hope someone is TIVOing and the JOM
experts will comment - I'm only good for the surface kind of lines.

Here's my "good parts" so far:

Tidbits fr Censure hearing:

Sen Hatch to John Dean:
"you wrote an article 9/14/2001......President doesn't need
Congress to respond, Art 2, Sect 1 invested him will that power"

Dean: ...."building Pres. power for the sake of Pres. power"

Feingold: "Sen just did a hit and run on our witness Mr.Dean"
"Where are the AG and Mr. Comey?" "Coverup"

Fein: .."Church Comm. exposed just this kind of behavior"

Dean: "blatent misleading.." "...a pattern and posture"..

Specter to Fein: " You're not the last word"...

[larwyn]

John Dean will be new Joe and feted on CNN, MSNBC - BET HE IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY MORN SHOWS.

They're loving statements like this:
DEAN: ...Nixon had divided Gov...
"History repeating itself because there is no check"...

Great 2006 Dem Bumper Sticker!

[kim]

Graham growling "He condoned it".
=========================

[TM]

just why is revelation of the name of Woodward's source such a live wire. It seems to me that If Libby is not allowed to use that person's testimony then reversal on appeal is going to be a slam-dunk.

One would think, but (a) Fitzgerald did not sound insane in the hearing on that point, but more importantly, (b) if they want to appeal, they first must squeal (in this court round) - I think it is a lot easier to appeal an issue previously raised and protested. I know that is true in baseball.

[larwyn]

CSPAN Cap News reporting:
An aide to Tom Delay has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and is co-op with the government.

[maryrose]

John Dean is nothing but a weasly snitch.

[BumperStickerist]

Big score over at YearlyKos:

From the Blogosphere:

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson will join a panel discussion of the Bush Administration's alleged role in the disclosure of the identity of his wife, the former Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA officer.

The panel, which includes Dan Froomkin, Jane Hamsher, Larry Johnson, Christy Smith and Marcy Wheeler, will also discuss the subsequent investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald, the indictment of Scooter Libby and the role that journalists have played.

Marcy Wheeler is also known as "emptywheel" around these parts, and Christy Smith is "Reddhedd" at Firedoglake.

Could I get a Tom Maguire "Integrity Rating" of the participants on that YearlyKos Panel?

.

[Lew Clark]

Is John Dean the only ex-con that is going to testify? Because that is the route to go for the Dems. Criminals are almost universal in their opposition to "wire-taps", with or without a warrant.

[Patton]

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Wilson didn't reveal himself as
the unnamed ambassador until July 6.

Just when will Fitz get a fact straight??

[danking70]

Patton, that's just another strike against Fitz's investigation. I doubt Libby's lawyers will let that point slip.

[clarice]

Here is my precis of important things in the transcript:

Fitz' concession that UGO told 2 reporters as early about mid-June of 2003 about Mrs. Wilson and that the government did not fully investigate who received information from UGO.(We do not know how many other reporters UGO talked to)
(p13) Another WH official told Libby that a reporter told him that UGO had told him that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA

Cooper told Libby that he'd heard that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA but

That Libby didn't recall in the grand jury "But that is another person from whom he did , in fact hear it".
(p. 15) Discussion of transcript of UGO tape and debate about meaning of "everyone knows it" statement
15-16 Reference of Andrea Mitchell as source for statement that Plame's identity as the wife of Wilson and her employment was "well known to those in the intelligence community"
(p.16) Fitz:"Mr Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed Ambassador until July 6." (FALSE--EPIC statements June 14 2003)Fitz:"Frankly there is a very limited number of reporters that we found who known it. I can't represent we know every reporter because we took seriously the attorny general guidelines (FALSE-they sure didn't take seriously the guidelines re pressers, for example)
(p. 36) re damage to national security
Fitz"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage"
Ct:"You will be seeking, however, to establish the potential harm that these type of discussions could have?"
Fitz:"No. But I don't know if the defense is. If they're going to challenge materiality, I don't want to act like it's no big deal he talked about her"....

(p. 37) reference to ex parte filing re "declassification status"

Welles:"But there is no question he is going to stand in front of that jury and he's going to convey to that jury that Mr. Libby has engaged in a very serious crime involving disclosing the identity of a CIA agent. It's in the indictment. I don't even understand how the government can draft the indictment, put these issues in play and then act like it's not an issue at trial"

(p. 39) Fitz:[W]e will argue that he knew or should have known that it was classified and that he was being investigated for disclosing classified information."
Welles: The jurors will be hearing "Mr. Libby outed a CIA agent, and they are going to be sitting in the box thinking 007's identity has been disclosed and thay my client is a terrible person. Maybe if he would give me the discovery showing whether she was classified whether she was covert, I would be in a position to make some educated judgments about how to try this case. Mrs. Wilson may be a witness."
***
"I need to understand whether she is covert or not. If she's classified, is she really classified or just classified because the bureaucracy didn't unclassify her five years ago when they should have."

Defense needs to know if this is a 3d rail they shouldn't touch--May call Amb. Munchausen, Valerie, CIA operatives "who are witnesses in this trial.They may have biases against Mr. Libby because they think he outed somebody"
Notes Fitz will say L outed Val in the opening, in the summation and after the defense can no longer speak, in the rebuttal

(40) Welles asked for referral letter from CIA and Fitz is refusing to produce it , claiming atty-client privilege, acknowledging that CIA is his client in this matter.

[topsecretk9]

Mr. Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed ambassador until July 6.

Remember when we figured he'd not heard of EPIC, apparently he does not know of the "internets", which I have to be honest...I find really amazing...

...Given that Fitz rambles on about so very few reporters knowing

[clarice]

Of course, his crack investigators from the FBI and CIA never heard of it either.. The FBI IT program is a national joke and acquaintances in the CIA have told me they are not permitted to access the IT at work and I expect this is a medium they are rather unfamiliar with..Should I send them my EPIC article or wait for them to learn about this at trial?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

Still haven't finished but I can say that what I read so far (up to the damage assessment) I got a real sense that the Govt. was really confident in their investigation and Woodward was really a huge, huge blow to their case. The notion they perpetuated - any charge was enough for punishment - is based on Libby being the FIRST.

Also Clarice, I can't completely articulate why this seemed interesting but it does...

Page 3, Para 17

May I make a suggestion which I think, Your Honor, is headed there any way but perhaps we could submit next week a proposed redacted version that would become public, that we tried to draw the line where the public could see what's left of the redacted affidavit that doesn't compromise grand jury interests the way we did in the appellate opinion.

[topsecretk9]

Maybe this is what I am thinking on that passage...was the grand jury interest really compromised with the release in the appellate opinion?

And if this is what Fitz considers a "compromise" then my curiosity is way up as it applies to his determinations of items that should be kept from the defense and classified.

[clarice]

I think they are arguing how much of the discovery stuff can be made public--Fitz argues that because of his ongoing gc investigation he has to keep everything secret--In the release of the Ct of Appeals submission we learned that aside from gj testimony there was damned little of interest.Indeed, we learned that Tatel's comments, heralded by the left as proof of the seriousness of the outing was anything but--what we got was a very misleading fn from Fitz.

In any event, we learned today that NASA doesn't have the same phobia of the IT as the FBI and CIA apparently do.PHEH..http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0331061nasa1.html

[cathyf]

I'm fascinated by the discussion in sections 00014-00022 where they are talking about giving Libby his notes for the entire May 6 - March 24th time period, vs just those little snippets around the Plame Events. Fitzgerald appears to be arguing simultaneously that:

a) During the time periods that New Plame Events were not happening, nothing could possibly have happened that involved Libby that was more important than Plame, and that might have caused Libby's memories of the Plame Events to fade or become jumbled.

b) A huge amount a very important classified things happened which involved Libby during those time periods and redacting the notes to ensure that none of this would slip out into public is a staggering undertaking.

So which is it, Fitzy?

cathy :-)

[maryrose]

This is absolutely appalling on so many different levels. I am stunned that after the Woodward disclosure Fitz did not go back to square one and resolve the inconsistencies in his presser and in his presentation to the grand jury. Is this how our justice system works? Do we when presented with new evidence just say Oh well and let it ride? This is such a miscarriage of justice.

[Patton]

I don't understands the tape of UGO....was this a tape by Woodward? If so, why are so many voices talking that you can't understand what is said?

Is it a tape of a meeting?

Can anyone shed more light?

[maryrose]

cathyf:
This is called Fitz trying to Cover his rear and spin the story the way he sees it and wants it to come out. Unfortunately for him he does not understand the power of JOM and the written word provided by TM and Clarice to get the truth out there.

[clarice]

Good point, Cathy

Interesting, too, that he things is so odd that Libby would meet with Miller outside the WH (has he never eaten in the WH mess--the tables are inches form eachother and the food crappy) and that she agreed to source him as a "former Hill staffer"--Hoe nefarious is that? Wait till the reporters on the stand and we learn that "CIA analyst" or "someone at the meeting" is actually Plame..LOL

[clarice]

Patton-- I'm not sure why but somehow I think they were discussing Powell's meeting where he said that--which might explain the overtalking..

[topsecretk9]

Mary
It is a wonder.

Cathy
I was too and I don't think Fitz had his argument prepared very well (or tried to ignore the fact that no matter what he would have to be talking out of two sides of his mouth), which relates to the "Nuclear Bomb" thing --

On the one hand he should be able to remember he was working on a nuclear bomb

or the other the "nuclear bomb" is inconsequential to his memory

Also, there are many fragile and important components that go into making a nuclear bomb that no one person could detail blow by blow without having the notes to describe such or explain the significance of. Also, HOW MANY nuclear bombs was he working on?

[cathyf]

maryrose -- what's also clear from the transcript is that in that part it's the judge who is arguing with Fitzgerald, not Libby's lawyer. In other words, from that transcript it sure doesn't sound like the judge is buying what Fitzgerald is selling.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

*******should read "he thinKs iT" and "hoW ", not "hoe"*************

[Patton]

I though I saw something that said the tape was way earlier then Powells supposed comment.

I thought this tape specifically addressed UGO.

And if a transcript can't resolve the dispute...don't they have to let the defense hear it??

[Patton]

Sorry I think I was confused...I think you may be right that they are referring to Powell....but what does Fitz mean in the next sentence about 'burning what was under seal'?

[clarice]

IIRC he is saying he has put out of his mind (compartmentalized it out of his recollection) that which is classfied--You , know, like Libby tried to do..LOL

[topsecretk9]

Page4-5

THE COURT: Okay. I think we can start to proceed,oh, yes, we have the other matter regarding some changed dates
25 that I understand counsel is requesting. The date we have now 00009 for an additional motion to compel is due on March 3rd. I understand counsel wants to change that to March 20 and that the reply would then be due on March 27. I hate to change
04 dates but if there's good reason for it.

MR. FITZGERALD: And the reason is on the government's behalf. We learned in comparing notes with defense counsel, when they asked about a particular document, that one set of 260 pages but an important set of 260 pages had not been produced that we thought had been produced. Therefore, we are producing them today.

They are notes of Mr. Libby. So they are not just 260pages out of a large number. They are very important. So
that in setting the dates for the Section 5 notice we had lead
the court to believe because we understand that the defense all those relevant notes and they don't and so we want the
court to be aware that it is something we inadvertently did not
produce initially and that's the cause for the delay.

MR. JEFFRESS: Actually Your Honor's question was not
about that. Your Honor's question was about the discovery
motion.

THE COURT: Right.

smack

[maryrose]

Well hopefully if the judge isn't buying it the result will be favorable to Libby. I am so disillusioned by this process. I can't believe that persons who know the truth are remaining silent to protect their own interests. When is this gj going to shut down? Is Fitz really serious about indicting Rove or is he just playing rope-a-dope? I think it's wrong to jerk people around like this without anyone supervising your actions.

[clarice]

The fact that in the Maragh case he thought he had enough to prosecute and DoJ overruled him and in the Cowles case he thought he had enough to indict and 3 1/2 months later had to dismiss because he confused the prey with the predator suggests to me that he needs a great deal more supervision than what he got here--NONE.
(And I know he had NONE because that's the way the appointment was set up AND in responding to the Motion to Dismiss he offered up nothing at all to establish there had been any.

Most repulsive is his claim that he stuck to the DoJ guidelines on interviewing reporters and we know he ignored them elsewhere--the presser. He stuck to them when it would hurt the defense and avoided them when it would hurt the defendant.

[clarice]

Patton--I may have confused you in using UGO generically--The discussion is on p 15 of the transcript. Take a look at it and let me know what you think, please.

[cathyf]

maryrose, I think you are spot-on about the disillusion, too. What disillusions me even more is that we (the JOM commenter plameaholics) are about 50% of the entire population of the world who is paying attention to this thing. It's sure a nasty-looking operation up close, isn't it?

I've said before that I think one of the fundamental characteristics of American culture is how we value fairness. That's how we ended up with a tax code which dropping it on your foot will cause life-threatening injuries -- we want to be scrupulously fair in every possible circumstance. If the general public were really paying attention to this there would be a huge uproar.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

MaraBh case--http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/06/02/d82v80pg1?mode=PF

[windansea]

I used to have hopes that Fitz was a fair man...reading his dodging and weaving arguments here shows me he is a hack bent on preserving his own reputation at the expense of anothers...I want to see him totally smacked down and embarrassed now

[clarice]

Patton, I reread that part of the transcript. As I read it, the defense is arguing they need the name of UGO to discover what other reporters may have heard the info from him (directly or indirectly) and defense mentioned the official one (Powell transcript) as further evidence that the information was well known."Everyone knew"

[Javani]

p.16) Fitz:"Mr Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed Ambassador until July 6." (FALSE--EPIC statements June 14 2003)"

Also Wilson's statements "on background" to American and British reporters.

[clarice]

Also--I should think the folks in the Kerry campaign.
And why did Wilson get booked for the MTP gig with Andrea Mitchell on July 6 the day his op ed report appeared, if they didn't know ahead of time about the op ed?

I don't think that was a coincidence.

[Patton]

If I was Mr. Libbys attorney on the issue of all of Fitz's secrecy:

At some point I would have said:

You honor, it wasn't Mr. Libby that decide when to be indicted. The prosecutor chose to indict, and with that he well knew he would have to disclose information to the defense. If he wanted to keep everything else secret, he could have delayed the indictment.

Maybe if he had, he may have learned of
Mr. Woodward and had a more accurate accounting when he accused my client of being the first to disclose her identity.

And he wouldn't be standing here today claiming that Joe Wilson wasn't public until July 6th.

[clarice]

The defense made a similar argument in its motion to dismiss when it said that had this been handled under the Regs, DoJ would have had to decide if this matter was so significant it wanted to get into this fight with reporters and risk the disclosure of classified info necessary to the defense...No sense of perspective, is there? And did he really think not asking around more, would mean no one would, or did Fitz think he'd be lucky enough to be dealing with the likes of Lynn Stewart as defense counsel again?

[Patton]

And I would also inform Mr. Fitz that we may be calling Mr. Cowles as a witness.

:-)

[Gary Maxwell]

I don't think that was a coincidence.

Clarice I am usually one of the first to throw cold water on conspiracy talk. And while this is not technically a conspiracy, it clearly is evidence of some talking going on outside of the huddle. So I am climbing aboard your prewired express here.

Would a News Show like Meet The Press book a no name former ambassador to a thied world country for their show? Not without something much much more. No OP Ed yet. HMMMMM. I ownder what hot shot porducer showing up with a no name gets management to buy off without a wink and nudge and "guess what the Dem Presidential campaign is about to unleash"?

Kind of ties in to Andrea comment that everyone knew, before she realized the hot seat she was putting Timmy on, now does it not?

[topsecretk9]

Judge Walton clearly seems to be ill at ease with all the secrecy AND Fitz's insistence of requesting him be the arbitrator of wether or not something should remain classified -- the Gov't should be able to make and defend the determination on it's own and this "here Judge you have a look and see" pony show Fitz keeps proposing is dumb. I think Walton's approach is - I'll allow it until you abuse it - at which time I won't anymore.

Also, I think he is a bit perplexed over the randomness and reluctance of the discovery -- as in, if your case is so tight why all the picking and choosing? One would think the Gov't would pleased as punch to produce proof of her status.

[clarice]

I think it does. I do not know the lead time for booking, but surely it is a few days before the show.

I once asked Brit Hume whether there had been anyone acting for Wilson on his pre op ed appearances on Fox and Brit responded no..indicating there was no one clamoring for his appearances then..

[clarice]

Was this BTW the MTP show where Ambassador Munchausen told the SSCI Andrea had shown him the IAEA report, that he didn't have his reading glasses and may have gotten the names and dates wrong, after the Committee pasted him with the fact that he could not have seen the forgeries when the stories by Kristof and Pincus said he had? I think it is.

Andrea surely had time to prepare for the appearance if so..

[clarice]

No--I'm wrong on that--He says she showed him the docs on July 21--

[quote]My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent, handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.[/quote]http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05233.html

[clarice]

Tom posted the transcript of that MTP show of July 6, 2003 here: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/joe_wilson_with.html

[topsecretk9]

But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors

But did news accounts point out these glaring errors *when* you said **you reported to the CIA** they had these glaring errors?

That's what Pincus and Kristof reported - the Ambassador *reported to the CIA the documents had glaring errors* via *the names were wrong and the dates were wrong*

[Jeff]

No OP Ed yet. HMMMMM.

Per Wilson's book, his op-ed for July 6 2003 hit the web shortly after 10:30 p.m. the night of July 5, and about two minutes later NBC called to book him for the next day's show. Is that the sort of conspiracy theory you don't usually go in for?

[clarice]

Which would mean that Fitz' statement was still wrong--anyone who saw the website knew by July 5 the identity of Ambassador Munchausen even assuming his report is correct.

Why does the exact date matter, because Fitz has played "who's on first" pretending that every minute mattered and because he wore the catcher's mitt over his eyes so that he couldn't see what was happening on the field when he yelled that Libby was on first...

[Sue]

Top,

Are you here? Who are the 2 journalists, other than Pincus & Kristoff, that had stories on Wilson prior to his July 6th op-ed?

[Gary Maxwell]

Can you read, comprehend and digest the OP ED and dial all in two minutes? And wouldn't have to be sitting at your computer and click on the NYT site ( not a minute early BTW or you would miss it).

Now I eventually convinced myself that Oswald could get off three shots in a short time, but that is beacuse the gap between shot ane and two and shots two and three dont exist for shot one. What is your explanation for this fairly incredible set of events (I.E. a producer of MTP with enough authority to book guest on his own, clicks on the NYT site late at night seconds after the article is said to have gone up, speed reads it, understands what he read, gets out his Wash DC phone book (he is most likely in NY btw ) looks up Joe Wilson and then dials him up all in two minutes time?

And your source on this is, Wilson? Well since when do liars get held up as evidence of anything, except maybe lack of any credibility?

[Jeff]

So Gary, is your claim that in fact Wilson had been booked already, or is it that NBC was poised at the phone, knowing the plan was on to get Wilson on but knowing that he couldn't be officially booked until the op-ed was officially published, because someone might check up on it after the masterplan to induce Novak to blow his wife's CIA cover, leading to an investigation, worked?

[clarice]

Yes, I think Mitchell was tipped off before July 5, but in any reading Fitzgerald's key representation "Mr Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed Ambassador until July 6"to the Court was false.

He revealed himself to Kristof in May and to the public audience at EPIC on June 14 and the number of reporters who knew surely exceed those he has named.

[clarice]

Jeff, you're being too cute by half. Mitchell knew of the op ed before it appeared, and likely before July 5.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

"*John Judis and Spencer Ackerman* reported after interviewing him, “He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries.” It does not explain why *Andrew Buncombe and Raymond Whitaker* reported after interviewing him, “The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report. . .which revealed that documents. . .were forgeries. . . He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents.” Bad memory does not get Wilson off the hook, either. If he embellished his memories of his actual experience with information he had picked up from the news or other sources, it was not a result of bad memory.

Wilson’s defense that he “misspoke” does not work, either. No one “misspeaks” the same story to four different newspapers over a two-month period."

Link

[Sue]

Top,

Thanks. I was looking at an article by Andrew Buncombe and I didn't know if he was one of the 4 we talked about.

Thanks.

[Sue]

Someone was talking to the AP...either that or they didn't attribute it. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article108638.ece

[Sue]

Sorry. Forgot the link.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article108638.ece>Lumpkin

[cathyf]

So we've got Pincus, Kristoff, Lumpkin, Judis, Ackerman, Buncombe and Whitaker? Seems like our "four" understated the true state of affairs.

Is somebody saving all these links? Methinks TM's sidebar needs some additions.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Please! And add Mitchell (LOL)

[Gary Maxwell]

Jeff I think you constructed two scenarios that I never posited. I asked some questions. How about a straight and honest answer. Is it even possible to do all that in two minutes? If your answer is yes, how probable is it to you? Does Joe Wilson being a proven liar bother you at all as to the source?

And Andrea saying everybody knows. Ad that in shake and bake.

Then lets talk about what might have really happened. I think you suspect the same thing I do if you are honest with yourself.

[clarice]

Another thing that's missing from the "Who's on First" scenario re Ambassador Muchausen is that the Ambassador made many appearance re Iraq without revealing his trip and offering his fantastic tales about it UNTIL May of 2003 when he joined the Kerry campaign.
Just another of those odd coincidences, I guess.

[Florence Schmieg]

Do you guys ever wonder if you will be called in to testify at a trial? You would all be wonderful and have documentation for everything you say!!

[maryrose]

Jeff:
If you are basing all your opinions and suppositions on Wilson's interpretation of events you are being incredibly naive. This is a man who exaggerates and bloviates. at the drop of a hat. He's like P.T. Barnum hoping their is a sucker born every minute. He'a self-promoter he engages in hate-speech as he did last weekend in Florida. He a disgrutled ex government employee with an ax to grind. He'a dishonest dangerous force.

[maryrose]

I think TM, Clarice, and Rick should be put on the defense list.

[clarice]

I'd rather write about it, thanks.. (THough I'd pay good money to argue the Motion to Dismiss) LOL

[Sue]

If hearsay was admissible, we could give Fitz a run for the money. ::grin::

[Sue]

Reply in Support to Dismiss has been filed.

[Sue]

Oral Argument Requested

[clarice]

Can't wait to see that. Gosh if I'm in town when the hearing is, I should get out of my pj's and go to it..I hope they mention Cowles .

[Sue]

Check your email Clarice. The one on yahoo.

[topsecretk9]

Me too? Sue, please.

[Sue]

Sure Top.

[Patton]

Jeffrey says:

"""Per Wilson's book, his op-ed for July 6 2003 hit the web shortly after 10:30 p.m. the night of July 5, and about two minutes later NBC called to book him for the next day's show. Is that the sort of conspiracy theory you don't usually go in for?
""""

Do you actually, sincerely believe that statement Jeff? and when was you lobotomy?

You think it only took 2 minutes for someone at NBC, to:

- READ THE ARTICLE,
- UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS
- CONTACT THE MTP PRODUCERS
- CONTACT ANDREA OR TIM
- DECIDE TO CHANGE WHO WAS GOING TO BE ON

THAT THE PROCESS STARTED AT 10:30PM AND WAS DONE AT 10:32?

Somehow I just think that is really kind of implausble...yet you managed to buy it hook line and sinker.

[Patton]

If Jeff has Wilsons timeline right, the only plausible way NBC could have called him in TWO MINUTES is if it was all pre-coordinated/pre-planned and NBC was planning to call him as soon as he went 'public' .....again.

[Lew Clark]

it's pretty obvious Jack Bauer was moonlighting as an NBC producer on July 5, 2003. Cause he could do all that stuff in two minutes!

[clarice]

Thanks, Sue-- I forgot how to cut from an adobe reader--but the reply is excellent It argues that the legality of the appointment depends on its objective terms , not on any previously undisclosed subjective understanding between Comey and Fitzgerald. (In this respect it notes that both men were superceded by others and there isn't even a claim they were made aware of Comey's "intentions" never revealed before the Motion to Dismiss" and which appear contrary to all his public statements.
And--If the Ct believes that the subjective,undocumented and previously undisclosed understanding of Mr. Comey and Mr. Fitzgerald is relevant, Mr. Libby requests an evidentiary hearing at which he may examine the witnesses and obtain heretofore undisclosed communications between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Comey (or Mr. Margolis and Mr McCollum) and other documents cerning the authority of the Special Counsel

On p 17 of the pdf file Libby notes that Fitz learned as early as 2/24/03 who revealed Plame's identity to Novak:
"A properly appointed principal officer may well have disagreed with specia counsel that, notwithstanding that revelation, it was worthwhile to pursue the investigation of Mr. Libby or others based on alleged inaccuracies in statements to the FBI. Now, hoever, it is too late for anyone to undo that decision."

__Another fabulous filing--He has the Fitz by the short hairs..

[larwyn]

"inappropriate touching of a female, black congresswoman"...Cynthia McKeeney.

FOX carried it live and let us know that Danny Glover and Harry Bellafonte are there. Glover statement on order of "now she knows what....go thru.....

CNN only showed her statement and tried to ignore. MSNBC didn't carry live - can't say if they mentioned other than Dana Millbank at opening of show.

[clarice]

This is the Fifth time that moonbat has struck a Capitol police officer. Instead of race baiting she should get an attorney to make an insanity or diminished capacity plea.

[larwyn]

Matthews is reporting - I missed her adjective - "a progressive congressman"

It was also "inappropriate stopping"

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

If you send it to me, I'll pop it into the Continued site in HTML until Tom posts it.

Clarice,

Click the 'I' icon next to the little hand to select text. If you right click the selected text (with the cursor within the text selected) you get a pop up menu with a 'Select All' choice - that's how you copy the whole thing in one shot. (He wrote sheepishly.)

[topsecretk9]

"inappropriate touching of a female, black congresswoman"...Cynthia ...

Please. No respect for anything but her ego.

[clarice]

Rick--Muchas besas!