Powered by TypePad

« Who Was Woodward's Source For His Plame Leak? | Main | The Revolt Against Rumsfeld »

April 13, 2006




In a http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/who_was_woodwar.html#comment-16070787>comment on an early thread, I mentioned what I think is another problem with this section (and that occurs elsewhere in Fitz's brief, as well). The argument boils down to: information isn't material if it it's intended to support a theory the prosecution has evidence to refute.

That's an excellent point - and I'm not sure Fitz is even "making an argument" for denying production to the defense with that sentence. The bolded sentence in http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/who_was_woodwar.html#comment-16070787>your earlier comment isn't the only material in those paragraphs that is extraneous to Fitz's rebuttal.

Fitz is arguing the case when he could (and should) avoid detailing and characterizing the inculpatory nature of the evidence. Same pattern at his indictment presser - he went far afield from the charge, and needlessly so.

Separate subject, making "less than" and "greater than" characters appear in rendered html. One uses four characters, which when run together, make the character.

& l t ; (get rid of the spaces) yields "<"

& g t ; (get rid of the spaces) yields ">"

<b> </b> <i> </i> <blockquote> </blockquote>



--TSK9, I'm a little confused about the point of the discussion about Grossman, but in case anyone has a question about it, he is the Underecretary referred to in the indictment.--

the point I was making to Clarice is that under the thread in which you were putting together the redaction recreation Cecil suggested Marc Grossman

Because of that suggestion I just googled around and found the Oct. 2005 TNR blurb about Fitz's spokesman confirming (something he's not supposed to do, I believe) some aspect of the indictment which happened to be about Grossman.

It seemed interesting in light of the gag order discussion, that's all

--in a roundabout way you and Cecil spawned it ---


OK....semi-caught up again.....man - I've got a big project I'm working on and you guys are moving fast.

Just to toss this in - there may be a different motive behind WaPo cooperation - a business reason - what to them may be a bigger motive. Remember that the DP (Dinosaur Press) has been losing ground in the market and a lot of it seems to be due to their lack of balance in their reporting. WaPo was one of the worst. All of these organizations can see the handwriting on the wall - that if they do not change - and if they don't wage a proper PR war in public - they will end up closing the doors. The stockholders have a significant amount of pressure they can apply. I suspect that there is a tremendous amout of "start making a profit" motive behind all of this as well.


Would be nice if true. I'm watching the NYT straight down the cliff stock price and weighing that against the cost of lawyers in the Libby, Hatfill, Wen Ho and NSA leak cases and thinking it's a better deal to be their lawyer than their stockholder.


LOL...but you know the saying - "you can't fix something using the same logic that broke it" (or something like that). They have to change if they want to remain afloat.


cboldt, I certainly agree that sentence is, at best, only marginally relevent to the point Fitzgerald is trying to make. The main point -- that how important others thought Plame was doesn't indicate how important Libby thought she was -- is a not unreasonable. But then Fitz detours into arguing that the evidence will show Libby did consider her important; which presumably is intended to undercut the materiality of information to the contrary be showing, basically, that it wouldn't do the defense any good.

Cecil Turner

Prefer "Dyslexic Typist" . . .

Okay, and sorry, that "recidivist" comment was meant to be good-naturedly funny, which doesn't come across that well on the re-read. (BTW, the reason I started the cut-and-paste thing is because I couldn't keep the error rate on tag-typing to a bearable level--the keystroke sequences are just too odd.)

Fitz is arguing the case when he could (and should) avoid detailing and characterizing the inculpatory nature of the evidence. Same pattern at his indictment presser - he went far afield from the charge, and needlessly so.

That was my point exactly. It made no objective sense and seemed needlessly prejudicial (especially allegations he obviously had no intention of charging . . . or proving), and inappropriate. That presser in particular really turned me off.


TSK9, Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Given that it turned out the Undersecretary was Grossman, the claim that a Fitzgerald spokesman confirmed it earlier seems more credible. Interesting.


Specter, in considering the NYT declining revenues, I forgot to factor in the amount of ink and paper they have to spend on corrections:
"After correcting itself on the Lewis Libby leak yesterday, the Times on Friday corrects another Bush-related intelligence story by reporter Eric Lichtblau that brought much criticism from conservative bloggers like PowerLine.

This is what Lichtblau falsely claimed March 29: “In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”

Today the Times admits: “An article on March 29 about congressional hearings on the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping referred imprecisely to testimony about the secretive court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which requires warrants for eavesdropping under most circumstances. While two former judges said they believed that Mr. Bush was bound by federal laws governing intelligence gathering, they did not explicitly express skepticism about whether he has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”

As Times Watch pointed out at the time, “Lichtblau doesn’t quote any of the judges actually voicing that skepticism about Bush’s actions -- skepticism Lichtblau certainly feels, judging by his slanted reporting in the past.”




I put this in my bookmarks and cut and paste from it


brenda taylor

my first time but i think the referral must have been more about tenet not giving his approval before the president just a thought


Certain "Policies" do not and should not change - that's what many have been celebrating this week.

For Clarice and all who celebrate Passover:
20%: On Action and Passivity Revisited by Shrinkwrapped

He added this to his Seder Discussion:

Last year due to the vagaries of the Hebrew calendar, Passover took place on the 62nd anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. In my reading about the events involved I was struck by a statistic that was cited in both the story of the Exodus from Egypt and in the Warsaw Ghetto; fully 80% of the Jews remained passive in the face of doom.

This is his post today:

Holiday Reflections

Here are two offerings for we who celebrate Holy Week,
Robert Godwin's confession - can only hope that some will read it:
Great Leaping Leftist, My Corrupt and Degenerate Soul!
For what I really wanted back then was for my conscience to be asleep, and the last thing I wanted was to be around someone with an awakened objective conscience. That would have bummed me out. Big time.

This link is to Vanderleun's American Digest - hope you'll read both short posts
for today:
The Cross of Moab & Good Friday Meditations

Now we'll see if I've passed my tag K-3 midterm?
But just in case:

JM Hanes


Between you and boris, I'll get there eventually, thanks.

JM Hanes


"they did not explicitly express skepticism"

By which the existence of such skepticism is now simply implied instead of asserted! As usual, one wonders if New York Times policy requires correcting error or compounding it.

JM Hanes

Hi brenda!

I too think that Tenet's referral resulted from political, not legal, calculations.


JMH--Like Comey-Fitz, the knowledge of the FISA Judge's "intentions" were instantly made known to Lichtblau as if by magic.

JM Hanes

Where magic = airborne virus :)


Fitzgerald's response is, "So what if Plame was unimportant to CIA, State and NSC? cbolt opines "Libby's state of mind as to the importance of Plame won't be reflected in any activity undertaken by CIA, State and NSC that did NOT pass through OVP." In other words, disinterest at CIA, State and NSC is not exculpatory to Libby (nor would strong interest at CIA, State or NSC be inculpatory)."""

No, but it might tend to impeach some CIA guy who says me and Libby discussed Plame from 2:34 to 2:37 PM on Tuesday, 14 June in the outer office of the Counsel to the VP and Libby was somber and brooding and had a green hanky stucking 2.6 inches up from a very classy jacket pocket.

It might tend to show that the governments witnesses were HIGHLY COACHED and were provided outside sources of information to REFRESH their stunningly impeccable memories.

Also it might tend to explain why the CIA guy had no problem blabbing to Novak about some analsyts and why noone at CIA bother giving old Tenent a call and have him quash Novaks story.

Or why some guy over a State would reveal Plame off the cuff to a couple of buddies who happen to be reporters, rather then as part of a dark plot to destroy the Wilson family name and kill his dog.

Just saying.....


Or for that matter it might reveal why Fitz didn't really care about UGO or who else UGO talked to because revealing plame wasn't such a big deal...aprently even to Fitz.


You have some really good insights into this addictive case and have helped me understand it more completely. I also agree with you and Brenda, Welcome to JOM ; that Tenet did the referral as a political move not as a legitimate concern for security. The silence from all of these players is deafening. Aren't they feeling nervous every day?


also who and when was the first reporting on Fitz's firestorm, I mean discovery response...that might help

Well, the first published news report was from Gerstein at the New York Sun - not exactly the liberal MSM. For purposes of accuracy and completeness, I do believe yours truly beat Gerstein by an hour or so with a fairly extensive post, including the headlines, on an obscure comments thread. I've got evidence to prove it. But I swear, I got the filing off PACER; much as I wish I had the sort of stovepipe from Fitzgerald that York has from Team Libby, it's just not so.

JM Hanes


"much as I wish I had the sort of stovepipe from Fitzgerald that York has from Team Libby, it's just not so"

Poor Murray Waas is out there wavin' 'is arms like windmills...

The comments to this entry are closed.