Powered by TypePad

« Clarice Feldman II - More On Fitzgerald | Main | TigerHawk On Immigration »

April 05, 2006

Comments

kim

I heear the clippp clopppings of the hoooves of the fuuneral train.
==================================

Sue

Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to
discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.

Sue

Jeff

Sue - First, we get a lot more about Cheney's involvement than we've previously had. That's news. Second, Bush's involvement in the decision to have Libby disclose parts of the NIE to Miller is big news - especially since it was evidently ambiguous to Libby himself as to whether it was declassification. Third, the question has nothing to do with whether the NIE contains information about Plame. The question is the following: Libby is alleged to have lied about the July 8 meeting with Miller in a key regard, to have left out the part about disclosing Plame's affiliation with the CIA to Miller. Was the bit about Plame part of the strategizing between Cheney and Libby and Bush, or was did Cheney and Bush and Libby limit themselves to strategizing disclosing the NIE, and the part about Plame was Libby freelancing? Did Libby strategize with Cheney about that, as he did at other times? Did Cheney consult Bush about that, or only about the NIE?

Specter

Wasn't the info about the President declassifying the NIE news like two months ago. At that time everybody and their mother from the left tried to link it to Plame and the whole theory was thorougly debunked. Why is this news now?

Jeff

Sid - Again, there's no suggestion that the NIE had to do with Plame. The point concerns what went on at the July 8 2003 meeting with Miller and the strategizing in advance of it by Libby, Cheney and Bush. According to Fitzgerald, the July 8 2003 meeting between Libby and MIller had to do with both the NIE and Plame.

Sue

Putting aside defendant’s failure to explain how loyalty to Mr. Armitage or
to the State Department could rise to the level of causing Mr. Grossman to invent conversations with defendant and testify to them under oath

Sounds like Armitage is the source and doesn't this argument kind of sound like what Fitz charged Libby with? Making up conversations?

MayBee

To paraphrase Mr. Fitzgerald- what does Bush allowing Libby to talk about the NIE with Miller have to do with him allegedly lying about Plame?

Sue

Jeff,

You already knew Cheney discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. You already knew Libby testified that he was given permission to discuss the NIE. The only thing new we learned is that Bush autorized it. We learned nothing new about Plame.

Specter

Gee...sin't it funny that every time plamegate seems to be slowing down and falling further apart another intrepid MSMer puts together a new article about old news just to fan the flames?

Appalled Moderate

A quick skim on my part gives me two impresssions:

1. Libby's attorneys want this trial to about materiality and "everbody knew about Plame" and have structured their requests accordingly; and

2. Fitz wants the trial to be about Libby's Pinnochio moment, when he claims he was feeling like Russert had Plamed him for the very first time.

I know, from some research, that the Supreme Court ruled a few years back that materiality is a matter of fact that has to be tried before the jury. How, then, does Fitz limit discovery? I would think a key issue here would be whether Wc Fields (er, Amb Wilson) of Val herself had outed herself to Kristoff and/or others. Fitz doesn't want any of that in.

boris

Fitz says Libby could not have forgotten about Val because ... Bush authorized NIE to rebut Wilson's public lies (???). Non Sequitor except ...

press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate)

Seems to me the timing of concern about who sent Wilson based on press reporting comes after Libby's claim of forgetfulness. So how is that relevant?

Rick Ballard

Jeff,

Thanks for the pointer.

Make sure you take the anti-nausea pills before you get the centrifuge up to Warp 9.

Fitz would be fired for this if there was anyone at DoJ with the authority to fire him. He managed to get his theory out in full for the press.

He's pretty much finished as a prosecutor - time to go into politics.

Ralph

I'm strictly an amateur at this, but will the defense wait until the trial to introduce the question of what crime Fitz was investigating?

It seems to me that Fitz's refusal to provide any evidence that Plame was every classified introduces a serious question as to whether or not any "lies" by Libby, if they did take place, were material at all, and I thought that materiality was necessary for criminal perjury to exist.

If in the case of "obstruction of justice," isn't there a burden on the government to state what justice was being obstructed? IF there was no underlying crime, how can there obstruction of justice?

kim

What a putz Fitz is. Libby isn't seeking the documents 'merely' because they implicate "thorny" issues; he's seeking them as he seeks his liberty. Please don't throw me in that briar patch, Brer Fitz.
===================================

Rick Ballard

Ralph,

The underlying statute is:

Republican conspiracy to expose a liar - first degree.

It's not exactly in the USC but it definitely exists in Fitz's mind - and that's what counts.

Sue

Just for Jeff...

During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment

boris

The Fitz response reads a lot like confirmation of what TM and commenters have surmised about the case based on the presser, the indictment and leaks.

topsecretk9

Wow. That is a rather extraordinary filing from Fitzgerald

HEH

maryrose

As stated above, in Cheney's interview with Fox News and Brit Hume he said he and President Bush can de-classify information. Why let false information out there.? Fitz's mistake here is Jeff's mistake: thinking that Plame was a big deal in what was being de-classified. She wasn't the misinformation promulgated by Joe and friends was being de-bunked including the claim that "Cheney sent me".

clarice

Am. I agree. Page 7 is very interesting. Fitz wants to conceal all the conversations Wilson had about the trip with people in DOS. Libby wants it to rebut the goofy Jul6 witching date. Just as he wants the info about Powell's "everybody knew" statement.

Regardless of Fitz' tortured reading that rebutting a liar is a conspiracy for revenge--his entire case depends on concealing all facts showing that Wilson blabbed about it all around town, including to many at DoS who knew Plame and her position. Good luck with that one.

Jim E.

I love how folks mock this as "old" news. Fitz's filing came late YESTERDAY. How is that old? The president has never before been connected to this NIE declassification so directly. The previous discussion was centered on Cheney's role of declassification. Of course, we're relying on Libby for this bit of info regarding Bush, so take with a big grain of salt. Libby might be lying.

And I'd also point out that the person above mocking the NY Sun as part as the evil MSM doesn't have a clue about the NY Sun. It's a conservative paper.

clarice

TM-Joe did go public on June 14 at EPIC,9 days before the first cited meeting between Miller and Libby.
(Of course, all his calls to DoS and testimony to two Congressional committees and interviews with lots of reporters makes the claim of "not public before July6" argument even more ridiculous. But on June 14 in the middle of Washington DC to a full house he said he was the ex-Ambassador in the published reports about the Mission).

Sue

Are you referring to me, Mr. E? Because I was mocking the headline, not the newspaper.

topsecretk9

Why is Fitz so desperate to micro-control this thing? What does he care if Libby calls Rove or rather why is Fitz trying so hard to keep certain individuals out of it? He's rather pathetically fighting for things that if his case were so crystal he have no problem allowing. Fitz is working hard to maintain cover for what he knows are pretty obvious goof ups.

topsecretk9

The president has never before been connected to this NIE declassification so directly.

I guess you need a newspaper to tell you a month or two later what is obvious with just a smidge of logic when Cheney said so on Hume.

clarice

In his discovery requests Libby asked for all correspondence relating to the declassification of the NIE reports--he knew that before Tenet formally declassified it on IIRC July 11 or 12 portions of it--certainly those related to the claim about seeking uranium in Africa had been declassified. (Remember, too, that Judy's subpoena originally was broader than Cooper's. I recall it specifically asked her about whom she had discussed Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium. Libby clearly told Fitz that he had discussed this with Judy.)

Specter

Naw...Jim E. was referring to me. But Jim - the discussions at the time did talk about the President. Just cuz it's in the news now doesn't mean it wasn't covered. Get a grip!

Jim E.

Sue,
No. Specter at 7:39.

kim

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't Tenet(him again) have the authority to declassify?
======================================

Jim E.

You think the NY Sun is representative of the MSM? hahaha

Jim E.

ts9: "He's rather pathetically fighting for things that if his case were so crystal he have no problem allowing."

Actually--and I'm stealing from sue's comment from yesterday--these filings are a zero-sum game. Neither side wants to give an inch to the other side, just because. Also, Fitz doesn't want to make it easier for Libby to cloud the waters (this is Fitz's perspective) and confuse the jury with irrelevant information.

clarice

You cannot make a broad and idiotic claim that Libby was the first and that Munchausen was not publcly known as the blabby ex-Ambassador and then refuse to provide info uniquely in your possession that establishes that is crap.

clarice

Here is the tap dance about the referral letter:
"Finally, the criminal referral contains the legal analysis and opinions of a CIA attorney,
communicated to an attorney in the Justice Department, and thus is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, as well as pre-decisional preliminary evaluations and recommendations of government
officials that are covered by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant represents that at present
he seeks “only the unprivileged facts contained within the referral documents,” Memo. at 33, but the
presentation and analysis of facts relating to the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name and employment are
closely intertwined. Moreover, even if certain portions of the criminal referral and related
documents are not protected by privilege, the non-privileged portions are not discoverable under
Rule 16 simply because defendant demands them. As this Court made clear in its March 10, 2006
Memorandum Opinion, Rule 16 sets a higher bar, and may not serve as a vessel from which
defendant can conduct fishing excursions through government files. Although defendant’s request
for the CIA referral and related materials should be denied outright in light of his complete failure
to articulate a basis for their production under Rule 16, the government would not object to providing
these materials to the Court in camera if the Court would find that of assistance."(Rick, an update to Adobe, makes it possible for me to put this on word and cut and copy..If anyone has something they want me to post from it whistle).

kim

Well, Jim E, I was a little struck by the juxtaposition. It was the Sun, generally reliable, but the journalist had a lot of the standard MSM spin and mistakes. It was curious.
====================

JM Hanes

TM

While I'm waiting for this new doc to finish printing out, I have to wonder -- from the description of its contents so far -- if we're really talking about a response to a discovery motion or a self-serving atttempt on Fitz's part to file a report on his investigation.

kim

I like that 'irrelevant' information claim, Jim E. Doesn't defense get a lot of latitude about relevancy?
===========================

Jim E.

JM Haynes,
So by responding to a defense motion (that you haven't read), Fitz may be doing something unethical? The standards Fitz is being held to are getting curiouser and curiouser.

kim

JM H: I think he is scrambling to justify continuing the charade to the judge. How he justifies continuing it to himself, I don't know.
=====================================

Specter

Jim E.,

So sorry to confuse you...maybe my little analogy wasn't clear. It was a type of parody on the claims from the left that every time Bush's ratings start to fall another OBL tape shows up. Sorry it was beyond you....

Sue

JM,

Which is why I wondered why he didn't indict on the underlying charges. It certainly laid out his case against Libby and the OVP on conspiracy to discredit.

clarice

Well, reports by Independent Prosecutors are made at the closing of the case,,so if JNH is right, this may be his swan song. LOL


From p 32 this interesting fandango as to why he shouldn't have to turn over OVP docs:
"The government respectfully requests that the Court reconsider the ruling that OVP is
“closely aligned” with the prosecution,11 and further asks that the Court find that the White House
Office (also known as the Office of the President), the NSC, and the State Department are also not
aligned with the prosecution.12 The pledge of cooperation with the investigation made by White
House Counsel’s office in September 2003 does not and cannot dictate any alignment with the
prosecution. A precedent holding that a pledge of cooperation dictates alignment for discovery
purposes creates a serious disincentive for agencies to cooperate fully with Department of Justice
investigations because such cooperation would potentially subject the agency to wide-ranging
discovery requests by defendants and the need to litigate questions of privilege concerning agency
documents and information. A finding of alignment based on that rationale would be unprecedented."

Patton

I thought it was already known that portions of the NIE were being declassified?

Is this info new or old?

topsecretk9

self-serving atttempt on Fitz's part to file a report on his investigation.

Really.

JimE

I understand what you said, it's just that the lengths of diminishing so many aspects that is a bit pathetic.

Jerry

Maybe Fitzgerald is witholding Tenet, Rove, and Hadley, because he's saving these for a Bush trial?

BTW, Tenet was fired because he was going to tell Fitz what Bush knew (and W lawyered up soon after)?

topsecretk9

Is this info new or old?

Old, second time reported but one detail, so it's all as if it has been heard for the first time.

clarice

Old to me. And old certainly to anyone who read Libby's dic=scovery requests.

______

Here's another doozy--Fitz argues that because the Wh cooperated and gave him whatever he wanted, Libby shouldn't get to see that stuff because it might chill further cooperation--after all a lot of that is subject to privilege claims and is classified. (Hey, dunce, that's what someone in the DoJ would have told you when they reviewed the decision to indict:How the F%%% are you going to prosecute this when so much is classified or privileges. The Court isn't going to let you cherry pick what you found and leave the defendant with no means to defend)

pp. 36-37
"the Court should conclude that the prosecution does
not have custody or control over material in the possession of the White House Office. It is a near
impossibility that subordinate DOJ officers would have custody or control over material in the
possession of the White House Office, which houses the President’s closest staff.
The considerable potential for disrupting and complicating this litigation, as well as ongoing
government functions, is a reason for this Court to exercise caution in finding alignment and in
expanding discovery substantially beyond what is required by Rule 16, Jencks, and the Constitution.
First, most of defendant’s requests implicate extensive classified information, while others raise
issues of executive privilege. Many are so broadly drawn as to require production of large amounts
of irrelevant material, and to require the disclosure of sensitive information about third parties who
are not government witnesses and who could not provide information exculpatory of defendant.
Second, virtually all of the information sought by defendant involves sensitive governmental policy
deliberations at the highest levels of government. In such a context, this Court should be reluctant
to order discovery beyond that which is reasonably related to the preparation of the defense to the
charges in the indictment. Finally, as discussed above, the degree to which subpoenaed government
entities complied with, rather than contested, subpoenas issued by independent investigators made
it possible to conduct this investigation in very sensitive circumstances. Disclosure of materials well


beyond that which is required under the Rules and necessary to the preparation of a defense may chill
the willingness of future presidents and high-ranking government officials to assist criminal
investigations of conduct by staff members holding sensitive positions. The government submits that
these weighty considerations directly contradict defendant’s assertion that providing the documents
defendant requests from the other agencies would pose no “significant burden.” (Memo. at 18.)
Indeed, quite the opposite is true."

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

A swan song sung by a diva with a bad voice nervously eyeing the fella standing in the wings with the Motion to Dismiss hook in his hands - the one who is going to jerk him right off the stage at any moment.

It's really a rather contemptible abuse but who can slap him down?

Cecil Turner

It looks to me like Fitz wants to selectively introduce evidence of a "conspiracy" (though he doesn't call it that), but keeping under wraps anything that might cast doubt on it:

As indicated above, while some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson, the government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation.
He justifies that with the impossibility of proving a negative:
Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.”
I'm betting Walton asks the same questions he did about Plame's "status" (i.e., "do you intend to introduce any evidence related . . ."). And since it appears obvious the answer is "yes" in both cases, I surmise he's going to allow that bit of the discovery.

The other thing that stood out was the strange reticence to disclose the referral, and the arguments proffered (especially the rather silly attorney-client one):

Finally, the criminal referral contains the legal analysis and opinions of a CIA attorney, communicated to an attorney in the Justice Department, and thus is protected by the attorney-client privilege, as well as pre-decisional preliminary evaluations and recommendations of government officials that are covered by the deliberative process privilege.
Gonna be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Patton

Jeff says "Libby is alleged to have lied about the July 8 meeting with Miller in a key regard, to have left out the part about disclosing Plame's affiliation with the CIA to Miller""

Didn't he already do this in June? Why was he disclosing this to her a seocnd time?

Fitz has both UGO and Miller who have completely forgot the either disclosed Plame (UGO to Woodward) or were on the receiving end of a disclosure (Miller from Libby in June). Libby would just be the THIRD person who forgot, not the only one.

jerry

Waas has an article on the latest:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

Rick Ballard

That referral appears to scare Fitz to death. It would sure tickle me if Goss issued a waiver of privilege but I don't believe that insitutional considerations allow him to do so.

Heh - if the CIA is the client, can they fire Fitz? Do they have standing to file a malpractice suit against him when he's laughed out of court?

Will they have to get in line after Miller sues him for false imprisonment?

kim

I love it. UGO is probablly Bush.
=====================

maryrose

Msm wants to blur the facts and distinctions in this case and WILL NOT publish ANY supportive information for Libby. They are programmed this way because that is the groupthink on this issue. You won't find the truth there.

clarice

Cecil, BINGO!!

I'd be astonished if when the Judge sees the referral letter he doesn't smell the odor of mendaciousness reeking in it and demand it be disclosed. In essence it is like the affidavit police have to file to get a search warrant and as we all know from the public record, it had to be false.

clarice

Interesting isn't it, what lengths Fitz goes to to protect UGO and how willing he is to name the President and VP?

No More Cons

You spin me right round, baby. Right round. Like a record, baby....


Hahahaha!! Keep spinning it, Cons. Your boy is a traitor just like the rest of the Cons in America.

Sue

Kim,

Gasp!

Sue

A traitor? How about a lying sleaze bag? He isn't being charged as a traitor. Keep it real.

boris

UGO accidently stabs the victim.

Later Libby sticks a pin a doll.

So it's Libby who gets charged based on intent to harm.

New term Voodoo Justice

topsecretk9

It's really a rather contemptible abuse but who can slap him down?

Well, it is in the public domain!

FireChild

When will it end? Why do good people always get burned? These are public servents trying to help the country and look how they are treated. To follow the crazy making idea that Libby, Rove, etc.., have done anything wrong is just that: Crazy making. These are good peole of high character hand picked as the best in the land for the job. We must support them and show them that there are those among us who still believe!

clarice

I like this snippet in Waas Nicht's latest:
"Fitzgerald has apparently avoided questioning Libby, other government officials, and journalists about other potential leaks of classified information to the media, according to attorneys who have represented witnesses to the special prosecutor's probe. Outside legal experts said this might be due to the fact that other authorized leaks might aid Libby's defense, and because Fitzgerald did not want to question reporters about other contacts with Libby because of First Amendment concerns. "

Might, indeed.

Cecil Turner

Waas has an article on the latest:

Not much new or interesting there, except for this chuckle-worthy assertion:

Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.
He does emphasize this interesting point in the filing, which doesn't appear to be in the indictment:
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife.

Reg Jones

Is this really a big deal? Here's the timeline:

1. July 6, 2003:
Wilson's NYT Op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa" published.

2. "Days later"... perhaps July 12, 2003:
"Bush and Cheney authorized the release of the information regarding the NIE in the summer of 2003, according to court documents, as part of a damage-control effort undertaken only days after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged in an op-ed in The New York Times that claims by Bush that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger were most likely a hoax."[National Journal, Murray Waas, 4/6/06]

3. July 18, 2003 Official Declassification:
"FAS Note: The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [FAS website, Key Judgments: October 2002 NIE Iraq]


Duane

What's the mystery here about W and the NIE? I remember him saying out loud on TV at that time- I don't remember whether it was a press conference or one of those quesitons yelled on the way to the helicopter- that he was going to declassify the NIE so they could all see what Saddam was up to and stop pretending that he was no threat.

Do a Nexis search and I suspect that Bush's public statement to that effect will come up. That NIE declas part was no mystery or deep dark plot.

Keith, Indy

Expect to hear...

Reporter - did you authorize the leaking of selected parts of the NEI???

Bush - I expected my subordinates to go through the proper and legal channels to do so.

clarice

As far as I can tell from Fitz' latest filing, Libby did. He didn't even just rely on the VP's assurances that it had been declassified but checked with counsel to be certain that was the case.

Again--I cannot believe that under these circumstances DoJ would have refused to proceed with the case had Fitz been under any supervsion and direction at all.

clarice

*********Correction--trapped in double negatives..this should read:
"Again--I cannot believe that under these circumstances DoJ would have allowed Fitz to proceed with the case had Fitz been under any supervsion and direction at all.**********

jerry

"Might, indeed."

Clarice, would you be happier if other persons in the Administration get charged with leaking classified info (of all sorts?) and Libby decides to cooperate?

If the WH was leaking like a sieve does that make just one leak, Plame, inconsequential?

Fitz might be focusing on Plame to prove the general point.

TM

I haven't even finished the thread, but that is an excellent point by Chants regarding Bush's initial pledge to fire anyone who committed a crime. I need to check that before I steal it. [Consider it stolen.]

From Bush, Sept 30, 2003:

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Oh, do commenters here have game, or what?

As a follow-up - remember the discrepancy between the Libby and Cooper versions. Libby said he told Cooper about Plame; Coooper says he broght it up, and Libby gave an "I heard that, too" type response.

SO, question for Fitz - if Libby was lying to avoid being fired, why tell a lie that *increases* his involvement? Why not tell the truth - Cooper told me about Plame? Or maybe the Libby view (I forgot) gains cred).

How Fitzgerald will answer that without invoking conspiracy (which he has not alleged in the indictment) will be interesting.

topsecretk9

Fitz might be focusing on Plame to prove the general point.

Is/was that Fitz's mandate? To prove a general point? Where's the letter that say that?

Javani

So Joe Wilson gets to spin his web because he didn't sign a secrecy agreement? Any P or VP would fight back.

"The government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation, even if such documents could be so characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson."

Putting aside Mr. Wilson's ability to discredit himself, why shouldn't Libby have this info?

Patton

"""I love it. UGO is probablly Bush.""""

That explains why Novak said Bush knows who his source was........

Javani

"Fitz might be focusing on Plame to prove the general point."

Could you define what you see as the "general point?" I would say the general point would be who leaked to Novak.

Keith, Indy

And it looks like Reg Jones has the skinny on what happened.

What is up?

Simple, short attention spans and a lack of will (bt the media) to actually investigate and report on what happened, in its entirety.

clarice

TM--Conspiring to leak declassified information to respond to the mediagenic ravings of a serial liar? Let me check the Federal Code to find that Statute.

topsecretk9

I think it's a bit interesting and ironic that Fitz here seems to feel the need to do little "push-backing" of his own -- sort of like his it all in the public domain but then I've poisoned the public domain too

Bushtit

Maybe you can't read either, Tom. Yeah, Reddhedd you linked to is blgging it up, but she made the same point: just because Cheney SAID the president authorized the release doesn't make it so, but I'm still rubbing my hands together with glee.

Cecil Turner

Expect to hear...

In the first place, it's the NIE. In the second, the President is the classifying authority, and defines the "proper and legal channels." Expect to hear a lot of silly and insipid whining from the left, but Mr Addington was perfectly correct on the point.

TM

...another intrepid MSMer puts together a new article about old news just to fan the flames?

Well, the Sun has tilted right on this - they ran an editorial exhorting folks to donate to the Libby defense fund, for example.

And there is definitely news here - I will go so far as to say that we see pretty clearly what has been driving Fitzgerald. Cheney ias *almost* implicated several times. As has been said before, this looks like a flip that failed.

Bonus Baffler for Fitzgerald (but Jeff can help) - we have all this testimony about Libby being so punctilious about the NIE, seeking a lawyer's advice before leaking it.

Yet he was ever-so-cavalier about Ms. Plame. Why?

One might infer that he had no idea that her status was classified.

Bonus Baffler - if Fitzgerald had evidence that her covert status had been communictaed to Cheney, for example by Tenet, he could have saved himself about five pages of abstract argumentation about why her actual status is irrelevant. Plausible inference - Tenet did not testify to having warned Cheney that her status needed to be protected.

Patton

The Bush quote on the 'leak' is meaningless. Libby had approval to
disclose (not LEAK) and the President has the power to declassify.

Gary Maxwell

BTW, Tenet was fired because he was going to tell Fitz what Bush knew direct quote from Jerry


I see we have a new village idiot. Who forogt to put out the trespassers and vagrant sign again?

clarice

Could point TM--Hence we are left with Fitz's :knew or should have known" that she was "classified" but whether she was or wasn't is irrelevant and I (a) didn't fully investigate that and (b) have no obligation to turn over in discovery and documentation of that fact.

As the Fitz spins..

clarice

*Good* point, TM***not "could point"

Jake - but not the one

There seem to be a great many serial liars in the soup.

Jake

Cecil Turner

As has been said before, this looks like a flip that failed.

A perfectly stupid one if the target was the VP on a leaking charge. There's little doubt the VP has the authority to declassify as well (and absolutely none if he's doing it at the behest of the Prez). But that still looks to be the most likely explanation.

One might infer that he had no idea that her status was classified.

Yep. And probably with good reason.

Bonus Baffler - if Fitzgerald had evidence that her covert status had been communictaed to Cheney, for example by Tenet . . .

I suspect Mr Fitzgerald doesn't want any discovery on that whole "status" thing that he doesn't have absolute control over. (I further suspect that's part of his problem with disclosing the referral.)

Conspiring to leak declassified information to respond to the mediagenic ravings of a serial liar?

Heh, heh. That wasn't very nice, now was it?

Human

Well of course it was Legal. Everybody knows Bush can't do anything illegal. Only Democratic Presidents do things illegal.

But just how is Bush going to answer this one -
"Just how is it the revealing of a CIA Operative who was working on WMD proliferation promotes the National Security interests of the United States?"

You all get to play President like Bush does and answer the question.

Just remember what pappa President(the elected kind)Bush said, ""I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

PS how cute "White House message management".
After all it is so hard to tell the truth.
Prezidentins hard work.
Peace.

clarice

Really? I still see the ex-Ambassador and his crowd, including the folks who dreamed up the facts in the referral letter Fitz keeps trying to keep under the carpet.

TexasToast

Interesting stuff - but its still a perjury case - and why you lied is not a defense. It is especially interesting in the brouhaha about Bush "firing" the leaker.

PS (OT)

Gary

Looks like we won't get to see Tom Delay's brilliant defense.

Robert

"I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked," Mr. Bush told reporters in Chicago. But, he added, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."

The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are."

-9/30/2003

topsecretk9

Be great if Fitzy would just produce his Plame was covert letter.

Cecil Turner

"Just how is it the revealing of a CIA Operative who was working on WMD proliferation promotes the National Security interests of the United States?"

Let's see: 1) The guy who actually did that was at State, and we can't know who he is, because we have to respect his privacy; 2) Looks to me like she was working on leaking disinformation through her hubby. And judging from the CIA's outstanding work on WMD proliferation, perhaps her day job suffered.

Here's another cute comment from the filing:

There is no reason to root around in the files of the NSC or CIA or State Department given that no one at any of those three agencies was aware of any declassification of the NIE prior to July 18, 2003.
Anyone want to bet there was an ongoing declassification review of the NIE at CIA? And that there's documentation to that effect? (I'm starting to see why Fitz wants to submit these things ex parte.)

AB

Yah, makes it just a leeeetle bit more awkward for Mr. Integrity Bush to get all huffy about those domestic wiretapping leaks to the NYT, when he himself (surprise!) found leaking to the press just another convenient way to politicize the classification of OUR nation's secrets.

But those on this increasingly esoteric blog would rather rave about the abstract minutiae of Fitz's case than face the facts that the American people are slowly, relentlessly waking up to : Winning elections was so important to these traitors that they lied our nation into war, abusing our Constitution and the traumatized patriotism of a post-9/11 citizenry.

Javani

"Bonus Baffler - if Fitzgerald had evidence that her covert status had been communictaed to Cheney, for example by Tenet"

Two or so days later Tenet "leaked" plenty in his riposte to Wilson.

clarice

Cecil, don't you think the referral letter is akin to an affidavit to get a search warrant?
If it is and the claim is the info in it was false and therefore what followed was wrongfully obtained, isn't the defendant allowed to see it?

In any even since Fitz repeated stuff that should have been in there like "classified" I do not see how he can get away with keeping it secret.
(I wonder if Goss hasn't looked at it and determined some of it was crap of the first order. And if forced to give it up whether he wouldn't so indicate to the Court.

Jeff

Sue - Where does this quote come from?

During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment

Also Sue, I'm not sure why you're so resistant seeing news. We knew that Cheney was involved, and that Libby testified he was authorized to disclose parts of the NIE. But we knew very little about what Cheney's involvement was, and what actually happened with the authorization to disclose parts of the NIE, and we now know considerably more about both of those things. And they're surprising and interesting.

Specter

Human,

As soon as you show us the proof that Plame was covert we'll attempt an answer. I mean - there are quite a few reporters and think tanks working on information about WMDs. And we should, according to Fitz, be able to get all the relevant date from WaPo - so why even have an analyst at CIA?

clarice

Cecil:Anyone want to bet there was an ongoing declassification review of the NIE at CIA? And that there's documentation to that effect? (I'm starting to see why Fitz wants to submit these things ex parte.)

I'm not taking that bet. Libby asked for it because he knew there was, but I'd bet the president declassified it on his own for the purpose of debunking Munchausen because the agency was dragging its feet to let the dmage of the Ambassadors lies sink in without a response from the WH

Specter

Trolls have come out from under the bridge today....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame