Powered by TypePad

« 100% Certainty | Main | Must-See, Can't Enjoy »

April 20, 2006

Comments

topsecretk9

Miller subpoena here

first blush

2. All documents, whenever prepared or received, indicating or suggesting that any employee or agent of the NYT (including but not limited to you and Nicholas Kristof) was aware, prior to July 14th, 2003, that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was employed by the CIA


---whenever prepared or received -- doesn't just sound like Wilson presented a "report" or some documentation (classified of course) to support his contention?---

MJW

Here is the reference to Fleischer's testimony in Tatel's opinion:

For example, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer recalls that over lunch on July 7, the day before Libby’s meeting with Miller, Libby told him, "[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA." Describing the lunch as "kind of weird", and noting that Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion", Fleischer recalled that Libby "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t."
Two things are worth noting. First, how may alterations are present in the Fleischer quote. Second, contrary to Jeff's claim, nothing Fleischer is quoted as saying indicates that the "hush-hush" and "on the q.t." comments referred specifically to the Plame comments. We know Fitzgerald intended that to be the interpretation, but consider this passage from the indictment:
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
Obviously, we're expected to take that as an indication that Libby realized he shouldn't talk about Plame. In fact, he made reference to that implication in a court hearing. However, Plame isn't even mentioned in the entire paragraph!

clarice

Maybe Fitz learned how to draft indictments by oood analysis MJW..

Squiggler

Wasn't Fleischer the WH Press Secretary? Wouldn't it seem logical that if it had been settled that Libby would give Miller info on the declassified sections of the NIE, that he would give Fleischer a heads up as the Press Secretary before he (Libby) talked to Miller? Maybe you all know already, but I don't ... was the revelation to Fleischer part of the "authorization" for Libby to talk to Miller? Given the proximity of time between the meeting with Miller and the lunch with Fleischer, this explanation seems to me to be the most likely. But then maybe I've watched too many episodes of West Wing where the press secretary is in on every important meeting and discussion.

MJW

I will point out that in Fitzgerald's affidavit, he does make a direct connection between the Plame comments and the "hush-hush" comments:

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, REDACTED testified that he went to lunch with Libby on Monday, July 7, 2003, and in a conversation Fleischer described as "weird," Libby told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby told Fleischer the information about Wilson's wife was "hush hush" or "on the QT."
I'll also point out that Fitz isn't above twisting a fact or two, even to the court. Here is court hearing comment I referred to above:
We would never intend to put in actual damage. Our only view would be the materiality of the perjury is that, you know, it's a serious matter if he lied about whether or not he talked about a CIA employee's association and we believe that there will be evidence at the trial that at times he talked about it with other people as if he couldn't talk about it on an open telephone line or told someone else it was hush hush or QT. So we will argue that he knew or should have known it was classified and that he was being investigated for disclosing classified information.
You can reread the passage from the indictment to see if Plame's employment was mentioned in relation to the secure telephone.

MJW

A question: The indictment says, " LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy..." Do we know who the "then Principal Deputy" is?

topsecretk9

MJW

---his then Principal Deputy ---


Eric Edelman -- pretty sure


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1143

topsecretk9

Also see this MJW --


I just got a call from Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn. He confirmed that The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other news organizations this morning are in fact wrong. The "principal deputy" to Libby named in the indictment is Edelman, not Hannah. Here's exactly what Samborn said:


You're correct, it's Edelman. I can't account for why the other papers are saying it's Hannah, but it's not. It is Eric Edelman. You heard me correctly on Friday when I said that.
--Ryan Lizza

BTW, this the second instance Ryan Lizza has confirmed something from a direct line from Samborne...(Marc Grossman)...

so Fitzco are not so tight fisted with their info when they want and apparently leak crud

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3190

MJW

Thank you TSK9.

Patton

"""Libby told Fleischer the information about Wilson's wife was "hush hush" or "on the QT."""""

Since when are Hush Hush and QT proper government classifications??

If Libby believed it to be classified, why didn't he just say...that's classified.

Kate

Contrary to press reports about how tight liped his investigation has been, Fitzgerald has been leaking regualarly. In fact, early on I found it disconcerting that the Fitzgerald team seemed to leak to far left web sites and writers (Waas).

Only when the indictments got very close, did he leak to, not the Washington Post, but the New York Times, the important news-Libby would be indicted, but not Rove.

Someone on Fitzgerald's team is a real Daily Kos leftist, we know the retired FBI investigator has a hatred of Rove and is anxious for Fitz to nail him.

This is justice at its worse. It is not the objective application of law but a mean pursuit of one's policy adversaries. I wonder if Val and Joe snicker about Fitz and wonder how they got so lucky, when they're home alone.


Rich

Interesting set of threads. But what happened to the NYT leak of the wiretapping that someone leaked. Has that disappeared?

All these gyrations about wilson/plame/fitz/libby continue in the news but only the sound of crickets about a leak which substantively damaged the US ability to protect itself. Incredible

Cecil Turner

I don't see what is being referred to since the indictment is Fitz's recounting of what Libby said, not direct quotes of Libby's.

On the perjury charges (pages 18-21), they have direct quotes of Libby's answers (and some of the questions to the latter answers as well). The responses are, well, weird . . . for example:

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
Beyond that, trouble is, the poll results on the question of the CIA leak case don't support the idea that yours are at all representative views of the average citizen.

I think we're back to the original point of this post, that the no-news is actually news, because most folks erroneously think Libby was Novak's source.

Kate

Can someone confirm something for me? Someone told me that there are 2 types of Grand Juries, one a special GJ, like the one that indicted Libby and was disbanded on 28 Oct, and a regular GJ.

The one would sit in DC and hear all sorts of cases, not just the Leak Case.

My understanding is that there is currently no special Grand Jury on the leak case. If Fitzgerald wanted to indict anyone or provide additional info (like the Woodward info) he would just have to "borrow" a regular grand jury--one that's meeting regulary and examining other charges unrelated to the leak case?

Is this correct?

Patton

Jeff,
I am curious. How many errors do we have to find in Fitz indictment and news conference for you to no longer rely on them as definitive.

You believe the President should have thrown over the notion that Saddam was pursuing WMD based on Joe Wilsons trip to Niger...even though that was a tiny speck of the information he was getting from the agencies;
yet you hang onto Fitz even while much bigger errors are shown regarding his findings.

So if you received Fitz indictment as if it was the agencies NIE and you are then shown that it has an error - why have you not totally dismissed all of the indictment and press conference in the same manner you believe Bush should have done???

How can you possible make the argument that SOME of Fitzs information is true, at the same time recognize some was in error - if you won't hold Bush to that same in-exact standard.
Don't you have to uphold you own conviction and throw it all out based on the knowledge that one thing in his indictment didn't pan out or wasn't entirely accurate??


You seem to want to take obscure facts and paint a huge picture of a giant conspiracy...just like the CIA taking little pieces of intelligence and painting this huge picture that Saddam was pursuing WMD. You take little tiny things like Libby telling Fleisher something is Hush Hush and you turn it into Libby had to have know Plame was under cover and was conspiring to out her.

Have you learned nothing from the Clinton/Tenet years of complete and utter failure with regard to information collection and analysis??

I guess you have earned the moniker: MULTIPLE MIGGS

kim

Good God, I know it's been said before, but read the quote above about Libby 'knowing for the first time', again. He is clearly describing the state of mind he had to enter as he lied to Russert. Fitz can't read, or converse, or something.

Literality can get pathological.
==================

boris

most of what you say is irrelevant to the point I was dispuring AJStrata on

Wrong Jeff ...

AJStrata: If you start with the idea Libby and Rove were simply explaining how they never tipped off reporters to Plames job ...

Jeffy: by his own account Libby was explaining how he did tip reporters off to Plame's job

Boris: No reporter has claimed they first learned of Valerie from Libby. Nor has Libby claimed he was the first to inform any reporter.

I understood AJ's use of the term "tipped off" to mean new information they didn't know. Your take on language is way too focused on your agenda. With Ari's guote you read Plame into what was more likely NIE. With the SSCI quote "apparently convened by Joe's wife who had the idea to dispatch him" you somehow squeeze different meanings out of a clumsy paraphrase to claim discredit SSCI. Neither you nor FItz is careful enough with language to consider assertions or interpretations as valid.

PeterUK

Sqiggler,
Thank you for saying what I have been saying about the "invisibles",you put it far better.
This whole affair seems very much like the Jack the Ripper,"shock horror story",the culprit was anyone and everybody famous,the Prince of Wales,his Surgeon,Walter Sickert,the artist.It seems that momentous,or in the Libby case,faux momentous, events can only be set in motion by the famous and powerful,who said America was a classless society?
The direct analogy with the Ripper case is the political aspect,all the protagonists had their reasons for putting forward a favourite suspect,none of whom had any real relevance to the case.

AJStrata

Barney Frank,

I am not sure where the excerpts of Libby's testimony are - I for one would like to reveiw them again (someone email me a link please!). But incoherency usually means 'out of context'. Fitz's MO is to pull something out of its context and then imply so much into it by retranslating it that it becomes unnoticeable in its original form. That is why the Matt Cooper nonsense in the indictment is a joke.

Fitzgerald basically stipulated Libby did not leak his in-house knowledge to reporters, and Libby was not the first source for anyone. Even when confronted with the Plame news, he non committedly said I heard that too, which is not confirmation.

So Fitz stipulated Libby did not leak to the press, and therefore is being charged for not recounting that non-leak correctly to the GJ. The mind boggles at that one, but when it goes to court I would not be surprised if that is the first place Team Libby goes is rightto the indictment to use Fitz's own words to force him to admit his case assumes Libby did not leak to the media. When a jury hears the case is about the inaccurate recounting of acts which were not illegal, they are going to see the danger for what it is.

"did you have a good birthday?"

"yes"

"liar - go to jail".

Slice and dice.

Sue

AJ,

That is what you would expect the jury to see, hear and rule on. I suspect the jury pool in DC is so anti-Bush, Libby will be sent to Siberia, just because...

Jeff

contrary to Jeff's claim, nothing Fleischer is quoted as saying indicates that the "hush-hush" and "on the q.t." comments referred specifically to the Plame comments.

MJW - You left out the citations to Libby's testimony in the Tatel opinion, and if you look at them you will see that the probability that Fleischer was referring to what Libby said about Plame is quite high, since Fleischer's comment about Libby saying this was hush hugh comes in the middle of Libby's comments about Plame and her role in Wilson's trip. The first citation from Fleischer's testimony, with ellipses, is this:

"[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA." (II-545-47)

And the second citation comes right in the middle of the longer passage from which the first is drawn:

Fleischer recalled that Libby "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t." (II-546-47)

So that second bit of testimony comes right in the middle of the first one and is evidently an integral part of it. There's also the fact, of course, that Tatel himself is depicting things this way, and he had access to the original grand jury testimony in its integral form.

As for the point about the conversation with Edelman, it is perfectly possible that the name Plame was not mentioned. I expect, as Fitzgerald suggests in the hearing passage you cite, that Fitzgerald will have to make the case in court that they were talking about Plame's CIA association. But it's also worth noting that the indictment does not offer complete and specific details. For instance, regarding that conversation, all it says is it was about "information about Wilson's trip." But Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit is a little more specific on the point: Edelman asked Libby whether information about how the Wilson trip came about could be shared with the press. Did he say the word "Plame"? Who knows, but the point is that that is more specific than just information about Wilson's trip, which is all the indictment gives us. Obviously Fitzgerald is alleging that they were talking about Plame's role - perhaps because Edelman knew about her purported role already, perhaps because the two of them had already talked about it, who knows, we'll see -- and the point is that there's no reason to say he's being misleading when he's laying out what he's alleging and what he's going to have to prove in court.

Jeff

How many errors do we have to find in Fitz indictment and news conference for you to no longer rely on them as definitive.

Patton - Name a single error in the indictment. And as for Fitzgerald's error in the extemporaneous press conference, when he failed to include "known" the second time he asserted that, as far as he knew, Libby was the first government official to leak Plame's CIA status, yeah, that was an error of extemporaneous speaking. But since, you know, shortly before that error, he was crystal clear and explicit in acknowledging that he was speaking of his knowledge of events at that time, I don't see what the problem is.

You, Patton, have no interest in figuring out what went on.

Cecil Turner

So Fitz stipulated Libby did not leak to the press, and therefore is being charged for not recounting that non-leak correctly to the GJ.

I think the bigger point is that Fitz knew in Feb 04 who the leaker was, yet had Libby testify the next month. If there was a purpose to that other than to get a perjury charge, I don't get it.

Cecil Turner

And as for Fitzgerald's error in the extemporaneous press conference, when he failed to include "known" the second time he asserted that, as far as he knew, Libby was the first government official to leak Plame's CIA status, yeah, that was an error of extemporaneous speaking.

That first "known" qualifier doesn't come across as much of an "as far as I know" moment:

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
And neither does the second:
It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.
It reads fairly explicitly to me, and it's wrong.

PeterUK

"the probability that Fleischer was referring to what Libby said about Plame is quite high,"

"Did he say the word "Plame"? Who knows,"

"perhaps because Edelman knew about her purported role already, perhaps because the two of them had already talked about it, who knows, we'll see"

Jeff,your comments are richly larded with such speculation...don't try it in frony of a judge.

Jeff

Fitzgerald basically stipulated Libby did not leak his in-house knowledge to reporters, and Libby was not the first source for anyone. Even when confronted with the Plame news, he non committedly said I heard that too, which is not confirmation.

AJStrata's wackiness multiples. First, Fitzgerald stipulated no such thing as that Libby did not leak his in-house knowledge to reporters. Libby leaked to Miller, repeatedly. Moreover, by Miller's account, some of what she learned from Libby was new information.

Furthermore, if we're talking -as Strata was initially - about what Libby was up to in his own testimony, then we have to take into account the fact that Libby said he brought up Plame with several reporters on July 12, and one of the major points of his testimony was that he was very careful to tell them that he didn't know if the information was true, as it came from other reporters. In other words, Libby was very concerned in his testimony to clarify the source of his information. Here are a couple of passages of Libby's unvarnished testimony:

"And when I talked to the reporters about it, I explicitly said, you know, I don't know if this is true, I don't know the man, I don't know if he has a wife, but reporters are telling us that."

And if that's not good enough, here's another, complete with question:

"And you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to others reporters?"
A: "Yes, sir . . ."

Those are both from Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit (15n9).

And here's a bit (from Tatel's opinion) of what he told Miller on July 12:

"I said to her that, that I didn't know if it was true, but that reporters had told us that the ambassador's wife works at the CIA, that I didn't know anything about it."

And here's what Libby testified he told Cooper on July 12:

"[Y]ou know, off-the-record, reporters are telling us that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA and I don't know if it's true. . . . [W]e don't know Mr. Wilson, we didn't know anything about his mission, so I don't know if it's true. But if it's true, it may explain how he knows some people at the Agency and maybe he got some bad skinny, you know, some bad information."

Jeff

Cecil - You've got to be kidding me. In the first statement, "known" is an adjective qualifying Libby's status. It wouldn't be there if Fitzgerald wanted to say with certainty that Libby was the first. Moreover, this qualification fits with Fitzgerald's awareness that his investigation was limited by DoJ regulations regarding going after reporters.

Cecil Turner

It wouldn't be there if Fitzgerald wanted to say with certainty that Libby was the first.

That "known" qualifier is weak. And the second statement is overstated and wrong. I'm trying to envision your response if the speaker was someone in the Administration and the subject pre-war intel . . . somehow I doubt you'd be so forgiving.

Neo

A common theme in the thinking of this "adventure" is that it all boils down to Libby and Rove. Were these two guys the only people manning the phones ?

Isn't that a bit parochial ?

I mean, if I call the White House, with Libby out, do I get Rove ?

Sue

Stop and think. No one Libby talked to published. No one. But Cooper, and he was well after the fact and he called Libby (regardless of what Jeff claims, a return call is not the same as making the 1st call). What kind of a war was Libby fighting? If it was war, remind me not to choose Libby as my leader. He is either grossly incompetent or the war is a figment of someone's overactive imagination.

Cecil Turner

A common theme in the thinking of this "adventure" is that it all boils down to Libby and Rove.

That's certainly the impression you'd get from reading the coverage. And much of it is gratuitous, like that bit about Libby being "at the beginning of the chain of phone calls." Libby had nothing to do with the phone calls that actually outed Plame (and neither did Rove, except for an "I heard that too"). Novak (and Woodward) already had the scoop from UGO, who'd both started earlier, and was more effective at getting it out there, than Libby or Rove. But even though Fitz had that information, those weren't the leakers he was looking for, and he didn't track it down. (One reason I'm unimpressed with a "known" qualifier from someone who wouldn't "know" about others anyway . . . since he didn't bother to ask.)

Jeff

a return call is not the same as making the 1st call

Of course. But a return call is also different from answering a call, as Rove did with Cooper, for instance. You can much more plausibly make the case that Rove was caught off guard and, as he might have suggested to Cooper himself at the end of their conversation, said something he shouldn't have to Cooper than you can with Libby, who deliberated and strategized on what he was going to say to reporters when he returned their calls on July 12.

You can't call Libby incompetent just because Novak published on July 14 and - Libby et al's earlier, successful efforts to get MIller to publish their pre-war BS having gotten her in trouble at the Times - Libby didn't appreciate just how constrained Miller's ability to report was at the time (and that's true regardless of whether Miller is telling the truth or lying about having proposed a story to Abramson and being turned down - she was effecively on probation and subject to severe subject prohibitions at the Times).

boris

Libby leaked to Miller, repeatedly. Moreover, by Miller's account, some of what she learned from Libby was new information.

This nonsense is presented as rebuttal to the statement that Libby was not the "first source" to any reporter about Valerie. Is this obvious conflation of NIE and Plame stupid or dishonest?

Jeff:

And here's what Libby testified he told Cooper on July 12:

"[Y]ou know, off-the-record, reporters are telling us that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA and I don't know if it's true. . . . "

Which doesn't establish which one raised the subject first (why would that even matter?). Nobody has claimed that this is where Cooper first learned about her.

Relevance ???

To anything ???

It's just endless presentation of interpretations and factoids as if they prove malice and/or conspiracy, or rebut simple points like ...

The public disclosure that Plame was CIA did NOT COME THROUGH LIBBY
cathyf
...the poll results on the question of the CIA leak case...
I find this concept uproariously funny. The 20-30 confirmed plameaholics who post here are the majority of the human beings on the entire planet who give a whit about the "CIA leak case." As my husband ("I can't believe you are wasting your time with this!") constantly reminds me. (Whomever made the comment yesterday about "crossword puzzles for legal junkies" you have my unending gratitude for giving me an answer to my hubby's eye-rolling. I now tell him that the Plame Kerfuffle is more intellectually stimulating than playing Snood.)

cathy :-)

Patton

Soooo Jeff,

Given all you said....why doesn't Fitz just prosecute Libby for revealing classified
information?

Why all this gobblygook? Libby saying 'I heard it from reporters' does not remove his culpability in revealing the information.

If Libby said, you know a little bird told me Plame is a covert agent, that wouldn't
make the outing any less illegal.

Would Fitz feel the need to track down the little bird to see if it is true? NO
Regardless of how Libby couched the information, disclosure is disclosure.

Say a jury convicts Libby on all counts, does Fitz then say...ahha, now I can prosecute you for the actual crime I think you committed?

He could prosecute for revealing the information and then take apart Libbys defense at trial.

The whole point of Libby laying it off on journalists, is NOT a defense against revealing the information.

All Fitz would have to do is show the jury the regulation stating that just because you heard something from the public that you know to be clasified, does not mean you are at liberty to repeat it.

Syl

Jeff

Edelman asked Libby whether information about how the Wilson trip came about could be shared with the press.

What is the most important fact to note regarding how the Wilson trip came about? That CHENEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

The Plame business is an extra detail, a gossipy interesting detail, but not necessary to the pushback.

How the CIA conducts its business is secret..the fact this operation was conducted so casually is not something the CIA would necessarily want known.

But, no, to Jeff the most important detail ever that anyone involved cared about was Valery Plame who had to be outed to punish a noble whistleblower.

Sue

Syl,

He is lacking the noble whistleblower.

AJStrata

Jeff,

I suggest you read the indictment again, if it possible for you to do so without your biases blinding you.

Never mind, I will do it for you. The indictment covers three reporters: Russert, Cooper and Miller.

In the indictment Libby claims to have talked to Russert about Plame, Fitz claims this did not happen because Russert cannot recall any discussion with Libby (which may be true, the only discussion on Plame he has admitted to was with Andrea Mitchell during their staff meeting at NBC News).

Knock one leak to the press out. Fitz is indicting Libby for fasely stating he leaked (talked) to Russert (take the sarcasm and deal with it Jeff, don't nitpick). Yes, I understand Fitz is focused on the state of mind claim that this was the first he heard of Plame, but the indictment assumes for its argument. from Count Two, section four:

"As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;"

Got it? The indictment assumes no discussion of Plame. It solely focuses on the claim of 'surprise'.

On to Matt Cooper, who admits he brought up the subject not Libby. Call me whacky kid, but that is not Libby leaking to Cooper. It is delusional to think otherwise. But let's go to the indictment again. Count three:

"As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;"

Got it? The indictment assumes Libby simply used the phrase 'heard that too'.

Now a leak or confirmation is crystal clear. It takes the form of 'we have documentation, sources, information confirming' said subject. Fitzgerald admits there was no 'qualification' on the comment.

So, that means two reporters Fitz assumes did not get leaks. He is charging Fitzgerald with an inaccurate accounting of the discussion only.

Jeff, you cannot interpret beyong the literal ststements in the indictment. And the indictment is clear.

Counts 4 and 5 are repeats of 3 and 4 but are for perjury and not false statements. Now, onto Miller and count one - obstruction of justice. The catch all which has Fitz cornered in his own trap. Sections 1-32 are Fitzgerald's cherry picked picture of events - the context. Finally we get to the meet of the charge in 33. 33(a) is Russert again, 33(b) is Cooper again - no new ground in either. So related to a charge and Judith Miller we have this:

"LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;"

The claim that Libby talked to Miller is the same as Cooper and Russert. Fitzgerald does say in this one case Libby told Miller he believed Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, however, this claim is challenged by Miller's recollection. So I will give you the one stipulation that the indictment does assume Libby told Miller. But it is uprovable and irrelevant to the charge!

But Fitzgerald does state, unambiguously, "nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true". He did not advise Miller that he did not know the story was story true. Did you jump to the conclusion that this means he told her it was true!

Dear lad, if Libby had told Miller the story about Miller was true, do you think he would have used these silly charges?

Prove to us where Libby told Miller that the stories were true. Not repeating the stories. That is like repeating a scene in the Lord of The Rings - that doesn't imply someone thinks the story is true!

If Fitz had more than 'he did not warn her off' (which is all he has for all three) he would have put it in. Fitz agrees with Russerts recollection of no discussion. Agrees with Coopers statement Cooper brought it up and got a non confirming response. Through all of this Fitz's charge is Libby said he warned them it might not be true, but he did not. Not once did he charge him with TELLING THEM IT WAS TRUE. Not once.

That would be a leak. If he had evidence Libby had said it was true, then the perjury charges would carry some weight. Then Fitz would have Libby saying he warned them it was not true, but he told them explicitly it was true!

Did it not ever occur to you, in your wildest speculation, why the charge wasn't 'Lilbby claimed he told reporters the news on Plame was not true in testimony, but witnesses say he told the it was true?' The reason why is there is no evidence he told them it was true! QED. Fitz has nothing.

SunnyDay

May I speak for the average person? I'm very average. ;-)

I began reading about Plamegate and I'm totally hooked - it's better than any plot Grisham ever dreamed up. So, in my spare time, I read all the blogs, both sides, trying to keep up, learn the lingo, and read the filings (they give me a headache) as I go.

my opinion: It is absolutely insane to suggest that the WH administration would deliberately, knowingly, illegally, break the cover of a covert agent as retaliation or "punishment" against Wilson.

Someone please tell me: What would be the benefit to the administration? The logic totally escapes me.

Add to that, this man, Libby, is an experienced Washington attorney. Average Person (me) finds it difficult to believe he would be dumb enough or careless enough to lie to a grand jury. I would rather lose my job than go to prison, wouldn't you?

Disclosing the NIE to rebut Wilson's statements I can understand, but "outing Valerie for retaliation?" No, I don't believe it for one minute. It's too stupid.

Patton

It is interesting that reporters, and apparently Fitz and Miggs take the phrase 'I heard that too' as confirmation of a fact.


So I tell Cooper and Libby, "Hey Miggs is
working for the DNC.

Cooper then calls Libby and says, "Have you heard Miggs works for the DNC?", Libby says "Yeah, I heard that too".

Therefore, Miggs must worked for the DNC because you heard it from two people.

Even though we all know Miggs works
for 7-Eleven.

Tomf

SunnyDay

Oh, c'mon. Not for Just One Minute?

SunnyDay

SunnyDay

Oh, c'mon. Not for Just One Minute?
*****************************************

About the same length of time I believed Cheney shot his hunting buddy as a warning to his enemies. ;-)

cathyf
I'm very average. ;-)

I began reading about Plamegate and I'm totally hooked

Time to schedule an intervention for SunnyDay. The first step is to admit you have a problem... There is nothing "average" about plameaholics. We are special. (Like "special ed" special...)

cathy :-)

SunnyDay

cathyf:

Perhaps I can change that to "I *used to be* very average."

The frustration is waiting for the next chapter (filing)... and, reloading the page at 3AM to find no one has posted a new observation.

Totally, irreversibly hooked. Who's going to write the book?

Patrick R. Sullivan

' ben - Go back to Powerline. I know they don't allow comments there. But that's all the better in your case.'

Then maybe you ought to be at a blog where they don't allow self-awareness, Jeff.

SunnyDay

OK, I put a typo in my website info, and I can't get it out. So, pretend I don't have a website at all, because it is not relevant to anything here anyway.

Tomf

SunnyDay,

Me too! TGIF

Gary Maxwell

I would rather lose my job than go to prison, wouldn't you?

How about in this trip through the looking glass, he has a strong possibility of doing both. And Sandy Berger is walking the streets.

Gary Maxwell

(Like "special ed" special...)

Everyone's a winner here!

SunnyDay

LOL Monday, Friday, weekends, all the time.

SunnyDay

Gary Maxwell:

It is an alternate universe. Hello George Noury and aliens. What is the frequency?

Rick Ballard

SunnyDay,

Find the Typepad cookie (it will end @typepad[1].txt) and delete it. You'll get a fresh start.

Syl

SunnyDay

::waving hello::

Someone please tell me: What would be the benefit to the administration? The logic totally escapes me.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

We outed your wife! That'll learn ya never to go on a CIA-paid trip to Niger and lie about it again! Or else we might out her a fourth time!

AJStrata

For anyone interested, I took my comment to Jeff and expanded it into a post on my site

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1664

Here I use deductive reasoning to show that Libby never leaked (confirmed) the Plame story to Miller, Russert and Cooper. I also prove that this conclusion is shared by Fitzgerald and it is all there in the indictment.

Enjoy.

JM Hanes

AJ:

I just love the obstruction charge: Libby claims he lied to reporters, but he didn't!

AJStrata

JM - and so what if Libby did lie to reporters? That is not a crime. Fitzgerald is pretty dumb if he thought Libby relating how he lied to reporters was a lie to Fitzgerald.

SunnyDay

Rick, TY. I got it this time.


Syl, waving back. Thanks for the welcome.

It is **so totally mindboggling** I cannot really get my head around it. And there is no one to stop this? Surely there is a sane person in charge, somewhere, who can say "wait just a darned minute!"

How can a prosecutor totally destroy someone like this? I don't know Libby, have no feelings one way or the other, but logic says he is not the dishonest one in this legal thriller that is unfolding before my indredulous eyes.

It's fascinating in the sense of the mystery and figuring out what's next - and then I think: What must it be like to spend your entire life in public service, keep a spotless record all the while, and then wake up one day to find you're caught in the middle of this farce, see it all crumble down, taking all your money, your reputation, career, and who knows what else this is costing him and his family in mental anguish.

No wonder he stuttered and stumbled when he talked, WTH wouldn't? A slick liar wouldn't, that's who. Honest people fumble bumble and forget things. Slick liars have every detail figured out and never stutter.

larwyn

CIA OFFICIAL FIRED FOR LEAKING TO UNAUTHORIZED MEDIA

reported on both FNC & CNN

SunnyDay

How about in this trip through the looking glass, he has a strong possibility of doing both. And Sandy Berger is walking the streets.
*********************************

Sandypants took a plea.

note: My legal jargon may be wrong, the only court I've ever been in is traffic court, and the extent of my legal knowledge is the insurance laws in Virginia.

j.west

While an intelligent, intellectually honest examination of all things Plame continues at JOM, a sad childlike figure waits patiently under the Fitzmas tree for a red bike.

In what must be the very definition of wishful thinking, TalkLeft looks at a Think Progress summary of an MSNBC report on Fitz always indicting “Official A”.

Geez.

Squiggler

BREAKING NEWS on FOX NEWS:

CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to Media
Friday, April 21, 2006


WASHINGTON — A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.

CIA officials will not reveal the officer's name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.

One official called this a "damaging leak" that deals with operational information and said the fired officer "knowingly and willfully" leaked the information to the media and "was caught."

The CIA officer was not in the public affairs office, nor was he someone authorized to talk to the media. The investigation was launched in January by the CIA's security center. It was directed to look at employees who had been exposed to certain intelligence programs. In the course of the investigation, the fired officer admitted discussing classified information including information about classified operations.

The investigation is ongoing.

**********************

I had my volume off on the TV, so missed the report live, but Dana Priest's picture was on the screen.

Rick Ballard

It looks like someone leaked their own firing. How long before "poor widdle whistleblower" shows up in the stories?

Maybe Larry Johnson and the VIPS can offer some support, sedition is a tough row to hoe and the DoJ can generate situations which can be quite expensive. Perhaps Dean or Kerry or Ms. Clinton will hold a fundraiser?

Squiggler

There is hope that at least somewhere someone is working to clean out the nest of collaborators at CIA.

cathyf

Ok, this is kinda OT, but...

In discussions of the press, and anonymous sources, and shield laws, it is asserted that one of the hard and fast rules of journalism is that when a source lies to you you burn him.

So when is somebody who was lied to going to burn Wilson, or Armitage, or Grossman, or whomever in Fitzgerald's office told 'em 22 indictments for Fitzmas, etc, etc, etc. I used to think that a press shield law was a good idea, but not with THIS press!

cathy :-)

Squiggler

Followup on CIA firing from CNN ...

CIA officer failed lie detector test. Leak to Washington Post regarding prisons in Eastern Europe ... which is the Dana Priest connection as she was the reporter of record on that story from what I can tell.

SunnyDay

Oh no, no press shield laws. That would be crazy. They have made their own bed and they should have to lie in it.

***No pun intended***

Syl

Rick

It looks like someone leaked their own firing.

For sure because it's late Friday. It wasn't 'friendlies' who leaked this.

Rick Ballard

I don't see why Armitage or Grossman would be burned. The State Department INR memo is the foundation of what was released to Novak and provides precisely what he reported. Why would Armitage and Grossman be burned for reciting State's understanding that Wilson's wife was the apparent convenor of the meeting setting up his boondoggle?

It appears to be 100% accurate from here.

TM

Given all you said....why doesn't Fitz just prosecute Libby for revealing classified
information?

Well, I am going to take up that question about Karl Rove, since we have Jason Leopold saying Fitzgerald was presenting to the GJ, Byron York noting that Fitzgerald was in Chicago, and Shuster noting that, although Fitzgerald wss in Chicago, BIG THINGS are happening.

My point, which I will no doubt belabor - the current CW is that Rove will be indicted for perjury regarding the elusive Cooper e-mail.

But what we did not know about last fall when we discussed this was Woodard and the UGO, probably Armitage.

SO now, Fitzgeral is going to put the following to a grand jury - he wants to indict Rove for lying about leaking to Cooper, but not for actually leaking to him.


Meanwhile, he does *not* want to indict the UGO (I lean towards Armitage) for leaking to Novak and lying about leaking to Woodward.
Nor does he want to indict Rove for leaking to Novak.

(Note - I am using "lying" in the standard lefty sense of not fully capturing the truth with their words 0 Amirage may never have been asked about opther leaks, but he "lied" by not volunteering the info.)

Now - someone one the grand jury, or even in the press, may say, what gives? Leaking - not a crime; lying - sometimes not a crime.

Or, if Fitzgerald is feeling lucky, he could try for a conspiracy count - all he has to do is prove that Libby and Rove cooked up Libby's bad memory. Good luck.

Of course, Fitzgerald has told the judge repeatedly that he has an ongoing investigation, so he can't pass all the evidence they want to Libby. So he does have a certain obligation to Keep Hope Alive, and give us a little show of actually doing something.

But (IMHO!) this investigation is over.

Kate

Well, we all know that Fitz really wants Rove and if he can get him for the e-mail, triffling as it is, Fitz will be the hero! Now the big story is will Bush continue to proclaim that Fitz is conducting a dignified investigation.

Sue

Quick, who is the top democrat on the house ethics committee? FoxNews is flashing they have resigned their committee position.

Rick Ballard

That would be "Steal a Million" Mollohan.

Jeff

Not once did he charge him with TELLING THEM IT WAS TRUE. Not once.

AJ Strata - I think that is the single most bizarre punchline I have seen yet.

To spin it back to what I originally took issue with, you were talking about how we are to understand what Libby testified to. In that circumstance, it makes sense to look not to the indictment but to what Libby testified to. Libby testified to bringing up Plame with Cooper, Miller and Kessler on July 12. But he also testified very clearly that in all cases he sourced his information on Plame back to other reporters. That directly contradicts the initial claim you made that I took issue with.

Rick Ballard

Oops - I meant "Lucky" Mollohan of course. Nobody in politics has been luckier since Bill Clinton's wife hit it big in cattle futures.

Les Nessman

from the L.A. Times :

"House Ethics Panel's Top Democrat Denies Charges
From the Associated Press
April 9, 2006


WASHINGTON — The senior Democrat on the House Ethics Committee says there's no truth to allegations by a conservative group that he violated financial disclosure laws.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia accused Republicans of orchestrating the complaint and of using it to call for him to leave the committee. He said he had no intention of stepping down from his post.
"

Whooops, Alan! Something must have changed here....

Sue

Nevermind. I found it. Alan Mollohan.

larwyn

for MARYROSE and others - U know who U are:

CIA Fires Traitor For Collaborating With The Enemy
Posted by GayPatriot at 4:05 pm - April 21, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror

I’d say let’s dispense with a trail for treason…. take him to CTU/Los Angeles and have Jack Bauer deal with him or her. Jack has had a pretty bad day so far, I’m sure it wouldn’t be pretty. Or let’s send him to Iraq and give him a real field assignment.

CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to the Media - FOX News

A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.

CIA officials will not reveal the officer’s name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.

One official called this a “damaging leak” that deals with operational information and said the fired officer “knowingly and willfully” leaked the information to the media and “was caught.”

I’m just waiting for a United States Senator to be the next to be charged for treason for leaking classified information about the NSA wiretapping program targeting suspected terrorists within the USA. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Mollohan steps aside as ranking member of House Dem ETHICS COMMITTEE

Solamon Bros offers Malloham the now vacant internship offer recinded from Duke player.

$100,000.00 to 14 MILLION
in 5 years - NOT CHUMP CHANGE

Great W.Va in play - Byrd Senate seat is up!

Sue

LOL. The Culture of Corruption. Whose stupid idea was that? With as many members as you have in both parties, why on earth would you think it wouldn't come back to bite you in the ass?

But, Mr. Mollohan says he is not guilty. He must not have a Ronnie Earle after him...

Gary Maxwell

Lets start looking at this petri dish that is the Democrat Party and the culture growing in it. Appears to resemble corruption does it not? LOL

larwyn

MichelleMalkin's
CIA LEAKER

She got great links regarding PULIZERS to traitors!

boris
Libby testified to bringing up Plame with Cooper, Miller and Kessler on July 12.

Testified to discussing Plame, "bringing up" ... is your spin.

in all cases he sourced his information on Plame back to other reporters.
And by July 12 he could have heard the information from Woodward. A reporter.
larwyn

CNN mentions
DANA PRIEST & RISEN

But in lead up to story, Woooof throws in "number of leaks including those coming from the WH!"

David Ensor reports;
sky if falling, falling I tell you
"CHILLING EFFECT"

Kate

Yes, CNN is starting the whining about "Pulitzer Prize" winning reporters being implicated in the CIA firing case. The Pulitizer Prize Defense. How about we give awards to Rove and Libby and then the President can apply the "Award Pardon" equally to reporters and officials.

Jeff

I'm following TM's advice and keeping my expectations with regard to further indictments are quite low. Who could imagine that more top officials from the Bush administration would be indicted?

boris

Someone irony challanged with BDS ?

Semanticleo

Rove indictment within a fortnight.

Remember him in your prayers.

windansea

looks like the Rovester is back in the saddle

The ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, Alan Mollohan, has temporarily stepped aside from the Committee after allegations of impropriety.

Mollohan has allegedly failed to report much of his earnings, while steering over $100 million in government money to groups linked to a business partner, as well as non-profits linked to himself.

His letter to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) follows, followed by Pelosi's response.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ranking_Democrat_on_Ethics_Committee_steps_0421.html

I know ...Raw story...but I doubt they can make up letters from Senators

NBC: CIA officer fired after admitting leak

BREAKING NEWS
By Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell
NBC News
Updated: 3:33 p.m. ET April 21, 2006

In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News reported on Thursday. The agency’s spokeswoman confirmed the firing.

The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Wednesday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC reported.

next...the NSA leak....good work Karl! Lets play Culture of Corruption

owl

Said all along Fitz must indict Rove or go down as the biggest loony toony in history. He kept this blackmail of the White House going for 2 1/2 years when he knew ole Joe was the liar at 3 months. What's a SP to do to get out?

FitzRules

where's the post about how Fitz went perfect in his indictments against the illinois governor?

oh right--this is the anti-fitz propaganda website. nevermind, you partisan losers. it would be too much to ask mr.oneminuteman to document the resounding fitz victory.

btw, how much money have all of you donated to poor scooter's fund?

AJStrata

Jeff,

If Libby confirmed the stories with reporters, and then testified he did not confirm them (which is his testimony and the essence of the indictment) then Fitz would have caught him in an actual perjury, no ifs, ands or buts. But Fitz did not do that. He indicted him for falsely claiming he had specifically not confirmed the story.

If you want to dream this means he DID confirm it, go right ahead. I am not the one heading for a big let down.

larwyn

worked in the CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE - CIA LEAKER

Just reported by Brett Baer FOX

FOX IN HENHOUSE

S.O.B. IS DOUBLE TRAITOR

HE IS IN OFFICE THAT IS TO INVESTIGATE LEAKS -

THINKS HE IS ALSO INVOLVED IN SENDING REQUEST TO DOJ??

WOW!

Sue

Larwyn,

What? I can't follow you. The CIA leaker is involved in sending what request to the DoJ?

windansea

THINKS HE IS ALSO INVOLVED IN SENDING REQUEST TO DOJ??

oooooooooohhh that is quite the bomb shell if true

Squiggler

Here we go again!

Sheesh!

Sue
This leak is not linked to the recent scandal in the CIA involving undercover agent Valerie Plame’s identity being revealed, NBC reported.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423825/>MSNBC

Now why did they throw this in?

windansea

Larwyn..probably the Plame referal

Sue

I have one question for the fired officer...do you know and have you had contact with Larry Johnson...

Sue

Ooops...that might be 2 questions...I'll apply the 10 items or less rule here...if I have 2 bars of soap, it just counts as 1 item.

windansea

or maybe the Prison leak...not watching TV right now...Larwyn??

Cecil Turner

From the MSNBC link:

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the firing.
Priceless!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame