Powered by TypePad

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

April 20, 2006

Comments

windansea

Jeff

I don't recall "everyone" arguing it was Fitz...and they were correcting about a zillion erroneous reports in the press...

Fitz made the gigantic error that led to the erroneous press frenzy...now you want us to feel bad cuz our side corrected the record?

sometimes you are one twisted sister

boris

Jeffy was the one on this blog pushing the frenzy.

Jeff

windansea - Well done.

clarice

On the latest filings, I agree with Talk Left. The corcumstances indicate these were perfectly justified communications. There won't be a gag order.

larwyn

A J STRATA'S POST - FRESH UPDATES - AJ's HOT!

Mac was right - EOM prediction!

He's watchin Rocky.

Are we going to have new post or can we move to a lonely empty thread?

Squiggler

That's what I thought, although I don't take your point about convicting someone based on their class or anything else. They need to be convicted on the evidence, but the idea that nothing happened is ludicrous, in my opinion.

As a disclaimer, though, I'll add ... I was the victim of a gang rape in my sophomore year in college, by Phi Delt athletes and I saw how the college, the fraternity, and in my case, the soccer team, closed ranks and I was left with no defense, no support and ended up dropping out. It is like deja vu watching this case ... very disturbing. I just believe that a single Mother who is a military vet, and trying to earn a living to support her kids would leave that house without her money. It just doesn't track, especially when you add in that she left her cell phone and her shoes as well.

Sue

ghost,

Okay. I was wrong. It is their https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/tax/ViewDetail.asp?RID=1904186>principal residence.

topsecretk9

--Jeff

I don't recall "everyone" arguing it was Fitz...and they were correcting about a zillion erroneous reports in the press..---

No offense Jeff, but you were one of those suggesting that at least press reports indicted --or were more agnostic on Libby and suggesting perhaps the Fitz side --on the very issue...2ce.

Squiggler

Sorry, it should read .. WOULD NOT LEAVE

windansea

Kind of funny team Libby submitted 50 articles in their brief to show the firestorm Fitz caused with his HUGE error

maybe they were giving a hint he needed more supervision through Fitz approved public records

brenda taylor

lesley,rest assured she has lots of phony bologana out there just waiting for all her whistle blowing news.she may even become as great as her fellow traitor valerie,and get an adin vanity fair.amazing how brazen these people are.yhe msm will love her.

boris

but the idea that nothing happened is ludicrous

Short version from another thread ...

No credibility and no DNA evidence means no case. That analysis is not the same as claiming "nothing happened". Intoxication is also a possible explanation for her illogical behavior.

Jeff

topsecret - I also happen to think Libby's team makes a good case, especially since it was such an egregious error on Fitzgerald's part (as I was unhappy but quick to acknowledge, having considered the erroneous report quite damning of Libby, if true, and therefore important). That wasn't the point.

clarice

Squiggler, I am sorry that that happened and that in your case everyone behaved so badly, but I think to date the public record suggests that is not this case. In any event, we have a rule--innocent until proven guilty beyind a reasonable doubt, and if properly applied here,it seems to me the D.A. is light years awy from even approaching meeting that test.

boris

such an egregious error on Fitzgerald's part

More like a minor conflation until certain partisans claimed it proved Libby was "sent out to lie".

Squiggler

Yeah, Boris, I'm sure that's what they say or will be saying, I don't believe it. I was accused of being drunk, I'd never consumed alcohol at that time, ever. I was accused of being loose and available to sleep with anyone, I was a virgin and lost my virginity in the rape. So, anything that has been put out by the defense here is totally suspect and very well, or could be, or most likely is, a concotion of CYA by the team and/or their friends. Afterall, its 47+ against one and she is after all just a "stripper" so she must be a liar. And as far as is known there is no DNA, but since the very first couple of days, we've been told next to nothing by the prosecutors, but an awful lot of obfuscation by the defense.

Believe me, it is very very rare for me to support any prosecution, especially for sex, but in this case, I see it as a gang rape and probably planned in advance.

larwyn

Jeff, you have such a short memory

the McCartheys donated to the Kedwards campaigne - the same one

THAT OUTED V P CHENEY'S DAUGHTER.

My suggestion was to see if children were involved with DEM organizations that could have funneled the $4,000.00 -

someone brought up it seemed very high and maybe someone fronted the
$$$$$.

I forgot the rules - any and all family members, friends up to the 6th degree are fair game when it is a REPUBLICAN.

for DEMS and their minions WE SHOULDN'T KNOW WHOSE COOPER'S WIFE IS, OR PINCUS', OR RUSSERT'S, OR OR OR - PILLOW TALK - NEVER!

SO STUFF IT JEFF - YOU'RE THE APOLOGIST FOR A VERY SICK PARTY AND A VERY SICK CULTURE.

Billy Clinton taught America that it is OK TO LIE ABOUT SEX!

You guys keep setting your own traps.

windansea

what was the point then? I think more people here thought it was Team Libby leaking and we thought it very justifiable

nothing has changed

boris

Yeah, Boris, I'm sure that's what they say or will be saying

Sorry if my comment came off as harsh. The infomation available online indicates intoxication. Let me ask this ... no answer expected ... if there were a continuous set of photos of the event, would your situation have been possible to cover up?

windansea

yikes we need new posts..this is confusing with 6 topics at once

TM 2/5 is not getting it!!

Sue

Wasn't it Byron York that reported it? I may be misremembering the timeline but if it came from York, no one here thought it was Fitz leaking it.

Squiggler

Clarice, I agree with you as to "until proven guilty." My beef is the way she is being portrayed as a liar and these guys are being portrayed as saints. I also don't agree that what we know now shows no evidence. We are not privy to the hospital report, nor are we privy to any but the first prelimary round of cheek swab DNA samples. What about all the other things that are being tested and aren't back yet. And, do you really think she would run out without her money, her wallet, her cell phone and her shoes? And how did she fool the doctor and trained trauma nurse? To me, the sympathies should lie with her, but that isn't how this case is being handled. This case is being orchestrated to protect the athletes and the university.

clarice

I wonder if there's any connection between this arrest and the Berger document theft and destruction..AJ Strata notes a letter from McCarthy in 2001 while she was on the NSC to Berger and Clarke indicating they needed better intel about OBL

windansea

Sue

the leak had to come from Fitz or Libby

York just reported it

boris

The Fitz suggestion only came up as a result of the judge's displeasure over the public release. Some where gloating that the judge was really pissed at Libby's team.

Fitz may not have released it to the press, but he perhaps didn't indicate it shouldn't be either. Without that, the judge has no particular reason to be upset.

Sue

Squiggler,

I'm sorry you were treated that way. No one should be allowed to get away with rape.

The DA in this county set himself up for the giant pushback from the defense attorneys. There are 70 press conferences from the DA's office before these boys lawyered up. I agree, something happened. I'm not sure I believe her and I'm not sure I believe them. But with the media attention this case has generated, the truth will come out. They won't be able to bury the story.

Jeff

larwyn - yes, find that lonely empty thread for your ugliness. You are sick. And you invoke Kerry's inappropriate and stupid mention of the fact that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian to justify it? By the way, it was inappropriate and stupid, but it no one outed her. She was not in the closet.

It's just astonishing to me that you don't see how completely sick it is that you're going after that person's kids. What do they have to do with it? To say nothing of the sheer creepiness of invading the personal lives of the person and her spouse in all sorts of ways.

Squiggler

Boris, it is me reacting badly, so apologies from my end.

I don't know that anything would have helped my case as it was another time and place. However, all stops were taken out to protect the star athletes who represent big bucks to a school. I was at a Big Ten college and their team were champions plus the Phi Delts were the premier fraternity on campus. I was even told by one guy that I should feel honored that the Phi Delts wanted to rape me. Gag! In today's world, there is far more support than I got. My housemother said that I was lucky I didn't get expelled and when I asked for what, she said, just because we don't like troublemakers. Times have changed from that mindset, or so we are led to believe, but I wonder because watching how this case is unfolding seems too similar for comfort.

Sue

Wind,

?????

If York reported it, he got the leak from Libby's side. I'm not sure what I said but that is what I meant.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Brylun thinks that 793(e) might fit McCarthy. Do you have an opinion on it? I think his reasoning flows from

"or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States "
.

larwyn

squiggler,
I feel sorry for your pain. I have daughters and grand-daughters
so I want every single rapist to be brought to justice.
But I also have grandsons and the group punishment, the way the DA has handled this, teammates never at the party are losing summer jobs/internships and being denied transfers to other schools.
It is this group punishment aspect that really has my dander up.
And if you have read all the posts on this thread you will see that they ordered a WHITE STRIPPER - it wasn't what the race baiters are trying to set up - a premeditated rape of BLACK WOMAN!
Further discussions show in the thread and now on O'reilly with a former EXOTIC DANCER gives credence to there is a difference between those on stage and the ones who give private and "very private" performances.
I posted the email from my grandson on Easter Sunday evening on the "tell me about Duke" thread.
It's at 10:00PM - hope you'll read it and realize that he is at an elite school and on itermural Rugby team. He is only attending that school thru hard hard work and MERIT SCHOLASTIC SCHOLARSHIPS and Generous Financial Aid. Not
a RICH WHITE BOY or an ARROGANT BMOC by any means.
This must be very painful, but the punishment of the innocent (not sinless)will do nothing to ease that pain.
And every time some fool brings false charges it only makes it more difficult for true victims to get justice.
Pray for justice.

Squiggler

My apolgies for the off topic messages. I got upset after watching the victim's ex husband say he believed her and that she is one of the kindest and nonlying people he knows.

windansea

Sue

just reread what you wrote and you obviously meant it was Libby...confusing thread!

Sue

It's the damndest thing. Anytime there is even a hint of a republican in ethical trouble, the MSM is all over it. Yet the top democrat on the ethics committee, for gosh sakes, resigns over ethical problems and it barely registers. Come on. I want the culture of corruption goddess to stand in front of the camera and tell us again what the culture of corruption is.

clarice

Rick, A quick look indicates (d) is the section..

Syl

Jeff

You sound even worse than Sean Hannity with your tut-tutting.

windansea

here you go sue

"The allegations against Congressman Mollohan originate from the National Legal and Policy Center, which engages in highly partisan attacks on Democrats," Pelosi said.

"The attacks are an attempt to deflect attention from the long list of Republican criminal investigations, indictments, plea agreements and resignations which have resulted from the reported long-term and extensive criminal enterprise run out of House Republican leadership offices," she said.

Using a phrase that has become a Democratic refrain, Pelosi said, "The Republican culture of corruption has been ignored by the ethics committee for a year and a half following the decision of the Republican leadership to fire their own chairman and committee members for doing their job."

Syl

Squiggler

Oh man, I'm sorry for what you went through. I'm staying out of this whole discussion. I think my only observation was that in the beginning public (media) sympathies lay with her. Then the DNA came back negative and it turned around.

After that, it just turned into a mess. Class, race, the whole nine yards and I simply want to wash my hands of the whole thing.

I'm perfectly willing to wait until the truth is revealed and have no desire to join this battle.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I had misread, Brylun had (d) for McCarthy and (e) (possibly) for Priest.

Everyone should have their own paragraph.

larwyn

jeff,
You protest too much!

Afraid what will happen when people with real research talent find the connections between McCarthys and KEDWARDS or VIPS or
DNC or any number of others that would make you squirm a bit.

We'll see who is "lonely and empty" when the full tale is told.

Sue

wind,

I went http://www.dailykos.com/>dumpster diving and found out Mollohan needed to step down--to make that temporary sacrifice--for the greater good of the Ethics Committee and Congress as a whole. It is a concept that Republican politicians don't understand--it's called the greater good.

I wondered how they would play the news. Now I know. ::grin::

Squiggler

Larwyn, I don't think this is a race issue, I could care less about her being black and the boys being white. I also don't care if they are rich or struggling on scholarships. All I'm saying is something happened to her and to make her out the villain because she was there as an exotic dancer rather than one of their dates, doesn't make them any less guilty or her any more of a liar.

Besides, I don't have a lot of sympathy for any of those boys, because the reports are that this house was known to be a house of trouble with lots and lots of calls to the police generating out of their behavior.

It may be, however, that she has misidentified at least one of the boys and for that, I say I'm sorry if that is what happened. But, I'm not even buying the alibi as these are teenage boys with raging hormones and if they were lined up, an awful lot of them could have gotten off in a very short period of time. So, it could be a "I got mine, now I'm outta here," as the explanation of one of the boys leaving in a hurry, in a cab, no less.

I am curious as to how the tox screens came back. For all we know, they found some trace of a date rape drug in her system or perhaps ecstasy or something that would render her inhibitions as moot.

Syl

Rick

You're correct about Abu Ghraib. But a leak of classified information does not have to be the centerpiece of an article.

In fact most classified information that is leaked is NOT. Often it's a detail buried somewhere.

It's the rare case where the leak info is actually the subject of the story: NSA, CIA Planes, Secret prisons.

Note that even Plame was just an extra detail in Novak's article.

Sue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101648_pf.html Rice Allegedly Leaked Defense Info

This ought to take the attention off the CIA agent.

Sue

oops...

Syl

Sue

It is a concept that Republican politicians don't understand--it's called the greater good.

LOL!

Hmmmmmmmm. That's exactly what Republicans said of Delay when he dropped out of the race. The Koskids didn't buy it because only Democrats understand the concept of 'greater good'. Snort.

larwyn

squiggler,
all pro/con arguments in depth in the "100% Certainty" & "Duke-Bring Better Witnesses" threads.
Hope you'll take a look.
Best,

Sue

Syl,

::grin:: Gotta love 'em.

Syl

Sue

Did you notice in that WaPo article re Condi 'leaking classified info' that the defense lawyers are trying to put lobbyists at the same level as journalists? Weird.

larwyn

Sue,
WaPo link won't work for me - tried twice - say no page

Squiggler

Larwy, I'm kind of sorry I even brought it up. I don't really want to follow the case. I will say one last thing ... don't feel sorry for me ... it was a horrible situation at the time, but that time was in the Fall of 1964. The result was an unwanted pregnancy. I kept the baby and in 1967 my OB-GYN informed me that my tubes were tied in knots like pretzels and the only way pregnancy would be possible would be tons and tons of sperm. When I told him I already had one child, he looked at me and said, "what, how many partners did you have at one time?" So, that was my only child. I look at him as a Gift from God, although back then I was just a very scared young girl. So please, no sympathy. My second child was adopted in 1969 and she is the joy of my life.

Squiggler

From a Newsbusters post ....

At least one leading mainstream journalists isn't too happy about the revelation Friday that on Thursday the CIA fired an official who admitted being the leaker of top secret information about CIA prisons overseas used to hold al-Qaeda suspects. Bob Schieffer didn't withhold his personal opinion from his newscast as he introduced a CBS Evening News story by asserting that “it is no secret that the current administration does not like its people hanging out with news reporters without permission” and he described the firing as “a first -- a dubious first, to be sure.”

Citing the Washington Post story on the then-secret prisons and the New York Times article disclosing terrorist surveillance efforts, both of which won Pulitzer Prizes on Monday, NPR's Nina Totenberg declared on Inside Washington that nefarious Bush administration practices justify the decision to reward the two newspapers: "It's a good thing that they won for those intelligence stories because the Bush administration is investigating now and is threatening to subpoena and conceivably jail those reporters. So I think it's important that those stories be rewarded as something important to have done." (Transcripts follow.)

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

How can we possibibly get the truth on any of this when its reporters reporting about reporters?

Sue

Syl,

Yeah. I also noticed where the judge is considering dismissing the case.

Sue

Squig,

Not only do we have reporters reporting on reporters but the reporters consider the CIA agent a whistleblower. Double whammy.

ghostcat

Circling the wagons, they are. Makes a better target that way, if your not firing wildly from horseback.

cathyf
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?
Because, Rick, it's my suspicious nature. I think that the reason that UGO is being protected is that he told Novak about Wilson's wife in order to vouch for Wilson. Fitzgerald's position is outside of the laws of these United States, and in his legal system (as opposed to the US legal system) it is against his law to punish a noble whistleblower. But not against the law to do exactly the same thing as long as the motive is to try to help the noble whistleblower out.

But if UGO was vouching for Wilson, then UGO was either mistaken or lying. If mistaken, then yes, Novak should still protect him according to the journalistic omerta. But I'm still back at some of these people are clearly lying, and the reporters clearly know it (Wilson with Pincus and Kristoff, certainly.) I've got to believe that there are other liars out there, all being protected by the journalists even though the lore of their profession is that if somebody tricks you into spreading his lies, you burn him.

cathy :-)

Syl

New thread!

Syl

Larwyn

Right-click and copy the link. Paste it in the address bar. Then click at the end of it and hit delete until the extra stuff (after the .html) is gone. Then you can hit go.

SunnyDay

copy and paste - I don't do html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101648_pf.html

TM

Following Sue's link to the AIPAC story:

,blockquote>During Friday's hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he is considering dismissing the government's entire case because the law used to prosecute Rosen and Weissman may be unconstitutionally vague and broad and infringe on freedom of speech.

That would be the very Espionage Act that Fitzgerald pondered with Libby/Rove/et al. And yes, he noted that its use was problematic.

There are some new threads up, BTW. One on the gag order and one on the CIA sacking.

clarice

Ordi--left this interesting message at A J's
"Bill Clinton: National Security

AFRICAN AFFAIRS

Joseph Wilson (1998)

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS

Rand R. Beers (1996-1998)
Mary O. McCarthy (1999-2000)

TRANSNATIONAL THREATS
Richard A. Clarke (1999-2000)"


Oh, mama don't you weep, don't you cry..

MJW

Jeff, replying to my April 10 11:35 PM post: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.

First, is case you wonder, I didn't edit out the numbers to hide something; I took them out for the same reason I took out line numbers in court transcripts: to make the text easier to read. Since none of us have access to the cited document, I didn't think they added anything. You do, however, make a good point that they can be useful for determining the relative position of the testimony (In fact, when I have time, I think I'll go through the transcript and put all the cited sections in order).

Though it isn't stated anywhere I can see, I assume these are cites to unedited grand jury transcripts, and that the numbers are either paragraph or page numbers. If they're paragraph numbers, I think you're point is well taken (though, as I'll argue later, not conclusive); if they're page numbers, I think it's considerably more doubtful. Three pages could cover a fair number of subjects and questions, so it would be difficult to say with any certainty what's related to what. I suspect (but certainly don't claim to know for sure) that they're page numbers for two reasons. First, the highest number I can find is 592. That's a large number of pages, but given the length of the investigation, I think there'd be a even larger number if they were paragraph numbers. Second, the Libby's quotes concerning the Russert conversation that "all the reporters knew" and "I was first" learning" are both given as (I-166), yet in the indictment they are in seperate paragraphs.

Here's the Tatel quote again, with citations:

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.” (II-545-47.) Describing the lunch as “kind of weird” (II-590-91), and noting that Libby typically “operated in a very closed-lip fashion” (II-592), 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.)
The patched together quote, "The Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger, the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. He was sent by his wife. She works in the Counterproliferation area of the CIA" contains information from at three seperate paragraphs (and possibly three pages), so some of the information was in one paragraph, some in another, but we don't know what was where. We know from the "secure telephone" conversation that Libby considered discussing Wilson's trip sensitive (which is, of course, not necessarily the same as classified). Therefore, it's entirely possible that the "hush-hush" comment was made in regard to the entire subject of Wilson's trip, rather than specifically about the alleged mention of Wilson's wife.

I don't see that Tatel directly tied the "hush-hush" comment to the mention of Wilson's wife. Even if he had, I think it's pretty obvious that if ever a preacher found a choir, Fitzgerald found one in Tatel. In fact, Tatel can hardly contain his enthusiasm -- he wants to argue the case himself, and more or less does. We've seen from his botched reading of Fitzgerald's footnote concerning the elements of IIPA that Tatel sometimes sees things the way he wants to see them.

As to your comment that perhaps Fitzgerald didn't reveal everything Plame-related in the indictment's "secure telephone" paragraph -- well, maybe. But if he didn't, he's not Elliot Ness with a Harvard degree, he's Chief Wiggums with a degree from East Tobago School of Law and TV Repair. What could possibly possess him to leave out something so relevant to the indictment?

MJW

Jeff: 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.

A minor point perhaps, but the indictment says:

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.
So the indictment at least implies that the conversation concerned "how the Wilson trip came about."

Patton

Jeffrey says ""Everybody, quick, change your argument. The argument is: Team Libby leaked the letter to the press, but they did it in good faith, in fact they were right to do it."""

You are a real piece of work, the government smears the guy, and the President and Vice President for a solid week. Then Libby responds and you go running for the referee.

Fitz and the rest of you got caught lying in a federal legal document submitted to the court..you all ran with it as if Fitz has some credibility left, .now you want to claim Libby is the bad guy...

I guess you would blame the women who was raped for reporting it.

The simple fact is there is no law, no rule and no moral reason why Libby shouldn't have set the record straight and Fitz should have been reprimanded by now by the court and by DOJ.

The gall it must take to claim the Libby case is a simple case about lying and nothing more, then turn around and smear Libby with false allegations regarding national securiy is beyond the pale.

You are so obsessed with discovering Bushs stained dress you can't think straight. You run off at the mouth for a week, TOLD YA.... TOLD YA, then when you found to be wrong...ohh gee, its all Libbys' fault.

Nice try Miggs

Jeff

Patton - Truly, go fuck yourself. You have now accused me of approval the deaths of millions of Iraqis and of blaming the victim for a horrible crime of violence. I'm not sure what you would have to do to get yourself banned around here, but you should be banned. In any case, I am done with you. You are a miserable, puny person. Leave me alone.

Jeff

MJW - I absolutely was not suggesting any nefarious motives on your part in leaving out the page references in the testimony - and that's what I think they are, not paragraph references. Anyway, obviously we are dealing with probabilities here. It's obviously possible, even likely, that Libby didn't absolutely positively say Wilson's wife's CIA affiliation was the one thing that was hush-hush. But since so much information about the origins of Wilson's trip - in the CIA, at a mid or low level - was already in the public domain, it's unlikely that's what Libby was referring to or what Fleischer understood him to be referring to.

It is also the case within days of the conversation with Libby, with at least one reporter, Fleischer shared all the relevant information about the origins of Wilson's trip except the fact that his wife was affiliated with the CIA and involved in the trip's origins, even as Fleischer pointed that reporter in a direction where he would likely discover just that fact. As Dickerson nicely puts the point in concluding,

It seemed obvious that the people pushing me to look into who sent Wilson knew exactly the answer I'd find. Yet they were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive.

Fleischer is one of those people (Bartlett almost certainly the other).

What could possibly possess him to leave out something so relevant to the indictment?

I do suspect that Fitzgerald will have to show at trial that that's what Edelman understood them to be talking about and so on. But of course it's perfectly conventional for prosecutors to leave out all sorts of juicy bits in the indictment. In fact, Libby's defense argued in their third motion to compel that Fitzgerald's indictment was unusually more robust and (prejudicially narrativized) fact-packed than the standard bare-bones indictment.

boris

which suggested that they knew

Just the kind of slam dunk that people with BDS call evidence or even proof.

For one thing, the actual leak did not consider Plame radioactive. Hindsight blindness is the more likely explanation.

boris

In fact the CIA (Harlow) did not consider Plame radioactive.

The inferrence is whacked on multiple levels and is more evidence of Derangement Syndrome than anything else.

Time after time it's the same old same old.

Inferences, interpretations and factoids presented 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
Cecil Turner

It seemed obvious that the people pushing me to look into who sent Wilson knew exactly the answer I'd find. Yet they were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive.

Dickerson is a verbose blithering idiot. Despite the extensive verbiage, you have to look at the link to Condi's statement to figure out the date is July 11, 2003. Armed with that information, however, you can readily figure out from the other public statement what they were hoping Dickerson would "find" (helpfully provided by the Director of Central Intelligence):

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.
Yep, "radioactive" all right. More than two years after the fact, he can't connect the dots with a magic marker. Give the dunce a Geiger counter.

boris

deaths of millions of Iraqis

Don't seem to bother you as much as your syndrome affliction.

Jeff

Cecil - The undeserved insult of Dickerson notwithstanding, I think you're not getting it, since the information in what Condi said on July 11 and what Tenet said later on July 11 were not substantially different from what Fleischer and Bartlett told Dickerson. Therefore, it couldn't have been what Fleischer and Bartlett were hoping Dickerson would find.

boris

You have to assume Plame to suggest Plame.

Assume Fleischer and Bartlett were hoping Dickerson would find out about Plame.

That suggests that Fleischer knew Plame was covert ...

Except whe wasn't.

Cecil Turner

The undeserved insult of Dickerson notwithstanding . . .

Au contraire, I gave him the most charitable interpretation possible. Two Administration spokesmen, on the same day, give information on the genesis of Wilson's trip. He gives a strained interpretation of the one, and elides the other. The most logical inference is that he's lying his fool head off. I've chosen to go with the far less judgmental: "too stupid to be held responsible." You, however, can't get the benefit of that particular doubt.

what Condi said on July 11 and what Tenet said later on July 11 were not substantially different from what Fleischer and Bartlett told Dickerson. Therefore, it couldn't have been what Fleischer and Bartlett were hoping Dickerson would find.

Reread that to yourself a couple times, Jeff, and ask if it makes sense. Then reread what Dickerson actually paraphrased from the sources:

Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.
And:
This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle.
Tenet on the same day:
CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.
It takes a certain frame of mind to conclude: no, if they tell you the same thing thrice on the same day, that can't be what they meant.

Patton

Jeffrey says: ""Patton - Truly, go fuck yourself. "

I like you too, just not in a sexual way.
I take it your admitting you cannot come up with a sufficient argument to counter my contentions.


Funny, Clinton took responsibility for all those killings in Africa....yet wouldn't you think his policies had more to do with the deaths in Iraq...yet..still no apology for 8 years of starvation and torture and lies about WMD.

It is quite clear that all the Clinton supporters keep insisting his lies were just about sex.....while we are quickly learning that his lies covered his entire adminstration, from illegal fundraising, to Iraq, to chinese technology trnsfers, to
Kosovo, all a pack of lies.

Jeff

if they tell you the same thing thrice on the same day, that can't be what they meant.

Thanks for the compliment ("Not as stupid as Dickerson!"). But I see better now where the disagreement is, I think. You and I agree that Fleischer, Bartlett, Rice and Tenet were all offering the same info about Wilson's trip's origins, right? I think Fleischer and Bartlett were pushing Dickerson to look into it more in the hopes that he would discover, just not from them, that Plame was involved and that she was CIA. You think that's not right, that Fleischer and Bartlett were just imparting information to Dickerson without further encouragement to look into it in the hopes that he would find out about Plame. Is that right?

JM Hanes

Jeff

"in the hopes that he would find out about Plame"

What, precisely, are you saying they wanted him to find out about her?

boris

It takes a certain frame of mind to conclude: no, if they tell you the same thing thrice on the same day, that can't be what they meant.

Lol. New acronym FOM.

Jeff assumes Fleischer and Bartlett were pushing Dickerson to look into it in the hopes that he would discover Plame.

A reasonable assumption is that Fleischer and Bartlett were pushing Dickerson to look into it in the hopes that he would discover it wasn't Cheney, wasn't "the government" and wasn't even the CIA, but rather low-level CIA employees on their own initiative unofficially. (Who happen to have included Plame)

So why focus on Plame Jeff? Because by doing so Jeff makes it appear Fleischer and Bartlett were being coy with her identification, hence concerned that her identity was classified. However, if her identity were truly classified then nobody could expect to discover her identity anywhere.

The Cheney-Libby "conspiracy" was to disclose portions of the NIE and enough information about Wilson's trip to rebut misinformation about the pre-war intel and the innacurate perception that Cheney ignored that misinformation after sending Wilson to discover it.

Assigned to disclose A, B and C there is nothing untoward about being discrete with P regardless of how classified P might be (in this case not). That's how most individuals act around trade secrets, patents, non disclosure, crypto etc based on my direct experience with those things.

JM Hanes

Jeff

"I'm not sure what you would have to do to get yourself banned around here, but you should be banned."

On most sites, telling other people to go fuck themselves is usually sufficient. Last week you wanted to ban Larwyn, and now you're gunning for Patton. Sounds like this kitchen's gettin' hot!

highcotton

I'm new. I sort of accidentally wound up here while tracking links on the Mary O. McCarthy thing. The discussion has been fascinating, informative, intelligent, stupid, belligerent... In short, a good blog!

I do try to stay 'informed', but I rarely comment -- particularly about off-topic stuff -- but this time, I felt compelled to do so. Scrolled all the way down to the bottom of this humongous thread to add my $ .02. squiggler, what you have done is unconscionable IMO.

You have publicly accused people of raping you. No -- correction -- of 'gang-raping' you. Is there anything worse that a woman can think of? Not much, unless you lived in Iraq during the Usay and Quday era.

I am a woman. I am extraordinarily sympathetic to your plight. (I am also your contemporary, so I know that it wasn't so easy to get convictions way back when.) But this is where you and I part company. You named the members of a specific fraternity (Phi Delta Theta) for the attack. Funny. They were always the 'good guys' on my campus. You also specifically implicated the members of a varsity squad (the soccer team). In a later post, you pinpointed it even further: the year was 1964, and it was a Big 10 school.

Call me crazy, but I don't even *remember* having soccer back then. Were those guys just busily doing headers while I was totally oblivious??? If so, I apologize.

The main point I want to make is that you had a chance to go to the DA and press charges. I guess you didn't do that. It's understandable. What I don't understand is putting something up on the internet 40 years later....when they can't respond.

CHEAP shot!

kim

Oh sure, they can respond. Come forward; speak.
==============================

MJW

Jeff: MJW - I absolutely was not suggesting any nefarious motives on your part in leaving out the page references in the testimony - and that's what I think they are, not paragraph references.

Thank you, Jeff. I didn't think you were, but felt a little sheepish when I found out I'd omitted something that supports your argument.

But of course it's perfectly conventional for prosecutors to leave out all sorts of juicy bits in the indictment. In fact, Libby's defense argued in their third motion to compel that Fitzgerald's indictment was unusually more robust and (prejudicially narrativized) fact-packed than the standard bare-bones indictment.

"Robust" is a nice way of putting. Jam-packed with prejudicial irrelevancies might be closer to the mark. That, to me, makes it less likely Fitzgerald would include a passage which seems largely immaterial, but leave out the detail that would make it material. He's obviously not holding back, so why hold back something that helps make his case?

kim

And why can't he see that not having it hurts his case? This guy has a screw loose.
=======================

kim

I wonder if he wakes up in the night now, sweating, at the thought that he might be suspected of involvement in the McCarthy Plot. The irony only works, though, if he is innocent of complicity, something about which I'm not so sure anymore. How about lie detector tests for Comey and his bloodhound, Fitz?

Actaeon, my Actaeon.
==============================

Cecil Turner

Thanks for the compliment ("Not as stupid as Dickerson!").

A little better than that. It was "enough smarter than Dickerson that he's in an entirely different category." (So, though the bar was low, you cleared it with room to spare.)

I think Fleischer and Bartlett were pushing Dickerson to look into it more in the hopes that he would discover, just not from them, that Plame was involved and that she was CIA.

Which explains the code words: "go ask the CIA"? (Which would, presumably, lead one to a CIA spokesperson who would presumably parrot Tenet's remarks?) Again, the only way to come to Dickerson's conclusion is to have it already firmly established in one's mind before hearing it. Besides, as lefties have beaten to death, Wilson wasn't sent by Plame, but by CPD. So we're to believe that instead of the plain English they spoke, they meant some sort of nefarious plot to ask a question that wouldn't get the desired response anyway (since the honest answer would be CPD) . . . which answer was helpfully provided the same day (but couldn't be what they meant)?

You think that's not right, that Fleischer and Bartlett were just imparting information to Dickerson without further encouragement to look into it in the hopes that he would find out about Plame.

I think that, in a dispute between the White House and CIA, the White House spokesmen said to ask the CIA who sent him. CIA's credibility on the point would be unquestioned, and the answer would be: "CPD." Dickerson's interpretation is well into tinfoil beanie territory.

Jeff

Cecil - The only thing I would recall is that on July 7, according to Fleischer, Libby told Fleischer that Plame sent Wilson, and it appears (to me, and we'll see when we get the full transcript and/or when Fleischer testifies at trial) that Libby told Fleischer it was hush-hush. Is your suggestion that what Tenet added to what Fleischer and Bartlett left out - and that provided the essential answer to the question they encouraged Dickerson to pursue - was "counterproliferation experts"?

Cecil Turner

according to Fleischer, Libby told Fleischer that Plame sent Wilson, and it appears (to me, and we'll see when we get the full transcript and/or when Fleischer testifies at trial) that Libby told Fleischer it was hush-hush.

Perhaps. Looks to me like the odds-on favorite is another conflated Plame-NIE discussion (the NIE being hush-hush, at least in the sense that it wasn't appropriate for a press conference, on the 7th). But we'll see.

Is your suggestion that what Tenet added to what Fleischer and Bartlett left out - and that provided the essential answer to the question they encouraged Dickerson to pursue - was "counterproliferation experts"?

Jeff, this isn't that hard. Surely you can answer the question for yourself:

Who sent Wilson?

boris

If Libby says "Fitz conflated the NIE keyjudgement with the vigorous pursuit, not me" would Jeff have believed him?

It has a whole different level of credibility on Jeff's planet if it comes from Fitz himself.

Same with "Who sent Wilson?" with the answer coming from Tenet.

boris

Libby told Fleischer that Plame sent Wilson, and it appears (to me, and we'll see when we get the full transcript and/or when Fleischer testifies at trial) that Libby told Fleischer it was hush-hush.

If Libby got this tidbit unofficially from Woodward and it wasn't part of the "Disclose A, B, and C of NIE" assignment it makes sense that he would tell Ari not to use it.

The chasm leaping inferrence is that this as part of the disclosure "conspiracy" but has to be done in a sneaky underhanded way.

boris

Generally speaking ...

Assume P to derive P

Is not valid. What is sometimes done is

Assume P to prove not P
Jeff

But we'll see.

We will see what it is Fleischer testified Libby said was hush-hush (though as far as I can see there's no positive indication that the NIE was involved in that part of the discussion, but we'll see). But there's some evasion going on on your part here (I'm not saying it's deliberate). What is explicit is that Libby told Fleischer that Wilson's wife sent him. That's one good reason to think that Fleischer thought the answer to the question he pushed Dickerson to pursue - "Who sent Wilson?" as you put it - was "Wilson's wife." So even if that's not the answer, that's one good reason to think that Fleischer thought it was the answer Dickerson would find when he pursued it. And that was not different from the answer offered by Tenet. If Fleischer says he understood from Libby that that information - her role in sending him and her affiliation with the CIA - was hush-hush and on the q.t., that would further raise the probability that Fleischer deliberately withheld that piece of information from Dickerson even as he pushed him to pursue the question that would, Fleischer hoped, get him that answer.

Man, I was so hoping that boris had left this thread to the dustbin of history. It is unfathomable to him that a belief I hold that he does not like could be anything other than an assumption, as opposed to a (probabilistic) judgment. And his ultimate explanation? BDS. I ask, who is offering the unfalsifiable explanations?

boris
It is unfathomable to [boris] that a belief I hold that he does not like could be anything other than an assumption, as opposed to a (probabilistic) judgment.

When there is a non silly explanation to a bash admin assertion, pointing that out moves the discussion in a reasonable direction.

Now it's only a (probabilistic) judgment. Progress I guess.

Seems more likely that "Wilson's wife" wasn't part of the disclosure "conspiracy" and even if he hoped Plame would be discovered, her being classified would make that less likeley rather than the expected result.

Your logic has a flaw. That's my point.

kim

I've noticed it flawed mainly when the use of it with his facts disturbs his underlying assumptions.
====================================

Cecil Turner

What is explicit is that Libby told Fleischer that Wilson's wife sent him.

I'd say that's hardly "explicit," even from Fleischer's chopped-up quote. However, it's explicitly denied by Libby in the next line of Tatel's quote:

Though Libby remembers the lunch meeting, and even says he thanked Fleischer for making a statement about the Niger issue, he denies discussing Wilson’s wife.
That's one good reason to think that Fleischer thought the answer to the question he pushed Dickerson to pursue - "Who sent Wilson?" as you put it - was "Wilson's wife."

That's rich. Accuse me of evasion, and proffer this stinker in the same paragraph? You know who sent Wilson. And your whole point is that more than one Administration source told them to check on it, so it had to be some sort of conspiracy. And, of course, the CIA spokesman the same day gave the truthful answer to the question . . . and yet a stripped-from-context comment from a lunch meeting four days previous was key to one of those Administration comments, even though it obviously couldn't possibly apply to the others? Again, this is tinfoil beanie territory, and you can't use Dickerson's excuse.

Jeff

I'd say that's hardly "explicit," even from Fleischer's chopped-up quote.

Well, if we're working within the bounds of the chopped-up quote, I don't see how you can get much more explicit than "[H]e was sent by his wife." (Obviously, boris, I am here assuming, on the basis of the evidence, that Fleischer understood that Libby was talking about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger and not, say, his last trip to the grocery store. I am also assuming that this was not prefaced by "It's flat out false that . . .")

You know who sent Wilson.

Yes, I am distinguishing between the correct answer that I know now, on the the hand, and Fleischer's belief at the time, on the other. As for the question of a coordinated effort, I do think there was one, though I also think the leaking about Plame went beyond any single coordinated effort. I do suspect Fleischer and Bartlett were on the same page. There is also evidence that a number of White House officials were saying substantially the same thing at the same time - but there's no need to say they were all getting it from Fleischer's July 7 lunch with Libby. Nor do I need to be claiming that that's the only place that Fleischer was getting it. Finally, the answer that Fleischer and Bartlett were, on my argument, pushing Dickerson to find is not inconsistent with Tenet's answer, regardless of whether it were true or not.

I'm not quite sure why the idea that there was a talking point to the effect that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, a talking point that was not included in the official talking points memo(s) on Wilson and the 16 words, puts me in tinfoil beaning territory.

boris

puts me in tinfoil beaning territory

Because if Plame was classified, sending Dickerson to ask Tenet would not have discovered her.

If Plame was NOT classified then sending to Tenet to discover Plame simply indicates Plame was not one of their talking points.

IOW if they did send Dickerson to discover Plame from Tenet, they DID NOT THINK SHE WAS CLASSIFIED. Sheesh.

Cecil Turner

I don't see how you can get much more explicit than "[H]e was sent by his wife."

Kinda depends on the rest of the sentence, eh? What if he'd said she worked in CPD and followed that up with "So, in a way, he was sent by his wife"? Would that be an explicit (American Heritage: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.) claim that "Wilson's wife sent him"? And again, this is Fleischer's testimony that directly contradicts Libby's, so you can't say anything is explicit about what "Libby told . . ." anyone.

I'm not quite sure why the idea that there was a talking point to the effect that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, a talking point that was not included in the official talking points memo(s) on Wilson and the 16 words, puts me in tinfoil beaning territory.

No, it's the refusal to admit the obvious, that the main talking point was: "CIA's Counterproliferation Division sent him, on their own initiative." And the obvious consideration that the statement carried more weight coming from a CIA source. Further, all the "leaks" carried that same main talking point, to discredit Wilson's "sent at the behest of the Vice President" meme, which we've beaten to death before.

maryrose

Jeff:
Are you as obnoxious in person as you seem to be on this thread? Please refrain from using foul language toward Patton and making demeaning comments to Larwyn. Maybe that plays on your lefty web sites but it doesn't cut the mustard here. This is a class blog so up your game and continue to listen to the facts presented by those who appear to know more than you or I.

kim

He gets frustrated with people who don't converse like he does, but he chills after awhile. Clearly the most fair minded of his persuasion that I've directly run across. Well, maybe I think that because he's quit disdaining me.
=====================================

Jeff

Kinda depends on the rest of the sentence, eh?

I thought we had agreed that we were evaluating what was there, in the excerpts.

No, it's the refusal to admit the obvious, that the main talking point was: "CIA's Counterproliferation Division sent him, on their own initiative."

No, in fact this is crazy, I am perfectly happy to admit that this was a main talking point, even the main talking point on the question of who sent Wilson. I'm also happy to admit that the VP's office was centrally concerned to rebut the notion that Cheney had Wilson sent. (It's worth noting in passing that OVP even went further and intentionally obscured the truth that Cheney's request to the CIA for more info triggered Wilson's trip - it's all right there in the July 8 2003 comment from Andrea Mitchell that TM loves to quote just one part from. This is typical political rhetoric: set up an extreme claim that you knock down in order to make it seem like the less-extreme claim your opponents are making is also false. They almost all do this.) None of that is in the least bit inconsistent, or even in tension, with the idea that there was also a coordinated effort, on the part of a smaller number of people, to get the word out that Wilson's wife was CIA and that she had sent him on a boondoggle, out of nepotism and so on. In fact, I think that is precisely what happened. The latter claim at once supports the former claim, and adds another dimension.

maryrose - I am far more obnoxious in person. And kim, it's not that I get frustrated with people who don't converse like I do. I mean, I may, but that's not what leads to my carefully considered uses of vulgarity or expressions of repugnance (as toward larwyn's shenanigans). I genuinely want Patton to leave me alone, because he strays into utterly inappropriate territory too often, and the extremity of his ugliness is appropriately answered, I think, the way I have. And with larwyn, I'm just trying to say what is, to get her to stop doing things like going after the kids of McCarthy. I would think that was totally out of bounds no matter where on the political spectrum it was coming from or where it was directed. It's just not on.

topsecretk9

-- And with larwyn, I'm just trying to say what is, to get her to stop doing things like going after the kids of McCarthy. I would think that was totally out of bounds no matter where on the political spectrum it was coming from or where it was directed. It's just not on.--

I think Larwyns point is -- it is entirely, utterly out of bounds...that's why many were so disgusted John Kerry and John Edward's gay baited Mary Cheney...they have company with Joe Wilson though.

She wasn't encouraging -- merely illustrating the imbalance of manners and degradation so celebrated by some.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame