Powered by TypePad

« In The Bull's Eye | Main | Libby On Cheney's Notes »

May 19, 2006

Comments

clarice

PUK, why not draft up a paragraph on that. Don't you think it can flesh out the selective prosecution charge..Noting that it was evident in the investigation itself and has continued to this date.

Sara (Squiggler)

Peter, I know that I didn't like finding out that a person who was telling me one thing had actually been leading a double life for the last ten years out of the 32 we were together to my chagrin and to the shock of everyone else who knew him. Apparently, Val was capable of pulling a stunt like that too and to get away with it because it was sanctioned by her employer. This whole CIA group has lived an alternate existence(s) at one time or another in their careers, so who knows what side any of them are on now or were then? Shoot we don't even know if they are who they say they are.

clarice

I think to selective prosecution we should add that the investigators apparently never asked Wilson if he'd told anyone of his wife's employment or if they did he apparently wasn't truthful, because we know he did..for one thing Gen Vallely says he did and Libby says he has 5 or more witnesses who will say under oath he did. he did.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice, sounds great to me.

What do we want the OPR to do? Are we going to go so far as to ask that Fitz be removed or what?

Should a point be made something along the lines that we are coming to the OPR because Fitz has absolutely zero, zilch, nada supervision?

clarice

First edit of outline:

Note the Judge's ruling re the Dismissal motion--that Fitz is bound by the rules and regulations of the Dept and therefore we believe that this is the appropriate office to which to bring the complaint.[citation and quote from ruling]
2.. If we are wrong and the OPR feels that under the particular circumstances of the appointment it has no jurisdiction, we'd appreciate a public statement to that affect for we believe it is relevant to the trial court's ruling and to any which may be made subsequently by a reviewing court.

3. We believe that to date Fiz has violated the rules and regulations and his ethical obligations as an attorney representing the government in the following respects:


(a) the false statements in the presser which misstated the facts and represented an effort to smear Libby and poison public opinion against him [detail misrepresentations0;

(b) the misleading representations to the Miller Court, including the footnote upon which Tatel relied;[detail]

(c) the setting up of a perjury trap by reading out of all sense his mission (to protect a whistleblower, rather than to find a leaker).I'd quote his good leak/bad leak statement. His mission was to find the leaker and he had found that person before he compelled the testimony of Miller.His statement of the law in the footnote to the Miller court was misleading and wrong. He knew at the time he went to the Ct of Appeals that he has no grounds to believe there had been a violation of IIPA or the Espionage Act. Both statutes were inapplicable.

(d) that he has conflated normal testimonial variances into perjury and false statements acts

(e) he is engaged in selective prosecution, charging Libby with false statements and conspiracy and not charging the leaker who, it appears, was really "the first to leak", someone who it seems disclosed Plame's identity to two reporters both of whom told others and one of whom, in fact, published that information leading to this investigation;

(f) He has improperly criminalized a political dispute.[Let's quote lots of his stuff..including that bit about good leaks/bad leaks to show that he is not impartial, but in deciding what is a good leak selects the anti-Administration statements of a serial liar (cite SSCI report) and a bad leak anyone who quite understandably sought to set the record straight. Wilson was a partisan with deep ties to the President's opponent, he publicized his false charges widely and they were charges of significant moment and import.The Administration had every right and reason to respond and Fitz' singular interpretation of what he is doing is proof that he has politicized this matter.

(g) He has gratuitously used the proceedings to smear the Administration for reasons unrelated to the advancement of the case:
(i) the NIE claim in his pleadings which he waited a week to correct.
(ii) the Cheney annotations assertion which he knew to be false and certainly not probative of Libby's state of mind


Above and beyond this, what he do know on the public record is that the investigation he oversaw was a one-sided one, designed to target Libby and Rove and not to get at the truth. PUK on Fitz' idee fix and notation about never apparently having asked Wilson if he himself had ever told anyone about his wife's employmentThere is substantial public record evidence, for example,that Plame's identity was well known to many reporters (including, for example, David Corn of the Nation who first floated the "revenge outing" and Plame was "covert" fables) and the only reporters who were questioned were those who had spoken to Libby and Rove.

In sum and substance you have a prosecutor who is misusing his office in a way which violated ethical standards and the department's rules and regulations which codify those standards of conduct


Lesley

"My interpretation on the Cheney questions is that he was trying to seek answers about Plame and the Niger trip." - Lurker -

Yes, Lurker, I agree with you. However, Cheney has served in the US House of Representatives, been a WH Chief of Staff, and a former SecDef. He must have seen lots of intelligence reports from various agencies during his career, moreover, I assume he is very familiar with sourcing, methods, and uses. What I detect from his notes AND underlining is not only questions about Wilson but also about this particular CIA intelligence gathering operation itself: ie there is something really weird going on here, it doesn't pass the smell test.

All woolgathering on my part (grin).

clarice

Sara, OPR cannot remove him. We are (a) asking them to investigate and make findings on these charges and recommend what, if anything, the DoJ can do if the findings are meritorious and (b) making a public record as to the wrongdoing and as to the fact that this unconventional appointment has deleterious consequences and undercuts the decision not to dismiss the case because the appointment was extra special..Perhaps we can persuade Congress to reconsider the funding.

Sara (Squiggler)

Perhaps the cites cover this, but I also think we need to stress this big case/little case gambit and how the big case (the real case) has been tossed aside in order to persue a little case (political case).

clarice

Besides PUK, is anyone else actually going to work on this or is this one of those why don't we do this--but we mean you do it things?

Who's going to dig up the relevant language from the Judge's ruling on the Dismissal motion?

Then someone should pull up the argument on the misleading nature of the affidavit Tatel relied on and that interesting quote someone posted last night from the Miller proceeding.

Ranger

Wouldn't it also be significant to point out that Fitz was charged with finding out who leaked, yet in the conduct of his investigation he has made a series of deals with witnesses that ensured he did not discover who besides Libby may have told the witnesses about Plame?

These deals would seem to be significant evidence that either a) he had concluded very early on that the leak was not a crime, or b) that he was not actually investigating what he was charged to investigate (the leak as an act) but rather was using the investigation as a vehicle to punish "bad people" (Libby and Rove).

clarice

Yes, that should go into the selective prosecution part, Mac. The Miller case is most significant as it appears she had Wilson's name and # in her book before she spoke to Libby and yet she had an agreement not to reveal those courcees.

Sara, I'd not put in the big case/little case thing..it reflects more trial tactics and gets us off the track.

kim

Speaking of cosmic justice, CT, one wonders what Fitz's'll be.
========================================

Sara (Squiggler)

Sara, OPR cannot remove him. We are (a) asking them to investigate and make findings on these charges and recommend what, if anything, the DoJ can do if the findings are meritorious and (b) making a public record as to the wrongdoing and as to the fact that this unconventional appointment has deleterious consequences and undercuts the decision not to dismiss the case because the appointment was extra special..Perhaps we can persuade Congress to reconsider the funding.

When I read this, and I did understand it from reading hundreds if not thousands of comments here on JOM, it makes me mad all over again when I think of the non-supervisory aspect of this investigation. Can read it in the newspaper BS, indeed!!! Have I mentioned this really pisses me off? It is no wonder Fitz thinks Joe is a Whistleblower, and doesn't understand Cheney's incredulity at the way the CIA is conducting government business, he is every bit as flaky in the way he thinks his own business should be conducted.

jwest

Clarice,

I couldn’t agree with you more about your conclusions “in sum and substance”.

Can you tell me though; do you think that Fitz, in his heart, believes he is doing the right thing?

I could be naïve about this, but I just get the impression that Fitz thinks he is the only honest person in Washington. He believes he knows the story and no facts will dissuade him in his quest to root out the evil forces bent on destroying truth, justice and the American Way. He’s the 12 year old Boy Scout prosecutor who is determined to convict the gardener that has been raping his mother (every Thursday, for the past 2 years), convinced he understands, oblivious to any other (more obvious) interpretation.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sara, I'd not put in the big case/little case thing..it reflects more trial tactics and gets us off the track.

I defer to your experience.

I don't mind pulling cites, although one caveat, I wasn't here until recently, so whoever writes up the paragraphs will need to say what cites they need or something. I'm just not familiar enough with the earlier filings and documents, like back with Tatel and all that. Be happy to do it though.

Sara (Squiggler)

experience should read expertise

clarice

Mac, good point. Will you gather up the evidence of the agreements and pick out a good example , I'll add that point to the draft:

2d edit of draft:

First edit of outline:

Note the Judge's ruling re the Dismissal motion--that Fitz is bound by the rules and regulations of the Dept and therefore we believe that this is the appropriate office to which to bring the complaint.[citation and quote from ruling]
2.. If we are wrong and the OPR feels that under the particular circumstances of the appointment it has no jurisdiction, we'd appreciate a public statement to that affect for we believe it is relevant to the trial court's ruling and to any which may be made subsequently by a reviewing court.

3. We believe that to date Fiz has violated the rules and regulations and his ethical obligations as an attorney representing the government in the following respects:


(a) the false statements in the presser which misstated the facts and represented an effort to smear Libby and poison public opinion against him [detail misrepresentations0;

(b) the misleading representations to the Miller Court, including the footnote upon which Tatel relied;[detail]

(c) the setting up of a perjury trap by reading out of all sense his mission (to protect a whistleblower, rather than to find a leaker).I'd quote his good leak/bad leak statement. His mission was to find the leaker and he had found that person before he compelled the testimony of Miller.His statement of the law in the footnote to the Miller court was misleading and wrong. He knew at the time he went to the Ct of Appeals that he has no grounds to believe there had been a violation of IIPA or the Espionage Act. Both statutes were inapplicable.

(d) that he has conflated normal testimonial variances into perjury and false statements acts

(e) he is engaged in selective prosecution, charging Libby with false statements and conspiracy and not charging the leaker who, it appears, was really "the first to leak", someone who it seems disclosed Plame's identity to two reporters both of whom told others and one of whom, in fact, published that information leading to this investigation;

(f) He has improperly criminalized a political dispute.[Let's quote lots of his stuff..including that bit about good leaks/bad leaks to show that he is not impartial, but in deciding what is a good leak selects the anti-Administration statements of a serial liar (cite SSCI report) and a bad leak anyone who quite understandably sought to set the record straight. Wilson was a partisan with deep ties to the President's opponent, he publicized his false charges widely and they were charges of significant moment and import.The Administration had every right and reason to respond and Fitz' singular interpretation of what he is doing is proof that he has politicized this matter.

(g) He has gratuitously used the proceedings to smear the Administration for reasons unrelated to the advancement of the case:
(i) the NIE claim in his pleadings which he waited a week to correct.
(ii) the Cheney annotations assertion which he knew to be false and certainly not probative of Libby's state of mind


Above and beyond this, what he do know on the public record is that the investigation he oversaw was a one-sided one, designed to target Libby and Rove and not to get at the truth. PUK on Fitz' idee fix and notation about never apparently having asked Wilson if he himself had ever told anyone about his wife's employmentThere is substantial public record evidence, for example,that Plame's identity was well known to many reporters (including, for example, David Corn of the Nation who first floated the "revenge outing" and Plame was "covert" fables) and the only reporters who were questioned were those who had spoken to Libby and Rove.

moreover, in questioning selective reporters he limited his questioning of them to discussions with Libby and Rove, leaving out that they had other sources, thus skewing and distorting the investigation to a predictable end. One example of this is the questioning of Cooper who does not seem to be asked if he had knowledge of Plame outside any discussion with these two. As his wife was a prominent Clinton appointee that seems a reasonable likelihood. As his co-author Calabresi spoke to Wilson before and after his discussion with Libby that seems a certainty.That Cooper's call, in fact, was pretextual seems a certainty for his written account is at complete odds with his testimony.

In sum and substance you have a prosecutor who is misusing his office in a way which violated ethical standards and the department's rules and regulations which codify those standards of conduct


Sara (Squiggler)

I just get the impression that Fitz thinks he is the only honest person in Washington. He believes he knows the story and no facts will dissuade him in his quest to root out the evil forces bent on destroying truth, justice and the American Way. He’s the 12 year old Boy Scout prosecutor who is determined to convict the gardener that has been raping his mother (every Thursday, for the past 2 years), convinced he understands, oblivious to any other (more obvious) interpretation.

Well he better grow up. He's playing with the big boys now and freedom and careers and reputations hang in the balance. He's screwing it up through either incompetence, partisanship, or his own naive state. And, by screwing up, real leakers are getting the message that they can continue with business as usual.

kim

jwest, there is a soul there to be searched, and I keep hoping he'll take the time to do it.
==============================

clarice

I'm leaving this up--Rick will try his hand at editing tomrrow..Sara--why don't you pull together the false statements in the presser..you can get them right out of Libby's filings--I believe his reply brief to Fitz' response on the Motion to Dismiss and the fn to J. Walton's decision on the Motion to Dismiss.

Or, you can go to AT search type in Clarice Feldman and see my articles on it for I am certain I quoted Libby's contentions about the presser.

Sara (Squiggler)

In sum and substance you have a prosecutor who is misusing his office in a way which violated ethical standards and the department's rules and regulations which codify those standards of conduct

And who continues to be unsupervised.

owl

Sorry, I'm not smart enough to help you. Just re-read Judge Walton, I can't help but believe that he does NOT understand this mess either. I mean how can you seperate Wilson's lies from the case? They might as well hang Libby now and pretend he committed sucide.

Chants

Read this and edit where appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

jwest

Sara,

I agree completely. Somehow, Fitz needs his head pried out of his ass.

The reason for the question as to Fitz’s state of mind (if he believes he is doing “good”) is a prerequisite to determine the best approach to remove his rectal earmuffs.

If he is doing this due to partisanship, he needs to be attacked on that front. However, if this is a case of naïve incompetence, an easier course of action is turning him around

Ranger

Just so no one gets confused. I'm not MacRanger, just plain old Ranger.

I would be glad to lend a hand with the project though, if my humble services would be of help.

Sara (Squiggler)

Okay Clarice, will do my best ... after I get a few hours sleep. If anyone begins to take the outline and put it in letter form, will they send me a copy I can paste into a Word Perfect document for my own use as we go along.

Clarice, should the cites be in legal format or more like an ordinary citizen would do it? Thinking of overall tone here. Oh never mind, I'll pull whatever there is and then you all can decide how to include.

BTW, I hate having to constantly refer to footnotes, but this could get very long if done within the body of a letter. I'm beginning to see a book developing here, or at least a pamphlet. LOL (I think I'm getting punchy.)

Sara (Squiggler)

jwest -- I don't think he is an incompetent attorney, but I do think he is totally out of his element and way over his head as far as the ins and outs of Washington politics are concerned and as to the nature of the intelligence world.

I also agree that Walton seems to be equally confused, although he may be more savy and get it with the right information from Team Libby responses.

This is only my amateur opinion, but I don't think knocking competence is a good way to go...sets up a turf battle kind of scenario and perhaps a circle the wagons to protect one of our own response. I don't think a direct attack of partisanship is good either, although showing how his naivete is leading to an appearance of partisanship should probably be included.

Government types love that "appearance of wrong doing" thing.

clarice

Regular cites will do--For example J. Walton Order Motion to Dimiss (p __) date.

Ranger

jwest,

I think he is a man that has come to believe his own press. He is clearly an able mind, but he has been prosecuting corruption in Illinois, which, unfortunately, takes about as much skill as fishing with dynamite. People have been telling him what a great job he's been doing, but in reality, even an average prosecutor could be wildly successful, if they just applied themselves to the task. I think the reason that Novak and Woodward are so appalled is that Fitz came to Washington and just started acting like it was Illinois. He got taken by the sharks, and they know it and really want to tell the world what is going on here, but as long as he keeps "investigating" they are silenced.

Sara (Squiggler)

Okay Clarice, will do. I'm going to hang around for a little while, then probably try to sleep for a few hours. Give Sue, Syl, and all the rest a chance to come in and add their two cents. Where is Larwyn, seems this would be right up her alley. Mac, AJ, too.

topsecretk9

I think Cheney found it unbelievable. I also think it is telling that he knew so little at that late date.

good one owl. me too.

Sara (Squiggler)

I think Cheney's reaction was:

Report, what report, I never got no stinkin' report, WTF is going on here with pro bono trips.

clarice

ts--want to help with the OPR letter? If so, It would be useful to have Hitchens piece tagging Wilson as a serial liar; the portions of the SSCI report and the Roberts report pointing out his lies and anything else which tightly details those lies.

clarice

Mmm==proabably the Wa Po's teo retractions of the Pincus story would be helpful

Ranger

Judith Miller statement on agreement with Special Counsel to limit testimony to Libby.

Published: September 30, 2005
Following is the transcript of a statement by Judith Miller on Friday afternoon, as recorded by The New York Times

"Once I got a personal, voluntary waiver my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to me."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30transcript-miller.html?ex=1148270400&en=6f361ab70706e9ad&ei=5070

maryrose

I hope Larwyn is feeling better and we hear from her soon. I'm not really computer savvy but I am in your cheering section on this matter.Go to it!

topsecretk9

Lesley

you comment, way up high -circus, clown?

BRAVO!!!

clarice

Thanks, Ranger.

Lurker

""My interpretation on the Cheney questions is that he was trying to seek answers about Plame and the Niger trip." - Lurker -

Yes, Lurker, I agree with you. However, Cheney has served in the US House of Representatives, been a WH Chief of Staff, and a former SecDef. He must have seen lots of intelligence reports from various agencies during his career, moreover, I assume he is very familiar with sourcing, methods, and uses. What I detect from his notes AND underlining is not only questions about Wilson but also about this particular CIA intelligence gathering operation itself: ie there is something really weird going on here, it doesn't pass the smell test.

All woolgathering on my part (grin)."

Yup...as if this whole deal did not make sense to him so he was wondering what the heck was going on.

"Sara, OPR cannot remove him. We are (a) asking them to investigate and make findings on these charges and recommend what, if anything, the DoJ can do if the findings are meritorious and (b) making a public record as to the wrongdoing and as to the fact that this unconventional appointment has deleterious consequences and undercuts the decision not to dismiss the case because the appointment was extra special..Perhaps we can persuade Congress to reconsider the funding."

That's why we should consider sending this letter to our conservative senators and representatives as well as Bush.

Wayne Marsden's article addressed the need for an independent special prosecutor:

Read under May 19 under Tony Snow's tar-baby comment:

"May 19, 2006 -- Tony Snow's "tar baby" comment was not his most egregious utterance. Tony Snow defended his use of the term "tar baby" in his Tuesday press conference, his first after succeeding Scott McClellan. Snow correctly states that the term is used as a reference to Br'er Rabbit hugging a tar baby in Uncle Remus, which means he was in a sticky situation. The term has also been used in a racist context.

However, when Snow began to cry while talking about his bout with cancer, he apologized for his "Ed Muskie moment." While Snow can, perhaps, be given a pass for the tar baby comment, his reference to a situation involving Ed Muskie's presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire in 1972 was nothing less than appalling. Muskie, who was the clear frontrunner in the New Hampshire primary, was responding to a couple of nasty articles in the conservative Manchester Union Leader. The paper had published a story suggesting that Muskie's wife Jane used an ethnic slur to describe Americans of French-Canadian descent. Muskie, standing on the steps of the Union Leader and denouncing the false reporting of the paper, broke down in tears. The media picked up on the event and, in suggesting that Muskie demonstrated weakness, helped erode Muskie's support. He barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Sen. George McGovern and went on to lose the national primary race. It turned out that the Union Leader's story about Jane Muskie was based on a forged letter prepared by Richard Nixon's campaign. The perpetrator of the forgery was one Donald Segretti, later jailed in the Watergate scandal for, among other things, planting forged documents and criminal conspiracy. During the 1972 campaign, Segretti became aware of a young Republican political activist in Texas who showed much promise in the dirty tricks department. His name -- Karl Rove.

Now Rove faces his "Segretti moment" in the CIA Leakgate affair. Washington, DC has been abuzz with rumors and story planting for years in this case. Rove learned well from his mentor Segretti. This morning, DC anxiously awaits a press advisory from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding a major development in the Rove case. If past is prologue, a press advisory will be issued mid morning about an afternoon press conference. We are standing by.

Note on U.S. Attorney John Briggs vs. US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Archibald Cox, the Watergate Independent Counsel, was appointed in May 1973. Briggs indicted Segretti the same month after a Justice Department investigation that took about a half a year. Rove has been under investigation by Fitzgerald since the Special Counsel's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, a period of two and a half years. Briggs coordinated his investigation with Independent Counsel Cox and Attorney General Elliott Richardson while Fitzgerald, as a Special Counsel, is only protected from pressure from the White House by an administrative firewall. This clearly demonstrates the problems that can be encountered in not having an Independent Counsel Statute to avoid the political pressure that can be applied to a less independent Special Counsel."

Clarice's letter is already disproving Wayne Marsden's argument about the Fitz's independent counsel being one-sided.

Lurker

Oh my goodness, I screwed up on the link. Just click on the first link. My apologies.

JM Hanes

If you're not going to move the letter writing off site, you might think about using the http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/bill_clintons_n.html>Bill Clinton thread for it. Seems strangely appropriate, no? And also telling that these days Clinton garners a sum total of 7 comments.

The idea of a letter interests me greatly, but I know I can't even begin to get a handle on the idea in this format, and in no time flat any thread will get so long that no one on dial up will be able to access it. I also think it could easily turn into something more. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has mixed feelings about all the conversation & exploration & effort expended by one and all on commentary here disappearing every day. It's comforting to think it's all recorded in Tom's archives (may The Server never burp!), but is it really doing anything there, is it really in anything resembling useful form, and are we really doing anything productive with our time? But enough about that.

While my brain seems to be wired more like Sara's (bullet points, hoppers), I'm also pretty awed by Clarice's "Just do it!" approach. I'm going to check out Rick's suggested option and see if I can figure out how to make it work for a variety of brainiacs. Seems to me it may be a little like learning how to post hot links; hard to explain, but easy to do once you know how.

owl

watching Judy Miller on FOX talking about Libya....

topsecretk9

Clarice

I think you all are doing a fine job

clarice

JMH--I've put what we have so far on word and I'll email it to you.

owl

Yep. Been watching this thing since Joe appeared on MTP and will be cheering the loudest.

Sara (Squiggler)

JMH -- I've asked for anyone who begins to write this up to send me what they have so I can redo it in Word Perfect letter format. I think once we get a working draft letter it will be easier. Right now, we are still working on a draft outline which Clarice has started and asked the rest of us to find the cites for.

It is confusing and we really do need to move off this public forum to somewhere more private.

clarice

jmh, I posted it in the Apr 28 comments on your site.

JM Hanes

Sara

In re your comment on competance & turf battles. I'd also be extremely careful about imputing motive. That's where so much of politics has gone so wrong, and it's more likely than anything else to end up derailing the project as a whole. Why hand any would be partisan critics a way to throw the baby out with the bath water? In fact, it could easily be something we disagree upon amongst ourselves.

Sara (Squiggler)

JMH -- yes, I agree.

Seixon

Well, I do have a lot of material over at my blog demonstrating that the Wilson/VIPS nexus were lying their asses off in the summer of 2003 to take down Cheney. VIPS called for Cheney's resignation on the day Novak's column was published, and have since been dropping spin with Jason Leopold and other journalists about Cheney being the real target of the investigation.

I'm going to write about another such journalist shortly. It seems VIPS have themselves a little portfolio of journalists willing to do their bidding.

foloufon

Seixon's recall is as awesome as his archives. Or is that AJ? Or Mac......Tom?

I can't remember; the past is a blank. Poor ol' Jeff dog, the dog what had four eyes.
======================

kim

Out damn Spot.
========

clarice

Seixon perhaps you may want to summarize this stuff to show how one-sided the investigation has been and give a cite to your key articles (send it to JMH )

boris

careful about imputing motive

One can explain point of view in speaking out as a supporter of taking action in the war on terror and the importance in that effort of Afghanistan and Iraq. As in flight 93 the people taking action are not obliged to act on perfect information nor gaurantee perfect results. That treating their efforts in that context as criminal acts, perhaps on the basis of policy disagreement (or taking a side in that dispute) is diservice and abuse of position.

Ranger

Judith Miller's notebook contains indications that she obtained information about Mrs. Wilson from other sources as well.

My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: October 16, 2005

From Page 2,

"On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him."


Still looking for a specific mention of Joe Wilson's contact information in said notebook. Was that mentioned in court docs or is that something that has yet to be publicly established by a principle actor?

Lurker

"In sum and substance you have a prosecutor who is misusing his office in a way which violated ethical standards and the department's rules and regulations which codify those standards of conduct"

How about adding something about the inability of avoiding political pressure and maintaining a neutral mindset when investigating this whole wheel deal?

Seixon

If only I had the time... My archives are there for anyone who wants to rummage... Most of the relevant stuff should be in the Plame Game archive... And yes, my memory is razor sharp when it comes to these things.

However, I'm not familiar with this May 2, 2003 meeting someone is talking about. Did Wilson and the VIPS show up there? If that is the case... then Ray McGovern's claim that he met Wilson for the first time at the EPIC conference in mid-June got a bit less credible... Can anyone dig that up and see if he was there with Wilson on May 2?

Lurker

Does the INR report prove that Plame sent Wilson to Niger in year 2002 (and /or in addition to 1999)?

JM Hanes

Clarice/Sara

Thanks! I shall closet myself and return. Well, actually I'll got outside to play, and then closet myself and then return.

Clarice - "something else intriguing from the Miller representations" Don't know if this is what you were refering to earlier, but I mentioned Miller saying Libby asserted Tenet didn't know who Wilson was.

Sara - I'm more than a little familiar with the 48 hour thing myself. As far as I'm concerned the whole 24 hour deal is an artificial construct when applied to human beings vs. suns & moons. Hard to say stop when your brain is still saying go.

clarice

Ah yes--that's the interesting thing..But perhaps not so important for this letter.

kim

I think that's why Tenet got his medal; it was Bush's recognition that he was a relatively innocent victim of the plot against the executive. I believe Tenet signed the referral, absently, in a stack after it was prepared or vetted by the IGls office, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Tenet was a later leaker of Val's role, maybe not UGO, but ugo.

But Ubu, you believe?
====================================

JM Hanes

One last thought, I could set us up a dedicated typepad blog for working on this in no time flat. with link lists, etc., and maybe segregate bibliographic info, ref material. I checked out Rick's link, but I don't think the format is flexible or comprehensive enough. Everyone's familiar with blog style. If it sounds good, maybe I could get it up and running while Sara gets some sleep, should nap time every actually arrive. You guys sure work fast. Let me know what you think.

Barney Frank

Lurker,

I believe it was the SSCI report that turned up the memo from Plame touting Joe Blow for the trip to Niger. Don't think there was anything in the INR re Plame.

Lurker

ok, emptywheel seems to think that it was in 1999 that Plame sent Wilson to Niger and Cheney that sent Wilson to Niger in year 2002. Emtywheel uses the Cheney annotations to explain his / her analysis.

I'm asking because the letter should either show the evidence or reasonable doubt of the identify of the source that sent Wilson to Niger in 2002.

kim

What's really a continuing irony, Lurker, is that Cheney behesting is vital to their analysis, yet they are stuck insisting that Joe never said Cheney behested his trip. Har de har har.
=======================================

Beto Ochoa

oh how the walls rebound
the hate that you've sworn takes the day
your own great defect
is found circumspect
and broken the game that you played.
The forgiving spirit is loosed
yet brothers in blindness persist
and left in the wake, of sinners and saints
is the honor of giving to truth.

kim

That's all there is to know, and all ye need to know.
================================

Beto Ochoa

~Kim~

Lurker

Here is something to add to the letter:

He avoids handing over documents that doesn't exist????

Good for the Libby Team to push for documents.

Lurker

And perhaps there should be two letters eventually - one complaint towards Fitz and one towards Walton if Walton, as AJStrata says, wasn't careful with his rulings.

Drat, not using the proper format for a link.

typepad should provide a edit capability.

Rick Ballard

JMH,

It certainly isn't flexible enough for what you're suggesting. I'm not familiar with typepad from the program side but if you can get one set up I'm sure I'll figure it out quick enough.

It might be helpful if you set up regulars as contributors so that source links and other material might be appended without you having to do all the work.

Let me know via email as to how I might be of help and I'll give it a shot.

Sara (Squiggler)

jmh, Good idea, I was thinking of doing the same thing. You might want to add a couple of Guest authors so more than one person can work on the draft using posts.

Can someone write the opening paragaph stating the purpose in letter language rather than draft note language? We have it as outline, need to put it in final language and then we can move on to the 2nd part, which is flushing out our "List" of bullet points we've been compiling all day.

topsecretk9

Don't think it was a leak...Armitage just blabbed to anyone with ears

Muskie Bucktail Man

My Favorite muckie trolling lure is a Grunt. Massive 16 inches with a wide 30 inch wobble. Pike and musky will oth hit this lure hard in summer and fall! http://www.gruntmuskielures.com

The comments to this entry are closed.