Powered by TypePad

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

May 19, 2006

Comments

hrtshpdbox

Karl actually wrote each and every one). -- what does this mean?>
It means that you didn't get my joke, which is that the veracity of the letters might be questioned by Fitz supporters (y'know, like Pauline Kael couldn't believe that Reagan had been elected, since she didn't know anyone who voted for him).

Sara (Squiggler)

Duh. Sorry. I've been up all night. Little slow this morning. Thanks for the explaining.

boris

I don't think Fitz is particularly politically partisan

But my parallax illusions post well before the indictment suggested BDS and that Fitz would proceed on the basis of illusion 1.

Aint seen nuttin since 'cept confurmayshun.

The ailment otherwise known as seafoam syndrome isn't necessarily partisan as many of it's sufferers would deny, calling themselves independents, moderates, and progressives. More than a few so called conservatives as well.

PeterUK

I agree Fitz is probably not partisan,more in the nature of an unsmart bomb that goes where it is aimed.

Tom Maguire

I wish I could figure out what you think Rove might be guilty of doing that makes you so sure he will be indicted.

Well, I think Fitzgerald thinks Rove lied to him, and interfered with his quest for the truth - the whole "I forgot about Cooper, the phonelogs were incomplete, the emails were missing - imagine my bad luck" story is going to get a No Sale.

That does not mean I think it is a strong case, or that Rove can't beat it - I just have the idea that Fitzgerald wants to do it.

Anyway, Jeff made an astute point a while back at EW about expectations management and settig the bar- Reps ought to be talking up the probability of a Rove indictment, so it is either no surprise if he is indicted, or good news if Rove is cleared.

Dems ought to do the opposite - talk about how unlikely an indictment is, and won't it be a stunningly bad break for Bush if it happens. Instead, they (some of them) go nuts over TruthOut and manage to create a secenario where, even if Rove is indicted next week, some of them look like maroons.

I guess the counter-argument is that maybe public chatter can create an air of inevitability and pressure Fitzgerald in a particular direction, but I doubt it.

And this is not to suggest that my prediction is spin management, rather than sincere. But I don't see much downside to being sincere on the gloomy side, for me anyway - my impression is that on the Dem side, the "Rove to be indicted now, and his little dog, too!" sites get a lot more traffic.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well, I won't vote for a Democrat as long as we have our military in combat and Iran is threatening on the horizon and terrorism is the primary issue, however, I've had it with "conservatives" who have been front and center over the immigration issue. The Tancredo/Malkin wing is beginning to really p!ss me off.

Dwilkers

Assuming what we think about Armitage's role is true:

Another thing about the whole Armitage deal that I don't recall anyone mentioning here is that if I were Fitz I'd be highly pissed at Armitage.

My guess is that Fitz regretted the 'first known' thing as soon as it passed his lips. He was nervous and on national TV. But once it came out he had to respond to the questions, and after all it IS in the indictment so technically it was barely excuseable.

Then what happens? Only a couple weeks later up pops Woodward. Fitz hasn't even interviewed Woodward and here he is saying he heard it way earlier. To make it even worse the one who told him is someone that actually has been interviewed and testified; Armitage. Fitz has egg all over his face - over something he knew he shouldn't have said the moment he said it.

At that point Fitz has 2 choices, 1) act like it didn't matter (sweep it under the rug) or 2) see if he can put together a case against Armitage based on his interviews and testimony.

Going after anyone else and not going after Armitage looks sleazy now - it looks like Fitz is dodging his own mistake to keep from looking bad.

boris

One wonders if the reason Rove hasn't been indicted is that it would virtually require Armitage as well. Fitz knows Rove is guilty and Armitage is innocent so his thinking is better to let the guilty man go free rather than punish the innocent one.

By guilty of course one means the discrediting of a noble whistleblower, which can't be charged not actually being a crime to discredit lies with the truth. (dammit!)

Kate

ABC The Note wrote two weeks ago that if everyone who forgot a conversation with Cooper were sent to prison, the jails would be overflowing, or words to that effect.

Cooper will have everyone paying rapt attention to his every word, not bad for a bore.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well, I think Fitzgerald thinks Rove lied to him, and interfered with his quest for the truth - the whole "I forgot about Cooper, the phonelogs were incomplete, the emails were missing - imagine my bad luck" story is going to get a No Sale.

Whew! I already feel better since I think the phonelog/email question is resolved and Rove survived. Afterall, these are areas he had no control over and obviously this is what Luskin spent quite a bit of time proving to Fitz before. At this point, if it is only Cooper, then I don't see an indictment as I think Cooper is entirely discredited via Libby and Fitz has to know this by now. But then, what do I know? Nada!

Kate

Well, we have a new set of laws coming out of the Fitz investigation:

1) Never criticize Joe Wilson, never
2) Never forget a phone conversation with Cooper

In the future Republican administrations can protect themselves from prosecution by:

1) Never pushing back against a critic and
2) Don't pick up the phone if it's Cooper

PeterUK

What is strange about thsi case,is the prosecutor has created a dichotomy between "Good leaker" and "Bad Leaker",further they are what he says they are,not a very convincing way of carrying out justice.

Lurker

"Setting aside the denials above, some of which are implausible anyway, why can't Fitzgerald indict both Rove and Armitage for obstruction/perjury/bad memory/bad attitude? And in the country at large, won't headlines blaring "Two Senior Admin Officials Indicted" be ghastly? Will the focus be on lying Republicans, or forgetful ones?

I understand that some folks think Fitzgerald will only indict the architects of the war, but if he focuses instead on the people who disrupted his investigation, Rove and Armitage would be plausible targets.

A lot of our talking points take a hit in that scenario.

And did anyone have an insight into the Powell/Armitage/Inman relationship - best buds, bad blood, what?"

The word, "Contra" came out.

What about the Iran-Contra mess?

So...

another connection between Iran-Contra / Bush and Armitage / Inman / Powell / North...

Would this be another reason why Fitz's close-knit group is influencing the CIA leak case because of the Bush family?

If Rove is truly guilty, then he deserves to be indicted. But right now I see that any case against Rove based on Fitz's current objectives would be weaker than the Libby case.

Cecil Turner

That's what I think, and since I think he will indict Rove, then I ought to think he is indicting Armitage.

Okay, but do you? Because I agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion . . . because Fitz's various writings suggest he's looking for a particular subset of leakers.

That does not mean I think it is a strong case, or that Rove can't beat it - I just have the idea that Fitzgerald wants to do it.

If Fitz thinks Rove ought to be punished, an indictment does the trick. And his treatment of Libby (where I remain convinced the decision to target came before the gj testimony) suggests he's quite comfortable with cosmic justice.

sad

Fitz needs to watch some CSI where they constantly discuss the need to follow the evidence and let the evidence tell the story. Perhaps he's been watching Boston Legal instead and modeling himself on the vindictive, agenda driven DA. It is obvious this entire mess could have been avoided if Fitz had just Tivo'd differently. sigh..... Fitz coulda been a Denny Crane..........

PeterUK

"Well, I think Fitzgerald thinks Rove lied to him, and interfered with his quest for the truth - the whole "I forgot about Cooper, the phonelogs were incomplete, the emails were missing - imagine my bad luck" story is going to get a No Sale."

This truth of Fitzgeralds is amazingly selective.I think in his eagerness on getting the Big Case,he skimped on prior investigation and jumped in with his usual roll over modus operandum,indicting on other charges generated by the bizarre grand jury system.As more and more prior leakers come to light,Fitz seems to get further away from his assignment.

Lurker

Should a letter of complaint about Fitz be based on the fixed ideas?

BTW, truthout has removed all of Jason Leopold's articles from its front page due to many complaints by the posters about "partial apology" without retracting Jason Leopold's articles about the Rove Indictment. Some of the posters still deny the fakeness but accurateness of the recent JL articles.

One poster took note that some posts were removed, which created the confusion of flow of conversation.

sad

Peter

Are you suggesting Fitz had a "slam dunk" moment?

PeterUK

Lurker
"If Rove is truly guilty, then he deserves to be indicted."

Guilty of what? There has been no evidence,other than the word of the CIA,(remember them,Great Satan Inc's Hell Hound?) that Plame was covert,classified or qualified.
This is all based on the CIA's referal,the same people who have been leaking and lying through their teeth.

sad

Can not wait until that referral sees the light of day.

PeterUK

Sad,
I'd like to see the signature on it.

Lurker

Exactly, PUK. As the last two posters pointed out, the question is how authentic the CIA referral letter is.

And exactly what is a CIA referral letter, btw? That it identifies Plame as a CIA employee and her status? If her status is NOC, then how come it's revealed in a CIA referral letter since NOC is highly-classified?

Lurker

Boy, should check the latest thread at seixon's site as well as the first response.

Kate

The conversation with Cooper seems to be easily forgettable from my perspective.

Phone log...how would anyone know then that this would be an issue and have to be hidden, that's just silly.

Length..2-minutes
Subject: Welfare Reform
Other issues: Rove leaving for vacation

The only thing I see suspicious is the missing e-mail and that could work against him or for him...no readily available verification. Also, the e-mail doesn't even state that the spouse was an issue.

Paws

CIA has denied that Plame worked for the Directorate of Operations and sent her husband on a mission to Iraq. This is important because CIA has alot to answer for if Plame and The Dirctorate of Operations sent Wilson. It was planning BEFORE the war to take advantage of the 'inevitablility' of Bush invading Iraq. This may have made it more likely and also involved CIA Directorate of Operations plans to use Bush and, later, the war. As far as treason, tis not too far from this.

Lurker

Incidentally, at last night's state republican convention training, one of the rules for the state party platform deals with the primary vote registration because of what had happened in the last primary.

The last primary saw the conservative judges replaced by the "RINOS" judges. Why? Because the democrats got their voters to sign up as republicans to add votes to the "RINOS" judges.

What a cheat.

PeterUK

I would also like to see from whence Fitz recruited his investigators,their names would be useful also.

PeterUK

Paws,
The current mem is Plame worked for the Counter Proliferation Division,which if true would place her in the position of sending Mr Plame,nee Wilson,to investigate the alleged Niger uranium sales.
Cheney asks CIA,CIA dumps it on CPD,Joe gets to drink mint tea and bat flies.

Lurker

Didn't Plame send Wilson to Niger back in 1999 (while Clinton was in the office)?

Lurker

Does it sound like Karl is worried about the pending indictment? Well, check this

PeterUK

"Didn't Plame send Wilson to Niger back in 1999 (while Clinton was in the office)?"
Yes ,you begin to wonder why she wanted him out of the house.

Lurker

oh, sorry, the link was missing.

Rove raises funds, spirits for local GOP

Kate

It's a beautiful day and I'm off to do some important things like go shopping and go for a walk.

Took a quick peak at The COrner before I left and York has a very interesting post on Libby's filing last night...I guess.

Don't know how to link on this laptop. Sorry.

boris

Byron York

Lurker

PeterUK

Kate,your link.
To Byron York

PeterUK

Boris,what an ingratiating pair we are.

PeterUK

"In the margins of the article, Cheney wrote, "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Some observers have claimed that the annotated article shows Cheney giving Libby his "marching orders" to smear Wilson. And prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in a recent motion that, "Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson."

Only someone who has spent his life in the public sector would construe this the way as Fitz has.Try sliding a trip to Niger past your CEO under the guise of a fact finfing mission.Politicians do this all the time..the taxpayer is paying. the resposne from Cheney is exactly what a man who has run a big business would say.

boris

Re: Byron York's post ... Apparantly Cecil's caution that there was no evidence that Libby had seen the Cheney annotated copy of Joe's op-ed was well founded. The Libby team uses that to make a clever point; if indirect evidence on Libby's state of mind, as inferred from Cheney's annotted concers, is admitted, then the Libby team should also be allowed to admit indirect evidence on Libby's state of mind.

Also there is more evidence of pomo word games from Fitz ...

York: it sheds light on why Fitzgerald worded his argument as he did. Saying that the Cheney annotations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson" would lead any reasonable reader to think that Fitzgerald was saying Libby had seen the document, when in fact Fitzgerald did not have evidence to support that contention, and had Libby's testimony saying he, Libby, had not seen it.

Reminds me of Cheney behesting Wilson from the MSM (via Wilson)and yellowcake as key finding goof.

clarice

I was thinking last night after I went to bed about my speculative scenario..an attempted coup...and think how easy this is to pull off with just a few people in the right places:If you have one or more people in the CIA's IG office, you have access to every secret operation going because that is to whom the agents report these things and problems with them. And no one questions why the agents are telling you because that is the spot to which you are supposed to go.

If you have a person or two in Comey's office you know everything about the NSA-FISA matter, you get to recommend any special prosecutor and you get to brief him. As I understand it, before Fitz was named that office had the team of investigators selected (from CIA and FBI) and seem to have directed and overseen their work. It was that office, too, which seems to have warned Ashcroft that he had a conflict and should recuse himself.
________________________
I've already written to Chief Justice Roberts asking for an investigation of leaks from the FISA Court, so I do not want to take the lead in any letter to the OPR.(The letter should go there, not to Gonzales).
But I would indicate that the unethical conduct consisted of (a) the false statements in the presser which misstated the facts and represented an effort to smear Libby and poison public opinion against him;(b) the misleading representations to the Miller Court, including the footnote upon which Tatel relied;(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;(f) I'd quote his statements about protecting a whistleblower as proof that he has improperly criminalized a political dispute. Wilson was a partisan with deeep 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.

______________________

(Someone cited something else intriguing from the Miller representations last night, I can't remember it but in the back of my mind I think it should go here.)

I'd be glad to help draft this letter. Maybe if TM will give us a thread we can all plug in stuff to make it persuasive and complete.

jwest

Self preservation is the strongest reflex humans possess. This applies not only to physical threats, but assaults on position, ego, status and reputation.

Since Fitzgerald’s appointment, he has already endured the (little publicized) embarrassment of being the prosecutor who brought a case against a person who was not only cleared of any wrongdoing, but shown to be the actual victim of the crime alleged. Imagine how he felt after Woodward destroyed his “first to leak” proclamation. Déjà vu?

Fitz’s first inclination would be to reaffirm in his own mind that he was right about the basic story line – Wilson the whistleblower versus the vendetta driven WH – and then to look for ways to minimize the obvious major flaw in the premise of his indictment. But each day, witnesses for the prosecution seem to hedge their positions, prior public statements are unearthed and previously undisclosed connections prejudicial to Fitz’s case become known. With a weak case against Libby, the last thing his ego needs is an even weaker case against Rove (with the accompanying high-powered legal team) tearing him apart further.

The template Fitz has built his reputation on as a prosecutor has been “turning” lower level people against the upper level through threats of indictments. His two year quest to intimidate Libby and Rove with multiple grand jury appearances did not produce the results he expected – plea deals and testimony implicating Cheney – so now he’s faced with a choice. Which way does he take the case from here? Does he continue to rely on a sympathetic judge to pursue the “little case” scenario?

Although Walton is bending over backwards for Fitz, he is demonstrably no Tatel. Combined with the fact that even a D.C. jury is not the one-sided audience Fitz enjoyed with the grand jury, Fitz must acknowledge that some “big case” truth will come out in a trial. No one doubts that Fitz has nightmares of Wilson on the stand, with testimony that would only show that Fitz had once again thrown the full weight of U.S. justice system at the victim.

As a matter of self preservation, Fitz’s only option at this point is to pivot 180 degrees, claim that three years of investigation and new facts have led him to conclude that the entire episode had been a political “dirty trick” by forces aligned against the administration and that he is bringing charges against Wilson.

If you were able to catch Fitz in a truly candid moment and asked “Who is going down in this case”, he would reply “I don’t know, but it ain’t going to be me.”

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in a recent motion that, "Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson." '

Which is a preposterous leap of logic. In order to know if the annotations do that, we'd have to see the entirety of documents that passed over Cheney's desk in (whatever) relevant time period. Then compare any annotations on them to the Wilson Op-ed's.

Plus, we'd have to question Cheney about HIS state of mind when he made them, and whether he ever showed them to Scooter.

All of which opens all of the documents to discovery by the defense. Which seems to have passed over the head of Elliot Ness with the Harvard degree.

clarice

jwest I think you're right/

I'd add two more things to the unethical letter
(1) the misstatement about the NIE and hie one week delay in correcting the record and his Cheney annotations ploy both of which seem to advance a political agenda and prejudice public opinion against the administration as neither have significant meaning in the case to warrant handling them as he did.

LET'S DO THE LETTER..I think we have enough and we should circulate it..

clarice

Patrick--good point on the portion of the letter arguing that this is a political prosecution and Fitz is misusing his position to make baseless charges against the Administration .

clarice

The second addition to the letter is, of course, the Cheney annotations.

Tollhouse

Clarice's well spun speculation would involve a unplanned conspiracy, an army of deluded in government and the MSM. If accurate it would imply widespread influence of irrational thinking on disparate individuals.

I think that's exactly it.

Richard A. Clarke provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, from 1973 to 2003. Clarke's specialties are computer security, counterterrorism and homeland security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred.

Michael Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He resigned from the CIA in 2004. He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.[1]

Aldrich Ames was assigned to the CIA's Europe Division / Counterintelligence branch where he was responsible for directing the analysis of Soviet intelligence operations.

John Deutch was Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from May 10, 1995 until December 14, 1996. Controversy erupted days after his departure when it was revealed that classified materials were being kept in his home and on his computer.

And this is only a list created in less then 5 minutes. Add in the notorious intelligence failure.

boris

Clarice, more than two!

  1. Libby was the primary leak;

  2. Plame was not generally known;

  3. NIE vigorous pursuit Key Finding was a deliberate lie;

  4. The carefully worded implication that Libby was influenced by Cheney's annotations on the Wilson op-ed;

  5. Plame was part of secret disclosure conspiracy;

The first 4 are Fitz "errors" and the last the inevitable MSM inference and assertion.

Semanticleo

or forgetful ones?

Maguire;

You ask a question which suggests a conclusion.

'Forgetful' seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Beltway Memory Syndrome (I cannot
recall; I have no recollection)is the SOP
of idealogues who fear no paper trail in
their nefarious(semantics, again)exploits.

Perhaps a history of 'photographic memory'
suggests a conclusion that is not insubstantial in it's leap.

boris

</horsefeathers>

PeterUK

Fitzgerald's leaps of logic,smack more of a man who is determined that someone is going down rather than real evidence. This is increasingly reminiscent of the Inquisition,the Star Chamber or the the Doctrinal Purity Committee of some old East European Communist Party.

maryrose

The letter seems like a good idea. No one to date has held Fitz even remotely accountable for his false prejudicial statements and for the direction he has taken this investigation. Let's get him.

Sara (Squiggler)

I'd be glad to help draft this letter. Maybe if TM will give us a thread we can all plug in stuff to make it persuasive and complete.

Clarice -- if TM would rather not lose his neutrality, I would be happy to make room available at Squiggler, or I could open up SeniorPal, which allows individual journals. SeniorPal is a new venture and I'm not quite ready to launch publicly and it isn't political, but it is an open source format and totally clean. I have it online, just not launched, so let me know. The SeniorPal url is http://seniorpal.pal2pal.com. (Note: if you are a baby boomer, this site is meant for you, just remember that it is still in the construction phase as to content. But, if you wish to sign in, you can create your own private/public journal.)

PeterUK

Clarice,
A copy must be sent to Truthout,after all they claim to represent the alternative view point.

clarice

I just sent in a blog on the York piece..add that to the NIE thing and that is twice in recent weeks Fitz has either shown very spotty knowledge of the facts in his own case or deliberately distorted the record to use the case to tar the Administration.
I've got to run for a few minutes, let me know where we are going to work on the draft and start pulling up the quotes and citations.

I think the letter has to go to OPR but we should CC it to the Atty General.

Cecil Turner

Not sure if someone else already posted it, but Americablog has the latest filings (Fitz's and Libby's). Interesting reading, both, though I seem to be missing the Libby filing Fitz's argument responds to.

PeterUK

Clarice,
Would their be any point in drawing attention to the fact that this investigation has taken 2.5 years,cost x and is still apparently no nearer to fulfilling the original assignment.

jwest

Clarice,

“………this is a political prosecution and Fitz is misusing his position to make baseless charges against the Administration .”

Although literally true, I must disagree with the perceived premise of this statement.

I don’t think Fitz is a partisan in the Begala mold chasing Rove/Libby/Cheney for political reasons. He seems to be the consummate prosecutor type who once convinced of a story, cannot see anything but the means to prove it.

It must be a “hard wired” thought processing thing that also attracts some people to the legal profession, but in my experience with lawyers in contract matters, some attorneys would rather win the present argument even if it ruins the entire company doing so. To be able to bring a laser focus on one aspect of a case is a gift, but if that focus becomes an obsession it turns into a curse.

Prosecutors seem to be the home of choice for people with this “gift” (affliction?) in that even when DNA or some other irrefutable evidence comes to light disproving their original assumption, they tend to fight back with every ounce of strength to preserve their position.

Any letter denouncing Fitz on the grounds that he is politically motivated would not serve the intended purpose. However, everyone in the legal profession has encountered the type of prosecutor who won’t rethink his position regardless of the facts. A letter that shows the unfairness of bringing the “clamp-jawed” tenacity of this type of prosecutor into the political realm might serve the cause of justice better.

Sara (Squiggler)

jwest -- I hope Clarice agrees with you as this is what I find so maddening about this case. Fitz seems locked into a position that is no longer valid based on additional information that apparently he did not have at the time of the orig. indictment.

You can see the frustration building in Team Libby over this very issue. And, frankly, for Libby/Cheney/et al it must be hairpulling time every time they confront Fitz's lack of understanding of what was really going on with the pushback.

Rick Ballard

Sara,

Writeboard seems a good existing tool to use for creating a letter.

It is easy to start and if someone is interested in maintaining the site they would control admission by responding to a request in comments here. There is a comments section for suggestions and editing is simple.

Here is an example I created in 2 minutes (password Fitz).

I do not have the time to act as editor/controller but I'll be happy to offer stinging critiques of whomever volunteers.

Barney Frank

I think Fitzgerald is tunnel visioned. His prosecutorial history suggests it. And while I agree he is probably no partisan, who is more easily led by a group of rabid partisans than a blinkered horse? And who is more likely to be led over a cliff?

Any letter should focus on his abrogation of DOJ regs. Anything else they'll write off as just politics IMO. Anybody know a handy congressman who would sign on? (You know one of those congressmen with a spine. Oh yeah they're extinct aren't they? At least in the GOP.)

Lesley

'Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in a recent motion that, "Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson." '

I would suggest an alternate interpretation to Mr. Fitzgerald: not only the handwritten notes but also the VP's underlining within the article suggest that Cheney's attention was acutely focused on an incredibly incompetent (almost baffling in its ineptitude) CIA intelligence operation and not on Wilson, per se.

In other words, Wilson was merely the clown. CIA was the circus.

PeterUK

JWest,
I would agree,keep it down to the points which can be proved.It should be pointed out that Fitzgerald seems to have tow classes of leaker,good and bad

cboldt

Links to recent filings by Fitz and Libby ...


Government Response to Libby's Supplemental Supporting 3rd Motion to Compel [Doc 107]


Libby's Response to Government's Response Re: News Articles [Doc 108]

clarice

We should begin the letter by noting that Judge Walton indicated that Fitz is generally bound to operated within the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice when he refused to dismiss the case on the grounds that the appointment was unconstitutional and outside the terms of the special counsel regulations. Then we should say that we believe that brings his conduct within the purview of the office of the OPR. If we are wrong, we would like the OPR to state that publicly as it is an important factor of the trial court and any reviewing court to consider.

Sara (Squiggler)

Barney -- I wonder if Curt Wheldan would? He is the one so involved with the Able Danger matter. Also, if you look at the Libby Defense Fund list, there you will find both former Congressman Jack Kemp and former Senator Alan Simpson, both respected. Simpson, I think is a lawyer.

Rick -- I'm fine with whereever anyone wants to do this.

My suggestion is we rough it out and throw in the kitchen sink to start and then once we have it pretty much the way we think it should be, we can weed out anything that might be misconstrued as overtly political that would weaken the complaint in the eyes of someone else.

I would also suggest it be written with bullet points for emphasis that could be fleshed out in the body. Lawyers familiar with the OPR might have contrary suggestions, but it is my experience that to get a gov't. official's attention, you've got to make the points easy to discern right away and then follow on with backing up your assertions with evidence or documentation and then concluding with a very concise summary ... think soundbite for the conclusion.

Cecil Turner

Links to recent filings by Fitz and Libby ...

Thanks, Cboldt. Those .html files are sure a lot easier to use than my hodge-podge of .pdf files. I wonder if we could get Tom to link to them, or some sort of index?

Sara (Squiggler)

I would suggest an alternate interpretation to Mr. Fitzgerald: not only the handwritten notes but also the VP's underlining within the article suggest that Cheney's attention was acutely focused on an incredibly incompetent (almost baffling in its ineptitude) CIA intelligence operation and not on Wilson, per se.

Yes.

Cheney is asking is this normal, is this the way things are done now. His comments seem to imply incredulity at sending someone's husband pro bono. Which is rather incredulous, I would say. I mean it is one thing to "volunteer" to stuff envelops for a government project it is quite another to volunteer pro bono to travel half way round the globe and underwrite an 8 day trip + travel just to because the wifey asked you to. Doesn't make any more sense to me than apparently it did to Dick Cheney.

Specter

I agree. We must stick to the facts and not to political opinion. After all this is a group effot to bring some sense of true supervision to this insanity.

PeterUK

Sara,
It looks like Plame was trying to get the ex-ambassador back inti the game,a voive thar would be listened to.Part of Wilsons chagrin was that nobody took any notice of his report,"Hell hath no fury like an ex=ambassador scorned". moreover it did get him on to John Kerry's team for a while.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I don’t think Fitz is a partisan in the Begala mold ....'

Doesn't matter whether he is or isn't. It's factual that Fitz enlisted the resources of the DoJ on one side of a political dispute. It's just not disputable that that's what is happening.

Anyway, I like the part of Libby's response in the latest filing (pp7-8) where they dare the judge to strike parts of the indictment right now, so they'll know just what they have to prepare to rebut, and what not.

Lurker

I would also add something about placing special prosecutors under the direction of DOJ from now on.

PeterUK

"I would also add something about placing special prosecutors under the direction of DOJ from now on."

Better to render the entire species extinct.

owl

Yep! York posting what Gonzales said really brings it home that there was no supervision.

I want to answer Sara about the "why" in my opinion. I think the investigators had their ears filled with a certain group of journos from NBC/MSNBC. Can't offer any evidence but know what I was watching. "Neo-cons, anti-war, anti-Cheney". Two of the known witnesses was there....Mitchell and Russert. They broke the referral. Wilson on MTP same day as op-ed. Matthews was the link to Russert. Think someone should have been listening also to Laurence O'Donnell's rants. Matthews made Cheney mad enough during the debates that the WH website put up a chip featuring him. They filled the investigators ears full of gossip and topped it with Val's book title "Fair Game".

Think Fitz's other good witness is the one that supposely told the investigators it was all for revenge.

Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it as to how Fitz became a prize idiot tool of the scam.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Now that May 19th has come and gone:

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright.
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light.
And, somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout,

but there is no joy in Koslandia --
looney Leopold has struck out.

Yet again.

Lurker

"I would suggest an alternate interpretation to Mr. Fitzgerald: not only the handwritten notes but also the VP's underlining within the article suggest that Cheney's attention was acutely focused on an incredibly incompetent (almost baffling in its ineptitude) CIA intelligence operation and not on Wilson, per se.

In other words, Wilson was merely the clown. CIA was the circus."

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

clarice

I can't manage the site Rick noted..

Here;s how I'd fashion the letter.

1. 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. There 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.

Sara (Squiggler)

No one took any notice of his report becaue no one that we know of saw his damn report. Why he should blame that on the VP and not on the CIA is beyond me, except for not wanting to cast aspersions on his wife's employer or her. Was she lying to him to shut him up ... lots of spouses blame 3rd parties just to end the argument and take the blame off themselves.

Joe to Valerie: Why haven't I been called in to present my findings? Why isn't Cheney interested in a trip he wanted me to go on?

Val to Joe: I don't know, dear.

Joe to Val: Well how long does it take him to read one report?

Val to Joe: I don't know dear, I'm just an analyst, not a mind reader.

PeterUK

Why is it so hard for Fitzgerald to take Cheney's words at face value? I would posit that it is because he has nothing else.

owl

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

clarice

Now, if Tom doesn't mind, I'll leave this here and people can paste in additional points they think we should make and, more importantly, quotes and cites under the appropriate bullet points.

clarice

Sara, how could anyone "see" a report made orally?

PeterUK

Yes Clarice,an oral report isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Lurker

I liked the part about the defense's comment about the prematurity of redacting articles like Fitz just did and that the defense has the option of agreeing to what parts can be redacted or not and that the defense also having the option to submit their set of articles if they choose to.

Neo

I think Fitz knew the Cheney document had no support based on the grand jury testimony, but injected it in the briefs because else it would never see the light of day. In other words, a PR offensive.

Unfortunately for Fitz, at least in this one case, this is being tried in DC, where noone knows nothing. Come trial time, the jury pool will never have heard of this and will never make the implied connection.

Since this seems so sophomoric, I really wonder if Fitz, but rather some smart ass on this staff, that decided to bring it up at all.

Sara (Squiggler)

Is there any benefit to citing the Whistleblower regs and how Wilson can't be considered one legally?

Lurker

"I don't have a recollection..."

makes me think of Mac's mind about those numbers of times that Clinton uses similar "no recollection" statements.

So how come Clinton got away with it but Libby is not? Well, Clinton got impeached by the House.

clarice

Yes, certainly there is Sara..It shows how Fitz is twisting the law to shape public opinion at worst or how far he has departed from his charge at best.

Chants

I'm not sure how things are done in Washington DC courts (although I was raised in Alexandria) but an unsolicited letter to a judge in Minnesota (where I now reside) would be returned to sender by the court administrator with a stern warning that the judge cannot see ex parte material.

Judges can only "hear" things pendente lite by motion.

To be taken seriously, one must achieve amicus curae status. Clarice knows this.

The letter should go directly to Libby's lawyers.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sara, how could anyone "see" a report made orally?

Exactly!

But what was Val feeding Joe? He obviously believed that Cheney would and did see "a report." Did he expect his verbal tale would be transcribed? Was it? Did Val see it for junk science and File 13 it and not tell Joe?

Or is it a rogue agent conspiracy cooked up long before the trip as per someone else's speculation up thread?

jwest

Clarice,

I agree with everything on your outline except for item:

g) “He has gratuitously used the proceedings to smear…..”

If this last item was phrased so that the NIE claim in his pleadings was evidence of his prejudiced views of the administration and the delay in correcting this erroneous assumption showed his reluctance to accept exculpatory facts, the pro-partisan/con-partisan aspect could be avoided.

Sara (Squiggler)

Okay, we need a working outline.

Opening paragraph stating purpose of letter. Short and to the point.

Bullet points or short paragraphs covering salient points. My first thought is these should be in chronological order, i.e. Whistleblower regs/lack of status.

Media -- whatever we decide should be included, i.e., Op-ed, or other public writings that create false conclusions by Fitz

OVP material

Okay, I've been up all night and suffering a mind warp so someone else can take it from here or trash this.

PeterUK

Sara,
Or did Plame say,"I have a document in my safe which fits nicely with that"

Carol Herman

Fitzgerald has problems. Because of the Internet, and the flow of information on this case; Fitz's best day was his presser. And, everything since then has been downhill. Even when he threatens people with indictments, now, what gain does he get? Nobody's gonna cop a plea and let him walk away with a conviction. And, Americans get very testy when prosecutors abuse their privileges.

Besides,Wells, in defending Libby, has already stated to the judge that he's prepared to expose the "first leaker." What are Reggie Walton's choices? He counts on Appellate judges giving him a free pass? And, not a knock down humiliation? How so?

So Walton, too, has lots of worries. He can't appear willing to railroad Libby, without facing his own dilemmas.

Armitage, it seems, may be the author of the profanity laced e-mail that Woodward got; telling him in no uncertain terms that he didn't want to be publickly exposed. Raw emotions like that will sell books. Woodward's writing one. Fitzgerald is aware he's on the bad end of a persecution. Up there like the Dryfus Case. Not quite the way you want to reach fame. And, a good future.

What can Fitzgerald do, now? IF he goes after Armitage EVERYTHING blows up. The cat's out of the bag. And, the entire media establishment will be exposed on this hoax.

If he just keeps lying low. And, hoping the error goes to Judge Walton, well there ya go. He just has to continue being mealy-mouthed.

But Fitzgerald has more problems than Armitage. Where's a magic eraser when you need one?

Sara (Squiggler)

Peter, all I know is I wouldn't want to be married to someone who worked at the CIA, they are just too well trained to lie about everything.

PeterUK

Sara,
How eould you know?

Patton

Look, bottom line FITZ F__KED UP.

He investigated for 2 years and came to the conclusion that UGO was a semi-good guy and just made a mistake or some such and Libby is the BAD GUY because for ONE reason:

Libby was the FIRST to leak.

THAT IS THE ONLY POINT FITZ HAD TO HANG HIS HAT ON, WAS THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN NOVAKS GUY, BUT HE GOT THE FIRST GUY.

And what were the chances the Libby was telling the truth??

What were the chances Libby had heard it from a reporter, after he heard it from Cheney?

Certainly if some lame reporter somewhere knew they certainly didn't work in Washington DC.

They certainly wouldn't be of the journalistic stature of a Tim Russert.

Any even in the off chance such a journalist existed, what were the odds that he would:

1. Have met with Libby.
2. Had the Plame info with him when they met.
3. Couldn't recall whether he told Libby or not.
THAT'S A HAT TRICK.....BUT THEN WOODWARD CAME FORWARD AND FITZ WAS LEFT WITH EGG ALL OVER HIS FACE.

instead of this being information, think of it as being a physical document and Fitz had said..see, we found this document in Libbys office therefore he had to steal it first..then Woodward says, yeah, I had the document and I might have left that document sitting there in Libbys office when I left.


Its as if Nifong had said, see, she has semen in her therefore she was raped and therefore the Duke players did it...only to find out it was placed there by someone else.

Sara (Squiggler)

I would like to see this letter reflect my own pissed offedness at Fitz's pigheadedness regarding Joe being a Whistleblower and basing his view of the case on this fallacy. I would like to see it be a solid letter yet retain the "irate citizen" tone at the total waste of time and money following a false premise rather than prosecuting the real leaker(s). Can we do this and still get the legaleeze right so as not to sound like political hacks and conspirtorial whackos. That I wouldn't like.

jwest

Although the letter is great idea, I wish we could discuss this with Fitz face to face.

While at WalMart the other day, I saw a rather robust woman having the same type of conversation with her son. It went something like this:

WHAT (slap) THE (slap) HELL (slap) WERE (slap) YOU (slap) THINKING (slap, slap)

I believe the lad had an epiphany at that moment at changed his direction.

PeterUK

The letter should bring up the salient,unsubstantiated "fixed ideas" which underpin the prosecution.To me Fitz's main offence was to go off half cocked and not establish whether or not a crime had been committed before he began indicting.

clarice

Sara, I posted a working outline. I'll repost it. Those who want to participate should do so by suggesting any other points or pulling together factual cites.
Chants, this is not going to the Court. It is addressed to the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.

Once again, here is the draft:
Please help pull together the supporting documentation or additional matters to add:
. 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. There 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

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame