Powered by TypePad

« We Murder Murray (Metaphorically) | Main | "Massacre" »

May 26, 2006



I think Cobb's right about the first statement though..I remind you that Taranto did the best, most succint analysis of that filing:
So let’s see if we have this straight. Fitzgerald believes that Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI because Libby didn’t want anyone to know how involved Cheney was in rebutting the mendacious Wilson op-ed.

And how does Fitzgerald know this? Because Libby revealed Cheney’s deep involvement during his grand-jury testimony!

Sara (The Squiggler)

I posted this in the other thread before I realized this one was up ...

TM--(Actually, I think Ty Cobb is wrong, but how odd that the AP would even hint at this.)

I find it VERY odd. If it was anyone but Cobb, I'd say it was definitely a trial balloon.

I am now going to make a prediction ... with this caveat ... IANAL and I am no expert on this case ... my prediction is that somewhere recently the MOM case/CIA leaks have intersected with the Plame evidence already in Fitz's bag and the pressure is on for Fitz to look at the much much bigger picture and step back for the good of _________ (fill in the blank). At this point, to go forward with Libby may have others worried that it will blow the big 'un.

Of course, it could just be a case of the AP getting it wrong AGAIN.


And I repeat what I said on the other thread..I'm sure that investigation is intersecting with this one..Lots of the same baddies in both.But Fitz isn't part of the DOJ, I don't see how this case interferes with that one, and I do not see the AG notifying Fitz or his staff about the NSA investigation at all nor trying to talk him out of this prosecution.

If my hunch is right, in a month or so arrests will be announced in the NSA investigation and Fitz will be holding a merde granade with the pin removed.




I have a hunch that a clue was partially bought when Woodward popped up...


Why is that, ts?


Among other things, I think Fitz relied on the testimony of some people who may be swept up in the NSA case.For another, I think some person or person(s) at the DoJ probably in COmey's old office are involved in the NSA leaks. That person or persons may also have played a role in setting Fitz off in the direction he ran this case.

Sara (The Squiggler)

Okay, my answer from the other thread, hope we are on the same page now. LOL

Clarice, I reposted over on the new thread. I'll defer to you on what Gonzales wouldn't do. But would it have to be Gonzales or even any sharing of details? What about the friendly word, scratch that, suggestion, that there are bigger fish to fry and that a prosecutor who values his career life after Libby would do well to think of the bigger picture. If say, Negroponte was unhappy that the big leak cases were in danger of being compromised because of this little Libby case, don't you think he'd be putting a bug in someone's ear to put a bug in Fitz's? Just speculating, of course.


Nope. He wouldn't. Fitz headed off into uncharted waters on his own and they will not speak to him of such truly more momentous findings because (a) they'd be afraid to tell anyone outside the team involved, and (b) they'd be certain that Fitz would misconstrue the heads up as political pressure to affect his work.

A more balanced prosecutor with more experience about Washington would have behaved more prudently, and upon noting that neither the IIPA nor the Espionage Act applied and learning that the sources to Novak were really Armitage and Harlow would have closed up shop.He didn't. He'll have to live with it.


Why is that, ts?

I just have a hunch that B.Novak and Armitage weren't as forthcoming ---to the point of shaping the investigation and I think that Woodward sort of illuminated that...and so in essence I think we are seeing the start of a new investigation -- that Rove helped Fitz-- but not in the way everyone thinks---In essence Fitz IS looking at Novak and Armitage and by caveat Marc Grossman in a different light


How interesting..But apparently that hasn't yet carried over to his view of Libby.


Do you suppose the bad leaks to JL were by people afraid of the direction you think Fitz is going and were designed as a diversion? Or do you think they just did it because that's what they always do? Or something else?


And if you notice in Waas's article his thrust is that Novak called Rove and said what he said and Rove told investigators on the 1st meeting...now what if Novak told his UGO source the same thing and say UGO did NOT do what Rove did --which is, to tell the Novak safety net thing - right off---to investigators...something fishy happening with Bob Novak....

anyways...I am certain there was much lefty speculation that Rove did not testify to BOB Novak until GJ#2 or some such and this added to Fitz suspicion when Rove suddenly remembered Cooper...but no one will cop to it though


See, Wm Pitt and LJ indicated JL's sources were LJ and Wilson and Wilson is old friends with Grossman. If it's Grossman under the gun wouldn't the Wilsonistas and VIPers try to deflect attention from that?


That's a very good point, ts.


How interesting..But apparently that hasn't yet carried over to his view of Libby.


this is exactly the thing I was contemplating when I stepped out side and enjoyed the gust of the delta breezes... and so not to assume it is a predicament for Fitz -- what would a SP do in a high profile situation such as this, if he were finding some of the initial players that were relied on in the shaping of the cases were actually turning out to be liabilities now?


Well, for one thing he cannot call as government witnesses anyone he thinks is not telling the truth.


So it is interesting to me that this CRJ column picked up on TM's notice of the buried lede and then? ...blackout

Which is interesting, because some many lefties have pee'd their pants of Bob Novak and so you'd think they'd kinda like to know that and especially since it could indicate he was in trouble...

(run it through you mind and you will see why lefties done' like that idea)



JM Hanes

LOL! I went y'all one better and posted my comment in an entirely unrelated thread, not just the old one. I, too, will repaste it here:

The most effective way to establish Cheney's "state of mind" as well as what he did or did not communicate to Libby would be to put V.P. on the stand, under oath, and ask him. The reason Fitz wants to use the annotated Wilson editorial is because calling Cheney is the very last thing he wants to do.


BTW --

No Rove "Indicted" story up on Drudge...it has been almost 14 days since the breathless Jason -- who like Ben Demenche(sp) Plagiarized---Leopold **reported** and a certain blogger GAVE IT VALIDITY...Rove WAS/IS indicted and so this begs the question...

would a certain blogger -- who VOUCHED for Jason--- be given the same deference and unwilling respect ---if they were a republican -- I know some bloggers feel the need to kiss up...but really...say John Hinderaker engaged in the same sort of meme promoting and then when, it was pretty much smearing--- still kept his bic lighter ---but added in other players to feign no allegiance to the story he promoted when the details were tenacious?

Yeah...whatever. We're not suppose to be able to call a joke a "JOKE" if they are "nice" or on the "left"...that kind of behavior is received and tolerated for the lefties to us



good point.


to above...I meant TENUOUS


not... tenacious




It's about time somebody got it righ on the Bush environmental record.


Cheers, Don

JM Hanes

Speaking of straws in the wind, I decided we needed to chart the web of connections that folks here have been discussing here for awhile now.

As you can see, I ran into trouble pretty quickly given the shadowy relationships involved. Fortunately, I discovered that someone else had already sorted everybody out, although apparently, nobody really understands how the Men in Black are organized. Most revealing, however, is a diagram tracking the flow of information between anonymous sources and media outlets, all of which can eventually be traced to a central outlet.

Thanks to http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1059>Never Yet Melted (& spouse!) for clearing all this up.



so in essence I think we are seeing the start of a new investigation -- that Rove helped Fitz-- but not in the way everyone thinks


That is what I think may be happening too. Fitzmas Friday has come and gone and even the much hoped for Fitmaz Wednesday. Nothing, no Rove frog march, no hint of anything.

At this point there's no longer any reason to believe rumors that Rove is on the bubble. Anything short of a Fitz news conference to announce it is horsehockey. Something else is going on, or at least that's what I think.

So what is it then? Fitz has a GJ doing something. Could he be looking at what really happened now, stumbling into it despite his own apparent incompetence?

I continue to keep a tiny candle of hope burning.



I am now going to make a prediction ... with this caveat ... IANAL and I am no expert on this case ... my prediction is that somewhere recently the MOM case/CIA leaks have intersected with the Plame evidence already in Fitz's bag and the pressure is on for Fitz to look at the much much bigger picture

Where would the pressure come from?

Here's where I agree with you; I agree the MOM case and the Plame case involve the same players and are perhaps even 2 parts of a whole and I agree the 2 cases almost certainly have intersected in some respects.

However Fitz has utterly failed to pursue the 'leak' part of this which might have led him to this CIA leak cabal (for the record I doubt it is an organized conspiracy as such. These guys are just too dumb - witness Wilson). Fitz clearly and almost explicitly dropped any line of inquiry that could go there over a year ago.

Moreover the CIA leak investigation does not involve White House officials. It doesn't call for an independant investigation. There's no need for any BS. All they need to do is put a hard charging team on it at DoJ and the AG can supervise it.

If you were Gonzales would you let Fitz anywhere near the CIA leak thing? I wouldn't. That is the investigation that might ultimately reveal the truth of all this.

And yesterday for the first time I heard on the news that Harmon and other on the hill are bitching about being interviewed by the FBI on the CIA thing.



Very interesting details in those diagrams. I'm surprised though that anyone could be confused by the connections. LOL


I won't write a novel, but here's a few quick reasons why I think you may be wrong DW.

1Mary McCarthy (MOM) was a democrat Kerry supporter, and worked in Clinton's NSA with both Joe Wilson and Rand Biers. She leaked to Dana Priest.

2. In addition to being linked to the anti-war movement through Iraq Policy Information Project (Fenton Communications, Center for International Policy--where William-- Mr. Dana Priest--Goodfellow is the executive director), Joe also joined the Alliance for American Leadership--an invitation only democrat old boys club. The president of AAL is now Rand Biers.

3, Joe and VALERIE attended the Democrat Senate Policy conference on May 2 2003, where they BOTH met Kristof and this whole series of articles started.

I've also read that as early as January 2003, the DNC was issuing talking points/strategy papers urging pundits to challenge the WMDs claims.

Put all that together with the other suspicious details surrounding the Niger junket, and the leaking of the referral from CIA.

Now none of this really seemed related until MOM was frog marched out of the building. But now there's an aweful lot of circumstantial evidence that was not evident before mid April.

I think Fitz would be a fool if he didn't at least go through the folks on Libby's witness list (esp. Joe and Val) and bring them in for another little chat session in front of the GJ--this time under oath.(Can he still do that?) If not, as Clarice so beautifully put it, he could end up with une grande grenade de la merde. Would he really want to risk that?


Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but Tim Russert is answereing caller questions on Washington Journal on CSPAN in a couple of minutes.


C-SPAN website is down (at least from my computer).


Might be interesting if Tim Russert gets a few of the Tom McGuire questions in one of those phone calls.

A House Representative has generated a resolution to: Reveal Who Blocked Justice Dept.
Probe of NSA Warrantless Surveillance Program

"If you were Gonzales would you let Fitz anywhere near the CIA leak thing? I wouldn't. That is the investigation that might ultimately reveal the truth of all this.

And yesterday for the first time I heard on the news that Harmon and other on the hill are bitching about being interviewed by the FBI on the CIA thing."

DW, I wouldn't let Fitz near the DJ investigation either. And good about Harmon and the others on the hill to be investigated by the FBI. I wonder if this will force Fitz's hand into dismissing the Libby case.


He's getting a question right now


Alot of people may have missed that the Fitz's investigation may have been led by Plame. She was not going to be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy, so why not use her work to have fitz running around checking areas that Plame did not like. for example, the NSA investigation might have been involved in her work investigating domestic political groups, the 501s were investigated by Congress at a time that alot of her retired operations officer friends were starting 501s. So, the agenda may actually be Plame's and Fitz is going along because he avoided prosecuting Plame. The most recent leak\memo is NSA domestic work. It's old to most is the community and, now, Americans are being asked to make the same chioce that DIA is making with the new CIA analysts they have to hire. The appearance is that, like Americans, the DIA is not concerned with who accessed the database and hiring the analysts is a logical extension of the existing access at CIA. Alot like the terror that came out after Plame leaked herself as an CIA operations officer paramilitarily trained in 'Vanity Fair,' Americans must now ask themselves if it is okay for the NSA to 'tap' phones. Larry Johnson confirmed that Plame was a CIA Operations Officer trained at the farm with him shortly before the Iran desk was opened at the State Department. This can be seen as a test on what was left of the origianl confirmation by Plame at 'Vanity Fair.'

The memos and leaks seem to follow a pattern and it may be Plame's or CIA's. Either way, Americans are being used in an agenda and, like the terror and murders that happended when the operations officers confirmed who they were, and each other; it seems Americans are being used, although it is not yet the terror we have seen overseas. Traditonally all this has been kept in the global intelligence community. Now, it appears those outside the community are fair game and this, along with Fitz refusing to launch a criminal conspiracy probe, has change the intelligence community and the 'role' of the average citizen, globally. The average citizen is required to pay for operations and this has never been the case in the past. The answer when the average citizen gets involved is usually bad (for them) and has resulted in terror. The average citizen should be very concerned about their future and the global intelligence community. Plame forced these changes on Amnericans and it will be difficult for the global intelligence community to retire. The military answer is to hire the CIA analysts. this is probably the beginning of the end of the militaries ability to perform the intelligence function and we may see some global intelligence community changes that, hopefully, move to protect the average citixen from participation in the intelligence community.




Conspiracy theory alert.


Horde, I find most of your post utterly incomprehensible, and whatever I am able to see in this foggy prose seems utterly improbable.


Hayden just confirmed


OT {sort of)

Tim Russert: NYTimes misremembered my answers to reporter's questions.

On C-SPAN with Brian Lamb this morning, Tim Russert charged that Deborah Solomon misrepresented his hour-long interview answers in her NY Times magazine article.

He charged that she juxtaposed the answers to different questions to change the focus of the Mothers Day article from Russert's mother to his father.

He also said he wrote the NYT a letter last week (which he read on the air) but so far they have not printed it although they printed another letter praising the article. He also said he spoke with reporter Solomon who basically laughed it off saying she thought it would be "humorous".

Brian Lamb was non-plussed; Scooter Libby's lawyers wonder: "Does Russert have this problem often?"


Maybe he's setting up an insanity defense for himself..

Why doesn't some sharp newsie ask him about the June/July fandango he keeps dancing?


Also during the C-SPAN appearance, a caller (obviously a TM commenter) asked one of the non-parsable questions (which I wish I had taped) regarding Andrea Mitchell's "knowledge" and whether the two of them ever discussed Plame prior to Novak's article. Short answer: no.

I would recommend taping the repeat broadcast for further dissection. Should be good for at least 500 comments.


Can I try my hand at a non-conspiracy "conspiracy" theory?

Given the overlap potential of the Plame / MOM cases and the fact that Fitz is up first, would a smart AG be quietly talking to the Libby camp? Something along the lines of "Here's some questions we would like you to ask on cross so we can nail these #%&#$ to the wall when we get our shot at them under oath."

Turn it into a lose/lose for the VIPers, et al by forcing them to either give up on getting Libby or tie themselves in knots over perjury/obstruction when the REAL national security cases come down the pike.

Just a notion.


I think I see what Horde is saying...


I doubt Libby's lawyers would agree to shill for anyone. They will keep their eye on the prize.


Everything is soon going to come out in the wash.

I think I see what Horde is saying...
Perhaps you should seek medical assistance?

cathy :-)


Oh gawwwwd.....I forgot about the wash. Thanks maryrose.... :)~


I have a question for the lawyer types. We know the judge has the CIA referral letter, and has not commented on it yet. If that letter is part of the broader CIA leak case, could someone with the investigation have very quietly and confidentially approached Walton and asked if he could delay his ruling on the matter? Remember, they have said that the NSA/CIA leak investigation is nearing an end.

Would that be appropriate?


I'm not sure I get what you are getting at, but no, it's not appropriate to try and influence a Judge.

Sara (The Squiggler)

DW -- Clarice pretty much shot down my notion that someone could quietly let Fitz know that the little case might not be such a good idea as it would blow the big one going on in another venue. I did not envision Fitz being the one to pursue the MOM/CIA leak case.




Barney Frank

Hi Jane,

No lawyer here, but I don't think it would be inappropriate for law enforcement to tell a judge that a document he has in his possesion might interfere with a seperate investigation should he release it, and ask him to consider delaying his ruling, would it?


I think except in the most exceptional cases, attested to by affidavits of security need, would this ever be attempted..it's over the line. In any event we have nt=othing like that here that I can see.



That wasn;t the question as I understood it, but boy your scenereo sort of gives me the creeps.

You can't prejudice the defense like that at trial. Seems to me at trial it would be grounds for a mistrial.

In discovery I suppose they could seal the document, but not without showing it to both sides. I really don't know any other remedy.


Remember Barney is talking about holding if pending a separate investigation--I 've said that would be inconceivable really except in a real emergency..But he didn't say keep it from the defense..Just hold up disclosure..Honestly, Barney I can't imagine...this..

Sara (The Squiggler)

The following comment was left in response to a Rove/Armitage post I have up on The Squiggler. Could someone in the know tell me what case is being referred to when he says Fitz was depantsed by Luskin.

"...you can easily see Fitzgerald’s conundrum." I can also see a bit of fear in his eyes over the prospect of going one-on-one with Luskin. Rove's atty has already depantsed Fitzgerald in a civil suit (Virginia ?), and my hunch is he's passed a signal to Fitz to please bring it on. If Luskin could ask one favor of Fitz, it would probably be "...Please don't back down!"

You don't slash with the spikes unless the batter is in danger of being thrown out. But the ref has called the batter out on strikes and if he touches him with the spikes, he's out. Flyin' Fitz, a peach of a prosecutor.


kim ... ease up on the coffee ...


Tea leaves tempted me with that cracker, Thyo, filing and flying.


This Cooper bit has made me giddy,
Time to write a little ditty.
Lawton's caught him acting shitty.
Fitz, who told him's, looking pretty.

gaiaonline gold

For me gaiaonline gold is not just a simple thing.

eve isk

When you have eve isk, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.