Libby On Cheney's Notes

Libby's defense team has filed a 10 page response on the topic of Cheney's handwritten annotation of Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed.

The WaPo, MSNBC, and Byron York have coverage; I do not.

And here is an 8 page filing from Fitzgerald responding to a motion to compel.  This ties in to discovery related to, among others, Richard Armitage, and the concept of "innocent accused" resurfaces.  Should be something there for clue-seekers. (Since they allude to it, here is something on Jencks Act discovery.  Yikes.)

Lots to read, but I am off playing soccer dad (also baseball dad and driver dad).  Enjoy.

MORE:  At a quick glance, it really does seem that Fitzgerald may have stepped in it with this presentation - since Libby claims he did not see this document, he is now arguing this:

The government evidently wants to argue to the jury that “facts that were viewed as important” by the Vice President would have been important to Mr. Libby too, and that the Vice President’s notations can be used to show what Mr. Libby focused on during July 2003. These arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgement that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important at trial – precisely what Mr. Libby has been arguing in the pending motion. Documents reflecting the administration’s response to Mr. Wilson’s claims about what he learned during his trip and to whom his report was sent are discoverable, whether Mr. Libby has previously seen them or not.

In the same way that the government finds the views of the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson and his trip relevant to its case, the defense finds the views of other government officials, such as former Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, regarding Ms. Wilson relevant to its case. Such information is certainly material to the preparation of the defense, regardless of whether it is ultimately admissible. Just as Mr. Libby was interacting with the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson’s charges, so was he also interacting with Mr. Grossman and other government officials and their respective agencies.

The defense is entitled, for the purpose of preparing its cross examination of such witnesses, to discover what and when they learned about Mr. Wilson’s trip; whether they were involved in the subsequent finger pointing among government agencies that resulted from Mr. Wilson’s allegations; how they learned Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA; whether they thought her employment status was classified; and whether they discussed Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA with officials other than Mr. Libby. The defense needs these documents to prepare to examine witnesses such as Mr. Grossman about such issues.

Well worth a try.

STILL MORE:  Here is a filing by the Libby team in the civil suit involving the subpoenas to news organizations.  It is a 43 page file intended to "supplement the record" with info on the subpoenas to Tim Russet, CNN, the WaPo, and Matt Cooper.

On p. 22, CNN is subpoenaed regarding the July 8 sidewalk chat between Bob Novak and a mysterious stranger that led to a phone call from Joe Wilson to Eason Jordan of CNN.

And I have a query about the subpoena to Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert.  They ask for any communications between those two and Ari Fleischer, Mark Grossman, Eric Edelman, Bob Grenier, Cathy Martin, Joseph Wilson, George Tenet, and Bill Harlow".

What about Richard Armitage and Steve Hadley, either of whom (at the time of these subpoenas) were prime candidates for the leak to Bobs Woodward and Novak?

I would be especially interested to learn about any Armitage-Mitchell contact - if Armitage was willing to sit on his leak to Woodward, mightn't he be willing to sit on a leak to Mitchell?  In June 2003 Ms. Mitchell seemed to break the news about the misplaced INR dissent in the Oct 2002 NIE, and her normal beat was the State Dept. - why would she not have spoken with "Loose Lips" Armitage?

Perhaps a legal eagle can sort me out on this - for example, maybe there is a relevance issue with Armitage on these subpoenas.  Regardless, I suspect this will be covered at the trial.

And what about this - some silly Armitage push-back makes the NY Daily News:

Two sources familiar with the case said Armitage, Rove and Libby all had contacts with the press about Plame. Unlike Rove and Libby, Armitage appears to have tried to dissuade reporters from writing about her.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald recently had to sneak Armitage into a Washington courthouse to get past reporters - a sign of his value in the case, according to one source.

"Rich has been cooperating with Fitzgerald since day one," said another source, who has close ties to Armitage. "He was one of the first people to offer his testimony."

Sorry for the no-links, but Walter Pincus said his source was trying to push him away from writing about Wilson; Rove told Cooper not to get too far out on Wilson, which is not exactly an exhortation to write something until more facts emerge; and Libby told Cooper, "I heard that, too", which is also not an exhortation.

Meanwhile, assuming it was in fact Armitage who leaked to Woodward and Novak, Novak went ahead and broke the story.  Go figure.

As to "Rich has been cooperating with Fitzgerald since day one", it would have been better if his cooperation had extended to taking up Woodward on his "drop the confidentiality" reminders and come forward with his news of the leak to Woodward in 2004.

Comments

[Patton]

TM says""""I fear for the Administration, but I am mainly worried that if Jeff gets an Armitage/Cheney/Libby conspiracy he will be insufferable """"

Given Cheneys note on the July 6 article, how could he have conspired in June to out Plame??

He's asking the question about the wife sometime after 6 July, yet he would have already decided to conspire to out Plame back in June??

I'm not buying it, but Walton could....

[topsecretk9]

-- Google cache of Armitage as a member of the Aspen Institute, Judy and Libby's haunt.--

Isn't it odd they scrubbed just those two?

[clarice]

Did Bush compel only WH officials to give waivers? Did Armitage refuse to give one?
Was it Armitage who Miller went to jail to protect?

[clarice]

BTW J Walton signalled he thought he'd get his discovery ruling out this weekend. He didn't. Likely he's seeing thru the storm and fog of the [rosecution.

[Tom Maguire]

And, of course, if [Libby] had been asked and denied it and Fitz had contrary evidence--say from the VP we'd have had another count in the indictment,TM.

I think this is on the list of items Fitzgerald thinks is a lie but which he can't prove - Cheney may not be a great witness against Libby on this point.

[clarice]

I think if he cannot prove that, TM, to paraphrase a Yiddish expression nothing will help him, certainly not notations asking perfectly reasonable questions about the Mission written at least 2 weeks AFTER the very first date the Prosecutor can find Libby saying anything to a reporter.(Anything ,I might add ,that seems utter bafflegab and seems to have several different permutations authored by the very person on whose testimony Fitz is relying)

[Lurker]

Whoa!

Marc Ash has an update on the Rove Indictment.

" Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(8 comments)

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org"

Right... Rove is going to turn state's evidence?

[Lurker]

And Seixon got another post from PJF directed to Clarice:

"Dear Clarice,

You and Sexion have shown me the tragic error of my ways by blogging AND prosecuting! Hopefully, if I promise to delete this blog and stop being Jason's "sock puppet", you might reconsider sending that letter to OPR!

In fact, I am extending an olive branch of friendship by posting excerpts from your latest articles in the "American Thinker" so that everyone can see you are a reasonable, brilliant and well respected member of the legal community whose opinions matter - even though some people can't take a good joke, like your articles, and say that they are only suitable for lining litter boxes, bird cages, chips and blue crabs.

Most respectfully,
PJF"

[Lurker]

And it looks like Marc Ash has pretty much locked down his forums..."connection refused"?

[clarice]

It is my fate to draw meshugganah critics theway honey draws flies..

[clarice]

I'll skip the I believe part of Ash's post, the what we know part provides sufficient hilarity:
we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

SOYLENT--GET OVER HERE

[Cecil Turner]

Cheney may not be a great witness against Libby on this point.

I seriously doubt Cheney remembered such a detail months later. The fact that he isn't on the witness list supports that contention. I suspect Fitz's evidence is the conversation, which supports either Libby seeing the article or being told by the VP, but is circumstantial.

[clarice]

So, Cecil, you think Libby would have filed such a sharp response on the point if there were some evidence to support the introduction of the article? Count me out on that one. He's only be handing Fitz more ammo to attack the VP and Libby.

[clarice]

**He'D*****

[PeterUK]

Artist: Yolanda Adams Lyrics
Song: I Believe Lyrics
They said you wouldn't make is so far uh uh
And ever since they said it, it's been hard
But nevermind the nights you had to cry
Cause you have never let it go inside
You worked real hard
And you know exactly what you want and need
So believe and you can never give up
You can reach your goals
Just talk to your soul and say…

(Chorus:)
I believe I can (I can)
I believe I will (I will)
I believe I know my dreams are real (know my dreams are real)
I believe I'll chant (Oh yea)
I believe I'll dance
I believe I'll grow real soon and (That's why)
That is what I do believe

Your goals are just a thing in your soul uh uh
And you know that your moves will let them show
You keep creating pictures in your mind
So just believe they will come true in time
It will be fine
Leave all of your cares and stress behind
Just let it go
Let the music flow inside
Forget all your pain
And just start to believe

(Chorus:)
I believe I can (I believe I can oh yea)
I believe I will
I believe I know my dreams are real (All of my dreams are real)
I believe I'll chant
I believe I'll dance (I gotta dance)
I believe I'll grow real soon and (ooo)
That is what I do believe
Whoa oa oa YEA…

[clarice]

*THWACK**Nobody loves a cynic,PUK.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Everyone at Truthout (sounds like a stain remover for probity) will holding hands in a healing ciecle and singing that song.

[PeterUK]

..and who can deny that "Whoa oa oa YEA…" is possibly true?

[jerry]

"Everyone at Truthout (sounds like a stain remover for probity) "

That's funny.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

PUK - what is that exchange rate today? #4 and counting.

[Jeff]

Did Fitz know that Armitage had also told Woodward?

First, the issue I originally raised was the White House pointing reporters in the direction of Novak's source in October 2005, not Woodward's. But beyond that, did the White House know that Armitage had also told Woodward? They certainly weren't pointing reporters in that direction, from what we know. And they don't seem to have been pointing Woodward in that direction, which wouldn't make a lot of sense - although it's possible that's what Woodward discovered that led him to finally confess to Downie that he had a Plame source was that the White House did know. Is that what you think?

[PeterUK]

Sara,
Can I not persuade you to wrap your keyboard in cling film?

[Cecil Turner]

you think Libby would have filed such a sharp response on the point if there were some evidence to support the introduction of the article?

Well, I assume Fitz can support the conversation with Addington in the indictment, which may be merely suggestive. But yes, I think that's something.

the issue I originally raised was the White House pointing reporters in the direction of Novak's source in October 2005

Why would reporters need pointing to the reporters' sources? Or to Plame's status? The fascination with telling folks stuff they already know is lost on me.

[Tom Maguire]

Rove may be turning state's evidence

And will do so in in the next 24 busines hours.

Man, the "I believe" part of that post reads like the Nicene Creed - are the TruthOut Believers supposed to light a candle while they chant that?

Re Cheney, the non-conversation with Libby, the non-evidence, the non-appearance on the witness list - in my world, this is one more example of how the case against Cheney remains forever just over the horizon.

Of course, in TruthWorld, it proves we are one day closer (i.e., 8 business hours, or three, or something) to nailing Dick.

[noah]

Jeff, the article on Kos referred to an article by Pincus referring to a "administration" official describing the WH take on the Wilson/Plame affair circa July 12, 2003...at the time of that article Pincus apparently did not see fit to describe the official as a "White House official". Not clear how that makes me an idiot...but apparently I struck a nerve. It appears you haven't mastered or don't care to master the link thingy. Welcome to the club.

AMF

[noah]

"On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.

I didn't write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. But I did disclose it in an October 12, 2003 story [here] in The Washington Post. By that time there was a Justice Department criminal investigation into a leak to columnist Robert Novak who published it on July 14, 2003 and identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Under certain circumstances a government official's disclosure of her name could be a violation of federal law. The call with me had taken place two days before Novak's column appeared."

From Kos.

[clarice]

Cecil,I never saw the VP's notes and yet I had the same questions when I learned that Wilsonha been sent by the CIA--Who sent him? Why no paperwork? And when I learned his wife was in the CIA those questions--logical as they are--were raised by lots of people.

[Rick Ballard]

Peter,

It may be that TruthOut is simply seeking the Carlos Castaneda "Speaking Truth to Cactus" journalism award.

"...this is not a work of fiction. What I am describing is alien to us; therefore, it seems unreal."
Carlos Castaneda

It wasn't sources - it was sorcerers. All is clear now.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Regarding the letter to the OPR Clarice is drafting, this from the high school newspaper interview sheds a lot of light on Fitzgerald's outlook:

'Though the pecuniary reward as private attorney would be much greater, Fitzgerald has pursued the noble path of a federal prosecutor. “I think that people do not realize that when you are a private lawyer, your obligation is to serve your client,” says Fitzgerald. “If your client wants to do something, you have to take that position even if it’s a position that you don’t agree with.”

'As a “federal prosecutor, my job every day is to do the right thing,” emphasized Fitzgerald. Working in the federal government is a learning experience and I feel like I am always on the side to pursue justice.” Fitzgerald warns, “In the private sector, you make a lot more money [than in the public sector], but it is a lot less interesting and you do not have the luxury of making your own decisions.” '

So he's as happy as a pig in slop right now. Liberated from any supervision, and with a bottomless barrel of taxpayer funds to use in making his 'own decisions' about what he thinks is 'right'.

Note the absence of any commitment to applying the law in the above. That would be just so restrictive.

[Kate]

I was afraid that hard hitting journalist, Wayne Madsen was being overlooked in all the coverage of Jason Leopold. After TalkLeft linked to his Rove indicted story I spent a few minutes going through his archieves, strange stuff. OK, more than a few minutes.

Byron York found one I missed, apparently Pope John Paul II was worried that Bush might be the anti-Christ.

I notice that DU will not link to Wayne, TalkLeft might want to consider the same policy.

[PeterUK]

Rick,From your link,

" I am teaching you how to see as opposed to merely looking , and stopping the world is the first step to seeing .
Stopping the world is not a cryptic metaphor that really doesn't mean anything. And its scope and importance as one of the main propositions of my knowledge should not be misjudged."

Which explains how they got ahead of the news cycle,like a beginner driver with a hand gear shift.Somewhere in the future Truthout is wondering why their holiday bookings are full,they never get Christmas presents,Sorcerer's Apprentices indeed.

[PeterUK]

"apparently Pope John Paul II was worried that Bush might be the anti-Christ."

I thought Bush was the antidote!

[Kate]

PRS-sounds like Fitz believes his own press clippings. He thinks he's a noble prosecutor. It reminds me when journalists say their primary responsibility is to question authority, no idiots, it's to report the facts.

Same thing with Fitz, his job is to find the facts and do a thorough investigation, he failed. However, in his mind, he's great.

[Jane]

"Fitzgerald warns, “In the private sector, you make a lot more money [than in the public sector], but it is a lot less interesting and you do not have the luxury of making your own decisions.” '

My guess is that Fitzy is headed to the private sector as soon as this case wraps up. Or maybe he'll go into politics...

[Kate]

My guess is that Fitz has something more in common with the Wilsons than self-perceived nobility. I think Fitz may be wondering who's going to play him in the movie as well.

[Dwilkers]

Woody Allen?

[Barney Frank]

“I think that people do not realize that when you are a private lawyer, your obligation is to serve your client,” says Fitzgerald. “If your client wants to do something, you have to take that position even if it’s a position that you don’t agree with.”

Does this mean Fitzgerald only enforces laws he agrees with?

[Kate]

Oh, that's mean!! Funny, though! I'm sure he was thinking Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford (a little old?), Tom Cruise.

[Lurker]

Byron York's HARD-HITTING REPORTERS ON THE CIA LEAK STORY>

Interesting that the Washington Post is apparently preparing a story on all the Internet theorizing about the case.

York referred to Madse's reporting of a report that Pope John Paul II worried that George W. Bush was the Antichrist.

Jeralyn of Talkleft had an interesting post over at her website regarding TO.

There will be alot of talking about Marc's article posted today.

[Kate]

Well, according to 2 adoring articles written on Fitz before the indictment:

-he was looking at a creative application of the espionage act to nail the evil ones;
-if Fitz thinks you're dishonest with him he will nail you somehow, he doesn't care how he does it.

That's our Fitz!!

[clarice]

The fake site PJF has attacked Seixon and me with some commentors making rather threatening remarks.. Perhaps the real PJF might take issue..or not.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . those questions--logical as they are--were raised by lots of people.

Yes. But the fact (assuming it is) of a related conversation outside the VP's office two days later does tend to support the contention Libby and the VP talked about it. (Or there might be fingerprints on the article, or they may just be thinking the same way . . . it's impossible to say.)

[jerry]

Do you guys have any opinion about Abu G's deputy killing the Rove indictments (I haven't followed the discussion here over the past few days)?

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/21/184052/881

[clarice]

Exactly, it is impossible to say and therefore not probative of much more than a shared talent of logical thinking.

[clarice]

jerry, not going there. Since Fitz doesn't report to anyone no one at DoJ is in a position to kill anything and I think any rumors along that line can only be engendered on a hope of salvaging TO's rep.

[Cecil Turner]

Do you guys have any opinion about Abu G's deputy killing the Rove indictments . . .

No more so than I have about fictional White House leaks about reporters' sources. It'd be nice if the investigation were focused on actual leaks (including the ones from Mr and Mrs Wilson that started it off). But that doesn't appear likely.

And who's Abu G's deputy? Karpinski's second-in-command?

[ghostcat]

Perhaps Fitz and Luskin are negotiating the terms of a letter of declination. Perhaps the first draft was dated May 12.

[kim]

The authority to give is also to take away, so I think it is within the realm of possiblility for the DOJ to assert almost anything they like with Fitz, certainly, Bush can. But whether it is worth the political risk, I doubt, nor do I think it's been done in this case. Were the DOJ to reassert itself, I'm pretty sure it would be sub rosa, at first, just a little conversation with good ol' Pat, by an old friend.
==============================

[Dwilkers]

If the WaPo is preparing a report on the 'internet theorizing' on the case I expect to see a post from TM momentarily about their calling him for an interview.

Otherwise it'll be SSDD.

[Pat Boggan]

Forgive me if I'm late to the party and generally clueless. But sometimes those on the 'outside' have something offer, right?

After reading miles and miles of comments, it seems to dumb l'il ole me that the person who isn't shooting straight is Tim Russert.

[kim]

Shoot, you ain't so dumb, straight up.
=======================

[owl]

this from the high school newspaper interview sheds a lot of light on Fitzgerald's outlook:

Is this the same interview when he says something like "you have to decide what the law intended" or some such?

[jerry]

Interesting Clarice. Both you and the defense lawyer lady at TalkLeft refused to discuss this issue - quite an unusual harmony across the opinion spectrum! Cecil did, however, and he's a lawyer as best I understand. This seems significant to me, I'll have to stew on this. Thanks for the comment.

[windansea]

Daily Kos Diary: Did Gonzales Kill Fitz's Rove Indictments?

Last Friday, Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated over a case titled "SEALED v. SEALED." There is growing speculation that sealed v. sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales' Deputy, Paul McNulty (Fitzgerald's direct superior).

The Wayne Madsen Report and the Chris Matthews Show have both floated the theory that Fitzgerald had secured indictments against Rove, but Gonzales --via McNulty-- came in at the last second and used his power as Fitzgerald's superior to kill the indictments.

IF, this theory is true, Fitzgerald would have likely challenged McNulty's decision in court, pointing to an earlier administrative directive from then acting Attorney General James Comey that gave Fitzerald the "authority of the Attorney General." Comey is long gone, however, and was replaced by McNulty. The question then becomes what, if any, value does Comey's administrative directive have today.

One unfortunate realty of this scenario is that if the judge sides with McNulty, we will never know what really happened, because it will remained sealed. Which, is one explanation about why Rove is acting so smug these days and why the White House has not pulled back his public schedule.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881

[clarice]

It sounds preposterous. Any filing on pacer called sealed v. sealed? It seems to be the fantasies are getting more and more --well, fantastical--and involve more and more secret inside stuff impossible of verification..Kind of like half wolf child born in Siberia with no town given and just a very blurred photoshopped pic accompanying ths story.

[windansea]

Jerry

stewed seal is delicious

[boris]

It sounds preposterous.

And yet offers a glimmer of gloat for all. Imagine Gonzales telling Fitz, you've made your bed now lie in it. Go to court with Scooter and get run over or beat a hasty retreat. The free ride is over, fish or cut bait.

[jerry]

But Clarice, you aren't only rebutting now, you're fully running from the details - you're in full denial mode! What's going on?

[sad]

Fitz will expect Kevin Costner, aka Elliot Ness, to play him in the movie.

******Also, you sure Fitz (or one of his delegates) reads these threads?******

Jeff is very sympatico with Fitz. What are the odds?

[jerry]

windy'sea

"stewed seal" that's also funny.

[clarice]

Jerry, you really must learn to distinguish between running away from and laughing at..And I think Cecil doesn't seem to take this very seriously either.

[boris]

What a hoot if it was Rove behind it all from the get go and now (oh the irony) Fitz can't go after Rove without blowing the case against Libby, can't take Libby to court without Rove testifying for defense and blowing the case, can't drop Libby without discrediting the entire investigation and Gonzales forecloses on the whole circus clowns and all!

[clarice]

JL and Madsen's secret sources revealed.
http://web.weeklyworldnews.com/images/wwn/208674/49590.jpg

[Rick Ballard]

To get a feel for the earth shaking importance of the July 6 editorial I went back to see what I could find in various archives during that infamous and unforgettable week. Oddly enough, using the single word "Wilson" turned up nothing at Instapundit, nothing at Buzz Machine, nothing at a blog named Just One Minute, a single hit on a Cliff May piece at Powerline and two atNRO.

There are a few references to the 'Bush lied' meme being pimped within the incestuous circle of the Dems party organs but Ambassador Munchausen's tale wasn't the highlight of the week. Just to keep a tiny bit of perspective upon the importance of Cheney's notations.

[jerry]

I laugh here too, often, as I'm uninvolved.

But if you look at the comments section for TalkLeft you will see that you, Clarice, and she react Identically to this issue.

As a legal outsider I find this to be sort of (very) fascinating, I think there must be some legal-social construct that you're both reacting to.

Maybe this is all ridiculous, but it is interesting to see such a similar reaction on both ends of the political spectrum.

This is like a great mystery that you're not allowed to read! Tomorrow, tomorrow....

[sad]

Clarice

Great find!! It appears that two of the sources are women. Should help narrow the search a little.

[richard mcenroe]

"Fitz will expect Kevin Costner, aka Elliot Ness, to play him in the movie."

Didn't you mean Costner as Jim Garrison out of JFK?

[richard mcenroe]

Can anyone credibly imagine Fitz accepting McNulty or Gonzales quashing any indictements he's already brought in silence?

[sad]

Boris

*****What a hoot if it was Rove behind it all from the get go and now (oh the irony) Fitz can't go after Rove without blowing the case against Libby, can't take Libby to court without Rove testifying for defense and blowing the case, can't drop Libby without discrediting the entire investigation and Gonzales forecloses on the whole circus clowns and all!*****

What if we extend your scenario a little further and postulate that Cheney and Rove are actually the same person? Has anyone ever seen them together? Is there photographic proof? No wonder Fitz is so out of his league.

[jerry]

Hey Cecil, do you have an position re: Karpinski? She seems like a nobel rebel to me. Do you have a military background?

[clarice]

She was an AA promotion--pushed by Hillary! and was unsuited for her position as it appears.

[jerry]

Re: Cheney and Rove -

"Has anyone ever seen them together? Is there photographic proof?"

Sounds rather racy to me....

[sad]

RM

******Didn't you mean Costner as Jim Garrison out of JFK?******

Exactly!! I just don't think Fitz sees it that way.

*******Can anyone credibly imagine Fitz accepting McNulty or Gonzales quashing any indictements he's already brought in silence?********

Of course not. He would feel justified in using a "good leak." No wonder JL feels so confident of his source!!!

[clarice]

As with JL's latest fables, I suppose the chickenshit MSM will lack the courage to report this big news and all the parties, liars that they are, will laugh their heads off when asked to comment.*rolling eyes*

[jerry]

Rolled inwardly or outwardly? Did you read "Blink" (?), no good opinions of rolled eyes there.

[owl]

Hey, I voted in their poll. Voted that Fitz would overcome and get his man because I wanted to be in that 90% line.

[Jeff]

noah - Here are two links. Note, in the first one, that Pincus says "White House source". Note, in the second one, the passage from the WaPo. Why you think I have anything to do with a kos link that you found through google is beyond me. But you might check the dates of the various items. You might also note that Pincus calling his source a White House official is fully consistent with, and just more specific than, calling his source an administration official.

[lemondloulou54]

Pincus has a story up in tomorrow's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101024.html

[JM Hanes]

Dwilkers

"If the WaPo is preparing a report on the 'internet theorizing' on the case I expect to see a post from TM momentarily about their calling him for an interview."

Hope they also know enough to credit MJW with outing Armitage.:)

[Lesley]

Link to Pincus/WaPo

Here is Lou's link

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jerry -- perhaps the similarities you've noticed between Clarice and Jeralyn's positions stems more from the fact that Clarice is supporting the defense in this case and sees the prosecutor for what he is and Jeralyn ... well in her case, we must remember that Jeralyn is first and foremost a defense attorney. It is unnatural for her to be supporting the prosecution and it is only her BDS that has her on that side of this case. Not only is she a defense attorney, but an outspoken one. If you have followed her career over the years, you found her speaking out time and again, whether the OJ case or the Oklahoma bombing case. She has a deep deep suspicion of the government when it comes to legal matters. I think what you are seeing are signs that when off guard her natural defense attorney side is coming through and it dove tails with where Clarice is on this case as far as her opinion of "the prosecutor." Of course I could be way off base. Just my thoughts.

[JM Hanes]

lemond-

Unfortunately, Typepad truncated your link. Is this the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101024.html> Pincus article you had in mind?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Do I detect a bit of "gotcha" here in the WaPo with its leadoff paragraph on the Gonzales statements he made on Sunday TV this morning?

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility yesterday that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist-related calls between the United States and abroad.

[Tom Maguire]

I have a new post on the Pincus article. I feel bad, but it really looks like Maguire 1, Pincus 0 on a very basic point - Pincus refers to "last week's court argument on pretrial motions", but then cites from the May 5 hearing transcript, a mere 17 days ago. There was a hearing on May 16, BTW, so I ought to hustle a transcript - evidently Pincus has not.

[clarice]

Sara, more likely we both know shit from shinola when we see it. If McCarthy were being reined in , Gonzales would write a formal letter turning this over to his Deputy (Gonzales may have a conflict) and that Deputy would write a letter to Fitzgerald defining the new terms of his appointment. He would not quash a "sealed indictment" as to which he has no notice.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Ah heck Clarice and I was having so much fun playing psychic and you have to go and get all practical on me.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Those mint tea leaves are so unreliable.

[Syl]

on ash

***We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.***

Which would backfire on them if the story is true.

Therefore the story is false and they're acting rationally.

[xrayiiis]

I think a lot of people on the left must have attended that noted university, MSU, otherwise known as

Make
Shit
Up

[Jane]

"It seems to be the fantasies are getting more and more --well, fantastical--and involve more and more secret inside stuff impossible of verification.."

Seems to me the left has been stuck at this stage on every issue - not just this one. It's a perfect description of the world most of them live in.

[Cecil Turner]

Hey Cecil, do you have an position re: Karpinski? She seems like a nobel rebel to me. Do you have a military background?

A noble rebel? She was in charge at Abu Ghraib, and is responsible for everything her subordinates did there (or failed to do). She stupidly misread an order that gave the MI unit TACON (the authority to exert tactical control during enemy attacks) as being in charge of the prison, and ordered her officers to “stay out of the towers”, thus building her own little version of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Unsurprisingly, the results were remarkably similar. The military intelligence unit there was also out of control (and are being charged), but the main responsibility for the fiasco captured on film belongs to Karpinski, and she should have been court-martialed. And yes, my background is military, any legal analysis is perfectly amateurish.

[clarice]

We are looking for volunteers to help put together the letter to the OPR.
Please lend your research talents and fact checking skills.

Pop in to http://chaoschaos.typepad.com/razzledazzle/

I'm asking volunteers to complete their assignments and turn them in by 6 p.n. EST on Wednesday.

Thank you.

[Rick Ballard]

If you do choose to participate at Razzledazzle, a quick mention in comments would be appreciated. Section, paragraph and item is all that I need to to know in order to set a particular piece aside. I'll update Section 3 on a sloppily continuous basis.

Thanks!

And thanks very much to JMH for stting up the project site.

[clarice]

taranto: Truthout (whose motto, we guess, is "If you want the truth, get out of here")