Mission Creep

It was another day in court for the Plame leak contestants.  Team Libby offered this:

The hearing also revealed other elements of the defense strategy.

[Libby attorney] Wells signaled that he would mount an attack on the idea that the White House could have been the first to disclose Plame's status as a CIA official, saying that he would "call at least five witnesses who will say under oath that Wilson told them about his wife."

However:

[Judge] Walton seemed skeptical. "If Wilson is a habitual liar" about his wife's CIA status, the judge asked, "how does that bear on whether your client...  allegedly lied?"

Is that a tough question?  Is that even the question in its appropriate context?

Look, if Wilson was chatting all over town about his CIA wife, it makes it more likely that the press had heard about it, and more likely that reporters like Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell are, uhh, memory challenged when they say they had not heard about Ms. Plame prior to the Novak column.

Let's excerpt some counts from the indictment:

Count One

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and...

[33] ...b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

Count Two

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

Count Three

...defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

Count Four

...3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

Count Five

...3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

A jury tasked with deciding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may find the news about five folks unidentified by Fitzgerald wondering about with this classified info courtesy of Joe Wilson to be interesting. 

Obviously, the other part of Libby's story - he had forgotten about his chat with Cheney about Plame, and the other talks about Plame with Grossman, Fleischer, et al didn't happen - remains a challenge for the defense.  (I am still awaiting a drug-interaction related memory loss defense.)

MORE:  I quarrel with this from the WaPo:

Libby is charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators during Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe of an alleged effort by the White House to disclose the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, to discredit Wilson's claims.

Well, it has certainly become a probe of the White House, partly because Fitzgerald does not want to look elsewhere, like at Armitage at State - he is quite probably the guy who provided the first government leak, to Bob Woodward, and the first leak to the first reporter to run the story, Bob Novak.

Lest we forget - Fitzgerald's initial task was to investigate the leak, not the White House.

Comments

[Walter]

TM-TSK9,

Are you soliciting donations for the transcript yet?

[Walter]

"In pretrial motions, Libby's attorneys have tried to widen the scope of the trial, to show why, in their view, he had no motive to lie or cover up his actions."

Well, I'm sure someone addressed the reasons Libby testified as he did. Not quite sure that Libby is quoted in the linked article, though.

[topsecretk9]

if you

-- I quarrel with this from the WaPo:--

then wait till you read NYT's courtesy your very own Sue-Z-Q

In 6 little para's they peat and repeat to bad quotes (wait for the transcript) Sue notes, also tell us the NYT's has some inside for Russert -- HE DID talk to Libby about Plame and as Syl catches they missed actual NEWS - 5 witnesses. And a good time was had by all.

[topsecretk9]

---Are you soliciting donations for the transcript yet?--- they gonna be a lot, I hear...

TM--- PAYPAL and donate...if you build it, people will come.

[topsecretk9]

I meant --- we will donate...

I hope that was evident

[clarice]

Let's hope the judge figures this out.

CNN has a video (John ROberts) "Who is Ray McGovern?" with shots of Gateway Pundit's article on him. http://www.cnn.com/US/(I never hooked up my audio so I can't hear it.But reports would be welcome.

[topsecretk9]

allrighty...I'll go back on to my Val meet Joe theme (Marc was the Ambass to Turkey...)

WAPO:

Wells said that he needed documents to cast doubt on the accuracy of any testimony by Grossman, whom he identified as a longtime friend and traveling partner of Wilson's.

[clarice]

Can't put anything past you, ts.

[Kate]

Grossman was the 1 in the 1x2x6 theory?

Apparently, according to Libby's defense, he was not totally accurate in his testimony.

Wonder if he is the "official" who kept telling reporters to stay on the case and that this was just a White House smear. The one who Fitz believed.

[clarice]

That's what Truthout Reported..It's an exhibit to Libby's last filing.

[larwyn]

TM,
It is now Sir Armitage.:-)

...proving how quickly we forget those details that are minor at the time.

[MayBee]

TM, I'm with you. The "habitual liar" seems not to rebut the "5 witnesses" testimony. I'm going to wait to see the transcripts on that one. (trannys, as TS calls them)

I love the reporters getting little details wrong in a case that is basically about reporters little details v. Libby's little details.

[ordi]

Ole Scary Larry is at it again.

CIA boss Goss is cooked
CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman.

SNIP

Larry Johnson, a former CIA operative and a Bush administration critic, said Goss "had a relationship with Dusty and with Brent Wilkes that's now coming under greater scrutiny."

Johnson vouched for the integrity of Foggo and Goss but said, "Dusty was a big poker player, and it's my understanding that Porter Goss was also there \[at Wilkes' parties\] for poker. It's going to be guilt by association."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/415304p-350961c.html

That Larry, What a guy!

[Cecil Turner]

Look, if Wilson was chatting all over town about his CIA wife, it makes it more likely that the press had heard about it, and more likely that reporters like Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell are, uhh, memory challenged when they say they had not heard about Ms. Plame prior to the Novak column.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the defense proffered virtually the same argument over UGO's conversations with reporters (in the 2/24/06 transcript):

It's vitally important to us, Your Honor, number one, to investigate what other reporters knew and may have mentioned it. And number two, to confront Mr. Russert with what other reporters knew it.

After some of the fuzziest argument yet from Fitz (inadequately countered by Jeffress, IMO), Walton's ruling was:

. . . and I don't conclude that it satisfies the materiality requirement. I just think it is too attenuated to conclude that the revelation of this information would, in fact, lead to information that would assist Mr. Libby in his defense.

It seems to me that if he loses on that one, he has to lose on this one as well.

[kim]

Now, my pal, Joe Tomato wants to know about this one from Walton, the WonderMan: "If Wilson is a habitual liar" about his wife's CIA status. Joe notes that this is in a context where Joe was telling the TRUTH about his wife. This is what is so great about Wilson; you can disbelieve anything he says, because he always has an alternative you can believe in.

But why did Walton say that? Or is the context whack?
===================================

[Kate]

Perhaps yes, Wilson leaked and lied, but he didn't lie to investigators (how did that happen) or the Grand Jury.

Because, he didn't appear before the Grand Jury and his pal Fitz didn't set a perjury trap for Lying Joe Wilson.

What a great country when the biggest liar in the narrative get millions from his spouse's book deal and the official trying to correct his lies faces 30 years in prison.

[kim]

But I just love it when the subjunctive is used ironically. Walton is on to Wilson, and wonders why Fitz refuses to be so, officially.
===================================

[jerry]

"...all the other attorney's are talking about evidence and there was evidence mentioned today involving documents and memos of, from Karl Rove to another administration official about Valerie Wilson. If they're talking about documents and memos as opposed to the Stephen Hadley email that Karl Rove wrote, in other words, if there are other emails or documents that would suggest that perhaps prosecutors have an even stronger case to suggest that Karl Rove didn't have memory problems, he was willfully trying to avoid remembering certain things to the grand jury" (from Shuster's report last night via Crooks and Liars)

Karl does seem be, on the verge of, falling into a hole-o-guilt.

We still don't know the substance of the referral letter BTW.

[kim]

The jury will consider motive; then all this materiality that Fitz is fighting will enter. He's the little Dutch Boy holding his finger in the dike. The jury will be as frustrated as we are with a prosecution hampering discovery. I'd like to see Fitz's eloquence in front of a jury that knows he's hiding stuff.
===============================

[Kate]

Jerry, my understanding is that Fitzgerald said he didn't have any info on Rove at yesterday's hearing. I'd be very careful about quoting Schuster or Leopold.

Hold out for Waas or the New York Times. This case has been going on now for 3 years. Fitz could have charged anyone at any time. We know that he charged Libby on the last day of the sitting Grand Jury and has not yet charged Rove 6 months out.

I would suggest the evidence is weak. Although I hate to disagree with my hero, David Schuster.

[Dwilkers]

"Walton seemed skeptical. "If Wilson is a habitual liar" about his wife's CIA status, the judge asked, "how does that bear on whether your client... allegedly lied?""

The question isn't whether Wilson is a habitual liar. The question is whether he was spreading his wife's status around town.

This seems to me to be highly relevant to Libby's case - ESPECIALLY in that much of the foundation is based on "Libby lied about what he said to reporter XYZ" - and those same reporters are denying they knew about Plame.

Its really quite fundamental, or appears so to me. Cecil makes a good point about the previous ruling but it seems to me this is will never fly on appeal and even if it does it wouldn't be anything resembling 'justice'. Just read counts 4 and 5 and tell me this isn't relevant.

[kim]

Wilson spreading his wife's role around town was the TRUTH. Why did Walton refer to Wilson as a 'habitual liar' in this context. Is anyone suggesting that Joe in blowing his wife's cover was lying?
============================

[sammy small]

kim

Its obvious that the prosecution is hammpering discovery, like you say. Its been evident from the very start that a good discovery process would shread the case wide open.

What Fitz has been successful at is tearing down the GWB staff based upon a political witch hunt. Its obvious that this has been his intention from the very beginning.

He still has Rove to force charges upon before he has finished. After that, I doubt that he will care about any discovery since his "real job" will be completed.

He should be held accountable.

[Sue]

We will need to wait for a transcript to be sure, but from the quotes of Walton I've seen, the Wilson lying was about Niger, not whether he was out there talking about his wife. The context of whether Joe being a liar was in the need for the documentation on his trip to Niger. I think the reporters are ignoring the 5 witnesses for the defense, for the most part.

[kim]

Thanks, Sue. It is still an insight into what Walton thinks of Joe. And that can't be immaterial.
================================

[Sue]

Kim,

True, but the reporters are playing selective quoting, I think. From reading all of the various reports, Walton was responding to the assertion that Joe was lying about what he found and the Judge said it didn't matter, this trial wasn't going to be about the legitimacy of the war. I haven't seen anything where the judge said they couldn't bring in the 5 witnesses. We will have to wait for the transcript to be sure, though, since the reporters are having serious problems reporting what actually happened.

[Sue]

I almost dropped my coffee cup. FoxNews had a split screen of 3 people being considered for the replacement of Goss. Richard (that's Sir Richard, I forgot) Armitage was in the middle screen. What's up with that?

[windansea]

We will need to wait for a transcript to be sure, but from the quotes of Walton I've seen, the Wilson lying was about Niger, not whether he was out there talking about his wife.

I hope you are correct...if Walton doesn't think Wilson blabbing about his wife is material then Libby defense has a tough road to hoe

[Dwilkers]

Oh yeah. I thought Rove was supposed to be indicted again yesterday...about the tenth flood of Rove indictment rumors so far I think. I dunno if Rove is going to get indicted or not (my guess is not) but one thing I'm absolutely sure about is we can't believe the media about it.

Sheeesh.

[Sue]

wind,

I can only assume at this point, since the quotes are all over the place. It seems to me the quote about Wilson being an habitual liar are out of context with what was being discussed, which was casting doubt on Marc Grossman.

[Walter]

DWilkers,

That's why I want to see the transcript. The press reports haven't discussed Fitzgerald's response to J. Walton's order.

Did Fitzgerald agree to drop any points in the indictment?

[kim]

I still like the ironic subjunctive, 'if Joe is a habitual liar'. In this case the irony hides the real statement, 'even though Joe is a habitual liar' what does it have to do Libby's so-called perjury.
================================

[Sue]

This paragraph from the WaPo article, read by itself, would indicate he was responding to someone saying Joe was lying about her, which is why I think it is misattributed and should have been in response to the earlier discussion on whether Joe was lying about what he found in Niger.

Walton seemed skeptical. "If Wilson is a habitual liar" about his wife's CIA status, the judge asked, "how does that bear on whether your client . . . allegedly lied?"

[Sue]

Why wouldn't the judge, if he was talking about the 5 witnesses, have said, even if he was out telling everyone about his wife's CIA status, how would that bear on whether your client allegedly lied? Instead, earlier, in the article, you have this

At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton did not formally deny Libby's request for all records related to a 2002 trip by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger. But he said the material is not directly relevant to the case and could only distract the jury.

I can't wait for the actual transcript.

[kim]

I think we are seeing that journalists are out to sea on this. The paragraph you've quoted from the WaPo makes no sense.
========================================

[kim]

I don't like one bit the way that sentence is half a direct quote from Walton, and the other half not. This is either correct, which makes little sense, or incorrect, and then the question is whether the journalist is stupid or trying to do something corrupt with the quote. What that would be I'm not stupid enough to guess.

The transcript will be interesting, especially to a WaPo editor.
================================

[Sue]

Kim,

It is totally out of context with the rest of the article.

In an April 12 motion, one of the lawyers, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said he needed the documents to help establish that Wilson had misstated the results of the Niger trip, and that the true purpose of Libby's contacts with the media was to correct those statements, not to unmask Plame.

Which is why I'm skeptical at this point the judge was referring to Wilson lying abut his wife's CIA status.

[Sue]

The only thing that makes sense is the editor reduced the article and left out something that would make it make sense. By itself, it is totally out of context.

[kim]

And the journalist has warped it, ignorantly.
==========================

[clarice]

I think no order was issued, nor were any charges dropped. This was a hearing to learn before discovery rulings what each side planned to present.

The judge's reference re the govt subpoenas seems too be that while he may allow some, he won't give Libby all he requested because that would derail the proceedings. He expressed some concern about the defense parading in a stream of witnesses about Wilson for the same reason.

It is my experience that reporters rarely get an accurate view of courtroom proceeings.
The transcipt and later the order will be what we should concentrate our attentions on.

[windansea]

And the journalist has warped it, ignorantly.

or purposely

[windansea]

He expressed some concern about the defense parading in a stream of witnesses about Wilson for the same reason.

if the concern is directed at Wilson credibility re pre war intel no problem

I can't see how the judge would rule Joe blabbing about Val immaterial

[kim]

Well, yes, I wondered about warping it purposely, but to what purpose? Is Joe going under the wheels?
===================================

[kim]

See, it makes sense if the journalist is trying to get you to reference Joe's habitual lying about his wife sending him to Africa. The meme now is to admit that Joe is a habitual liar, but that his meme about Africa and the push to war was right. They are trying to put those words in Walton's mouth. Look at the quote.
============================

[clarice]

Sometimes they warp, sometimes they lie, but mostly they haven't a clue about what is going on.

I have won a case in court on a subtly obtained series of admissions, read that I'd lost only to read a court order days later that I'd won.

Pay it no mind.

Or pay attention to what Byron York reports from the courtroom. He does not what he's talking about.

[kim]

The sun never rises on the midnight rule.
=========================

[kim]

And I would definitely go with 'haven't a clue'. On top of that cluelessness is the willingness to be a useful idiot and propagate the meme. Look how the paragraph accentuates that it's about perjury, Joe can be forgotten.

A meme Joe echoed. And the press, unconsciously corrupt.
======================

[clarice]

The sun never rises on the midnight rule. Not for me..

[Rocco]

The indictment reads...

Events Leading up to July 2003

3. On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

Considering Wilson was the source for Kristof's article, doesn't Libby's defense need to know how Wilson knew "unequivocally" that the allegations were wrong based on forged documents?

How could Wilson know the documents were forged immediately upon his return from Niger? Isn't this relevent to Libby's defense

[richard mcenroe]

he had forgotten about his chat with Cheney about Plame, and the other talks about Plame with Grossman, Fleischer, et al didn't happen -

"Yo, dude, I was out drinkin' with Paddy Kennedy, 'kay, and like the next thing I remember was like a week later and whoa...."

[danking70]

"I'm just not going to let this case turn into a judicial resolution of the legitimacy of the war or the accuracy of the president's State of the Union address," Walton said.

Walton's reference was to the "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he cited British intelligence reports that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger for use in developing nuclear weapons.

Um, excuse me your Honor, but we've already had resolution about the accuracy of the President's SOTU and the inaccuracy of Wilson's anonymous leaks to Kristoff and Pincus and Wilson's Op-ed from the Senate Committee on Intelligence and the UK's Butler report.

Are those conclusions not relevant?

I'm shocked that the WaPo continue's to report on the SOTU and Wilson this way, especially after what they wrote on Joe's testimony, Pincus' correction, and their recent "A Good Leak" Op-Ed.

No shame...

[kim]

Oh, but they were withdrawn, remember? Never mind that they were accurate, it's the meme that is important. You have an excellent point, d.
============================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Also from the indictment:

'Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.'

Five witnesses testifying to being told by Joe that she was CIA would seem to undermine the credibility of both Wilson and the prosecutors.

[clarice]

I should think so, Patrick, but then we know the night before the indictment our crack men in black surveyed the neighborhood around the manse and found no onw knew which is apparently the basis for that allegation.

[Nash]

Lest we forget - Fitzgerald's initial task was to investigate the leak, not the White House.

Ah, but how willfully you forget that Fitzgerald stated that he was not permitted to do that task by the obstruction and perjury being carried out by, well, so far, Mr. Libby, with possibly more to come. It's just like sports--TM holds the strong side linebacker and I catch the winning TD across the middle. Would I, given my high level of skill at catching footballs across the middle, have scored if TM didn't hogtie the LB? How will we ever know?

So, remind me again what the point is of bringing up Fitzgerald's original task when his task was derailed by the people who came to his attention during the course of carrying out that task....

You always hiccup over that little connection. Conveniently.

[Sue]

TM holds the strong side linebacker and I catch the winning TD across the middle. Would I, given my high level of skill at catching footballs across the middle, have scored if TM didn't hogtie the LB?

If the referee hadn't made a bad call on the prior down, the game would have ended and you and Tom wouldn't have been on the field.

[Kate]

Nash/Sue: Baseball Fitz won't like it that you're doing Football.

Nash: since it now is obvious that Wilson leaked his wife's name, what exactly were the mean White House guys obstructing?

Which of them didn't call reporters with shy spy Plame's name, which of them didn't smear Wilson (the new crime of the century) and which of them didn't conspire to punish Lying Joe Wilson, merely, point out his lies.

[Tom Maguire]

So, remind me again what the point is of bringing up Fitzgerald's original task when his task was derailed by the people who came to his attention during the course of carrying out that task....

You always hiccup over that little connection. Conveniently.

That would be more convincing if anyone thought that Fitzgerald did not know who the leakers were.

Or if we thought that there might be some basis for a criminal prosecution on the leak iteslf.

Libby did testify that he was unaware of Plame's classified status. If Fitzgerald had evidence to the contrary, he should have put that in his indictment amongst the perjury charges.

But since Fitzgerald seems to be unwilling to attempt to prove that Libby knew Plame was classified (let alone covert, as defined by the statute), I'm left thinking that Fitzgerald considers Libby to have obstructed the investigation by failing to have delivered a signed confession.

Put another way, if Libby's story had matched Russert's, Cooper's, and Miller's, is there even a chance Libby would have been indicted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

Well, I can't be sure whether Nash really doesn't know any of this, or is just playing dumb.

[maryrose]

Nash:
Because as we say in the education field-Fitz is OFF TASK. He knew he couldn't prove a leak so He said Mother May I get the boys I think threw sand in my face? I couldn't see who they were because I had sand in my eyes but I know somebody did it!

[MJW]

I wonder about the same thing that Walter asked about: what, if anything from the indictment did Fitzgerald say he didn't intend to present at trial. In an order issued before the hearing, Walton specifically asked Fitz what he intended to present, to help Walton determine the materiality of Libby's dicovery requests. I haven't yet heard any reference to this seemingly important topic. Given Fitz's have-his-cake-and-eat-it atitude, I'd guess he still thinks he should be allowed to argue "potential damage" while denying Libby access to any damage assessments.

[Nash]

And you jump Glenn's case with outraged charges of illogic????

This is a gem of nonsense, circular thinking:

Or if we thought that there might be some basis for a criminal prosecution on the leak iteslf.

Libby did testify that he was unaware of Plame's classified status. If Fitzgerald had evidence to the contrary, he should have put that in his indictment amongst the perjury charges.

But since Fitzgerald seems to be unwilling to attempt to prove that Libby knew Plame was classified (let alone covert, as defined by the statute), I'm left thinking that Fitzgerald considers Libby to have obstructed the investigation by failing to have delivered a signed confession.

In other words, because no one has picked up the phone and called TM and explained to TM's satisfaction what's what, then it must be as TM imagines it is.

But more importantly, I'd like to point out that your entire argument is predicated on making Fitzgerald not merely wrong, but intentionally wrong, devious, and unethical. See maryrose immediately below your comment for this in action--it's the basis of what you've been doing for months in microcosm.

So, I know you aren't real good at self-reflection, but you skate right up to one of those bright lines that Glenn has noted. Your whole schtick collapses as soon as one considers the possibility that maybe Fitzgerald is a well-meaning federal employee and that just maybe he doesn't feel obligated to pick up the phone and fill in ol' TM with every detail of the case. Because, you know, if TM hasn't been told something, he is free, no he is obligated to turn speculation into truth.

Good job with that, TM. If I'm playing dumb, at least it's a two-handed game.

[kim]

Well, Fitz hasn't called me, either. So there.
=====================

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Nor me either. You would thing though that he might want to include some of this info in his court filings if he intends to prove half the allegations he spewed at his presser.

[MayBee]

Nash-
As an alternative to a personal phone call to TM, Kim (or me!) Fitzgerald could tell Judge Walton, or indict on those related charges, and we could read it in a newspaper.

[Nash]

Indeed, MayBee, and isn't the fact that he has declined to do so on MST (Maguire Standard Time) suspicious?

I mean, where's the outrage? Why doesn't he ask "how high" when TM says jump?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Why doesn't he ask "how high" when TM says jump?

I know, I know (raising hand) ...

Is it, is it maybe, maybe because Fitz can't hear TM over the din of his adoring Kiddie Korps and CABAL of traitorous exCIA agents who keep roaring in his ear?

Did I win?

[MayBee]

Nash, are you advocating the new standard be "Lets wait until we know all the facts before we report or speculate"?
Because I think that puts the whole information industry out of business.

[Nash]

I'd also like to respond to something Sara says, because it also is dead-on for TM-style all-or-nothing reasoning:

You would thing though that he might want to include some of this info in his court filings if he intends to prove half the allegations he spewed at his presser.

If Fitzgerald has shot his entire wad in this single 5-count indictment, then you would have a point. Do you have inside info that he will not be seeking further indictments, including additional charges for Mr. Libby?

Assuming you do not, then I refer you to my earlier screed about TM's argumentation on this being nothing more than petulant little foot stomps.

[Sue]

Maybee,

Surely you jest...the left wait for facts? They don't even wait for trials before they find a republican guilty.

[Nash]

Yes, Sara, you won.

And MayBee, I agree with you. However, my reason for existence, it appears, is to continue to point out how TM cannot get through a single day without showing himself to be a hypocrite. Then today, he throws in just plain silly talk.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

No I do not think he will seek further charges against Libby as I think, based on what we've seen so far, that he is barely hanging on to the case he has now.

Will he seek additional charges, well, if I were Cooper, I'd be worried about that. Maybe even Russert too. And if he weren't in the pocket of these loony disgruntled CIA types, I would say that justice demands charges be filed against Joe Wilson.

[Sue]

Nash,

He shouldn't have played his cards in a game that hadn't been dealt yet.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

And I don't think Kristof or Pincus should get too comfortable and I'm mighty p.o.'d about UGO sitting there getting a total pass.

[MayBee]

Nash- just remember that you are speculating too. You think Fitz has more up his sleeve, but he hasn't called to tell you that either.

I guess I just don't see any hypocrisy on TM's part.

[Sue]

Fitzgerald tried his leaker case in the media during his presser. He isn't going to indict Libby for leaking, not with Joe Wilson sitting there in front of God and country, smiling for the camera and running his mouth, before and after her supposed 'outing'. And that, IMO, more than anything Libby did, weighed more heavily on his decision not to indict Libby for leaking. Because he wanted to, you could see it in his body language, to steal a line from Shuster.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Why do you care anyway? This is a blog, a place to discuss, dissect, speculate, or whatever. It is the new town hall. The only reason for someone to care is if that someone wants to control the information and is trying to muzzle those with opinions that are contrary.

[Rocco]

Well I for one wouldn't be so skeptical if Wilson had told the truth from the get-go. And I realize this trial won't be about a casus beli for war with Iraq, but the original sin was Wilson's July 6, op-ed "What I didn't Find In Africa."

Page 41 of the SSCI tells us the CIA sent Wilson to Iraq to find out if they had ever been approached by any rogue countries seeking yellowcake. That was the very first talking point they gave him. Page 43 tells us Mayaki told him they were approached! How could Wilson misrepresent the truth with that op-ed? Unless of course he's trying to cover something up! How many have died because his propaganda turned this country against a just cause? The NYT's was his get away vehicle! I can't speak for anyone else, but I won't stop digging until the truth be known!

"I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others."
Thomas Jefferson

[Kate]

Nash-Fitzgerald himself said at his famous newsconference that his investigation was essentially over. He was still looking at Rove and the revelation by Woodward demonstrated just how bad the investigation was.

Fitzgerald is desperate, so he may throw more charges around. But based on the strength of the case he may want to drop the Miller charge and the Cooper charge and the perjury charge.

If fact, he may want to go for a "false swearing" plea, give Libby 30 days suspended and be done with it.

Oh, that's right, only Democrats get those sweetheart deals, right, Sandy?

[Nash]

Kate, I am unbelievably patient and I have a disgustingly long attention span and memory. So, let's agree to file your little predictions away for now and revisit them later, okay? In the event you are correct, I will be the first to say so.