Powered by TypePad

« NSA Thread | Main | Rove Indicted? »

May 13, 2006

Comments

clarice

So would Libby, a genius who was working over 12 hours a day not as a "partisan hack" but as someone trying desperately hard to defeat people trying to destroy us.

As for Fitz, each filing shows what an utter moron he is.

eli

I think perjury is an important crime.

It makes achieving justice impossible.

I believe this if it's Clinton, or Libby.

MayBee

eli and pete-
how do you feel about Novak's source telling him about Plame, and forgetting to tell Fitzgerald he had told others as well, but not being in any legal trouble for doing so?

Why do you imagine there is disparate treatment, and do you think that is the best use of justice?

lurker

Ah...but the question begats whether Libby and Rove actually did lie or not?

And what were the consequences of discussing Plame in any way, shape, and form? Damages? Crime?

Ah...not well-asked questions, such as?

SteveMG

Clarice:
And what were those consequences, pray tell. Ask UGO.(And, maybe, Fleischer).

The consequences are this, here. What we've spent 3 years talking about.

A SP, allegations, investigations, media reports....et cetera et cetera

Rove is playing with big boys and with big stakes. You make an error and they'll be on you in a second.

It may be sound and fury but it's not nothing.

SMG

eli

MayBee.

Good question... there's jsut so much we don't know. It Could be Fitz is too much of a moron to remember that happened.

I don't know the Novak's source forgot to mention telling other people. How do you knwo that?

clarice

So do I, eli, but I do not regard minor differences in recollected conversations as "perjury". Ask any lawyer. You never get identical versions unless there is collusion.
As for how moronic Fitz is, he contends in his last filing that he wants to introduce evidence that Libby was paying attention to the spreading Wilson lies, as proof that Libby was not concentrating as he claims on "national security matters."
Thus, this nitwit doesn't think that trying to keep the public record straight is part of the job. Numbskull.

MayBee

SMG:
My best guess is that he screwed up. So did, to a lesser extent, Rove. They didn't fully realize the consequences of discussing Plame's name/status/position.

After messing up, they tried to cover up their error.
---
I agree, but with one caveat. I don't think there really were any consequences of discussing Plame (see UGO). The consequences have all come from being messy, either with their preparation for testifying or for willful obfuscation.

Barney Frank

eli,

"SMG,

This is the most reasonable thing I've ev3er read here.

You may be attacked."


Don't be a putz. TM, cboldt, Cecil Turner, SMG, me and others have all approached this from the possibilty of Libby having perjured himself or at least made a complete hash of his testimony. This is not a knee jerk conformist club. You might look over on the 'reality based' side of the blogosphere for one of those.

boris

I think perjury is an important crime

Even a guilty person can plead not guilty without comitting perjury.

Charging the innocent with it is simply abuse. your ethos is sick.

Syl

Lurker

And what were the consequences of discussing Plame in any way, shape, and form? Damages? Crime?

Not a crime. Look at UGO.

Even if Libby KNEW Plame was classified and he shouldn't mention her in way shape or form, he was still not criminally liable for a leak that went nowhere.

Loss of security clearance. Possible loss of job. But criminally prosecuted? No.

clarice

Steve, I meant consequences in the terms Fitz led the public to believe...you know "harm to us all."

eli

Clarice,
Fitz is a moron? Come on. You're being silly. He's top of his class his whole life.
BUSH appoints him as prosecutor in a key region.

He takes down a corrupt governor with million-dolalr lawyers.

Your contention is not credible.

SteveMG

You may be attacked.

Nah, good folks here.

If one respects their point of view, you'll be respected in turn.

But if one wants to come here and wag their little weeny around, don't be surprised if someone whacks it good.

SMG

MayBee

eli:I don't know the Novak's source forgot to mention telling other people. How do you knwo that?
----
Bob Woodward.

eli

Um,
"ethos" can't be "sick" technically... unless it's jsut a strained metaphor which doesn't illuminate.

Someone who lies to a grand jury is no longer innocent... and "pleas" are not "testimony."

SteveMG

Clarice:
Steve, I meant consequences in the terms Fitz led the public to believe...you know "harm to us all."

Oh, my misunderstanding.

Yeah, Fitz's got nothing. Three years and all he has is perjury?

If he had anything of substance, he'd have revealed at least some of it by now.

These SP's have to justify their work and money spent and come up with something.

SMG

eli

"Woodward" what?

Syl

eli

I don't know the Novak's source forgot to mention telling other people. How do you knwo that?

Are you serious? Fitz didn't know about UGO telling Woodward 'til after Libby was indicted. Now why is that?

cathyf

Mr. Maguire, on My 13th, 2006, you spelled Cheney with 2 y's even though you very well know that Cheney is spelled with only one. Perjurer!!! 30 years in the hoosegaw for you!!!

cathy :-)

Lurker

"Someone who lies to a grand jury is no longer innocent... and "pleas" are not "testimony."

Only if Fitz can prove that Libby lied. Does he have sufficient evidence that Libby and Rove lied? I've read in the past that perjury is based on a crime and/or damages committed.

Yes, money wasted in this case.

clarice

He never asked UGO who else he talked to. He never even questioned people like Corn or Kristof who is was obvious knew the nugget. He was only interested in what reporters heard from Libby and Rove and not what they heard from anyone else...especially not what they heard from Wilson or Plame themselves.

cathyf
He takes down a corrupt governor with million-dolalr lawyers.
I hate to burst your bubble, but here in Illinois putting governors in jail is like shooting fish in a barrel. Coupla weeks ago I read a newspaper feature story interviewing the guy described as "Illinois only living governor to have served time in prison." The characterization just cracked me up. In most states they name prisons after politicians as recognition of the pork that a prison brings. In Illinois you have to wonder if they named the prison after the politician who served time there...

cathy :-)

BreakinUrBalls

Ooh, Baby, baby it's a wild word . . . .Bump, Bump, Bump, Bump Rove will bite the dust.
Yes boys and girls, the next sound you'll hear is Rove in cuffs hopping out of the White House.
Conservative Bozos must feel special that their only defense now is that Cheney was "authorized" to declassify classified material. Well, at least you now acknowledge that Republicans outed a covert officer and that Cheney by virtue of his position could do so with no fear. Great!! That's a platform to run on. Why worry about Democrats selling out this country when Republicans are already doing it.

Lurker

"He never asked UGO who else he talked to. He never even questioned people like Corn or Kristof who is was obvious knew the nugget. He was only interested in what reporters heard from Libby and Rove and not what they heard from anyone else...especially not what they heard from Wilson or Plame themselves."

So exactly what was he initially tasked to do? Find the CIA leak? And he ended up focusing on Libby and Rove? To try and find out if they perjured? Because of security clearance? Sounds like an incomplete investigation????

Will Walton consider whether a crime had been committed along with damages assessed?

Lurker

"that Cheney was "authorized" to declassify classified material."

As per Executive Order, Cheney has the authority to declassify classified materials. He did not need authority.

"Covert" officer? Where is the proof that Plame was covert at the time of the CIA leak?

Don't forget that Clinton and the dems voted on the 1994 law that allowed NSA to maintain the phone records data base.

clarice

People often say "just connect the dots". But investigations are not maze puzzles where the answer is established before you start. In fact, there are so many dots on the page it much harder to actually connect them and make a pattern, unless like Fits you just thrown white out on half the page.

Nash

While all you guys are doing a great job of holding the line against the truth, aren't any of you as concerned as I am that TM is starting to go squishy on us?

I mean, if we lose TM, we might as well just surrender to the French.

SteveMG

But if one wants to come here and wag their little weeny around, don't be surprised if someone whacks it good.

As soon as I posted this, what happens but BuB comes along.

Right on cue.

Leonardo da Vinci used the term "chunnelers". People who just did nothing all day but eat and poop. Nothing else.

SMG

boris

Someone who lies to a grand jury is no longer innocent... and "pleas" are not "testimony."

So when the defendent gets on the stand and swears he was at the movies that's perjury?

Hmmm. Doesn't seem to get charged much under those circumstances.

As I recall Clinton was never convicted of perjury. There was actual physical evidence in that case.

Here we just have some conflicting excerpts easily explained by memory lapses. Seems a little overblown.

boris

The only motive that makes sense for Libby to give evasive testimony is discovering the big red bullseye painted on his back by Mr 1 x 2 x 6 who's agenda likely included helping out his buddy Wilson and his boss UGO.

Syl

"Someone who lies to a grand jury is no longer innocent... and "pleas" are not "testimony."

What, exactly, was Libby's lie?

cboldt has a compelling theory that Libby's lie is that he couldn't have possibly been the leaker because he heard it from reporters and not officially. Or at least he forgot he knew officially.

But even there, that is not a reason to think Libby couldn't have been a leaker, because passing on classified info you hear from reporters is not a defense. Unless you hadn't a clue it was classified. But CIA affiliation is not to be divulged unless you know FOR SURE it is not classified. So that is no excuse and wouldn't get Libby off the hook.

And 'I heard that too' or 'You've heard that too?' is not a confirmation of anything and is not divulging any information at all about either sourcing or truth.

Libby's only possible misdeed was discussing with Miller which in and of itself is not necessarily prosecutable because Miller did nothing with the info.

What Fitz thinks he knew after Libby testified and before he got testimony from reporters was:

Libby had heard from official sources that mrs wilson was CIA. He had no proof that Libby knew the information was sensitive. (He still has none.)

That Libby seems to be claiming that he forgot the official information and was actually learning it from reporters.

That Libby says he told Miller on July (forgot which date) but sourced it to reporters.

That Libby says he learned the info from Russert and tried not to confirm it.

That Libby told (or confirmed to) Cooper that wilson's wife was CIA but that he learned it from reporters and didn't know if it was true.

That's what fitz thought he knew.

Now what was fitz's reason to get the reporters' testimony? Libby admitted to telling Miller and Cooper in fitz' eyes. All fitz needed was to determine if Libby indicated through the conversations that he knew the information was sensitive.

But why was that important? Because to fitz it would show that Libby knowingly 'leaked' classified info. But what would that mean? Would that automatically mean criminal charges against Libby?

No. We do not have an Official Secrets Act. Fitz had not established that Plame was even covert according to the IIPA. So that left the Espionage Act. So fitz had to prove that Libby not only knew he should have kept mum, he should have known that it would definitely harm national security and did it anyway.

And fitz thought he could get that info from reporters? Like he'd tell Miller "This will harm national security but I want you to print it anyway".

And Miller never went to print. And Cooper was beat by Novak. And fitz already knew who Novak's source was!

So fitz had nothing to gain by forcing the journalists to testify. If what they said matched Libby's testimony perfectly, he still would not have had a case against Libby!

So, as I've said, fitz should simply have said 'Libby, you're damned lucky Miller never went to print' and dropped it.

But no. Fitz wanted to get something on Libby to punish him for Wilson's sake. But Wilson wasn't a whistleblower under the statute so fitz didn't even have anything there!

So fitz is criminalizing politics. Nothing more. And that is the travesty.

BreakinUrBalls

Another one bites the dust. Cheney's next.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/117791

MayBee

eli- do you understand the Woodward/Novak source situation now?
Why do you think that is being treated so differently?

Because short of it being the President himself, I don't see a reason they are either both charged or neither charged.
I prefer neither.

Sara (Squiggler)

There is not one whit of reason why it should matter to anyone, anywhere, who sent Wilson to Niger. Valerie Plame Wilson, wife, or someone else. He was sent and he returned and made a verbal report that was never transmitted to anyone. The problem that Cheney/OVP were dealing with was not who sent Wilson, why would they care except as adding detail to a developing story? The problem was Wilson going public and making false statements. It was Wilson's false statements that were the focus as they should have been.

Now that the whole picture is clearer, it still only becomes of interest that it was Val who sent her husband in the larger context of the rogue politcal group at the CIA who were working to elect Kerry and leaking info they believed would bring the administration down. She may be a perfectly wonderful CIA analyst but she is associated with her husband's political attempts to bring down the President by virtue of being part of the larger group.

The whole idea that her "outing" was of great import is a red-herring ginned up to obscure the real issue which was Wilson's lies and the concentrated effort to support Saddam, France, Russia, and keep the money train on the track with OIF and who knows what other ongoing or future investments. They put their eggs in the wrong basket and then tried to use poor Val's unfortunate marriage as their cover by jumping on a completely irrelevant fact in Novak's article.

clarice

That's about it, Sara. And nicelt said..though I am not sure that Val was the innocent wife of a schemer.

Lurker

Even if Rove "bites the dust", he would probably end up working as a campaign manager for RNC in order to maintain the majority in the November elections.

Even if Cheney "bites the dust", wouldn't it be the Speaker of the House that acts in Cheney's place? Dennis Hastert? No harm there.

If they ALL get acquitted, then the harm is that they have all been removed for nothing.

Squiggler, wouldn't you think that the grand scheme of things by "outing" Plame and Wilson telling lies sell our country?

Syl

Sara

The whole idea that her "outing" was of great import is a red-herring

Great point.

Like the red-herring of the forgeries.

BreakinUrBalls

Squiggs,
You're dead wrong girlfriend. Even as the slanted Republican led Senate Intel Committee report makes clear, Wilson was debriefed by a reports officer and a case officer. They wrote up his report (which is distributed electronically throughout the intel community) and gave it a grade of GOOD!
And, you're wrong about Mrs. Wilson. She was undercover, a point that Fitz again makes in the latest filing. If she wasn't undercover he would not even have a perjury case.
Geez, no wonder your old man ran off with another chick. Listening to your screeching is akin to fingernails on the blackboard.

Syl

I'm realling wondering if people on the left understand that politics and the law are two different things. It seems to me they don't because to them an accusation is the same as a verdict.

Syl

BuB

And what exactly was IN that report? That's where you fail. The essence of it was that a sale was unlikely but it also confirmed an overture by Iraq to start trade with Niger assumed to be for uranium. The report did not have Wilson's name in it anywhere, nor was it distributed separately AS a report from Niger. By the time it was widely distributed it was just a couple lines at the bottom of another report.

clarice

Meanwile McCarthy admits she was leaking and still is leaking.About real matters that affect national security. She says its because the CIA lied. Though as Deputy IG she knew the way to whistleblow was to take the issue to Congress and she never did. (h/t AJ Strata)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051301311.html

Sara (Squiggler)

BuB, you are completely confused as to the facts, mixing up apples and oranges. But, for sake of discussion, let's suppose everything you said was correct... what difference does it make who sent Joe to Niger? The "who" is irrelevant past the general knowledge it was "someone" at the CIA and not OVP which the OVP did not need to be told since obviously Cheney knew he had not ordered Wilson to go to Niger. Focus on the problem that the OVP was dealing with ... Wilson's lies in hi Op-Ed. And Cheney was not even apprised that Wilson went on the damn trip, let alone what he verbally reported until after the fact.

It is obvious though that this was not an official CIA operation because standard CIA protocols were not followed. If they had been, Wilson would have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So was it a set up by some peabrain of the Kerry campaign with alittle help from his/her friends at CIA?

Lurker

There is proof of Plame's not so covert (not so undercover, not so classified) years before Wilson's false report.

The more McCarthy leaks, the harder it is for her to defend herself.

Wonder if this is the lead up to Russ Tice's "interrogation" to be scheduled next week?

AJStrata has more about the WaPo article at his site.

Lurker

The latest translation by Jveritas:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631022/posts

Probably only 1 percent translated so far.

windansea

check this...TalkLeft calls Luskin at 10pm to try and confirm GoofOut's Rove indictment story

what a loser!

7:55 pm. I just got off the phone with Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin. I'm sure I made a new enemy. I called at 7:47 pm my time which is 9:47 his time. In a run-on sentence, I introduced myself as a criminal defense lawyer and said I was calling about Jason Leopold's article because if it wasn't true, I wanted to write that it wasn't true. He said, "Why are you calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. It's so inappropriate." I apologized and said because it's an important story and if it's not true I wanted to say so. I looked at the clock on my computer and saw it was 9:48 or so his time.

He said something like "It's completely not true and you shouldn't be calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. You should be calling Mark Corallo [Rove's media strategist.]

http://talkleft.com/

clarice

Why am I not surprised that (a) the story isn't true and (b) they'd think nothing of calling Luskin late on a Saturday night.

Just after my son was born reporters called my husband very very late at night about something he was working on. That's when we turned off the dial tone.

Now, Talk Left has to call Cheney. BUB says he's nect to be indicted.

cboldt

Syl

Now what was fitz's reason to get the reporters' testimony? Libby admitted to telling Miller and Cooper in fitz' eyes.


I read the indictment to make the opposite proposition. That Libby DENIED (albeit an indirect denial) "telling" Miller and Cooper. Libby leads investigators to conclude that he couldn't have told, because he didn't know/recall.



  • Libby's version of his conversation with Russert

    • Russert asked if Libby was aware Wilson's wife works for the CIA (26a)
    • Libby replied he didn't know that (26a)
    • Russert said all reporters knew it (26a)
    • Libby told investigators he was surprised at "Wilson's wife worked for the CIA" (26a + 32aii + IV.2)
    • Libby told investigators he was surprised because he did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President (26a)

  • Libby's version of his conversation with Cooper

    • Libby told Cooper that reporters were telling administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (26b)
    • Libby told Cooper he didn't know if Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (26b & 32b)
    • Libby told Cooper that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (32b)

  • Libby's version of his conversation with Miller

    • Libby did NOT discuss Wilson's wife on July 8 (26c)
    • Libby told Miller that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (32c)
    • Libby told Miller he didn't know if Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (32c)



And now we see evidence other than testimony of reporters (i.e., the marked up NYT article) that may go to the "did Libby forget?" question. This other evidence makes Fitz suspicious that perhaps Libby has been hiding that "Libby knew."


As to Fitz's reason to get Miller and Cooper's testimony, under penalty of contempt of court if they refuse, I think (by that time) he was looking primarily at false statements and perjury against Libby (and others - as the Affidavit and Tatel's opinion still have substantial redacted portions).


My sense of justice is not offended by a pursuit of false statements and perjury -if- reality is generally as I interpret the indictment. Fitz wasn't trying to tempt Libby to hide that Libby knew, and I think there is enough evidence (not just reporters' word) to cause an investigator to reasonably believe that Libby was hiding that Libby knew. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he doesn't have to be a leaker in order to be a liar.

windansea

more

But here's the thing. I didn't even have a chance to explain which of Jason's articles I was writing about or that Jason had reported Rove was indicted. For all I know, Luskin hasn't seen that article and his denial pertained to an earlier article written by Jason.

Luskin continued to chastise me for calling so late on a Saturday night, saying "This is Washington, you don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night." I apologized again and said I was in Denver and it was two hours earlier and it hadn't occurred to me that it would be too late to call Washington. He said "Well it should have occurred to you." I asked if I could call him tomorrow. He said "No" and hung up.

just pathetic

clarice

The earlier report as I recall was that Rove was told he was going to be indicted.
Wednesday's with Leopold is that he was told and the WH is in a panic. Friday stories are always that the frog march overture is playin.

windansea

she's just trying to save face with that "which article crap"

if it was me I would have caller id'd her and posted her number on free republic :)

cboldt

windandsea

Luskin continued to chastise me for calling so late on a Saturday night, saying "This is Washington, you don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night." I apologized again and said I was in Denver and it was two hours earlier and it hadn't occurred to me that it would be too late to call Washington.


I've been known to have a brain fade and reverse calculate the time zone difference, like hey, it's 9:30 in Denver so it's 7:30 on the East coast. Yeah, well, I had been drinking.


I can't believe calling on the weekend. When I called the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois (to inquire whether or not that had any, and if so, the extent of their management role in the Holy Land/Dallas case), I made sure to do so during normal business hours.


I have to hand it to Jeralyn for making a public admission of making the call.

loki

Is any of this really material? Doesn't this have to be material, as described in para(c) for a conviction?

clarice

cboldt, watching Leopold in action in your heart of hearts don't you really want to rip off the loonies like he does? I confess I do.

cboldt

clarice

watching Leopold in action in your heart of hearts don't you really want to rip off the loonies like he does?


I don't know what you mean by "rip off the loonies." LOL.


I figure he's in a racket that does what it has to to sell ink at a markup. His credibility sucks, that's his problem, not mine. Shuster the same way, Matthews the same way, Dan Rather the same way ... no detectable objectivity, and likely cases of deliberate deception. 'Tis the way of the world.

windansea

cboldt, watching Leopold in action in your heart of hearts don't you really want to rip off the loonies like he does? I confess I do.

uh huh....a really smarmy grenade launching poo flinger like the hamsterwheel....get lots of hits and sell bargain bin leftie diatribes in the blogads

clarice

Maybe Soylent will create a moniker and general theme for me.. Leopold has the frog march thingy sewn up..

clarice

Leopold has to have Rove indicted every Friday otherwise the begging bowl is empty.

JJ

Aren't these annotated articles what Wells asked in the May 5 Transcript here:

08 MR. WELLS: Your Honor, could I ask that, and maybe
09 you already said, it but I'm not sure now since you ruled if it
10 is still going to be done.
11 Could I ask that Mr. Fitzgerald submit to the court
12 and the defense the newspaper articles that he intends to offer
13 in evidence so that Your Honor can see these articles because,
14 Your Honor, some of the statements today are almost in the
15 context of admissibility as opposed to discovery, do I have a
16 right to get discovery.

Walton considered the articles and they are released.

The timing of any of these items still has to be put into context.

JJ

Without the context, all of this is still a very incomplete picture.


windansea

I think goofout.com was losing traffic to more rabid blogs

didn't jason fling his poo for rawstory before?

clarice

The judge is trying to get a picture now of what the parties' cases are. It is not unusual to review before trial exhibits..It is better to have a pretrial ruling than to have a fight at the bench with the jury sitting by doing nothing while the issues are hashed out.

I think that's all this is..As I said the admissibility of these items will depend on --besides relevance, of course--if they are more prejudicial than probative. And also is there a less prejudicial way to present this evidence to the jury..

JJ

I am going to assume that you are responding to my observation, C.

As I read through the May 5 transcript, there are a lot of points raised that are still to be considered.

For example, Wells was asking for "paper" to back up witness testimony. He claimed Fitz was not releasing that paper. Wells said that "underlying offense is always in play" in every perjury case (20:1-5).

Wells argued for the importance of background information which Fitz did not think was relevant.

However at 43:1-9, Fitz makes almost the same argument for including these articles to provide context.

topsecretk9

WOW, apparently the Grossman aspect is dead to TM.sort of like Fitz.

clarice

Poker..Each side wants to get as much of the other's case in advance of the trial as he can. In Libby's case the one sided aspect of the investigation makes discovery particularly important.

clarice

ts--what are you referring to.

Syl

cboldt

All that is moot. Fitz knows (or SHOULD know) that hearing about someone's CIA affiliation from reporters is no excuse to pass it along unless Libby knows for sure it is NOT sensitive information. It doesn't matter if he forgot he heard it officially, that type of info is potentially sensitive so one avoids it.

So with Libby's testimony, fitz had Libby's 'confession' that Libby passed info to reporters he shouldn't have.

So where does fitz go next? He subpoenas reporters to get their version. Not to look for signs of perjury, but to lockdown the confession as valid.

At least that's the reason a normal investigator would ponder to use to subpoena the reporters.

But fitz must be sure the value of the reporters' testimony is worth the danger to the journalist/government relationship. Those pesky DoJ guidelines.

So a normal investigator would think:

So I get the reporters on the stand. If the reporters verify what Libby testified then what? Can I charge on IIPA? doesn't look like it. Can I charge on the Espionage Act. Doesn't look like it there either. Neither Miller nor Cooper spilled the beans. Movak beat them to it. Libby wasn't the cause of that. So what's left? Nyet.

And the prosecutor admonishes Libby and tells him he's damned lucky Miller didn't go to print, but gives his confession to the powers that be who take away his security clearance and fire him.

What messed Fitz up was that he didn't follow the DoJ guidelines, subpoenaed the reporters and got conflicting accounts back from them. ::head scratch time:: Gee, I sent a reporter to jail for THIS? Uh-oh.

Ass covering time.

topsecretk9

Clarice
Not having read through, but June 11th memo and Grossman being the first in the chain ADVISING all, including UGO ... I think factors

JJ

Grossman was the delivery man for the information between Libby and State and one of Wells' key contentions. Whether Grossman was the first link between Libby and the information or not...?

Wells says that Grossman's information presents what appears to be key parts of the distorted picture in the allegations.

Again, all of this is still part of dragging the guns onto the battlefield, I presume.

Interesting that Fitz calls this the "Controversy in 2003" (3:10-12).

Kind of like the Thrilla in Manilla.


clarice

I wonder if Fitz ever knew that Grossman was a buddy of Wilson's?

BreakinUrBalls

Squiggs
Try to wrap your mind around this--Read the Senate Intel Report. Since ignorance is bliss you are one happy gal. Report makes clear--CHENEY ASKED HIS BRIEFERS FOR MORE INFO ON THE CLAIM THAT IRAQ WAS TRYING TO ACQUIRE URANIUM IN NIGER. Got it? VP asked. Briefers returned to HQS and passed on the VP request. That was passed on to CPD (Counter Proliferation Division in the DO). They decided to ask Ambassador Wilson to check out the report (a standard CIA practice, asking former Ambassadors to check out info). Sorry dear, but you are wrong. But hey, I suppose you are used to that.

BreakinUrBalls

Syl,
There you are wrong as well. Note what the US Ambassador to Niger and General Fulford, DepCINCEUCOM reported--there was no truth to the report Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. A point that the NIE included, a point that Deputy CIA Director McLaughlin told the Congress, a point that CIA Director Tenet told the White House in October 2002, and the same point that the NIO for Africa told the DOD and the White House in January 2003. Thems are facts dear boy. Of course, you would deny you had an ass even if you were sitting on both of your hands.

cboldt

syl

All that is moot. Fitz knows (or SHOULD know) that hearing about someone's CIA affiliation from reporters is no excuse to pass it along ...


"All that is moot" (Maybe. Maybe not, see below) for a leak investigation. I think your argument reinforces my gut feeling that Fitz was looking at false statements and perjury when he was compelling Miller and Cooper to testify. He may have thought too, depending on their testimony, he might get a bonus in the form of evidence to support an IIPA and/or Espionage case.


Neither Miller nor Cooper spilled the beans. Movak beat them to it.


So what? Assuming the facts support IIPA and/or espionage (in other words, pick a different case, not the Libby case), "publication" is NOT an element of either crime. The "bean spilling" is the transfer from an authorized person in the government to any unauthorized party.


50 USC 421 ...(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


18 USC 793 ... (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ...

topsecretk9

I wonder if Fitz ever knew that Grossman was a buddy of Wilson's?

Nope.


And Grossman will have to tip-toe between the Wilson's and the INR memo.

topsecretk9

----Syl,
There you are wrong as well. Note what the US Ambassador to Niger and General Fulford, DepCINCEUCOM reported--there was no truth to the report Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. -----


BiteMyButt

Note the CIA and the state department pretty much believed the Nigerien Ambass and Fulford and regardless they all pretty much told Wilson it was SILLY...only a few bought into his rationale. It is a little sad, his self conscious ego , though

topsecretk9

CboldT

How do yo do on Freep? Be honest about your point...of view

MayBee

Interesting list of defense witnesses from Libby's filing:
(1) Richard Armitage;
(2) Colin Powell; (3) Stephen Hadley; (4) Bill Harlow; (5) Karl Rove; (6) Joseph Wilson;
and (7) Valerie Wilson.

cboldt

topsecretk9

How do yo do on Freep?


http://www.freerepublic.com/~cboldt/in-forum <- mash here

Or mash here (a cronological index of sorts)

clarice

Isn't it Maybee. I don't recall Armitage being named before in the pleadings.

Syl

cboldt

You also must take note of the fact indicting on the Espionage Act is extremely rare and prosecution is almost non-existent yet leaks of classified info relating to national security is not uncommon.

And the business of how far the leak spreads does matter when deciding to pursue any leak case. (The determination of that is part of the initial damage assessment as I mentioned in another post.) So the fact that something didn't spread to certain parties because the info never got beyond the reporter is appropos.

As for the IIPA, I cannot separate it from the Libby case. If fitz wasn't going to charge UGO, how could he hope to make it stick with Libby?

MayBee

clarice- thanks for pointing out that WaPo article. By golly, I think they did a very well rounded job on the reporting on that one!

Kudos to R Jeffrey Smith!

MayBee

Yeah clarice, I found it interesting to see Armitage's name on that. So... they want to get discovery on him. That will be an interesting battle, no?

clarice

If this goes to trial, it will be a blockbuster. If

MayBee

I just have to say this one more time, about Cheney's annotations.

Here it was, July 6- 5 months after the Joe Wilson-alleged start date of the big vendetta against him- and Cheney is writing perfectly reasonable questions in the margins of Joe's op-ed.
Do we usually do this?
Is this normal?
Did his wife send him on a junket?

This are not rabid angry rantings or notes to follow-up on the drugs and women smears that supposedly had been going on since March. These are exactly the kinds of questions you would ask about such an odd mission. You should ask about them.

To me it shows they were still trying to figure out Wilson's angle on July 6th. It doesn't look like they are midway through a conspiracy to ruin the man's life.

Syl

cboldt

My sense of justice is not offended by a pursuit of false statements and perjury -if- reality is generally as I interpret the indictment. Fitz wasn't trying to tempt Libby to hide that Libby knew, and I think there is enough evidence (not just reporters' word) to cause an investigator to reasonably believe that Libby was hiding that Libby knew. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he doesn't have to be a leaker in order to be a liar.

I think your interpretation of the indictment is a reasonable one. However I strongly suspect that Fitz knew, whatever happened, that he couldn't indict Libby on Espionage or IIPA. And he knew this before he sent Judy to jail.

He asked Comey if he could expand the investigation but I doubt he gave Comey any details. Some supervision.

I'm really not sure that the JD would have gone along with the reporters being held in contempt of court if it knew there was no possibility of an indictment under Espionage or IIPA. Fitz overreached. I'm with Clarice here.

(No matter what we may think of journalists, we need them and their relationships with members of the government. Fitz has set a bad precedent here.)

Libby would have been subject to administrative punishment because CIA affiliation is a 'don't go there' situation even if you hear it from reporters. Actually *especially* if you hear it from those sneaky bastards who are always fishing around.

So the fact that fitz thought Libby Knew meant nothing. If the IIPA and Espionage Act were out then it didn't matter if Libby Knew. And because hearing it from reporters is no excuse for administrative punishment it didn't matter on that score either.

JM Hanes

cboldt

Many thanks for posting the html versions for us (both these and others!). Much appreciated.

Syl

Maybee

To me it shows they were still trying to figure out Wilson's angle on July 6th. It doesn't look like they are midway through a conspiracy to ruin the man's life.

Damned straight!

Sara (Squiggler)

Try to wrap your mind around this--Read the Senate Intel Report. Since ignorance is bliss you are one happy gal. Report makes clear--CHENEY ASKED HIS BRIEFERS FOR MORE INFO ON THE CLAIM THAT IRAQ WAS TRYING TO ACQUIRE URANIUM IN NIGER. Got it? VP asked. Briefers returned to HQS and passed on the VP request. That was passed on to CPD (Counter Proliferation Division in the DO). They decided to ask Ambassador Wilson to check out the report (a standard CIA practice, asking former Ambassadors to check out info). Sorry dear, but you are wrong. But hey, I suppose you are used to that.

You addressed this to me but I have no idea why. It seems you are arguing the same side I was. Asking briefers for more info is not ordering Valerie to send Joe to Niger. In fact, I suspect that the VP would have expected this info would already be in the hands of the CIA and if he thought about it at all, probably did not consider that the CIA would have to scramble up a trip to get the answers the VP wanted. So, I don't mean to sound rude, but what's your point and how does it relate to my point that it is totally irrelevent who sent Joe to Niger. He went. No one is disputing that he made the trip. The problem is not who sent Joe Wilson, it is what happened on his return. And like I said, there was no nondisclosure agreement signed by Joe, so he used his freedom to speak to write the Op-Ed that has been shown to be full of falsehood. Cheney is left wondering why he hasn't gotten an answer to his inquiry and then he reads Wilson's saga in the newspaper. If Cheney wasn't livid over that, I'd be mighty surprised. I know I would have been. And I'm sure it didn't take long for the truth of the situation to take hold ... this was a political move and Wilson, et al were playing politics with national security and the safety of Americans. When the OVP began to think set up is another question. But, for sure, who sent Joe was probably the least of any question being asked. Why? would be a better question. Why was he chosen? Why no nondisclosure? Why no report back to the VP? Why the lies or in Wilson's words the "literary flare?"

So how am I wrong. I don't see you restating the issue any differently than I did in the first place?

kim

They're tortured over the behesting. It is important that Cheney sent Joe, but just as important that Joe never said that Cheney sent him. Ludicrous.
====================================

Sara (Squiggler)

Oh, and no, I'm not "used to being wrong." I don't claim to have any of the answers, right or wrong. I'm trying to understand this case just like everyone else. When I don't understand the facts, I ask for clarification. When I have an opinion, I state it, just like everyone else. Perhaps training, maturity and experience give me an edge on some things, just as legal expertise gives Clarice an edge and someone else's particular skill might give them an edge. But none of us have all the facts to state definitively who is right and who is wrong on many of the issues. Those who don't have any edge are those who come and spout off old news that has long been disproven or disputed and yet seems to continue to have a life of its own in some quarters. Some of that stuff just seems silly. And I lose patience with BDSers.

And now I'm off to bed.

Patton

Even if Fitz could open Libbys brain and show the jury the Plame information from Cheney sitting there, it DOESN'T MEAN LIBBY DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO A REPORTERS.

I may want to tell my boss that he is a real bastard...but I don't want him to know it is coming from me...so I may say:

"""You know boss, I am hearing in the halls people say your a real bastard."""

Now, Fitz could indict me and say I am lying because that was my personal opinion and not something I heard elsewhere.

BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE I USED WHEN I MADE THE STATEMENT.

Cecil Turner

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he doesn't have to be a leaker in order to be a liar.

Yes, but he does have to be a leaker in order to be a liar and have it make any sense. Hence Team Libby's focus on motive. (Not that I'm totally buying the motive argument, but does it introduce reasonable doubt? Hmmm, dunno . . .)

As to Fitz's reason to get Miller and Cooper's testimony, under penalty of contempt of court if they refuse, I think (by that time) he was looking primarily at false statements and perjury against Libby . . .

I agree. In fact, If I've got the sequence of events correct, it seems to me that his focus on perjury likely started in Feb 04 . . . the month before Libby's gj testimony.

My sense of justice is not offended by a pursuit of false statements and perjury -if- reality is generally as I interpret the indictment.

My sense of this is that Fitz is looking for a particular set of leakers. And while UGO's prior leak doesn't represent a legitimate defense for other leakers, it does provide a practical bar to prosecution. (Ditto for the other leaks of Plame's identity, inadequately investigated by Fitz, and most of which I suspect the Defense cannot get testimony for.) If he was trying to get something on them that punished them for the leaking he couldn't prosecute, and he took Libby's testimony with the goal of eliciting perjury, my sense of justice is very much offended. And while Libby can't possibly prove that--as he would have to to make the defense--I think it's exactly what happened.

Further, looking at the larger picture, the whole investigation is offensive. Knowing what we do now, how much better does that Espionage Act cover Wilson than anyone in the Administration? If the INR memo supposedly shows Plame's identity was sensitive, it surely shows the back-and-forth over Nigerien uranium was far more sensitive. Moreover, unlike Plame's identity, that bit actually relates to national defense. Once we factor in Plame's desk-job analyst duties, and the point that she obviously doesn't meet the intent of the IIPA (nor the legal requirements), it seems to me the preponderance of any actual harm to national security was directly due to Wilson's actions. And her identity leak also appears to be a direct result of her involvement (via the INR memo and the unnamed State official). If Wilson's lies net them a six-figure book deal, I'm having a hard time seeing why Libby's should land him in the dock.

JM Hanes

From Fitzgerald:

As set forth more fully below, the Government currently intends to offer in evidence one news article in its entirety [the annotated Wilson OpEd] subject to a limiting instruction advising the jury that the statements in that article are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The government also intends to offer several other news articles in redacted form, similarly subject to a limiting instruction.

Although Fitzgerald has proved all too willing to let scruples take a back seat to zeal, it would be a mistake to underestimate him. Wells managed to force his hand here, & it's revealing. No wonder he tried so hard to kick the newspaper issue further down the road in the May 5 hearing.

This tidy little construction lets him get Wilson in (in full) and then shear away everything but Plame from the "context" being provided to the jurors -- all in deference to Team Libby's qualms, of course! As a bonus, he gets to use the limiting instruction to argue against, or substantively circumscribe, any actual testimony from the Ambassador.

fletcher hudson

Getting back to TM' s question on whether the latest exibits hurt Libby, my answer is yes but not in the way the commenters in the discussion so far have suggested.
Libby must have admitted he had conversations with VP and other offical sources as he was not indicted for lying about having the conversations but for falsely claiming he somehow forgot about them. Reading all of the VP's notations together show he was concerned about whether the Wilson trip and the resulting article was part of some unusal CIA scheme "or" just the wife's junket, asking have we done this before, do we normally do such a thing pro bono,etc. They do not reflect a particular concern with the wife. In any event they do not hurt libby's main defense-or at least what I believe his main defense should be: When he spoke to reporters he spoke to them "as if" he was hearing about the wife for the first time and in his mind he 'forgot" that had heard it from offical sources.
In a recent Gunsmoke rerun Doc learned in treating a school marm that she had been raped and was pregnant. This fact was critical in the defense of an innocent man charged with murder. He couldn't say anything about it but finally convinced his patient to tell Matt. Suppose Miss Kitty also found out and told Doc and others. Rumors began to fly and they get back to Doc. Festus and Newly could say, " You know, Doc, Miss Kitty says....". Doc's position would be just like Libby's. He would have to "forget" that he had heard it from the school marm, he would have to be (and may well have been) suprised that Festus and Newly had heard the rumors, he may have actually heard the reports "as if for the first time" and he would try not to lie to those passing on the rumors,....if he could.. As conversations such as these go on and in the context of confirming the rumors themselves you tend to "forget" the secret you are suppose to keep. Libby said he forgot it. Was he asked if he actually forgot it? Or as others have said are the question just too confusing to know just what Libby was trying to say. He may have actually forgot it as far as his conversations with the reporters were concerned but it was "in the back of his mind". He remembered them when he confirmed the offical conversations to the Grand Jury. He says he forgot them when he talked to the reporters. In a real sense he did.
As to how this hurts Libby,
The MSM, particularly Matthews wants this case to be about Bush lied us into war, Wilson exposed Bush, Libby gets even and hurts wilson. This op-ed allows Fritz to make this case in a backhanded way while claiming Wison's lies are not an issue. How many of the jurors when they are deliberating will read this article and not be tempted to decide whether Bush or Wilson lied---or at the very least --just like 90 percent of the public is now--be confused as to what this case is all about.

Dwilkers

I think Clarice has it right.

I love how Fitz argues all the Wilson stuff is irrelevant when the defense wants discovery but he wants to assert that Plame was classified, that there was damage, and introduce this Wilson OpEd.

I mean, it seems to me the reverse could easily be argued and the defense could move that the court disallow any of this. After all, it does not go directly to the specific narrow questions Libby is alledged to have lied about.

However if Fitz plans to use it then obviously the defense has a right to the documents in the prosecution's possesion that could help them rebut - and whether a given document offers rebuttal or support depends on how the defense intends to use it and is up to their judgement not the prosecution. Anything related has to be discovered by the defense if Fitz intends to use this, and he says he does.

Patton

""""Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip."""""

""""That sounds to me like the Chief of Staff, Libby, is following up on his boss's query about a junket. """""


YES...BUT, what did Libby say? What was the context? Did they just come out of the office from Cheney? Did Libby say:

' Hey, can you run down this shit that the VP is hearing from State about Wilson being sent on a junket, I was barely listening to his ramblings and I haven't got time to deal with that crap, I've got six other meetings today and won't be back in my office till about 7PM'

or did Libby say:

'Psst, come here, Dick wants to shive this Wilson bastard quick, get all the stuff we got on his wife setting up his worthless junket and will lay it on some halfwit reporters, mums the word'

Me thinks Fitz doesn't want us to know the full context.....

Just like saying there maybe complications
with the CIA and not revealing that NONE OF IT WAS ABOUT THE WIFE.

Patton

COME TO THINK OF IT...TO REALLY UNDER CUT FITZs through the backdoor argument about a
conspiracy to get Wilson and Plame maybe being classified..

Why doesn't Wells tell the judge:

Your Honor, to move things along, we will stipulate that Mr. Libby knew about Plame
prior to him talking to the reporters.
Therefore no testimony is required from anyone else except Russert, Miller and Cooper.

Dwilkers

This one is rich.

Uhhmmm...how much security clearance did Cheney, Libby, and Rove have? If they had security clearance, then wouldn't they already know about Plame's identity by then?

Just ask yourself what Libby, Rove and Cheney knowing about her identity - or their security clearances for that matter - has to do with the quoted passage about Libby's hallway conversation about paperwork on Wilson's trip.

There's an underlying assumption there though that I've seen quite a few times from some people here, which is that if Jimbo has a top secret security clearance then he immediately knows everything that's classified top secret. I saw this one a couple days ago when someone posited that 'yes of course' they knew she was undercover, after all they knew she was CIA.

Um, no, that doesn't follow. There are upwards of 25,000 employees of the CIA according to what I've read. Including, one would assume, janitors, file clerks, receptionists, IT folks, etc, etc.

Patton

Here would be my play, unless new info comes out:

Russert: Look I screwed up, I thought it was Russert, but it must have been Woodward.
I am sorry, but it certainly wasn't intentional.
But what was the harm to the investigation? Since I had no confidentiality agreement with Russert, Fitz could call him up and get an answer the same day.

Miller/Cooper: Neither can remember exactly what I said to them, and if they testified under oath that they remember my exact words, then their public statements contradict their testimony.

Patton

TM says ""How can Libby square that with his testimony that he had forgotten his June chat about Plame, and that when he heard about her from Time Russert on July 10, it was if for the very first time?""

It makes perfect sense if Libby is confusing the Russert conversation with the JUNE 27th CONVERSATION WITH WOODWARD!!

Libby's lawyers may want to look up a little thing called transference.

If you normally get information on a subject from one person, you may believe months later that information came from that person, even though it didn't.

If you watch the TV news every night, you may, months later, think you heard something on the network news, even though you actually heard it on the radio.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame