Powered by TypePad

« NSA Thread | Main | Rove Indicted? »

May 13, 2006

Comments

Specter

LOL

Specter

I bet LJ would take JW's calls....

kim

Why use the subjunctive, S?
================

topsecretk9

some were sorta skeptical


with a theory I'd never heard (and is odd since Byron asked where they were coming from)

"...So the whole story could be true, it could be a sting on those people who are leaking to Jason Leopold, and it could well be the fevered creation of someone’s imagination; who knows?

kim

Oh yes, I see, the 'I bet'. Well, how about this: LJ likely is taking JW's calls.
====================

kim

The Dems probably aren't since the May 2, 2003 thing went down the memory hole.

Hey, Kerry did something right; dump Joe. The irony is that if he had stuck with him, he'd probably have won. The story of his life.
=====================================

kim

The 15 hours smells like a traceable detail. Oh, please.
====================================

Lesley

I think Mr. Leopold is a very clever marketer. He gives his particular reading audience what they want: hope (which seems to triumph over experience) and a continuous validation of their point of view. Moreover, his most recent post got the attention of the *big kids*.

In a weird way, you gotta hand it to the guy...

Dwilkers

Positing a sting assumes Leopold is getting leaks from someone. IE, that he is actually getting factual information from someone.

But have any of these scoops of his panned out?

topsecretk9

The 15 hours smells like a traceable detail. Oh, please.

Did JLeo say Fitz was at PattonBoggs for 15 hours?

So, Fitz arrives at 6 AM (uh huh) and leaves 8 PM that night? Yeah.

topsecretk9

or some variable ... just picked 6 and 8 out of a hat


9am to midnight?

PeterUK

""whose addictive tendencies led him from a life of drug abuse and petty crime to become an award-winning investigative journalist,"

Looks like he only gave up the drugs.

Dwilkers

Here's the TruthOut story.

He says:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

Half a day Friday = 15 hours?

/shrug

Dwilkers

If it said 45 or 56 hours I'd think it was a fat finger typo.

Maybe he means there were 3 of them and it was 15 MANhours (sorry, personhours). Yeah....that's the ticket.

cathyf
But this isn't a leak trial under either IIPA or the Espionage Act. This trial aims to determine whether or not Libby deliberately mislead investigators in their quest to find out which government officials disclosed to reporters, the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Imagine this scenario: Pretty woman is driving alone on a deserted country back road. Sheriff's deputy puts on his lights and siren and pulls her over with the intention of raping her. While he is fumbling with his pants and off balance, she throws the car into gear and peels off, throwing the deputy into the gravel of the ditch and giving him a pretty nasty gravel burn on his bare backside. Woman drives home trying to figure out what she should do, and when she gets there she finds 3 squad cars and they arrest her for fleeing from police.

So, in this situation for charges to proceed against the woman I would fully expect that the deputy would have to make up some story that the woman did something actually illegal to explain why he pulled her over (like running a stop sign, turning without signalling, something). And that if he couldn't convince prosecutors that he had some legitimate reason to pull her over, "fleeing police" was not a crime.

So why doesn't that same bare minimum apply to Libby? I'm pretty sure that pulling people over with no legitimate reason is itself against the law (something about acting under false color of authority or the like.) Why is it ok to pretend that something which is not a crime is a crime in order to interrogate your political enemies and force them to tell you things which will be embarrassing to them when you reveal those things publicly?

cathy :-)

clarice

Why do you think Fitz doesn't want to turn over the referral letter?
Clearly, if Plame was "classified" it wwas what is known as "light classification" which means that disclosure of her identity bears no consequences. And especially since it is obvious the agency did not do everything it could have to keep her identity secret.

kim

Time flies when you're having fun.
======================

ordi

Drudge just called out Leopold live on air! To funny! GO Drudge!

Drudge said his Source close to Rove says Leopold is wrong and not to beleive even a word of what Leopold writes.

cathyf
Maybe he means there were 3 of them and it was 15 MANhours (sorry, personhours). Yeah....that's the ticket.
Boy, are we ever idiots! Of course, it was 15 BILLABLE hours!

(Old joke: Lawyer dies and goes the heaven. There they make this huge fuss over him. He asks St. Peter if this is normal, and St. Peter says, no, but since he is the oldest person to ever make it to heaven that's why the attention. The lawyer is surprised -- "I'm only 82. Is it really possible that I'm the oldest?" St. Peter is surprised, and then starts to laugh. "We lost the records of your birth, so we reconstructed your approximate age by adding up the hours you billed over your career.")

cathy :-)

Neo

Anyone got Leopold's phone phone number ? Maybe we can find out here he gets it.

LOL

topsecretk9

But for some media blogger out there, it might be reasonable to ask: Where are these reports coming from?

--Anyone got Leopold's phone phone number ?--

TalkLeft does. Maybe she can a) be a media blogger and b) ask him.

kim

Three accountants and three lawyers made a business trip by train together. Each accountant bought a ticket, the lawyers bought only one. When the accountants asked the lawyers how they intended for all three to ride on one ticket, one lawyer said "Watch us". On the train, all the lawyers crowded into the loo, and when the conductor banged on the door asking for tickets, out came a hand with a ticket in it. So on the way back the accountants bought one ticket total and the lawyers, none. When the accountants asked the lawyers how they were going to ride the train without a ticket, one of the lawyers said "Watch us". On the train, after the accountants crowded into the head, one of the lawyers walked up, banged on the door, and said "Ticket, please".
===============================

clarice

Cathy--HEH!

Neo

it was 15 BILLABLE hours!

Might make someone think that Leopold has a friend in accounting at one of the law firms involved.

topsecretk9

Might make someone think that Leopold has a friend in accounting at one of the law firms involved.

According to York, Fitz was not there and did not meet anywhere with the Rove lawyers.

A few weeks ago JLeo had Fitz whisking to the courthouse to indict ad? Fitz was in Chicago.

topsecretk9

ad = and

JJ

To address the original post:

After reading the May 5 transcript and the news articles disclosure referenced in the opening post, I believe Libby has some real problems.

As per 68:20-23 of the May 5, Fitz is calling the Grand Jury room the scene of the crime:

"The trial is about what happened in the grand jury, you know, lying about the wife."

(This is easily understood from the original indictment, but it is interesting hearing Fitz put it that way, anyhow.)

The Exhibits and specifically how Fitz is using each of these news items to fill in *what* Libby was hearing in response to them, look pretty decently made.

As Fitz said at 3:11-13, it was the "responses to the controversy of 2003" that he has mostly looked at.

It appears the heavy work is going to have to be done by Libby's lawyers to disprove what Fitz has put together.

I am not saying that Fitz necessarily has a good case.

It looks to me like he has done a good job of putting Libby near a lot of responses that did include Plame.

As I see the exhibits now, it does explain why Wells was a little frantic to have them in discovery. Just the annotated piece from Cheney by itself is a tough one.

hgon

Leopold has no credibility. Even his target audience doesn't believe him.

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=0c6ba946-eac9-4b24-919d-3c2d64485169#

Cecil Turner

. . . if Libby THINKS he MIGHT be a leaker, he has motive based on fear of running afoul of the law for leaking.

So he commits a crime that is much easier to check? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether that makes any sense. The political embarassment angle is a much stronger argument, IMHO, and still doesn't provide a rational motive to commit a felony (especially after signing releases for the journos). The alternate explanation is that Libby believes most of the crap coming out of his mouth.

Prosecution of Wilson and/or Plame is quite a separate discussion from a decision to investigate which government official leaked that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, as well as being separate from (Fitz's) decision to prosecute false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice in the context of conducting that investigation.

I agree. However, I see no indication Fitz made an evenhanded attempt to grill all leakers, as the disparate treatment of UGO illustrates. It appears he inserted a further qualification (that looks a lot like "chilling a whistleblower"), which is at best inappropriate. Further, if the larger harm to national security was by the Wilsons (which I think at this point is incontrovertible) then it's time for the prosecutor to exercise some discretion (or for whoever is supervising him to pull the plug).

clarice

No administration has cooperated more fully with an independent prosecutor than this one.
If we adopt "political embarrassment" as a motive in light of all that occurred here, including the waivers to reporters and a refusal to take the Fifth despite repeated inquiry, no official in any administration is safe from this crap.

JJ

Additionally, it is interesting to note that Fitz has included instructions for some of the Exhibits that explain that the truth of those news articles is questionable or "not offered for the truth of the matter asserted".

For the journalists who write those that do have instruction tags that has to be a big slap.

In fact, to Fitz's credit, he now seems to say that he will dodge all questions about Wilson's trip and the war -- though it may get it in the backdoor to provide support for the indictment.

Wells, in particular, sounded like he wants to bring in the "motive and underlying offense" in the May 5.

Wells at 20:3-6 in the May 5 says, "...in every perjury case the real question is did the person have a reason to lie."

clarice

Why do you think that is, jj? Why do you think Fitz is trying to get those articles into evidence? Because Libby had no motive to lie. Although some, like Cooper, may well have.

Lurker

And exactly what was the lie that Fitz claims Libby made in the GJ?

JJ

Pardon, I was "additionally-ing" my own comment.

@ Cecil

Walton and Fitz both sound like they have no interest in exposing Wilson or the war. To me, that is a good thing. I trust Walton at least on this subject.

As a side issue Wilson's record and the media's involvement may come out, but not the war.

It really appears that the trial is going to focus exclusively on what Libby said to the Grand Jury, in that transcript.

jerry

It's fascinating reading the left and right wing Plame blogs, Fitzzoner is either near defeat or near crushing victory.

It uncomforably reminds me of call/write in talk shows which give equal numbers of opposing comments when the reality may vastly differ.

I guess it is a bit like the OJ trial where two entirely different mindsets develope (hard to argue with a jury though).

Funny, isn't it, that in the that murder trial it wasn't OJ but Cowlings that actually was guilty?

However, in the Fitzzoner investigations I do believe the bad guys have been correctly IDed.

cboldt

clarice

If we adopt "political embarrassment" as a motive in light of all that occurred here, including the waivers to reporters and a refusal to take the Fifth despite repeated inquiry, no official in any administration is safe from this crap.


Assuming arguendo that Libby "knew" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that she was somehow involved with Wilson's trip to Africa, and further, that Libby told all this to reporters. Now replay the crap storm coming out of the media about "Who leaked Plame?" and the impression that President Bush left in the wake of that crapstorm.


Am I to take your comment as meaning there would be no political embarrassment if word got out that the VP Chief of Staff admitted that he "knew" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that she was somehow involved with Wilson's trip to Africa, and further, that he told all this to reporters - and let the President go on national teevee and pronounce as he did?


In other words, are you saying it wouldn't be politically embarrassing, therefore political embarrassment isn't a possible motive?

JJ

@ C

As I mentioned before, it looks like Fitz is going to place Libby in the middle of many responses to Wilson that include credible awareness of who Plame was.

It is going to take some heavy work by Libby's lawyers to put enough doubt on Fitz's connections to get him off.

Please note as well that TM in the opening post has never liked either Libby's story and also wonders about Cheney's annotated news clipping and Libby's story and how they jive.

No doubt in my mind that Cooper is a gotcha reporter.

As to why Libby has said what he said, I am willing to hear the whole story unravel in a good way, but from here it looks kinda...d.u.m.b.

Love to be disproved.

kim

But jerry, Jeff is only now wondering if Grossman and Wilson are buddies.
==================================

clarice

I'm saying that he was loyal to the Administration and if he thought he was the leaker he would have resigned rather than lie and put himself in jeopardy AND embarrass the administration.

Moreover, to adopt this as a feasible motive every single testimonial conflict in every single special counsel proceeding could be prosecuted as perjury and obstruction, an outcome I think would be unfortunate, because anyone with half a brain would resign whenever a SC were appointed.

jerry

I've got to catch upon Grossman, I've no vivid picture there.

Interesting that Hadley is the PR guy today on the news shows, it this a very visible triumph for a particular press (honesty) policy?

cboldt

clarice

I'm saying that he was loyal to the Administration and if he thought he was the leaker he would have resigned rather than lie


Got it, I think. He didn't leak (shorthand for all sorts of qualifications), and if he did and was asked, he'd admit it and resign. Since he didn't admit it and resign, he didn't leak.

kim

emptywheel doesn't have much to say about Grossman.
===================================

cboldt

clarice - one more thing. Do you think it would be politically embarrassing or not, if he admitted it, and resigned? I fell right into that trap of making this a "did he leak" case, and after all my Trigger flogging too.

kim

Remember, it's better to flog a dead horse than a live lion.
==================================

kim

The political embarrassment is that they didn't know as much about Val Wilson as the reporters they were hearing from.
===================================

kim

Oops, it's Jim E. who is curious about the Wilson-Grossman Dynamic Duo, not Jeff.
=====================================

jerry

kim,
If you're implying I only read emptywheel that's not true. Maybe more should /will be written about Grossman, I guess that Libby's team submitted something today about him.

Hey, I like Wayne Madsen - he had an interesting post about abu Gonzales stopping by the court house on Friday to quiz the GJ about Rove's indictment (this is all fun speculation I admit).

Madsen has a lot of really interesting, but obscure, stuff that he reports on.

kim

Libby's team is pointing to him as a big fat liar.
=============================

clarice

I think he would just resign without explanation, let anyone speculate all he wanted, take the Fifth and not sign a waiver and a big up yours to those trying to make anything of it.

kim

I was making no implication. I assume all the lefty blogs have ignored Grossman. One wonders what Scary Larry has written about him.
=============================

cboldt
it is interesting to note that Fitz has included instructions for some of the Exhibits that explain that the truth of those news articles is questionable or "not offered for the truth of the matter asserted".

For the journalists who write those that do have instruction tags that has to be a big slap.

I hope they take it personally. But for this trial, Fitz needs to show that there is a dispute between the WH and Wilson, period. Just presence of a dispute, without saying which side has the facts of the dispute correct. Seems everybody wants to go back an re-argue the dispute - darn natural inclination, IMO.

clarice

There's a various famous Congressperson who was caught in flagrante with another official in a government office in the Carter Administration. She resigned a key post the next day, Everyone in town knew what happened. The Wa Po sent a writer to interview her . She gave a spiel about she needed to spend more time with her young children. Everyone laughed. She divorced her husband, Married her lover and is now a key Congressional leader.

This is Washington.

clarice

**delete various****88888

topsecretk9

TalkLeft say Larry Johnson (or someone pretending to be Larry) says at Democratic Underground"


It is not just Jason Leopold. Joe Wilson heard the same from other sources. And, more importantly, Jason is reporting based on multiple, more than two, sources. His editors realized what a big story this is and did the appropriate checking before posting. They are called Truth Out for a reason. Getting the truth out.

This is a little interesting...um what sources does Wilson have and um would Fitz be happy with him either way -- leaking and/or lying (Well, hey...it's what he does best!)

I wonder if Larry and Joe are Jason's sources, and since Leopold is just getting slammed might be worried Jason might out them...as the sources of all his propaganda.

"look you can call me a liar, but my source is Wilson himself" -- now that would be a hoot!

kim

I, too, am amzed at the complete disjunct between opposing views on this matter. Half of the engaged on this are going to be tremendously disappointed and the other half relieved. Hoi polloi would be shocked at either outcome, if it gave a damn.
=====================================

clarice

ts--I can't believe that! ROFL

topsecretk9

Oh and Talkleft concludes:

Indeed. Either Corallo is spinning or someone is setting Jason and others up.

Um..or...I know this is tough...Jason and others are simply L Y I N G.

jerry

Well, what to say... it does take all types? And they all gravitate to cities like DC.

The shame is that Clinton got attacked by people with greater flaws (Gingrich being the prime example).

clarice

Hmm-Is that possible? ROFL

kim

So did Joe call Larry or Larry, Joe. Maybe they take each other's calls for lack of anything better to do.
=======================

topsecretk9

oh, should have kept reading...I was RIGHT, Leopold">http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/05/leopold-interview-on-ian-masters.html">Leopold said on radio tonight he would out his sources if wrong!

clarice

kim, where's Moe? Curly?

clarice

ts--I'm howling!

kim

I think it is possible, jerry, that Grossman told members of the White House details of Val and Joe that he got from the Wilsons themselves. What wonderful irony! Of course, art may be seducing me.
================================

clarice

I do hope it's Joe. Now who could make a credibility resolution on that testimonial variance?

kim

God what a clown show, Larry, Mo Joe, and Curleopold.
===================================

clarice

kim, interesting theory:Gossman tells details from personal knowe=ledge and then obfuscates by pointing fingers at others.

Lesley

If this has already been covered, I apologize. What I find interesting, in addition to Cheney's handwritten comments, are the things Cheney underlined within the article.

1. I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iran's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

2. - was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's.

3. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono)

4. the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

5. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

6. It would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq.

7. there's simply too much over-sight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

8. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it) But news accounts have pointed out..

9. Though I did not file a written report

10. and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports

11. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

kim

Oh yes, Clarice, and I think Wells is on to it, and Fitz isn't.
===================================

jerry

As I see it...

In the Libby case the only issue is if he deliberately lied in his testimony to the FBI and the GJ (as evidenced by emails and testimony). Clarice will bemoan my simplicity here.

The second issue isn't only who knew what, and when, but who told the press, in an organised fashion (a fact supported by emails and testimony) and then, faced with a federal investigation, subsequently covered this up in an organised way.

topsecretk9

One last thing, with out a hit of irony Talkleft writes:

Jason said today on Pacifica Radio will disclose his sources if his report turns out to be false. He is expecting the announcement on Rove to be Tuesday or Wednesday.

So, we went from 24 hour Sat. to 24 Business hours to Monday, now on to Tuesday and now Wednesday too! Gee why let him get his vacation in too!

Seriously though...with a straight face the breathless indictment and then? Well, maybe next week and since Wednesdays the GJ meet...never-mind

And BTW what other admitted sinner, I mean plagiarizer do you see given so much clout? Ben buddy, you have a home after-all!

kim

Lesley, I thought the underlined stuff was an amazing performance. He pointed out every lie of Joe, or error in process.
====================================

kim

jerry, you are still stuck on who told the press. Who did? Do you think it was the White House? Why?
===================================

Sara (Squiggler)

Am I to take your comment as meaning there would be no political embarrassment if word got out that the VP Chief of Staff admitted that he "knew" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that she was somehow involved with Wilson's trip to Africa, and further, that he told all this to reporters - and let the President go on national teevee and pronounce as he did?

Same song, new day ---

I must be so dense because I still cannot see why it would be a political embarrassment or any other possible problem for the OVP or Administration for anyone to know that Plame at CIA sent Wilson to Niger? So why would it matter if OVP/Administration/Cheney knew about it? This seems like such a simple question, but no one answers it. All the energy on this case/story surrounds the "oh my God, Cheney/Libby/someone knew" ... so what?

The story isn't who, it is why? And then if you want to get your knickers in a knot and cop a Wilson, you can scream "outing" but that only comes about because someone thought it was somehow important that Cheney knew Plame sent Wilson in the first place.

I listen to some of the "hang Libby/Rove" arguments and I hear these scenarios as to how Libby (or Rove) must have been quaking in his boots in fear of losing his job, or being in serious trouble. The descriptions sound the way the writers must feel when they hear their names called over the intercom of their high school, followed by, "please come to the principal's office, STAT!"

jerry

I don't know who "Ben" is but it reminds me of Ben Ginzberg - Monica's ingenius PR attourney who won the trifecta by appearing on all the Sunday talk shows in one day.

Changed the Sunday political shows forever, much to my regret.

kim

Ben is the right wing WaPo blogger trashed by the sinestrosphere.
======================================

JJ

C said:

"But for this trial, Fitz needs to show that there is a dispute between the WH and Wilson, period."

My response:

Yes, and I think Fitz assumes that there was a dispute/controversy. Again, I repeat, from the May 5 transcript, Fitz calls it the "controversy in 2003".

There is no issue of whether there was a controversy between Wilson's media debutes and the WH or not.

Fitz seems to be following a strict line of thought.

Take Exhibit B, Kristof's op-ed, for example. Fitz says that as a result of this article appearing, it "caused an inquiry to be made within the OVP."

And, voila, up pops Mr. Grossman, johnny-on-the-spot, to answer that inquiry.

Fitz will call Grossman to testify to what Libby was told.

Wells has already said that he will go after Grossman, implying, I assume, that some "dates" and other information is wrong.

There may be paperwork to back things up as well -- which Wells was asking for also, I assume

Fitz's pattern here is show the Wilson push->show the WH reaction->use that reaction to show how much Libby really knew and how much that disagrees with what Libby told the GJ.

cboldt

Sara

I must be so dense because I still cannot see why it would be a political embarrassment or any other possible problem for the OVP or Administration for anyone to know that Plame at CIA sent Wilson to Niger?


Oh my - no wonder you think I'm a nut. I meant to convey that since the WH was being accused of outing Plame, and the WH was denying outing Plame, it might be politically embarrassing (after denying outing) to find out that Libby and/or Rove did the outing. That would be a reason to not want to be ID'd as the outer.


I emphatically agree that this whole affair would have come off much better if the WH had openly attacked that liar Wilson, including shouting from the rooftop that the bozos at CIA even let his wife arrange the trip. I see no embarrassment to the WH in that at all.

clarice

I understand where he wants to go, but this is not a gj where he can pull that stuff. These articles--mostly lies as we know--contain language which is far too prejudicial to go to the jury . Let him put Kristof and Pincus and Judis on the stand and say what they reported, what their sources were , when the articles were published. Let him put Wilson on the stand to detail what he wrote in his Op Ed and let him be cross examined on it.

Lesley

Kim, I thought so, too, and that's why I hoped it was worth Tom's bandwidth to point it out. Can you imagine what was running through Cheney's mind when he read: CIA/pro bono, twisted to exaggerate,memorandum of agreement, ambassador TOLD me, actual memorandum (I never saw it), though I did not file a written report, specific answer to question from OVP, serious question/I was asked to help formulate an answer, etc.

Cheney had to have asked himself: what the hell is going on with CIA?

jerry

I think the point behind the prosecution is that there must have been a conscious effort by people in the WH to tell the press about Plame, despite knowing the classified nature of her work. My guess would be that there are emails/documents and testimony to support this.

If Tenet told Libby et al not to discuss Plame but then they did, we would arrive where things stand today.

Why? Maybe because they'd walked the line between knowing classified info and deciding to leak classified info to the press for so long that they'd lost perspective.

Maybe there was also a bit of testosterone laced arrogance in the OVP and WH as well. It's hard to imagine this wasn't the case, there's no more powerful place on earth.

kim

I agree, cbolt, they shouldn't have withdrawn the 16 words and the shouldn't have been ashamed of attacking Val if she were involved. Actually, Cheney probably wasn't initially ashamed, remember "Fair Game". Well she was. How has it come to be perceived that she wasn't? Lying Joe.
===============================

Syl

cboldt

Thank you for your respectful reply. And you summarized positions very well. (Not as if that surprises me.)

I'm struggling with this case because it is different from the more common type where perjury et al are almost normal events. The differences I'm dealing with concern the TYPE of classified info involved (CIA-affiliation) and how that type of information is to be handled and whether Fitz understands the nuance of it (re passing it from reporters not being a defense). As well as the danger to the journalist/government relationship which aspect concerns process and prosecutorial judgement more than anything else.

Oh well, too tired to articulate better than that tonite.

clarice

If the reporters who wrote those stories and Wilson had to talk about what they reported (and in Pincus' case what his paper retracted) the jury would start with a clearer picture:The attack was a pack of lies by Wilson and his friends and were lies, and the WH was simply responding, not "attacking a whistleblower."

cboldt

JJ

Fitz's pattern here is show the Wilson push->show the WH reaction->use that reaction to
show how much Libby really knew and how much that disagrees with what Libby told the GJ.


That shows up in the indictment too.



  • June 11 - Under Sec. State tells Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was involved in planning Wilson's trip (6)
  • June 11 - Libby called the CIA and asked about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, is told that Wilson's wife
    worked at the CIA and is believed responsible for sending Wilson on the trip (7)
  • July 6 - Wilson's OpEd (15)


  • July 7 - Lunch with Ari, tells Ari that Wilson's Wife works at the CIA (16)
  • July 8 - Libby asks Counsel for VP what paperwork would be at the CIA if if an employee's spouse took an overseas trip (18)



  • Libby's version of his conversation with Russert (July 10 or 11)

    • 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 (July 12)

    • 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 (July 12)

    • 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)

Syl

re Jason getting his info from Wilson

Let's give the Left a case of the swoooooons. Remember just before Fitz indicted Libby, he called Wilson.

But unless fitz still really really believes wilson is noble, I doubt he would do that again.

kim

jerry, why are you still stuck on Val being classified, and even if she were why are you so sure that the White House knew that? With Grossman for a source, God only knows what they were told.

The existence of the referral letter to DOJ was leaked. How about someone showing us the contents?
========================

topsecretk9

HAH - since Leopold said today he would out his sources if they were wrong..notice Larry outs Wilson and tries to put a little Wilson CYA qualifier in there BUT in doing so ACCIDENTLY CONFIRMS WILSON and Johnson are 2 of Leopold's sources :

It is not just Jason Leopold. Joe Wilson heard the same from other sources. And, more importantly, Jason is reporting based on multiple, more than two, sources.

Other sources? Joe heard form OTHER sources. So Joe knows Jason's sources and know his are different than Jason's? And the same for Larry, he knows Joe's sources are not the same a Jason's? GotCha

topsecretk9

Bet, if it is Larry at DU he will deny it now.

Rocco

Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group
http://www.cpsag.com/index.html

OUR TEAM

Joseph C. Wilson.........Strategic Advisor

"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."

AREAS

VI Issue Tracking and Intelligence Gathering

CPS provides issue tracking and intelligence gathering services covering not only Turkish, EU and US institutions but also NGOs, pressure groups, consumer groups and trade associations active in Istanbul, Ankara, Brussels and Washington D.C. Over the years, CPS has developed broad information networks that render it possible to gather accurate information about political, economic, legal and social developments and their potential implications on clients.

Why would the CIA let Wilson again describe his NOC wife on a webpage as "the former Valerie Plame" and then advertise intelligence gathering services?

Is this normal?

JJ

ARGHHHHH. The case is about Libby lying to the Grand Jury! At this point, nothing else has been charged or is germane/relevant for that matter!

@ C

Again, even Fitz has said that the news articles have little merit. That's water over the dam. He attached tags to them saying specifically that.

From what I have read, Fitz is going to match testimony from various sources about the reaction of the OVP to Wilson to what Libby told the Grand Jury.

It might be easier to consider the Exhibits one by one and how Fitz *says* that he will use then to prove Libby told whoppers in the Grand Jury room.

clarice

JerryI think the point behind the prosecution is that there must have been a conscious effort by people in the WH to tell the press about Plame, despite knowing the classified nature of her work if so, he's in trouble, because he has no evidence that Libby knew this was classified.
Why didn't the Administration just blow him out of the water? Because they were getting information piece meal . Cheney didn't want to decalassify it until the CIA reported that there was no operational problem with doing so--hence the go/stop/go of the declassification. The fact that the CIA was not very forthright early with the WH with the information about the trip and Plame.

That's my thought and that seems to be apparent from what happens.
As to Grossman's revelations to Libby, my understanding is that Libby denies that.

And my belief is that he will destroy Grossman on the stand.


kim

Good God, tsk9, you are amazing. Can we call the cops on that one?

Furthermore, Lesley, I think Cheney's annotations show that Cheney was way behind the reporters on the information curve about Val, but already suspecting there was something not kosher about her.
==================================

clarice

JJ, if Fitz admits the stories are "of little merit" and as we know they are prejudicial, he will not get his way.

kim

rocco, do you knotice that Ankara, Istanbul, and Brussels were listed? Is Val the Brussels connection? Were they partners, in violation of terms of her employment?
==============================

jerry

kim,
somebody's mad about something or we wouldn't be here. I've given the best explanation I've constructed for why there's an investigation.

I'm not sure if Grossman actually matters, if a CIA guy said don't do this and the usual Executive suspects went ahead and did it anyway.

I think I've been a good supporter of the power of the referral letter, my bias is that it's complaint was broader than what is publically assumed (so Fitzzoner is still right on the BIG target).

Syl

Clarice

As I understand it Wilson couldn't be considered a whistleblower under the statute because he had no direct knowledge of what he was accusing.

(Cheney asked for info, I gave it to the CIA who passed it back to Cheney and the administration ignored it.)

That's conjecture. Wilson wasn't there, wasn't involved in the internal process of info dissemination.

However, and this I think is interesting, if anybody had called Wilson on it his only response would be 'well, my wife works at CIA and she knows.'

I wonder if fitz has that in the back of his head? That Wilson DOES have direct knowledge through his wife? And therefore is a true whistleblower.

But then fitz should ALSO know, that if Plame had that knowledge and passed it on to Wilson, she would be in violation of the Hatch Act.

I think fitz just doesn't want to think about it too deep. He simply accepts the political definition of whistleblower and goes from there.

Which is terribly unfair if he thinks that Libby (and possibly Rove) can't be punished criminally for a leak but punishment for perjury would satisfy against punishment of a political whistleblower (not a legal whistleblower).

It's mind boggling to me.

kim

What CIA guy saying what when?
====================

Syl

Clarice

As I understand it Wilson couldn't be considered a whistleblower under the statute because he had no direct knowledge of what he was accusing.

(Cheney asked for info, I gave it to the CIA who passed it back to Cheney and the administration ignored it.)

That's conjecture. Wilson wasn't there, wasn't involved in the internal process of info dissemination.

However, and this I think is interesting, if anybody had called Wilson on it his only response would be 'well, my wife works at CIA and she knows.'

I wonder if fitz has that in the back of his head? That Wilson DOES have direct knowledge through his wife? And therefore is a true whistleblower.

But then fitz should ALSO know, that if Plame had that knowledge and passed it on to Wilson, she would be in violation of the Hatch Act.

I think fitz just doesn't want to think about it too deep. He simply accepts the political definition of whistleblower and goes from there.

Which is terribly unfair if he thinks that Libby (and possibly Rove) can't be punished criminally for a leak but punishment for perjury would satisfy against punishment of a political whistleblower (not a legal whistleblower).

It's mind boggling to me.

Rocco

Great question...His second wife Jacqueline was french intel in Turkey i think?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame