Powered by TypePad

« Self-Awareness Watch | Main | Tim Russert, Stuck On His Script »

May 23, 2006

Comments

JJ

Best sentence:

"The U.S. alleges he learned about Plame from one of the CIA officials when he went after dirt on her husband..."

The sources: "court papers show" in the first paragraph and "court files allege" around the sixth.

Jay Currie

"Prosecutors say disgraced Cheney chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby"

I think the word "disgraced" pretty much sums up the slant of the story. If you presume your conclusion in the lede the rest follows. When Libby is acquitted he will, presumably, be "rehabilitated".

Pete

This may not be new news for the Plameologists, but it is the first news report that I read which mentioned the names of the former CIA officials who will be testifying against Libby.

firedoglake dot com has some analysis on what the importance of this is.

So what is the correct summary of Libby's defense?

Cromagnon

"Disgraced" pretty much sums up the whole Bush administration eh??

lurker

You're right, it is a headscratcher.

"But subsequent documents allege Libby asked top CIA official Robert Grenier on June 11 why the agency sent Wilson to Niger to see if Iraq tried to buy uranium. Grenier replied that Plame was an agent and "believed responsible" for arranging her husband's trip."

Libby still did not mention Plame's name when talking to Robert Grenier. All Libby did was to ask Robert Grenier a question why CIA sent Wilson to Niger. Robert Grenier was the one that told Libby about Plame.

"The other official was Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer whom Libby complained to about the Wilson trip on June 14, court files allege."

According to the Fitz indictment, Libby was told by Robert Grenier on or about June 11 and Robert Grenier mentioned Plame to Libby. So on June 14, Libby knew about Plame when he talked to Craig Schmall.

What exactly is Fitz trying to PROVE???


Patrick R. Sullivan

'So what is the correct summary of Libby's defense?'

That he told the truth. That anything in his testimony that is innacurate is due to memory lapse over trivial details. That witnesses against him are either having their own memory lapses or lying for political/professional reasons.

lurker

"Disgraced" pretty much sums up the whole Bush administration eh??

This summer will reverse the perspective of the whole Bush adm. Mac Ranger, strata-sphere, and an artilce over at realclearpolitics refers to this "bang of this summer".

topsecretk9

FWIW, CHB
(do not know how reliable, but obviously more than Jason...I'd guess)

Out, out damn truth!
May 23, 2006 07:09 AM / Media .
As more and more information comes in on the Jason Leopole-Truthout Karl Rove indictment non-story, it looks more and more like the story was without truth. Sources within the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation into the CIA leak case tell us Rove wasn't indicted 10 days ago and may not be indicted. If an indictment is to come, it has not come yet. The case, they say is incomplete.

lurker

"'So what is the correct summary of Libby's defense?'

That he told the truth. That anything in his testimony that is innacurate is due to memory lapse over trivial details. That witnesses against him are either having their own memory lapses or lying for political/professional reasons."

And that he was innocent of the obstruction of justice.

Javani

Is it now a crime to lie to reporters? "oh yeah, everyone's saying that...never heard that before" et cetera... How is one to build a rumor otherwise? Don't reporters lie, er "fib", to elicit info?

I hope a trial will come. You got Libby, a liar, and major media journalists, paid liars who reached major the heights of their profession by their superior abilities to lie, and then we got Joe Wilson...need I say liar?

Should be entertaining if the darn judge wasn't so committed to a prosecution of a Republican figure, payback I suspect for the Clinton witch hunt. Tailoring the trial for limited context.

cathyf
So what is the correct summary of Libby's defense?
The husband is a college professor, and each semester he repeats the same things over and over again. The kids (or their parents, at least) are paying big bucks for them to be there to learn. The students come to problem sessions, they do the labs, they do the homework, they come to his office for help, they spend hours studying. And then they take the exams and a lot of them don't know some amount of the material.

Can we subpeona their notes, get their classmates to testify under oath before the grand jury, and then indict them for perjury when they "lied" and "pretended" not to know the material that 6 classmates will testify under oath was covered during a class that they attended?

I'm still waiting for Fitzgerald to find 12 jurors who never ever got a question wrong on any homework or test, and who never ever had to have something explained to them more than once before they "got" it. And not only that, they never had to explain anything to anyboady more than once, and everyone around them that they ever had contact with has perfect retention and recall of everything from the first time. As Sponge Bob would say, "Good luck with that, Patrick."

cathy :-)

Patrick R. Sullivan

This is pretty good too:

'Wilson shattered a pillar of President Bush's rationale for war - that Iraq was seeking to build a nuclear weapon.'

In light of Wilson's CLAIM to the SSCI that he never said he debunked the '16 words' in the SOTU.

maryrose

Digging up dirt on Wilson;"
and these are our objective journalists at work?

clarice

lurker, Fitz' point is that (a) Libby heard that in early June and (b) it was so significant he could not have forgotten it for a moment even though his efforts were concentrated on the NIE and getting the substantive info therein out in a three stoogese type go/stop/go partial declassification process, Plame must not have been forgotten..

(And I suppose that because two CIA folks were saying that about Plame, Libby "knew or should have known" that this was real super secret hush hush..And, finally, even though it wasn't really super secret hush hush, because Libby thought it was, he was lying when he said he'd forgotten.)

lurker

In case you're wondering about Mac Ranger's post and Jack Kelly's article:

Bang of a Summer - Get your shades on!

Yup, as evidenced yesterday to Drudge, there will be alot of pushback. Timing's perfect, huh? Just in time for the November elections.

boris
That he told the truth. That anything in his testimony that is innacurate is due to memory lapse over trivial details. That witnesses against him are either having their own memory lapses or lying for political/professional reasons.

Also the MSM and Fitz have a difficult time keeping the details straight. "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself".

And the Fitz list of shame just keeps getting http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/a_question_for_.html#comment-17634747" target="_blank">longer.

Pete

The memory loss argument gets weaker and weaker, given the number of government witnesses who are saying that they told Libby about Plame. If Cheney and six other government witnesses testify that, it does not bode well for Libby.

Javani

"What exactly is Fitz trying to PROVE???"

That the one time Libby said words to the effect that he didn't no if it was true Wilson's wife sent him was false. He knew.

Libby will point out it was a mistake, indeed other times he told Fitzgerald he did know. His lawyers will turn the case against the prosecution. Russert will sweat when he denies he said words to the effect of "all the reporters knew." Common braggadacio to elicit comments from politicoes, but the masses can't be let in on the dirty little secrets of the craft of reportage.


On the bright side we have now have CIA, not just State Department officials, saying Valerie was involved with the junket to Niger.

Javani

Pete writes:

"The memory loss argument gets weaker and weaker, given the number of government witnesses who are saying that they told Libby about Plame. If Cheney and six other government witnesses testify that, it does not bode well for Libby.""

IIRC, only one charge claims Libby denied knowing something or other about "wife" or "Plame." Libby, I suspect, will rebut by showing in the same investigation he told Fitz the opposite and his statement was misinterpreted or a mistake.

Fitz' case is based on parsing, not unlike the Wilson/Democratic plan to paint Bush a liar by selecting the nuclear angle, while they all believed Iraq had WMDs.

boris

Libby admits learning about Plame in June. Always has. The only new info here puts names to early CIA sources.

Testimony was over 6 months later. Exactly what and WHEN did Libby forget? Fitz didn't bother to find out, apparently didn't ask.

Woodward claims he told Pincus in June. Pincus doesn't remember hearing it. Who's lying? Maybe neither, one or both might be misremembering. And this is their livelyhood, the focus of their work.

Libby had some other stuff on his mind too.

Cecil Turner

The stuff about Grenier's statement and Schmall's identity wase interesting . . . but there are so many obvious errors in the piece that it's hard to take any of it as informed. I did like this bit, though:

Wilson shattered a pillar of President Bush's rationale for war - that Iraq was seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
Dang, Wilson is a pillar-shatterer. Better treat him with more respect, eh?

boris

Wilson is a pillow-chatterer.

Javani

""Wilson shattered a pillar of President Bush's rationale for war - that Iraq was seeking to build a nuclear weapon.""

Pernicious erroneous talking point reaching RAMMING SPEED!

LOL. Not even Wilson at the height of his acclaim would claim that.

Cecil Turner

Wilson is a pillow-chatterer.

Shhhh! (We're supposed to pretend that's not true.)

Sid

Is Fritz going to be indicted for “outing” these two “covert” agents. The mere fact of their employment by the CIA is “classified” don’t you know? We don’t need no stinkin’ “proof of classification status”. I’ll bet the referral letter is just awaiting the confirmation of the new CIA director.

clarice

I'd say he knew or "should have known" before henamed them..And if and when they testify it should be with their faces hidden from public view by large paper bags.

Javani

"Wilson is a pillow-chatterer."

Funny. Intriguing. Insightful.

But I don't know what that means! :-0

Help?

Pisistratus

I think the essence of Libby's defense is everyone is a liar-except me. Other administration officials: Fleischer and Grossman are liars. The CIA: Grenier and Shmall are liars. Reporters: Russert's a liar.

So Fitzgerald, who, despite all the abuse heaped on him here, appears to have a pretty damn solid conviction success rate (100% cough cough) indicted the only innocent man in a snake pit of liars.

What are the odds! But that's the defense.

Referral


Dear Dick,

Okay,

Sorry I went after you guys. I look stupid and now they'll find out Plame was the troop level leak she tried to sell off to Collin. I always knew she worked for them, but I could'nt figure out where(aside from the Aimes thing).

Love,

Scooter

clarice

Psistratus, Libby needn't show they are all liars, onlky that they have the same problems with memory lapses and misstatements that he has been charged with.

We know he has that aced with Cooper. Miller's bafflegab comes in a Heinz variety of version; Russert's testimony ie ellusive and suspicious; Grossman has built in bias..and so on and so forth..

Javani

Clarice:

I've read Grossman was a school chum Messr. Wilson, but what can he or will he say that impacts on the charges against Libby?

Other Tom

Bulletin: "Mary Jo Kopechne Still Dead!"

Jeff

Libby admits learning about Plame in June. Always has. The only new info here puts names to early CIA sources.

This makes it sound like he has admitted learning about Plame in June from everyone he is alleged to have heard about her from. But as far as I can tell, all Libby admitted was learning about Plame in June from Cheney. Have we learned that that acknowledgment covered everyone he heard about Plame from in June? Or is the idea that we can just extend his claim to having forgotten about Cheney telling him in June to the others as well. (And how did Libby remember about Cheney anyway?)

Testimony was over 6 months later.

Actually, Libby's first FBI interview was just over four months after the alleged Grenier conversation, and just over three months after the Russert conversation.

Exactly what and WHEN did Libby forget? Fitz didn't bother to find out, apparently didn't ask.

Well, we know that Libby says he didn't remember hearing from Cheney when he talked to Russert, and then even Russert's mentioning of Plame didn't remind him of what Cheney had said. As for the others, I think there's a decent chance a number of them only participated in the investigation after Libby had testified.

Is Fritz going to be indicted for “outing” these two “covert” agents.

I'm pretty sure they were named first as CIA folks by Team Libby. Fitzgerald just made clear which of the candidates floated by Team Libby for being the individuals specified in the indictment were the right ones.

maryrose

Libby"s got 6 reporters to say Joe the pillar buster outed Plame to them. Fitz has 2 CIA guys saying they talked to Libby on June10th and the 14th. That'IT?
That's his case?
He's not getting much bang for his buck there.

clarice

I think Libby makes clear in his last pleadings what he intends to call Grossman for and how he will attack his credibility.

OT: Senate Intel Committee just voted Heyden out for a vote on confirmation 12-3. Guess that whole NSA objection was horse pukey.. The 3 rumored nay votes are Wyden,Bayh and Feingold..but he can't know for sure because--get this--it was a SECRET vote.

boris

we know that Libby says he didn't remember hearing from Cheney when he talked to Russert

Libby alludes to memory (did not recall). Does he misremember what he told Russert when giving testimony or misremember what Cheney and CIA told him in June when talking to Russert?

Libby's testimony in the indictment is unclear and Fitz never clarifies.

"I remember forgeting the fact in question" is insufficient data by itself.

Patton

'''Jeff: Well, we know that Libby says he didn't remember hearing from Cheney when he talked to Russert, and then even Russert's mentioning of Plame didn't remind him of what Cheney had said...."'''

It was my understanding that Fitz does not plan to call Cheney to the stand...so how is Fitz going to provide evidence that Cheney told Libby and what exactly Cheney is supposed to have told Cheney??

As for Tim Russert, if I were the defense, you know Tim is going to be well trained to answer questions about his conversation with Libby, so I WOULD ASK RUSSERT TO RECITE FOR ME AN INTERVIEW HE DID AROUND THE SAME TIME FIRST.
If that is objected to I would point out that since Russert has such great recollection of his Libby conversation, he should have the same recollection of any other conversation hapening around the same time.

clarice

Like any conversation with Andrea Mitchell that day.

Patton

And he shopuld remeber what was NOT SAID in those conversations...so I should be able to ask him:

"During you discussion with Dr. Rice, did she say, "We support the Iraqi government"?

Russert should be able to recall if that was said or not.

Otherwise I would ask why it is he can so clearly remeber a conversation with a staffer like Libby, but not one with the National Security Advisor

Sue

Tim Russert is on Sean Hannity today. I am an hour behind, so some of you probably knew that already. ::grin::

PeterUK

By throwing up all this chaff,Fitzgerald is obscuring his dereliction duty in discharging his primary assignment,Libby is not the obstacle here,Libby is all Fitzgerald has got.After two and a half years,all he has are secondary charges generated by his investigation.
All this for a mid level over the hill deskjockey with an iffy job description, who in any other organisation would have been fire for incompetence.

Jeff

boris - Does Libby admit learning about Plame in June from 1)Grossman (apparently not); 2)Grenier; 3)Schmall?

With regard to Cheney: in the context of the investigation, Libby acknowledged that Cheney told him in June; but testified both that in July he had forgotten the Cheney conversation, and that Russert's mention of Plame did not remind him of the Cheney conversation.

I'm unclear to me what role if any Cheney will play in the trial. It was news to me when Libby's defense stated that Fitzgerald had made representations that Cheney would not be a witness. It is interesting that neither Cheney, Tenet, Hadley nor Rove are going to be prosecution witnesses (though Tenet makes the most sense).

MJW

I'm curious to know how Grenier learned of Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip. Did he learn it through the CIA -- and, if so, officially or through scuttlebutt? If officially, why later did the official position, as presented to Novak by Harlow, seem to be that Plame wasn't involved in sending Wilson? Did he learn it through Grossman? June 11 is, after all, one day after the INR memo from Ford to Grossman.

Patton

And what does Fitz do if Libby calls Cheney
as part of his defense:

Lawyer: Mr. Cheney, what is your opinion of Mr. Libbys memory.

Cheney: Well, Scooter is a very hard working and diligent person, but his memory isn't the best. I can well understand he may have forgotten somethings or misrember them later, but never out of malice or intent.

Lawyer: So it has been your experience that Mr. Libby was forgetful at times?

Cheney: Absolutley, but it is certainly undertandable given the work load and stresses placed on someone, even of his consederable talents. I certainly have known him to forget things I have told him, and important things.

CROSS:

Fitz: Did you tell Mr. Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

Cheney: I believed I had, but I also believe he may not have heard me, or just plain forgot, or wasn't listening at the time. As I said, we were under trmendous stress.

Fitz: You are now claiming that Mr. Libby may not have heard you?

Cheney: I am saying I, nor anyone else can be certain what another person heard of every discussion. But I do know that Scooter would never lie, especially under oath, in an attempt to mislead an investigation. That is not the man I know, not the man I served with day and night, 12 hours a day these past 6 years.

clarice

Grenier's remarks do seem to be in the nature of scuttlebutt. At the SSCI remember CIA witnesses were still testifying that Plame played no role in sending Wilson on the Mission.(And the very fact that it appeared to be no more than scuttlebutt diminishes the "knew or should have known" argument.)

Cecil Turner

Actually, Libby's first FBI interview was just over four months after the alleged Grenier conversation, and just over three months after the Russert conversation.

Most of the charges relate to his grand jury testimony, which was 8-9 months after the pertinent conversations. Not that it changed markedly, but the level of detail could be expected to get fuzzy (e.g., "I heard that, too" instead of "I heard that from reporters, and don't know if it's true").

Well, we know that Libby says he didn't remember hearing from Cheney when he talked to Russert . . .

That's assuming he discussed it with Russert. If not, the most likely explanation (other than lying) is that he conflated it with another conversation.

I'm pretty sure they were named first as CIA folks by Team Libby.

I'm pretty sure that's not a valid defense.

boris

Does Libby admit learning about Plame in June from 1)Grossman (apparently not); 2)Grenier; 3)Schmall?

Libby apparently admitted learning about Plame in June from Cheney. No idea about the others and don't know why it would matter. Something mentioned in one's presence isn't necessarily "learning", especially if he hadn't "fogotten" it yet.

Now that there's a name to the claim that Valerie "suggested her husband for the trip" is that now considered a fact?

So far the assertions surrounding Libby's testimony are from everybody but Libby. I'm open to a good explanation.

MJW

As a purely technical observation, what kind of boob leads of a story with a sentence like, "Two top CIA officials will bolster prosecutors' charge that Vice President Cheney's chief aide lied to them, court papers show"?

Who's them? The CIA officials? The prosecutors? The second makes more sense, but since Libby is charged with lying to FBI investigators and the grand jury, even that's considerably off the mark.

Kate

My favorite part of the article was when they referred to Libby as "disgraced". Seems like they may be jumping the gun on that, ususally disgraced is reserved for someone who actually is convicted or pleads guilty.

Now, how about "disgraced formed President Clinton" or "disgraced Senator Ted Kennedy". I mean we can start really classifying people as "disgraced".

Seems like the source for this article really hates Libby or is really nervous.

verner

OK, let's get this straight.

We have Joe AND Val at the senate democrat meeting on May 2. Joe is a member of the Alliance for American Leadership (Rand Biers outfit--an invitation only democrat boys club), He is also a member of IPIP (Sponsored by Dana Priest's husband's outfit CIP and Fenton Communications) and a close friend of David Corn's--so close that David asked him via contact in Fox New's greenroom (yeah right) to write an "American Empire" type blah blah in the esteemed Nation mag.

He has been all over the TV for months thanks to his "contacts". And he even blabbed to General Vallely--and others--that his wife worked for the agency.

Yet we're suppose to believe, that after Kristof's column, every press type who didn't already know who Val was, didn't put one and one together, or get on the phone with a friend or two to try to get to the bottom of this breathtaking revelation that proved that the evil neo-cons cooked the docs.

Excuse me, I wasn't born yesterday.

They had a whole month before Libby spoke to Greniere. Thus, Victoria Flame.

JJ

Actually, this piece of wonderful journalism isn't too hard to figure out.

It was written a month ago most likely. So, it's a slow news week. Obviously, it's filler.

Like those small-town papers with those Reader's Digest "did-you-know" fillers that cover topics like: did you know that the platypus is similar in these ways to four mammals of North America!

Libby has dug dirt on Mr. Wilson, and he's a pillow shatterer!

Tom Maguire

And how did Libby remember about Cheney anyway?

It was mentioned in Libby's own notes.

And I am virtually certain Libby testified to it as well, then explained that he had forgotten it by July.

Whether Schmall or Grenier or Grossman is in his notes, I don't think we know.

And why Grossman is important is not clear - that exchange was also mid-June, so it would be one more tidbit to forget by July.

Tom Maguire

From Jeff:

As for the others, I think there's a decent chance a number of them only participated in the investigation after Libby had testified.

That is a good point.

clarice

OT: The accuse told the cops she had sex with three men not the Duke team (her boyufriend and both of her drivers):FNC..

clarice

***accuseD****

sad

Clarice

More info please!!! re the Duke debacle.

sad

The accused(guy) or accuser(girl)?

clarice

TYPO--I meant the accuseR..sorry..When the police found semen on her and it didn't match that of any of the Duke team, they asked her with whom she had had sex (apparently that evening) and she said her boyfriend and the two men who drove her from job to job..

verner

The girl. The two "Drivers" who had taken her to stripper gigs, and her boyfriend.

Oh, and no toxicology report. They never took the tests.

maryrose

clarice;
OT Happy to hear about Hayden and FNC predicts easy confirmation. Even Levin voted for him.
Libby is innocent until proven guilty Kate though you would never know it by the MSM.
How about Mr disgraced Jefferson with the 90000 cold cash?

verner

Also, MAJOR variations in her story as time went on. First she was raped by 20, then down to three. She said the other dancer was in the bathroom with her--the other girl said that was crap.

Kate

disgraced New York Daily News printing such drivel. disgraced reporters...I mean why should only Libby be disgraced, he doesn't look disgraced to me.

Lurker

I am not surprised that Feingold voted against Hayden and he had the '08 presidential elections in his plans. Perhaps that would be enought to rebuild the conservative base by November? I disagree with Tapscott that we should sit at home during the November elections. Anchoress has a great post about Bush - posted this morning. Bush will be remembered in history as one of the greatest presidents.

So, verner, the vast public knowledge of Plame one month prior to the Robert Grenier and Libby conversation disproves Fitz's statements that Plame wasn't widely known.

Heck, I don't even remember a month later everything that I write down or discuss. This has got to be a really asinine and unnecessary case wasted with money that I've read. How did Libby's lack of memory obstruct Fitz's justice?

PeterUK

A cool $90,000<.a>

Lurker

Good for Hayden to get a majority vote. Don't know why the vote was secret, though.

Rick Ballard

Now Peter, Democratic Congressman Jefferson must be accorded all due respect. He is as innocent as any other member of the Democratic Caucus in the eye of the law. Nothing has been proven and I am certain that he is no more guilty of taking bribes and selling votes than any number of other Democratic Congressmen.

It is quite possible that a defense of innocent by virtue of the fact that the Republican climate of corruption was the actual culprit will be upheld by a DC jury.

verner

And ask yourself this. Why did they invite JOE to the Dem Senate thing? (And I wish that I had the cached web page).In all seriousness, what was so great about him? I would assume that it is a more select crowd.

Answer: Some big DEM (ie Rand Biers) knew about the visit to Niger--and they had plans. Al Gore declined to run, Dean had been anti-war all along, but Kerry was for before he was against--so he needed cover. He was getting killed over it in the polls.

What better than a former Ambassador--a virtual second son to papa Bush (snicker), who was prepared to say that W lied. And Val tagged along to provide--background. He would need an added source, and she knew all about his mission.(And as for her arranging it, why would they care about that?)

Think about what we know about Wilson, and the CIA enemies of Bush "laughing" about leaking classified information--and tell me the above "let's just say" scenario isn't true.

But how would we know? Fitz will not go there. He didn't even put Val and Joe under oath.

maryrose

verner:
It makes the most sense therefore it will be discarded as irrelevant. I am more confident now that the true information and all these six degrees of KEvin Bacon or separation will be discovered. They can't hide in plain sight forever.

danking70

Wonder how Rocky's back is feeling?

maryrose

Bring me Moose and Squirrel!

richard mcenroe

Rick -- Jefferson may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but he's guilty as sin in the eyes of the camcorder. Welcome to the 21st century, Congressman...

Sue

Verner,

The debunked documents story got Joe's toe in the door. That and Cheney sent him and then ignored his findings. Without that, Joe's toe would have been smashed when the door was slammed in his face.

topsecretk9

This is dated the 24th and just went up a couple of hours ago:

May 24, 2006


Rove to address House GOP, again
By Patrick O’Connor

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is making a return trip to Capitol Hill to address the entire House Republican Conference.

He is scheduled to attend this morning’s conference meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, Republican aides said yesterday...

I don't think he'd being doing this if indictment day is tomorrow...so is Jason's scoop officially not a scoop yet?

PeterUK

Rick,
May be,but if he put foil wrapped money in the refrigerator...what did he put in the bank?

Cecil Turner

This is entertaining: Hastert tells President Bush FBI raid was unconstitutional. Majority Leader John Boehner said: “[Justice Department employees] take the same oath, so somebody better start reading the Constitution down there.”

Well, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I can read it. This appears to be the pertinent section:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Unless the claim is that "money talks" (and "cold cash" talks loudest, of course), then I'm having a hard time seeing how the FBI's freezer burn is a major constitutional issue. And I'm having a real hard time with the Congressmen's right to a free bribery stash zone.

Kate

TS-I've thought the same thing for days now. Why is he traveling, giving major speeches, working the immigration issue...

Kate

Of course, perhaps if Fitz sends the Federal Marshalls to get Rove and he's at Congress, he'll get that special immunity, maybe????

PeterUK

"MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE COMPLAINING about the FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's office. The separation of powers argument seems to be pretty weak to me: The actual scope of Congressional immunity under the speech and debate clause is quite narrow (narrower, oddly, than the judically-created immunities enjoyed by judges and prosecutors) and certainly doesn't include immunity from search in a bribery case."
Glenn Reynolds

verner

Yeah Sue, But he had to get SENT to Niger first.

Makes you wonder about those docs, and where they came from.

Of course Joe blames the neo-cons.

kim

ew has a convoluted scenario at thenexthurrah for the origin of the documents. She's ignoring a comment on the previous Niger forgery thread(about Armitage) saying that the French had become aware in 1999-2000 that abandoned uranium mines were being worked and that a brisk clandestine trade in uranium had sprung up.
========================================

clarice

OT: FNC reports that someone has filed an ethics complaint against Nifong with the State Bar.

Rick Ballard

"what did he put in the bank?"

Uncut diamonds - and that explains the whole silly error. In a moment of mental dyslexia the Honorable Democratic Congrssman Jefferson, representing New Orleans, LA, inadvertently placed the cash that he had received as a donation to aid Katrina victims in the icebox and the "ice" (family heirlooms, of course) in the bank. A mistake anyone could make.

As to the search of his office, any lists in decipherable code which appear to indicate exchanges of various sums for favorable votes eg;

HR-1243 - Cynthia - Aye - $4k

are simply expressions of how highly Democratic Congressman Jefferson values his fellow caucus members. Anyone from NOLA can explain this very easily. It's an old custom.

maryrose

Even Jonathan Turley says a federal judge would probably agree with the judge"s search warrant for Jefferson's office. My view-put a fork in him,he's done.

windansea

[Libby] was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet

I wonder if Jeff wants to remind us again how "the CIA" continues to maintain that Val had no role in Joe's selection...looks like 2 named senior CIA officials are on record saying she did....Novak got the same info and that's the reason he named her.

"Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America,'" Novak wrote.

yup...fair game

the whole house of cards comes falling down with this...

PeterUK

Kim,
Logic would dictate that those with clandestine nuclear projects have access to uranium,Lybia,North Korea,Dr Khan etc,yet the question is never raised as to source.
Uranium production is more widespread than is realised,for example">http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/439-440/chapter1.html"> European producers have the largest output.Canada and Australia are also producers of uranium.
Although the three principle producers in Africa are Niger,Namibia and South Africa ,the mining in Gabon was only discontinued for economic reasons rather than being worked out.It is not clear whether the equipment was sold,scrapped ,or as in similar cases left in situ.
It is odd that only Niger is ever mentioned as a source."Keep your eyes on the card"

windansea

interesting that this article was written by the same guy (Meek) who wrote the silly Armitage is a straight shooter pushback a few days ago

somebody's lawyers are working overtime

maryrose

windansea;
So in other words there is no there there-the whole case a fraud...

verner

And let's put it this way PeterUk...the FRENCH were assuring us that there was no off the book trading to Saddam...hahahahaha.

Did you hear the latest about that plot by Chirac and Villepin to get Sarkozy?

Paris - French Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin on Tuesday denounced efforts to implicate him in a political scandal a year before presidential elections, and suggested that notes from an intelligence operative that appear to deepen the head of government's role are being misconstrued.

"I am not duped," De Villepin said in an interview on France-2 television. "I see clearly that they wanted to implicate me in a political affair." He refused to specify who they might be.

The scandal hinges on accusations that De Villepin, along with President Jacques Chirac, were involved in a smear campaign against their political rival, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who is considered a likely contender in next year's presidential elections.


However, the complex scenario being played out daily in French papers had its beginnings with a 1991 French frigate sale to Taiwan and reports of alleged kickbacks. It morphed into a money-laundering affair and a political scandal that has shaken the government.

"I do not believe at any moment that this was about a political matter. They wanted to construct a rivalry and a political matter," he said.

Excerpts from what were allegedly notes by General Philippe Rondot, a former defence ministry intelligence operative, printed by the daily Le Monde, contained suspicious entries such as "Protect D De V". That fed suspicions that De Villepin was deeply implicated.

The prime minister had ordered Rondot to investigate listings of names of political and other figures with accounts at the Luxembourg clearing house Clearstream, one of which included Sarkozy's names. De Villepin has said he feared a money-laundering scheme by the Mafia or terrorists.

"One must not give importance to these constructions," De Villepin said of the bits of notes that were published. "It's false." - Sapa-AP

Jeff

Patton - I sure hope the defense calls Cheney. But things won't go so well if he says maybe Libby didn't hear him, since it's right there in Libby's notes.

"I heard that, too" instead of "I heard that from reporters, and don't know if it's true"

Not a good example, since in fact the Libby version and the Cooper version were dramatically different. And anyway, as you suggest, his story didn't change substantiively from the interview just a few months after the relevant events to the grand jury testimony.

That's assuming he discussed it with Russert.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving an account of what we know of Libby's own testimony. I am certainly not making a claim that that testimony is accurate.

I'm pretty sure that's not a valid defense.

Not a valid defense for what? The assertion or the assumption that Fitzgerald brought up the names of the CIA individuals first is incorrect, as far as I can tell. Surely you don't think I think there was something illicit about naming those folks, whoever did it first, do you?

windansea

So in other words there is no there there-the whole case a fraud...

the premise that Fitz seems to be working on is false...Plame wasn't outed as an act of revenge or punishment against a legitimate whistleblower... Joe mislead the public about the genesis and results of his trip (especially before his article)

the WH pushback was legitimate...they had every right to confront Joe's BS and the misleading articles he sourced to Kristof and Pincus resulted in his wife being named.

I don't see where Libby or Rove named her.

richard mcenroe

The Daily News hasn't been worth reading since they dropped L'il Abner and stopped warning us the Russians were going to hijack the Apollo capsule during the Soyuz linkup....

cathyf

Jeff, Pete, I have a couple of question for each of you in particular. I assume that you went to school.

1) Did you ever listen to a teacher tell you how to do something, then get home and not have any idea what the homework question was talking about? Then a couple of days later the teacher explained it again, and you said, "Oh, yeah, now I get it!"

2) Did you ever help a classmate with something which you understood and the classmate didn't, even though the classmate had been to the same classes and heard all the same stuff that you had?

3) Imagine the following situation: You watch a video. In the video, there are 3 identical boxes on a table. Suzy comes in the room and puts a ball in the box in the middle and puts the lids on the boxes. Suzy leaves the room. George comes in the room. George takes the lids off of the boxes. He moves the ball to the box on the right and replaces all of the lids. George leaves the room. Suzy comes back in the room and she is told to get the ball. Which box does Suzy look in?

I think if you answer these questions we might have some clue as to how you can possibly believe the improbable things which you seem to believe.

cathy :-)

TalkLeft

Tom, Grenier and Schmall were listed as potential government witnesses in the March 17 Libby filing and you wrote about it on March 18, as did I.

And it is alleged that Grenier told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA:

It describes a conversation that took place on or about June 11, 2003 with a “senior officer of the CIA” in which the “senior officer” told Mr. Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA “and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.” (Id. ¶ 7.) We understand this “senior officer” to be Robert Grenier, or possibly John McLaughlin, and we expect either or both men to be government witnesses at trial also.
sid

Jeff

the assumption that Fitzgerald brought up the names of the CIA individuals first is incorrect, as far as I can tell. Surely you don't think I think there was something illicit about naming those folks,

1) What is the basis for you "telling" that Fritz did not bring up the names first?

2) Do you disagree with Fritz that "naming" folks working for the CIA damages us all?

PeterUK

Verner and Rick,
I offer this without comment,other than to say COGEMA,France,Canada,Niger and Gabon.The latter well known for their Ambassador production.

Jeff

sid - The March 17, 2006 third motion to compel discovery from Libby's defense. What is your basis for asserting that Fitzgerald brought up the names first?

I am operating on the assumption, which you evidently don't share, that if the parties in this case are publicly naming CIA employees, they are damn sure that it is legal and licit to do so. Or are you just being petulant?

cathy - Yes, yes, and unclear, but some probabilistic judgment based on what she knows. I am nonplussed as to what this has to do with anything.

windansea

in which the “senior officer” told Mr. Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA “and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.”

that's very nice Jeralyn...but can you tell us who you think it is that told Robert Novack that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that she suggested him for the trip?

PeterUK

Now why the CPD was tooling around in Africa,when COGEMA Headquarters are here
COGEMA Resources Inc. Head Office
P .O. Box 9204
817 45th Street West
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 3X5
Telephone: (306) 244-2554
Facsimile: (306) 653-3883

I am at a loss too understand why anyone with the whiff of a spook to them would not be checking out COGEMA.I realise that Wilson was going on business to Niger,exacty what for has not been established.His job was to assure that there was no yellowcake coming out of Niger,what aabout Namibia,South Africa and the Gabon.All you got was there is nothing in Niger.
There is a story here for someone.

Tom Maguire

Tom, Grenier and Schmall were listed as potential government witnesses in the March 17 Libby filing and you wrote about it on March 18, as did I.

Well, I Googled my own site, I could tell from the Fitzgerald filing that he was responding to a defense filing, and I still missed that.

But in my defense, let me say taht the Libby filing was hazy as to names, and the Fitzgerald filing cleared that up.

Lurker

"

Tom, Grenier and Schmall were listed as potential government witnesses in the March 17 Libby filing and you wrote about it on March 18, as did I.

And it is alleged that Grenier told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA:

It describes a conversation that took place on or about June 11, 2003 with a “senior officer of the CIA” in which the “senior officer” told Mr. Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA “and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.” (Id. ¶ 7.) We understand this “senior officer” to be Robert Grenier, or possibly John McLaughlin, and we expect either or both men to be government witnesses at trial also."

This proves how easy it is for any of us to have forgotten what we wrote two months ago.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame