Powered by TypePad

« When Was Last Week? | Main | A Question For Tim Russert »

May 22, 2006



'Should have known' is a tremendously important weasel word. I have personally found myself the recipient of an official looking letter informing me that I 'should have known' the contents of a 30,000 page government piece of work. By golly, they were right.


What can you expect from a report who “misattributed” Joe Wilson’s “misspoke” words concerning forged documents that Joe never saw?


Is it much worse than TruthNot's latest?http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYwZWJmNDkwZTJhODhjNWZjYWM4ZmY4YTM2MmY3MTM=> Tied With JL


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYwZWJmNDkwZTJhODhjNWZjYWM4ZmY4YTM2MmY3MTM=>Pincus/Leopold Tie


I posted this on the other thread. Lawyers use qualifiers to give themselves wiggle room. If you have a contract dated April 1, 2006 when the pleading is filed it will usually say "on or about April 1, 2006, the parties entered into a contract". Lawyer speak that means nothing. The contract is dated April 1, 2006.


Let me correct that: the letter was to someone else stating that I should have known the contents of those 30K pages. Fortunately the recipient also had the enclosed sense of humour, which was the last of the government's supply.

'Should have known' is going to be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Again, we see Fitz's dependence on the subjunctive. Juries aren't subjunctive.


>'Should have known' is a tremendously important weasel word.

It's the civil standard in negligence cases - i.e. The defendant knew or should have known there was a banana peel on the floor. It implies a duty to have found out.
So if the defendant knows that the bananas are stocked poorly, or that people routinely take bananas and leave the peels, or the handbooks call for hourly inspections - then you can make the case that the defendant "should have known" (and therefore done something about it).

Perhaps Fitzy will argue that Libby should have known because the Bush administration is inherently evil, and Dick Cheney is the evil knight, so any fool would be up on the latest attempt to out a covert-not CIA agent.

It's a stretch, as well as a much looser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

richard mcenroe

"So we will argue that he [Libby] did or could have done whatever the hell it is we're accusing him of at this point..."

What the hell, did or didn't do it, that's close enough for a conviction...


Rove "Scoop" Remains Exclusive

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 22, 2006; 7:42 AM

Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, says he spent most of the day on May 12 taking his cat to the veterinarian and having a technician fix his computer at home.

He was stunned, therefore, when journalists started calling to ask about an online report that he had spent half the day at his law office, negotiating with Patrick Fitzgerald -- and that the special prosecutor had secretly obtained an indictment of Rove.

The cat's medical tests, Luskin says, found that "the stools were free of harmful parasites, which is more than I can say for this case."

Media Notes


Luskin calls the reports "absolutely bizarre. I'm waiting for him to tell me whether Fitzgerald had the chicken or the pasta. . . . There was no meeting, no communication with Fitzgerald's team of any kind."


Everybody has been given that age old truth that "assume" can led to "ass" "u" "me".

There is also the possibility that "classified" will become "assified".


Here's Howie Kurtz today. Note the reference to "Covert.":

Rove has testified five times in Fitzgerald's investigation of White House officials' leaking to the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a covert CIA operative. Fitzgerald is examining whether Rove misled investigators by initially failing to recall that he had discussed Plame with Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

And here's a post from Dr. Raoul on Free Republic on May 10th:

TIME Magazine's Matt Cooper appeared at Princeton University recently and I asked him if Valire Plame was a "covert agent" as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. His reply, "I hate to say it, but I don't know."
Asked if there was any reporter who had deteremined if she was or wasn't, he admitted that no reporter had determined her status under that law.

All he could do is half-heartedly say that the CIA had made a referal to Justice.

And you won't see a story from the mainstream media because it would stop take a club out of their hands while they conduct jihad against Bush.

10 posted on 05/10/2006 3:52:44 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Liberals saying "We Support The Troops" is like OJ looking for the real killers.)

Make what you will of that


Thanks, Jane, for the clarity. Even if boilerplate, and hence semi-meaningless, I don't think Fitz can prove that Libby should have known, anymore than he can prove that he knew. And even if Plame was 'classified' and Libby knew it, wasn't the cat out of the bag already, hence she was no longer 'classified'.

Would Cheney annotating Joe's 7/6 op-ed constitute declassifying Plame's status? Maybe only if he showed it to someone?


The only reason Fitz is making the argument is make it seem the testimonial variances are really significant. He cannot and will not prove Plame was classified so he falls on this razzle dazzle to get that notion before the jury.

Here's a thought Judge: before he gets to claim knew or should have known he has to establish that she actually was.


OT:Last night Drudge posted a story that the DNC was working for Landrieu thru its voter signup program(that would seem to be under Brazile). Nothing further today under the breaking headline. If true, that will be a story of some real consequence.


Nagin praised Bush as the most wrongly vilified politician lately, along with himself. Dean defied black Democratic leaders to support Landrieau. Rove did it, but it's Bush's fault.


Sooner or later, black leaders will tire of laboring on the Democratic plantation under delusionary overseers.


Well, if the story proves truw, Donna Brazile and Dean are about to make career changes, I think.


OT on AT&T lawsuit

Why We Published the AT&T Docs

Page 1 of 1

Breaking News from AP:
Credible lead in Hoffa case, FBI says
FBI says it has good lead in Hoffa search
Obituaries in the news
Elderly woman arrested in insurance scam
Search for missing boat captain suspended

Special Partner Promotion
Find local technology jobs.
Special Partner Promotion
Managed Hosting Solutions, Powered by Fanatical Support
Special Partner Promotion
Windows Mobile: Work on the go

See Also
Court Deals AT&T a Setback
Stumbling Into a Spy Scandal
AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence
The Ultimate Net Monitoring Tool
The Eternal Value of Privacy
AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs
Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
AT&T Sued Over NSA Eavesdropping
A Pretty Good Way to Foil the NSA
By Evan Hansen| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM May, 22, 2006

A file detailing aspects of AT&T's alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretap operation is sitting in a San Francisco courthouse. But the public cannot see it because, at AT&T's insistence, it remains under seal in court records.

The judge in the case has so far denied requests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and several news organizations to unseal the documents and make them public.

AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.

Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.

As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.

The AT&T documents appear to be excerpted from material that was later filed in the lawsuit under seal. But we can't be entirely sure, because the protective order prevents us from comparing the two sets of documents.

wired news


Here's Val's bio from another thread:

Plame is a 1985 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, and the College of Europe, an international-relations school in Bruges, in 1995. Soon after graduation, she started working for the U.S. government in Washington D.C.

So let me get this straight. Ames outed her in 1994. She graduated in Bruges (Not exactly a tough place to work--unless you don't like lace and french fries) in 1995, and soon after was back in D.C. Did the CIA referral claim that even though she had been driving to Langley every day, that she outed Brewster Jennings through the FEC, and her husband was blabbing about her working for the agency, that since she was weeks away from having the alledged NOC status expire, even though she had not acted as a "covert" agent since 1994 or 1995, they can still get Libby for that? Is that how they did it? Thin Gruel. And it also begs the answer, if she was NOC, why did they not follow procedure and tell Novak?

No wonder Fitz wants to avoid any mention of it. And no wonder the press is so uncurious.It all stinks, and will until the referral letter is made public so that we can see what's going on.

Other Tom

In this instance, the "should have known" qualifier undercuts Fitz's argument in a major way. The only thing that would give Libby a "motive to lie" would be actual knowledge of her classified status. If he didn't know, the fact that he should have known is entirely irrelevant. If Fitz wants to prove at trial that Libby had a motive to lie, he's going to have to prove that her status was in fact classified, and that Libby knew it. My guess is that the "should have known" garbage was a slip of the tongue, uttered out of habit.


Why does Fitzgerald get to show motive to lie and Libby is being hamstrung on motive not to lie?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'So we will argue that he [Libby] knew or should have known it [Plame's status] was classified...'

Which opens the door for the defense to call both Joe and Val to testify, because their conduct belies it. As I said on the prior thread, neither of them acted as though she was covert or in any way secretly employed.

Is it normal for the husband of a classified agent to run around DC spouting off about her work? To tell at least five people she was CIA?

Fitz is such an idiot.


And remember what a joke it was, on the eve of Libby's indictment, when Fitz went out to interview a few neighbors about whether or not they knew she worked for the CIA?

If I was Libby's team, the first thing I would do is call Valerie on the stand, throw that VF article in her face, and ask "If you were NOC, why did you tell a married man that you were sleeping with on your third date with him? Wasn't it just a fling at that point? Did you check with the agency before you did?"

You're right, Fitz is an idiot. But he has dealt himself his own hand, and now he must play it out.


Doesn't perjury require mens rea?


It requires an intent to lie.

Mario G. Nitrini 111

You'all want real Politics? Here ya go:

I was watching some Los Angeles City Council Meetings last night on channel 35 last night since I have a REAL vested legal interest in Councilman Bernard Parks, Councilman Eric Garcetti and MORE. I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Democrat or Republican? What’s the difference? MOST are LYING, ILLEGAL, SCUM.

This is what's legally coming. Thse are some quote's from people I correspond with:

“The challenge is to get those good guys in law enforcement to testify against the bad guys. It is very, very difficult.
Even the good guy cops protect the bad guy cops for their perception/belief it is for the greater good. It’s kind of like family, if your kids do something bad, you may discipline them, but you would certainly not allow someone else to discipline them.”

“Hi, Mario

I understand your exhaustion.
I’m fortunate to be in a position to make a difference.
There is no better quote for what you have experienced than… “you must fight fire with fire”
I have the firepower, but it is not without sacrifice. You/I must not have fear. I know you do not.
I have some very powerful lawyers… lawyers that have no fear and have the juice. Fortunately, I also have the political connections that protect my position.”

“Nice work on the website.
Mario, there are very powerful forces trying to prevent your information and other collaborating information against the LAPD and the City of LA from coming forward. But it will and it is.”


The reason you have been covered-up is because you can be. It is that simple and ugly. Anyone can easily write you off as another Los Angeles nut case and not jeopardize their job or political status. Sad but true."

"Fortunately, big guns are working on cases that will expose your issues at the same time. So you should see vindication no matter how your efforts materialize."

"As you can see, we have a huge challenge.
The good news, several lawsuits are on the horizon by people with the right motives, money and political connections against the corrupt members of Los Angeles Law Enforcement. The Biggie Smalls judicial findings and the extension of the Consent Decree are a BIG help towards the next phase.

Yes, the real truths will come out. It will take some time, maybe another 3 to 12 months. But it is and will happen. Philips/Pellicano is small time compared to what has been documented elsewhere."

"Once you finish getting through one pile of paperwork they'll heap another on you. This is the way they can get the system to work in their favor. You see, this is their game, they wrote the rules and know every trick in the book."

And how about these:


It is not meant to be proven about the Dynamite... it was just what was done to get the FBI control of the investigation and keep out the LAPD.

Pellicano knows Ito and many others in LAPD."

"On the Fed's... yes you are right, lot's of dynamite... it was a complete set-up. Remember, whenever explosives are found or used in a crime, the FBI has jurisdiction. They had to do this to keep out the LAPD... Pellicano was untouchable, remember the Pellicano investigation started right in the heart of the LAPD Rampart development. Pellicano and another investigator you will hear more about soon, Scott Ross, had deep roots in towers of Parker Center."

This reality is coming soon.

Mario G. Nitrini 111

The OJ Simpson Case

Cecil Turner

If Fitz wants to prove at trial that Libby had a motive to lie, he's going to have to prove that her status was in fact classified, and that Libby knew it.

Bingo. Whether it's espionage act ("Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates . . . ") or IIPA: ("knowing that the information disclosed . . ."), the standard is knowing, not "should have known." ("Or reasonably should know" is listed as a basis for [civil] liability per the SF 312, but I don't think that's material to this case.)

Further, based on previous filings, I don't think Fitz can show that. Per Tatel:

What’s more, if Libby mentioned Plame’s covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable.
The referenced bit from the affidavit:
In order to establish a violation of Tide 50, United States Code, Section 421, it would be necessary to establish that Lobby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
That last bit appears subtly misstated, as the way I read the IIPA, there is no requirement for knowledge of covert work. And the consistency between the statements makes me think Fitz is trying to skirt the edge of a charge he knows he can't sustain and imply something he knows he can't prove. (But IANAL, and may be reading too much into it.)

And Mario, why don't you try to find a more topical thread, or perhaps post something remotely related to this one?


I'm upset that the WAPO has such a flawed relationship with the truth that it would use incorrect data and a prejudiced reporter{pincus} to do a hatchet job on Libby with a false headline.

Mario G. Nitrini 111


Politics is Politics, what's the difference?

Mario G. Nitrini 111

The OJ Simpson Case


Cecil--you may not be a lawyer, but you aced that argument, would you be so kind as to toss it in the Razzle Dazzle comments for the OPR article--under a heading misstatements of the law and facts, please.


Here's the URL in case you missed it. http://chaoschaos.typepad.com/razzledazzle/

Appalled Moderate


Is the reason Fitz can't prove the "motive to lie" the actual alleged perjury by Libby?
Because the perjury hinders Fitz in determining whether he "did know" Plame's status, Fitz feels he must use the locution "should have known"

Just thinking out loud rather than making an assertion.


Fitz is trying to skirt the edge of a charge he knows he can't sustain and imply something he knows he can't prove.

maybe Fitz has engaged in this in an attempt to get Libby to flip....hinting at the more serious charge while only directly charging for perjury/obstruction


I believe that is Fitz' m.o. and it may work when you have Lynn Stewart as opposing counsel and thugs and terrorists as defendants..Not this time.

John Loki

I read somewhere that this guy believed that Fitz was only trying to squeeze Libby into implicating Cheney.

Clarice, I remember when I took business law, the word "intent" also meant that reasonable person who expect a certain outcome to his or her action.


Well, the phrase "knew or should have known" would fit nicely into a the statement:

On Friday, October 28, 2005 Mr. FITZGERALD statede "He [Mr. Libby] was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter."*

At the time he made that statement, Mr.FITZGERALD knew or should have known that this statement was not true.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html


A person can be held to the reasonable and probably consequences of his actions. Thus, if you decide to ride your motorcylce with blinders on it may be reasonable to infer you intended to cause injury to others. Frankly, I do not see how that is applicable to the issue here. All I see is a prosecutor trying to make minor testimonial variations into perjury by claiming that a fact known far and wide may have been classified and Libby may have surmised that from a not very dispositive throw away remark at a meeting .(The ice is so thin under that one I can see the fish frolicing below.)

John Loki

BTW, IIRC, doesn't perjury also require that one's testimony be material.

If Plame's CIA status was leaked by Woodward, and Libby's testimony focused on his (Libby's) knowledge of Plame; wouldn't any testimony fail the "Materiality" test?

Foo Bar

Libby is not on trial for "criminal negligence in the handling of classified info" or "involuntary disclosure of state secrets" (I'm not saying any such laws exist; just positing them hypothetically to make my point). Only if he were on trial for such a hypothetical crime would "should have known" as distinct from "knew [as he was testifing to the GJ] that he should have known" have any meaning or significance.

He is on trial for lying to the grand jury. In that context, "should have known" is fairly clearly shorthand for "knew that he should have known". If we are speaking about the moment he testified to the GJ, then "knew that he should have known" her status was classified is equivalent, or at least implies, "knew" that her status was classified. You cannot know right now that you should have known at an earlier date that X is true without also knowing right now that X is true.

So I agree that Pincus could have worked harder at being clear about all this, but if you read him as referring to the moment that Libby was before the GJ, then I think a simple "knew" is OK.

Foo Bar

Anyway, the real issue is what this all means for the O.J. Simpson and Pellicano cases. Mario and I really want to know.

Cmon, TM, can we please stay focused on what's important???


That's funny, Ranger. But it is easy to show that it was Fitz's duty to know the facts he was getting wrong, but it not easy to show that it was Libby's duty to know Val was classified, IF she was. How would you have a duty to know something that isn't so? Fitz has crossed through the Looking Glass.



Well that certainly would fit right in with what Leopold, Wilson, and VIPS have been insinuating for a while...

John Loki

Therefore, if Libby shows that Plame's name was spread around town like mustard at a wennie roast this case is over, right?

Cecil Turner

Is the reason Fitz can't prove the "motive to lie" the actual alleged perjury by Libby?

AM, you seem to be suggesting that: if one accused of a crime claims innocence, that's perjury; and if they claim innocence on the perjury charge it proves a motive to lie (and obstruction, I would think). Thankfully, we have a Fifth Amendment to preclude precisely this sort of "she's a witch!" proceeding.

He is on trial for lying to the grand jury. In that context, "should have known" is fairly clearly shorthand for "knew that he should have known".

The way I read it, it's Fitz trying to imply Libby was in some legal jeopardy for leaking classified information and thus had some motive for lying in order to cover it up. But I don't think the argument works, because Libby "knew or should have known" that he wasn't in any legal jeopardy . . . unless he lied to the gj.

Bruce Hayden

Howard Kurtz in his Media Notes Extra column at the NYT has solved the mystery of where Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, was on that Friday, May 12. And, no, he wasn't meeting with Patrick Fitzgerald concerning the indictment of Rove, but, rather, was at a veternarian with his cat. And, yes, the cat turned out to be fine.

So, imagine his surprise when he was deluged over that weekend by some 35 reporters about the "news" that Rove would be indicted shortly, had given notice to the President, and was getting his affairs in order. Last time Luskin ever schedules a vet visit on a Friday, at least while he has Rove as a client.

Appalled Moderate


I believe it is perjury if you commit a crime and then lie about it. It's just not prosecuted that often. My guess is that if someone said "I didn't do it", escaped conviction on those grounds, and then was tried again, the protection against double jeapordy would kick in.


It looks more and more like Fitz thought he could use this weakass case to flip Libby, ala the Cheney note, but apparently there is nothing for Libby to flip on and the Rove stuff proved even weaker. So Fitz is left with this weakass case.

In a low profile case, the DA would quietly fold his tent, but Fitz won't. His last hope is that something, of the Woodward variety, pops out with something more useful.

Meanwhile, the moment Fitz closes the investigation phase, AG Gonzales should review his case. Fitz probably believes this too, which explains why the investigation goes on still.


Foo Bar said:

"Libby is not on trial for "criminal negligence in the handling of classified info" or "involuntary disclosure of state secrets" (I'm not saying any such laws exist; just positing them hypothetically to make my point). Only if he were on trial for such a hypothetical crime would "should have known" as distinct from "knew [as he was testifing to the GJ] that he should have known" have any meaning or significance. He is on trial for lying to the grand jury."

Exactly, Foo Bar.

Per Fitz in his releases, the "scene of the crime" was Libby in the GJ hearing room alledgedly telling boo-boos.

Everything lines up after that fact, with the indictment and for Fitz.

@ Cecil

That would mean that Fitz is doing some kind of end-run thing.

Which is: if, in fact, Fitz is absolutely certain that his assumption is correct, that there was vendictive pushback against Wilson by the WH done with the risk in mind of harming a CIA agent's life and work then:

1)Fitz is stretching the indictment to put extra salt in the wound as just punishment for what he cannot outrightly catch Libby on, or

2)he is using this as a fishing opportunity for more of a foundation to bring additional charges...

But, you use the word "imply"? Is that a "knew and should have known" legal-type expression too, in this case?

Going to have to consult my magic 8-ball for real answers on this...

Please, keep in mind that I am not making fun of your answer. The implications and/or assumptions of this get pretty convoluted sometimes.





"Your honor the defendent refused to confess to the crime we can't prove so now we can't prosecute the defendent for committing the crime ... but ... (this is our remedy to obtain justice) ... since WE JUST KNOW HE DID IT we are charging the defendent for LYING to investigators about not comitting the crime!"

fletcher hudson

Somehow this case involves the centuries old Chinese strategy, "attack Wei to rescue Zhao". In "The Three Kingdoms", the state of Wei requested aid from Qi when it was under attack from Zhoa. Qi, rather than enter the battle, besieged Wei. Wei's army had to disengage from Zhoa to rush to defend its homeland where they were ambushed by Qi.
Here OVP (or Bush), State (w/MSM allies) and CIA (w/MSM allies) are (and were) in a constant state of war just as in the time of the Three Kingdoms. It is a bit complicated and unclear who represents who but one possibility:
OVP (Zhoa) under attack by CIA (Wei) who fires off NYT op-ed. Qi (State) attempts to rescues OVP by leaking about Plame, attacking CIA. Or,
OVP, under potential attack attack by State (Wilson) and MSM allies for pre-war intelligence, is subjected to an attempted rescue by Tenet who attacks State by a Justice referral intended to harm suspected leakers at State, In this case the "rescue" had the effect of harming OVP not State and of rescuing the CIA from a look see into its own failures. Or mayb Tenet was smart enough to figure out that the attack (referral) would rescue CIA regardless of it eventually hurt,


I must say I'm a bit flummoxed by the application of the civil standard - "knew or should have known". First I'm flummoxed that Fitzy would use it - most prosecutors I know are clueless about anything civil. And secondly isn't he bringing himself back into an arena he doesn't want to play in? I thought he had backed off from the covert thing?

(Maybe Clarice knows if that standard is used in any other criminal law contexts.)

Does anyone know what page of the pleadings it is on? I don't have the time to read the whole thing and I'd like to see the context.

It almost sounds as if Fitzy is without an anchor and just throwing stuff around that he thinks might sound good. He certainly has (had) a better reputation than that, so perhaps I'm missing something.


Jack Eckenrode is mentioned in the Oct 28, '05 Fitz article as a special agent who lead a team of investigators for Fitz? Can you tell us more about him?


fh, fascinating, and true, but the typepad god needs a sacrifice; we're being inadvertently edited. Apparently Larwyn and Soylent weren't enough.


Maybe Clarice knows if that standard is used in any other criminal law contexts I've seen it in cases of criminal negligence where is makes sense.

Eckenrode resigned some months ago from the FBI and returned to Pennsylvania.

Other Tom

My recollection is that Fitz used the "knew or should have known" phrase during oral argument, not in his papers, and I think it was simply a misstatement. But one thing that confuses me greatly is that, as far as I am aware, he is resisting producing evidence as to her covert status. I don't see how the judge can allow him to avoid producing evidence of her status if he is going to argue at trial that Libby knew she was covert (or "classified") and that he therefore had a reason to lie, and did lie, to the grand jury about disclosing that she worked for the CIA.


'Alias' was cancelled today and she did alot along with Plame to recruit upstanding loyal Americans.



Eckenrode used to work for Comey?

Didn't Thoms Lifson write an article explaining the difference between "classified" and "covert"? Perhaps his article should be "added" (linked?) to the razzledazzle URL (and, thanks again for the link!)

I would also suggest adding the links to Clarice's articles at the RD URL in a thread by itself.


If Libby "knew or should have known" Plame's status was classified then why does the gov't refuse to produce said evidence?? Libby keeps asking for it and Fitz keeps saying he either doesn't have it or it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter then what's the fuss about??


The lefties referred to an incident of the past where Corallo denied whatever was happening to Livingstone, then a few days later Livingstone resigned.

Therefore, the lefties refuses (refused) to believe Corallo's denials against JL's articles.

Luskin was also home for computer repair.

York also pointed out that Justice was contacted and confirmed that Gonzalez did not show up at the courtroom.

As for WAPO, one can easily identify WAPO and JL's for their slopping reporting. They are all the same.

Crud on Sigmour Hersh - he just published an article about the NSA warrantless surviellance.

This whole Libby case continues to get bizarre as people learn more about the CIA leaks.

Cecil Turner

I believe it is perjury if you commit a crime and then lie about it.

I think you'd have a pretty good case if all you did was claim innocence, otherwise every failed "not guilty" plea could be followed by perjury prosecution. But my real problem with your statement was that you went farther than that, claiming the reason Fitz couldn't prove Libby knew was because of the perjury. If Libby merely failed to give any information, Fitz would be in the same boat, and Libby clearly can't be compelled to testify against himself.

But, you use the word "imply"? Is that a "knew and should have known" legal-type expression too, in this case?

Actually should have said "insinuate," because I didn't mean it in the logical sense. And yes, I think his consistent statements along that path mean it was intentional. My pet theory on why he did it is because, if it is admitted into evidence, it makes jurors more prone to convict (on the "get Capone for tax evasion because we know he's a thug" cosmic justice type thing).


Has Foley responded to those questions, btw?


In fact libby had and absolute obligation thar he "knew that he should have known".
I am sure someone will be able to extend this further....probably somewhere pre-natal."Libby was born to know,he should have known"

Barney Frank


I think it goes beyond just being your pet theory. Its seems to plainly be one of his main strategies, as it would be for every prosecuter if they were allowed to get away with it. It is, as always, up to the judge to prevent prejudicial insinuations by the prosecution from being allowed unless they have evidentiary back up, which he apparently doesn't.


Eckenrode retired, he did not resign. He reportedly got on very well with Fitzgerald.


"He is on trial for lying to the grand jury."


"Which is: if, in fact, Fitz is absolutely certain that his assumption is correct, that there was vendictive pushback against Wilson by the WH done with the risk in mind of harming a CIA agent's life and work then:"

One of the mystic "fixed ideas" or "givens" in this case,completely unsubstantiated.

Exactly how the administration could refute Wilson's lie about his trip being at the behest of the VP without other details emerging is somewhat a puzzle.
A flat denial would only raise the question of,
"Who did then"?
I can see the noble Fourth Estate buying into that one.
A further answer of "We can't tell you" would lead to the obvious conclusion that it was CIA or some such agency.

Whence came this odd concept of outing as punishment? I believe David Corn used it early on,but Wilson has milked it for all it is worth.It has never been established that the outing,if such existed, was either with malice aforethought or actually a genuine punishment.So far the minutia of the case has been deliberately used to obfuscate some of the very shakey foundations which set it in motion.

"I don't see how the judge can allow him to avoid producing evidence of her status if he is going to argue at trial that Libby knew she was covert (or "classified") and that he therefore had a reason to lie, and did lie, to the grand jury about disclosing that she worked for the CIA."

Exactly Other Tom,this is another of the "fixed ideas" which Fitz is managing to avoid substantiating.


It's the last episode of 'Alias' tongiht.

'Plame's eary years.'


I hope Judge Walton will see these"fixed ideas"for what they are worth-made up stories by Corn, Wilson Ray Pincus et al to make a mountain out of a molehill and flesh out Fitz's disappearing case.


please don't insult Jennifer Garner aka Sydney Bristow on "Alias" by placing her in comparison to Val Plame. Sydney could kick Val's behind anyday!

Sara (Squiggler)

OT -- Could I ask a legal question?

In Saturday's mail, there was a piece of mail addressed to someone who does not live at this address and has never lived at this address or had any legal tie to this address. It states that it is "service by United States Mail" and details an award of $10,130.44 and appears to be findings by an arbitrator.

My son opened it in error and now I'm not sure what to do. The sender obviously thinks they are complying to the rules on service and that they've complied with this letter. However, the person who is supposedly the party on the other side of the arbitration has not received this letter and has no chance of receiving it because it is presently sitting here on my lap. Do I send it back to the sender with a note that they must have the wrong address for the party they are trying to notify. Do I just put it in an envelop and mark it undeliverable as addressed or do I do nothing? I'm worried because in reading through the arbitration findings, it looks like there is the implication that a lien against the property could be filed to collect. I own this property and bought it as new construction, so there has never been another owner since it was built in 2001. The date they mention in the letter reads "on or before 06/07/05." I don't want to find myself down the road having to deal with something that happened in error that had nothing to do with us because someone had a typo in a mailing address that could come back negatively on my property address.


Take it to the post office in its original envelope and note on the envelope a"addressee not at this address return to sender and opened in error"--Better yet have your son do it. He's old enough to deal with this crap himself.


Seriously, Sara..You just spent last week bailing him out on his college assignment.
Toughen up and do him and any furture wife of his a favor..this extended adolescence thing is not a good idea.

Sara (Squiggler)

Thanks. I will have him do it. I've been a nervous wreck over that potential lien wording. I'm not worried that I can't prove my position, but I can't afford to pay attorneys to prove a negative.


You might also write a letter to the arbitrator detailing thatyou are the owner of this property, that no one else has ever had an interest in it, and that the addressee is unknown to you. Send that certified mail and notify your title insurance company about the letter. I smell some fraud.


I'm starting to get worried about you. Hope you are recuperating. remember "24" season finale tonight from 8:00 to 10:00.Hope to see you online soon.

Sara (Squiggler)

This is just an aside on the above but kind of ties in with the whole Fitz known or should have known language ... in the list of arbitrator findings there is the statement: "all parties have had the opportunity to present all evidence and information to the Arbitrator." They also mention it is a 2nd notice. We have not had any other correspondence of this type so it would seem that this error has occurred in preparing this last document. Are mistakes like this a common occurrence?



The other person isn't the contractor who built your home is it?

Sara (Squiggler)

My Mother and I bought this property as new construction 06/17/2001 as joint tenants and after my divorce was final. She died 28 August 2004. On 01/14/2005 the deed was re-recorded after probate settlement to reflect my ownership as sole proprietor. The addressee is unknown to me and certainly had no interest in this property ever.

I worry because part of the reason for my divorce which proceedings began in 1998 and completed in May 2001 had to do with identity theft by my ex's bimbo and my credit cards. The name, however, is not hers either, it is a male's name, so I might just be worried because of past experience and not for any real reason. When you've been dragged through hell once, you tend to get very gun shy about having it start all over again.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, I don't know who the person is. The contractor was a development company/builder and in looking at some of our original paper work, they are always listed as a corporation not an individual.


Contact your title insurance company. Now. And the Arbitrator and counsel listed for the plaintiff and defendant. Most likely it is a typo but it may be a scam. The more time you spend worrying, the less time you have to protect your interests. Move it.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice -- Yes Ma'am! Thank you.


Let us review the Wilson article "What I did not find in Africa" which really grabbed the national attention:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.
The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

I don't see any "Wilson lie" there that needs to be refuted.

Here is the fact that seems hard to spin, though some people are desparately trying to spin:
How is it that the Bush administration came to know about everything which supported the war decision, and knew nothing about anything which did not support the war decision. The Niger ambassador's report? Cheney knew nothing. Wilson's report? Again Cheney knew nothing about it. The report from the NATO general? Cheney knew nothing about it. Hadley was twice told by the intelligence about the unreliability of the Niger information. Cheney knew nothing about it. Allegations from Italy and Britain? Aha - this really got Cheney's attention.

That is what would have been hard for Cheney to answer. These guys knew well before Wilson's NYT article about what Wilson was saying, and they had adequate time to respond. The response was what? An admission that the "sixteen words" should not have been in Bush's speech. And a whisper campaign to some reporters. Does not appear like the response of someone who was being forthright.

Much has been made of whether or not Plame was covert. Victoria Toensig has appeared so many times on TV to say that the law she wrote was not broken. I don't know how someone who does not even know what activities Plame undertook for the CIA in the 5 years would be qualified to make such an unqualified assertion. I would like to know why Toensig and all the armchair quarterbacks did not advise Libby and Rove then to declare that the IIPA was not broken, and for them to testify then before the FBI that they may have spoken to reporters. Incidentally the Bush spokesman even said then that Rove and Libby had no involvement in any leak to the reporters.

IMO the most plausible explanation I have heard is that these false public statements and the false statements to the FBI were made when the investigation was under Ashcroft, and when the testimony of the reporters would not have been sought. Now we are watching a shifting story based on reaction to things that have been revealed.

Sara (Squiggler)

Congressman Jefferson press conference -- won't discuss facts of case because it is criminal investigation. Claiming search illegal. Outraged. Blah blah blah. Plan to continue with representing the people who sent me here.


Wilson's op ed must be read in the light of statements he made earlier to EPIC and to reporters like Pincus and Kristof (anonymously sources) which shaded what was in the Op Ed. And which was amplified by the reports which followed (ie Corn's The Nation) and his statements to the SSCI about the forgeries which he was forced to retract. The also must be read together with the stories sourced by his VIPers allies (Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern in particular).

Toensing can state that Plame was not "covert" from the public record facts, icnlduing, of course, those in Wilson's own book. To meet the IIPA test she had to be covert for the preceding 5 years and she wasn't.
For much the same reason we can discount any claim that the agency was doing everything in its power to keep her identity secret (IIPA, again). It plainly wasn't.

The rest of your argument is as weak at those examples I chose to respond to.


I'm starting to get worried about you. Hope you are recuperating. remember "24" season finale tonight from 8:00 to 10:00.Hope to see you online soon.---

ME TOO...Larwyn where are you?

Gary Maxwell

Pete is a repeat over and over.


I just email Larwyn, but then if she was answering her email then she'd be tank style commenting here as usual.

Sara (Squiggler)

I had an email from Larwyn on May 9th and not a word since.

Other Tom


First, there is no lie in the sentence you quoted. However, the sentence was subsequently, and very publicly, misinterpreted by network news correspondents and by at least one Senator in a disucssion with one of those correspondents, to mean that Wilson had been sent by the VP. Wilson was certainly aware of this misinterpretation, but never stepped forward to correct it. Silence in response to a known falsehood is fraudulent behavior.

Second, the Bush Administration was aware of both the evidence supporting the presence of WMD and the less persuasive evidence to the contrary. In going to war it acted in reliance on the National Intelligence Estimate, which is a consensus document prepared and submitted to the president in light of all of the varying, often conflicting, reports that all of the nation's intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA, are required to provide.

Third, the VP was unaware of Wilson's "report" because it was oral, not written (why?), and was not deemed by the CIA to be of sufficient value to pass on to Cheney or anyone else at the White House. Moreover, that oral report (according to the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) tended to confirm, rather than refute, the allegation that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium from Niger.


Dear Pete,

You have not read the SSIC report, or you would know why the debriefing report (not a written one by Joe by the way) never made it to Cheney--it was deemed to be too insignificant, and what little Joe found seemed to back up what the British had.

He said he was sent by the agency "to provide a response to the Vice President" , yet the first time Cheney knew about it was in the pages of various papers! Duh. Now if Foley's group had something, based on what Joe found, knowing that Foley was "resentful" of the VP, don't you think they would have pushed it hard? Maybe they couldn't push it, because there was squat to push.

And I think we already know what Joe thought before he ever went to Niger--did you see Val's memo about the "crazy" reports in the SSIC report? Sounds a little biased to me. Like maybe Joe would be an excellent person to push Val's group's fixed idea about Niger.

And then we have the timeline for the Italian forgeries. Doesn't fit with what Joe was claiming, also in the SSIC report. Gee.

As far as Val's status goes..see Novak, Woodward, Pincus and even gasp...Dana Priest over that. Why would Toensing have had to address that?

And in case you have not noticed, Fitzgerald is the one who is trying to avoid Val's "Classified" status, not Libby's lawyers.

And while we're talking about "classified" status, ask the bleach blond 007 wannabe why she outed herself to a married fling on the third date? Did the agency OK that? And what about the 5 witnesses Libby's team has?

Libby has made "false statements" only if you believe a pack of partisan journos who, in my mind, have a lot less credibility that he does.

Face it, this case is crap. Leaking her name was not illegal, or a whole bunch of other people would already be indicted.


I thought Fitz wanted the Wilson article admitted into evidence to help show Libbys' state of mind and what was going on in the office where he worked.

Well in that article, THE BOSS, DICK CHENEY, wrote that Joe Wilsons wife sent him to Niger...AND HE DIDN'T CLASSIFIY THAT STATEMENT.

So the office state of mind would be that the boss believes this to be unclassified.


ts, sara..the most recent email I got from Larwyn was on May 19 and it looks as if she was having some difficulty mechanically with posting--I hope she's well and that it is just her computer..


I bet you won't find any reference to it in the Lamestream media since 2003 but Joe Wilson himself believed Iraq not only had WMD but that they would use them on our troops.

With all the media saying Wilson was debunking the Iraq WMD intel - it deeply undercuts their tale if they have to admit they can easily find 20 quotes from every liberal and ultra liberal who claimed Iraq had WMD.



I know we have several veterans who post here. Please check this site if you haven't already...

http://www.firstgov.gov/veteransinfo.shtml>Latest Information on Veterans Affairs Data Security

This data contained identifying information including names, social security numbers, and dates of birth for up to 26.5 million veterans and some spouses, as well as some disability ratings. Importantly, the affected data did not include any of VA's electronic health records nor any financial information.

"And while we're talking about "classified" status, ask the bleach blond 007 wannabe why she outed herself to a married fling on the third date? Did the agency OK that?"

It wasn't quite like that,Joe asked,"Did the earth move for you as well"....Val replied,"I could tell you thet,..but then I would have to kill you".

Appalled Moderate

It was slow in Plame land. Not an indictment in sight. Not even a hearing or a transcript or even a leak. Nothin but a few pages of an old defense brief blowin down main street

Some folks at the emptywheel saloon were talkin, sure. Someone had seen Karl the Rove at O'hare airport, somewhere near the sherrif's office. But naw, he was just talking to some of the boys at one of the saloons down thar.

Meanwhile, here at the Minuteman Cafe, the regulars were worryin over warmed over Niger, cause there was nothin fresh. "Heck", said deadeye maxwell, "Even mockin that Leopold character's losin it's interest."

"well, he is settin some kind of record for bein' wrong", said some other guy named Tom.

"True, but bein wrong for days on end gets borin"

"This is the pits", said Clarice, sipping her ice tea. "I have to find me another case unless Fitz goes and does something."

"I hate admittin this" said Boris. "But I'm hopin, somehow, this Leopold feller's got a handle on some truth in all the lies he's tellin."

"Yes, I thought that too" said T.M., swabbing the bar.

"You see, if he's got somethin true amongst them lies we have something to talk about. Otherwise..."

"It's either immigrants or somebody seeking aluminum tubes in Niger or something like that" said a morose brit sipping a warm beer. "Nothing fun in that"

And so, they waited. But their number dwindled. Only 90 comments where there were once 450....

TM thought -- ruefully. Unless Fitz does somethin stupid, we got a lot restin on that Leopold fellow. And that's a helluva place for a good GOP man to be...

(Note -- A certain moderate was found stuffed in an outhouse somewhere near firedoglake. Nobody has explained this heinous crime....)


Thanks Calrice

That is good news, or better news.


AM--Very good.

Rick Ballard


I wonder how Val's book will treat her disclosure to Joe of her true value as an intelligence asset?

What I really wonder is whether the CIA will exercise any control over the book. They do have a signed NDA from dear Val, I would think. Probably countersigned by MOM in disappearing ink, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.