Powered by TypePad

« Zaladonis Ex Machina | Main | A Special Prosecutor In The Duke Rape Case? »

June 02, 2006



sara-I'll take a shot on 2 of the three.

Coooper/Libby: Cooper on Plame/Wilson Libby said I heard that too. Libby on Plame/Wilson: I heard that too from reporters.

Russert/Libby: Russert: Libby/Russert discussed a TV show. Libby: Libby/Russert, Libby said that they discussed that all the reporters knew about Plame.

Don't know what's going on w/Miller.



"So you did your investigation and found UGO had leaked to Novak...wasn't that the end of your investigation??"

And just for fun:

Did your investigation turn up any evidence Libby knew about UGO leaking?

It's an answer that would seem to have immense bearing on whether Libby knew enough to be able to "obstruct" in the first place...


One of the biggest reasons that I'm losing respect for President Bush, is either his unwillingness or inablility to take on the press.>
He's unable to because he's unwilling to; Bush, ironically considering the evil persona his foes would ascribe to him, is just too polite and "process"-oriented to lash into the media. And the notion that Bush isn't free to criticize Fitz's protracted nonsense doesn't wash; Bush can say anything he pleases about the case, and he could do so in a way that effectively paints Fitz as a partisan lackey. For the sake of November, Bush needs to grow some stones, and quickly.


Sadly, I'm beginning to think that being on Bush's team means you'll always stand alone whether you're our military under fire from insurgents or the media, Libby, or his base.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, in fact, I'm anxious to but the President has demoralized his supporters.

I agree, he could have spoken out against Fitzgerald's nonsense months ago, instead, he calls him dignified, yuck.


I think it's a disaster for Libby.

After sleeping on it I'm thinking maybe not. Libby's lawyers seem like real barracudas to me. I really doubt this came as much of a surprise to them. My guess is they threw everything against the wall to see what stuck. They were hoping for 10% of what they asked for and if they got 12% they'd be happy.

And while I don't think they're playing for an appeal it is smart baseball for them to keep extra innings open as a possibility.

What I can't guess is what this represents opposed to what they expected to get. I'm guessing they might still be hung over from the party after the ruling over Cooper's drafts.

Fitz still has to cobble together a case using a bunch of reporters that aren't exactly geniuses.

To me the defense biggest challenge is the DC Jury. I still don't understand why they haven't requested a change of venue.

In the meantime I'll keep my hat on.

Tom Maguire

From the short CIPA ruling, we see that Ms. Plame's employment status from Jan 2002 forward will be summarized.

Why that date? Her twins were (IIRC) three in 2003, and she had post-partum depression.

She also took a leave from June 2004 to June 2005 (Daily Telegraph said "forced leave", IIRC).

I have a hard time believing her new, post Jan 2002 job was super-duper classified and important.

But that is what we got - any ideas?


Quit contributing to the libby defense fund.


Herbie!!!!!!!! YOU ARE SO SMART! I tell you, what would we do without Herbie the Wonder Dog's cool grasp of things?


TM, it's a puzzlement.I still think that after the agency outed her to Cuba, they may have kept her at her old status simply for wage/benefit reasons.In other words, I feel that she was in actuality over-classified. Certainly it does not appear that her status would come within the IIPA.


By the way...Jeff Goldstein has been breaking world exclusives on the Rove Indictment this last week. Check out his latest...


January 1,2002, is the same curious date that Fitz used as a beginning time bracket for Plame's CIA status in the indictment,[or was it at the press conference]. I've always wondered why he decided to go by that date. Joe's trip to Niger happened one month later. Did FItz pick that date arbitrarily or did she come back to work at the CIA then after a long maturnity leave?


Certainly it does not appear that her status would come within the IIPA.

What if it did but for the fact that Wilson had a big mouth? What are the odds that Fitz didn't know Wilson was running around bragging about his Jane Bond? Maybe that is why Fitz said in the presser that prosecuting for the little case would take care of the punishment he felt was deserved but for the fact that Wilson threw sand in his eyes?


Yeah, interesting question about Valerie's timeline... Back when she was recruited, one of several focii of the security clearance process was concerned with mental health questions. (I have wondered if that was Scary Larry's career-ending problem, but I digress.) (This is even better understood as a good idea in the wake of Robert Hanssen, who appears to have sold out his country in order to get revenge on all authority figures because his father was abusive.) Now PPD take several forms, and the typical form is short and acute and then the mother recovers completely. But plenty of PPD moms end up with permanent mental-health issues even after the acute phase is over. I have to have some pretty serious questions as to why she was allowed to keep her security clearance, and just how diligent the CIA was in clearing her for duty...

Obviously when the VP was taking his pen to the margin of Joe's op-ed he didn't know about any of that. But if he did, don't you think he would be questioning that as well? Fitzgerald's pattern of covering up looks ever more and more focused on the outcome of voiding the executive's constitutional mandate to supervise the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies.

cathy :-)


I remember asking this at some point...did Val go with hubby on business trip/french vacation? Something is just so strange..


Thanks for the tip, ts--Don't skip the comments. A couple are very funny, too.


"""One of the biggest reasons that I'm losing respect for President Bush, is either his unwillingness or inablility to take on the press"""

I hate that too. I had thought Bush would take them on early in his adminstration but he had the 'NEW TONE" attitude.

I would suspect that every political operative Bush has advising him tells him the same thing:



The real question isn't and cannot be Plames' status because she is retired and no longer works there. Finding out now that she was a covert operative is meaningless...and especially if it could be turned over to the defense without it being made public.

The real question is why can't they just take out the classified stuff?? Or even leave it in since the Libby lawyers are cleared for the information.

Something smells here..first the judge says he can't have it, then makes some stupid statements about him finding it is critical information to the National Security (NOT EVEN AN ISSUE HERE) then ends up with Libby getting a summary.

And how is the judge going to steer the Libby lawyers clear of bringing up classified during cross examination of the investigators if they don't know what to steer clear of??

Is Fitz really going to get to argue that Libby's motive to lie was because he knew he had revealed classified information---and then not charge him with that crime, nor show evidence that Libby knew it was classified?

Is Fitzs' hook that Libby was 'in the room' when a conversation took place regarding the disclosure ipacts of outing a covert agent??

And didn't the CIA themselves confirm for Novak her employment at the CIA???

Carol Herman

Patton, The press ain't winning.

They may buy their ink by the truckload, but they're losing customers. And, their profits are down. They're also the life-blood of the Internet RESPONSE TEAM. That it looks chaotic?

I'm sure it looked chaotic to the Red Coats, who were trained, (and who had bullets by the truckloads), to see American farmers aiming at them "when the white's of their eyes, appeared."

Also, for a man who chooses PATTON as a name tag, I'm somewhat surprised that you want the President OUT FRONT. On his horse, I'd presume?

While I can remember that Lincoln got terrible press in his time. He stayed focussed none-the-less. An, UNCOMPROMISING. So slavery was expunged from our Constituiton.

The South, after Lincoln, made a choice to "not-integrate." BUT THEY WERE BACKWARDS. They lived without electricity. Without indoor plumbing. And, rednecks were as poor as black folk. It seemed that time stood still. (And, it did. The South was the place considered bery "laid back" by the North.) And, the North industrialized.

When did the South get "electrified?" NOt until the Great Depression, when FDR was looking for Projects he could send men out on, where they could earn money. Since jobs were scarce. And, the Tennessee Valley Authority was born. (If you could put history into a nutshell, that's about "it.")

We're at war now, and about half the country is quite willing to let things go to hell in a handbasket. HOWEVER, the Elites are losing seats of power in all of this stuff. And, maybe, I could'a told them so? Way back in the 1950's Americans, across this great nation, rejected Adeli Stevenson. Because we're just not like the French. Eggheads aren't gonna climb to the top of the mountain. (Just like the Catholic Church learned, too. Once Christianity blossomed, they got to take an American back seat. Not one up front.)

By the way, off topic, in Iraq, Al Qeada just attacked a Russian diplomat's car. Killing one, and taking all the rest hostage. While Putin is playing "big man" in St. Petersberg; hosting the G8.

Terror's not as easy to whip as wars go. Because it's local. And, hidden among the civilians. While in Iraq, the purple-fingered people brought in a leadership that is now turning very anti-American. So, I hope Bush remains steadfast. While I also hope we cut back on the AID business, where we were dropping mega-bucks into a sewer building stuff that never really appeared on the scene, in order to "buy" our way into being liked. Heck, the Marshall Plan really failed at this job, too.

While we also know, now, that there are people in our government just as steadfast as the scum in Iraq. Willing to win at any costs. But never quite able to get more than 47% of the total votes. So they attack in other ways.

Which is just what's going on now.

Nixon DID take on the press! And, lost "big time." This time the same tactics are running into problems for those who "buy ink by the truckload." But they're out there selling Edsel's.


Patton-President Bush needs a bullhorn moment with his domestic enemies. His personal philosophy seems to be "turn the other cheek". But he's a leader and that does not work.

He does not have to be nasty, he could just remind the American people of the terrible track record of the media in reporting events, encourage the media to admit mistakes since he set an example in his presser last week, turn the tables on them and make them act a little more responsibly.

Could the coverage be any worse?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'So apparently the judge has turned this into a Seinfeld episode where the charges are ABOUT NOTHING.'

Which is what it always seemed to me. The very definition of trivia.

So Team Libby ought to embrace the concept. Convince the jury that a bunch of middle aged Americans can't be held to precise memories of trivial details of their political opponents wive's employment. 'What are we doing here wasting everyone's time?'

What's Fitz going to say in response, 'WAS TOO, A BIG DEAL.'?

Walton seems to be precluding that.


I have a hard time believing her new, post Jan 2002 job was super-duper classified and important.

But that is what we got - any ideas?


The only idea I have about her classified vs non-classified status is that having been a covert agent at one time, and then having her cover blown and blown again - once by an internal CIA spy and once by a stupid mistake wasn't it? - they simply left her classified.

Its not like the CIA spends a ton of time making sure everything they have on the 'classified' list is a super duper secret. And beside that her blown cover represented failure on their part - twice. It was an embarrassment and they weren't going to declassify anything about it without a damn good reason.

National security and all, very hush hush, on the QT mate, life of the Queen and all, dontcha know.

I think it was just a stale classification but that's pretty much what I've always thought about it when I've considered whether she was actually classified.


PRS, I love that Seinfeld analogy.


---I think it was just a stale classification but that's pretty much what I've always thought about it when I've considered whether she was actually classified.---

I think it was an oversight (or overlook for paygrade) that she was keenly aware of and knew could be exploited.


President Bush is biding his time. Even with the Haditha story he will wait and see. With the dems constantly screaming about stuff ordinary people start to tune out. They don't want to hear depressing negative news all the time. Come August and the fall I think you are going to see concrete ideas and restraint in spending from Repubs and whining from the Dems. Look at the Medicare drug issue. Dems thought they had an issue now they want to try and build on it and co-opt it for themselves. Someone wrote an article and said Dems have no leadership -no one to rally around. Bush will speak up at the crucial opportune moment. The dems were too dense to realize the corruption in their own party-Mollohan, Jefferson Reid{free boxing tickets} though Reid does think he's entitled to those tickets.They are and continue to be LOSERS.


What maryrose said. The Crawford Kid is a superb poker player. Also a student of Jackson at New Orleans, as Carol Herman said. He knows how to trap an overconfident opponent. Patience.


Kate: ""He does not have to be nasty, he could just remind the American people of the terrible track record of the media in reporting events"""

Then the press will spin it into a desparate President lashing out at his opponents due to low poll numbers...the press will be real happy to see they are getting to him.

At the end of the day, it is probably better to ignore them rather then let them drive events. I just wish Bush would do and say more that sends the right messages without taking on the press directly.

Some nice zingers and quips would be nice. I think the press hates it when you call them liberals, that they get their talking points from the DNC, make jokes about NBC reporters being Howard Dean puppets.

He needs to make it a joke, and show them he and the public should consider them a joke.

He should give Chris Mathews a one on one interview and say:

Hi Chris, doing this one on one gives you a bigger audience then MSNBC.

Or, I just tune into MSNBC to see what the Democrat message of the day is....

Make them a joke...they would seeth....


Tonight's shift is like any other for the past few - maybe 5 - years. I kissed my wife goodbye at about 10:30 PM and hopped into my vintage but somewhat rust covered Pacer for my nightly excursion into the city. Same route, same signs, same buildings; I swear even the same hookers on the same corners for as long as I have traveled this path.

I arrive at the warehouse and park in the same slot that I've parked in for what seems time immemorial. Well - I assume it's a parking space. There are no more lines actually visible on the cracked asphalt. The weeds are coming up through each crack. The amount of illumination from the old fashioned security lamps mounted atop 30 foot poles is very weak, leaving pools of darkness throughout the near-empty lot. Every other light has either burned out or been turned off as the company attempts to save money. They haven't even replaced the driveway sign which is now beginning to crumble to the ground. From next to it I can hardly make out the shape of our once proud company logo.

I enter the building through the creaking and rusted personnel door, coming into what used to be called "mahogany row". On the left is the main office where during the day a secretary sits. I know the proper term is something different nowadays, but she does not even have an executive to report to. She simply processes invoices.

Back in the day this place was crawling with workers. There was actually a VP in place to oversee the distribution of our precious commodity. And hundreds of people like me - offloading incoming cargo, or loading the outgoing - bound for the company processing plants - onto smaller trucks.

Now the warehouse is like a ghost town - even during the day. And at night, it can be downright scary. The company has shut down most of the lights to conserve money and I am the only person working the night shift. I used to run a crew during the day, but as cutbacks were made, things changed. I guess I am lucky though - at least I got to keep my job.

At 11 PM promptly (no overtime anymore) I punch in on the old fashioned time clock mounted on a rusty piece of iron plating to the right of the door. Gotta be careful to make sure that this antique actually punches your card. Sometimes it doesn't and then the company doesn't pay.

I pick up the clipboard from the metal bins hanging near the secretary's desk to see what I need to plan for this shift. As has happened more often than not recently, 5 incoming truckloads to offload and only 1 going out. That means that once again I have to find space in the warehouse for ther oversupply.

I leave Mahogany Row, and move into the warehouse structure. It is a cavernous building. Straight ahead are the loading docks, and they are mostly clear of obstacles. but as far as you can see, left and right are stacks of 55 gallon barrels; all in orderly rows, all laid out four barrels to a pallet. Some of the stacks go as high as 5 pallets. With tonights schedule I know I will be getting almost 100 new pallets, and only 10 pallets going out. Somehow, somewhere I need to find room for the other 90 pallets.

The biggest problem in this is we have been ordered to use FIFO - First In First Out - which means I have to stack those 90 pallets in a back corner, and then move the stuff that was there forward. What a pain, but it keeps me busy and I still get a paycheck every week.

Walking through the row upon row of stacked pallets I can't halp but notice the dust, cobwebs, bird's nests, and rusty on barrels from the leaks in the roof during even the lightest rain. Stray cats move on the edges of my peripheral vision. That's ok because they take care of the rat problem down here by the river. Finally I find a likely location for the new pallets.

As I return to the loading dock, I hear the horn of the first arriving truck. I open the massive door - we have to use a chain and pulley system now, the company has removed the electric openers - and hop onto my propane driven fork lift. For the life of me I can't understand why the company keeps buying more and more of this stuff and using less and less. I guess I chalk it up to management SNAFU. The truck backs into the dock and the driver comes around to open the door. I move my lift in and pick up the first pallet - 4 barrels of ink bound for the presses at the New York Times. Nuts.


Like my story?


I like Drudgery's.Is you he?


Specter...yes very, very much.


clarice - yes it was me. But didn't think Specter was the proper moniker.


It is very well done..


Thanks, guys. I feel better. I get very frustrated with the media and lived through Viet Nam and how they destroyed the will to fight and respect for our military.

I just would hate to see it happen again. I liked the story too!


Thanks. It was the image of buying ink by the truckload that set me off.....


I really liked your story. Please consider doing more.You learned some excellent writing skills from the nuns.


Maybe Val's undercover work has been related to Joe and his various activities. A marriage and kids and driving to Langly everyday would appear like retirement to those who knew she was covert before. And Joe *knows* how *hot* he is. He wouldn't suspect a thing.

Carol Herman

Yes, Patrick R. Sullivan. The "Seinfeld" analogy has legs.

I fear, though, that Fitz will do his PRESSER in front of the jurors. And, Wells can seeth. But the judge doesn't gavel it down.

Gaveling begins as soon as Wells starts. How many interferences can Fitz run? As many as he likes, I think. I expect the judge's gavel to interfere with everything Wells tries to do to defend his client.

That's just the way it goes.

Most of us love to believe that as soon as you're credentialed, we can trust ya. But in medicine patients are lost to incompetence; and in the law, this happens even more often.

Martha Stewart was her own worst enemy. Because I love to read, and in the days long ago when I watched TV, I was mesmerized by Gerry Spence when he'd be on Larry King; I went after all of Spence's books. He's given me the best explanation on why Martha got Railroaded. SHE HIRED HER ATTORNEY THE SAME WAY SHE MAKES FRIENDS AT HER COUNTRY CLUB.

And, it's here that people go wrong. People die, too, when they pick their country club buddies when they get sick. And, there's nothing ya can do about it, either. Rodney Dangerfield, for instance, not only did not get any respect when he was alive. He didn't have ISOM doing his bypass. What can ya do?

Gerry Spence cuts to the chase. Most "country club" lawyers are failures because they spend the most time at the club. And, not in front of juries. If you play "sorority games" long enough your skills in front of a jury don't count at all.

When I heard the "cross" Martha's lawyer did against a kid! A 23 year old kid! Who was their main witness; I knew Martha was gonna get tossed in jail. And, her designer clothes, didn't help her, either!

Spence cuts to the chase. He says he developed his skills because he was a poor guy, out of law school, who worked on the defense side of the table for the unluckiest defendants. Those without money.

Spence knew he was a genius at arguing! So, he argued EVERYTHING. Till, after he lost a case, a kind jury woman approached him and said, "WHY DID YOU MAKE US HATE YOU SO?"

Spence addressed the issue of when a lawyer, to protect his client, has to use kid gloves on the witness. It's not a hollering match!

So, in a sense, what we know about THIS case is that Wells is qualified to handle himself in front of DC jurors. Like a good surgeon he can handle everything once he's inside the body. (So many doctors can't!) And, so many lawyers are inept.

Judith Miller also has ROBERT BENNETT, known for his brains. So, I'll assume that when this comes to court ... to borrow from a Spence analogy; "it won't be a thousand dollar saddle on a ten dollar horse." In other words the saddle isn't what get's ya uphill.

And, thank you PRS, your Seifeld analogy has hit home. People loved that show! And, as you say, "it was about nothing." However, as skimpy as "about nothing" is, it's probably the best comedy that ever was on TV. (Giving credit to Lucy. And, other favorites. Something about Seinfeld's MANNER worked the audience very, very well.)

For people on the outside of the law, it matters most when your team can go the distance.

This is also where I credit Bush. Just as I credit Lincoln. SET BACKS happen in life. There's no such thing (except in cheap movies), where you're always winning.

And, by the way, I'm LOVING Steven Lubet's LAWYER'S POKER. I'd recommend ya go to Amazon and look. Lawyers and non-lawyers, alike. Glenn Reynolds blurbed it. It does not disappoint.

Yes, we're having set backs. The race ain't over! And, in skilled hands there's no such thing that the patient has to die because of incompetence.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'PRS, I love that Seinfeld analogy.'

It was Patton's analogy, but the cast of characters does bear some similarity to the sitcom.

Joe Wilson could be one of Elaine's boyfriends. Matt Cooper looks a little like George Costanza. With his obsessiveness, Fitz is Kramer.

Carol Herman

Kudos, then, to Patton.

Oh, and Drudgery/Specter. Dear Sir, I was at Woodstock. Does it count for points? I remember those years well. They contained a big shift (like an earthquake), where this country changed. And, some of the stuff was delicious.

For 100 years the south lived its life; refusing to acknowledge much beyond their "unpleasantness." Time stood still. And, whatever Reconstruction was about; it failed. Twenty years after Lincoln was dead, life in the North progressed on Industrialized time. But in the south, the way of life was very, very different.

Though I gotta tell ya, because I have a friend who was born and lived in Louisiana, the blacks she knew preferred the south. And, hated the north. And, lots of things went unexplained when we got to the shift in Civil Rights. Too much idealism. Till reality caught up. AIDS is that piece of reality. Just as in Shakespeare's time, it was syphlis. Progress and handicaps run neck in neck.

I think we have a wonderful President. And, his learning curve is ours, too. For instance, the purple fingers in Iraq gave me hope. Now, I know better. And, we haven't figured out a way to do wars well. Because when they end, JUST LIKE THE AMERICAN SOUTH, the wrist watches people wear tell different time. Some places grow like topsy. And, others lag behind.

Today, I laugh at those who said we needed even more feet on the ground! Nope. Don't think that's gonna be sustained, ahead. Just like Israel isn't gonna walk back into hornet's nests. They clean them up, okay. But never again will want to get stuck in places where insanity is the rule.

By the way, we are post "civil rights." And, we also benefit because we've been a cultural "melting pot." Though very little melts. Most of it just knocks against each other. Still, it's a tasty stew.

And, since life isn't perfect, we've got to learn to cope. Without Bush in the White House so much, now, would be so much worse.

As to "ink by the barrel," dear Specter, I can only tell you that I was trying to explain what "carbon paper" meant to my son. When I told him, how, I thought nothing would ever replace my IBM Executive! Life's different. But going back to a time before our computers? Not gonna happen. The NY Times, to borrow an analogy, is in the same pickle the Catholic Church was in when the Printing Press came on line. The Church thought they'd contemn "vernacular." And, burned books. They thought the world would never give up Latin. Guessed wrong. And, saw such a split in the faith that they've never recovered. While the world's gone on.

About nothin. I guess that's true when you hear people complain. I think Bush's strong suit, too, is that he's an OPTIMIST. He really doesn't own speech-a-fying skills. And, he seems to exist in a very comfortable "C" zone. But he's like a heck of a lot more than eggheads! All the things we're discussing, by the way, has to do with our own learning curves, as well.

Carol Herman

Can the judge play a SHELL game?

Can he keep evidence from Libby because he's claiming the case is "small." And, then let Fitzgerald manuever into bigger game?

In the rules of evidence, and it seems Fitzgerald should have been the one to turn things over as "relevant" without even the judge's instructions; what can be parlayed?

Next Question: What risks does Walton run (where he'd look like a real idiot), but wouldn't get called on by an APPEALS COURT?

Because I always thought the law meant that the prosecutors know what to hand over, beforehand. Has our Supreme Court really left it as a tug of war?

Sara (The Squiggler)

sara-I'll take a shot on 2 of the three.

Coooper/Libby: Cooper on Plame/Wilson Libby said I heard that too. Libby on Plame/Wilson: I heard that too from reporters.

Russert/Libby: Russert: Libby/Russert discussed a TV show. Libby: Libby/Russert, Libby said that they discussed that all the reporters knew about Plame.

Don't know what's going on w/Miller.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you will be asked to convict my client based on TWO words and those TWO words are "from reporters." You will be asked to send my client to jail for the rest of his life because he added two clarifying words "from reporters." That is what this case is all about. TWO WORDS.

Bob Smith
When the prosecutor is off the rails and about to wreck his case in your courtroom you can either allow it, or shove him back onto a narrow enough path
Since when was it the judge's job to stop the prosecutor from wrecking his own case? The judge is supposed to be impartial. He's not supposed to help the prosecutor.

The judge seems to be keen to what was Libbys' STATE OF MIND but doesn't seem to think Libby needs to show the state of mind of the reporters.

Just what was the state of mind of Russert?

Did he believe the Wilson reporting that he had debunked forgeries prior to the State of the Union and now the White House had to discredit Wilson because he had FACTS on his side??

Or was her aware that Wilsons charges were bogus and Wilson was lying?

Was he attempting to solicit information from Libby?

Was he defending the lies on MSNBC?

Isn't it important to know what Russert, or Miller or Cooper had in their State of Mind as to how they may recollect the conversation?


1. Wilson is totally credible and proved Bush lied and was now covering up is ONE conversation.

2. Wilson lied his ass off and the liberals are running away from him is a different conversation.

Tom Maguire

Good point about the indictment and the Jan 2002 employment cut-off:

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Well, we don't know that Walton is going to tip against Libby in the trial - there is the theory out there that Libby's side is taking away all sorts of space from both sides.

I can't wait to hear how Fitzgerald explains what this investigation was about without mentioning Plames allegedly 9and presumably accurate) classified status.

Also, as noted above, the judge keeps saying "without merit", but he keeps giving the defense stuff - why aren't the CIA summaries likely to be an adequate substitute?

My guess - the defense swung for the fences on the referral - if it had been a shocker with no mention of her classified status, then it's their lucky day. OTOH, if, as was much more likely, it talks about her classified status, well, now they know for sure what they already suspected, and they move on.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, or as the little league coach says, swing hard in case you hit it.


Yes, but you would think that there would be no harm in showing the referral to Libby's attorneys, after all they are CLEARED security wise.

I don't think you want to be overturned on appeal..so I think there is more in the referral then Fitz/CIA wants Libby to know.

I have long suspected that Wilson wasn't the whole story. He did nothing that the
State Department couldn't do on a regular basis.

There must be more to it, either he travelled with someone or he was covering some other op.

The debrief at his home, with his wife present suggests she was more involved then has been let on.


Don't have time to look now, but was she working at the CIA on a daily basis during this time??

Or was she off (at home) and is that why the debrief occurred at the house?

And why did Wilsons report just become a contact report and fed into the intelligence cycle like thousands of others...why wasn't there follow through back to the Executive??

Sara (The Squiggler)

I am going to try to pose a question that I'm not sure how to pose without getting into something circular. Here goes ...

Classified status?

Was it her employment record that was classified, as in confidential?


Was it her assignment within the CIA that was classified, as in spy work type classified?

Does anyone know what the various levels are?

For instance, a document can be straight classified, it can be classified "Secret", it can be classified "Top Secret," or it could even be classified "Eyes Only." There are probably other degrees as well.

So are all CIA employee records considered "classified" documents and then some of the info contained in those records have even stronger designations, like details of a black op period might be classified "Top Secret," or "Eyes Only" for a section of the report.

Kevin B

Sort of off topic, but several posters have brought up the subject of Bush's lack of push back against the media, and some people, (not necessarily those here), seem frustrated and even angry at this,

I think they ought to cut the Pres some slack here, He has got other things to worry about.

On the subject of the Libby case, I doubt it keeps him up at night. (Unlike many of us here). If I were in his place, I would calculate that the worst thing I could do would be to intervene now. My reasoning would be 'Let justice take it's course, and if Libby is convicted I'll pardon him.' Then I'd put it on the back burner.

On the subject of Iraq, he probably figures that the only way that this will disappear from the headlines is when the Iraqi government stands up, the Iraqi army stands up, the Iraqi security forces stand up and the US forces are drawn down. As far as he's concerned the main political moves are in Iraqi politics.

Its true that later this year he'll have to stump for some of those congressmen and senators who have supported him so well over the last five years, but he's moved Karl back to strategy, and when the time comes he'll do his duty. And if they lose the House and/or Senate and the dumb dems decide they want to fight a four year old argument again, then he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it.

Meanwhile, he has to worry about the news from Canada and Britain. Good news that they caught them, but how many more of them are there out there, and how many are there here plotting the same sort of things.

And then there's the little problem of trying to cajole the international community into adopting some sort of rational strategy towards Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs and their nuclear ambitions.

Oh, and there's Israel and Palestine.

And Immigration. But that's not a problem, cos he can hand that off to Congress. After all, its their job to make the laws about that sort of thing. And Justice's job to enforce them.

Then there's the economy, the price of gas, Venezuala, North Korea, Afghanistan, the rest of the world, and a leader a week to host or visit.

Humans, it seems, are like most tribal animals. They have to have a leader. And there are always factions in the tribe trying to knock the leader down and get their own man in his place. Trying to keep those other factions quiet all the time can be pretty wearing, so the wise leader gets by with a nip here and a cuff there, and saves his energy for the big fight.

Bush doesn't have to fight again, but he will want to repay the loyalty of all those in his faction who have served him so well over the years so he'll do his bit in the fall, but for now he's probably more worried about a few more pressing issues.

(Warning: There may be slight traces of irony in this comment.)


A question for the experts... Walton has on numerous occasions ruled that if something is sure to be admitted into evidence, then anything that the prosecution has which is material to defending against it is discoverable right now. But that things which may or may not be used in the actual trial Libby doesn't get now. The constitutional right is to "confront accusers" and obviously what the witnesses are going to say at the trial and the questions that the defense and prosecution are going to ask are not yet totally determined. So right now the judge says that discussion of Val's status isn't admissible and as such the referral is immaterial to Libby's defense. Does that mean that the minute Fitzgerald says the word "classified" where the jury can hear him then Libby gets the referral?

cathy :-)


the theory out there that Libby's side is taking away all sorts of space from both sides.

Could you spell that theory out - and I presume you mean it beyond the trivial sense that Team Libby is taking away all sorts of space from Fitzgerald that he doesn't want, and has opposed with considerable success in the discovery skirmishes.

I can't wait to hear how Fitzgerald explains what this investigation was about without mentioning Plames allegedly 9and presumably accurate) classified status.

Is that asserted or implied by this round of rulings? I would have thought rather the opposite.

why aren't the CIA summaries likely to be an adequate substitute?

Right, I take it the idea is that they will be an adequate substitute for the actual information that would have presumably entailed revealing information seriously if not gravely damaging to national security to Team Libby. But here's the thing I've never been able to understand - what are those CIA summaries supposed to be helpful for? Or are you talking about the summaries of the PDBs, and not the summaries relating to Plame's classified status, her job and so on?

Speaking of the important national security matters on which Libby was engaged during July 6-14 and earlier and later, to which Plame was peripheral, thereby explaining any lapses in memory, was the evidently substantial attention paid to responding to Joe Wilson one of those important national security matters? Or is Team Libby going to argue that in fact Libby wasn't that concerned with responding to Wilson? What is the defense strategy in that regard?

As for the "without merit" business, I take it the judge only really has two options - a particular discovery claim from Team Libby either has merit or it doesn't. Some of them do, some of them don't. The one about the PDBs did. Most of the latest round didn't. So maybe this ruling from the judge sounds more harsh than it really is. That is, it was a big loss from the perspective of what Libby asked for, but the judge was probably not saying their claims were stupid or valueless, just that they didn't hold up at the end of the day.


Jeff-Mary Matalin said that Joe Wilson was 59th on the list of things the OVP was worried about at that time and she tends to be pretty honest. I think the documents were intended to provide some context.

I'm don't doubt they had to counter Wilson since he said the VP sent him and had other inaccuracies in his writings and interviews. This was certainly something the OVP was doing, but it was just one thing on a long list.


presumably entailed revealing information seriously if not gravely damaging to national security

It is to laugh.



I think the answer to your question is "yes".

All of these decisions on production of documents are made on requests for pre-trial discovery which, under the federal criminal rules are limited.

At trial, the constitutional confrontation rules take over, and if a subject is opened up by the prosecution's opening statement, argument or evidence, these decisions will be revisited.

Sara (The Squiggler)

OT -- it has finally cooled off where I live, the temperature is down to a cool 97 degrees (at 6:25 pm) from the high today of 108 degrees. And for the record, yes, my brain is fried.


Here's my theory on Rove. Both during and after his last GJ testimony I suspect Rove's team received some positive signals from Fitzgerald.

I believe the 2-3 weeks were put out by the Rove team in hopes of getting publically cleared. Something similar happened last November.

That did not happen, but Rove was never in imminent danger of being indicted.

However, Fitz will not clear Rove because something could still come up now or at the Libby trial.

Other reasons I think this: Rove has been giving major speeches and he has raised, not lowered, his profile.

President Bush and Rove were photographed in a solo shot walking out to the helicopter; I think Bush would distance himself from Rove is he was in danger of being indicted.

That's just my thoughts.



I think Fitzgerald will keep Rove dangling because he wants to use the continuing investigation rule in order to keep certain things from Libby.



You nailed it.


Sue-you're probably right. I viewed Rove's 5th GJ as a positive sign. If Fitz wanted to indict Rove he wouldn't need him to testify again. He could have just done it.

See I'm the David Shuster of JOM. I read the tea leafs, study the body language, look for numerical clues in filings and briefs and assign them significant meaning, talk to my buddies LJ and JW for leads and interview a panel of experts who all agree with me.


That's a pretty accurate assessment re:Rove.
I also agree Fitz is waiting to see how this all plays out and how reliable his witnesses turn out to be. My question is how much coaching of his witnesses can Fitz do?

brenda taylor

please tell me how valerie was outed with the cubans unless she was hanging around with spies like alberto coll, fulton armstrong or maby anna b. montes.just curious

Carol Herman

So many wonderful and interesting comments. Thank you, Kevin B. For putting perspective on the President's position.

When he was running, in 2004, the crowds that came out to see him were just amazing. Then, too, he wasn't supposed to be polling so well with the public. But 60,000 at a clip, would rise at 4:00 AM, to be in the stadium when he arrived with Laura. What's to say he can't raise crowds, now? He doesn't have to hit every state. Just concentrate on the pockets where a senator or representative needs exposure. And, if the president is seen as popular in that neighborhood, by definition it will help the candidate running. And, it will make a difference in the money that comes in.

Unlike the presidential election, where you're looking at one man's tally; this is something that happens state by state. Sure. There will be losses. But I don't trust the MSM at all!

And, there's a very odd piece in the Jerusalem Post, today; that's also hosted up at Lucianne's site, too. In it the editor of that paper has written about a European poll explaining that the Palestinians have TANKED. And, why there's been such a shift in Europe. Especially FRANCE. I never knew you could actually measure such changes. But obviously you can. Though those types of polls are usually just for insiders. And, they never see the light of day. (The pollster, in this case, is Clinton's old poster.)

WHAT IF THERE ARE OTHER SEA CHANGES? Attitudes that shift? We're told the President is hated by a majority. We're told Israel is also a hated country. And, then there's reality.

I really want to thank those that come here to post. It opens my eyes to lots of things. From the lawyers, on the tactics and facts that portray what can happen in this case. WHile all litigation (to borrow the word from Steven Lubet, is "uncertainty.")

Maybe, Walton just has a good POKER FACE? I'd like to think that Fitzgerald can't really pull a PRESSER in front of the jury, without opening up all the evidence that so far he refuses to show to the defense. It sounds like the trial could get messy.

Also, now we know it's not about "nothing." It's about a TWO WORD difference: "from reporters."

As to what information the referral letter had to contain; it's possible it contains stuff about Val's "doings." Under the covers? Would it go that far? A Monica Lewinsky IN the CIA? At work on assignments deliverying more than pizza?

We still have spies in cuba?

What happens IF someday the referral letter is made public, and all we can see is who signed it? And, what cock and bull story it tells?

Martha Stewart walked into court, and the jurors did not like her. And, her lawyer only made things worse. For OJ, the opposite happened. And, for Libby? I think he's got the best lawyer in town. That's not chopped liver, when it comes to lawyers. Or surgeons.

I don't read, here, a hatred of Libby at all. And, I don't see Val developing points as a super-spook. She may have done more harms, so far, to the CIA's reputation, than Mark Felt's done to the FBI's.

Besides, everything I'm learning about this case I'm learning here. The Internet has provided magical keys. What wonderful insights.


brenda, As I recall it a document listing a number of NOCs , including Val, was transmitted , not in a diplomatic pouch, but in some way that allowed it to end up in Castro's hands.

brenda taylor

clarice i was wondering because ive been reading about john bolton and i also watched the hearing ,so iwas wondering these names keep coming up especially alberto coll and fulton armstrong.


"please tell me how valerie was outed with the cubans unless she was hanging around with spies like alberto coll, fulton armstrong or maby anna b. montes.just curious"

Hey Brenda,

Check out Wayne Smith of CIP (Dana Priest's husband's think tank) You know, the one that got Joe his media gigs through the Iraq Policy Information Project? Then ask yourself--where did Anna B. Montes get her graduate degree, and when was is she got recruited for for Castro ideological reasons?

You really really need to read her statement to the court after her guilty plea, if you haven't already. It sounds just like a CIP policy statement--or something Fulton Armstrong would write. I also want to know who paid her lawyer.

Also note, Fulton Armstrong (a former member of Clinton's NSC along with Joe and MOM) was a major factor in the attack on both Otto Reich and John Bolton--and what think tank spearheaded that effort? Why yes, you're right! The one and only CIP.

I'm telling you what--Joe and Val hang with a very interesting crowd. Guess it's one of those "Birds of a feather" kind of things.


Guess it's one of those "Birds of a feather" kind of things.

No wonder they don't like Cheney!


Yes, Brenda, you have raised a very interesting question.

I am intrigued by that strange exchange in the Bolton hearings with Alan Foley where hs notes that Fulton (NIO LA) came to him with the Niger file. Foley thought, he says, that that was normal, that the NIO LA covered Africa!!!

Why are we still funding this nitwit organization? And how can we keep referring to it as the Central Intelligence Agency when from all I am seeing it would be better called the Central Numbskull Agency?

brenda taylor

clarice ,verner you guys really get me wondering whats really going on here ,i had this horrible feeling watching as these peope tried to keep bolton off the un he was trying to warn the american ppl that cuba was up to no good and they weregoing to keep him in a box.and some how i think this all ties together but havent quite got there yet.


I don't think there can be any doubt that there is a substantial, well-funded opposition to our anti-Castro policy and that there are some people in Congress, the DoS and the CIA share that view.
Much the same thing could be said of Venezuela (Medea Benjamin of Code Pink's major P R client.)

And of the UN.

Bolton was opposed by all those people/groups, and though they came up with nothing substantial, the y succeeded in blocking his appointment which, as you know, was made as a recess appointmment. When that appointment expires, I wonder if the president will renominate him.

brenda taylor

didnt fulton armstrong sue the government.


With Chavez trying to be the new Fidel, I can not believe that anyone would want to be soft on Cuba at this point. But they do.

They also support slashing military aid to Columbia, claim that FARC aren't "really" narco-terrorists--just your typical oppressed marxist revolutionaries, and hope that Ortega wins in the upcoming elections.

When Anna got caught, the next week, CIP's Smith and others circulated one of their infamous letters stating that she was proof that BOTH SIDES commit espionage on each other--and that it was just another reason for Cuba to be taken off the terrorist list, and for the US to normalize relations with Cuba. Unreal. They will not be happy until all of Latin America is just like Cuba.


Check it out Brenda--and remember everything Anna B. Montes sent from DI was likely shared with America's enemies VIA Castro.

Also, this "political" postition about Cuba and terrorism--expressed by the neo-marxists at CIP-- was shared by the CIA's Latin America guy Fulton Armstrong. And don't forget-- not only are they Castro groupies at CIP, primo nutcase America hater Noam Chomsky gave money to them in 2003, speaks volumns Scary stuff.:




the last part of it is List.pdf for some reason it did not go through


The Bolton hearings were an embarrassment for the Republicans. The Democrats were determined to block his nomination and were unified. The Republicans were disorganized and did not look like the majority party. Lugar seemed outmaneuvered and done in by his own caucus. When it was time to vote and he thought he had the votes lined up to get it out of committee, the Republican from Ohio blindsided him. This senator (Voinocvich?) hadn't attended any hearings so needed more time.

Then when there were more hearings he cried at thought of Bolton at the UN.

It was a disgraceful performance and one that made me think the Republicans may be happier as the minority.

Finally, Bush made a recess appointment and Bolton has performed superbly.


http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/cubaandterrorism/CubaontheTerroristList.pdf" target="_blank">Cuba on the terrorist list

brenda taylor

verner i just got to reading about bolton the hearing and realized that there was much more behind the senate not confirming him and got really intrigued when niger came up with armstrong.

Carol Herman

Judge Walton's bet: Libby is going to win the case on its merits. He's banking on the jury raising their eyebrows at Fitz.

So? So there won't be an Appeals. And, there won't be a count of errors. And, he won't get caught at being irrational for the way he's futzing about with what Libby can have to defend himself against these BOGUS CHARGES.

What does it make of our laws? That it's a crap shoot.

But with the way the public views the cases it watches it's already figured that out. And, now there are books that tell ya lawyers would be wise to study the rules of poker.

The Internet is changing the ground under us all. And, the law hasn't yet begun to cope with it. In other words, Judge Walton's courtroom is a throwback in time. With "business as usual." And, rather than being "transparent," it's just a game where more often than not the defendent loses because the cards went against him. Cards go against most people.

And, lawyers really do have bad reputations. It's possible this is based on multitudes of experiences. Where, perhaps, the innocents who hire lawyers want "JUSTICE." And, cards never fall that way. You can't bet on it.

Meanwhile, because of the Internet, the information becomes transparent HERE.

I wouldn't have known that separate from Aldrich Ames' that Val's status was exposed. (I had assumed it was exposed to the Russians; because men play with women, and even men who should know better, can tell secrets in bed.) If Val's been under cover; that's how she's been taught to function. Other than that, she's just a paper shuffler. And, within the CIA, for many years, she followed her rabbi. I'd bet he was part of the cabal against republicans.

Since Walton is keeping a lid on things; which are part of his own bet ... instead of slamming down on a prosecutor who should have his license withdrawn; the public is getting this spectacle to watch.

Fitzgerald's not the only one. There's NiFong, Earle, and even the guy who went after Michael Jackson. And, now, in Florida, the one going after Ann Coutler. (She wasn't allowed to vote in her Palm Beach polling place. She was sent to one futher away. But then they said she should have stood and fought for her right to vote in the original place. Palm Beach is going after big fish. Now, it's Ann Coulter. For years it was Rush Limbaugh.

Verner, Cuba gets "normalized" when Castro is dead. The entire middle class up and left Cuba (for Florida) way back when Castro first came to power. He tossed the mafia. Hence, we got Las Vegas built. But the middle class didn't go to Vegas. They went to Miami. After Castro dies the Cubans who are here will go back. And, the Island will begin to thrive with investments. I'm not worried about Cuba.

Too bad Walton bet the way he did. Too bad that so many judges are still playing games with evidence; because it sends to many people up the river.

Worse, too many people with personal experiences walk out of American courthouses sadly disappointed. If you compared this to medicine, it would be medicine in the Dark Ages. (Doctors are another group furious with our court system.)

It's just a figment of imagination to think that Val would be sent in to do a man's job. Or that we need whores to gather information under bedsheets. Though the CIA did try an attempt against Castro years ago; where they packed poisons for his "favorite mistress" to give to him. And, she got caught. Died a terrible death, too. (And, what about those CIA exploding cigars?) It's a lousy bet to withhold information from Libby! But the judge doesn't think he'll get caught. Or that there will be a need for an Appeal.

Off side, maybe, it will fall to Woodward to write the book? He doesn't have to worry about his reputation now that we know about Mark Felt?

brenda taylor

well i have no faith in the justice system after seeing what a political nut can do rush went through hell thank god he had enough money to fight this corrupt system and i really do hope that scooter can come out of this okay.

brenda taylor

kate you are absoutely right george was discusting i saw him on the senate floor crying like bolton was going to harm his grand children discusting.


This is a little OT but I've been thinking about this and it does relate to how Fitz approached the case when he first took it over from investigators.

Jason--I know, I know--had a column in March where he alludes to upcoming indictments of Rove/Hadley. No news there typical Jason.

The part that intrigued me was he quoted colleagues of the FBI lead investigator who had since retired. This is the only source JL ever quoted by name and though it's indirect, I wondered if the man commented or repudiated these claims.



No joke we need to know what's going on behind the scenes.

The people currently behind Joe Wilson, and after Bolton are like a plague of locus--they seem to pop up on a twenty year cycle.

And though they profess to be "anti-war" and for Human rights, they are instead consistantly for the other side.

Look at the way they acted during the Vietnam War era--when many of them got their start. Check out John Kerry's career for one--he was one of their biggest allies in government--ditto Chris Dodd.

Then look at Reagan's administration. They out and out supported Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas. Same names, same MO. And they were liars then--just as they are now.

Now they are trying to bring down the Bush administration, and undermine the war against islamo-fascism. They also support Castro and Chavez (and Carol, I wish I could be as optimistic as you are--but with Chavez's oil money backing marxists revolutions in Latin America, I think there is real danger on the horizon.)

I am shocked that more is not being made of all this ancient history. And shocked that they are allowed to get away with it one more time.


Karl Vick of the Washington Post is certainly up for a Walter Duranty Pulitzer for his wet kisses piece on Ahmadinijad.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDg1MDMxODIwZTA4ZGYzNTkyZWFhMGE5NmU2MWQ0Yjk=>We lie for fascist thugs


And Don Suber fisks the NYT's editorial on Haditha.http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/06/hard-look-at-haditha-editorial.html

If only there were another Kerry to be found in Iraq and another Walinski to write the speech for him...Absent that the media has to make up its own atrocity stories.


The Haditha reporting is very disturbing. Reuters implies the US investigation that cleared the US troops in the other "massacre" was a "whitewash".

What people need to know is that Reuters has an ongoing dispute with the US military. It stems from an incident where one of its reporters was killed at a checkpoint. The US did a thorough investigation and determined that the US soldiers acted within the ROE.
Reuters did not like the results of the investigation and kept demanding the US military reopen the investigation. The US tried to answer Reuters' questions but eventually told them forget it.

Also, several Reuters reporters have been arrested for being too friendly with the insurgency.

So Reuters is not a objective bystander in this story. In fact, one of their reporters was involved in breaking the story and has been imprisoned by the US for collaboration with the insurgents.

They have a vested interested in friendly people who say US investigations are whitewashes.


Instapundit links to stories about the Canadian government's trying to obscure who the alleged terrorists are and picks up this brilliant comment someone posted at Roger Simon:

Just like our own elites: they truly believe that - if not carefully monitored, us People will riot and string up Muslims from every lamp-post at the least provocation. In their view, the Military, especially, is certain to run amuck at any time (thus the obsessing over Abu Ghraib, and now, jumping all over Haditha) - and, of course, probably has, almost continuously, and Rumsfeld, etc has Covered it Up.

And with Bush in power, the Elites are wringing their hands, knowing that the RedNecks are rampant, uncontrolled, willing and able to do ANYTHING!!!!

brenda taylor

just saw carl levin on cnn and he wants a full blown investigation on hadithia.i think they need to investigate william jefferson and mollohan and leave the military alone.


Clarice, they could have written those stories before the first American soldier set foot in Iraq. They already knew how they were going to present this war.

There is no such thing as a perfect war, but by any historical standard, our soldiers have performed at a level of professionalism unparallelled in military history. Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, where, as far as I know, no one was maimed or killed--and now those guilty soldiers, who "humiliated" inmates, are in jail.

And if the marines killed innocent civilians, they will end up there too.

In three years, Human Rights Watch can only come up with 300 cases of "alledged" abuse--many only involving nebulous charges like "mental" torture etc.

Give me a break. Compare that with the way the Soviets or the Taliban treated civilians in Afghanistan, or Saddam treated his own people.

Yet what do we get? Unsubstantiated charges of "secret gulags" from Dana Priest--whose own husband denied the Cambodian killing fields--and who appeared on stage with CIPers--a group that has nothing but praise for Castro--a totalitarian dictator who has murdered thousands, and holds hundreds of political prisoners in horrible conditions.

We also get a new My Lai courtesy of the New York Times--when there is every indication that the marines are fully investigating the situation, and are not covering up a thing.

It is disgusting beyond belief.

Gary Maxwell

Well if I am a redneck then so be it. But I thought it stupid right after 9/11 to frisk 85 year old wheelchair bound women before boarding planes, when we we looking for young Arab/Muslim males intent on doing innocents harm in the name of their interpretation of their religion and their own politics. And I think its stupid to not recognize these are the same guys we are looking for today.


shhhhhhhh,Gary, remember the great unwashed might get ideas.

Carol Herman

Verner, I have faith in the Cubans.

First, notice this about Val. Let's say the Referral Letter enhances her status by claiming she's a super-duper undercover agent playing with Castro's private parts. The first thing the Cubans, here, would notice is that SHE'S NOT CUBAN! She'd know less than Monica Lewinsky, when it would come to Cuban's and their Island.

IF this is the stuff that comes to light, expect to hear laughter down in Miami!

Also, I've met some wonderful Cuban refugees. The entire middle class of Cuba ran here. And, their roots to Cuba remain solid. While they've prospered in America. When the opportunity arises for Cuba, again; after Castro kicks the bucket, whatever breaks out, I have full faith and confidence in our military to take on all comers who will try to reach Cuba "first." But who are not American Cubans. We're not going to lose this Island, again! (Just like Israel had it's chance to grow in 1948.) Please don't underestimate Americans with deep land attachments, elsewhere.

And, Cuba will get back an influx of very successful Cubans who have deep pockets available for investments. And, experience in Capitalism. There's hope ahead for Cuba.

I don't think Chavez has the reach you think he does. There's more than a million miles of sea between Chavez and all the markets he needs to reach.

Yes, communism has plagued South and Central America. But Captialism, when it works, and it will for Cuba's recovery; will have an enormous impact on the backwaters of the elites that exist in places like Venezuela; and the rest of those despotic countries. (Sure, Evita made a great musical. So what?)

The CIA, meanwhile, has been a disaster in Cuba. Why? They've focussed on asassination attempts against Castro that were downright ludicrous.

All Cuba has now is the tourist industry it imports through Canada. Lots of people visit, however. They just don't get stamps put into their passports. Stamps are done on pieces of paper Americans can discard before returning home from Canada.

Maybe, it's a question of where the hearts of people are? For the Cubans the rosiest pictures are those of their cousins, and relatives who've done well, here, in America. Unlike other places, as I've said, in Central and South America, when the opportunities come, the traffic back and forth between the USA and Cuba will depend on the Ex-Pat community. It grew strong, here.

Can things go wrong?

Well, in crap shoots and poker games you're always at a disadvantage. Still the best players (again, to quote Lubet) don't "gamble." They bet wisely because they know the odds. And, they develop the skills needed to read other people. So they can win, even if their hand is less than perfect.

I think Libby is going to do fine. He's going into the courtroom with the best of the best. And, he's going to receive sympathy. You can see, here, that sympathy runs strong. It never did run strong for Martha. And, her attorney did her in! (Well? If you don't get the best surgeon in the world, you can be killed on the table by gross incompetence. Even if the physician has strong "people" skills. It's much better when the skills are from experience in handling the disasters that happen once the body is opened.) Again, most Americans are clueless at picking wisely. And, the credentialing system also fails us. So our legal system is in jeopardy. John Edwards doesn't do the profession a single favor, either.

While the Internet opens doors. It's letting us see through the flaws.

As I said, because I'm reading Lubet's book, now, I think Reggie Walton is gambling on Libby being exonerated. So he can make small bets, withholding information from Libby, now. That if it deals with Plame being a secret agent with ties to Cuba, I'll bet she becomes further laughing stock. Wait till the cubans blow away all the smoke coming out of her ass.



I don't think Val had anything to do with Castro--but I sure would like to know if she had anything to do with Fulton Armstrong.

Carol Herman

Mark Steyn has a new piece; and this is up at Lucianne's site:
# Events at Haditha don't change need for victory
It's your Sunday Steyn and just in time

Carol Herman

Verner, some day we will know more about Aspen's roots. And, all the players. Fulton Armstrong's not a familiar name to me, yet. What do you know about him so far?


Carol, I only know about him what I've found out on google, and pieced it together with what we know from the Plame investigation and Joe's relationship with the anti-war types at CIP and elsewhere.

Of particular interest is the fact that he served on Clinton's NSC, seems weirdly pro-Cuba, was an important part of the Bolton hearings, and handled the Niger documents per Alan Foley in the Bolton hearings. Really really strange.

It would be very interesting to know if he had anything to do with Joe going to Niger, or Val's referral--n'est pas? Since he was commenting on the Niger docs, maybe he did. If so, we certainly have a right to know. It would be further evidence that this was a politically motivated set up from the beginning.

He certainly fits the profile of disgruntaled CIA agent that formed the "Camp" that Mary McCarthy joined forces with--and they both served at NSC under Berger. Not to mention, one of the complaints that Bolton and Reich had against him--along with being wrong, incompetant and soft on Cuba--was that he was a leaker.

Let's just hope he got hooked up to a polygraph, and will end up indicted if that is the case.

There's a lot of good info in the comments of the thread from yesterday


From the Rottweiler's blog:

"Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required."

brenda taylor

verner that was a good starter list and just what i was thinking.


ROFL, ghostcat.


Well, I think we do have to accept that there may have been a bit of cover up in the original investigation. There is now an investigation into that.

We don't have the results yet. If the suspected actions turn out to be true, punish the offenders and anyone who may have been involved in any cover up.

But turning this into an indictment of the war and Bush and Rumsfeld is silly beyond belief.

BTW, Clarice, though I didn't know Walinsky, I was friends with his mother whom I adored.


er, Walinski

Carol Herman

Verner, Judge Walton has already opted for "the small case." Hardly likely his courtroom will become a place where anything more than TWO WORDS, as remembered differently by Libby and the reporters aligned against him, are "from reporters." That's it.

I don't think Fitzgerald can help himself. I think he will be in the courtroom, just as he is on pieces of paper he's submitting to the Judge. And, those comments will be designed to destroy Cheney's reputation; even if Walton gavels Fitzgerald's excesses down. But does it matter?

Bubba's people are clowns. Do you need more than knowing how people feel about Ber(g)ler and his fancy pants. And sox? This crap doesn't have weight with the public.

While, off sides, in France, the public's turned 180-degrees against the muzzies. At least Clinton's poll taker is there. And, the Jerusalem Post ran with those insights. The changes were so dramatic, the pollster (Greenberg, I think is his name), did the study twice. Just to be sure his measurement machine wasn't broken. (And, Israel's done nothing in france to change opinions.) Just that people's opinions do change. (Just ask executives in America's remaining car industries to tell ya how hard sales are to come by now.) And, we were once a nation of such dependable people, that if your dad parked a certain brand in the garage while you were growing up. You went out and bought the same brand.

Can elections, ahead, fool ya? Not if enough people vote. Then, as Hugh Hewitt said, the lawyers can't steal outcomes.

Why assume the lawyers are gonna steal an outcome against Libby?

Isn't it possible that the donk's have problems with their own moonbats? When Dean was cast aside, you got one peek. The poor people who threw a combined total of $40-million at him (because he promised to "kill Bush") walked away from Wesley Clark! And, carry grudges.

What kinds of grudges go up when Jason Leopold's "promise" that Rove was going to be indicted didn't happen? Or are we somehow using a broken clock that can't tick-tock 24 hours?

I know how I'd feel if I were disappointed. And, I'm not disappointed in our President. Even though he's had set backs. Set backs are to be expected. While the donks just have angry moonbats. Hardly likely anything on the table will make them happy, now.

And, IF Fitzgerald is walking into the courtroom the way Ronnie Earle, Sneddon, and NiFong, swagger; why assume any jury will buy that kind of garbage? Why assume Val does well on the stand? I could'a told ya Martha Stewart had problems! What makes you so sure a jury wouldn't see through Val? She might age on the stand. Since she's no longer a 22 year old bimbo. She's got a nice pension though. Well? Martha Stewart's a millionairess. So what? (And, I like the songs from Evita. Never did materialize in her becoming a heroine, though. Just made Lloyd Weber rich.)

So who gets rich when the story of the Wilson's gets told?

Side bets accepted at the open window on how well Susan Sarandon does playing Moonbat Sheehan. While I do believe algore's "warmer" is colder than ice at the box office.

WHen will the elites learn they're no longer influencing the folks at NASCAR?

Great posts, here! I've learned a lot more about what's being hidden than will ever come out in Walton's courtroom.

By the way, anybody else notice that Hillary isn't running strong?

While Fitzgerald's antics, in his court filings, brings him ridicule here. Ya know, I just don't think Chrissy Matthews can compete.


One poster repeating something from a blog, implying that journalists need to be hung? And a lawyer laughing at the image?

Classy bunch aroun dhere...

The comments to this entry are closed.