All We Need Now Is Libby's Motive

The Wall Street Journal editorial page blasts Fitzgerald's attempt to conjure a motive for Libby's alleged perjury:

All of this matters because it suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is scrambling even now to explain why a seasoned attorney such as Mr. Libby would lie to a grand jury. The prosecutor's original indictment doesn't mention a motive. And his mention of our editorial suggests he's now trying to invent a motive out of Mr. Libby's attempt to defend the White House from Mr. Wilson's manifestly false allegations at the onset of a Presidential election campaign. (Mr. Wilson joined the Kerry campaign until he was dropped after the official probes destroyed his credibility.)

There is all the difference in the world between seeking to respond to the substance of Mr. Wilson's charges, as Mr. Libby did, and taking revenge on him by blowing his wife's cover, which was the motive originally hypothesized by Bush critics for the Plame exposure. The more of Mr. Fitzgerald's case that becomes public, the more it looks like he has made the terrible mistake for a prosecutor of taking Joe Wilson's side in what was essentially a political fight.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald discussed Libby's motive in this court filing and his theme is potential political embarrassment for the Administration (and the possible dismissal of Libby) rather than actual criminal activity:

...the materials defendant appended to his motion show that in early October 2003 (when defendant first gave his story) there would be great embarrassment to the administration if it became publicly known that defendant had participated in disseminating information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, and defendant would have had every reason to
assume he would be fired if his true actions became known.

The obvious problem with this theory is that being embarrassed is not a crime.  Unless Mr. Libby had feared indictment, grand jury secrecy rules should have protected him if he had told a story in which he did *not* source the Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation to reporters.

And what criminal charge might Libby have feared?  Good question - at this point, Fitzgerald has not offered any hint that he has evidence that Libby was apprised of Ms. Plame's classified status prior to the leaks.  The closest he comes is this May 12 filing telling us that a CIA officer warned of "the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column".  But this warning came after the publication of the Novak column and Fitzgerald does not use the magic word "classified" there either.

Perhaps some other statutes were in play, but if Libby had no reason to fear prosecution under the Espionage Act or the Intelligence Identities Protection Act due to lack of prior knowledge of Ms. Plame's classified status, his motive to lie remains as opaque as his testimony.

MORE:  Here is the July 17, 2003 WSJ editorial in question and my "nevermind" post noting how little the NIE leak moved us beyond the July 11, 2003 statement by DCI George Tenet.

Let's ding the ancient WSJ for this:

Regarding the supposedly discredited Niger story, the NIE says that "a foreign government service reported that as of early 2001 Niger planned to send several tons of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement."

That foreign government service is of course the British, who still stand by their intelligence.

I am quite sure it was not the British who originated the report about 500 tons of yellowcake.  Italians, si?

Comments

[kim]

Fitz is embarrassed, and thinks it's a crime.
==========================

[clarice]

I saw more deliberately lying in the press conference announcing the indictment, and it seems more deliberate to me.

[C Y (it's an) A]

Plame's motive was to leak. She began with WMD after using Bush to start the war. It was an assignment from her boss, just like Wilson. So, the others motives were to try to keep her from using 'I was leaked scam', (how she used her husband to explain who she was and then stating he is and you are'nt)' on people like the President and Vice President- the people who run the country(I heard they're trained is coups and stuff). Well, toss her Libby and that other guy-we did'nt like 'em anyway. Notice they were just advisors.

The purpose of bad agent damage control was to make sure she did'nt out anybody with the 'someone leaked me garbage.' No one got outed so she went to 'Vanity Fair' and leaked herself. This means out people to the bad guys. They did.

So, we kinda lost, but she had to ask herself for all those outings and we all knew we could count on the FBI and the criminal conspiracy investigator, but, it turned out he really does have a thing for politicians like Plame. Now, CIA is going to hide at DIA and we pretty much lost our intelligence community.

Why would anybody think she works for us?

[clarice]

***Correction--I saw more lying in the press conference announcing the indictment, and it seems more deliberate to me.
******

[Cecil Turner]

Hello "big case," and it's obvious why Libby wants to argue it. Unfortunately for him, it's "little case" all the way, according to the only opinion that matters (Walton's).

[cboldt]

I think Libby didn't trust investigator and GJ secrecy rles, as much as he trusted reporter's privilege.

[Pete]

The WSJ is good only for business news. On other issues they have become a shill for this administration.

[Carol Herman]

Steven Lubet's book (Lawyer's Poker), is proving educational to me. And, topical. In introducing comparisons to betting techniques; he mentions how Bush bested Gore in the "preliminaries" where Algore went to court to affect an outcome on counting ballots.

Turns out Gore's team chose a professor at Yale, an expert statistician. Hentgartner.) And, Bush's attorney (Philip Beck) found a huge error in Hentgartner's statistical approach. He used the 1998 Palm Beach ballot, without ever even having seen one. To compare his analysis to the 2000 ballot from the same place.

So? Well, in the betting analogy that when you have great cards you bet s-l-o-w-ly, so that your opponents don't learn the cards you're holding; and they keep on betting. Which increases the size of the pot. Beck, at Hentgartner's deposition sent it one of his firm's youngest lawyers (a man who had just come from clerking at the Supreme's). And, he instructed him "IF you ask one bright question you're FIRED." So the guy kept his 90 minutes of questions to the textbooks Hentgartner used in his classrooms. Sure, the donks thought something was up. But they couldn't figure it out. Till it was too late. Hengartner was on the stand. And, in Cross, Beck whipped out the 1998 ballot; showing it to him for the first time. BINGO.

Lubet then goes on to describe why some attorneys are way too stiff in how they approach "betting." They get known for their techniques. And, then they never make money at the table. Others read them too easily. And, when Lubet describes this with the following, I thought of Fitzgerald:

QUOTING: (Pg. 92) "In litigation, there is no precise parallel to bluffing .... Nonetheless, there is a reasonable analogy in the process of pretrial negotiation, especially as it is payed out in the course of discovery. While the ostensible purpose of discovery is to exchange information in preparation for trial, in reality it is much more a settlement dance, where the parties bluff and posture about the strength of their respective cases (and witnesses) in order to extract the maximum offer from the other side. Discovery tactics can be either aggressive (resisting disclosure) or accommodating (volunteering information). Lawyers who invariably follow a single approach become predictable and therefore lose the ability to influence their opponents' settlement position."

From what I gather, Fitzgerald's case against Libby has always been weak. Though he attempts to do the most bluffing when he's facing the media cameras; or he's writing his responses to the judge.

Then, we, on the sidelines, begin to wonder what happens when Fitzgerald ends up in front of the DC jury.

Americans, it seems, follow some public cases by tuning into Court TV. This gives the public tools to use, beyond just Perry Mason shows, in trying to figure this out "as if it was a horse race."

I can remember purposely putting on the TV when I heard that Michael Jackson was exonerated. And, I wasn't disappointed watching those jurors as they faced the cameras. The journalists had to agree to a combined interview. And, I even remember those jurors! A cross section. Men and women. And, I remember discovering how one woman, a "grandma type" seemed to be the reason the jurors were able to AGREE. While the media had been reporting it was gonna be a "hung jury." Wasn't. And, this one woman seemed to be the strong one. Who let all the jurors vent. But in the end was able to see to it that people "agreed." Even under the withering questions thrown at them; "grandma" was prodded to join in, and point out that Sneddon NEVER put evidence on the table that would have allowed them to convict.

I also remember one Mexican-American man taking umbrage at the mom, when she was called to the stand; and he said, publicly, what really offended him was her "finger snapping." Especially when she said "get with it."

Maybe, I'm the only one who remembers this?

Juries go home. They fade from view.

But Theodore Wells tries criminial cases in DC. He's not, from my point of view, going to look for 12 idiots to sit and try Libby. But he will pick and choose; just as Michael Jackson's lawyers did. A composite jury. With strengths and weaknesses. And, my guess is they'll look for someone just like that "grandma." After the case is presented, and the jurors go into the jury room to pass judgement on Libby, either the jurors, "convict," "hang," or "exonerate."

Sneddon and Fitzgerald share characteristics, in that both look to be mean. Sneddon lost that day, ya know?

Fitzgerald could also lose.

Plus, here, he's already lost the confidence vote of attorneys; espcially my favorite: Clarice.

[boris]

only for business news

Editorial.

(WFM)

[verner]

Oh Man Peter,

The WSJ is a shill for the administration?

Then what does that make the rest of them? Shills for the enemy?

In quite a few cases, including the nouveau My Lai, the imaginary secret gulags in Eastern Europe, and the millions of made up warrentless searches by the NSA, and media generated grieving war mom/Hugo Chavez camp follower Cindy Sheehan I think there is quite a bit of evidence to vote YES on that... What to you have for proof?

[Javani]

Motive is not strictly an element of the charges, though its related to "intent", but common sense, at least the sense of your average juror, or any juror with any sense, motive need be shown.

Fitz has "people smarts" and has been successful so far in tailoring this trial at Walton's pleasure. Fitz needs to sell a conviction to the jury. Libby stated something that was untrue. Did he purposely lie? The "motive" for the lie Fitz has chosen is to "cover up" the fact that Cheney told him about Plame. This "big secret" will be evidenced by Fitz pulling out, in dog and pony show fashion and with undue pomp and circumstance, the "secret document", the newspaper article underlined by Cheney, which the jury hopefully will think they alone are privileged to see in this quest for the truth, ahem, I mean conviction.

If it is allowed that all sorts of people in the government are talking about Wilson's wife, that undermines 1. the sense of secrecy, and 2. the "protect Cheney" narrative Fitz will spin for the jury.

But to show "motive" Fitz needs to move outside merely showing Libby stated something that was untrue. This search for a narrative invites a case beyond a mere comparison of fact and defendant's statement. That's how we get into this discovery/breadth conundrum, and the seemingly confusing legal discussion.

The confusion is not a product of the events but a flows from the need for Fitz to sell to the jury that Libby purposely lied. To understand Fitz' case, not "the case" but Fitz' case, start from the end, Fitz' closing argument, not with the underlying events.

On the bright side for Libby, if he was lie about someone telling him "all the reporters knew" why would he pin it on Russert? Russert didn't call him about Wilson's article, Libby called him about another matter, and it was a hostile call. Also, Fitz will weave a sense of secrecy needed to give the "leak" its necessary gravamen for the jury to be outraged. But that can be played two ways. Good questioning by the defense and dramatic objections by Fitz may give the jury the sense that it isn't Libby but the prosecution that is hiding things from them, of course the identity of UGO.

[Javani]

I should also mention why, if Libby lied, his real motive for lying Fitz would not pursue.

Because for Libby, and everyone in this case, if they knowingly lied...they lied because they didn't want to be nailed with leaking. Little did they know there was no risk, they were not in danger of being charged with such a crime.

What's Fitz going to go with,

1. "Mr. Libby lied because he feared I would chage him with leaking"

or

2. "Mr. Libby lied because he feared damage to his boss, VP Cheney."

No. 1 is the more plausible fear Libby was suffering, but such truth centers attention on the prosecution.

[Cromagnon]

Lying just comes natural to these clowns.

[Pisistratus]

Why does the WSJ and the peanut gallery always avoid the parade of admin witnesses Fitz will call?

We know somebody lied to the grand jury:

Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him about Plame at lunch one day and, sweareth under oath Fleischer: "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t."

Libby denied Fleischer's version of events. Now Fleischer's testimony goes way beyond "misrecollecting."

So is it the consensus here that Fleischer is the real liar? Libby better hope that's the consensus in the jury box.

[JohnH]

I can't remember enough detail any more to comment much on this intricate dance, but it seems to me that the defense case will be essentially "what Fitz didn't ask" and how much information about who knew and when that would have come out if Fitz had not kept his questions so narrow. This also has to serve the purpose of showing that Libby had no motive to lie, because there was so much about Plame already out there. And I agree that if Libby was looking to construct a lie, he would not have picked Russert to be the story. Russert's name only came up, presumably, because Libby mentioned it. Why would he do that instead of someone whom he KNEW was aware of Plame?

[boris]

A weak case requires establishing a strong motive. The degree of speculation and misdirection (lying actually) that's being spun to create an illusion of motive is an indication of how weak the evidence actually is.

The last two comments seem to based on the following explanations:

Libby is stoopid.

Libby is demented.

[anon]

"Oh Man Peter,

The WSJ is a shill for the administration?

Then what does that make the rest of them? Shills for the enemy?"

Typical right wing defense. You don't agree with us - you're the enemy. Paging George Orwell. Besides, lying is okay when we do it.

[Patton]

""I think Libby didn't trust investigator and GJ secrecy rles, as much as he trusted reporter's privilege.

Posted by: cboldt |
"""""

This makes ZERO sense.

1. Libby had NO privilege in his conversation with Russert.

2. Libby signed an agreement to waive all
reporters privileges, he could have retired
and not signed the release.

3. Libby and his lawyer both urged the reporter to testify.

[Old Dad]

Isn't Libby's motive plain? He was simply doing the bidding of his masters, the already super top secretly indicted Karl "Mind Meld" Rove, the Evil One Himself--Dick "Sure Shot" Cheney, and the Chimpster.

Must loosen tin foil...it's too hot in here..aaarrrggghh.

[Appalled Moderate]

Libbys problem:

There isn't much question he told a whopper.

Fitz's problem:

There isn't much question the whopper told doesn't amount to much.

[lurker]

WSJ has become more and more liberal. WSJ published this as CYA.

That's all.

As for a response to "shilling for the adm", that's because ya don't agree with the correct version of the Libby case.

[xyz]

if Libby had no reason to fear prosecution ... his motive to lie remains as opaque as his testimony

You are overlooking the broader context of Libby as an agent of the Bush/Cheney administration, acting to defend the rationale for war and more importantly seeking reelection in the following year.

[lurker]

Thought WSJ clearly spelled out the motives of the WH adm, including Libby, which was to tell the truths and prove that Wilson lied about his stuff.

So why the heck did Fitz decide to indict anyone that's telling the truth?

I still wonder if Russert, Miller, Cooper, et al, will soon follow WSJ's example as a way to get out of this and the Wen Ho Lee cases?

[clarice]

Thanks, Carol.

Strictly speaking, Fitz doesn't have to prove motice, but he has to show Libby deliberately lied on a matter material to the case. And he's got to do it with three witnesses:Cooper (who as the Judge kindly signalled will be impeached no matter how he describes the converation;(2) Miller whose testimony is ambiguous and probably false--WINPAC?Flame? Wilson's name and no. in her notebook; and (3)Russert who will have to explain how he talked to Libby about Matthews coverage without discussing Wilson at all, and how without notes, his memory is so unshakable.

Not strong witnesses, in other words.

Therefore, he has to give the jury something about motive, because otherwise it looks like the normal way we all recount conversations which at the time did not seem significant. And he doesn't have it.

[clarice]

lurker, Wen is just a problem for these reporters, not a solution. Days after the settlement the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. (They could have dismissed it as moot, but instead they refused to hear it which means the underlying case which held there was no reporters' privilege stands in this Circuit.)

And it was a civil case against the government, not a criminal case. The settlement offer to Wen is not possible in this case.

[Tom Bowler]

Cecil,

Hello "big case," and it's obvious why Libby wants to argue it. Unfortunately for him, it's "little case" all the way, according to the only opinion that matters (Walton's).

But check this from the Washington Post. (I suppose I should take the Post with a grain or two of salt, but anyway.)

In an eight-page order Friday, Walton said Libby is entitled to those documents if they show he was involved in an effort to counter Wilson's charges on the merits.

But Walton repeated his desire to prevent Libby's defense team from turning the trial into a debate on the legitimacy of the war in Iraq or the accuracy of Wilson's statements in the op-ed piece in The Times.

How do you counter Wilson's charges on the merits without debating the accuracy of his statements? How does Walton keep it "little" and still allow the defense to argue Libby was countering the merits of Wilson's charges?

[maryrose]

Libby had no motive to lie. Fitz can't prove he had a motive to lie ergo; the truth comes out Libby didn't lie. Game over! Are you listening Jeff?

[The Unbeliever]

Typical right wing defense. You don't agree with us - you're the enemy. Paging George Orwell. Besides, lying is okay when we do it.

That whistling sound you hear is verner's point soaring right over your head. It was Pete who accused the WSJ of being in the bag for "the bad guy" simply because he disagreed with their conclusions. By Pete's (flawed) logic, you could easily wield a broad brush and demonstrate how a number of liberal personalities are shilling for "the bad guy" when it comes to the WoT.

[lurker]

Off-topic, anyone take notice of the sealed affidavit on the Canadian terrorists? Too bad that the MSM / LSM still think USA does NOT face any terrorist threats and that the 9/11 attacks were initiated and planned by Bush.

Scanned copy of the sealed affidavit:

Sealed Affdidavit

This defends the NSA - FISA terrorist surveillance program.

There will be more arrests based on these singing birds.

Well, Clarice, the fact that Fitz still has done nothing to date to withdraw (e.g., dismiss) the case but to continue responding to motions, submitting responses, etc., clearly, he must still think his case is strong enough.

[clarice]

He thought he had a strong case against Cowles, too.

[cathyf]

We know somebody lied to the grand jury:

Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him about Plame at lunch one day and, sweareth under oath Fleischer: "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t."

Or maybe nobody lied, and by this Libby meant Wilson's trip to Niger. You know, "sources and methods" of a CIA operation is I think the term of art. Something that the CIA is (quite rightfully) insanely obsessive about protecting.

In Fitzgerald's Bizarro World, every this is about Plame's CIA employment, and anyone who dares to assert that the administration was concerned about something else is lying and must be punished.

cathy :-)

[JM Hanes]

With regard to Fitzgerald on motive:

there would be great embarrassment to the administration if it became publicly known that defendant had participated in disseminating information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, and defendant would have had every reason to assume he would be fired if his true actions became known.

Of course, if -- as Fitzgerald has been trying so diligently to establish -- Libby were taking his marching orders from the Veep, he'd have had every reason to believe that the Adminstration would hardly risk trying to make him the scapegoat. We're right back to that ole Fitgerald cakewalk where he tries to have it & eat it too.

[Semanticleo]

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

I have never heard anyone surmise why Bush would exlude the US from the 16 words when
the conviction of veracity on this issue was so profound in the Administration.

The 16 words 'passes the buck' on a key issue.

Why? Just thought I'd ask since the semantics of 'lies' plays more like a game of Pong amongst the Maguire Squires.

[JohnH]

I don't see a great problem with judge Walton saying he does not want to have a trial on the merits of the war, or on the reasons we went to war. Libby's team can lay out the charges made by Wilson and lay out the rebuttal that the WH was putting out. This does not require that the jury decide one way or the other on the merits of the war.

[lurker]

JohnH, I don't believe that this is a problem that many posters have as you described. What many posters have a problem with is the validity of Fitz's case against Libby.

Good point regarding Wen, Clarice. It's time for our reporters to go back to their ethics in reporting.

[Rick Ballard]

"They could have dismissed it as moot, but instead they refused to hear it which means the underlying case which held there was no reporters' privilege stands in this Circuit."

That would be the DC Circuit, right? It would be nice if DoJ Main revisited it's kid glove rules concerning journos with that decision as the rationale. It might help keep a future Fitz from looking like a fool.

[Javani]

Sematicleo writes:

""I have never heard anyone surmise why Bush would exlude the US from the 16 words when
the conviction of veracity on this issue was so profound in the Administration.""

Um, because we all read the Senate Intel report which informed why the reference to the British was made?

[lurker]

OT: Oh man, those Canadian terrorists planned to behead Steven Harper, the prime minister of Canada. Were they trying to achieve what was described in Ferrigno's book?

[clarice]

Levin makes a great point today--that Gonzales should remove Fitz and appoint someone else; that Walton erred in not granting the Motion to Dismiss,that had he been supervised, Fitz would never have been permitted to force reporters to testify in this case which is a nothingburger.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

I don't think this is a CYA by the WSJ. When you take this piece along with the Mark Levin piece, A Fresh Perspective, I quoted over on the other thread, it represents the first real public pushback I've seen and I think it is very important.

[Patton]

""Semanticleo:
I have never heard anyone surmise why Bush would exlude the US from the 16 words when
the conviction of veracity on this issue was so profound in the Administration."""

The usual playing to the press need for us to have a 'coalition' and to 'share' and not be 'going it alone'..

In addition, it was not profound, in fact it was not even a key finding on the issue.

[lurker]

Perhaps, we could get Levin to help finish up that draft letter????

[cboldt]

JM Haynes

Of course, if -- as Fitzgerald has been trying so diligently to establish -- Libby were taking his marching orders from the Veep ...

My sense of the thrust of Fitz's argument is that Libby was acting as a free agent, not that Fitz has been trying diligently to establish that Libby was taking his marching orders from the Veep.

[clarice]

Really? Took him a week to get off his ass and correct the filing where he was suggesting some wrongdoing on Cheney's part IIRC..

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The obvious problem with this theory is that being embarrassed is not a crime.'

No, but it could be a motive to commit a crime; aka telling a little white lie to a cop.

[cboldt]

clarice

Levin makes a great point today--that Gonzales should remove Fitz and appoint someone else; that Walton erred in not granting the Motion to Dismiss,that had he been supervised, Fitz would never have been permitted to force reporters to testify in this case which is a nothingburger.

Why appoint someone else if the charges are without merit? Why not just drop the case? If the conclusion of the executive (Bush/Gonzales) is that the case should not have been brought, then just kick Fitz to the curb and drop the charges and the investigation.

The Motion to Dismiss is based on asserting error on the part of the executive in delegation of power, and all Levin is advocating is that the executive admit that error.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

OT -- I just posted a link to the article, "Did Marine Photographer Have A Personal Motive?" over at Sweetness and Light. Seems there is even more shenanigans going on with Haditha. Check it out

[cboldt]

clarice

Really? Took him a week to get off his ass and correct the filing where he was suggesting some wrongdoing on Cheney's part IIRC.

You and I went around this barn weeks ago. I opined that the error in Fitz's filing was no big deal, blown out of proportion by an incompetent media, and I cast your point as blaming Fitz for the fact that the media did so.

On its face, sans media elaboration, the error in Fitz's filing is trivial. And even in the error, one must stretch pretty far to conclude that Fitz has been trying diligently to establish that Libby was taking his marching orders from the Veep.

[clarice]

cboldt, Levin's position is that the appointment was unlawful and that appointing Fitzgerald to operate independently as if he were Atty General should be revoked; the AG should assert power over the case and appoint a special counsel under existing regulations to review the case and see whether it should be dropped or continued.

As for Fitz' repeated record suggestions about Cheney, just good Fitzgerald/Cheney to see if my suggestion that Fitz has been suggesting Libby was acting at his suggestion is a singular one whipped out of my increasingly senile brain and florid imagination.

[PeterUK]

So far there has not been a sane rationalisation as to why "outing" Valerie Plame was in any way a punishment for Joseph Wilson.Nor why this girl's school, finger pointing. liberaloid tosh would be regarded so to be by the administration,this is a Liberal punishment not a Conservative punishment.

[clarice]

****just gooGLE Fitzgerald/Cheney to ********

Cathyf , I sent you an email which couldn't be delivered. Pls email me when you get a chance.

[cboldt]

clarice

Levin's position is that the appointment was unlawful and that appointing Fitzgerald to operate independently as if he were Atty General should be revoked; the AG should assert power over the case and appoint a special counsel under existing regulations to review the case and see whether it should be dropped or continued.

My point is that this challenge is based on a foregone conclusion that that charge was improvident. If the charge was righteous, Levin wouldn't challenge it, not would you or diGenova or Toensing.

I would find an in between step of appointment of a new guy (in between "now" and "case dismissed") as a charade, unless the dismissal of Fitz was accompanied by an explanation other than "power improvidently granted." Any explanation of case dismissed having logical integrity has to address the merits of the case, and dismissal of Fitz on grounds of improvident grant of jurisdiction would not reach the merits of the case.

It might work, politically. Heck, the Florida Supreme Court would have got away with its year 2000 rulings if a national election didn't turn on the outcome.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

So far there has not been a sane rationalisation as to why "outing" Valerie Plame was in any way a punishment for Joseph Wilson

Exactly and a point I've tried to make again and again. The whole thing never made sense and has always sounded more like what a bunch of high schoolers would cook up for revenge against someone who took someone else's boyfriend.

[clarice]

I think the debate is interesting but pointless. I do not see Gonzales doing that.Let's just call this Libby's get out of jail pass on appeal if the case is not dismissed war;ier or if the jury convicts.

[clarice]

***earlier, not war;ier *******

[cboldt]

clarice

just gooGLE Fitzgerald/Cheney

You make my point. The media gets it wrong, and media error is amplified by Google. To maintain a charge that Fitz has been trying diligently to establish that Libby was taking his marching orders from the Veep, one has to cite to Fitz's statements, and find that at least a preponderance of them show Fitz asserting that Libby was taking his marching orders from the Veep.

[topsecretk9]

--So far there has not been a sane rationalisation as to why "outing" Valerie Plame was in any way a punishment for Joseph Wilson--

emasculation of a gynormous ego.

[red]

So far there has not been a sane rationalisation as to why "outing" Valerie Plame was in any way a punishment for Joseph Wilson.

Then you are being conveniently dense. First, an attack on my wife's career is an an attack on me. Second, the intent was to undercut Wilson's argument with the ad hominem attack painting his effort as a nepotism boondoggle. Fallacious, sure, but apparently effective.

[clarice]

Not fallacious at all--True according to the SSCI.
Saying your wife works at the CIA is hardly an attack. At least it never was before...especially as the evidence will certainly establish Joe Wilson made that very disclosure to 5 or more people around the globe.

[Cromagnon]

He who laughs last, laughs last! My guess is that in the end ole Fitz is gonna have the last laugh!

Plus its fun watching him make Turd-Rove sweat bullets...

Enjoy the kool-aid folks! Maguire seems to serve up a lot of it around here

[clarice]

cboldt, it is true that the press read a great deal into these filings, but that was perfectly foreseeable and Fitz should have been far more careful than he was. And he should have corrected the record immediately.

cromagnon--I'm seeing no sign of Rove sweating at all. OTOH jason leopold seems to have vanished.

[PeterUK]

Sara,
The worst case scenario is that Val could not have any longer afforded to keep Joe and he would have had to get a day job.
If punishing Joe had been the motive,there is bound to be plenty on file to leak to the press,former employment,marriages etc,any infractions of the law,outing is so off the wall,that it can only be a product of a liberal mind.

[red]

Saying your wife works at the CIA is hardly an attack.

That is very intellectually dishonest of you. Outing her to the world as a CIA operative is most certainly an attack. I look forward to the evidence that it was Wilson. And the nepotism argument is fallacious with respect to the merits of Wilson's claims, if they were indeed false.

[PeterUK]

"He who laughs last, laughs last!"
That is so profound Cromag,you should carve it on your cave wall.
As the centuries unfold someone will add the part that renders it complete.

[clarice]

The charge that Plame recommended her husband for the Mission was confirmed to be true by the bipartisan SSCI.

It is impossible for me to see how telling anyone that Plame worked for the CIA punished Wilson. Indeed, neither of them suffered any consequences for the disclosure by UGO (not Libby), but if they had, UGO, not Libby, is the person responsible.
Miller and Cooper concededly (early Fitz filing) knew about Plame though perhaps not by name before they ever spoke to Libby. And Russert says Libby and he never discussed this at all.
Which leaves you with BUPKIS.

[PeterUK]

"Outing her to the world as a CIA operative is most certainly an attack."
No,This is where the deranged thinking comes it,revealing Wilson's wife as CIA would, to most people, add credence to his words.If they had wanted to discredit Wilson it would have been bruited abroad that his wife worked on the checkout at Walmart,or that she was a covert shelf stacker.

[Pisistratus]

Certainly the leak of Plame's name in attacking Wilson was stupid, nonsensical, and self-defeating.

But that's how the Bush White House conducts all its wars.

[clarice]

Pis, see how nonsensical that is..We point out there was no harm to that disclosure, and you have no factual refutation.
We point out that, in any event it was Libby who made the disclosure, and again you have no refutation.
So what is your response? A total non sequiter..
That's why you guys can't win.

[PeterUK]

Val was outed the day she said "I Do" to Joseph Wilson IV.

[clarice]

*****in any event it was NOT Libby *********

[clarice]

An interesting CIA story just up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_records_nazis

[Patton]

I see we have alot of new posters who don't seem to have a fact in their heads but are certainly full of comments.

Do any of you know who UGO is?

Are you aware that it was UGO, not Libby that leaked Plame to Novak and Woodward.

Are you aware that both Woodward and Novak said it was passed to them, not to attack Wilson, but to explain why the CIA sent a left wing hack on a CIA mission.

Are any of you aware that Wilson himself STILL BELIEVED SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD WMD AND WOULD USE THEM AGAINST US EVEN AFTER THE WAR STARTED?

I didn't think so, but then again, you will most likely be gone tomorrow because your arguments can't withstand factual reasoning and understanding.

I suggest you go back to watching Hardball where you can live in your fanstasy world.

[Pisistratus]

Can't win? Already won baby. Is Tom Delay still in Congress? No?

Ha! Delay's resignation is worth 1000 Roves and a googol of Libby's. And the best part-he doesn't even have to be convicted! He already chickened out.

P.S. I put up with tons of rightwing denial that Delay was framed and Ronnie Earle was out of control. I see the same thing with Libby. Your boy is toast.

[Syl]

cboldt

re fitz asserting Libby was taking marching orders from Cheney

No, nothing in the indictment or the presser. But note in discovery the importance to fitz of that marked up article.

[Patton]

Unfortunately for Fitz, Cheney's marked up article HAD TO have occurred AFTER Libby talked to Miller.

So how did Cheney, who was questioing whether the wife had a role in sending him in July, ordered her outed in June??

Must be the same time machine Bush used to fake those National guard records.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

If they had wanted to discredit Wilson it would have been bruited abroad that his wife worked on the checkout at Walmart,or that she was a covert shelf stacker.

Or "trailer trash" as we saw with poor Paula.

[PeterUK]

Mr and Mrs Plame enjoying an Outing

[Patton]

Pisistratus, your silly girl...

Delay isn't in Congress, but it is a Republican Congress.,... and your boys Gore and Kerry got their ass-s whipped by a complete idiot like Bush...go figure.

While you were defending Clinton, he was losing every branch of governmment and many state houses to the Republicans.

[Syl]

Pis

Quit changing the subject. That's a major problem for lefties.

Lefty claims A
Righty shows A not possible.
Lefty ignores Righty and claims B instead.

It's old. It's boring. It's juvenile.

[PeterUK]

"Ha! Delay's resignation is worth 1000 Roves and a googol of Libby's. And the best part-he doesn't even have to be convicted! He already chickened out."

So Pisi,you're not interested in the democratic process,win by any means,eh? Progress was wasted on you.

[clarice]

Please, Patton, do not give the game away..

[jerry]

Libby's purpose was clearly to obstruct the FBI and Fitz's investigations. But why obstruct? The act itself suggests a strong motivator such as the threat criminal prosecution. Why Libby? Because Cheney's where it all started. I'd love to know what other people in the WH have told Fitzgerald.

[Syl]

Patton

What I think is most interesting about the marked up article is that it sounds like Cheney is JUST then learning about Val.

Supposedly he knew mid June. Guess it didn't register with him then. And the lefites put so much importance on the fact that Cheney told Libby about Val in June.

Seems both Libby and Cheney forgot all about it.

Just like Libby says.

[PeterUK]

Sara,
That is how governments do it,for good measure the medical records would have been leaked.

[Pisistratus]

Patton-you cant touch me fool. If Americans want to elect Republicans, that's their right.

Delay was an odious individual. And he was well defended. Hell, judging by your tone, I'm sure some pretty ridiculous commentrs of yours re: Delay are archived here. But if I have to live under Republican misrule for the rest of my years, so be it; picturing the Bugman's arrogant smirk on his mugshot and knowing he resigned from Congress just months later will always bring joy to my soul.

[verner]

Thanks Clarice. And a key phrase here:

"The interagency group credited former CIA Director Porter Goss for changing the level of cooperation and allowing the release of documents."

I'm so glad Goss did that. La Plus ca change. Let's get the truth out there.

Say what you will about Joe McCarthy, Loyalty oaths and the red scare, (I'm not overly fond of any of that) but it is beyond debate in the historical record that there were indeed KGB agents in the US government (As in Alger Hiss), the Rosenbergs were guilty as sin, and the CPUSA was funded and controlled by Moscow. Out of the estimated 30,000 members of the CPUSA, around 3-400 were outright Soviet agents in the 1940s-50s.. As we can see, it was much worse in Europe.

We shouldn't fool ourselves. As Ms. Anna showed, there is plenty of soviet type espionage going on today--just as there was in the Vietnam era with David Truong etc.

There are plenty of Americans who hate America.

[Syl]

Jerry

strong motivator such as the threat criminal prosecution.

You're not paying attention. Libby did not leak Val. So why would he be afraid of a criminal prosecution?

Doesn't make sense at all.

You've been here long enough to know the facts so stop ignoring them.

[TMF]

"Can't win? Already won baby"

Which election?

LOL

Yeah, you won where it counts. In your empty childs mind.

[Pisistratus]

Well lets address the election thing. It's not as bad as it seems for us lefties since Republicans generally dont have the guts to actually govern like Republicans.

How's the President's social security reform plan coming along anyway?

[clarice]

We generally try to stay on topic here, Pis.

[topsecretk9]

Certainly the leak of Plame's name in attacking Wilson was stupid, nonsensical, and self-defeating.

Then demand Fitz indict UGO, since he did that.

[Pisistratus]

Except you repeat the same things ad nauseum. Maybe you guys should branch out a little bit.

[Pisistratus]

What if UGO is President Bush-he's unindictable.

[PeterUK]

"But if I have to live under Republican misrule for the rest of my years, so be it".

Worry not little Pisi,you will have been taken by the black helicpters well before then.Eventually you will learn to love George Bush,just fall asleep next to the pod...there will be no pain.

[TMF]

It is a shame about SS reform. We certainly need it.

Unfortunately, the Dem/Lefty alliance is quite effective at distorting facts and demagoguery. I wont deny that.

Scare enough grannies into thinking their checks are gonna stop and even the most virtuous GOPer has to run scared.

At least the SCOTUS is looking good for a while. A long, long, long while.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

How's the President's social security reform plan coming along anyway?

Well, for your sake Pis, you better hope it "comes along" because otherwise you are going to be shit out of luck.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Gee, stupid me, I must have missed that Tom Delay conviction ... hmmm.

[Pisistratus]

It's coming. Don't think his pals forced him out for nothing do you?

[Patton]

Jerry says:
""Libby's purpose was clearly to obstruct the FBI and Fitz's investigations."""

THANK YOU JERRY!!!....Boy, am I glad you are here.

Now tell us, HOW? Fitz hasn't been able to, so let's hear it from you.

[verner]

Why do you assume that every person who supports Libby is a Republican?

I consider myself an independant. Trouble is though, after the disgusting way the democrats protected Bill Clinton--and the way they have acted since this war began, there's no way in hell I could vote for them.

Look what you've done to honest men like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. I can't think of an honest elected official left in the leadership of your entire stinking party. The democrats have been taken over by the loony tunes anti-globalist/neo-marxist left, and a few "progressive" billionaires. Unless you are a member of one of those two groups--there is nothing there to vote for.

As for the state of the Union. Crime is down, Home Ownership is at historic levels, there has not been an attack on the homeland since 911, unemployment is <5% and we're still paying half of what they pay for a gallon of gas than they do in Socialist Democratic Europe.

I think, all things considered, and knowing what the Bush administration has faced, that's a pretty good record. Much better than Clinton, who had eight years with no major crisis, and left everything from health care, to social security, to the environment, to energy policy, to Osama Bin Laden to rot while he got serviced in the Oval Office by a 20 something bimbo--then lied about it.