Powered by TypePad

« Prospective New House Chairman | Main | There's A Shocker! »

August 27, 2006

Comments

Clarice

Actually, after a number of ACLU cases in recent decades I think mopery is rarely used any more. It's been replaced by obstruction and conspiracy charges..the vaguer and the more in the indictment, the better. I believe in the WTC bombing case Fitz began with 126 of these until the Court forved him down to 26.(Try and defend on that crap.)

clarice

Even the NRO'ers are giving it to Andy--not quite hard enough, but still.
Here's JP:
"Re; Friends in High Places [John Podhoretz]

Andy, the "I know Pat Fitzgerald" line doesn't hold. I mean, I know Scooter Libby well and think very highly of him, but I don't really think that is pertinent. I am familiar with the indictment and I know that he was charged solely with offenses relating to misleading federal investigators. And I still say the indictment is weak. Maybe that's because of things I know about myself. I mean, if you find it implausible that a man who spends 16 hours a day on 200 different issues did not have a crystal-clear recollection of the order of events and the nature of conversations he had months earlier, then I would like to introduce you to my brain. I know zillions of factoids that I can summon up at a moment's notice. But my wife informs me on a regular basis that we had conversations about which I have no memory whatsoever. She's right, I'm wrong and that is the way the mind can and does work.

Libby will have his day in court, and as I said, for all I know, Fitzgerald has stuff we haven't seen that will blow him out of the water. But Andy, though you suggest it's somehow Libby's backers who are giving a false picture of the Fitzgerald indictment, your beef lies with your friend Pat. It was Fitzgerald's choice to frame the indictment not in terms of what public officials should do when they are interviewed by the FBI, but rather in terms of the intelligence crime for which Fitzgerald could not summon an indictment.

"In July 2003," Fitzgerald said, "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."

That was how Fitzgerald began his press conference. He is the person who used the terminology of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 as the reason for the indictment of Scooter Libby. To say now that he was just trying to make it clear nobody should lie to a federal investigator just doesn't get it right. "

flenser

A question I have not seen raised yet;

Did Comey know about Armitage at the time he appointed Fitzgerald? If so, why make the appointment?

If not, was the information being kept from the people with the need to know?

Perhaps some crack journalists can ask a few questions.

clarice

As I understand it, Comey directed the investigation and certainly received all the reports on it before he appointed Fitzgerald.

Laddy

What galls me about McCarthy is that he posts and you can't even email him to comment about his posting. I've emailed JPod and a bunch of the others and have actually received replies. That's just one of the reasons The Corner is weak imo. I guess he has his head in the sand with respect to all the things unearthed about his friend and his manner of prosecution. That erroneous Cowles indictment was simply mindboggling and incompetent it would seem.

clarice

Blind folded and with a DC Bar page listing top criminal lawyers in this town in front of him, Comey could have picked a prosecutor who knew this town, how it works, and would have found someone with more judgement than the man he picked.
The day he was appointed he knew (a) there was no crime in revealing Plame's identity and (b) Armitage was the leaker and had no evil intent.
All it took was a modicum of courage to confront the media gaggle and say that they had bought a Corn-Kristof-Pincus-Wilson peddled lie.

al ramey

I believe the media is not only utterly reckless and self indulgent but by sparing no effort to figure in minute details who said what to whom the bigger picture is lost. The sin of revealing the identity of Ms. Plame is the incredible damage to the entity from which she was working-undercover. The costs of creating such an entity, developing a history and credibility with contacts and paper trail is enormously valuable asset for the defense of not only the U.S, but the entire world. This stupidity only shows what a bunch of clowns end up working at the State Department. Additionally, if we all agreed that there was something odd or even unethical about her suggesting that he opionated husband take that mission, this matter should have been handled discretely so that the entity would not be exposed. The rest is inside the beltway bunk.

clarice

She was working under cover? Really? Any cite? (Don['t bother looking up the indictment. Even the prosecutor with years of investigative work behind him made no such charge.)
The crime of the media was megaphoning Wilson's phony charges without investigation in order to damage an Administration they wanted to lose the net election.

clarice

**neXt election*******

Jeff

Tom

Regarding 1x2x6, did you catch the fact that back in July 2005, an article in the Post coauthored by Mike Allen - the only reporter to get a byline on both of the original Post stories quoting 1x2x6, the original September 28 story with Priest and then the October 12 story with Pincus - changed the identification of 1x2x6 from the earlier "administration official" or "senior administration official" to the perfectly consistent but much more precise "senior White House official"? The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not; Allen presumably knows what he's talking about; no correction has been run on this point, though the story has received a different correction (on the photo caption) and despite the fact that abc's The Note picked up on this change big time if somewhat obscurely; other Plame stories have been corrected when they make an error of attribution (though, ironically, the example I am thinking of was a story by Leonnig that identified Pincus' source as being in the White House, then ran a correction to the effect that Pincus at that point had said that his source was an administration official, not a White House official, even though Pincus has now subsequently identified his source more specifically as a White House official).

The point is the very Post reporter who initially was involved in breaking the 1x2x6 story (and most likely the reporter who got it, since he's the one that both of the 2003 stories have in common) subsequently coauthored a report that identified 1x2x6 as a senior White House official. The only way i can imagine this is incorrect is if the Post was deliberately trying to misdirect attention away from the real source. But if so, why wouldn't they just leave the existing, vague attribution standing?

boris

All it took was a modicum of courage to confront the media gaggle and say that they had bought a Corn-Kristof-Pincus-Wilson peddled lie.

Fitz, like so many others bought it too. It still isn't a lie to them ... re jerry, jeff and many other seemingly rational ... well ...


ordi

Sir Richard the Faint-hearted Lion (or should it be LYING)

larwyn

Rick,
I like a combination of your
suggestions for our knight:

Sir Dick the Cravenheart

This excuse for a man deserves all the ridicule we can create. Bytes and bytes of it.

JJ

Directed at above, above, above, etc...

And if the Libby case is not dropped, won't it be fun listening to the Exhibits being expounded upon by Fitz?

JJ

...now

Other Tom

Is "mopery" perhaps being confused with the common-law crime of "lopery," defined as "lying in wait with the intent to commit buggery?" It would seem to be a nice way to tie a ribbon around this entire fiasco.

MayBee

Clarice: Even then she wouldn't talk until he limitd her testimony to Armitage. (Cutting her losses while protecting her big source, I think.)

Right. What I'm wondering is how he could justify it to us or to himself or to the investigation, knowing that Armitage had talked to at least one reporter? And knowing that Miller had spoken to other sources. Shouldn't he have been interested in other sources, even if he limited it to others he *knew* had discussed Plame publicly?

It seems like malfeasance to me.

MayBee

Jeff-
Ha! I love it that you found in The Note a hint about reporters in the WaPo adding what they've learned into stories and now it has become The Note hinting at *this* change.

And once again, you skip over all of the other changes in the 1x2x6 story (none of which received a correction either). Corrections in this story have been rare. Like everytime Plame is called a covert agent. That deserves a correction, but doesn't get it.

You know reporters are sloppier than that.
Besides, the 1x2x6 story itself requires a big correction.
There weren't 2.
There weren't 6.
And I have no idea who the 1 might be.

sam

08/27/06 Reuters: Bodies of two electricity workers found in Hafriya

08/27/06 MCT: Iraqis swapping houses in Baghdad to avoid sectarian violence

08/27/06 AP: 2 US soldiers killed in Iraq, US military says

08/27/06 Reuters: Car bombs and shootings kill 55 in Iraq

08/27/06 AP: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 25 in Iraqi Market

08/27/06 WaPo: Protector of Iraq's antiquities resigns in face of massive looting

08/27/06 Centcom: MND-B SOLDIER KILLED BY ROADSIDE BOMB

08/27/06 AFP: Iraq rebels kill 28 in bloody response to peace plan

08/27/06 Reuters: Iraq government plans reshuffle

08/27/06 AP: Marine from Milford killed in Iraq

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill former Sunni Deputy Prime Minister in Baghdad

08/27/06 AFP: Four Kurdish policemen killed in Kirkuk

08/27/06 Reuters: 20 bodies found in various districts of Baghdad

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill Iraqi lieutenant colonel in Muqdadiya

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill two brothers in Abara

08/27/06 Reuters: Reuters seeks Pentagon probe on journalist's death

08/27/06 Xinhua: Three coalition soldiers wounded in accident in Iraq

08/27/06 Xinhua: Car bomb kills two in Baghdad

08/27/06 VOI: Car bombing in south Kirkuk kills 1, injures 3 in Kirkuk

08/27/06 Reuters: Bomb planted in Baghdad bus kills 5

clarice

MayBee, Fitz said a long time ago that he didn't ask other reporters about their knowledge and sources--only those he had reason to believe talked to Rove or Libby, just in case you needed more evidence that this was a fercocked investigation where the method determined the outcome.

MayBee

fercocked investigation where the method determined the outcome

Love "fercocked".
I would love Andy McCarthy to try his hand aaddressing this, especially after this line:
" I don't know, but I am betting that was done because Fitzgerald concluded the evidence that Libby, a public official, was intentionally lying was overwhelming. "

Well, the evidence became overwhelming after he threw Miller in jail and let her out if she promised to talk about Libby and nobody else. And part of the "evidence" he gleaned from that was Libby was the first person to discuss the case, which is what made Fitzgerald think Libby was lying and obstructing justice.

I think the obstruction charges at least need to be dropped.

topsecretk9

--And part of the "evidence" he gleaned from that was Libby was the first person to discuss the case, which is what made Fitzgerald think Libby was lying and obstructing justice.--

And this turned out to be a big BUMMER for Fitz, because he missed where Judy had Wilson's contact info before she talked to Libby.

MayBee

So is Corn going to tell us in his new book who his sources were? Will he tell us what Valerie's job was?

Chants

Boris stated:

"[Y]your argument boils down to 'those nasty people did a nasty thing'

Only the thing was done by somebody else.

It wasn't actually nasty, just the inevitable result of her own participation.

So you're left only with 'those nasty people ...'"

That about sums up how Bush critics are so locked in to thier position regarding the Plame Affair. To them, it is very hard to see the discrediting of Wilson as a legitimate endeavor. Instead, they reflexively conflate it with an endeavor to "punish" Wilson. Well done, Boris. If I may modify it just a bit:

1. Rove and Libby are nasty people.
2. Nasty people do nasty mean things.
3. Punishing is mean and nasty.
Therefore,
4. Libby and Rove wanted to punish Wilson. We know this to be true because they are mean and nasty.

As you said, Boris, when all is said and done, all you're left with is one article of faith: those nasty people.

How else is it possible that Corn is able to construct the ridiculous scenario which ties Armitage to Libby and Rove through, of all things, the INR memo. That's not logic on Corn's part. That's faith.

Chants

Jeff Said:

"The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not... ."

MayBee already noted that unknowns get repeated as fact by reputable newspapers all the time, such as Plame's alleged covert status. The WashPost is no exception.

Take the train wreck of Dafna Linzer's April 9, 2006 article. http://tinyurl.com/zvy2o. Although Ms. Howell later addressed some fo the issues contained in this article, others, such as Mr. Linzer's misreading of Fitz "prove a negative" portion of his pleadings, remain uncorrected, (i.e., the " it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson" line).

So no, the Post is not all that careful.

Bob

This mornings http://www.nysun.com/article/38616?page_no=3>New York Sun

"The new reports do not undermine evidence that Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, discussed Ms. Plame's then-classified CIA connection with reporters. But, in a concession striking for a liberal journalist who helped launch the furor over Ms. Plame's outing, Mr. Corn acknowledged that the story line touted by the left had flaws.

"The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework," Mr. Corn wrote on his Web site yesterday."

But do you think that will stop the moonbats? I guess Corn will be thrown under the bus, by the nutroots, for ruining Fitzmas!


Cecil Turner

"Mopery" that's a good one, never heard of that before.

Heh. I believe the reference is to G. Gordon Liddy's Will, wherein (IIRC) as an FBI agent, G. Gordon detains some teenaged partygoers at Timothy Leary's house and informs them he has them on "two counts of mopery with intent to creep . . . and that's in the first degree!" The kid responds that his dad is gonna kill him and is let loose. Vastly amusing like much of the book, which I can heartily recommend, if only to appreciate some truly warped thought processes (G. Gordon's).

So no, the Post is not all that careful.

Yeah, I was underwhelmed by it, too. Especially since the attribution in question is sourced to another Post article, and, as MayBee pointed out, contains other factual errors:

But in late September, a senior White House official was quoted as telling The Post at least six reporters had been told of Plame before Novak's column, "purely and simply out of revenge."
I still think the odds-on favorite is Grossman, which would make Leopold's article remarkable in an "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while" kind of way.

Patton

""The new reports do not undermine evidence that Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, discussed Ms. Plame's then-classified CIA connection with reporters.""

NO, THE FACTS ALREADY UNDERMINE THAT BS.

The reporters provided information they already knew and Rove simply said he had heard that too. Rove provided no information
to the reporters they didn't already have.

HA

Armitage is a coward. He has stood by for 3 years and let this country and Scooter Libby twist in the wind. Same goes for Colin Powell.

Patton

If Rove had said:

Gee, I can't comment on that, or

Gee, you may want to talk to Tennent before going with that, or

That's a damnable lie, Plames a secretary at the DNC Anti-Semitism wing.

Just what would have been the result? DUH!

The information still would have been published, simply because it was Wilson that opened his big mouth and the biggest qyestion Wilsons actions raised were - WHY WAS HE SENT TO AFRICA.

Simply answer - his wife worked in the office that sent him.

If you can't comprehend that simple fact, you are deranged.

Patton

Jeff: ""The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not""

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

paladin2

re: limiting Millers's testimony to Armitage as malfeasance---even worst is agreeing with NBC to only ask Russert if he mentioned "Plame" to Libby and if Libby leaked to Russert and then indicting Libby because he gave a different version of the "conversation"--a "conversation" that was never investigated.

noah

And maybe, you pathetic conspiracy minded cretins, the WH "knowing" there was no "there there" decided to just let it play out at DOJ and avoid the minefield that would have accompanied any attempt to rein in the investigation or even short circuit it with the "truth". And remember there was a criminal investigation underway which necessarily inhibited the players from comparing notes. Bush probably said to himself "I have more important things to do than even bother myself with this bullshit".

Ever heard of Ockham's razor? He was a 18th century spoilsport who warned against multyplying entities (or causes) which has been the bane of conspiracists and fabulists ever since.

Slartibartfast

fercocked investigation

I probably would have written that verkocht or something similarly German in spelling.

Bob

OT but worth posting...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp>What did you do in the war, UNIFIL?

"UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got."

Ahhh the UN the peace keepers of moonbats!

Jane

And maybe, you pathetic conspiracy minded cretins, the WH "knowing" there was no "there there" decided to just let it play out at DOJ and avoid the minefield that would have accompanied any attempt to rein in the investigation or even short circuit it with the "truth".

That's what I think too. It wasn't going to harm national security, save the heavy hand for when we need it.

OT: I'm all behind Tom Lantos on this one. Anyone else: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.PHP#006317

Patton

Some are all so eager to believe a newsmedia
that:

Refuses to publish pictures of deaths on 9/11.

Refused to publish cartoons out of respect for Islam.

Relished the opportunity to publish Hezbo staged photos in Lebanon in order to rally the Islamic world against the Jews.

PeterUK

Bravely Robin ran away, (No!)
Bravely ran away, away. (I didn't!)

When danger reared its ugly head,
he bravely turned his tail and fled. (No!)
Yes, brave Sir Richard turned about (I didn't)
And gallantly, he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet, (I never did!)
He beat a very brave retreat, (Oh, lie!)
Bravest of the brave, Sir Richard. (I never!)

Shakespeare,has done this one "A Midsummer Nights Dream".

You will be relieved to know that,as a mere knight,Armitage is still a commoner

PeterUK

Clarice,
First degree mopery,like Sam?

Gary Maxwell

How else is it possible that Corn is able to construct the ridiculous scenario which ties Armitage to Libby and Rove through, of all things, the INR memo. That's not logic on Corn's part

You do know that Corn works for the Nation Mag? You know where they call Katrina van der Kerfufel an editor?

And have you ever heard Corn on a talk show? This is a guy who when the subject gets at all intense makes Eleanor Clift sound like a PhD in logic.

Jeff

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions: when they make a mistake on that count, they correct it. Of course being careful doesn't mean never making a mistake. I also was speaking specifically about such attributions. But I will add that 1)I want to hear more from the Post about the status of the original 1x2x6 claim; and 2)we don't know enough yet to say whether and how it was mistaken - for instance, I suspect the source may have confused some of the contacts with the press post-Novak with pre-Novak contacts, and also may not have been precise enough with the Post on who called whom.

Patton

""On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions.""

Yeah, and after my brother shot my Uncle on a hunting trip, he went back and corrected pointing a loaded weapon at people without the safety on....he is a very safe hunter...he corrects himself after every dead body.

(No actual people were harmed during this posting)

Lurker

Jane, the problem with Lantos' bill is that Lebanon is still getting money from other countries, especially Arab countries, to offset the charitable feelings toward Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Those Arab countries do not want Iran to take over the ME because Iran is Persia; not Arab.

By the same token, Lebanon will cave in to Islam and Sharia law.

I think one of the reasons that Bush is trying to offset the possible conversion to Sharia law.

BTW, Nasrallah claims he does not want round two war; yet, Iran and Syria continue to re-arm him.

There's something afoot to create a new party in Israel (not Likud) and one of the things that this new party does not want - financial aid from USA.

Personally, if Lebanon does not change within the next six months to stiffen its spine against Hezbollah, round two war is the only option. I suppose this is another reason Bush pushed for this ceasefire.

I wonder if UN is now addressing Iran's test-fire of its missile yesterday.

Bob

OT it's great to watch the dems self destruct... and they blame Rove for everything wrong with the dems!

"How else do you explain the fact that so many of them are seriously considering nominating Hillary Clinton for president in 2008? Earlier this month I revealed here that even 45 percent of Democrats, in “purple” New Hampshire, tell focus groups they hate her. Hate.


Among their comments:
“B-tch . . . political wh-re . . . evil . . . diabolical.”
It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter if it’s unfair. These people will not vote for her in a general election.
So you’d think the party would be throwing itself, right now, into a relentless quest for a more viable alternative. Someone who could carry the party’s colors to victory in 2008."

Good Read! http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=154732&format=&page=1>Dems better take Hillary off board

Tom Maguire

Tom

Regarding 1x2x6, did you catch the fact that back in July 2005, an article in the Post coauthored by Mike Allen - the only reporter to get a byline on both of the original Post stories quoting 1x2x6, the original September 28 story with Priest and then the October 12 story with Pincus - changed the identification of 1x2x6 from the earlier "administration official" or "senior administration official" to the perfectly consistent but much more precise "senior White House official"?

I'll be darned. Checking my archives, I see that that WaPo story came out on the same Sunday that Matt Cooper appeared on Meet The Press, so my attention was elsewhere.

Still, I should have picked up on that.

As to believing it, it is eerily reminiscent of the way Walter Pincus' source one day morphed from "Administration" to "White House" official - hard to believe they made that mistake twice, or even once.

Interesting - that would scuttle "Grossman as a misdirection play", and take down Jason Leopold as well.

Well, my very first guess back in the day was that the 1x2x6 leak was a guardian angel leak from someone in the White House whose goal was to make sure that an OVP exercise didn't expand into something that might involve Bush - I picked Andrew Card. That never squared with the source's claim that it was "meant for revenge", which was later withdrawn anyway, as I recall.

Troubling.

lurker

Interesting!

In Wake of Triple Hotel Bombings, Jordan Passes Tough Anti-Terror Law

Will Jordan now push for a definition of terrorism within UN? Who knows.

But the law is quite interesting and I'm sure our lefties will hate it.

Interesting that Jordan will use its military courts to try terrorists.

Another OT:

Nasrallah: No Remorse, Just Deflection of Increasing Lebanese Criticism

Was Bush right in telling the world to give Lebanon some time in order to see that Nasrallah actually lost this war?

"The dialogue in Lebanon is scaring Hezbollah and this was meant to deflect criticism onto 'Israeli aggression'. For all their handouts - courtesy of Iran - the people are holding Hezbollah responsible for the death and destruction of 34 days of war. Hezbollah suffered 600 deaths, the destruction of their terror infrastructure and a severe degredation of military capabilities. Now, Hezbollah faces an ongoing internal debate in Lebanon as people are returning to their homes - some not finding homes to return to. These people are openly questioning if Hezbollah is truly the great protector of Lebanon."

There was a story posted at YARGB about a man leaving his village after the war with two fingers sticking up in the air. Someone saw him and asked him if that was meant to be a "V" for "Victory". The man's reply was, "No, it has nothing to do with victory, it meant that two houses in his village remain standing".

"MEMRI released a report on Friday that supports this analysis. Sayyed Ali Al-Amin, the mufti of Tyre and of the Jabal 'Aamel district, said "[Neither] Lebanon nor the Lebanese people have any connection to this war. The war was forced upon the country and people, who did not want it... Had the previous agreements been implemented, we would not have reached this situation."

HHHmmm...I'll check TruthLaidBear and read Memri.

lurker

And hasn't Matt Cooper already left Nations to work for Conde Nast?

Cecil Turner

I suspect the source may have confused some of the contacts with the press post-Novak with pre-Novak contacts, and also may not have been precise enough with the Post on who called whom.

I suspect the source was a politically-motivated liar, and probably friends with the other famous liar in this charade: Joseph C. Wilson IV. That was certainly the effect of the Post article, so unless we're supposed to believe it was unintentional . . .

If that's so, the obvious suspect is Grossman, who remains my favorite.

Tom Maguire

Still on the WaPo change of source:

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

Well, this would be more of a clarification - "Administration official" is accurate but vague, and is sometimes all the source will agree to. Assuming the Wapo has editors, they would have reflected on whether a lower degree of anonymity was apporopriate, checked with the source, and printed a cleared attribution.

Or they may have screwed up, but I don't love that theory.

As to my Andrew Card idea, IIRC he and Rove were rivals, since Rove had the President's ear. So maybe he knew enough to know that the "2" were Libby and Rove, but was confused on the timing of their calls.

Jeff

As to believing it, it is eerily reminiscent of the way Walter Pincus' source one day morphed from "Administration" to "White House" official - hard to believe they made that mistake twice, or even once.

Right, it's almost certain that neither one was a mistake. Rather, I think the options are they were deliberately identifying their sources with greater precision and locating them in the White House, or it was a deliberate effort to mislead people who were paying very very close attention. I'm going with the first one, certainly with regard to Pincus and his source; and I see no reason to think Allen was deliberately misleading back in July 2005.

And frankly, you may turn out to have been right at the outset: Card has to be at the top of anyone's White House list of candidates for 1x2x6. I don't believe the revenge claim was withdrawn by the source. Also note that the tenor and point of 1x2x6's claim - not that it was wrong in a moral or legal sense, but just that it was wrong in a strategic or tactical sense - fits well with the idea that 1x2x6 was in the White House. The other leading White House candidate has to be McClellan; though I think there's an off chance it might be someone like Matalin.

maryrose

Jeff:
You are clinging to something that Grossmann made up out of wholecloth to protect himself and Armitage because both are too cowardly to tell the truth. Fitz is complicit in this endeavor and as a consequence should be brought up on charges. I really don't see this Libby case making it to trial as it has now reached the realms of surreal absurdity.
After 3 years of Corn and the Nation writing lies; now they are saying that all the facts may not align-give me a break.

Jeff

As to my Andrew Card idea, IIRC he and Rove were rivals, since Rove had the President's ear. So maybe he knew enough to know that the "2" were Libby and Rove, but was confused on the timing of their calls.

A very plausible scenario.

It's funny, by the way, that on this question I'm going with the reporter who, when he was at the White House, was so very White House-friendly (as he remains, now at Time), while y'all (Tom possibly excepted, we'll see) are going with Leopold.

Dwilkers

Hello, my name is Forest, Forest Gump. I'm your new special prosecutor.

lurker

Interesting about Hillary, Bob. Think we'll see increasing polarization in all kinds of flavor until the 08 election?

If your assumption about Card is right, then did Card do anything malicious to out Plame? Did Fitz interview Card and if so, Card hasn't been indicted to date.

And same goes for Ari Fleischer.

Interesting that Powell, Armitage, Card, and Fleischer all left.

Good thing McClellan's exit hasn't been connected to this story...just yet!

lurker

Jeff,

Jeff Gannon?

Tony Snow?

Lurker

OT:

Lebanon said bolstering troops on Syrian border

Looks like Syria's losing on this one, including Shabaa Farms.

maryrose

Jeff:
Matalin is not involved at all. Stop spreading that falsehood. She wouldn't let Libby twist in the wind.

lurker

Maryrose, Matalin has been helping raising funds to help Libby pay for his legal fees. Since the odds are very, very high that Libby will be acquitted or that his case will be dismissed, then there's no way Matalin could be the 1X2X6 source.

clarice

James Lewis is tougher on Armitage than even I was:
"Patrick Fitzgerald, who seems to be a creature of the media only, must now take these new media revelations and prosecute the guilty parties—- not the innocent. And none of the conspirators must be left out: Not Armitage, who betrayed his country for the sake of revenge, nor Spikey and Dave, who both knew what was going on all along and connived to promote a blatant miscarriage of justice. And possibly not even Colin Powell, who was probably kept in the loop by his good buddy Dick. "

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5956

PeterUK

"On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions: when they make a mistake on that count"

Very mich like shoplifters who think they have been seen.

clarice

Put me in the camp of those who believe 1x2x6 was Grossman.

Patton

So here is our big White House conspiracy plan:

Karl Rove is about to go on vacation, so he sits at his desk and waits and waits for a phone call from a reporter, just knowing someone is bound to call and ask him if he knew Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and sent her husband to Africa.

Then Karl is going to slyly say...'I heard that too'...then head off on vacation just knowing that reporters going to print a huge article slamming Plame and ruining her chances of every making a dime.

And to top it all of let's pick a big liberal un-sympathic reporter who's wife is a Hilliary Clinton staffer.


Why doesn't the big conspiracy just change to include Armitage???? No one would suspect him, that Bush is so clever!!

Just like he used Powell on WMD, he suckered Armitage into outing Plame. Those fools! Bush is diabolical!

clarice

lurker, Matt left Time to go to Conde Nast.

Jeff

Karl Rove is about to go on vacation, so he sits at his desk and waits and waits for a phone call from a reporter, just knowing someone is bound to call and ask him if he knew Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and sent her husband to Africa.

Then Karl is going to slyly say...'I heard that too'...then head off on vacation just knowing that reporters going to print a huge article slamming Plame and ruining her chances of every making a dime.

Alas, you're confused. Rove confirmed the Plame information for Novak on July 9, while he shared the Plame information unsolicited with Cooper on July 11 right before he went on vacation.

And i agree that it's more likely Rove was just seizing an opportunity that presented itself with Cooper than following out a premeditated plan. Interesting question whether Rove alerted Libby that he'd told Cooper.

maryrose

Patton:
This case goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. Why would highly paid persons employed by the White House engage in this nonsense. It sounds like a gossipy Washington rumor story gone bad and now everyone is playing the CYA card and heading for the exits.
McClelland involvement-naw- he'd be too afraid the press would eat him for breakfast- oh yea they kinda did...

cathyf

Ya' know, I'm still mystified by the question of why Fitzgerald has chosen to bend over and grab his ankles for Richard Armitage?!?!? I could see, maybe, doing that for Powell, but Armitage? Fitzgerald has invested a lot in protecting UGO's identity, and I'm scratching my head wondering just what the heck is in it for Fitz?

cathy :-)

clarice

What's in it for Fitz? A chance to have his friend Andy make an enormous fool of himself?

I continue to think he had a definite bias going into this and maintained it throughout, and because of the way he conducted the investigation he never got evidence that he war wrong.

clarice

**waS wrong****

John Loki

Do we have any lawyers here?? This to me would put into doubt whether Libby's testimony was materal. Am I wrong?

maryrose

Is it just me or does Cooper seem to be changing jobs a lot lately?

Ranger

Some assorted and collected thoughts.

Why does this Armitage revelation matter?

Judy Miller went to jail and Libby got indicted because, even though Armitage had admitted to telling Novak, that admission did not resolve who “first” leaked, because it was clear that reporters knew about VP before Novak found out from Armitage. By not admitting he had told Woodward weeks before he told Novak, Armitage clearly obstructed the investigation by sending the FBI and Fitz on a wild goose chase to try and prove that Libby told Judy about VP before anyone else in the DC press corps heard about “Wilson’s Wife.” The fact that Woodward knew before anyone else in the DC press corps and told Pincus and may have told Libby (in the form of a question specifically written out for and interview with Libby) fundamentally changes the character of the investigation and puts it in a totally different direction.

Now, questions that need to be resolved.

Did the FBI ask Armitage who besides Novak he told about “Wilson’s Wife”? If they did, then the only reason that Fitz didn’t know about Woodward is because either the FBI failed to forward that information from the newly appointed SP or Armitage lied to the FBI.

More importantly, did the FBI even ask Armitage about other reporters he talked to besides Novak? If not, why not? To me, that would be gross negligence on the part of the investigators. DoJ rules tell investigators to avoid trying to get information from reporters unless it is the last resort. In this case, if you have an individual who has admitted passing information along to one reporter, it would be incumbent on the part of the investigators to as that person who else they shared that information with.

Even if the FBI didn’t ask Armitage who else he talked to, Fitz should have gone back and asked that question himself when he took over the investigation. I think the reason that Fitz doesn’t wasn’t to prosecute Armitage for obstruction is because attempting to do so would fail based on the ineptitude of the investigation. Armitage’s defense would simply be ‘They never asked me who else I talked to and my lawyer said don’t volunteer any information you aren’t specifically asked for.’

Patrick R. Sullivan

Speaking of hubris, our old friend pgl has stepped in it again.

Wilson's a liar

Looks like Dick Armitage is a typical Washington blabbermouth, enamored with his own position and famous for gossiping to show how well-connected and informed he is. This stuff happens all the time in Washington.

I detest Armitage for hiding while Libby and Rove twisted in the wind, but I thank him for leaking the information to Novak. It should be clear by now that many, many reporters knew who and what the Wilsons were, but none of them had any intention of informing us as long as Wilson was being a pain in the President's ass. Only Novak had the guts to do it.

topsecretk9

I'm still mystified by the question of why Fitzgerald has chosen to bend over and grab his ankles for Richard Armitage?!?!?

Naked photos of Fitz.

Jeff

Judy Miller went to jail and Libby got indicted because, even though Armitage had admitted to telling Novak, that admission did not resolve who “first” leaked, because it was clear that reporters knew about VP before Novak found out from Armitage.

Incorrect. When Miller went to jail, as far as Fitzgerald knew or suspected, the first leaks to reporters were both on July 8 - Armitage to Novak and Libby to Miller. The latter was strongly suspected, not yet known, but the first-ness of it was not the issue. And in fact, there is no reason to think Libby's indictment depended on being first. As a thought experiment, I think it is clear that if MIller had testified that July 8 was the first time she'd heard about Plame from Libby or anyone (which was her testimony in her first gj appearance), Libby still would have been indicted - and the fact that Libby may have told Miller a few hours before Armitage told Novak on July 8 is not the pivotal factor. Obviously, the chronological order matters, but I don't think Fitzgerald was interested in just going after the first leaker.

So you're operating with a false premise.

clarice

Ranger, good post.I have always thought the obstruction charge was preposterous, particularly because of the way the investigation was conducted:The prosecution obstructed its own investigation because of the way it was conducted.Certainly this revelation establishes that Armitage obstructed itby not coming forth re Woodward (and possible others as TM notes) AND by refusing to give Woodward a waiver to go before Fitz and establish that he's received the first leak, and his source wasn't Libby or Rove.

John L have never thought the exchange cited in the indictment was material.

Ranger

Fitz is protecting UGO because it is essential to protecting the reputation of the FBI and himself personally. If UGO's identity is confirmed legally, then people will ask UGO if he was ever asked what other reporters he talked to besides Novak. My guess is that he was never asked that question, thus showing that the initial investigation was conducted in a grossly negligent manner and that Fitz never took steps to correct the errors of the initial investigation before he proceeded to persecute Libby.

topsecretk9

Even if the FBI didn’t ask Armitage who else he talked to, Fitz should have gone back and asked that question himself when he took over the investigation. I think the reason that Fitz doesn’t wasn’t to prosecute Armitage for obstruction is because attempting to do so would fail based on the ineptitude of the investigation. Armitage’s defense would simply be ‘They never asked me who else I talked to and my lawyer said don’t volunteer any information you aren’t specifically asked for.’

IIRC Armitage said recently on Charlie Rose that he did not (at least to that point) have representation (i.e. no lawyer)

I believe the FBI did not ask Armitage if he might have talked to any other reporters than Novak during the relevant time because Armitage came forward about Novak.

I do think the initial FBI investigators botched the entire thing and Fitz half realized he was in a pickle when Woodward came forward. It was after he learned Marc Grossman and Wilson were buddies and Cooper had a "draft" problem that got the "Houston we have a problem" memo.

AST

Frankly, this whole story no longer interests me, except as more evidence of the hypocrisy and bias in the media.

It's the same old loop: rumors, special prosecutor, indictment, millions of dollars wasted to discover what turns out to be less than advertised, book deals all around. Fitzgerald's fifteen minutes of fame are blowing back. After putting Judy Miller in jail, he now looks like the media's lap dog for letting her testify only about Scooter Libby. Apparently the reporters knew that Armitage was the source, but since he is a critic of the White House, he gets a pass.

Hey, it's hurricane season! Shouldn't these journalists be busy cooking up another FEMA failure scandal?

The hubris here belongs to the press.

topsecretk9

but I don't think Fitzgerald was interested in just going after the first leaker.

Yes he was. He belived the only reason Libby said he heard from reporters was because he, Libby, leaked it to them so it would come back to him.

It's in the presser.

John Loki

Under the Title 18, Section 1623, Which I believe two counts are involved, one's testimony has to be material.

JM Hanes

Jeff:

"...while y'all (Tom possibly excepted, we'll see) are going with Leopold."

Not so. You must have missed my last comment on your White House 1-2-6 theory in the old Armitage thread. For reasons outlined there, I think both you and Tom are looking too high up the food chain. In any case, however, I don't see either Card or Matalin essentially outing the White House for any reason, benign or otherwise, and I don't think McClellan ever knew enough about anything to do it.

Jeff

It's in the presser.

No it's not. The major significance of Libby's allegedly false testimony that he heard about it first from reporters was that the source of his knowledge mattered, since it would be quite different if he learned about Plame from classified information rather than from reportial gossip.

topsecretk9

Fitz

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation...

...FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts...

...That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby...


...At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Les Nessman

As the wheels come off, the goalposts will move (or whatever metaphor you like):

"
I dont know why they hate me either. I think Fitzgerald is out of control!

But when an out of control dog is loose in the park I blame the owner.

Posted by: Don | August 27, 2006 at 01:24 PM"


See, they've gotten years of publicity from the 'Bush outed a secret agent for revenge!!'
Now that it is blowing up, they are changing the tune to 'Fitz is outta control and it's Bush's fault!!'

Jeff

JMHanes - You could be right about a White House source for 1x2x6 being lower down, though it seems to hang on Vandehei and Allen being inaccurate in their 7-17-05 article, and I am simply going to dispute your contention that major reporters don't get put in the honorable mention category. That's simply not so at the Post, and it certainly has not been the case in the reporting on the CIA leak case, where major reporters like Pincus, Milbank, Priest have gotten that bottom-of-the-article credit.

Yeah, topsecret, that passage doesn't bolster your case.

topsecretk9

OH, OK Jeff.

Ranger

Jeff,

It is indeed in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html>presser:

"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

" He [Libby] was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

So, clearly, before Woodward came forward, Fitz's entire theory of the case was that Libby could not have heard about it from reporters because he [Libby] was the first person in the goverment to tell a reporter. Woodward's story blows that completely out of the water because

1) Woodward learned about it from Armitage two weeks before Libby mentioned it to Miller.

2) Woodward told Pincus, which means that it is concievable that members of the press were talking about "Wilson's Wife."

3) Woodward has written evidence that he may have told Libby about "Wilson's Wife" in the form of a question some time shortly after he learned about it from Armitage.

topsecretk9

Ranger

Exactly...Fitz even qualifies that Novak was not the first reporter to learn about V.Wilson and fingers the 1st reporter as Judy Miller...(who incidentally DID NOT, like Woodward, write a word)

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Which might have been resolved if Fitz's team had actually investigated and taken a look at Armitage's calendar like the AP did.

Ranger

This part of the presser is particularly significant in light of the issue with UGO:

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

Because if Fitz had done this, he would have discovered that Armitage told Woodward about "Wilson's Wife" weeks before Libby ever mentioned it to a reporter, and therefore there would have been no reason to haul Libby in front of the GJ even once. Even if Libby's story didn't compleetly add up, it was not relivent to who leaked first and if it was a crime.

Libby's story may still not sit right given these facts, but there is a lot of plausability to it, even if the details are jumbled.

Jane

This to me would put into doubt whether Libby's testimony was materal. Am I wrong?

Material to what?

topsecretk9

Ranger. Exactly.

Which makes me wonder why Fitz was so interested in Judy Miller, given that she didn't write anything and she only popped up because she was on Libby's calendar - if Libby offered up Miller than he was more forthcoming than Armitage - Army concealed Woodward.

My hunch is someone told the investigators that Libby was talking to Judy Miller, and my hunch is that person is Joe Wilson.

windansea

Jeff and emptywheel are spinning furiously

it was Rove....no, it was Cheney....Armitage was part of it....Fitz didn't really mean what he said in the presser....BushChimpyMcHitler!!!!

Gabriel Sutherland

Fitzmas makes a lot more sense when you examine the investigation from the start.

The White House, not just the current occupants, have been pressing for increased powers to obtain a judicial ruling that explicitly obligates "journalists" to reveal their sources when those sources have engaged in criminal activity. The White House cannot execute national security policy if there is a select group of individuals that are "above the law" when it comes to revealing information.

Ashcroft didn't need to recuse himself. He did it for political reasons. Comey didn't have to appoint Fitzgerald. He did it for political reasons.

Again, you have to examine the press, their sources, and multiple attempts from multiple administrations to obtain waivers from the courts to compel journalists to reveal their sources when the journalists may be directly involved in providing legal cover for criminal activity. The DoJ has required a special case and the Plame leak is just that case.

Fitzgerald was appointed because he's the best prosecutor on the active DoJ roster. The man rented an apartment for three years in NYC and never had the natural gas activated. It's not clear if he even sleeps.

Sue

interested in just going after the first leaker.

Obviously, since he totally ignored Armitage. However, we wouldn't know that he wasn't interested in the first leaker from his press conference, would we?

maryrose

Ranger:
Top-notch analysis today.
TS: Hang in there with Jeff; you represent many of us in your quest to keep him honest and set him straight.

boris

Jeff, your quibbling is pathetic.

TSK9 is correct and Ranger tells why. Libby being first is the false premise underlying the claim that Libby's testimony was a lie. Libby couldn't hear it first from reporters because reporters didn't know about it until Libby told them. First. Quibbling that Fitz isn't claiming being first is a crime is just lame. Fitz IS claiming than being first PROVES LIBBY LIED!

Sue

and never had the natural gas activated

Huh? I'm sure I'm missing something but what does natural gas and best prosecutor have to do with each other? He also was a pig. Leaving boxes of pizza in his oven for months.

Sue

Yeah, topsecret, that passage doesn't bolster your case.

Sure it did. It brought forth the 1st person to leak to the press. Without that passage, we would all still be under the impression that Libby told Miller 1st. Instead of speculating that Miller already knew from Armitage.

boris

Byron York expresses the take closest to mine:

but we do know that fevered imaginings about the awful acts of the neocon cabal were not the exclusive province of left-wing blogs; they were also present inside the State Department and CIA. Fitzgerald may have chosen the course that he did — appearing to premise his investigation on what might be called the firedoglake theory of the case — because he was pointed in that direction by the White House's enemies inside and outside the administration.

That certainly does raise questions about Fitzgerald's judgment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame