Powered by TypePad

« Nifong Out - Loose The Hounds! | Main | File This Under "Truly Bold Predictions" »

January 12, 2007

Comments

tom maguire

And of course Jeff is always the gentleman here. No reason for anyone to take issue with him. Nope. None at all.

ok, there is tht...

RichatUF

Szady is to Ross Perot as Litvinenko is to Berezovsky

Billionaires, Hedge Funds, and Spooks...

RichatUF

RichatUF

...David Szady who was appointed the FBI's senior counterintelligence official...

Guess they haven't cleaned up any after Hanssen

RichatUF

RichatUF

opps I should have read the rest of the article

The agents in charge of the investigation, posse members Rochford, Guerin, and Milburn, were overseen by David Szady.

Wow

tom maguire

Sad to see TM losing his letters. Happens to all the old folks!


nd with the shift not working, i cn't get to the upper cse, if you know smell wht i'm cooking.

brutl polly-murry smckdown, btw. good job.

re the ide from w--s plogist/defender p sullivn tht miller ws referring to the july 6 op-ed - here is w--s


Cheney believed that this particular CIA debriefing report might undermine Wilson's claims because it showed that Wilson's Niger probe was far more inconclusive on the issues as to whether Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The report said that Wilson was restricted from interviewing any number of officials in Niger during the mission, and he was denied some intelligence information before undertaking the trip.


nd miller -

My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives.

the common theme of l-ck of -ccess to nigerien offici-ls is - clue. however, i guess w--s's point is th-t libby did not specific-lly tell miller she w-s getting bits of - new report.

7aSz

Criminal conspiracy and S Z Day:

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/legal/7aSzadyDecl.pdf

Yes. the new guy on the intelligence committee is named Bond, Kit Bond.

The court trial website should be called The Plame Fix?

Rick Ballard

Given that the CIA debriefing report was an attachment to the June 10, 2003 INR memo what difference does the focus on the March '02 date serve?

I must be a little slow today.

RichatUF

is more documented or inexplicable than that involving the Chinese spy, Katrina Leung...Parlor Maid

Ken Williams...Phoenix Memo...Harry Ellen...Chinese espionage

Maybe I ought to be more paranoid

RichatUF

/thread supposed to be about the Waas article, sorry for the thinking-out-loud

cboldt

-- what difference does the focus on the March '02 date serve? --


I have a hard time figuring out these conspiracy theories, but I think Wass's theory is that Cheney told Libby, in the presence of other witnesses, to leak "Wilson's report" of February 2002 observations (report given orally to the CIA in March 2002) to the press, as a matter of debunking the claims in Wilson's essay in the NYT.


Then, in a private meeting, Cheney told Libby to leak that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and had him sent on that trip.


But Libby didn't bring up Wilson's report on the 12th, he brought up Plame. The conspiracy is the fabrication of a cover story in front of witnesses. All of this proves, of course, the existence of the Cheney/Libby conspiracy to leak Plame.

RichatUF

from cbolt...

...I think Wass's theory is that Cheney told Libby, in the presence of other witnesses, to leak "Wilson's report" of February 2002 observations (report given orally to the CIA in March 2002) to the press, as a matter of debunking the claims in Wilson's essay in the NYT. Then, in a private meeting, Cheney told Libby to leak that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and had him sent on that trip...

I've seen this movie before...

Mr. Neverquit Fitz: "You ordered the leak..."

Darth Cheney: "You can't handle the truth..."

It needs some work...but wasn't this about Libby lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury about conversations he had with Cooper, Miller, and Russert

RichatUF

TCO

I have enjoyed following this story on this site, but have to admit, I don't follow the details and timelines well. Don't have enough to make heuristic guesses. But others here have and do.

For Tom and Clarice (who do know the public details well and have done a lot of thinking about how they gibe): what is your GUESS as to whether Libby made ANY lie to the prosecuters?

Note, that I'm not asking what can be proved, legally. Not asking what is material. Not asking what you could prove about Libby. Not asking for mistakes versus lies (I know the difference). I just want to know if you had the proverbial gun* at your head (and had to guess one way or the other, with the proverbial bang decided on your guessed answer), what you think most likely. I know we don't have all the information, but I like Bayesian analysis, in assessing imperfect information investigations.

Clarice: apologies for re-asking the question, but I want to make doubly sure that you understand the type of question that I'm asking and get your objective answer. Last time, you referred to mistakes versus lies and such...despite it being pretty clear that I understand the difference and that's not my question.

P.s. Apologies for the long-winded caveats. I am trying to pin down (respectfully).


*Or a million dollar bet (gain/loss) if the proverb is too bru-tal.

cboldt

A recent press account of the upcoming trial has these tidbits ...

Libby's lawyers say Plame's identity was not disclosed because of a grand conspiracy, but rather because of political infighting among the CIA, the White House and the State Department over intelligence failures on Iraq.

The more jurors hear about that, defense lawyers say, the more likely they are to believe Libby had no reason to lie and the better his chances are for acquittal.

---===---

An open question is whether Libby will call Karl Rove, Bush's political strategist, who also spoke to reporters about Plame.

---===---

Fitzgerald's star witnesses include reporters from some of nation's leading media organizations.

---===---

Fitzgerald argues that Libby deliberately made up his version of the Russert conversation to conceal a concerted White House effort to learn about Plame.

7aSz

Who sent Plame to Montreal? Was is an official CIA order from the Operations Directorate or just a CIA operations officer getting nutty? Plame tied up alot of loose ends in Iraq, was this the purpose of the trip? Woolsey was on TV while she was there. Was this part of the 'she's just gone nutty' story or was she and he there for a reason? Why Montreal just before all the leaking stuff happened? Something to do with Paris and Joe's trip there before Iraq? She got recruited there and went to school?

How about the 'Plame we're making a million dollars from advertising trial site?'

Anyway, here is waas:

'WAAS corrects for GPS signal errors caused by ionospheric disturbances, timing, and satellite orbit errors, and it provides vital integrity information regarding the health of each GPS satellite.'

PeterUK

Why Montreal, COGEMA perhaps?

pollyusa

But Libby didn't bring up Wilson's report on the 12th, he brought up Plame. The conspiracy is the fabrication of a cover story in front of witnesses. All of this proves, of course, the existence of the Cheney/Libby conspiracy to leak Plame.

I think you have stated Waas's point correctly here.

Rick Ballard

So, Plame/Wilson are just lucky that softy Armitage nailed their sorry butts before the really tough guys got ahold of them?

That looks good - if I cock my head at a 32 degree angle, close one eye and squint with the other I can almost see Fitz actually performing his appointed duties.

Sue

How does Rove and Armitage fit into this conspiracy?

Sue

This reminds me of what happens when my husband puts together something without reading the directions. The left-over parts weren't important to begin with or he would have figured out where to use them.

Tina

I have a quick question regarding Team Libby and potential approach to Russert. Can Team Libby show clips of Russert in interviews on MTP? There are many instances showing how Russert favors democrats over republicans and how he misreports statements made by republicans. Can Team Libby show these clips to the jury to discredit Russert and show how biased he is in his reporting and use that to question his truthfulness to Fitzy?

Semanticleo

"You lefties are just so tiresomely repetitive and predictable."

The fertile soil for such bashing is probably the source of your fatigue.

clarice

richard, you don't have to be paranoid to realize that the damage done by the posse was certainly equal to the damage done by a clever mole..and, remember, when two of them had done their worst they weren't fired by made directors of the CIA CI center.

God bless us one and all.

RichatUF

7aSz...Why Montreal just before all the leaking stuff happened? Something to do with Paris and Joe's trip there before Iraq? She got recruited there and went to school?

How about the 'Plame we're making a million dollars from advertising trial site?'

Could be...

RichatUF

clarice

tco, I don't think he lied. Knowing what I do about Dion's office and Szady and Armitage and the goofus investigating this--along with the political aspirations of other luminaries in the FBI and DoJ--I think they took a minor inadvertent misrecollection and spun a bizarre--no evidence conspiracy in the hope they'd get Cheney by getting someone to "flip".

Patton

What's most ridiculous is Fitzgeralds position is even dummer then his claim of Libby's idiocy.

Fitzgerald has to believe that Libby concocted a fake story and committed perjury and obstruction, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING HE WOULD BE CAUGHT.

Big questions:
1. Why would Libby use Russert? A reporter he had no confidentiality agreement with????? Wouldn't it make much more sense to name a reporter whom he actually had a agreement with. Why not name Miller?
Come to think of it, why not just use his wife? Spousal privilege would have protected him..but Russert offers ZERO protection.

2. Why would Libby sign the confidentiality agreement waivers if he thought it would show him guilty of crimes. Again, this makes Zero sense. Its like agreeing to a cop searching you car when you pull over for a flat, knowing you have a dead body in the trunk.

PeterUK

Patton,please number 2,don't give them ideas.

RichatUF

I've read the Waas piece twice...maybe not carefully...but (as per one of the above comments) doesn't the existence of the INR memo (June 10) and its attachments, and the re-circulation of same memo on July 7th, undermine the dastardly conspiracy to create a cover story. The whole "Val is Joe's wife...wink, wink"--"Joe who?"--what the hell is in the water up there in DC...

Again I don't see how it is relevant if Libby and Cheney 'conspiried for a cover story' post-July 6th...Libby is charged with false statements and obstruction of the FBI and GJ wrt conversations he had with Miller, Cooper, and Russert. What was Clinton's defense..."if you both deny it it isn't true" defense. How can Fitz prove anything in the Libby case? He isn't charging "the leak"-time for me to re-read the indictment

And a note on my conspiracy-it seems that 'anti-zionist' ZOG types have plumbed the depths on that-eew...maybe a few drinks and I slop around in it...

RichatUF

clarice

I think the reissuance of the INR by Grossman was to cover Armitage's ass and perhaps to suggest the leaker was in the WH not the DoS.

clarice

In fact, I cannot think of a single other reason why it was reissued and redated instead of circulated more broadly with a Juky 7 coer letter.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it:I look forward to Grossman's cross examination.

TruthProbe

Karl Rove's REAL crime was teaching George W. Bush everything he knows about politics. Shame on Karl!

clarice

**July 7 coVer letter**

TCO

Clarice:

1. Thanks. Sorry, to be so persistent. I'm an engineer.

2. (shifting) Your comment about Fitzgeral being a goofus...just curious...did you always think that? I remember others on this site speculating that Fitz would validate Rove/Libby, would indict Wilson/Plame, etc. etc. Were you down on him from before it came clear that he was going after Libby? Or afterwards?

3. Why do you think Libby gave mistaken testimony (on more than one item)? If he's so smart (and legally experienced) that he wouldn't make a crappy lie, shouldn't he be smart (and legally experienced) enough to use caveats and/or avoid making comments on things that he did not remember properly? For that matter, shouldn't he have had a better memory? If he is so smart and all. (Maybe he isn't btw, not everyone in power is...)

RichatUF

Thanks for bringing up the level here New Mexico Rocks...didn't Joe Wilson, best CIA source ever and his super-secret CIA wife Val move to New Mexico...

RichatUF

/doing my homework...re-reading the indictment on the obstruction

cboldt

-- ALL THE WHILE KNOWING HE WOULD BE CAUGHT. --


Maybe getting caught was of no concern. If the lie is "immaterial," then getting caught is a so-what event, because no prosecution will follow. Plus, the investigation was by Ashcroft's DOJ - previous leak investigations went nowhere, and this one, playing the odds, would go the same place ... nowhere. All that even if he is caught redhanded.

clarice

NMR, Normally when you circulate a memo again to a new group of people , you take the original memo and write a cover letter listing those to whom it was sent.

After Armitage got the original INR he blabbed to Novak. Weeks later, the memo was distributed toothers--Cheney for one. I believe the reason the memo was redated and not transmitted in the usual cover letter form was to suggest that the later date was the date of its distribution..if so, WH officials would be the likely leakers.
__________

TCO:". Why do you think Libby gave mistaken testimony (on more than one item)? If he's so smart (and legally experienced) that he wouldn't make a crappy lie, shouldn't he be smart (and legally experienced) enough to use caveats and/or avoid making comments on things that he did not remember properly? For that matter, shouldn't he have had a better memory? If he is so smart and all. (Maybe he isn't btw, not everyone in power is...)"


We have gone thru this endlessly..you have to look carefully at his testimony. He admitted he'd heard it first from Cheney but as he didn't know her, placed no obvious weight on it and was concerned with far more pressing and complicated matters it didn't register until he started hearing from reporters or other officials who'd heard it from reporters (i.s. Rove telling him about Novak's article).
He said when that happened it was "as if he were hearing it for the very first time". In context, that is not saying that was when he first heard it, but rather that is the first time he heard it and understood there was any significance to that.

Why did he name Russert? Perhaps because it WAS Russert (his explanation that he never mentioned "Mrs. Wilson" seems a bit slippery); perhaps because his conversation with Russert had been on a sensitive matter to him and stood out in his mind more than other reporter conversations and he confused the source (It is possible according to Woodward that he raised it about that time and almost two weeks before the Miller meeting with Libby). The discrepencies between Libby's conversation with Cooper is ridiculously small, the Judge has indicated there is impeachable stuff against Cooper in Time's files and there is good evidence that Cooper's co-author was on the phone with Wilson before and after Cooper's conversations with Libby. In any event Cooper's testimony is that he was the one who raised Plame, not Libby.
Finally, we get to Miller and there are so many versions of her testimony and all are so addled we have called it "bafflegab" and cannot figure out at all what she said or wwhat she will say on the stand, but she has admitted she had other sources for this information and Wilson's name and phone number were in her notebook.

RichatUF

what does July 7 cover letter mean?

The INR typed up a memo dated June 10th about the Iraq-Niger-uranium connection and in the body of the memo it mentioned that Joe Wilson was the former ambassador (all those May and June stories Joe sourced) and that he was married to Val and that was how Wilson was selected to sample some of Niger's finest mint tea. The distribution was to Armitage, and the CIA March 02 debrief of the Wilson trip was an attachment. The July 7th re-issue dropped Armitage from the distribution but the memo was circulated around Air Force 1 to give the State version of the "16-words" wider circulation(called the Air Force 1 memo).

I think I got a good start-check the archives TM and the posters here really tore into it. I think this was about the time all the Wilson-Grossman links began to come out.

RichatUF

MayBee

cboldt: Any particular line in Waas' story strike you as not being in the public?

It's small but misleading: Judith Miller denies she and Scooter Libby had either a long relationship, or any kind of friendship.
Although I suppose this is less 'not in the public' and more 'made up'.

RichatUF

clarice is probably better and no the Waas' article doesn't mention the INR memo or Armitage (or any of the Wilson press contacts well before the magic date of July 6th)-his article (he does write well) is the "conspiracy to out Plame" theme.

RichatUF

cathyf
This reminds me of what happens when my husband puts together something without reading the directions. The left-over parts weren't important to begin with or he would have figured out where to use them.
I've said before that I find astonishing is just how little investigation Fitzgerald did that supports the actual indictment he filed. The whole logic of collecting conversations that Libby supposedly had about Plame before the Libby-Russert conversation is totally lame because Russert didn't confirm that the conversation happened.

Fitzgerald collected Libby's notes from when Cheney told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. (June 12th meeting, right? I'm working from memory...) Libby claimed that he wrote it down in his notes and immediately forgot it. Then Fitzgerald collected some rather squirrelly evidence from several more or less squirrelly witnesses that Libby may have been in possession of Plame knowledge starting on July 2nd. Team Libby is of course being quite diligent and attempting to impeach those witnesses' testimonies, and will try to get them to admit that they are either lying, or are honestly "filling in" Plame into a conversation that was limited to Joe Wilson. But the problem is that it doesn't matter -- the investigation turned up no evidence, even squirrelly evidence, that Libby exhibited Plame knowledge for the 3 weeks between June 12th and July 2.

Because they didn't actually investigate that time period. When they came up empty on whatever they were trying to prove, they took what they had and improvised some charges. Rather than conduct an investigation of the 3-week period, they just typed up an indictment and ran with it, gaping holes and all.

"Leftover parts" indeed... Maybe they just got bored?

MayBee

I think you have stated Waas's point correctly here.

Yes, I agree.
But Miller and Libby had talked about Wilson's report, no?
And there is certainly no reason to believe telling Cooper was any planned part of this big conspiracy. Cooper had been calling Libby all morning, and brought Plame up himself.

Ranger

Clarice,

I think you mean Woodward rather than Novak.

The redated INR creates the impression that Armitage's leak to Novak was an "inadvertant" leak resulting from "just learned info" on his part from the July 7 INR. Thus, the INR, combined with the 2 x 6 story creates the impression that Armitage could not have been the original leaker and that the "first leak" must have come from the White House.

I have come to the conclusion that people at State knew it was just a matter of time before their loose talk hit the ink, and by early July were puting things in place to either get the word about Wilson spread as wide as possible (making it harder to find the origin of the leak) or misdirect any investigation at the White House rather than admit their own culpability.

clarice

Thank you, ranger, I did mean Woodward..
Cathy, yes it is a house of cards..made worse by the selective investigation of what Wilson was leaking as well..It remains altogether possible given the obviously large number of journos who knew that the story was buzzing and other reporters may have told Libby (triggering his recollection) and that they told others who told Libby.

It was almost like asking someone to recall precisely how they first learned Clinton was messing around ..so many people knew and yakked..go remember..

Sue

Ranger,

I think the people at State knew it was Armitage long before the October surprise. And by people at State, I am referring to Grossman and Powell.

PaulL

What most of us know about Fitzgerald was on full display at the press conference he starred in.

There he displayed his vanity, his feelings of superiority, his spinning, and his avoidance of the truth.

From his court filings we know he ran a piss-poor investigation; that he had decided what must have happened before he knew what had happened; that once he had decided what must have happened he didn't let any pesky facts change his mind; that he had it in for Cheney and the White House but let State and the Wilsons have a free pass.

I wish I could be on the jury.

MayBee

That is simply unbelievable. If that is the case no jury would have a problem returning a guilty verdict.

Really, why is it unbelievable? People get details wrong all the time.
Perjury isn't just not telling things exactly has they happened or misremembering. I actually think the jury should have a hard time returning a guilty verdict on the perjury charges. Whether they will or not depends on a lot of factors, the makeup of the jury being one of them.
The defense will use misremembering as one defense, but I think getting other witnesses in front of the jury and showing they don't have perfect memories and aren't completely accurate will go far in showing the jury how unfair these perjury charges are.
As for obstruction- those charges are ridiculous. It isn't Libby's fault they were investigating the wrong people, and went down a dead-end road.

clarice

Yes, Paul, visions of being carried about on Schumer's shoulders and tagged for high appointment in the next Administration (along with his good buddy Comey) certainly must have entered his head when for that brief moment he was D.C.'s flavor of the week.

The damage that Wilson and Fitz did to US (not just the Administration but US )was substantial..for it lent credence to the lie run around the world that we jiggered the evidence to justify the war.

Sue

It seems to me that State obstructed the actual investigation.

narciso

Douglas Rohn, the author of that said INR memo, was promoted??? to Consul General in Karachi, Pakistan ( a promotion only slightly more dangerous than that of the
Downing Street Memo author, British Amb
to Bosnia (Sarajevo, where the found the
'Golden Chain' list of Al Queda financiers.
Seeing how Armitage was the first source,
and how the much vaunted Libby leak to Judith Miller never saw the light, how flimsy the Brewster Jennings cover(Ironically the real Brewster Jennings was
a Skull & Bones Yale man,'18, in the same
class as Howard Dean's grandfather a long time Mobil Oil executive);even after the Ames and DGI revelations of her actual
'covert' status, Armitage's Azeri oil connections, along with Baker,Powell, Scowcroft, et al. Which happens to be a key connection with the ISG, whose virtual silence on Iran's detrimental influence in Afghanistan as well as Iraq,in addition to the current regime in Baku, a hand me down Shiite majority autocracy, headed by the son of the former KGB chief Aliev. A real
case study in the effectiveness of of 'realism'. All these elements are likely
to make a short, pointless trial.

RichatUF

The damage that Wilson and Fitz did to US (not just the Administration but US )was substantial..for it lent credence to the lie run around the world that we jiggered the evidence to justify the war...

I knash may teeth at this-all that "evidence" accumulated during the 1990's, oh no, can't use any of that. Its almost as if something more than political power was on the line-but again, I guess its DC, what else is there but political power.

I re-read the indictment and I am more confused-what crime did Libby committ

RichatUF

Rick Ballard

what crime did Libby committ?

Dammit man - he's a Republican!

lurker

Richatuf, that's why I never understood why Libby was indicted in spite of Larry Johnson's prediction of 22 indictment pre-Fitz announcement.

Exactly what did Libby perjure on or lie? So far no one has been able to answer AND convince me.


MayBee

When did Scooter Libby go from wanting a secure phone line to discuss Plame (because it was so classified) to talking about her to reporters on cel phones?

lurker

Wasn't or isn't Fitz a Republican? Or in no man's land?

MayBee

There is more than one mention, and one might infer two telephone calls

Jeff brought up the two phone calls in one day, remember, to show how misleading Judy was being. She talked about a phone call "earlier in the week", and Jeff claimed she meant the first phone call on July 12 rather than the July 8 call. He still hasn't explained why he thought that, but it an excellent illustration of how suspicious of someone's every word you can get if you allow yourself to.

MJW

I have a theory about Miller's comment:

During my grand jury testimony, there had been some confusion over whether redacted notes of an interview I had done with I. Lewis Libby and which I provided to the special prosecutor were taken on July 12 at my home in Sag Harbor or during a briefer discussion with Mr. Libby earlier in the week.
I don't think the "briefer discussion with Mr. Libby earlier in the week" refers to the three minute phone call on Friday, July 12, but instead to the Monday, July 8 interview. The problem with that idea seems to be that the July 8 interview lasted two hours, while the July 12 interview lasted 37 minutes -- hardly briefer. The answer may be that "discussion" refers not to the interviews as a whole, but specifically to the discussion of Plame. Of the July 8 meeting, Miller says: "My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief."

One thing that's worth mentioning is that Miller says the notes might have been "taken in a taxi in D.C." Washington D.C. is a long way from Sag Harbor. More than 300 miles, according to MapQuest. If Miller were in D.C. on July 12, I'm surprised she returned to her home to talk to Libby on the phone. Perhaps the notes in question followed the notes about the July 8 meeting, and perhaps Miller indicated she might have either shared a cab with Libby after the meeting, or continued to make notes about the meeting while leaving alone in a cab. That would explain why it mattered to Fitz whether the notes were taken in a D.C. taxi or at her home.

I realize it's all speculation, but I believe it's at least semi-reasonable speculation

MayBee

he answer may be that "discussion" refers not to the interviews as a whole, but specifically to the discussion of Plame.

Yes, that's exactly what makes sense.

About the taxi- another option was that she was in a taxi in DC on the way to the airport, to fly to Sag Harbor.

topsecretk9

Poor TM. As I'm reading his posts sans "a" and such I keep feeling sorry for him -- it's funny how the mind is, even though I know it's the fritzy keyboard, I keep picturing he's been to the dentist and has a mouth full of cotton.

RichatUF
Richatuf, that's why I never understood why Libby was indicted in spite of Larry Johnson's prediction of 22 indictment pre-Fitz announcement.

Scary Larry, wonder if he is the “former CIA official" from the article…

Four other people -- including a senior White House official involving in the effort to declassify Wilson's debriefing [Grossman or Beers], a former senior CIA official [Johnson], and two private attorneys involved in the CIA leak case[Melanie Sloan, Anne Weismann]
…note [are my guesses]

An interesting thing about Scary Larry during the mid-2002 to 2003 time frame: He and a couple of his VIPS friends were shopping pretty hard Davis’s work about an Iraq connection to the OKC bombing, successful enough to get it steered to Sen. Specter's office for "further investigation"

RichatUF

TCO

Clarice:

Please answer point 3. For instance, did you proclaim him a "goofus" when he was initially apointed to the case? Trying to see if we have independant things relevant to the analysis (and supporting your impressions). I.e. you know that Fitz is a goofus (from previous evidence/association/observiation), therefore it supports your impression on the available evidence that Fitz is not investigating/prosecuting properly. Were you ever one of the people (on this site) proclaiming expectations that Fitz would side for the Bushies, against Wilson/Plame, etc. (Remember people thinking that, saying that here?)

On point 2: You are getting into the specifics of what Libby said. Can you synthesize and make relevant to my question about Libby's judgement, brains, legal ability, etc.? For instance are you saying that Libby did tell what happened and that the reporters are incorrect (mistaken OR lying)? Or that the items were minor and thus forgetable (like to dig into that more if that's your main slant)? Or that there is some semantics issue?

RichatUF

from MayBee

Jeff brought up the two phone calls in one day, remember, to show how misleading Judy was being. She talked about a phone call "earlier in the week", and Jeff claimed she meant the first phone call on July 12 rather than the July 8 call...

And Libby gets charged with perjury and obstruction and Ms. Bafflegab does not

RichatUF

Sue

An interesting thing about Scary Larry during the mid-2002 to 2003 time frame: He and a couple of his VIPS friends were shopping pretty hard Davis’s work about an Iraq connection to the OKC bombing, successful enough to get it steered to Sen. Specter's office for "further investigation"

Well don't ask Scary to clarify his position. It got me banned from his site. Not the only banning, but one of the first, IIRC.

MJW

Sue made an excellent point earlier when she asked why if Libby were, as Waas contends, on a secret mission from Cheney to out Plame, he stepped up his effort after he learned from Rove that Novak was writing a story that would achieve that goal with no further risk.

clarice

As for 2 I think I've explained my view as well as I am able.

As for 1,TCO, I barely paid attention to this case at the outset and hadn't much of a view about him. At some point into it a friend who'd paid close attention to his (and Comey's) early work warned me it would come to this and detailed the way they manipulated the cases in the SDNY re terror--it's where they made their reps and since the defendants were so unappealing no one much paid attention.

The Toensing reported his reputation for "cratice" interpretation of the law, something he's proud of it appears.
Then I started to pay closer attention, and with the help of everyone at JOM the scales fell from my eyes.
He's a modern Savanarola or Javert and I hope he is finally done for so that he can return to his organized crime shtick for which he is better suited.

Sue

MJW,

To answer my own point, he didn't. He stepped up efforts to get the information contained in the INR out. The pushback against Wilson would involve the truth. That was all they needed but how to get it out there without looking like they were attacking a critic. They should have just attacked him. Called him a lying jackass and left it at that.

TCO

Clarice: To your 4:30 post. I don't believe in the "Bush lied, invented evidence, etc." meme. I think it was not so simple as that claim of the moonbats. I think to a certain extent that they lied to themselves. Told themselves what they wanted to hear. Did not thoughtfully consider "what if I'm wrong", etc. This is a common human issues problem in corporate and governmental heirarchies. These guys are not Feymanian in their brains or in their intellectual self-honesty. I can't really catalog it, but there are other things that play into this impression.* I've met the type, so to speak. It is not an uncommon one. And Bush is HBS. At this point, it is becoming rather a common beleif including in a lot of the conservative columns that Bush and his adminstration are not honest with themselves, that they tend to delude themselves with how they want things to be, that they mouth platitudes, rather than insights, etc. I don't know how to define that consicely...but that's the meme that deserves to be spread.


*One minor one is when he asked all the assembled component commanders THE DAY BEFORE the invasion if they supported it. That smacks to me more of a getting people on record type thing than a thoughtful request for input. I mean what would he have done if someone had said no? And they had just spent forever planning the thing and moving forced into position. BTW: this was my impression of that little event at the time! It was reported when the war started. I was at the time relatively pro-war (hoping we would go in smash and then leave)...but that was a little event that I saw that worried me. Sorta like when you see someone snap at their secretary (who is normally all nice exterior).

clarice

***"creative***

TCO.I really have to run out for a while.
"
are you saying that Libby did tell what happened"

I think he told what happened to the best of his recollection at the time he was asked.

"and that the reporters are incorrect (mistaken OR lying)?"
Either or both are possibile.These were not long conversations and had taken place some time earlier. Russert had no notes. Cooper's seem to contradict his testimony.And Miller's notes are seemingly incomprehensible even to her.
"Or that the items were minor and thus forgetable (like to dig into that more if that's your main slant)?"

I think until the Novak story Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was not considered by Libby to be a major piece of information compared to everything else gong on.
"Or that there is some semantics issue?"
That, too, is involved. "as if for the first time" is not a declaration that this was the first time..rather an expression of suddenly understanding the significance of what he had earlier heard but forgotten because it seemed so insignificant at the time.
"

Sue

This is my theory, subject to change when I think of a new one.

State wanted to get the information out that Plame was the reason Wilson was sent to Africa. State had the motive. Pissed at Tenet for making their man look like a boob on the world stage. Pre-Wilson trip, State did everything to prevent him from going, short of saying no. He couldn't talk to anyone of importance. He couldn't do this. He couldn't do that. He went anyway. And learned nothing. His report was pretty much that. You guys already know everything I found out. Carry on. It was a boondoggle, to borrow from an unnamed source. What better way to embarrass Tenet than to show that Wilson was picked because his wife suggested it? This is the best the CIA could do? Armitage tries it out on Woodward. Nothing. Then, out of the clear blue sky, Armitage gives an interview to Novak. And what should appear? Plame's employment at the CIA. I think at this point Tenet thinks he is going to get State when he sends his letter to DoJ. Further payback. And Cheney and Libby got caught up in this little war between State and CIA when they were trying to get the INR information into print. I would not be surprised to learn that Miller knew from Armitage the information concerning Plame and brought it up to Libby to see if she could get confirmation.

topsecretk9

He and a couple of his VIPS friends were shopping pretty hard Davis’s work about an Iraq connection to the OKC bombing, successful enough to get it steered to Sen. Specter's office for "further investigation"

Why does Specter's name keep popping up in the margins around this hornets nest. He was just seen having lunch with the Wilson's choosing a discrete table hidden in the back.

topsecretk9

He and a couple of his VIPS friends were shopping pretty hard Davis’s work about an Iraq connection to the OKC bombing, successful enough to get it steered to Sen. Specter's office for "further investigation"

Why does Specter's name keep popping up in the margins around this hornets nest. He was just seen having lunch with the Wilson's choosing a discrete table hidden in the back.

topsecretk9

nest?

Yipes, is typepad hinky again? Sorry for the double post.

RichatUF

a common beleif including in a lot of the conservative columns that Bush and his adminstration are not honest with themselves... Or an expectation that law enforcment and intelligence community professionals would, you know, do there job and keep their mouths shut

from Sue
...And Cheney and Libby got caught up in this little war between State and CIA when they were trying to get the INR information into print...

I would say that CIA and State really worked at cross purposes in the end, but I think this Plame-Wilson fisco was malicious from the get go-Wilson packed his bags Feb 2002, that dates to the "Axis of Evil" speech. State was all about Powell-"one who wants to be of the people can be shamed" (Sun-Tzu)-CIA was a whole other issue...

RichatUF

MayBee

Sue-
I like your current theory. Don't be in any hurry to change it.
Love the thought that Tenent thought he'd be catching State.

MayBee

I asked about Libby and the secure/line cel phones. Does this not point to a problem in Fitzgerald's argument/obvious misdirection about Libby's knowledge of her classified/undercover status?

According to Fitzgerald, Libby was afraid to discuss her while not on a secure line, while at the same time he discusses Plame with reporters on cel phones and home phones.

RichatUF
Why does Specter's name keep popping up in the margins around this hornets nest. He was just seen having lunch with the Wilson's choosing a discrete table hidden in the back.

Comparing notes for the next Nation "Truthteller of the Year Award". Or maybe it is the good senator receiving his silver

RichatUF

TCO

Clarice:

You have a fun evening. Thank you for putting up with the dissection. Got to deconstruct things. I have to, I have to. I R Nganeer. ;-)

A few questions/comments waiting:

a. "Libby recited the correct information and reporters incorrect" is a defense of Libby that is different from the "he misremembered, but told the truth as he knew it" defense. Please.

Of interest, it seems that Libby's defense seems to be preparing more for the Libby misremember defense than "the reporters got it wrong" defense. Of course, they could go with both defenses (although there are issues with trying defense in depth) or they could stick to a "they both remember it different" defense. This would require that Libby still remembers the conversation as he testified. That his recollection has not changed.

b. Pre scale lifting, where you ever one of those who predicted that Fitz would validate Libby et al.?

b.1 Are you really comfortable with Fitz going after others (in organized crime) if he misuses the law? Is it ok, since they are "bad guys anyway'? Or more of an issue that Fitz's flaws come out more in one type of prosecution than another.

c. What is your impression of Fitz'z brains?

Sue

Love the thought that Tenent thought he'd be catching State.

Actually, I don't really think Tenet thought he would catch anyone. He never had and there had been lots of referrals.

topsecretk9

Yep Sue, that's what I think. I also think one of the biggest lie's is everyone in DC including every reporter who has cover this story and ones that haven't have known before July 14th that Armitage was Novak's source. And just played along with Wilson's Libby/Rove gambit.

topsecretk9

Sue,

You don't think Tenet knew it was Armitage leaked to Novak? Oh, I do...I think he ultimately found out - maybe one of the last to know - through gossip and it made him so mad he wrote the DOJ. I'll get you Dick.

Sue

I also think Mitchell and Russert knew about Plame. I don't know if I believe that knowledge was transferred to Libby though.

Sue

You don't think Tenet knew it was Armitage leaked to Novak?

No. I don't think he knew who actually leaked to Novak. Unless he had someone's phone tapped. ::grin:: I think he thought it came from State, but at that point in his career, I don't think he really cared who it caught. Earlier in his career, he testified before Congress that he didn't want anyone to go to jail for leaking, he just wanted to fire them. I really don't think anyone, including Libby, thought it would ever get this far.

topsecretk9

Armitage was trying to throw Tenet under the bus as payback for what he believed the CIA did to he and Powell with bad intel.

Tenet ultimately found out about Armitage and tried to throw Armitage under the bus for trying to throw him under the bus and embarrassment.

Armitage and Powell realizing this info would be horribly embarrassing to them threw Bush and Cheney under the bus...they went to the DOJ and admitted Armitage had talked to Novak but nice like, but they believed real meanies were at the White House - better go figure out.

It allowed Powell and Armitage to avoid the embarrassment of being the shit disturbers they had been - and Plame.


Is that what you are saying Sue?

topsecretk9

You beat me.

OK.

PaulL

Re Fitz's brains: He is the type that can cause real damage in a position of power because he thinks he is a lot smarter than he actually is. Just look at his press conference performance.

Reporters are part of the main enemy of the United States: the MSM. They created the following stories:

Joe Wilson
Bush caused Katrina
Bush lied about WMDs
Kerry & Swift Boats - No story here, move along folks
Sandy Berger - No story here, move along folks
Israel attacked poor innocent Lebanon
"Osama" Obama - Our thoughtful, handsome BLACK President

Sue

Top,

Armitage was trying to throw Tenet under the bus as payback for what he believed the CIA did to he and Powell with bad intel.

Yes. That is what I think. I just don't think Armitage thought this up on his own. Powell is where I have always thought it originated. In fact, early on I thought UGO was Powell. Would have bet money on it, but glad I didn't.

Tenet ultimately found out about Armitage and tried to throw Armitage under the bus for trying to throw him under the bus and embarrassment.

No. I don't think Tenet knew who exactly. If Tenet knew, I think he would have told Bush and I don't think it would have been allowed to get close to the WH at that point. Bush would have shut it down somehow. To protect Powell. That's just how Bush is. Loyal to a fault.

Armitage and Powell realizing this info would be horribly embarrassing to them threw Bush and Cheney under the bus

Yes. Although whether or not they thought they were throwing Bush and Cheney under the table, I'm not sure. They just didn't want the wheels of the bus rolling over them.

Sue

Think about it. Armitage, in the biggest October surprise never reported, suddenly realizes he is Novak's source. OMG. Even Libby's tortured GJ testimony is better than that lie. He knew all along he was Novak's source. I think the INR was redistributed in July in order to expand the knowledge base. The more people who know, the more people who could have been the source. Keep in mind at this time no investigation has begun. In fact, no one thinks she is covert, including Armitage and the CIA. What they wanted to do by sending out the INR, IMO, was keep insiders from being able to guess just who had the loose lips.

MayBee

e knew all along he was Novak's source. I think the INR was redistributed in July in order to expand the knowledge base.

Good point, and I'll combine it with Clarice. It was made to look like new information by giving it a new date. It was packaged to look not at all like a redistribution, but a revelation.
Then..it was spectacularly redistributed- faxed to AF1! My God, what screams important! more than that? And it certainly is attention grabbing, so that people would remember it happening.

I'd say doing it that was was a twofer. More people knowing + cover that they'd known for quite a while.

ps. Someone in the CIA would certainly suspect that State might have blabbed about Plame sending Wilson, because State was at the meeting where she introduced him. Whether that filtered up to Tenant and whether he was able to trace that to Ford/Grossman/Armitage probably depends upon how much he actually cared. I guess, like you, that nobody thought this was going anywhere.

Sue

More people knowing + cover that they'd known for quite a while.

The timeline of when they knew didn't matter unless they were trying to keep insiders from guessing, if they actually got it to print. There was no investigation and I would bet no one thought there ever would be.

topsecretk9

It was made to look like new information by giving it a new date. It was packaged to look not at all like a redistribution, but a revelation.

Re-packaged to conceal it had been around for quite a while.

Sue

Re-packaged to conceal it had been around for quite a while.

That is looking at it in the context of an investigation and a coverup. I don't think that was the purpose. I think it was done, as Maybee said, to create a memorable moment. Leak investigations were not the norm. And no one thought she was covert (I still don't). They were creating a larger pool of people in the know so insiders wouldn't be able to figure it out.

MayBee

The timeline of when they knew didn't matter unless they were trying to keep insiders from guessing, if they actually got it to print.

I think they were quite happy with it getting into print. I also think they didn't want insiders or outsiders to know it was them that put it there, but not because they feared investigation. They just didn't want the political and press backlash.
Also, maybe Grossman didn't want Wilson to find out he was working to undermine his story.

TCO

You know, y'all (and I'm on your side, I vote R) should just hold back and worry a little about if you are really analyzing things to try to understand or spinning out things that you hope to be true. Remember that conspiracy book with all that evidence and detail and such explaining why Al Haig was Deep Throat? Except it was wrong...

clarice

Well, thank you kindly for that generously offered advice, but we have spent countless hours reviewing what we know of the case, and--acknowledge as we must that we only know what has been publicly available--most of us it seems have a rather set view of those facts, a view based on countless analysis and discussion.


(I never for a second thought Al Haig was deep throat)

MayBee

You know, y'all (and I'm on your side, I vote R)

I don't always vote R. I'm not sure how a conversation about State vs CIA vs. the WH spins R or D, anyway.

should just hold back and worry a little about if you are really analyzing things to try to understand or spinning out things that you hope to be true.

why worry about that? What's the downside if we're wrong- we're pretty open that we're just hashing things out here. Not publishing a book.

Sue

should just hold back and worry a little about if you are really analyzing things to try to understand or spinning out things that you hope to be true.

Why? How is what I speculate here going to matter anywhere but here? I've been wrong before and the earth kept spinning. It should survive me thinking out loud, so to speak.

TCO

Mayb, I'm totally cool with hashing things out and with speculation. Just sometimes (maybe not you, no pun intended) I see a tendancy for people to get carried away by what they want to believe in the echo chambers of the Internet. And so their hashing out does not have the quality of hashing that it might.

Anyhoo...of course I respect you if willing to let contrary evidence change your inferences. BTW, not all people are. Some have a very high threshold for things that go against what they want to be true. This goes to an interesting issue of Popper and Feynman and the theory of multiple hypotheses versus "day one hypothesis" in terms of problem-solving...but I'm digress-babbling.

Sue

of course I respect you if willing to let contrary evidence change your inferences.

So have at it. The contrary evidence that will change our inferences, that is. We're all ears. With hot pink earmuffs to boot.

TCO

Clarice:

Things are not always so static. For one thing, "scales lifted" from your eyes in terms of your views on Fitz.

And I've already said that I respect the time y'all have spent on the minutia. Won't stop me from asking questions.

Entertain for a second the possibility that Libby lied (not out of some dark conspiracy...I never thought that the White House was out to get Val or Wilson...but because he could make things look a bit better for himself and boss, and realized that some impropriety had occurred, after the fact, by revealing a CIA employee, or just that he wanted to limit the PR damage, since the whole issue had blown up (even if unfairly). I mean it's a natural human tendancy to shade the truth in your favor. And perhaps, Libby thought he could get away with it, given the general difficulty in proving perjury or the unlikilihood that someone would pursue such a he-said/she-said set of minutia? At least entertain it as a possibility and as having some Occam's Razor backing. (Like I've always figured the Occam's Razor answer whey Bush's Alabam reserve buds never met him is he never drilled down there.)

Oh...and on Watergate, how about the Dean call girl speculation? I assume of course that you know I'm talking of this book and have read it: http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Coup-President-Len-Colodny/dp/0312051565/sr=8-1/qid=1168746767/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2979524-9763948?ie=UTF8&s=books

topsecretk9

Also, maybe Grossman didn't want Wilson to find out he was working to undermine his story.

S P E C U L A T I N G...but I think that's pretty true. He minding 2 stores - well 3 - all the while having prodded hi little buddy in the first place.

S P E C U L A T I N G...agian...any predictions on Libby witnesses?

I read a mainstream Houston Chronicle who said they were S P E C U L A T I N G potential witnesses and they said Libby's team would likely call 7 reporters...

Also, any wild card guesses (S P E C U L A T I N G...for F U N)

I think Libby will call Tenet - and he will be a friendly witness and I have a really, really weird guess that i want to put out there on the off chance in a ca-billion it turns out and I win a super guesser blog award that doesn't exist. But I am afraid of mockery because it got about a chance in a ca-billion.

TCO

Sue:

I don't really have any!* I just want to be careful to understand what is an opinion based on someone smart that I respect (and I sorta get those inferences from the context and some observation) versus wish fulfillment. I won't belabor it more.


*I am a lazy, lazy boy, who prefers Socratic dialogue and interrogation of others opinions to building my own assertions.

Rick Ballard

Does anyone else totally not miss DougJ? I know I sure don't.

clarice

Whether you meant it to be or not it was insulting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame