Powered by TypePad

« Libby Thread - Friday Afternoon [OK, Thursday] | Main | Libby - Friday Pre-Game Show »

February 15, 2007

Comments

pete

"Work on how to marshal your facts, how to reason, how to build a case that is persuasive."

Oh grow up! As I have said here many many times before I am not here to persuade you to drop your delusions of grandeur. I am not here to persuade you to make the transition to reality-based politics.

I am here to prod you on to the end of the self destructive path you have choosen.

Bill in AZ

pete, you "know" Cheney is evil because he lied us into war. The whole Bush Lied People Died meme started with Wilson. With a complicit MSM, aided by howling moonbats like Matthews and a host of leftwing bloggers even nuttier, Bush Lied, People Died has grown into a massive insurmountable edifice. Folks like you just "KNOW". It is the basis of any and every single Bush is evil, Cheney is evil argument made today on the MSM air, in MSM print, on the lefty blogs.

The problem is that one of the results of the Libby trial is that that massive edifice you're standing on just crumbled into the house of cards it is. You are Wile E Coyote standing in thin air 1000 ft above a bunch of cards. Bush didn't lie. Cheney didn't lie. Wilson lied and the media lied. Mark my words, that will be one of the results of the Libby trial and it will eventually be bigger than raTHergate. It will take one more chink out of the wall that MSM has created between you and truth. You come here because you know that. You know there is something wrong with the entire leftist thought process that created the hopeless mess you're in right now.

sbw

Pete: What's Cheney's approval rating? Pretty much everybody knows he's evil.

Pete, your a poster boy for fuzzy thinking. Popularity is not a measure for whether one is correct; only a measure of whether people like you. Secondly, "Pretty much everybody" could be as mistaken as you are.

Your approval rating around here is pretty low, BTW. Does everyone know you are evil?

Other Tom

I can state without fear of sensible contradiction that the war in Iraq pre-empted everything that hasn't happened.
(Next the fool will be saying there isn't anything that hasn't happened.)

pete

Jane

Your no good at this are you?

Other Tom

Funny, Pete, we all thought you were here to make a childish fool of yourself. You're doing just fine.

verner

RichatUF: also: trying to remember, did Judy Miller testify that the WINPAC note did not come from Libby?


The WINPAC reference in Judy's notes has gotten far too little attention.

As a veteran reporter, who wrote an entire book on GERMS, Judy knew quite well that WINPAC was not the only part of the "agency" tht dealt with WMD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen anyone else claim that Val worked at WINPAC--except of course, the Wilsons in VF.

And then we get back to Alan Foley. There was absolutely no reason for him to reply to Clarice. ( I suspect he was google searching his name, and had been a lurker here at JOM, and knew Clarice to be a straight shooter.) He wanted us to know the truth.

To quote from Armitage--"how about that [ ].

I have never seen any of the Plamiacs explain it away.

RichatUF

I am not here to persuade you to make the transition to reality-based politics....

Whew...I thought I was about to be roped into one of those "presentations" where you can leave anytime, but not quite yet

Listen to yourself pete, "transition to reality-based politics", as opposed to the politics we see, hear, and read everyday.

RichatUF

Other Tom

I note that in the Theory of the Defense document, there is no mention whatever of materiality. I've had this nagging feeling all along that something occurred in that regard that I missed--or is an argument that the element of materiality is lacking not of a kind that is required to be in the statement of the Theory?

Rick Ballard

"Your no good at this are you?"

You were born an ass and a nitwit, Pustule Pete. No amount of training can compete with a "natural" and Jane isn't striving to compete with you on that basis in the first place.

None of us are. We cede the field.

verner

Here's a little bit of reality.

On Sept 11 2001, two planes crashed into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania.

It hasn't happened again--and not from want of trying.

I for one sleep better knowing that Dick Cheney is the VP.

Sue

I think Bush/Cheney took the worst case scenario after 9/11. If you will remember the 9/11 commission hearings, a single pdb, that said exactly nothing, was used to show Bush did not aggressively protect America. A single pdb. Can you imagine how many pdbs Bush had concerning Iraq? I will not fault Bush for taking the aggressive route. We have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. Something 3,000 people on 9/11 don't have. Those who think Bush over reacted, cherry picked, or just plain lied, can thank Clinton and his administration for softening us up for when Bush came in and decided to seek revenge for Daddy. Or get their oil. Or fight a war for Israel. Or whichever overreaching, unproven, hysterical reason is the soup de jour.

Jane

Your no good at this are you?

Well I do know the value of an apostrophe. And I'm among friends. Seems that puts me light years ahead in this row!

MayBee

verner- I believe Clarice did what no other reporter seems to have done. She actually contacted Foley by email and asked him about Plame.

The WINPAC thing is weird. I suspect that was started by the Wilsons to get them closer to the forgeries he was claiming to have debunked. Judy would have gotten it from someone associated with them, or someone that had interviewed them.

Jane

Catch y'all tomorrow for the best part of the day. (Pete you are gonna have to get up at 0300 if you want to continue this.)

And a special thanks to sad/bad for making us all realize just how much this has become.

clarice

Niters, Jane.

RichatUF

verner...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen anyone else claim that Val worked at WINPAC--except of course, the Wilsons in VF.

All the VIPS made a big deal about it. This part has kind of bugged me a bit. The way the VIPS described her: where she worked, how long she was at the 'agency'-it was like they were trying to pin it on someone else. Remember, it wasn't just the 16-words that were being attacked-now were are gettting the push back again on the Feith Memo (Hayes did an article in TWS about this: Case Closed) because the 'brave whistleblower' narrative is turning into a french horn.

RichatUF

mocker

You think Pete is the turd in punchbowl but he's really a glass of punch in a turd pile.

Other Tom

Jane, I expect the mean wife to deliver the first Bloody at about 0600 PST, and per your daily mandate I'll have some coffee alongside.

Apparently NBC is reporting that Al Masri is in custody, although other outlets are not so sure. Let us hope that the ensuing torture will be as fruitful as it is horrible, and that the hanging will be televised, pour encourager les autres.

verner

Maybee:"Judy would have gotten it from someone associated with them, or someone that had interviewed them."

That's what I'll believe until someone proves me wrong.

Don't forget how active Wilson was with the anti-war bunch and the Kerry campaign long before any of this broke in the press. Did Fitz ever question Rand Beers, or any of the rest of them? Heh--not on your life. We haven't even heard from Kristof, the one who started this garbage.

It could have even been creepy scary Larry. He certainly became the media's go to guy--even though he's a total loser. Hey, he was good enough to write that embarrassing op-ed in the NYT.

verner

Jane:"And a special thanks to sad/bad for making us all realize just how much this has become."

I second that. She is one great lady.

Sue

Were Miller's notes entered as an exhibit?

danking70

See. Told you the surge wouldn't work....

It appears that as the Democrats start feeling their oats, get loud against the surge and vocal about undermining the troops, the more success we're having.

We're witnessing a similar phenomenon to the blizzard's and record cold weather that accompany showings of "Inconvenient Truth" and major panel discussion on global warming.

Seven Machos

So, for Pete, this trial is a proxy for the Iraq War. It's sort of a primitive logic that goes like this:

1. Iraq War bad.

2. Bush administration cause Iraq War.

3. Therefore, anyone associated with Bush administration bad.

4. Libby associated with Bush administration.

5. Therefore, Libby bad.

6. Therefore, Libby guilty of any charge.

That about right, Primitive Pete?

MarkO

Walton What ohter language is in the record. Submit something to me and I'll consider it. I was hoping we could finish this. My staff don't get paid overtime. It's bc they don't give us any money.
Wells, before trial started defense submitted good faith instruction, govt did not make any comment WRT it, we assumed it was going tobe charged. I don't know if your honor ruled on it.
Walton I did [oh boy, he wants to go home now]
Wells When I represented Espy in front of Urbina, he gave me good faith instruction, in neither did defendant testify.
Walton Do you have case authority
Wells I did get it in Espy from Urbina and Kessler, I'll get you something.

___________________________________________________________________
Maybe Walton will wander around in the back and be inspired. Is this his first criminal case?
Of course, the reason he has to fish for answers is that he doesn’t get paid.

hit and run

H&R, you can put me down as omnibibulous.


Oh, I've been trying to negotiate peace on the last thread. And you are certainly....what did you say again? Yes, you ARE omnibibulous. In my mind anyway.

Dammit. Get outta my mind,

hit and run

I'm catching up. verner, you're the BEST!

MayBee

I finally read Byron York's piece and it made me want to grab Che Che's daughter and start sobbing.
I can imagine how it would feel to have a prosecutor simply not believe you are doing your best to tell them what you remember. How claustrophobic that must have made Libby feel.

RichatUF

It could have even been creepy scary Larry.

My thought too. What was it with that whole vips group-the very same people trashing Hussein during the Clinton era were saying the opposite thing in late 2002.
Cannistraro, Lang, Johnson...this crew of people sort of tied to the whole Iran-Conta thing...all saying one thing then changing 180 degress, all because the Bush Administration wanted to act on Clinton's rhetoric... Curious

RichatUF

Neo

While some think that Fitz did make the case on the Russert count, I am left to wonder .. exactly what did Libby obstruct ?

Perhaps getting a good night's sleep.

Ralph L.

I took a brief powder after today's drama and got in two arguments on my auto forums. Whew! I may return to the safety of lurking. Why we let the opinions of anonymous, distant nobodies bother us.

Semanticleo

"Why we let the opinions of anonymous, distant nobodies bother us."

Perhaps you are beginning to confront your ideas.

verner

Rich:"Cannistraro, Lang, Johnson...this crew of people sort of tied to the whole Iran-Conta thing...all saying one thing then changing 180 degress, all because the Bush Administration wanted to act on Clinton's rhetoric... Curious"

And Rich, don't forget, Ray McGovern (Moonbat primo and Larouchie) was claiming that Alan Foley was his long lost friend! Alan Foley made it a clear point to Clarice that he had absolutely nothing to do with either McGovern, or his good buddy CIP's Mel Goodman.(CIP, by the way,helped to bankroll Win Without War, and sponsored the Iraq Policy Information Project where Joe was a star speaker--all now scrubbed from the net, but I have hard copies!!!)

All the involvement with CIP, Win Without War, the VIPs, the Nation institute types (ie Corn and Blumenthal etc.) that happened BEFORE Wilson ever wrote his op ed had been criminally under reported.

Also, don't forget that Vanity Fair piece on the forged Niger documents-- by that fruit loop Unger--was written almost entirely with sources related to the VIPs.

I have NO IDEA how that crap got through VF's fact checkers..nor have we ever seen a correction from VF over the claim that Val worked at WINPAC.

Seixon did some stellar work in that department.


And if you want to know what was REALLY going on, check out what Feith has been saying lately--along with a few great articles in the Weekly Standard about the CIA's war with the administration.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: MARK O

Thanks for the email heads up, that you posted your 'snarky' jury instructions. Good that you remembered to goose Walton that Wells won on Espy. And, Espy didn't have to take the stand. The grand stand. Or the podium He was home FREE without breaking our Constitution's vow that he didn't have to testify. And, the persecution had to PROVE.

At least, Mark O, from your other email, I now know there's a web designer and a math teacher on this jury. GOOD.

As I said. Wells sighted "appeal" landing. Or an island of sanity among the jurors. Lets hope that island is on more than one chair.

And, here's hoping, too, that Walton gets a V-8 moment, ephiphanizes ... and realizes the Wells appeal will, in fact, get to the Supremes. Where, I'd bet, Clarence Thomas actually asks questions during Orals. And, perhaps, even then writes the majority opinion, himself.

Enough of this partisan shinanigans.

Anywone can dream. And, there are more non-lawyers than lawyers who are American voters. And, if the site counter, here, was hitting 5,000 an hour; BINGO. Non-lawyers want to see the same stuff they see on TV. When shows like Paper Chase, and John Houseman, made people believe America had the best justice system in the world. Not a swamp. And, not a pool full of special interest only, folks. No other human need apply.

By Tuesday we will know.

And, I only hope Cline wears a PURPLE COLORED TIE. With raisins on it. "FOR I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE is practically California's State Theme Song.

NO PASSES NECESSARY TO LEAVE THE ROOM.

Syl

Pete

(as I catch up on the last hour and a half..)

What's Cheney's approval rating?

That's JOB approval, silly, not an evaluation from the Pope.

Eeeeevil is not on the questionnaire.

clarice

HEH--

Cboldt has another filing--this on the Dow Jones Suit to unseal the Fitz affidavits and the redacted portions of the Miller opinion:
"Recent Action in the Dow Jones (AP) Motion to unseal the papers relating to Fitzgerald's affidavits and the presently redacted opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, in what I refer to as the "Miller and Cooper Must Testify" case, that was conducted as a prelude to the Libby indictment.

2/9/07 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1022187] denying motion to unseal
without prejudice to the refiling upon completion of the
proceedings in US v. Libby, No. 05-cr-00394 (D.C.D.C.)
[1012356-1] Before Judges Sentelle, Henderson, Tatel.
[Entry Date: 2/9/07] [04-3138, 04-3139, 04-3140] (mcm)
[04-3138 04-3139 04-3140"

The Ct will not release the stuff until the completion of the Libby trial.

Ralph L.

No, I just don't like smarmy posts.
Except for my own.

jerry

I think Libby will lose this because he was so involved with getting Wilson info anywhere he could around DC, spreading Wilson info everywhere he could around DC, and then pretending he'd never heard of the Wilsons until Russert mentioned it.

All the prosecution witnesses supported this view, as did Fitz's cross examination triumph showing Scooter taking two hours during yet another of his very busy weeks to chat over coffee with Miller about Niger and Wilson made this point perfectly -- Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten about the Wilsons.


Thought I'd post this again, as a Guidepost, as y'all are not presently reality-based IMO.

verner

You know, we keep hearing about that two hour lunch with Judy.

Even busy people have two hour lunches from time to time. Especially with people that they are friends with. Libby was not a robot.

And I don't think anybody has ever stated that all they talked about for two hours was that blowhard Wilson's wife. Have they? If so, I feel quite certain that Judy would be able to "recall" things a little more clearly.

clarice

He was tasked to talk to her..to debrief her on the Iraq wmd hunt and to talk to her about the NIE--Why does Fitz treat this as if it were 2 hours talking about WINPAC Flame?

Sue

Thought I'd post this again, as a Guidepost, as y'all are not presently reality-based IMO.

Funny, coming from someone who continually says Libby claimed he didn't remember Wilson.

tryggth

Wow, interesting...

IF, I say IF, Libby is acquitted, Special Counsel Fitzgerald will be re-titled Special Clownshow Fitzgerald.

Wasn't he tasked to figure out who leaked the name of the JTFI head? And at a time that it would impact a very important subject? In particular, who was shitting on the WMD parade? I mean, if they were WMD there couldn't they have been picked up and moved to Toledo? Wasn't this a critical time?

Isn't it a problem to impede the progress of someone respondible for figuring that stuff out? And here is the rub gang... Val didn't have a political dog in that hunt. It wasn't her job to have one.

Alcibiades

I love that term "reality-based."

Like when you go to see a film "based" on the novel by the same name. And you loved the novel. And then the authors of the screenplay, in their arrogance, decided to "improve it" by changing the story into an entirely different narrative.

And the original version was so much better.

Alcibiades

Syl: That's JOB approval, silly, not an evaluation from the Pope.

Though of course an evaluation from the Pope is suspect, too, given that he's the head Christianist.

verner

And another thing Clarice--Fitz acts like Scooter was Judy's only boyfriend. (Didn't she make a deal to protect "other" sources?)

I have heard not one peep of testimony that anyone told Libby that she worked at WINPAC. Have you? He would have no reason to just make that up. He knew enough about the CIA to know that there were WMD "analysts" in more than one place.

I still believe that WINPAC was a cover that the Wilsons were spreading around to a) give Joe cred. b) allow Val to be a source and c) keep the hounds off the trail that she actually sent him before Cheney asked for any info. (And I'm expecting that correction in the NYT any day now--NOT.)

And the Wilsons would not have been the only ones to benifit from that little white lie. There were plenty of NSC types with the Kerry campaign who liked what Joe had to say--and would have been briefing their favorite reporters over a two hour lunch.

Like Armitage said...how about that [ ]
(Forgive me for repeating that quote, but it just sums up things so beautifully...)

clarice

Anyone have the tryggth decoder ring. I can't find it anywhere?

Ralph L.

Jerry said: I think Libby will lose this because he was so involved with getting Wilson info anywhere he could around DC, spreading Wilson info everywhere he could around DC.
Me:
Did he tell Russert? Novak? Two of the biggest people in Wash press. Why didn't he, he had 'em on the phone?

clarice

verner--from the summaries of the trial I cannot find a single shred of evidence that Libby ever was told Val worked at WINPAC or told anyone that she did. That's why I think that stipulation is interesting.
Cheney note "counter proliferation"
Armitage and everyone else--including the INR memo writers--"CIA"

Alcibiades

I wonder if Joe and Val told Nicholas Kristof that Val worked at WINPAC when they were presenting the story originally for his oped. They must have presented her somehow while he visited.

Clarice, I assume that there is no problem with the Defense mentioning Judy's other sources in the closing, since they mentioned it as part of their cross - what about the deal she made to testify? Or is that still sealed - per the posting that was just mentioned?

clarice

Nor did he tell Sanger, Pincus or Kessler w/whom he talked to push back on Wilson's lies.

AMazing, no?

Rick Ballard

"I can't find it anywhere?"

Check the "Alien Species" pouch. They're ordered by by intelligence so you'll have to dig a bit.

clarice

Alci:"Clarice, I assume that there is no problem with the Defense mentioning Judy's other sources in the closing, since they mentioned it as part of their cross - what about the deal she made to testify? Or is that still sealed - per the posting that was just mentioned?"

No problem..she testified she had them and she made clear that one of the reasons she stayed in jail was to protect them though she couldn't remember who they were.

RichatUF

from verner...

And if you want to know what was REALLY going on, check out what Feith has been saying lately--along with a few great articles in the Weekly Standard about the CIA's war with the administration.

Will do, I saw a snippet of his interview with Hewitt. Said that the CIA analyst community was ignoring the CIA's own reporting about Iraq-alQeada because of their own pet theories. Hayes book, The Connection, was really a good read. I can't figure out why the leak campaign is starting in high gear again to sack Feith's work when he was at Defense, it seemed to have worked well enough the first time.

I'll shoot over to Seixon too because I was always wondering about the VIPS: were they just an ad-hoc group, did they ever create some sort of 527's, 501's etc. I know they had these communiques every once-in-a-while but did it really go beyond that. Maybe get a copy of Analyst Notebook and make some cool charts...

Learn something everyday: that Vanity Fair piece on the forged Niger documents-- by that fruit loop Unger. Was it in there that the "Italians were the forgers" meme got started (and quickly dropped as I recall)? I thought that was a Scary Larry special...

RichatUF

verner

And Clarice, if you can't find it--it can't be found.

I think WINPAC is a big piece to this puzzle.

Outside of Judy's notebook, the VIPS and that VF piece sourced by Joe and Valerie--it's not to be found.

It would be Joe's MO to have proxy leaking--giving him deniability "I never told anybody about my wife working for the CIA blahblahblah..." But surely, there were those who knew that little factoid long before all this stuff happened, who were completely ignored by Fitz--the VIPS, the Kerry campaign, someone Val had sourced in the past--the possibilities are endless.

Not that any of that is going to help Libby at this point.

jerry

"Did he tell Russert? Novak? Two of the biggest people in Wash press. Why didn't he, he had 'em on the phone?"

This is the famous "but I didn't rob all these other banks" defense.

I'd say the "theory of the prosecution" is that Libby couldn't possibly have been as deeply involved in the Niger-Wilson story as supported by the government's witnesses, and then claim to have only first learned about Wilson and his wife from Russert.

Fitzgerald's classic construct is that Libby was spreading info about the Wilsons on Tuesday and claiming he'd forgotten about all this by Thursday.

BTW, the Miller meeting had everything to do with Wilson's trip to Niger and his critique of the Administration.

Syl

she testified she had them and she made clear that one of the reasons she stayed in jail was to protect them though she couldn't remember who they were.

Compare Judy's protection of sources with Russert's.

One for real. The other for show.

What a contrast.

clarice

He also didn't tell Sanger, Kessler or Pincus.

Ralph L.

Sara says she's going to bed. I hope she means it. Maxwell may be Smart, but he ain't nice.

AMDG

According to Pete, the VP is evil because he has a 19% approval rating. “Logic” like this gives proof to one of my truths of American politics:

The Democrat party is made up of two groups of people. Among the leaders are a group of smart, but amoral people whose goal is the acquisition of power. To these people any action that aids in the acquisition of power is a virtue. The second group is made up of people to stupid to discern that their leaders are playing them.

Pete is obviously in the second group.

One additional thought. Given that people like Schumer, Wilson, etc. think nothing of destroying people’s lives for the sake of their political goals are they evil or amoral?

verner

Rich: "Was it in there that the "Italians were the forgers" meme got started (and quickly dropped as I recall)? I thought that was a Scary Larry special..."

Yep, I think so. Ledeen and the Italians. Ha Ha Ha.

Ralph L.

Jerry, you were the one who said he was outing Wilson all over town, not me.

Other Tom

Get in the game, Jerry. You're so confused about (or ignorant of) the testimony in this case that you're wasting your time and ours.

clarice

verner--that was Vince Cannistraro who once was a man on the right side and somehow became Castrato.

Ralph L.

AMDG, I fear that may be true of both parties.

Syl

jerry

This is the famous "but I didn't rob all these other banks" defense.

Ah, you got your talking point answer!

Yeah, and look how many in the administration were NOT called by fitz because they didn't say anything to Libby about Wilson's wife.

As noted upthread, how many hours of how many days out of how many weeks did noone, noone at all, speak to Libby about Wilson's wife?

This type of prosecution based on circumstantial evidence is by definition selection biased.

verner

But Ralph--according to Armitage, Wilson was the one outing Wilson all over town.

Do you really really think that those phone calls stopped with his old buddies at State?


RichatUF

and jerry...

in the Niger-Wilson story as supported by the government's witnesses, and then claim to have only first learned about Wilson and his wife from Russert...

Libby said he learned it from the Vice-President. Libby did not deny his contacts with the press. Libby did not deny he was involved in responding to Wilson's lies. Libby is being tried for non-perjury and non-obstruction over a non-leak of a non-eninty.

In Fitzlaw, the prefered legal code in the "reality-based community", this means that Libby has to be guilty because Fitz-genuius couldn't find the consipracy to out the "Defender of the Universe"-Valerie Plame-Wilson.

verner

Clarice:"verner--that was Vince Cannistraro who once was a man on the right side and somehow became Castrato."

Tee Hee.

Do we know if he ever sourced Judy in the past? He would be a logical suspect...He sure has done a lot of talking lately, and is keeping some rather reprehensible company from what I can gather (ie the VIPS)

AMDG

Jerry says:
"All the prosecution witnesses supported this view, as did Fitz's cross examination triumph showing Scooter taking two hours during yet another of his very busy weeks to chat over coffee with Miller about Niger and Wilson made this point perfectly -- Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten about the Wilsons."

and

"Fitzgerald's classic construct is that Libby was spreading info about the Wilsons on Tuesday and claiming he'd forgotten about all this by Thursday."

AMDG Observes:
Jerry must be channeling Javert. There is no disputing that Libby was talking to reporters about the lies that Lyin’ Joe was spreading. He was tasked to do this. The fact that he was unsuccessful at this is nothing short of a scandal that implicates the entire DC based MSM.

He was not spreading info about Secret Agent Girl to reporters. (Just ask Russert, Pincus, etc.) Are you even remotely aware of this Jerry?

Is your insistence in combining the efforts to spread the truth about Lyin’ Joe with the release of information about his wife a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or are you just stupid? (Sorry for being blunt but after all we now know statements lie this make me very angry.)

Libby might be convicted of something, but if he is it will be as grave an injustice as the Salem Witch Trials.

Alcibiades

One additional thought. Given that people like Schumer, Wilson, etc. think nothing of destroying people’s lives for the sake of their political goals are they evil or amoral?

Well they refer to themselves as the evil party. NOT the amoral party.

Rick Ballard

Rich,

Careful about quoting Fitzlaw in the evening. Remember, it's modeled on precepts developed by Kafka so tomorrow..???

RichatUF

from clarice...

...that was Vince Cannistraro who once was a man on the right side...

I don't know-retired from the CIA (I think in 1990). Worked for the Saudi Royal Family, then the Vatican...made a cameo appearance at the McVeigh trial [called the FBI and claimed a Saudi source had called him to say OKC was the work of Iraqis or Afghans-recorded in a FBI302]. I think he is loyal to whomever is paying him the most...

RichatUF

RichatUF

from clarice...

...that was Vince Cannistraro who once was a man on the right side...

I don't know-retired from the CIA (I think in 1990). Worked for the Saudi Royal Family, then the Vatican...made a cameo appearance at the McVeigh trial [called the FBI and claimed a Saudi source had called him to say OKC was the work of Iraqis or Afghans-recorded in a FBI302]. I think he is loyal to whomever is paying him the most...

RichatUF

clarice

I don't think she'd pay any attention to him. I think her source was higher--Tenet or Powell or Armitage.

Daniel

I have followed the Libby trial more than I should, but it raises questions about the law that I find interesting, and I wish some active attorney would comment on them.

Each of the charges in the indictment are based on differences of memories of conversations by two participants, in each case, neither party has convincing (or in most cases any) corroboration of their memories. In other words the issue is A’s word against B’s word on these memories, with the additional possibility that either party or both had a lapse in memory.
My question is: are criminal cases of this kind common? Can one be cited? Does the prosecution ever win cases of this kind?

Does it require some belief in the infallibility of the integrity and memory of one party in a case of this kind for a jury to find against the adverse party?

In this case. does anyone believe in the infallibility of Miller’s or Cooper’s or Russert’s memory?

The defense provided the Buffalo example, in which Russert forgot several communications he made. I am told that neither Miller’s nor Cooper’s testimony inspired confidence in their memories either. The defense also provided undisputed evidence that Libby was prone to misremembering the source of information given him.

Thus, the jury has seen undisputed evidence that any and all of the memory discrepancies could be the result of faulty memories by either party. Even without this evidence, accepting one person’s word against another beyond reasonable doubt seems like a remarkable and unusual thing to do.


Here is a second question.
My impression was that Grand Jury proceedings are secret, not to be revealed to anyone. I further believed (I guess incorrectly) that it was a felony for someone to reveal Grand Jury proceedings to the public. Yet Fitzgerald recorded tapes of Libby’s testimony before the Grand Jury, eight hours of them, and played them in open court to the jury in this case..

Is this sort of thing common? Is it felonious? Are only witnesses and not the prosecutor constrained not to discuss their testimony? Who is so constrained?

And a question on memories:
The entire disagreement between Libby and Cooper is that Libby claims he said that he had heard something (that Cooper had mentioned) from other reporters, while Cooper only remembers him saying that he had heard it, with no mention of other reporters.

Is this the sort of memory disagreement that one sends someone to prison for? Assume that both parties have perfect memory and Cooper is infallible. With these assumptions, how would Libby’s statement obstruct justice? What cosmic importance adheres to his statement that would dignify it to be a felony?


In this regard, when two people describe a conversation, in my experience, they rarely agree about it in all particulars. One person remembers the notions that resonate in his or her mind, and the other does likewise. When these notions differ, as they certainly did here, they remember the conversation differently. Does it happen often in your experience that memories of an incident by two people are exactly the same, to the level of difference between Cooper’s and Libby’s memory?

Re Mitchell’s testimony:
Mitchell was a close associate of Russert, and first stated (not under oath) that everyone knew about Wilson’s wife, and then qualified that statement to one that they knew about it only after Novak’s column appeared. But that column appeared on the advance wire around 1pm on July 11, which may well have been before the Russert-Libby second conversation. Russert only really disagreed with Libby on his conversation with L if it occurred before he had heard of Novak’s column. He testified that he only read it on July 14, but the possibility is open that he heard about it from a colleague who saw it on the wire on July 11, and therefore blurted a question to Libby when he called shortly thereafter.
If so, all testimony jibes, and only Russert’s statement that he first read the column on July 14 is a bit deceptive. But Russert’s highly publicized pose that he, unlike Novak, refused to talk to the Grand Jury, was even more deceptive, since he had already talked to the FBI.

Mitchell could perhaps have clarified when the NBC folk discovered Novak’s column. Yet Walton refused to permit the defense to call her.
Does any of this make sense?

And then there is the question of materiality:
Do the disagreements of memory that are at issue in the indictments rise to the level of significance that justifies charges of perjury and obstruction of justice? What exactly was obstructed? Was there any investigation going on at that time that these memory questions impacted in any way? Investigations of what?
The only result of Fitzgerald’s actual investigation was in fact the indictments in this trial. Libby’s memories could not have obstructed these indictments, because they were the very cause of them. Moreover, can a disagreement in memory of the level of that between Cooper and Libby ever arise to the level of felonious falsehood?

Suppose for example, someone in the courtroom had passed wind during Libby’s testimony. Fitzgerald, in disgust, accused Libby of doing so, and Libby vehemently denied it, pointing instead to Fitzgerald.

Would Fitzgerald be justified in seeking an indictment of Libby for perjuring himself (his word against Fitzgerald’s) and for obstructing the Grand Jury’s pursuit of Justice (by making a big stink.)?

If so, I wonder why he didn’t do so. If not where is the line between perjury of this sort and that of which Libby is actually accused?

With each of the memory discrepancies, Fitzgerald has accepted the non-Libby memory as believable beyond reasonable doubt, and rejected Libby’s, similarly, without any openly expressed reason for doing so. Moreover he has doubled down, making each discrepancy into two indictments, for lying to the FBI and to the Grand Jury.

Thus he has taken several discrepancies, none of which on its own could win for him given an unbiased jury, and attempted to have the quantity of the indictments make up for the feebleness of each one of them. In this way he can hope to get the jury to give him at least one verdict out of the lot, just to be fair to him. It is natural for a jury to feel that when it finds insufficient evidence for conviction beyond reasonable doubt, though there is evidence for conviction, that finding for the defendant is tilting the scales all the way in the defendant’s direction. Thus it has a tendency, when there is doubt on all counts to give a count or two to the prosecution, to sort of match the doubt in the verdict. Of course it should acquit on all counts, but that will seem unfair to it.

That Fitzgerald always distrusted Libby in seeking indictments (none against Cooper, Miller, Russert, Woodward, Pincus, Fleischer, etc. though there were similar memory disagreements between Woodward and Pincus, Pincus and Fleischer as there were between Libby and Miller and Libby and Russert, and much more serious than that between Libby and Cooper;) raises the question of whether Fitzgerald had some improper bias against Libby which caused this unusual selectivity in belief.

So these questions then become relevant: Did Fitzgerald have any adverse professional experience with Libby that might give rise to such bias? Did Fitzgerald have a personal or political bias which led to these indictments, and his rather extraordinary suspicion of Libby as opposed to his impression of everyone else.

Apparently the answer to the first of these questions is yes: in the Rich case.

He also had personal motive since without these indictments, his investigation, dragging on for years after he knew that its purpose was spurious, would have ended with nothing. This would have been a personal embarrassment, and Republicans would be angry because he kept it going so long, and Democrats would be angry for his not indicting any Bush official.

Finally, he may have dreamt of creating a new Watergate, by indicting Libby to get him to reveal some other hitherto unknown crime by the Bush administration.

Are any of these motivations proper?

Final question:

Can a judge declare on his own that the case is too weak to be brought to a jury and dismiss it? Should that be the outcome of this case?

verner

Rich: "Worked for the Saudi Royal Family"

Nuff said.

I've always thought that Joe Wilson was the perfect embodiment of the harmonic convergence of Saudi Funded Arabists, Kissingeresque realpolotiks ( ie his adopted father Brent Scowcroft) and the loonie left, that have hated this administration from the beginning. Cannistraro would surely fit into that mix.

RichatUF

from verner-Do we know if he ever sourced Judy in the past? Possible, he was a (maybe still is) source for ABC News. He was the one who set up the interview with John Miller and OBL in 1998.

Interesting time back then; people on the left could say with a striaght face that Iraq had WMD and was in fact participating with OBL to cook up some witches brew in the Sudan. As a matter of fact Richard Clarke, Cannistraro, Pres. Clinton, Mary O McCarthy [NIO-Programs, Clinton Admin.](she signed off on the el-Shifa bombing in 1998), and everyone else who defended the Oil-for-Food program all sang from the same neo-con hymnal.

RichatUF

clarice

Daniel--that takes too long to answer.
Let me take one--GJ proceedings are secret but can be used at the subsequent trial.

pete

Now how stupid does one hav to be to ask this question of Other Tom's:

"How do you know it pre-empted nothing, Pete?"

verner

Clarice:"I don't think she'd pay any attention to him. I think her source was higher--Tenet or Powell or Armitage."

Maybe Clarice, but the only problems there are:
1) Tenet would have known she was not WINPAC
2) Armitage didn't call her by her name to Woodward--just "his wife." And he didn't say where she worked in the agency exactly.
3) Powell--a maybe I guess.

And I would guess that Judy had a few on the low down sources.


RichatUF

from Rick Ballard...

Careful about quoting Fitzlaw in the evening. Remember, it's modeled on precepts developed by Kafka so tomorrow..???

que spooky music...am I lost in a David Lynch film, its getting dark in here

RichatUF

verner

Rich: "As a matter of fact Richard Clarke, Cannistraro, Pres. Clinton, Mary O McCarthy [NIO-Programs, Clinton Admin.](she signed off on the el-Shifa bombing in 1998), and everyone else who defended the Oil-for-Food program all sang from the same neo-con hymnal."

Yeah Rich, but that was just in church. They may have sung it, but they never did anything about it. And when Bush did...

I didn't know that about Mary McCarthy!

We must continute this discussion later.

I'm off to bed.

clarice

Good point.Let's say someone high up said CIA--and someone who'd talked to Wilson or was carrying his water said WINPAC. Because NO ONE in this story has testified about WHERE she worked in the agency and no one..save possibly Harlow or Grossman --seems to have known.

theo

Daniel --

Some good questions. It is possible to convict on perjury just where it is one person's word agains the other, but it is not common. Here I think the argument will be that so many people claimed to have discussed the subject with Libby that week -- Fleischer and Miller for sure -- that the statement that Russert raised it with him and it was "like new" to him is not really Libby's word against Russert's but Libby's word against those of at least three witnesses.

I agree that the Cooper counts are too insubstantial a difference to merit a conviction. The judge can and I think should throw those counts out (but whether he will is another matter). The Judy Miller stuff is pretty weak too.

The only serious claim here is the testimony about his conversation with Russert. It comes down to whether the jury has "reasonable doubt" about whether Libby lied about that.

SunnyDay

...think nothing of destroying people’s lives for the sake of their political goals are they evil or amoral?

Ever read Stephen King? He portrays people at the moment in their lives when they choose between good and evil. They al, for one undeniable moment, know what they are choosing - and they choose evil.

Then their story goes on, and all kinds of things happen. Some people would think of it as amoral as they read - it's entertaining and certaily sells books. But King writes allegories about that one moment, and the results of that choice.

I don't believe the world is black and white - that's not possible - but even with all they gray, when they start destroying people's lives, it's evil.

Corporation or political party - a person makes that choice.

JMO.

RichatUF

I didn't know that about Mary McCarthy!

9/11 Commission Report talks about it in the part about the Embassy Bombing response.


from clarice...

Because NO ONE in this story has testified about WHERE she worked in the agency

I'm still clueless on this-was it confirmed that she was a salaried employee of CPD at the CIA

RichatUF

pete

"The Democrat party is made up of two groups of people. Among the leaders are a group of smart, but amoral people whose goal is the acquisition of power. To these people any action that aids in the acquisition of power is a virtue. The second group is made up of people to stupid to discern that their leaders are playing them."

You allowed yourself to be conned into a war based on phoney intel. You didn't just get conned. You ALLOWED yourself to be conned.

Take a step back and marvel at what a job the fascist Right did on you. Tell me. What did you get out of the deal? You help send 100s of thousands to their death at cost of 100s of billions of dollars and you got what in return?

One must wonder if you folks are capable of make rational decisions at all. I mean there really must be an organic basis for your innate gullibility.

RichatUF

I didn't know that about Mary McCarthy!

9/11 Commission Report talks about it in the part about the Embassy Bombing response.


from clarice...

Because NO ONE in this story has testified about WHERE she worked in the agency

I'm still clueless on this-was it confirmed that she was a salaried employee of CPD at the CIA

RichatUF

Alcibiades

Speaking of the demise of NBC's ethics, Colonel Ken Allard resigns out of disgust - with the Arkin debacle and NBC's new editorial direction:

It is, therefore, possible to argue that NBC is merely undergoing a delicate arabesque in anticipation of changing audience preferences and the long- hoped-for Democratic restoration (although journalists generally seem reluctant to raise the tough questions that should punctuate the 2008 campaign).

But has anyone else noticed the network’s precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards? Not only were no apologies given and no pink slips issued for Arkin’s outburst, but on his MSNBC show last week, Keith Olberman went out of his way to defend this “valid criticism” of our military…

[S]ometimes the only way to show where you really stand is to vote with your feet. And so with great reluctance and best wishes to my former colleagues, with this column I am severing my 10-year relationship with NBC News.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Ralph L.

Daniel, I'll try another. A witness can tell the world about his own testimony. If you remember the Monica affair, Sid Blumenthal came out and lied about what he was asked in the GJ. The jurors are not supposed to blab, and if the testimony isn't used in an indictment or trial, it's supposed to remain secret.
The Clinton WH, I believe, leaked their own witness' testimony and blamed Starr for the leak to discredit his office.

clarice

Rich--The last I recall is a stipulation that she did not work at Winpac..and of course the admonitions that the nature of her status i/e/ classified, undercover, etc) is not an issue at the trial and is irrelevant)

Niters.

Ralph L.

Pete, we're taking the oil. You don't get any.

Ralph L.

Daniel, you'll hook more fish with smaller bait. My brain hurts.

Seven Machos

Pete --

1. The reasons we went to war in Iraq had nothing at all to do with the weapons of mass destruction. In fact, WMD was an argument made for the war -- one among many, not that you were paying any attention. The decision to go to war had long since been made before the WMD argument was made, for far more complex geostrategic reasons, which you probably disagree with but which are important for you to understand.

2. We cannot lose the war or be seen to lose the war. It was a tragic, awful mistake to leave Vietnam the way we did. Many, many people died unnecessarily (over two million, if you count the Paris-educated leftist Pol Pot's rise as a direct result of our retreat. It's a serious world, and Bush's decisions cannot be undone. We can only move forward. It would prove terrifically disastrous and lead to great loss of American and other life if we leave now.

3. What does any of what you continue to post about have to do with the actual charges in Scooter Libby's trial? The answer: nothing.

Ralph L.

Alcibiades, I know Arkin is with the Post. What's his relationship to NBC?

Syl

Daniel

On the last point (personal motive) I wouldn't go there. That's petty and though fitz might get some personal pleasure out of a win over libby, he is a professional and no matter what we think of his investigation I don't think he'd target Libby as a personal vendetta.

I think it was Eckenrode who suggested to fitz that there was something 'suspicious' about Libby and fitz went from there. Eckenrode had done the FBI interview with both Libby and Russert before fitz came on board. I think Russert saying they didn't discuss it (though he couldn't be absolutely certain they didn't) may have contributed to that. It was at least worth further investigation.

Syl

Daniel

On the last point (personal motive) I wouldn't go there. That's petty and though fitz might get some personal pleasure out of a win over libby, he is a professional and no matter what we think of his investigation I don't think he'd target Libby as a personal vendetta.

I think it was Eckenrode who suggested to fitz that there was something 'suspicious' about Libby and fitz went from there. Eckenrode had done the FBI interview with both Libby and Russert before fitz came on board. I think Russert saying they didn't discuss it (though he couldn't be absolutely certain they didn't) may have contributed to that. It was at least worth further investigation.

danking70

Col. Allard resigned from NBC today over Arkin's and Olberman's comments and NBC's lame ass response.

Just throw that on the Russert/Mitchell/Gregory pile.

Bill in AZ

Wells is going to use WINPAC and CPD like DNA in this case - to show where crap is coming from. Fitz caught on late in the game and tried to scramble to muddle it - but I don't think he can. He sees where it is going and is scared.

pete

Seven Machos and AMDG

I deplore your misuse of the word logic. You use it in Spok-of-Star-Trek sense. Do you really even know what logic is? Pick up a short book on the subject. It will rock your world!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame