Powered by TypePad

« This Is Cruel, But... | Main | Tim Russert Thread »

February 06, 2007



Hey, I want to thank Buckhead too! He did a tremendous job, and is truly a great living American.



Cecil Turner

My understanding of your argument is that Libby, months later, may have confused the sequence of the conversations with Fleischer and Russert, not that Ari's memory of his conversation with Libby was necessarily inaccurate. Correct?

Correct, which was how I read A.M.'s earlier post.

Though I also find Ari's story implausible. Also not mentioned is the fact the "incompetence" bit was aimed at least partially at Ari, and his departure wasn't all sweetness and light::

F: And incompetence of others?

L: Uranium claim getting into SOTU in frist place, then early in July, backing off. One or both.

Ah, Ari Fleischer's last week. Coincidence? No mention at lunch? Perhaps why he doesn't want to talk to Libby's lawyer?

I am not aware of any subsequent meeting between these two being testified to.

Not the point. Libby three months later might've misremembered the conversation with Ari as happening after the conversations with reporters. (Or forgotten the Plame part of it ever happened even if it happened . . . and I suspect it never did.)

mrs hit and run

Fitz is what he is.. He'd be a nicer man if he was getting some...

Me too.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 06, 2007 at 06:55 PM



To hint, you actually have to know

For Dickerson to infer based on hindsight and hype that "check with the CIA" is a veiled reference to "The Wife" falls far short of compelling.

Ari clearly is telling a stronger version of events than other parties in his story are willing to support.

Sara (Squiggler)

Russert is at the courthouse. Fox showed him getting out of his car and he is on crutches. He looks very unkempt and dumpy, BTW. Even the Fox reporter mentioned he sure doesn't look like he does on TV.


interest in uranium from Niger as "this crazy story.

The actual quote is Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

Which I have on occasion used to suggest that it was the DIA report that "triggered" the mission rather than Cheney's request for analysis.

Cecil Turner

For Dickerson to infer based on hindsight and hype that "check with the CIA" is a veiled reference to "The Wife" falls far short of compelling.

Especially on the same day the Director of CIA makes a public statment to the effect that Wilson was sent by "CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative." Dickerson is an idiot.

FWIW, I commented some time ago (but after Libby published his theory of defense) to the notion that the prosecution has to "rule out every possible defense." My comment was that usually, the defendant provides a single theory, thus narrowing the field of relevant speculation and doubt.
Well, I think you were responding to me, and the criteria is not exactly "rule out every possible defense" but instead more like rule out each and every innocent theory that fits the evidence. (I suppose those are the same things depending upon your definition of "every possible defense" -- if a defense is a reasonable explanation of the evidence, and it is one where the defendent is innocent, then it's a "possible defense")

While I agree that tactically it's probably not a good idea in most cases to overwhelm the jury with multiple mutually-exclusive scenarios, it is surely within the defendent's constitutional right to put on whatever defense he wants. And we've gone on at some length that this case is strikingly different from other criminal investigations in that it is the prosecution who is continually trying to hide information and the defense who is trying to get it admitted, and all of the obvious leads that the investigators ignored.

So in this case in particular, there is a laundry list of possibilities (Judy Miller told Libby, Woodward told Libby, some other reporter told Libby, Armitage was the source, Powell was the source, Grossman was the source, Wilson & Plame told Kristof, Wilson & Plame told Pincus, Wilson & Plame told who knows how many others, they talked to nobody knows who, we don't know what dates, Wilson told Calibresi who told Cooper, Wilson told Democratic senators who told their staffs who told Cooper's wife who told Cooper, Ari lied, Ari made a simple-to-make mistake, etc., etc.) that Fitzgerald is completely oblivious to and never investigated. End the argument with "God only knows who knew what when because Mr Fitzgerald wasn't interested, and God can't testify because of separation of Church and State" and you leave the jurors with smiles on their faces and the nagging suspicion that Fitzgerald is playing them for idiots.

And furthermore, the level of complexity which Team Libby should use in their motions to the judge for a directed verdict is not necessarily the same level of complexity that is wise to use with the jury. If there are multiple sources of "reasonable doubt" then why shouldn't the defense brief all of them? I'm sure the judge is smart enough to keep it all straight -- they don't give out those JD's for nothing, after all.


AJ Strata's theory on Wilson's 2 trips is that the CIA was behind the 1999 coup in Niger and was covering it up--


W: You're a Buffalo icon?

T: Yes.

W: And this paper criticized you?

T: But they've written so much positive about my family, I take it as it comes.

So russert is purposefully ignoring the point? You gotta love that.

The comments to this entry are closed.