Powered by TypePad

« Tim Russert, Equivocator? | Main | They Should Have Seen This Coming »

February 11, 2007


Carol Herman



I'm going to guess the only way the jury can see the show that brought the original "viewer complaint" from Libby to Russert. And, it deals with Chrissy Matthews. Is to have Libby INTRODUCE THE SHOW. Because it started the "ball rolling towards Russert."

Let the jury decide. Russert said "veiwer complaints" gave him a hat through which he could talk. And, NEVER WAS WILSON'S NAME MENTIONED.

Hello. That was the show where Wilson was blasting the Veep.

Talk about "hiding the ELEPHANT" in the living room. And, no one sees a thing.

But, it's gonna come out. Because right now those who were so pumped "about Christmas" when Libby was indicted; have gone as silent as lambs.

Sherlock Holmes says "when the dogs don't bark, the crime was committed by the owner."

Now? Life immitates fiction.

sidebyside with bio shield, TV, and ice water dispenser

'Breach' is coming out.

Anyone have anything to do with that one? They kept it pretty clean.


Szady was the jerk who blew that along with his posse esp Lyle. He seems to be involved in the Libby fiasco as well, all of our CI failures and the seemingly ridiculous AIPAC cases.

Twitching Fetus


World Wide Music Community: 49th annual Grammies.


Joe Giraldi, a former CIA officer, writing in The American Conservative.

In 2000, a Turkish delegation consisting of generals and technical experts visited Washington seeking technology for Ankara’s White Energy nuclear program, ostensibly intended to generate electricity. A high level Foreign Service officer, recently returned from Turkey, escorted the group. While making the rounds of contractors, the Turks met a representative of a consulting company called Brewster-Jennings, the cover company used by Valerie Plame and other CIA officers tracking weapons proliferation. But the State Department contact told the group to stay clear because Brewster-Jennings was “part of the US government”, a euphemism indicating intelligence affiliation. One of the Turks then contacted the Pakistani Embassy in Washington to pass the information on to an ISI intelligence officer. The embassy subsequently telephoned someone in Pakistan who, judging from the conservation is presumed to have been a member of the Khan group of nuclear proliferators who helped develop North Korea’s weapons and also sought to sell nuclear technology to Iran and Libya.

Carol Herman


Szady will prove how far the muslims have gone into getting JEWS and CHINAMEN.

Tenet had to apologize for a file Szady kept on a young Jewish kid. Where Szady kept a "special file," showing this kid minored in Hebrew. Without showing he MAJORED in World Affairs at college.

But it's hidden now from GOOGLE. I saw it last night. And, then? A "SCOOP" to GOOGLE means articles they've posted, if it hurts the muslem crowd, or the government cabal that wants to destroy "too much Jewish influence" from tainting America, either in politics, where someone like Libby had the audacity to climb. And, AIPAC for swaying congressional congress critters, with "too much Jewish money."

Oh, the horrors, as God delivers comeuppance. Whew.

Carol Herman


GOOGLE "scoops" provides upward mobility to Holocaust deniers. And, when caught? "Scoops," out.

Scooter's gonna fix lots of pigs' asses. As Lincoln, the fatalist, said. There's a "higher motive" in every human brain. Beyond access. (This was before Freud. But after Jeremy Bentham.) To Lincoln, this was the highest MOTIVE. And, he always felt he was put on God's green earth for "some reason." Nu?


That's "conversation" rather than "conservation".

Carol Herman


No. "Breach" was a paperback, out in the summer of 2005. About the Marines. Probably more useful to Haditha, than here, I'd guess.

Bill in AZ

heh - speaking of smelly fish, just did a search for "Eckenrode" at Free Republic:

Some more or less uninteresting stuff about Fitzgerald having gone to Amherst... but this is the part that got me, especially the "extraordinarily discreet".

"Eckenrode, whose son is at Amherst now, gets kudos from Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, in a Philadelphia Inquirer article. Wilson calls him 'serious,' 'committed,' 'thoughtful,' 'thorough,' and 'extraordinarily discreet.' A spokeswoman for the special prosecutor told the Inquirer Fitzgerald believes Eckenrode 'defines what it is to be an FBI agent.'"

Wonder if "extraordinarily discreet" means calling reporters to discreetly inform them how to testify, throwing out inconvenient notes, and rewriting inconvenient testimony into summaries that fit the agenda.


Too bad here is how the MSM is spinning it...


glenda waggoner

This is getting "more curioser and curioser"-bottom line-a prosecutor(for what I'm not sure,yet)
and the MSM out to get anything ugly on Bush&Co.
are willing to demolish a man's career and reputation to further their anti-war agenda and disdain for Bush and his policies. Why is a President ,with manufactured poll numbers tanking, such a burr under their skin? Chris Matthews and "what world do you live in" Shuster,actually foam at the mouth over this case.
They have all become what they shout and scream at.
Evil. Law-breaking-doctoring the info to suit their
needs-power-hungry-control freaks. I hope the jury
can see through the propaganda-I pray Wells is as
good as you report.


Some more leaking possibilities--in fedora's piece.
The names from State and INR in #11, 13, and 17 are important. Boucher, Wolf, Dodge, and Silver . Is Thomas Warrick related to Joby Warrick, and is there a link between the Warricks, Boucher, and Wilson. Boucher put the December 2002 fact sheet together, and he may have been in a position to leak early info about the Niger forgeries to Joby Warrick and Joseph Wilson, which would account for Wilson's seeming inside knowledge of Warrick's article.


You liked my previous post, so here is another.
Here is a curious tidbit that Wells could use in summation.
It seems that Russert most probably lied under during Fitzgerald’s redirect examination.
How so?
Here is a quotation from Firedoglake:
F: Any chance Xmas and surprises was personal joy at seeing Libby indicted?
T: Absolutely not.
In other words T (who is Tim Russert) asserted that his statement that the night before the Libby indictment was like Christmas Eve did not represent his feeling joy that indictments would be handed down to members of the Bush administration, but represented something else!

But what else?

Some have suggested that the mere fact that big news was going to break the next day was the cause of his elation. In other words, the alternative to what he denied seems to be the claim that big news in itself gives joy to Tim Russert; the nature of that news has no effect on him. Was it the nature of the news about to break that gave him joy? Absolutely not, he claims, and Fitzgerald is pleased to elicit this amazing statement.

Well, 9/11 was big news, for a whole week and more. Did news of it keep Tim elated for days on end? It certainly was big news. How about Hurricane Katrina? The Tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Or those two Muslims who went about shooting pedestrians through the a hole in the trunk of their car? Did these big news events excite him to extended Christmas frenzies? Does an aircrash turn him on?

This is possible. After all I saw scenes of Palestinians dancing in the streets at news of 9/11, and maybe Russert agreed with them on this. But I cannot believe it. Russert is not a ghoul. At least I hope he is not a ghoul, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it.

Reporters in the old days got joy from scoops, events in which their own reports came in first and they got credit. But these indictments were not scoops for NBC or Russert.

The only alternative to his being a madman or a ghoul seems to be that he does care about the nature of the news he hears. He is elated when there is big news and it is good news, He is not elated at news of big disasters. So his Christmas Eve statement must have meant that he did not consider the indictments to be disasters (as Libby’s indictment was for Libby) but a long anticipated piece of good news.

Thus, either Russert is a horrible person, a wretched ghoul, (pardon me for repeating this word; I just love it) or he is an arrant liar under oath, ready to say the most outlandish things to keep from admitting a disagreeable truth about himself: that he wanted to see Libby, and other members of the Bush administration indicted, and took joy in the prospect of such indictments.

And this was Fitzgerald’s triumphant redirect examination!

I wonder if Libby had said such a thing would Fitzgerald have had him indicted on another count of perjury for it?

Someone on another thread here (sorry I forgot who) pointed out an interesting possibility that could reconcile Libby’s and Russert’s testimonies so that they dovetail completely.

Russert now claims that he could not have mentioned Wilson’s wife or Plame before he read Novak’s piece about them, but also that he became all excited about them after reading same.
Libby claimed that he spoke to Russert perhaps twice, possibly on two different days, and in the second conversation (probably) Russert blurted out questions about Wilson’s wife or Plame, surprising Libby by them.
The first call came on July 10, so the second call was on the tenth or eleventh. Novak’s piece came out on July 12, and so was on the advance wire, readable by Russert (and others at NBC) some time on July 11.
Neither conversation with Libby gave Russert any useful information, and had no independent interest to him. Quite likely he forgot anything about them rather soon.
Suppose then that the second call came after Russert and others at NBC had read Novak’s column, on July 11.
Russert, familiar with this column might then well have blurted out some question about Plame in this conversation, excited as he has testified he was about that column and its contents. In his excitement about Novak’s column and its news relevance to NBC, he may also very well have forgotten his meaningless conversation with Libby.
Libby, not have read any advance wire, could well have been surprised and mystified by Russert’s question.

If this scenario is correct, both Libby and Russert were probably doing their very best to describe their memories of these conversations. Russert’s excitement would certainly have been mysterious to Libby, and Libby’s harping on Russert getting Matthews to say that the Administration denies Wilson’s claims undoubtedly bored Russert had no desire to do anything of the kind.

So here are some questions: are there phone or other records to confirm when exactly Russert became aware of Novak’s column, and when, if ever, the second Libby-Russert conversation took place? Have any such records that rule out the scenario described above been introduced as evidence in this case? Is this scenario sufficiently plausible to suspect that both Libby and Russert are valiantly trying to tell the truth this matter?
If so, can the Russert charges against Libby be establishable beyond reasonable doubt to an unbiased juror? Should they not then be dismissed forthwith?

I have read that Judge Walton has often admonished the Jurors not to consider the issue of leakage of classified information in considering this case.

Now when someone tells me not to touch my left ear, this admonition has the opposite effect on me. It causes the notion of my touching my left ear to imbed itself in my psyche, and I find myself with an urge to touch that very ear, just to relieve and remove that thought. The more I am admonished and reminded of touching my ear, the more the urge persists. Eventually I can be relieved of it only by touching my left ear.

Perhaps my reaction is mine alone, and other human beings never feel this way. But if the jurors do so in this case, the more they are reminded of not considering leakage felony charges and leakage guilt, the more the thought of the leakage enters their heads, and the more it is likely to remain there.

Would it be legal and reasonable to explain to the jurors why they should not consider it. A statement to the effect that the Prosecutor has determined that Libby was not responsible for leaking Plame’s employment to Novak nor was he a direct or indirect source for Novak’s column, might do the trick. Or perhaps the weaker statement that the Prosecutor has found no evidence that Libby was aware that mentioning Plame’s employment was illegal, so he cannot be prosecuted for feloniously doing so, if he actually did so. Or perhaps some other reason might do. (Why not the actual reason, whatever it is?) Otherwise, Walton’s fastidious efforts to get the jury to ignore this issue very likely have backfired, and it lurks unresolved in the mind of each member of the jury.

At this point my impressions are that this is a case for PJ O’Rourke, or Scrappleface.

I have read, but am not sure, that someone at the FBI, perhaps Eckenrode himself, suggested that Ashcroft being an administration appointee, would have a conflict of interest in investigating the administration, and so Ashcroft, ever sensitive to appearances of conflict, recused himself from the investigation. Somehow the idea came to Comey that an investigation of the Republican administration should be left to Democrats, so Senator Schumer was asked to recommend a prosecutor, and he recommended Fitzgerald.
My understanding is that a prosecutor should recuse himself (or herself) if he or she has had collegial or adversarial experience with the subject of the investigation. The recusal of Ashcroft is consistent with this notion.
Now apparently Fitzgerald has had adversarial experience with Libby, (the two having been on opposite sides of an important case that Libby won), which, by the same fastidious procedures would require Fitzgerald to recuse himself from proceedings against Libby (though not against anyone else in the administration.) There is no assumption of ill will or vengefulness in a recusement, it is merely a standard procedure to avoid even the issue of character weaknesses of this sort by the prosecutor.

Yet Fitzgerald did not recuse himself from this case.
So should he have done so?

If the case was an open and shut one, or even a reasonably strong one, this fact would fade into insignificance. But the status of the case now after the prosecution has presented its witnesses and the defense has not even begun is unusually weak. Fitzgerald did not even present evidence at all for one count in the indictment.

When a prosecutor with adversarial experience against a defendant indicts him and brings him to trial on a charge on which the prosecution presents no evidence, we have to ask: is this a fair prosecution? The enormous costs to the defendant to prepare a defense and the damage to career incurred by the indictment are very serious considerations, and in such a case, with no evidence presented, appear to be frivolously engendered.

A prosecutor with adversarial experience against a defendant who seems to have created charges for the grand jury that he does not even dignify by presenting evidence is providing prime facie evidence of bias against the defendant, which bias in itself is evidence of misconduct by not recusing himself,

It seems to me that no unbiased jury could convict now without any defense. However there are two things going for the prosecution that may still give Fitzgerald a win.

First, there is the venue. The District of Columbia is inhabited either by government employees and their dependents or by government dependents, both of which groups heavily favor Democrats over Republicans. To the extent that this trial his considered political, the jury pool and probably the jury are both heavily weighted toward partisans of the prosecution who could hang the jury or demand conviction on at least one count.

Second, the prosecution has brought many charges (though they actually involve only three conversations with reporters) and juries often have a tendency to split the difference between the two sides. They might do so by acquitting on most charges, but giving Fitzgerald one or two counts out of sympathy for him, or just for his trying hard, even if they are not actually convinced of Libby’s guilt. (I believe the Waco jury did this very thing)

Of course this would be trumpeted by the press as a great defeat for the administration, and a vindication of the prosecution and the press. There would then be an appeal and eventually the case will be thrown out or Libby pardoned. Eventually the stench arising from it will come back at bite the Democrats and Fitzgerald and Nifong will be remembered as the ghastly pair of 2007 prosecutors.

One has to wonder what would have happened to Sandy Berger if he got the full Eckenrode treatment (which with Libby makes Javert’s pursuit of Jean Valjean seem like amateurish bumbling) or fell into the hands of a Fitzgerald like prosecutor. Berger very clearly attempted to obstruct an investigation by stealing and destroying classified documents that he considered relevant to it and embarrassing to someone; he lied about it, all beyond any doubt., and with malice aforethought. Everything Libby is accused of Berger blatantly did as witnessed by many library personnel..

Yet he was let off with a slap on the wrist, and was never even prodded to release to the public what juicy item or items he was attempting to hide. Where was Eckenrode when all this happened? Just compare Berger’s treatment with the nit-picking charges against Libby!

Actually it really makes little difference, except that the fun of finding out what Berger was concealing is denied us.

It is the notion of resonance that explains this. Resonance is what happens when you drive along in your car and something in it starts to vibrate at some particular frequency.
Your driving produces stimuli to things in your car at many frequencies, but those near the natural vibrating frequency of what is in your car are picked up and resonate while the others remain negligible.

The problem with the press is that news items that favor Republicans or embarrass Democrats appear perhaps once, and die away. Those items that favor Democrats or embarrass Republicans resonate with the press, and are repeated over and over again, and drummed into our ears, particularly those of the gullible among us So Berger’s news if embarrassing to Democrats would appear once and disappear again almost immediately, The Wilson-Plame nonsense, and nonsense is the best way to describe the whole scandal, resonated with the press. Everyone in it, in the press the FBI and the prosecutor crew saw it as a potential new Watergate scandal with a heroic part for me, capable of bringing Bush down or at least some important Republican and flogged away at it. Fortunately, their follies are actually amusing, except of course to Libby.

I still believe that the prosecutorial and investigatorial irregularities in this case are serious enough to merit appointment of a new special prosecutor to investigate them. And this prosecutor should be a Republican this time, if he or she is to get to the bottom of this lingering scandal.


Carol Herman



And, they even got the holiday wrong. Not Christmas. IT'S THE TURKEY, STUPID. When the peacock feathers fall off. More people will see this. And, Libby's lawyers can go sue NBC. Just to dish the THANKSGIVING.

0.7 alpha

Larry used to work at the State Department?

'Brewster Millions'?

Joe knows this pattern from Chayes/Shayes Harvard, Kennedy, Afghanistan and lots of USAID money. Rumor is that she is CIA, but she screwed up too big for that to be the case.

FBI is a tax funded agency and it appears they really work for Putin. Fitz wouldn't do his job and everybody learned from that.

windows mobile 6.0

Harvard names Faust as first female president.



You missed the biggest two leaks of secret grand jury testimony. First was that Cheney declassified the NIE in order to debunk Wilson's claims, and the second is that Cheney annotated Wilson's NYT op-ed while carrying out his supervisory responsibilities over Executive Branch employees.

Neither of those things was remotely relevant to whether Libby lied about conversations with reporters.


Well, that's fedora missed them and I'll send him your very good obervations. ..along with a suggestion he find out who first reported them.


Sorry, clarice, I didn't put a /sarcasm tag on that. That was information which Fitzgerald released publicly in March and April of last year during the defense and prosecution discovery motions. Fitzgerald put these two pieces of information in two motions responding to Libby's motions. They were not remotely relevant.

I think that they were a very public attempt to greymail Libby. Unfortunately for Fitzgerald, Cheney will not be blackmailed.


Yes..I see ..he has been rather scuzzy about that, and IIRC he waited a wekk while that swirled about before indicating there was nothing wrong with what Cheney did.
He's bad, and I really hope he gets what's coming to him.



Tom Warrick is listed on EPIC's 2002 link. His bio lists him as "the Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. Department of State." There's also an audio that might be worth listening too.

I had saved these two links about Warrick awhile back. The first one is from the Congressional Human Rights Caucus with Representative Frank Wolf co-chairing.

The other makes claims by Garner that Rumsfeld forced him to fire Warrick.

first one

second one


Thanks, Rocco. I'll forward that to fedora.

Ralph L.

If Libby admitted to first learning about Plame from Cheney and then forgetting, why did he need to involve Russert or any third person at all? Maybe Russert said "flame" and "lying publicity hound" in the same sentence, and that was enough to jog his memory. And I don't see how it's material, it isn't as if Russert claims Libby told him about Plame.


Good old Drudge.

Red lined information says:

Cheney expected to make historic appearance on witness stand in Libby trial... Developing...

Ralph L.

Oh, and excellent headline, Clarice the Great Libberator.


--Maybe Russert said "flame" and "lying publicity hound" in the same sentence, and that was enough to jog his memory. --


JM Hanes


"It seems ironic that for someone professing such concern over the alleged leak of a CIA agent’s identity, Patrick Fitzgerald seems to have been so unconcerned to prevent the leaks of grand jury testimony violating the rights of the accused and the integrity of the judicial process."

More than simply ironic when he makes profligate use of news articles both in his pleadings and at trial -- not to mention, one suspects, in his investigation & witness interveiws!



You asked the other day about my comment about Fitz agreeing to not burn Russert on not informing the court in his affadavit that he had already given an interview to the FBI.

I finally found the cite:

""the government's agreement that it would
refrain from arguing that Mr. Russert's statements to the FBI constituted a waiver for purposes of the subpoena litigation;""


I took that statement as an agreement with Russert that he would not burn him on his affadavit. Fitz is talking about not telling Judge Hogan about the FBI interview. For what it is worth....


Fitz is talking about not telling Judge Hogan about the FBI interview. For what it is worth...

Why would he make that deal?


Patton--that's a very good catch..I take it that was in response to Libby's motion for all details relating to the accommodation made with Russert.. Excellent work, Patton.


Question for a Leagle Beagle here:

I have been following all these threads and I saw some comments about Rule 29? I think it is about dismissing a charge? Can a Rule 29 be entered into a case at any time, or just at the conclusion or either the prosecutor or defense presentations?

Thanks in advance.


Since in deciding such a motion the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution , it is generally not made until the prosecution has put on its case in chief.


I remember researching the Dec 19th Fact Sheet and if I remember correctly, Charlotte Beers was Undersecretary for Public Affairs at the time. I seem to recall she left that position citing family issues shortly after the Fact Sheet was accidently published on the State Department web page. (I think)

But here's what Greg Thielmann said about it on August 12, 2003.

Well, in fact, it slips back into analysis that's coming out of the State Department, does it not? In December, isn't there a report out of the State Department that--

That's another very curious development. There was a fact sheet on Dec. 19 that came out of the State Department -- or allegedly so -- and it mentioned a couple of things. But it mentioned the Niger uranium matter that I know the Intelligence Bureau of the State Department would have never cleared. So that this is a very odd document, the Dec. 19 document.

So the conclusion could only be that this was inserted by people above the Intelligence Bureau.

It is certainly my assumption that this would not originate with, or even be cleared by the Intelligence Bureau, because I knew they had strong views on this.

Yes, but it's not coming from the mailroom, so it's got to be coming from an undersecretary or at some--

That's right. It either has to be coming from someone on the policy side of the State Department or from the NSC, someone on the outside. But it's a mystery to me to this day where that came from.

So that's meddling with intelligence?

In my mind, it is.

That seems to be the case.

There are two interesting things about it. One is, at that point, the information was still highly classified. The mention of uranium from Niger was, as I understand it, in December, a top-secret matter, and I just wonder who had the authority, at that time, to declassify it. Certainly, the president would, when he did a month later. But who at that time took responsibility for it?

That was one of the jobs of the Intelligence Bureau, to make sure that no very sensitive intelligence information was used by the policy side, either accidentally or deliberately. That's one of the reasons that we were clearing language when public statements were made.


Thanks..You are great. I will pass that on to fedora, too. (He had missed whoozwhat's connection to EPIC which you caught and he was the first to really pay attention to EPIC).


I hope it helps.

Road Dog

Tina - Usually made at the end of the prosecution's case, but the defense can make a rule 29 motion anytime during the trial, such as after the defense case, and even 7 days after verdict.


Ralph L.

I suppose Rule 29 is also used after a Perry Mason moment, if those ever occur in real life.


That's why I hate answering questions like that. I figure to a non-lawyer the important thing is to explain the purpose and logic and usual use or their eyes will glaze over, and as soon as I do, some come along with all the non-usual applications. (*wink*)

In many state courts different terminology is used for the same thing offered at different times in the trial: After the prosecution's casae it is usually called a Motion for dismissal; after both sides have rested it is usually called a Motion for a Directed Verdict; after a jury finding of guilt, it is usually called a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict.

But all are essentially the same thing--a request that the judge view all the evidence offered by the prosecution and (making all reasonable inferences therefrom) decide that the prosecution has failed to make its case as a matter of law. If there is any substantive factual issue the motion must be denied.


Thank you Clarice, Roaddog (and thanks for the link also) and Ralph for responding to my question. I have learned a lot just lurking around this site, and folks have been very kind in answering my questions when I pose them.

I'm firmly in the camp that Libby is being railroaded here, and am just about ready to make another donation to his defense fund.

Again, thanks for responding.


But a judge can't make credibility determinations on a Rule 29, so it seems inconceivable in this case . . .

Carol Herman


With the VEEP to be called (per Drudge). I'd guess this would take the pressure OFF Libby, having to testify.

And, I think the VEEP could also "introduce" the Chris Matthews show that started the Fitz Extravaganza" rolling.

Fitz didn't know things that roll, can also roll downhill.

And, Judge Walton has EARS. He heard Wells. He knows the lies are the ones that went to Judge Hogan. (And, put Judith Miller in the slammer for 85 days.)

Is Walton allowed to react to that? Or must he bow and defer to Judge Hogan? (And, in this game of "possum," is Judge Hogan also hiding in the closet?)

This silence is not going to bode well for NBC. And, up ahead, we will see how they toss anchors off their ship at sea. Of if they do what CBS did, which was attempt to stay afloat by bailing water. And, hiring Thornburgh. Seems all that did was piss Mary Mapes off enough, that she quit being SILENT. And, started to rip-tear into the CBS management system. Save for her boss, Dan RaTHer.

The ship, it seems, has set sail. And, then you couldn't see her anymore. In the old days? The fear was that the world was flat.

But today? When the ship disappears? It's more than likely she got sunk. And, slowly, went down to the bottom.

Hope the story at the bottom gets told.


For the life of me, I can't understand you Libby apologists.

The guy CLEARLY perjured himself and is toast.

Roger Simon's nonsensical blathering aside, the only legally relevant issue is whether Libby did indeed misrepresent his conversations with journalists about Valerie Wilson.

You'd have to believe the moon is made of green cheese to not see that he did indeed do that.

The White House itself decided Libby would be the fall guy. But you folks want to feel sorry for him? Crikey.

Ralph L.

Tina, don't swear by my comment. I get my knowledge of the law from religiously watching Law & Order, which is an NBC show.



Corn does a pretty nice job steering this back on target. Russert seems eminently credible next to Libby et al.

Frankly this whole line of thinking strikes me as pretty hilarious.

The right wing ignored all of Ken Starr's foibles for years as they spent $40mil of taxpayer money chasing down a guy fibbing about getting fellatio on the side...but we're supposed to believe the real story here is Joe Wilson garbling facts and Fitzgerald not punishing witnesses for leaking testimony (something they're allowed to do in the first place)?

Crap. Total crap.

The point isn't whether Wilson was a perfect witness or whether Russert equivocated (he didn't) or even really whether Plame was covert or not.

Libby LIED to a grand jury.

When Clinton did it, you right wing nuts went apeshyte for the better part of three years.

Hypocrites all.



So what was the motive for his lies?


Charlotte Beers. Any relation to Rand Beers former government employee who went on to the Kerry payroll and harped about national security issues.


"When Clinton did it, you right wing nuts went apeshyte for the better part of three years."

They call it the "Rule of Law", arbitrarily speaking.



Thanks for all your links. They are very interesting.


There is an urban myth concerning a mysterious foul smell encountered by the new occupants of a house,the previous occupants having left prawns in the curtain pole.This has all the pungent odour of the previous administration,the Clinton's "prawns in the curtain pole".

Other Tom

Here is Rule 29 (actually, there's more following the stuff quoted below, but this is the part about which we're talking now):

"Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

"(a) Before Submission to the Jury.

"After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

"(b) Reserving Decision.

"The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

"(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

"(1) Time for a Motion.

"A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 7 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

"(2) Ruling on the Motion.

"If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal."

I believe this would read pretty straightforwardly to a layman, but I've been so immersed in this crap for so long that I am no longer in very good touch with the ordinary English language. I would read it to say that the earliest such a motion can be made is after the prosecution rests, but I'm not certain. In any event, so far as I am aware Libby has not yet filed any papers in support of such a motion, which I find a little surprising although it's been so long that I am no longer sure what the practice is. Perhaps he can start with his defense case tomorrow and get the motion on file in the coming days.

Believe it or not, this Rule in its current form is a real simplification compared to the corresponding stuff in California, and in fact I think it is much simpler than the federal rules themselves used to be.


You're welcome ts. I hope someone can put it all together. I sure can't! But if we keep digging perhaps our combined efforts will pay off eventually.

I'm just glad people like yourself stay informed, cause I can't remember what I did this morning!


They can make it after the opening too if the idiot fails to outline his case.


They can make it after the opening too if the idiot fails to outline his case.


Libby LIED to a grand jury.

Well, other than the innocent till proven guilty thing.

But so did Bond, of the FBI. So did Cooper. Maybe Russert? If you really think Russert is less of a left leaner than Libby is a right. There's been a whole lot of missremembering going on. But, material to the investigation? What investigation?

Molon Labe

Unlike progun, I do not have absolute knowledge of Libby's guilt or innocence. I am trying to keep up, and formulate alternative hypotheses. I believe and hope he is innocent, but I am trying to weigh what little facts are available.

In the end, if he is found guilty and goes to prison, I have reconciled that outcome by considering it in comparison to other sacrifices made in the war on terror.


Not sure davod...I've always wondered if this Kwiatkowski is married to this Kwiatkowski?

I noticed a Michael Kwiatkowski listed on this Edmund A. Walsh School Of Foreign Service webpage from Georgetown University.

Ralph L.

Thank you, OTom. I was reading "reserve" as "reverse" and kept going "huh?"

No one's answered my question of 3:44, which means it was probably stupid, so I'll try. I'm guessing that Libby first claimed he heard it from Russert, and later discovered proof that Cheney had told him much earlier--which is evidence that he had, in fact, forgotten that, or else why would he blame Little Lord Timmyboy first if that weren't true? A BDS insufferabler would say he knew Cheney had told him all along but hoped to keep that quiet.

Has there been much discussion here about the weird letter Libby wrote JMiller? It almost sounded like code.


Don't think the 32yr old Michael could be the same one from G'town MSFS 92(would be around 40) or married to the 20year plus Army veteran.


Well I wonder no more...Thanks southside

Sara (Squiggler

Ralph, I think everyone here had about the same reaction to the letter as you when first read, but now we just think it was typical Libby/Miller bafflegab.

On the Cheney notice. Libby had it in his notes about talking to Cheney which he turned over to the FBI right from the git go. But, remember, the first time, maybe times, he was questioned, he was not allowed to preview his own notes. (I think I have that right.)


Thank you, OTom. I was reading "reserve" as "reverse" and kept going "huh?"

They did the same thing with Rep Rangel's last attempt to revive the draft. The draftees were to be used for "active and reverse components" of the military. It was in there 4x.


Yep, Libby told the FBI right from the start that he'd heard it first from Cheney, but that it hadn't stuck, and when he heard it from Russert it was, "as if for the first time."

If he was gonna lie, why tell a story like that?

Sara (Squiggler

OT rant. I am already sick to death of the Wonderboy Barack Obama's campaign. Like middle America is ever going to elect a guy whose middle name is Hussein.


I dunno Sara. This part of middle America elected a far left Senator named McCaskill. Anything is possible. McCaskill said in a campaign appearance that "Bush left people to die on rooftops in Hurricane Katrina, because they were poor, they were black, and they were Democrats." Yep, she's one of my state Senators. I'm so proud.

Sara (Squiggler

Aaah Pofarmer, stop your whinin', I've got Boxer, Feinstein and I'll raise you a Pelosi.


Like middle America is ever going to elect a guy whose middle name is Hussein.

They'll never elect a catholic, either. Stupid middle Americans, so hateful and racist.


I have a hard time warming up to any Senator that has had brain surgery.

Arlen "brain damaged" Specter is one of my senators, and next door is Joe "brain damaged" Biden, who thinks he should be President.

My only consolation is that I don't have Tim Johnson, on permanent leave until they can "Torricelli" him out.

Carol Herman


BAACK TO THE FUTURE. When Woodward gets called.

Is he an expert witness? Where IF he knows Libby. And, during the time he's known Libby. Libby has ever "helped" him with INFORMATION. And, how "LEAKING" is NOT INFORMATION!

Again, is Woodward an expert? (Or what?)

What kind of material (about the way news is gathered in DC), could come from Woodward?

And, if he knows Libby. Can that information be discussed? Broadened? And, into the field run the horses that explain how stories are made, or deep sixed?

Ralph L.

Sara, surely Libby made copies of his notes before turning them over. He IS a lawyer after all, though possibly with a fool for a client.

My state has washed the Breck Girl right out of its hair, but he won't go away. Have you seen the aerial "Edwards family compound" picture? My co-worker was fertilizing the neighboring farm last week, and he thought about going up the wrong driveway on purpose just to see it up close but lost his nerve.


Woodward probably has special information on the Libby trial from Pope John Paul II.

Curly Smith

Neo notes:

Woodward probably has special information on the Libby trial from Pope John Paul II.
Fitz: "So tell us Bob, just how many dead people have you interviewed."


All notes were being catalogued and asved as of Oct 3--he was in Aspen with his family and returned I believe I day before the first interview which did not give him time to read and review his notes or to take to anyone mentioned in them to clarify any questions he had about them Paul. He said he hadn't reviewed them, asked that that be placed in the interview notes and his lawyer did, too. He volunteered to meet with the investigators again after he'd had more time to review them.
I don't think there's any "stupidity" or carlessness on his part about that,


Libby could make personal copies of secret government memmos


While you fairy counters continue your obsession with all things Fitz and Libby BushCo is trying to pass more phoney "intelligence" off as real and significant. This time, however, the target of the misinformation is Iran.

OK losers listen up. This nonsense of Iran supplying EFPs is about to blow up in your faces. Why? Because EFPs or what are more commonly called "shaped charges" are part of a 50+ year old technolgy that is used extensively in the oil mining business. Iraq is awash with the devices because IRAQ IS IN THE OIL MINING BUSINESS.

So my advice to you pinheads is to push hard with this "intelligence". As I have said, I'm here to help you self destruct. Think of me as an IED with a big sign on it reading STEP ON ME. No matter how clearly posted the sign is you'll step on it anyhow. You're that bright.

Sara (Squiggler

The AP reported this news yesterday:

Among the evidence the administration planned to present are weapons that were seized over time in U.S.-led raids on caches around Iraq, said one military official. Other evidence includes documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil, a city in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq about 220 miles north of Baghdad, this official said.
In that raid, the U.S. captured five Iranians. They included the operations chief and other members of Iran's elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. Tehran said it was a government liaison office and called for the release of the five, along with compensation for damages.

The dossier also details Iran's role in providing Iraqi fighters with the "explosively formed penetrator" devices that can pierce the armor of Abrams tanks with nearly molten-hot charges. One intelligence official said the U.S. is "fairly comfortable" that it knows with some precision the origin of those Iranian-made explosives.
The New York Times offered more description on the deadly weaponry and assistance that Iran is providing the insurgents in Iraq.
Today the Associated Press released this update on the Iranian connections:

During the briefing, the officer said that one of six Iranians detained in January in a raid on an office in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Brigade, a unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that trains and equips Shiite militants abroad.
He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a 10-month absence, the officer said.

The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down the toilet, he said. Bags of their hair were found during the raid, indicating they had tried to change their appearance, he added.
** Actually... The arrest of Chizari was was from the offices of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and not from Erbil as the AP is reporting today.


Libby LIED to a grand jury.

Merry Fitzmas!


Tell me Sara. Are you dense enough to believe that malarky?

Molon Labe

"Oil mining" indeed. What an idiot.

Sara (Squiggler

Well Pete, I would not normally believe anything that shows up in the NYT or the AP, but in this case, I watched Secretary Gates' presentation to Congress and I listened to the report made by the man sent to gather the evidence and report back to the military and I do believe them.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 troops from the American-led coalition.

The military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five U.S. military helicopter crashes since Jan. 20 _ four that were shot out of the sky by insurgent gunfire.

A fifth crash has tentatively been blamed on mechanical failure. In the same period, two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.

The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said it traced to Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.

Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.

Senior U.S. officials in Washington _ cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion _ had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

It included a power-point slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

The centerpiece of the display, however, was a gray metal pipe about 10 inches long and 6 inches in diameter, the exterior casing of what the military said was an EFP, the roadside bomb that shoots out fist-sized wads of nearly molten copper that can penetrate the armor on an Abrams tank.

"A normal roadside bomb is like a shotgun blast. But these are like a rifle. They're focused and they're aimed. ... It's going to take anything out in its way, go in one side and out the other," said 1st Lt. Zane Galvach, 25, of Dayton, Ohio, a soldier with the Army's 2nd Division, based in Baghdad.

Skeptical congressional Democrats said the Bush administration should move cautiously before accusing Iran of fomenting a campaign of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."

On the Republican side, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi said he did not think the United States was trying to make a case for attacking Iran. Lott said the U.S. should try to stop the flow of munitions through Iran to Iraq but that "you do that by interdiction ... you don't do it by invasion."

The EFPs, as well as Iranian-made mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades, have been supplied to what the military officials termed "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a key backer of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade. It is the military wing of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leaders also have close ties to the U.S.

Many key government figures and members of the Shiite political establishment have deep ties to Iran, having spent decades there in exile during Saddam Hussein's rule. The Badr Brigade was formed and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

An intelligence analyst in the group said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" _ mainly in the Mahdi Army _ to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

The analyst said Iraq's Shiite-led government had been briefed on Iran's involvement and Iraqi officials had asked the Iranians to stop. Al-Maliki has said he told both the U.S. and Iran that he does not want his country turned into a proxy battlefield.

"We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

U.S. officials have alleged for years that weapons were entering the country from Iran but had until Sunday stopped short of alleging involvement by top Iranian leaders.

During the briefing, a senior defense official said that one of the six Iranians detained in January in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Force.

He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a 10-month absence, the officer said.

The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down the toilet, he said. They had also tried to change their appearance by shaving their heads. Bags of their hair were found during the raid, he said.

The dates of manufacture on weapons found so far indicate they were made after fall of Saddam Hussein _ mostly in 2006, the officials said.

In a separate briefing, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, said that since December 2004, U.S. helicopter pilots have been shot at on average about 100 times a month and been hit on an average of 17 times in the same period.

He disclosed for the first time that a Black Hawk helicopter had been hit by small arms fire near the western city of Hit. The craft crash-landed but there were no casualties. Simmons was on board.

The major general said Iraqi militants are known to have SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles but none of the most recent five military crashes were caused by those weapons. He said some previous crashes had been a result of such missiles but would not elaborate.

North of Baghdad, a suicide truck bomber crashed into a police station near Tikrit, killing at least 30 policemen. A total of 76 people were killed or found dead across Iraq. The U.S. Central Command said a soldier was shot and killed Sunday in volatile Diyala province northeast of the capital. A second soldier was reported killed Sunday in western Baghdad.



You are a bafoon. Just google "shaped charge", read what you find and then tell me why the hell Iraq would need Iran to furnish shaped charges. Iraq, being in the oil biz, is awash with these decades old devices just as they are awash with waepons caches.

It's just too easy to prod you people into self destruction. Dig in, by all means, entrench yourselves in your deluded reality.


Moron Labe

""Oil mining" indeed. What an idiot."

Think again genius. You should at least think once before typing.


Its probably a good time for this:

The following questions from lawyers were taken from official court records nationwide...

Was that the same nose you broke as a child?

Now, doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn't know anything about it until the next morning?

Q: What happened then?
A: He told me, he says, 'I have to kill you because you can identify me.'
Q: Did he kill you?

Was it you or your brother that was killed in the war?

The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?

Were you alone or by yourself?

How long have you been a French Canadian?

Do you have any children or anything of that kind?

Q: I show you exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture?
A: That's me.
Q: Were you present when that picture was taken?

Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?

Q: Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Do you know how far pregnant you are now?
A: I'll be three months on November 8.
Q: Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?
A: Yes.
Q: What were you doing at that time?

Q: Mrs. Jones, do you believe you are emotionally stable?
A: I used to be.
Q: How many times have you committed suicide?

So you were gone until you returned?

Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there girls?

You don't know what it was, and you didn't know what it looked like, but can you describe it?

Q: You say that the stairs went down to the basement?
A: Yes.
Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?

Q: Have you lived in this town all your life?
A: Not yet.

A Texas attorney, realizing he was on the verge of unleashing a stupid question, interrupted himself and said, "Your Honor, I'd like to strike the next question."

Q: Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body
A: It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30 pm.
Q: And Mr. Edington was dead at the time, is that correct?
A: No, you stupid, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy!


Let me throw out another scenario with regard to what might have happened with NBC. Joe Wilson found out that Novak was going to report on his wife on July 8th, from the mysterious street stranger.

At this point Wilson was a hot commodity to the pree and was certainly giving interviews, etc. and had already been interviewed by Micthell who could certainly pick up the phone and cll him, or someone like Chris mathews.

So maybe someone talked to Wilson on the 9/10th and he said something to the affect that...those bastards are going after my wife and that's not going to stand.

Or the mystery street guy told other people. The point is that the 'Wilsons wife' issue with his trip had broken out in public on the 8th; plenty of time to get into the press rumor mill.

This could have been a cryptic source of the rumor that was going around NBC that Russert talked about.

This would mean they need to find out who Wilson and the mysterious stranger spoke to
on the 8,9,10th.

Ralph L.

Clarice said:
All notes were being catalogued and saved as of Oct 3--he was in Aspen with his family and returned I believe I day before the first interview which did not give him time to read and review his notes or to talk to anyone mentioned in them to clarify any questions he had about them Paul. snip.
I don't think there's any "stupidity" or carelessness on his part about that.

(I assume this was directed at me, not Paul.) Well, I do, but I'd be much more frightened of an FBI interview than you or Libby, apparently. It certainly explains any errors in the first interview, and sets up a bad memory defense (I'm so cynical). But in the end, he wasn't able to avoid indictment as Rove did. Can a Jew be the proverbial ham sandwich?



While you are googling, try checking the M1A1 Abrams and what is needed to penetrate the shielding and armor. You might find that you need to retract some of your name calling.


This would mean they need to find out who Wilson and the mysterious stranger spoke to
on the 8,9,10th.

Good luck with that. They didn't even interview all the reporters the Fleischer said he talked to. You think they were going to try to find out who Wilson was talking to? That trail now would be cold, cold, cold. Wilson could have told anyone, anything, and he's scott free at this point.


Iraq, being in the oil biz, is awash with these decades old devices just as they are awash with waepons caches.

Yeah, except the ones we're digging up are new, and Iranian.



Also check out the difference between "oil mining" shape charges (which are designed to penetrate the casing in the well-shaft), vs. anti-tank weapons. They are very different beasts.

BTW - since sara was able to quote and link from the best of the left wing media rags about this issue, do you suppose you could cite just where your "knowledge" of all this comes from? KOS doesn't count...or FDL...or DU....etc.


Awww, c'mon Specter. Next you're gonna try to explain to him that a charge to cut through a piece of 3/8" wall pipe is somewhat different than a charge to cut through several inches of tank armor.

Cecil Turner

Holy cats! These shaped charges will penetrate an Abrams? Even from the side, that's a heckuva shot. (Standoff . . . there are several contact rounds that'd do it.) I know there are some advanced munitions that use the self-forging concept for overhead kills. (Dunno if any are operational, and I'm a bit out-of-date.) But that's a lot easier.

I remember a discussion a couple years back about a mystery M1A1 kill in the Army times. Looks like this may be it.



It occurred to me just now, reading my local paper about the defense getting started today, that Fitz' case is as good as its going to get - this is it, he's at his peak. Its all downhill for Fitz until trial's end, or should be, barring a dumb mistake by Libby's defense.

People that think Libby is probably going to get convicted on at least one count, and I am one, would probably be best served by keeping their keyboards cool for a few days.

This may be a very interesting week for plamophiles.

Rick Ballard


Which one? The two false statement charges are linked to perjury charges and the obstruction charge has multiple parts. I think conviction is possible but I think that a not guilty all counts is slightly more probable.


Clarice is at the courthouse and is CONNECTED! Hooray - so far she has posted on the Equivicator thread.


Holy cats! These shaped charges will penetrate an Abrams?

They'll cut a Humvee or a Stryker completely in half. I heard a radio interview of a guy who had been in a Humvee hit by one. He said the blast zone was about 10 inches wide and as long as you were on either side of it, it was just loud. The Humvee was destroyed, but noone inside it was hurt. That's some pretty serious explosives technology.

You are a bafoon.

Some posts just make the reader die laughing before they even begin.

I know there are some advanced munitions that use the self-forging concept for overhead kills.

I worked on one of those (STAFF); not the shaped-charge part of it but the aiming. The objective was to penetrate a tank's armor where it's the weakest: the top of the turret. Penetrate it using an explosively-forged rod of tungsten alloy moving at a couple of kilometers per second, if memory serves. I also seem to remember that various other goodies were added to the penetrator that made it both more amenable to explosive forging and pyrophoric.

STAFF was a projectile that would be aimed over the top of the target; it had a sensor that indicated where the target was, and it would roll to aim a laterally-aimed shaped charge.


Has anyone taken the witness list and tried to determine if Novaks mystery man is on it??


Has anyone taken the witness list and tried to determine if Novaks mystery man is on it??


I dunno Rick.

I just think the jury is going to be inclined to vote guilty on at least one count. Its hard for me to imagine a DC jury declining to convict a Bush admin official.


SO is Maine Web Report not blogging?

It's been 35 minutes since our update! Harrumph!

The comments to this entry are closed.