Powered by TypePad

« Libby Trial:The NBC Connection | Main | Tim Russert, Equivocator? »

February 11, 2007



I just saw Chris Mathews' weekend show. On it, he played a portion of Libby's grand jury tape where Libby said that CHeney wanted to "get all the facts out" about Wilson and his report. Mathews acted like this should lead to the indictment of Cheney.

That is the problem with the media on this. THey think that the only "truth" that is relevant is that Bush/Cheney hyped the intelligence and got us into a bad war. Since Wilson accused the Administration of just that, he is on the side of "truth."

And, like all religious fanatics who think that they have sole possession of the "truth" they get very upset with people who bring up facts that cast doubt on their "truth." The fact that Wilson was sent by his wife and not the VP, the fact that Wilson did nothing to debunk (but in fact bolstered) the story that Iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake, the fact that the CIA thought Wilson's mission was worthless, the fact that Wilson himself misrepresented his role in the Italian forgeries, the fact that the White House was never told about Wilson or his mission -- all of these facts are not permitted for the White House to point out because they cast doubt on the pre ordained media truth. The "high crime" of which Cheney is guilty is heresy.


On leaks from the gj--per fedora:
"Since Fitzgerald’s investigation began, numerous reporters have quoted anonymous sources describing grand jury testimony. In some cases these leaks seem to come from the defense, but in other cases sources have implied inside knowledge of Fitzgerald’s team. For instance, in a July 15 Washington Post article, Mike Allen quoted sources who had “reviewed” grand jury testimony:

Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson--not the other way around.
--Mike Allen with Carol Leonnig, “Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says: Bush Aide Said Columnist Told Him Name”, Washington Post, July 15, 2005, A01

Interestingly, Allen had previously coauthored an article with Dana Priest quoting an anonymous senior administration official who claimed that Plame’s name was leaked in revenge. Observers have noted that neither Allen nor Priest were called as witnesses in the leak investigation, prompting speculation that the prosecution did not need their testimony because their source was directly cooperating with investigators.

National Journal reporter Murray Waas has also quoted sources claiming “firsthand knowledge” of grand jury testimony:

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.
--Murray Waas, “Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation”, National Journal, October 11, 2005

A week after Waas’ article, AP’s John Solomon quoted sources “directly familiar with testimony. . .witnesses gave before the grand jury”:

The Rove-Libby contacts were confirmed to The Associated Press by people directly familiar with testimony the two witnesses gave before the grand jury. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings. . .
Rove testified that he never intended any of his comments to reporters about Wilson's wife to serve as confirmation of Plame's identity. Rove “has always clearly left open that he first heard this information from Libby,” said one person directly familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony.

--John Solomon, “AP: Rove, Libby Discussed Reporter Info”, October 19, 2005

Recently, Waas similarly cited “sources with first-hand knowledge of the testimony”, as well as attorneys with access to witness’ phone records:

During testimony before the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case, a federal prosecutor approached Libby with a copy of the marked-up column and asked if he recalled the Vice President expressly raising the same issues with him. A small amount of grand jury testimony has been made public in court filings by the special prosecutor. Additional accounts of what occurred in the grand jury were provided by sources with first-hand knowledge of the testimony. . .
Cheney told Libby that he wanted him to leak the report to the press, according to people with first-hand knowledge of federal grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case, and federal court records. . .

The second telephone conversation between Libby and Miller lasted for 37 minutes, according to telephone records examined by attorneys familiar with her grand jury testimony.

--Murray Waas with Brian Beutler, “CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury”, National Journal, January 12, 2007

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."

Sara (Squiggler

I ask that because I've been rear-ended twice in 20 years, and both times the cops had me hitting the other driver. Not confidence inspiring.

I have just been through a similar situation. During the depo for my civil case, I was presented with a form from the Adult Protective Services purportedly saying that there were two complaints from two hospitals that I had physically abused my Mother. The form did have my name in the "suspected abuser" box. The problem with those forms was that in both instances, I was the complainant on my Mother's behalf against the hospital staff not the perpatrator. I think the other side thought it would be a he said/she said and I would look like the liar since the APS would have no reason to lie.

What they didn't count on was my contemporaneous written record that included not just one, but five different letters/memos to the hospital administrators about my Mother's claims that laid out the exact nature of the offenses. In the last two memos, I specifically stated that if we didn't get some action from the hospitals, I was going to report them to APS. My final memo was to inform the hospitals that on that morning I had made such a report due to their inaction on our complaints.

I think the county attorney was shocked that I had this written record. One letter was 3 typewritten pages of charges my Mother was alleging. My attorney told me that they are used to dealing primarily with uneducated illegal aliens and rarely deal with anyone with an IQ above 80.

This is one of several reasons I won my case. That and the fact that the day of the actual police brutality, I memorialized the incident in a long memorandum along with pictures taken by 3 separate cameras and 3 different people taking the pictures, one the doctor who treated me.

Cops think we are all stupid, as evidenced by the fact that the police report on my incident had 22 outright lies and another 12 half truths designed to show only one side of the exchange.

Put it in writing folks. Document everything when dealing with authorities.

As an aside, the same day I informed the one hospital, actually a rehab hospital, that I'd made the official complaint against them, my Mother was tripped, fell and broke her hip. I wasn't anywhere near the facility at the time. Since this tripping occurred at the end of a group sing, there were at least 30 witnesses. I talked to many of them and they all indicated the same person as responsible.
I included those statements too, but guess what, every one of those witnesses has either since died (six years later) or they are so far gone with Alheimers or other diseases, they wouldn't have been able to testify.

It is now my speculation based on the above that the entire brutality incident where I was beaten, had my arm cracked and my back broken was a direct result of some clerk at APS making a typo by entering my name in the wrong box on a form. Document everything. I can't say this strongly enough. And most especially so if you are dealing with nursing/rehab hospitals for one of your elderly parents.


A message from Syl and Charlie :

Folks, I've gotten some information from Typepad. It appears they're
playing with their spam blocking and may have been over-aggressive
with some blacklisting. The symptom Syl and I see is that we hit post
or preview and nothing happens --- we are from then on waiting for
typepad to respond. (It's be nice if they put up a 403 page or
something, but they don't.)

If anyone else is having this problem, do this:

1) go to http://www.ipchicken.com and get your IP address.
2) either mail a complaint to typepad, or better yet mail the ip to me
at chasrmartin AT g m a i l DOT c o m and I'll add it to the case
they've opened for me.



Clarice, I'd say the Allen and Solomon pieces were sourced by Luskin. They give out facts that don't support the government's case.

Waas? He may prove your point.

When this comes up, I remember how Clinton admin people passed tidbits to the press and blamed the investigators. I don't believe that meme will ever be discredited now, but I don't think it's fair to tar Fitzgerald with it. Eckenrode? There, I'm agnostic.

Florence Schmieg

Want to raise your blood pressure? Just a minute ago the NYTimes website linked to an AP article about Cheney and the Wilson/Plame matter. I would like to say that you won't believe what it said, but unfortunately for all of us and the country, you undoubtedly will. That is, you will undoubtedly believe that they wrote it, not its outrageous implications.


Just to add my run in with the Justice system that always gets its man.

I was in traffic court some 20 years ago when an older man probably in his sixties was brought in on a fairly minor violation.

The judge asked him if he had had any other violations, and he said no, he had a clean record. The judge then berrated him for 5 minutes about his prior traffic violations and didn't he know that they had access to his records and that he had two speeding tickets and a reckless driving in the past two years.

The man stood there and took it until the judge was done and then said:

"Your honor, that's not me, that's my son".

Sure enough the court clerks had pulled the wrong records because they had the same first and last name.

You would think the judge might have been embarrassed enough to let the guy go, but he found him guilty anyway.



That is what happens to me when I try to post in typepad using IE. I downloaded Firefox and can post. I don't think it is merely the IP address, wouldn't they be the same for me whether I use IE or Firefox? I'm not computer literate enough to know. Anyway, I am sending my IP address to you via your email. Thanks.

richard mcenroe

That would give us three people testifying "it couldn't have happened that way because I remember being surprised when I heard about it."

Hey, being surprised by the blatantly obvious is the hallmark of a good Democrat:

"I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?'" H. R. Clinton, President-designate, 2008

Rick Ballard


From Fitz's perspective - wouldn't calling Eckenrode have been preferable to Agent 'That's not what he said but I think it's what he meant' Bond? Eckenrode conducted both the Libby interview and the phone interview with Russert. As far as I know, he's not dead. Why wouldn't a prosecutor call the investigator whom he lauded to the sky in his flop sweat presser? Did his 'ace in the hole' turn out to be something that sounds similiar but has a slightly negative connotation?

I could see complete agnosticism as being appropriate were it not for the not so small matter of the missing notes.



I've had to go down and post bail at 2AM for someone whose tickets had been paid but the arrest warrant wasn't deleted from the system.

OTOH, the judjge did apologize on behalf of the justice system when he opened her case file and saw the receipts.


Rick, that's why I'm agnostic. Usually I give people the benefit of the doubt--errors are much more common than misrepresentations.

As long as we're going there, I think it would be incredibly unethical for Fitzgerald to avoid disclosing misbehavior in this case by the lead investigator by calling a subordinate. I'm not yet convinced that (a) he has that information (but I'm open to more evidence) and (b) if he has something clear-cut (relating to this case, as opposed to the WTC stuff), that he hasn't disclosed it to Wells.


Well I just had a very disheartening conversation with my 81 year old mother about this case. I asked if she watched MTP and what she thought of the fact that Russert spoke to the FBI before he tried to quash the subpoena.

She said he trusted the prosecutor to sort the whole thing out.

Rick Ballard


How unethical would you consider it to be to purposefully not seek to learn the circumstances of what appears to be a rather sudden retirement? I see Fitz more as a Javert (who was not corrupt) than a person who would carry out subornation or anything of that nature. It's the corrosive nature of the prosecutor's job which leads them out to where the lines get blurry. He is a very smart and clever fellow but I believe his compass is broken.

Other Tom

What about the sources being some of the witnesses themselves? They're free to talk to anyone they want to about what they told the gj. Any witness who talked with Waas or others would very likely have done so on condition of anonymity, and thus would have been described in the rather opaque terms used in the articles.


Jane --

Our parents' generation trusted authority. Part of the rebellion of our generation was to question authority. What is ironic is now so many of our age group now trust authority -- as long as it tells them what they want to hear.



But, shouldn't the FBI ask you FIRST for your recollection, rather then share with you someone else first? Kind of stacking the deck isn't it.

Posted by: Patton | February 11, 2007 at 08:50 AM

Yes, I agree that investigators should be very careful not to influence a witnesses recollection. If that's what happened, it's very reprehensible. I noticed last night that one of the links to FR contained allegations that Eckenrode had screwed up an investigation into the death of a Connecticut woman from anthrax and claimed he was a "cover-up artist." I have no idea whether that claim is in any way factual or is just gratuitous innuendo. I think I'm on record somewhere to the effect that in a better justice system--a justice system rather than a legal system, if you will--the judge would on his own motion demand that Eckenrode be presented for examination regarding the notes.

Sara (Squiggler

Jane, most people are brought up to think that the authorities are the good guys, the guys who wear the white hats. You probably were and I know I was. Yet my own case is a perfect example of how you cannot rely on the white hatters actually being the good guys.

I have no history of violence of any kind, in fact, the record would reflect just the opposite. And there was never any record that I ever did anything that didn't have my Mother's best interests at heart. And yet, even my closest friends had doubts because "why would they say you did if you didn't?" It is a natural reaction, I guess.

Since, one of my friends and one of my cousins who had the negative view based on their upbringing have now had to take on the care of an elderly ill parent and deal with rehab hospitals. Both called me within the past year to apologize for jumping to conclusions and asking me for advice on how to handle their own situations where they felt their loved one was in jeopardy. It is amazing how views change when a person finds themselves faced with similar problems I faced.

In my cousin's case, they moved my Uncle to a different facility and wouldn't tell her where because they said she was "toxic" for him. When she finally located him, he didn't even have a bed and was kept tied into a recliner 24 hours a day.

When I asked her if she intended to pursue the complaint against the facility, she said "Are you crazy, after what happened to you, no way! I just got him out of there and back home and want to forget the whole thing. I have my hands full with his 24/7 care now and I don't have time to go after a losing cause."


What is ironic is now so many of our age group now trust authority -

You mean like the President?

My mother might be perfectly willing to question authority if there was any media around to raise the issue.

Dan S

"Your honor, that's not me, that's my son".

Excuse me, Judge, I wish to plead guilty to contemp of this court.

Sara (Squiggler

PS: In my Uncle's case, they not only moved him to a different facility within the Rehab hospital chain, but a different facility in a different state, 1100 miles away. Thus making it impossible for family members to visit regularly.

I cannot stress enough that if you must have a loved one in a facility, make sure you have someone who can drop in at any hour. They are less apt to abuse someone whose family is on the ball and on the spot.

These places look good from their beautifl lobbies, but behind the double doors, they are all urine stinking snake pits.

Sara (Squiggler

If I were up to it physically, I would make the conditions of these facilities my cause for the rest of my life. I can tell you though that I've got written instructions in my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care that I am never to be taken to such a facility under any circumstances, even if it means death.


Florence...I briefly scannned that AP article with the ho hum title like

"Libby case sheds light on White House"

Actually I wanted to write AP and tell them that it's actually shedding light on the media: the bias, the unprofessionalism, the errors. Giggling Russert should be the poster child for our media.

But writing to AP is a lost cause.

Dan S

What's interesting about the way this trust issue is pitched is that it's typically not am appropriate model. Very few of us will trust any single person implicitly in all things.

For example, my Dad was a really good all around fix-it sort, A&P mechanic license, ham, etc. But while I would trust him with radions, airplanes, cars, lawn mowers, and other things, I wouldn't trust him with fixing my computer. I would trust him to approach the issue carefully, and consult, but I know my skills there are better and I would not trust him to come through with as good a result as I would.

Same in politics, government, etc. I may "trust" W as president, but that by no means I trust him to perform as I would like in every area. Indeed, he has not. But on the most important issues, generally, he's done better than the available alternatives.

But somehow the BDS crowd wants to equate that considered and limited support to not facing reality. That crowd likes to argue we conservatives who do beliebe in good and evil are trapped in a monochrome world where everything is black or white. That's projection. If you don't hate the evil Bush, you are evil.

It's a good thing I love irony.


FWIW, there may very well not be a trial Tuesday and/or Wednesday ... lotsa white stuff in most forecasts. May affect Monday's courtroom behavior.


lotsa white stuff in most forecasts.

Wimps. We've got four feet and counting. Eight feet north west of us in Oswego.


The earliest report on Valerie being CIA that I can find is July 22nd on the Today Show. It took eight days for Andrea Mitchell to call up Bill Harlow to confirm what Novak wrote?

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 11, 2007 at 09:47 AM

Why confirm something you already know is true?


I also saw MTP today and Russert did not seem rattled or upset. He let Kurtz rail on about how unfair it was that reporters have to testify. He did mention Mitchell, Woodward and Pincus. I'm sure the NBC people all have circled the wagons and will spout the same story on the stand. I agree that it is more an omission of knowledge that they are hanging onto and all are carefully parsing their words and denying previous statements. A totally unsavory mess.

How unethical would you consider it to be to purposefully not seek to learn the circumstances of what appears to be a rather sudden retirement?


I've been going over the Canons in my head and I can't find one that would require Fitzgerald to look into an investigator's retirement.

Here's a great summary of some of the issues, written by a judge in Fitzgerald's home district.

It addresses Other Tom's concern about attorney fees and expenses:

Congress authorized the awarding of reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation expenses to a prevailing criminal defendant when a federal district court found that the position of the United States in the criminal litigation was "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith," unless the court found that special circumstances made the award unjust. (13) The legislation has been interpreted as an effort by Congress to address prosecutorial misconduct, not to curb zealous, yet appropriate, prosecutions. (14) The circuits currently disagree over the question of the level of prosecutorial impropriety required under the statute for the awarding of attorney's fees and costs to the aggrieved defendant. (15) Future litigation of the issue, with perhaps an ultimate determination by the Supreme Court of the United States, may be necessary to resolve the conflict among the circuits.
You may need a library card to "read the whole thing."

Another good resource is the US Attorney's Manual. As Federal prosecutors need not comply with state bar ethics rules (so they say), it is the sole restriction on their actions accepted by them.

Here's a discussion of the DoJ's position on what must be disclosed and when.

And it's useful to understand their position on matters. For example, see here for a discussion of civil vs. criminal contempt of court.



Just for kicks, see here for an explanation of the hoops the defense must jump through if they decide to call Eckenrode.

Ralph L.

Sara, my late grandmother told us for years that "As long as I have as much mind as I have now, I want to live here," but she told her man of business (my father's childhood friend) that she didn't care how much mind she had, as long as she had any money she would live in her house. Tragically, in her last years, when she was most mentally alert, she was certain she wasn't at home and got quite anxious about it.
Your posts add an order of magnitude to the "duty" in duty visits to elderly relatives and friends.

This whole Plame fiasco reminds me of Peggy Noonan's assessment of working for the White House. When you arrive, you're flattered and awed to be working with the best people running the country, and when you leave, you can't believe the country is in the hands of those guys.

Rick Ballard


Now that leads me back to Fitz's appointment where Comey specifically created the 'prosecutor unbound' by this:

Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

I wonder if Fitz would fight Wells calling Eckenrode? If he had chosen "not to know" about potential adverse circumstances he has a very peculiar row to hoe.

Rick Ballard


Thanks for the third cite to calling "employees". That doesn't look like much fun at all.


Walter-from the DOJ manual on what prosecutor's must disclose about FBI misconduct:
"Potential impeachment information, however, has been generally defined as impeaching information which is material to the defense. It also includes information that either casts a substantial doubt upon the accuracy of any evidence—including witness testimony—the prosecutor intends to rely on to prove an element of any crime charged, or might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence. This information may include but is not strictly limited to: (a) specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking the witness' credibility or character for truthfulness; (b) evidence in the form of opinion or reputation as to a witness' character for truthfulness; (c) prior inconsistent statements; and (d) information that may be used to suggest that a witness is biased.

This policy is not intended to replace the obligation of individual agency employees to inform prosecuting attorneys with whom they work of potential impeachment information prior to providing a sworn statement or testimony in any investigation or case. In the majority of investigations and cases in which agency employees may be affiants or witnesses, it is expected that the prosecuting attorney will be able to obtain all potential impeachment information directly from agency witnesses during the normal course of investigations and/or preparation for hearings or trials"

Now, as I read it none of that must be disclosed if the US Atty doesn not call that witness. (Hence Bond and no E?)


Eight feet north west of us in Oswego.

Actually I hear it is up to eleven feet!



sorry - I'm so far behind.


Walter, I'd be delighted to have Fitz move to quash Eckenrode's subpoena and for th defense to have it on record that they sought to bring E to the courtroom and the govt prevented them from that. Comey's not there any more, I can't believe the new DAG will not require his appearance if the defense fights for it, and if the defense wins, that impeaching evidence has to come in as I read the regs.
Go for it Wells!


Thanks, SD.



I saw your question and started to type "You should ask Clarice, as she would be more likely to know than I."

But I had to backspace when I saw your name at the bottom.

AFICT, it's addressed here:

...information that either casts a substantial doubt upon the accuracy of any evidence prosecutor intends to rely on to prove an element of any crime charged, or might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence.

With lots of wiggle room for "substantial" doubt or "significant" bearing.

OTOH, if I were arguing Libby's side, I'd say that information bearing on the reputation for accuracy and truthfulness of the person who drafted the summary of Libby's FBI interview could not help but affect its admissibility regardless of whether it was adopted by another agent present that day. Particularly if it contradicted her notes.

With my third hand, I'd like to hold out the Privacy Act, which could limit the amount of information available to Fitzgerald. But that's so far out of my area of practice that I couldn't begin to offer speculation about the interaction of it, the discovery rules in FRCrimPro, the FREvidence, constitutional implications and ethical requirements.

Oh what the heck. I haven't seen anything that imposes an affirmative duty on Fitzgerald to pull the personnel files of every person who prepared reports or documents entered as government exhibits at trial. Of course, if they're testifying, he must.

But if he knows something bad and doesn't disclose it, my intuition is that he's crossed a line. Particularly if the exhibit is offered for the truth, as the FBI summary was.



...the new DAG will not require his appearance

But, but, but...won't Fitzgerald decide this issue? He was able to substitute his judgement for the DAG's in the question of reporter subpoenas!

Just joshing--if Wells calls him, he'll come. J. Walton would throw out the false statements charges on 6th ammendment grounds if he didn't.

How sure are we that there is evidence casting doubt on Eckenrode's integrity? And that it's in files easily obtainable by Fitzgerald?

More importantly, how sure is Wells?


Walter, if an FBI officer left because he was caught out leaking gj or investigative file info to the press or creative handling of and writing of investigative reports or any impropriety relating to the investigation the chances that the Govt counsel came within the mandatory disclosure argument is substantially less if that FBI officer is not called by the govt as a witness.


Hey! I get to backtrack!

I notice (as if for the first time) that Fitzgerald is no longer requesting that the defense not call Mitchell. (thanks, SD)

He limits his request to not soliciting her opinion for the purpose of impeaching her.

I still think his motion is granted. But it doesn't preclude her from testifying.

So, now I'm on board with the board--she is called, she testifies, but Wells is hobbled in cross-examining her.



Regardless of whether it comes within the US Attorney's Manual description of mandatory disclosures, I'd call it unethical to structure one's live testimony to minimize the possibility that exculpatory evidence need be disclosed. Even more so if summary falsification is involved when summaries drafted by that agent were submitted as proof.

And I am unanimous in that.


ell, Walter...LOL..doesn't mean a mack track wasn't driven thru that unclear language, does it? The general problem with all these rules about production of exculpatory material is that the prosecutor is the judge of his own rightness..

JM Hanes


"I'd call it unethical to structure one's live testimony to minimize the possibility that exculpatory evidence need be disclosed."

You have just diagrammed Fitzgerald's case.


Exactly, JMH--that is exactly why he didn't interview half the reporters--they had exculpatory evidence. It is exactly why he obviously never pressed Armitage to give up more names of those he told, etc. etc. etc.

Kevin B


Two lawyers. Two views. Naturally.

When I read that I thought it should be four views.

"On the one hand.....On the other hand"

Then I read one of Walter's posts and find that many, (most?), lawyers are Moties.


Only in God's eye though.

Kevin B

Come to think of it, there certainly seems to be a lot of them...and their numbers seem to be growing...and they specialize a lot...and there's even the dreade JAG warrior class.


Rick Ballard

"You have just diagrammed Fitzgerald's case."

Not quite. The subjunctive imaginary motive needs to be addressed.

"Remember, dear juror, Mr. Libby had every reason to perjure himself and obstruct justice in order to cover up any crime that he may have committed."

I'm hoping that Wells gets a full broadside in tomorrow with Woodward on that one. "Tell us, Bob, what was your impetus for coming forward in this matter? Mr. Fitzgerald's false statements at the press conference announcing the phony indictments, wasn't it?"

Moties alternate between being male and female. A female Motie will revert to male after giving birth, changing back to female after a time. At some point the female must become pregnant again or else the hormone imbalance will kill her. This naturally forces Moties to become pregnant whenever possible.

Hey! There are some slight differences.

Like Tom, I'll blame it on my training as an economist.


Posting on this thread because I'm catching up a day after no blogs.

Jackass Kurtz slobbered all over Pumpkinhead on MTP this a m before characterizing the case as being about administration intel twisting to justify going to war and using the press to further their nefarious agenda. Apparently, J K still thinks J W is a heroic whistleblower, despite all public fact
to the contrary. This is a respected journalist? That segment of the program was all about the self interest of the press. T R still brazenly omitting any reference to his obvious conflict of interest
reporting a story he's a major actor in. (leaving prep at end of sentence, so there ;p)

Posted by: kate | February 10, 2007 at 06:17 PM Thanks for the reminder, Kate. That article covers all the (false) moonbat talking points.

"--Just let me see Fox have one truely liberal host in prime time, I'd shut up if they dared to do this." After the Clinton interview, it came out that Mike Wallace is a registered democrat. Does that count? BTW, it's truly, compliments of your friendly S G. Hume is my favorite, too. Nobody, but nobody, can cynically growl like him, while cutting through BS like a hot knife through butter. Poor Juan, an earnest and likeable leftist, so often taken to the woodshed.

How does Eckenrode get secret G J testimony? Is he allowed in G J chambers?

My attempt to mix W S metaphors with Rick: Is this case much ado about nothing? That is the question. What fools these mortals be.

OT: All you need to know about Hillary (paraphrased): Regarding record oil company profits.."I will take those profits..."

Thanks again to all of you pros and semi-pros providing the very best Libby info. Really though, I'd come vicariously to (pretty much the only way, since I'm well beyond my salad days, married, broken
down and mostly harmless) chase hot women even if this was only a mediocre site.

Rick Ballard

"I'm well beyond my salad days, married, broken down and mostly harmless) chase hot women even if this was only a mediocre site."

Bill beat you to it:

That time of year thou mayst in me behold

When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang

Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,

Bare ruin'd choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.

In me thou seest the twilight of such day

As after sunset fadeth in the west,

Which by and by black night doth take away,

Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.

In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire

That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,

As the death-bed whereon it must expire

Consumed with that which it was nourish'd by.

This thou perceivest, which makes thy love more strong,

To love that well which thou must leave ere long.

I'm still looking for the right charactor for Fitz. Brutus is too rough, although I do appreciate Walton's tactic.

Carol Herman


Answer to your question: IAGO

In all of Shakespeare's plays there is MOTIVE for the drama. Except in OTELLO.

And, Iago provides the shrug. "BECAUSE HE COULD DO IT." That's why he went after the beautiful, and innocent Desdemona. And, the boss. Where both his boss and his wife were in love.

He didn't do it because he loved Desdemona, and was jealous.

IAGO is probably the worst of all Sharkespearean villains.

Carol Herman



Even in shows that are supposed to be serious. And, where once the "greats" were still just personalities. Up ahead, may see a shift in current.

Toesing will be heard.

Her husband, DeGenova.

David Boies.


And, probably, with mighty blows, the Dark Prince himself, Bob Novak.


Don't know if the clowns in congress will try to run up flags. And, do "investigations."

OR if the list I've mentioned, here, will TRUMP.

JM Hanes


Or as Ari would put it: "Yes sir, there was something in the air that spring."

JM Hanes


If his name rolled less trippingly off the tongue,
he'd probably top Judas in the villain's lexicon.

JM Hanes

P.S. Rick,

That passage becomes more stunningly beautiful over the years doesn't it? If I didn't have such a powerful sense of time now being limited in measure, there's so much it would be interesting to re-read from a more ..experienced.. perspective. How did one so relatively young capture so perfectly the essence of age? Therein lies the 2nd prong of literary genius (the first, of course, being a certain facility with words).


I also find it weird that the consensus seems to be that the leak was motivated by a desire to endanger the safety and covert career of Plame when it's clearly more plausible that the motivation was to undermine the validity of Wilson's claim.


when it's clearly more plausible that the motivation was to undermine the validity of Wilson's claim.

And it's also very plausible that the MSM and the Wilson Cabal knew this could damage the white house.


The summary statement about Libby’s FBI interview, prepared it is said, by Eckenrode, requires confirmation by someone present at the interview, or at least having heard it as it transpired. Eckenrode has retired and Allen, the FBI agent who was to confirm it, testified in court that it disagreed in material ways from her contemporaneous notes.
Does that mean that Allen did not confirm its accuracy? Does that in turn mean that the document reverts to its original status as inadmissible hearsay evidence?
Since this evidence was introduced to the jury, must Walton declare a mistrial? Or must the charges based on it be dismissed?

I find it difficult to understand what relevance the differences in recollection between Libby had with the three reporters has to any conceivable investigation, to give them sufficient weight for the charges against Libby to have any materiality.

Suppose for example X deposes to an FBI agent and is asked: “Did you just fart?” X says no. Y tells an FBI agent and the grand jury that X indeed did fart at that time. Is this grounds for indicting X for perjury, lying to an FBI agent, and obstructing an investigation? All without forensic evidence of the origin of the fart, or any particular reason to believe that Y was not the farter.

I suppose not.

Or is it? A fart could obstruct and annoy attendees at a closed meeting far more than I can imagine the disagreement between Libby and any of these reporters could.

Who precisely did Libby impede from doing what? The other parties to the conversations were available and did testify. Miller spent months in jail before doing so. If information about this conversation was vital enough to merit indictments of Libby on several counts, how come it did not merit indictment of Miller? Not only do I see no particular reason to doubt Libby’s word rather than Miller’s, but Miller certainly delayed her testimony by roughly three months, thereby materially delaying the investigation, assuming her testimony had any purpose other than to find a contradiction with Libby’s testimony.

Can Fitzgerald be asked to explain why he believed Miller over Libby?

In fact, it can be argued that these discrepancies helped rather than impeded Fitzgerald's investigations. Without them, what could he use to indict Libby?

The only way I can understand what happened in this case is by assuming that Fitzgerald decided that his mandate involved finding something, anything at all, that he could used to indict Libby.

Then, I suppose, he expected Libby to come crawling to him, and admit something, anything relating to anything, that Cheney had done over the last six years that is in any way questionable. Then Fitzgerald could turn on Cheney, and who knows, eventually paralyze the entire Bush administration, becoming the hero of a new Watergate.

However all Fitzgerald could find against Libby was three silly disagreements of memory of no consequence whatsoever. Their sum is less material than one good fart. Alas! He dreamed of glory, of blowing up the Bush administration, and instead he has piddled in his own pants.

His only hope now is that a biased jury takes pity on him and gives him a verdict on one count.

Sara (Squiggler

Daniel, the problem here appears to be that Fitz has allowed this to become a personal thing with him. He came into this investigation with one goal in mind and that was to find some way to get Scooter Libby. Some believe it is a hold over from a previous case where Libby was the attorney and put a whooping on Fitzie's butt, but whatever the reason, I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that Fitz has been on a personal vendetta.


Markers on Defense Strategery.
Without a really big gotcha moment the defense needs to build a plausible narrative that makes more sense than the prosecution case. The components of such defense will likely contain:

  1. Secrets of Wilson's wife;

  2. Surprise versus Surprise;

  3. Scapegoat Bafflegab.

In June the CIA informs the OVP that "we sent Joe Wilson because he knows the region, we used him before, and his wife works here". Libby apparently gets part of that wrong in his notes. Whether he forgets or not he can still be surprised to learn the correct version or some subset of the secrets of Wilson's wife. Libby may claim that his testimony to the FBI and GJ in retrospect was false certainty based on that surprise.

Defense will point out that if certainty based on surprise is unreliable then there is no need to conclude anybody, Libby, Russert or Mitchell, has deliberately lied since all base their certainty on the recollection of surprise. The reliance on notes and landmark events by the other witnesses support the claim that reconstructed memories are only as good as their anchor points. Even Cathie Martin's clear independent recollection was adjusted by a month on the basis of a Joe Wilson TV appearance.

That Libby felt like he was being made the scapegoat explains his motive to influence the GJ away from him and towards the true culprits, based on an incorrect assumption of what the GJ was actually investigating at that point. Lacking a clear idea of the true intent of the investigation he also lacked the knowledge to intend to mislead it. The self serving aspect of his scapegoat bafflegab was not a deliberate effort to obstruct an investigation of Process Crime, because he didn't know that.

The comments to this entry are closed.