Powered by TypePad

« In Which We Snark About Misattributed Snark | Main | J Pod v. T Russ »

February 17, 2007

Comments

Walter

Loaded in 70 Kb!

Hurrah!

and Huzzah!

clarice

VT wasn't strong enough--The CIA letter was a fraud. And she didn't get into the apparent misrepresenations in the Miller case which we will not get to see in their full glory until after this trial is over. And finally there is what appears to have been very unethical conduct respecting Russert's testimony w/ the sp having NBC's lawyer and Russert on the hot seat for a perjurious affidavit after which his possibly might have told Libby became and "impossibility"

hit and run

Hi Clarice. Hope you're all sunny and warm.

brassband

Can anyone, anywhere, identify an investigation in which a special prosecutor admitted that he or she found no evidence of any crime?

I know that Fitz is not "special" the way the old law provided, but he was specially designated and had autonomy, etc.

I've been watching these cases for years at the federal and state level, and I can think of a single instance in which the "special prosecutor" wrapped things up quickly by saying "nothing to see here, folks . . . move along . ."

And that's a real problem. A prosecutor is an executive branch official with responsibility to make charging decisions based on the law, the evidence, and the public interest. He or she has an obligation NOT to charge a crime when there is none -- and, also, NOT to charge a crime when there might be evidence of one but there's no good reason to charge it.

Most of these special prosecutors seem unable to exercise sound judgment, in my view.

Tulsan

Shorter Clarice, Shorter Toensing:

It's OK to lie to the FBI. It's OK to lie to a Grand Jury.

boris

Shorter Tulsan ...

Ooops there is no shorter Tulsan ...

Walter

Clarice!

You know the 1983/1985 rules, right? Please help! Jane is pretending she doesn't know.

Am I all wet or just somewhat damp?

And did Comey ever cite Reg 600.2(c), which seems to let the AG do what he wants?

clarice

h & r--Terrible flioght--don't ask, but Martina Navritalova was on the plane and Stephen King was at the airport to pick up someone on our plane.

clarice

h & r--Terrible flioght--don't ask, but Martina Navritalova was on the plane and Stephen King was at the airport to pick up someone on our plane.

Pete

Victoria Toensing is a tool.

She ignores evidence that Plame was covert. Simply because she helped write the law does not mean that now she is the ultimate authority (the prosecutor, judge and jury combined). Plame was covert and did covert work in Jordan in 2002 as detailed by Isikoff&Corn in "Hubris". Had Plame not been covert the CIA could not have referred the case. And Ashcroft (who insisted on being briefed about the intimate details of the case) would have thrown the case out. Why does Toensing also not charge Ashcroft and Bush since it was their fault too that the case proceeded?

And contrary to what Toensing writes there is no CIA conspiracy. Were the CIA so brilliant that they knew in advance that Libby would lie and commit perjury?

At the time Fitzgerald got the case the FBI suspected Libby of lying and obstruction. No prosecutor should ever ignore that. Who first leaked to Novak is a red herring since the investigation was on leaking to reporters (not just Novak).

If Ms Toensing wants to prosecute the other administration officials who leaked, and the media which tried their best to protect the Bush administration in this case, I'd say please do it.

clarice

"Can anyone, anywhere, identify an investigation in which a special prosecutor admitted that he or she found no evidence of any crime? " Yes. Jacob Stein--he found the incident, even if provable de minimus and refused to proceed.

Walter, I'm on vsacation, you'll have to look it up..The truth is there is a special prosecutor section of the regs and Comey did not use it but created something outside what Congress had approved. And something totally unconstitutional. Look up Libby's Motion to Dismiss for details or google my article summarizing it.

clarice

I discussed the motion more than once--I think the second time was in The Potemkin Prosecution. But here is the first time I mentioned it, with a cite to the original pleadings.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/libbys_motion_to_dismiss.html>Appointment by Comey

Sara (Squiggler


Joe "god" Wilson

azaghal

Walter, thanks. Yes, those were the regulations I was thinking of. So 600.10 means that no person or entity can force the Department to follow its own regulations. Interesting. So that means that on appeal (theoretically) the argument would only be a constitutional one, whether 28 USC 509 seq. actually allowed Comey to delegate "all the authority of the Attorney General" to Fitz, even though the terms of the statute only allow "functions" of the AG to be delegated. My argument is that "all the authority" and "functions" are very different--that providing for the delegation of functions simply allows for the AG to get out from under some of the administrative burdens of office, not to give away his authority irrevocably.

I used to have a copy of Team Libby's brief but I seem to have carelessly mislaid or deleted it. So I don't know what their argument was anymore. Does any kind soul have a link?

clarice

See the article I just cited azaghal--it has the cite in it.

lurker

I, for one, don't believe Plame was covert in year 2003. I don't believe Iskoff and Corn's book either.

Ranger

At the time Fitzgerald got the case the FBI suspected Libby of lying and obstruction. No prosecutor should ever ignore that. Who first leaked to Novak is a red herring since the investigation was on leaking to reporters (not just Novak).

...

Posted by: Pete | February 17, 2007 at 02:21 PM

And maybe if E-man and Fitz hadn't been so intent on pinning this on someone in the White House they might have actually figured out that Armiate not only leaked to Novak, he was also the "first leaker" they Fitz thought Libby was. And remember, with out Libby status as the "first leaker"

Fitz's whole theory of the case falls appart. Fitz said in his presser that Libby lied and obstructed to conceal the fact that he was the first leaker. Turns out he wasn't, and knew he wasn't (because reporters were telling him about Wilson's wife before he ever mentioned it to a reporter), so were was his motivation to lie?

We know what Russert's motivation to lie was. He wanted the fact that he talked to the FBI without any legal effort to protect a source (and not once, but twice) to disapear down the memory whole. Kind of embarrasing after you've grilled Novak on TV for talking to the FBI without a court fight to later admit you did it yourself.

Ranger

*Armiate* Armitage

azaghal

Walter, Comey in his two letters regarding the delegation to Fitz

1. Specifically bases his authority to delegate on 28 USC 509 et seq., and

2. Specifically states (in his second letter) that conferring the title of SC on Fitz should not be construed to indicate that Fitz' position and authorities are "defined or limited by 28 CFR Part 600."

28 USC 509 speaks only of the delegation of "functions" not of "all the authority of the AG."

Pete

And while we are at it, since Ms Toensing claims to be the ultimate authority on the IIPA statute, why did she not tell Libby that the statue was not violated and that he should not lie in his various appearances before the FBI and the Grand Jury. Libby could have then told the FBI and the Grand Jury that Plame was not covert and that his testimony was irrelevant.

Maybe we should charge Toensing too.

clarice

Pete, stupid is no way to go thru life.

Jane

Jane is pretending she doesn't know.

I wish! I know nothing Federal. In fact I don't even know what you are referring to so I can't look it up and pretend I'm not this dumb!

Jane

And while we are at it, since Ms Toensing claims to be the ultimate authority on the IIPA statute

Since she wrote it, she should be.

why did she not tell Libby that the statue was not violated

She did. She told you too, but apparently you were busy with the lynch mob that day.

Sara (Squiggler

Oh Jane, it is a woman's prerogative and secret weapon to pretend to be dumb.

clarice

azaghal, the funding issue is unconstitutional, too, not just the excess delegation of powers w/ no supervision. No one can cut off his funds w/o firing him.(Under the IP statute, Congress could; under the staturtory scheme DOJ has authority. Under this, fuggetaboutit--)

Ranger

Pete, you are one of the most deeply intelectually dishonest people I have ever encountered.

There are of course two issues relating to if someone is subject to prosecution under the IIPA. One is the status of the person who's identity is revealed and the other is the knowledge of the status of the revealed person by the individual doing the revealing.

You have been reading this forum long enough to know that.

Now Ms. Toensing "claims to be the ultimate authority on the IIPA statute" because she wrote it and shepparded it thought congress. I would say that gives her a very particular insight into what it was intended to do.

As to Plame, there is enough evidence now in the public record that she wasn't covered by the IIPA, but, even if she was, it wasn't Novak that outed her, it was who ever told Corn that she had been a NOC that outed her.

As to Libby, since he didn't know she had ever been covert, it was impossible for him to violate the IIPA. And Libby knew that going into the Grand Jury because Addington gave him a copy of the statute, and the basic element are laid out in the first paragraph.

So, what other lies to you intend to try to spread today Pete?

Jane

Clarice,

I hear it is cold down in Florida. So put on a sweater and go out on the deck and have a cocktail. I know it stays light longer there, so you still have some time. We aren't going anywhere.

Jane

Clarice,

I hear it is cold down in Florida. So put on a sweater and go out on the deck and have a cocktail. I know it stays light longer there, so you still have some time. We aren't going anywhere.

Other Tom

Of course it's OK to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. Otherwise, such worthies as Russert, Pincus, Miller, Armitage and Fleischer--and of course Bill Clinton-- would have been indicted. Oops! I forgot--Fleischer was granted immunity, wasn't he? A grant that was made without any knowledge of what his testimony would be. Why do you suppose that was?

I know Clarice doesn't have access to all her voluminous materials, but quite a while ago I posed the same question about whether there had ever been a special prosecutor (or independent counsel, or any other variant of the loathesome species), who had simply said, "nothing here." She came up with one, whom I had never heard of and whose name I have now forgotten. And that's part of the problem: the ones (or one) who do that never get their names in lights. For my part, I have been opposed to the appointment of every single one of these characters except Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, who had an appropriate and very necessary mandate under extraordinary circumstances. All since Jaworski should never have been appointed in the first place, and all brought the great weight of the federal government's prosecutorial apparatus, with its unlimited funding, to bear upon people whose crimes, even had they occurred, were either trivial or were matters properly addressed through the political process, or both. Think of Hamilton Jordan, Mike Espy, Bill Clinton, and Cap Weinberger. (Come to think of it, I think the Jordan guy may have just folded his tent, to his great credit.) Libby is manifestly in the company of these men, all of whom were treated in a manner unbecoming a liberal society. On the left, of course, all such prosecutors are wonderful when they're investigating Republicans, but deserving of the basest sort of smears when the target is a Democrat. It is in fact a uniformly vile institution, but it is now baked into the motherboard of American political life, even as is the politicization of the judicial nomination process. But we certainly do, and will, get what we deserve.

azaghal

Walter, my argument is that 28 USC 509 is a kind of catch-all delegation clause that allows the AG to provide for the orderly administration of the Department. For example, if the AG is home sick, are there certain functions that he can delegate? Answer: yes and no. There are statutes that specifically disallow delegation of key functions or authorities associated with the AG. What Fitz and Comey claimed is that 28 USC 509 allows the AG to say, I'm sick of being AG for purposes of this Plame thing; from now on Fitz can be the AG for that--he gets all my authority, the same authority that I got by being confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Only he gets it simply by my say so and by my citing 28 USC 509. By that logic, Bush could delegate all the powers of the President to Dick Cheney for, say, the purposes of being commander in chief. That way Bush could turn his office into a think tank for reforming social security and not be bothered with the GWOT.

lurker

1994 Congressional Record regarding Murtha - be sure to read it and use it to bolster your arguments against Murtha's current resolution.

Credits to AJacksonian:

The Priorities of John Murtha 1994 Edition

lurker

Geesch!

So Reid plans to turn anti-terrorism legislation into a forum for debate over the war.

Senate gridlocks on Iraq war resolution

Reid blunders by making people come in on a Saturday to vote on cloture.

They have every intent to stop the war and pull everyone out of Iraq. They are not going to stop until they win. We have alot of work to convince the Republicans to avoid being a White Flag Republican! Go to Victory Caucus site to sign on and help.

Charlie (Colorado)

Stephen King was at the airport to pick up someone on our plane.

The only thing that could be worse is if Rod Serling was doing voiceover.

Other Tom

Utterly beautiful, Azaghal.

I think it's a bit highfalutin to refer to Pete as intellectually dishonest, when just plain dishonest will do quite nicely. Think back to his claim that Cheney said Saddam had Reconstitued Nuclear Weapons. He knew exactly what Cheney said and what he meant, but he chose to attempt deliberately to deceive. When challenged to state just exactly what a Reonstituted Nuclear Weapon is, if indeed that's what Cheney meant, he skulked away and has declined to address the subject ever since.

Next he cited us to his idol, the nuanced Professor Juan Cole, who alone had the wisdom to ascertain that the cause of the 9/11 attacks was the Jenin "massacre," an event which took place seven months after 9/11. Pete surely knew that, even if the good professor was a tad bit confused. But again, he knowingly chose to assert a falsehood.

I believe he may well be a right-wing mole, sent here to make the Left look dishonest and foolish at the same time. His efforts in that regard are, to say the least, superfluous.

Charlie (Colorado)

It's OK to lie to the FBI. It's OK to lie to a Grand Jury.

Victoria Toensing is a tool.

I wonder if we've got a new crop of nitwits, or if the old crop has just changed their cognomens.

verner

From the flat tire:

"The other two bits of evidence I find more compelling. Vincent Cannistraro is a damn good source on CIA. He used to work with Plame when he was the head of counter-terrorism. Compare that to the quality of the sources in the AP story: anonymous and not even identified as having any affiliation with CIA (and even if they're in the CIA, the Porter Goss CIA has been stripped of many, if not most, of its independent thinkers). Hell, AP's sources could include the omnipresent Luskin! It strikes me that Cannistraro is a more credible source, at least until we learn more about the AP sources."

hee hee hee. Clarice you are a very bright girl!

As for Alan Foley--he'd never heard of her,and he MADE SURE we all knew it.

Wells would not have included that little bit of info on CPD if it could not have been documented. Conclusion--Valerie never ever worked at WINPAC. And as for Libby telling that she did--why? You would have to believe that a) he would have to be clarvoyant and see that Judy would be forced to give him up--the only reason to lie about where she worked, b)no one, including big mouth Armitage ever mentioned where at CIA she worked.

And sorry, but Cannistraro sounds like the sort that Judy, author of Germs, would have used as a source--maybe quite a lot.

And the VF article PROVES that the Wilsons and their camp were the ones peddling the WINPAC stuff.

Yep, I think we may have it. Judy's source for WINPAC was from Wilson's camp.

azaghal

I'd love to hear more about Rove and Libby being called before the GJ FIVE TIMES. Normally that is a big no-no for a prosecutor, subpoenaing the subject to try to trap him in perjury. I seem to recall that Fitz got around that by giving Libby a letter saying, oh, you're not a target of the investigation, but we need some more your testimony. And if you believe Libby wasn't a target, you probably believe Fitz and Comey communicated by ESP. You'd have to be a federal judge with a lifetime appointment and a full salary pension to believe that.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Ya know what tickles me, pink?

WELLS IS NOT WORKING HARD THIS WEEKEND. By announcing in court that CLINE will be doing the close for Libby; he's shown the judge that he's going home. Lossening his tie. As his work is done.

I'd bet walton wanted everyone working hard, here. Prepping for "close."

Not Wells. Wells knows walton forwards and backwards. HA! And, maybe, even in reverse!

Charlie (Colorado)

She ignores evidence that Plame was covert.

Sorry, poopsie, but thanks for playing. We handled that one on the previous thread --- there's good evidence that Plame was not "covert" under the terms of the law, and that in fact her employment at CIA wasn't even particularly classified. And how do I know? Because *I* was once NOC'ed, and I know how it's done.

Rick Ballard

"I believe he may well be a right-wing mole, sent here to make the Left look dishonest and foolish at the same time."

That does happen but but I trust pete. He really is just stupid.

Walter

Thanks, Clarice!

Jane, it's the _smart_ lawyer who avoids opining on laws she doesn't know. *looking around* My ears are burning for some reason.

Hal, I asked at the bottom of a thead some time ago: Of which variety of Aggie are you a member?

I'd point you to the thread, but it has been contaminated by a graphic outing.

UglyinLA

Pete wrote: Victoria Toensing is a tool.

LOL thats funny !!

Pete, go home.. your village misses their idiot.

Charlie (Colorado)

Walter, I'm on vacation, ....

You're not doing a very good job of selling that one, dear.

verner

"She ignores evidence that Plame was covert."


I am getting SOOOO sick of this crap.

There is not one scap of proof to indicate that she was covert when she sent her pathetic husband to Niger--and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Besides, if she was, David Corn would not have looked like he soiled his diaper every time he was asked about it on TV.

Patton

Pete: ""She ignores evidence that Plame was covert."""

Like what? Her daily drives to CIA headquarters? He open meetings with non agency personnel? Her name on non-agency documents describding her as CIA?

The only evidence we have in this trial of her being 'covert' is she went to the trouble to use her maiden name...WOW!
James Bond used his own name too, and guess what, everyone knew he was secret service.

If she was really covert, why didn't she use the name Hannah Nugfisher? Or something like that?

The bottom line is no matter what her status, she was revealed by her husbands actions.
When you claim the VP sent you on a mission, and it turns out your wife sent you...its bound to come out. Wilsons outed her and she knows it.

Jane

Why do I want to say: "Take that Poopsie!"

lurker

Even Armitage confirmed in a phone call to Woodward that Joe Wilson had been talking to everyone.

Woodward played this tape a week ago in front of the jury and Walton.

lurker

Sadly to say that "repete" will remain totally unconvinced of these truths and facts.

Rick Ballard

Here is the National Archive page on Special Prosecutors and Independent Counsel back to Watergate (except, of course, for Judege Starr).

I don't believe that DeGenova brought any charges and there are others where the name doesn't ring a bell but I'm not going on a google hunt.

Jane

I just hope he didn't spend all day thinking that one up. What a waste.

Charlie (Colorado)

James Bond used his own name too, and guess what, everyone knew he was secret service.

I've been re-reading the James Bond novels (the real ones, the Ian Fleming ones) for a couple weeks. (The are, by the way, far better than I remembered, or than the novels excluding the recent Casino Royale; Fleming was a very sensitive novelist, amazingly. But I digress....)

The one thing that strikes me in them that I can see as a fictional trope but that's utterly false to real intelligence is that Bond is getting blown --- no, not that, I mean his cover --- in every book, and early on. Hell, in Live and Let Die, his cover is blown before he gets out of the airport in the first chapter.

And that's that for another week's Book Corner.

Jane

I once had tea on the chunnel from Paris to London with the gadget man - the summer before he died.

Does that count?

If not, I have a Rod Serling story too.

verner

Lurker:"Even Armitage confirmed in a phone call to Woodward that Joe Wilson had been talking to everyone."

And I bet you real money, Joe Wilson wasn't the "only" one calling around. Remember, he was part of the Kerry campaign, and a very important one. They were going to use the "Bush lied" meme to get their boy out of hot water over his waffle on the Iraq vote.

And the VIPS were there to help in any way they could. Even though they are for the most part a bunch of kooks and losers, look how often they have been sourced in the press.

But of course, in Fitz's universe, it would not have been "punishing" the Wilsons to have their friends do it. So he never ever looked. Besides, as we know now, leaking her name was not in any way illegal--we're dealing with "process" by the time he gets involved in December.

And like I said, why the lie about WINPAC? Easy, so that nobody would know that she was the one who thought of sending him before Cheney ever asked any questions.

clarice

Judy coauthored a book with Laurie Mylroie on WMDs. Laurie wrote an earlier book, Saddam's Revenge, about the WTC bombings. On the cover of that book is a plug by Cannistraro who at the time was on the right side . It is altogether possible that Cannistraro was Judy's WINPAC source.

kate

Fitz is being misleading in claiming Plame is "classified". Generally, information is classified. I would imagine diagrams of the parking lot are classified, albeit, at a low level.

He clearly does not feel comfortable labeling her "covert" but wants to acknowledge some paper-thin cover.

Patton

I am sorry Pete, I forgot your logic, Bush is evil, therefore that proves Plame was covert.

Got it!

verner

And ask yourself this Clarice, being an ace reporter, after the stuff about Joe and his trip hitting the pages of the NYT etc., do we really think that Judy just sat back and waited for Libby to feed her something?

Or did she pull out her little black book and check around with a few of her friends to see what they might know about it. Or maybe, they got in touch with her. If Cannistraro worked with Valerie, as EW says, well...

And of course, he would have claimed that she worked at WINPAC--as he did later. Even though, if he worked with her, he KNEW was not true.

But of course, the Wilsons knew it was not true when they lied to VF.

And Alan Foley knew it was not true--so he went through the trouble to make sure YOU knew.

In any case, what was Judy's agreement? She would not be forced to talk about anyone else?

Walter

Jane,

She Who Gives Meaning To My (OtherWise) Dreary Existence has read her fill of HP fanfic.

The statute I was referring to was 42 USC 1983 and its companion, 42 USC 1985. I have friends who have prosecuted these claims; I have friends who have defended them; and yet I do not understand how they operate. But operate they do; this I know.

Charlie (Colorado)

Fitz is being misleading in claiming Plame is "classified". Generally, information is classified. I would imagine diagrams of the parking lot are classified, albeit, at a low level.

kate, that's an excellent point, which I sort of slid past --- Fitz's use of the terminology was way wrong; I unconsciously translated that to the notion that her specific job title might be (C), but you're absolutely right: a *person* can't be classified.

kate

OK...Fox News Watch is going to do a segment on how the Libby trial is showing how the media is being manipulated.

No, not by the Wilsons, no not the media manipulates...Ugg.

Jane

Neal Gabler just said that Tim Russert is tough on democrats and soft on democrats.

The Jim Pinkerton said there are liberal bloggers at FDL who made it on the front page of the NY Times while there are equal numbers of conservative bloggers on "a site" who didn't get mentioned. (I note we JOM didn't get mentioned by name by him)

And the meme going in was that Mary Maitlan chose Russert for Libby to leak to.

Sheesh!

Other Tom

When asked to decide a bet between two young boys as to who was the better general, Grant or Lee, an old fellow replied, "well, I understand they done paid off on Grant."

This WINPAC crap, for some reason, reminds me of that story. We now have the special prosecutor and the Libby defense team agreeing in a written stipulation to an undisputed fact that Plame never worked there. That stipulation has been approved and entered into the record by a United States District Judge. I'd say they done paid off on "Plame never worked at WINPAC."

Syl

TM quoting Merritt:

Most of the former CIA employees who have been talking on this case, Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistrano to name just a few, have been critical of Cheney and Libby and supportive of the CIA. Who but a Pentagon source, rather than a CIA source, would now be spinning pro-Libby stories?

Last night I read a couple of threads (Oct '05) and this refers, I believe, to the 3 sneakies ((c) Tops) who said Plame was CPD, not WINPAC. They said that if Libby said WINPAC to Judy, that info would have come from rumor, not fact. They did give valid info re investigating leak sourcing by analysis of discrete elements of the data that was leaked.

I think we figured out that we were hearing WINPAC from (1)Wilson (his book) and (2)VIPSers (leaks to press).

The 3 sneakies saying CPD was the first time we'd actually heard that. (This was just before the indictment.) Speculation re source was SOP on our parts.

WINPAC vs CPD is one of the few questions we had that has actually come out at trial.

From trial, following the discrepancy:

It was stipulated that Plame was CPD (counterproliferation) and not WINPAC (analysis).

-Cheney:counterproliferation
(June to Libby)

-Armitage(State):analyst
(June to Woodward)

-Judy:'bureau' thought meant WINPAC June 23
-Judy:WINPAC July 8

-INR memo(State):Analyst

-Ari:Libby said CPD to me!

-Pincus:Ari said analyst to me!
(Ari had seen INR memo)

-Novak said CPD in July.
(?? where did Novak get CPD?)

(IF FITZ HAD REALLY BEEN INVESTIGATING A LEAK, HE WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE! HE WASN'T AND HE DIDN'T)

(anyone else say ANYTHING at all re CPD in the trial. I don't think so.)

People will make what they want out of the above, but I strongly suspect (and we probably will never know) that the VIPSers were running around actually trying to protect her real job from exposure. (Don't shoot me, doesn't mean I don't think those VIPSers are noble). And Judy, who had plenty of sources at all levels in the community was a natural target to plant the WINPAC thing.

As for Ari, I don't believe for one second that Libby mentioned anything close to CPD to him, if he mentioned the wife at all.

Libby heard from Cheney and it didn't register. That info didn't include the wife sending. So no big deal. Lots of govt people have spouses working in govt.

Anything Libby heard later, from anyone, re wifey, did not include the counterproliferation bit.


Syl

ARghhhh. Blockquote ends after 1st paragraph:

pro-libby stories.

kate

Jim Pinkerton still doesn't get this story. He thinks it's about the cozy relationships between the media and government officials. He doesn't realize it's about the cozy relationship between the media and entrenched bureaucrats undermining the administration. I also thought JOM came close to getting a mention!

Pinkerton doesn't get it; Cal Thomas is clearly bored by the story. So the liberals define the story.

Charlie: Clearly Fitz does not want to label Plame as covert. I'm betting she is the equivalent of a document that is "overclassified". As discussed on this board, probably an administrative lag or some light cover.

verner

OT: I'd say they done paid off on "Plame never worked at WINPAC."


And OT, let's not forget, the ONLY, and I mean ONLY documented sources we have of anybody saying that Valerie Plame worked for WINPAC come from the Wilson's camp.

Judy Miller never claimed that it came from Libby. The only connection it has to him was that it was in her notebook.

Ralph L.

Bert Lance, Carter's money man, wasn't indicted, but I can't remember if some of his partners were. Business partners. If you remember what he looked like, you don't want to go there.

Sara, looks like TM is going to get me back for complaining with multiple threads. Sorry.

cathyf

But Valerie didn't work for either CPD or WINPAC. She worked for Brewster-Jennings.

Isn't that what got us into this mess?

verner

"People will make what they want out of the above, but I strongly suspect (and we probably will never know) that the VIPSers were running around actually trying to protect her real job from exposure. (Don't shoot me, doesn't mean I don't think those VIPSers are noble)."


Oy, where to start!!! GAG ME!!!. What a load of spit! Earth to Merritt: The VIPS weren't protecting Valerie,(Who it turns out was a lying little witch) they were executing a disinformation campaign in an attempt to throw an election and harm a sitting president in a time of war.

These people are F+++++g delusional!

And they want to send Libby to jail...

Still, glad to know she agrees with me about Judy and the VIPS.

Syl

Verner

Hate to tell you my formatting was wrong. It was *I* who claimed that the VIPSers were protecting Val's real job from exposure.

Now tell me exactly WHAT benefit was it to think that Val was WINPAC (analyst) as opposed to CPD (counterproliferation)?

If the VIPSers were going around yelling 'She's covert! dammit!' then you might have a point. They were actually trying to say the opposite.

Jane

Walter,

From what I can guess after reading the two statutes the first- 1983 says:

Every person who causes a citizen to be deprived of rights under the constitution is liable, except when an action is brought against someone in their judicial capacity (AKA prosecutor or Judge)- And if it is a person who acts in a juducial capacity who causes the violation, the remedy is to stop the proceedings if the judicial officer violated a declaratory decree which I take to mean a judgement or order of some sort.

The case I scanned for 2 seconds involved a guy who was granted parole and then had it revoked by a parole officer who hated him, without the benefit of a subsequent hearing.

1985 seems to say
(1) if 2 people get together to conspire to prevent an officer of the US from carrying out his duties – (Comey and Fitz prohibit Libby from doing his job) or

(2) 2 people get together to silence someone from giving testimony from either a party or a witness – (Comey & Fitz tell Mitchell if she is called to testify and tells the truth she will be prosecuted) to influence the verdict,or if two people conspire to obstruct the truth with the intent to deny a third person rights

(3) (involved voting right, does not apply)

then the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

So if we can prove that Fitz extorted silence or testimony from a witness to convict Libby, Libby can sue for damages.

1985 sounds like a RICO statute to me.

Other Tom

Great job, Syl. I took the liberty of posting your summary over at Loony Larry's site, just to get those simpletons scratching their heads.

I simply can't watch the FNC reporters thing. Each and every participant on that thing actually makes my skin crawl. And I'm fed up with media navel-gazing down through the years, which always concludes with, "well, an error is bound to occur once in a while, but we're all professionals, and only the extremists think we'e biased."

MayBee

If the VIPSers were going around yelling 'She's covert! dammit!' then you might have a point. They were actually trying to say the opposite.

But some were saying that, Syl. Larry Johnson was and does. Jim Marchinwhatever (recent FDL diarist) said they knew her only as Valerie P, so secret was her name.
Someone (Wilson, I'm sure) told Corn she was covert.
My guess is the WINPAC info brought her closer to the forgeries that Wilson prebunked. And led people away from her as the source of the CIA leaks complaining about Cheney, Libby, and Harlow's pressure on CIA employees to cook the books. And led people away from her knowledge about the aluminum tubes, which someone was trying to get Cooper et al to write about.

Ralph L.

OT, I think it's more entertaining than most blabfests, but the handwringing can be predictable. I can believe they would rub someone the wrong way. I couldn't bear to hear Clinton give a formal speech, but not for political or moral reasons.

Syl

Maybee

You always make more sense. :)

Verner

I was wrong to conclude about 'protecting her real job' bit. It was too late to do that anyway.

But the VIPSers had their own agenda which may or may not coincide 100% with anyone else's.

azaghal

Charlie, what did you think of John le Carre's Tinker, Tailor...? Book and/or made for TV movie? I liked it alot and thought it an excellent study of the psychology of betrayal. Shows what Hannah Arendt termed the "banality of evil" (if I remember that aright). I don't normally go in for "spy" novels, but that one I liked.

MayBee

Pete- you hang out at The Next Hurrah. According to a commenter there, Joe Wilson came to EW's book signing the other night.
Why don't you ask her to ask him about some of these discrepancies about Valerie Plame's covertness?
You are so certain Valerie was covert, yet your favorite source has the ability to get the official story from Wilson himself. Or at least ask him for it.
She could certainly ask him how WINPAC showed up in his and Valerie's Vanity Fair profile. Do you wonder why she doesn't at least ask?

Jane

New thread up.

Barney Frank

Isn't the best measure of her "covertness" or lack thereof the absence of Fitzgerald charging anyone with an IIPA violation?

verner

S: "But the VIPSers had their own agenda which may or may not coincide 100% with anyone else's."

Well, you've got a point that the VIPS are superkooks, and originally had their homebase at Cockburn's Counterpunch.

However, you are forgetting the company that Joe kept as well. He was heavily involved not only with the Kerry Campaign, but with the anti-war movement--specifically CIP and Win Without War. Just go back and read what he has to say about Tom Andrews and WWW in his gawdawful book, "the Politics of (un)truth.

I won't go into it here, but if you want a clue to how all the "progressives" work, just go the Sweetness and Light, or Horowitz's "Discover the Network." Mel Goodman, the "security" specialist at CIP, and former CIA analyst, worked hand in glove with the VIPS. CIP is a client of Fenton Communications. Tom Andrews(ex. dir of WWW) was a former close associate of Ira Arlook at Fenton communications etc. In other words, Joe was in bed with a web of longterm "progressive" activists who had a very close working history, and who would do anything to get rid of Bush. Kerry was their guy. The VIPS were most certainly a part of that.

Charlie (Colorado)

azaghal, I haven't read it in a *loooong* time, but I recall being favorably impressed with it. I think I read it before I was doing intel work, though, so I'm not sure I had any special knowledge.

Walter

Jane,

Thanks. I was trying to limit the consideration of those statutes to the instance of Fitzgerald's appointment being declared void, null, and unconstitutional.

It seems to me that he and the government could not claim to be acting in a judicial capacity without authority to do so.

Jane

Walter,

I don't get the lack of authority argument - well I really haven't bothered with it, but that seems a really long route to get to either of those statutes. And I think that if at some point Fitz appointment was successfully challanged, he was still under the color of a judicial appointment when the violation occurred.

But it is really really not my forte.

BritAm
Pinkerton doesn't get it; Cal Thomas is clearly bored by the story. So the liberals define the story.

I nearly fell out of my chair when Gabler was the one to note Russert's hypocrisy in loudly proclaiming his defense of 1st amendment rights after he'd spilled everything to the FBI on a phone call.

Walter

Jane,

Thanks for the effort. I was speculating myself, so my difficulty in explaining my point probably is a good indicator that I was pretty far off-base.

Walter

Jane,

"Color of law" is sometimes a prerequisite rather than a barrier for these types of claims.

Here's a (somewhat) successful malicious prosecution claim:

"The case involves a 19-year-old dispute involving Alfred Castellano, the owner of a chain of San Antonio fast-food restaurants who was convicted in 1984 of arson after one of his restaurants burned down and sentenced to probation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Castellano's conviction in 1993, ruling that there was insufficient evidence in his case, according to the 5th Circuit opinion.

On remand regarding Castellano's habeas corpus claim, a state district court judge found that Maria Sanchez, a former employee of Castellano's, and Chris Fragozo, a San Antonio police officer who worked off-duty as a security officer for Castellano, had conspired to tape record Castellano and alter the tapes to make it appear that Castellano admitted to the arson when he actually had no knowledge of it, according to the 5th Circuit opinion. Castellano's conviction was overturned and the Bexar County DA's office decided not to retry him.

In 1994, Castellano sued Sanchez and Fragozo in San Antonio's 288th District Court, alleging civil rights violations, but the case moved to federal court after Castellano amended his pleading to allege malicious prosecution under §1983. Castellano later abandoned his state-law claim.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John W. Primomo of San Antonio presided over the 2002 civil trial, in which a jury found that Sanchez conspired with Fragozo to deny Castellano his constitutional rights. The jury also found that Fragozo acted under the color of law in committing malicious prosecution against Castellano. The jury awarded Castellano $3.5 million in damages, and Fragozo and Sanchez appealed to the 5th Circuit. Both deny any wrongdoing.

A three-judge 5th Circuit panel affirmed the jury award in all respects in a Nov. 20, 2002, opinion."

The case was later overturned because it isn't a violation of your Federal Constitutional rights for a police officer to frame you.

cathyf
By that logic, Bush could delegate all the powers of the President to Dick Cheney for, say, the purposes of being commander in chief. That way Bush could turn his office into a think tank for reforming social security and not be bothered with the GWOT.
I think you could even argue for that -- at least Cheney won an actual election (twice) for the actual office of becoming president if something happens to the president. No, what Ashcroft did what be more analogous to Bush delegating all of his powers as commander in chief to me.
Jane

The case was later overturned because it isn't a violation of your Federal Constitutional rights for a police officer to frame you.

Imagine that. Would that apply to a prosecutor? Is the right to a fair trial the sole provence of the Judge?

ben

"Simply because she helped write the law does not mean that now she is the ultimate authority"

Hey Pete, maybe not ultimate, but how about "commanding" or "indisputable" or "knowledgeable" or "leading"...what exactly are your credentials to challenge her opinion?

I have referred you to her for indictment under the "intellectually dishonest post" statute.

Jane

Walter,

Check the prior thread. JM Hanes has posted a tidbit for you there.

Charlie (Colorado)

The case was later overturned because it isn't a violation of your Federal Constitutional rights for a police officer to frame you.

Huh?

Walter

Here's the Supremes granting absolute immunity to (some) prosecutors.

"Held: A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State's case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights."
IMBLER v. PACHTMAN, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

Walter

Charlie and Jane,

If you follow the link, you'll see that it was actually thrown out because it isn't a violation of your civil liberties for a police officer to maliciously initiate and maintain a prosecution based on a frame job. The court sent it back to the district court to determine whether the frame violated the 14th amendment. Some judges didn't want to give the plaintiff another chance, though.

What can I say? It's the Fifth circuit (and Texas to boot.)

narciso

Cannistraro, is a mixed bag, when it comes to credibility,to be charitable. He was a vice consul in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, around the time that Agee outed him; first in
Counter Spy then in Dirty Work 2; the CIA in Africa; due to his previous postings in Tripoli. He ended up on the Central Amer. desk; where he oversaw the distribution of the infamous Contra 'assasination manual' that the Democrats made so much of in the summer of 1984. He was detailed to the Afghan Task Force,which based on previous experience should have made him more suspi-cious of the,Saudi contribution to the Muj. Yet according to the late George Crile's tome on Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrokotos (the former deputy Athens station chief; outed by Agee in 1976,)ran the American side of the supply network: he was one of those, who resisted even legitimate inquiries in the nature of the Afghan supply network, serving as deputy chief
of" the House that Dewey built" CTC; he emerges as a terror expert at the time of
the Oklahoma City bombings, and the investigations into Gary Webb's Contra-Cocaine "Dark Alliance" claims. Ironically
they would be on firmer grounds with the ISI
supported heroin networks in Pakistan, BCCI
Fazle Huq, and other local politicians. By
the turn of the century he has drifted toward the radical VIPs network, which Larry
Johnson, former Plame classmate, Central American analyst, and concurrent postings
at CTC, overlap; he emmerges after a stint
as State counter terror on the eve of Pan
Am 103; one of the first to suggest terrorism. Then of course, how can we forget
his June 2001 NY Times; unfortunately for him still linked as Berg & Associates, saying the terror threat was 'blown way out
of proportion"! Most recently he appeared on Keith Olbermann, need I say more...

Walter

Just dropping two other cites here:

BUCKLEY v. FITZSIMMONS, 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
A prosecutor may be sued under 1983 for false statements at a press conference.

Kalina v. Fletcher
A prosecutor can be sued under 1983 for false statements in a sworn affidavit presented to a court.

I'm going to say that, if the appointment is ruled unconstitutional (although I think the likelihood is slim), then Libby has a possible 1983 claim against Fitzgerald, Comey, and the DoJ. But the matter is far from settled, as no court has ruled against a special prosecutor's appointment since prosecutors were granted immunity from civil rights suits in 1977.

Charlie (Colorado)

If I were Mike Nifong, those last two might worry me a bit....

(I used to date a lawyer in Durham. I keep wondering if I met Nifong, when he was a baby lawyer.)

hit and run

Charlie:
I used to date a lawyer in Durham.

Back when you had relationships within your species?

Walter

"...within your species."

HnR, I'm shocked!

Shocked I tell you!

Just shocked.

...passing up a perfectly good lawyer joke like that.

sylvia

I have some basic legal questions on false statements. Do false statements have to, or almost always have to, be accompanied by transcripts? If so, do we have Libby's exact words about what he said to Cooper for the Cooper false statement charge? And if the Feds have them, where can we find the transcript of what they were, and why aren't those included in the indictment? And if the Feds don't have them, what is the "falseness" judged on - the "impression" of the testimony from the Feds? And if so, how can we be sure that without a transcript the Feds are characterizing Libby's words correctly? Are juries supposed to give the Feds the benefit of the doubt of their interpretation because they are law enforcement officers? And can the belief of just one false statement in a collection of supposed false statements for a charge be enough for conviction on that charge, or does the entirety of the statements for that charge have to be disbelieved? And is the punishment for a false statement charge as great as that for perjury?

These legal questions are crucial to determine whether Libby goes down for the false statement charge to Cooper. I think he has a pretty good chance to go down for his perjury charge to Cooper, in which Libby blathered on and on that he had NO idea in any way shape or form about Plame, but I have yet to see or hear specifics on anything particulary incriminating for the false statement charge.

hit and run

Walter, I would never make a good lawyer joke in here, I respect you folks too much.

Now. A bad lawyer joke? Hmmmm, I could be persuaded......

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame