Powered by TypePad

« Open Thread Saturday | Main | Open Thread Sunday »

February 24, 2007

Comments

MayBee

Charlie(Co)- don't you think the travel part is just about future personal travel?
If she can put on her visa application that she works/worked for Brewster-Jennings she will get treated much differently by a potential host country than if she is known to have worked for the CIA.

Reporters I know get minders when they travel to certain countries, even with their families for leisure. And that is when they are granted the visa in the first place. There are some professions that make personal travel difficult, and I imagine any CIA employment would do just that.

Seixon

From my latest post about Johnson/Wilson/Plame/etc, I thought this was interesting from the memo taken at the INR/CIA meeting with Wilson:

"Meeting apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson… Two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge on the issue, [redacted] the other guy's name not available."

As I asked in my blog post, why was Mrs. Wilson's name and affiliation with Joe so casually thrown about in a meeting with INR, yet another CIA analyst's name was not available?

So I'm thinking, Valerie was not covert, the other CIA analyst at the meeting was. Let's ask Larry Johnson, is it typical for the identity of covert CIA officers to be so casually thrown around in a meeting with INR? Even so far as to identifying them as spouses with a meeting subject? Errrhm...

tom maguire

And one more thing! All this goes under the "Dancing With NBC Stars" file, but:

(1) what about his letter to the defense where he cited the reporters known to have received a leak plus, "in an abundance of caution", John Dickerson. Why not note David Gregory? Well, other than to prop up the NBC cover-up, minimize their awkward moments, and delay the day when the defesne can undertake discovery with Gregory.

(2) this may not reflect badly on Fitzgerald, but the defense ought to poke at this - when the two sides were arguing about Mitchell's possible testimony, her attorney argued that, if forced to testify, she would stand by her claim that she knew nothing prior top the Novsk column.

BUT... in oneof ehr public statement, she said she spoke to the FBI! So, if she had in fact done that, shouldn't Fitzgeral dhave hopped up with that news? Surely her FBI statement (being subject to a false statements charge) is more credible than whatever she said to Imus.

So why was our boy so coy? Well, either he is propogating the NBC cover-up, or her FBI statement is something he would prefer not to discuss, or the notes are lost, or... OK, maybe she never spoke to the FBI.

I am not sure how discovery would have worked there - since she was not a witness, would the defense have gotten access to her FBI interview (if there was one?)

Anyway, I welcome some guidance on this point - at a minimum, the defense may have missed a chance to point out the unreliability of her public statements.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I don't think Lincoln was refering to "classes of people," when he said you could fool some of the people all of the time, but you couldn't fool all of the people all of the time.

Garfinkel wasn't a "new method" Hebrew School. And, Stanlislavski really didn't make actors beter at what they did. Besides. Paul Simon didn't need Garfinkel. But it worked the other way around, for a time.

As to these jurors, some have faith in those with credentials. Some have faith in the fact that the women are in greater numbers, in the jury room, than the men.

But, yes, 12 people, create a certain dynamic. (Or as my mom would say, the outter limit in the number of people who could have a working communist arrangement. And, they'd be able to take care of each other. Add to the number beyond a dozen, though, and communism fails.)

So does fortune telling.

I wish these people well. The judge did not serve them!

At the end of the day? Walton will come up short. The black robe he wears hasn't helped his intelligence grow into being an able judge.) On the other hand? Seidlin was much worse. And, also brought the court system up short.

Neither man will be given the Judge Judy gig in the future.

And, Russert? Less than like to get Broder's chair.

Just as Luttig, going after Wilkinson with rude remarks, just made sure this President would eliminate BOTH OF THEM from the short list to the supreme's.

By the way, with the "shift" that occurred in 2006, the likelihood that the senate would confirm a right wing nutter is very, very slim. Those fights for the Bork's in this world, were so bruising; it's probably a better guess to guess that our Supreme Court will become "more comdodious." And, I'm not referring to toilets. But to a general sense that the justices can moderate themselves to tackle issues, without the usual bickering that befell the court throughout all the Rehnquist years.

Ah. And, since this jury is in DC. And, the WaPo is the "local paper." IT lands at the morning tables, of people big and small. It lands, fer shur, at the tables of the DC Circuit judges. And, also at all the 9 tables of the supremes.

It is not going UNNNOTICED.

Give this time. V-8 moments may be lacking. Perry Mason moments may be lacking. But Bush is NOT HUNKERED DOWN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. He's got Tony Snow. Better than Ari Fleischer.

ANd, when the re-decorated press room, comes back on line? A cable network will occupy the front row. Casting Helen Thomas back.

Some steps are done slowly. But they do get done.

And, IF the jury continues to "debate?" Don't you think they'll throw out a bone? A question on SUBSTANCE? Not post-it notes?

Rick Ballard

What is Fitz's motive in this?

On top of the examination being done, there are a few more little problems in this trial.

1. There were two FBI agents who took notes, either could have testified and it is difficult to imagine that Agent Kirk Armfield could have done worse than Agent Bond. Why pick a surly agent to deliver crucial evidence?

2. The lost notes and the stipulation from Agent Eckenrode which considerably undercut Little Timmy's "impossible!".

3. Fitz's act in the rebuttal. He is an experienced prosecutor and his 'foul' was very calculated. I don't think it was calculated to draw a guilty verdict but rather to draw a flag from an appellate judge should the jury make an err and convict.

Perhaps a bit OT but I can't help continually asking myself; "What the hell is this all about?"

MayBee

Here is the damaging yet incorrect NIE leak that Fitzgerald let fester in April:

WASHINGTON, April 8 — President Bush's apparent order authorizing a senior White House official to reveal to a reporter previously classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already being discredited by several other officials in the administration, interviews and documents from the time show.

A review of the records and interviews conducted during and after the crucial period in June and July of 2003 also show that what the aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., said he was authorized to portray as a "key judgment" by intelligence officers had in fact been given much less prominence in the most important assessment of Iraq's weapons capability.

Mr. Libby said he drew on that report, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, when he spoke with the reporter. However, the conclusions about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium appear to have been buried deeper in the report in part because of doubts about their reliability.

The new account of the interactions among Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby was spelled out last week in a court filing by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case. It adds considerably to a picture of an administration in some disarray as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq had undermined the central rationale for the American invasion in March 2003.

Against the backdrop of what has previously been disclosed, the court filing sheds particular light on how Mr. Bush and some of his top deputies had begun to pull in different directions. Even as some officials, including Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, started to reveal deep doubts that Mr. Hussein had sought uranium to reconstitute his nuclear program, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were seeking to disseminate information suggesting that they had acted on credible intelligence, while not discussing their actions with other top aides.

Mr. Fitzgerald, in his filing, said that Mr. Libby had been authorized to tell Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, that a key finding of the 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq was that Baghdad had been vigorously seeking to acquire uranium from Africa.

But a week earlier, in an interview in his State Department office, Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention, and were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early 2003, when he was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the United Nations.

Do you remember all the bruhaha surrounding all of that? I wonder if Fitzgerald realized then he had no basis on which to charge for that leak, so he stuck it to Cheney with a little "oopsie" in his filing.


tom maguire

Did Armitage know he was being recorded? Unlikely he'd commit a crime knowing it's on tape. Is this SOP for Woodward?

IIRC from the Stepanopolous book, Woodward's technique is no technique - he pulls out a tspe recorder, says "everyone else is giving me their spin; you can present it your way, or let me present it their way", turns on the tape recorder, and starts asking questions.

So based on my recollection of that book, yes, this is SOP.

centralcal

Rick: "Perhaps a bit OT but I can't help continually asking myself; "What the hell is this all about?"

You are not the only one asking that.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: RICK BALLARD

Maybe, FItz wanted to pitch for the NY Yankees? And so he's really a man who dreams baseball, in his head?

I think he did his PRESSER, because one upon a time, that stuff worked.

As to what he was getting away with in walton's courtroom, it seems to have put him into that graceless position of knowing he could take advantage of Wells. Slap Wells around. And, the judge would still treat Fitz as Goody-Two-SHoes.

It's also possible Fitz was worried, and he did this reBUTTal stuff (because it's in his nature to pull tricks like this.) WHen they lead to conviction? The trial judge covers it up with "discretion."

But Fitz is not doing this to get "reversed." He's smart enough to know only the judge gets reversed.

If this was a roulette table, Fitz would be working the controls under the table, to stop the ball where he wants it to go. (And, if this was Casablanca, the line would be "shocked ... that gambling goes on here.)

Revenge is a very mean game. Fitz wants a piece of Libby's ass. And, he's going after it, as if the DC court room was a bath house in San Francisco.

tom maguire

I'm trying to figure out if the CIA could have bent over backwards and twisted itself in knots in order to come up with a reason the IIPA could have applied when they filed their complaint.
BUT...I'm probably just making stuff up.

I actually have an elaborate theory about that, after tussling with Scary larry, who insists (contra the plain reading of the statute) that there are just two types of CIA agents, covert and overt. (He rejects the notion of a classified agent stuck in the US for six years.)

So, weird theory - the CIA "manages" the schedules and postings of the coverts agents to create the illusion of coverage. And in some law somewhere (maybe Agriculture?) I saw that it is up to the Secretary to certify thinhs like overseas travel.

So, grand reconciliation - as a practical matter, Larry is right - all classified agents are "covert" because the CIA certifies their travel/posting schedule.

However... Fitzgerald and the CIA don't want to go there because in some cases (our gal Val?) the certifications are a joke and won't stand up to a serious challenge based on Congressional intent or standard practice in other parts of government.

Just a guess.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Tom McQuire. If WOODWARD was taping, like Nixon taped, then you'd be right. The taping would be done in secret.

On the other hand? WOODWARD NEEDED PERMISSION. It's possible ARMITAGE GAVE IT, because he knew about DEEP THROAT! (He might have even had an idea that DEEP THROAT was the #2 guy at the FBI. And, to show you how well Woodward kept secrets; that was one well kept secret, indeed.

So, for two-cents, I'll guess. Woodward asked Armitage for permission to tape. While he also said "DEEP THROAT 3 TIMES. To indicate to Armitage that the information divulged would go to the grave with Woodward.

Why get Nixonian, and think Woodward tapes surreptiously?

clarice

MayBee--Yes.
Rick:either (a) he tried to throw the case or (b) the case was not the thing--it was the havoc and the political damage it could and did cause, or (3) he has an undeserved reputation based on being able to get away w/ smoke and mirrors where the defendants are already of bad repute and the lawyers of the calibre of Lynn Stewart.

MayBee

I am so repetitive. Does anyone know if Fitzgerald spoke to Mike Allen or Dana Priest about the 1x2x6 article they co-authored? Should he have, considering he based his case upon it?
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

The reporter referenced in bold- is that from Pincus or Cooper?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Tom McQuire, AGRICULTURE?

ESPY

clarice

The answer is simpler MayBee and TM--it was a standard referral w/ not a single reference fo the IIPA because the CIA knew tha was inapplicable. Classified or not(whatever it means) is meaningless if the provisions of the IIPA are unavailing and they are not.

Syl

I wonder if Fitzgerald realized then he had no basis on which to charge for that leak, so he stuck it to Cheney with a little "oopsie" in his filing.

Especially considering this is the only known leak to have come directly from fitz or his immediate team (as opposed to, say, Eckenrode.)

But that article shows plenty of bias on its own by elevating Powell's statements over Libby's as if Powell's word is da bomb. Libby's not so much.


Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were seeking to disseminate information suggesting that they had acted on credible intelligence, while not discussing their actions with other top aides.

As if Libby is saying I know for certain this credible intelligence and I can prove it as opposed to saying 'This is what we were given and we had no reason to doubt it. It was the consensus view of the IC at the time.'

Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that that contention, and were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early 2003

Powell's 'intelligence agaencies' were a SUBSET of the IC community. They certainly rejected it, but the consensus report didn't give their views as much weight.

And for anyone not in the know the way the article is written screams Bush Lied!

Syl

Wow is that weird...the Powell thing above should be:

Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention, and were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early 2003

It was a straight paste but one line fell out. That is weird.

clarice

That happened to me earlier here Syl.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well as of this afternoon the new meme is "forged intelligence" not "Bush lied" right out of the mouth of a democratic strategist. Reminds you of ol' Joe and our gal Val, doesn't it?

Sara (Squiggler)

Oops, should read "forging intelligence" which is different from forged intelligence.

MayBee

Syl- the other really interesting thing about that article is that it was written by David Sanger, who supposedly spoke with Libby about the NIE. Funny he didn't mention his own experience in his report.

It reminds me of David Gregory railing against McClellan about the Plame leaks.

tom maguire

Here's what Fitzgerald says:

"One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the 'source' to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower'...

I love that! That is well past the time of Ari's testimony, so... was Ari a whislteblower, such that calling Dickerson and Gregory was not important? Nooo, because they did call Pincus, who had publiched that he had received a leak, but they weren't sure from whom.

So why was it not important to call Dickerson/Gregory? I would love to see how the judges would have reacted to that tidbit.

Bonus - I would love to see the judges ruling if Fitzgerald's submission read "Libby says he leaked to Miller on the 12th but we think he leaked to her on the 8th" and want to bust him for perjury."

Or, "Libby has admitted leaking to Miller, but we want to see if he also told her Plame was covert and that this disclosure was not legal. Of course, we have no evidence that anyone has told Libby she was covert, but maybe this is our lucky day."

Worth keeping in mind - IIRC, the Miller fight begasn in 2004; Grenier only "remembered" mentioning Plame to Libby in 2005.

So as of 2004, Fitzgerald had next to nothing suggesting anyone even discussed Plame with Libby, let alone someone in a position to know her status.

Syl

TM

So, grand reconciliation - as a practical matter, Larry is right - all classified agents are "covert" because the CIA certifies their travel/posting schedule.

However... Fitzgerald and the CIA don't want to go there because in some cases (our gal Val?) the certifications are a joke and won't stand up to a serious challenge based on Congressional intent or standard practice in other parts of government.

So we end up with a situation where one hand of the CIA refers the case to Justice while the other hand stonewalls.

And even the judge doesn't know wtf is going on. Fitz doesn't either but he hates revenge against noble whistleblowers, who, btw, are also leakers but that doesn't count, so he makes up sh*t about the EA, scares people into fearing violation of IIPA which he knows he cannot prove (because of CIA stonewalling), throws in the NIE, and mixes it all up in a perjury bow because there's no way he can get anything else.

Sara (Squiggler)

On that BBCA movie I mentioned earlier, "The State Within" it is an interesting note that the big bad corporation isn't Halliburton, but the Armitage Corp. Told from the British point of view with lots of MI6 and the British Ambassador locking horns and involved in intrique, but the meme is that the Secretary of State manipulated us into war and the British were hamstrung in their ability to expose.

clarice

TM--good/ As to this:"One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the 'source' to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower'*************Was Armitage a 'whistleblower' or a discrediter? Certainly, the latter.

tom maguire

From seixon:

So I'm thinking, Valerie was not covert, the other CIA analyst at the meeting was. Let's ask Larry Johnson, is it typical for the identity of covert CIA officers to be so casually thrown around in a meeting with INR? Even so far as to identifying them as spouses with a meeting subject? Errrhm...

Well - the redaction of the CIA guy's name may have been prior to the *declassification* of the INR memo (by which time, Val had been declassified so Fitzgerald could investigate her). I would guess both names were in the memo to Armitage.

Although why either name was there is still a good question.

Alcibiades

Jesuitical, I'd say, azaghal.

Or Clintonian.

All that fine parsing of language to use it to mean the opposite of what it purports to mean.

Syl

Clarice

The answer is simpler MayBee and TM--it was a standard referral w/ not a single reference fo the IIPA because the CIA knew tha was inapplicable. Classified or not(whatever it means) is meaningless if the provisions of the IIPA are unavailing and they are not.

This is not a fact in evidence. It is conjecture based on sound reasoning, but conjecture nevertheless. We have not seen the referral and neither has Toensing.


Alcibiades

Fitz:

I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

He's essentially asking for a much more aggressive, wider application of this purposefully limited statute. And he wants the Libby case to be the precedent for that.

In that sense, vis-a-vis the AIPAC case, which is also asking for a wider interpretation of the espionage act, that the judge is dubious about, Fitz and the FBI are on lockstep on these issues.

clarice

The judge has seen the referral..and if the claim was that she was covert he would have the answer to the question and he has repeatedly said he does not.

Sue

Just a thought here, and I don't know where it fits in, if at all, but in reading an article admitted as a government exhibit, by Pincus, I believe, where he is reporting on the revelation of Brewster-Jennings, a CIA front company. He reported that the CIA confirmed her 1999 W-2 was from Brewster-Jennings, which confirmed her covert status, at least to Pincus' mind. What if the revelation that was so damaging (though not really, since Pincus described BJ as a possibly defunct company) was the CIA front company? By putting her employment on a political donation, the company was easily identified as a front company?

Sorry, I'm rambling. One eye on the computer and the other on a basketball game...

clarice

Well, SHE did that so why is Libby in the dock?

clarice

If you are saying, Sue, that what Pincus DEDUCED trumps what is not in the referral laetter, I don't think it's a good argument.

Syl

Clarice

No, I'm not picking on you but the argument re whistleblower is a good argument on whether to subpoena a reporter. Yes, we know fitz didn't care about Armitage but that's not the point of the argument.

But as far as 1st amendment considerations go, the subpoena is more valuable against retaliation than it is against the act of whistleblowing itself even when the whistleblower releases classified info in the act of whistleblowing.

And in constitutional terms this should be something we agree with.

Fitz position was that the val leakers were retaliating instead of setting the record straight and that's where the unfairness and politics lies, not in the constitutional argument itself.

MayBee

Sue- if you read FDL long enough, you'll find they are utterly convinced that Val was outed as a way to destroy the very important Brewster Jennings. Which was, apparently, the only CIA front company with the only CIA employee that was going to keep Bush from ginning up fake evidence supporting a war with Iran.

I suspect "Brewster Jennings" is a name under which some repatriating agents get paid until their 5 year safety period has passed. Brewster Jennings can't be much worth protecting if its employees drive into the CIA headquarters every day.

clarice

Another day--another CIA leak--this time that we are funding opponents of the Irani regime:
"Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml>CIA Leaks

danking70

Sounds like the WH didn't need to declassify the INR memo since Armitage was waving it around.

Amazing how Armitage got immunity and Libby set-up.

clarice

Syl, there is a statute protecting whistleblowers--it sets forth a procedure they must use. That procedure does not include going to the press. The entire argument is wrong on the law and proof of an improper criminalization of the politic process.

Sue

I don't think it's a good argument

I'm not making an argument, just a thought as to what the real classified information might have been. A front company that was still classified though no longer being used.

centralcal

Do you think Pat Fitzgerald read Woodward's "Plan of Attack" and took some of Powell's and Armitage's assertions about Cheney and Libby too much to heart?

For instance: p.292 "Powell thought Cheney had the fever. The vice president and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Saddam and 9/11. It was a separate little government that was out there - Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith and Feith's "Gestapo office," as Powell privately called it. He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first Gulf War just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation."

Sue

Maybee,

But it was still a classified CIA front company. Anyway, I'm not married to the idea that the company had anything to do with the referral or the affidavit, so I'll just say...

...woohoo! The Mavs won another one!

Syl

Clarice

The judge has seen the referral..and if the claim was that she was covert he would have the answer to the question and he has repeatedly said he does not.

The referral doesn't have to offer proof. It is a request for an investigation into possible release of classified information and I assume it would have to list the information that got out of the bag so the DoJ could know what to investigate, as well as list the statutes that may apply.

It's the investigation that determines the proof, not the referral.

clarice

I know that the investigators targetted these people..and lied to them..The target was the OVP and those who worked w. that office in DoD.

That includes Comey et al at DoJ which engaged in numerous battles w/ Addington and Libby in the OVP on the law and the WOT.

MayBee

Sue- I suppose it's possible, but then the investigation really did end up pretty far afield.

I'm wondering if there are any Dem Senators that had the power or desire to sit on the CIA until they pressed the DOJ to take up an otherwise ordinary referral.

clarice

Syl:"The referral doesn't have to offer proof"

In this case it must contain proof of her status if the referral is the IIPA--so says Toensing who wrote the law and handled these requests--She says an IIPA request must be accompanied by an affidavit covering 11 points (status; overseas employment; agency took all reasonable steps to protect identity, etc.) She is very clear on this.

Dave in W-S

Clarice:

"I've reread the affidavit..interesting--perhaps someone--MJW?_want to look at the redacted portion dealing w/ who Wilson was with when he talked to Kristof and Pincus. I had assumed from what we knew about the Kristof meeting that it was Plame when I wrote that article, but there seem to be way too many spaces. Since Pincus only testified to Fleischer who was the other person?"

That is a very long space and obviously more than a simple name. My first thought before looking at the space was "Richard Armitage", but that was nowhere near long enough, so I yielded to the first impulsive thought and typed in "Richard Armitage, at the request of Secretary of State Colin Powell," and - Lo and Behold! - it fits perfectly.

Not that anything is proved, but it could explain why Fitz was so reluctant to pursue and why the stone wall around Armitage. Powell had to be pissed that he had gone to the UN with WMD and now Wilson was by implication making him look like an ass.

Syl

Clarice

Syl, there is a statute protecting whistleblowers--it sets forth a procedure they must use. That procedure does not include going to the press.

Wilson is not protected by that statute.

centralcal

I just find it odd that Armitage is very critical and dismissive of Libby in Woodward's book. Powell even moreso about Cheney.

Armitage was one of the leakers.

Fitzgerald targets Libby and Rove, with his sights set on the OVP. It just seems more was driving Fitz than Joe and Val alone.

MarkO

I know nothing about Semanticleo and his or her politics mean nothing to me. What I love about these anonymous boards, and I repeat myself, is the absence of personal qualifications. That means that we don’t accept or reject any information based on someone’s resume. I don’t know if Semanticleo is a PhD, a lawyer, a journalist, the Ragin’ Cagin or a poor soul living under an underpass. I read those posts for their informational content. (Although I would like to know where the accent goes in that name. I’ve tried it a few ways and find some of them refreshing.)

But, in my view it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that Fitzgerald’s argument was not objectionable. The mere fact that the judge issued a cautionary instruction puts that question to rest for all but those to whom a different truth has been revealed.

I think the judge let the case go to the jury rather than grant a mistrial because any judge would do so. If Libby is acquitted, the issue is moot. If not, the judge can revisit it. To anyone with any experience in these matters, such an instruction following an objection to closing argument is rare. Fitzgerald should be embarrassed. Anyone else would be.

Any comparison to Ken Starr, except to note they were both Special Prosecutors, demonstrates a staggering ignorance of the cases. If one wants to post here that he hates Ken Starr or Patrick Fitzgerald because they went after that poster’s political heroes, I would find that stirring. Almost no one is that honest.

If, on the other hand, such a poster dissembles and seeks refuge in fictional facts and impossible conclusions, I have no interest in reading it and no respect for the bona fides of that poster. That’s all we have here.

So, if Semanticleo can refer to the record and the rules of professional conduct and the DA’s guidebook and the record in the Clinton cases to make a point, I’d be interested. Otherwise, his posts are a waste of time.


Neo

I've forgotten, did Armitage talk to Woodward before he talked to Novak ?

The has always been a point of motive for Armitage. If he thought he may have gone over the line with Woodward, did Armitage bring in Novak, who had been seeking an interview for some months, to cushion any possible "leaks" that he [Armitage] may have made, on tape, for Woodward. Sort of a "everybody knows" approach.

Charlie (Colorado)

Otherwise, his posts are a waste of time.

Her posts.

All the rest is correct.

Alcibiades

So here you have Fitz and the FBI, both of them trying to acquire much wider interpretations of purposefully narrowly written laws so they can be more punitive.

Normally, the left would be up in arms against this kind of thing. Except in both cases, the only people targeted so far are Jews neocons. And the left thinks that targeting neocons is just dandy; they don't look past that to the dangerous precedent setting that will occur if these convictions are upheld. And this wider definition becomes standard.

Then they'll whine about how Bush is fighting the terror war to take away personal rights and eventually to impose martial law - a meme I actually saw today.

And they won't realize that they cheered on all these restrictions - because they were aimed at their "public enemies."

You would think Jeralyn, for one, would be fair enough to see the danger in this kind of thing; the negative implications. But even she "wants to get Cheney."

Alcibiades

I meant to add, up above, one wonders whether these precedent setting wider interpretations of these narrow statues will, in future, only be used to target those among us who are suspected of dual-loyalties.

Which ties this neatly back into Clarice's theory that all this anger in the FBI towards neocons arose on account of Pollard.

Syl

Clarice

In this case it must contain proof of her status if the referral is the IIPA--so says Toensing who wrote the law and handled these requests--She says an IIPA request must be accompanied by an affidavit covering 11 points (status; overseas employment; agency took all reasonable steps to protect identity, etc.) She is very clear on this.

It would be really nice if things were this simple, that the referral said nothing about the IIPA, and nothing was attached giving 'proof' but I suspect it's a very complex situation which is why Walton doesn't 'know' what the heck her status is.

The CIA could be fudging certain things, like overseas employment which makes it look like she was covered during the relevant years. Her status may have been explained through a transition from NOC to Official Cover. Dates may be ambiguous. Some of the relevant information may even be classified, leaving one or two elements in doubt. And what is the CIA saying about protecting her affiliation? How can they show 'proof' of that.

'This is what we've got now you go figure it out'.

The referral is simply a way to back up the CIA's request for further investigation.

'Call us if you have any questions'.

bela1

What a sad, sad day this is to learn Armitage and Woodward are taped showing the miscarriage of justice this independent investigation and bogus trial charging Scooter Libby has been.

You did a fantastic job rooting out the rats in all this, Clarice. I give you high marks. Alot of you here ought to take a bow.
You worked damn hard in the search for the truth.

It's always been by belief this partisan/politically motivated railroading was a sham from the very start...with the US Senate and their committee members on the Judiciary, Foreign Intel and I think the Armed Services Committees investigating/overseeing the WOT from its onslaught, if not the regime change in Iraq who I sense knew all about this too from the start. It makes Sen. Schumer's cries for an independent investigation, nevermind the plot Sen. Rockefeller had been planning for their leadership, all the more suspect.
What dirty, rotten pool this is.

I didn't want to say anything before since I thought it irrelevant, but just the few hearings alone which Dick Armitage testified to before the US Senate [107th/108th] certainly reveal the US Senators actually had been aware of what had happened, who did what, not just within the CIA whose members were suffering from chronic BDS plotting against Bush like Zell Miller hinted...but who also knew who leaked this info, aside from that nitwit lying Joe Wilson.

It's the way they'd treated Armitage during those numerous hearings, Clarice which I was able to watch on C-Span for months. They'd ask him stern questions and he'd respond gruffly...until the LAST hearing which I believe was post-Iraqi invasion where they'd giggled and wiggled and were much kinder to Armitage than they ever were before. Why, the kindness, I couldn't never understand considering. Not until now. It all fits and it appears Fitzie was just continuing to coverup everything he knew as well. How sick this is. I'm disgusted.

Like I said, it's a sad, sad day that a prosecutor who was supposed to BE first and foremost in search of the truth... intentionally, willingly and perhaps deliberately...held important information from the public who has every right to know what did take place and who was responsible.
Despite Libby's torturous GJ testimony, all Libby tried to do which isn't a lie, is explain this "as if I heard it for the first time"...to keep classified info both he and the FBI well knew was classified info from the hungry, partisan press who
continue to suffer from the same disease Wilson, CIA group they caught, the John Kerry camp, Tom Hayden followers and a few more Dems in power had been trying to carry out.

Sad.

I hope the jury is bright enough, digs long & hard enough to finally understand what'd been done to an innocent man.

Keep up the good work.

M

Alcibiades

Another day--another CIA leak--this time that we are funding opponents of the Irani regime:

I don't think that is so bad to have bruited about, especially since the Iranian separatists just shot down a Revolutionary Guard helicopter today.

I think this is called showing your hand. And negotiation by other means.

I've noticed lately that Bush has been playing a lot more poker with Iran.

So, too, the info that was leaked to the Telegraph that Israel is trying to have approval for overflight of Iraq on a mission to bomb Iran's nukes. Which Israel promptly denied.

With two battleships in the area, Iran being attacked from within, Israel "leaking" its requests, I can't imagine that Iran is feeling so secure these days, just as Ahmadinejad's popularity is imploding.

clarice

Syl--The DoJ cannot provide the necessary IIPA info-it is uniquely w/in the hands of the CIA which is why Dept procedure per Toensing is that they must provide it before the Dept goes further.

If Wilson is not covered by the whistleblower statute then he is an ordinary citizen who when he makes up shit about the VP will just have to take it when the OVP responds w/ the truth, no? Whistleblower protection is to protect govt employees who may have unique knwledge about official wrongdoing, not layabout ex-envoys on a mission.Don't let the smoke and mirrors distract you.

Here in general are the 11 questions the CIA must answer in an affidavit before the DoJ will proceed:

"The standard list of information, approved in 1969 by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that the Justice Department (search) required the CIA (search) to provide before deciding to pursue a criminal investigation into the leak of a covert operative's name.

The CIA provided its answers last week. They were not made public.

The information asked:

1. Date and identity of the article or release disclosing the classified information.

2. Specific statements which are classified and whether the data was properly classified.[IIPA data goes in here and in response to other noted questions]]

3. Whether the classified data disclosed is accurate.

4. Whether the data came from a specific document and, if so, the origin of the document and the name of the individual responsible for the security of the classified data disclosed.

5. The extent of official dissemination of the data.



6. Whether the data has been the subject of prior official releases.

7. Whether the prior clearance for publication or release of the information was sought from proper authorities.

8. Whether the material or portions thereof or enough background data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible.[Here wld go the proof that the agency had taken every reasonable step to protect her identity]

9. Whether the data can be declassified for the purpose of prosecution and, if so, the name of the person competent to testify concerning the classification.

10. Whether declassification had been decided upon prior to the publication or release of the data.

11. What effect the disclosure of the classified data could have on the national defense.
[I believe it is re this question that the detals to bring the Plame disclosure w/in the purview of the IIPA must be made as Toensing says under DoJ procedures it must before the Dept will continue]


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98733,00.html

clarice

Alci, the UK Times has another leak today , indicating several top US generals and Admirals will quit if ordered to attack Iran .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Syl

You know, for all my bellyaching the last couple of days about the referral and the predicates of the investigation, I don't doubt that fitz mixed what he had with preconceived prejudices re the war and Cheney et al and conducted the investigation in a bullheaded and unethical ends-justifies-the-means manner.

And I still feel strongly about the above, but it doesn't require that the referral said nothing about the IIPA, it doesn't even require that val NOT be 'covert'.


sylvia

Although I appreciate the indignation at the possible untruths about Fleischer, I don't really think they have that much relevance in this case against Libby. Fleischer was standing around telling a group of reporters about Plame, it's his perception whether a reporter such as Dickison was standing near enough to actually hear it. That's different than say a phone conversation or a lunch meeting. In addition, there has to be some records that Libby and Fleischer actually met for lunch and that this was not a common thing.

Although it may be relevant to support the idea that Tim Russert actually knew about Plame and asked Libby about it, it's really not the issue as the main issue is Libby saying he learned it as if for the first time -whether Russert spoke about it or not. So although annoying, I'm not sure these ideas really prove anything.

Sue

Can they do that? Just quit?

Bush isn't going to order an attack on Iran. But I don't think Iran is too sure of that. They believe the press reports that Bush is crazy. ::grin::

clarice

It doesn't, of course, but if true it would make this an ever greater outrage, wouldn't it? It makes what looked like an over zealour prosecution a true Star Chamber procedure.

clarice

My post was to Syl.

MayBee

Syl-
I agree with your 9:25. Absolutely.

If Valerie is/was covert and Fitzgerald thought he could charge an IIPA violation, at some point he realized he couldn't. And it wasn't due to Libby's "lies", or at least not the ones charged. Fitzgerald's investigation took a path of his own choosing, and I suspect that path had more to do with how Fitzgerald felt than what he knew or learned.
He felt Libby/Cheney/Rove had lied to him, and their motives were bad. He felt that Armitage had told him the truth, and that his motives were gossipy.

If Plame was covert and outed and others were hurt by that outing, more's the pity that Fitzgerald didn't do a decent investigation and charge the real crime.

MayBee

But again, Val's own behavior with Wilson tells me she was no longer covert in any serious way.

clarice
Another Bob

Alci, the UK Times has another leak today , indicating several top US generals and Admirals will quit if ordered to attack Iran .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Posted by: clarice | February 24, 2007 at 09:20 PM

Note that the Michael Smith that appears on that byline is the same Michael Smith that brought us the Downing Street Memos and may have been involved with the Rathergate activities.

Grains of salt are in order.

Sara (Squiggler)

Is being pregnant with twins and on maternity leave an official CIA cover? Is a year off for psyche problems due to post partum depression an official CIA cover?

Syl

Clarice

If Wilson is not covered by the whistleblower statute then he is an ordinary citizen who when he makes up shit about the VP will just have to take it when the OVP responds w/ the truth, no? Whistleblower protection is to protect govt employees who may have unique knwledge about official wrongdoing, not layabout ex-envoys on a mission.Don't let the smoke and mirrors distract you.

Apples and oranges, clarice.

As a government employee, a whistleblower is protected by statute but also has certain obligations.

As a private citizen there is NO statutory protection beyond the 1st amendment rights of the constitution. The expected response to a private citizen whistleblower should not be punishment. This is irregardless of what fitz believed the administration's response was.

In either case, whether it's a government employee doing the whistleblowing or a private citizen, accuracy of the contents of the whistleblower's statement is not a requirement.

Fitz' argument in the affidavit regarding subpoenas for reporters is a valid one and I imagine is pretty much boilerplate in such a situation. The problem, of course, is that fitz construed the administration's response as a punishment--which it was not.

Alcibiades

Clarice, Allahpundit says, about those generals: Whereupon each of them will be given book deals, hired as military analysts by MSNBC, invited to the White House correspondents dinner, and enlisted to serve as consultants on a George Clooney vehicle about their experience entitled Those Who Dared.

Anyway, it's a foolish comment. Are they saying that no matter what transpires, they would resign, which would make them sound foolish indeed.

Or are they suggesting if Bush acts prematurely they will resign. Right now, the policy is to help along the dissent in Iran, which is quite widespread already.

Alcibiades

Thanks Clarice, I was wondering about the profile of the reporters, but I didn't know anything about the reporters.

clarice

Well, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing in a different way, syl. Of course, a truthful response to a charge is not punishment. And as Cheney's govt counsel notes in the civil suit--no work reprisal was takenn against Plame at all (even though CIA employees have no legal right to sue for such reprisals had one occurred).

Syl

Maybee

If Plame was covert and outed and others were hurt by that outing, more's the pity that Fitzgerald didn't do a decent investigation and charge the real crime.

Exactly! Your whole post, I agree.

(and Clarice, yes, if what you and Toensing have been saying is true it is even worse. It's bad enough as is.)

Barry

From the timesonline article:

"A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

Anyone believe "all the generals" actually believe we don't have the ability to take on Iran?

More rubbish from anti-American writers and discredited fishwrappers.

MayBee

Also from the May affadavit:
In seeking to determine the sources for these disclosures and the motives for these disclosures, the investigation also has sought to determine whether as was reported in the Washington Post in September 2003, administration officials called a number of other members of the media to reveal information about Ms Plame

He believed the 1x2x6 article, which included the word 'revenge'. He says he investigated it. It is unclear how he did that, but my best observation is that he kept questioning administration officials until he could find some that had spoken to reporters. Armitage admitted speaking to reporters, but convinced Fitzgerald it wasn't revenge. When he found others that had spoken to reporters he thought he had found the revenge-seekers.

It is interesting that the source of the 1x2x6 was supposed to be Levine, who would have no first-hand knowledge of what Rove and Libby were up to.
Yet here's where Fitzgerald seems to find motive.

Syl

Which 'all the generals' are they referring to?

'All the generals' we interviewed for this article?

'All the generals' at the poker party last night?

'All the generals' who agreed with me?

clarice

MayBee--How does Fleischer come into that? Especially as Fitz never knew Fleischer was Pincus' source and he spent forever in the gj trying to get Libby to say HE was?

Rocco

If reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first surfaced in late 2000, not October 15, 2001 as reported by the SSCI, Isikoff and Corn’s account of Plame’s employment makes a little sense and fits nicely into this theory. From Hubris, “Following a maternity leave, Valerie Wilson returned to CPD in spring 2001 and was assigned to CPD’s Iraq unit.” We already know Val was responsible for sending Joe to Niger in 99, is it plausible they brought her back in to take care of that “Crazy Report” after her maternity leave?

Syl

re Fleischer

The entire Fleischer situation is more than odd.

Fleischer testified he didn't tell Pincus.
Pincus testified Fleischer was his source.
GJ testimony show fitz grilling Libby re Pincus.
Fleischer testified he told Gregory and Dickerson.
Pre-trail stuff shows Fitz knew Fleischer said he told Gregory and Dickerson.

I don't know (remember/) whether pre-trial we had any clue re fitz knowledge of fleisher/pincus either way.

BUT....and here is the STRANGE PART.

Pincus wrote in an article that his source GAVE HIM A WAIVER. But, well, the blanket waiver would cover this for either Fleischer or Libby BUT....

Pincus ALSO wrote that he had a release to talk to the GJ or the FBI or fitz or whatever but NOT to go public about who his source was. And Pincus never said a word about who his source was until the trial.

That doesn't sound like his source was Libby. And the blanket waivers didn't release the journalists to ONLY talk to the FBI and GJ with the addendum that the journalists could NOT go public about who they were.

So WHEN did Pincus get this extra little bit of DON'T go public? from Fleischer? No...I think he got it from fitz and fitz already KNEW that Pincus source was Fleischer and not Libby.

Or? If it was Fleischer then Fleischer KNEW he told Pincus and perjured himself in the trial.

In either case, FITZ KNEW.

Sara (Squiggler)

Rocco I had that fleeting thought. I find it hard to believe that a woman who had been out on maternity leave and then suffered PPD so severely she joined a therapy support group would be welcomed back to a highly sensitive job at CIA. But, I can see them bringing her back in to clean up something that was getting messy.

Niger is the key. It is also hard to conceive that the CIA did not have an operation ongoing monitoring the Khan network dealings. Joe makes two trips and his wife (acting almost as his control officer) is involved both times. He goes as a rep. of CIA openly, but hiding in plain sight is a perfect cover. Retired out of work has been Ambassador doing alittle open fact finding for his government as a last act of kindness -- yeah right! WTF was/is going on? It damn sure better be worth sacrificing Libby and the VP's rep over.

MayBee

clarice- Fleischer is an interesting case, isn't he? It seems to me Levine would have been talking about Fleisher if he told the investigation that someone was making calls. Doesn't that seem right to you?

So let me go way out on a limb. Levine did indeed tell Fitzgerald something about Ari, enough to make Fitzgerald think Ari was worth giving immunity to.
My guess is that Fitzgerald wanted to hear that Ari was directed to leak by one of the revenge-seekers.
By the time the Miller affadivit was written, Fitzgerald already had Fleisher's testimony, yet in the affy he is still pushing the 1x2x6 article as one of his guiding articles.
Fleisher didn't say he told Pincus, so Fitzgerald really really believes that Libby did (maybe he questioned Rove in the same manner, who knows?). It does Fitzgerald no good if Fleischer told Pincus, so he thinks it may not be true.

Fitzgerald has a good story right there in the WaPo article, and he isn't going to do anything crazy like ask the reporters who they were talking about. He isn't going to do anything crazy like write the report off as inaccurate if he finds people that were leaking, but not out of revenge.

Only revenge-seekers were interesting to Fitzgerald, and it worked out well because Fitzgerald got to determine who was seeking revenge. And viola! He found the person the article must have been referring to, without ever having to actually confirm the article with anyone.

Rocco

Sara

A spokeswoman for Dun & Bradstreet, a New Jersey operator of commercial databases, states Brewster Jennings was first entered into its records on May 22, 1994, but wouldn't discuss the source of the filing. Its records list the company, at 101 Arch St., Boston, Massachusetts, as a "legal services office," which could mean a law firm, with annual sales of $60,000, one employee, and a chief executive identified as "Victor Brewster, Partner."

The CIA also believed she was on a list given to the Russians in 1994...coincidence?

So we're to believe the CIA placed her newborn twins in jeopardy?

nite all

Syl

MayBee

Only revenge-seekers were interesting to Fitzgerald,

Most assuredly. Remember Pincus wrote that it didn't seem like a revenge thing to him. Fitz HAD to know that Pincus source was Ari, I mean Pincus did talk to him. So I think it was Fitz, not Ari, who said don't talk.

Fitz wasn't interested in Ari as anything but someone he could roll over on someone else.

But if Fitz knew Pincus would say Ari was his source, and Fitz knew that Ari claimed he wasn't Pincus source, why would he take the chance of having Ari testify and be impeached by Pincus?

Why would fitz be so adamant that Pincus not go public which would have alerted Ari to what was going on?

I think Ari is as much a puzzlement in this case as everyone else.

MayBee

Syl- It's possible (probable) that both Fitzgerald and Ari asked Pincus to keep quiet. You are right that since Pincus testified, Fitzgerald would have known he named Ari as his source.
I know other sources (Armitage) asked their reporters not to name them publicly.

Fitzgerald also knew that Libby had over confessed, right? So maybe he was trying to trap Libby into over-confessing on Pincus.
Then Fitzgerald could have painted Pincus as confused about his source, or worked on Pincus to change his story.
After all, Pincus didn't have any obligation to tell Libby's defense what he would testify to. Pincus and Woodward were stellar in their agreement to talk to the defense and didn't try to quash subpoenas from them. Mitchell, Gregory, Grenier, and Russert (among others) wouldn't do that.

In closing statements, Fitzgerald tried to paint it as unethical that Libby would have spoken to Cheney about his talks with investigators, because the FBI and Fitzgerald had told him not to. You are right, Fitz had a lot of people convinced they couldn't/shouldn't talk about the case publicly.

clarice

An interesting mystery--Maybee and SYl--
"Pincus ALSO wrote that he had a release to talk to the GJ or the FBI or fitz or whatever but NOT to go public about who his source was. And Pincus never said a word about who his source was until the trial."

Let me suggest that you check the summary of his testimony. I recall he was only asked his source for a particular story nor from whom he first learned about Wilson/Plame.

I do not think Fitz knew Fleischer was his source for that particular story until he said that at trial. If he did, he breached another ethical rule, putting on the stand a wtiness who commits perjury.(If he does and you are surprised by it, you must take steps to apprise the Court that you are not standing by the testimony--i.e., give the witness a chance to recant it or--where esp where not a client--notify the court..If it's a client you must signal to the ct that something has arisen wh creates a problem w/ your continued representation of the person).

It's all complicated--but the bottom line is that I don't think Fitz knew and Ari was not Picus' original source.He could testify at trial w/o breaching his obligation to a source, because Fleischer like all the other WH personnel signed a waiver.

Sara (Squiggler)

Didn't Pincus say something while on the stand about "now that I have the waiver" or words to that effect? I remember being surprised because it sounded like the waiver was a recent release from Ari.

Syl

Clarice

So we're talking about TWO articles? I knew it was an article Pincus was talking about (where he had a waiver and revealed the source to fitz).

MJW

Regarding the quote from the affidavit:

Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and REDACTED spoke to several reporters, including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, who wrote articles on May 6 and June 12 respectively concerning Wilson's trip to Niger, without naming Wilson.
Though it'd be nice if the redacted section (which is about 3/4 of a line long), referred to Ms. Super Spy, I doubt it refers to her or anyone else. If the "and" were followed by a name, I'd expect it to be preceded by a comma, since "who was not a government employee at the time of the trip" would be a non-restrictive clause. Since there's no comma, I suspect the "and" is part of the clause. Perhaps something like "who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and received only a per diem," or "who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and who possesses the Very Important Hair of a born truth-teller."

Syl

MJW

Good point!!

-----------
Does FDL have a better way of getting to the trial stuff? I can only guess dates on that little calendar and have to scroll through tons of FDL musings on the evils of Cheney and Bush before I find any meat. And I haven't found what I'm looking for yet.

MayBee

Here he is on direct (score one for clarice??):
J Had Fleischer given you permission to talk about this?

WP Through my lawyers, Mr Fleischer, though his lawyer, gave me permission to speak about our conversation, bc he had come forward to the prosecutor. And in fact I got the same permission to speak here today last week.

J In your testimony, you described this conversation, but you did not name Fleischer.

WP I feel strongly about identification of sources. Since prosecutor knew who source was I wanted to be able to say that I did not disclose.

Happy Days

Ah...the Khan network. I'm puzzled over that, too. It was an item on one of Libby's notes submitted for an exhibit. I've wondered about the context of it.

MayBee

MJW- considering that the sentence itself looks like the kind of convoluted mess I would write, I'm still going to BELIEVE. Surely someone could have forgotten a comma in that tangle of words.

MayBee

WP I feel strongly about identification of sources. Since prosecutor knew who source was I wanted to be able to say that I did not disclose.

-Am I reading this right, clarice and syl?
-Fitzgerald had waivers from Libby and Ari for Pincus.
-Libby and Ari both testify to conversations with Pincus, but apparently neither claim to be his source.
-Pincus testifies as to conversations he had with his sources, but assumes his source has told Fitzgerald about disclosing the wife to Pincus.
-Fitzgerald has given Ari immunity, so sits on Libby to say that he was Pincus's source.
-At trial, Pincus names Ari.

Syl

clarice

I got caught up on the whistleblower part and didn't respond to the rest of the stuff re the refferal.

The DoJ cannot provide the necessary IIPA info-it is uniquely w/in the hands of the CIA which is why Dept procedure per Toensing is that they must provide it before the Dept goes further.

I understand that (I was being facetious about 'any questions just ask') but some of the information could still have been obscured/ambiguous or classified and Walton was not able to see that. And since her situation was outside the scope of the trial, Walton did not have a need to know.

Supposedly this referral concerned the Novak and Newsday? articles. There may have been several phrases that contained 'sensitive' material not specifically related to whether she was covert or not, but were classified on their own merits.

And another thing. There is nothing to suggest that there was only one referral folded into this investigation. There could have been something else as well.

Syl

MayBee

-Am I reading this right, clarice and syl?

LOL Sure looks like it to me.

Pincus thought fitz knew.
Fitz didn't have a clue.

Okay I was wrong that Fitz knew. This is even better! LOL


Syl

WP I feel strongly about identification of sources. Since prosecutor knew who source was I wanted to be able to say that I did not disclose.

Yeah, even after getting a release. Your source (Ari) could go to jail because you did NOT reveal him. Did you ever think of that?

Just like Russert thought nothing he did could hurt Libby because he (Russert) didn't receive a leak from him. Look how THAT ended up.

When you get a waiver, come clean. Otherwise you can harm your source more than help them.

THIS aspect of source protection has not been covered by anyone, anywhere. It should be. If the press was worried that the Libby trial could weaken the press vis-a-vis source protection THIS should give you the clue that your worst fears have come true.

And if the press doesn't figure this out, perhaps the DoJ rules on how to deal with the press should be re-addressed.

And I doubt the press would be happy with the result.

MayBee

Syl- When you get a waiver, come clean. Otherwise you can harm your source more than help them.

Especially when there are two sources. Fitzgerald was going by the 1x2x6 article's revenge motive. He had already given Ari immunity- something Pincus and Libby would not have known. But Fitzgerald did, so that would make him believe Ari over Libby when it came to Pincus. After all, Fitzgerald had taken away any reason Ari might have for not being completely forthright.
How much did Fitzgerald's suspicions that Libby was lying about Pincus influence how he felt about Libby overall? Surely Pincus's story about how he was told was very different than the way Libby had described his phone calls. Imagine how Fitzgerald viewed that! It must have convinced him Libby was a big fat lying liar. An unintended consequence by Pincus, no?


I don't blame Pincus- at least he and Woodward were honorable with the defense at trial.

MayBee

Ok, as long as we are talking about uninteded consequences of the DoJ rules and the 1x2x6 article.
According to Hubris, Levine was the source for much of that story, but it was not reported correctly. Supposedly it was sourced wrong, the calls happened after the Novak article, and the "revenge" was misattributed to that portion of the story and that source. The WaPo considered a correction but decided it wasn't worth it.

Could the FBI or Fitzgerald not at least called Priest or Allen and asked if the 1x2x6 thing was even *true*? They were obviously willing to talk to someone (Corn, Isikoff) about it. Wouldn't they have been willing to tell Fitzgerald it wasn't accurate enough to base a case on?

Syl

MayBee

It must have convinced him Libby was a big fat lying liar. An unintended consequence by Pincus, no?

Definitely. I wonder if fitz felt anything other than 'aaargghhh that hurts my case' when Pincus said 'Ari Fleischer'? Any twinge there?

Pincus is an old timer, knows the rules, and plays by the book. On principle.

And as you say both Pincus and Woodward were 'honorable with the defense at trial'. Pincus couldn't have known.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

Journalists think they know. Even that airhead Cooper said he thought his testimony would help Libby because he brought her up, not Libby.

Pincus, at least, didn't pretend to know all, he just didn't 'reveal a source' he thought the prosecutor already knew. But he DID assume something he didn't know.

There's a good reason the DoJ discourages getting testimony from reporters. Reporters are going to screw you more than help.

Perhaps that's the lesson the media will take away from this. See? We messed up the Libby case, that'll teach 'em not to bother us.

And they sacrificed Libby.

arcanorum

"But as far as 1st amendment considerations go, the subpoena is more valuable against retaliation than it is against the act of whistleblowing itself even when the whistleblower releases classified info in the act of whistleblowing."

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist. One man's whistle blower is another's retaliator.

Perhaps unwise to leave it to prosecutorial 'discretion' to decide one from the other.

Wilson's leaking of classified information at the same time that he was seeking to shore up the Kerry campaign, likely in anticipation of choice ambassadorial or perhaps state departmental appointment taints any claim that he is a 'good' leaker. In fact, Fitz's prosecutorial indiscretions suggest that he too might be angling for some future political appointment. Does the man who delivers dark lord Cheney's head have no federal judicial aspirations?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame