The Wilson Gambit Part II

Early in the Fitzgerald case I wrote the Wilson Gambit in which I said," The Wilson Gambit was a stealth operation undertaken outside normal procedures and supervision, used as a political weapon, complete with lies spread by a cooperative media establishment interested in bringing down a leader and his policies which they detest" . http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html :

Azaghal, a former law enforcement officer and regular Just One Minute poster has taken a close look at what we learned as the Libby trial proceeded and concludes  in an email to me that my view has been born out:

"

I've been puzzling over the circumstances surrounding the referral letter that CIA sent to DoJ in what is commonly referred to as the Plame case. My puzzlement arises particularly in light of what Victoria Toensing wrote in the Washington Post on 02/18/2007. First, here are four statements relating to the referral:

Toensing in WaPo

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrierre.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.

Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:

Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007)

Team Fitzgerald to Team Libby:

But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral — and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it. "After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/27/2007)

Deputy AG Comey to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, 12/20/2003:

I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity ...

What can we draw from these four statements?

1. I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts. She asserts as a fact that the referral was for "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure." I have to believe she has good information for that assertion, namely that the referral was general in nature and specifically did not address the elements of Plame's status that would allow a reader of the referral to come to preliminary opinion as to whether Plame was "covert" for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

2. Judge Walton's statement to the jury would appear to confirm Toensing's assertion, because if the referral had addressed the question of Plame's covert status he would be unlikely to make such a statement to the jury, nor tell Libby's attorneys that there was no relevant information in the referral that would be of any use to them. It seems unlikely that the CIA could have sent a referral regarding the disclosure of a covert officer's indentity without presenting prima facie evidence that that officer did in fact qualify as "covert" under the IIPA--the CIA could hardly have said, hey, we don't know whether our own employee was covert but we want DoJ and the FBI to investigate it. Therefore, again, the referral would seem not to have been based on the IIPA.

3. But, running counter to these indicators is Comey's delegation of "authority" (not of "function" as the statute reads) to Fitzgerald, which specifically states that it relates to "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." What strikes me about this delegation is that it makes no reference to specific criminal statutes that may have been violated. It essentially states: here is a factual situation, investigate it. Now, there was in fact a very public allegation that a specific statute had been violated: the IIPA. Anyone who had followed the whole Plame kerfuffle in the newspapers and on the internet would have expected that the IIPA, which was referenced almost immediately after Robert Novak's article which referenced Plame appeared. Moreover, as Toensing knows better than anyone, that statute was written as a direct response to--as a solution to--the problem of unauthorized disclosures of covert officers' identity. What's going on here?

4. The answer may lie in the wording of Comey's delegation. Rather than referencing "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a [covert] CIA [officer's] identity..." the delegation only makes a vague reference to an "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." Viewed through this prism, Comey's phrasing may constitute confirmation of Toensing's assertion: the referral makes no reference to covert status but only vaguely suggests that the disclosure of Plame's employment somehow violated a statute prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

5. In the event, the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer's identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result--in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.

6. Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution--long obvious--these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer's identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officals had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime--any crime.

7. The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the president to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a "covert" officer's identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel's representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statement's--including Comey's letter--to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey's letter, although all Fitzgerald's actions reveal all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets' sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal something factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation--or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer's identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.

8. Finally, the release of all 8 hours of Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury disclose the inordinate amount of time Fitzgerald spent grilling Libby about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and when Libby talked to reporters about that. This is a clear indication that Fitzgerlad was fully aware that there was no hope for a violation of the IIPA, despite the outrageous statements he made to the trial jury. It is further apparent from the record that the CIA did not want the declassification of the NIE to take place quickly even though that left the Administration hanging out on a cliff, unable to respond to Wilson's charges. Moreover, when DCI Tenet made his July 11 mea culpa he refused to do what the Administration wanted him to do--state publicly that the CIA, not the Office of the Vice President (OVP) had sent Wilson to Niger.

From all the above, it is clear beyond dispute that this entire disgraceful episode was manufactured deceitfully as part of a campaign to undermine and even bring down the Bush Administration."

Clarice Feldman

On edit:American Thinker has retitled and edited this to put in urls for the cited material. You can find thea article at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/bait_and_switch_and_trap_the_r.html

Comments

[hit and run]

cathyf:
"AHA!!!! I'VE CAUGHT THE EVIL CHENEY!!! HE DID SOMETHING ONLY THE VICE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DO!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

Maybe Fitz is operating on the premise that Gore won in 2000?

[Wilson's a liar]

cathyf - I guess in Fitz' mind, if the motives were "impure", i.e. to tarnish Saint Joseph Wilson, then by golly there was a crime! And I'm going to nail this bastard for SOMETHING if it's the last thing I do!! I think he tried very, very hard to find a pony in there but it was really just a room full of crap.

[hit and run]

Liberman article:

By: Carrie Budoff
February 22, 2007 04:14 PM EST

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP.

[clarice]

See, I don't like Giuliani because I think he made his political bones thru prosecutorial excess. OTOH maybe we need a S.O.B. like him who knows the duplicity and perfidy of the mandarinate and isn't afraid to knock them dead when they try--instead of a terribly decent, honest man who thinks these creeps have a better nature to be appealed to.Someone who'll walk in the door, fire every US Atty (as Clinton did) and replace him w/ his own men; someone who'll call in the intel agencies and tell them if they try to pull such a stunt w/ him they'll be getting something a lot less than a gold medal; someone who removes the dogs in the DOJ and alerts them that every single communication w/ the Hill goes thru his mad dog AG or else.

[Sara (Squiggler]

While the country wastes huge amounts of time and money on this trial and on ad nauseum non-binding resolutions and anti-war rhetoric, we have this:

More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says By Jim Brown AgapePress February 22, 2007

(AgapePress) -- Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.

Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.

"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.

"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."

This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.

The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."

The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.

Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade.

[Wilson's a liar]

Excess comes with the territory when you are a high-profile prosecutor. Arlen Specter did it in Philadelphia too. And it is a proven way to eventual elected office. I think the job causes egos to inflate. Giuliani hasn't been one for a long time though.

[maryrose]

Fitz's recent behavior is off the hook. I can't imagine the jury buying his version of events regarding Libby. A flimsy case presented badly-hence the histrionics in the closing arguments.

[royf]

Sara I read that article this morning on FreeRepublic and one of the comments was to the effect, that the democrats were going to vote on a "re-deployment" within 90 days.

The comment was funny but the illegal alien problem is doing serious harm to this great country.

[Syl]

Clarice

OTOH maybe we need a S.O.B. like him who knows the duplicity and perfidy of the mandarinate and isn't afraid to knock them dead when they try

This is the (other) hand I want to shake!

[clarice]

I'd read those statistics w/ a grain of salt. Similar ones were debunked handily by Capt Ed a couple of months ago.

[ghostcat]

I'm delighted Fitz peddled his theory of the big case in his closing. If emperilling Emma is the *real* crime, it's near impossible (thanks to Woodward) to conclude that Libby is the culprit. Thanks, Fitz.

[boris]

he made his political bones thru prosecutorial excess

There's a lot to be said for your argument.

They'd certainly spend less effort trying to take advangate of his "trusting nature". The Lucy with the football trick probably won't work at all. Could actually achieve bipartisanship through respect from knowing that payback would be a real b!tch.

[clarice]

I'm serious, Boris. Really serious. And I'd like Newt to be the WH spokeperson--for a similar reason. David Gregory acts up and he'll be wearing football padding for the next presser.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Clarice -- it is a press report and not offered for the "truth of the matter." (Thank I have the legaleeze right. Right?)

It is hard to know the exact truth. My nephew (in law) was busted recently for a DUI and spent his mandatory 48 hours in a San Diego jail. He reports that of the over 200 men he was housed with, he was the only one who spoke more than broken English and one of only about 20 who were actually legal citizens. Most were there for drug or alcohol related offenses which included serious domestic violence up to murder and attempted murder. And this was the "rubber room" crowd there to dry out.

[Pete]

From all the above, it is clear beyond dispute that this entire disgraceful episode was manufactured deceitfully as part of a campaign to undermine and even bring down the Bush Administration.

Ha! The folks who "manufactured" the campaign were so prescient that they knew well in advance that Libby would lie. Brilliant!

[Rick Ballard]

"I'd read those statistics w/ a grain of salt."

You would disappoint Fenton Communications greatly if you did.

I actually read them with the Goderich Mine - a grain isn't quite enough.

[Gary Maxwell]

Clinton had sex with his wife

Thanks for the nightmare I cant get out of my head.

Not even with your cigar or something like that.

[clarice]

Pete, some really stupid person has stolen your nic to post with.

[JM Hanes]

Let us not forget the huge brouhaha over "key points" in the NIE, when Fitz had to publicly correct the record in regard to the language in his motion. You guys all remember that motion, don't you? The one that "fingered Cheney" per the WaPo? The original Leonnig (who else!) article which did that nasty deed, has since been quietly tidied up by the Post, of course.

[Jim]

The last comments remind me of a sign I saw today:

Life needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
A slice of lime
and a shot of tequila.

[Sue]

Well, another day gone by.

[MarkO]

Is Pete short for peter?

[Anarchus]

I'm with Clarice in opposing Giuliani for President and anything else he runs for based on his egregious misconduct back in the 1980s. Daniel Henniger has a nice article on Libby in today's WSJ (subscription req'd) that details a number of Rudy G's abuses, including: " . . . Back then prosecutor Giuliani flamboyantly arrested Richard Wigton (30 blameless years with Kidder, Peabody) and a youthful arbitrager named Timothy Tabor. They were handcuffed. Two years later, the charges against both were dropped. No matter. Both had been led through the media bonfire. They were ruined."

I don't know that "Paddy" Fitzgerald has egomaniacal political ambitions, but it's a sad fact of NY political life that guys like Rudy G and Eliot Spitzer can jumpstart major political careers by tarring and feathering populist criminals to make a name for themselves.

PS: There's nothing wrong with going full-bore after the bad guys and there's plenty of them - what's wrong is when it's done wantonly in the prosecutor's greedy self-interest rather than in the public interest with a healthy dose of caution where the evidence is thin and underwhelming.

[MarkO]

Just another innocent question, like Pete's.

[Wilson's a liar]

Pete - no, they didn't know Libby would lie, they thought he would tell the "truth" -- you know, my boss is a horrible man who made me tell Big Secrets to Judy Miller to get back at the sainted Joe Wilson.

[jerry]

"Tenet resigned June 3, 2004. Right before the SSCI report came out."

Just before Cheney and W got private lawyers for the Plame investigation, right after an apparently very loud argument with the President.

[Sue]

Go over to the swamp and read the post entitled 'Fitz'. And the crowd roared...

[cathyf]

Stop it, Gary. We don't need any more politics of personal destruction than we already have. I may think that Bill and Hillary did and would make terrible leaders for our country, but they are, in fact, husband and wife and shouldn't be attacked when they are not doing anything wrong.

[ErnestAbe]

There is another first person account of Wells's supposedly odd behavior during closing arguments. This one is from Pachacutec, admittedly quite biased. But it supports the prior reports that Wells really lost it on Monday, and really looked defeated during Fitzgerald's final comments.

Are there any accounts out there that describe Wells behavioiur more favorably? I'm not talking about the quality of his arguments, which on substance are clearly quite strong. I'm looking for reports on how the jury seemed to react to his behavior, especially his having his forehead in his hands for the final hour of the day.

[Syl]

JMH

The additive nature of this process is a feature, not a bug....

Congrats on your and azeghal's enlightening posts on the NIE being the main thrust of the investigation.

Two separate people within hours zeroing in on an extremely important basic detail.

The timing may be coincidental but the process of focusing on this item is not.

There are often seeds of ideas planted in various comments in threads where the thrust is elsewhere. But those comments do reach the mind and at some point will reach the surface of those like you two (and Clarice and Tom and others) who have not only analytical minds, but synthetic ones capable of relating ideas (not just in a conspiratorial connect-the-jumping-dots fashion) and fleshing them out.

The notion of investigation of the NIE disclosure has come up a few times (I've even mentioned it) but it wasn't, to my memory anyway, presented as the initial impetus for the referral.

I love this process here which feels akin to Tom and Gang exhibiting the behavior of a single brain using individual comments as thoughts.

[clarice]

I didn't forget JMH..Anarchus, you only get BIG publicity for that kind of case is the person charged is someone who is prominent and w/ a good rep.

And don't forget Fitz' Cowles case.

[LabDancer]

“1. I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts.”

I bear bad news – Out of my sense of plain duty I feel bound to suggest to you that is unreasonable and quite possibly unsafe, that you continue for even one second longer to assume any such thing. Indeed, the entirety of this particular column by Toensing supports not merely that it would be far more reasonable and safe that you assume the precise opposite, but indeed I must observe that it would be hazardous to your sanity to commit yourself to anything less than an unalterable and unreserved conclusion that the precise opposite is so. It is far from completely without hazard that you feel comfortable in the illusion that you feel safe in assuming as you have expressed, since the only reasonable conclusion that can be safely drawn from the structure, content and authorship of Toensing’s column is that only if you feel you must so indulge yourself should you even bother to consider making ANY assumption whatsoever about or from Toensing’s column, or that you feel some irresistible compulsion or even the merest of urges to obey an evidently disembodied voice to assign whatever value or meaning to Toensing’s, then I feel bound to express my deep and heart-felt sympathies for you suffering in this apparently indella dilemma in having to struggle to try to survive each and every day of your existence on this planet with the tragic incapacitation of your ability to reason, or is borne out by the complete absence of in ANY of Toensing’s columns on the Plame leak investigation and the Libby trial.

“She asserts as a fact that the referral was for "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure." I have to believe she has good information for that assertion, namely that the referral was general in nature and specifically did not address the elements of Plame's status that would allow a reader of the referral to come to preliminary opinion as to whether Plame was "covert" for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).”

I bring you good news. However, if instead of the comfort you might obtain from a serious pronouncement at to the precise depths of Toensing’s disingenuity or indisputable of you mean here to indicate that your emotional health is so bound up in this issue, on its own or as it might bear on the merits in prosecuting Libby or the outcome of the trial against him on 5 charges, that even something as indisputably illusory and factually innocuous to a person within a reasonable range of normal mental health as reserving judgment on whether Toensing has “good information” in this regard might nonetheless hold some material potential for causing in you a serious health problem, then please say just that, for upon that word I hereby commit that I would then immediately concede that it would be inhumane that I do any less than urge you to seek immediate medical attention and contemporaneously I would commit myself to nothing less than to exercise the steeliest of my resolve against giving in to any temptation to feel in any way at all concerned about you, including to refrain from the merest temptation to consider myself in any conceivable way justified in considering myself offended ever or at all by your having reached such a disordered state that you feel required to associate yourself with a concept regardless of its incorporality or immateriality or for how it might bear witness to your sincerity, and at the same time, and to the full extent I am capable, limited only by the circumstances of my health and the limits to my capacity to retain focus on your alleged struggle or even the merest of compassion for your circumstances I would continue to commit to hope that I have the willpower and physical strength to commit myself to unreservedly not giving a rat’s tiny ass what fairy tale gets you through the night.

I wish you the speediest possible recovery.

[topsecretk9]

--I'm at the federal courthouse in Washington, where we just got word a minute ago that the jury in the Libby trial has quit for the evening, with no verdict.-- Byron York

[MarkO]

The great thing about being a USA DA is that you never have to try what you think will be a close case. In this one, Fitzgerald actually had a fight.

I'm a geat tennis player, depending on the opponent I choose.

[cathyf]

it's a sad fact of NY political life that guys like Rudy G and Eliot Spitzer can jumpstart major political careers by tarring and feathering populist criminals to make a name for themselves.

Not just NY. In IL we call it "logrolling perjury." You start with a 2-bit crook, who flips on a bigger crook. You then flips on the next guy up the food chain. Eventually, you get to someone who refuses to flip, and you throw him in jail. The little inconvenient detail is that the person who refuses to flip is virtually always an innocent -- the crooks flip because, well, they're crooks. So the end result as you move up the chain, you have 3 kinds of people:

1) crooks who got off

2) up-to-then innocent people who got fingered and committed perjury against innocent people to save their own hides

3) innocent people who go to jail based upon perjured testimony

Big Jim Thompson got himself 4 terms as governor with this vicious little game.

[ErnestAbe]

Anarchus at 2:14,

I agree that Fitzgerald shows signs of being an egomaniac, but let's be careful about name-calling here.

According to Wikipedia: "Paddy, a given name, and a common nickname used in Ireland for the given name Patrick, it is sometimes used as a slang term in British English for an Irish person, although its use as slang is now considered offensive or contemptuous by Irish people. See also Terms of disparagement "

[topsecretk9]

Geez, those EWheelers take themselves so seriously.

[Sue]

I wonder how hard the holdout(s) will fight? Will they hang over the weekend?

[boris]

Victoria Toensing seems to inspire the same love and respect that moonbats lavish on Clarice.

[Dan S]

Looks like we're going for a hung jury, which was my original best result scenarion considering the likely jury.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I'm curious as to how many times Walton will try to send it back. I expect the first announcement by noon tomorrow with Walton requiring a Monday meeting. Beyond that?

[Syl]

ErnestAbe

especially his having his forehead in his hands for the final hour of the day.

Nice try, but get lost.

Wells had his head in his hands for much of the trial according to someone who was ACTUALLY THERE every day. It meant nothing.

[arcanorum]

Fred Thompson for president. Condoleeza, vice. Guiliani attorney general.

none of the other GOP pres prospects has any credibility, IMHO. Guiliani, too much baggage. McCain, too much a hothead to have a finger on the red button.

Thompson has star appeal, but is also a staunch conservative with a legitimate political history.

"When you put too much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable people who have every incentive to focus massive resources onto one particular person — who gets the plaudits in the media for doing so — it's a bad thing. And many, many times an injustice can occur," said Thompson in an exclusive interview with ABC News.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2869909&page=1

[cathyf]

I'm looking for reports on how the jury seemed to react to his behavior, especially his having his forehead in his hands for the final hour of the day.

I'm also interested in whether there is anyone in the courtroom who had the same view of Wells as the jury. Somebody back in the gallery who can only see the back of Wells's head might get completely the wrong impression if Wells was actually sitting there punctuating Fitzgerald's "rebuttal" with subtle little headshakes and eyerolls.

It doesn't matter if you look like a complete dork to the peanut gallery -- there is only one audience that matters, and they have a different viewing angle than everybody else...

[Anarchus]

Clarice/MarkO - ditto on never trying close cases on helping out careers. Spitzer's quite lucky that nearly everyone he went after in the mutual fund scandals rolled over rather than fought. Spitz lost the first big case tried against Ted Sihpol in overwhelming fashion - with 29 counts returned innocent and a hung jury on 4 remaining counts.

All charges were ultimately dropped.

[royf]

"You know your over the target when you are catching flak"

[clarice]

Fred Thompson would get my vote in a minute.

[Gary Maxwell]

Most court dont convene on Fridays. Since the jury has not been sequestered, they may not come back until Monday. Anybody know for sure?

[Sue]

I'm curious as to how many times Walton will try to send it back.

I just wonder which way the holdout(s) is leaning? And of course how many. Is it solo? If so, how long can one person hold out? I have this recurring thought that maybe we'll have an Edith Bunker on the trial who causes the jury to be held days because she won't vote guilty.

[Sue]

Gary,

According to the judge's instructions on Monday, they will be there on Friday.

[Sue]

on the trial

I meant jury.

[clarice]

This Court is open on Fridays. Judge's normally don't schedule trials on those days to deal w/ motions and sentencings and stuff like that, Gary. I expect they'll sit tomorrow.

[Rick Ballard]

"If so, how long can one person hold out?"

Well, with food, water and a place to sleep I'd be good 'til 2010 - maybe 2011.

[azaghal]

Anarchus, the Henninger article is available at OpinionJounal. It is, indeed, worth a read--overall perspective on where prosecuting is in this country.

clarice, while I share your hopes for a new president, I was reminded recently of my view that the single most irresponsible decision ever made by the Supremes was striking down the line item veto. It is my contention that no president will ever regain control over the executive branch bureaucracy without a line item veto. What reminded me of this was Murtha's announced strategy of "bleeding" by forcing the president to basically veto the whole budget if he objects to Murtha's restrictions on use of troops, training requirements, etc. Now, in this specific case, the president may win the battle politically, but in the day to day trench fighting that is government, he won't win without the line item veto. The income tax has changed politics forever in this country and we haven't caught up to that fact constitutionally.

JM Hanes. No pen to paper yet, no fingers to keyboard. Don't worry, I wasn't about to address anything that you mentioned. And the "woopsing" wasn't for you, it was for Jane who thinks I'm afflicted with political correctness as well as theocratitis. :-)

[Anarchus]

ErnestAbe - on the "Paddy" Fitzgerald, I have a close friend who was in Mr. Fitzgerald's class at Harvard Law. She told me that his nickname was "Paddy" and that he was well-liked. She and her Harvard Law pals also think he should have known better to go charging off half-cocked into a perjury case in Washington DC, where a "gaffe" occurs when someone inadvertently (and rarely!) utters the truth.

I meant nothing by the reference -- just the guy's nickname as far as I'm concerned. FYI, I'm not Irish, though my wife is . . . .

[azaghal]

Somewhat OT:

Microsoft
hit with $1.5B in damages

[JM Hanes]

Microsoft -- another slap on the wrist, I see.

[Alcibiades]

Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP.

That's just a bargaining tool for the present.

[azaghal]

I understand they maintain a $40B legal warchest.

[jerry]

I know a family who actually named their daugher Paddy (no, not Patty, it took me 40 years to realize this, but PADDY!). Talk about nutty Irish.

[clarice]

If history is a guide, J. Jeffords will be quoted on the front p of tomorrow's NYT attacking Joe for being dishonest and jumping parties midstream (w no history about him reported). LOL

[Walter]

Syl,

The notion of investigation of the NIE disclosure has come up a few times (I've even mentioned it) but it wasn't, to my memory anyway, presented as the initial impetus for the referral.

It's come around a few times:

CIA to DoJ: Someone outed an agent. Please prosecute.

DoJ to CIA: We need a little more to convince a jury that she is covered.

CIA to DoJ: Well, how about looking into the leak of the NIE, etc. at the same time, then. Maybe it's a conspiracy...

As JMH mentioned, it's an additive process.

[Alcibiades]

See, I don't like Giuliani because I think he made his political bones thru prosecutorial excess. OTOH maybe we need a S.O.B. like him who knows the duplicity and perfidy of the mandarinate and isn't afraid to knock them dead when they try--instead of a terribly decent, honest man who thinks these creeps have a better nature to be appealed to.Someone who'll walk in the door, fire every US Atty (as Clinton did) and replace him w/ his own men; someone who'll call in the intel agencies and tell them if they try to pull such a stunt w/ him they'll be getting something a lot less than a gold medal; someone who removes the dogs in the DOJ and alerts them that every single communication w/ the Hill goes thru his mad dog AG or else.

Unfortunately, but in this era of nasty politics, it may be absolutely necessary.

Read something on a liberal website yesterday that began, "according to a friend of mine, Giuliani is even worse than Bush."

I'm still in NYC and I had lunch with an old friend-- a really smart one-- who told me he thinks Giuliani is even worse than Bush. Worse than Bush? Can you imagine? Unlike me, he lived here while Giuliani was mayor.

As I have been predicting just this meme for some time, I can't say I'm surprised. We heard tons of it when he was mayor.

OTOH, an effective political player is going to look really attractive to fill the role of next President.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Pete, some really stupid person has stolen your nic to post with.

Hard to tell the difference though.

[Walter]

I should also note that CathyF:) made the same point right above my linked comment above. But she was more pithy. And she smiled--which I'm told by FDL'ers helps her connect better with the audience.

[clarice]

True. Charlie, I could be wrong on that.

[JM Hanes]

Alcibiades:

"Worse than Bush!" A meme is born. This one will have real staying power, because you can append it to any candidate you (don't) like.

[JM Hanes]

I'd go for Fred Thompson anytime, anywhere. Years back, he and Joe Lieberman (IIRC) sat in for a vacationing Chris Matthews, and for one fab week, they did the best news/interview hour I've ever seen. They didn't settle for mere talking points from anybody, and yet remained unfailingly civil to all and to each other. If he can't be corralled for public office again, I'd sure like to see him in an anchor chair. He'd be a common sense shot in the MSM arm.

[PaulL]

If Lieberman switched, which he won't, there'd be nothing to stop Hagel from switching. I think Hagel would--he'd be deified by the media.

[Sara (SquigglerByron]

Scooter and Judge Larry

Byron York on the ANS hearing with Judge Larry as it relates to Libby case. If you watched any of the last 3 days, this will make you laugh.

And does anyone remember every seeing a judge burst into tears as he reads his own order?

[Jane]

Fineman thinks Tenet's motive was simple revenge.

This makes sense to me given the scheme of things.

Thanks to the jury for holding out until I got back.

Has Sad/glad/bad been around? Anyone hear from her this week?

[Jane]

That's just a bargaining tool for the present.

I greatly appreciate what he is bargaining for. He is aces in my book, even if he doesn't switch parties.

[Chris]

I think which ever way the jury goes they should fire and march Comey out the door... like within 15 minutes of the Jury coming back in! At the same time Shut down Fitz's power and ship him off to Antartica...

These two scumbags had bad blood with Libby and used their positions to settle a grudge.... This must be a firing offense.

Regards,
Chris

[clarice]

Jane, I haven't seen her today.

[miriam]

Bait and Switch by Clarice

Great article

[clarice]

Chris, Comey left a longtime ago. He's at Lockhead in Rockville, MD in case you're wondering.

[Another Bob]

clarice | February 22, 2007 at 03:38 PM

Clarice - Was that "Lockhead" a typo?

Lockheed was a customer of mine, and we occasionally used the term "Lockhead" intentionally...

[lurker]

So if the jury is to continue determining the verdict on all of these counts tomorrow, will they reach something and announce it tomorrow?

[cathyf]

Comey "retired" from government service 18 months ago, so there'll be no frog march there.

Although the results of a civil trial might be interesting... (Of course no one has any right to expect Libby to sacrifice any more in the service of his ungrateful (ingrate!) country than what he has done.)

But to be realistic, Comey and probably Fitzgerald too will get away with it with no consequences to them. That's just the way life is...

[lurker]

Lockheed-Martin

[Jane]

You know Clarice I can see a movie here. You would have to superimpose what really happened over what the libs were pushing, in some sort of fabulous weird conflation so by hour 2 the audience was rapt and the truth was only starting to dawn on them.

We need a screenplay writer.

[clarice]

Miriam--that's almost all azaghal's article.
Yes, I meant Lockheed, not Lockhead..I think.

[clarice]

Jane. that would be good..Maybe when Soylent's out of basic training..or we could put it in PUK's hands. (Except I see how easily PUK would reverse the story once those cute groupies at the Independent Film Festival in their Che T-shirts start flocking about.)

[Jane]

It's gonna be done. It may as well be done here, so it gets done right.

I think we can keep PUK in line. We'll just wave a ton of quid in front of him.

[Sue]

I've been thinking about the jury in the Scott Peterson trial. On the day they were going to announce the verdict, they all came dressed in their best for the cameras. I hope our court watchers are noticing what the jury wears in the morning.

[bad]

Hey Jane!! I've been keeping up and enjoying all of the commentary immensely. Still convinced that Hillary will be the Dimnom cause she's going to bully and buy everyone else out of the way. Still hoping for a Libby aquittal.

[miriam]

Miriam--that's almost all azaghal's article.

Sorry, Clarice. I posted it as by Clarice because your byline was there. I certainly didn't mean to give credit to the wrong person.

I was hoping people would jump to the link, read the whole thing and exclaim excitedly.

[Chris]

Well thanks for the info on Comey... I'm glad he's gone...

I just think he should be someone's cellmate for awhile...

Regards,
Chris

[Enlightened]

I'm still here lurking too. I figured out not too long ago that staying on the sidelines, quietly observing the superior brain trust of JOM, is infinitely more satisfying than stumbling over my aching brain cells trying to keep up with Clarice et al.

It was fun to bait the trolls for awhile, but they are so sadly inferior, it became akin to stepping on the same bug for the millionth time. They only squish once.

[Alcibiades]

Scary scenario:

It occurs to me that not only do the jurors have to do battle with their own hostility to the Bush Administration; subliminally, the ones with bad BDS or friends with bad BDS have to realize that if they go for the not guilty charge, their friends back home or spouses or family members are going to crucify them.

Just another hurdle to overcome on the way to not guilty.

[Joseph Somsel]

I'm a bit disappointed with the ease at which we assign childish motives to the actions of very sophisticated power players (like simple vengence or embarassment.)

These guys and gals are experienced at playing hardball in the big leagues, even Joe Wilson. They wouldn't have advanced to their present stations without a great deal of self-control and to say Tenet did this because of vengence or Wilson did that because of vanity is taking the easy way out.

I can only imagine that their moves are all calculated and the result of considered plans. Certainly mistakes and oversights occur but such errors would be rare for a Director of Central Intelligence or a Federal Prosecuting Attorney.

Our problem is to figure out what was really motivating them based on limited and often hidden information or even disinformation.

Hope that impulse doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist!

[Jane]

Still hoping for a Libby aquittal.

Bad,

From your lips...

Like it or not, you are going to have to occasionally announce your presence and let us know you are kicking ass out there!

[Sue]

Just another hurdle to overcome on the way to not guilty.

I'm still going with a compromise jury. The Russert counts for the Cooper counts.

[Barney Frank]

--I'm a bit disappointed with the ease at which we assign childish motives to the actions of very sophisticated power players (like simple vengence or embarassment.)--

Don't give these dopes too much credit.They put their trousers, or if it was a particularly rough night, other's trousers, on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Some are smart, some are morons, some are sophisticated some are as infantile as Baby Huey.

[Sara (SquigglerByron]

When looking for motive, especially in relation to CIA and even DOJ, I think we cannot discount what was going on during the time period with the 9/11 Commission. There were a lot of fingers being pointed in every direction. The FBI took hits, the CIA took hits and feelings were running hot as everyone tried to either avoid being blamed or find someone worse than themselves to blame.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

[steve]

Joseph: You're confusing ends and means. A person may make a cool instrumental calculation about how to do something that is motivated by vanity, ambition, revenge, etc. David Hume pointed out that reason must, by necessity, be a slave of the passions, and I think his argument (Hume's Guillotine) has never been refuted.

[Jane]

I can only imagine that their moves are all calculated and the result of considered plans. Certainly mistakes and oversights occur but such errors would be rare for a Director of Central Intelligence or a Federal Prosecuting Attorney.

I disagree. Being a top bureaucrat may make you politically savvy but it doesn't necessarily mean you know a damn thing about anything that counts or that you can see the forest for the trees.

[Sara (SquigglerByron]

And Jane, being a political appointee may mean you are very bright, very well educated and a great managerial type to run divisions or departments, it is no guarantee that you will know anything about the product of that division or department. I give you Colin Powell as a perfect example. What in his long career as a military man and Head of Joints Chief gave him the training needed to be a diplomat and run the State Department?

My ex was a Navy officer and used to giving an order and having it obeyed. When he retired and took on a managerial role in a large civilian corporation, his years of training in an engineering field came into play, even all the training he'd had on planning and organization, but when suddenly faced with a situation where there was no down side for low level performance, poor work habits, backbiting or insubordination, etc., he was really floundering. He did not understand "office politics."

Powell had no real frame of reference for the nest of intrigue filled with snakes and prima donas that is/was our State Department.

[Sara (SquigglerByron]

Nor do I think a man such as Powell understood the petty factions that were formed and disbanded constantly, especially when it involved other departments. He was a man schooled in loyalty and duty and not the whispers and pseudo-alliances so prevalent in State, but not exclusive to them as the CIA seems almost as bad.

[maryrose]

There is analytical intelligence and emotional intelligence. Both are needed to be successful in the real world and workplace. The abilty to compromise and to relate to others is essential to success.Standing on your own two feet without help from your partner [Hil from Bill and Joe from Val} is necessary to be taken seriously.