Powered by TypePad

« Media Matters Counterspin | Main | Confusion In The Deliberation Room »

March 07, 2007

Comments

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

What was the date of the crime?

And, how was Libby able to defend himself, if the judge denied his counsel an opportunity to impeach Russert? Since when do the attorneys for NBC run court rooms? Is that why waltoon's court is a CRIMINAL ONE? Because of what NBC could do?

You think the truth won't come out?

How much string did the jurors use to tie this trap together?

Sure. They wanted to see Cheney. And, even the PResident. They really had thoughts of grandure, huh? The "little people talking to power."

Well, when you figure out what the juror's instructions looked like. And, how the miscarriage of justice took place, as you unravel this thing. You'll see the C-STUDENT himself, the junior shrub, not growing much while in office.

We pay a price for these dynasties, ya know?

And, this time? We have a man who can't even give a coherent speech! You think this whole charade would have gotten this far if there was a modicum of talent within the prez? Nah. I didn't think so. He's cut from the same cloth as Gerald Ford. IN the job because he seemed to be at the right place at the right time. But not a stellar performer.

As to Libby? His mistake was in taking the job at the White House, and then working so hard.

But he's not alone. Martha Stewart took this same walk before him. Of course, his law license just flew the coop.

And, Fitz has had his revenge. But it wasn't worth it.

Oh, while you're at it. I'm serious. On what date did the crime occur. You're wearing a watch? At what TIME on that date did this crime take place.

Answer that and there are bank robbers looking for you. To be their lookout. While they rob banks and you can't find your putz.

Chutzpah

Let's count all the lies in the Washington Post!

Oh, wait; we haven't all day. All right, let's just count the lies in one story reporting on I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction today in federal court of four out of five charges brought against him by special persecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Besides the smarmy inuendo, there are three clear and obvious falsehoods, starting with this one:

Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was sent by the CIA on a mission to Niger in 2002 to assess reports that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear materials there. He concluded the reports were false.

Not according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, he didn't.

To begin with, here are the famous (infamous?) "sixteen words" that President Bush used in his 2003 State of the Union speech, delivered on January 28th, 2003:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

...Just so we know what Lyin' Joe Wilson later claimed to have refuted. But when Wilson was debriefed by his CIA handlers, he actually affirmed Bush's claim -- which was that Iraq had sought -- tried to obtain -- Uranium from Africa (not that we claimed Hussein had actually gotten his mits on any). In the Senate Intelligence Committee report cited above, we read this:

The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8,2002....

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki... said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted by Senate committee]-businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

(Page 43 of the document, page 8 of the pdf linked above.)

Remember, this is from the intelligence report by Joe Wilson's CIA handlers, based upon Wilson's oral debriefing of what he found in Niger.

This is very strong evidence that Iraq was, in fact, seeking Uranium from Africa... and Bush was absolutely right; and Wilson is totally wrong when he says today that he found nothing to back up the "sixteen words".

Wilson lied, and now the Washington Post has knowingly perpetuated that lie in order to boost Ambassador Wilson and damage President Bush.

Next big lie:

Testimony and evidence revealed that the vice president dictated precise talking points he wanted Libby and other aides to use to rebut Wilson's accusations against the White House, helped select which journalists would be contacted and worked with Bush to declassify secret intelligence reports on Iraqi weapons that he believed would contradict Wilson's claims.

"There is a cloud over what the vice president did," Fitzgerald told jurors in the prosecution's closing arguments. "That's not something we put there. That cloud is not something you can pretend is not there."

Wait, wait, wait -- ! Isn't that a subjective opinion? How can an opinion (let alone anything subjective) be a "lie?"

Let's deal with this question immediately. What is the definition of a lie? A lie is any word or action intended to deceive. Whether objective or subjective isn't part of the definition... that only speaks to how easy or hard it is to prove. Case in point:

Suppose one of the rabid Republican Coulter-haters were to say, at the end of a harangue about Ann Coulter, the following: "And on top of everything else, she's so fat, it's obvious she's still stuck back in the oral phase of development; she cannot be trusted, because that developmental phase doesn't even understand the distinction between right and wrong."

Is that subjective? Absolutely. Is it an opinion? No question about it: "so fat" is a comparative, and without knowing the thing it's being compared to, it's not a factual statement. Ann Coulter is certainly fat compared to Mahatma Gandhi during a 25-day hunger strike, for example.

Nevertheless, such a statement would be a lie. It's clearly false -- she is actually very thin -- and the intent is to deceive the listener into ignoring what she says on the specious grounds that her "fatness" means she's untrustworthy. A subjective opinion can be a lie, if the intent is to deceive.

Let's get back to Fitzgerald and his imaginary cloud...

The special prosecutor knows that Vice President Cheney has not been convicted of any crime. And why not? Well, for one reason, because Fitzgerald was not even able to get the grand jury to indict him, despite having had ample opportunities before that body.

And why wasn't Fitzgerald able to get the grand jury to indict Cheney? Clearly because the grand jury did not believe there was evidence that Cheney committed any crime!

Thus, what "cloud" is he talking about? Why, the only one we can see is a black cloud of suspicion. And since neither the court nor the grand jury put the suspicion there, Patrick Fitzgerald could only have been talking about what he, himself planted -- precisely by saying "There is a cloud over what the vice president did."

Which makes his second sentence a lie as well... the one where he said, "That's not something we put there." Oh yes you did, Mr. big-shot Special Prosecutor.

And the Washington Post knows it's a falsehood; yet it helps Fitzgerald put it across. The Post is an accessory after the fact to a big, fat, sloppy lie.

Finally, this one is really fascinating:

Fitzgerald and fellow prosecutors showed notes hand-written by Cheney and Libby indicating that the vice president was deeply disturbed by Wilson's explosive accusations that the White House had used bogus intelligence to justify the war. Witnesses and evidence showed Cheney orchestrating a point-by-point response to Wilson's claims -- some of it misleading -- that the administration gave to hand-picked reporters.

What is interesting is the ambiguous way the Post chose to slip this one across. What is the referrant of the word "it" in the parenthetical phrase? What is "misleading" -- Wilson's accusations or Cheney's response?

Fortunately for us (but not for the Post), we can definitively answer that question. "It" is singular... so it cannot refer to Wilson's accusations, which are plural. The pronoun can only substitute for Cheney's singular response.

We all know about the multiple layers of editorial input to which all stories in the elite media are subject; and while they may miss minor things like deceit, misrepresentation, and bare-faced fabrication in the body of a story... I'm certain they're quite strong on noun-pronoun agreement.

When they wrote "some of it is misleading," they meant some of Cheney's response.

This, then, is a direct accusation of deception against the vice president. But there is no attempt to substantiate the charge; it just lies there like a lox, waiting to be gobbled up.

This is clearly meant to make readers believe there is some legitimate body of evidence indicating that Cheney's response to Lyin' Joe Wilson was intentionally deceptive. But by dropping the deception depth-bomb without any intent to back it up, the Post's fraudulent claim itself is an attempt to deceive.

And therefore, this is a third Washington Post lie in the same story.

So that's that, there you have it, and I'm washing my hands of the whole affair. The Post retailed three obvious, provable lies -- in a story about a guy just convicted of lying!

That may become the new dictionary example of chutzpah.

M. Simon

A. Q. Kahn, Libya, Iraq

Chutzpah

See: Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Page 43 of the document, page 8 of the pdf)

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf

M. Simon

Senate Intelligence Committee Report [pdf]

M. Simon

Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/02/duke-fever.html
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
with
Duke Fever

Duke Fever

birdseye

Bush can easily call a press conference and lay down the facts once and for all- like who sent Wilson, etc. Alas, he won't do it. This administration has been taking it and taking it from the Dems and the MSM. Bush has no spine.

kate

Bush has neglected to fight back for so long that now he is unable to fight back.

He barely won the 2004 election against a weak candidate and that was mostly due to the bloggers who nailed Dan Rather and the Swiftboat Veterans who took on John Kerry. It certainly was not due to Bush's brilliant debate performances.

I voted for Bush but got Kerry. Weak in foreign affairs, state dept mush.

His military commanders got spooked by the media in the Battle of Fallujah and pulled back.

Who wants to fight for a President who will not fight. He seems defeated and afraid.

MayBee

This is what the juror, Denis Collins, just said on Anderson Cooper (attention MJW)-

Just days before Libby was supposed to be surprised, VP Cheney gave Libby a copy of Wilson's OP-Ed with underlines and his handwritten notes on it.

That's a paraphrase.
I'll find the transcript from AC360.
But that is absolutely incorrect. Libby never saw Cheney's article, and there is no evidence they discussed it.

MayBee

Here's the transcript:

COOPER: Was there a crucial piece of testimony that convinced you, that convinced the jury, that Libby was guilty on these counts?

COLLINS: There wasn't any crucial piece.

There were many, you know, pieces. And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

Now, that was just a few days before Mr. Libby sort of testified, talked, you know, made the statement that he didn't remember or was surprised. And it's very hard to believe he could have forgotten that in that time -- that short a time period.

american in europe

One thing the Clintons were really good at was keeping their story in the press and countering negative stories as soon as they appeared. A lot of conservatives complain that the media is hopelessly biassed, and there's a lot of truth to that, but mostly they are lazy, and if you give them a story 2/3 written they will run with it because it makes their lifes easier. The Clintons did that by constantly spoon feeding the press, but the Bush team doesn't seem to make any effort at all. I think they wrote off the media from day one because they thought they would never get a fair hearing, but it was a big mistake. They left the field open to their enemies, and this ridiculous trial is the result.

kate

I think Bush is afraid that if he decides to fight it will mobolize his enemies in the media and the Democrats and hurt his agenda.

I would argue that it can't get much worse. That the media senses weakness. We are at war. Bush has an obligation to keep support for the war high. He has failed to do this.

On Brit Hume last night they ended with Bush botching a line in a speech. I felt bad for him, he was not always this bad.

I am rooting for him and I think a fight with the media would energize many people and give him an opportunity to reconnect with the country (the 75% that are total nuts).

kate

uggg...(the 75% that are not total nuts).

PMII

Anyone surprised by the statements from the jury?

Jane

Good Morning!

hit and run

It's official. Predictions yesterday of "the sun will come out tomorrow" are true today.

Terrye

Kate:

That is too simplistic. The truth is it was the desire to "fight back" that helped make all this happen.

I think Libby got the shaft but if the man had just said I do not recall instead of talking and talking it is doubtful he would be where he is today.

What is Bush supposed to do about that? You say it is Bush's job to keep support for the war high as if people are the Borg and can be programmed to think a particular way.

Bush will end up taking a political hit for this and while I think the whole thing is a travesty of justice, I also think that blaming it on Bush when he was not the one chumming it up with all these reporters is just absurd.

The truth is the media has been out to get this administration for a long time and the business with Rather makes that plain.

Look at Blair in Britain, he is not a pushover for anyone but he has had to endure much of the same nonsense because of the press.

And I think in the long run the press will come out of all this looking not so good. All Bush can do is hope the damage ends with Libby.

goddessoftheclassroom

Given the other choices, I will NEVER regret voting for President Bush.

I agree he hasn't played the media well. He wanted to be above it, but it's pulling him down. I think the presiden't definition of "doing the right thing" is about what's best for the country, not what makes him or the Republicans look good.

His decisions may prove to be wrong, but I don't think anyone can accuse him of self-aggrandizement.

I am deeply upset over the Libby verdict. My initial chldish reaction was, "It isn't fair!" However, I have an equally childish belief in right triumphing in the end (however long that takes), so I'm holding fast to that.

Finally, thank you to all of you who have explained issues along the way.

Tom Maguire

Predictions yesterday of "the sun will come out tomorrow" are true today.

I thought the forecast was for continued storm and clouds.

davod

Russert was on one of late night shows last night.

Jane

Here's to a troll free day!

troll

Bush lied, people died!

royf

That is too simplistic. The truth is it was the desire to "fight back" that helped make all this happen.

You are absolutely correct in your comments, The White House was in the process of getting the NIE declassified so that the facts themselves would debunk Wilson's lying editoral. The White House was trying to get the truth out on this sham to the press.

In the mean time The State department and the CIA were involved in a pissing match, The state department via Armitage leaked Plame's name and status to several journalists to discredit the CIA. The media saw a chance to smear the White House and ran with it, today they still talk about a leak at the White House when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plame's name didn't come from the Administration. They also still call Joe Wilson "a critic" instead of the partisan lying hack the Senate Intelligence Report proves him to be.

They never report the Joe Wilson was hired by the Kerry campaign or the he is a Clinton insider. This abomination of a investigation and trial lay at the feet of the media, The White House did all it could to put the facts out there. Those facts were ignored and the MSM twisted falsehood and innuendo into a smear of this Administration.

hit and run

TM:
I thought the forecast was for continued storm and clouds.

Oh yea, clouds over the OVP. And Cheney specifically - like Pigpen in Charlie Brown.

Here? Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy. Sunshine in my eyes can make me cry. Sunshine on the water looks so lovely. Sunshine almost all the time makes me high

Willie Nelson

Sunshine almost all the time makes me high
That and a little of the herb.

Missy

The weather has settled down in the Midwest so hopefully you Easterners will see an improvement soon.

May you get just enough clouds to make a beautiful sunset.

Pofarmer

There were many, you know, pieces. And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

So the jury didn't even understand the evidence provided them?

It certainly looks like they took "state of mind" evidence and applied it in other ways. Which was exactly what Fitz was hoping for, I imagine.

hit and run

Willie, just remember, You can't hang a man for killin a woman who's trying to steal your horse....

Does that relate to Libby? Uh, no (maybe? hmmmm). But it is off my favoritest album ever.

Oh and sunshine on my shoulders wudn't Willie.

It was John Denver, which gets us back to the Aspens, whose leaves should be budding soon and whose roots are connected, etc.

I am quickly veering into Carol territory. Which is not altogether bad, if you have a little of the herb. ::waving at Carol::

PMII

What are the chances of getting a new trial? What are the chances of getting a new trial & an unbiased jury? What's the chances of getting a new tial and a jury slanted towards hanging Fitz?

Alcibiades

Russert may have looked terrible yesterday, but he's on Imus today and he's absolutely shameless. He just told Imus that it is still unclear whether the VP had input in sending Joe. That Democrat congressman dissented from the Senate report which stated his wife sent him - meaning obviously that that matter is now in dispute.

That Gregory and Mitchell absolutely did not know; that Andrea obviously misspoke during the famous time she said "everyone knew". That the judge was informed of this and decided Andrea's information had no bearing on the case - as though that makes it an absolute fact.

He comes across absolutely convinced and more pompous than ever - now that he is off the stand where his credibility certainly did not look this shiny.

Guilty verdict retrospectively makes all kind of Democrat conspiracies come true.

Pofarmer

John Denver and Willie.

Hit and run, I knew you were all right.

Pofarmer

What are the chances of getting a new trial? What are the chances of getting a new trial & an unbiased jury? What's the chances of getting a new tial and a jury slanted towards hanging Fitz?

Get a jury outside of any major metro area. Remember the red and blue election maps? There's very few cities where Libby could get a fair trial.

Pofarmer

He just told Imus that it is still unclear whether the VP had input in sending Joe.

Some kind of time space paqradigm, then?

liontooth

Libby's guilty verdict is the direct result of Wells stupid strategy and Libby going along with it. The proper defense would have been that the wife was an insignificant detail and anyone would easily forget it. The fact is that Armitage nor anyone else was charged with revealing her identity, and Libby's trial should have focused on that fact.

If there was no crime, then there was no cover-up, no reason to lie and no need to have a "fall guy".

hit and run

Pofarmer, no clearer childhood memory than riding in the car with my dad singing along with the 8-track..."shotgun willie sits around in his underwear....biting on a bullet, pulling out all of his hair"

I mean, as a kid, singing about underwear?

I know this may come as a surprise to some here, but I found that really funny when I was 8.

sferris

It was Colonel Cheney in the Navel Observatory with a shotgun. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.

capitano

Alcibades --

Yes, I agree that Russert was more aggressive, but he sounded unsteady to me and not just because he had a "cold." Very calculated answers. Imus served up the softball criticisms so Russert could inoculate himself with plausible half-answers.

Russert's non-denial denial was that everyone knows Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory as aggressive reporters, so if they knew about Valerie Plame's status they would have been on the air ASAP.

Pofarmer

liontooth.

That might be true, except the jury guy said they thought Libby was the fall guy. They just didn't care.

If they misread what the Cheney article represented, which they apparently did, I don't think there's much that could have saved scooter at this stage.

lurker

CAptain's Quarters believes that but the conviction under those circumstances is entirely appropriate.

He doesn't understand that this is a case of a missing crime.

Alcibiades

capitano,

I agree that Russert's answers all went according to the script, but I didn't hear the unsteadiness myself, and I was listening for it. Though I came in in the middle, so may have missed something at the beginning.

Agree about the non-denial denials, but most people won't look past that now that the guilty verdict is in, because that has changed the landscape considerably. And then he had that whole narrative about wondering quite often about why Libby had used him in the story when it obviously was not true. It did not come across in the least as introspective or modest to me. Just canned.

Though Russert did mention that now as a result of this trial, his job as a reporter will be harder - he meant it in the universal sense, this will be true for all reporters. And the two of them together entirely forgot to mention the fact that he blabbed to the FBI without a subpoena.

sferris

Seem to me Libby's entire defense comes down to a pardon. Keep quite and wait. Pathetic.

capitano

Alcibiades --

I joined it midway myself and may be reading too much into the sound of his voice (which unfortunately will not come through in transcript form). Maybe he was just recovering from a late night of celebrating.

liontooth

Pofarmer:

The juror was refering back to Well's opening,

"It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy."

From the beginning, the defense told the jurors something was going on, but that others were trying to use Libby. Your only a fall guy if that something is illegal. If something illegal was going on, then there is the motive for Libby to lie, and that's courtesy of Wells.

Alcibiades

Wells has proven quite able at getting off black democrats in Washington; white republicans, not at all.

I agree with MarkO who said that David Boies might have helped Scooter.

Other Tom

For those who want a little pick-me-up in addition to the Bloody Marys, have a good read about the judge who will preside over the Wilsons' civil suit. His next act will be to rule on the pending motions to dismiss some time in May. (Sorry, but in my Golden Years I just can't handle creating permalinks.)

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

Recommended reading for trolls.

Other Tom

Beg to differ. I believe Wells represented white Republican Ray Donovan back in the Reagan years. Donovan was completely cleared, but then famously asked, "where do I go to get my good name back?"

centralcal

Good morning. I just read Clarice's article at American Thinker. Very well done Clarice!

The liberal democrat media (they are not separate entities, but one and the same) have won another round in destroying the fabric of our country and justice system. We need to do something other than bitc*h, pis*, moan and groan about it.

Sue

Did anyone catch Howard Fineman on Keith Olberman last night? I watched in fascination as he told a story that was so far from the truth and if it was even close to the truth, Libby's appeal should be a slam dunk. I don't know how quick they put out transcripts of that show but I'll watch for it. Amazing!

arcanorum

Fred Thompson is said to be considering a run for president. (He is also leading the charge for Libby's defense fund).

He has an article up now on National Review regarding the Libby travesty, and it includes his contact email: fthompson@aei.org

He is a solid conservative and has a substantial history in politics (as well as acting). I would encourage anyone to contact him at this email, and encourage him to run. I believe he is the best hope to keep the whitehouse out of the hands of hillary.

Sue

And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

Is that from a juror? If so, my gawd! Libby testified he had never seen the article until Fitzgerald presented it to him at his gj testimony. And Fitzgerald provided no proof he had seen it.

SunnyDay

Mark Levin did a nice take-down on yesterday's show. It's available via podcast at his website.

marklevinshow*dot*com

Sue

Now, that was just a few days before Mr. Libby sort of testified, talked, you know, made the statement that he didn't remember or was surprised. And it's very hard to believe he could have forgotten that in that time -- that short a time period.

What? Was there evidence that Cheney gave the article to Libby right before he testified or talked or made the statement he didn't remember? Are they making up their own set of facts?

arcanorum

I believe that the boldest step the president could take would be to immediately pardon Libby, and then offer him (actually beg him to take) his old job back.

He should also immediately fire Fitzgerald, as he has the right to do, and take action within the DoJ to inquire as to the propriety of his actions in this case.

Fitz wants a political scalp? He can have one. His own.

Jane

For those who want a little pick-me-up in addition to the Bloody Marys

Love it, love it, love it!

MayBee

Sue-
Own set of facts. It is absolutely in the testimony that Libby says he never saw it, and Fitzgerald didn't attempt to prove otherwise.
That's bad, I think.

centralcal

What are the chances of Libby changing his legal team before an appeal? Slim to none? Can that be done? Honestly, I was not impressed at all with Wells, et al., even allowing for emptywheel's poor transcripts.

clarice

Chutzpah, what a fine fisking! I hope you send it to the editors.Even the style section today is full of that kind of macaca.

Sue

That's bad, I think.

Well, yeah, but I don't know if it is bad as in anything Libby can work with. Bush could use it. The jury got the facts wrong.

Jane

Trial lawyers are rarely if ever appellate lawyers. He may keep the same firm, but it won't be the same team.

centralcal

Thank you for the info, Jane.

Neo

Let me get this straight now ..

Mr. Denis Collins is a Washington Post reporter and the author of a book on spies, was also a former neighbor of Tim Russert.

How did this guy get on this jury ?

Did he put that he knew Russert on his jury questionaire ?

Sue

Neo,

Yes. But I can't find out if he told them he had just authored a book about covert CIA agents.

Jim E.

A super-quick skim of TM's archives shows some interesting stuff. Back around the time when the story first broke, TM was eagerly trying to defend Karl Rove and Bush from their involvement in the whole Plame leak. Wonder where Tom pointed his finger? Take a look (all are from a single week in 2003 -- pre-FBI interviews, pre-Fitz):

Sept. 28: “If we recall, it was Dick Cheney, his people, and his Chief of Staff, 'Scooter' Libby, that were the sinister forces behind the '16 Words'. My Psychic Prediction - two people on Dick Cheney's staff are to blame for this. Since we recently saw the President contradict Vice President Cheney on the linkage between Saddam and 9/11, we sense a division, and a vulnerability here.”

Sept. 30: “[Libby] is still my first round pick for this, BTW.”

Oct. 3, 2003 “Looks bad for Libby. . . . I say, look to the other obvious power center in the White House - Cheney has his own staff, is an elected official, and so may well have his own loyalists. Including I. Libby "Scooter" Lewis.”

Anyways, color me impressed. That was a long damn time ago, and TM called it.

And on the day of the indictment, TM suggested Libby use an insanity defense, indicating the strength of the evidence against him.

Since then, particularly of late, TM's devotion to Scooter -- and shrill, clarice-like contempt for Fitz -- has increased exponentially. I just wanted to point out that TM was far ahead of the curve, and was throwing Libby under the proverbial bus long before most of America had ever heard of Scooter Libby.

Bill Murray

I think Scooter & his wife should invite President Bush and Laura over to their home for dinner Friday night.

I also think the President should accept.

If one thinks the MSM went bonkers with the Rove invite, just watch if this were to happen.

Sue

Mr. E,

Maybe, like me, Tom thought Fitz had more on Libby than he actually had. I too was in the Libby was insane camp. I kept waiting for Fitzgerald to prove it. I understand a jury bout Fitzgerald's evidence. I went from thinking he was guilty to reasonable doubt. But alas, I wasn't on the jury...

sammy small

Something everyone seems to be missing is that Fitz's only mandate (as he apparently understood it) was to investigate the Administration's culpability in the whole affair, not to determine what happened. In doing so, he bypassed anything that didn't contribute to ferreting out a WH official on any type of charge. I believe he would have continued to call admin officials for questioning until he uncovered some discrepancy, no matter how long it took. Libby just made it easier to get to that point.

Sue

bout should be bought

Pofarmer

Funniest thing just happened to me. I've been trying to get some parts for a Cummins engine used in an Ag application. (bear with me) Now, the Ag applications(CaseIH) use different part #'s than the truck applications that Cummins normally deals with. So, I talked to the parts a guy yesterday for a turbo, gave him the CaseIH serial #.

He says "I can't cross it, but I'll call Cummins and see what they say."

I called back this morning to see what he'd found out.

He says. "Well, I called Cummins, and they said just replace the J in the serial # with a 3, and it works for a Cummins number."

I say, "Man,that's handy, I'd never heard that."

He says. "Well, I'd heard it before, but I'd forgotten it till this guy told me again."

Parts is this guys business. He is in an area where there are a ton of Ag Customers, and he forgot that?

Shit!!! And Libby could go to jail?

I think the jury was on crack.

Alcibiades

Thanks for the correction, OT.

Sue

I think the jury was on crack.

The jury was why I thought Libby didn't stand a chance. The make-up of the jury pool in DC is going to be more what you would find at the swamp than what you would find here. Or even in the middle of the 2. They didn't surprise me.

pagar

From today's Wall Street Journal

"But the charges against Mr. Libby had nothing to do with intelligence, and Mr. Wilson was himself so discredited by summer 2004 that the John Kerry campaign dropped him as a spokesman once the Senate exposed his deceit."
In my opinion, if the John Kerry campaign dropped everyone whose deceit had been exposed there would not have been a John Kerry campaign. They would have had to drop everyone involved, but especially the principal player.
Just as there should have never been this farce of a trial.

Alcibiades

So, in light of the Scooter verdict and Democrat drooling for new "investigations" based on this record of Administration guilt, it finally makes sense to me why Bush fired all those US Attorneys. Doesn't want another miscarriage of justice with an overzealous Patrick Fitzgerald type. It's unlikely to happen right away, but I look forward to the day that Bush fires him as well, now that several of his colleagues have all gone.

At least this travesty has finally taught him about the way he should have played the game from the beginning. Too late for Scooter though.

Curly Smith

I wonder how many of the jurors are suffering from tendonitis and eye problems today.

Let's face it, all of the *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* that went into the verdicts must have caused some permanent damage.

jwest

In a way, we need to blame ourselves for what is happening now.

For whatever our individual reasons, we were all drawn to the minutia of this case. Thousands of hours have been spent researching, discussing and debating each and every aspect of the Wilson affair. We know, through years of exploring this issue, what happened to the extent possible from every known source.

But to this day, people who appear on MSM broadcasts that would normally be on the side of the actual truth comment unprepared and miss even the most basic facts. This vacuum of knowledge has led to mistaken general perceptions that we all know exist concerning the entire Wilson/Cheney/pre-war intelligence scenario.

We should have made a better effort at condensing and collating our information along with having some coordinated manner of outreach so that these normal pundits could draw on facts when the opportunity arose. If there is one thing we know for certain, most media and a great deal of pundits are too lazy to do the homework required to have a command of the facts.

It’s not too late to prepare a fact sheet (with supporting references) for dissemination, however it does take someone skilled at distilling information to it’s essence in an easily digestible format.

Any takers?

AMDG

This may sound overly dramatic but I so distressed by this I could not sleep last night. I feel sorry for Libby but it goes way beyond him. We have definitive proof of a pervasive corruption in Washington that it eclipses anything before (Watergate, Iran Contra, Clinton). This corruption runs from the halls of Congress to the Justice Department to the CIA; from the State Department to the media.

Complicit in this corruption are Democrat politicians who have put the acquisition of power before national security. By knowingly pushing this obvious canard in an effort to undermine our efforts is war Chuck Schumer is a traitor (perhaps not in the legal sense but he would have done nothing different if he were on Osama Bin Laden’s payroll).

The justice department allowed this fiasco to go on when it was well known what had happened – or more importantly did not happen.

The State Department, in the guise of Colin Powell and Armitage, allowed this to go. At best they are moral cowards, at worst they are traitors - either way they are despicable human beings.

Now we come to the media. I use to think that it was laziness or stupidity, but that can no longer be used as a crutch. If incompetence were the reason than at some point the MSM would report that Libby testified in to both FBI and GJ that he first heard about Plame from Cheney. At some point, they would make clear that the original leaker was not somebody from the White House . . . If incompetence were the reason; all the errors would not go one way. If incompetence were the reason, they would report about the ways of Washington and that officials use leaks to drive agendas as a normal course of business. If incompetence were the reason, they would not have bought the Clinton meme regarding Starr, Burger, etc but willfully ignored the truth in this matter. If incompetence were the reason then we would never see another line about the disputed TANG memos – there is no dispute, they are forgeries.

I am sick of this and I am sick of them but I feel powerless. I take solace in the hope that these people will be judged for their sins and I feel guilty because I will feel joy instead of pity when that occurs.


Sorry for wasting bandwidth but I need to vent.

Ranger

And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

That would seem to raise some interesting quesitons. If the jury did specificly disregard the judges instructions on the articles then that would seem to be grounds for a new trial. A personally think letting the articles in for "state of mind" purposes was bound to lead to this, which is why Walton initially said he would not let them in. Given that his own concerns were validated by the juror's statement, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

roanoke

Neo-

The article I found words it this way-

• Seat 9, Juror 1869: A white male and a former Washington Post reporter who once had Bob Woodward as an editor. He used to share space with Tim Russert of “Meet the Press.” While he had questions about the Bush administration’s rationale for going to war, he said that, “I’m very skeptical about everything I hear until I see it backed up.”

He used to share space....

You know I don't know exactly what it means.

I invisioned a cubicle at The Washington Post

Here is the direct link to it at the legaltimes.com

Link

This was published in January and I just found it yesterday.

PMII

I think Cheney should take a few people hunting..............

djl130

Clarice - What a beautifully written article on RCP - achingly brilliant. I am a mere lowly lurker. I have lurked and learned so much from all the intelligent people on this comment panel. Thanks for expressing what some of us think but don't have the ability to write.

clarice

AMDG--Just gird your loins and wage a harder fight. Nothing worth doing is easy.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Sorry. You can't unbreak an egg.

And, someday, people will ask why Bush, himself, didn't ask for "clarification" from the supreme (idiots). Where they'd have had to stick their asses out over the fence.

What could Bush have asked? If the Comey appointment was legit. Instead, he forced his own staff into the position Libby TOOK, to protect the others.

Libby did not lie, by the way. He told the FBI that he heard some news from Cheney; but that it was perlipheral to the questions the White House was raising.

Also, at this time, George Tenet AND Colon Powell were LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

Up ahead? Martha Stewart now has Libby joining her. No. We're no longer "catching" mafia people in the RICO net. Or whatever the hell you want to call the "coppers high on drug interdiction." Or "how you catch the small potatoes and build your career, just the same."

As to affirmative action? Where it stains, IT STAYS. DC will have a crappy school system for the next hundred years. And, people who'd be unemployable in almost any other country in the world, will do okay in paris. And, DC. But a type of stagnation will take hold. To say nothing of the muzzies moving in. And, seething.

There'll be a hell of a lot of seething going on.

While America is a HUGE country. And, in most places there will be normal folk, enjoying good schools. And, building walls that will keep the riff-raff contained behind concrete barriers.

Also, up ahead? The ignoramous waltoon will have the words he put into the record, exposed. Will it look like a black man holding a lynching rope? You think I care?

You'd be surprised how good most people are at measuring competence. Because of this, Detroit is a dead city. And, you have cars in your garage that come from the drawing boards of Asians. And, there's money still to be made by individual endeavor. Just the affirmative action folk that will continue to spawn in the swamp. Let 'em. As to newspapers? They won't make their livings by selling subscriptions. And, the nutworks? Won't regain their audience, either.

Will time itself give way to the truth about Russert? You're waiting? I just don't care. Russert, like OJ will keep looking out there "to solve the crimes they committed." And, God will take care of the rest.

PMII

At least the portion " white male and a former Washington Post reporter who once had Bob Woodward as an editor." was previously posted & discussed a bit. I don't think anyone really believed it nor believed it could happen.

Curly Smith

jwest

But to this day, people who appear on MSM broadcasts that would normally be on the side of the actual truth comment unprepared and miss even the most basic facts. This vacuum of knowledge has led to mistaken general perceptions that we all know exist concerning the entire Wilson/Cheney/pre-war intelligence scenario.

The people that appear on those broadcasts very likely know the truth. The truth just doesn't advance their agenda so they go with their narrative. That's what I find so frustrating...

SlimGuy

A bit more on Collins, hope it's not a dupe of info

Described in the Washington Post

http://tinyurl.com/2puzpk

Another candidate, the former Post journalist, seemed to have a link
to nearly every key player in the case. He had worked in the
newspaper's Metro section, he said, where his editor was Woodward, a
key defense witness. Until recently, he lived across an alley from
Russert, a star witness for the prosecution. And he had gone to parties
with The Post's Walter Pincus, another defense witness.

He said
he would understand if the lawyers believed he couldn't be impartial,
but he promised he would use his reporter training to sort through the
facts fairly.

"If I were in your seats, I'd be skeptical," he said.

Also it seemed in his post conviction presser he talked about the jury looking at the Valarie outing issue which I thought they directed specifically not to include in their deliberations according the the jury instructions.

Tom Maguire

Since then, particularly of late, TM's devotion to Scooter -- and shrill, clarice-like contempt for Fitz -- has increased exponentially.

Well, thanks for the plug, Jim.

As to my increased disregard for Fitzgerald - since the indictment, we have learned that:

1 - Fitzgerald utterly whiffed on Armitage, not even bothering to check his calendar for June 2003

2 - he misled the defense in his Dec 2005 letter naming reporters who had received leaks (that was where he mentioned Dickerson "in an abundance of caution" but omitted Gregory - why?

3 - he never even called Dickerson or gregory to verify Ari's story - hey, dude, where's my leak investigation?

4 - he participated in Russert's phony affidavit, and never investigated alternative explanations of Russert's story.

5 - the (probably, nearly certain) phoniness of the Miller affidavit is more apparent now.

So yes, my view of Fitzgerald has evolved. How about yours - are false affidavits, misleading discovery and the like just par for the course of an aggressive prosecution, and should we feel good about it?

Pofarmer

people who appear on MSM broadcasts that would normally be on the side of the actual truth comment

Facts not in evidence?

Gabriel

Look, if you're going to hire a Democrat as your defense counsel, at least make sure it's one that if you go down they go down as well.

This Dennis Collins character is interesting. We're going to see him a lot. Either he is the self appointed spokesperson or other members of the jury viewed his press experience AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WASHINGTON POST as the best background to respond to the media.

Maybee's catch regarding the alleged underlined Wilson Op/Ed is even more interesting. Where and when did the jury learn about this evidence that was not presented at trial? This is the very first time I have heard of this underlined Wilson Op/Ed from Cheney. WHY ISN'T ANDERSON COOPER ASKING THAT QUESTION? So much for his CIA background. Or rather, maybe it's serving him quite well as he stares off into mimbo dreamland. Fortunate Son -> CIA -> Gameshow host -> CNN anchor, I hear Couric's ratings are stellar in Kazahkstan, so maybe he dons some drag and becomes the first transgender nightly news anchor.

Sue

COLLINS: No. I didn't think so at all. He -- I mean even when -- there was one time that -- during the cross-examination of Russert, Fitzgerald objected 36 times to -- to Wells', you know, questioning, and 25 of those were upheld, and that's from our -- our great reporters in the room who had that stat.

I don't know what he is talking about here. What reporters is he referring to? And if he is talking about a newspaper report, how did he have time to read newspapers before his interviews? I didn't even know that stat, and I read everything I could find on the trial.

Gabriel

lol, 5 minutes pass and new information on Dennis "I'll use my Woodward hunch to get to the bottom of this" Collins is posted to JOM.

Pofarmer

Wow. Mark Levine has got his shit straight on this one.

Pofarmer

,i>Where and when did the jury learn about this evidence that was not presented at trial? This is the very first time I have heard of this underlined Wilson Op/Ed from Cheney.

It was entered as "state of mind" evidence. Apparently the jury thought otherwise. Libby had never seen it.

danking70

Today's top fold/top half of the Chicago Tribune has


After verdict, Juror's call Libby "fall guy"

If this isn't the Plame case then I don't know what is. IMO, the jurors continued verbiage, interviews, and book deals about the case will only help Libby's appeal.

Sue

Gabriel,

Are you referring to my post? Because if you are, maybe you could answer the question. What reporters is he referring to?

SlimGuy

It would not be unreasonable to believe that an ex reporter would have discussed many times this case over the cocktail/bbq circuit with other ex or active reporters he knows.

Sounds like this guy was drooling to be on the jury and may have deliberately toned down his responses during jury selection to make the cut.

Also as I mentioned above the scope of the jury deliberations included material specifically prohibited by the jury instructions.

Almost seems likely this guy may have been using those post em notes to build his view of the story and it would not surprise me that some (gaps) were filled with conclusions not entered as testimony or evidence.

maryrose

capitano and Alchibades:
I also saw Imus this morning at the beginning and Imus's opening gambit to Russert was "I bet you've been sweating bullets!" Russert of course denied and then had Imus take an oath that he has said some untruthful things about Gregory and Mitchell. Russert began by ironically thanking Imus for his "support". I now believe that the repetition of these lies have now convinced Russert, Ari et al that what they are saying is true. It seems they have been technically brainwashed. Last night in an interview with Brian Williams- Russert looked like hell. Today on Imus he seemed to have his mojo back. I had to turn it off and leave for school but not before ascertaining that it was a CYA opportunity for Russert to further inoculate himself from this trial. Disgusting.

Pete

Jim E said:

A super-quick skim of TM's archives shows some interesting stuff. Back around the time when the story first broke, TM was eagerly trying to defend Karl Rove and Bush from their involvement in the whole Plame leak. Wonder where Tom pointed his finger? Take a look (all are from a single week in 2003 -- pre-FBI interviews, pre-Fitz):

Sept. 28: “If we recall, it was Dick Cheney, his people, and his Chief of Staff, 'Scooter' Libby, that were the sinister forces behind the '16 Words'. My Psychic Prediction - two people on Dick Cheney's staff are to blame for this. Since we recently saw the President contradict Vice President Cheney on the linkage between Saddam and 9/11, we sense a division, and a vulnerability here.”

Sept. 30: “[Libby] is still my first round pick for this, BTW.”

Oct. 3, 2003 “Looks bad for Libby. . . . I say, look to the other obvious power center in the White House - Cheney has his own staff, is an elected official, and so may well have his own loyalists. Including I. Libby "Scooter" Lewis.”

Anyways, color me impressed. That was a long damn time ago, and TM called it.

And on the day of the indictment, TM suggested Libby use an insanity defense, indicating the strength of the evidence against him.

Since then, particularly of late, TM's devotion to Scooter -- and shrill, clarice-like contempt for Fitz -- has increased exponentially. I just wanted to point out that TM was far ahead of the curve, and was throwing Libby under the proverbial bus long before most of America had ever heard of Scooter Libby.

Hilarious - Two thumbs up. I guess TM was against Scotter Libby before he was for Scooter Libby.

jwest

“people who appear on MSM broadcasts that would normally be on the side of the actual truth comment”

This was poor wording on my part.

What I meant was, the people who appear on MSM programs who are on the administration’s side but don’t have the facts.

Ed Rogers(?) appeared on Hardball last night, stuttering mad about Libby’s conviction and tried to make the point about Wilson being a lying clown. He would have been much more effective if he could have referenced a fact sheet.

Matthews kept saying Cheney sent Wilson. This is imbedded in his head and will never change. However, had Rogers had the information, he could have at least introduced it so that Matthews’ assertion wouldn’t automatically become fact.

My point is that right-wing pundits need the information to counter prevailing sentiment.

Sue

The jury had some meticulous note-takers, Collins said, including one who calculated how many objections had been sustained during Russert's testimony (25 out of 36)

Weird jury. But this is what Collins was referring to.

Pete
So yes, my view of Fitzgerald has evolved. How about yours - are false affidavits, misleading discovery and the like just par for the course of an aggressive prosecution, and should we feel good about it?

Both you and Clarice have talked about false affidavits and prosecutorial misconduct. When are you two going to file a complaint with the Bar association?

Gabriel

Sue: I was not referencing your post. I don't know how Collins was able to get an objection count through press accounts. My guess is he went up to the WaPo reporter that was covering the trial. Collins should be quizzed about that. Maybe he just has an awesome memory. Although, if Woodward was his editor, I can say with confidence that a selective memory apparently serves one quite well at that paper.

I was referring to Slim Guy's post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame