Powered by TypePad

« Monday Post-Game Show | Main | In Which I Quibble Vociferously »

March 06, 2007

Comments

hit and run

We'll be waiting for you here on Tuesday whenever you would like to join us...heh

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Yes, Tuesday. Welcome back to the future, sir.

Seems strange here that they didn't have two separate counts, one for each date. Logically, if a single account accuses him of lying on both dates, and he only lied on one date, he is innocent of that count. Not that I expect the court to hold to that logic ...

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Jane

Oh dear, TM has the wrong day? Is there nothing left for us to rely on?

Jane

In this scenario, the jury certainly can *not* consider Fitzgerald's characterization of the FBI interview as definitive - although he is an officer of the court, Fitzgerald was not under oath during Libby's grand jury testimony; Agent Bond was under oath at the trial, and her description of Libby's FBI interview must be trump Fitzgerald.

I think you are over-estimating this jury.

hit and run

And to think, MayBee almost on Wednesday...

hit and run

Jane:
Oh dear, TM has the wrong day? Is there nothing left for us to rely on?

Jane, I rely on a 'good morning' from you.

Jane

Awww H&R - where ya been? Working?

hit and run

Had other things occupying my mind. Still do. Just checking in and lurking.

Publius

Way OT, but it's early:

If Judge Roy Moore can be required to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse in Montgomery to keep separate the church and the state, why should not Obama and Hillary be removed from the church pulpits in Selma for the same reason?

hrtshpdbox

It's a struggle to put a good spin on a jury that wears silly t-shirts, can't construct a good sentence, and takes too long. I don't expect much when the defense isn't permitted to make its case, and the prosecution veers way off course after failing to make its case (despite being given free rein to do so). And, unfortunately, its difficult to imagine the President willing to take a bold step and end the nonsense soon; I'd guess he's already determined that Libby twists in the wind until January '09.

Bill Murray

mmmmmmmmmmmm....... errrrrrrr.......mmmmmmmmmm

stretch................ scratch......rub eyes.....stretch................

mmmmmm.. today looks just like yesterday

PMII

It's probably just me, but sometimes it feels like groundhog day (the movie)

Jane

I sure hope today doesn't feel like yesterday in the Libby trial!

Tina

Interesting site. I have lurked and posted here sparringly for awhile. I agree the jury notes/questions have not made much sense.

Bill Murray

I, for one think today is the day. Just a hunch, but I think a very, very few on this jury is tiring rapidly of this charade.

I know I would be, and I also know if I had "reasonable doubt" about guilt, Moses descending from the mount with his stone tablets would never sway me.

savard

I don't know about all of you but I'm getting lockjaw chewing on this same bone.

centralcal

Good morning Jane. It is always nice to check in in the morning to the aroma of coffee.

Tom M. - please let's not repeat Monday!

H&R I miss you. Can't tell you how much. When the merry-go-round debates last for hours here, I keep looking for you to holler - over here! the fun is over here!

Jane

I second that opinion centralcal. If there was ever a time for levity, it is now. FDL has a post up saying "the vultures are circling". It would really bum me out if they were right.

cboldt

On the record (right or wrong) that "date unanimity" is a Count One issue, not a Count Three issue.

centralcal

Jane: yeah I saw FDL this morning. Problem is the vultures started circling way back when the "leak" investigation started. They have circled and circled, ad nauseum. I no longer pay any attention to them.

I guess the note never hit - what's it called? - Pacer?

Pofarmer

That seems like an absurd over-analysis of the indictment by the jurors, but that may be all that is going on.

Three PHD's would put that about right.

Pofarmer

why should not Obama and Hillary be removed from the church pulpits in Selma for the same reason?

Because they're liberals and they're better'n us. They don't really beleive that shit.

clarice

I think you're right on both counts. Cboldt , I think they are circling back to another count to try to figure out the date.

The LATimes is running a series on the case w/ York arguing the Libby side and some idiot whose name I can't remember, the prosecution's.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup5mar05,0,4441602.story?coll=la-opinion-center> Point Counterpoint

Cecil Turner

So it may be that they are nowhere near unanimity that Libby lied on either date or both dates.

I'm just reading tea-leaves like the rest, but it seems to me that if they agreed on the other counts, the jurors would most likely pitch this one as unimportant. And it also seems to me the questions proffered to the court are most likely from the majority, not any disagreeable minority. Seen through that prism, the common thread in the notes appears to be an attempt to garner ammunition to support talking points. If so, that (and the time taken) would most likely be an indication of a persistent holdout(s). If it were in fact "vultures circling," it seems to me they'd all be at the bar (the kind where folks drink . . . not where lawyers argue) doing the post-game show.

centralcal

Cecil, I think you are right. The longer this has taken, the more I think that there is division in the jury -- and I think there is more than one lone holdout.

At some point, they will have to tell the court that they are hung.

Jane

Cecil,

Lawyers sometimes argue at the bar you drink at, too.

jsyk

I got counseled by a lawywer friend of mine last night to ignore jury notes. You can't tell what is going on from them. We don't know anything until they come back with a verdict.

Pofarmer

Oh well. If this is ever over, I see the left has it's scandal generators fired up on several other points. It would be nice if they would actually debate policy. Except they don't have any, so that's kind of moot.

Sue

The left is waiting for this trial to be over so they can start their next campaign. The investigation into who leaked actual covert operatives to the LA Times. Right? Right?

chirp...chirp...

Never let them fool you that this about the leaking of a covert operative. It is about taking down the Bush/Cheney administration.

capitano

Blogger Connecting the Dots says someone should break the news to the Libby jurors that they don't have a lifetime appointment.

Pofarmer

I think I've figured out the obstruction charge and materiality . Libby's testimony obstructed the investigation that he was the first leaker and that Cheney had ordered him to out Valerie Plame. Probably had a hit out on Joe too, even though I see that's not charged.

secarr

Now, now, Pofarmer, the left does have a policy. It involves taking as much of other peoples money (taxes) as possible in order to perpetuate (or buy) their own power at the added expense of your freedom. It is the one thing they are consistent about.

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Yeah, sure, this is a horrible scandal. Meanwhile, Congressman William Jefferson is nearly a member of Homeland Security Committee, and has asked a federal court to return documents seized in a raid last year. Seems like he should be the real scandal right now, not Libby.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

rarango

How many plamiacs does it take to....

Oh wait, wrong question.

How many Plamiacs think that in the event of a hung jury or not guilty verdict, congress will investigate the leak? Nahhh..they have Walter Reed AMC in their sights.

Jane

From FDL:

Here are the questions:

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

Is the prosecution's allegation in Count 3 that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 OR 11/26/03? (Page 74/75 …"that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.")

In determining Count 3, are we allowed to consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony?

This is the same question they've been struggling with since their first question, it seems. There's so little in the actual allegation that they're having a hard time getting their teeth into it.

Tom Maguire

We'll be waiting for you here on Tuesday whenever you would like to join us...heh

Yikes! Friends don't let friends blog without drinking. Coffee, in the morning that is.

Bill Murray

Right on secarr.
Reminds me of the joke of two attorneys walking to court and meet the homeless man.
The conservative attorney gives him 20 bucks and his card, tells him to look him up and he will help find a job.

Strolling further they meet another homeless man. The liberal attorney gives the man directions to the welfare office, takes 20 bucks from the conservative attorney's pocket, gives 5 bucks to the homeless guy and keeps 15 bucks for admin fees.

Tom Maguire

I have lurked and posted here sparringly for awhile.

Spar with H&R. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee..

jsyk

Those questions don't look that bad to me. Certainly don't justify all the speculation yesterday. I have no idea why Walton implied in court that the jury had concluded Libby lied on one of the dates. I don't get that from these questions.

Jane

So the jury wants to consider the outing of Plame in both these questions, and that issue is not before them.

Is that a correct read on things?

Charlie (Colorado)

If Judge Roy Moore can be required to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse in Montgomery to keep separate the church and the state, why should not Obama and Hillary be removed from the church pulpits in Selma for the same reason?

Because churches aren't courthouses and senators aren't objects of religious veneration?

boris

It's time to have the jury paraphrase their interpretation of the charges in plain english. If it doesn't match the actual legalese in meaning, mistrial.

Jim

Note for your "Not too important file" that FDL is headquartered in Los Angeles. Also there is Warner Bros., the studio who just agreed to do the Phlame/Wilson movie!!

Justice in America gets closer to politics than True Justice.
George Washington would be astounded!

secarr

Jane, I've come to the conclusion that there are some real idiots on that jury, sorely in need of a remedial english course. I don't think that they are concentrating on Saint Valerie, though. This jury KNOWS that Armitage was the "leaker."

WA Moore

Is Sylvia on this jury?

gogeo

Never let them fool you that this about the leaking of a covert operative. It is about taking down the Bush/Cheney administration...

Maybe I'm getting 'Deliberation Madness,' maybe I've been reading too many of sylvia's posts...but the entire case smells. The fact that Fitz knew from Day 1 who the leaker was, and that he spent so much time questioning Rove, and finally ended up charging Libby, in a case where memory is so key, and everyone's memory is so lousy...

Someone asked if Libby had been offered a plea bargain...in exchange for...what?

Is it a coincidence that those most investigated were key aides to Cheney and W? Is it really just about 'getting' the administration, and is Libby on trial because he refused to 'roll over?'

You see? I'm starting to sound like sylvia, but this sounds plausible to me.

Filing a case this weak is not about justice. Fitz's comments from Day 1 suggest this case is about, indeed, bringing down the administration.

If true, that's a pretty potent commentary on W's 'turn the other cheek' mentality.

boris

If Clarice had masterminded a covert op to have Cecil and Charlie insert me into the jury, this is exactly the kind of disinfo I would be using to tie the deliberations into knots. You know what I'm talking 'bout.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Wells should request a mistrial. This jury is so confused they don't even understand what crimes are being tried.

Other Tom

Totally lost, and the starter Bloody Mary hasn't helped. Do we know anything about how these questions were anwered, or have the answers not been worked out yet?

I, too, find these questions difficult to square with much of the discussion from various quarters yesterday.

clarice

boris, it's perhaps time for the judge to tell the jury that if the allegations are unsufficiently clear to be meaningful, they should acquit on them. If is the prosecution's job to frame the issues in a may that normal people can make sense of them.

clarice

**IT is the prosecution's job to frame the issues in a Way that normal people can make sense of them.
********

cathyf

Another on the Conjunction Junction what's your function front:

As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;
I'm going to harp on this again... The use of "rather" means "and" not "or" -- in other words, in order to find guilt on count 3, Fitzgerald must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that not only did Libby not use either of the two qualifications that he specifically testified to ("heard from reporters" and "doesn't even know if it's true"), but also, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby did not use any qualification at all. "Without qualification" is an appallingly un-lawyerly absolute. In order to prove it, Fitzgerald would have to prove a negative, and as we know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is not even "absence of evidence" in this particular instance. The only evidence (since there are no recordings and Libby didn't take notes) consists of

1) Libby's sworn testimony that he gave those two qualifications;

2) Cooper's notes that Libby in fact used one of the qualifications ("not even sure if it's true");

3) Cooper's sworn testimony that Libby used a different qualification ("I heard that too").

I don't understand why either #2 or #3 just by themselves don't get a dismissal of the Count Three. The prosecution's witness testified that the rather-clause is false. Libby, the only other witness who gave any relevant evidence, testified that the rather-clause is false. And the prosecution provided no other evidence at all about the rather-clause.

Jane

I don't think that they are concentrating on Saint Valerie, though. This jury KNOWS that Armitage was the "leaker."

Well the hasn't stopped every poster at FDL.

Alcibiades

BTW, I'm glad to see that Byron York agrees with me that Alec Baldwin is the man to play Joe Wilson. Why he was born to play that role. All that smarminess and self-importance -- no acting will be necessary. He can just emote himself.

Sue

Why he was born to play that role.

And he too has important hair!

clarice

Yes, cathyf--and the prosecutor who framed the charge that way should bear the burden for its incomprehensibility.
The judge should say that if it makes no sense as charged they should acquit on it.

Jane

I can't imagine that Walton has the cajones for that Clarice, based on his performance to date at least.

clarice

To define the charge in any way other than as the gj presented it is verbote--it onstitutes an amendment of the gj finding.

secarr

If Judge Roy Moore can be required to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse in Montgomery to keep separate the church and the state, why should not Obama and Hillary be removed from the church pulpits in Selma for the same reason?

Actually, the churches can lose their tax-exempt status for hosting one candidate and not the others (equal time). In practice, this rule is never enforced by the IRS against black churches because said churches are the primary political organization of the congressional black caucus and a tool of the DNC GOTV machine. This is in contrast to, say, a pastor presenting a political opinion in church. That is allowable although the Democrats in recent years have threatened any such pastors who spoke out against specific Democrat candidates (and issues). There is still a fight coming in the courts over what pastors and priests will be allowed to say from the pulpit. Liberal groups (think PFAW)are up in arms over men of the cloth exercising their first amendment rights to tell their parishoners to vote against Donk candidates and issues. It is OK with those liberal groups, however, if the pastor is black and he exhorts his parishoners to vote against conservative candidates and issues. But I digress...

Back on point though, it is a clear violation of a church's tax exempt status to give a platform to a candidate from one party and not a candidate from another.

Rick Ballard

"The judge should say that if it makes no sense as charged they should acquit on it."

That presumes a judge with the intelligence to discern the fact that it makes no sense. I'm afraid the presumption lacks evidentiary foundation.

boris

Cathyf, what do you make of this ...

without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA

Shouldn't that have been written ...

without qualification, that LIBBY KNEW Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA

Because "HAD HEARD THAT" is itself a qualified statement. It doesn't seem to me that Fitz nor Walton are competent at basic logic.

Sue

WTF? From a commenter at the swamp...

This promises to be quite a day. Walter Reed hearings. Fired U.S. Attorneys hearings. Continuing carnage in Iraq. And, of course, a possible guilty verdict in the Libby trial.

clarice

This is standard fitzgibberish which makes it so hard for defendants. Those who have expressed criticism of the defense counsel fail to appreciate how fitz ties up his cases in this sort of thing..

JT

Looks like some members of this jury maybe making it up trying to fill for the inability of the prosecution to make a case because they didn't have one in the first place.

The truth is that this entire fiasco is not about anything Libby said or did not say... this is about (i) the 2000 election, (ii) the Clinton impeachment, (iii) Ken Starr investigation into the outrageously corrupt Clintons and associates.

Now should there be and and or an or between (i), (ii), and (iii).

clarice


Walton's in.

Walton;

as I understand what was submitted to my clerk is what counsel has agreed to?

Fitz: Yes judge.

Walton:

On the unanimity question, there is no request that a unanimity challenge be given.

There's no challenge that Libby would have made the same statement in both FBI interviews.

Wells:

There's no dispute that he made the same statement both times.

Walton:

We'll have this typed up. As I understand you want me to just send this to the jury.

Fitz: Yes judge.
__________
Clear as mud what happened..

secarr

"'I don't think that they are concentrating on Saint Valerie, though. This jury KNOWS that Armitage was the "leaker."'

Well the hasn't stopped every poster at FDL."

Well, Jnae, I think that it because the FDL posters have built up the myth of Saint Valerie in their own minds in order to "justify" taking down the administration to such a point that they are starting to believe their own lies. They are so emotionally invested in their myth that they see everything through the filter of their own obfuscation. If there is an acquital, they will turn of Fitz so fast his head will spin...they'll probably accuse him of taking a fall for Cheney.

cathyf

Can't Team Libby move for a dismissal or directed verdict of acquital of Count Three, right now, this morning, because the only evidence that has been presented is that Count Three is false?

(All of the evidence with respect to Count Three has been presented by the prosecution, by the way...)

(Judge Walton might actually bite on that one. It makes the jurors' questions over Count Three go away, after all!)

theo

It seems to me that there are serious morons on this jury. We had thought this was an overall smart jury with a moron or two who were causing the others to roll their eyes and get snarky. But it now looks like there is some serious and widespread dysfunction.

Anyway, that is the way it looks from these "WTF?" notes.

bRight & Early

Walton is just glad that he can send the jury an answer instead of an I-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about-gram.

clarice

Well, they apparently didn't, Cathyf, though what they agreed on with Fitz and had sent back to the jury is anyone's guess.

Another Bob

Piling on cathyf's question above...

Any procedural or tactical reasons Wells isn't asking for a mistrial or for charges to be dropped?

If it seems clear the jury is off-the-rails.

boatbuilder

Cathyf is absolutely right (as usual) about this. If I'm reading this correctly, (a big "if") though, the jury seems to be saying that they believe that Libby did tell Cooper "I don't know if it's true." The government's charge is that Libby didn't tell Cooper that, and lied when he told the GJ that he did. I'm not sure the jury understands this. What a travesty!

cathyf
Because "HAD HEARD THAT" is itself a qualified statement. It doesn't seem to me that Fitz nor Walton are competent at basic logic.
Bingo, boris. Unfortunately, it may be the mark of the extremity of BDS infection that a DC jury could convict on a count which is proven false by it's own subjunctive clauses...
Another Bob

Drudge headline in red: "DAY 10: LIBBY JURY CONFUSION".

Linked to Apuzzo: "Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.".

Tanker J.D.

Does anyone have a link to the demographics of the jury... I see a lot about 3 Ph.D.'s. What about other attributes? Political leanings? education? race? gender? etc.

Other Tom

I concur wholeheartedly that there is something seriously screwed up about this group. I suspect that a navel-gazing PhD is running this farce in there.

Does anyone have any theory as to why the defense didn't make a Rule 29 motion at any point? What would the downside have been?

theo

Apuzzo: "Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing. In other news, scientists suggest there is some water in the Pacific Ocean."

Semanticleo

I am starting to feel guilty about snarking
the pandemic plausible denialism here.

PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE;

If you have friends/family who have staked their entire ideological cache on the Bush/
Cheney Crew, please remove all sharp objects
and place in undisclosed location.

clarice

OT, I have no idea why a Rule 29 motion wasn't filed.


In other news, the Dems are claiming it's a scandal that 2 Reps contacted US Atttys to seek info on the progress of cases.
Hope someone slips this into the record of those Congressional hearings.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cia/schumcom12204ltr.html

WA Moore

Jury Demographics

Gary Maxwell

In other other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

clarice

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cia/schumcom12204ltr.html>Schumer to Comey:Jump!

Jane

"Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing. In other news, scientists suggest there is some water in the Pacific Ocean."

That's funny.

I just think this jury thinks there must be something "there" since they went thru this whole long trial while we are at war and all, but so far they are desparately struggling to find the "there" there. They really want to find the "there" there and are committed to doing so. But it ain't easy!

Joe Gloor

My 2 cents - and not really worth that...I'm just dreaming anyway:

The jury has figured out that they can't rely on Russert's testimony because he is a forgetful man.
They know they have to convict Libby of SOMETHING and they are seriously parsing the Cooper charge to find a way.

bRight & Early

Schumer to Comey:Jump!

Posted by: clarice | March 06, 2007 at 07:23 AM

Comey to Schumer:How High?

Charlie (Colorado)

I am starting to feel guilty about snarking
the pandemic plausible denialism here.

No, actually you feel guilty because you're ignoring both OT's questions and mine, and you know that what tiny shred of self-respect you have is leaking away because you realize you aren't really up to competing in this league.

Another Bob

: Semanticleo | March 06, 2007 at 07:22 AM

Normally I do not wish truly bad things on people, but perhaps if you were in Libby's position...

calends

a stupid jury is a confused jury

confusion=doubt

doubt=acquital

Another Bob

Semanticleo

Thomasina promised to ignore me. Why don't you do the same? BTW, how about my question.......?

Another Bob

Rick Ballard

Boris,

Perhaps JOM is a test bed for the prototype of Charlie and Cecil's UAV Stealth Moron? They're cleverly testing the reactions of intelligent people to a 'nobody could be that stupid' real life example in order to gauge how far they can go in deliberations?

Alternatively, it's just Col. Flagg on the jury, working his wonders.

cathyf
Does anyone have any theory as to why the defense didn't make a Rule 29 motion at any point?
Because it's also the mark of the extremity of BDS infection that Walton could deny a Rule 29 motion on a count which is proven false by it's own subjunctive clauses?

*sigh*

clarice

Actually, I proposed a stealth logician, Rick. Boris, please straighten up and get right back in those deliberations.

Luc

Other Tom,

Looks like you were successful in reaching SemntiCleo's tender spot; he refers to you as "Thomasina". Maybe if not possible to ignore HER, replies to HER comments should be addressed to Dear Cleao ;)

clarice

Here's the transcription of the key explanation for the first two questions:

~~~~~

Charge Three alleges that the above statement is false in that Mr. Libby did not advise Mr. Cooper on or about July 1, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Mr. Libby advise Mr. Cooper on that date that Mr. Libby did not know whether the information regarding Ms. Wilson's employment was true.

Count Three alleges that Mr. Libby confirmed for Mr. Cooper, that Mr. Libby had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with lying to the FBI about what was said in his July 12, 2003, conversation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.

~~~~~~

And here's the response to the third question:

~~~~~~

With respect to your third question, the charge in Count Three relates solely to Mr. Libby's statement during the FBI interview, and not to any of his testimony before the grand jury.

Concerning the false statement to the FBI charged in Count Three, you may consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony in March 2004, along with all other evidence admitted at trial, to the extent you find it helpful in deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements as described in the instructions.

~~~~~~

SunnyDay

Because there is a line down the page, the OCR cannot read the latest document - it's the answer to the jury's questions. I made it into a graphic and upload that here - take out the spaces before "albums" and "Libby", and paste it into your browser address bar - I'm technically challenged today.

http://img.photobucket.com/ albums/v170/serenitybreeze/ Libby%20trial/315-1.gif

Jane

Thread-herding in lieu of H&R

Cecil Turner

They know they have to convict Libby of SOMETHING and they are seriously parsing the Cooper charge to find a way.

That was my inclination from the get-go. I thought they'd pick something out of count five (e.g., "I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing."), but count three also works if you're trying to find an implausible statement ("LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.")--even though there's very little evidence to hang that one on. I still wouldn't want to take the tradesports bet (too much chance of a hung jury) . . . but the odds favor a conviction, IMHO.

cathyf

I don't know why I didn't SOB leo this time, and now I'm going to further the sin by responding, but I just have to point out how it pegs the irony meter that someone who chooses the nic semanticleo would ridicule the principle of sentence-diagraming the counts of the indictment.

Maybe you should change your nic to "semanticmouse"?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame