A Plame Day

Joe Wilson is in the news with his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  The announcement and left blogger reaction are actually kind of funny - this is Taylor Marsh:

A conference call announcing the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Joseph Wilson was just   held with bloggers to hear the breaking news. This is a huge deal for Candidate   Clinton and a big endorsement for her candidacy. That it was broken on the blogs   sends a powerful signal. I'll provide the transcript as soon as it is available.

...The '08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. That Clinton offered the scoop to a group of bloggers shows just how far she's come and how far she's willing to engage a community, which on the whole is very critical of her on all fronts.

Well, yes, but... the decision to give the scoop to left bloggers is a nice double play - frankly, only lefty bloggers would care; the major media would either yawn or reprise Wilson's troubled relationship with the truth and with the Kerry campaign in 2004.  Wilson was sort of laughed off the stage  in the summer of 2004, following the SSCI report.

And Wilson alluded to that in his endorsement of Hilary, saying that "one thing that bonds the two is their mutual experience with the "meat grinder" -- a.k.a., the right wing slime machine."

Well, just in an off sort of curiousity sort of fashion, why did Joe Wilson talk about his media coverage as "the meat grinder"?  Is he a Secret Stooge of Dick Cheney?

And speaking of speaking of truth to power, maybe this time around it will be Valerie that takes a bit of a thumping - Robert Novak marks an anniversary of his own by writing this in his July 14 2007 column:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Davis, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is puzzled by the House Intelligence Committee's claim that Valerie Plame Wilson has been consistent in her sworn testimony. He is asking the Intelligence Committee for documents to back up their contention.

Davis last month noted that Mrs. Wilson had testified to his committee that she, as a CIA employee, had not suggested the fact-finding mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. She earlier had told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that she did not recall whether she made such a proposal. Davis also cited an internal CIA e-mail by her saying Wilson "may be in a position to assist."

By way of Sen. Bond (Kit Bond) and Byron York we have the email in question.

Now, I don't for a moment think Ms. Wilson is in any real jeopardy here - I take for granted that the Dems will protect her and the semi-cover-up will hold.  However, Reps will exact their price in other ways.

Cecil Turner has a piece at The American Thinker thumping Judge Walton.  I am wondering whether he let Armitage off easy with this:

At the time, Mr Fitzgerald was still contending Mr Libby was the first government leaker, and "at the beginning of the chain of phone calls" . . . even though he knew Armitage found out about Ms. Wilson two days before Libby got it from the Vice President.

Presumably this refers to the June 10 INR memo and the June 12 note of Cheney and Libby.

But do we really have any good evidence as to what Armitage told Fitzgerald? There was a repeat INR memo with a new cover sheet dated July 7; mightn't Armitage have vaguely remembered that as his first encounter with the Plame info when he first came forward in 2003?  Maybe it was only in Nov 2005, following the Libby indictment, that Armitage "remembered" the June 10 memo when he remembered his June 13 chat with Bob Woodward.

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miler and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time.  Useful details about Armitage might be there.  However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12.  The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.

Developing...

 

Comments

[clarice]

Maybe the reporter was Calabresi who heard it from Wilson.

[clarice]

The Sept 27 affidavit TM--graph 48:
48. The investigation of Armitage's conduct is near complete and, indeed, Armitage testified for the second (and final) time before the grand jury on September 22, 2004. Armitage testified that he did not recall discussing Wilson's employment with any reporter other than Novak prior to July 14, 2003, and specifically denied any recollection of discussing the matter with Cooper or any of his Time colleagues.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/more_facts_on_the_libby_case_s.html>Crackpot prosecution

[Topsecretk9]

Jeff Goldstein has a post up

Heroic spy f****r Joe Wilson, fresh off his latest triumph in front of the House Judiciary Committee, is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

Which creates a bit of a problem, given that the netroots have spent a lot of energy building up Wilson’s credibility, while working to remind us — daily — that Hillary Clinton’s (pre-election cycle) support for the war in Iraq (which was nothing more, really, than a continuation of the regime change policy once widely supported by Democrats) disqualifies her as a viable “netroot” candidate....

[clarice]

Didn't he say he was moving to NM to help Richardson?

[Topsecretk9]

Elliot noticed a little bombshell in one of the affidavit's

On the other thread, I quoted the August 27, 2004 affadavit: "Fleischer has declined to sign a waiver despite being granted immunity" (paragraph 80).

[hit and run]

TM:
the major media would either yawn or reprise Wilson's troubled relationship with the truth and with the Kerry campaign in 2004. Wilson was sort of laughed off the stage in the summer of 2004, following the SSCI report.

Well, and one would expect this to muzzle him on the whining about Libby's sentence being commuted, lest the media reprise the uncomfortable questions of Bill's use of presidential leniancy.

No more Speaking Truth to Power for you!

[Ranger]

"Fleischer has declined to sign a waiver despite being granted immunity" (paragraph 80).

Hmmm... Perhapse that explains why Judy wouldn't testify for so long?

She did strongly imply she had at least one other government source who had not signed a waiver.

[windansea]

“Sabotage: America’s Enemies Within the CIA”

Examiner reporter Rowan Scarborough has a new book out exposing the CIA bureaucrats who are undermining the war on terror. The Examiner newspapers are running a five-part series of book excerpts. The book publicist sends some details of the book’s never before reported accounts, including how:

· A CIA leak made the justice department open an official investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, plunging the Bush White House into its worst political crises.

· The CIA bureaucracy was so hostile to Director Porter Goss that his staff sometimes whispered in his 7th floor office as if it were bugged.

· The Iraq Station was still not the top CIA priority three years into the war. It lacked basic data bases and was staffed by scores of inexperienced officers.

· The CIA closed scores of stations and bases worldwide during the Clinton years, including the base in Hamburg Germany where radicals started planning the September 11 attacks.

· The New York Times snookered the chiefs of Congress’ two intelligence committees to tell the Times facts about the terror surveillance program.

· The National Security Agency studded the mountains of Afghanistan with a new type of high-tech listening devices and pointed them at Pakistan where they revealed terror training camps masquerading as schools.

· The CIA penetrated Internet cafes in Iraq to help it track al Qaeda terrorists. New details on the hunt for Abu Musab Zarqawi.

· A retired officer privately told Donald Rumsfeld in September 2006 that the Iraq war was nearly lost, prompting a complete change in strategy.

· An adviser to Karl Rove calls Richard Armitage a coward for not Coming forward in 2003 and telling the public he was the source of the Valerie Plame leak. It could have ended the scandal right then and there.

[Ranger]

Another interesting point. Fitz has repeatedly asserted the Armitage completely co-operated with the investigation. That always seemed odd to me given Armitage's forgetfulness regarding the Woodward conversation. But, what if Armitage's forgetfulness was part of the co-operation?

Did the notes from Armitage's first FBI interview get lost as well?

If Armitage had remembered his Woodward conversation it would have sunk the entire Fitz investigation of the White House. So maybe Armitage was somehow informed that a little forgetfulness wouldn't be a bad thing, at least until a couple of WH people had been charged.

[Topsecretk9]

TM might find this Novak interview interesting too

[BobS]

W and S: Thanks for posting those. Along the same lines, I've had some questions about current CIA chief Hayden. Two things, with one new one being brought up in Scarboroughs book. First, the take down of Maloof by Hayden when he was at NSA when he was accused of leaking and Maloof lost his clearance, ruining his career. Second,and more subtle, was Hayden giving Harry Waxman the statement that Plame was "classified". Talk about a juicy snack for the bully.

[NARCISO]

Well, when they find out that Wilson, is working for AIG with Hassan AlAmoudi on the Sudan deal. Seriously what's the use. We know of his Saudi & emirati ties through the Middle East Institute, Rock Creek Partners et al, and the media doesn't focus on that.Not to mention the family ties to
foreign enterprises like Nigerien COGEMA.

It is instructive though on the Baghdad's station's first chief John Maguire, who rattled off Aardwolf cables to the McClatchy
& NY Times offices; which gave no indication of what we were to look for in the insurgencies. In fact, one could argue
he was a driving force behind the intelligence sweep that culminated in Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003. While whining about Baathist's deposed in the 'itijihad'; he collects fees as a consultant to the same service he tried to undermine. I'm going by the account in Corn & Isikoff.
As to other figures in that office, going by the Geheim 2004 'Naming Names' we know little. According to Harper's Ken Silverstein, a prospective station chief was ruled out, after said author relayed enough information to 'out' him the in the
right circles. That's all it takes now,
from the successors to Agee & Hosenball;(yes that Newsweek reporter who revealed
agency personnel in Britain in 1975) Foggo
& the NCS chief were revealed by Jason Vest,
with nary a complaint; from the Plameniacs.

[cathyf]

So maybe Armitage was somehow informed that a little forgetfulness wouldn't be a bad thing, at least until a couple of WH people had been charged.

Um, except wouldn't that be like, ya know, a crime?!?! Like when the Godfather's consigliere shows up at your store and threatens to burn it down if you don't conveniently "forget" that you noticed Guido lurking in the alley the night of the mob hit...

[Carol Herman]

Drudge is headlining Elizabeth Edwards remark that Hillary is a man. Or she acts like one.

While if you take a really close look, you'll see all of this "Hillary mania" is lost on the public.

I'm sure the campaign, ahead, will be far filthier than any in our history. While, at the same time, Pelosi's rag will remain pristine clean.

Dubya's in his own world, too.

It's probably what has the Bonkeys confused, enough. Because NOW everyone has BDS, and it doesn't "halp" the Bonkeys one iota.

I just hope Guiliani's health holds up.

[cathyf]

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miler and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time. Useful details about Armitage might be there. However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony

Did Libby's lawyers have access to these documents before/during the trial? Or are these newly released?

[clarice]

Recently released--after the trial--at least the least redacted version.

[EH]

So, anybody gonna comment on Romney's $300 makeup job?

[clarice]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest Armitage was encouraged to be forgetful by the prosecution. It's enough to note that the prosecution made no real effort to confirm his story by for example subpoenaing his visitors log. Just as the prosecution obviously cared so little about confirming Fleischer's story that his refusal to sign a waiver was of no moment to Fitz. He then had a perfect out for not checking out the story--had he, it is clear Fleischer would have been proven to be a false witness or Russert would.

See how easy this is. How you can get anyone at all convicted of a crime when you use the tricks of the prosecution.

[Sara]

OT - Via General Peter Pace:

“In his most optimistic remarks since the U.S. troop buildup began, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that Iraq has undergone a “sea change” in security in recent months, and that this will influence his recommendation to President Bush on how long to continue the current strategy.

After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to security Baghdad and Anbar province. “It will because what I’m hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here,” he replied. “It’s no longer a matter of pushing al-Qaida out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems.”

Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the U.S. military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his “surge” strategy needs a further boost.”

[Sara]

Via MacRanger:

Don’t look now, but Bush’s poll numbers are rising.

“President Bush’s firm position on Iraq has firmed up his Job Approval numbers. For the fourth straight day, 39% of Americans say they approve of the way the President his performing his job. That’s up three percentage points from the ratings before the President’s press conference last Thursday and four points above the June average. The bounce can be traced to the response of Republicans who are more supportive of the President now that the debate over immigration has been left behind.”

[cathyf]

I know that these are newly-released to us -- the question I have is whether Libby's lawyers had them before/during the trial? Because it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't have hammered Cooper and Fleischer on the stand. If they did have access to this, and failed to make a big deal of it, then, yes, color me slack-jawed, too.

[Ranger]

Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

[PeterUK]

Some years back I had an acquaintance who wish to emigrate with his family on leaving the Royal Navy.He was an engineer,but was stonewalled until he let drop he worked on nuclear submarines,at which point there was a fanfare and out rolled the red carpet.
Now superspy Valerie Plame,sole defender of her nation,repository of a thousand and one WMD secrets,has been scratching around trying to eke a living,when innumerable organisations,security companies,let alone intelligence agencies should have snapped her up with her CV,is it to much to ask why?

[Ranger]

And on the OT issue, I have a feeling that the Senate Democrats are going to regret blocking Gen. Pace's renomination. It looks like he is going to hammer them in the press (at least indirectly) from now until he leaves his post. Did they really think a 4 star general wasn't a savy enough politician to make them pay for their actions?

[Sara]

Sorry for all these OTs, but I wonder if anyone else is following this?:

Senate Subpanel Hears Case of Convicted Border Agents

[Ralph L]

"My name is Bond...Kit Bond"

Sorry, it just ain't cool, even in a Connery accent.

[Ralph L]

Ranger, I can't believe Gates was stupid enough to show that much weakness in the face of the enemy (Senate Dems). Hasn't he learned appeasement doesn't work?

On the other hand, why wasn't Pace able to get the war strategy changed earlier? Bush or Rumsfeld didn't want to fire Abizaid or Casey? It sounds to me they were making the same mistakes Westmoreland did: clear out an area, and then leave.

[clarice]

Cathy:"I know that these are newly-released to us -- the question I have is whether Libby's lawyers had them before/during the trial? Because it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't have hammered Cooper and Fleischer on the stand. If they did have access to this, and failed to make a big deal of it, then, yes, color me slack-jawed, too."

To my knowledge Libby did not have this material until now.

Ranger:Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

I never heard of such a thing and find it doubtful.

[Ralph L]

Clarice, I suppose anyone interested to read your AT piece would know you meant waivers of confidentiality in your first paragraph?

[clarice]

I hope so. If not I explain that without them reporters wouldn't cooperate with the feds.

[cathyf]

Ranger:

Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

I don't think that is the right way to proceed. The biggest issues are the ones brought up in the "close issues" pleadings. After that, I think that the most important legal issues revolve around burden of proof questions. The way things are supposed to work is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, and so the lack of an investigation can only benefit the defense. Because the meaning of presumption of innocence is that if there is a guilty explanation of the facts and an innocent explanation of the facts, then the prosecution must take the investigation to a point where you rule out the innocent explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to do so, then the court is obliged to presume that the innocent explanation is true.

You can argue that there are many reasons having to do with basic justice for forcing the prosecution to bear the burden of proof. But there is are purely pragmatic issues as well -- if the defendent were to have the burden, then he should have the right to convene his own grand jury and hire his own police force in order to have any reasonable chance of retaining his other 5th and 6th amendment rights. The courts have quite reasonably ruled that defendents can't go off on wild fishing expeditions that would make trials go on for years -- if the investigation is inadequate then the defendant is not guilty. The only reason that the "prosecutor's tricks" worked is that in Walton's courtroom it was Libby's burden to prove himself innocent, and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.") Fixing this by overturning the conviction is right there squarely the job of judges. It was Walton's job to prevent it from happening; it is the appeals court's job (and if necessary the supreme court's job) to uphold the law. No civil rights lawsuits are required unless the appeals courts completely falls down.

[BobS]

Peter: Forgive another grassy knole moment (Dems make me cfrrazy like this) Perhaps Val needs no job. She and Joe are on the Soros payroll. How else could they afford to move to lefty la la land, New Mexico.

Also, for Ranger. Dems have already signaled how they are going to deal with an Iraq win. Deny we won and call everyone a liar. Reid pretty much has called Petraus one. Look for a PR hit job on Pace by the left.

See the Webb performence Sunday and how he not only said LGraham had not been to Iraq, he got called on it (7 trips for Graham) he then said that he gets the do and pony show. Deny, deny, deny and hope the MSM stays loyal to the DNC and continues to hate Bush above all else.

[Sue]

So, anybody gonna comment on Romney's $300 makeup job?

Why? Is Romney running on the two Americas theme also?

[Crust]

Tom, in case you didn't see it emptywheel is taking you to task re Armitage here:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/useful-details-.html

(I'm not a Plamaniac so I have no view on the merits either way. Just pointing it out.)

[Crust]

Trying again. Here's that link to emptywheel.

[anduril]

Fixing this by overturning the conviction is right there squarely the job of judges. It was Walton's job to prevent it from happening; it is the appeals court's job (and if necessary the supreme court's job) to uphold the law. No civil rights lawsuits are required unless the appeals courts completely falls down.

Posted by: cathyf | July 17, 2007 at 04:16 PM

Especially since we know that USA's seem to be able to get away with just about any antic they want to pull, and Fitz style SC's get even less supervision than that--like, zero.

BobS -- remember Novak's encounter with Hayden, spewing profanity because Novak dared to question Plame's covertness? I have zero respect for Graham, so I'm not sure how to even begin to express my disdain for a sleaze like Webb.

[MikeS]

Valerie Plame...has been scratching around trying to eke a living,

She must be doing something right. Up 'til now there have been no reports of illicit WMD in New Mexico.

[anduril]

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12. The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.

Do we know what efforts Fitz made to learn who Cooper's reporter source was? If the theory of the case was that the OVP was spreading the story among reporters, that would seem to be a logical way to nail down the chain of information and trace it back to the the OVP source--unless you were afraid the trail wouldn't lead to the OVP.

[PeterUK]

It is just interesting that a gobshite like Larry "The Piece" Johnson makes a crust out of being a celebrity spook and nobody ever asks Val anything.

[MJW]

I find this part of the not-a-transcript of Fleischer's testimony curious:

Jeffress: Walter Pincus –- can you say what area he writes in?

Fleischer: I called him because, White House reporters that covered this story. I was working off of who was covering the controversy. I knew he wasn't on the trip, so I could reach him.

Jeffress: Did you tell Pincus that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.

Fliescher: No sir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

According to the Sept. affidaivit, Fitz had "determined that Pincus' July 12 source was Ari Fleischer." I would think Fitz would have some duty as an officer of the court to immediately correct the record. No significant harm was done, since Pincus was called by the defense, but there may have been some harm. Forcing the government to contradict their own key witness's testimony seems very advantageous to the defense.

[HoosierHoops]

and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.")
cathyf
I don't understand this line in your post..sorry could you explain further?

[HoosierHoops]

It is just interesting that a gobshite like Larry "The Piece" Johnson makes a crust out of being a celebrity spook and nobody ever asks Val anything.

Posted by: PeterUK | July 17, 2007 at 05:08 PM
It says in his profile he had a distingished career for 4 years at the CIA..
4 years?
Crap I built Nuclear Submarines for 20 years and all i got was a paycheck and a bunch of atta boys..

[BobS]

Anduril...thanks for your comments regarding Hayden. That makes three instances his political leaning can be questioned. Perhaps Hayden is among the CIA Dems moles that include Plame, Mary McGregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern.

As for Graham, I must say his performance regarding the Imigr. bill left much to be desired. However, we cannot forget that he was among the House Managers who brought the articles of impeachment to the Senate. And he has been out front on defending our offensive ie surge when some wobbly rep senators started losing their nerve. Unlike others Graham has shown moxie when stooges like Webb start running their pie holes.

Now if you want to say that Voinovich from Ohio is the Fool on the Hill, I'm with you.

[hit and run]

Mikes:
She must be doing something right. Up 'til now there have been no reports of illicit WMD in New Mexico.

There's Uranium in them thar hills

[Sue]

Oh, good grief. I went to EW (thanks for the link, I can't resist links). This from Marcy:

Armitage NOT being a central player makes more sense than being one.

I know I've told the story about how my husband puts things together without reading the instructions. If he has left-over parts, he just tosses them, they weren't important or he could figure out where they went. If that isn't what they do over there I'll kiss your foot. If they can't make a player fit in their scenario they just toss them.

Sheesh...

[Sara]

I was going to comment in another thread the other day about the new "uranium in them thar hills" excitement. I remember back when I was still in elementary school, so it would have been the fifties, going to work with my Dad one day and his boss had just come back from the Southwest and was all excited about a new venture capital deal he wanted my Dad to get in on that was for mining uranium. I still have a piece of petrified wood about the size of a large coffee can with a strip of white quartz running down the middle that he brought me as a present and that I took to school for "show and tell." Anyway, my parents discussed whether to get in on the venture and decided against it. Are these the same uranium deposits from way back then? If so, wonder why the U.S. never got into mining there? Or maybe they did?

[maryerose]

Fleischer has a lot to answer for as does Dickerson. Someone needs to put them on the spot the next time they are out in public. Ditto Armitage and Gregory. They need to stop hiding under their beds and face the music.

[cathyf]

Sara, that's where the uranium for the Manhatten Project came from. (And it's why the bomb was designed & built at Los Alamos.)

This is the area that many westerns were filmed, and there is a lot of uranium ore in the environment, and it's kinda dusty. A large number of western actors & film crews died of lung cancer, especially among smokers. (While a smoker has a high chance of getting lung cancer, it's not 100% -- except for these guys.)

John Wayne probably was killed by those uranium deposits.

[cathyf]

and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.") cathyf I don't understand this line in your post..sorry could you explain further?

Libby was acquitted of perjury in the Cooper charge, but convicted of obstruction. Now you can imagine a hypothetical where someone was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury as separate acts -- he lied and destroyed evidence, for example -- where the jury might decide that the person didn't lie, but that they did destroy the evidence.

But in the Libby case, he did nothing at all other than testify which could have obstructed justice, and Fitzgerald only claimed that he obstructed justice by lying. The jury decided that Libby did not lie about what he said to Cooper (that was the one charge that they acquitted on after it was shown that the exact same phrase that was in Libby's testimony was in Cooper's notes, even though Cooper did not testify to remembering Libby saying the phrase.) But they did convict on obstruction with Cooper. Since the only way he could have obstructed with Cooper was with his testimony, and his testimony was truthful, then they convicted him for obstructing by tellling the truth.

[Tom Maguire]

Thanks, I had not seen that. Geez, I am apparently the new spokesguy for the entire "Libby Lobby" - who knew?

Re the affidavits - they buttress Mr. Turner's point from a different direction - in the Aug (Miller) affidavit the IIPA gets mentioned in a bitterly controversial footnote.

But a quick read of the Sept (Cooper) affidavit does not reveal any mention of the IIPA at all.

Both affidavits mentions possible crimes relating to the improper disclosure of national defense information, which is pretty vague - the Miller affidavit actually cites the Espionage Act and the IIPA.

My point - IIPA and Espionage Act charges were BS, and Fitzgerald essentially knew it, without actually admitting it.

This was a perjury investigation and Libby's sentence should not have been adjusted to reflect a phony IIPA/Espionage Act fantasy.

Hmm, phony fantasy is probably redundant. Unnecessary, too.

[Sara]

Cathyf, now that you mention it, I remember. Steve McQueen and Susan Hayward were two others that were filming there during a time when they had exposure to the cancer agents that eventually caused their deaths. My memory is fuzzy on the details and I thought it was because of atom bomb tests in Nevada, but I really don't recall enough to be sure that's correct.

[Sara]

Hmm, phony fantasy is probably redundant. Unnecessary, too.

LOL. I had a boyfriend who had a thing about learning everyone's sexual fantasies and he drove me nuts about it so I made one up just to shut him up. I guess you could call that a phony fantasy without being redundant.

[hit and run]

[VIMH: Don't]
But

[VIMH: Don't]
But I

[VIMH: Don't]
C'mon just one story

[VIMH: Don't]
Dude.

[clarice]

Cathy --in the Conrad Black case, the jury convicted Black of three counts of mail fraud in connection with contracts which the jury found did NOT violate the law.
They found him guilty of obstructing justice for removing documents which (a) he'd already provided to the SEC;(b)he removed them because he had a court order him to vacate the premises;(c) a Toronto court wanted the records but the evidence is that he didn't know that and there is no claim that the Canadian court was unable to get them from him after they were moved. In any event how do you get an obstruction conviction in a US Court under US law for "obstructing" a Canadian investigation ?

[Tom Maguire]

The truth can now be told - the main reason for my slack-jawedness about the Cooper info that he had a reporter source was that I had no recollection of how this was covered at the trial.

Fortunately, we have Google. From me:

And this from Marcy Wheeler:

J did you ask him where he heard it. In terms of sequence, either reporters or govt officials that you mentioned or who mentioned to you, Karl, then Dickerson, then Libby

MC That I want to qualify, it's possible that Dickerson had his conversation before I spoke to Rove, My understanding is it went me, Dickerson source, then Libby.

here is the liveblog.

And a mystery is revealed! From the liveblog:

J You testified at a lawyers office, in August 2004. He didn't put you before GJ at that time. When you were asked about your sources, you said there were three sources. One was Mr Rove, one was Libby, was one of them John Dickerson of Time.

Objection

Sidebar

From the Sept affidavit it appears that Cooper never said Dickerson was his source, so Jeffress is speculating here.

But later we have this:

J You and Mr. Dickerson knew by the time you talked to Libby that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Your recollection is that you asked him what he had heard. He said, I'd heard that too. Do you take that as confirmation. As a fact.

MC I did take it that way.

J Do you in all your stories say according to the person I talked to this is a fact.

MC One has to put it in context, and I took it as confirmation.

J did you ask him where he heard it. In terms of sequence, either reporters or govt officials that you mentioned or who mentioned to you, Karl, then Dickerson, then Libby

MC That I want to qualify, it's possible that Dickerson had his conversation before I spoke to Rove, My understanding is it went me, Dickerson source, then Libby.

Seems to be acknowledging Dickerson as his source, but...

it may be that Dickerson's contribution was "Flesischer really trashed Wilson and said if we knew who really sent him we would laugh out loud", which Cooper understood to be the wife in the context of his chat with Rove.

OR! What if it was some other TIME reporter altogether? Hmm.... someone who had gotten it from Joe?

I love that Fitzgerald never even pinned this down. Clown show.

[Ann]

H&R

I posted another report on the "Boom Times for Uranium Mines" a while ago. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-09-grants_n.htm

Knowing the Wilsons as we all do; I bet there is a connection.

[PeterUK]

Hoosierhoops,
You are not doing it right,form a Nuclear Submarine Builders For Peace organisation,then start a scare story about the dangers of Taleban in Afghanistan using them.

[Sara]

From an exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak:

HH: Let me ask you, I’m bored silly by the Plame affair, Robert Novak, but I do have one question about your opinion: Why was Armitage not charged if Valerie Plame’s identity was a secret, and Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating its leak?

RN: Because there was no crime committed under the Intelligence Agents Identity Act. That bill was passed, Hugh, to protect intelligence agents overseas from being outed by left wing forces, and then marked for assassination. It was really a deadly serious act, nothing like somebody sitting in Langley in the CIA headquarters as Mrs. Wilson was, doing analysis. There was no crime committed under that act, and therefore, he was not charged. And so that is the whole problem with the Libby indictment. He was charged for obstructing justice when there was no underlying crime committed, or allegedly committed.

[clarice]

Yes, TM--Undoubtedly it was Calabresi who got it from Wilson. The record shows he spoke to Wilson before and after Cooper's call to Libby.

[PeterUK]

"Libby Lobby", Sounds like a new dance craze.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

An adviser to Karl Rove calls Richard Armitage a coward for not Coming forward in 2003 and telling the public he was the source of the Valerie Plame leak. It could have ended the scandal right then and there.

I sincerely doubt it. Fitz was after Cheney, and nothing Armitage did would have stopped him.

The fact that Conrad Black violated no law--and obeyed the Laws of Supply and Demand--in accepting payments for agreeing to a non-compete clause that enhanced the Hollinger shareholders take on the sale of Hollinger properties, didn't stop him from prosecuting.

[clarice]

I sincerely doubt Fitz would have been able to continue had the President known of Armitage.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"-in the Conrad Black case, the jury convicted Black of three counts of mail fraud in connection with contracts which the jury found did NOT violate the law."

Thanks for raising this,the insanity of it was beginning to get to me.

[hit and run]

Black used old 32 cent stamps for the mailings.

[cathyf]

"-in the Conrad Black case, the jury convicted Black of three counts of mail fraud in connection with contracts which the jury found did NOT violate the law."

Well, the other thing that wasn't clear to me -- were the documents sent in the US Mail, or did they go FedEx? I didn't think it could be mail fraud unless it actually went through the US Mail. And nobody in the business world sends an important document through the US Postal Service.

[hit and run]

Or he put the intended recipients of the contracts as the return address to avoid putting any stampage on them at all...

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Cathy --in the Conrad Black case, the jury convicted Black of three counts of mail fraud in connection with contracts which the jury found did NOT violate the law.

I don't think so. It's confusing as to what the jury did, because the reporting (even Mark Steyn's) was so incompetent; I can't find even one news story that tells just what counts he was convicted on.

My assumption is #1. Which Steyn had described as; '...the only point at issue is whether the non-compete payments were properly negotiated, authorized and disclosed.'

Counts 6 & 7, which are the American Publishing Corp charges.

And #13, Obstruction. For moving boxes!

I don't see how you can conclude they thought they agreements in #1, 6 & 7 were not illegal.

I sincerely doubt Fitz would have been able to continue had the President known of Armitage.

Why not? Bush wouldn't have done anything.

[clarice]

I don't know, Cathy.I'm old and feeble minded and I'm still trying to figure out how putting a perfectly valid contract in the mail can be a crime.
But a quick check suggests using Fed Ex would be enough:
"In recent years Congress has amended the mail fraud statute twice. In 1988 Congress added section 1346, which states that the term "scheme to defraud" includes a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. In 1994 Congress expanded the use of the mails to include any parcel that is "sent or delivered by a private or commercial interstate carrier." As a result of these amendments, the mail fraud statute has become a broad act for prosecution of dishonest and fraudulent activities, as long as those crimes involve the mails or an interstate carrier"

[PeterUK]

"I'm old and feeble minded " Hmmm! Selling a bridge?

[Semanticleo]

Maguire;

Marcy is still waiting......

And eventually, we may get to a point I made a million years ago - Rove could not have been charged (with a straight face) unless Armitage and probably Fleischer were as well.

I mostly agree with this--certainly after the Woodward discovery. The fact that Novak's story is not credible (doesn't jive with known evidence, doesn't explain everything in his column.) That is, if Novak were a credible witness, someone might have gotten charged. Gosh, what a surprise.

As to espionage--have you figured out whether it was Rove or Libby who leaked the contents of the Wilson trip report to Novak? We know Libby leaked it to Judy. Whoever it was, there is no contest that that was classified--we even know that Rove told Novak that, before someone leaked him the info, and we know that Libby took notes of it being declassified, after he had already leaked it. Because that person, independent of whether Libby knew Plame's ID, committed espionage. Again, you've got two non-credible witnesses saving the day.

And finally, why did Libby balk at Cheney's order to leak Plame's ID, if he didn't know it was classified? He didn't need presidential authorization to leak the NIE--he leaked to Woodward and Sanger without. So it's pretty clear he knew that what he was leaking to Judy--whatever it was--was classified.

Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2007 at 18:48

Oh, and one more question, Maguire.

Are you asserting that Fitzgerald should have subpoenaed all the journalists he listed in his affy? I know you'd support a Mitchell subpoena (me too, probably). Matthews? Calabresi? Mike ALlen? Should Fitzgerald have subpoenaed all those reporters? Because while it would have been nice for Fitz to have discovered the WOodward leak, your argument assumes that Fitz would have gone big on journalist subpoenas, including all those he lists in his affy. Plus some he doesn't list, like David Sanger (earlier meeting with Libby).

Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2007 at 18:52

[Topsecretk9]

Marcy is still waiting......

Who cares?

[William L. Croft]

Cathy F

80% of the uranium used in the Manhattan Project came from Union Minière du Haut Katanga (Belgian Congo) and the rest from Canadian radium waste tailings and Colorado/Utah vanadium mines. Uranium was not discovered in Grants,NM until 1950 and this is the area that is being reopened.

Los Alamos, NM was selected because it was isolated and Oppenheimer had gone to the camp there as a boy!

Glazier

[Ranger]

As to espionage--have you figured out whether it was Rove or Libby who leaked the contents of the Wilson trip report to Novak? We know Libby leaked it to Judy. Whoever it was, there is no contest that that was classified--we even know that Rove told Novak that, before someone leaked him the info, and we know that Libby took notes of it being declassified, after he had already leaked it. Because that person, independent of whether Libby knew Plame's ID, committed espionage.

This is really funny considering the person who leaked the contents of Wilson's trip report to Novak (and anyone else who could read english) and therefore committed espionage is none other than Wilson himself in his leaks to reporters and then his own op-ed.

String the basterd up I say!

[clarice]

Well, I'm relying on published accounts, Steyn's and this one:

quote]Innocent of criminal fraud. Innocent of tax evasion. Innocent of racketeering. Indeed the amount Black is now liable for forfeiture is some $2 million which relate to two mail fraud convictions on two of the small non-competes on which there was no main fraud conviction. A far cry from the $90 million the prosecution had set up at the beginning of the trial. And some one-tenth of the cost of this case to the taxpaying public.
What he was found guilty of - after the judge’s instruction to the jury to resume deliberations – were three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. Let’s examine the latter first.
The obstruction of justice charge related to Black’s removal of boxes of documents from his Toronto office that we all saw on that security camera film. Three ironies in this charge. The first is that by the prosecution’s own admission it had all the documents in those boxes so how was justice obstructed? The second is that this event occurred in Toronto which is hardly in the jurisdiction of Cook County, Illinois, so how did it form part of an American bill of indictment? The third is that Conrad Black knew the locations of cameras in his own offices yet the tapes showed that he was not concerned nor did he try to dismantle them. Black’s intelligence is something that friend and foe agree on. If he was taking out documents that would have obstructed justice would he have not at least had the cameras closed before he went in?
But it is the three convictions of mail fraud that are the laughable part of this verdict. Laughable if the “consequences” - to use Fitzgerald’s word again – were not so draconian. Mail fraud is one of the federal legal constructs mentioned above that gives Washington jurisdiction in certain criminal cases. It was originally devised in the 1920’s and revised in the 1930’s as a means of implementing more effective racketeering prosecutions through federal indictments and federal prosecutors because state prosecutors were having a difficult time convicting many of violations of state law.
Mail fraud refers to any scheme in which the United States Postal System is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offence. It is used to provide an increased penalty to any main charge of criminal fraud – and allow for the intervention of federal prosecutors since Washington runs the postal service - particularly in those cases where the criminal act would have been only a violation of a state law. Today mail fraud is routinely thrown into almost every white-collar criminal prosecution because it brings in the big stick of the feds. Mail fraud covers everything from non-delivery or misrepresentation of mail-order merchandise to promotional cheques to work-at-home offers. Pretty mundane stuff right? What could it possibly have to do with Conrad Black? If your answer is nothing you’re right!
The three counts of mail fraud that Black was found guilty of related to the expedition by mail of contracts and cheques related to non-compete payments that the prosecution had alleged were fraudulently obtained. They alleged it but there was no conviction on a main charge of fraud. In other words, Black was not convicted of any main fraud count on the very charges he was found guilty of in the mail fraud! How could it be illegal to use the U.S. Postal Service to send contracts and cheques resulting from legal transactions? That is something for the appeals court to decide. But one thing is clear from this jury. Black took no “liberties” with “other people’s money” – to use Fitzgerald’s words again – and could have broken no laws on mail fraud since the jury assigned no culpability on any main fraud charge nor on the racketeering charge. [/quote]
Obstruction without obstructing anything; mail fraud without fraud.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/wajsman071507.htm

[glasater]

"Or he put the intended recipients of the contracts as the return address to avoid putting any stampage on them at all...

Posted by: hit and run | July 17, 2007 at 07:00 PM"
That comment just made me laugh.....

Perhaps Mr. Black took an eraser....rubbed out the postal markings on the stamp.....and then re-used them.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

From the Steyn piece:

Mail fraud refers to any scheme in which the United States Postal System is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offence.

Which indicates to me that the jury thought the non-competes in counts 1, 6 & 7 were criminal.

The problem, I'm guessing, is insufficient grasp of economics on the part of the jury. They didn't understand that Black et al, signing them actually ADDED value for the shareholders. Without the non-comps the purchase might not have gone through at all, or if it did, at a greatly reduced price.

Black's fees (a small fraction of the total deals) were merely recognizing his contribution.

But, the jury instead thought it a crime.

[Ranger]

And finally, why did Libby balk at Cheney's order to leak Plame's ID, if he didn't know it was classified?

And another howler! Where at trial was it ever argued by the prosecution that the "Cheney ordered" Libby to leak Plame's name? In fact, I seem to clearly recall that a prosecution witness stated the VP specificly ordered his staff not to bring up 'the wife' (right before the call to Matt Cooper I think) to reporters and just stick to the factual push back.

[hit and run]

We didn't get to see it, but the article with Cheney's handwritten notes....Cheney had circled letters in the article itself, that, when you wrote them down, spelled OUT HER.

[hit and run]

Sorry got confused. Meant to say, look at the handwritten note, hard to reproduce faithfuly through typing, but lemme give it a shot:

Did his wife send him On a jUnkeT?

[PeterUK]

"Cheney had circled letters in the article itself, that, when you wrote them down, spelled OUT HER."

I think you will find it was OUT H&R.

[hit and run]

Or

OUR H&R?

I think I was supposed to out Plame?

[Semanticleo]

Still waiting, MISTER Maguire......

[clarice]

Semantic..I hope you're holding your breath, too.

[Exorcist]

God forbid he should have his mettle tested.

[abw]

I'm so confused

dKos Plame timeline

May 29 Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador's trip. Grossman does not know about it and sets to find out. He first asks Richard Armitage, who has not heard either. Grossman then emails Carl Ford and Walter H. Kansteiner, both of whom know about Wilson and who inform Grossman of details of the trip. Grossman informs Armitage. Grossman calls Joe Wilson, who he knows from the foreign service. Grossman calls Libby and tells him that Wilson is the unnamed ambassador. (Grossman testimony; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6; Libby indictment) Grossman directs INR head Carl Ford to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. Ford tasks Neil Silver with the preparation. (Ford testimony; Grossman testimony; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6; Libby indictment, p. 4). (Grossman leaves on a trip June 1, and returns to the office June 9. It it possible the report is requested after Grossman's return, not before.) [edit]WH scrambles to address criticism, Niger mission INR report created [edit]June 2003 [edit]June 1-7 During the first week of June, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus makes an inquiry about Joseph Wilson's trip, with the CIA public affairs office. That office contacts the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at the CIA, (Valerie Plame's unit), but no report is produced. (Time) [edit]June 3 Scooter Libby makes a note to talk to Dick Cheney about the Pincus article. (Libby testimony, p. 70; Libby note, p. 16 of pdf) [edit]June 6 Scooter Libby meets with Richard Armitage for 15 minutes. (Libby testimony, p. 11; AP)

Libby asks Grossman.
Grossman asks Armitage.
Armitage talks to Wilson.
Armitage talks to Libby.

[hit and run]

Sounds about right. Nothing better to do than to hit refresh every 30 seconds, waiting for TM to make your life meaningful.

[VIMH: You're one to talk]
Yeah, well, mrs hit and run is in Hawaii, the kids are in TX and life without her and the kids is dull and boring.

[VIMH: GET DRUNK! GET DRUNK! GET DRUNK!]
Why didn't I think of that?

[abw]

ack, preview failed me and I got a name wrong. Try again:

May 29 Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador's trip. Grossman does not know about it and sets to find out.

He first asks Richard Armitage, who has not heard either. Grossman then emails Carl Ford and Walter H. Kansteiner, both of whom know about Wilson and who inform Grossman of details of the trip. Grossman informs Armitage.

Grossman calls Joe Wilson, who he knows from the foreign service.

Grossman calls Libby and tells him that Wilson is the unnamed ambassador. (Grossman testimony; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6; Libby indictment)

Grossman directs INR head Carl Ford to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. Ford tasks Neil Silver with the preparation. (Ford testimony; Grossman testimony; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6; Libby indictment, p. 4). (Grossman leaves on a trip June 1, and returns to the office June 9. It it possible the report is requested after Grossman's return, not before.)

WH scrambles to address criticism, Niger mission INR report created

June 2003

June 1-7
During the first week of June, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus makes an inquiry about Joseph Wilson's trip, with the CIA public affairs office. That office contacts the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at the CIA, (Valerie Plame's unit), but no report is produced. (Time)

June 3
Scooter Libby makes a note to talk to Dick Cheney about the Pincus article. (Libby testimony, p. 70; Libby note, p. 16 of pdf)

June 6
Scooter Libby meets with Richard Armitage for 15 minutes. (Libby testimony, p. 11; AP)

Libby asks Grossman.
Grossman asks Armitage.
Armitage talks to Grossman.
Grossman talks to Libby.

[abw]

AS TO ESPIONAGE - did you know there in no law in the United States against leaking classified information? Hell, you can print papers from the Pentagon in the New York Times and help the United States lose a war and the Supreme Court will back you up.

Amazing country we live in, eh?

[PeterUK]

"Semantic..I hope you're holding your breath, too."

Of course,she's a good little carbon breather.Come along moonbats hold your breath for Gaia.

[anduril]

beldar discusses a case in which the the Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit, in a dissent, after first stating forthrightly:

This is a case about nothing. Injunctive relief from the school’s election rules is now moot (if it was ever viable); and plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the only relief sought in this litigation is nominal damages. Now, after years of litigation over two dollars, the majority will impose on a busy judge to conduct a trial on this silly thing, and require a panel of jurors to set aside their more important duties of family and business in order to decide it.

With due respect to my colleagues in the majority, and to whatever compulsion they feel to expend substantial energies on this case, I fear that the majority opinion (44 pages of typescript) will only feed the plaintiffs’ fantasy of oppression: that plutocrats are trying to stifle an upsurge of Pol-Potism on Staten Island. Contrary to the impression created by the majority’s lengthy formal opinion, this case is not a cause célèbre; it is a slow-motion tantrum by children spending their graduate years trying to humiliate the school that conferred on them a costly education from which they evidently derived small benefit.

...

I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. [In yo face, brother judges!]

goes on to make this highly pertinent comment:

If this case ends with a verdict for plaintiffs (anything is possible with a jury)...>/b>

How's that for a ringing endorsement?

[anduril]

Hope that cleared it.

[Topsecretk9]

Hit's 8:19 and 8:24 - is...UM...very FUNNY.

Hit

I was always thinking the benign scribblings were something like the White Album in paper form - there must be an unspoken order to take those general notes and hold them in the Veep bathroom mirror in order to find the hidden "message"

[clarice]

HIT's always very funny.

[Topsecretk9]

08:33 PM

Is good too...Actually Hit - I am now almost positive you were ordered to OUT her and like Woodward -- totally failed

--

After MJW put the affidavit links I was googling trying to find Fitz's response on Ari during the trial and came up with EW hits on all kinds of Cathie Martin was going to blow the lid and Fitz had NO way of knowing whats and so about Ari and one thread where EW and Swoopa(sp) go back and forth - Swoopa is no righty by any stretch but like Jeralyn Merritt was in at least this instance able to acknowledge realities.

Theories are one thing - snarky defensiveness as if your life depended on your version while professional disinformation captain Joe Wilson pulls your strings?

Priceless.

[Cecil Turner]

Nice comment thread over at TNH (and mostly polite, even!). I think cboldt nailed it on the overall:

• Plame being "covert" per the IIPA definition is unproven (and probably false);
• the requirement for "taking affirmative action to conceal" is probably not met;
• neither matters, because Libby didn't know she was covert (probably because she wasn't).

The part I find most amusing, however, is the contention that it's okay for Wilson to write his OpEd article about his report, but it'd be illegal for anyone else to cite it. After all, Wilson said:

There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Of course, the CIA version was stamped "Secret" . . .and the mere subject in the INR memo was marked "Secret" as well. After Wilson's OpEd, however, it was certainly less of one. And after July 11th, it was largely declassified, since the CIA Director publicly acknowledged that:

He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

[Topsecretk9]

DKOS infomania appears to be really wrong or outdated...

May 29 Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador's trip. Grossman does not know about it and sets to find out. He first asks Richard Armitage, who has not heard either. Grossman then emails Carl Ford and Walter H. Kansteiner, both of whom know about Wilson and who inform Grossman of details of the trip. Grossman informs Armitage.

Grossman calls Joe Wilson, who he knows from the foreign service.

----------------------------

On a number of occasions over the years, Wilson has portrayed his decision to go public as a rather high-minded effort to bring the truth to the American people. But on the witness stand today, former State Department official Marc Grossman described a phone call ***he received from Wilson on June 9,**** the Monday after Rice's appearance. "He was really mad," Grossman testified. "He told me that he was angry at the way he had been described [on 'Meet the Press']. He was very mad at the way he'd been described and that people were not taking him seriously…What he told me was that he had been described as some low-level person, and he was very upset by that."

"Did he say he was considering going public to correct a misimpression created by Condoleezza Rice?" asked Libby attorney Ted Wells.

"Yes," said Grossman.

So I guess -don't go by KOS's disinfopedia

[Cecil Turner]

May 29 Scooter Libby asks Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the unnamed ambassador's trip.

Well, that was the story. And Grossman got an honorable mention in the Libby indictment:

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

But the trial testimony didn't live up to the hype:

You have no notes, you did no follow-up memo. You cannot identify for the jury one piece of paper that documents your recollection.

You did not give Libby the INR Report?

You did not tell Libby that there was an INR Report?

Correct. [emphasis added]

So we're supposed to believe Libby asked Grossman on May 29th, and in response they finally got around to writing a report ~2 weeks later, but didn't show it to Libby, and then he later told Libby about Plame face-to-face, but didn't bother with the paperwork he wrote for him (after initially claiming it was a phone call)? Sounds a lot like Wilson going to Niger because of the VP's question . . . asked after the recommendation was already written. Try this as an alternate explanation:
On June 8th, 2003, Sec Powell and Sec Rice hit the talk show circuits. Rice was famously ambushed on Meet the Press. On June 9th, they were doing damage control and defending the intel handling (and Sen Roberts said they'd declassify the NIE). The INR memo was written on the 10th, and Armitage leaked on the 13th. (Kristof published White House in Denial the same day.)

That timeline is only five days long . . . and has Grossman responding to the immediate interests of his boss, not some week-old conversation with Scooter. Libby found out about Plame on the 12th from the VP . . . and had absolutely nothing to do with the INR or Armitage leaking it.

[hoosierhoops]

Are you asserting that Fitzgerald should have subpoenaed all the journalists he listed in his affy? I know you'd support a Mitchell subpoena (me too, probably). Matthews? Calabresi? Mike ALlen? Should Fitzgerald have subpoenaed all those reporters? Because while it would have been nice for Fitz to have discovered the WOodward leak, your argument assumes that Fitz would have gone big on journalist subpoenas, including all those he lists in his affy. Plus some he doesn't list, like David Sanger (earlier meeting with Libby).

Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2007 at 18:52

Posted by: Semanticleo | July 17, 2007 at 07
Oh Cleo...
The whole problem with this political show trial is that it doesn't pass the smell test..Do you really think the, he said, they said, she said..was a valid standard for such a high profile trial..
This was simply a way to try to get at the Bush white house..nothing more, nothing less..you do read fdl right? They wanted nothing more than to get to the VP.
If Fitz would have stood up and said ' I sell drugs' then crap..slap on the wrist and probation..end of case... 30 months prison time for this fault where the man did not leak the name but somebody else did? It's called looking for a fall guy in Washington D.C. It was a setup pure and simple...do away with the lawyer talk and come down to earth..Plain talk from the cornfield my friend..this was a setup and pathetic in it's breadth and width.
That's why it was a no-brainer for bush to wipe away the ruling the next day or so..
It was a show trial to the highest degree
and unfair in every respect of the word...As an american, i despise being unfair to members of any party or White house....
Now I know you don't believe me...
But let me ask you Cleo..
The day after Libby was 'pardoned' or whatever you call it..
Did you see average americans screaming bloody murder? marching on Washington?
massive letters to the editor? Calls for lynching?
um..no..just the democrats pissed off that they couldn't draw blood on the office of the VP. And really kindof feeble at that..
there you go.it didn't pass the smell test and the left blogs are in despair at that notion.. Not that justice wasn't done..but that blood did not flow...
Pathetic Cleo...