Powered by TypePad

« Anniversaries | Main | Trophy Wives »

July 07, 2007



glasater, at one point in this Judy said she thought she had some kind of clearance because of her work alongside the DoD weapons hunters in Iraq. But that was the beginning and end of that. I think she was mistaken and no one has ever established that she did. Indeed, it would seem an impossibility.


I AGREE with the liberals on this whole commutation stuff. If they can find me one other defendent that was prosecuted by:

- A prosecutor that had all the powers of the AG and more.
- A prosecutor that had an unlimited budget that only he controlled.
- A prosecutor that had the power to sign off on declassifying National Security information with the stroke of his pen.
- A prosecutor that had the power to waive all guidelines regarding a normal prosecutors conduct including deciding to jail reporters, have press conferences and lie about defendants with impunity.

I will support that persons sentence commutation, period.

Carol Herman

Glasater. At 7:43 PM. I REMEMBER THAT, TOO!

Judith Miller had the clearance, to see the Israelis questioning (...here my mind goes blank.) She was Chalabi's route to the first page, above the fold, section, of the New Yuk Times, as well.

And, whatever testimony Judith Miller gave in front of the jury, it was chucked out. (She may be clever? And, she may be a ditz?) But whatever it was she "discussed" with Libby over their two-hour lunch; I am sure HE FOUND HER "informative." Not the reverse!

Given that Judith Miller, so far, has just shut up. This is just an extension of Pinchie's contract to fund Robert Bennett's legal bills. When does the contract cease? How should I know?

But you picked up on something important. As soon as I read your comment, a light went on in my head.

By the way, I'm sure other journalists also have CIA "clearance." Without this, they'd get no leads.

And, I'm still pretty sure that Valerie Plame operated a bank account that was "covert." For some reason, no one wants to dig deeper.

But, heck. Somebody's gotta be paying the CIA bills. Their agents aren't free, ya know. Gosh. That was a good catch!


Judith Miller had a type of security clearance because of her NYT "beat".
Did someone mention previously that Scooter Libby could have learned about Valerie from Miller?"""

I believe I mentioned that Libby could have testified he learned it from Miller ratehr then saying Russert. It would have a ta least made sense.

Judy claimed to have a security clearance; but it was probably just some enterprising troop buttering her up. It can get very lonely out there......

Note to others: You do not have to get naked to receive your clearance.




Somewhere upthread, someone asked how to make their name show up "bold". Entering a valid URL will do it. I just used the JOM site URL.

Other Tom

Flop-sweat gathers on the brows of the Live Earth zanies:


Hee hee hee...

Carol Herman

Poppy Patton EVERYTHING Plame did as a spook could not be done as a man! Once a guy got naked and his balls showed, the "game" would be over.

And, since Plame's at least a bottle blonde; and Ames disclosed her covert status to the russians, I was pretty sure parts of her "data collection jobs" were done disrobed.

You can't fool me.

Then? Well, Wilson's 2nd wife is a french spook. So, it's possible ALL 3 shared this one. Jacqueline moved off; and Joe married his 3rd wife. Who had her hands firmly attached to COVERT FUNDS. Since you don't need receipts, you can imagine how tempting this all was!

And, yes, folks. Judith Miller had REAL clearance. She used it to view a Mossad "interview" of one of their prisoner's. And, she had very high clearance to get through to Yitzak Rabin. WHO WAS HER GUIDE.

Judith Miller was also the "mouthpiece" to the New Yuk Times, for Chalabi. He's the dude the CIA helped to train his mafia. And, they flew him into Irak during the time Tommy Franks was still there! Then? They began looting. And, you saw those films on your TV.

You'd be surprised how the CIA actually works its mischief. Doesn't even matter whose the president, it seems.

Still? Chalabi "blew up." The Iraqis hated him. And, when the stuck their fingers into the purple ink, he didn't fair well.

The "prize" of Irak has been worth fighting for; that's why Iran joined in. Not leaving it to the Saud's. And, Chalabi. While Maliki, too, has deep connections with both syria and iran.

It's true. We made mistakes. Hopefully, we will learn from them. Perhaps? At some point in the future. There'll be more truth.


It is odd that the only person with absolutely nothing to say about the Libby verdict or the commutation is Judy Miller.

You forgot about Armitage dropping by Grossman's house the night before Grossman's first FBI interview just to let Marc know that he had already confessed to leaking to Novak (but also possibly to tell him that he hadn't confessed to leaking to Woodward). Add that and you have three hightly questionable things.

But, as Fitz said when he was trying to keep Armitage's identity secret, he 'did nothing wrong.'

While we're discussing witness tampering, there is the curious case of the non-barking Eckenrode-Russert "interview." So agent Bond testifies in the trial that Eckenrode interviewed Russert. But then later NBC's lawyers filed an affidavit resisting Russert's FBI interview, leaving out the "fact" that he had already been "interviewed" by the FBI.

So did Fitzgerald commit perjury or suborn perjury? Was Russert's affidavit false? Or was Fitzgerald's affidavit false, and Russert's testimony false, and the reason that there are no interview notes from the first Russert interview because it wasn't Eckenrode interviewing Russert, but instead Eckenrode leaking to Russert? Did Eckenrode leak to Murray Waas (violating grand jury secrecy) or was it Eckenrode's mother? (If it wasn't Eckenrode, it was Eckenrode's biggest fan -- he is the starring hero of all of Waas' inside info articles.) If it was Eckenrode's mom, how did she find out the top secret grand jury testimony?

And the biggest question of all -- why didn't Team Libby make a bigger issue of this at the trial? Why didn't they call Eckenrode as a witness and directly ask him if he was Waas' source? Russert's source? Mitchell's source for the CIA referral or anything else? Why didn't they ask Russert on the stand if Eckenrode was leaking info to him in the supposed interview (and committing witness tampering, even if unintentional.) Libby had the right to impeach Russert's testimony...


cathyf, I have said for a long time that my big question is why didn't Fitz want Eckenrode to testify? I don't question so much the defense not calling him, since it is dangerous to put anyone, and for sure an FBI agent, on the stand without knowing what they will say. But, for Fitz to substitute the inept Bond for Eckenrode seems very suspicious. I think there is some there there, but how we will ever know, I don't know.


Thanks to all responding to my question on Judith Miller. I did see her on, I believe, a C-Span show making that comment--i.e., her having some kind of security clearance for her work.
Found her web site and read her review of George Tenet's book which wasn't a total pan. And she doesn't dump on Scooter Libby either.


Carol, Chalabi might have had some contacts with the CIA back when he lived in Beirut
than later Jordan; but at least since the mid 90s; he was derided by both State & CIA. People like Bob Baer who used to be anti-Iranian and pro Syrian; as late as the publishing of his roman a clef; which argued that 9/11 was an Iranian plot which used KSM as a cut out. Since late 2006; he's become an appeasenik arguing that Hezbollah of all people can defend the Maronites against Al Queda. Miller was a
Chalabi contact, but so is the Post's Jim
Hougland among other. Fitzgerald, put Miller in jail despite the fact that he
already knew who the leaker was; The Azeri
trader; Armitage; whose role in Caspian
pipeline politics through his member in
the Baku Chamber of Commerce and the Azeri
International Oil Company came up in the
light of the Roger Tamraz matter.

Rove told him he talked to Cooper on deep background and never sought confidentiality and it would have been better for everyone if Cooper would have just testified instead of pretending he didn't have permission even though he had a signed waiver.

Looking back, it seems apparent that Copper is at minimum a shoddy reporter and more complicit in making a story crisis than anything.

Well, that's the charitable interpretation. How about this for a theory?

1) Cooper knew that Wilson was sent by the wife before he talked to Rove. He found it out either from his wife (who found it out from her boss, Hilary Clinton, who found it out from Joe Wilson) or he found it out from his co-author, who found it out from Joe Wilson before Cooper talked to Rove.

2) Cooper called Rove with the pretense of talking about welfare reform, and then changed the subject and started digging in about Wilson. He was hoping to confirm Wilson's accusation that Rove was attacking him through his wife, and to "launder" the Wilson info by pretending the Rove was his source not whomever his source really was.

3) Rove told Cooper that Wilson was not who he seemed, that Tenet was going to declassify some info in the next few hours, and not to "get too far out in front on Wilson."

4) Cooper then dangled a Wilson's wife comment hoping for a Rove confirmation.

5) Rove answered Cooper with exactly the same smart-alecky non-response, "You heard that too?" that he gave to Novak earlier in the week.

6) Rove wrote an email right after this incident, gloating that he hadn't taken Cooper's bait to give him information about Wilson. Rove then forgot the whole thing.

7) Cooper immediately wrote an email to his bosses claiming that Rove had told him about Plame, and tried to get them to publish his story saying this. His bosses refused because Cooper was only admitting to Rove as a source, and Time has a policy of not publishing single-sourced allegations.

8) Cooper was desperately trying for a second source that he could admit to his bosses. He called Cathie Martin, and Libby called him back at Martin's behest.

9) Cooper asked about Plame. Libby had just heard about Wilson's wife being involved in sending Wilson for the first time from Russert. Either Cheney or Martin had told him in June that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and a couple of CIA briefers had mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but nobody had said anything about her being involved in sending him, and so it was in one ear out the other. Until Russert supplied the far more important (if true) piece of info that this wasn't just some small-world coincidence that the wife worked there, but that she had actually been involved in the decision to send him.

10) Libby replied that he was hearing that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson to Niger, but he wasn't sure that it was true.

11) Cooper's bosses didn't take this as confirmation, either.

12) Fitzgerald subpoenaed Cooper because Libby thought that he kinda sorta remembered talking to him about Wilson's wife.

13) Cooper faced a decision once the lawyers told him that he couldn't resist the subpoena -- should he commit perjury and stick to the story that he told his bosses about Rove leaking to him? Or should he spill his guts to the grand jury and admit that he lied to his bosses about Rove and risk Eckenrode telling Murray Waas all about it?

14) Cooper's colleague Viveca Novak was a "friend" of Rove's lawyer, and Luskin told Viveca that Rove had no memory of the Cooper conversation, but that Luskin had found an email that Rove wrote right after it. Cooper was able to get enough information from Viveca that he knew that Rove didn't explictly deny talking about Plame (why would he?) and so Cooper decided, in for a penney, in for a pound, he would stick to the story that he told his bosses in the email. In the interest of keeping the lie as simple as possible, he attributed Rove's smart-aleck "I heard that too" to Libby in his testimony.

Ok, it's kind of a tinfoil-hat theory. But I submit that it is a bit more plausible than any theory that Fitzgerald advanced -- and Fitzgerald got a conviction based on his tinfoil story. The weirdest thing about Cooper's story is that Cooper's notes and Libby's testimony agree that Libby said one thing, while Cooper's testimony was that Libby said exactly the same words that Rove replied to Novak. Cooper's notes say that Libby used Libby's line; Cooper's testimony was that Libby used Rove's line. Cooper talked to both Libby and Rove -- why should we believe it more likely that Libby used Rove's line than that Rove used Rove's line?

I don't question so much the defense not calling him, since it is dangerous to put anyone, and for sure an FBI agent, on the stand without knowing what they will say.
Why didn't Libby at least try to use the lack of Eckenrode's notes to keep Russert off the stand? Look, go for the jugular... They should have filed a motion right before Russert's testimony claiming that Russert's testimony was tainted from the beginning by Eckenrode's big mouth. Because 1) Eckenrode is a notorious leaker and 2) the lack of notes and 3) Russert's affidavit are all prima facia evidence that the first "FBI interview of Russert" was in fact Eckenrode leaking to Russert and irrevocably tainting his testimony.

And, more importantly, do I understand correctly that by not objecting at the time, Libby has given up the opportunity to bring this up in the appeal? If he gets a new trial based on some other error (Mitchell's exclusion, for example), can he bring it up then? If I remember it correctly, Fitzgerald kept the absence of Eckenrode's notes from Libby until the night before Russert's testimony -- is it legitimate grounds for appeal to say that because Fitzgerald hid the information until mere hours before Russert's testimony, Libby didn't have an opportunity to appreciate the import of this information until later, and so the appeals court should consider this and order Russert's testimony excluded in any new trial?

Carol Herman

Glasater, again. This time at 10:57 PM

Wow. I had accepted the meme that Judith Miller was a ditz. That was put to rest reading the NY SUN book review she wrote on Tenet's book. A very gifted writer.

And, I thank you for posting the web link. It makes it easy to send this around via email. Something I like to do with some of the posts that appear, here.

Now, Narciso, it's possible the CIA had a disinformation campaign out on Chalabi. But you can't disguise the fact that Chalabi was brought into Bagdhad during Tommy Franks' "3 Week Adventure, there."

Men trained by the CIA filled a C-130. And, it was these goons who looted.

Judith Miller disects Tenet's "apologia" as a book written by a man whose angry. That his reputation got "slam dunked." While she also does a very good job of showing that the CIA (given the money allotted to them; and the personnel), could not even come up with a hint that 9/11 was in the winds. For evidence, she uses the bull crap Tenet pulled in 1998, "saying" the agency was gonna hunt Osama. And, then he did nothing at all.

So, sure. There's lots of finger pointing out there.

Chalabi, in fact, does have his own militia, still, in Irak. He also has the stolen billions he took from the Jordanian bank. However, when he ran for seats in parliament, he was DENIED. The Iraqis, themselves, aren't stupid. And, I suppose the evils of islam sit there, creating the muck of Lebanon, instead of democracy. While, in reading Judith Miller's SUN book review, I did not know that Tommy Franks had been asked by Bush about how he'd deal with Irak, once Saddam was toppled. Well, according to Judith Miller, Franks said he had a general in every town, village, and hamlet, keeping order. Instead? Franks just left. And, 10 months of Casey (where things then were a lot safer), were ended by Paul Bremmer. Whose responsible for sending in that idiot?

Libby is just a small part of this whole thing. With a president who was unable to connect with the American People. Which is why the Bonkeys are swaying left. And, braying "defeat."

Who knows what the future holds, though?



... Fitzgerlad stood before the microphones and said Libby was the first known official and he wasn't and then Fitzgerlad fights to suppress the issue...

And lets not forget: Plame and Wilson spoke to Kristof for the May 6th artcle that laid the groundwork and they [at least Wilson] spoke to Pincus and David Corn. Who was the "first government offical" to talk about Plame-none other than Valerie Plame herself. If she coudn't keep her trap shut why should she have an expectation anyone else would. That is the thing I find most ridiculous about this whole enterprise-Plame was talking to reports and that wasn't an issue that Fitzgerald wanted to investigate


Carol Herman

Cathy f, your posts are excellent.

One of the things that was riding Wells, though, was the judge, himself. And, the judge wanted Libby to take the stand!

I'd even bet there was a scenario designed that IF Libby took the stand, Walton would have found "something" ... where he'd yell out "YOU'RE A LIAR. AND, YOU GO TO JAIL. NOW."

There's so much evidence that Walton was as much out of control as Fitzgerald.

For, $1000 Alex, I'll guess the reason why. There's so much collusion now going on with out courts and politics, that there are justices waiting for even bigger fish to come on by. (Like the 2008 election.)

I think, too, lots of judges realize most people haven't got wind of what goes on in courtrooms.

Once Ekenrode's notes were "lost" ... the case should'a been tossed.

Unfortunately, we are lacking jurists these days; as becoming a judge is just a trip down a political lane. Sad? Sure.

Walton's just an extension of the OJ jurors. And, there's lots of people who applauded that miscarriage of justice, too.

Now, I read that Libby has $5-million dollars still left in his defense fund. If I were him? I'd close shop. And, pocket the dough. Well, he's in a better set of circumstances than Martha Stewart. But I think Martha Stewart picked the best course of action. Her business thrives. You can't say that about most print media, these days.

I hope Libby writes a book. And, I certainly hope Judith Miller writes one. She's not only organized. She's controlled. She can weild a pen as good as any gun slinger.


Posted by: cathyf | July 07, 2007 at 11:14 PM

You nailed it - completely nailed it.

and to

7) Cooper immediately wrote an email to his bosses claiming that Rove had told him about Plame, and tried to get them to publish his story saying this. His bosses refused because Cooper was only admitting to Rove as a source, and Time has a policy of not publishing single-sourced allegations.

Pearlstein also criticized Cooper for "emailing" his bosses the flimsy thing and naming Rove in that email -- he said something to the effect, that by sending that email there were then like 10 other Time employees aware of it. AKA - super shoddy times 2

I wish I could find that link again - AH having a brainstorm - I think it was Radar - will go look.

Carol Herman

Poppy Patton at 8:48 PM

The russians like their women blonde.

I'm sure that was part of Plame's attraction.

Then, Ames outted her. End of her chances to get the Russians to whisper secrets in her ear.

If she was able to do that with her clothes on? Good for her. But for secrets? She'd turn tricks. (Involving "clothes off.") Otherwise? In such dangerous work, why not send a man?



And although he calls Cooper a "stand-up guy," Pearlstine says he botched his sources. "He was less than perfectly discreet after he got Karl Rove on the phone on Friday, July 11, 2003, to talk about Plame," Pearlstine says—Cooper e-mailed his bureau chief Michael Duffy and deputy Jay Carney about the conversation with Bush's brain. Six days later, "more than two dozen Time Inc. employees ... had had access to e-mails in which Matt had named Rove as his source."

Plus, "Matt was not only wrong to treat the conversation as if it were 'confidential,'" Pearlstine writes, "He also violated the rules for 'deep background' when he attributed the information about Valerie Plame to administration officials." Rove later complained to Pearlstine about Cooper, telling him at a conference in Aspen in September 2005, "Our ground rule was 'deep background' ... I never asked to be treated as a confidential source. Everyone would have been better off if Matt had just agreed to testify about our conversation.'"



...Libby had the right to impeach Russert's testimony...

According the Walton interperation of Fitzlaw, Libby did not: source

It is further ORDERED that the defendant is precluded from introducing additional evidence to impeach government witness Tim Russert.

Not only was Mitchell off limits, but it closed up anything else on Russert. It was curious why the defense didn't hammer the no-Enkenrode


Carol Herman

Top Secret 9. I just went to Amazon to buy Pearlstine's book. It seems to me Fitzgerald's way to Rove was through Cooper.

But Cooper LIED. Rove didn't give him the "leak" to plame. Good for Rove that he recorded Cooper's call in an email! Because he "felt set up."

So, now, it's not just Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell who outright lied. (And, you can add the duel between Pincus and Woodward; where the knowledge of Plame was discussed.)

Oh, and Pincus attended a 4th of July celebration at the Wilson's.

There's so much grand larceny going around, here.

Something tells me this case is like the Edsel. Where, at corporate headquarters, all these plans are worked out. But people aren't buying.

In other words? Congress' approval ratings have plummetted. There's an election coming up next year. We also have a war on.

You'd have thought once the Bonkeys realized what Fitz was up to, they'd have chosen to run away? I mean, wasn't that presser a bust?

RichatUF; I'm not so sure Wells could hammmer anything in Walton's court room. The fix was in. And, DC is that kind of town.

It's too bad Libby's trial wasn't televised.

I'm also not so sure that our military is losing support. I read, somewhere, that our military polls at about a 70% approval rating. That's not how things were back in the 1960's and 70's, with Vietnam.

If I had to guess? The operation against Bush is similar to what the Bonkeys tried on Reagan. Got nowhere. (Remember, we attacked Grenada.) No harm. No foul.

And, now we have the Internet. This site sees lots more traffic when Libby information comes down this pike. I've noticed the spikes.

Sherlock Holmes actually sets the stage for people to deal with incompetent police work. Seems this case, here, has formed an organization of Baker Street Irregulars.

So many people comment. Such a joy to read through this stuff!


I looked at Miller's explanation of her grand jury testimony at the site Glasater linked. She was lying through her teeth. She "might" have been doing things a normal person would not forget, like misnaming Plame to see if Libby will correct her.

I guess that's why they threw out that charge in the trial, but I'll bet her saying Libby "may" have told her about Wilson's wife worked against Libby in the Russert charge.


"It was curious why the defense didn't hammer the no-Enkenrode"

Simple. According to some legal wizards here, the defense did not know for sure what he'll say. I have always wondered what was there to lose by questioning Ekenrode. Team Libby are just well paid bozos who have lost every round so far. Do not forget Wells' assertion on the first day of trial that his client is a scapegoat. That sounded to me as acknowledging 'something fishy' did occur. Maybe that's why jurors later asked "where's Rove?" and "where's Cheney".


One doesn't wish to quibble but Chalabi's forces were most likely DIA not CIA. Their
man was the late General Khazraji; who was
too tied to the Anfal campaigni in the early
days; for confort. State's man; was the smooth octogenerian Adnan Pachachi; whose
uncles were in charge at the time Iraq sought to involve itself in the Arab-Israeli
war of '48. His last public post was as UN
envoy at the time of the Six Day War; recounted in Michael Oren's study of the
period. Chalabi's militia as it were was no match for the Faylan Badr or the Jaish al
Madhi, Muqtada's group. The whole "threat of Chalabi' I find a little hard to take seing how Jaffari, Maliki (DAwa cheif in Syria) Rubaie; (Dawaa's spokesman in London) and the Talebani/Barzani all have
Iranian ties. The most respectable of the
lot, Abdul Mehdi, not unlike the hapless
Pal. economist Saalm Fayed is even more tied to them The Whole Petra Bank is water under the bridge, which was used then to obstruct Jordan's complicity in supplying Saddam. Franks was Zinni's deputy at the time of the great "Desert Crossing" exercise
which was supposed to prove how 400,000 to 500,000 troops we didn't have would solve
the Iraq problem or not. Zinni was CentCom
chief at the time that Al Queda' activities
were rising to a boil; in Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan. as was Gen. Hoar before him. What does casey have to do with Bremer? They both believed in the 'small footprint" as did Abizaid, the Army's chief Arabist.
Bremer's 'de-baathification' strategies may
have been poorly executed; although the irony of the whiners about the reference to
the cleansing; itijihad;also konwn as the Young turk campaign against the Armenians
is ironic for the supporters of amnesty for
Anfaler in the Rep Guard, Army, Mukharabat.


What comes to my mind is that if Miller had a limited security clearance to verify her writing--what would be so unreasonable that she may have seen some documentation with Plame's name attached and made some vague notes to that effect. Then when she had conversations with Scooter--the Wilson and Plame connection could have become more apparent.
Know the Miller thing is over....but...


I found this old intel forum, where it appears Vince Cannistraro was a poster - his response comes before the actual post below - notice the date (his smug Larry like tone), but notice Vince - with recent info released has been proven to be very, very wrong...

I have exchanged email with Welsh about this subject. I happened to be next door in Somalia at the time of the Noel killing at the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum. Welsh is naive in the extreme and, having witnessed some of the same material he claims is being covered up, I conclude it was a wise decision by Welsh to leave NSA.

Vince Cannistraro

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Compton"
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: Request to Probe Arafat Murders

> I thought this may be interesting to some
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22454
> Ex-NSA op asks Congress
> to probe Arafat murders
> Intelligence analyst: U.S. hides evidence PLO chief had American diplomats
> killed



I certainly agree with cathyf about Ekenrode's lost notes. Libby's team should have raised holy heck about the issue. They had clear evidence that Russert had been (at least) more equivocal in his first interview in denying he knew about Plame when he talked to Libby, yet due to the government's (at best) incompetence, they were denied access to the notes that may have undercut Russert's credibility. I suppose it's possible that some oral objections were made that didn't make it into the semi-transcript.

As to Birdseye's comment that "Team Libby are just well paid bozos who have lost every round so far," he should keeep in mind that they were disadvantaged by having a pro-prosecution judge. I pointed out in an earlier thread that the Arthur Anderson's team lost every round (unanimously, on appeal), until they scored a 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court. That said, I don't completely disagree. I think their written motions have been excellent, but their trial performance was spotty, and from what I can judge based on the semi-transcript, the closing argument was poor. Well's attempt at an emotional appeal for a Republican defendant in front of a D.C. jury was seriously misguided.


this one's a little curious as well...

She was a secretary and I believe, if memory still serves, that she was not prosecuted.

Vince Cannistraro

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:20 AM
Subject: Spying for Liberia

> I recall that a US Embassy employee in Monrovia was arrested for
> espionage (working for the Liberian Government!) in the period 1992-94.
> I did not notice a listing of that case.
> Tim Hunter



OK - I'll stop, but given that he was so very wrong on the 4:29 post it does make you wonder...

Israel) Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:56:38 -0400 Sender: owner-intelforum@l... Precedence: bulk Reply-To: intelforum@h...

On should be careful of this news relayed in the IMRA channel. The
information about CIA allegedly recording information about a senior
Palestinian intelligence official ordering a bus bombing is not true.

Vince Cannistraro

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Compton"
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:36 AM
Subject: CIA recorded Dahlan (PLA) ordering bombing of school bus (In

> IMRA - Independent Media Review Analysis
> A current digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events.
> http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?=6056
> Saturday, April 14, 2001
> Hatzofeh: CIA recorded Dahlan ordering bombing of school bus - date
> corrected


Cathy, good post. However, it didn't really matter what Cooper said that day, or if he was lying. What was important, and what got Libby convicted on that count, was the stuff that Libby said he knew during that time. He said things like, "I had no idea Wilson had a wife at that point", after Libby had had several inquiries about Wilson. If you look at the indictment, there are snippets of testimony from Libby, and it says "underlined portions as false". I'm no attorney, but I believe that if a juror believes ANY part of testimony under a count is false, they can convict on the whole count. So they probably convicted on Libby's statements. Same thing with the Russert counts, and the strange Libby 'heard it as if for the first time' line.

As to Libby's motives, it is anybody's guess. If he misrembered, it might fly in the FBI interviews, but by the time he got to the grand jury, he should have gotten his story straight. If not, the defense should have had a plausible story as to why he could not remember, but I suppose they were hampered if I remember correctly because Walton wouldn't let in the testimony unless Libby testified.

I really think Libby went for broke. He probably decided, hell, if I'm going to lie, I might as well go all out. He thought I have to act like I know nozzing like Shultz on Hogan's Hero's, because if he left it in the mushy middle that he might know something, or doesn't remember what he knew, he left open the possibilty that he was "aware" with official knowledge, at the time he arguably confirmed Plame to the 'outside'. He probably did not know, like we still don't know, if Plame was covert, and most likely he didn't remember the exact warning he got on whether Plame was covert or not in his verbal briefing on her. Perhaps also there was some independent info floating around about Plame from before he was aware of, maybe from the VP, like her trip to Jordan, and he was afraid Fitz would bring that out that he should have known she was covert. Who knows. But the whole thing is bizarre - but that's what made it all so interesting.


A careful review of the trial shows everyone provided their litle piece of the story needed for conviction ONLY AFTER FITZ HAD A HOOK IN THEM AND HAD LEVERAGE TO RUIN THEIR LIVES.

He had Judy in jail indefinetly before she remebered she had other notes and Libby MIGHT have talked to he about Wilsons wife.

He had Russert not remembering what exactly happened to becoming 100% positive after Fitz assured him the Eckenrode interview would not be brought up to the court against Russerts false affadavit.

Cooper's story changed with the threat of jail.

Fleischer gave a story only after Fitz had him hook line and sinker and could turn on him the moment he testfied the WRONG WAY.

The fix was clearly in here people...

And the Fitz has the audacity to claim Libby's motive to lie was he didn't want to embarrassing the White House or be fired.



And it is beyond stupid for the Liberals to claim in the same breadth that Libby's motive was her feared being fired or embarrassment and inthe next breadth they tell us Libby was sure Bush would pardon him because it was all a conspiracy.

If Libby really was in a conspiracy with Bush and Cheney, how could he have feared embarrassing them or being fired.


Steyn great piece on where the Micheal Moore liberals want to take America:



I agree with the comments upthread that Libby was poorly served by his defense teams ...both the pre indictment and post.

However, I agree that the judge made universally pro prosecution decisions.

Both the opening and closing arguments were poor. I think the team had hoped for the memory defense and went to a poorly formulated Plan B when Walton agreed with Fitz (for the hundredth time) and did not allow that.

Surprised they didn't try for a change of venue. Since it was a political case and Republicans tend to get the book thrown at them in DC and Dems tend to get off the hook (Hilary, Berger), this needs to be tried next time.

However, it didn't really matter what Cooper said that day, or if he was lying. What was important, and what got Libby convicted on that count, was the stuff that Libby said he knew during that time. He said things like, "I had no idea Wilson had a wife at that point", after Libby had had several inquiries about Wilson. If you look at the indictment, there are snippets of testimony from Libby, and it says "underlined portions as false". I'm no attorney, but I believe that if a juror believes ANY part of testimony under a count is false, they can convict on the whole count. So they probably convicted on Libby's statements.
First of all, am I misremembering? I thought that Libby was acquitted on the false-statement charge about Cooper (and convicted on the obstruction charge wrt Cooper). Can somebody point me to something that will clear up my confusion?

Secondly, in the context of Libby having already testified that he was surprised by Russert and it was memorable, interpreting Libby's statements about having no idea Wilson had a wife at that point in the way you are (and I think that the jury also did) points to how vitally important Fleischer's uncorroborated story was. Libby told the FBI in his first interview, and then consistently testified thereafter, that Cheney (or perhaps Martin) told him on approx June 12 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, he wrote a note, and he had no memory of the conversation that produced the note (memory equals a pattern of electrical signals in the brain). He consistently testified that if any CIA or other government person told him anything about Wilson's wife in the following month, he did not retain that information. He said that his memory (pattern of electrical signals in the brain) was that he was surprised by Russert telling him in a phone call that Wilson's wife was responsible for sending him.

If Libby were not lying, then his "not knowing if it was true" statement was absolutely accurate. He didn't remember anyone official saying anything about Wilson's wife, and the only source for the only memories that he had on the subject was a comment made by a reporter who was acting like he assumed that Libby already knew all about it.

Which is why Fleischer's testimony is so crucial. Suppose Wilson came up at the Libby/Fleischer breakfast, but nothing about Wilson's wife was mentioned at all. Then, later that same day, Fleischer saw the INR memo, which featured Plame prominently as the entire reason that Wilson was sent. (This is what Wilson's mealy-mouthed objections were literally objecting to, and it was in fact a bit of an exaggeration of her role.) This was at the beginning of a grueling jet-lagged trip where Fleischer had many more important things to deal with (and going backwards in time 5-9 hours is the worst variation of jet lag). So the memory expert that Walton refused to admit would have testified that if Fleischer had made the error of "projecting" the information he learned from the INR memo onto the conversation he had with Libby, then it would have been a very small and easy-to-make error, and that the circumstances that Fleischer was operating under in those days would have made it a trivial mistake and totally honest.

If Fleischer made this tiny little mistake, then all of Libby's testimony makes total sense and is totally believable. Libby was told, but did not retain, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA by at least one, and probably other, government officials. And then he was told by an unreliable source (a journalist) that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and had sent Wilson to Niger.

I don't understand why Team Libby did not hammer on the Fleischer memory aspect much harder. This wasn't a case where Fleischer had no other source of the information than Libby. (Lack of an alternate source would be corroborating circumstantial evidence for Fleischer's story.) No classified information needed to be introduced to support the theory that Fleischer might have been honestly discombobulated by jet lag. No expert testimony beyond common sense -- why didn't Libby's lawyers ask Fleischer on the stand to defend the perfection of his memory? Why didn't they ask him on the stand if jet lag caused him to be even a tiny bit confused sometimes?


Has anyone emailed JM Hanes and Sunny Day to let them know that the troll has been banished?

Cecil Turner

What comes to my mind is that if Miller had a limited security clearance to verify her writing--what would be so unreasonable that she may have seen some documentation with Plame's name attached . . .

Sorry, but that's completely unreasonable. A deep-cover CIA officer's identity should be the most well-kept of secrets, and the information should be kept to the absolute minimum of those who have to work with her, sanitizing her identity on every report. If Plame were actually covert, her name shouldn't have been on anything. The reason her name leaked in the first place was because she chaired the meeting to send Joe, and the INR memo was written, and the reader couldn't figure out that part was classified. Even attending a classified meeting at CIA HQ turned out to be a security breach that blew her cover. Having her identity written on papers that conditionally-cleared reporters might see would be Keystone Kops territory.

Similarly, there was no reason for anyone at CIA HQ to bandy her name about, even in classified discussions with WH or OVP officials. Harlow obviously didn't know she was supposed to be covert (probably because she wasn't, really) until after he'd confirmed it to Novak. The only joker in the deck is the VP, who knew by June 12th (to tell Libby), and probably got it during one of the interminable "principals" meetings. The timing strongly suggests the original source was the first INR memo or discussions around it (and the MTP ambush of Rice which spawned it). There's no plausible scenario in which the person who told the VP would know Val was covert, and the note taken by Libby ("functional office" at Langley--inconsistent with the IIPA meaning of "covert") indicates he got the same version the CIA liaison folks were giving out over the phone.

Miller's other source is far more likely to be informal: either reporter chat with someone like fellow NYTimes reporter Kristof, or a leak from another government source (at State, most likely). Nailing that one down, like the VP's source, would materially enhance our understanding of the actual leak mechanism. But the bottom line is: the government leaks were first and predominantly from the June 10th INR . . . and that's primarily due to a failure of tradecraft by Plame, whilst assigning Wilson to his silly mission. (Which might've escaped notice except for Russert buttonholing Sec Rice with Kristof's fantasy based on Wilson's leaks on June 8th.)


Cathy, IIRC Ari and Cathie were perhaps the only witnesses with a clear memory of their testimony rather than reconstructed from notes. Also I had the impression (prolly wrong) that Ari's allegedly second exposure, after which he started spreading it around, wasn't until several days later.

(BTW what do you know about game engines? Torque vs Unreal)

Cecil Turner

Also I had the impression (prolly wrong) that Ari's allegedly second exposure, after which he started spreading it around, wasn't until several days later.

No, that's pretty much right. Fleischer claims:

  • Heard it initially from Scooter at lunch on the 7th;
  • Bartlett was discussing it (the 7 July INR memo) on AF1 on the 10th;
  • he leaked it to Gregory and Dickerson on the 11th.
Have to dig a bit on that link (Marcy's not-a-transcript tends to get a little vague when the defense is up) . . . but Cathy is spot-on that the defense did a terrible job of cross-examining him. They bounced around so much that they ended up making no point at all.



Is Marcy the one who runs Fire Dog Lake?

Someone has probably already answered this for you, but no, she runs Empty Wheel. And as much as I disagree with her analysis, she is pretty good about letting others post at her site. I've never been banned, anyway, and if I can't get banned, no one can. ::grin:: It is Jane Hamsher who runs the Swamp and they have moderators who mostly won't allow posts that do not conform to their POV to even make it through. If yours made it through, before banning, I'm impressed.


Reading a little of Cecil's link to Marcy's non-transcript of Ari's testimony ...

When Bartlet said that it was Wilson's wife who sent him to Niger, Ari thinks to himself "I've heard that before", NOT "Oh yeah that's what Libby told me too". Several months later he can distinctly recall the words Libby used at the breakfast.

Suggests Ari's recollection is actually another "clear and distinct" reconstruction.


Cecil--very cogent. This has been an excellent thread, especially so without the distractions.


Sue, Marcy banned me for pointing out from eRiposte's own research that the French had discovered an extensive black market in Yellow Cake in Africa in 1999.

cathyf has it. Listen to that girl.


Unbelieveable. I've been banned here for a year.





Eckenrode was out of town when the issue arose. Defense counsel did call him but there was a major snowstorm and the trains from Philadelphia could not get through. Then they dropped it--whether it was because they were afraid to call him to the stand not knowing what he'd say and hoping the implications from the testimony in the record were sufficient, I don't know.


Hi, Kim. Hmmm...what can I say? You're better at getting banned than I am? ::grin::


I liveblogged you all liveblogging the trial at MaineWebReport.

The FBI one morning
Lost its notes suborning.
Where is that toad?
He's wanted at a harrowing.


Sara, I have to agree re Eckenrode--the fact that he was not put forward by the defense is prima facie evidence in my eyes that there was some "there" there in his retirement and in the circumstances surrounding his Russert "conversation." I say "conversation," because the perceptions of the participants may have varied as to what it actually was--for E. (and from an official and legal standpoint) it was an interview (which is why he took notes) but R. (erroneously IMO) may have considered it something different.

Months ago I posted at considerable length as to why I was suspicious of these events surround E. As I recall, I brought up several factors. This case was clearly the summit of E's career (to that point), the successful conclusion to which would serve as a springboard to further advancement, whether within the FBI or outside (think, head of some other Gov agency on the strength of his stellar FBI career, etc.). From that standpoint, he should not have retired and taken an obscure local (non-DC) job. Recall, too, his prominence at the presser next to Fitz--I saw that as a signal that he would also play a prominent role at the trial, as the Agent who was the lead in all the important interviews. Note only did that role dictate that he should have been called (since, as lead interviewer he was most involved in the interaction with the witnesses), but in terms of his career credentials and rank in the FBI he would have made a much stronger impression on the jury--again, a guy with his ego who had been an information broker to reporters in what promised to be the biggest case of the Bush II presidency should not have willingly forsaken this limelight role to retire to obscurity in Philly. Something is wrong, very wrong, with this picture.

Recently I asked: who destroyed the R notes, Fitz or E? I ask that again. These circumstances tend to point toward E, but with Fitz either knowing or strongly suspecting that E was responsible. This in turn brings us (if you're with me, here) back to issues regarding the adequacy not merely of the performance of our legal system in this case (and I can readily agree with those, above, who have cited the serious problems with both the defense team's and the judge's performance) but in general.

Perhaps some practitioners could tell me: in such a situation as I have outlined above (and I'm sure other posters can easily provide my version of E with plausible motives for disappearing his notes), what were Fitz's responsibilities--to the defense but, more importantly, to the court? As I read this situation, since the Gov didn't call E, Fitz wasn't required to provide damaging information--but wouldn't it be far better if, in our system, a judge would raise these issues, and demand answers, sua sponte in the interests of (now, forgive this lapse into maudlin sentimentality)....justice? Regardless of the adequacy or inadequacy of defendant's representation?

Fitz, of course, subscribes to the modern quasi-game theory, don't-give-a-sucker-an-even-break, version of the adversary system: truth is what you can get twelve jurors to buy off on, so I don't have to be concerned with issues of that sort if I have a greater good in view. Waltoon obviously tilted the playing field to make Fitz's goal easier to accomplish. IMO, not only should the defense have gone for broke on this E issue, but any judge with a sense of fair play and with the ends of justice in view should have refused to allow R to testify without the notes being provided to the defense--and to himself. It's his court, he has ultimate decision power over so much of what happens; he should demand that and our system should demand that degree of active oversight of our judges.


cf, I think it is critical to remember that on June12, Libby heard from Cheney that Val Plame was the low level CIA operative who had sent the lying critic to Africa. When he heard about her from Russert, or whoever, in July, she was the wife of the lying Ambassador, Joe Wilson. It would be as if for the first time for you, too.

How do I know? When Libby told Cheney three months later that he'd first heard about her from Cheney, the Vice-President looked up at him and said "From me?".

Even in all that ruckus, Cheney had forgotten the June 12 reference. At that time, Val Plame, or her role, was eminently forgettable.

No longer.

Rick Ballard


What if Eckenrode's mortal sin was just pimping to Waas? Breaking FBI rules about press contacts (without permission)? A can of worms for Fitz if the FBI had disposed of Eckenrode through quiet administrative sanction (will that be bullet or noose today, sir?) but Team Libby still didn't know either the contents of the notes (which Eckenrode took with him as insurance) or what he would say on the stand.

I believe that there is some goodly distance (upward of a parsec) between what we are lead to believe occured in the matter and what, in fact, transpired. We have no way to rationally judge because we do not (and will not ever) have sufficient information.


When did the defense receive Russerts affadavit regarding him exerting his first Amernment right and stating he couldn't talk to the FBI, ALTHOUGH he already had.

Did they receive that information in time to make a motion and enter into evidence Russerts sworn affadavit that he couldn't talk to the FBI?

I mean you have a sworn affadavit fro one participant that says it didn't happen and you have no notes, I would think the defense could have used that to impeach the existence of the interview. Should have made the judge choose between Russert lying in his affadavit and throwing out the evidence.


In all fairness to Russert, I am sure Fitz and the judeg just figure Russert FORGOT about that FBI interview wehn he was signing the sworn affadavit, and then, when later reminded, he was shocked, no taken aback, it was like he was hearing about having been interviewed by the FBI for the first time....


Something I've not understood is that I believe a summary of Eckenrode's notes, indicating some ambivalence of Russert about whether or not Plame was mentioned in the pertinent conversation, is in evidence, and it contradicts his absolute statement that she could not have come up.

Is an Eckenrode summary saying such not in evidence?


The summary was introduced into evidence and it indicated that when first asked, Russert said it was "possible" he did tell Libby.
It may well be that given all the circumstances, the defe3nse felt they'd get no more useful evidence than that from Eckenrode and that they did not want to have that undercut by him on the stand.


RE: Ari and Libby on 7/7/03 ...

I seem to recall some discussion of a meeting Ari had either before or after the Libby lunch.


Patton, there may actually be something to that; are we sure Russert knew he was the subject of a formal interview by the FBI during his conversation with Eckenrode. Was he?

I believe Fitzgerald bullied NBC, Russert, Gregory, and Mitchell. They'll cave eventually, because the press does not want Fitzgerald's precedents re: journalists' privileges to stand. And the Dems will have to fold eventually when Val and Joe are unambiguously proven liars.

You don't hear Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry springing to their defense, do you?

Note that the only politician with the skinny on Libby is Fred Thompson. How much more of Bush's case is he going to make over the next year?

What if Eckenrode's mortal sin was just pimping to Waas? Breaking FBI rules about press contacts (without permission)? A can of worms for Fitz if the FBI had disposed of Eckenrode through quiet administrative sanction (will that be bullet or noose today, sir?) but Team Libby still didn't know either the contents of the notes (which Eckenrode took with him as insurance) or what he would say on the stand.

If Eckenrode was moved out for pimping to Waas, that leaves unanswered the question: who destroyed the R notes? It also presents similar ethical problems for an honest prosecutor and judge: since Waas' dispatches, while informative, were also seriously misleading in important respects, should the government be allowed to bring a prosecution for which they have been prepping the jury pool through misleading press leaks? This should be a serious problem even if Fitz could show he made diligent efforts to uncover the leaker to Waas--the harm is being done to 1) the defendant, who is entitled to a fair trial, and 2) to the integrity of the justice system.

My contention is that the notes should have been provided to the defense whether or not E testified in order to allow for full and effective cross examination, since there was already evidence of differing versions of R's initial testimony--in the interests of justice and of arriving at the truth the jury should have had that information available. The notes were taken not as private recollections of E but as a record for the government of its own actions that could be used by other investigators and prosecutors. IMO, the defense should have a right to those records whether or not the note taker is called. Lacking the notes, R's testimony should have been excluded, IMHO, unless a clear showing of innocent loss of the notes could be made. Given the existence of established handling procedures, the presumption to be overcome should be that any loss of the notes is suspect. In these circumstances it certainly was not clearly harmless to the defense, since at a minimum it limited their options.

E taking the notes with him? That's theft of government property--they're not his. Destruction is destruction of government property, another crime. If Fitz has suspicions, I again ask: what were his ethical obligations? If he had none absent E being called as a witness, what does this say about our "justice" system?


Clarice, why didn't the jurors find irreconcilable Russert's ambiguity on first interview, and his absolute conviction on the stand?


kim, there is not distinction, legally, between a formal or informal interview. if you talk to the fbi you've been interviewed. period.


The summary may also have been tendentious; the notes, being more spontaneous, would presumably give a more candid less constructed version of the interview. Perhaps. Without seeming them we don't know--which should have been the defence's point, and the court's concern.


And Byron York is out to lunch. Respite or commutation, with ongoing appeal is the only way for justice to be served in this case. I read Bush's commutation statement to mean that he understands exactly what is going on and expects relief on appeal.

And justification for the war.

Stay tuned.


Yes, anduril, but we are exploring Russert's thinking. Was he being interviewed, or being spilled to? Interesting question, really. I'd like to hear Russert's take, and we may, given that he teased Novak about caving to Fitz.

Do you think Novak is going to let that drop? Or Imus?


kim:"Clarice, why didn't the jurors find irreconcilable Russert's ambiguity on first interview, and his absolute conviction on the stand?"

I have no idea. Why didn't Fitz take that as the end of the chase--since Libby's first comment that it was possible Cheney told him that Plame sent Joe even though he qualified ot to say that was not probable, was red meat to Fitzenfrankenstein. Bias I suppose.

Let's say E was Waas' source--something probable from the text. I think the danger was not only polluting the jury pool but signalling to gj witnesses (often falsely) what Fitz had and encouraging them to tailor their testimony or to suspect their colleagues of setting them up etc.


Reviewing the missing notes--remember they contradicted the NBC affidavit; that they undermined the prosecution's key witness' credibility, and that they were kept entirely secret by the prosecution although they consistuted exculpatory information until the very last minute before Russert took the stand.
Very suspicious disappearance.


"Yes, anduril, but we are exploring Russert's thinking. Was he being interviewed, or being spilled to?"

It's not an either/or. Who is giving information to whom is a consideration in any interview--in fact, it's a consideration in deciding whether or not to interview in the first place. Is the risk of accidentally releasing sensitive information worth the possibility of gain, or is it possible to obtain the desired information by other means without the attendant risks that are inherent in any interview.

Russert? What game was he playing? He knew that the FBI doesn't do "off the record" interviews--was he gambling that he might get useful info but that there would never be a prosecution--so his cooperation with the FBI would not become known? Maybe.


Us soo-sooo-sooo-ther-ners do na-na-not sta-sta-sta-stutter any slo-slo-slo-slo-slower than yan-yan-yank-yankees.


He didn't really have to worry about his co-operation with the FBI becoming known until he resisted Fitz's subpoena. This is how I believe Fitz bullied Russert.


I suspect Pearlstine will get it right. This is the story of a lifetime, as you all know.


Schumer is on "Face the Nation" and said that commutation of Libby's sentence protects the WH because of fifth ammendment rights. Now his committee is thinking of calling up Fitzgerald.


Schumer is flailing now that the DoJ is in administration hands.


And if Fitz wouldn't talk to Waxman, why would he talk to Schumer? Don't answer, I know.

But, it might be the beginning of mutual recriminations. This has got to fall; the affair has overtopped itself.

Other Tom

Thanks, Sue--I realized not long after posting that I had confused Marcy Wheeler with Hamshire.

I'd be very surprised if Fitzgerald testified about any of his work product--particularly his "thoughts, impressions and conclusions." He has an absolute privilege not to disclose those matters, and although it's his privilege to waive, I don't think he'll waive it. It would be highly unprofessional (I think), and would certainly give the impression of the kind of bias a prosectuor is not supposed to have.

Rick Ballard

In Fitz's burp of outrage concerning commutation he specifically reserved to himself the duty of fighting Libby's appeal. I don't see how he can perch himself upon Uncle Chucky's bony knee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee while he's "arguing" the appeal.

If he does go before them then perhaps a Rep with half a brain (which would exclude Specter) will "explore" Eckenrode and the "lost" notes.

Other Tom

I hope everyone is enjoying the multiple stories of low turnout at the various Live Earth concerts as much as I am. I am starting to dare to entertain the notion that we may yet overcome this widespread global-warming silliness. The idea of being lectured to and hectored by these people is an extremely repellent one.


Conyers is on "This Week" and boy is he out to lunch. He wants the President to waive executive privilege and have the "pardon Libby" lawyers testify in front of his committee.
If that ever comes to pass-I hope the "R's" have their act together.


I think we need to get beyond Al Gore on this. I would suggest we push the following new carbon taxes:

1. If you home is over 10,000 Square feet, please pay an additional 100 dollars in taxes for each square foot over 10,000.
If this same home has a heated pool, pay an addtl 1,000 dollars.

2. If you own more then three cars, pay 1,000 federal tax for each addtl car.

3. Please pay 500 dollar limosine fee for every time you road a limosine over 5 times in one year.

4. If you road in a vehicle that gets less then 35 MPG to a environmental event, pay 1,000 dollar tax for each occurence.

5. Please pay 1,000 dollar federal tax for each time, over 3 times, you road in a private jet.

6. If you believe in global warming, yet still eat meat, please pay 100 dollars tax for each meat eaten during the year.

Etc. Etc.

Don't you love how the press, Keith Olbermann types, keep telling us that the government is trying to SCARE us into believing Islamic terrorists want to kill us, BUTT he never seems to hear the SCARE TACTICS when Al Gore says Florida will be submerged in 20 feet of water.

And whenever pat Robertson or Jerry fallwell predicted a natural disaster; the press said they were crazy, now Al Gore predicts even bigger and more ridiculous disasters and we are supposed to listen to him.


Well, at this point the only way to get to the bottom of this is to fight fire with fire and appoint another "very special" counsel to investigatin the FBI's handling of the initial leak investigation.

We know that the FBI failed to identify Armitage as the first leaker when the AP figured that out by just looking at his appointment book.

We also know that there are at least two cases where the FBI report of interview did not match the actual interview. In one of those instances the notes of the interview provide direct evidence that controdicts the formal report.

And finally, we know that notes key to a central witness to the investigation were lost, thus preventing the notes from controdicting the report of the Russert interview.

These are very troubling events which demand explanation. I think a "very special" prosecutor with all the authority of the AG with regards to this case should be appointed. If that prosecutor should follow the leads he finds in this investigation into Fitz's prosecution and the NBC legal cover up, then so be it.


Jeff's brilliant legal analysis of TM's post over at emptywheel:

I'm sure Mr. Maguire is going to show up, so I'll offer this - the trouble with his reliance on what Fitzgerald argued at trial is that it doesn't take into account the constraints of what he could and could not, what he would be wise to and wise not to, argue at trial. Fitzgerald put himself under, and was put under, a variety of constraints both binding and strategic not to argue that Libby was covering up downright violations of the law, or at least of IIPA and/or Espionage Act. He and/or Zeidenberg walked up to suggesting as much nevertheless in their closings. But the fact is he was not going to argue that Libby broke another law and was covering up that fact. Presumably that is part because he would then have to make the case that that other law was broken. And among other things, he had early on limited his potential claims about "other crimes" to Libby's pre-July 8 disclosures of the NIE (although those too ended up getting shut out of the case). And all in all, Fitzgerald evidently made his case within those constraints. But that doesn't mean one can argue that Fitzgerald's real beliefs about Libby's motives for obstructing justice were fully reflected in what he argued at trial or in pretrial motions.

Other Tom

If that's the way Conyers is dreaming of proceeding, he's even daffier than I had thought. My fondest hope is that one of the Repubs will read into the record Conyers's statement about the pardon power back when Clinton unleashed his barrage of pardons for his cronies, relatives, creditors and donors.


Fitz 'put himself into constraints'. Oh, my, God, Jeff.

Rick Ballard

"These are very troubling events which demand explanation. I think a "very special" prosecutor with all the authority of the AG with regards to this case should be appointed."


I've run this through the ironometer six times now and I keep getting different readings. Should the new custodien be granted plenary inquisitorial power including trial by duress?

IOW - will he have a duck under his arm at all times?


Almost to a man, the dems on the talkie shows this AM were furious because, "who knows what Libby would have revealed once he was in prison?"

They just want a bigger fish, Libby is chum.


Perhaps a few months at Gitmo would recovery the memories at NBC. The adminstration could lure them there with promises of a exclusive look at the dungeon where Cheney personally torture prisons on weekends.


they grabbed their little lump of coal, hoping to squeeze it into a diamond.

alas, they produced coal dust


Well, Conyers answered that question put to him by Stephanopoulos--or rather that there had been plenty of hearings on Clinton's pardons in 2001--and basically the committee would not revisit what Clinton did.
Conyers also backed down a bit on subpoenas to the WH but used a little blackmail verbiage bandying about the word "impeachment" and how the public was inching toward a majority in that thinking for the President.
On another note--did you read the pole of some of the performers at Live Earth didn't even know who Al Gore was?
Some of those questioned were in their thirties. If they're voting this is frightening.


Any lawyers here care to venture a legal opinion of the WH urging Sara Taylor to ignore the Congressional subpoena?


--Well, Conyers answered that question put to him by Stephanopoulos--or rather that there had been plenty of hearings on Clinton's pardons in 2001--and basically the committee would not revisit what Clinton did.--

AH - Bush moved to protect Clinton's pardon papers - executive privilege I believe.

Also, I did not know, but remember Mary Jo White was investigating the Marc Rich pardon? I believe I read that ultimately it was McNulty who rolled that investigation up and found no wrong doing.


--"who knows what Libby would have revealed once he was in prison?"--

Here, I will help them out..."Joe Wilson is a lying sack of shit"


I believe I read that ultimately it was McNulty who rolled that investigation up and found no wrong doing.



Gotta hand it to the leftys. They sure can put on a better concert than us. But it served its purpose to loge falsehoods into the minds of young people.

One last night was in a commercial where an assertion was that hurricanes were caused by Global Warming.

Absolute nonsense. As a science teacher, its hard to overcome this sort of propoganda. But we must try. Al Gore and his ilk are becoming very, very dangerous.

Thats why blogging (I have one) and posting in comment sections like you all do here is so vital.

The DemLeft cannot handle naysayers for a long period of time. The advance of their ideas requires a significant level of bullying. And like all bullies, they don't handle being stood up to well at all.

Examples of this we see here are the occassional sabatuer. They eventaully are unable to convey their false ideas and have to resort to insults and challenges to our intelligence.

Its why they desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.


Thank you Wind.


Mary Jo White has her own skeletons - if Peter Lance is correct. She is easily controlled if what he wrote is true, and I imagine it is. Nobody he's written about has sued him.


I thought Conyers was amusing. Too bad Steph didn't push him very hard.


Moer Novak excerpts


the Townsend stuff is interesting too.

Rick Ballard


Here's one for your kids next year:

On June 7, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the following testimony before the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science of the United States Senate (Lautenbacher 2006, p. 3):

“NOAA’s prediction for the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is for 13-16 tropical storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which four to six could become major hurricanes. … We are predicting an 80 percent likelihood of an above average number of storms in the Atlantic Basin this season. This is the highest percentage we have ever issued.”


By the beginning of December, Gresko (2006) was able to write “The mild 2006 Atlantic hurricane season draws to a close Thursday without a single hurricane striking the United States”.

Or you could just spend time on the rigor and accuracy of Malthusian projections with a starter of "Kids, according to the best 19th century projections, you don't exist, so I'm taking the rest of the day off..."

Carol Herman

Folks, I think the shame of the judicary system, in use, is that the jurors are "picked" to be as stupid as the ones OJ had.

This DC jury? A ripe playground of intellectually inferior liberal bozos.

Oh, and I think Walton specifically damaged Libby's chances at a fair trial, because he knew he'd get away with this crap. It stands to reason that he will, too. SInce the Supreme-O's are egotistically divided; and at best will produce 5/4 clashing views. Not anything directly related to the bullshit that passed for a trial, in Walton's courtroom.

By the way, I notice a few commentors are still stuck on the LYING meme, in it's various forms.

While that's not what happened at all.

Judith Miller was stuck in jail by our legal system. She's a very bright lady. And, whatever she remembers with any "accuracy" or not; wouldn't fly in a court of law.

Instead? Judith Miller sets out how you answer questions in a courtroom. By adding all those qualifications; she's not a liar. She's just a very well rehearsed witness.

That Tim Russert passed inspection? Only with certain types of juries. (And, it was not uncommon to see juries coming in and providing the hangman's rope.) Humans aren't all that civilized. And, trials can be circuses. Where would you get good jurists from? Have you seen the cesspool from which they get selected?

Do you ever wonder WHY the creeps in congress, for instance, are so creepy? Again. If you're gonna pick out the qualities that make people strong candidates, you rarely find good people at all.

Will our judiciary ever get back on track? Well, I dunno. But I'm not very hopeful. What could happen first? A lot of people take law degrees. But it gets complicated when they want to practice. Real estate licensing is on par with this. Good test takers pass the test; but still can't make a good living at it.

Libby got railroaded! No surprises.

But what Dubya's done is ride this train throughout his presidency. Now into six and a half years, of being a very hard guy to punch. Perhaps, he's dancing like a butterfly?

I also don't think the meme that Libby is responsible for our losses in Irak, will get anywhere. Just like Rumsfeld's exit. The players aren't really anywhere but on the sidelines, now.

What I find interesting is that we're post Nixon by about 35 years. But that time in our history stays stuck up there. It's as if "something happened." Some journalists became millionnairs. But those opportunities have dried up.

It didn't stop the journalism crowd from attempting to step into this water at the same place, twice.

While just an aside. Up at Captain's Quarters, there's a report that maggots, and a half eaten dead rat fell on the head of a journalist, working at her desk, in the new New Yuk Times building. Seems Pinchie's builders didn't do such a grand job putting up that structure. Where not only do you have screams from people dealing with a "rain of maggots." You have toilets that when you flush them make the sounds of screaming kittens. Oh. And, the elevators have no buttons. Nor do they tell you the floors they are passing.

Technology, it seems, isn't a New Yuk Times skill, either. But give them drawings on fancy paper; and you got it. They'll sign.


the trouble with his reliance on what Fitzgerald argued at trial is that it doesn't take into account the constraints of what he could and could not, what he would be wise to and wise not to, argue at trial.

(A modest response, mind you)

Right, Ken Starr had the same problem.

He couldn't talk about all those Arkansas murders that Clinton was involved in. Or the drug running at Mena, Vincent Foster's murder, et cetera, et cetera.

So, we must not only believe everything Fitzgerald said, we also have to believe everything Fitzgerald wanted - but couldn't say.

Grassy Knoll Jeff hard at work again.


The comments to this entry are closed.