Read Closely

Let me see - a careful reading suggests that the significance of the Osama video is that he is dead?  The notion is that he is praising martyrdom now so that his wish-fulfillment (and Eerie Prescience!)  can be announced in a few months.  Ingenious, but I question the timing - this really throws a monkey wrench into the betting pools that hinged on whether it would be Osama or Lord Voldemort that dies first.

We'll see.  Voldemort has until Saturday.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT *ALL* HARRY POTTER:  From the post:

Yes, it is possible that Al-Qaeda wants to take the pressure off OBL by *suggesting* that OBL is dead so he can continue master-minding in relative peace.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Comments

[sylvia]

I think he's dead. He needs attention too much to hide this long. But then again, I thought Saddam was dead too until they caught him.

[BarbaraS]

I think he's been dead for two or three years. He looked awfully sick in his last video, sort of greenish and they have only put out tapes of Zawhiri since then. This is probably a last ditch effort at recruiting and a clearly transparent effort this is. They have probably been saving this ploy for desperate times for Al Quaeda. Contrary to the old media reports Al Quaeda is losing on a number of fronts.

[goddessoftheclassroom]

You should see the shocked look on my students' faces (8th grade) when I say, "Hitler wasn't crazy; he was evil."

So few people seem willing to acknowledge the presence of evil. I think that alone make them susceptible to it because they don't know how to be on their guard.

[Osama]

I am not dead,I just haven't been very well that's all,I've had this bloody migraine since something went bang at Tora Bora.Just as soon as I find my way out of this cave I will join my brother martyrs.Talk about Tora Boring,have you tried living on tinned falafel,breakfast,lunch,dinner and supper,that's bloody martyrdom for you,and I've got to live with the results if you know what I mean..at close quarters.
Do know what its like to be the most feared terrorist on the planet and not get any birthday cards,to be stuck in here with bat shit which is crazier than me.
My beloved goat Fatima died,I could no longer bear the shame so I buried her,but fear not I shall return.

[Ralph L]

Fatima was a female, of course. There was nothing queer about Osama.

[clarice]

I don't know--Osama sounds an awful lot like a regular poster here. Scary.

[royf]

http://www.examiner.com/printa-830170~Exclusive_Book_Excerpt:_'Sabotage'_Part_1_--_The_CIA_goes_to_war_with_the_Pentagon.html?cid=tool-print-top

Exclusive Book Excerpt: 'Sabotage' Part 1 -- The CIA goes to war with the Pentagon

Rowan Scarborough will be on FOX News Channel’s "Hannity and Colmes" Monday evening at 9 p.m. EDT. He will also be on "Fox and Friends" on Tuesday morning, July 17 (the show is broadcast 7-9 a.m. EST). Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
2007-07-16 11:53:00.0

Washington, D.C. -
Michael Maloof was back in the game. He and another Pentagon aide, David Wurmser, drove the short distance from the Pentagon to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. It was early October, a good season in Washington, but Maloof’s nerves were on edge during the scenic ride along the tree-lined George Washington Parkway.

A big gash still hollowed out one side of the Pentagon and America was at war. Maloof was at work on a top secret project initiated by Douglas Feith, the top civilian policy advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Maloof was a legend within the Pentagon circle that tracked arms proliferation. His office was obscure, but it performed a crucial national security function. The job of the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) was to review proposed exports of U.S. technology and weapons. Maloof and his colleagues took their jobs more seriously than that. They pored over reams of intelligence to ferret out the identities of major buyers of American satellite technology and other high-tech items with military applications.

Feith wanted Maloof to use his intelligence sleuthing to trace the connections between al Qaeda and other terror groups. “There was a mountain of intelligence on this subject, on terror networks,” Feith said later. “I needed someone to digest it. I wanted a policy strategy. It was absolutely not about Saddam and al Qaeda. This was about the entire global network: all terror groups, all state sponsors.”

So Maloof headed out to Langley that October day to ask for the CIA’s cooperation in obtaining years of intelligence reports. What Maloof didn’t know at the time was that his trip to Langley marked the first day of the CIA bureaucracy’s war on Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and George W. Bush’s White House.

At Langley Maloof was escorted to the agency’s Counterterrorism Center (CTC), a top-secret analytical branch that studied intelligence reports on various terror groups and leaders. Maloof met with a number of senior CIA people to explain the intelligence gap and ask for help.

The Pentagon wanted years of intelligence reporting on al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran and other potential targets in the war against global terrorism. The Langley crew listened politely. But at the end, the CTC directors said, simply, no. The CIA, not Feith’s policy shop, would do such work — if ordered. There were follow-up requests. The answer was still no.

Finally, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy, interceded. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) pressed the CIA to cooperate. Years of CIA intelligence reports — some mature, others raw and unconfirmed — started arriving at the Pentagon. Maloof and Wurmser set up shop inside the supersecure National Military Intelligence Center on the Pentagon’s third floor. By December, they had produced a 150-slide briefing on contacts among al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran.

“The agency blew a gasket,” Maloof recalled. Maloof did not fully realize how his mission offended the extremely territorial Langley.

Wolfowitz and others pushed the CIA to do better and some in the CIA did not like it. Soon, Democratic lawmakers, principally U.S. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, began charging that Feith had set up an illegal organization. Levin, using the friendly Washington Post and New York Times, launched a campaign against a “rogue” intelligence cell inside the Defense Department.

By 2002, Maloof’s work was augmented by other terrorism studies. DIA officer Tina Shelton and Christopher Carney, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer who would go on to win election to Congress as a Democrat, headed the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which was able to establish links among various terrorist groups. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Feith, Wolfowitz put one of his aides to work developing a briefing focused only on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Eventually, the work of all three groups — Maloof’s, Carney’s, and Wolfowitz’s — was merged into a single document. Feith gave a series of briefings on the combined report, first to Rumsfeld, then to about 30 officers at the CIA (including Director George Tenet), then to Stephen Hadley at the National Security Council and finally to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Tenet later remarked that he did not think much of the paper and relied on it little when he wrote his own assessment. In his book, “At the Center of the Storm,” Tenet did not hide his disgust for Feith and for what he called “Team Feith.” He recalled sitting in on the Feith briefing and thinking, “This is complete crap, and I want this to end right now.”

Yet Tenet’s own terrorism analysis was consistent with Feith’s. As Tenet wrote in 2002 to the Senate Intelligence Committee, “Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action. ... We have solid reporting of senior-levelcontacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.”

As Maloof and Wurmser completed their terror-linkage report in December 2001, Maloof suddenly found himself under attack from Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, who ran the National Security Agency and would later become CIA director. Hayden accused Maloof of leaking classified material to the press and wanted his security clearance pulled — a death blow to a defense analyst.

Maloof denied the allegation and subsequently passed a polygraph test. But as the process of stripping his clearance proceeded in 2002, newspaper articles began appearing about his case. Reporters quoted unnamed “intelligence sources” accusing Maloof of misdeeds. Maloof had butted heads with Langley over acquiring years of reporting on al Qaeda and a few months later his credibility was under attack from the intelligence community.

The DIA revoked Maloof’s clearance in December 2001. Its order did not cite leaking. Instead, it said he showed a lack of judgment stemming from a romantic relationship with Ia Meurmishvili. The woman, a native of the republic of Georgia, was being recruited by intelligence agencies. Maloof said the relationship began after he had separated from his wife. He later married Meurmishvili. The board also cited Maloof for unacceptable financial debt. Maloof said the debt crunch stemmed from his separation and divorce.

Maloof appealed.

The next spring, the board voted to revoke his clearance again, on “the same information considered by the earlier [board],” according to a 2005 Pentagon inspector general’s report. Maloof lost subsequent appeals, so Feith put him to work on unclassified projects.

Discouraged, Maloof subsequently retired after more than 20 years of tracking arms proliferation between Western countries and the bad guys. The intelligence community had bagged Maloof and damaged Feith in the process.

“When I drove out to the CIA, I thought we would be a team,” Maloof recalled of his October 2001 trip to Langley. “As I tell people now, Rome was burning and the barbarians were at the gate. By October, it was open warfare. They began leaking and making accusations and accusing us of setting up an operation to bypass the agency. They went after me for political reasons.”

And they won.

(snip)

ABOUT "SABOTAGE": The articles in this series are drawn from “Sabotage,” a book appearing this week from Regnery Publishing. Author Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner’s national security correspondent, tells the story of a CIA bureaucracy that badly damaged the Bush administration with leaks, false allegations and sheer incompetency. He interviewed scores of intelligence and defense sources to paint a picture of an agency that fell into disarray under former President Bill Clinton and that is still rebuilding in the sixth year of the War on Terror. Scarborough is author of a previous book, “Rumsfeld’s War,” also published by Regnery.

Rowan Scarborough will be on FOX News Channel’s "Hannity and Colmes" Monday evening at 9 p.m. EDT. He will also be on "Fox and Friends" on Tuesday morning (the show is broadcast 7-9 a.m. ET).

[Osama]

My people have a saying ,"A woman for procreation,a boy for pleasure and a goat for lunch".
But fear not I shall return.
Anyone have some good chat up lines for bats? Or even a few tasty bat recipes

Oh yes,please send some torch batteries.

[Osama]

My people have a saying ,"A woman for procreation,a boy for pleasure and a goat for lunch".
But fear not I shall return.
Anyone have some good chat up lines for bats? Or even a few tasty bat recipes

Oh yes,please send some torch batteries.

[clarice]

"Torch"batteries? Hi, PUK.

[Osama]

Puq?

[Osama]

Puq?

[Topsecretk9]

Following up on Rory - See if you can guess whose testimony to Congress this is, given March 11, 2003 - testimony on - get this:

“PROGRESS SINCE 9/11: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
U. S. ANTI-TERRORIST FINANCING EFFORTS”

Nonetheless some countries continue to bankroll terrorists—principally Iran, Syria, and Iraq. We think it is important to highlight the fact that Iraq continues to provide financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. While the links to Al Qaeda may be tenuous, there is incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi support for Palestinian terrorist groups. From 1991 thru 2001 there were 4143 international terrorist attacks throughout the world. Saddam Hussein and his regime were implicated in at least 73 of these incidents, which accountedfor fewer that two hundred fatalities. According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq directly in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. As reported in Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, Saddam Hussein’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. However, Iraq continued to aggressively target and attack anti-regime opponents and UN personnel working in Iraq.”

Incredible, isn't it?

[Topsecretk9]

You can't find out if the LINK doesn't work, can you? (it's a pdf)

[Sue]

You have got to be kidding me? That SOB said this

Nonetheless some countries cont inue to bankroll terrorists—principally Iran, Syria, and Iraq. We think it is important to highlight the fact that Iraq continues to provide financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks.

in March 2003?

[Topsecretk9]

Yup Sue - and if read the whole thing he keyed in on Iraq almost exclusively - unprompted.

I thought it would be funny to paste that passage on his blog saying - can you believe the Bush Admin would say such a thing and watch his little lap dogs froth at the mouth at such a thing.

[clarice]

DO IT!!!!!!!

[glasater]

Here is a Maloof interview on PBS Frontline.

[Topsecretk9]

FYI

Novak declines to call on the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee (as advocated by this column, 6/11/07) — to recall Plame Wilson to answer allegations that she lied under oath. At her March hearing, she flatly denied having recommended her husband for a mission to Niger, contradicting her own memo clearly showing otherwise.

"I think she's pathetic right now," longtime journalist Novak told this writer. "So I'm not really anxious to prosecute her and have her follow the path of Scooter Libby into prison." (This was before President Bush commuted Libby's sentence.)

Me: Well, but he doesn't deserve it. She does.

Novak: As you probably know, Tom Davis [ranking Republican on the House panel] has asked that [Committee Chairman Henry] Waxman recall her. [When Waxman recalled a Bush administration witness in an unrelated case for supposedly not telling the truth] Congressman Davis said, "Just to be fair, Valerie Plame should be called back as well to find out what is the truth. And Waxman said he would take it under advisement."

Update: In a more recent column, Novak reports Waxman bucked the issue over to the House Intelligence Committee, whose Democrat staffers insisted Plame "has been consistent in her sworn testimony." A July 14 Novak column says, "Davis was baffled in view of contradictory evidence."...

Novak: The special prosecutor [Patrick Fitzgerald] as he walked in — we didn't know that at the time — but as he walked into this office [to question me] he [had been] handed the name of my source [Armitage]. So why did we need a special prosecutor? Well, we [apparently] needed a special prosecutor to go on a fishing expedition and stir around and decide what to do with the source, and then [when he found out] the source was Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, he did nothing with it."

At this point in the interview, I shared with Novak my findings (with legal advice) on how to curb out-of-control prosecutors (see this column 4/9/07), which dealt with trial court testimony...

...But the trial court in the Scooter Libby case, the veteran journalist noted, was that of Judge Reggie Walton who "was known variously as a government judge or a hanging judge [where] the government can do no wrong," a view in sync with his position in handing down a 30-month sentence to Scooter Libby. Libby was convicted and sentenced in effect for not having had the same recollection of a many-months-old conversation that NBC's Tim Russert had regarding Plame's CIA employment.

...Prior to Novak's column that identified Plame, a stranger — "a little man without tie or jacket" accosted him on the street and started questioning him about Wilson's Niger report. He endured the interrogation as the man walked alongside him long enough for Novak to blurt out (which he immediately regretted) that Wilson had been sent there by his wife who worked for the CIA. Novak thought the stranger was a stereotypical "political junkie" of the sort known to haunt Washington 24/7.

sort of sounds like Waas, no?

Anyways there is a LOT more at the LINK HERE

[Topsecretk9]

Wilson apologized for his guy on the streets behavior but didn't mention it ever.

— A couple of days later, the columnist got a phone call from Joe Wilson, who informed him that the little man on the street was his friend and had briefed him on the short conversation. He apologized for his friend's behavior and said he had admonished him. The former ambassador nonetheless berated Novak for blurting out information on his wife to a perfect stranger. Novak agreed and apologized. Novak writes that in Wilson's own memoirs, the unemployed ambassador noted Novak's apology, but not his own.

[PeterUK]

"While the links to Al Qaeda may be tenuous,"

Well they would be wouldn't they,what did they expect an Annual al Qaeda - Ba'athist Convention a t Las Vegas?
Why not use the Schumer Waxman gambit? The very lack of links is in itself suspicious?

[PeterUK]

Joe Wilson has thrown his support behind Hillary Clinton Hillary said "Thanks,but she can't wear it".

[sylvia]

"a stranger — "a little man without tie or jacket" accosted him on the street and started questioning him about Wilson's Niger report."

"A couple of days later, the columnist got a phone call from Joe Wilson, who informed him that the little man on the street was his friend "

Yup Armitage and Joe Wilson were working on this together. Two State Department guys plotting out a way to burn the President. First Armitage tried it on Woodward and that went nowhere. Then, they tried Novak and for good measure they had the guy accost Novak as an excuse so the guy could call Wilson and allow Wilson to start calling some reporters himself such as Cooper to make sure that the story got out there. Then when the reporters called Libby and Rove, they could get them for leaking. It could work...

[cathyf]

The former ambassador nonetheless berated Novak for blurting out information on his wife to a perfect stranger.

So, in other words, Novak lied about the sourcing of his story when he claimed that he had two sources, and that Karl Rove was one of them. If you are willing to take Rove's smart-alecky "I heard that too" when read Armitage's leak as rising to the level of sourcitude, then Novak had four: Armitage, Harlow, Rove and Joe Wilson. If you were going to draw some line as to what was reasonable to use as sourcing, I would order them as Armitage, Harlow, Wilson and Rove.

Why did Novak lie about Rove being his second source when Harlow was his second source and Rove was more like his fourth source? Why does Novak lie by refusing to call Wilson a confirming source, when both his version and Wilson's version have Wilson playing that role more than Rove did?

[Topsecretk9]

Cathy == FWIW here is Wilson's excerpt

Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 8, six days before Robert Novak’s article about Valerie and me, a friend showed up at my office with a strange and disturbing tale. He had been walking down Pennsylvania Avenue toward my office near the White House when he came upon Novak, who, my friend assumed, was en route to the George Washington University auditorium for the daily taping of CNN’s Crossfire. He asked Novak if he could walk a block or two with him, as they were headed in the same direction; Novak acquiesced. Striking up a conversation, my friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the uranium controversy. It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before. My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered: “Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.” At that point, my friend and Novak went their separate ways. My friend headed straight for my office a couple of blocks away.

Once he related this unsettling story to me, I asked him to immediately write down the details of the conversation and afterwards ushered him out of my office. Next, I contacted the head of the news division at CNN, Eason Jordan, Novak’s titular boss, whom I had known for a number of years. It took several calls, but I finally tracked him down on his cell phone. I related to him the details of my friend’s encounter with Novak and pointed out that whatever my wife might or might not be, it was the height of irresponsibility for Novak to share such information with an absolute stranger on a Washington street. I asked him to speak to Novak for me, but he demurred— he said he did not know him very well—and suggested that I speak to Novak myself. I arranged for him to have Novak call me and hung up.

Novak called the next morning, but I was out, and then so was he. We did not connect until the following day, July 10. He listened quietly as I repeated to him my friend’s account of their conversation. I told him I couldn’t imagine what had possessed him to blurt out to a complete stranger what he had thought he knew about my wife. Novak apologized, and then asked if I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency. I told him that I didn’t answer questions about my wife. I told him that my story was not about my wife or even about me; it was about sixteen words in the State of the Union address.

I then read to him three sentences from a 1990 news story about the evacuation of Baghdad: “The chief American diplomat, Joe Wilson, shepherds his flock of some 800 known Americans like a village priest. At 4:30 Sunday morning, he was helping 55 wives and children of U.S. diplomats from Kuwait load themselves and their few remaining possessions on transport for the long haul on the desert to Jordan. He shows the stuff of heroism.” The reporters who had written this, I pointed out, were Robert Novak and Rowland Evans. I suggested to Novak that he might want to check his files before writing about me. I also offered to send him all the articles I had written in the past year on policy toward Iraq so that he could educate himself on the positions I had taken. He would learn, if he took the time, that I was hardly antiwar, just anti–dumb war. Before I hung up, Novak apologized again for having spoken about Valerie to a complete stranger.

The following Monday, July 14, 2003, I read Novak’s syndicated column in the Washington Post. The sixth paragraph of the ten-paragraph story leapt out at me: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”...

July 10th a Thursday - Novak posted on the 11th

A couple of days before Novak's article was published, but after my friends strange encounter with him, I had received a call from Post reporter Walter Pincus, who alerted me that "they are coming after you." ******Since I already knew what Novak had learned about Valerie****** ....

p. 346
...I was increasingly concerned over what else might be put out about her. I ASSUMED, though, that the CIA would itself quash any article that made reference to Valerie. While not yet familiar with the specifics of the Intelligence identities protection act, I knew that protection of the identity of agents of our clandestine service was the highest priority, and well understood by the experienced press corp in Washington. Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story. **I told Valerie, who alerted the press liaison at the CIA, and we were left with the reasonable expectation that any reference to her would be dropped, since he would have no way of confirming the information - unless, of course, he got confirmation from another part of the government, such as the White House.

[Topsecretk9]

What's interesting is Novak told Wilson he already had CIA confirmation. And Novak did.

[clarice]

Not surprising that that disgusting Eason Jordan should be his friend. Wasn't he the guy who got the exclusive office in Baghdad in exchange for publishing Saddam's propaganda?

As for Pincus, he's generally regarded at the CIA's man at the WaPo.

[Semanticleo]

Ironically, the only positive for this admin is the "no attacks since 9/11" drone.

Should another attack occur, it would be the only thing that might pull his weenie out of the campfire. Question is; how far would he go in the name of 'security'? Let's hope we don't have another Adam Sutler on our hands.

[Topsecretk9]

Wilson writes:

Novak called the next morning(9th), but I was out, and then so was he. We did not connect until the following day, July 10. He listened quietly as I repeated to him my friend’s account of their conversation. I told him I couldn’t imagine what had possessed him to blurt out to a complete stranger what he had thought he knew about my wife....Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have the confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story.

Novak writes:

"a little man without tie or jacket" accosted him on the street and started questioning him about Wilson's Niger report. He endured the interrogation as the man walked alongside him long enough for Novak to blurt out (which he immediately regretted) that Wilson had been sent there by his wife who worked for the CIA. Novak thought the stranger was a stereotypical "political junkie" of the sort known to haunt Washington 24/7...

A couple of days later, the columnist got a phone call from Joe Wilson, who informed him that the little man on the street was his friend and had briefed him on the short conversation. He apologized for his friend's behavior and said he had admonished him. The former ambassador nonetheless berated Novak for blurting out information on his wife to a perfect stranger. Novak agreed and apologized. Novak writes that in Wilson's own memoirs, the unemployed ambassador noted Novak's apology, but not his own.

Novak points out Wilson's convenient omission of apologizing to Novak for his friends rudeness - and notes that Wilson called him - as usual - it was Wilson trolling for information concealed in literary flair.

[cathyf]

Ok, I take that back -- according to Joe's version, "I told him that I didn’t answer questions about my wife." So Joe's version is that he gave a non-confirming confirmation. I figure Joe added that in later, and may have even convinced himself that that's the way it happened. But, still three objections:

a) Given Novak's description of what Armitage, Harlow and Rove said, and even granting that Wilson told the truth, Armitage was Novak's primary source, Harlowe his confirming source, and Wilson and Rove were of the confirming-by-not-explicitly-denying sources. Why has Novak spent the last 4 years consistently calling Rove his confirming (second) source?

b) Novak's version of his conversation with Wilson is that he was a confirming source the same way that Harlow was. Why has Novak spent 4 years, continuing until today, refusing to identify Wilson as a source?

c) What is the point about refusing to call Harlow his confirming source, when everyone, including Harlow, has testified under oath that this is exactly what Harlow was?

It's like the whole Voldemort "he who cannot be named" thingy. Why does Novak refuse, 4 years along, to call Harlow and Wilson sources, while mischaracterizing Rove as a source?

[clarice]

Can't answer that , cathy.

[clarice]

Why is he so nice to Russert when Russert gave him the business about cooperating with Fitz when he (Russert) had already done the very same thing sub rosa?

[MJW]

I mentioned this on another thread, but "The Next Hurrah" has PDF versions of the less redacted Fitz affidavits for August 27, 2004 and September 27, 2004. Naturally, emptywheel spins them her way, listing things Fitz didn't know at the time they were filed, and claiming it shows anyone who says Fitz is a runaway prosecutor has been proved wrong. But looking at the list seems only to demonstrate the rather mundane observation that Fitz didn't know every possible fact, which hardly justifies continuing an investigation where the primary fact under investigation is known. (I haven't read the affidavits yet, so I haven't gotten around to spinning them my way.)

[Topsecretk9]

Cathy

Where Wilson says:

While not yet familiar with the specifics of the Intelligence identities protection act [sidenote; riiiiight], I knew that protection of the identity of agents of our clandestine service was the highest priority, and well understood by the experienced press corp in Washington.

So Wilson knows responding to an experienced columnist to the question of "I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency." with "I told him that I didn’t answer questions about my wife." while berating him about the same info is a confirmation.

In fact - if Wilson was seriously concerned about his wife he would have never called Novak (or Eason Jordan! to relay what Novak said - what an idiot huh?), but immediately conveyed the strangers info to his wife post-haste on July 8th.

[Topsecretk9]

OK - I am struck by para 4 Aug. 27 --I know this was discussed where TM thought Fitz knew Ari said he was Pincus source and Clarice and I and a few thought differently - or something like that, but in reading para 4 what exactly did Ari seek immunity for? It's clear Fitz thought Libby could be Pincus's source even though Ari said he was...

[MikeS]

...if Wilson was seriously concerned about his wife...

The odds that Valerie would become famous were about 0%. Then Joe started knocking on doors and talking about his Niger mission.
I can't believe he would do that if he really thought she was covert.

[Rick Ballard]

Tops,

Check Para 56 & 74 re Fitz's "thoughts re Fleischer/Pincus.

Why hasn't Fleischer been charged with perjury at trial?

[hit and run]

Ari is a "noble whistlesmoke blower"

[Rick Ballard]

I suppose that Fleischer just didn't upset that prig (short spelling) Fitz's sense of "propriety" enough to warrant perjury (and OBSTRUCTION) charges.

What a slimeball weasel.

Fitz, that is.

OK, what slimeball weasels they both are.

[clarice]

I believe Pincus never was actually deposed. Piecing together the various stories, I believe he never was asked if Fleischer had told him. As we know at trial he said Fleischer did, but that was because by them Fleischer had signed a waiver.
Fitz thought it was Libby as is obvious from the affidavit and his interrogation of Libby before the gj.

Libby gave a waiver. Whe Pincus got the written questions from Fitz I believe he was asked only about Libby and denied Libby was his source.

That would also explain why Libby called him as a witness..He obviously got that exculpatory bit of evidence in discovery.

[clarice]

Fitz was so hot to get Fleischer as his witness he immunized him w/o knowing what he'd testify to AND w/o getting a waiver from him. With no waiver he couldn't expect Dickerson or Gregory to testify until after the Ct of Appeals decision in the Miller case.
Why he didn't seek their testimony then has no decent explanation.

[Elliott]

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

Shouldn't Fitzgerald have made the grant of immunity conditional upon signing a waiver?

Tops, if Wilson's story is to be believed, which members of the administration were criticizing Wilson to Pincus? Looking back at the affadavit, the Pincus conversation with Fleischer was the 12th. Do we know anything about Pincus' discussions with administration officials prior to his conversation with Wilson on the 10th?

[cathyf]

That would also explain why Libby called him as a witness..He obviously got that exculpatory bit of evidence in discovery.

I have a question for you legal types about the sixth amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

How have the courts interpreted the right to confront accusors and have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor? Is the right to confront the accuser really limited to calling the person at trial, where you have no idea what lies they might tell and have no realistic ability to debunk the accuser's testimony through investigation? (When the government conducts an investigation, a witness might be interviewed by investigators or testify before the grand jury. And then investigators go out and investigate the information. They often discover that there are innocent explanations for things that witnesses testify to. They use this information to find new witnesses, who might have different information which gives a better picture of what happened. A grand jury sits for months; investigators are typically long-term, full-time employees of the government.) The only way that a defendent could conduct a proper investigation after they called one of the mystery accusers to the stand would be if the court took an indefinite recess (as long as it took) after each one -- and that is obviously completely impractical.

So what I seem to see is that this decision Brady says that if the prosecution has exculpatory evidence, they must turn it over, but they are under no obligation to conduct any sort of diligent investigation to find exculpatory evidence, or if they stumble over it during the course of their investigation they are under no obligation to save it. Under these rules, how is the right to confront witnesses (when the prosecution is hiding the things that they should be confronted with) and the right to compel witnesses in his favor (when the prosecution is hiding their identity) anything but a sham?

Now, alternatively, in an alternate universe where the defendent has a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you might reasonably argue that the defense doesn't need its own detective force and the right to depositions. But then there is a different problem... If the appeals court is supposed to defer to the trial court on findings of "fact" how does the appeals court deal with a jury proclaiming as "fact" that the testimony and evidence introduced at a trial prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, when they simply do not?

[cathyf]

Shouldn't Fitzgerald have made the grant of immunity conditional upon signing a waiver?

Forget Fitzgerald. How could the court have allowed Fleischer to testify without signing a waiver? Talk about the right to confront accusors & compel favorable witnesses being made a sham -- Fleischer was allowed to take the witness stand as the sole witness to perjury while being able to hide exculpatory evidence.

[Topsecretk9]

Man - I had to leave for a while, but this Fleischer business stinks to high heaven - especially given Fitz's bit about Dickerson - and NO Gregory.

[Topsecretk9]

OH - and to think it was Fleischer's little aide who started the bogus 1x2x6 story - talk about madness.

[MJW]

Among the interesting tidbits, from the September affidaivit:

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.

I somehow suspect if Libby had made a similar denial, and then a tape turned up of of him spouting off about Plame to Woodward, he would have faced another perjury count. Likewise, if Libby denied talking about Plame to Pincus, and Pincus said he had. Or even, like Cathie Martin, if he moved back by an entire month the time he heard about Plame from Harlow. The more that comes out, the more it looks like Fitz wanted to get Libby for conspiring to discredit a whistleblower, and in the absence of a statue against it, went with perjury and obstruction.

[Elliott]

MJW, thank you for pointing that out. I had missed it on my first go around (comes with the territory when doing the Big Jim Skim™).

Going from that paragraph in the affadavit, I don't know if Fitzgerald had a great perjury case against Armitage, but, given Woodward's representations that he asked Armitage for a waiver, I think an obstruction charge would have been more than defensible.

[MJW]

Fitz claimed to be exercising his prosecutorial discretion by not subpoenaing Royce and Phelp's for the Newsday article that "contained further information about Valerie Plame and confirmed that she worked at the CIA." The article's source was believed to be Harlow. Certainly if Fitz were really focused on protecting national security information, he would aggressively investigate an article sourced to a senior intelligence official which divulged "further information" about the real-life Syndey Bristow. But, of course, that wasn't at all what Fitz was focused on.

[MJW]

Elliot, I'd sure like to know what Woodward told the grand jury concerning his requests to Armitage for a waiver. I find it difficult to believe that Woodward couldn't manage to convey to Armitage the subject matter of the waiver he sought. And if Armitage truly cut him off so abruptly that he couldn't, I find it hard to believe it wasn't because Armitage already knew.

[sylvia]

"Tops, if Wilson's story is to be believed, which members of the administration were criticizing Wilson to Pincus? Looking back at the affadavit, the Pincus conversation with Fleischer was the 12th. Do we know anything about Pincus' discussions with administration officials prior to his conversation with Wilson on the 10th? "

Yes that was what I was wondering, about the timing of that. The timing seems a little tight that Pincus called Wilson before Novaks story came out on the 14th and warn him - it must have been on the 13th, if Fleischer was the source from the 12th. Or... maybe Wilson called Pincus before that.

So let's see, we got Wilson calling Novak, Wilson calling Cooper, and who knows, maybe Wilson calling Pincus (instead of the other way round). What more do we need to know about who actually was the real leaker???

[MJW]

Elliot, Armitage testified to the grand jury that prior to July 14 he didn't mention Plame to any reporter except Novak. Yet he indisputably told Woodward about Plame. His sworn testimony is false; and in Fitzerland, where no one can possibly misremember something so significant, that's perjury. That is, if the "no misremembering" rule applied to everyone equally.

[Topsecretk9]

THANKS MJW - Man, ain't that something?

-----
Elliot, I know you know but- Armitage withHELD that info from Fitz -

Nov. 21st 2005 -

LARRY KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can

-----

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

and

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.

I have to tell the truth." - because for years I have been lying and now that the legendary WAPO reporter has be by the bombshell revelation balls I have NO choice.

Incredible. And the smartest prosecutor in the friggin world who is apparently in a constant state of self administered sand fog never thought to look at Armitage's calendar?

OK- so he's not political? - Then he's just grossly negligent -

especially given all of Amritage's witness tampering to boot.

[Elliott]

MJW, I agree that we'd need to see Woodward's story as told to Fitzgerald. I didn't think that Armitage could have denied discussing Plame with reporters other than Novak without being prosecuted for obstruction and have now been proven wrong. Maybe the Armitage-Woodward chat went like the Fitzgerald-Pincus one. (If Pincus did indicate to Fitzgerald that Fleischer, who had, I believe, by then signed a waiver, was his source, why didn't Fitzgerald raise this on direct examination to limit the benefit the defense might gain from the revelation that an immunized witness had given inaccurate testimony?)

I would now like to take the opportunity to apologize for once calling the Special Counsel "Fitzjavert." It was entirely unfair given the French inspector's consistency, foolish though some believe it to have been, in enforcing the law to the letter,

[Topsecretk9]

Sorry, here is the Link to the Larry King transcript

[MJW]

In first reading through the affidavits, I'd missed the little morsel spotted by Elliot that Fitz granted Fleischer immunity even though Fleisher refused to sign a waiver. That's almost jaw dropping. Just how badly did Fitz want Fleischer's testimony to agree to that? And just how believable does that make Fitz's claim that he made the immunity offer blind?

[Elliott]

MJW, are you sure it's not "good misremembering" and "bad misremembering?"

TS, thanks for the Woodward stuff.

[MJW]

If Libby's defense attorneys knew that Fleischer was granted immunity without signing a waiver and didn't use it against him, they really fell down on the job. If they weren't told, that would seem to me to be a clear Giglio violation (in Giglio v. U.S. the SCOTUS held that the government must disclose the terms of any agreements in which the government grants immunity in exchange for testimony.)

[Topsecretk9]

MJW --

Here is CBOLDT's link to Fitzgerald Memorandum in Opposition - Re: Fleisher Testimony

[Topsecretk9]

towards the end of page 8 and on

The Defendant Has Received All Information Regarding the Immunity Order to Which He Is Entitled.

The government has provided the defense with a copy of Mr. Fleischer's immunity order.

There is nothing in any statement made by Mr. Fleischer's counsel to which the defense is entitled

under the Jencks Act, Brady or Giglio. Mr. Fleischer was given immunity based on general

information regarding the nature of his prospective testimony that added little or nothing to what the

government had already determined in the course of its investigation. Neither Mr. Fleischer nor his

counsel proffered that he would provide specific information incriminating Mr. Libby. Nothing that

the government received prior to Mr. Fleischer being granted immunity is in any way inconsistent

with the prior testimony and statements of Mr. Fleischer that have been provided to the defense, or

in any way reflects the existence of any tacit agreements, incentives or benefits beyond the immunity

order itself. There are none.

The defense relies on a single district court case from the Central District of California in

support of its argument that the defense is entitled to receive under Giglio any information revealing

the "nature of the negotiation process that led to the leniency agreement."...

on first blush, looks to me that it wasn't shared

[MJW]

In terms of good versus bad misremembering, there's little doubt that's Fitz's rule. It's almost amusing to compare the importance he attaches to Pincus's source in the August affidaivit when he clearly suspects it's Libby ("it would make little sense that Fleischer would knowingly withhold a disclosure to Pincus") to the offhand treatment in the September affidaivit when he discovers it's Fleischer.

Another quote from the September affidavit illustrates Fitz's mindset: (79.) "Moreover, an assessment would have to be made whether Libby deliberately transposed Post reporters Glen Kessler and Walter Pincus in his testimony so as to throw investigators off the trail." Why attribute to confusion what you can charge as obstruction?

[MJW]

TSK9, I hope Clarice, Other Tom, and other lawyers will offer their opinions on whether not disclosing that Fleischer was granted immunity even though he refused to sign a waiver would violate Giglio. It certainly would seem to violate the spirit if not the letter. I can't see how any court could deny that such a sweetheart deal goes to Fleischer's credibility.

(We don't, of course, know for sure that it wasn't disclosed.)

[Topsecretk9]

I very much wonder if Libby's side was told that Fleisher was granted this sweetheart deal.

My guess is a big fat huge "no" and they new it smelled bad

While the government strongly objects to the notion that the defense is entitled to anything

beyond what has already been provided, it has provided the Court, in a separate pleading, filed ex

parte and under seal, an Affidavit of Patrick J. Fitzgerald which sets forth the collective recollections

of the prosecution team concerning any relevant conversations with Mr. Fleischer's counsel prior

to the grant of immunity.

OH - beyond the skimpy - "I hearby grant blanket immunity to Ari with no information from Ari" piece of paper - there is another Fitz affidavit provided only to the judge setting forth the "recollections" of any revelavant conversations .

His track record with misleading affidavits? - I'm guessing this detail was forgotten.

I don't know that a scriptwriter could write this comedy.

[kim]

Rowan be rowin' back. What is it with Hayden?

Fitz? Eventually a footnote in academic discussions of Star Chambers. What a complete schmuck. I can see why pizzas commit suicide in his ovens.
=====================================

[kim]

Fitz gives a new shade of meaning to the term 'jailhouse lawyer'. This guy is an amazing contradiction; he is remarkably adept at the rules, but fundamentally does not believe they apply to him. Look at the manner he skirts the law to his advantage, and hammers you with every tiny technicality he can wield. It is sociopathic, he is a borderline personality, and the old name for his disease was borderline schizophrenia. He has been deluded from the gitgo in this matter. Reality will hit him like Thor.
==========================

[SWarren]

There were two LYING testimonies that convicted Libby—Fleischer and Russert.

Ari sought immunity because he was “horrified” he would be charged with leaking classified information (the INR memo). From his testimony he SAYS that he ‘overheard’ it from Bartlett venting on the plane, but I think he actually READ the memo (thus his mis-pronouncing PLAMAY for Plame. He says he took it upon himself that this was something the press should know and told Gregory (to Russert) and Dickerson(to Cooper)

Ari needed to be able to give Fitz something that Fitz needed in order to get immunity, so the weasel made up the luncheon conversation with Libby. And that SUPPOSED lunch conversation convicted Libby.

Fleischer Testimony:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/29/libby-live-ari-fleischer-two/

Both Ari and little Tim are scum!!

[clarice]

I'm not sure Pincus in pretrial discovery told Fitz who his source was. As I said I believe he was given a waiver by Libby, was asked if Libby was his source and said no. He was questioned in writing only and with no waiver from Fleischer I do not believe he was asked about him. That is why invstigating a case by questioning reporters under the circumscribed manner allowed is bound to lead to an incomplete story.
Cathy, US Courts have broader discovery rules tham anywhere else in the world to my knowledge, but are substantially constricted in criminal cases so tricky prosecutors do what Fitz did:avoid as much as possible uncovering exculpatory material.

[clarice]

SWarren..TM has long noted that Ari's source was more likely Bartlett than Libby. He started blabbing right after being with Bartlett and that was 5 days after the purported luncheon with Libby. That's what Libby got for his nice gesture of inviting Ari for a farewell luncheon.

[kim]

I can remember, C, when I thought Fitz was deliberately hampering himself with DoJ rules about questioning reporters, so that the defense could get at the reporters and reveal the real story. How deluded I had to be about Fitz to make up that one. But, certainly Fitz was gaming it with the reporters, and that's what I could smell.
=========================

[Cecil Turner]

Ari sought immunity because he was “horrified” he would be charged with leaking classified information (the INR memo). From his testimony he SAYS that he ‘overheard’ it from Bartlett venting on the plane, but I think he actually READ the memo (thus his mis-pronouncing PLAMAY for Plame.

Fitz says the same thing in para 38 of the 040927 doc:

Fleischer also witnessed further discussion about Wilson aboard Air Force One and reviewed classified documents about Wilson's trip to Niger aboard the plane. [emphasis added]

Couldn't have gotten "Plame" from the INR memo, though, because it only identified her as "Wilson." Jeffress suggested it was from reading Novak's column, which makes sense.

This whole thing is stupid, anyway. Fitz's position is a masterpiece of illogic, which he outlines with this bit in para 40:

Moreover, it would be highly relevant to any putative prosecution of Libby to establish that while Libby may have been only a third source for Cooper's article who only confirmed what Cooper already knew, one of the earlier more direct sources was a press officer with whom Libby chose to share the information later disclosed.

Sounds like there's little doubt Fleischer had a classified source just before he leaked, but Fitz wants to use the testimony that Libby supposedly told Fleischer it's "hush hush" and "on the q.t." to try to blame it on Libby. But Fleischer had a clearance, so leaking to him couldn't be criminal . . . and either Libby told him it was classified (and hence it's absolutely Fleischer's fault for subsequently leaking), or he didn't (which would support the contention Libby didn't know it was). In either case, if there's a law being broken here, Fleischer is the one doing it.

Fitz wants to make the incident prove the point he's desperate for (i.e., Libby knew Plame was classified), even though Fleischer's version--which is uncorroborated by anyone else--isn't even internally consistent. This sort of thing is typical of "investigations" where the desired result has been predetermined, and the purpose is to try to find something to prove the case . . . rather than find out what actually happened.

[cathyf]

...even though Fleischer's version--which is uncorroborated by anyone else--isn't even internally consistent.

I'm still back at trying to figure out how using Fleishcher's testimony gets around the Two Witness Rule.

But I'm also still trying to see where Libby's lawyers didn't make a mash of this at the trial. According to the juror interviews, their logic was that whether or not Russert told Libby about Plame, Libby had to have been lying when he claimed he was surprised because if he told Fleischer just a few days before then he wouldn't have been surprised. But from what I read of the not-a-transcript, Libby's lawyers just rolled over and let this happen.

Look, the government charged that Libby lied about two things:

1) Russert telling him about Plame.

2) Being in a state of ignorance such that news about Plame would be a surprise on July 10, 2003.

These are two separate events. Each of which was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, with the exclusion of significant evidence in each witness's case which suggests that the witness might be mistaken or lying, and been blackmailed into giving false testimony.

So is it really true that you can get around the Two Witness Rule by combining two statements about two independent events into a single count, and finding two witnesses who each give single-witness uncorroborated testimony to only one statement?

[clarice]

If I recall correctly, the govt pasted together the inconclusive statements of Addington, Grenier and Martin to show that Libby was not surprised. And the statements of Russert and Cooper to show that Russert didn't tell him. But frankly this beats me.

[windansea]

Hewitt interviews 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.

HH: Why did Fitzgerald, do you think, in your opinion, continue on with the investigation once Armitage had revealed it was he who was the leaker?

RN: Because…you know, when he entered the case, he was told that Armitage was the leaker. That information was given to him, because it had been known for three weeks before he was named as special prosecutor. And therefore, I think the Justice Department should have bitten the bullet and taken care of him itself. Why he did not reveal that is something that is in the mysteries of the whole, strange relationship of special prosecutors. It is very difficult for them to say no crime was committed, you’ve named me for nothing, and I’ve established a staff for nothing. But that’s in fact what he should have done.

[maryerose]

this convoluted scam onLibby is disgraceful. And to think that none of his former colleagues ie; Martin or Fleischer are only interested in saving their own behinds is a sad commentary.
OT: The dem Senate all-nighter is a big joke. When are these idiots going to do the job they were paid to do which is make our life better by passing legislation that helps us? Iraq war change is on hold until Sept. Dems need to accept their defeat on this issue and press on to more important things,like saving Social Security and health care costs.

[windansea]

the spectacle of cots rolling into Senate chambers is probably good for another 3-5 point frop in approval ratings for the critters

[MJW]

CathyF asked about the two-witness rule in regard to perjury. Technically, Libby wasn't charged and convicted of perjury (18 USC 1621), but rather of the very closely related charge of "False Declarations Before a Grand Jury or Court" (18 USC 1623). Section 1623 specifically doesn't require two witnesses: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

[clarice]

Thanks, MJW..I thought about that and meant to check it out and forgot. (My new kitten was climbing on me at that time.) Another prosecution trick..

[MJW]

Clarice, pet your little kitten for me. I'm very fond of cats.

[clarice]

I will MJW--she's an adorable bengal who loves to lie in my lap when she's not literally climbing the walls and everything else.

[sylvia]

"Moreover, it would be highly relevant to any putative prosecution of Libby to establish that while Libby may have been only a third source for Cooper's article who only confirmed what Cooper already knew, one of the earlier more direct sources was a press officer with whom Libby chose to share the information later disclosed."

Okay, Libby third and Fleischer "earlier"- so who was the "earliest" source then again? Isn't the first source the most important source?

I don't know, still liking my "Wilson leaked" theory.