Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 09-20-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What the Plame's do is pretty inconsequential as it was Wilson who is to blame for much of this. What I don't see is the righteous indignation we were flooded with when the left thought this was about Rove and/or Cheney.

I mean come on, just suck it up and say it, the Plame 'affair' was very minor, there were no national security concerns, the left wasn't worried about anything beyond what they thought was the chance to nail Rove. If you can't beat him, discredit him. Now that it seems Rove is not to blame, its suddenly not such a big deal.

This just requires a bit of honesty on the lefts part...

You thought you had Rove but you didn't.

Let us compare what you "offered" in post #50...your last post on this thread, and the contents of my last post here, #52.

Even after I posted the fact that the propagandist, Brent Bozell's assistant propagandandist, Matthew Sheffiled, who you quoted in post #50, also said:

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/7274#comment
Joe Wilson is a creepy, pompous ass who couldn't even do the job his wife sent him to do. Valerie Wilson is a liar and a fraud who has been living a lie in her marriage and in pretending to be a secret agent.

.....Here you are again....you still persist, in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, and the signifigance of Scooter Libby's indictment on five criminal counts....a criminal effort to conceal the conspiracy and treason that came from officials at the white house, to punish Joe Wilson for writing publicly about what he "Didn't fine in Niger", because it brought attention to Bush and Cheney's misleading and false excuses for invading Iraq....determined to be so by a respected, republican appointed US attorney/special counsel.

This isn't some partisan game....and it is no "small thing", even if it was not a "in a time of war", declared ironically, by our terrorist, traitorous leaders, themselves. Too harsh a description.....in light of Fitzgerald's filings to the court, and Libby's indcitment...unless Fitzgerald is utterly mistaken, or lying,
WTF else would describe this official misconduct, coverup, and conspiracy?

Given that special counsel Fitzgerald has denied, in filings to a US Criminal Court Judge, the specifics of your entire argument, and the arguments of "fringe cases" like the one I just posted by Bozell's "Matthews", about Joe Wilson, and that actually....it was an effort to discredit Wilson that led to the fictitious white house "NEPOTISM OP", and the treasonous "outing" of Wilson's wife....during wartime....by the very officials who claim to terrorize....err... ......protect <b>us</b> from terror. (Forgive me...between what they have said done, and your perpetuation of their propagandist defense of their treason....it is difficult to remember/discern if you and they are terrorizing us
or protecting us.

If, as you and "Matthews" claim...that "Wilson who is to blame for much of this", why is Special Counsel Fitzgerald, the Bush appointee as US Atty....the Bush DOJ appointee as Special Counsel, with all of the independent authority of the Attorney General of the US, with all the authority of the Atty General to investigate, subpoena, and prosecute on his own, without the restrictions imposed on special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, ten years ago....Fitzgerald the well respected prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers.....telling the Court the exact opposite about Wilson, and about the OVP effort to harrass him and his wife?

If the subject of this thread were the 9/11 attacks, and whether the US government was involved, wouldn't the flimsy, fringe crap that you have presented on this thread, to bolster your claims against Wilson, and foi Rove, relegate this thread to "Paranoia"? Doesn't it work both ways, when one side fails this obviously, in the face of reason and all of the actual evidence?
Sheesh! Enough already. There is too much documentation to counter Bozell''s and Cheney's BS, on this one. Time to drop it.

If "Scooter" was innocent, why did he work so hard to push trail out until safely after the midterm, Novemebr elections? Wouldn't an innocent man, wabt to be cleared, sooner, rather than later?

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...2006_02_16.pdf
page 28
Mr. Libby predicates his request on a single reference in the indictment to the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time.11 (Paragraph 1(f) of the Indictment). The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time – and we do not – we would produce them though not strictly required to under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland. The defense is not entitled to every document mentioning a fact merely because that fact is mentioned in the indictment.12 Nor can the defendant persuasively argue that documents reflecting the classified status of Ms. Wilson’s employment would have any bearing on the defendant’s state of mind in the absence of any evidence that defendant ever saw such documents.

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do..._to_compel.pdf
pages 14 to 15

Similarly, defendant is not entitled to discovery of additional documents regarding Mr. Wilson’s trip in order to prepare to examine former Secretary of State Colin Powell as a defense witness. Defendant asserts that he is “entitled to examine Secretary Powell regarding his knowledge of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger and his communications with other government officials about that trip,” and that the State Department records concerning the trip will assist him in preparing to conduct this inquiry. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails, however, to establish how Secretary Powell’s knowledge concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip could be relevant to the perjury and false statement charges contained in the indictment, or his defense to those charges. Nor has defendant established how “[a]ny notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger” (see Memo. at 15) would be helpful to defendant in
preparing his defense, <b>even if such documents existed, and it is the understanding of the government that there are no notes indicating that Secretary Powell made the purported statements.</b>

Additionally, defendant asserts that he plans to question Secretary Powell concerning media reports regarding a document containing information regarding Ms. Wilson sent to Secretary Powell on Air Force One while Secretary Powell and others were en route to Africa between July 7 and July 12, 2003, and regarding the possibility that other government officials may have shared information about Ms. Wilson with journalists while in Africa. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails to establish that any documents other than that sent to Secretary Powell (which has been produced to defendant) would be useful in preparing to examine Secretary Powell, or even that the topics concerning which he plans to question Secretary Powell have any relevance to the issues of this case. Accordingly, defendant’s desire to question Secretary Powell does not entitle him to additional discovery. Defendant claims that Karl Rove will be a “key witness” in the trial, in that he will testify concerning a conversation with defendant on July 10 or 11, 2003 regarding Robert Novak’s intent to print a story regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment at the CIA, Indict., Count One, ¶ 21, and that Stephen Hadley may “offer important testimony about discussions within the Administration concerning the need to rebut Mr. Wilson’s statements about his trip and his conclusions,” as well as “discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE” and George Tenet’s public statements regarding the “sixteen words.” Memo. at 25-26. As indicated above, the government does not intend to call Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley as witnesses at this time.

pages 17 to 18

In an attempt to recast the relevant issues at trial, defendant claims he is entitled to correct the “distorted picture of the relevant events” presented in the indictment, including the “exaggerati[on of] the importance government officials, including [defendant], attributed to Ms. Wilson’s employment status prior to July 14, 2003,” and to present “a more complete and accurate narrative” of the alleged events, and to establish that defendant “and other government officials”
viewed Ms. Wilson’s identity as at most a “peripheral issue.” Memo. at 27. Defendant argues that information regarding bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the “sixteen words” will help the jury appreciate how defendant “may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable.” Memo. at 3-4.

page 18
Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. Accordingly, it is clear that documents from outside the OVP are not sought to establish “context” but rather to provide an irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case.

Moreover, evidence from the CIA, State Department, and NSC about whether persons working there thought the issue of Ms. Wilson’s employment was “peripheral” will not place in context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the relevant time, nor explain whether defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the topic in which he participated. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ <b>9. The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003.</b>

pages 19 to 20

At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” <h3>there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism.</h3> The context for defendant’s disclosures in the course of defending the Office of the Vice President will not be fleshed out in any files of CIA or State Department or NSC employees that might reflect what they thought. Put slightly differently, the thoughts and impressions of CIA, State Department, and NSC employees, absent any evidence that these thoughts and impressions were conveyed to defendant, simply cannot shed light on defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged criminal conduct. See
Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the
Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President. Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. Defendant testified that he did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife with reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment a month earlier from the Vice President.

pages 21 to 22
The government has produced to defendant all documents received from the OVP, which would include any documents responsive to these requests, and is in the process of locating and producing a limited number of additional responsive documents in the possession of the Special Counsel although such documents were not authored or reviewed by defendant. The government has declined to seek or produce additional responsive documents from other agencies unless such documents reflect conversations and meetings in which defendant participated, on the ground that such documents would be irrelevant to the defense. The government has also declined to produce
publicly available comments by government officials regarding this issue on the ground that they are equally accessible to defendant. As an initial matter, it is defendant’s conduct and testimony, rather than any whim of the government, that makes defendant’s disclosure of the NIE an issue in this case. However, contrary to defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to rummage through other agencies’ documents concerning the NIE where defendant himself has testified that he understood that no one at those agencies was aware of, or involved in, the declassification made known to him by the Vice President or the disclosures he made to reporters Cooper and Miller.

The Relevance of the NIE to This Case One of the key conversations that will be proved at trial took place between defendant and reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel on the morning of July 8, 2003. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he and Miller did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, on that occasion, and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Defendant further testified that when he spoke with reporter Tim Russert the following day, Russert informed him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and defendant was “taken aback.” Defendant testified that he thought that the information was new to him, and that he made sure not to confirm the information to Russert. Defendant thereafter testified that he repeated what he learned from Russert to other reporters (including Cooper and Miller) on July 12, taking care to caution those reporters that he did not know if the information were true or even if Ambassador Wilson even had a wife.
22

page 23
As to the meeting on July8, defendant testified that he was specificallyauthorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively. In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.” Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.

page 26

Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense. Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.” <b>Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided 9to defendant, and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.</b>

pages 29 to 30

Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke
29

prior to July 14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – <h3>it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson.</h3> 10 Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot is exculpatory.