The Plame affair....... - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 09-21-2006, 11:20 AM

stevo, that factcheck.org piece is more than 2 years old....much more has
been reported, since......and before, that strengthens the argument that Joe Wilson was a victim of the white house, "payback".

Please read my post so that we can have a discussion on the same page. All of what is posted here is supported by news reporting included in this post, and by included citations of conclusions in the Senate Select Intelligence report, about Joe Wilson's "finidings".

<b>I share how I come to believe what I post, and consider what I receive as "feedback" (or blowback ?) from my effort....</b>

It is also irrelevant because the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Phase I report, (we're still waiting for the 26 month delayed Phase II...)
said:

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=6
or http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...8-301/sec2.pdf
Report on the US . Intelligence Communitys Prewar Intelligence ...
From page 7:

On February 26,2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerien officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector.
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the forrner Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick -,Chad.
He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S.officials he thought there was “nothing to the story.” Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying <h3>“he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.’’</h3>

but, stevo.....<b>if you must....</b>

Quote:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...5/ai_n12757836
Butler `wrong' on Iraq uranium link
Independent on Sunday, The, Jul 25, 2004 by Raymond Whitaker

<b>A leading nuclear expert has pointed out a technical error in the Butler report on WMD intelligence in Iraq, and criticised the committee's finding that intelligence on Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Africa was "credible".</b>

The Butler report demolished the most controversial allegation in the Government's September 2002 WMD dossier - that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons in 45 minutes - but observers were surprised that the uranium claim passed scrutiny.

American investigators have dismissed the suggestion that Iraq was seeking uranium from the west African state of Niger in a quest for nuclear weapons, because it was based on forged documents. It was also inherently implausible, they added, since Iraq had 550 tons of "yellowcake" - uranium which has undergone the first stage of processing. But the Butler committee accepted the Government's contention that it had separate intelligence, which has never been disclosed, to support the claim.

Norman Dombey, retired professor of theoretical physics at Sussex University, said yesterday that the Butler report wrongly described Iraq's stocks of uranium as unprocessed. But Professor Dombey, credited with pointing out numerous flaws in the story of an Iraqi defector whose nuclear claims were widely circulated in the US during the 1990s, was more critical of the committee's intelligence findings on the Niger issue.<b> "The Butler report says the claim was credible because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999, and almost three- quarters of Niger's exports were uranium. But this is irrelevant, since France controls Niger's uranium mines," he said. </b>

Last year this newspaper interviewed the now-retired diplomat, Wissam al-Zahawie, who said he had been sent on a tour of African countries in 1999 to invite their leaders to a trade fair in Iraq. In Niger he met only the President, who was assassinated two months later. British intelligence on the issue appears to be based entirely on speculation by other Niger officials about the purpose of Mr Zahawie's visit.

Professor Dombey pointed out that the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report in the US quoted widespread scepticism about the British information on Niger. One agency said "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious". Asked by the committee to comment on Britain's WMD dossier, the deputy director of central intelligence, John McLaughlin, said "they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch" on the African uranium question, adding: "I think they reached a little bit on that one point." Another senior official singled out the same part of the dossier, saying: "They put more emphasis on the uranium acquisition in Africa than we would."

Despite doubts at the time, George Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union address that "the British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". The head of the CIA, George Tenet, who has since stepped down, apologised for its inclusion. But Britain stood by the claim, saying it was not based on the forged documents that had fooled other countries. Other US intelligence on the issue was conspicuously thin, the Senate committee noted.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/po...gewanted=print
or http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A80894DE404482
2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim

January 18, 2006, Wednesday
By ERIC LICHTBLAU (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 8, Column 1, 1068 words

A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was ''unlikely'' because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send ''25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers'' filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous ''16 words'' in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

A handful of news reports, along with the Robb-Silberman report last year on intelligence failures in Iraq, have previously made reference to the early doubts expressed by the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research in 2002 concerning the reliability of the Iraq-Niger uranium link.

But the intelligence assessment itself -- including the analysts' full arguments in raising wide-ranging doubts about the credence of the uranium claim -- was only recently declassified as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sought access to government documents on terrorism and intelligence matters. The group, which received a copy of the 2002 memo among several hundred pages of other documents, provided a copy of the memo to The New York Times.

The White House declined to discuss details of the declassified memo, saying the Niger question had already been explored at length since the president's State of the Union address.

''This matter was examined fully by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission, and the president acted on their broad recommendations to reform our intelligence apparatus,'' said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

The public release of the State Department assessment, with some sections blacked out, adds another level of detail to an episode that was central not only to the debate over the invasion of Iraq, but also in the perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

In early 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency sent the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate possible attempts to sell uranium to Iraq. The next year, after Mr. Wilson became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. officer who suggested him for the Niger trip, was made public. The investigation into the leak led to criminal charges in October against Mr. Libby, who is accused of misleading investigators and a grand jury.

The review by the State Department's intelligence bureau was one of a number of reviews undertaken in early 2002 at the State Department in response to secret intelligence pointing to the possibility that Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake, a processed uranium ore, from Niger to reconstitute its nuclear program.

A four-star general, Carlton W. Fulford Jr., was also sent to Niger to investigate the claims of a uranium purchase. He, too, came away with doubts about the reliability of the report and believed Niger's yellowcake supply to be secure. But the State Department's review, which looked at the political, economic and logistical factors in such a purchase, seems to have produced wider-ranging doubts than other reviews about the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad.

The review concluded that Niger was ''probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq,'' in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale. It also cast doubt on an intelligence report indicating that Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, might have negotiated a sales agreement with Iraq in 2000. Mr. Tandja and his government were reluctant to do anything to endanger their foreign aid from the United States and other allies, the review concluded. The State Department review also cast doubt on the logistics of Niger being able to deliver 500 tons of uranium even if the sale were attempted. ''Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement,'' the review said.

Chris Farrell, the director of investigations at Judicial Watch and a former military intelligence officer, said he found the State Department's analysis to be ''a very strong, well-thought-out argument that looks at the whole playing field in Niger, and it makes a compelling case for why the uranium sale was so unlikely.''

The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A Bush administration official, who requested anonymity because the issue involved partly classified documents, would not say whether President Bush had seen the State Department's memo before his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003.

But the official added: ''The White House is not an intelligence-gathering operation. The president based his remarks in the State of the Union address on the intelligence that was presented to him by the intelligence community and cleared by the intelligence community. The president has said the intelligence was wrong, and we have reorganized our intelligence agencies so we can do better in the future.''

Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

''All the people understood that there was documentary evidence'' suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.

Yes...it's complicated, and I gave no control over that....it just is.

This is the background.....this is what happened:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901478_pf.html
A Leak, Then a Deluge
Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; A01

..........Burglary, Forgery, Delivery

The chain of events that led to Friday's indictment can be traced as far back as 1991, when an unremarkable burglary took place at the embassy of Niger in Rome. All that turned up missing was a quantity of official letterhead with "Republique du Niger" at its top.

More than 10 years later, according to a retired high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, a businessman named Rocco Martino approached the CIA station chief in Rome. An occasional informant for U.S., British, French and Italian intelligence services, Martino brought documents on Niger government letterhead describing secret plans for the sale of uranium to Iraq.

The station chief "saw they were fakes and threw [Martino] out," the former CIA official said. But Italy shared a similar report with the Americans in October 2001, he said, and the CIA gave it circulation because it did not know the Italians relied on the same source.

On Feb. 12, 2002, Cheney received an expanded version of the unconfirmed Italian report. It said Iraq's then-ambassador to the Vatican had led a mission to Niger in 1999 and sealed a deal for the purchase of 500 tons of uranium in July 2000. Cheney asked for more information.

The same day, Plame wrote to her superior in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Wilson -- who had undertaken a similar mission three years before -- soon departed for Niamey, the Niger capital. He said he found no support for the uranium report and said so when he returned.

Martino continued to peddle his documents, with an asking price of more than 10,000 euros -- this time to Panorama, an Italian magazine owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Panorama editor Carlo Rossella said his staff concluded the letters were bogus but in the interim sent copies to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in October 2002. "I believed the Americans were the best source for verifying authenticity," he said. When the documents reached the State Department, according to a commission that investigated prewar intelligence this year, analysts there said they had "serious doubts about the authenticity" of the "transparently forged" documents.

By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq's allegedly "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." That claim, along with repeated use of the "mushroom cloud" image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq.

President Bush invoked the mushroom cloud in an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati. References to African uranium remained in his speech until its fifth draft, but a last-minute intervention by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet excised them.

Tenet's success was short-lived. The uranium returned repeatedly to Bush administration rhetoric in December and January. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice cited the report in a Jan. 23 newspaper column, and three days later, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for a nuclear weapon?"
16 Words and Wilson Strikes Back

By the time Bush stated the case personally -- in the notorious "16 words" of his Jan. 28 State of the Union address -- the uranium had been thoroughly integrated into his government's case for impending war with Iraq.

The IAEA exposed the documents as forgeries on March 7, 2003. The Bush administration, while acknowledging uncertainty, did not admit its primary evidence had been faked.

Late April and early May saw a succession of Bush administration assertions that the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had just begun. By then, The Washington Post was reporting that teams looking for weapons in Iraq were departing in frustration, making way for a new Iraq Survey Group that became an 18-month forensic examination of where U.S. intelligence had gone wrong.

Wilson spoke anonymously about his trip to Niger to New York Times opinion writer Nicholas D. Kristof, whose May 6 column accused Cheney of permitting truth to go "missing in action." The failure of the weapons hunt, and alleged deception of the public, had been laid at Cheney's feet.

In the vice president's office, Libby had long since come to believe that the CIA was undermining Cheney and the president's conduct of the war. One undercurrent of the events to come was a venerable form of Washington institutional combat, between the White House and the executive agencies ostensibly under its command.

Miller of the New York Times wrote later that Libby believed the CIA was hedging against accusations of failure by blaming Cheney and Bush for its mistakes. Another top official, a longtime ally of Libby's, told a reporter at the time that the CIA was working actively to conceal evidence favorable to the White House.

Libby had known enemies inside government -- but an unknown enemy outside. It did not take him long to discover that the latter was Wilson.
'There Would Be Complications'

In late May and early June 2003, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, Libby asked for and received information about Wilson's trip from a senior State Department official, who is not named in the indictment but is identified by colleagues as then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman.

On June 9, the CIA faxed classified accounts of Wilson's assignment "to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Office of the Vice President." Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had been involved in planning Wilson's trip. An unidentified "senior officer of the CIA" confirmed Plame's employment for Libby on June 11, and Cheney told Libby the next day which part of the agency employed her.

For Libby, according to a senior official who worked with him at the time, "I think this just hit a nerve." By June, he said, "the blind, deaf and dumb had to be aware that something was wrong in Iraq." Uranium was "always a side issue," but it was also "the beginning of the unraveling of the big story . . . calling attention to a huge mistake he was part of. So it's no wonder he took this personally."

A senior intelligence officer who knew of Libby's inquiries about Wilson and Plame said in an interview yesterday, <b>"It didn't occur to anyone that the reason why was so that her name would go out to reporters." That, the official said, is "the lesson you learn from this."</b>

On June 12, The Post published a story challenging the uranium claims. Wilson has since said he was among the sources for that story.

A man identified by colleagues as John Hannah, described in the indictment as Libby's "then principal deputy," asked Libby soon afterward whether "information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press." Libby replied, the indictment states, "that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly."

On June 23, Libby allegedly crossed his first big line. At a meeting in his office with Miller of the Times, he said Wilson's wife might be a CIA employee.
Attack and Counterattack

Wilson emerged from anonymity with a splash on July 6, telling his story in a New York Times opinion column, a lengthy on-the-record interview with The Post and an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The next day, Libby lunched with Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, according to the indictment. He told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that the information was not widely known. The same day, the State Department sent Powell a classified memorandum written a month earlier identifying Wilson's wife as a CIA employee and saying it was believed she recommended Wilson for the Niger mission. Powell was traveling with Bush to Africa, and sources said the memorandum was widely circulated among officials with appropriate clearances aboard Air Force One.

On July 8, Libby met Miller, the reporter, for breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel at 16th and K streets. Asking that she attribute the information to a "former Hill staffer" -- he had once been legal adviser to a House select committee -- Libby criticized CIA reporting of Wilson's trip and "advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA," the indictment states.

On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. <h3>That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and said Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by Wilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....howcaseid=0019
......By Walter Pincus

pincusw@washpost.com

.......Journalists, including me, have been put in the middle of highly publicized criminal investigations and civil cases based on leaks. <b>On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.</b>

I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. But I did disclose it in an October 12, 2003 story in The Washington Post. By that time there was a Justice Department criminal investigation into a leak to columnist Robert Novak who published it on July 14, 2003 and identified Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Under certain circumstances a government official’s disclosure of her name could be a violation of federal law. <b>The call with me had taken place two days before Novak’s column appeared.</b>

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. Because of that article, The Washington Post and I received subpoenas last summer from Patrick J. Fitzgerald...

......I refused..... It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation......

When my deposition finally took place in my lawyer’s office last September, Fitzgerald asked me about the substance of my conversation about Wilson’s wife, the gist of which I had reported in the newspaper. But he did not ask me to confirm my source’s identity.....

Earlier that week Rove and another unknown source gave the information to Novak as well.

On July 14, for the first time, the name passed into the public domain in sixth paragraph of Novak's syndicated column: "his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative." For all its seismic importance now, that column provoked little immediate response.

Time magazine reported on its Web site shortly afterward -- based on sources that Cooper, the author, has since identified as Rove and Libby -- that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

David Corn of the Nation was among the first to protest. Naming Wilson's wife, he wrote July 16, "would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated her entire career."

By the following week the story reached NBC's "Today Show," and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded an investigation. The administration replied without apology at first. According to Wilson, MSNBC's Chris Matthews told him off camera: "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was 'fair game.' "

Out of view of the public, the CIA took the first steps towards a formal investigation. On July 30, it reported to the Justice Department a possible offense "concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." In August the agency completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done. In September, Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers had violated federal law.

On Sept. 26, 2003, the FBI launched an inquiry into who leaked Plame's name and occupation.
'If Only It Were True'

Justice Department lawyers notified then-White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales at about 8 p.m. Monday, Sept. 29, that the investigation had begun. Gonzales, now attorney general, has said he alerted Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. at once. But he did not tell anyone else -- or instruct White House employees to preserve all evidence -- until the following morning. According to Gonzales, lawyers at Justice said it would be fine to wait.

John Dion, a veteran counter-espionage prosecutor, ran the initial investigation with a team of FBI agents at his disposal. They soon brought in Rove and other top aides for questioning.

But early signals from the White House suggested the probe might come to nothing. Bush expressed doubts on Oct. 7. "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," he said. "Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials."

Three days later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters he had talked to three officials -- Libby, Rove and Elliot Abrams -- and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

The following Tuesday, Oct. 14, Libby reached a decision point. The FBI asked whether he had disclosed Plame's job or identity to any reporter, and he said he had not even known those details until July 10 or 11. His source, he asserted, was NBC's Tim Russert. According to the indictment, he said he passed along Russert's information as gossip to Cooper of Time. He told the FBI that he did not discuss Plame with Miller at all when they met on July 8.

Current and former officials said they did not know why Libby made those statements. Perhaps, they said, Libby believed the reporters would never be forced to testify, or that the statements from Bush and McClellan encouraged him to believe the inquiry would reach no result. Whatever his reasons, Libby had committed himself. He would give much the same account to agents again in November, and repeated them twice in sworn testimony before a grand jury.

"It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true," Fitzgerald said in his Friday news conference. "It is not true, according to the indictment."

Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, has said Libby testified to the best of his recollection. "We are quite distressed the special counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate said in a statement Friday.
'Eliot Ness With a Harvard Law Degree'

On the next to last day of 2003, John D. Ashcroft, then attorney general, abruptly recused himself from the case. He had ignored months of complaints from Democrats that his political ties to potential suspects should disqualify him from supervising the investigation. Rove, in particular, was a longtime friend and paid adviser to Ashcroft's campaigns for Missouri governor and the U.S. Senate.

Through the fall and winter, officials said, Ashcroft received periodic briefings on the case. In the last week of December, about a month after Libby's second interview with the FBI, then-Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey had multiple discussions with Ashcroft about whether it was time for a change, Comey has said.

Comey told reporters on Dec. 30 that an "accumulation of facts" in the investigation had brought about Ashcroft's recusal. Details of their conversations have not been made public, and it is not known who initiated them.

"The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest," Comey said, but "one of appearance."

Juleanna Glover Weiss, a spokesman for Ashcroft's Washington consulting firm, said yesterday that the former attorney general would not discuss the decision.

Republican officials expressed the hope at that time that Ashcroft's recusal would provide political cover for the White House if no indictment resulted. One said the move would "depoliticize" the case on the eve of presidential campaign season.

Ashcroft's departure brought to the probe a man Comey described as "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree." Fitzgerald, an old colleague of Comey who had recently become U.S. attorney in Chicago, asked for and received the full delegated powers of the attorney general. A month later, Comey clarified in writing that Fitzgerald could pursue any violation of criminal law associated with the case -- including perjury and obstruction of justice, the heart of the indictment handed up Friday against the vice president's chief of staff.
Indictment and Resignation

After a year-long struggle with journalists, who resisted demands to disclose their sources, Fitzgerald persuaded Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan -- and the appellate judges above him -- that reporters were the only available "eyewitness[es] to the crime." Pincus, Cooper and Russert gave testimony under negotiated limits after receiving the consent of their sources. Miller went to jail for 85 days, then testified after Libby gave her his direct consent, by letter and telephone. Novak has never disclosed whether he spoke to Fitzgerald's grand jury.

The denouement came Friday. Just after noon, six men and 13 women filed silently into Courtroom Four in the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse. They had served on Fitzgerald's grand jury for two years. Now they sat silently before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Calling the courtroom to order, Robinson asked whether the grand jury had something to present. The forewoman, wearing a black cardigan, rose and walked a few steps with a sheaf of papers. She handed them up to the magistrate's clerk. Robinson declared them in order and adjourned.

Charged with five felony counts, Libby resigned from the vice president's office that day.

Fitzgerald, in his news conference, said he could not speculate on whether anyone else would be charged. He said "the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation has concluded," but not all of it.

"I will not end the investigation," he said, "until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility."

Staff writers Dan Eggen, Dafna Linzer, Dana Milbank and Christopher Lee, and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9938948/site/newsweek/page/3/
Newsweek. (International ed.). New York: Nov 14, 2005. pg. 4

The FBI ended a two and a half year probe into suspicious Niger documents without resolving a mystery: who forged papers used to bolster Bush's case for war in Iraq? The bureau announced that the documents, which purportedly showed attempts by Saddam Hussein's government to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger, were concocted for financial gain rather than to influence U.S. foreign policy. The CIA sent diplomat Joe Wilson in February 2002 to look into the issue after Italy's military intelligence agency, SISMI, got copies of the forged papers and sent reports about them to the CIA and other Western intel agencies. But a senior bureau official, requesting anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, told NEWSWEEK <b>the FBI never interviewed Rocco Martino, the Italian businessman who provided the documents to SISMI.</b> Last week Martino told an Italian newspaper he played "a double, triple game"—working as a freelance agent for SISMI and French intelligence. Martino said he was instructed by a SISMI agent to pick up the documents from a woman at the Niger Embassy in Rome. "I was simply the deliveryman," he said, adding he had no idea the papers were fraudulent. Italian intel chief Gen. Nicolo Pollari denied that his agency forged the documents, but claimed that SISMI warned the United States the documents were fraudulent after President George W. Bush mentioned Saddam's interest in buying uranium from Africa in his January 2003 State of the Union Message.

—Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006939.php
Is that really how it is? Please.

As those of you who are following my <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_30.php#006908">on-going series of installments</a> on this story know, I spent time with Martino during both of those visits to the US. And this line about not being able to compel him to testify is a crock.

I don't know what the Bureau's authority would have been in such a case. But whether they had any power to compel Martino to talk is irrelevant because they didn't even try to contact him while he was here.

When Martino came to the US the first time last year, it was in early summer. His identity was then still a secret. At least it hadn't yet been published anywhere. So there's no way to know whether the FBI investigators would have known that this sixty-something Italian man flying into New York was a central player in the forgeries drama.

The second time he came, however, was in early August. And by that time his name had been splashed across papers in several European countries, as well as in the Financial Times, which of course you can find on newsstands in most large US cities.

He flew to New York under his own name. And no FBI, law enforcement or intelligence officials made any attempt to contact him during the several days he remained in the US.

There have now been a number of press reports about the alleged FBI investigation into the forgeries story. The Bureau has stated publicly that they have closed the investigation and that they did so after determining that there were no political motives behind the hoax, only a desire to make money. They made that determination without figuring out who forged them or even talking to the guy at the center of the story. And the reasons they're giving for not talking to him are, frankly, bogus.

None of that adds up.

Something's wrong.

<b>Then it was reported that the FBI was re-opening the investigation:</b>

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...7_niger03.html
FBI reopens its inquiry into forgery leading to Iraq war

By Peter Wallsten, Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The FBI has reopened an inquiry into an intriguing aspect of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear-weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion.

The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war and led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought the materials there. The ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said he found little evidence to support the claim, and the documents later were deemed to have been forged......

......The FBI's decision to reopen the investigation reverses the agency's announcement last month that it had finished a two-year inquiry and concluded the forgeries were part of a moneymaking scheme, not an effort to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.

<h3>Those findings concerned some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after published reports that the FBI had not interviewed a former Italian spy named Rocco Martino</h3>, identified as the original source of the documents. The committee had requested the initial investigation.

After talking with committee members, FBI officials decided to pursue "additional work" on the case.

.....A senior federal law-enforcement official confirmed late Friday that the bureau has reopened the investigation.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request to reopen the inquiry was prompted by information recently made available to the FBI. Also, he said, some people he declined to name had become more cooperative.

The issue erupted in July 2003, when Wilson published his findings in a New York Times opinion piece. Administration officials leaked the identify of Wilson's wife, a covert CIA agent named Valerie Plame, allegedly as part of an effort to discredit Wilson's claims, prompting an investigation into the outing of a covert agent.

The Plame case led to charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who resigned. <b>It also has raised questions about the administration's use of intelligence and how it targeted critics.</b>

Quote:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/g...s/060606fege02
The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House
By CRAIG UNGER

READ V.F.'s PLAMEGATE COVERAGE

......."A Classic Psy-Ops Campaign"

or more than two years it has been widely reported that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is far more likely that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence success—specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of disinformation, or black propaganda, which led the White House, the Pentagon, Britain's M.I.6 intelligence service, and thousands of outlets in the American media to promote the falsehood that Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program posed a grave risk to the United States.

The Bush administration made other false charges about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.)—that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes suitable for centrifuges, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda, that he had mobile weapons labs, and so forth. But the Niger claim, unlike other allegations, can't be dismissed as an innocent error or blamed on ambiguous data. "This wasn't an accident," says Milt Bearden, a 30-year C.I.A. veteran who was a station chief in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, and Germany, and the head of the Soviet–East European division. "This wasn't 15 monkeys in a room with typewriters."

In recent months, it has emerged that the forged Niger documents went through the hands of the Italian military intelligence service, SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare), or operatives close to it, and that neoconservative policymakers helped bring them to the attention of the White House. Even after information in the Niger documents was repeatedly rejected by the C.I.A. and the State Department, hawkish neocons managed to circumvent seasoned intelligence analysts and insert the Niger claims into Bush's State of the Union address.

By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, in March 2003, this apparent black-propaganda operation had helped convince more than 90 percent of the American people that a brutal dictator was developing W.M.D.—and had led us into war.

o trace the path of the documents from their fabrication to their inclusion in Bush's infamous speech, Vanity Fair has interviewed a number of former intelligence and military analysts who have served in the C.I.A., the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.), and the Pentagon. Some of them refer to the Niger documents as "a disinformation operation," others as "black propaganda," "black ops," or "a classic psy-ops [psychological-operations] campaign." But whatever term they use, at least nine of these officials believe that the Niger documents were part of a covert operation to deliberately mislead the American public.

The officials are Bearden; Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as the D.I.A.'s defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism; Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell; Melvin Goodman, a former division chief and senior analyst at the C.I.A. and the State Department; Ray McGovern, a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years; Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia division in 2002 and 2003; Larry C. Johnson, a former C.I.A. officer who was deputy director of the State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993; former C.I.A. official Philip Giraldi; and Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of operations of the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center.

In addition, Vanity Fair has found at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union in which analysts at the C.I.A., the State Department, or other government agencies who had examined the Niger documents or reports about them raised serious doubts about their legitimacy—only to be rebuffed by Bush-administration officials who wanted to use the material. "They were just relentless," says Wilkerson, who later prepared Colin Powell's presentation before the United Nations General Assembly. "You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique—ruthless relentlessness."

All of which flies in the face of a campaign by senior Republicans including Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to blame the C.I.A. for the faulty pre-war intelligence on W.M.D. Indeed, the accounts put forth by Wilkerson and his colleagues strongly suggest that the C.I.A. is under siege not because it was wrong but because it was right. Agency analysts were not serving the White House's agenda.

What followed was not just the catastrophic foreign-policy blunder in Iraq but also an ongoing battle for the future of U.S. intelligence. Top officials have been leaving the C.I.A. in droves—including Porter Goss, who mysteriously resigned in May, just 18 months after he had been handpicked by Bush to be the director of Central Intelligence. Whatever the reason for his sudden departure, anyone at the top of the C.I.A., Goss's replacement included, ultimately must worry about serving two masters: a White House that desperately wants intelligence it can use to remake the Middle East and a spy agency that is acutely sensitive to having its intelligence politicized.

Cui Bono?........

....and now....the news:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13085306.htm
Posted on Fri, Nov. 04, 2005

Italy provided U.S. with faulty uranium intelligence, officials insist

By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Contrary to Italian government denials, a powerful Italian military intelligence agency passed bogus allegations to the United States of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium ore from the African nation of Niger for a nuclear bomb program, U.S. officials said Friday.

The purported deal, which President Bush cited in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, was a key argument that Bush and his senior aides advanced for invading Iraq and toppling dictator Saddam Hussein. It remains unclear, however, who forged the documents, why and how information from such crude forgeries got into a major presidential speech.

No nuclear weapons program was found after the March 2003 invasion.

<h3>Four U.S. officials said the Italian military intelligence agency known as SISMI passed three reports to the CIA station in Rome between October 2001 and March 2002 outlining an alleged deal for Iraq to buy uranium ore, known as yellowcake, from Niger. Yellowcake is refined into the uranium fuel that powers nuclear weapons.

The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because portions of the matter remain classified.</h3>

One of the reports passed by SISMI contained language that turned out to have been lifted verbatim from crudely forged documents that outlined the purported uranium-ore deal, the U.S. officials said.

"SISMI was involved in this; there is no doubt," said a U.S. intelligence official who's closely followed the matter.

The United States obtained complete copies of the forgeries in October 2002; the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that the documents were fakes in March 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, and the White House later conceded that Bush shouldn't have made the allegation.

The Italian government has denied that SISMI was involved in concocting or passing the forged documents.

A July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report said three reports on the alleged deal were passed to the CIA during that period, but it didn't disclose the name of the foreign intelligence service that provided them.

Two of the U.S. officials said SISMI passed similar reports about the alleged deal, based on the forgeries, to the intelligence services in Britain, France and Germany.

Britain has continued to stand by a 2002 white paper that charged that Iraq had sought to buy yellowcake in Africa.

Bush cited the British assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address rather than the U.S. intelligence reports, which had been disputed by some CIA experts and by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

The U.S. officials were reacting to the reported testimony by SISMI Director Nicolo Pollari on Thursday in a closed-door Italian parliamentary committee hearing.

After the hearing, Italian lawmakers said Pollari had pinned the passing of the forgeries on a former SISMI informer named Rocco Martino and had denied that any Italian intelligence agency was involved in concocting the fakes or disseminating them.

News reports have quoted Martino as saying he'd obtained the documents from a contact at the Niger Embassy in Rome, but this was the first time that he'd been officially identified.

In a related development, the FBI on Friday confirmed Pollari's assertion that FBI Director Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Italian officials in July in which he said an investigation into the forgeries had determined that they weren't part "of an effort to influence U.S. foreign policy."

"The investigation discounted that motive, confirmed the documents to be fraudulent, and concluded they were more likely part of a criminal scheme for financial gain," an FBI statement said.

Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who'd asked the FBI to investigate the forgeries in March 2003, said he wasn't ready to declare himself satisfied.

"While I greatly appreciate all of the FBI's efforts into completing the investigation of the Niger documents, some questions remain," Rockefeller said in a statement. "Until I receive additional information about the thoroughness of the investigation, I cannot make a judgment on the accuracy of the conclusions."

Key questions remain about how the Niger claim made it into the Bush administration's case for war, including who concocted the forged documents and why the claim was in Bush's State of the Union address after being knocked out of a draft of a nationally televised presidential speech some two months earlier.

<b>The issue is receiving new attention because of last week's indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of lying to a grand jury</b> that investigated who leaked the identity of a CIA officer after her husband, a former U.S. diplomat, accused Bush of twisting the intelligence on the alleged uranium deal.

stevo · 09-22-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, that factcheck.org piece is more than 2 years old....much more has
been reported, since......and before, that strengthens the argument that Joe Wilson was a victim of the white house, "payback".

I know its not a new article, but 2 years does not change what bush actually said. ratbastid put words into bush's mouth and I posted an article that accurately corrected him.

I read what you posted and it only supports the notion that bush had bad intel (not good intel) when he made that statement. Not that he lied.

host · 09-22-2006, 11:48 AM

stevo, considering this:

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affai...r07112003.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 July 2003
STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. ..........

.....The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake..........

followed by this, 13 days later....

Quote:

Dan Balz and Walter Pincus

Publication title: The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Jul 24, 2003. pg. A.10
.......How did the White House stumble so badly? There are a host of explanations, from White House officials, their allies outside the government and their opponents in the broader debate about whether the administration sought to manipulate evidence while building its case to go to war against Iraq.

But the dominant forces appear to have been the determination by White House officials to protect the president for using 16 questionable words about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa and a fierce effort by the Central Intelligence Agency to protect its reputation through bureaucratic infighting that has forced the president's advisers to repeatedly alter their initial version of events.

At several turns, when Bush might have taken responsibility for the language in his Jan. 28 address to the country, he and his top advisers resisted, claiming others -- particularly those in the intelligence community -- were responsible.

Asked again yesterday whether Bush should ultimately be held accountable for what he says, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, "Let's talk about what's most important. That's the war on terrorism, winning the war on terrorism. And the best way you do that is to go after the threats where they gather, not to let them come to our shore before it's too late."

White House finger-pointing in turn prompted the CIA's allies to fire back by offering evidence that ran counter to official White House explanations of events and by helping to reveal a chronology of events that forced the White House to change its story.

The latest turn came Tuesday, when deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House communications director Dan Bartlett revealed the existence of two previously unknown memos showing that Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet had repeatedly urged the administration last October to remove a similar claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

White House officials and their Republican allies in Congress hope the Hadley-Bartlett briefing will help the administration turn a corner on the controversy, and they plan a counteroffensive to try to put Bush's critics on the defensive. But the administration faces new risks as Congress begins its own investigations, which could bring the bureaucratic infighting into open conflict..........

....followed, a year later by George Tenet's resignation, and five months after that, in December, 2004, by Mr. Bush awarding Tenet the highest honor bestowed on a civilian by the POTUS....the medal of freedom.

The record shows that the POTUS has no credibility and never takes responsibility. When the record is deliberately muddied, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, "the umpire cannot see the play". These leaders have lost all credibility, stevo, so....why do you persist in defending them?

....if the "press" was "'liberal", and they actually did their job of acting as the
"fourth estate", and questioned and spoke truth to "power", they might ask Mr. Bush this, and what do you think that he would answer?

Quote:

Mr. President, during your speech commemorating the fifth anniversary of 9/11, you defended the war in Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein had been a "clear threat." We now know--thanks to the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, led by Charles Duelfer--that Iraq had no WMDs and its WMD capacity was "essentially destroyed" after 1991. We also know--thanks to the recent report of the Republican-controlled Senate intelligence committee--that there was no significant connection between Saddam's brutal regime and al Qaeda. So no WMDs, no relationship with al Qaeda. So then what made Saddam Hussein, as brutal as he was, a "clear threat" to the United States? Can you please cite specific facts to support that assertion?

stevo · 09-22-2006, 12:09 PM

Host, I still see nothing in these articles showing how the president LIED. What I see is george tenet saying

Quote:

And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. ..........

Thats what you offer as evidence of the president's lies? you've got to try harder than that.

Ustwo · 09-22-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Host, I still see nothing in these articles showing how the president LIED. What I see is george tenet saying Thats what you offer as evidence of the president's lies? you've got to try harder than that.

But lies rhymes with dies and fits on a bumper sticker.

I think they can go with 'The President was misled and people bled' but thats a lot harder to fit on a bumper sticker.

host · 09-23-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Host, I still see nothing in these articles showing how the president LIED. What I see is george tenet saying Thats what you offer as evidence of the president's lies? you've got to try harder than that.

stevo, the evidence is overwhelming that POTUS Bush, and VP Cheney misled the American people about the justification to invade and occupy Iraq.

To this day, we cannot know all of the facts surrounding this criminal deception and illegal policy of war of aggression, because the President, and Senate Intel Committee chairman, Pat Roberts, have delayed disclosure of how the Bush administration analyzed pre-invasion intelligence and whether they improperly pressured intelligence analysts to skew the data to justify the urgency and the necessity for invading Iraq.

The last quote boxes that I include in this post make it quite clear that the Robb Silberman WMD report did not examine or reach conclusions about the intelligence handling questions, and it persuades that Pat Roberts tried to bury the determination, and has finally been pressured by his own republican colleagues in the senate to provide a report to the American people, but only after yet another election has taken place.

The reason that Bush and Roberts have been able to get away with obstructing an open investigation, and why the 9/11 Commission and the Robb Silberman WMD investigation <i>"were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community"</i>, is because the pre-invasion deception, playing on the emotions triggered by the experience of the 9/11 attacks, delayed the inevitable outrage that is pnly coming to fore now.....<b>but is still blunted from the full bloom of the outrage that will ulimately occur against Bush.....by the folks who will never allow themselves to even suspect that Bush blatantly lied to them</b> in order to justify an illegal war and the tragic and costly aftermath that the Iraqis and the US are still mired in, because of the Bush adminstration's Pre-emption.

stevo, if the news about what these scumbags actually knew.....pre-invasion, about the degree of WMD threat that Iraq posed, vs. what they terrorized us with, instead, was supportive to their reputations or in anyway vindicated them, can you post here that they would attempt to keep that knowledge from us....for this fucking long?

I don't expect to persuade you or Ustwo of anything, stevo. It's laid out here for all to see.....pulled up right alongside the opinions that the two of you post. <b>Consider that Tenet's July 11, 2003 admission and Hadley's July 22, 2003 "briefing", came as a direct response to Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 "What I didn't see in Niger", op-ed piece in the NY Times. The Bush admin. public reaction, speaks volumes in support of Patrick Fitzgerald's contention that the executive branch launched an assault on Joe Wilson, as payback, that included the outing of his wife's classified status as a CIA employee. It's a small thing.....compared to launching an illegal war of aggression, after a terror propaganda campaign against the Amercian people, but....IMO...it's still treason....authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration....and no counter spin offensive broadcast this month from the right, makes the facts that Irwin Libby lied to FBI investigators and to a grand jury, during multiple appearances.....giving false and misleading testimony to attempt to cover up the official Wilson "payback Op", in response to Wilson legitimately questioning a small segment of an entire propaganda campaign of lies that is the record of the official justification for invadin Iraq!</b>

Quote:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o.../0912iraq.html
or http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
Published on: 09/12/06

History will show that <b>the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting</b> the invasion of Iraq......

......However, questions about the honesty, wisdom, judgment and competence of our current leadership are far from meaningless. We are not debating the relative merits of Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams; we are attempting to decide whether our current leaders can be trusted to handle the challenges we face.

It matters, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney now says that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq even if it had known that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al-Qaida. Intrigued by the admission on "Meet the Press" Sunday, host Tim Russert pressed the point with Cheney:

"So if the CIA said to you [in 2003] 'Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way,' you'd still have invaded Iraq?"

Yes, Cheney said.

In other words, Iraqi WMD weren't the reason we went to war, they were merely the excuse that Cheney and his colleagues needed to scare up public support. That's a relevant piece of information as Americans try to decide how much faith they can put in this administration.

-— Jay Bookman, for the editorial board (jbookman@ajc.com)

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.

....Q But, Mr. Vice President, the primary rationale given for the war in Iraq was Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In August of 2002, this is what you told the VFW. Let's just watch it.

(Video clip is played.)

Q In fact, there is grave doubt because they did not exist along the lines that you described, the President described and others described. Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction described, would you still have gone into Iraq?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed -- while he did not have stock piles, and clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong. That was the intelligence all of us saw. That was the intelligence all of us believed. It was when George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the President of the United States asked him directly, he said, George, how good is the case against Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, the Director of the CIA said, it's a slam dunk, Mr. President. It's a slam dunk.

That was the intelligence that was provided to us at the time, and based upon which we made --

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12601112/
Drumheller: 'Caught up in the march to war'
Two CIA operatives raise questions about use of pre-war intelligence

Hardball
MSNBC
Updated: 12:12 p.m. ET May 3, 2006

.....TYLER DRUMHELLER, FMR. CIA EUROPEAN OPS. CHIEF: That’s the way it appears. You’re certainly right on the fact that the information that was in the State of the Union Address was inaccurate, and that the yellowcake reporting from Niger, the reports that had come in on the issue of yellowcake were well-known to have been discredited as far back as September and October.

MATTHEWS: When I asked the CIA director, the former director, George Tenet, this same question, I said, if the vice president raised the question about a possible deal in Africa by Saddam Hussein to buy nuclear materials, uranium yellowcake, as you put it, and the report turned out that there wasn’t such a deal and the report went back to the vice president, how could that have happened because the president subsequently gave a State of the Union Address?

And when I ask that, making that very point that there was a threat from a deal in Africa, you know what the former director said? He said ask Vice President Cheney. In other words, it’s like high school, this circle that goes around. Did we or did we not know at the highest levels of this government there was not a deal to buy uranium in Africa by Saddam Hussein?

<h3>DRUMHELLER: Oh absolutely. They knew that that was not the truth.

MATTHEWS: But why did the president say so in his State of the Union to make the case for war?

DRUMHELLER: They were making the case for war. There was a drive in the administration from the beginning to settle the issue of Iraq for a variety of reasons, which I think they were very sincere about.

MATTHEWS: So WMD was the case they made, but it wasn’t the reason?

DRUMHELLER: Right, no,</h3> because they knew by the fall of 2002, they had evidence from good reporting that both the yellowcake reporting was bad, that the reporting on the “Curveball” case, which was a big thing was bad, and that we had a good source that was telling us that they didn’t have this...........

<b>"host sez": Back to Russert's 9/10/2006 questioning of Cheney and why Iraq was invaded:</b>

Q So if the CIA said to you at that time, Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way, you'd still invade Iraq?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because, again look at the Duelfer Report and what it said: No stock piles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this true, said by Duelfer, facts, also said that as soon as the sanctions are lifted they expect Saddam to be back in business.

Q But the rationale was he had it, a growing threat; all the while, North Korea, which had one or two potential bombs in 2000 when you came into office, now has double or triple that amount. So again you took your eye off of North Korea to focus on Iraq.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: But let's go back to the beginning here. Five years ago, Tim, you and I did this show, the Sunday after 9/11. And we learned a lot from 9/11. We saw in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars we'd spent on national security in the years up until 9/11, on that morning, 19 men with box cutters and airline tickets came in the country and killed 3,000 people. We had to take that and also the fact of their interest in weapons of mass destruction and recognize at that time -- it was the threat then and it's the threat today that drives much of our thinking -- that the real threat is the possibility of a cell of al Qaeda in the midst of one of our cities with a nuclear weapons, or a biological agent. In that case, you'd be dealing -- for example, if on 9/11 they had a nuke instead of airplanes, you'd have been looking at a casualty toll that would rival all the deaths in all the wars fought by America in 230 years. That's the threat we have to deal with, and that drove our thinking in the aftermath of 9/11, and does today.

Now, what Saddam represented was somebody who had for 12 years defied the International Community, violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, started two wars, produced and used weapons of mass destruction, and was deemed by the intelligence community to have resumed his WMD programs when he kicked out the inspectors. Everybody believed it. Bill Clinton believed it. The CIA clearly believed it. And without question that was a major proposition.

But I also emphasize while they found no stock piles, there was no question in the minds of Mr. Duelfer and other in that survey group that Saddam did, in fact, have the capability, and that as soon as the sanctions were ended -- and they were badly eroded, he'd be back in business again.

Q But let's look at what you told me on that morning of September 16, 2001, when I asked you about Saddam Hussein. Let's watch.

(Video clip is played.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: At this stage, the focus is over here on al Qaeda and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up at this point.

(Video clip concludes.)

Q Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.

Q You said Saddam Hussein was bottled up, and he was not linked in any way to September 11th.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: To 9/11.

Q And now we have the select committee on intelligence coming out with a report on Friday that says here:

"A declassified report released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq."....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)

The finding that documents on an Iraqi uranium deal were most likely faked is proving to be an embarrassment to the United States. CNN's David Ensor reports. (March 14)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes. ....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A01

In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

<h3>But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.</h3>

By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030722-12.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 22, 2003

Press Briefing on Iraq WMD and SOTU Speech
The Roosevelt Room

..... Q And are there choices, is this where the controversy gets into another government's intelligence? Or is this intelligence the British, themselves, have gotten?

MR. HADLEY: We don't know. They have not -- this is really for the CIA, my understanding is that they have not disclosed the sources.

Q Can I just see if I have this -- what you're saying here today. It seems to me you're acknowledging that the CIA warned the White House that the information about Africa and uranium was weak or disputed, but you're standing by your overall judgment there was plenty of other information that indicated that he was, in fact, trying to reconstitute a nuclear weapon and that this does not cause you to fall away at all from the overall point? ....

.... Q When you follow the NIE --

Q So the CIA tried to wave you off and the memos had slipped everyone's memory and, therefore, you put it in, even though had you seen those memos or remembered them, you would not have put it in?

MR. BARTLETT: Yes. That's it. They tried -- they did wave us off and it did come out of the Cincinnati speech. So it was in a different speech.

Q -- in the Cincinnati speech, though?

MR. HADLEY: So there's two points. There's the one you just made. Had we recalled those memos, had we seen them we would have raised the red flag or taken it out. That's obviously one failure. The other failure is, it's in the speech. The vetting of the State of the Union speech is a separate process, it goes out to all Agencies and at the end of the day, nobody raises their hands and says, take it out. That's the problem. There were, in fact, two failings here.

One other thing. And, obviously, we depend on that clearance process. You know, you cannot have a process that depends solely on recollections of three and a half months before. You have a process that both tries to draw from what people have learned in the past, but also sends it out again for another clearance because we want to make absolutely sure.

And one last point, if I could. The problem with this is that the -- and the real failing is that we've had a national discussion on 16 words, and it's taken away from the fact that the intelligence case supporting concerns about WMD in Iraq was overwhelming.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062401081.html
Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 25, 2006; Page A01

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.".....

..... Q I want to go back to the --

MR. BARTLETT: Orderly process here, I want to make sure everybody gets picked. Campbell.

Q Thank you. I want to ask you, U.S. News & World Report this week said there was a meeting in the Sit Room three days before the State of the Union by senior officials vetting the intelligence on WMD, that Scooter Libby led a presentation there that became the basis for Powell's presentation to the United Nations. Were you a part of that meeting? <h3>Because it was interesting, they're also reporting that Libby's paper he presented to Powell did not include any Niger reference, and that was put together three days before the State of the Union speech.
</h3>
MR. HADLEY: There were two processes going on at this time. It's interesting. There is a process associated with the State of the Union, which is given on the 28th. And there is a separate, but related, process associated with getting Powell ready for his U.N. speech. And there are, obviously, meetings and activities with respect to both of those processes.

Q But they weren't coordinated? Even though they're both, essentially, making the same --

MR. HADLEY: They're coordinated in the sense that the same people are involved in many of them. But, remember, they're also designed for different purposes.

MR. BARTLETT: I was in both -- I was in that meeting, as well. And there was not a handing out of any documents at that meeting.

Q No, he -- according to the report he did an oral presentation, then wrote up a document following that, presenting it to Powell as sort of a rough draft for his presentation to the U.N., and it did not include, that initial thing he gave to Powell, any reference to Niger.

MR. BARTLETT: Well, it was -- I remember it was not read in its entirety at that meeting. The information that was being provided was offered as types of information that could be used by the Secretary of State. It was not a "here's your draft, go deliver this" -- here is some information that has been compiled from here. I would have to go back, I don't know if that specific information --

Q I get all that. I was just wondering --

MR. BARTLETT: I don't know if that specific information -- I don't know, it's not -- I don't know why that specific information was not in there. .......

..... Q And I understand that. I just don't quite understand why Director Tenet takes responsibility for the Agency that he is in charge of, yet the President does not take ultimate responsibility for this failure, this mistake?

MR. HADLEY: In some sense, we all work for the President of the United States: Director Tenet, we here. So if you want to know who is the equivalent of Tenet, it's me. And I've taken responsibility for this with respect to the NSC staff in the same way Director Tenet has taken responsibility for his Agency. And the President is going to have to make decisions about, with respect to both organizations, how to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

<h3>Q You just said that the President takes responsibility for the case that he outlined. This was part of the case that he outlined.

MR. HADLEY: That's correct.

Q So, then, over a couple of steps, he does, in fact, take responsibility for these 16 words.
</h3>
MR. BARTLETT: He is responsible for the decisions he makes. He outlined a case to the American people that was clear and compelling. On the particular instance of this information, we've given our full estimation of how the process failed and the fact that it was put in the speech, and we also pointed out, as Steve walked through the history of why the statement is accurate, but it didn't rise to the presidential standards.

But the bottom line is, is that he takes responsibility for the decisions he makes. And he has in this case. ......

...... Q You feel comfortable just using British intelligence.

MR. HADLEY: No. Let's see what happened here. Remember, in connection with the Cincinnati speech, George Tenet does have concerns about the British report. And that's what we learned from the memorandum. It's partly on the basis of those he says to take it out. The problem is, within the clearance process three-and-a-half months later, with respect to the State of the Union, nobody raises a hand and says, remember, we had problems with British reporting, you need to take this out.

Q But I'm saying -- even if you don't remember that, why doesn't someone raise a hand and say, wait a second, we're just making a statement based on British intelligence, how do we know that; do we know that it's accurate? Wasn't anybody at the NSC concerned about that?

MR. BARTLETT: Well, the NSC, as we've explained, on more than one occasion, through the vetting process of the State of the Union address, raised that issue, got it fact-checked from the CIA, came back, and that's why it was in the speech.

Q -- problem with British intelligence, specifically, the use of British intelligence was raised?

MR. HADLEY: Say again?

Q Specifically, the accuracy of British intelligence was raised with the CIA?

Q You're saying, no, it was --

MR. HADLEY: No, I said --

MR. BARTLETT: The British -- we've mentioned the British concern raised in the Cincinnati speech. When the question is whether we could cite the British in the State of the Union process, that it was signed off on by the CIA. Now, what has been explained by the CIA is that George Tenet didn't look at those relevant sections of the speech, and they've made this explanation. But in that process, it did -- it was approved.

What Steve is saying, is that in light of the history on this, with the Cincinnati process, it probably shouldn't -- it should not have been approved.

Q Mr. Hadley, just a couple of details on it. Memo number one --

MR. HADLEY: Look, I think what happens is a question is, are you okay with this, somebody says, okay. And somebody should have said, no, we're not, we've got problems with British intelligence. That's something, if I had remembered, I should have said, something that should have been said in the clearance process. Again, there are a number of people who could have raised a hand, and a hand didn't get raised.

Q Memo number one, the concerns that were raised directly and with you and Mr. Gerson, were those concerns conveyed to the President at the time?

MR. HADLEY: No, they would not have been.

Q Would they have been conveyed to Dr. Rice?

MR. HADLEY: No, I would have run those -- we would have -- see, when you do these clearance processes, it's sort of a paper process. People call you with their comments. There's also a process here, as I said, the experts that work these issues are working on the phones trying to come up with the language that is mutually acceptable and people are comfortable with. And that's a process that goes on.

I think -- we looked at it, we can get you the number. In terms of the State of the Union, there's something close to 30 facts in the WMD field alone that are being cleared in this process. And what comes up is where the experts cannot reach agreement on what the language should say. And that comes up. And basically it comes to me, and I deal with John McLaughlin and George Tenet. If there were a major issue, I might come to Condi. In this case, I didn't. There was no need.

<h3>Q And the President was not told that that passage was taken out of the Cincinnati speech?

MR. BARTLETT: That's correct. He has no memory of that.</h3>

MR. HADLEY: His standard is, don't have anything in here that George Tenet can't stand by. And the clearance process is supposed to get all that stuff out.

Q So the first time Dr. Rice --

MR. HADLEY: His assumption is, when it comes to him, everybody signed off and it's good to go.

Q So within the White House, the first time that the CIA concerns about the quality of the British intelligence went up to the level above your level, up to Dr. Rice, would have been with memo number two?

MR. HADLEY: I'm hesitating because, again, given you don't know what you don't, given what we put together at this point in time, that's the evidence we had. That's old --

Q But as of memo number two, certainly Dr. Rice was aware of the concerns, the CIA --

MR. HADLEY: What we know is, again, a copy of the memo comes to the Situation Room, it's sent to Dr. Rice, it's sent -- and that's it. You know, I can't tell you she read it. I can't even tell you she received it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.

Q Did you ever have a discussion with Dr. Rice about the quality of the British intelligence and the CIA concerns?

MR. HADLEY: Not that I can recall.

Q I'm just trying to square --

MR. HADLEY: I understand.

Q Do you consider the case of the aluminum tubes clear and compelling, given that even the key judgment qualified in the dissent on that. Were any red flags raised about that at all?

MR. BARTLETT: Well, there was a very open discussion about that, a discussion that Secretary Powell shared with the world and with his presentation for the United Nations Security Council. And it is an assessment in which the Director and the CIA stand by to this day. And, therefore, we have every reason to be confident.

Q That's the purpose --

Q Steve, you said that one of the major problems with it was that there were a number of people that could have raised their hands, and they didn't. A lot of those people were people in the CIA. At the time, after the President's U.N. speech, leading up all the way until the war, there was a lot of pressure on the CIA to come up with more evidence to support the administration's case for going to Iraq. There were many stories in the press that the CIA felt pressured beyond what they thought was appropriate. There was an office set up in the Pentagon to go over intelligence, to try to make sure that in other cases -- not this case, but in other cases -- the CIA hadn't missed something.

There are many people who say that by the time the State of the Union came along, the CIA was too cowed, effectively, to raise their hands. How would you respond to that?

MR. HADLEY: The Pentagon story, you know, Doug Fieth and others have testified on it and talked publicly about it. I don't have anything to add on that.

Q The major point is just the pressure that was put on the CIA.

MR. HADLEY: Well, the premise that you have is that there was pressure. And I don't accept that premise. I spent a lot of time on the phone talking to George Tenet and John McLaughlin, and I am very confident that if they felt that the White House was pressuring their Agency, they would have picked up the phone and they would have called me and they would have told me and we would have addressed it.

Q So you're saying that the CIA was not under any pressure from anywhere within the administration?

MR. HADLEY: I'm saying exactly what I said, that I believe that if it was pressure coming from the White House and it raised a concern with George Tenet and John McLaughlin, they would have raised it with me.

Q So do you deny, then, that a culture could have been created through statements by administration officials and the press, through various other appearances, not by direct pressure from the White House, but from the atmosphere at the time, that would have effectively put pressure on the CIA, that would have made them -- inappropriately -- but would have made them less willing to raise flags when they should have?

MR. HADLEY: I don't accept that that happened. And if it had happened, I believe I would have heard about it from George Tenet and John McLaughlin.

MR. BARTLETT: I think it's important to take a step back from that a little bit. There is clear recognition that the pressure under many people within the intelligence community, not just in the CIA, but the FBI and others, as we fight a war -- we're in the middle of a war -- and to protect the homeland and to pursue to make sure that we are doing everything we can to hunt down al Qaeda and to make sure that we have a knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, where they are, making sure we're confronting those threats. We are obligated to make sure that we aggressively pursue any lead that may be out there, to make sure we protect the American people.

Remember the conversation we were having two years ago, is that we were not connecting the dots -- the Asian -- (inaudible) -- memo, this memo, this, this -- we weren't engaging on that information pre-911. That's what some critics would say. And now it's supposed to be the flip side. And I don't think that's fair because I think these professionals are doing everything they can because they know that they help contribute to the safety of the American people. But then I just reiterate what Steve said -- I think there's a relationship and a confidence level between the White House and the Director of the CIA, and his deputy, that if he felt there was pressure coming from the White House on intelligence matters, that he would pick up the phone and call and say.

We got time for two more questions.

<h3>Q Did Steve offer to resign? You spoke to the President. Did you offer to him to resign?</h3> Or do you have any intention of doing so?

MR. HADLEY: My conversation with the President, I'm not going to talk about........

<b>Is anyone who listened to the chorus of conservative pundits who claimed that the Bush white house handling of pre-invasion intelligence about Iraq, was somehow "vindicated" by the 2004 Senate Intel Committee, or by the Robb Silberman WMD reports, at all curious about how that claim could be true, since neither report released....even to this day.....contains determinations that could make that "vindication claim"....even remotely possible?</b>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090601920.html
Panel Set to Release Just Part of Report On Run-Up to War
Full Disclosure May Come Post-Election

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A11

A long-awaited Senate analysis comparing the Bush administration's public statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private remains mired in partisan recrimination and will not be released before the November elections, key senators said yesterday.

Instead, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will vote today to declassify two less controversial chapters of the panel's report, on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, for release as early as Friday. One chapter has concluded that Iraqi exiles in the Iraqi National Congress, who were subsidized by the U.S. government, tried to influence the views of intelligence officers analyzing Hussein's efforts to create weapons of mass destruction.......

.......Under pressure from Democrats, Republicans on the committee agreed in February 2004 to write a report on the use of prewar intelligence, but the effort has languished amid partisan feuding. Last year, angry Democrats briefly shut down the Senate to protest the pace of the investigation.

<h3>After nearly three years, the heart of the report remains incomplete.</h3> Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Democrats produced 511 administration statements to be analyzed, a virtually impossible task. At this point, the section is 800 pages long, accompanied by 40,000 documents, and is nowhere near ready for release, he said.

But with midterm elections two months away, two of five chapters are about to be released. The first examines what, if any, information provided by Iraqi exiles was used in official intelligence estimates. The second compares prewar estimates of Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs with the findings of U.S. weapons hunters, who wrapped up their work empty-handed in December 2004.

Even that limited release may pack a wallop.

"This is a very critical part of our report," Feinstein said. "I am hopeful that it can be adequately declassified so that individuals can see that. If it is, the full import of the INC will be known."

<h3>Senate aides said it took two Republican committee members, Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), to force Roberts to act.</h3> Republicans on the committee readily conceded that Democrats would be able to pick through the chapters -- especially the INC portion -- to resurrect charges that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. And Democrats appeared ready to do just that......

Quote:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...506/news4.html

Sen. Roberts seeks delay of Intel probe
By Alexander Bolton

<h3>Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he wants to divide his panel’s inquiry into the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq-related intelligence into two parts, a move that would push off its most politically controversial elements to a later time.

The inquiry has dragged on for more than two years, a slow pace that prompted Democrats to force the Senate into an extraordinary closed-door session in November. Republicans then promised to speed up the probe.
</h3>
Roberts said in an interview shortly before the April recess that he could bring up the matter in a business meeting of the Intelligence Committee scheduled for tomorrow.

“We went over three reports that members are studying,” Roberts said, referring to three less controversial components of his committee’s inquiry. Roberts said his committee could approve the immediate publication of those components.

“We’ll have a business meeting first thing when we come back. I’d like to show some progress,” he said.

An aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said that Democrats are aware Roberts is mulling a decision on whether to divide the inquiry and that Rockefeller is unlikely to oppose such a move if Roberts goes through with it. But one Democrat who has followed the probe said separating the controversial elements would relieve pressure on Roberts to complete the entire inquiry soon.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” in February, host Tim Russert asked Roberts about the status of the inquiry.

Roberts and Rockefeller have already split their review of Iraq-related intelligence once before. In February 2004, they agreed to issue a report before the upcoming election on how well the nation’s intelligence agencies assessed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Roberts and Rockefeller further agreed to publish a report on a second phase of the inquiry to after the election. Phase two was to focus on the politically sensitive issue of the Bush administration’s handling of intelligence findings.

At the time, some Democrats grumbled that Rockefeller had let slide an issue their party could have used against Bush’s reelection campaign.

Questions about the Bush administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence have new political relevance as the midterm elections draw nearer. Public concern about the war in Iraq is considered a major reason for Bush’s low job approval rating, which, in turn, is widely viewed as harmful to congressional Republicans’ political fortunes.

“It has resonance in the following way,” said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “One of the major critiques against Republican incumbents in the Senate [is that] they take a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to the administration on a number of issues, including on the Iraq issue. To the extent the Senate Republicans continue to refuse to ask tough questions and ask for accountability, it’s going to be a political liability for them.”

Roberts would like to wrap up work quickly on three relatively less controversial topics of the second phase of the inquiry:

• Pre-war intelligence assessments of what the political and security environment would be in Iraq after the American victory.

• Post-war findings about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments.

• The U.S. intelligence community’s use of intelligence provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

A report on these three areas would be made separately from the most controversial aspects of the inquiry. Left unfinished would be a report on whether public statements and testimony about Iraq by senior U.S. government officials were substantiated by available intelligence information. Roberts also would leave unfinished another report on what Democrats have called possibly illegal activity in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, formerly headed by Douglas Feith, who is believed to have played an important role in persuading the president to invade Iraq.

The committee may review statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Democrats charged that the committee did almost nothing to evaluate the statements of public officials before November, when Democrats forced the Senate into closed session.......

....Roberts is less than completely pleased about his committee’s focus on wrapping up phase two.

He recently complained in a U.S. News & World Report article that his committee has not made progress on overseeing intelligence on Iran, a growing national security concern, because Democrats are “more focused on intelligence failures of the past.”

Quote:

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#overview
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

(Contained in the last paragraph of: )<b>INTRODUCTION</b>

......Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. <h3>Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community.</h3> Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information..........

host · 01-12-2007, 02:34 AM

Scooter Libby's trial is finally scheduled to begin....... this coming monday.

Remember the argument that "everyone knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, so no crime was committed by officials who leaked that information to reporters"?

If this is true, the CIA still objects, 3-1/2 years later, to the release of information to the public, concerning any details of Plame's employment at the CIA:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16498076/site/newsweek/

Newsweek

Jan. 15, 2007 issue - A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. Plame's outing as a CIA officer in July 2003 triggered a criminal probe that culminates next week when Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby goes on trial for perjury and obstruction.....

....But in what could be a precursor to a separate legal battle, Plame recently hired a lawyer to challenge the CIA Publications Review Board, which must clear writings by former employees. The panel refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a "nonofficial cover" officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman, according to an adviser to Plame, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive issue. "She believes this will effectively gut the book," said the adviser. Larry Johnson, a former colleague, said the agency's action seems punitive, given that other ex-CIA undercover officers have published books. But even Plame's friends acknowledge that few NOCs have done so. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the panel was still having "ongoing" talks with Plame to resolve the dispute. "The sole yardstick," he said, is that books "contain no classified information." A spokesman for Simon & Schuster, Plame's publisher, declined to comment.

—Michael Isikoff

I notice that the posters on this thread who tried to blame the Plame "leak" entirely on Richard Armitage, have not logged into the TFP site, using the ID's that they used to post here, in weeks....will they maintain they're absences? Time will tell....

<h3>The following is a separate post, on Jan. 13, 2007. The "system" joined it to my previous post.</h3>
I'm going to let you draw your own conclusions....you will....anyway:

Quote:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0112nj1.htm
CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury

By Murray Waas, National Journal
Friday, Jan. 12, 2007

Late in the morning of July 12, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney stood atop a pier at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia awaiting the commissioning of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.....

....On the flight back to Washington, Cheney huddled with two of his top aides -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his then-chief of staff, and Catherine Martin, then assistant to the vice president for pubic affairs. According to federal court records, the three discussed how to counter and discredit the allegations made by a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the Bush administration had manipulated and distorted intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.

On January 16, Libby will go on trial in the federal courthouse in Washington D.C. on five counts of lying to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice. He is accused of attempting to conceal his role, and possibly that of others, in leaking to the media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer, and that she might have played a role in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger in 2002 to determine whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon.

In attempting to determine Libby's motives for allegedly lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about his leaking of Plame's CIA identity to journalists, federal investigators theorized from the very earliest stages of the case that Libby may have been trying to hide Cheney's own role in encouraging Libby to discredit Wilson, according to attorneys involved in the case.

Cheney is scheduled to be a defense witness in the Libby trial. Regarding this, a spokesperson for the Vice President says: "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved."

Both Cheney and Libby have repeatedly denied -- both publicly and to federal investigators -- that Cheney ever encouraged Libby specifically to leak information to the press about Plame. But since the early days of the leak probe in fall 2003, even before it was taken over by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, investigators have maintained that Libby devised an elaborate cover story even though he must have known that contemporaneous records and the testimony of others was very likely to show that he was lying. Other than the motive to protect himself, the only other driving force behind Libby's actions, federal investigators have theorized, was to protect Cheney or other superiors, according to attorneys who have been involved in the CIA leak probe.

On July 6, six days before Cheney's trip to Norfolk, Wilson had charged in an op-ed piece in The New York Times that during a March 2002 CIA-sponsored trip to Niger he found no evidence to substantiate Bush administration claims that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium from that African country. Despite Wilson's report, and other warnings to administration officials that the Niger information might have been untrue, it was cited in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech as evidence of an Iraqi program to build an atomic weapon, a major argument in the case to go to war.

Cheney was incensed as Wilson's allegations gained public currency in the days following the op-ed, his top aides would recall later.

The vice president had apparently first learned in June 2003, according to the indictment, that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, and that she might have been responsible for her husband being sent to Niger. He scribbled in the margins of Wilson's New York Times op-ed: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. [sic] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

During testimony before the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case, a federal prosecutor approached Libby with a copy of the marked-up column and asked if he recalled the Vice President expressly raising the same issues with him. A small amount of grand jury testimony has been made public in court filings by the special prosecutor. Additional accounts of what occurred in the grand jury were provided by sources with first-hand knowledge of the testimony.

"Do you recall ever discussing those issues with Vice President Cheney?"

"Yes, sir."

"And tell us what you recall about those conversations," the prosecutor pressed Libby.

"I recall that along the way he asked, 'Is this normal for them to just send somebody out like this uncompensated, as it says?' He was interested in how did that person come to be selected for this mission. And at some point, his wife worked at the Agency, you know, that was part of the question."

The extraordinary amount of time and energy that Cheney personally devoted to the issue, as well as his intensity of emotion regarding it is underscored by this exchange between a federal prosecutor and Libby when Libby testified before the grand jury:

"Was it a topic that was discussed on a daily basis?" a federal prosecutor asked.

"Yes, sir," answered Libby.

"And it was discussed on multiple occasions each day in fact?"

"Yes, sir."

"And during that time did the vice president indicate that he was upset that this article was out there which falsely in his view attacked his own credibility?"

"Yes, sir."

"And do you recall what it is the vice-president said?"

"I recall that he was very keen to get the truth out. He wanted to get all the facts out about what he [Cheney] had or hadn't done--what the facts were or were not. He was very keen on that and said it repeatedly. 'Let's get everything out.'"

On the plane ride back to Washington from Norfolk on July 12, Cheney strategized once again with Libby and Martin as to how to discredit Wilson's allegations, according to people familiar with the federal grand jury testimony of both Libby and Martin.

Cheney, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, White House counselor Dan Bartlett, and Libby had over the course of the previous several days taken to reviewing classified records to reconstruct what occurred regarding Wilson's mission and to see what if anything in them might undercut his credibility. Working with then CIA-director George Tenet, they undertook a formal declassification process that would enable them to make public intelligence records that they thought would help them make the case.

"We were trying to figure out what happened and get the story out," said a senior official, involved in the process, "There was nothing nefarious as to what occurred."

But the same official confirmed in an interview what has also been said in federal grand jury testimony and public court filings: that Cheney and Libby often acted without the knowledge or approval and of other senior White House staff when it came to their efforts to discredit Wilson -- including leaking classified information to the press.

Aboard Air Force Two, Cheney, Libby, and Martin discussed a then-still highly classified CIA document that they believed had information in it that would undercut Wilson's credibility. The document was a March 8, 2002 debriefing of Wilson by the CIA's Directorate of Operations after his trip to Niger. The report did not name Wilson or even describe him as a former U.S. ambassador who had served time in the region, but rather as a "contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report made no mention of the fact that his wife was Valerie Plame, or that she may have played a role in having her husband sent to Niger.

Cheney told Libby that he wanted him to leak the report to the press, according to people with first-hand knowledge of federal grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case, and federal court records.

Cheney believed that this particular CIA debriefing report might undermine Wilson's claims because it showed that Wilson's Niger probe was far more inconclusive on the issues as to whether Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The report said that Wilson was restricted from interviewing any number of officials in Niger during the mission, and he was denied some intelligence information before undertaking the trip.

But other senior White House aides -- including Hadley and Bartlett -- later told federal investigators that they were unaware that Cheney had authorized the disclosure of the CIA report on Wilson's Niger mission.

According to a court filing by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby also testified to the federal grand jury "that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in the place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the National Intelligence Estimate [on Iraq] and Wilson. [Libby] was instructed... to [also] provide information contained in a document [he] understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."

Four other people -- including a senior White House official involving in the effort to declassify Wilson's debriefing, a former senior CIA official, and two private attorneys involved in the CIA leak case -- had previously told National Journal the document in question was not a cable regarding the trip but rather the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report.

Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.

During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said absolutely nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson.

Instead, both testified that Libby discussed the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger. The discussion between Libby and Cooper was the first that the then-vice presidential chief of staff and the Time correspondent spoke of Plame.

But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship. Before the two telephone calls that Libby placed to Miller that day, both had spoken about Plame on two earlier occasions, on June 23, 2003 and July 8, 2003.

Telephone records presented to Miller during her grand jury appearance indicated that she twice spoke with Libby also on July 12.

The first phone call lasted three minutes, the phone records indicate. Miller testified that she believed she might have taken the call on her cell phone in a cab, and told Libby she would soon talk to him after she arrived home, although she was unsure of this, according to the sources familiar with her grand jury testimony.

The second telephone conversation between Libby and Miller lasted for 37 minutes, according to telephone records examined by attorneys familiar with her grand jury testimony. Miller told the grand jury that she believed that telephone conversation took place after she had arrived at her home in Sag Harbor, N.Y., although she was not entirely sure.

By the end of those two additional conversations, Miller testified that she felt confident that she could write a story saying Plame was a former CIA officer and that Plame had played a role in her husband being selected to go to Niger. During an earlier conversation with Libby, she had also agreed to identify Libby, not as a White House source, but as a former Capitol Hill staffer. By doing so, readers would be left in the dark that Libby or anyone in the White House was behind the effort to disclose Plame's covert status as a CIA officer.

What Miller herself did not know during her grand jury testimony was that a key issue for federal investigators was whether she would testify as to whether Libby had attempted to leak her anything about the CIA debriefing report of Wilson after his Niger trip. Prosecutors believed that Miller was perhaps attempting to protect Libby in her testimony.

As National Journal first reported, during her first grand jury appearance Miller did not even tell prosecutors about a June 23, 2003 meeting with Libby about Plame and prewar intelligence about Iraq that took place at Libby's office at the Old Executive Office Building which adjoins the White House.

Prosecutors did not want to tip Miller as to why it was so crucial to them to learn whether Libby had ever mentioned the March 2002 Wilson debriefing report to her or Cooper shortly after he disembarked Air Force Two.

The reason was that Libby's failure to mention the March 2002 debriefing was one more piece of an ever increasing body of circumstantial evidence that led prosecutors to believe that Libby had devised a cover story to protect himself, and perhaps even the Vice President, to conceal the fact that his agenda was to leak information about Plame from the very start.

During one of his initial interviews with the FBI, Libby was shown copies of his own notes showing that as early as June 11 or June 12, 2003, Vice President Cheney was either the first or second person to tell him that Plame was a CIA officer and might have also played a role in sending her husband to Niger. At the time, Wilson had not yet written his New York Times op-ed or put a public face to his allegations, but press reports had already aired Wilson's account of his trip to Niger without naming him.

Cheney, Libby, Martin, and a score of other White House officials worked together from that point on to discredit Wilson's allegations, although Cheney and Libby frequently did things without the knowledge of other White House officials, according to the federal grand jury testimony of several of those officials. Those efforts intensified after Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed. The indictment of Libby charges that he lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury to conceal that he had leaked information to journalists that Plame was a CIA officer.

The federal grand jury indictment of Libby states: "A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media... information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson to the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and the purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information."

In his interviews by the FBI and testimony before the federal grand jury, Libby testified that it was the reporters who told him, and not the other way around, that Plame was a CIA officer. Prosecutors are expected to argue during the trial next week that Libby lied because to tell the truth Libby would have to admit that he leaked classified information and might politically embarrass the White House. But the prosecution may very well subtly make the case that another motive was for Libby to protect his then-boss, Cheney. In private, some federal investigators have asserted that Libby might have lied from the beginning to protect Cheney.

Two days after Wilson's July 6 column, on July 8, 2003, Libby had breakfast with Miller at the St. Regis hotel in Washington, D.C. Miller has testified, and the grand jury has alleged, that Libby provided Miller with information that Plame was a CIA officer and had played a role in sending Wilson to Niger.

On July 12, 2003, after returning from Norfolk, according to testimony by Miller and Time's former correspondent, Cooper, Libby told Cooper for the first time and Miller for the third time that Plame worked for the CIA.

Libby told the FBI and testified to the federal grand jury that when talking to Miller and Cooper he was not providing them with information that he learned from Cheney or other government officials, but merely repeating rumors about Plame's CIA employment that he heard from other journalists.

Libby claimed that he had heard from NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10, 2003 that Plame might have worked for the CIA, and that in talking to Cooper and Miller, he was simply repeating the gossip. Russert has testified that he and Libby never discussed Plame at all, and the indictment charges that Libby lied to investigators when he claimed that Russert and he had talked.

Russert is expected to be a crucial prosecution witness against Libby. Miller and Cooper are also likely to testify that Libby never said that he was merely passing along rumors heard from Russert and other journalists when he told them that Plame was a CIA officer, if their trial testimony is consistent to what they have already testified to the federal grand jury.

Libby also testified that when he told reporters that Plame was a CIA officer he had totally forgotten by then that that he might have been originally told that information by Cheney. Investigators are still attempting to determine whether he made the claim to protect Cheney.

In a further possible attempt to protect Cheney, Libby also testified to the grand jury that he did not believe he had discussed that Plame worked for the CIA with Cheney during the critical period that Libby was leaking such information to the press -- and didn't discuss it with the vice president until after syndicated columnist Robert Novak first disclosed on July 14 that Plame was a CIA "operative."

It would be significant that Cheney and Libby only discussed Plame's CIA employment after the July 14 Novak column because instead of discussing a highly classified secret, the information would then have been considered public information, and not illegal, because Novak had disclosed it in his column.

While questioning Libby during grand jury testimony, prosecutors were incredulous regarding Libby's claims that he and Cheney had not discussed Plame's CIA employment during the critical July 6 to July 14 period. They also expressed skepticism that Libby had supposedly forgotten -- even though Libby's own written notes indicated otherwise -- that Cheney had told him that Plame worked for the CIA much earlier, on either June 11 or June 12. They were also disbelieving of Libby's claims that even though Libby and Cheney met several times every day after Wilson's July 6 column appeared, the two men did not discuss Plame during the subsequent eight days, not until Novak's column appeared. And finally, prosecutors were disbelieving when Libby claimed that he was simply passing on a rumor to Cheney that he had purportedly learned from Tim Russert that Plame was a CIA officer.

Libby even mused before the grand jury that Cheney may have scribbled his comments about Plame working for the CIA and having been involved in selecting her husband for his "pro bono" mission to Niger only after Novak's column appeared on July 14, eight days after Wilson's own column appeared in the New York Times.

Exasperated prosecutors indicated during more than one of Libby's grand jury appearances that these claims by Libby seemed implausible.

On March 5, 2004, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald himself questioned Libby before the grand jury.

Asked by Fitzgerald if he recalled a conversation with Cheney during which they discussed Plame and that she sent her "husband on a junket," Libby replied:

"I don't recall the conversation until after the Novak piece. I don't recall it during the week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak…after the Novak article appeared..."

Fitzgerald then bore down on the witness: "And are you telling us under oath that from July 6th to July 14th you never discussed with Vice President Cheney whether Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?"

Libby replied: "No, no, I'm not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife—that the reporters were telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation with the Vice President either late on the 11th or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that." As Libby further told it, if he discussed with Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer, he had only done so in the context of saying that the information was only an unsubstantiated rumor that he had heard from Tim Russert.

In a subsequent grand jury appearance, a skeptical prosecutor indicated that he found it hard to believe that Cheney would have written the notations he did in the margins of former Ambassador Wilson's July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed only after Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column appeared saying that Valerie Plame was a CIA "operative."

"OK," the prosecutor said, before asking, "And can you tell us why it would be that the Vice President read the Novak column and had questions, some of which apparently seem to be answered by the Novak column, would go back and pull out an original July 6th op-ed piece and write on that?"

"I'm not sure...," Libby answered, "He often kept these columns for awhile and keeps columns and will think on them. And I think what may have happened here is what he may have -- I don't know if he wrote, he wrote the points down. He might have pulled out the column to think about the problem and written on it, but I don't know."

Libby then added: "You'll have to ask him."

-- <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/waas.htm">Previous coverage</a> of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas. Brian Beutler provided research assistance for this report.

host · 01-23-2007, 10:49 AM

The video report from MSNbc, linked here, if the allegations reported can be proven by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, certainly explain why Libby's trial had to be pushed out past the Nov., 2006 mid-term election. Libby is accused of destroying evidence that implicates Cheney in obstruction of the Plame leak investigation, and Fitzgerald told the jury that he can prove that Cheney was the first person to inform Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/

In his opening statement, Libby's lawyer tells the jury that the white house:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2300125_2.html
....."They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.".....

Quote:

Libby Repeatedly Lied to Conceal CIA Leak, Prosecutor Says

By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; 1:12 PM

A special prosecutor this morning accused Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff of concocting an elaborate series of lies for federal investigators to conceal that he and Cheney had been actively trying to discredit a powerful critic of the administration's Iraq war policy.

In his opening statement on the first day of trial for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald said Libby first tried to put off agents investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity by saying that reporters had told him about her role. Later, the prosecutor said, Cheney's top aide falsely claimed to have suffered an innocent memory lapse when the probe continued and fellow administration officials and reporters repeatedly contradicted his account.

Fitzgerald framed the criminal charges facing Libby against the backdrop of the summer of 2003, when the Bush administration was under fire for the new war in Iraq and the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that the President claimed made Iraq such a serious threat.

Libby, 56, is accused of five felony counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of the leak investigation, and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. He is not charged with the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to the media, but Fitzgerald said Libby's lies made it impossible to determine his intentions when he was discussing Plame with reporters.

"How could we reach a point where the chief of staff for the vice president was repeatedly lying to federal investigators?" Fitzgerald rhetorically asked the jurors. "That's what this case is all about."

Fitzgerald said Libby became Cheney's point man in talking to the press and White House to rebut Plame's husband, a former ambassador who publicly raised doubts about President Bush's statements on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Plame's undercover status was revealed in the political crossfire between the administration, particularly the vice president's office, and the war critic, Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Fitzgerald contended that Libby claimed he learned Plame's identity from NBC's Tim Russert in July 2003, though he actually learned it from Cheney and several other administration officials a month earlier. He told investigators he passed along this information as second-hand gossip to two other reporters, but the two reporters have said Libby provided or confirmed the information for them.

Fitzgerald said Libby's subsequent claims of memory lapses to a grand jury in spring 2004 are implausible. He noted that Libby told the grand jury he felt he was learning the information as if it were new when he heard it from Russert on July 10, and had forgotten he heard it first from Cheney and other officials weeks earlier.

But Fitzgerald said Libby was providing that same information to the White House press secretary and New York Times reporters July 7 and 8.

"You can't learn something startling on Thursday that you're giving out Monday and Tuesday of the same week," Fitzgerald said.

Libby's defense attorneys have said the conversations with reporters were so brief and unimportant that Libby didn't focus on them or remember them in detail, and that his attention to pressing national security threats clouded his memory.

As he began his opening statement, Theodore Wells, one of Libby's attorneys, said the case has been exaggerated, and that no witness will say that Libby intentionally lied.

"He gave his best good-faith recollection," Wells said. "Any misstatements by Libby were innocent mistakes."

Wells said Libby complained to Cheney in 2003 that he was being made a "sacrificial lamb" as the White House tried to protect a more valuable aide to Bush, Karl Rove, who was also then facing allegations that he had leaked Plame's identity.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Wells said Libby was unfairly caught up in a probe that took on a life of its own, and a criminal leak was never found. Cheney was properly concerned when Wilson falsely implied that Cheney should have known about Wilson's conclusion that Iraq was not trying to purchase nuclear weapons material.

Libby, he said, was appropriately deputized by a furious Cheney to set the record straight.

"Was he mad?" Wells asked. "You doggone betcha."

Earlier, Fitzgerald said Libby obviously had a very serious job, but rebutting Wilson's stinging criticism was also a priority for him.

"The Wilson controversy was sufficiently important that he made time to deal with the press," Fitzgerald said. "He made time to deal with the Wilson controversy day after day after day."

Before Fitzgerald spoke, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton gave the jurors preliminary instructions about the three kinds of criminal charges that Libby faces and how to determine whether he is guilty.

He also gave jurors some practical advice: Listen closely, get lots of sleep so they won't doze off in court and carefully watch the expressions and demeanor of witnesses to gauge their credibility.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 12:50 PM

Host, it's been established to a fare-thee-well that it was Armitage who leaked to Novak. Whether that gets Libby off the hook I don't know. It'll come out in the trial. I don't know Ted Wells personally -- I know him only by his reputation, which is excellent, and I know a couple of his law partners -- but I would not be surprised if his story simply is that there wasn't anything to cover up, so there was no reason to lie.

My own view is that this episode demonstrates once again that Special Prosecutors are dangerous. Ken Starr was dangerous, so was Lawrence Walsh and so is Patrick Fitzgerald. It's inherent in the nature of the beast. I can dig out the stories in which it was shown that Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was the day he was appointed - so what, then, was he investigating? Pretty much was Starr was: he was appointed to find wrongdoing, so dadgummit he's going to find wrongdoing.

The rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors.

dc_dux · 01-23-2007, 03:52 PM

In his opening statement, Fitzgerald said today that Cheney "was deeply involved in the CIA link" against Valerie Plame and that Libby destroyed a note from Cheney about their conversations and about how he (Cheney) wanted the Wilson matter handled.

This alleged abuse of classified information for political purposes, and Libby's subsequent lying about it, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is serious shit...not smoke and mirrors.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 04:38 PM

Well, he wasn't indicted for leaking classified info. He was indicted for misleading investigators about whether he discussed Plame with reporters. That's only "serious shit" if what he misled the investigators about was material to a crime. And there was no underlying crime - as you know, Libby is the only one who was indicted for <i>anything</i> in this whole sorry affair. And it's not for lack of Fitzpatrick trying, either - he had Rove testify something like five times.

This doesn't mean it's not a crime to mislead investigators, but what's at stake in this trial is much, much less than you're saying.

Since you apparently heard the openings - what did Wells say? What's his story?

dc_dux · 01-23-2007, 07:50 PM

I know full well that Libby wasnt indicted for leaking classfied information AND that he was indicted for more the "misleading investigators".

There are five counts in the indictment - one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

The indictment also includes the following language:

In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

What is at stake is more than misleading investigators. The crime is perjury and obstruction of justice.

While not directly indictable, the motive and rationale for those illegal actions exposes how the White House abused national security information for political purposes This trial will bring to light some of the ugly underbelly of this Adminstration and the actions it will take against those who threathen their policy objectives by exposing their lies. I stil think that is "serious shit."

I have only seen one quote from Wells opening statement:

Attorneys for former White House aide ``Scooter'' Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative's name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.

Attorney Theodore Wells, in the opening statements of I. Lewis Libby's perjury trial, said Libby went to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,'' Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney." I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.''

Without seeing the full opening defense, that is an interesting angle, dont you think?

More:
Michael Isokoff in Newsweek describes Wells opening defense remarks as a “scorched earth” strategy pointing accusatory fingers at White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove as well as other top current and former Bush aides".

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 08:49 PM

The indictment says that he agreed not to disclose classified info.
Does it say that he did that? I doubt it. If it did, there'd be a count for it in there. There isn't.

Read the counts of the indictment for perjury and OoJ. IIRC, the perjury was his grand jury testimony, well after the fact. The OoJ was related to that too. It wasn't a charge of leaking classified info.

As I said, he may well have been guilty of misstating his timeline, whether under oath or otherwise, but there wasn't any furshlugginer crime of leaking classified information here.

As for the "sacrificial lamb" stuff - the guy is being tried in DC. DC is a <i><b>very</i></b> Democratic town. That's who the jury pool is, Democratic Bush-haters. If you're Ted Wells and you have a jury like that, and you want your man to be acquitted, don't you try to paint the current administration as bad guys who were setting Libby up? I might be wrong here, because Wells told the jurors he'd be calling Cheney as a witness - but we'll have to see how that turns out.

For me this is spectator sport. I'm a lawyer, so I enjoy trying to figure out the strategy.

And Wells apparently put on quite a show. Read <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/">this account in <i>Slate</i></A>, you'll enjoy it.

dc_dux · 01-23-2007, 09:06 PM

I think if you read what I said, I agree that there was no charge of leaking classified information.

I was getting at motive. I do believe that the alleged perjury and obstruction were motivated by an attempt to cover-up how this admistration abuses classfied information for political purposes.

I am a policy wonk, not a lawyer,but I think the "he said/he said" defense is a risky strategy, particularly if your "he" is a White House senior aide and you are facing a jury not predisposed to be simpathetic to him or his boss.

loquitur · 01-24-2007, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wellsir, I must be too stupid to see that. Far as I can tell, you're telling me that 2 plus 2 is 18. Go ahead--spell it out for me.

I think what he is saying is that if Bush and Blair went in <i>knowing</i> that Saddam didn't have WMDs (which is what "lying" about it would require), then they would have planted some to be "found."

pan6467 · 01-24-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I think what he is saying is that if Bush and Blair went in <i>knowing</i> that Saddam didn't have WMDs (which is what "lying" about it would require), then they would have planted some to be "found."

As inept as Bush is running this thing, I think if he had tried he would have been caught doing it. I think they could have tried but found the press coverage and the world's watching too big a microscope for that. It would require massive movements (easily picked up by sattelites), hiding large amounts of stuff (it would have to be enough to make a point), then directing troops there to find it AND doing this several times in differing locations.

I think Bush went in believing there were WMDs because People high up told him there were and they lied to him. Blair, I think was totally blinded and agreeable and didn't truly check any facts out, he believed W. and W.'s people.

Thus both can be truthful in denying that they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs.

I think the problem now lies in W's knowing but being so committed that he doesn't care what the reasoning or truth is anymore.

As for the Plame business, Libby is a fallguy, but he won't get much of a punishment, he'll get paid secretly well, and he'll write a book that he'll get a few Mill for. Right now, Libby and his lawyer are putting on the show that was expected but in the end, watch Libby confess. Hell, his lawyer will probably write a bokk for a few Mill also. (God, I'm jaded.)

Yakk · 01-24-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The problem wasn't the investigation. That was a good and needed thing in a case like this. The problem was the spin and the hopeful, almost pleading, salivating, prayer from many members of the left that Rove (and or Cheney) was the one involved. He was convicted in the lefts kangaroo court on this board, and in various media, when it turns out that for quite a while it was known to the investigation that he was not the leak.

Rove, when asked of Wilson''s wife was a CIA agent, revealed that she was. If revealing her cover was a crime, Rove committed it.

Quote:

Even if we pretend it was Rove in some happy left wing Candy Land, its not even apparent that a law would have been broken as her status may not have been one that identification of her as an agent was illegal. That I'll leave to debate, as the Plame's are not answering the needed questions on that, and that also doesn't take into account that she may have been long compromised prior. I still think it would have been bad form by Rove to do so even in passing, but to claim it was done as a deliberate sabotage of some minor diplomats wife career is just asinine in the extreme. If mean spiritedness was in fact a motivation, I'm sure that the executive branch could ruin Mrs. Plame's career as a CIA agent without exposing themselves to legal action.

Why would the Bush administration give a rats fuck about Wilson's wife? There was motivation to go after and discredit Wilson (which "your wife is a CIA operative who gave you this mission" might be used).

Quote:

Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip.

So, there are two people who should be going to jail over this. Rove and Armitage.

Rove knew about Wilson's wife through official channels, and he did confirm it.

Quote:

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

Sadly, it looks like most of the information is unsubstantiated. The article quotes anonymous sources -- which is to say, no source at all -- far too often. Anonymously sourced information is gossip.

loquitur · 01-24-2007, 08:54 PM

Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise.

Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with.

host · 01-25-2007, 03:10 AM

This is excerpts from a "live blog"...the author is James Joyner. I chose his eyewitness account of the first 2 days of the "Scooter" Libby criminal trial, because of his conservative bias, not in spite of it. I've omitted most of his posts from this sequence of his trial filings that contained his opinion, and not his account of the trial proceedings. I've compared his account to another by a blogger with an obvious liberal bias. My intent is to draw the interest of folks who think that no crime was committed, and I don't know of a better way to do it. We can't discuss this unless we are on "the same page", and that has yet to come close to happening.....

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...us_irrelevant/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Judge: Valerie Plame Status Irrelevant
By James Joyner

Judge Walton has instructed the jury that Valerie Plame’s actual status with the CIA or the degree to which any revelations made by Scooter Libby put her in danger are totally irrelevant to the facts of this case. The only issue is whether the statements he made before the grand jury were factual and his state of mind in making these statements.

This is huge, as it would seem to undermine the defense’s quite reasonable stance that misstatements about something which is not a crime is not in fact perjury, since they would not be material to the case at hand.

Update: Later in the instructions, he was more specific about the definition of “material facts” as related to the perjury charge: Those which have a “natural tendency to influence the exercise of the grand jury’s decision-making process.” It must relate to “important fact” with “capacity to influence or effect” the grand jury. “Not necessary for government to prove that the grand jury was in fact misled.”

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...-_government_/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Opening Arguments - Government (Live Blog)
By James Joyner

The government started its opening arguments at 1037 am. Live blog below the fold. As always, major breaking news will get separate posts.

They take us to the day (July 6, 2003) Joseph Wilson’s NYT op-ed came out and argues that it was a devastating attack. He also appeared that day on “Meet the Press,” questioning the WMD argument and “igniting a media firestorm.” A day later, “the White House admitted” some things “should not have been said.” White House then “began to push back.”

This case is about Scooter Libby’s “obstruction of the search for truth” by “repeatedly lying” to both the grand jury and the FBI. Using the word “lie” or variants repeatedly.

Calendar as prop to hammer home time line. Can’t find something startling Thursday that you learned on Tuesday.

Repeated references to Iraq, the State of the Union, the Niger yellowcake controversy, and so forth as “background.”

Vice President learned from Marc Grossman on June 11, 2003 about the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame relationship. Bob Grenier told Scooter Libby that Plame worked in the unit responsible for sending Wilson on trip to Niger. He also got separate confirmation from Cathie Martin, most likely in June.

Libby also got morning intel brief from Craig Schmall on Saturday June 14, which included a discussion of Wilson, Plame, and the trip to Niger.

Monday June 23rd, Libby complained about unfair CIA leaks with Judith Miller, mentioning that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on background, attributable only to “a senior administration official.”

ALL OF THIS OCCURRED BEFORE the Joe Wilson op-ed. This was a direct attack on the integrity of the president and vice president about the most important matter of public policy.

Scooter Libby cut the column out and marked it up. Frustrated by what Wilson was saying. VP’s “right hand man” as both chief of staff and national security advisor.

Libby focused on this controversy “day after day after day.”

Timeline:

6 July: Wilson op-ed and MTP appearance
7 July: Libby tells Ari Fleischer Wilson’s wife works for CIA
8 July: Libby meets with Judith Miller again at St Regis Hotel dining room, defending Iraq intel and asks to be identified as “former Hill staffer” with regard to Joe Wilson wife story.
8 July: Libby talks with David Addington, WH lawyer, and asks vague question about CIA officer sending husband on trip
10 July: Libby calls Tim Russert to complain about Chris Matthews’ unfair treatment on “Hardball,” hoping Russert would intercede
11 July: CIA Director George Tenet
12 July: Makes on-record statement to Matt Cooper and Judith Miller at Cheney’s direction. Cooper asks “what have you heard about Wilson’s wife sending him on a trip?” and Libby answers “I heard that, too.” This was a confirmation of what Cooper had already heard.

“It should be noted, Novak relied on two sources, neither of which was the defendant.”

Late September: Criminal investigation announced about the leaks.

Grand jury had two missions: Find the facts of who leaked Plame’s CIA status to the press and to investigate whether a cover-up had occurred. Defendant swore an oath promising to tell the truth.

Fitzgerald played tape recorded testimony and displayed the court reporter’s transcript from Libby during the grand jury about his conversation with Tim Russert, saying that Russert had ASKED HIM about it. He says he answered “No I don’t know that.”

Fitzgerald interprets this as Libby lying to the grand jury and claiming he learned it from Russert. My take was that Libby was just lying to Russert in order not to be on the record confirming Plame’s status.

After another 10 minute break, Fitzgerald played a tape recording of Libby telling a grand jury that he had heard about Wilson from reporters. Which would appear to be true. He didn’t FIRST hear it there, though.

A third tape has Libby saying that he had told Matt Cooper that he didn’t know Joe Wilson had a wife. Which, again, doesn’t strike me as the same as lying to the grand jury.

Fitzgerald closed by saying that “this case is not about bad memory” and that “having a bad memory is not a crime.” It’s about lying under oath.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ing_statement/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Highlights ‘16 Words’ in Opening Statement
By James Joyner

Despite having repeatedly argued during voir dire that the Iraq War and surrounding politics were irrelevant to the case, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is repeatedly referring to the State of the Union address, the infamous “sixteen words,” Niger, uranium, and so forth during his opening arguments. He offered a disclaimer that it is “just background,” but it is nonetheless obviously going to be a major part of the trial.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...important_job/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Admits Libby Busy Man
By James Joyner

Prosecutory Patrick Fitzgerald took on a key defense contention in his opening arguments, stipulating that Scooter Libby was an important man with an incredibly important job. He nonetheless “made time to talk to the press” repeatedly because the Joe Wilson-inspired controversy was so important to Dick Cheney.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...enial_of_leak/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Notes White House Denial of Leak
By James Joyner

Again belying his contention that this trial is not about politics, Patrick Fitzgerald highlighted and discussed at length in his opening statement Scott McClellan’s 29 September 2003 denial, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” He then noted a categorical statement from the White House the following month that Libby was [not] the leaker.

That has zero to do with whether Libby lied to a grand jury. It has everything to do with the political climate.

Further, as Fitzgerald already admitted, Libby was in fact not the one who told Bob Novak about Valerie Plame.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nse_live_blog/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Opening Arguments - Defense (Live Blog)
By James Joyner

“My name is Ted Wells and I speak for Scooter Libby.” He is “totally innocent.” “He is an innocent man and he has been wrongly and unjustly and unfairly accused.”

No witness, no document, no scientific evidence will be produced saying that Scooter Libby lied, told them he was about to lie, or that he had lied. “It’s a weak, circumstantial evidence case about ‘He said, She said.’”

“People do not lie for the heck of it. When people tell an intentional lie it’s because they had done something wrong.” Scooter Libby had “no reason to lie.”

“Scooter Libby was not out pushing any reporters to write any stories about Valerie Wilson.”

“Scooter Libby did not have ANY KNOWLEDGE that Wilson’s job was covert” before Bob Novak’s column came out.

Scooter Libby was not concerned about any punishment but about “being a scapegoat” and “being set up” by “people in the White House” trying to “protect Karl Rove.”

Cheney note: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.” Wells asserts that Karl Rove was the “staffer” in question.

Libby’s job normally didn’t involve dealing with reporters. He was consumed with “the most important national security issues of this country” every single day. He “got thrown into the meatgrinder” of dealing with this “16 word controversy” but “al Qaeda didn’t go away.”

Wilson’s identify only became a big deal once the criminal investigation kicked in. “In real time–in June and July–in terms of Scooter Libby, Ms. Wilson, where she worked, was no big deal to him.”

Libby forced to talk to FBI without being able to talk to his staff to refresh his memory, under specific instructions to that effect from the FBI, on October 14–months later. “He did his best” to tell the truth and recall as best he could “three telephone calls” that took place in June “with specificity and with details” some “snippets” that might have been “20 seconds.”

Neither Russert nor Cooper have any notes about the conversations and Miller admits her memory is fuzzy and her notes are minimal, maybe “two words.” And the dispute is over varying recollections of a few words.

Confirmation is very important to reporters. The fact that Cooper and Russert didn’t write anything down is proof that “He did not confirm ANYTHING.”

This man has “always been ‘Scooter’” because “he’s always on the move.”

Scooter Libby had TWO JOBS - chief of staff and national security advisor for the VP. He had an incredible amount on his plate. To even go in to the details of what he did could “hurt the country,” so we won’t do that. But just remember, “he had a day job” in addition to “going into the meatgrinder.”

Libby did not leak to Robert Novak. “That is the article that said to the world ‘Ambassador Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and put it in the public domain.” There is “no dispute” on the fact that “Richard Armitage, who worked at the State Department” was Novak’s source. “It was Libby’s understanding that the investigation was about WHO LEAKED TO ROBERT NOVAK.” “He did not get that understanding from a dream” but rather from the Justice Department memo outlining the investigation.

“Was Cheney mad? You doggone betcha.” Because he was being accused on something he didn’t do. “Vice president Cheney is 100% correct” when he says he didn’t know anything about the Wilson Niger trip before Nick Kristoff referred to it obliquely in May 6, 2003.

Wilson “outs” himself in the July 6 NYT op-ed. No longer “unnamed ambassador.” Wilson claimed to have been sent my Cheney–which may have been his legitimate understanding–but it was not in fact the case. Cheney had no idea he had gone, let alone gotten a report. Wilson’s MTP appearance that morning went much further.

This is “how it has come that Mr. Libby is talking to various reporters” — he was on orders from the VP to rebut the idea that Cheney was hiding information from the Wilson-Niger report.

The Novak article comes out on July 14, revealing that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA. Much later learned that Powell deputy Richard Armitage was his source.

Novak had actually completed the article on July 11th and sent out to his syndicator so that it could be published. “Sent to over 85 newspapers.” “So this so-called secret…is in approximately 85 newsrooms.”

All the conversations under dispute here started on or after July 12th.

Break for lunch until 1340.

Court resumed precisely at 1340 with the prosecution taking issue with two things from the opening arguments made so far by the defense: the statement that “I can’t say what her status is” and a statement to the effect that there were things about which the government has said that the defense can’t bring out because of the classified nature of the information.

The judge ruled that the first issue is no big deal but that he was slightly concerned about the second. Wells said he would “fix it” in the remainder of his opening statement and the judge has reserved the right to make an additional statement if he still thinks there’s an issue.

Wells resumed his statement at 1:48 by returning to the Timeline of Events, which was accompanied by a graphic. The emphasis, with big red arrows and bright yellow font, is that the FBI testimony was 3 months and the grand jury testimony was 9 months after the phone calls in question.

This is not a case of, as the prosecutor put it, “learning something on Tuesday and forgetting on Thursday.”

In the first 15-20 minutes of Libby’s discussion with the FBI, he stated categorically on October 14 that he has learned it from the vice president and had a note to that effect.

Wells compares Libby’s recollection that Russert asked him on July 10 or 11 about Valerie Plame with Russert’s statement that he didn’t know until he read it in Novak’s column 3 days later. He points out that neither Libby nor Russert have any notes on the conversation and that their recollections were from three months after the fact. Given that other NBC reporters (David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell) already knew, it’s not at all unlikely that Russert would have heard something.

Gregory learned from Ari Fleischer on July 11. Mitchell stated on October 3 “it was widely known among the reporters who covered the intelligence community that Amb Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA” well before the Novak column.

“It makes no sense” to “cook up a story” involving “one of the most respected newsmen in America.”

There was no “protected conversation” with Russert because he wasn’t calling as a source but rather to make the equivalent of a “customer complaint” to Russert in his capacity as head of NBC News’ political bureau.

Further, there is a “Maybe Russert is Right and Libby is Wrong” [slide title] scenario that are still is not a lie: He confused Russert with another reporter with whom he had similar conversations that week, Robert Novak and Matthew Cooper.

The consensus in the media room is that the chain of people involved here is so confusing that there’s no way the jury is following it. As one reporter observed, “If Fitzgerald doesn’t keep it simple, he’s f****d.”

The phone call between Libby and Cooper took place while Libby was trying to board Air Force 2 on a Saturday when Libby is taking his family to see the commissioning of the USS Ronald Reagan. It’s his son’s 10th birthday. “A day off.” He’s not focused too much on talking to Cooper, just doing it because Cooper had been bugging the press secretary.

Cooper took notes but there’s “not a word about the wife — not a word.” “The notes don’t support Mr. Cooper’s recollection.” Further, Cooper didn’t mention Plame in an email report about the conversation to his editors. Conversely, Cooper’s notes about his conversation with Karl Rove extensively talk about “the wife.”

Judith Miller “testified repeatedly that her memory was bad.” “I’m just speculating.” “My memory is fuzzy.” “I might have been confused.” Further, Miller admits she might have brought up “Victoria Wilson” to trick Libby into confirming information.

“The Evidence Will Show The Russert Story Was Unnecessary” [slide title] Not only “illogical but intellectually flawed.” On the same day he talked with Russert, he had been told by Karl Rove that Novak has already written the story. So, he could have said “I heard it from reporters” by using Novak rather than making up a “false, phony story” about Russert. Prosecution’s theory “is just stupid.”

“There is a difference between Wilson’s charges and Wilson’s wife.”

Libby was known around the office as having a bad memory–smart as hell but a lousy memory. “He lived by his notes” which were copious. “In hundreds of pages of Libby’s notes, there is one line about Wilson’s wife.”

Several slides were introduced and then read verbatim about the Government’s stipulations as to the complexity and importance of issues Libby worked on as part of his duties as Cheney’s natsec advisor. This was stipulated to avoid having to introduce classified information. Buzzwords included AQ Khan, nuclear weapons, terrorism, al Qaeda, anthrax, Turkey, Iraq, and others. This is the crux of the defense’s case that Libby was so busy with incredibly important affairs of state that it’s easy to see how he could have forgotten some details about “the wife.”

During the week in which the phone conversations in question took place, Libby was distracted with worries about nuclear attacks, al Qaeda attacks, assassination attempts on the president and his staff, etc.

Summation: Libby didn’t lie and had no reason to lie. All the evidence is circumstantial.

The opening statement is concluded. The court is taking a ten minute recess. It’s not clear whether testimony will commence or court will adjourn after the return.

Following return from recess, the prosecution objected to the defense’s repeated reference to the fact that he was under restrictions pertaining to classified information as if the government was not. Judge Walter notes that the executive branch can rule on what is permissible to declassify or not, so are not hampered in a similar way. He does, however, think it “unfair” to suggest his “hands are tied” based on his own interpretation of the law.

The government is also concerned about Wells’ closing statement that “The only way you convict my client is if you violate your oath” went too far. The judge will instruct the jury that counsel’s personal views on what the evidence means is not relevant, only the jury’s conclusions.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc..._lousy_memory/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Defense: Smart as Hell But a Lousy Memory
By James Joyner

Libby’s counsel told the jury that his client was Libby was “known around the office” as having a bad memory–”smart as hell but a lousy memory.” As a result, “he lived by his notes” which were copious. That’s the only way that Libby could juggle all of his enormous responsibilities.

That set up this bullet point on the PowerPoint shown the jury: “In hundreds of pages of Libby’s notes, there is one line about Wilson’s wife.”

<b>Comment from "host"...this guy has a PhD, and he couldn't get Fitzgerald's first name right...it's Patrick, not "Peter":</b>

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ans_testimony/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Marc Grossman’s Testimony (Pt. 1)
By James Joyner

The government’s first witness will be former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman who, as Matt Apuzzo sums it up, was allegedly asked on May 29, 2003 for information about the Joe Wilson’s travel to Niger.

There was a heated discussion between <b>Peter Fitzgerald</b> and Ted Wells about the scope of questioning, with Wells arguing that everything should be fair game in cross-examination because there is reason to believe that Grossman and Richard Armitage met the night before Grossman’s FBI testimony to “cook the books.” Judge Walter is inclined to agree that such questioning would be appropriate. Fitzgerald argues that conversation is not relevant to the line of questioning. Walter says it speaks to “where his loyalties lie.”

The witness was called at 3:58, which has the media room groaning.

Government questioning:

Grossman is now in the private sector but spent 29 years “as a Foreign Service Officer.” He finished up as the #3 man in the State Department, right below Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.

He interacted with Libby “several times a week” as part of the Deputies Committee (of the National Security Council). Maybe 10-12 people sat at the table and around 20 others sat in chairs around the room.

Government Exhibit #6 is a page from Grossman’s calendar for Thursday May 29, 2003. At 11:30, he attended a Deputies Committee meeting on Iraq at the White House situation room. His “best recollection” is that he talked to Libby either before or after either the 11:15 or 11:30 meeting and that Libby asked “if he knew anything about” a former ambassador’s trip to Africa and yellowcake. He didn’t but was embarrassed that he didn’t but would report back to him.

Upon returning to his office, he immediately asked Mr. Armitage to make sure he didn’t “get myself into any trouble.” Armitage “said he didn’t know anything about it either.” Grossman than sent emails to the Asst Sec for Research and for African Affairs to find out what State knew. Both said “they knew all about it.”

He took this information back to Armitage and asked if it jogged any memories and was answered in the negative. He then went to Libby and told him “yes, people at the State Dept knew about such a trip” and that Wilson had reported back to the government. He promised “a fuller report when I had it.”

He also contacted Wilson by phone to get more info. They were both longtime professional colleagues and members of the same university alumni association. Wilson “told me all about it.” His “recollection” is that he had talked to Wilson before Libby and relayed the info, including that Wilson though the Office of the VP had ordered the trip.

Grossman ultimately got a report on Wilson’s trip on June 10 or 11 from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). That report mentioned that “Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.” The context for this was that “Mrs. Wilson” chaired WMD panel and organized her husband’s trip. “I though this was pretty interesting. Kind of odd and remarkable that A) she worked at the Agency and B) she was involved in the organization of the trip.” He thought it was “inappropriate” that one spouse would arrange another’s trip.

He discussed this with Libby at the next Deputies Committee (”my recollection”) meeting, June 11 or 12 (there are meetings just about daily). “There’s one other thing you oughta know…his wife worked at the Agency.” Libby “listened to me and he thanked me.” He doesn’t recall the precise words of the conversation on either side. Grossman felt that “because he was senior to me” Libby deserved to “know the whole context.” Libby told him that the Office of the VP had nothing to do with the trip.

Armitage told him that he had told Novak about the Wilson-Wilson connection the night before his FBI testimony. Grossman was “shocked” but “appreciated the professional courtesy.”

Wells’ cross-examination:

You had one conversation with Libby about “the wife” that “lasted maybe 30 seconds”? “Yes, that’s correct.”

“You need the calendar to identify when you met with Mr. Libby?” Yes.

“Except for looking at the calendar and reasoning backward, you don’t have any recollection when the date was?” Yes.

“You have no present recollection” aside from this “reconstruction”? Yes.

Several questions about whether Grossman read a May 6 article by Nicholas Kristoff. He hadn’t and still hasn’t. No interest in “looking in the rearview mirror.”

“Do you find it strange” that neither he not Armitage read such a critical article about the State Dept? “I had about a billion things to do” and “couldn’t be troubled” to find out what happened in the past because he was so occupied by Iraq and other issues. (That’s Libby’s whole defense, of course.)

Grossman thought that the whole Wilson matter was a non-story at the time and the matter of “the wife” only “an interesting tidbit.”

There was no indication at the time that her status was covert or classified, much less conveyed to Libby as such.

Court recessed at 4:55 to resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...estimony_pt_2/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Marc Grossman’s Testimony (Pt. 2)
By James Joyner

The first full day of trial resumed with the continued cross-examination of Marc Grossman by Scooter Libby’s chief counsel, Ted Wells. Live blog below the fold, with any breaking news getting separate posts as well.

“You have no notes that you had such a meeting?” No.

“No emails?” No.

The emails were destroyed before investigation because the State Dept had a policy of destroying emails after 90 days.

Defense Exhibit 71: The INR report on the Wilson trip generated per Grossman’s inquiry pursuant to Libby’s question. Carl Ford, INR’s director, wrote the memo.

Paragraph one addresses “allegation” that INR had played a role in Wilson’s trip. “It is clear, however, that INR was not Amb Wilsons’ point of contact in either the Dept. or the intelligence community.” Nor was State a direct recipient of the report.nn”The reporting we have from his trip makes no mention of documents, fraudulent or otherwise.”

Another paragraph indicates that “Two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge on the issue” and that INR and State took strong issue with their dismissal of the Niger issue.

This launches a lengthy line of questioning about yellowcake and the nature of intelligence on Iraqi WMD, presumably with the intent of dispelling the notion that Cheney and company were intentionally distorting said intelligence. I’m quite surprised that the government is not objecting that this inquiry is irrelevant to whether Libby lied to the FBI or the grand jury about disclosing Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA ties.

After several minutes, however, the prosecution called for a sidebar after which the judge ruled that the document is hearsay from the standpoint of establishing the truth of the assertions contained therein.

Defense Exhibit 428 is a different memo that says essentially the same thing.

“Your first interview with the FBI was on Oct 17, 2003, is that correct?” Yes.

“Is it correct that on June 9, 2003 Mr. Wilson placed a telephone call to you in which he complained that he had seen Condoleeza Rice on MTP on June 8 and he was very upset about her comments?” Yes. “He told you that he was furious?” “Yes sir. He was really mad.” The substance was “He was mad at the way he had been described . . . as a very low level person and he was upset about that, sir.”

You made no mention about this in the June 11 conversation to Libby? “You kept those comments to yourself. You didn’t tell anybody, did you?” “No sir, I did not.”

Elmo is broken, impairing PowerPoint usage. Wells is now scribbling dates on a piece of paper and projecting them on an overhead projector.

Grossman can’t recollect specific dates and the prosecution has stipulated that events occurred on those dates. Judge Walter explains to the jury that they “may consider such facts as undisputed evidence.”

Oct 17, 2003: 1st FBI interview

Feb 24, 2004: 2nd FBI interview

Mar 12, 2004: Grand Jury appearance

“Do you deny that you told the FBI on Oct 17, 2003 that you two or three telephone conversations with Mr. Libby during which you gave him information” about the Wilson matter “and that you did not make any reference to a face-to-face meeting?” Witness does not recall.

Wells refers him to page 2, paragraph 1, of the FBI interview memorandum to “refresh your memory.”

“I don’t know what to tell you.”

“Does it refresh your recollection that you told the FBI a different story than you’ve told the jury today?”

The night before your Oct 17 FBI interview, you had a private meeting with Mr. Armitage? Yes. “You knew he was a subject of that investigation, correct?” “I knew he had been interviewed with the FBI, correct.”

Prosecution Redirect: (Commenced 11:23)

Clarified the nature of his relationship with Armitage. Noted that he had met with defense counsel before trial as part of discovery process.

Why did you have INR come up with a report on “unnamed ambassador” if it was so unimportant? “To answer Mr. Libby’s question.”

Judge opens to written questions from jury. (11:28)

Did State have anything to do with sending Wilson on trip to Niger? No.

Who sent him? CIA as far as I know.

What documents did you review in preparation for your testimony here? The grand jury documents.

Witness excused at 11:30. Court in 10 minute recess.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ier_testimony/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Robert Grenier Testimony
By James Joyner

The second prosecution witness is Robert Grenier, a former 27-year employee of the CIA who served as the Iraq Mission Manager from October 2002-2004. He was directly below the Deputy Director level and attended Deputies Committee meetings at the National Security Council as the “plus one” for his boss.

Live blog follows below the fold with breaking news also in separate posts.

Saw Libby “quite frequently” “at least twice a week and sometimes three times a week” at Deputies meetings involving Iraq. He was a “business acquaintance” with very little interaction.

“Do you recall a phone message from Scooter Libby on June 11?” He doesn’t recall on his own but has seen supporting documentation to that effect. “Exhibit 701 — A yellow ‘While You Were Out’ message from Scooter Libby.”

Did you often get calls from Libby? “First time it ever happened.”

What was the gist of the conversation with Libby? “CIA people had been complaining about the Office of Vice President.” Libby wanted to verify why Wilson was sent to Niger. “It was complete news to me. I had never heard of it before.”

When did he want answers? “From the context, as soon as possible.” “It was unusual for him to be calling me to begin with and he seemed serious.” Plus, he likely “wanted to get out in front of the story” since Libby had mentioned concerns over Wilson in the press.

He called “Kevin” at the counter-proliferation division (the #2 guy) and neither he nor the chief were available. He talked to someone else and left a message for Kevin. He got a response “probably within a couple of hours.” It was from someone he did not know but was “fully knowledgeable about what had happened.” He got confirmation that CIA had sent Wilson to investigate Niger uranium and went into some detail about the mission. Conveyed that State, Office of VP, and Defense had all “expressed interest” in the issue.

That person “mentioned” that Wilson’s wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip. “I am certain the individual did not tell me the name, only that it was Amb Wilson’s wife.”

At the next Iraq meeting, with DCI, he was called out and handed a note to call Libby. He was “chagrined” thinking he had failed Libby.

He phoned Libby and told him that CIA had in fact sent Wilson and that OVP was not the main driver behind the trip but that State and Defense were also instigators. Libby asked whether “CIA would be willing to reveal that publicly.”

Did you tell him about the wife connection? “I believe I did.” He thinks he told him “something to the effect” that the wife was “why Wilson was sent” but mentioned it “only in passing.”

As to a public announcement about the State/DoD impetus, he told Libby he needed to talk to Bill Harlow, the CIA’s Director of Public Affairs. He went right to Harlow after getting off phone with Libby, got permission, and called Libby back saying “we can work something out” in terms of “language CIA would be able to use with the press.” Libby “seemed pleased” and said Harlow and a OVP press person should work it out. “I believe…the name was Cathy.”

During FBI testimony, “do you recall if you talked about the topic of Mr. Wilson’s wife with Mr. Libby?” He told them that “if I think back, I think I would have said something to Mr. Libby but could not say for certain.”

At the grand jury? “That I may have” but wasn’t sure.”

Since then, have you given it any more thought? Yes. “I’ve been going it over and over in my mind.” Eventually, he came to “feel guilty” thinking “maybe I had revealed too much,” eventually revealing the identity of a CIA officer.

Break at 1222 for lunch. Cross-examination after lunch.

Grueling series of questionings based on reading FBI testimony back to him and asking if he can recall saying that.

Ditto the grand jury. “Do you recall telling the grand jury that you did not recall hearing from CPD that you had not even heard about Mr. Wilson’s wife before meeting with Mr. Libby?” No, “just that I didn’t have a clear memory.” He was “surprised,” on appearing before the grand jury a second time a year and a half later that he had said that.

Even the defense attorneys are annoyed by the constant “I couldn’t tell you without looking at the documents” about even matters such as which dates he appeared before the grand jury. I must say, Grenier’s coming across as very incredible.

“Do you find that your memory improves the further away you get from the event?” “Not all the time.” “What improved was not my specific conversation with Mr. Libby but my recollection of how I felt afterwards.”

Did you at any time after remembering that you felt guilty go and ask Libby not to divulge the information? No.

“If the person at CMD didn’t tell you Wilson’s status was covert, why did you later feel guilty?” “The vast majority of those employees are undercover.”

Testimony ended and witness excused circa 3:15.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...all_testimony/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Craig Schmall Testimony (Pt. 1)
By James Joyner

The third government witness will be Craig Schmall, Libby’s regular morning briefer from CIA.

Live blog will appear below the fold with any breaking news also in separate posts.

Substantial discussion at sidebar before witness called as to the limitation of questioning in cross-examination. The basic agreement reached is that, unless the government brings an issue in during their questioning, the defense can only bring it in during the presentation of their case. Counsel agreed and the defense reserved the right to call him back.

He will be called after a brief recess (around 3:40) He was–precisely on time.

Government questioning:

Initial questioning to set timeline of Schmall’s employment with CIA (19 years) and his duties as daily intel briefer to first Scooter Libby and later VP Cheney. Briefings generally at 7 am, lasting 40 minutes, usually at VP’s mansion but occasionally in his office. Three binders as “briefing books” tabbed to call to attention those of specific interest to the briefing recipient (Cheney or Libby). Materials destroyed the next day.

Most of the 40 minutes was the principals reading with very little verbal briefing.

As briefing happened, Schmall would annotate table of contents with reactions, questions, and whether read/not. If couldn’t answer question, would mark with “T” to indicate that a tasker needed to go out to an analyst.

Attorneys stipulate that June 14, 2003 was a Saturday.

On that day, Schmall briefed Libby at his home. Exhibit introduced: Table of Contents from that brief.

Discussed visit from Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz, with Cruise wishing to convey concern about German treatment of Scientologists.

Note appended “The Amb told this was a VP office question? Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson”

Also, Libby expressed annoyance that a reporter had told him that “a direct source” had told him “analysts were feeling pressured pressured and bullied.” Schmall followed up with a peer who had presided over the meeting in question and was assured that, not only was there no feeling of pressure, they were quite pleased that VP seemed interested in their reactions.

Attorneys stipulate that JuLY 14, 2003 was a Monday.

This is day Novak column appeared in print. Table of contents from morning brief entered into evidence. Almost entirely redacted. Note “Did you read the Novak article? Not your problem.”

“Do you have specific recollection as to who asked question, ‘Did you read the Novak article?’” No. VP certainly attended, Libby probably. Schmall has no recollection of the details of the discussion.

Subsequent meeting was asked to offer his opinion on Plame leak. He noted that press “focusing on damage to Valerie Wilson and her career” but that there were serious operational consequences of the leak. Anyone connected to Plame overseas could be harassed and put in danger.

Defense Cross-Examination

Detailed discussion about how Schmall took notes and assigned taskers.

“Do you recall briefing Mr. Libby on Saturday, June 14 about…” various very important issues, presumably being read from the table of contents. There were 27 total items. The answer was “No, sir” to each question.

He then moved on to a list of terrorist threats from that same briefing. Same, same.

Presumably, Schmall is saying that he doesn’t specifically remember briefing Libby, not the items themselves. Many of them are significant events.

“I gather that those types of items would be briefed to Mr. Libby six times a week?” “Yes, sir.”

Discussion of Schmall’s January 8, 2004 interview with FBI. Told them that first time discussed the issue with Libby was after Novak article appeared? “Yes, that is correct.”

The next day, you sent email to colleague? Yes. “You told colleague that your memory of the events was quite poor, which probably extended the session?” Yes.

Asked whether he had mentioned anything about Valerie or Joe Wilson in said email, he couldn’t recall. Presented the email, he quickly read and noted he did not.

April 22, 2004 you had second interview with govt? Sounds about right. He does not recall that Patrick Fitzgerald, or any government prosecutors, were there, despite memoranda to that affect. “I don’t have any independent memory of that.”

April 24, 2004 sent email saying he was still looking for notes. “Still looking for any notes that would have triggered my memory.”

Sidebar after being asked whether anyone had asked for copies of the Tables of Contents–the only part of the daily brief that got retained–in the course of the investigation.

Witness excused until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

Quote:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc..._scientology_/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Scooter Libby Met With Tom Cruise on Scientology
By James Joyner

Scooter Libby’s CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, reports that he and Libby had a discussion on Saturday* June 14, 2003 about a visit from Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz, with the former interested in talking about Germany’s treatment of Scientologists. Libby was apparently quite excited about the visit.

*Counsel for both sides stipulated that June 14 was indeed a Saturday. I have verified that fact independently as well.

Yakk · 01-25-2007, 09:47 AM

Host, please post at least a fraction as much analysis of each large block-quote as the block quote has length.

6 lines of analysis of 100s of lines of block quotes isn't a contribution to a discussion -- it is a reading assignment.

I have no interest in reading and replying to mass copied and pasted quotes when the person who posted them isn't even willing to spend the time including decent comments on them.

Thank you.

loquitur · 01-25-2007, 10:12 AM

Host, I know you're doing a lot of work here, and many of us (me included) appreciate the effort you put into your posts, but Yakk sort of has a point: I think you'd be more persuasive if you put up a series of excerpts with links, instead of long blockquotes. Many of them aren't self-explanatory in gross, whereas if you picked out the most cogent portions, with a link so that people could read the whole thing if they want, it would be much easier to follow your reasoning. I don't mean to make more work for you, please don't think that's not what I'm advocating.

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 10:47 AM

The government "exhibits" are posted each day:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Interesting, but not very helpful without following one the blogs tracking the testimony.

Wake me when Cheney testifies!

host · 01-25-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise.

Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. <b>And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with.</b>

loquitur, I am responding to your post directly above this one, but I am displaying the quote from your post before that.

Throughout this thread, and (in others before it....), for two years, I have posted a mix of material that I thought was relevant to my own opinions of what this "Plame leak" investigation is about, and where it is going.

I view you as a reasonable person, politically, more so after reading your posted opinion of Hillary Clinton; finding that you have a much more positive and well explained opinion of her than I do.

I've stressed in a number of posts, this analogy of what Patrick Fitzgerald says that the Libby indictment and trial is about:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801986.html
Fitzgerald Speaks, Up to a Point

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A01

........Breaking his long public silence, Fitzgerald gave a 66-minute news conference yesterday explaining his case against Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But his appearance was as much about answering the charge that will inevitably be lodged against Fitzgerald himself: that he exceeded his charter and brought charges on "technicalities" rather than major crimes.

The prosecutor had prepared his defense well. "That talking point won't fly," he said when a questioner raised the anticipated criticism. "If it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story . . . that is a very, very serious matter," said Fitzgerald, 44, licking his lips frequently and moving his eyes back and forth across the line of eight cameras. "The truth is the engine of our judicial system, and if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost."

Fitzie, as some pals call him, came straight from prosecutorial central casting: He spoke with a street-tough Brooklyn accent and laid out his case with the matter-of-fact assurance of a police captain explaining how his officers gained entrance to the premises and apprehended the suspect.

Seldom glancing at notes and eschewing stage makeup, Fitzgerald expressed amusement with the attention he's getting ("I think someone interviewed the person who shined my shoes the other day") and a fierce determination to stay within what he called the "four corners of the indictment." Asked to compare his probe with that of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky matter, he replied: "I don't even know how to answer that. I'm just going to take a dive."

In a political environment where prosecutions can become about the accuser as much as the accused -- a matter Ken Starr knows something about -- Fitzgerald's deft performance made it clear that the administration's defenders will have a difficult time presenting him as anything but clean and independent. The weight of his presentation could give pause to opponents who would say he brought charges only to justify the investigation.

Fitzgerald seemed acutely aware that he was being judged by millions of Americans. At least 10 times he made references to cameras, microphones or people viewing on TV. When asked why he didn't bring charges on the leaking of classified information, he tried to play ball. "I know baseball analogies are the fad these days," Fitzgerald said, perhaps referring to John Roberts's pledge to be an "umpire" on the Supreme Court -- which set off a World Series of baseball metaphors in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

<b>He likened his role to that of an umpire trying to determine whether a pitcher beaned a batter intentionally or by accident. "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."</b>

As sports metaphors go, Fitzgerald didn't quite hit that one out of the park. And he occasionally sounded defensive about his decision to prosecute the coverup rather than the crime; he said that he would hold a "truck driver" to the same standard as Libby. Sixteen times, he found it necessary to use the word "serious" as he described the charges.

More engaging was Fitzgerald's self-awareness at the need to dodge the main question about the fate of Karl Rove, identified in the indictment only as "Official A."

"For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker," Newsweek's Michael Isikoff ventured. "Can you explain why that official was not charged in this indictment?"

Fitzgerald would not. "I can't give you answers," he said.

When somebody tried again, Fitzgerald replied: "I'm afraid I'm going to have find a polite way of repeating my answer to Mr. Isikoff's question." When a third questioner tried, the prosecutor joked: "I would refer you to Mr. Isikoff, who took great notes on his question about people not charged, which I cannot answer.".........

....and here is what he actually said in his baseball umpire comparison:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801340.html
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

........QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here. ........

loquitur, I think that you are overlooking several things, but I think that you are genuinely interested in satisfying yourelf as to what this is about.

IMO, the white house (including the OVP in that "wh" term) brought the appointment of the special counsel by #2 at the DOJ, Mr. Comey, upon itself.
If you recall, general Ashcroft recused himself, because he was so close to the folks potentially to be investigated by his dept., and designated Comey to be in charge.....for the purpose of the Plame leak investigation, Comey became the US AJ.....

As the Comey supervised leak investigation progressed....into the fall of 2003,

Quote:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...doj-pconf.html
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO OVERSEE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED LEAK OF CIA AGENT IDENTITY AND RECUSAL OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT FROM THE INVESTIGATION

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES COMEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER RAY
DECEMBER 30, 2003

......Q: Is this a suggestion that you brought to him first?

MR. COMEY: I don't want to talk about my discussions with the attorney general. What I can tell you is that <b>it was always in his mind that it might be necessary at some point for him to step away from this, step aside from this, and that it might be necessary to change the way it was approached, to move it outside the normal chain of command.

I can't -- and for that reason -- that was the reason -- much was made in the press, apparently, that he was learning about the facts of it. He was being briefed periodically on the facts, so that he could make the very judgment he made here.</b> And I can tell you none of that acted to delay this investigation in any way. The attorney general learned enough about the case that at a point where it was appropriate, he made the judgment to step aside.

And I, at the same time, was making my own judgments, and that is agreeing with him that it was appropriate for him to step aside, but also reaching the conclusion that it was appropriate to change the way we were handling this, for the reasons I talked about in my statement.

And as I said, I have great confidence in the two guys standing on this stage. And -- but my judgment was, simply because of the subject matter involved here and our duties -- which most people don't realize, but we spend part of every day working on national security intelligence stuff -- that it was better for us to be able to focus on that, which is our nation's number-one priority, and not, at the same time, be making judgments about who to interview and all the things that come with an investigation......

There were accusations in the press that Ashcroft, recused from overseeing the leak investigation was being briefed on it's particulars and it's progress, and was reporting what he learned to the very people who were being questioned in the investigation.....

Since this was an investigation about whether officials in the white house admin. leaked classified info about the identity of a CIA 'operative" as Novak first described her, during a time of "war", the negative press accounts pressured Ashcroft to go even further to convince that he and his department had no conflict. He authorized Comey to pass on all of the authority of the US AJ, in the matter of the leak investigation and any resulting prosecutions, to an impartial outsider, Fitzgerald.

Comey made it clear that Fitzgerald, unlike Ken Starr previously, did not need to receive any approvals from the DOJ during the course of his investigation. He was vested with all of the authority that Ashcroft or Gonzales has, but just for the matter of the leak investigation.

This step was taken only because of press reporting that gave the impression that Ashcroft was not fully recused, as he had claimed. By receiving briefings, there was an appearance of conflict of interests, since he reported to, and interacted with potential suspects in the Bush administration.

loquitur, my point is that your "big fat zero" comment, influences me to believe that you do not accept (or maybe understand ?) that this trial is where the investigation ended up, because Libby blocked the investigation's progress, and then delayed the trial at least 6 months past where it would have been routinely scheduled....to get it past the mid term election of 2 months ago, and to further bolster his "it's been a long time, and I'm very busy, so I don't remember, and neither can these prosecution witnesses", <b>defense.</b>

Once Libby testified before the grand jury, the second time, and Fitzgerald attempted to compare his testimony with that of reporters who he talked to, Fitzgerald ran into the response of the lawyers at the news outlets that the reporters worked for. If Libby had testified in a way that co-operated with the investigation, or if he had taken a plea deal like Ari Fleischer did after he invoked his 5th amendment rights before the grand jury, the investigation could have moved to a conclusion, of to another stumbling block like the one Libby created.

How is the investigation being halted by what Fitzgerald says was Libby's refusal to testify truthfully, supported by Russert, then Cooper, and finally, when she was released from jail, by Judith Miller, and then by Libby's maneuvering to delay his trial, any indication of "a big fat zero"?

What we know we have here is the POTUS himself saying that anyone found to be not telling the truth to investigators will not continue to serve in his administration, changed to anyone convicted of a crime will not be allowed to serve. Then the white house press secretary told the press that he had spoken to both Rove and Libby, received assurances that neither of them had leaked Plame's identity to any member of the press, and that the press secretary believed the denials of these two fine men.

Now we have sworn testimony from a number of news reporters that Libby and Rove discussed Plame's CIA job and her identity with multiple members of the press.

The CIA requested this investigation of a leak of classified material during war time.

I see no indication that the white house, and especially the OVP, want to find out who leaked, ASAP, in the interests of national security. I see the trial as the renewal of the investigation, after Libby effectively halted it's progress.

Would you have had Fitzgerald declare that he would continue his investigation after he nailed Libby? He has been tight lipped during all of this.
The Libby trial will determine what happens next in the investigation. On the surface, there has been a lot of effort to get it to end here. That seems to say to me that people in the administration had something to hide, and they have not impressed me that they want to find the leaker. They seem comfortable that there is no unknown threat to national security. People at the CIA seem to believe that national security was compromised.

In order to discuss this with me....at the risk of how this may read....you have to be "up to speed" about the details of the trial. I don't think a "play by play" from me is the way other people should follow the trial. I anticipated that that would be a further "turn off" to folks who seem to me to be interested, but harboring misconceptions about what this is about, because of the influences of the "spin" they have focussed on, instead of the actual dispatches....like the ones in this post.

Yakk.....I appreciate your frustration. You're in Canada....I give you credit for following this "mess" at all. I'd be glad to share my opinion, and what influences it.....if you have specific questions....

loquitur · 01-25-2007, 08:07 PM

Actually, you're engaging in several layers of speculation, Host. Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that?

The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see.

What may have happened here - what appears to me to make sense as a scenario - is that when Wilson surfaced, there was a mad scramble in the administration to find out who the hell is this guy, who sent him to Africa, what his instructions were, what he reported, etc etc etc. And it turned up after a few questions got asked that his wife worked at the CIA. The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple. I once had a case under the Ethics in Government Act (different statute than the one at issue here, but also with contact restrictions and time periods) and it was a bloody mess to analyze. The classification and intelligence secrecy rules can't be any easier than that. Add to that the fluid situation here where the facts weren't all that clear either. Mix into it the press clamoring around for stories, interviews, facts, exclusives. And what this criminal trial is about, I think, is whether <i>Libby believed</i> the info about Plame was classified or not, and if he thought it was, whether he deliberately lied about his conversations.

That's two levels of fact that have to be established in this case. It still doesn't get you to an underlying crime. You really do need to read the actual statutory language and establish that Valerie Plame's status was covered in order to get a crime here. Citing newspaper articles doesn't cut it.

And look, I understand you <i>want</i> the scenario you pieced together to be true, but right now it's very far from established. It's a theory. Maybe it works, maybe not.

Fitzgerald had a very good reputation, so I tend to take his analyses seriously. On the other hand, strange things seem to happen to perfectly reputable people when they become special prosecutors.

Bear in mind, Rove went back there something like five times to testify. So far we don't know what Fitzgerald thinks was blocked from doing, which avenues he thought he'd get to pursue if only he had more time. He sure seems to have been thorough, doesn't he?

dc_dux · 01-25-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that?

The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see.

Loquitor...according to the indictment:

1f....At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:

i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;

iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and

v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

Full text of the indictment.

The charge that Libby allegedly committed perjury in his grand jury testimony and providing false information in the FBI investigation would seem to me to potentiallly impede the focus of the investigation (as identified in clauses 27, 28 listed above, making clause 29 material as noted) and not as you stated, "exist independent of the investigation."

But as you said, "The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple."

It seems to be that a participant in those discussion who would allegedly commit perjury and make false statements during the investigation would make it even more difficult to determine if laws regarding disclosure of classified information were broken.

Just my lay interpretation.

Rekna · 01-25-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Clinton's perjury and later impeachment in the house?

loquitur · 01-26-2007, 05:35 AM

Rekna, that's true of part but not all as to Clinton. Clinton's problems came initially from his deception in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil case. The rest of the stuff mushroomed out of that. OoJ, of course, sort of requires that there be an investigation, so yes, that piece of it and part of the lying charges came out of the investigation rather than out of independently existing conduct. It's kinda interesting: my law partner opined back then that Clinton should have just defaulted in the Jones case and then had a trial about damages (on the theory that there weren't any). That way he would not have had to testify and all this stuff would never have come up.

dc_dux, those sections of the indictment don't say she was undercover overseas during that time, only that her "employement status" was classified. Do you know what that means? I don't. I doubt it means that the fact she worked at the CIA was secret, because she drove her car openly to and from Langley every day. I suspect it means that <i>what her specific duties were at the CIA</i> were classified.

Classification rules are a bit different from "blowing cover", and - as you know - they are routinely disregarded by pretty much everyone: we wouldn't have much news reporting otherwise. But even taking the classification rules at face value, bear in mind that her status was disclosed by Armitage initially.

This does get hard to keep track of after a while. So far, what I see is that there is massive "he said-she said" going on here. I think I mentioned I'm a lawyer, so I find "he said-she said" stuff to be fairly unpersuasive, though if that is all we have to go on in a particular case, we have to make the best of it. Most cases involving organizations aren't like that because people write stuff down. Contemporaneous documents are the most persuasive evidence we have.

host · 01-27-2007, 01:16 PM

IMO, if the observer from slate.com , who's description closely matches what the blogger, "emptywheel" observed in the third quote box, is correct, and you add the citations in my two preivous posts, linked here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2117020
the preceding link contains:

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2129097/
Liar or Fool?What's left of Scooter Libby's reputation.
By John Dickerson
<h3>Posted Monday, Oct. 31, 2005, at 11:02 AM ET</h3>

When Democratic wise man Clark Clifford was accused of acting as a front for the corrupt Pakistani bank BCCI, he admitted, "I have a choice of either seeming stupid or venal."....

.....Scooter Libby is in the same fix: His reputation is now a witness against him. Libby is known for his precision and intellect. I, like many of the reporters who now must cover his trial, remember the micrometer he used to measure our questions and assumptions. So it's hard to buy his lawyer's suggestion that Libby's misstatements to the FBI and grand jury were due to a shaky memory made shakier by "the hectic rush of issues and events at a busy time for our government." Yes, he worked 14-hour days handling tricky and disparate issues. But this isn't a matter of forgetting what you had for lunch. How Libby learned Plame's identity was a central question of a 22-month investigation. He had time to think this through.

Before Libby gets a chance to defend himself in court, he must suffer through speculation about the seemingly more plausible rationale for his actions: that he knew he should not have spoken about Plame and that to cover up having done so, he fashioned a fictitious narrative. .......

.........More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position. Why not? It certainly would have been helpful for him at the time. His colleagues were savaging him at the time for bungling the response to Wilson's July 6 New York Times opinion piece. They blamed him for not sufficiently refuting the article. By leaking the Plame information, Fleischer could have discredited Wilson, muddied the story, and won back the affection of his complaining colleagues.

Fleischer and Rove each discussed Plame with Scooter. A tantalizing fact still hidden in Fitzgerald's briefcase is whether Libby in those conversations with Fleischer and Rove discussed disclosing Plame's identity.....

<b>....and now we know that Ari Fleischer admitted leaking Plame's name to NBC's David Gregory, and at least one other reporter....and then went for an immunity deal and will trade away Scooter to pay for it.....</b>

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2116486

...it is now my contention that this is over. Libby and his lawyers should be working to obtain a plea deal for him, BEFORE Ari Fleischer testifies.

I predict that won't happen and Libby will be convicted of perjury, based largely on Fleischer's testimony:

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/entry/2158330/
Dispatches From the Scooter Libby Trial

from: Seth Stevenson
What I Didn't Learn at the Urinal
Updated Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007, at 9:50 PM ET

........4:46 p.m.: The jury—and Martin—has been dismissed for the day. It's time for a highly entertaining lawyer slap fight. It turns out Ari Fleischer will be the next witness, once court resumes Monday. (Damn, just missed him!) The defense team wants to note—for the jury's benefit—that Fleischer demanded immunity before he would agree to testify, because this might cast Fleischer's testimony in a different light.

And here Fitzgerald makes a nice little chess move: Fine, he says, we can acknowledge that Fleischer sought immunity. As long as we explain why. Turns out Fleischer saw a story in the Washington Post suggesting that anyone who revealed Valerie Plame's identity might be subject to the death penalty. And he freaked. Of course, if Fleischer was this worked up about it during the time period in question, that suggests Libby would have been, too. (Which again undermines the notion that Libby had much bigger fish to fry.)

Cue 20 minutes of lawyers whining about each other's conduct. Finally, the judge tells them to cool it. "This is why I quit practicing," he says. "Other lawyers kept accusing me of doing things I hadn't done."...

Quote:

http://spbiloxi.blogspot.com/2007/01...thie_7055.html
....Update 9:

Footnote: Zeidenberg is the assistant attorney on the prosecution side. And J is Jeffress.
["host" inserts: Jeffress is Libby's co-defense counsel....]

Lawyers juggling papers. Maybe they're taking Cathie's notes?
J: What is the issue regarding Mr. Fleischer cannot represent what Fleischer what he will say. Fleischer got immunity. Alerted this morning that Zeidenberg intends to ask Fleischer why he got immunity, he'd say he read that outing a CIA spy could be a crime. Completely improper to mention it.
<b>J: they want to put in 1X2X6 article. Jeffress contends the claims in the article was totally untrue.
Zeidenberg: Fleischer's going to testify that he did seek immunity and he would not talk to the gov’t before he obtained it and he'll explain why he wanted immunity the reason he wanted it the evening of 9/28 he found the story online which indicated a criminal investigation into possible disclosure of covert agent he knew he had conveyed info to reporters that was previously conveyed to him by Libby. He realized your heart goes in your throat.</b> The following day obtained legal counsel beg and discussing with attorneys. We're not introducing this article for the truth of the matter. Mr. Wells showed an article to Ms. Martin that she had never seen, he put and read a lot of it. Court said it could be relevant for state of mind.
Walton; the article will suggest other criminal behavior that could have resulted. If the defense would forgo the fact taht he got immunity, it sees the govt should have some opportunity about why it was sought. Otherwise if the defense brings it out the implication may be that he was willing to talk but it may have a negative impact on his credibility. It would be unfair for the defense to bring it up.
Zeidenberg: Defense already opened, said he has an immunity agreement. Jeffress has said he'll bring it up, at the end they'll argue about immunized witnesses. This exhibit would be relevant not only in connection with this, the gist of this is also encompassed in a October 12 article which Libby underlined and he was specifically questioned about the allegation that two WH officials Libby acknowledged he had the article, it was two days before he testified, it's admissible independently of Fleischer. The FBI agent will testify they were investigating the 1X2X6 allegation, the FBI just like Libby had a copy, the FBI would have been remiss not to be seeking if there's anything behind the allegation. The article is not being offered for the truth. Ari did not believe for a second that he telephoned a reporter…
Walton: [interrupts] Why can't he testify he read an article
Zeidenberg: the article is only relevant
Walton: why not let Ari testify that he read an article. Because of concern about whether it was.
Zeidenberg: if it said that it was a misdemeanor that would be one thing. You could tell them it's not relevant to the person's mindset.
Walton if Libby has an article it reveals he had concerns he may have committed a crime. Even if the article is wrong as it relates to Libby and he's got it underlined, maybe he had a motive to lie. However in reference to Mr. Flesicher. Unless there's some vigorous attack on Ari. He had concerns about Ari.
Zeidenberg: The critical part of the article as far as Fleischer is concerned. Maybe we can negotiate a satisfactory amont of evidence read the very beginning of the article and he knew that some Admin officials has passed this on and this was a possible violation of Federal law.
Walton: My concern is that the jury not get the impression that Mr Libby had committed a crime when he read it.
Z: He's in a situation that he spoke to reporters and the subject matter may have related to a covert agent.
Walton trying to find a way for Ari to express why he had a concern, but that didn't want to prejudice Libby.
Jeffress: I would like to point out this is not something someone reads an article Fleischer is represented by Williams and Connelly.....

loquitur · 01-27-2007, 08:27 PM

sorry, I don't see how all this fits here.
But then, I don't see conspiracies everywhere.

host · 01-27-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

sorry, I don't see how all this fits here.
But then, I don't see conspiracies everywhere.

loquitur, you're an attorney, I'm just a lay person with too much time on his hands.....

Here's a link to Judge Walton's 38 page order, in response to Libby's defense team's "graymail" demands:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...inion_CIPA.pdf

Here is a much better explanation of the defense team's strategy and demands on the government and on the judge:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120101219.html

Libby Trial May Discuss Terror, Nukes

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Friday, December 1, 2006; 9:14 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby says that during the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity he was preoccupied with terrorist threats, Iraq's new government and emerging nuclear programs in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea.

Court records released Friday offered the first glimpse of the type of classified information Libby wants to share with jurors at his upcoming perjury and obstruction trial.

<b>Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury about his conversations with journalists regarding former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Libby plans to testify that he had other, more weighty issues on his mind and simply misspoke or forgot when interviewed by the FBI and the grand jury.</b>

Among those issues were the 2003 rise of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, a diplomatic crisis in Turkey, the ousting of Liberian President Charles Taylor and the role of the Iraqi military after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled last month that Libby must have access to some classified information at trial but, until Friday, the topics were sealed.

A redacted copy of Walton's opinion revealed that Libby wants to use 129 classified documents. Walton said Libby could discuss documents that fell on or near key dates in the case, such as when the aide spoke to reporters and investigators.

Libby's bid for classified information is significant for two reasons. If the government decides the material Walton orders released cannot safely be made public, the case could be dismissed. If the case goes forward and the evidence is allowed, the trial could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the White House in the early months of the war in Iraq.

Exactly what Libby may say about the classified topics is unclear. Prosecutors and defense attorneys continued to argue those issues behind closed doors this week.

Walton said he tried to balance national security concerns with Libby's right to a fair trial. The judge stressed that pre-approving classified evidence "requires a court to play the role of Johnny Carson's character Carnac the Magnificent by requiring it to render rulings before knowing the exact context of how those rulings will coincide with other evidence that has actually been developed at trial."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said he may appeal Walton's ruling, a move that could delay a trial scheduled to begin next month. Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove could be called as witnesses.

Libby is the only person charged in Fitzgerald's three-year investigation into whether the White House revealed Plame's identity as retribution for her husband's criticism of the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Nobody has been charged with the leak.

Libby 's request for classified material was contingent on him taking the witness stand and testifying that he was "too busy" around July 11, 2003, to remember that he had been told, at least a month before, that "Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA.

He later testified before the Plame leak investigation, that he learned it. "as if for the first time", from Tim Russert. Russert gave a sworn statement saying that he never discussed Wilson's wife with Libby.

This week, Libby's attorney tried to work the CIPA material into his opening, and he told the jury that Ari Fleischer would be giving "bargained testimony" against Libby, because he had made an immunity agreement with prosecutor Fitzgerald.

If you are genuinely interested in understanding my point, please go back and read the last quote box in my last post, and then persuade me that Libby is an innocent defendent represented by a zealous defense team that is acting ethically and is trying to avoid pissing off Judge Walton and the prosecution.

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...r_b_39634.html
.....To set the scene, prior to the testimony of Craig Schmall, the CIA briefer for Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, there had been a series of hearings and motions filed by the government, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, and Libby's legal team, primarily led in these matters by John Cline and Ted Wells, over the last few months preceding the trial. Judge Walton heard arguments on these matters under the CIPA rules and regulations, and then issued orders and memoranda laying out the procedures by which any of this information -- relating to highly classified national security documents and intelligence -- could be admitted, if at all, in the course of these legal proceedings.

In order to introduce the "memory defense" that Libby's legal team wants to use to defend Libby -- the "my difficult job made me lie and forget" defense -- Mr.
Libby himself will have to take the stand because it is ultimately his memories which are at issue in terms of his state of mind and his alleged flashoods to the FBI and the grand jury. <b>During Mr. Schmall's testimony, the Libby defense team is trying to slip that memory defense and the national security information which has already been ruled, in part, to be very limitedly admissible, if at all, into the minds of the jury through a back door and a completely unrelated witness.

In effect, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued this morning, to "bootstrap" the evidence and the arguments into the case.
</b>
I can certainly understand wanting to defend your client with every legal weapon in your arsenal. I can also understand feeling constrained in terms of your defense because national security considerations require you to be circumspect in how you can or cannot introduce certain evidence into the trial proceedings. But the CIPA hearings in this matter occurred over a series of weeks, months even, and the Libby legal team has had quite some time ot work out their witness questions and other strategies to overcome this obstacle.

In fact, Judge Walton has bent over backward in a number of his rulings, pressing the government repeatedly for more expansive summary information to be provided as evidence for the jury's consideration -- so much so that Fitzgerald and his team, and attorneys from the CIA had to start from scratch and re-draft and re-redact documents in order to fulfill the judge's orders.

To pull this sort of stunt during trial is a slap at the authority of the court and its very detailed, very specific orders -- and the judge's very careful and thorough consideration of the defendant's rights to this very closely guarded, very difficult to obtain information regarding some highly classified national security matters. Judge Walton was clearly not happy, but was still leaning toward a ruling that left the information somewhat on the table for Team Libby until Wells could not stop himself from "gilding the lily" -- Wells started arguing that CIA witnesses "should not be believed" because of their biases toward the Vice President's office, and tat he should be able to argue that to the jury based on Schmall's briefing notes. <b>Judge Walton informed Libby's legal team that he would not permit an argument on a memory defense at closing absent testimony from Libby, because otherwise the memory defense was not relevant to the proceeedings</b>...and that ended the argument, and the judge agreed to issue a terse cautionary instruction on the CIPA information and questions that Mr. Clne had asked, and we went on to the next legal argument........

How convincing will Libby's "important man, important job....too busy to remember" defense" look to the jury, if he does not testify....to describe the CIPA material that was supposed to be indispensable to properly defend himself, and after Ari Fleischer testifies that Libby discussed Plame's identity with him, 3 days before Libby swore that Russert "told" him, and when Ari describes being so concerned that he committed a crime when he passed along what Libby told him, that he refused to testify before the same grand jury, invoking his fifth amendment rights?

loquitur · 01-28-2007, 11:30 AM

You know what, Host? Ted Wells is a lot smarter than you or me or just about any of the reporters (as to the latter that's not really saying much). Judge Walton is a big boy, he's been around the block, and he knows which requests are real and which are tactical. He's not likely to get pissed off; most of the federal judges I know view this stuff as being all in a day's work. A lot of this stuff, including from the prosecution, is an elaborate kabuki dance, with the jury as the intended audience.

As you know, I'm an attorney, which is why I don't convince myself of stuff early in a case I'm not involved with. I know better. (For instance, it took a good few weeks for me to be convinced OJ really was guilty. After that, though, I was pretty hard to dissuade, and to this day I think that jury in his criminal case didn't decide the case on the facts.)

host · 01-28-2007, 11:55 PM

loquitur,

Joe diGenova & Vic(ky) Toensing were bth smart enough to pass the bar and become federal prosecutors....but they both have less credibility than a broken clock....

Clarice masqerades as an attorney and as a "thinker"......

Quote:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...ia_is_n_1.html

By Clarice Feldman
In the wake of the first week of the Libby Trial, Patrick Fitzgerald's soufflé has turned into a pancake. Of course, if you are getting your news of the trial from the press you're certain to believe Libby is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reporting is as bad as I've ever seen (Matt Apuzzo of AP being the rare exception of a reporter who's getting it mostly right)......

Quote:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...ffice_of_.html
Sept. 20, 2006

Dear Office Of Professional Responsibility

Clarice Feldman follows up her Weekly Standard article about the Plame case by sending a letter to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility questioning the conduct of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

Ms. Feldman raises an interesting question with a fun backstory - was Ms. Plame actually covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and did Mr. Fitzgerald misrepresent her status under the IIPA to the court in his affidavit of Aug 27 2004?

First, Ms. Feldman:

At no time in the unredacted portions of the affidavit did Fitzgerald directly say that Plame met the test of the IIPA - which she clearly does not -but in various ways he deliberately left the Court with that impression in order to effect the rare contempt order and jailing of a reporter.

And for the backstory, let's cut to Jack Shafer, who pounded on the NY Times and their lead attorney. Floyd Abrams, for basing their argument on the First Amendment while attempting to have the subpoena against Time reporter Judy Miller quashed:

Maybe a First Amendment legend isn't what this case called for in the first place. Maybe Cooper and Miller would have been better served by having a criminal lawyer who knows how to bargain.

With New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. promising to appeal this decision, perhaps both Cooper and Miller might want to rethink the utility of hanging their whole case on this First Amendment defense. If I were running their defense committee, I'd give the case to Bruce W. Sanford.

...

What could Sanford do for Cooper and Miller that Abrams can't? For one thing, he could tack away from the First Amendment argument. Even though I'm a First Amendment extremist, I found Abrams' oral argument before the D.C. Circuit to be wishful and flabby. I don't know of any court, let alone the Supreme Court, that is likely to hold that reporters possess a near automatic right to ignore grand jury subpoenas.

If I'm right, a fresh law jockey might be the ticket. In their op-ed, Sanford and Toensing called upon the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and the two reporters to ask Judge Thomas Hogan, who oversees the grand jury, "to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity." They conclude their piece, "Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present."

Eventually a consortium of newspapers did hire Bruce Sanford to file an amicus brief making the "no crime" argument, without any apparent success. But since I had been arguing that the courts would let this proceed for other reasons, I would hardly say that Mr. Sanford's apparent failure demonstrates that the IIPA does in fact cover Ms. Plame.

....I've just named three lawyers who seem to view the Plame leak investigation as an excuse to take stupid pills.....and I'm hoping that all of them STFU when Libby exhausts all of his appeals.....around 2014.....

loquitur · 01-29-2007, 11:17 AM

au contraire, Host, I think you're persuading yourself of stuff that people who know the process and have gone through it know better than to take at face value. IIRC, DiGenova was himself a special prosecutor at one time. I understand you want Libby to hang, but you're jumping to conclusions now based on less than full information. Stupid pills? I don't think so. There's a reason judges instruct juries not to make up their minds until all the evidence is in.

What I can tell you is that, when I worked in the courthouse for a federal judge 21 years ago, one thing I learned fairly quickly is that reporters (even legal reporters, who are supposed to know the process) simply do not and probably cannot get it right. If they get 80-85% they're ahead of the game. It's not malicious; it's a combination of time pressure, lack of immersion, issues of perspective and idiosyncracy.

And that's why it's important to get your news from different sources so that you can filter your inputs. I have no idea what the evidence will show down the road - and neither do you. What I do know is that I have a life and I'm not going to spend it reading trial transcripts in a case I'm not involved in.

The other thing is this: have you decided that Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer are reliable witnesses? Would your opinion have been different a year ago, before you knew they were going to testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial? Mull over that question and be honest with yourself, then consider the implications of your answer.

I should add something else, and this is politically incorrect. In most criminal trials the defendant is guilty. There are a few reasons for that. (1) Prosecutors have limited resources and don't want to squander them on cases where there is substantial doubt about whether they can get a conviction. (2) The criminal process is set up so that there are levels of proof at succeeding stages of the case. As you go through the process, the chance that the person identified isn't guilty of something gets smaller and smaller.

There are countervailing propositions, though: (1) if a defendant knows he is likely to be convicted he usually can improve his outcome by cutting a deal to avoid trial and give the prosecutors something. (2) Related to this, the more chance a defendant sees of possibly being acquitted due to failure of proof or otherwise (and remember, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard), the more likely he'll go to trial. So if the defendant goes to trial and didn't cop a plea, his/her attorney has made a judgment that there is a reasonable chance of punching through the government's proof.

That's the reasoning in a normal case. When there is a special prosecutor the calculation is totally different because the special prosecutor by definition has no other cases competing for his attention, and the target of the inquiry is likely to be high enough in the hierarchy that the chances of a plea go down because there is no one to be offered up in a plea deal. That drives more of the cases to trial, and also means that the evidence is likely to be somewhat thinner. Bear in mind, though, that Fitzgerald declined to indict a lot of others, which means he made a judgment he couldn't get convictions as to them but could get a conviction as to Libby.

I'm pointing all this out because the dynamic of how these things work tends to get lost here. I said up above that I am generally suspicious of special prosecutors because they get married to their missions. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, but you can't make the inferential leap from the existence of evidence for an indictment to sufficiency of evidence for a conviction, especially in a case like this one. Otherwise you have to accept Ken Starr's work, too.

host · 01-29-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

au contraire, Host, I think you're persuading yourself of stuff that people who know the process and have gone through it know better than to take at face value. IIRC, DiGenova was himself a special prosecutor at one time. I understand you want Libby to hang, but you're jumping to conclusions now based on less than full information. Stupid pills? I don't think so. There's a reason judges instruct juries not to make up their minds until all the evidence is in......

loquitur, I think that I've prevented plenty of support at the two following links for my opinion that both DiGenova, and his wife, Toensing, should neve be allowed in a court room again....they have thrown away their integrity and credibility via blind partisanship with a greed driven dividend:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=36

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35

Quote:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...ia_is_n_1.html
By Clarice Feldman

<b>......Spikey says Libby told Fleischer that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA and that was "hush hush". Having seen the mischaracterization of all the witness statements to date by the prosecution and the odd inferences drawn by the special prosecutor from them, I'll wait and see to what Fleischer actually testifies.</b> My recollection is the hush hush was about other matters relating to the uranium in Africa tale, which was moving through the CIA declassification process at the speed of frozen molasses (because the agency was clearly trying to forestall further embarrassment that this nonsensical Mission to Africa was causing it).

Finally, Spikey says Fleischer then heard about Plame from Bartlett and passed it on to NBC's David Gregory. Last week during the trial, we learned for the very first time that Gregory who had earlier claimed "no one called him"-implying he'd received no information about Plame -- was leaked the information by Fleischer. <b>There were a number of earlier reports that Fleischer saw the details about Plame in the INR which he was given while flying on Air Force One,</b> and immediately told Gregory, who ever afterward pretended he never knew this and who was never questioned by the crack special prosecution team.........

<b>IMO, Ari Fleischer's testimony reinforced my suspicion that Clarice Feldman (see above) is correct less often than a broken clock is......</b>

Before you read Ari Fleischer's testimony about Libby and Dan Bartlett, consider that the State Dept. INR :
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...l_evidence.pdf
that Bartlett was reading on Air Force One on July 7, 2003, described Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, and the word "secret" is handwritten near the top of the document, and that it has "provisionally de-classified, (so that it could be used as evidence in Libby's trial...) later stamped on it, too. See for yourself, at the preceding link.....it seems safe to assume that Libby and Bartlett had to know that this information was classified when they both told Fleischer, without telling him that it was classified info.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012900504.html
Former Press Secretary Says Libby Told Him of Plame
Fleischer's Testimony On Timing Supports Prosecution's Case

By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; Page A03

.......Fleischer was the first witness to say Libby then passed on what he learned: that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer who had sent him on a trip to Africa. Wilson's mission there was to explore reports, ultimately proved false, that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material in Niger.

Fleischer, testifying under an immunity agreement with the prosecution, also made it clear that Libby had told him Wilson's wife held a position in the CIA's counterproliferation division, where most employees work in a covert capacity.

Fleischer said he believes Libby mentioned Plame's name, although he told the jury he could not be sure. Libby "added that this was something hush-hush or on the QT, that not many people knew this information," Fleischer testified.........

<b>Background of trial reporter/blogger, "emptywheel":</b>
http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer...920.xml&coll=2
Blogger to provide Libby trial play-by-play Local consultant expert on the scandal
Monday, January 22, 2007.......

Quote:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/2...fleischer-one/
<b>Libby Live: Ari Fleischer One</b>
By: emptywheel

.....A reminder of housekeeping rules: This is not a transcript. I'm getting as close as I can get. But trust me, I'm not a court reporter!.....

.......P[rosecutor] Lunch on July 7.

Fl[eischer] I had announced I was going to be leaving, "Spend time with family." Shortly after Mr. Libby asked to go to lunch.

P enters govt. exhibit, schedule for that day.

12:00 lunch with Libby

P was it routine to have lunch engagemnts.

Fl typically I would eat at my desk.

P had you ever had lunch with Mr. Libby

Fl no sir

Fl our relationship good, I liked Mr Libby, I did not consider him as a source, when I asked him questions, he would tell me to ask Dr. Rice NSA.

P notwithstanding your relationship with Libby was good.

Fl yes

P where and who was present?

Fl just Libby and me

P was anything discussed

Fl my plans what I was going to do in the private sector. Talked about sports, football, both fans of the Dolphins. I don't remember if I brought up or Libby brought up the briefing. I said I got asked about Wilson. I said what I was asked by the OVP to say. What I recall Libby saying to me, reiterated that VP did not send Wilson. Amabssador Wilsongot sent by his wife, she works at CIA, Works in CPD, I recall that he told me her name. This is hush hush this is on the QT.

Schuster's Hail to Victors going. People pissed.

P[rosecutor] Context

Fl[eischer] I was asked about the briefing.

P What word did Libby use when he described Wilson's wife.

Fl I remember him saying she works at CIA at CPD.

P Did you know what it meant.

Fl not in specific, I don't know enough about CIA inner structure to know what it means.

P her name, how did he describe her name

Fl I believe he said Valerie Plame

Fl the news that VP had not sent him, it was the first time I ever heard it.

P what did you understand Libby to mean by hush hush

Fl I thought it was kind of odd. My sense was Libby was saying it was kind of newsie, no one knows.

P did you understand that it was classified

Fl absolutely not. There's a very strict protocol when classified info is spread, my experience, when someone conveyed info that I was authorized to hear, it was always, "this is classified you're authorized to hear." When it's oral, people always say, "this is classified you cannot use it."

P What was your understanding of purpose of bringing up the wife?

Objection Sustained

Sidebar.

12:24

Ari looking up, not focusing on anything. Sometimes using his hands to speak.

P Did you take from the comment about the wife that there was some improper comment

Fl My thought was that there was nepotism. That was what I thought I was hearing.

P Did you feel there was any restrictions. If we can approach.

Sidebar.........

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/2...fleischer-two/
<b>Libby Live: Ari Fleischer two</b>

....Jurors coming in.

You may be seated, good afternoon. Asks about temperature. Ari is laughing about something. Now has his face fixed again.

P[rosecutor] resuming.

P just finishing up asking questions about lunch on July 7. Did Libby say anything to you to make you think the info was classified or protected. Later that day, overseas trip.

Fl[eischer] Overnight flight to Senegal. The President was going on a trip, left out of Edwards aboard AF1.

P Staff

Fl COS, SOS,NSA, Bartlett, and other support people from WH, press aboard AF1......

......P[rosecutor] Did you hear someone on AF1 make another reference to Wilson's wife.

Fl[eischer] Staff cabin, Dan Bartlett, Comm Dir, reading a different document. He said, "I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA. He said this in front of me.

P Would you characterize this as a conversation?

Fl Dan was venting. That became the second reference I learned, I overheard. I don't recall who was there.

P What was your reaction?

Fl I heard all this before. Never seemed very newsie. The one thing it backed up my statement, VP didn't send Ambassador, he was sent by his wife. I had one more nugget to back up that statement.

P Were you in Uganda. Can you tell us if you had an occasion to talk to reporters by the side of the road.

Fl President walking toward second event. Meeting with young children who were going to sing songs. A group of reporters on the side of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine.

P was this a formal interview?

Fl One of the many conversations I had with the press, the event was not one I had to be there. You sidle up to reporters and chat what was on their mind. Maybe this will address some of these issues about how people got sent. This backs up WH statement.......

........Walton, In reference to the Witness' testimony about what he read in the newspaper. That testimony is only relevant as it relates to his state of mind was. It has no relevance to this case. <h3>I don't know based on what has been presented to me, what her status was. It's totally irrelevant to this case. ("host" adds...I believe that this paragraph is comments by Judge Walton about Plame's status at CIA...)</h3>

P[rosecutor] Your last day at the WH was when

Fl[eischer] July 14, 2003

Fl The next I started my own business

P Late September, two and a half months later. Did you learn information that caused you concern.

Fl I saw article in NYT that CIA asked DOJ into investigation of identity of covert CIA agent. Went online at WaPo, read very big story about CIA asking for criminal investigation. I read that article.

P Was the person identified?

Fl As I recall it was Amb Joseph Wilson's wife. I was absolutely horrified. I thought I may have played a role in outing, oh my god did I play a role in outing a CIA officer, even though I had no idea that she was classifed or covert,

P What did you do?

Fl I contacted counsel.

P is that how you subsequently obtained immunity

Fl Yes

P Prior to obtaining immunity did you answer questions.

Fl No, bc I thought I might somehow be in trouble,

P Once you obtained immunity, did you answer all the questions put to you.

Walton reminds that this article only relates to Ari.

<b>Defense cross examination follows at preceding link, and here:</b>
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/2...eischer-three/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/2...vid-addington/
<b> Libby Live: David Addington Monday, January 29th, 2007
By: emptywheel</b>

(Patrick Fitzgerald) F Were you involved

(David Addington) A Yes. Took place in COS office to VP, West Wing, larger office in OEB. Very small office, probably about the size of your table. Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information. The answer was yes. It's clear a President has authority, I cited a specific case. In that case, court said Dept of Navy v. Egan. Pres by virtue of role as Commander in Chief. Flows directly from Constitution and therefore I said Pres does have the authority even though there is a separate provision, although there are procedures, that would not prevent Pres from declassifying something. It's open and shut. Libby didn't give context. he just asked question about Pres' power.

F DId Libby give you an idea of what he was going to do with info

A No.

F Conversation about CIA paperwork

A Asked if someone worked at CIA, would there be records. Normal for him to ask me bc he knew I worked at the CIA. Kind of paperwork would depend on whether you were on the Operations or Analytical side. On operational side, CIA officers are not just free to use whoever they want, need to get approval, requesting permission to use someone, would generate paperwork approval. On analytical side there'd be a letter of instruction or contract. In any case, this is the govt, when you spend money, there's a money trail. I did tell him also it had been 20 years since I worked at the CIA.

(Patrick Fitzgerald) F <b>During this conversation did [you ask] Libby....why he was asking?</b>

F Did he give you a name?

(David Addington) A No

F Where did it take place.

A In that small office.

F Were they the same conversation?

A I believe so

F Is there a door to this room?

A is babbling away. It's a very small office and you couldn't have more than two people.

A At one point he extended his hands and put them down [as if to quiet him.]

<b>F How did that conversation end?

A I remember him getting up and going out the door. Went into VP's office, following somebody–I think it was Hadley.

A After Wilson was on television after he did Russert's talk show. Once I knew that I knew the Wilson thing was going on. Before we went on the Reagan aircraft carrier trip.</b>

THis guy mumbles and has no apparent neck.

F Why is it you're certain it took place after Wilson's appearance?

A That's when I became aware of it, I wondered if it was about Wilson–he didn't use the name Wilson.

F Prior to that conversation were you aware of that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.

A No mumble mumble mumble .....

<b>In the immediately preceding sentences, is the testimony of Cheney's current COS, and former Office of VP Counsel, David Addington. The following Jan. 29 morning cross-examination segment of Cheney PS, Cathy Martin, by Libby's lawyer Wells, established that the "Reagan aircraft carrier trip" described by David Addington, is the "July 12. Travel to Norfolk"</b>

Quote:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/2...e-martin-four/
<b>Libby Live: Cathie Martin, Four</b>
By: emptywheel

....Martin: I don't know that, but I assumed that.

<b>Wells: July 12. Travel to Norfolk.</b> The plane left very early. That was the birthday [when he says it, it sounds like, "birfday"; update 7/28: I need to explain something about Wells. In the media room, we've joked about counting how many personalities he'll appear in. In particular, he shifts readily between a downhome personality to a very patrician attitude. It appears to be something he turns off and on at will. So I read the pronounciation as an effort to make this whole family thing seem more down to earth, which is the reason I mentioned the pronounciation.] So the kids had to be up very early to be on the plane to Norfolk. You understood Libby was anxious to get home bc of the kids.

M I understood it was bc it was his son's birthday, and his son shouldn't have to wait on his birthday.

W Part of the reason for bringing the kids was so they could enjoy the celebration.

M It was a fun trip.

W By the time you got back it had been a pretty long day. Also on July 12, call to Cooper. Libby made a call to Kessler. And Libby made a call to Evan Thomas.

M And left a message.

.....so we have testimony from Ari Flesicher that Libby took him to lunch for the only time, ever, and told him that "Wilson's wife" was named "Plame", and that she worked in the:

Quote:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall October 28, 2005 03 ...
<b>The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations</b>, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA ...
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

....Fleischer testified that Libby did not say that this information was classified...just that it was "hush, hush"...."on the QT". Fleischer testified that he did not pass this info along to news reporters, until after....a day later, he heard his white house boss, Dan Bartlett, say, out loud, while talking to himself but with Fleischer, nearby, in a small enclosed section on "Air Force One", <b>""I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA."</b>

David Addington's testimony fixed the date (...about Fri., 7/11/03..) that Libby asked him if the president could declassify, classified infromation, and if there were paper records at CIA on employees there who worked "on the Operations or Analytical side".....

Addington's testimony also included his recollection that, after Libby asked his questions of the then OVP chief Counsel, Libby joined Cheney and now NSC advisor, Stephen Hadley, in a closed door meeting in Cheney's office.....

<b>loquitur, if you've gotten this far, would you agree that the corporate press outlets are doing a shitty job of covering this trial, considering the testimony to date, and the fact that Karl Rove still enjoys a high level security clearance that provides access to classified material, is curious....especially during wartime....since he's already an established leaker of Plame's name and CIA employment, to reporters?</b>

loquitur · 01-30-2007, 07:23 AM

Host, couple of observations. First, something isn't true or false based on who says it. Second, waiting until a lot more of the evidence is in before arriving at conclusions is usually a good idea in a trial - and that would be true no matter who said it. For instance, you don't know what the defense's case looks like, do you? I sure don't. There was something about Cheney testifying but I don't know who else might - and I don't think anyone else does, either (except Ted Wells and his people).

Beyond that, though, there was more to my post above, most of which had to do with some trial dynamics that you're just ignoring:

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

What I can tell you is that, when I worked in the courthouse for a federal judge 21 years ago, one thing I learned fairly quickly is that reporters (even legal reporters, who are supposed to know the process) simply do not and probably cannot get it right. If they get 80-85% they're ahead of the game. It's not malicious; it's a combination of time pressure, lack of immersion, issues of perspective and idiosyncracy.

And that's why it's important to get your news from different sources so that you can filter your inputs. I have no idea what the evidence will show down the road - and neither do you. What I do know is that I have a life and I'm not going to spend it reading trial transcripts in a case I'm not involved in.

The other thing is this: have you decided that Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer are reliable witnesses? Would your opinion have been different a year ago, before you knew they were going to testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial? Mull over that question and be honest with yourself, then consider the implications of your answer.

I should add something else, and this is politically incorrect. In most criminal trials the defendant is guilty. There are a few reasons for that. (1) Prosecutors have limited resources and don't want to squander them on cases where there is substantial doubt about whether they can get a conviction. (2) The criminal process is set up so that there are levels of proof at succeeding stages of the case. As you go through the process, the chance that the person identified isn't guilty of something gets smaller and smaller.

There are countervailing propositions, though: (1) if a defendant knows he is likely to be convicted he usually can improve his outcome by cutting a deal to avoid trial and give the prosecutors something. (2) Related to this, the more chance a defendant sees of possibly being acquitted due to failure of proof or otherwise (and remember, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard), the more likely he'll go to trial. So if the defendant goes to trial and didn't cop a plea, his/her attorney has made a judgment that there is a reasonable chance of punching through the government's proof.

That's the reasoning in a normal case. When there is a special prosecutor the calculation is totally different because the special prosecutor by definition has no other cases competing for his attention, and the target of the inquiry is likely to be high enough in the hierarchy that the chances of a plea go down because there is no one to be offered up in a plea deal. That drives more of the cases to trial, and also means that the evidence is likely to be somewhat thinner. Bear in mind, though, that Fitzgerald declined to indict a lot of others, which means he made a judgment he couldn't get convictions as to them but could get a conviction as to Libby.

I'm pointing all this out because the dynamic of how these things work tends to get lost here. I said up above that I am generally suspicious of special prosecutors because they get married to their missions. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, but you can't make the inferential leap from the existence of evidence for an indictment to sufficiency of evidence for a conviction, especially in a case like this one. Otherwise you have to accept Ken Starr's work, too.

And there is far more here to read than any human being who has a job can follow if that human being isn't cherry-picking stories. See, for example, the Media Bloggers Association's <A HREF="http://www.mediabloggers.org/aggregator/categories/3">news aggregation page</A> on the Libby Trial.

host · 02-05-2007, 11:20 PM

Post in progress.... (not finished yet !)

Seymour Hersh started asking questions much sooner than Joe Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed piece:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030331fa_fact1

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/200....html#comments

On March 23, 2003, it looks like Bush gave Cheney unprecedented authorization to de-classify secret info about Wilson's trip to Niger:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm

....this coincides with Hersh's work on his article, published in New Yorker issue dated March 31, 2003......

loquitur · 02-23-2007, 10:23 AM

I'd guess Libby probably won't spend time in jail. Either an acquittal or a reversal on appeal. But then, I've been wrong before.

Rekna · 02-23-2007, 11:10 AM

don't forget the pardon option either.

I wonder how fair a trial that is this political can be. We have all seen people who support a certain party over another regardless of how wrong something they did is. What are the chances of someone like that ending up in the jury pool and the jury coming back hung.

dc_dux · 03-06-2007, 09:18 AM

Guilty- one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements

Not Guilty - one count of making false statements

Just the latest example in Washington that the cover up (in this case lying to protect Cheney) may often get you in more trouble than the crime.

host · 03-06-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps they are just out of truth

The important thing here for the left will be to keep trying to assault the character of the members of this administration, reguardless of proof. I mean remember Cheney was CEO of Haliburton!

Oh and Rekna is Newsweek mainstream enough for you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

How about CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...nn_allpolitics

The left wing Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082801278.html

Oh and Yahoo.news gives this
Plame considering suing Armitage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/..._leak_woodward

Case closed, but it never really was open. Just another kangaroo court of the left wing political spin machine.

Does Libby's conviction on 4 of 5 counts, after looonnnnggggg, careful, jury deliberation....in a trial where Libby failed to take the stand to defend himself, in his own words, in a trial where the defense told the court that both Libby and Cheney would testify in Libby's defense.....but never did..... indicate to anyone else that some of us didn't "have this right", during the whole length of this CIA "classified leak" investigation.....or....am I missing something...?

01-23-2007, 03:52 PM	#90 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	In his opening statement, Fitzgerald said today that Cheney "was deeply involved in the CIA link" against Valerie Plame and that Libby destroyed a note from Cheney about their conversations and about how he (Cheney) wanted the Wilson matter handled. This alleged abuse of classified information for political purposes, and Libby's subsequent lying about it, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is serious shit...not smoke and mirrors. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-23-2007, 07:50 PM	#92 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I know full well that Libby wasnt indicted for leaking classfied information AND that he was indicted for more the "misleading investigators". There are five counts in the indictment - one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. The indictment also includes the following language: In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation." What is at stake is more than misleading investigators. The crime is perjury and obstruction of justice. While not directly indictable, the motive and rationale for those illegal actions exposes how the White House abused national security information for political purposes This trial will bring to light some of the ugly underbelly of this Adminstration and the actions it will take against those who threathen their policy objectives by exposing their lies. I stil think that is "serious shit." I have only seen one quote from Wells opening statement: Attorneys for former White House aide ``Scooter'' Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative's name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures. Attorney Theodore Wells, in the opening statements of I. Lewis Libby's perjury trial, said Libby went to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak. "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,'' Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney." I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.'' Without seeing the full opening defense, that is an interesting angle, dont you think? More: Michael Isokoff in Newsweek describes Wells opening defense remarks as a “scorched earth” strategy pointing accusatory fingers at White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove as well as other top current and former Bush aides". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2007 at 08:41 PM..

01-23-2007, 08:49 PM	#93 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The indictment says that he agreed not to disclose classified info. Does it say that he did that? I doubt it. If it did, there'd be a count for it in there. There isn't. Read the counts of the indictment for perjury and OoJ. IIRC, the perjury was his grand jury testimony, well after the fact. The OoJ was related to that too. It wasn't a charge of leaking classified info. As I said, he may well have been guilty of misstating his timeline, whether under oath or otherwise, but there wasn't any furshlugginer crime of leaking classified information here. As for the "sacrificial lamb" stuff - the guy is being tried in DC. DC is a <i><b>very</i></b> Democratic town. That's who the jury pool is, Democratic Bush-haters. If you're Ted Wells and you have a jury like that, and you want your man to be acquitted, don't you try to paint the current administration as bad guys who were setting Libby up? I might be wrong here, because Wells told the jurors he'd be calling Cheney as a witness - but we'll have to see how that turns out. For me this is spectator sport. I'm a lawyer, so I enjoy trying to figure out the strategy. And Wells apparently put on quite a show. Read <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/">this account in <i>Slate</i></A>, you'll enjoy it. Last edited by loquitur; 01-23-2007 at 09:00 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-23-2007, 09:06 PM	#94 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think if you read what I said, I agree that there was no charge of leaking classified information. I was getting at motive. I do believe that the alleged perjury and obstruction were motivated by an attempt to cover-up how this admistration abuses classfied information for political purposes. I am a policy wonk, not a lawyer,but I think the "he said/he said" defense is a risky strategy, particularly if your "he" is a White House senior aide and you are facing a jury not predisposed to be simpathetic to him or his boss. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2007 at 09:10 PM..

01-25-2007, 09:47 AM	#100 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Host, please post at least a fraction as much analysis of each large block-quote as the block quote has length. 6 lines of analysis of 100s of lines of block quotes isn't a contribution to a discussion -- it is a reading assignment. I have no interest in reading and replying to mass copied and pasted quotes when the person who posted them isn't even willing to spend the time including decent comments on them. Thank you. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

01-23-2007, 12:50 PM	#89 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, it's been established to a fare-thee-well that it was Armitage who leaked to Novak. Whether that gets Libby off the hook I don't know. It'll come out in the trial. I don't know Ted Wells personally -- I know him only by his reputation, which is excellent, and I know a couple of his law partners -- but I would not be surprised if his story simply is that there wasn't anything to cover up, so there was no reason to lie. My own view is that this episode demonstrates once again that Special Prosecutors are dangerous. Ken Starr was dangerous, so was Lawrence Walsh and so is Patrick Fitzgerald. It's inherent in the nature of the beast. I can dig out the stories in which it was shown that Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was the day he was appointed - so what, then, was he investigating? Pretty much was Starr was: he was appointed to find wrongdoing, so dadgummit he's going to find wrongdoing. The rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors.

01-23-2007, 04:38 PM	#91 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Well, he wasn't indicted for leaking classified info. He was indicted for misleading investigators about whether he discussed Plame with reporters. That's only "serious shit" if what he misled the investigators about was material to a crime. And there was no underlying crime - as you know, Libby is the only one who was indicted for <i>anything</i> in this whole sorry affair. And it's not for lack of Fitzpatrick trying, either - he had Rove testify something like five times. This doesn't mean it's not a crime to mislead investigators, but what's at stake in this trial is much, much less than you're saying. Since you apparently heard the openings - what did Wells say? What's his story?

01-24-2007, 08:54 PM	#98 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise. Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with.

01-25-2007, 10:12 AM	#101 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, I know you're doing a lot of work here, and many of us (me included) appreciate the effort you put into your posts, but Yakk sort of has a point: I think you'd be more persuasive if you put up a series of excerpts with links, instead of long blockquotes. Many of them aren't self-explanatory in gross, whereas if you picked out the most cogent portions, with a link so that people could read the whole thing if they want, it would be much easier to follow your reasoning. I don't mean to make more work for you, please don't think that's not what I'm advocating.

01-25-2007, 10:47 AM	#102 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The government "exhibits" are posted each day: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ Interesting, but not very helpful without following one the blogs tracking the testimony. Wake me when Cheney testifies! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-25-2007, 08:07 PM	#104 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, you're engaging in several layers of speculation, Host. Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that? The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see. What may have happened here - what appears to me to make sense as a scenario - is that when Wilson surfaced, there was a mad scramble in the administration to find out who the hell is this guy, who sent him to Africa, what his instructions were, what he reported, etc etc etc. And it turned up after a few questions got asked that his wife worked at the CIA. The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple. I once had a case under the Ethics in Government Act (different statute than the one at issue here, but also with contact restrictions and time periods) and it was a bloody mess to analyze. The classification and intelligence secrecy rules can't be any easier than that. Add to that the fluid situation here where the facts weren't all that clear either. Mix into it the press clamoring around for stories, interviews, facts, exclusives. And what this criminal trial is about, I think, is whether <i>Libby believed</i> the info about Plame was classified or not, and if he thought it was, whether he deliberately lied about his conversations. That's two levels of fact that have to be established in this case. It still doesn't get you to an underlying crime. You really do need to read the actual statutory language and establish that Valerie Plame's status was covered in order to get a crime here. Citing newspaper articles doesn't cut it. And look, I understand you <i>want</i> the scenario you pieced together to be true, but right now it's very far from established. It's a theory. Maybe it works, maybe not. Fitzgerald had a very good reputation, so I tend to take his analyses seriously. On the other hand, strange things seem to happen to perfectly reputable people when they become special prosecutors. Bear in mind, Rove went back there something like five times to testify. So far we don't know what Fitzgerald thinks was blocked from doing, which avenues he thought he'd get to pursue if only he had more time. He sure seems to have been thorough, doesn't he? Last edited by loquitur; 01-25-2007 at 08:20 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-26-2007, 05:35 AM	#107 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Rekna, that's true of part but not all as to Clinton. Clinton's problems came initially from his deception in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil case. The rest of the stuff mushroomed out of that. OoJ, of course, sort of requires that there be an investigation, so yes, that piece of it and part of the lying charges came out of the investigation rather than out of independently existing conduct. It's kinda interesting: my law partner opined back then that Clinton should have just defaulted in the Jones case and then had a trial about damages (on the theory that there weren't any). That way he would not have had to testify and all this stuff would never have come up. dc_dux, those sections of the indictment don't say she was undercover overseas during that time, only that her "employement status" was classified. Do you know what that means? I don't. I doubt it means that the fact she worked at the CIA was secret, because she drove her car openly to and from Langley every day. I suspect it means that <i>what her specific duties were at the CIA</i> were classified. Classification rules are a bit different from "blowing cover", and - as you know - they are routinely disregarded by pretty much everyone: we wouldn't have much news reporting otherwise. But even taking the classification rules at face value, bear in mind that her status was disclosed by Armitage initially. This does get hard to keep track of after a while. So far, what I see is that there is massive "he said-she said" going on here. I think I mentioned I'm a lawyer, so I find "he said-she said" stuff to be fairly unpersuasive, though if that is all we have to go on in a particular case, we have to make the best of it. Most cases involving organizations aren't like that because people write stuff down. Contemporaneous documents are the most persuasive evidence we have. Last edited by loquitur; 01-26-2007 at 05:44 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-27-2007, 08:27 PM	#109 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	sorry, I don't see how all this fits here. But then, I don't see conspiracies everywhere.

01-28-2007, 11:30 AM	#111 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	You know what, Host? Ted Wells is a lot smarter than you or me or just about any of the reporters (as to the latter that's not really saying much). Judge Walton is a big boy, he's been around the block, and he knows which requests are real and which are tactical. He's not likely to get pissed off; most of the federal judges I know view this stuff as being all in a day's work. A lot of this stuff, including from the prosecution, is an elaborate kabuki dance, with the jury as the intended audience. As you know, I'm an attorney, which is why I don't convince myself of stuff early in a case I'm not involved with. I know better. (For instance, it took a good few weeks for me to be convinced OJ really was guilty. After that, though, I was pretty hard to dissuade, and to this day I think that jury in his criminal case didn't decide the case on the facts.)

01-29-2007, 11:17 AM	#113 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	au contraire, Host, I think you're persuading yourself of stuff that people who know the process and have gone through it know better than to take at face value. IIRC, DiGenova was himself a special prosecutor at one time. I understand you *want* Libby to hang, but you're jumping to conclusions now based on less than full information. Stupid pills? I don't think so. There's a reason judges instruct juries not to make up their minds until all the evidence is in. What I can tell you is that, when I worked in the courthouse for a federal judge 21 years ago, one thing I learned fairly quickly is that reporters (even legal reporters, who are supposed to know the process) simply do not and probably cannot get it right. If they get 80-85% they're ahead of the game. It's not malicious; it's a combination of time pressure, lack of immersion, issues of perspective and idiosyncracy. And that's why it's important to get your news from different sources so that you can filter your inputs. I have no idea what the evidence will show down the road - and neither do you. What I do know is that I have a life and I'm not going to spend it reading trial transcripts in a case I'm not involved in. The other thing is this: have you decided that Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer are reliable witnesses? Would your opinion have been different a year ago, before you knew they were going to testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial? Mull over that question and be honest with yourself, then consider the implications of your answer. I should add something else, and this is politically incorrect. In most criminal trials the defendant is guilty. There are a few reasons for that. (1) Prosecutors have limited resources and don't want to squander them on cases where there is substantial doubt about whether they can get a conviction. (2) The criminal process is set up so that there are levels of proof at succeeding stages of the case. As you go through the process, the chance that the person identified isn't guilty of something gets smaller and smaller. There are countervailing propositions, though: (1) if a defendant knows he is likely to be convicted he usually can improve his outcome by cutting a deal to avoid trial and give the prosecutors something. (2) Related to this, the more chance a defendant sees of possibly being acquitted due to failure of proof or otherwise (and remember, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard), the more likely he'll go to trial. So if the defendant goes to trial and didn't cop a plea, his/her attorney has made a judgment that there is a reasonable chance of punching through the government's proof. That's the reasoning in a normal case. When there is a special prosecutor the calculation is totally different because the special prosecutor by definition has no other cases competing for his attention, and the target of the inquiry is likely to be high enough in the hierarchy that the chances of a plea go down because there is no one to be offered up in a plea deal. That drives more of the cases to trial, and also means that the evidence is likely to be somewhat thinner. Bear in mind, though, that Fitzgerald declined to indict a lot of others, which means he made a judgment he couldn't get convictions as to them but could get a conviction as to Libby. I'm pointing all this out because the dynamic of how these things work tends to get lost here. I said up above that I am generally suspicious of special prosecutors because they get married to their missions. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, but you can't make the inferential leap from the existence of evidence for an indictment to sufficiency of evidence for a conviction, especially in a case like this one. Otherwise you have to accept Ken Starr's work, too. Last edited by loquitur; 01-29-2007 at 11:38 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

02-05-2007, 11:20 PM	#116 (permalink)
host Banned	Post in progress.... (not finished yet !) Seymour Hersh started asking questions much sooner than Joe Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed piece: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030331fa_fact1 http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/200....html#comments On March 23, 2003, it looks like Bush gave Cheney unprecedented authorization to de-classify secret info about Wilson's trip to Niger: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm ....this coincides with Hersh's work on his article, published in New Yorker issue dated March 31, 2003......

02-23-2007, 10:23 AM	#117 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'd guess Libby probably won't spend time in jail. Either an acquittal or a reversal on appeal. But then, I've been wrong before.

02-23-2007, 11:10 AM	#118 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	don't forget the pardon option either. I wonder how fair a trial that is this political can be. We have all seen people who support a certain party over another regardless of how wrong something they did is. What are the chances of someone like that ending up in the jury pool and the jury coming back hung.

03-06-2007, 09:18 AM	#119 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Guilty- one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements Not Guilty - one count of making false statements Just the latest example in Washington that the cover up (in this case lying to protect Cheney) may often get you in more trouble than the crime. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-06-2007 at 09:33 AM..