.jpg)
Reader looseheadprop catches a great bit in the Fitz filing that I wanted to highlight for everyone:
Page 24 of the Fitz filing. Only 3 people Pres, VP and Libby knew that Pres had authorized disclosure of NIE (which Addington gave an off the cuff opinion amounted to de-classification). [RH notes: Selective disclosure -- it's important to note here that they cherry-picked only the portions that made them look good in the NIE, while keeping the large portions that contradicted their public statements behind the classified wall. Pathetic, weak little cheaters who can't make an argument for their actions based on the whole truth and the facts.]Yet despite the fact that the Pres supposedly had already declassified it, and Libby had already revealed it to Miller, the WH was still pressing for it for it to be declassified???
How can the Pres request the declassification of something he has already declassified???
Sure brings the Fitzgerald statement about Libby throwing sand in his eyes with his obstruction and perjury and false statements in terms of getting to the truth in the investigation into a much, much sharper focus, now doesn't 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.
For whom is Scooter Libby covering? That question just got a whole lot more interesting as I'm reading through the Fitz motion response.
I'll have more on the filing as I get through the entire document and do a bit of research, but for now, sit back and really think about what looseheadprop said: why would President Bush ask members of his Administration to declassify portions of a document that he, himself, had already declassified?
Is it because: (a) Bush didn't actually know that he had declassified this -- because he didn't really, and Dick Cheney lied to Libby in order to get that information out to Judy Miller? Or Libby lied in that portion of his testimony as well? (And won't that be an interesting free-for-all if the Rove/Bush end of things starts flinging that mud at Team Libby?) (b) Bush was grifting his own administration and not being forthcoming about having already declassified the information because he either wanted it declassified to cover his butt or because he didn't want them to know he had previously declassified the information because...he knew what was done with it -- including revealing Valerie Plame Wilson's identity -- was wrong? (And criminal, in the case of outing a CIA NOC?)
So many questions, so few real answers. So much more digging to do today...and I promise to get to a full read and analysis of everything as soon as I can. But isn't that a little conundrum worth a whole lot of pondering?
Let alone, what was David Addington (then counsel to the Veep, now in the former Scooter Libby chair) told about all of this? What a cozy little arrangement this seems to have been...
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZALICIOUS!!!
Here’s my understanding: The President can only declassify information that has been classified by the Executive Branch. The identity of CIA agents was originally classified by Congress, hence, the President cannot declassify the identity of an agent.
Dookie — I think you are correct that the President cannot legally declassify the identity of a CIA NOC. I remember reading about that in several places — and I’m going to have to pull up that research for sure — but I think that is correct.
Christy,
I always thought so, but I may be wrong. Given what the Bush Admin has changed.
dubyaD40.com
So many questions, so few real answers.
Just hold your horses. I’m sure Scotty will clear all this up and answer all our questions later today.
Fitzmas!
Continuing my thought in “5″…
Because nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President, dontchaknow.
It’s official. My head just exploded.
What we need now is a good solid read on how this news is hitting the WH. C’mere little piggy…uh…I mean..Scottie.
U’s gots sum splainin’ to doos.
I guess the relevant questions are: when were “selective portions” of the NIE leaked? When did the WH start pressing for it’s “declassification?” What happened in the interim?
Christy, didn’t you mean to say that the President cannot legally declassify the identity of a CIA NOC until the president decides it is legal for him to do so under the war powers provsion? (snark intended!)
when we say the WH was pressing for declassification, what does that mean exactly?
If the NIE is a document of the executive branch, doesn’t the head of the exec. branch have the authority to declassify it? I’m talking technically/legally. (Obviously they were being sleezy to harm Wilson).
Fitz on the cooperation of the Executive Branch:
pg. 34 “To the extent there was a steady flow of documents produced, that flow of documents was in response to a steady flow of subpoenas.”
Bwahahaha.
If anyone has trouble downloading the .pdf from the NYSun, I’m hosting it on my site.
http://www.dubyaD40.com/30561.pdf
This could all be perfectly legal if Bush did authorize it. I guess for Bush country and its laws have no meaning. He became a President to not follow them and do what he thinks is right.
House of cards burning now. This is the time to push hard for impeachment.
I think the outlines of the real story are finally showing.
joejoejoe says:
April 6th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Fitz on the cooperation of the Executive Branch:
pg. 34 “To the extent there was a steady flow of documents produced, that flow of documents was in response to a steady flow of subpoenas.â€
Indeed … heh ! I chuckled at that one too…
I don’t know if someone linked to this, but eriposte has two posts at the Left Coaster:
Treasongate: Libby and the NIE “key judgements”
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php
WMDgate: Fixing Intelligence Around Policy, Part 5: The Anatomy of a Cover-Up
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007294.php
=====
Seems that there are two questions here:
Can the president de-classify parts of the NIE by simply authorizing their release?
That’s a pretty technical question- and it seems that lawyers could argue till the cows come home about it- it would probably end up in the lap of the supremes (any questions about why Clusterfuck wanted Harriet on the bench?)
The other question- “can the pres declassify the identity of a CIA agent and thus void the law concering the disclosure” doesn’t seem so controversial. That one would be a tough sell. Of course we have no evidence that Clusterfuck authorized the disclosure.
Christy:
I read this article in this National Journal, linked from Thinkprogress, which talks about Libby’s testimony. It clearly shows that by Libby saying the Pres. authorized the disclosure, he is admitting that HE OUTED VALERIE PLAME!!! He is admitting guilt to the substantive crime, by asserting the affirmative defense that the Pres. had declassified the information. In other words “I did it, but the Pres. gave me permission, so I didn’t break the law.”
I mean isn’t this HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, or am I just seeing too much? I know it isn’t relevant to the obstruction and perjury charges, but can’t they indict him on the underlying charge based on this admission?
txexspeedy
dannyboy (and others) — this is the intro to RSS that finally got me started using it:
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2006/01/rss-intro/
I didn’t care for the RSS reader built into Firefox (though I love Firefox in general); it just didn’t work a way that “felt” right to me. I’m using FeedDemon now, which I really like, but it costs $30. There are some other free readers for both Mac and Windows in that link, so if Firefox turns out not to be your cup of RSS tea, there are options.
Fitz grenade! Ah, I LOVE these! This one is going to be hard for the MSM (New motto: “Aluminum tubes? Booorrrrrrring!”) to ignore. Scotty can argue that Bush has inherent super-powers to declassify anything he wants to (”It’s like X-ray vision!”), but the immediate follow-up question will be, “Well, why didn’t he just, you know, declassify the NIE and release it to the press? Why did he have to tell Dick to tell Scooter leak it to Judy Judy Judy? And isn’t Georgie supposed to be opposed to leaks?” Drip drip drip…
As for declassification, shouldn’t there be some sort of paper trail? Are we really relying solely on George W Bush’s memory as to what’s been officially declassified and what hasn’t?
OT - Parent / Blogger faceoff at WaPo 1 PM.
Leslie Morgan Steiner and Brian Reid
Parenting Bloggers, Thursday, April 6, 2006; 1:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00542.html
Seems to me that the key question in all this is “What’s Fitz up to?”
This is yet another release of embarassing information- one of several.
Why is Fitz releasing it? Perhaps he is signaling to someone that unless they co-operate- he’s going to keep on releasing this shit- and they know that he’s got more embarassing shit than he’s let out of the bag so far.
An intriguing possibility is that he is trying to force Clusterfuck to come clean about his role.
it seems Fitzy is playing Libby off against the Preznit. How does that pardon look now, Scooter? are you sure you don’t want to discuss this matter further privately with Fitzy?
Aspens turn but so do worms…
OT but a good one: Wapo is reporting that “Centrist” Rep Shay is fighting for his seat due to the GOP “Iraq Problem.”
Sorry - I tried to use the block quote thingy - here’s the quote I tried to post.
*********************
For nearly 20 years, Shays has distinguished himself as a reliably moderate House Republican. His middle-of-the-road stands on the environment, abortion and gay rights have irked many in his conservative party while affording him job security in his affluent, Democratic-leaning district. Not so with Iraq, the “sentinel issue of our time,” as Shays describes it. He has strayed deep into loyalist GOP territory, and that could cost him his job.
Just yesterday, during President Bush’s trip to Bridgeport, Conn., to tout his health-care initiatives, Bush’s motorcade passed about 150 noisy protesters holding signs that read “Bush and Shays, the war is wrong” and “Bring the troops home now.”
Shays has an aggressive and seasoned Democratic opponent, Diane Farrell, who lost by four percentage points when she challenged Shays in 2004 and who talks about the war at every public event. “Oh, sure, now he sounds frustrated,” she said of Shays. “But it’s too little, too late.”
Poll after poll shows that voters are increasingly agitated by the rise in sectarian violence, escalating cost and open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq. They consider the war the most important issue facing the country today. In Shays’s district, the frustration bubbles up in direct conversations or in sidebar debates such as the one at Donnelly’s table, involving four women over 80 years old, most of whom like Shays.
&y (7): Because nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President, dontchaknow.
Lucky for him, he was already at the bottom of it!
I so want to hear from ccmask and his 4/15 Prez-B-Gone prediction !
Grrr. . . I hate it when I’m too busy to keep up.
“time to push hard on impeachment”
MMM- don’t think so- not yet- but this pushes us a bit closer.
Kevin Drum links to Murray Wass and a Greg Sargent article at the American Prospect:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....008568.php
Greg Sargent lays out a sort of grand unified theory of the Valerie Plame affair that tries to explain a central question: why did Scooter Libby (and possibly others) lie to the grand jury about their role in outing Plame’s identity to reporters? After all, what they did probably wasn’t even illegal. So why take such a dangerous risk?
It is entirely plausible that Bush advisers calculated that if it came out that they’d outed Plame, Congress would have been forced by the resulting firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bush’s pre-war deceptions….
White House officials, including Bush himself, withheld critical information it had about doubts over supposed evidence of Saddam’s nuke ambitions in order to better make the case for war. Then they subsequently discovered that hard evidence existed of that duplicity. Then, anxious that this evidence might surface before the 2004 reelection, they engaged in a relentless campaign to cover up what really happened during the Iraq run-up and to prevent an aggressive congressional investigation until after the election. …
MURRAY WAAS has an article up on the leaks - and the story gets even richer. Hat tip to TPM:
http://news.nationaljournal.co.....406nj1.htm
Redshift dannyboy and others about RSS
I use Newsfire and it is great—paid a one time fee and they keep adding more good stuff. It’s Mac only I think. NewsFire
M$NBC is carrying the FitzyFiling story - Schuster is doing it as Breaking News. Cool: it’s hitting the cable channels…
FYI - the Waas article I linked to above is brand new.
Does Bush’s promise to punish the leakers apply to him?
A related question (or three): if the President declassifies with mal-intent, is it still declassification? Are there any factual findings required of the declassifier (implicit or otherwise) before declassifying? Is there a good faith requirement of any kind?
If this story catches on- we’re back in the “Clusterfuck lied to enable the war” mode- that one kills him every time- and unifies the opposition to him.
Schuster places the Preznit central to the story ! ! !
MSNBC covering this now with Shuster. ;)
It seems to me that a more basic question that may appeal to average Americans is: He declassified the info so no crime had been committed.
So why did he let this investigation happen? It wasted our time and money.
Now, of course, I don’t believe that there was no crime committed. If nothing else it’s the old case of: It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up. Although, knowing this useless media, they’ll give him a pass since he’s a “war” presnit.
God, I’m loving David Shuster this morning on MSNBC.
Editor and Publisher has something about this and a graph as it relates to Scottie McClellan. Perhaps this is why Cozumel heard last Saturday that Scott was vacating his Press Bluffing job.
From E&P: “The new court filing also quotes from handwritten suggestions Libby gave to the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, “urging the spokesman to proclaim the vice presidential aide’s innocence with the same vigor that the press secretary previously denounced as ridiculous suggestions that Mr. Rove might have had a hand in leaking Ms. Plame’s identity,” according to Gerstein.
Libby’s note, as typed up by the prosecution, reads “like a stanza of verse,” Gerstein observes. Here it is:
“People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I’ve talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information.”
The prosecutor then states in the filing:
“As a result of defendant’s request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and ‘those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this.’â€
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp.....1002313106
Quoting rwcole #24 “Seems to me that the key question in all this is “What’s Fitz up to?â€
This is yet another release of embarassing information- one of several.
Why is Fitz releasing it? Perhaps he is signaling to someone that unless they co-operate- he’s going to keep on releasing this shit- and they know that he’s got more embarassing shit than he’s let out of the bag so far.”
This is what I am starting to think too. Fitz may have built an effective box here. He hiding a lot of bombs - including things that may not be legal trouble for the WH but are certainly politic problems. And as soon as Libby’s lawyers try anything … greymail … questioning his appointment … whatever. Fitz calmly files a response with one of the bombs. So Libby is left with two choices. 1)Plead and roll over (which will lead to more indictments) or 2)Let Fitz play drip, drip, drip in response to his motions - which is even more damaging to the WH.
Oh and I want Schuster’s children.
Can’t wait to see how Scotty handles this at the presser. Anyone know when it is scheduled?
Christy — isn’t this all okay if the Preznit was trying to PROTECT us?
Hey Christie!
You better read the latest from Murray Waas.
Apparently, Dick Cheney is as leaky as Harry Whittington’s face after a South Texas quail hunt.
CNN will have to deal with the story now that M$NBC is touting it … can the NYTimes and WaPoo be far behind ?
libopinion - i like your analysis of what Fitz is up to. I hope it is exactly on point. And I hope Libby knows it.
Several days after shooting an old man in the face, when he had finally sobered up from one helluva bender, recall that Cheney was interviewed by Brit Hume and made comments re: declassification. I recall it being discussed here (and perhaps elsewhere) that it was thought there is an actual process (I assume involving intelligence functionaries) to declassify information, and that a mere incantation by the President was not sufficient.
This would be something we should pin down because all we’re going to hear from the Right is Inherent Authority! Inherent Authority! (I’m sure they’re also busy already now trying to find out how many spies FDR and Lincoln outed.)
it’s good to know the details but
from my viewpoint
it doesn’t matter if what the president did in declassifying an NIE summary is legal or not.
(no criticism whatsoever intended of those who have commented thusly)
for me the key point is this:
that bush and his white house operatives (whig)
leaked info to the NYtwiTimes’ judy miller
and then,
after miller (with her editors’ approval) had published it,
referred us, the american public, to the article as if it were independent “evidence”, i.e., evidence independent of any white house contentions.
this is blatant deception in a public discourse about soemthing very big
to whit
war.
some time back, former cia agent larry johnson at “no quarter”
compared the white house operation (whig) to induce ameiricans to support an invasion of iraq
to the sort of actions the cia takes when it wants to influence politics in a foreign country.
actions like
- planting false info in newspaper or television,
- funding p.r. campains disguised as “local” or “grass roots”
- planting false stories discrediting those whom the considered “opponents”.
sound familiar?
there were a number of folks in the white hosue, dod, and state in 2001-2003 with knowledge of these cia tactics.
i’m gl;ad fitzgerald is pursuing this. i thought he was just quietly and slowly moving off stage.
shows what i know about the guy.
maybe fitzgerald does not care if he gets a verdict in favor of his charges
maybe he sees the vicotory in bringing all this out into the open.
i certainly do.
joejoejoe #12:
thanks
fitz does have a great sense of humor, doesn’t he?
Fox News is probably readying a story about how Valerie Plame is looking for nannies to watch her children since her and Joe Wilson are about to be indicted and imprisoned ;-}
EPU’d from last thread:
It would seem that the meme that the Republicrooks started will be in full blast now.
He’s the Preznit, he can do anything he wants to. That has been planted in seed beds all over the govt. of late. So far the likes of Hatch, and Sessions and the other ‘pugs on Judiciary have done their best to reinforce the meme.
Will anyone take it on?
I LOVE Fitz, but it is becoming too too clear that the fate of the Republic is resting in his legal hands.
How did we get this far?
EPU’d myself with my comment providing an overview of RSS and Sage reader.
Once you download and install the Sage extension, you’ll need to close Firefox and relaunch it for Sage to “embed” in Tools in the toolbar. You’ll be able to select Sage in the toolbar, then add feeds as desired.
For information about adding feeds to Sage, go to this wiki site, has very simple instructions :
http://wiki.ehow.com/Use-the-S.....or-Firefox
You’re going to need a newsreader if you’re going to keep up; I suspect we’re on the verge of an avalanche of stories. Happy reading!
mpower #41 — That’s not correct. He did not declassify anything with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson’s employement or status, according tot he Fitz filing and Libby’s testimony respresentations. What was declassified, according to Libby, was the selected bits regarding the nuclear questions surrounding Saddam and Iraq. From what I understand, the President does NOT have the authority to declassify anything with regard to NOC identity — that information is TOO valuable for single source declassification. Nothing in any of this says that no crime was committed in leaking Valerie Plame WIlson’s name — period.
Breaking on CNN now.
CNN is finally carrying the FitzyFiling - headlining it as BUSH AUTHORIZED THE PLAME LEAK ! ! !
All of this helps to understand why the Immigration issue was trotted out big time. They needed something to suck up lots of right wing talk radio time because the avalanche was about to break.
just a thought.
Orion “doesn’t matter”
Well Hell YES it matters- if he broke the law it matters!
Of course even if he DIDN’T break the law- he’s in deep shit- but STILL- it MATTERS!
CNN is calling it a BOMBSHELL
I can’t wait to see Jack Cafferty’s take on this!
HA!
Holden — thanks for the link. Wow.
Wow.
I did laugh at this bit:
In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for “Plan of Attack,” a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war.
Shorter Waas: Woodward = used like Kleenex.
cnn and msnbc are reporting on this now
no wonder Bush looked so pissy that afternoon of Fitzmas after Fitzy has visited his personal lawyer…
and Cynthia McKinney just spoke on the Floor of the House …
Wilson–just one more example in my long catalogue of “Stories the media can’t get right”!
I’ve had personal knowledge concerning a half dozen stories in my life that were reported in a newspaper. In NONE of them were the facts reported accurately.
rock on FDL!
now CNN is blathering about that uppity poor colored girl again … motherfuckers!
I think there’s more nuance to the declassification issue. Libby disclosed the Key Judgements to Judy Miller at the exclusion of the State / INR alternate views.
The subsequent declassified version released 10 days later includes the State / INR alternate views which undercut the administration.
Newsweek covered this issue in detail here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9756141/site/newsweek/
Here’s a link to Jessica Mathews “Tale of two intelligence estimates” which examines the differences between the original public version of the 2002 NIE, and the later declassified version of the 2002 NIE.
My summary point would be:
When Libby talked to Miller, he did not disclose the alternate views.
The subsequent (10 days later) declassification DID include those views, and was quite damaging to the administration.
EPU’d from previous thread:
mc says:
April 6th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Pure speculation:
Cheney: “Listen, your boy’s wrapped up in this whether he likes it or not. Let me handle Wilson. You just tell Shrub not to fuck things up too bad.â€
Rove: “Dick, you better not fuck us. I swear to God, you’d better not fuck us.â€
Libby’s protectecting Cheney. Cheney’s protecting Bush and, by extension, Rove. The question is, how long until they crack from the pressure, legal or otherwise?
Fitzgerald ’s played this investigation/prosecution brilliantly. He starts with a “soft, little†perjury charge against Scooter. The cabal thinks, “heh, fuck you Fitzgerald, we can handle this.†They know Scooter would take one for the team, anyway. Plus, there’s the pardon card to be played.
Then Fitz is vewy, vewy, qwiet for awhile, except for the “oh what’s this, you did find the those emails?! Thanks!â€
And now this filing. This is a goddam bombshell. The WH doesn’t really know who Fitz is after-Rove Cheney, or Bush. They can only assume Fitz is after all three of them.
So now the question becomes, who’s the odd man out? My guess: Cheney and Rove may hate each other, but they are birds of a feather. They’ll both flip on Bush and give Fitz who they think he’s really after.
I have a feeling Fitz won’t settle for Bush, though. Legally (correct me if I’m wrong), there’s not much he can do to Bush. Impeachment and prosecution are political processes. Fitz CAN go after Cheney and Rove, though. My hope is that he charges them with treason, whether they flip on Bush or not.
OT, but just last night Olberman was dicussing with a WaPo reporter whether Bush had “dodged the Abramoff scandal by Delay resigning.†After this filing, I don’t think Olberman will ask the “did Bush dodge a bullet†question for a long time.
Well, one thing’s for sure. Bush will be doing a lot more dodging throughout the rest of his term. For all practical purposes, this administration is done, and I suspect, so is the Republican Congress. Forget about dealing with any major policy issues-deficits, global warming, energy, etc.-over the next three years.
It’s over.
Hmmm … how about (a)? After the matter of Plame’s status came out in maybe Sept. 2003, there was a photo-op or something where someone asked Bush a question about the situation that got him so off-guard he almost acted naturally for a moment. I’m pretty sure the question concerned classified information, and Bush’s response gave me the distinct impression that he was just discovering someone had routed something around him. I’ll see if I can find it, or at least dig up what was asked.
Of course, the cut-out job would only involve the early handling of press affairs, i.e. Miller, Cooper, and the like, wouldn’t it? I’m thinking that the cabaret act that Fleischer and Rice staged on the Africa trip later on concerned a different loop of the campaign than the one involving Libby, the reporters, and the NIE, and that either Bush was in this loop, or it involved only materials that did not have to cross his desk, like the INR report. Straight up, it almost looks as though there’s been a President’s Office circuit and an OVP circuit, that either co-ordinate badly at times, or really work to some degree at cross purposes. Yuck!
Refer to Mulholland Drive in one thread and what comes up at the top of the next after a refresh but The Grifters. These are truly noir times.
Sorry if someone’s brought this up in comments already - I don’t have time to read them all - but here’s what I can’t figure out:
If Libby was authorized to leak Plame’s ID, what was his motivation to lie about it to Fitz? Presumably to coverup the whole thing. But if that was indeed the case, why didn’t he change his tune once Fitz started to tighten the screws. Couldn’t he just have said “my bad, we were trying to cover up this whole embarassing thing, I’d like to change my statement.” Might have been a legal headache, but presumably not as bad as the one he has now.
Something’s not adding up.
Rayne, regarding #63 - I loved that too. It shows just how much the MSM was being used by these guys. Kinda of highlights it (along with Tweety’s ass kissing of Delay). Access just means you get spun harder. Doesn’t mean you get anything like the truth.
Maybe CNN and MSNBC are covering this on television. But there isn’t a peep about it on their websites yet, FYI.
Sorry… here’s the Jessica Mathews link.
http://www.carnegieendowment.o.....mp;id=1489
grrr. me too, Pach! too busy, must read faster at lunch.
OT but Pachacutec says: April 5th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Feingold’s resolution was never going to pass.
But talking about the runaway illegal administration, while speaking solemnly about the potential need for censure, keeps the president’s corruption in play and forces Republicans to defend a president with 37% approval ratings.
It’s not rocket science.”
Well said, Pach. From your mouth to every Democrat’s ear.
no WH briefing listed on the website for today– wonder why? heh heh heh.
Reading along, and have read the filing, most fascinating discussion. I would still like to know what vel non means in the footnote on page 30 of the filing.
This is going to vindicate all that bullshit about David Schuster being too hard on poor little Snotty, and will also make for an VERY interesting discussion @ Yearly Kos.
David Schuster has been a hero, imho.
BTW, sounds like a breakthrough in the Senate on Immigration, some agreement on Martinez-Hegel plan.
Grandma and Dannyboy from previous thread –
Here’s some info on RSS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_%28file_format%29
I often start with wiki (google search: wiki RSS) to get a handle on things I am not familiar with, then look for more info from there.
Just beware that wiki is not necessarily reliable for hot topics since members of the community can edit, and those with a political axe will slant things in their favor.
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK’d Leak
snip
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....0bQ–
RH. to answer your question: Occam’s razor = Cheney lied. Oooh. it just keeps getting better, don’t it?
coz the Preznit is off in Mecklenburg - I caught part of his speech. He laid out why he went to Iraq forcefully and waited for applause. About 20 audience folk were behind him visible on camera - only half of them applauded. Not a good sign…
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH AUTHORIZED THE LEAKING OF PLAME’S IDENTITY!!!!!
He apparently authorized the leaking of portions of the national intelligence estimate–
That’s DIFFERENT!
We need to keep this straight!
News just hit NPR, and is 1st lead on CSpan Breaking News. Isn’t presser with Scotty usually on Cspan?
Vel Non
[Latin, Or not.] A term used by the courts in reference to the existence or nonexistence of an issue for determination; for example: “We come to the merits vel non of this appeal,” means “we come to the merits, or not, of this appeal,” and refers to the possibility that the appeal backs merit.
From answers.com
Fitz clearly knew what he was doing when he indicted ol’ Scooter: P. 3
“…the parameters of Rule16 discovery are set by the indictment.â€
Zergle says:
April 6th, 2006 at 8:21 am
It’s official. My head just exploded.
Thanks for that, I’m not the only one *g* .
Is this the outcome Fitz was planning on all along? I know we all scratched our heads about the purjury and obstruction charges, but did he go with his slam dunk before the GJ expired, and from his investigation could pretty well predict this is how Libby would react, thus playing out according to plan in which Fitz simply responds to filings, oh by the way, setting out his case against the higher-ups in the administration?
I’m thinking bombing of Iran is available when needed — first, I thought October, “you can’t change government during a crisis like this” excuse, but now I am thinking it would be a great diversion from this hitting the fan.
It’s on The Smoking Gun website now too.
“CNN is finally carrying the FitzyFiling - headlining it as BUSH AUTHORIZED THE PLAME LEAK ! ! !“
Game, set and match. At least until they are ordered to treat this as the political equivalent of the Easter Egg Roll.
its on the AP wire http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin.....nted=print
April 6, 2006
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK’d Leak
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:11 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
now it’s on C-SPAN webpage
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....p;refer=us
CNN is not retracting . . .
bling - Libby says he is not responsible for the lies because he has a medical condition where he makes things up to hide his memory problems. Do you believe that?
CNN is retracting the BUSH KNEW claim …
CNN retracts previous statement, re: Plame LOL
more coverage on cnn– wheee
Don’t know where this one is goin- but with a gooper controlled congress- we may be headed for a president so badly crippled that it is impossible for him to lead- and a congress dedicated to doing nothing about it- UH OH!
Question:
Clinton was sued by Paula Jones while sitting president. Why can’t Bush be indicted for criminal behavior while in office?
Is there an indemnification for actions taken as president?
nothing on the CNN web page yet.
David Ensor on CNN just asserted that the Preznit has unilateral authority to declassify…
move along folks - nothing to see here !
A lot of peeps watch CNN international ;))))
Kirby–A sitting president cannot be indicted- although a civil suit may be brought against him/her.
He can only be impeached- and if he is removed from office- THEN he can be indicted.
BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAK IN
CIA OUTING CASE, LIBBY SAYS
RAW STORY
http://rawstory.com/
Yaaayy!!!
And now the misdirection away from Fitz and CIALeak-gate…
Bolton Says US may seek UN Resolution on Iran (Update 1)
Bet you dollars to donuts we are now caught in a propaganda psyop…CNN may have been fed a line on Bush’s culpability that might not have been entirely truthful, but damning, in order to open the floodgates on the administration.
What’s the chances Babs was pulling strings here?
the story in the AP feed just appeared on the Guardian Unlimited World Latest front page. Knowing the good old Guardian, it should move into real headline mode shortly…
Ok, RW (83), but he certainly has been outed as a dirty, filthy liar to the American People, and the filing certainly implies that there is a lot that Fitz probably has uncovered that appears to place him closer to these decisions that wehad previously been able to confirm. Is that a fair assessment? My impression is that Libby’s “alleged” lies and obstructions appear to have been attempts at covering a bunch of asses at the WH. I don’t presume to understand it, and the filing re: the verbal declassification vs the discussions of declassification (Hadley) really does defy logic and expressions of truthtelling by those involved.
In other words: they all look like ratfuckers.
More GOP nefariousness: via Rawstory, Workers accused of fudging ’04 recount. “Prosecutor says Cuyahoga skirted rules”
p. 9
“Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals – Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove – defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to prepare to cross-examine those individuals.â€
Hmmm. “at this time….†Hmmmmmmmmm. Patrick is such a tease.
OMG! Christy, You had better put on a pot of tea Hon’. Looks like a very busy day!
Let us all again take a moment to thank Judy Miller, Matt Cooper and all the other Kool Kids of Washington, who of course knew all along that the treasonous smear originated at the very top, and yet sat on the story, for reasons of their own, until it was too late for the voters to act directly on the knowledge these jounralists might have imparted — had they been doing their fucking jobs.
what the hell just happened on CNN ?!?!