Here is my favorite bit from today:
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. Ambassador Wilson got 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….
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." (emphasis mine)
Can you say careless and shoddy treatment of classified information, violating the protocols for "need to know basis" transfer of national security information? I thought you could. Because those protocols, codified in the SF-312, apply to every member of the President's staff and every person from bottom to top of our nation's national security apparatus. That includes the CIA director who does not know the identities of covert agents unless and until he has a reason to "need to know." And, after thinking about that for a moment, can someone please tell me how it is that Karl Rove still has a high level clearance after admitting to verifying information about Valerie Plame Wilson to Robert Novak? Because I'd certainly love to hear a public answer to that question.
As for Scooter Libby and his conversations about Valerie Plame Wilson and all that scapegoating tapdancing in Wells' opening statement and the claims that Scooter's hard job made him forget? Can you say "busted"? Thought you could say that, too.
What was your favorite part of the day's testimony? Anything you noticed that needs more attention? Any facts that were new to you that you think merit more discussion?
What are you reading above and beyond the Libby trial today that you'd like to discuss? Because, from my read of the papers today, the world is not standing still just because the Bush Administration and the office of Dick Cheney is being laid bare for all the world to see in the Libby trial.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
FITZ
Christy!!
Thanks so much Ladies and germs for all you’re doing, it means alot to us folks out here in the real world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EPU’d, doggone it! (I’m channeling Wells’s cornpone there.)
Curious what the FDL legal peeps think about Jeffress not wanting Judy’s notes shown to the jury. Judy is going to testify to certain things in her notes, yes? So what precisely in her notes do they not want revealed? The “Victoria Flame/Plame?” The part where Judy said Scooter told her Valerie worked for WINPAC rather than CPD?
Waiting for Judy Judy Judy to testify for Libby Libby Libby.
Mebbe she can explain to us how aspens turning has anything to do with treason.
I love that sentence can you say…
I was thinking can you say REVENGE no matter what the damage? Me thinks KARL ROVE.
was that just a joke that Judy Miller is the next witness?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
“All Things Considered” is devoting two half-hour segments to Juan Williams interviewing the Preznint. Someone save me.
What does CPD stand for?
…and, BTW, it always amazes me that the canard that Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him lives to this day. Wilson’s answers on the point have been remarkably consistent that he was sent because of the VP’s interest, but not at his direction.
It’s nice that Libby was busted by one of the truly soulless individuals in this reality-, veracity-, and humanity-challenged administration.
Really, schadenfreude is underrated.
Who is that supposed to be in the picture? Barbara Comstock?
EPU from last thread, with a little more info:
CNN just did a wrapup on the events in the trial today. Pretty fair assessment from what I could tell, focused really on Fleischer’s testimony. They said that Fleischer testified Libby told Fleischer that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA, etcetera. They also flashed on the screen, in large text, Libby told Fleischer was “hush-hush”. To me, it appeared as if CNN was highlighting that Libby was trying to be sneaky, and being perhaps a bit loose-n-fast with this classified info.
They followed it with the Cafferty File, where Jack Cafferty showed some new poll numbers (Newsweek Polls). IIRC, the numbers were something like 22% of Americans believe the President makes decisions influenced by facts, whereas 66% says his decisions are influenced instead by politics.
Also, 50% of Americans say Bush will be remembered as a below-average President, just over 30% said an average President, and 14% as an above average President. Cafferty reiterated that this means that more than 80% of Americans say Bush is below average or average.
I’m just waiting for him to make a montage of pictures of Bush, Cheney, Libby, pics from the trial, Wilson’s op/ed article, the “Mission Accomplished” banner, etcetera – set to that tune, “Had a Bad Day”.
cathy @ 9
CPD – Counterproliferation Division (operatives)
vs. WINPAC (analysts)
I wonder if judys’ cell has been redecorated since she left? Or maybe the jailer said no, wait a while, she’ll be back, don’t touch anything, you might get a miasma!!!! Or something!
Christy -
From ‘fleischer-take 3′ thread, I added the below to the discussion on what was earthshattering about Fleischer’s testimony:
I think the blow to Libby’s case by Ari – beyond the July 7 date preceeding the supposed July 10 conversation with Russert – is that it is the first time we hear that Libby relayed the info about Plame. The previous witnesses testified to telling Libby the information. But Ari’s testimony demonstrates that he received and absorbed the information. He can’t say he didn’t hear it, didn’t know it or did not remember it. It’s the evidence of output, not just the input, of the info.
This is similar to what you’re saying I think, maybe focused more on the technique of building the arguement by the Prosecution.
I suppose we’ll get more of Libby’s verbal output with the next star witness…
What Judy doesn’t want the jury to see in her notes
A heart with JM SL=love inside of it.
I’m glad that Ari Fleischer is finally of some use in this world. Ever since November 2000, the guy has turned my stomach.
I for one want to discuss cheney’s bizarre claim that he didn’t send Wilson when in fact, he’s admitted that he did send Wilson
cheney can’t get away with cutting thin slices of butter like that and his opinion or statements should never be deferred to
cheney requested more information about the uranium buys, he made the request specifically and any person sent by that request was sent specifically by cheney
there is no parsing that, it’s a fact…now, if he cares to say;
“I did a person be sent I just didn’t know who that person might be”, then his statement would be closer to the truth but in any event, whoever was sent was sent by the vice president, at his request.
period
Carhy@9
Counter Proliferation Division
Most (and maybe all) people in this division have classified status. I am amazed that Ari professed not to know that Libby was giving him classified info.
A few questions for EW:
1) What is your best estimate of the number of juror-generated questions that have been asked of trial witnesses so far?
2) What are your impressions of the quality of the juror-generated questions? Good? Bad? Mixed?
3) Are trial spectators able to determine which juror asked which question? (I assume not, but perhaps I’m wrong.)
4) Has the substance of any of the juror-generated questions caused you to come to any conclusions about how the jurors see the case so far?
I’m worried about this Unitary Exec theory where the President and VP can do pretty much what they want “in a time of war” (I’m sure they say Time of War so they don’t have to say Declaring War) and by definition never commit treason or break any law. Is there any good defense against this right now, or do we have to wait for the Supreme Court, or wait for Congress to impeach (yeah right)?
I wonder what the jury thinks of Addington.
Ed*ard Teller @ 7
At the end of the last thread…
4:50
Walton: Next witness is Judy judy judy. A few issues. Admissibility of Libby’s Aspen letter, and 2 proper use of notes. Latter first. I don’t understand the context. Is there a party that wants to use her notes in a way that they wouldn’t normally use them.
Bush said such persons “would be taken care of,” recall? Well, Rove was.
_
From Fitzgerald’s redirect of Martin:
I gathered from this exchange that Fitz was reading to Martin from Libby’s GJ testimony about the Cooper conversation? I assume from the reference to Martin’s reaction and her answer that Libby’s version was more than a little different than hers. Does anyone know what was the substance of Libby’s testimony that Martin says she would have remembered?
the world is not standing still just because the Bush Administration and the office of Dick Cheney is being laid bare for all the world to see in the Libby trial.
Yeah, well it should be!
This is one of the most important poltical events of my lifetime (if I have this situation sized up correctly).
C’mon World – PAY ATTENTION. Americans in particular.
You picked out my favorite, Redd; it’s the smoking gun.
But my favorite live-bloggerwheel editorializing was this gem from prevthread when Addington was up:
(No mention of torture or other unitary executive duties.)
as if !!
Thank you, thank you, Firedoglakers for the live-blogging. Utterly riveting!
Front seat to history. How cool is that?!
TRex @ 8
There is a special sainthood reserved for NPR affiliate employees.
The world may not be paying close attention to this trial, but I am riveted to it.
Thanks for the wonderful coverage; it is the next best thing to being in the courtroom.
And, now I MUST get a few things done!
See you all later.
So we know that Libby/Cheney heard that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA from Martin who heard it from CIA/Harlow. Martin had ‘agent’ in her notes but did not relay that to Libby/Cheney. And I’m the Easter Bunny.
Do we know who told Bartlett?
hush hush? on the q. t.? someone really talks that way? I think that phrase was last seen in print about a publicist in LA CONFIDENTIAL by James Macellroy and played in the movie version by Danny DeVito . It was about the late 50s if I remember correctly.
So I guess Scooter never got over childhood.
God these people make one want to puke.
Favorite line in bold:
Christy — is Ari’s word and any other evidence/testimony so far enough to produce additional charges against Libby, in your opinion?
If so, how does that happen?
If not, what do you think is still missing to clinch IIPA and/or conspiracy?
oxide @ 21
well, first of all, cheney believes a president and vice president can do whatever they want whether or not there is a war, the just think it’s an easier case because there is a war
It’s not just the timing of the Ari-Libby lunch… There’s no reason why Libby would consider it to be “hush-hush” if he heard it from Russert.
Just now on Hardball, tweety was literally drooling on himself while discussing this story. Can someone capture that photo? It would be priceless. I hope he’s not ill or something.
Dover Bitch @ 35
ohh, that smarts…that combined with the actual dates showing this occured before the russert meeting not only smarts, it’s even smartier
Least likely talking point ever
AF: “What I was hearing was there was nepotism at the CIA, that somebody got a job because of a family member’s position,” Fleischer said. “
Because *everybody* looks forward to an all expense paid trip to Niger. What a perk.
NOT
. . .Are we finally coming out of the rabbit hole? Turns out what’s up is on the low-down and hush-hush. Spread the Newsie!
clueless @ 25
Americans in particular SHOULD pay attention to this important trial, but as our institutions and so-called estates fail to get so many messages from the past six years, nine days and counting, we are being eclipsed. Almost entirely the fault of a government and press mired in self-importance and hubris. I’m sure much of the world paying attention feels any bad things happening to us because of these criminal creeps is fully justified.
Sparkles the Iguana @
13
Isn’t it just an amazing coincidence that the dart Cheeeney threw struck the head of the CIA’s Iraq WMD group? They had been a problem for him since they busted Halliburton for selling dual-use nuke technology to Iran in the 90s.
Lucky toss I guess.
-
Things are definatly heating up… It seems like each new witness gives a little more structure to the evil miasma behind the whole smear and outing. Can’t wait to hear the first hand reports of the temper tantrums from dick and george (just speculating…*g*)
Well I’m a little shy on the sequence of events, but it sounded (read) that Ari was told by Libby at lunch of Valerie’s name and office with that “hush hush” label, then he went off to Africa where he “sidled” up to some reporters and spilled the beans. Huh. If that’s the sequence, it’s clearly slimy or stupid behavior. I don’t buy that Ari did it on his own, either.
Weird testimony.
TeddySanFran @
26
as if !!
Mine too.
My favorite part of the day? I asked the mailman if he had a book for me. “Nope.”
Then he came back in about 20 minutes with Marcy’s book! “It slid down behind something.”
Sue @ 30, I understand Cathie Martin did tell Cheney and Libby that she was told by Harlow that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent.
I suspect Cathie also told her close friend Bartlett, another member of the Texas Mafia.
When are we gonna hear from Hadley? According to the much-maligned Jason Leopold, he is one of the insiders who went to the CIA looking for information about Wilson’s trip. Hadley appears to me to be the insider’s insider in the whole affair. So, call me naive. But, by all means, call Hadley to the stand.
“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…”
This seems to indicate it took place after the SOTU…and suggests their view was it was OK to selectively declassify the NIE on the PRES say-so (and avoid all those *procedures* Addington admits exist)…however wouldn’t this dovetail with Cathie Martin’s testimony that she was simultaneously URGING declassification and NO ONE tells her this has already occurred?
Again suggests how fast and loose the WH staff played with classified information that Martin wasn’t even certain if her “talking points” involved leaking classified NIE info (thus her question mark) – yet she was perfectly WILLING to do so on the Veeps say-so even in the face of uncertainty!
cathy @
16
carved into the trunk of an aspen tree
My favorite bit of testimony was when, on redirect (I think), Ari was asked, “what makes you think that Mr. Libby used the name ‘Plame’ or ‘Plam-may’?
And Ari answers: “My memory.”
End of examination. Priceless.
ixnay on the Plam-may?
The A.P. does a nice summary on Ari’s testimony today (just to add something to Christy’s above wrap up of events) :
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified Monday that then-colleague I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby told him over lunch that the wife of a prominent war critic worked at the CIA.
Fleischer said the conversation happened July 7, 2003, days before Libby told investigators he was surprised to learn about the CIA operative from a reporter. That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby’s perjury and obstruction trial.
Fleischer, who was the chief White House spokesman for the first 2 1/2 years of President Bush’s first term, said Monday that Libby invited him to lunch to discuss Fleischer’s planned departure from the White House. He said it was the first time he and Libby had eaten lunch together.
They talked about Fleischer’s career plans and their shared interest in the Miami Dolphins football team, Fleischer testified. He can’t remember who brought it up but he said the conversation then turned to the growing controversy over former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the White House of ignoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.
“Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife,” Fleischer recalled Libby saying. “His wife works for the CIA.”
Fleischer said Libby also used the woman’s name, Valerie Plame, and told him it was “hush hush.”
“My sense is that Mr. Libby was telling me this was kind of newsy,” Fleischer said.
Fleischer said he again heard about Plame four days later aboard Air Force One from White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was reading documents and began “venting” that reporters kept repeating Wilson’s claim that Vice President Dick Cheney sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.
“His wife sent him,” Fleischer recalled Bartlett saying. “She works at the CIA.”
Fleischer said he relayed that information to reporters from Time magazine and NBC. A reporter from Newsweek magazine was also there but may have walked away, he said. The reporters paid no attention to the comment, he testified.
“I never in my wildest dreams thought this information was classified,” Fleischer testified.
perris @ 18
I want to discuss this too!
Cheney could not admit that he had found out way beforehand that he had evidence that the yellowcake claims were bogus, so he lied about knowing about Wilson’s trip. But it was reported on and it was reported to him. He was deflecting. See Below:
EPU’d from like two threads ago:
bellesouth @ 127
If Libby had not committed potential perjury and therefore if reporters had not been subpoena’ed to straighten out all their stories and Judy never had to go to jail…wouldn’t this case have been started before the 2004 election? I’ve always thought that a possible motive for Libby to muddy the waters about what was said to whom, was to delay the trial past the 2004 election, essentially sacrificing himself for the re-election. When they claim that Libby was sacrificed for Rove, are they really saying he was sacrificed for the re-election of Bush?
Time to crack the bubbly….
One thing to remember, Wells is not the bad guy.
Sure, it’ll be good to see Scooter in an orange jump suit, but in the big picture, both prosecution and defense are on our side here. What we really want is to have the draconian methods of this administration exposed. And it’s in both the prosecution and the defense’s best interest to expose them. It’s the defense that’s subpoening Rove and Bartlett. Libby’s defense, that he was the fall guy, requires that all the machinations be exposed. This is the least-spun info on this admin we’ve seen in 6 years.
My favorite moment from Fox News Sunday was when virtually all the regulars disdainfully opined that the only people who care about the Libby trial are “inside the Beltway” -
Hey, everyone here not inside the Beltway, raise your hand.
sonate @ 19
Well, hush hush and on the QT can be taken so many different ways, don’t you know. *g*
A minor question. Ari says Libby might have said Plam-may. Judy has the word “Flame” in her notes (if my failing memory is correct) from a meeting with Libby. That implies that Libby READ the name instead of HEARD the name. If Libby read the name, it probalby came from Deadeye Dick’s scribbles. Is that of any significance whatsoever??
If there was any doubt about the purpose of these White House “lawyers” except to simply bark “SIR, YES SIR!” I think Addington laid that doubt to rest here:
Q: Oh, lawyer-man, can the President do this?
A: SIR, YES SIR! [provisions and procedures be damned!!]
oxide @ 21
I’m not too worried about it. Remember, the President is the only one who can’t be indicted, only impeached. Anyone else can be indicted for lawbreaking. And I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be willing to bet that if any of them attempted a “the president told me to do it so it’s not illegal” defense, it would be a very short trial.
I think they know this, too. People like Addington and Yoo and Cheney may be true believers in the Unitary Executive, but any time there’s a serious challenge to their claims of extraordinary powers (Padilla, warantless wiretapping, etc.), they maneuver to avoid it while giving up as little ground as possible. Those are not the actions of people who believe they are on firm legal and constitutional footing.
They’re trying to establish precedents for future dictators neocons, and I don’t think they understand that you establish precedents by winning challenges, not by avoiding them and leaving a whole bunch of “because I say so” statements in the public record.
you know, fitz made a pretty good call…not charging libby with revealing classified information removes from the mix cheney’s claim that he can declasify on the fly
it no longer matter if he can or can’t, that has nothing to do with this charge
on the other hamd, I would surely like to see his claim challenged in court…even though roberts and alito are beholdent to cheney, they have to realize a democrat will almost definately win the office in 08 and they will be rue to give that power to the democrats so a fair ruling might actually come down from the courts in these times
Today Maxine Waters and Lynne Woolsey didn’t let the world stand still. They held hearings with the objective of figuring out how to end the Iraq occupation. Great authors, professors, and military foks in attendance. (all on C-SPAN) We need to support HR 508 and end this debacle because it’s clear that Iran is next. We have no time to spare. And, guess what? It was all for oil, if you can believe it.
Daren Wang @ 55
Anybody who believes in our Constitution and way of life should agree that any defense attorney isn’t the bad guy — regardless of the fact that this case is so illuminating.
Jeff Gannon’s parting words upon leaving the WH every day:
“this is classified you cannot use it.”
Is it just me or does the below quote lead one to believe that Ari was in fact Matt Cooper’s source (Cooper works for Time doesn’t he?)
“Fleischer said he again heard about Plame four days later aboard Air Force One from White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was reading documents and began “venting” that reporters kept repeating Wilson’s claim that Vice President Dick Cheney sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.
“His wife sent him,” Fleischer recalled Bartlett saying. “She works at the CIA.”
Fleischer said he relayed that information to reporters from Time magazine and NBC. A reporter from Newsweek magazine was also there but may have walked away, he said. The reporters paid no attention to the comment, he testified.”
ManagedChaos @ 53
Fitz said in the presser announcing the Libby indictment that if the reporters had testified when first requested instead of stonewalling, that Libby would have been indicted a year earlier. So yes, it would have been just before the election.
emptywheel wrote an overview last summer on the NIE leak and declassification, and how Fitz and Team Libby might make use of these issues. The post is here at NextHurrah. The whole thing is one of Marci’s usual virtuoso displays of analysis and sheer information management, but if you get bedazzled, I think it’s possible to get the gist of what happened today from the section entitled, “How Fitzgerald Might Use It.” It reads to me now as if ew is right on the trail in this passage, especially with the subject being raised by questioning of Addington.
By the way, doesn’t “hush-hush” and “QT” sound like the DeVito character in LAConfidential, the gossip columnist and political shill?
Mack @
28
St. Rex of Perpetual Syndication
Dover Bitch @
35
Was it Isikoff who used the phrase ‘double super secret’ background or something that everyone was laughing at?
sonate @
19
Here’s the thing that struck me — I can buy that Ari didn’t know what “CPD” meant, and how “high level” that division is in the CIA… He’s just a press guy, not an insider in the nitty gritty of policy or intelligence. But I CAN’T buy that Libby didn’t know it.
rumi @ 69
I believe that was in Matt Cooper’s notes.
Do we know what cost more, Scooter’s defense or Barbaro’s lengthy medical treatment?
I’m confused – what is it that supposedly got declassified, and did GWB do the declass, and when, and extactly why would he have done it?
Oops, wrong intel at the wrong time. More appropo to perris@18:
From Craig Schmall’s e-mail regarding his FBI interview:
“Cheney had read the 12 June Pinkus article, which claimed the ambassador’s trip was done at the request of theVice President. Cheney did not recall this at all. He also couldn’t recall if he had requested a memo on this issue. Research revealed that Cheney did ask and received a memo in early 2002. The [FBI] agents had copies of some faxes I had sent (in June) to Scooter Libby’s then chief of staff, ERic Edelman, containing an early 2002 and an early 2003 memo on the Iraq/Niger/Uranium issue done for Cheney and Rumsfeld, respectively.”
The Nefarious Leslie @ 66
it couldn’t have affected the election since the president didn’t win it either way, the fix was in regardless
drinksforall @ 51
I’m just tickled to see all these articles about administration officials with “testified” next to their names.
Now if we can just get on to sentences with “convicted”…
KarenJG@70
Agreed. Libby HAD to know.
sonate @ 58
That crossed my mind as well. Could it be that Libby didn’t know how to pronounce Plame’s name?
We probably won’t get the answer to that question.
TeddySanFran @
26
as if !!
TSanFr.
That jumped at me too.
Addington: 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.
** “Open and shut?” **
I am not familiar with the statute or administrative rules that contain the “separate provision” to which this guy is referring, but allow me to go out on a limb just the same.
Egan is an administrative law employment case that stands for the proposition that Congress gave to executive agencies the discretion to DENY security clearances to people who are deemed untrustworthy.
There is NOTHING in Egan that says that the president or an executive branch official acting at the president’s behest may ignore statutes or administrative rules because he is “the decider.”
In fact the Egan Court noted, in this ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT CASE, relative to ruling on the legality of executive branch actions:
Egan — Unless Congress says otherwise, Pres. has discretion to act within law as set forth by Congress. Just like they teach you in junior high civics (for free) and law school for 60k.
The Supreme Court also stated, in this ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT CASE, that, relative to whether someone is entitled to receive a security clearance:
An underlying rational explained by the Egan Court, as is true with administrative law decisions generally, is the basis for the executive’s authority to give out the security clearances in the first place. It is, as the Supreme Court states, “committed by law [i.e. awarded to President by Congress] to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch.”
Once again, because Congress gives the President the authority to engage in a process, he is allowed to use discretion in that congressionally mandated statutory regime. In Egan, that discretion to employ a statutory regime consistent with congressional intent to PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Shorter David Addington: “Brown v. Board of Education gives President the authority to segregate enemy combatants within public schools to raise wartime standardized test scores. It’s an open & shut case.”
slainte,
cl
rumi @ 69
No, that was Cooper.
Sorta OT, but not really – VoteVets.org has a new ad against the escalation.
Mack #38, EXACTLY. What on earth can people be thinking by talking about this trip as if Valerie was sending her husband to Aruba?
That’s the point I always choke on. “Well, she sent her husband!” So what? Who else would be better qualified, and willing?
My favorite bit was when Walton started reading juror questions, and this was one of them:
The jurors, and the judge, obviously picked up on this: that Scooter DID NOT follow the rules for passing on highly classified information to the press secretary. “Very strict” Ari says about the procedures surrounding state secrets. As people have noted, Plame’s NOC status isn’t at issue here. But motive obviously is. The jurors are sitting there hearing testimony from a guy who sought and got immunity becuase he knew he’d been involved in something nefarious. Ari feared prosecution because he knew he was involved in outing Plame. Whether he played a more active role than he’s now letting on doesn’t really matter. He’s admitted this was bad, and I had to lawyer up. Kind of hard for Scooter to maintain his innocence when a guy he’d recruited to his cause has admitted he did something wrong. Ari’s testimony makes it crystal clear why Scooter lied to the GJ and Fitz. Ouch.
Reading: Luttwak’s article in February Harpers is best I’ve read on Iraq and military’s sorry-state counterinsurgency manual. So much for Petraeus’s reputation–which will be publicly and spectacularly destroyed in Iraq.
perris @ 75
Could have taken the voting percentages outside the fixable margins, though.
Oh, fer Gawd’s sakes, Christy, careless defines the entire Bush administration’s approach to government.
Accidentally careless.
Deliberately careless.
Obviously careless.
They are like the klutzy family on the Amanda Bynes show, always carelessly knocking over priceless objects and then saying, “Not a problem!”
They just don’t care. What would give them a reason to care? Name one thing. Are their lives in danger? Their family’s life? Are they poor? In danger of going to jail? (Well, maybe) Do they love? All of the normal cultural and societal norms and restraints simply do not apply to them either mentally, emotionally or physically. They are monumentally careless. They just don’t give a damn as long as they get what they want. And they usually do get what they want.
Noticed something that piqued my curiosity- When Addington requests e-mail from OVP.org, does he get communications from those NOT listed in the Plum Book as employed by OVP? (but who do indeed work there)
Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information.
Not if it helps our “Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”, fer sure.
-
CL at 78 — Further, how any person who claims to be an attorney can ever say the words “open and shut” as to any legal matter is beyond me. What a bombastic jackass. I mean, hell, even Marbury v. Madison gets argued on occasion by the Federalist Society crowd. Really, Addington knows better…and thathe assumes that the jury doesn’t is so appallingly condescending.
virginia cynic @
31
Interestingly, Ari didn’t take that admonition to heart. Just a short while later, he’s recounting how he shopped that fact to several reporters.
The immunity deal was to protect him from all the holes in his own sorry story. He’s full of it.
punaise @
50
maybe it should be “ixnay on the lame-pay.”
I wonder if that line would work on my budget-minded boss..
I found this interesting:
Fl Bartlett said it, and I heard it. It’s all one and the same.
Fl 4 seats in senior staff cabin.
J how many seats in the cabin you were sitting in.
Fl in the front some 10 seats, and 3 or 4 behind.
Fl people get up and walk around all the time. The people who typically sit in that cabin are nuclear football guy, personal aid, head of advance, photographer.
J Can you name one other person who was seated within earshot.
Fl No, I was sitting in my chair trying to read a document.
Why do I get the feeling Bush was there? Why ask Ari in terms of whether “one other person” heard it (that he could acknlowledge) instead of asking simply who was there, regardless of whether Ari thought they might or might not have heard something? Srikes me as peculiar. I imagine Team Libby would like to know what Ari could say about Bush’s state of mind. This exchange seems to establish that Ari is unable to testify to Bush’s state of mind, even if Bush was present. This could be significant at a later date in a hoped for later trial, no?
What do you all think the respective legal teams did today to recap the kind of day they had? Fitzgerald and associates have to be generally pleased, don’t cha think with how their day went today, what with Ari’s testimony and all? Conversely, what do you think Wells and Jeffress said in reply to Scooter’s inquiry of “Are we winning?”
Is there ever a time that the defense might just realize that maybe this thing is not going to turn out the way Libby envisioned when he spent the $3million dollars on his legal stategerians?
Can you plea bargain during a trial of this kind? Or now that’s it’s underway, do you have to see it through to the end?
Shorter David Addington: “Brown v. Board of Education gives President the authority to segregate enemy combatants within public schools to raise wartime standardized test scores. It’s an open & shut case.”
LOL! So, THAT’S the problem!
bellesouth @ 74
when cheney says “I don’t recall” what he means is “if you can’t come up with proof that then I can deny it”
Sparkles @ 41:
Isn’t it just an amazing coincidence that the dart Cheeeney threw struck the head of the CIA’s Iraq WMD group? They had been a problem for him since they busted Halliburton for selling dual-use nuke technology to Iran in the 90s.
Lucky toss I guess.
-
Thank you. This is the piece of the puzzle I don’t get (or one of the pieces). If WH and CIA are at odds over the whole Iraq WMD/Yellow Cake in Africa stories, why would Cheney task the CIA with getting answers in the first place? WH considered Joe Wilson one of the CIA’s own. But wouldn’t anyone sent by the CIA fit that description? Did the CIA know it was a set up and pick Wilson precisely because he wasn’t a spook, but rather a career diplomat? Was the whole thing a set up from the get go?
My mind spins at the depth of evil. And I’m fairly cynical.
David Addington is COS. What is a COS? Council of Sh*thead? Seriously, I can’t figure it out.
BTW, David Addington was Bruce Willis’ private investigator character in Moonlighting with Cybil Shepherd. It was Willis’ big break. The David Addington character as portrayed by Willis was not a prick, however.
Redshift @ 60
Article II Sec. 4 US Constitution:
Couple questions, I can’t follow this without a timeline:
Was it known that Fleischer leaked to Gregory and Dickerson?
Is the timing consistent with a defense assertion that Russert knew about Plame from Gregory via Fleischer, or directly from Bartlett?
How does this relate to the 1×2×6? I recall defense stating that that article was incorrect.
Another thing: shouldn’t prosecution have asked Fleischer if Libby had ever given him classified info before, and if he had whether Libby customarily used the verbal protocol: “this is classified you cannot use it.” Fleischer said “people would always…” not “Libby would always…” I guess that conversation can cut either way, though.
(Or they could have asked what the established “protocol” for using classified information for ratf*cking was)
Appreciate anyone who could take the trouble to help.
I’ve had some discussions with my left and right wing friends regarding THE trial. And I’ve heard it said that ‘this is no Watergate’. And my response has been that’s right. Nobody died as a result of that (Watergate) criminal activity. But… a whole lot of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis have perished over the lies and criminality the Bush administration has foisted upon us to drag us into Iraq, and soon Iran. So in this sense, the belief here is that this Libby business is far more critical than Watergate.
The outcome of the Libby trial may have a tremendous impact on how Americans view the way our government should be run in the future, and what criteria we use to determine those who will run it.
Folks,
This really is dynamite for one set of attorneys.
All I keep thinking when I read the live accounts is that the Wilson’s attorneys must feel like Santa is coming down the chimney with each additional White House witness.
Everytime they one of these dissembling jokers tries to couch something in favorable terms to their bosses, they create an impeachment transcript that will make them laughably non-credible in the civil trial where virtually EVERYTHING is relevant.
On the other hand, when they do manage to tell the truth, the word L-I-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y just keeps rolling off their tongues.
slainte,
cl
Hugh@98
The President, Vice President and all CIVIL OFFICERS of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
(The emphasis is mine.) What persons (besides the obvious President and VP) make up the set “civil officers”?
David Addington was Bruce Willis’ private investigator character in Moonlighting with Cybil Shepherd.
IIRC, that series also ended with a return to reality.
-
So: in the opinion of anyone here, do you think after hearing Ari’s testimony today that Fitz bought a pig in a poke?
I just took a brief tour of freerepublic.com. Ugh. Before I head off to the decontamination chambers, I thought you all would find it amusing that many of the comments on Fleischer’s testimony were:
1. Why are they pounding on Libby when Sandy Berger didn’t go to jail?
2. Yeah, Sandy Berger, why isn’t he in jail?
3. Maybe Cheney didn’t know that Libby was lying to the press.
4. Yeah, Libby wasn’t lying to protect Cheney, he was lying to protect himself.
5. It’s Libby’s own fault that he lied, he should have cooperated.
In other words, even the freepers are ready to throw Libby under the bus.
TRex — hey, I was looking for you earlier, fellow pen-freak that you are.
I wanted your opinion on Cathie Martin’s notes.
Caoimhin Laochdha @ 79
Yeah, Unitary Executive, along with “original intent” is definitely the constitutional law equivalent of creationism. Though in different spheres (law vs. science), they both employ the same method: decide on the answer you want, dig up anything you can find that seems to support it, and ignore anything that doesn’t (even within the same case or example.)
Christy – could you and/or other lawyers here please read this Supreme Court decision and see whether you see anything about declassification of classified information? I have very hastily read it and see nothing yet about declassification. It appears to be the decision that David Addington cited.
DEPARTMENT OF NAVY v. EGAN, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..;invol=518
oxide- hold the Mao.
stingray @ 73
anatomist @ 99
Today’s Fleisher testimony revealed that Ari Fleisher reported to David Gregory. Gregory was one of the reporters on the side of the road in Africa. That’s all I’ve got.
Rushing to catch up . . .
My favorite part was what you highlighted above about security clearances:
Sure: careless and shoddy treatment of classified information!
As a former person at the bottom of the State Department apparatus – an unpaid intern – the whole “need to know” set up for handling classified information was drummed into us on day one.
Of course, that was a different administration . . .
Christy Hardin Smith @
89
ReddHedd,
When I first read that, it was the arrogance that struck more than the position he was taking.
cl
Christy:
Can you tell us what this was about? On crossesamination of Ari, the defense is asking about Bartlett and then goes into a question about Ari talking to the press people on the side of the road.
Ari says “There was one other event that made it relevant.”
But the defense doesn’t let him say anything and obviously doesn’t want him to say what that other event was.
Can you guess or do you know? Or is this not important? It seemed to me that it was something Ari wanted to get out to bolster his story but the defense wouldn’t let him. Anybody out the catch this?
Stephen at 108 — Will try and take a peek at it once The Peanut goes to bed tonight. Earliest I’ll be able to get to it, I’m afraid. Am helping her color and cooking dinner at the moment…
hackworth @ 97
Actually, that name was David Addison. (I remember because I got it wrong the other way in a thread a few months back.)
Hurray! Maybe mine’ll arrive soon …
mauricehall @ 104
from raw story, revealing an msnbc release;
read the rest here
OT the Juan Williams interview of Bush is here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=7065633
The format is something like this. Williams asks a question. Bush gives an inane answer and then wanders off topic. Williams asks no follow up but just goes on to the next subject area.
Jim Lehrer did much the same with his recent Bush interview. If these guys aren’t going to ask follow ups, why are they even there? They could just send the questions to Bush in advance.
Can anyone determine where exactly Obama stands on Iraq, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian mess?
perris @ 18
would have been a different story if Wilson had not done the op ed and had gone along with the sotu..then Cheney would have said that he had investigated thoroughly…enlisted cia..blah blah blah
mauricehall @ 104
Fitz has got Libby dead to rights with Fleisher’s testimony. Fleisher’s testimony says that Libby is a liar. Libby’s on trial for being a liar. So Paying for the Pig in the Poke Proved Profitable.
It all started when…
Why did Shooter ask the first time? Was it due diligence on his forgery gambit?
Redshift @ 107
Works for me.
I heard something on CSPAN during Maxine Waters hearings on Iraq that goes to the heart of Libby’s ‘I wasn’t really focused on credibility of WMD claims”. Libby was the guy that put together the Powell UN speech and gave Powell briefings in support. Chainy (my sp) has spent considerable time and effort supporting WMD rationale, long after everybody else had pretty much given it up. To that anything bring disrepute to WMD justification wasn’t a top priority to the Libby, #2 to the VP, is crazy. However, I don’t see that Fitzgerald is taking the timeline back to that point. Am I missing something?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 72
Barbaro was worth saving. Libby’s defense is just worth the info coming to light about this gang of traitors.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @
108
I tried to take a stab at it at 79, above.
You are correct in your read. Addington was trying to make the argument that the decision-making, in Egan, was analogous to what he alleges Mister Bush might have done relative to the Plame conspiracy. It’s BS.
slainte,
cl
I just posted this in the last thread accidently, so here it is again:
Oldie but Goldie: The Optimist by David Glenn
Last November 16, Pincus was given two new reasons to grumble. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threatened that day to hold him in contempt if he did not identify the anonymous sources he relied on when covering the 1999 investigation of Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos nuclear scientist who was suspected of passing computer codes to the Chinese. Lee is now suing the government, charging violations of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, and his lawyers have pressed Pincus and five other reporters to give up their sources.
The same day, a spotlight was thrown on an embarrassing he-said, he-said dispute between Pincus and his Washington Post colleague Bob Woodward. That morning’s Post contained Woodward’s belated confession that he had been told about Valerie Plame’s CIA employment as early as June 2003. Woodward said he had mentioned the tidbit to Pincus in the newsroom that same month. Pincus insists that he remembers no such conversation.
In a series of interviews over breakfast in December and January, Pincus griped about the number of hours he has recently had to spend huddled with lawyers strategizing about the threats hanging over his head: a $500-a-day civil fine in the Lee case (which has been stayed pending his next appeal) and potential subpoenas for his original notes about Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the Valerie Plame saga. Each case, of course, involves several reporters, but Pincus alone suffers the headache of having been drawn into both affairs. And the stakes are not trivial: when the dust settles, the jurisprudential foundation of reporter-source confidentiality might be weaker than it has been in decades.
http://cjr.org/issues/2006/2/Glenn.asp
hackworth @ 122
How Prescient of the Prosecution!
Juan “T-Ball” Williams
RT @
17
Right there with you, RT. His condescending righteous tone toward the press was bad enough, but the outright lies he would regularly emit in that tone really steamed me. Ever since he suddenly resigned at the start of the CIA retaliation-leak I’ve wondered what exactly he knew about it that he bolted out of there so quickly.
Finally we get to hear it.
Rayne @ 106
Looks like Waterman blue black with some kind of fine point. Maybe a Sheaffer.
A quick draft of The New York Times story is out, “Ex-Bush Aide Contradicts Libby on C.I.A. Agent “: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01…..libby.html
The big news: Mr. Fleischer, testifying in Mr. Libby’s trial under a grant of immunity, said Mr. Libby told him over lunch on July 7, 2003, that the wife of a critic of President Bush’s Iraq policy worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. That is three days before he told a grand jury that he first learned her name.
Remember Fitz saying that you can’t be surprised about something on Thursday that you already knew on Monday. Not only did Libby know it on Monday but he was excitedly telling anyone who would listen that it was hush-hush, and on the QT. Not so good for Team Libby.
Breaking News:
George W. Bush’s approval ratings finally fall equal to the IQ ratings of his followers.
-GSD
CHS – I will aver here and now, that the Libby trial is an open and shut case. ;-p
I was shocked, shocked to find out the date of my birthday after being reminded.
-Scooter LIEbby
sonate @ 102
Anyone in government, essentially. Impeachment and conviction is how any executive or judicial government official can be removed from office. (Apparently legislators are not generally considered “civil officers,” though there is some argument about this.) The president is the only one who cannot be indicted while in office (he has to be impeached and convicted first, and then could be indicted.)
off topic but clearly in this think progress report, it’s obvious middle east unrest is the actual goal in Iraq, linked with sources up the butt;
“The United States remains committed to a unified, democratic and prosperous Iraq and looks forward to the continued cooperation of the international community for Iraq’s future.” [11/28/06]
“The unanimous adoption of this resolution is a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a ‘federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq.’” [11/8/05]
Apparently, Bolton never really meant what he said. In a recent interview, Bolton said it’s not in the U.S.’s “strategic interest” for there to be a unified Iraq:
“The United States has no strategic interest in the fact that there’s one Iraq, or three Iraqs,” he was quoted as saying in the French daily Le Monde. “We have a strategic interest in the fact of ensuring that what emerges is not a state in complete collapse, which could become a refuge for terrorists or a terrorist state.”
The comments by Bolton marked the second time in less than a week that Bolton had contradicted Bush administration policy. Last week, he said the United States may not be able to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because of a flawed diplomatic strategy. Bolton’s comments are a stark reminder of why he was unfit for the U.N. International diplomats could never determine what was his real agenda.
Is peanut a Wiggles, Teletubby, Blue’s Clues or Barney fan?
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 108
I gave it a quick read. The Court discusses the President’s power, as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief, to control access to sensitive information affecting national security (and held unreviewable the Executive Branch’s determination that a prospective employee should not be given the security clearance necessary for his to perform the job for which he’d been hired).
But I don’t see anything about the President’s power to declassify something that has been classified. My guess is that Addington was extrapolating, and bootstrapped the power to declassify from the Court’s discussion of the Executive’s power to grant or withhold security clearances.
As Professor Foland noted above, one way to interpret Executive Order 13292 is to view the President as the “supervisory official” of whatever government agent had originally classified the information. But you don’t get that from the case Addington cited. You get that from reading the language of the Executive Order. And I’m not sure that the President can be considered a “supervisory official” just because he’s higher up the food chain in the Executive Branch. I mean, does the President actually “supervise” the actions of whoever determines which agents are covert? Does he know what determinations have been made about NOC status? I don’t think so.
For quite a long time I thought that Clinton’s views on Iraq (whatever they are) was the thing I found most distasteful. I’ve changed my mind. I find the lack of courage to be THE offensive quality permeating the Senator from NY.
Ed*ard Teller @ 40
The Bush Legacy.
No wonder SMU is fighting his prez library.
I have been enjoying The Kid exercising his newfound reading skills. He’s been reading to me: Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.
It’s a good story, but I have to quit substituting “Irving” and “George” for “Alexander” in my head.
according to al martin at conspiracy planet, this whole trial is a waste of time.
libby negotiated a 30 million dollar price tag to be the fall guy, 10 mil for each year in prison before bush pardons him.
keep watching the skies….
Uh.
Mah.
Gawd.
Bush on NPR: Well, uh, the Vice President is, uh, heh, a ‘half glass full’ kinda guy…
Now is it any surprise that the Bush rhetoric against Iran is reaching it’s most stern tone to date?
-GSD
Dave Gregory’s name keeps coming up.
Is Wells indirectly inferring that Gregory spoke to Russert… to keep alive Libby’s story that Russert told him about Plame…
Why not just call Gregory as a witness?
Makes no sense to me….
This struck me. Left in Addington testimony thread also.
Addington testifies 2-3 times: (paraphrase) “The room where Libby and I were speaking CAN’T have more than two people, too tiny…”
Then he says: “[Libby] left following Hadley”.
How does that work, exactly? There are only 2 people in the room, and you leave following someone while the third person observes?
Quoting from Marcy’s typing:
Once again, explain that to me, how that works?
fred c dobbs @ 143
if the war goes on and on with borrowing to fund it as we are, 30 million might not buy a month rent
drinksforall @ 65
Woodward is also claiming comments he made in his press room were unattended…
another pattern of excuses coming here???
I am still going over the remark by Cathie Martin re “where would I go?” re questioning the classified info…KarenMcL @ 47
Martins testiomony today….re ‘where else she could go”…since it came from the vp..was very important ..imo..cant seem to get that one remark out of my head…
I caught the preznint on NPR also trex. He made many false claims and a coupla speech errors. The biggest had to do with the word elevate.
anatomist at #99: John Dickerson (formerly of Time) mocked Fitzgerald’s investigation in a two-part Slate article in February 2006.
“Where’s My Subpoena?” makes for very interesting reading in light of Ari Fleischer’s testimony:
http://www.slate.com/id/2135554/
It’s worth noting that the editor of Slate, Jacob Weisberg, has repeatedly minimized the CIA leak case and its importance. Was Dickerson up front with him? Seems to me Dickerson’s article was written with a heavy dose of wink-wink nudge-nudge. Weisberg, I’ve got some questions for you….
rumi @ 110 – thanks.
Had forgotten that whole “selective declassification” of some portions of the NIE, and how nobody else knew it had been declassified, and how Libby tried to make Judy think she was getting something juicy, but didn’t show her the one-page summary – perhaps because of the INR’s refusal to endorse the uranium bullshit.
Still, Plame was not part of any of that supposed de-class, and so he tripped over that and now here we are, finally getting that and a whole lot more unraveled.
Seems the environment is target-rich, should Fitz want to move on to the much heavier matters that are overshadowing these obstruction and perjury against Libby.
Looks to me like Cheney will be walking thru a minefield if he gets called.
Bay State Librul @ 146
David Gregory is married to Beth Wilkinson a former top Justice Dept. Prosecutor – principal deputy of the Terrorism & Violent Crime Section and a prosecutor on the trial team in U.S. v. McVeigh and Nichols.
EastCoastie @ 147
Could just mean he left the room… and then followed Hadley into VP’s office.
TRex-
I caught some ot that. Can you confirm that when chimpy was confronted with the republican rubber stamp congress’ profligate spending that agreed with the size of the pie and disputed with the size of the slices and requested a line item veto to correct the problem? This dude really insults my cognitive reasoning ability.
TRex @ 8
Sparkles the Iguana @ 56
My hand’s up!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 140
It’s about relentless ambition. Desire for something external to yourself, an office or thing or money or power… to the point that you’re willing to do anything to gain it. Once that’s true, you have to subjugate your *character* to the quest. Your character doesn’t matter, what you’re saying doesn’t matter, gaining the object (office) of your desire is all that matters.
Versus. Someone who wants the office for the sake of doing good with it. Someone whose ideals are congruent with what they’re going to do when /if they acquire the office. To that person, what they do on the road to aquire the thing (office) matters, because their character matters highly to them.
This is what’s so unnerving about Hillary Clinton. And about McCain these days. It’s written all over them. The idea is to hold the title, not to help people while in office.
Sad, really.
Just grates on ya to watch it play out.
Beltway, I’m not even in the Excited Snakes and I am fascinated with this trial!
All I can say is, I picked a baaaaad week to start a new job.
: (
Wolverine @
20
THere have been maybe 7 juror questions total–you can tell which they are bc they’re the ones Walton asks after the redirect (Fitz’ team’s second questions). Today, after Ari, there were several “speculative” questions thatWalton was unable to ask (likely about WHY Libby leaked to Ari). But they tend to be the questions you guys ask in threads. So for example, a juror asked the same question you guys did–how can Ari not believe this is classified when Libby said it was hush hush? I like the juror questions. THey take time (they involve a sidebar at the end of the redirect). But they generally are valuable questions–and give us a read on the trial.
Redshift@136
Thanks. Sounds like anybody in the executive branch.
EastCoastie @ 147
Libby leaves Addington’s office, but not through a door that goes straight into Cheney’s office. (Maybe Addington left his office, too). Addington observes that Libby enters Cheney’s office behind someone, possibly Hadley.
It doesn’t put Hadley in Addington’s office.
(that is my guess)
Obnox @
90
But I think Libby’s using those words was a “cutesy” way (too cutesy by far) of saying that Ari was supposed to leak it, and maybe even some suggestion as to whom to leak it to. Perhaps a prior understanding as to the list of favored shills for that kind of action, like the list of go-to tv appearances that Cathie Martin described.
TRex @
131
I knew this case had something to do with Letterman’s band.
I’m here. I’m queer. I’m home. I’m taking questions.
What’s on your mind?
OMG, Ari has lost a LOT more hair since last we saw each other.
(NYT photo)
EastCoastie @ 147
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. He described Libby walking out of the room and meeting someone in the all and going into VP’s office.
Just love the way Bush is concerned about the possibility of Iran threatening Iraqis.
“we will respond firmly” if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens… Iraqi citizens.
Pachacutec @
166
Since you asked, what is the symbolic meaning of this in relation to the Libby trial: Eagle lugging a deer head causes a blackout in Juneau, Alaska
Fitzmas at 138 — At the moment, she’s more of a Little Einsteins and Dora fan, but she also loves Blues Clues and The Wiggles. Depends on the day, frankly, although Pixar movies rank right up there for her as well. That and pretty much any Miyazake anime. (Especially Kiki’s Delivery Service, Totoro, and Spirited Away.)
Sparkles the Iguana @ 56
Last I looked, Hilton Head Island is not inside the beltway!
Sorry I’m kind of bouncing around on answers to questions, gang — am making tortilla soup for dinner this evening, and shredding the chicken is taking a little more effort with The Peanut running around trying to “help” me today. LOL
litigatormom @ 139
…But I don’t see anything about the President’s power to declassify something that has been classified. My guess is that Addington was extrapolating, and bootstrapped the power to declassify from the Court’s discussion of the Executive’s power to grant or withhold security clearances.
is there any way to challenge this in court… the power to declassify that they
usurpassert for the President?mauricehall @ 104
I think Ari was a juicy suckling pig, not a wriggling cat.
current burn rate is $1B every 4 days
Christy Hardin Smith @ 173
Uh, yum! I’m coming to your house for dinner. You better make an extra big pot.
Editor & Publisher credits FireDog Lake bloggers:
Editor & Publisher
[mod note- link fixed- it was incorrect]
I still think a possible motive to all this could be the dragging out of this trial past the 2004 election. We also have the suppressing of the warrantless wiretaps NY Times stories pre-election. Would it be safe to say that there was a deliberate attempt by the White House to suppress damaging info about them getting out before the election? Who’s to say that Libby’s obfuscation wasn’t a part of this strategy? I have no doubt if these two stories came out pre-election, Kerry would have won by a landslide that no diebold machine could reverse.
hackworth @97:
COS- Chief of Staff?
Christie,
Do you think it’s possible that Libby told Fleischer “hush hush” knowing that Ari is a gossip and that word would get out? There are people in many lines of work who are told things knowing they would get out. Would Fleischer feel “important” getting lunch and a big scoop?
Not that it would in any way excuse Libby…
ZappoDave @ 178
Bloggers who are highly detailed and accurate? Who hacked into the E&P website?
/snark
Don’t know if somebody mentioned this, but Ari’s testimony that Libby told Ari that Plame was CPD nails the fact that Plame’s status was classified and probably NOC. So much for the wingnut arguments that she had an unclassified desk job. (But since wingnuts can’t read, maybe they’ll not be persuaded!)
ZappoDave @ 178
WHOOOOOO-HOOOOOOO!!!
Our crumpet-free days are over, gang!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 171
My five-year old just plowed through four episodes of Blues Clues, while I have been trying to “work” upstairs. She is now on the V-SMile playing Dora.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 115
omg another ReddHedd multitasker-in-the-making !!
oh, wait, you‘re cooking the dinner; I misread
I guess after today’s revelations we’ll see Sandy Berger and Joseph Wilson indicted.
(joke)
Teddy at 186– hehehe Well, I’m cooking AND hanging with The Peanut. But I’m a momma — it’s what we do. *g*
twolf1 @
170
I think it means think before you get head.
Does anyone think Fitz and his super decoder ring has figured out the aspen letter yet?
sonate @
77
Which, due to the fact that he was specific about the “CPD” bit, makes me think that he was setting up a “plausible deniability” defense… “Hey, I *told* Air that she was CPD, he should have *known* that it was classified.” … but not actually *saying* the word classified because he really wanted it leaked. He just didn’t want to be held accountable for the leak. Air was leaving anyway, so what a great fall guy, huh?
EastCoastie >
The Be`ers vs the Do`ers.
Some want to “be somebody” & others want to “do something”
I`ll side with the Do`ers…
“…Ambition must be made to counteract ambition…” – FEDERALIST No. 51
frankly ccmask, I’d like to ask Mrs. Libby :o
ccmask @ 190
Sorry, but what the heck is this? I know it’s in here somewhere…
Easy, peanut might read this!
Pachacutec @ 189
Sparkles the Iguana @ 72
Barbaro is the true innocent in all this mess.
Team Libbey is the Muck Beneath His Hooves.
Terry Olson @ 181
and how is it “hush-hush” and “newsy?”
As a simple average nonlawyer, I think Addington’s claim is similar to the following.
A comparison could be made to the ultimate authority a principal has in an educational institution (excluding the school board). All rules in this authority flow from the highest position and are conveyed to appropriate officers/individuals to execute according to provisions defined by that top authority.
As the origin of that power and the ability to create-disable-modify provisions of its use, it possesses the power to define the use for itself.
I’m sure this all based on the theory of ‘acting in a mature and responsible manner’ in respect to that authority.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Virginia) is saying on Tucker that an attack on Iran would be a disaster.
Pachacutec >
Be sure you can handle the head you get
“All animals except Man know that the ultimate purpose of life is to enjoy it” – Samuel Butler
What was Libby’s “need to know”?
Pachacutec @ 189
spew alert!
Pach — did I miss your earlier explanation of the juror who got excused? Did Walton explain anything? Is there anything you can tell us?
Also, are there enough alternates if one was needed after only a week’s testimony?
Great job, FDL, and props (as the youngsters say) on the Froomkin shout-out (just above the heading “Cheney’s Media Strategy” — oh, the irony, it burns!)
The one thing that is ‘open and shut’ for me is that Rove, Cheney AND Bush all knew what Libby was up to. Just like Nixon in Watergate knew the details. Damn.
rumi @ 198
And that may be exactly why W speaks to us as if we are schoolchildren who don’t understand. (One disconnect in your analogy is that the schoolchildren don’t elect their principal.)
Shorter Bush:
America is the only country that can kill Iraqis with indiscrimination.
-GSD
someone HELP, where is the timeline?
when was the info in the leak declassified? Was it done retroactively?
I am trying to figure all this out and it is a pain with out a road map
194:
Libby wrote to Miller while she was in jail, reminding her that Aspens are connected at their roots. They die back in the fall and return in the spring.
In the previous testimony by Ari, (bolded by Marci), the prosecution shows him a note written as a good by to Ari, who was leaving office. He mentions their common interest in the Dolphins, and says, in effect: This looks like another Aspen letter to me. Take care of it would you?
It has me scratching my head, too.
I have searched todays evidence in the PdF files online, and see nothing like this introduced by either side.
I don’t like this nit-picking b’hit about Senator Clinton’s singing or the Bill joke.
TeddySanFran @ 205
We didn’t elect our president, either.
:-)
PeppermintPatti @ 93
Believe you can plea right up to the end.
My question: Can new charges be brought by the prosecutor during the trial based on info ‘learned’ in the trial???
prostratedragon @
164
Ahhh…I think I need to work on my cynicism. That should have been obvious to me, but thinking deviously doesn’t come naturally.
(One disconnect in your analogy is that the schoolchildren don’t elect their principal.)
And we didn’t elect this president.
epu’d but what the hell–
cbl coment 40 last thread; the U.S. News link from last MARCH!
Perfect Wintermute moment.
Thanks.
The most interesting thing I read today was a Spiegel Online International interview with former chief of the CIA’s Europe division Tyler Drumheller entitled “We Probably Gave Powell the Wrong Speech” .
Here’s an excerpt:
SPIEGEL: The renditions program saw the kidnapping of suspected Islamist extremists to third countries. Were you involved in the program?
Drumheller: I would be lying if I said no. I have very complicated feelings about the whole issue. I do see the purpose of renditions, if they are carried out properly. Guys sitting around talking about carrying out attacks as they smoke their pipes in the comfort of a European capital tend to get put off the idea if they learn that a like-minded individual has been plucked out of safety and sent elsewhere to pay for his crimes.
SPIEGEL: We disagree. At the very least, you need to be certain that the targets of those renditions aren’t innocent people.
Drumheller: It was Vice President Dick Cheney who talked about the “dark side” we have to turn on. When he spoke those words, he was articulating a policy that amounted to “go out and get them.” His remarks were evidence of the underlying approach of the administration, which was basically to turn the military and the agency loose and let them pay for the consequences of any unfortunate — or illegal — occurences.
SPIEGEL: So there was no clear guidance of what is allowed in the so called “war on terrorism”?
Drumheller: Every responsible chief in the CIA knows that the more covert the action, the greater the need for a clear policy and a defined target. I once had to brief Condoleezza Rice on a rendition operation, and her chief concern was not whether it was the right thing to do, but what the president would think about it. I would have expected a big meeting, a debate about whether to proceed with the plan, a couple of hours of consideration of the pros and cons. We should have been talking about the value of the target, whether the threat he presented warranted such a potentially controversial intervention. This is no way to run a covert policy. If the White House wants to take extraordinary measures to win, it can’t just let things go through without any discussion about their value and morality.
SPIEGEL: Perhaps the White House wanted to gloss over its own responsibility.
Drumheller: Let me give you a general thought: From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn’t do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions.
The whole interview is pretty damning actually.
Nan
TeddySanFran @ 203
We had no concrete explanation. Just a declaration.
My laptop keeps overheating and shutting off. help!
TRex (131) — sorry, off cooking chili for dinner…yeah, my first impression at a glance was a fountain pen. But the finish of the letters didn’t seem right, didn’t know if it was a better rollerball point, like the one in a Meisterstuck.
Definitely not off-the-rack pen from big box office store.
That said — meaning we are in agreement this was no cheapie ballpoint pen — wouldn’t you think Martin would make a beeline to get her pen back if she’d been shooed out of a room and had to resort to another pen?
(Still need to see the mixed ink note, hope to see black ballpoint…)
Oh gawd. Matthews opens “Hardball” talking about the bad-boy-Bill joke from Hillary today. I dislike defending Senator Clinton, but get off it Matthews and the rest. Small things amuse small minds, I guess.
While the WH creeps are lying about their lies, the news in San Antonio is about the rehabilitation center built to help those who have been so severely wounded because of the evil done under the guise of freedom by the Bush devils. McCain and Clinton spoke which only made it sadder–connecting the tragic wounds and blatant politics. Have we no shame?
bookwoman @ 62
I watched too. Amazing what a difference an election makes. There was an actual narrative, not just isolated charges. They delivered context, history and motives. That Maxine Waters is one tough cookie. Also exceedingly smart of her to honor the soldiers present, and give them the opportunity to speak. Yes, all about oil. Saddam refused contracts for oil pipeline, began contracts with Russia, China & France. That is the reason, and also reason for aggression against Iran. OIL!
oldtree (207) — click on my name, scroll down in that top post to the Resources, select the DKosopedia timeline.
ccmask (217) — you’re going to screw up your motherboard if you don’t take a 10 minute break to do some maintenance. Get a vacuum with hose, clean your fan outlet and any other opening on laptop. Set laptop on a couple spacers (I have 2 pieces 1/2″ x 1/2″ x 12″ long maple trim that I use for this purpose) to allow airflow under your laptop. Reboot and return.
HappyDays: I believe the Aspen comment was editorializing by Marcy…
Oh geez. “Who will I turn to for solace on the Dolphins?” This is another damn Aspen letter!!! This is worth looking up later!!!
Rumi – What he is arguing is that some people (i.e. the preznit and anyone he authorizes) are above the law b/c they “are” the law (by virtue of being the preznit or so authorized by the preznit). Yes, it is tautological, but it has to be b/c there is nothing other than the tautology that they can point to to support the position.
That doesn’t analogize to education, corporations, parenting/families, or, unsurprisingly, our government and the people who serve in it.
Shorter me: Its not a serious argument, through they may be serious about pushing it, so don’t try to apply actual reasoning to it, you’ll just get a headache.
You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now.
You will have stories to cover–Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program.
Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning.
They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.
Come back to work—and life.
Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
Lewis LIbby
Biological threats?? WTF
These people are very creepy, anyone been to the Denver International Airport and seen the NWO murals?
They better get them now!
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/denver.html
‘I Left My Heart in Aspen’ by Hush Hush and the QTs.
-
ccmask @ 217
Is it a problem with the battery?
Sally @ 220
McCain and Clinton. Gross. I want our people out of Iraq! Now. This kind of stuff enables me wanting to get angry.
o/t via raw story
Royal Dutch Shell Tells WH to go Cheney itself
It’s Hard Out Here for a Chimp
oh and,
Last Honest Man has special surprise guest at Katrina hearing
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2…..g_0129.htm
video avail on page
Christy, as per usual your “Peek inside the Media Circus” and “Bingo” were extremely helpful to me. I’ve been reading Marcy’s most excellent unofficial transcript, and simply missed all the nuggets you highlighted.
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA:
I watched the evening news, popping between the Big Three on broadcast television.
WHY THE F*CK ARE YOU GIVING MORE AIR TIME TO BARBARO THAN THE BIGGEST SCANDAL SINCE WATERGATE????
Barbaro was a nice horse. We get it. We loved him too.
BUT YOU AREN’T GOING TO HIDE YOUR COMPLICITY IN THIS SCANDAL BY BEATING A DEAD HORSE FOR P.R.!!!
Redeem yourselves and become the Fourth Estate instead of slaves to corporate masters.
Remember that the first couple of stories you covered — the Iraq War and the wounded Iraq vets — are a direct result of the Niger yellowcake lies.
F*CKING DO YOUR DAMNED JOBS!!!!
signed, A Concerned Citizen
Rayne: I have been using 4 books, 2 on each side with my laptop balanced between them, leaving room for the fan. (books: Lying Liars, Lapdogs, Against all Enemies & Plan of Attack)….I also bought the Lapinator, which doesn’t help at all. My son took air in a can and squirted the fan but to no avail. I notice that the ac adaptor gets really hot…do you think I need a new adaptor?
CBL – Awhile ago I was working on a version of “It’s hard to be a Chimpy in the City.” Your post reminded me of that.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 224
I understand your point but I disagree on the effect it will have in the long run. I think their argument will go to the SC and we’ll never get some of those powers removed. Beyond that, look at the devastation caused by assuming that power incorrectly. Even if its challenged in court, that doesn’t undo the damage caused to the Wilson family.
stingray @ 153
That might be the point of Wells’ hinting at impeaching Fleischer. The defense has called everybody and their mother to testify before Libby does, and Libby is the one who’d have to impeach Fleischer’s testimony in order to corroborate their stories. Meanwhile, Libby’s clearly sent the message in his opening statement that he plans on taking people down with him.
So Rove, Cheney, et. al., will all have to testify before Libby, without knowing what Libby will say. And if Libby ends up admitting guilt, they all go down the tubes with him.
rumi: Do you think it could be the battery?
Pach:
Can’t wait to see your coverage for today! Did Martin breathe a sigh of relief at the end of her testimony? Just a “Phew! It’s over!”, or “I’m glad they didn’t ask about ***!” (or something else entirely?) Any body language between Ari and Libby? Does Libby’s defense team actually expect Fitz’s witnesses to come spend time with them in advance?
Emptywheel:
Judy Judy Judy follows Addington, but Fitz isn’t yet done with Addington; right?
dingo kidneys @
130
While agreeing with you all both about Fleischer’s character and about his sudden departure,I was going to say something about Fleischer resigning before the leak affair broke; had thought it was in March, which, while we now know some manuver was already going on, would have shown awesome prescience.
Then I checked. He announced his resignation on or about May 20, 2003, when CNN reported it. Even at the time, I wondered what could be getting a little too hot for Ari. Now, it looks definitely like a move to limit his legal exposure.
I’m wining about hush-hush…
perris @ 95
The proof is in the pudding: here and here.
Shuster on Hardball now.
ccmask @ 190
Yes, but has Judy, Judy, Judy???
Rumi – They’re pushing of the unitarian executive will end when they lose the ‘08 preznit election. Oh the horrors of a “unitary” Hillary, or Obama, or any dem.
Rayne @ 231
Uhm. Most well-timed delivery on the internets.
Tweety may be having some health problems, he has saliva dripping down his chin.
Getting in here late and sorry I have not read any of the comments, but I am struck by the remarkable work rate of our legal system. It seems like a very full day compared to Europe (where I have lived for the pat 30 yrs) which seems to be 900-300 if that.
Any thoughts from the legal folks who are giving me renewed faith in our system of law and those devoted to upholding it.
How is it that on MSNBC’s, ABC’s, CBS’s and CNN’s web sites (could be lots of others) the reporting on Ari Fleischer’s testimony today drops one essential fact — that (in addition to Scooter Libby telling Ari that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA) he also told Ari that Valerie Plame worked in CPD.
That’s not a small, insignificant detail. It shouts volumes — about HOW MUCH Scooter already knew about Valerie Plame and about the fact that what he was disseminating was almost certainly classified information.
The WaPo reports the detail as does the NYT and the LAT. Is it just the broadcasters who seem to think that that small addition wasn’t worth the space?
ccmask @ 236
I’m no expert but I remember the news about recalling defective batteries that were in many popular laptops. One of the workarounds was to remove the battery when using the laptop off of ac adapter (I think it was) Does the laptop work like that?
ccmask (232) — It sounds more like a power problem, maybe a voltage issue. Do you have a power strip that has surge protection? It might help with “cleaning” your power.
I think you might want to consider getting a UPS for your power. Can’t hurt since it would protect your machine (and any other critical peripherals) from shutting down in case of a power outage.
You might want to try moving to a different outlet for awhile and see if your laptop and power “brick” cool off. Could be a localized problem with that particular outlet.
Any chance you are using a Dell Inspiron 1100?
EPU,
would love to hear it Omniscient One – been feelin’ it myself lately – recently penned They Call The Chimp Pariah on SOTU night and Fitzcraft in honor of Team FDL at Prettyman :>
those fingers on refresh
pesky details that emesh
Our team there in the flesh
oh it’s Fitzcraft . . .
yeah I know, I’ll be over here
rumi @
227
CPU Heat sink – or Power supply.
OK, think I got it.
If I had to guess at this point, I’d say that Libby has already talked about a plea deal with Fitz, and they’re setting up Rove, Cheney, and a bunch of other people to give testimony that potentially conflicts with either Fleischer or Libby, with Libby at the end confirming or denying everyone’s story, *and* holding the keys on whether or not to appeal and impeach Fleischer’s testimony.
That’s what Libby’s opening statement about scapegoating, as well as the brief discussion of Fleischer’s immunity deal, was all about.
The Aspen letter is “If one of us go down we all go down together, you better get back onboard if you want “life”
We have plans “biological 911″ and war with Iran, Come home we know where you are.”
Evil Parallel Universe @ 243
I don’t think the VP has any plans for any Democrat to use the powers he has worked to accumulate over the past 6 years.
I never use it just on the battery. It only lasts about an hour on a full charge. I always have it plugged in. I have a Toshiba.
Jane’s taking a crack at the Double-Talk Express upstairs, gang.
I’m out to get food. Back later.
ccmask (255) – oh well, it may not be the same problem I had with my Dell. Mine was a bad heat sink – or so they said. Ended up replacing the motherboard, heat sink and CPU, almost a brand new computer inside.
ZappoDave mentioned heat sink, too, worth having checked out.
I’d like to hear more about David Schuster’s cell phone going off not once but twice.
Wanna get away?
Rayne @ 223
Rayne, a number of people have asked what CPD means. Might be a useful one to add under your list of abbreviations. This is a valuable resource that you’ve put together. Thank you. Maybe the link could be added to the front pages of the live-blogs, so that people don’t keep asking the same questions.
Peppermint Patty good to see you here, hope you’re feeling well !!!
ZappoDave @ 250
it’s a laptop
his vents are clogged and need to be vacuumed or his fans are not working and need to be replaced
also, you can’t really put your laptop on your lap, that covers the vents, causes the fans to work constantly, uses your battery up and causes overheating
if you need to use your laptop on your lap, put it on a flat surface like a notebook
some people keep their laptop in their cases, that causes overheating
in general, laptops don’t survive heavy useage more then a year or two, of course there are exceptions
Okay…I’ve changed outlets and I’ll see if that helps. As long as I have it balanced on my books I’m okay. The fan just doesn’t want to stop if I don’t. And, if I plug in the usb wireless mouse, it really works the fan.
I guess it is time to bring it to work and let the guy who runs all our computers and servers look at it. Thank all.
Rumi – The universal counter that type of paranoia are the ‘06 elections. Hey, believe in whatever conspiracy theory you like, but that particular one took a lethal hit just a few month ago.
Hi Susan…feeling better every day, thanks…
Delurking to say “thank you” for another fascinating day at FDL…
Obnox @
212
Good for you. I’ve always been a bit frightened at the ease with which it seems to come to me.
QuentinCompson @
226
Oh, haw-haw-w-w-, haw-haw!
The main impression I have from the recent testimony is how casual these folks were with classified information. I think there are several facets to this.
1. Rove had a security clearance, and was also senior political operative.
2. Cheney not only had a security clearance, but he had agents in every single Department of the Government that had anything to do with security or oil. That is, he arranged the appointment of literally hundreds of his people in bureaucracies all across the Government. There was a newspaper article about the Cheney appointments not long ago.
The second set of factors is that the Bush/Cheney political appointees operated feudally– that is, they worked not for the agency for whom they worked, but for whomever got them appointed. Cheney operatives in the CIA, for example, felt like Cheney was their Liege Lord, not like they worked for the *CIA*, and they all worked for the Bush/Cheney Team, not for the Government of the United States. Their loyalties were to their Liege Lord, and if they didn’t show it, they were shown the door. (Witness recently the firing of high level prosecutors across the country. Unprecedented!)
This also means that the BushCo. attitude towards the Constitution infects everyone who works there: The Constitution is not important. Team BushCo. is what matters. Therefore secrets are to be exploited for Team advantage.
We really need to get on Congress to line up a whole series of Impeachment proceedings, because Treason has been committed, along with numerous felonies and we CANNOT let it be!!! Silence = collusion with BushCo!!!
Bob in HI
Breaking news:
“On the qt” means quietly and has been used since 1884.” Click on the “q”.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 263
It isn’t any conspiracy theory. Was it a conspiracy theory when people were warning in 02/03 that the basis for the upcoming invasion of Iraq was bullshit and coming mostly from the VP office? I was called a conspiracy theorist for worrying that we wouldn’t be able to counter the spin that had the public bloodlust raging for war. I was called a CT when I said the media was in it for the pro-war spin as the news shows looked like infomercials for defense contractors insyead of reasonable discussion on the risks of abuse of power.
You’re probably right, though. I’ll take the condescending advice to heart and keep my possible conspiracy theories out of the discussions.
Dickerson on today’s events:
He doesn’t think this is true. He thinks he was supposed to go find who sent Wilson (i.e., the wife) but claims Fleischer didn’t tell him. Hmm.
http://www.modestyarbor.com/hush-hushheader.jpg
cathy @
9
Counterproliferation Division (CPD)
In the event no one answered…I was just reading stuff over at Globalsecurity.org
ccmask
have you had your laptop in for repair, lately? The cpu heatsink is ‘connected’ to the cpu w/ a heat conductive grease. Sometimes people who take things apart don’t remember to put them together the same way. Try running on battery. If it holds up then the problem is w/ your external power, either the unit itself or the power in. Input voltages can vary a lot but usually it is not sustained enough for a lot of heat to be generated, although spikes can trip overvoltage protection. If the unit is not overly warm to the touch but nevertheless shuts down, then power conditioning may well be in order, but from your description that the power plug is getting hot It is unlikely this is the case. At that point, the voltage has already been converted to dc and reduced and conditioned. It sounds like your unit is drawing more power than normal. If the battery is in while you are plugged into the wall, it may be bad and be charging excessively. If it will run w/o the battery in place, try that. This is the most likely problem, as li ion battery life is a function of the number of times it is charged.
Adam @ 252 says:
If I had to guess at this point, I’d say that Libby has already talked about a plea deal with Fitz, and they’re setting up Rove, Cheney, and a bunch of other people to give testimony that potentially conflicts with either Fleischer or Libby, with Libby at the end confirming or denying everyone’s story, *and* holding the keys on whether or not to appeal and impeach Fleischer’s testimony.
My guess is they are positioning themselves for a deal too. I know we are still on the Pros witness list, but his case looks like it’s full of holes and sinking fast. Hard to imagine what rabbit the D can pull out of their hat. Libby has a wife and 2 kids to think of. Plus there’s that little matter of his own *ss spending decades in prision, aqlthough I’m sure that’s beside the point – snark!
If as you suspect they have already talked to Fitz (doubt it, but I guess that’s possible) about grounds for a plea then – yes – they know what it’s going to take. And if any of that happens then we apparently justice wins because the larger truth becomes clear.
The big speculation for me is the question of “what would it take?” Because that goes to the question of what Fitz’s larger aims may be, if he even has any. A massive mis-use of intel? A masive mis-use of the NIE? Treason in the SOTU if they intentionally misled the nation and Congress? Is Fitz really ready to go that far if the facts point that way?
Given what he did in Chicago I have reasons to think he would go all the way. But – sadly – there are more reasons to think he wouldn’t, or even couldn’t – given who they would be facing.
Anyway, here’s to hoping the long knives come out soon and the bloodletting begins. Funny how legal pressure could work even better than water-boarding!
What in the hell is wrong with the media in this country? They can never be bothered to ask such a simple question as “how it is that Karl Rove still has a high level clearance after admitting to verifying information about Valerie Plame Wilson to Robert Novak?”
That’s disturbing in the extreme.
David Shuster did mention it, even spelled out CPD.
isis2 @ 174
…But I don’t see anything about the President’s power to declassify something that has been classified. My guess is that Addington was extrapolating, and bootstrapped the power to declassify from the Court’s discussion of the Executive’s power to grant or withhold security clearances.
is there any way to challenge this in court… the power to declassify that they
usurpassert for the President?Honestly, I don’t know. Who would have standing to bring a suit challenging the declassification? I suppose the CIA could refer the matter to the DOJ for an investigation…but methinks no one at the CIA would have the balls.
Now that John Dickerson has published a whole column emphatically denying that Fleischer ever told him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA (My Surreal Day at the Libby), will Libby’s lawyers be able to call Dickerson to impeach Fleischer?
IIRC Dickerson was not subpoenaed for trial and I inferred that he was not named on the witness list. In civil cases, that would be no obstacle as rebuttal witnesses need not be listed. I don’t know the rules for criminal trials.
stingray @ 275
There may or may not have been plea discussions in the past. But once the prosecution goes to trial, those discussions usually end. The next time it might come up would be after the prosecution rests. But you wouldn’t be proceeding with the trial AFTER a plea deal had already been struck in order to get other potential targets to incriminate themselves on the stand.
che @ 277
If this story doesn’t grow legs soon, then we all know who’s behind it. Wait, we already knew the media is working for their masters. What’s up with two hours of Juan Williams (super toady) and Dumbya on NPR? Is that gonna bump Dubya up a point from today’s abysmal 30 percent JAR? Jesus H Christ on a pogo stcik – they are relentless.
HI Bob said:
The second set of factors is that the Bush/Cheney political appointees operated feudally– that is, they worked not for the agency for whom they worked, but for whomever got them appointed. Cheney operatives in the CIA, for example, felt like Cheney was their
Liege Lord, not like they worked for the *CIA*, and they all worked for the Bush/Cheney Team, not for the Government of the United States. Their loyalties were to their Liege Lord, and if they didn’t show it, they were shown the door. (Witness recently the firing of high level prosecutors across the country. Unprecedented!)
Liege Lords indeed. That is exactly right.
susan — thanks for the suggesting, I’ll add that to the list of acronyms to be defined.
Bob Schacht — would be extremely interesting to trace the influence of the appointees placed by Cheney. There is a point in the timeline leading up to the war where intel on Niger and yellowcake took a hard veer to the other direction; would love to know if that change was in sync with handling by an appointee.
edit: john in california — thanks for the coaching for ccmask and laptop; sounds like I should send mine to you next time I need work done! ;-)
ccmask
just read your post re usb port
A usb port can draw up to 1/2 amp, plenty enough to wake up the fan, but a wireless output spec is only a few milliamps and therefore unlikely to pull enough current to make the fan go on. Sound kind of suspect.
theweexer @ 15 “I think the blow to Libby’s case by Ari – beyond the July 7 date preceeding the supposed July 10 conversation with Russert – is that it is the first time we hear that Libby relayed the info about Plame. The previous witnesses testified to telling Libby the information. But Ari’s testimony demonstrates that he received and absorbed the information. He can’t say he didn’t hear it, didn’t know it or did not remember it. It’s the evidence of output, not just the input, of the info.
I suppose we’ll get more of Libby’s verbal output with the next star witness…”
Great observation. He couldn’t have repeated it to Ari if he hadn’t heard it and retained it when told multiple times as sited by prior witnesses.
Funny thing is, Libby’s defense is apparently relying on Ari’s testimony about telling Dickerson, Gregory and the other reporter whose name I forget about Plame’s identity. Isn’t it part of the defense theory that Gregory got the info from Ari, and then called Timmeh and told him, and then Timmeh called Libby and told him?
How ironic that Dickerson claims that Matt Cooper called him to say that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA–information traveling to Africa from Washington, rather than the reverse.
After my post above, I read David Corn, who explains why he thinks neither Libby’s lawyers nor Fitz are interested in John Dickerson as a witness:
Libby Trial: Fleischer Tags Libby and Confesses Leaking.
litigatormon @ 280 said:
There may or may not have been plea discussions in the past. But once the prosecution goes to trial, those discussions usually end. The next time it might come up would be after the prosecution rests. But you wouldn’t be proceeding with the trial AFTER a plea deal had already been struck in order to get other potential targets to incriminate themselves on the stand.
Thanks for that insight.
Somebody posted the notion that the Prosecution and the defense may be after the same goal in this trail, a full and complete accounting of the truth. Does that strike you as possible, or even probable?
Because if that’s the case then some people better be concerned about how Libby testifies, if he does. The Libby Def’s opening statement pointing an accusing finger towards Rove makes he think Libby won’t go down quietly.
Dover Bitch @ 35
Libby had not learned it “as if new” from Russert yet. That was later in the week. The conversation between Ari and Libby was over lunch on July 7.
Nonetheless, this testimony indicates that this information about Wilson’s wife, although Ari assumed it was not classified, needed to be handled differently than ordinary pieces of information.
stingray @
288
I wasn’t saying that there was a plea bargain, just that Libby could still be angling for a deal — he’s well aware that a bunch of people have gone on the record with this, so if it’s true that he was a scapegoat and was merely the only one that Fitz could nail, facing the prospect of going before a grand jury where both the prosecution *and* the defense are going to try to get to to trip up, *and* with the spectre of previous testimony hanging over your head, you might be willing to cut a deal with Fitz.
Any case (screwing up the testimony, bargaining with Fitz, or maybe just getting fingered by Libby) would give Fitz two sources on the plea bargain leash (Libby and a second, since Ari only indicted Libby), which could be damning to a whole bunch of people. It’s also pretty consistent with his (Fitz’s) strategy in Chicago.
CL at 78 — Further, how any person who claims to be an attorney can ever say the words “open and shut” as to any legal matter is beyond me. What a bombastic jackass. I mean, hell, even Marbury v. Madison gets argued on occasion by the Federalist Society crowd. Really, Addington knows better…and thathe assumes that the jury doesn’t is so appallingly condescending.
This was purposeful and planned. Addington wants to get in a number of talking points and he will. I hope the prosecution or the defense for that matter points out that its innappropriate for Addington make an argument as if he were the Solicitor General.
QuentinCompson @ 41
That was my thought, early on, when it was first revealed that Plame was tracking WMD activity! Much easier to say, “Oh, we had bad intel on those Iraqi WMDs” if the intel network has been shredded, now isn’t it??
Two birds with one shot, from Deadeye Dick?
Or was it just blessed luck that Cheney’s knee-jerk stab for revenge tossed him into the center of Mount Doom?
For anyone who might be interested, I am doing a link index of the Liveblog at Politics Plus Stuff along with some notes on who the various people are. Click on the link “liveblog” to get all of them and none of my other posts.
If there is anything I can add or change, would someone leave me a comment? I find it useful for going directly to the specific testimony of any particular witness and for linking to summaries or analysis that is useful for making the details more relevant.
If there is a really good post analzing or summarizing the testimony that I have missed, please leave me a comment. All comments are copied to my email.
My general blog can be linked at Politics Plus Stuff.
I also respond to questions left as comments.
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.
He was with the president when he told them about plame. They were walking along the road together talking to press.
The pres said he’d fire the leaker. The pres was on af1. They were talking it up pretty good. I think there’s probably bigger fish to fry. Even bigger than cheney.
As a friendly note, it would be very helpful if the bloggers at the Libby trial would use their real names when writing, not fake names. The use of fake names while reporting on a criminal trial destroys the credibility of the writing, no matter how professionally done. Just think about going to your child’s parent-teacher conference and using a “fake name” to your child’s teacher. You wouldn’t. Drop the fake names.
Thanks.
222 Thanks Rayne; that is great.
I want to call into question the date when the Niger forgeries became of interest to the WH, it doesn’t seem to make sense. I can’t help but think that both Wilson’s were known to the WH investigative team for the upcoming wars. There is enough question that the operations of the Italians under Berlosconi, the Niger contacts and French involvement, Iraq and Iran WMD, uranium, forgeries….. The Wilson’s have a lot of independent connections to these events. There is much to call into question the WH fear that, one of the Wilson’s may know independently who created those forgeries, and other embarrassments.
Do remember the insistence of an important official denying knowing Mr. W, and there being video of them together about an important inter related event. Wilson’s op ed is Jan 2002. WH was asleep with a poor memory for over a year since his trip, so they didn’t know all about what he did via their channels. they had control over all the information coming in, and going out. no, they didn’t know the Wilson’s at all.
they are okay with destroying a working CIA operative and entire organization in Middle East
they are okay with invading Iraq and staying there, informing the Iranian’s we are coming for them.
they are okay with killing Iranian’s inside Iraq, and probably elsewhere. 500K dead later. lots of profits for defense and oil, lots of missing millions in payoffs.
you throw away the careers of two people that have been of immense service to the intelligence network for the area in which you concentrate now…..
seems like it started on day 1. almost a priority?
I would love to see a timeline of who uttered Wilson/Plame/Wife to whom when, along with a few key details like declassification, investigation, etc.
Interesting comment by Darth Cheney today. “I am the Vice President and you aren’t” in answer to a question of some sort. It is apparent that the VP thinks he is the President. Why else brag about the fact that he is the VP? In his demented mind he is the king, the president , the dictator and the czar. No other answers are relevant when you are the Vice President! He may have used the word Vice but from that remark he was demonstrating the authority of the Presidency
John Casper @
245
umm…John, that’s not saliva.
bookwoman @ 62 Today Maxine Waters and Lynne Woolsey didn’t let the world stand still. They held hearings with the objective of figuring out how to end the Iraq occupation. Great authors, professors, and military foks in attendance. (all on C-SPAN) We need to support HR 508 and end this debacle because it’s clear that Iran is next. We have no time to spare. And, guess what? It was all for oil, if you can believe it.
Last night it occurred to me that maybe all the stories about yellowcake and aluminum tubes and Mohammed Atta meeting Iraqi officials was a load of bunk. But are you saying we didn’t go to Iraq to spread democracy?
Douglas Watts @ 295 As a friendly note, it would be very helpful if the bloggers at the Libby trial would use their real names when writing, not fake names. The use of fake names while reporting on a criminal trial destroys the credibility of the writing, no matter how professionally done. Just think about going to your child’s parent-teacher conference and using a “fake name” to your child’s teacher. You wouldn’t. Drop the fake names.
How would it be helpful? We aren’t at a parent teachers conference. We are blogging online. You can address me as Neil. You can address Marcy Wheeler as EmptyWheel. Consider it a nickname like, well, Scooter.
Dover Bitch @
35
And all the reporters knew it…in fact, it was just the talk of the Washington cocktail-party circuit!
drinksforall @
65
No…it was Dickerson from Time that was reporting on the African trip. Cooper was back in Washington DC with Libby, Cheney, Martin. Dickerson says today that he wasn’t given such specific information…but I’m wondering if the other reporter(s) in their group have corroborated that Ari did say it. Perhaps Fitz is simply saving Dickerson from saying something on the stand that may end up in a perjury charge later. It would seem careless if Fitz didn’t have backup on Ari’s testimony. Of course, he wouldn’t put Dickerson on the stand if he thought HIS recollections were critical.
But Dickerson wasn’t called by the Defense either, I believe. Dickerson said that neither side interviewed him. Maybe there’s something that taints his testimony in some way? Is he a heavy drinker? Maybe he wasn’t close to the group the whole time?
It’s odd.
bellesouth @
52
However, Ford also states in this report that it is based on paper and electronic files and the recollections of those “at the margins”, not interviews with those that were actually present at the meeting. WHY??? “The two INR staff members who were most involved” (i.e. present at the meeting) ” are not here (one reassigned to Pakistan and another on leave) to guide us through these emails.”
Even these notes that Ford used are vague and clearly suggest that they were second-hand and written up well after the fact. They are not written by someone AT THE MEETING…but seem to be someone summarizing what they were either told or discerned from OTHER notes.
Exhibit DX71.5 appended to Ford’s assessment “Notes- Niger/Iraq Uranium meeting CIA 2/19/02″ opens with the odd statement “Meeting apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a Cia Managerial type and wife of Amb. Wilson…”
“APPARENTLY CONVENED”?????
That desn’t appear to be the notes of someone who was present at the meeting? It seems that these are based on some other documents, and then these ambivalencies are written up by Ford as stating that Plame CONVENED the meeting.
And these selfsame documents were used by the SSIC!
Who has bothered to interview the CIA and others who were there? DID Plame convene the meeting? Did she lead the meeting? What does “convene” mean” (simply introduce her husband and give his bona fides/background?).
The references to Plame suggesting her husband for a mission seem to relate to the 1999 trip…not the 2002 trip. The SSIC does makes reference to confusion in the memories of some on this issue, I recall.