Login HereWigmore described cross-examination as the "greatest legal invention ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974.) Put another way, it's a great tool for ferreting out untruths in the courtroom.
It's Fitzgerald's job in the Libby case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter Libby lied to federal agents and the grand jury and obstructed justice. It's the defense's job to test that proof.
Patrick Fitzgerald has placed a lot of faith in Judy Miller and Matthew Cooper and their less than perfect memories and note-taking skills. The defense chipped away at both today. There were no Perry Mason moments, but neither came across as 100% sure of what Libby told them.
Judy Miller did better today than she did yesterday, but the defense got her to acknowledge that she couldn't be 100% certain she first heard of Valerie Plame Wilson from Scooter Libby. Cooper acknowledged his notes don't back up his current memory that Libby responded with something to the effect of " I heard that too" when he asked him whether Joseph Wilson's wife had a role in selecting him for the Niger trip. Not only wasn't the statement in his notes, it wasn't in the memo he sent in to Time following his conversations with Libby.
It's a good thing for Fitzgerald that reasonable doubt doesn't mean 100% certainty. But I have a queasy feeling that unless Libby takes the stand and is not credible in his denials, neither Miller nor Cooper's testimony will bring it home for Fitz.
That leaves Ari Fleischer and Tim Russert. Former Time reporter John Dickerson disputes Ari's version. although the jury may not hear from him, unless he's the mystery witness discussed at the end of court today -- see's Marcy's live-blogging for more on the mystery witness.
In my mind, this is all going to hang on Libby's testimony. But, will we hear from him? Ted Wells was smart enough in opening not to promise the jury he would testify. If every witness has holes in their memory, does he need to put Libby on the stand, or is his better move to rest without Libby's testimony, telling the jury there's no need to put on a defense because the Government hasn't proved its case? Does he need to call Cheney? Does he need to call any witnesses at all?
The jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their story to the jury, the jury would see it their way. Ask Bernie Ebbers in the WorldComm case, who is now serving a 25 year sentence or Enron's Jeff Skilling, also doing a double digit sentence.
If Libby testifies, he is most likely to be the witness that delivers for Fitz, not Ari, Miller or Cooper.
Share This 
Spotlight
Jane!
Jeralyn & Marcy !!
Off-topic bewilderment:
I don’t get it. I know there was a lot going on, but so far as I can tell no one in the US seems to be taking much notice of the fact that Bush chased a bunch of reporters around with a 70 ton bulldozer yesterday.
I mean, even if it isn’t out of character it seems a little over the line, even as a prank.
http://bailey.talk.newsweek.co.....tem=464251
– MarkusQ
Fitz!
No way Libby testifies.
I’m not allowed to have that much fun.
-
Scooters lawyers have the bad memory defense promised to the jury. If Libby doesn’t testify he is essentially admitting his perjury because the grand jury statements contradict his earlier statements. He has to get up there and say he forgot.
Ouch! That’s a sober assessment. Fine work by the way.
Libby has been seen in a dementia center taking notes- Just what look does one get in his/her eyes as he/she says–”and who are you?” to a son or daughter. He’s READY!
Interesting, Drudge has nothing up on the Libby trial; to me that seemed to suggest that he/they didn’t think it was going so well for their side.
Richmond @ 9
I’m not sure they care whether it’s going well for the defendant or not, but it’s definitely not going well for the Bush administration’s image.
Are we prepared to conclude then, that Libby is the biggest fish for Fitzgerald to fry?
Perhaps this is why Fitzgerald wants the jury to watch all seven hours videoed of Libby’s GJ testimony, according to Keith Olbermann on Countdown tonight?
Did I hear him right? And did he get that right?
-
If Libby testifies, he is most likely to be the witness that delivers for Fitz, not Ari, Miller or Cooper.
The conventional wisdom is that you only put your client on the stand as a defendant if you’re losing. Hehe. Bring it on, and the cross with it ; )
Rockstars!
Wonderful, concise coverage.
how much do we know about scooter’s gj testimony in so far as the degree of certainty he made in his statements? it’s one thing to claim “bad memory” if you testified that you are “kinda sure” you heard it from tim russert and you’re “pretty sure” you didn’t know it from anyone else. i think most people would allow for a certain amount of forgetting, but if the gj testimony shows that he was basically reminded of the facts and repeatedly denied them, then he’s gonna have some ’splainin’ to do.
Coz, very good to see you.
IIRC, Scooter has to testify, based on prior motions by his attorneys. They have already begun introducing evidence that Walton would not allow unless he was going to testify.
Who is this witness Judge Walton says needs discussion — would this be a witness not listed? Since Marcy raised the question about the President, I’ll ask: Could they be bringing the President in to testify about the orders Scottie got?
TeddySanFran @ 17
You mean, “Beam me up”?
I am not convinced that Libby won’t have to testify. Patrick Fitzgerald is known for his trial abilities. I find it hard to believe he would shoot his wad so early with the damaging testimony already given, only to let it fizzle by the end. He’s going to regroup this thing and make it so Libby doesn’t have a choice.
Everyone has a dream.
By all accounts, Libby is likely
to do hard time. He just talked
himself in circles in the Grand Jury hearing and too many witnesses can corroborate this.
No, it’s not certain, but,thinking ahead: can Bush pardon him *immediately*? (He’s done weirder shi*t)
Or is he supposed to wait until January 2008
or some other date? Anyone know?
Some, perhaps many, argue that Rove and Cheney being sooo into micro-managing and controlling, knew and approved of everything Libby did in connection with ‘Plame’ and ‘Wilson’. And so… if Libby is the only ultimate conviction, is this another glaring incident of justice NOT being served? If this is the case than it’s all so very disgusting.
Nope, he’s not gonna talk.
Yizmo Gizmo @ 20
I believe Bush can pardon Libby anytime. Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes he had not been indicted for, much less convicted.
Rove isn’t scheduled to testify, is he? I really thought that after the grand pause that there was concerning his indictment status, he made some sort of arrangement that would’ve included his testifying at the trial. Anybody?
How many more witnesses for the prosecution? Is there a list of them and of witnesses for the defense? Does Jeralyn hang around to defend her premises, which I find a bit sketchy?
Spunkmeyer @ 23
Rove subpoenaed for Libby trial: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/26/cia.leak/
stillonmt @ 6
That doesn’t mean Libby testifies: not if the memory defense is introduced as a bait-and-switch, so that the jury applies it to prosecution witnesses, then the defense strategy is ‘Libby = scapegoat”. It’s a twofer. They can accept Walton’s sidebar argument (and presumably his closing instructions) that no-testify = no-memory-defense, but still have it lingering in the jury’s minds.
Not really. IIRC, he has even refered to them as a few loose ends, or words to that effect.
Remember, he isn’t being charged with outing Plame, but rather with lying and obstruction of justice. For this Fitzgerald doesn’t need to establish that they first heard about Plame from him (despite what the defence is trying to confuse the jury with).
They could, conceivably, have cleared him (say by saying that they both heard about it from Tim Russert and jointly decided to ask Russert to call Libby and tell him as well, and signed, dated and notarized an agreement to that effect. But that didn’t happen; not even close). What we saw with them was the t and the i being crossed and dotted. That’s all.
–MarkusQ
A President can pardon whoever, whenever for whatever - except himself. He needs a succeeding Vice President to do that for him.
-
Big winter storm coming my way. Possible ice accumulations all over North Georgia. If it happens, I am going to tell myself the trees are bowing their heads to honor Molly Ivins.
Granted I am completely biased against Libby, but given the testimony that I’ve been reading here and given that I am a lay person and not attorney, I honestly don’t believe that the little chips Jeffress took out of Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony is enough to outweigh all the previous testimony by members of the administration.
It simply is overwhelming that Libby was consumed with Wilson and his wife for quite a long time before his Russert excuse.
I was even surprised to learn that Jeffress had gotten Miller to express the tiniest bit of doubt as to whether she had first heard of Valerie from Libby. I sat reading the blogging all day long and it totally escaped me amidst everything else that was said. I never saw it. (And yes I even made the jump to DKos and came back and read what was missed.)
Therefore, I wonder, too, that this might not have been the case with the jurors. We’re all pretty focused and attorneys even more so, but you’ve essentially got people new to the details of this case of which there are many and I think people tend to get an overall picture rather than pick up little chips.
TRex @
30
Don’t forget all the shrubs.
yuck. what a buzzkill. :)
I think it’s way beyond cool that the principals of three different (presumably) for-profit news organizations–firedoglake, thenexthurrah, and TalkLeft–are co-operating on such an important project. You can imagine, can’t you? Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and ABC collaborating on anything!
Moreover, you’re all bettering the corporate media (I like corporate media better than either ‘mainstream’ or ‘traditional’; it is so beautifully disparaging, without, ostensibly, any overt meanness) with your reporting and analysis.
Moremoreover (?), the background you provide on this whole schmozzle is so relevant, so incisive, so fundamental, as to be heroic.
So, allow me to be hyperbolic for a moment, and commend you to the Olympus of Patriotism, since you spell the beginning of the end for the corporate ’schills’ and ‘mouthpieces’, the ‘cocktail weenie’-whiners, and their bosses.
And I defy any one of your readers to dispute my effusive encomium.
Keep fighting the good fight.
And, Jane, I hope you’re feeling much, much, better, and that you will, indeed, be in your reserved seat at the Prettyman courthouse for the roasting of Dick “Deadeye” Cheny.
Lou Costello @ 26
Thanks! I had missed that info.
If Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice and others just ride off into the sunset, untouched, it will be a disappointment. Though not a wholly unexpected disappointment.
The Democratic congress that immediately expediates phase 2.1 of the report into the political use of intelligence to start an illegal and agressive war - the ’supreme crime’ according to Nuremberg precedent - will deliver.
And they will deliver us from evil if they cut off all funds for this supreme crime.
Back up Fitz now or flush the American dream down the shitter forever congress. Do something damnit!
Okay, key question here for Jeralyn or any other attorneys present.
What are the rules governing announcing a “surprise witness?” Surely there must be some. So give us some parameters and, also, isn’t this the type of announcement that might cause the defense to shiver in its boots?
Lou Costello @ 26
That just means he could be called as a witness, nothing more. But I think he will be myself.
Hey, John Casper! Good to see you too.
If I were a juror right now I would be grumbling because I had to get up early in the morning to hear more about the COS of the VP running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to manipulate while manufacturing a story. His version of a story. I think I would be leaning heavily towards a guilty vote.
The defense is going to aim towards Rove
…Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.
http://news.nationaljournal.co.....525nj1.htm
Even before I listen to, and read, the round-up above, I’m wondering - Has anyone discussed the handwritten note by Cheney, where he strikes out “this Pres?”
I remember someone making a comment about the Butterfield moment, but I skimmed right past it earlier today, and now I’m too lazy to go look.
Now that I see the note itself, I’m wondering why Cheney would have scratched it out back then? Was the note scribbled BEFORE the call for an investigation?
Shouldn’t this be biggie news in some way? Any thoughts?
I appreciate Jeralyn’s perspective - which is as a defense attorney. I’m not sure that I share her perspective - but I wasn’t there. The fact is, Cooper wasn’t taking dictation, he was jotting down notes that would spark his memory when he wrote his article. And regarding his Time memo - in business, there are a lot of things you don’t spell out in writing - particularly if something was supposed to be “hush, hush.” So what if his notes didn’t reflect what was said, verbatim?
I’d like to hear whether Marcy thinks that Fitz’s witnesses aren’t hitting the mark? That isn’t the sense I get when I read her commentary.
OT- TRex- hoping for a major ice storm here, so that I don’t have to go to work. And, yes, Molly Ivins, that would be a nice “Molly Ivins” holiday.
Canuck Stuck in Muck @34
Yes, they do it every single day with this very story.
Libby Trial Reflects a Secrecy-Obsessed Administration
By Liz Halloran
1/31/07
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller this week may have proved to be a lousy witness–often dithering and plagued by seemingly stunning memory lapses–but at this point press critics who expected the perjury trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby to add up to a scathing indictment of the Washington reporting corps have to be disappointed.
Well, at least a little.
MORE LINK
Secrecy-Obsessed? Yes except for the CIA agent’s career and the careers of all of the other NOCs who worked under the same non-official cover, and the other assets connected to those operations.
From Editor and Publisher: The day ended with Cooper seemingly dismissed. The trial will pick up about 10:30 on Thursday, next witness right now unknown. Still to come, though, is Tim Russert, among others.
As noted previously, we follow the action all day, via bloggers who are in the courthouse, principally at FireDogLake.com.
Today in court:
“Walton, we’d need VP testimony
…..
Wells, I think you’ll have to talk to President Bush bc he’s probably somewhere in that chain.”
Am I the only one who pissed in their pants when I read these two lines? Are gauntlets being thrown down…or are the stars lining up?????
Each of these witnesses have forgotten something from their conversation with Libby. But, Libby is expecting that he is that forgetful nearly always–after multiple conversations with multiple people. That doesn’t fly. Have anyone even accidentally let slip something they weren’t supposed to? Remember how that felt? You don’t easily forget… I think Libby has a high hurdle to get over. He was obsessed with it, the evidence seeems to say to me…
A road map from the charges against Libby: (Charges in http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/.....102005.pdf )
26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that, (my bold)
a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President.
b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and
c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.
Lindy @ 47
To me, this is the victory. I mean, I hope that Libby gets convicted and sentenced, but really, to me, this trial is really about putting the Bush Administration’s media manipulation techniques on display for all the world to see. It is a great unmasking.
And we, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, are the ones ripping off the mask. If we (i.e., Marcy, Christy, Jane, Jeralyn, et al) weren’t on this story like white on rice, I think that the corporate media would be more than happy to let it go by, just a bit of background noise, nothing to see here, folks!
So, you know, kudos to us.
Terre @ 42
A Blast from the past…
Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president’s interview.
Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.
But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.
Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame’s identity or directed anyone else to do so.
http://news.nationaljournal.co.....703nj1.htm
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 34
Now that we don’t have to worry about bandwidth problems.
DITTO!!! It is the dawn of a new day of information.
People-powered everything without the constraints of monetary compensation and corporate-control is taking over.
I remember once having a debate over copyright infringements and the person I was engaged with said there would be no more music, or books, or anything else if the creators didn’t get paid for their work.
I argued that passion, creativity, and the need to be heard is part of the heart and soul of human beings and can never be supressed, least of all for a lack of monetary compensation, and just maybe without corporations interfering what we end up with will be even better.
Now we have the best reporting on this topic here while other “amateurs” are creating Super-bowl commercials (I kid you not) to rival expensive ad agencies, people are happy to engage in it all.
OT, but just in case someone hasn’t seen it, apparently ol’ “Toofs and Tufts” (HUGE props to a commenter here, but can’t remember which one, for the moniker…still makes me howl…) got his campaign off to a GREAT start…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....r=homepage
(SNORT)
MarkusQ @
3
maybe the best his proud parents can hope for is that, when he self-destructs, he doesn’t take any more people with him than he already has. he’s beyond an embarrassment. closest I can come is fiction: Frank Burns in “Mash”.
yes, it was disgusting. no it shouldn’t have been the lead story of the day. how SHOULD the press handle such nonsense? beats me….
This cold system is flying across the SE, with the pinkwhite mix staying upper level mostly. /dirtyfrigginghippie dippy weatherman.
-
dab from CT @ 43
Hey, dab! How ya doin’ girl? Do you think the dumb-ass nutmeggers among us finally regret their decision to reelect Lieberman?
Lord knows, I’ve heard complaints, but I just say “Talk to the hand because you know I was telling you the right thing before and you didn’t listen.” :)
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 34
I hope that was a typo- “for profit”??? Not for profit!!! Just for getting the truth out.
I too have been struck by the level of cooperation amongst the various blogs and their principals- so many chances for this have to turned into a pissing match about “I own this idea”, and that has simply NOT happened. The cooperation and collaboration are wonderful to see.
Excellent post Jeralyn. I don’t know how you, Marcy and the others keep all of this maddening misdirection straight. I’m glad y’all are doing it because I know that task is beyond me.
I’m here for the popcorn and the Constitution.
;) thanks for all of the hard work
Marion- pretty sure it was Punaise. Sounds like him, fer sure.
With the small portions of the Aspens note they played today, and the fact Miller hemmed and hawed about Libby-talking to him in prison and in general, could the Jury find her not credible, but see through thefact she is not credible only because she was trying to cover for Libby?
Valley Girl @ 50
Well, then. Thanks for reminding us.
I recollect that punaise recently credited Teefs ‘n Tufts as a co-creation of Montag and TeddySF …but right now my memory is a little cloudy…and that’s not from any of EPU’s ether either.
VG, you may be right about punaise’s creativity. I still can’t look at a picture of him without giggling, which means IT’S WORKING…. (the moniker, that is…)
Also, that “cooperation and collaboration” thingie you mentioned at 8:05 is a refreshing change from the usual circular firing squad. Let’s keep that C&C up, ‘kay?
Now I’m off to dive under the down-filled duvet. We’re not used to temps in the 20s … BRRRRR…
EPU’d from other two threads: they’re trying to impeach Cooper based on supposed typos in his notes, but that’s stupid. Also, based on the frequent r vs n error that they harped on, I think the errors are not even Cooper’s typos. My guess is that he provided his notes in printed form, and somebody scanned them and OCR’d them. The r vs n error is a very common OCR artifact. If they’re not looking at the actual printout he made directly from his computer file, or at something made from the computer file itself, they’re possibly looking at errors introduced through some later conversion step. This could be Dan Rather and the AWOL Bush Selectric Composer typefonts all over again.
TRex @
51
I agree and I think the most difficult part is having to choose what to leave out of the conversations. The testimony in this trial has gone far beyond the projected scope into areas that the TH/MSM haven’t really acknowledged. Now that we know we have the eyes and ears paying attention, maybe we also have the responsibility to not get too far ahead of what may follow this trial.
It’s my humble opinion though that the blog-citizen-legislator-media discussion of the case’s issues in entirety could have been a desired goal. We can have the discussions of issues that can’t be had in court.
Didn’t Walton say something to the effect of if Libby doesn’t testify, it would be suicide for him (Libby) and he wouldn’t be able to use the memory defense?
neurophius @
23
If Bush pardons Libby, the REPUBLICANS will start impeachment proceedings out of sheer self-preservation. They can’t afford to be close to Bush the radioactive boat anchor as it is; a pardon of Libby will make him absolutely deadly to any Republicans running for office in ‘08.
I don’t really understand Jeralyn’s point about how Miller and Cooper aren’t good witness for the prosecution. As someone said above they’re not trying to prove Scooter leaked just that he lied.
So far, Jefress seems to be arguing about the leak. Wells, well who the hell knows what Wells is doing. Nothing he says seems to have any point whatsoever. Fitz seems to be sticking to the bone he’s picking: the lies and he makes sense.
Also, if any of the lawyers are reading, some of the contesting of witnesses and documents over the past few days is very confusing. If someone can elaborate on what’s been going on that would be very helpful.
RBG, now I’m confused! Let’s just (for now) call it a FireDogLake creation and try to “viralize” it. Could you seriously consider voting in a primary for someone whose nickname was “Teefs (or Toofs?) and Tufts?” OOOOOH, LOOKY, he’s up on Jon Stewart RIGHT NOW…
neil @ 46
Secrecy for me, but not for thee. Just as Bush is always described as valuing loyalty, when in fact he only values loyalty to him personally, they’re obsessed with secrecy for their own benefit, but for the country? They don’t give a damn.
That smooth talking Biden is on The Daily Show now. I can’t wait to see if he can get both feet in his mouth at one time.
Thanks mrJJ@52
:::smacks foreheard:::
How quickly we forget.
Now, why would Cheney then strike out “this Pres” if they had no reason to hide that info?
musing…maybe Fitz will ask Cheney when he gets on the stand? Not that it matters, but I sure would like to know.
Phoenix Woman sez:
If Bush pardons Libby, the REPUBLICANS will start impeachment proceedings out of sheer self-preservation. They can’t afford to be close to Bush the radioactive boat anchor as it is; a pardon of Libby will make him absolutely deadly to any Republicans running for office in ‘08.
The option for Bush to run everyone over with a giant tractor (and that the corporate media won’t report it) is still on the table.
I thought that Fitz just needs to prove that he lied to the GJ. What did he say to the GJ and how does that compare to what the witnesses said?
rumi @ 72
Only if he can get them past his gigantic veneers.
I did not think the defense got that much back. People have lots of different ways to remember stuff, and the way Miller and Cooper remember is not that different from the way the rest of us remember. I have several ways to remember stuff, including notes, and frequently the notes are totally unintelligible to others, and sometimes to me. The jury has people who have the same experiences. It may be disillusioning to think that elite reporters are fallible humans, but there you are. And, both Miller and Cooper said what Fitzgerald said (in the indictment) that they would say.
Oh. My. God. If you’re not watching Jon Stewart and Joe Biden you should be… I’m laughing so hard I think I just pulled something…
Redshift @ 62
Yeah. I don’t have a lot of time to follow the blogging in real time, but always try to read after. I finally realized that if I had paid more attention to the original charges, the thrust and parry of the testimony exam/cross might make more sense. NefLes earlier was kind enough to give me the link to the .pdf earlier today. I have since read through it a few times, and really, it does seem like a “road map” as to what’s going on in the courtroom.
TRex @ 76
His “lessons learned” from past campaigns?
“Words matter.”
Evidently, he still has some studying to do.
Phoenix Woman @ 68
You may be right. When I said Bush could pardon Libby anytime, I meant that he has the legal authority to do so. That does not mean he could survive it politically, i.e. avoid impeachment.
Hey Sharon!
Lieberliar is every bit the jackass we told everyone he would be. I have found that those who supported him in the last election are either in denial right now (can’t admit they were dupped) or are very defensive about the choice they made. (Sounds like Kubler Ross’s five stages of accepting death, doesn’t it?)
I agree - talk to the hand… I don’t know about you but I had plenty of doors slammed in my face when I was canvassing for Ned. Now the idiots have to live with their embarrassment.
I truly want a bumper sticker that says “Don’t blame me, I supported Lamont.”
I can’t imagine it was deliberate, but I think it helps a lot that the jurors are being allowed to take notes. They’ll have an example right in front of them of how imprecise and incomplete notes are likely to be (and that’s without even having to conduct a conversation at the same time.)
The Italian Forgeries? I smell a krunchy konspiracy kooking. (mis-spellings are allowed today aren’t they?) The Italian Scaramella, friend of poisoned russian Litvinenko, has been linked to the Forgeries. Also the well known conspirator from Iran-Contra, Michael Ledeen has also been linked to a network of neo-conservative forgeries. (Remember Iran-Contra was about weapons sales to warring Iran and Iraq in the 80’s. The fanatic Christians love it when Moslems kill each other.) The Iraqi Chalabi also is included in this weird wacky web of disinformation. Lots of internet chatter about this such as
From http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/1956/9/
Ledeen is an intriguing and enduring presence in the murkier parts of US foreign policy. He is an American specialist on Italy with a long-standing commitment to Israel. According to The New York Times, in December 2001, a few months after the CIA first heard the Niger claims, Ledeen flew to Rome with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian arms dealer, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin. In Rome they met the head of Sismi. [Italian Security Service]
Some months later, the documents were published, having been sold to an Italian journalist by a Roman businessman linked to Sismi.So far, so circumstantial. One man who might well know the answer to all this is Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of counter terrorism operations at the CIA. His belief is that the documents were produced in the US but “funnelled through the Italians”. When an interviewer asked Cannistraro “if I said Michael Ledeen”, he reportedly replied “I don’t think it’s a proven case …You’d be very close”
————————-
A few more examples of the discussion about neo-cons trying to create their own reality
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9278
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/2409/9/
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/....._0811.html
[Mod note; the spam filters generally don’t like this many links in a single comment. In the future it may be wise to split them up in several comments.]
rumi, I’ll give ” ‘ol Toofs and Tufts” some props for sitting there and taking it from Jon Stewart. It’s also helpful that YouTube or C&L will have that up and then, WHOOPS, there goes a campaign… (from my fingers to God’s ear…)
mswsm @ 75
Libby told the GJ that he learned about Plame from Tim Russert at a later date than the trial witnesses have testified (albeit foggily) that they learned about Plame from Libby at an earlier date. Tim Russert is expected to further discredit Libby’s GJ testimony (hopefully more assuredly).
Could someone please explain to me why Senator Biden always garners spitting through teeth on the progressive sites?
Honestly, I don’t get it. I generally like what he says when I see him and I think he’s really articulate and…and…clean. *g*
Really, what’s the problem with him that I’m unaware of?
Hey dab, greetings! I will wear one too! “Don’t blame me, I ?voted? for Lamont”. (well I didn’t, cause I couldn’t, but you get the idea.)
che @ 67
That’s certainly what I recall. Thanks for the reminder. I’m definitely looking forward to Libby’s testimony.
Marion in Savannah @
70
Looks like it’s Montag …with an assist from TSF.
Marion in Savannah @ 84
I appreciate the part of Biden’s attitude that knows a campaign and most of the political landscape is creative bullshit. So many politicians try to deny the obvious theatrics that get more ridiculous as they are taken more seriously. I don’t think he meant any insult in his latest goof. I think he was trying for a compliment but was inadvertently ‘too hep’ :-) …he can’t help but be too cool. I’m still pissed at his Bankruptcy bill actions.
new thread…
Oh please, you can’t even get half of them to sign on to non-binding resolution that might merely criticize him on the holy debacle that is Iraq.
They got no balls and find safety in numbers. That would never happen, no matter what. Well, maybe if he accidentally nuked South Carolina it might.
Nobody’s “delivering” because every witness called so far is a Bushie or in the tank for Bushies. The throw Libby under the bus theory is wishful thinking, they all want him to walk as long as they don’t get locked up themselves as a result. I almost wish Jeff Gannon would show up in a snit about something, with a fistful of videos. He must have some amazing stuff.
dab from CT @ 82
Yeah, hey, great idea, actually. I haven’t had the heart to rip off my Lamont sticker, but I could do it with that as a replacement. I’m pretty sure there is some site that makes bumperstickers to order. Hmmm. :)
Hey VG!!!
Biden is in the pocket of the banking/credit card industry. It’s a wonder he can get his head out to speak.
SharonW @ 86
Biden in the recent past has cozied up to Bush re: Iraq. He also was a proponent of the Bankruptcy bill which favors corporations and monied interests over the general public. From Delaware, it appears that Biden is especially cozy with Credit Card Lenders. Therefore, Biden is not a progressive democrat, but rather Republican-lite.