
I made the point the other day that if Cheney were put on the stand, he might be put in a place where he refuted some of Libby's testimony. Specifically, Cheney might have to admit that he and Libby talked about revealing Plame's identity with reporters during the week of July 6. And this presents a problem, because it either means both Libby and Cheney would claim to have forgotten about Plame's ID, then learned it again as if it were new the week of the leak. Or, they'd effectively be admitting to leaking Plame's ID after having learned of it through classified channels, making it a possible violation of the IIPA (barring, of course, a Cheney claim to have declassified Plame's identity before leaking it to reporters, which is where I think we are heading).
But given what we know about how Cheney's own talking points on Plame evolved between June 10 and July 14, it is almost impossible for Cheney to argue that he–like Libby–forgot Plame's ID and learned it as if it were new. Which of course makes it difficult for Libby to argue that he forgot. If his boss was actively remembering, what are the chances Libby was actively forgetting? Huh.
So here's the evolution of Cheney's talking points, as best as I can reconstruct them.
Martin's News, June 11
The first that we know Cheney to have learned of Plame's CIA employee was when Cathie Martin told him (and Libby) in his office. Here's how Martin explains it:
[Cathie Martin]: First [conversation with Harlow] was pleasant [emphasizes] I had never spoken to him before, talked about press reports, I was asking him, "we didn't send him." so I was saying to him, you must have sent him, who is this guy, what are you saying to the press, they're not taking my word for it. I remember him being, I didn't know who he [Wilson] was either, but apparently his name is Joe Wilson he was a charge in Baghdad, and his wife works over here. I understand charge to be diplomat who works overseas. Had been a charge, former is my recollection of what that meant. [Martin h]as notes, but the notes don't have a precise date. Asked to see VP and shortly thereafter told him and Scooter was there as well, told them what I had learned. It was the same day. I remember going into VP's office Scooter was there which was pretty normal. He told me Ambassador's name and apparently he was a charge and his wife works at CIA. Don't remember any specific response.
Given the phone records from Harlow to OVP Press Office, this conversation appears to have taken place on June 11, possibly June 10. While Martin doesn't remember any response, the testimony suggests that Libby elicited this call to Martin when he called Grenier and asked him to state that Defense and State, as well as OVP, had expressed an interest in the Niger intelligence. At this point, then, the talking points focused on shifting the focus away from OVP and pointing it more generally to Defense, State, and OVP.
Cheney's News, June 18?
I'm going to place the second "talking point" on June 18. I'm guessing that's when Cheney really spoke to Libby and told him Plame worked in Counter-Proliferation.
I first raised some reasons to doubt Libby's dating of that meeting in this post. But apparently I'm not alone–like me, the FBI took a look at the note, noticed the date had been changed, and came to suspect that Libby altered the note after the fact. Here's what Libby said about altering the date:
L: June 12, but this symbol means I'm not sure.
F: What's this to the right?
L: It's a note later explaining that this is a telephone conversation with the VP about Iraq uranium and the Kristof article… it's indicating that this is something someone told the VP… and then this says the wife works for the Counterproliferation Division.
At some point he switches from telling me what someone else told him to talking points for the press — e.g., that we didn't know about forgeries until the IAEA said so. (these are the three/four points mentioned earlier — but "forgeries" somehow replaces the NIE as point three??)
F: Under the 12, were you correcting something?
L: Might ahve been an 18, then corrected it to 12… realized it wasn't the 18th. I couldn't tell without a microscope. (laughs)
F: Do you know how much later you added the material about VP, Kristof, Iraq, etc.? June, July, October?
L: Might have been June, but I don't know.
One thing that supports the notion that this note postdates the Pincus article is that it doesn't mention the Pincus article at all–and, as Jeff points out, it echoes a word Kristof used in the lede of his second column on this, "behest." That second column was published on June 13, a day after the Pincus article.
The curious thing about this timing, if it is correct (though frankly, it'd be true if this conversation took place any day after June 11) is that it suggests Cheney learned of Plame's employ at CIA then went to find more details. It suggests they deliberately learned where Plame worked, which further suggests they knew enough details to know she was covert.
In any case, on this mystery date, these are the talking points Cheney gave Libby:
functional office
CP–his wife works works in that divisionDebriefing took place here
& was meeting in the region4) OVP and Defense and State — expressed strong interest in issue
1) didn't know about mission2) didn't get report back
3) didn't have any indication of forgery was from IAEA
These talking points, one through four (or rather, in VP count, four to one through three), seem to focus on a response to the Kristof/Pincus/Kristof articles. Already, Dick has had to admit that he did express an interest in the underlying intelligence. Though he's still trying to implicate State and Defense in that interest too (I've asked before–is this Bolton at State and Feith at Defense, in which case he might as well have said OVP and OVP and OVP). And though the info on Wilson's debriefing and Plame's employ aren't part of the talking points yet, they're definitely part of Dick's understanding of the case.
Martin's Operative Talking Points
Now, there are an interim set of talking points that aren't really Cheney's talking points, but at least show how OVP was responding to this issue publicly from the mystery June date and July 6, when Wilson's oped comes out. These are Cathie Martin's talking points, which she says she had been using prior to July 6, and therefore had on hand to send to Ari for his July 7 press briefing. These talking points are:
- The Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger.
- The Vice President's office was not informed of Joe Wilson's mission.
- The Vice President's office did not receive a briefing about Mr. Wilson's mission after he returned.
- The Vice President's office was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press reports accounted for it.
At some point, I'll come back to assess the veracity of these talking points. But for the moment, note how the talking points evolve as they move from Cheney to Libby to Martin. The talking points lose all reference to Plame and the forgeries (curious, that). OVP appears to have given up its efforts to say that State (Bolton?) and Defense (Feith?) were interested in this as well, and now retreat to the "Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger." to which they add the "not informed of mission" talking point. Of course, this leaves them in a precarious position. "Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger" is close parsing here, since it's clear that OVP asked for more information and it's also clear that Dick's briefer said they'd get DO to get its contacts to look into the allegations. It's that precarious position that probably ended up getting them in trouble.
Cheney's Annotated Copy of Wilson's Op-ed, July 6?
And then we have Cheney's annotations on Wilson's op-ed. Libby has argued in this grand jury appearance that Cheney didn't take those notes contemporaneously, that he just came back after the Novak article and wrote them down, having conveniently decided to save the dead tree version of the op-ed, and brought it back to DC from Jackson Hole, where he had spent the long weekend.
I'm going to make an executive decision and label that story a bunch of horseshit, and assume that Cheney read and annotated the Wilson op-ed on July 6, when it came out.
In which case, we have Cheney writing a new set of talking points on July 6:
Have they done this sort of thing?
Send an Amb to answer a question?
Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?
Or did his wife send him on a junket?
A pretty dramatic shift in talking points, even from the Libby ones from June 12 18. But note the focus. Cheney is attacking the genesis of the trip. This is significant, obviously, since he raises Plame. But it's also significant because it goes to the precarious position of OVP–that they had in fact asked for more information, which led to Wilson's trip. He's trying to attack what happened between the time he asked for more information and the time that Wilson got sent.
It's in that context that Cheney uses Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip as a talking point. It's absolutely damning, if we can prove that Cheney read this op-ed before the leaks started in earnest.
And I think we can prove that.
Cheney's Talking Points, July 8
There's one more reason why I'm fairly certain that Libby's story is horseshit Cheney wrote his notes on Wilson's op-ed contemporaneously. That's because part of the notes he wrote on Wilson's op-ed show up in the new talking points he dictates to Cathie Martin on July 8. Those talking points read:
It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.
He did not travel to Niger at the request of the Vice President.
- The Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger.
- The Vice President's office was not informed of Joe Wilson's mission.
- The Vice President's office did not received a briefing about Mr. Wilson's mission after he returned.
- The Vice President's office was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until this spring when the press reported it.
According to Mr. Wilson's own account, he was unpaid for his services.
Mr. Wilson never saw the documents he was allegedly trying to verify on his trip to Niger.
Mr. Wilson has said he was convinced that Niger could not have provided uranium to Iraq but, in fact, Niger did provide uranium to Iraq in the 1980's–200 tons of which are currently under IAEA seal.
Mr. Wilson provided no written report to the CIA or any other agency of his trip to Niger when he returned.
The Vice President was unaware of Joe Wilson, his trip or any conclusions he may have reached until this spring when it was reported in the press–over year after Mr. Wilson's trip.
Six months after his trip, the considered judgment of the intelligence community was that Saddam Hussein had indeed undertaken a vigorous effort to acquire uranium from Africa according to the National Intelligence Estimate. [my emphasis]
If you look at the original dictated notes, this draft, and the final, you can see most of what they were thinking. Cheney gave Martin a bunch of new talking points, several of them directly at that precarious position of theirs–their claims that they had nothing to do with Wilson's trip. They add that "it's not clear who authorized Wilson's trip." Reiterate that it was not at the request of Cheney (and Martin adds in all the talking points she had been using–the ones she gave to Ari to use).
And note that they shift their talking point about the awareness of Wilson's trip. Previously, they said, "the Vice President's office" was not aware of Wilson's trip (these are from the Ari talking points). Now they get more specific: "The Vice President was unaware of Joe Wilson, his trip, or any conclusions." As I will show in a later post, I suspect they realized they had learned of Wilson's trip, at least by March if not by February. So they could no longer claim that everyone in OVP (that'd be Scooter) was unaware of Wilson's trip, only that Cheney was unaware of the trip.
There's a lot more in these talking points, including the specious argument that since Niger gave Iraq uranium in the 1980s, before the consortium took over in Niger, then it was perfectly plausible they would do so again. And this is when they start referencing the NIE publicly, even though (as Martin's notes indicate) she wasn't sure she should refer to what she still believed to be classified conclusions from the NIE.
But the important point about these talking points is that Cheney references Wilson's op-ed. As hard as Libby tries, he cannot claim that Cheney only read Wilson's op-ed after the Novak article. Cheney uses an attack–the ridiculous attack about Wilson going pro bono–that he wrote in his op-ed talking points in the talking points he dictated to Martin on July 8.
Cheney's Potential Talking Point, July 12
And then there are the talking points that Cheney dictates to Libby on July 12 aboard Air Force 2.
On the Record
- The Vice President heard in his regular intelligence briefing that Iraq was trying to acquire Uranium from Niger. As part of the regular briefing process, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of Iraq trying to acquire Uranium from Niger. (Note: During the course of the year, the Vice President asks the Agency many questions.) The Agency responded within a day or two. The Agency said that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction but the reporting lacked detail. The Agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake, portions of which came from Niger according to the IAEA.
- The Vice President was unaware of the Joe Wilson trip and did not know about it until June of this year, when it was first discussed in the press.
- The Vice President did not see Wilson's trip report until recently.
- The Vice President saw the NIE last fall, which he took to be authoritative.
Deep Background (as Administration Official)
- The only written record of Joe Wilson trip included that "the former Prime Minister of Niger said he had been approached and met with a delegation of Iraqi officials in what he believed to be an effort to acquire more Uranium in 1999."
Notes
- Give straight report on NIE
- Mention "vigorously pursue."
In addition to dictating these written talking points on the plane, Libby has testified, Cheney may have talked about leaking Plame's identity to reporters.
Beyond the Plame addition unrecorded in the notes, though, there are a few interesting additions. First, Cheney has given up his efforts to pretend his request wasn't the genesis of the trip. There's a lot of disingenuousness in his explanation of the genesis of the trip, but he appears to have resigned himself to admitting to having set off the chain of events that led to Wilson getting sent.
The caveats about who saw what are now all limited to the Vice President–don't want to go on the record with easily disproven claims (though I'll work on them…). And then there's the bit that was somewhat new–the urge to leak inaccurate claims about the Mayaki part of Wilson's report, and the willingness to leak the NIE to all comers. Libby had wanted to add that to the talking points earlier in the week (see Libby's notes on the draft of Cheney's talking points), but only after Tenet's statement did they add it to explicit talking points (though Libby tried to go there with Judy on July 8). Clearly, OVP was ratcheting up its attacks, even after Tenet had admitted that the 16 words shouldn't have been in the SOTU.
Which makes the Plame tidbit all the more interesting. I firmly believe that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity to Judy Miller on July 8. But here Cheney is, discussing more widespread dissemination of her identity (knowing full well, of course, that Novak's article had hit the wires…). The mention of Plame shows a continuity of knowledge from when Cheney read the op-ed (some time on or before July 8), through the time Libby learned it as if it was new, to the time when Cheney was maybe talking about leaking Plame's ID on July 12.
Libby may be arguing that he forgot Plame's identity and learned it as if it were new. But there appears to be a clear continuity in Cheney's knowledge of Plame's identity. Which sort of makes Libby's "as if it were new" claims ring hollow.
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!
Marcy!
Cheney and Libby forget? Not on your life. This tight-assed little administration forgets NOTHING.
good gravy Marcy. That is some serious piece of work!
Hi Marcy.
Nice work Marcy, I’ll have to read further when I get home.
OT, but a legal case…
A mistrial has been declared in the Ehren Watada court martial. As I understand it this had to do with being unable to agree on the meaning of a stipulation that had been accepted earlier. Would one of the “legal beagles” please help me understand this? Thanks. In its own way this case is as important as what’s going on in the Prettyman Courthouse…
LHP- don’t know to what extent you have been able to follow the latest live blogging. Me, not.
But, you had any new aha! moments? (may have missed your recent comments).
looseheadprop @ 4
Yeah. Wow!
I have a wife with a mind like yours, EW. I get away with NOTHING.
Makes for a good marriage, actually, though (nearly 33 years now). I am well-trained. Like, ‘don’t even fucking try that weak shit on me.’
_
This has been on my mind for a long time. I just can’t believe they didn’t know of the trip very early on AND they got no report, none, zip, zilch from CIA.
I call bullsh*t.
I don’t wanna wait for a future post! Give me some info! PLEASE!!!
Chris Matthews just almost said “fuck” for a 2nd time today on live television… and instead, he said “frickin’” then stopped himself, said “sorry” and continued on…
Marcie, thanks for the analysis. You’re the best…and your book is an important piece of work. I just got my copy this weekend. Recommending to all my co-workers and friends.
Matthews is pissed off and going for the jugular aka Cheney! LOL
Matthews says he “was visited by three of those archangels of death” when he called Cheeeney out in July 03.
Rove.
Dan Bartlett?
?
-
Does anyone know a site where the GJ audio tapes have been posted?
Dang. EPU-ed.
And just when are Hardball and Daily Show and Colbert putting Marcy and her book on their shows? Hmmmmmm? Enquiring minds expect to know.
Tweety really looks like he’s enjoying this.
I know I am.
All of you have done an incredible job of keeping us up-to-date first hand at this trial. THANK YOU. It can’t be easy.
Now, our “objective” opinions aside…how does the evidence for conviction “feel” in the courtroom. Is the prosecution making its case?
QuentinCompson @ 14
Medusa herself….?
Wow!
I’d like to nominate Marcy to be the lucky patriot to serve Cheney his impeachment subpeonas.
Fitz! Jane! Swopa! Marcy! Trex! Pach! Firepups!
OT — Can anyone help?
I need to get info to someone a.s.a.p. about that huge Dept of Defense contracting corporation SAIC [Science Applications International Corporation]. This is for someone who needs to pass it on to someone else who may be tempted to do business with and/or for them — but who doesn’t really know what kind of folks they are.
The Wikipedia entry mentions just mostly stock price and CEO history and the like.
The SourceWatch entry is a little disappointing — other than mentioning a connection to Douglas Feith and them working with the Lincoln Group on propaganda, and with Bechtel on another item, the info is very sparse. I know there’s a much more detailed history out there somewhere.
I remember YEARS ago reading a lengthy article about them (and how creepy they are), and I’m trying to remember now if they were involved in that charming little Total Information Awareness program, or if it was other DARPA stuff, or both, and then some. Unfortunately I can’t find that old link, nor even guess where it was.
Can anyone point me to a reliable source with facts on the icky work they do, ideally a site that doesn’t have “DFH” style written all over it. I mean, I’m very comfy with dirty fucking hippies, but the person who will be reading this should view any summary of their dark projects as being sorta professional, if you know what I mean — [do you?].
Thanks in advance for any pointers.
Oklahoma kiddo @
3
Got that right. Bunch of liars, and Fitzgerald is just the guy to turn his nose up @ that crap. F. seems to hate corruption in high places in a major way from his previous prosecutions, & this is a big, steaming pile of it…so Hope wills out.
Your book was sitting on the porch when we got home today, Marcy. Tore through the wrappings.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 3
And learns nothing.
Marcy Wheeler is the most amazing writer I’ve encountered in quite a while, quite a while. Good job EW!
Marcy,
Thank you so much for everything you’ve done – you and Murray W. are without a doubt the Woodward and Bernstein on this story. I hope your book sells a bazillion copies.
Couple of questions. If Fitz wins a conviction – what then? Fitz has said his investigation is pretty much over, but it seems that Cheney would definitely be in some kind of jeopardy if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict. The motive behind Libby’s leak of Plame to Cooper and Judy – an active campaign to discredit through a nepotism charge – would become understood as fact. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a conpiracy under the IIPA law might come into play. I’d love to hear a discussion of the legal ramifications that would ensue from a guilty verdict.
Oklahoma kiddo @
3
So true. Can you imagine Cheney forgetting any nugget against one of his “enemies”? Not on your life. So much like Nixon it’s scary!
[Mod Note; that’s really not acceptable here. OK?]
OT but really funny picture of Paul Bremer at the Waxman hearing on his 360 tons of bribe-money
http://staging.michaelmoore.co…..lihope.jpg
Does he look like a broken man, or what?
What’s to stop the defense from arguing that the pres can insta-declassify what ever they want and therefore Libby didn’t out a CIA agent?
I know that it is against the law and the pres can’t insta-declassify anything, but Bush has been breaking laws for 6 years and hasn’t had to face any of it yet. This would just be another law that will just have to get in the long line of recent laws broken that have yet to be argued over.
EW, you are a freakin’ machine.
I’m wondering, after all is said and done, if our much-delayed SSCI report on distorted intelligence will give us a clear picture of the route Wilson’s report traced (and exactly when OVP saw it).
I found this link to a story that is disappeared….from June 30, 2003
CIA pulls Iraqi centrifuge photos off its Web site
by Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters, June 30, 2003
“The CIA abruptly removed from its Web site photos that showed key uranium enriching equipment found hidden in Iraq.”
http://209.85.165.104/search?q…..index.html news 2003 June&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
Prairie Sunshine at 19, do you mean Andrea Mitchell? (shudders)
Gary Reilly @ 30
Matalin.
marcy, your timeline truly leaves me awestruck. if fitz’s office doesn’t have it, you should send them a copy.
and i think for the first time, i see possible danger for cheney as a consequence of this trial. bear with me on this — it takes a leap of faith in the dems.
but fitz in his summation could well make obvious that cheney engaged in traitorous behavior in blowing the identity of a c.i.a. operative. nothing actionable in court, but rumblings to dump cheney could start to gather in force on capitol hill (provided we give our representatives the spine to voice such opinions).
dick cheney is already the single most detested elected official in the country. if he’s shown to be a criminal, complicit in a high crime, well…
such a thing — forcing the veep to resign — has the agnew precedent. what it also has is republicans who would like to get out from under cheney’s thumb, as well as a few wanting to break through to the public’s awareness. a stint as veep is a sterling opportunity to get that high pub — even maybe give life to a presidential ambition whose prospects are flagging. mccain, say? giuliani? brownback?
feel free to shoot this fantasy down. i’m enjoying just getting to speculate about such a twist.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
Metaphors are not acceptable?
[Mod Note; not that one]
Mrs. K8 @ 21
Matt Ortega, the FDL expert on war profiteering blogs at http://www.sotublog.com/ There’s a contact tab. No idea how often Matt checks the contacts, however. But if he knows anything, I’m sure he will help. In the message, say “Valley Girl sent me”.
There’s a (for the corporate media) clueful treatment of Mr. Cheney’s contribution over on MSNBC. From the article:
If you agree with my assessment of the story (and want to encourage reporters who get it) be sure to hit the stars at the bottom!
– MarkusQ
Maybe Libby was having a “50 First Dates” spell, waking up every morning and having to be told everything all over again.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Be specific, please.
[Mod Note; we really don’t much care for talk of violence toward any individual, no matter how much we may not agree with their politics. I trust I do not need to be more specific.]
AZ Matt @ 35
thus establishing the link between “the meat grinder” and ground hog day.
Excellent post, thanks.
You really are amazing.
Marcy, wow … thank you.
You have done incredible work on this and will be remembered kindly for it. Truly, you are deserving of a Pulitzer or some form of major recognition.
Your book is masterful (the cover is great too) and I am floored by your attention to minutiae. It’s why you’ve got the rights to this whole bloody mess. You and Fitz.
Thank you again for being so dogged and for caring so much.
Beware the gigantic PDFs of Libby’s GJ testimony halfway down the page.
-
There’s a good (for corporate media) treatment of Cheney’s roll in all this just up over on MSNBC. From the article:
If you agree with me that it’s a good treatment, be sure to rate it up in the little “rate this story” thing at the bottom.
–MarkusQ
OT- are there any Safari users out there? Commenter at end of prev. thread (Tower of…) is having problems quoting comments. It would be good to have some info on this, in case it is not a unique problem.
Patrick Fitzgerald is master of the universe.
-
Marcy! Yahoo! {{{{{HUGS!}}}}}
Get ready to handle fame, hon.
By the way, there’s a sadly outdated note floating around the wh this eve:
“Nevernevernever make Tweetie and Timmeh mad on the same day!”
Wild guess: T & T, plus a wholelotta other journalists, are suffering from whiplash right now.
And a very select group are going to miss all those coctail weenies in the future.
Valley Girl @ 42
i think it’s working ok for me…. we’ll see when i hit submit.
mac osx 10.4.8, safari 2.0.4
SAIC is kind of a fact of life or force of nature.. among other things, they do a lot of the background stuff from the guv’mint.. dataprocessing, IT consulting, procurement, whatever. Sure, they have participated in evil, but that isn’t their mainstay, and they’re huge. IMO they’re not Halliburton. You can’t avoid doing business with everybody who provides Federal services just because they’re also defense contractors. They’re privately held and as far as I know not part of Carlyle’s kleptocracy.
Valley Girl @ 35
Dear Emptywheel:
I believe that you are making an incorrect assumption when you write there may be “a Cheney claim to have declassified Plame’s identity before leaking it to reporters[.]” Neither Cheney nor Bush have the authority to “declassify” a CIA agent’s identity. While the administration’s “excuse” for leaking classified information is that Cheney was given the authority by Bush to “declassify” information, this claim is based upon Bush, as president, having the executive power to classify and declassify information. This power was supposedly delegated to Cheney.
However, revealing the identity of a CIA agent was made a felony by Congress. While the current administration would dispute this, under our system of laws neither Bush nor Cheney have the right to commit crimes. I am unaware of any authority given to the president allowing him to “out” a CIA agent. Thus, if Bush or Cheney authorised the outing of Plame, they were conspiring to commit a felony. I don’t think Cheney is going to admit under oath that he committed a felony.
Mrs. K8 @ 21
Here’s a couple of links:
“Contract Sport” from the Freedom of Information Ceter at the U of Missouri
Center for Public Integrity’s has a page on the Windfall of War – pull down SAIC in the menu of contractors, and it gives you to their take on this company. It’s a little out of date (2003), but it gives you an overall picture.
Don’t know if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but it’s a start.
BTW, the Seattle post-Intelligencer has been the most honest and thorough MSM outlet in Watada court martial coverage. This from today’s article on the mistrial decision:
With the jury of officers out of the courtroom Wednesday morning, Head wanted to question Watada about the stipulation to make sure that it was accurate and to protect the lieutenant against any mistakes in it.
But Eric Seitz, Watada’s attorney, objected to the questioning. He said the stipulation should include Watada’s reasons for not going to Iraq: His views that the war is illegal.
“It has always been his position that not only would he miss movement but he would not participate in a war he considered illegal” and not participate in war crimes, Seitz said.
“His specific intent was of a different character all together” than simply missing his unit’s deployment to Iraq, Seitz said.
To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement.
“I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact,” the judge said Wednesday. “I don’t know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now.”
Because much of the Army’s evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors’ request for a mistrial, which Watada’s lawyer opposed.
re. HARDBALL: anyone else catch Fineman say (re. VP and Libby’s motivations) that the President didn’t know half the stuff Cheney was up to and Cheney wanted to keep it that way (totally paraphrasing)? I’ve never heard a member of the MSM state this so explicity.
Also, Fineman said the the magic wand Bush handed Cheney allowed Cheney to declassify ANYTHING, so Fitz wouldn’t be looking at Cheney for the Plame outing. riiiiiight.
From reading your very useful paraphrase of testimony today, I’d say that Russert got a pretty bloodied “credibility-nose” on cross-examination. I am sure it plays one way on a page and another way in the actual theatrics of a courtoom. Anyone there have a sense of how badly Russert’s credibility was damaged on cross?
And, I am still sticking with my prediction from the beginning of the trial that neither Libby nor Cheney will testify. Each has way too much to lose.
If those of you on the west coast can watch the 7pm ET Hardball live (whatever time you’d get it out there), I highly recommend it. Very interesting stuff, particularly when you keep in mind NBC, MSNBC and Matthews’ involvement.
EW, you are amazing. I don’t know how you pull all this stuff together and make it look so simple.
selise @ 47
Same system (10.4.8 etc.). No problems. Plus, I finally taught myself the html link trick. nifty.
Valley Girl @ 45
It was happening to several people when the server was bogged. Hit me (Firefox); random users in the boonies theory was that it was some sort of timeout problem under heavy load.
– MarkusQ
selise- good to know it’s not a general problem with Safari. Another person on prev. thread also replied “no problem”.
The president cannot bestow power he does not have under the Constitution.
IANAL ymmv etc.
-
So was the Libby trial the lead item on any MSM or NPR broadcasts this afternoon?
Can the magic wand change reality? As in can be used to declassify retroactively?
rosalind @ 53
Valley Girl –
Thanks so much! I’ll be sure to follow up on that, either late tonight or tomorrow. Matt sounds like a good lead.
I want not just strictly war profiteering, though — methinks, IIRC, that SAIC is up to their eyeballs in all the tools and tricks of the complete surveillance and “persuasion” society. All sorts of wicked gadgets and programs. But maybe Matt’ll have ideas for where to go to get that part of the portrait.
I’ll also keep my eyes peeled here, just in case anybody remembers the lengthy article from a few years ago — the one that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up straight.
Thank you!!! [Hey! — that password “Valley Girl sent me” should get me into all sorts of interesting places, right?
See you at the speakeasy.
;-)
Tim Burke @ 49
That’s my understanding as well. Where a specific statute or law exists it trumps a blank check to declassify
Tim Burke @ 47
i think you have hit on a central point. there is no way cheney extends himself for anyone, not even someone who has served him so well and so loyally.
what’s great about the way fitz is handling his case is that he is laying this out for everyone to see, to establish a record of the malfeasance, the crime that libby perjured himself before the grand jury to avoid acknowledging.
what is done with that information, and by whom, will make for a very interesting secon half of the year.
What is the procedure to declassify information by the VP? When was it done??
Blub @ 47
Valley Girl @ 8
Have been reading a lot, not really commneting. Saw Reddhedd’s plea for restraint and di not wish to contribute to crashed servers. (was even reading from Craig Johnson campaign HQ yesterday during election monitoring gig).
I think Marcy has hit the A Ha moment here and why we have not seen an indictment, yet, for the leaking.
If Cheney is the architect of the leak and Cheney can “insta declassify” he is therefor incapable of leaking.
To charge Cheney one would end up in S. Ct. arguing he Constitutional question of whether Cheney can insta-declassify instead of the criminal question of did Cheney leak.
And gee whiz, where do you expect this packed court to come out on that one??? If you are Pat, is that the best use of your time? maybe not.
The “sacrifice Libby to save Rove” theme also –I think– ties into the sand in the umpire’s eyes theme. If folks are lying to save Rove’s ass, there is a widespread obstruction of Justice going on and Libby would likely know where those bodies are buried.
Most important of all, it shows why I think Pat has been just brilliant and why he is evidencing his FAITH in the American people. God, I hope it is justifed!
By getting all this info out, doesn’t almost feel like the trial of Dick Cheney? The trial that he would never have gotten to if he had charged Cheney in the first place?
By NOT charging Cheney, he deprives Cheney of cover from the SUpreme Court and gets uot tothe American public all the info he needs to convict.
THAT’s WHY THE REAL BATTLE WAS OVER THE GJ TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS.
I have been saying this all over town here in NY(though I don’t know if I have yet said this at FDL?) that this trial is really single combat by proxy between Pat and Deadeye.
BobbyG @
9
mr. emptywheel says:
Yeah, I know that. I have to come up with strong shit.
I know that outing a CIA agent is illegal, but so is spying on Americans without a warrant, and so are those signing statements that get attached to any bill Bush doesn’t like. So what difference will this illegal act make compared to every other illegal act the administration has done?
Blub @ 61
According to Clinton, when he became president, he asked the Secret Service two questions – “who killed JFK?” and “are there UFOs?”
Supposedly they wouldn’t give him info on either subject. So maybe there are things even Cheney can’t declassify.
Ed*ard Teller #50,
Thanks for the information about Watada. From the little I had heard, I thought the court was acting on a defense motion, but this wasn’t the case at all. It was the prosecution that went for the mistrial. Interesting.
NY Sun today
pwrlght @ 15
Hardball’s site on MSNBC.com I believe they said.
Tim Burke @ 50
The problem with charing hat is you will never actually get to the criminla trial, you will be tied up for decades on the Constitutional issue
this also might be part of the explanation of why fitzgerald was slow to answer yesterday when defense was leading him to speak on the idea of cheney as the ur-leaker.
I believe so, insofar as they control
Mrs. K8 @ 67
I believe so.. they were hired to develop some aspects of the data-mining software (this was long before Google did it better). But so was CDC and other major IT companies. I don’t know if this indicates any culpability… or even if their directors knew what the software was going to be used for. Again, I’m sure SAIC, which has been a primary provider of federal IT services for generations, has done many many evil things… but I’ve just never heard that they’re corrupt or on the inside.. as much as our Carlyle and Halliburton friends.
The Federal government outsources routine programming, including for the DOD, to a small group of companies, including CDC, SAIC, CACI, Accenture, Unisys, etc. I just don’t know if it’s fair to blacklist these people because they did what they were paid to do.
Tim Burke @
50
This is why I say we’re in constitutional issue territory. It’s not clear–except to one David Addington–which takes precedence, the IIPA, or Navy v. Egan.
July 2003, “due to ever increasing criticism about the role OSP has played in the gathering of intelligence and the conclusions made to justify the war with Iraq, the Pentagon changed the name of OSP back to its original name, Northern Gulf Affairs Office.”
‘The office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the National Security Council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees’.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..cial_Plans
looseheadprop @ 67
And Fitz is using Chicago Rules, as explained in “The Untouchables”:
Chicago Rules.
mattes @ 64
Well, it works like this. Cheney tells Scooter and Scooter tells Judy.
“It’s nights like this that Scooter calls to complain.” – Matthews
Bwaaahahahaha.
-
To add something beyond my usual paean to toast (it never gets old, btw), and I were to speculate, Libby “scapegoated” himself to save Cheney – but Cheney didn’t need any help b/c Cheney thinks he is above the law and was honest with Fitz about the Wilsons (pengiun voice – “So I did out her, waaa, waaa, so what, I’m the vice president see, waa, waa…,I’m above the law, they don’t apply to me, waaaaa, waaaaaaaaa…..”). Scooter perhaps does not have the same belief that the VP is above the law, figured he would lie (which is what anyone would expect), and figured he would too to protect his boss.
I’m not sayin it’s a good theory.
I’m not sayin its a good theory, just a theory, cause you would think they would coordinate what they are going to do. But the idea that criminals are smart, or masterminds, is over-played, so maybe not. And maybe Dick just figured Scooter would know.
mattes @
66
ADD (Libby’s abbreviation for Addington, which I think appropriate for Mr. Unitary Executive) says it doesn’t matter–the Navy v Egan trumps “procedure.”
Happy Days @ 73
SO not only can he Insta Declassify, he doesn’t have to keep reocrds of it? I think even the president has to keep the records. How can the President delgate more power than he himself has?? Hmmm? He can’t. This is Agency theory 101.
How could getting an angry call from a guy named “scooter” scare anyone?
mattes @ 66
The procedure? Shrub said he can do it. He does it. Congress does nothing. The American people doesn’t get it. He gets away with it. Voila, the procedure.
…I’m waiting for my phone to ring now…
Marcy, this is exceptionally diligent work. Many thanks.
Was the strong troll attack today in Russert Two something that the Lake has experienced previously?
And were there also far too many inane posts, or does that come with the territory?
dmg
What I don’t get is why the defense wants to do that. If Libby is willing to take the hit for Cheney–which is why he is in the defendant’s chair in the first place–why then help Pat get the word out?
Sometimes I think the defense loses the train of thought a little
looseheadprop @ 68
Most important of all, it shows why I think Pat has been just brilliant and why he is evidencing his FAITH in the American people. God, I hope it is justifed!
By getting all this info out, doesn’t almost feel like the trial of Dick Cheney? The trial that he would never have gotten to if he had charged Cheney in the first place?
By NOT charging Cheney, he deprives Cheney of cover from the SUpreme Court and gets uot tothe American public all the info he needs to convict.
THAT’s WHY THE REAL BATTLE WAS OVER THE GJ TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS.
I have been saying this all over town here in NY(though I don’t know if I have yet said this at FDL?) that this trial is really single combat by proxy between Pat and Deadeye.
I’ve been thinking similar thoughts, too (and it explains the precise formulation I used in the last words of the book, pre-epilogue). There are two big constitutional hurdles to get Dick. A court of law isn’t going to do it, not with this SCOTUS.
But a Democratic Congress?
A newly emboldened American people?
We can hope.
Thank God. Olbermann is on.
I’d heading down to catch up on all the threads I missed while we were at my GYN today.
For those who wanted to hear follow-up:
My doc examined me today and said she thinks whatever it is is too deep to be a [insert medical adjective I can’t remember now] cyst. There’s node involvement.
We also discovered today that it’s virtually impossible to get a mammogram quickly here in the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area. EVEN IF YOU HAVE A LUMP.
Imagine that. One place said, “We can get you in for a mammogram in April. What? You have a lump? Why didn’t you say that? We can get you in in March.”
Oh goody.
But I love my doctor. She called the place where SHE gets her own mammograms, and where she has a good radiologist friend. She moved a mountain for me — and I go tomorrow to get a diagnostic-consult mammogram with special views and with additional ultrasound.
Isn’t that great? And in spite of the fact that they’re a much more “swank” type of outfit than the chain entities, they are still covered on our insurance.
I’m terrified, of course. But am very happy that my doc is fighting for me. And she assures me that this radiologist is a great professional who will take time to talk with me.
Thanks to all who offered support last night! I’ve known from the very start that FDL is the very best kind of genuine community. It’s a privilege for me to share this place with you all, I’m so grateful. And Mr. K8 sends along his gratitude to y’all, too, for your warm emotional support of me when things get rough.
{{{{***SMOOCH!!!***}}}}
lhp @ #68,
If Cheney is the architect of the leak and Cheney can “insta declassify” he is therefor incapable of leaking.
To charge Cheney one would end up in S. Ct. arguing he Constitutional question of whether Cheney can insta-declassify instead of the criminal question of did Cheney leak.
And gee whiz, where do you expect this packed court to come out on that one??? If you are Pat, is that the best use of your time? maybe not.
But maybe the combination of pushes now gathering steam against the office of the VP for – do we have time for 10,000 words or so on this? – will impel Fitzgerald to re-think the importance of finishing his job.
Peterr @ 49
Thank you, Peterr! These will make for good reading, and I’ll pick out the best and maybe combine them.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 83
If you look at Scooter’s calendar, he went to visit Dick just before he came back here to meet with the FBI.
They coordinated their story, you can bet it.
Meanwhile, I’m very curious whether one Judy Miller or one Robert Novak was in Jackson Hole at the time. Judy’s rodeo excuse has always sounded like a load of horse puckey. And it would make sense that Judy Miller stopped into the strategy session in early October (before she told Taubman that she wasn’t the target of an organized leak).
You see, Aspens don’t turn in August, when Judy says she saw Scooter in Jackson Hole.
Aspens turn in October.
Peterr @ 80
Zig alert
Peterr I hate to disagree with you, but I don’t see this a Chicago Rules. I think this is Pat having FAITH in the American people and believing that if he can only get the real truth out there, the American people can take it from there.
Kinda like Joe Wilson in a way.
And I hope they were/are both right. It was when the truth started to dribble out during the Watergate hearings that the Nixon Admin crumbled.
Conversley, b/c Congress rushed to immunize testimony and then did a crappy investigation (plus the Cap Weinberger pardon) the truth never really got out during Iran Contra, so the AMrican peole are still largely in the dark.
Remember, Iran Conra happened during Pat’s frst few formative years as a lawyer. It was a closely followed and hotly debated topic at USAO SDNY with all sorts of tidbits of info supplied by agents.
Pat learned well the lesson which Larry Walsh paid so dearly for.
Yet, it comes back again to Pat’s obvious FAITH and TRUST in the American people, that they will do the right thing for the Constitution. It makes me feel proud and humble at the same time.
looseheadprop @ 88
Understatement of the day.
Mrs. K8 @ 93
Mrs. K8, that is great about the ultrasound. I’m not a doctor, but my understanding is that breast ultrasounds are excellent for diagnosis these days.
My thoughts are with you.
Bolton at State and Feith at Defense, in which case he might as well have said OVP and OVP and OVP
Can’t be anymore simple and clear than that
If Libby ‘did it’ and Cheney ‘knew it’, I cannot then fathom Rove not being ‘in the loop’. This Plame outing is classic Rovian intrigue. And if Rove engineered it, then George knew it.
EW @ #96,
And it would make sense that Judy Miller stopped into the strategy session in early October (before she told Taubman that she wasn’t the target of an organized leak).
You see, Aspens don’t turn in August, when Judy says she saw Scooter in Jackson Hole.
Aspens turn in October.
Is this the first time that connection has been articulated?
ew-
Exhaustive and definitive. Absolutely the go-to person on the “Affair Plamay.”
How much of your work is being picked up by the MSM? My guess. A lot!
Blub @ 75
It’s not really a question of blacklisting.
I should have mentioned that the person who will ultimately read what I put together is someone who already, from past experiences, is highly disinclined to do (more) work for government/defense contractors anyway.
Additionally, over the years I’ve had friends in scientific/technical fields who worked very hard to pick and choose who they worked for — for reasons of conscience. That may seem to some like a naive or even “silly” or prissy way to approach one’s profession, but I respect it very much.
And I would hardly call that blacklisting, especially when they themselves forgo a lot of money, a LOT of money, for the sake of their own sense of doing what’s right. The defense contractors have hardly been smarting from the choices of such persons of conscience. They still manage to make gazillions of dollars anyway, don’t they?
Ed*ard Teller @ 94
My favorite fisherman, how are you?
What makes you think Pat isn’t going to finish his job? Who the hell knows when he will decide he is done? I don’t know that he done after Libby. Maybe there will be more
looseheadprop @ 87
lhp,
i’m not saying we can track this — after all, there are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns…..
Ratchetting it up.
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago
Shooting erupts on Israel-Lebanon border
BEIRUT, Lebanon – Lebanese troops deployed along the border with Israel opened fire late Wednesday as Israeli troops searched for Hezbollah bombs, drawing retaliatory fire, officials from both sides said.
EW – It may be a terrible theory – fortunately, my omniscience can live with it being way wrong. And no, I’ve never looked at Scooter’s calendar – that’s why your here :)
Did that meeting take place before or after Dick was interviewed by Fitz?
Mrs. K8 @
103
Yeah, I doubt that the hugish SAIC’s of the world bother doing much due diligence on what their code gets put into, and they probably can care less whether the client is Poindexter or the Internal Revenue Service. I don’t know much about programming or IT,but I would imagine that there’s quite a bit they turn a blind eye to. I’m not saying that they’re innocent or even ethical, only that I personally feel that it’s useful to draw a distinction between those who create policy or who use their influence over policymakers to steal from the public purse or to enable treason and those who simply implement policy — even evil policy — two or three layers removed, without ever seeing the big picture.
Crazy Horse @ 86
If you are referring to that one particular commenter, yes, I can say from my days as mod that this has def. been experienced before, and to a much greater degree. Best ignore, imo.
When is it time that Cheney’s role in the Plame leak exit the criminal and enter the political arena? In other words, when would it be “safe” to begin impeachment hearings?
Whether Libby’s convicted or not, has enough evidence emerged during the trial to impeach and try Cheney in the Senate?
And is it just me, or are others sensing a media feeding frenzy starting wrt OVP’s role?
Crazy Horse @ 89
FWIW this afternoon there were up to 65 chatters over in http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com during the height of the TimmehTraffic crunch, which must have lessened the load on FDL’s servers to some extent. (At least I hope so!) We’ve had our share of trolls, some real folks, some bots, all trying the denial-of-service thing, but nothing we can’t handle. So the WingNuts know we’re out and dealing them bodyblows from FDL. HeeHee!
((Yayy for the entire FDL crew!))
Anatomy of Deceit
I contributed to the initial book fund and ordered it as soon as it came out, but I honestly didn’t expect it to be this good. It’s SO READABLE. I frequently find myself lost in the details of many of the posts about this case, but in THIS book, Marcy has really gone the extra mile and written a page-turner that’s very entertaining and colorful as it lays out the facts in an organized and easily-digestible way.
Even non-Plameologists will have no trouble following along as it builds dramatically to a devastating indictment of the media’s tragic complicity in the Bush-Cheney cabal’s fraudulent presentation of the Iraqi WMD threat.
LindaR @ 96
Thank you, Linda, for that bit of info. Didn’t know that. I was aware that there was a digital version, but not ultrasound. Sounds good to me.
My doc gave me an info sheet from the radiologists with advice on what patients should do before the mammogram. In addition to not having any lotion or deoderant or powder on (okey doke!), there was a sentence about avoiding anything with caffeine FOR A WEEK BEFORE the mammogram! (So as to avoid tenderness, it said.)
Oh well. I already blew that, in spades. So I’m sipping my coffee right now, in fact. If I had to go cold turkey on coffee on top of everything else emotional going on, I’d probably have to be sedated, else I’d rip the radiologist’s head off. LOL!!
Don’t wanna do that! “Wouldn’t be prudent.” ;-)
Thanks for your good thoughts!
Thanks, VG. and tried the gabbly thing yesterday, SOS, but wasn’t here in real time some of the day.
And major props to all who keep this humming.
Mrs. K8 @ 100
I’m not Mrs. K8’s friend but yes, there are some of us with deep rooted conscience. I couldn’t picture myself working at Raytheon, even though they were the only ones in town that were hiring. I just wouldn’t have been able to work on Carnivore or whatever it is they do.
There’s nothing silly or naive about it. It’s called moral values
pinson @ 24
Fitz made a remark in court the other day about the “ongoing investigation”…something about an objection to admitting something into evidence.
mc @
111
I suspect it’ll first be necessary to impeach Mitch McConnell, if the recent rethug Senate performance on the non-binding Iraq resolution was any indication. To impeach I think you need a bigger smoking gun than this. A few billion in Iraq reconstruction funds in a Cheney-controlled offshore bank account would do it, I think….
Notta Flatlander @ 111
Yes, thank you for putting it more bluntly than I did. Just wanted to acknowledge that I know there are some who view it that way — and yet nevertheless….
Well, you know exactly what I mean. For me and those friends I mentioned it is all about moral values.
But aw, shucks, can’t we be friends? ;-)
Ed*ard Teller @ 102
No, I’ve been speculating on it since I saw Libby’s calendar the other day. And I’ve never believed the Jackson Hole story, as currently told.
for Mrs. K8 and Notta Flatlander:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiIlYz2n4Pg
Can’t you just see Cheney with his head tilted saying, “From me?”
priceless
Crazy Horse @ 115
You’re right Crazy Horse, that’s the only time it’s worth using — as a kind of safety valve for the main FDL servers (at least that’s how I understand it) :)
… and major kudos, as you say, to the amazing FDL crew.
Is it ever OK to declassify the identity of a secret agent? Nevermind the waving the wand part over classified reports, or King George bestowing his special declassifying power wand on someone else, Cheney comes to mind [both of which are very weird interpretations of executive function].
Nevermind those issues. Even if the King and his Kingly sidekick could declassify everything, when is it ever permitted for anyone to reveal the secret identity of Valerie Plame Wilson?
[Mod Note; for future reference, the url you used is much too long for the spam filters. Sorry.]
mc @ 103
Not enough. THey still, for the most part, don’t get the story abotu declassifying the NIE is a big fat stinking lie. Until they get that, they’re missing the plot.
punaise @ 116
You, my dear, are a HOOT!
Thanks for making me laugh. I needed that.
emptywheel @ 118
Very interesting speculation. Fitz can subpoena travel records, right?
Blub @ 116
Listened to Sam Seder today on Air America, he was talking about the billions that have gone missing in Iraq. I think it was 360 tons of $100 dolllar bills. In volume, that would be the equivalent of 17 tractor trailer trucks. Yuh, that just disappeared.
You’d think that story would get the attention of the American public.
mc @ 110
T’were it up to me, I would wait until after the conviction and maybe see if Pat has anything else in the pipeline.
Sometimes your best evidence as a prosecutor comes out during the defense case. Yum.
it ain’t over kids, just because the prosecution’s direct case has rested. Nope, still two more acts to go: defense case and rebuttal case (actually that last it can multiply)
Based on my past comments, I unsurprisingly agree completely with Tim @ 50.
I also think that we are due for this Consitutional issue. I don’t think that this Special Prosecutor setting is the one where it is best brought, but who knows? You don’t always go to the Sup Ct with the case you wish you had.
I won’t waste the bandwidth here (I realize now I overdid with my long Rolling Stone quote earlier), but the issue, not just of President v. Congress, but of Classification generally —- it’s due for a case to go up IMO.
Even where an office has huge discretion, there are limits based on arbitrary, capricious and abusive misuse of discretion.
Classification to cover up crimes and “selective declassification” to break the law and punish dissent – pretty much has abuse of discretion written all over it. IMO. And the underlying crimes – either those being covered up by classification, or those being committed by “selectification” – remain crimes, with jeopardy attached to their commission.
This whole area needs, not one Spec Pros case but a coordinated effort of response. It’s far too pervasive.
Marcy would be the perfect ’straight-man’ for some ‘Libby Trial Update’ Comedic Reparte with a late-night audience like Dave or Leno.
Go FDL!
mc @ 111
Now is the time. Howie Klein, Blue America and other people and places are already trying to line up the most viable and progressive possible candidates for U.S. House seats. We need to get them up, running and fed (ie – funded via Blue America). We need to get progressives up against every GOP house rep and against every blue dog.
If impeachment happens, so be it, but our main energy needs to go into house seats in congress. The senate too, but the house is where netroots will get the biggest bang for the buck and the most momentum out of the continuing decline of the Bushista regime.
I thought it was interesting last night when Jane, in the video, mentioned that FOX news had no media at the trial…I wonder why?
emptywheel @ 124
Schuster seems to be doing a decent job in his reporting. Maybe one of the folks at the trial could sidle up to him and ask him to explain this point to the public…
Is there any way you could put facts about the NIE declassification story into four sentences or thereabouts, so that it can be covered better on television?
emptywheel @ 120
I’m almost sure I’ve seen that connection speculated somewhere, or maybe I dreamt it, but makes a whole lot of sense.
Mrs. K8: Thanks for making me laugh. I needed that.
the best medicine, and all that…. :~)
you know, when I first heard cheney make his bizzare claim to the ability to declassify on the fly I thought he was setting himself up for an excuse because he knew he was the one that did it
I still believe that was the set up, but it didn’t work out that way.
this case has been going on too long with too many dollars spent and too much time invested for him to get away with it
America would be unforgiving;
“why didn’t he say this from the beginning?…how could the president not know that cheney declassified valeries status?…how is it possible for cheney to be able to put our assets at life peril without any oversight or inquiry?”
I do not believe he could get away with it if he tried it, though I do believe that was the original plan
Mary @ 128
Would not the best time to bring on that Contutional litigation be AFTER demonstrating with criminal convictions, why it is so bad? maybe move public opinion in hte correct direction to force the Supremes to at least nod in hte direction of doing hte right thing?
Every long journey begins witha single step. then another and another…
ccmask @ 132
Facts confuse them.
looseheadprop @ 128
looseheadprop –
It seems to me that the defense case portion of the trial will be the best part for Fitzgerald as far as fact-gathering for possible additional related charges against Libby and others. Even if Libby doesn’t take the stand, Fitzgerald will have an opportunity to do some courtroom factual excavation on people aligned with Libby.
Here’s a good story for Trex that just popped up:
FSB agents ‘offered to kill’ ex-spy Litvinenko
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..350687.ece
Mommy, he scares me!
Make that picture go away! I need the purifying image of, I don’t know, puppies, perhaps. Or waterfalls.
Even live shots of open heart surgery might be better than this…
obsessed @ 113
You can thank Safir Ahmed, the editor, for the readability.
Trust me, as a blogger, I look on having an editor as a true luxury.
obsessed @ 113
You know, i bet you could just copy that right over into the Amazon review section…
;-p
My question exactly!!!! And I’ve written to Olbermann suggesting he have her on. Considering the losers that frequently appear on TDS & Colbert, they really should redeem themselves by inviting Marcy.
emptywheel @ 143
I wonder if a movie deal is in the works…I can play myself as one of the posters here at the lake when you right the screenplay
perris @ 134
Tim Burke @ 50
Can someone help me out here? Does Cheney have the power to “declassify” Plame’s status or is it a felony as Tim suggests?
ccmask @
133
‘Cause Hannity already has an embargoed version of the presidential pardon in his pocket?
Mandrake @ 138
Headline, March 1, 2007: FOX – the only MSM outlet NOT subpoenoed in the Libby trial, when told yesterday there had been a trial, declined comment until their reporters could be acquainted with the facts of the matter.
inmymind’seye @ 145
THAT is the Constitutional question. Ya’ll should check out the NY Sun piece referenced upthread. Cheney has decided that he doesn’t have to keep records of what he declassies either.
Even Nixon didn’t go that far.
Ed*ard Teller @ 149
They must be up to their eyeballs.
lhp @ 137 – maybe, if you can work it that way – but imo the Constitutional issue will go hand in hand with the prosecution of the crimes. Whether FISA felonies or other abuses. YOu have to have a case in controversey for the Constitutional issue to be presented.
I don’t discount public opinion and, as little a fan as I am of the approach of tackling this whole thing with an inhouse Spec Pros v. an indep counsel, this particular Spec Pros and his team (who get a little left out of the mentions) have highlighted the true extremes of what is going on — not just so much the Plame outing (bad though that was) but the PRESIDENTIAL (bc they walk this back past Cheney) mismanagement of the classification process that has resulted in slaughter in Iraq. That’s not their case – but they’ve laid the foundation that it should be SOMEONE’s case. IMO, FWIW, IANALitgator.
IMO, the case in point for many of these guys isn’t so much Addington’s bizarre reliance on Navy v. Egan – instead it’s a case I can’t remember by name right now. Old case, Congress has hearings, gets peeved with a guy for various and sundry reasons, heads of the investigating committee sends Congressional staff out to arrest the guy.
Court does an interesting examination of why the staff are guilty of crimes – no matter what Congress “thought” its powers might be – and also why even if the members of Congress have protection, those who carried out their requests did not.
Whether Cheney or Bush thought they had the power or not, if they didn’t – those who carried out their wishes are just as guilty of the crimes as if Cheney and Bush had acknowledged up front that they were asking them to commit crimes and that were not within the legal power of the Executive to initiate.
*xyz @ 134
Even at their best, the MSM is notororiously cautious. But there are those within the MSM who do have the courage of their convictions (Olberman, Logan, Schuster, Gregory). But you’re right, the whole story needs to be shouted from the mountaintops. The blogosphere only reaches a certain segment of society. And like it or not, it’s the MSM that needs to do that shouting.
I cannot possibly believe the president is able to unilaterally transfer his power to the vice president
he might claim he can but I cannot believe it were true
in any event, declassifying sensitive information is entirely differant then revealing a covert assets identity, risking not only that person’s life but everyone who has anything to do with that asset will also be placed at life peril
Marcy, Jane, Jerilyn, Trex, Swopa (sp)and all the Behind the Scenes Folks,
I just want to say (before I even have read this thread-California time)that as a mother I would be so proud of you “kids”. I just read last night that Jane’s mom recently died-so sorry,Jane.
My question is how proud are your parents/family of you? They surely are beaming with pride.
This all seems so convoluted. The OVP or someone in the OVP outed Valerie Plame, the assumption being it was the VP or is that a concrete fact so far unproven legally. My question how can declassifying top secret info be legal when it risks the lives of those who worked for her, or is that not the case.
I know I will get a big duh from everyone, but what gives him the right to declassify top secret CIA undercover agents on a whim, you and I know it was done to cover his ass, but I don’t think he covered well enough and this man who swore an oath to uphold the constitution has committed treason, or should I say if reasonable men viewed this that is the conclusion they would come to. Sorry to be such a dunce but this confuses me.
Shit! I forgot to say Christie…You too, Girlscout!
This, from a long interview with Arthur Sulzberger in Ha’Aretz:
Also, the Times entered a deal with Microsoft, to distribute the paper through a software program called Times Reader, Sulzberger relates. The software enables users to conveniently read the paper on screens, mainly laptops: “I very much believe that the experience of reading a paper can be transferred to these new devices.”
Will it be free?
It will not, Sulzberger avers: if you want to read the New York Times online, you will have to pay.
In the age of bloggers, what is the future of online newspapers and the profession in general?
There are millions of bloggers out there and if the Times forgets who and what it is, it will lose the war, and rightly so, re Sulzberger. “We are curators,” he explains: curators of news. People don’t click onto the New York Times to read blogs: they want reliable news that they can trust.
Curators, indeed..,.
b4 I go – remember on the declass front – Clinton DID add a directive to his original classification EO, and by that pulled the VP into the classification/declassification scheme.
This looks like it was done first by Bush bc of the change in the EO, and Bush did make changes, but Clinton did go back and clean up his own EO to include the VP in the process. fwiw bye for now.
Ed*ard Teller @ 158
in some interview, maybe this one, pinch, asked how long there would it take to end the nyt paper editions, said “maybe five years, maybe less. i don’t even care.”
now there’s a real man.
There is a fatal flaw in Scootah’s memory, or lack thereof, defense. It can be demonstrated by comparing the memory difficulties of Scoots with those of Timmeh.
Taterhed did not remember making the two calls, acknowledged them when presented with evidence that he made them, but still could not remember them at all, even though he now accepts the calls as fact. So when little Russ (Timmeh!) forgot the calls, he totally forgot, and the memory is irretrievable.
Irrrrving, on the other hand, claims that he was told about VPW, then forgot, and was “surprised” when told of it again later, failed to remember again when asked about VPW during FBI questioning and grand jury testimony, but then, even later, when it became apparent not remembering was problematic, he remembered.
!!!
One flew east, one flew west
One flew over the cuckoo’s nest
Peterr
I loved that movie! I know we’ve talked about Fitz as Elliot Ness – but you can almost hear the Untouchables theme song when you mention his name.
And you just have to love the money quote – how appropo.
Prairie Sunshine @
16
Finding a way to get Marcy and her book on the Daily show would be an extremely valuable contribution to our country. Does anyone have any connections?
Maddy @ 156 — I think you are precisely right. Even more so since the leak included the info that Ms. Plame Wilson headed “Brewster Jennings” a covert “brassplate company” ostensibly mideast energy consultants, but really covert agents looking at WMD in the mideast. Their intentional exposure (aside from hopefully discrediting Ambassador Wilson) was likely not only fatal to many of their associates, but also had the “twofer” bennie of blinding the USA to WMD matters in the mideast — so they could lie us into war more easily still. TREASON TREASON I SAY. “To the TUMBRILS” with them all.
PS the Tumbrils I speak of are metaphorical, and exist in the Hague. :)
Mary @ 150
Mary, you know how much I enjoy it when we agree. And we do agree here. I am just more comfortable with the way Pat is rolling this thing out one methodical step at a time. I know you want injustice to end as quickly as possible. I just think Pat is doing a slow, careful, and fabulously effective job rather than a fast job.
You know, an aside, that’s a good quality in a man: slow, effective and fabulous rather than fast. (LHP exits blushing)
dmg @ #160,
Sulzberger – “I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care, either,” he says. He’s looking at how best to manage the transition from print to Internet.
“Internet is a wonderful place to be and we’re leading there,” he adds.
BWAHAHAHA… “leading” where, Arthur? Anybody else out there feel led on by the NYTimes?
Based on recent testimony in the Libby trial, the American flag Vice President Cheney dons on his lapel to advertise his patriotism could be misleading.
Was Cheney upset because Wilson threatened the rationale for war — or because he was behind the forgeries and afraid Wilson’s remarks would lead to an investigation aimed at discovering the origin? I vote for the latter.
watertiger says it with pictures
LHP –
Fitz’ version of the Chicago Rules means going after Cheney via his minions and his reputation.
Cheney & CO try to smear Fitz in public, and you act so damn above board it hurts. In a case about a leak, your office has no leaks, gives next to no press conferences, and spins no BS in public.
Cheney & Co. lean on reporters, and Fitz leans even harder.
Cheney & Co. lean on bright shiny objects, and Fitz just points to the indictment: perjury and obstruction.
I can just see Capone going nuts over being charged with tax evasion. “Tax f&$*ing evasion? I’m a boss. I run a protection racket, I run a gambling outfit, I run hookers, I have people rubbed out, and he charges me with f#$^ing tax evasion?” Kinda hurts your sense of self worth, if you see yourself as the biggest power in the city.
Same deal with Libby and Cheney and Co. “Perjury? Obstruction? You’re taking my boy Irving to trial over a little white lie? I can classify and declassify with a wave of my hand, reporters slit their throats to get a scoop from me, I can send planes to bomb a house halfway around the world with a single phone call, I can cause people to ‘disappear’ into a CIA ghost prison, and you’re taking me down over an f&%*ing false statement to a grand jury?”
And by doing it this way, it appears he’s defused the constitutional argument to this point, which has got to have Cheney & Co. tied up in knots.
That’s the way Fitz is using Chicago Rules. Stick it to ‘em where it really hurts them the worst – in their pride – and then twist the knife. Hard. And then do it again and again and again. Using every tool in his federal prosecutorial briefcase.
Karla Faye Tucker will get revenge yet.
TJ @ 163
FDL has had as many visitors today so far, or more, than Tucker has on any given night.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=st…..iredoglake
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn…..9.asp#more
The producers (Daily Show) have probably been here ; )
punaise @ 169
Good find!
Shrub: “Hey, Dick where can I put these subpoenoes?”
Shooter: “Where we usually file the paperwork I give you. Turn around and lean over. After I file the stuff, Mr. Gannon is here with a present.”
Valley Girl @
45
Comment dialog box is a nightmare with Safari 1.2 and under (e.g. Panther or Jaguar). Not only with quotes, but with any button it will copy and paste the entire preceding text at the end. Only fix is to manually edit the comments outside of Safari in a text editor. Appears to be the too common mis-interaction between javascript-dependent interfaces with Safari’s unique implementation of scripting.
Firefox or Camino is the solution.
dab from CT @ 162
no the money quote is: “here endeth the lesson.”
which fitz can pronounce after the jury renders its guilty verdict.
Who?
ccmask @
171
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Baghdad’s streets were electric with tension Wednesday as U.S. officials confirmed the new security operation was under way. U.S. armor rushed through streets, and Iraqi armored personnel carriers guarded bridges and major intersections.
New coils of barbed-wire and blast barriers marked checkpoints that caused traffic bottlenecks. U.S. Apache helicopters whipped the air over parts of the capital where they hadn’t been seen before.
But gunfire still rang out across the city, and some residents said they doubted life would get better. “Nothing will work, it’s too late,” said Hashem al-Moussawi, a resident of the Sadr City Shiite enclave who was badly wounded in a bombing in December.
Mrs. K8 @
62
You might also go to POGO. They have a database of the top 371 government contractors, if they’ve gotten into trouble on contracts, etc.
http://www.pogo.org/db/
Ed*ard Teller @ 166
thanks for the full quote, sir.
mac lurker- thanks for the info. (BTW, I use Firefox). I will save your comment for reference, next time someone has a Safari problem, or next time that person w/ problem appears.
BTW, thanks all- LHP, ET, montag et al for comments on all and sundry. Reading but not commenting. Although I am “mod emeritus” I occasionally pitch in to give our current mods a respite… doing that now, and it limits my time to comment.
ccmask @ 171
LOVE IT!!!
So happy to see Mary back here!
Imm, you around?
[cracking up now that I notice the Amazon ad for The Apprentice]
lhp – it’s not a speed issue on the case Fitzgerald has that bothers me – I can understand taking it as slow as possible in the situation, plus I’ve been in “Bleak House” situations and things just do take time. If he’s got a conspiracy case, more power to him to drag it out to the last moment it could be filed. I don’t know what he’s got, but I do think he doesn’t have the best of cases for the Constitutional issues in general – simply from the proof of violation and knowledge and intent aspects. He could have a lot in his bag (I’m still sad we didn’t hear much about the 200 emails) or not – I don’t know.
I just think the overall issues are much broader than the case he’s got. For example, the FISA violations are a huge issue and not within his parameter at all.
The speed does bother me on things like the kidnapped and purchased “detainees” at GITMO and beiong held in other places. Also vis a vis the MCA. Not so much on something like Libby’s trial – if it wasn’t going to hit well before the 2004 elections, then it didn’t really matter when it did hit.
I’m a little A.D.D., so with slow I can get too distracted to still be concentrating when fabulous shows up. My loss, your gain. *g*
SOS@164-Thank you-Doesn’t paint the picture of a person you would want as a friend, when he dropped the dime on Valerie he showed what he is made of, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of America and that is what pisses me off the most about these people, they have so many cowed into believing that they have the welfare of our country at heart-bullshit. That they are allowed to continue is beyond the pale of understanding.
Blub @ 176
See, e.g., this compressed Google search — http://tinyurl.com/2rl8we
Liberal Heart @ 168
The sequence goes:
Jan 03 – Niger Dossier (10 Documents) used to support 16-Words in SOTU
Feb 03 – IAEA declares Niger Dossier forgeries
Feb 03 – (Cheney?) has the CIA perform an analysis memo on an allegedly Independent Second Stream of Uranium intell from a “sensitive source” that changes the original report’s conclusion from DEBUNKING the Uranium Claim to SUPPORTING the Uranium Claim.
Mar 03 – DIA issues a ‘unique’ ‘concurrence’ memo to support the Second Stream of Uranium intell.
later Mar 03 – Invasion of Iraq
So, Bush said the 16-Words on the strength of a First Stream of Intell that proved to be forgeries – He lost his primary rationale for Pre-Emptive War.
To re-justify the 16-Words, (Bush and Cheney?) have a DEBUNKING report DOCTORED to SUPPORT the Uranium Claim. They added to it a covering memo from the DIA.
Then they invade.
The story inside the Libby Trial evidence is the story of Dick Cheney ‘waking-up’ to the fact that the Author of the original DEBUNKING report – the one that got DOCTORED – was Joe Wilson.
And Joe Wilson KNEW what Bush and Cheney did to it, too.
So, not surprisingly – as Cheney slowly catches on his Talking Points get successively narrower in scope – until they focus in on just one thing – Get Joe Wilson.
Blub @ 176
She is the one who Governor Bush sentenced to death and made fun of her asking for forgiveness…
We have to remember that there are three levels of crimes:
1. Coverup (Perjury & obstruction)
2. Destroying a CIA asset.
3. Conspiring to use forgeries to start a war.
I think Fitz recognizes that the prosecuting Cheney for #2 (the leak) is legally ambiguous. It is leaking but SCOTUS will let it be “insta-declassify”.
I think Fitz has vastly more evidence than most people think that implicates Cheney in #3, conspiracy & Forgery. Prosecuting Deadeye for these crimes is not legally ambiguous. I think this is where Fitz is going. Cheney can be pinned on both the facts AND THE LAW!
Libby is not on trial here. This is a trial of this criminal administration. The one that lied us into this illegal and immoral war. Pay attention!
Mary @ 152
Good to see you, Mary! Bye4now too
She is the one who Governor Bush sentenced to death and made fun of her asking for forgiveness…
Ah yes, the decider, as always. So she was a thumbs down in the gladiatorial arena that is shrub’s neroesque mind?
Re NYT heading into the internet age, or not, I know of an attempt to enter the internet/blog world by an esteemed mainstream publication, whose owners are youngish, highly intelligent, and progressive.
Yet they know next to nothing about the world of blogs. I tried to provide an elementary education but I fear they are at the pre-school level. Oooh, the internet. We really must somehow get involved with that. And there they run out of gas.
There is an enormous gap between those of us who get it re blogs and our intelligent peers who have not yet made the jump. It falls upon us to educate them and bring them into our world. They will be our allies but they don’t know how to help at present.
dmg – from your mouth…
I want our soldiers home. I want those in my family serving in the Army and Air force brought home. I want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. I want Bush and the rest held accountable. I want justice. I want the rule of law to prevail. Yeah… I know. I want, I want, I want.
Maddy @ 184 — you are not confused at all. These people are monsters, pure and simple. They must be extirpated from the White House before it becomes Wolfsschanze.
If W ever arms a protective militia sworn to be loyal to him, the game is up. Ever read “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis? Imho you should, if not. (Just slog thru the first 100 pages of character intro) We’re this close to that awful scenario… even down to the rube POTUS and the evil backstabbing Rove-like Machiavelli :(
Which is why I am so grateful for the brilliance, energy, fire and patriotism of FDL. You exemplify everything about this Nation that I loved as a child.
The mainstream media will never be able to have a blog because they can’t take comments. That is a big problem for them. They are so used to weeding their way through the LTE’s for ones whose opinions they are looking for.
This trial has also illuminated how fat & lazy today’s journalists are.
ccmask @ 195 — LTEs? — aha, I just googled it — Letters To the Editor. Bwhahaha…. So true :)
Valley Girl @ 8
Hm-m-m. I like that and it would fit Fitz reputation for going after the bad guys from below or sideways. Pick ‘em off one by one, or with misdirection. “…single combat by proxy between Pat and Deadeye.” I like that very much.
voxpopgirl @ 11
Dirty f*ckin hippie.
LHP – *gasp* *S*
Valley Girl – contemporary mod rocker. thank you.
ET – I would be willing to place a small wager that EW mentioned Aspens in October before this evening. It’s very familiar to me as well.
LTE
Letters to the Editor
ccmask, I think you are absolutely right about mainstream media’s inability to take comments. I work on a website — one that has to be careful about its content, given the target audience. I’ve linked to some swell things that have come back to bite me in the butt because of comments that showed up on the linked site after I provided the url. I don’t see how msm can take the risk of allowing uncensored comments — but once you censor posts, you open a can of very messy worms (just ask WaPo) … and if you don’t any allow comments at all, well, that’s a sure road to failure for a blog.
I’m enjoying your posts and your book, Marcy. Thanks!
Blub @ 176
She’s the woman who was executed in texas who was mocked by George (then Gov.) Bush: “Pleeeease don’t kill me!”
The Libby trial has provided me my first opportunity to explore the blogoshere, specifically FDL and I am so impressed with the quality of coverage from all of you. Wow. It is so far and above what is provided by the networks and represents a revolutionary freedom of media choice. I am equally impressed by the comments from educated and well informed observers. It has restored my faith. What a breath of fresh air even though I am working late into the night to complete work I have neglected (shhhh….) at the office. This is history. Thank you FDL!!!! And btw, it worked, Am buying your book Marcie!
mac lurker @174 says
Firefox or Camino is the solution.
i was the one having a problem with the direct quote comments box—thank you thank you lurker………have older version of safari……that’s it.
so learned to use quote boxes earlier this evening through ((((fire pups helpers))))
i just love this place!
TeresaP @ 204
Welcome and glad to hear you’re buying the book. It’s really a community project, you know…
Liberal Heart @ 201
a point is being missed, i think.
msm like the times doesn’t want to take on all the attributes of the blogosphere, except those that comfortably fit with the way they’ve always done their business. blogs — and the interplay with readers — is only of marginal interest to them. it provides useful feedback, but it’s not considered part of the primary mission.
what they ARE interested in is the distribution system. put a story on the web, and you don’t have newsprint costs, and you don’t have unionized drivers, or mailers, or gas costs, or any of the heavy maintenance that a fleet of trucks requires. you can shed overnight most of the core costs of putting out a paper, since the “paper” is already there, the screen on everyone’s desk. until the growth of the internet, newspapers routinely make 15-20 percent profit annually. imagine how their profits would soar if you removed most of their fixed costs?
for the better part of a century newspapers were said to be living on borrowed time. first radio was to spell the end; then television; then cable. but the internet actually poses a real threat because for the first time, the publishers of newspapers themselves WANT IT TO HAPPEN and are doing everything they can to make it happen.
whether that’s a good thing or bad is debatable. (you can make an argument that newspapers are merely recognizing that they’re in the information business; that’s better than the railroads, which never understood they were in the transportation business.)
but it is surely happening.
dmg, speaking for myself as a web content provider, I know that being able to integrate the blogsophere into our site would be good for business — if I didn’t have to worry about the comments getting too raunchy (our site is often used as a teaching tool in schools). We wouldn’t mind seeing comments posted that trash us, but we would mind trashy comments. Not personally, but on behalf of our visitors, that is.
The reason it would be good for business is that people spend time on blog pages and time is money when it comes to selling ads. But instead of taking the risk associated with not being able to monitor posts 24/7, we go the safe route of providing online games or some silliness like that.
Tim Burke @ 50
I think what you are getting at is that the President has the right to issue Executive Orders in order to comply administratively with the laws established by Congress (i.e. the “nuts and bolts”) but CANNOT use an Executive Order to VIOLATE the laws he swore to uphold.
There is a similar issue with the Presidential Signing Statements. Some Presidents have made Signing Statements specifically because they believe a law passed by Congress is Unconstitutional. They then issue the statement usually in preparation of filing a court case to establish the validity of that law.
Bush, however, has used the Signing Statements as “restricted pocket vetos” on issues that are unrelated to Constitutional issues he intends to challenge in court. In fact, court evaluation is the farthest thing in his mind from what he wants to occur.
Chris Matthews has posted the transcripts of the Hardball epeisodes that got the VP and Libby so riled. Chris was right on the nose back then.
Hardblogger
looseheadprop @ 68
“This trial is really single combat by proxy between Pat and Deadeye”
becuase Pat followed where the evidence led him.
dab from CT @
162
But it wasn’t brute force that brought down Capone, it was a legal challenge to his fake taxes, remember. Sting like a bee by accountant agent Oscar Wallace [Charles Martin Smith] who brought down the untouchable Capone. Like Henry Waxman who is relentless in his hearings going after the money trail. Just like Watergate – follow the money. Just like this Libby-Cheney trail; it’s all about the money, else why bother outing an agent. They need all that money flowing unchecked in Iraq – tons of it and so much of it flows Cheney’s way. Follow the money.
Radiofreewill, I just saw your post re the forgeries. Missed that earlier. Thanks for the step-by-step. But can you please go back before that first step and tell me what you think about the origin of the forgeries? It seems like they had to be created by someone with a stake in justifying a war with Iraq in advance. Thus, I’m thinking Cheney — particularly so, in light of his response to the debunking.
Liberal Heart @ 210
oh the times and other big media want the eyeballs to stay on their pages; that’s one reason they’re blending a lot of media that’s comparatively new for them — particularly web-only features and video clips.
they simply have enough staff and content producers that they don’t need the blog feature as much. (having said that, it should be noted that the times is using real-time blogs, but mainly on special sporting or pop-culture events like the super bowl or the oscars so as to avoid the flaming wars that would take place if the topic was political.)
they are also going to the web to try to retrieve some of the ad money the web has taken from them. classified ads, for example, have all but dried up with the advent of craigslist.
From the post:
Of course, this leaves them in a precarious position. “Vice President’s office did not request the mission to Niger” is close parsing here, since it’s clear that OVP asked for more information and it’s also clear that Dick’s briefer said they’d get DO to get its contacts to look into the allegations. It’s that precarious position that probably ended up getting them in trouble.
Uhh, I know it’s Byron York, but he has the documents, which have been entered into evidence, so here we go:
Per the Senate Intel report, the DIA issued a report on Iraq/Niger/uranium on Feb 12, 2003.
Ms. Plame wrote a memo dated Feb 12 (Wilson apologists say, at the behest of her superiors) noting her husbands availability/qualifications for a trip to Niger to check it out.
So far, so good. But the new document is DX 66, which includes the note from Cheney’s CIA briefer noting the VPs’ interest in the DIA report of Feb 12.
And guess what? That memo is dated Feb 13. And it asks for a next day memo dated (unsurprisingly), Feb 14.
The York addition is that his sources tell him that the Senate Intel Committee never got these docs, so the senate report is hazy on just when Cheney chimed in with a request for more info.
But with these docs in hand, it does appear that the CIA set up a trip in response to State and Defense inquiries; Cheney chimed in a day later.
And I have no doubt that for purposes of name-dropping, folks subsequently invoked the Vice-Presidential interest; but it looks like the bus was leaving the station even without him.
Let’s call this “DEVELOPING” – clearly, folks will want to think about their timelines if this hold up.
Peterr @ 80. Chicago rules yes! Born and raised in Brooklyn. Brooklyn in the house!
Mmm. Peach. Mint.
Liberal Heart @ 211
I haven’t been following this thread real close so forgive me if this is off base but..
Josh Marshall has done a LOT of research and reporting on the forgeries. TalkingPointsMemo archives would be the best palce to start, I would think.
TIP: try googling “forgeries site:talkingpointsmemo.com” Note that there must be no space between the colon and the site name
mattes @ 66
The way I read the Executive Order signed by Bush on March 25, 2003 (Hmmm!) is that Cheney can classify or declassify materials WITHIN the Office of the Vice President (in his Executive status). He can also be given, in writing (as can anyone) the authority to declassify specific materials by an agency head (as defined by 5 USC 105) that was the originating classification authority. That power to have delegated declassification authority can also be derived from the immediate supervisor of the “originating classification authority”.
But the law is quite specific that there are a set of procedures and record-keeping that must be undertaken before a declassification request is acted upon.
Part III. “In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the AGENCY HEAD or the SENIOR AGENCY OFFICIAL. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
But Cheney is not the “boss” of the CIA or any other agency. Technically, Bush is the “supervisor” of all the Executive Departments. But there is a “Mandatory declassification review” that must occur whenever there is request to declassify materials from an external agency or individual. Any such request for declassification must be referred to the original classification authority agency for review (3.6b), which can deny the request.
If there is an appeal, it would then go to the Interagency Security Classification Panel (reps from State, Defense, DOJ, CIA, National Archives., Asst. to President NSA, and the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office) for review if there is an objection on a mandatory declassification request (5.2b5). If the DCIA objects because of the risk to National Security (including intelligence sources and operations) continued classification can be appealed to the President, who can order declassification.
BTW there are lots of interesting things in this Executive Order about “Need-to-Know”, and responsibilities of record-holders and users to prevent dissemination of classified information. There’s also the statement as to invalid reasons to classify materials that are not related to National Security.
Lastly there is an important Statement at 6.2c that states quite firmly that some information may be protected by laws and statute that this Presidential Order is restricted from interfering with.
John Forde @ 190 We have to remember that there are three levels of crimes:
1. Coverup (Perjury & obstruction)
2. Destroying a CIA asset.
3. Conspiring to use forgeries to start a war.
I think Fitz recognizes that the prosecuting Cheney for #2 (the leak) is legally ambiguous. It is leaking but SCOTUS will let it be “insta-declassify”.
I think Fitz has vastly more evidence than most people think that implicates Cheney in #3, conspiracy & Forgery. Prosecuting Deadeye for these crimes is not legally ambiguous. I think this is where Fitz is going. Cheney can be pinned on both the facts AND THE LAW!
FRUM UR LIPS 2 GODS EAR
Right on, Marcy! I called bullshit too when I heard that Cheney didn’t write that after the fact.
Dick managing the message.
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 03:05 PM by Patsy Stone
So, Addington tells Libby about Plame on June 11/12 (as that Waas article said and testimony confirmed). Libby (maybe) tells Judy on June 23, July 8, and July 12. Scooter supposedly doesn’t tell Cheney about Plame between June 11 and July 14th (until the Novak article — almost a month later), when Cheney then supposedly digs out the Wilson July 6th Op-Ed (a week later!) and writes those questions on it.
Thus, I think that Cheney’s scrawled questions to Scooter on the Op-Ed weren’t what he wanted to “know” (although Libby thought he could sell that story to Fitz) but were, in fact, the first time Cheney writes out exactly what he wants Libby to “get out” through reporters (probably on the very day the Op-Ed comes out). The story with Cathie Martin on AF2 was, then, (at least) the second time Cheney managed the message.
–
Well into Anatomy of Deceit and it’s wonderful.
Thanks for all the time and effort you (and all of the good folks at FDL) put into this story.
Sorry, I’m not very good at this. In fact, if I were better at it, I probably could have figured out how to edit that last post and not had to write this one.
That last post should have included a link to a January DU thread, where I posted it originally. And that should have said “when I heard that Dick Cheney supposedly wrote that after the fact”.
Still, thanks. :)
However, revealing the identity of a CIA agent was made a felony by Congress. While the current administration would dispute this, under our system of laws neither Bush nor Cheney have the right to commit crimes.
Good point! Of course, if the President chooses to de-classify an agent, they are no longer “covert” under the statute, so no crime has been committed.
This would no more reach the Supreme Court than my next parking ticket would, if the President were at issue – as to the VP, one might wonder why the President would not choose to back him, and I agree it is not clear from the Executive Order that the President would have delegated that authority to the VP, but – declassification is clearly an Executive Branch function.
Now, if you want to go after someone for lying about whether a declassification had occurred, fine, Fitzgerald could try that.
And Congress could impeach because they don’t like the way the VP parts his hair (OK, not a great example). Or, more to the point, they could impeach for abuse of power, if they thought that the de-classification was to advance a political or personal agenda rather than to serve the national interest.
Nice to see folks are at least aware of the issue – the notion that Cheney had committed a crime needing covering up is pretty slim.
This would no more reach the Supreme Court than my next parking ticket would, if the President were at issue –
Tom – that’s absolutely wrong. It is the same kind of argument made by Nixon over having to respond to subpeona requests; by Nixon’s DOJ in the Keith Case; and by others. It presumes that in the area of certain delegations of discretion and privilege, there are no limits on the President’s power, and that is incorrect.
If Congress, by statute, has said a covert agent’s ident will be protected, on the pain of criminal penalties, then the President could not violate that law except in some pretty circumscribed situations. There is no Constitutional right for the President to classify and declassify in an arbitrary, capricious or abusive manner. In particular, classification or declassification to perpetrate a criminal violation of a statute just isn’t an allowed privilege or exercise of discretion. Go find your case that says it is – go find your case that says Nixon didn’t have to respond to subpeonas bc of Exec privilege – go find your case that says Nixon’s AG had the right to violate the 4th Amendment bc of Exec rights and privilege.
When you look at the cases, then go look up contra as a citation modifier. You’ll find that the Sup Ct holdings are “contra” to your statement.
cheers
Oklahoma kiddo @ 3
Are we missing the proverbial elephant in the room?
Do we really want a VP and his Chief of Staff in their respective offices who can’t remember who they talked to about what, especially as it relates to classified information?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Libby actually forgot. What else is he prone to forget? Who Bin Laden is? How many troops we actually need (or have) in Iraq? In Afghanistan? Where are the WMDs?
Is Valerie Wilson the only person he forgot about during this time frame?
Sometimes i wish Fitz would take the ‘low road’ just to satify my twisted need for entertainment.