(We're waiting to find out if they close the courthouse at the Libby trial because of snow. In the mean time please welcome former CIA agent Jim Marcinkowski, who has been quite outspoken on the outing of Valerie Plame as he offers up his thoughts on the Libby trial — JH)
At most trials, a solid wood podium stands between the defense and prosecution tables. It serves as a kind of meeting place for conversations between the prosecution and defense, shielding them from both judge and jury. Prosecutors are known to use this set up not just for off-the-record dialogue, but also for some lawyer to lawyer challenges.
In my first years as a prosecutor, in a county perceived as one of the toughest on criminals in the state of Michigan, most challenges centered on one constitutional issue: the right of the defendant to remain silent and not be a witness against himself or herself. The challenge usually occurred right after the defense made an argument for the defendant’s innocence. At this point, the prosecutor would lean over and say, “Hey! Put that punk on the stand if he’s so innocent. Let me have a shot at him.”
As I said, those were my younger years when truth and falsehood, like law and order, seemed so much simpler. Of course, there are a host of good reasons why a defendant shouldn’t take the stand. Chief among them is the fact that the defendant then “opens the door” and risks exposing himself to the prosecutor’s cross-examination.
Having prosecuted some relatively high-profile cases, I found that these dares or challenges were more likely to occur when the defendant, defense attorney or their supporters were extremely arrogant. Arrogance is a dangerous companion in an American courtroom. The courtroom itself is, in no small measure, a great leveler of status, money, and prestige.
That’s why the ongoing perjury trial of Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby is so fascinating. Libby himself has not taken the stand, and there are rumblings that the Vice President himself may testify. Whether you view Cheney’s recent media appearances as worthy of a gold medal in arrogance, or a gold medal in standing up to liberal media elites, it will be interesting to see how U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald approaches these high-profile witnesses.
I believe that Fitzgerald exemplifies what it means to be a prosecutor: someone who is honorable, above politics and who exhibits through his actions a high degree of respect for both the law and the legal process. I would also guess that he is no slouch when it comes to trial tactics either, especially cross-examination.
The Libby trial has come to the point where the rubber meets the road, as we say in Detroit. Will Scooter Libby take the stand? Will Cheney come in to testify? Are we going to “open the door” and let Fitzgerald at ‘em?
That’s why, as this week’s trial events unfold, I’m waiting for Mr. Fitzgerald to lean over behind the podium and say, “Hey, put your punk on the stand.” Either one of them.
Related posts:
- The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
- Rabbi to Lieberman: “Do Not Stand Idly by the Blood of Your Neighbors”
- Cheney Refused to Release the Journalists
- Cheney’s Betrayal Made an IIPA Charge for Libby Possible
- The Bush Fairy Tale on the Libby Pardon
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Fitz?
Fitz!
Fitz!
right on Jim. as a Michigan resident I can only thank you for your service. I am only sorry you didn’t prevail in your election. keep at it. all your written pieces have been thoughtful and insightful.
I’ve already seen several punks put on the stand, but good essay Mr. Prosecutor.
Great honor to have you here at FDL Jim, and thank you for your service to our country.
Thanks, Jim, for the insights (we non-lawyers especially appreciate this).
But honestly, when I saw the headline, my first thought was, “so is that what the kids are calling it these days?”
*pulls head out of gutter*
Scooter is a punk. Amen.
Unfortunately, neither Libby nor Cheney will testify. Why bother opening up the door to more criminal charges for either for testimony given under oath, when the pardon for this crime is already in the bag (assuming that any remaining Roberts types on the DC Circuit do not reverse a conviction by 1/20/09).
an honor Mr.Marcinkowski
quick question if you can answer it;
could you give us a more accurate idea of how much monetarily we invested in brewster jennings and assoiciates?
also, how many assets relied on the cperation?
are you able or allowed to tell us if anyone has lost their lives/
and anything else you are able to tell us.
and thank you sir, for your service to this country
Looks like neither punk has the nads to testify.
Guilty!
Oh, and welcome,
I am hopeing the sealed inditment may be key to stopping this administration in its tracks…my guess its pure C-4,and would cause enought disarrey to stop the planned Irainan misadventure
I think Fitz would rather get this wrapped up ASAP. If he gets a conviction then Libby has a very strong incentive to sing like a bird. If he doesn’t get a conviction he’ll have to work with what he has.
Fitz wants Cheney and Bush just as badly as he wants Daley in Chicago or the former governor of Illinois, and he’ll try to flip as many underlings as he needs to to get them.
I doubt we’ve seen the last of Libby. Even if he doesn’t agree to cooperate Fitz can always call him as a witness in the next trial.
Just saw Larry Barcella opining on Wolfie’s SitRoom that Hannah’s testimony shows what a busy, busy, important important guy Libby is.
Is he Babs Comstock’s partner, or am I misremembering? SitRoom didn’t disclaimer him except as “former federal prosecutor. I’m thinking, yeah, and Libby was a former Congressional aide to Judy, Judy, Judy…. Just wondering how high the shill-o-meter’s ding-ding-dinging on this one.
Oh, and Wolfie talking about the Democratic district demographic…pre-empting the damage control on a conviction?
isn’t it interesting that through this administration, the curtain has been pulled back and we discover what has ALWAYS been the truth;
the democrats are the real supporters of the cia, are the real supporters of our national security, are the real supporters of our armed forces
and are the real supporters of our greatest asset of all, our constitution
Because neither of these punk-ass bitches is going to take the stand, I smell a pardon in the works.
Welcome, Jim.
I’m still shaking my head at John Hannah’s ‘analysis’ of Libby today in a response to a jury question:
“He was quite good at remembering ideas and concepts, very bad at figuring out where they came from, how they came to him.”
Who does TYOI think he is, the lovechild of Elizabeth Loftus and Jean Piaget ?
The comment so exactly matches the structure of Libby’s plate spinning act of from whence he learned of Plame that it is clearly a carefully planted concept originating from someone else (probably E.L.) that screams fabrication.
good grief.
.
bushworstpresidentever @ 9
Yeah, that’s announced in the WaPo.
Jim…
I know that Cheney has publicly said he can’t comment on the libby case because he might be testifying….
given that — and Hannah’s testimony — is there any way that Fitz can call Cheney as a rebuttal witness, and if so, how difficult would it be for Fitz to get Walton to allow Cheney to be treated as a “hostile witness” by the prosecution?
Fitz certainly wants to win this one- it’s a career case- and looks like he will. Does he really want to go after Cheney and the Cowboy?
Doesn’t look like it from where I sit.
David Schuster was on teevee last week sayin that he had spoken with several prosecutors who said “The White House was very lucky that Fitz is such a conservative- prosecutors I know would have the whole bunch of em indicted on a conspiracy charge by now.”
Maybe Fitz still has some eggs to fry- but up to this point- he has been very careful and respectful of the administration.
(eg–Cheney not put under oath- giving Rove a letter sayin he’s not gonna be prosecuted just before the election- withholdling any action until after the 2004 presidential race- etc.)
I think this is a great idea. They forced the jury to listen to Hannah say what a dumb *uck Scooter is. I want to hear DeadEye explain why he entrusts our nation’s National Security to somebody as forgetful as Scooter.
John Casper @ 21
man, that’s GREAT drama, get his own defense to bury the vp
From the previous post: “Over the lunch hour Mr Jeffress and I advised Cheney’s lawyer. If we had called he would have been available on Thursday. We have released the VP as a witness.” Also, Walton inquired of Libby if he absolutely did not want to take the stand. He confirmed he would not be taking the stand in his own defense.
“He was quite good at remembering ideas and concepts, very bad at figuring out where they came from, how they came to him.”
That defense wouldn’t fly in a dissertation meeting, much less a courtroom.
p.lukasiak @ 19
From a legal standpoint, I can’t see why Fitz would do this. Libby’s on the hook for lying, obstructing, and perjuring. Cheney was peripheral to these crimes. He can’t add anything to the prosecution.
It’s also goes against Fitz’s style as a prosecutor. He typically will not even name the people he’s after. That’s why Karl was “Official A”. Given that pattern, he certainly wouldn’t call any of his targets as witnesses. I’m dying for him to refer to the Shooter as “Vice President A”.
“The Government is not going to present rebuttal witnesses”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..41140.html
heh, indeedy
Cozumel @ 26
hmmm…no need?
For all Fitz fans: You can learn alot about Fitz in the book “Triple Cross” by Peter Lance. Fitz is no knight in shining armor. Frankly, I wish I hadn’t read it. Ignorance is bliss.
leow at 29 — Take a peek at Larry Johnson’s review of the book, and see if your opinion changes. Apparently, Larry says that the author has some substantial credibility issues — that larry knows about from personal experience with the man. Just FYI.
leow @ 29
elaborate please
Cozumel @
26
Jeralyn’s summation, alluded to above is excellent.
rwcole @ 20
I disagree. I don’t think Fitz is conservative in the sense that you mean. I think he’s methodical. There’s a big difference. A “conservative” prosecutor, in the sense that you’re using it, wouldn’t have just taken down a former governer.
As for your specifics: 1. Cheney didn’t need to be under oath, since it’s a crime to lie to the FBI. 2. There is NO compelling evidence that Rove got a letter saying he wouldn’t be prosecuted. There is only a statement by his lawyer than such a letter exists, followed by an immediate refusal to let anyone see it. 3. Fitz has made it clear that he held off prosecuting in 2004 not in deference to the election but in order to elicit testimony from JudyJudyJudy and Matt Cooper. That fight went all the way to the Supreme Court, who refused to hear their appeals.
The three fundamental rules of chess are “Develop, develop, develop.” That’s what I see Fitz doing here.
Perhaps I’m wrong on this. If I am not guilty of something, then I would want to testify. Of course that assumes there is not a conspiracy afoot to use me as a patsie. But even then…
Copied and pasted from truthout:
A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as “Doe,” allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA. The judge has ordered both parties to submit discovery requests-evidence they want for their case-to be completed by March 15, according to the CIA agent’s lawyer and a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is defending the CIA in court.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued her ruling after what Doe’s attorney, Roy Krieger, described as an extraordinary, secret status conference by telephone this afternoon that lasted nearly a half an hour.
>>> So concerned was the CIA about the agent’s identity becoming public that the Justice Department prevailed upon the judge to issue a highly restrictive order regarding press contacts by the agent and Krieger. The order barred them from “requesting, allowing, encouraging, or directing” any members of the media from appearing at Krieger’s office or even within a two-block vicinity of the building where he works or of any other location of the status conference, until two hours after the conference was completed.
Frank
You may be right- hope you are- but there isn’t much evidence that Fitz is going any farther with this- just our wishful thinking.
stephanie @ 35
Hokey smoke, like, is this guy’s cover that he’s Brittany Spears or something?
James Robinson @
13
so far Libby sings like a parrot
Apparently Tenet has a book comin out in which he gets his own “savage blows” in about his mistreatment by the President. Tenet bought a car load of powder puffs before he sat down to write.
Fitz won’t call Cheney as a witness, hostile or otherwise, because he doesn’t need to. Sure it would be great drama and maybe even professional fun, but Fitz is an extremely disciplined, judicious prosecuter. He is following the less is more principle and calling Cheney is a risk he needn’t take. No one in the White House or the OVP can be comfortble with what has happened, with what is happening in the Libby trial. If Libby is convicted and Bush pardons him, the implications will be huge. I can see lots of Republicans attacking Bush for such a brazen move.
Christy, Emptywheel or any of the others on scene: I have done a pretty fair amount of state and federal criminal trial work. Is it just me, or has this, in fact, been a pretty sad defense case presented by Libby, Wells, et. al.? There were several significant statements, claims and promises made by Wells in opening that were not even particularly addressed much less supported. The only witnesses they made any real headway with were Russert (and with him not necessarily headway on the crucial point of his testimony) and Hannah today. It is hard enough to get a feeling for what went on in a courtoom from a cold transcript, much less a liveblog; so if any of those that were present for all or some of the trial could address these questions, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks for the incredible work.
Cozumel @ 26
although I see where jeralyn wrote this, marcy didn’t….
so, are we sure that this is the case?
I mean, especially, given that the prosecution has not had a chance to review their plans subsequent to being told in open court that neither Cheney nor Libby (not to mention eckenrode, who was also previously cited as a scheduled defense witness) would be called by the defense, how sure can we be that it won’t happen?
perris @
10
It’s Fitz’ catch-22. He was tasked with investigating the greatest act of treason in American history, but the parties in the CIA which pushed for the investigation have also handicapped him by delimiting the scope of the prosecution. They want the crimes of BushCheneyCo punished, but they don’t want the American people to know the details of the crime.
I’d love to know the answers to these questions, as they go to the damages caused by the compromise of Brewster/Jennings. I wonder how much Mr Marcinkowski knows. But I have a feeling if he did know and did tell us, he would then have to kill us!
Begs the question, though: if, as the wingnuts claim, Plame was not covert, then Brewster Jennings could not be covert; in which case, what is there to hide?
Ex-Agent Ties Firing to CIA Pressure on WMD
By Chitra Ragavan
US News & World Report
Friday 09 February 2007
A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as “Doe,” allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA. The judge has ordered both parties to submit discovery requests-evidence they want for their case-to be completed by March 15, according to the CIA agent’s lawyer and a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is defending the CIA in court.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued her ruling after what Doe’s attorney, Roy Krieger, described as an extraordinary, secret status conference by telephone this afternoon that lasted nearly a half an hour.
>>> So concerned was the CIA about the agent’s identity becoming public that the Justice Department prevailed upon the judge to issue a highly restrictive order regarding press contacts by the agent and Krieger. The order barred them from “requesting, allowing, encouraging, or directing” any members of the media from appearing at Krieger’s office or even within a two-block vicinity of the building where he works or of any other location of the status conference, until two hours after the conference was completed.
A coupla gems from the end of the live blog –
Wells My opening was a response to their evidence.
Walton “Whatever face you want to put on that pig”
Fitz What we said is that we charged him with obstruction of justice. Wells keeps arguing that obstruction is improper. Do we want to start trying Dickerson for saying he wasn’t leaked.
Walton How would that relate to what Fitz was saying. Libby is not charged with the leak. He’s charged with allegedly lying. Even if I let this out, it would relate to a matter he’s not charged with. This information in no way relates to whether your client lied to the FBI.
F Do I take it that Wells won’t be commenting on it. THe only problem I had is if Mr Wells said the only way they lose. I have a problem if Wells gets up and does his schtick.
Classics for the archives.
Frank Probst @ 33
I agree with Frank Probst. Fritz is methodical, disiplined and diligent. I think his motto might be “file no indictment before it’s time.” It’s a matter of pure speculation what Fitz might do, but if I were in the White House or the OVP I would be extremely nervous.
Thanks Jim,
I hope that you’re doing well, getting some rest and revitalizing for what hopefully will be another run at Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood in ‘08. This time, the ‘Hoods yours for the taking. Mike is and will be monitored and reported on frequently. A brighter light will shine on current voting record and campaign contributors.
Regarding the Libby trial, what is your opinion on the Libby will testify/won’t testify pretrial agreements made by Fitz and Wells? If Libby loses, will Fitz be able to restrict evidence on appeal based on this false agreement by Wells?
Thanks so much, good luck and I hope to see you in the near future.
Mr Marcinkowski,
Thank you for your service to your country in the agency, as a prosecutor and, I hope, in Congress. I am your next-door neighbor, in MI-10, and my father-in-law was born in Hamtramck. I certainly hope you consider running in MI-8 again. I’ll help any way I can.
I don’t know if you can answer this, but there was some speculation here the other day that the outing of Ms Wilson and Brewster-Jennings was a warning to ‘uncooperative’ CIA folks. A couple of commenters even called it a death threat.
Sir, do you know if this was the case, that the outing was seen by people in the agency as a warning to ‘behave’ wrt to the administration?
Thanks for your post here at FireDogLake, Jim, from one of your neighbors just north in CD-04. Would very much love to see you run again in CD-08, be willing to help if we can.
Frank Probst @ 25
rwcole @ 36
I agree with Frank. I think Fitz is developing.
Marcinkowski @ 0
I find this laughable. While there may be some truth to it, the fact remains that someone with few resources is at a distinct disadvantage in any legal proceding where the opponent has vast resources. In some cases one party can so overwhelm an opponent just on the sheer amount of time and money they are willing to spend on their case that the dispute never even gets to trial. Some people never get their day in court simply because they can’t afford it. The perception that in this country justice is for sale, or that its availability is greater to those who can afford it is well founded.
Jim,
I am in MI-8. Are you gonna run in ‘08. I am ready to start canvassing now!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
I can’t agree with that; I’d put it in the same category with the “if you don’t have anything to hide” wingnut defense of mass surveillance. Declining to testify shouldn’t be taken as evidence of guilt.
Everyone’s got something to hide, and while the prosecution is restricted to questions relevant to the case, and considering the statements Fitz’s team has been able to elicit from witnesses, even if I was innocent I wouldn’t want to be up there unless I knew it would work and it was essential. The fact that you’re innocent doesn’t automatically mean that your testimony will help your case (or that it won’t hurt it.)
“Whatever face you want to put on that pig”
Hi, guys!
The fact that Marcy put this remark by the judge in quotes seems to indicate it’s not a paraphrase, Walton really did say it.
Reading that remark was the first time all day I laughed out loud, a real hearty laugh. Scared the dog, I did.
Too bad the jury didn’t get to hear that remark. Oh well, I know it’s “prejudicial” — but it sure is the pure unvarnished TRUTH.
leow @
29
The book sounds depressing…I don’t need any more depressing (Iraqi and American deaths, torture, record breaking oil profits, Katrina (New Orleans continues to be a disaster) right now (can’t even imagine what the Iraqi people are going through) with the hell on earth that our invasion created for them.
…I will hold onto his words “truth is the engine of our judicial system”. Until Fitz demonstrates that he does not believe this… I’ll hang onto the thin thread that he actually believes what he said.
Ditto bmaz at #40. I’ve been a trial lawyer for 25 years and the feeling I get is that Wells himself was theatrical, but the substantive defense never lived up to it’s billing, sort of like a big movie production with a mega star cast in the lead, but a poor script and lousey directing.
Christy Hardin Smith @
30
Link to that review by Larry Johnson
Maybe Wells will tie it all together dramatically at close- but it ain’t a lookin good right now!
Two things made it tough:
Russert’s testimony- especially “I COULDN’T POSSIBLY have told him- I didn’t KNOW yet”
The Judge’s decision that Scoots couldn’t claim that he forgot without testifying himself (and risking further charges).
Didn’t leave the defense with much to work with.
TPhillip @ 52
Fitz had all the money he needed for this trial. All the money in the world couldn’t help Scooter. Fitz cannot be bought
Mrs. K8 @ 55
Your back! You have been missed.
Crazy Horse @ 44
Haha I caught that too (& love your handle btw). Walton’s contempt for Wells’ strategy is right out there in the open.
Speaking of which, not much has been written about this, but from this IANAL person, it appears as if Walton has bent over backwards to give the defense a fair shake. I would love to hear from some litagators like Jeralyn re their impressions of Walton as a Judge.
Redshift @ 53
There is an apt saying. It goes, Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt. In Libby’s case it goes, Better to remain silent and be thought a liar, rather than speak and remove all doubt. If Libby testified, Fitz would show him to be a liar in so many ways and in so many instances, that the jury would wonder if the guy could ever tell the truth. It would be, in my opinion, devastating to the defense.
Wells was just not in to Libby. I understand that.
Sally @ 64
I don’t think it was that personal. I think that Wells got a call from the bank that the check finally cleared, and that was the end of it.
stephanie @ 50
I think this is just the overture. Here is what the grand jury was tasked with:
I don’t think that job is done yet, and I don’t think that Fitz is the kind of guy to quit before it is. We need to form an FDL popcorn buying group.
No matter what happens to Libby and his friends, there is one thing that has emerged from this process that makes it all worthwhile – FDL is a tour de force in the future of media.
It’s amazing to watch or listen to Conglomerate Media reports about this trial, and see how uninformed and surface-level it all is. We knew that already, but damn, this trial has just really hammered it home.
Kudos to all y’all, and I hope I’ve been able to buy you all a few rounds of beer with my contributions! Count on me to support your future endeavors. Thank you!
kathleen @ 55
kathleen –
I know exactly what you mean. There are some topics, especially when presented in video/photographic form, which I can no longer allow myself to be exposed to.
And that’s NOT because I want to shut those realities out of my mind, or because I would prefer not to have empathy for the victims of horrendous injustice and malignant neglect.
No — it’s because I can indeed imagine all the horror experienced by those who suffer at the hands of these administration monsters, in great and graphic detail even without the pictures to sear my brain, and because my heart can break so thoroughly — such that I might no longer be able to stay active AT ALL in the long-term fight against the monsters — that I resort to some shielding of myself from the graphic presentation of these horrors.
Sometimes I think that makes me a coward, but I don’t know…
Not entirely OT:
Wilkes and Foggo (Duke Cunningham’s good buddies) have been indicted.
bmaz @ 41
I think it’s a reflection of how little they had to work with. This defense, like the Clinton “perjury” prosecution, was a case that never would have gone to trial if they weren’t backed by people with deep-pockets and a larger purpose. Because of that, making a deal instead of going to trial wasn’t an option, but as a result, the defense wasn’t any sort of “normal” defense.
That said, it does seem rather odd that they claimed so much in opening that they seem to have presented no real evidence to support.
Lol.
I ran out of popcorn and went straight to the hot-n-spicy pork rinds.
lolo –
Hey there, you!
Mwaah!
Big hug and smooch comin’ atcha!
It’s great to be here.
Please, somebody please tell me that Duncan Hunter’s in the-about-to-be-indicted mix. He’s still stinking up the county…
P J Evans @
69
Redshift @ 53
If I am innocent I would definitely want to testify. However, it would not be a good idea. I am *not* the sort of person who coan stand up to bullying or hectoring, and if the other lawyer started that on me I would get all upset and emotional and generally look like I was guilty as hell.
So, if my lawyer were smart, s/he’d probably just have me sit at the table and look innocent and scared.
I’ve followed this case pretty closely for the past few year, with many thanks to FDL!
I am confused – what exactly was the defense trying to show? What is/was the defense strategy? Ok, so they have some reporters testify that Libby didn’t leak to them, but so what? All that means is he didn’t leak to them – how does this help Libby? There wasn’t anything in the defense that compels reasonable doubt & they don’t even touch on the “faulty memory”.
This had to be the worst defense I’ve ever heard about. It makes one wonder if they are just going for the conviction so they can appeal or get the pardon. It was suprisingly lame.
Mrs. K8 @ 73
We all kept asking about you over the weekend. You OK? Glad you are back and fiesty as ever
P J Evans @ 68
Wooooo Hooooo!
Thanks for the good news! Spent all day catching up with the Libby trial — it’s great that others who are looking at the rest of the headlines can pipe up with the really juicy stuff I’m otherwise missing….
I guess I should head on over to TPM Muckraker to see what goodies they have up on this news. You just KNOW they’re all over it like a cheap suit. {{{rubs hands together in glee}}}
Is it safe to assume that most of us have concluded that Libby is lying? Whether he testifies or not. And does the same hold true for the vice-prez?
We all know these guys are cowards who can dish it out but not take it. Mrs. Wilson and others were thrown out in the cold by these jerks who can’t openly defend what they did in a court of law.
The same way Bush and his neocons have thrown the military into a death trap when they themselves were too cowardly to serve in the military when it was run by honorable people with honorable commanders-in-chief.
They are beneath contempt.
Will Scooter Libby take the stand? Will Cheney come in to testify?
That would be no and no.
After reading Marcy’s version of the Hannah testimony, i’ve developed the utmost admiration for all the weight Libby had to carry on his overburdened shoulders. My frickin chris, briefings and meetings and DCs and PEs and NIEs and CIPAs and probably even BLTs. And the issues, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Turkey (hence the BLTs?), Afghanistan, and probably a bit about the Saudis given the VP interest, and Russia and WMDs and OMDs, all the while monitoring the chasing of AQ Khan, and Liberia, how to get the staff out, and probably even how to slap it to the French.
All the while knowing that Condi didn’t like to be on the hot spot, and someone had to cover.
Shouldn’t we get the POTUS some staff too?
Woodhall Hollow @
62
Wish Walton had done the same for Sibel Edmonds….
bonkers @ 66
Uninformed and surface level for sure. Here is Lucy Dalglish’s online discussion.
Prosecutors have enormous discretion, and I personally believe that once Armitage identified himself as the original source, the case should have been dropped.
I tried to correct that, from Columbus, Ohio. But it is a Cheney/MSM theme that needs slaying.
lolo @ 75
Thank you, dear heart!
I gave a detailed account of how my good news developed (in spite of really scary twists and turns!) at comment #114 back in this thread here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments
[Sorry I don’t know how to link to a specific comment, otherwise I’d do that. I didn’t think I should repeat all that detail here — don’t wanna hijack the discussion.]
Thanks for asking — and I spelled out all my thanks to y’all over in that comment, so I hope you do check it out. People like you kept me sane!
Don’t Mess With the Poets is upstairs.
First of all, it seems that wells is arguing the outting of a cia agent. In order to confuse the jury about what this case is really about, Fitz(Gotta Love Him) is there to put them(jury) back on track. Second, well’s is trying to incite the jury to question the testimony of ALL the witnesses, even his own(for whatever reason), in order to confuse the jury. It seems these people are living in the era before the internet, or are at the very least, ignorant of it. So they must assume that ‘We the People’ are idiots. Which loses their case again. Never insult the jury. I’m a simple rancher and even I can see thru the BS!!
If the defense can’t even stay focused on the subject of this trial, Irving’s doomed. But that might be their other objective, inadequate counsel on appeal. I wouldn’t put it past them.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 78
OK Kiddo, these guys have perfected the art of lying to such a degree that they can lie without saying a word.
Sally @ 79
It makes me sick that I served to better my lot in life, and they served to uphold some kind of family tradition. Except they don’t have any balls, so they avoided real duty. Cheney said “I had other priorities in the 60’s” F*ckin’ coward fraidy cat prick.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 83
Nice. Funny how she starts the whole thing…
Lucy Dalglish: Greetings everyone!
Let’s get started. I’m going to focus mostly on the legal questions because that’s where I have the most expertise.
And judging from her following comments, we see how little “expertise” that actually is…
montag @ 82
I know it is so awful what happend to her. I think that maybe Walton is afraid that Fitz would go after him too if he did anything like that in this trial
Tap Duncan @ 86
Tap, I think you are a complicated rancher.
Tap Duncan @ 86
Definately not a Jolly Rancher ;)
I hate to contradict Larry Johnson, but he may not have made those comments in that July Op-Ed but I did read an article in June of 2001 of “US News and World Report” where Larry Johnson referred to Al Queda as organized as an Elvis Presley Fan ClubLindy @ 58
1
From http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..statement/
Fitzgerald clearly recognized – even broadcasted – that the surrounding story was much larger than the response to Wilson.
Their importance – that “BushCO may have twisted the intelligence for the war on Iraq” – surely outweighs the narrower subject of the agent’s exposure, whose importance in turn outweighs the charges filed due to the apparent Libby cover-up of the exposure.
Doesn’t it?
bonkers @ 89, I sent a third response in, but by then I was way over limit (I suppose). We can all push back in whatever way we can, though.
Bonkers and Hotflash, I’ve got snow out my ass and alot of horses and cattle on my mind, but this is still OUR country, and these guys don’t know what it’s like to work a real job and it’s time for them to go. Thanks for the laughs, really!!
ifthethunderdontgetya @
83
This may be a overkill, but my bank robbery analogy still holds. Let’s say Fitz was asked to find out who stole $10 million from a bank. One of the bank’s brain-dead employees–we’ll call him “Armitage”–sheepishly approaches Fitz to say that he accidently picked up a bagful of cash one night instead of his gym bag. He says, “Yes, I know it sounds totally absurd, but that’s what happened, and as soon as I realized I had all that money, I brought it back.” Fitz rolls his eyes and takes the cash back. But it turns out Armitage only took $2 million. Fitz logically concludes that either (a) Armitage is not just an idiot but also the world’s worst liar, or (b) at least one other person stole money from the bank. He continues to investigate, and then another witness–let’s call this one “Ari”–pleads the fifth. Fitz grudgingly gives him immunity for his testimony, and Ari tells him that his friend–”Scooter”–gave him $1 million dollars last week at lunch that he said he “found” on the street. Ari had no way of knowing that Scooter was lying to him, but he knows how bad this looks, which is why he asked for immunity. Fitz digs some more, and he discovers that Scooter and his friend “Rove” both have $3.5 million in cash in their trunks. Rove gives five different stories to Fitz about where the money came from. Scooter says that he got the money from Tim Russert. Tim Russert, on the other hand, says that he never had $3.5 million in cash to begin with, so there’s no way he gave the money to Libby.
If that all sounds totally absurd, it’s because it IS totally absurd, and that’s why the case wasn’t dropped. Prosecutors do not like liars.
Fitz is indeed methodical — as well he should be. He was investigating Plame when — bang! — Irving lies to the grand jury. Therefore this trial sets up the situation and all the players in line for future proceedings.
In all the early stages the press was blathering about Rove. And since Fitz didn’t indict Rove it was all considered a failure. Now it’s clear that his real target is Cheney.
Thunder, that is totaly hi-lar-ious, I love it!!
Mrs. K8 at #84 went back to that thread to find out the GREAT NEWS. Been there before so I know all about mystery lumps. Yippee, so happy for you. lolo
ifthethunderdontgetya @
95
Over limit maybe, but I think they tend to just start ignoring people when they get called on their B.S. Joe “lieber” Klein does this on his blog. When a realizes one of us “little people” knows more about the topic than he does, he just goes buh-bye.
Makes me wonder sometimes are they really just uninformed, or are they knowingly serving a purpose for their Conglomerate masters?
Lucy Dalglish is a joke — for reasons that I detail here.
Alice, I think it was a case of this administration being less organized than Al Qaeda and the latter got lucky because of it.
Larry Johnson is one tough mo-fo to tangle with. Notice that he never backs down from the FACTS. Notice Lance never responds to him, at least not that I know of. Once again the world of reality is definately seperate from the world George “It’s Hard” Bush. My question is
“What’s hard George?”
My guess: the defense is designed to set up a pardon. Put on enough about how hard Libby was working to save us from the terrorists to get it in the papers now, so when the pardon comes down the spinners will have something to work with – evil Fitz, stupid jury, busy Scooter.
stingray @ 93
Yes.
But interestingly, in Fitz’s opening we already see the reason why Libby’s “defense” — he was such a big important dude, with such big important things to do to save the country every day — ends up as a weapon AGAINST Libby.
If he was so goddamned important doing other important things, WTF was he doing spending time gossipping with reporters and other officials about Valerie Plame?
Unless he thought it was IMPORTANT…
David Ehrenstein @ 97
This would certainly explain why Fitz went most directly at Libby out of an apparently target-rich environment. Unlike Rove, Libby did not get 5 invitations to correct himself. Perhaps he will now?
lolo @ 99
Ah, so you too are a Woman of Mystery, eh?
Let’s form an exclusive club! Women of Mystery!
What with all that sleeplessness and anxiety we suffered we oughta get SOMETHING out of it, no? Even just a snazzy membership card.
LOL!!!
Mrs. K8- You hit it right on the noggin
Stingray, we can only hope, talk about a Fitzmas present that arrived in Feb.!!
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..eview.html
Book review of Triple Cross from The Next Hurrah
Tap Duncan @ 110
I’ve been struck with how protective Fitz has been with info he may have on other people. He’s been bringing up Deadeye alot and seems to have a very clear narrative of Deadeye’s actions. He almost certainly has his sights set on his next targets (oh please, please, please!)
What was the quote from Fitz at his press conference? Something about throwing sand in the umpires face?
Fitz is throwing sand in the Empire’s face.
Fitz is giving the neocons fits.
OK, I’ll stop now…
Thanks for coming here to post, Jim. Of course, by now we know that neither Scooter or Shooter are going to be taking the stand.
It was a pleasure meeting you at the joint fundraiser for you and Nancy Skinner where Joe Wilson appeared. I volunteered on her campaign, and that fundraiser was one of the highlights for me. I was so honored to be able to meet Ambassador Wilson. It was disappointing that you and Nancy lost — I hope you both will make another run for it in ‘08.
Oh Mrs. K8, I am so happy for you and your hubby. Great news, except for the not knowing part but you did everything and then some to find out and got good news in return.
I know all about mystery disease — my neuopathy to this day does not have any origin. And now a current specialist wants to do all sorts of bizarre tests to find something. Haruuumph to that. Good to see you back at the lake.
Bonkers- You’ve got it right, he’s going w/ the fight fire w/ fire offensive, I think what drives the neo’s nut’s is that they don’t know where he’s headed next. Better to keep ‘em guessing!
Very strange article on Sibel Edmonds case and the seeming federal chicanery surrounding Judge Walton… and i didn’t know his background.
David Ehrenstein @ 102
Good article, thanks.
Tap Duncan @ 115
Absolutely. It’s been a thing of beauty to see this over and over again…”Russell Samborn declined to comment.” Brilliant.
Crazy Horse @ 116
Very interesting. Thank you for the link. I think Judge Walton is on his best behavior considering all who are watching and interested in this trial.
TPhillip @
52
But it still gets them within shooting range: of winning the case or at least forcing truthful, public testimony. That’s a hell of a lot more than you’d get without the right to legal redress.
I hope so, legaleze, because he (or they) sure seem to have shafted Ms. Edmonds.
GrandmaJ @ 113
Thank you, you sweetie, you!
Neuropathy? Oh no! In a limb?
I have some questions about neuropathy that I may have to address at some point. The leg which has the major case of lymphedema (the other leg just has a touch of it) seems to have less feeling — other than referred pain which feels like ice pick stabs flashing like lightning.
Interestingly, the therapeutic Kinesio tape applied to my back to increase lymphatic flow has relieved the ice pick stabs. However, I notice that I have less feeling in the afflicted limb — less perception of cold, less sense of dry skin (itching), etc.
How did you notice your neuropathy? Do you mind explaining? You don’t have any limb swelling, do you? (Like your ankles, for instance?)
We “Women of Mystery” have to stick together, you know!
Oh — once upon a time I had a test called an “EMG” — an electromyelograph. Jeez, but I hope you don’t have to have one of them. It was like the Spanish Inquisition — needles!!!
[And if there’s any chance you might have lymphedema, don’t let ANYONE stick needles in your limb(s) — the backed-up lymphatic fluid makes a protein soup under the surface of the skin which bacteria thrive on. This is one of the easiest ways to get a nasty tissue infection — like cellulitis. My infection in both legs a year ago should actually have been a big red warning flag to anybody paying attention that I had lymphedema.
I hope I’m not scaring you with these stories — I actually wish somebody had told me some of these details long ago. It’s apparent to lymphedema patients everywhere that not many doctors are up on the lymphatic system. There’s even a political action group of lymphedema sufferers to try to get medical schools to teach more about the lymphatic system. It is, after all, another whole circulatory system in the body, one that nobody ever seems to talk about!]
Frank Probst @ 25
bonkers @ 111
Yes – Even though DC was so prominently in that opening statement, nobody knows if there are targets to follow – least of all me!
Like a lot of people have commented, this trial has been momentous in several respects already, even if it ends here.
I am proud of everything about FDL and the smart new “open source” justice blogging, about all the talent they bring, and for a lot of the great commenting too.
Also incredibly proud of Team Fitzgerald for having no fear about going hard to the heart of the matter, no matter how powerful the positions held, and for the superb talent they have displayed.
Mostly it me gives faith in the American Way! :)
Following links from TNH’s review of “Triple Cross”, I came upon this in an essay by former DIA intel officer Col. Patrick Lang:
(referring to the neo-cons, PNAC, etc., the usual suspsects we all know and loathe)
“… the newcomers behaved as though they had seized control of the government in a silent coup.”
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
The essay, btw, is called “Drinking the Kool-Aid.”
Gotta read the rest of this.
I posted a review of Peter Lance’s Triple Cross over at The Next Hurrah about three weeks ago.
My recommendation is to wait till the book is deep discounted, and if you are reading and collecting 9/11 materials, then it perhaps should be collected.
Lets begin with the publisher. Lance’s book was a product of Harper-Collins, published under the Regan imprint, which recently went defunct when Judy Regan was fired. In my opinion the book has some interesting points, but — big but — it needed massive editing to whittle it down to about a third of its size, and I suspect Regan spent all her editorial budget on OJ. And given that Murdock the ultimate owner who took the hit on the OJ book plot recently said he used his assets to forward a propaganda agenda — well make a little note on a card about that, and use it as a bookmark when you read.
Essentially Lance’s argument is that Fitzgerald had critical information about Ali Mohamed (An Egyptian close to those who killed Sadat, who served in US Special Forces, became a US Citizen, and also worked with bin Laden and al Quaed, and in the meantime was also an FBI informant — never used in a trial and never indicted formally)– and he didn’t properly indict and prosecute him. I think Lance’s argument misses the point, namely that Prosecutors prosecute those who are indicted, and there are times when a triple crossed source is totally poison if you ask them to witness in a case, when it is pretty clear no one knew what in the hell he was really. Prosecutors are not charged with being intelligence agents — they are expected to build successful cases, and you don’t use damaged goods if you can win a case without them.
But from the point of view of trying to comprehend the problems with Intelligence before 9/11 — the book is moderately useful, if you have the patience to deal with the constant re-hash of the same narrative and similar points. (Which is why I fault the lack of a red pencil editor.) I would never recommend it to someone who has not kept up with the pre-9/11 literature, and who is not well practiced in critical reading — but it does make legitimate arguments.
We need a good well researched book on counterterrorism efforts inside the FBI both before and after 9/11. I am profoundly concerned that FBI has been essentially unable to construct a computer system that would allow appropriate case evidence collected by them to be properly transferred to Intelligence Data Bases. They still don’t have a relational capacity equal to ordinary Google searches we all do every day. They have blown through billions trying to get one without success. Why they don’t just hire the Google folk, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to create one for them, well that is beyond me. I am told by a critical retired agent that a lot of it has to do with Male Agents being allergic to keyboards and “typing” — and the real possibility that performance review might somehow get tied to quality of production for a data base — but that is just one possibility. Lance has much to say about this that is worth thinking about. But his book is not worthy of being used in that argument.
I value Larry Johnson being in our midst and offering his points of view based in his CIA and State experience. I hope he keeps it up. But let’s remain critical please — one of the books I found exceptionally valuable in getting up to speed on Islamic Radicalism and al-Qaeda in particular was Stephen Simon and Daniel Benjamin’s “The Age of Sacred Terror” — and they were quite critical of Johnson and the position he took when they worked for Richard Clarke at the NSC during the Clinton Years for his dismissal of concern about al-Qaeda. Let’s not look at this stuff black and white — let’s not just trust this one or that one — we need to comprehend a great deal about subjects most of us were not trained or educated to deal with, and we need thus to be critical thinkers about all books, articles and all the rest.
Sara at 126-
Very thoughtful posting – and especially your reminder that we who are not specialists shouldn’t just swallow one person’s pov whole.
You are so right – individuals can get most things right, but make one or several mistakes…it is not easy for a non-specialist to sort out which is which. But some mistakes need not require tossing out all the rest by the mistake-maker.
At least, I think that’s more or less what you meant.
btw, it was your longer essay at TNH that led me to the Lang article I quoted above. Much appreciated.
How did we ever make informed decisions before the Web?
p.lukasiak @ 50
Yeah, this is all building up to the real case against the VP. But first I’m waiting for the Enron indictments against Bush & Co. to be handed up……. but unfortunately we might just have to wait until Howard Dean gets into office for that.
Crazy Horse @
121
Maybe Walton redacted his statement because he’s a FISA judge? The article does state that about 1% of all Federal judges ask for total redaction. What is the reason for that? What reasons are given for any redactions?
Why would redactions alone (since they appear to be legal in many cases…many judges are allowed redactions it seems) indicate that Walton is doing something illegal or unethical.
wasn’t referring to the redactions. very strange the way the case kept getting moved around various judges, always coming back to him within days. he wouldn’t let her suit go forward.
Tejanarusa
Thanks for Col. Lang
Jo6pac
Jim,
Greetings from MI-8 and Lake Orion! Thanks for running. Because of you, I am no longer on the sidelines, and waiting to support you again in ‘08.
Pectopah @ 133
I hope he runs again, too. Maybe the DCCC will help this time. They’re targeting Michigan next time around — the 9th for sure (hopefully Nancy will run again) and possibly the 7th and 8th (and the 11th?).
Put your chickenhawks on the stand!
David Ehrenstein @ 98
Yupper, and Cheney is up against it.
See, Rove’s advantage over Cheney is that Rove has two guys he can deal to Fitz whose scalps are worth more than Rove’s: Cheney and Dim Son himself. Cheney only can sell out Dim Son — and that will never be allowed to happen.
Lindy @
58
Thank you. I read Larry Johnson’s comments earlier via a link on Peter Lance’s web site. PL’s web site has his response to LJ, FYI:
http://www.peterlance.com
yea,its amazeing how so many of these so called pnks that are found guilty are later found to be innocent and were only found guilty in the first place becouse of the flat out lies that came from the prosicuting punks.