So.
Who do our firepups nominate for casting in the major roles of the
(INEVITABLE)
film version of our Libby/Cheney saga?
Like who should play Fitz?
Agent Bond?
EmptyWheel?

Title suggestions?

Marcy writes the screenplay.

John C. Reilly as Fitz – I noticed the resemblence as he sang and danced with Jack Black and Will Ferrell on the Oscars.

Vera Farmiga as Marcy.

Tom Hanks & Diane Lane as Joe & Valerie Wilson.

Aaron Eckhart as Scooter Libby.

George W. Bush: Robin Williams. Alternates: Chris Cooper, Sean Penn.
Laura Bush: Laura Linney.
Barbara Bush: Roseanne Barr.
Condi Rice: Angela Bassett.
Karen Hughes: Kathy Bates. Alternate: Emily Watson.
Douglas Feith: Paul Giamatti.
George Tenet: Dustin Hoffman.
Barbara Comstock: Louise Lasser. Alternates: Jane Curtin, Brenda Blethlyn.
Judith Miller: Meryl Streep—She is the only one who can convey the true weirdness that is Judy.
Matt Cooper: Hugh Jackman.
Bob Woodward: Billy Bob Thornton.
Tim Russert: Bill Murray. Alternates: Alan Arkin, Russell Crowe, Martin Sheen.
I. Lewis Libby: Joshua Malina. Alternates: Clive Owen, Robert Duvall, Hugh Laurie, Ed Harris.
Richard V. Cheney: Christopher Walken. Alternates: Hugh Laurie, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Anthony Hopkins.
Karl Rove: Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Alternates: Russell Crowe, Alec Baldwin, Nick Nolte, Tom Arnold.
David Addington: Richard Schiff. Alternates: George Lucas, Thomas Haden Church, Rob Reiner.
Richard Armitage: Richard Dreyfuss.
Mary Matalin: Stockard Channing. Alternates: Marcia Gay Hardin, Toni Collette, Annette Bening.
Valerie Plame: Diane Lane. Alternates: Cate Blanchett, Angelina Jolie.
Joseph Wilson: Richard Gere.
Curator: Helen Mirren. Alternates: Joan Allen, Bjork.
Judge Reginald Walton: Don Cheadle. Alternates: Will Smith, Cuba Gooding Jr.
Ted Wells: Forest Whitaker. Alternates: Eddie Murphy, Denzel Washington.
Peter Zeidenberg: Bradley Whitford.
William Jeffress: William H. Macy.
Harriett Grant (Mrs. Scooter): Catherine Keener.
AND NOW OUR STARS:
SWOPA: Jake Gyllenhaal. Alternates: Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp.
CHRISTY: Michelle Williams. Alternates: Kelly Preston, Drew Barrymore, Renee Zellweger.
EMPTYWHEEL: Rachel Weisz. Alternates: Mary-Louise Parker, Sela Ward, Mira Sorvino, Hilary Swank, Julia Roberts, Salma Hayek, Catherine Zeta-Jones.
JANE: Kate Winslet. Alternates: Allison Janney, Nicole Kidman, Virginia Madsen, Gwyneth Paltrow, Uma Thurman.
FITZ:Harrison Ford. Alternates: Jimmy Smits, Dermot Mulroney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Taye Diggs.

yes!

>How about Jack Nicolson as Cheney?

“you can’t HANDLE the truth!”

stingray 351 – I believe the Cheney / Libby AF2 conversation is just that, an in-person conversation. I don’t think there’s gonna be doc on that one.

All conversations on any and all of the Presidential fleet are recorded. So if someone was stupid enough to discuss this, then a digital record probably exists. Not a document, per se, but the actual voices of participants. Talk about being a fly on the wall…

Neil @ 193

Phillip S Hoffman does smart evil well. He’d be a good Rove.

yes

Or Cheney….but maybe a bit two young and boy-like…which are definitely Rovian features.

How about Jack Nicolson as Cheney?

Marcy seems to hint that it was Plame’s identity that really got insta-declassed, not (or maybe in addition to) the NIE. If Cheney told Fitz that, and even if he did not, then either way there’s p r o b l e m s with it.

Well this might be why it’s so difficult to bring charges against anyone under the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act. By doing this Plame was “instantly” decertified from her “covert” status.
Which may also be why the CIA is so pissed, since it wasn’t notified.

But Fitz may want to get some convictions before jumping into this morass of Constitutional issues…CAN the President declassify a covert agents status without going through the procedures that his own Executive Order lays out that allows any “original classifying authority” to appeal and the CIA Director to challenge such declassifications that endanger covert operations or individuals?

It’s clear that the CIA has undertaken extraordinary efforts to keep what Plame was doing quite “protected”. They refused to acknowlege that she was a CIA EMPLOYEE to Novak and to other reporters for weeks even after Novaks column. The fact that she was an “employee” was only declassified when they forwarded their complaint to the DOJ.

Not even Victoria Toensing can tell us what Valerie Plame did at the CIA over the prior five years before Libby, Rove and Armitage leaked her identity to reporters. Quite clearly Ms. Toensing can’t argue that Plame’s job was known to everyone and that the CIA didn’t take care to protect it when SHE Can’t tell us what Plame actually did!

One can get details of Unclassified CIA employees names and jobs from the CIA’s Public Information Office if one has a reasonable rationale.

The issue of the insta-declassification of the NIE seems to be a subterfuge. The CIA did accede to declassify those parts that were leaked…and it’s silly to think that the WH couldn’t have waited a few days until the CIA agreed to do this before they released the NIE sections to reporters en masse. Releasing the NIE in advance to a few reporters as a “lure” makes no sense anyways. Why imply that such info is coming from the White House when the CIA would release it in a few days?

The only info that needed to be released surrepticiously was the Plame identity…and the WH knew that the CIA wouldn’t release her identity. If they thought that it would they simply would have gone and had the CIA’s public information office make it known. The leak had to be done without the knowledge of the CIA as to who was the source. Unfortunately “incompetants” leaked it in parallel to Libby (who tried to conceal his identity as a source by, first, having Miller identify him as a former Congressional aide, and later by attributing the fact to “reporters”). They put out a beacon that the leak came from the Administration…pissing off the CIA and Libby/Cheney for allowing the leak to be “sourced” (”incompetants!”).

stingray 351 – I believe the Cheney / Libby AF2 conversation is just that, an in-person conversation. I don’t think there’s gonna be doc on that one.

Ok, after skimming the archives, here’s the most pertinent post…
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..test-hits/

Here’s Libby Q&A.

Q. It still remains that it is possible that the Vice President could have told you to talk to people about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA, but you do not remember that?
A. It’s, it’s not what I had on my card from that meeting, and I don’t recall him telling me to talk to the — to anybody about the wife working at the CIA on the airplane that day.

Q. But you do recall him telling you back in June, from your notes dated June 12th, and you recall that that stuck in his mind then in June as a curious fact the way he observed to you that his wife worked there. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you do know that Vice President Cheney was quite frustrated during the week of July 6th through July 12th at how the media was treating this issue, and the fact that he was being unfairly maligned in the media. Correct’?
A. Yes, sir.

And this:

Q. And so you told the FBI in your first interview, or one of your two interviews, that it’s possible that the Vice President could have told you on Air Force Two that you should tell the press about Wilson’s wife, but you do not recall that happening. Correct?

A. Correct.

Libby left that door wide open, is the way I read his answer.

Okay, we’re gettin’ real close to looking at four 1/2 days of deliberations w/o a verdict. This would seem to indicate that the jurors do not see quite as compelling a case against Libby as most of us do. Bummer.

I utterly disagree. Logically the order for them to proceed would be to evaluate issues that would have thrown out all the charges…the Memory Defense and issues relating to “Jury Nullification” that some jurors might raise (Libby was doing “important work”; “was she really all that important?”;).

But once these issues were dealt with they would get down to analyzing the evidence for EACH of the five charges. That’s when the foreperson asked for the flipboard, and the post-its,

They were working through the scenarios and interconnections of each charge and all the elements. That could take one day for each charge.

And if there was a guilty conclusion at the end of any of those this might influence jurors who were wavering on other charges to re-evaluate their decisions. After all, if Libby lied on ONE charge, then he is less likely to be honest on other charges, Say you take an easy charge first…like the Cooper related charge or Russert. Initially you might vote that the case was one of he said-she said and that the witnesses were not as strong to expel reasonable doubt.

But if you were later convinced that Libby lied ABOUT THE SAME FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES in those charges that involved several supporting witnesses this might make a re-examinationb of the original situation of a charge necessary. After all, if Libby lied in that circumstance, how could he be telling the Truth in the situation of Russert or Cooper on the same factual basis.

Thus ones drcision is no longer based on “he said-she said” since it’s easier and more coherent to think that Libby maintained a consistant lie…and his value as a “honest individual” has been impaired vis-a-vis Cooper or Russert. Suddenly, after on conviction of Libby, their valence as MORE RELIABLE witnesses than Libby becomes enhanced.

All of that could take a while to go over.

My own view is that there is at least several guilty verdicts and they are likely debating one stickler.

If they had accepted any of the MAJOR arguments of the DEFENSE that would have thrown out all the charges it would have been done on day 1 or 2.

If I were David Shuster I’d start trying to dump Hardball to become the political reporter for Countdown – being at the mercy of Tweety’s political agenda/obsessions and suffering through his constant interruptions and disrespect must be pretty aggravating.

David Shuster IS on Countdown EVERY night!