Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scooter and the Munchkins

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:32 AM
Original message
Scooter and the Munchkins



Part One: "A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison; quoted by Judge Tatel, US Court of Appeals; re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller; 4-19-05

Earlier this week, Patrick Fitzgerald informed Judge Reggie Walton that the CIA has estimated it will take 12 weeks to produce the information outlined in the judge's 2-27 recommendations to narrow the scope of discovery. It is expected that Judge Walton will make a decision soon on what information that Team Libby is entitled to from the CIA, in regard to the PDBs (President's Daily Briefings). These documents, described as "the most important current intelligence on critical issues relating to the national security of the United States" (Declaration of Marilyn Dorn; CIA Information Review Officer; 3-2-06), are provided to the president and vice president at the beginning of every day.

In the period between Judge Walton's recommendations and Fitzgerald's response, Team Libby filed several motions that are available on various internet sites. These include: {1} "Response of I. Lewis Libby to March 2, 2006 CIA Declaration and Court's February 27 Order," filed on 3-7; {2} "Reply in Support of Motion of I. Lewis Libby to bar Ex Parte Submissions Under CIPA 4 Without A Particularized Showing of Exceptional Circumstances," filed 3-15; and {3} "Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady," filed 3-17-06.

These documents give us some hints of what Team Libby is planning for the January '07 trial of Mr. Libby. Let's take a closer look at some of the things his team of lawyers is focusing upon.

Mr. Libby's defense team has requested an enormous amount of information they say is needed to prove that Scooter was so busy in the summer of 2003, that he plum forgot about all of his conversations with reporters Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Tim Russert when he spoke to FBI investigators and testified to the grand jury. Team Libby is fighting restrictions on access to such information, and claim that the "government distorts Mr. Libby's defense when it suggests Mr. Libby does not need the PDBs because the government will 'agree he was important and he was a busy person'." (3-7; page 2)

They ask for access to requests in three categories: the PDBs and accompanying material; records of Libby's questions made to the CIA; and the CIA responses to Scooter's questions. The Agency had said it would take 9 months to produce everything requested by the defense attorneys, or 3 months to produce the smaller amount Judge Walton recommended. Team Libby questions "how many people it assumes will work on the production and for how many hours per week." They suggest that Judge Walton "might well conclude that the CIA is engaged in unjustified foot-dragging," which they attribute to the Agency's lacking "an entirely objective and impartial perspective." (3-7; page 3) They note that they "strongly suspect that the CIA has exaggerated the difficulty of obtaining the responses to Mr. Libby's inquiries." (3-7; page 4)

Team Libby goes on to "withdraw our request for the items .... provided only to Mr. Libby. Thus, the CIA need only produce the Vice President's morning briefing notebook for the dates at issue..." They offer to review these documents, without "copying the materials in question," at a site "maintained by the Department of Justice at the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, DC," with only Libby and the four attorneys reading them. (3-7; pages 6-7)

Team Libby takes great offense that Fitzgerald would attempt to limit their access to highly classified information. They note that he "relies extensively on cases involving alleged terrorists (and) spies ..... But there is obviously no such risk here. Mr. Libby -- like the defendants in the North, Poindexter, and George cases .... -- has diligently protected some of this country's most sensitive secrets throughout his many years of public service.

"In an unseemly attempt to avoid the force of the Iran-Contra cases, the government asserts that '(u)nderlying the crimes charged in this case is the failure by a senior national security official' -- presumably Mr. Libby -- 'to adequately safeguard sensitive classified information'." Team Libby again questions if there isevidence that Scooter's actions were "irresponsible .... even if it turns out Ms. Wilson's status was classified. .... In any event, the government cannot seriously contend that disclosure of even the most sensitive intelligence information to Mr. Libby or his defense team poses a risk to national security. Such a reckless accusation dishonors Mr. Libby''s loyal service to this country. ... The government's false suggestion that Mr. Libby cannot be trusted with classified information is a foul blow." (3-15; pages 3-5)

In the 3-17 motion, Team Libby continues the fiction that Fitzgerald "has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA." They claim that Scooter "viewed Ms. Wilson's identity as at most a peripheral issue,(page 3); that in the context of the controversy over the 16 words, "the role of Ms. Plame was peripheral," (page 4); and that while the "indictment that to Mr. Libby and other government officials, Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa was important. But in reality, Ms. Wilson was not important." (page 27)

This motion also notes that "the government informed the defense that it intends to introduce all of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony at trial. ... The two transcripts collectively total 389 pages. .....(W)e reserve the right to object to the admission of the entire transcript of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony at the appropriate time." (pages 10-11)

Part Two: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficing of WMD components. ... 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me." -- Joe Klein; Plenty to wear About; Time; 7-5-04

Team Libby's continued efforts to question if Valerie Plame Wilson was covert seems curious. On page 28 of Judge Tatel's decision on the Miller appeal (4-19-05), he notes, "Her exposure, therefore, not only may have jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have endangered friends and associates from whom she might have gathered information in the past." (Also see: "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert" by Michael Isikoff; Newsweek; 2-13-06)

In their efforts to deny the significance of Plame's work with the CIA, Team Libby goes beyond the bounds of decency. On pages 9- 10 of their 3-7 document, they attempt to "illustrate" the "urgency" of the PDBs that "might well have still consumed (Scooter's) attention on June 23 or July 12, or even later," by using the August 6, 2001 PDB as an example. That was, of course, the PDB released in redacted form by the 9-11 Commission, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Team Libby notes that a "summary of the general subject matter of the item does not accurately convey its urgency. To make that assessment, the details are necessary -- the number and sophistication of the Al-Qaeda members allegedly planning the attacks, the state of that planning, the current ability of the terrorists to carry out a planned attack, and -- perhaps most important -- the source of the intelligence community's information about the planned attacks, the reliability of those sources, and the extent which other intelligence corroborates their information. In short, Mr. Libby needs what the Supreme Court call the 'persuasive power of the concrete and particular' to convince the jury that in a welter of more urgent matters, he confused or forgot the snippets of conversations concerning Ms. Wilson."

It appears that Mr. Libby's attorneys wish to present Scooter as a public servant dedicated to protecting the public from Usama bin Laden, despite the difficulties created by the CIA and Joseph Wilson. Scooter was so busy protecting us, that he simply forgot a few details about conversations with journalists. His grand jury testimony? Forget that, too. Concentrate on VP Cheney's PDBs. Even if Patrick Fitzgerald is correct about Plame being a covert agent of the CIA, she was not important to Scooter. This fine man was too busy protecting you from terrorists.

I don't think that it will play too well against his grand jury testimony. Just look at this clip quoted in the the 10-31-05 indictment (pages 21-22):

Q: And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?

A: No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.

Q: And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A: Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.

....
Q: The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concerning this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why were you so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A: I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand that it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know if it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know if he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Boy, te testimony in that last paragraph sounds like the speach of
a very nervous man to me. It also sounds like his attorney didn't do a very good job of preping him. I've been asked to testify in quite a few cases, and the one thing I was always told, by all the different attorneys was "Just answer the question that's asked. Don't repeat yourself, and don't volunteer ANYTHING!

TB this is another Fed. Court case. I'd LOVE to watch that one on Court TV!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Libby is a lawyer himself
Sounds like he had Bushitis of the mouth that day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Exactly ....
The last paragraph shows that he was caught off guard, and that the people on the grand jury recognized that he was full of shit. Team Libby realizes that if Fitzgerald presents his full case to any jury, Scooter is convicted. So they are caught in a trap: should Scooter testify? How damaging will it be if he doesn't, and his grand jury testimony is presented? Scooter is trapped; double trapped; triple trapped -- and all they really can do is point to VP Cheney.

We need to make a call to impeach Cheney a part of the 2006 political season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I have another idea that would damage Libby's case.
Seems Libby's attys are asking for all kind of different materials...most unrelated to the charges against their client. Since it will already be April before the judge even makes a decision, and the "CIA" said it will take at least 3 months to put this info together, that means July at the earliest, and the gov't rarely makes it's deadlines. Let's say it takes an extra 3 or 4 months, and when Libby's attys get the docs they reuested, it turns out to be 3,000 boxes of docs! Pretty tough to go through that many pieces of paper in 3 months, don't ya think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The March 7 document
notes: "The declaration agrees with Mr. Libby's estimate of documents that fall into categories 2 and 3 is in the range of 300 to 500." (page 2) I think that by asking for a number of the things they call necessary for Scooter's defense, they want to either derail the trial, or to have an issue for appeal. I think that Judge Walton will close the door on their attempts in this area. This leaves the focus on VP Cheney's PDBs. (grin)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Thanks for the GRIN! I had a good laugh too! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. LOL: " reckless accusation dishonors Libby''s loyal service to country"
snip: :nopity:

"Such a reckless accusation dishonors Mr. Libby''s loyal service to this country. ... The government's false suggestion that Mr. Libby cannot be trusted with classified information is a foul blow." (3-15; pages 3-5)"

Thanks for your assessment, H2O Man. I agree with this:

snip: It appears that Mr. Libby's attorneys wish to present Scooter as a public servant dedicated to protecting the public from Usama bin Laden, despite the difficulties created by the CIA and Joseph Wilson. Scooter was so busy protecting us, that he simply forgot a few details about conversations with journalists. His grand jury testimony? Forget that, too. Concentrate on VP Cheney's PDBs. Even if Patrick Fitzgerald is correct about Plame being a covert agent of the CIA, she was not important to Scooter. This fine man was too busy protecting you from terrorists.

:rofl:

Libby is full of BS, he's been caught in his LIES, he's dissembling & he's greymailing. Let the trial begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. When i and i catch them vampire


Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampire…
Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampire…
We have the chalice to light up Jah fire!
When i and i catch them vampire
i and i have to set them on fire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. very interesting
and very telling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
8. Scooter and the Munchkins
Edited on Sat Mar-25-06 11:01 AM by shadowknows69
would be a great name for a band :headbang: Somebody had to say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. Unbelievable!!
"Mr. Libby's defense team has requested an enormous amount of information they say is needed to prove that Scooter was so busy in the summer of 2003, that he plum forgot about all of his conversations with reporters Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Tim Russert when he spoke to FBI investigators and testified to the grand jury."

Being "so busy" does not make it any less a crime. Hell, if only I could use that excuse during the course of my day.

K&R!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. God, I hope someone is collecting all of the excuses Republicans
use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I'd have to quit my job and not have any sleep.
Can you imagine trying to keep up with the nonsense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. It seems like there is a new one every single day.
And the only recycling they do is propaganda and excuse recycling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
48. Perhaps the IRS is going bug eyes with all that hard work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Those little innocent
"snippets of conversation" about .... ah, what was her name? can't be sure if Wilson was even married .... start to add up when Team Libby plans to subpoena or cross-examine 7 administration officials, or more, on their conversations with Scooter about Valerie Plame Wilson. He needs to convince people that a half-dozen officials are either making gross errors or outright lying about those "snippets of conversation" with Libby.

Looking at page 6 of that indictment, where it reads: "Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line." Gosh, this from the same guy who tried to disguise his position by telling Miller to refer to him as a former staffer from the hill, and who tried to attribute the information he spread as coming from other journalists. No wonder he wants to talk about bin Laden PDBs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. A Scotsman once stated..
"Oh, what tangled webs we weave, When we first practice to deceive."

That somehow seems so applicable for some reason. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Libby's web
included the following statement to the grand jury about his conversation with Tim Russert. Note that he "remembers" these things with great clarity, including his reactions:

"...And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at this time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought that this was something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

"Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine.

"So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said again, I don't know this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him any more about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that."

Oh, dear, Mr. Libby, you made a serious mistake, and now you gotta pay your dues. As Mr. Fitzgerald noted, "3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that: a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623."

That was perjury, the 4th count against Scooter. In fact, Scooter had called Mr. Russert to complain about Chris Matthews' reporting on the yellow cake controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Have Scooter's lawyers argued that count?
I'd love to see which law they cite to protect him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. This is where
they wanted to bring in "memory experts," and to say this heroic munchkin was so darned busy protecting the USA, that he may have been confused. But while one can indeed forget a conversation that did take place, it is by definition impossible to remember one -- especially so clearly as Scooter did -- which never took place. Now our friends on Team Libby will contend that either Scooter or Tim must be confused, but that no one lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. "Memory experts," eh?
That's a good one. :rofl:

Where do I apply for that job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. In defense of "memory experts" -- a nitpick
It would be more correct to say that it is by definition impossible to correctly remember a conversation that never took place. As a "memory expert" would tell us, the mind can do some quite remarkable things. Creating a memory of a conversation that never took place would not be too unusual.

We must keep in mind that these are people who literally believe that not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth. While not formally recognized in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Ed.), the scientific designation of this condition is "republicanoia."

Consider this historical example:

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

In the same way some people are color blind, those suffering from republicanoia cannot see this statement as the irrational lunacy that it clearly is. Some have described it as an "admission" or even an "apology," when the speaker (a Mr. R. R. of California) was in fact still convinced that he had done nothing wrong.

While I'm neither a memory export nor an attorney, it would seem to me that Mr. Libby would be well advised to persue a defense of "diminished capacity."

--




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. I don't think so.
In fact, one can't remember that which didn't happen. There are, of course, people who confuse fantasy with reality. Perhaps Scooter will consider this type of defense option by fall.

Keep in mind something that Chris Matthews said: Scooter is a guy who has for years taken the stance of "trust me -- I'm way smarter than anyone else." Now he wants to change it to "forgive me -- I'm not very smart, and am in fact more easily confused than anyone else."

Scooter told Judith Miller to refer to him as a former staffer from the Hill. He was attempting to hide his identity. He let her sit in jail for months. When he finally gave her permission to talk shop with Mr. Fitzgerald, he attempted to coach her to lie. His lies about the conversation with Russert fit exactly with a man attempting to hide the role he played -- kicking up sand, as Patrick said. This fits a pattern for our indicted little munchkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. another intentional misdirection: Cheney tells Scoots Plame works in
CIA's Counterproliferation Division. That's in the Directorate of Operations. Spooksville.

Scooter then turns around and tells Judy that Wilson's wife works at WINPAC, which is not part of the Ops Directorate. He again simply "misremembered?" Or rather, he knew damn well he couldn't even to Judy be seen to be fingering someone on the Ops side of the CIA? Little wonder his aspens were quaking when Judy opted for the joys of Sag Harbor over a potentially further extended stay in the pen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. I'd say Mr. L would be well-advised to cop a plea.
He lied outright, he thought he could get others to corroborate his lies, but they didn't. Fitz got him dead to rights and he'd be better off copping a plea now than dragging out the trial and getting the maximum.

Of course, there may be just a slight bit of pressure from a certain 'dead-eye Dick' not to tell the truth. Poor Scooter. My heart bleeds for him (NOT!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. That They Would Bring OBL Into This
And use the Aug. 6 PDB as an example of a summary not being sufficient is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned and speaks volumes about their character or lack thereof. Also the tone of the document regarding the CIA is very caustic. The very tone you should use when trying to get people to help you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Those bin Laden PDBs, supposedly so full of meaty details
and engrossing immediacies?

Didn't Condi tell us that PDB was an "historical" document void of any valuable specifics?


Things are good. :)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. We must be careful
not to allow facts -- such as those you raise -- get in the way here. Emotional responses are what Team Libby is seeking. Let's look at part of footnote #4 from that 3-15 document:

"The 9/11 Commission itself made this point. The Commission noted that an August 7,2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Brief ('SEIB') 'repeated the title of (the August 6, 2001) PDB, (but) it did not contain the reference to hijackings, the alert in New York, the alleged casing of buildings in New York, the phoned threat to the embassy, or the fact that the FBI had approximately 70 on-going bin Laden-related investigations.' National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report 260-262 (2004). Because the SEIB omitted this critical detail, it failed adequately to alert policymakers to the threat that materialized just over a month later. By the same token, summaries of the morning intelligence briefing materials will not adequately alert Mr. Libby to issues that he found most critical at the relevant time. See also Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Report to the President of the United States ('Robb-Silberman Report') 27 (2005) (recommending 'elimination of the inherently misleading "headline" summaries in PDBs,' because the summaries fail to capture details that are essential to assessing the importance of the intelligence at issue.)"

Clearly, Team Libby wants us to connect Libby with all that is noble in fighting terriblism and bin Laden, despite the inept actions of the CIA, and those traitors the Wilsons. I can almost hear Scooter now, on the witness stand, saying, "9-11 changed everything..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. "Fighting terriblism."
LOL.

And Scooter's argument boils down to, "I've forgotten which things were more important than Wilson that made me forget about her, and I need the full PDBs so I can tell you what they were."

Which would lead us right into the graymail situation. Alas, it's not credible, and in any case would never explain why Scooter would have told people something that never happened (learning about Wilson from a reporter).

And doesn't Scooter have his own damn notes and schedules from that time period?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. People that resign
because they've been charged with commiting crimes on the job aren't allowed to take the evidence with them. Poor Scooter!

The fucking gall of this weasal to try to pretend he was protecting the citizens of this country from WMDs getting into the hands of our enemies -- it makes me want to puke. He was one of the key players in exposing a person -- hence a network -- of people involved in just that work.

You are right, of course, about the graymail attempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. Hmm. Who would be smuggling WMDs during the buildup to Iraq?
"Part Two: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficing of WMD components."

Call me tinfoil, but wasn't there talk here about BFEE needing to smuggle WMDs INTO Iraq after none were found there? Maybe this exposure was intended as revenge against Plame, not Wilson?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. Love The Title
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. first, there's the beauty of Fitzgeralds case, the simplicity
of the perjury charges. Fitz assumes a subversion has occurred, but, he says Libby obstructed him from getting to the bottom of it by lying, several times. There's no need to prove any al-Qaeda link or WMD lie from Bush. But, in defending himself, Libby is stirring up the muck from the bottom of the well. It will do his case no good in the end, unless he's trying to make it more difficult to prosecute Bush, for instance, on something related to the WMD lies.

Or, perhaps it's a shield for Cheney to lay down a blanket of cover for the revelation of VP itself, which isn't now under indictment, but may be in some later charge against one of the other figures in the WH. He could be taking care of his own doomed defense and, at the same time, be the fisrt assault on any future prosecution that may be contemplated by Fitz.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. I do hope this investigation leads to Cheney.
Schadenfreude for certain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
23. Libby thought he could pawn the whole thing off on reporters
He thought he could create a fog around the events of how Valerie Plame was exposed, but it isn't working.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Well, if the investigation had stayed where it was in Fall 2003, it might
have indeed worked.

Remember, these guys (Libby, Rove, etc.) first spoke to investigators while Ashcroft was in charge of the investigation. They thought they'd led it to a nice dead end and that's where it would stay.

But an unexpected thing happened. Senior DOJ staff weren't buying, there were discrepancies in stories and info they were getting, and they went to Ashcroft with their "concerns" pointing out Ashcroft's cozy relationship with Rove and others might be viewed as a potential a conflict of interest and, I suspect, that Ashcroft might get his own ass in the wringer too if it uh, "appeared" he was compromised regarding an investigation of a national security crime in which there was evidence of obstruction of justice and lying, additional crimes. They must have been persuasive.

Ashcroft recuses himself, Comey puts Fitz in charge, gives him AG authority and Fitz convenes a grand jury.

Problem is, Libby, Rove and others now go to the grand jury with their previous statements to investigators on the record. What to do? In Libby's and Rove's cases, stick with the same story and count on others involved and journos not talking, apparently. But others and the journos talked, some sooner rather than later. And when various cats are out of the bag, they then have to improvise and try to distract as their previous cover stories fall apart.

Given Libby's apparent performance before the DC grand jury, one can readily imagine the defense team may not want to have that testimony run by a DC trial jury. Almost hard to believe that they seriously want to run that kind of defense by a DC jury. Is Scooter banking on a pardon and that's why he won't deal? Is he sure the PTB won't happily let him be the fall guy? Or is he willing to take one for mob? (I suspect perhaps not, political types really do not like the idea of jail, being confined with common criminals and all.)

Right now, perhaps this is all a legal game of "chicken." It will be interesting to see if the landscape changes, if other indictments and/or information come forth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Yes, I don't think they would have played so loose
with the media or their alibis, if they knew someone would be investigating them as rigorously as Fitzgerald. Now they are stuck with their original statements.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #31
42. Also, my guess is, various insiders were fed up and told Fitz the truth.
Probably outing a deep cover operative was more than a number of people could stomach. Once Fitz had the real story, it wasn't that hard to pry loose glaring contradictions in the testionies Libby's gang concocted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. "W)e reserve the right to object..."
"W)e reserve the right to object to the admission of the entire transcript of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony"

We reserve to object to the video tape of our client holding up the bank with a gun.

WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
43. Seriously!!! The GJ testimony IS the crime.
So they are going to argue that nothing in the GJ testimony is a lie, and that's why they refuse to let the jury see the testimony?

That would be like saying "If Saddam doesn't have WMDs, why doesn't he show us the weapons he doesn't have?" No one could possibly . . . uh . . . well . . . okay, never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
25. "The government's false suggestion...is a foul blow."
O, what foul calumny is here
Heaped on such a shining paragon
Of tireless, selfless toil!

Woe to the republic who thus
Rewards her noblest defenders
With slander, baseless and vile!






:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
34. Funny thing, if Libby was so damned busy
looking for bin Laden, how did he manage to find the time to play dress up cowboy and hang around WY rodeos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
35. Scooter seemed to have plenty of time to pen the infamous
aspens letter to J. Miller. And there seems to have been adequate time to chat up the press fold. So how does that meld into his defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. I thought you were going to reference
Scooter's dirty novel "The Apprentice", with the bear and the child... but that was written in 1996. I guess he wasn't particularly busy then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. No--I knew it was too old--plus, he was apparently
"on leave" when he wrote the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Exactly. Seems like he was busy spinning and covering up.
Everytime I hear about activities inside the US Kremlin, they are talking about how to control images and perceptions. Maybe if they would spend five minutes here and there thinking about how to manage REALITY, we wouldn't be going to hell in handbasket today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
45. Kicking for the Sunday crowd!
This should be on the home page. How do we get it there?


:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
47. Sunday night kick.
:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC