The White House misunderestimated Fitz.
Posted by at February 4, 2006 10:35 PMWhy is it that none of the bloggers have commented upon the decision by the presiding judge to put over the start of Libby's trial until January 2006 ?
Posted by John Near at February 4, 2006 10:38 PMWhy is it that none of the bloggers have commented upon the decision by the presiding judge to put over the start of Libby's trial until January 2007 ?
Posted by John Near at February 4, 2006 10:39 PMThis is the way I read the tea leaves as well. Libby is simply testing the strength of his defenses, and, possibly helping his "co-conspirators" find out what else Fitzgerald has. If he isn't working with his "co-conspirators", or does not have a deal for a pardon, then he's going to plea. I just read the complaint again and, frankly, this seems to me to be a relatively easy case to prove. Plain and simple, Libby lied and I can't believe a jury/judge is going to buy a "I was very busy and don't recall defense". Looks to me like kind of a stretch.
Posted by William Jensen at February 4, 2006 10:40 PMCountdown to carpe's incessant whining about this being a liberal conspiracy
10.....
9......
8......
7......
Posted by MisterOpus1 at February 4, 2006 10:48 PMGame on Mister Opus...
This is the money quote:
Here’s what Fitzgerald says:
“One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the ‘source’ to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower’....The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the ‘source’ being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.”
Get it? There was not even an effort here at a fair investigation or even-handed treatment. The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit Wilson’s story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him. Whatever leaks Wilson or Plame or the VIPs or any other partisans made respecting the White House were of no concern to the Special Prosecutor. Just leaks relating to discrediting “whistleblower” Joe.
This is why the criminalization of politics should be stopped. This is why there should never be another special prosecution.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5220
I fear you have not grasped the significance of the move underway, See The BBC News Website for Friday, 3 February 2006 "Trial Date Set in CIA leak case." District Judge Reggie Walton set the trial date of Lewis Libby with jury selection starting on 8 January 2007. This pushes discussion of evidence in open court and any decision well beyond the November 2006 mid-term elections. According to the BBC Judge Walton had hoped to start the trial in September, but defence lawyer Theodore Wells was committed to another case.
Posted by John Near at February 4, 2006 11:08 PMJohn Near, I posted that information several comment sections back, and I am outraged again for the 100th time. The spying story is withheld until after the Presidential elections, and now a trial is being withheld until after the 2006 elections because the defense attorney is just too busy. BULLSHIT!!!!!!
Posted by Judith at February 4, 2006 11:26 PMGet it? There was not even an effort here at a fair investigation or even-handed treatment. The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit Wilson’s story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him. Whatever leaks Wilson or Plame or the VIPs or any other partisans made respecting the White House were of no concern to the Special Prosecutor. Just leaks relating to discrediting “whistleblower” Joe.
This is why the criminalization of politics should be stopped. This is why there should never be another special prosecution.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5220
Posted by carpediem at February 4, 2006 11:01 PM
*****
You worthless fucking criminal-coddling traitor. You could probably rationalize the murder of young children if a Republikkkan did it. Oh wait, you already do (see: Iraq). Sorry, I'll have to think of a more snarkishly revolting example, if possible.
You GOPian scum have no principles save your vacant loyalty to a criminal enterprise. Unbelievable. IOKIYAR...except its not, in a NATION OF LAWS.
You have, through your selective excusing of criminal activity, proven yourself completely unworthy of attention or respect, and in fact unworthy of citizenship in this NATION OF LAWS.
Your fucking desperation reeks like a flooded hog confinement facility.
You're either for the Constitution and the rule of law, or you're against it. You've chosen the latter. Prepare to live with the consequences of that decision. The Constitution and its defenders will outlast your criminal hold on power, and the retribution will be quite unpleasant.
Posted by God Of War at February 4, 2006 11:27 PM"Countdown to carpe's incessant whining about this being a liberal conspiracy"
MisterOpus1, again please do not encourage the trolls. We want to stay on topic.
Posted by Judith at February 4, 2006 11:30 PMScooter Libby's lawyers say he was too preoccupied with "life and death matters of state" to pay attention to when he learned about Joe Wilson's wife.
Boy is that weak. Try this one Scooter:
"I was too concerned about what song I was going to karaoke during happy hour to pay attention to when I learned about Joe Wilson's wife"
Scooter has been playing chess with Fitzgerald and losing badly. He's in real trouble.
It's surprising that the federal judge was so supine and accommodating to the defense lawyer's story of another trial in September, and that he didn't juggle the schedule a bit---this is a long ways out for a criminal trial involving the first White House indictments in a century. Sure was a lucky break for Nero Jr.....
It should be noted that the judge is a Nero Jr appointee, with prior appointments to the D.C. trial courts by Reagan and Daddy B. Connections, connections.....
Posted by euzoius at February 5, 2006 09:06 AMNot that it is a surprise to us, but yet again another one of the nutty talking points put to rest:
Plame's undercover status confirmed via Atrios:
...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
But then again, none of our resident troll's ever bothered to answer the question as to why the CIA would refer to the matter to the Justice Dept. if she hadn't been.
Or why Fitzgerald would have conducted even a week long investigation if he disagreed with CIA.
And remember there are at least two statutes involved, with the Espionage Act only requiring that her association with the CIA be "classified", not that she be a covert agent. Although your post definitively demonstrates that Fitz thought she was covert as well.
Posted by euzoius at February 5, 2006 09:46 AMJudith writes:
"and now a trial is being withheld until after the 2006 elections because the defense attorney is just too busy."
Judith, you don't know what a gift this is for Democrats. Because this trial is going to backfire in your face again and you ought to be glad it's going to happen AFTER the mid-term elections. By the time this is all over people on this site will be crucifying Patrick Fitzgerald because this is a VERY weak case (which BTW has nothing to do with outing Plame, but for perjury).
In fact, we are now finding out that Fitzgerald NEVER looked into whether she was undercover during the time period that she was "outed":
"We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'"
This is incredible!!!! And you guys think this is a winner for you!!!
LOL.
Posted by David at February 5, 2006 10:03 AM
"Although your post definitively demonstrates that Fitz thought she was covert as well."
No he didn't. Go read the transcript of the press conference and educate yourself.
The judge apparently stated in the article I posted, that the Prosecutor believes that she was covert. I don't believe it gives any reason as to how or why the prosecutor believes this.
This is politics, pure and simple.
For a very, very good Historical analysis of the many twists and turns. I'd go to that conservative bastion of truth. www.fastcheck.org
Specifically http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
Although they don't deal with the "covert" status, it does show the "hanky-panky" of politics.
A Democratic Desk Jockey sends her Lobbiest husband in need of work, who is a Democrat, to Niger to drink Mint-juleps and decide whether the British are liars, and whether the French are helping the Niger's sell Uranium to Iraq.
He returns to the friendly CIA people who then ask for no formal written statement and do not ask for him to remain silent.
So why would the CIA agree to this? because they are beauracrats and most of those are liberal momma boys/girls. They wanted to discredit Bush and they tried really hard.
Read the facts in factscheck.org and you might find the truth interesting.
As to Valerie's status of leaving the country, Wilson wrote in his book that she had not left the country in 9 years. Why? because he had just married her, she had twins and the Russian Spy, Aldrich Ames, had purportedly outed her, so she was no longer covert.
Read the facts then we can debate. But Dog of Whinning rants and threats are not helping this discussion.
Posted by carpediem at February 5, 2006 10:14 AMThe CIA referred the case to the FBI who agreed with the CIA (a miracle unto itself) then passed it onto the DoJ. Atty General Ashcroft recuses himself.
The career investigators at DoJ call for a special prosecutor who then calls for a grand jury.
For people that don't have a case this thing sure has escalated.
The problem with focusing on Wilson is it completely ignores the findings of former UN ambassador to Niger Barbro Kilpatric and of course the later findings of Dr Baradi. Both of whom were in agreement with Wilson.
Posted by Daryl at February 5, 2006 11:33 AMDavid's brain is operating even more painfully slowly than usual today----even Crape(!) was able to understand the import of the new information in Newsweek.
There's discombobulation on the Team Conservative! When will Coach distribute the new "facts"?
Posted by euzoius at February 5, 2006 12:26 PMHelp! Anyone able to find the exact source (original source with page number) for the cited Fitzgerald quote from carpetool above? I see where he got it from but I can't seem to find where the author of that piece got it from. I searched high and low on the link provided by crappy, and on a link(s) provided at the website that I thought would lead to it.
I found that the original author provides a link for some quotes she uses in her argument that I was able to find quite easily in the linked text document. But toward the end or her article (where the crappy's quote is found) she changes gears and starts referring to paragraph numbers(her last two citations). Unfortunately I can't seem to match those up with the text at all. And I can't seem to locate those citations from her linked document at all using the search function on my computer. Plus, I even went through other legal documents I thought she may be referring but doesn't provide a link that are available on the web and ones I found at Mr. Fitzgerald's Special counsel website. I don't have lexus nexus, but I did use the search function to no avail on all those documents. Maybe I am just missing it somehow...but I am wondering what the full context those quotes were from and now am just wondering what source they are from? Anyone have any info I'd appreciate it.
One last reason I am looking at this is because this is what the rightwing sites are linking to and using as talking points and justification for those talking points. I mean they are so famous for cherrypicking and all....now I just want the original source and am having difficulty finding it for some reason.
Posted by emal at February 5, 2006 01:19 PMI don't know how or what you mean by that.
The judge said that Fitzgerald seems to believe that Plame was somehow covert or that her identity was trying to be hidden by the CIA. The judge specifically said, that he assumed Fitzgerald had some evidence.
The question is, where is the evidence. When all external sourses say just the opposite.
As to the CIA's credibility in asking for this probe....
Isn't the CIA and NSA the same groups that specifically said that Sadamm had WMD's? So why do you believe their statements now?
In case there is any confusion as to what I am referring to...here's the section from the americanthinker link carpe provided above that I am having trouble finding. The original author, Clarice Feldman says that is located in Paragraph 94.
Here’s what Fitzgerald says:
“One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the ‘source’ to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower’....The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the ‘source’ being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.”
I should also mention that there is one just above that in which the original author Feldman says is found in paragraph 9 regarding Kristof and Pincus that I can't find either.
Those are the 2 that I can't seem to locate from an original document (or do I have the wrong document?)from any link the author provides... or am I just missing it? Anyone able to help on it that'd be great.
Posted by emal at February 5, 2006 01:40 PMThe question is, where is the evidence. When all external sourses say just the opposite. … Posted by carpediemNo, they don't Plame was covert The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame. … —Michael Isikoff © 2006 Newsweek, Inc. Also, it's spelled s-o-u-r-c-e-s. Posted by Mike at February 5, 2006 03:54 PM
Isn't the CIA and NSA the same groups that specifically said that Sadamm had WMD's?
No, that would be Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, abetted by Colin Powell. The CIA disputed virtually all the assertions made by those three, so they had to establish the IWG to avoid scrutiny by actual intelligence officers.
But that is immaterial, since the CIA certainly knows what information about the CIA is classified. Are you saying then that the CIA does not know who works for the agency or what their status might be? How is it that you know more about CIA employees than the Agency does?
Wait. I forgot that you are an idiot. My bad.
Posted by Repack Rider at February 5, 2006 10:45 PMScroll past the brain dead Putsch fellating trolls, whose braying bullshit has not changed in any material way since they overtly started stealing american national elections in 2000.
And, Mary - never play chess with Patrick Fitzgerald.
Posted by (: Tom :) at February 6, 2006 07:13 AM