posted on January 24, 2007 09:34:56 AM new
Anyone following it? There are gonna be admininstration types scurrying for cover like roaches when the lights come on. What fun....
– “Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.”
– Cheney personally “wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.”
– “Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.”
posted on January 25, 2007 08:09:37 PM new
The Libby Trial: Whose Memory Problems?
Prosecution witnesses have trouble remembering some key facts.
By Byron York
Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff who is on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice, claims he doesn’t remember, or mis-remembers, some of the conversations he had with reporters concerning the former CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson. That, Libby says, accounts for the differences between his testimony about talks with journalists like Tim Russert and Matthew Cooper and the accounts of Russert and Cooper themselves.
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t buy Libby’s defense, ultimately deciding to indict Libby in November 2005. But now, at the long-awaited trial, some of Fitzgerald’s witnesses are having memory problems of their own. Under cross examination by Libby’s lawyers, two of Fitzgerald’s first witnesses had to concede that they could not remember aspects, sometimes important aspects, of their roles in the Plame matter and that they gave conflicting accounts of events during interviews with the FBI, during appearances before Fitzgerald’s grand jury, and at the trial itself.
“I Don’t Recall”
First was Marc Grossman, a former State Department official who was close to original Plame leaker Richard Armitage. On the stand, Grossman conceded that he had talked to Armitage on the eve of his, Grossman’s, questioning by the FBI — an action Libby lawyers characterized as “fishy,” since it is generally frowned on for two witnesses in a criminal investigation to confer before testifying. Grossman also revealed that when Libby called him about the then-unnamed former ambassador (Joseph Wilson) who was appearing in press accounts criticizing the Bush administration’s case for war, Grossman called Wilson to talk things over — but never told Libby about it.
But Libby’s lawyers wanted to zero in on Grossman’s memory. Grossman says he told Libby that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in early June 2003. “You told the jury yesterday that you gave Mr. Libby the information concerning Mrs. Wilson in a face-to-face meeting on June 11 or June 12, 2003,” defense lawyer Ted Wells said to Grossman.
“That is what I recall,” Grossman answered.
“Isn’t it a fact that when you were first interviewed by the FBI in October 2003, you stated to the FBI that your contacts with Mr. Libby were during two or three telephone conversations, and that there was absolutely no reference to a face-to-face meeting?”
“I can only say what I said yesterday,” Grossman said.
Wells began to press. “You told the jury yesterday that the first time you learned that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA was when you read the INR report,” Wells said, referring to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, better known as INR. “Do you recall that you told the FBI that you learned about Mrs. Wilson’s working at the CIA before you read the INR report?”
“Well, if I did so, it would have been wrong, sir,” an increasingly nervous-looking Grossman replied.
“You told the jury yesterday that you discussed with Richard Armitage the INR report — “
“Yes.”
“You said that Mr. Armitage had a copy of the report.”
“Yes.”
“Do you recall telling the FBI in 2003 that you had no knowledge whether the INR was disseminated to Mr. Armitage?”
“You told the jury a few minutes ago that you recall having a conversation with Secretary Powell,” Wells continued. “Do you recall that in your FBI interview of February 24, 2004, you stated that you did not discuss with Secretary Powell your June 12, 2003 conversation with Mr. Libby?”
“I do not recall that,” Grossman answered.
“You do not deny that?”
“No, I do not deny it.”
And so it went. By the end of his testimony, Grossman looked somewhat rattled — and relieved to be finished. But as it turned out, he had a rather easy time of it compared to the next witness, former top CIA official Robert Grenier.
“I Did Not Remember”
Fitzgerald called Grenier to testify that Libby had shown unusually intense interest in the subject of Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson, so much so that Grenier was once called out of a meeting with the CIA director — something that had never happened before or since — when Libby called to demand information on the Wilsons.
But Grenier’s testimony, under questioning from Fitzgerald assistant Peter Zeidenberg, suggested that Libby wasn’t looking to smear the Wilsons but was, instead, simply trying to find out what had happened in the CIA/Niger matter. Grenier described receiving a call from Libby on the morning of June 11, 2003. “He told me that there was an individual by the name of Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, who he said was going around town and speaking to the press and claiming that he had been sent on a mission to Niger,” Grenier testified. “[Libby] wanted two things. He wanted me to verify whether or not there was truth to that story — whether the CIA had sent him — and whether it was done at the request of the vice president’s office.”
Grenier started checking on it. Later in the day, an impatient Libby called back, wanting answers. (That is when Grenier was called out of that meeting with the CIA chief.) Grenier told Libby what he had discovered.
“I told him that in fact it was true, that the CIA had sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger,” Grenier said. “The second major point that I made was that in fact, people with whom I had spoken had verified that it wasn’t only the Office of the Vice President that was driving this, that there was interest from the Department of State and Department of Defense.”
Libby, Grenier said, was anxious to get the information out — he asked Grenier if the CIA would make it public that the Wilson trip wasn’t made only at the request of the vice president. Grenier said he would check into that, too. And then Grenier told Libby something else.
“I mentioned it only in passing,” Grenier testified. “I believe I said something to the effect that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works there, and that is where the idea [for his taking the trip] came from.”
“Why was it you felt that that was a piece of information that should be passed on to Mr. Libby?” asked Zeidenberg.
“The reason I said it was that I wanted to be as forthcoming as I possibly could,” Grenier answered. “And to me it was an explanation as to why we had found this Ambassador Wilson and sent him off to Africa…I thought that was germane to the story.”
“How was it in your mind germane to the story?”
“Because not only was she working in the Counterproliferation Division, she was working in the specific unit that had decided to sent Ambassador Wilson,” Grenier answered. “There was some question of why — and the reason of why was because his wife worked there.”
So far, so good. But at that point, it became clear that the Fitzgerald team knew Grenier would have credibility problems, as Zeidenberg brought up the issue of Grenier’s earlier testimony in the case.
“When were you first interviewed by the FBI in this case?” he asked.
“Fall of 2003.”
“And the grand jury?”
“January of 2004.”
“When you were first interviewed by the FBI, were you asked whether you had discussed Mr. Wilson’s wife with Mr. Libby?”
“I’m sure it came up,” Grenier answered. “My response at the time was that I didn’t clearly remember.”
“And in connection with your grand jury testimony in January 2004, do you recall being asked about your memory of whether you had relayed to Mr. Libby information about Mr. Wilson’s wife?”
“I told them that I may have, but I didn’t recall,” Grenier said.
“And sometime after you testified before the grand jury, did you continue to think about that question?” Zeidenberg asked.
“Yes,” said Grenier, “I was going over it and over and over in my mind.”
“I didn’t remember anything new about the conversation,” Grenier continued, “but what I remembered was what I felt after the conversation…I recall feeling guilty about it, that I had said too much, that I had relayed too much information.”
Those feelings of guilt, Grenier explained, led him to conclude that he did, in fact, tell Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson — a significant change from the story he had told under oath both to the FBI and the grand jury.
Prosecutor Zeidenberg appeared sympathetic as Grenier described the process of re-remembering his conversation with Libby. “It wasn’t as if one day I had this flashing revelation,” Grenier said. “But as I thought about it…I developed the growing conviction that in fact, I had said it…At a certain point, I said, ‘Wake up and smell the coffee.’“
One might have expected that Grenier might then get back in touch with Fitzgerald’s office to correct the record. But Grenier testified that he did nothing. Zeidenberg asked why. He didn’t think it was important, Grenier answered, until “at a certain point, Spring of 2005, I started to see stories which indicated what Mr. Libby knew and when he knew it was in fact open to question.” Only then, Grenier said, did he get in touch with prosecutors to correct his testimony, appearing before the grand jury a second time in July 2005.
With Grenier on the stand, Fitzgerald’s team did its best to rehabilitate a witness who had given them faulty information. A few minutes later, though, Libby defense attorney William Jeffress put Grenier through much more aggressive questioning.
“You told the FBI that you did not discuss Valerie Wilson with Mr. Libby,” Jeffress said.
“I told them I really didn’t recall clearly whether I had said so or not,” Grenier answered. “I think there’s some confusion, frankly, in this report from the FBI.”
Then Grenier, appearing a bit nervous, gave a rambling explanation of what he had done. “My memory of what I said in that meeting, I believe that what I conveyed in that meeting, and I want to caution, it’s hard for me to parse out what I said in what meeting and what time, but what I believe I reported to the FBI initially was that in my conversation, my second conversation, with Mr. Libby on June 11, I couldn’t recall clearly whether I told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was working in the unit that dispatched him to Niger. I may have, but I didn’t have a clear recollection.”
Jeffress pointed out that five weeks passed between the time Grenier told the FBI he couldn’t remember whether he told Libby about Plame and the time Grenier appeared before the grand jury. “In those five weeks, you didn’t remember having told Mr. Libby about Mr. Wilson’s wife?” Jeffress asked.
“I did not remember,” Grenier said.
“When you testified before the grand jury, did you tell the grand jury that you had no clear recollection of having told Mr. Libby anything about Mr. Wilson’s wife, although it is possible [you] may have done so?”
Grenier said he had been trying to give the most conservative answer. But when he appeared before the grand jury a second time, in 2005, he was read his original I-don’t-recall testimony. He was startled, Grenier said. “I remembered it and thought that I had always remembered it,” he testified. “I was saying what I believed to be true at the time and subsequently had a different recollection.”
At that point, with the questioning at an intense phase, Jeffress asked Grenier to read a portion of his original testimony. Grenier suddenly said he had misplaced his glasses (he had been using them just a few minutes earlier). Everything stopped as both legal teams looked for the glasses. Grenier patted his pockets and looked a bit lost, but got a few minutes’ break before someone found the glasses nearby. Then Jeffress moved back in.
“Do you find that your memory gets better the farther away you are in time?” he asked. “Does your memory improve with time?”
Grenier laughed. “Not in all cases, no,” he said. A short time later, he was dismissed.
It will be a long trial. There have been just two days of witness testimony, and big-name appearances from Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper, and the vice president himself are still to come. But the Libby defense has pointed out holes in the memories of some important witnesses in this case. And each time his lawyers accomplish that, Libby’s bad-memory defense becomes a little more plausible.
— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on January 27, 2007 10:35:52 AM new
Ex-Cheney Aide Shares Media Manipulation
Updated 12:32 PM ET January 27, 2007
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - A smorgasbord of Washington insider details has emerged during the perjury trial of the vice president's former chief of staff.
For example, when Dick Cheney really needed friends in the news media, his staff was short of phone numbers.
No one served up spicier morsels than Cheney's former top press assistant. Cathie Martin described the craft of media manipulation _ under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public.
The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun _ a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago.
The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby owes its very existence to a news leak, the public disclosure four summers ago of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
A private brainstorm of Plame's in 2002 brought a rain of public attacks on Cheney the following year. Cheney was accused of suppressing intelligence and allowing President Bush to present false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Plame's husband, ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, started the attack. Her unit at the CIA had sent him to Niger in 2002 to check a report Iraq was buying uranium for nuclear weapons. Cheney and the departments of State and Defense wanted to verify that.
Wilson thought he had debunked the report, but Bush mentioned it anyway in his State of the Union address in 2003. The story helped justify war with Iraq.
Wilson claimed Cheney's questions prompted his trip and Cheney should have received his report long before Bush spoke.
Wilson's charges first surfaced, attributed to an unnamed ex-ambassador, in Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column. But Martin testified she felt no urgency to set him straight because Kristof "attacked us, our administration fairly regularly."
But by July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote his own account in the Times and appeared on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
After that much exposure, Cheney, Libby and Martin spent the next week trying get out word that Cheney did not know Wilson, did not ask for the mission to Niger, never got Wilson's report and only learned about the trip from news stories in 2003.
Cheney personally dictated these points to Martin. She e-mailed them to the White House press secretary for relay to reporters.
When the story did not die, Martin found herself in a bind because Cheney's office was known for disclosing so little.
"Often the press stopped calling our office," Martin testified. "At this point, they weren't calling me asking me for comment."
So she had to call National Security Council and CIA press officers to learn which reporters were still working on stories.
Once Martin got names, Cheney ordered his right-hand man, Libby, rather than lowly press officers, to call _ a signal of the topic's importance.
Top levels of the Bush administration decided that CIA Director George Tenet would issue a statement taking the blame for allowing Bush to mention the Niger story. Cheney and Libby worried Tenet would not go far enough to distance the vice president from the affair.
Libby asked Martin to map a media strategy in case Tenet fell short.
A Harvard law school graduate, Martin had succeeded legendary Republican operative Mary Matalin as Cheney's political and public affairs assistant. Matalin had brought Martin to Cheney's office as her deputy and trained her.
Martin offered these options in order:
_Put Cheney on "Meet the Press."
_Leak an exclusive version to a selected reporter or the weekly news magazines.
_Have national security adviser Condoleezza Rice or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hold a news conference.
_Persuade a third party or columnist to write an opinion piece that would appear in newspapers on the page opposite the editorials.
Not only did Tenet leave unanswered questions about Cheney, his remarks came out late on a Friday, the government's favorite moment to deliver bad news.
Why?
"Fewer people pay attention to it later on Friday," Martin testified. "And in our view, fewer people are paying attention on Saturday, when it's reported."
As Martin rated their options, putting Cheney on "Meet the Press," NBC's Sunday morning talk show, "is our best format." Cheney was their best person for the show and "we control the message a little bit more," according to Martin.
The downside was that Cheney could "get pulled into the weeds and specifics. We like to keep him at a pretty high level," she said. Also, it "looks defensive to rush him out on `Meet the Press.'"
Next they could give an exclusive or leak to one reporter and she considered David Sanger of The New York Times, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, or Time or Newsweek.
Because reporters are competitive, "if you give it to one reporter, they're more likely to write the story," Martin testified.
Plus an official can demand anonymity in return for the favor. "You can give it to them as a senior administration official," she said. "You don't have to say this is coming directly from the White House."
The news weeklies offered a focus on the big picture and opinion-editorial writers and columnists could voice opinions.
Ultimately, Cheney crafted an on-the-record statement to be attributed to Libby by name along with some anonymous background information. Libby personally called Matt Cooper of Time, who had e-mailed questions to Martin earlier.
But when Libby suggested calling Newsweek in fairness, Cheney's aides were at a loss.
"We were scrambling for a number for a reporter that we know there named Evan Thomas," Martin testified. "We were looking around for a number. I didn't have it with me." Eventually, they found a number and left a message.
But Cooper did not use the full quote and Martin called to complain. "I put Scooter on the phone with him, which we didn't do very often on the record with a quote," she testified, "and he took just a piece of it." The result "wasn't helpful" and the story did not fade away.
So the following week, two senior Bush aides _ communications director Dan Bartlett and Rice's deputy, Steve Hadley _ briefed White House reporters. Cheney invited a group of conservative columnists to lunch at his residence.
___
On the Net:
Documents for the Libby trial may be found at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Whom to Fear? The Patriot Act? Wiretaps? Detention in Cuba?
I doubt the average American is in much danger from some out-of-control government sleuth sending him to the Gulag, or putting her in a camp, or even reading his email.
But there are things to be afraid of — out-of-control prosecutors who can trample all over jurisprudence if their cause is considered to be progressive and politically-correct. The prosecution of Scooter Libby is a travesty. If the federal prosecutor knew he had to select a jury in Omaha rather than Washington D.C., he would never bring this non-case to trial.
There are at least four considerations that are troubling about Mr. Fitzgerald’s case: (1) We know that Ms. Plame was not, as originally alleged, a covert, or undercover CIA agent at the time in question, and thus had no secret identity to be exposed; (2) we know the source that leaked the nature of her employment — and it was not Mr. Libby, at least initially and most prominently, but Mr. Armitage who apparently is not to be charged with anything (why not?); (3) we know that Mr. Wilson, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, lied about a great deal in connection with his trip to Niger and so far has escaped most accountability and probably will thereby seek to avoid testifying at the trial he once so eagerly demanded; (4) Mr. Libby is therefore being charged with obstruction of justice and perjury — not the original mandate of the prosecutor. Why not shut down the inquiry since it has not fulfilled its mission; then turn over the transcripts and testimony to local prosecutors to see if any feel there is a perjury case to be made? From my limited experience with trials (my late mother was a California Superior and Appellate Court Judge), perjury seems a rare charge, and most DAs do not peruse the testimony of witnesses to find contradictions to establish grounds for such indictments.
posted on February 9, 2007 12:58:22 PM new
UPDATE TIME!
Being reminded of how the bushits committed an act of treason by outing the CIA agent in IRAN...I thought i'd give an update on one deck of the sinking ship
From "The Nation":
Libby Trial: Prosecution Rests--Strongly
It was Hail Mary time for Ted Wells, an attorney for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as the prosecution moved toward resting its case in the perjury trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. On Thursday, Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert was back on the stand to be cross-examined by Wells. The previous day, Russert had kicked Libby's cover story in the groin. He had disputed Libby's claim that in the days before the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer he (Libby) had learned about her CIA connection not from official sources but from Russert. No way, the newsman said. The Russert call is critical for Libby, who has maintained he never shared official (that is, classified) information about Valerie Wilson with other reporters and only passed along gossip he had picked up from Russert. But on the stand Russert stuck to his version: he didn't say anything to Libby about Wilson's wife during a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003, because he knew nothing about Wilson's wife until the leak appeared in a July 14 Robert Novak column.
So what was Wells to do? He started off Wednesday by taking shots at Russert's memory. (See here.) He made little progress. On Thursday, he tried to undermine Russert's credibility on other fronts. Wells attempted to make an issue of the fact that until Russert appeared as a witness in this trial he had never divulged publicly that he had talked to the FBI about the CIA leak investigation in November 2003. Wasn't Russert's call with the FBI a "newsworthy event?" Wells inquired, hinting that Russert had for years hid part of his involvement in the CIA leak case. Russert explained that he had not reported the conversation because the FBI agent had asked him to keep it confidential.
Wells then tossed far-fetched theories at the jury. On the stand, Russert had said that none of his NBC colleagues had told him anything about Wilson's wife. What about David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell? Wells asked. None meant none, Russert noted. But Wells still was holding out the possibility that Gregory received leaked information on Wilson's wife from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and then quickly relayed it to Russert, who shared it with Libby. It's a thin theory--especially because neither Russert nor Gregory reported any news about Wilson's wife at the time. And the timing of real-world events may undermine the theory. But Wells keeps hammering at this possibility.
To buttress this part of his case, Wells tried to play for the jurors a video clip of Andrea Mitchell saying on CNBC in early October 2003 that she had known about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment prior to the Novak leak. But Mitchell, in two later interviews on Don Imus's radio show (which also aired on MSNBC), said she had misspoken and she retracted the comment. Wells suggested that Russert and Mitchell had conspired to undo Mitchell's remark so Russert's statements related to the leak case would not be undermined. He asked permission to show all these tapes to the jury. "This is nitpicky at best," Judge Reggie Walton complained. He ruled the tapes could not be played.
Next Wells took another shot at Russert's credibility. He pointed out that during Russert's appearance the previous day he had testified that Libby used the words "hell" and "damn" when he had called Russert in July 2003 to complain about Hardball host Chris Matthews' on-air criticisms of Cheney and Libby. Yet, Wells said, when Russert gave a deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in August 2004 about this conversation with Libby he had not referred to these curse words--as if Russert had somehow suspiciously changed his account. Russert explained that during his deposition he had said that Libby had been "venting" and that word covered the cursing.
Such small stuff did not seem to impress the jurors; many appeared to be unriveted by Wells' questioning of Russert. Finally, Wells played his last card. Was there, he dramatically asked the witness, "bad blood" between Russert (and all of NBC News) and Libby? "No, sir," Russert replied in the quiet tone he had used throughout his testimony. But Wells had evidence to suggest otherwise.
It was another Imus clip. On the morning of October 28, 2005, hours before Fitzgerald was to announce indictments in the CIA leak case, Russert was on the show (via telephone) telling Imus about the mood of anticipation within the Washington press corps and his own NBC News bureau: "It was like Christmas Eve last night. Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises. What's under the tree?" Citing this comment, Wells contended that Russert was "elated" that Libby was about to be indicted. No, Russert said, he was referring to the fact that a "big news day" was coming and that no one knew for sure what Fitzgerald would announce. Was Russert equating an indictment of Libby with Christmas "presents under the tree?" Wells asked. No, the television host said. "You looked very happy" in the Imus clip, Wells countered. That was a "still picture," Russert noted. The cross examination was over
One more swing and a miss for Wells. In the first three weeks of the case, Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffrey have suggested there have been a Variety Pak of plots against their client: a CIA conspiracy against Libby, a State Department conspiracy against Libby, a White House conspiracy against Libby, and, now, an NBC News conspiracy against Libby. But they have introduced no evidence to back up any of this. Wells' attempt to transform Russert's Christmas comment into proof that Russert and NBC News were bent on ruining Libby was typical. It was silly. But Wells is merely acting as a defense attorney should. Pull on any thread you can. Raise any matter that might sow confusion or doubt among the jurors. Nevertheless, he failed to undercut Russert, Fitzgerald's final witness.
The prosecution ended strongly. Fitzgerald has presented a parade of witnesses who have contradicted Libby on the key points: what he had known about Valerie Wilson and what he had told journalists. The defense is expected to call its first witnesses on Monday. The lineup will probably include several reporters who spoke to Libby before the CIA leak happened and who will testify that he said nothing to them about Valerie Wilson's wife. But Wells might need more than that--and more than word games and hints of plots--to beat back Fitzgerald.
posted on February 9, 2007 04:48:07 PM newWhat? Nobody interested in the TREASON trial.....????
Who was charged with Treason? Sandy Burglar?
It was Wilson who outed his own wife before ANYONE else.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 9, 2007 07:08:17 PM new
Dear dumb caveman bear, outing an undercover CIA agent, which someone in the White House did, is an act of treason.
There is no proof, or credence given, that Joe Wilson outted his wife....only rabid repugs have insinuated it...
posted on February 9, 2007 07:21:34 PM new
They're all so very upset that NO ONE was indicted they can't stand it.
And no ones going to be either.
So, here we have this case ....and they're hanging on for dear life....hoping they can get him for lying.
Lying....not that it bothered them at all when clinton or hillary were doing it. Nope.....even thought clinton out used everyone who ever testified with his "I can't remember".....they can't see the same thing could have happened in this case too. So many trying to remember who said what to whom, when.
They were SO hoping for Roves or Cheneys necks....LOL LOL LO
posted on February 9, 2007 07:32:07 PM new
Hahaha! linduh...what you don't realize is that this trial is only the beginning.
La-la....we've only just begun..tra-la-la...
And I wouldn't call the evidence so far as "hanging on for dear life"..... I would call it a full-fledged choke hold
Kinda sad and VERY anti-American and unpatriotic for you to think an act of treason should be ignored.
It's also a mystery as to why neocons think that the Clintons are the standard everyone should hold themselves to while they constantly deride the Clintons....the poor dears are so confused....
posted on February 9, 2007 07:39:05 PM new
"""One more swing and a miss for Wells. In the first three weeks of the case, Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffrey have suggested there have been a Variety Pak of plots against their client: a CIA conspiracy against Libby, a State Department conspiracy against Libby, a White House conspiracy against Libby, and, now, an NBC News conspiracy against Libby. ""
(Boy, those repugs sure have a comspiracy complex )
""But they have introduced no evidence to back up any of this.
Wells' attempt to transform Russert's Christmas comment into proof that Russert and NBC News were bent on ruining Libby was typical. It was silly. But Wells is merely acting as a defense attorney should. Pull on any thread you can. Raise any matter that might sow confusion or doubt among the jurors. Nevertheless, he failed to undercut Russert, Fitzgerald's final witness.
The prosecution ended strongly. Fitzgerald has presented a parade of witnesses who have contradicted Libby on the key points: what he had known about Valerie Wilson and what he had told journalists. The defense is expected to call its first witnesses on Monday. The lineup will probably include several reporters who spoke to Libby before the CIA leak happened and who will testify that he said nothing to them about Valerie Wilson's wife. But Wells might need more than that--and more than word games and hints of plots--to beat back Fitzgerald. """"
Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004
A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 10, 2007 07:43:44 AM new
mingotree,
Soon when the new-cons are done making fools of themselves their posts will be nothing but them calling you names.
I just can't get over how funny these politically powerless people are. All the cons have left is a bunch of mouth with nothing to back it up. You are so right when you say they have been put into a tiny minority.
posted on February 10, 2007 07:48:28 AM new
Ya, they treat treason which they commit as nothing! I do have a new name for the poor things..."neoconned"
It's a good thing to see those with such Fascist leanings in the minority !
posted on February 10, 2007 07:57:07 AM new
linduh drools, """Linda_K
posted on February 9, 2007 07:21:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're all so very upset that NO ONE was indicted they can't stand it."""
Uh, linDUH, want to read the first sentence of this news report???
Makes YOU A LIAR!
""Cheney's top aide indicted;
CIA leak probe continues
Libby charged on 5 counts, confident he'll be 'totally exonerated'
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Posted: 6:50 a.m. EDT (10:50 GMT)
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald describes the charges Friday.
Image:
RELATED
• Reaction to CIA leak indictments
• Libby helped shape Iraq policy
SPECIAL REPORT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA leak investigation is "not over," special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday after announcing charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Fitzgerald said he will be keeping the investigation "open to consider other matters." But, he said, "the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded."
Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. (Charges explained)
Libby said in a written statement he is "confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated."
"Today is a sad day for me and my family," he said.
"I have spent much of my career working on behalf of the American people," he said. "I have conducted my responsibilities honorably and truthfully." (Quote gallery)
During an afternoon news conference, Fitzgerald outlined what he called the "very serious" charges. (See video of Fitzgerald outlining charges -- 13:50)
"A CIA officer's name was blown, and there was a leak, and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it," he said.
"Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.""""
posted on February 12, 2007 09:06:33 AM new
No wonder Ari quit to "spend more time with my family".....now I wonder if he got any broken bones from being thrown under the bus !
Pincus Reveals Fleischer As Leak Source
Updated 11:25 AM ET February 12, 2007
By MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer leaked the identity of a CIA operative to Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus during a 2003 phone call, Pincus testified Monday as the first defense witness in the CIA leak trial.
Pincus was one of the first reporters to learn the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and prominent Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson. Pincus said he learned her identity July 12, 2003 but did not immediately write about it. Plame was outed by syndicated columnist Robert Novak two days later.
Pincus testified on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.
Pincus, a veteran national security reporter, said he was talking to Fleischer for a story about weapons of mass destruction. He said Fleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic and asked why Pincus continued to write about Wilson.
"Don't you know his wife works for the CIA as an analyst?" Pincus recalled Fleischer saying.
Fleischer testified at the trial earlier that Libby had told him about Plame over lunch. Fleischer testified he leaked the information to three reporters during a presidential trip to Africa but he did not mention the Pincus conversation.
In exchange for his testimony, prosecutors promised not to charge Fleischer.""""
(I guess NO broken bones from being thrown under the bus )
"""""Libby argues that he never discussed Plame with Fleischer. Pincus' testimony helps defense attorneys make the argument that Fleischer needed someone to blame to cover up his own leaking.
Novak, whose column triggered an FBI investigation into the leak, was also scheduled to testify Monday, attorneys said.
Novak has said that Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, and Bush aide Karl Rove were the sources for his July 2003 column.
"You're going to hear that," defense attorney Theodore Wells said in court Monday morning. "He's going to testify about that in a few hours."
Novak and Pincus are two of several journalists whom Libby's attorneys planned to call. These lawyers also are fighting hard to force NBC foreign affairs reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify about why she said that Plame's identity was "widely known" even before the Novak column was published.
Mitchell has since recanted those comments and has said that she cannot explain them.
A key dispute in the case involves Mitchell's NBC colleague, Tim Russert. Libby says Russert told him in July 2003 that "all the reporters know" Plame worked for the CIA. Russert said that never happened because he didn't know who Plame was at the time.
Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert story to shield him from prosecution for discussing information he had learned through official government channels.
Libby's attorneys want to show that Russert had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. Fleischer has already testified that he told NBC reporter David Gregory about her. If Libby can show that Mitchell knew, too, they think they can persuade jurors to believe Libby's account of the Russert conversation.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Mitchell can be called as a witness but he wouldn't allow Libby's attorneys to ask about her inconsistent statements.
In addition to Mitchell, attorneys have said several other journalists are expected to testify this week: New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas, and Bob Woodward and Glenn Kessler, along with Pincus, from The Washington Post.
___
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on February 12, 2007 01:42:17 PM new
Armitage Outs Agent in Woodward Tapes
Feb 12 1:01 PM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jurors in the CIA leak trial on Monday heard a one-minute excerpt from Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward's tape recorder which revealed a top State Department official repeatedly discussing CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Woodward, who famously kept the identity of his "Deep Throat" Watergate source a secret for decades, testified that in June 2003, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed that the wife of a prominent Iraq war critic worked for the CIA.
Armitage mentioned several times, in sometimes explicit terms that had to be redacted, that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a weapons of mass destruction analyst for the CIA.
"His wife is at the agency and is a WMD analyst," Armitage said on the tape.
The exchange occurred at the end of a lengthy interview for one of Woodward's books on the Bush administration's war policy. Woodward did not publish an article on Plame, who was outed a month later by columnist Robert Novak. Armitage also was the source for that story.
Novak's column sparked an FBI investigation that Libby is accused of obstructing. He is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Plame but is not accused of the leak itself.
Woodward testified that he interviewed Libby a few weeks after talking to Armitage.
"I have no doubt Mr. Libby did not say anything about Mr. Wilson's wife," Woodward said.
Woodward's testimony doesn't directly undercut Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case but it offers fodder to Libby's attorneys, who say Libby is being made a scapegoat by the administration.
Woodward, who protected the identity of former FBI official Mark Felt until Felt himself came forward in 2005 as the secret source for the Watergate stories, said Monday that he was only cooperating because Armitage had encouraged it. Armitage has acknowledged being the source for Woodward and Novak but has said it was accidental.
Woodward was the second defense witness to testify Monday. His Post colleague, Walter Pincus, testified that White House press secretary Ari Fleischer leaked him Plame's identity in July 2003.
Pincus, a veteran national security reporter, said he was talking to Fleischer for a story about weapons of mass destruction. He said Fleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic and asked why Pincus continued to write about Wilson.
"Don't you know his wife works for the CIA as an analyst?" Pincus recalled Fleischer saying.
Fleischer testified that he first learned that information from Libby over lunch. Fleischer testified he leaked the information to two reporters during a presidential trip to Africa but he did not mention the Pincus conversation. In exchange for his testimony, prosecutors promised not to charge Fleischer.
Libby argues that he never discussed Plame with Fleischer. Pincus' testimony helps defense attorneys make the argument that Fleischer needed someone to blame to cover up his own leaking.
Novak, whose column triggered an FBI investigation into the leak, was also scheduled to testify Monday, attorneys said.
Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 13, 2007 07:38:50 AM new
Journalist Robert Novak testified yesterday that Karl Rove confirmed to him that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
posted on February 13, 2007 07:42:37 AM new
Libby didn't spill name, reporters say
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the month before a CIA officer's identity was made public, vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby was interviewed by at least five journalists and never revealed the operative's name, the reporters testified Monday.
During the same period, two other U.S. officials told reporters that administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife, later identified as Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA, three reporters testified.
The journalists were the first defense witnesses in Libby's perjury and obstruction trial. Their testimony was meant to counter that of seven prosecution witnesses, including two reporters, who said they discussed Plame's CIA job with Libby before it was revealed July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert Novak.
Monday's testimony followed defense attorneys' claims that Libby is being made a scapegoat for other officials who leaked Plame's identity.
Novak; Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post; and The New York Times' David Sanger all said they were certain Libby never told them in June and July 2003 that Plame worked at the CIA.
"What I am absolutely confident of is I got no help or confirmation from Mr. Libby on that issue," said Novak, who spoke to Libby shortly before his column said Wilson's wife was a CIA operative
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 13, 2007 01:12:42 PM new
Imo, it's because way TOO many people....people who can't THINK for themselves....believe everything they see written by the left leaning MSM.
========
Just a few comments posted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Inside the Bubble
Yesterday's "Meet the Press" featured a fascinating discussion of the Scooter Libby trial, moderated by host Tim Russert, who left it to guest Howard Kurtz to disclose that Russert testified last week as a witness for the prosecution.
Kurtz, the Washington Post's media reporter, and Post columnist David Broder showed that they've been in Washington way too long.
First there was this comment from Kurtz:
When journalists get up there and testify . . . it looks to people . . . out there like we have become too cozy with senior Bush administration officials, not so we can ferret out information about national security, not so we can find out about corruption, but, in this particular case, in some cases, acting as a conduit for White House effort to put out negative information about Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, a big critic of the pre-war intelligence.
And I think that the people out there who don't follow this all that closely think that we have become part of the club, too much the insiders. And that is a problem for journalism.
The truth is that Libby wouldn't be on trial had journalists back in 2003 not served as a conduit for Wilson's misinformation, specifically his suggestion that Karl Rove had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by "outing" his wife to Robert Novak. (In fact, it was Richard Armitage who identified her to Novak, and she was not a covert agent under the act's definition.)
Kurtz flatters the press by suggesting it was misled by the White House rather than by a fourth-rate unemployed ambassador.
Then there's this exchange, in which Roger Simon of The Politico makes very good sense:
Simon: This is a nutty trial that nobody except the people involved in it and the people covering it care about. Once again we have a prosecutor who can't an indictment for the real crime--leaking the identity of a CIA agent--so he goes instead for the crime of, well, people didn't tell him the complete truth when they talked to him. I mean, there's no underlying crime here that anyone has been indicted for. This is just a show trial. . . .
Kurtz: But, Roger, it's a show trial that has put the spotlight on the Bush administration's attempt to make a case about prewar intelligence that turned out not to be true. That matters.
So Kurtz is endorsing show trials for the purpose of embarrassing the White House?
Then there's Broder:
Russert: Judy Miller, Matt Cooper and myself, and now Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell, Walter Pincus--you're going to have a significant number of journalists going before a court, which will be all covered. What does that do to journalism?
Broder: Well, it hurts. And it hurts because I think it opens up something that has been worrisome, I think, to many of us in the press, which is the way in which relationships between reporters and government officials can be used by those government officials to plant stories, in effect, that are damaging to their political enemies using the reporters, in effect, to carry out their political mission. And that's different from cultivating a source to get information that's of value to you as a journalist. Here you are being used by the government official to carry out their political work.
Broder has worked for the Post for more than 40 years, and has been in Washington even longer than that. Are we really supposed to believe that he's shocked, shocked to learn that anonymous sources often have an agenda other than public-spiritedness?
The Post may not be in quite the same league as the New York Times, but it has been making itself look awfully silly of late. This correction ran in Saturday's paper:
A Feb. 9 front-page article about a Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report.
References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) in October 2004.
Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report.
The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.
Other than that, though, the story was accurate!
======
posted on February 13, 2007 02:26:14 PM new
We have so many people pointing fingers at other people its like a Key Stone Cop routine. One thing that stays common is high ranting White House officials made the leak.
Who really gives a darn of Libby gets convicted or not we are all seeing how BUSHY'S crooked White House worked.
posted on February 13, 2007 02:58:50 PM new
I totally disagree 'waco'.
The American people do care and will see who just 'throws the crap but can't EVER prove their SMEARS'...and how NO ONE WAS INDICTED for 'outing' valerie plame/wilson.
LOL
Try and grasp this:
Libby is NOT on trial for outing valerie plame/wilson.
Can't get that yet???? then at least don't continue admitting the left hasn't PINNED anything in regards to this 'leak' on THIS admininstration.
posted on February 14, 2007 05:42:56 PM new
Transcript of Woodward, Armitage conversation
Woodward: ...What's Scowcroft up to?
Armitage: [ ] Scowcroft is looking into the yellowcake thing.
Woodward: Oh yeah?
Armitage: As the PFIAB.
Woodward: Yeah. What happened there?
Armitage: They're back together. [coughs] They knew with yellowcake, the CIA is not going to be hurt by this one---
Woodward: I know, that's---
Armitage: -- Hadley and Bob Joseph know. It's documented. We've got our documents on it. We're clean as a [ ] whistle. And George personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.
Woodward: Oh he did?
Armitage: Oh yeah.
Woodward: Oh really?
Armitage: Yeah.
Woodward: It was taken out?
Armitage: Taken out. George said you can't do this.
Woodward: How come it wasn't taken out of the State of the Union then?
Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot. But she ---
Woodward: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just ---
Armitage: His wife works in the agency.
Woodward: --- Why doesn't that come out? Why does ---
Armitage: Everyone knows it.
Woodward: ---that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.
Armitage: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife's a [ ] analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It's still weird.
Armitage: It---It's perfect. This is what she does, she is a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh she is.
Armitage: Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see.
Armitage: [ ] look at it.
Woodward: Oh I see. I didn't [ ].
Armitage: Yeah. See?
Woodward: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
Armitage: No she isn't the chief, no.
Woodward: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah, he knows Africa.
Woodward: Was she out there with him?
Armitage: No.
Woodward: When he was ambassador? Armitage: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
)