Stix Blog

Happy Fitzmas

Oh, the KOSkids are all in an orgy of adulation at the prospect of Karl Rove being frogmarched into the House for a hearing.

No trial or anything for them , just put him in jail along with the other Republicans.

Man you got to love the comedy coming from the Left in this country.

"Judiciary Committee Threatening to ARREST ROVE!"

Congrats to all you DUmmies out in California who can now marry each other in that state. I was originally intending to DUFU one of the many jubilant DUmmie threads about the California Supreme Court overturning the ban on gay marriage but they mostly consisted of DUmmies just high-fiving each other with little thought about how this decision will help to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in many House and Senate races this November. Therefore, I took a trip to KOmmieland and found the KOmmies salivating at the prospect of the House possibly frogwalking Karl Rove. This frogwalking of Rove has been a leftwing fantasy for years and remains so despite the silly notion that the House can send out their sergeant-at-arms to arrest Rove despite the fact that chamber is legislative, NOT executive. The Rovian induced comedy can be seen on this Daily KOs KOmmie THREAD titled, "BREAKING: Judiciary Committee Threatening to ARREST ROVE! (Conyers: "Kick Rove's A**"?)" Just keep in mind while reading the KOmmie KOmments that this is the same Daily KOs that the MSM admires and adores to much. So let us now watch the KOmmies engage in Rovian frogwalk fantasies in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, noting that the left still can't give up believing in Fitzmas, is in the [brackets]:

BREAKING: Judiciary Committee Threatening to ARREST ROVE! (Conyers: "Kick Rove's A**"?)

[This sounds like a Make A Wish foundation wish fulfillment for hardcore leftwing loons.]

I was recently watching Verdict with Dan Abrams. Abrams does a better job than anyone else on TV (maybe even than Olbermann) in covering the corrupt prosecution of Don Siegelman. Robert Wexler was on, and they were talking about the case. Wexler serves on the house committee that is investigating this case. He said that they are trying to get Rove to testify without a subpoena. Rove is refusing, and is making it clear that he will not comply with a subpoena (since when did subpoenas become voluntary?). Rove is raising more "executive privilege" crap. Wexler said that Mukasey has made it clear that he will not enforce a contempt citation against Rove. Congress has become powerless against this president who fancies himself a king. I have never forgiven Schumer or Feinstein for what they did on Mukasey's confirmation, and I have refused to give money to the DSCC because of Schumer's action. This further validates my anger. But Wexler then said something that no democrat has mentioned yet. He said that if Mukasey doesn't enforce a contempt of congress citation, that congress would hold Rove in inherent contempt.

[Inherent contempt? Is this like an inherent traffic ticket?]

If held in inherent contempt, congress would order the house sergeant-at-arms to arrest Rove, and hold him in the capital basement. Congress would conduct something similar to a trial, and force Rove to testify. This method was often used in the 19th century.

[Only an inherent sergeant-at-arms could arrest an inherent Rove based on inherent contempt.]

You want to know why republicans lost a house seat in a district in which Bush got 62% of the vote? You want to know why people are leaving the republican party in droves? You want to know why we are looking at the possibility of 60 senate seats? Rove's criminality is one good reason why. Another good reason would be Bush's recent claim that he is giving up golf to 'sacrifice' for the troops in Iraq.

[You want to know why the Republicans won't lose as many seats as you hope? The California Supreme Court approving of gay marriages is one good reason.]

The damage this president has done to the constitution has been beyond calculation. He breaks the law at will. He tortures, he commits war crimes. It is my hope that as president, Barack Obama will name a special prosecutor to investigate all of the crimes that this petulant boy emperor has committed. Crimes against humanity. Crimes against the constitution. George Bush belongs in prison.

[President Obama, please authorize the Chekhist squads to arrest all Republicans and others guilty of Thought Crimes.]

UPDATE Dan Abrams just said that Conyers on the Judiciary Committee is threatening to ARREST ROVE! They can actually issue an arrest warrant, and then send the sergeant-at-arms anywhere in the country to arrest this son of a b****.

[Might as well send the same sergeant-at-arms to airport bathrooms to peek in the toilet stalls in order to arrest wide-stance Craig again.]

It is about time that congress remind this boy emperor that we have THREE branches of government, and that the president is NOT a king.

[Will the sergeant-at-arms be carrying an inherent arrest warrant? And now to hear from the rest of the KOmmies salivating at the prospect of frogwalking Karl Rove...]

That SOB and his pals all belong in jail. They are despicable people, and they need to be pursued. Enough of the double standards.


[You sound like you are inherently obsessed with Karl Rove.]

It's time people stopped being afraid of these bastards. The tide is turning.

[The Thought Police are coming!!!] ---DUmmie FUnnies

A little light on Fitzmas

Before Fitzmas came about, Scooter Libby and Fitzgerald butted heads against each other.  Scooter was the lawyer for Marc Rich, and after Clinton pardoned Mr Rich many federal prosecutors thought that they got the wrong end of the shaft after the pardon.  Ftizgerald was one of the prosecutors and Libby was the lawyer for Mr Rich, so they are no the best of friends.  Fitgerald and other prosecutors had spent a lot of time on the prosecution of Mr Rich and did not like it.

Just another little tid bit in the ongoning Fitzgasm.

H/T to Say Anything

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been “proper.” One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as “the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District.”

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich’s innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby’s legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich’s eventual pardon.---WSJ

The Final days of Fitzmas

***Update at the botom:

President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's jail tsentence today, but left the $250,000 fine and two years probation.  Fnially can we put this horrible travesty of justice behind us now.  Libby did thing more than forget excactly what he siad and to whi in a time of much confusion.  Many of the other witnesses did the same thing and got nothing, and also in the sentencing stageof the trial, Fitzy sprung eveidence that was not offered in the trial.  Hopefully we will never again have to deal with the Independent Councils that just waste money and covict people or trash peoples lives.  And finally President Bush has lestende to his base and done something that they wanted  him to do.  Maybe now pigs will fly and Hell will freeze over also.

Bush commutes sentence for Libby

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 2, 2007, 5:52 PM EDT

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Here is the text of President Bush's statement:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

White House

Fitmas is stilling goin on

It looks like Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to charge Scooter with crimes not put into evidence in his trial.  He is trying to bring in stuff that he did not use in eveidence to support his trial.  This is a total travesty of justice.  The Special Prosecutor should be abolished, because they have no one to supervise them, or look over their shoulder.  All this crap over Valerie Plame who was outed by her husband in the Whos Who in America book, and who almost all of the Washington Elite knew she worked in the CIA.  But not one voice caginast CIA people talking to the NY SLimes about our ongoing investigation and intelligence gathering leaks.   What the hell is going on in the USA.  Have we ost our way.  If the people who leaked this information during any other war were revealed, they would have been in front of a firing squad or a hangman's noose.

Fitzgerald Doubles Down
Prosecutor asks for a sentence based on never-seen evidence.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is due to be sentenced next week, and--just in time--Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided this was a leak case after all. Last week he filed a brief with the court arguing that Mr. Libby should receive a prison sentence in line with crimes that neither he nor anyone else was ever accused of committing. If the court accepts Mr. Fitzgerald's logic, the sentence meted out in this fantastic case would at least double, to a minimum of 30 months. So it goes in a case brought by an unaccountable prosecutor now requesting an unreasonable penalty based on evidence he never introduced at trial. This is America?

Throughout Mr. Libby's prosecution, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted it made no difference to the case whether CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover. At one pre-trial hearing, he went so far as to argue it would make no difference to the case "if [Ms. Wilson] turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee." He also objected to defense requests for documents concerning her status, insisting this was a perjury trial, not a trial about leaking classified information.

His stonewalling on this point before the trial led the defense to seek an instruction from the judge barring the prosecution from discussing the nature of Ms. Wilson's job at the CIA. But now that the time for sentencing has come, Mr. Fitzgerald has decided that Ms. Wilson's role is relevant after all.

Federal sentencing guidelines permit the court, under certain circumstances, to take into account the seriousness of the original crime under investigation in a perjury or obstruction case. But Mr. Fitzgerald's attempt to introduce the Espionage Act and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act at this stage, given the lengths to which he went to exclude any consideration of the underlying non-crime during the trial, is Kafka-esque.

Mr. Libby's false testimony," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote last week, "obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent." Translation: There was no evidence that Mr. Libby broke the laws that Mr. Fitzgerald wants him sentenced under, and somehow this is Mr. Libby's own fault. There's not even any evidence, as Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledges, that Mr. Libby was aware that Ms. Wilson was allegedly undercover, which is a precondition for violating the IIPA.

Mr. Fitzgerald's filing does purport to answer one long-lingering question in this saga. Exhibit A in Mr. Fitzgerald's filing is a memo from the CIA, asserting that in October 2005 (which is to say, 15 months before the trial began), the CIA declassified her employment status and acknowledged that, in the agency's view, she had been a covert agent during the 18 months prior to her exposure in Robert Novak's July 2003 column about her husband. This same CIA summary was nearly the only document Mr. Fitzgerald was willing to produce before the trial concerning Ms. Wilson's former job status. This lack of supporting detail led Judge Reggie Walton at trial to deny knowing himself whether she was covert.

That question, in itself, was a sidelight in this case. But Mr. Fitzgerald's cynical handling of it illuminates what is wrong with special prosecutors who investigate and try these cases without adult supervision by the Justice Department. Mr. Fitzgerald makes the case that a severe sentence is justified under the guidelines, but a number of recent Supreme Court decisions, including U.S. v. Booker in 2005, have strongly suggested that a sentence based on evidence not presented to the jury undermines every American's right to a trial by jury. That is exactly what Mr. Fitzgerald is attempting.

He even argues strenuously against the recommendations of the pre-sentencing review provided to the court by the Probation Office. The Probation Office's conclusions are confidential, but the clear inference from Mr. Fitzgerald's own filing is that its review recommended a sentence of no more than 15 to 21 months, and possibly less, citing mitigating factors such as the harm to Mr. Libby's career prospects, the likely loss of his law license and the personal cost to him of having been put through this four-year ordeal.

We hope Judge Walton rejects Mr. Fitzgerald's effort to throw the book at Mr. Libby. But the larger travesty here is the failure of President Bush to pardon Mr. Libby and put this political sideshow to rest. If he is denied bail pending appeal, Mr. Libby could be remanded to federal prison as soon as Tuesday. The White House may hope Mr. Libby wins on appeal, but that would only kick a retrial further down the road when the 2008 election will become another excuse not to pardon.

It would be a blot on the Bush Presidency if Mr. Libby serves a day in prison for a political dispute over Iraq that became a criminal investigation largely due to the incompetence of so many in the Bush Administration. From the CIA, to the Justice and State Departments to the National Security Council, public officials failed to inform colleagues, blamed others and ducked political responsibility. Mr. Libby was the one official Mr. Fitzgerald decided to make a case against to vindicate his years spent investigating.

Mr. President, this buck stops with you.

Opinion Journal

Fitzmas revisited

Was Fitzgerald misrepresenting the facts in the Lbby trial.  Clarice Feldman has a interesting post at The American Thinker today.

April 04, 2007

The Fitzgerald cover-up

Clarice Feldman

In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to look into several actions of Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the Libby case suggesting that on their face this conduct seemed unethical. To the best of my knowledge that investigation is continuing.

One of the areas of my concern was the apparent factual misrepresentations he made to the U.S. Court of Appeals in connection with his efforts to force reporters to testify in that case. I wrote:

[T]he affidavit he filed in the Miller appeal was a model of misdirection and disingenuousness clearly designed to mislead the Court. Taken as a whole, the affidavit conflates the Armitage leak to Novak with Libby's quite apparently innocent conversations with other reporters, presenting a materially false impression of the facts the prosecution already had determined. Whether Libby's recollections of those conversations were accurate, or his conversational partners' recollections were more accurate, both sides to each conversation recall something entirely benign.

I ask you to focus attention in particular on paragraphs 9-17 and 81 of that affidavit and read them in light of recently revealed facts: that Armitage told Novak and Woodward earlier and in far greater detail about Plame's role and identity than did Lewis Libby or Karl Rove who were pilloried for three years for innocent, passing comments to reporters who asked THEM about information, reporters who already  seem to have  known  about Plame's identity due to the indiscretions of Plame and Wilson. From these facts alone it is readily apparent that these reporters already knew about Plame's employment and her relationship to Wilson.  These obvious facts should have lead an unbiased investigator or prosecutor to examine the source of that knowledge--whether it was due to the well documented indiscretions of Plame and Wilson themselves or whether, like the leak to Novak, their knowledge derived from conversations with Richard Armitage. 

Significantly, Mr. Fitzgerald's reference to a Newsday article suggesting that Plame fell within the IIPA failed to note that the source(s) for those claims were Wilson allies in the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group which ironically was urging intelligence officers to leak classified information. Even more ironically some of them reportedly are connected through interlinked organizational ties with Mr. Agee, whose own deliberate revelations of undercover CIA agents was the very impetus for the Statute. At no time in the unredacted portions of the affidavit did Fitzgerald directly say that Plame met the test of the IIPA - which she clearly does not -but in various ways he deliberately left the Court with that impression in order to effect the rare contempt order and jailing of a reporter.

Further, while portions of the affidavit remain redacted, it doesn't appear that the Prosecution was adequately forthcoming to the Court in revealing that the disclosure to Novak was by someone who did not get that information from Libby or Judith Miller. Indeed, Miller herself may have received it from Armitage as well. Her notes reflect other sources, prior to the June 23 meeting with Libby and she had in the recent past written interviews with Armitage. Fitzgerald's grand jury interrogation of her respecting those sources, moreover, seems to conflict with the agreement he'd reached with her not to ask about sources other than Libby.

Footnote 15, p. 28 of this filing was markedly misleading.

"If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, USC Sec. 793 if the information is considered information respecting the national defense. In order to establish a violation of Title 50, USCSec.421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."

That it is so is clear from this portion of Judge Tatel's opinion in that case.

"Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years -representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. [Emphasis added]."

There is no indication on the record that the Prosecutor informed the Court that this was a misreading of the affidavit he submitted.

Judge Tatel's trust in the representations of the special counsel--for example, that  Plame was a person whom the CIA was making any special efforts to conceal--was misplaced. For example, the agency allowed her to attend a meeting with her husband at the Department of State using her real name, allowed a memo revealing this to be circulated, allowed her husband to focus attention on his trip to Niger in which his wife clearly played a role and therefore drew attention to her position at the agency, which the agency's own public information officer openly revealed to Bob Novak.

Even in the recent Waxman show trial, the co-author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Victoria Toensing, said Plame was not covered by the Act and the Chairman could offer no more proof than did Fitzgerald at the Libby trial --nothing-- that Plame was covered by the Act.

Dow Jones and the Associated Press have sought the release of the redacted portions of the Court's opinion and the affidavit Fitzgerald filed in that case which I found so troublesome.

Today, the Wall Street Journal indicates that Fitzgerald is fighting the release of this information, information it rightly asserts the public is entitled to know, information which I think will prove my suspicion that he misled the Court to obtain this precedential ruling correct:

His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.

The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.

In his reply to the DJ-AP motion, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to hide behind rule 6(e) of grand jury secrecy. He claims the integrity of grand juries will be compromised by the release. But much of the material was already disclosed during the Libby trial, if not leaked earlier. And the far larger risk to grand jury integrity would be if Mr. Fitzgerald misled the courts about what he knew and when he knew it in order to coerce the two reporters to testify."

It is well past time for the public to know what Patrick Fitzgerald told the Court. I , for one, have every reason to believe he was as disingenuous and loose with the facts with that Court as he was with the public when he announced the indictment and with the jury in his rebuttal argument at the closing of the Libby trial.And I am not shy about saying what the Wall Street Journal hints at:  The only conceivable reason Fitzgerald is fighting public disclosure of the redacted portions of the affidavit and opinion is to cover up his own failings in an utterly outrageous prosecution of a perfectly innocent man.

Did Valerie Wilson (PLame) lie under oath.

It wouls sure seem that way by what she said in her testimony on Firday.  She totally contradicts what Senate Intelligence Committee report says.  She was a good actress and playerd the part very well.  At least she didn't say, "depends on wehat the meaning of is is."  But if found guilty of perjury, she will be in trouble just like Scooter Libby is.

Special Report
Did Valerie Plame Lie?
By John Tabin
Published 3/19/2007 12:08:59 AM

If Joseph Wilson's wife hadn't worked for the CIA, he would not have been sent on the fact-finding mission to Niger that has caused so much controversy over the past few years. This fact is indisputable. Yet last week, Valerie Plame Wilson, under oath before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, did her best to dispute it, or at least to muddy the waters. The question now is whether she committed a crime in doing so.

Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, a Democrat who is clearly sympathetic to the Wilsons' beef with the White House, teed her up to downplay the connection between her job and her husband's trip:

REP. LYNCH: Now, I want to ask you, the suggestion that youwere involved in sending your husband seemed to drive the leaks in an effort to discount his credibility. I want to ask you now under oath: Did you make the decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No. I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved -- I didn't have the authority.
The suggestion that Plame Wilson "didn't have the authority" to make a recommendation to her boss is laughable. Perhaps she could be read as merely saying that she didn't have the authority to, as Lynch put it, "make the decision," but no one has claimed that she did, and she plainly means to dispute the charges made by White House sources in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003 column, where the name "Valerie Plame" first appeared, that she "suggested sending [her husband] to Niger." But the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, released in July 2004, supports that claim; it says Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip."

Here is what Plame Wilson said when Rep. Lynch asked her to "walk us through everything you did that may have been related around the time of the decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger":

In February of 2002, a young junior officer who worked for me -- came to me very upset. She had just received a telephone call on her desk from someone -- I don't know who -- in the office of the vice president asking about this report of this alleged sale of yellow cake uranium from Niger to Iraq. She came to me, and as she was telling me this -- what had just happened, someone passed by -- another officer heard this. He knew that Joe had already -- my husband -- had already gone on some CIA mission previously to deal with other nuclear matters. And he suggested, "Well why don't we send Joe?"

Here, Plame Wilson is eliding the fact that, as documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson had gone on a previous mission at his wife's recommendation, which would seem to be a salient fact. There is simply no way that, if not for his wife, Joe Wilson would ever have been selected for a CIA mission.


THROUGHOUT HER TESTIMONY, Plame Wilson attempted to cast doubt on the conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. At Lynch's prompting, Plame Wilson even implied that the only ones who think she had anything to do with her husband going to Niger are Republicans:

REP. LYNCH: Thank you. And I want to go back to that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. There were three Republican senators who included a more definitive statement which -- now this is a quote. It said, "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee." What is your reaction to that statement in the Senate report about the genesis of your husband's trip to Niger in 2002?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Congressman, it's incorrect. It's been borne out in the testimony during the Libby trial, and I can tell you that it just doesn't square with the facts.

REP. LYNCH: Okay.

MS. PLAME WILSON: Those additional views were written exclusively by three Republican senators.

The reference here is to an addendum to the report (.pdf) titled "Additional Views," in which Senators Pat Roberts, Christopher Bond, and Orrin Hatch grumble about a number of conclusions that Senate Democrats moved to exclude from the bipartisan report. The trouble with this effort at partisan point-scoring is that Roberts, Bond, and Hatch didn't simply pull that conclusion out of the air; though the Republican senators were frustrated that this finding wasn't emphasized in the "Conclusions" section, it was certainly included in the bipartisan report. (The relevant paragraphs of the bipartisan report can be found on page 39 -- page 4 of this .pdf under "B. Former Ambassador."):

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Plame Wilson knows this; elsewhere in her testimony she disputed this part of the report. Here's more of her response to Lynch, in which she disputes the email evidence:

MS. PLAME WILSON: We went to my branch chief, or supervisor. My colleague suggested this idea, and my supervisor turned to me and said, "Well, when you go home this evening, would you be willing to speak to your husband, ask him to come into headquarters next week and we'll discuss the options? See if this -- what we could do." Of course. And as I was leaving, he asked me to draft a quick email to the chief of our Counterproliferation Division [CPD], letting him know that this was -- might happen. I said, "Of course," and it was that email, Congressman, that was taken out of context and -- a portion of which you see in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report of July 2004 that makes it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.

And here's how Plame answered when Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen asked if she'd spoken to the reports officer:

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, Congressman, and I can tell you that he came to me almost with tears in his eyes. He said his words had been twisted and distorted. He wrote a memo, and he asked his supervisor to allow him to be re-interviewed by the committee. And the memo went nowhere, and his request to be re-interviewed so that the record could be set straight was denied.

Van Hollen suggested that the House Committee ought to see that memo, and Committee Chairman Henry Waxman agreed.

Sen. Bond has issued a statement standing by the parts of the report that Plame Wilson disputes:

We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the Committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the Committee's description of his comments. If the reports officer would like to clarify or change his remarks, I'm certain that the Committee would welcome his testimony.

We have also checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting. I also stand by the Committee's finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry....I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did.

There's no question that in her testimony, Plame Wilson omitted inconvenient facts and put an inapt emphasis on others. If Bond's characterization of the evidence is correct, she may actually have lied. Lying under oath before Congress constitutes perjury and a violation of the False Statements Act -- the same crimes that accounted for three of the four charges that Scooter Libby was recently convicted of. Wouldn't it be ironic if Valerie Plame Wilson were to share Libby's fate?


John Tabin is a frequent online contributor to The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog.

A travesty of justice

I don't think I can put it any better than J. Peter Mulhern, So I will just let you read it.

Get a Grip Mr. President

By J. Peter Mulhern

Scooter Libby is a convicted perjurer because the United States Department of Justice grossly abused its power and because politics short-circuited all the safeguards that are supposed to prevent such abuses. This is one of the most appalling perversions of a civilized judicial system since France sent Alfred Dreyfus to Devil's Island because the  ruling elite didn't like Jews.

If the appellate and executive review processes fail as badly as the investigative and trial processes did in Libby's case, Libby will go to a federal penitentiary because Democrats don't like Republicans. There is enough shame in this outcome to go around.

Patrick Fitzgerald is a disgrace both to the legal profession and to the human race. His partisan allies, such as Senator Chuck Schumer and certain nameless bureaucrats at the CIA, are beneath contempt. The jury was unfit for its task, because it was apparently both prejudiced and intellectually incapable of noticing that the prosecution had no case. The trial judge lacked either the wit to see a gross miscarriage of justice unfolding before his eyes or the courage to stop it. But ultimate responsibility for Fitzgerald's outrageous misconduct lies with his boss.

George W. Bush could have stopped Fitzgerald's farce at any time. He could stop it today. He doesn't even need to use the pardon power, at least not yet. Fitzgerald serves at the President's pleasure Mr. Bush has every reason to be severely displeased. The President could simply fire him and, for good measure, order the DOJ to start an investigation into Fitzgerald's misconduct in the Libby matter. President Bush could then instruct Fitzgerald's replacement to join Libby's defense in its motion for a new trial. If the court grants that motion the DOJ could then offer Libby its apologies and withdraw the prosecution. If it doesn't the DOJ could join in Libby's appeal. If that fails then the pardon power lies in reserve.

The President has ample grounds for such action. Fitzgerald repeatedly lied, both in court and out, about the nature of his investigation in a successful effort to convince the jury that Libby had something to hide. Worse yet he pursued a criminal investigation when he had no reason even to suspect that any crime had been committed. This is the core of horrible prosecutorial abuse. In this situation there can be no legally sufficient conviction for perjury or false statements.

The evidence against Libby falls far short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he lied about anything to anyone. Differing recollections about the details and chronology of trivial events prove nothing. The Libby prosecution rested on the undefended and indefensible assumption that Libby and the rest of Washington's movers and shakers were obsessed with the identity of an obscure bureaucrat with a tangential connection to a small controversy on the fringes of important events. In reality, neither Libby nor anyone else connected with the case had reliable recall about who said what to whom regarding Valerie Plame because the subject was not particularly important to anyone until enemies of the administration at the CIA and the DOJ manufactured a criminal investigation out of it.

Diverging recollections about who said what when to whom about Joe Wilson's wife are particularly useless as evidence of perjury because nobody had any motive to lie on the subject, least of all Scooter Libby. There was nothing criminal or dishonorable about discussing Valerie Plame's identity or her job at the CIA with reporters or anyone else. There is no statute imposing criminal liability for such conversations. Patrick Fitzgerald's unsupported assertions notwithstanding, there is no information in the public domain which even establishes that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was classified.

It is a federal crime to transmit

"information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to any unauthorized person. 18 U.S.C. Section 793 (d).  Valerie Plame's identity might have been remotely related to our national defense but nobody has ever had any reason to believe that the information that she was a desk jockey at the CIA "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

It is a federal crime intentionally to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence agent when the government is taking affirmative steps to protect her identity. 50 U.S.C. Section 421.  But Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent and the government wasn't trying to protect her identity. There was never any prospect of a prosecution under Section 421.

Patrick Fitzgerald fulminated in court about a cloud over the Vice President in an effort to suggest that there was something dark and sinister about administration officials discussing Valerie Plame with reporters after her husband injected her into a national controversy. That suggestion is pure left-wing fantasy.

In sum, the evidence against Libby was that his memory of the sequence and details of perfectly innocent events of no great importance differed from that of other witnesses. The judge who let this case go to the jury is one or more of the following: a nitwit, a coward, and/or a partisan hack. The jury that convicted was prejudiced, stupid or both.

But the jury did convict so why recap all this now? Because the same facts which show that Fitzgerald didn't prove his perjury charge also show that his charge was and is inadequate as a matter of law.

Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate.

His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame.

Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury.

Prosecutors can sometimes make out a perjury case even when an investigation, undertaken and pursued in good faith, fails to produce enough evidence to charge anyone with any other crime. But they cannot legally pursue an investigation solely as a means to manufacture evidence of a process crime such as perjury. That is a form of entrapment known in the trade as a perjury trap. A prosecutor who sets such a trap is lower than catfish and twice as repulsive.

The President is responsible when his employees sink so low. When a federal prosecutor abuses power it is the President's power he is abusing. There is no indication that President Bush understands this.

More than half way through his second term the President still hasn't been able to take control of his own government. The Libby case reached its sad conclusion because the elements within both the CIA and the DOJ used some of the President's own powers to attack him. Still he does nothing.

Firing Fitzgerald would be an excellent place to start.

J. Peter Mulhern is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

The American Thinker

But I wanted Karl Rove or a Dick Cheney

As the Left goes gaga over the guilty charge on Scooter Libby, they are still thinking about getting to Rove or Cheney.  Over the DUmmies and KOSkids, the spouting about how now they should go after Rove and Cheney is just laughable.  The whole Libby case has nothging to do with Plamegate.  For one thing there should have never been a trial against Libby in the forst place.  The whole PLamegate affair should have been over about a week into the investigation.  Fitzy knew who leaked Valerie Plames name early on in the investigation, but never charged Richard Armitage with a crime.  Why???   Because Valerie Plame was not covert and no crime was committed.  But since the whole world was watching Fitzy, he had to get someone.   So he indicted Libby with lying about a crime that never happened.  this is just a travesty of justice.  Libby did nothing wrong and could got to jail for 20 years, meanwhile Sandy "the Burgular" Berger is out of jail and can get back his security clearance  after destroying top-secret documents during the 9/11 commision hearings.  And we got the head of the jury talking about how "he is sad that he hadto get Libby, and why Rove or Cheney wasn't the one's they were convicting".  Nothing like an inpartial jury.  I am sure in the history books this will go down as a farce and travesty to the judicial system in the United States.   And Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury, not justlying, but perjury.  But he gets a pass because it was about getting a hummer in the White House.  So it was just about sex and doesn't count, even though people went to jail for the same crime. 

It's Fitzmas Time

They have reached a verdict in the SCooter Libby Trial

Jurors Reach Verdict in Libby Case Mar 06 11:39 AM US/Eastern

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jurors reached a verdict Tuesday in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former White House aide accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

The verdict will be read at 12 noon EST in the courtroom where jurors heard 19 witnesses during the five-week trial. The verdict came on the 10th day of deliberations. The announcement was made by Randall Samborn, a spokesman for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Update**** 

Libby Guilty of 4 Out of 5 ChargesMar 6, 12:10 PM (ET)

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only person charged in the case, which grew out of an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who emerged in mid-2003 as an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

Fitzgerald says Libby learned about Plame from Cheney and other officials in June 2003 and relayed it to reporters. Libby's defense team argued that Libby recalled his conversations to the best of his ability. Any inaccuracies he made to the FBI or a federal grand jury were the result of a faulty memory, attorneys said.

I am still trying to figure out what he is guilty of.  It seems to me that a lot of the witnesses should also be charged with bad memory also.  What a joke.  All the money they spent on having a guitly verdict on someone who deosn't reacall exactly what he said to who at what time.  Just goes to show, that if there is a federal case they are going to get someone, no matter what.  Even on such idiotic charges.

I still want to know what ever happened with Sandy Burgular.  He actually comitted a serious crime and was let off with a hand slap, and he can get his security clearance back in a few years.  And now Libby might actually go to jail for bad memory.  Insane. 

Jury: What the Heck is Libby Charged With ?

At National Review On-Line this morning we get the reason why the Libby jury is having problems deciding the case.  Put yourself in their shoes.  The charges are so convoluted that they're not sure what the heck he is accused of doing or not doing.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007 The Libby Trial: The Problem Is Not the Jury. It's the Case.   [Byron York] We now know the three questions the jury sent to the judge yesterday. This is a verbatim typed version of the foreman's handwritten note: All three questions below relate to Count 3 (pages 74 & 75) #1 Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did now Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03? #2 Is the prosecution's allegation in Count 3, that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03 (pages 74/75…."that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true." #3 In determining Count 3, are we allowed to consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony? This is the part of the jury instructions — pages 74-75 — that is hanging up the jury: Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 16, 2003, that during a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true. It's easy to criticize the jury — they can seem easily confused — but the problem here is not the jury. It is the charge. This is the entirety of Count 3 (and Count 5, as well): Libby testified that he told Cooper that reporters were telling him, Libby, that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, but that he, Libby, did not know if it was true. Cooper testified that Libby did not say that. There are no notes, no recordings, no records, no nothing to support either man's story. Just Libby's testimony versus Cooper's testimony. And prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the jury to convict Libby of a felony, one that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, on that astonishingly flimsy allegation. No wonder the jury is confused. 03/06 11:12 AM Source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzJhODEzMjM0MzlmZTVlOWVjMTAyMWI3ZWZlOWFmNzk= Julia

Fitzmas

The return of Ftitzmas.  The DUmmies are getting in a tissie about Dick Cheney testifying in Scooter Libby's trial.  They think that it is just a way to get Cheney in a perjury trap.  And the Great Pumpkin is coming also.

DUmmies Still Praying For Fitzmas

MERRY FITZMAS!!! That's right. Fitzmas may be just around the corner. At least that's what many DUmmies believe. Despite having been burned many times waiting for the arrival of Fitzmas, many DUmmies still believe Fitzmas could be coming soon as you can see in this THREAD titled, "PREDICTION: Cheney Will Perjure himself during testimony." How about this for a more accurate title, "PREDICTION: DUmmies Will Continue To Await The Arrival Of The Great Pumpkin." So let us now watch the DUmmies once again await the arrival of their long delayed Fitzmas in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering if that was the Great Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy that he just spotted, is in the [brackets]:

PREDICTION: Cheney Will Perjure himself during testimony

[PREDICTION: The Great Pumpkin Arrives At Midnight.]

And Fitzgerald is ready for it. Rove and Scooter have cut deals to take down Cheney. When he does, he'll be forced to resign and then he'll be indicted.

[The impeachment wish scenario. Cheney won't even have to be impeached since he will split first.]

Hmm ... interesting possibility. And investigations would hopefully get RatBastard to crack ...

[And if that doesn't work, they can waterboard him.]

If his lips move, he's lying. That's a proven fact.

[An accurate appraisal of Bill Clinton.]

YES! Oh please please please let this be true!

[Oh please please please give us our long delayed Fitzmas.]

Rove and Cheney have cut deals with Fitzgerald? Gut? Clues?

[Fantasy?]

Rove was going to be indicted. Truthout was not the only one who thought this. Why wasn't he? Because he cut a deal. Scooter, if he has half a brain, would not rely on Cheney's testimony for his defense. But it is the DEFENSE that is calling Cheney, not the Prosecution. The only way they would do this is to set Cheney up for a fall. All Clues and Guts, no facts, just supposition.

[Just fantasy.]

oh jeez. not more "fitzmas" nonsense . . .

[Killjoy! Fitzmas fantasies are FUn to watch!]

It's a perfect setup for the defense to call him and not the prosecution. If the prosecution was calling him, Cheney would be defensive. Cheney won't be prepared for a betrayal from the defense.

[And you won't be prepared for another ruined Fitzmas.]

Those that gave up on Fitz will see for themselves that, this guy is no push over, and the dirt we all knew was there....is there.Cheney will be gone by the end of January! Why do you think McCain has been sucking ass so hard here lately ? He really believes the Senate will confirm him...and they just may.

[And won't Kerry be inaugurated as president on Jan. 20?]

Cheney would resign, then Bush would resign or be impeached.

[All by the end of January.]

What's the old saying? Don't count your chickens before their hatched?

[aka Freudenschade.]

Dick Cheney will "have a fatal heart attack" and hang out with Ken Lay in the South Pacific before he lets himself get indicted.

[They will be joining Judge Crater in the South Pacific.]

We're gionna wash that man right out of our hair.

[I think that is one South Pacific song not yet parodied by a certain St. Louis songmeister.]

Seriously, to see Cheney publicly exposed under oath would be orgasmic.

[Is that you, ben burch?]

And if he doesn't perjure himself on the Plame affair he will do so in the Nigerian bribery scandal.Or on the Hal/KBR Iraq fiasco.or on a multitude of issues. One way or another he IS GOING DOWN baby!!

[Speaking of the Nigerian bribery scandal, you are just ten dollars away from receiving a half million dollars from my uncle, Charles B. Obobwanago, who had to flee Nigeria because of that scandal. Please send us your bank account information so we may deposit that amount in your account.]

The chances of him actually committing perjury are very slight indeed, and the chances of him being convicted of it are negligable.

[Your Kewpie Doll is in the mail.]   --DUmmie FUnnies

Stix

Score one for Libby

Looke like Fitmas is totally out this year.  But we still have the case against Scooter Libby.  I still don;t know why this case is still around at all anyway. But it lloks like the defnse team has scored a victory.

 By MATT APUZZO
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Judge Hands Libby Defense Initial Win

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge handed a victory to the defense Thursday in the Valerie Plame case, siding with Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff in a fight over release of classified information.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decided that he won't impose strict standards sought by prosecutors who want to limit the amount of classified information used in the trial of defendant I. Lewis Libby.

Prosecutors had proposed a stringent three-part legal test that would have allowed information to be considered for the trial only when its benefit to the defense outweighed the government's need to keep it secret.

Walton sided with Libby's lawyers, who said any evidence that's relevant to the case should be considered for use. Once Walton rules on which evidence is relevant, government attorneys can propose portions to be blacked out or summarized, the judge said.

Libby is accused of lying to authorities about conversation he had with reporters regarding the CIA employment of Plame. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the couple has accused Libby and others of leaking Plame's identity as retribution.

read the rest here.

Stix

No Fitmas for you

It looks like Fitmas is officially out this year.  The Great Pumpkin is not going to show his face and Lucy has faked out Charlie Brown again.  It turns out that the person who leaked Plame's name was a foe to the White House's invasion of Iraq anyway.  And everyone knew who is was from the beginning.  So why did the who Plamegate investigation last so long???  It should have been over with a long long time ago.  Why did the MSM and everyone take Wilson's story hook-line-and sinker???? 

Plame OutThe ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006, at 1:02 PM ET

had a feeling that I might slightly regret the title ("Case Closed") of my July 25 column on the Niger uranium story. I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention. But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.   (source)

In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak's—long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists—Michael Isikoff and David Corn—who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.

As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy. (His and Powell's—and George Tenet's—fingerprints are all over Bob Woodward's "insider" accounts of post-9/11 policy planning, which helps clear up another nonmystery: Woodward's revelation several months ago that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.) The Isikoff-Corn book, which is amusingly titled Hubris, solves this impossible problem of its authors' original "theory" by restating it in a passive voice:

More at:

Captain's Quarters

The Anchoress

Flopping Aces he also has a list of others bloggin on the subject

Stix

Fitzmas II

It looks like Fitzmas isn't going to go away anyttime soon.  Looks like Valerie Plame( secret squirrel) is going to sue Cheny, Rove and Libby for what I don't know??  There was no crime and it was here husband that leaked her name to the press in his "Who's Who" bio. Can we just throw Valeris and Uncle Joe into the slammer for wating our time and money on wild goose chases that don;t amount to anything.  this is just totally ridiculous.  The case is over and no harm was done.  She was not going to go back to be a super secret spy anywhere. 

Former CIA officer sues Cheney over leak

By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President    Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

read the rest of this crap here.

H/T to bRight and Early

You can see the complaint at the Smoking Gun

Captain Ed has a good post about the lawsuit.

Stix

Novak to break silence

Robert Novak is going to talk to Britt Hume and Hannity & Colmes tomorrow on the Fox News Channel.   H/T to Drudge

FLASH: Bob Novak will break his silence tomorrow night in two separate interviews with FOXNEWS CHANNEL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Novak will appear on Brit Hume (6pm/et) and Hannity & Colmes (9pm/et)...

Update****

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret... MORE... My primary source has not come forward to identify himself... Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

***Update 

BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: 'I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... MORE Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret... MORE... My primary source has not come forward to identify himself... Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

Looks like Joe Wilson was the leaker of Valerie Plame's name all along.  Like I was saying a couple years ago.

Stix

As Truthout World's Turn

It is utterely amazing that Truthout it still sticking by thier story.  Now they have a really interesating take on why Fitmas didn;t come this year.   Rove is snitching on Cheney. It is jsut so funny to see thier blind rage of getting Rove to do the frog walk across the White House lawn that they lost all sense of reality.  The DUmmi FUnnies picks up the story at DU.

DUmmies Not Buying Lame Truthout Excuses On Rove "Indictment" Story

TruthOut promised us a more "comprehensive accounting" about their Rove indictment story when they got caught with their pants down as a result of the announcement that Karl Rove WON'T be indicted. Instead, what we got yesterday at TruthOut was yet another SERIES of incredibly LAME excuses and weasel words that even most DUmmies aren't buying. Of course, I still BEEEEEEEELEEEEEVE that Karl Rove was indicted on May 12. Why? Because WILLIAM RIVERS PITT stated that he verified all the sources (including Joe Wilson) in triplicate. And if WILLIAM RIVERS PITT backs up this story then it MUST be true. However, most of the rest of you will laugh AT the TruthOut lame excuses and the disbelieving DUmmie REACTION in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, putting an APB out on the missing WILLIAM RIVERS PITT, is in the [brackets]:

Returning to "06 cr 128"

[Returning to the TruthOut Asylum...]

By Marc Ash

[Fashion photographer extraoridnaire.]

What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

[What will follow now will be a bunch of lame excuses and weasel words. If you want the simple truth, turn back now. Our primary sources for this report are Sonny Crockett, Joe Wilson, the mirror reflections of Jason Leopold and WILLIAM RIVERS PITT, and a series of leprechauns and tooth fairies speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the fantasy of WILLIAM RIVERS PITT who takes FULL RESPONSIBILITY for this fairy tale.]

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

[For the record, the Patrick Fitzgerald spokesperson gave us the same answers she always does: "I have no comment." We then twisted that expected answer to make it seem that they aren't verifying that Karl Rove wasn't indicted.]

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.

[The Rove indictment story went in a direction we never expected. In essence, we found out too late that Rove wasn't indicted. However, since we (including WILLIAM RIVERS PITT) went out on the limb with this story, we were forced to stick with it with a series of incredibly lame excuses and weasel words such as you are reading here. WILLIAM RIVERS PITT was not prepared for the backlash.]

On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

[We were tempted to declare that we wrong when the Rove NON-indictment was announced but we wanted to avoid an embarrassing premature retraction.]

After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

[We've gone around in circles the past month like a chicken with its head cut off. Sonny Crockett and the Tooth Fairy continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. As time passes we find more of our lame excuses are pathetic, not less.]

That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.

[So how can it be that we are right and every other media source is wrong? That is a very troubling question and the truth is, we don't really know what the hell we are doing. We also continue to ramble on with nonsense hoping desperately to spin our way out of this predicament. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what we say and what reality is, we need to to be able to consider what WILLIAM RIVERS PITT faxed to himself - in its entirety.]

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

[What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - we never considered the possibility that MSNBC's David Shuster could be wrong about Rove's imminent indictment. Therefore we announced the indictment hoping to ride to glory on that "scoop." When Rove was NOT indicted, our fraud was exposed and we were stuck spinning a series of incredibly lame excuses while WILLIAM RIVERS PITT was forced to go into hiding.]

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

[Yes, it does appear that Truthout was full of crap. We reported Rove's indictment as having already happened. From all indications we were caught with our pants down so we are throwing out another hilarious excuse that Rove and Luskin were so frightened by the phony Truthout story that they were forced to meet again with Fitzgerald in order to bring down Dick Cheney and the rest of the EVIL Bush regime. Meanwhile WILLIAM RIVERS PITT would like to sell you shares in the Brooklyn Bridge Company.]

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

[The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming on the heels of our phony Truthout story, led to a series of negotiations that forced Rove to appoint himself as the ambassador to the Land of Oz.]

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

[Our sources provide us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining his own navel and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of the involvement of Auric Goldfinger. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so by tickling his big toe with an ostrich feather, WILLIAM RIVERS PITT told us.]

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into th