Login Here
Here is my favorite bit from today:
P where and who was present?Fl just Libby and me
P was anything discussed
Fl my plans what I was going to do in the private sector. Talked about sports, football, both fans of the Dolphins. I don't remember if I brought up or Libby brought up the briefing. I said I got asked about Wilson. I said what I was asked by the OVP to say. What I recall Libby saying to me, reiterated that VP did not send Wilson. Ambassador Wilson got sent by his wife, she works at CIA, Works in CPD, I recall that he told me her name. This is hush hush this is on the QT....
P What word did Libby use when he described Wilson's wife.
Fl I remember him saying she works at CIA at CPD.
P Did you know what it meant.
Fl not in specific, I don't know enough about CIA inner structure to know what it means.
P her name, how did he describe her name
Fl I believe he said Valerie Plame
Fl the news that VP had not sent him, it was the first time I ever heard it.
P what did you understand Libby to mean by hush hush
Fl I thought it was kind of odd. My sense was Libby was saying it was kind of newsie, no one knows.
P did you understand that it was classified
Fl absolutely not. There's a very strict protocol when classified info is spread, my experience, when someone conveyed info that I was authorized to hear, it was always, "this is classified you're authorized to hear." When it's oral, people always say, "this is classified you cannot use it." (emphasis mine)
Can you say careless and shoddy treatment of classified information, violating the protocols for "need to know basis" transfer of national security information? I thought you could. Because those protocols, codified in the SF-312, apply to every member of the President's staff and every person from bottom to top of our nation's national security apparatus. That includes the CIA director who does not know the identities of covert agents unless and until he has a reason to "need to know." And, after thinking about that for a moment, can someone please tell me how it is that Karl Rove still has a high level clearance after admitting to verifying information about Valerie Plame Wilson to Robert Novak? Because I'd certainly love to hear a public answer to that question.
As for Scooter Libby and his conversations about Valerie Plame Wilson and all that scapegoating tapdancing in Wells' opening statement and the claims that Scooter's hard job made him forget? Can you say "busted"? Thought you could say that, too.
What was your favorite part of the day's testimony? Anything you noticed that needs more attention? Any facts that were new to you that you think merit more discussion?
What are you reading above and beyond the Libby trial today that you'd like to discuss? Because, from my read of the papers today, the world is not standing still just because the Bush Administration and the office of Dick Cheney is being laid bare for all the world to see in the Libby trial.
Share This 
Spotlight
FITZ
Christy!!
Thanks so much Ladies and germs for all you’re doing, it means alot to us folks out here in the real world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EPU’d, doggone it! (I’m channeling Wells’s cornpone there.)
Curious what the FDL legal peeps think about Jeffress not wanting Judy’s notes shown to the jury. Judy is going to testify to certain things in her notes, yes? So what precisely in her notes do they not want revealed? The “Victoria Flame/Plame?” The part where Judy said Scooter told her Valerie worked for WINPAC rather than CPD?
Waiting for Judy Judy Judy to testify for Libby Libby Libby.
Mebbe she can explain to us how aspens turning has anything to do with treason.
I love that sentence can you say…
I was thinking can you say REVENGE no matter what the damage? Me thinks KARL ROVE.
was that just a joke that Judy Miller is the next witness?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
“All Things Considered” is devoting two half-hour segments to Juan Williams interviewing the Preznint. Someone save me.
What does CPD stand for?
…and, BTW, it always amazes me that the canard that Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him lives to this day. Wilson’s answers on the point have been remarkably consistent that he was sent because of the VP’s interest, but not at his direction.
It’s nice that Libby was busted by one of the truly soulless individuals in this reality-, veracity-, and humanity-challenged administration.
Really, schadenfreude is underrated.
Who is that supposed to be in the picture? Barbara Comstock?
EPU from last thread, with a little more info:
CNN just did a wrapup on the events in the trial today. Pretty fair assessment from what I could tell, focused really on Fleischer’s testimony. They said that Fleischer testified Libby told Fleischer that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA, etcetera. They also flashed on the screen, in large text, Libby told Fleischer was “hush-hush”. To me, it appeared as if CNN was highlighting that Libby was trying to be sneaky, and being perhaps a bit loose-n-fast with this classified info.
They followed it with the Cafferty File, where Jack Cafferty showed some new poll numbers (Newsweek Polls). IIRC, the numbers were something like 22% of Americans believe the President makes decisions influenced by facts, whereas 66% says his decisions are influenced instead by politics.
Also, 50% of Americans say Bush will be remembered as a below-average President, just over 30% said an average President, and 14% as an above average President. Cafferty reiterated that this means that more than 80% of Americans say Bush is below average or average.
I’m just waiting for him to make a montage of pictures of Bush, Cheney, Libby, pics from the trial, Wilson’s op/ed article, the “Mission Accomplished” banner, etcetera - set to that tune, “Had a Bad Day”.
cathy @ 9
CPD - Counterproliferation Division (operatives)
vs. WINPAC (analysts)
I wonder if judys’ cell has been redecorated since she left? Or maybe the jailer said no, wait a while, she’ll be back, don’t touch anything, you might get a miasma!!!! Or something!
Christy -
From ‘fleischer-take 3′ thread, I added the below to the discussion on what was earthshattering about Fleischer’s testimony:
I think the blow to Libby’s case by Ari - beyond the July 7 date preceeding the supposed July 10 conversation with Russert - is that it is the first time we hear that Libby relayed the info about Plame. The previous witnesses testified to telling Libby the information. But Ari’s testimony demonstrates that he received and absorbed the information. He can’t say he didn’t hear it, didn’t know it or did not remember it. It’s the evidence of output, not just the input, of the info.
This is similar to what you’re saying I think, maybe focused more on the technique of building the arguement by the Prosecution.
I suppose we’ll get more of Libby’s verbal output with the next star witness…
What Judy doesn’t want the jury to see in her notes
A heart with JM SL=love inside of it.
I’m glad that Ari Fleischer is finally of some use in this world. Ever since November 2000, the guy has turned my stomach.
I for one want to discuss cheney’s bizarre claim that he didn’t send Wilson when in fact, he’s admitted that he did send Wilson
cheney can’t get away with cutting thin slices of butter like that and his opinion or statements should never be deferred to
cheney requested more information about the uranium buys, he made the request specifically and any person sent by that request was sent specifically by cheney
there is no parsing that, it’s a fact…now, if he cares to say;
“I did a person be sent I just didn’t know who that person might be”, then his statement would be closer to the truth but in any event, whoever was sent was sent by the vice president, at his request.
period
Carhy@9
Counter Proliferation Division
Most (and maybe all) people in this division have classified status. I am amazed that Ari professed not to know that Libby was giving him classified info.
A few questions for EW:
1) What is your best estimate of the number of juror-generated questions that have been asked of trial witnesses so far?
2) What are your impressions of the quality of the juror-generated questions? Good? Bad? Mixed?
3) Are trial spectators able to determine which juror asked which question? (I assume not, but perhaps I’m wrong.)
4) Has the substance of any of the juror-generated questions caused you to come to any conclusions about how the jurors see the case so far?
I’m worried about this Unitary Exec theory where the President and VP can do pretty much what they want “in a time of war” (I’m sure they say Time of War so they don’t have to say Declaring War) and by definition never commit treason or break any law. Is there any good defense against this right now, or do we have to wait for the Supreme Court, or wait for Congress to impeach (yeah right)?
I wonder what the jury thinks of Addington.
Ed*ard Teller @ 7
At the end of the last thread…
4:50
Walton: Next witness is Judy judy judy. A few issues. Admissibility of Libby’s Aspen letter, and 2 proper use of notes. Latter first. I don’t understand the context. Is there a party that wants to use her notes in a way that they wouldn’t normally use them.
Bush said such persons “would be taken care of,” recall? Well, Rove was.
_
From Fitzgerald’s redirect of Martin:
I gathered from this exchange that Fitz was reading to Martin from Libby’s GJ testimony about the Cooper conversation? I assume from the reference to Martin’s reaction and her answer that Libby’s version was more than a little different than hers. Does anyone know what was the substance of Libby’s testimony that Martin says she would have remembered?
the world is not standing still just because the Bush Administration and the office of Dick Cheney is being laid bare for all the world to see in the Libby trial.
Yeah, well it should be!
This is one of the most important poltical events of my lifetime (if I have this situation sized up correctly).
C’mon World - PAY ATTENTION. Americans in particular.
You picked out my favorite, Redd; it’s the smoking gun.
But my favorite live-bloggerwheel editorializing was this gem from prevthread when Addington was up:
(No mention of torture or other unitary executive duties.)
as if !!
Thank you, thank you, Firedoglakers for the live-blogging. Utterly riveting!
Front seat to history. How cool is that?!
TRex @ 8
There is a special sainthood reserved for NPR affiliate employees.
The world may not be paying close attention to this trial, but I am riveted to it.
Thanks for the wonderful coverage; it is the next best thing to being in the courtroom.
And, now I MUST get a few things done!
See you all later.
So we know that Libby/Cheney heard that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA from Martin who heard it from CIA/Harlow. Martin had ‘agent’ in her notes but did not relay that to Libby/Cheney. And I’m the Easter Bunny.
Do we know who told Bartlett?
hush hush? on the q. t.? someone really talks that way? I think that phrase was last seen in print about a publicist in LA CONFIDENTIAL by James Macellroy and played in the movie version by Danny DeVito . It was about the late 50s if I remember correctly.
So I guess Scooter never got over childhood.
God these people make one want to puke.
Favorite line in bold:
Christy — is Ari’s word and any other evidence/testimony so far enough to produce additional charges against Libby, in your opinion?
If so, how does that happen?
If not, what do you think is still missing to clinch IIPA and/or conspiracy?
oxide @ 21
well, first of all, cheney believes a president and vice president can do whatever they want whether or not there is a war, the just think it’s an easier case because there is a war
It’s not just the timing of the Ari-Libby lunch… There’s no reason why Libby would consider it to be “hush-hush” if he heard it from Russert.
Just now on Hardball, tweety was literally drooling on himself while discussing this story. Can someone capture that photo? It would be priceless. I hope he’s not ill or something.
Dover Bitch @ 35
ohh, that smarts…that combined with the actual dates showing this occured before the russert meeting not only smarts, it’s even smartier
Least likely talking point ever
AF: “What I was hearing was there was nepotism at the CIA, that somebody got a job because of a family member’s position,” Fleischer said. “
Because *everybody* looks forward to an all expense paid trip to Niger. What a perk.
NOT
. . .Are we finally coming out of the rabbit hole? Turns out what’s up is on the low-down and hush-hush. Spread the Newsie!
clueless @ 25
Americans in particular SHOULD pay attention to this important trial, but as our institutions and so-called estates fail to get so many messages from the past six years, nine days and counting, we are being eclipsed. Almost entirely the fault of a government and press mired in self-importance and hubris. I’m sure much of the world paying attention feels any bad things happening to us because of these criminal creeps is fully justified.
Sparkles the Iguana @
13
Isn’t it just an amazing coincidence that the dart Cheeeney threw struck the head of the CIA’s Iraq WMD group? They had been a problem for him since they busted Halliburton for selling dual-use nuke technology to Iran in the 90s.
Lucky toss I guess.
-
Things are definatly heating up… It seems like each new witness gives a little more structure to the evil miasma behind the whole smear and outing. Can’t wait to hear the first hand reports of the temper tantrums from dick and george (just speculating…*g*)
Well I’m a little shy on the sequence of events, but it sounded (read) that Ari was told by Libby at lunch of Valerie’s name and office with that “hush hush” label, then he went off to Africa where he “sidled” up to some reporters and spilled the beans. Huh. If that’s the sequence, it’s clearly slimy or stupid behavior. I don’t buy that Ari did it on his own, either.
Weird testimony.
TeddySanFran @
26
as if !!
Mine too.
My favorite part of the day? I asked the mailman if he had a book for me. “Nope.”
Then he came back in about 20 minutes with Marcy’s book! “It slid down behind something.”
Sue @ 30, I understand Cathie Martin did tell Cheney and Libby that she was told by Harlow that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent.
I suspect Cathie also told her close friend Bartlett, another member of the Texas Mafia.
When are we gonna hear from Hadley? According to the much-maligned Jason Leopold, he is one of the insiders who went to the CIA looking for information about Wilson’s trip. Hadley appears to me to be the insider’s insider in the whole affair. So, call me naive. But, by all means, call Hadley to the stand.
“Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information. The answer was yes. It’s clear a President has authority, I cited a specific case. In that case, court said Dept of Navy v. Egan. Pres by virtue of role as Commander in Chief. Flows directly from Constitution and therefore I said Pres does have the authority even though there is a separate provision, although there are procedures, that would not prevent Pres from declassifying something. It’s open and shut. Libby didn’t give context. he just asked question about Pres’ power.
F DId Libby give you an idea of what he was going to do with info…”
This seems to indicate it took place after the SOTU…and suggests their view was it was OK to selectively declassify the NIE on the PRES say-so (and avoid all those *procedures* Addington admits exist)…however wouldn’t this dovetail with Cathie Martin’s testimony that she was simultaneously URGING declassification and NO ONE tells her this has already occurred?
Again suggests how fast and loose the WH staff played with classified information that Martin wasn’t even certain if her “talking points” involved leaking classified NIE info (thus her question mark) - yet she was perfectly WILLING to do so on the Veeps say-so even in the face of uncertainty!
cathy @
16
carved into the trunk of an aspen tree
My favorite bit of testimony was when, on redirect (I think), Ari was asked, “what makes you think that Mr. Libby used the name ‘Plame’ or ‘Plam-may’?
And Ari answers: “My memory.”
End of examination. Priceless.
ixnay on the Plam-may?
The A.P. does a nice summary on Ari’s testimony today (just to add something to Christy’s above wrap up of events) :
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified Monday that then-colleague I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby told him over lunch that the wife of a prominent war critic worked at the CIA.
Fleischer said the conversation happened July 7, 2003, days before Libby told investigators he was surprised to learn about the CIA operative from a reporter. That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby’s perjury and obstruction trial.
Fleischer, who was the chief White House spokesman for the first 2 1/2 years of President Bush’s first term, said Monday that Libby invited him to lunch to discuss Fleischer’s planned departure from the White House. He said it was the first time he and Libby had eaten lunch together.
They talked about Fleischer’s career plans and their shared interest in the Miami Dolphins football team, Fleischer testified. He can’t remember who brought it up but he said the conversation then turned to the growing controversy over former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the White House of ignoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.
“Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife,” Fleischer recalled Libby saying. “His wife works for the CIA.”
Fleischer said Libby also used the woman’s name, Valerie Plame, and told him it was “hush hush.”
“My sense is that Mr. Libby was telling me this was kind of newsy,” Fleischer said.
Fleischer said he again heard about Plame four days later aboard Air Force One from White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was reading documents and began “venting” that reporters kept repeating Wilson’s claim that Vice President Dick Cheney sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.
“His wife sent him,” Fleischer recalled Bartlett saying. “She works at the CIA.”
Fleischer said he relayed that information to reporters from Time magazine and NBC. A reporter from Newsweek magazine was also there but may have walked away, he said. The reporters paid no attention to the comment, he testified.
“I never in my wildest dreams thought this information was classified,” Fleischer testified.
perris @ 18
I want to discuss this too!
Cheney could not admit that he had found out way beforehand that he had evidence that the yellowcake claims were bogus, so he lied about knowing about Wilson’s trip. But it was reported on and it was reported to him. He was deflecting. See Below:
EPU’d from like two threads ago:
bellesouth @ 127
If Libby had not committed potential perjury and therefore if reporters had not been subpoena’ed to straighten out all their stories and Judy never had to go to jail…wouldn’t this case have been started before the 2004 election? I’ve always thought that a possible motive for Libby to muddy the waters about what was said to whom, was to delay the trial past the 2004 election, essentially sacrificing himself for the re-election. When they claim that Libby was sacrificed for Rove, are they really saying he was sacrificed for the re-election of Bush?
Time to crack the bubbly….
One thing to remember, Wells is not the bad guy.
Sure, it’ll be good to see Scooter in an orange jump suit, but in the big picture, both prosecution and defense are on our side here. What we really want is to have the draconian methods of this administration exposed. And it’s in both the prosecution and the defense’s best interest to expose them. It’s the defense that’s subpoening Rove and Bartlett. Libby’s defense, that he was the fall guy, requires that all the machinations be exposed. This is the least-spun info on this admin we’ve seen in 6 years.
My favorite moment from Fox News Sunday was when virtually all the regulars disdainfully opined that the only people who care about the Libby trial are “inside the Beltway” -
Hey, everyone here not inside the Beltway, raise your hand.
sonate @ 19
Well, hush hush and on the QT can be taken so many different ways, don’t you know. *g*
A minor question. Ari says Libby might have said Plam-may. Judy has the word “Flame” in her notes (if my failing memory is correct) from a meeting with Libby. That implies that Libby READ the name instead of HEARD the name. If Libby read the name, it probalby came from Deadeye Dick’s scribbles. Is that of any significance whatsoever??
If there was any doubt about the purpose of these White House “lawyers” except to simply bark “SIR, YES SIR!” I think Addington laid that doubt to rest here:
Q: Oh, lawyer-man, can the President do this?
A: SIR, YES SIR! [provisions and procedures be damned!!]
oxide @ 21
I’m not too worried about it. Remember, the President is the only one who can’t be indicted, only impeached. Anyone else can be indicted for lawbreaking. And I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be willing to bet that if any of them attempted a “the president told me to do it so it’s not illegal” defense, it would be a very short trial.
I think they know this, too. People like Addington and Yoo and Cheney may be true believers in the Unitary Executive, but any time there’s a serious challenge to their claims of extraordinary powers (Padilla, warantless wiretapping, etc.), they maneuver to avoid it while giving up as little ground as possible. Those are not the actions of people who believe they are on firm legal and constitutional footing.
They’re trying to establish precedents for future dictators neocons, and I don’t think they understand that you establish precedents by winning challenges, not by avoiding them and leaving a whole bunch of “because I say so” statements in the public record.
you know, fitz made a pretty good call…not charging libby with revealing classified information removes from the mix cheney’s claim that he can declasify on the fly
it no longer matter if he can or can’t, that has nothing to do with this charge
on the other hamd, I would surely like to see his claim challenged in court…even though roberts and alito are beholdent to cheney, they have to realize a democrat will almost definately win the office in 08 and they will be rue to give that power to the democrats so a fair ruling might actually come down from the courts in these times
Today Maxine Waters and Lynne Woolsey didn’t let the world stand still. They held hearings with the objective of figuring out how to end the Iraq occupation. Great authors, professors, and military foks in attendance. (all on C-SPAN) We need to support HR 508 and end this debacle because it’s clear that Iran is next. We have no time to spare. And, guess what? It was all for oil, if you can believe it.
Daren Wang @ 55
Anybody who believes in our Constitution and way of life should agree that any defense attorney isn’t the bad guy — regardless of the fact that this case is so illuminating.
Jeff Gannon’s parting words upon leaving the WH every day:
“this is classified you cannot use it.”
Is it just me or does the below quote lead one to believe that Ari was in fact Matt Cooper’s source (Cooper works for Time doesn’t he?)
“Fleischer said he again heard about Plame four days later aboard Air Force One from White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was reading documents and began “venting” that reporters kept repeating Wilson’s claim that Vice President Dick Cheney sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.
“His wife sent him,” Fleischer recalled Bartlett saying. “She works at the CIA.”
Fleischer said he relayed that information to reporters from Time magazine and NBC. A reporter from Newsweek magazine was also there but may have walked away, he said. The reporters paid no attention to the comment, he testified.”
ManagedChaos @ 53
Fitz said in the presser announcing the Libby indictment that if the reporters had testified when first requested instead of stonewalling, that Libby would have been indicted a year earlier. So yes, it would have been just before the election.
emptywheel wrote an overview last summer on the NIE leak and declassification, and how Fitz and Team Libby might make use of these issues. The post is here at NextHurrah. The whole thing is one of Marci’s usual virtuoso displays of analysis and sheer information management, but if you get bedazzled, I think it’s possible to get the gist of what happened today from the section entitled, “How Fitzgerald Might Use It.” It reads to me now as if ew is right on the trail in this passage, especially with the subject being raised by questioning of Addington.
By the way, doesn’t “hush-hush” and “QT” sound like the DeVito character in LAConfidential, the gossip columnist and political shill?
Mack @
28
St. Rex of Perpetual Syndication
Dover Bitch @
35
Was it Isikoff who used the phrase ‘double super secret’ background or something that everyone was laughing at?
sonate @
19
Here’s the thing that struck me — I can buy that Ari didn’t know what “CPD” meant, and how “high level” that division is in the CIA… He’s just a press guy, not an insider in the nitty gritty of policy or intelligence. But I CAN’T buy that Libby didn’t know it.
rumi @ 69
I believe that was in Matt Cooper’s notes.
Do we know what cost more, Scooter’s defense or Barbaro’s lengthy medical treatment?
I’m confused - what is it that supposedly got declassified, and did GWB do the declass, and when, and extactly why would he have done it?
Oops, wrong intel at the wrong time. More appropo to perris@18:
From Craig Schmall’s e-mail regarding his FBI interview:
“Cheney had read the 12 June Pinkus article, which claimed the ambassador’s trip was done at the request of theVice President. Cheney did not recall this at all. He also couldn’t recall if he had requested a memo on this issue. Research revealed that Cheney did ask and received a memo in early 2002. The [FBI] agents had copies of some faxes I had sent (in June) to Scooter Libby’s then chief of staff, ERic Edelman, containing an early 2002 and an early 2003 memo on the Iraq/Niger/Uranium issue done for Cheney and Rumsfeld, respectively.”
The Nefarious Leslie @ 66
it couldn’t have affected the election since the president didn’t win it either way, the fix was in regardless
drinksforall @ 51
I’m just tickled to see all these articles about administration officials with “testified” next to their names.
Now if we can just get on to sentences with “convicted”…
KarenJG@70
Agreed. Libby HAD to know.
sonate @ 58
That crossed my mind as well. Could it be that Libby didn’t know how to pronounce Plame’s name?
We probably won’t get the answer to that question.
TeddySanFran @
26
as if !!
TSanFr.
That jumped at me too.
Addington: Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information. The answer was yes. It’s clear a President has authority, I cited a specific case. In that case, court said Dept of Navy v. Egan. Pres by virtue of role as Commander in Chief. Flows directly from Constitution and therefore I said Pres does have the authority even though there is a separate provision, although there are procedures, that would not prevent Pres from declassifying something. It’s open and shut.
** “Open and shut?” **
I am not familiar with the statute or administrative rules that contain the “separate provision” to which this guy is referring, but allow me to go out on a limb just the same.
Egan is an administrative law employment case that stands for the proposition that Congress gave to executive agencies the discretion to DENY security clearances to people who are deemed untrustworthy.
There is NOTHING in Egan that says that the president or an executive branch official acting at the president’s behest may ignore statutes or administrative rules because he is “the decider.”
In fact the Egan Court noted, in this ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT CASE, relative to ruling on the legality of executive branch actions:
Egan — Unless Congress says otherwise, Pres. has discretion to act within law as set forth by Congress. Just like they teach you in junior high civics (for free) and law school for 60k.
The Supreme Court also stated, in this ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT CASE, that, relative to whether someone is entitled to receive a security clearance:
An underlying rational explained by the Egan Court, as is true with administrative law decisions generally, is the basis for the executive’s authority to give out the security clearances in the first place. It is, as the Supreme Court states, “committed by law [i.e. awarded to President by Congress] to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch.”
Once again, because Congress gives the President the authority to engage in a process, he is allowed to use discretion in that congressionally mandated statutory regime. In Egan, that discretion to employ a statutory regime consistent with congressional intent to PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Shorter David Addington: “Brown v. Board of Education gives President the authority to segregate enemy combatants within public schools to raise wartime standardized test scores. It’s an open & shut case.”
slainte,
cl
rumi @ 69
No, that was Cooper.
Sorta OT, but not really - VoteVets.org has a new ad against the escalation.
Mack #38, EXACTLY. What on earth can people be thinking by talking about this trip as if Valerie was sending her husband to Aruba?
That’s the point I always choke on. “Well, she sent her husband!” So what? Who else would be better qualified, and willing?
My favorite bit was when Walton started reading juror questions, and this was one of them:
The jurors, and the judge, obviously picked up on this: that Scooter DID NOT follow the rules for passing on highly classified information to the press secretary. “Very strict” Ari says about the procedures surrounding state secrets. As people have noted, Plame’s NOC status isn’t at issue here. But motive obviously is. The jurors are sitting there hearing testimony from a guy who sought and got immunity becuase he knew he’d been involved in something nefarious. Ari feared prosecution because he knew he was involved in outing Plame. Whether he played a more active role than he’s now letting on doesn’t really matter. He’s admitted this was bad, and I had to lawyer up. Kind of hard for Scooter to maintain his innocence when a guy he’d recruited to his cause has admitted he did something wrong. Ari’s testimony makes it crystal clear why Scooter lied to the GJ and Fitz. Ouch.
Reading: Luttwak’s article in February Harpers is best I’ve read on Iraq and military’s sorry-state counterinsurgency manual. So much for Petraeus’s reputation–which will be publicly and spectacularly destroyed in Iraq.
perris @ 75
Could have taken the voting percentages outside the fixable margins, though.
Oh, fer Gawd’s sakes, Christy, careless defines the entire Bush administration’s approach to government.
Accidentally careless.
Deliberately careless.
Obviously careless.
They are like the klutzy family on the Amanda Bynes show, always carelessly knocking over priceless objects and then saying, “Not a problem!”
They just don’t care. What would give them a reason to care? Name one thing. Are their lives in danger? Their family’s life? Are they poor? In danger of going to jail? (Well, maybe) Do they love? All of the normal cultural and societal norms and restraints simply do not apply to them either mentally, emotionally or physically. They are monumentally careless. They just don’t give a damn as long as they get what they want. And they usually do get what they want.
Noticed something that piqued my curiosity- When Addington requests e-mail from OVP.org, does he get communications from those NOT listed in the Plum Book as employed by OVP? (but who do indeed work there)
Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information.
Not if it helps our “Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”, fer sure.
-
CL at 78 — Further, how any person who claims to be an attorney can ever say the words “open and shut” as to any legal matter is beyond me. What a bombastic jackass. I mean, hell, even Marbury v. Madison gets argued on occasion by the Federalist Society crowd. Really, Addington knows better…and thathe assumes that the jury doesn’t is so appallingly condescending.
virginia cynic @
31
Interestingly, Ari didn’t take that admonition to heart. Just a short while later, he’s recounting how he shopped that fact to several reporters.
The immunity deal was to protect him from all the holes in his own sorry story. He’s full of it.
punaise @
50
maybe it should be “ixnay on the lame-pay.”
I wonder if that line would work on my budget-minded boss..
I found this interesting:
Fl Bartlett said it, and I heard it. It’s all one and the same.
Fl 4 seats in senior staff cabin.
J how many seats in the cabin you were sitting in.
Fl in the front some 10 seats, and 3 or 4 behind.
Fl people get up and walk around all the time. The people who typically sit in that cabin are nuclear football guy, personal aid, head of advance, photographer.
J Can you name one other person who was seated within earshot.
Fl No, I was sitting in my chair trying to read a document.
Why do I get the feeling Bush was there? Why ask Ari in terms of whether “one other person” heard it (that he could acknlowledge) instead of asking simply who was there, regardless of whether Ari thought they might or might not have heard something? Srikes me as peculiar. I imagine Team Libby would like to know what Ari could say about Bush’s state of mind. This exchange seems to establish that Ari is unable to testify to Bush’s state of mind, even if Bush was present. This could be significant at a later date in a hoped for later trial, no?
What do you all think the respective legal teams did today to recap the kind of day they had? Fitzgerald and associates have to be generally pleased, don’t cha think with how their day went today, what with Ari’s testimony and all? Conversely, what do you think Wells and Jeffress said in reply to Scooter’s inquiry of “Are we winning?”
Is there ever a time that the defense might just realize that maybe this thing is not going to turn out the way Libby envisioned when he spent the $3million dollars on his legal stategerians?
Can you plea bargain during a trial of this kind? Or now that’s it’s underway, do you have to see it through to the end?
Shorter David Addington: “Brown v. Board of Education gives President the authority to segregate enemy combatants within public schools to raise wartime standardized test scores. It’s an open & shut case.”
LOL! So, THAT’S the problem!
bellesouth @ 74