May 09 2006
Team Libby’s Logic Traps.
I am still slogging through Team Libby’s responses to the media’s responses to Team Libby’s subpoenas. I finally made it into section two of response and wanted to note the logic trap Team Libby has for the NY Times. Fitzgerald (and the news media, not to forget) has claimed Libby’s discussions were part of an administration effort to get back at Joe Wilson by outing Valerie. Judith Miller, in her own recollections to her testimony, stated she told the NY Times after her July 8th meeting with Libby the NY Times should investigate whether Libby was trying to smear Wilson (the whistleblower). That would fit into the Fitzgerald claim.
But here comes the NY Times saying Miller never said any such thing! Which actually supports the defense’s contention.
According to Ms. Miller’s public account, she believed that Ms. Wilson’s “connection to the CIA [was] potentially newsworthy” and, after her July 8 meeting with Mr. Lilbby, recommended that the paper “pursue a story”, or at least investigate whether Mr. Libby was engaged in “a potential smear of a whistleblower.” … Jill Abramson, the newspaper’s Washington bureau chief, says that this never ocurred.
…evidence showing that Ms. Miller never, in fact, made the request goes to her faulty recollection and/or credibility. … What is more, such documents support the defense’s theory that Mr. Libby did not mention Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Ms. Miller – or at least did not use this information to try to discredit or punish Ms Wilson’s husband. That evidence will directly undercut the notion that Mr. Libby was engaged in an improper “smear” campaign…
The logic here is inexcapable (and illustrates how little thinking Fitzgerald did in bringing the charges). The NY Times says Miller never told them about Ms. Wilson or talked to anyone, and there was not discussions of her in the organization. QED, no concerted effort as Fitzgerald claims. And the NY Times has to produce the documents to prove their claims either way.
But how could the NY Times have not uttered a word internally about Plame and Wilson given Kristof’s articles? And it turns out Miller talk to the in-house counsel about the issue:
According to that [Vanity Fair] article, Ms. Miller approached Mr. Freeman, in-house counsel to the Times, After the Special Counsel launched his investigation and said, “I knew Valerie Plame’s name. I knew who she was. I talked to many people in the government about her [before and after] Novak’s article”.
Emphasis in the original. So in one place the NY Times claims there were no discussion, but then Miller stated in an open article there were discussions. Again the logic trap. Either the NY Times sides with Libby and proves Miller a liar, or they side with Miller and produce the documentation. Interesting decision.
According to that [Vanity Fair] article, Ms. Miller approached Mr. Freeman, in-house counsel to the Times, After the Special Counsel launched his investigation and said, “I knew Valerie Plame’s name. I knew who she was. I talked to many people in the government about her [before and after] Novak’s articleâ€.
You know what is interesting about this statement (and goes to my new pet theory)? It sort of sounds like Judy Miller was a little miffed someone got to her story, like she felt she had the story first or he beat her…which kind of makes all the business about the editor make sense.
Judy said the editor told her not to pursue the story, Judy must of felt –at the time– a little miffed the editor blew the scoop.
Pet theory –
The journos pretending that not knowing the actual name and spelling “P L A M E ” and so with than they have led Fitz to believe they were all just a bunch of confused reporters looking for answers and it was the WH leading them — which really, they all knew the connection of Wilson, that he had a wife, that she worked at the CIA and that she could/would/did vouch for his entire assertion – trip/findings/forgery/debunk
Here is the key, I think: They didn’t know (even if they knew her former name was Plame) — that Plame was a “name” she used for covert work.
Semantical
“I did not know she used Plame as a covert alias if she did do covertwork.
Yup. Jill Ambramson has shed no tears for Ms. Miller.
I think she’s the one who labeled Miller “Ms. Run Amok.” Or at least put into print that opinions of her ran low within the paper’s upper echelon.
I think, too, Ambramson had been in the Washington (DC) bureau, before she advanced to her position at headquarters, New York.
But Logic Traps are as good a name as any. Walton must know he’s on shakey grounds, because the public, mostly made up of non-lawyers, are not amused by this persecution.
Is this a train wreck in progress? And, if so, does Ditz-fitz-magoo still charge Rove? If he does it means that the Grand Jurors you collect in DC are rather myopic. Because this is not the Grand Jury that indicted Libby.
ALSO, if there’s another case coming; does Reggie Walton get the “prize?” You’d think the guy could put at least one eyeball to history, don’t cha? Or is he like Judge Ito? Ito didn’t need a “logic trap” to fall straight down on his face.
But then no one said judges had to be smart. All they need to be is well-connected. Politically able to gain a robe to cover their mediocrity.
Anyway, what’s the money bet on Rove getting indicted? I’d call it a long shot. (Which means to win some favorites have to drop dead on the track.)
Will Libby ever come out from under this smear?
I’m tellin ya, it’s a sad day that the HOOK from vaudeville got retired. One HOOK. One PULL. And, viewership would jump up for the MSM. And, a few of these turkeys would be removed from the stage, that in better days they’d have been laughed off of, anyway.