May 26 2006
Surrealistic Logic From Fitz
In Fitzgerald’s latest filing he demonstrates a level of twisted logic (immersed in tortured english grammar) I find stunning. To us mathematically oriented the terms ‘likely’ and ‘unlikely’ are ends of a common spectrum called ‘probability’. On one end is the probability of zero, the other end a probability of 1 (which equates to 100%).
In the bizarre world of the Special Counsel, the words ‘likely’ and ‘unlikely’ exist in disjoint, unconnected universes. Check out this lame claim:
To be clear, the government’s argument is not (as the defendant claims) that it is more likely that the Vice President discussed these issues with defendant merely because he wrote them down but, rather that, in light of the Vice President’s annotation of the Wilson Op Ed with the words, “Did Wilson’s wife send him on a junket?,†it is unlikely that, as defendant testified, the issue was not discussed in defendant’s repeated conversations with the Vice President during the week following the Wilson Op Ed’s publication.
Emphasis mine – in order to distill down the essence of the claim. As I said, ‘likilihood’ is ‘probability’. So let’s read this thought in clear, uncluttered and succinct English:
The government’s argument is not that it is more probable that the Vice President discussed these issues with defendant but, rather, it is less probable the issue was not discussed in defendant’s repeated conversations with the Vice President.
Got that? It is not more probable it was discussed, it is less probable it was not. What a stunning display of useless logic. And this change in wording is somehow pertinent to whether evidence is provided or not. I wonder if the judge gets a headache just reading this garbage.
BTW, Fitzgerald has tipped his hand in this filing – and I get the feeling that Judge Walton is going to slap it down hard. Fitz is going to claim VP Cheney ordered Libby to expose Plame based on those annotations and a lot of imagination and conspiracy theories. For Fitzgerald’s case to hold he has to show Libby was following the VP’s orders to ‘get the truth out’.
This argument ignores the fact that the Vice President was the defendant’s immediate superior with whom the defendant worked daily and closely, and from whom defendant received direction regarding the response to be made to the Wilson Op Ed.
…
Defendant then testified that the Vice President told him repeatedly that he wanted to “get the truth out,†including “all the facts about what he had or hadn’t done; what the facts were or were not.â€
I would call this gutsy, but it is on such thin evidence that has to be filled with mounds of speculation I can only call it ‘career endingly stupid’. So we can also see who was in Fitzgerald’s cross hairs. My bet is he tried to indict Cheney and failed. But one thing is clear. All these legal actions were about one thing: To Get The Truth Out! Somehow it has become illegal, in the mind of the prosecutor, to tell the truth. And that is the basis of his case!
Fitzgerald is obsessed with the mindset of Libby and his motivations. Well let’s turn the tables and ponder this. What is the mindset of a prosecutor who is charged to investigat the leak of a CIA agent’s identity to the press who, when finding the leak, protects the leaker and then charges the people who were ‘getting the truth out’? It tells me Fitzgerald’s motivations are far afield from his mandate (and his profession’s standards of ethical behavior).
And that kind of logic is supposed to get Fitz to proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not just proof of a probability. It certainly seems unethical to bring a criminal charge on that kind of a case.
As you noted above:
“Fitz is going to claim VP Cheney ordered Libby to expose Plame based on those annotations and a lot of imagination and conspiracy theories.â€
Cecil, at JOM, recently suggested that (regarding Cheney notes):
“Seems to me like the annotations all go to CIA management. The logical thing to do with them is ask Tenet whether that’s the way they do business.â€
This would appear to be is a far better explanation of Cheney’s notes than the version Fitz has presented.
And, also at JOM, cathyf argues a related ‘problem’ with Fitz’s view:
“This is a huge constitutional crisis that Fitzgerald is kicking off here, and he seems blithely unaware of it. Cheney’s marginal notations seem most logically to be the exercise of his core responsibility to supervize bureaucrats, and Fitzgerald is attempting to take what the constitution demands of the executive and convert it into a criminal act.â€
So, Fitz wants to make it illegal to “get the truth out†and make criminal the Executive Branch supervision of the US government bureaucracy.
Looking back on Fritz and his baseball talk at the press conference, it is starting to look like somone is starting to look like they are really in a position that they are trying to work a non case by injecting it with steroids.
AJ
Fritz in this response seems to take up some special treatment of how relevant or dismissable facts are based solely on boss/worker relationship.
To me , unless I misinterpreted it, is like saying that if I grope a female employee and then grope her sister who is visiting her at the office, only the employee related misconduct can be construed as sexual harrasment. This would differ between the two instances as one being a criminal charge and the other being a civil case.
Despite the lack of employee/boss relationship of Libby and the reporters, it seems clear that the reporter’s state of mind, possible inconsistancies themselves and “fog of war” recall all are relevant to a full and fair defense by Libby.
Each time team Libby goes before this judge for discovery and finds more stuff that Fritz should have released at the onset to allow a fair defense of thier client would tend to undermine the basic concept of a level playing field for all. It lends support to the position that the only thing Fritz is doing with this piecemeal infighting is shining more light on the flimsyness of his case.
At this point it seems the only thing that will save Fritz’s position is some major blockbuster smoking gun at trial. However, this seems highly unlikely due to the reasoning that for any thing to be that explosive, it would be obvious that the Libby team by now would have turned over every possibility of self damage assessment that would have exposed even the potential existance of bombshell loopholes.
AJ —
Regarding your comments on FitzG’s “Surreal Logic”, I
believe you’re mis-reading his filing.
Before passing on my thoughts on this, I would
note that parsing the language you have referenced is
made somewhat more difficult, because Fitzgerald is not
reproducing in full what the Defense wrote in their
submittal, which is what Fitzgerald is responding to. I do
not see the Defense’s document cited in this post, so I’m
assuming that you don’t have a copy at hand, either (nor
the precise (in haec verba) argument that the
Defense was making. One has to infer what (Fitzgerald
understands (or at least represents)) that argument to be,
from what FitzG actually writes himself. (It
would also be nice to know what the exact context is, of
the “battling submittals”; the caption on the cited filing is
quite a mouthful, and sort of intriguing (fn*) , but doesn’t render
it perfectly clear (to me, at least) what the particular fight
is all about. That said, by looking at the end of the
referenced submittal, the “larger context” (if not the
smaller) seems to be the Defense’s 3d Motion to Compel,
and this accords with other language in the referenced
submittal.)
As I read the document (“Reply”), and in particular in reading the footnote you focus on, it looks like the Defense has said or suggested that FitzG is claiming Cheney’s simply having made the notes-in-question make it more likely that Cheny discussed Plame with Libby during the week following July 6. In his footnote FitzG rejects that that is what he’s saying, and of course, that would be a rather bizarre thing for him to say. That is, the “mere fact” that someone has jotted something down normally carries no implication or permits no inference that that writing will be communicated to a third party. (Exceptions might exist, of course; e.g. (perhaps) if the notes say, “I’ll have to talk to Libby about this…”). Rather, what FitzG is saying is that given the intense Cheney-Libbey contact immediately following Wilson’s July 6 piece, which such contact dealt with Wilson, a reasonable juror is entitled to come to the conclusion that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame at that time. Contrary to what Libby has otherwise said. That is, I think, a very fair assessment and legally correct. (Note that I’m not saying (nor is FitzG) that any reasonable juror would have to so conclude).
I understand that you do not care for FitzG. That certainly is your right, and you may well be justified in that, on any number of objective criteria. But it seems that this dislike may be unduly coloring your understanding of this matter; I mean, is it likely that a competent and indeed very successful Federal prosecutor lives in the (particular) bizarro world where you would have him residing ? If not, perhaps a different reading is called for, before coming to a conclusion on the matter …. Just a suggestion, tendered in good faith.
Also, I think you’re mistaken in several important respects with other comments you’ve made in the post — at least if I understand the gist of the Libby case (which I think I do, but then (as I’ve posted elsewhere) I haven’t really paid it much attention until I’ve tried to educate myself of it of late.) But, I’ll catch a cuppa first.
— Regards
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fn* “REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING
NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL”
(Boy – that formatted out something awful (not to mention the d’oh with the italics) Here’s another try with the same post:)
AJ —
Regarding your comments on FitzG’s “Surreal Logic”, I believe you’re mis-reading his filing.
Before passing on my thoughts on this, I would note that parsing the language you have referenced is made somewhat more difficult, because Fitzgerald is not reproducing in full what the Defense wrote in their submittal, which is what Fitzgerald is responding to. I do not see the Defense’s document cited in this post, so I’m assuming that you don’t have a copy at hand, either (nor the precise (in haec verba) argument that the Defense was making. One has to infer what (Fitzgerald understands (or at least represents)) that argument to be, from what FitzG actually writes himself. (It would also be nice to know what the exact context is, of the “battling submittals”; the caption on the cited filing is quite a mouthful, and sort of intriguing (fn*) , but doesn’t render it perfectly clear (to me, at least) what the particular fight is all about. That said, by looking at the end of the referenced submittal, the “larger context” (if not the smaller) seems to be the Defense’s 3d Motion to Compel, and this accords with other language in the referenced submittal.)
As I read the document (“Reply”), and in particular in reading the footnote you focus on, it looks like the Defense has said or suggested that FitzG is claiming Cheney’s simply having made the notes-in-question make it more likely that Cheny discussed Plame with Libby during the week following July 6. In his footnote FitzG rejects that that is what he’s saying, and of course, that would be a rather bizarre thing for him to say. That is, the “mere fact” that someone has jotted something down normally carries no implication or permits no inference that that writing will be communicated to a third party. (Exceptions might exist, of course; e.g. (perhaps) if the notes say, “I’ll have to talk to Libby about this…”). Rather, what FitzG is saying is that given the intense Cheney-Libbey contact immediately following Wilson’s July 6 piece, which such contact dealt with Wilson, a reasonable juror is entitled to come to the conclusion that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame at that time. Contrary to what Libby has otherwise said. That is, I think, a very fair assessment and legally correct. (Note that I’m not saying (nor is FitzG) that any reasonable juror would have to so conclude).
I understand that you do not care for FitzG. That certainly is your right, and you may well be justified in that, on any number of objective criteria. But it seems that this dislike may be unduly coloring your understanding of this matter; I mean, is it likely that a competent and indeed very successful Federal prosecutor lives in the (particular) bizarro world where you would have him residing ? If not, perhaps a different reading is called for, before coming to a conclusion on the matter …. Just a suggestion, tendered in good faith.
Also, I think you’re mistaken in several important respects with other comments you’ve made in the post — at least if I understand the gist of the Libby case (which I think I do, but then (as I’ve posted elsewhere) I haven’t really paid it much attention until I’ve tried to educate myself of it of late.) But, I’ll catch a cuppa first.
— Regards
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fn* “REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING
NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL”
DGF,
The Federal Prosecutors and Prosecutors I know would not be wasting their time so far afield from their mandate or professional ethics. Fitzgerald is a laughing stock to too many lawyers and prosecutors I have talked to.
I have no dog in this fight except I want our judicial system and government left intact. As has been pointed out – Fitzgerald has made the following potentially illegal;
(1) Not leaking details of Plame to the media (in all cases Libby is assumed under the indictment to have not leaked to reporters)
(2) “getting the truth out” to correct lies made by Wilson (now well documented lies even Wilson admits are not the facts of events
(3) The management of buraeucrats like Libby by their boses (Cheney) to perform their duties in the administration
Fitzgerald is single handedly perched to destroy way we live our lives in this country. And there are no checks or balances on him right now except one lone judge. Feel free to trivialize the situation.
AJ —
With respect to you preceding post, I frankly confess to being unfamiliar with the arguments on either side
of your items (1)-(3), and indeed didn’t know that they were “issues” in this Plame/Libby-gate affair. I
have not, I repeat, followed this matter closely, and until a couple of days ago had not given it much
thought at all.
Moreover, for puposes of my earlier post in this thread, it is essentially irrelevant what those issues are or
the details pro and con re: same. I was responding to particular assertions that *you* made with respect to
particular language in a paper which FitzG filed in Federal District Court.
Your original post addressed particular language in the FitzG submittal in some detail, and my post
sought to address your comments concerning that language.
Your subsequent post in this thread did *not* address my comments on the particular language which you
had originally ridiculed FitzG about, nor did it otherwise return to address the language in the FitzG
submittal.
Instead, you inserted comments regarding wholly different assertions, and suggest that I am trivializing the supposed great threat that FitzG poses to our Commonwealth, by my having noted that it appears that you mis-read/mis-understood the subject footnote in the FitzG Reply.
That makes little sense to me. However, your failure to address my comments could reasonably be taken as a concession that you did indeed mis-read FitzG.
I, too, “have no dog in this fight”. And maybe FitzG *is* unethical, immoral, reprehensible, a Nazi, a Commie, a child-molester, a Vogon-lover, or even a Liberal, but the truth or falsity of any such assertion simply wasn’t/isn’t relevant to (or supported by) what FitzG wrote, and what it means. And what it means does not reflect (as you previously stated) that FitzG lives in some kind of bizarro legal world.
The theory regarding the Cheney notes on the Wilson article is not some kind of goofy-can’t-be-believed-on-principle thing. It’s common sense, isn’t it, dressed up in legal verbiage. To wit (in the venacular):
Or something along those lines…
(That’s not to say that a jury would convict, but rather, merely to say that they might well agree)
(Or, what am I missing ?)
Regards (and have a great weekend; dunno if I’ll get back to the “second instalment” that was supposed to follow my cuppa. I can fairly hear the hearts breaking already… 😉
DGF,
The issue under discussion ‘daily’ was Wilson refuting the 16 words the Pres used in the State of the Union speech. Wilson’s article consisting of hundreds of words, heavily underlined by Cheney, did not mention his wife. The word ‘wife’ appears only once in on the article in the VP’s notes. Wilson lied in the article about the VP office sending him.
The discussions daily certainly would be related to the President and the VP versus Wilson – not some inconsequential ‘wife’. Good Grief. We are discussing the preparations for making a nuclear bomb!!
And the wife is a big deal??? NO!
Duh!
Good Evening, NIB!
For the most part I think the Defense *could* make just the sort of argument you set forth, e.g., at closing in opposition to my hypothetical (partial) closing for the prosecution (“hpcp”).
It’s up to the jury to determine which theory-of-the-case is most convincing.
I didn’t set forth the hpcp to try to persuade you one way or the other, but simply to try to bring into focus the gist of what FitzG’s approach to this bit of evidence apparently is, and that it isn’t off-the-wall.
Whether you or I or Harry or Jane would find “FitzG’s interpretation” of the evidence (as suggested by DGF) as to what happened to be more likely than the Defense’s isn’t really at issue (either for the purposes of my comments on this thread, or (more obvious yet) for the question of how things actually end up turning out for Mr. Libby).
Of course, in our system of justice, one of the strongest resources that any defendant has is, that in order to “avoid the noose”, s/he’s only got to convince one member of the jury that the prosecution hasn’t made out its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It may very well be “more likely than not” (in some crystal-ball sense) under the entirety of facts of this case as presented to the jury, that Libby, if he’s not out-right acquitted, will nonetheless not be convicted.
Finally, while I *do* gather that *you* tend to view the referenced evidence in a light very different from that urged by FitzG (whose argument (the “hpcp”), parenthetically, seems *to me* to be more convincing than the one you suggest), we can perhaps debate that very different question at another time, if you’d like, if you think it might be profitable.
Cheers.