Jan 04 2007
Some Plame Predictions
I am looking forward to the Scooter Libby Trial and interesting revelations. The one I think will be the most devastating to Fitzgerald’s case is the revelation Plame outed herself to the news Media in May 2003 – well before any administration people were talking to the press. I have written about this many times in my Plame Game category, but to save people the headaches let me just recreate the evidence here. In Nicholas Kristof’s lead off article on the then unknown Joe Wilson the entire thrust of the story was the administration knew the case for Iraq was phoney because they used forged documents to implicate Niger and Iraq in the State of The Union Speach (which actually referenced UK intelligence on Africa). The early brush fire was the forged Niger documents. That is important, because otherwise there was no story – none. The revelation was Bush-Cheney used known forgeries, debunked by Wilson on his 2002 trip to Niger, to lie to the American people.
Here is the now debunked Wilson claim from the Kristof piece which started the entire Plame Game:
But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.
…
…I don’t want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.
…
Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously. I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
Bush used known forgeries and Kristof was talking to someone who knew all about it! Joe Wilson was the envoy – but to call the President a liar like this you need more than the word of one source. It is a well known fact that Kristof wrote this only two days after meeting Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame at a Democrat Party retreat. So the sourcing had to be solid to go to press with the NY Times Lawyers’ permission. I now direct everyone’s attention to the highlighted text in Kristof’s piece. He had eye witness information regarding the envoy’s (Joe Wilson’s) report on his Niger trip results. Now one would just logically assume the fact the ‘report’ was to the CIA and State Department the report was a physical thing and presented to a government agency. And I am sure that is what Kristof assumed, that a room full of people were in on this event as it was ‘witnessed’.
He was sadly mistaken and totally duped. Because it would come out years later in the Senate Report on Iraq that Wilson was actually debriefed at home with Valerie and two other people. From one of my many posts here is the snippet:
Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador’s home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief.
Time explains a lot. Valerie, we learned only recently, headed the joint task force on Iraq and WMDs. Which means she headed a team of experts from all the Intelligence Community’s organizations charged with monitoring Iraq WMD efforts. So there was no need for her to participate in the debrief, she was going to get the report from the two DO officers. But what is key is the DO officers testified to the Senate, and it is in the same report, that there was never once a mention of the Niger forgeries which clearly Kristof had two sources claiming was discussed. Two sources who claimed to Kristof that Wilson debunked forgeries that would not surface inside the intelligence community until 8 months later. The DO officers never heard that story and never admitted to talking to Kristof.
So that leaves only one person left who (a) attended the debriefing at the Wilson home, (b) was with Wilson and Kristof the weekend they discussed the story and (c) would back up Joe’s totally bogus claim that Niger Forgeries were discussed. And that is Valerie Plame Wilson.
And Kristof is not the only reporter Valerie talked to. It seems Walter Pincus had two sources at the same meeting giving the same story for his article a few days later:
A key component of President Bush’s claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program — its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger — was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official.
…
Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event.
Note that the “former government official” source is Wilson himself. And he has at least two other “senior US officials” to back him up.
After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong,” the former U.S. government official said.
Here it is not so clear if the only person making the claim on the forgeries is Wilson (the former official) or him and another source. Again, to claim the President knowingly used faked information would require two sources. Only Valerie would have the position and be a witness to the claims of niger forgeries being reported at this time.
There are other indications as well, but Libby’s defense is going to rely on the fact reporters knew Plame was CIA already and were coming to him for confirmation. And of course they knew, if she was the source with Joe and she exposed her CIA employment. She would not have to disclose any secrets to let journalists know she was CIA and at the meetings.
Which is why Fitzegerald could never bring any charges specifically against outing Plame to the media – against Rove or Libby. There is no law against outing yourself. And it is pretty clear Plame outed herself to Kristof and Pincus and John Landay of Knight Ridder. The details in this last article are so accurate at such an early stage (before Wilson’s Op Ed) that it was clear early on it had to have come from sources inside the CIA. Again, the only CIA source who was willing to back Joe’s wild claims about forgeries was Valerie.
This will come out at the trial, and in fact must come out, because it is critical to Libby’s defense. It shows Plame and Wilson spoke freely about her role in this as a CIA employee, and therefore Libby was right in recollecting some reporters were asking him to confirm THEIR knowledge of Plame working at the CIA. It will also go to great lengths to destroy Plame’s and Wilson’s credibility, and it will throw a shadow on all testimony by reporters. If this is actually what happened, and I am nearly certain it is, I think this will be the big bombshell of the case.
42 Responses to “Some Plame Predictions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love this story almost as much as the Litvinenko story. Looking forward to seeing the Cary Grant/Audrey Hepburn duo going down down down. Another favorite story is the Sandy Burgler story.
This story has James Carviel/Bill Clinton all over it. I hope they get them good. This group make me so sick.
I’m still waiting for justice. The fact that Libby was charged at all is an injustice. Fitzgerald should be brought up on charges himself for going forward with this debacle. He wasted 23 million of tax payer dollars on this farce. This was a no case from start to finish and he knew it. He more or less believed these reporters over Libby about pure trivia with no explanation whatsoever. And now these reporters’ credibility is in doubt. So much for his case. The fact that he was given so much power is what really bothers me.
However, I am looking forward to seeing all these players on the stand trying to explain their actions. I wonder how many will commit perjury. I’m still bothered by the French connection with these forged documents. Joe met Valerie in Paris after his trip to Niger. Why? And the documents did not surface for 8 months but Joe knew all about them in his op-ed. Maybe he was shown the documents when he was in Paris.
I hope the defense goes after these people with hammer and tongs. They deserve it. And to think the press wanted congress to pass a law protecting their anonymous sources. At least that is dead. At least I hope it is. And after this debacle with AP and Reuters falsifying news in Iraq anyone can see the disaster that would have been.
The only issues at the Libby trial will be whether or not – on several specific dates – Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury or to Federal investigators. Period.
Who leaked Plame’s identity is of no material substance to the prosecution. The entirety of Libby’s defense is going to be that he was a busy white man who disremembered that his boss – VP Dick Cheney – told him that Valerie Plame was in the CIA – in spite of the fact that he had written this bit of information down in his hand-written notes of meetings with Cheney.
The defense will be based on whether a Washington D.C. jury – most likely 80% African American – is going to swallow Libby’s lame excuse that he was a busy important man. And don’t hold your breath on that one.
Twist it and turn it as you will – that is what Libby is charged with – and that is what the trial will focus on – especially now that the testimony of the junk science “memory expert” will not be allowed.
Libby better pack his toothbrush – he’s headed for the big house.
ConesSplief,
Your naivette is quite humorous. Look up the words ‘motive’ and ‘opportunity’ and maybe, just maybe, you will be able to grasp the import of what I wrote.
I would suggest your meager attempts to address these matters is not really doing much except to expose your liberal myopia. But feel free to keep posting. We all enjoy a little reminder of why liberalism is dead.
AJ what you say is absolutely correct, but also correct is that the Libby indictment is very narrow. The only charge, as was made clear at Fitzgerald’s news conference announcing the indictment, is lying to the grand jury.
I sincerely hope that all the rest of the disgraceful machinations to discredit and even impeach Bush will be exposed, but now that the dems are back, the I’m not as sanguine about the outcome of the trial.
Erp,
My points go to motive and opportunity and credibility of the witnesses against him. If Plame had outed herself to numerous news organizations, then there was no opportunity for Libby to expose information already exposed. Libby claims he had no motive to ‘expose’ Plame because reporters knew her status when they called – which supports his position that he simply mis-recalled which reporters knew and which didn’t. And of course if Wilson and Plame are shown to be liars about her outing that will sway a jury. The judge cannot restrict Libby’s right to mount a defense on regarding motive and opportunity to the charges. And this relates directly to those elements of the indictment.
And the judge seems determined to keep the trial’s course impossibly narrow. It will be another travesty if the public is never allowed to see all the perfidy here, as has been the case with so many misbehaviors lately! (Berger, Rockefeller, Mary O”Malley, Barrett report, Jefferson, etc.,etc.,etc.)
“Your naivette is quite humorous.”
Just as, AJ, your inability to spell “naivete” is so endearingly provincial. You’ve already admitted you don’t know much about the law – and posts such as this prove it so thoroughly.
As Erp correctly points out, the charges against Libby are almost supernaturally narrow, e.g.:
OR
OR
These, and other similar charges, and the respective elements thereof necessary for conviction, will be the sum total of proofs offered by the Dpartment of Justice, through US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
SplifBrain,
I never said I did not know much about the law – I actually do. I said I was not a lawyer.
As I said, addressing motive and opportunity and credibility of prosecution witnesses are all elements of the right to a defense. Whether you can grasp these simple facts matters very little to me.
Motive and opportunity?
Well, as for opportunity – he appeared before a Grand Jury and for interviews with Federal Agents – providing him with opportunities to perjure himself.
Motive – hmmmmm – let’s see – why would he lie about who told him about Plame’s identity – when his hand-written notes indicate his boss – the VP did?
Let’s address the credibility of a guy who repreatedly lies to a Grand Jury and Federal Agents (during a period when John Ashcroft was still in charge of the investigation) and then has to change his stories when a real prosecutor takes over.
An African-American jury in D.C. is going to have a picnic with this case. Whitey be going down.
And – uh – AJ – let’s please watch it with the Splifbrain stuff – some would consider that to be an ad hominem attack – in which it is quite unmannerly for the host of the blog to indulge himself.
LOL! Well Splifbrain, it is clear your grasp of the law is tentative at best. Thus endeth the lesson – which flew right over your head.
BTW, You picked your handle, I am just having some fun. No one is forcing you to hang ar0und. I assume you understand the Cone Splif reference in your moniker?
Dear Mr. StratASS:
As someone who has written successful briefs to the US Supreme Court, the 6th and 7th Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio and a number of other state appellate courts, primarily in criminal matters, I feel confident I have a far better grasp on the Libby prosecution than you do.
Perhaps a small wager on the Libby case outcome – if your budget can stand the strain?
So, the reporters are allowed to forget or not remember but not Mr. Libby -afterall this is about Tim Russert’s word against Scooter Libby, is it not?
And where in the law are there provisions for prosecutorial abuse…as in knowing who leaked *at the beginning of the investigation and as it proceeded therefore KNOWING there was NO CRIME commited?…
Splif Brain -
While I was using your moniker as is to make a joke – you are out of line. Last warning. I will wager you have no self control and will fall to your immature and childish core self and get yourself booted from here.
I feel for your clients – they could have done so much better.
Ivehadit:
Nothing turns me off more than to hear the credentials of someone who wasn’t asked what are your credentials.
Nothng turns me off more than hearing somebody weigh in on what turns them on or off when nobody asked them what – if anything – turned them off or on.
Splif,
Chill. You post here people can comment on your ramblings. Get over it.
Totally chilled. Way I understand it, people can comment on my ramblings – and vice versa – n’est ce pas?
On point of fact, Sue commented that I had spouted credentials without being asked – in spite of the fact that you – a non-lawyer – had opined
so I considered my response setting the record straight.
On the other hand, I don’t recall anyone rattling Sue’s cage. No problem – I understand the Strata-Sphere is a big free-for-all of people with opinions – some of whom MAY even have facts to back them up.
AJ – fear in this new environment, the judge will do whatever he needs to do to tank Libby.
This is o/t and I’m not sure what the rules are about that, but I had short conversation this afternoon with a neighbor who holds advanced degrees and has been around the world quite a few times. She was under the impression that it is Republicans who favor welfare and want to take away our civil rights and she can’t wait until the dems to start going back to the good old when everybody had to work and people weren’t collecting welfare, so taxes could go down and we wouldn’t spend so much on the military. PS she hates Bush.
I was so startled, I couldn’t think of a courteous reply for a moment and just stated a few facts like FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s War on Poverty, both of which made things immeasurably worse for downtrodden.
She snorted as if I were nuts and not she.
And you think providing a list of your credentials gives you credentials? I could provide that same list and you have no way of knowing whether or not they are indeed my credentials or if I just stole them from you. You would do better arguing your point of view instead of arguing your credentials.
At least, from my limited experience in courts of law, that is how it works. Someone fresh out of law school could whip a seasoned lawyer, if he presents his arguments to the judge and/or jury more persuasively than the seasoned lawyer who has filed numerous briefs, etc.
Excuse me, there would have been NO investigation into Scooter Libby once the fact was known that Armitage had been the leaker. This was known early on…
The whole thing smells of a trap…and abuse of the powers of the prosecutor…as his scope was ENLARGED as I recall…because they found out Libby was not the leaker….early on….
And btw, do you know much about the person in the DOJ that gave Fitz a larger mandate? Bet you don’t…but Clarice, macsmind and A.J. do. Where is Clarice when we need her?
And btw, do you know much about the person in the DOJ that gave Fitz a larger mandate
James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General
Yes, Clarice can tell us about Mr. Comey….there is very interesting information about him…..
From Whitehouse.gov – the official website of President George W. Bush:
On October 3, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Jim Comey to serve as Deputy Attorney General, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2003, and the President signed his commission on December 11, 2003. Prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Comey served as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from January 2002 to the time of his confirmation. From 1996 through 2001, Mr. Comey served as Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the Richmond Division of the United States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Comey was educated at the College of William & Mary (B.S. with Honors 1982, Chemistry and Religion majors) and the University of Chicago Law School (J.D. 1985). After law school, he served as a law clerk for then-United States District Judge John M. Walker, Jr. in Manhattan, and worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in their New York Office. He next joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993, eventually serving as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.
As United States Attorney, Mr. Comey oversaw numerous terrorism cases and supervised prosecutions of executives of WorldCom, Adelphia, and Imclone on fraud and securities-related charges. Mr. Comey also created a specialized unit devoted to prosecuting international drug cartels.
As an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, he handled the Khobar Towers terrorist bombing case, arising out of the June 1996 attack on a U.S. military facility in Saudi Arabia in which 19 Airmen were killed. He has personally investigated and prosecuted a wide variety of cases, including firearms, narcotics, major frauds, violent crime, public corruption, terrorism, and organized crime. In the Southern District of New York, he served as lead prosecutor in United States v. John Gambino et al., a six-month mafia racketeering and murder trial in 1993.
While in Richmond, Mr. Comey also served as an Adjunct Professor of law at the University of Richmond. Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney’s office in Richmond in 1996, he was a partner at McGuireWoods, LLP specializing in criminal defense and commercial litigation.
So are nutcases Barbara, Sue and Ivehadit going to complain about this guys credentials?
Now post yours. Isn’t that what started the credential debate? Mr. Comey’s credentials are easily verified. Yours, not so much.
Uh – Sue – I know your short-term memory’s going – but you didn’t want to hear about my credentials – ‘member? Just a little trip upthread.
Get a life, counselor. You have no credentials, unless you are willing to point me to the blue book you are listed in. (caveat…the color of the book may vary from state to state)
Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.
Clarice has more on Comey. His credentials are *not* the issue….
Prediction – Joe Wilson will be (and is currently being) investigated and eventually found guilty of espionage for France. The Libby trial draws on and, if its not over or Scooter is found (erroneously) guilty, Bush pardons the poor man. Too bad Scooter didn’t boink Plame earlier so this whole thing could just be about sex which is immune from perjury according to the dems.
Prediction: Joe Wilson investigated and found guilty of espionage for France.
Isn’t Comey behind the Martha Stewart debacle? Wasn’t he the power behind her being imprisoned for lying to the FBI? And didn’t that set a precedent? It seems like I read that somewhere.
See page 2 of Clarice’s article here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/720lutwz.asp?pg=2
Clarice is a joke:
She perhaps forgot to mention the 5 separate instances on which he lied – either under oath at the Grand Jury or to Federal Agents.
As for Barbara:
Sorry, Babs, Martha Stewart was neither the first – nor the last – person charged with a felony for lying to Federal Agents. Martha Stewart ignored the advice of her counsel when she talked to the FBI – and wound up serving 14 months as a result. Scooter will not be so lucky – he’s looking at hard time. Important rule of thumb: Innocent or guilty – do not talk to Federal Agents. No good can come of it.
Splif Brain,
Final warning. Do not insult people here. Clarice has written and I have written on why the entire indictment is mixed recollections. Go educate yourself on the details before you insult others. I am not here to educate you are I would take the time to point out all the problems with the indictment.
Actually I will, but do not respond with an insult or yo are out of here. The entire indictment relies on Judith Miller, Tim Russert and Mat Cooper in opposing recollections about separate incidents (in other words, they do not corraberate each other). Four of the indictments are for Libby saying the same things twice, once in an interview and once in the grand jury. In other words he did not change his story.
Two of those four are regards Matt Cooper. Pre-trial transcripts show the judge has already determined Cooper gave conflicting statements, where HE changed his story over time and made it seem Libby said something he did not. It is in fact going to come out Libby was correct in his recollection.
The next two of the four indictments are regarding Russert. Libby says he told Russert aboue Valerie Plame, Russert denies it. Now only a liberal idiot think Libby broke the law by lying to ADMIT he discussed Plame with Russert, when the prosecution witness says he did not (and therefore the prosecution witness provides an alibi for the entire underlying investigation).
And then we come to the Judith Miller indictment. Where Libby was contacted by Miller and Miller clearly had been in contact with Joe Wilson prior to her meetings with Libby. And her notes indicate she knew the name Plame beforehand too. And Libby never named Wilson in the first meeting or named Plame – according to Miller. In the second meeting Miller has testifed (and written about it) that she cannot recall if Libby mentioned Plame or not. It is only in the 3rd meeting the Plame is known to have been discussed – and this is after the Armitage meeting.
Also, if you have done any homework on this like Clarice and I have done, you can go to trancsripts and filings and find out that Fitzgerald has evidence (which the defense will get) the supports Libhy’s case. He has testimony and records from numerous other reporters where Plame and Wilson are never mentioned. He is trying to hide this by saying the discussions don’t involve Plpame (duh!), but the judge is not buying this of course.
And we have Grossman, who submitted two copies of the same file to State Department records to provide an alibi for Armitage and seems to have helped his old buddy Joe Wilson with the media.
Your ignorance is a joke Splif Head. You have no basis for your arrogance and you will not be given any leaway here to bloat your ego while tearing people down who actually have given serious thought and study to a subject.
No more warnings. You screw up and act like a child again you will leave.
AJ, both your and Clarice’s attacks on the Libby indictments are eminently predictable, but none of the allegations mean anything in the context of the prosecution. Do you see any Federal judges throwing the case out of court?
Meanwhile – Clarice opines – repeat opines – that in her opinion – Libby
but if that is the case – why would a Grand Jury indict the poor lad? Why? Because the grand jurors agreed with Fitzgerald that Libby was a liar and a perjurer. Soon, the jury will decide whether or not that is true beyond a reasonable doubt – but Clarice saying Libby told the truth is meaningless.
What are you so afraid of – unfettered discourse – you are certainly insulting enough when it suits your whim?
Indeed, AJ, you seem to feel free to talk to people in most uncivil ways, yet you bristle when someone opines that Clarice may be humorous (a joke, as it were) for insisting that soon-to-be-multiple-felon Scooter Libby is beyond reproach. It reminds one of nothing so much as the famous croquet game from Alice in Wonderland:
Off with your head, said AJ, thou art banned!
Say, AJ, I know you guys keep saying that Valerie Plame wasn’t a CIA operative, so how about explaining why the CIA Publications Review Board, which must clear writings by former employees, has
according to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reporting in Monday’s edition of the magazine.