ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one
Showing posts with label Fitzmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fitzmas. Show all posts

Monday, July 07, 2008

Yellowcake? Nothing to See Here

Some news that you may not be aware of if you're within the MSM/netroot bubble of idiocy.

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq


The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

And, you just know that the UN sanctions (which were going to be dismantled shortly) and the top notch inspections by Hans Blix & co (which were going to stop at some point) would have kept Saddam from simply restarting his nuclear weapons program...

Or perhaps he was just going to use the uranium to produce cheap electricity?

Thanks to Chimpy W. McBushitler's strategery of removing tyrants with a history of and a reason to produce and use Weapons of Mass Destruction, we won't have to wonder what might have been.

Also, check out Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Libby to Jail. Sort of...

Tom Maguire over at Just One Minute has a synopsis of the bond hearing today. Personally I think this was a forgone conclusion today. From the transcript of the trial and the transcript and from the sentencing hearing its obvious that Judge Reggie Walton wants Libby in jail.

At every turn, Judge Walton has sought to save the prosecutions case. One aspect of today's hearing is highlighted by Tom.

MORE FOR THE LAUGHTRACK: Walton's explanation of his Mitchell ruling is comedy gold (punchline emphasized):

Walton: Problem was asking the jury to draw inference upon inference upon inference that would have, in my view, been rank speculation absent evidence. She would have testified her statement on Imus was off the wall and she would disavow it, and then she would have been impeached. Then your client wanted to say jury shold conclude maybe she’s not being truthful, maybe she did know about Plame. If she did, it’s conceivable she would have told Russert. Therefore Russert could have heard as your client supposed. If that’s the chain of inferences then we may as well throw out rules of evidence. That cannot be the law. If the government had tried to make this kind of case it clearly would be reversible.

Hint to judges everywhere - the American system of jurisprudence is not predicated on the notion that defendants and prosecutors get absolutely equal treatment. This is a trial that might send a man to prison, not a basketball game; defendants routinely get treatment that would not be allowed a prosecutor, starting with "innocent until proven guilty", running past "the right to confront witnesses", and including the right to imply the prosecution witnesses are hiding something even if the incurious prosecutor has not bestirred himself to examine that possibility.

All emphasis mine.

Meanwhile David Schuster of MSNBC is breathlessly announcing every time they give him some camera time, that this is the absolute worse news for Cheney and Bush, and that perhaps Libby will spill his guts to avoid going to jail.

The rest of the media is wondering when or if the pardon will be forthcoming from Bush. But that's oversimplifying things. As Tom points out in his post, Libby still has avenues to appeal the bond motion, which do not require a high standard to meet for someone that is not a flight risk or a risk to harm others. And as pointed out at National Review the President has more arrows in his quiver than a pardon.

Much to the chagrin of the moonbats at DU and elsewhere, Libby will very likely never have to set foot inside a jail cell.

On a personal note, I want this case to go to the appellate court. Without review, the methods utilized by this prosecutor will be used in future issues involving oversight of the executive. Without clear guidelines, we'll be left to the press as sole supervision of a prosecutors actions.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Libby Gets Sentenced; Moonbats Rejoice

By making non-too-subtle remarks about prison rape.

You know...


Here are a few posts which exemplify the thoughts of those on the fringe:

Karmageddon provides this valuable insight into the political ramifications of Libby's sentencing...

Karmageddon (501 posts)
Thu Jun-14-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #1

23. With any luck, he'll be drinking plenty of "protein shakes"

HaHa! Yes!!! How witty! Of course, Karma is a neophyte, with only 500+ posts on DU, so we can't be too harsh.

Kikosexy2 is right about one thing, Paris going back to jail was better news.
Kikosexy2 (1000+ posts)
Thu Jun-14-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #1

27. The Best news...

since Paris getting dragged back to prison...woo-hoo!! Scooty get ready to give up booty! avoid this you can always spill all about Ol' Dickie's and Chimpie's involvement...come on Scoot spill man, spill...clear your America!...

Yes, Scooter has a Hobson's Choice - flip on Chimpy W. McBushitler and Sith Lord Cheney or give up his booty.

HappyGoLuckyToYou (another neophyte) provides this narrative, which features Paris at the end:
happygoluckytoyou (94 posts)
Thu Jun-14-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message


it crazy-time at the gaybar hotel, the prisoners are looking forward to the arrival of "crazy legs" scooter libby.

rumor has it that scooter exercises an open-door policy, and the line is forming at the far right.

cellmate, bubba gozinya, has already posted a new shingle on the wall, and we all know "if it says libby libby libby on the label label label, you can bend him over the table table table.

how did this paragon of american virtue end up in such a sorrowful state?

we interviewed paris hilton, recent guest of the facilities:

"so paris, why do you think scooter is going to prison?"

"I (sob) don't know, they are attacking all of the beautiful people. It's like a prison in there. If it wasn't for the guard-sex I'd have been totally, you know, alone. Scooter!! I dedicate my life to world peace, and praying for you!! If you see a guard named Meat, tell him I said hi."

Comedy GENIOUS!!! Get this guy a sitcom! I mean, the way he weaved the prison sex into the dialogue throughout was just amazing.

The last of the posts which I'll feature is this one, from Tyler Durden (1000+ posts AND a Donating Member, so you know it'll be good - he's a committed guy):
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Thu Jun-14-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #37

38. I do...Welll, if not HARM at the very least extreme discomfort.

If you catch my drift.

This is a political insider who almost got off with his "I remembered wrong" defense. Time we gave some of the rest of these bastards a preview of what's in store for THEM.

Yes... and, while Tyler can't fathom that Libby may have honestly remembered wrong about the timelines of who he spoke to and when and the various conflicting stories surrounding the case, he obviously thinks that forgetting where/when you had anal-oral sex, expertly manipulated a cohiba cigar, or what the definition of "is" is, are perfectly acceptable before a grand jury.

Perjury (when there are serious questions about the merits of the charge) deserves jail time, protein shakes, and some booty time.

Perjury (which is clearly demonstrated through uncontested evidence) deserves applause.

I know, I know... it all depends on where you stand on the issues.

I could go on and provide more evidence of the childishness and anti-gay predilections of the DUers, but you can click on any one of the above links and see the other responses as well.

These people are the driving force behind the Democratic Party today. They're who Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid are courting when they say that the Surge Has FailedTM and The War in Iraq is LostTM


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Lies Masquerading as News in the Washington Post

This "news" article in the Washington Post so blatantly distorts the facts that it is amazing that it got past the editors.

Of course, journalistic standards being what they are these days, it's not surprising that we find a Washington Post reporting duplicating the style and methods of a DailyKos diarist.

Here are a few items from the story which are inaccurate or demonstrably false:

How Bogus Letter Became a Case for War
Intelligence Failures Surrounded Inquiry on Iraq-Niger Uranium Claim

By Peter Eisner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 3, 2007; A01

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

Memo to Ms. Burba: The President did not mention a sale. "Sought" and "Bought" have different meanings. May I suggest Webster's dictionary?
Burba felt uneasy because more than three months earlier, she had turned over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger. And she knew now that the documents were fraudulent and the 16 words wrong.
See above. The 16 words have actually been shown to be accurate. See the Butler Report.
Nonetheless, the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later. When occupying troops found no nuclear program, the 16 words and how they came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war.
Actually, if you read the entire speeches in the run-up to the war, the presentations before the UN, and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress, you'll note that WMDs was but one part of the justification against Saddam and that Yellowcake was but one small part of the WMD claim and that the French/Italian forgeries were but one small part of the claim regarding Iraq's desire to acquire uranium. But, hey... facts are useless for a reporter, right?
The Niger uranium matter was not uppermost in the minds of the CIA analysts. Some of them had to deal with the issue in any case, largely because Cheney, his aide Libby and some aides at the National Security Council had repeatedly demanded more information and more analysis.
Two things: 1) "The Niger uranium matter was not uppermost," probably because there was other evidence that was being investigated; 2) The fact that Cheney & Libby were asking for more detailed information is presented as nefarious, when I view it as a good thing. I seem to recall many bits & ink spent asking why the Bush & Clinton administrations had not "connected the dots." Google it, as Rosie would say.
Burba arrived in Niamey, Niger's capital, on Oct. 17 and began tracking down leads on the Italian letter. Burba's investigation followed a series of similar inquiries by Wilson, the former ambassador, who investigated on behalf of the CIA eight months earlier. It became clear that Niger was not capable of secretly shipping yellowcake uranium to Iraq or anywhere else.
Let's assume this is the case. Let's assume that Saddam's regime discussed yellowcake with Niger, but determined that secretly shipping it to Iraq would be impossible (due to the size of the shipment and the other factors). (Note that this assume 500 tons as outlined in the forged doc - we won't quibble about whether a lesser amount would suffice for Saddam's purposes.) If Saddam sought out yellowcake from Niger and determined that it would be too difficult, is that not a piece of information which should be cause for concern? Isn't there a chance that Saddam, having found Niger to be unsuitable, would seek other sources of supply? Just asking...
Not long after the invasion, other news media in Italy, elsewhere in Europe and then in the United States reported that the source of the information about a Niger yellowcake uranium deal had been a batch of bogus letters and other documents passed along several months earlier to an unnamed Italian reporter, who in turn handed the information over to the United States.
Yes, but a deal was never what prompted us to go to war. It was the seeking out of uranium, which Wilson himself supported in his "report" back to the CIA , that was but one item in a list of transgressions by Saddam.

Now, the truth about the Yellowcake issue with regard to Niger. From (emphasis mine):
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004
Modified:August 23, 2004


The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
  • A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
  • A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
  • Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
  • Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

Peter Eisner - Staff Writer for Washington Post and an absolute idiot.

*** UPDATE ***
Another question that I had when reading the article was "why is this in the paper today?" What is the "breaking news" that prompted this article to appear?

Then I saw this:
This article was adapted from the book "The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq," by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce, to be published today by Rodale Press.
It seems that what prompted this story was just to plug Mr. Eisner's book. How... unprofessional.

*** UPDATE 2 ***
Tom Maguire @ JustOneMinute (best source for all things Plame) joins in the fray.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Plame Wrap-Up

The best and most comprehensive single post on the Plame Affair can be found here.

It provides a clear and concise timeline and demonstrates that Wilson was the one to first "out" his wife as a CIA analyst, in all likelihood to give his story more credibility (b/c why would all of those reporters believe anything he asserted, unless he was "connected" with the agency).

Interestingly, Libby's name doesn't feature prominently in the post. By the time Libby mentioned Wilson's wife, everyone already had been briefed by Joe.

****** ARC: Brian adds *******

It is by far the most comprehensive single post. It establishes the pre-Novak timeline real well, and any reasonable person reading that timeline would see that the Libby conversations in July are incomplete without the context of the whole "scandal" including the numerous Wilson contacts with the press.

JustOneMinute has a great post on the Valerie testimony before the House (all emphasis mine):

She is discussing her presence at an ealry May 2003 breakfast meeting between her husband and Joe Wilson where Joe spilled details about his classified trip to Niger, thereby inspiring this May 6 Kristof column:

REP. DAVIS: Let me just ask, try to put some -- some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer. In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article -- not always known for great accuracy -- touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said -- this was what they said -- "In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it but not name him." Is that account accurate?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think it is. I had nothing -- I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof. And I think my husband did say that he had undertaken this trip, but not to be named as a source.


Just to be clear, when your -- the article says that -- says your husband "met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife." Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Briefly, yes, Congressman.

As Tom Maguire points out later, CIA agents are required to report their contacts with the press, which Valerie did not. From her testimony its apparent that she feels she was not involved since she was just there, and only "briefly". But her presence for Kristoff (and for the Senate Democratic Policy committee) was to establish Wilson's bona fides. Her mere presence and job placement at CIA was used to disguise the lies that Joe Wilson was telling as truths.

Briefly or not, she outed herself.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Scooter Libby - Time for the Resident Lawyer to Chime In

The verdict yesterday was probably correct but the process totally wrong.

I like many of my conservative ilk was saddened by a man like Scooter Libby being found guilty of four felonies. Libby appears to be a good man. It seems he screwed up and/or was poorly advised as he went through the investigation and grand jury process. His dodging during that process clearly was not artful and arguably ascended to the level of perjury.

It is axiomatic that perjury "strikes at the heart of the judicial system." Once the threshold has been crossed, the prosecutors have no choice but to proceed with criminal proceedings a la Martha Stewart. That is what happened in this case.

Having said that, how did they get to that point?

If, as it seems to me, the prosecutor knew who leaked Plame's name before the grand jury began its investigation and that it was not the VP or Libby, why on earth were they being investigated in the first place? It looks a lot like Libby was hauled in front of the grand jury in the hopes that he would screw up and for no other purpose.

If that is the case, then this was a travesty of justice and the special prosecutor should be ashamed of himself.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Elliot Ness Fitzgerald gets his man

The left is excited today, they found they got a Scooter underneath their Fitzmas tree. The next step will be to dream of presents to come.

Will Cheney be impeached?
Will the President be impeached?
Where is Sealed v. Sealed? Who else has been secretly indicted?

Unfortunately, for the left, they will find all they got is their Scooter. As Fitzgerald said in his news conference, this investigation is over.

I still predict that Scooter will not spend a day in jail. He will be left free to his appeals which will consume the time till January of 2009 when Bush will pardon him.

David Schuster, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann will have their day (weeks). I expect the spittle to fly tonight, especially. Speaking of tonight, expect that Joe Wilson will make the rounds tonight and over the following week. One word of warning to Joe Wilson. The blogosphere will be watching, and I expect that any mistatements made my him will be fact checked. [by this blog? -ed. Let's not get out of hand, I am lazy after all]

Finally, what are the lessons of the Patrick Fitzgerald trial?

For administration staffers:

  • The standard has been set, future Democratic administrations will be expected to issue similar ground rules that Bush issued. Waive your fifth amendment rights or be fired.
  • Special Prosecutors have no budget and exercise no discretion. Follow the Clinton model, attack the special prosecutor and do not cooperate.
  • If you are questioned by the FBI, have your lawyer present. Have it video taped. Your 302 form may end up looking nothing like the conversation you remember having.
For the media:
  • Give up the idea of a reporters privilege. All that first amendment stuff is just so much BS when one of the highest paid heads of a news division spills everything about a conversation to the FBI, then tries to hide behind a reporters privilege while hiding behind the "stifling" of sources.
  • Expect more prosecutors to follow the Fitzgerald model in questioning reporters. The leak investigations in regards to the secret prisons story and the NSA wiretapping program especially can be fruitful with this approach.
  • Tim Russert, David Gregory, and Andrea Mitchel are now complicit in potentially sending a man to prison. The dichotomy of Russert/Gregory knowing the story will be dug into. Plenty of competition would like to know the real role Russert played in this case. Especially with the jurors stating how taken in they were by the Russert testimony. Fleischer testified he told Gregory, Russert testified that if Gregory would have known he would have told Russert. So either Fleischer lied, or Gregory is a crappy journalist, or Russert lied.
And finally for the political landscape:
  • Colin Powell's career in politics is done. Any further attempted run at higher office will be confronted with a what did you know and when did you know it about the real leaker, his deputy, Richard Armitage.
Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Monday, February 26, 2007

Fitz done in by the moonbats?

In discussions today over at JustOneMinute about the juror dismissal, the following was posted from roanoke in a comment:

This comment from Walton at Bloomberg-

``She did have contact with information related to this case,'' Walton said in court in Washington today. ``It wasn't intentional on her part, it was a misunderstanding of what I had been telling her throughout the trial.'' The juror had worked for decades as a print curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.


I immediately started wondering what she could be misunderstanding throughout the trial? The initial guess at JOM was that it was related to Plame being covert or not and how thats not at issue at the trial. But how does that jibe with coming into contact with information based on a misunderstanding of what the Judge's instructions?

My thoughts revolved around how the judge did not use staying away from the internet in his admonition about avoiding media coverage. This, despite the fact that in his own courtroom were "non-journalists" liveblogging the case.

I still think its unlikely that the dismissed juror was actively perusing FireDogLake, or other left y sites, but it remains a possiblity based on the wording of the judges description.

How deliciously ironic if a lefty moonbat was kicked off the jury because she visited a snark filled commentary at FireDogLake.

Whatever, the reason, I'm sure we will know soon what the specific reason for the dismissal was.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Fitz Call Your Psychiatrist!

For those of you who haven't been following the almost daily activities of everything Plame related over at JustOneMinute, you may not have known that Fitzgerald gave his closing arguments yesterday in the Libby trial.

As you may recall, has maintained in arguments before the press, the public, and the court that this is all about a small case of whether or not Libby lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury and that by doing so he obstructed the investigation. To use Fitzgeralds metaphor, "throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire". Despite this alleged obstruction, Fitzgerald has maintained that no crime was comitted with the outing of Valerie Plame's name, and has not charged anyone with such a crime, despite evidence that Richard Armitage (Colin Powell's number 2) was the "first to leak".

Fitzgerald reserved a majority of his closing time for the rebuttal phase, which comes after the defenses closing arguments (and therefore without chance for further rebuttal by the defense). The defense team, smelling something fishy, submitted an argument filled with case law to the judge warning him about issues with prosecutors who go far afield in the rebuttal phase of closing arguments (emphasis mine):

The Court has allotted each party three hours for its closing argument. The government intends to use one-third to one-half of its time for rebuttal. Although we do not suggest that the government will engage in deliberate impropriety, the length of its proposed rebuttal raises concern that it may reserve crucial contentions until that argument, when the defense will have no chance to respond. In light of this concern, we submit this brief to alert the Court and the government to the relevant principles that govern rebuttal argument.
Jeralyn Merrit liveblogged the closing at the Huffington Post, as well as the moonbats at FireDogLake, and if there psuedo transcripts are anything close to what Fitzgerald actually said, he has truly revealed himself as a Wilson apologist.

Some excerpts (all emphasis mine) from Merrit:
Fitz starts off yelling "Madness," referring to the defense closing arguments.

Without Tim Russert ever coming to court to testify, they could convict on the Tim Russert charges. If he got hit by a bus last month and died, and went to the great newsroom in the sky before trial, they could still convict by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

When a prosecutor tells you that you don't need to pay attention to what one of his witnesses testified to in the trial because it didn't matter if he was even alive anymore that is not a good sign to the nature of your case.

From the more complete (but full of moonbat snark) FDL:

Cathie Martin, one call or two calls, she knows that when she came back. Do you think for a moment, that the conversation that defendant described, I don't know if it's true, if it happened in front of Martin. She's very careful. When someone discussed NIE on July 8, she got nervous, she left the room, in part for that reason. When VP added NIE to talking point. She got nervous. When Wells asked her, you knew abotu Plame, It wasn't a huge revelation to me, but I knew it was huge deal that he disclosed it. SHe said, that's a big deal. You think she's going to sit there and listen to Libby talking abotu Wilson's wife? Everything corroborates taht it happened at end of call.

One more thing that corrborates. THe VP wrote week before that wife sent him on a junket. THe VP moves to number 1 talking point. You just think it's coincidence that Cheney was writing this.

There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the denfendant obstructed justice. That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

Fitzgerald is talking about the declassification of the NIE as if that was intertwined with Plame. He's equating pushing back against the lies Wilson was telling with the NIE as criminal activities similar to "outing" Plame. He's trying the "big case", the war itself.

Goes through why the NOvak thing doesn't work. Especially that He couldnt' have told Rove he learned of it from NOvak, too.

He picked someone high up in NBC. He picked someoen they woudl know he talked to.

If he had picked Woodward, he might have gotten lucky.

Remember situation. Interview. FBI interview Bond and colleagues there. WH had said Libby not involved.

Govt exhibit 20, govt guidlelines on dealing with Media.

No subpoena without express authorization from AG. If he can convince Agent Bond, "nothing here," it goes away. If he doesn't convince them to go to the AG for a subpoena. You know what, we would never hve heard Russert's conversation if he wasn't called at home. It could have been enough not to get the FBI to get AG to issue a subpoena. It could have worked if Russert never talked. When you look back, history always looks inevitable. They're talking about firing people. He had planted his feet. He had to come up with someone. He had to make sure to say, Russert, this is off the record.

Fitz is trying to lay a motive here. That Libby picked Russert because he knew that Fitzgerald would never be able to get a story out of him. This despite the fact that Russert told the FBI in the first call, and that no evidence was ever brought into the trial that Libby knows that the government can't force testimony from reporters (which it turns out they can).

The three things they don't want you to focus on. Unique, importance,anger.

We all remember unique. That's why a lot of the witnesses remembered stuff frm their conversation with Libby.

Libby said this was the FIRST TIME he had ever declassified something by virtue of talking to VP. It had never happened before, hadn't happened since.

Importance Remember the others things going on. He had ten conversation with nine people. He's asking Schmall about . He's monitoring Hardball. He's not watching other things. He's remembering Rove telling him. Why is that important? It goes into his brain, bc that's important. VP cuts out column, he makes note on Dowd column. One thing that's really important, Schmall told him, this is a big deal, every intell service, whether innocent or not, they could arrest, torture, kill them. If you're sitting ont eh beach as a 21 year old, and you say, what you did, that can get people killed. If someone brought to your attention, you could get some people killed, that better be important, certainly NSA to VP in time of war.

Fitz believes there was a conspiracy between Libby and the Vice President to protect the VP. Fitz believes the VP lied about the war and was using Libby to leak classified information (specifically the NIE). After an entire trial and investigation about how it wasn't important if Plame was covert enough, he throws in the "people killed" argument to ratchet up the rhetoric. He's figuratively screaming here, "Bush Lied! People Died!"

A great cartoon that sums up the prosecution's operating methods:

My Predictions for the trial.

It's a DC Jury, so most of them (all?) are democrats. The case is just not there for Fitz though. I predict acquital on the Cooper counts, hung jury on the Russert counts. Acquital on the obstruction counts.

Hard to predict jury decisions though.

The next phase will be the most fun to watch the moonbats on though. There are three possible outcomes for this case.

1. Libby is acquitted. The left will go nuts attributing to some sort of conspiracy. Background checks of the jurors will be sought. The media will have problems explaining to the public how although throughout the entire trial they have been predicting conviction Libby walked.

2. Libby is convicted. The left will be demanding Fitz to submitt impeachment referrals. They will demand that Libby is imprisoned before his appeals are through, they will call for John Conyers to start House hearings on the great conspiracy to out a covert agent in a time of war.

3. Hung Jury. The left will be demanding that Fitz retry the case.

In the case of 2 and 3, it will never happen. Fitz is done with this, despite his moonbattery. Any more perjury traps set by this prosecutor will be seen for what they are. The media will not testify to any memories with any conviction. The administration will say they had already been cleared by not being indicted the first time around. And Libby if convicted has nothing to lose but to wait out his time till January 19th, 20009 for the pardon that is sure to arrive.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Mmmm, Gimme Some Yellowcake

Ann puts things in context and wraps it all up with a nice little bow. Those of us who have followed this story since the beginning are aware of the fact that Wilson is a lying putz with something of a Walter Mitty complex, but Ann's column is a nice reminder that the Left's and the MSM's entire position is ridiculous:

Yellowcake and Yellow Journalism
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 02/07/2007 ET
Updated 02/07/2007 ET

To see how liberal history is created, you need to tune into the nut-cable stations and watch their coverage of the Scooter Libby trial. On MSNBC they're covering the trial like it's the Normandy Invasion, starring Elvis Presley, as told by Joseph Goebbels.

MSNBC's "reportage" consists of endless repetition of arbitrary assertions, half-truths and thoroughly debunked canards. No one else cares about the trial -- except presumably Scooter Libby -- so the passionate left is allowed to invent a liberal fable without correction.

Night after night, it is blithely asserted on "Hardball" that Wilson's trip to Niger debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein had been seeking enriched uranium from Niger.

As David Shuster reported last week: "Wilson goes and finds out that the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger is not accurate."

There have been massive investigations into this particular claim of "Ambassador" Joe Wilson, both here and in Britain. Nearly three years ago, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that this was not merely untrue, it was the opposite of the truth: Wilson's report actually bolstered the belief that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

"The panel found," as The Washington Post reported on July 10, "that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts." So you can see how a seasoned newsman like David Shuster might come to the exact opposite conclusion and then repeat this false conclusion on TV every night.

Wilson's unwritten "report" to a few CIA agents supported the suspicion that Saddam was seeking enriched uranium from Niger because, according to Wilson, the former prime minister of Niger told him that in 1999 Saddam had sent a delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. The only thing Niger has to trade is yellowcake. If Saddam was seeking to expand commercial relations with Niger, we can be fairly certain he wasn't trying to buy designer jeans, ready-to-assemble furniture or commemorative plates. He was seeking enriched uranium.

But Wilson simply accepted the assurances of the former prime minister of Niger that selling yellowcake to Saddam was the farthest thing from his mind. I give you my word as an African head of state.

Chris Matthews also repeatedly says that Bush's famous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address -- which liberals say was a LIE! a LIE! a despicable LIE! -- consisted of the claim that British intelligence said there was a "deal" for Saddam Hussein to buy enriched uranium from Niger.

Matthews huffily wonders aloud why Wilson's incorrect report didn't get into Bush's State of the Union address "rather than the president's claim of British intelligence that said there was a deal to buy uranium, which of course became one of the underpinnings of this administration's argument that we had to go to war with Iraq."

Considering how hysterical liberals were about Bush's "16 words," you'd think they'd have a vague recollection of what those words were and that they did not include the word "deal." What Bush said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Even if the British had been wrong, what Bush said was factually correct: In 2003, the British government believed that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. (Not "MSNBC factual," mind you. I mean "real factual.")

But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it.

But at MSNBC, it's not even an open question: That network alone has determined that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger. Actually one other person may still agree with MSNBC: a discredited, washed-up State Department hack who used his CIA flunky wife's petty influence to scrape up pity assignments. But even he won't say it on TV anymore.

Shuster excitedly reported: "We've already gotten testimony that, in fact, that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was based on forgeries that were so obvious that they were forgeries that officials said it would have only taken a few days for anybody to realize they were forgeries."

This is so wrong it's not even wrong. It's not 180 degrees off the truth -- it's more like 3 times 8, carry the 2, 540 degrees from the truth. Shuster has twisted Wilson's original lie into some Frankenstein monster lie you'd need Ross Perot with a handful of flow charts to map out in full.

During Wilson's massive media tour, he began telling reporters that he knew Saddam was not seeking yellowcake from Niger because the documents allegedly proving a deal were obvious forgeries.

Again, thanks to endless investigations, we now know that Wilson was lying: He never saw the forged documents. (Not only that, but Bush's statement was not based on the forged documents because no one ever believed them.)

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that Wilson was asked how he "could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Indeed, the United States didn't even receive the "obviously forged" documents until eight months after Wilson's trip to Niger!

Wilson admitted to the committee that he had "misspoken" to reporters about having seen the forged documents. Similarly, Cain "misspoke" when God inquired as to the whereabouts of his dead brother, Abel.

But on "Hardball," the forged documents that no one in the U.S. government saw until eight months after Wilson's trip now form the very impetus for the trip. A perfectly plausible theory, provided you have a working time machine at your disposal.

If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine.

Meanwhile, despite all of the evidence, the lies and distortions will continue ad infinitum in the MSM.

BTW, speaking of Chris Matthews and the recurring criticism that Bush is in a bubble, out of touch, etc, etc. Has anyone ever watched Matthew's Sunday program? I mean, it's just pure inside the beltway lefties week in and week out. They have zero perspective from outside the DC beltway and decide never to include an actual conservative. When Chris does his pundit vote at the end of each week on some topic or another, take a look at the faces... they're all Leftist inside-the-beltway reporters.

But Bush is the guy in the bubble. Methinks that a fish in a fishbowl also thinks that everyone outside of the bowl is trapped.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Little Russ to the Stand

As Russert heads to the witness stand, there was the following comment on JustOneMinute:

Time to lay down your bets on what Russert knew and when did he know it.
Well no time like the present.

I've been thinking about this and waffling in my own mind. There is a lot for Russert to lose here as well (although in the MSM media world as they know it, maybe not).

If, as TM theorizes, Russert's public "denials"---I didn't know her name, I didn't know she was an operative---is really just so much crap, isn't he going to look bad? I mean, in that case he let this man waiver under indictment for over a year, lose his prominent DC job, etc. He couldn't pick up the phone and call Fitz and say something to the effect of, "you know, we had that 20 minute interview in my lawyer's office, and you didn't ask this, this and this, which might be relevant"?

Or he didn't pick up the phone and call Wells, and tell them, "look I'll sign an affidavit that I did know from Mitchell and Gregory, some of the details"? That would give Fitz the chance to dismiss the charges before the trial.

If so, who would even talk to the man, much less go on his show? Why would the public watch the show ever again? MTP has been the "top dog" of the Sunday shows for a while that I remember, why throw that away by stonewalling on that stupid parsed denial.

If on the other hand, what Russert has said in his denial is true, unequivocally, doesn't he look like an idiot for not knowing when all the other reporters seem to as well? Is he just a stuffed shirt to get the questions read to him through his ear on TV?

My guess is that Russerts testimony is going to be a bunch of "to the best of my recollection" kind of stuff. He didn't know her name or operative status until Novak, but its possible they discussed Wilson and who sent him. It's even possible that he told Libby something that could be misconstrued, but he doesnt' remember exactly.

Of anybody in the media, I think Russert was the one hoping the most that this whole trial would just go away. I expect his testimony to hedge in any way possible.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Fitz call your office part 1672

If you aren't aware, Media Bloggers is liveblogging the Libby trial. For analysis go to Tom Maguire's site at JustOneMinute.

The latest doozy? The second prosecution witness, one of the ones that will confirm that Libby "knew" before he said he "knew". Isn't too sure now on his memory. In fact,

Robert Grenier, the second prosecution witness against Scooter Libby, testified that, although he had told the FBI and the grand jury that he really wasn’t sure whether he had mentioned to Libby that Joe Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, eventually came to “feel guilty” thinking “maybe I had revealed too much” and, over time, came to think he had probably mention that fact.

Not particularly compelling testimony, frankly.

Nope it isn't. This is why trying to get the "big fish" when there is no big fish to get, isn't a very smart prosecution tactic.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Novak tells the rest of the story

Drudge has a flash alerting us to Novak's upcoming column for tomorrow which will indicate that Richard Armitage's "coming out" as the initial source for the Plame Kerfuffle is not fully truthful.

The column is a real doozy. Let's dive right in (all emphasis mine).

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘‘thought’’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column

This further highlights the distance this whole issue has with Rove and Libby. Armitage at State was the first to talk about these issues, and was providing plenty of details about Valerie. This was not Cheney outing Plame to hurt Joe Wilson. This was State hitting back at Tenet at the CIA for being incompetent and sending a former ambassador out on a nepotistic wild goose chase.

But lets explore further. It just gets better.

A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historical path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me — summarily and with disdain, I thought.

Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson surfaced himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.

Wow. Almost like Armitage actually DID all the things that Rove was being accused of.

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission.

That's basically everything (minus the Who's who of the last name Plame) that's in Novak's column. Armitage outed Plame. All of it.

Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage’s current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was ‘‘no partisan gunslinger.’’

Seems that Armitage needed to know if he was in jeapordy or not, so he arranged through a patsy to find out if Novak was going to rat on him. Using Duberstein allowed for plausible deniability in case it ever got back that he was attempting to tamper with a witness. Seeing that Novak was being shy, Armitage had no choice but to go to Fitz himself with the inadequate "suddenly realized" story on Oct 1.

Armitage’s silence the next 2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald’s appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage’s tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.

This should bar Armitage from service in any department of the government under any administration. Any presidential campaign looking for foreign policy advice should not look towards Richard Armitage.

And the press should start asking questions of Colin Powell. Among the first, why did he obviously not let the Vice President or President know that their principal aides were being falsely accused in the press and by a out of control prosecutor? Why did he not immediately ask for his subordinate's resignation. Was Powell directing Armitage to leak the informaiton in a battle against State? Powell certainly felt Tenet had hung him out to dry with the WMD intelligence he touted before the UN Security council. So there was certainly motive.

Armitage should also immediately release any report anywhere from confidentiality regarding the Plame matter. Since he seems to forget every conversation that involves Plame (we know of now two, Woodward and Novak), his memory can't be relied upon. I'm willing to bet that Miller and Mitchell were also informed.

It looks like the White House didn't push this story - the State department did. As I believe at least one blogger on this site correctly identified oh so many years ago. It wasn't to refute Wilson, it was to highlight what idiots were in charge over at CIA.

In addition, Fitz should hang up his hat, and return to Chicago. There is no Al Capone to get on tax evasion. He is no Eliot Ness. Give it up and go home.


I note from Drudge that Valerie Wilson has now named Armitage in her lawsuit. She hasn't dropped Rove and Libby however.
By adding Armitage's name to the suit, Plame's lawyers set up a different scenario. They contend a White House conspiracy existed, but that Armitage's leak was independent of it.

Yeah, good luck with that....

Just One Minute (a great source for Plame-related material) is covering this story as well.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Armitage & the State Department

Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute has the best coverage of the Plame Kerfluffle, better coverage than what you'll get from the MSM and the Moonbats. Here is Tom's assessment of the latest revelation (along with some humorous jabs against David Corn) - that Armitage is likely Novak's original source - and provides references to the evidence provided by Fitzy from the Libby indictment:

Or from another tack - per the Newsweek story, Armitage learned about Ms. Plame from the famous INR memo, which did not mention her undercover background and named her as Valerie Wilson.

But Armitages's biography strongly suggest an intel background, so it seems fair to guess he had contacts in the intel community.

And by uncanny coincidence, Robert Grenier, a top CIA official who was heading the Iraq Issue group at the time, had a chat with Lewis Libby. This is from the indictment:
7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA [later revealed to be Grenier] to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
I don't think that Grenier was relying on the INR memo for the news that "Wilson's wife... was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip". But I do think that Grenier, as a top CIA guy, was a bureaucratically appropriate contact for a chap like Armitage. As a bonus, since he had been with the CIA forever I bet that Grenier met Ms. Plame back when she *was* Ms. Plame, and remembered her by that name rather than her more recent married name.

Just speculation, of course. But I bet that the Armitage story on display here is only the first fallback - at no other point in this story has he been candid or forthcoming about his role and I doubt he was in October 2003 (did he mention his Woodward chat to Powell, and did Powell urge a cover-up of that? I doubt it.)

Last bit of speculation - if (I say *IF*) the "Plame" name came to Novak via Armitage and Grenier, where did "Operative" come from in Novak's famous column?

Good question, and let me ask another - where did Andrea Mitchell get "operative" in her July 8, 2003 report? She attributes it to CIA sources in a story about who might get blamed for allowing the "16 Words" into the State of the union address:
MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Note that the Mitchell use of "covert operatives" actually predates the Novak column by six days.

For the record, I'd like to point out that Another Rovian Conspiracy stated last year that Novak's source was likely Colin Powell or someone close to him.

Meanwhile, the Moonbats hold out hope that it really was Rove or Cheney (HALLIBURTON!!!) that "outed" Plame. Curiously, their attention focuses on who first told Novak that Plame was an "undercover operative," instead of just the apparently innocuous (to the Moonbats) act of mentioning that Wilson was selected to go on the trip by his wife, an expert on counter-proliferation.

From FireDogLake's Something's Missing post:
Armitage may have told Novak and Woodward that Valerie was involved in some way in her husband’s selection as the CIA’s man-on-the-ground in Niger, but it appears, according to Isikoff at least, that he did not have knowledge at that point that she was a covert operative, which is an essential piece of the charging puzzle for Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution.
That is a whole lot of gray, isn’t it? But it does not explain the central question that we’ve all been trying to answer from day one on this: how did Bob Novak learn that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert operative?
What possible motivation could Scooter Libby have had to lie unless he was (a) having an attack of personal guilty conscience and trying to save his own ass or (b) more likely, trying to save someone else’s ass, namely Dick Cheney’s.

Amazing that they keep escalating their hopes & dreams to bigger and bigger fish while the story consistently points to Armitage as the first leaker, followed by reporters getting confirmation from a variety of sources about Plame's identity (including Who's Who and Rove).

And, the Moonbats don't like the fact that Armitage is the source (or perhaps even Powell) because neither of them fit into their "reality-based" view that there's a vast neocon conspiracy that has taken over our government.

However, here is the text from Novak's 2003 column and it's important to note that Novak uses the term "operative" often to describe people and did not call her "covert" in the original article:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Is there any hint that Novak thought that Plame was undercover in this story?

Keep reading Tom Maguire and disregard anything that the MSM or the Moonbats have to say on the subject. As I've said before, why do I know more about the Plame/Wilson matter than the MSM?

Here's a message to those at FDL (and I realize that it will likely go unheeded). When the facts become overwhelming, perhaps your "reality" isn't as real as you think. Don't pull a Jason Leopold...

Since I mentioned posts at both blogs, I sent a trackback link to both JustOneMinute (JOM) and FireDogLake (FDL). Now, as regular readers of this blog know, I'm intrigued by the censorship and authoritarian control imposed on comments and trackbacks by the Left side of the blogosphere (link to my most recent post on the subject). My trackback to JOM appeared within seconds, along with 7 other links which other bloggers had provided, giving JOM's readers the ability to branch out and obtain other points of view. My trackback link to FDL was successfully sent, but has not been added to the site. I know that they have to "approve" any links submitted and I don't know whether I'm still waiting in the approval queue or whether my link was deemed unacceptable. However, it's interesting that it seems like the right-side of the blogosphere seems to be more open to giving their readers a broader perspective (through unfiltered comments and trackbacks to other blogs) while the left-side of the blogosphere seems to be extremely interested in controlling what their readers see. How.... fascist.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Standing back up in the Rove case

On Friday, we commented on Marc Ash's Truthout post regarding how they were "standing down" from their previous reporting that Karl Rove had been indicted on May 13th. An excerpt from that post:

"Because, you know.... at some point, we just start to look stoooopid". At least, that's my translation of this post from Marc Ash at the soon to be defunct "". (How long can a blog go on when it refuses to admit that it was wrong and/or lied to and won't correct the record?)
Well apparently pretty long. As Marc teased in his Friday article, a "more comprehensive accounting of this matter" was to appear on Monday, May 19th.

Well last night at 6:59:47 [hey thats still a "business" hour on the West coast -ed], it arrived.

It starts out with a rather ominous tone, but they take a useful step in at least giving a hint as to their sources for their information:
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.
Got that? It's their report, to their readership. Isn't that the definition of any article by any definition? Or is Truthout trying to say with that sentence, that if you don't like how they report something, too bad.
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."
So that means no answer. No comment does not mean, "no comment with a wink".
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.
Or the alternative is that you didn't out anything and were fed a load of bull. Which you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
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.
Premature? Ahead of the news cycle again are we?
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.
06 cr 128 could be related to non-Karl Rove matters as well, since its sealed, you don't know what it says or what it involves. Fake but accurate does not rule the day. The fact that a sealed case exists, does NOT mean that it backs up your case. No matter how much you "point" to it.
And your sources, continuing to maintain their load of bull, does not indicate that you have more key facts. That's the same logic that Dan Rather used.
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.
How about, Luskin has no reason to lie, and in fact has every reason to tell the truth since his client is reportedly (according to you) a target of this investigation.

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.
Well, duh. Of course he doesn't have to issue a press conference telling you who he did or didn't indict. In his Libby indictment press conference he even said as much (emphasis mine):

QUESTION: I think you, kind of, answered this but I assume that you have no plans and don't even think you'd be allowed to issue a final report of any sort.

FITZGERALD: You're correct. But let me explain that.

I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

Continuing with Truthout:
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.
Twice? This is the first I've noticed that negotiations happened twice. Was this another marathon 14 hour session at a "locked down" Patton Boggs? Or was it something else?
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.
Those concessions being what? Come on, do some real reporting! What did Karl Rove promise to do? Flip on Cheney? Or something simpler like not discuss the ineptitude of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury questions.

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.

Or your sources could be lying to you again. Not sure what Karl Rove could provide in the way of documentation of Cheney's involvement, since it seems that thats already been documented with the "notes in the margin" document, that the left seems to think is grounds for impeachment.

Face it, you have more story, but not any new facts. And your sources very well could be pushing their own spin in order to tarnish someone who as we now know, does not face any criminal charges.

See JustOneMinute as well, here and here

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

The "Reality Based Community" goes through the 5 stages

Welcome Best Of The Web readers! Be sure to check out these other related posts:

Reading the firedoglake synopsis of the news of Karl Rove being cleared today, brings into mind a certain Simpson's episode. In the episode, Homer is told by Dr. Hibbert that he's got a terminal disease and will die soon and goes through the Five Stages of Grieving:
Dr. Hibbert: Now, a little death anxiety is normal. You can expect to go through five stages. The first is denial.
Homer: No way! Because I'm not dying!

Dr. Hibbert: The second is anger.
Homer: Why you little!

Dr. Hibbert: After that comes fear.
Homer: What's after fear? What's after fear?

Dr. Hibbert: Bargaining.
Homer: Doc, you gotta get me out of this! I'll make it worth your while!

Dr. Hibbert: Finally, acceptance.
Homer: Well, we all gotta go sometime.

In this single post at Firedoglake the reality based community as a whole is in different stages, but they are all there.

Let's tick them off as we go, shall we?

First a lot of DENIAL, such as this excerpt from Christy Hardin Smith at
I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.


Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Exactly. How many times has Gold Bars lied to the press in the past? Gazillions. And as Jeralyn and you note, all this probably means is that in the war between Rove and Cheney to see who can throw the other under Fitz’ bus, Rove most likely has the upper hand.

immanentize says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:36 am

It is as expected — Rove has cut a deal. I am very surprised Luskin used the “will not seek charges” against rather than the “will not seek any conviction/indictment” against. My guess is that there is some charge (maybe a misdemeanor?) already hanging over Rove. OR, there is a threat of serious indictment if he does not continue to cooperate. It is the only way to keep him on the leash. Unless, of course he is utterly innocent :~)

Zergle says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:37 am

Thank you Phoenix Woman @ #8. You took the letters right out of my fingers.

We have no information from any source other than Luskin. None. Are you willing to believe him outright? With no supporting evidence? None whatsoever?

Sure the statements may be true, but they could also be VERY selective about what facts are being revealed. Until the letter is provided (yeah right) or we can get confirmation of the specifics of this letter from someone other than Luskin, we’re basing everything on the statements of a lawyer for a spin-master.

Steve Clark says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am

The New York Times lost any credibility it had during Judy Millers “era’. This strikes me as a rovian reverse Leopold manuever.A phoney headline. I’ll believe it when I hear it from Fitz.

Jason Leopold is certainly still in denial

Second step - ANGER:
Jane S. says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:28 am

I guess David Shuster’s “tea leaves” were wrong and I won’t even bother to mention Leopold.

Mike says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:56 am

Beyond a reasonable doubt, we can now say Jason Leopold and Truthout are liars and can be banished forever to Wayne Madsen-land.

There is no greater crime than giving false hope to a liberal.

Mr. Leopold, I renounce thee.

Third, we have FEAR too:
GrandmaJ says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:30 am

Trying not to lose hope, but so far not working. I know that the work done at YearlyKos will be invaluable to all of us ‘down the road.’ And that the work, despite what happens this November, MUST continue. And I hope Busby runs again in November. We must keep after them.

but what this does do is allow Rove full freedom to campaign in his most nasty fullsomeness. And we should be watching the ’silver forks and spoons’ (votes) very carefully.

Jane S. says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:32 am

I agree with GrandmaJ–I worry that escaping this indictment will give Rove a feeling of invincibility and make him bolder still…

Fourth, BARGAINING (negotiating and hoping that this really will lead to an indictment of Cheney):
Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am


Has the grand jury been dismissed? No.

As Redd says, let’s wait for Fitz to actually do something before we take Gold Bars’ word at face value. And again, I suspect that what this really means is that Rove saved himself by offering up Cheney.

Zergle says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:43 am

Mrs. K8. I was thinking the same thing without the wire part. Though the wire makes sense. Dunno. Sounds good, but could be completely out of left field. Man, would I want to hear those tapes though. Wow.

Not knowing what’s really going on is just torture. Ultimately though, the point is that the investigation is ongoing. From what we DO know, it seems Cheney is in Fitz’s crosshairs. Though Rove going down would be sweet, it’s more important for Cheney to be dealt with.

Phoenix Woman says:
June 13th, 2006 at 5:51 am

Hey, I’ve been saying all along that this is now, and has been for the last year and a half or so, a battle between Rove’s camp and Cheney’s camp.

Here’s what I think has happened so far:

Cheney’s guy Libby fell, tried to take down Rove as a means of plea-bargaining his way out of an otherwise-assured prison sentence — and came damned near doing so (why else would Rove need to make five GJ appearances?). But Rove has at the last minute, to secure HIS freedom, promised Fitz to serve up Cheney.

Rove’s evil, but he’s not PNAC. Cheney is PNAC up to his eyeballs. I’ll gladly trade Rove to get Cheney.

And finally, the fifth step - ACCEPTANCE:
Agoraphobos says:
June 13th, 2006 at 6:16 am

In the indictments/convictions game, you win some, you lose some. Just think about Libby, Abramoff, Delay, Lay, and Skilling. Big conservative fish. They’re crooks. And the Plame affair isn’t over.

We just have to watch the Republican spin on this, because it’ll become the media’s take on it too. Their spin will be, Rove didn’t get indicted, he’s clean, the whole affair is over, we’re not corrupt, now we’re the ones who can be entrusted with power in this country because we’re clean. And Rove will definitely have the chutzpah to be out on the campaign circuit talking about how Republicans are virtuous and clean and the Democrats are a bunch of lying crooks.

You've got to love it... I knew that the rabid community at Fire Dog Lake wouldn't let us down.

Or, ala Homer: DOH!!!!!

**** UPDATE ***
Brainster (another of Jamie Allman's featured bloggers) pens the Night Before Fitzmas.

Your Co-Conspirators,
ARC: Brian & St Wendeler

Strike Three for Leopold & TruthOut

*** update ***
Firedog Lake posters/commenters react and go through the 5 stages of grieving right before our eyes!

And TalkLeft echoes my call for Jason Leopold to disclose his sources. Perhaps he will? (won't hold my breath.)


After I called out Jason Leopold on Saturday (link also contains chronology of coverage here), asking him to identify the sources that totally ruined his credibility, he decided instead to stand in the batters box and face the pitcher yet again, writing this post about Sealed v. Sealed. Here are the pertinent bits:
Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

True, the grand jury in the CIA leak case also meets to hear evidence on other federal criminal cases, including at least one other high-profile case - crimes related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

So, since the grand jury has a Sealed v. Sealed indictment, IT MUST BE ROVE! HALLIBURTON!!! (Nevermind that the same grand jury is hearing the Abramoff case...)

Read the whole post as it's quite entertaining, especially in light of this article in today's NY Times. (I don't quote the NYTimes often, but I'll make an exception in this case.)
June 13, 2006
Rove Won't Be Charged in C.I.A. Leak Case

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

So, Jason... Once again. Who were your sources that fed you a line of b.s. in order to ruin your credibility. Sure, you got some traffic and noteriety - but it was the wrong kind of noteriety. Your name is mud in the blogosphere now - unless you take the one step that the MSM is loathe to do and that the blogosphere demands of itself and of the MSM: reveal your sources and correct the record.

We'll be waiting. It's strike three and what you do now will determine whether the coach will send you back up to the plate.

Oh, and just for the record, it's great that this Rovian Conspiracy to insert rumors into the wild-eyed and tin-foil-hatted community has produced such outstanding results.

*** Note to Kossacks and the other Moonbats ***

Moonbats react to the news

Note that this hasn't been posted on DailyKos, but we will provide their reaction when it comes in. Perhaps the "reality based community" won't even post on the topic or instead spin it as a "moral victory" since they tied up Rove for the last couple of years dealing with Fitgerald. Unfortunately for them, it didn't have an impact on the 2004 election and it's unlikely that it'll have an impact on the 2006 midterms. But it still was a moral victory, damnit!! HALLIBURTON!!!!!

*** Other Bloggers Covering ***
Sister Toldjah
The Commissar at Politburo Diktat
Move On & Shut Up (If only they would, my friend... if only they would)
Brian at Iowa Voice
AllahPundit at Hot Air
Stop the ACLU
ScrappleFace has some fun
Just One Minute - Your one stop shop
Gateway Pundit - No Frog March!!!
HotAir - Let the gloating begin

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler