Jan 29 2007

Fitzgerald’s Folly IV

Published by at 8:29 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

Fitz is having an abysmal time trying to paint a picture of the Office of VP (OVP) and WH (President) on some mission of retribution against Wilson through Plame. Recall, these witnesses on now are the PROSECUTION’s witnesses. So when they get up and say ‘we worked on this matter heavily and had strategies laid out on what to do and – no – never a mention of getting Plame into the media’ you know Fitz is failing miserably. I really enjoy reading the leftwing Firedog Lake because, even as supposed legal experts of some kind, they keep missing the underlying premise of the indictment. If Libby was not part of some nefarious effort to punish Plame, he has no reason to hide his conversations. The fact Plame worked at the CIA is not enough since the indictment doesn’t claim that was the reason. So, while the lefties keep dreaming of Fitzmas treats dancing through their heads, the case for the prosecution lies in shreds.

Cathie Martin this morning

Wells [W]: I’d like to develop a demonstrative timeline Sunday July 6 until after publication of Novak article.

W: July 6, Joe’s article., July 7, you developed talking points–

M I didnt develop them for him, I had them and I just sent them to him.

W Sometime on July 7 WH admitted use of 16 words was a mistake

W: July 8, you meet with VP Cheney and others staffers at VP’s office on Hill. At that time Cheney personally dictates the talking points that he wants you to deliver wrt Wilson allegations. And also Andrea Mitchell goes on TV and reports that certain people at WH are saying CIA is at fault. If we go to Wednesday July 9 that is the day Matthews continues to severely criticize VP.

M He was reporting about this. I don’t recall that specifically.

W Now, if we go to July 10, you work on draft of Tenet statement, work late into the night. Do you recall what you were doing during the day?

M Following the story.

W July 11, you drafted talking points that would be used by Condi on Sunday shows.

M I assisted the press office to prepare Rice for her appearance on the Sunday shows.

…. (etc, etc)

W You recall that Novak’s article came out in press on Monday July 14. [Places that article up]

W Do you recall reading Mr. Novak’s article when it came out?

M Yes

W On July 15 you recall drafting a set of talking points to respond to Chris Matthews.

M I recall that I did it, I don’t recall the date. [Wells gives them to her] Yes, these are the talking points, we already thought the claims he was making had been disproved or rebutted and he wasn’t making any rebuttal.

W You’ve testified that you worked on four sets of talking points.

M Four sets, yeah.

Wells is going through to point out that none of the talking points includes a mention of Plame.


Wells is introducing all the talking points. July 7, July 8, July 12, July 14. [these are just the typed ones]

W to the respect that jurors want to understand in real time, those documents set forth what the talking points were. All those talking points respond to Joseph Wilson’s claims and none of those mention Valerie Wilson. Mr Libby reviewed these talking points with you.

W [Goes through Libby’s involvement in the July 12 talking points] Mr. Libby saw all of the talking points.

W From the entire period form July 6 through the conservative columnist luncheon, he never raised it with you and you didn’t raise it with him. You’re not aware of any evidence that the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was an important point.

Objection. Overruled.

M I’m not aware of any specific evidence that would suggest that.

W I asked you a question last week–I’m almost finished. See if I can find it. I asked you the following question. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out, you did not view “the wife” as part of that story. You answered “no,” I believe you meant “correct.” Let me put the question to you fresh. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out WRT VP’s response, you did not view “the wife” as part of that story. Correct?

M Correct.

All through this effort to respond to the press and no mention of Plame as part of that response. None. And was it Libby pushing to contact the media to get the goods on Plame out? Nope.

W It was your rec[ommendation] that Libby talk to Cooper.

M It was my recommendation that we a) decide whether we want to be in the story, and I recommended we should be in it.

W Libby followed your rec. Libby had not talked to Cooper in his life.

M Correct

Libby has to nagged, cajoled, pressured to talk to Matt Cooper. And this is the prosecution’s witness! Amazing. No strategy to get Plame – just the opposite. No effort by Libby to push the story – just the opposite. If it keeps going like this Fitz is in for a world of hurt. The left is obsessed with BDS – they have all but forgotten the indictment – intent to mislead the investigation. And that intent is supposedly driven by some conspiracy to out Plame as payback to Wilson. So far just the opposite has been established. Here is Fitz crashing in burning on re-direct:

F Is it fair to say that if anyone in OVP did talk to reporters about Wilson’s wife, they didn’t do it based on your talking points.

Objection sustained, I think.

F Did the VP every specifically tell you whether or not the whole truth included Mr Wilson’s wife. Did the VP ever show you copy of op-ed that he marked up personally. Did the VP keep you current on anything they were doing WRT the press–on everything.

M No

No “I have no independent recollection” or “I am not sure” – an unambiguous ‘no’. Fitz is FUBAR’d. All of this focus is well after the Harball episode and Libby’s discussion with Mathews. But even if Libby did misrecollect, everyone is going to wonder what this was all about when EVERYONE else was talking about Wilson and Plame. And Fitz has established Plame was not part of any broad media vendetta. I will glance over the Ari testimony, but he is tainted goods. He DID talk to the media and got a plea agreement. Libby is going to look like a champ in comparison. At no point did he hesitate to talk or try to get immunity or anything. Jurors know the difference between Libby and Fleischer. Fitz brought him on to add one more voice that Libby had discussions about Plame during this period. BFD, he admits as much. But he was not lawyered up like Ari. Fitz got little but paid a huge image price.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Fitzgerald’s Folly IV”

  1. stevevvs says:

    I feel sorry for you, really.

  2. Dc says:

    In response to Libby’s council’s request…Fitz responded thusly:
    “We have neither sought, much less obtained, ‘all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003”

    Fitz argued that even if they had them, they weren’t obligated to turn them over to the defense because they aren’t relevant to the charges in the case.

    Libby’s team asked for documents or proof that Fitz had concerning her undercover status in the last 5 years citing the case Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might point toward the defendant’s innocence.

    Here was Fitz’s response:
    “We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information.”

    This case has nothing to do with revealing classified info OR outing a covert agent.

  3. Dc says:

    I feel sorry for whomever gets Soothie as a juror!

  4. Bikerken says:

    Soot, (HT patrick, really fine shortening there)!

    Victoria Toensig was the principle drafter of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act which was the precise statute that the looney left claimed was violated. She has stated on many occaisions that Valerie Plame was not covered by this law for several reasons. She was not stationed overseas within the last five years, she was not an agent either, she was an analyst. She also worked at Langley, NOBODY who works at Langley is covered under this act because it only applies to people overseas and under cover and nobody under cover works at Langley! You’ve been reading crap written by people who don’t know what they are talking about and they listen to other people who don’t know what they are talking about to confirm it.
    Another thing, the referral you allude to from the FBI to the justice department, the original referral, has not been released. This has been requested many times by the Libby defense team to determine who was the person that started all this. The FBI will not release it because they are trying to cover their slimy asses. They don’t want anyone to know who sparked this fire, in my opinion because it would show that this was nothing but a political hit on the Bush administration from the start! The FBI doesn’t want that person to answer certain questions such as, “Was Valeries ID classified?” “Did she instigate this trip for her husband?” “Why was Mr. Wilson not required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is standard for this type of assignment?” “Wasn’t her husband an out-spoken political operative for the Kerry campaign?” “Don’t you see a bit of a political conflict of interest here?” “Was there a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or a reasonable belief that there was?” “If not, why the referall?”

    As much as I think this is quite possibly one of the stupidest, most politically driven cases ever brought before a court, I still think there is a probability that Libby will be wrongly convicted. We already know there are liberals on the jury, (don’t know how many) and liberals worship moral relativism. There is no right and wrong, only right and left. And if you are on the right, you are wrong. Just like the OJ jury, these people will disreguard everything told to them and vote to convict Libby because it will make them heroes down at the local Starbucks. They don’t care about the evidence, all they know is that Bush is evil and everyone in his administration is evil. Assuming that these dolts will do the right thing is highly naive. It was way evident in the jury selection process that most of them got their news from Chris Matthews or the daily Kos. This is part of the new wave of painting conservatism as a crime, BDS taken to the judicial level. I have no faith in an american jury today in any court case that has political overtones and is tried in an area where the jurors are most likely to be on one side or the other. Tom Delay is facing the same thing, he is going to court on a ridiculous charge in an area that is over eighty percent democrat. He could also be convicted on no evidence at all. If republicans were to do this, there would be howling from every newspaper in the land, but dems get a pass.

  5. BarbaraS says:

    What’s your source on this? This is merely a repetition of talking points promulgated by conservative pundits – and the government of the United States disagrees with you

    I believe the fact that she had twins around 1998 would preclude her being a NOC if she ever was such a thing. I can’t imagine a pregnant woman carrying twins would have the strength or will to be an undercover spy. Besides she was already outed by Aldrich Ames (as you liberals have been told over and over again) and also by the CIA to authorities in Cuba in 1997. So the recurring theme song you people sing is moot. She could not possibly be covered by the law against outing a CIA undercover agent since agents are not covered by this law after five years of being relieved of overseas duty.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Bikerken – have you had some serious falls/ Any closed head injuries?

    the Intelligence Identities Protection Act which was the precise statute that the looney left claimed was violated

    It was the Central Intelligence Agency which filed the criminal complaint, requsting an investigation to see whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act OR any other intelligence-related statutes were violated. Or – in your less than capable mind – is the CIA now part of the “looney left”?


    So, in response to my request for some authoritative source on Plame’s non-covert status – you reply that you

    can’t imagine a pregnant woman carrying triwns would have the strength or will to be an undercover spy

    Wow! Your imagination – that’s an AUTHORITATIVE source for sure.

  7. gumshoe says:

    Soothsayer = David Corn??

    this “blog thing” is catching on.

  8. Bikerken says:

    Soot, I absolutely do believe that some in the CIA are part of the looney left. There are also many in the justice dept and every other part of the federal govt. They are holdover Clintonistas who would do crazy things like putting documents in their pants to hide factss from the 911 commission. And they did not EVER file a criminal complaint. They file referrals to the justice dept quite often when one of their members is publicized in order to investigate whether a crime may have taken place. Most of these referrals are looked into and dropped. Some are actually prosecuted. It was congress that prodded the justice dept into appointing a special prosecuter who looked at the case, found out immediately who the real leaker was, (another member of the looney left), told him to be quite, and then decided to go on a fishing expedition to do some political damage to an administration who he already had a beef with. He is the one who filed charges not even related to the IIPA because after two years of investigations, all he could come up with were a few people whos recollections were different! There was no IIPA violation, if there was, he would have charged someone with it. So he picked the one he wanted the worst and said HIS bad memory was a lie. No matter how you try to twist this story, it is the story of some bush haters in the government who used their government positions to cause problems for the administration they hate. That is the fact of it. Even if Libby does get convicted by a bunch of leftist jurors, I think it will be overturned by a higher court or thrown out altogether.

    You Bush haters are delusional. You hear what you want to hear and believe what you want to believe, reality is never an issue. Most of you act like your fourteen years old.

  9. Soothsayer says:

    Even if Libby does get convicted by a bunch of leftist jurors, I think it will be overturned by a higher court or thrown out altogether.

    So let me get this straight, Ken:

    The CIA is a bunch of leftists looneys; the U.S. Justice Department, under conservative AG’s John Ashcroft Alberto Gonzales, appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by Republican Congress, are a bunch of leftist looneys; the jurors, selected by Libby’s defense team, are a bunch of leftists looneys.

    There’s a word for this, Bikerdude, and the WORD is paranoid schizophrenia. Stay off the roads and on your meds.

  10. Bikerken says:

    Soot, Ok, maybe you’re not fourteen, maybe twelve.

    This is how a child argues something they don’t have an intelligent response to-Take what was said and extrapolate that into an extreme statement that was not the point and respond to that instead.
    I never said they were ALL leftists. There certainly are many in those organizations because so many lifetime embedded government people are unionized beaureaucrats totally reliant on the democrat party. And a heck of a lot of them are bush haters. If you don’t believe that some people in government don’t occaissionally let their political leanings affect how they do their job, you would have to be a complete moron. So far you’re tone shows you to be well qualified for that position. You are a classic leftist, angry, rude, and stupid as a post. I always see you guys driving around town in a beat up old pinto with fifty bumper stickers on the back whining about how Bush is the cause of all the worlds ills. The truth is that maybe if you didn’t spend half your life smoking crack and took a shower once in a while, you might not be driving an old pinto.

    Soot, you’re out of your league here. You don’t have enough knowledge of the facts let alone enough intelligence to argue a point with any degree of credibility. All you have is anger. You really do sound just like a snotty ass teenager. Just about every statement you have made regarding this subject is distorted, tainted and factually incorrect and that has been pointed out by many on this blog. There are other sources of news out there other than Keith Oblerman and Priss Mathews. Grow up.

  11. BarbaraS says:

    Dumb or Dumber

    Wow! Your imagination – that’s an AUTHORITATIVE source for sure.

    Having had two children myself( but not twins) , I can vouch for my post. Have you had any experience in this field? Don’t knock it until you try it. And how authoritative do you want to get. I thought it was pretty basic myself. But then you refute and make fun of anything we state so what does it matter. You will never learn to think for yourself. You will always quote other deluded sources of like mind. It was the way you were educated after all and you will never change. Besides I didn’t say it was a “source”. As any idiot could tell it was an observation. But you couldn’t know that because that would require you to think.

  12. BarbaraS says:

    especially would like to hear, and probably will never hear, why Judith Miller was put in jail when Fitz already knew Armitage was the leaker.

    Judith Miller was put in jail to get even for telling that charity they were to be raided and for no other reason. Unless, of course, to extend this case so Fitz could make more money and have more power.

  13. BarbaraS says:

    Yup. It’s Ken all right. Same style. Same attitude. Welcome back, Ken. Astound us with your glittering intelligence.

  14. Soothsayer says:


    Two daughters. One’s an OB-GYN in Chicago; the other an attorney in Cleveland. Don’t lecture me on parenting, fool.

  15. BarbaraS says:

    Ah, but are you a woman? Did you actually carry them? That was my point. I wasn’t lecturing you on parenting. I only said being pregnant is no fun. In my experience a pregnant woman is all wrapped in being sick and also tired. Too sick and tired to be an undercover spy in a foreign country. To even think so boggles the mind and strains your credibility.

    But, be cheered. I won’t post to you again. I am sick and tired of you also. Like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, you are irrelevant.

  16. Soothsayer says:

    My daughter did her residency while pregnant – including working 120 hours a week for $30,000 a year. Valerie Plame’s “work” was not carrying out swashbuckling spy capers in the field; it was doing brain work analyzing source materials and talking to other weapons proliferation professionals under her cover as a Brewster Jennings employee.

  17. BarbaraS says:

    My daughter did her residency while pregnant – including working 120 hours a week for $30,000 a year.

    In other words you don’t understand what being pregnant is personally. And your daughter jeopardised the welfare of her baby for personal reasons. I don’t believe you.

    Valerie Plame’s “work” was not carrying out swashbuckling spy capers in the field; it was doing brain work analyzing source materials and talking to other weapons proliferation professionals under her cover as a Brewster Jennings employee.

    In other words, she was not a covert agent overseas.

    My work is done.

  18. Soothsayer says:

    I beg your pardon, BarbaraS:

    your daughter jeopardised the welfare of her baby for personal reasons.

    Uh, she was working in an OB-GYN ward, so I hardly think she was jeopardizing the welfare of her baby, who was born happy, healthy, and preternaturally bright.

    In other words, she was not a covert agent overseas

    In other words, you can’t comprehend what covert agents do for a living.

    You are done.