Archive for October, 2005
Oct 31, 2005 at 11:27 PM by Political Chase
I have finally gone through the indictment in detail. All the perjury and false statements are clear and concise. How Fitzgerald will go about proving them, I don’t know. I know that Libby kept copious notes, so I’m sure he has some of those to present. Then there’s Miller’s hand written notes - no doubts there. I’m sure part of the case will be based on what agents and others testify to, without benefit of evidence, but the other parts are too damning to make to take away the credibility of investigators’ testimonies.
Unless something has changed today that I am not aware of, Libby is planning the “selective memory” defense. It just will not work, based on his testimony alone. It is a double-edged sword - either way he’ll get sliced.
Repeatedly, Libby testifies that he made specific statements to reporters and others, and emphasized his content and selection of words.
Libby testifying about his conversation with Tim Russert:
And then he said, yeah - yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don’t know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn’t ask him anymore about it because I didn’t want to be digging in on him…
Testimony regarding Matt Cooper:
I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact.
Yes, that’s correct sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don’t know if it’s true. I was careful about that because amongst other things, I wanted to be clear I didn’t know Mr. Wilson.
Testimony about reporters (general):
Yes sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was - that’s what - that’s how I did it.
So I wanted to be clear they didn’t, they didn’t think it was me saying it. I didn’t know it was true I and wanted them to understand that.
Does it sound like Scooter has poor recall? It sounds like he planned on reporters not giving up their sources and it failed him.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:42 PM by Political Chase
There was a lot of speculation over the weekend on how the Bush administration would move forward. Specifically, would the president get rid of the old and bring in the new or stay the course, as we’ve heard for years. If the Veep’s appointments are indications of the future, it is more of the same. I’m not surprised.
This could also be an indication of how the criminal side of things will go…fight to the end. If so, Bush will attempt a strategy to recover that is in stark contrast to his predecessors, who were successful - Clinton, Reagan, et. al.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:33 PM by Political Chase
TalkLeft’s comments on David Addington in a post yesterday.
Murray Waas and Paul Singer, writing at the National Journal, have more on Cheney Counsel David Addington and his involvement in the Valerie Plame probe. They state that Addington did nothing criminally wrong. But, there are other issues.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller does not sound pleased with Addington, who has been mentioned in recent weeks as a likely replacement for Libby as Cheney’s Chief of Staff.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:14 PM by Political Chase
Info on David Addington from the Washington Post, October 18, 2005:
In the Bush White House, Cheney typically has operated secretly, relying on advice from a tight circle of longtime advisers, including Libby; David Addington, his counsel; and his wife, Lynne, and two children, including Liz, a top State Department official. But a former Cheney aide, who requested anonymity, said it is "implausible" that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame’s name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:07 PM by Political Chase
VP Dick Cheney has filled Scooter Libby’s position by promoting two people. David S Addingtion will become Chief of Staff and John P. Hannah will serve as deputy national security adviser.
Hannah was questioned in the investigation leading to Scooter Libby’s indictment. Following is an excerpt from a New York Times’ article (sub. req.) published on October 23, 2005.
The wrangling over the United Nations speech exposed long-simmering suspicions by some administration officials about the reliability of the C.I.A.’s intelligence on Iraq. A former intelligence official who previously worked with Mr. Libby said that his antipathy to the C.I.A. dated back at least 15 years, to the first Bush administration, when he was working under Mr. Wolfowitz at the Defense Department.
Mr. Libby was also part of the network of Iraq hawks within the administration. He is a protégé of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was perhaps the leading neoconservative in the administration until he left to head the World Bank. Mr. Libby’s deputy, John Hannah, had close ties to John R. Bolton, then the under secretary of state for arms control; David Wurmser, a Bolton aide who later joined Mr. Cheney’s office; and Robert Joseph, then the senior director for nonproliferation on the National Security Council.
Mr. Bolton is now ambassador to the United Nations, and Mr. Joseph has taken over as under secretary of state, where he has retained as his executive assistant Frederick Fleitz, a C.I.A. officer who had served as Mr. Bolton’s chief of staff. Some of those officials, including Mr. Hannah and Mr. Joseph, have been questioned in the leak case. [Emphasis added.]
Oct 31, 2005 at 8:07 PM by Political Chase
Some comments on nominee Samuel Alation from a law student (at the time) where Alito was a guest lecturer.
—–
Oct 31, 2005 at 7:48 PM by Political Chase
Some case history on Samuel Alito:
Alito wrote the majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display. Alito wrote:
"As our prior discussion of Lynch and Allegheny County illustrates, the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding holiday displays have been marked by fine line-drawing, and therefore it is not easy to determine whether particular displays satisfy the Court’s standards. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that city officials miscalculate and approve a display that is found by the federal courts to cross over the line is hardly proof of the officials’ bad faith."
A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her." Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito’s dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito’s reasoning.
A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.
A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), allowing an Iranian woman to seek asylum in the U.S. on gender persecution grounds.
A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), holding that the public school district’s anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), reinstating an administrative law judge’s ruling in favor of parents who claimed the school system’s failure to protect their child from bullying justified their placing him in a different high school.
A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996)(en banc). Alito would have required a plaintiff to meet a higher standard of evidence to survive a motion for summary judgement in a sex discrimination case, agreeing with a ruling by the 5th Circuit. Alito earlier wrote the majority opinion when the case was heard before a three-judge panel, expressing a preference for the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, but ruling according to 3rd Circuit precedent.
A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000), in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).
A dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a U.S. law banning private citizens from owning assault weapons violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in light of the then recently decided United States v. Lopez.
A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a state university need not hold a hearing before suspending a campus policeman without pay after he had been arrested on drug charges. The Supreme Court later agreed with Alito.
A dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986, 989 (3d Cir. 1997), arguing against a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority responded that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.”
Oct 31, 2005 at 3:52 PM by Political Chase
A brief bio on Samuel Alito —
Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.
Education:
Princeton University, A.B., 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985
Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1990 - present
Oct 31, 2005 at 1:21 PM by Political Chase
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court this morning. Often called Scalito, in reference to Justice Scalia, is a conservative judge that will challenge Justice Scalia in a race to the right.
—–
Oct 30, 2005 at 5:30 AM by Political Chase
I have painstakingly gone through most of Count One - Obstruction of Justice. While I’ve read the entire document, and am cognizant of the end in this drama, I have not studied each sentence in the other sections.
Based upon what I have read, it looks like Fitzgerald has done well (i) building his case, (ii) establishing a motive - more so than probably legally necessary, and (iii) paving a very good path for the future if he needs it. It is crystal clear what Libby knew, when he knew it, what he did, and why he did it. Now he just has to prove it.
I am not a lawyer - I cannot pass a professional opinion, but I have many years of experience dealing with legal, contractual, matters. At this point, I believe Fitzgerald is putting a ton of weight into motive; motive for a much larger picture. While Fitzgerald may not have all the evidence he needs to convict Libby and others for greater crimes, he definitely establishes the basis for what motivated Libby to lie and and expand that to obstruction.
Reading the indictment is like reading a novel or a script. This scandalous, corrupt, covert, agency-vs-agency drama is what comes out of Hollywood. It is a shame and disgrace that this originated from the White House.
That’s enough Op-Ed stuff for now…to some specific points of interest. These are bigger picture points; there are too many spy-vs-spy items to go through here.
It is abundantly clear that Libby was playing dirty pool. I caught a little news on TV today, and this cock and bull defense built on "memory loss" is going to make Libby look like a bigger liar than what is alleged in the indictment. His lawyer can’t put him on the witness stand. If he testifies, "My Cousin Vinny" would turn him inside out; God help him if Fitzgerald gets a shot at him.
This is all speculation on my part - my own opinions and beliefs. Nothing is intended to persuade the opinions of others and no accusations are made and should not be assumed.
Obstruction Section, Paragraph 5
On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote [sic] the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents. [Emphasis added.]
If not for the sanctity of the White House, where classified information can be discussed, complicity could be argued. It looks like this is where somebody, a senior White House official of long standing with a lot of publicity lately, probably flipped and removed themselves from the vice grip of Fitzgerald. And, there is the understood by default question - why was Joe Wilson being discussed and at this particular point in time?
Obstruction Section, Paragraph 13
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line. [Emphasis added.]
First emphasised point - who called whom? The second emphasised point - could one interpret that to be let me get off this phone and we’ll talk? If there was no intention to carry the conversation further, inclusive of classified information, why even mention the necessity of a non-secure line? Put me in that role and I would have said, "I cannot discuss that." End of conversation. Discussing classified information with a reporter - that doesn’t seem to fall into compliance with Title 18, Section 793.
Obstruction Section, Paragraph 14
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA. [Emphasis added.]
I’m sure everybody is aware of this item, but if not, the second count of talking over the table.
There’s one thing that is not clear to me…what level of classification does the White House Press Secretary have (if any)?
More later…
Oct 29, 2005 at 6:52 PM by Political Chase
Notice the first line of this headline. Was there a little more to Harriet’s nomination than we knew?
Oct 29, 2005 at 5:59 PM by Political Chase
I want to make note of a couple of things. I’m a bit behind and obviously have not given my thoughts on yesterday’s announcement, although you can probably get a preview from my post about John Tierney’s column. I charged into Tierney’s column this morning because I was anticipating the opportunity for a good debate. So, I will start that this afternoon. I don’t know yet whether it will be one piece or several posts as I work through things. Probably the latter.
Jeralynn Merrit, of TalkLeft, will be on CNN’s On the Story tonight at 7:00 pm EST. The show will air again on Sunday. She will also be on Reliable Sources - normal schedule 10:00 AM EST. If possible, watch the shows - Jeralynn’s sharp and the greater the viewing audience the better. Broadcast media is paying more attention to the blogging world and let’s contribute to future growth. We have a long wait for The New York Times - Schuzberg sees bloggers as irrelevant and asserters at best. One could look at that statement positively…he’s not going to talk up his competition.
Oct 29, 2005 at 4:49 PM by Political Chase
The New York Times needs an ignore option, like in an Internet chat room, allowing you to block dullards or those that are offensive and obnoxious. The obvious place to implement the feature is the Op-Ed section with a default setting on John Tierney.Tierney must have been writing his column for today’s edition while watching Patrick Fitzgerald yesterday; it’s obvious he wasn’t paying attention.
Tierney does not understand what obstruction of justice means and the significance of the crime. A nine-year-old child could grasp Fitzgerald’s politely obtuse explanation of the criminal charge. Maybe Tierney was out playing in the sand box with the six year olds from around the block.
The best news yesterday was what Fitzgerald didn’t do. He didn’t indict anyone for seemingly minor discrepancies in testimony. He didn’t indict on vague conspiracy charges. He didn’t indict anyone for leaking classified information.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald succinctly stated yesterday, that he was not able to get to the heart of the matter – the initial element of his investigation – because Scooter Libby lied creating a significant obstacle to gleaning the truth about the alleged crime. What is unclear about Fitzgerald’s statements that clearly indicate Scooter Libby’s perjury and false statements prevented revealing the facts, which quite likely was that Scooter Libby and others committed more serious crimes?
It’s critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.
But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn’t get out, it’s equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.
It’s especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they’re not so clear.
And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.
Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That’s why it’s essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate. I think what we see here today, when a vice president’s chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.
So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.
Carrying on further after the analogy of the baseball game:
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you; we haven’t charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime. I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.
So, what we have here is that Mr. Tierney, and others like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), does not or refuses to recognize and admit, that the crime remains unsolved because Scooter Libby obstructed justice, and maybe for his own protection. Violation of the Espionage Act and treason are high crimes. But according to Tierney, who obviously has more information than Fitzgerald (did he get it from Judy), there was no crime to investigate.
The leak was imagined to be a deliberate crime, part of an elaborate plot to cover up the administration’s efforts to hype prewar intelligence. But from the start there was always a much simpler explanation: that it was an accident by administration officials replying in kind to leaks from a critic. It was unrealistic to expect the investigation to yield any grand geopolitical lessons, and it didn’t.
Tierney is so far gone he can’t even profess stupidity to absolve himself of those statements.
The great dullard closes with:
For now we seem to have lucked out with Fitzgerald. He deserves credit for not trying to justify all his work with a rash of dubious indictments, and he’ll deserve more credit if he resists the temptation to drag this investigation out much longer. Enough is enough.
I can say Tierney is right about one thing. Enough is enough. My time would be better spent reading a Mad magazine, which would be far closer to reality than one of John Tierney’s rambling columns.
Click.
Oct 29, 2005 at 3:02 PM by Political Chase
A transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference has been added to the document library. Click here to download a copy.
Oct 29, 2005 at 11:32 AM by Political Chase
There’s nothing wrong with your eyes or memory; I changed the design of the site. I wanted to improve readability and change to something with a little more pizzazz and contemporary design.
If you have a few seconds to spare, I would like to know what you think about the changes, especially the legibility. Your comment can be private or public. If you want to make a private comment, click here. For public comments, just click the normal comment link at the bottom of this post.
Thanks for reading TPC and any comment you may have.
— David Pleasant
