« Escalation already missing benchmarks | Main | Why We All Need To Store Food And Water »

February 17, 2007

Comments

Jodi, per Jeff: "You have proven yourself to be an utterly dishonorable person by your own standards."

Tokyo Rose in the house.

Jeff,

I just refreshed up to 3:35. Of course I haven't heard the last from Fitz, but as of now, I would say the Government hasn't proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I think that you and John and many others are confused as to the issues in the trial. As to the evidence presented. As to the testimony recieved.

You and John can call me names but it doesn't change what is in the record.

I can't speak for the jury and again the summations are currently going on, but I would vote not guilty because the Government hasn't proved its case.

But to come back to what you are saying. Jeff, you and Marcy speak very well, but your arguments are not in that courtroom. I think that they don't meet the evidentiary requirments or maybe Fitz isn't as smart as you are.

Perhaps you would want to avail yourself of the mailing address, email address and phone number of the Justice Department that I posted above? A cocerned citizen would do that if he thought there was a crime.

Wow, great final drive by Wells. It was like that last near half court jump shot getting in, 3 points! But the Govt now has the ball and time on the clock. Can they score? The Libby bench is up and chanting D! D! D! D!

I got to go to lunch Jeff. The chuck wagon gang is going by now.
This evening, I will get back to you all.

Jodi - This is chess, not basketball. Don't you you see that you've painted yourself into a corner? You can't have it both ways. Note the sentence in bold.

READ ... THINK ... REPLY

[Jeff:] For instance, for the purposes of the trial, you seem to be convinced that Libby just suffered from a poor memory. Ok, fair enough. So does that mean you do believe in fact that he knew about Plame's CIA employment before he purportedly heard about it from Russert on July 10, 2003? And that he had learned from multiple government, official sources, not from reporters? And that he in fact told Judith Miller on July 8th that Plame worked at the CIA, on the basis of that officially gained knowledge? And that he knew at that time that his boss, VP Cheney, had told him that Plame worked at CPD, that is, the Counterproliferation Division - the significance of which is, as Libby would know, that CPD is on the clandestine side of the CIA (the Directorate of Operations) where there was a much greater likelihood that the individual was under cover than is she worked on the DI side of the Agency, making it that much more incumbent on officials like Libby and Cheney to find out to be sure before dealing the information out?

Jodi

Truly your only options now are to plead stupidity or bad faith. Let me be as clear as I can, though I thought I've been pretty clear about this: my fundamental interest is in understanding what happened, not simply in seeing what prosecutable crimes have been committed. I have not limited myself to discussing narrowly the issues in the trial, though I am interested in those. Thus it makes no sense for you to say that my arguments don't fit the evidentiary standards of the courtroom. Once again, I am interested in what happened, not merely in the outcome of this trial. I defy you to find one word from me suggesting otherwise. Really, do it, find a single thing that I have said that fits your attempted criticisms of me. Show me where I am confused about the issues at trial - concretely, with examples and facts.

You're not going to be able to do it. Because once you are pressed on your ludicrous, vague and frivolous accusations, they fall apart and you back away from them, for lack of evidence.

Show me where I am confused about the evidence at trial. Show me where I am confused about the testimony.

But you're not going to be able to do this any more than you're able to answer the straightforward, relevant questions I posed to you. Which you still seemed to promise you would get back to, but never did.

And by the way, you're gradually revealing yourself to be not nearly the sympathizer with the overall views of most people here that you initially passed yourself off as. In fact, you sound remarkably familiar.

Jeff,
it is my best considered opinion that you don't really know what happened. The person best able to find out what happened is Fitzgerald with the powers of the law backing him. Supoenas, Glocks, Steel cuffs, iron bars, reinforced concrete, 2 and 3 inch plexi-glass, GrandJuries, Depositions, FBI agents, US Marshals.
So I am essentially ignoring anything other than what Fitzgerald has brought to the table. The rest of it is just supposition.

There is no indictment of anyone on outing a CIA agent! There is no indictment of Cheney or Rove or even Laura Bush.

That much I am sure of.

ok, I am back. A good day of work!
I have read the final thrust by Fitz, but
wait! It seems that the game is extended. Or overtime. Not sure.

So I guess what I have said will have to start at lunch tomorrow.

I can't predict what will happen. I see mostly problems on both sides of the summations.
That is why lawyers don't empanel technical people.

Jeff,
not sure what you are talking about on the revealing bit, but I will help you out with a quick list of what I think. You let me know if you have ever found where I represented my self in another way. Please.

Plame case and Libby trial - turns out to be much about nothing but I wasn't sure until the trial. I had suspected it though.
Iraq - on going there, I was luke warm. Since 4 weeks after we did go there, I would impeach Bush. Drop Cheney head first into a deep narrow hole.
Social Security - Bush would destroy it.
Afghanistan - ok, but Iraq is draining our success.
Iran - I don't get why we can't talk to our enemies. We talked to Russia. We tried for years to get China to talk to us, and were so happy when they did.
North Korea - not quite the same as Iran, since there is a madman, but maybe we just need a 2 inch piece of plexiglass between us while we talk, since he might pull out an axe.
Gay marriage - no, but Civil unions - yes
Abortion - no 3rd trimester without some medical reason, no partial birth, otherwise OK.
Affirmative Action - No, it has become Reverse Discrimination
Stem Cells - I don't know.
Global Warming - I'm with Michael Crichton. He is far more sensible than the idiot Gore.
The two Presidential Elections I voted in.
2000 - Bush
2004 - Kerry (though I despise him)
2008 -
Best Democrat for President- I think Edwards but he needs to ditch those 2 witches.
Best Republican for President -damn! Where are the conservatives? Did they all die? Maybe someone will show up? They say Newt Gingrich might eventually run. My family likes him. He came from a military family, moved around a lot, degreed a lot, ...
Advocated balanced budget, and many other good things
He has personal problems though, but all of them do.

Water, food - yes stock up. Get youself a survival manual.

Any other questions on subjects, glad to give you my opinion Jeff. I'm a open book.

obsessed, say something. Don't just parrot Jeff.

Jodi, you are a buffoon completely incapable of engaging in a cogent retorts to the very clear, pointed questions Jeff has been asking you. I laugh inspite of myself at how pathetically you expose yourself to be a shallow sideline critic about a trial you have absolutely no knowledge about, which is ironic seeing as you swing over to this blog every free second you get (talk about getting a life). I wouldn't be surprised if you've never even read any of EW's posts but instead swing on down to read the commments. I don't even have to look anymore at who's name will be there below the comments. You're so predictable I can tell by your first sentence who it is and my response is always, "oh no, not her again". You are a tragic comedy and even those must end at some point.

Jodi - I read this blog because I'm interested in reading intelligent discussion about what really happened with Plame, Niger, Iraq, etc. I'm asking you to respond to the verbatim passage I quoted from Jeff's original post so I can then read his response.

Do you understand now? I want you to respond to every point in that post, and THEN make whatever points you wish to make, to which he will then respond and make further points of his own. In the process, we all might learn something.

It's called civil discourse, and you're not doing it. You're making a joke out of it and acting like a 4-year old.

Jodi

This

So I am essentially ignoring anything other than what Fitzgerald has brought to the table. The rest of it is just supposition

is both epistemologically bizarre and a dodge. To divide information about the case into what Fitzgerald has brought to the table and supposition is just silly.

But more importantly, it's just an unserious dodge. Every single question I posed to you is based on the information Fitzgerald has brought to the table.

But you know what? You've made perfectly plain you have no intention in engaging in any discussion aimed at knowledge as objective as possible. You are just looking to score cheap points. To be honest, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone as incapable of justifying their positions as you. But I suppose that's because you're actually not at all even interested in doing so. Enjoy.

Jeff,

then I have given you my opinion on every single question since you say it is the same as Fitz has brought up in the trial.

Hope you are satisified.

Jodi, you trivialist, you truly argue like an eleven-year-old. Answer these questions, which all are based on the information Fitzgerald has brought to the table. Answer the questions, don't yet again give me your opinion about the trial, that's not what I'm asking you, and that's not how you limited what you were willing to pay attention to.

For the purposes of the trial, you seem to be convinced that Libby just suffered from a poor memory. Ok, fair enough. So does that mean you do believe in fact that he knew about Plame's CIA employment before he purportedly heard about it from Russert on July 10, 2003? And that he had learned from multiple government, official sources, not from reporters? And that he in fact told Judith Miller on July 8th that Plame worked at the CIA, on the basis of that officially gained knowledge? And that he knew at that time that his boss, VP Cheney, had told him that Plame worked at CPD, that is, the Counterproliferation Division - the significance of which is, as Libby would know, that CPD is on the clandestine side of the CIA (the Directorate of Operations) where there was a much greater likelihood that the individual was under cover than is she worked on the DI side of the Agency, making it that much more incumbent on officials like Libby and Cheney to find out to be sure before dealing the information out?

And don't act like an eleven-year-old.

jodi is a "Matadore of truth"

she can dodge out of the way of that charging bull every time

can you see her yet, waving her cape in front of the truth, and then dodging away at the last minute ???

did that fix the open tag ???

Jeff,

I have answered before. I personally don't know the answers to all those questions, and I dare to say that you don't either. That is why I await the verdict of the jury. (It is the way our system is set up.)

freepatriot,

let me say that I appreciate the changing of your tone, and have a lot more respect for you. Needless to say, we still don't agree.

Freepatriot's tone may have changed but his message is still the same -- cognitive dissonance as practiced by none other than our resident village idiot, you guessed it -- JODI!! Bob Barker please give the girl a prize.

Jodi,

Affirmative answers would appear to be the positions you are compelled to adopt given what else you believe. I also asked you what you believe, not what you know. And you're incorrect that our system is set up to gain knowledge only through trials. In fact, trials are not about generating knowledge per se, they are about determining criminal responsibility, though we may gain knowledge in the process, as we have here. We have other mechanisms for knowledge too. But in any case, you're dodging too because all of the things I asked your belief about are things that have been disclosed by Fitzgerald.

You're just a dodger, and a dishonest flak for faux objectivity. It's disappointing that you're so incapable of having an honest discussion.

It's actually sort of pitiful.

Hey jodi, go fuck yourself

I never changed my tone. I just accept you as a joke, and a waste of skin, so I stopped wasting time responding to your delusional postings and evasive tactics

you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag

but you provide great comic relief

I don't repect you. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. My goal is to have people ignore your bullshit

try and dodge that one, you slimy piece of shit

Jeff,

I have answered all your questions. I am beginning to believe that your intent is only to keep saying that I haven't. For that I don't have an answer.

Still, I will express things in yet another way. The trial has brought together in one room talented men and women on each side to argue the issues and all the "introducible" evidence acceptable to our evidentiary standards for trials of this sort. And there is a judge to keep things fair as the matters go.

Only those things in that room are what I am going to consider since I don't have personal knowledge of any of the events. No, I will not consider what you say if it is not in that room.

Now given those parameters, I would say that the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" has not been met.

Still with the jury from DC, and certain happenings in the court room, and a non sequestered jury, I expect a verdict against Libby, or a hung jury.

I do expect him to do better on a retrial, or on appeal, but won't predict the outcome.

I still say that after looking at all the things that have been presented, that this case shouldn't have been brought, and probably was a ploy by the prosecution trying to stir the waters.

freepatriot,

you have restored my faith in you.

Only those things in that room are what I am going to consider since I don't have personal knowledge of any of the events.

False. You were more than happy to consider a variety of things before the trial, as your comments here before the trial amply attest. Furthermore, you don't have any personal knowledge of the trial either, so it's unclear what your purported evidentiary standard is. Furthermore, it's unclear why you are making judgments and not leaving it to the jury, by your own standards.

Furthermore, the questions I posed to you, as I have repeated numerous times, are all based on 1)evidence that has been brought forward at the trial; and 2)your own judgments that you have already announced. You seem not to have a response to that point, which I've made numerous times.

You arrived at your judgment that Libby probably suffered from a poor memory long before the jury ever entered the picture. But even if we stick with the trial, you believe Libby had a poor memory. That being the case, the implication would appear to be that you believe that in fact Libby's story was not accurate. That raises the probability that events in June-July 2003 went differently from how Libby recalled them in his grand jury testimony, and instead went the way other witnesses testified and the way other evidence presented has suggested. Yet you refuse to deal with the apparent implications of your own position. That is what my questions, which you refuse to answer, go to. I am basing them solely on evidence presented at trial. Look at the exhibits, and the testimony presented to witnesses. You have decided that Libby's story is inaccurate - albeit innocently inaccurate. You are therefore committed to the view that things went differently from how Libby recalled them. Based on the evidence presented at trial, what is your belief about the specific questions I asked you. Your refusal to answer makes no sense in light of your willingness to answer as to your belief about the nature of Libby's story.

In other words, you are making a number of false statements now, and I happen to believe they are deliberate lies.

Jeff,

before the trial there were many theories, and thoughts. It is like before a game. You have an idea of your opponent, your team, yourself. You have a strategy, a game plan. Then it is game time, and all that is besides the point.

Nothing before the trial matters now Jeff, at least until the next game (in this case a retrial).

A) Yes, I think Libby forgot somethings. I think also that he probably forgot too much, too consistently.
B) I think the reporters, Russert, the FBI did the same. The people I distrust the most from their testimony were the FBI agent, and Russert.

Weighing A and B, I personally come up with not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, beyond the trial for the case of a retrial (hung jury) I see that some people were not called, or approached by the Prosecutor. Why not, one asks?

Elsewhere (away from this totally dedicated site to hanging Libby)
1) I see that Walton was a good choice for Fitzgerald. He is a weak judge in the circuit. I saw that myself in the trial. An appealable record has been made.
2) I see that Fitzgerald brought up issues in his closing that were not allowed. (Again appealable.)
3) People wonder at what happened to Wells at the most critical time. On appeal, or retrial, he may be in better shape.

Again, on the mechanics of the trial, but with more statistics.

I think that Libby has approximately a 1/3 chance of acquital.
I think that Libby has approximately a 1/3 chance of a retrial.
I think that Libby has approximately a 1/3 chance of being found guilty on at least one count.
I think that on appeal he has at least a 1/2 chance of acquital.

Now that is just the mechanics of the trial.

In the jury room, now there is a different set of mechanics going on, a different set of dynamics.

There could be people there that have an agenda, one way or another. There could be people that are stubborn, or easily swayed. There could be people there that can take command of the jury by force of argument, or personality.

I still have in mind that this is a DC jury, a political case, and also a nonsequestered jury.

Jodi

I see it's just going to be impossible to get straight answers from you. It's weird the way you accuse the site of being totally dedicated to hanging Libby, and yet it's you who refuses to focus on anything other than the outcome of the trial, or sniping at others precisely for not focusing only on whether Libby hangs or not. But I guess consistency of thought, it should be obvious, is too much to ask.

Jeff,

you don't appear to be serious about a dialog.
Not sure what you are after.

I have tried to have a serious exchange of thoughts with you, but
you seem to be having some difficulty being able to look
at things evenly with your mindset, and accepting what
I personally think.

I have no difficulty accepting what you or this site is thinking,
and summarize it simply (in these final hours of this comedy, in the
Shakespearean sense,) that you want to hang Libby since
that is all this sordid affair seems now able to afford you.

I would ask you to think of his wife and children, but I know the
return. Still know I thought of it.

I have tried to have a serious exchange of thoughts with you

False. If you were, you would be happy to answer a series of straightforward, on-point questions insted of evading them continually. It's not that I won'd accept what you personally think, it's that you won't say what that is.

summarize it simply

No, as I have repeatedly emphasized, you caricature it and falsify it.

you want to hang Libby since
that is all this sordid affair seems now able to afford you.

False. As I have repeatedly emphasized, I am more interested in understanding what happened than in who goes to trial and who gets convicted, as interesting as those issues are. In fact, you are once again contradicting yourself: your criticism at the outset suggested people were wrong to imagine that Libby's legal fate was not all that was left.

I would ask you to think of his wife and children

Yes, it is a terrible thing every time someone gets injected into our criminal justice system, it is tragic, in this case as in others. This has been plain and in my thoughts throughout. You're perhaps a bit presumptuous or even sanctimonious in the way you evoke it.

Jeff,

Maybe you are serious. I will see.

Give me 10 simple questions, in numberical order. Preferably 1 line.

errata -numerical

Jodi

1. Do you believe that Libby knew that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA right before he had his conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003?
2. Do you believe that Libby knew of Wilson's wife's CIA employment already when he first heard about it from (or was aksed about it by) a reporter in July 2003?
3. Do you believe that Libby disclosed that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA to Judith Miller on July 8, 2003?
4. Do you believe that Libby learned of Plame's CIA employment from several government sources, and not from reporters?
5. Do you believe that Libby was aware when he spoke with Miller on July 8 that he had learned of Wilson's wife's CIA employment from several government sources?
6. Do you believe that Libby was aware when he spoke with Miller on July 8 that he had learned that WIlson's wife worked for the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the CIA from Vice President Cheney?
7. Do you believe that Libby forgot that Vice President Cheney had told him in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for CPD until he recalled it in the fall of 2003 upon seeing a note about their June conversation?
8. Do you believe that Vice President Cheney conveyed the concerns about WIlson's wife that he noted down on his copy of Joe Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed - most notably the information that WIlson's wife worked at the CIA - to Libby during the week of July 6-12?
9. Do you believe that Vice President Cheney, who instructed Libby to reach out to Miller on July 8 and leak the NIE to her, also instructed Libby to disclose to Miller the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?
10. If you believe Libby was told by Russert on July 10 or 11 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, do you believe that Libby was surprised by the information? (If you don't believe Russert told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in that conversation, this question is not applicable.)

Jeff,

I'll have to work on that. Back to you on Sat or Sun at latest.

Ok, looking forward to it.

Jeff,
I was going to answer it on the spot, but I noticed the 4 redundancies on July 8, and the 2 on July 10 and 11, and then the general whole month of July, as well as question 8, and thought to myself that I should check the testimony, because you might be setting up the questions in a tricky way..

I haven't done that yet. Maybe tomorrow when I have a little quiet.

But I will say "again" that I believe that when Libby was testifying the various times, he wanted to be consistent, and decided to zero in on Mr Russert's contact, which was notable to him, and say everything that he remembered happened then. Now between Mr Libby and Mr Russert, I would say, I don't have much faith in either's testimony as to Plame.

I won't dispute that in my own mind, it seems he should have remembered at least some of the other reported instances. But to be fair, we have to differentiate between ourselves and our jobs, and Mr Libby and his job.

There is testimony that said that Libby wan't very good at details other than his own plans and strategies. (I can relate to that.)

... and as I just explained to Muzzy, Libby's notes might not be necessarily be real instructive even to him in a consistent way.

Ok, looking forward to your answers.

Jeff,

I've got travel problems. Got to be somewhere and it isn't easy.

Hate to miss a deadline, but consider yourself rebooked.

Ok,
1 he might have known she was with CIA but not agent until Russert told him.
2 Of course he knew about in July 2003. See #1.
3 No generally, but more emphatically no as to covert agent
4 He heard it from many people before it was over, but Russert keyed him to the agent (covert) business on the 10, 11th or thereabouts
5 Probably not, he was there for leaking the NIE, and to cultivate a pretty journalist for this purpose
6 If CPD is covert, then emphatic no. If just CIA, then possible, but not sure
7 Again if CPD is covert, no. That note appears to be an anomoly(mistake) or forgotten.
8 Maybe after the 11th or 10th discussion with Russert
9 No on covert. Cheney is too smart for that, assuming he knew. On just the connection with trip, maybe.
10. Yes. Maybe he wasn't surprised about the CIA, but hte covert yes.

Sorry for the dealy Jeff, been busy, and travel has been hectic. Had to use a two rental vans finally to make sure people and equipment got there.

Jeff, remember the 3 possible verdicts some places. Innocent, Guilty behond reasonable doubt, and the fuzzy one (guilty possibly but not proven.)
I say that Libby falls in the fuzzy one, and since that show reasonable doubt, ergo, he is innocent.
And again that would show there are things that worry one, but I am going to err on the side on innocence if I err.

(Hope I didin't make mistake up there. Catching this at a break.)

Thanks for the responses. I'll be honest, Jodi, your answers don't make a lot of sense, and seem to reveal you are more interested in reaching a predetermined conclusion - saving Libby in some sense - than in thinking through the facts of the case.

For instance, you mostly seem intent on affirming that Libby did not know Plame was covert. Not only is there no contention I know of that Russert specifically disclosed to Libby that Plame was covert, but if he had, I think it would be easy to make the case that at that point Libby had a strong obligation to check it out to ensure that she was not before passing on any information about her. But beyond that, Libby could be in trouble for disclosing information about her received from government sources even if he did not specifically know whether she was covert or not.

And you appear to believe that Libby did or probably did know that Plame worked for the CIA before he heard it from a reporter, that he heard it from government sources, though oddly you don't seem to think Libby passed that information on to Miller on July 8, though I see no reason why you should deny that, given that you admit, contra Libby's story, that he knew about Plame at that point and that Miller gave testimony and has notes indicating that Libby told her.

So your answers seem to be ad hoc, jerryrigged and not very coherent.

But I take it you have acknowledged the main thing I believe, that Libby learned from government sources that Plame worked at the CIA before he ever heard it from reporters. That's enough for me, thanks.

And yes, it's totally possible that Libby will be found not guilty. Though as you suggest, our system doesn't have a verdict of innocent.

Jeff,

covert as I used it above means according to the law, not the vernacular in the CIA. A prosecutable crime according to that law with a number.

Frankly I think, with a DC jury, a man working high up for a despised Administration, and all the publicity, Mr Libby will be found guilty on 1 or more counts. On appeal he has a good chance.

(... but I have covered that before.)

Now I have always said that even though the people against him have memory problems of their own, or missing notes, and such, still he is one guy and they are 7 to 9 depending on how you count. That looks bad. So I am not saying that he did not talk to some of the people, I am only addressing his memory. And that is the real question.

Fitzgerald is trying to prove the incidents happened, and that ALSO Libby didn't forget.

Well, to prove the "didn't forget" has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, the interesting part will be soon over.
It as been interesting to me too. Learned a lot.

Been good talking to you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad