by emptywheel
So here's what I've been thinking about while I wait on the jury (and reunite with my MilleniaLab, who missed me quite a bit). There's a potential smoking gun document that seems remarkably absent from any of the trial exhibits.
You see, as Libby has testified [big PDF] (and his lawyers reminded us over and over during their case), there are no notes from any of the conversations Libby had with any of the three reporters in question: Russert, Cooper, and Judy. So we can't just look at his notes, compare his notes with those of Matt Cooper and Judy Miller, to discern the truth. It's Libby's word versus Russert's word and Cooper and Judy's notes.
But there is a document from his July 8 conversation with Judy. Or at least, there should be.
You see, Libby testified in his Grand Jury that he talked through his talking points about Plame's identity from the NIE with Judy:
Q. Okay. And with, with -- was it your understanding that you would show the text of the relevant portions of the NIE to Judith Miller when you discussed it with the Vice President?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you in fact show those relevant portions of the text?
A. Talked it through with her and I think I gave it to her, showed it to her, an excerpt.
Q. Okay. And when you showed it to her did you let her read the relevant portions of the whole document or did you have a redacted version?
A. Oh, no, redacted.
Q. And did she get to keep the redacted copy?
A. I think I gave her a page which had bullets from it, not a Xerox of it but bullets of it, I think, where it was redacted and I think, I think what I showed her had country names omitted. It was less than what I had been authorized to share with her. (34-35)
Gosh, a document with the talking points he was authorized to share with her? That sure seems like it might substitute for notes of the conversation, huh? But then Fitzgerald asks Libby some questions about the production of this document that makes me wonder whether, well, it has mysteriously disappeared.
Q. Okay. Who created that document?
A. I did.
Q . Personally?
A. Yes. Well, you know, I, I didn't type it I don't suppose, but I directed it to be done.
Q. Okay. So do you know who would have typed it?
A. Well, if I didn't type it, then I assume it would have been Jenny Mayfield, my assistant.
Q. Do you type?
A. I do type.
Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?
A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job. (35)
Side question--I wonder if Fitzgerald still believes that Libby's "not big on e-mail," after having found 250 pages of emails that remarkably got lost in the subpoena process.
Q. Okay. And when you type, do you type at a word processor and print it out?
A. Yeah.
Q. In reviewing the documents for production for discovery or compliance with the subpoenas, have you ever seen a copy of the redacted document that you shared with Ms. Miller?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. Well, I'm not sure exactly what I shared but I think I have.
Q. And how long was the document in terms of pages?
A. A third of a page.
Q. And did you share that document with the Vice President prior to sharing it with Judith Miller?
A. No, sir. (35-36)
Huh. Libby gives a pretty specific description of this particular document. So it ought to be easy to pick out from a stack of documents produced in response to a subpoena. And Libby suggests its was typed up, meaning it ought to be on someone's hard drive. Unless I was right about someone nicking a hard drive to hide some evidence.
Now perhaps I'm asking for too much when I say I want to see this document. But it seems to me that, if there were a document that showed nothing but NIE bullet points, the Defense would have introduced it. And if there were a more detailed document about Valerie Plam-ay's WINPAC career, Fitzgerald would have produced it. But we've got nothing. In spite of the fact that we've seen a whole slew of OVP talking points generated during this period (and while you're at that link, notice how I did a short version of the weedy analysis Fitzgerald did during his closing the other day).
Now, before you say Libby's probably just mistaken--that this set of talking points never existed--consider what Judy had to say about that document.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn't think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.
"Reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket." Sure sounds like Libby "talked it through with her."
Libby and Judy agree about one thing. There was a document that contained the talking points Libby used that day. But neither one of them seems to have handed it over.
Emptywheel-
Do you think Fitz actually doesn't have it or may be saving it for later?
Posted by: cathy | February 22, 2007 at 14:10
cathy, let's hope Mr. Fitzgerald has the document ready to use in the next OVP indictment. I seriously doubt he's overlooked it. A male Marcy.
Posted by: Sally | February 22, 2007 at 14:17
I for one am curious about what inferential assumptions can be reasonably made about the grand jury testimony of Rove, Hadley and Armitage. Given your acumen at reading textual foreshadowing is there enough to make an attempt at this?
Oh, and the other question, a question about method really, is whether you have developed a critical taxonomy of deceit as it were so that spin and misdirection might be identified more specifically by label for the kind of obfuscation each such communication seeks to illicit? I know its a technical question but one that seems crucial in taking the general lessons of this episode into a critical method moving forward.
And one final observation, that really relates to the framing issues you raise with respect to Wells closing. In the end does it matter what Wells did came off smoothly. Perhaps all he needs to do is provide identication for the defense with say an insane relative. And the "who's your daddy" analysis merely reflects the foreground of a "victim/perpatrator" dichotomy where the goal of identification could have been in fact a kind of victim empathy. So in the end the rational assesment while valuable does not fully encompass the "wholism" of meaning any argument may in fact engage. From this light what Wells needed to do was merely touch (or should I say elicit) the potential in the make up of one juror. I suppose we could hope for a critical dedication to the rational in the deliberative process, but I suppose much is at play.
Posted by: J. Thomason | February 22, 2007 at 14:39
Freudian yes: the first "illicit" should in fact be "elicit" too.
Posted by: J. Thomason | February 22, 2007 at 14:44
Weren't there a few shredder tractor trailers outside the VP's house last year?
Posted by: Carolyn in Baltimore | February 22, 2007 at 14:55
J.Thomason: you are some smart "fellow," but I've always found that intuition works"a critical taxonomy of deceit as it were so that spin and misdirection might be identified more specifically by label for the kind of obfuscation each such communication seeks to illicit"quite well, and labels or markers along the way to a big Lie don't strengthen the impression of a big Lie. The WMD argument heard and seen by someone 900 miles south of Washington was seen as a Lie. The Grand Jury testimony of Libby reads like a series of Lies. Truth is a clear, bright thing, like a beam of sunshine coming out of a dark cloud. Patrick Fitzpatrick holds that beam in his hands.
Posted by: margaret | February 22, 2007 at 14:56
My compliments on a very thorough job.
I have a question, though...
Given the Fitzgerald closing argument which was so incredibly damaging to the VP, can Fitz NOT bring an indictment?
hizzhoner
Posted by: hizzhoner | February 22, 2007 at 14:56
As you've suggested, he might be saving Jenny Mayfield's testimony for later?
Posted by: jerry | February 22, 2007 at 15:02
Margaret: All I am getting at is that while a statement that "Iraq is seeking WMD" may be false there is an artful ploy in place in "saying British Intelligence has been told Iraq is seeking WMD", which maybe true in as so far as they had been told this but the the meaning could infer, or suggest or connotate a lie. It is lie wrapped in something that could be true. And this kind of misdirection is rife in the communications disseminated in this Plame matter. I would just like a way to name them more quickly. Inasmuch as emptywheel has been working with this material I just thought she may have come up with some critical tags as it were.
Posted by: J. Thomason | February 22, 2007 at 15:02
Or how do we characterize something like "a former hills staffer." What about this makes it dishonest? Yes it is misleading, but it is true. Maybe the tag is "true but misleading?" It is misleading because it points away from the fact that the "former hill staffer" is also COS of the VP. I don't know maybe the day of shopping attributions is over. But this is just another gambit in a quiver of disinformation methods.
Posted by: J. Thomason | February 22, 2007 at 15:14
Jerry
Yes, I was thinking of that myself. Jenny Mayfield would be witness to this document, if it were typed.
She certainly sounds like someone useful to flip, if it came to that. Not least, because (we learned at the trial) she was the one stamping everything with "treated as Top Secret/SCI," which would come back into play if Dick were ever indicted.
Posted by: emptywheel | February 22, 2007 at 15:19
EW,
Have you yet offered any speculation about what you think Cheney told investigators during his interview with them? Did Cheney tell the same story as Libby (remembered as if for the first time), or did he tell some other tall tale? Seems pretty clear that whatever Cheney (and, heck, maybe even Bush) said to investigators set off alarm bells for Fitz.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 22, 2007 at 15:38
ew,
I have a few semi-related observations. That June 12 (ha, 18) note looks like the talking points for the June 23rd leak to Miller. Also, it sure seems like Rove leaked Novak's article to Cooper. Finally, I want to know when they started saying Valerie Plame instead of Valerie Wilson. I believe the first known use of Plame is by Libby to Fleischer on July 7. Does anybody know of an earlier usage (besides the famous Who's Who article, of course)? I am starting to think that the key to unraveling the wider conspiracy is figuring out who connected Valerie Wilson, the CIA bureaucrat (as they supposed in June) to the covert operative named Valerie Plame. All the signs point to Cheney, but who told him?
Posted by: William Ockham | February 22, 2007 at 15:53
Ockham's razor-blade parsimony revealed;
George Tenet.
Posted by: Canuck Stuck in Muck | February 22, 2007 at 16:53
"she was the one stamping everything with 'treated as Top Secret/SCI,'"
EW, what is the significance of this stamp? I know it's not an official form of classification, just a way for Cheney/Libby to (obsessively) control information, but I don't remember if a specific misuse of this routine was discussed during the trial.
Posted by: kim/jerry | February 22, 2007 at 17:22
kim/jerry
They had stamped many of the most sensitive notes. I think Fitz was going to use it to support the obstruction charge, but somewhere along the way, either CIA or Team Libby objected successfully, bc they took all the stamps off.
But it'd be nice to ask Ms. Mayfield about, no?
Posted by: emptywheel | February 22, 2007 at 17:45
EW, one question that I've been meaning to ask was jogged into memory by your writing of this:
"Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?
A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.
Side question--I wonder if Fitzgerald still believes that Libby's "not big on e-mail," after having found 250 pages of emails that remarkably got lost in the subpoena process."
Just whose 250 pages of email are we talking about? Ever since I heard that Junya DOES NOT use email because of the potential legal discovery implications, I've often thought that Deadeye was the instigator of this policy, and of course, DOES NOT use email himself.
Deadeye's non-usage of email is probably a combination of both his proclivity to work in "hush-hush, Top Secret Whisper-mode" as well as a result of the legal discovery implications.
Lastly, based on Libby's GJ statement above, I suspect that he too has no "official" WH email account because of the legal discovery implications, and I wonder who else in that WH cesspool was part of the "can't use email" cabal?
Abu Gonzales? Karl Rove? Condi Rice?
Posted by: Mad Dogs | February 22, 2007 at 17:49
In the event of an appeal, will Fitzgerald handle it? I hope not because I would like for him to be free to handle the case against the person or persons who leaked CIA agents identities to the LATimes.
Posted by: Axey | February 22, 2007 at 19:02
Doesn't this indicate the government has this document, but did not use it except to show to Judy. It seems as though the defense didn't pick up on it? or am I missing what you are saying here?
If that is what he handed her and she testified to, it would seem to indicate that he has another case that he is saving that document for. Could he have used this in GJ testimony and not brought it to trial perhaps? Since he has her and novak in what seems to be perjury, he just turned scoot and novak, has judy up on perjury charges..... and we will see some serious trials that will make the watergate a hotel story.
or am I missing your point entirely?
Posted by: oldtree | February 22, 2007 at 19:17
Emptywheel--George Tenet rarely comes up in these discussions, but my feeling is that he made sure the investigation of this leak happened, and that he has some key testimony that will come back to haunt Cheney. Cheney and Libby stomped on his toes and bullied his people for a long time before this, and when he was made to fall on his sword for the 16 words that the VP muscled into the SOTU, he was PISSED. When they outed one of his people to cover up their culpability, the gloves came off, and he told the FBI everything he knew. I think Fitz has been saving him for the Cheney trial. What do you think?
Posted by: Heidi | February 22, 2007 at 19:32
How do you do that? You've taken the CompLit buzzwords "a close reading" to new heights. Amazing...
This would be a very, very destroyable document - being that those bullets probably include something like:
FlamePlame works at CIA in CPD. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger.Posted by: mickey | February 22, 2007 at 20:17
Cheney is not just the 'link' in the Plame Affair, but is also the *door* to 'big business'. He can't really afford to have us look too long or too closely, he has an interesting history, too many ties to dirty business deals etc, Pappy Bush, long and interesting ties to all sorts of people.
Cheney has been around for a long time, lots of secrets...
People are going to learn all sorts of things about Cheney and friends.
Yep, Merry Fritzmas.....
Jackie
Posted by: jackie | February 22, 2007 at 20:22
Joe Wilson - wife Valerie Flame Plame works at CIA in CPD. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger
That doesn't work in EW's scenario. The note would have to say WINPAC because that is what Miller had written down. It should be easily identifiable and since she didn't work there you wouldn't find too many with those words on it. If they didn't find one, then it must mean Libby destroyed it.
Posted by: Axey | February 22, 2007 at 20:29
Axie,
Good point. Close readers everywhere!
FlamePlame works at WINPAC. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger.Posted by: mickey | February 22, 2007 at 20:51
I was wondering about the WINPAC reference. It doesn't make sense unless you consider Libby was lying to Miller about where she worked. Like asking her to reference him as a former hill staffer, maybe he told Miller where she worked but asked her to instead refer to her as being employed in WINPAC. Then you have Vanity Fair claiming Alan Foley was her boss, which puts her squarely back at WINPAC, but at the trial you have a stipulation that she never worked in WINPAC. Very confusing.
Posted by: Axey | February 22, 2007 at 21:10
Ockham and Canuck stuck in Muck
I think it was Bolton, not Tenet. Bolton is the ultimate henchman, he was a plant of Cheney's in the NSA in close contact with other plants at the CIA, was a source for many of Judy's articles on WMD in the run-up to the war, and even visited her in jail around the same time she must have received Libby's aspen letter. My bet is that Cheney tasked him to get him info on "the wife" after Libby or Cathie Martin told him about her. Bolton got it to him (via Wurmser, NSA intercepts about Brewster Jennings--haven't figured this one out yet) and said "give it to Judy. She's our gal. Look what she did for us in selling Saddam's non-existent WMD and nuclear program." Next thing you know, she's at the St. Regis coffee shop for a 2 hour breakfast with Scooter and writing "Valerie Flame" in her notebook. That plan got foiled b/c the editors at the NY Times finally put a leash on Judy, Judy, Judy. The leak/article Cheney and Libby had hoped would be written by Judy then had to be disseminated more widely.
emptywheel
I agree with others above--perhaps Jenny Mayfield was kept in the wings for the grand finale as the one who typed up the missing document you write about
Posted by: Lisa | February 22, 2007 at 21:30
So...
Rather than a drive by, and inspired by Fitz's closing...
The thing that has always bothered me is why did they give a shit about the genesis of the trip? Why was Tenet's statement "unsatisfactory" (apparently a C-). What were Libby's lies and Rove's lies all about?
While the jury is busy putting up flip board pages... and post-it notes.... I think its important to stand back a bit and remember what we now know. Libby testified to the Grand Jury on in 2004 (march?,feb?)... and yet this was news at that time.
"Scooter and the vice president come out there loaded with crap from OSP, reams of information from Chalabi's people" on both terrorism and WMD, according to an ex-CIA analyst. One of the OVP's principal interlocutors was Alan Foley, director of the CIA's Nonproliferation Center. Cheney's office pelted Foley with questions about Iraq's nuclear weapons program-- especially about Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. According to a colleague, Foley "pushed back" by "stressing the implausibility of it." Months earlier...
And to this freakin' day that is what JOM/Tom's site actively supports. I mean the notion that the trip wasn't triggered by OVP. Thanks Clarice...
So what happened, at that point in time was that the whiff of codpiece was losing its Alure - because who among us did ask our compadres "Why did he use his weapons?... David said... "Maybe he is waiting till a real emergency?"
So - the reason Scoots and Shooter had their nuts in a bunch is because they didn't know where that AIPAC thing was going and they didn't tell Jr. about the UN deeming this whole thing was a crock (!) and they thought that maybe at least one thing from the "thought DIA" stovepipe might be true.
Woodward alluded to the desperate desperation of this in his book. So...
One question is... why was Libby so willing to cop to Cheney anger? (Pach, does that make sense to you?). I don't believe that for a minute.
Anyway. EW. Thanks for all you have done. This is the gift which will kkep giving. Sorry Karl.
Posted by: tryggth | February 22, 2007 at 23:24
axey--
pure speculation here... maybe scooter misleading judy about where VP worked was his way of providing himself with some extra protection in case he should need it. say he was still uneasy leaking a covert agent's name... by 'assigning' her to WINPAC he could reasonably claim he didn't know she was covert. not so with CPD where he'd have good reason to believe covert agents were working. WINPAC provides some weaseling space.
Posted by: irene | February 23, 2007 at 00:10
Is all this conjecture for a retrial?
Has something been announced?
Posted by: Jodi | February 23, 2007 at 01:50
OT: Marcy, I searched for a way to e-mail this to you directly, but couldn't find one, so I'll post here. Below my letter to Politics & Prose, and their response:
Dear Friends,
A GREAT new author has been in town "live-blogging" from the Scooter Libby trial. Her name is Marcy Wheeler, and her book, which came out only a week before the Libby trial, is titled Anatomy of Deceit. I hope P&P is carrying the book, and I hope you'll invite her for a book talk. She is really the foremost "authority" on the issues surrounding the Libby trial.
I have no connection with Marcy [other than a profound respect for her work]. You can read more of her work at the firedoglake.com blog. She writes under the screen name "emptywheel" [from MT Wheeler]. Her own blog is called The Next Hurrah.
The Libby trial has also brought to the fore the differences between "traidtional media" and the bloggers. This too might be an interesting topic for a talk.
I hope you are able to contact Marcy and have her at P&P. She really deserves the recognition, and the audience deserves to know of her work.
Thank you,
[Mauimom]
* * * * *
Dear [Mauimom],
Thanks for the heads-up. We have copies of the Anatomy of Deceit that should be in any day. Unfortunately our events schedule is thoroughly booked into June, so we have no slots to put Marcy into, but we'll display the book and do everything we can to promote it in the store. Thanks again, Barbara Meade
Posted by: Mauimom | February 23, 2007 at 03:01
I am starting to think that the key to unraveling the wider conspiracy is figuring out who connected Valerie Wilson, the CIA bureaucrat (as they supposed in June) to the covert operative named Valerie Plame. All the signs point to Cheney, but who told him?
my guess is that no one "told" them that WIlson's wife was a covert operative who used the name "Valerie Plame" -- rather, Cheney and Libby (and other people) knew a Valerie Plame who was pretty high up in the CIA's CPD bureaucracy concerned with Iraq's nuclear issues, and they knew that "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA... and someone made the connection for them -- and it would have been the kind of "lightbulb moment" that Libby would not have forgotten.
As for Judy's WINPAC note.... While CPD was part of the CIA's "operations" directorate, Valerie's primary duties were as an analyst. Scooter may have described Val in terms of an analyst, and Judy knows that WINPAC is the CIA analytical directorate, so she just wrote that down...
Posted by: p.lukasiak | February 23, 2007 at 07:44
Re: the WINPAC reference:
Pat explained it in his rebuttal summation. Libby had asked the CIA to find out about the trip for him after the Wilson Op Ed came out. They produced a memo describing the origins of the trip and where the information provided by Ambassador Wilson went.
One of the recipients of the Wilson findings was WINPAC. Since Scooter knew that Wilson's waife worked in the unit that sent him and since WINPAC was a recipient of the info Wilson brought back, it seems Scooter either conflated the two units or misunderstood that to mean that Valerie worked in WINPAC
Posted by: looseheadprop | February 23, 2007 at 07:57
Since Scooter knew that Wilson's waife worked in the unit that sent him
So Ari was lying about his conversation with Libby on the 7th when he said Libby told him she worked in CPD. No wonder the jury needed sticky notes. They won't be able to keep up with the lies being told otherwise. But to the theory that Libby conflated the two or confused where she worked, doesn't that scratch the theory that Libby, and ergo, Cheney, knew she was covert?
Posted by: Axey | February 23, 2007 at 09:14
pure speculation here... maybe scooter misleading judy about where VP worked was his way of providing himself with some extra protection in case he should need it.
Actually, that makes sense, if Scooter knew she was covert. But it still makes it odd he told Ari the day before she worked in CPD.
Posted by: Axey | February 23, 2007 at 09:17
and Judy knows that WINPAC is the CIA analytical directorate
Well, I'm sure Fitzgerald has it all figured out and we will know soon enough what his next step will be.
Posted by: Axey | February 23, 2007 at 09:19
Thanks for all the great coverage. I've fallen in love with your writing. Now after seeing you on youtube... Hubba Hubba!
Thanks all over again.
Posted by: Longtrailer | February 23, 2007 at 10:45
Hey Marcy -- was tossing around statutes this morning at FDL with Stephen Parrish re: classification/declassification and Espionage Act, when I ran across semi-related codes 18 USC 1030, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and 18 USC 2701, Stored Communications Act.
Which set me to wondering if a hard drive was nicked, wouldn't these two codes be more applicable than 18 USC 641 Theft of Government Property...?
Is it possible instead that the missing document to which you are referring is the stolen government property? Is there an angle related to greymail that might make it easier for Fitz to chase this as stolen property rather than applying any codes that would put the issue of authorization in play?
Food for thought.
Posted by: Rayne | February 23, 2007 at 11:14
Is it possible instead that the missing document to which you are referring is the stolen government property?
Whatever it is, remember that Fitzgerald said that no one was not forthcoming with documents.
Posted by: Jeff | February 23, 2007 at 11:19
Well, once again you've made for far more intrigue with your sleuthing into this whole case. As for the WINPAC CPD issue. Remember we have Scooter on record purposefully trying to cover his tracks and obscure things to reporters. One where he admits upfront to Judy that he wants the information to be sourced to "a former hill staffer". The other was discovered during the liveblogging session that emptywheel pointed out where he was talking to Pincus and iirc, he told Pincus an aide to the OVP requested info about the trip, instead of VP himself had these questions. So the fact that Judy wrote Winpac could have been another purposeful ploy by Libby to deliberately misplant info into the newsmedia to obscure. Perhaps Judy wrote WInpac because she knew he wanted her to use that instead of CPD if her editors ever let her write a story, yet verbally he may have told her she's really CPD. And Lastly these people are Straussian...who beside believing in perpetual war and using religious fervor to keep the masses in line, believed that the elite ruling class has the right and duty to lie and mis-disinform the masses.
Posted by: my too sense | February 23, 2007 at 11:33
Jeff
I'm not sure which reference you're talking about?
Posted by: emptywheel | February 23, 2007 at 11:57
Could you stop with infatuation/googly eyed flattery towards the Wheel please. I'm getting embarrassed in spite of myself for the poor girl. She's married fer cryin out loud. Give the lady some breathin room, geez! This is a poliblog, not a dating service. Have a li'l decorum. ;)
Posted by: greenhouse | February 23, 2007 at 12:08
hmmm ... now that I think of it, I've never actually seen greenhouse and Mr. Emptywheel in the same room at the same time ... hmmmm
Posted by: obsessed | February 23, 2007 at 12:27
All,
During the month of June 2003, all the references we have refer to Valerie Wilson (INR memo, handwritten notes from Cheney and Libby, etc.), but on July 7, Fleischer hears about Plame or Plam-ay. This is interesting because it sounds like Libby read the name somewhere rather than hearing about from somebody who knew how to pronounce it. On July 8th, Judith Miller writes "Flame" which indicates to me that Libby said Plame very smoothly. I conclude (simplest possible explanation and all that you know) between June 23 (when he talked to Miller about Wilson's wife) and July 7, Libby read the name Plame. Sometime between lunch on July 7 and breakfast on July 8, somebody told Libby how to pronounce the name. The prime suspect for that would be Richard B. Cheney, of course.
I think Libby told Miller WINPAC because he knew Miller would understand she was being used to out a covert officer if he had said CPD (Miller, at least, would have known the difference, even if Fleischer apparently didn't).
One other thing that bears on this discussion is the Libby-Addington conversation about finding out about somebody who works at the CIA and knowing if they are covert. I wish we knew when during leak weak (July 7-14) that conversation took place. I believe Addington narrowed it down to sometime after the 6th and before the 12th. I'm thinking the narrative went like this.
Libby gets the name of Joe Wilson from Grossman in early June. He digs around, looking for dirt. He finds out about Valerie Wilson from Grossman (and Schmall and Grenier, etc.). At this point, he may have thought she was an analyst (the INR folks, apparently due to key players being unavailable, didn't realize she was covert). I'll speculate that Libby pulled up a CIA directory and went looking for Valerie Wilson and couldn't find her. That probably upset Cheney who asked Hannah or Fleitz or somebody who told him she works in CPD. Libby then went back to the directory and looked up everybody named Valerie and matched up the home address with Joe Wilson's.
Don't forget that mid-June 2003 (I think it was the 17th), the CIA finally repudiated the whole sordid Niger story. I think that event was as important as Joe Wilson's op-ed in triggering the retaliation from the OVP. All of Cheney's talking points revolve around blaming the CIA for letting the Niger story get into the NIE.
Posted by: William Ockham | February 23, 2007 at 12:27
WO
We know precisely what day the Addington conversation happened--July 8. I'm not convinced we know whether it was before or after the Judy meeting, but if it was before it was between 7:35 and 8:30 AM.
Posted by: emptywheel | February 23, 2007 at 12:33
emptywheel, I've pointed out that Cheney's handwritten notes on the Joe Wilson editorial are in two columns: the three phrases on the left are proposed talking points for journalists, meant to walk them up to the point of 'asking' the classified question on the right: "...did his wife send him on a junket?"
From his own notes, it's clear that Cheney was contemplating advice on how journalists should be used. It's quite possible that whatever document Libby passed or showed to Miller on July 8th was developed out of Cheney's questions. Which is to say: if Fitz found that missing July 8th document (or found the person typing it to have a memory of it), and can demonstrate a connection to the talking points in Cheney's own handwriting from July 6th, we would certainly see an interesting case developing against the VP.
That might be highly wishful thinking. I don't think he found the document; it would be part of discovery. Could Fitz be reserving Mayfield for the coming case against Cheney? Perhaps, but mostly I wonder if early statements from Mayfield (perhaps she said something about typing Plame's name for Libby) may have contributed to Fitz's knowledge of Libby's July 8th breakfast meeting with Miller, as well as his determination to get her testimony.
Seems to me there are several little players in this story we haven't heard from, a few of whom no doubt contributed significant knowledge to the investigation. For all we know, Libby may be very curious about what Mayfield might have to say. Interesting to speculate why it wasn't in his interest to call her.
Posted by: QuickSilver | February 23, 2007 at 12:48
EW, In today's Note, there are links to three audio snippets from Libby's grand jury testimony. In the second one, Libby recounts how the VP dictated to him what to say to Time magazine. Libby says that he turned over those talking points to the investigation. Fitz enters them into evidence with the following numbers, as best I can make out:2892 and 2893.
You're rights as always, though. Where are the notes he prepared for Miller?
Posted by: lemondloulou | February 23, 2007 at 13:30
lemond
Yup, those have been a central piece of evidence at the trial. Any bets that Dick dictated the talking points for Libby, and that they look just the same, and that he burned that card?
Posted by: emptywheel | February 23, 2007 at 13:46
Thanks all.
Niave questions: Jenny Mayfield work(-ed/-s) for VP as:
secretary? executive assistant? typing pool?
on a desktop computer or laptop?
Does she still work in the West Wing?
How would you remove, steal, misplace, a computer:
laptop in briefcase? send it out for repair? replace hard drive?
RE: the handwritten date, does Libby's reference to it being"postdated" :
1.) mean the initial writing of what might be 18 or merely 8 or some other digit or
2.) the darker 2, forcefully marked or with different pencil/pen over the digit that may or may not be 8 and,
3.) does the "approximate" symbol, being also lighter, refer to first written date or "revised" date and,
4,) do either the digit 8 or 18 fit into a timeline of events?
silly, little things but....
The liveblogging as been heartening to us on the outside and these ruminations during the jury wait are intriguing...my only problem has been to catalog the nicknames in my brain so I don't lose the flow of logic. But the psychological effect of nicknames is reassuring, a kind of kindred spirits code. May you energy multiply...
Posted by: Palli | February 23, 2007 at 15:33
Speaking of missing documents.
How about the missing FBI document?
The missing witnesses that Fitzgerald didn't want to call, that might have helped Libby?
- Mitchell for example.
I didn't realize that the Defense can't question people that the
Prosecutor hasn't questioned if they decline to speak to the Defense.
... that doesn't seem fair in general.
I learned a lot about Jury trials in this case.
(... of course, the thought goes further - more than I ever wanted to.)
Posted by: Jodi | February 23, 2007 at 16:10
EW I think this is the reference Jeff is referring to
Posted by: pollyusa | February 23, 2007 at 16:43
EW--This is brilliant as usual.
Thinking out loud here. If Fitz has the document, why all the questions about who typed it, do you type, if you do type, do you do it on a wordprocesser. He asked for a description of the document which again is weird if you have the document. Also, he asks Judy, did Scooter have a piece of paper, why do you ask her, if you know he did and you have that piece of paper.
So I think he doesn't have it. On the audio, does Scooter sound nervous. Also, the idea that Cheney tells Libby to leak the NIE to Judy--tells him it's ok cause the Prez waved his wand--but that Cheney didn't see/dictate what he was going to tell Judy is laughable.
Posted by: Jane S. | February 23, 2007 at 17:07
A poster, Fedora, at FreeRepublic has one of the most complete posts about Plame's employment. (WINPAC or CPD) I have seen.
There is one reference that the guy at FreeRepublic did not have that I know of. It's in the forward to Wilson's book.
And this from Clarice. She contacted Foley, who headed up WINPAC in this period, about Plame and reported this response from Foley.
Posted by: pollyusa | February 23, 2007 at 17:21
These two conjectures look right to me:
William Ockham:
"Libby gets the name of Joe Wilson from Grossman in early June. He digs around, looking for dirt. He finds out about Valerie Wilson from Grossman (and Schmall and Grenier, etc.). At this point, he may have thought she was an analyst (the INR folks, apparently due to key players being unavailable, didn't realize she was covert). I'll speculate that Libby pulled up a CIA directory and went looking for Valerie Wilson and couldn't find her. That probably upset Cheney who asked Hannah or Fleitz or somebody who told him she works in CPD. Libby then went back to the directory and looked up everybody named Valerie and matched up the home address with Joe Wilson's."
p.lukasiac:
"my guess is that no one "told" them that WIlson's wife was a covert operative who used the name "Valerie Plame" -- rather, Cheney and Libby (and other people) knew a Valerie Plame who was pretty high up in the CIA's CPD bureaucracy concerned with Iraq's nuclear issues, and they knew that "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA... and someone made the connection for them -- and it would have been the kind of "lightbulb moment" that Libby would not have forgotten."
As I have speculated for some time, Valerie Plame might have been all too well known to Cheney and/or Libby before Spring 2003 - as "the good-looking blonde who keeps questioning our Iraq assets." What then was "new" in Spring 2003 was - "Ah! Ha! She's married to that Wilson guy! Oh SHIT! She must be telling him gobs on that Georgetown pillow they share. She is a CONTINUING THREAT, both to our past intel activities (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and future ones She must be SILENCED!"
This seems a lot sounder a motive for the dastardly and treasonous act of outing a covert CIA agent, as compared to "discrediting Joe Wilson." Sure they wanted to discredit Joe, but it was the source of his information - his wife - that really scared them. Ergo, she was the actual target of this caper.
Posted by: semiot | February 23, 2007 at 17:59
Note: In my above scenario I am not accusing Valerie Plame Wilson nor Joe Wilson of malfeasance in the use of classified information. What I am claiming is that the fear of "pillowtalk" is the way a guy married to Lynne Cheney is prone to think and act.
Posted by: semiot | February 23, 2007 at 18:20
As I have speculated for some time, Valerie Plame might have been all too well known to Cheney and/or Libby before Spring 2003 - as "the good-looking blonde who keeps questioning our Iraq assets." What then was "new" in Spring 2003 was - "Ah! Ha! She's married to that Wilson guy! Oh SHIT! She must be telling him gobs on that Georgetown pillow they share. She is a CONTINUING THREAT, both to our past intel activities (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and future ones She must be SILENCED!"
My sentiments exactly. Ever since I found out that Plame worked in WMD area, I assumed her outing was about getting her, not her husband. Or perhaps, killing two birds with one stone.
Posted by: eCAHNomics | February 23, 2007 at 18:59
Dana Priest just said something interesting on Washington Week which I don't recall hearing before, Matalin sent someone (probably Libby) an email in 2003 saying ~ 'why can't the President just wave his magic wand' re: declassifying the NIE (or the mystery declassification). Memories of this anyone?
Posted by: kim | February 23, 2007 at 21:07
kim ,
parts of the NIE had been leaked to the Press, and that was considered by the liberals/democrats as just plain wonderful, for it seemed to give creedence to what they had been saying.
The White House claims that they declassified some of the NIE so the other side of the story would be known.
Then the liberals/democrats and Press cried foul.
Posted by: Jodi | February 24, 2007 at 00:56
kim:
Mary Matalin's "need to get cable out declassified. P[resident] should wave his wand" is from Libby's notes of their July 10 phone call. It's at p. 43 of the first set of grand jury exhibits.
Posted by: Garrett | February 24, 2007 at 03:11
Palli,
Getting the hard drives would be child's play.
Remember that Cheney's office had "a little problem" with a Philipino spy/former marine on security duty? He was taking documents concerning the government of the Philipines (especially its President) and giving them to his buddies back home. Embarrassing. Possibly part of the reason why Ms Ralston is keeping a lower profile.
The FBI took all of the computers in the offices where he had been stationed and investigated them for tampering.
If they were logical, they would have copied the hard drives exactly on to new ones of the same size and replaced them into the machines before giving them back to the respective staffers. The computer user would never know it was a replacement drive AND the FBI would have the original drive in a carefully-labeled baggie in its evidence room. This is how *I* would conduct the investigation, but preservation of evidence isn't really a government specialty. I've also taken beasties apart, even though I'm only a computer artist, not a techie, so replacing a hard drive seems obvious to me.
If the hard drives in Cheney's office were preserved, Fitzgerald would have had little trouble accessing them before the deletion of emails and notes.
BTW, we still don't know where the 250 pages of emails came from. ;)
Posted by: hauksdottir | February 24, 2007 at 06:29
No, I didn't know about the previous VP security problem... for months my rage has blurred the details. Thanks. Ms Ralston is who? and again, Mayfield, is how close to Cheney, ..how old...how long has she been at WH?
Also, we have always assumed Valarie was the target because of the dogged defense Joe Wilson projects; patriotism, yes; morality, yes; but also intense, protective love. " No one, especially not these people, does this to my wife!" I know it from my parents and it's beautiful to see.
Posted by: Palli Davis Holubar | February 24, 2007 at 13:49
"parts of the NIE had been leaked to the Press, and that was considered by the liberals/democrats as just plain wonderful, for it seemed to give creedence to what they had been saying.
The White House claims that they declassified some of the NIE so the other side of the story would be known.
Then the liberals/democrats and Press cried foul."
Please provide links for these unsubstantiated assertions.
Posted by: John Casper | February 24, 2007 at 14:51
Since there are so many WH witnesses that we didn't hear from during Libby's trial, is there a probability that Fitz may be eyeing bringing charges of fraud (ala Elizabeth de la Vaga) of the WHIG group, among others, for the way this administration led the US into war?
Posted by: kspena | February 24, 2007 at 14:59
"I didn't realize that the Defense can't question people that the
Prosecutor hasn't questioned if they decline to speak to the Defense.
... that doesn't seem fair in general."
You've got it wrong. The defense can subpoena testimony, it just has to be relevant to the indictment. Your refusal to listen to the eight hours of Libby's GJ testimony adds to your ignorance of this case.
Your punk, Libby, refused to testify, because he remembered what happened to him in front of the Grand Jury. You conveniently ignore that particular fact.
Posted by: John Casper | February 24, 2007 at 15:00
John,
I think you must have forgotten about the NIE.
But, on the other matter, what couldn't the Defense suponea Mitchell? They wanted to. It went to the impeachment of Russert's testimony. They asked her to talk to them, but she refused.
Posted by: Jodi | February 25, 2007 at 00:15
No Jodi, I didn't forget about the NIE.
"parts of the NIE had been leaked to the Press, and that was considered by the liberals/democrats as just plain wonderful, for it seemed to give creedence to what they had been saying.
The White House claims that they declassified some of the NIE so the other side of the story would be known."
"Then the liberals/democrats and Press cried foul."
Jodi, I bolded the two sections that are unsubstantiated assertions. I have no idea whether I agree with you or not. You appear to be drawing conclusions, but I don't know the content from which you are drawing the conclusions. Please be specific. Provide links.
Jodi, your punk, Scooter, wouldn't testify. I suspect that had something to do with Walton's ruling about Mitchell, but I'm sure there was a lot more to it. If Walton had ruled in favor of Scooter wrt Mitchell's testimony, they would have called her. I agree with you, I don't think Russert was 100% accurate, but neither was Rove and he wasn't indicted either. You don't find swans swimming in the sewer.You're complaining about Mitchell, but why didn't Scooter call Rove or Cheney? Russert contradicted Scooter just like eight others did before him. Reasonable people, who listen to Scooter's eight hours of GJ testimony on the CSPAN link, aren't going to care about Mitchell. Reasonable people are going to find Scooter even more unreliable than Russert. If you'd listen to Scooter's GJ testimony, you'd hear Scooter praising Russert as a great journalist. Russert also backs Mitchell's latest version, which is that "everyone" did not know about Plame. Sucks to be Scooter. If Scooter had any shot, he would have testified. He's a high priced whore and he's scared sh*tless of Fitz. Scooter's only shot is for one juror to hold out, so we can go through this all again.
Posted by: John Casper | February 25, 2007 at 01:18
Semiot and eCHANomics,
I agree. To be sure this was a two bird with one stone shot. And Indeed AT LEAST as much about shutting Plame down on foiling Iran plans as about revenge for Wilson. Once Wilson played his hand it could have been no doubt to them that Valerie would be a problem for them in the future, and really outing her never really made a lot of sense to me as a means to discredit him.
But thinking a little further into it. If the target was really Valerie, how convinient was it the Joe spoke out. They used hubub about him as a means of pretending to 'accidentally' out her. It gave them a plusible way of explaining the outing. If she weren't married to him, or if he had kept his head down, it would have been damned obvious if they had gone after her. Perhaps Joe's Op-ed was looked at as fortuitous for them in a fashion?
Posted by: dismayed | February 25, 2007 at 01:28
John,
I don't have access to the original in the NY Times. Below you get the essence of it all.
Here reference (Sept 24, 2006) to
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/09/911_commission_members_should.php
excerpts
"The "New York Times" report on the the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April, is quickly fueling another ugly political argument over the value and accuracy of the intelligence in the report and whether the news story fairly represents the entire report. The NYT story reported that "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks." Senior Democrats rushed to issue statements claiming the report "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war" and have injected the issue into the midterm Congressional elections. The White House countered that the NYT account is "not representative of the complete document."
Here from iht, Sept 24, 2006
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/24/news/policy.php
excerpts
"The report, a National Intelligence Estimate that is meant to reflect the analyses of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war," Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement.
Details of the report were reported Sunday by The New York Times. The classified document attributes a larger role to the Iraq war in producing Islamic militants than have recent White House documents on terrorism. (Page 4.)
The White House, apparently concerned that reports of the intelligence assessment could undercut one of its most fundamental arguments for staying in Iraq, quickly issued a three-page statement seeking to rebut points in press accounts of the report"
John, seems just like yesterday that was news. I just saw it mentioned on the PBS News Hour in the last week or two.. I like to listen to the TV news shows while I work in the evening. I will tape or Tivo them depending where I am.
Posted by: Jodi | February 25, 2007 at 02:31
John,
I was showing that leaking the NIE by newspaper is fairly common. Has just happened a few months ago.
So why can't the president rebut the specific leaks of a document with more information from the document?
Posted by: Jodi | February 25, 2007 at 02:36
"I was showing that leaking the NIE by newspaper is fairly common."
No Jodi, you're wrong again.
"The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said."
Bold is mine.
Here's the New York Times article that you said you did not have access to. U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
As far as I can tell, it's not behind their firewall and is available to everyone.
Here's another graph from the NYT's article:
"On Wednesday night, Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the existence of the intelligence estimate, but he declined to discuss its contents in detail because they were classified. But he said the document "makes clear why it is so important to stand with the Iraqi people as they face these challenges."
Jodi, you are correct that finally by 2006 some of the media, the liberals, and a few Democrats, figured out that they had to "leak" classified data to combat the Bush/Cheney White House. As you can see from the quote above, however, as soon as they did that, Sean McCormack, a Bush appointee, leaked back a different version of the first NIE done since 2002. Your attempts to paint the Democrats/liberals as equally complicit in "leaking" classified information are false and misleading. The WH started leaking false and misleading summaries of classified intelligence at least as far back as 2001. Some Democrats and liberals started leaking accurate intelligence in 2006. Now you tell me, who bears the greater responsibility?
Posted by: John Casper | February 25, 2007 at 11:27
Re WINPAC vs. CPD, this is from EW's liveblog of Judy Miller's testimony:
This seems to say that Libby told her Joe Wilson's wife worked for WINPAC, assuming "nonproliferation" vs. "counterproliferation" is accurate. Which says to me, as others have surmised, that it was an additional layer of security against revealing classified information. Scooter was willing to use Judy, but he didn't trust her all that much.Posted by: Leslie in CA | February 25, 2007 at 15:38
John,
I couldn't get there through the link that was in the source I provided. It was behind their pay up to use barrier. Maybe you went elsewhere but still in the NYt.
Anyway,
my point was and still is that leaks are being done by both sides. You basically want to make it a p***ing contest of who did it first or the furthest. And there we would have to cover all things, and go back into antiquity trying to prove that the other side is worst. That is a waste. I imagine it has been going on for a long time.
But yes, I would say that both sides are "equally complicit in "leaking" classified information ."
Posted by: Jodi | February 25, 2007 at 15:42
No Jodi, I'm not in a pissing contest, TNH is a place for civil discourse. And there you go again, "But yes, I would say that both sides are "equally complicit in "leaking" classified information;" making false and misleading assertions for which you have no evidence.
Posted by: John Casper | February 25, 2007 at 16:19
John,
I said "I would say" which shows that that is my opinion. I stand by it and have showed two instances. I suppose that you could say that there are no more, OR that there are many more from the Republicans and none from the Democrats or some other ratio.
So what is it that are you saying? And what is your proof? Or are you expressing an opinon also?
Posted by: Jodi | February 26, 2007 at 13:18
"I said "I would say" which shows that that is my opinion."
LMAO.
In what universe?
Is this your make believe universe, where you get to change the rules as you go along? I'm so sorry Jodi, I guess I didn't see where I had to be able to read your mind in order to comment at tnh. Do you have a link to that? "I would say," is the subjunctive case. On blogs if people want to make clear that they are stating an opinion, they use jmo or imo.
"I stand by it and have showed two instances."
You are funny Jodi.
Your "two instances" both have the same single source, the 2006 NIE.
"I suppose that you could say that there are no more, OR that there are many more from the Republicans and none from the Democrats or some other ratio."
I could guess about what you mean, but I'm not going to. Please restate it.
"So what is it that are you saying?"
Jodi, anything you're not sure about, just put it in quotes and ask about whatever in your opinion is not clear.
"And what is your proof?
I don't have any. I don't know anyone who does. Unlike you, however, I do have evidence. I'd go back to all the Grand Jury leaks in the Ken Starr Whitewater/Monicagate investigation. Those weren't from Democrats or liberals. Please note, nothing leaked out of Fitzgerald's GJ. He's not a Democrat or a liberal so far as I know, but he appears to be a member of the "reality based community." Bush/Cheney used that same Ken Starr pipeline to keep Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, and others seeded with classified information that resulted from cherry picking intelligence. Have you listened to Scooter's Grand Jury testimony yet? Have you listened to Bob Woodward interview Armitage? If Democrats/Liberals were as good at leaking as Republicans/Conservatives, why are we occupying Iraq?
If Democrats/Liberals were as good at leaking, we never would have invaded/occupied, because most of the intelligence said that Saddam had no wmd. As we now know, the actual intelligence was not flawed. The cherry picked intelligence that Bush/Cheney leaked was not just flawed it was completely wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact, there were no WMD.
"Or are you expressing an opinon also?"
No Jodi, I'm expressing an informed opinion that, among other things, you do not blog in good faith. You snipe at others with your high level opinions that are untethered to any evidence whatsoever. When others on numerous occasions have politely asked you to tie your opinions to evidence, you bring up evidence that proves just the opposite of what you intended. Now when I keep asking suddenly, you decide that you're in a "pissing contest." This takes work Jodi, it takes effort. Go find a link to some other evidence.
FYI, again, I was raised a Barry Goldwater Republican. A lot of people on the liberal blogs were not raised Democrat or liberal. Unfortunately, liberal blogs are the only place where many of us can find patriots who care authentically about our nation. The liberal blogs are also the only place I have found that are serious about supporting our troops and defending America.
Posted by: John Casper | February 26, 2007 at 15:23
Jodi, has your copy of emptywheel's ANATOMY OF DECEIT arrived yet? If not, please let me know when you expect it to arrive. It's overflowing with WH leaks to the press that the Democrats and Liberals did not match.
Posted by: John Casper | February 26, 2007 at 16:06
John,
Actually Grandmom has it.
I begin to see.
There is your informed opinion
and my
opinion. I think your informed is greatly exagerated by its holder.
I don't know anything about Goldwater, but I don't hold it against you.
Posted by: Jodi | February 26, 2007 at 20:54
Jodi, imho, double spacing your sentences is a stylistic "exaggeration." You wrote: "I think your informed is greatly exagerated by its holder." Please tell me where you think any of my content is "exaggerated" in any way. It would be so nice to read something specific from you as opposed to your usual vagaries.
Jodi, here's an opinion like yours, unsupported by the facts and the evidence, the Flat Earth Society. If somebody's Grandmom says the earth is flat, does that make it so?
Probably a bad idea to bring up an alleged conversation with Grandmom about my last comment, when you state that you don't know "anything," about Barry Goldwater. I bet Grandmom knows plenty about him.
Jodi, you blog in bad faith and I do hold it against you. Do you think that you're royalty and your opinion, minus evidence, coherence or logic, actually deserves attention? Everyone else at tnh, except you, bring facts and evidence. When I call you on this, you hide behind "Grandmom."
Posted by: John Casper | February 27, 2007 at 07:15
John,
now you are going after grandmothers? You need to stay with ideas and events.
Goldwater? What I meant was that he and those supporting him didn't do very well, because I (this generation) don't know anything about him, other than a name occasionally.
But still, I will repeat, it seems to me to be in very poor taste to attack my Grandmom. All I said upon you questioning me about the book was that grandmom had it, (because I acquired it while visiting her, and left it there) and now you are putting her with the flat earth society, and say I am hiding behind her.
Please leave my grandmom out of this unless you just wish to reference the location of ew's book.
Try to stay connected with the real issues!
Posted by: Jodi | February 27, 2007 at 11:18
Jodi, you wrote: "now you are going after grandmothers?"
Now you're having trouble with punctuation. The sentence sounds declarative, but you stuck a question mark at the end. Which is it?
"You need to stay with ideas and events."
Oh yes, it's the royalty now, the divine Jodi ordering us poor
peasantbloggers about."Goldwater? What I meant was that he and those supporting him didn't do very well, because I (this generation) don't know anything about him, other than a name occasionally."
Well Jodi, here's what you wrote in your prior comment:
"I don't know anything about Goldwater, but I don't hold it against you."
LMAO. Contradict yourself much?
"But still, I will repeat, it seems to me to be in very poor taste to attack my Grandmom."
You see what I mean Jodi, you contradict yourself within the same comment. Your first sentence ended in a question mark. Now you're "repeating" the blatant falsehood that I attacked your Grandmom. Thanks for reinforcing my point that you blog in bad faith.
Where did I attack your Grandmom? As per usual, be specific.
According to you, your Grandmom attacked me: "Actually Grandmom has it. I begin to see. There is your informed opinion and my opinion. I think your informed is greatly exagerated by its holder."
You don't even have the guts to stand by your own attacks. You put this one coming out of your Grandmom's mouth.
Since you brought up "poor taste," I find so many of your comments much worse. With empty character assassinations, you routinely snipe at honest bloggers who know infinitely more than you about the facts and evidence in dispute.
"All I said upon you questioning me about the book was that grandmom had it, (because I acquired it while visiting her, and left it there) and now you are putting her with the flat earth society, and say I am hiding behind her."
No Jodi, you're wrong again. "Grandmom" doesn't appear on this thread until your comment at 20:54. I'm not putting your Grandmom with the Flat Earth Society, I'm putting you, Jodi, with the Flat Earth Society. You and the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY both hold onto uninformed opinions/assertions that are contradicted by the facts and the evidence.
Congratulations though, the last part you wrote, about "hiding behind your Grandmom," you got that part right.
"Please leave my grandmom out of this unless you just wish to reference the location of ew's book."
Jodi, if you don't want your "Grandmom" mentioned, why did you introduce her into the thread?
"Try to stay connected with the real issues!"
There you go again, issuing imperial edicts, unaccompanied by evidence, logic, or coherence. Please by all means Jodi, what "real issues" am I not "connected to" iyo?" Please be specific.
Posted by: John Casper | February 27, 2007 at 13:09
John,
whoa!
Didn't mean to cause a tirade.
I introduced "her" because you asked about the book, and I said essentially it was with "her."
Don't get your blood pressure up John.
Posted by: Jodi | February 27, 2007 at 16:06
Jodi, your comments don't affect my blood pressure. I'd also invite you to consider using dictionary dot com. A tirade is a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.
As long as you continue to make, assertions, that contradict the available evidence, I will do my level best to hold you accountable. Here's a recent example: "But yes, I would say that both sides are "equally complicit in "leaking" classified information." Evidently you abandoned it.
You want to comment, you simply don't want to do the work it takes to back your comments up.
Posted by: John Casper | February 27, 2007 at 16:44
John ,
yep, "tirade".
Posted by: Jodi | February 28, 2007 at 01:56
Jodi,
You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 28, 2007 at 12:35
greenhouse,
well thanks at least for raising the level of your conversation.
Posted by: Jodi | February 28, 2007 at 14:24
You're quite welcome Jodi. I have no problem insulting people grateful for abuse.
Posted by: greenhouse | February 28, 2007 at 14:27
Jodi, why don't you link to an example of what you consider a "tirade." We'll compare.
Posted by: John Casper | February 28, 2007 at 14:27
John,
I think you are confused. I have already cited you
for my example.
Perhaps you could give me an example of what you
consider a tirade.
Posted by: Jodi | February 28, 2007 at 22:00
Jodi, you have to do your own work.
Posted by: John Casper | February 28, 2007 at 23:10