The Next Hurrah

Madness! Madness! Madness!

One of my favorite posts from FDL's trial commentary was Pachacutec's Who's Your Daddy. He wrote:

A trial is a complex thing.  There's all the evidence, rules of evidence, legal stuff and rules for jury deliberations, but anyone who has interviewed jurors after a trial (and I have) knows that it's often the unpredictable elements, the very human elements, jurors hang on to and remember.  As I watched opening statements this week from inside the courtroom, as preoccupied as I was with taking notes of the competing arguments, I was also most attentive to the ebb and flow of human energy, the little looks and asides, the personalities and the dynamics of people and perceptions, as best I could read them, drawing on my experience and my doctorate in psych.  I want to share a little of what it was like to be in the courtroom, through my perceptions of how the players came across.

Here's the thing:  in my view, the three dominant personalities in the room - Pat Fitzgerald, Reggie Walton and Ted Wells - are all engaged in a complex game of "who's your daddy?," both among themselves and, perhaps most especially, for the jury and the media.  Think of it as an alpha male American Idol for the jury and the public, where the ultimate prize is the jurors' trust and confidence, with public perception a very close second.

I love the post partly because I always find Pach's insights into human dynamics so fascinating. But also because it really did describe what was going on in the courtroom in early days--a battle to see whether Wells could take over the courtroom, Fitzgerald could stop him, or Reggie Walton could find enough Solomonic decisions to keep the trial moving forward, however ploddingly.

Yesterday's close was about many things. But most of all, it seemed to be the resolution of all these tensions in an unexpected way.

Has Dana Priest given us our next issue?

by Sara

Mistreatment of vets coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan did not begin with Walter Reed building 18.  The matter was around a couple of years ago when medical returnees were reported in a Georgia Base -- they were between and betwixt the Military Medical System and the VA system, but they had been warehoused in some old barracks on a post in Georgia.  I think they were world war II barracks. 

Much as it is good that the Washington Post has done this story, it needs doing as local journalism.  Back in the 70's and 80's, when the World War II posts of VFW and AL were really active, the parking lot at the local VA hospital was filled with vans and SUV's with their post numbers on them, they were making sure their local members were getting to their appointments, and they had nice 501 (c) 3 transport to get them to those appointments.  But that generation has died off I think, and nothing has replaced it.  Likewise, nothing has really replaced the power of the old vet's lobby for the kind of care that is needed. 

I actually knew nothing about the VA till AIDS came along, but our first generation of AIDS patients in Minnesota -- well about a third of them were Vets, and in establishing some of the needed services, I came to really respect the VA.  We got a huge influx of vets from Texas because Texas VA did nasty things to people with AIDS, and the guy who introduced me to it all was a Marine from Texas, but who was also originally from Minnesota.  Another person who introduced me was an American Indian who had been in the Marines as a cook, (he had been adopted off the Pine Ridge Reservation as an infant, so raised as an anglo),  and between the two of them and the system, I learned a great deal. 

Unlike any other health system, VA and Military Medical is profoundly politically sensitive.  The AL and the VFW have moved out and off -- and these systems need new advocates.  Newer Vet's groups do not have the kind of local chapters that the AL and the VFW had -- and thus not the same political clout.  In fact, they really were resistant to recruiting the Vietnam Era vets, which is why they don't have them.  They certainly were not interested in Vietnam Era Vets with AIDS, and their issues.  I actually had to get the state Human Rights Commission to clarify with them that vet transport could not discriminate against people with AIDS who otherwise were vets. 

In a state like Minnesota where most of our vets these days are in Greater Minnesota, and our vet hospitals are in St. Cloud and the Twin Cities, the question of transportation to accessing their health care is totally critical.  There is no public transport to either place.  If you can't drive, or get someone to drive you -- tough luck.  No one really considered this when Greyhound was abandoning their lines.  And no one considered what would happen when a 501(c)3 just stopped its works.  And when the WWII VFW Posts went out of business, that's what happened. 

In the meantime, half of our dead are from small town America, a good many of our wounded are also from there, and no one has figured out that where you recruit is where you need to have services.  And the rest of us have not figured out how to make those towns that need these services part of us.  As I said over on TPM's site, the guys who  come into town and pick up the mail and visit the feed store, and then sit around the big table in the town cafe, but who also have E-Mail from Iraq to be read around the coffee table,  These guys are mad as hell and when they learn about Walter Reed Fifth (black Mold) Class -- they are going to get much more erupted.  Perhaps we should just be honest and call it Katrina Class. 

Where is the guy who is going to throw the switch? 

 

Indicting Dick, the Trial Edition

by emptywheel

In my sixth post after Libby's indictment--just two days after the indictment--I wrote a post called Indicting Dick. After noting that one of the indictment descriptions--the strategy session aboard Air Force Two on July 12, 2003--was really about Cheney even though it didn't name him, I wrote,

Tricky Fitzgerald!! He's been hiding Dick right in the middle of his Libby indictment.

I went on to list a whole bunch of details included in the indictment that might be references to Cheney. With all the evidence that has come out at the trial, I see I was right about several of these (but not that Cheney was a source for Martin of Plame's identity).

But we have learned far, far more about Cheney's personal involvement in the smear against Joe and Valerie Wilson. So it's time to gather it all into one chronology. If Fitzgerald wants to use this chronology to indict Cheney, he can be my guest.

By my reading, Cheney took his own notes on at least four documents pertaining to Wilson.  It appears likely that, after learning that Plame worked at CIA from Libby or Martin, he went out and found out precisely where she worked, then he reported it back to Libby. Cheney directed Libby on at least three occasions (with Judy, with David Martin and Mitchell, and with Cooper et al) to personally intervene with journalists. And Cheney remained actively involved in crafting the response to Wilson all week during leak week. In addition, it seems clear that Cheney was pushing the Wilson attacks after the Novak article.

All this at a time when--according to Libby--they were obsessed with making sure they got Iraq right. It'd be funny how that worked out ... if only it weren't so tragic.

Anyway, here's the chronology. I'm focusing on things directly touching Dick here--either things we know he was involved in, or things that clearly indicate a wide push to "get the whole story out." I will leave out some events tied more closely to others in the Admin, though we may well find out Dick has ties to that, too.

Custer Battles rides again.

by Kagro X

Back in August, I wrote a diary at Daily Kos noting the "Iran-Contrafication of Iraq." The subject that day was the technicality that let one of the most disgusting and widely-reviled innocent and otherwise wonderful Iraq war profiteers -- contractor Custer Battles -- escape enjoy justice. Do you remember what it was?

The verdict reached $10 million because the law calls for triple damages, plus penalties fines and legal costs. But U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, in a ruling made public Friday, ruled that Custer Battles' accusers failed to prove that the U.S. government was ever defrauded. Any fraud that occurred was perpetrated instead against the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed shortly after the war to run Iraq during the occupation until an Iraqi government was established. Ellis ruled that the trial evidence failed to show that the U.S. government was the actual victim, even though U.S. taxpayers ultimately footed the bill.

Why We All Need To Store Food And Water

by DemFromCT 

A public service announcement from CDC click to play video

Questions

click to play video

see also Washington state PSA: Windows Media Player; Real Media Player and even more...

What a funny concept at Daily Kos. Is this a Bushism "scaremonger" concept to increase funding for Homeland security? Is it a flyer from the Idaho Secession Society or the flying saucer cult-of-the week? Uh, no. It's a message from the AFL-CIO's NYSUT teacher's union (which also represents nurses). The message from the unions and the professional societies will resemble this (see link):

Start now so you have a week or two supply of water and food. Get a few items every time you go to the grocery store and buy food that is:

• nonperishable
• easy to prepare
• requires little or no water so you can preserve water for drinking

And why? because the possibility of a flu pandemic is very real. As Greg Poland from the Mayo Clinic (and a world expert on the topic) writes in this month's issue of Vaccine (something we will not have enough of for 6-8 months):

Libby Trial: Hunting Vampires

by emptywheel

Jane S has been asking how I figured out that Libby spoke with Novak (and subsequently hid that conversation). So I thought I'd provide her the simple answer--then make the case that both Libby and Novak are still lying about it.

I first suspected that Libby and Novak had had an undisclosed conversation when I wrote this post. I read the Steno Sue/Pool Boy article published on the day Judy testified, and sniffed a big fat witness tampering rat--the article gave all the details Judy would need to follow Libby's grand jury lies perfectly. I explained the stinky rat in this post. The Steno Sue/Pool Boy article basically encouraged Judy to tell a story that, we now know, dramatically differs from her version of events. But it also includes a line referencing Novak.

Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby's friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn't spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak? I think it highly possible that Libby's friend is telling Judy not to mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.

In other words, since the rest of the account of Libby's surrogate's coaching looked like a blatant attempt to coach Judy's testimony, I figured this line was too. And that if Judy needed to be coached to say that Libby hadn't told her of Plame until after he "learned it from Russert as if it were new," then she probably needed to be coached to deny a Libby-Novak conversation.

If this premise is correct--and abundant evidence has surfaced since that this was a blatant attempt to coach Judy--then it means Libby was aware of, and trying to hide the Novak conversation, in September 2005, just as Judy was testifying.

Escalation already missing benchmarks

by Kagro X

Froomkin, WaPo:

It seems almost inconceivable: The White House actually invites the press corps to hold it accountable -- but when the time comes, and a key benchmark is missed, the press is silent. And yet that's exactly what has happened. Back in January, when President Bush announced that in spite of the public opinion against the war in Iraq he was going to send in more troops, he repeatedly insisted that what was different this time was that the Iraqis were finally serious about stepping up. ...

"You're going to have to -- you're going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly," one senior administration official said at an official background briefing on January 10, a few hours before Bush's prime-time announcement. "The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th," the official said. "So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge." ...

But at a Pentagon press conference yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace acknowledged that only two of those three Iraqi brigades are there: "You've got two of the Iraqi brigades in -- that were going to plussed up in Baghdad in Baghdad now. The third one is moving this month," Pace said. Other press reports suggest that even those two brigades are not anywhere near full strength. And action in Baghdad seems thus far to be almost entirely led by Americans, in stark contrast to what was promised.

Evolving Defense Claims

Back before the trial started, I noted this passage from Libby's theory of his defense.

Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he was confident that he had not provided any information about Mr. Wilson's wife to Robert Novak, and that he had not disclosed classified information about Mr. Wilson or his wife to any other reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them.

Here's how that passage now reads, after several weeks in a court room (thanks to Jeralyn for passing the filing on).

Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he knew that he had not provided any information about Ms. Wilson to Robert Novak. He also contends that he did not know that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was covert or classified and that he did not knowingly disclose classified information about Ms. Wilson to any reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to government officials and the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those officials and journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them.

Before I start talking about these changes, let me note that Fitzgerald is fighting against Libby being able to say he believed journalists would testify. From yesterday's tedium [see, I excerpt it to save you the pain!]:

Walton Next sentence, I think his waivers would be sufficient to cover first part of sentence.

Fitz waiver (on journalists) signed in January, there's no basis for evidence in October.

Walton the last one, would journalists testify truthfully

Fitz, that would go back to the first part of the sentence, since there [was] no waiver.

Walton I need something in writing.

Fitz We'll give you that tonight.

In other words, Fitzgerald is arguing that, since Libby had not yet signed waivers for journalists to testify (and in fact refused to do so at his second FBI appearance) there is no factual predicate for him to suggest that he had reason to believe the FBI would ask journalists to testify, and even less expectation they would do so. We'll see what Walton makes of that argument.

But now let's look at the three main changes, taken in jumbled order:

• The inclusion of government officials among those Libby expected would testify
• A seeming growing certainty that he didn't leak Plame's identity to Novak
• A seeming acknowledgment that Libby did leak classified information to journalists

This Just In! Earth Doesn't Rotate!

By Mimikatz

You can't make this stuff up.  From Josh Marshall:  A Republican State Legislator,  one Ben Bridges of Georgia, had a letter distributed by a campaign aide, over his signature, which not only denounces evolution as "Pharisee" science, but links to a site that disputes the Earth's rotation on its axis as well as its passage around the sun.

“Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion,” reads the letter that went out under Bridges' name. “This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic ‘holy book’ Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.”

Barnes' memo pointed fellow state legislators to the information at fixedearth.com which rails against the “a mystic, anti-Christ ‘holy book’ of the Pharisee Sect of Judaism” and claims that “the earth is not rotating … nor is it going around the sun.” They've even caught on to the "centuries-old conspiracy" on the part of Jewish physicists to destroy Christianity.

The letter was then disseminated to other state legislators in other states until the Anti-Defamation League finally got wind of it and people started backing away.  But Bridges still believes:

Asked if he agreed with the Kaballah evolution conspiracy theory and the earth's lack of motion, he told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory. I am convinced that rather than risk teaching a lie why teach anything?”

Why teach anything, indeed.  No wonder Ben Bernanke, Fed head, said in testimony to Congress yesterday that good jobs were being created in the US, but too many Americans lacked the education to fill them.   Eratosthenes must be rotating in his grave.

And meanwhile the Antarctic ice aseems to be melting in new and unexpected ways as two huge new lakes are discovered under the ice.

What's on your mind today?

Ted Wells' New Rule of Law

by emptywheel

Link to yesterday's YouTube

Ted Wells is Scooter Libby's lead defense attorney. And he's very very good at finding technical reasons to challenge his clients' guilt. But he has developed an amusing approach to the law of late.

The first instance of this came in the debates about whether or not Wells could introduce some Andrea Mitchell tapes showing her, um, wildly inconsistent statements on whether or not she knew Plame was covert. Walton pointed out that, according to Federal rules of evidence, he could not introduce the tapes. Fitzgerald retorted that if Wells were allowed to, he'd be replacing Wigmore's rules of evidence with "Imus' rules of evidence." Given how prominently Wells focused on Imus in his opening statements...

So we have this perverse situation where Imus on the radio is asking tough questions, the guy with the cowboy hat.

...I find that rather funny.

And then there was the new legal rule Ted Wells invented yesterday, one of my favorite parts of a rather tedious day.