Tonite | Countdown w/Keith Olbermann "The Case Against Libby"

[Catherine Vincent]

Two top CIA officials will bolster prosecutors' charge that Vice President Cheney's chief aide lied to them, court papers show. Prosecutors say disgraced Cheney chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby learned CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity from, among others, agency officials who will be called to testify at his trial for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist Robert Novak blew her cover in July 2003, prosecutors charge. http://www.nydailynews.com/05-23-2006/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html

If the very special counsel Fitzgerald have these two CIA officials to bolster his case against Libby, one wonders who or what he has for his case against Karl Rove. Of course he has to be indicted first. But that's okay. Take your time Fitz.

[stop the bleeding]

1. Oh yeah - talk to me

This will be one that I will not miss, may even have to watch the repeat at the witching hour :)

[Connie_Corleone]

2. I'll be watching.

I really hope that Fitzgerald goes after Cheney too. I would take Cheney over Rove...or both.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. If he talks about Rove, I have to confess...

I prefer Fitzgerald indict Karl Rove either Thursday or Friday because Wednesday is the two-hour finale of "Lost" and I don't want it pre-empted for the Rove frog march coverage. :)

[Catherine Vincent]

4. Kick!

[Me.]

5. KO Just Threw Leopold A Lifeline

IMHO. He said 2 months ago he (Leopold) reported that there were CIA witness and it was confirmed in a Daily News story today.

*shadow government*

[Catherine Vincent]

6. I heard that.

Clever.

Keith!

[MelissaB]

7. I missed it, but I'm going to make up for it by recommending this thread.

Off to the greatest!

:scared:

[stop the bleeding]

8. I saw it, and it was quite informative

as KO usually is about this subject. He had that English sounding guy by the last name of Wolfe on for an analysis and that was good. I was hoping for Schuster but you'll take what you can get.

Lastly repeat is on at midnight, KO used this as his opening story so you won't have to watch beyond 10 minutes or so.

Kick!

[H2O Man]

11. Also 9 am

after Imus.

[Spazito]

9. Hmmm, this makes me wonder if the increasingly rabid attacks

on Leopold could be because they have realized Leopold has, indeed, some very high level sources and they need to totally discredit him now so any further stories from him would be summarily dismissed?

It is the one thing that would make sense to me because, up until this, I could not figure out the Kurtz and others obsessive interest in trashing him.

Just a thought anyway.

[H2O Man]

10. Interesting thought, indeed.

Lotta effort invested in that.

Remember there were silly people insisting that Ms. Plame did not have a classified status at the Agency? They called her all types of names. I remember that, at least a half-dozen times, I noted that the first witness to testify in front of the grand jury was a high-ranking CI officer who had confirmed Ms. Plame's status.

Things are good.

[Spazito]

12. Thinking back, it is, indeed, their modus operandi.

I naively, I am beginning to think, never connected those dots due to the relative obscurity of TO and Jason Leopold.

In reality, it is little different than the swiftboating of Kerry and many other similar incidents.

[H2O Man]

16. When Team Libby

cited Jason's reporting in one of their court documents, I think it became clearer how close to home the reporting was. I know, without any question, that there were forces who were very interested in finding out who his sources were.

[Spazito]

19. I had totally forgotten they had cited him....

with them having done that, it does make some of what is happening eminently more clear to me. Thank you for the reminder.

[H2O Man]

23. That one fact

clears a little of the sand, so to speak. Helps us view the situation a little clearer.

[suffragette]

21. H2O, thank you again

That is one of the most perceptive comments I've heard during this whole saga.
Yes, I imagine they are very interested in this and will squeeze as hard as a boa constrictor to gain that info. And there has been a great deal of squeezing going on.

[H2O Man]

30. There certainly has

been a whole lot of squeezing going on. I can say positively that others besides Team Libby have been attempting to find out who Leopold's sources were.

[suffragette]

34. I feel like someone seeing the sun

peeking through a sand storm.

Seems like a pretty desperate measure on their part. And desperate people often make big mistakes.

[Catrina]

46. Even on this board there over the past few days, there were people

demanding that Leopold reveal his sources. No amount of reasoning with them that for a journalis to do such a thing would be extremely unethical could dissuade them from their argument that he 'owed it all of us'. :eyes:

I wonder who else might be interested in Leopold's sources?

[H2O Man]

47. I'll say this:

The OVP/WHIG believed that there was a "war" between them and the Agency. They viewed Ambassador Wilson, a former State Department employee, as part of the CI group. The State Department, having the embassies, is where most non-NOC agents work out of. That's why they freaked when they saw that Joseph had gone to Africa. (Both Cheney and Libby had studied the intelligence from the 1990s from Africa, and were aware of Wilson before 2003. They had not been aware of Valerie.)

Anyhow, these "interests" are very concerned about Marc Grossman. They know that he can do serious damage to both Libby and Cheney. Remember that Leopold wrote an article about people from State being "re-assigned" to different areas.

[Catrina]

81. I don't remember that article but reading these last few posts, I think

it's very important that Jason Leopold does not reveal his sources, even if there is no Rove indictment ~ I'm sure we can all wait and hopefully it will all unfold in due time ~

[demobabe]

57. I've been one of those people

And having worked in journalism, it is not professional to reveal sources if they ask not to be identified. Unfortunately, it was Leopold who offered to reveal his sources if "burned." It looks to me at this point he was either burned by his sources, or he's flat out lying about parts of the article. Of course, there are people who still think the article could be correct as stands, and I'm willing to wait for it to play out...

[stop the bleeding]

65. waiting at this point is the prudent thing to do

all the folks over at TO are not budging on this even though they have had countless chances to do so. Their conviction is speaking volumes right now, either they believe in their sources and/or their sources are not providing them with correct information. It will be an interesting day when and if we see this indictemnt.

Peace!

[Laurab]

78. In fact, I believe Jason Leopold's sources were aware

that he was going to reveal them IF they were not telling the truth. I'm not going to do a search for it, but it's on here somewhere. Personally, I think he was neither "burned" or lying. I believe it just didn't play out the way they thought it would, which is quite possible, especially with this administration.

I think waiting for it to play out will be interesting, to say the least.

[spuddonna]

67. And according to an interview with Leopold yesterday...

... his sources are "spooked" and "having to lay low", per my paraphrasing of kpete's paraphrasing. (Have I said THANK YOU to kpete today? If not: :applause: and :hug: )

Lots of pressure being applied to leaks in this administration right now... NSA program, press being targeted... I think there are some very high ranking members of this administration who are sick with fear that their links to any of these scandals are going to exposed, whether via Fitz or the press and a whistleblower.

If they can destroy those connections to the press, that's a big coup for them...

[H2O Man]

70. Systems.

I always recommend that people look at "systems." You need to step back out of the frame to see the picture correctly. Crooked systems don't do well with honest people. What do Joseph Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald represent to the system? I think that, on a different scale, they represent the same thing that Frank Serpico represented to the crooked system he was in decades ago. I think you are making that same point.

[spuddonna]

71. I made a point!

Yay! And here I thought I was just rambling after my first cup of coffee! :)

BTW - Thank you so much for all of the information. I have been studying and haven't had a chance to post my thanks to you lately either! Kudos on all you bring to this discussion! :hi:

[Me.]

22. Good Point

And one which has been lost in the brouhaha of late.

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

36. Document 5-2 (filed 5-1-06)

in Case 1:06-mc-00169-RBW, aka I. Liar Libby's Consolidated Response to Motions to Quash by NBC, Judith Miller, Andrea Mitchell, Matt Cooper, Time, and the NY Times cites Jason Leopold's "Libby Filing," from Truthout.com (4-14-06). In fact, Mr. Leopold's article is "Exh. L" in the hearings on the Team Libby efforts to damage the Amendment 1 of the US Constitution, in order to distract from Scooter's guilt.

[Patsy Stone]

40. And if that doesn't pan out

They have Gonzales on the other side working on that nasty Amendment. Thanks for the cite.

[dogday]

52. Where did the newspaper with Cheney's

handwriting come from? What source provided it? Not Libby, it is being used as evidence against him.. Not Cheney, that would be implicating himself. So who had the clout to have this evidence in hand to give to Fitz??

Anybody have an answer???

[speedoo]

24. I missed that, Sir Waterman.

Libby's suits cited Leopald? Very interesting, indeed.

[H2O Man]

27. Yes, they did.

Libby's lawyers cited Leopold's work for Truthout in a recent court filing. It happened shortly before the storm began raging on DU etc.

[Coexist]

56. that is really interesting.

You are such a great source of info on DU, H2OMan.

[robertpaulsen]

64. Your post here makes the whole thread worth bookmarking.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think that knowledge will become very important in the weeks to come as events unfold.

[KittyWampus]

18. Spazito, I can't quite get the rabidity with which some DU'ers attack TO

and Leopold. The editor at TO knows who the sources are... and is standing by the story.

It'd be a whole different story if the editor did NOT know who the sources were or questioned their accuracy.

As far as I can see TO and Leopold practised responsible journalism. That there's a diehard contigent here who refuse to see that has me wondering why.

[Spazito]

20. It has been ....interesting...to watch the rising level of animosity

I think there are many agendas at work within that animosity here, within DU, some of them personal, some of them more.... "professional", for lack of a better word.

I am waiting for Fitzgerald to do what he has done so well and that is to get to the bottom of the outing of Valerie Plame and I am very confident he will do exactly that. I look at all the other sniping and snarking at TO and Leopold as simply noise, it helps me to keep focused by doing that.

I don't know whether the article is accurate in every detail, in most of the details but I have seen nothing concrete to say one way or the other so I am content to wait and see.

[northamericancitizen]

42. I am too in the "wait and see" attitude and I want to thank you

and H2O and the other posters in this thread for the civilized and "peaceful" discussion.

nac

[Spazito]

45. It has been a good thread for which I am equally grateful

I, again, have come away with more knowledge than I had when I first clicked on the thread because of the good discussion and I value that like you.

[Me.]

26. Did You Notice

A Lot of new posters (between 30 & 40 count) who came on very aggressively re:TO & JL?

*shadow government*

[Spazito]

29. Yes, I did note that....

I suspect there is great interest in the ongoings here by some from other politically right of center sites and possibly, just possibly some have decided to come here and "help" those whose positions they "support".

Edited to add a missed (s), Damn plurals anyway, lol.

[Patsy Stone]

33. Ya think?

And, can you do that in scat? :hi:

[Spazito]

35. ROFL! I am still miffed all my hard scattin work got moofed!

:rofl:

[Patsy Stone]

37. Me, too!

I was looking forward to reading it. I'm sorry that whole thread was moved. We needed it. Promise me that when Fitz makes his announcement, you'll try again.

[Spazito]

39. I will, I promise, and Fitz deserves the best possible scat I can

do!!! I agree, that thread was a breath of fresh air at a time when it was much needed, imo. I was very disappointed it was moved although I did, technically, understand why.

[Patsy Stone]

43. He deserves only the best.

It's true; and I can't wait for the party. Those threads have a sort of small history from back in 2004ERD. It got pretty hairy in there and the Mods would leave them so every one could have a laugh. It was a welcome respite from some u-g-l-y arguments.

[Spazito]

44. Yes, light humorous threads in the midst of tension help so much

to bring us all back to the greater common ground. I am already drafting my Fitz scat in prep for that party!

[Catrina]

25. Yes, I remember that , and oddly enough that claim, that Valerie Plame

did not have a job of any importance, was actually made here on DU in the past few days. Of course it was a new poster, so who knows?

I'm glad Keith reminded people that Jason Leopold has done some great writing on the Plame affair. He has been right more often than wrong, as I recall. People have short memories ~ if he is wrong about this one, it wouldn't be the first time a reporter got some elements of a story wrong.

But the way some people are acting, you would almost think he had lied about WMDs or something!

[H2O Man]

28. A good friend

once said that you can tell a tree by its fruit. I believe that.

[demobabe]

60. The press isn't going to be nice to Leopold for several reasons

Leopold gave them everything they needed to question and discredit left bloggers. Part of this is partisan, but the other part of it is the smashing of an unprofessional gnat by both right and left journalists. Most of what Leopold has been reporting comes from reading court documents and keeping up with the case; it's not like he's meeting folks covertly to reveal secret documents or tapes.

So much of this has been blown up to wierdly larger than life - fantasies - for lack of a better word. There are no brilliant secret sources who have super-secret info they'll only reveal to Jason Leopold and no other reporter in the rest of the world. There is no CIA plot.

The reality is that we don't know what is going on in the investigation because Patrick Fitzgerald's office refuses to comment and no information is being leaked from there. That's all there is.

Everybody likes a scandal, but we can't let our minds get away from us.

[H2O Man]

66. Respectfully

you err, in a slight but significant way. People do know a fair amount about the investigation, even though Mr. Fitzgerald's office refuses to comment publicly beyond the press conference to announce the indictments of I. Liar Libby.

First, as you noted, there are a substantial amount of court documents, including those from Fitzgerald, from Team Libby, and from a range of journalists and media sources, that provide a good deal of information. Second, there are the court records from the Miller/Cooper appeal. Third, a number of people who testified in front of the grand jury have spoken and/or authored articles about their experiences. Next, one journalist who provided Mr. Fitzgerald with a sworn statement has made a public record of her experiences. More, reporters from the New York Times wrote some fairly informative articles on Judith's experiences. Finally, some people who have testified, but who have not published articles or been interviewed by the corporate media have spoken off the record to people; people who are not from the prosecutor's office, but who are connected to the building where the hearings have taken place have likewise told others who they have seen coming and going.

I think that it would be safe to say that Mr. Fitzgerald has conducted the most leak-proof investigation possible. But leaks from people who are directly involved in the investigation is not the only source of valuable information on this case. I say this respectfully, and fully aware that you know this as well as I do.

[demobabe]

75. Yes, of course you're right

People involved with the case will talk about it. No doubt.

But if you call Fitz's office and ask any question, the most you'll get out of them at any time is "no comment," and these are the guys with the final word.

Karl Rove looks to be about half his size right about now, which suggests to me he is worried, and people tend to worry when they feel like they don't have control of a situation.

Maybe he told folks he thought he was going to be indicted. Maybe he thought that.

But we've seen some very bold reports: that there is a target letter that was received approximately a month prior to April 26, and that Rove was indicted on May 12.

Of course you know I'm in the "Leopold made stuff up" camp, but putting that aside, let's give Leopold the benefit of the doubt and say he's got all the facts, all the sources and is 100% correct about everything.

To have made the assertions he did, he should have been able to show us a copy of that target letter or indictment, or at least have a couple sources come on the record. But at this point, all he can say to the public is "trust me, I have the goods."

Given his prior history, it's a tough sell to tell the public to trust him. That's not a personal attack on Leopold, that's just a harsh reality. An extreme example: if you learned that a child rapist just got out of jail and moved into your neighborhood, would you allow your kids go to a tea party by themselves at the guy's house?

All I'm saying is that Leopold needed to be the press equivalent of a priest, and not take risks. It's too easy of a shot otherwise. Addict, mental illness, troublesome journalism record since cleaning up - these are all not easy things to look past - especially when we're handed a story that had multiple errors in it when published.

I think one of the biggest troubles is with Truthout's editors and Mark Ash. It was so poorly edited - why on earth did he allow that story to go out that way? And why did he put his reporter on the line like that? Knowing Leopold's history, he should have taken measures to protect both Leopold and Truthout. He didn't do either, and the statements he's made since haven't helped.

They could have easily avoided the harsh trashing they're getting now - without changing much. All they had to do was to have changed the headline to something like, "Sources Say Rove Indicted," and in the first paragraph made it clear that the report could not be confirmed.

That's all it would have taken. And when Leopold's story played out and we all saw he was right, the mindset would have been, "they were right - it didn't sound plausible at all - way to go Jason and Truthout!" As it stands now, if he's proved right, both Leopold's and Truthout's credibility would have taken a serious blow, and they'd be perpetually telling people, "but we were RIGHT about that story - REALLY, we were."

As far as other publications go, and even weblogs, when a story like the Rove indictment story comes across, the big ones will assign a reporter to confirm or deny the story. Regardless of whether the story has any basis or not, they will check it out. Now imagine you're a reporter for a large newspaper, and some internet reporter has sent you chasing after a story where one side flat out denies it and the other won't say anything. No other sources are available to go on record. Nobody else other than the internet site is carrying the story, and the reporter who wrote it has a "checkered background."

What do you do as a reporter? Go back and tell your editor there is no story. Then the opinion columnist gets hold of it, and buries the internet reporter for being a lousy journalist. CIA plot? Secret Rove dealings to subvert information? No. If anything, from what I've seen of big paper mentality, they'd see it as a chance to get rid of someone they consider getting in the way of and wasting the time of their "real" reporters.

As for the internet itself, both right and left blogs are going to criticize Leopold for either self-preservation, or destruction. The motives of the right are obvious - kill your enemy. As for the left, credible blogs are going to debunk the story because it can't be proved. Keep in mind, we're still assuming Leopold to be 100% correct. But as long as there is no word from Fitzgerald's office, and a denial from Rove's side, and no other on record sources, the blogs have to debunk the story to keep their own reputation intact.

TalkLeft was perhaps the most civil about it; being a lawyer, she hunted down part of the story, presented things factually, and just let them play out and readers draw their own conclusions. Still, she ended up expressing her doubts.

I know this is long-winded, but this thread is heading straight into conspiracy theory land, and I can't see any reasons for there to be crazy plots to undermine and destroy Jason Leopold. He's reporting on an investigation and court dealings relating to it. It's not like he's going to uncover the one piece of paper that will take the Bush Administration down. Either Rove will be indicted or he won't. Fitzgerald will do his job or they'll fire him if they decide to squelch him.

All of this would have been a non-issue if the story was written and edited correctly in the first place. Unfortunately now, they've opened themselves up to criticism from all sides, and this is the situation they must deal with.

[H2O Man]

84. Re: The Target Letter

Did Mr. Libby get a "target letter"? Can people give a date? Show a copy? I ask those questions in a polite way, in hopes that the "he made up the target letter" side will figure something obvious out.

[demobabe]

86. As far as I know, Mr. Libby did not get a target letter

But that he was notified right before he was indicted. I had asked this question before, and lala_rawraw said he got a phonecall a few hours before, and I believe someone else said he got a target letter right before (within a day) of being indicted. There were zero reports in the news that I could find about Libby and a target letter - including stories by Jason Leopold. And of course we know that no target letter needs to be given, that it could be a phone call or no notice at all.

My own recollection is that it was announced on Thursday evening the day before his indictment that there was going to be a press conference. Leopold had reported around this time that both Libby and Rove would be indicted.

The trouble recently is that specifically reported that Rove received a target letter approximately a month before April 26. Leopold did not say he received a phonecall. He specifically said that a target letter exists and that Rove received it a very long time ago, uncharacteristically so for Fitzgerald.

It does seem that we would be able to confirm this report at some point with Fitz's office, but right now that story is in the same category as the Rove indictment: Rove's guys say it didn't happen, and Fitz's office says "no comment." This puts it in the same category of "don't report it if you can't confirm it" as far as I'm concerned.

To you I offer the question: is it possible for a reporter to fictitiously assemble unprovable stories that might never be confirmed so the reporter gets undeserved accolades?

But I guess if Rove's indictment comes down dated May 12, I'll give Leopold credit the target letter thing. But we should be able to confirm through Fitz's office at some point whether or not a target letter was issued.

[H2O Man]

91. Two -part response:

First, in answer to your question .... well, heck yes, it sure is possible for that to happen. I may not like Judith Miller, but I can not deny her existence.

Second, in response to your answer to my question .... I note that you use two "sources," and then your own recollection and beliefs. Now, I have no reason to think you have misquoted or lied about your sources. Nor do I think you are attempting a Ms. Miller. But I do know that the opinions on Mr. Libby and a target letter, and how "we should be able to confirm through Fitz's office at some point" are incorrect.

Sometimes good and sincere people, who are intellectually honest, are not able to give the correct answer. And that is my point in asking the question to you and another friend who have addressed concerns about the report that Mr. Rove got a target letter.

[Patsy Stone]

13. It was lovely!

K&R for Keith. :loveya:

[bleever]

14. KO most likely is wise to all the internet hullabaloo and

the implications of TO's report for the world of media.

KO: :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

17. Yep.

I think he knows the deal.

[Catrina]

31. It's also possible that he knows that other reporters have heard

what Leopold heard but as Leopold said, have held back from reporting it. Keith has many media friends ~ I think he was trying to send out a subtle message.

[Patsy Stone]

32. Isn't this some proof that one

can be ahead of the story?

March 18, 2006: Jason reports Fitz's on filings; names from filing in article: Grenier and Schmall.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml

May 23, 2006: NY Daily News reports the exact same story and, now it's news. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html

That's two months. TWO months. Not to mention that the names were public since the filing. Why is it news now?

It seems that, for some reason, Jason chose to report what was in the public filings and no one else bothered.

[bleever]

38. That's nervy: reading the filings.

But then, he has a history of drug abuse and mental health issues.

Are you some kind of "factinista"?




Don Henley Must Die. --Mojo Nixon.

[Patsy Stone]

41. I speak straight from the gut, OK?

He's clearly insane. Spread the word. LOUDLY!

Elvis is Everywhere. -- Mojo Nixon. :hi:

[Jersey Devil]

48. That story reports a totally different situation

The 3/18 story by Leopold makes Grenier a witness who will help the defense who was introduced by the defense team. As it turns out, in the current stories, he will help the prosecution. It is not the same story.

[Patsy Stone]

49. My point:

Leopold printed the names of who gave Libby the info in the March article, and the NY Daily News story said that: "Until recently, the CIA officials' identities were kept secret by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who did not name them in Libby's October indictment." And that he printed (here: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1879), "The filing states 'We believe that the briefer referred to is Craig Schmall and that he will be a witness for the government at trial too.'

Did I read that right? It was late when I posted. I will, however, correct myself and say that in my OP I said that it was Fitz's filing. I was wrong, Leopold references Libby's filing. And that I've been reading too many articles and needed to give link to another story.

[Catrina]

50. I think you need to read it again. I have read it twice and what I see is

that Leopold merely reported what the Defense attorneys filed. In their filing they revealed the names of two CIA agents. He did not offer any opinion as to whether or not they would help the defense. I will read it again just to be sure.

The point in posting both articles it seems to me, was to show that while other journalists were not doing their homework and reporting on the very interesting Libby filings, he took the not-too-difficult step of checking the filings and provided the public with information which they would not otherwise have had. He was ahead of them by two months in this case. It's therefore reasonable to consider the fact that he may be ahead of them again.

Also, it would have been perfectly legitimate at that time to offer his own opinion as to whether they would help the defense. But he did not. This happens often lately with regard to Leopold's articles. People attribute to them material that is not there. He himself had to draw attention to that recently with regard to another article. He was right about that also.

It seems to me that Jason Leopold is being held to a standard that no other journalist has been held to. I know I have heard many respected journalists offer opinions on a daily basis regarding the Plame investigation. We are still waiting for many of those predictions to come to pass.

I always appreciated his coverage of the Plame investigation ~ I read it the way I read all news stories. Anything that is a foregone conclusion, I accept. If it is an opinion, I am interested but recognize it for what it is. If, as in this case, it is a statement of fact coming from a journalist with some credibility, I give it more weight than I would an opinion, but do not accept it as fact until it is.

[Patsy Stone]

51. I just posted above you

I read it here: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1879

"The filing states 'We believe that the briefer referred to is Craig Schmall and that he will be a witness for the government at trial too.'"

I've been reading too many articles. :blush:

[Catrina]

53. *lol* ~ I know what you mean! Maybe we should just jump to conclusions

instead of trying to get the facts?? :-)

Thanks, I didn't see our post until after I had posted mine which was such a mess I had to edit it!

But I got the point you were making ~ and I was responding to the other poster's statement that Leopold had made a prediction in the article, which he did not. I have read it three times now, and don't see any prediction, just a reporting of who filed what and the fact that the Defense chose to name the two agents (quoting from the original indictment in which Fitz did not name them).

From reading the article, even if Leopold had made a prediction, he would have noticed that the Defense was not happy with those agents and was trying to get info from Fitz about what they might have said. I think he would predicted that they might be prosecution witnesses. There was a lot of information in that article actually, and I do remember that WE speculated at the time that those two agents would probably harm Libby's case ~ :-)

[Jersey Devil]

58. I never said Leopold made any "prediction"

I said in the Leopold article he said they were presented as possible defense witnesses and it turns out now they are prosecution witnesses. I am not saying Leopold made any mistake, only that it is a totally different story because their status has now apparently been reversed.

So the NY Daily News is not getting credit and recognition for a story while Leopold did not, as was suggested.

[Catrina]

76. I hate to contradict you again, but actually he didn't present them as

possible defense witnesses. He reported that the Defense revealed their names in a quote from the original indictment in which Fitzgerald did NOT name them. He made no comment about whether the defense was presenting them as witnesses or not. Just that the names were introduced by the Defense. And the reason why, which did not indicate that they would be witnesses for anyone. We, at the time, did speculate that it was possible the Prosecution might call them, as I'm sure would Leopold as it was pretty obvious they were not going to be helpful to the Defense.

[Patsy Stone]

77. He did say whose witnesses

in the TO article. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1265572&mesg_id=1272049

Unless they are two distinct sets of CIA witnesses?

[Catrina]

80. Thanks for catching that, Patsy ~ here's what the article says ~

In describing the evidence and the prosecution witnesses it pertains to, Libby's attorneys revealed the names of previously unknown CIA officials who may have communicated Plame Wilson's classified CIA work to Libby.

His article was right and he was ahead of the MSM.

I did miss the word 'prosecution', even after reading it three times! :-)

[Patsy Stone]

62. I must have had 10 windows

open last night while reading DU. It was only a matter of time that I posted the wrong reference. This whole thing has caused me to buy reading glasses. :)

[Patsy Stone]

61. Also

I didn't read it like that at all. I saw nowhere in the TO article that Libby's lawyers planned to call them as defense witnesses, only that they wanted any pertinent documents to question (cross-examine) them, since Fitzgerald planned to call them. This was a motion to Compel Discovery relating to Fitz's witnesses, no? I mean. I know Libby has a habit of asking for the prosecution to do the defense's legwork, but I don't think this is a case of that. :)

From the TO article: "In describing the evidence and the prosecution witnesses it pertains to, Libby's attorneys revealed the names of previously unknown CIA officials who may have communicated Plame Wilson's classified CIA work to Libby." (emphasis: mine)

[glitch]

15. Classy, and quite sweet. No wonder he has a fan club. :) nt

[Coexist]

55. I saw that - good on him - Larry Johnson is in agreement:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/

Sunday, 21 May 2006

Latest Re Rove on Truth Out

The following was posted today on Truth Out. They are sticking to their guns and justifiably so. Time will tell.
LJ

[Me.]

59. Thank You

Hadn't seen that. I have been thinking about the KO thing, after watching it again this morning and am curious as to how they connected the dots between an Internets story two months ago and the one yesterday. That was a pretty quick catch. I think it says that more people are playing close attention the to entire story than we knew. And, maybe,just maybe, they know a lot more about the story than they are reporting.

*shadow government*

[zippy890]

54. kick - good info

who was it that said something like "You don't f**k with the Company" -meaning the CIA

I get the feeling there are major power struggles going on behind the scenes, between the WH, the OVP, the CIA.

Wonder if we'll ever know the true extent of it.

[bleever]

63. One other element to the saga may involve the use of NSA

to find out who Leopold's sources are, perhaps by trying to create a flurry of phone calls and flush them out of the brush.

Of course this is conjecture on my part, and would be illegal, but....

[H2O Man]

68. As always

you help filter some of the sand out of people's eyes. Thank you.

[dzika]

69. VIDEO - Top CIA Officials Bolster Perjury Charge...

broadcast on May 23, 2006

VIDEO - Top CIA Officials Bolster Perjury Charge Against Scooter Libby

Yesterday, The New York Daily News reported that two top CIA officials discussed Valerie plame with Cheney's former Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If true, the CIA officials' testimony will show that Libby knew of Valerie Plame's status at the CIA at least a month prior to Robert Novak's column which first publicly exposed Valerie Plame's undercover status. The testimony of the two top CIA officials is expected to bolster the charge of perjury against Libby. Libby has previously testified that he first learned about Plame from a reporter.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann takes notice that this story had been originally reported 2 months earlier by Jason Leopold, an internet journalist writing for Truthout. On May 13th, Leopold reported that Karl Rove, like Libby, had been served with an indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice. This report has not been confirmed by other media sources, triggering a fierce debate on the internet about the accuracy Leopold's report that Rove has been served with an indictment. Truthout editor, Marc Ash, is defending the accuracy of the report.

http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/msnbc/msnbc_ko_leakgate_cia_witnesses_060523a_320x240.flv&width=320&height=240&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240">
http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/msnbc/msnbc_ko_leakgate_cia_witnesses_060523a_320x240.flv&width=320&height=240&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240">Video in Streaming Flash format...
Video in Windows Media format...

http://veredictum.com/node/214

[Catherine Vincent]

72. Thanks, Dzika!

:hi:

[spuddonna]

73. Thanks so much...

Good to see it first hand! And very interesting to how closely Keith and staff are following the Internet news sites...

[Patsy Stone]

74. Thanks, dzika!

Always appreciate your contributions.

[symbolman]

82. Leopold was not mentioned by Name

Let's be specific here and truthful, and yes I do believe that Leopold was who Olbermann was talking about, but this post makes it appear that his name was mentioned, it's not true.. unless you are using some other channel than most people, I'd like to assume that your tv is receiving the same program :)

He was thrown a lifeline as the ME poster mentioned, but what he did isn't all that spectacular and not considered a scoop, at least it didn't used to be considered a "scoop" if you wrote what was in Publicly Released Court Documents already..

Certainly if others don't have time to go down to the courthouse and read them, or see them online, I would say that it's NEWS to THEM..

I would think if someone wanted to let people know what's going on they'd put up the Public Court papers at their site, and not just mention the facts contained in them.. did he write an editorial speculating as to the two CIA agents and who they'd be flipping for?

Anyone got a link to the original article? I'd like to view it..

[Patsy Stone]

85. He didn't use his name.

That has been mentioned in other threads, if not this one. We here in Left Blogsylvania, however, know it was Leopold, and that reference, IMO, was for us -- to let us know that he's paying attention.

Here's the link to the original TO article. It's true that Jason was reporting on publicly filed court documents, and it's also true that he was the first to publish the information. He said in that article that the defense, in its motion to compel discovery, mentioned the names of the CIA people, previously alluded to in the indictment, and that they would testify for the prosecution. Here's the link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml

Here's the pertinent part from the TO article: "In describing the evidence and the prosecution witnesses it pertains to, Libby's attorneys revealed the names of previously unknown CIA officials who may have communicated Plame Wilson's classified CIA work to Libby." (emphasis: mine)

The fact that the NY Daily News waited two months to print publicly available information confuses me, along with the fact that now it's "news" because they published it. Here's the NY Daily News link. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html

[symbolman]

87. Thanks for the links

There are many things that don't get reported, and that's the problem, we just don't KNOW what we're missing, that's one thing that Takebackthemedia.com wanted to create, was a service called, "The News that YOU are NOT getting..", while they report on kittens stuck in pipes and the latest blonde girl gone missing..

I'm glad that this was being disseminated, isn't Smoking gun keeping up on these documents? They used to have EVERYTHING on their site, and quickly too.. might be a good resource, I've noticed that some are hosting pages and folks like H2OMan are digging into these docs with relish..

Appreciate all the work being done in that vein, and the links,

Oh, and Patsy Stone was one of the first female "Rocking GodHeads" for me on TV.. that time she sat up in the burnt down kitchen was one of the funniest damn moments in TV history :)

[Catrina]

88. As someone who was interested in the Libby case, I very much appreciated

Jason's Leopold's reporting on the court filings.

Certainly if others don't have time to go down to the courthouse and read them, or see them online, I would say that it's NEWS to THEM..

Isn't that what reporting is about? The average person doesn't have time to go courthouses to read various filings and depend on the MSM to do so regarding important news. Since the MSM did not do so in this very important case, Jason Leopold and others who did, were a very valuable resource.

I think Leopold was using pretty standard techniques that most reporters use. Much of what reporters like David Schuster report on, comes from court filings at this stage of case like this.

In the article posted above http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml he did not offer his own opinion on who they would 'flip' for, but reported on the fact that the Defense was referring to two witnesses, who were then named by the Defense, something the prosecution had not done in it's original filings. (thanks to Patsy Stone for pointing that out :-))

Iow, he provided the information because obviously he believed it was important. The MSM clearly did not, or, did not want to. So it seems to me that Jason Leopold's readers were better served than those depending on the MSM. That's all I ask of a reporter.

ABC is now facing a similar situation to that of TO. It is standing by its reporter's claim that Hastert is under investigation despite denials from Haster and the DOJ. I assume they will be subject to the same fierce criticism TO and Jason Leopold have been ~ as for me, I think where there's smoke there's fire. How big the fire is remains to be seen in both the Rove indictment case and the Hastert/FBI investigation case. I'm willing to wait and see and not castigate either reporter or their editors.

Edited to make some minor changes after reading Symbolman's and Patsy Stone's posts ~ and to ask Symbolman if the site you mentioned exists. It sounds like avery good idea. :-)

[symbolman]

89. I have no problem with any of this

and yes there is a Santa Claus, Virginia :)

The Smoking Gun is right here -- http://www.thesmokinggun.com

I haven't poked around, some of it is stupid, mug shots of the stars, but they DO get actual court documents and post them, wouldn't be surprised if they did have a whole section on libby at least..

The proprietor of this site was interviewed by Colbert a few weeks ago, the same show was repeated this last week while Colbert is on vacation, and both of these guy are pretty smart cookies, it was apparent that Colbert had much respect for the owner of the site.

One other point tho, is that ABC doesn't represent the blogosphere or Progressives and as such is not accountable to us at all, Corporate shills, those working actively to get the word out to the public on what we consider important - ABC is DisneyLand, and so of course shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, IMHO..

They've got the lawyers to back up what they say as well. I would tend to believe them over Hastert, tho that's like saying I'd have more faith in what a "UFO-Ologist" said over an "End Timer".. hell, I'd believe a "Proctologist" sooner :)

[Catrina]

90. I know the Smoking Gun does have the indictments when they

are available but I'm not sure if they were posting the Libby pre-trial motions. That's where most of the really interesting revelations were coming from. Sites like Talk-left ~ Jeralyn Merrit's site, and FiredogLake were following the court proceedings, but for some reason, the MSM was not doing much if any reporting on them.

They did pay attention to the one filing in which it was revealed that Libby had testified that Cheney had ordered him to talk to the press and that Cheney had told him, Libby, that Bush also wanted him to do so, implicating Bush for the first time publicly. That got the media's attention so I assume they were aware of the proceedings.

DUer StopTheBleeding has been keeping track of all the filings and has asked for technical help several times. I think he is keeping them in the Research forum. If you know anyone who could help him I think he would appreciate it! :-) It will be very interesting to go back later on as these events unfold, and read through them again. He is doing a real service by keeping them all in one place.

Patrick Fitzgerald posts them on his site http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html after the proceedings in PDF files and that's where most people have been getting them. I think they are over for a while now, the last one being yesterday, which I have not yet read since I can't download PDF files. That's why I appreciated Jason Leopold reporting on them, as well as the other sites.

Btw, Symbolman, this does sound like a great idea and posting the pre-trial documents there would have been a really great ideo, especially if someone could have posted them in text for those of us who can't read the PDF files that's one thing that www.Takebackthemedia.com wanted to create, was a service called, "The News that YOU are NOT getting..",

[Catrina]

83. Thank you dzika. It looks like media people are quietily backing Jason

Leopold ~ first Keith Olbermann and now The Daily News drawing attention to what KO said ~ and it does seem as though people are paying very close attention to this story. It's very helpful for them to give Jason Leopold credit for that story. They need not even have mentioned it since it was from an Internet blog. It makes you wonder what they know ~ it's almost as though they want to support him ~

[femrap]

79. I linked to this a day late....

and I'm sure glad I did. Thanks for a great discussion. Learned a lot and didn't have to listen to people trashing TO and Jason.

This reminds me of Watergate. But this time the prez doesn't get off so easy.....right?