OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the witness
stand.



IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context.

IMUS: Oh, it was?

MITCHELL: It was out of context.

IMUS: Isn't that always the case?

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not
know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it
was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including
on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera -
I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was
widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my
researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.

I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by
Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had
known in that period.

IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the
CIA?

MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me
try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest
of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak
column.

IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: Yes.

IMUS: Did you mention . . .

MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.

IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say
that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated
that his wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I
said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife
worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .

IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:24:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:

This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.

The flip side, Cheney, in all probability, will also have to testify. Oh,
Mitchell has been taken out of context. Her complete quote:

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:24:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:

This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.

The flip side, Cheney, in all probability, will also have to testify. Oh,
Mitchell has been taken out of context. Her complete quote:

" It was widely known among those of us..."

"It"? What is "it"? You need to post the question posed to her in order to
know what "it" was:

MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her identity
nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she didn't
know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.



Out of context, but nice try.

thunder's post was out of context.

It all depends upon what the meaning of the word "it" is.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact
that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not
until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her
identity nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she
didn't know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

You are overlooking the timeline. "It was widely known among those of us
who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in
trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy
to Niger."

"The envoy to Niger" wasn't an issue until May 6, 2003, when Kristof
published his article. Wilson's op-ed piece wasn't until July 6, 2003,
and Novak's article was July 14, 2003. Let's assume, Plame's employment
at the CIA was becoming known to elements of the Press during that time
period. It is still quite possible that Russert did not know and, as
Fitzgerald said in the indictment, Plame's "affiliation with the CIA was
not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Elements of the Press are, I'm sure, not looking forward to this trial,
but, then, neither is anyone in this administration. They definitely have
more to loose. You seem to think Libby will be exonerated. I think that
is unlikely, but even if he is, the underlying issues will still be an
embarrassment to the White House.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington
that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact
that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not
until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her
identity nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she
didn't know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait
until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

You are overlooking the timeline. "It was widely known among those of us
who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in
trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy
to Niger."

"The envoy to Niger" wasn't an issue until May 6, 2003, when Kristof
published his article. Wilson's op-ed piece wasn't until July 6, 2003,
and Novak's article was July 14, 2003. Let's assume, Plame's employment
at the CIA was becoming known to elements of the Press during that time
period.



It is still quite possible that Russert did not know and, as
Fitzgerald said in the indictment, Plame's "affiliation with the CIA was
not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied to
the GJ about not knowing.



Elements of the Press are, I'm sure, not looking forward to this trial,
but, then, neither is anyone in this administration. They definitely have
more to loose.

Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and public
opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this investigation.

Of course, if it's shown that Libby told the truth, and Russert and Wilson
lied, it might make page A21 of the NY times.



You seem to think Libby will be exonerated. I think that
is unlikely, but even if he is, the underlying issues will still be an
embarrassment to the White House.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied
to the GJ about not knowing.

Why would he? Besides, Russert is only a small part of the equation. A
half dozen other sources have Libby knowing about Plame, before his talk
with Russert. Are you saying they all lied?

Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and
public opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this
investigation.

I'm not sure public opinion has convicted Libby, but it is slowly starting
to indict Bush on his run-up to war. If Americans are still dying when
Libby goes to trail, even if he is exonerated will be irrelevant to public
opinion on Bush.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

NOYB wrote:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.


I see. You believe that "conservatives" should be allowed... or perhaps
encouraged... to lie at will? What happened to integrity & accountability?

DSK

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

DSK wrote:

What happened to integrity & accountability?

Ted Kennedy and the rad left Dems.

--
Skipper

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied
to the GJ about not knowing.

Why would he?

To further an agenda?
To protect his source?

Who knows!


Besides, Russert is only a small part of the equation. A
half dozen other sources have Libby knowing about Plame, before his talk
with Russert. Are you saying they all lied?

I believe that Libby knew about Plame before his talk with Russert. But
that fact alone doesn't mean that Russert didn't know...nor that he didn't
lie about his conversation with Libby.

How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions of
my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way in
hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.




Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and
public opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this
investigation.

I'm not sure public opinion has convicted Libby, but it is slowly starting
to indict Bush on his run-up to war. If Americans are still dying when
Libby goes to trail, even if he is exonerated will be irrelevant to public
opinion on Bush.


The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally exclusive
and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Carl Levin just spoke with Chris Matthews on Nov. 7th:


MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to
war or the way they looked at the evidence?

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after
Saddam. They began to-LOOK THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAD
NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BY THE WAY. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THERE IS PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE OF THAT.

Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting
intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link
between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.



Remember, though, that Bush listed Saddam's pursuit of WMD as the casus
belli. And Levin does not dispute that the evidence suggested that Saddam
had WMD.



I realize that Levin voted against House joint resolution 114 (for war in
Iraq), but the democratic Vice-Chairman of the intel committee saw the same
intel and voted yes.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.

The conclusion in the opening statement of this post is debunked further in
the text. This makes no sense unless it's assumed that no-one will read the
entire article.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
DSK wrote:

What happened to integrity & accountability?

Ted

Ahh, Skipper, aka Adolf Mann, rec.boat's own little neonazi.

Whatever happened to civility, integrity & accountability?
Chappaquiddick, the politics of political assassination, Borking,
anti-American fifth column activities, stonewalling judicial
nominations, and the now famous semen stained blue blew dress...among
many others.

--
Skipper

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:01:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.

I used the cite, for one reason, to get the complete quote.

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the
intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track
down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a
number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her
actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in
the U.S. media.

LOL, there is a very good reason for that. In the above quote, everything
after the "But frankly", qualifies the entire statement. Now, let's try a
little experiment. Put the entire first sentence in quotes, and google
it. Notice all the right wing sites that come up, *without* the
qualifying last sentence? NewsMax, FreeRepublic, WorldNetDaily, etc.
Seems there is a need for *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION*.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:24:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:



How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions
of my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way
in hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.

Ah, but he was not being charged because he had a faulty memory, he was
charged because he testified very clearly to things that didn't happen,
and multiple times. For a lawyer, he should have known better. I'm
guessing Rove wasn't charged, because he was smart enough to have a faulty
memory.



The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally
exclusive and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Except, it was in defense of faulty intelligence, the Niger documents.
Maybe you can't make that stretch, but I guarantee the American people
can, and are.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:01:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.

I used the cite, for one reason, to get the complete quote.

I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.



" It was widely known among those of us who cover the
intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track
down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger.

What was widely known? Oh yeah..."IT" was widely known. What's "IT"?

Here's a clue: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington
that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

"IT"="that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA".


Kinda changes the meaning of her statement, eh?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:24:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:



How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions
of my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way
in hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.

Ah, but he was not being charged because he had a faulty memory, he was
charged because he testified very clearly to things that didn't happen,
and multiple times. For a lawyer, he should have known better. I'm
guessing Rove wasn't charged, because he was smart enough to have a faulty
memory.



The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally
exclusive and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Except, it was in defense of faulty intelligence, the Niger documents.
Maybe you can't make that stretch, but I guarantee the American people
can, and are.

Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.

If you read back in the thread, you provided the context, vis a vis Imus.

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that
Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Anyway, did you try my little experiment? Interesting results, aren't
they?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good luck!

I do have a cite for the Downing Street Memos, interested?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had
nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good luck!

That's besides the point. You said "Niger documents". Bush wasn't
referring to the Niger documents in his speech.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I was still out of context because it didn't include the question that
preceded it.

If you read back in the thread, you provided the context, vis a vis Imus.

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that
Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Anyway, did you try my little experiment? Interesting results, aren't
they?


Which experiment?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush's speech referred to corroborating evidence from MI6 that had
nothing
to do with the supposedly forged yellowcake memo.

And have you tried to track the "corroborating evidence" down? Good
luck!

That's besides the point. You said "Niger documents". Bush wasn't
referring to the Niger documents in his speech.

Besides the point? The British "corroborating evidence" was also bull****
and there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration knew it.
In all this hub-bub smearing Wilson, little effort seems to be given to
the two other officials sent to Niger. The other two officials who
corroborated Wilson's findings. But then, it's a little harder to
discredit a Marine Four Star General, and considerably more dangerous. ;-)

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:46:51 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Which experiment?

Disappointing, very disappointing.

Did I miss something?

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off. Distorted news from the "liebral" media?

Media Matters serves a valid purpose, correcting conservative
misinformation.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off. Distorted news from the "liebral" media?

Media Matters serves a valid purpose, correcting conservative
misinformation.

The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's name
or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she
did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:14:33 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Did I miss something?

Up thread, you were complaining about Media Matters because it's only
purpose was correcting conservative misinformation. I was making the
point, that there was a good reason for that. We, I think, agree that
this is Mitchell's quote (without the context question).

" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among
the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us
began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Agreed? The first sentence would have you believe that Plame's name was
widely known. The last sentence qualifies that. Either sentence, taken
out of context, distorts the entire statement. Agreed?

The experiment was to put the first sentence in quotes and google it. You
will notice quite a few right wing sites come up, NewsMax, FreeRepublic,
WorldNetDaily, etc. And if you read those cites, you will see the last
sentence is left off.

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:59:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who
among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number
of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual
role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Now, that is spin. Besides the last sentence being very germane with
regards to the IIPA, I would argue that good journalism doesn't decide
what is germane. Good journalism would print the entire quote, and let
the reader decide. Point two, didn't you complain about context because I
didn't print the question Mitchell answered? Well, if not printing the
question, means the quote is out of context, not printing the full quote
damn well is also.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:57:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
name or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that
she did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

As I mentioned, the last sentence is very germane to the IIPA. It's also
quite important with regards to the classified nature of her employment.
Most, but not all, CIA employment is classified. The last sentence more
than the first addresses that point.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:59:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


" It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who
among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number
of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual
role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving
weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

Because the last sentence isn't germane to the question of: "did
Mitchell
know Plame's identity and that she was employed by the CIA?" The first
sentence is an admission that "IT" was widely known...and "IT" is the
fact
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Now, that is spin. Besides the last sentence being very germane with
regards to the IIPA, I would argue that good journalism doesn't decide
what is germane. Good journalism would print the entire quote, and let
the reader decide. Point two, didn't you complain about context because I
didn't print the question Mitchell answered? Well, if not printing the
question, means the quote is out of context, not printing the full quote
damn well is also.

The first sentence of the paragraph makes zero sense without first posting
the question that was asked.

The last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mitchell
knew Plame's identity.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:57:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
name or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't
know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that
she did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

As I mentioned, the last sentence is very germane to the IIPA. It's also
quite important with regards to the classified nature of her employment.
Most, but not all, CIA employment is classified. The last sentence more
than the first addresses that point.

It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's identity
before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly states that
Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the CIA.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what? Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA. Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what?

So what?!?

The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.



Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).



Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:13:12 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.

Wrong. She has always had an identity, and it has always been public.
Someone leaked her employment status, which was *classified* or, more
accurately, someone put Plame's public identity together with her
classified employment status.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).

Come on. Her name has always been public information. The association of
her name, with her *classified* employment status was what is illegal.
Oh, and that is not what Libby is charged with lying about, but that's
another issue.


Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

Uh, no, that's not what he is charged with. He's charged with obstruction
of justice, making false statements, and perjury. At this time, he is not
accused of leaking her name *or* leaking her employment status.