This is JJ's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JJ's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
David Brooks characterization in his column "Ending the Farce" is probably the best way to look at Libby, from beginning to end. Quote Brooks: Plamegate was a farce in five acts. Really have to keep the Acts of this drama separate to get it right, IMO. (And this is why I hope the appeal goes on.) Most of the problems that have arisen in considering the Libby drama is how the various five Acts interplay with one another. sbw said: Because, although I had no particular interest in the case, I discovered repeated and persistent misbehavior undertaken by multiple parties in the CIA, the Justice Department, the Congress, the courts, and, in particular, the national press, simply to take down an elected official with whose politics they opposed." sbw's ire is with Acts I and II with some of Act III mixed in. Patterico -- whom I find frustrating to read -- seems to focus only on Act III without considering any of the other Acts. I still think Libby told some lies to the GJ, but given the circumstances -- or the other Acts -- I don't hold Libby's feet to the fire as legalistically as Patterico does. And certainly not for 2 1/2 years of jail time! If there is any comparison to make (yea, this is far-fetched), compare Libby to the TDF and Floyd Landis. The Tour hit Landis with spectacular charges without innocence before guilt and without real chance of recourse. Despite the large numbers of cheaters in cycling, the governing body of cycling has made the testing process a pure joke and, therefore, cycling and the TDF a farce. (And the TDF starts again in several days without resolution or a 2006 winner!) May the legal system here never fall to the level of disgust with which many now regard professional cycling's management! Bush's Act V appearance just put some sanity back into the entire process.
Toggle Commented Jul 5, 2007 on Backlash On Libby at JustOneMinute
Repeatedly posting long articles without making a single argument from them is silly.
Oh, and to do the James Thurber thing in anticipation of Comment a la Olberworld: GET READY! GET READY! THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
Making a prediction that tonight's Comment from Olberworld is going to shoot MSNBC straight off the cliff into an area of deep journalistic ocean that it has never been in before.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
I like that, PUK. Typeset shortened version to a t-shirt: Most Kafkaesque. That a government department can refer an alleged offense to the DOJ, which can then appoint a Special Prosecutor who can investigate and hide his findings, all without any original offense or damage done ever being explained or made public? That a man could be prosecuted on a secondary issue but sentenced on the original alleged offense drags this into "An Enemy of the People" territory? (Apologize for editing, but, hey, for t-shirts on big bellies, it's just too many words.)
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
Elliott, I almost posted that myself simply because for me it takes the ribbon for wildest response. The "temerity to share"! Oh my aching feet!
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
Gee, kinda sad not to see Libby work this out the regular way... But then maybe the regular way was all shot to heck anyway. Quite a lather, chee chee. Worse than Obama's comments in tone, for sure: but not too much worse in substance. Bad, bad candidate.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2007 on Libby Appeal Denied at JustOneMinute
I know Clarice has written on this at American Thinker but it's a wonder to recap the quotes: From Fitz’s original press conference: But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. From Judy Miller’s interview with WSJ: Ms. Miller's article suggests that Mr. Libby discussed aspects of Ms. Plame's identity with Ms. Miller repeatedly, and that he likely revealed other classified information. The first of their three conversations occurred on June 23, 2003. From AP’s Freedom of Information request on Armitage’s calendar: Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003. From the transcript of Woodard’s interview with Armitage: ARMITAGE: No, she isn't the chief, no. WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh, yeah, hubby will go." From Sept. 2006 NYT: WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair. The oversight from Fitz's superiors?
Toggle Commented Jun 23, 2007 on Read Closely! at JustOneMinute
Got to love these paragraphs from the article: The obligation to truth, the prosecutor argued, was of the highest importance, and one in which Mr. Libby had failed by perjuring himself. It would be hard to dispute the first contention. It is no less hard to avoid the memory of Mr. Fitzgerald's own dubious relation to truth and honesty--as, for example, in his failure to disclose that he had known all along the identity of the person who had leaked the Valerie Plame story. ...Why the prosecutor sought this secrecy can be no mystery--it was the way to keep the grand jury proceedings going, on a fishing expedition, that could yield witnesses who stumbled, or were entrapped, into "obstruction" or "lying" violations. It was its own testament to the nature of this prosecution--and the prosecutor. Too high can't go over it, too low you can't go under it, too wide...
Toggle Commented Jun 23, 2007 on Read Closely! at JustOneMinute
OT, but Durham in Wonderland did an incredible job of live-blogging the review hearings of the legal work of Nifong. May the hearings serve as a standard for clearing up sloppy legal work! Then I want to see lawmakers pass legislation setting legal fees at $65 max! and all will be right with the nation! And pigs wilt fly.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2007 on I'm With Fred at JustOneMinute
I like the Mirror of Desire for Fred and Obama. Isn't that true! So, what does that make Harry Reid in Potter World? Snape?
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2007 on I'm With Fred at JustOneMinute
So Libby's "obstruction" really amounted to a failure to confess - there was no other way Fitzgerald was going to convict him. There it is! The Great White Whale that was the Libby investigation. Only thing I want to add is that when all is said and done: I want to be able to prose like Murray Waas! Lessons? Does he give them? Or David Corn? I apologize, I am being cynical. The next time a Democrat is indicted, I could be quoted. (Deep breath)
I'm not groaning!
Gee, open thread time?
Toggle Commented Jun 1, 2007 on Valerie Plame, Telling Stories at JustOneMinute
OT "One of the troubling things about this case, and political criminal cases in general, is that the Fifth Amendment is as a practical matter not available to the defendants. If this case hadn't had political implications, there's no way that any of these people would have talked without a grant of immunity." Worth repeating!
Toggle Commented May 31, 2007 on Valerie Plame, Telling Stories at JustOneMinute
The "fear of political embarrassment" angle? Maybe not. Libby is a political infighter and knows the "undermining" game of politics. Libby could have run up and down the halls of the White House screaming, "Val recommended Joe and she is CIA" and as long as no one heard him that mattered, he was OK. Saw this groaner on PBS's Frontline the other night: Q: "Do you believe, though, from what you know about the case, as Joe Wilson says, that the White House was out to get him?" A from Mark Feldstein: "Yeah. And guess what, Joe Wilson? Move over. The White House is out to get a lot of people. And every White House is, every administration. It's part of the tug-of-war of policy that you try to advance your interests and undermine your opponents'. … I think merely whispering negative information about Joe Wilson's wife the way this administration did does not constitute some enormous change in the way things work in Washington, and does not constitute the kind of criminal behavior that really ought to result in people going to jail." Ahhh, has it been established that the White House was the source of this whispering campaign? I don't think that they lit the first fires.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2007 on Valerie Plame, Telling Stories at JustOneMinute
Other Tom Thanks finally going into Libby's motivation. My little ol' self does not think that Libby felt like he was cornered. There does not seem to be that kind of feel to his grand jury testimony (the little bit that I have read). That his testimony would have set off a "press firestorm"??!! It was closed testimony first of all; so the press couldn't have it. That it eventually would have been public at trial? Libby could have said something to the prosecutor like: "After Wilson's many media appearances and accusations, we got curious and discovered it was common knowledge who Wilson's wife was." lurker: At the time of his GJ testimony, he did have the facts? As to my pretty raw guess as to why Libby said what he said: He was cocky and he was mad. He was cocky about Fitz's investigation being bogus. I am betting Libby knew the real genesis of the Novak (and Woodward) story. Maybe not Armitage exactly, but that someone at State or CIA started it. He assumed that it would all collapse and was going to put a little snark on it before it did. He was mad because this from the beginning was been about intergovernmental turf fighting. Fitz was just used in the fight. Throw in a small bit of fear of the law and I think you get an error at GJ testimony.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2007 on Valerie Plame, Telling Stories at JustOneMinute
Thank you for the mile that you donate, manys! Because I am sure in recognition of the gaps that you allege are so outrageous that you will indeed step up and fill that gap. Because it's ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for your country, right? It's the outrage, can't you just feel the outrage. For you, it could be named Frequent Troll Flier Miles...
Toggle Commented May 29, 2007 on Donate Your Frequent Flier Miles at JustOneMinute
IMO, three things have never been reconciled in this mess: 1. Libby told some small stories to a grand jury. 2. Fitz overreached in his investigation to protect grand jury testimony. 3. Fitz completely overreached in his thesis that a "cloud hung over the vice president's office." Whatever that might mean. Someone come up with a way to connect those dots, and I'm happier. There are some large problems with 2. and 3. fitting together. And neither 2. or 3. fits at all with 1. I speak for the great unwashed and uninformed who deal evidence and not with nuance and psychic powers!
Toggle Commented May 18, 2007 on A Plame Day! at JustOneMinute
Ah, Plame on once again and all is right with the world! That and Rosie sailing completely over the world's edge.
Toggle Commented May 18, 2007 on A Plame Day! at JustOneMinute
Forget grading the debate, yes. Grade the questions, absolutely! My grade: "Bad, bad" to whomever let the questioners take center stage. Ugly. Did the RNC know about that in advance? If they did, what were they thinking!?
Toggle Commented May 5, 2007 on Grade The Debate at JustOneMinute
And while I am shaking index finger at the RNC... Should it be the "War in Iraq"? The "War on Terror"? Or should it be the "War on Terrorism in Iraq"? Or should it be the "War on Terrorists Wherever They Operate"? Better, how about: "The War for Democratic Government in Iraq" or something in a similar line. Be nice to not have to think about these rabbits that the DNC rabbit farm is constantly releasing. Come on, think up some counter labels! Make them chase...
As usual with these stories, you have to scratch head and wonder about the whats first and then that leads to the whys. Legitimate story? What? Why? Or is this just a rabbit? Chase the rabbit. Ignore the rabbit? Instead could someone explain to the RNC that fiscal spending a la Reagan needs to make a return before any more elections happen. A more compassionate conservativism might be to act fiscally efficient.
Aye. Captain has an interesting live blog on hearings. Seems a total embarrassing mess and the blame right now is squarely on the incredible silliness of the committee for not being able to explain anything that they wish to do that will either help or improve the business of USAs. But, this is small taters compared with the mess NBC is getting themselves into for airing the shooter. Hugh Hewitt mentions a tort possibility. ABC has a psychiatrist calling it social catastrophe.
Toggle Commented Apr 19, 2007 on Open Thread Thursday at JustOneMinute
Beyond ironic that Imus' firing is presented side by side tonight with the "outrageous" Duke case. Especially more so with Rev Sharpton as facilitator of justice in Imus world. And how dare anyone play the rapper-family values card at a time like this!!! Meanwhile, on MSNBC we got David Gregory doing Imus' postmortem! OY! Not going to miss Imus.
Toggle Commented Apr 12, 2007 on We Live In A Better World at JustOneMinute