The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Another Falsehood exposed in Fitzgerald's case against Libby
Not only does it turn out that Lewis Libby was not the first government official to "out" the NON-COVERT CIA employee Valerie Plame, (Bob Woodward says he was told first, and not by Libby...) as was alleged in Patrick Fitzgerald's case against him; now Fitz has gone BACK to court to correct yet another falsehood in his case filings (via Byron York in The Corner):
An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now-famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then-classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, "Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments. For example, in a front page story on Sunday, the Washington Post reported:
At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.
In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.
A few hours ago, however, Fitzgerald sent a letter to judge Reggie Walton, asking to correct his filing. The letter reads:
We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads,
"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
That sentence should read,
"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Never mind.
Rick Moran had some appropriate commentary to this story:
Yesterday, I did a post based on an article in Truthout.org regarding some “revelations” that Bush lied to the American people and may have lied to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald when “the President was not only briefed that Joe Wilson was trying to discredit the Saddam/Niger uranium story by going public but also that he was told that Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and had recommended sending him on the Niger trip.”
OOOOPS! My bad!
Not only was the story written by a proven plagiarizer but it now appears that Fitzgerald himself, in one of the more careless and shockingly sloppy errors his office has made to date, included language in his court filing that was untrue and, given the significance of the subject matter, leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship.
And the hits just keep on coming...meanwhile the New York Times continues to distort the truth:
The legion of liberals who get their news from the New York Times (and still consider it a reliable news source) remain untroubled by the shocking news that Patrick Fitzgerald has admitted misleading a federal judge in a filing that he has had to officially correct.
The New York Sun has full coverage of the matter, but realtive few Times readers, especially the majority of its readers who live outside of New York City, will see the necessary corrective. Fitzgerald has plenty to answer for, but the Times is behaving unconsciounably by ignoring the matter, having used the erroneous filing to criticize the president.
By far the most persistent and comprehensive coverage of the Libby trial in the entire blogosphere has come from Tom McGuire at Just One Minute. Keep an eye on this blog for further updates in the coming days.
An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now-famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then-classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, "Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments. For example, in a front page story on Sunday, the Washington Post reported:
At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.
In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.
A few hours ago, however, Fitzgerald sent a letter to judge Reggie Walton, asking to correct his filing. The letter reads:
We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads,
"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
That sentence should read,
"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Never mind.
Rick Moran had some appropriate commentary to this story:
Yesterday, I did a post based on an article in Truthout.org regarding some “revelations” that Bush lied to the American people and may have lied to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald when “the President was not only briefed that Joe Wilson was trying to discredit the Saddam/Niger uranium story by going public but also that he was told that Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and had recommended sending him on the Niger trip.”
OOOOPS! My bad!
Not only was the story written by a proven plagiarizer but it now appears that Fitzgerald himself, in one of the more careless and shockingly sloppy errors his office has made to date, included language in his court filing that was untrue and, given the significance of the subject matter, leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship.
And the hits just keep on coming...meanwhile the New York Times continues to distort the truth:
The legion of liberals who get their news from the New York Times (and still consider it a reliable news source) remain untroubled by the shocking news that Patrick Fitzgerald has admitted misleading a federal judge in a filing that he has had to officially correct.
The New York Sun has full coverage of the matter, but realtive few Times readers, especially the majority of its readers who live outside of New York City, will see the necessary corrective. Fitzgerald has plenty to answer for, but the Times is behaving unconsciounably by ignoring the matter, having used the erroneous filing to criticize the president.
By far the most persistent and comprehensive coverage of the Libby trial in the entire blogosphere has come from Tom McGuire at Just One Minute. Keep an eye on this blog for further updates in the coming days.
