Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Libby Case: Yesterday's Hearing ....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:45 AM
Original message
The Libby Case: Yesterday's Hearing ....
I'm finding little news about yesterday's pretrial hearing, other than the below linked article about Fitzgerald responding to Team Libby's claim that he lacked the authority to indict Scooter. Those who visit Mr. Fitzgerald's web site can find two letters which document Fitzgerald's authority. The first is James Comey's 12-30-2003 letter to Patrick Fitzgerald, and the second is Comey's August 12, 2005 memorandum to David Margolis.

Has anyone found more information about the hearing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031702252.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. I doubt you will find out much more about the pre-trial hearing.
One shouldn't expect much out of any of the pre-trial proceedings, on either side.

I've been involved in enough of these to know that often, the Court may hear some argument on pending motions, but normally the Court will ask if either side has anything to add to their motion/briefs and that is the extent of the hearing. The Court can consider the pre-trial motions up to and during trial, as long as they are not evidentary (that would prevent or allow evidence in), the Court can consider them and make a decision on them just before he instructs the jury and lets them begin deliberations.

Most Courts will allow the prosecution to put on its case, pretrial motions are for appeal purposes and evidentiary purposes. Unless the indictment is froth with error (this one is not, imho), the Court will let the jury hear both sides and make a determination based upon the evidence presented by both sides.

Have you been tracking the filing of pleadings on Pacer?

You may want to watch to see what is filed that the press might miss.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I'm looking
in places few people would look! I think we'll know more, soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. heard something that
Armitage, Rove and Woodwood would be indicted soon and that Bush and Cheney had sealed indictments. One hears about the sealed indictments. I wonder how much we don't know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Heard it from where? Here's an article about Armitage on Yahoo...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060318/ts_nm/bush_leak_dc

Armitage may come under scrutiny in CIA leak trial

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top State Department official suspected of being the first person to discuss the identity of a CIA official with reporters is expected to testify in the perjury trial of ex-vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a court motion says.

The filing by Libby's defense team late on Friday asks Judge Reggie Walton to force prosecutors to turn over material they have about likely witnesses including former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Others who are expected to testify include White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, former CIA director George Tenet and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the document says.

It suggests Libby's team may try to pin blame on the State Department for the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to the public after her husband criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

-----------------

It appears they will bring Armitage into this and put the blame on him but I hope that Fitzgerald knows this is a lost cause on their part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. probably chinese whispers
in the coffee shop some people were talking about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. as much as Armitage hated these people after he found out the Iraq war
was a lie, ie: soldiers died and Armitage is a 2 time vet, and this did not sit well with him and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was cooperating with Fitz. Unless I am missing something it would make complete sense.


Armitage "did not want to deal with those F**kers(WHIG)" his words not mine - paraphrased a conversation. Also Armitage was in the circle he had his hands on the memo/NIE/anything else that had to do with Plame.

cat_girl25 there are a number of people that are cooperating that we know about based on Leopold's six sources and Larisa's reporting, but there have to be other current and former CIA/State Dept/WH staff that are cooperating that we don't know about.






Where does Armitage fit in with this trial??? Only your Boyfriend(Fitzy) knows that answer :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Yes, I know a little about Armitage and his hatred of the
neocons. He was probably the reason Powell decided to call it quits. And what's so funny about me being one of Fitzie's girls? :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. well at least you realize that you are in fierce competition to win his
.... shall we say attention ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Yes, I realize that.
And of course, I am just a fan of his. I wouldn't be his type. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. There are no sealed indictments.
None. There are parts of the pretrial motions that are not public, but no sealed indictments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Aiming at the Supreme Court, are they?
Hm-m-m.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yep ....
and looking to put a bit of pressure on the White House, according to the articles below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Things are looking interesting ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. And another similar one ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. No I looked for Fitz photos and only found one of Libby
Which was not worth posting here. Has the press grown bored with this case already?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. There Was This Article On Truthout
yesterday in which JL talks about the unraveling going on with the defense and how FitzG. has witnesses from the admin (I believe 6 of them) that will give testimony about Libby's memory.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706Z.shtml

And this thread on DU about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x684849

Also there was a google alert about Fitz's reply to the charge that his position is unconstitutional. I'll see if I can find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. Abbramoff news seems to have been blanketed also...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. Also This
“In a court filing late Friday night, Libby's legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.”cont…

“Now that Scooter Libby is getting ready to go to court, stories like this have a greater chance of gaining more attention. It not only helps build the defense of him being under enormous pressure and the pressure building inside the beltway, but also the lengths this administration was going to in order to protect their lie.

Something else that will help back Scooter's defense is a July 30, 2003 Rose Garden press conference. This was the day President Bush accepted responsibility for the flawed intelligence of the Niger claim. This will help show that those times were in fact tense. At the same time it will be a damaging blow to the White House. Just a few weeks prior to that, the administration was in a full blown “attack Joe (Wilson)” campaign and one of those attacks was outing his wife which lead to all of this.

Perhaps Scooter will be able to convince a jury that he did “forget” about disclosing Plame’s identity. It is a long shot but even if he does, it will expose more truths about what was happening in Washington and to what lengths this administration would go to defend their illegal war. The only hurdle left for our side is hoping that this information is not kept from the public because it is classified. Even if it is we still have the ears of Patrick Fitzgerald listening in and he might just be willing to pursue other angles of this case.”

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I don't know, when you read the Leopeold article that you linked to
in the above thread and read my post at #4. It seems that Libby's defense is pretty weak. Leopold has 6 sources????


Libby is toast, I understand what fdl is saying in your above post but I think that are too many people that are cooperating with Fitz, or have worked out deals that Libby is going up against multiple people that are gonna point the finger at him on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Calling Their Bluff
is how I saw Leopold's article. By saying he has 6 sources close to the investigation who say that FitzG. has a whole passel of witnesses that are willing to tell on Scootie pie he is kicking sand in the face of their pr campaign. Though I don't doubt the truth of it. SLaD has a list of potential witnesses. Any one of them could have tales to tell. Ari F., for instance was up to his neck in this mess. I'd be willing to bet he's sell Libby down the river to save his own skin.

Another reason I think their case is weak is because nearly every day seems to bring a new strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. yep weak is an understatement
1) Anyone worth their weight that reads the Fibby indictment can see clearly that Fitz has pretty much an open and shut case. Also take into account that all experts in law pretty much say the same thing without coming out and saying it in a blatant way.

2) You have reporters contradicting Fibby's defense.... Now lets look at a reporter, good(LA or JL from Rawstory) or bad(Snooty Miller) they all want to protect their information even when they write false articles about WMD's - I don't know why exactly maybe it's a principle thing. But anyway the point of having one or more reporters say contrary statements to your defense does not bode well if your name is Scooter and Rove IMO.

3) All of the former and/or current CIA/State Dept/WH Staff that are cooperating and/or cut deals with Fitz.
**************

Now anyone of the 3 listed above spells disaster for Fibby & Inc(Rove, Rice, Dickless Cheney) when examined on their own, some of them stronger then others. Now when you combine all of them together the odds start to change dramatically.

Lets throw in a few more factors.

*Fitz - solid true American guy for truth and justice at any cost
*Walton - conservative judge - means more ruling for law than defendants wants/(shall I say "rights")
*What about all of the information/sources that our star reporters do not have access to - now that is a wild card and something to ponder, after all we do seem to get the information ahead of the curve ball. Or simply put what other people are "cooperating" with Fitz that we do not know about???


These next months and years may be some of the most interesting yet, and that says quite a bit considering what we have witnessed in the last 5.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. And This
Prosecutor Defends Authority in Libby Case

Associated Press
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A12

“Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday disputed the claim of Vice President Cheney's former top aide that the prosecutor lacks legal authority to indict him in the CIA leak investigation.

Fitzgerald opposed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's request that a judge dismiss the five-count indictment against him in the Valerie Plame affair. In court papers, the prosecutor argued that being allowed to operate outside any control of the Justice Department is constitutional and in accordance with federal law.

The prosecutor, who is investigating the disclosure of Plame's CIA undercover status, is not supervised by the Justice Department and is not required to inform anyone at the department about the investigation's progress”cont…

“Yesterday, Fitzgerald replied that the attorney general has been granted broad legal authority by Congress "to delegate any of his functions to other offices of the Department of Justice." Cont…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031702252.html






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. CIA witness list
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 06:33 PM by seemslikeadream
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2006/mar/18/031809088.html

Potential witnesses in the upcoming criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as referenced in court papers by Libby's lawyers. The trial is scheduled for January:

-Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state.

-Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary.

-Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.

-Colin Powell, the former secretary of state.

-Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.

-George Tenet, the former CIA director.

-Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador.

-Valerie Plame Wilson.

-Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser. Libby's lawyers said Hadley may offer important testimony about discussions within the administration concerning the need to rebut Wilson's statements about his trip to Africa and its conclusions. In addition, said the defense, Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the prewar national intelligence on Iraq and had numerous conversations with Tenet. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has said he plans to focus on Libby's disclosure of certain portions of the NIE to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, disclosures Libby told the grand jury he was authorized to make by his superiors.

-"Craig Schmall, Peter Clement or Matt Barrett."

-either Robert Grenier or John McLaughlin."

-Bill Harlow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Thank you SLaD
it seems like to me that list would just represent a fraction of the possible witnesses on the CIA list.


Those are the big fish, I wonder what worker bees and their bosses are cooperating???

Let us not forget that there has been an exodus to put it mildly of career(20-30 year) CIA officers that have left the agency since Tenet fell on his sword and Goss took over that fall.

It just makes me wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. "We feel things with our souls"
hum, now where have I heard that before? :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. yes that is an awesome thread - awesome in the true sense,
what a weekend this has been for reflection.


Peace SLaD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Are you talking about all those Plame threads here before Fitz had his
news conference? Can you tell me who started those threads and where I can find them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. sorry - I/we were talking about this thread by H2O Man
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=684317&mesg_id=684317

the area that we were referencing were from the posts around #37 I think.

As far as pre-Fitzgerald press conference Plame threads have you read American Judas or The Waterman Paper?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4390395

Also there has been countless threads since then that go back wards in the Plame time lines.

I would start with the 2 papers listed above, and then move to Jason Leopold's articles that are in the middle of the page of www.truthout.org then I would close with any articles from Larisa at rawstory.

Sometimes I wish we had a Plame forum here at DU so we could hold all of the threads at once, or maybe the DU Research Forum could hold them, its just that there are so many threads that are related to Plame.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Thank you STB!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. You Can Find 18 Of The Original Plame Threads Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Wow.
That's cool. I hope Scooter doesn't subpoena you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Memory Lane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. Thank you Me, these have been added to my bookmarks
What we would do without DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Wow! Thank you!
Who are you, btw? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. Libby Targets White House Infighting Over WMD's in PlameGate
some opinions)

With the advent of electronic filing in the federal courts, lawyers can now file pleadings 24/7 and they take advantage of it. I thought the news today would be over Team Libby and Fitz fighting about whether Fitz was properly appointed as Special Counsel.

Now I see Team Libby moved on to the next front, filing a late-night discovery pleading (pdf). (The documents he is requesting are summarized in this proposed order attached to his request.) This issue is far more interesting, as AP reporter Pete Yost explains.

"If the jury learns this background information" about finger-pointing, "and also understands Mr. Libby's additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered ... snippets of conversation" about Plame's status, the defense lawyers said.


http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014331.html

http://www.intoxination.net/2006/03/18/libbys-defense-could-be-our-answer/#more-1575

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. thank you cal04
those links you provided show a little of the same light but in a different hue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
41. It sounds like
Libby wants to put the WMD business on trial. But that isn't what he is charged with. He also wants to point fingers at those who opposed him at the State Department. Sorry, Scooter. If you get a DWI, you can't go in court and say that you were driving at the speed limit, and the real issue is that others were speeding. Get out of here with that weak shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. Did you see McGlaughlin last night ?
At the very end, for predictions--Eleanor Clift said "more is coming very soon on the ROVE and Plame case...st-a-y tuned." :popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. yes I saw that tonight
LOVED IT! :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat@14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. I saw some info at "Technorati", tag "Libby". Happy St PatsDay H2O!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
39. Bradlee ISN'T even asking important questions about whether Plame
The most important thing here IMO is that Bradlee ISN'T even asking important questions about whether Plame had perhaps gotton too close to US, Russian, Balkans, Pakistan and/or Turkish links to arms-and-drug smuggling networks, and especially re: nuclear technology/secrets and Muslim Brotherhood/Al(CIA)Queda and longtime CIA assets, and so perhaps THAT'S why her deep-cover and networks were blown -- with the convenient cover-story for mass-consumption that her cover was accidently-leaked on-purpose out of fanatic Bush Inc. devotional-pique over Wilson's fake-Niger-yellowcake expose blah-blah-blah.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbradleeB.htm

(4) Deborah Davis, interviewed (www.disinfo.com/archive/p...15/pg1/)by Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press (1992)

--quote--
Kenn Thomas: Let's get back to Ben Bradlee. I know part of what's in the book and part of what upset those forces that caused the withdrawal of its first publication is what you've said about Ben Bradlee and his connection to the Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg trial. Would you talk about that a bit?

Deborah Davis: In the first edition, the one that was recalled and shredded, I looked in State Department lists for '52 and '53 when Bradlee was serving as a press attache supposedly in the American embassy in Paris. This was during the Marshall Plan when the United States over in Europe had hundreds of thousands of people making an intensive effort to keep Western Europe from going Communist. Bradlee wanted to be part of that effort. So he was over in the American embassy in Paris and the embassy list had these letters after his name that said USIE. And I asked the State Department what that meant and it said United States Information Exchange. It was the forerunner of the USIA, the United States Information Agency. It was the propaganda arm of the embassy. They produced propaganda that was then disseminated by the CIA all over Europe. They planted newspaper stories. They had a lot of reporters on their payrolls. They routinely would produce stories out of the embassy and give them to these reporters and they would appear in the papers in Europe. It's very important to understand how influential newspaper stories are to people because this is what people think of as their essential source of facts about what is going on. They don't question it, and even if they do question it they have nowhere else to go to find out anything else. So Bradlee was involved in producing this propaganda. But at that point in the story I didn't know exactly what he was doing.

I published the first book just saying that he worked for USIE and that this agency produced propaganda for the CIA. He went totally crazy after the book came out. One person who knew him told me then that he was going all up and down the East Coast having lunch with every editor he could think of saying that it was not true, he did not produce any propaganda. And he attacked me viciously and he said that I had falsely accused him of being a CIA agent. And the reaction was totally out of proportion to what I had said.

Kenn Thomas: You make a good point in the book that other people who have had similar kinds of--I don't even know if you want to call them accusations--but reports that they in some way cooperated with the CIA in the '5Os, that the times were different and people were expected to do that kind of thing out of a sense of patriotism and they blow it off.

Deborah Davis : That's right. People say, yeah, this is what I did back then, you know. But Bradlee doesn't want to be defined that way because, I don't know, somehow he thinks it's just too revealing of him, of who he is. He doesn't want to admit a true fact about his past because somehow he doesn't want it known that this is where he came from. Because this is the beginning of his journalistic career. This is how he made it big.

Subsequent to my book being shredded in 1979, early 1980, I got some documents through the Freedom of Information Act and they revealed that Bradlee had been the person who was running an entire propaganda operation against Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg that covered forty countries on four continents. He always claimed that he had been a low level press flack in the embassy in Paris, just a press flack, nothing more. Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg had already been convicted of being atomic spies and they were on death row waiting to be executed. And the purpose of Bradlee's propaganda operation was to convince the Europeans that they really were spies, they really had given the secret of the atomic bomb to the Russians and therefore they did deserve to be put to death.

The Europeans, having just very few years before defeated Hitler, were very concerned that the United States was going fascist the way their countries had. And this was a very real fear to the Europeans. They saw the same thing happening in the United States that had happened in their own countries. And so Bradlee used the Rosenberg case to say, "No this isn't what you think it is. These people really did this bad thing and they really do deserve to die. It doesn't mean that the United States is becoming fascist." So he had a very key role in creating European public opinion and it was very, very important. This was the key issue that was going to determine how the Europeans felt about the United States.

Some of the documents that I had showed him writing letters to the prosecutors of the Rosenbergs saying "I'm working for the head of the CIA in Paris and he wants me to come and look at your files." And this kind of thing. So in the second edition, which came out in 1987, I reprinted those documents, the actual documents, the readers can see them and it's got his signature and it's very, very interesting. He subsequently has said nothing about it at all. He won't talk about it all. He won't answer any questions about it. So I guess the point about Bradlee is that he went from this job to being European bureau chief for Newsweek magazine and to the executive editorship of the Post. So this is how he got where he is. It's very clear line of succession. Philip Graham was Katharine Graham's husband, who ran the Post in the '50s and he committed suicide in 1963. That's when Katharine Graham took over. Bradlee was close friends with Allen Dulles and Phil Graham. The paper wasn't doing very well for a while and he was looking for a way to pay foreign correspondents and Allen Dulles was looking for a cover. Allen Dulles was head of the CIA back then and he was looking for a cover for some of his operatives so that they could get in and out of places without arousing suspicion. So the two of them hit on a plan: Allen Dulles would pay for the reporters and they would give the CIA the information that they found as well as give it to the Post. So he helped to develop this operation and it subsequently spread to other newspapers and magazines. And it was called Operation Mockingbird. This operation, I believe, was revealed for the first time in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
42. When the shit hits the fan ....
Jason Leopold is doing a hell of a job!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. A fascinating document!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Thanks H2O
I'll have to read this stuff later...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Team Libby
is indicating they are willing to go to any extent, and destroy anyone, to try to derail this trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. I'll say
I was getting whiplash reading that thing.

So Libby thinks he's going to bring them all down, hm? :rofl:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I remember on the
infamous early Plame Threads, I mentioned that one should always be careful who they commit crimes with. This guy is unreal. His attorneys are not playing, either. They are serious people. This is intense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. So true.
It's too bad President Clinton went along with Scotter Libby in the agreement to pardon Marc Rich. The republicans wanted Clinton impeached again for that Libby recommended pardon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. "The Indictment Relies Heavily..."
on the testimony of at least 7 government officials". (page 6)

At least 7, could be more. Hmmm & hmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC