Here's how stupid/ignorant Republican Representative Joe Wilson is.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R - SC) has told WorldNetDaily radio that he agrees with Dick Cheney's complaint that Obama is dithering on the decision about how to deal with failed Bush/Cheney war in Afghanistan. Here's what Wilson admitted:

You know, I’m really disappointed, and I actually agree with Vice President Cheney that the President is dithering. And I actually had to look up what “dithering” meant, and it’s “indecisive.” And that’s what the President is being.

Someone with a modicum of education should know what "dithering" means, but at least he bothered to look it up or had a staffer explain it to him. That's only ignorant. But stupid?

What kind of intelligent Congressman admits on radio that he had to look up the word "dithering" in the first place?

Here's the radio statement:



According to Wikipedia this ignorant fool is an attorney and a Colonel in the South Carolina National Guard. This is not a man who favorably represents his constituents. But I guess that's what what the hillbillies of South Carolina think they deserve.

Joe Wilson was sandbagged by the Republicans per SNL

This has to be the most rational explanation. Surely Joe Wilson is not some crazy cracker from South Carolina or anything.

What's wrong with South Carolina?

South Carolina has a real history as the home of resistance to the federal government. Currently it houses Governor Mark Sanford and House Representative Joe Wilson. Politico has this interesting article.

Just under nine months into the president's term, the state has emerged as a beachhead for the president's most aggressive conservative critics, a secure launching point for some of the harshest attacks on the administration’s policy initiatives.

[...]

The state has a long history of stridency in national politics, having produced legendary opposition figures from Vice President John C. Calhoun, who helped pave the way for the Civil War, to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, who filibustered historic civil rights legislation. By comparison, DeMint, Sanford and Wilson are a tame bunch.

"South Carolina is a state that's always loved having characters for politicians," said Bruce Haynes, a political consultant who served as an aide to Campbell. "There's been no shortage of South Carolina politicians over the past 50 years who have said some interesting and outrageous things. And they tend to be reelected by large margins."

Is it something in the water?

The PR case for and against Libby debunked

Carol D. Leonnig, reporter for the Washington Post, has today published an article debunking five myths about the exposure of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA officer. This is a shocking publication. Doesn't Ms. Leonnig understand that mere reporters of the mainstream media (her own Washington Post foremost among them) exist only to publish the spin of powerful political players and must never, never, never commit the gaffe of (shudder) debunking the spin their betters at public relations firms? It makes you wonder if she shouldn't turn in her communications degree in journalism.

In any case, here are five myths that have been repeatedly spread since "Scooter" Libby was convicted. Ms. Leonnig is much to polite to call them what they are - lies and bamboozlements:

1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
   
   
2. Karl Rove would have been indicted in the Plame case if it hadn't been for all the destroyed evidence.
   
   
3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.
   
   
4. Bad press doesn't get under Cheney's skin.
   
   
5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.

When you read those bamboozlements, go read the explanation for each that Ms. Leonnig has published. Each is quite revealing, and each fits with the real evidence that has been published - mostly in the back of newspapers where no one will see it. You know, some page like, Oh, maybe Page B-03. Somewhere in the guts of the paper and out of sight. Just a number I chose at random as an example - or maybe the page this article was published on this morning.

I can't help but wonder if either the misplaced Fred Hiatt (Editor - Editorial Page) or the similarly misplaced Debra Howell (Omsbudsman) at the Washington Post have read her article. It certainly doesn't support the obfuscations they have been publishing in the same newspaper. I suspect she waited until they had each left the building before submitting this article for publication.

Fitz' sentencing memo establishes Libby's culpibility clearly

"Scooter" Libby's defenders have been wailing and ranting for months that the trial and conviction of Libby was criminalizing politics and that he did nothing wrong. Well, the declassified document that Fitzgerald just released demolishes every single talking point the right-wingers have been spewing. This report has been in several places, but the best is on Mark Kleiman's site The Reality-Based Community. Mark does a masterful job of extracting the key points from Fitz' memo.

Valerie Wilson was an active and covert agent of the CIA during the legally relevant period, as every judge who passed judgement on the case early on had to know from classified information. Libby was orchestrating a cover-up of the illegal release of Wilson's identity and Libby kept Cheney fully informed of his activities. Specifically because of Scooter Libby's lies to the FBI and the the Grand Jury it became impossible to prove, legally, that the individuals who actually revealed Wilson's identity had the requisite state of mind (knowledge and intent) that was required to prove a violation of the law. So Scooter's cover-up successfully prevented prosecution of the specific (treasonous) criminals.

Then Fitz takes on the many accusations that Scooter should never has been tried in the first place, let alone convicted.

7. In summary:

To accept the argument that Mr. Libby’s prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President. To state this claim is to refute it. Peremptorily closing this investigation in the face of the information available at its early stages would have been a dereliction of duty, and would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary persons implicated in criminal investigations. [pp. 13-14]

This trial exposes at least three people who without any level of doubt at all have committed treason to the nation. Those people are I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his boss, Richard Cheney, and the innately rotten Karl Rove.

Remember that treason is the only crime that is defined in the U.S. Constitution. It is defined as

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Art 3, Section 3, U.S. Constitution.

Those three individuals clearly meet the definition of the crime of treason.

I'd also say that anyone attempting to protect them does likewise. Jonas Goldberg from National Review On-line, anyone? Perhaps there should be a list kept on-line of those who are traitors. It could certainly start with Libby, Rove, Cheney and Goldberg.

---

Here is the Fitzgerald sentencing memo (in .pdf format.)

Guide to the Tuesday (Jan 23) Libby Trial Live Blog

Guide to the Tuesday (Jan23) Libby Trial Live-blog

This is the first day of the actual trial, at which time I had not yet begun to index the Firedoglake Liveblogs. This is an index of links to the Firedoglake Libby Trial Liveblogging. I am trying to make it as easy as possible to go read the details of the trial as recorded by Marcy Wheeler (EmptyWheel) of Firedog lake. Do not refresh any more than necessary, as Firedoglake's server is being hit very frequently. That's why it is so slow to load or sometimes comes back reporting "Unable to Connect."

As before the links are in time sequence with the oldest at the bottom and the newest at the top. The numbered links are the actual (paraphrased, not verbatum) live-blogged trial reports by EmptyWheel. In this case it is the opening statements from Fitzgerald (the Prosecutor) and from Wells (the Defense.)

To see all my posts indexing the Liveblog of the Libby trial from Firedoglake, click on the Label "Liveblog" (below.)

• Discussion of Openings And On To Witnesses by Christie Hardin Smith.
• Back At The House by Christie Hardin Smity.
• Other issues.
• 3. Wells’ Opening Statement, Part Two
• 2. Well’s Opening Statement, Part One
• 1. Fitzgeralds' Opening Statement.
• Jury Instructions. The charges against "Scooter" Libby are presented here, along with the elements of proof which must be established to proove each charge.
• Good Morning from D.C. by Christie Hardin Smith.

Ari Fleisher is the immunized witness.

Jerilyn Merrit of Talkleft has pointed out that Ari Fleisher is a very dangerous witness for Libby. She has also pointed out that he is the only witness to whom Fitzgerald has given immunity. Why? What does he have to say that is so important?

Check out Fitz's affidavit from August, 2004 submitted in the Judith Miller subpoena suit, which was unsealed by the Court in February, 2006. You can read the unredacted portions in the Court's opinion here or in my prior summary with lengthy quotes.

It's not just that Libby allegedly told Fleischer at lunch on July 7 before Fleischer left for Africa with President Bush that Joseph Wilson's wife worked in the Counterproliferation area of the CIA and that she was involved in the decision to send Wilson to Niger. It's that Fleisher told Fitz and the grand jury that Libby told him the information was "hush-hush" and "on the qt."

For example, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer recalls that over lunch on July 7, the day before Libby's meeting with Miller, Libby told him, "[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA." (II-545-47.) Describing the lunch as "kind of weird" (II-590-91), and noting that Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion" (II-592), Fleischer recalled that Libby "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t." (II-546-47.) Though Libby remembers the lunch meeting, and even says he thanked Fleischer for making a statement about the Niger issue, he denies discussing Wilson's wife. (I-108-09, 156, 226-27.)

Libby is denying he discussed Valerie Wilson with Fleischer at lunch on July 7. He either has to destroy Fleischer's credibility at trial--or else convince the jury that Fleischer was mistaken. He stated as much in his Third Motion to Compel, filed March 17:

On cross-examination at trial, the defense will be entitled to question Mr. Fleischer on issues such as: (1) when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's identity; (2) the nature of his conversations with reporters; and (3) any efforts he undertook to criticize Mr. Wilson. If the press reports are correct, and Mr. Fleischer disclosed information concerning Ms. Wilson to reporters, he himself may have been a subject of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation. Mr. Fleischer may thus have a motive to shade his testimony. Such possible bias will be vigorously explored on cross-examination."

The date and the information Ari Fleisher gives (July 7 - prior to publishing Robert Novak's column.) rather clearly shows that Libby knew of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA status before it was published by Novak. He also was pointing out how secret and sensitive the information was. Did he then forget when a few months later he spoke to the Grand Jury? That's really stretching credulity.

I wonder if Libby plans to testify in his own behalf?

The Libby trial has started with a bang!

This is what we (and Joe and Valerie Wilson) have been waiting for about two years. The legal preliminaries are over, the jury has been seated, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has presented his theory of the case in his opening statement. "Scooter" Libby and his boss, VICE-PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY are in real trouble. MSNBC has just posted this:

Fitzgerald said Cheney told his chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby, in 2003 that the wife of Iraq critic and former ambassador Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA, and that Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

“But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did,” Fitzgerald said, “he made up a story.”

Fitzgerald also alleged that Libby in September 2003 “wiped out” a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, from reporters, not the vice president. [This is obstruction of justice.]

It was not clear if Fitzgerald meant that an attempt was made to destroy the note or that Libby had forgotten about it. In any case, the note was recovered and is part of the evidence. [This is documentary evidence of both the perjury and the obstruction of justice.]

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction. He [Libby] told investigators he was surprised to learn the identity of Wilson’s wife from NBC News reporter Tim Russert. [This is the lie told to the Grand Jury which led to the perjury charge.]

But Fitzgerald told jurors that was clearly a lie because Libby had already been discussing the matter inside and outside of the White House. “You can’t learn something on Thursday that you’re giving out on Monday,” Fitzgerald said.

Libby says he didn’t lie but was simply bogged down by national security issues and couldn’t remember details of what he told reporters about Plame.

The Defense appears to have accepted these events as fact. So the Defense strategy is going to have to explain why Libby did these things and yet somehow was not lying when he spoke to the Grand Jury. Notice that Libby is not accused to the initial leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent to the news media. The media has reported that this was done by Richard Armitage speaking to Robert Novak, the ultra conservative columnist, and was probably accidental on the part of Armitage. [Does he still have a security clearance?]

But this was not publicized at the time Libby first went before the Grand Jury. So what did the Defense opening statement describe as the defense against the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice? More follows:

In their opening statements, Libby's attorneys said Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak to cover up for presidential adviser Karl Rove’s own disclosures.

Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went to Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak.

“They’re trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,” Wells said, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. “I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.”[So one problem is that there is in-fighting between Bush's staff and Cheney's staff, and Libby considered that Bush's staff would rather he be sacrificed than Karl Rove. Libby is concerned that he will be the scapegoat for the Plame leak. I'm not sure how that becomes exculpatory evidence for Libby, but I am sure we will hear.]

Libby plans to testify and tell jurors he had many other issues on his mind at the time, such as terrorist threats and emerging nuclear programs overseas. Attorneys say they expect Cheney to testify for the defense.

This is the famed "Hey, I was really, really busy and I just flat forgot where I heard that Plame worked for the CIA." If Libby and his lawyers can establish this, then the Jury may be asked to determine that Fitzgerald has not proven Libby's guilt beyond any legal doubt. They have presented a reasonable reason for Libby to have told the Grand Jury what he did and yet not intended to lie.

To head this off, Fitzgerald's has indicated that he will demonstrate that Libby had reason to lie to the Grand Jury.

In court last week, Fitzgerald briefly touched on his explanation.

He said Libby feared political embarrassment and worried he might lose his job for discussing classified information with reporters. Bush originally threatened to fire anyone who disclosed such information so, even though Libby wasn’t Novak’s source, Fitzgerald said Libby had a reason to lie.

So that's where the trial stands as of about an hour ago.

---

For those who are addicted to the Libby trial, Empty Wheel of firedoglake is there and live-blogging. Here are her posts for today as of now, latest is first:

• Tuesday wrap-up by Christy Hardin Smith


• Defense (Wells) Opening Statement, Part II.


• Defense (Wells) Opening Statement Part I.


• Prosecution (Fitzgerald) Opening Statement.


• Judge Walton's Opening Instructions.


• Introduction, Empty Wheel's Housekeepng Notes.

Firedoglake is very busy, so it is timing out. All I can say is keep trying or wait until tonight.

---

link to wrap-up added Jan 24.

What will the Defense do in opening in the Libby trial?

I was going to quite and go to bed, but this is too good to not blog. Looseheadprop dips into the book Opening Statements and tells us what to expect from the Defense in the Libby trial which starts Monday.

If you are, like me, a Lawyer junkie who still watches reruns of Perry Mason, this is an excellent blog to read.