7Nov/130

Judith Miller exposed “Plamegate” as a cover-up

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

When Judith Miller recently confessed that she knew it was not former Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage that exposed Valerie Plame as CIA, and that, "a lot of people knew."

Miller exposed "Plamegate" as a cover-up.

You see, the real scandal of "Plamegate" is that it's all a lie. And, Miller just admitted it!

Now that the lie is out in the open, individuals involved in the "Plamegate cover-up" are having difficulty answering the simplest of questions.

For example:

Former Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage is having a extremely difficult time expressing how he feels about the Miller confession. That is understandable considering the fact that Miller's confession disputes Armitage's confession that he was the leaker in the Plame case.

From: (redacted)
To: kara bue
Sent: November 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Your no comment?)

Kara

After weeks of waiting for an answer, I was told that you personally were working on a response to the question I asked of Dick Armitage in the communication below.

I am now being told that you have decided to respond with "no comment"

What is most perplexing is that when I pressed your underling Chase Bakaly to confirm that the "no comment" response was coming from Dick Armitage personally, he responded with "no comment" to that question as well.

Kara, is the response of "No Comment" coming from former Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage personally?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: kara bue
Sent: November 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Your response)

Ms. Kara Bue

I have been informed that you are working on a response to the question addressed to Richard Armitage concerning Judith Miller's confession.

Kara, when can I expect to receive your response?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: chase bakaly
Sent: October 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Media inquiry (Judith Miller's confession) Attn: Richard Armitage

Mr. Richard Armitage

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller has gone on record stating that she knew that you were not the one who exposed Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA. And, that "a lot of people knew" this.

Do you have a statement for the media, in light of Judith Miller's confession that she knew you were not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA?

(name redacted)

While pondering the dueling confessions, keep in mind that there is sworn testimony and government documents that support Miller's confession.

Judith, tell us more.

We hope to have that for you soon.......

Share
2Nov/130

Murray Waas accuses THE HUFFINGTON POST of fabricating “ObamaCare” stories

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

 

 

              VS.

 

 

 

What is going on with Murray Waas?

First he dis-owns the book United States v. I. Lewis Libby, a book that he purportedly wrote. And now, he is accusing The Huffington Post of fabricating stories that are favorable to "Obamacare".

Murray Waas < email address redacted > wrote:

Here is the example from last week. A Cherkis story on Obamacare. So good, even the President of the Untied States quoted the article. With the great quote, the money quote, Cherkis does not identify the guy in any way. In comparison, the other people quoted in the article who are exactly similar to him, are all quoted by name and age. This is kinda a pattern: The money quote, great quote, is anonymous, while everyone else quoted in a story by him on the record says something mundane. It seems to me that you can at least go to him and his editors and ask why he didn't name the guy or ask the woman in the article who was present and witnessed the incident says it is true or not. That would be just one phone call to talk to her.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/08/jason-cherkis-these-three-paragraphs-say-everything-about-obamacare-noted-for-august-27-2013.html

So if you have this one, you also have the incidents from 2011 and 2012, hardly ancient history, and the two dozen of so other people who say he makes things up.

Anyway, I have done my part here...

Best

Murray

By claiming that the Huffington Post is fabricating stories favorable to "Obamacare", Waas, has apparently had a change of heart when it comes to the law (Affordable Care Act) that he use to be a proponent of.

And, the people, he use to endorse.

Obama Cites HuffPost Article In Affordable Care Act Push (VIDEO)

Indications are, Waas had an epiphany.

In any case, like we said, he's talking.

More to come.....

Share
29Oct/130

Plamegate “journalist” dis-owns book!

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Murray Waas, up until now, was thought to be the "author" of the book titled United States v I. Lewis Libby. However, recent developments have Waas claiming that he did not write or edit the book. In-fact, Waas, in an effort to distance himself from the book (that names him as author and editor) has stated, that he only wrote the introduction for the book. Disowning the rest!

Waas further shared that Philip S.Turner the editor/publisher of the book, approached him to be involved in this project. A project that would ultimately be described as an 'instant' book by the Washington Post.

Philip S. Turner

While the name Philip S. Turner will not be immediately recognizable to most, the names of several clients Turner worked for before he picked Murray Waas to be a "beard" for his latest distortion, certainly will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The word distortion accurately describes Turner's book about the Libby trial, due to the fact: Turner selectively edited the trial transcripts for the book.

Turner has yet to respond to inquiries.

-----Original Message-----
From: (redacted)
To: philipsturner
Sent: October 28, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Subject: Media Inquiry (Murray Waas assertions)

Mr. Philip Turner

Murray Waas, the "journalist" purported to have written and edited a book you published, titled 'United States v I. Lewis Libby' has gone on the record stating that he neither wrote, or edited the book.

Waas insisted that all he did was write the introduction.

Furthermore, Wass claims you approached him to be part of the project.

Mr. Turner, do you deny the assertions made by Murray Waas?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----
From:(redacted)
To: philipsturner
Sent: September 20, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Wilson and Waas

Philip

There is a problem with two books that you helped get published.

The Politics of Truth by Joe Wilson, and, U.S. v I. Lewis Libby by Murray Waas

Both books are being challenge on a factual basis. Would you comment on the evidence provided in the Illinois Pay to Play article (linked below) that disputes the claims made in both the Wilson and Wass books?

(name redacted)

Fitzgate: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of “obstruction of justice” and lying to the court.

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/09/18/former-u-s-attorney-patrick-fitzgerald-guilty-of-obstruction-of-justice-and-lying-to-the-court/

As for Murray Waas, he is talking, and IP2P will bring you more on what he had to say soon.

Murray Waas

Share
24Oct/130

Fox News speechless over Judith Miller’s confession

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Judith Miller has rendered the executives at Fox News speechless with her recent confession that she knew Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was not the person who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Subject: Media inquiry ( Judith Miller confession)

Irena,

Is Fox News going to address the Judith Miller confession?

Scooter Libby’s attorneys might be forced to “Win”

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/10/19/scooter-libbys-attorneys-might-be-forced-to-win/

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 18, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry 2nd attempt (Judith Miller )

Irena

Does Fox News have a statement for the media concerning the stunning confession made by Judith Miller?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 17, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald)

Ms. Irena Briganti

Does Fox News have a statement for the media pertaining to the latest news that involved Judith Miller exposing fraud committed by the DoJ?

Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/10/01/judith-miller-blows-the-whistle-on-special-counsel-patrick-fitzgerald/

(name redacted)

Miller's confession is very problematic for Fox News for the simple fact that this is big news. However, this big news story will bring un-welcome scrutiny on the "Defender of the First Amendment" monopoly Roger Ailes has developed for Fox News with Judith Miller.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt when you're rendered speechless to defend your First Amendment defender.

Will Fox News continue to shield Judith Miller, or will they adhere to their responsibilities as a News organization?

Can Judith Miller survive another credibility exam?

The answers to these, and many other questions coming soon.......

Share
19Oct/130

Scooter Libby’s attorneys might be forced to “Win”

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Lewis Libby, center, listens to his lawyer Ted Wells, left, speak to reporters outside federal court after his arraignment hearing in Washington, D.C. Also pictured are Libby's wife Harriet and lawyer Joseph Tate.

 

The attorneys assembled to form the "legal team" that defended Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in the case
U.S. v Libby, apparently have a dilemma.

Scooter Libby's attorneys might be forced to win the case for their client.

The email communication below, contains a possible explanation as to why Libby's attorneys have not yet demanded justice for their client Scooter Libby.

From: (redacted)
To: ted wells
Sent: October 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Subject: How about you

Mr. Theodore Wells

What is your dilemma?

(name redacted)

-----Original Message-----

From: (redacted)
To: joseph tate
Sent:October 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Subject: You have a decision to make.

Mr. Joseph Tate

The fact that you and your firm Dechert LLP represented Lewis 'Scooter" Libby in U.S. v Libby puts you in a very per-carious situation due to recent developments.

As you can see from the Illinois Pay-to-Play article linked below, your client should never have been indicted much less ever brought to trial. And, as Libby's defense attorney in that case, it is incumbent on you to rectify this egregious misconduct on the part of the Dept. of Justice.

The dilemma for you and Dechert LLP is, if you honor your obligation to your client and your profession, your partner at the firm, Glenn Fine, may lose his license to practice law.

However, if you ignore your obligation to your client, you will lose the trust of those who have, and would consider hiring your firm, and you diminish your entire profession.
Perhaps, even exposing the firm to legal complications and liabilities.

Advance notice of your decision would be appreciated.

(name redacted)

DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine complicit in fraud known as “Plamegate”

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/10/04/doj-inspector-general-glenn-a-fine-complicit-in-the-fraud-known-as-plamegate/

Officers of the court are required to report illegal and or un-ethical conduct. Not to mention the obligation they have to their client.

The conduct of the Dept of Justice in U.S. v Libby was both un-ethical and illegal.

So, no dilemma, officers. Just do what's required!

Oh, and could someone please wake up Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. He needs to have a serious chat with the new FBI Director James B. Comey.

The Libby "legal team" aka officers of the court.

Theodore V. Wells
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064

William H. Jeffress
Baker Botts LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400

Joseph A. Tate
Dechert LLP
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808

John D. Cline
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1070
San Francisco, California 94104

Share
10Oct/130

Valerie Plame gets “Blowback” for lying

Share

Jontel Kassidy, Senior Capital Correspondent

Valerie Plame has been rewarded for her part in the "Plamegate" sham with a new career as a "writer", and her latest piece of work Blowback can keep her first work of fiction Fair Game company on the not worth reading list.

Judy Bachrach said it best in her review of Blowback in The Weekly Standard.

Perhaps even more distasteful than reading Blowback is watching Valerie Plame go on a book tour regurgitating the lies of "Plamegate"

Plame has been contacted. However, she refuses to answer any questions about the proven falsehoods of the story she continues to tell.

See for yourself:

Valerie Plame lying:

The truth being told:

Valerie

Sworn testimony and official government documents have established that it was your friend Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman who exposed you and Brewster Jennings & Associates as CIA in 2001. And, not Dick Armitage in 2003.

So please, stop lying already!

Share
4Oct/130

DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine complicit in fraud known as “Plamegate”

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

By allowing former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald "Special Counsel" to investigate "Plamegate" based on what he knew to be a lie, former Department of Justice (DoJ) Inspector General Glenn A. Fine became complicit in fraud perpetrated against the American people.

When asked why he allowed Comey to appoint a "Special Counsel" to investigate who exposed Brewster Jennings and Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA, when he (Fine) knew that it was Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman that did so in 2001(2 years earlier), Fine said he'd rather not talk about it.

When pressed to deny that he allowed Comey to appoint Fitzgerald based on a lie, Fine declined to do so.

Here is what we know:

Inspector General Glenn Fine whose sole purpose was to make sure that officials at the Dept of Justice do not abuse the immense powers they've been granted, is not denying that he knowingly allowed officials to abuse that power.

Here is what we need to learn:

Why did Fine allow DoJ officials to break the law?

And, how many other acts of corruption and abuse of power did Glenn Fine allow during his ten year reign as Inspector General that began in Dec 2000?

If we allow the Dept. of Justice to be above the law, then what?

Much more on DoJ corruption to come.....

Share
1Oct/130

Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Judith Miller may be a reluctant whistleblower, however blowing the whistle on former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is the only way to describe Miller's recent comments.

In a recent phone interview Miller was asked:

Q: Judith, you do know that Dick Armitage was not who outed Brewster Jennings & Associates as a CIA front?

A: Yes, a lot of people knew.

Q: So, you're aware of the fact Patrick Fitzgerald fabricated a reason to come after your source?

A: I'm... it's not that simple.

No, Judith it really is that simple.

As the interview with Miller proceeded, there was no disagreement on the fact that "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald knew Marc Grossman was the person who exposed Brewster Jennings and Valerie Plame as CIA in 2001. (two years before Armitage claimed he did)

And, that Fitzgerald had her (Miller) jailed on a false premise. (although she claims "it's complicated")

Miller also acknowledged that just confirmed FBI Director James B. Comey was involved in the deception. When the urgency of going public with what she knew about Fitzgerald and Comey was stressed, Miller replied "I am going to tell my story my way. I have earned the right."

Miller was pressed further on the fact that James Comey had not been sworn-in as FBI Director as of the time of the interview, and that it was important for her to go public with what she knows before he was.

Clearly that did not happen, and James Comey was sworn-in as FBI Director. However, Comey can be removed from his position for cause when the truth is made part of the official record.

And Judith, lets face it.

The best "shield law" a journalist could hope for is that the Dept. of Justice start following the laws that are already on the books. Your coming forward with the truth about Fitzgerald will go a long way to making that happen.

And, perhaps give the 1st Amendment a fighting chance to survive the all out war our government has waged against it.

More to follow

Share
26Sep/130

UPDATE: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of Subornation of Perjury

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Not only is former U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of obstructing justice and lying to the court, you can add the crime of suborning perjury to the growing list of problems facing the man once touted as the modern day Elliot Ness.

When "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald put former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman on the stand to testify in the trial of U.S. v Libby, Fitzgerald knowingly committed the crime of "suborning perjury."

You see, thanks to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the Dept of Justice and Fitzgerald knew that it was Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA in the summer of 2001. And therefore, Fitzgerald knew the testimony Grossman was giving under oath in the Libby trial to be false.

That's a crime. And, its called "subornation of perjury", a felony that could get Fitzgerald up to five years in prison.

Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been contacted. However, he is refusing to answer any questions.

Developing..........

UPDATE Sept. 26th 4pm

Courtesy of boilingfrogspost.com

Share
18Sep/130

Fitzgate: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of “obstruction of justice” and lying to the court.

Share

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald withheld exculpatory evidence from Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, during Libby’s 2007 trial, which was part of Fitzgerald’s highly publicized investigation into the outing of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to sworn testimony in an unrelated 2009 case.

The breach of Libby’s due process rights occurred in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who is now Chief Judge of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in federal prison after he was found guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of making false statements to the FBI during the investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “Brady Rule,” named for its 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose all favorable material evidence that could be used to defend or even exonerate a defendant.

But Fitzgerald failed to divulge to either Libby or his defense attorneys that the Department of Justice (DOJ) already had in its possession material evidence that Plame’s covert identity had been revealed back in 2001 - by Fitzgerald’s key witness against Libby.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was given Top Secret clearance to translate FBI wiretaps executed by field agents, some going back to 1998, was deposed in Jean Schmidt v. David Krikorian, an obscure 2009 Ohio Elections Commission case.

Under oath, Edmonds stated in her 2009 deposition that, in the summer of 2001, then Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman was recorded by the FBI informing “a certain Turkish diplomatic entity who was also an independent operative of a company called Brewster Jennings…to be warned that Brewster Jennings was a government front….and for those Turkish individuals to be told to stay away from Brewster Jennings.” At the time, Plame was working undercover at Brewster Jennings.

In outing the CIA front company, Grossman outed Plame’s CIA covert operational status two years before the DOJ opened, on September 26, 2003, a criminal investigation into the potential unauthorized disclosure of Plame’s CIA employment status, and over five years before jury selection began, on January 16, 2007, in the trial of Scooter Libby.

In the Ohio deposition, Edmonds also testified that she translated FBI tapes in which the unnamed Turkish diplomat who had received Grossman’s warning then “contacted the Pakistani military attaché and discussed with the person who was there about this fact and also told them, warned them to stay away from Brewster Jennings.”

In a phone interview Edmonds said she personally informed DOJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, during a two-and-a-half-hour recorded interview conducted at the Justice Department before Libby’s 2005 indictment, that the “CIA disassembled the company after doing an assessment estimate” of the damage Grossman’s disclosure cost its counterintelligence operation.

Also, a FBI agent “personally went to Patrick Fitzgerald and told him he needed to get the documents that established that Brewster Jennings had been outed long ago to defense and prosecution attorneys.”

Edmonds said, “There was no Brewster Jennings – it didn’t exist after January of 2002.” She added, “They (DOJ) knew it was outed, and they knew who did it,” at least a year before syndicated columnist Robert Novak first mentioned Plame in his July 14, 2003 column.

The simple fact is, that by withholding this evidence: Former U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to the court.

When a “Special Counsel" is appointed to investigate "Fitzgate," will the range of special powers be granted to that person that recently-sworn-in F.B.I. Director James B. Comey once granted to Fitzgerald in Plamegate?

Contributors to this article to be named at a later date.

Share

Switch to our mobile site