18Jun/150

Scooter Libby helped Judith Miller concoct the fairy tale titled “The Story”

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

It's no surprise that Judith Miller's long overdue book, "The Story", is permeated with falsehoods and flat-out lies.

What is as a surprise is that Scooter Libby has been so clumsy in concealing his intimate involvement in the writing and selling of Miller's latest fairy tale.

In August of 2013, roughly eight months before her book was originally due to be released, I interviewed Miller about her upcoming "memoir." My focus was primarily on the Libby trial.

During that interview, Miller confessed to me that she knew that Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.

But Miller forgets to mention that fact in her book. Instead, she sticks to the government's false version that Armitage exposed Plame's identity.

Here's another fact that Miller forgets to mention in her book: She was aware of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony that Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman was actually the one who exposed Plame as a CIA employee in 2001.

However, Miller refused to answer any questions regarding Edmonds - stating she would address Edmonds' important testimony in her book.

Surprise, surprise. Miller apparently forgot to mention Edmonds or Grossman in her book.

What Miller did do immediately following our discussion was to inform Libby how poorly the interview went for her.

And just one hour later, I heard from Scooter himself:

_________________________________________

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

From: Lewis Libby
To: (redacted)
Sent: August 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Media inquiry (clearing your name)

Off-the-record

(name redacted),

Thanks for your e-mail. My apologies for the delay in responding; I have been on the road a fair amount and have had difficulty catching up.

I am grateful to you and the many others who have expressed outrage at how I have been treated and who have offered help. While I appreciate such offers, I have consistently let others know that this is not the way that I wish to proceed. That remains the case.

There may well come a time when this will shift, but for now I continue to think that this would not be a good time for others to address my case. This does not change that I remain grateful for your interest and kind inquiry.

Best,

Scooter Libby

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

From: (redacted)
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:06 AM
To: Lewis Libby
Subject: Media inquiry (clearing your name)

Scooter

Are you OK with my attempting to clear your name?

(name redacted)

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

From: (redacted)
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 13, 2013, 4:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)

Mr. Tate

Can I get a statement?

(name redacted)

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

From: (redacted)
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 12, 2013, 8:04 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)

Mr. Joseph A. Tate

Were you aware of the fact that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had documented for the Dept. of Justice that, "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald's star witness in U.S v Libby, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, was the man who had blown Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame's CIA cover in 2001? The government has it on tape.

Did Patrick Fitzgerald withhold this information from you and Mr. Libby?

What does Dechert partner Glenn A. Fine say about it? Glenn had this information before Fitzgerald was appointed "Special Counsel"

(name redacted)
American Thinker

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

From: (redacted)
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Sent: August 4, 2013, 12:24 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Sibel Edmonds)

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald

In the course of your investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee.

(1) Was Sibel Edmonds interviewed?

(2) Were you provided, or did you have access to information about Sibel Edmonds, and the information that she provided Glenn Fine and the Office of Inspector General regarding Brewster Jennings & Associates?

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

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

From: (redacted)
To: (redacted)
Sent: August 3, 2013, 8:12 PM
Subject: Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!

Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/08/03/valerie-plame-wilsons-friend-marc-grossman-guilty-of-treason/

___________________________________________

First things first. I never expressed any outrage about how Scooter was treated. Although I will admit I did not like being lied to.

As you can clearly see, Libby did not want me to clear his name by stating facts. This was due to the fact that he was already working closely with Judith Miller to concoct a story that was in complete contradiction of those same facts.

Here's another underreported fact that Libby, Miller and many others in Washington would rather the public not know: The judge in the Libby case - Reggie B Walton - was the same judge who imposed a gag order on Edmonds under the State Secrets Act.

What are the odds of that?

Here's a news flash for Scooter: I was already aware of the fact that Libby's attorneys had arranged for Edmonds to meet them late one night at the Willard Hotel, where she offered to testify on his behalf.

However, Libby's attorneys never did call Edmonds to testify at his trial.

Why in the world would they refuse to call a witness who could blow the government's whole case out of the water?

After all, Judge Walton considered Edmonds so credible that he gagged her, supposedly for the sake of national security.

So unless Libby himself insisted that Edmonds not be called as a defense witness his attorneys are guilty of legal malpractice.

And if he did, you have to ask yourself why Libby would insist that the one person whose testimony would result in his case being dismissed not be called as a witness for the defense?

Even more ridiculous, Judge Walton allowed the Libby trial to proceed when he knew that Grossman exposed Plame's identity two years prior to the start of the Libby investigation.

As for Miller's decision to exclude Edmonds' testimony from her so-called "correct the record" book, she should at the very least explain why she chose to ignore evidence that would have averted her well-publicized 85 day incarceration .

One thing is for certain "The Story" deserve far more scrutiny from the media than it has been subjected to so far.

Deja vu - Judith Miller is once again spreading false narratives and the complicit media is letting her get away with it.

 

Up next: My communications with Libby and the PR team he assembled behind the scenes to sell us Miller's latest literary work of fiction.

19May/150

Judith Miller’s “trial and error” approach to journalism!

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

While on a tour hawking her new book "The Story" Judith Miller admitted to James O'Keefe that she takes a "trial and error" approach to journalism.

Miller's exact quote: "That's what journalism is, trial and error."

Wow! That's the most incredible thing I have ever heard a person who purports to be a journalist say. For Miller, journalism is a - crapshoot!

Add that to the fact that she claims to have written her new book to correct the record, and you have unadulterated stupidity.

But wait, it gets even better.

Miller, while being interviewed by Ed Morrissey, gave the following explanation for why she now believes that she gave false testimony in the U.S. v Libby trial:

"My memory failed me, in part because the prosecutor withheld information I needed to decipher my own notes."

Really Judy, reporting is trial and error, and you need someone else to decipher your own notes? Truly remarkable!

More remarkable is that Miller now credits Scooter Libby with deciphering her notes correctly for her in 2010. Libby's interpretation of her notes was that he's innocent. Imagine that!

Miller has yet to offer an explanation for her waiting five years to profess Scooter's innocence after her epiphany that she gave false testimony.

I'll come back to Miller's notes and the importance of her relying on others to decipher them in a more in-depth  follow up article that will detail Libby's behind-the-scenes involvement in her book.

Unlike Miller, I do not believe journalism is done by trial and error, I believe you just report the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

With that in mind, here are some of the facts that Miller and friends do not want you to know.

Fact: Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage did not expose Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA in 2003.

It was Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Plame in 2001. (Remember, Miller confessed to me in 2013 that she knew it was not Armitage.)

Grossman not only outed Plame, at the same time he was also caught on an FBI wiretap bragging that he would fax articles to the New York Times and they would just print them under someone's byline.

Judith's byline? Perhaps.

Fact: On October 1, 2003 when Armitage came forward to claim he was the leaker of Plame's identity, it was not Patrick Fitzgerald that asked him to keep it to himself. It was the FBI - under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller who instructed Armitage, Colin Powell and then State Department Counsel William H Taft who was present in the room - not to tell anyone.

Fact: Attorney General John Ashcroft did not recuse himself in the Plame case because of his close ties to the White House. Ashcroft recused himself because at that time he was in front of FISA court Judge Reggie B. Walton enforcing a gag order on the one person who could tell the world that Plamegate was all a sham! That person being FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.

Walton was also the judge who presided over the Libby case. What a coincidence.

So you see Judith, there's no trial and error. It's simple. A real journalist just states the facts from the get-go.

And since you admit you can't do that, we're not interested in anymore of your false narratives!

By the way, how many times do you feel you're allowed to be wrong?

1Sep/140

Patrick Fitzgerald’s “not not denial” that he warned Blagojevich

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief

Was former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald displaying his intellectual shortcomings or was he just being duplicitous when he was given the opportunity to deny that he was the one who ultimately warned Governor Rod Blagojevich that he was recording Blago's phone conversations?

In a recent phone call Fitzgerald was asked directly:

"Do you deny that the U.S. Attorney's Office had communications with the Chicago Tribune about the Blagojevich case on Dec. 4, 2008?"

Fitzgerald's response: "I'm not denying it and I'm not not denying it."

Really, Patrick? "Not not denying it"?

You either deny it or you don't.

And for the record, you did "not deny" communicating with the Chicago Tribune before you decided to "not not deny" communicating with them.

What's next, Patrick? Are you and former White House counsel Greg Craig, who is now your law partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, going to do Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" routine for us?

And by the way is "not not" the kind of nonsense you teach the students at the University of Chicago Law School in your capacity as a Feirson Distinguished Lecturer?

If so, they will never be able to practice law anywhere but Chicago.

From:(redacted)
To: Sarah Galer
Cc: amgardn, andaws
Sent: March 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Feirson Distinguished Lecturer

Ms. Sarah Galer

Please inform Patrick Fitzgerald that the Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. Inspector Generals Office would be who conducts an investigation of a U.S. Attorney.

I would have thought a "Feirson Distinguished Lecturer" would know that.

< name redacted >

p.s. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's 1st lecture could be on this very subject.

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

From:(redacted)
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Cc: Aaron Goldstein , Sheldon Sorosky
Sent: 2013-03-29 02:46:11 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald

You are on the record claiming that you do not know who would investigate the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the leaks to John Chase and the Chicago Tribune.

Do you agree, there should be an investigation?

< name redacted >

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

From:(redacted)
To: sgaler@uchicago.edu
Sent: 2013-03-27 09:34:58 GMT
Subject: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald

Ms. Sarah Galer

The fact that the University of Chicago Law School is welcoming former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be part of your schools program. And, that your showering him with accolades at a time that he is embroiled in controversy. Leads me to believe that you might not be aware of just how serious this may ultimately be for your institutions reputation.

Are you aware of the following?

And, if so, have you done due diligence?

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald “Most Dangerous Man”
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/02/09/turns-out-u-s-attorney-patrick-fitzgerald-most-dangerous/

Why no Grand Jury? Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase involved in a crime. AGAIN!
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/03/09/why-no-grand-jury-chicago-tribune-reporter-john-chase-involved-in-a-crime-again/

< name redacted >

Former U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald named Feirson Distinguished Lecturer

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/03/25/former-us-attorney-patrick-j-fitzgerald-named-feirson-distinguished-lecturer

In Fitzgerald's defense, there is the distinct possibility that he really is this stupid. And let's face it, if he truly is mentally challenged, how would he know unless someone told him?

After all, the media does nothing but tell Fitzgerald how wonderfully smart he is.

In fact, the fawning Chicago media actually remained silent as Fitzgerald declared during a press conference about the Blagojevich case that the leaks to the Tribune "might have come from his office so he could not investigate them," and that he "had no idea who would investigate".

Wow! Can you believe that?

Amazingly, no one in the adoring mainstream media insisted that Fitzgerald explain those ridiculously stupid statements.

Well, Patrick, IP2P has news for you: you're not as bright as the media has led you to believe.

And now that it appears that Blagojevich will get out of prison soon, we insist that you explain your asinine statements about the leaks from your office to the Chicago Tribune.

And while you're at it, Fitz, you also need to explain to the public why you buried irrefutable evidence that:

(A) Sibel Edmonds gave you in the Plamegate scandal;

(B) John A. Shaw gave you in the Nadhmi Auchi scandal; and

(C) I, Ernie Souchak, gave you in the Blagojevich scandal.

Not to mention the well-documented burying of evidence you did in the Southern District of New York.

To be continued...

4Aug/140

What is the American Thinker website trying to hide about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Question: What is the American Thinker trying to hide by taking down articles it published years ago?

Answer: The truth about former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Recently, former FBI mole and convicted felon John Thomas was arrested for stealing money from Illinois taxpayers.

The only reason that Thomas was able to abscond with taxpayer money this time was because he was no longer on probation.

And the reason he was no longer on probation was because the U.S. Attorneys Office allowed his three-year probation for previous financial crimes to be abruptly terminated after just one year.

As luck would have it for Thomas, the premature termination of his probation came just in time for him to be awarded a multi-million dollar taxpayer funded development contract from the Village of Riverdale, Illinois.

And as anyone with a brain could have predicted, Thomas stole that money too.

Let's hear it for Fitzgerald and his crack team of crime fighters at the U.S. Attorney's Office Northern Dist. Illinois for that brilliant bit of law enforcement.

So now ask yourself this:

Question: Why would the American Thinker remove the following article from its website after two years just right after it became known why Thomas' probation was terminated two years early?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/patrick_fitzgeralds_rezko_mole_probation

January 12, 2012

Patrick Fitzgerald's Rezko Mole Probation Sentence Terminated Early

By Lee Cary & Marty Watters

The New York felon who U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wired against Chicago's Tony Rezko got three years probation that ended two years early.

To refresh your memory concerning the mole named John Thomas: in the late 1990s, Bernard T. Barton, Jr. had a billboard business in New York where he rented space on billboards he didn't own or operate. That's illegal.

He defrauded customers out of $350,000, and he used his father's Social Security number to get an American Express business account, where he charged $140,000. Facing a significant jail sentence, he offered to work for the feds. They agreed. His sentence was delayed for about a decade while he cooperated with the FBI.

In 2000, he moved to Chicago, where he became "John Thomas," working undercover for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office.

He eventually became a close business associate of Tony Rezko.

On May 4, 2007, Thomas' undercover identity was revealed by Thomas A. Corfman, a former reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in an article in Crain's ChicagoBusiness.com.Corfman, who had recently rejoined Crain's, wrote:

"A former New Yorker has been conducting an undercover sting investigation for federal prosecutors while working in the Chicago commercial real estate industry, according to sources familiar with the investigation and documents in the man's own federal criminal fraud case."

The next day, May 5, 2007, Tribune staff reporter David Jackson followed up with an article that reported further on Thomas' undercover activities. Wonder how the Trib could be so quick to follow up on Corfman's outing of Thomas? Here's how:

The Trib had known of Thomas' mole role for a year. In his May 5 piece, Jackson reported:

"When a Tribune reporter discovered that Thomas was acting as a federal operative in May 2006, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald took the unusual step of asking senior editors at the paper to refrain from publishing a report that would expose the ongoing probe. Fitzgerald offered no specifics but said an article would derail an important investigation and put people in serious danger of harm."

By the way, there's no indication that Fitzgerald, who knew the identity of the leaker of Valerie Plame's alleged identity as a CIA operative before he began his investigation, ever went after the leaker who outed Thomas to the Trib in 2006. If breaking Thomas' cover in 2006 could have put people in "serious danger," why wouldn't it have done so in 2007?

Back to the narrative:

On February 8, 2008, the Chicago Sun Times reported (emphasis in original):

"For the first time, the FBI "mole" who's expected to be a key prosecution witness against indicted developer and political fund-raiser Tony Rezko is talking. ...

Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Blagojevich and Obama were among the many politicians for whom Rezko raised campaign cash. Neither has been charged with any wrongdoing. ...

Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru's Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005. ...

Sources said the government had him wear a hidden wire to record conversations with a Chicago alderman -- but that he did not record Blagojevich or Obama."

Despite the Sun-Times' prediction, Thomas was not called to testify at Tony Rezko's trial. He was the Silent Mole.

On June 23, 2010, writing for ChicagoRealEstateDaily.com, Corfman, still keeping tabs on Thomas-Barton, reported:

"U.S. District Court Judge Elaine Bucklo on Monday gave three years probation to Mr. Thomas, who was indicted under the name Bernard T. Barton Jr., court records show.

Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, which carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison."

In a January 3, 2012 email, Randall Samborn, spokesperson for Fitzgerald's office, stated that Thomas' three-year probation was terminated in June 2011, after one year. The silent Mole is now completely free.

Today, John Thomas is a commercial real estate broker in Chicago.

Meanwhile, a government motion that describes Thomas' undercover activities is sealed. According to Samborn, that's not unusual when records contain "information about non-public law enforcement matters."

There's no indication that the Trib, which went to great lengths to get the sealed divorce records of Jack and Jeri Ryan opened in 2004, against both Ryans' wishes, shows any interest in getting Thomas' sealed file opened.

Ryan was the initial GOP candidate in the race against Barack Obama for a U.S. Senate seat representing Illinois -- that is, until his divorce file was pried opened by efforts led by the Trib, where David Axelrod was once the youngest political editor ever.

Here's a final head-scratcher:

Way back on February 22, 2002, Corfman, then a reporter for the Tribune, in an article focused on Donald Trump's efforts to retain a firm to "handle leasing for his proposed mixed-use skyscraper on the riverfront site of the Chicago Sun Times," wrote:

"John Thomas, a partner in Chicago-based Carnegie Realty Partners, and a Carnegie employee, Louis Giordano of New York, were arrested last year in connection with an alleged fraud scheme that took place over five years in New York[.] ...

Thomas and Giordano are free on bond, according to court records. The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York would not comment on the case."

What? Rezko let someone whom the Trib had reported as having been arrested in New York in the early 2000s, who then resurfaced in Chicago, get close to him? Didn't Tony read the papers? And where is there any mention of Thomas's real name -- Bernard T. Barton, Jr.? Wouldn't that name, and not "John Thomas," have been in his New York criminal records?

The more we know about the Rezko Mole, the more we realize that there's a lot we don't know.

Answer: Because influential friends of the American Thinker now fear that articles like that will lead to the public knowing what Fitzgerald was really doing in Chicago. And just how cozy his relationship with the George W. Bush administration really was.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald "Most Dangerous Man"

Richard Perle feeds American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson

Did Clarice Feldman just say “Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq”?

Murray Waas: Plamegate cover-up is “something that is bigger than Watergate”

American Thinker’s credibility is dissipating quickly

Plamegate Update: American Thinker fails to disclose conflicts of interest!

Plamegate update: Clarice Feldman says Sibel Edmonds misunderstood

American Thinker’s dishonest attempt to discredit a hero

Clarice Feldman believes Dick Armitage is a liar, except….

Much more to come...

11Jun/140

Former CIA attorney John Rizzo confirms Plamegate was a disinformation campaign

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Former acting general counsel for the CIA, John Rizzo, was recently provided articles from IP2P that state clearly and unequivocally that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, and he was asked to comment on them.

After reading these reports, Rizzo conveyed his compliments, adding that "Mr. Souchak is obviously a good, dogged reporter".

So not only did Rizzo not dispute my reports that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, he actually praised me for them.

Thank you, John.

Now we're getting somewhere. Valerie Plame, it's your turn to tell the truth.

Please start by explaining your relationship with Marc Grossman, the man who really exposed your cover, Brewster Jennings & Associates, as a CIA front.

And while you're at it, Valerie, why don't you tell everyone exactly what your husband, Joe Wilson, was doing for the American Turkish Council.

And I am sure that your adoring fans would also love to hear why you're actively campaigning to elect Hillary Clinton president after she appointed Marc Grossman special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2011.

Remember it was Grossman that got caught on a FBI wiretap peddling nuclear secrets on the black market that ultimately wound up in Pakistan.

Or was that sanctioned by the CIA as well?

What say you, Valerie? You were supposed to be watching out for that kind of activity, weren't you?

In any case the good news is that we can now once and for all dispense with the ridiculous notion that Dick Armitage was the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA.

The Armitage cover story was so easily disputed that it was downright embarrassing for us as a nation to have swallowed such a feeble lie.

And best of all, now that John Rizzo has confirmed for us that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, will someone please lower the curtain on the nauseating "Valerie Plame Show"?

27May/140

The interviews Valerie Plame and her “publicity-seeking, preening blowhard” husband do not want you to know about

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Former CIA attorney John Rizzo was correct when he called Valerie Plame's husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, a "publicity-seeking, preening blowhard".

However, we can tell you that there are at least two interviews that both Plame and her "publicity-seeking" husband do not want you to know about.

The first: In 2005 Valerie and Joe welcomed French film director Mathieu Verboud into their home to interview Wilson for the documentary Verboud was filming about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds entitled "Kill The Messenger".

At the time, Wilson was presenting himself to the world as a proxy whistleblower of sorts for his wife. So when the opportunity arose for Wilson to go in front of the camera to claim that Plame was somehow a heroric figure just like Edmonds, he jumped at the chance.

According to Verboud, that's exactly what Wilson spent nearly 90 minutes doing. That is until he was caught off guard when Verboud began asking him questions about Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman's involvement in exposing his wife's cover, Brewster Jennings & Associates, as CIA.

That's when the interview came to a screeching stop and Wilson made it very clear to Verboud that he would not answer any question about Marc Grossman.

Wow. Talk about a "60 Minutes" moment. Wilson was clearly not expecting any questions about Grossman.

Remember, Edmonds had already been silenced by the Dept. of Justice under States Secrets Privilege Act., so Wilson thought no one knew about Grossman's involvement in the outing of his wife.

So Verboud now had Joe Wilson on film refusing to answer questions about the man Sibel Edmonds swore under oath had exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA back in 2001. And that man was none other than Wilson's friend and former college classmate Marc Grossman.

For a filmmaker making a documentary about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, this was pure gold!

Clearly Verboud thought so as well - demonstrated by the fact that a short clip of the Wilson interview was included in the film's official trailer.

View Trailer: Kill The Messenger

The second interview that Plame and Wilson do not want you to know about is: Verboud's interview with Grossman himself for "Kill The Messenger".

In this interview, conducted in 2006 at an American Turkish Council event. Verboud asked Grossman a question about Valerie Plame and he pretended not to know who she was.

Even though he testified under oath during the Scooter Libby trial about his friendship with Wilson and enjoying breakfast at Joe and Valerie's house.

Here's Verboud in his own words:

Mathieu Verboud: Coming back to Grossman, exposing his role would have been interesting for the film, but the guy being what he is, there was no way that he would have given an interview if we had brought up any kind of charges. So we decided to just let him talk, give us his vision of Turkey...

Then we tested him - we asked him about Valerie Plame - and it was amazing to see his face change! He had the nerves to say that he didn’t know anything about Valerie Plame, or about Brewster Jennings - which is simply false! As mentioned earlier, his name had already appeared publicly in the Valerie Plame's case! Anyway, we didn't point out to that simple fact and fended off.

But Grossman was not finished lying on camera yet.

Verboud: Next, we just mentioned that there was this little woman of Turkish origin whose name was mentioned in an article in Vanity Fair speaking about FBI and Turkey… His face changed again, and he came up with this answer: "Vanity Fair? I am afraid it is not a magazine I read!" We then asked him directly about Sibel Edmonds and he said that he didn't know anything about her. Even the name was "unfamiliar".

Verboud must have been leading a charmed life to get such interviews on film. This is pure documentary filmmaking gold.

So, now the only question is why did Mathieu Verboud and co-direct Jean R. Viallet exclude this amazing footage of both interviews from their film?

Wilson appears in the trailer but not the film itself, and the film credits posted by IMDb list the Grossman interview as being "deleted" from the film. Repeat: "Deleted".

We know that Plamegate was a disinformation campaign. But what we would like to know is who applied the pressure to keep these two interviews out of the film?

To this day, both co-directors and Zadig Productions still refuse to release footage of either the Grossman or Wilson interviews.

And Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and their friend, Marc Grossman, while not denying these facts as stated, also refuse to answer any questions about the interviews.

Watch the full 82-minute final version of "Kill The Messenger" here:http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/5629

 

28Feb/140

Richard Perle feeds American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Not only was Richard Perle feeding the American Thinker what he wanted them to report during the Iraq war and Plamegate.

Turns out he was also sautéing foie gras for American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson and friends.

Lifson's good friend Bob Lee tells of an intimate gathering at the house of Washington insiders Clarice and Howard Feldman, where Perle played a co-host of sorts.

Yes, this is the same Clarice Feldman who writes for American Thinker and who recently insisted that Plamegate was not a deliberate plot by Goerge W. "Bush and pals to distract from Iraq."

It also turns out that Clarice Feldman considers Richard Perle such a good friend that she puts him to work in her kitchen when he attends her soirées.

Here's what Bob Lee wrote about the intimate gathering.

Richard Perle Sauteed The Foie Gras …

There were probably 1000s of other such conversational gourmands meeting inside the Washington Beltway on Friday night. Nine adults enjoying a 4-course gourmet dinner au conversation. Ours had a former Asst Secty of Defense, the ex-wife of The Head of The World Bank, a military historian, a Libby Trial aficionado, a right-wing fanatic from Berkley, and a North Carolina couple referred to as friends of Tom. … That grotesquely hilarious report about Apple Cheek Johnny's Poverty Castle ??? Wait til BobLee tells you THE REAL STORY!

If you want to skip down to the hilarious REAL STORY about Apple Cheek’s Monster Manse go ahead … but do come back up for this account of our Foggy Bottom Fandango.

Remember The Brunswick Stew Party a few years ago. Given my druthers I’d take that over Friday night for pure conviviality plus b-stew trumps foie gras every time with me. But, our dinner party in a prominent DC-A list neighborhood certainly added a few memories to the life larder. The Mizzus could not get out of Georgetown fast enough Saturday as urban congestion about did her in. With me it was the Euros and faux Euros that slink up /down M Street. They are sorta like Shineolas except they (the Euros) have greasier hair.

Our dear friend Thomas The Berkley Right-winger had invited us. Clarice and Howard were our gracious hosts. We had no idea who was on the guest list, nor did they. They likely still don’t know and we’re still not sure ourselves.

Howard perked up when I said I am a legendary humorist. So is my brother he said. Feldman ... yikes ... was this MARTY FELDMAN's brother??? ... Hump, what hump ... Walk this way ... I'll take the one in the turban. No ... Michael Feldman ... an NPR talk show guy that is well outside my interest sphere.

When the big man in the hat said his name was Richard Perle I first thought the guy that started those Vision Centers. Close … the former Reagan Asst Secty of Defense not affectionately known around DC as the Prince of Darkness. Richard, legend has it, was the first one to get GWB’s ear after 9/11 and strongly recommend taking down Saddam ASAP.

I introduced myself as the last remaining member of The Flying Wallendas and Mizzus said she was Stephanie Powers’ younger sister. I detected a glimmer of recognition with the name Wallenda but it flickered and died quickly. After game after game of “hey look, IT’S BOBLEE…” it was sort of nice to be naught but a whozit for an evening. Now I know how those three little white boys at the end of Dean’s bench musta felt all those years.

A pre-dinner conversational mini-joust highlighted by one of Thomas’ Napa Valley finest led us to the dinner table. I was seated between Thomas From Berkley and a little Jewish lady named Clare with a daughter at Chapel Hill and an ex-husband who was almost CIA Director and instead is Head of The World Bank – Paul Wolfowitz.

Mizzus was between Richard and Peter The Lawyer From Annapolis. During the course of four courses and about two hours of chitting and chatting, Peter actually used the word Parenthetically ... TWICE. In well over 50 years I’ve never used in once nor do I ever intend to. Peter used it with a deftness that would lead one to believe he uses it daily if not hourly. I wonder if Paul Johnson, a football coach who lives in Annapolis, has ever used the word parenthetically? I doubt it.

A French onion soufflé began our epicurean journey. At about the 15-minute mark Richard left the table. When he returned he had grease stains all over the front of his blue oxford button-down. Since I’ve been known to get a tab rowdy in eating I chose not to inquire “yo Perle, whats with the grease spots?”

Clarise explained it all … she had asked Richard to sautee the foie gras. Although he knew one should slide the foie gras delicately into the hot pan, silly Prince of Darkness DROPPED the foie gras from several inches above the skillet … voila … grease spots all over his shirt. And this was the man that convinced GWB to take out Saddam! I wonder if Cindy Sheehan knows how to sautee foie gras?

The thought occured to me twixt Course Two & Three ... suppose Ol' Fruitcake Freddie From Franklin Street had been hiding under the table? That silly wabbit's tin foil hat woulda been spinning like a top. Lord have mercy, Freddie would have been dialing up the Mutha Ship for sure to report a new CONSPIRACY!

I cleaned my plate because that’s how I was raised plus, like Mikey, I eat most anything. Mizzus nibbled and later expressed her pique at the goose liver. The Beef Wellington of Course Three was equally tasty to me but a bit too rare for Mizzus.

As the evening progressed everyone seemed to assume familiar roles … listening to Richard Perle tell about meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin. Richard Perle does NOT care much for The Saudis. In other words, the same chit chat you get about anywhere. Richard did ask me which other humorists I admire the most. Since I did not mention PJ O’Rourke or Robert Benchley it didn’t much matter who I mentioned. I deftly dropped Dave Huxtable’s name and I thought I noticed a slight shiver from ex-Mrs Wolfowitz.

John McCain’s name came up. Mizzus did that finger down the throat gag sign which took Peter Parenthetical aback. The military historian lady even pretended to care on that. Richard seconded Mizzus’ low opinion of McCrazy with a few stories on him that likely are not in his official bio. Apparently John McCrazy has a hair trigger temper and the attention span of a gnat. But, unlike Barack, he has normal ears ... and unlike Hilly, he has discernible ankles.

I noted to ex-Mrs Wolfowitz that out-of-state tuition had just been increased at UNC. She said she didn’t care since her(daughter’s) father can afford it. He’s head of The World Bank. She’s likely right. I tried a second question tied to 40 Point Frank’s next career move. I lost ex-Mrs Wolfowitz … never to regain her. I later learned she is a somewhat famous anthropologist specializing in Sumatra. She woulda lost me quickly on that.

We did learn all about the shadow government that really runs Washington … the insidious webees that have been in place forever and defy all administrations and/or new personalities.

Clarice, our gracious host, attends the Scooter Libby Trial each day. She had many harsh words for Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. I later learned from Thomas that there are at least two websites devoted to people who dislike Clarice a lot. TWO … My kinda woman!

On the drive home Saturday we stopped at the Silver Diner at Potomac Mills. Mizzus had a grilled cheese. I had a crab cake melt. It was good.

>>><<<

Wow. Although no doubt unintentionally, Bob Lee has opened a serious can of worms for the American Thinker by preserving for the record the events of that little get-together.

First thing we have to ask is this:

If Richard Perle was feeling chatty enough to talk about "meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin", why did Lifson and Feldman not find this interesting enough to write about?

And as long as Perle was telling war stories, why didn't Lifson or Feldman ask him about more current topics, such as the 550 Tons of yellowcake that was then still sitting in Iraq?

And while we're at it, why didn't the American Thinker editor ask Clare Wolfowitz about the letter she wrote to George W. Bush that derailed ex-husband Paul Wolfowitz's bid to be the director of the CIA.

Instead, Thomas Lifson and Clarice Feldman continued to publish stories attacking those who disagreed with Perle or Wolfowitz without disclosing that they were close personal friends.

How is that for journalistic integrity?

We now know that Clarice Feldman's ridiculous attack on Sibel Edmonds' credibility, claiming Edmonds "misunderstood what she had overheard," certainly must have come from Richard Perle.

We also know that Feldman cannot name Perle as her source for that dubious claim due to the fact that Edmonds made it clear that if the FBI wiretap tapes she translated were ever made public, Perle would go to prison.

Remember, the Department of Defense, Perle's old stomping grounds, was instrumental in invoking states secrets privilege on Edmonds so that she could not talk publicly about what was on those tapes.

Bit of a conflict there, don't ya think, Clarice?

If that's not enough to make you ask who's running things at the American Thinker, we have reason to believe that the "military historian lady" at this private gathering was none other than Laurie Mylroie.

If so, we have a few questions for Clarice Feldman's "dear friend" Mylroie as well.

Perhaps Lifson or Feldman will get back to us on that.

In any case, we can hardly wait to read Judith Miller's tell all book due out this spring.

Judith, can you give us a preview?

15Jan/140

Plamegate Update: American Thinker fails to disclose conflicts of interest!

Ernie Souchak, Editor-inChief

American Thinker's failure to disclose conflicts of interest raises serious ethical questions about the website.

Case in point.

Meet Clarice Feldman, attorney, Washington insider, and close personal friend of Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr.

IMG_1179.PNG

That's Clarice up front and center, enjoying herself at former Chairman of the Defense Advisory Board Richard Perle's annual 4th of July bash in the South of France. Looks like she is having a wonderful time.

That's great Clarice!

Although it does present a bit of a problem for us common folk back in the States.

You see, very serious allegations have been made against Richard Perle (see email below)

The American Thinker thought it was OK to publish Feldman's baseless hit pieces on those who make allegations against her friends.

And if that's not bad enough, American Thinker did not feel obligated to disclose Feldman's conflict of interest. This is deplorable, and should not be tolerated.

From: <redacted>
To: thomas@americanthinker.com
Sent:Tue Jan 14 03:52:33 UTC 2014
Subject: Conflict of interest (Clarice Feldman)

Thomas,

Please tell me how Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr is not a conflict of interest, as it pertains to Feldman's "prerogative" to attack Sibel Edmonds' credibility.

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

Military.com Covers Edmonds Disclosures, Reports 'Denials' From Several Fingered Bush Officials

Feature article offers comment from Perle, Feith, spokesman for Grossman, as well as information and comment in support of the FBI translator/whistleblower's charges of nuclear treason...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7478&print=1

Tasty Food to Celebrate American Freedom in the South of (Clarice Feldman)

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/07/26/tasty-food-to-celebrate-american-freedom-in-the-south-of-france/?singlepage=true

American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson still feels he has no obligation to disclose Feldman's close personal relationship with Perle.

From: thomas@americanthinker.com
To:<redacted>
Sent:Fri Jan 10 12:48:05 UTC 2014
Subject: RE: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit

(name redacted),

Clarice does not believe Edmonds, as is her prerogative. I trust Clarice far more than I trust you. You throw around ugly words. I don't know what you think is going on, but your tactics have alienated me.

Please do not correspond any further with me. Such correspondence is unwelcome and may constitute harassment.

Thomas

It is also apparent from Lifson's email response above that he thinks someone's use of ugly words(?) is all the justification he needs to ignore evidence that proves Clarice Feldman's attacks on Sibel Edmonds are based on falsehoods. And that publishing them is unethical.

As for the rest of Feldman's reporting on "Plamegate"......much more to come......

12Jan/140

Plamegate update: Clarice Feldman says Sibel Edmonds misunderstood

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman came up with a stunning justification for her hit piece on Sibel Edmonds' credibility.

After she was criticized for failing to provide any facts or references to support her public declaration that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is not credible, Feldman finally offered this journalistic gem:

"p to p has no secret info to my knowledge. As I recall the investigation of Sibel's charges was mixed--She was found credible respecting claims of the operation of the FBI's Arabic translation group. Not so with her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey. As to those things I thing she misunderstood what she had overheard"

So, according to Clarice Feldman, the woman who testified before the 911 Commission and had state secrets privilege invoked on her twice, simply "misunderstood what she overheard" on the FBI wiretap tapes.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for us, Clarice.

Now if you don't mind, just tell us the correct translation of what is on the FBI wiretap tapes that Edmonds "misunderstood".

And please show us where DoJ Inspector General Glenn Fine says Edmonds is not credible as it pertains to "her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey" in his unclassified report.

Because we can't find that in the report. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Unless of course Clarice received a copy of the classified report. Well, did you Clarice?

But Feldman is right about one thing: "Plamegate" was a hoax. However, she is not telling the truth about the who, what, why, when, and where of the hoax. Or the more accurate description - disinformation campaign.

And now Feldman is continuing the disinformation campaign by quoting from a new book by John Rizzo, a CIA attorney and self described friend of Patrick Fitzgerald.

Really?

Will get back to you on that one......more to come...

10Jan/140

American Thinker’s dishonest attempt to discredit a hero

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief

Clarice Feldman and the American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit a true American hero by the name of Sibel Edmonds exposes their hidden agenda.

Feldman's coverage of "Plamegate" coupled with another story IP2P is currently working on involving the American Thinker  will not only raise very serious questions about American Thinker's credibility in the minds of their readers. It will also prove to be very upsetting to many of the fine writers who contribute to the American Thinker. And who deserve better.

Let's start with a few things you may or may not know about Clarice Feldman that will help paint a picture of what is clearly her agenda.

You may know that Clarice Feldman was a DC lawyer. However, did you know that Clarice Feldman's career as an attorney was spent employed by the federal government at the National Labor Relations Review Board (NLRB)?

Did you know that Feldman was a Washington insider who was nominated to be on the federal bench three separate times?

And did you know that Feldman's husband is a Washington insider as well?

Howard J. Feldman - Van Ness Feldman LLP

Keep these facts in mind as you read the following communication between American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson and one of the contributors to his website.

From:<redacted>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:55 PM
To: thomas@americanthinker.com
Subject: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit

Thomas,

I wish to bring to your attention egregious misrepresentations and falsehoods written by Clarice Feldman and published in the American Thinker, that by all indications appear to have been intentional.

I recently asked you the following: What was the purpose of the Clarice Feldman article titled Spy vs Spy? To which you replied "I am not a mind reader". OK Thomas, I believe you when you say you are not a mind reader. However, you are the editor of American Thinker and you should have a clear understanding of what you publish.

So, I am going to take this opportunity to explain to you what you allowed to be published under your watch. Feldman's article Spy vs Spy was the most transparently feeble underhanded cowardly dishonest attempt to discredit a credible bonafide whistleblower that I have ever seen.

As Feldman is fully aware, the media did not have "well-supported questions about Edmonds' credibility" as she stated. In fact the opposite was true. The media that did report on Edmonds touted her as being completely credible. And members of congress including the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) stepped up and went on programs such as CBS 60 minutes to say so.

Not to mention the fact that Sibel Edmonds the most gaged women in America was credible enough to be called to testify in front of the 911 commission.

Furthermore, Feldman's attempt to discredit Edmonds with the tactic of guilt by association using an indirect connection to as Feldman puts it "the oddly-named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs)", was disgraceful.

And is further conformation that Clarice Feldman was motivated by an agenda and not a desire to report the truth.

Thomas, you have been provided documents and sworn testimony of Sibel Edmonds that as you know has not been challenged by anyone in the media or the federal government, including the Department of Justice and the FBI.

With that evidence in hand, it is time for the American Thinker to do what is right, and correct a wrong. Print a retraction of the hit piece Clarice Feldman and the American Thinker did on Sibel Edmonds and her credibility (attached below) along with a long overdue apology to Sibel Edmonds, who is a true American hero that deserves our thanks and admiration.

(name redacted)
Writer, American Thinker website

January 31, 2008 Spy vs Spy
Clarice Feldman

The UK Sunday Times has run a series of articles detailing sensational charges by Sibel Edmonds, a short term translator for the FBI who claims that Marc Grossman, a key prosecution figure in the Scooter Libby case, was involved in espionage against the U.S., divulging nuclear secrets and warning people that Plame's cover Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front.

Annie Jacobsen of Pajamas Media asks why no major US outlet has covered this, suggesting fear of being involved in charges of divulging state secrets.

My own view is that the media have well-supported questions about Edmonds' credibility. Interestingly, there is a whistleblowers operation supporting her that has some overlapping membership with the oddly-named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs) which insisted the government's case against Libby was solid, that Plame's career was destroyed when she was "outed" and that she was involved at the time in very important, top secret matters.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/spy_vs_spy.html

Feldman knows that if Edmonds was lying she would have faced criminal prosecution.

So, ask yourself the following:

Why would Feldman, who is the lead cheerleader for the Bush family, try to discredit the one person Washington wants to silence, Sibel Edmonds?

Why would Clarice Feldman, a DC insider who was nominated to be a federal judge, ignore all the documented facts and evidence that prove Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative was exposed in 2001?

And why would Feldman choose to believe Dick Armitage's ridiculous lie that he did so in 2003, over Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony?

And why would Thomas Lifson' the founder and editor of American Thinker, participate in this lie?

Could it be because of the fact that Edmonds telling the truth exposes that Dick Armitage was not part of a conspiracy against the White House as Feldman and the American Thinker want you to believe, but rather part of a disinformation campaign/cover-up orchestrated by the White House?

And the fact that if that were exposed, the Bush family and a whole bunch of Washington insiders friendly to Feldman and the American Thinker would have a lot of explaining to do?

And most likely, time to do as well! As in prison time.

Yep, not only could it be. It is.

Much more to follow.....

Just wait until you hear who was quoted saying "it is bigger than Watergate" when talking about the "Plamegate cover-up". And who they are collaborating with now!