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.
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.
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 >
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”
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
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...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Fox News contributor and author Judith Miller recently confessed that Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA, and that "a lot of people" in Washington knew this.
Miller went on to say that she was going to tell the story of what really happened during the Plamegate scandal her way in a book due out this spring.
Keep in mind that at that time, Miller had not planned to make a confession about Plamegate. When she realized what she had done, she immediately contacted Scooter Libby in hopes that he could do damage control.
Anyone want to guess what happened next?
Suddenly, with absolutly no warning and no explanation, the release of Miller's book was canceled.
Ouch. It's gotta hurt when you write your memoir and you can't release it because of your own big mouth.
Now Miller is refusing to answer any questions about Plamegate or the cancellation of her eagerly awaited book.
And she's not alone.
Her publisher, Simon & Schuster, and Fox News are also refusing to answer any questions.
The good news: former CIA attorney John Rizzo's recent willingness to discuss Plamegate and his acknowledgment that it was a CIA disinformation campaign could very well make hearing Miller's version of events unnecessary.
We'll see, won't we?
In any case, it might be a good time for you to consider another career change, Judith.
Just a suggestion.
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"?
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 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?
Did Clarice Feldman just say “Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq”?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
American Thinker writer Clarice Feldman is not only on record stating that Plamegate was a "hoax", she has also at one point or another accused half of Washington of being involved in a "conspiracy" against George W. Bush.
Right, Clarice. Poor George Bush and Dick Cheney were being picked on by all those bad people that worked for them. Ok. Got it.
While being questioned about her "conspiracy" theories, Feldman let loose with this unexpected gem:
" When do we get to Ernie's fantastical notion that Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq? "
Holy cow! Where did that come from?
Clarice, we never said that "Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq." But now that you mention it, that scenario would explain a great deal of unanswered questions.
Why would the CIA send Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate Saddam Hussein's alleged attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium, when the CIA and George W. Bush knew Hussein had 550 tons of yellowcake 19 miles outside of Baghdad?
And why were the yellowcake documents that Wilson said he read long before they were actually ever made available to anyone in the CIA such poor forgeries? Were the forgeries designed to be easily discovered?
Would a President really tolerate any high-ranking officials in his administration keeping secrets from him, especially during wartime, as Feldman contends?
Of course he would not.
So while IP2P was trying to get Feldman to explain how she came to the conclusion that the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the DoJ Inspector General's Office were all involved in a "conspiracy" against President George W. Bush, she answered with this out-of-the-blue defense of Bush and his Defense Dept.
And in doing so could very well have helped solve the mystery of what the "Plamegate hoax" was really all about.
Coincidentally, the DoD is where Feldman's close personal friends Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were practically running the show during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
Clarice, you may have really turned us on to something here. Thank You!
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.
Will get back to you on that one......more to come...
Hugo Floriani, Investigative Reporter
Sen. Chuck Grassley and his staff refuse to answer any questions or give a statement to the media regarding the documented fact that the senator was actively involved in what is now being called the "Plamegate cover-up".
However, in a very odd conversation with Grassley staff members Tristan Leavitt and James Donahue, in which they changed the subject from "Plamegate cover-up" to the gun walking scandal "Fast and Furious" and its Chicago connections, Leavitt dropped this bombshell:
Sen. Grassley's investigation into "Fast and Furious" is in the civil courts, in an attempt to get information.
So, an investigation into the deaths of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Immigration and Customs agent Jaime Zapata, and an untold number of Mexican citizens is now in civil court. Really?
In other words, Sen. Grassley's office has confirmed what we suspected:
Congressman Darrell Issa was only putting on a show for us in the Congressional Oversight Committee hearings. And, that he always intended to bury this scandal.
Here are our words for Sen. Grassley and Congressman Issa:
Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata and their families deserve better.
And, We the People are going to insist they get better.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Clarice Feldman is a writer for the American Thinker who has taken the position that Dick Armitage is a liar, except when his lies fit her agenda. Then you can believe him over all others.
Feldman's agenda: Keep Americans from learning that "Plamegate" is a cover-up, and that her friends in Washington, DC were not victims. They were participants.
Remember we said "Now that the lie is out in the open, individuals involved in the "Plamegate cover-up" are having difficulty answering the simplest of questions."
That's because once Armitage's lies are fully exposed to the public, the "Plamegate cover-up" comes crashing down, exposing the granddaddy of all scandals. And, that will explain a plethora of scandals. Including current ones!
To: Clarice Feldman
Cc: Thomas Lifson
Sent: November 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Subject: Are we clear on this?
August 30, 2006 - What President Bush Should Do about Plamegate by Clarice Feldman
You state your belief that Dick Armitage, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and James Comey were co-conspirators against President George W Bush. The conspiracy you accuse them of orchestrating was commonly known as "Plamegate"
Fast forward to today.
Judith Miller exposed “Plamegate” as a cover-up
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has since testified under oath that Valerie Plame's CIA front Brewster Jennings & Associates was exposed in 2001 by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who coincidently reported directly to Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage.
And, Judith Miller is now on record stating that she knew Dick Armitage was not who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA, and that a lot of people knew that.
Clarice, so we are clear on this.
Now that you have full knowledge of Miller's confession, and Edmonds testimony.
You're telling me that you still believe Dick Armitage, a man you accused of conspiring against The President of the United States, was telling the truth when he confessed (in 2006) that he exposed Valerie Plame in 2003.
And, you believe Judith Miller and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds are both lying when they say Armitage did not expose Valerie Plame.
However, you refuse to offer a reason for this peculiar belief.
Is there anything else you would like to say?
Or, are we clear on this?
What Feldman refuses to tell her readers is, that there were hoards of people in Washington, DC who knew that Marc Grossman exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates in 2001.
Including: FBI Director Robert Mueller, Dept. of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy.
Clarice Feldman would like you to believe that Dick Armitage, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and James Comey conspired against President George W. Bush while Mueller, Fine, Grassley, Leahy and others in positions of power just watched.
Really? Wouldn't that make them all co-conspirators?
Clarice, when a conspiracy involves this many people in Washington, the conspiracy is not against anyone in Washington, it's against We the People
Clarice Feldman is right about one thing--Dick Armitage is a liar!
Thanks to Sibel Edmonds, that is a well documented fact.
Much more to follow......
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.
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.
To: kara bue
Sent: November 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Your no comment?)
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?
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?
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?
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.......
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
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.
To: ted wells
Sent: October 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Subject: How about you
Mr. Theodore Wells
What is your dilemma?
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.
DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine complicit in 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!
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
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
John D. Cline
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1070
San Francisco, California 94104