7Nov/130

Judith Miller exposed “Plamegate” as a cover-up

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

IMG_1183.PNG

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.......

19Oct/130

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

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

10Oct/130

Valerie Plame gets “Blowback” for lying

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!

18Sep/130

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

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.