Plamegate “journalist” dis-owns book!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Murray Waas, up until now, was thought to be the "author" of the book titled United States v I. Lewis Libby. However, recent developments have Waas claiming that he did not write or edit the book. In-fact, Waas, in an effort to distance himself from the book (that names him as author and editor) has stated, that he only wrote the introduction for the book. Disowning the rest!
Waas further shared that Philip S.Turner the editor/publisher of the book, approached him to be involved in this project. A project that would ultimately be described as an 'instant' book by the Washington Post.

Philip S. Turner
While the name Philip S. Turner will not be immediately recognizable to most, the names of several clients Turner worked for before he picked Murray Waas to be a "beard" for his latest distortion, certainly will.
The word distortion accurately describes Turner's book about the Libby trial, due to the fact: Turner selectively edited the trial transcripts for the book.
Turner has yet to respond to inquiries.
-----Original Message-----
From: (redacted)
To: philipsturner
Sent: October 28, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Subject: Media Inquiry (Murray Waas assertions)
Mr. Philip Turner
Murray Waas, the "journalist" purported to have written and edited a book you published, titled 'United States v I. Lewis Libby' has gone on the record stating that he neither wrote, or edited the book.
Waas insisted that all he did was write the introduction.
Furthermore, Wass claims you approached him to be part of the project.
Mr. Turner, do you deny the assertions made by Murray Waas?
(name redacted)
-----Original Message-----
From:(redacted)
To: philipsturner
Sent: September 20, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Wilson and Waas
Philip
There is a problem with two books that you helped get published.
The Politics of Truth by Joe Wilson, and, U.S. v I. Lewis Libby by Murray Waas
Both books are being challenge on a factual basis. Would you comment on the evidence provided in the Illinois Pay to Play article (linked below) that disputes the claims made in both the Wilson and Wass books?
(name redacted)
Fitzgate: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of “obstruction of justice” and lying to the court.
As for Murray Waas, he is talking, and IP2P will bring you more on what he had to say soon.
Fox News speechless over Judith Miller’s confession
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Judith Miller has rendered the executives at Fox News speechless with her recent confession that she knew Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was not the person who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.
From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Subject: Media inquiry ( Judith Miller confession)
Irena,
Is Fox News going to address the Judith Miller confession?
Scooter Libby’s attorneys might be forced to “Win”
https://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/10/19/scooter-libbys-attorneys-might-be-forced-to-win/
-----Original Message-----
From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 18, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry 2nd attempt (Judith Miller )
Irena
Does Fox News have a statement for the media concerning the stunning confession made by Judith Miller?
(name redacted)
-----Original Message-----
From: (redacted)
To: irena briganti
Sent: October 17, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald)
Ms. Irena Briganti
Does Fox News have a statement for the media pertaining to the latest news that involved Judith Miller exposing fraud committed by the DoJ?
Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald
(name redacted)
Miller's confession is very problematic for Fox News for the simple fact that this is big news. However, this big news story will bring un-welcome scrutiny on the "Defender of the First Amendment" monopoly Roger Ailes has developed for Fox News with Judith Miller.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt when you're rendered speechless to defend your First Amendment defender.
Will Fox News continue to shield Judith Miller, or will they adhere to their responsibilities as a News organization?
Can Judith Miller survive another credibility exam?
The answers to these, and many other questions coming soon.......
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”
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
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:
http://youtu.be/8VAmyPD5sgI
http://youtu.be/rd8edzs4mzQ
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!
DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine complicit in fraud known as “Plamegate”
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
By allowing former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald "Special Counsel" to investigate "Plamegate" based on what he knew to be a lie, former Department of Justice (DoJ) Inspector General Glenn A. Fine became complicit in fraud perpetrated against the American people.
When asked why he allowed Comey to appoint a "Special Counsel" to investigate who exposed Brewster Jennings and Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA, when he (Fine) knew that it was Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman that did so in 2001(2 years earlier), Fine said he'd rather not talk about it.
When pressed to deny that he allowed Comey to appoint Fitzgerald based on a lie, Fine declined to do so.
Here is what we know:
Inspector General Glenn Fine whose sole purpose was to make sure that officials at the Dept of Justice do not abuse the immense powers they've been granted, is not denying that he knowingly allowed officials to abuse that power.
Here is what we need to learn:
Why did Fine allow DoJ officials to break the law?
And, how many other acts of corruption and abuse of power did Glenn Fine allow during his ten year reign as Inspector General that began in Dec 2000?
If we allow the Dept. of Justice to be above the law, then what?
Much more on DoJ corruption to come.....
Judith Miller blows the whistle on “Special Counsel” Patrick Fitzgerald
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Judith Miller may be a reluctant whistleblower, however blowing the whistle on former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is the only way to describe Miller's recent comments.
In a recent phone interview Miller was asked:
Q: Judith, you do know that Dick Armitage was not who outed Brewster Jennings & Associates as a CIA front?
A: Yes, a lot of people knew.
Q: So, you're aware of the fact Patrick Fitzgerald fabricated a reason to come after your source?
A: I'm... it's not that simple.
No, Judith it really is that simple.
As the interview with Miller proceeded, there was no disagreement on the fact that "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald knew Marc Grossman was the person who exposed Brewster Jennings and Valerie Plame as CIA in 2001. (two years before Armitage claimed he did)
And, that Fitzgerald had her (Miller) jailed on a false premise. (although she claims "it's complicated")
Miller also acknowledged that just confirmed FBI Director James B. Comey was involved in the deception. When the urgency of going public with what she knew about Fitzgerald and Comey was stressed, Miller replied "I am going to tell my story my way. I have earned the right."
Miller was pressed further on the fact that James Comey had not been sworn-in as FBI Director as of the time of the interview, and that it was important for her to go public with what she knows before he was.
Clearly that did not happen, and James Comey was sworn-in as FBI Director. However, Comey can be removed from his position for cause when the truth is made part of the official record.
And Judith, lets face it.
The best "shield law" a journalist could hope for is that the Dept. of Justice start following the laws that are already on the books. Your coming forward with the truth about Fitzgerald will go a long way to making that happen.
And, perhaps give the 1st Amendment a fighting chance to survive the all out war our government has waged against it.
More to follow
UPDATE: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of Subornation of Perjury
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Not only is former U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of obstructing justice and lying to the court, you can add the crime of suborning perjury to the growing list of problems facing the man once touted as the modern day Elliot Ness.
When "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald put former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman on the stand to testify in the trial of U.S. v Libby, Fitzgerald knowingly committed the crime of "suborning perjury."
You see, thanks to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the Dept of Justice and Fitzgerald knew that it was Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA in the summer of 2001. And therefore, Fitzgerald knew the testimony Grossman was giving under oath in the Libby trial to be false.
That's a crime. And, its called "subornation of perjury", a felony that could get Fitzgerald up to five years in prison.
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been contacted. However, he is refusing to answer any questions.
Developing..........
UPDATE Sept. 26th 4pm
Courtesy of boilingfrogspost.com
http://youtu.be/rd8edzs4mzQ
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.
Chicago Sun Times complicit in Chicagogate cover-up
Annabel Kent, Chicago Media Critic

Natasha Korecki, Chicago Sun Times
Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki continued the paper’s Chicagogate cover-up with her latest article that misleads Times’ readers about the Blagojevich saga.
In a recent piece, Korecki characterized Robert Blagojevich's call for Jesse Jackson, Jr. to be indicted for attempted bribery as a call for Jackson to simply "come clean."
What does "come clean" mean? Confess to his preacher, priest, rabbi or imam?
Korecki now wants Times readers to believe that it was by luck, and not by design, that Chicago was cheated out of the opportunity to learn about Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s.(J.J.,Jr.) attempt to buy the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.
Attention Natasha, there’s good news:
J.J., Jr. can still be indicted for attempting to bribe Robert and Rod Blagojevich.
And that good news gets better: Robert Blagojevich is now willing to co-operate with the feds and help prove J.J., Jr.’s role in the attempted bribery. Yes, that’s right, Natasha. The time is ripe to harvest the truth.
So, will the Times join IP2P and Robert Blagojevich in their call for acting U.S. Attorney Gary Shapiro to indict Jesse Jackson Jr.?

Gary S. Shapiro
We await your response. But, realistically, we only expect to hear the sound of crickets.
Why?
Because the Chicago Sun Times, and its faux reporters, are complicit in the Chicagogate cover-up as the once-credible, dead-tree news outlet continues to mislead it readers about the Blagojevich saga.
Chicago Tribune editors go off the Obama reservation
Jontel Kassidy, Senior Capital Correspondent

John P. McCormick, Deputy Editorial Page Editor (left), Bruce Dold, Editorial Page Editor (center) and Gerould Kern ,
The Chicago Tribune, long a media shill for the Obama Presidential candidacy, and then for his administration, has wandered off the Obama reservation on Obamacare. In an editorial posted August 18, 2013, the Trib editors’ lede reads:
“Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they're busy flouting it.”
“Strong-armed?” What sort of language is that for the Trib to use to describe how the problematic legislation was passed?
Their editorial closes with this paragraph:
“Bottom line: Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. Congress need not start from scratch. Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people.”
Oh, so now the Trib’s brain-trust declares Obamacare an “ill-conceived” “clumsy monstrosity” that has brought “three years of painful trial and error” to the American people?
And their recommendation is to re-build Obamacare on its failure?
Sure, that’ll work.
It’s reminiscent of that scene in the Bruce Willis movie Die Hard when John McClane throws a dead crook out the window of Nakatomi Towers on top of Sgt. Powell’s patrol car to get his attention.
In the Trib editors’ case, the body is the “monstrosity” of Obamacare falling on America. “Welcome to the party,” Tribune editors.