Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fitzmas: Did Cheney implicate Bush's involvement in PlameGate?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:26 AM
Original message
Fitzmas: Did Cheney implicate Bush's involvement in PlameGate?
Recapping some discussion posted here late last night...

Consider the following note entered into the record by Fitz at the Libby trial yesterday.



On the bottom half of the document, Cheney writes:
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy this Pres that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Of particular interest is Cheney's strikeout of the words "this Pres" (as in "this President") from the sentence. Why did Cheney refer to the President, and subsequently cross-out this reference? What was Cheney's original intent and/or message, and why did he feel the need to make revisions?

Examination of the physical structure, the layout, of the sentence in question - reveals that the revision was made "in real time", i.e. Cheney crossed-out the words "this Pres" as soon as he wrote them, then immediately composed the remainder of the sentence. So let's consider the note, as it was composed chronologically, i.e. as it was original assembled - ink flowing from pen to paper:

1) First, Cheney writes:
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy this Pres

2) Immediately, Cheney strikes out the words "this Pres"
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy this Pres

3) Now Cheney completes the sentence:
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy this Pres that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Notice "that was asked to stick his head in the meatgrinder" is a passive voice construction. Passive voice "hides" the subject of the action, revealing only the action and the object of the action. This begs the question: *Who* asked Libby "to stick his head in the meatgrinder"?

Could it have been "this Pres" perhaps?

Did Cheney originally intend to write something like
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy (that) this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meatgrinder" - using an active voice that identifies Bush as the source of the request?

Did Cheney suddenly reconsider this active voice sentence construction, which explicitly named the Pres as the source of the request, and with a single stroke of the pen, change the construction to passive voice to avoid identifying the President's involvement? Did Cheney implicate that Bush authorized PlameGate???

For the original thread from which these ideas emerged, refer to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Look for discussions of Spazito and Tin Man. And thanks to Cynatnite for the capture of the .pdf document for inline display.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. or could "the Pres" = a cut-off reference to 'The Press' ie, Russert ?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Capitalizing "press" ? That's unusual. Capitalizing "president" is not.
No, I really think Cheney intended to write Pres, as in President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I think you're jumping to conclusions.
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. firedoglake transcript of courtroom discussions re "this pres"
Key:
W is Judge Walton
A is Addington (Cheney's current Chief of Staff and former Council)
from yesterday's firedoglake courtroom blogcast

-----------------------------------------------------------------

W: Can you make out what's crossed out?

A: I can't tell.

Walton reminds people to talk to each other, maintain proper decorum.

A: Now that it's been expanded I can read it. Pres is scratched through. I read that as two words This Pres.

W: This Pres was crossed out by VP and note goes on to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. But Cheney spells "press" with a small "p" in his second line
So much for jumping to conclusions.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Thanks! I missed the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. What else does Cheney's note say?
"Has to happen today

Call out to ? press saying (some? same?) thing about Scooter and Karl..."

:shrug:
rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes!
Now that I've seen the handwritten note, I believe he meant to say this:

"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice this guy (that) this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meatgrinder" - using an active voice that identifies Bush as the source of the request?

Most definitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'll kick that. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. The phrase "this president" is unique to this administration
Former WH spokespeople and other executive branch officials have always referred to the occupant of the WH as the president, as well they should. So I concur with the theory that Cheney was implicating Bush but quickly changed to the passive voice to cover his misstep. :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think it says, "THE guy THIS Pres"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. it says "THE guy THE Pres" - Cheney always dots his i's. It is possible that
the line started with "the Pres", then got crossed over, and "the guy" was inserted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I think you're right about "the guy the pres", but I disagree about the sequence he wrote it
I don't agree that "the guy" was inserted after Cheney wrote "the Pres" - if Cheney were to have written "the Pres" first, this would have made for an (unconventional, reverse) indentation of the left margin for this paragraph/sentence, but in the paragraph/sentence immediately above - Cheney used the (conventional, positive) indentation from the left margin.

No, I think Cheney wrote "the guy the Pres" (with conventional indentation), then crossed-out the Pres to change from active to passive voice, and then completed the sentence - in that sequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. yes, I agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. republicans can't spell...."rediculous"
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. Watch for a pardon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Good call. After all, Libby didn't DEFY the Pres, Libby was FOLLOWING Bush's oreders
...and that's why Libby is pissed.

Libby and Rove both did as they were instructed. Libby got burned, but Rove got protected.

The aspens are turning, and they're turning in clusters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. Even many conservatives would be pissed if Libby gets pardoned.
If Cheney and Co. had not destroyed the CIA by the gentle application of the Potter Goss treatment, even the CIA would be screaming bloody murder, as would the NSA, DIA, State, and other still rational coherent people still remaining in government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. If President, it only points out what we've already talked about - Rove
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 10:20 AM by higher class
is key to strategical direction and invention.

We knew it before and during the heat of this investigation, they pretended that he was transferred to the RNC (?), but he never moved out of the WH. (However, he's slipping or they are trying to transfer his role to Bartlett and others and they are slipping.)

What's coming out of the voting investigations, is that he (if he's the one) is not quite a genius at hiding formula decisions for switching.

If true that C was going to write this President, he might as well as written Bush's Brain.

Now I get what people were saying last week that they wrote that they thought the target was Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. that's why Miller won't say who else she heard 'the wife' from
did anyone ask what this meant in the testimonies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
14. Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy (that) the Pres. asked to stick his head in
the meatgrinder.

That's what Cheney intended to write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Precisely. Cheney was mad - "the Pres" had approved PlameGate, but when the shit hit the fan...
...but when the shit hit the fan, Cheney saw that Bush was protecting Rove, while cutting-loose Libby.

Cheney didn't like that HIS guy (Libby) was being sacrificed, while Rove was being protected. T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
17. definitely some slippage -- Defense Counsel MUST explore this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
18. Remember what Bush told Petreaus (sp)??
Reportedly, he just told him, "Make it happen."

Bush's management style is to delegate in a 'I don't care what you have to do, just make it happen. Your loyalty to me will protect you'. Now apply that to Cheney, Rove, and the rest of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
20. What I find pretty interesting is that he just "kind of" scratched out
the words THIS PRES. Cheney is a devious guy and he knew that this could blow up at some point, and he knew it at the time he was writing this memo. I believe anyone else would have solidly scribbled over those words so that they wouldn't become conjecture at some point. I think Cheney intended the note to be scrutinized and for bush to be implicated. A bit of payback for involving his closest friend Scooter. Anyway, I'm certain that's what Sherlock Holmes would have concluded. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
21. On the question of whether Cheney wrote...
"this Pres." or "the Pres.", if you look at the way Cheney wrote "this" when he wrote "this guy", it is exactly the same.

It is interesting that the defense made a very real point of discerning whether it said "this Pres" when cross-examining Addington. Was the intent behind the question to further the contention of the defense that Libby was hung out to dry, not only by the Rove/Bush factor but also by Cheney? That is the only reason I can think of because, otherwise, given the trial is not about the outing of a CIA agent but about obstruction and perjury, what would be the relevance of the two crossed-out words?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
22. Another possible take: Cheney went too far & backed off. Bush didn't "ask" Libby to leak,
Cheney did. Cheney does stuff on his own and then uses the President's name to claim or give the impression that Bush knows and authorized it. He'd done it before. Perhaps he thought of doing that again in the note, then thought better of it and crossed it out.

One of Fitz's earlier filings frequently overlooked IMO perhaps lends credence to this possibility. It refers to the same time period of the Cheney note, when Libby was trying to get the WH to give him a public "exoneration." H20 Man raised it again in one of his recent threads:

One of the most important pre-trial documents in the case is the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. On pages 27-28, we find the following:

"During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Plame’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared. Though the defendant knew that another White House official had spoken with Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. That could be true, but then, who authorized Rove to leak?
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 12:39 PM by Tin Man
I don't think Cheney would have been the guy to authorize Rove's leaks.

With both Rove and Libby actively leaking to press correspondents, IMO it seems likely the Pres must have authorized. Of course, Cheney was the ringmaster, but the Pres would have authorized. To me, Cheney's note appears to confirm the involvement of the Pres.

Thanks for the link to H20 Man's post (and specifically, Govt response to Defendent's Third Motion).

As you pointed out, this doc explicitly states "During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Plames CIA employment". However, I kinda think Fitz intentionally tossed-in the "President unaware" phrase - without it, there is a suggestion that the Pres was aware (which, BTW, I think is true).

I think Fitz may have included this "Pres unaware" line, because he didn't have the goods on W's involvement, and wanted to make clear that he wasn't actively pursuing that angle... just yet(?) Perhaps Fitz was making a feignt as part of a larger campaign strategy, i.e. don't play your hand all at once - sucker 'em in first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
25. The "meatgrinder" quote and the note came up again today
(not the issue of the two crossed-out words) just before the lunch break in a discussion between Judge Walton, Fitzgerald and Wells:

Snip


Fitz Clips aren't just clearing Rove. McC declining to clearing Libby. Mr Libby testified that he was aware that Rove had been cleared and he was aware he was not cleared it caused him to have conversations about why he should not be cleared. He was aware that McC was being asked. There are emails that when the name appears in the press, or circulated in VP. There are emails showing that they discussed references to Scooter. To say there is no evidence that Libby was aware of this. WH PS is being asked questions about him. And PS refuses to clear him. Notion that he wasn't aware. As a result, it's how we get to the so-called meat-grinder quote. I did not leak to Novak. VP endorses that note. It's the whole context of having McC clear him publicly. When he sits down on October 14, he has gone to VP who has had the PS tell the world that he did not leak this, it goes to his state of mind. It couldn't be more probative. Then he would have every reason to do what we allege that he did.

End of Snip

Wells is objecting to 4 clips Fitzgerald wants to use, this one being one of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
26. Which Freep BA asshat wrote the "rediculous" part? THAT"S HUGH!!1!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. Or could Rove be the one protected and the Pres sacrificed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
31. KICKING for those bitching about truthout - same info de-leopoldized
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
32. "because of the incompetence of others"
OK lets see ... Rove is pretty competent at what he does so that leaves only Bush and his entire cabinet. This is a tough one. So much incompetence ... who to choose?
Condi is incompetent.
Rummy is incompetent.
Powell was competent so he's eliminated.
Hmmm? Who does the word incompetent best describe? Who is the CEO/MBA of incompetence? Oh well I guess we'll have to wait and see.
:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. Wow, this note was brought up yet again at the end of today's
trial events. The following took place after the jury and the last witness was excused, the whole discussion blogged on firedoglake from where "emptywheel" posts is fascinating, imo, but I am only snipping the part that brings up the Pres.:

Snip

Fitz, If I could switch to the other two. Ones involving the clearing. Libby clearly describes in GJ, describes how he goes through with a statement that he wants McC to say. He says I spoke to mr McC and McC issues the clearing statement. If Libby had made statement himself, there's no question it'd be admissible. He deputized someone. Not hearsay if offered against a party, authorized by a party.

Walton. Anything on that one.

Wells Threshold for keeping them out.

Walton does he have to see them if he does something that is genesis for what was said. If subsequently, McC says that.

Wells, no it didn't work that way. McC does nothing. Libby has to talk to VP of the US, VP did whatever he did. McC is not Libby's agent. doesn't take

Walton VP has become his surrogage.

Wells, I don't know you'd have. you'd have to

Walton, we'd need VP testimony

Wells, whatever he did he did not do it as Libby's surrogate. That's what I'm drawing a distinction.

Walton if I go to Chief Judge to have a statement disseminated, doesn't that become my statement. And Chief Judge CLEARLY is not my agent.

Walton, I'll have to review transcript.

Wells, I think you'll have to talk to President BUsh bc he's probably somewhere in that chain.

END of SNIP


Note the last line in the snip where Wells brings in the President, it is bolded in the blog testimony at firedoglake:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/31/libby-live-matt-c... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I gotta admit I'm having a hard time following the current line of discussions
They seem to be arguing whether Snotty Scotty's statements (exhonerating Libby of involvement in Plame leak) can necessarily be tied, as a direct action, to the requests of Libby and/or Cheney - am I correct?

And I don't understand how this debate is relevant to either the prosecution's case (i.e Libby perjury, obstruction) or the defense (i.e. Rove made Libby the fall guy).

Can anyone help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The discussion that ensued last thing today was actually
a continuation of one that began just prior to lunch today and it is where Fitzgerald explains why he feels these videos are probative:

Snip

Wells Two evidentiary issues following conclusion of exam. Govt wants to play video clips of press secty McC making certain statements. We object to the playing of clips. McClellan, and agent bond, there will be an objectionthe only relevance of those clips could be wrt Libby's state of mind. No evidence that Libby saw those clips, or reviewed those transcripts. They're lengthy.

Walton your concern. Libby not privy, no evidence of state of mind

Wells wrt one clip, where I believe McC cleared Karl Rove. Libby is asked a question, but I believe except for that there's no evidence that Libby saw that clip or any of the three others.

Walton essence of what these say.

Wells, let govt.

Walton What do these clips say

Fitz Clips aren't just clearing Rove. McC declining to clearing Libby. Mr Libby testified that he was aware that Rove had been cleared and he was aware he was not cleared it caused him to have conversations about why he should not be cleared. He was aware that McC was being asked. There are emails that when the name appears in the press, or circulated in VP. There are emails showing that they discussed references to Scooter. To say there is no evidence that Libby was aware of this. WH PS is being asked questions about him. And PS refuses to clear him. Notion that he wasn't aware. As a result, it's how we get to the so-called meat-grinder quote. I did not leak to Novak. VP endorses that note. It's the whole context of having McC clear him publicly. When he sits down on October 14, he has gone to VP who has had the PS tell the world that he did not leak this, it goes to his state of mind. It couldn't be more probative. Then he would have every reason to do what we allege that he did.

End of Snip

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/31/libby-live-matt-c... /

Scroll down to where emptywheel posts "Oops, there's more", the discussion re the tapes, etc, begins there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. Tim Man, this is excellent.
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 06:37 PM by autorank
Your content and text analysis is very engaging. I'm sure that there are people having nightmares
right now. Libby's team had this for quite a while, I suspect, through discovery. Did the WH crew
understand the significance; did Libby keep it to himselv (as in Libby's legal team). The mind begins
to reel with possibliities, like your conjecture "this President" asked Libby to take the fall BECAUSE
"this President" was the prime actor in the leak.

Excellent! More, More
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC