Misrepresenting court documents, Cameron adopted "expert[]" Toensing's claim that NIE leak authorized by Bush "has nothing whatsoever to do" with Plame case
SUMMARY: Fox News' Carl Cameron adopted Republican attorney Victoria Toensing's false claim that President Bush's alleged authorization of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former vice presidential chief of staff, to leak portions of a classified NIE "has nothing whatsoever to do with the Valerie Plame matter."
On the April 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron adopted a false claim by Victoria Toensing, a Republican attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, that President Bush's alleged authorization of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then-vice presidential chief of staff, to leak of portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "has nothing whatsoever to do with the Valerie Plame matter."
Libby is accused of giving false statements to federal investigators regarding his role in leaking the identity of Plame, a then-undercover CIA agent, to reporters. Introducing the statement by Toensing, whom he identified only as an "expert[]," Cameron reported: "In court documents, special prosecutor [Patrick J.] Fitzgerald doesn't question the president's authority to declassify the NIE, which experts point out is not related to Libby's perjury and obstruction case." In fact, the very court documents Cameron cited state that the NIE leak is "relevant to show the importance that defendant [Libby] and his boss [Cheney] placed on the conversation concerning which he [Libby] later testified," potentially undermining Libby's defense that his false testimony was a result of simply forgetting about the conversations.
From a section of the documents titled "The Relevance of the NIE to This Case":
Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and [former U.S. Ambassador and Plame's husband] Mr. [Joseph C.] Wilson [IV] on July 12, 2003, in place of then-Assistant to the President for Public Affairs, Cathie Martin, the usual press contact person from OVP [Office of the Vice President]. This is relevant to show the importance that defendant and his boss placed on the conversation concerning which he later testified. During his conversations with the press that day, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Thus, there is no way to present the relevant events concerning defendant's discussions with reporters about Ms. Wilson without discussing defendant's role in disseminating the key judgments of the NIE in those same conversations.
From the April 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: In court documents, special prosecutor Fitzgerald doesn't question the president's authority to declassify the NIE, which experts point out is not related to Libby's perjury and obstruction case.
TOENSING: The president of the United States has absolute authority to authorize disclosure of any classified document. I'm just surprised that this -- we're even having a discussion about this NIE document because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Valerie Plame matter.
I attribute this particular mistake to ignorance rather than willful deception (after all who reads the hundreds of pages of court documents) but the title of the entire section: "The Relevance of the NIE to This Case", might have been a give away to someone who had at least skimmed them. I was reminded of Condoleeza Rice's classic line in the 9/11 hearings when after having said that no one expected the attack, recalled the heading of a brief she had read entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the U.S."
It's still ignorant. And, unfortunately disseminated as 'expert' opinion.
"after all who reads the hundreds of pages of court documents"
The filing was only 39 pages long. And from first page, the context is set out - it is an argument over discovery in relation to Libby's perjury.
What's highly ironic however is that it is Libby who is arguing that the all the NIE-related documents ARE material to his defense, and Fitzgerald, who is arguing that they ARE NOT. Key quote (from PAGE 2):
Defendant’s third discovery motion seeks expansive additional discovery, principally on the ground that the documents sought are “material to the preparation of the defense,”
Don't let liars like Cameron and Toensing bamboozle you. And read this from John Dean to provide valuable analysis: [link to writ.news.findlaw.com]
Again, why would anyone accept this woman's opinion about anything related to government, intelligence, or legality, after the past 4 1/2 years of getting everything wrong to a detail.
A nation listened to this woman's authoritative expertise about WMD, al Quada, the insurgency, the war in general, and anything policy related has been a complete failure dispite her constant insistance it's not.
Why does anyone accept a thing this woman has to say??? Complete Screw ups with an arrogant attitude would normally be evidence of mental illness. Curiously; it appears to be grounds for a Bush Administration promotion.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I forget which show it was ("McLaughlin Group"?) which posted the "PREDICTIONS" of their panelists, and compared them over time with the ACTUAL FACTS and EVENTS as they emerged. As a "control" for this exercise, they had a MONKEY "choose" outcomes at random.
The results were surprising even as they were expected. The monkey's random picks were far and away more accurate than the predictions of the pundits.
The PUNDITS are reliably WRONG, and this Toensing woman is one of the worst. Her "predictions" amount to only the most starry-eyed Rightwing hopes and dreams, stated as prognostications. She is a shill and a fraud.
if it was "legal" for bush to release the info, it was a legal cover he created for himself. why the attempt to have judith miller portray libby as a "former hill staffer", instead of his true identity? if the release of info was to "inform the public" why wait for that to come out in a court document years later? if bush did order plame's name released, legal or not, how do we trust a man who reveals the nation's guarded secrets?
More to the point, if the White House or Bush determined that a document's information should be declassified "for the public good," just declassify the document and RELEASE it to the press. Mission accomplished.
This action of "leaking" the info while demanding the source be kept strictly confidential, to the point a reporter WENT TO JAIL protecting that confidentiality ... was all NEEDLESS, if it were true that the document was not classified any longer.
Then, allowing Libby to be questioned under oath about the leak of a classified document, when his bosses KNEW the document in question was not classified at all ... ranks among the most cruel and disloyal (and cowardly) acts imaginable.
Allowing such questioning, when it could be easily prevented by coming forward with the "DECLASSIFIED" info, led to the dangers of questioning under oath: The subject started lying to try to cover himself and others, and got caught.
Ironically, his lying was centered around PROTECTING his bosses from having responsibility for the release of this information. Why would he do this, why would he bother, why would he risk imprisonment PROTECTING from something he knew to be a BOGUS charge of releasing classified information? The obvious answer is, he believed the information to have been Classified, and its release to be improper.
The web of lies continues to IMPLICATE, rather than exonerate, this White House.
Nothing to do with Bush? This coming from his personal lawyer-journalist?
Like she has any credibility whatsoever.
She's prostitutes herself for Faux News.
These people need therapy. Perhaps a fresh batch could be found somewhere who have not been hatched in the pods & still have their soul intact.