Breaking: Hume, Novak mislead on facts of Libby conviction
Shortly after the March 6 announcement that a federal jury had found former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby guilty on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal investigators, both Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak peddled various falsehoods regarding the CIA leak case. On Fox News' Live Desk, Hume claimed that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation "was exploded right from the beginning" when Fitzgerald learned that then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for Novak's July 16, 2003, column revealing Valerie Plame's CIA employment. Hume repeated his previous claim that Armitage's disclosure was "the only leak that made any difference" and went on to say that Fitzgerald nonetheless "found it necessary to press on and ... he's now convicted somebody of a crime that did not occur until the course of his investigation."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, while Armitage was Novak's primary source for Plame's identity, the information Armitage divulged was confirmed by White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Further, Hume overlooked the fact that, while Libby did not leak Plame's identity to Novak, he was reportedly the original source of the information for at least two other reporters during the summer of 2003. As The Nation Washington editor David Corn noted in an August 27, 2006, post on his Nation weblog, regardless of the fact that Armitage was Novak's primary source, "the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband."
Earlier in the broadcast of The Live Desk, Novak asserted that Fitzgerald "did not feel" that the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act "was violated" in Plame's outing, although Fitzgerald "has not said so." Novak added that Fitzgerald "did not believe there was a violation of the law, which was, I believe, the primary purpose of his being called in as a special prosecutor." But as Media Matters has noted repeatedly, Fitzgerald has stated that he was unable to determine whether any laws were violated in the leaking of Plame's identity because his investigation was impeded by Libby, who was convicted on four of the five charges brought against him.
In an October 28, 2005, press release summarizing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald indicated that he had not been able to reach a conclusion about whether a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's identity, saying that Libby impeded the grand jury's investigation:
Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson [Plame].
And in a press conference that same day, a reporter specifically asked Fitzgerald whether the investigation was over and whether the probe would fail to "lead to a charge of leaking." In response to the first question, the special counsel said that the investigation had not concluded. In response to the second question, Fitzgerald compared himself to an umpire who, while attempting to determine whether a pitcher intentionally hit a batter, had sand thrown in his eyes.
Media Matters posted an item shortly after the verdict was announced in anticipation of such misinformation.
From the March 6 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
MARTHA MacCALLUM (host): Now, when Richard Armitage shared that information with you, what was your understanding of what he was trying to tell you?
NOVAK: I had asked Mr. Armitage in the course of a background interview, why it was that Joe Wilson, who had been in the Clinton White House and was a critic of Bush policy, who had no experience in nuclear policy, who had not been to the African country he was sent to in many, many years since he was a junior officer, why in the world was he sent? And Mr. Armitage smiled and said because his wife suggested it -- she is -- works in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA. He was in answering a question to me, and I put that in the middle of a very long column. I didn't think it was the scoop of the century.
MacCALLUM: But when he said that to you, he said it in the context that you were talking politics with him really. You were saying, "So, Joe Wilson goes to Niger. He comes back and finds that what the administration is saying is not the case, according to his findings, and comes back and reports that," and you were saying to Mr. Armitage, "Why would they send Joe Wilson of all people," right?
NOVAK: That's right, and he said -- and he gave the answer that his wife worked at the CIA, and she suggested it. That was not the lead of my column. It was not the main point of the column, but it was a fact inside the column.
MacCALLUM: And when Armitage was questioned by Patrick Fitzgerald, he let him go, and it's my understanding that the reason that he didn't press charges against him was because he didn't believe that Mr. Armitage had disclosed anything that was illegal to disclose.
NOVAK: That is right. The whole question is -- although Mr. Fitzgerald has not said so and doesn't have to say so -- he did not feel that the secret agents identity act was violated. He did not believe there was a violation of the law which was, I believe, the primary purpose of his being called in as a special prosecutor.
Now, obviously, if this had -- not obviously -- but if this had not been -- if the Bush administration had shown any guts and had kept this case in the Justice Department, not given it to a special prosecutor, they could have said no law was broken, end of case, case dismissed.
Instead, a special prosecutor -- I think Mr. Fitzgerald is an honorable man who wanted to do the best job he could, but he has no supervision. He is a completely free agent, and that's why Congress did not renew the Independent Counsel Act. Now, we have a special counsel being named in this case because the then-Attorney General Mr. Ashcroft said that he was not willing to take the heat of keeping the case with inside the Justice Department.
[...]
HUME: Remember what we were originally about here. This was an investigation -- at least supposed to be an investigation in the outset -- about whether something really quite serious had happened: whether the cover of an active covert CIA operative had been blown for, essentially, political reasons -- that is to discredit a critic of the administration's Iraq policy. That is the -- and that is, of course, a crime to deliberately out someone in that position. That's what this special prosecutor was named to investigate.
Well, it quickly turned out -- and he knew it, did the prosecutor -- that the person who actually carried out the only leak that made any difference, that is to say the only leak that ever got published, which is the one to Robert Novak that got into his column, which he just described to you a few minutes ago -- that that was done by someone not connected to the White House and someone who was in fact himself a war critic. So, that whole theory of the case was exploded right from the beginning, but Fitzgerald found it necessary to press on and, eventually, he's now convicted somebody of a crime that did not occur until the course of his investigation.
Now obviously, you can't take lightly a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction. On the other hand, we are very far afield from where this case originally began, and I think that it's probably a good thing for the reputation of Patrick Fitzgerald that he got this conviction because had he not, he would have ended up looking very foolish indeed to have gone this far afield to bring forth what, in the larger context, can certainly be seen as a minor charge.
And now it's time for another episode of "Republicans Eating Their Own"
novak the traitor, employed by the network that claims to be more patriotic than thou. i like how brit [ i love the look on his face] calls it the leak "that got into his column". as if novak hadn't gathered the info and then wrote she was an operative [he knew the difference]. somehow that darn old leak just snuck in there.
Please do not call this man Novak a traitor! He's first and foremost a douchebag of Liberty!
"... he's now convicted somebody of a crime that did not occur until the course of his investigation."
That still begs the question, "Why did Libby repeatedly lie?"
Obvviously Fitzpatrick was not satisfied that just because Richard Armitage had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame that did not exclude the likelihood that others had committed the same or related crimes in the entire White House effort to discredit her. Fitzpatrick was just doing his job. You would think that as a hot shot Washington lawyer Libby would have been familiar with the expression, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
Libby lied under oath to grand jury. Libby obstructed a legitimate investigation. Libby is guilty. What's so hard to understand?
plus you have the fact that he tried to persuade judith miller of the new york times to hide his connection to the white house by identifying him only as a "former hill staffer". and his lies were the very definition of perjury. they were germane to the case of who leaked classified info. and fitzgerald made it clear today that her identity was classifed.
joe wilson just on larry king. said cheney needs to stop hiding behind "ongoing investigation" and discuss the issue. wilson also said bush needs to keep to his promise to "fire anyone involved" and fire rove. bush is the ultimate hypocrite when he casts himself as our protector when the only people he's protecting are his staff.
And they wonder why we have no respect for Bush and Cheney...
LOL. Yeah, right. Like Cheney is going to comment when Wilson already has filed a civil suit. The best part of the civil suit will be when Joe Wilson has to take the stand.
explain why it will be "the best part".
explain why it will be "the best part".- mefirst
Because Rush and Sean have been telling their monkeys that Wilson is lying about everything for a long time.And the monkeys believe it.
Exactly, there is ignorance and then there is gladly and willingly being ignorant because of your ideology.
Actually, the best part will be when Valerie Wilson takes the stand. She's the real victim. And she was just doing her job... a very important job at that. Joe Wilson has just been the front man with the media right now because he's protective of his wife and legitimately p1ssed off.
A trial is different. The lawyers will control the action, not Joe Wilson. Whereas a jury might not be crazy about Joe Wilson I think a jury will love his wife. She was a dedicated government worker and she certainly didn't do anything wrong. Plus, she's very pretty and she comes across well.
As for Dick Cheney... forget it. They'll probably have trouble finding one juror who doesn't already think he's a jerk.
I hope more of the truth about what got us into Iraq comes out as a result of this trial.
I wonder if Novak and Hume would have made similar comments during Clinton's perjury charges. I remember Monica Lewinsky's blue dress being a little "far afield" from the original investigation.
What "Clinton perjury charge?"
None of the three ICs delievered so much as a single charge of
any crime, much less perjury against Clinton. He was not charged.
I'd be interested to hear opinions regarding whether or not President Bush will pardon this guy.
I don't think so. First, Libby still has an appeal on the 4 guilty accounts and it is not politically smart to pardon him now. If he has too, Bush can pull a Clinton and pardon Libby his last week in office.
Libby doesn't have an appeal unless there's a reason for it. I'm sure there are some legal experts here that could list the legal requirements for you, but they would include a finding that there were factual or procedural errors during his first trial.
Regardless of its merits, they can file an apeal and attempt to drag it out while Libby is out on bail. How long can his lawyers drag it out? Don't know... But Bush will pardon Libby... no doubt in my mind about that, Bush will just have to wait as long as he can to do it before leaving office.
Well, shucks! Media figures lie! That certainly is news! Needs a publisher and a headline writer, though, if it is to compete for attention with those very lies.
S.C.U.M. they are, and S.C.U.M.* they shall be, living on lies, forever and ever, amen!
*So-Called Unbiased Media: acronym courtesy of Easy To Refute Wingnuts
Media Matters has an annoying habit of bring up old, irrelevant information:
But as Media Matters has noted repeatedly, Fitzgerald has stated that he was unable to determine whether any laws were violated in the leaking of Plame's identity because his investigation was impeded by Libby, who was convicted on four of the five charges brought against him.
Here is a note to you MMFA: Libby was found guilty. NOTHING is stopping Fitzgerald from bringing charges against Rove or Cheney. He obviously doesn't have a case. The excuse that he was an umpire with sand in his face is gone. He nailed Libby, there is NOTHING stopping him from going after Rove or Cheney -- except that he obviously thinks he has no chance of winning the case.
The excuse machine for Fitzgerald is past. Quit bringing up the same stupid insipid argument.
Leatherhead, I just dunno! Maybe if the sentencing gets a little closer, and the attempt to get a re-trial fails, and the appeals are denied, and Bungle doesn't look to be in a pardoning mood . . . the sand will be removed by the obstructor (Libby) and replaced with some names and details . . .
Maybe then we will see Cheney and Rove in the dock(s)!
This is one of those rare occassions when I agree with Andrew Sullivan, Congress needs to launch an investigation of Cheney's office. Cheney and every one of his staff should be hauled over to congress for investigating, and the hearings should be aired. We need to know what really transpired during this push for this war. If they feel they have clean hands they should'nt resist it. It's way past time for this.
Au contraire, Mr. Leather... Fitzgerald may not have sufficient corraborating evidence to convict Rove, Cheney or anyone else. Fitzgerald is a thorough, methodical lawyer who's not going to bring a case he can't win. That's also called being responsible and ethical.
However, my impression is that Fitzgerald "knows" what went on in the White House. You don't actually believe Libby was the only one lying, or "forgetting", do you? And what did Cheney say in his "interview"? There's more to it... Fitzgerald just doesn't have enough to get convictions. But he knows. He wouldn't have gone after Libby, or gotten Judith Miller thrown in jail if he wasn't on to something. He's too good of a lawyer (and reportedly a conservative Republican.).
Leatherhead, you've gotta just be playing dumb now. Don't you?
Libby lied. He tried to prevent the criminal investigation by obstructing justice. His conviction is in response to these crimes.
And you still don't understand what or who could be preventing the rest of the case from being over yet?
Yes there is. Since Libby LIED he cant get at the TRUTH, which is what he needs to prosecute the leak case. He SUCCESSFULLY obstructed justice by committing perjury. He may have to pay for THAT crime but he succeeded in subverting justice for the other one.
Leatherhelmnut, the most disturbing revelation of this case is that Dark Cheney had this information leaked in a lame attempt to discredit someone who blew the whistle on the lies being told to take us into the Iraq War. That is the real story. Even if no law was technically broken, the deliberate deception practiced by these clowns is profound.
Dick Cheney publicly lied...
I still can't understand why no one has dug up the clip from a Sunday morning talk show I happened to catch a long time ago in which Cheney denied even knowing who Valrie Plmae was or her CIA affiliation. This was specifically refuted by the testimony of a CIA briefer at Libby's trial who told Cheney and Libby about Plame a month before Robert Novak's column.
Dick Cheney has probably lied to the press more than anyone, with the possible exceptions of Tony Snow and Puddinhead George himself. Of course, there's always the question as to whether Bush even knows what day it is, so he may not be technically "lying".
••••• LET US NOT FORGET ... that when KARL ROVE was FIRED from the Reagan-Bush White House in 1980 AND 1992 --
-- it was BECAUSE he had LEAKED to who else both times ..?
ROBERT M. NOVAK
(I guess, third time is the charm to your leak-bud?)
----------------- [link to en.wikipedia.org]
1980 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign In 1977, Rove was the first person hired by George H. W. Bush for his official (ultimately unsuccessful) 1980 presidential campaign, which ended with Bush being selected as Ronald Reagan's vice-presidential nominee. Reagan and Bush won the election, but Rove was fired in the middle of the campaign for leaking information to the press.
1992 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign "Sources close to the former president George H.W. Bush say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted" (Esquire Magazine, January 2003). Novak provided some evidence of motive in his column describing the firing of Mosbacher by former Senator Phil Gramm: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher." Novak and Rove deny that Rove was the leaker, but Mosbacher maintains, "Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go. I still believe he did it."[22] During testimony before the CIA leak grand jury, Rove apparently confirmed his prior involvement with Novak in the 1992 campaign leak, according to National Journal reporter Murray Waas.[23]
---------------------
DB
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, while Armitage was Novak's primary source for Plame's identity, the information Armitage divulged was [link to www.cnn.com] color="#0052a3">confirmed by White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
So....why was Libby not dropped again?
I know Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Yes, I consider those serious crimes. Why was this the main issue then? Why didn't Fitz refer Libby's case to a subordinate to prosecute, and go after Armitage, Rove and Cheney?
This article by MMfA is just as biased as a fox news one...the purpose is not to report misinformation, but rather to affirm an opinion that "Libby or someone else related to him deserved what he got", which is not reporting the facts.
where is the bias here by mmfa? i'm not seeing it. and although you agree libby committed "serious crimes", you called the investigation a "waste of time". untrue, the cia filed a crime report and fitzgerald said yesterday that her identity was "classified".
"Why didn't Fitz refer Libby's case to a subordinate to prosecute, and go after Armitage, Rove and Cheney?"
It was a comprehensive investigation which was rendered more complex by Plame's CIA status and whic laws applied. Plame was still on the CIA books as "covert" although she had not worked covert for about five years. Nvertheless, her CIA employment (I believe confirmed by Fitzgerald yesterday) was (or may have been legally considered "classified"). Regardless, her CIA employment was at least not for public consumption ans was intended and expected to be kept secret.
So Fitzgerald's investigation also contained the element of Plame's status because the applicable laws could have been determined by her CIA status. Theright wingers keep arguing that Plame was not "covert", and that the (stricter) law regarding outing a covert agen didn't apply. However, that law required specific intent to out the covert agent. And just because that law may or may not have applied, there were other laws that might have been applicable too.
Armitage was not indicted under the stricter, "covert" agent law because of the questions of his intent. He voluntarily came forward, testified that he didn't know Plame's status was 'covert", and didn't mention her name to intentionally out her. The taped conversation between Armitage and Bob Woodward appears to support Armitage's story that he didn't know and didn't mean it. So the requisite "intent" may have been insufficient for Fitzgerald to prosecute Armitage.
But Libby got caught in the broadness of the probe, and it was a wide ranging investigation because of the complexities I mentioned above. Just because Armitage had not, technically, committed a crime didn't mean someone else in the administration wasn't trying to illegally out Plame at the same time. Libby lied and that hindered Fitzgerald's ability to get at the truth. Fitzgerald did his job correctly...
Oh, and...
You asked why Rove and Cheney weren't prosecuted. Can't answer with any insider certainty, but perhaps it was Libby's lies (among others) that hindered Fitzgerald from getting to Rove and Cheney. For one thing, you don't think Libby was the only White House official who lied, huh? Where Libby miscalculated was, as a sharp lawyer, he believed there was no way that the journalists he used as his excuses would either voluntarily testify or would be forced to testify. He was wrong about that as Fitzgerald forced the issue and the journalists did testify and contradicted Libby's lies... that's what cooked Libby's goose. But you son't know exactly what Rove and Cheney said to the investigators and although my intuition tells me they lied, too, they apparently did it in a fashion that Fitzgerald could not get sufficient contradixting testimony from others to prosecute Rove and Cheney. I think Fitzgerald knows there were crimes committed and lies told but he just doesn't have enough evidence to support convictions.
Fitzgerald is a good lawyer and he's not going to indict if he thinks he can't convict. But that doesn't mean he isn't aware that other crimes weren't committed...
I understand what you're saying, and hopefully you aren't assuming that I was questioning Fitz's integrity or saying that Libby didn't commit a crime. What I am saying is that this issue was as big a waste of time as Clinton's prosecutor if no one goes down except Libby, who went down for a crime that was related to the investigation but NOT the purpose of the investigation.
I just think there are too many losers here and no winners: No justice for Plame if she deserved it, Libby going to jail, Fitzgerald unable to get an indictment for the crime that was supposedly committed.
"hopefully you aren't assuming that I was questioning Fitz's integrity"
Not at all, Dex, and I'm sorry if that's how my posts appeared. The reason I complimented Fitzgerald as I did is because, as an obsessive observer of the entire proceedings, I admired Fitzgerald's skills as a lawyer... his methodical, thorough approach, his ethics and the job he did.
But, otherwise, I was attempting to explain, perhaps in too pedantic a fashion, what most likely occurred. I find that in many reports, and now particularly in the right wing criticism of Fitgerald and the conviction of Libby, details and nuances are either passed over or misrepresented.
I have been left a bit unsatisfied (or unfulfilled) with the total outcome. And although Libby did lie and obstruct the investigation, the fact that only he was prosecuted and convicted strikes me as a little unfair. Think back to what Libby's lawyer said in his opeing statement at trial that Libby was a "scapegoat". We may never know with certainty but I tend to think that statement may be accurate.
A few more thoughts...
What you may find even more unsettling about Libby's conviction is that he may have lied for nothing. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that no laws were broken because Plame was not "covert" (which I explained above is not entirely accurate) which is the current right wing argument for why the investigation should not have gone further . If no laws had been broken then Libby lied for nothing. He could have told the entire truth to investigators and the grand jury and walked away free.
Why did Libby lie? Libby is a sharp lawyer and I would have to assume he lied to protect himself (and/or others) because there was doubt in his (legal) mind that aomething he (and/or someone else) had done could be considered criminal. Was it just the Valerie Plame stuff? Whatever it was, it gave Libby sufficient concern to commit a criminal act (perjury and obstruction of justice) and risk his career by lying. He must have felt a compelling reason to do that. But the fact that Libby committed perjury confirms in my mind that whatever it was that Libby (and/or others) had done, he had grave concerns that it might have been illegal.
One thing for certain is that we haven't gotten the full story about what Cheney and the White House were doing to combat stories that undermined their stated reasons for war. Who knows what else Libby was trying to steer prosecutors away from? I would assume that there is a high degree of probability that Libby was not the only one who lied.
Bu the real tragedy is that we'll probably never know exactly what was going on in the Whitr House to combat stories that undermined their reasons for going to war.
It was fine when Ken Starr went beyond the scope of his investigation and caught Bill Clinton lying. He was just doing his job!
And all we found out from that investigation that the president had oral sex in the oval office.
From this investigation, we found out that libby's LYING made it difficult to obtain the information needed by Fitzgerald to do his job.
I would like to ask novak and hume, do they condone lying to grand juries and the FBI? DO they reccommend it to their friends if they don't agree with an investigation?
What a waste of time fox news is
I guess Novak has a right to speak, even if it is unchallenged rubbish. I could only stomach a few minutes of this foaming at the mouth blathering traitor.
My favorite part about all this is how various conservatives claim Libby didn't break any laws, when as MMFA has stated and Fitzgerald has as well that Libby's lying PREVENTED him from finding out the truth.
It really is very simple. And when you hear the story Libby fed everyone it doesn't make any sense unless your so caught up in your right wing ideology that you can't tell black from white.
'it's probably a good thing for the reputation of Patrick Fitzgerald that he got this conviction because had he not, he would have ended up looking very foolish' - Hume
But, he did get a conviction because Libby committed perjury and obstructed the prosecutor's investigtion. The disingenuous Hume pretends that there were no motives for lying. Now that Libby's ass is facing jail time, he just might squeal to get a reduced sentence. That in itself would be ironic given that Judith Miller stewed in jail rather than give Libby up.
As for Patrick Fitzgerald, the man who nominated him for US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), must be getting an especially satisfying kick out events that are unfolding not just in connection with Libby but with Obama who owes his election to the Senate to top Republicans who refused to support Fitzgerald for a second term in 2004.
What "truth" though, intergalactic? Can you substantiate that there is some sort of "truth" out there that is the main point of this investigation? The point was to uncover who leaked Plame's identity to Novak. Armitage did. Libby got nailed for lying (he could've just said "I don't recall", btw). So, you're wrong, and "various conservatives" stating that Libby didn't break any laws are wrong too.
I think what you're missing is that even though an investigation may begin focus on an isolated occurrence it can expand... that's how Bill Clinton got nailed. Even tough Novak's article prompted the investigation it was appropriate, and perhaps necessary, for the prosecutor to learn the entirety of the circumstances, of how and why Valerie Plame's identity not only came to be revealed in a newspaper article but how it got our from CIA; plus any other matter inherently related to that, such as whether any laws were broken in how her name came to be revealed to Armitage or to anyone else. All I'm saying, and which I think you've missed, is that the scope of the prosecutor's investigative authority on any possible criminal matter is not as limited as you seem to think. A murder investigation may turn into a drug investigation, for example.
To try to understand this better ask yourself this: is the crime "leaking" the privileged information to someone without authority to know it AND the unauthorized person tells another unauthorized person, or publicly discloses it? Or is the crime just leaking the information to an unauthorized person, regardless what that unauthorized person does with the information?. I'm not sure because I haven't researched it, but I suspect the latter scenario is an inherent part of any investigation into the leaking of privileged information even if only one such leak eventually becomes publicly disclosed. And further consider that the investigation did, in fact, reveal multiple leaks of Valerie Plame's identity, even though not all the leaks resulted in a public disclosure such as in Novak's article.
The bottom line is that we don't know, and may never know, exactly what information Fitzgerald obtained that prompted him to continue investigating even afterr he learned of Armitage's disclosure to Novak. I would assume that a Special Prosecutor, like any U.S. Attorney has not only the specific power to conduct a grand jury investigation of a particular event, but also the general power to further investigate any other criminal activity that may be revealed through his investigation (although I am not sure of the protocol involved such as if a drug investigation reveals a child pornography ring; is a second grand jury investigation started for the pornography matter or does it remain a part of the first investigation, for example). Judging from the comments I've been reading I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about how these investigations work.
dexter can you prove there isn't some "truth" out there? that's the point of an investigation. this was a very serious thing, that did a lot of damage to our intelligence gathering capability. you seem very eager to dismiss this a "waste of time".