Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A 'Correction' by Patrick Fitzgerald?? - What does this mean?

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:45 PM
Original message
A 'Correction' by Patrick Fitzgerald?? - What does this mean?
(Kpete - I do not know how reliable this source is or how significant - any guesses out there?)

A 'Correction' by Patrick Fitzgerald??
by The Baculum King
Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:34:21 PM PDT

I can't find another source but NRO is claiming that Fitzgerald sent a letter to the Court changing the wording in his last filing:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/11/193421/155

A few hours ago, however, Fitzgerald sent a letter to judge Reggie Walton, asking to correct his filing. The letter reads:
We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."


http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_09_corner-archive.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like a minute technical correction.
The meaning is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. "Key judgment" is a term of art regarding these NIE's so it is
more than just technical, but not a big deal except to Bushbots and their apologists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Key Judgment"
He was to discuss key judgments but not reference Iraq's pursuit of uranium as being one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Don't know about source, but if true would be semi-significant
or HUGH!!!1 to those of a certain ilk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. Seems Benign To Me. Just Expanding The Specificity.
In the first version, it comes off that though he was to say other things as well, that he would only offer one key judgement from the nie, whereas the second version makes it clear that he was to spread several key judgements from the nie in addition to the uranium claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. thanks....
to all of you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsKandice01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. This correction makes that statement more damning for Libby
What are these "key judgments" that he's referring to??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. instead of 'the key', Fritz changes to 'some of the key"--meaning he has
broadened his statement. There were other key judgements-in the NIE.

Cleaver boy that Fritz.

...'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. for me this is significant--as it allows that other key things were in the
NIE statement that were downplayed by the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I think that it could be significant because
In the original it states that a key judgement was that iraq was trying to obtain yellowccake. In the correction it states that he was allowed to release key judgements and the yellowcake thing, which perhaps was not a key judgement but rather something else included in the NIE he was instructed to push. Fitz doesn't want to conceed that point for the future because it will be relevant in future indictments.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. yes, very good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. Looks like normal 'cleanup'...dotting is and crossing ts.
And looking back on what I wrote in the subj line, it seems dumb, but I believe it's grammatically correct. Reminds me of:

i before e except after c, what a weird society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pk_du Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. Looks like a responsible correction of the language to me
The Uranium refernce wasnt in the "Key Judgements" section but was buried deeper in the NIE. So he had to break up the sentence to indicate Libby's claim that he was authorized to disclose BOTH the "Key Judgements" AND the "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.

However - according to all reports the word "vigorously" doesnt appear in any of the references to Uranium procurement effortds in the NIE.

ie it is in itself a LIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poverlay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Fitzy does his homework, and if he brings the hammer down on
the * crime family there will be no wiggling out due to misstatements or technicalities.

He is a frightning man to have investigating you.
I'm sure he's giving the crime administration nightmares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. Am I reading this right?
Is it more expansive now?

1st version identifies "a" key judgement of the NIE - that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium.

2nd version has him telling Miller key judgements (plural) -- and also that, among other things.

Sounds like he was telling her more in the second version, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes
Edited on Tue Apr-11-06 08:12 PM by Patsy Stone
As it says in a post above, the Iraq info was not a "key judgment" but he was, no doubt, told to tell Judy about it. But, in order to do it, he could go ahead and leak several of the actual key judgments to cover that other leak.

My :tinfoilhat: moment: I think that the whole NIE "leak" was on purpose, to cover up the "real" leak: Valerie's name. Since they had to have some leak to pretend to cover and discuss with Fitz, it might as well be something useless that Judy probably knew already -- like the NIE info they spontaneously decided had to be declassified for the good of the country. :crazy:

ed: beacuse H2O Man pointed out the error of my ways. :) The title used to read: Yes and no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yes (and yes and yes)
Also consider the implication of David Schuster last night on MSNBC, saying that there is going to be renewed focus on what Scooter was telling Ms. Miller.

Things are good. Very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Things are good
Edited on Tue Apr-11-06 08:13 PM by Patsy Stone
and I should edit my post, because I began to write a different response completely, and never changed the subject line. Come to think of it, I don't even remember what my "no" was going to be.

As for Judy, I'm intrigues by the phrase, "among other things".

:hi:

ed: clarity and Judy
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 Apr 30th 2024, 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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