Fitzgerald to Judge Walton: Oops!

By

Byron York notes that a portion of the special prosecutor's filing which caused a firestorm on the left, was corrected by him in a letter to the Court:

An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now—famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then—classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, "Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments. For example, in a front page story on Sunday, the Washington Post reported:

At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.

In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96—page document.

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."

Never mind

Clarice Feldman   4 11 06

Update: Rick Moran comments:

... it now appears that Fitzgerald himself, in one of the more careless and shockingly sloppy errors his office has made to date, included language in his court filing that was untrue and, given the significance of the subject matter, leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship:

Byron York notes that a portion of the special prosecutor's filing which caused a firestorm on the left, was corrected by him in a letter to the Court:

An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now—famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then—classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, "Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments. For example, in a front page story on Sunday, the Washington Post reported:

At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.

In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96—page document.

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."

Never mind

Clarice Feldman   4 11 06

Update: Rick Moran comments:

... it now appears that Fitzgerald himself, in one of the more careless and shockingly sloppy errors his office has made to date, included language in his court filing that was untrue and, given the significance of the subject matter, leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship: