ABC reported this morning that Time Reporter Matt Cooper told Good Morning America that Lewis Libby had identified Valerie Plame Wilson as an undercover operative to him.

Bloggers knew this was a bogus report. ABC has now corrected its error. [Note: The article is still misleading in reporting that "One of the reporters at the center of the investigation into the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, says he first learned the agent's name from President Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove." Rove never used the name Valerie Plame when talking to Cooper.]

Bloggers on the ball: Firedoglake, Mark Kleiman (who posts the text of the original report)and Talkleft (see comments)

The transcript is not up on lexis yet, I searched. I think the ABC article got it wrong, but we'll see.

Patriot Daily was the first to alert me to the suspect article.

Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin scored another win for Tom DeLay today. The judge who had donated to Democratic causes has been removed from the case.

Australian David Hicks, one of the detainees at Guantanamo whom the military is set to try by tribunal on November 18, alleges he was sexually abused at Guantanamo.

Hicks' lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence.

Digby has a great analysis.

Here are the Senate Rules on closed sessions:

• During a secret session, the doors of the chamber are closed, and the chamber and its galleries are cleared of all individuals except Members and those officers and employees specified in the rules or essential to the session.

• Standing Senate Rules 21, 29, and 31 cover secret sessions for legislative and executive business. Rule 21 calls for the Senate to close its doors once a motion is made and seconded. The motion is not debatable, and its disposition is made behind closed doors.

Why are the Democrats doing this? According to an e-mail statement I received:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took the senate into closed session today over intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. Raw Story reports this has happened only 53 times in Senate history, with the last time being during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Here's a large portion of Sen. Reid's statement (received by e-mail.)

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

My latest edition of Scoring Scotus about Judge Sam Alito is up at Eric Alterman's Altercation. It's about how this nomination, even if it succeeds, is unlikely to help Bush's presidency or the Republicans. Here's a snippet, I hope you will go over and read the whole thing:

With Alito's nomination, Bush has turned flames of dissent into a rip-roaring wildfire. His transparent attempt to regroup from the debacle of the Harriet Miers nomination and the scandal of the indictment of Scooter Libby by caving in to the radical right through the nomination of an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice with a troubling record on civil rights and criminal justice issues, has unleashed a maelstrom.

Bloggers had a great conference call last night with many of the liberal groups opposing him. It was the first time I got to be a presenter on one of these call and my theme was asking the liberal groups not to leave criminal justice issues out of the debate. Half the cases before the Supreme Court are criminal cases - it's not all about abortion and choice. Just like TalkLeft voices support for the messages of PFAW's Save the Court, Alliance for Justice, NARAL and American Progress, we'd like to hear some support for our issues.

Matthew Cooper was on ABC's This Week Sunday speaking about his conversations with Lewis Libby and Karl Rove. (Transcript on Lexis.com)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Matt, I have to begin with you today because you are right in the middle of this Lewis Libby case and let me show you part of the indictment where some of Scooter Libby's, Scooter Libby's testimony was included. There was a question to him in the grand jury, March 5th, 2004, "And it's your specific recollection," this is to Mr. Libby, "that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA you attributed that fact to what reporters," answered, "Yes," "plural, were saying, correct?" "Yes, I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was, all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters." Is that how the conversation went?

by TChris

Echoing yesterday’s TalkLeft request for Dick Cheney to come clean, Nicholas Kristof today urges the vice president to “clear the air” by answering six questions in a televised press conference. The NY Times no longer provides free online access to Kristof’s columns, but the questions merit discussion, so they are reproduced (from the print edition) here (Truthout provides a free link here):

Did you ask Scooter Libby to undertake his inquiries about Ambassador Joseph Wilson? Mr. Libby made such a concerted push to get information, from both the State Department and the CIA, that I suspect that you prodded him. Is that right? If so, why?

Why did you independently ask the CIA for information about the Wilsons? The indictment states that on June 12, 2003, you advised Mr. Libby that you learned, apparently from the CIA, that Mr. Wilson’s wife, Valerie, worked in the agency. So did you ask George Tenet, then the director, about Mr. and Mrs. Wilson? Did you review the related documents that the CIA faxed to your office?

Count Five of Lewis Libby's indictment (html version) alleges that Libby lied to the grand jury on both March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004 when tesifying about his conversation with Matthew Cooper and other unnamed reporters.

The recitation of phrases used by Libby sets off alarm bells in my head. They are the same as Cheney used in the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press.

Libby in Count 5 (p. 21, Par. 2B)

"I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission....I didn't see his report."

Cheney on Meet the Press:

I don’t know Joe Wilson....I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.

Appellate whiz Peter Goldberger of Ardmore, PA is as defense-oriented as they come. He comments on TalkLeft frequently. He went to law school with Judge Alito and practices in his circuit. Here's his latest comment, responding to another TalkLeft poster:

From the AP:

Alito's politically conservative views were not in dispute. "Of course he's against abortion," his 90-year-old mother Rose told reporters at her home in Hamilton, N.J.

Judge Alito's son is a student at Colgate University who writes opinion pieces for The Forum. His self-written bio was scratched from the editor's page. (Cached version showing him to be the Editor here.) [Via Max Blumenthal at HuffPo.] Here's a section:

Shortly after, I became interested in politics and got involved with Gary Condit (not like that). I served as a parking aide to Nancy Pelosi (I won't even start on her) but was fired when Barbara Boxer came onto me.

As of now, his columns remain. In one, he makes a poignant plea for stem cell research. On other topics, he appears to be quite the conservative. Here's one on the importance of the Bush-Kerry election.

Civil liberties are of paramount concern to TalkLeft, right along with constitutional rights of the accused. First Amendment Center has this analysis of Judge Alito, having analyzed 20 majority opinions he authored during his tenure on the 3rd Circuit.

A preliminary examination of his First Amendment opinions suggests that Alito is: (1) quite protective of several categories of expression, including religious and commercial expression; (2) far less protective of First Amendment claims raised by prisoners; (3) guardedly protective of First Amendment rights in defamation cases, and (4) generally concerned about prior restraints on expression.

Overall, his opinions suggest he is scholarly in his approach to deciding such cases, and sensitive to precedent but nonetheless capable of working around it when he deems necessary.