text:
« Every Year Is Worse Than The Previous Year | Main | Crazed For Victory »
Judy Miller Responds, As Do Others
[The NBC News / Andrea Mitchell response seems to be continuing the same evasions that Tim Russert popularized last summer and fall. In brief, the NBC position amounts to restating that prior to Novak's July 14 2003 column they didn't know who Wilson's wife was; however, they don't actually say they didn't know that Wilson had a wife employed at the CIA. Hence the possibility that NBC reporters were aware that Wilson's wife, with a name unknown to them, worked at the CIA. Interesting.]
Judy Miller's team responds to the Libby subpoena (8 page .pdf).
Nothing struck me, but maybe someone else can find gold.
The NY Times has the longest response at 21 pages. From p.11:
In any event, The New York Times does not possess any records indicating that its reporters, other than Judith Miller, talked to sources about Valerie Plame.
I am not sure whether that also means that the reporters themselves also do not have such records, or whether this only means that, for example, there are no emails to editors mentioning Ms. Plame. I suspect the latter, since (for reasons I don't recall) the NY Times somehow became legally separated from the control of Ms. Milller's notebooks during her legal tussle in 2004/2005, even though she was their employee at the time.
TIME has a 14 page .pdf reply. From p. 5, no special Scooter file:
Mr. Libby is mistaken in suggesting, Opp. at 34, that Matthew Cooper maintained a special "Scooter Libby file" that has not already been produced. The documents to which Mr. Libby appears to be referring have already been produced to the Special Counsel, and turned over to Mr. Libby.
Matt Cooper has a two page response that amounts to "What TIME said". But let's run this:
Second, Mr. Libby suggests that Mr. Cooper has a "pro-Wilson" bias, a claim that is both entirely without support and wholly inaccurate. See Libby Opp. Br. at 34, 35. Quite simply, Mr. Cooper denies having any such bias, and he rejects the implication from Mr. Libby that his testimony before the grand jury was anything but truthful.
NBC News and Andrea Mitchell 15 page .pdf is here. They take a hard line on the notion that Russert's carefully phrased denials are concealing something:
Let there be no mistake: the public record, including portions of Mr. Russert's grand jury testimony that were quoted by the D.C. Circuit in a related proceeding months ago,2 make clear that Tim Russert did not know that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he spoke to Mr. Libby in July 2003. Not surprisingly, therefore, none of the documents in NBC's possession contains a sentence, a phrase, a word, or a syllable that suggests otherwise.
That would be even more convincing if the passage of Russert's testimony that they present in a footnote actually verified their assertion. Instead, we are served some Swiss cheese:
See Levine Decl. Ex. A (NBC's public statements) [ed - p. 73 of 83 page .pdf]; In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Tatel, J., concurring in judgment) (describing and quoting Mr. Russert's sworn testimony) (citations omitted) (brackets in original):
In his deposition, describing Plame's employment as a fact that would have been "[v]ery" significant to him – one he would have discussed with NBC management and potentially sought to broadcast – Russert stated, "I have no recollection of knowing that [Wilson's wife worked at the CIA], so it was impossible for me to have [told Libby] that." Asked to describe his "reaction" to Novak's July 14 column, Russert said, "Wow. When I read that – it was the first time I knew who Joe Wilson's wife was and that she was a CIA operative…. [I]t was news to me."
Groan - without seeing the question to which Russert is responding, it is hard to know just what some of those brackets are replacing. But that aside, re-read "it was the first time I knew who Joe Wilson's wife was and that she was a CIA operative".
Isn't Russert saying, yet again, that he didn't know Ms. Plame's name or job function? Is that really the same as saying "I had no idea Wilson's wife was at the CIA in some capacity"? I don't think so.
However... although I remain a skeptic, Special Counsel Fitzgerald may have been convinced. Here is what he says in his 8/27/2004 affidavit on p. 12 of 38:
Russert recalled that when he first read Novak's column on July 14, 2003 that he had a reaction of "wow" because reading the article was the first time he had heard of Wilson's wife's purported affiliation with the CIA (Transcript of Russert deposition annexes as Exhibit K).
Interesting. Well, maybe the response the judge cited as an example was just one answer Russert gave, but several better answers were included in the transcript - Fitzgerald apparently is happy to repeat and rephrase questions.
Or maybe Russert pulled a fast one.
Or maybe there is nothing here. As usual, Russert can be relied upon for a clown show on this.
Andrea Mitchell's situation is interesting. She said on Oct 3, 2003 that it was "well known" to the beat reporters that Ms. Plame was with the CIA; in subsequent public statements she has backpedaled from that. NBC restates that:
As explained in their initial memorandum, neither NBC nor Ms. Mitchell possesses any documents arguably responsive to this request that either indicate or suggest that she, or any other NBC employee, was aware, prior to July 14, 2003, who Ambassador Wilson's wife was or that she was employed by the CIA. As a result, the Court's ruling in connection with Defendant's Rule 16 motion forecloses the possibility that any responsive document could be relevant to this case within the meaning of Rule 17.
However, they also offer an odd argument that will (I think) be shot down:
[Because she has since repudiated the Oct 3, 2003 statement] Defendant's suggestion that he is entitled to the documents at issue because he "will likely call Ms. Mitchell as a witness" and will "ask her about the meaning of her October 3, 2003 statement" on Capital Report, Response at 28, makes no logical sense. Because Ms. Mitchell would testify that she did not know that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA prior to July 14, Defendant's only possible evidentiary use of this statement would be to attempt to impeach her testimony. However, it is well settled that Defendant may not properly call a witness he knows will not provide testimony helpful to his case, so that he may then evade the requirements of the hearsay rule and put before the jury what he claims to be a prior inconsistent statement by that witness. Such "subterfuge" is a long established "abuse" of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and is strictly prohibited in the federal courts. See United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J.).3
Well. The defense may well argue that they have no idea what story Ms. Mitchell will choose to tell after raising her right hand and accepting the risk of perjury. Testimony to Don Imus carries a bit less weight, one might think. And NBC does not cite any statements to investigators, so it does seem that Ms. Mitchell has never formally given evidence.
The response starting on p. 12 to Mitchell Subpoena Category 5 is pretty amusing - as a general rule, snarkiness is a "tell" for a weak argument; in this section, the NBC team offers plenty of snark but not much sense.
MORE: Let's get the first motions to quash here:
TIME: TIME
NBC: [OK, now where is it?]
NY Times/Miller: Miller
Fitz is such a hack. Just look at what he is doing in Chi town.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_129143817.html
Posted by: hcow | May 09, 2006 at 07:40 PM
TS.
Absolutely ! But remember Fitz was about to indict Official A until he talked to Luskin at the eleventh hour-so the danger of that happening now has lessened.
Well, according to our great news media, not a single one of them had any clue that Joe Wilsons wife was CIA.
Yet, the Russians knew, the Cubans knew, etc. etc.
You really have to love Chris Mathews, although I find his show unwatchable anymore.
If Mathews had been in Dallas in 1963, he would have reported that President Kennedy died of lead poisoning.
BUT CHRIS, HE WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD!!
Well, yeah, but essentially he died of natural causes, lead is an unnatural substance to have in your brain, so essentially he died of natural causes.
BUT CHRIS, HE WAS ASSASINATED!!
Yeah, you could look at it that way, but essentially its a story about bad timing...ya know, that's how I see it essentially.
Posted by: Patton | May 09, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Patton;
technically speaking that's how it went down.
--and, get this, any body named as Offical A has gone on to be indicted by the brilliant Fitzgerald.--
Which only shows that Fitz' was aiming his guns at Rove from the beginning. Fitz had totally embraced Wilson's desire to frog-march this guy.
In fitz working notes, Libby is probably Official D, or E, or F and fitz was only using Libby to turn on Rove.
Didn't work out too well, did it?
Posted by: Syl | May 09, 2006 at 08:25 PM
"--and, get this, any body named as Offical A has gone on to be indicted by the brilliant Fitzgerald.--"
An example would be? What "Official" A has been indicted by Fitzgerald?
Posted by: Javani | May 09, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Syl:
No it didn't work out and now all Fitz has left is a nothing set of indictments against Libby. How the mighty have fallen. Time to fall on his sword or take a powder!
Obviously he thought this was another one of those grabage truck scandals in Chicago and miscalculated.
*********GARBAGE****8888
IMO, Libby needs to start with the reasonable doubt...he mistook his conversation with Russert as the one he had with Woodward. Or something. I doubt seriously Russert lied under oath. Libby has a good shot at getting rid of Cooper and getting rid of Miller, but Russert is going nowhere. How did we get to Matthews as being in on a phone call?
Long distance operator, get me Memphis, Tennessee.
I need to get in touch right quick with my sweet Valerie.
I called her Mrs. Wilson, instead of her name Plame.
Now Fitzy's got the willies, and I'm the one to blame.
Posted by: kim | May 09, 2006 at 09:21 PM
LOL. If he went for the nuance he may indeed be having the willies. I can't imagine he hasn't come clean with his attorney if that is the case, though.
Look carefully again at everything he and Andrea have said. Someone here suspected it over a year ago, I think, and even Tom is curious about this. Wait'll Fitz wonders.
I know. But I can't see him allowing Libby to go to jail if he has different information. If that comes out, he is finished.
But I can't see him allowing Libby to go to jail if he has different information.
I don't know. I used to have a whole lot of respect for Tim Russert. I thought he was very fair and that his interviews were always balanced. Somewhere along the line, my opinion of him changed and it predated this Plame affair. I now look at his as a real snarky snake and frankly, I don't think he has a conscience, so I doubt it would bother him one whit to let someone go to jail. Like all the others, he'll wrap the 1st Amend. around himself and gloat.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | May 09, 2006 at 09:51 PM
look at his = look at him
Which only shows that Fitz' was aiming his guns at Rove from the beginning.
This is a joke, right?
Posted by: Jeff | May 09, 2006 at 09:55 PM
That's what we said too, but come to find out, Shuster is serious. ::grin::
I'm not buying it. I don't think Russert would intentionally lie. Maybe he forgot too? ::grin::
Maybe he did fudge the truth thinking this wasn't going anywhere, like I figure most of them thought, since Plame isn't covert. No harm, no foul. Then Libby gets indicted for perjury and Russert is afraid to correct his testimony. I guess that is possible, but I'm not there yet.
I'm not buying it. I don't think Russert would intentionally lie.
So what was he doing with Broussard? He had purpose when he put him on for a full segment to end that show. It was the Katrina Prime Time spot. It ran .....then they come in and do a correction.....too late. The Lie Stands.
Posted by: owl | May 09, 2006 at 10:29 PM
If allowed, Libby could run a heck of a filmfest of attacks by MSNBC=Mitchell/Matthews/Russert
I'm with Sue on this one. Russert will probably at some point either clarify or give Libby a hand on this by saying people could confuse which reporters they talked to. Russert has so much to lose here probably more than anyone else with the exception of Libby. I still go back to mistaken identity on Libby's part but Matthews and Mitchell-I think they might have known.Not sure about Russert- I don't think he would let someone go to jail if he had info that could clear them. He's Jesuit educated-that has to count for something.
owl:
I think Broussard duped Russert.
Russert has no notes of the conversation and apparently there's no documentation he sent to anyone relating to it. On cross, he may have to admit that his memory may not be perfect either.
Sue - The point is that Rove was dubbed Official A in the indictment; it's not like he was called Official A from the outset of the investigation, and was first on the list. He's just the first (and as it turned out only) official identified in the indictment who was still under investigation.
I think Libby just got his reporters mixed up. I don't see what incentive he had to lie, although Fitz seems to think losing his job if he were involved in the "leak" would be enough incentive to make up a story. Having said that, all the reporters have that exact same incentive, do they not?
Who among them could keep their jobs if they changed their story now, or if it looked like they had "entanglements"?
Posted by: MayBee | May 09, 2006 at 11:04 PM
I responded to your question on a previous thread here.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 10, 2006 at 12:09 AM
As to Russert lying in his testimony - I have trouble with that, too, but...
Suppose Russert has sources he wants to protect and is a better chess player than Matt Cooper.
Cooper told the truth - 'I leaked to Libby' - and won himself a new subpoena so Fitzgerald could find his source.
If Russert *did* leak to Libby and admitted it, he might have figured he was taking one step closer to dire doo-doo. Go to jail, give up a source, shade the Libby testimony, what to do?
So he shaded his testimony. Whatever. But now Libby is indicted - oops!
There is probably never a good time to admit that you have walked up to the line of perjury and ruined a once-serious investigation, so Russert lays low, hoping the case will crater for other reasons. And we drift along.
This seems possible to me - a somewhat remote possibility. As an alternative solutions to his original problem, maybe Russert could have been more vague in his testimony, or somehow waved Fitzgerald off last fall.
And weirdly, this does not need to effect Libby's fundamental guilt. There is still the question of whether Libby sourced his leaks to other reporters, and whether that matters if he had, in fact, not forgotten the Cheney talk, the Fleischer talk, and so on.
Although obviously, if Russert's story collapses, Libby's version gets some oxygen.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 10, 2006 at 12:33 AM
On the question of Niger uranium, there's this interesting old story from the Financial TImes.'(excerpt)
"Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, according to senior European intelligence officials.
Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.
These claims support the assertion in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales, apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime, were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be fakes. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its claim.
But European intelligence officials have confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium. "Niger
Posted by: clarice | May 10, 2006 at 12:39 AM
TM-
I do think we have enough general information to realize that some didn't take the investigation too seriously. UGO would be one of them. I'm guessing they all thought it would go away, like the investigation about Clarence Thomas's sexual harrassment leak. Everybody said they didn't know anything and it all went away. The default ending for these things seems to be no charge filed.
I'm like you in hesitating to believe Russert would have just lied. But I agree with you that anyone that shaded the truth a little has much to fear from walking back now.
My pet theory is everyone just gave an idea of what they thought was said and by whom (knowing that they hadn't committed any crime), and Fitzgerald turned it into a perjury investigation.
Posted by: MayBee | May 10, 2006 at 01:02 AM
By that last paragraphy I mean, they were all a little sloppy and a little loose in talking to Fitzgerald and the GJ. I think they all thought it was a non-crime, the investigation was political in nature, and it would just go away.
The thing is, it's not so weird. Fitzgerald put together a smart indictment, among many other things building in a hedge against just the possibility you mention. In fact, it is a more central contention to Fitzgerald's case that Libby must have been lying when he testified that he was surprised by what Russert told him, and was learning it as though for the first time, than that Russert did not as a matter of fact tell Libby about Plame. On Fitzgerald's account, it is more central to Libby's deliberately false narrative that he learned about Plame from Russert than just that Russert told him about Plame. And that central alleged lie is more robustly contradicted than the one about whether or not Russert told him.
Thus, even if Russert recants and slinks off in shame for ever and ever (it almost makes you wish for it), Libby is still on the hook, though it's true Libby gets some oxygen.
they were all a little sloppy and a little loose in talking to Fitzgerald and the GJ.
The thing is, Libby was anything but sloppy or loose with his narrative. But I agree that he thought the investigation was going to go away, because it was political, that is, being overseen by Ashcroft. It also involved reporters, who are generally not quick to give up sources (as they were not in the event).
This is the Dreyfus case deja vu. Just waiting for Emil Zola. (Or Clarice Feldman) to scoop up sales when the books start to flow.
If the donks had this plan, that they could impeach Bush if a prosecutor moved this story into our court system, shows ya what passes for intelligence in DC.
Are they counting on black jurors railroading Libby? Is that the ticket?
I know Martha Stewart didn't do any crime. Her broker called her! But she had a black judge. And, a jury that hated the rich bitch.
Then Martha had to make a decision. To live under a cloud for a long, long time. Or to go to jail. And, then get back her life. She chose the short cut.
I'd even bet Martha once supported donks with money contributions. But I doubt if she does so now. She's learned a thing or two about choices.
As has the rest of the country.
I'll tell ya something else. I was around when Nixon's popularity plummeted. And, I can tell ya there's something wrong with the polls! (Well, those same polls told ya Kerry was ahead on election day.) And, all the MSM did was hide the truth. The donks took a beating. And, Bush had COATTAILS. But that was 2004.
2006 is upcoming. Ya think people will stay away from voting in high enough numbers the donks can steal seats? How come you don't notice the Net is alive. And, the comments you get to see from ordinary folks aren't supporting the methods used by the donks at all. Even if eyes glaze over when math is mentioned. So the polls can be skewed enough.
Never was a time you could fool all the people.
And, even if it feels like it takes forever for justice to move through our courts; Libby has chosen to fight. Soon enough the contest will have a noticeable winnah.
Posted by: Carol_Herman | May 10, 2006 at 01:24 AM
The thing is, Libby was anything but sloppy or loose with his narrative.
The thing is all them reporters led Fitz to believe they really justa bunch of dopey know nothings...
Woodward agreeing to the sup - bastard...what do they have to fight to hide?
A.K.A...you don't fight if you got N O T H I N G
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 10, 2006 at 01:32 AM
Well, I wasn't really thinking of Ashcroft's 2 seconds of oversight. I was thinking more like Walter Pincus, when he said he thought "the Democrats were too wound up thinking that a crime had been committed".
I also see Libby as pretty darn sloppy. Whether it was a sloppy lie or sloppy truth, I don't know.
Tops- I can see them fighting on principle. They don't think they can be seen to be cooperating, because they think they need to protect their sources. Although in this case, they would be cooperating to protect a source, no? So that's kind of the opposite of their usual not cooperating to protect a source.
TM, Jeff: I disagree. If Russet admitted he mentioned to Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA, the whole case falls apart. The Russert conversation is the only resonable basis for charges. Without the support Russert testimony to add suspecious context, the Cooper allegations are a minor difference in recollection. Miller is the definition of a weak witness, and isn't even part of a seperate perjury or false statement charge. The supposed failsafe of Libby's unlikely surprise would be overwhelmed by the blockbuster revelation that the only other witness to the conversation had morally, if not legally, lied about his part in it, and that the more substantive part of the related charge was founded on that lie.
Having said that, I don't expect Russert to admit he mentioned Ms. Wilson's job to Libby. I will even say I find it hard to believe Russert flirted with perjury by misleading Fitzgerald, or that Fitzgerald is so stupid that he'd fall for such a transparent ploy.
But still -- I can't explain why Russert has never issued a simple, clear public denial, or why Fitzgerald, when citing Russert's testimony in the affidaivit, can't provide something more definite for Russert than "wow."
Posted by: MJW | May 10, 2006 at 02:28 AM
"Although obviously, if Russert's story collapses, Libby's version gets some oxygen."
If Russert's story collapses, Libby walks, notwithstanding anything in the indictment. I really don't see Russert collapsing though, beyond admitting that he doesn't lay claim to a perfect memory.
"The thing is, Libby was anything but sloppy or loose with his narrative."
His testimony, on the other hand, was anything but a model of clarity.
This has been posted many times before, but here is what Mitchell said on Oct. 3, 2003:
It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
I bring it up to make two points. First, there can be no doubt she understood the question and was saying she knew that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. She was lying then, or she's lying now. Second, to compare it to Russert's denial (while keeping in mind Mitchell was saying she did know about Plame):
Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.
Is there an echo in here?
Keep in mind that at the time the reporters were asked to testify the focus of the investigation was on who leaked "Plame". Cooper and Miller chose to fight while NBC negotiated a deal to give limited testimony. I believe the deal was that Russert would only testify on whether Libby leaked to him and whether he mentioned "Plame" to Libby. He gave an affidavit in which denied both. Recall that on MSNBC in the week of the indictment Russert explained his involvement in the case as simply a 20 min. FBI statement in which he denied that Libby leaked to him or that he mentioned Plame to Libby. "Bang", that, according to him was all there was to it. Making the deal was either a deliberate plan by Russert and Fritz to get libby for lying (which I doubt) or a major mistake by Fritz. It is hard to believe that he is indicting for perjury when he has an incomplete version of the other side of the conversation, but that is what I think has happened. I believe it is not necessary to conclude that Russert deliberately lied or fudged but rather that he simply testified to the points he agreed to testify to.
I agree that he has alot to lose. He either has to (now or at the trial) lie about whether 'Wilson's wife" was mentioned,, say he doesn't remember or tell the truth. He probably will admit he knew Wilson's wife and maybe even that he knew she worked at the CIA. This could help Libby but not as much as it would if he told the truth. Too many people probably know of Russert's knowledge of these facts for him to lie about his knowledge. Libby believed Russert told him and felt free to discuss Wilson's wife "as if" he heard it for the first time. If I was Libby's attorney I would be spending my time finding out who was in the Wilsons' circle and any connections to Russert.
Does anyone know if Libby subpeoned the Wilson's wedding invitation list? Team Libby needs to, and probably will, go after documents showing NBC's and Russert's knowledge regarding Wilson's wife.
Posted by: fletcher hudson | May 10, 2006 at 06:28 AM
If Andrea was right, that 'everyone' knew, it can be shown.
Posted by: kim | May 10, 2006 at 06:49 AM
On the forged Niger documents...
I've always been somewhat curious why the "forged" aspect of the Niger document Joe was sent to investigate "proved" Saddam hadn't sought/acquired the yellowcake.
Seems "forged" docs is the only way a clandestine acquisition such as this could/would be transacted. "Forged" sales documents provide the plausible deniability to the supplier, to include any Niger government official who might be participating in the illicit trade.
Posted by: MaidMarion | May 10, 2006 at 10:05 AM
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/judy_miller_res.html#comment-17092843>Owl
I wasn't referring to what he did on-air.
Posted by: Sue | May 10, 2006 at 10:20 AM
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/judy_miller_res.html#comment-17093574>Jeff
So? Fitzgerald was after Rove from day one. And Libby and anyone else in the WH.
<http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/judy_miller_res.html#comment-17095844>Tom
Sort of what I said http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/judy_miller_res.html#comment-17092531>here.
It has always been extremely interesting, and not accented enough lately, that these forgeries may have been designed to be exposable as frauds.
Jesuit education is one thing. And the one educated is another. We'll see.
Sue - The evidence cited was non-evidence. The fact that Rove is Official A in the indictment tells us nothing about what Fitzgerald believed from the outset. It is, of course, reasonable to think that Fitzgerald believed from early on that Rove was involved in the leak, since Rove was involved in the leak, and Rove appears to have acknowledged that early on. But in fact it appears increasingly likely that Fitzgerald was not focused on Rove until Cooper testified.
You really want to argue that we don't know what Fitz was looking at when he started? Rove was definitely a target from day one in Fitz's conspiracy to smear Joe Wilson campaign.
Maid Marion, I can see only two reasons for such bad forgeries--and maybe that explains why there were two sets (a) to hide a real transaction (b) to undermine the Administration and the decision to go to war. As to (b) I've harbored suspicions that this one was to be used as we worked thru the UN and we left the UNSC too soon for it to have been popped and it was later used to help Kerry. It would have been useful during the UN deliberations only if the timing was right--say, just before a final vote. After the French perfidy we left that venue and the forgery was not useful for that purpose.
Unless you are an FBI agent who interviewed Libby, you are simply making shit up here, jeff. None of us knows how sloppy or tight Libby's testimony was. (Given that the FBI interviews are not recorded in any way other than notes made by the FBI agents, even Fitzgerald and the grand jurors don't really know much more than we do on that accord.) The best guess is that Libby's testimony was like the aspens letter, and the little bit of heavily elided stuff we have in the indictment is consistent with that. But that's just a guess.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | May 10, 2006 at 12:41 PM
And another thing about the loose vs tight narrative question. The "narrative," especially in this case, is what formed in the FBI guys' minds and Fitzgerald's mind and the grand jurors' minds. The whole obstruction argument is based upon what narrative should reasonably have been created in those minds according to the alleged obstructor's narration. If the alleged obstructor can show bias to the point of unreasonableness in the listeners, or any other material cause of unreasonableness, then he is off the hook as far as being the one who is guilty of creating the false narrative.
Rick nailed that, cathy--we do not see much in the way of a non-elided clear question to Libby, and from his pleadings and presser, we have every reason to believe that Fitz was not a simple sentence interrogator. Remember in the gj there's no counsel or judge to interject and seek clarity or object to the form of the question.
fletcher hudson:
You have brought out some excellent points and helped me understand this whole scenario.
As to Russert- I does have a moral backbone and hopefully a sense of fair play. I hope he hasn't been that corrupted by fame and fortune. We'll see.
cathyf
Interesting, isn't it, that the one demonstrably false narrative here was provided by none other than Fitzpatrick, himself, when he pegged Libby as the first official leaking Plame to press. Actually, make that two false narratives, because that key faux pas can't be blamed on any putative sand thrown by Libby either.
Then again, there's also the narrative Fitzpatrick provided the Court to rationalize his fishing expedition in the press. In fact, I don't think I've really got the time to do justice to the Pandora's Box I've just opened, so I think I'll just snap the lid back on till later.
DId anyone link ?Byron York today?
Fitzgerald rose to answer. "I'm not going to stipulate that Mr. Wilson was accurate on every thing," he said.
From that point on, the question of Joseph Wilson's credibility shadowed the discussion of other evidence. Wells argued that Wilson had made "inaccurate" statements quoted in a number of news reports. What if prosecutors cited any of those reports?
"The truth of what is in those articles would not be relevant," the judge said. Then he turned to Fitzgerald and said, "Does the government intend to introduce articles?"
"Yes, your honor," Fitzgerald said. Wilson's New York Times op-ed would be introduced, Fitzgerald continued—"but not for the truth." It would, in other words, be given to the jury to show what started the whole Plamegate affair, but Fitzgerald did not intend to argue that it was fully true.
Maryrose-
As to Russert's backbone. Now will be the time we will find out if "Big Russ" was half as great as Tim says he was in his book, whether Tim will be the "man for all seasons" because of what he inherited from Big Russ and , more importantly, whether "Little Russ" will, in the future, be an man of honor because of what Tim does today. Or we will find that they all three, have, are now and will be in the future bags of sh-t like most everyone else in Washington. Very few people have been or will be given such an opportunity for greatness as Tim now has. Let's see how he deals with it.
Posted by: fletcher hudson | May 10, 2006 at 06:23 PM
TS--Thanks for alerting me to that excellent article.
On the York article, how can Fitzgerald decide not he wants a "small case" when he stood up at the press conference and implied that Libby damaged us all. Now he wants a triffling perjury case.
Posted by: Kate | May 10, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Besides us who is paying attention? Besides us who caught his fib to the Miller Court? Besides us who noticed that he knew who "leaked" before he called Libby to testify before the gj? Besides us who noticed that the claim that Plame was covert was a crock? Besides us who knows that Ambassador Munchausen is a serial liar?
clarice-once again President Bush decided to take the high ground and not criticize Fitzgerald or let anyone criticize him. That worked, right. Fitzgerald is a mediocre prosecutor at best, and he has gotten a free ride on this case. I blame the White House on this one too. It's the legal equivalent of taking the blame for Katrina. They have to learn to fight back effectively and hard.
Well, we can only hope that Team Libby makes sure that besides us, the jury knows.
Re: Fitz. You may be interested in this ....
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics
Looks like a partisan to me ... oh. wait.
Maybe you can start a blog on the Sorich trial, hcow. That one looks like it may really be worth watching. If Fitz ever actually bothers to wind this investigation up, we might have time to tune in. I'm beginning to think he may be getting far too fond of his comfy sinecure in DC, as Big Fish In The National Pond With All The Other Fish At His Beck & Call & Hanging On His Every Word, to give it up voluntarily though.
""It is, of course, reasonable to think that Fitzgerald believed from early on that Rove was involved in the leak, since Rove was involved in the leak, and Rove appears to have acknowledged that early on. """
I thought the leak was from UGO to Novak to the public. CIA then confirmed UGOs story for Novak, who published.
What did Rove have to do with that?
In the days after Libby was indicted, the left went crazy thinking they were going to have Cheney on the witness stand, and it might go all the way up to having Bush on the stand too. Until saner heads prevailed and brought some of them back down to earth. This wasn't going to be a case about the leak. Very narrow, perjury, false statements and obstruction. I think we are trying the leak case. And I think we are on the right track, because most of the defense documents have tracked our speculations fairly well, and I don't think they are reading this blog for ideas. I think it would have been better to try the leak case, everything would be pretty much relevant, including Joe's lies that started everything. I'm afraid we are getting off the narrow track of what the judge is going to allow. And I'm afraid we are going to be left wondering just what actually happened, until the day some enterprising journalist decides to ferret out the real truth.
Unless, of course, they are going for perjury trap. But how to convince a judge who isn't looking for a trap? Clarice?
What happens if after Walton sees the referral letter he doesn't shut this down? Will that mean Plame was covert? I've been thinking about this, in the event that happens. What if, instead of Plame being covert, which I steadfastly refuse to believe she was, it was the NIE itself that was being investigated?
All nice questions. I do think if the Court has suspicions about the referral letter, he's going to let Libby have the letter and if he wants he can argue perjury trap. If there's nothing apparent he may allow him a redacted or summary copy.
I think we have shown why Fitzgerald didn't bring charges for leaking. He would have had to wade through Joe and he knew he couldn't.
"And I'm afraid we are going to be left wondering just what actually happened, until the day some enterprising journalist decides to ferret out the real truth."
Don't you really mean when some reporter actually puts his money where his mouth is on "the public's right to know" and condescends to tell us?
Or as Byron York, per tops' link, put it:
After two and half years of investigating, after putting every conceivable witness under oath, after jailing one journalist and threatening others with jail, Patrick Fitzgerald argues that it doesn't even matter if Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA at all.
Actually, this formulation from earlier in the same article (sorry about previous missing link) puts it even better:
The Big Case is what Fitzgerald originally set out to investigate: Who leaked Mrs. Wilson's identity, why was it done, and did it violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or some other law? Fitzgerald has spent untold amounts of money—unlike the old independent counsels, Fitzgerald is not required to report what his office has spent on the case—and has covered every conceivable aspect of the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's identity. He has questioned officials across the executive branch, including the president and vice president. He has learned about the Big Case as much as one man with subpoena power, no supervision, unlimited funds, and no hesitation to threaten reporters with jail can learn. He just doesn't want to talk about it.
I re-read the Fitzgerald presser last night. Nowhere does he mention the IIPA, but he does talk about the Espionage Act. Which got me thinking, a scary thing, if I do say so myself. He isn't and wasn't investigating the outing of a covert operative. He is/was investigating revealing classified information. Which would fit her, classified but not covert, and the NIE. And Fitz spent a lot of time asking Libby about the NIE, and as we know, it doesn't mention Wilson's wife, by name or otherwise.
If you re-read the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html conference with the knowledge we have today, it takes on a whole new meaning.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.
That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.
I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.
Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."
I saw that Byron York article this morning, noting that York has joined the ranks of those who don't seem to understand the difference between a legal case, on the one hand, and what happens in the world more generally, on the other. I too would very much like to know what happened; but it's part of Fitzgerald's job to keep quiet about that beyond the bounds of the case he's trying. And Fitzgerald has put together a smart, tight case against Libby, crafting the charges in such a way as to be as airtight and with as few pitfalls as possible. My lawyer friends tell me this is standard practice among federal prosecutors in particular.
I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of Planet of the Apes...Damn you...
::grin::
If you re-read the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html>press conference with the knowledge we have today, it takes on a whole new meaning.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. ...
you are living in a dream world. Fitz does not have an airtight case against Libby because he didn't investigate all the journalists or Val and Joe thoroughly enough. He needs to go back and get definitive answers from all the people he gave special privledges to as he was interviewing them and that includes UGO.
Don't be silly. He understands the distinction just fine, and expresses the kind of frustration I certainly feel about how Fitzpatrick has run this operation quite nicely, thanks.
As for standard practice, I'm sure there are a whole lot of prosecutors who would love to have virtually unlimited resources and all the time in the world to go after crimminals who have done a lot more than perjure themselves in the course of an investigation. As a taxpayer footing Fitz' bill, I'm not going to be a happy camper whether Libby goes to jail or not, are you?
Any US Atty who can't put an indictment together that looks real tight has been promoted to his level of incompetence.
The Patrick Principle; given the power of a wizard he hasn't a clue.


It's been a while since we added anything to the Bioscope Library. The latest addition is James R. Cameron's The Instruction of Disabled Men in Motion Picture Projection (1919). Cameron was Instructor of Projection at the Red Cross Institute for Crippled and Disabled Men, in New York. The Institute sought to instruct soldiers disabled during the First World War in suitable professions, and motion picture projection was one of them. As Cameron tells us, "almost any man with both hands intact could, with a course of study of about two months in duration, acquire sufficent knowledge to enable him to enter an operating booth, and take charge of the machines".
Twelve pupils joined the inaugural class in May 1918 – "Most all were leg cases, either paralysis or amputation". Cameron tells of the success of most of those undertaking the course, their earnings, and the elements of training that they received. The remainder of the booklet is then concerned with the practicalities of motion picture projection, with illustrations, terminology and lengthy question-and-answer sections, all presumably derived from the course itself, though little further mention is made of disability. The booklet therefore serves as a standard technical guide to projection at this period.
However, there is more to the history than this. There is an exceptional website, Project Façade, based on a 2005 National Army Museum exhibition, which looks at the treatment of facial injuries of British soldiers during the First World War. Some men had injuries so terrible that they were unrecognisable to family and friends, and, as the site says, "unable to see, hear, speak, eat or drink, they struggled to re-assimilate back into civilian life". The site celebrates the pioneering plastic surgery undertaken by Sir Harold Gillies, but even with surgery and prosthetics etc., some men remained so disfigured that they felt they could not return to normal society. The site tells us that one profession that remained open to them was that of projectionist. Such men could arrive for work before anyone else, spend their working day on their own, shut away from society, and then return home in darkness. This sad revelation may be what partly lies behind the Red Cross Institute's interest in the profession, though Cameron's booklet, perhaps not surprisingly, makes no mention of it.
Project Façade also has a remarkable film on the making and fitting of tin masks and facial prosthetics for injured servicemen, from around 1916. There is no information on who made the film, or where it came from, but I do encourage you to see it (it requires QuickTime and is available in small and larger versions). It is gentle and inspiring. It contains nothing particularly unsettling, but do be warned that there are images elsewhere on the site which might upset some.
The Instruction of Disabled Men in Motion Picture Projection is available from the Internet Archive, in DjVu (4.3MB), PDF (14MB) and TXT (161KB) formats.
The BBC is putting on more for the Albert Kahn and autochrome addicts among you. This Monday BBC2 starts a three-part series The Great War in Colour: The Wonderful World of Albert Kahn, which looks at the First World War through the colour photographs in the Kahn collection. Part one is on 21 January, at 19.00. The programmes are streamed online via BBC iPlayer for one week after transmission.
Note: If you are new to this site and looking for background information on Albert Kahn, please visit the Searching for Albert Kahn post.


Aerospace Implementation Programme launched The Centre for Competitiveness and TEC Transnational Ltd are launching five new workshops for the new Aerospace Implementation Programme (AIP). This takes place at the A|D|S UK Task Force event in Dublin on March 16, 2016. Both TEC and the CforC are SC21 Strategic Partners.
The aim is simple – "Achieving excellence through accelerated learning." The workshops bring an innovative and highly-effective programme for aerospace companies from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK.
The AIP is a combination of IRCA and IAQG recommended and certified training programmes supported by onsite consulting and mentoring to assist companies drive real improvement and build competitive advantage.
Whilst the 25-year aerospace sector growth forecast creates many opportunities world-wide, there are competitors also, making for a demanding and competitive global supply chain.
The training elements of the programme cover five core skills and capabilities that all aerospace suppliers must excel at to survive and thrive in the consistently growing global aerospace sector and supply chain. All five training workshops are 2-days and are based on aerospace AS standards.
But training of employees alone is not enough; skills development has to be translated into competence and the capability to deliver enhanced performance. This is where the consulting support assists companies with an onsite and hands-on, project focused approach that delivers results.


text:
Lessons, dangers and dilemmas for Correismo after Ecuador's election: An interview with David Villamar
By David Villamar, Joe Emersberger (Posted May 06, 2021)
Democracy, Empire, State Repression, StrategyEcuadorInterview2021 Election, 2nd Round Elections, Andres Arauz, David Villamar, Featured, Guillermo Lasso
On April 11, the second round of Ecuador's presidential election saw the rightwing candidate Guillermo Lasso prevail by 52.4% to 47.6% over his left wing opponent Andres Arauz. I interviewed Quito-based economist David Villamar who provided a probing analysis of the election. —Joe Emersberger
Joe Emersberger: In 2017, Moreno ran as a loyalist of former President Rafael Correa (2007-17), but once in office, Moreno immediately ditched the left wing campaign platform that he used to win and adopted rightwing polices of his opponent (Lasso). Please describe the ways the electoral playing field was tilted against Andres Arauz over the past 4 years under outgoing President Moreno (who did not run for re-election).
David Villamar: The Citizens Revolution, the movement led by Rafael Correa, is the only threat to the status quo that arose in Ecuador since the return of democracy in 1979. All other governments had been subservient to elites. Rafael Correa's government [2007-17] changed that completely. It rebuilt a state that had been all but absent. It gave meaning to the presence of the state, to the need for public policies that, due to their inefficiencies or non-existence, were not understood. Correa gave real content to social policy: the construction of public works such as hospitals, schools, roads, hydroelectric plants and other megaprojects–things that had not been built in the past or done in a marginal way. Strength was given to a state that had traditionally been weak, so weak that in the decade before Correa, 3 presidents were ousted simply by large protests. Obviously Correa's project required a higher collection of taxes, including corporate income tax. This changed power relations. Elites lost considerable control over the state, and were being forced to pay taxes, and comply with other legal obligations. No other president dared to confront the elites or their media outlets. They felt threatened and came to see Correa and the Citizens Revolution movement as Satan, a monster that had to be defeated to regain their Paradise Lost. Those are the reasons for the virulence of elite hatred of Correa, and this deepened after the betrayal of Lenin Moreno. That initiated a process of persecution and defamation of the Citizens Revolution.
The Citizens Revolution gave Ecuador a new Constitution through a democratic and participatory process that it had never seen before. First there was a referendum to see if voters wanted a new constitution, then the election of constituent assembly members, and finally a vote to ratify the new constitution that had been written by the constituent assembly. That changed the structure of the state, gave it greater influence over the economy, and increased the importance of public services. The private media depicted all that as the creation of a "bloated state", but it simply restored the state to what it had been during the 60s and 70s–a period known of so-called developmentalism, when the state was active but not destructive towards private enterprise.
So during the Moreno government the vilification of this came in stages. First came a wave of allegations from Moreno and his cabinet that everything built under Correa was overpriced. The cost estimates of alleged corruption and cost overruns descended into total farce. One day they said that the losses from corruption were $3 billion. The following month it was $10 billion. Then $30 billion. The figure they finally landed on was $70 billion. To even claim that a government that with an annual budget of $30 billion had stolen $30 billion in 10 years was absurd on its face. There were even people who alleged that corruption losses reached $140 billion. It was ridiculous.
Then they began to embellish the figures with scandals. Take the case of a refinery (the famous Refinería del Pacifico) whose construction was only initiated under Correa. Only roads that would lead to the refinery and other basic infrastructure were completed, along with various studies that were necessary before actual work could begin. All of this properly audited at the time. But by stripping out all those facts, the media presented Ecuadorians with a story that claimed "$1.6 billion for a flat fieldl!" Photos of the flat empty land were shown and it was asked "How could this cost $1.6 billion?". So these kinds of stories cemented the idea, especially in those who already disliked Correa, that his government was very corrupt.
Then came persecution. It started very early with Jorge Glas, Moreno's Vice President who was elected in 2017. They accused Glas over money that had been unjustifiably acquired by an uncle of his, [allegedly] from a Brazilian company that had contracts with Ecuador's government, Odebrecht. Glas was placed in pretrial detention in 2017. What followed was practically a summary trial of a few months. Odebrecht people were brought in only to testify against Glas and then sent him back to Brazil without allowing cross-examination. And on that basis, Glas was sentenced to years in prison for illicit association.
About a year and a half later, the misnamed "bribery trial" began. They pressured a former Correa collaborator (Pamela Martínez) to accuse him. Evidence was fabricated–an infamous notebook. That notebook was written by Martínez during an hour-long Quito-Guayaquil flight months after the authorities began to pressure her. The notebook was written in the present tense (and alluded to events that happened in 2014, when Correa was in office) but it was actually written in 2018. Prosecutors used "experts" with very dubious credentials. To top off the farce, Correa was condemned for having "psychic influence" over officials. In the written judgement, the part pertinent to Correa only talks about the forged notebook and everything else is testimony after testimony. There was no evidence. The final appeal of the judgement, which is called cassation, was so rushed that it was the shortest in history. I researched it. This appeal took between 11-24 days when for similar cases it has lasted for months and even years. It was rushed to ensure that Correa's conviction was finalized in time to prevent him from running as Andres Arauz's running mate in February of 2021 [when the first round of the election for president and Vice President was held].
That's how what many of us call Lawfare escalated under Moreno. Then they wanted to argue that if Correa could not participate in the election then neither could Andres Arauz. You had an army of supposedly serious constitutionalists in Ecuador–all of them from the right (Ramiro García, Ismael Quintana, Rafael Oyarte)–three supposedly great legal minds inventing on a daily some argument to prevent the ticket of Arauz / Rabascall (who replaced Correa) from getting on the ballot. Cruder things happened, like when the former auditor general Pablo Celi (who is now imprisoned over alleged corruption) gave the electoral council an order to eliminate the Fuerza Compromiso Social party that allowed correístas to join (because under Moreno, Correísmo was never allowed to register its own party). They reached that level of arbitrariness. Legal challenge after challenge tried to prevent the registration of Arauz. The first round was in February, but the participation of the Arauz / Rabascall ticket was not confirmed until December. That kind of thing had not been seen since the return to democracy in 1979.
JE: There were also short term problems, during the campaign, that were related to the tilted playing field. How much limited media time should Arauz spend defending Correa's vilified government instead of talking about proposals for dealing with Ecuador's crisis today? You have a critique of how the short term problems were handled.
DV: I think Arauz's strategy in the first round was very effective, very smart, because it initially proposed the Arauz / Correa ticket. The image of Arauz was placed next to Correa's for as long as possible. That directed the vote of Correa's base towards Arauz, who was relatively unknown. Arauz was a minister during Correa's last years in office years, minister of human talent and culture, but much less in the spotlight than other ministers. That contrasted a bit with other electoral tactics where time constraints that you mentioned played a role. Andrés was a young candidate with little experience dealing with the opposition media.
They attacked Andrés with everything they could. On ECUAVISA [a private network], for example, Lenin Artieda on more than one occasion presented Andrés as the candidate for "de-dollarization". [Ecuador adopted the U.S. dollar as its currency in 2000.] De-dollarization is a fear that has been created–the big fear for Ecuadorians because of this idea that dollarization gave us monetary and price stability. When somebody tells you "this guy opposes dollarization" then it scares people. And of course Arauz had little time to refute such attacks. They repeatedly attacked his intellectual, academic and professional qualifications. They called him the "Lelo"[dumb guy]. They called him a "de-dollarizer" and said that he was going to "lead us to be like Venezuela." Those were the main attacks during the first round. Inexperience in responding hurt him but so did the fact that he was the candidate everyone attacked. That complicated short term tactics.
During the second round things got worse. There were errors in the campaign strategy. On social media I pointed out at least three errors.
One was a slow start. Arauz won the first round (on February 2) but from that point on the campaign cooled down because it was not known whether Yaku Pérez or Guillermo Lasso would be his opponent. Attention was diverted towards the very tight race for second place. After a long run, a person who stops and cools down will sometimes get leg cramps. I think something like that happened with Arauz's campaign.
Lasso, on the other hand, changed his entire team of advisers after the first round. I understand he hired advisers to Xavier Hervas, who finished a surprisingly strong fourth in the first round by reaching young people on platforms such as TikTok. Lasso also hired Jaime Duran Barba, a long-time strategist in Ecuadorian elections. Jaime Duran Barba is known for creating highly effective last minute strategies to pulverize an opponent and generate a surprise win. He brought Mauricio Macri to the presidency of Argentina. Duran Barba deployed strategies that I think Arauz's side unwisely dismissed because at first they seemed like stupid antics. They put Lasso in a pink shirt and red shoes; a guy who has been very formal all his life. That generated a buzz around Lasso as suddenly everyone saw his antics on Tiktok where serious politics isn't what counts. Some of us warned that this was happening, but action was not taken in time. That impacted undecided voters. What started out as twenty point lead for Arauz began diminishing.
Another error occurred in the mandatory debate between Arauz and Lasso. It marked a turning point. If you watch the debate, Andrés Arauz won, especially the first part. And in the rest he remained solid. But Arauz came to the debate to convey his message regardless of what his rival said. Lasso did the same. The difference is that Arauz's message focused on his policy proposals, while Lasso's message was "Andres, don't lie again." He repeated it no less than 10 times.
JE: It was planned in order to produce a hashtag to spread though social media after the debate.
DV: Exactly. Lasso didn't come to win the debate but to place a time bomb that would later explode against Arauz on social media. It's notable that every time Lasso used that "Andres, don't lie again" catchphrase, he didn't say it to respond to lies, but to truths. Arauz confronted Lasso by telling him that he supported Moreno's laws. That was true. Arauz told him that Lasso's party (CREO) voted in favor of a tax that Lasso later said he would eliminate. That was true. But thanks to social media the cynical "Andres don't lie again" refrain proved to be a masterful trick. Arauz made the mistake of ignoring it during the debate. Andres's lack of experience for this type of combat showed there. This was a dirty fight. Andrés is an excellent debater, but this was mudslinging that Arauz was not used to confronting.
After the debate, attacks on Arauz came with sniper precision. First the hashtag "Andrés don't lie again." Then a rotten attack (which marked the peak of the dirty campaign) on Arauz's professional credentials.
At the age of 20, Arauz won a public contest (in 2006, before Correa came to power) to be an analyst at the Central Bank. They turned that amazing achievement into something shady. It was insinuated that the contest had been rigged. They'd ask "how does a 20-year-old boy who had no degree [which was false] or experience win that contest?"
They also tarnished Arauz's image by distorting and falsifying the facts about periods of unpaid leave that Andrés requested while he was with the Central Bank. He took these during Correa's time in office to accept promotions within Correa's government which is perfectly legal. And when the Correa government ended, he took unpaid leave from the bank to work on his doctorate in Mexico. This was twisted in such a Machiavellian way by Lasso's campaign that they convinced many people that Andres had been paid by the Central Bank without working–an utter lie. When he was officially dismissed by the bank in 2020, he was given $27,000 severance pay, and it was claimed this was pay he received despite not having worked. The lies were refuted by Andrés and numerous supporters. The problem was that the attacks were of such magnitude that responses were ineffectual. These attacks had so much echo in the private press and social media that it was not possible to recover from that, especially due to another error made not really by Arauz's campaign, but by many of his supporters on social media.
They tried to sling mud back at Lasso: saying that Lasso had ties to organizations that had been hit with pedophilia scandals; that Lasso tried to buy a [public] bank (Banco del Pacifico) twelve years ago –which was true- thereby revealing his interest in accumulating financial power; that Lasso had paid Moreno's brother $500,000 in 2015 –and there is evidence for that- to say that Moreno's co-optation happened much earlier than 2017. All of these allegations, although backed by some truthful documentation, no longer had any effect. If you have two campaigns slinging mud, the one with more capacity to throw it will triumph. And Lasso had all the financial and media power of Ecuador behind him.
Another error was in managing the distance with between Arauz and Correa. I think Arauz's initial strategy was designed to win in the first round. And to win in the first round he needed to project that closeness with Correa. Even in the slogans they used Arauz was identified with Correa. The main campaign slogan read: "We already have a president, President Andrés. Vote with party one, Rafael is in one"
JE: The electoral authorities (CNE) also prohibited Arauz from using Correa's image and voice in television spots.
DV: They prohibited Arauz but allowed Lasso to use the image of Correa and Arauz with Moreno. It showed how dirty and biased the CNE was in selectively applying its own ruling. But during the second round, a strategy based on linking to Correa became insufficient. A mistake was made based on a superficial analysis of the behavior and emotions of the voter. In the first round they played up that closeness of Arauz to Correa, but in the second round, to capture the votes of the undecideds, they distanced him. But that distance came off as artificial. It also created a lot of dismay within the base because many said "well, why are you moving away from Correa?" With all the emotional impact of Moreno's betrayal still fresh, I think that was very damaging.
In addition to generating alarm within the Correista vote, I believe it conveyed artificiality, a lack of authenticity that diminishes a candidate's appeal in general.
It would have been interesting to see Correa and Arauz debate issues where they have differences to refute this image of Arauz as Correa's puppet that Lasso's campaign wanted to impose. But instead the "puppet" attack was handled very poorly, so badly that rumors of estrangement, ruptures, and resentments between different wings of correismo were generated. And this continues until now with this idea that some speak about of "Correismo without Correa."
JE: I thought an interview Arauz gave on a right wing show (Hora25) late in the campaign might have propelled him to victory. The format–him fielding numerous very detailed policy questions–really allowed him to shine.
DV: Yes. It was excellent. Unfortunately it was at the last minute. I said from the beginning that Andrés' advisers did not allow him to be himself. I have known Andrés for 10 years. He is a passionate candidate. He is not like Correa. He is another type of politician, but he is an extremely technical person, very clear and convincing. I think advisers convinced him to play a role, a character. I think they told him not to explain "very complicated" things, to always use simple language, to avoid contradicting people and to focus only on placing his message. That all obscured his true personality. During the campaign, I did not see the Andrés I knew. If I perceived that artificiality then I imagine others did. The only time I saw the Andrés I knew was in that Hora25 interview. If Andrés had ignored the advisers, if he had been the sarcastic technician, highly effective in argumentation, unafraid of contradicting anyone, unconcerned about differentiating himself from Correa, simply showing what he is, then I think he would have crushed Lasso. Lasso was also playing a character, but again, if you do that, it favors the campaign with more resources to pull it off.
JE: Can you explain the election results in provinces where Arauz did very well compared to those where he did not?
DV: There is a factor that I think has not been talked about much. There are provinces where Arauz won by a landslide and others where it was the opposite. I have a hypothesis. I think it has a lot to do with whether or not a certain province faced a recent crisis and what public perception was (in that province) of the state's management of that crisis. In provinces such as those on the coast in Correa's last years he faced two types of crises. First, the floods, and second the earthquake that destroyed a large part of Manabí and Esmeraldas in 2016. Those provinces were able to see first-hand what it meant to have a state that took strong action. When there was the earthquake, Correa travelled all over the devastated areas, organized the entire relief effort that supplied medicines and food. So much so that the provinces where Arauz had the most support were precisely Manabí and Esmeraldas. Correa's enemies said he stole the money from the earthquake. If that had been true, Arauz should have received the least support in those areas, but it was the other way around. People know how to recognize good public service. There is an appreciation that turns into electoral support. I maintain that something similar happened in the rest of the provinces (also on the coast) that faced floods.
Correa's built dams referred to as multipurpose flood containment. They were located at strategic points where rivers overflowed in times of heavy rain and wiped out entire crops and ruined farmers. These structures prevented floods during the rainy season, and stored the water so that during dry seasons it would help reduce volatility in short-cycle agricultural production.
I believe that coastal provinces appreciated the active state that Correa gave them. Then you have other provinces where the presence of the state was also felt but perceived it in a negative way. This is the case of certain border provinces with Colombia or Peru that depend on cross-border trade, such as Carchi and Loja.
In 2015, when the price of oil fell drastically, there were currency devaluations in our neighboring countries: Colombia and Peru. These devaluations made Ecuadorian products more expensive relative to our neighbors' products. They generated waves of consumers who went to buy all they could–even toilet paper–in border cities. This caused an unexpected outflow of dollars that put a lot of pressure on the dollarized system of Ecuador, especially in 2015 when various factors reduced the inflow of dollars to the country. There was the need to impose restrictions on border trade. The border provinces objected because what many did was go buy in Colombia or Peru and sell in Ecuador taking advantage of the difference in prices. They experienced the presence of the state but perceived it in a negative way. So in provinces like Carchi and Loja Arauz's vote was very low–like 32-36%.
Then there is a third group of provinces: the Central Highlands (Sierra Central) and the Amazon, those where indigenous nationalities have influence. There you have two figures who were key: Jaime Vargas (president of CONAIE) and Leónidas Iza. These two figures played high profile roles in the anti-austerity protests of October 2019. They were the visible face of the indigenous movement. That was the first social reaction that managed to put a brake on Moreno's rightwing agenda, because until then Moreno targeted correismo to squash protests. They could not do that with the indigenous protesters because 10,000 came to the capital and stayed for about 15 days generating social pressure. The government had to roll back the infamous decree 883 that raised the price of fuel. It was the first time Moreno backed down. This re-legitimized the indigenous movement that had been weakened by its past deals with the right. So correismo was no longer the only force that represented the left. And that was seen in the first round votes in the provinces of the Sierra Central and Amazonia. The fall in votes for Correismo (compared to 2017) corresponded to an increase in votes for the indigenous movement.
JE: There was also an unusually high number of spoiled ("nulo") ballots in the second round election compared to previous years that probably came from left-leaning voters who have become indifferent or hostile towards Correismo?
DV: Yes, there was already a heterogeneity within progressive voters just because of this smear campaign that has permeated part of the population. There are progressives who do not identify with the Citizens Revolution–sometimes because there are demands that the Citizen Revolution has failed to integrate, for example environmental demands. Let us remember that there was a lot of pressure in Correa's time from certain environmental groups, sometimes manipulated and sometimes manipulative as well. Groups like Yasunidos and Acción Ecológica. They are NGOs that, although they present themselves as radical environmentalists, in practice they have been very useful to the elite. Both Acción Ecológica and Yasunidos played a very visible role in the media in Correa's last years to reduce his political capital. But despite the fact that Moreno took numerous actions to expand the extraction of oil, and even though Moreno tricked them into supporting a key 2018 referendum by including a question about Yasuni National Park that was a total scam, neither Acción Ecológica nor the Yasunidos played any noticeable role in the demonstrations against Moreno. Why?
Perhaps they demonstrated, but since the media were not interested in weakening Moreno, they were not giving them any coverage. If they protested they went totally unnoticed. In their own eyes, they may have always been against power, but since their influence depends on the media spotlight, in practice they were used to weaken progressive forces.
JE: Iza and Vargas of CONAIE still vilify Correa's government (even though Vargas endorsed Arauz a week before the election). The media terrain remaining what it is in Ecuador, I see that as a big problem. Going forward, Correaists will want to win over left-leaning voters who don't identify with Correa, so they don't want public skirmishes with Iza, Vargas or other CONAIE leaders. But I don't think they can ignore all attacks on Correa's government. I fear that will fracture their base rather than expand it through a "correismo without Correa" stance.
DV: Yes, in fact those attacks come from 2019 and in 2020 there were several skirmishes. Correa always answered them. That they talk about repression and corruption, always attacking Correismo, is something that cannot be ignored no matter how much you'd like a better relationship with those leaders. On social media, not only Correa, but many supporters of the Citizen Revolution always responded to the attacks by Iza and Vargas. That changed a bit during the election campaign. Iza and Vargas were more cautious–and Vargas even endorsed Arauz. There are some who think that was a bad thing because Vargas has a lot of opposition in Pichincha province, where Arauz needed to win votes. Vargas' support may well have hurt Arauz more than it benefited him. And once the campaign was over, political considerations changed. Leonidas Iza is interested in being president of CONAIE where Correa has a lot of opposition, so it is very possible that Iza's rhetoric will once again become aggressive against correismo. Iza is an educated and intelligent guy but right now he is advancing his own political agenda.
Regarding "Correismo without Correa" you have to look at the subject without passion. There is a faction of the left that on some issues–such as abortion–are more radical than Correa. They see Correa as a limitation due to certain conservative aspects of his rhetoric. In addition, due to his 10 years in office and his confrontational style, Correa has a lot of opposition in 30% or perhaps 40% of the electorate. If a left faction sees reasons for wanting to distance themselves, and to form a separate movement, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But they should not do so by taking advantage of Correa's political capital. That's unethical.
JE: Yes and it's also wrong to contribute in any way to the vilification of Correa and his government when it's the basis for ongoing persecution. I'd add that Correa's approach of responding to attacks has a downside, but so does not responding.
DV: Correa must be understood in his historical moment. He arrived shortly after the banking system collapse of 1999 that wiped out the savings of half the population. It was a process of impoverishment and simultaneous enrichment of certain financial groups (who are now back in power). That generated outrage because of the impunity with which the bankers, especially, acted. They broke the economy and nothing happened to them. A few fled the country, but overall the power of the financial elite was strengthened. Correa arrived with a message of restoring rights that had been trampled, of empowering the Ecuadorian migrants abroad who were among the main victims of the crisis, of making bankers pay taxes and holding them accountable for the financial collapse. So he projected the strength of someone who would confront those who hand plundered the country. I think it was the leadership that Ecuador needed at that time, and in his decade in office, to clean up the causes of the 1999 crisis.
But during that decade aspirations began changing. Needs were changing. We went from requiring that the state be present (actually doing something useful) to requiring a state that did things better, with less delay and bureaucracy. The generation that put Correa in power had effectively lived without a state. It's the generation that lived through the financial collapse of 1999. In contrast, the generation that grew up with Correa did not live in that country. They grew up in a country with a state and the media convinced them that the state was the problem. I know several former state scholarship winners who hate Correa, who complain bitterly about bureaucratic delays regarding their scholarship money. They don't know what it was like to grow up in a country without such scholarships at all. But as things change, it's also possible that the image that Correa projected in the past is not the ideal one for today's Ecuador. Perhaps his approach to politics needs to change in order to address demands that were not a priority when he arrived. Any leader has to change with the times. And those who say that this change has to be done without Correa, well, they're free to go their own way, but not by seizing political capital that they have not built.
JE: Can you talk a bit more about the bad relationship between Correa and many of the leaders of the largest indigenous confederation, CONAIE. I have never seen compelling argument that Correa is at fault for the problems.
DV: I think that both sides made mistakes. Correa reached out to CONAIE in 2006. When he went to the second round that year, he called for an alliance with CONAIE but they rejected it. Why? Because the betrayal of Lucio Gutiérrez [President from 2003-5] was very fresh. They threw their support behind Gutiérrez and he betrayed them within 3 months. He did a lot of damage to the movement's credibility. At first, the relationship between CONAIE and Correa was distant but not acrimonious. It became so due to media pressure. They began protesting Correa's government and there were police errors, as in Dayuma. Other demonstrations where led by Yaku Pérez and videos spread where he was seen getting roughed up with his partner Manuela Picq. And the private media did all it could to portray any police excesses as "Correa's orders" to repress. The insulting rhetoric of some CONAIE leaders such as Salvador Quishpe, Lourdes Tiban, Humberto Cholango (who later became an official in Moreno's government) was reflected in the nature of other demonstrations, where tires were burned, roads were blocked and even civilians and police forces were attacked.
Correa believes development requires a strong state where we are all subject to the rule of law–as we should be. In some demonstrations, backed by the media and some NGOs, significant violence was generated, and the perpetrators had to be held accountable. Of course, the media claimed "Correa persecutes the indigenous." Compare that with how the same press depicted the indigenous demonstrations of October 2019 against Moreno: "criminals who want to destroy Quito". The nefarious role that the media has played in all this is clear. That said, mistakes were made. Perhaps there could have been more flexibility. We continue to pay the cost of the bad relationship today. Perhaps with the new national assembly members and the presence of Arauz, a progressive rapprochement could take place. But that won't happen if Pachakutik (CONAIE's electoral wing) continues to ally itself with Lasso's rightwing parliamentary bloc as it did between 2017 and 2021.
Unfortunately, the strengthening of CONAIE–deserved or not–by the October 2019 protests ended up harming the progressive cause. I say "deserved or not" because although they momentarily put the brakes on Moreno, their demands ultimately came to almost nothing. They called for the removal of both Interior Minister M. Paula Romo and Defense Minister Oswaldo Jarrín (both architects of the October repression) and asked that fuel subsidies be maintained. But fuel prices did end up rising. Romo remained a minister for a year after October, almost until the end of Moreno's government. Jarrín is still there to this day. So what did the October protests achieve?
JE: I think the persecution of Correaists will continue under Lasso. What do you think?
DV: Good question. We all want it to end. I think there are factors that differentiate Lasso from Moreno even though Moreno largely applied Lasso's policies since 2017. Lasso's bloc in the National Assembly supported nine out of ten laws proposed by Moreno. The blocs that supported Moreno in recent years were CREO (Lasso's party), the Social Christians and other right-wing groups including the fake left of Pachakutik. Hopefully the new Pachakutik bloc, with 24 assembly members, will play a less shameful role. But despite those similarities, Lasso does not have the same personal tension, the level of hatred that Moreno's betrayal of Correa unleashed.
The other factor is that Lasso is not interested in making the same mistakes Moreno did. Moreno said he hated those who voted for him in 2017. He said that to gain the appreciation of those who voted against him. He ended up hated by almost everyone. I don't think Lasso wants that. I think he has smarter advisers. So Lasso may actually want to decrease polarization.
The problem is that Moreno's repressive apparatus is still there. The prosecutor who went after Correa for "psychic influence" is still there. The authorities they put in place to "dismantle correismo" are still there. So even if Lasso washes his hands of it, a sword of Damocles remains over Correismo. And in moments of social tension, if Lasso raises taxes, or raises transportation prices, political persecution can quickly reactivate.
About David Villamar
David Villamar is an Ecuadorian economist and mathematician.
About Joe Emersberger
Joe Emersberger is an engineer, a member of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union, and a UNIFOR member with Ecuadorian roots who writes on issues in South and Central America. He lives and works in Windsor, Ontario. Follow him at @rosendo_joe.
2021 Election 2nd Round Elections Andres Arauz David Villamar Featured Guillermo Lasso
Star Trek: Progressivism and corporatism don't mix (part 1)
America hasn't reckoned with the coup that blasted the Black middle class
Also by David Villamar, Joe Emersberger
The media myth of 'once prosperous' and democratic Venezuela before Chávez by Joe Emersberger, Justin Podur August 28, 2021
Saab case shows Western media's casual acceptance of U.S. atrocities by Joe Emersberger July 23, 2021
Lessons, dangers and dilemmas for Correismo after Ecuador's election by David Villamar, Joe Emersberger May 06, 2021
To Western Media, prosecuting Bolivian coup leaders is worse than leading a coup by Joe Emersberger March 25, 2021
Also By Joe Emersberger in Monthly Review Magazine
The Guaidó Era June 01, 2021
Books By Joe Emersberger
Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela July 04, 2021

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Holdings: Receipt For Money Transfer, Favor Of: John McGarrity, February 25, 1897.
Receipt For Money Transfer, Favor Of: John McGarrity, February 25, 1897.
OM I 1/10/2s: receipt for money transfer, drawn on Messrs. Henderson Brothers, in the amount of one pound, with "Katie" handwritten on back.


Death is a reality that everyone is bound to face. Every religion has its own concept of the essentials of death. The Islamic tradition textually outlines the concepts of death vividly. In this lecture the speaker covers the concept of death in Islam, as well as the journey of the soul upon parting.
In this video Yusuf Estes discusses the three questions that are asked in the grave.
A brief explanation of how the Muslims view death.
In this series Ahmed Sidky explains the chronological occurrences of the journey of the hereafter. He uses the listener's imagination to maximize the benefit from the reminder.


white hamper cabinet laundry hamper cabinet tilt out dual compartment clothe organizer storage white white laundry hamper cabinet.
1000 watt solar panel system mono or poly watt solar energy system complete solar power system with battery and harbor freight 1000 watt solar panel kit 1000 watt solar panel kit off grid.
kidde carbon monoxide alarm kn cob ic kn cob carbon monoxide alarm front kidde carbon monoxide detector kn cob ic manual kidde smoke and carbon monoxide alarm kn cosm iba manual.
replacement freezer shelf refrigerator samsung american fridge freezer replacement parts samsung fridge freezer spare parts australia.
corner cabinets bathroom corner gloss white mirror cabinet x corner bathroom cabinet with mirror and light tall bathroom corner cabinets with mirror.
aquasource toilet tank lid replacement toilet parts replacement parts for avalanche two piece toilets tank models toilet parts home ideas minecraft home appetizer ideas.
floating solar powered pond fountain articles 2 hp majestic pond fountain in a pond.
coolaroo shade cloth rolls sun coolaroo outdoor fabric roll shade cloth coolaroo medium shade fabric roll.
oil mat for under car top view oil mat car.


text:
Chih-Wei Hu (; born November 4, 1993) is a Taiwanese professional baseball pitcher for the Uni-President Lions of the Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL). He has played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the Tampa Bay Rays.

Career

Minnesota Twins

Hu was signed by the Minnesota Twins organization as an international free agent on August 3, 2012. He made his professional debut in 2013 with the Gulf Coast Twins, posting a 2.45 ERA in 12 appearances. In 2014, he pitched with the rookie-level Elizabethton Twins and Single-A Cedar Rapids Kernels, logging a cumulative 8–2 record and 2.15 ERA in 13 games, 12 of them starts. Hu began the 2015 season with the High-A Fort Myers Miracle, and also pitched in 1 game for the Triple-A Rochester Red Wings.

Tampa Bay Rays

On July 31, 2015, the Twins traded Hu and Alexis Tapia to the Tampa Bay Rays in exchange for Kevin Jepsen. He finished the year with the High-A Charlotte Stone Crabs, but struggled to an 0–3 record and 7.36 ERA in 5 games. In 2016, Hu split the season between the Double-A Montgomery Biscuits and the Triple-A Durham Bulls, recording a 7–9 record and 2.75 ERA with 114 strikeouts in 147.1 innings of work. Hu was named to the roster of the World team for the 2016 All-Star Futures Game. The Rays added him to their 40-man roster after the season.

Hu began the 2017 season with Durham before being promoted to the major leagues for the first time on April 23. He made his MLB debut the following day, pitching a scoreless innings of relief against the Baltimore Orioles. He finished his rookie season with a 1–1 record and 2.70 ERA with 9 strikeouts in 10.0 innings of work across 6 appearances. In 2018, Hu spent the majority of the year in Durham, but recorded a 4.15 ERA in 5 appearances with the Rays.

Cleveland Indians
On November 19, 2018, Hu was traded to the Cleveland Indians in exchange for minor league infielder Gionti Turner. Hu was assigned to the Triple-A Columbus Clippers to begin the 2019 season. On July 3, 2019, he was designated for assignment by the Indians without having appeared in a game for the team. He was outrighted to Columbus, and later demoted to the Double-A Akron RubberDucks before being released by the Indians on July 30.

Chicago Cubs
On August 8, 2019, Hu signed a minor league contract with the Chicago Cubs organization. He finished the year in Chicago's minor league system, posting a 2–2 record between the Triple-A Iowa Cubs and the Double-A Tennessee Smokies. On November 4, 2019, he elected free agency.

San Diego Padres
On December 19, 2019, Hu signed a minor league contract with the San Diego Padres organization. Hu did not play in a game in 2020 due to the cancellation of the minor league season because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On November 2, 2020, he elected free agency.

In June 2021, an unnamed team in Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) made an offer to sign Hu, but the amount was not enough to convince Hu to go overseas and he did not sign with the team.

Uni-President Lions
On July 1, 2021, Hu announced that he would enter the mid-season draft in the Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL). He was selected fourth overall by the Uni-President Lions.

International career
He played for Chinese Taipei at the 2014 Asian Games.

See also
 List of Major League Baseball players from Taiwan

References

External links

1993 births
Living people
Akron RubberDucks players
Asian Games medalists in baseball
Asian Games silver medalists for Chinese Taipei
Baseball players at the 2014 Asian Games
Baseball players from Taichung
Cedar Rapids Kernels players
Columbus Clippers players
Durham Bulls players
Elizabethton Twins players
Fort Myers Miracle players
Gulf Coast Twins players
Iowa Cubs players
Major League Baseball pitchers
Major League Baseball players from Taiwan
Mayos de Navojoa players
Medalists at the 2014 Asian Games
Montgomery Biscuits players
Taiwanese expatriate baseball players in the United States
Tampa Bay Rays players
Tennessee Smokies players
Rochester Red Wings players
Taiwanese expatriate baseball players in Mexico
2023 World Baseball Classic players

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


If something is holding you back, identify it. Once it's revealed you can do something about it, because in the meantime, it's a distractive force, keeping you from the path to your dream.
This distraction can also be a wake-up call, reminding you that you really need to sign up for that class, learn more about marketing, sharpen or hone your public speaking skills. You might be held back by a reluctance to open important communicate with someone close to you. Holding onto resentments, or living in the past is self-defeating and a drain on your energy resources necessary to live your best life now and in the future.
You may need more energy in order to pursue what you love at a higher level. Maybe you need to lose weight, get more rest, take care of a health concern, or resolve issues of anxiety, or depression.
If you have a dream you want to pursue, first identify what is in your way, and do something immediately to begin the process of resolving and healing what is in your way, or begin to build your skills so you can enlarge your capacity to receive what it is you dream of.
The process is internal at first. You might need to get organized in your mind, by learning to focus and concentrate, and then you will be able to organize your life around you. Almost all of us feel unorganized in some region of our lives. Build the standards of structure that allow you to focus on something important. Our brains function the best for 50 minutes to one hour at a time before a break is helpful. Give yourself an hour to write, paint, take a class, make the phone calls, whatever it is that you need to do to build toward your dream.
recreation, and it becomes harder to get down to the business of finding the true fulfillment you seek through a life of purpose and contribution – through your dream – that special gift you were given to do.
The change you want to see in your life will come from your own self-approval, formed through the daily habit of focused attention toward your goals.
Live as high as your thinking can take you, with confidence faith and certainty that you will reach your goals. You are teaching yourself the valuable tool of belief.
Give your best to what you do. Take the time necessary to complete each task well.
It is by getting into the spirit of your dream that you put your individual touch on it. You give it that special something which makes your work unique, and separates your expertise from anyone else.
When you get in the spirit of the thing you are going after, you give your best ot the world, you develop knowledge and skill, you practice and hone and progress in incremental steps. You grow in the job you are doing until it becomes as fascinating to others as it is to you.
Think the highest thoughts you can, live in harmony and do your best, and you will set yourself apart in your field of interest. Be in love with what you do and it will show. You activate the Law of Attraction when you daily practice doing what you love, and acquiring the fulfillment of doing one thing well.


Rural Studio, Lacaton & Vassal, Sarah Wigglesworth, Jorge Mario Jauregui, Eko Prawoto, Santiago Cirugeda, Nina Maritz, Giorgio Goffi.
Michael Rakowitz, Dré Wapenaar, Krzysztof Wodicko.
A bilingual Guide to Frugal Art and Architecture will be published on the occasion of the event. The guide will illustrate the most important and emblematic examples at the international level. The itinerary will include both the forerunners (from Buckminster Fuller to Paolo Soleri, Hassan Fathy, Nader Khalili, from Vito Acconci to Mario Merz and Gordon Matta-Clark), as well as the contemporary protagonists.
In modern Western society, the principles of frugality, sustainability, under-consumption and eco-compatibility can be found at the base of a new culture of ethical and responsible development that is re-directing research in the fields of architecture, design and the arts. Solutions to issues of building and production at accessible costs – with limited wasting of resources, the best possible use of natural and local materials, or the recycling of those available – are defining entirely new scenarios and opening the doors to new markets. What is more, the issue of housing is now more urgent than ever, and shared by the vast majority of the world's population. The number of people living precariously is destined to grow rapidly in the coming decades, forcing us to radically modify systems of production, techniques of intervening and building technologies.
Buildings constructed using leftover materials and limited resources and budgets are important due to their vast potential and positive social effects. In fact these buildings are economically accessible even to the poorest communities, often directly involved in the construction process, offering them the opportunity to learn and experiment.
Frugal architecture is an international phenomenon, though not yet globalised: it does not reproduce at the planetary scale a single, hegemonous model, but defers to locally available resources and the needs of the community. Since the mid 1900's, contemporary artistic research has also matured a sensibility and interest towards themes of sustainability and social responsibility, adopting a principle of frugality that has often produced results and practical examples – the construction of refuges, temporary dwellings and, in some cases, the reorganisation of entire neighbourhoods, as part of a collaboration between artists and the local population. Contemporary art, above all in its Italian and American versions of Arte Povera and Process Art as well as the host of "environmental" hypotheses, has often blazed a trail for architecture and in any case provided invaluable ideas. In the same manner, many sectors of the design industry are now demonstrating growing attention to sustainable production: industries and designers are proposing objects and furnishings that are produced by reusing existing elements, using eco-compatible or recycled materials. These methods, while maintaining high levels of functions and aesthetics, promote a new ethic that is opposed to the "throw-away" practices of consumerism.