Buy Rove, Sell Libby

David Johnston of the NY Times delivers some good news/bad news atmospherics on the Plame investigation. [And I red-pen Murray Waas in the UPDATE].

As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

Well.  Subject to the caveat that most of the leaks have come from attorneys sympathetic to various Administration officials, and keeping in mind that Fitzgerald may have a lot of evidence we have not seen, let me say this - Karl Rove's problems with the Matt Cooper phone call are trivial, and Fitzgerald will only hit Rove with that if he is desperate to charge Rove with something and is prepared to lose at trial.

Libby, on the other hand, seems to have a serious disclosure problem.

Let's review Rove's case and have some fun with the Times:

Mr. Rove did not tell the grand jury about his phone conversation with Mr. Cooper until months into the leak investigation, long after he had testified about his conversation with Mr. Novak, the lawyers said. Later, Mr. Rove said he had not recalled the conversation with Mr. Cooper until the discovery of an e-mail message about it that he sent to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. But Mr. Fitzgerald has remained skeptical about the omission, the lawyers said.

Fitzgerald is skeptical of the omission?  I am skeptical of the omission by the DoJ of Matt Cooper in the initial document request which failed to turn up the Rove-Hadley e-mail - the DoJ singled out White House contacts with "reporters Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps, or Robert D. Novak" but not Matt Cooper of TIME.

A subsequent set of subpoenas issued by Fitzgerald specifically cited e-mails amongst the White House Iraq Group; the Rove-Hadley e-mail was found at that time by Rove's attorney (per Isikoff), and Rove marched in under his own power to correct his testimony.  By itself, this looks pretty minor, although Fitzgerald might use it as a tack-on charge to something else, or he might use it if he is charging a larger conspiracy.

Ahh, but Libby?  Here is the Times version:

In Mr. Libby's case, Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on his statements about how he first learned of Ms. Wilson's identity, the lawyers said. Mr. Libby has said that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters. But Mr. Fitzgerald may have doubts about his account because the journalists who have been publicly identified as having talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide the name, that they could not recall what had been said or that they had discussed unrelated subjects.

That let's Libby off easy.  To recap Libby's problem:

(1) he almost certainly did not testify about his June 23 meeting in the EOB with Judy Miller (it was not cited in Miller's subpoena and Miller seemed to catch Fitzgerald by surprise when she brought it up). [Also, Murray Waas says so on OCt 11, then rows back here. Puzzling; see UPDATE].

(2)  his "Aspen" letter to Judy talked about how everything would be fine if everyone testified about the July conversations.  Could that have been coaching the witness?

(3)  Four reporters worked out waivers with Libby relatively quickly, but Miller's took over a year.  One might wonder whether Libby did not want her to testify.

(4)  Other reports tell us that Libby claims to have learned about Wilson's wife from Russert in July.  But Ms. Miller claims that Libby mentioned Wilson's wife at their June 23 meeting.  Now, Ms. Miller's account is hazy, she may not be a compelling witness, and she may simply be wrong.

But taking the four points together, a troubling pattern is obvious, and the innocent "I forgot, and Judy misunderstood the waiver" may not be acceptable to Fitzgerald.  Again, I am guessing that Fitzgerald would only charge Libby with perjury and obstruction if he also brought other charges.

Well, the good news - if the only charges are perjury and obstruction, unless Fitzgerald has a lot more evidence Rove will walk.

The amusing atmospheric is here, coming from "lawyers involved in the case":

Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy...

Do tell.

UPDATE:  Per Murray Waas, Judy Miller remembered the June 23 meeting when she was confronted with the sign-in logs.  OK, we had wondered how this meeting could have been missed by phone logs, day planners, and the like, and now we are even more curious - wouldn't the sign-in log mention the person Ms. Miller was visiting?  So wouldn't Fitzgerald have asked Libby about this? 

Well, per the new Waas, apparently Libby *was* asked about it:

As National Journal reported on October 11, Libby also did not disclose the June 23 meeting to investigators and the grand jury until he was pressed on the issue.

Huh?  The Oct 11 article reported nothing of the sort.  What it said was this:

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation.

Nothing about Libby being pressed about a June 23 meeting - Fitzgerald didn't know to ask about it, per this account, which lacks the detail about the Secret Service logs.

Now, the Oct 11 piece relies on "disclose" and that word does leave open the possibility that Libby testified about a June 23 meeting after being specifically asked.  But that can't be squared with the idea that Fitzgerald only learned about the June 23 meeting days ago.

Why didn't Judy's subpoena cite a June 23 meeting?  We would like to get dates for Libby's grand jury appearances.  If he testifed after her court brawl began that might explain her subpoena.

And this would seem to make the possible witness-coaching even more troubling, if Libby and Fitzgerald both knew about a June 23 meeting.

MORE:  At TradeSports, Rove is trading at a 52% chance of indictment; Libby is at 77%.

WHERE IS THE CREDIBILITY?

The Times tackles Joe Wilson thusly:

According to lawyers in the case, the prosecutor has examined how each man learned of Ms. Wilson, and questioned them in grand jury appearances about their conversations with reporters, how they learned Ms. Wilson's name and her C.I.A. employment and whether the discussions were part of an effort to undermine the credibility of her husband, a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Mr. Wilson had become an irritant to the administration in the late spring and early summer of 2003 even before he went public as a critic of the war in Iraq by writing a July 6, 2003 Op-Ed article in The New York Times.

In that article he wrote that he had traveled to Africa in 2002 to explore the accuracy of intelligence reports that suggested Iraq might have tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson said that he had been sent on the trip by the C.I.A. after Mr. Cheney's office raised questions about one such report, but that he found it unlikely that any sale had taken place.

Dare we ask - how did Mr. Wilson become an irritant?  The Washington Post recently explained that a May 6 2003 Nick Kristof column, with Wilson as an anonymous source, caught the Administration's eye because it suggested that Cheney's office had requested an investigation and ignored the result.  Of course, other claims in that Kristof column were also false, but if the Times explained that, they might feel obliged to explain why the Adminstration was so keen to "undermine the credibility" of Joe Wilson.

But for some reason, the Times slid right past that bit of their own history.  Just as they slid past Nick Kristof in their opus explaining the Judy Miller story, thereby prompting my whining in point (5) of this post.

 

Comments

[pollyusa]

Wondering if you saw the New Waas article

Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

[Sue]

So, if Fitzgerald indicts on everything but the 'outing' of Valerie Plame, once again the crime is the cover up. You would think by now people would learn that valuable lesson. It will also be a shame that 2 years will have been spent creating the crime.

[clarice]

Well, if the Prosecutor asked Miller about the June 23 meeting, do you think he didn't ask Libby about it? And if his recollection is as vague as Miller's was, what's the basis for the chrage? It certainly doesn't seem that Plame/Flame/Wilson were the main subject of the meeting.Judy said she doesn't actually recall is those notations related to Libby or someone else or whether she used those wrong names in an effort to get him to reveal her real name.

Pheh

[clarice]

should read--"she doesn't recall IF..."

[pollyusa]

clarice

This is what Waas has on Libby.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 meeting to investigators and the grand jury until he was pressed on the issue.

[Keith]

An unrelated thought (sort of): everything we know now, Fitz probably knew last year. At the very least, he knew enough details a year ago from this date that, if they were leaked, would have started a political firestorm.

A year ago, we were a couple weeks from an election. If Fitz had wanted to derail Bush's reelection chances, he could have. The fact that not a single leak came out speaks highly of him.

[clarice]

polly, well Judy seems to have forgotten about it, too according to waas.

Was it as forgettable a meeting for her as it was for him? Apparently.

If Fitz is indicting him for forgetting about a meeting that even Judy can't confirm involved a leak about Plame/Flame/Victoria must he indict her, too? LOL

TM may be right that Libby's position is more precarious than Rove's but it's only relative,I think. I'd not plunk down my money at Tradesports.

[Jeff]

TM - You really do have to read the Waas piece. And clarice, I hope you were not among the commenters earlier in the day laughing at the prospect of the prosecution having to use Miller as a witness. The shoe now appears to be on the other -- Libby's -- foot, as you suggest Miller as a corroborating witness for Libby. That should be fun.

[Keith]

I'd like to agree that Rove is a "buy", but I just can't shake the feeling that it's looking worse than the facts that we know.

Ever since he testified, Rove has been hiding out of the limelight. That might be due to the fact that he's just waiting out the process, but it might also be due to the fact that he had a rough time on Friday and felt like things weren't looking good. He had to get a feeling one way or the other how it was looking after his testimony, and I take it that he didn't get any encouraging signs. Fitz was evidently hard on him.

That mood, according to the WP, is pervasive in the White House. I think if they had cause for optimism from inside leaks (and you'd think they'd have some, from the DOJ), that they wouldn't be so gloomy. But they are.

It just doesn't look good to me. I hope I'm wrong.

[TCO]

Your 4 points re Libby and the concern over so many things that are questionable was first cited by a certain commenter...

[Lesley]

I've got a dumb question.

Judy Miller has told her side of the story to the press which seems to call Libby's testimony (which we haven't heard) into question.

How do we know Judy Miller is telling the truth or that her notes weren't doctored?

[Keith]

Does anyone know if it would be common to receive a target letter this late in the game? For example, would it be normal at this point for Rove to receive one, if he hadn't received one before?

Just wondering. Josh Marshall thinks the NYTimes piece means "target letter." But it seems strange to receive one this late, unless Friday sealed the deal for Rove.

[clarice]

Jeff--If Miller is the only witness Fitz has on Libby, the case is too weak to bring. Don't believe me? Reread her article.

What I said is that (a)Libby testified first. And it appears that he said something about that meeting after which (b) the prosecutor pressed Judy about it. But nothing she said is clear enough to contradict anything I can imagine Libby saying.

[clarice]

Does Josh have any notion why lawyers for other witnesses would know if Rove or Libby got a target letter. or why if they know that they didn't use that description? LOL

[Syl]

"undermine the credibility"

You mean it wasn't an attempt to out his wife as revenge?

[macranger]

Yeah, and to use an overused term, you can indict a ham sandwitch, but from what we know - and that's very little, about this case there wasn't any effort to deceive or obstruct by Rove and Libby or anyone else in the White House.

Hell, when you look at it Rove and Libby had been to the courthouse so many times they had their own parking spaces! Months before Rove's celebrated and MSM hyperventilated fourth visit to the Grand Jury, he had volunteered to return.

Sorry, while not always the case, in my 20 some years of playing with GJ's, people who cooperate and volunteer to testify aren't usually the one's who get indicted. A little read of GJ witness rules would do some good.

It's usually those who stand on the periphery pointing fingers and who you don't see making more than one visit who are usually the indictees.

And just a little legalnote - Fitzgerald doesn't make the decision to indict, the jury does.

Remember how many juries Mr. Earle had to "shop around".

[Reg Jones]

TM:

1. Re Rove/Perjury:
Wouldn't the special counsel's logic have to be:"Rove remembered the 2 minute conversation with Cooper but forgot about the e-mail documenting it."

Ok, possible. But isn't it more probable he forgot about both events?

2. Mishandling of Classified Info:
Does anyone know the law? Isn't there something beyond the Espionage Act for "mishandling"? What's the standard of proof? Intent? Negligence?

[macranger]

Trade on this...

No one has received a target letter.

[TM]

Boy, if the Times couldn't think to type the word "target", they need to fold up. I am assuming they are not total idiots.

And a target letter now - why? Only a week ago, Josh was telling us that they are only for some special situations involving grand jury testimony, and now they are sent out after the testimony is finished?

I need help on the two Waas articles - something strikes me as a glaring contradiction. Next comment.

[Neo]

Returning with the regualrity of an unwanted season, "He [Joe Wilson] said he hoped that the Iraqi constitution vote had failed, not because he wanted to see the administration fail but because he believed a negative vote would cause America and others to rethink their strategy and ``go back to the drawing board.'' "

Joe seems to have a knack for being obnoxious at best.

[TexasToast]

Josh is jumping the gun

[TexasToast]

Tom

Is your contradiction the "apparently" with respect to the June 23 meeting? I suspect the new article supercedes the older one on that point....

[Keith]

Good point, TM. If the Times had the chance to break the target letter news, then they would have. Unless their sources demanded that they not use those words, so as to not tick off Fitz.

[TM]

The new Waas:

Secret Service Records Prompted Key Miller Testimony

...As National Journal reported on October 11, Libby also did not disclose the June 23 meeting to investigators and the grand jury until he was pressed on the issue.

Ok, so maybe Murray is riding a distinction between "disclosed" and "testified", which is fair enough. But here is Oct 11:

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said.

OK, so far maybe we are meant to read (between the lines) that Libby did not volunteer the info, but eventualy admitted to a June 23 meeting.

But here is the next paragraph:

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation.

Well, we now know that this is not quite right - Fitzgerald knew about something happening with Miller on June 23 from the logs.

But where in the Oct 11 story does it say that Libby testified "when pressed"?

[clarice]

Keith, there is no evidence that Rove is "hiding out of the limelight". The rumor started a few weekends ago when he wasn't at some event but he was away visiting colleges with his son. He seems to be living just as he alwasys did--12-14 hour days at the WH, interrupted only by gj appearances.

[Keith]

Clarice, I was just going off last Saturday's cancelled event, and the fact that he hasn't done any this week. He might not have had any scheduled--I don't know. I'm just trying to read the tone of all the articles today: NYTimes, WP, Powerline, Fineman, etc. People who are supposedly "in the know" (or at least claim to be) are taking a glass half empty approach on Rove and are all expecting indictments. Now, they all might be seeing what they want to see, and they all might be taking uneducated guesses (at least compared to TM). Who knows?

[clarice]

TM--You are exactly right. I just read the Oct 11 report twice and there is not a single word in it of Libby testifying at all about the June 23 meeting. Nothing. No "after pressed".Nada.

Of course, I question where he got two "sources familiar with Libby's sworn testimony," too.

[Syl]

If Libby 'testified when pressed' that would be prior to Fitz even knowing about what the heck Libby was talking about, if Fitz only learned of June 23rd a few days ago. All of Libby's testimony was before Judy's appearance.

It seems Fitz had to 'press' both Libby and Judy about June 23rd. Fitz had the logs a long time ago.

All kinds of permutations of forgetting, accidentally or on purpose, and or obstruction on Libby's part (aspens) can be posited out of that fact. Only conjecture. We can't be sure of exactly what either said, or how they hedged, or didn't.

What concerns me is the narrative the GJ has worked out, and if what they received re the conversation on the 23rd means a lot or a lot more...to them.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I see we think alike. I just finished a post puzzling over Waas' latest account. Fitzgerald's letter to Tate on Sept. 12 clearly indicates that Libby has only testified twice (both in 2004) and only about two conversations (both in July). So if Fitzgerald "pressed" Libby about the June conversation, it had to be AFTER Sept. 12. And probably after September 30 given the Libby-friendly leak on the eve of Miller's testimony (which didn't mention the June conversation). So did Libby manage to testify in the last few weeks without anyone noticing? My bet is that Fitzgerald had a private proffer session with Libby to hear his side of the story AFTER Miller testified. I think Waas (or his source) may be using the term "testify" loosely.

[Syl]

Okay.

I see.

[PaulS]

I'm struggling to see how the NYT piece offers anything that wasn't already either in the public record or assumed.

[Dave S in VaBeach]

“Lawyers involved in the case” is so vague that it could refer to lawyers representing any number of journalists who have been interviewed by Fitzgerald. Which means these “lawyers involved in the case” may not be all that sympathetic to Rove and Libby. Consider that if these lawyers are part of either the special prosecutor’s team or a part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team that they could have confirmed or denied that target letters had been sent by the special prosecutor to Rove or Libby. But they didn’t. And the NYT piece is written as though these “lawyers involved in the case” weren’t even asked if target letters had been sent. I suspect that’s because there is no sense in asking someone a question who would have no idea what the answer is. Reporting an 'I dunno' would have undermined the entire authoritative premise that the NYT is relying on for its piece.

Instead it was said that Rove and Libby had “been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” That sounds like an answer from people who are not in a position to know whether target letters have been sent – i.e. lawyers who are not part of the special prosecutor’s team and who are not part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team. Further, any time a person is brought before a grand jury to testify in a case where he is not given assurances that he will not be prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that he would be warned that it is possible that he could fall into “serious legal jeopardy” by the statements he makes. Sounds rather boilerplate.

If these lawyers that the NYT used as its source had been asked about target letters and they had refused to comment that could have been reported too. After all, the NYT did report on other lawyers who are in a position to know about target letters when it wrote in the same piece: “Lawyers for the two men [Rove and Libby] declined to comment on their legal status.”

But a 'no comment' from "lawyers involved in the case" would have made no sense considering all the other 'inside' information they had divulged. An answer of 'no comment' would have undermined the piece almost as bad as an answer of 'I dunno'. So the NYT didn't ask lawyers who were in no position to know.

[clarice]

Is it possible that Judy held up reporting her version of her testimony until after Libby was questioned about the June 23 meeting at the request of the SP? I seem to recall a delay of a day or two?

[PaulS]

What's know, I wonder, about the number and indentity of the grand jury members?

Whatever Fitzgerald decides, if he decides anything, perhaps the grand jury won't be willing to sign of if the facts are as fragementaty and inconclusive as they appear.

[Syl]

Something occurred to me and I just posted a comment a couple threads below.

Those logs.

Do we know what dates the original subpoena for the logs covered? I would imagine those dates would be in July.

If so, then Fitz must have requested further logs from an earlier period to get the June 23 entires.

If so, what/whose testimony caused Fitz to do so?

And when?

[clarice]

Judy last testified on October 12. Her story didn't run until Oct 16. If Libby wasn't questioned about the June meeting in 2004, I'd bet he was between Oct 12 and Oct 16 and that Miller held up her story at the SP request so they could interview Libby before he got to read her version of her testimony.

[Syl]

clarice

Sounds plausible.

Libby possibly was never questioned about the June 23rd meeting before because Fitz didn't know about it himself.

But somewhere between Libby's testimony and Judith's, Fitz obtained the June logs.

Why?

[clarice]

There's probably a better description of which WH records the sp subpoenaed. Here's the first one I could find and it doesn't seem to cover stuff going to June 23.

{quote]The Long Island, N.Y., newspaper Newsday, which first reported details of the subpoenas on Friday, said three were issued. In addition to the Air Force One records[of the period about a week before Novak's report when Powell was in Europe and Bush in Africa], the subpoenas sought the July records of an internal task force called the White House Iraq Group, which was created to publicize the threat of Saddam Hussein.

In addition, the grand jury wanted the transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing about Nigeria; a list of who attended a July 16 White House reception in honor of former President Ford's 90th birthday, and records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news organizations.

The subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22. [/quote] http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-03052004-259160.html

I don't know the period of time covered by the subpoena covering WH emails, logs, correspondence, phone records..but it does seem the focus was the period of time between the INR report and Novak's article.

[clarice]

Here's an October 2003 report re the first subpoenas sent to the WH:

[quote]White House press secretary Scott McClellan said White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was notified of the investigation at 8:30 p.m. Monday. Gonzales, in turn, discussed the matter with Bush early Tuesday. Gonzales then sent a memo to White House staffers directing them not to destroy materials that might be relevant.

After receiving a Justice Department letter detailing the scope of its inquiry, Gonzales sent out a second memo at day's end, directing White House staff to retain e-mails, telephone records, computer discs, notes and diary entries relating to:

• Wilson or his wife's "purported relationship" with the CIA.

• Wilson's 2002 travels, on behalf of the CIA, to Niger.

• Contacts with syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times and reporter Knut Royce and bureau chief Timothy Phelps, both of Newsday, a Long Island newspaper.

"You must preserve all documents relating, in any way, directly or indirectly, to these subjects," Gonzales wrote, "even if there would be a question whether the document would be a presidential or federal record or even if its destruction might otherwise be permitted[/quote] http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/01leak.html;COXnetJSessionID=17wHG2AdbvjS6C3794GMr8F7WLXLPvrPpoJb3JP0Z2TX0KSFMCSA!-1658899440?urac=n&urvf=10650705995390.5623828396500169

Neither the 2003 nor the 2004 subpoenas seem to cover visitor logs in june of 2003 and if Libby had no notes of the conversation there'd have been no paper about the meeting with Miller produced.

[Syl]

Thanks for that info, clarice.

(I can't get to google. In fact I'm having a hard time getting to many places on the West Coast from the East Coast at the moment.)

Anyway, something triggered Fitz interest in the June period. Conjecture alert: testimony from another reporter may have indicated discussing info with Miller in June.

Which probably means nothing more than the fact Fitz has testimony from someone else who spoke to Miller re the subject.

[Lesley]

PLAME TO FILE CIVIL LAWSUIT AGAINST BUSH ADM OFFICIALS FOR RUINING HER CAREER

"There is no question that her privacy has been invaded. She was almost by definition the ultimate private person," said the couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf.

Wolf said the couple would make a final decision on filing a lawsuit after special prosecutor Patick Fitzgerald has completed his investigation." - Salon -

Oh goodie.

[Cecil Turner]

What Dave and Paul said: nothing new here.

All right, I need some exercise. Let's speculate . . . about . . . Murray Waas. To quote some cogent comments:

• [Oct 11] As to Waas - yes, he had had good sources, but that lead paragraph pretty clearly attributes that "Plame operative" info to people not in a position to know it.
• I need help on the two Waas articles - something strikes me as a glaring contradiction.
• Of course, I question where he got two "sources familiar with Libby's sworn testimony," too.
• If so, what/whose testimony caused Fitz to do so?

Chug, chug . . . Waas is talking to Hannah.

[Jeff]

TM and Anonymous Liberal - Swopa was also on the case of the contradiction between Waas' two reports. I don't know what to make of it, but I especially don't know what to make of the scenario where Libby did in fact acknowledge the June 23 meeting. If we assume he did so, and did so before he sent his infamous letter to Miller, why would he seemingly signal to Miller that he only wanted her to testify to the July conversations? The only thing I can imagine is that he wanted to basically set her up in a situation where, once caught, she had to confirm, like him, that it was an eminently forgettable conversation. Let's call it the clarice defense. But that strikes me as convoluted and high-risk to the point of being hard to believe.

[Glenn]

Keith -

Does anyone know if it would be common to receive a target letter this late in the game? For example, would it be normal at this point for Rove to receive one, if he hadn't received one before?

I don't know about common, but I have been involved in a federal prosecution (not as the target, thankfully) and the target letter was received by the person under investigation about 2 weeks before the actual indictments were issued.

The target letter typically invites the recipient to testify before the grand jury to "tell his side", but in the case of Rove and Libby, I'm not sure that would be necessary since they have already done so more than once.

Just wondering. Josh Marshall thinks the NYTimes piece means "target letter." But it seems strange to receive one this late, unless Friday sealed the deal for Rove.

If Marshall is right, the recipients will be indicted. My understanding is that the target letter is equivalent to a notice of intent by the prosecution to obtain an indictment, and we have all heard amusing anecdotes about how easy it is to obtain one.

[kim]

I think the Fitzian tactics now amount to sensing the intent of the pushback on Wilson. I think the last three weeks have demonstrated to him that the White House had no intention of outing Plame, that the press is terminally ignorant and credulous(a potent combo), and that Wilson is crazy. I hope he has uncovered a CIA plot, and I hope he has discovered the origin of the forgeries, but that's gravy.
=================================================

[kim]

Furthermore, if Plame was complicit in Wilson's campaign, then outing would have been legitimate. so was Plame complicit, and if so, did the White House know. There is a duality in my argument, first that the SH was innocent of intent to out, then that they should have outted her if they knew she was complicit. I doubt the latter, or Tenet would have left earlier.

Surely these are in Fitz's mind
==================================================

[TM]

OK, the Anon Lib and I are getting on the same page re the Waas puzzle - Libby talked about a June 23 meeting to investigators (but not the grand jury) *after* Miller testified. This is from the new Waas:

Libby has told federal investigators, according to legal sources familiar with his testimony, that he told Miller at the meeting that he had heard that Wilson's wife had played a role in Wilson being selected for the Niger assignment. But Libby testified regarding both the June 23 and July 8 meeting that he had never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true.

As to subpoenas of visitor logs - that seems so obvious a thing for Fitzgerald to do, I'll bet that they are covered by a separate subpoena directly to the Secret Service (although I don't know Chain of Command issues; the Secret Service is Exec Branch under Treasury, not "directly" under the Pres like the WH staff is). Some research on how this was handled by Starr might clear that up, but it seems like a clear guess.

As to Judy's dramatic confrontation with Fiztgerald over the logs - look, if those logs linked her to Libby, Libby would have been asked about them.

*Best* Case for Libby:

(1) Judy signed in to meet several people, and put some other name on the list.

(2) That person denied having a chat with Judy about Wilson or Iraq.

(3) No one ever thought to ask Libby if he met Miller in June, so he is not on record as having denied it. (Unlikely that there was no general question, however, to which he replied, "As best I recall, I had no other meetings with her".)

(4) (1) to (3) explain why Fitzgerald is blindsided by news of a June meeting.

(5) At the grand jury, Fitzgerald finally asks who she might have seen on June 23. Miller hedges, says she did not prepare testimony for a date not covered by the subpoena, offers to check her notes, and admits that maybe Libby was on her calendar.

That's not even close to perjury; it's barely close to newsworthy, although *maybe* if Fitzgerald did not have proof she was inside the EOB, she would not have volunteered it.

Of course, it is bad for Libby, but maybe no worse than we already thought. How Miller stayed out of his day planner, for example, remains a puzzle.

A worse case for Miller is if the logs cleraly show Miller signed in to meet him, he denied having any relevant exhange with Miller at that time, and Fitzgerald was so trusting he did not even include the June 23 date in the subpoena to verify it with Miller.

Doubtful.

[Cecil Turner]

If we assume he did so, and did so before he sent his infamous letter to Miller, why would he seemingly signal to Miller that he only wanted her to testify to the July conversations?

Is he "signal[ing]"? Or merely describing the timeframe of the conversations as defined by the subpoena:

In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.” [emphasis added]

Hopefully Fitz knew Wilson was leaking back in May '03, yet he apparently narrowed the time of interest from Wilson's bylined article to Novak's. Was that based on testimony, or what he viewed as the most likely leak timeframe? If the latter, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that approach, but blaming others for cooperating seems a bit of a stretch. If the former, the precise question (and Libby's answer) are required to determine how much trouble he's in, but it could be substantial.

But that strikes me as convoluted and high-risk to the point of being hard to believe.

Me too. (On the other hand, that Aspen thing makes me wonder about him.)

[Epphan]

I will put on the tinfoil hat for a second and say that Rove may be playing it "Rovian." If he is cleared by Fitzgerald, he and the White House will get a whole lot of mileage out of all the media having him convicted before the facts come out. The WH will be able to use that as a push-back for whatever comes up in the next three years.

[kim]

That tinfoil hat is lined with silver.
=======================================