Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Plame Case - Rove Overboard | Main | Twenty Two Plame Indictments - How It Could Happen »

October 08, 2005

Comments

clarice

Exactly, Cecil. Let's pound the last nail in that coffin.

clarice

Cecil--you are exactly right the WH was behind the curve and that was because the story was fake.

TM surely someone on the Committee could have leaked.How would her name have come up? He denied that his wife was involved in his first trip (though not an issue at that point), but on the assumption that he is a stupid braggart who keeps puffing his experience he may have mentioned the 1999 trip as to which I've never seen him deny his wife's involvement.(The SCCI report says flatly she recommended him for it).

kim

So far the trend of recent discoveries is to support the idea that Joe's wife's name was on everybody's lips. Early.

I also suspect Fitz knew about the June conversation between Libby and Miller. It is a classic trap for the unwary to move the questioning antegrade.
=============================================

kim

Did Judy remember, or was it remembered for her by the 'discovery' of the 6/23 notes?

And again: Discovered where and by whom, dare I suggest why? And when? How am I supposed to write this story when I know nothing?
==================================================

kim

I mean the most important pearl of his story and it appears, poof, like magic.

Fetch me my slippers, Toto, I've had it.
========================================

clarice

Just a small point , TM. I suggested earlier that the June meeting with Judy may not have shown up in the discovery responses from th e WH because it was face to face and not in the WH visitor or phone logs. And from the report of her testimony, it does appear that the meeting was at lunch outside the WH.

Thus, there is no evidence that the WH failed to produce documentation of the meeting because they had none.And since Judy was not obligated to provide documents from June, she did nothing improper either.

kim

Maybe not improper, but probably unwise. I think It's become obvious that Fitz has suspected for awhile that the criminality is before July. So he didn't have to have direct knowledge of a June meeting to suspect it.
===============================================

clarice

Kim, discovery requests detail what you must produce. They are not suggestions. There is nothing improper or unwise about responding only to the request. This is a formal legal proceeding, not an Oprah show.

If you are a witness, the same rule is prudent. Just answer the damned questions and do not riff onto anything else.

kim

Would you say it was prudent of Judy to not mention the June conversation earlier to Fitz?
============================================

kim

I guess the answer to that depends on whether she is guilty or innocent.
===========================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame