Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« George Will On The Post-DeLay House Reps | Main | Why Not Just Get FISA Warrants? »

January 10, 2006

Comments

clarice

You can find the docs here, TM:
Russert Docs

epphan

Good stuff. Thanks.

Alito who?

Proud Plamaniac since 2005.

Geek, Esq.

Someone should start a bipartisan project to list journalists who actually do their damn job.

TM

Someone should start a bipartisan project to list journalists who actually do their damn job.

Another "World's Shortest Book" entry?

Oh, that's not fair.

Actually, it is a great idea, which can start with a single good deed - just name a few journos you think are doing a good job.

I ought to pick someone at the Times (besides my man Jim Dwyer, who did yeoman work on the Central Park jogger story a few years back.)

Jeff

It's time to leave NBC's silly statement behind, or discern different motives for it than you would like. Libby's indictment is clear. Para. 20 of Count 1:

LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

Para. 33.a.i of Count 1:

Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it;

Again, Para. 4.a of Count 2; Para. 3.a of Count 4.

maryrose

Jeff, That's Russert's story and he's sticking to it. How do we know that these reporters are not in cahoots?

Jeff

You know this line from Fitzgerald's response to Russert's motion has to send a chill down Libby's lawyers' spines, even though earlier Fitzgerald says he's not subpoening (I think) any documents:

On May 20, 2004, counsel for NBC informed the Special Counsel that, while he would agree to preserve any relevant notes, tapes, or other documents, the movant would not agree to provide testimony.

I know it doesn't say there are such tapes, and Libby better hope there aren't.

Thanks for the link, clarice.

Jeff

Liveblogging the documents: speaking of journalists not doing their job, oh man does Fitzgerald nail Russert in footnote 13 on p. 33. It's too long to transcribe, and too good to miss.

Geek, Esq.

I agree on Dwyer.

The WaPo reporter who looked at the CBS TANG 'memos' also did a good job.

Mike Allen of Time, formerly of the Washington Post, is also rock solid. Though, of course, who knows if Karen Tumulty will corrupt him into hackitude.

maryrose

I like Jim Vandehei, I used to like Howard Fineman until he became so partisan. How about Deb Orin?

TM

It's time to leave NBC's silly statement behind, or discern different motives for it than you would like. Libby's indictment is clear. Para. 20 of Count 1:

Hmm, I made that point last November - was it really only two months ago?

With DOUBLE emphasis, we do not know what Mr. Russert said in his deposition for the Special Counsel, and we have no reason to question the veracity or completeness of his presentation. Furthermore, Mr. Fitzgerald *does* know what Mr. Russert said, and produced an indictment. However, based on the transcript we have seen, Mr. Russert may be a terrible witness for the prosecution.

More broadly, we still don't have the answer to a seemingly simple question: What did Tim Russert know about Joe Wilson's wife being at the CIA, and when did he know it?

OK, time to put a hat on and avoid brainfreeze.

Jeff

I look forward to the spectacle of Andrea Mitchell testifying, I really really do. Unfortunately, I doubt it's ever going to happen. Libby's lawyers are going to provoke all kinds of fights with journalists, as well as over classified information, intended to keep the thing from going to trial until January 2009 (admittedly a long ways off, but the Libby defense fund will undoubtedly be able to fund his talented lawyers in their effort to find a way), when Bush will issue the pardon that he and Cheney as good as promised Libby with their love letters to him in their public statements upon Libby's indictment.

maryrose

TM
" What did Russert knoe about Wilson's wife at the CIA and when did he know it /"
the quinticential[ I don't think I spelledthat right{question.

topsecretk9

“There are going to be fights over access to the reporters’ notes, their prior history and credibility, and their interviews with other people. By the time this trial is over, the press is going to regret that this case was ever brought.”

This seems to be a spine chiller (to many) nugget as well.

Lew Clark

Mark Davis, Dallas Morning News. Rock solid to the point that even with his conservative leanings he will go after "our side" when they are wrong.

Back to subject one: Ever since Fitzgerald released the indictment which read as fact, i.e., that Russert did not tell Libby about Plame so Libby was lying when he said he did, I've wondered, was he taking Russert's word for it or does he have other "factual" evidence that supports Russert's version and "proves" Libby lied? Even if, for point of argument, Russert never mentioned Plame or "Wilson's wife", the case is still weak. If Libby argues that over that period of weeks he heard from a lot of reporters and others about Plame (to the point he was convinced her employment was common knowledge) and misremembered Russert’s role (or lack thereof) in the matter. With all the other witnesses Mitchell, Woodward, etc., he should be able to make a good case in his defense.

Jeff

In fairness, Russert's lawyers have a hilariously, deliberately uncomprehending response to Fitzgerald's footnote 13 in footnote 16 on p. 17 of their reply.

topsecret - As I said, I don't think any of that is going to happen. Libby is just going to try to run out the clock. But I don't think anyone outside of the reporters and the conspiracy theorists in the alleys of JOM's comments had their spines chilled by that line.

Lew Clark - your defense wouldn't work, since Libby testified he heard it as new on July 10. So what's he going to say -- my grand jury testimony was indeed false, but only in the sense that I had heard it a bunch of times from reporters earlier than July 10, which I forgot before but remember now, but nevertheless I heard it a bunch of times but didn't remember hearing about it from Cheney during that same time (I remember now) and thought I heard it for the first time on July 10? I think he's got to stick with having heard it from Russert, and not earlier. And then let's not forget all the other witnesses who will be called showing that he was having continuous conversations about Wilson's wife from early June to early July.

cathyf
On May 20, 2004, counsel for NBC informed the Special Counsel that, while he would agree to preserve any relevant notes, tapes, or other documents, the movant would not agree to provide testimony.

I know it doesn't say there are such tapes, and Libby better hope there aren't.

Hmmm... Did Fitzgerald get a FISA warrant for that tap within 72 hours of the Russert-Libby phone call?

cathy :-)

topsecretk9

topsecret - As I said, I don't think any of that is going to happen. Libby is just going to try to run out the clock. But I don't think anyone outside of the reporters and the conspiracy theorists in the alleys of JOM's comments had their spines chilled by that line.

That is of course what you said. We'll see.

Jeff

topsecret - Obviously, I would be thrilled if the trial actually were to happen. And thrilled to see Mitchell, Russert, May, Miller, Novak, Woodward, Peretz, Vallely on the stand under oath. And believe it not, happy to see the Wilsons on the stand, as well as Pincus, Kristof, Tenet, Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rove and so many others.

TM

your defense wouldn't work, since Libby testified he heard it as new on July 10.

The day may come when someone here cracks that nut.

Conjuring reasonable doubt for the rest of Russert's testimony, and Cooper's, is easy. And Judy Miller, with her "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" notebook? Please.

But 'effing Libby killed himself with that "Plamed for the very first time" defense.

Unless... maybe the transcripts will deliver a miracle, and his *precise* words let him wiggle out.

But the indictment didn't work for me.

marianna

Is there any chance of Russert going to jail? I'd love to see Russert and Pincus sharing a cell. Probably it's too much to hope for.

At any rate, this seems to point to further weaknesses in Fitzgerald's case.

Martin Ostrye

See, "If It's Sunday..."
http://www.editorialpaintings.com/pages/2/index.htm

danking70

Jeff,

"I know it doesn't say there are such tapes, and Libby better hope there aren't."

I would add Russert to your line too.

Russert secretly tapes his talks with sources?

It'll be a tough trial for the MSM.

danking70

Journos doing a good job:

Rossert not Russert

Michael Yon (embedded, different class.)

kim

I'd like an honorable mention for Steve Lovelady, still defending the CJR's Burkett forgery article. Surely that deserves some sort of recognition in the annals of journalism.

Anybody notice that Novak affirmed, while regretting disclosing the fact, that Bush knows his source?

I still swear up and down that Fitz's strategy here is to get at the journalists through defense examination. The judo backflip for him is that he may then be able to charge a prosecution witness with something. I'll not speculate on the witness, but there are several lively and quiet candidates. Anybody else wonder if any possible tape of Russert/Libby might exonerate Libby and show Russert to be the sophist that he is? And people think he's funny?

I'm thinking there is dangerable, but unusable politically or legally, data that is being drizzled Fitz's way, as the need presents itself. Retroactive warrants anyone?
=================================================

maryrose

Plame investigation seems to have taken a backseat to other concerns. With Rove still for the left diappointingly unindicted I think the press and msm is finally realizing belatedly that there could be a lot of blowback from the Plame fiasco and that they could be the recipients of it.

Jeff

I still swear up and down that Fitz's strategy here is to get at the journalists through defense examination.

Dream on. I bet the echo chamber never dies, and this is what we'll be hearing with deepest conviction as to its reality should a trial ever happen.

kim

I know it would be bizarre prosecution tactics. This is a bizarre case.
=================================

TM

Filed under "Thinking the Unthinkable":

Early last November I threw in the towel on the "Russert is hiding something" meme, based on the indictment.

Since then, however, we have (a) seen Woodward step forward after two years in hiding to protect his source; and (b) Andrea Mitchell melt down in attempting to retract her statement that the Plame CIA link was widely known among journalists following the story.

What we have not seen is any statement from Russert beyond his robotic, hypnotic insistence that he did not know Plame's name, so therefore he could not have passed that news to Libby.

Why is this so hard for two ace reporters at NBC?

SO, the unthinkable: in summer 2004, Russert decided to play cute with Fitzgerald; he did not lie, but his testimony was, hmm, Clintonian - as a former attorney and current wordsmith, this is well within Russert's scope.

Further, Russert is charismatic, charming, and disarming, and Fitzgerald had no reason to think he was interviewing a witness with something to hide.

On the day that the defense introduces the tyranscript of the Russert testimony, we will find out, but...

Let's imagine Russert danced around the idea that he did not mention Wilson's wife at the CIA to Libby, and managed to leave Fitzgerald wih the false impression that the subject was not discussed (I do not accuse Tim of perjury, exactly, just extreme cuteness). Keep in mind, Russert says he was only interviewed for twenty to thirty minutes, and he told a riveting story about Libby's allegation of anti-Semitism on the part of Chris Matthews - that could be quite distracting.

Why might Russert mislead Fitzgerald?

Because he did not like the alternative - if he admits that he told Libby about Plame, the next question will be, OK, how did you learn that?

The short answer would be, "Andrea Mitchell told me in my capacity as her boss, head of the Washington Bureau". Very hard to invoke source protection or confidentiality there.

Thereafter, Andrea will get subpoenaed and think about jail.

Or, the longer answer - Russert may very well have asked for and been told Mitchell's source. Ahh - jail for both!

So Russert prevaricated, and Fitzgerald fell for it. At the time, it seemed like no big deal to Russert - surely there was more to this case than just Russert v. Libby.

And come Oct. 2005, we find out, surely not - Russert's misleading testimony has become the key to the indictment. OOOPS!

So how does Russert get off the escalator? Good question. Russert's lawyers need to signal that Russert will be a VERY bad witness for Fitzgerald, without tipping that Russert and Mitchell need to cough up a source and without irking Fitzgerald into smacking Tim for perjury. Not easy, but that is why these guys get the big bucks.

And for the rest of us? IF Russert's team can't get the high sign to Fitzgerald then Libby's trial becomes the trial of the (new) century, and results in a debacle for the media that makes RatherGate look like on on-air burp.

Think about it - Russert nearly perjures himself to protect a source, with the result that the VP's chief of staff is indicted and resigns. Andrea Mitchell then goes into the tank as well to maintain the cover-up.

(I'm not even talking about the fireworks when Nick Kristof is forced to admit that, yes, he knew Val was CIA. Heck, the trial mauy have been suspended by then.)

Now, take a breath - this does have a tin-foil element to it.

However - Russert's "denial", repeated twice with Brian Williams and again on his own show, is lame.

Amdrea Mitchell's story is a joke.

And the Woodward example shows that reporters do rank source protection pretty highly.

Set against that - I don't think (offhand) there is any compelling evidence against this, other than common sense and a belief that Russert would have to be crazy or Fitzgerald would have to be stupid.

Which are not bad reasons, since Russert is not crazy and Fitzgerald is not stupid.

But what are the odds? Is there a 25% chance that the case against Libby blows up?

Anyway, feel free to knock this down, or talk me down. Otherwise I'll put in a few links and have a real table-pounder tomorrow.

kim

I commonly enjoy the remark that I can always tell what's in a wrapped package.

It's a puzzle.

But this one might not be for much longer.
================

topsecretk9

Otherwise I'll put in a few links and have a real table-pounder tomorrow.

You tease.

Jeff

TM - Ok, I went back and read some of the sources for your earlier posts -- particularly that CNBC evade-a-thon with Russert and Mitchell, among others right after the indictment -- and the strongest part of the case is Russert's unwillingness just to say straightforwardly that he said nothing about Wilson's wife to Libby. The weakest part of the case is the idea that Fitzgerald was not careful enough with his questioning of Russert to ascertain whether Russert said anything about Wilson's wife, however she was identified, by name or not, and regardless of whether Russert knew her name or not. Other witnesses have reported that Fitzgerald asked questions in numerous different ways to clarify facts like this. And Fitzgerald knows the obstruction-type case against Libby (or at least some of the counts) depends entirely on whether Russert told Libby about Wilson's wife. So I doubt Russert could have gotten away with being super-cute. It's also pretty obvious that Fitzgerald was not disarmed or charmed by Russert (and I must add old Pumpkinhead just isn't charismatic, charming or disarming, he's just smarmy). Recall footnote 16, p. 17 of Fitzgerald's response to Russert's lawyers' effort to squash the subpoena. It's also evident from the lawyerly back-and-forth that was released yesterday that everybody knew what was going on, what Fitzgerald was interested in. Given the fuss over Russert's subpoena, there's no way Russert could have figured this was merely a sideshow, even if he thought Fitzgerald was also still going after the underlying crime and not just obstruction-type offenses.

So basically, Russert would have had to have outright lied, not just been super-cute, with Fitzgerald. In which case it would make no sense to be super-cute on TV, thereby inviting the defense to tee him up for criminal charges of his own (fulfilling kim's dream).

As for motive, I can't believe that even Russert would be stupid and/or arrogant enough to perjure himself in order to avoid Mitchell and possibly himself being asked difficult questions by the prosecutor about sources.

Note that I have not at all invoked Russert's fundamental sympathy with the Bush administration, or those in power, or whatever, and attendant motive to in fact help them out if he could. Would Russert's discrediting and perhaps indictment be a debacle for the media or just for Russert and Russert-style journalism? However good for the republic such discrediting would be, despite the best efforts of right-wing conspiracists to discredit all the non-Fox-bs media because of bad journalism by some individuals and institutions, I still doubt the Libby case will blow up over this. Somewhat less than 25%, I would say. But good luck with the table-pounding.

TM

The weakest part of the case is the idea that Fitzgerald was not careful enough with his questioning of Russert to ascertain whether Russert said anything about Wilson's wife, however she was identified, by name or not, and regardless of whether Russert knew her name or not.

I agree - the indictment clearly cites Wilson's wife, not Plame, as not having been discussed.

So basically, Russert would have had to have outright lied, not just been super-cute, with Fitzgerald. In which case it would make no sense to be super-cute on TV,

Well, Tim might want to pretend that he has never lied to the American people, or his viewers. Since Fitzgerald puts "The People" in "The Peeps v. Libby", that is a bit weak, but maybe Russert figures lying to a prosecutor to protect sources = good; lying to viewers = bad.

As for motive, I can't believe that even Russert would be stupid and/or arrogant enough to perjure himself in order to avoid Mitchell and possibly himself being asked difficult questions by the prosecutor about sources.

I haven't even considered it before today, and I am still not sure I am taking it seriously. OTOH, who is the secret source, and could the answer to that question also provide the motive (maybe he lied to conceal Andrea's leak from, wild *hypothetical* guess, Alan Greenspan! OK, that might be extreme, but the point is, maybe the source really needs protecting).

But beyond his own phony denial there is the Great Andrea Melt Down, which also supports the notion that something is up at NBC.

And a Bonus Crumb - the Times did sniff around for these files, and it would be a HUGE story if they cracked it.

I don't think it would be their style to do so - mutual backscratching is the preferred approach, and what about my man Nick K?

However...

And on further reflection - is the Greenspan guess that crazy? Not that Alan would have been sniffing around for the scoop, but maybe some Admin figure who wanted to get the word to Andrea that Wilson had a backstory was a good bud with Alan (who served as a go-between).

That makes me think of Cheney, natch (they were both in Washington back under Ford, IIRC).

In fact, from Alan's bio:

From 1954 to 1974 and from 1977 to 1987, Dr. Greenspan was Chairman and President of Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., an economic consulting firm in New York City. From 1974 to 1977, he served as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Ford, and from 1981 to 1983, as Chairman of the National Commission on Social Security Reform.

Do tell - Cheney was Ford's chief of staff, following some econ-related posts. Think they met?

Cheney entered federal service in 1969 as a special assistant to the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. In 1971 he became a White House staff assistant, and soon moved on to become assistant director of the Cost of Living Council, where he stayed until 1973. After a year in private business, he returned to the White House to become deputy assistant to President Gerald Ford (1974-75) and then White House chief of staff (1975-77).

Oh, how weird would that be - Russert lied and screwed Libby to protect Andrea, Alan, and Dick C.

My considered guess - that theory has sales appeal.

(Oh, my future as a Kos diarist is BRIGHT! There are, like, NO FACTS here, and ALL SPECULATION!)

But is an interesting idea.

topsecretk9

Other witnesses have reported that Fitzgerald asked questions in numerous different ways to clarify facts like this.

Jeff's right...Fitz and GJ apparently did this with the issue of Welfare Reform and Cooper didn't recall "Welfare Reform" until he did recall after looking at his notes and emails at the time.

So Cooper was either cute or an outright liar

MayBee

TM: (Oh, my future as a Kos diarist is BRIGHT! There are, like, NO FACTS here, and ALL SPECULATION!)

all you are missing is the outrage!

I like and admire Tim Russert and I wouldn't accuse him of anything. I do wonder, though, what would it take for a journalist to choose someone else's career over their own?
If one is going to give away a source that isn't in the hotseat, but doing so would ruin your reputation BUT not doing so will just hang someone that has already testified ridiculously (as if for the first time....) --what does one choose?

If Tim DID know Plame was an agent, and he knew someone on his staff knew, but he didn't know if she/he had told Libby- is he under any obligation to testify about that?

Finally, did you read Vanity Fair about Arianna Huffington? She has a bad past with Russert's wife. Does she go after Russert in bad faith?

clarice

TM, I think your 8:15 post is very plausible.

AS for where Mitchell got it if she were his source, I think someone in DoS is more likely.

clarice

Have to get some sleep leaving early tomorrow--TM youj either have to move to the East Coast or I have to move to the West Coast. There hours are killing me.

I'm going to die until I read that table pounder..DRATS.and Niters.

topsecretk9

TM

In this new theory...you may want to consider Brent Scowcroft, since your talking old Ford Cabinet buddies (and do a Russert/Mithchell/Kristof side by side for fun)

kim

Bear also in mind that in the Summer of '04 it may have looked to Russert like Cheney, Rove, and Fitz were all going to fadeaway in less than a year. He may have thought it worth the risk to preserve the meta-narrative.
===========================================

Kate

Jason is back at it again. I get the feeling reading this that the case against Rove is quite weak, yet Fitzgerald is determined to make it.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00073.htm

TM

I should have linked to it - one of Jason Leopold's recent efforts was so wrong, you had to practically read it while standing on your head to make sense of it.

Well. As an example of tony investigative reporting, I love this:

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place a week or so before Plame Wilson's identity was first revealed in a July 14, 2003, column published by conservative journalist Robert Novak.

"A week or so"? C'mon, it was the Friday before Novak's column came out, which makes it July 11. Rove was about to go on vacation, Novak's column came out on Monday, July 14.

And this, about Novak, is wrong, I am reasonably sure:

...particularly because Rove was a primary source for Novak and Cooper and failed to disclose this fact when he was first questioned by FBI and Justice Department investigators just three months after Plame's identity was leaked.

Boy, I thought Rove mentioned his chat with Novak from the first FBI interview; I also think Rove was surprised to learn that his response to Novak - something like "I heard that, too" - made him Novak's source.

This Murray Waas article from Oct 2005 certainly gives me that impression, anyway.

maryrose

I think the above post is very possible or some scenario where reporters are doing clintonian machinations to minimize their disclosures. It seemed very hush hush when Russert was testifying; we were notified about it almost as an afterthought and no big press was given.

kim

That particular Friday Novak's report may have been on the wire before Rove's conversation with Cooper, and it was after Tenet(one of Novak's sources, by the way) had decided to go public with the Plame news. It is becoming obvious to everyone that the journalists knew more about Plame than the White House did. Soon, someone will tell Fitz, maybe under oath.
============================================

pollyusa

Boy, I thought Rove mentioned his chat with Novak from the first FBI interview


President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
Waas 3/8/04

kim

I hear tables being pounded together in the back room. Listen, Fitz, do you hear it?
==================================================

Jeff

TM - So are you giving up the idea that Russert was super-cute in his testimony with Fitzgerald, and modifying your table-pounding to include the idea that Russert just lied to Fitzgerald? Here's some more evidence that Fitzgerald knows what he's doing, from the transcript of the press conference:

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

I'm not sure I want to encourage you, but I got the impression from Suskind's Paul O'Neill book that the Greenspan-Cheney link is quite strong. Also, it's clear from some of the NBC transcripts from right after July 6, 2003 that Mitchell was hearing nasty things about Joe Wilson from the White House, specifically on July 8 she reported that White House officials were slandering Wilson as a Democratic partisan. Maybe someone in the White House was also telling her about Wilson's wife but telling her not to publish; while at the same time CIA people were telling her that low-level operatives in CPD sent Wilson on his trip, not Tenet or Cheney.

In any case, here's a modified version of your hypothesis (which I don't buy, but anyway), wherein Russert is protecting Mitchell, not a source: Mitchell knew about Wilson's wife, was fingered by the WaPo at the very beginning of October 2003, was contacted by the investigation, lied to the FBI because she didn't want to get involved and reasonably figured, like Rove and Libby, that Ashcroft was going to bury the whole thing so it was going nowhere. But once that lie happened, she was vulnerable -- and criminally vulnerable -- because she had told Russert. So Russert initially hopes to get out of it by being casuistic, swearing that he did not receive a leak (which he did not), and not revealing that he knew about the Wilsons through a non-leak from Mitchell. But then once Fitzgerald starts conducting a real investigation, they're both on the hook if they are going to protect Mitchell and not reveal that she lied to investigators, which is of course a crime.

Jeff

Just read that the grand jury is meeting today.

One other thing to remember about the case against Libby. Most of the charges form a coherent pattern of lying. That is, there are lots of witnesses who contradict the different things that Libby is accused of lying about, and those things fit together, they're not just discrete alleged lies. Even aside from the seven witnesses who will throw doubt on Libby's claim that he was surprised when he heard on July 10 from Russert about Wilson's wife, take, for instance, the alleged lie about Russert and the alleged lie to Cooper: they go together, and are both contradicted by the other parties to the conversations. If Cooper shared Libby's recollection that Libby said he had heard from reporters, it lends more plausibility to Libby's version of the conversation with Russert; similarly, the fact that Cooper contradicts Libby on the key point lends plausibility to the idea that Libby is lying about the Russert conversation. In other words, Libby's story is consistent in detailed ways that are consistently contradicted by the relevant other parties. The same goes for Libby's omissions, especially with regard to his conversations with Miller.

pollyusa

What Jeff said at 9:24

I'll add this from the Libby indictment

The phrasing in the Libby indictment indicates to me that that Fitz asked Russert direct questions about his side of the Libby/Russert conversation.

However, did Russert say anything about "Wilson's wife" being at the CIA?

Fitz himself used "Wilson's wife" when he states in the indictment that Russert did not ask Libby about Plame.

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
Libby Indictment

pollyusa

Libby's story differs from Coopers in that Libby says he told Cooper he had only heard about Plame from reporters(as Jeff mentioned). Libby's story also includes this gem

And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married.
Libby Indictment

which again is not the way Cooper remembers the conversation.

kim

polly, can you think of a few questions Fitz might have for Cooper and Russert, and al, of course? Libby's defense has hundreds.
============================================

Pete

Three cheers for Jeff.

If only TM would analyze Libby's actions with the magnifying glass that he uses for Russert, et al.

kim

If only Fitz would analyze Wilson's actions with the magnifying glass that he uses for Libby.
=============================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame