Bringing Down The House

Jeff Toobin of The New Yorker comments on the likely strategy of the Lewis Libby defense team in the Plame investigation:

At the trial, Libby’s team will try to undermine the journalists’ credibility by challenging them on everything from sloppy note-taking to evidence of bias. “This guy is on trial for his freedom, and it’s not his job to be worried about the rights of the witnesses against him,” a person close to Libby’s defense team said. “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.”

And how much damage might Libby's team be able to do?  I have no idea, and part of the answer will depend on how much latitude the judge allows the defense in deposing witnesses from the media.  However, as a matter of SPECULATION, readers might be interested in my guesses as to just how badly the Libby trial might damage the stature of the news media.

Are those enough caveats?  Then on to the guesswork - the case can be made that the Libby trial will become the trial of the (new) century and shatter the credibility of the media in a way that makes RatherGate look as embarrassing and unimportant as on on-air sneeze.

Very briefly, here are the three main points:

(1)  It *MAY* be the case that Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell of NBC News are conspiring to conceal misleading and possibly perjured testimony by Tim Russert to Special Counsel Fitzgerald.  Since that testimony was central to the indictment and resignation of the Vice President's Chief of Staff, this little glitch in Russert's testimony has had dramatic (and unforeseen) consequences. 

Their *POSSIBLE* motive - the protection of other sources, possibly including (I am serious) Alan Greenspan and Dick Cheney.

(2)  The NY Times will take a hit when (*IF*) Nick Kristof is forced to admit that he was aware of Valerie Plame's CIA connection prior to the publication of the Novak column, and that he had previously used Ms. Plame as a source for some columns.  Since Mr. Kristof's columns of May 6 and June 13 2003 triggered the Wilson story, his previously undisclosed involvement will raise eyebrows.  To say the least.

(3)  The Washington Post will find another Bob Woodward on their hands when (*IF*) Walter Pincus is forced to admit that the Plame leak he received on July 12 2003 was *not* his first leak of the news that Wilson's wife was at the CIA.  [UPDATE: SUbsequently denied by Pincus to CJR] We will learn (I am *GUESSING*) that Mr. Pincus was apprised of her status through State Department (or possibly CIA) sources back in June 2003.  Why did he keep quiet, and how did the WaPo miss this?  Well, why did Woodward keep quiet?  Source protection.

Are all three of these scenarios going to unfold as I suspect?  Presumably not.  But if the Libby team gets lucky with even one of them, the Libby trial will be deeply problematic for Fitzgerald, and for the media.  And for the rest of us, perhaps these ideas can help some enterprising journalists re-direct their attention and break (or close out) these possible stories.

Clearly the most dramatic allegation I am making involves Russert and Mitchell, so let's start there.

Through the summer of 2005 bloggers picked at and questioned the NBC press release "explaining" Tim Russert's testimony to Fitzgerald:

During the interview, Mr. Russert was asked limited questions by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about a telephone conversation initiated by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, in early July of last year. 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.

Please (said bloggers, not to mention Adam Liptak of the Times) - enough with the surname and the job description ("operative"), and answer a simpler and more relevant question - did you tell Libby anything about Wilson's wife being at the CIA?

Well.  Mr. Russert resolutely avoided that question on his own "Meet The Press".  However, the subject came up twice when he and Brian Williams covered the news of the Libby indictment.  What did Mr. Russert say?

His first pass was this:

TIM RUSSERT, HOST, MSNBC's "MEET THE PRESS": The answer was no. And whether I knew Valerie Plame's name or where she worked as a CIA operative and the answer was, no. And that was the extent of it.

And for a second attempt:

WILLIAMS:  He [Libby] called to complains about some programming.. something that was said or covered on one of our cable news programs...

RUSSERT:  Correct.  And that was the extent of it.  I immediately called the president of NBC News and shared the complaint, which is why it was memorable in my mind.  But to the notion that I was somehow the recipient of the leak, which just wasn't the case, or that I had shared information, which I did not know.  The first time I had heard of Valerie Plame and the fact that she was a CIA operative was when I read Robert Novak's column the following Monday.

Admirably consistent.

The subject was also discussed on the little-known "Tim Russert Show" on CNBC, when Mr. Russert joined with his Washington Bureau colleagues to discuss the Plame investigation.  A transcript is available at Lexis, but I have extensive excerpts here:

RUSSERT: And I am Washington bureau chief, so I was a manager, in effect. He [Lewis Libby] called me to complain about something that he had been watching on MSNBC, and he was rather agitated about it and wanted to make his views known, as a viewer, and I duly noted it and said, `You know, you should call the correspondent directly, or you could call Eric Sorenson'--who was then the head of MSNBC--`or Neal Shapiro'--then head of NBC News--`or I'd be glad to share this information.' I gave him some phone numbers, I believe. He then says that I shared with him the name of Valerie Plame and that she worked for the CIA. I didn't know who Valerie Plame was; I--therefore I didn't know that she could have worked for the CIA. I wish I had. I--Mr. Libby didn't share it with me, although he obviously had confirmed it with other reporters, and to this I wonder why.

The same weak story - he didn't know the name, so he could not have provided any information to Libby.

Baffling.  We will return to the question of just what Mr. Russert told Special Counsel Fitzgerald, but let's stay with this "Tim Russert Show" broadcast for a moment and ponder a related question - regardless of whether he discussed it with Libby, had Mr. Russert heard rumors, allegations, or reports that Wilson's wife was at the CIA?

Andrea Mitchell has been mortifying herself on the Don Imus show trying to disavow her Oct 3, 2003 statement that, among reporters covering the intelligence community and tracking the Niger story, it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife was at the CIA.   

But if she knew, then she might have mentioned it to her boss, Tim Russert.  In fact, this exchange from the "Tim Russert Show" (emp. added) is nonsensical *unless* the reporters involved suspected that there was some sort of "Wilson and wife" backstory:

RUSSERT: Well, that's exactly right. "Meet"--Joe Wilson had been on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, which you [Andrea Mitchell] moderated because I was on vacation.

MITCHELL: And...

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

...RUSSERT: ...when I read it in Novak, boom.

Boom, there it was.  But why?  If Mr. Russert had no knowledge of a "Wilson and Wife" connection, his reaction should have been "Huh?".  What, we wonder, was everybody at NBC trying to figure out in the week before Novak's column?

And if there was something that the NBC newsroom was trying to figure out, Mr. Russert might well have taken the opportunity when Libby called to ask him about it - there is convincing speculation that Libby called to complain about Chris Matthews and his coverage of Wilson, Libby, and the Niger trip, so Mr. Russert would hardly have been changing the topic.

Well.  One might think (As I did) that the question of whether Russert testified that he passed to Libby a tip about a Wilson's wife being at the CIA was rendered moot by the Libby indictment, which address this point directly and repeatedly.  For example:

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. 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...

Emphasis added - evidently, whatever Mr. Russert said was sufficient to convince Mr. Fitzgerald, and the text here refers to "wife" not "Plame".

However... since that indictment, two circumstances have left me wondering about Mr. Russert's testimony.

First, the surprise appearance of Bob Woodward as a mystery leak recipient gave new information about just how far a reporter might go to avoid a subpoena.

And secondly, Ms. Mitchell's two ghastly appearances on Don Imus were wildly unconvincing.  I think she was telling the truth (or at least, was a lot more convincing) in Oct 2003 when she said Ms. Plame's identity was widely known amongst the right subset of reporters.  So why is she backpedaling now?  To avoid a subpoena, like Bob Woodward?

Leaving us where?  The most likely scenario is still that Tim Russert told God's truth to Fitzgerald.  However...

Suppose Mr. Russert had been told by Ms. Mitchell that Wilson's wife was at the CIA.  We can further suppose that she gave him her source, although that is not critical to  this scenario.

Mr. Russert is not thrilled by his obigation to testify to Fitzgerald; if he admits that he passed a tip to Libby, the next question from Mr. Fitzgerald will be obvious - how did Mr. Russert learn that?

Mr. Russert can not claim that Andrea Mitchell is a confidential source, now can he?  So he can go to jail, or give up her name and let her think about the prospect of jail time. 

Or he can waltz around the question and give Mr. Fitzgerald an answer that fools him into thinking he has cooperated.  Is the Special Counsel that dumb, or Mr. Russert that clever?  I find either hard to believe - other accounts say that Fitzgerald is pretty good about asking the same question several times and several ways.  However, Russert only talked to Fitzgerald for twenty to thirty minutes, so he wasn't exactly sweating under the bright lights.  And *maybe* Fitzgerald was not viewing Russert as a hostile witness, and overlooked a cleverly phrased equivocation.

Who knows?  Presumably the transcript would make it clear.

And might Mr. Russert have flat out lied to protect Andrea Mitchell or the rest of the NBC newsroom?  That is probably past the border of "Absurd".  However, one man's perjury is another man's Clintonian dodge - maybe Mr. Russert meant to tell "the truth", delivered his carefully spun version, and slipped it past Fitzgerald.  Now, however, in the cold light of the transcript his attorneys are muttering about perjury.  If you think that is inconceivable, then I don't think that word means what you think it means.

And the motive to take these extreme steps?  Basic source protection may be the full explanation.  However, Ms. Mitchell *may* have an even more dramatic problem, and a greater incentive to avoid questioning by Mr. Fitzgerald.

I happen to believe she was well positioned to receive a leak from sources in the State Department.  But could she have multiple sources? 

Just suppose - what if a senior Administration official wanted to wave the press away from Wilson and the Niger story.  Maybe Gerald Ford's chief of staff mentioned to Gerald Ford's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors that the press was looking in the wrong direction, and told him why.  Improper?  Not necessarily - knowledge of the US political outlook is part of the Fed Chairman's job, yes?  And I bet he has adequate security clearances.

So. *MAYBE* Dick Cheney mentioned it to Alan Greenspan, who passed this nugget to his wife.  I'm not even far out on a limb here - per Newsday, Fitzgerald subpoenaed

a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. The White House at the time announced the reception would honor Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said the event was closed to the press.

Do you suppose that Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, and Ms. Mitchell would all be there?  I bet Alan was.  And wouldn't the former chief of staff appear at his old boss's event?

We have more speculation - Ms. Mitchell admitted on the "Tim Russert Show" that she had been question by FBI investigators, although she has not hastened forward to characterize her cooperation.  In fact, as we noted in this post, she now seems to be, uhh, misremembering the level of her cooperation with the investigation.

Here she is on "Tim Russert", just before James Taranto of the WSJ unearthed the old transcript of her Oct 3, 2003 show:

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.

And here she is on Imus in November:

IMUS:  Have you been subpoenaed?

MITCHELL:  No, no - not at all.

IMUS:  Have you ever - have you talked to Fitzgerald informally?

MITCHELL: No - in no way. I was - I didn't have any knowledge about this. You know, one of the things that happened was that the Washington Post wrote an inaccurate story in the middle of this whole period, saying that I was one of the six people who had been leaked to before the Novak column. And that's how my name first got into this.

Which was not true. They didn't check with me. They didn't call me. I was in the office all day. It was a Sunday. They wrote the story on Monday morning.

"In no way"?  One might have thought that talking to the FBI investigators was a way.  But maybe that interview happened before Mr. Fitzgerald took over the case in Jan 2004.  Cute.

What is up with Andrea Mitchell?  Retracting her statement that Wilson's wife was "widely known" top be at the CIA, ducking away from her own admission that she had cooperated with the investigation -  what is she hiding, and can she hide it from Libby's defense team?

And is she dragging Tim Russert down with her?

Answers would be easy if these two submitted to some questioning from any number of reporters who would be thrilled to give Tim a ratings boost by holding down the top "Meet the Press" chair while Tim plays "guest in the hot seat".  But after two years, answers are still in short supply.

Still with me?  Walter Pincus and Nick Kristof will be quick.  Relatively.

The argument that Walter Pincus received earlier leaks is almost purely speculative, and was triggered by a puzzling NY Times story which mentioned as an aside that:

Mr. Pincus, who has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson from a senior administration official in July...

Written where?  Naturally, the Times won't repsond to my requests for verification of this seemingly simple and innocuous claim, but they did provoke my curiousity.  Here, for example, is what Mr. Pincus wrote in the Nieman Watchdog:

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. 

I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. But I did disclose it in an October 12, 2003 story in The Washington Post.

Nothing about a "first time" there, or anywhere else I can track Mr. Pincus.

Mr. Pincus was all over the Niger trip and the Wilson story in June; he was talking to all the right people at State and CIA, including, we imagine, the person who leaked to Bob Woodward; how did he avoid getting a leak?

And why, as he wrote, did he not believe the July 12 leaker's version of events?  Why did he even have an opinion on whether Wilson's wife was involved in his trip?  Sure, he may have checked around afterwards, but maybe he had already formed an opinion.

These are easy questions if anyone asks them.  But, in the interests of avoiding a subpoena, I suspect they won't be answered by Mr. Pincus.  Well, not until Libby's defense teams wants to chat.

On to Mr. Kristof and home!

Let's keep it short - in the Vanity Fair article made famous by the photo of the loving Wilson couple, we learn this about Joe Wilson's first sit-down with Nick Kristof:

In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.

So Valerie Plame, CIA officer, sat and listened politely while her hubby rattled on about a trip her own department had organized.  Did Mr. Kristof, trained observer, detect by the most subtle of body language that she had heard this before?  Or did she blurt out, "Oh, Joe, we set it up differently, tell the man the right story", like any other wife in the world?  Oh, never mind.

Let's flash forward to October 2003, following the announcement of the criminal referral and the commencement of the Plame leak investigation.  Nick Kristof writes an "Everybody chill" column with these near-confessional moments:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.)

Uh huh.  We have emphasized the obvious weasel words.  For example, I know Mr. Kristof is a Times columnist, but I am unfamiliar with his career; similarly, he may have known Ms. Plame as a CIA analyst without being aware of her glam past.

And if Ms. Plame was never a source for a column, why not just say so?  The particular phrasing leaves one wondering if she was a source for an article about something other than the intelligence community - North Korea's nuclear aspirations, for example.

Here is a bit more:

Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the CIA and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret.

Meaning what?  Her intelligence connections were known but her job was not?  Huh?

One might almost read that as "Folks knew she was at the CIA, but did not know about her past".  Do tell.  And just who was Kristof's source for that?  Hold on, I'm getting a name... Andrea Mitchell?  Or had Mr. Kristof simply heard from several folks about her CIA link?  Why wouldn't he?  As far as the INR was concerned, she was a CIA liason person with nothing to hide.

Oh, well.  One last straw in the wind is this: Nick Kristof broke the story of the mysterious envoy with his May 6 column, and rejoined the effort with columns in June and July of 2003. 

He wrote the "Be Cool" column in Oct 2003, and then - two years of radio silence.  As best I can tell from the Times archives, he did not tackle the subject of the story he broke until just before Mr. Fitzgerald was slated to announce indictments.  His theme then (which included the use of the phrase "Javert") - Special Counsel Fitzgerald had gone too far.

Hmm.  Bob Woodward had a similar view.  He, of course, was criticized for offering his opinion without disclosing his own personal involvement in the case.

Well, maybe back in 2003 Mr. Kristof was advised by an editor that he was a bit too close to this story, and he did essentially what folks say Woodward should have done - lay low.

Again, it is an easy question to ask.  In the interest of avoiding a chat with Mr. Fitzgerald, we assume Mr. Kristof will duck it.  However, his time with the Libby team will come soon enough.

MORE:  Nick Kristof is a roving columnist based in New York and is not part of the Times' Washington desk.  However, this comment from Phil Taubman, Times Washington Bureau Chief, is a comedy classic:

In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists," Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it.

"The answer was generally no," Mr. Taubman said. Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information."

"Generally no"!?!  "Generally no" means partly yes, yes?  Ooops, the Timesman forgot to ask the follow-up!

And anyway, what is this about Judy Miller having casual conversations about Wilson and his wife with government officials, plural?  Yeah, she will be another strong witness for the prosecution.

Oh, this is hard-hitting, cut to the bone journalism, all right.

PLEA FOR HELP:  Fellow bloggers with their personal favorite posts on these topics, don't be shy - those trackbacks are there for a reason.

ALTERNATIVELY:  Russert Is A Victim!  Here is a different theory - Libby, that sly fox, was casting about for an alibi in October 2003 after news of the criminal referral broke.  He needed a reporter he could cite as his source, but who?

He saw Mitchell's statement that the Plame story was widely known, and checked his phone logs.  Imagine his disappointment that he had no calls with Andrea.

Well, his call with Russert would have to do, then - if Mitchell knew, Russert might, right?  So Libby spins a tale that Russert leaked the Plame news to him, figuring that Russert's testimony, whatever it is, will be undercut by Mitchell's story.  Very clever.

Of course, that idea fails to explain Ms. Mitchell's baffling plot-twists on who knew, and her own cooperation.

UPDATE:  On Pincus, from CJR:

This July 12 conversation, Pincus says, was the first time he ever heard of Valerie Plame’s CIA employment. (In previous accounts, he has not been entirely explicit about that point.)

Comments

[danking70]

Kristoff is the weak link. Make him crack and the whole house of cards falls...

[epphan]

TM ate his Wheaties this morning.

I'm not a big fan of folks having to deny every allegation. It's annoying when people conclude that since Bush has not denied there are aiens at Area 51, then there must be Aliens out there...But Russert has made mention many times of the "talk" on the blogs of his involvement, yet always issues a filtered response. If you are going to respond, why not "Libby and I did not discuss anything having to do with this entire situation."? Is it lawyers that insist on a measured answer? If so, why? TM might not have everything correct, but Russert (not to mention the others) are giving half-answers and it will be fun to watch it all unfold. Libby's lawyers will make it about the media one way or another. It may not change the result of a trial, but it will take a few "reporters" down with the ship.

[TM]

TM might not have everything correct...

If I get *anything*, it will be pretty dramatic - amongst Russert, Mitchell, Pincus and Krisof, am I going to go 0 for four?

Time will tell. But Mitchell is near-toast.

[Jeff]

I'm still not buying that Russert is lying -- all of Libby's alleged lies that have been contradicted by the other parties to the conversations and his omissions fit together too well -- but if you're going to go for it, I don't think you need the Cheney-to-Greenspan-to-Mitchell business. Instead, just imagine Mitchell either lied or just was casuistic with investigators in October 2003 (saying either she didn't get a leak at all, or she wasn't one of the six contacted by two top White House officials, it remaining unsaid that her source for a leak was outside the White House) because she wanted to stay out of it and/or because she thought, like Rove and Libby, that Ashcroft was going to effectively strangle the investigation. From that point on, she has to lie, and Russert goes along.

But I still don't buy it. Libby is too consisently contradicted. He's lying, I think.

On another note: you see, don't you, that an implication of the view you are laying out here, regarding not just Mitchell and Russert but also Pincus, Kristof and many others, is that most the reporters involved had to be hoping against indictments, so as not to be dragged into it as they knew they would be. Do you think that colored their coverage, or the coverage of their colleagues?

[Jeff]

Oh yeah, did you see where the Note is reporting that Fitzgerald's grand jury was scheduled to meet this morning at 9:30 a.m. No idea if it did or not, it's unsourced, and I have no heard another word about it.

[kim]

I think, Jeff, that until the election, those reporters didn't think they were going to get dragged into anything. I think it is still dawning on them the trouble they are in for playing with the truth, because they could.
===============================================

[Anonymous Liberal]

TM,

Fascinating speculation. I love it.

Regarding the Russert-Mitchell-Greenspan-Cheney connection, can you think of any scenario under which information traveled the opposite direction through that grapevine? Maybe Libby heard from Cheney who heard from Greenspan who heard from Mitchell that Russert knew about Plame, and that's why Libby--when he was ensnared in the investigation--decided to attribute his information about Plame to Russert, because he was the one reporter he knew had that information at the time, and he knew he could point to a conversation he had with Russert in the right timeframe. Does that make any sense? Probably not, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[kim]

Though the thought of it is exhilarating, I don't think Andrea learnt of Valerie through pillowtalk. I think her slip that 'everyone' knew was honest. Of course, her definition of 'everyone' likely differs from mine. I can't see Alan letting this slip. I can see everyone at Ford's party talking about it, though. Hell, I can even HEAR them talking. Talk about echoes.
===========================================

[steve sturm]

Aside from what TM has written above, I have long thought that Fitzgerald's prosecution was problematic, among other reasons, in that it relied on the testimony of those in the media... a media that is (1) not open to telling all they know, and (2) not well regarded outside the DC social circuit. I continue to think that this is going to come down to a 'Libby said, they said'... and I don't think Libby's attorneys are that far off if they're betting the jury isn't going to be so quick to rely on the likes of Russert, Mitchell and the rest of Fitzgerald's witness lineup.

[maryrose]

Jeff:
I also read the note which used to have tons of coverage of the Fitgerald investigation.Now it just gets a passing mention. I think the net was thrown as far as it could go and that after Woodward and V. Novak's testimony Fitz is now re-evaluating other reporters' statements to be sure they can stand up to prosecutorial scrutiny. I agree with TM, put a fork in Mitchell; she's done ; credibility wise

[kim]

The Note is just catching on to the trouble all its talking point troubadors are in. I'm not talking about the big three, Kristoff-Cooper-Russert, I mean all the suckers who bought and published the meta-narrative from the likes of Joe.
====================================

[Jeff]

steve sturm - Let's not forget Fitzgerald's reliance on the testimony of something like seven current or former Bush administration officials. And it does not make a difference that they are not open to telling all they know and are not that well regarded these days outside rightwing social circuits.

I also continue to believe that Libby's lawyers, since they are lawyers before they are right-wing anti-dread-liberal-MSM hacks (if they are at all), are not planning an anti-MSM defense, but rather a series of fights with journalists, among others, in order to run out the clock until January 2009 at which point Bush will give Libby (and Cheney and who knows who else) his pardon.

In fact, I don't even get what the point of Libby's defense will be in bringing Kristof and Pincus, for example, to the stand. Even if they show that several journalists who cover national security knew about Wilson's wife's CIA affiliation, so what? Is the idea that Libby could have heard about Plame from some other reporter besides Russert and the claim is that Libby just got his journalists mixed up? (Forget that that totally blows TM's whole theory about Mitchell and Russert here.) Or is the idea that it makes it more plausible that RUssert would say something about all the reporters knowing about Plame to Libby? Or is it just to discredit the witnesses, never mind that Libby appears to have lied. Is that the idea? Or is the idea just to put the dread liberal MSM on trial, and damn Scooter Libby? What am I missing?

[The Unbeliever]

All these weasel words, half-denials and such... I think it might be time to start ascribing face value to at least some of the reporters' statements. This theoretical coverup for the sake of dignity is too pat; it requires more intelligence from its actors than the actors seem to have available to them.

[steve sturm]

Jeff: I haven't read the indictment in the last month or so, so my memory might be off on this one...

Fitzgerald's reliance on Administration officials was needed only to establish that Libby knew of Plame - a point Libby's attorney ought to be willing to stipulate to.

Fitzgerald needs the MSM to establish that Libby's conversations with the MSM were not as Libby claimed they were to the FBI and grand jury. Fitzgerald needs the likes of Cooper to testify that Libby was/is lying... which brings Cooper's (wife of big-time Democrat) own credibility into play.

I agree with you that I don't know why Libby's side would call Kristoff and Pincus. Libby wasn't charged with violating secrecy laws, so he doesn't have to worry about proving the extent to which people knew of Plame. All Libby has to do is make the likes of Russert, Cooper and Miller come across as untrustworthy... which, as TM has shown, isn't going to be too hard.

I predict no deal and an acquital on all charges.

[kim]

Jeff, what you are missing is that this was an expertly thrown grenade, which just happens to still be fizzling on the ground.
================================================

[kim]

And Tenet got his medal for throwing himself on it. It just has an extraordinarily, and unexpectedly, long fuse.
=====================================

[TM]

Maybe Libby heard from Cheney who heard from Greenspan who heard from Mitchell that Russert knew about Plame, and that's why Libby--when he was ensnared in the investigation--decided to attribute his information about Plame to Russert...

I'll say this - if Libby was casting about for an alibi and he knew about Mitchell's Oct 3, 2003 statement, that surely lit a path for him.

The timing is easy - does anyone think that the FBI got to Libby before Oct 3?

So, Libby ponders Mitchell's public statement, checks his phone records, and figures, well, Russert must have known, too.

Boy, these arguments can't be as much fun for folks who actually pick a side...

Let me drag Jeff into it:

all of Libby's alleged lies that have been contradicted by the other parties to the conversations and his omissions fit together too well...

Not to be thick, but what lies?

The "Plamed for the very first time" I'll grant.

But isn't it "he said, he said" with Cooper?

And Judy Miller seemed to be vague about the June meeting - per the Times:

But Mr. Libby was already defending Vice President Dick Cheney, saying his boss knew nothing about Mr. Wilson or his findings. Ms. Miller said her notes leave open the possibility that Mr. Libby told her Mr. Wilson's wife might work at the agency.

And this will make compelling testimony when she takes the stand:

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, ''Wife works in bureau?'' I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word ''bureau'' might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

Well. I think Libby is lying about being Plamed in July, but I think he is clever enough to have wrapped his lies around as much truth as possible.

So, with Cooper, if Libby really was sensitive anout the possibility that Plame was classified, maybe he really did source it to reporters (he seems to have misled Fleischer that way, yes?)

Last bit - the idea that Mitchell is simply lying to cover her own false or cute statement to the FBI when she said she was not involved seems like a good one (I'll say that modestly, because I happened to suggest it last November; I am heartened that Jeff hit on it as well.)

I should try and sneak it inb to today's post - I would hate someone to think I actually edited something out.

[Jeff]

steve - At the least, the fact that Libby was talking with all manner of people about Plame across June and July supports the allegation that Libby lied when he testified that he was surprised when he heard about Plame from Russert on July 10, because he was hearing it as new, having supposedly forgotten his conversation with Cheney a month earlier.

As for Cooper in particular, remember that this trial, should it ever happen, will not before a jury of Fox News. So your conspiratorial view of the MSM -- which you astonishly treat as a thing, and a thing that will play a role in this trial -- is irrelevant. I agree that Miller has major credibility problems. And Russert -- well, as a lefty I have approximately the same respect for Russert that you have for Cooper, but I realize that not everyone, not even most likely jurors, will share that view going in, quite the contrary, so undermining his credibility will require work on Libby's lawyers' part.

But again, Libby's alleged lies -- which are contradicted by numerous withnesses -- and omissions all fit together, so the fact that you have numerous people contradicting pieces of it doesn't look good for Libby. As a matter of legal proceedings, not Fox News.

It seriously astonishes me that you could say something like Libby had conversations with the MSM. To me it looks like Libby had conversations with some reporters.

[TM]

Is the idea that Libby could have heard about Plame from some other reporter besides Russert and the claim is that Libby just got his journalists mixed up? (Forget that that totally blows TM's whole theory about Mitchell and Russert here.)

Well, if it was widely known, then Fitzgerald's investigation looks incomplete to the point, maybe, of selective prosecution - lots of folks must have been coy with the truth, so why Libby?

Or, yes, Libby picked the wrong reporter; or he heard from more than one, but Russert stuck in his mind. And yes, it does make Russert's alleged tag that "everyone knew" more plausible.

As to "blowing the whole theory" - just because Kristof knew, it hardly follows that Russert did not.

None of this gets Libby off on the "Plame for the first time" angle, however.

[steve sturm]

Jeff: I could have said that Libby had conversations with Democrats... my point is that the people Fitzgerald needs to convict Libby are (1) on the other side of the ideological aisle and (2) Libby's attorneys are sure to play that up.

And, as I wrote before, not as a partisan, but someone looking for the holes (hey, it's a hobby), from my reading of the indictment, Libby could very well argue that he testified that he was surprised to have heard of Plame from Russert... not because Libby didn't know of Plame, but because he was surprised to be hearing of her from Russert. Perhaps your view of the snippet of the transcript that Fitzgerald included in the indictment is different from mine.

And not everyone on the jury will have to agree with my 'conspiratorial' view of the MSM... just enough to keep Fitzgerald from getting a guilty verdict.

[clarice]

"as if for the very first time",Tom.

Excellent work.

I go back to the notion that lots of people were talking about it then--officially and unofficially--and if Fitz' strongest case is that if Libby was wrong about when he heard this non-secret stuff he has to go to the slammer, he's a fool.

I think that he ploughed new ground with his aggressive tactic of forcing the reporters to reveal their sources (aided by the President's demand his team give waivers and fully cooperate). But the restrictions on that precluded an adquate and fair investigation.

We also know that before Libby told anyone, Wilson told others of his wife's employment at the agenct, and I feel cewrtain that others have now come forward to Fitz , including General Vallely. Certainly, this also has to weigh on his mind for they will be defense witnesses to show that this was, as I think it was, a political gambit and not a national security matter.

[Specter]

Breaking news! We are breaking into this Scandal (what is this #? like #429-2005)to bring you important news from Scandal #457-2005:

Today the Washington Times reports that:

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

It appears that at least two high ranking Demoncrats are being investigated in spite of Howard Dean's assertion from January 8, 2006 that:

This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money...There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

It is important to note that the two senior democrats are some of the people who have refused to give back the money!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled scandal - brought to you by the Demoncratic Party in your town.

[Jeff]

TM - By "Libby's alleged lies," I mean the lies alleged in the indictment. And my point is that while Libby is undoubtedly smart enough to wrap lies in as much truth as possible, he also is smart enough to know which connected bits he has to lie about. And that's what the indicment makes it look like he did. The four basic lies, I take it, are: the conversation with Russert (with two parts: Russert told him about Plame on July 10, and Libby was surprised); he didn't talk about Plame with Miller on July 8; on July 12 with Cooper he sourced his knowledge of Plame to reporters and said he didn't know if it was true; and on that same day he did the same with Miller. Three different reporters contradict Libby on their three discrete bits, which Libby pieced together, but they presumably each only know about their discrete bits, so there is no motivation to contradict Libby on the small bits in order to nail him on the overall narrative. The latter, however, is what the discrete testimony of the three reporters adds up to. If Libby heard about Plame as though for the first time on July 10, he couldn't rightly be telling Miller about her on July 8. So he lies about that. And if Libby thought on July 10 that he was learning about Plame only from what reporters are saying, he can't rightly be confirming for Cooper or leading him believe that Plame worked for the CIA. So he lies about that. Same goes with Miller the same day.

Moreover, if you look at the indictment, it is crucial to Libby's testimony in a number of the counts he's indicted on that he didn't know at the time whether it was true that Plame was affiliated with the CIA. So the fact that there is ample evidence that Libby did know -- the fact that, as you put it, TM, it is a lie that Libby was Plamed for the first time in July -- bolsters the case that he is lying about what he told reporters. Look at the cited testimony on pp. 20-22 of the indictment. Libby goes out of his way to make clear that it was important to him that he told reporters he didn't know if what he'd heard from reporters was true because he didn't know if it was true. But even TM will admit that Libby is lying when he claims he didn't know about Plame until Russert told him on July 12 and that thereafter all he knew was that reporters were saying that Plame worked at the CIA.

You can say that Libby would source it to reporters if he knew the info was classified, to give himself deniability on the Espionage Act. But that's just what I take him to have been doing in claiming only that he'd heard the info too.
'
Finally, what is the reference here:

(he seems to have misled Fleischer that way, yes?)

In the indictment, it says that he told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known. Do you mean he didn't tell Fleischer that it was classified information, in the hopes of laundering the information to the press? I do think that's what he was doing, more or less -- though I suspect either he or someone else signaled to Fleischer that it was classified, given Fleischer's actions later in the week -- but I don't see how that makes it more likely he sourced the info to reporters for other reporters, rather than just confirming it by citing hearsay more generally, which was more effective for both him and Rove.

[Jeff]

steve - you say:

my point is that the people Fitzgerald needs to convict Libby are (1) on the other side of the ideological aisle and (2) Libby's attorneys are sure to play that up.

Incorrect! Cooper I'll buy, but he's also the most believable. Russert and Miller are just not on the other side of the ideological aisle from Scooter.

clarice, you say:

I feel cewrtain that others have now come forward to Fitz , including General Vallely.

Given how well connected you are in neoconservative circles, do tell! Do you "feel certain," or do you know? For my part, I truly hope that brave Vallely has gone under oath and left behind making his allegations against Wilson in right-wing press outlets alone. The same goes for Peretz, May and others.

[clarice]

Because he's a blowhard and a braggart and I do not believe Vallely was his only time.

[kim]

What am I missing here? If Libby only knew of Val as Joe's wife, the news of Plame may have been heard as if for the first time from Russert, who didn't mention the name Mrs. Joe Wilson, but did say Plame. Transcripts, please. C'mon Able Danger. Let's get real here.
=============================================

[larwyn]

Cooper's wife is a Dem activist.

Pincus' wife is at State, isn't she?

Russert's wife is at Vanity Fair.

Mrs. Mitchell Greenspan - GW nominated Bernanke "weeks early" per MSNBC & CNN coverage that day. He wanted a speedy confirmation and he
got it. I thought this was a generous effort on GW's part to allow the old man to step down early if Andrea became headline news. Well, his term winds down
to end. So he will not have to be
public servant if/when the Andrea
story does break.

What is truly amazing to me is that the Left tries to makes saints of the same people who make their living by reporting the secrets of others. To imply that they would not engage in PILLOW TALK just doesn't cut the mustard.
Particularly when the incident and
players could be gossiped about in a comical way. You know a our side
did a "got ya!" on Bushie big time!

[Jeff]

clarice - Ok, but what I was asking is whether you know that Vallely has already come forward to the investigation.

[topsecretk9]

Jeff
I don't know, you seem to know so much of the wrapped package yourself, why do you need Calrice?

[cathyf]

I think Libby is lying about being Plamed [for the very first time] in July, but I think he is clever enough to have wrapped his lies around as much truth as possible.

Well, but that's the whole context thing. Libby context for his testimony is that he is claiming that Russert Plamed him in July, and that when Russert Plamed him then Libby pretended to Russert that he was being Plamed for the very first time. Given that Libby is claiming to be telling the truth about lying or actually pretending that he didn't know about Wilson's wife no actually it was not that he didn't know but that he didn't react at all... Well if I were a defense attorney I would argue that it's difficult to tell the truth about lying without saying something untrue, and that if it came out mangled and the investigators misunderstood Libby, then they were insufficiently diligent about making sure that what Libby was testifying to was what they thought he was testifying to. And that Libby was no more asserting that Russert Plamed him for the first time in July than he was asserting that Judy Miller is a tree when he talked about turning aspens.

And this part comes after the defense has already shown that Fitzgerald's investigations of the journalists' versions of events consisted of playing the 3-monkeys act, or in the case of Miller using her notes as a rohrshack test to project his fantasies upon. So now the defense asserts that Fitzgerald was "obstructed" in his investigation all right, but that he was obstructed by his own decisions (following DoJ guidelines) not to investigate thoroughly and diligently. To belabor an already belabored metaphor, what we had was sand being kicked in the eyes of a blindfolded umpire. And that the umpire had tied on his own blindfold, and tied it on so well that he had no idea who was kicking up sand or not.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. All Libby's defense needs to show is reasonable doubt. The heart of the obstruction charges is about the state of mind of the investigators -- they are claiming that Libby committed a crime by creating a state (obstructed) in the investigation. All the defense needs to show is that the investigators already had that state of mind because they refused to get to the truth about Libby's coversations with the reporters from the reporters.

cathy :-)

[kim]

Joe SixPack and his fellow weedhoppers are on board with that, cathy.
==============================================

[maryrose]

It's obvious to me that Fitzgerald needs to talk to more reporters ex; Pincus, Mitchell, Russert et al and not limit his scope so much. Also Vallely, Cooper again and Kristof, asking specific questions about breakfast meeting. And last but not least, the Wilsons. I f all the posters on this thread have questions about all these allegations obviously Fitz is missing something here. I can't believe he is currently spending all his time getting all his ducks in a row.

[Jeff]

I f all the posters on this thread have questions about all these allegations obviously Fitz is missing something here.

That's rich!

cathy f, have you read the indictment? Is your claim that Libby meant to say that he acted surprised, even though he wasn't, not that he was surprised? Is that his most effective defense?

[kim]

Clarice, Joe yakked it up big time once he was turned in the Spring of '03. But what was the verse? Song of money? Dance of power? Or was it miserable non anonomie?

Oh, it's Springtime in the Rockies.
===========================================

[kim]

Clarice, Joe yakked it up big time once he was turned in the Spring of '03. But what was the verse? Song of money? Dance of power? Or was it miserable non anonomie?

Oh, it's Springtime in the Rockies.
===========================================

[Rick Ballard]

MaryRose,

How long would you want if you were trying to prove that "not well known" = X when X > 2,000. Especially when X could very well include a number of reporters from other than MSM outlets.

The smartest move that Fitzgerald could make is to develop a health problem - say ulcers - and hand the investigation off to some other sucker.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I'll say this - if Libby was casting about for an alibi and he knew about Mitchell's Oct 3, 2003 statement, that surely lit a path for him.

The timing is easy - does anyone think that the FBI got to Libby before Oct 3?

So, Libby ponders Mitchell's public statement, checks his phone records, and figures, well, Russert must have known, too.

Boy, these arguments can't be as much fun for folks who actually pick a side...

Agreed. And I like this line of speculation. Mitchell's statement came right about the time Libby, Rove and others must have been trying to figure out what they were going to tell investigators when they came a knockin'. Maybe Mitchell's statement gave them the idea of attributing their knowledge of Plame to reporters (as opposed to official sources). Libby decided to point to his Russert conversation. Rove decided to say he heard about Plame through cocktail chatter (perhaps at the Greenspan event). Libby probably figured that if Mitchell knew, Russert knew as well and that he'd never testify anyway. Rove knew that Mitchell, who had seemingly confessed to knowing about Plame on TV, was at the Greenspan Gala. That would explain why Fitzgerald subpoenaed the guest list.

Is this making any sense?

[TM]

Maybe Mitchell's statement gave them the idea of attributing their knowledge of Plame to reporters

Well, Rove did have the story told to him by Novak, and Libby had it told to him by Cooper, so the premise that reporters might educate the White House was not daft.

[maryrose]

I agree with Rick; this indictment of Libby has LOSER written all over it. All the defense has to prove is that one or two reporters knew about this in the May June{early timeframe and they have their reasonable doubt.

[cathyf]

cathy f, have you read the indictment? Is your claim that Libby meant to say that he acted surprised, even though he wasn't, not that he was surprised? Is that his most effective defense?

Well, I read the indictment, and the words of Libby (which Fitzgerald plucked out to include) quite specifically did not claim that Libby acted surprised. Libby claimed that he was endeavoring not to react at all. Because, Libby claimed, he was concerned that Russert would take his reaction as a confirmation.

So if the defense can first show that Russert did know about Wilson's wife, then there you have your reasonable doubt -- Libby told investigators how he was trying diligently to not react in order to diligently protect classified information, and he must have done it so darn well that Russert clean forgot the whole Wilson's wife part of the conversation.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Don't you suppose that if Fitz asked Libby straight out "Who was the first person who told you Wuilson's wife worked for the CIA?" and Libby lied in response, we'd have seen that snippet in the indictment? I do. What we get instead is he said/he siad; Miller's mumblings and "as if for the very first time" which I still think is ambiguous.

Frankly, if Fitz gets solid evidence that Wilson lied to him about no one knowing when he yapped it all over the world, he should indict Wilson and drop the case against Libby.

[Jeff]

TM and AL - Murray Waas reported a while back that investigators suspected there might have been a cover story concocted by the players right around the beginning of October 2003, as there are apparently records of phone calls among them. Who the relevant players are he didn't specify, but I assume they would have to include Libby, Rove and Novak. But I don't know that they would need Mitchell to concoct a story that the source of knowledge of Plame was lost in the fog of reportial info-trading.

[topsecretk9]

Well, Rove did have the story told to him by Novak, and Libby had it told to him by Cooper, so the premise that reporters might educate the White House was not daft.

TM
You heard that too?

[clarice]

Valelly went very public, Jeff. If the prosecutor hasn't contacted him here's how it;ll go in Ct. Valelly testifies. At the end of which Libby's lawyers ask him if he ever publicly disclosed that. He says he has.

That's ewhy I am certain the FBI has talked to him.

And as more names of people Wilson blabbed to come up--And I think they have-- the same drill applies.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Well, Rove did have the story told to him by Novak, and Libby had it told to him by Cooper, so the premise that reporters might educate the White House was not daft.

True, but I suspect Libby knew how Cooper first learned about Plame (via Rove), and I also suspect Rove knew who how Novak learned the information (via Armitage?). The way the woodward revelation played out convinces me of this.

In other words, it's not at all clear to me that it occured to Rove and Libby--at least prior to Mitchell's statetment--that other reporters may have learned about Plame independently or that such information was "widely known in intelligence circles."

[Jeff]

cathyf - Could you explain to me how you get that reading out of the first long passage from Libby cited on p. 18 of the indictment? That is, Libby says he didn't want to seem to be providing confirmation because at that point in time he didn't recall that he had ever known, and he thought this was something that Russert was telling him that he was first learning. And how about on p. 20 where Libby says he was careful to say to Cooper that reporters were telling them (presumably the White House) about Wilson's wife working at the CIA because in his mind he still didn't know it as a fact. That doesn't sound like Libby was saying he told Cooper he was getting it from reporters because he knew it was classified, or anything like that, or even that he knew Plame worked for the CIA.

[maryrose]

I agree with Clarice, and I can't wait to see how this all plays out. Wilson should not get too comfortable out in L.A.

[topsecretk9]

This transcript represent the bone left in the chicken body.

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much--(I knew some, just not everything)--. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

...RUSSERT: ...when I read it in Novak, boom."

I knew Joe Wilson. Knew he had a wife. Knew her to be Valerie Plame. Knew she worked at CIA.

Boom...I had all the pieces, didn't put them together.

The big question at the time, what everyone was trying to figure out was --if Cheney's people are saying he didn't behest ---and we are to believe Cheney (alright then, if you aren't lying) just who then did behest?

[Dwilkers]

"If I get *anything*, it will be pretty dramatic - amongst Russert, Mitchell, Pincus and Krisof, am I going to go 0 for four?

Time will tell. But Mitchell is near-toast."

You take Mitchell, I'll take Kristof.

Mitchell can blubber and giggle about misunderstanding, context, etc. And as TS9 has pointed out she could always plead reporter's tourettes syndrome. In the end, there's nothing on Mitchell except her own blithering.

Kristof can't do that. He met with Wilson and wife for breakfast months before Novak's column - which he has admitted. He also has admitted to knowledge of her and her career far beyond what Novak ever said - although he has claimed that knowledge came later. He's written multiple columns on the subject, each dribbling out a new detail or several, some contradictory.

If I am Libby's lawyer Kristof is going to be a star. I'm going to rip him up one side and down the next, and I'll do it for days on end if necessary.

No thinking person is going to believe that Kristof walked away from that breakfast without knowing who Plame was. My money's on Kristof as "Most Likely to be Ripped to Shreds by Libby's Lawyer".

[maryrose]

Hardball no mention of the fact that of the 5 people being talked about by Abramoff 2 are big time democratic senators Reid and Dorgan. Unfair and Unbalanced MSNBC.