Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« How Covert Was Valerie Plame? Don't Ask! | Main | Well, I Read It There First... »

February 28, 2006

Comments

Javani

Judge: "Upon closer reflection,"

IOW, "I surfed the web over the weekend"

"Will Judge Walton uphold a defense subpoena to, for example, Bob Woodward, but refuse to order the prosecution to disclose Woodward's previous testimony?"

If it could "sully the reputation" (the judge's own words) of Novak Leaker no. 1 I suspect so.

clarice

Surely, he can subpoena Novak, subpoena him? And since it was probably the same source that Woodward had---

There is no way out of this, frankly. If the evidence is relevant to the defense (and contrary to Fitz, I think it is), sooner or later, he will get to find out and question the source of sources.

clarice

(Something got lost in a fancy editing);

Surely, he can subpoena Novak,get the name of his source and subpoena him? And since it was probably the same source that Woodward had---

ed

Now if Fitzgerald has very little problem compiling these summaries do we take it as a sign that very little happend on those dates that could have influenced Libby's memory?

Or to put it another way, the harder to attain the summaries, the more likely Libby's defense flies?

Patton

Why should Libby agree with the prosecution that the conversations on those days, and only those conversation are pertinent to his defense. Just being difficult.


But on a serious note, I have dealth with classified information and I am surprised that Libby hasn't put forth the notion of 'crossover information'.
That is that when you deal with classified infomation and at the same time, deal with unclassified reading of the news, talking to others, especially reporters which are conversations about sharing information.

BOTTOM LINE: SOMETIMES, IT IS HARD TO RECALL WHETHER YOU HEARD A PIECE OF INFORMATION AS 'CLASSIFIED' OR WHETHER YOU HEARD IT IN THE PUBLIC REALM.

Now that wouldn't be hard with information you know noone knows, but more difficult when dealing with little items of interest.

I would like to know how FITZ will PROVE that Libby not only didn't make a memory mstake, didn't crossover information, but actually INTENDED to lie.

Jim E.

I see that Scooter Libby has hired a memory-loss expert. If his defense is going to rely on the argument that he had a poor memory AND he created new memories, well, good luck Scooter. (Contrary to the postings of many on these threads, Libby isn't just charged with forgeting certain conversations, he's accused of making up entire conversations.)

And in the off-chance that Scooter's memory-loss/fake-memory-creation defense is the God's honest truth of what happened in this case, then I think it's a relief that he's no longer strolling through the corridors of the White House anymore. Our country deserves competent, not confused, people running it.

Jeff

The next biggest loser - well, Fitzgerald argued that the request for the PDBs was "greymail", but the judge is taking it seriously - you make the call!

Just to be clear: the concern about greymail has nothing to do with letting the substance of the PDBs into the trial. Fitzgerald has no problem with that. The concern is that the process of going after the PDBs will, as Judge Walton put it, sabotage the trial. The judge is taking that seriously, per the AP report of Friday's hearing and per his ruling, which sure looks like it's not going to let the PDBs derail the trial. From the AP:

Walton said he is concerned that Libby's request could "sabotage" the case because President Bush probably will invoke executive privilege and refuse to turn over the classified reports.

"The vice president - his boss - said these are the family jewels," the judge said, referring to Cheney's past description of the daily briefings. "If the executive branch says, 'This is too important to the welfare of the nation and we're not going to comply,' the criminal prosecution goes away."

Jeff

Wow, Patton, I have no idea what your post has to do with the case.

cathyf
Libby isn't just charged with forgeting certain conversations, he's accused of making up entire conversations.
...and proving such requires proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the people who don't recall the conversations the same way that Libby recalls them didn't simply forget this and that.

cathy :-)

larwyn

Kelly begins with the PLame Name Game in the media and does a comprehenisve
look currently, including the NYT's suing the DOD.

Jack Kelly's IrishPennants: Plame Name Game


February 28, 2006

The Plame Name Game is getting more and more bizarre

The National Journal's normally sober-minded Stuart Taylor expresses alarm in this article that the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the news media is backfiring on the news media:

A troublesome chain of events began in the summer of 2003, with the White House leaks of the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in the wake of her husband's highly publicized attacks on Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa. The media clamored for an aggressive investigation by a special prosecutor. To their misfortune, they got one: U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, of Chicago.

For decades, federal prosecutors had shied away from subpoenaing reporters. Even after the Supreme Court's 1972 ruling that reporters can be jailed for refusing to disclose their sources, prosecutors assumed that subpoenas would bring them only hostile publicity because reporters would choose jail over betrayal.

But by the time of Fitzgerald's appointment, trust in the media had fallen so far that hostile publicity had lost some of its sting. Then the dogged Fitzgerald showed that the threat of significant jail time can force some big-time reporters to reveal their sources. He also showed that mounting fines and fallout from contempt-of-court citations could force a powerful media company (such as Time magazine) to turn over e-mail records outing a reporter's source. Prosecutors everywhere took note. Taylor worries that:

You'll want to read it all.

Irish Pennants: The Plame Name Game is getting more and more bizarre

larwyn

I did it and sent evidenct to TM
used /b vs /a
Hope that fixes it.
Sorry, sorry, sorry, but read the post by Kelly.

Jim E.

cathyf,

If the defense ends up using their "memory expert," Fitz won't even have the burden of proving anything about the inaccuracies that Libby willfully told. Indeed, at that point, Libby would be conceding that he made up conversations and would be trying to explain them away.

Sue

Mr. E.,

No he wouldn't.

Patton

Jeff: """Wow, Patton, I have no idea what your post has to do with the case."""

Thanks Jeff, now you have confirmed you are completely clueless.

cathyf

Jim E.

Just as likely the "memory expert" could explain to the jury why the reporters forgot.

(As just a hypothetical example... Russert's conversation with Libby was very heated, Libby was accusing Russert and all of the network of anti-semitism. In the middle of Libby's ranting laundry list of network sins was the whole network constantly repeating the Wilson's lies about the VP. (The "whole network" in this case being an angry ranting synonym for Chris Matthews.) Russert was highly emotional and defensive, with his adrenelin-soaked brain cycling quickly through ways to defend himself. Suppose he popped up at this point with a defensive, "no, we don't believe Wilson about Cheney sending him, everybody knows his wife sent him, she's one of those WMD people." Then suppose he spent the next 20 seconds after saying it trying to digest and come up with responses to the 3 or 4 rants that Libby made between the "Cheney behested" rant and Russert's response. A memory expert could explain to the jury that it would be perfectly normal human brain functioning for Russert to clean forget saying anything to Libby about Wilson's behesting, and for him to completely miss Libby's being struck speechless trying not to confirm. Especially if Libby's other accusations were particularly scurrilous and unfair.)

cathy :-)

Patton

Please, Jeff, educate us all on the evidence you are aware of the shows Libby had INTENT to lie??

Wouldn't you need to show:

1) Evidence that Libby knew at the time what he was saying wasn't true.

2) Evidence that Libby was engaged in a conspiracy? Which I guess your going to prove he was conspiring to out an agent who he didn't know was classified.

3). Evidence that Libby tried to cover up his supposed lies to the FBI before the Grand Jury. Unfortunatley, he admitted under oath to the Grand jury that he has a bad memory and may have gotten things wrong due to confusion of information.

I guess Jeff will now be asking for all Alzheimers patients be jailed.

Patton

Clintons intent was pretty clear, its hard to forget sodoming the hired help in the Nations highest oval office.

Now, if Jeff proves Libby was sodomizing Plame, he may have a solid case. But then all the Democrats would swicth sides and support Libby.

maryrose

Jeff and JimE
I have been reading last night's post and today's all of a piece and my question to both of you is what do you think happened in this case and what do you think Libby did that was wrong? Do you think he deliberately committed perjury? And if so why would he do that? What motivation could he have? Chris Mattews was against this war in Iraq from the get-go; that;s why he rants and raves everynight and makes wild statements. You and Jim E didn't want Bush re-elected and let's be honest here- You hoped against hope that this smear campaign against Rove Cheney and Libby would succeed and that Kerry would be elected. When that didn't work out-Wilson's underhanded coup you wanted SOMEONE to pay. Enter Fitz with no authority because of PARTISAN dem screeching and you have your person to crucify LIBBY. Well it didn't work electing Kerry and this vendetta against Libby is not going to fly either. So please tell us how you really feel and stop with the subtle snarky snipes at Gary and clarice and Kate. By the way Patton's post makes perfect sense to me.

Patton

We do know that Libby met with Woodward the same day he talked to Russert. We know on that day Woodward already knew Plame was a CIA officer who sent her husband to Niger.

We know Woodward "can't recall' teling that info to Libby (Jeff, of course would say Woodward must be lying not simply not recalling).

Its not hard to believe Libby mistook Woodward for Russert, both massive ego blowhards.

Then Libby, believing the info was in the press already, didn't think there was problem.

pollyusa

Some details from Judge Walton's order.

He is suggesting that Libby receive only "the general subject matter of the PDBs", not the actual PDBs.

The Judge is recomending that Libby receive general subject matter from the PDBs only in the following time periods. June 23, 2003 through July 12, 2003 and 2 days before and after Libby's FBI interview and GJ appearance.

Patton

It is not hard for me to grasp that people at the highest level of the executive are supposed to inform the public. Similar to the NIE, where the NIE was being partially declassified and Libby was approved to speak generally about what is in the NIE to the press to try to make the public aware.

I see a similar situation with Libby and Plame. Remember, the big question was did Cheney send Wilson, Wilson claimed he did, Cheney said he didn't. At this same time Tenant was working on a public statement on the whole matter telling the public the truth. If Libby heard it from Woodward, he may have thought, well Tenant has made the information public.
Remeber they were cautioning the press that Wislon didn't have his facts straight and Tenants statment was supposed to provide the facts. Tenants final statement however
failed to include one of the biggest facts which was unearthed by the Intelligence Comitte and that is that the whole boondoggling was finagled by his wife.

Patton

Regardless, I still want Russert to explain why he claimed that the Plame info would have been explosive, and yet Andrea Micthell never shared with him the explosive info, and after he read Novaks column...can someone find where Russert EXPLODED onto the nightly news or something to cover the breaking news??

Jason Blair would probably be a good witness on the truthfulness of the press.

And who was that guy on NBC News that blew up the pick-up trucks so they could claim they were exploding. Or perhaps Dan rather could find some late breaking documents....

Rick Ballard

polly,

Any idle speculation as to why Judge Walton would not have included the PDB's around the time of Libby's testimony before the gj? I would think that the same reasoning would tie to that time frame as well.

Rick Ballard

Patton,

I want to know who vetted Ambassador Munchausen onto MtP the day before his op-ed piece. Did Kristof give Mitchell the nod or did Pincus? Or was it Mitchell vetting Wilson to Kristof because Pincus (who had excellent CIA contacts) had given her the OK and she wanted Kristof to know that everything was A-OK with the plan as discussed in April.

Really though - what made Wilson deserving of an MtP piece the day before his op-ed piece and not the Sunday after the "news" (term of art) had been creatively created?

Jeff

Rick - He did. Two days before and two days after each one. Total, best as I can see, forty days.

Rick Ballard

Geez, that was sloppy - thanks Jeff, sorry polly.

MJW

Slightly off topic, as far as I've noticed no one has posted the Special Counsel provisions (28 C.F.R. 600) from the Code of Federal Regulations. Here is a link.

Other than the requirement that a special councel "comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice," the most interesting requirement is that "[t]he Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government."

clarice

Excellent point, Rick--Someone was shopping Wilson.I've no doubt of that..I think that someone was a former NSC staffer who had just left for the Kerry campaign.By MtP time, Muchausen knew the op ed was about to appear and MtP liked the tie in.
BTW I wonder how many of the reporters pimping for the Ambassador attended the Kerry party in NY where they advised him on how best to sell himself?

Patton

Perhaps Jeff and Jim E could regal us with their great memories and tell us what they wrote in there posts several weeks ago, let alone what they said 6 months ago.

Please Jeff regal us with what Mary Beth said to you on the ""We Were Lost But Now Are Found""" thread.....

YEAH, I knew you couldn't do it.

clarice

MJW, that's a very good catch. Do you suppose that's why Comey ignored the law and invented the super Special Prosecutor's office? I think that's likely. (Oh what a tangled web...)

Jeff

patton, I don't want to stop you while you're on a role, but I'm curious how we know this:

We do know that Libby met with Woodward the same day he talked to Russert.

From his statement, we know Woodward met with Libby on June 27. Did they also meet on July 10?

As for Woodward, it's true he says it's possible he asked about Plame, though he has no recollection of doing so, and he's quite positive LIbby said nothing about the matter, as he would have recorded it in his notes, and he has nothing in his notes about it. So I take it that means it is possible that he asked about Plame, the likelihood is pretty unreasonably low, since we would have to imagine Woodward asked and Libby said exactly nothing in response.

maryrose

I must have hit a nerve -no answer from Jeff on how he really feels or how he justifies this Bush pardon fantasy.

clarice

Rick, wouldn't it be fun fun fun to be there when Mitchell is asked just how Wilson was picked to be the star that day.

(When the Vallely thing came up I asked Brit Hume if anyone had been shopping Wilson in those pre-blabbing about the Mission days when he was just doing his incoherent Scowcroft sale pitch for containment. Brit said no one did, he just made himself available, but starring on MtP I'd think takes more than getting a few minute talking head gig in the run up to the war.)

clarice

Larwyn, what took Taylor so long to catch on> http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4993&search=clarice

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Tom needs a chapter on Wilson's Damascene road epiphany. It wasn't "in an instant" but it seems as if the scales fell from his eyes quite rapidly over a two month (at most) period. Tickled by the French? Given a raise by the Saudi's? Or tempted by pillow talk of a breakout move at the Agency with hints of a potential Paris or Rome posting?

Only Bush stood in their way.

larwyn

You'll have to read the great post by RobertGodwin of OneCosmos approximately titled "...seeing with Three Eyes"

It is about how many have trapped themselves into 2 dimentional thinking - the Left and Islamists both fit here as do those whose afflictions, such as Authistics, have boxed them in.

As I put into another thread comment today - I hope we have the visuals of Saddam and his henchman as the documents were presented at court today in Iraq - bet Matthews and all the LSM HENCHMEN will mirror when PLAME GAME ends.

Bottom line - 2nd & 3rd dimentional thinkers no match for the 4th & 5th thinking members of
TAC!

Sue

Jeff,

Why don't you wonder about Woodward? He knew, when he met with Libby, about Plame. Why would he have not mentioned it? I mean, I don't know if he did or didn't, neither he nor Libby says he did, but why? That is the thing that makes no sense to me. Why would Libby not have talked to Woodward about her?

larwyn

Clarice,
My 2:47 for you.
with my poor skills should not try to listen to Chrissy's latest dregs
while typing.

Waiting for his head to explode on camera -- think it is coming.

clarice

Sue, because he wasn't going around trying to tell people about her. He was happy to sit in his office sending out esp messages to Cooper and Russert saying "call me and ask,damn it"

Yes, Larwyn--wish I could be there when Tim gets the subpoena.

Oh, Rick-let's start writing the script "From Niamey to Damascus"..Visions of posts, I think..Maybe Vienna. Nice digs and nothing much to do except PARTY and Pontificate.

topsecretk9

since we would have to imagine Woodward asked and Libby said exactly nothing in response.

We would not have imagine such a thing. Woodward most likely asked one or 2 or 3 questions about the overall subject and Libby choose to ignore --side step, steer away-- that very part and discuss some other aspect.

So his exactly nothing about Plameexactly nothing as to be awkward isn't.

topsecretk9

oops

So his exactly nothing about Plame may be true, exactly nothing as to be awkward isn't.

larwyn

New book out:

Blank - ( satire of "Blink") - How to not think at all! -Michael Solomon just appeared on John Gibson's show.

Will TAC have a Book Club??

clarice

If you'll head it, Larwyn.

topsecretk9

to Woodward -

changing -most likely to "could likely"

Wooward could have asked the question(s) and Libby didn't exactly answer his specific questions is what I am saying.

And Libby could have been not answering on purpose too.

clarice

Here's a daydream for you. The reportewrs fight the subpoenas.Wa;ton says he's bound by Miller and compels them to testify. They appeal. The US Ct of Appeals says the technique of forcing reporters to answer should be carefully and rarely used..that they approved it the last time because of misrepresentations by the SP, that now they have no choice but to go along because now Libby's constitutional right to a fair trial is involved..HEH

Rick Ballard

"Will TAC have a Book Club?"

Of course it will - and all paid up members will receive special discounts.

Clarice - your comment made something click - do you remember the Syrian scientists inadvertently (teehee) blown up in that huge train explosion in North Korea? There is an AQ Khan (Pakistani) - Libyan - Iraqi - NorK link there somewhere.

clarice

I remember that peculiar incident very well. That's an interesting thesis. If you want someone to play with you on it, whistle though I don't know where we could get much information.

I could never even figure out who blew it up thoughI do know the "accident" story was absurd.(Always thought it was China)

JM Hanes

Jeff
"...since we would have to imagine Woodward asked and Libby said exactly nothing in response."

Only if you imagine an interview with Bob Woodward consists entirely of Q & A. You set your subject at ease, you offer the occasional anecdote of your own, etc. -- you intimidate some, make friends of others. You don't get the kind of access Woodward has by playing grand inquisitor. Don't you remember fellow reporters complaining that he gets too close to his subjects?

larwyn

Rick,
Syrian scientists?
I recall when Libya gave up their
WMD program it was reported that
Libya had supplied the place, Iraq
supplied $$$ and 42 Nuke scientists, Kahn plans and remember
the Brits intercepted calls between
Libya and North Korea after Saddam
captured on where were$$$$ going to come from.
Would bet most reports were on Fox and seem to remember Gertz from the Washington Times - but not certain. The LSM tried to play
it all down.

Squiggler

I wonder how those who want to see Libby hung because he claims his memory is faulty or has gaps don't fault the reporters for the same thing. To listen to these "Libby is a liar" people, you'd think Libby had nothing better to do in his incredibly busy 18 hour days but think about somebody's wife. A conversation with a reporter is a blip in the day of someone at the White House, whereas a conversation with a high level official for a reporter should be memorable. Yet, again and again, these reporters need to refer to their written notes and even after they do, in some cases, they still don't recall. Why is Libby being treated so differently.

I've worked with the White House during really hectic times and I can tell you that no one has the time to stop and consider each little remark or incident and one has little time to reflect and move information to long term memory while things are happening. We were encouraged to immediately write reports on everything so as not to lose the salient points to fading memories.

I've gone back and read through some of my own personal journal entries about some large events I worked on at that time and although I remember the actual event clearly, I'm surprised at some of the info I have in my journal about people or problems I encountered along the way to getting the event organized. In some cases, I cannot recall at all who the people are that I've listed, let alone recall my conversations with them. When you need to make a gazellion decisions in a very short period of time, you learn to prioritize and from everything I've heard about this case ... the priorties on Plame/Wilson seem to be far more important to Kerry supporters and White House detractors than they ever were to Cheney/Libby or the White House, et al.

JM Hanes

TM

"However, a bolder argument would be that Libby lost because the judge's suggestion may eliminate a plausible basis for appeal."

Not so fast here!

If you assume that the PDB request was, in fact, a greymail attempt, it would count as a loss whether the PDB's arrived in full, or in summary form.

If, however, the PDB's are both relevant and useful to the defense, which Walton's request suggests they are, then this looks more like a win-win for the defense: either they get ammunition to use in Libby's defense or they get a ready-made basis for appeal.

I'm not clear on whether Fitzgerald is assumed to have had access to the PDB's himself, which would surprise me. I can easily see the White House refusing access even for the purpose of summarization, as a very slippery slope. Next week you'll hear Dem Senators saying "If the Prez can provide summaries for a mere perjury trial...." Experience to date suggests that in this White House, if the privilege exists, you invoke it.

Cecil Turner

Experience to date suggests that in this White House, if the privilege exists, you invoke it.

If you don't invoke it for the PDB's, what do you invoke it for? Judge Walton is looking for a compromise, but there really isn't one for this issue. Either the defense needs it, or they don't (IMO, they don't). If they do, Scooter walks.

kim

There were Syrians on that train?

Has anybody looked at the wheel carriages? It sounds like those axles were evil.
=====================================

MayBee

I agree with JMH and CT on the PDBs.

I didn't know there were Syrian scientists on that NK train. They were on a boondoggle, no doubt.

bman

"Clintons intent was pretty clear, its hard to forget sodoming the hired help in the Nations highest oval office.

Now, if Jeff proves Libby was sodomizing Plame, he may have a solid case. But then all the Democrats would swicth sides and support Libby."


Or a "soiled" case!

Dwilkers

"I see that Scooter Libby has hired a memory-loss expert."

You see it Jim E?

Lol. Again Jimmyboy?

You know what Jimmy? I have seen you deploy this usage about a half dozen times since you came at me about it because you didn't like my opinion.

You are a hypocrit, speaking literally.

JM Hanes

Cecil

I can certainly think of a lot of reasons the Defense might want the PDB's outside of looking for appeal fodder. Would you rather be showing a jury some illegible, handwritten notes or an official document, on official paper, stamped supersecret from the inner sanctum itself? You're not just corroborating a defendant's claim with an unimpeachable (so to speak) source, along with the defense narrative (very important, very busy man). the PDB's are a manifest seal of approval, the ultimate White imprimateur.

Can the Defense make that argument without the PDB's? Sure. Will it be equally effective? Doubtful. How/if that determination specifically affects admissibility itself, however, I don't know.

Charlie (Colorado)

There were Syrians on that train?

Has anybody looked at the wheel carriages? It sounds like those axles were evil.

Oh, Kim, you should be ashamed of yourself.

(I'm so jealous.)

JM Hanes

In view of last night's brouhaha, I feel compelled correct my previous post to read "the ultimate White House imprimateur."

JM Hanes

Having trouble on the thought collection end here: I'm not arguing that the PDB's appeal potential has not been part of the equation. I'm just suggesting that even if that's the primary purpose, it's not necessarily the only thing they're good for.

clarice

Foundational questions about the summaries can resolve some of that JMH.

What is a pdb?
How were they presented to you?
Is this a pdb?
By whom was this prepared?
In what way does it differ from the actual pdbs?

Etc.

clarice

As for executive privilege, I have no idea what the WH will do, but they could agree to summaries so redacted and reframed they convey the sense of urgency without revealing exact details, and mught decide it's okay..

JM Hanes

Clarice

Yes, I can see what you mean. I wonder if that would make it in some way more incumbant on Libby to take the stand, or is that pretty much de rigeur in a perjury case already?

maryrose

Redacted pdb's sounds like a compromise solution and one the judge would like too.
I must admit with giving reporters subpoenas and some summarized form of pdb's in the offing I feel more optimistic about Libby's chances and a just ending to the case.

danking70

Clarice,

How will the judge allow reporter testimony to name Woodward's/Novak's non-Libby leaker, he of the sacred reputation?

Won't we hear a lot of "I know where this is leading counselor..." from the bench?

As to relevancy, I agree with you that Novak's source is relevant to the case.

Is this just good lawyering in setting up an issue for appeal?

David Walser

"Experience to date suggests that in this White House, if the privilege exists, you invoke it."

Which planet are you from? Compared with the prior Administration's inventing new claims of privilege, this White House has been very forthcoming. Again, compared to the prior Administration, this one has been cooperating with the special prosecutor -- to the point of NOT claiming privilege but instead requiring all members of the Administration to waive any privilege. I am NOT saying the current Administration has been as forthcoming as might have been possible. I am saying you cannot draw a truthful comparison between the two administrations that shows Clinton's team to be any way near as open to letting the investigators peek behind the drapes.

clarice

JMH, I don't think that decision will be made until after the defense has examined the conflicting witnesses.should the case go to trial.
My take on the defense so far is that it is brilliant.They are doing what they should--not nibbling at fitz' ankles, but going for (pardon my indelicacy) his nuts.
No pussyfooting around and aimless paper pushing peandering..every move has been plotted out to force the exposure of all the weaknesses of the prosecution.

clarice

Meandering--I mean

maryrose

Clinton fought every subpoena hid records' claimed false executive privledge tried to swiftboat Monica and lied through his teeth for over a year -Is that presidential behavior. What got him eventually was karma; that and a blue Gap dress.

clarice

danking--the defense is that Libby heard it from other reporters--he thought Russert and Cooper; that he may have confused which reporters he heard it from; that it is possible the reporters spoke to others and they told him of these conversations. Now, I do not know what the limit will be on the nexus of reporters to this story such that the Court has to allow depositions, but certainly Novak was the first to report this information and would seem relevant.

clarice

Recall, too, that at his unfortunate presser, Fitz said Libby was the start of the teleohone chain. Shortly afterward Woodward showed up and proved that wrong. At some point in discussions about how many and who can be desposed, I expect the defense to force Fitz to acknowledge that he cannot make any claims about first, etc re Libby as long as he doesn't get full discovery of the press corp and new agencies to --for once in this case--show a more balanced and accurate picture of who actually knew and how they did and who they told.

clarice

takeover-

Recall, too, that at his unfortunate presser, Fitz said Libby was the start of the telephone chain. Shortly afterward Woodward showed up and proved that wrong. At some point in discussions about how many newsies and which ones can be deposed, I expect the defense to force Fitz to acknowledge that he cannot make any claims about first, etc re Libby as long as Libby doesn't get full discovery of the press corps and news agencies to --for once in this case--show a more balanced and accurate picture of who actually knew and how they did and who they told.

kim

Chere Marie, that verb!
========================

clarice

In fact, unless Fitz turns over evidence on classification of Plame and harm to national security, I predict he will be forbidden to raise those claims at trial.

Jeff

On the question of Libby and Woodward, my guess about why Libby apparently didn't tell Woodward about Plame has been that the super-meticulous Libby was smart enough to understand that Woodward was working on a relatively long-term project, not something for the paper anytime soon. So Woodward was not of use to Libby the way Miller, his privileged vehicle, was.

As for whether Woodward said anything about Plame to Libby, who took it in silently, I say Libby's lawyers should go for it. I will agree that it is unbelievable that two self-righteous blowhards like Woodward and Russert are taken to be the height of journalistic accomplishment in DC in their respective mediums.

kim

Yeah, and then what will be amterial is if it is OK to lie to the press.

Unless you mean it to describe Kerry's actions in response to the Swifties. We need Daniel Webster to render judgement on the meaning of the verb 'to swiftboat'.
=============================================

JM Hanes

David W

I did say "if a privilege exists" as opposed to "if they can think up anything that might sound vaguely plausible." :)

I wasn't actually trying to imply comparisons. This Admin. has spent a considerable amount of time taking back territory surrendered by its predecessors. The PDB's represent privilege of an entirely different order than cooperation.

pollyusa

Didn't see anyone else mention this, but in the NY Daily News article ed posted yesterday I found this quote interesting.

Fitzgerald also revealed that his investigators also confiscated computers.
NY Daily News 2/28/06

Rick Ballard

That's what makes that opener a laugher,

"Ladies and gentlemen, this trial is about obstruction of justice and perjury concerning an investigation into a possible violation of a law that is very, very serious but whose precise nature I am unable to reveal, let alone consider charging."

Oh, I wanna be foreman.

clarice

Rxactly,Rick..That's why I keep saying we should practice his opening statement..

kim

Let me concede, for a moment, that Val was covert. Did Joe act correctly? Let me concede for, a moment, that the White House conspired to attack Joe and his wife, not only because of their attack, but because it was false. Was that conspiracy wrong(leave out legal or illegal for a minute)? If not then what has happened here to edge it into illegality(even though unprovable)? Do you see why the structure of the attack was both clever and stupid at the same time? Clever, because it had the pair at the core with the booby trap of covertness, and stupid because it depended on a lie, and a charlatan. Now who are the Democrats responsible for Joe's moulting from February to May?
=============================================

Gary Maxwell

Cant you just see the jury requesting the depo of Libby and in deliberations jurors in earnest asking " what the hell did he say?"

And of course the wiseacre in the back of the room who says dryly " even better what kind of question is that?"

MayBee

Jeff: So Woodward was not of use to Libby the way Miller, his privileged vehicle, was.

What use are we talking about here? What use was Miller put to? Please tell me what you think Libby hoped to use his priviledged vehicle for.
She didn't write an article about Wilson or Plame. Novak did.

kim

And if Joe is still defensible why did Kerry's team drop him like a hot potatoe? These are presumably the same people who set him up? Oh, never mind.

Has this all been dragged out past July of '04 because Fitz is an idiot or corrupt, and the press is incapable of telling the truth?

Oh Never Mind.

Hey, someone should liveblog the McIntyre and McKitrick presentation to the National Academy of Science committee about the Hockey Stick statistics on March 2 in DC. Need a statistician. See Climateaudit.org.
================================================

clarice

I'm dying to see the questions myself. In fact, I'm duting off my Harbrace Hadnbook so I can diagram them.

Polly, here's the NYDaily story. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/395381p-335210c.html I'm old and tired, have read it three times and do not see a word about computers.

clarice

kim, I'm hear but cannot even balance my checkbook. Sorry.

clarice

heRE--Geez--Sorry. I need to preview everything tonight..

Cecil Turner

Didn't see anyone else mention this, but in the NY Daily News article ed posted yesterday I found this quote interesting.

Meek made two glaring errors right above that claim. At this point, if he tells me the sky is blue, I'm going to have to check for myself.

Rick Ballard

Gary,

If I were the foreman, I would read the question first, followed by: "Can anyone here tell me what this question means?..... Does anyone wish to guess?..... OK, then. Why don't we take a quick straw vote on this charge and move on.

JM Hanes

Ladies & Gentleman:

We will prove that the defendant before you lied about (REDACTED) to (REDACTED) in order obstruct the investigation into (REDACTED).

If the case we present seems to make little sense, it is because the classifed contents of the real indictment against Mr. Libby remain under seal and cannot be shared with you. Please rest assured, however, that if you render a verdict of guilty, whether or not you believe Libby lied (if you even care, by the time we rest our case), justice will have been served.

Gary Maxwell

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I was going to speak to about National Security damage, but that would be wrong, so I wont. I also was going to speak about protecting our mumble mumble agents but that would be wrong too. But you know that the Federal government does not waste money on foolish things and I have spent big money here so you can be assurred that this is SERIOUS. Now dangnap, it I know this man remembers better than this so he lied to me and lied to the FBI and that really really pissed me off. And I am a super Special prosecutor aint never been one like me, you dont trifle with P. Fitzgerald just like you dont tug on Superman's cape or pay the consequences. Soon I am going to bring some reporters into the courtroom and their testimony is going to recall these conversations perfectly in every detail and then you will see, just like I did, that Mr. Libby must be a liar since he did not say what these reporters said, and for that he must be held accountable.

topsecretk9

Maybee

What use was Miller put to? Yes all the ink spilled.

topsecretk9

Maybee

What use was Miller put to? Yes all the ink spilled.

clarice

Now, we get to do the direct examination of Cooper and Russert and Miller.LOL

kim

I like that, Gary, 'What kind of question was that?', sounds like a book title for the biography of Fitz.
=======================================

Syl

Clarice

Your typos, I must admit, are brilliant:

peandering

Like p*ssing in the wind?

Love it.

kim

Comprendo, C. The public is allowed but only 'accredited' journalists may record. It will be a barnburner.
=======================================

JM Hanes

What's DC policy on cameras in the courtroom?

clarice

Kim.It would be nice if we could get a grad student from here to attend and report..

Gary Maxwell

Mr. Cooper could you state your full name for the court?

And you are a reporter for a national magazine correct? which one? Is that the one that put OBL on the cover of its mag?

Are you married?

Is your wife employed? Who is her employer? Mr Cooper could you speak up please so the jury can hear your response.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame