This Just In...

Over at EmptyWheel the latest Fitzgerald response to the Libby defense team is getting the full forensic treatment, and it is well done as usual.  Early indications are that Richard Armitage, the people's choice as the mystery source for Bobs Woodward and Novak, provides the best fit in the redacted document,  but keep a candle flickering for Don Rumsfeld as the Mystery Man.

Yes, I love this game.  Today. 

More later.

MORE:  Folks who believe that Fitzgerald has a lot more under investigation will thrill to this (ii):

2. The information and items responsive to Libby’s demands and which we are not producing generally consists oftestimony, information and items which: (i) reveal the identity of  REDACTED

ii) concern others subjects of the investigation and numerous witnesses who testified about their knowledge of the conduct ofthose subjects, often focusing on conversations after July 14, 2003, during which various persons referenced events of spring 2003 not relevant to defendant Libby;

The notion that conversations from the fall of 2003 (and later) are also a subject of investigation re-appears on p. 14:

The discovery provided in those two letters in subsiantial part moots the defendants’ motion, though granting Libby’s motion would trigger production ofmany items pertinent to the investigation of other subjects — and particularly their conduct in the fall of 2003 and later — because their conversations in some way reference back to the events of spring 2003, as described in detail at pages 2 to 12.

Well...yike.  If Fitzgerald is seriously probing some sort of cover-up, that might explain the silence of Bob Novak.  And there is surely *something* going on - on p. 2 Fitzgerald promises a detailed overview of the investigation on pages 2-12, all of which are redacted.  [NOTE - well, there was something going on at one time - maybe this is water under the bridge now.  Fitzgerald did say in a Miller-related filing that his investigation was substantially completed, except for the testimony of Cooper and Miller.]

So, is this all about the Karl Rove angle, with Matt Cooper and the missing Hadley email?  Or is there more, and might that "more" explain Novak's continued silence?

And what is Fitzgerald learning as his investigation continues, or is he hoping to out-wait Libby and strike a deal with him?

STILL MORE:  Apparently Fitzgerald has already given the defense the affidavits and/or testimony transcripts for Walter Pincus, Glenn Kessler, Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judy Miller.  A redacted version of Bob Woodward's testimony (minus Armitage's name and the non-Libby related testimony) has also been handed over.  And some reporter's names have been redacted from this list - Andrea Mitchell has been mentioned in several of these filings, and is mentioned in this one, so let's put her in the mix.

UPDATE:  A helpful and irrefutable analysis here.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Wow, he really is staking his claim on honest reporters. I am surprised by the Andrea Mitchell part (page 14)

--And while Libby cites Andrea Mitchell's account implying that she knew about Wilson's wife before July 14, there is a later statement by NBC that she did not---

I guess Ms. Greenspan's just gonna be pressed on that. Libby's lawyers only have to read the Imus transcript to know how that's gonna go.

[Patton]

Wouldn't NBC have a conflict with Micthell? Since they need to protect Russert.

[Patton]

This is pretty scary stuff:

Fitzgerald in paragraph 38 “and Mr. Libby is charged with telling Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper.”

Is Fits NUTS? Libby has not been charged with anything of the sort.

[Other Tom]

It strikes me that his mentioning materials that "concern others [sic] subjects of the investigation" means only that they were subjects at the time the materials were created, not necessarily that they are still subjects. But some or all of them may well be--we just can't tell from this statement.

[clarice]

Whole lot of redacting going on..can't see too much in this except a significant attempt to protect UGO.

[Kate]

I remember from this comments on this blog that many individuals can be subjects. The key term is target. Maybe some legal poster can clarify the terms for me.

[topsecretk9]

Is Fits NUTS?

Patton, I wondered the same thing about that.

[owl]

He is still following the Grand Right Wing Conspiracy. What else could he be selling these judges, 3 years later?

[topsecretk9]

Well, if he keeps UGO a subject indefinitely then he doesn't have to give Libby info on subject UGO, that's the ticket.

[larwyn]

How will America feel about

Dick Gregory - Drunk on Imus

via transcript at Drudge:

IMUS: NBC Chief White House Correspondant from New Delhi, India. Clearly drunk.

Bats in the Beltway

Taranto yesterday:

There seems to be an outbreak of mental illness in Washington....

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that questions are being raised about the mental health of the White House press corps:

Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington who said she had counseled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to "White House reporter syndrome," in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in the same experience.

She said the syndrome was evident in the Cheney case, which she described as an inconsequential event that produced an outsize feeding frenzy. She said some reporters used the occasion to compensate for not having pressed harder before the Iraq war.

"It's like any post-traumatic stress," she said, "like when someone dies and you think you could have saved them."

CHEERS!

[[REDACTED] E.]

Call me crazy, but after reading Fitz's new filing, I've finally figured this out. It's related, surprisingly, to [REDACTED] and also related to [REDACTED] . And we musn't forget about [REDACTED} --not to mention when Libby [REDACTED], as well as when Rove [REDACTED] to [REDACTED], way back in 2002. The three important things to keep in mind are:

1. [REDACTED]

2. [REDACTED]

Matt Cooper of Time said that [REDACTED]*
pursuant to Secretary of [REDACTED]

3. [REDACTED]

Makes sense?

Therefore, [REDACTED].
---------
* I am of course referring to [REDACTED]

[topsecretk9]

Jime

My response is [REDACTED]

[topsecretk9]

I'm just waiting for Lawrence O'Donell to again tell us what is in the [REDACTED] --(His whole family are lawyers you know)

[TM]

Hmm, can it be long until Dick Cheney tells Fitzgerald to go redact himself?

[cathyf]

Is conspiracy to redact a redacto-racket?

cathy :-)

[owl]

Ho ho ts...mock O'Donnell at your peril. All the [REDACTED] is O'Donnell.

[Javani]

"--And while Libby cites Andrea Mitchell's account implying that she knew about Wilson's wife before July 14, there is a later statement by NBC that she did not---"

Nifty, takes the word not from the horse's mouth, but from other horse.

That NBC statement might have been one of those "he/she did not name" Plame sidestepping whether they spoke of "Wilson's wife."

[clarice]

Yes--that's a little more Fitz fandango isn't it? Like the presser and the fn to the Miller Court that the Espionage Act might just might apply.

I've been watching J. Walton and I think he didn't tall off the turnip truck like Tatel. Fitz will not fandango the night fantastic away for long, I predict.

[larwyn]

Bats in the Beltway?

Did the NYT's in publishing the piece on "White House reporter syndrome," quoting Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington just fall into one of the ultimate Rovian traps?

They were trying to create another Bush Victim Class - but now we know that reporters are under psych care.

Is Renana really Neo-neocon, or Shrinkwrapped or one of the Sigmund,Carl and Alfred gang?

Lefties feel very put out if they cannot be part of a "victim class" - white lefty males must feel the very worst if they make extravagant salaries.

In the Blue Urban areas - there is something wrong with you if you are not in therapy for something.

Does this set up Libby's team for asking reporters with different memories from Libby's, Were you taking any prescription drugs at the time of your conversations?

Isn't that asked all the time of witnesses. As an extreme sufferer of "medicine head", it is a great and apt line of inquiry. NAL, so is it?

And can they now ask - " Mr. Cooper, where did you have lunch that day? How many ______did you have with lunch?"

Think of all the accusations that Cheney was drinking - and that it was extrapolated to "Republicans all get smashed on Saturday!"

Well what was Mr. Russert doing the weekend that Libby called to complain?

I call CNN'S Woooooooooof and Jack A** show the "Day Room" for the very reason they seem very psych disturbed and Nurse Ratchett is off her game. And does anyone not think that Chris Matthews is somehow off his meds or on too many?

Wonder who way buying at the hotel bar in India today??

[owl]

Oh boy, I hope Libby can question these fine reporters. Think he should just take their work, item by item, read the crap...show the crap, and then ask who does it help? Make them each prove they produced at least 3 helpfuls in the midst of the hundreds of negatives.

[larwyn]

sorry medicine head in action!

[ed]

This is pretty scary stuff:

Fitzgerald in paragraph 38 “and Mr. Libby is charged with telling Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper.”

Is Fits NUTS? Libby has not been charged with anything of the sort.

Actually if you read the whole sentence, he says that "It has also been publicly reported that Mr. Woodward and Mr. Novak knew about Wilson’s wife’s employment before July 14 and Mr. Libby is charged with telling Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper."

He's not saying he's been charged, he's saying it's been reported he's been charged.

[Javani]

Clarice,

I hope so. Because Fitzgerald seemes to be rearguing the UGO identification could it be that the chance Libby and the public will be informed still has a chance? Sullied reputations be damned!

[clarice]

I'd find it amazing if UGO's (aka Armitage)name stays secret much longer. The thought that he was so desirous of keeping his skirts clean while letting this continue makes him truly loathesome.

[Jim E.]

clarice,
Your "loathesome" remark made me think of Cliff May. Did he ever respond to your e-mail weeks and weeks ago about why he is not listed by Fitz as one of several reporters who knew about Wilson's wife prior to July 14 (contrary to what he has written)?

[Sue]

I don't want it to be Armitage. (Okay, I don't want it to be Rumsfeld more, so if the choice is Armitage--Rumsfeld, I'll take Armitage). It isn't as sexy as Powell would be.

[clarice]

I believe this affidavit indicates Cliff May was questioned and Fitz turned that over to Libby.

[ed]

Where?

[topsecretk9]

He's not saying he's been charged, he's saying it's been reported he's been charged.

HUH?

[clarice]

I'm sorry it's in pdf form and I am not rereading..Emptywheel indicates the same thing..

[ed]

There is no mention of Cliff May in the entire document and unless EmptyWheel is making assumptions, they're is no way to know May is referenced here.

[Javani]

Isn't Cliff May one of those recounters of the former Ambassador's Green Room guy-talk about his hot babe CIA wife?

[ed]

Patton says that Fitz states that Libby is being charged with telling Cooper and Miller. That's not what Fitzgerald says. He says it's been "REPORTED."

[clarice]

Jess, I apologize. I'm quite under the weather today and reading the pdf stuff hurts my eyes. I took another look and don't see the May reference I thought I'd seen so maybe I confused that with EW's report.

I do think the reference to what was reported is odd..as odd as the Mitchell tap dance. I do hope ZFitz doesn't confuse news reports with evidence.

[clarice]

JeFF--sorry for the typose--

Cliff May is I believe in the "everybody knew" category..

[Sue]

Okay, on page 9, the REDACTED person is Rove. On page 10, Redacted is again Rove and his email on the heads up about Cooper, was it to Hadley? I can't remember.

[emptywheel]

To Clarify,

I was taking the passage TM refers to above, where there are at least two journalist's names redacted (whose transcripts have been turned over to Libby). I agree with TM that Andrea Mitchell is a very likely candidate. ANd I think Cliff May is another likely candidate.

But if I'm right, then it means that the FBI questioned May. ANd he said he didn't know, in spite of what he claimed.

[topsecretk9]

That's not what Fitzgerald says. He says it's been "REPORTED."

Seeing as Fitz cites what has been "Reported" as gospel, that is the weirdest cite ever.

[ed]

From emptywheel:

This suggests Fitzgerald handed over testimony from other reporters (my guesses are Andrea Mitchell and Clifford May, and possibly Nicholas Kristof).

So yeah, it's only a guess.

[topsecretk9]

Hadley? I can't remember.

Yes

[Cecil Turner]

That's not what Fitzgerald says. He says it's been "REPORTED."

Don't think so. There's an "and" in there, and a tense change, which suggests "reported" doesn't extend to "charged." But he's probably just using "charged" in the sense that those conversations are in the indictment and part of the perjury charge. Slightly sloppy usage, but that's about it.

Okay, on page 9, the REDACTED person is Rove.

Concur.

[clarice]

Thanks EW. Of course other journos said they knew--Perestz comes to mind--and other non-journos like Vallely--so we don't actually know who Fitz is referring to.

[ed]

Actually I think I'm wrong with my reading of that sentence. It's bad one and does seem to state that Fitzgerelad is claiming Libby told Miller and Cooper. Which I guess is true anyway, though that's not the charge per se.

[ed]

I agree with Cecil Turner. He's said it better than I.

[Sue]

Fitz says that Libby has been charged with telling Cooper & Miller. Whatever he meant, he said 'charged'.

[ed]

My dictionary has 12 entries for "charge" as a verb alone, only one of which haa anything to do with a "legal" charge.

[clarice]

Well- since this is an affidavit in a criminal proceeding, I think it's probably a good idea to use the legal definition as opposed to the one used in bullfights or Visa ads, don't you?

[Sue]

We have also produced to Libby the documents obtained from Cooper regarding his converstation with ____1_____. We have further provided Libby's defense team with a copy of ___2____ email to ___3_____ referencing the conversation with ____4______.

Okay, the 1st blank is Rove. I had assumed they were discussing Rove's email (2nd blank) to Hadley (3rd blank), but it is probably Cooper's (2nd blank) email to his boss (3rd blank). 4th blank again is probably Rove.

[Sue]

There are no responsive documents pertaining to Mr. Russert. No tape of the Libby/Russert conversation. A he said/he said moment, then...

[ed]

But seeing as Libby has NOT been legally charged with telling Miller and Cooper wouldn't it be obvious to use one of the other 10 more benign definitions.