Motions To Quash

Jeralyn Merritt notes the motions to quash filed by news organizations resisting the subpoenas of the Libby defense team; Reuters, the AP, the NY Times, and the WaPo have coverage.

From the TIME and Judith Miller subpoenas themselves, we find this to be of interest - the defense wants information on contacts between reporters and "Ari Fleischer, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, Bob Grenier, Cathy Martin, Joseph Wilson, George Tenet, and Bill Harlow".

Most of those names are well known (Cathy Martin was Cheney's press spokesperson).  Eric Edelman has been linked to this case but has not featured prominently, and Bob Grenier's name is almost new to this [NO!  Clarice Feldman notes that he appears in para. 7 of the Libby indictment].

Here is Eric Edelman's bio; he was Libby's Principal Deputy prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in July 2003.  He was also the chap on the other end of the phone in points 12 and 13 of the Libby indictment, made notable by Libby's comment that "he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line".

And Robert Grenier was a top CIA guy:

The CIA's top counterterrorism officer was relieved of his position yesterday after months of turmoil atop the agency's clandestine service, according to three knowledgeable officials.

Robert Grenier, who spent most of his career undercover overseas, took charge of the Counterterrorism Center about a year ago after a series of senior jobs at the center of the Bush administration's national security agenda.

FWIW - he was in a position to remember Valerie Wilson by her maiden name, since he would have first met her that way.  I mention that because an enduring puzzle of this leak was the use of Ms. Plame's maiden name in the Novak column - she was referred to as Valerie Wilson in the recently disclosed INR memo, so one might think that White House folks would know her that way.

And since we are ruminating on possible leaks from the CIA, let's hark back to this - on July 8, Robert Novak had his odd sidewalk encounter with a friend of Joe Wilson's, in which Novak said, roughly, "The CIA sent him.  His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA.  She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist.  She sent him".

The wrinkle is this - on July 8, Andrea Mitchell reporting in the possibility that George Tenet would become the fall guy for the "16 Words", said this about the origin of the Wilson trip:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Emphasis added - one might even infer that CIA sources were feeling quite chatty on July 8 - Reuters had a similar leak, although they do not point specifically to the CIA:

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

I don't know that Novak received a similar leak on that day, but it is easy to imagine, since he was probably making similar phone calls.  And his lead paragraph from his notorious July 14 column mirrors the Mitchell report, as does his subsequent use of the word "operatives" (But don't underestimate the power of Lexis):

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

Some thoughts and questions:

(a) Novak and/or Mitchell may have received a leak from Grenier on this.  But why single out Grenier and not, for example, McLaughlin?  Does someone know something? [As noted above, Grenier apparently talked to Libby, per the para. 7 of the indictment.]

(b) Novak's sidewalk comment - "She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist" - tracks well with the INR memo, which described Ms. Plame as "a CIA WMD manager" (in the original notes she was described as a "CIA WMD managerial type", which may be a term of art reserved for double-secret covert agents.  The July 8 Mitchell leak, referring to low-level covert operatives, does not match as well with Novak's sidewalk job description.

(c)  Why do these suboenas not mention contacts with Richard Armitage or Stephen Hadley, both of whom were discussed in court and in filings, and have been touted as a likely source for Woodward and/or Novak?  I'm guessing that some legal subtlety is escaping me here.

For completeness, let's just put Novak's fateful "outing" paragraph here as a reminder.  Spoiler Alert - the sentence that has never appeared in the NY Times is emphasized; perhaps the notion of CIA sources contributing to the Plame leak is considered too shocking to report:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

And the Eric Edelman Turkish Taffy is for AJ Strata.

MORE:  For the "Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department - per the Miller Times response, Judy Miller can't find her original notebook from her June 23, 2003 Libby interview.  Well, Bush couldn't find the WMDs, either.  And no worries - Fitzgerald, we are informed, has "a true and complete color copy" of the notebook.

UPDATE: Clarice Feldman opines on the legal arguments at The American Thinker.

Comments

[kim]

Cherchez la femme. Do you suppose Marc's dog in the fight is Val, not Joe? A mystery to me: if Marc knows Joe for a third of a century, how come he doesn't know what a mess he is?
===================================

[maryrose]

Agreed Kim;
the unraveling continues as all begin to duck for cover. Some will have to come kicking and screaming into the light. I'm on vacation in Virginia, so will check in when an opportunity presents itself.

[AJStrata]

Thanks for the link TM!

Cheers, AJStrata

[kim]

You point out in your 'dim bulb' post, AJ, that Turkey and Saddam had interests in common re: the Kurds, and that Oil-for-Food money was going to Turkey. Was any of it going to Joe? I'll bet so; it would explain a few things.
=======================================

[richard mcenroe]

"Can't find..."

Oh, baby, the dance begins.

[clarice]

I stay up all night writing this and you beat me to it and find the amusing tidbit as well. DRATS. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4933

[kim]

Put that baby in a time maachine and forward it a century.
=================================

[Dwilkers]

Judy Miller can't find her original notebook from her June 23, 2003 Libby interview.

Uh huh. Sure she can't.

What a farce this has become.

[The Unbeliever]

Judy Miller can't find her original notebook from her June 23, 2003 Libby interview

Has anyone checked Sandy Berger's pants and socks yet?

[clarice]

I can't wait for Libby's response. And if there's oral argument--A big bonus with a cherry on top for all of us.

[sad]

Here is a tidbit for the conspiracy minded.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/pl_nm/bush_staff_dc_12

[Jeff]

Clarice Feldman notes -- riiight. The fact that Grenier was an alleged Libby contact on Plame sorta shoots the point of this post on Grenier, right - except that maybe Grenier told Libby Plame's name? Team Libby seems just to have targeted contacts with the various people the indictment names as talking about Wilson's wife with Libby (with Tenet being a possible exception, and they seem to have wrongly assumed he was going to be a prosecution witness).

As for the Mitchell leak from the CIA, that particular item - that Wilson's trip was unknown at high levels, as he was sent by mid- or low-level CIA operatives - was pretty obviously one of the administration talking points in July 2003 that Libby recently referred to: for instance, Dickerson heard it repeatedly from his two senior administration officials in Africa - almost certainly Fleischer and Bartlett. My strong suspicion is that Mitchell and whoever else got it from the CIA got it from Tenet, McLaughlin and/or Harlow, not from within the ranks of the CIA. And just as Dickerson got it from top White House officials, Novak may well have gotten it (also?) from the White House, or State, or both.

[Garrett]

No one thinks that Wilson's friend just happened to run into Novak on that particular day, as Novak came out of a regularly scheduled taping, do they? The friend rushed home, typed up some notes, and called Joe, "oh my God, you will not believe who I just ran into"?

Also:

SECRET/ ORCON/NOFORN

To: Colin Powell
From: Carl Ford -.CF

I've been asked to look into this "who sent Joe Wilson" business of the VEEP. Seems misdirected and off track. There's a war on, you know.

But we've dug around, and find INR had nothing to do with sending him. Well, OK, a little. Some CIAs at the meeting expressed some doubts about sending him, and we expressed, gently, HE'S A FRIGGIN CONFIDANTE OF THE PRESIDENT THERE.

But technically, you may report to the stovepipers what they want to hear: we had nothing to do with it.

Wish we did have something to do with it, wish we had heard more about his results, because HE WAS RIGHT.

Normally, I'm a bureaucrat, I'd be expressing this all in a less direct manner.

But I'm also an intelligence professional. I'm starting to figure out how this crew works. Set them straight, and they'll be right back with the same old bullshit. They are nothing if not fixated.

As I said, there's a war on, it's not a pretty or easy one, the stakes are high, and this crew is not merely in over their heads, but truly dangerously wreck-US-interests-longterm so. We've really got to start doing something.

[sad]

I love the way Rummy handles the press. Maybe he could be press sec. in addition to his other duties.

[Jeff]

Good idea, sad!

[Sue]

Does that mean you are giving up on Armitage as Novak's source? Or is it now Armitage is part of the conspiracy to get Wilson?

[clarice]

sad, I can't get your link to work.

[topsecretk9]

You answer Sue's question Jeff ::dun dun dun dah::at your own peril:: end sinister music::

[clarice]

It may well be that some people are voluntarily cooperating with Libby by telling his counsel what they have testified to. If so, Armitage may be in that category. Also, as we have seen, Woodward already has turned over his notes without protest. There may be no need to subpoena Novak's either if Armitage is cooperating.

[Cecil Turner]

But we've dug around, and find INR had nothing to do with sending him. Well, OK, a little. Some CIAs at the meeting expressed some doubts about sending him, and we expressed, gently, HE'S A FRIGGIN CONFIDANTE OF THE PRESIDENT THERE.

Assuming you're trying to inject a little reality with the tongue-in-cheek, you're misreading that bit. The "Ambassador" referred to in the memo is Owens-Kirkpatrick, not Wilson. The point of that line is that Wilson was superfluous, since the current Ambassador was quite capable of handling any inquiries (and in fact had done so). They were right, by the way.

[clarice]

Why Grenier? Perhaps we'd have to review the leaks about the investigation and gj proceedings. Were there reports about the Grenier conversation? If so, to which reporters and who would have been the most likely source of them? And why would that be?

If there were and the source was Grenier wouldn't that be some indication (a) of bias against Libby and (b) of a propensity to leak which could open the door on more leaks during trial?

[TM]

The fact that Grenier was an alleged Libby contact on Plame sorta shoots the point of this post on Grenier, right - except that maybe Grenier told Libby Plame's name?

Sort of, but I liked the excuse to toss out the Mitchell connection again.

[clarice]

As to Edelman and Grenier--another possibility is that they reported to Libby that certain reporters were calling them with indication they had prior knowledge of the Plame/Wilson connection and her employment.
Both--because of their backgrounds--might be the very sort of people the press would query.

[clarice]

I am most grateful to TM for reprising the significance of the July 8 date and Mitchell's comments. It's (for me) like hearing that stuff for the very first time.

I can't ewait to see the reply brief comments on her.

[Cecil Turner]

Y'know, the more I read about the latest legal machinations, the less I care. The only real gripes I have with the Libby prosecution are:

• Fitz targeted the White House based on a perceived motive to squelch a whistleblower (which appears to be wrong);
• Fitz ignored the actual leak as irrelevant;
• Fitz grilled Libby after knowing he wasn't the source (which is at least close to prosecutorial misconduct).

I have little sympathy for Libby's rambling nonsense, whether he believes it or not. (But the materiality and relatively insignificant importance of the information suggests it probably isn't perjury.) Regardless, Libby's involvement didn't really have any impact, except to sidetrack an investigation that wasn't going anywhere, anyway.

Meanwhile, though, we have an actual leak, from UGO, that remains unexplained. Was it entirely innocent? How did it happen? Was she in fact not classified, so it didn't matter? Was CIA irresponsible in letting out the information? Was UGO's leak irresponsible or criminal, an honest mistake . . . or authorized? Was Novak irresponsible for publishing? How did CIA respond once it knew the leak was out there? It seems to me those questions are the ones we ought to be tracking down.

[owl]

Agreed......like hearing it for the first time and I thought I was watching Andrea! Never connected July 8 to the sidewalk and Mitchell's comments.

I guess the dogs are loose since they already got Russert's and Miller's. After giving them over 2 years to erase, I doubt a single media witness can find a note.

[Dwilkers]

Well said Cecil.

[clarice]

'WE'? Cecil. Seems to me those are questions Fitz should consider. As these obvious flaws in the case become more manifest, I should think Libby's Motion to Dismiss loks increasingly appealing.

(In a related case the Texas Ct of Appeals sustained the lower Court's pitching of the DeLay conspiracy charges/)

[Jeff]

Does that mean you are giving up on Armitage as Novak's source?

Um, not only is the answer no, but I can't see what I might have said that suggested that.

I know this is altogether pedestrian, but my assumption was that Libby wants to get all that he can on likely prosecution witnesses, especially those who discussed the Wilsons with Libby, according to their own testimony, whether it be to see if there is evidence of them hearing stuff from the press (in which case Libby can say it goes back to reporters, just like he said) or being alternative sources for the members of the press Libby is accused of leaking to (or not), or what have you.

[Sue]

And just as Dickerson got it from top White House officials, Novak may well have gotten it (also?) from the White House, or State, or both.

Possibly I misunderstood what you are trying to say...

[Gary Maxwell]

OT

As Clarice teased us, the AP has a story up that the appeals court has now rulled against Ronnie Earle and affirmed the ruling that the conspiracy charge arose from law not in existance at the time of the activity in question. The DA does not understand "ex post facto" which even nonlawyers get?

TT how come you are here pointing this out? LOL

Here it is:

AUSTIN - An appeals court Wednesday upheld a judge's ruling throwing out a conspiracy charge against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

DeLay, who announced this month that he is resigning his congressional seat, still faces a money-laundering charge and another conspiracy charge stemming from the financing of state legislative races in 2002.

A lower court judge dismissed one conspiracy charge against DeLay in December, agreeing with defense arguments that a conspiracy law did not cover election code violations when the offense allegedly was committed in 2002.

Prosecutors had urged a three-judge panel of the appeals court to reinstate the charge. They argued that Texas' prohibition on using corporate money in political campaigns is a felony and should be subject to the state's criminal conspiracy law.

DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, stepped aside as majority leader last fall after he was indicted in Texas. He won his GOP primary in March, but later announced he would resign from Congress in the coming weeks.

No trial date has been set on the criminal charges in Travis County.

[narciso79]

Grenier, was a long time Near East hand; (previously Islamabad station chief) it
is unlikely that he would have met Plame; since it's dubious that she dealt with him;
considering she hadn't been out of the country for 5 years; and had no connections
to the Equatorial Africa division (where
Niger, Congo, & Zaire reports are catalogued.

[clarice]

I'd say the combination of the prosecution efforts in the Duke case, the DeLay case and this case may prove a powerful impetus for greater judicial oversight of government prosecutions in politically charged cases.

I certainly hope so.

[sad]

Clarice

This is an excerpt from a yahoo news story about Rove's changing duties. Sorry the link wasn't working.

**********Administration officials said Rove would give up his policy development duties in order to focus more on political affairs, as Republicans try to hang on to control of both houses of Congress in the November mid-term elections.

Rove, another Texas insider, has been keeping a low profile while still remaining under investigation in a special prosecutor's probe into the leak of a CIA officer's identity in 2003.

Rove has been deputy White House chief of staff for policy development and Bush's top political adviser. His policy role will be taken over by Joel Kaplan, currently the deputy White House budget director, two administration officials said.

"This lifts a burden off of Karl," a top White House official said.********

[clarice]

So, you think this shows how distracting this foolish inquiry has been to the Administration? Yes, it has been.

But I think it may also be a sensible reallocation of resources as the circumstances warrant.

[kim]

It's reality-based to recognize that Rove is a better politician than policy wonk; but no one better at the interface.
=============================

[Garrett]

Cecil Turner says:

"you're misreading that bit. The "Ambassador" referred to in the memo is Owens-Kirkpatrick, not Wilson. The point of that line is that Wilson was superfluous, since the current Ambassador was quite capable of handling any inquiries (and in fact had done so). They were right, by the way."

Or, as I found it expressed elsewhere:

"INR was pissed that the CIA thought that the Embassy in Niamey and the U.S. Ambassador - State folks - were not likely to get the truth on the Niger-Iraq allegatioins from their contacts."

Got it, and thank you.

[sad]

I think the changes in the WH are happening because it IS a sensible reallocation of resources. I just think that there will be a great deal of stupid speculation as to why it is happening. I predict Murray or Jason to put up a story any moment about Rove being indicted in the near future, etc. etc........

[kim]

sadly enough, fitzmas is just around the corner in the fever swamps.
===================================

[clarice]

On the question of materiality, I think it will be funny to watch the argument. Libby will point to all the hooey Fitz pitched at the presser and at how the press reported it (and AP in particular still does) to show that the material requested is relevant. Shoving context down Fitz' throat with the help of his press chorus now snared in the stage netting.

[kim]

Yes, Virginia, there is a basis for a belief in Fitzmas. Anytime a person believes he's been mistakenly wronged by someone who has power over him, Fitzmas is sustained. Anytime anyone believes he's been lied to by the powers that be, Fitzmas lives. Fitzmas perseveres despite the truth or falsity of the underlying beliefs. Fitzmas is a creation of the human spirit, and is eternal.
==================================

[clarice]

Brava,kim

[kim]

Much gracious.

As CT has so lovingly pointed out, Fitz is stuck on his own point. These are important questions he should have been investigating. How come he got distracted on this virtual irrelevancy about Libby?
====================================

[clarice]

Was it shy Val's plaintive look? The thought of the press coverage of the legally creative Eliott Ness with a law degreee who can find ground for indictment when everyone else cannot? Or was it the crap fed to him by the investigators from the FBI and CIA assigned to work on the case?

Maybe, all three.

[kim]

Or Comey's whispered directions?
===================

[vnjagvet]

It sounds like none of these megafirms is arguing that Fitz's investigation itself is on shaky legal ground.

[kim]

From his deep throat.
==============

[clarice]

vnjagvet..Take some time to read Time's memo. It is dreadful. The contrast between team Libby and team Fitz/media is striking.

[Gary Maxwell]

OK I am feeling lazy. So somebody who has read all the filings just tell me. does it appear that any of the subpoenaed news agency just decided to cough up the material? Who specifically besides Time has filed an objection answer?

[clarice]

Gary, the Wa Po turned over Woodward's notes of his conversation with Libby without a fight.
I only read the Time memo, but the news accounts say all the others are fighting the subpoenas.(Save Russert who says he has no notes)