Latest Libby Filings!!

OK, the arrival of new Libby filings no longer quickens the old pulse the way a lunch with Bill Clinton might - it is great to see Bill promoting Pelosi's latest new theme.

Anyway, Special Counsel Fitzgerald, in a filing from Sept 7 (22 page .pdf), opposed Libby's use of a memory expert (I meant to post this last week, but I forgot...)

Team Libby responded on Sept 15 (18 page .pdf).

I will read these later, but there they are.

Also check out Clarice Feldman's piece in the Weekly Standard reviewing the current case against Libby.  Ms. Feldman has delivered a comprehensive yet concise defense brief highlighting the many problems with the prosecutor's case; in fact, I will be so bold as to say that this is the best defense of Libby I have seen (and way better than my suggested insanity defense).

That said, I am firmly on both sides of this - clearly, fans of the prosecution will prefer to emphasize a different set of facts.  Put briefly, it may well be that Fitzgerald is worried that Libby lied about the involvement of Dick Cheney but indicted on these counts because it was all he thought he could prove and he was hoping for cooperation and a plea deal.

MORE:  Frequent commenter Jeff has already picked out two highlights from the filings- contra 'Hubris', Libby did testify that Cheney told him about Ms. Plame in his first FBI interview (that fact was also in Libby's notes).  And the filing mentions that TIME reporter Matt Cooper's notes "tend to impeach, rather than corroborate, the claim that Mr. Libby confirmed anything about Mr. Wilson's wife".

Comments

[Marcel]

It is so convenient to focus on that one July 14/03 Novak column and his intitial source, while ignoring all of the other contacts between Adminstration officials and the Press.

[Marceau]

I agree with Marcel, everyone knows the Government is not allowed to speak to the press about some lying tea-sipper and his desk jockey wife.

[Other Tom]

It also seems convenient to ignore the fact that every administration in the nation's history has had innumerable contacts with the press, and the further fact that in each and every known contact regarding the Wilson/Plame affair, the administration told the truth, and that no crime was committed. Wilson, on the other hand, repeatedly did not tell the truth at all.

[SteveMG]

Clarice's piece is superb as she weaves us through the dead end backroads that Fitzgerald journeyed.

I'd still like to know who convinced him of the 1x2x6 theory. Someone got to him on that one. Or he let himself be taken.

Congrats and thanks Clarice.

SMG

[clarice]

Thanks, Steve.
TM I can't open the pdf file on Libby's response.

[noah]

Hate to be the pedant but doesn't Clarice's piece contain a glaring tho insignificant error when she talks about Woodward bumping into Libby in a hallway?

[azredneck]

In this layman's opinion, once again Libby's attorneys make Fitz look petty.

Clarice: Good job of following the twists and turns!

[noah]

Well? Woodward bumped into Pincus not Libby IIRC.

[Verner]

Libby's team has NAILED him.(The last paragraphs in the filing about all the goofy experts the gov't relies on is a classic!) And Clarice's piece has exposed the selective nature of letting Armitage--who forgot about Woodward--off the hook, while threatening Libby with 25 years in prison--on an extremely weak case that now relies on the "memory" of Tim Russert.

HANG IT UP FITZ. IT IS SOOO OVER.

Reggie Walton needs to act like an adult and send the boy to the woodshed.

It would also help if Russert did the right thing and stepped up to the plate and stated publicly that this farce should end.

[Bob]

slightly OT Saddam's Man in Niger

What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa?
by Christopher Hitchens
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02

A good long read, and too much to post here... go read and then think of Wilson's lies!

alright here's one point I never heard before...

So widely recognized was the quality of his performance that, when inspections were proposed again in 2000, even Kofi Annan proposed renominating him for the task. (The appointment of Ekeus was overruled by France and Russia, who insisted on Hans Blix.) I might add that the experience also introduced Ekeus to what might be called the underside of Iraqi tactics on WMD: He was once offered a straight bribe of $2.5 million, to his face, by Saddam's deputy Tariq Aziz, and he took part in the debriefing of the Kamel brothers--Saddam's in-laws--when they defected from Iraq in 1995 with conclusive evidence of a state-run concealment program for WMD facilities. Ekeus remembers being met by Zahawie when he first arrived in Baghdad to begin Iraq's post-1991 disarmament, and being told by him that, having met in the past as diplomats, they were now enemies.

[noah]

I also think it is disingenuous to claim that Fitz is "seeking" a twenty-five year prison sentence. The charges might theoretically carry such a sentence but would such a sentence actually be imposed under sentencing guidelines? Inquiring minds want to know.

[clarice]

noah, to the best of my recollection, Woodward said he bumped into Libby in the WH hallway and Pincus in the hallway of the WaPo.

[Steve]

I too, loves Clarice's piece. Great Work!
Glad it was on the Free Side!

[Verner]

I read C. Hitchens' piece too Bob, and Stephen Hayes' long treatment of the bogus phase II report as well. This week's WS is a definate keeper!

Feldman, Hitchens and Hayes have the liars on the run!

[noah]

clarice, now that rings no bells for me at all. However you have certainly followed this thing closer than I have! Nice article except that paragraph was a little jarring.

[Jane]

Clarice,

Are you getting reaction to your piece, outside of here?

Is that something that happens? I'm completely clueless about such things.

[clarice]

Lucianne posted it as a must read and it is on Free Republic. It is getting good reviews in those places--well, those readers are more inclined toward supporting my view, aren't they?

It's not on Memorandum or technorati yet but the day is young.

[MaidMarion]

Marcel/Marceau,

World's greatest mime.

[adam]

Clarice, you fabricated something out of whole cloth. Provide the evidence that Woodward said he bumped into Libby in the hallway or the Weekly Standard is going to get quite a few letters demanding an immediate correction.

Sorry, honey, but you can't get away with "my best recollection" not when you are writing a factual account. So cough it up or you're going down

[Neo]

One question that has bounced around in my brain for a while ..

if Ms. McCarthy was "fired" from the CIA for unauthorized meetings with reporters .. what was Ms. Plame and Joe Wilson doing with Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who was interested that no WMDs had yet turned up in Iraq, a particular expertise of Ms. Plame I'm told ?

Perhaps this explains that "suspension" I've seem to remember.

[noah]

Whoa Adam...if it is an error it is not born of malice towards anyone. Indeed it would be exculpatory for Libby I would think. We are talking justice here aren't we?

[verner]

Clarice, you've hit the bigtime girl. The kind of folks who don't have time for blogs will be reading this with great attention.

Brit, Fred and Bill will be quoting from it on Monday--much to Juan's chagrin.

And I imagine it will bring a smile to the VPOTUS's face--not to mention Libby and his team.

[noah]

Exculpatory for Libby if true, I should say, if he heard from Woodward what he was alledgedly leaking to others before he is alledged to have leaked to them!

[adam]

no, Noah, we are not. We are talking about a fact that has never been reported and a former attorney who excoriates the left for it's problems with fact. So this is serious. you can't have it both ways

[SteveMG]

Adam:
So cough it up or you're going down

And who exactly will be taking Clarice down? Some anonymous poster who doesn't have the decency to sign his name on such a threat? I don't think so.

If Clarice made a mistake, it'll be corrected. This anecdote has no influence on the entire narrative she recites.

Woodward mentions at least one conversation/meeting that he had with Libby after the Armitage revelation (Link). Perhaps Clarice confused that hall meeting with this interview.

In any event, whether it was a hallway meeting or a formal interview, it has no effect on the story.

I hope you're as concerned with the numerous - dozens if not hundreds - of mistakes that the press has disseminated over this matter? Such as that Cheney saw Wilson's report?

And you'll be "taking down" those journalists too.

SMG

[adam]

Nice try steve. But spare me the bullshit. You can't go after the left blogs and the Times and other reporters for the way they reported this case and then write a story and make up a fact. she made it up and now she needs to correct it and admit it. She and you would be doing the same damn thing if the story appeared in The Nation.

And anonymous? My name is Adam Abromowitz. What's your name?

[adam]

sorry steve. another error on your part. those who say cheney saw wilson's report based it on sources. Clarice made a factual statement and failed to attribute it to anyone. so there's a big differnce

[noah]

Adam...if it is not true (ie that Clarice inadvertently wrote "Libby" instead of "Pincus")...then that is not making shit up...its just a silly error.

But if it is true then it is significant and I am wondering why I have never heard anyone comment on it before IIRC. So I would need some documentation before I will fully believe it.

If it is a silly error Clarice does need to correct it in my opinion as humbling a thing that might be.

[SteveMG]

Adam:
Clarice made a factual statement and failed to attribute it to anyone. so there's a big differnce

If Ms. Feldman made a mistake - or the Weekly Standard - it needs correcting.

You've accused Clarice of deliberately and maliciously fabricating something. That's a serious charge and you have no evidence for it.

How do know that the error was solely on Clarice's part and not an editing one? You are aware that during the editorial process that stories get mangled? How do you know it was a deliberate mistake and not Clarice conflating two different events?

Reporters make mistakes. Editors make mistakes. Things get mangled during the process.

Before you go around threatening to "take people down", you better be sure you have your facts.

In any event, whether Woodward met Libby in the hallway or had an interview - and the evidence seems to be the latter - is marginalia in this story.

My name is - and has always been - on my e-mail address but I would also give my name if I ever accused anyone of falsifying information.

SMG

[MaidMarion]

Clarice,

Outstanding piece...am sure Rush will be talking about it for at least an hour on Monday!

This paragraph containing one of Fitz's arguments caught my attention:

One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the "source" to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the earlier source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a "whistleblower". . . . The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Fitz's words, but it sounds like a CYA. This is how I interpret the above: "Wilson was a whistleblower, but I'm not claiming here that the way in which he exposed the White House's misconduct was done correctly."

It seems correctly or incorrectly refers to the verb sought and not to the verb perceived.

Is this how you read Fitz? If so, then is this an inadvertent clue that perhaps Joe's July 6, 2003 Op-ed revealed classified information?

[verner]

Don't EVEN start me on the errors--or should we say lies-- that the left has made concerning this case--vicious lies let's add. The biggest being every word that has ever come out of the Wilson-Plame's mouths, followed closely by David Corn's reporting.

Clarice has doen a magnificent job, and her piece passed the fact checkers and editors at the WS. Woodward has made a number of public statements on this case and his contacts with Libby, so unless you know of every single one--I's keep my venom to myself, you pathetic little troll.

All the Wilsonistas are now being served a big slice of humble pie. And you all deserve it, and more. What you've tried to do is a disgrace. Deal with it.

[SteveMG]

Woodward's testimony (Post 11/16/05)

"Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."'

My guess is that Clarice (or the Weekly Standard) erred in this. Instead of a hallway conversation, there was an interview between Woodward and Libby about two weeks after Armitage told Woodward about Plame.

SMG

[noah]

And I don't think the issue is strictly whether Woodward met Libby in a hallway or had an interview with him. It's whether Woodward told Libby that Armitage had informed him about Plame sending her husband to Africa! (Which is what he allegedly told Pincus).

[adam]

Steve
it's a rather big error and you are playing it down. Bumping into Libby in the hallway would lend more credibility to the notion that Libby passed on idle gossip as opposed to willfully leaking during a prescheduled interview. I think Clarice knew this and she screwed up bigtime by not fact checking it.

[Patton]

Clarice, remember we are talking about Clinton liberals here. 'Bumping into someone in the hallway' to them means that sex occurred.
At least in the Clinton White House.

[clarice]

Noah, despite the accusatory tone of your remarks, I have double checked, and you are right:the conversations occurred per Woodward by phone and then in person on June 23 and June 27--not in the hallway. The error is completely mine and I am mortified. I have notified the WS and I take full responsibility. I do not however, think it detracts one whit from my argument.

[SteveMG]

It's whether Woodward told Libby that Armitage had informed him about Plame sending her husband to Africa! (Which is what he allegedly told Pincus).

Agreed.

But the charge made by one person is that Clarice "fabricated" the hallway meeting and that she's going to be "taken down" because of it.

You can't just threaten people like that without evidence. We all undertand this is a blog and posters go over the top but there are even limits on a blog. Once you cross them, you'll be challenged.

Putting aside the hallway/formal interview nonsense, there's no "there there."

Clarice says in her piece:

"[T]hat his [Woodward's] notes indicate he might well have told Libby what he'd heard from Armitage, but that those same notes do not show Libby as having responded."

That's what Woodward told the Post he testified to.

The Post:

Woodward "also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV."

And, of course, Woodward learned about Plame from Armitage.

SMG

[verner]

Rest assured adam ant. If Clarice did make a small error, she and the WS will make a correction in a very timely manner--unlike the NYT and the WaPo who still have egg on their faces for much of their misleading reportage.

And after all is said and done, Clarice's work will remain a very damning document against the lies and hatred that you and your fellow moonbats have spewed against the Bush administration for the last three years.

[adam]

silly error? HA! So I guess Wilson made a silly error when he said Cheney saw his report

[SteveMG]

Adam:
I think Clarice knew this and she screwed up bigtime by not fact checking it.

Well, you're qualifying things.

If you wish to claim that she erred, or she didn't fact check properly, that's fine.

But you must realize that when you charge someone with deliberate fabrication and then state that they'll be "taken down", that that is a quite different charge.

Right?

Reverse the situation. I'm sure you've made mistakes, gotten dates or names wrong. If someone outright accused you of fabrication and then said "You're going down", you'd be a little peeved?

Let's go to our corners and cool off a bit.

Thanks.

SMG

[boris]

The source of Adam Bom's confusion: Libby passed on idle gossip as opposed to willfully leaking during a prescheduled interview

Other way 'round bom brain. This is where Woodward tells Libby what he learned from Army about Plame.

[noah]

Clarice, check back upthread before you talk about my "accusatory" tone. Adam definitely was in my opinion. I was defending you.

Now I did accuse you of being disingenuous when you write that Fitz is "seeking" a twenty-five year prison term. Hey, I call 'em the way I see them.

You might want to thank me for bringing the error to your attention...because someone besides your acolytes here surely would have.

And I agree that it is an inconsequential error and it does nothing to detract from your argument.

[verner]

You realize SMG, that we're likely dealing with one of Jason Leopold or Larry Johnson's sock puppets.

[adam]

well there you go. One error opens the door to many others. And we've found many others already. the story has lots of factual holes. Looks like Clarice will be getting the left-wing's version swift boat treatment. Ahoy!

[boris]

No wonder da bom thinks it's a big deal!

Completely misunderstands the entire point and get's it exactly back asswards. Hallway or interview mox nix for info going from Woodward to Libby.

[adam]

Excuse me, verner, but you're out of line. I am who I say I am and I have no problem attaching my name to this. maybe it scares you to know that there are lots of folks in the left blogs beside Jeff who are paying attention. Don't try to suggest the Johnson or Leopold thing. check my IP. Heck, I'll give you my phone number

[boris]

One error opens the door to many others

There you go! Look in the mirror.

[clarice]

I apologize noah. My remarks should have been directed to adam.

[boris]

lots of folks in the left blogs beside Jeff who are paying attention

Too bad you're not ome of them.

[danking70]

Marcel Marceau. ROTFLMAO!!!