Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Libby Quick Hits | Main | The Times Hearts Libby »

January 16, 2007

Comments

jerry

Maybe one of these guys is the person who met Novak on the street and notified Wilson? Or someone else who met Novak on the street, etc....

MayBee

jerry-
that could be, but neither has the bio that matches the one Jason Leopold provided for the guy on the street (former publisher, currently consultant on infrastructure). I don't put much stock in Leopold, but in that article he said Wilson had confirmed the information.

clarice

TOM!!!I have answered the Hohlt question on the two prior Libby threads--Wilson says Hohlt have him DoS permission for the Mission. Hohlt resigned on Oct 1, the same day Armitage went to the FBI.

MayBee

Kansteiner, right Clarice?

topsecretk9

Clarice...are you confusing Walter Kansteiner with Hohlt?

Somehow I am missing Hohlt resigning or being at State.

clarice

*blush* I most certainly am--I apologize..

topsecretk9

BTW...the above Holdt link leads to a single truthout article. The only Fitzgerald I could see was

...Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois attempted to insulate the government's nutrition guidelines from the intense industry pressure that has warped the process to date.

Peter didn't, I don't think, steal from Pat, he hired him! ::wink::

clarice

I plead OLDTIMER'S DISEASE

I can't find any connection to this case with either Holht or Fierce and I think TM's theory is right.

Why three--not 5 or more--the judge is likely to rule (or may have in non-public hearings that three is enough to make the point and more is cumulative and unnecessary.

jerry

There are currents within currents... I am just beginning to understand... actually, you guys are really confusing me, I'll lurk until I figure out what (on earth) is going on here.

Rick Ballard

There are currents within currents...

Wait 'til you see the riddle we're wrapping in a mystery. You'll have to open the enigma first but it will be well worth it.

TimS

Wow. It is like a murder mystery...,

but instead of the mysterious stranger in
the night, it is the mysterious witness in
the box.

BTW

I see that, once again, you are avoiding discussion of Iraq today. Instead, you choose to rally around the handmaidens of the Iraq atrocity. Well, I guess you're doing what's expected of you. Don't forget the goose-step. It adds a nice touch.

Other Tom

I would say that the handmaidens of the Iraq atrocity are the late Mr. S. Hussein and the current crop of jihadists and murderers. And I do a most lovely goose-step; many have likened it to a drum-major's strut.

Sara (Squiggler)

In a Libby Defense Trust email update that contained a couple of editorials from the WSJ, there is mention of something I'm hearing as if for the first time.

From Jan. 12th:

Libby's attorneys "have sought to subpoena a tape made by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward of an interview with Mr. Armitage."

Is this new information or something I've just forgotten.

How would it come in?


clarice

Someone else mentioned it here--maybe a few days ago.

clarice

Woodward reportedly taped all his interviews for his book and I do recall when his book came out he referred to those tapes.

Foo Bar

FWIW, Don Fierce appears to be tight with Rove. See e.g. here and here and here.

MayBee

How awesome to be called Mr. Fierce.

topsecretk9

I notice Plame is on the witness - mention list -- wonder if she received a subpoena...anyways, wouldn't behoove the defense to call her as the first witness -- and get under oath before the civil proceedings to explain her covert work in the five years proceeding the first published mention of her identity?...and then call the others that knew unpublished.

topsecretk9

Don Fierce appears to be tight with Rove.

Which would be rich if Wilson is forced to admit Fierce and other weren't lying.

I wondered if any of the 2 unknown quantities were neighbors of the Wilson's when they lived in the Watergate.

Nike in NY

Maybe the guy with the Big Head on the Small body can answer all these questions...err.. I mean V.(SUPER DUPER HIDDEN SPY) Plame's hubby can answer all these questions. Sorry but they can't even get a jury together as 2 got knocked out for having problems with Bush. After all it's he's fault. Set us free!!! Let Joe Wilson testify!!!!!!

clarice

Oooooh--Mickey Kaus says JOM's the go to blogger on the case.

Even as significant he wants to see if his scoop on the context of Libby's call to Russert (anti Semitism in the msnbc coverage) is true.http://www.slate.com/id/2157708/&#scooterscoop

He notes that msnbc has left Russert off the witness list when it's clear he is one and ahem--the media already seems to be side stepping the issue, suggesting it was about the anti-war slant of the reporting.

BTW

"I would say that the handmaidens of the Iraq atrocity are the late Mr. S. Hussein and the current crop of jihadists and murderers."

Do you mean the Shiites? Do you mean the Shiite "government" that BushCo is propping up? Hussien's Baathists were a secular group! Your support of BushCo put Sadr's jihadists in charge in Iraq. Fat and stupid is no way to go through life son.

topsecretk9

Hohlt, Richard F.
worked on behalf of the

Nuclear Energy Institute

topsecretk9

Here is the member roster

http://www.nei.org/documents/NEI_Member_Roster.pdf

topsecretk9

2005 Lobby statement


Total

Subsidiary (Lobbied For)

Altria Group

$80,000

-

BMW

$0

BMW Financial Services of North America

Bristol-Myers Squibb

$80,000

-

Clark Consulting

$0

-

Federalist Group

$45,000

-

JP Morgan Chase & Co

$83,500

-

Metcor Ltd

$0

-

Northwest Airlines

$25,000

-

Nuclear Energy Institute

$85,500

-

SLM Corp

$91,000

Sallie Mae

Time Warner

$85,000

-

Washington Mutual

$80,000

-

topsecretk9

Well..go here and you can see all years

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/firmsum.asp?txtname=Hohlt%2C+Richard+F&year=1999

MJW

I noticed in the list a number of White House people: Daniel Bartlett (Counselor to the President), Andrew Card (President Bush’s former Chief of Staff), Stephen Hadley (President Bush’s National Security Advisor), Adam Levine (Former Assistant to the President -- and allegedly 1 in 1x2x6), Scott McClellan (Former White House Press Secretary), and, of course, Karl Rove (President Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff). If any are witness, then unless Fitz has changed his mind, they are defense witnesses. Fitz said in response to a discovery motion that Fleischer would be the sole White House witness.

MJW

My guess on Kansteiner: either he's the "senior official at the State Department" who, according to Wilson's account to EW, urged Wilson to go public, or he'll testify about Wilson's relationship with Grossman. If he's a defense witness, I doubt he'll be a friendly one, but I can't quite imagine what his role as a government witness would be.

paladin2

Are ther any potential witnesses who will testify that Russert knew about wilson's wife before he talked to Libby? The key issue in the case is Russert's credibility. He has yet to relate the full conversation. If he choses to lie-and this is the likely scenerio- he must be discredited.

Patton

BTW, you are confusing the Bush adminstration with your Clinton adminstration. CLINTON KILLED FAR MORE INNOCENT IRAQIS THEN BUSH COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

And when the liberals like madeline Albright were asked why they needed to kill 500,000 Iraqis children by 1996? Albright stated that she thought the price was worth it.

So look up your histort BTW, and understand how many millions of Iraqis died under the Clinton-Hussein axis. In fact another UN scum bag was indicted yesterday for his part in propping up Saddam while starving the innocent.

Patton

BTW: ""Hussien's Baathists were a secular group! """

Are you really that stupid? Do a little more research you idiot. Hussein got in bed with the Jihadists during the Clinton years. He initiated Sharia law and started a massive mosque building campaign throughout Iraq. Saddam also added Allahu Akbar (God is great), the cry of the Jihadists, to the Iraq flag in the 1990s.
He also had the entire Koran written in his own blood and placed on display in the Umm al-Ma'arik mosque in Baghdad.


Do us a favor, if you want to state a fact, research you assertion first, otherwise, shut up.

Tina

Paladin: I'm a big time lurker here, but a drive-by poster.

Well....it shouldn't be too hard to discredit Russert, imho. If MSNBC is now reporting that the conversation between Russert and Libby was about anti-war commentary, they are already putting up lies, and Russert is the news manager I believe. I thought previous transcripts stated that Libby was complaining about the anti-semitism of Matthews reporting. It is my hope that Team Libby will be able to play several clips of Russert from MTP where he conveniently leaves out portions of quotes to misrepresent statements of administration officials (I recall one particular show where Russert misquotes Rummy, and Rummy pulled out the full quote and read it on air, over Russerts objections).

P

I think in a nutshell, this case boils down to simply, Libby is the victim of Armitages perjury and obstruction.

cboldt

-- Why three--not 5 or more--the judge is likely to rule (or may have in non-public hearings that three is enough --

Reflecting on the discovery motions, there is a greater likelihood, IMO, that Judge Walton will rule the "everybody knew" defense irrelevant. What is the relationship between what "everybody else" knew, and what Libby knew? Vallely won't appear, etc.

sad

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, is trying the case for the government. He objected several times, with little success, to the questions asked by the defense, saying he feared they were "pretrying" the case.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46874

Is anyone else snickering?

clarice

cboldt--go back to Cathy's prime number theory. If everyone knew the chance is that if he didn't hear this from Russert he heard it nevertheless from a reporter.

clarice

From the Sun article:
"Judge Walton asked the potential jurors whether they believed the human memory was like "a tape recorder and therefore all individuals are able to remember exactly what they said and were told in the past." The lead defense lawyers, William Jeffress and Theodore Wells Jr., pressed the point in one-on-one questioning, and in a positive sign for Mr. Libby, none of the potential jurors indicated that they thought human memory was perfect."

cboldt

-- cboldt--go back to Cathy's prime number theory. If everyone knew the chance is that if he didn't hear this from Russert he heard it nevertheless from a reporter. --

Understood. It doesn't change my informed speculation as to how Walton will rule (informed by past public rulings, not by any inside track).

clarice

You're not on an inside track? Well then get outta here. *wink*

I think he will--and should--let in some testimony along this line.Of course, some of it is likely to come in under cross examination of Cooper and Miller.

Lew Clark

Mr. Patrick "Press Conference" Fitzgerald is afraid the defense is "pretrying" the case. What a "Pot"!

Rick Ballard

Given the fact that lobbyists work both sides of the street, could their presence on the list be a warning to one of Fitz's witnesses? Granted that there is no reason to put rebuttal winesses on the defense list, it still makes sense as a tactical move to "warn off" a Fitz witness from getting involved with a stretcher. Cooper comes to mind.

Alternatively, they may have been present when someone, say Armitage, blabbed to a journo in a social setting.

Or maybe Wells is just setting Fitz off down a rabbit trail? If he is, we can be sure that Fitz will return with a tasty squirrel.

boris

Fitz will return with a tasty squirrel

Natasha will like that.

maryrose

Get me Moose and Squirrel!
Fitz is being totally exposed now and his inherent bias and true agenda is coming out for all to see. His case is crumbling as we speak. The jury questioning is just the tip of the iceberg. Wells is not going to give him an inch of wiggle room. Already he looks like a whining complainer. Already trying the case-Fitz -hello-there is no case.

Walter

CboldT,

I recall a late-thread discussion back in mid-summer without your input that discussed the Armitage revelations.

I read one of the rulings made in a court hearing as denying discovery related to Armitage because J. Walton stated that his role was not material.

As Armitage appears on the [J. Walton promulgated] list of people relevant to the trial, I question whether (1) I misread the ruling, (2) J. Walton revisted the question, or (3) the good Judge is covering his bases*.

I can't seem to find the thread, but I was discussing it with Clarice and Sue.

*All your base are belong to us.**

**Sorry, force of habit

Other Tom

"Do you mean the Shiites? Do you mean the Shiite 'government' that BushCo is propping up? Hussien's Baathists were a secular group! Your support of BushCo put Sadr's jihadists in charge in Iraq."

I mean the murderers, both Shia and Sunni. It is my understanding that the government (why the quotation marks?) was elected by a substantial majority of the citizens of Iraq. If we are "propping it up," would you prefer to see it fall? And are you suggesting that Saddam's Baathists, being secular, were accordingly incapable of murder? And in my support of BushCo, I at least take great comfort in the fact that I had the company of such luminaries as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Just think on it: barely two years ago we had a presidential election in which something like 120 million Americans voted for two candidates who had both supported initiating war against Iraq in 2003. Something for you to ponder, dolt.

Tom Maguire

Libby's attorneys "have sought to subpoena a tape made by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward of an interview with Mr. Armitage."

I am going to take a guess here - Woodward has a tape on which Armitage says "everybody knew about that", but it is unclear whether "that" is that Joe Wilson was the secret ambassador on the Niger trip that Kritsof and Pincus were buzzing about, or if "that" is Plame's CIA affiliation.

Re cboldt's guess that Vallely at al won't be admitted -if Vallely heard it from Wilson, that makes it more likely that Andrea Mitchell heard it from Wilson, which tends to undercut Tim Russert.

Presumably, Mitchell, Wilson, and Russert will all testify on this point, with obvious reasons to lie, so an impeachment witness might be appropriate.

Similarly for Nick Kristof, who met with Wilson and wife and may be about to admit on the stand that he knew of her CIA connection.

Well, that will be the defense argument, I would guess.

As to Fierce and Hohlt, I guess we would need to know *how* they allegedly learned about Plame before concluding they won't be allowed.

If, for example, they both heard it from Armitage and Grossman, that would impeach testimony that Armitage and Grossman were circumspect and have been forthcoming about their Plame leaking.

Well, this is speculation upon speculation at this point. However, NewsGoogle comes up blank on both these guys, so the MSM is not exactly hot on the trail.

I thought previous transcripts stated that Libby was complaining about the anti-semitism of Matthews reporting.

I can use some help here, but (a) my belief is that Russert did not mention the anti0semitism thing in his testimony, and (b) we won't find it in the court filings.

I am virtually certain of (a), but less sure of (b).

sad

From John Dickerson at Slate:

The first shock of the case is that the know-it-alls are in the minority. Despite saturation media coverage, frantic blogging, and the personal crusade of Joe Wilson, who at times seemed to be going door–to-door to scare up sympathy for himself, there are still balanced humans roaming the streets who live their lives unscathed by news about the leak. These strange beings admitted to knowing nothing about the particulars of the case or this whole big thing about whether the Bush administration fabricated evidence about weapons of mass destruction to go to war.

The hairdo gets no respect....

Sue

The hairdo gets no respect.

I'm not really commenting on that part of your post, I just liked it and wanted it repeated.

These strange beings admitted to knowing nothing about the particulars of the case or this whole big thing

I can attest to that in my corner of the world. Very few people even know who Scooter Libby is, let alone Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

clarice

Tom--Peter Cox wants me to blog tomorrow afternoon and wonders if we could set up a link to MBA by setting aside one thread solely for my live blogging. He would very much appreciate your contacting him at rcox@mediabloggers.org

I will be blogging for them if all works out on more than one day.By setting aside one thread only for the live blogging it will go out to the whole MBA and other threads will not be taking away from that focus.

topsecretk9

TM says:
I am going to take a guess here - Woodward has a tape on which Armitage says "everybody knew about that", but it is unclear whether "that" is that Joe Wilson was the secret ambassador on the Niger trip that Kritsof and Pincus were buzzing about, or if "that" is Plame's CIA affiliation.

Which, if it says this...sounds remarkable to Colin Powell's "everyone knows about Wilson's wife' in the Situation Room.

topsecretk9

Shoooooooot. Bad topsecretk9.

Tom Maguire

He would very much appreciate your contacting him at rcox@mediabloggers.org

I will be delighted.

Stop me if I have told this story before, but... I was at a dinner party where someone assured me that they read my blog daily, loved it, and only checked in to see what clarice was thinking that day.

I did *not* go home and re-name if "Just Ine Clarice", but I would have made a reader happy if I had.

clarice

No. You never told me that. But Cox told him 9 people told him that you and I were more on top of this story than anyone else. Now, in my case,it's only because I can synthesize what you and the JOM posters come up with.Without that I'd be as accurate as ,say, Nina Totenberg.

richard mcenroe

I understand the guy who refused to give the frequency to Kenneth is the Government's mystery witness...

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Do you want us to work on a list of adjectives and adjectival phrases for Fitz - you know - narrow eyed, stoop shouldered, very slow spoken, inattentive, dumbfounded, perplexed? Or do you want to approach it from the "cunning, sly, unprincipled, devious angle"?

The important part is to act as a real Washington journalist would - write 99% of your view of the case tonight and then add only aspects that reinforce your opinion tomorrow. Who knows - the WaPo could offer you Pincus' slot based upon your ability to do so.

Sue

I understand the guy who refused to give the frequency to Kenneth is the Government's mystery witness...

Man. I really don't understand that. And you don't normally talk in code so I think I'm just missing something.

cboldt

-- Armitage appears on the [J. Walton promulgated] list of people relevant to the trial --


Walton is just the scribe. The list is the combined lists of Libby and Fitzgerald. IMO, the list includes names that are not relevant to the trial, but Libby needs to turn this toward a "leak" trial, hence the appearance of leakers, etc. Raising the name or calling Armitage is not in the prosecution's interest, so the appearance of Armitage on "the list" is at Libby's behest.


Walton's ruling with regard to documents in State Department possession wasn't as harsh as 'Armitage is immaterial.'


Thus, for example, the fact that other governmental officials may have known before July 14, 2003, that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA is completely immaterial unless that information was shared with either the defendant, Miller, Russert, or Cooper.


June 2, 2006 Order at 6.

sad

Sue A big hint: he "speaks truth to power" and believes fabricated documents are especially "truthy."

clarice

Rick--Isn't it interesting to see how the press has changed it's own descriptions of Fitz ? If you live in this town long enough you'll see that happens to almost everyone.McCain is starting to see it, too.
But for an outsider like Fitz it's probably a revelation.

I knew he was out on a limb at his presser--that or he had the flu..He kept sweating profusely..I'll be interested to see Wulls in action. He is a master of criminal trial work.

cathyf
The key issue in the case is Russert's credibility. He has yet to relate the full conversation. If he choses to lie-and this is the likely scenerio- he must be discredited.
I maintain that you don't have to show that he's lying in order to impeach him. It's a classic investegatory technique to pretend that you know more than you know, in order to lure people into telling you things that they think that you already know. A good journalist will make a guess based on partial information and then try to get a source to confirm it. Libby testified that this is what he was afraid that Russert (or whatever reporter it was) was doing. I've wondered how much of Ms Run Amok's schtick is just an act, too -- act all flutter-brained and then the person that you are talking to starts "helping" you.

So all that Russert really needs to admit is that he constantly plays this fishing game when investigating stories, and it's possible that he threw this out to Libby, Libby didn't bite, and so then Russert just forgot all about it. Especially since the conversation was heated and such a comment would have been a digression anyway.

And we're also back at the whole put-the-investigation-on-trial strategy. FBI agents and journalists have all of those investigation skills in common. 1) The FBI guys know all about "fishing" because they are investigators too. 2) Libby told them directly in his testimony that he was afraid that Russert was "fishing" and was careful not to respond. 3) The FBI guys should have known from personal first-hand experience that when you do a lot of verbal "fishing" you remember the successes and don't have much reason to remember the failures. 4) The FBI guys should have taken seriously and investigated further the possibility that Russert did what Libby said he did but just doesn't remember.

cboldt

Walter: this may be the thread you recalled. (August 30, 2006)

JohnH

With regard to what Russert knew, it's crucial to bring in Andrea Mitchell and her revelation that "it was widely known." If it was widely known but Russert says he didn't know it, even if he is telling the truth it all comes out looking terribly confused and misunderstood.

Other Tom

Walton's ruling is hard for me to grasp. If other government officials knew, it certainly increases the likelihood that reporters other than Miller, Russert and Cooper also knew, and thus the likelihood that Libby could have gleaned the information from reporters, whether or not he can recall which one said what. But the ruling is consistent with Walton's general approach of very narrowly circumscribing this trial, which is typical in the federal system and is generally a good thing, in my view.

clarice

How did Mitchell know about Wilson in time to get him on MTP the very morning of his op ed if she hadn't known in advance who he was?

Thanks cboldt for the reference to the earlier discussion. Sometimes later known facts make earlier comments wrong, but I stand by what I said then:
"No, the Hitchens (I believe) had it right. Tenet's referral was of the standard sort filed by the thousands every year. DoJ sat on it for two months because it was meritless...no statute had been violated. Then Tenet sent another letter, strongly urging action. Hitchens thinks it was to cover his ass for bad Iraq intel. I frankly don't know why he did it. But this was a sham from the outset.Even so, I think DoJ would have stuck to its guns had not Mitchell broke the story and the Schumerites made a stink. Who leaked to her? Was it the cabal at the agency or the Comey crowd who was at odds with the OVP?
I'd sure like to know."

even looking at the CIA referral letter , had it been based on false statements to the DOJ which I am certain it was, Walton would be in no position to know this.

Surely with all that has been made public about Plame's employment--some in Wilson's own book--there can be no good reason for not declassifying it and making it public. I think it not impossible that a federal false statements case should follow.

Rick Ballard

John H,

That's another part of the point I was trying to make about Fierce and Hohlt. Lobbyists have been known to attend cocktail parties and both of them could have been party to a conversation with journalists which reinforces the "everybody knew" aspect.

If nothing else, it would certainly highlight the mediocrity of the "investigation".

clarice

Both of them could have had contact with wilson and Plame there and Ambassador and professional self promoting blabbermouth could have introduced her as his CIA agent wife.

JohnH

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if Libby is prevented from widening the scope of the trial to reveal who knew what and when, then he has a basis for appeal on the issue that the trial was about his memory or lack of it. It's crucial for him to show that this was all over town and he can't be expected to remember if he said certain things to Russert.

clarice

Perhaps the cross examination of Cooper and Miller will be sufficient. Cooper says he raised it with Libby and the record indicates his co-author was on the phone with wilson before and after the conversation with Libby. And I believe Rove testified he told Libby about Cooper's call.
The Time notes will impeach Cooper no matter how he testifies. Among other things, though taken contemporaneously, they make no reference to Ms Plame .

Miller's notes show Wilson's name and phone number and other references--obviously to Plame--which she says were not from Libby and she says she had other sources.
And, of course, Russert's subordinate, Mitchell did at one point say "everybody knew".
Perhaps it is sufficient to show the news was out early to the pressies Fitz is relying on ; and it is unnecessary to try to get into the record the entire universe of who knews.

cboldt

From FDL Live blogging thread ...


Fitz is asking [a prospective juror] about familiarity with Judy Miller's refusal to give up a source. He does not remember who the source was.

...
LibbyCo wanted to exclude all discussion of Judy's refusal to bust Scooter. But yesterday's witness and mention list makes it clear that, at least so far, Walton considers it admissible.


I speculated at the time the Motion in limine was filed that Walton would rule against Libby on this one. The above exchange is a bit of a premature read of the tea leaves on that point, as far as I'm concerned, as it only indicates that Miller's travails at resisting to testify might be raised at trial. Not that it will be. Likewise questions about bias relating to names and witnesses that might not come up, ala my speculation that the "everyone knew" won't be permitted as an overt line of defense.

clarice

I cannot imagine that the Court will give Fitz a wide berth on that issue while limiting Libby on so many other things--like who knew?

As fas as I can see Walton is playing things rather straight down the line.
The question BTW may be simply another way to flesh out how closely the prospective witness was following the case.

maryrose

cathyf:
Spot on , your posts are just great.
clarice I am so excited for you. We have a top notch person on the case.
TM: Your blog is just fascinating. When this is all over, someone needs to write a book!

pollyusa

Libby's attorneys "have sought to subpoena a tape made by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward of an interview with Mr. Armitage."

Mention of a transcipt of a tape is from the 2/24/06 hearing


Jeffress: "Your Honor, there is one thing that I neglected to mention and again this is subject to filings that have been made under seal but there is, in fact, a transcript of a tape recording that involves official one,"

"In the particular transcript there is, and the government filed something else yesterday, there is a factual dispute as to what is said or what is meant by a portion of the transcript wherein it appears the official saying, "everyone knows it," referring to the wife's employment at the CIA," Jeffress added. "We have not heard that tape. If, in fact, as the transcript suggests that one official said, 'Everyone knows it,' who did he mean by 'Everyone knows it?'"

Fitzgerald: "Your Honor, now that we have sort of burned what was sealed, my understanding of that conversation, there are people talking over each other, my understanding is that was a reference that everyone knows it, that Mr. Wilson is the unnamed ambassador," Fitzgerald said. "Mr. Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed ambassador until July 6. This was prior to that time."
2/24/06 Status Conference

I've wondered if the tape indicates that there was another official (besides Armitage) in the room.

Jeffress says the transcipt involves Official One and then Jeffress states "the official saying" instead of Official One was saying, which could imply there was another official in the room.

Jeffress restates and says "that one official said", which could also indicate there was more than one official in the transcipt.

Additionally, Fitz says there "there are people talking over each other".

clarice

Of course, Wilson DID reveal himself as the Ambassador earlier in public at the E.C.I.S. meeting in washington and surely in his numerous self-admitted contact with people at DoS and the CIA and in Congress. And surely if he was the star witness at the missing transcript Sen Dem Policy COmmittee meeting where he met Kristof he revealed eough to make his identity clear to those who read the subsequent column in May.

Fitz' team didn't do their homework, and the factual assertions he makes like that one are not entitled to credence.

Specter

Sara! Welcome back to the fold. Hope things are going well.

Walton will try to limit testimony, but Wells will get it in anyways. And once the bell is rung....

Tom Maguire

Fitz is asking [a prospective juror] about familiarity with Judy Miller's refusal to give up a source.

My official spin on this (which I may even start to believe) is, Bring It On. How a long talk about Judy's determination to protect oter sources can possibly be bad for Libby or good for Fitzgerald is beyond me. (OK, Fitzgerald will argue that she was protecting Libby, not others, bit it is clear that others were involved,and her own statement is that she wanted to protect them.

ASIDE: If I ever grow up I want to be Polly. Not "like" Polly. Polly.

Anyway, thanks.

maryrose

Polly-good to see you posting here again. You always add something necessary and important to the discussion.

Sara (Squiggler)

Thanks Specter.

To a comment above regarding investigations and the investigators --

Tomorrow I face my deposition in the police brutality civil suit. In preparing for this depo, we've been going over all the old paperwork. It is is scary because there were three plaintiffs to start, myself, my daughter-in-law and my Mother. My Mother died 2 years ago, the case has been pending for almost 6 years. In looking over the police version, we have 22 outright lies and another 12 half-truths and yet I am the only one subpoenaed. You can not trust that anything that comes from investigators is truthful or accurate. For instance, the state's attorney for the defendants wasn't even aware as of a few days ago that there were 3 victims here. They are claiming that I was there by myself and refused to answer the phone or doorbell. Neither is true and, in fact, they didn't have the right name or the right phone number so we are still operating on the assumption that they were at the wrong house. But, the bottom line is that the defendants' attorney seems to be unaware from his clients that this is a case about 3 sleeping adult women who were attacked for no reason. After six years, you would think they'd know the true facts. So I don't trust anything that comes from investigators. They are sometimes sloppy, sometimes operating on faulty initial facts, or they are trained to lie and circle the wagons and write up their reports from that slant.

We know that Fitz had (1) faulty initial facts, and (2) that he was totally uninterested in pursuing anything that would veer from his initial charge to his investigators, and (3) has continued to keep his blinders on by trying to get the court to also ignore the true facts in support of Fitz initial wrong assessment and limit the timeframe so that any contrary evidence predates his proscribed dates.

Apparently it happens all the time, in courts of every level.

Patton

Regarding Russert:

I think when it comes right down to it, would any National reporter risk his reputation to make false claims about someone in the Bush adminstration??

ehhh, Dan Rather?


errr, never mind.

Walter

CboldT,

Thanks for trying to dig up the thread. Took some digging, but I finally found it.

Turns out I would have been better off just recreating it, as all I wanted was:

"Obviously there has to be a showing of materiality in order to warrant under Rule 16 this information being provided clearly based upon what's been submitted to me and what was submitted to me ex parte.

There is no indication that this information would in anyway amount to Brady and I don't conclude that it satisfies the materiality requirement. I just think it is too attenuated to conclude that the revelation of this information would, in fact, lead to information that would assist Mr. Libby in his defense. So in reference to that particular request, it will be denied."

and

_If_ I caught the right ruling, it means that J. Walton didn't think Armitage's testimony was material to the charges in February.

It implies, that unless something has changed, he would rule the same way in regard to trial testimony.

Essentially, it just means that Walton didn't change his thoughts on the issue much from February to June.

Which is why I was surprised that he would pass Armitage's name to the jury pool in voir dire.

But I'm easily surprised.

maryrose

I honestly believe-correct me if I am naive- that Russert will tell the truth as he remembers it but will be ambiguous on some points and that will help Libby.

Sara (Squiggler)

Completely OT, but for the legal eagles and sleuths, an interesting turn of events.

Abu Grab and connecting the dots to NJ troopers, pimps and prostitutes

PaulV

Sue-Dan Rather alleged he was mugged by someone who asked what is the frequemcy Kenneth

cboldt

-- How a long talk about Judy's determination to protect oter sources can possibly be bad for Libby or good for Fitzgerald is beyond me. --

You're asserting a fact not in evidence - Judy's recalcitrance being based (solely) on protecting other sources. Not saying this can't be inferred, but she'd have talked about Libby sooner, so says she, if Libby had given a waiver beyond the generic one required by the DOJ. Libby argues that there would be a trial within a trial if Fitz wants to probe whether Libby saw opportunity to lie (if reporters keep mum, this case has to be rephrased away from reporters, or goes away entirely) with little chance of being caught.

But yeah, I agree, if the only reason Miller is keeping mum is to protect other sources, the argument is pointless in the context of this indictment ... and Fitz would be nuts to go there.

clarice

And if it's even ONE of the reasons, that should be insufficient to use it to imply Libby had a motive to lie for no one can sort of the weight she might have given to each consideration. Let us, for example, suppose that she did not want to emphasize the other sources for fear that even mentioning she had them would have led the investigators to redouble their efforts to locate them.

MJW

As I mentioned previously, Fitz kindly vouched for the sincerity of Libby's waiver to Miller in an affidavit:

Cooper testified at his deposition that he agreed to testify because he was convinced based upon his attorney's conversation with Libby's attorney that Libby voluntarily released Libby from any promise of confidentiality. Thus, to the extent that Judith Miller calls into question the voluntariness of Libby's waiver, she need look no further than to her own attorney (who represents Cooper as well) who, according to Cooper, has assessed that Libby's waiver of confidentiality has been voluntary.
From some of the voir dire questions asked by Fitz, it seems like he may have gotten his way with respect to Miller's resistance to testify. I'm not sure I agree with TM that Fitz may eventually regret it, but I'm pretty sure Walton will. I can't see any way that Walton can properly prevent Libby from exploring in detail the role that protecting other sources in unrelated cases played in Miller's decision. Given the history of Fitz and Miller, that could be messy.

cboldt

-- And if it's even ONE of the reasons, that should be insufficient to use it to imply Libby had a motive to lie for no one can sort of the weight she might have given to each consideration. --

Libby's said that he thought Miller was in jail ONLY in order to protect other sources.

I just don't see Walton giving Libby's assertion to the jury as an unrebuttable presumption.

MJW

Here's what Miller had to say about the role of Fitz's agreement to limit the scope of his inquiry:

Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.
If the prosecution is permitted to use Miller's refusal to testify against Libby, I honestly can't see how the equally-central Fitz could avoid being called as a witness.

Tom Maguire

Libby's said that he thought Miller was in jail ONLY in order to protect other sources.

I just don't see Walton giving Libby's assertion to the jury as an unrebuttable presumption.

Fine, but that is not my point - as documented above, Miller was keen on getting protection for her other sources; I don't see how Fitzgerald can talk about part of her motive for staying in jail without the defense dragging in another part. Whether she thought she was also protecting Libby is hardly the only issue.

As to Libby's belief that she was protecting other sources and not him, how unreasonable is that? First, no other reporter had turned down a waiver and gone to jail; secondly, being a First Amendment heroine might have been appealing to Judy at that point of her career arc; and thirdly, she eventualy admitted that she had other sources she wanted to protect.

Here is Jeralyn Merritt:

So, I think Fitzgerald's agreement to limit Miller's questioning to Libby is a big deal. It probably was far more a factor in her decision to testify than the release from Libby. No one ever bought her waiver argument - and she always was up front about not wanting to talk about her other sources.

Oddly, I had been on the opposite side of that argument - I thought Ms. Miller was protected by DoJ guidelines and the scope of the subpoena, but Ms. Merritt says that once you are in front of the grand jury, all questions are possible.

My guess at the time was that she (a) feared the Matt Cooper treatment - mention more sources, get more subpoenas, and (b) was holding out for the great publicity and the book deal.

I emphasized the absurd number of times the Times promoted the notion that she was protecting her sources "identity", a la Woodward and Deep Throat, even though the subpoena named Libby.

cboldt

-- as documented above, Miller was keen on getting protection for her other sources --

Yeah, and she gives a strange compound limitation. The "other sources" part isn't strange, but she seems to further qualify what she is unwilling to testify about as matters "unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife." That part was already outside of the scope of Fitzgerald's inquiry in this case.

Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times.

-- I don't see how Fitzgerald can talk about part of her motive for staying in jail without the defense dragging in another part. --

Neither do I. I speculated it unlikely that the issue (Libby's expectation of reporter confidentiality) would be settled in Libby's favor without bringing it up in court (the effect of granting his Motion in limine).

Tom Maguire

Yeah, and she gives a strange compound limitation. The "other sources" part isn't strange, but she seems to further qualify what she is unwilling to testify about as matters "unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife." That part was already outside of the scope of Fitzgerald's inquiry in this case.

Hmm, the NIE leak? But that relates to Mr. Wilson.

John H of Powerline had the idea that she wanted to make sure that Fitzgerald did not wander to questions about the Islamic Charities, which was being litigated in another venue.

I scoffed, as part of my ongoing campaign to antagonize friends and influence no one.

cboldt

-- John H of Powerline had the idea that she wanted to make sure that Fitzgerald did not wander to questions about the Islamic Charities --


Heck, some people believe that Fitzgerald had something to do with the inadvertent drop of classified material in the Holy Land/Dallas case. Just like Hindraker's thought that Miller was in jail to avoid testifying about Holy Land (sure ::roll-eyes:: while she had a court order that said she didn't have to). Pretty easy to fact check that sort of thing, but not many people do.

clarice

He wasn't the over all supervisor of those cases in Texas as well as Ill? I'm quite sure he was.

And with respect to the argument that the Court order said she didn't have to in THAT proceeding. Fitz also promised her he wouldn't ask her about other sources in THIS case. But when he had her before the gj without counsel, he went ahead and did it anyway.Talk about an agreement that wasn't worth the paper it wasn't written on.

Tom Maguire

And with respect to the argument that the Court order said she didn't have to in THAT proceeding. Fitz also promised her he wouldn't ask her about other sources in THIS case. But when he had her before the gj without counsel, he went ahead and did it anyway.

Well, if he had asked about the Islamic charities it would have been with a new grand jury utterly unfamiliar with the case (although I suppose he could deliver a transcript to the original grand jury), and totally beyond his mandate as Special Counsel.

However, after Judge Sweet, overseeing the charities case, cited him with contempt, blew various gaskets, and threw out Miller's testimony I doubt there would be enough of Fitzgerald left to vex us.

clarice

He now has a proceeding to obtain her phone records in that case.

I suspect you are right, however, that something obvious would have created a firestorm, but I can't say that with that history Miller was utterly bonkers to be concerned.
I do think she was concerned and rightly far more about other sources in THIS matter.

Sue

I have never thought he was going to ask her about her sources in the Holy Land case. I've just thought, if he was going in that direction at all, he would want to look at her phone records and notes to see if he could figure out who in his office she was chatting with. Then fire the person for something else. I also think it was personal for him, with Judy. He couldn't get her in the other case so he wanted to get her in this one. I haven't figured out what to do with Cooper though. Kind of like my husband story the other day. If I have leftover parts they shouldn't have been there to begin with. ::grin::

clarice

Another interesting piece on jury selection.
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/17/33073.aspx

So far only 8 have made it to the preliminaries--36 are needed before the challnges begin.

SunnyDay

The gal with the journalism degree from NW is probably the one who wants to write the book. Lying to get on the jury.

clarice

That's my guess..love where the judge told her to keep not reading anything .

hit and run

clarice, if *you* some day write a book on this, which you should, will you promise to mention me? Even as an insult would be fine. Or if not, can I at least get my copy autographed?

(this was written initially as a joke, but re-reading it in preview, I realize I am not joking! ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame