Libby Trial - Nearly Showtime

I have not yet prepared my Libby trial pre-game, but here is an excellent overview by Josh Gerstein of the NY Sun.  I endorse this:

Members of both camps are seeking vindication from Mr. Libby's impending courtroom battle, but whether they will get it is another question. The former White House official is charged with lying and obstruction of justice, not leaking, so the trial may be so circumscribed that both cheering sections are left with an unsatisfying result.

I am glumly resigned to a trial that leaves everyone scratching their heads and going home unhappy.

MSNBC also has coverage, with good pop-ups outlining the key witnesses.  [under 'reporters' we learn that andrea mitchell has, not surprisingly, been subpoenaed.  and yes, i am borrowing ee cummings computer and can't get the shift key to work.  earlier, it was 'a' that was blocked out, and i was going to comment on 'ms. mitchell'.  my so-called life.]  I was unnerved by this description of Robert Grenier:

A veteran CIA official, he served in 2003 as the chief of the department that helped plan the Iraq invasion. Defense attorneys believe Grenier, or former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, is the unidentified officer who prosecutors say told Libby on June 11, 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

I had not inferred from the filings that the issue was in doubt.

Finally, the invaluable and indefatigable Murray Waas gets a sneak peek at more of Libby's grand jury testimony, and provides more background to the skepticism with which Libby's story was greeted.

Comments

[MayBee]

Is someone in the prosecutors office leaking to Waas? Or is he just filling in the blanks creatively?

Anyway, it still baffles me why the Cheney/Libby pushback was so much more interesting to investigators than the State pushback was.

I thought Judith Miller denies having a personal friendship with Libby? I have to go look that up.

[quest33]

Yes, I agree that all the liberals and leftists, and Democrats (but I said that didn't I) are hoping that this case at the very least hurts Cheney somehow, and of course their great tormentor, Karl Rove.

No matter what happens, in their little minds they will think that they proved their case, that true evil walks the earth in the OVP, and that its major henchman is Karl Rove.

What a bitter pill that all they have gotten so far after so much effort is an indictment of a little pipsqueak, even "nice guy" by the name of Scooter Libby.

Still Scooter's conviction, execution and drawing and quartering will help ease their pain just a little, but I fear only whet their appetite more.

[clarice]

Yes..if he isn't making this up, someone inside Dion's office at DoJ or Fitz' office revealed gj testimony to him.

[MayBee]

So...leaking classified information from those investigating leaking classified information? Classic.

[Sue]

The trial starts Tuesday? Wow. And on another note, is Jeff Murray Waas? I could have sworn I was reading one of Jeff's posts when I read that article.

[MayBee]

I think I'm being slow, but I don't get the importance of this (Waas):
Prosecutors did not want to tip Miller as to why it was so crucial to them to learn whether Libby had ever mentioned the March 2002 Wilson debriefing report to her or Cooper shortly after he disembarked Air Force Two.

The reason was that Libby's failure to mention the March 2002 debriefing was one more piece of an ever increasing body of circumstantial evidence that led prosecutors to believe that Libby had devised a cover story to protect himself, and perhaps even the Vice President, to conceal the fact that his agenda was to leak information about Plame from the very start.

[Sue]

Waas ignores the elephant in the room. Armitage. The one person who managed to get into print what Cheney and Libby were working fast and furious to get out, according to Waas. And he isn't part of the story. Or the conspiracy. Just dumb luck?

[MayBee]

Sue-
Sometimes I wonder. Is Jeff Murray Waas? Or does Murray Waas just hang out at EW for a clue about what the Wilsonites want to hear more about (two phone calls in one day! one for mere seconds! fascinating!)? Then Jeff would be his inspiration.

This happened before with a Leopold story.

[clarice]

Yes, indeed, it's a sure sign of the nefarious plot that Cheney had Libby discuss the declassified NIE report not Ms Martin.
What a crock! Sounds like the kind of thinking found inside the FBI's CI operation under Szady who allowed and facilitated the five biggest most successful CI against this country ever,DUMB

[clarice]

**the five biggest most successful CI OPERATIONS against this country ever,DUMB***

[Sue]

two phone calls in one day! one for mere seconds! fascinating

I looked for that and the only place I found it was Murray Waas. Of course, the EW, firedoglake and Jeff's of the world ran with it and clogged the search up with their sites, so I could be missing something, but the only source I've seen that there was 2nd phone call on the 12th is from Waas.

[MayBee]

Waas ignores the elephant in the room. Armitage

Yeah. What I'm not sure about is if that is Waas ignoring the elephant in the room, or if it was the investigators ignoring that path. From this article, it seems the investigators were intent from the very beginning on finding Libby lying about Cheney's agenda- an agenda which seem not to be illegal. Or at least, if it was illegal, why was what State did not illegal?
It makes it seem it was much more an investigation about lying than an investigation about outing a CIA agent.

[MayBee]

I looked for that and the only place I found it was Murray Waas.

According to Waas, that came from evidence presented to the Grand Jury. If there isn't another source (Judy), that is disturbing in itself.

[Sue]

Waas ignoring the elephant in the room, or if it was the investigators ignoring that path

I choose both. Waas has to ignore it for his conspiracy to work and the investigators never cared. DoJ knew who leaked to Novak from the beginning. And State knew before the October surprise they are feeding us.

[Sue]

According to Waas, that came from evidence presented to the Grand Jury. If there isn't another source (Judy), that is disturbing in itself.

It didn't come from Judy, according to Jeff. She is conveniently forgetting to tell us about, again according to Jeff. I have asked him if he knows where it originated, other than Waas, but from reading the original article Waas wrote on the story, I suspect it is another one of those sources like the one we just read. Either true or not.

[topsecretk9]

The BBC interview is a gem...AFTER knowing Miller has Wilson's personal info in her notebook before she talked to Libby (interview courtesy Hamsher, natch, when Rove was a second away from being indicted - 12-02-05 (or was that business seconds?)):

BBC INTERVIEWER: Who was it who told you that Valerie Plame was a spy?

JUDY MILLER: I don't remember who supplied the name. I remember and I testified before a Grand Jury to who it was that told me that Valerie Plame worked at the agency in the WMD area and that individual was Lewis Libby.. Scooter Libby.

(Hamsher) She doesn't remember. Okay. We get it.

BBC INTERVIEWER: But if it was Karl Rove, for example, you'd remember.

JUDY MILLER: I'm not going to talk about who my other sources were or were not.

(Hamsher) B..but, I thought you couldn't remember, Judy?

She better get her story straight before Libby's attorney gets her on the stand -- which he most certainly will -- and grills her about other administration officials she "can't remember" -- which he most certainly will. I don't frankly think she's clever enough to keep it together under that kind of pressure.

Remember she said she might have sprung the name to TRICK Libby...to trick Libby into what? OH THAT MEANS SHE KNEW BEFORE!...and strangely, in the same interview she's adamant that the crafters of the intelligence - THANKS HUBRIS for telling us one of the crafters is Val - were responsible for the flaws. She's not backing down from this

...Although Ms Miller apologized for the intelligence being incorrect she defended her journalism saying she was right to publish and had done everything she could to verify the facts. She said: "I'm deeply sorry our intelligence community got it wrong.

"I am deeply sorry that the President was given a national intelligence estimate which concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and a active weapons programme."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4486750.stm

Makes you wonder what CIA crafter source promised her these findings were a sure thing, doesn't it? I second Hamsher's wish for a grilling because Judy doesn't say whether or not her sources Admin officials, but no matter what ...she obviously didn't have waivers from these sources and since Fitz didn't really care about them - and convinced himself Libby was the first and then Woodward later popped up - I can't WAIT to find out who supplied the name and I bet Libby's attorneys can't either.

[Sue]

That was kind of jumbled. What I was trying to say is Waas reported the 2nd phone call the same way he reported the above article. Sources close to the investigation, etc.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

And on another note, is Jeff Murray Waas? I could have sworn I was reading one of Jeff's posts when I read that article.

Get OUT of my head!

[Pete]

Regardless of Armitage, the question still remains why did Libby lie his butt off? Libby is a lawyer, and knows quite well the consequences of not being truthful especially in a high profile case. He could easily have referred to his own notes in case he was confused or forgetful.

[Sue]

I can't WAIT to find out who supplied the name and I bet Libby's attorneys can't either.

I bet you we never find out. I also bet you Libby's lawyers never get to ask her that question. Or maybe I don't bet you that one, but I won't be surprised if the question is never raised.

[MayBee]

OK. Judy in the WaPo:

Miller says she was hurt by Keller's suggestion that there was an "entanglement" between her and Libby.

"I had no personal, social or other relationship with him except as a source," she told the Times.
---
Waas:But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship.
---

Hmmm.

Judy Miller on how long she'd known Libby:

I said I had known Mr. Libby indirectly through my work as a co-author of "Germs," a book on biological weapons published in September 2001.

----

[Sue]

He could easily have referred to his own notes in case he was confused or forgetful.

Didn't think it would ever get in front of a GJ. At least that is my guess.

[MayBee]

OK. Judy in the WaPo:

Miller says she was hurt by Keller's suggestion that there was an "entanglement" between her and Libby.

"I had no personal, social or other relationship with him except as a source," she told the Times.
---
Waas:But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship.
---

Hmmm.

Judy Miller on how long she'd known Libby:

I said I had known Mr. Libby indirectly through my work as a co-author of "Germs," a book on biological weapons published in September 2001.

----

[MayBee]

OK. Judy in the WaPo:

Miller says she was hurt by Keller's suggestion that there was an "entanglement" between her and Libby.

"I had no personal, social or other relationship with him except as a source," she told the Times.
---
Waas:But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship.
---

Hmmm.

Judy Miller on how long she'd known Libby:

I said I had known Mr. Libby indirectly through my work as a co-author of "Germs," a book on biological weapons published in September 2001.

----

[cathyf]

I found interesting the breezy characterization of Cheney as some sort of loose-cannon white house staffer who wasn't properly coordinating his activities with the other staffers. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room -- the vice president is an elected official, and since March 2003 has had the power to declassify things upon his own authority.

If Waas is really a spokesman for the attitude of the investigators, sheesh, the sheer arrogance of these people. They really think that they are a 4th branch of government, and believe themselves the equals of the president and vp. Or their superiors -- it would certainly explain the audacity of lying to the supreme court.

[topsecretk9]

I bet you we never find out. I also bet you Libby's lawyers never get to ask her that question. Or maybe I don't bet you that one, but I won't be surprised if the question is never raised.

We may not find out WHO, but we WILL find there was a who.

Well we know they will get her to say she did know about Plame and most likely Plame was Wilson's wife. They'll ask how she got Wilson's contact info and did she contact him. And they will get her to say enough that she knew BEFORE she talked to Libby that Plame was important enough to the story to try and trick Libby. She'll have to explain why she knew "Plame" was important, important enough to trick him and why it was "supplied" to her.

Oh, I think they'll get to that. For they could argue that Libby misspoke and learned much from Judith Miller.

Do we know for sure Judy Miller wasn't at the same conference Kristof was when he had breakfast?

[topsecretk9]

I bet you we never find out. I also bet you Libby's lawyers never get to ask her that question. Or maybe I don't bet you that one, but I won't be surprised if the question is never raised.

We may not find out WHO, but we WILL find there was a who.

Well we know they will get her to say she did know about Plame and most likely Plame was Wilson's wife. They'll ask how she got Wilson's contact info and did she contact him. And they will get her to say enough that she knew BEFORE she talked to Libby that Plame was important enough to the story to try and trick Libby. She'll have to explain why she knew "Plame" was important, important enough to trick him and why it was "supplied" to her.

Oh, I think they'll get to that. For they could argue that Libby misspoke and learned much from Judith Miller.

Do we know for sure Judy Miller wasn't at the same conference Kristof was when he had breakfast?

[topsecretk9]

Is typepad hinky tonight?

[topsecretk9]

I am just curious, if this is leaked GJ material - of which Walton has been pretty harsh about this being tried in the media and defense attorney's siting Walton's April 06 ruling for no comment - did CREW receive any of this since Wilson has been subpoenaed?

[MayBee]

Sorry about the triple post, typepad went down and then...viola!

[MayBee]

Waas: Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.

During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said absolutely nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson.

Instead, both testified that Libby discussed the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger. The discussion between Libby and Cooper was the first that the then-vice presidential chief of staff and the Time correspondent spoke of Plame.
------
Cooper:
All morning I had been trying to reach I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby for a cover story about both President George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's controversial Op-Ed....I I kept running from pool to parking lot to try to reach Libby, who was traveling ...Eventually I raced home without showering in order to take Libby's call. When he finally reached me at around 3 p.m.,

Cooper again:

On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters
====
I just think it's interesting the way Waas spins the Cooper part, compared to Cooper's own testimony. He makes it sound like Libby called Cooper on his own initiative and started blabbing about Plame to Matthew Cooper for no reason at all. I would suspect Cooper bringing up "Wilson's wife" threw him off a bit.

[topsecretk9]

I just think it's interesting the way Waas spins the Cooper part, compared to Cooper's own testimony.

Well yeah, especially since Waas apparently ignores the inconvenient part about Cooper's credibility problems as per Walton.

[MJW]

For a bit more information on Miller's July 8, 2002 interview(s) with Libby, read Judith Miller's website.

From an Oct. 20, 2005 response to questions from Byron Calame:

During my grand jury testimony, there had been some confusion over whether redacted notes of an interview I had done with I. Lewis Libby and which I provided to the special prosecutor were taken on July 12 at my home in Sag Harbor or during a briefer discussion with Mr. Libby earlier in the week.

From an October 23, 2005 letter to Maureen Dowd:

Once again, I found the notebook, which was not covered by the subpoena, as I was searching for additional notes on where I was when I conducted my July 12th interview with Libby. As I told Calame, “Under oath, I had promised the special counsel I would search for any additional notes I might have relevant to Mr. Libby and Plame/Wilson that would clarify whether the notes had been taken in a taxi in D.C. or at my home in Sag Harbor.

I would say the Jeff/Waas interpretation is reasonable, but perhaps the actual explanation is more complicated. Miller's seeming lack of motive to misrepresent a conversation on the same day as "earlier in the week" makes me skeptical she's attempting to do so. And if we take her comment about "notes...taken in a taxi in D.C. or at my home in Sag Harbor" to refer to two separate July 8 interviews (instead of , for instance, one interview that may have take place in a cab or at home), her seeming lack of any attempt -- three days later -- to continue her misleading description, makes me more skeptical. It's puzzling.

[MJW]

Wass says:

By the end of those two additional conversations, Miller testified that she felt confident that she could write a story saying Plame was a former CIA officer and that Plame had played a role in her husband being selected to go to Niger.

However, he fails to mention that although Miller claims she pitched the story to Jill Abramson, an editor at the NYT, Abramson denies it. Which would, it seems to me make Abramson a potential rebuttal witness; and which, it also seems to me, makes Walton's subpoena decision incomprehensible:

This Court has greater difficultly concluding that documents responsive to request four are relevant. This request seeks documents “reflecting or referring to any request or recommendation by Judith Miller, prior to July 14, 2003 . . . to pursue a news story or investigation relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger or his claims concerning that trip.” N.Y. Times’ Mem., Ex. A. Although the defendant claims that documents responsive to this request could be used to attack Miller’s credibility because there appears to be a dispute as to whether such a request was actually made, Def.’s Opp’n at 23-24, Miller’s memory of these events is at best only tangentially related to her memory of her conversations with the defendant. The relevance of these documents, therefore, is suspect. In fact, the only possible way documents responsive to this request could be relevant is if the defendant, during his cross-examination of Miller, is permitted to inquire into whether she sought to pursue a story on Ambassador Wilson and his trip to Niger. However, unless something occurs during the trial which the Court cannot currently envision, it is virtually inconceivable that this line of inquiry will be permitted.

So Miller can claim she learned about Plame from Libby and wanted to write a story about it, but Libby's lawyers can't point out she never actually tried to write the story?

[topsecretk9]

OK,,,this just gave new life to the Wilson team leaking crap this entire time and actually give a window into who Wilson gets his info from...can you say Fitz was major payback? Notice the location AND timing of the investigation and think about where the lead FBI investigator in Plame came from...

Justice attorneys say they can't disclose all the contents of the December 2004 report by the department's inspector general without violating employees' privacy.

However, ex-Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard G. Convertino of Detroit said the Justice Department violated his own privacy rights by revealing to the media that he was the subject of an internal ethics inquiry after he criticized the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy.

Two people who have seen the full report confirmed it rules out Convertino as a suspect in the leak case. Those people described the report's findings to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because it is sealed under a Justice Department protective order...

...For two years, Convertino led the government's case in the nation's first terrorism trial after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was removed in 2003 after the Justice Department concluded he withheld evidence that could have proved the innocence of the four defendants accused of being a Detroit terror cell.

Convictions of three of the four men were later overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. The fourth was acquitted.

Four months after he was taken off the case, a January 2004 article in the Detroit Free Press cited anonymous Justice Department sources saying Convertino was under investigation for misconduct during the trial. The Justice leak violated Convertino's privacy rights, his attorneys said.

Convertino also maintains he was targeted because, shortly before he was removed from the case, he criticized the Bush administration during a Senate hearing on funding for terrorism prosecutions. The sealed report does not cite that congressional hearing or identify it as a motive for the leak, according to the people who have seen the report.

Yeah, I bet he claims that, Plame has made the default cry wold of career incompetence.

Personally I don't give a crap about the guy because he is a Nifong, withholding evidence - so cry me a river on being named a leaker...go tell it to Hatfill. Also, if the shoe fits...because look whose quoted in the last paragraph....

Like Convertino, Plame and Wilson are suing the Bush administration for the leak.

"Anything you want to do to people who go off the reservation is fair game," said Melanie Sloan, the lawyer for Plame and Wilson.

OH...HELLO CREW.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/13/news/nation/14_48_361_12_07.txt

[topsecretk9]

lead FBI investigator in Plame came from...

correction that would be Philadelphia...meant chief letter wrter Conyer's connected to Sloane...

[MJW]

I notice Waas says: "Miller told the grand jury that she believed that telephone conversation took place after she had arrived at her home in Sag Harbor, N.Y., although she was not entirely sure."

Therefore, it seems like her taxi versus house comment to Dowd, wasn't meant to refer to two separate conversations. I doubt that the "earlier in the week" comment referred to the three minute July 8 call.

I wonder why the GJ cared so much whether Miller took the call in a cab or at home that Miller "promised the special counsel [she] would search for any additional notes [she] might have relevant to Mr. Libby and Plame/Wilson that would clarify whether the notes had been taken in a taxi in D.C. or at my home in Sag Harbor."

[MJW]

Another thing about Miller's taxi-versus-home comments. Doesn't Miller actually have to remember the interview to testify about it? She can't even recall where she was when she did the interview?

[MJW]

In the previous comments, I meant July 12, not July 8. Please mentally add 4 to the dates.

[topsecretk9]

Also, retired CIA outer Jim Marcowski "farm" bubby of Plame ran for Congress in Michigan. Seems to be where all the stench comes from - Conyers and Crew.

[tom maguire]

i am havng dramatic system challenges, but...

the two phone calls from libby to miller on the 12th were part of the story, as i recall it. probably judy's account in the times has it.

as to pete's query about why libby did not tetify more shrewdly - good question. hubris... i can't shift, but 'hubris' should be followed by a question mark. m anyway, five minutes reflection should have left libby with a better story.

per the msnbc site, andrea mitchell has been subpoenaed by the defense. not a surprise. my call - she has a story and is sticking to it.

[MayBee]

In the previous comments, I meant July 12, not July 8. Please mentally add 4 to the dates.

done.
I knew that's what you meant anyway.
But yeah, hard to imagine how much it mattered. Unless one happened after he'd talked to Cooper (who brought it up).

[Patton]

This continues to boogle the mind:

In fact, the first official to spill Plame's name to reporters was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who ironically was not considered a pro-war advocate. Armitage has not been charged with any crime, saying his disclosure was an inadvertent slip.

INADVERTENT slip to TWO of the most prominent reporters in Washington....
.come on.

This from the press that still believes Sandy Berger was simply SLOPPY in his handling of Top Secret documents.

[MayBee]

Is someone breaking Federal Law to give Waas information?
-federal investigators theorized
-federal investigators have theorized, was to protect Cheney or other superiors,
-What Miller herself did not know during her grand jury testimony was that a key issue for federal investigators
-Prosecutors did not want to tip Mille
that led prosecutors to believe that Libby had devised a cover story to protect himself,
-In private, some federal investigators have asserted
Investigators are still attempting to determine

Wass the novelist

-Cheney believed that
-The moment of triumph would prove to be illusory
-prosecutors were incredulous
-They also expressed skepticism
-They were also disbelieving
-Exasperated prosecutors indicate
-Fitzgerald then bore down on the witness
-a skeptical prosecutor indicated

[MayBee]

as to pete's query about why libby did not tetify more shrewdly - good question.

My guess goes hand in hand with Sue's. He knew he hadn't leaked to Novak, didn't take the investigation seriously, just said what he kinda remembered, and didn't think he had to worry about getting everything exactly right.

[Patton]

Interesting description of Woodward:

""Washington Post reporter who spoke to both Richard Armitage and Libby about Valerie Plame.""

REALLY??

[clarice]

Waas Nicht never lets us down.

[cboldt]

-- Yes..if he isn't making this up, someone inside Dion's office at DoJ or Fitz' office revealed gj testimony to him. --

Any particular line in Waas' story strike you as not being in the public? I thought the verbatim dialog (including all the "Yes, sir" responses) might have been (not public information), but that part of the GJ transcript -is- public information.

Not that I believe Waas (I've been looking for corroboration of ALL of his statements - I think everybody in the press is a liar), but his story covers some interesting bases.

[Pete]

My guess goes hand in hand with Sue's. He knew he hadn't leaked to Novak, didn't take the investigation seriously, just said what he kinda remembered, and didn't think he had to worry about getting everything exactly right.

That is simply unbelievable. If that is the case no jury would have a problem returning a guilty verdict.

[Sue]

the two phone calls from libby to miller on the 12th were part of the story, as i recall it. probably judy's account in the times has it.

If so I can't find it. It really isn't that important, at least not as far as I can tell. Jeff mentioned it to bolster an argument he was having on the other thread about the Feb. 12th/13th date controversy. It was the first time I had heard about a 2nd call on the 12th and I have been unable to locate mention of it except where it leads back to Waas as the source. Maybe Jeff will clear it up when he shows back up. Or someone else who knows where it originated.