Neil Lewis of the Times - Get The Wax Out

Let me take a quick hit on the trial coverage on offer from reporter Neil Lewis of the Times.

He is describing the testimony of Cathie Martin, who handled press relations for Dick Cheney, and reports this:

She testified that both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent to Africa to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger for his nuclear weapons program.

"Intensely interested in Ms. Wilson"? That is simply not supported by two versions of her testimony.  Here is James Joyner's liveblog:

Except for 10 or 20 seconds when you recollect you told Mr. Libby and VP Cheney about Wilson’s trip and his wife’s role, you had no other discussions with either of them about Mrs. Wilson?
“Not that I recall.”

At no time during the talking points discussion, did you mention Mrs. Wilson?  No.

You wanted to get the whole story out?   Yes.

But you didn’t think the wife was part of that whole story?   “I didn’t think it was helpful to us.”

Your understanding was that Vice President Cheney’s intention was to get all the truth out about Wilson’s trip?  Yes.

Is it correct that “at no time IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE” did the VP indicate to you that Mrs. Wilson or her status was part of getting that story out? Correct.

“Do you have any knowledge of Libby EVER discussing with ANY reporter information about Mrs. Wilson and her employment status?” No.

Ms. Wheeler offers a similar account:

W Fitz also asked questions whether you had recollection of discussions about what reporters were saying about Mrs. Valerie Wilson.

M No recollection

W Except for 10-20 seconds when you recollect you told Libby and Cheney about Mrs. Wilson's wife working at CIA

M My recollection was the only conversation is when I learned of his name and his wife worked there.

W and you never had any discussions about Mrs. Wilson.

W During this week when you were part of the team at no time did you say anything to Libby about Mrs. Wilson.  Your job, get whole story out, get whole story out, Libby wanted to get the whole story out. You did not view "the wife" as part of the story

M it seemed not helpful to us. It explained something to me about why he got sent.

W when you were on a mission, you did not view "the wife" as part of that story. When you listen to VP Cheney, at no time did you understand that to have anything to do with the wife.

Objection. 

Sidebar.

2:41

W [Wells walking away from mike] Vice President says you should be completely accurage, lay it all out. WRTresponding to Wilson's allegations.

M VP wanted whole story about trip, report, made public. 

W Wanted the WHOLE story out.

Objection

W Is it correct that at no time did VP indicate to you that he viewed Mrs. Wilson or her job status as part of the story?

M I did not have the conversatoin with the VP about that.

W VP Never uttered a WORD to you IN HIS LIFE.

M Not that I recall but I uttered words to him about.

W You have had no recollectoin

M I can't be sure it lasted 20-30 seconds. I remember my portion of the conversation.

W Conversation also involved other information about Wilson. Mr Fitzgerald asked you about what took place during week of July 7. Conversations with Hadely, Mitchell, Tenet, reporters, conversations with VP and Mr. Libby. Is it correct that you have no knowledge of Scooter Libby EVER discussing any information concerning Mrs. Wilson or her employment status. And the conversations that you were asked questions about involving Mitchell and Hadley. Those conversation had nothing to do with the wife, Mrs. Wilson.

M Correct.

I understand that it may suit Mr. Lewis' story line, but I don't understand how one mention of less than 30 seconds with no apparent follow-up can be construed as "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson".

Of course, Mr. Lewis is a sly fox - what he wrote was "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV", which literalists and Times editors can defend as correct - Libby and Cheney had an intense interest in Mr. Wilson and no discernible interest in his wife, at least per the account of Ms. Martin.

This is deceptive reporting, whether by incompetence or design.

Comments

[Fresh Air]

I would have to give them credit: It's by both design and incompetence.

[Good Captain]

Standard Operating Procedure for the Times. What this says to me in an indirect way is to confirm this blog's weak assessment of the Prosecution's initial presentation.

Good Job!

[Tom Bowler]

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! New York Times dead wrong about Iraqis trying to get uranium from Africa!"

You were thinking they might report something like this instead? Look for them to stoke public outrage over an acquital.

[david buchner]

are you trying to say that a direct conversation is the only way to exhibit an intense interest? maybe you should think that out.

[Cromagnon]

I think Maguire's head is gonna explode if Scootie-boy is convicted, which looks more likely than not at this point. Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew

[MMR]

Captains and Founders? The assessment is becoming the answer. Fitz isn't really trying and should be prosecuting a crminial conspiracy, space alien NDA aside.

Plame sent alot of memos, which were required reading, at which point the reader was accused of leaking and then it was explained it's Joe's wife, legal. Aquitals and pardons are constantly brought up.

[Martin]

Actually I agree with you TM-but remember that Libby was having breakfast with Miller of the...New York Times.

Maybe Lewis has got stuff in his vaults...

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I would swear that when I read this yesterday:

'M it seemed not helpful to us. It explained something to me about why he got sent.'

That the 'not' wasn't in there. I'm seeing that as if for the first time.

Is it because the two sentences are contradictory with the 'not', or did Marcy add it later?

[Cecil Turner]

are you trying to say that a direct conversation is the only way to exhibit an intense interest?

Let's see. She said she “doesn’t remember any specific response.” They talked about answering Wilson at length and didn't mention Ms Wilson, there are written copies of the talking points and she is conspicuously absent, and Martin didn't ever remember either Libby or the VP bringing it up. Yeah, that's pretty intense.

Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.

[topsecretk9]

--Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.--

HA!

[sad]

Regarding the confusion of Martin about the June 7th vs June 11th date: is it possible that she Tivoed or recorded the show in question and watched it several days later?

[sad]

Sorry, the prvious post should have read July rather than June dates.

[dmh]

So we really down to the memory defense, with testimony (so far) that at least two people mentioned that Plame was Wilson's wife and that all things Wilson were of intense interest to Libby and Cheney. All this to a DC jury. I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

[PaulL]

Sorry, sad, your correction wasn't fast enough. I'm afraid you're going to be indicted for two counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction, unless you turn over Cheney.

[sad]

PaulL
I'm in big trouble then because I have previously posted here that I think he's hot. Sounds like I can expect a firing squad.

[PaulL]

dmh,

Like we've been talking about for days, all lefties and MSM types are conflating interest with Wilson's lies and interest in his wife. Interest in wife was almost but not quite non-existent.

[Tony B]

It reminds me of a comedian I once saw (I don't recall his name) who said he had a physical where the doctor asked him if he'd ever tried sugar or PCP.

[Dan S]

TM, you are incorrect about one thing. As supported by testimony, that NYT statement is not true in any sense supported by logic.

"intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV"

For a logical statement including and to be true, both parts must be true. For that statement to be logically true, the conjunction would have to be "or."

NYT can try to argue it's true because half of it is true, that half after that 'and' (which is exactly what I would expect from them, since it's clear that journalists are not required to take even a basic course in logic), but it just isn't so by the rules of logic.

I suspect YOU know this, but the way you stated it doesn't make it clear (at least to me).

[danking70]

I'm looking forward to seeing Harlow on the stand.

I wonder who else he spoke with besides Martin, Novak, and Mitchell.

and we do know that he told Martin and Novak about Plame. Will Fitz bring up his NDA's too?

[068]

Logically true: Plame was CIA(dad Air force NSA) and Wilson was CIA(dad, Spain, diplomat).

half of it is true.

[Ranger]

So we really down to the memory defense, with testimony (so far) that at least two people mentioned that Plame was Wilson's wife and that all things Wilson were of intense interest to Libby and Cheney. All this to a DC jury. I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

Posted by: dmh | January 26, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Yeah, of course the problem is that the prosecution has put on four witnesses so far, so by your count at least two have struck out. Oh, and all four have serious discrepencies between their FBI statements and their GJ testemony. One of them even was surprised by his own GJ testemony, and another colluded with the real first leaker before his FBI statement.

Yep, a great opening to the case so far.

[Aelfric]

Deceptive reporting from the NYT? You don't say?

Query: if the NYT was to attribute Libby quotes to a "former Hill staffer" is that deceit or just a clever disguise?

[hit and run]

Dan S:
TM, you are incorrect about one thing. As supported by testimony, that NYT statement is not true in any sense supported by logic.

"intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV"

Ah but......

Libby was intensely interested in Mr. Wilson for his lies.

AND

He was intensely interested in Ms. Wilson.........until he laid eyes on Ms. Cruz.

Still deceptive, but logically consistent?

[Daddy]

It seems to me that an undeniable example of "intense interest" is the testimony concerning the visit by Tom Cruise and the lovely Penelope (Thx for the pix PeterUK). But as far as there being any evidence or testimony indicating "intense interest" by Cheney/Scooter concerning Ms Plame, Nada.

[Dan S]

H&R,

You're right, one cannot ignore the Cruz factor.

It's a Cruz we must bare.

[Carol Herman]

The media "soldier's on."

You'll notice that what the media wants is to ruin our resolve. And, they have no intention of reporting the truth at all. THE TRUTH IS THAT VALERIE PLAME PLANTED THIS STORY; with the "halp" of the CIA, to get BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

Of course, Dan Rather also stepped in. But all his "efforts" did was a back lash. And, he lost his job. (No treason charges, though.)

So, you'll notice the media still has a free field.

And, it seems the elites, within the black community, who've been "elevated," all seem to work from Al Sharpton's dog-eared playbook. In it? It seems ALL BLACKS want revenge! Without caring about the costs of this "novelty."

I'm not very hopeful about Reggie Walton. Not since I saw how he TOLD WELLS, "it will be suicidal for Libby NOT to testify." Where do judges get the ability to go against the Constituiton, I do not know.

But then I still cannot fathom why the Vatican thought the cardinals could dispense with logic. And, allow pedophile priests access to alter boys. (Yet, the latest story out of Boston is that the diocese is closing 12 more parishes.)

I guess lawyers think people can leave their religion, but the cannot stop paying lawyers money FOR DRECK. So schools keep producing these bums. And, a lot more of them! Given how affirmative action works.

The more fanagled, however, Fitzgerald goes, probing up the asses of fools, the more likely this case will ultimately stand in bold relief. (It seems, blacks, and browns. Lesbians and gays. Who have benefitted from affirmative action, can see no downside.)

I see plenty.

It also seems its not enough just to drop your subscriptions to these "fully laden elite bombs." They seem to shrug off the business model (just like the lawyers), that to exist in the markeplace, and profit, you need satisfied customers. Not elites, with enough rope to lynch a Jew.

Ya know, it wasn't a successful approach, either for the germans. And, africa has yet to come up with one country that shows signs of middle-class black life that flourishes. Darfur? You want to solve that one? Won't see daylight, as the freaks own Academia. And, kids aren't taught the lessons they need in life.

[windansea]

Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew

I will give anyone 2-1 odds that he is convicted. Any takers?

two more spun out by the hamsterwheel

[Javani]

Cro-magnon writes,

"I think Maguire's head is gonna explode if Scootie-boy is convicted, which looks more likely than not at this point. Scootie's high-priced legal team are looking like amateurs compared to Fitz and crew"

I'd venture that to be ironic overstatement but given sometimes posters here I bet you believe that.

Tom, the "intense" and "obsess" memes originally source from Mr. Wilson's high opinion of his importance, scandal-mongering, and partisanship. Context is avoided, one never reads Cheney was intensely interested in Wilson..""...because Wilson claims Cheney hid vital information from the American public which Cheney denies."

I've read the NYTimes semi-regularly over the years but see it more and more as almost totally worthless as to Washington D.C. politics. The staff editorial board are amateurs too.

[hit and run]

You're right, one cannot ignore the Cruz factor.

Not with me around, one cannot.

Daddy - and when you think about it -- there wasn't really all that much intense interest in "Joseph C. Wilson IV". I mean, yeah, interest in "that lying bastard former diplomat asshat". But only Mr. Wilson thought it was of importance that HE was the asshat -- that is, he convinced himself that the administration was out to get HIM because HE was someone to be reckoned with. That if anyone else had made the trip and made the charges, the administration could have just looked the other way...

[SaveFarris]

Millbank is even worse. He seems to think that the Administration admitting that Fridays are dumping grounds for unpleasant news is somehow a huge scoop.

Memo to Mr. Millbank: it's been obvious for quite some time that Friday is "Trash Day".

[Patton]

The problem for the lefties with the first witnesses (Which they are apparently completely unable to grasp) is that Libby's defense is not:
^^^I never heard of Wilson or his wife until Russert told me^^^^^^

It is that he FORGOT the information about the wife.

Now, given the testimony of all the witnesses so far.

1. Grossman: Forgot about telling Libby about the wife when he was interviewed by the FBI. Told the FBI he was on the phone with Libby and then told the GJ he was face to face.

2. Grenier: Can't remember telling Libby about the wife, but had a sinking feeling in his gut that he may have. Never mentioned it to the FBI, nor the GJ but has better recollection this particular week.

3. Schmalls: Doesn't have any memory of telling Libby about the wife, but had her married name written on a piece of paper
that was once in the room with Libby.

4. Martin: Remembers telling Libby that Wilsons wife sent him to Niger, but says he made no gesture, sound, or response to her information (thus we don't even knew if he heard her) and she's not sure exactly when it occurred.

These are the same people who claim Cheney accepts poor information as fact (i.e. Iraq WMD).
The are Fitz facts witnesses that were going to testify that they told Libby this deeply unforgettable information, that they all then forgot.

[Carol Herman]

So far, America has won her wars. Europeans would all be under hitler's thumb, too. If we didn't come through and rescue those birds.

Of course, europeans don't have much to show for leadership, except their aristocrats. And, elites. Who let no one IN to their "inner sanctums."

While in America it's still a feast. Because, so far, for all their "trying," the donks are at the losing end of their long parade.

Can Libby lose? Well, the only reason there's "mileage" in that statement is because so many people have lost faith in the black man. Quite a journey! If you factor in the Civil War. It's outcome. And, how southern red necks kept blacks from achieving the status as human beings.

You might think Martin Luther King got civil rights legislation passed, all on his lonesome. But that's not true! And, the south got beaten back becuause plenty of whites, all over this country, thought that affirmative action would lead to good things.

Heads exploding? Seems at Duke you can see academics swimming off in the wrong direction. And, yesterday, when Reggie Walton "explained" to Wells, that he purposely withheld the testimony of experts, who could explain "memory gaps," ... What I saw, instead, is just another black man, with lynching rope. Sad. But what can you do?

If Libby loses? He's just one guy. The media still didn't "take down the president," as they did with Nixon. And, the numbers in congress has changed. The donks no longer sit in the driver's seat. Unless you're confusing pelosi with being an able driver. (Nah. She can't handle it. And, if you saw her at NASCAR, you'd see why.)

But the Net THRIVES. Even the lunatics on their hampster wheels, come HERE. They're not getting their "words out" on the editorial pages of the New Yuk Times. Because no one reads that crap.

While here it falls to the minority efforts; a chance to show the Internet lets everyone share their own opinions. While "exploding heads," is not what you'd call a future bet worth anything at all. Heck, if the donks were really winning, Dan Rather would still be in his anchor chair. The left just doesn't know how to count its losses. Not even in museums.

[hit and run]

PaulL:
Sorry, sad, your correction wasn't fast enough. I'm afraid you're going to be indicted for two counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction, unless you turn over Cheney.

I'm with you Paul.

::wipes sand from eyes::

[maryrose]

Wilson is miffed because he isn't deemed important enough. That nugget alone was worth the price of admission.

[Al]

Agree with Dan S above - literalists canNOT say that someone is interested in A and B if it is not true that he is both interested in A and interested in B.

[Patton]

Here is how Fitz stated Greniers testimony would go in the indictment:

""On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask
about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.""

Did Grenier actually testify to that or has Fitz been cooking the books??

[Rick Ballard]

If you want to examine logical imperfection, take a look at Fitz's NDA motion. Fitz substantiates his assertion that Wells 'opened the door' in Wells' opening statement by stating that Libby had nothing to fear by returning to the same argument in the subjunctive that he used in the presser. "If" a law was violated, "then" Libby had a reason to lie. That's very weak argumentation if actual facts exist that substantiate a law having been broken.

He may be trying to tie this to the offer of immunity to Fleischer but I think it more probable that he listened to his first witnesses and decided he had to have the "big case" in evidence in order to have a chance on the little case.

[mariposa]

--Let me guess. You're one of those "she digs me . . . look at how hard she's ignoring me" guys.-- [posted by Cecil Turner -- Mariposa]

HA!

Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 26, 2007 at 11:27 AM

. . .

TS, I second that!

CT, that's a classic wit you have there, fella -- you managed to sum up the whole argument in one funny line, at that.

[topsecretk9]

Rick

Talk left has some opinions about this...

This is a defensive motion on Fitz' part. He's reacting to Wells' claim in opening statements that Libby had no motive to lie. Previously, Fitz had alleged Libby's motive was not to lose his job. But Wells claimed Libby was not concerned with losing his job. Fitz thinks these agreements constitute new proof...

...I'm not sold on this motion. There's no linkage to Libby's focus on the agreements at the time he was interviewed by the FBI or testified to the grand jury. I could see it if Fitz had evidence of a conversation Libby had with someone about his fear that his comments to reporters violated the non-disclosure agreements. But, those agreements are standard for people in sensitive government positions. Had he re-read them or been reminded of them before his interviews with FBI agents or grand jury testimony?

Without evidence that Libby was concerned about the non-disclosure agreements at the time of his statements, I don't think the mere existence of them establishes motive.

I'm sure Team Libby will file a response in opposition. From the defense perspective, what other arguments do you see in opposition?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/1/26/3207/68938

[Patton]

Yeah, with a background like Libby's; I'm sure he feared going on welfare if he had to leave the White House.

[Javani]

"Millbank is even worse."

I read your link. It was pretty awful. It portrayed a glee of revelation at the most mundane political/media practices. Little twists of truth and framing here and there that would be unkown to those who haven't followed the testimony in this case as posted by EW and others.

The major media narrative there was something wrong about Cheney and Libby responding to allegations made against them seems very strong in white liberal chattering-class circles. Look how the writer deploys some "Niger" trickery to detract from revelations the CIA firmly believed in the existence of Iraqi WMDs. It seems to be an article of faith with these people that they must pin a "Bush Lie" on WMDs and discussion cannot be tolerated because so much of their adversarial political identity is invested in the narrative.

But on the positive side reporters of even the most partisan ilk will read that piece amazed the writer thinks he is revealing anything so secret.

[Ranger]

And NDAs are a joke now considering how much leaking is going on in DC. Haven't heard of a single Intel person going to jail for releasing classified info to the press in a while.

[Javani]

TS,

Big smile on my face when you just laid down this text:

"This is a defensive motion on Fitz' part. He's reacting to Wells' claim in opening statements that Libby had no motive to lie. Previously, Fitz had alleged Libby's motive was not to lose his job. But Wells claimed Libby was not concerned with losing his job. Fitz thinks these agreements constitute new proof... "

Ha Ha. Fitz is killing me. He alleges in opening a financial motivation, predictably the Defense responds there was none. Only in the context of this affair wherein merely the fact Cheney and Libby would respond to allegations against them is treated as abhorrent can a Defense response to a Prosecution allegation be framed as a tactic somehow unethical or opening up discovery again.

Fitz has been assimilated. I know he wants to win, but respect man, respect!

[topsecretk9]

Mariposa

That Tuner kills me. He's wicked good.

[windansea]

Fitz has been assimilated.

I'm not sure if he at one with The Borg or just trying to salvage his rep

[MaidMarion]

From around June 11, 2003 until about July 7, 2003, it truly was irrelevant to the WH that Plame had been involved in sending her husband to Niger. All that they really needed the world to know, and were interested in getting out, was that the CIA was behind the decision to send Wilson to Niger. It didn't matter one iota that Plame was involved...

On July 8, 2003, Andrea Mitchell states on a program (I forget which) that CIA operatives were responsible for sending Wilson to Niger. Yet this same evening, her compadre Chris Matthews starts fomenting the lie on "Hardball" that it was at the behest of the VP's office...and even gets (guest) Senator Rockfeller to concur whilst (guest) David Gergen is trying to set the record straight.

It seems to me that even as late as July 7, 2003, the fact that Plame had sent her husband was still irrelevant from the WH's perspective. Reporters (eg., Mitchell and Gergen) were attempting to correct the record that it was a CIA generated mission, not something requested by the VP's office.

It was Chris Matthews, on July 8, who was doing his best to keep the impetus of Wilson's July 6th Op-Ed piece and MTP appearance alive. I'm beginning to wonder whether the discussion Libby had with Russert on or about July 10 went something like this:

"Hey Tim, have you noticed that Andrea Mitchell is reporting one thing and Matthews another? Andrea's got the story right...the CIA decided to send Wilson to Niger. How 'bout telling Matthews to knock it off?"

[clarice]

Do you suppose that Chris has some personal stake in this black op or has he simply gone over the bend.

[Patton]

Does anyone have a website that debunks mathews on a daily basis???

I don't watch his program much, not worth the effort and it seems like it would be a full time job to correct his errors.

I would think if you wanted to e-mail MSNBC with complaints, you should also e-mail that Microsoft guy.

[Carol Herman]

Well, so far the case hasn't even been handed to the jury.

And, it's possible, with all the twists and turns; that it won't even get there!

If I didn't once serve on a jury (civil court), where this wasn't the outcome, I'd have no idea. But I don't bet on "lawyering."

Unless you want me to say Martha Stewart's calamity was put in place by her own choice of a dog for an attorney. Someone she knew from her country club circle. But, she still got hung out to dry. Her judge was black. And, the jury, in her case, inferred a great deal from her clothing. (They hated her!)

But Martha took it all in stride. Lifting her wallet off the table. So justice went awry. And, it stands a good chance of doing so here. In which case? We'll add an elite black man to the Ito dancers. It's not a plus for lawyering, though.

And, so far? I think Libby gets major donations. So it's more than just his own wallet that's on the table.

And, Wells won't go quietly into "that goodnight," either.

What we have is a case of the media looking to take out Bush; with the same tools they used to take out Nixon.

Also in the background, scribbling away? I'd bet Woodward's worried that he no longer looks all that good. Given that he committed treason, ya know? And, he wasn't helped by Mark Felt's exposure, either. Mark Felt didn't even have to die, first. To expose Woodward.

If you think America's amused that the media is still up to its old tricks, I beg to differ.

There's nothing on Fitzgerald's folk, except Libby. And, the judge? Another black man, who benefitted from affirmative action. Who shows up with lynching rope.

OR? The judge wanted this case to be heard. And, it's possible we can't even read his cards? But judge Ito's dancers await.

Meanwhile, Chris Matthews' career sees daylight in a Saturday Nite Live, opener.

And, when wilson's story really breaks? It's gonna go back to 1999. When Bubba was president. And, it's gonna involve the french. And, the italians. Who've been betting against Bush for years, already.

I wish them all to be boxed with Litvinenko.

[clarice]

Check out this one--Did they put the headline on a different story and mismatch them? Was the LAT reporting on another trial in a different universe?
WTF?