Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Live notes from the Libby trial | Main | Libby Trial: Continued Misinformation From Neil Lewis of the Times »

January 19, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834da4fa153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Picking a Jury: The Libby Voir Dire:

Comments

topsecretk9

You ARE a tech diva! And TM is now your Blog DADDY!

clarice

I'm sorry for any interruption--this is not an ego trip..MBA just set this to feed into their site.

I also have to add this:

Clarice is an attorney who has covered the Libby case extensively for the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/ and is the author of "The Case of the Missing Crime" for the WeeklyStandard http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/720lutwz.asp . She is a frequent poster at Just One Minute http://justoneminute.typepad.com/ where her utter inability to type or to master internet technology is obvious and a source of benign amusement to the bright crowd of regulars who post there

Just One Minute has been following attentively this matter for years. On the right side of this blog are hyperlinks to many of the key events and documents in the case and I invite you to pole around in them and the archives.

Most of the regulars here are well-informed (some might say obsessed, but I wouldn't be one of those, of course) with the case and continue to come up with the most insightful commentary and research about it you can find anywhere.
In the absence of Tom Maguire, our fearless, brilliant and charming leader, I welcome you.

clarice

I warned you I can't type--this" I invite you to pole around in them and the archives." should be an invitation to "poke" around in the archives ..and of course I should have said the JOM posters are well informed ABOUT the case, not WITH it.

Carry on.

Rick Ballard

Clarice - depending on the level of privilege extended by Tom you may have the ability to edit not just your posts but also your (and others) comments.

I'd really like to have that "and others" privilege. I'd never abuse it, of course. Not often anyway.

clarice

Well if could edit others..but that would be wrong.
Once MBA sends me the instruction sheet you can be sure I'll whisk those typo critters from view on my posts.

cboldt

-- I'd really like to have that "and others" privilege. I'd never abuse it --


Chicken.

Jane

You can edit mine anytime Rick. Could you just make sure you make me sound smarter not dumb as a post?

topsecretk9
A federal judge said Friday that he likely would allow NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell's notes to be used in the CIA leak trial, setting up another potential fight between journalists and the court in the case.

Mitchell's notes on her conversation with former White House aide "Scooter" Libby have been under subpoena for nearly a year, but U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton had ruled that, because Mitchell was unlikely to testify at trial, her notes would not be released.

Attorneys for I. Lewis Libby said in court Friday that they planned to call Mitchell as a defense witness during his perjury and obstruction trial. Opening arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

Walton reversed course and ordered attorneys for NBC to be in court Monday to discuss the notes. He added: "I don't see how I can deprive the defense of it."

NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin said the agency would have no comment.

the "analysis" of what this "might mean" is priceless, but news otherwise.

TM will be interested in this, it's own of his little tasties.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_CIA_Leak_Trial_Notes.html

topsecretk9

ONE, not own (however, I do think he "owns" the AM aspect)

TCO

(Forgive me for missing this when it was covered) Didn't the Novak story talk about a non-partisan White House official as the leaker? And Armitage is from State? Anyone commented on the inaccuracy yet?

boris

Forgive me ...

No.

clarice

TS--that's a very good catch.


Here's what Tom posted about that conversation:
"Per the transcript, Andrea Mitchell spoke with Lewis Libby in roughly the relevant time frame, but no one can pin down the date; Libby has testified about this, but it seems that Ms. Mitchell has not. Ms. Mitchell has one page of barely decipherable handrwitten notes that do not indicate that Wilson's wife was discussed, and the defense would like these notes.

The defense wants to play "heads I win, tails you lose" - either Ms. Mitchell did not get a Plame leak from Libby, in which case the defense can argue, gee, look at all the reporters he talked to without leaking, maybe he got confused.

Or, if he did leak to Ms. Mitchell (in apparent contradiction of his own testimony), then perhaps Ms. Miitchell mentioned it to her boss, Tim Russert. That might explain how Russert learned of it, and later told Libby, who by this time had clearly forgotten his leak to Andrea and was surprised to learn of Plame from Tim. Confusing? Wait until the defense hires a Russian novelist to explain it."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Da1AKMhDUIUJ:justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/07/back_to_i_lewis.html+Andrea+Mitchell+conversation+with+Lewis+Libby&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4>Mitchell

From what we have learned, Mitchell's offhand remark that "everybody" knew about Plame--we have a third possibility--Mitchell told Libby.

Of course, if that's so we get back to the question of how Libby, not the overly focused attention of Fitz on the WH to the exclusion of all other possible sources of the leaks, was what really obstructed his own inquiry.

topsecretk9

I can't remember, but didn't the subpoena call for all notes including a litany of people Mitchell was in contact about Wilson, not just notes taken with contact with Libby?

Also, I can't remember any mention of Libby talking with Andrea Mitchell? When was this?

clarice

Thanks to Sunny Day we have links to three new filings in the case in html format for researchers to use.

There is an order placing the transcripts of bench conferences discussing individual jurors under seal. http://members.cox.net/liinda/251.htm

An order sealing the government's pleading:
"Upon consideration of the .govethment’s Motion to Seal Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Redact Portions of Defendant’s Grand Jury Testimony, it is hereby • .."http://members.cox.net/liinda/250.htm

And a proposed jury instruction by Libby setting forth his theory of defense:

"At the request of the Court, I. Lewis Libby, through his counsel, submits the following proposed jury instruction describing the theory of defense. This instruction will be revised and expanded at the close of the evidence.

Proposed Instruction:

Mr. Libby denies that he intended to or did obstruct justice, make intentionally false statements to the FBI, or make intentionally false statements to the grand jury. He contends that he told the FBI and the grand jury his honest recollections at the time, and to the extent any of those recollections were incorrect, his mistakes were innocent. He contends that he lacked any notes of the conversations about which he has been accused of lying, and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events. He contends that any conversations he had about Ambassador Wilson’s wife during June and July 2003 were so brief, and the information he received so incidental to the issues he was dealing with, that he honestly did not recall them when he was questioned about them. He contends that the amount and importance of intelligence information he was receiving and responding to during June and July 2003, and the number of vital issues of national security he was dealing with on a daily basis, dwarfed any information about Joseph Wilson’s


wife’s employment. Thus Mr. Libby contends that it is natural that he did not recall, or recalled incorrectly, brief conversations about the employment of Mr. Wilson’s wife when the FBI’s investigation began in October, and when he testified to the grand jury the following March. Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he was confident that he had not provided any information about Mr. Wilson’s wife to Robert Novak, and that he had not disclosed classified information about Mr. Wilson or his wife to any other reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them. Thus Mr. Libby submits he had no reason to lie to the FBI or the grand jury, and did not do so."
http://members.cox.net/liinda/249.htm

topsecretk9

Thanks to Sunny Day

I see you!

Patton

"""Mitchell's offhand remark that "everybody" knew about Plame--"""

I wouldn't characterize it as off-hand, she was being interviewed on a ntaional broadcast and I am sure NBC top journalists choose their words mighty carefully when they are imparting information to the public.

I don't think Fitz will get Mitchell to admit under oath that she makes alot of flippant, off hand comments to the public during the shows she's on and we really should ignore what she says or take it with a grain of salt.

I suspect, given what we know about the Plame couple, 'everybody' knew she was CIA, at least in Andreas circles.
BUT, they didn't know she was involved in sending Joe to Africa.

TCO

If he was such a busy guy and the issue was so non-iumportant, how did he know for sure that he had not talked about the matter to Novak? If he could forget one lapse, could he not forget another?

MayBee

About your AT Article Clarice, and the WaPo journalist/potential juror:
to share what she learned at the trial with her colleagues at the Post and her live-in boyfriend, who works there. "I'm a gossip," she professed.

Hilarious, isn't it, in a trial about how "everybody knew/all the reporters knew"? Perhaps she, as someone who is an obvious newsroom gossip, would have been good to have on the jury.

topsecretk9

Maybe he talked to Novak about Welfare Reform, hmm?

clarice

Yes--kinda like how Fitz not finding out about Armitage gossiping to Novak kept him from finding out that Novak told Pincus and Ben Bradley somehow mysteriously also knew that Armitage was the guy who leaked to Novak.

topsecretk9

Maybee

At least she wasn't sugar-coating her profession.

clarice

I mean Fitz not finding out about Armitage gossiping to Woodward....(I'm going to preview. I'm too tired to read well.)

Rick Ballard

"Novak told Pincus"

Woodward told Pincus - they all really do look and sound the same so the error is very understandable.

clarice

Last shot at this with the intended name in BOLD.

"Yes--kinda like how Fitz not finding out about Armitage gossiping to WOODWARD kept him from finding out that WOODWARD told Pincus and Ben Bradley somehow mysteriously also knew that Armitage was the guy who leaked to Novak."

And , of course, prevented Fitz from finding out that WOODWARD twice talked to Libby and concedes he may have told him about Plame.

Steve White

Clarice, on your excellent paragraph regarding professional gossip, er, journalist, er, juror 1531. I must say, if I were in the pool of 100 (how long and exactly how sharp are those needles again?), and I had decided that I really, really didn't want to be sequestered for the next umpteen months on that jury hearing about this case, I'd make darned sure I blurted something about the eeeeeeevil Dick Cheney. Or something like that. Whatever, and I'd have no pride at all.

JJ

I hear the rushing sound of chickens on the wing, coming home to roost. Love the thesis on the AT article.

topsecretk9

Maybee - Here is how Dickerson wrote about it

A Washington Post reporter (yes, another one) said she would find it impossible to keep from talking about the case with her boyfriend, with whom she lives. "I don't talk to my wife," muttered the judge, continuing the trial's leitmotif of telling us more about the main character's spousal relations. "I'm a journalist," she said in her defense. "I'm a gossip; it's what we do." In the end, it wasn't her profession but her views about Dick Cheney that bounced her. "I don't trust him, and anyone associated with him would have to jump over a hurdle for me to think they are at all telling the truth."
MayBee

Also, I can't remember any mention of Libby talking with Andrea Mitchell? When was this

I don't remember this either.

clarice

MayBee I cited to Tom's discussion earlier. I had no independent recollection of it either.

Dickerson was there yesterday. He's a very nice guy.

clarice

It's all from the very densely packed transcript of the May 16, 2006 pretrial hearing.

http://www.truthout.org/trans051606.pdf

And I guess--indict us all--we concentrated more on other things in it--like Cooper and Calibresi--than we did on Mitchell.

MayBee

Why yes you did clarice. How embarassing for me.

cboldt

-- Walton reversed course and ordered attorneys for NBC to be in court Monday --


The press lies. See Walton's December 19 Order. "Course reversal," hahahahaha.

topsecretk9

Amitage innocently gossiped to 2 reporters

"Novak told Pincus"

Woodward told Pincus

Mitchell's offhand remark that "everybody" knew about Plame

Judy Miller believed that before this call [with Libby], she might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife.

"They're a journalists," said in their defense. "They gossip; it's what they do."

Rick Ballard

"The press lies."

In other news, water remained wet today.

clarice

Refresh my recollection cboldt. I'm old and my memory fades out.

Javani

Clarice, did the following strike you?

"...and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events."

Lookin' good for Libby.

Mitchell is being called for her contact with Wilson and "everyone knew" comment.

cboldt

-- Refresh my recollection --


Consider it done. The Order I have in mind is likely not in your recollection.

clarice

Yes, Javani-Let's see if he gets that jury instruction.

clarice

cboldt, my head is splitting and I wish you'd tell me what you meant.

Here's Matt Apuzzo's explanation for Mitchell being called and I don't understand it:
"Mitchell's testimony and notes could help Libby's case by describing an atmosphere of tension and finger-pointing within the Bush administration regarding intelligence issues on Iraq. That could bolster Libby's claims about a hectic and tumultuous climate in which he could not accurately remember certain conversations."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_CIA_Leak_Trial_Notes.html>Mitchell

MayBee

Perhaps Libby's defense should be he was just gossiping to the investigators.

Javani

""They're a journalists," said in their defense. "They gossip; it's what they do.""

It's plausible that a journalist did tell Libby "everybody knows" but very few actually did, the journalist wanting to ferret out a confirmation, but would never confess to this trick of the trade.

As for the British issue and the anonymous leaks by the "Ambassador", the prosecution will frame as much as they can that the matter derived from Mr. Wilson's article. The defense will point out why Wilson, and maybe his wife, would be much subject of discussion within narrow Washington and journalism circles before the article and thereby plausible that many knew.

Anyone telling me the Brits weren't calling all sorts of Washington folk about this Ambassador bloke during the Dodgy Dossier hoo-ha? No Brit reporters calling their American contacts? Unlikely.

Javani

"Yes, Javani-Let's see if he gets that jury instruction."

Clarice, you know more about this than me, but my impression was not about a jury instruction but...did other people have that benefit?

SunnyDay

Here is the "US v Liddy" reference (being used in another case) - about halfway down the page.

In conducting voir dire under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a), the trial judge “‘is accorded broad discretion to mold the manner and mode of [the] examination,’” and there is “‘no basis for reversal unless he abuses his discretion, and there is substantial prejudice to the accused.’” Id. at 1095 United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 435 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
clarice

Anyone whose notes hadn't been subpoenaed when they spoke to investigators.(That covers all the press) Miller could look at her notes. Cooper and Russert could have(though Russert says he had none), Mitchell could have.Novak could have. Woodward could have.

I have no knowledge that DoS or CIA employees notes were inititally subpoenaed. If that's right-Powell and Armitage and Grossman and Grenier and Schmall could have.

topsecretk9

Cooper on his ROve GJ appearance:

For my part, I sat at the end of an L-shaped table next to one of the prosecutor's lawyers, who handed me various documents to review while an overhead projector displayed the documents on a screen near me.
MayBee

The press lies. See Walton's December 19 Order. "Course reversal," hahahahaha.

Would you please provide a link, if you have one, to the document on your website, cboldt? I don't have your site bookmarked. Maybe TM would also consider a link on his sidebar, along with Polly's Datebook, etc.

topsecretk9

I am not positive, but I think Cooper turned over his notes just in July 05, just before Rove - at least his notes concerning Rove he fought. So I am not sure if he wasn't so protective of his Libby notes.

topsecretk9

it says in full:

He contends that he lacked any notes of the conversations about which he has been accused of lying, and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events.
Semanticleo

Get your popcorn ready.

Cheney will melt down like Captain Queeg.

Mark my words. Remember who said it.

cboldt

-- Cheney will melt down like Captain Queeg. --


Who is Captain Queeg?

Hei Lun Chan

It's a peremptory challenge.

Javani

Clarice, TS,

I highly doubt Fitz showed Cooper notes from other people.

I'm looking again at the indictment. A few things struck me you might comment upon:

1. There is nothing about what he said at the FBI interviews regarding when he first heard of Wilson's wife. Suspect. If he said "I think it was from Cheney" Fitz is done. FBI had to ask him that right?

2. Cooper's statement of how Libby confirmed the wife story is oddly similar to how Rove confirmed Novak's story...which everyone heard of since Novak telegraphed Rove through his article what he was going to say Rove said.

3. A lot of what Fitz frames as perjury is Libby's gamesmanship trying to attribute the info to reporters rather than himself. He doesn't want to be the source which may be standard leaking games, but not perjury. Libby's got a tough one here, he doesn't want to seem like a fibber, but Fitz has got trouble there too. Everyone's probably said in their life "I hadn't heard that," but actually had. Maybe Fitz wants to make lying to a reporter a crime, certainly his indictment mixes that in.

topsecretk9
Defense attorneys are withdrawing, for now, their request to use NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell's notes during the CIA leak case, heading off a potential fight leading to the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis Libby.

A federal judge said Friday that he probably would release Mitchell's notes to attorneys for Libby and scheduled a hearing on the issue Monday. Within hours, network spokeswoman Barbara Levin said the request for the notes had been withdrawn and the hearing canceled.

Mitchell's notes on her conversation with former vice presidential chief of staff Libby have been under subpoena for nearly a year, but U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton had ruled that because Mitchell was unlikely to testify at trial, her notes would not be released.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was revealed shortly after her husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the in a newspaper article the administration's use of false intelligence to ease the march to war in Iraq.

Attorneys for Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, said in court Friday they planned to call Mitchell as a defense witness during the perjury and obstruction trial.

Today on IHT.com


Turk-Armenian editor slain in Istanbul


Leading U.S. senator assails president over Iran stance


Iraq produces draft law governing oil industry

Opening arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

Walton reversed course and ordered attorneys for NBC to be in court Monday to discuss the notes. He said: "I don't see how I can deprive the defense of it."

Though the hearing was canceled, the notes remain under subpoena, and defense attorneys could raise the issue again during the four- to six-week trial.

Story changed...CBoldt

Didn't Walton reverse course by saying

"I don't see how I can deprive the defense of it."


When he did den the defense of it last year?

Just a thought.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/20/news/CIA-Leak-Trial-Notes.php

Javani

"Cheney will melt down like Captain Queeg."

Strawberries!

Cheney isn't going to melt down. It's a fantasy Libby's acts were meant to protect Cheney. If Libby was lying it was to protect one man -- Libby.

Reminds me of the Sandy Berger incident. It seems so many Clinton-haters can't imagine Berger's crime was not meant to protect Clinton's reputation, but Berger's. Clinton wasn't scribbling notes on those drafts.

clarice

Cooper had apparently plenty of time before he turned over his notes to study them and plenty of time to discuss with other Time employees what had happened.
As I recall it, as soon as the investigation was begun, Gonzales was called and told everyone there records were to be kept. All WH staff was ordered to cooperate. Libby told them what they remembered and his notes were subpoenaed (probably in reverse order). Before he appeared before the gj, therefore, he hadn't reviewed his notes nor was he given copies of the investigator's notes of their original interview.So he couldn't review those either. (His counsel may have kept a copy of what was subpoenaed but I believe his argument was that with the press of business and the scope of the inquiry vague, he hadn't a chance to fullly review them.)

In court, if a witness forgets an earlier statement so sames something inconsistent with an earlier statement, he is to be given an opportunity to read it and clarify. I don't know if that happened in this gj proceeding.)
As for the claim that he couldn't talk to others to refresh his recollection, I am certain WH employees were directed not to talk to eachother or others about this as that would have been considered an effort to fabricate stories or obstruct the inquiry.)

topsecretk9

WOW, thinking more about it...Libby's team just got the judge to telegraph to Fitzy there something majorly nuggetish in them there Andrea Mitchell notes, huh?

clarice

I broke my promise to use preview
**there should be their and this should read as corrected"
In court, if a witness forgets an earlier statement AND SAYS something inconsistent with an earlier statement"***

I wish I knew what the backstory on the Mitchell notes was..I wonder if the network and Libby's lawyers are negotiating something..

topsecretk9

Javani

Interesting you use the same email addy as TCO.
and a few other posters...asdfasdfasdf.

TCO

It's a secret permuation of the keys on a typewriter...

Javani

October 1, 2003, what Novak said, publicly to boot, Rove told him:

"When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it."

____________

Karl Rove's story, first (I think) published in the New York Times July 15, 2005:

"Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
_____________

What Cooper says Libby told him, writing on July 17, 2005:

""Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.

Libby/Rove mix-up?


topsecretk9

I wonder if the network and Libby's lawyers are negotiating something..

could be, but IIRC AM is another stone Fitzy didn't turn and I have to think that Walton wouldn't mess with it if it weren't relevant. Walton ruled on the media before the Armitage revelation.

Javani

TS:

I'm caught!

Changing codes...

TCO

No. Stay loyal. We double logins need to stick together. Otherwise we'll really go schizo.

clarice

Excellent point, ts..
Yes, after some fumfling around, AM made it clear that at best she had a small conversation with agents and was never formally questioned. I believed they asked her about the WH response to her inquiry where people were referred to the Novak article.

Sue

I am completely lost. Has the defense withdrawn, for now, their request for AM's notes? And will the judge only allow them in if AM is called to testify?

topsecretk9

Sue

Yes, but withdrew after they were able to draw from the judge

"I don't see how I can deprive the defense of it."

At which the defense can rasie the issue if they call her, which they will.

Friday night Fitzy Head*%$#

topsecretk9

CRRRAAPPP

clarice

Check my fuzzy recollection. It is that Libby subpoenaed those notes and the judge alone saw and reviewed them.
Now Libby may recall what the two of them said, but Fitz doesn't know and he never subpoenaed them.

Tom's notes about the transcript of the pretrial hearing on this point say "Ms. Mitchell has one page of barely decipherable handrwitten notes that do not indicate that Wilson's wife was discussed"

What else could be in them that the Court says it cannot fail to turn them over to the defense if they want it?


Sue

I'm still confused. I understand that the judge would allow her notes to be brought in if she testifies, but if defense hasn't seen those notes what exactly was the point of saying they were calling her then almost immediately withdrawing it?

Legal minds...help me out. What am I missing here?

topsecretk9

So sorry about the tag...

forgot to mention...you know how Fitzy says Libby was the first government official to talk to reporters, but more importunely Libby was at the START of the chain of phone calls? And then Miller says "I believe that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife."? And then Fitzy sent his men in black a day or 2 before the indictment to neighborhood and then says Plame was not widely known outside of the intelligence community? (Does the intelligence community know the identity of all our covert agents?)


Anyways...Andrea Mitchell said it was widely known to those who **COVER** the intelligence community.


cboldt

-- Has the defense withdrawn, for now, their request for AM's notes? --

No. The defense has been persistent on all avenues.

-- And will the judge only allow them in if AM is called to testify? --

I presume the notes and the person are attached at the point of "relevance." If the ruling is "relevant and admissible," Mitchell and her notes come in. That is, I don't see a way to separate the person, Mitchell, from her notes.

Sue

I'm not sure I would trust Libby's memory at this point. It hasn't been exactly stellar with regards to what he thought he and reporters discussed. Either that or reporters notes aren't all that great.

That's a thought. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a reporters notes and compare them to the actual story they wrote?

clarice

Sue--forget the law for a minute-first what could be in those notes where Mrs. Wilson is not mentioned that is so important the judge says the network must give them to Libby if he wants them and he calls her as a witness and he will call her?

Treat this strictly as a mystery.

(as to why they withdrew the motion for the moment--let's say they prefer to keep Fitz off balance and in the dark about it.)

clarice

Sue--we will see that comparison when Cooper testifies and from the pretrial it appears the notes and the story are widely at odds.

Sue

Clarice,

I'm not that good. There could be nothing in those notes mysterious or otherwise. If Libby's defense is going to call her, the notes become relevant. Regardless of what is in them. Where are you going with this? If Wilson's wife isn't mentioned, are you thinking Wilson was? When was the conversation between Libby and Mitchell?

topsecretk9

Exactly...it's a stone he did not turn, and they reminded him of it.

clarice

Sue--my eyes are tired. Why not go to the JOM cite with the transcript URL and see if there's anything that helps,please.

It could have been something about Wilson--maybe something about Wilson and Russert or Wilson and Matthews --that would make Russert's claim less credible I suppose.(first guess at this)


Sue

I did and saw nothing that jumped out at me. I am more interested in why they said they were going to call her then backed off. I know it has been speculated they didn't want the fight, but I can't see why they wouldn't want the fight if they thought it would help their client. I guess I'm with Top on this. A dig at Fitz. He doesn't know what Mitchell will say because he didn't question her. Or look at her notes, presumably.

MayBee

I thought they were just backing off for now. My guess is they didn't want to have a hearing on Monday.

clarice

Some fight..the judge says they can have it if they want it.
It's clear why they decided to postpone it--let Fitz worry about it; they got the ruling they wanted and since they can only get it if they call her, machts nicht.

What is in those notes is intriguing me..I take it this conversation occurred in late June thru mid-July of 2003? Was it before or after the Russert conversation?

topsecretk9

Here is Clarice's link

Per the transcript, Andrea Mitchell spoke with Lewis Libby in roughly the relevant time frame, but no one can pin down the date; Libby has testified about this, but it seems that Ms. Mitchell has not. Ms. Mitchell has one page of barely decipherable handrwitten notes that do not indicate that Wilson's wife was discussed, and the defense would like these notes.

The defense wants to play "heads I win, tails you lose" - either Ms. Mitchell did not get a Plame leak from Libby, in which case the defense can argue, gee, look at all the reporters he talked to without leaking, maybe he got confused.

My sense, if the notes say nothing then it's a non issue. It seems to be an issue.

I think it would be HILARIOUS if it turns out one of the persons Judy Miller called was ANDREA MITHCELL!

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/picking_a_jury_.html#comment-27986420

topsecretk9

Here is Clarice's link

Per the transcript, Andrea Mitchell spoke with Lewis Libby in roughly the relevant time frame, but no one can pin down the date; Libby has testified about this, but it seems that Ms. Mitchell has not. Ms. Mitchell has one page of barely decipherable handrwitten notes that do not indicate that Wilson's wife was discussed, and the defense would like these notes.

The defense wants to play "heads I win, tails you lose" - either Ms. Mitchell did not get a Plame leak from Libby, in which case the defense can argue, gee, look at all the reporters he talked to without leaking, maybe he got confused.

My sense, if the notes say nothing then it's a non issue. It seems to be an issue.

I think it would be HILARIOUS if it turns out one of the persons Judy Miller called was ANDREA MITHCELL!

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/picking_a_jury_.html#comment-27986420

topsecretk9

I totally agree with the friday night mind-^%(*

if only that has been my experience with lawyers.

Sue

Something that has really bugged me and will probably never be answered is how Wilson got the trifecta. The NYTs, the WaPo and MTP. Who vouched for his credibility? They didn't take his word and I doubt they would have taken the word of an unknown employee, covert or otherwise, at the CIA. And after they were burned by him, why did they continue to protect him? No scratch that, I know why they did that, they liked his story, fake but accurate and all of that. Someone with clout, someone they trusted, told them Wilson was speaking truth to power. And for some reason during this short time frame that everyone was buzzing about Wilson/Plame, Andrea Mitchell and Dick Armitage had a falling out.

Javani

I don't know anything about Mitchell, but I noticed somehting about Miller. From the indictment...

"...14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting ... LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson,...During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. ...

24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

And the charge...

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

...c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003."

That's the sole charge against Libby relating to Miller. The other mentions of Miller are to show Libby knew about Plame when he lied or fibbed to reporter he hadn't known that.

Only one date is charged. Suspicious, but it may be the only date the FBI knew about from Scooter's calendar in late 2003.

clarice

Okay, I went poking around in the attic and found this old post of Tom's:
" have a lot more detail here but briefly: in late June Ms. Mitchell had a scoop from State about the misplaced INR dissent (on Saddam's nuclear aspirations) in the NIE; she sat in for Russert and interviewed Joe Wilson on the July 6 'Meet The Press'; on July 8, she told the world that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA "operatives" (a word later used by Novak, to great controversy); on July 20, she had a public spat with Richard Armitage, who was no longer returning her phone calls; and on Sept 26 she broke the news of the CIA criminal referral of the Plame case.

And of course, there was her famous Oct 3, 2003 response that prior to Novak's column it was "widely known" amongst the journalists covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA. She has since disavowed that.

So - she was covering the Niger-uranium story; she was talking with Armitage, until they fell out; she claimed at one time that Ms. Plame's CIA employment was "widely known" among reporters; and she works with Tim Russert. She might have something helpful for the defense.
"

___Guess what, I think chatty Dick Armitage talked to her, too--"July 8, she told the world that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA "operatives" (a word later used by Novak, to great controversy


Have we cracked it yet?My guess, is she talked to Libby about the NIE story to try to get him to confirm or deny it, but now that we know Armitage was blabbing--and that he used the word"operative" to Novak--it is likely he talked to her, too..and Fitz never asked her.

Javani

Sue:

"Something that has really bugged me and will probably never be answered is how Wilson got the trifecta."

For one, he created pre-publication buzz for the article by anonymous leaks about the "Ambassador."

clarice

And if we know when the INR leak was and we know the second pressing of it dated July was not the original date in June--when Grossman had it...well, possums? Whaddaya think?

MayBee

Sue- If you can answer how Larry Johnson got the singularecta- an OpEd in the NYTs- you can probably figure out how the more exciting, better-haired, Wilson got the trifecta.

Don't forget Wilson had the - shall we call it sponsorship?- of several Senate Democrats. He went to them first, and he was invited to their event, where he was introduced to reporters (including Kristoff).

Sue

Okay, Clarice, I'm buying that.

Charlie (Colorado)

Who is Captain Queeg?

Please tell me its a joke.

clarice

In June who had the classified INR report. Ford and Grossman? Anyone else? No one in the WH is known to have seen if before the 2d pressing on July 7.

Why did both Mitchell and Novak use the terms "CIA operative" in their stories--the same description Novak said Armitage gave him? Was Armitage her source for the INR leak? Was Grossman for that and Armitage for the second leak?

And who leaked to Mitchell the explosive news that the CIA had sent over the referral? Explosive because it built up pressure for the appointment of outside counsel.

And finally, how the hell did the FBI fail to question her about any of this?

MayBee

clarice- I would be shocked if her spat with Armitage had nothing to do with this. The timing is everything.
I would love to know if Fitzgerald asked her about it. With you, I'm guessing no.
Kristof, too, said her position was a bit known.

The defense hasn't seen Mitchell's notes, right? So they don't know for sure what she has, they can only guess?

SlimGuy

I obviously am not a lawyer, but I have gathered from posts here that a number of the commenters seem to be based in the legal profession.

I don't grasp a lot of the subtle legal distinctions that a lot of the posters put forth, but I realize they are beyond my extent of knowledge in that area and I defer to them.

This is my goto site on the Libby case because it provides the best coverage. I read regularly Powerline which has lawyers at the base and Patterico and some other legal blogs to get the tune of what is happening even though I may not understand the full impact. That is because of my underlearning of the in and outs of the legal system , not in any way the lack of quality of the presentation provided.

As far as Ms Clarice goes I admire her.

I don't have a crush, as many understandably do since she is well accomplished and competent to the extreme.

I like her for her mind and observations and I do respect her.

I have read up on some of her "other life" accomplishments and am well impressed.

She is a lady of quality in all she attempts.

Perhaps I am one of the few that can resist the crush status since I am a recovering widower that insulates me in some way from it. I don't know and I can't answer that question.

I appreciate all the comments of the regulars and semi irregulars here.

They add much to the mix for those of us who wish to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I give thanks to you all.

Even though I may not comment here much lately I still read it every day, it's that good.

I read about 150 blogs each day among my travels of the net.

Only 10 to 12 of those hold my full respect, this is one of that group.

BTW TM ain't so bad himself, but shush about telling him that, or he may get a swollen head.

This is more a time when we all need clear thinkers.

roanoke

Well this is a *shocker*-

Fitzgerald and defense attorneys spent more than 15 minutes Thursday morning arguing privately with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton over whether to dismiss one potential juror, a management consultant. She said her feelings about the administration could spill over into the trial.

"My personal feeling is the Iraq war was a tremendous, terrible mistake. It's quite a horrendous thing," she said. "Whether any one person or the administration is responsible for that is quite a complex question."
Fitzgerald Fights To Keep Bush Critics In Libby Jury Pool

It's Frickin Fritz that's beginning to look like Captain Queeg.

cboldt

This is Captain Queeg-

Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny-

Photo

And I think it's steel ball bearings..

roanoke

Sourc:ABC News Channel 7 Washington DC

roanoke

clarice-

Crap this seems to negate the Armitage was the source for Andrea Mitchell hypothesis.-

From the link describing the falling out it seems like he was avoiding her--

Mitchell went ballistic.

"This is OUTRAGEOUS," NBC's foreign policy correspondent scorched the State Department flacks in an e-mail. "He [Armitage] can't answer telephone calls or REPEATED requests for backgrounders or an on-camera interview from the correspondent representing the most widely watched NETWORK newscast . . . and he's doing a FOX talk show that has no relationship to foreign policy?"

Mitchell vented: "I don't get it but it is very upsetting. It also defies any understanding of the difference between the NBC Nightly News, TODAY program, CNBC and MSNBC PLUS the nation's biggest Web site. Is the administration that desperate to appeal to a niche audience? If I sound upset, it's because I am."

Unless-he ended up trying to placate her by feeding her the information, and making amends to the almighty peacock-NBC that is.

I don't know if the timing coincides.

PaulL

Why would Scooter tell Judith Miller 6/23/03 AND 7/8/03 AND 7/12/03 about Wilson's wife working at the CIA?

Is his memory that bad? "Stop me if I've already told you this, Judy . . ."

Or is Judith Miller's memory that bad?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame