Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Miller:The Judge's Dilemma | Main | Good Morning Plamaniacs! »

January 30, 2007

Comments

pontificator

So why did Fitzgerald and Walton let it get this far, and why is Walton going home tonight to do the research that could have been done months ago?

You're obviously not a lawyer. THings like this happen in every case. Here, the precise issue of asking Miller to disclose sources for the purpose of showing her poor memory wasn;t something that necessarily would have come up beforehand, nor was it something that the defense would want to raise ahead of time because that would give away their trial strategy. So it's not surprising that this issue suddenly has to be decided now, in the middle of trial.

Pretty much every major trial has several of these big unexpected evidentiary disputes that have to be decided on the spot.

helpmeouthere

'I smell mistrial.'

Huh? How did you come to this leap of logic? Do you think Walton is actually going to declare a mistrial? Nothing I see in the liveblogging indicates this. Please explain.

Rick Ballard

Why can't Walton just pitch the obstruction charge and forge ahead?

When Cooper testifies sitting on his attorney's lap - out go two more charges and we're down to the only thing that was actually "triable" from day one.

Dueling memories - with Gregory and Dickerson blocking in the line and Mitchell clipping refs as Russert dashes for the goal line.

Voice of Reason

Mistrial? Based upon what? If she doesn't remember, defense counsel can subpoena her notebooks and see if her notes refresh her recollection. If not, they simply can argue to the jury during closing that she has memory issues and they are free to question whether she really remembered her conversations with Libby. But a mistrial? Not a chance. Also, even if the jury finds Miller to not be credible, the defense has the problem of what will be at least 6 other witnesses testifying to Libby being aware of Plame prior to his chat with Russert. Everyone is lying or has bad memories? I think not.

Pofarmer

Does it seem credible that she would insist on protecting other sources and now can't even remember who those wources were?

If a source is valuable enough to protect, it certainly seems they would be valuable enough to remember. Would you go to jail for 85 days for somebody who's name you couldn't recall? From what I understand, it doesn't say any source names in her notes, at least those which have been made available.

And, doesn't this go to the "everbody knew" defense? If Andrea Mitchell knew, then, certainly Tim Russert should know. If Tim Russert knew, did he actually ask Libby in their phone conversation? When he got Libby's confusing reply, did he figure, Uh, oh, we're not supposed to know this after all, and decide to forget it? After all, supposedly Libby has the notes, and Russert has none. It's also convenient that Andrea Mitchell has changed stories. The whole thing is like some middle school drama played out in the courts.

helpmeouthere

Additional point ... ' I also think The Decider (aka, the 13th Juror, aka, George Bush) has seen enough, and Libby's pardon is now gift-wrapped. '

Could you explain this too? Do you actually think Bush will pardon Libby before the end of the trial? Or if Wells presents the defense he telegraphed in his opening statement - do you think Bush is going to pardon Libby after Wells presents his WH conspiracy defense?

RichatUF

Stunning...and as TM says, if they make through this baffelgab, the next one up is Cooper.

Question-The defense produced an affidavit showing she was interested in working on a Wilson piece-has the defense been allowed discovery to find other documents impeach her "my memory is in the notebooks"? WOuld the defense be allowed to produce such evidence or are they stuck on the first amendment question?

RichatUF

sbw

Sorry I'm late. From a couple of threads ago -- syl: Calling Jay Rosen!

Don't hold your breath. Busy jumping sharks.

Carol Herman

"Pardoned?" I don't think so. Bush wouldn't take a match to his brother's ambitions. Which would die on the vine if LIbby isn't allowed to persue JUSTICE. (Remember? George Bush "wants to persue justice.)

Besides? Bush can always take all the documents that went into his Iraq decision; ALL OF THEM! And, bingo. With one fell swoop of his pen they are ALL DECLASSIFIED. And, they're all dated.

You could draw a line between the "interest" in getting Bush on this obscure "his wife sent him. And, it's against the law to say so." And, then? Wilson didn't have to fillout any paperwork about his trip to Niger. Because:

Tenet heard it all. And, didn't want a paper trail.

It was designed while Wilson was WORKING IN THE KERRY CAMPAIGN. (At the same time Burkett was twisting Mary Mapes' arm; to get the Kerry Campaign to call him. Before he provided "Lucy Ramirez' paperwork."

ANd, what came "afta." After? The 2004 re-election of this PResident. Where the media stay stucked on "if only ... then Kerry has it" ... not just all night long. But Kerry even refused to call the president and congratulate him in a timely manner. (Hmm? The media didn't complain.)

Anyway, Libby has a far better chance of clearing his name with being able to show "all the secret documents," weren't all that secret. It best's Clinton's way of sending Sandy Berg(l)er in to destroy documents.

And, we really should have a better look, at how some finagled to tangle Bush up in these wires.

I do notice that Tenet is gone. Chalabi never made it to "ruler of Iraq. And, Ari Fleischler left the white house "for a better career" elsewhere. Where is it?

It seems the Bush Administration became wise, while Libby? He's being framed. But he's not stupid. And, where Fitz decided it was much too expensive for Libby to waste money on a trial ... It fits in with the same scheme Nifong ran. Over-indict. Let the judge play with himself. And, then go find people who would willingly say "nice things" about sharks. Oops. We call them sharks. But they're land sharks.

This ain't pretty. The way formerly respected dudes no longer have careers that make people drool. Think of it this way. We respect Lincoln. We know Lincoln was an honest man. And, he was also a lawyer. What came along to poison our law schools? Haarvard?

Oh, well. The judge got scared. And, took some time off "to think about it." What happens if he walks into court, t'marra? When Miller returns?

By the way, reading it here, it seems in the press room, Judith Miller is not respected.

Libby, I notice, is still a figure who garners respect. (Okay. One good lawyer in our world. But on trial. With enough smarts to survive?) I sure hope so. Still think haaarvard gives you crap for your money. Oh, Duke is worse.

Pofarmer

So, Ari has testified to telling Greggory and Dickerson, and we're supposed to beleive Greggory didn't mention this to Russert?

Or would the phone call have been more like "Uh, oh, boss, they're onto us."?

TexasToast

Obstruction is not the only charge and Judy is not the only witness.

Ari, by his lonesome, made the prima facie case.

There are really two outstanding issues -

Will Cheney go under oath?

Will the pardon actually come?

clarice

Well, I wish you were right Mr. 70%. BTW I notice that Duke hearing set for Feb 5 has been postponed.(Just a little salt in the wounds).

I think he will let the defense ask for the record "Do you remember who those sources were?" (The judge has said the answer is not relevant for the trial. Maybe after his sleep, he'll change his mind on that and allow the logical next question.)
If he doesn't and she answers as Bennett has said she will--i.e., "no"..it will make a great argument for dismissal.

If he allows the follow up question and she refuses, perhaps he will call Fitz to the stand, say there's no First Amendment question he can see, rather a question of the prosecutor's promise. He promised and since he did, he can watch as the Miller counts get dismissed.

And then there's Cooper.

Voice of Reason

Let Bush pardon Libby. Not that he has a legacy to really be concerned about. But once pardoned, Fitz will haul Libby back before his grand jury and without the benefit of the 5th Amendment to protect him, Scooter will have to answer everything Fitzgerald asks. All along, it seems that Cheney and Rove were the ultimate targets and if Scooter lies to protect either of them, Fitzgerald can prosecute Libby all over again. Think Bush wants to go down that road?

clarice

**Correction***"If he doesn't and she answers as Bennett has said she will--i.e., "no"..it will make a great argument for ACQUITTAL"***

That is, it makes her a very incredible fact witness.

Sue

I don't think the judge is going to allow the question to be asked.

MayBee

Pretty much every major trial has several of these big unexpected evidentiary disputes that have to be decided on the spot.

And every major political investigation comes to a ridiculous and unsatisfactory conclusion.

Jane

So, Ari has testified to telling Greggory and Dickerson, and we're supposed to beleive Greggory didn't mention this to Russert?

That's the part that I find totally not credible.

I think Ari hurt, but not necessarily perminantly. He may fade into the mish-mash of non-rememberers. The overwhelming sense that the jury must have at this point is that no one remembers anything, and/or everyone lies.

And then again there is the defense: "Why should Libby be scapegoated for something Rove did"?

bmcburney

Bob Bennet proffers, as an officer of the Court, that Judy will testify that she does not remember who her other sources were and argues, therefore, that the question should not be asked (interesting logic there).

Isn't this the same Bob Bennet who profferred, as an officer of the Court, that his client had never had sex with Monica based on an affidavit which contained the word "is"?

Rick Ballard

Jane,

Wait for Bartlett's testimony - there's a great big hole about what Fleischer might have heard between 7:30 and 9:30 on July 7 that Wells could not address because he didn't know what Fleischer would say. He does know what Bartlett will say and if Fleischer is recalled I imagine we'll hear a bit of "I don't recall".

Fleischer was in a senior staff meeting and then met with Bartlett. Are we supposed to think that Munchausen's Fantasy wasn't a topic?

Pofarmer

It was designed while Wilson was WORKING IN THE KERRY CAMPAIGN.

That's a point that seems to get conveneintly shovled under the rug a lot.

clarice

bmcburney--Yes, it is, and a very interesting point that is..

RichatUF

crossposted from an earlier thread...

quick thoughts on the Ari-Dickerson revelations

from the Dickenson Slate article...

I had talked to Ari on July 11 and remember him telling me to investigate who sent Wilson. When I landed in Nigeria late that night, I found a few e-mails from Cooper. He was trying to get me to call him and wouldn't tell me why


Africa trip ends July 12 2003

Ari Fleischer leaves White House July 15, 2003

from the co-authored "War on Wilson" piece published on July 17 2003 (working on it during the trip)

comments directly attributted to Fleischer last week (this would be during the Africa trip)

1. 'This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA...reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales."

2. "Well typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonpoliferation."


Well that is language straight from the INR and who among the 3 authors was on the Africa trip with Fleischer. Another note, and it has probably been hammered out here before. One thing about Wilson launching his trifecta stinkbomb on July 6, is that he knew that the White House, preparing for a major trip to Africa, would not be in a very good position to respond. Wilson was able to keep his version of the "16 Words" front and center and the White House, huddled in the back of Air Force 1 would be powerless to get in front of the story because so many A-teamers would be with the President. It made the White House look like amatures and like they were hiding something. Enter-"War on Wilson". The story moves from the "16 Words" to the White House breaking the law to scilence a "brave whistleblower". From Time magazine who put those "brave whistleblowers" as their "Person of the Year" for 2002. Also note that Calabresi was in contact with Wilson for the article, and on page 3 "[a] source close to the matter" says it was at the Vice President's behest, who could that be--How machiavellian

RichatUF

I raise the point because the "War on Wilson" could be the point Miller does not want to go? Its about Wilson, but not really about his wife. When did Time start working on the story...late June, but needed to get the quotes from the White House...speculation at this point

RichatUF

topsecretk9

Clarice...how long into cross did all this start to happen - if reading the tranny's not too long right?

OK, so if the judge will not let the question be asked...um i see about 20 other problematic similar situations coming up about 2 seconds after this one is solved.

RichatUF
Bob Bennet proffers, as an officer of the Court, that Judy will testify that she does not remember who her other sources were and argues, therefore, that the question should not be asked (interesting logic there).

Then the defense asks to explore where Judy Miller keeps her memories-the whole notebook

RichatUF

clarice

ts, Judy's direct was rather short. And much of the morning was taken up with Addington.My memory is imperfect..but I'd say she testified on direct for about an hour, cross for about an hour and then we hit the Judg'e Dilemma.
Someone asked for the text of the waiver letter--here it is..
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/nat_MILLER_051001.pdf>Aspens turning

Judy did testify for a couple of minutes about seeing Libby in Aspen after she was there at a WMD conference--I recall that Armitage was there, too.

topsecretk9

--Then the defense asks to explore where Judy Miller keeps her memories-the whole notebook--

lost under her desk, because she forgot it was there.

Either way - not remembering helps Libby - remembering could potentially help Libby

Problem is, Libby lawyer Tate is going to testify the waiver from Libby wasn't the hang up - it was her other sources - that she went to jail to protect, but can't remember who they are.

Pofarmer

But once pardoned, Fitz will haul Libby back before his grand jury and without the benefit of the 5th Amendment to protect him, Scooter will have to answer everything Fitzgerald asks.

For what?

MayBee

Didn't Judy describe the *bureau?* as possibly something she had tested Libby with?
That seems to have become a firmer memory for her now.

MayBee

Voice of Reason- are you forgetting about double jeopardy?

RichatUF

...that she went to jail to protect, but can't remember who they are...

I went to jail for 85 days but darn it I just don't remember who?

Sen. Rockefeller-he was on the Senate Intell Committee at the time. "Hey, Judy, here you're working on a story. Give this guy a call, and here is a number to back his claims up. But you know, this is on the hush-hush, just between you and me."]

Ridicilious...I would be funny though, if Walton just slowly widdles the case down to nothing as both Cooper and Russert will have the same problem.

RichatUF

clarice

I suspect Rockefeller wasn't inclined to pop Wilson's balloon--Even the minutes of the Sen Dem Policy Committee which preceded the first Kristof article and where Wilson was a witness have disappeared and seem unattainable anywhere. Someone doesn't want that out. (As Contenetti of the Weekly Standard noted long ago--the other meetings' minutes are available online).

topsecretk9

Via Jeralyn Merritt on sidebar arguments - Fitz, Bennett, Libby's team

They go back and forth, and I’m nodding my head in agreement with each of them as they argue opposite sides.

You have to hand to Jeralyn...she's at least wise enough to know the game on all ends and isn't vexed that Libby is even allowed an attorney, let alone attorney's that happen to also argue for their client.

Syl

The jury is in the dark about all this, correct? Though they do know about Victoria Wilson and Flame in the notebook (I think there was a question about that).

Is there any way a juror's question could pop up showing intense curiosity which would throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing?

Other Tom

"But once pardoned, Fitz will haul Libby back before his grand jury and without the benefit of the 5th Amendment to protect him, Scooter will have to answer everything Fitzgerald asks."

Am I missing something? So far as I am aware, Scooter never did take the 5th, and aswered everything Fitzgerald asked. That's one of the reasons we're having a trial.

I don't see the obstruction count going out, because to me the obstruction case is much stronger than perjury. (Remember materiality? The jury is going to be instructed about the element of materiality, and Wells will dance a whipsong on it--"material to what?")

No chance of a pardon before verdict, in any event. And when this is over, Bush won't withhold a pardon simply because of the scapegoat defense--not his style at all. If Clinton appointee Tenet can get a Medal of Freedom after 9/11, Scooter can sure as hell get a pardon.

MayBee

Yeah, Clarice, that is still weird. Whoever got Wilson there, or whatever story Wilson told, it was powerful enough for Kristof to scoff when the OVP tried to talk him down.

Hmmm...all the questions. Would Judy have wanted to hop on the CIA's rogue bandwagon, and start writing that she, too had been mislead?
Would someone have approached Judy, outside of her office one afternoon, and asked her what she thought of Joe Wilson?
Or would she have wanted to puncture Joe's balloon- after all she had been writing about WMD through 2 administrations and could hardly blame the old stuff on Bush.

Sue

Maybee,

You're kidding. Miller was writing about WMDs when Clinton was president? LOL.

clarice

Syl:"Is there any way a juror's question could pop up showing intense curiosity which would throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing?"
The judge asks the questions for the jury--that is, to say, he certainly screens them so nothing improper is asked.

And BTW the jury has asked some damned good questions.

Voice of Reason

Double jeopardy would not apply to subsequent lies before the grand jury. So if Fitzgerald believes Libby withheld information to protect Cheney or Rove or anyone else, he can force that testimony from Libby and Libby cannot refuse to answer.

Syl

Clarice

Yep. He screens them. ::slapping self::

Sue

Miller was writing about WMDs when Clinton was president? LOL.

Like with everything else, the moonbats forgot the universe was created long before Bush took office. Judy is another victim of their selective memory.

RichatUF

from clarice

I suspect Rockefeller wasn't inclined to pop Wilson's balloon...

That comment goes to my "War on Wilson" comment above. The "War on Wilson" story was being shopped before Wilson made his big splash. Wilson makes splash, White House comes back from Africa trip-stunned. The hit with the "brave whistleblower" 'War on WIlson'. That could be the angle Miller was working and doesn't want to talk about, and that would work nicely with the Rockefeller Memo

RichatUF

MayBee

She wrote at least one.

Syl

voiceofreason

So if Fitzgerald believes Libby withheld information to protect Cheney or Rove or anyone else, he can force that testimony from Libby and Libby cannot refuse to answer.

LOL

Sooooo. What was stopping fitz from asking Libby these questions during THIS investigation? Huh?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Fitz had his chance.

MayBee

I should say she wrote at least one about Iraq and WMD while Clinton was in office (the NYTs iteself was full of such reports), but she started focusing on WMD in the mideast in general in the late 1990's.

MayBee

Am I correct in my understanding that Libby did not have his notes at the GJ? That he had already turned them over (is this what they went through with Addington today?)?

RichatUF

from Maybee

...one about Iraq and WMD while Clinton was in office (the NYTs iteself was full of such reports)

Impossible, the NYT has printed that the whole WMD story was all a bunch of Bush lies. I refuse to listen to you speak such heresy. The NYT, that keeper of truth, would never have fallen for those Rovian lies as WMD in Iraq in the 1990's, during the greatest presidency ever.

RichatUF

Other Tom

"...he can force that testimony from Libby and Libby cannot refuse to answer."

Any reason to believe Fitzgerald hasn't already asked all such questions, or that Libby hasn't answered them? And if Fitzgerald didn't ask them, why on earth didn't he?

Voice of Reason

Bwahaha! Now I've shaken that psychotic semenfilledcleo stalker and the annoying plus ca change link by cleverly changing psuedonyms yet again!

You have to get up pretty early in the day to catch TCO / Cycloptichorn / et al., suckers!

See you guys on the next thread with a brand new name but the same tired old Townhouse talking points.

Other Tom

Might want to brush up on grand juries before you do.

jerry

Ok, just for fun, let's presume that the President ok'd outing Plame - and following Cheney's command Scooter was the go-to guy for making Plame public.

So the President declassified this stuff, and some number of foreign nationals got brutally interrogated as a result, hey he's in charge.

Has the President ever admitted to doing this, isn't it all public now?

james

clarice

Even the minutes of the Sen Dem Policy Committee which preceded the first Kristof article and where Wilson was a witness have disappeared and seem unattainable anywhere.

Would this be available under a FOI request, do you think? Or has that been tried already?

Pofarmer

jerry

That's a vivid imagination ya got there sparky.

clarice

They aren't a govt office. So, no. It would be like filing a FOI request respecting a Kiwanis meeting I should guess.Of course since Kristof was there, he should know who was there and what Wilson "testified" to there.

lurker

So...are they finished with Miller?

And who's next?

Pofarmer

They aren't a govt office. So, no.

Well, that's certainly convenient.

Syl

jerry

obviously the Presdient is so incompetent he couldn't even out Plame. Armitage did it.

Nice try, though.

ghostcat

Congress almost always excludes itself.

MayBee

Has the President ever admitted to doing this, isn't it all public now?

Why would he admit to doing something you just invented?
Why would you bother making up a hypothetical if he'd already said he did it?

MayBee

Seriously, this whole 'conspiracy to out' thing is soooo disappointing.
I mean, Tony Blair could get his doubter killed so that it looked like suicide.
Ditto Vince Foster and Clinton.
But Bush and Cheney can only leak to a reporter who won't even write a story.

How feckless. No wonder Bush is at 28%.

Pofarmer

How feckless.

I think dissapointing really sums it up better. Can't even out somebody correctly.

topsecretk9

That's a vivid imagination ya got there sparky.

Jiminy x-mas - talk about goalposts in wonderland.

Syl

I hope you all realize I was doing Jerry a favor and giving him an excuse not to become despondent when his dreams of Bush/Cheney guilty outers doesn't come true.

This darned evil administration can't do ANYTHING right--not even out a covert agent!

jerry

But "regulations" protect us all from everyday incompetence, thankfully,... BTW conservative should recognise the protections that these sorts of regulations provide.

Armitage... my position has been that inter-personal gossip is different from an organised effort among a group of people to involve the press in Plame's covert ID.

Basically, I'd like to know if the President ever declassified Plame's covert ID or, if not, whether this was some sort of out of control political battle.

Syl

MayBee

Exaccly!

LOL

Pete

You folks seem obsessed with a Libby pardon, and seem to come up with more and more creative ways to self-justify a pardon.

MayBee

I'm not completely sure what you're asking, jerry, but my answer is: this was a political battle.

Dave in W-S

"Basically, I'd like to know if the President ever declassified Plame's covert ID or, if not, whether this was some sort of out of control political battle."

Begging the question a bit, aren't you? Since the best evidence indicates she was about as covert as my left...shoe.

Syl

jerry

First, covert is a LEGAL term, not a classification.

Second, is there anything, anything AT ALL, in the indictment that even HINTS at a conspiracy?

Third, Libby isn't being charged with a conspiracy, nor, for that matter, for any leak!

Three strikes, bud.

topsecretk9

I keep forgetting but in all this - Cooper impending disaster- and various lobbyists and Paul Vallely...and Muffintoo! are gonna say - NO BIG SECRET - Wilson told us - the lobbyists' - we've had drinks!

I bet Wilson is called last.

jerry

Syl, "This darned evil administration can't do ANYTHING right--not even out a covert agent!"

This was exactly my point yesterday, the Bush WH is so opposed to leaks that when they do leak they screw it up... thus Scooter is asked to do something he can't abide by (reveal the NIE, out a spy)... although Cheney protects Libby in retrospect, Dick won't accept that this leaking, in extrema, is unacceptable.

Syl

But "regulations" protect us all from everyday incompetence, thankfully

I thought they protected us all from greeeeeed!

Just like in the law, there are balance tests for regulations. Too few, get screwed, too many, kill the golden goose.

jerry

I agree Syl, that the conspiracy isn't part of the Libby indictment.

topsecretk9

--Basically, I'd like to know if the President ever declassified Plame's covert ID--

Goalposts much?

Syl

jerry

(reveal the NIE, out a spy)

Whoa.

De-classifying the portions of the NIE related to Niger and yellowcake and Africa is NOT a leak. It is fulfilling the people's RIGHT TO KNOW. We were given a load of bs by Wilson, and some others in the CIA, which Shuster is repeating TO THIS DAY. The public has a right to know the facts, and the government a responsibility to let us know.

Do you think if they gave these parts of the NIE to David Gregory he would print them? Yeah, right.

The NIE is what the CIA certified as the consensus in BIG BOLD LETTERS to the administration.

As for the 'spy'. LOL.

jerry

"I thought they protected us all from greeeeeed!"

Somewhere within me there's a happy and greedy Jerry, we're marginalizing the youthful-hippy Jerry.

jerry

"Do you think if they gave these parts of the NIE to David Gregory he would print them?"

FWIW I think the press will rush to publish anything that's new and unique to the reporter, unless there's a security/ethics reason not to.

Syl

Jerry

If hippy means happy and greedy, then most of us are hippies!

If hippy means smelly with long gray hair carrying signs at protests? Not so much.

topsecretk9

--FWIW I think the press will rush to publish anything that's new and unique to the reporter, unless there's a security/ethics reason not to.--

HAH!

Other Tom

No, Pete, we're not obsessed with a presidential pardon. We're obsessed with those intriguing "Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons" you came up with. Until you tell us what they are, we just can't take you seriously. Not honest enough.

Pofarmer

unless there's a security/ethics reason not to.

Posted by: jerry | January 30, 2007 at 09:10 PM

Know I know you're joking.

DC

(1) The issue is whether or not Libby lied. Whether or not Judy had sources other than Libby is irrelevant to that issue. So the Judge should disallow that question.

(2) Whether or not Judy could remember the June meeting, without refreshing her memory, is unlikely to sway the jury that the meeting DIDN'T take place. Her notes are adequate evidence to prove that point. Libby's in trouble.

jerry

"unless there's a security/ethics reason not to.

Posted by: jerry | January 30, 2007 at 09:10 PM

Know I know you're joking"


Funny, I really do think this is true.

cathyf
...the defense has the problem of what will be at least 6 other witnesses testifying to Libby being aware of Plame prior to his chat with Russert.
No problem. The defense argues that the "as if for the first time" conversation happened with Miller. She has just testified, under oath, as the prosecution's case, that she had all of the requisite knowledge on June 23rd to have said to Libby, "ah, man, everybody knows that Wilson was sent by his wife who works for the INR." So Fitzgerald has 6 other witnesses that Libby was aware of Plame prior to July 10th? Who cares? Fitzgerald has bupkus as far as Libby being aware of Plame before June 23rd.
james

jerry

my position has been that inter-personal gossip is different from an organised effort among a group of people to involve the press in Plame's covert ID.

Was Plame covert? It seems not. And the only "organised effort among a group of people to involve the press" looks to have occurred among the press themselves.

MJW

The issue is whether or not Libby lied. Whether or not Judy had sources other than Libby is irrelevant to that issue. So the Judge should disallow that question.
The issue is also whether the parenthetical comments "Wife works in bureau?" and "Wife works at Winpac" actually came from Libby, or if they could be from another source. Neither makes sense if Libby knew Plame worked for the CPD.

Whether or not Judy could remember the June meeting, without refreshing her memory, is unlikely to sway the jury that the meeting DIDN'T take place. Her notes are adequate evidence to prove that point. Libby's in trouble.

Miller's notes aren't evidence. Her supposed independent recollection is the evidence. If she was actually depending only on her notes, there is no evidence, and Miller committed perjury when she falsely claimed to remember what occurred in the meetings.

cathyf
Basically, I'd like to know if the President ever declassified Plame's covert ID
Sure, right after he declassified the color of invisible pink unicorns.
Pofarmer

Whether or not Judy had sources other than Libby is irrelevant to that issue.

It certainly won't be irrelevant with Cooper and Russert.

topsecretk9

--Funny, I really do think this is true.--

Okay,,can you explain to me the ethical/security value of telling terrorist we are tracking their money?

Pofarmer

BTW

If you are trying to figure out who told who, it would seem to be important if someone actually knew or not when a supposed meeting took place. I think Libby's story about the meeting is that they met to discuss the declassified NIE. But Judy wasn't interested in that. She was working the whole "Valerie Flame" angle. I imagine it was quite frustrating for both parties. Libby thought he was giving out great information, setting the record straight, as it were, and the press wasn't interested. Imagine that.

JM Hanes

DC

The issue for the Defense is demonstrating that Miller is an unreliable witness.

Pofarmer

Okay,,can you explain to me the ethical/security value of telling terrorist we are tracking their money?

Or how about using non authenticated documents in a newstory to tar the President?

Or just making up a story about "Koran Flushing"?

Or the AP pool using extremely questionable sources?

Or Rueters doctoring photos?

Jeez, the list could go on all night.

Neo

I blame Libby (and for that matter Rove) for not knowing enough to take the Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. course on how to be interogated and how (not) to respond.

You'd think after the Ollie North gave the Senate a new orifice, that everyone, especially the newbies, would take it for granted that they will be borked or worse. So the best defense is a good offense, that begins with knowing how to answer questions such that you minimize your exposure to legal jeoparody.

That begins with .. to the best of my recollection.

JM Hanes

Per Clarice, in the previous thread, on the Defense objectives with Miller:

I think they know that if she says she "can't remember" the names of the people she sat in jail for 85 days to protect and referred to in her affidacit the jury will find her not credible.

Also, since Fitz is trying to create the impression that Libby lied knowing reporters wouldn't talk, the defense wants to establish --and started to today before this came up--that she sat in jail to protect others,not Libby.

The second point seems key to me, although on second thought, if he were convinced reporters wouldn't talk, he would also ostensibly have less to "fear." So I'm not sure how that plays.

MJW

I wonder if Walton allows Libby's lawyers to ask about her sources on Joseph Wilson (as he certainly should), and Miller claims she can't remember any, if Libby's lawyers can ask, does she recall if Armitage was ever a source on Wilson? How about Powell? How about Grossman? Etc.

Pofarmer

How does a long time reporter on the Washington beat not remember who her sources are? C'mon, sources are her bread and butter. Without them she's got no stories, and can't go back to the well.

clarice

They brought out that he gave everyone waivers and that Cooper talked when Libby gave the "I really mean it" nod to Abrams but Miller did not and that she did not while he did (they shared the same lawyer) not because of him, but because of other sources who presumably had been less cooperative with the prosecution.

Syl

DC

Yeah, that's what the prosecution says.

Now it's the defense's turn.

The defense DOES get a turn, you know.

It's only fair.

Voice of Reason

Other Tom: I do not believe Libby testified before the grand jury after he became a target of Fitzgerald's investigation. Presumably with the evidence collected subsequent to determining that Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald would have a host of additional questions which could implicate others.

clarice

MJW interesting idea, but I am sure that the judge will anticipate that in his ruling and let them know whether they will also have a chance to refresh her recollection.

Niters.

Sara (Squiggler)

GOOD NEWS FOR THE BLOGOSPHERE:

In a landmark ruling in favor of bloggers and cyber journalists, a Santa Clara County Court defended the First Amendment rights of online journalists to protect their confidential sources, effectively giving web journalists the same protections afforded to traditional print journalists. . . .


MJW

Voice of Reason, I don't know whether Libby was ever officially declared a target of the investigation, but he did testify before the grand jury, and he was clearly a target in fact if not in name when he testified. If you take a look at some of the grand jury questions he was asked in the portions that have been released, that much is obvious.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame