I Love A Surprise!

Neil Lewis and Scott Shane give us a laugh with their Libby trial daydreaming:

A surprise revelation came when Mr. Pincus, who writes about national security and intelligence [for the Washington Post], disclosed that he was first told on July 12, 2003, about Ms. Wilson by Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, and not Mr. Libby.

Surprise to whom?  Did these two intrepid reporters really think that Walter Pincus had received a Plame leak from Libby?

A significant hint that Libby had not leaked to Pincus might have been the fact that the prosecution did not call him as a witness - could Pincus really have been worse than Matt Cooper and Judy Miller?

Or a check of the Times archives might have turned up this attempt to pry into the Pincus puzzle:

Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.

Or, in a moment of immodesty, let me suggest another idea - here is a Google search on the JustOneMinute archives, with search words "Libby Pincus source".

Just looking at the Google result and reading the excerpts, I see little hints, such as this, from the first line of the first hit:

Pincus also has said his source was not Libby.

Or from the third hit:

MORE: The Walter Pincus story is interesting - here, he tells us that Lewis Libby was not his source, but that his source had identified himself to...

Follow the links, look around, and you will find articles such as this, where Pincus specifically states that his source was not Libby.

Surprise!

In live action, Professor Kim has coverage of the Andrea Mitchell dispute, Jill Abramson, and John Hannah.

Comments

[JJ]

Don't you realize journalism is show business! And the first rule of show business is never look behind the curtain and kill that vital willing suspension of disbelief!

[clarice]

Do you make a practice of wrestling paraplegics, TM? Okay, so he is a big reporter for the "paper of record". Does that mean you expect him to actually read it?

[nittypig]

Well it's a little bit of a surprise given Ari's testimony:

"You were asked about Mr. Pincus at the Grand Jury?"
"Yes."
"And you testified you didn't mention Valerie Wilson to him?"
"Yes."
"And you haven't been prosecuted for perjury?" "No."

[centralcal]

The second best part of JOM is the guffaws and belly laughs we get, often at the expense of our "intrepid" media.

[sammy small]

Why doesn't Walton just declare the trial over in Libby's favor, or let Wells continue to impeach reporters. We're reaching the point of diminishing returns here.

[Other Tom]

Great Scott. I think it was almost fifty years ago that I read a piece by H.L. Mencken in which he made the point that the more you know personally about a given topic, the more you recognize how poorly and inaccurately it is reported in the press. This NYTimes effort, along with the truly laughable shenanigans on Hardball, drive that point home as forcefully as it can be done. Anybody who has been following this thing on any of the blogs--even the moonbat ones--can see how pathetic these people are. And I agree that Appuzo is a very rare exception. Astonishing...

[Ralph L.]

Azaghal, according to my Funk & Wagnalls, accommodation has 2 "m"'s.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Where's Eckenrode? Does he have to hang around the courthouse? Do media folk see him?

With Walton sick. And, the jury sent home;

Is Eckenrobe up t'marra? Disrobed, then?

So walton has a cold, huh? For tissues, he can use Fitz' snot rags of a case.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Let's take the Way Back Machine to October 2005.

[michael scanlon]

Simple question: Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself? Is it because he has a visceral fear of Paddy Fitz rendering new meaning to the term “skinned alive in public?” Or is there some other reason Libby doesn't want to tell the jury about his faulty memory?

[Anonymous Liberal]

Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?

Probably because he'll get picked apart on cross and end up perjuring himself further.

[clarice]

It's a risk he need not take. The prosecution case is swirling down the white porcelain throne and the jury already heard him before the GJ (another Fitz blunder). By all accounts he sounded sincere and as though he was trying to be helpful.

[nittypig]

Taking the stand always increases the risk to the defendant. Something could go wrong on cross. The jury may just decide it doesn't like you. If you think things are going well enough that youll win, you shouldn't endanger that.

[Jane]

Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?

Where did you hear he ever decided to take the stand, and where did you hear he decided not to?

No defendant should ever take the stand unless he thinks it is necessary. And defendants rarely make that decision in advance. I don't think we have any idea if Libby is going to take the stand at this point.

[Ralph L.]

M. S., perhaps he doesn't need to take the stand to walk scoot-free.

[Anonymous Liberal]

The prosecution case is swirling down the white porcelain throne

Clarice, what are you going to say if he's convicted? (which by the way, seems more likely than not) Will your head explode?

[SteveMG]

Dammit, once Fitzgerald determined that there was no violation of the law (or law) when Plame's name was leaked, he needed to close up shop.

This is a farce, it really is; with these witnesses not remembering conversations or who was where and what was up or down. Person A saying he told Person B but Person B not remembering it but thinks it was Person C.

Pull the plug on this Judge Walton.

[Javani]

""Simple question: Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?""

How do you know he only "recently" did this? The opinion probably changed throughout time and the trial. Your narrative is NOT an adequate substitute for dislike how the trial has gone.

"Is it because he has a visceral fear of Paddy Fitz rendering new meaning to the term “skinned alive in public?”"

If he's winning he, in Wells' opinion, he won't testify. Why risk it? Did you read his rambling performance in front of the GJ?

""Or is there some other reason Libby doesn't want to tell the jury about his faulty memory?""

Maybe he figures if he doesn't testify, it will stir up conspiratorial thinking with the moonbats and make him a more popular, and better paid, speaker for a touring debate with Corn or someone like that. Got to think of the future!!!

Plus he doesn't have to tell anyone about his "faulty" memory - there's nothing to correct that wasn't explained, adequately or not, in the GJ transcript. If he testifies now...he might slip and give a third story!

[Sara (Squiggler]

I have been in and out today, thought I'd caught up, but two things -- the jury has been sent home?????? and Libby Team has announced Libby won't take stand????? When?

[sbw]

What if hypotheticals were illegal?

[Jane]

Sara,

I've been here all day and I don't think either of those things are confirmed. But I have a faulty memory.

[Larry]

"...the more you recognize how poorly and inaccurately it is reported in the press."
Posted by: Other Tom | February 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM In every instance in my adult life (I'm 66) where I've had knowledge of the subject, the media has either misreported it entirely or missed the point completely; put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLAble, as Mom used to say.

[cathyf]

sbw -- HEH!

[Jane]

Here you go - from FDL:

We have released teh VP as a witness. Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow teh advise.

[Javani]

Anonymous liberal:

""Clarice, what are you going to say if he's convicted? (which by the way, seems more likely than not) Will your head explode?""

I'm worried about your head. Your statement is couched in parentheses, then an overly demure introduction, and next the wishy washy word "seems" in this context. This phrasing proactively establishes a feather bed for you to fall upon if no conviction occurs, as you privately fear. That's fine, but then you break mood and talk about Clarice, the bearer of uncomfortable dissent, and her exploding head.

Take care.

[Javani]

""We have released teh VP as a witness.""

As much as I wanted to hear from Cheney and wilson I can't fathom what they could have added to the issues being tried. But no Gregory?

"Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow teh advise."

Wife calling the shots, or designated jury observer??

[Ralph L.]

Jane, I didn't know Wells was blogging at FDL. Has anyone told Libby that?

[JM Hanes]

sbw:

"What if hypotheticals were illegal?"

LOL! Multiply case loads to the infinite power and bring our judicial system to a standstill?

[Christopher Fotos]

Latest from professor Kim:

Ted Wells just announced that he and William Jeffers will not call the Vice President to testify. Libby also will not testify. The defense is prepared to rest tomorrow after entering evidence that includes newspaper articles that will impeach Tim Russert's testimony. The judge expects that closing arguments will begin Tuesday.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

THe "does he or doesn't he question" can also be answered with Ted Wells MESSING with Fitz' head. Walton? His head is being messed with by a head cold.

And, since Walton, to some measure, is influenced by the papers he reads. Just like Rehnquist was. Which explain why some people, who'd you expect to steer one way; either slam on the brakes, or swirve off the road. Into the on-coming headlights of what the DC crowd thinks. Every morning when they read their newspapers.

Seems Walton will face both Frank Rich and Howie Kurtz now supporting Libby as "perhaps it was just an honest mistake? Since nobody did anything on purpose."

It all depends on how Walton "reads" the WaPo's EXTREME DESIRE to just get "move.on folks" into a ligitimate enterprise.

[clarice]

No Eckenrode.

[Jane]

So Wells says he's got a video that will refute Russert.

[Jim E.]

The defense has only 60-90 minutes left to their case? And no David Gregory? No Joe Wilson? No Cliff May? No Marty Peretz?

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

[maryrose]

I think Gregory should take the stand... When is Eckenrode testifying? Any other witnesses tomorrow?

[clarice]

And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

[Jane]

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Not according to Imus

[Bill in AZ]

Anyone know what the tape is that Wells has? Does Fitz know?

[Pofarmer]

Dammit, once Fitzgerald determined that there was no violation of the law (or law) when Plame's name was leaked, he needed to close up shop.

Absolutely.

[Dan S]

"And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

Posted by: clarice "

F: No, really, my witnesses really are remembering it right THIS time!

[Sara (Squiggler]

And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

Seems his on evidence so far has been a bunch of newspaper articles that he takes to be more probitive to Libby's state of mind than Libby's briefers/schedulers/assistants, etc.

[windansea]

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

I always knew you were just another troll :)

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The jury will be grateful! Wells will be their hero for shutting down the mishigas.

Waltoon doesn't have much recovery room, either. Since Libby doesn't have to take the stand. Blacks can't rewrite law as much as they're trying to rewrite history.

And, Wells must think he's seen enough money on the table to CALL. In poker? That means the ace poker player sees little, ahead, to add "TO THE POT." CARDS COME OUT NEXT WEEK, TUESDAY.

The Jury is gonna be relieved to know this!

Besides, what's the jury like? Could anyone worse than Frank Rich be seated as a jury member? On IMUS he showed you his cards. He said "LIBBY IS INNOCENT" of what he's been charged with ...

And, Eckenrode can go home to cry. No Mark Felt, he! WHile the FIB is stuck in his stink. Clearer, now, how both the CIA and FIB operate. I guess? Donkey congress critters really do have the strings of the purse that frightens so many swivel chair, insiders. Who knew?

[arcanorum]

"Wife calling the shots, or designated jury observer??"

Nothing unusual in seeking advice from your closest friend and trusted advisor when weighing a decision with the possibility of proving life changing for you both.

It becomes ever more clear as this 'case' continues that Fitz let his own personal biases interfere with his professional decisions. He immunized the real leakers (Fleischer, Armitage, Wilson) and sought to punish an innocent man for whom he has personal animosity due to his previous professional adversarial relationships with the defendant. What a sad and pathetic little man.

[Sara (Squiggler]

on evidince = only evidence

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow this advice.'

This is known to salesmen as; DON'T TALK PAST THE CLOSE. Wells has recognized something in the jury's reaction; it's time to push the contract over to the customer and hand him a pen, with something like; 'Did you want the blue one or the red one?'

[JM Hanes]

Closing on Tuesday. Now there's a bona fide surprise! Pls. just give me Eckenrode, guys; throw me a bone here, eh?

OTOH, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that yours truly said "Know when to fold 'em!" this very morning. Context be damned, I was for folding before I was against it!

[hit and run]

Patrick R. Sullivan:
This is known to salesmen as; DON'T TALK PAST THE CLOSE.

I like that analogy...a lot.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

Looks like Team Libby is using the same barometer you are. :)

[Dan S]

I think those questions about Libby's memory did it. I expect we'll see the replies to those tied into a suggestion that Libby confused who he heard what he heard from. And he really believes he heard it as he remembers, but he's just wrong.

Along with all the evidence that Armitage was the real leak in the first place, there's nothing to show OVP was out to get Wilson on a personal basis, just to discredit his lies, and there was no crime committed anyway.

Oh, and the investigation was a sad excuse for a farce. Lost notes. Bad FBI reports. Not asking all those who got leaks to testify. Immunizing the original leaker and a subsequent one. Believing someone documented as a liar... the list goes on.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Okay, what tape will Wells play? Has Mitchell's "everyone knows" already been played? It casts doubt but doesn't actually impeach Russert. Could there be a phone tape of Eckrode and Russert? Or ?????? Any guesses?