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?

[Jim E.]

Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future? If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?

[Sara (Squiggler]

Or, as I've suspected all along, if Libby called Russert from his office or from AF2, there is a tape of the call on that system. Could it be that Libby has gotten a release of that tape?

[hit and run]

Oh, and the investigation was a sad excuse for a farce.

Word on the street is that farce may be filing a defamation suit against Fitz and the FBI.

[clarice]

We're good at this and it is a public service. When this is finally over, I hope we do this on other matters--like the Haditha case as to which no court martials have yet been brought and the AIPAC cases which begin in June (starred the same cast of nincompoops at the top) and as to which the judge has on several occasions already expressed grave rservations about the prosecution.

KC Johnson did more to save the Duke Lacrosse players than anyone. Why don't we use our various skills to cast light on dubious prosecutions in high profile cases?
(But not the Anna Nicole Smith custody battles, please I BEG YOU.)

[Sara (Squiggler]

JimE, no I don't believe there is a plea bargain. I sincerely believe that Libby was pursuing the Wilson story not the Plame story and that if he misremembers it is just that and not intent.

[JM Hanes]

Wells describes what remains to be brought in, per FDL:

Wells; Certain readings, stipulations, newspaper articles, I wish to play a certain tapes to the jury to show that Russert gave in accurate [sic] testimony to the jury when he testified. If we get the legal arguments out of the way, in terms of what we have to do, it can be done in less than a half an hour–assume an hour and a half.

[Sara (Squiggler]

When we are done here, I think we should turn our collective brains to helping out those two border patrol agents who were railroaded into jail by lies and evidence tampering.

[JM Hanes]

"Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future?"

It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.

"If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?"

Sure. My conclusions are always susceptible to the facts in evidence.

[fdcol63]

Russert told me that I could be the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

But then Andrea Mitchell said she (Mitchell, or Anna Nicole? Who knows!) was drunk at the time.

And now, of course, David Gregory denies the whole thing.

I'm so confused! LOL

[Javani]

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

Wilson is immaterial. Gregory? I don't know, neither side I suspect knows what he would say. May? We already have Armitage saying "everyone knows" more than once. What's better than a disembodied voice of authority?

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

Mitchell has her record on Imus, Russert is forever fixed with the label as squealer to the FBI without any legal compulsion. He will receive no more confidences, the same for Novak.

[JM Hanes]

"Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future?"

It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.

"If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?"

Sure. My conclusions are always susceptible to the facts in evidence.

[Javani]

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

Wilson is immaterial. Gregory? I don't know, neither side I suspect knows what he would say. May? We already have Armitage saying "everyone knows" more than once. What's better than a disembodied voice of authority?

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

Mitchell has her record on Imus, Russert is forever fixed with the label as squealer to the FBI without any legal compulsion. He will receive no more confidences, the same for Novak.

As for testifying, Libby effectively did -- for eight hours, the GJ tapes played. What could he add? Nothing, he could only slip up.

[clarice]

What TAPES impeaching Russert? Did Eckenrode have them? Nah but it's fun to think so.

I never watch Hardball. If someone does, tell us about Shuster. The last 2 times I saw him it looked like he was about to burst out in tears.

[hit and run]

JM Hanes:
It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.

Ding. Ding. Ding. My favorite line of the day!!!!! It's 3:25pm EST and I'm calling it. No one else need try.

[jwest]

Clarice,

Are you suggesting we use our powers for goodness instead of evilness?

Form a “Justice League” of sorts, flying through cyberspace righting the wrongs of liberal DAs.

Do we get to wear tight fitting uniforms?

[percipio]

"Why don't we use our various skills to cast light on dubious prosecutions in high profile cases?"

Clarice - maybe low profile cases also? I feel sorry for those people who may be experiencing a Libby scenario in the courts but are perhaps lacking the resources that he had.

[bio mom]

I didn't get the idea that the defense definitely had no further witnesses but briefers. I thought they were talking about Thursday. Wednesday will begin at 1:30. There still could be witnesses.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: THE LOONS

WHO ARE EXPECTING SOME HEADS TO EXPLODE HERE.

Wells could gain a lot of miles just by signaling he's not going to torture jurors for the next two weeks.

You also don't know what Walton will do. Since he's been reading the jurors questions; both the ones he reads aloud. And, the ones he just pockets. Some day all those questions make it into some sort of public record?

What if Walton DISMISSES this dog?

Curiosity drops, ahead? Or DRUDGE has his Blue-Light siren ready?

What if Wells knows the best tack, now, is to let Walton decide how he wants to appear in hisory books?

And, if the case, itself, acquits Libby? Doesn't it look better that he didn't need to mess up the FBI with Eckenrode? He didn't need to call the veep?

The only dog in this race, so far, who has managed to make a big magilla out of nothing, is Fitz, himself. WHo took a road AFTER it was known that Armitage "leaked."

You think prosecutors are proud?

You think there's a hall of fame award for Nifong? Or Snedden? Or other clowns? How about Judge Ito?

I'll predict: Just like OJ walked, Scooter SCOOTS. And, Russert, eventually loses his shining luster up at NBC. Who face choices now, similar to the executive dudes at Black Rock. Before the CBS "eye" became C-BS. And, got blackened like a rock.

[Walter]

Tom, I DEMAND 24/7 (or at least 2/5) coverage of the Wilson Civil Suit starting, well, WEDNESDAY!

OR ELSE ... I'll go do something productive with my time, ... I guess.

[james]

Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future? If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?

Purely for entertainment purposes, since he has not been convicted of anything, what sort of plea bargin are you imagining?

[Jane]

Ding. Ding. Ding. My favorite line of the day!!!!!

I second that. I love when I think I can hear the inflection.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'We're good at this and it is a public service. When this is finally over, I hope we do this on other matters...'

Just One Minute and Associates.

[clarice]

It's very hard to do low profile cases online because what you need to start unraveling things is (sorry to say so) media reports to work from.
Now, I consider those reports inadequate often utterly wrong --scratch paper, if you will-- but absent transcripts, exhibitis and media accounts we have too little to work with.

[Jim E.]

james,

What's entertaining is for you to think that defendants only sign onto plea agreements after they're convicted. ha ha

[Tom Bowler]

Do you make a practice of wrestling paraplegics, TM?

Great analogy Clarice!

[roanoke]

Aaaaargh what tape does Wells have that goes to Russert's testimony?

I remember this from Maid Marion last night-does it give a clue?

Any ideas?

Here is Maid Marion's observation-

The NBC lawyer was sitting in the front row (Prosecution side), where he had been seated last week during Russert’s testimony. However, after that business was taken care of and before Pincus was brought into the courtroom, he moved to the far back row in the courtroom. I could see when he made notes and when he received incoming messages on his blackberry. There was a part in Pincus’s testimony which was of keen interest to the NBC lawyer. It was when Pincus testified that on Saturday, July 12, while at his WaPo office writing up his article about Niger and WMD he received a call from a government official asking him “Why do you keep writing about Wilson?” Defense asked “Who was the government official?” Pincus replied “Ari Fletcher” at which point the NBC lawyer whipped out his blackberry and typed away. This was the first time he used his blackberry and then subsequently received incoming messages intermittently from this point forward in the trial until the break. I didn’t copy down all the times he wrote down notes, but here are the ones I recorded: a) When Pincus talked about Rice’s appearance on June 8, 2003 MTP; b) when Defense wrote down on the easel the specific words Ari used with Pincus; c) when Pincus talked about his Sept 2004 subpoena and whether Ari had given him a waiver.

[JJ]

Hey, you have got to keep things separate!

These charges were about Libby lying to the Grand Jury and obstructing justice.

That's a narrow focus. I wish and hope and pray for an end to the hypotheticals (good one, sbw) that have been journalizing.

But the defense's purpose is solely to spring Libby...and it looks like they have done a good job of showing the picture of faded memories and muddled statements very accurately. HOW IRONIC IS THAT!

I am bracing -- and I mean bracing! -- for months of nauseating journalistic introspection though about how bad this trial was for fact-checking the government and good journalism in general.

But, hey, Fox News is just as bad as MSNBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and CNN, IMO.

Just one accurate news outlet would have sunk this whole ship of journalistic misery long ago. Journalism in the this country is great, but it's got a long, long way to go.

[clarice]

The Just One Minute justice league--I like that--get your girl to call mine and work up the costumes and --hmm--we need Soylent to do the promotional and script work. We'll have to wait until he finishes basic training.

Syl can do the visuals as soon as we unlock the front door.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Well, you will always have the Duke case to keep you busy. Oh but wait, now there is a 2nd Duke off campus party bathroom rape case -- what to do, what to do, this second case is an 18 year old Duke undergrad not a black exotic dancer. Will it be another "boys will be boys" defense for her?

[Javani]

"What TAPES impeaching Russert?"

All I've seen are his loophole-y comments before the trial about the "name" Plame. You recall, those comments that made a wide variety of people suspect Russert was dodging.

If he had never made them his testimony at trial would be trusted as truthful, but subject to memory faults like anyone's -- I doubt chicanery would be suspected.

[hit and run]

Well, if nothing else, the group has to stick together or come back together in about 18 months or so in preparation for the inevitable "October Surprise, 2008 Edition".

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JJ

Today, when Fitz hears the comments from Frank Rich on IMUS? It dawns on him the press has left him in the lurch.

Perhaps? The bigger question is HOW is this case dismissed? Fitz pulls the plug? Waltoon pulls the plug? Or the jury?

Best point goes to PATRICK R. SULLIVAN

You bet, the art of making money in real estate, and selling cars, is to keep your mouth closed. That's the BEST CLOSE. And, hold your pen out at the ready.

[Jane]

I've posted the latest on the Russert impeachment in the other thread. It's from FDL - so you can go there directly if you prefer.

[politicaobscura]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Sara (Squiggler]

I only know from TV but when immunity is given, you are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and if you fail to do this, the immunity can be voided? Ari never mentioned his convo with Pincus, did he?

[BEST CLOSE]

I got an email from Val saying she was out of the country, but will sell the laptop now. Craiglist.

[james]

What's entertaining is for you to think that defendants only sign onto plea agreements after they're convicted. ha ha

So you think that sometime in the next couple of days, before the trial ends, Libby will cop a plea to ... something?

That is too far-fetched to be entertaining.

[cathyf]

Here's a question, just to drop a turd in Fleischer's punchbowl...

Suppose, on appeal, a court rules that Fitzgerald's appointment did violate the constitution. Does that mean that Ari's immunity deal is null and void?

[theo]

The decision about whether the defendant should testify or not is always the biggest one in a white collar case. And it is always something of a crapshoot, either way. If the defendant testifies, almost nothing else in the case matters -- it comes down to how believable the defendant is. THus, a bad witness/defendant can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because without the defendant's testimony the jury looks at how credible the prosecution evidence is.

But the reality is that the jury WANTS to hear from the defendant. They will all think to themselves, if it was me and I was innocent, I would demand to testify.

So usually if the defense does not put the defendant on the stand it either means: (1) they feel very confident of their case and do not want to muck it up or (2) they have mock trialed the defendant and concluded that he will not do himself any good.

I do not know which it is in this case. I do not feel good enough about it to think it is (1). Therefore it is probably (2).

But it does show that they do NOT think that they are going down the tubes and have nothing to lose in showing them Libby.

[AJStrata]

No Fitzmas for anyone - no long awaited witnesses, unless Wilson civil case goes through

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3360

Cheers Plamiacs - it is almost over.

AJStrata

[centralcal]

From Jane's post on the other thread I think Little Russ is gonna have a great big credibility problem (again).

[JM Hanes]

Oh, pleeze, not yet another Justice League!

Just One Minute and Associates (LOL! Patrick RS) =

JOM ASSOC.init

[azaghal]

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

Posted by: Ralph L. | February 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Thanks. I don't know what it is about all those "c"'s and "m"'s--sometimes nothing looks right, but I'm too proud to use a dictionary so I appeal to other posters--(sp?). :-)

[Jane]

I think Little Russ is gonna have a great big credibility problem (again).

And it seems so unbecoming to gloat!

[Javani]

"Suppose, on appeal, a court rules that Fitzgerald's appointment did violate the constitution. Does that mean that Ari's immunity deal is null and void?"

Doubtful. Like communications to someone you reasonably believed to be an attorney and whom you were consulting for legal advice, but wasn't really an attorney. Still privileged.

Comes up more with clerics.

[Dan S]

"It's very hard to do low profile cases online because what you need to start unraveling things is (sorry to say so) media reports to work from.
Now, I consider those reports inadequate often utterly wrong --scratch paper, if you will-- but absent transcripts, exhibitis and media accounts we have too little to work with.

Posted by: clarice | February 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM"

Clarice,

I think high profile cases are about all that can be done (to some degree) in cyberspace, as you suggest. It takes a lot of "competing" media attention to provide enough material to contrast and compare. And it takes a lot of coverage to note the blanks. With light coverage of COURSE things will be missed and left blank. With heavy, we know the gatherers are looking for anything to give them an edge, and gaps start acting as data in and of themselves.

But if a more lightly-reported case has good JOM local presense, some first-person reporting can enter the picture too. It's certainly played a part in the Libby case since there are several like you in the DC area.

And that's probably part of KC's success in the Nifong case too. He has access to more than online information.

Maybe the real issue is enough coverage to achieve a critical mass of interest and concern.

[Cecil Turner]

Therefore it is probably (2).

Hmmm . . . Jewish lawyer, Republican, memory ("overload") defense related to go-to-war decision. DC Jury. Somehow I think you're on safe ground, here.

[Jane]

Well since the left appears to be gearing up to impeachment, I'm not sure we will be out of work anytime soon.

Until then it is time to dismantle the MSM - one Tim Russert at a time.

[theo]

Almost over?

Well what have we learned?

In the beginning, the questions were: (1) Who "outed" Valerie Plame Wilson?, (2) Was it a crime to do so?, (3) Whether criminal or not, was it intended to punish her husband for blowing the whistle on faulty pre war intelligence?

And now we know the answers: (1) Richard Armitage (2) No (3) No.

(But as to number (3) the MSM will always report "yes" no matter how much the evidence proves that Wilson did not blow any whistle (just tooted his own horn) and was not punished for it. )

[JM Hanes]

Sara:

"Ari never mentioned his convo with Pincus, did he?"

Apparently not to Fitzgerald, anyway (which does not fall under surprises). Jeffries, on cross, specifically asked him if he told Pincus, and Ari specifically said what in FitzSpeak is called an "unqualified" no.

[Jim E.]

james,

I never made a prediction. I asked a question. Try again, bub.

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

No, AJ, don't say that. It's not over, it can't be...

What will we do with our (bosses) time?

[Jim E.]

The Russert tape evidence...(drumroll, please):

The defense wants to show tapes from NBC from 1998 in which Russert says that witnesses in the GJ don't have a lawyer. In cross in this case, Russert said he didn't know that you weren't allowed to have a lawyer in GJ.

What a bombshell. It's so directly on-point. Not. (At this point, the jury either believes Russert, or they don't. I find this "evidence" rather yawn-inducing.)

[JM Hanes]

azaghal:

"I'm too proud to use a dictionary so I appeal to other posters"

It's OK. You can plead the 5th here without counting the cost. In general, however, a simple "Preview is my friend" in response to nit pickers is all that politesse demands.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Ha ha; Wells is going to play tapes of Russert during Clinton's legal problems saying you can't have an attorney with you in the GJ.

Prosecution is adamant he can't, because he wasn't confronted during cross examination with those tapes. Wells responds, 'Fine, I'll recall Russert and confront him with them.'

[jwest]

JOM & Associates = gray flannel, brief cases = boring

JOM Justice League wears capes and tights without the slightest hint of gayness.

If TM had issued capes at the outset, we would have caught Russert’s forgotten phone calls to Buffalo. How the hell are we suppose to do our jobs without the proper equipment?

[Sara (Squiggler]

Apparently not to Fitzgerald, anyway (which does not fall under surprises). Jeffries, on cross, specifically asked him if he told Pincus, and Ari specifically said what in FitzSpeak is called an "unqualified" no.

Posted by: JM Hanes | February 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM

So Ari, even with immunity, is guilty of perjury? Is this justice?

[Other Tom]

Let's see if I can Shusterize today's developments: "Cheney Declines to Testify."

Sound about right?

[bio mom]

Wells wants to bring Russert back in tomorrow afternoon.

[azaghal]

No Eckenrode.

Posted by: clarice | February 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Happy endings breaking out all over the freakin' place--end to embarrassment for the FBI!

[theo]

Not even close Other Tom. It should be "Cheney Takes FIfth Amendment In Refusing To Testify"

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Since hypotheticals, as yet, have not been judged illegal;

Can you imagine if the jury acquits? The media will be hot to do interviews. Then, imagine that on closer inspection, the jurors say they didn't believe Russert?

Well, it sure would be rich in opportunities for Sat. Nite Live openers. They could even invite Guiliani to guest host that night.

They've already toasted Chris Matthews, ya know? The "AIN'T SHE GREAT" spoof. He was interviewing Hillary.

I see no end in sight for this road show.

[Jane]

Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

"The cast" isn't going anywhere from what I can tell. We are in it to win it.

"Timmeh" is about to have a very bad nite.

[Sara (Squiggler]

JOM & Associates = gray flannel, brief cases = boring

Grey flannel pajamas, doncha know nuttin'?

[BEOSE]

Fitz appointment was intended to explain what a criminal conspiracy investigator is for; bad CIA agents. Plame and Wilson immediately responded with a law suit. Treason trials can still go on whether or not Fitz is a violation of the constitution.

Other appointments, like USAID, were upsetting because the money appeared to go from the Intelligence Committe directly to agencies like Mercy Corps and friends of the intelligence committee, regardless if she is a CIA agent or not, that's wrong.

1)Me. I was investigating a murder and she popped up. (2) No, five year law (3) Joe was being threatened by CIA.

Ari? Boring and constantly stuck in hostels.

[Ivehadit]

Jane, What did Imus say today?

[hit and run]

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilt"

[Jane]

And finally:

Wells Final point, admissions to the effect that "we further advise you that reporter Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory has not been interviewed or subpoenaed."

Walton And you want??? They refused to be interviewed by govt. Neither side had a chance to be interviewed.

Wells I want it in to show that during investigation, the govt already had been told in GJ that Ari Fleischer had told Gregory. They had that info in hand. Gregory, had refused to be interviewed.

Walton What inference are you asking to be drawn?

Wells, govt admitted into record DOJ guidelines concerning limitations on govt how they couldn't do everything. They'v talked about search for truth.

Walton You're suggesting that the fact that they didn't subpoena these witnesses. As I understand the rule, you've got to show that the witnesses are peculiarly available to one side.

Wells It has to do with GJ investigation.

Walton. You move to dismiss the GJ, you don't present the govt's failure to present evidence to GJ.

Wells govt said we were going to get all the facts. They admitted them so they could say they complied.

Walton They only presented it WRT the witnesses they called.

Wells My opening was a response to their evidence.

Walton "Whatever face you want to put on that pig" you're arguing that they jury should assign something negative. What are you going to argue to the GJ, if these people were called, they would provide something that is different from what it said.

Wells Govt shouldn't be allowed to say they were involved in search for truth. They want to put the integrity of their search for the truth in play, I should be permitted to say to the jury that they didn't ask Russert about Gregory. They asked Gregory to be interviewed, he refused, they let it go. Let's say you had a case where DC Police decided not to engage in most basic fingerprint analysis of gun. If they weren't going to pound their chest, I don't have a problem with it.

Walton David Gregory was allegedly told that in Africa. That wouldn't tell us anything. How would that have in some way potentially exonerated Libby?

Fitz What we said is that we charged him with obstruction of justice. Wells keeps arguing that obstruction is improper. Do we want to start trying Dickerson for saying he wasn't leaked. Defense doesn't want to call Dickerson. They're trying to not call witnesses themselves and fault the govt.

Walton Did you say something about purity.

Fitz What I do recall saying is that GJ had to get to the truth and that by lying Libby obstructed justice. We didn't say "we turned over every rock, every gift shop on the island." Wells said guy in the cowboy hat asked the hard questions. Now we're going to get into the question of what did the defense do.

Wells What Fitz said. An important but tough job. Had to figure out a lot. Who were those officals who knew, how did they learn it, what did they understand about it? To make it simple they had to find the truth.

Walton How would that relate to what Fitz was saying. Libby is not charged with the leak. He's charged with allegedly lying. Even if I let this out, it would relate to a matter he's not charged with. This information in no way relates to whether your client lied to the FBI.

Wells, if he's going to say that they tried really hard. They didn't press Russert, they didn't interview Mitchell.

Walton It was merely background info. I don't see that as adding anything to the weight of the govt's case. Regardless of why they were doing the investigation. Did he talk to FBI. Did he lie.

Wells, I only offer it to defend my client and again start to pound their chest. They want to say Mr Libby lied and we're going to show you have they've given proof beyond a reasonable doubt. THey can't bootstrap it of creating a picture of this great investigation.

Walton. I don't see how this any bearing on whether your client lied.

Walton I didn't perceive them as saying they were going to say they were the best investigation.

Fitz Zeidenberg is doing the summation, I'll do rebuttal. Wells said the only way they'd lose this is if they didn't follow their oath. We said justice was instructed.

Walton Zeidenberg–do you intend to comment on quality of investigation?

Z I wouldn't think my vouching for the investigation would be beneficial in any way.

F Do I take it that Wells won't be commenting on it. THe only problem I had is if Mr Wells said the only way they lose. I have a problem if Wells gets up and does his schtick.

Walton To suggest that if gregory was called he would be able to prove some basis. He is equally available to both sides. There cannot be a suggestion taht if he was called he would refute govt case.

Fitz Jeffress is going to introduce three articles. We don't object. THe only other one is the CPD issue.

Jeffress. We didn't prove anything about where she worked. For them to come back to try to corroborate Grenier in rebuttal.

Fitz we worked out with defense, redacting exhibit with stamp treat as secret, declassified. Second exhibit that has a stamp. Cline has proposed an instruction, want to do switch of exhibits. Govt has exhibit in evidence, Wilson op-ed annotated. We had it marked, we'd like to offer it as 402. [Hey we finally learn what 402 is]

Cline It's going to be off all exhibits of that note.

Walton: get any changes to instructions. Difference in unanimity.

[GnuCarSmell]

As a casual observer, this appears to be one of the weakest cases ever prosecuted. It doesn't do much to instill confidence in our so-called justice system. And Fitzgerald may never have to account for his misconduct. Really a sad day in American jurisprudence.

[Other Tom]

I think we can infer that, although others might be induced to yawn about this evidence, Fitzgerald is not.

My preference is that Russert be recalled and confronted. Perhaps some of his loose-lipped buncombe on the Imus show will find its way into evidence.

I am far more pleased at this instant than Patrick Fitzgerald is, which in and of itself is an unequivocal good.

[hit and run]

Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

How does one go about getting Wells involved on behalf of the administration?

[owl]

Just one accurate news outlet would have sunk this whole ship of journalistic misery long ago.

Exactly JJ. Yes, FOX was as bad as the others because they were clueless. Matthew's bunch are criminal.

Clarice....can't help you out about Hardball because I have moved on. The new kid on the block is ABC. Bad crap over there in strange sources.

[Jim E.]

Cecil Turner: "Jewish lawyer, Republican, memory ('overload') defense related to go-to-war decision. DC Jury."

Jewish lawyer??? DC jury. Code words here? Nah, of course not.

Just so folks know (I've seen lots of vague comments about the "DC jury" in the past few weeks), two-thirds of the citizens in DC are minority. Yet most of Libby's jury is white. One of the jurors (white guy, I think) used to work for Bob Woodward, for goodness sakes. If anything, this is probably *not* a typical DC jury.

In any case, I'm not exactly clear on what's meant by "DC Jury" and "Jewish lawyer," because I just know Cecil isn't implying anti-Antisemitism on the basis of, well, nothing.

[azaghal]

So Ari, even with immunity, is guilty of perjury? Is this justice?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 13, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Nope. A global deal is getting cut, messy stuff is being swept under the carpet and Fritz is odd man out. NBC lying is out there for all to see who want to see it. Justice may be if Libby writes a book, but he's an insider, too.

[Javani]

Jim E.:

"What a bombshell. It's so directly on-point. Not. (At this point, the jury either believes Russert, or they don't. I find this "evidence" rather yawn-inducing.)"

I agree, it was long ago.

However, for a lawyer, practicing or not, to say he didn't know about this GJ procedure is fairly amazing.

[JM Hanes]

Jim E.

Do you believe Russert had no idea that you don't get to take your lawyer with you when you testify for the grand jury? Just curious.

[nittypig]

Recall Russert? Talk about a dream scenario for everyone on this site!

[Jane]

Ivehadit:

Two threads back the Imus stuff is discussed. Basically he said he thought Mitchell, Russert and Gregory were going to jail.

Then I think he changed his mind.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CECIL TURNER

I think you're wrong about Jews.

Remember, the only question Reagan asked his surgeon (after he had been shot), was "are you a republican?"

Jews do well in lots of communities. Where people need doctors or lawyers. That's how Jews make good livings among the goyim. Even if they have to start their own country clubs just to play golf.

Don't confuse the elites with the peons. Pee-ons are desperate. And, both groups want good lawyers and good doctors.

Need anymore evidence? The Kennedy kid in trouble for rape; got off with Roy Black. So I rest my case, in this department.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

TO ALL AMERICANS, EVEN THOSE AT SEA. (Hat tip/Walter WInchell.)

You know what? We are kibbitzing.

We are kibbitzing around which just proves today's news from the Libby trial ain't bad.

So far? My only question is how far can NBC reach to keep Walton in a camp that doesn't destroy Russert?

[Ivehadt]

Thanks Jane...and that's so typical of Don.

[Alcibiades]

Clarice,

Are you suggesting we use our powers for goodness instead of evilness?

Form a “Justice League” of sorts, flying through cyberspace righting the wrongs of liberal DAs.

Do we get to wear tight fitting uniforms?

How about overalls?

[Sue]

However, for a lawyer, practicing or not, to say he didn't know about this GJ procedure is fairly amazing.

Lawyer, smawyer...most people know that from watching television.

[Alcibiades]

JM Hanes:
It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over

Another argument for global warming bites the dust.

[politicaobscura]

Wells: Mr. Russert, can witnesses bring lawyers to a GJ?

Russert: IMPOSSIBLE!

LMAO... Russert is such a clown....

[BEST CLOSE]

EU is more fun.

[Dan S]

"Z I wouldn't think my vouching for the investigation would be beneficial in any way."

Hey, a smart prosecutor!

[azaghal]

Jane, gotta love that discussion about the quality of the investigation! Betcha the jury has a few thoughts on that.

[cathyf]

But the reality is that the jury WANTS to hear from the defendant. They will all think to themselves, if it was me and I was innocent, I would demand to testify.

Well, there is another perspective, which is that in the closing argument the defense works to convince the jury that the defendant is the victim of an out-of-control prosecutor who shirked his responsibility to investigate the leak, and then tried to blame his own failures on Libby. Then point out what the jury spent 8 hours listening to -- Libby the calm, helpful witness trying to give the investigators useful information, information which, if they had followed up on it, they might have discovered that Plame was leaked to a good chunk of the DC press corps in May and June of 2003. Ya' know, if the investigators had actually listened to Libby rather than sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting LIAR LIAR WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. Point out that according to Fitzgerald, it's obstruction of justice when you tell the truth but they don't believe you -- perhaps the logic is that if you lie and say, "I don't remember anything" then you won't distract the investigators from trying to punish you for trying to be helpful.

This has the advantage of being a particularly resonant story with residents of DC -- every single person who lives in DC knows multiple up close and personal stories of people ground up in the government meat grinder of incompetence, pissing matches, blame-ducking and petty office politics. Bring these to mind, and the jurors think, "geez, I don't blame him for keeping his mouth shut -- that Fitzgerald creep would just twist it all around anyway, embarrassing himself and us at the same time!"

[dorf]

Fitz and Rus could be the wonder twins.

[Sue]

"DC Jury" = democrats That is all that is meant by DC jury.

[Rick Ballard]

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilt"

No way, H & R.

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilty, Guilty, Guilty"

Add spittle as needed.

[Jim E.]

Regarding Russert and the GJ:

I do have a very hard time believing that he, whether or not he's a lawyer (which he is), would not know that basic GJ rule. A few episodes of Law and Order would get anyone up to speed. I just don't see it as helpful in undercutting his alleged credibility, however.

In fact, I find it only a little less laughable than when Wells made a point of insinuating that Russert's publicity photo somehow indicated his glee at Scooter's impending indictment. To bring up the 1998 broadcast tapes might hurt Wells' credibility more than Russert's. Just seems desperate to me.

[dorf]

Rus in tights and a cape. Fantastic.

[hit and run]

Rick - "Cheney Ordered the Code Red!"

[Patton]

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

Yes, its a little thing called the Constitution, where in this country, as opposed to inside you pea brain, you are PRESUMED innocent and have to be PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no burden of proof on the individual under our system, he doesn't have to PROVE anything. You can't find him guilty just because he didn't PROVE anything.

In addition, it was a RECENT decision, because if you haven't been following along, it was a RECENT prosecution, like just happened last week. So once the GFitz put on a pitiful case, what exactly is Libby supposed to defend himself against?

The testimony of Grenier? I have a feeling I might have said something?

Or the FBI agents that admits Libby said one thing and their notes say the opposite.

How do you defend against a prosecution that is kicking sand in our faces?

Russ in tights ....

Maybe we'll see if he really is Big Russ. LOL