Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« A Puzzle In The Fleischer/Dickerson/Cooper "Leak" | Main | Super Sunday Libby »

February 03, 2007

Comments

clarice

I think I cracked the puzzle of the previous thread.

As part of his duty to turn over exculpatory material to the defense the SP sent over Dickerson original story contesting Cooper's account.

The prosecution limited direct on Dickerson to Cooper's description of what was in his notes and foreclsed cross examination on the issue of what Dickerson told Cooper. (It's a fine point, but there it is--Cooper only authenticated his notes and explained what they meant).

On cross the defense cannot go beyond what was covered on direct.

I believe Cooper will be called as a hostile witness by the defense. He will be asked to go beyond his notes and say what Dickerson told him. He will either assert that his notes are accurate or acknowledge that they are not. If he does the former, the defense will call Dickerson who will contest Cooper's account. If he acknowledges his notes are not accurate, he will impeach his own testimony.

Remember, that for the July 11-12 edition Time's editors held up publication in the belief that Cooper had insufficient corroboration for his sotry--which means they did not accept that either or both of Cooper's accounts re what Libby told him or Dickerson told him constituted corroboration of Rove's account. Quite possibly they didn't even believe what he said Rove told him.Rove certainly, as we know, had no recollection of saying anything to Cooper except possibly a warning not to get too far out front on it because Tenet was about to issue a statement challenging Wilson's account.

Carol Herman

For the life of me, I don't know why Miller wasn't challenged when she was asked about the accuracy of her Libby statement, and she responded "certainly not absolutely sure."

Bennett's just a marvel. I wonder how many other sentences he gave Miller so she could "shaft it to both sides."

Meanwhile that "not absolutely certain" should stands out there as something that "might" convince the jury that she was certain "above reasonable doubt."

Maybe, Wells just wanted to keep his powder dry? And, what he will have in store in the future? If the case doesn't get whacked with a super-duper RULE 29. Where all the counts go into a bucket. Not just the Cooper-duper ones. Sure. It will be interesting to see.

sbw

Clarice, how's this for your NPR interview:

Look at the hard evidence of the Libby trial. Time's Matt Cooper and the New Yotk Times Judy Miller showed reporters can't be trusted.

After their testimony, why did reporters fail to report it? Even NPR's "On the Media" wasn't 'on the media' enough to report it.

The Libby trial revealed that reporters are human. They are dogged by faulty notetaking and failed recollections. Forced to improvise on deadlines, reporters prejudge, are victims of their own preconceptions, and simply follow the herd. Before blogging, what went on in journalism's sausage factory was hidden.

Blogging is a double-edged sword. Some mindless comments reinforce stupidity. But good blogging factchecks the factcheckers. The Libby trial showed the need for that. Now there is an "Army of Davids" whose collective memory and intellect improves understanding and challenges reporting to be better.

Mainstream media and good blogging should be symbiotic. Blogging does the press a service. It exposed:
- Fauxtography - Reuters' fake pictures in Lebanon.
- Jamil Hussein -- the Associated Press' unreasonable news sourcing in Iraq.
- Pallywood -- The propaganda insurgents insinuated in the news.

Blogging is the only way the press can rebuild the trust and understanding that is the only thing the press has to sell.

Rick Ballard

Count Three:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

Agent Bonds testimony:

Z Tell you about what he said transpired once he landed at Edward AFB, did he tell you about Cooper.
DB Like he had told us previously, along with Mayfield and Martin, when he contacted Cooper, and read the statement, to Cooper. And Libby claimed after Cooper asked about Wilson he went off the record and told him the info being spread might not be true.
Z Who said.
DB I'm sorry, Mr Libby. Mr Libby then told us he told Cooper that reporters were telling admin that Wilson's wife worked at CIA, but he didn't know if that was true.
Z End of interview, did you ask Libby to sign waiver.

Cooper's testimony:

F Speak to Libby
MC THere'd been a lot of interest in VP, Wilson had said in oped that CIA asked him to do trip as a result of inquiry. Did he know about these 16 words. what was the behind the scenes story. made great effort to reach people in OVP. Cathie Martin said she'd hook me up to speak with Libby I did communicate some in advance. Spoke on Saturday July 12.
F Circumstances about that day
MC On deadline. They like to have these stories done on Friday. Going into Sat is exception. Secondly, some friends had invited us to Chevy Chase Country Club. This club prohibits blackberries or cell phones. I kept running out to parking lot, Libby was down at Ronal Reagan christening. My now late father in law was Reagans Amb to Austria he was at ceremony. Events are quite vivid.
MC We spoke by telephone. He called me on my cell phone.
12:25
MC Describes statement. Varying degrees of confidentiality. First on background. Was your office involved in 16 words into SOTU. No, his office was more focused on other aspect of SOTU, project bioshield. Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that. I asked what he had heard about Wilson's wife.
MC Mr Libby said, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that too."
Pleasantries at the end, maybe another question or two in there.
F Groundrules?
MC I said on background, before I said Langley. Just before Wilson's wife, I said off the record.
F Did he say covert status?
MC No
F Did he indicate her affiliation was classified, Did Libby say who he had heard it from. Did he say he heard from reporters? Did you type notes?
MC No

Now there's a discrepancy that's really worth pursuing. Clouvert is simply too kind a name for this nitwit prosecutor.

clarice

Good sbw-But you forgot the most important blog bust--The Rather TANG fairytale.

clarice

I'd also--but surely will never have time to talk about distributed intelligence--and how I think dedicated researchers and fact checkers like those here from a wide variety of backgrounds are the best way at winkling out the truth.Certainly better than journalists who all seem to have fairly thin and similar experiences and education.

azaghal, for example, knows more about LE and DoJ practices and procedures than the entire press corps.A number of posters know a great deal about intelligence gathering and secrecy regs and practices, etc.

lurker

What does LE stand for?

clarice

Because it probably got buried in a lot of troll spittle, I also want to remind everyone that
1. In his first interview Libby told Bond that he was not sure about dates because he hadn't his notes and was speaking only about his vague recollections, that he wanted an opportunity to speak on the topic of where he learned first about Plame after he reviewed his notes.His lawyer, in fact, asked that that be specifically in the notes but Bond didn;t do that.
2. I think his bafflegab makes perfect sense if you read it like this:
Try reading that bafflegab this way "the sentence (because at that point in time [ the time of my initial FBI interview] I did not recall that I had ever known.) "
3. Since Bond did not put that caveat in her notes, the gj probably was unaware of Libby's warning that he was unsure of the sequence of events when he first was questioned.

Tom Maguire

Just to stir the pot on Matt Cooper - he calls Rove on Friday AM and e\leanrs about the wife, yes? Why *wouldn't* TIME (Calabresi) call Wilson for a confirmation - Novak tried that?

And who knows what Wilson said, since by then he knew Novak was working a story?

And maybe TIME told him their source was Rove, just to motivate him -he sure made a lucky guess later with that, when an Evil Neocon would have made more sense.

On a different and less interesting topic, I have been puzzling over just what the FBI was looking at when they asked for a Special Prosecutor in Dec 2003.

For example, at that point they had Libby's "I Forgot" interviews. They had Martin, Grossman and Schmall saying Libby had been told; Grenier was not yet sure.

But they did *not* have Fleischer (who only got his immunity in Jan 2004), Miller, Russert, or Libby.

So they really had no witnesses contradicting or disproving Libby.

Now, the Special Prosecutor may have been for Rove's benefit. But in Dec 2003 no one knew (formally, anyway) about the Rove-Cooper leak.

Rove had admitted he talked to Novak but denied being a source - maybe the Feds didn't have Novak's "I heard that, too" version, even on a no-name basis at that point - I should cjeck Novak's account.

So maybe they felt like they were missing the Pincus source, Novak's second source, and had a weird story from Libby.

Well - I am not sure where this would take us anyway.

clarice

lurker-LE =law enforcement.

MayBee

wait:
Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that.

Why did Cooper ask this?

clarice

TM per the pretrial arguments, Calibresi was on the phone to Wilson BEFORE AND AFTER the Cooper call to Rove.

Wilson probably called Calibresi to report the Administration wa after him. They get Cooper, new to the job and pretending to call about welfare reform in to Rove who's at the ariport and surely wouldn't have bothered to take the call had it been on something he was not tasked to talk about.
After the call, Calibresi calls Wilson--surely to tell him that Tenet was about to come out with a statement.

clarice

I don't think he did..I think you should check the exhibit--I believe that is from the Bond questioning of Libby.

MayBee

TM- And maybe TIME told him their source was Rove, just to motivate him -he sure made a lucky guess later with that, when an Evil Neocon would have made more sense.

I agree!
And I think Wilson told the Feds, and I think Wilson told Fitzgerald when Fitz called him.

clarice

I think it's harder and harder to discount the notion that Fitz thought if he indicted Libby he could "turn him" to implicate Cheney and/or Rove.

And when he couldn't he was forced to proceed with this preposterous case.

MayBee

clarice- it's in what Rick Ballard just posted, I think MC recounting what he asked Libby.

Am I reading it wrong? Anyway, I see that as War on Wilson fishing.

clarice

Thanks, MayBee--You are asbolutely right. My error.

Rick Ballard

MayBee,

That's from EW stenography. I think that the bold is all Cooper.

Christopher Fotos

I believe Cooper will be called as a hostile witness by the defense. He will be asked to go beyond his notes and say what Dickerson told him. He will either assert that his notes are accurate or acknowledge that they are not. If he does the former, the defense will call Dickerson who will contest Cooper's account. If he acknowledges his notes are not accurate, he will impeach his own testimony.

You know, I've read this blog compulsively during the trial and enjoyed every word of it, but this is the first time in about 36 hours where I felt I understood something.

topsecretk9

---First on background. Was your office involved in 16 words into SOTU. No, his office was more focused on other aspect of SOTU, project bioshield. Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that. I asked what he had heard about Wilson's wife.
MC Mr Libby said, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that too." Pleasantries at the end, maybe another question or two in there.

F Groundrules?

MC I said on background, before I said Langley. Just before Wilson's wife, I said off the record.---

PaulL

A beautiful sentence from Wells in his motion to not let in the two newspaper articles:
****
The government's current insistence on introducing these articles in their entirety belies its true intent ­ to put explosive allegations about Ms. Wilson's employment status and harm to national security before the jury under the guise of providing evidence concerning Mr. Libby's state of mind.
****

Wells also neatly mentions "reversible error" a couple of times. If Walton is stupid enough to let Fitz get by with this, he deserves scorn and ridicule.

topsecretk9

Were Libby/Cheney trips to Langley reported about at that time June 2003?

clarice

Wilson was dictating "The War on Wilson?" and Calibresi and Cooper were working it for him to fill in the blanks..Some war.

clarice

I think it was well known the VP had taken it upon himself to go over the CIA reports for accuracy. Of course had he not, the Administration would have been blamed for being too credulous. Since they did, they were falsely accused of massaging the intel.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

We're all familiar with the term "distributed intelligence," but for the non-blog savvy/gen'l public, I wonder if using the term "pooled intelligence" might convey the concept more effectively (i.e. without requiring a detour to explain the lingo).

clarice

Yes..maybe. If NPR calls me though I'm sure most of the stuff will be fluffy questions with little time to get into this..I'll have to dream up some stupid soundbites cause that's the way it works..And I hate that.

Dan S

"I think it's harder and harder to discount the notion that Fitz thought if he indicted Libby he could "turn him" to implicate Cheney and/or Rove."

And that's Fitz's normal modus operandi in OC cases, so it makes perfect sense that he'd fall into that same familiar template.

Except Libby is a darned square the slips right through the memory hole (or something).

hit and run

Tom?

Now that you're Time's Man of the Year are you running with the mongrel horde more than 2/5?

We mongrels love your company on off hours!

Carol Herman

It seems the judge has green-lighted Fitzgerald to "enter into the record" things that are NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH. But to "establish state of mind."

Libby's "state of mind" was not to give Russert, or Cooper any information that would sound like it was CONFIRMING WHAT HE WAS HEARING.

Hence? Libby is HEARING details FROM the media.

Well, it seems the media's run dry on conversation. Since no media person is willing to admit they GOSSIP. (And, yes, they knew.) Not just about Wilson's Wife #3. But probably about #2. Too.

And, the "reason" for the special prosecutor? It was one of those lawyerly designs that was gonna push Kerry into the White House.

Is this counted as "something that didn't work?"

Deborah Bond is some "note taker." You wonder, with her talents, how she ever passed a college test, to get out of school.

Or how come no one IN THE COURTROOM got upset that she got caught at leaving exculpatory statements made by LIBBY out of the very testimony she was duly sworn to record? (Wells knew this before she sat down to testify.)

And, even if it isn't in law books, HOW the Defense handled the clock on Thursday was MASTERFUL. Making da' law look more like a football game, than ever.

By the way, Libby is NOT OUT OF LINE, worrying about the words that go to journalists. Now that you can see how journalists CAN DISTORT information. If nothing else about this trial, that's now clear. It spells out why people say "no comment."

But it's a disaster for the press. Nifong ran into the same dilemma. He, too, thought he'd feed the press. The press would attack the Lacrosse players. So far. So good. It's the results that look so sloppy.

As to the jurors, if this case is handed to them, (and so far there's no proof it doesn't collapse beforehand). We will see what 12 DC residents can agree on? Or they get hung.

Really only two more weeks to go? If the whole case gets heard? Fame can be pretty fleeting, even if the jurors make it into the press rooms.

And, the elephant in the courtroom? Woodward told Pincus! The managing editor of WaPo said it was common news room knowledge. But the case still went forward.

Mystifying.

topsecretk9

TM

Syl emailed she is having problems posting on JOM....she has emailed you to Mr. Minuteman hotmail address.

She's having JOM withdraws!!!!!!

topsecretk9

OH...it seems to be only JOM not other typepads.

JM Hanes

TM:

"I have been puzzling over just what the FBI was looking at when they asked for a Special Prosecutor in Dec 2003."

I don't think it was anything in the case itself that determined the timing. Ashcroft's recusal & the subsequent appt. of Fitzgerald were tied to the confirmation of Comey as 2nd in command at Justice.

hit and run

clarice:
If NPR calls me though I'm sure most of the stuff will be fluffy questions with little time to get into this..I'll have to dream up some stupid soundbites cause that's the way it works..And I hate that.


Holy shiite! Wait! ::breathe:: ::breathe:: This is my niche! Stupid soundbites!!!! I can do this... ::wheeze::

Soundbites? That's ALL I do. Stupid soundbites....

::hand raised::

::waving wildly::

clarice

I think I misspoke, and this charade is even worse than I thought..I am reviewing Bond's notes of the first interview and it seems Libby told her about the june 12 disclosure at the very first Oct 21, 2003 interview:
FDL:
"Wells: I want to go to different area. (The Libby CP note)

Wells; This is document Libby produced prior to his interview.

DB: No. I believe it was October 21.

W: It wsa discussed.

DB Libby brought it. Libby did not give it to us.

W Jun 12 2003, Libby had a telephone call during which Cheney disclosed to Libby that Wilson's wife worked in Counter Proliferation. At the very outset of interview, he said to you he had reviewed this exhibit, it had refreshed his recollection, he now recollected that he first learned of Plame from VP.

DB THat's what he claimed.

W (mad) THat's what he said, that's not what he claimed.
"
This is the exhibit he brought to the interview:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan30/GX10401.PDF>Wife works in CP

hit and run

tsk9:
Syl emailed she is having problems posting on JOM

Yeah, I was wondering -- after Sara's post about liberal trolls on the last thread -- I wanted Syl to come in a provide her much much better image of a liberal troll. I remember very distinctly one she did a long time ago.

FREE SYL!!!!!

FREE SYL!!!!!

Rick Ballard

"And maybe TIME told him their source was Rove, just to motivate him -he sure made a lucky guess later with that, when an Evil Neocon would have made more sense."

Like Matt Cooper didn't tell Mandy Grunwald; "My God you won't believe the angle I just got on my hit piece. Honey, could you call the Kerry campaign and have them have Joe or Val get back to me? If you have a problem get John on the phone and tell him it's important."

clarice

1st interview was Oct 14--Here's FDL re that interview:


"DB Story didn't change in second interview. He had refreshed his memory with documents.

DB As he told us before, he said he had had a conversation about 6/12/2003."

JM Hanes

When that verification page between preview & post rev's up, I think weird things start to happen. Froze my browser a couple of times, had to force quit & start over.

topsecretk9

--DB THat's what he claimed.

W (mad) THat's what he said, that's not what he claimed.--

Mad? OR thrilled to have busted her on THAT?

clarice

So--to be clear--there were two interviews with Bond.One on Oct 14 and one on Oct 21. On the 14th he told her there had been a conversaation on about June 12 about Wilson's and his wife with Cheney. At that time he hadn't his notes. On Oct 21 he had reviewed his notes and brought the June 12 notes with him which confirmed his memory.

Sara (Squiggler)

She's having JOM withdraws!!!!!!

Tell Syl to hang in there. When I was on the phone this morning with Time Warner Tech trying to get my cable modem talking to my router again, I told her, "you don't understand, I'm virtually housebound and I can't read Just One Minute." As soon as I said it, I was embarrassed until she came back to me with, "great blog!" I was lying on the bed and almost fell off.

sbw

Clarice: "the most important blog bust--The Rather TANG fairytale."

Yeah. I left that out on purpose -- It's true, but incendiary.

---
You need Libby Trial soundbites?

Try these:
Without blogs you wouldn't know
-- That reporters made up facts,
-- That the prosecutor knew Libby wasn't the original leaker from the beginning,
-- That the prosecutor didn't allow Libby to refresh his memory with notes like the others,
-- That witness' memories were worse than Libby's,
-- That Miller went to jail to protect other sources, not Libby,
-- That Wilson was on the Democratic Party team before his Op Ed.
-- That Wilson's "No WMD" claim debunked his own report made a year earlier.

I could go on. But so can you.

clarice

This cinches it--a Wa Po article too off base to even begin fisking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301344_pf.html>This is what happens when Amy is only "contributing to" not writing for the Post

One hundred percent bull doo doo!

clarice

Thanks SBW that's the kind of simpleton stuff they let you squeeze in between the fluffernutter.

MayBee

clarice!
On Libby's return, Martin testified in federal court last week, he brought a card with detailed replies dictated by Cheney, including a highly partisan, incomplete summary of Wilson's investigation into Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction program.

Our impartial fact-reporters at their finest.

clarice

Charlie in COlorado can't get on either. Either can email me in the meantime and I'll post for them as long as I'm on.

MayBee

And the following para:
Libby subsequently called a reporter, read him the statement, and said -- according to the reporter -- he had "heard" that Wilson's investigation was instigated by his wife, an employee at the CIA, later identified as Valerie Plame.

At least they had the decency to only put he word "heard" in quotation marks.
Factually Accurate (with a question mark)?

clarice

Isn't that something MayBee? Amy Goldstein is much better than that.Too bad they tasked 2 clowns to write this piece.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

If "Carol D. Leonnig" is on the byline, you know to read it for the latest anti-Libby, anti-Admin spin, not news.

Dan S

You're right, Clarice, that one is layered fiction on fiction on misrepresentation on flat lies. Hard to believe they could cram that many into a short piece.

Rick Ballard

If I had one bite at NPR it would be:

In 1999 Joe Wilson went to Niger and reported to the CIA the possibility that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake. In Feb. 2002 Joe Wilson went to Niger and reported to the CIA the possibility that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake. In March 2003 Joe Wilson signed onto the Kerry campaign. In July 2003 the NYT gave Joe Wilson the opportunity to fallaciously report his "findings" from his trip to Niger in 2002.

I know that to be true and the only reason I know it to be true is because I've read honest reporting done by dedicated amateurs pooling their expertise on blogs. Those amateurs provide citations from official documents which substantiate the veracity of the statement I just made.

Of course, if I really had one bite at NPR, I'd go for the jugular.

MayBee

Each paragraph gets better and better. This is in the Sunday edition, no?

One of my favorite lines so far is bringing up Matalin's note, and identifying her as Cheney's then-communications director.

Although this is good: The belittling implication of the disclosure, as Fleischer and others testified last week, was that nepotism, rather than Wilson's knowledge and experience, lay behind his involvement in the matter.

And finally this: Plame's employment at the CIA was classified, making it illegal for any official to knowingly and intentionally disclose it. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's 22-month investigation did not produce charges of that offense.

MayBee

Was that a CREW press release?

Dan S

Might be worth doing some Googling with key phrases to see if they turn up. :P

Barney Frank

Because it probably got buried in a lot of troll spittle

LOL! I don't have time to know enough about this case to contribute anything of value, but it sure is enjoyable to read.
What dolt journalist that's been on the witness stand could turn a perfect little gem of a phrase like that?

danking70

Rick,

"Do you recall that Clinton fired every appointed US prosecutor within weeks of his inauguration in '93?"

I had read somewhere that Clinton fired all but 1. The one was a Michael Chertoff whose job was saved by Sen. Bill Bradley's intervention.

I find it funny that the Dems are now crying politics with a political position.

clarice

Not bad either,Rick--though one journalist, Hitchens has said this..The media created this scandal, is in the middle of it, and consistently misreports it by and large.It might also be worth noting that three Commissions have considered various of Joe's charges:(1) the ssci found he was a liar (2)The 9/11 Commission said the Administration did not manipulate the intelligence and (3) the British Butler Commission said there was solid intelligence to support the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa--which is what the President said.

Someone else should write the Post Ombudsman on that article. I complain too often.

vnjagvet

Clarice:

The "beyond the scope of direct" objection on cross is ignored by some Federal District Court Judges, in my experience, at least in civil cases. In any event, the rule is a trial "traffic" rule, which is left to the discretion of the trial judge.

It looks like Judge Walton is often giving Fitz the benefit of the doubt on such discretionary rulings.

Over the years, I have found when I was consistently getting the benefit of the doubt on such rulings it was often not a good sign for a my side. It generally telegraphed that I was going to get really hammered either on the jury instructions or on motions for directed verdict or similar motions.

You are right on that the defense can always put on prosecution witnesses "on cross" if they are identified with the prosecution's case, and get the evidence in that they were unable to get in by cross examining the witnesses in the Prosecution's case.

Fifteen or twenty crisp leading questions to witnesses who have already appeared in the case as prosecution witnesses often works wonders as an introduction to the Defense case.

Especially if, by this device, it becomes clear to the jury that the prosecution was sort of eliciting the "truth and nothing but the truth" on their direct case, but clearly not "the whole truth".

Making that point again on final argument can be devastating on the overall issue of reasonable doubt.

It is pretty clear to me that the prosecution's case seems to be full of this kind of problem.

MayBee

Was that a CREW press release?

MayBee

sorry!

clarice

Maybee, Dan? Fisk it for the ombudsman.

clarice

vnjagvet, thank you. I think I said that on the other thread, but that has always been my experience as well...he's given Fitz a little rope and then he will yank it--or he anticipates the jury will.

Wells told the Court from day one that Fitz would do his smoke and mirrors bit with the big and small case distinction and both he and the judge know that Fitz is desperate to get whatever prejudicial big case stuff in because he has the thinnest little case imaginable.

Carol Herman

SEINFELD: A show about nothing.

FITZERALD: A Federal case about nothing.

SAM ERVIN: After Nixon's take-down, his name used to sell American Express Cards.

THE FUTURE IS THE PAST: To be forgotten.

Or? THE "ABSOLUTE" AUTHORITY is giving Nixon's ghost a chance to have the last laugh?

Now, Clarice. Because you are RIGHT about Libby's testimonies to the FEEB's, how in heck did it "interfere" with the government pursuing the truth? THEY WEREN'T LOOKING FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

What's the costs? Not "priceless." But definitely a loss in respect. Fitz thought he had a few White House staffers in his grasp. But really has he done all that well so far? They used to ask? How does Nixon put his pants on, in the morning? Well, Fitzgerald can answer that, now.

It's not enough that politics separates groups into HOSTILE crowds. Then, you see the GOP in congress roll right over.

Is that what the donks thought would happen to all the people? All of us? Didn't a lot of donks notice Kerry got rejected? And, Dan Rather got disgraced? It's okay. My questions are rhetorical.

I did love the SEINFELD concept, though.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

You need a "this case is about" hook or grabber.

My first shot would be:

"This case is about a man's honest attempt to expose the lies told by a dishonest man."

I'm sure others can beat that attempt.

Dan S

The problem with fisking that thing is it's based on conjecture and spun from there. To do it line by line would look like an exercize in pettiness, because you would be criticizing petty spin, mostly word choice that takes an extremely partisan sideways look into the case.

To just go after the pure factual errors would make it appear that the bulk of the article is true. The bulk of the article is opinion; it's not easily measured by a factual standard.

I want to see Libby found not guilty on all charges and have that do the fisking. I want to see them spin that (and I know they will try!)

But maybe after a night's sleep I'll look at the straight factual errors.

topsecretk9

BTW...slate has a blogger Seth on the Libby trial...here is a little more in depth of the "he claimed" testimony

4:07 p.m.: The defense begins its cross examination of Agent Bond. It is mad contentious. At one point, Bond says Libby "claimed" he first learned about Plame from the vice president. Defense attorney Ted Wells takes issue with the word. "You mean he 'said' it? He didn't use the word 'claim.'" Bond sticks by her guns: "It's what he claimed."

With this, Scooter Libby's heretofore placid wife, who is sitting directly in front of me, turns her head away from the courtroom, shakes it in disbelief, frowns, and sighs. Meanwhile, the judge intervenes with a chuckle. "Is that what he said?" he asks Bond, trying to move things along. "It's what he told us," says Bond, unwilling to completely back down.

"Did he also 'tell' you his name was Scooter Libby?" asks Wells with a hint of sarcasm.

"It took us a long time to get him to tell us what his first initial meant," says Bond, drawing a laugh. "He still won't tell me," says Wells.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/fr/flyout

Pofarmer

The government's current insistence on introducing these articles in their entirety belies its true intent ­ to put explosive allegations about Ms. Wilson's employment status and harm to national security before the jury under the guise of providing evidence concerning Mr. Libby's state of mind.

Great minds think alike, I guess. I'm sure glad to see Wells hammering this. You just can't say that Plames status is of no consequence to the trial, then allow into evidence media reports(not actual documents) that indicate she was covert. What does media reporting have to do with Libby's state of mind? That will be an interesting ruling.

Dan S

Hehe, media reporting has a lot to do with MY state of mind! I'd like to strangle a few of these lying spinners of liberal fantasies.

Rocco

How about a quote from Sir Henry Wootton? "An Ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country." Why did Wilson come home and lie to his?

vnjagvet

Clarice:

I didn't mean to step on your point, but I did want to reinforce it. I think the first comment on this thread was right on.

I couldn't get through the previous thread's 600 plus comments:>)

Even at this point, I think Libby has fair shot at a jury verdict.

In any event, I suspect Fitz will ultimately be no more successful than Walsh was with Weinberger, North and Poindexter in Iran Contra.

Dan S

"Well, let me go talk to the boss and I'll be back."

Gee, I wonder where they got that quote from? It doesn't turn up on a Google search, so it hasn't been quoted before. But it's in quotation marks, so it has to be a real quote, right? Or is this fiction, not news reporting?

danking70

JM Hanes, thank you for your description of the defenses motion in the other thread.

Do you think if the defense waited a little longer they could have used the latest WaPo article as exhibit number one to not let in any newspaper article?

Boy, I hope the jury isn't reading the papers or watching the news.

clarice

Rocco, I missed you!
Well, I went to the article and they have a comment section. You can write a short piece on one item of the lie there.I did.

JM Hanes

That whole motion strikes me as little more than a needlessly extended version of the "Wilson is a snake" gambit.

I am curious, however, about how an opening statement from the Defense gets transmuted into "evidence" legitimating rebuttal exhibits.

hit and run

Rocco:
How about a quote from Sir Henry Wootton? "An Ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."

How about former Secretary of State Shultz:

“You have one more test to pass.”

That’s what then–secretary of state George Shultz would tell newly appointed diplomats after they had finished the obligatory grip-and-grin. The guest in his office would look puzzled, and Shultz would instruct him or her, “You have to go over to the globe on my desk and identify your country.” Invariably, the statesman would point to New Zealand or Egypt or some other nation, to which Shultz would reply, “No, point to your country,” reminding him where his true loyalties lie.

“Originally,” Shultz says, “I thought of it as something fun.” But when it took several years for someone actually to spin the globe around and point to the United States, the exercise became a potent—and telling—display of the underlying problem of the State Department. Foggy Bottom’s inverted priorities—believing that the job of the diplomatic corps is to represent a foreign country’s interests in America, not America’s interests in the foreign country—can be seen in any number of examples, from easy visas to child abduction cases.

Rocco

Aww....thanks Clarice, missed you too! It was beginning to overwhelm me so I took a breather.

Rocco

hit and run

My guess is Wilson would point to France!

clarice

vnjagvet, I know you were reinforcing that point, and I appreciate it. It was always my experience and I am glad you agree. (I can tell you sometimes those discretionary rulings for the other side made me boil, but once it was over I understood them very well--not a thing in the record that could be appealed.)

danking70

Today we enjoyed -30 degrees in the Windy City.

I hope WindandSea can send some of her(?) 60 degree Global Warming my way.

Go Bears!

Dan S

"The Media's Shadow Hangs Over Trial"

Well, if I keep going on this I may actually have to post on my blog after two years or so.

JM Hanes

Sir Henry Wooten? Egads! I have an ancient copy of his ELEMENTS of ARCHITECTVRE in my library. You're the first person I know of who has ever referred to him, Rocco. Glad to see you stopping in -- I think I know what you mean about getting overwhelmed. Seems to be an all or nothing thing chez moi; wish I could figure out how to dip a toe in the pool without ending up treading water in the deep end.

Rocco

Thanks JM...good to be back!

hit and run

Rocco:
My guess is Wilson would point to France!

And then when corrected, he would point to the US......specifically NYC...and more specifically Turtle Bay.

pete


"WashPost: Refugees of Iraq War Find Little Support

Violence spurs exodus of nearly 2 million Iraqis into neighboring states, where they are blamed for spreading economic hardship and sectarian strife."

More spreading democracy eh.

steve

It seems to me that the defense has to make a strategic choice about how they want to explain Libby's GJ testimony that when he spoke to Russert he was hearing about Wilson's wife "as if for the first time." I see four options:

Possibility 1 is the Emily Latella ("never mind" for those of you who don't remember the original Gilda Radner bit on SNL)--the conversation with Russert about La Plame really didn't happen after all and Libby just got mixed up at the GJ with other conversations, due to imperfect memory and lack of access to his notes for preparation.

Possibility 2 is the Clarice Memory Overlay (she can take her name off if I've misstated her view)--the conversation with Russert happened and Plame indeed came up. Libby was so startled by his Russert-provoked epiphany (about Plame not being merely a minor detail but possibly the source of CIA disinformation against the Administration) that he incorrectly folded his finding out about her (at least orally to the GJ) into that conversation.

Possiblilty 3a is the pure Subjunctive Defense (you knew that was coming--it's my original hobby horse)--the conversation with Russert happened, Plame came up; Libby's words "as if for the first time" did not intend to communicate that he had forgotten about being told of her earlier, but rather to explain the state of mind he was simulating in order to fool Russert and prevent his using Libby to confirm Plame's role. Libby's statement was not phrased subjunctively, as grammatic precision would require, but if that be a crime, and if a prosecutor write a charge on that basis, then we must all return to the nineteenth century mode of expression.

Possibility 3b is the Memory-Subjunctive Hybrid. It works just like the Subjunctive Defense, but allows that Libby got confused about which reporter he had the conversation with. Maybe it was Miller or Cooper, but without access to his notes, he got confused.

Each of these possiblities requires a different approach. Most obviously, is it important to impeach Russert if he claims that he didn't talk to Libby about Plame? It could be awfully tempting to say, "You know what, Tim is right, we never discussed Plame and I never even could be accused of leaking to him. So why would I have lied to the grand jury? Even if I had lied, it wouldn't have been material to anything since I'd already told Fitzgerald and the FBI I found out about Plame from the VP."

On the other hand, if Libby told the truth about discussing Plame with Russert and/or can establish that there is more than reasonable doubt that he didn't, then he is in very good shape for the Subjunctive Defense. Also, casting doubt on Russert's testimony would shake the prosecution's credibility, an important side-benefit for the defense closing argument that all the journalists are error-ridden and integrity-challenged compared to Libby.

clarice

Possibility 4 before I go to bed:As he has with all the other counts in the indictment the Prosecutor fudged the evidence.Russert may not have said "Plame" or "CIA" but said enough to alert Libby that Russert knew.
The "presidential treatment" Russert received lasted all of 22 minutes..subtract the formality language of the deposition--identifying the particpants, spelling names for the reporter, etc..the interview was probably more like 10-15 minutes and if this was handled like the rest of the investigation Russert was probably asked if he mentioned "Plame" and "CIA" to Libby. He was only asked what he told Libby and probably in such specific terms that all the possible variants were skipped.

And there is plenty of evidence that he probably did know from Mitchell and Gregory.

Sara (Squiggler)

Steve -- I think you need to combine parts of your parts. My take as posted in the other thread is:

Libby knew he had heard about Wilson's wife being CIA before but it was a totally unremarkable fact that had nothing to do with his interest in Wilson himself and his trip to Niger and getting the public acknowledgment that the "behest" was not from the OVP, but instead a CIA op.

What Libby heard from Russert was that the reporters knew this fact AND THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT. Upon hearing that from Russert, bells went off that this unremarkable fact that he was hearing as if for the first time was a shock because, although he, Libby, had heard it before from official sources, he never thought anything of that factoid. I do not think that up to that point he'd even thought of Wilson's wife works at the CIA as being important at all.

Suddenly, Libby is seeing where this story is going. Suddenly it changes everything. So much so, he immediately goes to Cheney and asks him if he wants the Plame info added in to their response. The VP says wait and let the Tenet statement explain everything.

So at that point and up to talking to Cooper, Libby is still sticking to the original Wilson pushback, but the reporters don't want that story, evidenced by the NYT taking a pass when Judy wants to write the story, and they want to go with the gossipy tidbit. And evidenced by the fact that Cooper had to make up his War on Wilson story because he had nothing from Libby on the juicy tidbit about the wife.

steve

If Clarice's conjecture at 11:13 is right, and the defense can show on a cross-examination that Russert did probe Libby about Plame, even if indirectly, then the Memory Overlay or the Subjunctive Defense are the two options in play. In a choice between those two, the Memory Overlay is more complicated and raises enough dust to help on reasonable doubt. While it is a bit hard to explain, it can have gradations of success with the jury, so even if they don't buy it wholesale they might still give the defense some credence.

The Subjunctive Defense seems like a simpler, go-for-broke approach, which the jury either believes or rejects. It's relatively clear and straightforward (compared to the Memory Overlay). If the jury believes it, Libby is home free, but it is a high-risk, high-reward approach. As a non-lawyer, I'm not sure whether professional attorneys would be willing to take that kind of gamble.

pete

After Libby is found guilty what will you do with yourselves?

pete

Maybe you can finally tell us how many fairies fit on the tip of a needle!

MayBee

After Libby is found guilty what will you do with yourselves?

We will go serve time with him Pete. We are that devoted to him.

steve

Sara: Your approach sounds plausible to me and would be a bolstering of the Memory Overlay defense, adding shock at the reporters' interest in Plame to shock at the possibility that Plame was actually the source of the whole problem. That would add heft to this defense.

I see two problems, however: 1) Fleischer said things that make it sound like Libby was pretty up on, and concerned about, the spousal relationship between Plame and Wilson. That means your theory about the GJ "as if for the first time" testimony now depends not only on impeaching Russert but on impeaching Fleischer, which adds risk to the defense. All the other testimony, weak as it might be, that Libby discussed the spousal angle is also in the way. Your story might be true, but it's harder to prove. The pure version of the Memory Overlay, and the Subjunctive Defense as well, only require the impeachment of Russert, because they concede that Libby had shown some interest in Plame previously.

2) If Libby's story were what you suggest, why didn't he just say it that way to the GJ? The Subjunctive Defense has a simple lingusitic basis for this--Libby was careless and sloppy in how he phrased it but actually communicated the gist if you read his words properly. The pure Memory Overlay is confusing enough that Libby's bafflegab is perhaps understandable. Your theory, though, raises the question of why Libby wouldn't have blurted out *something* to the GJ about being surprised that reporters were locking in on the wife angle.

pete

"We will go serve time with him Pete. We are that devoted to him."

By all means ... drink the Koolaid.

Ranger

Clarice,

Ok, now I am confused. Is it that Libby claimed an offical source but didn't identify it (as the VP) in the first FBI interview? If he already said he'd learned if officially on the 12th, what is the big deal about the note? The FBI had his notes by then, so they could have dug it out. Why did he and the FBI make a big deal about bringing it in?

Ranger

Anyone think Wells will call Miller back during the denfense? I have a feeling the reason he wanted sources for the "other article" she was writing was to get her and Armitage in a conversation before June 28th. If he can show the jury that Miller talked to Armitage before she talked to Libby, I think that kills the Miller counts.

Dan S

Does anyone remember where the statement about how mad Wilson was at what Condi said came in?

Dan S

Ranger,

I think Bond was claiming Libby had that note along, but didn't give it to them until the next interview. Why, I did not understand.


And I don't offhand see a reason to bring Miller back. If he could get her to give up other people she discussed Val/Wilson with it might be useful, but don't think Walton will allow that. He's gotten her to say she can't remember any of them, which is pretty unlikely, so she's probably impleached in the minds of the jury to some degree.

Patton

"""Violence spurs exodus of nearly 2 million Iraqis into neighboring states"""

Pete, are you really, really this gullible?

It never occured to the Wapo that maybe people are leaving for an entirely different reason...called FREEDOM. Since when your boy Saddam was in power and ran Iraq like a concentration camp, with Clinton and UN help. It was illegal to leave the country and if you managed to get out, everyone knew that Saddams secret police would show up at your relatives houses and arrest, torture and kill them for your being a traitor.

Not to mention Saddams death squads that killed prominent ex-patriots that spoke out against his regime.

But continue to live you fantasy that Iraq was all puppy dogs and daffadils to the mean old US military dhowed up.

I guess we could go back to Saddams old ways if that would make you happy..

Patton

I am not a lawyer so I may be way off base, I would like to hear the lawyerly view of this scenario during Libbys defense.

Wells calls Miller and asks her about her other sources.
This would need to be done because Miller claims Libby told her things on the 23rd that he denies.

This is a factual descrepancy and if the defense is not allowed to show that Miller
has confused her Libby conversation with others, then he's not getting to put on a full defense.

Miller claimed that she completely forgot her meeting with Libby until she reviewed her notes. Given that, Wells should be allowed to review with her all her other notes and see if thy jog her memory of other sources.

If her notes fail to jog her memory, it would tend to show that her notes, DO NOT in fact refresh her memory.

This would allow Wells to show that both she has no memory of the conversation and her notes do NOT cause he to remember sources.

If the judge does not allow it, I'd think it would be grounds for appeal if convicted.

Wells should also pursue what else she has done to refresh her memory, if she hasn't reviewed her records such as phone calls, it would tend to show she is actually not interested in recalling her other sources.

Patton

""After Libby is found guilty what will you do with yourselves? Posted by: pete ""


Most likely we will be arguing over the lefts latest contention that Libby took the fall for Cheney who was covering for Bush who killed a prostitute in Texas while on a cocaine binge
when he was AWOL from his National Guard duty.
Either that or Cheney got the CIA to blow up the levees around New orleans so Haliburton could open a fishing resort.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame