Powered by TypePad

« Continued Embarrasment At The AP | Main | How Covert Was Valerie Plame? »

October 20, 2005



Wondering if you saw the New Waas article

Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.


So, if Fitzgerald indicts on everything but the 'outing' of Valerie Plame, once again the crime is the cover up. You would think by now people would learn that valuable lesson. It will also be a shame that 2 years will have been spent creating the crime.


Well, if the Prosecutor asked Miller about the June 23 meeting, do you think he didn't ask Libby about it? And if his recollection is as vague as Miller's was, what's the basis for the chrage? It certainly doesn't seem that Plame/Flame/Wilson were the main subject of the meeting.Judy said she doesn't actually recall is those notations related to Libby or someone else or whether she used those wrong names in an effort to get him to reveal her real name.



should read--"she doesn't recall IF..."



This is what Waas has on Libby.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 meeting to investigators and the grand jury until he was pressed on the issue.


An unrelated thought (sort of): everything we know now, Fitz probably knew last year. At the very least, he knew enough details a year ago from this date that, if they were leaked, would have started a political firestorm.

A year ago, we were a couple weeks from an election. If Fitz had wanted to derail Bush's reelection chances, he could have. The fact that not a single leak came out speaks highly of him.


polly, well Judy seems to have forgotten about it, too according to waas.

Was it as forgettable a meeting for her as it was for him? Apparently.

If Fitz is indicting him for forgetting about a meeting that even Judy can't confirm involved a leak about Plame/Flame/Victoria must he indict her, too? LOL

TM may be right that Libby's position is more precarious than Rove's but it's only relative,I think. I'd not plunk down my money at Tradesports.


TM - You really do have to read the Waas piece. And clarice, I hope you were not among the commenters earlier in the day laughing at the prospect of the prosecution having to use Miller as a witness. The shoe now appears to be on the other -- Libby's -- foot, as you suggest Miller as a corroborating witness for Libby. That should be fun.


I'd like to agree that Rove is a "buy", but I just can't shake the feeling that it's looking worse than the facts that we know.

Ever since he testified, Rove has been hiding out of the limelight. That might be due to the fact that he's just waiting out the process, but it might also be due to the fact that he had a rough time on Friday and felt like things weren't looking good. He had to get a feeling one way or the other how it was looking after his testimony, and I take it that he didn't get any encouraging signs. Fitz was evidently hard on him.

That mood, according to the WP, is pervasive in the White House. I think if they had cause for optimism from inside leaks (and you'd think they'd have some, from the DOJ), that they wouldn't be so gloomy. But they are.

It just doesn't look good to me. I hope I'm wrong.


Your 4 points re Libby and the concern over so many things that are questionable was first cited by a certain commenter...


I've got a dumb question.

Judy Miller has told her side of the story to the press which seems to call Libby's testimony (which we haven't heard) into question.

How do we know Judy Miller is telling the truth or that her notes weren't doctored?


Does anyone know if it would be common to receive a target letter this late in the game? For example, would it be normal at this point for Rove to receive one, if he hadn't received one before?

Just wondering. Josh Marshall thinks the NYTimes piece means "target letter." But it seems strange to receive one this late, unless Friday sealed the deal for Rove.


Jeff--If Miller is the only witness Fitz has on Libby, the case is too weak to bring. Don't believe me? Reread her article.

What I said is that (a)Libby testified first. And it appears that he said something about that meeting after which (b) the prosecutor pressed Judy about it. But nothing she said is clear enough to contradict anything I can imagine Libby saying.


Does Josh have any notion why lawyers for other witnesses would know if Rove or Libby got a target letter. or why if they know that they didn't use that description? LOL


"undermine the credibility"

You mean it wasn't an attempt to out his wife as revenge?


Yeah, and to use an overused term, you can indict a ham sandwitch, but from what we know - and that's very little, about this case there wasn't any effort to deceive or obstruct by Rove and Libby or anyone else in the White House.

Hell, when you look at it Rove and Libby had been to the courthouse so many times they had their own parking spaces! Months before Rove's celebrated and MSM hyperventilated fourth visit to the Grand Jury, he had volunteered to return.

Sorry, while not always the case, in my 20 some years of playing with GJ's, people who cooperate and volunteer to testify aren't usually the one's who get indicted. A little read of GJ witness rules would do some good.

It's usually those who stand on the periphery pointing fingers and who you don't see making more than one visit who are usually the indictees.

And just a little legalnote - Fitzgerald doesn't make the decision to indict, the jury does.

Remember how many juries Mr. Earle had to "shop around".

Reg Jones


1. Re Rove/Perjury:
Wouldn't the special counsel's logic have to be:"Rove remembered the 2 minute conversation with Cooper but forgot about the e-mail documenting it."

Ok, possible. But isn't it more probable he forgot about both events?

2. Mishandling of Classified Info:
Does anyone know the law? Isn't there something beyond the Espionage Act for "mishandling"? What's the standard of proof? Intent? Negligence?


Trade on this...

No one has received a target letter.


Boy, if the Times couldn't think to type the word "target", they need to fold up. I am assuming they are not total idiots.

And a target letter now - why? Only a week ago, Josh was telling us that they are only for some special situations involving grand jury testimony, and now they are sent out after the testimony is finished?

I need help on the two Waas articles - something strikes me as a glaring contradiction. Next comment.


Returning with the regualrity of an unwanted season, "He [Joe Wilson] said he hoped that the Iraqi constitution vote had failed, not because he wanted to see the administration fail but because he believed a negative vote would cause America and others to rethink their strategy and ``go back to the drawing board.'' "

Joe seems to have a knack for being obnoxious at best.


Josh is jumping the gun



Is your contradiction the "apparently" with respect to the June 23 meeting? I suspect the new article supercedes the older one on that point....


Good point, TM. If the Times had the chance to break the target letter news, then they would have. Unless their sources demanded that they not use those words, so as to not tick off Fitz.


The new Waas:

Secret Service Records Prompted Key Miller Testimony

...As National Journal reported on October 11, Libby also did not disclose the June 23 meeting to investigators and the grand jury until he was pressed on the issue.

Ok, so maybe Murray is riding a distinction between "disclosed" and "testified", which is fair enough. But here is Oct 11:

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said.

OK, so far maybe we are meant to read (between the lines) that Libby did not volunteer the info, but eventualy admitted to a June 23 meeting.

But here is the next paragraph:

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation.

Well, we now know that this is not quite right - Fitzgerald knew about something happening with Miller on June 23 from the logs.

But where in the Oct 11 story does it say that Libby testified "when pressed"?


Keith, there is no evidence that Rove is "hiding out of the limelight". The rumor started a few weekends ago when he wasn't at some event but he was away visiting colleges with his son. He seems to be living just as he alwasys did--12-14 hour days at the WH, interrupted only by gj appearances.


Clarice, I was just going off last Saturday's cancelled event, and the fact that he hasn't done any this week. He might not have had any scheduled--I don't know. I'm just trying to read the tone of all the articles today: NYTimes, WP, Powerline, Fineman, etc. People who are supposedly "in the know" (or at least claim to be) are taking a glass half empty approach on Rove and are all expecting indictments. Now, they all might be seeing what they want to see, and they all might be taking uneducated guesses (at least compared to TM). Who knows?


TM--You are exactly right. I just read the Oct 11 report twice and there is not a single word in it of Libby testifying at all about the June 23 meeting. Nothing. No "after pressed".Nada.

Of course, I question where he got two "sources familiar with Libby's sworn testimony," too.


If Libby 'testified when pressed' that would be prior to Fitz even knowing about what the heck Libby was talking about, if Fitz only learned of June 23rd a few days ago. All of Libby's testimony was before Judy's appearance.

It seems Fitz had to 'press' both Libby and Judy about June 23rd. Fitz had the logs a long time ago.

All kinds of permutations of forgetting, accidentally or on purpose, and or obstruction on Libby's part (aspens) can be posited out of that fact. Only conjecture. We can't be sure of exactly what either said, or how they hedged, or didn't.

What concerns me is the narrative the GJ has worked out, and if what they received re the conversation on the 23rd means a lot or a lot more...to them.

Anonymous Liberal

I see we think alike. I just finished a post puzzling over Waas' latest account. Fitzgerald's letter to Tate on Sept. 12 clearly indicates that Libby has only testified twice (both in 2004) and only about two conversations (both in July). So if Fitzgerald "pressed" Libby about the June conversation, it had to be AFTER Sept. 12. And probably after September 30 given the Libby-friendly leak on the eve of Miller's testimony (which didn't mention the June conversation). So did Libby manage to testify in the last few weeks without anyone noticing? My bet is that Fitzgerald had a private proffer session with Libby to hear his side of the story AFTER Miller testified. I think Waas (or his source) may be using the term "testify" loosely.



I see.


I'm struggling to see how the NYT piece offers anything that wasn't already either in the public record or assumed.

Dave S in VaBeach

“Lawyers involved in the case” is so vague that it could refer to lawyers representing any number of journalists who have been interviewed by Fitzgerald. Which means these “lawyers involved in the case” may not be all that sympathetic to Rove and Libby. Consider that if these lawyers are part of either the special prosecutor’s team or a part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team that they could have confirmed or denied that target letters had been sent by the special prosecutor to Rove or Libby. But they didn’t. And the NYT piece is written as though these “lawyers involved in the case” weren’t even asked if target letters had been sent. I suspect that’s because there is no sense in asking someone a question who would have no idea what the answer is. Reporting an 'I dunno' would have undermined the entire authoritative premise that the NYT is relying on for its piece.

Instead it was said that Rove and Libby had “been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” That sounds like an answer from people who are not in a position to know whether target letters have been sent – i.e. lawyers who are not part of the special prosecutor’s team and who are not part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team. Further, any time a person is brought before a grand jury to testify in a case where he is not given assurances that he will not be prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that he would be warned that it is possible that he could fall into “serious legal jeopardy” by the statements he makes. Sounds rather boilerplate.

If these lawyers that the NYT used as its source had been asked about target letters and they had refused to comment that could have been reported too. After all, the NYT did report on other lawyers who are in a position to know about target letters when it wrote in the same piece: “Lawyers for the two men [Rove and Libby] declined to comment on their legal status.”

But a 'no comment' from "lawyers involved in the case" would have made no sense considering all the other 'inside' information they had divulged. An answer of 'no comment' would have undermined the piece almost as bad as an answer of 'I dunno'. So the NYT didn't ask lawyers who were in no position to know.


Is it possible that Judy held up reporting her version of her testimony until after Libby was questioned about the June 23 meeting at the request of the SP? I seem to recall a delay of a day or two?


What's know, I wonder, about the number and indentity of the grand jury members?

Whatever Fitzgerald decides, if he decides anything, perhaps the grand jury won't be willing to sign of if the facts are as fragementaty and inconclusive as they appear.


Something occurred to me and I just posted a comment a couple threads below.

Those logs.

Do we know what dates the original subpoena for the logs covered? I would imagine those dates would be in July.

If so, then Fitz must have requested further logs from an earlier period to get the June 23 entires.

If so, what/whose testimony caused Fitz to do so?

And when?


Judy last testified on October 12. Her story didn't run until Oct 16. If Libby wasn't questioned about the June meeting in 2004, I'd bet he was between Oct 12 and Oct 16 and that Miller held up her story at the SP request so they could interview Libby before he got to read her version of her testimony.



Sounds plausible.

Libby possibly was never questioned about the June 23rd meeting before because Fitz didn't know about it himself.

But somewhere between Libby's testimony and Judith's, Fitz obtained the June logs.



There's probably a better description of which WH records the sp subpoenaed. Here's the first one I could find and it doesn't seem to cover stuff going to June 23.

{quote]The Long Island, N.Y., newspaper Newsday, which first reported details of the subpoenas on Friday, said three were issued. In addition to the Air Force One records[of the period about a week before Novak's report when Powell was in Europe and Bush in Africa], the subpoenas sought the July records of an internal task force called the White House Iraq Group, which was created to publicize the threat of Saddam Hussein.

In addition, the grand jury wanted the transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing about Nigeria; a list of who attended a July 16 White House reception in honor of former President Ford's 90th birthday, and records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news organizations.

The subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22. [/quote] http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-03052004-259160.html

I don't know the period of time covered by the subpoena covering WH emails, logs, correspondence, phone records..but it does seem the focus was the period of time between the INR report and Novak's article.


Here's an October 2003 report re the first subpoenas sent to the WH:

[quote]White House press secretary Scott McClellan said White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was notified of the investigation at 8:30 p.m. Monday. Gonzales, in turn, discussed the matter with Bush early Tuesday. Gonzales then sent a memo to White House staffers directing them not to destroy materials that might be relevant.

After receiving a Justice Department letter detailing the scope of its inquiry, Gonzales sent out a second memo at day's end, directing White House staff to retain e-mails, telephone records, computer discs, notes and diary entries relating to:

• Wilson or his wife's "purported relationship" with the CIA.

• Wilson's 2002 travels, on behalf of the CIA, to Niger.

• Contacts with syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times and reporter Knut Royce and bureau chief Timothy Phelps, both of Newsday, a Long Island newspaper.

"You must preserve all documents relating, in any way, directly or indirectly, to these subjects," Gonzales wrote, "even if there would be a question whether the document would be a presidential or federal record or even if its destruction might otherwise be permitted[/quote] http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/01leak.html;COXnetJSessionID=17wHG2AdbvjS6C3794GMr8F7WLXLPvrPpoJb3JP0Z2TX0KSFMCSA!-1658899440?urac=n&urvf=10650705995390.5623828396500169

Neither the 2003 nor the 2004 subpoenas seem to cover visitor logs in june of 2003 and if Libby had no notes of the conversation there'd have been no paper about the meeting with Miller produced.


Thanks for that info, clarice.

(I can't get to google. In fact I'm having a hard time getting to many places on the West Coast from the East Coast at the moment.)

Anyway, something triggered Fitz interest in the June period. Conjecture alert: testimony from another reporter may have indicated discussing info with Miller in June.

Which probably means nothing more than the fact Fitz has testimony from someone else who spoke to Miller re the subject.



"There is no question that her privacy has been invaded. She was almost by definition the ultimate private person," said the couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf.

Wolf said the couple would make a final decision on filing a lawsuit after special prosecutor Patick Fitzgerald has completed his investigation." - Salon -

Oh goodie.

Cecil Turner

What Dave and Paul said: nothing new here.

All right, I need some exercise. Let's speculate . . . about . . . Murray Waas. To quote some cogent comments:

  • [Oct 11] As to Waas - yes, he had had good sources, but that lead paragraph pretty clearly attributes that "Plame operative" info to people not in a position to know it.
  • I need help on the two Waas articles - something strikes me as a glaring contradiction.
  • Of course, I question where he got two "sources familiar with Libby's sworn testimony," too.
  • If so, what/whose testimony caused Fitz to do so?
Chug, chug . . . Waas is talking to Hannah.


TM and Anonymous Liberal - Swopa was also on the case of the contradiction between Waas' two reports. I don't know what to make of it, but I especially don't know what to make of the scenario where Libby did in fact acknowledge the June 23 meeting. If we assume he did so, and did so before he sent his infamous letter to Miller, why would he seemingly signal to Miller that he only wanted her to testify to the July conversations? The only thing I can imagine is that he wanted to basically set her up in a situation where, once caught, she had to confirm, like him, that it was an eminently forgettable conversation. Let's call it the clarice defense. But that strikes me as convoluted and high-risk to the point of being hard to believe.


Keith -

Does anyone know if it would be common to receive a target letter this late in the game? For example, would it be normal at this point for Rove to receive one, if he hadn't received one before?

I don't know about common, but I have been involved in a federal prosecution (not as the target, thankfully) and the target letter was received by the person under investigation about 2 weeks before the actual indictments were issued.

The target letter typically invites the recipient to testify before the grand jury to "tell his side", but in the case of Rove and Libby, I'm not sure that would be necessary since they have already done so more than once.

Just wondering. Josh Marshall thinks the NYTimes piece means "target letter." But it seems strange to receive one this late, unless Friday sealed the deal for Rove.

If Marshall is right, the recipients will be indicted. My understanding is that the target letter is equivalent to a notice of intent by the prosecution to obtain an indictment, and we have all heard amusing anecdotes about how easy it is to obtain one.


I think the Fitzian tactics now amount to sensing the intent of the pushback on Wilson. I think the last three weeks have demonstrated to him that the White House had no intention of outing Plame, that the press is terminally ignorant and credulous(a potent combo), and that Wilson is crazy. I hope he has uncovered a CIA plot, and I hope he has discovered the origin of the forgeries, but that's gravy.


Furthermore, if Plame was complicit in Wilson's campaign, then outing would have been legitimate. so was Plame complicit, and if so, did the White House know. There is a duality in my argument, first that the SH was innocent of intent to out, then that they should have outted her if they knew she was complicit. I doubt the latter, or Tenet would have left earlier.

Surely these are in Fitz's mind


OK, the Anon Lib and I are getting on the same page re the Waas puzzle - Libby talked about a June 23 meeting to investigators (but not the grand jury) *after* Miller testified. This is from the new Waas:

Libby has told federal investigators, according to legal sources familiar with his testimony, that he told Miller at the meeting that he had heard that Wilson's wife had played a role in Wilson being selected for the Niger assignment. But Libby testified regarding both the June 23 and July 8 meeting that he had never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true.

As to subpoenas of visitor logs - that seems so obvious a thing for Fitzgerald to do, I'll bet that they are covered by a separate subpoena directly to the Secret Service (although I don't know Chain of Command issues; the Secret Service is Exec Branch under Treasury, not "directly" under the Pres like the WH staff is). Some research on how this was handled by Starr might clear that up, but it seems like a clear guess.

As to Judy's dramatic confrontation with Fiztgerald over the logs - look, if those logs linked her to Libby, Libby would have been asked about them.

*Best* Case for Libby:

(1) Judy signed in to meet several people, and put some other name on the list.

(2) That person denied having a chat with Judy about Wilson or Iraq.

(3) No one ever thought to ask Libby if he met Miller in June, so he is not on record as having denied it. (Unlikely that there was no general question, however, to which he replied, "As best I recall, I had no other meetings with her".)

(4) (1) to (3) explain why Fitzgerald is blindsided by news of a June meeting.

(5) At the grand jury, Fitzgerald finally asks who she might have seen on June 23. Miller hedges, says she did not prepare testimony for a date not covered by the subpoena, offers to check her notes, and admits that maybe Libby was on her calendar.

That's not even close to perjury; it's barely close to newsworthy, although *maybe* if Fitzgerald did not have proof she was inside the EOB, she would not have volunteered it.

Of course, it is bad for Libby, but maybe no worse than we already thought. How Miller stayed out of his day planner, for example, remains a puzzle.

A worse case for Miller is if the logs cleraly show Miller signed in to meet him, he denied having any relevant exhange with Miller at that time, and Fitzgerald was so trusting he did not even include the June 23 date in the subpoena to verify it with Miller.


Cecil Turner

If we assume he did so, and did so before he sent his infamous letter to Miller, why would he seemingly signal to Miller that he only wanted her to testify to the July conversations?

Is he "signal[ing]"? Or merely describing the timeframe of the conversations as defined by the subpoena:

In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.” [emphasis added]
Hopefully Fitz knew Wilson was leaking back in May '03, yet he apparently narrowed the time of interest from Wilson's bylined article to Novak's. Was that based on testimony, or what he viewed as the most likely leak timeframe? If the latter, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that approach, but blaming others for cooperating seems a bit of a stretch. If the former, the precise question (and Libby's answer) are required to determine how much trouble he's in, but it could be substantial.

But that strikes me as convoluted and high-risk to the point of being hard to believe.

Me too. (On the other hand, that Aspen thing makes me wonder about him.)


I will put on the tinfoil hat for a second and say that Rove may be playing it "Rovian." If he is cleared by Fitzgerald, he and the White House will get a whole lot of mileage out of all the media having him convicted before the facts come out. The WH will be able to use that as a push-back for whatever comes up in the next three years.


That tinfoil hat is lined with silver.

How do we know Judy Miller is telling the truth or that her notes weren't doctored?
What Miller has publicly said is that she doesn't remember Wilson coming up at the meeting, she doesn't know what her notes mean, and she is just speculating. (Wasn't the meeting within a few days of her return from Iraq, and so she would have been significantly jet-lagged and even flakier than normal?) Forget accusations of lying or note-doctoring -- Miller's story is that she's just guessing at this point.

I mean Fitzgerald has got to have more than "Victoria Flame works for the Census Bureau." (Or the FBI, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Mines, whatever "the Bureau" is. Given that Ms. Plame's cover was "energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings" maybe it was Bureau of Land Management -- they are in charge of gas and oil leases on federal lands after all.)

cathy :-)


Joe is a liar of gargantuan proportions. Here is the problem with the Rovian silver lining. Insofar as this affair has hit public consciousness, it has been through MSM, and why would you think that MSM would truthfully lay out their role in this? So Joe has promulgated two desperate lies, 'Bush Lied, Peope Died', and 'Those meanies outted my wife; during wartime, no less'.

Fortunately, those depending on those two memes to support thair paradigm, are going to have a karma crash.


Funny, cf, I wonder if she actually knows anything about energy.


Spose she's a geology major? She makes things quake.

Really, the question of Plame's complicity is extremely important for intent. I can't believe Fitz has not examined that.


Here's the Rovian plot. It's for Condi to sqeak it out over Hillary, when the third party candidacy of Wilson/Churchill does as much damage as Nader did.

gerry dan

The June 23rd meeting between Libby and Miller was supposedly two hours long. The Wilson piece, per Miller's article, appeared to be a very brief part of the discussion. Plus it is not even clear, per Miller's story, what specific's were dicussed relating to Wilson. The two items she mentions are "caldestine guy" and "wife works in bureau?" (based on her notetaking & memory skills, she could have written that as a question for him or, at worse, Libby heard some rumor).

Miller says:

" ...And Mr. Cheney, he said, had asked about the potential ramifications of such a purchase. But he added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I thought "clandestine guy" was a reference to Mr. Wilson - Mr. Libby's first reference to him in my notes.


My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there."

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Wilson said he'd been a true child of the 1960s and had ``too many wives and taken too many drugs. And, yes, I did inhale.'' '

Which he goes on to prove by telling us that he and Valerie are going to file a lawsuit against the Bush Administration for invading her privacy.


TM, that's a very plausible scenario.And while Judy took notes of the meeting, there is nothing in her report to indicate he memorialized the meeting at all.

If forgetting it is perjury or obstruction--it isn't--absent minded people like me would all be spending time in the slammer.

Nothing in her report of the meeting is inconsistent with his recollection that he never mentioned Plame to her.In fact, most of what she reported indicates his saying CHeney did not send "clandestine guy" and never saw his report, something the SSCI report confirms.


Has it even been established that Plame was undercover? She was reportedly driving into Langley in plain view every day.

It would be pretty funny if all the indictments are for the cover-up of a non-crime.

Geek, Esq.

Rove's problems only seem insignificant if one disregards the possibility that he is viewed by Fitzgerald as a co-conspirator of Libby's.

An arrangement between the two "Okay we'll say we heard it from reporter" seems very, very plausible.


You're really reaching now geek.

Funny, cf, I wonder if she actually knows anything about energy.
I wouldn't be surprised -- if that was her cover when she was covert, it would suggest that the intelligence she collected was in the energy area. If she was halfway competent as a spy then she would have had to have had some significant knowledge in the area or she would have been easily detected.

Unless of course "energy analyst" and "Brewster Jennings" was a completely new "cover" created for her in 1997 to allow her to still get paid by the CIA while she was making the transition out of covert ops. But that would mean that the "cover" was of no value at all, so why would the CIA make a criminal referral for "blowing" it? What makes more sense was that energy analyst was her cover when she worked as a spy in Europe, and she knows enough that it's an effective cover.

cathy :-)


Has anyone yet shown even the slightest evidence Rove, Libby, or anyone found out about Plame through official channels (i.e., not from a reporter)?

Those communications are kept track of, you know. There would probably be email records, phone records, etc.


Dollars to doughnuts, once they figured out she might be covert, they clammed up and let the flow of info about her go the other way. It was extremely delicate balancing the refutation of Joe with the none revelation of her covertness. See, no evil intent. And intent can excuse mistep.


Time for the cliche. The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.

Never forget, though, that you can only get to heaven treading the same pavement.


cf, is she in bed with her husband and the Saudis, and is it about energy?


Calling Kim :)

Dollars to doughnuts, once they figured out she might be covert, they clammed up and let the flow of info about her go the other way.
But you've fallen into the trap of assuming Joe Wilson's story. If they knew she was "WMD analyst" then they knew she wasn't covert, and, according to the leaks and public statements, they didn't suspect anything else until Corn published Wilson's outraged accusations.

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

"If forgetting it is perjury or obstruction--it isn't--absent minded people like me would all be spending time in the slammer."

Rove and Libby are not absent-minded.


http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/>Brewster Jennings


If forgetting is perjury or obstruction, then all non-autistic people would be in the slammer.

Rove and Libby are not autistic.

cathy :-)

Appalled Moderate

Since this scandal now resembles a game of Clue (Was it Karl Rove in the West Wing with the stiletto? Or Lewis Libby in EOB with the bludgeon?), I think some wisdom about how everyone is approaching this can be found in the Ellery Queen novel, the Greek Coffin Mystery .

One can up with so many assumptions with the information at hand, and can be most exactly and precisely right in your deductions and exactly and precise wrong about what truly happened.


AP, Isn't that true of almost everything? Reason and a decent appreciation for the facts we know are the way we have to muddle through everything in life. We might be wrong,but that's all there is to guide us.


AM, that's why I refuse to be confused with the facts, and intuit rather than deduce.


Was it Ellery in the lounge with a laptop, or Queen in the treetops with a typewriter?


Was it Cooper, Russert, Miller in the bedroom with Kerry AND Corn,Kristoff and Pincus in the guest suite with Wilson?


I'm afraid to use italics. :) Mr. Wilson's own words:

"I wrote my article only after I had given the government several months, both in terms of talking to people close to the Administration, as well as some people within the Administration, and by talking on background to the press. I urged the government to come clean with this story that was patently not true. I did so because I fully understood that it is a penchant of this Administration, and it is a modus operandi of Karl Rove, to attempt to destroy the messenger who brings bad news."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/04/int04023.html>Wilson April 2004



(5) At the grand jury, Fitzgerald finally asks who she might have seen on June 23. Miller hedges, says she did not prepare testimony for a date not covered by the subpoena, offers to check her notes, and admits that maybe Libby was on her calendar.

How would Fitz agreement with Judy concerning other sources affect his questioning here if Libby's name did not appear in the June logs? If Fitz says "You don't remember a June meeting? Well, girl, look at this" and shows her the log showing on June 23rd she met with Bugs Bunny. What the heck does that accomplish?

The only way I can see Libby's name not being on the log, is if she was there on other business and ran into him in the hall or something. But wasn't this the two-hour conversation? Surely there was an appointment and Libby's name would be right there.

The SS is probably one of the best little agencies around and I'm sure their logs are excellent.

So I'm sure (99%) the June log had Libby's name on it.

So why was he so surprised? And who reported that he was surprised?

Appalled Moderate


There will be indictments, or there won't be. We all have educated guesses on what happened. But this discussion has an air of unreality about it, precisely because people seem so darn sure about how this is going to go down, and there really is very little basis for it.


Amen AM



Heh. That quote now makes me want to go back to my very own first ever conspiracy theory!

Wherein Joe planned for the expected outing of his wife, and used it as yet another tool to bring down an administration.

I'd really like to know what Bush ever did to him.

I forgot what thread I put it in though.


Joe not only expected his wife to be outed, he orchestrated it.


"when pressed"

I think this suspect statement has fueled this argument. How on gods green earth do we know Libby had to be pressed? Who would say this, Fitz? Libby? A lot of pressing or a little pressing? Or is pressing just a more sinister way of saying questioned.

It is obvious Miller didn't recall details of June, that is why she went to her notes. Even if Libby did not recall the details, leaving open the possibility of discussing the Niger trip, this is enough.

Additionally, Fitz is not going to rap Libby for having less of memory of the June discussion details if he did not take notes. It is Millers notes that refreshed her.


Wilson had to have told the press, on background, his wife was CIA. He had to have bona-fides and that was his bona-fides.



Good point!

I just got a bad thought though. That meeting was two hours and even I, up there, assumed there had to be an appointment. But TM said something about Libby had no calendar entry for Judy.

Maybe that was a joke? ::fingers crossed::


First, some of you must have peeked ahead - my next big post is on whether Valerie was covert, and yes, Brewster-Jennings in the Boston Globe is key to my tale.


Fitz says "You don't remember a June meeting? Well, girl, look at this" and shows her the log showing on June 23rd she met with Bugs Bunny. What the heck does that accomplish?

Good point, but - he did ask a few other questions about other sources, and she always did not remember.

Or maybe he said, look, you were in the EOB, we are talking about Libby, did you see Libby?

And she says, "Maybe".

As to his date book, I have no idea whether she was in it, but *if* she was, I have no idea how Libby explained it in a way that did not want Fitzgerald to seek verification from Miller.

And if she was not in the datebook...

Ok, Libby had an open morning, sees Judy, shoots the breeze for a few hours, and forget the whole thing. Consequently, she is not in date book, phone records, or anything.

He meets her for breakfast a few weeks later; months later, and when he is asked, he runs the two meetings together.

Wow, that is some fine explanation.

Oh, a stry thought - Waas keeps hammering that Libby testified to mentioning the wife at the July 12 meeting, but Miller says it was July 8.

I originally said, so what, he agrees with her on the main point.

Upon further reflection - the July 12 meeting is *after* Novak's column hit the wires, so it may matter which date is correct, and Libby may have a reason to lie.


The internet discussion of this event is like approximating the size of an iceburg based only on the part visible above the ocean's surface.

It is much more likely that the entire case will hinge on something VERY SPECIFIC that we know nothing about.

For instance, perhaps Russert admitted that he had spread gossip to Libby about Wilson's wife being in the CIA....

Or, for instance, perhaps Libby purposely erased something from his computer (hello Martha Stewart).

What I'm saying is that Fitz knows much, much, much more than anyone on the internet and the case will assuredly turn on a piece of information that no one here know's about.


True, but what would be the fun in guessing if we knew the answers? :)


Somebody a couple of days ago had the piece of information of when Miller got back from Iraq, and I thought it was something like the 22nd of June. Am I misremembering that date, or did Libby really have a 2-hour meeting with a goofy punch-drunk jet-lagged person the very day after she got home?

cathy :-)

Willy Horton

But Russert (allegedly) told Libby about 'Wilson's wife and CIA' on July 3rd (5 days before Libby's second meeting with Miller), so why does the Novak article out on the 11th matter?


TM wasn't the meeting at EOB, not the WH mess? Is that(EOB) where his office is? Or was she there meeting someone else --say Hadley--and ran into him and they lunched together..no appointment, just a chance encounter?


Willy, from the subpoena to Miller (and I think to the others) the focal point of the SP was July 6 to the July 11. I think his thinking was that there may have been classified info in the INR memo (July5) which was leaked to Novak(whose story went to the publisher July 11)..

I don't know if he considered that Wilson had been peddling him tale since May and that reporters like Kristoff and Pincus knew of Plame well before the INR memo.


July 5 should read July 6--

Geek, Esq.

Sell Rove!!!!

Yesterday, one former administration official said Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, had discussed former diplomat Joseph Wilson and the role of his wife, Ms. Plame, with White House staffers in 2003. That buttresses the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating charges related to leaking classified information.

The former official said Mr. Rove had these discussions after Mr. Wilson went public with claims that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to build support for the Iraq war. Mr. Rove discussed discrediting Mr. Wilson, the former official said, adding that Mr. Rove didn't necessarily name Ms. Plame or make her a key talking point in conversations with other White House officials. Prosecutors have been told of these internal discussions.

Robert Luskin, an attorney for Mr. Rove, said, "The allegation is maliciously false."

A charge of leaking classified information might seem a stretch in Washington, where many believe that too much information is deemed classified -- and where, in any case, such information routinely passes among White House officials, congressional staffers and the media.

But there are some relevant earlier cases. A current investigation into the leaking of classified Pentagon information to the Israeli lobbying group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has resulted in three indictments.

For Mr. Fitzgerald, there may be advantages to such an approach. Building a case on leaking classified intelligence likely would require a lower burden of proof than proving the 1982 law was violated.

Moreover, concern about national-security leaks has grown in the intelligence community and Congress in recent years. In 2002, the Bush administration promised to make more use of civil sanctions to punish leaking

The comments to this entry are closed.