Murray Waas - Spotlight On Libby

Murray Waas has a new National Journal article which grabs the news about Judy's new notes and puts the focus where it belongs - on Lewis Libby.  [We think we catch him exaggerating the import and evidence in his lead, however when he says that the newly revealed Miller/Libby conversation touched on "the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony".] [And we are WRONG.  Mostly.  Per Ms. Miller's account, Wilson's wife was discussed on June 23, but perhaps not by name.]

His gist, which mirrors mine: Judy Miller has now told Fitzgerald about a June 23 talk between herself and Libby.  However, neither Miller's subpoena nor Fitzgerald's letter to Libby and his attorney, Tate, suggest that Fitzgerald had heard anything about this June 23 chat.

My version?  Depending on the specific testimony of Libby and the materiality of the June 23 talk, this new information ranges between modestly bad and disastrous for Libby.

At one end of the spectrum, Libby can offer the "I forgot" defense and get away with a raised eyebrow (and scowl) from Fitzgerald.  At the other end, this June 23 talk may turn in to a new perjury/obstruction charge.

And was June 23 a "conversation" or a "meeting"?  Mr. Waas uses both; the Times originally used "conversation", which Reuters also uses here.  Does it matter?  Well, one might expect a phone conversation to have been picked up by the same cracker-jack White House phone logging system that missed the Cooper-Rove call (Cooper apparently called the main switchboard and was re-directed, which probably only happens a hundred times a day).  A Miller-Libby "meeting", on the other hand, might be easier to keep out of the electronic logs, but less forgettable.

Beyond that, one might argue that Ms. Miller had a special reason to doubt the sincerity of Libby's original waiver.  Since her subpoena only cited two contacts in July, she could infer that Fitzgerald was unaware of the June 23 talk.

Finally, the puzzle of Libby's apparent coaching of Miller's testimony in defiance of Fitzgerald's instructions becomes a lot less mystifying, if we assume that Libby was aware of, and deliberately concealing, the June 23 talk.

Let's hand the microphone to Mr. Waas:

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.

"Crucial"?  I suppose so, in the sense that Mr. Fitzgerald is very interested in learning more about this conversation, as are we all.  A casual reader might infer that the actual substance of the conversation was crucial at the time to either Libby or Miller.  Or, one might infer that, in the fullness of time, this call will be considered to have been crucial to the resolution of this case.  Of course, it may be merely a passing cloud interrupting the sunshine of Libby's autumn days.  Time will tell.

But we can't let this slide - per Mr. Waas, the conversation was "about the operative, Valerie Plame", according to people familiar with the testimony that Libby never gave on this point.  Huh?  If Libby never testified about this conversation, how could people familiar with his testimony know it was about Valerie?

Let's see how the Times describes the notes.  From their first account:

The meeting is expected to focus on newly discovered notes compiled by Ms. Miller that refer to a conversation she had with Mr. Libby on June 25 [corrected to 23], 2003, according to a lawyer in the case who did not want to be named because Mr. Fitzgerald has cautioned against discussing the case. Until now, the only conversations known to have occurred between Ms. Miller and Mr. Libby were on July 8 and 12, 2003. The notes refer to Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador to Gabon.

Nothing about Valerie there.  How about the most recent Times story by David Johnston?

Ms. Miller's meeting with the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on notes that she found in the Times newsroom in Manhattan after her appearance before the grand jury on Sept. 30. She took the notes during a conversation on June 23, 2003, with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

An entry in her notes referred to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador whose criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq policy had begun circulating in the capital in the spring and summer of 2003. Mr. Wilson's critique was based on a trip he had taken to Africa in 2002 to examine whether Iraq had sought nuclear material from Niger.

No, no mention of Valerie there, either.  Mr. Waas has been doing a terrific job on this story, but I think the red-pen brigade has caught him making a crucial mistake, as it were.  Let's just say the notes referred to Joe Wilson, and await developments.

[And while we wait, let's pile on:  Mike Isikoff of Newsweek describes the notes:

...a notebook was discovered in the paper's Washington bureau, reflecting a late June 2003 conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, about Wilson and his trip to Africa, says one of the lawyers [close to the case].

And here is Carol Leonnig of the WaPo:

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who has indicated he is nearing a decision about whether to charge anyone in the case, questioned Miller about notes she said she discovered last week involving a June 23, 2003, conversation with Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to a source familiar with Miller's account.

According to the source, the notes reveal that the two discussed Bush administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV about three weeks before the name of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, appeared in a syndicated column written by Robert D. Novak.

Still no sign of Valerie.]

Continuing from his story:

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame.

Emphasis added - that is not based on her subpoena, which covered only Libby.

FBI agents interviewed Libby in October and November 2003, and the following year he voluntarily appeared twice before the grand jury, according to government records and interviews. But he never disclosed anything to the FBI, prosecutors, or the grand jury about his June 23 conversation with Miller, sources say.

Since Fitzgerald only cited two July contacts between Libby and Miller in his letter to Libby, we believe the sources.

Mr. Waas then goes into detail about Libby's waiver to Miller.  When Ms. Miller first agreed to end her stint in jail and testify, her deal baffled observers.  However, Libby's motivation to promote confusion about the sincerity of his waiver and let her sit in jail is a lot more obvious *IF* he was aware of a material June 23 talk that he was concealing from the prosecutor.  If.  Hard to type with my fingers crossed, but "IF".

Ms. Miller will be off to the grand jury, so her First Amendment concerns seem to have been laid to rest.  Since Fitzgerald is meant to wrap this up by the end of October, we should learn soon enough whether this latest news is bad for Libby, or really bad.

UPDATE:  Interesting background from the WaPo:

One source close to Miller said it appears that the notes were Fitzgerald's first indication that Miller and Libby had spoken in June.

Last year, Fitzgerald subpoenaed Miller's notes for discussions she had with Libby from July 6 to July 13 but included no mention of June, the source said.

Yes, and there is Fitzgerald's letter to Libby and Tate, which only references two July contacts.  But check this on how Steel Willed Judy's notes were discovered:

After Miller testified before the grand jury Sept. 30, a source close to Miller said, Fitzgerald and her attorney urged her to go back through her old notes and turn over any that involved Libby or would be relevant to the case, the source said.

Fitzgerald asked!  Nicely, one presumes, and why didn't he think of that before?  All these silly subpoenas, when all he had to do was say "Please".

I don't buy it - if her attorney "urged" her, it was because she is under some other legal cloud, or because he thinks she would lose another court fight.  Of course, the obvious explanation for her cooperation would be that she testified to something suggesting that there were other relevant conversations, but why didn't Ms. First Amendment drag Fitzgerald back to court and force him to beat it out of her?

[Uhh - because she would have to fight from jail and would lose?  Just guessing.]

Comments

[kim]

And if you take the aspen 'threat' as a taunt?
================================================

[Mark Coffey]

Tom, great work, as always...just FYI, the first link to the National Jouranl piece is pointing elsewhere...

[Anonymous Liberal]

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Libby intentionally neglected to tell the grand jury and the FBI (twice each) about his June conversation with Miller. If that's the case, what was SO bad about that conversation that Libby would be willing to commit multiple felonies (false statements, perjury, possibly obstruction of justice) to keep it secret? The only reason that makes sense to me is that something about that conversation is either very incriminating to Libby personally, or imcriminating to his boss, the Vice President. I know that sounds crazy, but I'm just going where the logic takes me. It seems like the only alternatives here are 1) Libby genuinely forgot, or 2) he was trying to cover up something really bad. I don't see any middle ground.

[ordi]

It does look like Liddy may have a problem. However, it appears it ain't the end of the trail. WHy is Abrams Miller's lawyer saying this:

From: CNN Reliable Sources interview

KURTZ: I talked to people at the 'New York Times' who are angry and confused about this. They say, understanding -- look, many journalists have used confidential sources. Most of us have not gone to jail. They say you could have had something approaching the same deal before she went to jail. You and Judy Miller took an absolutist position -- we cannot possibly betray the source -- by going to jail and what happens at the end? She takes the waiver and testifies before the grand jury.

ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them.'

Who are her other sources?

[Jeff]

I was just puzzling over the same question as Anonymous Liberal with my lawyer friend HAL. This was before we fully recognized that Waas' article explicitly says -- and it is the first, I believe -- that the June 23 Libby-Miller conversation covered Plame herself, and not just Joe Wilson, which is all I had seen mentioned in previous coverage of the June conversation. So it is possible that Libby recognized that it looked worse for him to acknowledge that he knew of Plame's identity and status back in June; perhaps he had already asserted that he heard about Plame for the first time from a journalist after Wilson's op-ed appeared July 6. But would even that warrant Libby covering up the conversation and risking much worse in addition?

HAL's radical suggestion was a specific version of AnonLib's 2), that Libby was covering up something really bad for his boss: Libby and Miller were not the only two participants in the June 23 conversation. Cheney was the third.

I want this out there so that if it turns out true, HAL can lay claim to being first.

As for righties, two options for you: 1)Libby just forgot; 2)take up the left hatred of Judy and claim that Libby was honorably covering up the conversation in which Miller revealed key information about Plame to him.

[Libby]

I am sooooo in the clear. You'll see shortly.

[bob]

Rove gets called back=bad news.
Rove discovers e-mail=cover-up.

Miller gets jailed, interviewed, and then called back=? (Libby is in trouble?)

[Geek, Esq.]

It does look like Liddy may have a problem.

Freudian slip of the day.

[topsecretk9]

yet Judy didn't write a word.....but someone did

[ordi]

NO Freudian slip. An HONEST assessment of what has been reported.

Freudian slip of the day. Partisan quote/assumption of the day.

[topsecretk9]

HEY KIM

it didn't take long...

2)take up the left hatred of Judy and claim that Libby was honorably covering up the conversation in which Miller revealed key information about Plame to him.

for "someones" talking points to take shape

[ordi]

Geek,

What kept you from answering the question.

Who are her other sources?

ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them.'

Who are her other sources?

What happened to your INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY?
I still have mine but where is yours?

[TM]

Thanks, Mark, on the misguided link.

EXCELLENT point on Waas "breaking" the news that the talk was about Plame. From his first paragraph:

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.

OK, so people who know his testimony know he did not mention the talk.

Then, pray tell, how do they know the talk was about Valerie?

And Ms. Miller has not testified yet.

He has no source, unless he is reading some other story.

Good job, Jeff.

Let me pitch this in from the recents Times (no permalink available):

Ms. Miller's meeting with the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on notes that she found in the Times newsroom in Manhattan after her appearance before the grand jury on Sept. 30. She took the notes during a conversation on June 23, 2003, with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

An entry in her notes referred to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador whose criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq policy had begun circulating in the capital in the spring and summer of 2003. Mr. Wilson's critique was based on a trip he had taken to Africa in 2002 to examine whether Iraq had sought nuclear material from Niger.

Murray has been doing a great job on this, but he has nothing here.

Anon Lib - I can't argue with your logic, but I'll add this - IF the talk was a big deal, he must have lied to his attorney, because otherwise, his lawyer would have duct-taped him before he let him back in that room.

I don't know if Libby forgot or not, but that has to be his defense.

[clarice]

*Scratching head* Why the assumption that Libby told Miller about Plame and not the other way around?

I think the suggestion that the Tate letter coached Judy is a stretch.

If Tate released it I think his more likely motivation was to do something to dispel the notion that he was responsible for Judy sitting in jail .(And there is more than a hint that Abrams is a jerk who was getting under Tate's skin which explains the lawyers back and forth, not unusual where each are jockeying around.)

Libby is brilliant and by all account is great lawyer. I find it impossible to believe that he'd lie under oath on such a stupid matter, and I think he's too loyal to the WH not to have simply resigned if he'd done something illegal . He wouldn't do this to them.

[clarice]

Posted before I saw TM's debunking of claim the conversation ewas about Plame.

Judy would certainly have been likely to have picked up stuff about the Mission to Niger, that was her special area, wasn't it?

[ordi]

Clarice, Great Question! Your "Intellectual Curiosity' is still intact.

[pollyusa]

Ordi

Looks like the other sources may be Bush administration officials (plural)

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I see we have a lot of Waas doubters in the crowd. Given his track record, though, I'm tempted to believe that Waas meant exactly what he wrote, that the June 23rd conversation was about Plame. Waas has demonstrated again and again that he has far better sources than anyone else on this case. In this most recent article, he cites "attorneys familiar with Miller's discussions with prosecutors." Presumably those attorneys would know the content of the June 23rd conversation. Also, Waas clearly has some prosecution sources based on his previous reporting. Plus, if the June 23rd conversation didn't somehow involve Plame, it's hard to see why Libby would lie about. Maybe he didn't lie, maybe he just forgot. But given everything I've seen, I'm leaning toward the lying theory.

[ordi]

Polly maybe, maybe not. But if this is what is being reported, I guess we go with that for now. Thanks!

[topsecretk9]

Ordi..don't ya just love polly's attempts at earnestness?

it as if you would think a certain side wouldn't be sneaky, I mean leaky.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice...

scratching the head...because it just can't be! not in the narrative

[ordi]

Top,

Like I said since this is what is being reported (i was being nice) or as you say Leaked we have to go with that for now. Like you I still don't think her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame is the end of the trail.

[TM]

OK, for Anon Lib and Jeff - Libby knew he had spoken many times with Miller in May and June about all sorts of WMD issues, and did not mind her sitting in jail, figuring (as we thought she was also figuring) that Fitzgerald would ask her about a lot more than Wilson/Plame.

SO he thought he had fully disclosed his *relevant* contacts with Miller, but still kinda liked her keeping quiet.

And now, oops.

Which explains his behavior on the waiver, and his coaching letter to her, but leaves him with a legitimate "I forgot" defense, to wit, "Yes, I was letting her rot, but not to conceal this conversation I really truly forgot, but to conceal a lot of other stuff beyond the scope of your investigation and previous questioning."

And good luck to him. But that might work (and might be the truth...).

Although if I were Fitzgerald, I would have asked about all their conversations, and I would have figured out for myself which were relevant.

I need to reflect - I'm talking myself out of this.

[pollyusa]

topsecrekt9

I'm hurt that you would doubt my earnestness. I think if you look at my comments here you will find I've been completely earnest.

[obsessed]

(Ordi:) NO Freudian slip. An HONEST assessment of what has been reported.

Ordi - I think you missed the joke - you had written LiDDy, not LiBBy - as in G. Gordon Liddy of WaterGate infamy.

[ordi]

Opps your correct I wrote the wrong name. However, NO Freudian slip my mind was misread!

HONESTLY, When I think of Liddy I think of Sen Elizabeth Dole. But hey, conspiracy GEEKS here won't take my word but it is true.

[creepy dude]

Waas's source is Laura Bush.

[topsecretk9]

TM...
July 21, 2003
quick question before your break...

did Chris Matthew's testify, get interviewed... for taking a call from Rove, in which he declared Wilson's wife was "fair game"...Chris was terse...first Rove entered the fray!

with a comment...then later 7-05 on cnn it was "I know that Karl Rove was, in fact, engaged in pushing the Novak story, including calling a reporter and saying "Wilson's wife is fair game"

reporter who told you that?

It was Chris Matthew's of "Hardball"

i think, if a conspiracy...um this would be a place for it, no?

and oops..."nbc policy disallows providing interviews in their unedited versions. I asked Andrea therefore to make sure that the full interview was preserved on tape in the event legal questions arose in the future"

[topsecretk9]

sometime before July 14th Rove was pushing the story...we can tell...he said "you heard that too"...because MCOOPER ,called Rove...wasn't Rove on vacation starting the 11th? ...then what like 10 days later he called matthews to say "fair game"...i think fitz would like to know that...additionally cell phone bills would reveal how much pushing Rove did on vacation

[topsecretk9]

page 351

of 450...

[obsessed]

Ordi: HONESTLY, When I think of Liddy I think of Sen Elizabeth Dole.

There you go again! It's LiBBy Dole. Okay, it's not a Freudian slip. You're either:

1) dyslexic
2) too young to remember WaterGate

[pollyusa]

topsecretk9

This is the only record I know of that mentions Matthews, Newsday 3/6/04.

I have never heard any mention of testimony to the FBI or the GJ by Matthews.

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:

Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times

Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday

Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post

Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine

Evan Thomas, Newsweek

Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC

Chris Matthews, "Hardball,"

MSNBC

Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC

Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times

Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal

John Solomon, The Associated Press

Jeff Gannon, Talon News

[Lesley]

err obsessed....

"Elizabeth Dole: Biography and Much More From Answers.com
Source Elizabeth Dole , Politician Born: 29 July 1936 Birthplace: Salisbury, ...
Dole's childhood nickname is "Liddy," though she reportedly dislikes having ..."

[pollyusa]

obsessed

Elizabeth Dole is called Liddy Dole.

[topsecretk9]

checking the phone records

[obsessed]

hmmm... I searched good and found 135,000 hits for Libby Dole.

But now I checked and found 75,000 for Liddy Dole.

I stand corrected. I guess my tinfoil hat is getting too tight.

[ordi]

1)I am not dyslexic.
2)I was only 15 the day Nixon resigned.

Sorry Obsessed but your wrong! It is LiDDy!!

Check out these links

Article by Slate titled
Who Gets Liddy Dole's Money?
http://slate.msn.com/id/1003870/

Quoted from Answer: Dole's childhood nickname is "Liddy," though she reportedly dislikes having it used in public.
http://www.answers.com/topic/elizabeth-dole

Do you think Matthew Yglesias is dyslexic too?

The American Prospect says:
LIDDY DOLE'S SPEECH, 8:02 P.M.: Is there any way I can get Republicans to stop pretending that the president invaded Afghanistan in order to help the women of Afghanistan? ...................... That's some good, old-fashioned conservatism.

--Matthew Yglesias
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/08/index.html#003797

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Dole

[topsecretk9]

...in the event legal questions arose in the future"

in the future...perhaps..perhaps...what would those have to do with Joe..he only took a call from Fitz...perhaps

[clarice]

I can't find my last post so I'll post it in truncated form-

Look again at Miller's subpoena. The prosecution asked for two things conversations between Libby and Miller (from July6 to July 13) about Wilson/Plame OR about Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.

The limitation makes sense re the first clause because July6 was the Wilson op ed and July 13 the Novak article and the inquiry is whether Libby"outed" Plame to Novak in retaliation for the op ed.It makes no sense re the second portion of the subpoena. Re that Libby/Miller or both volunteered information outside the subpoena and Judy brought in her notebook to confirm the conversation.

As an aside the Guardian reported in July of this year that there is still an ongoing FBI investigation into the provenance of the "forgery" and hinted that case may be united with this one. Ergo the provision in the subpoena about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

This would also explain why Judy sat in jail. She didn't want to reveal the sources for her WMD reportage. This would explain the part of Libby's letter to her that he assumed she'd been protecting other sources.This would be why he said this would be one of those cases where testifying would help the source.

*Bowing*Thank you!!

[ordi]

Thanks to all who come to my defense or is it Liddy Dole's defense!

THANKS!

Obsessed, I think you need a new hat! LOL

[pollyusa]

topsecretk3

Definately the phone records, but probably emails as well.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice...*appluading*

[clarice]

Thank you, top.

It is always a mistake to assume an honorable,smart person is a liar or a cover up artist. First look for an alternate explanation to see if there isone. And there certainly is.

And never assume a lawyer as bright as Libby would be a bumbling fool and try t cover up.

Finally, never assume someone as loyal as Libby is to Cheney and the Administration would jeopardize the Administration by doing something wrong and trying to cover it up..He wouldn't.

[obsessed]

Yikes! Okay - Liddy Dole Liddy Dole Liddy Dole - Now I know how Pat Robertson felt when everyone got so upset about that Chávez thing.

But let's look at the bright side of it: Petulant youth may have prevented you from fully savoring the Watergate experience, but you may be about to get a second chance.

[Lesley]

Brava Clarice. Now, perhaps, Tom won't have nightmares imagining grim-faced Feds rolling a handcuffed "Scooter" out of the White House in a shiny red Radio Flyer Wagon (that nickname just gives me the giggles).

Poor obsessed. You ran into the buzz saw of the National Alliance of Nitpickers (wink).

[clarice]

Thank you,Lesley. Sometimes the simplest way to resolve a conundrum is to start with the given:What did the subpoena say is the beginning here.

That's why so much reporting is crap:No disciplined thinking and too much time hanging around at the bien pensant bar and grille.

[ordi]

Obsessed,

Petulant Youth? It can't be that you've talked with my Mom or Dad because they have both passed. So how do you get I had a Petulant youth?

As for savouring another Wategate. There is such a thing is the Electoral College so Hillary chances of being elected as POTUS are slim. Possible but slim. Which means the chances of Watergate II is slim.

The Impeachment of Bill is the closest we will get for awhile.

If you are by chance talking about the Plame Game the chances are even slimmer of another Wategate. CW says Obstuction of Justice and/or Perjury is all that appears to be left on the table. Wasn't it Dems/Lefties saying Obstuction of Justice and/or Perjury did not raise to the level of impeachment/removal from office? Yes, I thought so!

IMHO, your side it just fighting the last "war" politically speaking. You want payback but it is not happening. That is why your anger keeps growing. Shoot, you guys can't even win the current argument about poverty in NOLA.

[Cecil Turner]

"Which explains his behavior on the waiver, and his coaching letter to her, but leaves him with a legitimate "I forgot" defense . . ."

Sorry TM, but I just don't see it. Judy's sitting in jail, and Scooter is feloniously covering up a conversation with her. The only possible link to that conversation is Judy, and she won't talk without a waiver. So why does he give her one? And why does he "coach" instead of just saying something like "I have no objection to discussing the July 8 and July 12 conversations as requested by the Special Counsel"?

Meanwhile, from Miller's standpoint: she spent 85 days in jail protecting Scooter, testified, and then volunteered information that'd almost certainly cause him trouble. What was that jail time all about, anyway? Principle? From both viewpoints, this makes zero sense.

The logical explanation is the red-pen you noted above. The only "firsthand knowledge" claimed by Waas is negative (i.e., Scooter never mentioned the conversation--not what it was about). Miller's late discovery could as easily mean she hadn't considered it relevant . . . and as she's yet to testify about it, there's no way of knowing whether Plame was ever mentioned. I'd bet not.

[kim]

If Waas is right about Plame being mentioned on 6/23, his assertion is still unsupported, Combine that with his error about Judy going to jail for refusing to answer questions about'other' government officials, and it looks to me like you have a capable journalist still slanting things. That's what got them in trouble in the first place.
=============================================

[american in europe]

I haven't been following this issue as closely as some of the commenters here, but Clarice's point is very interesting. Suppose all this talk about damaging new evidence is just uninformed speculation bouncing around in the media echo chamber, while the reality may be that both Miller and Libby simply provided evidence outside the scope of the subpoena and are documenting it. It makes you wonder how much more of the "narative" surrounding this story (and other stories too) is of similar quality. Maybe Plame came up in an earlier conversation about WMD but not in connection with Wilson and the Niger trip. After all, before the Iraq invasion there was a lot of discussion of WMD and Plame worked on that subject. All of this could be perfectly innocent, but it still contributes to the idea floating around out there that there's some big White House cover up going on. "The White House is always covering things up, right? Everybody knows that." Any new evidence that comes to light is colored by the this assumption, which has been around since Watergate. My question is, are prosecutors and grand juries imune to the possibly uninformed speculation they see/hear in the media, or does it seep into their consciousness by osmosis?

This still leaves unanswered the question of how Plame's name (and the fact that she was married to Wilson) name became public knowledge in Washington. I suspect Miller got it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, i.e. Plame and/or Wilson. However, she will never testify to that and won't be forced to because of her agreement with Fitzgerald.

If that is in fact the case and Fitzgerald doesn't have any evidence that Plame's name was deliberately leaked by the White House, will he feel the need to bring other charges just so it doesn't look like he has been wasting his time? I don't know how prosecutors act, I'm just asking.

[kim]

AIE, for not knowing much you seem to understand a lot.

I think in this case we are just going to have to depend on the probity of this prosecutor. I think he is a special case.

Now, were Judy 6/23 notes found in DC or NY. The difference is important. If in DC it is easier to surmise they have been neglected, set aside, functionally lost. If in NY, come on, nobody pinched a sneak peak while she was away?
==================================================

[TM]

From Mr. Turner:

And why does he "coach" instead of just saying something like "I have no objection to discussing the July 8 and July 12 conversations as requested by the Special Counsel"?

Libby's behavior is virtually inexplicable if you assume he knew about and was trying to conceal this conversation - too many trips to the grand jury, when he should have resigned after the election (or before it), rahter than perjure himself.

Meanwhile, from Miller's standpoint: she spent 85 days in jail protecting Scooter, testified, and then volunteered information that'd almost certainly cause him trouble.

Well, per Isikoff, the notes "were discovered". And mistakes were made, as if without human agency.

Maybe some third party (the NY Times reporters investigating her) had discovered the notebooks and ratted her out.

Maybe (and Kaus suggested this too), they are totally exonerative, but she never mentioned them because she is not in the mindset of cooperating with prosecutors, and he never asked.

Hmm, I am liking this - maybe she figured it would be simpler to break her principles and testify about a meaningless conversation than to repeat the whole waiver/jail ritual and eventually testify later.

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.

Unless (a) that is what Miller told Fitzgerald, and (b) the substance of the latest Fitzgerald/Miller chat has been relayed to the Libby team, and then to the Waas, even before she testifies.

[kim]

I know Waas has been reliable, but why do you postulate that long chain of circumstance when it is more likely that the Plame mention is just more spin. Unconscious spin. That's what she has been in this from the beginning. That's why Joe spilled it that way. He was afraid that that would be the response, because a liar of his quality carries guilt aforehand.
=========================================

[kim]

This story has corrupted a lot more journalists than just he.

Ever read 'The $20,000 Bequest', or 'The Man who Corrupted Hadleyburg', by Mark Twain?
===============================================

[kim]

And the Aspens make sense as a taunt.
======================================

[kim]

Hi CD. Are you fed, clothed, sheltered? Your new nick should be the Threadbare 'Un. There's a good paper in America's own Katrina refugee story.

No, Laura is George's source for what Waas says.

Chief: I think we can safely assume that Fitz probably has a better understanding of all the relevant conversations than any of the individual conversors. He is holding most of the cards in the deck. We'll learn more from his tactical moves than from any horseshit plopped out by the media, though they both smell and taste good.

I salute the TopSergeantBarker. Keep your nose on the trail. Some understand the meaning of the baying.
====================================

[kim]

I'd like a little discovery on the discovery of the notes.
================================================

[kim]

Calame, Calame Mucho.
Why can't you just tell us what the hell is going on?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease, Sir,
Hear our petition.
Just lay it out, there it is, you can hide it no more.
===================================================

[ordi]

Kim your making me laugh!

discovery on the discovery

horseshit plopped out by the media, though they both smell and taste good.

LOL

[kim]

The Breakfast of Champions.
============================

[kim]

Isn't a Murray Waas one of those sturdy Belgian draft horses?
==============================================

[Appalled Moderate]

Hmm.

I think Libby has made an Aspen of himself.

BTW, who did leak that name to Novak. Seems to me everyone is taking their eyes off the ball.

[Cecil Turner]

"Libby's behavior is virtually inexplicable if you assume he knew about and was trying to conceal this conversation . . . "

Actually, I thought that's what you were implying. (However, on re-reading it, I see it was mostly my overactive inference generator.) Still, if he's not trying to conceal it, it can't be obstruction . . . and that's the only obvious way this would be bad news for Libby.

[kim]

I suspect the leak to Novak is no longer the ball. There was, apparently, much chatter.

And I'd like someone knowledgable about it to tell me just how Fitz has limited his options in his 'deal' with Judy.
===================================================

[kim]

Oops, sorry, but it appears to me that Aspens are quaking all over the landscape.
================================================

[kim]

I'm not convinced the aspens was coaching. We do not know what it means.
=================================================

[p.lukasiak]

I think that the June 23rd conversation may be relevant in terms of a perjury charge against Libby.

Its not unlikely that Miller knew that "Valerie Plame" worked as a CIA analyst on WMDs --- and that Plame was married to the well known diplomat Joseph Wilson.

So, when Kristof's column comes out, and Libby tells Miller that its about a trip that Wilson took on behalf of the CIA, Miller mentions that Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

But Libby has been claiming that he didn't know anything about Wilson's wife in his initial conversations with journalists after Wilson's column came out.

If this theory is correct, Fitzgerald has a slam-dunk case for obstruction and perjury....

[kim]

Is he claiming that he didn't initiate information transfer about Plame?

Hmm. Initiate Information Transfer. Sounds ominous and technical.
================================================

[Cecil Turner]

If this theory is correct, Fitzgerald has a slam-dunk case for obstruction and perjury....

So if Libby and Rove got their information from a reporter (just like they claimed), and had no idea Plame was covert (just like they claimed), and couldn't remember the details (presumably because it didn't appear to be important) . . . they should go to jail? Does that really make sense to you? I think you might want to reevaluate your assumptions here.

[kim]

Forgive him CT, for he knows not what he says. He is just following the meme pushed by Time, NYT et al that there was a White House Conspiracy to out Plame when all there was a conspiracy to refute the liar Joe.

This meme, by the way, emerged from Joe's paranoid fantasies.

There is justice. Mental Health treatment for Joe(not just his wife, whoever she may be, though probably conjoint would work best), permanent shame for some elements of media, and a chastened CIA.

Meanwhile, keep your eye on the masqued ball, in Teheran.
=======================================

[ordi]

p.lukasiak,

Are you stuck on stupid?

You wrote:

Its not unlikely that Miller knew that "Valerie Plame" worked as a CIA analyst on WMDs --- and that Plame was married to the well known diplomat Joseph Wilson.

Do you even know what Miller does for a living?

HERE IS A HINT

JUDITH MILLER is an author and Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent at The New York Times who writes about national security issues, with special emphasis on terrorism, the Middle East and weapons of mass destruction. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kQGiyF7yFCMJ:provost.syr.edu/lectures/miller.asp+Judith+Miller+Bio&hl=en

Do you suppose Miller used CIA analysts that worked with WMD as sources? No, I suppose in your "REALITY BASED" world you have not made that connection yet.

Talk off your ROVE-Colored glasses!

[ordi]

Oops, sorry it should be

Take off your ROVE-Colored glasses!

[kim]

Talking them off sounds a little suggestive.
===========================================

[TM]

Actually, I thought that's what you were implying

I'm not sure what I am implying. The "Libby is crazy" theory does not exactly grab me.

If Libby honestly forgot a June meeting that Miller thought was significant, that might explain both her lack of confidence in the original waiver, and his sides surprise at her balkiness.

And Miller thinking the meeting was significant does not make it so.

Or, maybe the meeting was important to Miller but not Libby - maybe she told him something from another source (on another subject) that he already knew, so he promptly forgot; she, OTOH, does not want to discuss it with Fiztgerald so she sits in jail until... her colleagues hand the notebook to Fitzgerald? Why testimony about the June meeting stop being important to her, if it was once?

Or maybe the original speculation about her reluctance to testify and the role of the waiver was correct. Or maybe she hated jail.

The cheap shot left undelivered - for Libby to be so arrogant and foolish to think he could testify repeatedly to a grand jury and get away with perjury, he would have to be the type of guy who would, well, recommend the invasion of a country on weak and non-existent evidence.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT! But someone, somewhere will.

[kim]

You are so funny. This is coming down to an analysis of character, and to some degree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
=============================================

[cathyf]

If this theory is correct, Fitzgerald has a slam-dunk case for obstruction and perjury....

So if Libby and Rove got their information from a reporter (just like they claimed), and had no idea Plame was covert (just like they claimed), and couldn't remember the details (presumably because it didn't appear to be important) . . . they should go to jail? Does that really make sense to you? I think you might want to reevaluate your assumptions here.

Cecil, I think the term you are looking for here is "assuming that which is to be proven." It didn't work in calculus class, and it still doesn't work. ("Well, professor, I really really want the Fundamental Theorem to be true!")

The "I forgot when I learned which gossipy detail and from which reporter" is outrageous obvious falsehood in Joe Wilson's alternate universe where he thought he was so important that he was going to be Kerry's secretary of state. To those of us in the real world, we still haven't seen any data that anyone in the White House thought that this was anything other than an innocous gossipy detail which happened to debunk Wilson's lie about Cheney sending him to Niger.

cathy :-)

[BR]

Btw, he's Paul "OETR" Lukasiak of glcq.com (The AWOL Pjt) - see the link under his name at his own posts above. The same one discovered early on by the blogosphere in CBSgate linked to Mapes and the fake memos. Later confirmed in the Thornburgh Report - Lukasiak/Mapes/Linda Starr/Burkett.

[Geek, Esq.]

I think I had a Eureka! moment.

Here's what I think happened:

1. Fitzgerald's inquiry started with the assumption that the WH targeted Wilson starting with his 7/6/03 Op-Ed piece.

2. Therefore, he focused his investigation on leaks happening after that time period.

3. However, we know that Wilson was speaking off the record to journalists well before that--especially at the Times.

4. So, what was discussed at that 6/23/03 meeting/conversation between Libby and Miller?

5. Answer: Judy Miller, spying on her own colleagues and paper, told Libby that Wilson was the official providing them with background on the 16 words and other distortions coming from the WHIG.

6. They didn't find out about Wilson's wife from Miller--they found out about Wilson himself from Miller.

[Jeff]

5. Answer: Judy Miller, spying on her own colleagues and paper, told Libby that Wilson was the official providing them with background on the 16 words and other distortions coming from the WHIG.

6. They didn't find out about Wilson's wife from Miller--they found out about Wilson himself from Miller.

Nope, Libby already knew about Wilson, and indeed the origin's of Wilson's trip (whatever that means) earlier in June, per the WaPo, which is in a position to know, as it is almost certain that Libby was talking to Pincus about this stuff in early June 2003 for one or more of a series of articles Pincus was reporting. In fact, that recent WaPo article suggests that Cheney's office's interest in Wilson goes back at least to May 2003. So Miller was not fingering Wilson to Libby on June 23.

However, it remains possible that she was feeding him some other information, such as the information that Wilson was going to be publishing an op-ed in the Times in his own name about what he didn't find in Africa. emptywheel over at thenexthurrah has been arguing along these lines for a while, and while I don't know whether Miller herself was the reporter who was going to publish something naming Wilson and/or the reporter who told Wilson some such thing was going to happen, we do know from Wilson's book that it was almost precisely at this moment -- he doesn't nail down the date, but he sure makes it sound like June 22 -- that he learns from a reporter that some reporter is going to publish a story on him, and it is this that triggers his decision to publish his own op-ed. And interestingly, the manifestation of that decision is getting in touch with Shipley at the Times to take him up on an apparently outstanding offer. So maybe word flew around the Times, or maybe Miller got special notice that she was not going to be publishing that article about Wilson after all, since he was going to write in his own name, and maybe Miller gives Scooter the heads-up that this is coming on June 23.

I have no idea if that is what happened. But no data we have so far -- to use cathycf's term -- that I am aware of contradicts it. I still like the alternate suggestion that the big deal about the June 23 conversation is that Cheney was the third partner in that conversation.

[pollyusa]

TM

In trying to determine if Waas knows that the June 23 conversation was about Plame, I point you to another reference in the same Waas article. In other words Waas said it twice in the same article.

did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame,

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame.

I have been wondering at your lack of interest in Waas's revalation that "other Bush administration officials" were also talking to Miller about Plame.

[BR]

Would you call Plame herself a "Bush administration official"?

[BR]

Kim, here are my two cents on the falling, turning, root-connected trees in Aspen. This gets weirder and weirder, a reversal of Watergate? See, October 3, 2005 12:09 PM, if my link doesn't go there directly.

[pollyusa]

BR

I don't think so. I think it more likely that she would be referenced as an intelligence official. Usually Bush administration official refers the someone in the WH or OVP.

However, I am still working on cracking the anonymous source code.

[pollyusa]

BR

On your tree post, interesting idea. Do you think Miller would pick up on the reference?

[Geek, Esq.]

Jeff: Great post. Thx.

I wonder how St. Judy the Martyr's reputation would be if it's revealed that she was spying on journalists for the government.

[BR]

Golden Oldie from Commenter back in July 05 at JustOneMinute pointed out this from LA Times:

"Miller would not ask her sources to waive their anonymity. She said intelligence officials might feel coerced into admitting they had talked to a reporter."

LA Times link: here, sorry, used to be there.

[BR]

Polly, I can't figure out Miller - whose side she's on. The left seems to think she's in bed with the "neo-cons" and others (like the military unit in Iraq) seemed to think she was strangely interfering with their operations. I haven't had time to read her past articles to figure out where she's coming from. One night when I began, I only found 4 articles in one year - so few?? But I still have to verify. Who knows, maybe reporting is a cover, perhaps she reports to a third party, not necessarily un-allied, but nevertheless foreign. I don't usually speculate... but I guess the fever is contagious :)

[Cecil Turner]

I think the term you are looking for here is "assuming that which is to be proven."

Yes, a lot of the analysis is nicely circular. (And if you start with the premise that the ba****ds are guilty, odds are that the conclusions will tend that way too.)

In trying to determine if Waas knows that the June 23 conversation was about Plame, I point you to another reference in the same Waas article.

What's his source? Miller hasn't testified yet, so the lawyers wouldn't know. References to the notes specify Joe Wilson, not his wife. TM's take looks to me to be spot-on:

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.

[pollyusa]

BR

Very interesting, the best link I can find is here, unfortunately it seems no one is hosting this LATimes article.

I agree with you on all points regarding Miller. Personally, I don't like her ongoing promotion of Ahmed Chalabi.

This from January 2005 on Hardball

Miller: Well, you know, I think the interesting thing was the up and down, was the kind of rise and fall of Ahmed Chalabi in this administration. On one hand, in the beginning, he was the person supported adamantly by the Defense Department. He was opposed by the State Department and the CIA ?

Matthews: Right.

Miller: ... who said he had no popular support in the country...

Matthews: Right.

Miller: ... and he wouldn't be able to hold a coalition together. We've now seen that, in fact, he played a pivotal role in putting together, helping to put together the list which we don't know yet, but it may very well have done extremely well, if not won the vote.

Here is another interesting Miller quote from CBS.

CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports Miller said: "I won't testify. The risks are too great. The government is too powerful."

[clarice]

Like the "forgery" lie, the Chalabi smears came from the same thugs in the CIA. And like the lie, the press is very willing to ignore facts that contradict their ealry false reporting. When it turned out, for exampke, that the false reports from "Curveball" came not from Chalabi but from German intel you'd need a microscope to see it in the press, And as with the "forgeries", they still keep reclycling the old lies.

Chalabi is a wonderful man, we should have relied on him more than we did, we abused him after the war, he will end up on top and now, at a rather late date, the CIA knows that and has reestablished contact with him, though now they are dealing with a man far more wary about us.

Goss--Fumigate the dump..fast!!

[TM]

Jeff and Geek:

Nope, Libby already knew about Wilson, and indeed the origin's of Wilson's trip (whatever that means) earlier in June

Ahh, but did Judy know that? Maybe she thought she was giving Libby the hot scoop, and he just yawned it off (so she remembers, but he didn't).

Or, bonus - just because her notebook says, e.g., "I talked to Libby about Wilson", it does *not* follow that she told Libby Wilson's name. She may have discussed the outline with Libby, and left herself the "coded" reminder.

Obviously, that depends on the context of the notes. Use of quotation marks would point in a different direction (and we will spin that bridge when we come to it!).

[TM]

Polly:

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame.

I take the second appearance of that meme to be accurate CW. I mean, it is true that she was in jail, and she did (if we believe the leaks) talk about Plame with Libby in July (IIRC, or am I losing it totally?)

My non-interst in his assertion that she has other sources - it's in my post. Her subpoena covered only Libby, Waas offers no source, so I think he is presenting the CW.

[BR]

Have we ever seen the full subpoena, or just the excerpt quoted in the 2/15/05 Court of Appeal decision, pg 6. Perhaps that was not the only subpoena, or only part of it.

[BR]

Polly, wow, thanks for finding a new link for the LA Times article.

Clarice – telepathy! Somewhere in cyberspace floats a bottle with a note in it by me containing the word Terminex : )

So to figure out Miller some more – if the CIA/Plame/Wilson cabal were anti-Chalabi and Miller was pushing Chalabi, where do her loyalties lie? Or was pushing Chalabi just Miller's way of building cover for other reasons? To be more acceptable to the people she spoke to in the Pentagon, to cultivate sources? Or because her possible foreign principals also liked Chalabi? Or was Chalabi to be another Trojan Horse, like the Niger forgeries, and the INR memo, meant to blow up in Pres. Bush's face when detonated by the cabal. Oh dear, I usually do my thinking quietly…

[clarice]

The Wilson/Plame/Johnson/McGovern cabal were anti the Iraqi war, and in a way that was inexplicable.

In his June 12 2003 EPIC speech Wilson says we could have contained Saddam. Yet he goes on to say that we probably will find nuclear weapons there (illegal of course for him to have them) and then goes on to justify Iraq's having them for self defense against a neighbor (Iran).

Elsewhere in this period he is quoted as saying Saddam probably has WMDS.

So how does this square with his containment can work?
If he's saying it should be more "muscular"(as he did on June 13) how does he account for the fact that the Security Council was in the process of dismantling those sanctions and it was already extending them only in 6 month increments?

And--top this--his speech is sponsored by a group formed to do away with the sanctions program altogether..IDIOT

[kim]

Woof, Clarice. Remember, Chalabi is described as the Master of the Bazaar.
============================================

[Don]

I would simply point out that the CW seems to be that Libby talked about conversations he had in July of that year.....and they find out about a June 23 conversation.

Am I the only one that sees a 7 day window. Not much for "lying" about a conversation. Ask me 6 months from now......"tell me when did you post on that site"....hmmm. Ugggh. sometime in October.

[kim]

Look, Clarice, at Joe Wilson's Feruary 6, 2003 LATimes op-ed, in which he argues that we shouldn't attack Iraq for fear of Saddam using his chemical and biological weapons on our forces.

Perfidy.
========================================

[clarice]

Perfidy is exactly the right word,Kim. (But hell, let's not look at the facts, it might strain our little brains.) Let's just through in a million stupid McGuffins--you know Gannon and the WH gay se ring--or something . For a citizenry stupidifed by Oprah and 60 Minutes and Katies Couric you can sell anything, even envoy Joe and his traveling circus act.(Don't whatever you do, peek behind the Pincus-Kristoff-Corn curtain..You really don't want to know.)

[clarice]

Perfidy is exactly the right word,Kim. (But hell, let's not look at the facts, it might strain our little brains.) Let's just through in a million stupid McGuffins--you know Gannon and the WH gay sex ring--or something . To a citizenry stupidifed by Oprah and 60 Minutes and Katie Couric you can sell anything, even envoy Joe and his traveling circus act.(Don't whatever you do, peek behind the Pincus-Kristoff-Corn curtain..You really don't want to know.)