Andrea Mitchell - More Media Backpedaling

On Nov 1, James Taranto of the WSJ unearthed a CNBC transcript which suggested that, according to Andrea Mitchell anyway,  Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was not a total mystery to interested reporters.  From "The Capitol Report", Oct 3, 2003, just following the news of the criminal referral which moved this story onto the front pages:

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington     that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? 

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence  community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Seems pretty clear, yes? 

Apparently not.  Ms. Mitchell was asked about this very exchange on "Imus in the Morning".  NewsMax has a partial transcript, and we are deeply grateful (go to their site and click on an ad, won't ya please?):

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL:  Well, that was out of context.

IMUS: Oh, it was?

MITCHELL: It was out of context. 

IMUS:  Isn't that always the case?

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.

I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.

IMUS:  So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.

IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL:  Yes.

IMUS:  Did you mention . . .

MITCHELL:  It was in a long interview on CNBC.

IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .

IMUS:  OK, so you did say that.   It took me a minute to get that out of you.

MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.

IMUS:  When was the Novak column?

MITHCELL:  The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.

IMUS:  So this was well after that?

MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.

IMUS:  Who'd you find it out from?  Russert?   

MITCHELL:  I found it out from Novak.

IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?

MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.

IMUS:  Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.

MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .

IMUS: Bingo.

MITCHELL:  Bingo.

Well.  I would hate to think that either Mr. Taranto or myself took her comment out of context, for political reasons or any other, so I have provided a fair use transcript of her interview below the fold (and I continue to plug "Lexis a la Carte" for the low budget sleuth - registration is free, the searches are free, and the chance to hammer these people with their own words is priceless.  And at $3 a download, it is the equivalent of two cups of coffee, but so much more fun.)

And to further help out Ms. Mitchell, let's add a bit of context right here, with a partial excerpt:

MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn't sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?

MITCHELL: No. And you know, there's a lot of rumor. There's been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don't know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president's office. These have been denied. But it's really...

MURRAY: Right.

MITCHELL: ...inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we're talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.

MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Emphasis added - in the first question she clearly distinguished between leaks occurring before and after the Novak column.  Yet one question later, she completely misunderstood the point and answered as if Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was widely known *after* the Novak column? 

So her current story is what, exactly?  Let's paraphrase the answer she would like us to believe she had in mind:

"...the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger, *after* Novak's column came out."

Oh, for heaven's sake, why the qualifier?  I will hazard that after Novak's column, Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was widely known, period.

Well, she and Lewis Libby can compare notes as to how their recovered memory therapy is going.  If they can remember to get together.

Now, it is true that Ms. Mitchell has, on other occasions, denied knowing of any connection between Ms. Plame and the CIA.  So why would she, uhh, misremember?  Fortunately, she provided the motive for her faulty memory in her chat with Imus:

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you.

You're darn right it didn't come up.  And as both you and Tim made perfectly clear when rehearsing your cover-up covering this story last Oct 29, the fact that the connection between Wilson and his wife did not come up represented an absurd lapse in journalistic standards.  Let's roll that tape:

RUSSERT: Well, ironically, when I was asked about this [the Wilson and wife story], I said, if I had known this, I would have told Andrea Mitchell. I would have told Pete Williams.
MITCHELL: In fact, Tim, you would have called me and said, `You hosted "Meet the Press" and questioned Joe Wilson and covered the agency and you didn't know that the wife--what's going on with you?'
RUSSERT: And I did call Neal Shapiro, the head of NBC News, and say, `You know, we have this high-level viewer complaint about what's on cable,' and that--you know, that was the extent of my sharing information with Neal Shapiro.
GREGORY: Wait...
RUSSERT: If I had known something with--then I would have said to Neal--and Neal would have said, `Get to the cameras.' Or you know what? Actually it is so sensitive...
MITCHELL: We would have decided not to...
RUSSERT: ...I would have even talked--we would have talked it through and said...
MITCHELL: Right.
RUSSERT: ...`Hey, what about this?' or `Should we check her status?' It's easy to say that in hindsight, but I...
MITCHELL: In fact, we should tell...

Uh huh.  That is just what the NBC journalists should have done.  It might have diminished the impact of the story - "CIA Spouse says, 'CIA right, White House wrong' " - but it's what they should have done.  Or, if Ms. Plame's status at the CIA could not have been disclosed, it might have meant that Andrea would have to pass on the interview.

Fortunately, Ms. Mitchell now realizes that she didn't know about any such Wilson and wife connection, so the journalistic issues never  could have arisen.  That's the ticket.

Oh, she is going to be one fine witness for the defense.  At a minimum, she buttresses the notion that memories are failing all over Washington.  Hey - perhaps she will inspire Libby to adopt a "Something in the water" defense.

Sorry - it will take more than this denial to get her off the list of Reporters Who Knew Valerie".  And she has good company, with Hugh Sidey and Martin Peretz, among others.

MORE:  Yes, while disclosing the possible motivations for the Wilson story, NBC might have wanted to offer the caveat that Wilson had become an advisor to the Kerry campaign in May 2003.  Well, that tidbit escaped their sleuthing, too:

Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges.

She will be a great witness.

Fair use excerpts below the fold.

UPDATE:  Too funny. 

Copyright 2003 CNBC, Inc. CNBC News Transcripts October 03, 2003 Friday:

Possible criminal outing of CIA agent

GLORIA BORGER, co-host:

There was good news on the economy today with jobs rising for the first time since January. But the White House was preoccupied with the rapidly moving investigation into the possibly criminal outing of a CIA agent.

ALAN MURRAY, co-host:

Joining us now, NBC's Andrea Mitchell. Andrea, thanks for being with us.

ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC News): Thank you.

MURRAY: We have news that a memo was sent today to the White House, asking for information about this leak very quickly. In fact, there's a deadline set for next Tuesday. Looks like they're trying to move rapidly on this, right?

MITCHELL: They are. They are trying to narrow the focus of the investigation, and try to wrap it up as quickly as possible. And truth be told that if they are going to find anything and the track record on these leak investigations is that they rarely do, because journalists don't want to disclose their sources. But if they do find something, they want to do it as quickly as possible. And in this case, you've got a very small universe. All they have to find out is who are the people at the CIA who first talked to Bob Novak? We pretty well know that. That's been disclosed. And who were the people who talked to Novak and to at least these two other reporters from Newsday who have been mentioned in the White House memo, and that should be easily ascertained.

BORGER: Andrea, can you sort of explain to us how this story, which really started in July--I mean Ambassador Wilson wrote his piece criticizing the administration on July 6th. A week later, Bob Novak writes his column, talking about Ambassador Wilson's wife, and here we are at the beginning of October, and suddenly it's news.

MITCHELL: Well, it does seem a little mysterious. Why all of a sudden is there some political agenda going on? And obviously, there is a lot of politics going on here.

BORGER: Really?

MITCHELL: You know, shocking that politics would be taking place here in Washington, and there's a lot of hypocrisy on all sides. I mean, this is a situation where Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been calling for a special counsel. The very people who all during the Clinton years fought and fought and fought, she most primarily, fought against having a special counsel. And Republicans who always said, you know, that the Justice Department cannot handle this are saying, 'Well, why can't John Ashcroft handle this?' You know, just substitute Janet Reno's name for John Ashcroft, and you see just how silly all this appears on the surface.

But why did it take so long? July 6th, Joe Wilson comes out and discloses that he was, indeed, the secret envoy who went to Niger for the CIA, and this is an op-ed on a Sunday morning in the New York Times. Well, Saturday night, we see that this is coming, so I was substituting on "Meet The Press," and called Wilson and said, 'Would you come on?' And we had him come on the show, so he's also on television. Now that certainly was a double whammy as far as the Bush administration was concerned. Interestingly, Bob Novak was also one of my invited on that guests on that program a different subject, so they clearly met for the first time, Wilson and Novak that day.

BORGER: That's interesting.

MITCHELL: Great ironies. That week, I followed up. We did a report on NBC.

BORGER: Did Wilson's wife come, by the way, to the studio or not?

MITCHELL: Not at all.

BORGER: OK. All right. Just thought I'd ask.

MITCHELL: Separate lives. So that week, on the 8th of July, I did a story on "Nightly News" about Wilson's allegations focusing on Niger, the uranium, not focusing on any issue involving his spouse. Then on the 14th, the bombshell from Novak, which was the revelation which clearly he says came from two administration officials--he wrote that in his column--that she was a covert--rather an operative, as he put it, at the CIA. The clear implication that she had somehow been involved in getting him to take this assignment and in somehow positioning him, that this was part of the overall attempt of the CIA to go up against the White House and to challenge the president's policy. So this is where it fits within the ongoing wars which are only becoming more heated between the Cheney-Bush White House, Rumsfeld hard-liners on weapons of mass destruction, and the more skeptical analysts and operatives, CIA officers, covert officers at both the CIA and the State Department.

We should point out that I did do a story after that, on July 21st. I interviewed Wilson, did a story on the fact that he was now alleging that there was an attempt to bring his wife into it, that this was an administration attempt to intimidate him. So it was on the air in July. But then the CIA secretly asked the Justice Department to look into this. The Justice Department took its sweet time, frankly, came back to the CIA and said, 'Answer these 11 questions: Was she covert? Was there a possible violation?' Eleven questions had to be answered prima facie. The CIA responded to the Justice Department. And last Friday, as we reported at the time, the Justice Department said, 'OK, we're going to proceed and investigate.' That's why the lag time.

MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn't sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?

MITCHELL: No. And you know, there's a lot of rumor. There's been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don't know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president's office. These have been denied. But it's really...

MURRAY: Right.

MITCHELL: ...inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we're talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.

MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

MURRAY: All right. Andrea, thanks very much for being with us.

MITCHELL: My pleasure.

Comments

[boris]

Been there done that.

"I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said,"

There's no reason to withold conformation of information not known or forgotton. Indicates that Libby was well aware of what Fitz claimes he was well aware of.

Another No There There for Fitz like the Cooper "I heard that too".

[p.lukasiak]

Also, wouldn't you, P.Luk, be a little taken aback if Russert admitted he had revealed to Libby that Plame worked for the CIA?

absolutely, because the indictment alleges that "a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA", which one assumes is based on Russert's sworn testimony (and possibly his notes.)

**************

like I said earlier, I think Andrea Mitchell is holding something back from the public --- that when she started asking questions about the "Niger trip" she was told about "Wilson's wife." But I also assume that she told the special prosecutor that she never communicated this to Russert -- probably because she considered it insignificant gossip at the time.

My theory is that until Wilson published his op-ed, the effort to smear Wilson was fairly subtle---the goal being to raise suspicions about his credibility so that journalists did not use him as an "anonymous source." There is nothing in the public record that suggests that prior to 7/6/03, that reporters were being told that "Wilson's wife was involved in Wilson's trip" -- just that she worked for the CIA.

It was really an effort to ascribe guilt by association --- Libby was telling people that the CIA did nothing to prevent erroneous intelligence from being publicly disseminated, and now that it was turning out that the CIA had screwed up in its analysis, it was trying to pin the blame on the White House. The message was, in essence "This is all a CIA plot. This Wilson guy is part of that plot -- did you know that his wife was CIA?"

When Wilson went public, this effort got out of control, and someone (not Libby, my guess is Bolton or Fleitz) told Novak that Wilson's wife was Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who had sent her husband on the trip.

...and the rest, as they say, is history.

[p.lukasiak]

Libby was found not guilty yesterday. : ^ )

yeah, i know. but I still hold out hope that Fitzgerald will nail Rove for lying about the consistency of his phone logs :)

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Cliff May is simply not credible.'

On page 444 of The Politics of Truth, Wilson grudgingly admits that May well be correct that Valerie's employment was widely known among May's neo-con crowd.

' Given your list of reporters and their connections, claiming that Plame's CIA job was common knowledge is a little bit like Martha Stewart claiming "everyone knew what was up with ImClone stock", and giving as examples a bunch of people who just happen to have also had close ties with Sam Waksal.'

Of course, Martha Stewart never made any such claim. However, you've just conceded that Fitzgerald had no business pursuing an investigation of the leak of a secret agent. Since it wasn't a 'secret'.

[Sue]

I think Fitzgerald got Libby on what he could get him for in the hopes he will flip on Cheney. I re-read the indictments last night and the quotes really are gobbledy-gook. I think it was enough for Fitzgerald to bring the indictments and now he is working on the "sand in the eyes" part of the case. Conspiracy, involving Cheney. We'll see...I don't think Libby will give up Cheney, if there is anything to give, I might add.

[cathyf]

pluka, you keep repeating over and over that there is no question that Libby lied in his testimony where he was describing his mindset while talking to Russert. But it seems to me by your logic it is even more unquestionable that Libby lied when he said in his letter to Miller that he thinks that Judy Miller is a tree.

So why didn't Fitzgerald depose 10 administration staffers who could testify that they had seen Libby with Miller, and that Miller had been talking and walking? And had some expert testimony from a botanist or 2 who swore under oath that trees (even aspen trees) are plants, and plants neither walk nor talk?

By your logic, this is even more of a "slam dunk" than the Russert conversation state of mind. Why didn't Fitzgerald pursue it?

cathy :-)

[p.lukasiak]

By your logic, this is even more of a "slam dunk" than the Russert conversation state of mind. Why didn't Fitzgerald pursue it?

cathy, you would be advised to let others handle the snark.... you just look stupid when you try it.

[cathyf]

No answer, eh?

I thought not...

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Cathy,

I was amused by your snark. I guess it depends on who you are snarking. :)

[cathyf]

I'm waiting for the trial -- when the jury says, you spent how much money!?!?!?!!! and wasted how much time of government officials!?!?!?!!! to "prove" that something was not literally true, when only an idiot would have thought it was meant literally!?!?!?!!!

I'll bet the jury won't think it's funny, either. Even though I suspect that Libby's $1000/hour lawyers are gonna be WAY more snarky than I could ever hope to be...

cathy :-)

[TM]

...he thinks that Judy Miller is a tree..

Well, per the Times, didn't she make like a tree and leave?

This may be real breakthrough stuff - Libby was right all along!

[p.lukasiak]

I'm waiting for the trial -- when the jury says, you spent how much money!?!?!?!!! and wasted how much time of government officials!?!?!?!!! to "prove" that something was not literally true, when only an idiot would have thought it was meant literally!?!?!?!!!

not surprisingly, cathy doesn't know that as of the most recent accounting, FitzGerald's less than two year investigation cost less that $800,000.

What did Ken Starr cost us? $11 millior or so? And that was for a defective investigation--one that leaked like a sieve.

regardless of what you think about the results, there is no question that FitzG is the "best buy" in special prosecutors.

[Gary Maxwell]

you just look stupid when you try it.
Puke

As I have said before, my granny had it nailed. "It takes one to know one."

[Gary Maxwell]

I think we have figured out Puke.

First off someone has stated that he got himself kicked off other sites. Anyone wonder why?

Then several have begun to notice he never admits he is wrong and changes the topic or attacks the messenger and not the message.

More troubling is his tendency to just make **** up, as TM has now just called him on.

He is pretty loose with facts, never provides sources and could not be bothered to get the FIRST NAME of his host correct when slamming him about some post.

Anyway my suggestion with him is just like JBG, scroll right by his post and just pretend like he does not even exist. He may continue to post three and four posts in a row for awhile but soon he will disappear.

I am not against him because he is from the other side of the aisle. I enjoy reading several of our obviously lefty posters, mostly because they challenge me to think about what I believe and know and support their position with facts and logic.

[Jon H]

Patrick Sullivan writes: "On page 444 of The Politics of Truth, Wilson grudgingly admits that May well be correct that Valerie's employment was widely known among May's neo-con crowd."

I've never read it. It's just common sense that Cliff May is not independent of the leaky Iraq war hawks who would most want to lash out at Wilson and who don't take national security seriously.

"Of course, Martha Stewart never made any such claim."

I didn't say she ever said that, nor did I imply that she ever actually said it. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

"However, you've just conceded that Fitzgerald had no business pursuing an investigation of the leak of a secret agent. Since it wasn't a 'secret'.""

Er, no, my point went right over your head.

[Jon H]

"Help me? I have no idea where Jon H. was going with his 10:48 post"

Er, the comment I responded to suggested that Fitzgerald might have trouble going after someone more sophisticated than some Illinois hayseeds.

I obliquely suggested that, maybe, the Al Qaeda people he prosecuted were a bit tougher than a pampered bureaucrat named Scooter.

[Jon H]

Patrick Sullivan writes: ""However, you've just conceded that Fitzgerald had no business pursuing an investigation of the leak of a secret agent. Since it wasn't a 'secret'."""

Let me put this way. You're basically arguing that a valid defense for Waksal or the White House is to say that "everybody knew", when the "everybody" consists of "my friends".

Make sure all your friends know the secret, and then you can't get in trouble for releasing the secret? What kind of logic is that?

[boris]

Make sure all your friends know the secret, and then you can't get in trouble for releasing the secret?

Except releasing secret information to friends will get them in trouble. Duh.

What kind of logic is that?

Somehow I doubt you understand the concept.

[cathyf]

ONLY $800,000? Heck, for $800,000 I'll prove that Judy isn't a tree -- where do I sign up? (I might need more budget, though -- as TM points out, she just did that leafing thing...)

cathy :-)

[Gary Maxwell]

Andrea Mitchell is a Republican

since when?

[cathyf]

Er, the comment I responded to suggested that Fitzgerald might have trouble going after someone more sophisticated than some Illinois hayseeds.

I obliquely suggested that, maybe, the Al Qaeda people he prosecuted were a bit tougher...

Yeah, Jon, I appreciate your point. But the main characteristic of prosecuting corrupt Illinois politicos is that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. When I read the indictment, and especially the presser, my horrified thought was, "O my God, after just a few years in Chicago, Fitz has gone native!" I keep half expecting him to announce his candidacy for governor, ala Big Jim.

I'm sorry to say that this indictment has the classic look of Chicago, not New York.

cathy :-)

[Jon H]

"Except releasing secret information to friends will get them in trouble. Duh."

But if they tell enough friends, it's not a crime, right? Because 'everyone' (of their friends and buddies) knows already?

That's the logic here.

[Jon H]

Regarding Andrea Mitchell being a Republican:

"since when?"

Since she started dating Alan Greenspan in 1984, presumably, probably earlier. They married in 1997.

A political divide in a marriage might work for Matalin and Carville, but I find it hard to see working for Mitchell and Greenspan, given that Greenspan is 21 years older than she.

[Gary Maxwell]

You know she is a Repub or you just assume that no self respecting Dem ( ergo that leaves Carville out ) would be seen with someone serving in a Repub admin, let alone married? Now Grenspan served both Democrat and Republican administrations so where is your proof he is a Republican? Is it that he is saner than Krugman so he must be a Repub?

I think you are just making this up but if you know something definite let me know your source. That is why I asked the first time. So far you got nothing.

[Jon H]

"you just assume that no self respecting Dem ( ergo that leaves Carville out ) would be seen with someone serving in a Repub admin, let alone married?"

I'm just guessing that in 1984 when they started dating, a 30-something Democratic journalist in DC would probably not be real keen on dating a 50-something Republican government official.

Not because of 'not wanting to be seen with a Republican', but for a more prosaic reason: having little in common.

"Now Grenspan served both Democrat and Republican administrations so where is your proof he is a Republican?"

The man is a former Ayn Rand friend and acolyte. That is not the making of a Democrat.

[JM Hanes]

Jon H -
"That's the logic here."

No, that's you, turning out another strawman.

[Gary Maxwell]

So you at least admit you made the whole arguement based upon how you feel about the polices of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan ( despite him being renominated by Clinton) and that, here's a glimmer, that at least once upon a time Mitchell was a Democrat. Small and grudging progress should be encouraged, however.

[Jon H]

Hanes writes: "No, that's you, turning out another strawman."

Er,no strawman. That's exactly what TM's doing. He's listing a bunch of friends-of-Iraq-Hawks who 'knew Plame was CIA', and trying to make the case that because of this, 'everybody knew', and therefore "no crime".

[Jon H]

Gary Maxwell writes: "So you at least admit you made the whole arguement based upon how you feel about the polices of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan"

Er, where are you pulling this from, your ass?

At no point did I even touch on Greenspan's policies, let alone how I feel about them. All that is entirely irrelevant.

And at no point did I provide a glimmer that Mitchell was once a democract. Her relationship with Greenspan strongly suggests she never was.

At least I'm providing circumstantial evidence for my case. You're just assuming without evidence that, because she's media, she must be a democrat.

[cathyf]

The man is a former Ayn Rand friend and acolyte. That is not the making of a Democrat.

Not the makings of a Republican, either. I can only imagine how viciously Rand would express her dripping contempt for the evil red-state christers...

cathy :-)

[Jon H]

cathy writes: "Not the makings of a Republican, either. "

I'll grant you that. (First time that's happened. ;) )

Maybe he's mellowed a bit since the 50s.

[Gary Maxwell]

You provided no circumstantial evidence or any other kind of evidence. You either did not like Greenspan or his policies and hung the whole argument on that, without so much as a fig of proof.

Why then did you say Greenspan was a Republican, cause you heard him listening to country music in his Volvo?

[Jim E.]

Greenspan is an Ayn Rand devotee -- he went to her dinner parties. This is documented, it is not made up info. I've seen a picture of them from the 1950s. They were lifelong friends, and I think he even invited her to White House ceremonies in the 1970s.

There is zero question that Greenspan is a righty -- the question has always been how much of a righty is he? Other than Clinton, every other appointment Greenspan has received has come from Republican presidents -- Ford, Reagan, the Bushes. Nixon didn't appoint him to anything, but it was because Greenspan, who worked on Nixon's 1968 campaign as an advisor, declined.

What this means in terms of Andrea Mitchell's politics, well, it's circumstantial and suggestive. I tend to think Jon H is correct, but, hey, who knows for sure.

But for the hate-Joe Wilson crowd, there is an over-abundance of evidence to know everything there is to know about Andrea Mitchell. I mean, look at who she's MARRIED to. For you folks, this should be an open-and-shut case.

[JM Hanes]

Jon H -

"Er,no strawman. That's exactly what TM's doing."

Er, no. That's what you say he's doing, when in fact he's the one looking at specific names and you're the one extrapolating. You own the guilt by association gambit here, and if you actually knew anything about Washington dinner parties, you'd realize that your argument is absurd on it's face.

[Gary Maxwell]

WTF?

You dont know even if Greenspan is a Repub and have no evidence Mitchell has ever been anything but a Dem.

So how is this any kind of evidence of anything?

Now I do understand that Greenspan is not Krugman so you may think he is far right but that could be you not anything about Greenspan.

There are such a thing as Independent in DC. Hard to believe I know.

But the whole point was that Mitchell should be discounted because she is a Repub. there is zero evidence of that and therefore I called BS.

[Jim E.]

Prior to 1999, Krugman, as he has written, was reviled by the lefty/Michael Moore crowd. Krugman is not a lefty. That he has staunchly criticized Bush ever since the 2000 campaign has earned him the devoted following he has. A year from now, once his book has come out, Bruce Barlett, a lifelong conservative Republican (and like Krugman, an economist), will also have new left-of-center fans because he, too, will rip Bush a new one. But that won't mean Barlett is not conservative.

[Gary Maxwell]

Krugman is not a lefty.

OK this looks like a fun game. all you have to do is find someone some Democrats ( one or two is enough apparently) criticized in the past and then you can claim it as bonafides that the person is not a liberal ( lefty ).

I will start. He is one ( drumroll):

Fidel Castro

TADA

What do I win and who is next, step right up!!!

[Jim E.]

I try to be precise with my descriptions. I do not equate lefty and liberal, since they aren't the same thing. (For example, study American political history in the 1960s. Lefties would be offended to be labelled "liberal.") I don't even know if Krugman is a liberal or moderate Democrat, but it seems clear that he's overall left-of-center in terms of American politics (but not in everything -- read his academic stuff). Anyways, when I wrote that Krugman's not a lefty, was NOT thinking that lefty=liberal=left-of-center.

But I see that you do equate lefty with liberal (even though Castro's a lefty, not a liberal), something that is commonly done as shorthand in political discussion. When I read "lefty," I think Chomsky, Michael Moore, socialism, etc., and when I read "liberal" I think FDR, LBJ, Wellstone.

Anyways, this was my long-winded way of acknowledging that we're unintentionally talking past each other at this point.

[MJW]

P.Luk, nowhere in the indictment does it accuse Libby of denying any of the times he learned from official sources of Plame's CIA affiliation, which is the "direct false statement" I referred to.

The statement from the indictment you quote: "At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA."

Matches up with: "At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

NOT with, say: "LIBBY first learned Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from Russert."

So the indictment is accusing Libby of exactly what I claimed it did: Lying about his reaction to an event the indictment says didn't occur.

Perhaps you believe it didn't occur to Fizgerald to ask Libby, "When did you first learn Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." I may not agree that Fitz is the smartest guy in the room, but I don't think he's a dunce.

[MJW]

P.Luk replies to my query, "Also, wouldn't you, P.Luk, be a little taken aback if Russert admitted he had revealed to Libby that Plame worked for the CIA?":

absolutely, because the indictment alleges that "a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA", which one assumes is based on Russert's sworn testimony (and possibly his notes.)

My point -- which, admittedly, I didn't make too clearly -- is that P.Luk, like Libby, might be surprised to learn Russert knew of Plame's CIA job, rather than being surprised to learn of the job itself.

[kim]

cf, that was an interesting comment yesterday at 9:17 AM about half expecting Fitz to announce for governor. I've two thoughts.

Can you imagine a person who plays his cards that close to his vest getting elected? Secondly, can you imagine a person who plays his cards thusly, ruling?
================================================

[Steve J.]

"Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger." Anon lib

This is a looney liberal talking point canard.

No it isn't. In Wilson's op-ed piece, he said CIA officials told him that the VP's OFFICE was interested in checking out the Niger/Iraq uranium claim.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report."

[Steve J.]

And without Russert, it gets tougher for the prosecution. Not impossible, of course.

Posted by: TM

Not at all. Libby's own notes prove that Cheney told him about Plame in June, contrary to Libby's claim that he learned about Plame from a reporter.

[Steve J.]

Cheney is quoted as saying I dont even know him.

Cheney lied when he made this claim. He told Libby about Wilson in June.

[Rob W]

What does this have to do with anything? This lawyer is tired of this old GOP talking point. It matters not a whit that anyone knew who she was. The requirements of the IIPA are simple (1) person must have access to information identifying a covert agent.
(2) person must intentionally disclose information identifying said agent (note: need not be name only "information") to another person without access to such information.
(3) person passing information must know that United States is taking active steps to keep identity of person secret.

I don't care if anyone, including Wilson stood in front of Novak's office with a bullhorn and screamed anything. It doesn't matter. The fact that the information may have been previously disclosed is utterly irrelevant to whether a crime was committed. It may be well-known. If the government is not releasing said information, the agent's identity is being protected by the United States.

So what is the origin of this canard? Simple. The White House knew Libby was dead to rights and tried to support the "I heard it from reporters" defense by insinuating that the reporters who denied having told Libby about Plame did know and did tell.

So let's put this one to bed. There's no legal signficance to the fact that a single person knew of Plame's identiy. None. You're welcome to go back and pour over these things as much as you like but they mean nothing.

[MJW]

Steve J.: Not at all. Libby's own notes prove that Cheney told him about Plame in June, contrary to Libby's claim that he learned about Plame from a reporter.

I'll ask again, and I'll keep asking: If Libby actually claimed in his GJ testimony that he first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from Russert, why doesn't the indictement contain a simple question and answer to prove it. Something like:

Q: Did you first learn that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in a July 10, 2003 telephone call with Tim Russert?

A: To the best of my recollection, yes.

(Might as well make it realistic. I'm pretty sure Libby wouldn't just say "Yes.")

Is smartest-guy-in-the-room Fitzgerald not smart enough to ask a direct question?

The indictment does not, in fact, allege that Libby claimed he first learned from Russert that Plame worked for CIA. What it alleges is that Libby lied by claiming he forgotten Plame worked for the CIA when he was talking to Russert. As the false statement charge puts it (in regard to Libby's earlier FBI interview): "During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President." Through a bit of sleight-of-hand, the indictment leaves the impression that Libby claimed to have first leaned about Plame from Russert, without actually charging it.

[MJW]

Rob W, presumably referring to Mitchell's possible knowlege of Plame's CIA affiliation: What does this have to do with anything? . . . It matters not a whit that anyone knew who she was. The requirements of the IIPA are simple . . ."

Perhaps if Libby were charged with violating IIPA, it might not matter a whit. Since he's charged with lying about what he talked about with three reporters, and two of the alleged lies are that he told Miller and Copper he heard Plame worked for the CIA from other reporters, while the other alleged lie is that Russert told him Plame worked for the CIA, the believabilty of Libby's version depends a great deal on whether other reporters knew of Plame's employment.

[Rob W]

MJW:

Actually, no. It only depends on whether or not Tim Russert and other reporters he said told him that Plame was a CIA agent knew. I'll assume you are a lawyer, like everybody else commenting on everything on the blogs these days. It matters not a whit if every damn person on Earth other than Russert knew. The defense must show Russert did know in order to impeach him. You can't impeach a witness who claims no knowledge of something by saying "gee other people in his profession knew." That's not relevant evidence to the question at issue--whether Russert knew. Its irrelevant if Novak or Chris Matthews knew unless they can say they told Russert. Otherwise, I could very easily argue that the Vice President had full knowledge of what Libby was doing--because they worked in the same profession. This is 2L stuff.

[MJW]

Rob W, I can't imagine how you can say with a straight face (assuming you typed the last post with a straight face), "You can't impeach a witness who claims no knowledge of something by saying 'gee other people in his profession knew.'" Of course you can. If Russert claims he didn't know something most reporters he worked closely with knew, concerning a topic he was heavily involved with, a reasonable juror might question Russert's memory.

You also assume that Russert will deny knowing Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (as opposed to knowing Valerie Plame was a CIA operative), and that Andrea Mitchell will not testify that she discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with Russert. Neither assumption seems to be justified by what we outside observers currently know, and both are made less likely if Plames's CIA job was widely known among reporters.

(Just for the record, I ain't no lawyer.)

[kim]

He also assumes Russert is not a weasel, which is a stretch.
==================================================

[MJW]

Kim, whatever we think about Russert, I think we can at least say Andrea Mitchell isn't a complete weasel. Fibbing seemingly doesn't come easy for her. Just contrast her clear, concise statement that she knew Plame worked for the CIA with that stammering attempt to deny she'd said it on Imus. The denial reminds me of one of those scenes from a situation comedy where a character tries to say something, but just can't force the words to come out of her mouth:

I didn't kn-kn-know that P-P-Plame . . .
I didn't know that P-P-Plame w-w-worked f-for . . .
I didn't know th-th-that, uh, th-thing aboutPlameandtheCIA.

[kim]

The jury will notice.
========================

[daveinboca]

An "anonymous liberal" says

"Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger."

Wilson's NY Times Op-Ed piece stated that "Cheney's Office" was behind his trip to Niger, so liberal dishonesty retains its record unmarred by any occasional accuracies that could confuse readers accustomed to the avalanche of lies, disinformation, exaggerations, misleading statements, and other nitwittery from the Left.

Wilson's reputation as a self-serving careerist user remains intact. He employed his wife's connections to give him a run at a career comeback, as he was slipping into well-deserved obscurity.

Bob Woodward was right this year on Larry King. The entire Plame affair is a shoddy attempt to criminalize politics, possible only because a pliant MSM will advance any Democratic Party disinformation campaign, no matter how ludicrous.

As a journalist, I'll take Woodward's credentials and integrity over Mitchell's ten times out of ten.

[Bruce R]

TM, you have got to get the transcript from Andrea Mitchell's appearance this morning on Imus, he asked her again about the October 2003 CNBC appearance where she says it was widely know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, she now says she doesn't know what she was talking about? and that she didn't know Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. Gimme a break! Then a few minutes later contradicts herself...Unreal!

[bruce]

as a civil service worker if i did what miz.flaming ass hole did i would be fired.this cunt thinks she make foreign policy by undermining the president this whore belongs in jail with her wastrel husband.

[seal cegel]

When you have seal cegel, you can get more!