The Libby Watch - Mark Your Calendars

The judges order setting out a timetable for the next steps is here (Feb 03 order).

Let's see:

Fitzgerald's response to the defense discovery requests will be filed by Feb 16; the defense will respond by Feb 21, and there will be a hearing on Feb 24.

The defense motion to dismiss will be filed by Feb 24; the prosecution will respond by March 17 (Happy St. Patrick's Day!); the defense will reply by March 31.

The defense will file any additional discovery by March 3; the prosecution will respond by March 20, and the defense will reply by March 27.

Other stuff is set for the fall (Sorry - "other stuff" is a technical term I endeavor to eschew).

And when might we expect rulings on these issues?  I infer that the judge orders others people, but not himself.

There is also a Feb-March timeline for the classified hearings, and non-classified transcripts will be made available.

Comments

[noah]

Having unfortunately been involved in legal disputes and on the verge of another, looks like another high drama easily exceeded by the spectacle of drying paint!

[kim]

Cracks will appear as insufficient preparation of the base warps its integrity.

Let's hear it for the blisters.
==========================================

[Lew Clark]

I figure this will hit the Supreme Court just in time for John Robert's son to rule on it.

[Sue]

Discovery disputes are typically ruled on fairly quickly. In this case though, I'm throwing typical to the wind.

[kim]

There's a chamber pot full of discovery. Wait'll that gets thrown to the wind.
===================================================

[JM Hanes]

Judge Reggie? I suddenly find visions of Walton's Moutain dancing in my head. Maybe it's just because typepad's gone so infernally ..... sloooowwwwww.... on my end today.

[boris]

I haven't seen Clairice's new article linked here yet. It's excellent.

"Death Knell for the Case against Scooter Libby?"

[Jeff]

Here are a few more thoughts on things from Tatel's opinion, some of which so far haven't gotten much attention here.

Libby is alleged to have lied not just about his conversations with Russert, Miller and Cooper, but also Fleischer. That Libby would have to contradict Fleischer's version fits perfectly with the pattern of his other alleged lies. So it looks like you folks are going to have to go about demonizing Fleischer. I hear he once had a relative who was a Democrat -- there's a start. Flsicher's version is also significant because in it Libby told him not just that Plame's employment at the CIA was hush-hush, but also that she worked in the counterproliferation area of the CIA, which we know is specific information that Libby obtained from Cheney back on June 12. And Fleischer got the message, apparently, not telling reporters who he walked right up to the info about Plame's employment. This conversation was, of course, three days before Libby alleges he learned of Plame's employment as though it was new from Russert.

It's funny, as noted by TM, I think, that in Libby's version of his conversation with Cooper he, Libby, brought up Plame first. So y'all will have to adjust that talking point.

We'll have to add Tatel to the list of people who clearly think that Libby testified that although he had prebiously learned about Wilson's wife's employment, he had forgotten it by July - and Tatel add a specific date of July 8, which I think is new. He seems pretty confident about it, repeating it more or less twice and pretty categorically.

I will say this, though, Fitzgerald and Russert both better hope that Fitzgerald specifically asked Russert something along the lines of, "Did you say to Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?" and not something along the lines of, "Did you say to Libby that Plame worked as an operative at the CIA?" One thing that suggests it was the former is that Libby testified that Russert said, "[D]id you kow that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA?" Since Libby appears not to have testified that Russert named Plame or specified that she was an operative, it's doubtful prosecutors would have done anything other than followed the terms of Libby's testimony.

If Russert is covering anything up with his weird statements, I would have to guess it's that he learned some time between his conversation with Libby and Novak's column that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. That would fit with the strange way he changes the terms in his description of his reaction to Novak's column. But it's not clear to me he's covering anything up. It would be nice if he could just clear it up.

I'll just repeat again that at least the special counsel thought that Miller's testimony was essential to determining whether Libby was guilty of crimes that included not only obstruction-type crimes but also the improper disclosure of national defense information - which I assume means in the first instance violations of the Espionage Act. So at the very least Fitzgerald was investigating the possibility of underlying crimes as late as September 2005. Tatel adds, of course, that were Miller or Cooper to testify that Libby mentioned Plame's covert status to them, IIPA violations would be back on the table, implying that the other criteria for such violations were fulfilled or at least not clearly unmet. As we know from MIller, at least on July 8, Libby apparently said that Plame was Winpac, not CPD, and Miller says she took away from that that Plame was an analyst. Anyway, it's probably moot, since there's no way Fitzgerald is going to so much evidentiary weight on the testimony of a witness as unreliable, hostile and incredible as Miller.

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

Thanks for the pointer to Clarice's article.

She certainly takes issue with Fitz's leading the court around by the nose. I paricularly enjoyed the higlight of Fitz's foot note:

“If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, USC,Sec. 793 if the information is considered information respecting the national defense. In order to establish a violation of Title 50,USCSec.421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”

If Libby had wings and feathers he could be considered a bird, I suppose. I guess Miller didn't testify to what Libby knew.

[kim]

I read Clarice's article and all I can sadly conclude is that Justice is blind, or at least her inadequate representative, Fitz, is.
============================================

[prachettfan]

"it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years."

Which doesn't prove that she wasn't covert as we have been saying all along .. So okay, which ones the liar - Ari or Libby? You guys going to address that?

And noone believes the "criminalization of politcs" b.s. from the people who brought you the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

[boris]

add Tatel to the list of people

With BDS. It's a long list.

[boris]

"criminalization of politcs"

Gee wasn't aware that Monica, Paula, Kathleen, Jennifer and Juanita were "politics". Who exactly are "the people" who brought that about?

[kim]

Look, guys, Joe Wilson, and Tenet blew the covert before Summer. Ari's and Libby's fumblings after the truth only have come to light through Fitz's jaundiced eye. The administration attack on Joe Wilson had a lot more truth and reason behind it than Joe's attack on them.

And is Joe a lone crazy in this or does he have conspirators. No matter how Libby's case goes, this won't be settled until we know the answer to that question. It appears to be a quest.
============================================

[Sue]

I don't remember Libby being indicted for lying about what he said to Ari. Did I miss it? Or for that matter, Ari being indicted for lying. How do you address what didn't happen?

[Sue]

Someone earlier brought up an interesting point. I don't remember if I read it at JOM or somewhere else. How did Joe manage to get the trifecta? An op-ed in the NYTs, an appearance on MTP and a story in the WaPo, all on the same weekend? Who gave him his bonafides? They didn't just take his word for it. Surely...

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Well, after Val went through her resume with Kristof and the Times bought off on his affirmation that according to Andrea Michell and Pincus what Val told him was true (according to their verifying sources in the CIA), why shouldn't he get the trifecta? I wonder if Larry signed an affidavit, too? Or maybe they just took Beers and Clarke at their word after Kristof made his report?

[clarice]

Thanks, Rick. I've been tied up all day and just popped in. I'm glad you like it. Just remember how every lefty repeated ad nauseum that Tatel's "balancing text" proved the redacted pp contained evidence that Plame was a covert agent and disclosure of her name harmed national security.

And when the curtain drops, what do we see? Tatel was relying on PRESS reports and an artfully parsed fn which says absolutely nothing of the sort.

I'm calling this the Tatel rule--the implication that non-evidence MUST be really good evidence.
And I'm filing this with the Blumenthal rule that says whatever a witness says about what happened in the GJ room may well be a crock.

[Rick Ballard]

Hi Clarice,

I've been reading the Tatel ruling and I have to say that completely aside from the Libby aspect I find his proposition of a "test" concerning the non-existant journo shield to be appalling. He's a real believer in the "living Constitution" and apparently feels it's his duty to fertilize it.

The "if Fitz said it, it's good enough for me" is at least understandable - and I really do believe that he covers his butt pretty well for when the charges are dismissed and Fitz is laughed out of town.

Fitz really thought it possible to get a "roll" going on this. Perhaps he'll be back some day - say after fifty years or so of "seasoning". It will be amusing to watch Judge Kennedy dribble him around the court for a bit but this is headed for dismissal.

[clarice]

Tatel did reveal himself as a total dunderhead, Rick..Oh, you're certainly right about the test, Rick, but to get there we have to first leap over his stupidity about things far less complicated than Constitutional law..

To think how many times his formulation was thrown up in my face everytime I explained how there was no federal Statute covering the disclosure of Plame's name..He f*ing made that constantly quoted statement on the basis of--drumroll--press reports and a weasely fn..

Maybe he should pack his bags along wih Fitzgerald...

[Sue]

Okay, I've just been over to AJ's place and I can't ever figure out how to log in to post there. AJ has an interesting take on what might have happened. Plus, someone in his comments section has made a great point about Valerie Plame/Victoria Wilson and how reporters were confusing the two names, early on in the story. What if Valerie Wilson used the name Victoria Plame as her cover while working at the CIA? Reporters, including Russert, could know Victoria Plame worked at the CIA but not know Victoria Plame was Valerie Wilson. Hence Russert's astonishment when he found out Plame was Wilson's wife. Anyway, AJ and his commentors tell it better. I urge those interested to check the trackback link above.

[Jim E.]

clarice wrote: "Tatel did reveal himself as a total dunderhead"

Why no shout outs to Sentelle and Henderson?

[prachettfan]

Okay, now Fitz and Tatel both have to go? Then the other two judges in the case who agreed with Tatel. And how about Walton since he hasn't dismissed the case yet. And all those career prosecutors and FBI guys who are working with Fitz in Washington and Chicago. Let's dismiss all those guys because most of them apparently like and respect him. Comey and Ashcroft are already gone so that's good. And and ... let's say every career federal justice or DOJ employee who isn't a right wing hack .... then you guys will be happy.

[Rick Ballard]

Jim E.,

Neither Sentelle nor Henderson made any attempt to suck up to the MSM in their reasoning. Tatel is an 800lb Oreck industrial suck up. Plus, as I noted, he produced a huge pile of fertilizer to nourish the living Constitution.

But Clarice is right - his "anything you say or do is OK by me, buddy" to Fitz is the capper.

I understand why neither Sentelle nor Henderson signed off on his opinion. Vnjagvet made a good catch on that.

[Sue]

That is what is wrong with the left in this country. No sense of adventure. No feel for drama. What is the worst that could happen? We could all be wrong and will start guessing again when the NSA trials start. ::grin::

[kim]

Sue, I think your idea about the two names may explain a lot of early confusion and present and past parsing.

Tatel's ingenuousness about accepting evidence because the prosecutor wouldn't offer it if it weren't worthwhile will be taught for centuries to 1st year law students.
================================================

[Sue]

Kim,

I can't take credit for anything but loving AJ's site. ::grin:: AJ and one of his regulars came up with that idea.

It makes perfect sense, though. I kept wondering why they kept confusing the Victoria/Vickie thing with Valerie.

[kim]

It's been bruited about here, too, perhaps not so explicitly.
==========================================

[Jim E.]

Clarice,

Near the end of your article, you wrote: "The prosecutor was *only* issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to *discredit* Wilson’s story."

But Russert didn't receive any leaks, and he was still subpoenad. In fact, as I understand it Fitz issued the subpoena to see if Russert would bolster Libby's Russert-centered testimony.

[Sue]

I must have missed it here. I am kind of late to the Plame game. ::grin::

[Jim E.]

That is, without Libby's testimony, Fitz probably wouldn't have sought out Russert.

[Sue]

Mr. E,

You just answered your own question.

[Lesley]

IIRC, Topsy was puzzling over this Flame/Plame/Blame/Mame/Game biz this summer, bless her possibly prescient pea-pickin' heart.

[clarice]

I think Fitz' footnote explains something weve all wondered about:Why Corn and Kristof , Mitchell and others were never questioned.

Did he make an exception for Russert? No. Libby testified Russert told him and obviously Fitz didn't believe him.Since he couldn't prosecute Libby even if he had leaked under the IIPA, he honed in on this discrepency in their testimony as his ticket.

[Sue]

Where is our K9 buddy? I would like to hear what her take was/is. Is there a way to search certain posts here?

[Jim E.]

Sue,
I didn't ask a question, but thanks for playing.

[Jim E.]

clarice wrote: "Libby testified Russert told him and obviously Fitz didn't believe him."

Therefore the excerpted sentence from your article ("The prosecutor was *only* issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks") is not accurate. Fitz only subpoenad Russert because Libby mentioned him as an exculpatory witness. Without Libby's testimony, there's no reason to think Fitz would have pursued Russert at all.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Do you think Team Libby could flip Tatel's simulacrum of reasoning in arguing for compulsion of deposition for Corn, Kristoff and Mitchell?

If the prosecution could compel based upon the "underlying seriousness" hokum presented AND the prosecution can rather clumsily disregard potential evidence of who did "in fact" first disclose Val's "secret" status, then why should the defense be barred from compelling testimony that may, if not disprove, wholly mitigate the prosecutorial assumption of guilt? Fitzgerald is way off the reservation wrt to his initial charge from the AG and he seems close to the line on malicious prosecution.

I really smell dismissal coming but Team Libby should shoot all arrows in the quiver.

[larwyn]

Sue wrote:
"Reporters, including Russert, could know Victoria Plame worked at the CIA but not know Victoria Plame was Valerie Wilson."

New to this - so please tell me
if this was already covered and
dismissed and I'll stop asking.

I keep remembering the photo of
Joe and Val at black tie event
with Bill Clinton.

When you timeline it the "go go
peace dividend" 90's and the Clintons' parties/Galas, and add
in any Amb in Africa ambition to
get better placement, lots of
hob and nobbing was probably going
on.

Mr & Mrs Greenspan would be on any
A list.

Considering the poll hungry Clintons would the Vanity Fair people that cover DC society also
be included?

Val is a looker, turning men's heads make women look also to size
up. So they would note and remember
her on the arm of Joe Wilson.

Russert knew Plame was CIA,
then Andrea would know also.
(based on dialog how they would tell each other everything) So even
if Russert's Vanity Fair wife wasn't A list-
Greenspans would be.

Please tell me if anyone knows
or tell me to stop.
Irrelavant.

[Cecil Turner]

Therefore the excerpted sentence from your article ("The prosecutor was *only* issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks") is not accurate.

And if you excerpt half a sentence, it'll make even less sense. But if you take the minimum meaningful excerpt, your specious logic chopping clearly fails:

The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit Wilson’s story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him.

Unless you're trying to claim Russert received a "leak[s] for other motives," he obviously doesn't qualify on either count, and wasn't pertinent to the discussion. Pincus and Kristof, however . . .

[topsecretk9]

then why should the defense be barred from compelling testimony that may, if not disprove, wholly mitigate the prosecutorial assumption of guilt?

Wasn't it Wilson himself (on CNN in 7-05) who said his wife was not covert at the time of the Novak article?

Would that be a reason enough for Libby's defense to call Wilson?

Gawd, wouldn't that be a hoot, if Fitz can't provide proof, we'll Wilson give it!

[Sue]

larwyn,

I personally think they knew Valerie only through her role as a CIA agent, especially those reporters who had that beat (wasn't Mitchell one of them?). Probably only by the name of Valerie Plame (or Victoria Plame). Finding out she was Mrs. Joe Wilson was the shock to them, not that she was CIA.

[topsecretk9]

Jeff Gannon has an opinion...he says Woodward didn't come forward out of conscience, but that he was tipped he would be on a witness list

He's saying more than a dozen journo's knew before Novak.

This should also raise the lefty blood pressure, he says

"I'm ready to testify - in fact - I'm looking forward to it."

[clarice]

Rick, I do not know what Libby's strategy is. Surely the SP poisoned the well with the public and the press with that first to gossip argument--something demonstrably false --unless you ignore the leaks by team Wilson.And I'll bet he did much the same with the g j-we just don't have that unsealed yet.. As for Libby's claim the reporters were all in the know--if we started to hunt down who team Wikson told and who those people called or told, we most certainly will have a different pic than the one the SP paints in his ndictment..If I were passing on the discovey request, Libby would certainly get to explore thus line of inquiry.

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

Nice catch. I wonder if we could send the quote to Judge Tatel? Considering the "minimal news value" of her status, I mean. His scrap book must be mighty thin.

[topsecretk9]

Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Wells: So Mr. Wilson, here is what you said on CNN July 2005, were you lying?

[larwyn]

Sue,
Re: DC SOCIETY

Clarice has this in new piece:

"Pincus has long been believed to have known the Wilson’s socially,"

Wouldn't it be like an SNL skit
that if you met with her for
CIA/STATE "BACKGROUNDERS" as
Plame - then meet the Wilsons
at the party, what you have
your brain trained to not put
two identities together.

Maybe Plame told them she was
twins!

Am I correct that Pincus' wife is
at State?

[topsecretk9]

Maybe Plame told them she was twins!

Well, she has them, so why not?

Samantha and Sabrina...Valerie and Victoria. ::grin:: (copy cat-ing Sue)

[clarice]

I don't know if Mrs. Pincus is still at DoS.Clinton appointed her to a high position there and Wilson and Plame may both have been there at that time.

Pincus surely knows the VIPs..They probably are the source for all his anti-Bush stuff.

[clarice]

I don't know if Mrs. Pincus is still at DoS.Clinton appointed her to a high position there and Wilson and Plame may both have been there at that time.

Pincus surely knows the VIPs..They probably are the source for all his anti-Bush stuff.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

With three law firms and $2 mil I'll bet Team Libby has about 147 strategies that are being worked through.

I just hope that the discovery phase lasts until Risen and Keller are charged. A set of NSA indictments the day after Libby's dismissal would create a nice shift in topic.

[Lew Clark]

Here's something that has bugged me for awhile. It is clear that Libby's story doesn't jive with some other stories. So, for point of argument, lets agree he may have "misspoke" in some of his testimony. But it still seems that the big crime is release of classified information. So, for more point of argument", lets say that Val/Vic/Mimi/Plame/Wilson was a super dooper deep deep undercover 00 spy. And the mere mention of her name was a high crime.

So why only Libby.

Libby might of kind of sort of been Miller's first source. But even she had the "Valerie Flame" note which implies she heard something before she talked to Libby. Cooper had other source(s) that preceded Libby. Novak had source(s) that didn't include Libby. Woodward had source(s) that didn't include Libby. And on and on. So why aren't those sources being pursued and prosecuted.

Has the law been changed. It's ok now to divulge classified information, just don't lie about it when we ask you. So does that also mean that if Libby had admitted he provided reporters with a copy of every national secret he ever had access to, he would not have been indicted and would have gotten a gold star on his court papers for being a star truth teller.

[Rick Ballard]

Shoot Lew, that's easy. Tell us the suspects party affiliation and we'll tell you whether they are guilty or innocent. Libby is Republican so he's guilty and Joe and Val are Democrats so they can't be guilty.

The law stuff is just for show.

[Jim E.]

Cecil Turner: "And if you excerpt half a sentence, it'll make even less sense."

I see your lack of generousity continues. I already excerpted the entire sentence earlier in the thread.

The meaning of the sentence in question doesn't change by focusing on the subsequent sentence. (Which I gather is what you were referring to with the harsh "specious logic chopping" charge.) You're making an argument the author of the piece you are defending didn't even try.

Why is Russert--a central reporter/witness in the case--somehow not "pertinent to the discussion," a discussion supposedly about the all of the reporters Fitz subpoenad?

And while we at it, take a look at the PREVIOUS sentence of clarice's in the same article: "There was *not* *even* *an* *effort* here at a fair investigation or even-handed treatment." No effort at all, huh? Then why did Fitz ever question Russert if he wasn't being fair? For all Fitz knew, Russert would be exculpatory for the truth-telling Libby. Fitz followed the leads Libby gave him. How is that NOT being fair?

[Sue]

Rick,

I hope they have someone checking out the blogs. And JOM's reputation as being the go to place for this story means someone from the Libby defense team could be lurking as we type.

(((waving at the paralegal who got the gig of reading blogs)))

[Sue]

Oh come on Mr. E, Libby tells Fitz he had a conversation with a reporter and Fitz doesn't get his testimony for the record? If Libby told him he had a conversation with Santa Claus about the Wilson trip, Fitz is going to subpoena Santa. I don't give any brownie points to Fitz for talking to Russert, after Libby brought him up.

[clarice]

Remember, this started out as a case to determine who leaked classified information and now has become a case to decide whether Libby lied about his state of knowledge when he didn't leak classified information..

[larwyn]

Sue, I hope one of the paralegals
is going thru all those Clinton
years' DC mags that feature the
"seen" pics from the galas and
charity balls, not to mention major
embassy events.

Sure NRO, Weekly Standard and
Washington Times would use for
cover/front page. WH could release
the Abramoff handshake pics at
same time.

[MJW]

One of the astute posters here (perhaps Clarice), recently pointed out that as far as we know Libby's team hasn't followed TM's excellent suggestion to subpoena all documents concerning Harlow's unsuccessful attempt to dissuade Novak from mentioning Plame. Considering Tatem cited Harlow's testimony as "most telling of all," the blizzard of paperwork that followed his failed effort to stop this horror -- determining how it happened and assuring nothing similar would ever hapen again -- must have been truly impressive.

[clarice]

On Tradesports, the bet on Libby's conviction has dropped further. It is now at 42.6. Last time I looked it was 48.

[MJW]

I was thinking about the perjury trap defense, and the difficulty in proving it, and a no doubt silly thought occured to me. As I understand it, to win with such a defense, the defendant must to some degree show the investigation was a sham. If so, does that mean that if Libby tells the judge he intends to pursue that avenue, he would be given discovery power to investigate the legitimacy of Fitzgerald's prosecution? On the one hand, it'd seem like he'd have to be, but on the other hand, it'd seem like if that were the case, every attorney and his dog would use that tactic.

[Lew Clark]

The whole Harlow thing has always irked me. He confirmed she was not covert, and they turn it around as confirmation she was. I read Harlow’s statement the same way Novak did. She was not covert and had not been for a long time, but, spreading her name all over the media will make it a lot tougher if she ever became covert again. It's Harlow's job to know if someone is protected or not. And, to the best of my knowledge, he has not been fired. There is no way he could get away with, not even once, confirming a covert agent worked for CIA. Even with the most strongly worded disclaimer. And the fact that Tenet did not call Novak asking him to stay mum on the Valerie Plame thing tells me she was not covert. If Harlow had screwed up, and didn't even tell his boss, it doesn't matter. All calls to CIA are monitored and screened. It would have taken about 10 seconds for someone to go screaming down the hall, and another ten seconds for the damage control to get elevated to Tenet.

[Petar D. Hauyst.]

I suspect that to some degree to win with that defense you must show malice aforethought; that is difficult and dangerous to do.
==============================================

[MJW]

Lew Clark, That's certainly a good point about Harlow confirming Plame's CIA employement, especailly when he hade a big deal about not being able to go any further to wave off Novak because he couldn't reveal classified information. I don't think Harlow still works for the CIA, but I haven't heard anything to indicate he was fired for outing Plame.

That Harlow knew about Plame without apparently checking makes me wonder if rumors of Plame's involvement with Wilson's trip were making the rounds an Langley. It could be Harlow was given a heads-up about the subject matter, but even if he was, if he did any checking, he would have discovered Plame's classification status. Man, I hope Libby does subpoena the Harlow-related documents, just so some day we find out what really did take place.

[TM]

Clarice - what is the format of the Fitzgerald affidavit? Is it online, or did you go down to the courthouse to pick up a copy?

And how can we mere mortals get a copy?

[topsecretk9]

That Harlow knew about Plame without apparently checking

Yeah, 20,000 employees or some such. Apparently -widely known--in the intelligence community, is an understatement.

[MJW]

Jeff: It's funny, as noted by TM, I think, that in Libby's version of his conversation with Cooper he, Libby, brought up Plame first. So y'all will have to adjust that talking point.

This "taking point" accusation seems to be one of your talking points. In any case, if you're waiting for a new talking point to replace whatever one you're referring to, about this: Libby has absolutely no motive to say he brought up Plame first if Cooper actually did; therefore, the only reasonble explanation for the disagreement between Libby's and Cooper's version is that one of them misremembered. The same thing that happens millions of times a day when two people recall events that occured months before.

[DF]

If the judge agrees to Fitzgerald's attempts to keep out of Libby's hands any documents related to Plame's status and any CIA damage assessment, on the grounds that they are irrelevant to a perjury trial, does that mean he has to also agree to forbid the prosecutors or their witnesses from alluding to those matters at trial - the way Fitzgerald was unable to get three seconds into his press conference without doing?

[Cecil Turner]

And how can we mere mortals get a copy?

Finally! The Wall Street Journal has an article on the case where they post an on line copy of the affidavit (1.2 Meg PDF).

I see your lack of generousity continues. I already excerpted the entire sentence earlier in the thread.

Your generosity point looks like projection to me. My point was that you needed more than one sentence, which you obviously understood.

The meaning of the sentence in question doesn't change by focusing on the subsequent sentence.

Sure it does. It provides context; which is critical if you're proffering an example in rebuttal. Let me play the same game with one of yours as an illustration. You claimed: "But Russert didn't receive any leaks, and he was still subpoenad." Is that accurate? Here's a leak Russert received:

Yesterday morning on NBC's Today, Tim Russert, a journalist once admired for his relative fairness and thoroughness up until the words "Monica Lewinsky" were injected into the national psyche, once again tried to hitch his wagon to a Starr with a "blockbuster" breaking story based on unnamed "Congressional sources." ?

[Oh, you mean in the Plame case . . . well, that's different.] My example is just as valid as yours (which is to say, "not").

No effort at all, huh? Then why did Fitz ever question Russert if he wasn't being fair?

More to the point, why didn't he investigate whether Plame leaked her own identity to reporters earlier? Because if she did, Clarice is dead-on that failing to acknowledge that fact is completely unfair (and misleading, and not even an effort at a fair investigation . . .). (And though I'm still digesting that affidavit, I'm having a hard time coming up with an interpretation that doesn't match Clarice's.)

[narexbyrnesphdetc]

"Plame leaked her own identity to reporters ..."

Tinfoil hats anyone? Pass em on.

By all means, Libby's lawyers should be checking this site. Please. Pretty please.

[kim]

She didn't leak her identity; they already knew it, and had for some time.
===================================================

[Cecil Turner]

Tinfoil hats anyone? Pass em on.

Well, that's certainly one interpretation of this passage:

“Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and [REDACTED] spoke to several reporters including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post….”

Though, on reflection, I think it may well be something like "and who was not bound by a confidentiality agreement" or something similar. In any event, the question of whether those reporters knew Plame's identity is critical, and it doesn't appear to've been asked.

[kim]

I mean it's really coming down to is Fitz corrupt or stupid.
=================================================

[kim]

And I really hate to say that. I had such high hopes that he was talentead enough to see through Joe Wilson(I know, too low a bar). But when we reach the dregs and taste the bitterness of his bias and the wormwood of his weasely tateling, the craw rebels, and so does this crow.

Explain yourself, Fitz. Kaw! Kaw!
=============================================

[Rick Ballard]

CT,

Thanks for the link.

Asking would interfere with the prosecutor's premise of guilt. He mistook "whistleblower" for "own hornblower" from the beginning and in true Inspector Clouvert fashion has been on the trail since. Impeccable logic, a shame that the initial premise is so deeply flawed.

The contrast with what he so fervently believed Miller would disclose and her account of her actual testimony might have given this nitwit a clue that he was on the wrong trail - but, oh no, knowing that it was a bag of nothing, he still had to give his flop sweat presser to reiterate claims that he made in the affidavit.

He may "believe" this nonsense but he "believes" it like kids clapping to keep Tinkerbelle alive. Keep clapping, Fitz but the funeral was six months ago and it would be more appropriate to take flowers to the gravesite.

[kim]

By the way did you know that Tinkerbell has four wings like dragonflies, whereas most other fairies have butterfly wings? Everybody clap, you'll see.
================================================

[Extraneus]

From Fitzgerald at the indictment press conference:

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

Doesn't this imply that Russert taped the conversation? He doesn't say "it's alleged" or "we charge" or anything else with the caveats he used elsewhere in his talk, but that it's a "fact". Could that ever be established without a tape recording?

I know this was discussed before, but I can't remember the result of the associated discussion about the legality of recording this conversation, or the ramifications in terms of whether that could be used as evidence if it were. Do we know were they both were at the time of the phone call?

Sorry if this is repetitive. Now that the intelligence of the people here (even the lefties) has hooked me on this dumb case, I was re-reading some of the background stuff and I couldn't remember how the discussion of this angle was concluded.

[kim]

I may have the wings on the wrong critters. The more I clapetti, the more folleti I getti.
================================================

[kim]

I don't think it was resolved, though several wondered if it was taped, E. I think the wording is just part and parcel with Fitz running after the wrong trail.

Then, too, the business about parsing that 'Plame' was not used, and 'Wilson's wife' may have been may explain some of the weaseling in Fitz's wording and tactics.
==========================

[Cecil Turner]

Doesn't this imply that Russert taped the conversation? He doesn't say "it's alleged" or "we charge" or anything else with the caveats he used elsewhere in his talk, but that it's a "fact".

There's been some speculation on this before. It does seem to imply he has more than Russert's memory, but personally I doubt it. Fitz appears to overstate things a bit, and Russert's newly unredacted testimony (per Tatel, p.31) is pretty definitive:

Russert recalls this conversation very differently. In his deposition, describing Plame’s employment as a fact that would have been “[v]ery” significant to him—one he would have discussed with NBC management and potentially sought to broadcast—Russert stated, “I have no recollection of knowing that [Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA], so it was impossible for me to have [told Libby] that.” (I-43, 32.) Asked to describe his “reaction” to Novak’s July 14 column, Russert said, “Wow. When I read that—it was the first time I knew who Joe Wilson’s wife was and that she was a CIA operative. . . . [I]t was news to me.”

Further, if they had something like a recording, you'd expect him to mention it there. He didn't, and there are no redactions in the immediate vicinity. From that I'd conclude either they have no recording, or Fitz kept it from Tatel, with the odds on the former.

[kim]

In fact, I'm hoping some little tidbit around that, Russert being agile and overly clever with his use of the language, will Ppiss off Fitz enough to shatter his present paradigm, and get after the criminals here.
==============

[Extraneus]

Ok, so the best we have is that it's alleged that Libby and Russert never discussed Wilson's wife or somebody with Wilson's last name, but not necessarily that they didn't discuss someone named Plame, and that the allegation is probably based simply on Russert's recollection of the phone call. I guess that does seem pretty weak compared with the press conference statement. Thanks.

[Fresh Air]

Lew--

Maybe this has been covered by now, but it's obvious the reason Libby was singled out is he is the only person interviewed who (in Fitzgerald's eyes) committed perjury.

As Clarice and others have pointed out, there was no case under the Espionage Act or the IIPA. Therefore Libby was the only game in town to keep the lights on in Fitz's office.

I would also like to point out to Paul Lukasiak, Jukeboxgrad and all the other deranged liberals on this board who thought Karl Rove was going to be frog-marched, and who wailed at their beat their chests about Valerie Plame's supposedly devastating outing:

You wouldn't listen to logic and reason and evidence. You wasted countless hours reading and writing about all this stuff because you were certain you could play your own little special part in the dismantling of the Bush Administration. And instead of that, you get...shinola...again.

Like every one of the umpteen supposed scandals that you Captain Ahabs thought would harpoon George W. Bush. You simply don't get it. He runs a clean ship that's watertight and runs well. You will never get this president or any important player in his administration on ANYTHING. There will be no Watergate II. And talking amongst yourselves here, at the Daily Kos or in the New York Times won't make it happen.

Take my advice: Focus on the next presidential election. You only have to live with President Bush for another, oh, 1,075 days or so. Plenty of time for another Supreme Court appointment, eh?

[kim]

Hey, he's a business school grad, after all. He's prepared for this business of CEO of the World. Look at his executive suite, and by that I mean the human furnishings of it.
===================================================

[Rick Ballard]

FA,

I've been working on an encomium in gratitude for Justice Steven's long years of service on the court and he owes me the opportunity to publish it.

Soon.

[P. O'B.]

Anybody else notice Bush and Rove playing Aubrey and Maturin?
*************************************************

[kim]

I'm missing a small spot of dog.
===================================

[Rick Ballard]

Not a drowned baby or a soused hog's face? You're sure?

[larwyn]

Russert stated, “I have no recollection of knowing that [Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA], so it was impossible for me to have [told Libby] that.” (I-43,
32.)

HE NEVER SAYS "I didn't/don't know
Wilson's wife"

Asked to describe his “reaction” to Novak’s July 14 column, Russert said, “Wow. When I read that—it was the first time I knew who Joe Wilson’s wife was and that she was a CIA operative. . . . [I]t was news to me.”

AND in this statement, he says it
the way people who live next door
to a serial killer state it.

Be nice if he had been asked if
he knew Mrs. Wilson.

I cannot give up Vanity Fair and
their coverage of Clinton era society galas.

Clarice had wrote yesterday that
the Pincus's knew the Wilsons socially.

Isn't it normal for attorneys to
start at the simplest questions.
Like did you know Mrs. Joseph
Wilson?

[Jim E.]

Cecil Turner,
Just so I'm clear, you're saying I'm not being accurate about Fitz and Russert because Russert was leaked information regarding Monica L.? I'm not sure if you were being serious, or if that was supposed to be a joke.

[Sue]

As interesting as this is about Russert and Libby's discussion, even if they discussed Valerie in some way (and I suspect they did, since the affidavit says Libby called Russert to gripe about Tweety's coverage of this same story) how does that help Libby's defense of perjury? He talked to Miller about her before this alleged call with Russert. All it would do is get him off 1 perjury charge, if I'm reading it right.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm not sure if you were being serious, or if that was supposed to be a joke.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum: use the same logic and show it leads to a silly conclusion. (And yes, the whole point of the Monica comparison is that it's silly.) Your complaint about Clarice's sentence is equally faulty.

[boris]

It's called a reductio ad absurdum:

Rarely effective with the left. Postmodernism renders them impervious to that as well as cognitive dissonance.

[clarice]

Sue, if there were nothing wrong in Libby's having disclosed this to reporters and if many more reporters than Fitz cares about knew Wilson's wife (whatever she name she used) worked at the CIA and were talking about it--even to people in the WH--it seems less likely that Libby had a motive to lie when he said he'd heard about from reporters, either directly, or from other WH folks who'd been involved in those discussions.

TM,I'll try to work out a way to reproduce the adobe files when I get them. There was no way I could do that on the road.