Many Are Called

The AP presents the witness list being mooted by Libby's side in the Plame leak investigation [and follows up with more detail here].  Did you guess these names?

Potential witnesses in the upcoming criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as referenced in court papers by Libby's lawyers. The trial is scheduled for January:

_Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state.

_Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary.

_Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.

_Colin Powell, the former secretary of state.

_Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.

_George Tenet, the former CIA director.

_Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador.

_Valerie Plame Wilson.

_Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser. Libby's lawyers said Hadley may offer important testimony about discussions within the administration concerning the need to rebut Wilson's statements about his trip to Africa and its conclusions. In addition, said the defense, Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the prewar national intelligence on Iraq and had numerous conversations with Tenet. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has said he plans to focus on Libby's disclosure of certain portions of the NIE to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, disclosures Libby told the grand jury he was authorized to make by his superiors.

_A CIA briefer referred to in the indictment, though not by name. The court papers identify the person as "Craig Schmall, Peter Clement or Matt Barrett." The indictment says that on June 14, 2003, Libby expressed displeasure to the briefer that CIA officials were making comments to reporters that were critical of the vice president's office and discussed with the briefer Wilson and Plame in the context of Wilson's trip in 2002 to the African nation of Niger.

_A senior CIA official referred to in the indictment, "who may be either Robert Grenier or John McLaughlin." Grenier at one time was the CIA's top counterterrorism officer. McLaughlin was deputy director of the CIA. The indictment says Libby spoke to the official on June 11, 2003 about the circumstances of Wilson's trip to Africa and was told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed responsible for sending him on the trip.

_Former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. Libby's court filing says the defense team believes that Harlow is the unidentified government official in the indictment who told Catherine Martin, assistant to the vice president for public affairs, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and advised Libby of it.

While on Bill Harlow, the filing also says that:

At trial, the defense may question Mr. Harlow about whether the CIA made any serious efforts to prevent the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s employment status, which the government alleges was sensitive and classified.

Oh my, how covert was Valerie Plame and why didn't the CIA press office exert itself a bit more to protect her secrets - why didn't they call Novak's publisher, for example?

I don't know if Joe and Valerie Wilson can be called "surprise witnesses", but their story may be interesting.  And where are those court papers?  Developing...

Here we go:

(1) the Motion To Compel is a 39 page .pdf;
(2) the Exhibits are a 46 page .pdf;
(3) the Proposed Order is a 4 page .pdf

I have no doubt that the argumentation is fascinating, but folks in a hurry might just skip to the proposed order, which includes little jaw-droppers like this demand for:

(7) Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger.

[NOTE: in the filing, the defense notes the reporting that Colin Powell had access to the INR memo on Air Force One on the President's trip to Africa, and wants to ask him about that.]

Well, let's just copy the whole thing - apparently the defense is going to attempt to document the entire genesis and result of the Wilson trip to Niger:

1. All documents and information generated or received by the State Department, the CIA, the Executive Office of the President and/or the National Security Council (“NSC”), concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger, including

a. the origins of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger, including any role played by Ms. Wilson in connection with the trip;

b. reports about the trip; and

c. subsequent discussion, comment or analysis concerning the trip, including government documents concerning the trip and/or Ms. Wilson’s role in it, that were generated after May 6, 2003.

2. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan by any government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson.

3. All documents reflecting Mr. Wilson’s communications with officials at the State Department or other government agencies concerning his trip to Niger  or the “sixteen words.”

4. All documents relating to the possible declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (“NIE”) (in whole or in part).

5. All documents relating to or reflecting public comments by government officials about the NIE or its contents prior to July 18, 2003.

6. All documents reflecting discussions within the government of whether to release a public statement during the week of July 7, 2003 regarding the inclusion of the “sixteen words” in the 2003 State of the Union Address, including all drafts of the July 11, 2003 statement issued by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.

7. Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger.

8. The CIA’s criminal referral to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) concerning the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA, and all documents referenced or relied upon in the preparation of the referral.

9. All documents or information concerning the identity of any government official outside the CIA who was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA.

As used in this Order, the term “documents” includes all written or recorded materials of any kind, all e-mails and electronically stored information, and all video or audio recordings. In addition, as used in this Order, the term “government” includes the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the White House and the State Department.

Can't fault them for shyness. 

And we can't fault them for lacking a sense of humor either:

At present, the government has produced less than 12,000 pages of documents to the defense. This is a very small document production for a case that involves such complex issues.

The witness list is in the first filing; the AP story should be supplemented by this footnote:

In addition, numerous witnesses from the OVP may testify at trial. We do not include witnesses from the OVP on this list because in light of the government’s representation that it has produced all responsive documents from the OVP, we assume that the government has already produced documents from those witnesses that are responsive to the requests in this motion.

Well, I am still sorting through this, but point (2) is fascinating:

2. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan
by any government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson.

having glanced through the motion, I can state the obvious - the rationale for this request is to discover whether Fitzgerald has any evidence to support the notion that Libby's motive to lie was his desire to conceal a larger plot.  Is that a reasonable object of discovery?  One might think so. 

And it will be fun to see Fitzgerald's response; whether Fitzgerald has any relevant documents or not, I assume he will *not* answer with, "Sorry, we have no responsive documents".  Keep hope alive.

John Dickerson gets a mention for his "Where's My Subpoena" column.  The defense cites his point that the White House and the CIA were 'at war" over the sixteen words, and ruminates about possible anti-Libby bias on the part of thr CIA witnesses.  No!

(And is this a "Back at ya, Pat" cite?  Plenty of reporters have noted a White House/CIA war in 2003, but IIRC Dickerson was recently cited by Fitzgerald in some filing or other, so it will be harder for the prosecution to scoff at this).

The text on Marc Grossman is incendiary:

Documents pertaining to Mr. Wilson’s trip from Mr. Grossman’s files must also be examined carefully by the defense because Mr. Grossman may not be a disinterested witness. This week, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and The  New York Times, as well as other media outlets, reported that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. There has been media speculation that Mr. Woodward’s source and Mr. Novak’s source are the same person. If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novak’s primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the “leak” that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA identity. Mr. Grossman worked closely with Mr. Armitage, who was then the second-highest ranking official in the State Department. If Mr. Armitage or another State Department official was in fact the primary source for Mr. Novak’s article, Mr. Grossman’s testimony may be colored by either his personal relationship with Mr. Armitage or his concern for the institutional interests of the State Department.

So, State and the CIA - all liars!  Ok, it's not that bad, and they are right - axes are grinding all over this case.

Re Colin Powell, the defense wants to grill him about the Sept 2003 meeting mentioned above as well as the INR memo on Air Force One.  They also cite press reports that Ari Fleischer read the INR memo on AF One, so they want to chat with him about that and other things:

On cross-examination at trial, the defense will be entitled to question Mr. Fleischer on issues such as: (1) when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson’s identity; (2) the nature of his conversations with reporters; and (3) any efforts he undertook to criticize Mr. Wilson. If the press reports are correct, and Mr. Fleischer disclosed information concerning Ms. Wilson to reporters, he himself may have been a subject of Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation. Mr. Fleischer may thus have a motive to shade his testimony.

As to recreating the background to the Wilson trip as well as the ensuing debate:

We expect that documents from the White House, the State Department and the CIA will corroborate Mr. Libby’s account that Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was regarded throughout the government as a minor issue prior to Mr. Novak’s article. Such documents will show that the overwhelming focus of the government’s response to Mr. Wilson’s charges included making the following types of counterarguments (among others) to reporters:

- Mr. Wilson was not sent to Niger at the Vice President’s behest.

- The report of Mr. Wilson’s debriefing after his trip was not shared with the Vice President, or any senior officials in the White House or CIA, before the State of the Union Address.

- Contrary to Mr. Wilson’s claims, he did not debunk as forgeries documents suggesting that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa.

- Mr. Wilson’s report was not conclusive.

Documents that substantiate these themes are material to the preparation of the defense because they contain what the Supreme Court calls the “persuasive power of the concrete and particular.” Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187 (1997); see id. at 189 (“A syllogism is not a story, and a naked proposition in a courtroom may be no match for the robust evidence that would be used to prove it.”). In other words, a jury is not likely to be convinced that Mr. Libby was not focused on Ms. Wilson’s identity during June and July 2003 based only on his unsupported denials. The defense will need to demonstrate, in part through the documents sought by this motion, a more complete account of the government’s response to Mr. Wilson’s criticism, and the defense will also need to corroborate Mr. Libby’s version of events.

We are tantalized by this:

The documents we have requested may further corroborate expected witness testimony that within the government Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not regarded as classified, sensitive or secret, contrary to the allegations in the indictment.

Which witnesses are expected to say that?  And how does the defense know that?

A lot is packed into this paragraph:

3. Mr. Libby Is Entitled To Demonstrate that He Had No Motive to
Lie to the FBI or the Grand Jury

The third independent reason why Mr. Libby is entitled to the documents requested in this motion is because they are relevant to issues of motive. First, Mr. Libby had no intent to lie because he did not believe that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified. Second, Mr. Libby was not part of a conspiracy to harm Mr. Wilson by disclosing his wife’s CIA affiliation and thus had no reason to cover up such involvement. Third, Mr. Libby did not believe anyone who worked closely with him had done anything wrong and thus had no motive to lie to protect anyone else.

That is a pretty strong statement - "he did not believe that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified".

And they are going to beat the Armitage drum:

Such a showing is critical because for over two and a half years, the “leak” of Ms. Wilson’s identity has been widely regarded as part of a White House plot to punish Mr. Wilson. In fact, a key government witness has made this allegation publicly. [the footnote refers to both MAtthew Cooper and Joe Wilson]  Mr. Libby has been repeatedly and falsely accused of participating in such a conspiracy.  It is now clear that such statements have no basis in fact. The primary source for Mr. Novak’s article is an official from outside the White House.

More on motive:

Mr. Libby intends to show at trial that because he knew that he was not a source for Mr. Novak’s article, he had no motive to obstruct justice or mislead the FBI or grand jury. The defense further intends to demonstrate that Mr. Libby did not participate in any supposed plot to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking his wife’s identity. Such facts will help to explain that Mr. Libby had no conceivable reason to lie, because he did not think that he or anyone with whom he worked closely had done anything wrong.

More CIA bashing on the criminal referral, in a footnote:

It bears mentioning here that the entire criminal referral by the CIA to DOJ may be infected by bias on the part of the CIA. News reports have indicated that Mr. Tenet, a potential witness in the case, sent a memo to DOJ “raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law” while DOJ officials were mulling over whether a formal investigation into the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity was even warranted.

Comments

[JM Hanes]

Absolutely F'in Fabulous!

[danking70]

The whole 16 words and Wilson/Plame gets played out in court. Terrific!

I wonder if the MSM will continue coverage of this story?

[MTT]

TM,

Well, that just about does it.

Yup.

Nothing left to do here.

Just sit back, relax, pop open a couple of cold ones, and enjoy the show.

It's gonna' be good.

[Rick Ballard]

MIT,

First we get to watch Fitz do a 'Dance of the Seven Veils' followed by a gymnastics exhibition and a juggling act in his response - with the intent to show why all of this is totally irrelevant to the charges.

I wonder if he'll refer to Comey's "the public interest would best be served by avoiding having to put the investigation “on hold”" while he performs.

[danking70]

This was the investigation that Fitz was supposed to do the first time around.

LOL!

[TM]

Well, that just about does it.

Yup.

Nothing left to do here.

I have to say, this is the defense I wanted, and I can't see that they missed anything.

Well, there could have been more hammering on Nick Kristof, Andrea Mitchell, and Tim Russert - I wonder if that is not here (they have certainly mentioned it elsewhere) because that ground has been covered, and Fitzgerald isn't the one who can produce the relevant evidence.

[Gary Maxwell]

Wheres Jeff? I want to hear his take on this witness list. Probably very unfair to make a "truth teller" get on the stand under oath and .... Tell the truth.

[Sue]

Wow. I took in an afternoon matinee and came back to Showtime at the Appollo. Either Libby's lawyers read the blogs or they think like we do. ::grin::

[Patton]

I think soon the press will be begging Fitz to take a plea deal. Deal it down to jay walking in the 3rd degree...with a public apologize from Fitz to Libby for lying about him during his Fitz-conference.

[vnjagvet]

Nothing to see here, says Fitz and his gang. Move along.

[Lew Clark]

I'm with danking, they should have hired Libby's lawyers instead of Fitz. They're doing the investigation that should have been done by Fitz. Now we wait to see if this crew refuses to answer (contempt), takes the 5th, or tells the truth and throws themselves on the mercy of the court. I believe there will be more "I forgot" than outright lying. Which plays right into Libby's hand. The sum total of all their forgetting, will make Libby's testimony look like a scene from "Total Recall".

[Dwilkers]

Wow.

Its scorched earth for Libby then, not that I expected anything less. He has the money for good attorneys and apparently he found some that are about as cuddly as rattlesnakes.

It seems as if someone actually intends to get at the truth.

[lonetown]

"This was the investigation that Fitz was supposed to do the first time around."

Great point! This will be a humiliating takedown of the "special" special prosecutor if the defense does his job for him.

I'm seeing a Perry Mason moment.

Likely this there are armies of lawyers in CIA and State eager to deep six this ASAP.

[Sue]

Dwilkers,

Libby knows the truth. Which helps in his defense. The only thing he isn't sure about is what others have actually testified to. Hence the qualifiers that their testimony might be slanted in their favor. It's interesting that Ari was targetted.

[maryrose]

I have said from day one that I didn't believe Libby was lying. There was not a concerted effort to punish Joe Wilson. He's the one that made up that fantasy and the press jumped on it. The CIA and State used to running the show got miffed when the WH went their own way and didn't bow and scrape to them. Libby could care less about Plame -she's a nobody and soon Wilson will be too.

[Rick Ballard]

MaryRose,

If you are innocent and have the money and guts, putting the prosecution on trial is not a bad move. The allegations involved in the rationales for calling the witness are an excellent start.

Team Libby didn't just fall off the watermelon truck. The trial squad looks just as sharp as the dismissal squad and I'll bet the appeal squad matches both of them.

My money is still on dismissal.

I wonder if tough, sharp, brilliant Mr. Fitzgerald has ever kissed this particular brand of buzzsaw. Beat these guys and you can call yourself a "good prosecutor".

[maryrose]

I too am hoping for dismissal never more so than when we discovered Armitage's role. He's the real leaker; Libby's just a better known official that got caught in the crosshairs of this loopy investigation.

[Patton]

I think Libby's lawyers understand that they need to tell a story that the jury can understand. And it also happens to be true:

The real fight here was between State and the CIA.

It was officials at State that were big on dismissing Wilson (His old stomping ground...he he)

Plame was barely a footnote.

[topsecretk9]

- Contrary to Mr. Wilson’s claims, he did not debunk as forgeries documents suggesting that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa.

- Mr. Wilson’s report was not conclusive.

Showtime indeed! Contrary to his claims...we also have that pesky SSCI too!

[topsecretk9]

Well, Fitz hope and pray the WH will fight the PDB's and get him out of his nightmare.

[danking70]

Unfortunately, the Wilson husband and wife team can't be compelled to testify against one another.

Can the CIA force Valerie to take a lie detector test? She's no longer an employee I understand.

[clarice]

Vunderbar! Fantastico! Brilliant! Hurrah..and the timing is delightful isn't it, just after the Armitage veils dropped..

This, not the ankle nipping, shape shifting, incoherent pablum on the other side is what litigation should be..WAR--- not middle school soccer skirmishes by kids who ride the short bus to school..

[topsecretk9]

(7) Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger.

Remember that tape Libby and Fitz were arguing over...Fitz said the person was referring to Wilson...Lib's team said -no, no, no---they are talking the whole enchilada...Wham, wouldn't that be a hoot...you have Armitag's boss on paper from a meeting in the Situation room saying everyone knows about Valerie.

[clarice]

It certainly would be. Could you please pass the popcorn, ts?

[Patton]

Libby claims Wilson actually disclosed his wifes CIA employment FIRST....

Hmmm...Frogmarch for Joe??

[Patton]

But seriously, If they get Wilson on the stand, I'm betting he would end up taking the 5th on several questions.

[danking70]

How's that Patton?

[Lou Grunt]

Fitz seemed to have problems identifying his political affiliation for voting purposes in Chicago. I think I can help him....check the box next to "Democrat".

[maryrose]

Patton;
I definitely see Joe taking the 5th and probably on more than one question. Val's a different story. She should just come clean and tell the truth about this whole boondoggle. I find it fascinating that Powell Armitage, Fleisher and Matalin all hit the road before the doo doo hit the fan.They probably sensed Joe was a loose cannon and didn't want to get caught in the crossfire.

[maryrose]

I forgot Tenet on the list of people saying: "Feet don't fail me now" Sorry Kim. Looks like your boy is in for some tough questions. "Come out of the woodpile George1"

[clarice]

At the SSCI hearing Plame said she could no longer recall the specifics of how Joe was selected for his Mission to Niger. I doubt her memory has improved with time.

[Rick Ballard]

"all hit the road before"

I'd say - "were handed there swords and reminded of their duty"

[maryrose]

What kind of half-baked spy can't remember specifics of her husband's Mission to Niger? Tom Clancy and John LeCarre would be so disappointed in her. I wonder if she's lost her gun prowess as well.

[topsecretk9]

At trial, the defense may question Mr. Harlow about whether the CIA made any serious efforts to prevent the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s employment status, which the government alleges was sensitive and classified

Okay THIS will be amusing to watch. My hunch is this line of questioning will be the clincher.

[clarice]

ts--I rarely disagree wiyh you, but "the clincher" is really going out on a limb..There's going to be plenty of moments in such a trial that could qualify,

[richard mcenroe]

Maryrose — She shot an AK-47. How much prowess do you need to scream, yank and wave?

[Jeff]

At the SSCI hearing Plame said she could no longer recall the specifics of how Joe was selected for his Mission to Niger. I doubt her memory has improved with time.

Ha! You might want to check your own.

topsecret - That is an interesting suggestion as to why Libby might be after Powell's September 2003 comments. Because otherwise, I don't get it: everyone did know in September 2003 that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, thanks to Rover Novak of course; and everyone on the side against Joe Wilson certainly thought everyone knew that she had sent him to Niger. Or is that the idea? That Powell thinking as late as September 2003 that Plame sent Wilson shows good faith in that being a component of the alleged public record-straight-setting Libby was involved in?

My question is: isn't September 2003 a little late for an "Aha, gotcha!" moment with Powell affirming everyone knows about Plame and her role in Wilson's trip?

[JM Hanes]

Patton

"I think Libby's lawyers understand that they need to tell a story that the jury can understand."

And when you look at Fitz's arguments against discovery, (nothing after July 14 could possibly be relevant...etc.), it's clear that it's precisely that kind narrative he's hoping (desperately?) to prevent.

[Sue]

My question is: isn't September 2003 a little late for an "Aha, gotcha!" moment with Powell affirming everyone knows about Plame and her role in Wilson's trip?

It depends. Was he talking in the present sense or was he talking in the past tense? Maybe that is what they want to determine.

[AT]

"Unfortunately, the Wilson husband and wife team can't be compelled to testify against one another."

They can if they're granted immunity.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

ts--I rarely disagree wiyh you, but "the clincher" is really going out on a limb..There's going to be plenty of moments in such a trial that could qualify,

But in combination with what Patton suggests

"I think Libby's lawyers understand that they need to tell a story that the jury can understand."

I think in terms convetying a salient point to the Jury---this entire investigation was a joke-a-rama ---can't be any easier to understand--, it starts/stops there.

But yes, there will be other important moments.

[topsecretk9]

It depends. Was he talking in the present sense or was he talking in the past tense? Maybe that is what they want to determine.

Yeah Sue, Powell still poo poo'ing the whole thing

"I said way back when everyone knows about Valeries...why the heck is Tenet (letter 9-2003) trying to makes such a big god damn deal about HIS shops f'ups"?

I still have the sneaky hunch that Tenet wrote the letter because he heard through "gossip" Armitage was pissing on him, disparaging his "operations" and was Novaks source.

Jeff
I am thinking phraseology is part of the puzzle here (especially since the Libby team just come right out with it and pinpoint Armitage)

[topsecretk9]

Jiminy "Typos" Batman!

[Rick Ballard]

In Team Libby's cast of thousands I can't seem to find the supervising CIA officer who authorized Ambassador Munchausen's odyssey. One would think that the answer to "Who first suggested..." would have some bearing. Perhaps I missed it.

What other "person of interest" is missing?

[Sue]

Top,

They must be trying to determine the context of the statement. Did he say that everyone knows it as in present day (Sept 03, present day) or did he say it as in we were scratching our heads, wondering what the heck, everyone knows she's CIA. Or they could just be trying to find out what he knew about the wife sending him.

[JM Hanes]

Jeff

Powell in September doesn't have to be a gotcha moment to be useful in setting up the context. It can't hurt to hear the former Sect. State essentially saying what's the big deal about this anyway? Shoot, it couldn't hurt to have Powell just walk into the courtroom. I can't imagine he's got anything much to say that would help the prosecution, if they can even figure out how to approach him on the stand. OTOH TeamLibby could be putting Powell et al on notice that they're not going to escape scrutiny, or this could simply be part of trying to keep the Fitz folk, led to expect a "faulty memory" defense, off balance. Just as his office starts leaning hard a' lee, Team Libby suddenly shouts jibe ho!

I haven't read the argument section in this motion yet, but I sense a comprehensive defense strategy at work here, and one that can't necessarily be discerned by looking at any individual pleading.

[clarice]

Rick, I think Pavitt (now ex-CIA) was Plame's boss.

[Sue]

I thought Valerie's boss was Alan Foley.

[Clyde]

Woot! I'll love it if they get Joe and Valerie up on the stand under oath! They can stick to their story and risk facing perjury charges themselves, or tell the truth and be discredited. Hoist on their own petard!

[topsecretk9]

Sue

I know it sounds ridickalick, but I think it is far simpler (is that a word?)...Libby knows what Powell, Armitage, EVERYONE was saying/said so there is no guessing in what context.

I think State under Powell will come out embarrassed here (and they weren't trying to hurt the Admin but they were taking every chance they could to LAUGH at Tenet)

[topsecretk9]

JM

-- OTOH TeamLibby could be putting Powell et al on notice that they're not going to escape scrutiny, --

Yep. Essentially Powell's shop started this whole ball rolling because they couldn't resist mocking Tenet's shop.

It's actually Irony on display (trial) here.

[clarice]

Sue:" Judith ("Jami") Miscik, then the CIA"s deputy director for intelligence, was the person who signed off on the Wilson mission. Plame's WINPAC directorate was under Miscik in the chain of command. Miscik was fired by new CIA director Porter Goss late last year during Goss's housecleaning in which Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin resigned and Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt retired.

The CIA, through one of its spokesmen, declined to comment on whether it was Miscik or someone else because of pending legal proceedings. And, in context with other information, it appears that Miscik would not likely have been the one. Logically the person who approved the Wilson mission would have had to be some senior person in the Operations Directorate, possibly the now-retired Pavitt. " http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8993

[Sue]

Clarice,

The VF article named Foley as her boss.

[JM Hanes]

""Unfortunately, the Wilson husband and wife team can't be compelled to testify against one another."

I think just testifying about their own individual roles here will be more than enough! And should either one of them end up taking the 5th, then I think both prosecution & press go down in flames -- regardless of the actual trial's outcome.

[clarice]

Thanks Sue, I missed that..Was the chain--- Miscik/Foley/Pavitt?

[Sue]

Clarice,

I don't know the chain. But here is the quote from VF.

Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, visited the C.I.A. several times at Langley and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to uncover Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. One of the people who objected most fervently to what he saw as "intimidation," according to one former C.I.A. case officer, was Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center. He was Valerie Plame's boss. (Foley could not be reached for comment.)

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

How much fuss can Fitz put up about the witness list? Defense has quite a bit of latitude in who they may call, do they not?

[MTT]

OK,

One more comment.

If this is a bluff by Libby's counsel, it may well be the greatest bluff of all time.

The Truth is out there.

Maybe Libby doesn't know the Truth, or the Whole Truth, and maybe he's betting on the fact that DoS, CIA, and the WH, not to mention the MSM, doesn't want the Whole Truth revealed, no matter whateverthehell it is.

OTOH, Libby may know that he is innocent, and he is going to make damn sure that he is not going to take the fall because he had the misfortune of getting caught between the President and the President's enemies.

As above, GAME ON!

But as always, there's the rest of the story.

Maybe Libby knows it.

Or not.

...

The Truth shall set you Free!

Hallelujah!

[topsecretk9]

I've seem to have kept the dialogue open with Tom Christian on the old "libby, the cia and the pdb's" thread, which is what I hoped for (thanks Sue and Mary)...I kinda had to throw TM under the train a little in hopes he will keep "enlightening" us ... he's still not my biggest fan, shock.

[richard mcenroe]

Rick — The real wording of the Fitz objection would be, "You honor, the people object on the grounds this testimony is exculpatory to the defendant..." but I think he might want to phrase it differently.

[topsecretk9]

I think just testifying about their own individual roles here will be more than enough!

I remember saying when the indictment came out, this configuration was the level worst for Wilson...

The only good outcome for Wilson would have been an indictment for "outing"

2nd best scenario for him would have been NO indictments, at least it would have died, he could carry on in some stupid capacity or on been scheduled on the KOS candidate as a prime speaker, but all the Wilson sinister or unseemliness would die too.

So where is that New York Times account on the subpoenas? Oh no word yet?

[topsecretk9]

typos and too fast typing

on in some stupid capacity scheduled on the KOS candidate circuit as a prime speaker,

and this bears repeating

So where is that New York Times account on the subpoenas? Oh no word yet?

[Rick Ballard]

Richard,

I was thinking - 'Your honor, this is a real bubble popper....' but I don't think I have the legal language quite right.

[topsecretk9]

real bubble popper

Is that a technical term?

[JM Hanes]

"Is that a technical term?"

Yeah, I think it has something to do with the two-sides-of-the-mouth thing..

[topsecretk9]

MTT

Maybe Libby doesn't know the Truth, or the Whole Truth, and maybe he's betting on the fact that DoS, CIA, and the WH,

There is a chance Libby doesn't know all the CIA vs. State shenanigans, but I am not buying it.

Canned public statements at the pundits desk nationally broadcast and culled "quotes" for the intrepid reporters "story" are for OUR consumption and sadly no where near accurate.

These people talk amongst each other just like a bunch of bitty's under the hairdryer, moms on the soccer field or techies at the water cooler.

Real vs. "quoted" is no where near close

Mama's don't let your boys grow up to be gossip cluminist...I mean journolists.

[topsecretk9]

cluminist

there is definitely something freudian associated with that typo.

[topsecretk9]

MSM = "Authoritarian cluminist"

so there.

[topsecretk9]

Canned public statements at the pundits desk nationally broadcast and culled "quotes" for the intrepid reporters "story" are for OUR consumption and sadly no where near accurate.

evidence of this you could find on the most respected and "truth telling" blog ala Arrianna

It is pretty clear (and I am not Clooney's biggest fan) that he was uncertain of what a "blog post" was when Ari asked him to add traffic to her site...she requested to send an "example" and after seeing this "example" his people agreed that this "blog" idea thing is something they would consider Clooney would in the FUTURE contribute too.

She didn't do due diligence and it is sweet desserts, but indicative of how the media interacts and do their "perceived" writing ---the qoutees won't care if I "twist" their words cuz I am on their side. Arrogance.

[topsecretk9]

She didn't do due diligence and it is sweet desserts, but indicative of how the media interacts

Nope, I should say she didn't want to do due diligence.

[topsecretk9]

I meant to link to "cluminist"

Take your pick.

[Patton]

UGO is begginning to resemble the Iraqis on the box with the wires attached.

Of course the NYT couldn't get that story right either.

Jeff, please quit calling Colin Powell an idiot. If his statment in Sept 2003 was present tense, then Powell is a nut and an idiot because the statment would make no rationale sense..it only makes sense if he is referring to the relevent period of May - July 2003.

[Patton]

Just like Novak stated almost verbatim in his article in Oct 2003.

------------------------------------------

I also note that Fitz, while compiling information on Wilsons story only references self serving items, Wilsons articles, Wilsons book...but doesn't mention Wilsons testimony before the SSCI.

Wilson would have to lie or take the fifth if asked where he got the classified information, such as the forgery info that he now claims he misspoke (Yeah, misspoke four times to three different people). Clearly his wife had discussed classified information with him.

[Dwilkers]

....Ambassador Munchausen's odyssey....

Rick. If you're going to put my keyboard and monitor at serious risk this early in the morning I'd appreciate a warning. I have a helluva coffee mess to clean up now.

[Dwilkers]

Jeez guys.

Kinda looks like Libby's team plans to do the investigation Fitz was supposed to conduct only they're going to do it as a public expose' and at trial with Fitz having to sit there red faced through the whole thing.

I don't know how much of this the judge is going to allow but have you considered what a freakin circus this is going to be if he allows them to do what they appear determined to do?

We're going to have half the beltway media darlings publicly stripped naked by an attorney that has about 50 more IQ points than they average (will they have to set up a makeup room off the courtroom? Can you imagine all the "...uhs" and "...ers"?). We're going to have 3 years of reporting exposed as cherished myth and shown to be utterly false. We're going to have government officials up to SecState(!) being sworn.

I hope they allow cameras because this will be far better than the OJ trial for sheer entertainment value. We're going to be buying popcorn and potato chips by the case.

[boris]

Kinda looks like Libby's team plans to do the investigation

I recall some suggesting that was the plan all along. If so, Fitz overplayed his role.

[TM]

As to the Colin Powell puzzle, I apologize for my long and disconnected post - I was basically live-blogging the interesting bits as I encountered them,although I did go back to provided fill-in some times.

Anyway, *way* down I mention that in the big filing, the defense says they want to ask Colin Powell about both the Sept 2003 meeting *and* the reports that he had access to the INR memo (about the Wilson trip and mentioning the wife) on Air Force 1 during the President's trip to Africa.

TS9 - looks like we've made a friend!

[kim]

So what happens if Fitz folds? Does all this truthout remain under a basket, or does the DOJ take up the investigation?

I can remember just a few short months ago when I still hoped Fitz might be using the defense to do the investigation that he was prevented from doing by his agreements with the witnesses. Of course, that was when I still thought Fitz had Brain One.
======================================

[kim]

I'm troubled by this quandary. For justice, the trial must go on, with a vigorous defense set on clearing Libby and exposing the mess. Yet this astute defense is also duty bound to do the very best for Libby, which may mean stopping Fitz in his tracks. What to do? I don't get paid enough to make those decisions, but it may be Libby's decision and he may prefer the trial. I would.
=============================================

[Patton]

The same media who constantly harped that the people have a right to know will be scurrying to their lawyers, to insure the people, never know.

[Patton]

I am willing to bet the NYT KNEW Joe Wilsons wife was CIA BEFORE his OP-ED was published.

[kim]

Patton, this has been my particular bone. The media has gone to extraordianry lengths to conceal the truth here. Look at the effort required to bring the truth out. How much simpler to report what you know, rather than write what you desire. There is the original sin in this matter. Joe is a sideshow, merely enabled by our sick, sick press.
==============================================

[Dwilkers]

...when I still hoped Fitz might be using the defense to do the investigation that he was prevented from doing by his agreements with the witnesses...

Here's the thing about that, or at least how it looks to me.

When (if) all this plays out Fitz is going to have to trot out with the excuse that DoJ regs prevented him from really digging into what reporters knew. In fact, I bet if he was cornered he'd say that's why the Armitage-Woodward thing eluded him.

Hide and watch - that's what he's going to say.

But I'm not going to be buying that malarkey, because Fitz appears to think the DoJ rules applied to him when he wanted them to apply, and didn't apply when he didn't want them to. Its all over him like a cheap suit and its all over his pleadings too.

So in a pre-emptive strike I'm calling bullsh*t on that one before he advances it.

[kim]

I couldn't agree more, D. I'm afraid that boy feels anointed.

HIDE AND WATCH. NOW THATS FUNNY.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[clarice]

It appears to me the press is even more culpable because I think they knew the truth about Wilson and about the "leaker" and about who Plame was long before Libby did. Not only did they continue to print lies but they knew they were printing lies.

Rick, about Fitz objections to the witness list, he can't do much ahead of time I think except bleat they are not relevant.

[kim]

I suppose, rather than folding, Fitz could get his dander up now that the wool is falling from his eyes. I mean Joe is his witness, at least in the sense that he believes Joe's story. What's the defense doing calling Joe? I'd wonder. Maybe he will.
===========================================

[Jeff]

TM - I still don't see how that explains the interest in the September 2003 meeting - which, by the way, p. 31 of the motion suggests Libby testified about (though it could be a different September 2003 Situation Room meeting). But why not just talk about the reports of Powell with the INR on AF1 in July? Is the September meeting just supposed to firm up the idea that Powell and State learned about Plame from the INR memo?

It's interesting, for a long time emptywheel and others have been suggesting that most of the reports about the INR memo have been pushed by the Rove-Libby side to discredit Fleischer especially as well as point the finger at State. This was long before the contours of the story we have now were known. And now Libby is citing news report about the INR memo to advance his case. But they're old hands at that kind of thing in the Bush administration - it's sort of like a repeat of the "smoking gun" business. The September 2003 meeting may be just to provide something besides news reports.

Man, is life going to be hell for Fleischer. No wonder he retreated to upper Westchester.

[kim]

Hi ho ho, hoi polloi. People are wondering; shouldn't the pleader for 'The People' wonder?
============================================

[kim]

Lost in the latest shuffle and redeal is the May article, which certainly piqued more curiosities than are being publicly revealed yet. We're missing a whole month here, boys and girls.
===============================

[TM]

TM - I still don't see how that explains the interest in the September 2003 meeting - which, by the way, p. 31 of the motion suggests Libby testified about (though it could be a different September 2003 Situation Room meeting). But why not just talk about the reports of Powell with the INR on AF1 in July? Is the September meeting just supposed to firm up the idea that Powell and State learned about Plame from the INR memo?

I am not a lawyer, but... one obvious issue is, why is Powell even being called in a perjury trial?

So the defense hook is that, if Fitzgerald brings in all of Libby's testimony, that opens Libby's testimony on the Powell September Sit Room meeting, and through that door we come to the INR memo.

One might think the defense could get there directly, since they are trying to grill top officials about the Wilson trip. But (I imagine) the more hooks they have, the harder it is for the judge to say, "Not Relevant".

And Powell is not named/referred/hinted at to in the indictment, unlike, e.g., Grossman and Tenet.

As to "Pin the Tail On Ari" - who leaked to Pincus? If it was Ari, the defense insinuation that his testimony may be colored by personal fear about his legal plight goes up.

[emptywheel]

TM

The September 30 meeting is part of Libby's CYA. The lawyers are collecting information on the things Libby SHOULDN'T have said in his testimony, in case that testimony gets introduced into evidence. So there may be a good deal of dispute about whether Powell actually said that, or whether he said something else. I think this relates to the Jeffress/ Fitzgerald dispute from the February 24 hearing, where Fitz said SAO was referring to Wilson, while Jeffress said SAO was referring to Plame.

ANyway, here's my take on this.

[Jeff]

TM - That's more or less what I was thinking - the September 2003 meeting is an unsubstantive hook to bring Powell in, and make the INR memo more of a plausible entry.

Lots on the left have thought for a while that Ari may have flipped. He's certainly been cooperating. Is there still a chance that Ari was Novak's source? I know there's that line about the leaker not being in the White House; but do we know for sure that refers to the time of the leak? I recognize that Libby is going to try to nail him regardless of whether he leaked to Novak, since Libby will try make it more plausible that he, Libby is telling the truth about the otherwise-damning July 7 conversation, and part of that will be arguing that Fleischer could very well have learned about Plame from the INR memo. That's basically the thought behind the idea that the INR memo stories were floated by the Libby-Rove teams all along.

Martin remains my top candidate for talking to Pincus, with Fleischer and Bartlett close behind, and Hadley still in the running. Though it's a little more delicate, Libby's going to have to go after Martin the same way he's going after Fleischer. She's got the goods on what Libby and Cheney were up to.

[kim]

You call it greymail,
I say discovery.
Either way,
It's revelatory.
==================

[Neo]

For a little of the West Coast trial feeling, perhaps Libby should contest Flame's covert status.

[boris]

what Libby and Cheney were up to

One of the lesser qualities of the left is the notion that smearing their "good guys" is a crime or ought to be a crime. Even when it's the blue dress truth. Look at the naked hostility toward Tripp and Aldrich.

Val was part of a mission that went public. It was the mission that got "outed". First by the Joe and the MSM then response from the administration.

If Libby and Cheney had a discussion like "ok who is this Wilson guy and why is he saying this stuff and what do we do to get the truth out there ..."

So Frakkin what.

But nooooooo. It's nefarious, it's a conspiracy, it's VENGENCE! Libby was not apparently calling reporters to tattle on Val. If anything Libby just made the same goof as Harlow only Harlow should have known better because supposedly that was his job in the CIA.

"Libby was lying to cover bigger crimes" is stoopid. It makes it obvious that they believe everything Cheney does is or ought to be a crime.

[clarice]

Unlike Pellicano's work on the Clinton bimbos about which the press is doing a we can't see or report what we all know waltz.

[maryrose]

Dwilkers:
It takes you 24 minutes to clean up a coffee spill? That stuff must have gone all over the place. I agree Rick does make some really funny comments.I especially like his
"Ambassador Munchausen's Odyssey" or tea drinking extraodinaire in Niger.
Jeff: Just what do you mean by this statement which you managed to slip in at the end of your post
"She's got the goods on what Libby and Cheney were up to" Why do they have to be up to something sinister? It's called doing their job and protecting your rear-end.

[topsecretk9]

TS9 - looks like we've made a friend!

"listen you "X" i'm going to sue you for calling me an "X"? How does that work?

Yes TM, I was hopeing the last one he would calm down a bit, doesn't look like thats going to happen.

Schucks -

[topsecretk9]

Shucks

[windansea]

all I can say is wow...I meean woof

keep hope alive Jeff....the best thing that can happen for you and all the hamsterwheels is a dismissal