Now The Times Catches Bradlee

David Johnston of the Times is a day behind Diamond Jim Vandehei of the WaPo, but he gets on the Vanity Fair - Ben Bradlee story:

Ex-U.S. Official Called Likely Leak Source

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, March 14 — A former executive editor of The Washington Post was quoted in a magazine article published Tuesday as saying that Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, likely was the official who revealed the identity of the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case to Bob Woodward, an editor and reporter for The Post.

Benjamin C. Bradlee, the Post editor who guided Mr. Woodward's Watergate reporting, is quoted in the article about the leak investigation in the April issue of Vanity Fair as saying, "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption."

Mr. Johnston had no more luck getting a comment from Richard Armitage than Diamond Jim did:

Mr. Armitage has not commented on the matter. On Tuesday, he did not return a reporter's phone call.

Mr. Johnston also takes a stab at the consternation caused by Mr. Bradlee's apparent back-pedaling in his chat with the WaPo, which reported this:

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

Emphasis added to "precise".  Here is Mr. Johnston:

In an interview, Mr. Bradlee said that he had been told about Mr. Woodward's source although he did not recall saying the exact words attributed to him by the Vanity Fair reporter. Mr. Bradlee said his information about Mr. Armitage was imprecise, although he said Mr. Armitage's identification as Mr. Woodward's source was "an inference that could be drawn."

A spokesman for Vanity Fair defended the accuracy of the quotes, saying that the author of the article, Marie Brenner, said that she had tape recorded Mr. Bradlee's comments.

Well, if Mr. Bradlee is quibbling about the precise words, that is not any sort of a denial at all.

Finally, Mr. Johnston amuses us with this cautious phrasing (emphasis added):

The question of who told Mr. Woodward about the intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, is one of the lingering mysteries of the C.I.A. leak inquiry.

In an article last November, Mr. Woodward said he would not name his source, but he has written that the person who told him about Ms. Wilson was a former or current government official and longtime source who told him about her in an offhand manner at the end of a lengthy interview.

In part, Mr. Woodward's disclosure was important because he said the interview with the source occurred in June 2003, which meant he may have been the first reporter to learn of Ms. Wilson's identity, weeks before she was named in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak.

Fine, I am sympathetic to the Times' desire to avoid embarrassing themselves in the same manner as Special Counsel Fitzgerald, who lost track of his qualifiers at his Oct 2003 press conference and declared that Lewis Libby was "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter."

However, I would like to think the Times has a more subtle motive, and is smoothing the path for a bombshell announcement from Nick Kristof.  Of course, Judy Miller never could remember all of her sources and conversations, either, so maybe that is something else the Times has in mind.  Perhaps we will all have to wait for the trial.

Comments

[larwyn]

AJ Strata has new post up
Plenty of Plame To Go Around
........
He may have talked to more than Novak and Woodward. For example, this Knight Ridder story has too many details correct for the time period and is obviously from someone high up with excellent insight across organizations - like an Armitage.

He mentions fact that they attend "functions" together - so where is Pincus's wife?

........
The same goes for the Intelligence community and those in the State Department which deal with the intelligence community. And fame only intensifies the coziness of the business. A lot of people are wondering how Armitage could know Joe and Valerie. Well Joe would be extremely well known for his final days in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Armitage and Wilson are both State Department employees, top level at that, live in DC and probably congregate in the same circles and events.Valerie is even easier to know about if your area of concern is nuclear proliferation. The year long debate about Saddam’s WMD would put her in meetings with State Department officials over and over again. Because while she was not top level manager (many people shun these jobs because it takes them away from their work) she did have enough clout to get Joe Wilson to Niger on a major question for the administration. My guess is she is a bit well known in those circles and would present to the broader interested community. If you know Valerie, then you will hear about her husband. She would also be well known for her stint in Athens and the fact her cover was blown by Aldridge Ames.People just do not appreciate how small the intelligence community is and how people can become well known when they are at the nexus of key events or are married to other power brokers. So knowing Valerie is not a big leap.

This is the KR article he linked:
White House was warned of dubious intelligence used in speech, official saysWASHINGTON - Making his case for war with Iraq, President Bush in his State of the Union address this year accused Saddam Hussein of trying to buy uranium from Africa even though the CIA had warned White House and other officials that the story didn't check out. The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time
:http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11922512.htm(c) 2003 KR Washington Bureau and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

You'll certainly want to read it all. And wonder where was Pincus's wife?

Click here: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Plenty Of Plame To Go Around

[Patton]

Boy that Armitage sure is a stand up guy...he doesn't need Fitz/court to sully his reputation...he's doing it all on his own.

[steve sturm]

somewhat off on a tangent, but if Bradlee knows who Woodward's source is, and Bradlee, as I understand it, is no longer employed at the Post, wouldn't that void whatever privilege Woodward might want to claim?

[Jim E.]

"wouldn't that void whatever privilege Woodward might want to claim?"

Woodward is claiming no legal priviledge. He's already told Fitz all about his source.

[Jeff]

AJ Strata, the blogger how makes Rawstory look like the definitive repository of objective truth. But to be fair, even he does not assert that Armitage and Wilson attended functions together. He's patently just speculating.

I was happy to get that reminder about the KR article - those guys did some of the best reporting in the run-up to the war, and they continued doing it. It's rather remarkable that Landay got three SAOs to say that

Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA's reservations and argued that the president and others should include the allegation in their case against Saddam.

This early on too Landay was reporting that the report based on Wilson's trip was sent to the White House, DIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Justice Department and the FBI in early March 2002. Many people still haven't caught up with this information, partly because they've been misled by the SSCI report, which fails to note the distribution of the report with any concreteness and probably tries to leave the impression that the report did not make it out of the CIA or the intelligence community. (see p. 43, for example.)

[Dwilkers]

Now comes the test for the media really.

They either want to inform the public and pursue who leaked this first or they don't. It is clear the only possible way Armitage is going to come out of his cave is if there's a media firestorm, and even that may not work.

Its up to the NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, CBS, ABC and NBC.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

[clarice]

Tough toots for the NYT and Bradlee, the Vanity Fair reporter sticks by her report and says she has the Bradlee interview on tape.

[larwyn]

UPDATE TO AJ'S POST:
now, commentor SBD finds guest list from 1999 state dinner - so who else was there?

IMHO - THE DC "society pages" would give a wealth of info of who knew who.

The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Plenty Of Plame To Go Around

From the February 26, 1999 issue of The Post-Standard pg A-8PRESIDENT CLINTON and Ghanian President Jerry Rawlings look for direction from first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as they arrive for a state dinner at the White House Wednesday along with Ghanian first lady Nana Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings.Published guest list includes:
Joseph C. Wilson IV, chief executive
officer, J.C. Wilson International
Ventures Corp., and Valerie Wilson.

I uploaded the image hereSBD Left by sbd on March 15th, 2006
http://www.sbdnews.com/docfile/joewilson.pdf

[maryrose]

" ToughToots" is right. I'm sick and tired of reporters hiding under their desks. Let's blow this story wide open and let some fresh air in!

[larwyn]

Crime Pays
03/15 09:54 AM A $25,000 journalism prize for the NYT reporters who exposed the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program.

NRO'S MEDIA BLOG LINKED:
HARVARD">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512103">HARVARD CRIMSON: NY Times Writers Tapped For Prize

Published On Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:45 AM

By MARK GIANGRECOJr.

Contributing Writer

The reporters who broke the domestic spy program story in December picked up Goldsmith awards for investigative journalism from the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy yesterday evening.

In their controversial story on the secret National Security Agency spying program, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had used illegal wiretaps to monitor the nation’s phone lines for terrorist activity. The Bush administration has vehemently denied any wrongdoing in the matter.

“[The Goldsmith Awards] encourage a more insightful, spirited debate about public policy, government, and the press,” said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center.

Yesterday’s awards ceremony, held at the JFK Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, featured a special award presented to New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof ’81, a former Crimson editor, for his reporting on the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Many of Kristof’s columns on the crisis, which began appearing in the fall of 2004, exposed the crimes committed in Darfur through personal accounts from Sudanese refugees who had been forced to flee their homes.

Jim Lehrer, the host of The News Hour on Public Broadcasting Service and ten-time presidential debate moderator, was also honored yesterday with a career award for excellence in journalism.

Treason pays well.

[Javani]

"They either want to inform the public and pursue who leaked this first or they don't."

It's not "A or B"

It's "if A then B, if not A then C"

A=the leaker is a Bushie

B=pursue the story

C=not pursue the story

The Vanity Fair article might be a signal to the conformist MSM to "cool down" on the story.

The writer well knows how the Wilson gambit was coordinated with the DNC and nascent Kerry campaign. Honesty and disclosure there would make a great investigative story, with all sorts of humor and political intrigue.

[larwyn]

Mac has a post up on:Treason Pays

[Fusioner]

Sen. Feingold's Censure Resolution is alive and kicking hard. We need to dig up all the grassroots support we can give Russ. Find his petition at the tinyurl link below... But we also need letters to Congress:

There is no limit on the number of letters you can send.

Spread the word!!!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

^^^ Write a short letter (save it) and send a copy to your both your Senators and House Rep. This is excellent software. Plug in your zip code, hit everybody with a fax, email, or hard copy letter.

http://tinyurl.com/a6erq <-- CENSURE-IMPEACH BUSH

^^^ Grassroots Petition Drive

[Sue]

Oh goody. Wasn't the last grass roots petition drive the one where Kerry responded and called for the Alito confirmation to be filibustered?

Bring it on. ::grin::

[Rick Ballard]

Is that the "Indict Feingold" petition charging him with Flummery and Obfuscation in the first degree?

[MarkD]

Feingold? You mean the guy with delusions of running for President in 08? Let me give you a hint, Senator. If you can't get Chuck Schumer to step up to a microphone for you, your support is weak indeed.

[Bill in AZ]

er... kerry?... whozzat?

[SteveMG]

Not to take this thread too far off course but it would be wise - and I expect them to do it - for the Republicans to nationalize the Congressional elections around the issue of "They want to impeach our Commander in Chief at a time of war."

That obviously does two things simultaneously: (1) it energize the Republican base; and (2) it forces Democrats to state that that is not their goal. By forcing the Democrats to disassociate themselves from the pro-impeachment element, the Republicans deepen the fissure between the more sensible and non-sensible elements.

And yes, for those leftwing visitors from John Cole's site who drop the stinkbombs here, I'm aware that a few polls show that slim majorities of the electorate support impeachment.

SMG

[Syl]

Jeff

This early on too Landay was reporting that the report based on Wilson's trip was sent to the White House, DIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Justice Department and the FBI in early March 2002.

Like, so?

We know the report was distributed--as a paragraph at the bottom of another report. It was not distributed on its own.

Secondly, so what? The report had nothing on the forgeries. It confirmed an attempt by Iraq to start trade relations. That no sale took place means what, exactly?

Did Bush claim that Iraq bought uranium from Niger?

Further, the CIA itself was of two-minds on almost every bit of data. INR had another take on almost everything.

THAT'S THE NORM WITH INTELLIGENCE. NOBODY AGREES.

So cherrypick your way into what?

WMD were used because we went to the UN. We didn't HAVE to go through the UN. You know it. But Blair insisted, so Bush did.

I'm sick and tired of those Bashing Bush because he did the right thing (go through the UN. Use CIA planes to ferry prisoners to secret prisons INSTEAD OF RENDITIONS.)

Just admit it. It doesn't matter what Bush did or did not do. Whatever it was, you're agin' it. A broken record. And I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old arguments spouted. The same ones that have been refuted time and time and time again.

[anonymous]

'Woodward is claiming no legal priviledge. He's already told Fitz all about his source.'

Why the trip to Toronto to announce?

WMD was chosen because operations officers wanted to get rid of it at CIA, Rice too. The war was used after they were done convincing
everybody it never existed and is not needed. Niger was a foreign intelligence operation used by CIA, Plame, and Wilson on the US government; effectively leaking the covert WMD policy and training at CIA, the goal of the speech and war.

[richard mcenroe]

Sue — I think we should ALL sign the petition. Take it to the floor, man! Put it to a vote! You can't ignore the will of the people! >;D

[Sue]

Richard,

::grin::

[Gary Maxwell]

Well I heard Harkin is 100% on board. The momentum is slowly building. Only 49 more Senators to go.

[Nash]

Fine, I am sympathetic to the Times' desire to avoid embarrassing themselves in the same manner as Special Counsel Fitzgerald, who lost track of his qualifiers at his Oct 2003 press conference and declared that Lewis Libby was "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter."

Hey TM, speaking of lost qualifiers, what's the phrase missing from in front of your Fitzgerald quote. Seems like a qualifier of extreme significance because it changes the significance of the part you quote, especially in terms of the context you intend for us to use.

When you lost this qualifier, was it intentional? Or just an accident?

[Nash]

Or to put it another way, because the second time he refers to this topic he omits the word he used the first time ("known"), then this quote is the one to pounce on and the other isn't operative???

[maryrose]

I heard Babs Boxer is on board for the censure too. All the heavyweight thinkers it appears. Remember Harkin right behind Dean in the scream scene-Priceless.

[MJW]

Nash, I think it's a bit difficult to argue TM was attempting to mislead or misrepresent something when he not only specifically mentioned that there was at some point a qualifier but also linked to a detailed discussion of the matter. Furthermore, Fitz's later lack of a qualifier very likely is a better indication of his thinking than his initial use of the qualifier. If he truly felt it needed to be qualified, why would he omit the qualification? That he qualified it the first place means nothing more than the "on or about" routinely prefixed to dates that are known exactly.

[MJW]

Put another way, if, when speaking about a murder indictment, a prosecutor refers to the suspect as "the alleged killer," but later simply calls him "the killer," which statement would you think better reflects the prosecutor's point of view?

[topsecretk9]

"the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter."

"known", but if you look real, real hard at the presser Nash, you'll fund Fitz threw "cold water" on your "qualifier"

[Nash]

if, when speaking about a murder indictment, a prosecutor refers to the suspect as "the alleged killer," but later simply calls him "the killer," which statement would you think better reflects the prosecutor's point of view?

From a legal point-of-view, MJW, if this prosecutor is standing up in front of cameras at a press conference and omits "alleged," he is making a serious error. Whichever way better reflects his point of view is irrelevant. (You are right, he is probably thinking "guilty, guilty, guilty" but is not free to say as much in public references).

Similarly, at the Fitzgerald press conference, I suggest that for legal reasons, the first instance of the referral to Mr. Libby's order in the pantheon of who knew what when is the one that Fitzgerald would stand behind. Even if the second occurrence without "known" is not a slipup, which is highly unlikely, TM is in effect saying that this is the controlling statement. I'm esssentially arguing that, while TM can certainly carry that opinion, it doesn't have any absolute basis in fact. (Nor does my counterclaim, although I think I've argued why my counterclaim is more likely.)

You are correct, MJW, that it was unfair of me to assign a motive to TM for leaving out the other, contradictory statement. I apologize to TM for that. I will just leave it at noting that selective parsing of the words of those two sentences by any of us may be a fool's errand.

[Nash]

"known", but if you look real, real hard at the presser Nash, you'll fund Fitz threw "cold water" on your "qualifier"

Unfortunately for you, topsecretk9, it's not yet been proven that he did. As TM would say, we'll see.

[topsecretk9]

Unfortunately for you, topsecretk9, it's not yet been proven that he did.

Huh? I don't think Fitzy was lying when he said Libby was the first known official ---he was pretty secure he'd conducted a thorough investingation...unfortunately for you

NIDENTIFIED MALE: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked, the source of the leak or other people who have disclosed Ms. Plame's identity, would this then reverberate back to you since you have been studying this if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I can take it with -- answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say let's not read too much into it. Any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation open -- is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So, if there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed we will address it but I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving sort of a general answer.

[topsecretk9]

Unfortunately for you, topsecretk9, it's not yet been proven that he did.

Huh? I don't think Fitzy was lying when he said Libby was the first known official ---he was pretty secure he'd conducted a thorough investingation...unfortunately for you

NIDENTIFIED MALE: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked, the source of the leak or other people who have disclosed Ms. Plame's identity, would this then reverberate back to you since you have been studying this if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I can take it with -- answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say let's not read too much into it. Any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation open -- is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So, if there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed we will address it but I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving sort of a general answer.

[cathyf]

From a legal point-of-view, MJW, if this prosecutor is standing up in front of cameras at a press conference and omits "alleged," he is making a serious error. Whichever way better reflects his point of view is irrelevant.

I'm confused by your argument. Fitzgerald qualified it once, and then didn't qualify it the other time. Omitting the qualifier is, as you say, a serious error. Even if you only omit it sometimes.

cathy :-)

[TM]

Even if the second occurrence without "known" is not a slipup, which is highly unlikely, TM is in effect saying that this is the controlling statement.

Well, Nash, that was prety funny, but with a gracious climbdown.

I don't know if I have a table-pounding opinion on which statement is "controlling". But it is certainly true that he made the unqualified statement well after the qualified one, and context counts - if he had dropped "known" a sentence or two after using it, or even in the same answer, it would be less of an error than dropping the "known" much later in the press conference.

I would chalk that up to the perils of live speaking - I assuem that if he were writing, the qualifiers would have stayed in.

I just thought it was very funny that the Times ran a correction saying that Fitzgerald did *not* say Libby was the first official, when he actually said two things, including exactly that.

ASIDE: The AP and others made hay recently about the Bush comment that "no one anticipated a breach of the levees" in New Orleans. My argument that "anticipate" is an accepted synonym for "expected" did not exactly catch fire on the left, where the party line was, "anticipate" can only mean, consider as a possibility.

Live speaking - dangerous for Bush, and others.

[Nash]

I'm confused by your argument.

I don't blame you...I think I made my argument confusing. I will try to do better.

Fitzgerald qualified it once, and then didn't qualify it the other time. Omitting the qualifier is, as you say, a serious error. Even if you only omit it sometimes.

I absolutely agree. And in that sense, TM is perfectly justified in snarking about Fitzgerald losing his qualifiers.

That's all it is, however...snark. It's a point that not only TM, but many others, including nearly every pundit on every network, keep returning to. TM seems to understand that in terms of the charges Mr. Libby faces, whether he was the first to know or not is entirely irrelevant. For TM it's a bit of fun taking a snark shot at Fitzgerald, because, after all, scoring rhetorical points when you haven't a substantive case can be effective.

But many of those pundits do not seem to understand that it is irrelevant. Mr. Libby is not charged with leaking on Plame. He is charged with lying about and covering up the events after the fact.

[cathyf]

Well, Fitzgerald is lucky it's just snark. After all, Libby has been indicted for losing track of the qualifier in his conversation with Cooper.

Here's some more snark: it's a good thing Fitzgerald wasn't under oath during the presser, or he'd be facing way more than 5 counts...

cathy :-)

[Nash]

I don't know if I have a table-pounding opinion on which statement is "controlling". But it is certainly true that he made the unqualified statement well after the qualified one...

I agree, TM. But...

and context counts - if he had dropped "known" a sentence or two after using it, or even in the same answer, it would be less of an error than dropping the "known" much later in the press conference.

seems like the scoring of rhetorical significance according to the arbitrary rules of TM. I am unaware of any logical proximity rules that hold the way you would have them...by this logic, did President Bush flip-flop or did he commit a Fitgeraldian-type error when he made conflicting statements about whether OBL was of enough significance for us to be concerned about him and fervently seek his capture?

I'd prefer to say that, taken in context, the answer is President Bush did neither, and it's a cheap shot to maintain otherwise, as many in the press and public have done. Taken in that same sort of context, it's also a cheap shot to focus on or attach any significance to Fitzgerald's dropping of the "known" qualifer. Except as regards the Times flawed claim of error . In that, again, I agree with you. And we both know that this is snark on our part.

I agree that speaking in public carries extra dangers...but you would agree, wouldn't you, that context should be considered just as important in allowing for the verbal gaffes of someone you disagree with as with someone you approve?

[Nash]

After all, Libby has been indicted for losing track of the qualifier in his conversation with Cooper.

Now that is fun. If that were truly what the indictment actually claimed, that in one excusable moment of overwork and exhaustion, Mr. Libby "misspoke" to the Feds, this road show would have folded already. You and I both know that the actual indictment is not predicated on any such single non-momentous thing. Mr. Libby, in a recurring moment of overwork and exhaustion, "misspoke" to some Feds, some more Feds and to a grand jury on a minimum of 4 occasions.

Hey, one time, each one of us goofs verbally--I'll give you twice, just to be a regular sort, but at some point, I start to sense a criminal pattern underlying such consistent mispeaking. You, it would seem, do not.

One specific count that just can't seem to be made to evaporate ala misspeaking is that Mr. Libby twice told the grand jury that he was surprised to hear from Tim Russert in July 2003 that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. This is in direct contravention of documents showing that he knew about her and her employment and discussed this with others at least as early as June of that year. That's not a misspeak, that's a lie.

[Nash]

And I should note, since Mr. Russert's own veracity is questioned in relation to these events, that Mr. Libby's claim of surprise does not depend on any corroboration or denial from Mr. Russert. It is an affirmative statement (of attempted defense) that he twice made to the grand jury. It is still unclear if he also said this to the Feds in advance.

imho, the July Plame "surprise" voiced by Mr. Libby at those grand jury sessions as opposed to the documents proving otherwise will be why this will end in his conviction. That was an extra dramatic touch up with which he should not have put. It will be his albatross. It is not dependent on whether he was the first to know and Mr. Russert's believability is irrelevant to this matter.

im further ho, he will be pardoned.

[topsecretk9]

I guess Woodward should be classified as hysterical for having put any value on those assertions.

[Sue]

It is not dependent on whether he was the first to know and Mr. Russert's believability is irrelevant to this matter.

If nothing was dependent on whether he was the 1st to know why did Fitzgerald insert that into his press conference? A lot of things that aren't dependent on anything keep showing up in Fitz's work.

[Nash]

I guess Woodward should be classified as hysterical for having put any value on those assertions.

No, more like wily and canny, not hysterical.

But believable? Now that's a whole nuther thing. Since Mr. Woodward is over the top of his hip waders in his own conflict of interest concerning his role in this, you are grabbing the wrong end of the wishbone here. I'd recommend you not pull too hard on this one.

How i love to butcher them metaphors.

[cathyf]

If that were truly what the indictment actually claimed,

Well, to those of us who can read, the indictment actually claims

b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA

The Cooper counts are precisely about qualification. And Fitzgerald shows incredible chutzpuh in bringing them. First of all, Cooper has testified that Libby said, "I heard that, too." Which Fitzgerald, in an astonishing case of baldfaced lying, characterizes as "without qualification." Yes, Cooper's recollection of Libby's qualifier is somewhat less qualified than Libby's is, but normal human beings who are not autistic do not remember exact words more than a few seconds after they are spoken, and the most plausible explanation is that neither Libby's recollections nor Cooper's recollections are entirely accurate. Given what both have said about the conversation is approximately the same, both of their testimonies could be simultaneously truthful if neither is autistic. Certainly there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby's recounting of the conversation is a lie as opposed to a somewhat imprecise recall.

Secondly, Fitzgerald in the presser is exhibiting exactly the same completely normal human behavior (never before considered criminal) which he is attempting to criminalize in Libby's case: I'm perfectly willing to believe that Fitzgerald didn't intend to make the statement "without qualification" and he could have quite honestly believed that he wouldn't have made the statement "without qualification." Yet there he is, in the transcript, making the statement "without qualification."

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

Nope, Fitz made a mistake. Not in speech, but in judgement and wiggling around "known" and whatnot ain't change it.

[Barney Frank]

While I'm about as conservative as I can be I have to say what Nash says I agree with. My political philosophy is not tied to whether Scooter Libby is less than strongly acquainted with the truth.
I just got done testifying in a civil trial last week, and it seems utterly impossible to me for anyone to be that profoundly confused about what he remembered as he prepared to testify.
The only thing that continually flummoxes me is what possible motive would he have for such a boneheaded lie? I hear him repeatedly described as a brilliant attorney. Most of the 'brilliant' attorneys I've met have been for want of a better word morons. My daughter could come up with a better fib when she was six years old than Scooter did.
The only question is, is his lie so bad that it has to be true. Naw, I don't think so. I think its just a bad, stupid lie as most are, especially by those who haven't made a career of them, ala Clinton.

[Nash]

If nothing was dependent on whether he was the 1st to know why did Fitzgerald insert that into his press conference?

This is a twofer. We've just had a long discussion about how the press conference and any gaffes therein aren't what the jury is going to be given to consider. Instead, they will consider 5 counts, several of which, I will point out, say that when Mr. Libby knew is material, but whether he was the first to know, isn't. Recall also, each count is considered separately.

Take a close look at the perjury count, count 5. Nowhere is whether Mr. Libby was first in the know germane.

I know it feels good to "convict" Mr. Fitzgerald on the basis of the press conference. Do you similarly "convict" President Bush when he goofs up in front of a microphone, or is that only reserved for people you need to hate?

[Nash]

cathy, it would so much more comfortable a space for you to inhabit if the indictment consisted of that single portion of one count, rather than the 5 separate counts it does in fact contain.

And yes, we should have remembered to swear Mr. Fitzgerald in before that press conference, because I for one would like to crack down on lying, over-preening prosecutors.

It's not fair to make Mr. Libby testify under oath while any old prosecutor can get up in front of any old microphone and just lie lie lie to us. /snark

[Sue]

Nash,

So the feeding frenzy we went through after the press conference was all for show? Is that what you are saying? Nevermind what he said there, it was just so he could make the 6:00 PM news shows?

I have enough legal knowledge to know that this is a very narrow case. That the only thing relevant is whether Libby did what he was indicted for. I also have enough legal knowledge to know Fitz sat in it during the presser and in the press release. And Libby's team is taking advantage of his grand standing.

[Nash]

I also have enough legal knowledge to know Fitz sat in it during the presser and in the press release. And Libby's team is taking advantage of his grand standing.

Hey Sue, I respect your opinion. But you know, that's why they still play the games and they still hold the trials.

I have enough legal knowledge to know that this is a very narrow case. That the only thing relevant is whether Libby did what he was indicted for.

Could not possibly agree with you more.

I've filled out my brackets, you've filled out yours. We shall see whether Mr. Libby makes the Final Four or not, won't we?

[cathyf]

Most of the 'brilliant' attorneys I've met have been for want of a better word morons.

Well, I have to say that I've noticed before that when people talk in the elliptical, verb-tense-mangling bafflegab that Libby exhibits in both the aspen letter and in the excerpts from his testimony quoted in the indictment, lots of other people seem to think that they are "brilliant" while I tend to think they are morons. And it ain't just when attorneys talk that way!

And just think... If it weren't for Fitzgerald, we would have never known that it was a crime to talk that way!

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Nash,

Yes, we shall see. But don't fault the Libby team for taking advantage of Fitz's missteps along the way. I believe they called it speaking out of both sides of your mouth. ::grin::

[Sue]

I know it feels good to "convict" Mr. Fitzgerald on the basis of the press conference. Do you similarly "convict" President Bush when he goofs up in front of a microphone, or is that only reserved for people you need to hate?

How funny you are Nash. Liberals would be really pissed at you comparing Fitz to Bush you know. Even to prove a point to a neocon or crunchy con or paleocon or whatever con is in vogue today.

[Barney Frank]

Cathy,

Well its not a crime to talk like a moron, but it is a crime to lie like one.
I personally doubt that Libby will be convicted but I'm pretty sure he testified to the FBI and the GJ with the intent of deceiving them. I'm a busy guy too, but I can recall conversations from last year without getting them 180 gegrees bass-ackwards with what I knew at the time. The question remains why he lied. It didn't even qualify as a lie to cover something up. It was just stupid, mind numbingly so.

[topsecretk9]

It's not fair to make Mr. Libby testify under oath while any old prosecutor can get up in front of any old microphone and just lie lie lie to us. /snark

Yes, if he was wrong I think it is called slander. But, really...Fitz didn't lie...He believed what he was saying was true, that Libby was the first known official because he was confident and secure via his thorough investigation.

If the indictment is as good as gold --as it is, them I am not sure why Fitz felt it necessary to stray into areas not contained in it.

[maryrose]

Barney Frank ;
You assume Scooter actually lied. I don't think he did. Fitz brought these indictments under false pretenses and only because "supposedly" reporters testimony differs from Libby. Please explain the obstruction charge. No one yet has convinced Fitz has a leg to stand on there, especially now with Armitage in the picture.

[Nash]

And just think... If it weren't for Fitzgerald, we would have never known that it was a crime to talk that way!

cathy :-)

Now I know you are saying this rather tongue-in-cheek, cathy, but you have said it several times in several different ways and I think it's actually an important thing to have in mind as the background for this whole mess, because it seems to be important to you and I can understand why.

And for background, I'm going to need to subject you to another of those infernal extended metaphors, which I hope you will indulge me in, because I think it is instructive.

This metaphor stems from a pet peeve of mine--I'll call it the "so-called trivial penalty flag."

In it, cathy's football team has the ball at midfield, 1st and ten. At the snap of the ball, the QB drops back as if to pass and hands off to the tailback on his right, who darts around the right side, past the corner, past the safety and scampers 50 yards for a TD! Exciting play! But wait. Oh no! There's a yellow flag in the middle of the field right behind the defensive line.

Seems the tight end has fired off the line and turned left to seek out the weakside linebacker, whom he quickly encounters because the weakside linebacker is in busy pursuit in his direction behind the line towards the guy with the ball. Seems the tight end grabbed two handfuls of the linebacker's jersey, right up under the shoulder pads, and threw him to the ground. Would have been okay, except he did it right in front of the ref, who throws the flag, because he is forced to respond to such an egregious infraction.

cathy's team is despondent. The TD is waived off, they are marched further back into their own territory and they end up having to punt the ball away.

Grumbling, cathy turns to her friend, Patrick, in the seat next to her and says "if it weren't for that stupid call, we'd have a touchdown."

Patrick thinks for a second and then says, "Could be. We won't ever know for sure, will we? I mean, if the tight end had not held the linebacker, how do we know that the linebacker wouldn't have been able to stop that play for just a 10-yard gain? Or a 5-yard gain? There's no way we can ever know."

Here endeth the metaphor, mostly.

Amongst all the various snafus, gaffes and attrocities that Mr. Fitzgerald is alleged to have commited, unfortunately not under oath, at that press conference, he had something quite important to say: That, to him, and it was his job to try to prove it so, if Mr. Libby had NOT perjured himself and otherwise blocked the investigation, it is quite possible that the Bush Administration would have had a touchdown out of that whole series of events. If only Mr. Libby had refrained from holding the linebacker like that, it's possible we would know the deeper truth, which might be 6 points for cathy's team, or it might be, yes, a yellow flag of a different sort. We will just never know.

Now, I for one am big on Mr. Libby being considered innocent from the get-go in a court of law, unless and until Mr. Fitzgerald and his team can prove otherwise to a jury. It's the job of Mr. Libby's team to argue otherwise.

As I said before, we can handicap this however we want in private. But the largish point that Mr. Fitzgerald made that I think got missed is that he felt he was forced to throw a flag, because Mr. Libby's behavior may have kept us from ever knowing if the play was worth 6 points or not.

[cathyf]

But Barney, Libby's testimony about his Cooper conversations is not 180 degrees from what Cooper said. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of him testifying based upon remembering what he was thinking about during the conversation rather than remembering what was actually said during the conversation. (Which makes sense, since memories consist of a sparse matrix of preserved thoughts with analysis and supposition hung upon them. Except in the autistic, who record every syllable and the inability to filter and process information is what is profoundly disabling.)

So, what would it look like if Libby were telling the truth? He didn't tell reporters about Wilson's wife until after a reporter told him that all the reporters knew. Once he thought that it was general knowledge among reporters, he felt free to discuss it with reporters. Since his motivation at the time for confirming for Cooper was that other reporters knew and were discussing it, he thinks that he said something about reporter-chatter to Cooper. Cooper doesn't remember it. It's completely plausible (in a not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it didn't happen way) that Libby honestly thought he gave more qualifications than he did, or that Cooper has merely forgotten the qualifiers, or some combination of the two.

The Cooper count has been characterized as a he-said/he-said situation, as if what Libby said was "180 degrees bass-ackwards" from what Cooper said. But if you actually read the indictment, Cooper and Libby are saying more or less the same thing, and it's Fitzgerald who is "180 degrees bass-ackwards" from them (plural).

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Seems the tight end grabbed two handfuls of the linebacker's jersey, right up under the shoulder pads, and threw him to the ground.

But instead of calling holding, the ref went through a series of hand signals, including roughing the quarterback, pass interference, offsides and personal foul. Then said ignore all of that, I was just trying out my new hand signals, what I would have used had those infractions actually been what I called. The penalty is holding and all that other stuff doesn't matter. That's what your buddy did.

[Sue]

sheesh...sorry...

[Nash]

Fitz brought these indictments under false pretenses and only because "supposedly" reporters testimony differs from Libby.

That's simply incorrect, maryrose. There is at least one charge, the perjury one, that is at least in part independent of what any reporter testifies to. (How's them apples for abuse of qualifiers on my part?) Mr. Libby said "Plame big July surprise, surprise" to the GJ. Mr. Fitzgerald has docs that show that Mr. Libby knew about the surprise, surprise in June, if not before. Mr. Fitzgerald kept asking the question over and over, several times, always in the form of something ala "are you sure that you didn't know about her status until July?" He was obviously trying to trap Mr. Libby, but that is simultaneously the occasion for Mr. Libby to come clean. Mr. Libby said, over and over, "no sir, not until July, and here's how I can tell you for sure that it was July, because Mr. Timmy Russert was on the phone and he was asking all these questions and I didn't want to say anything that would seem to confirm anything about her and I remember thinking to myself, self? this is surprising news that Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA!" [I'm putting quote marks around paraphrases, but the paraphrases are, I believe, quite accurate based on the testimony, which I've pored over.]

No one yet has convinced [me] Fitz has a leg to stand on there, especially now with Armitage in the picture.

No one is going to be able to. But Armitage is additional chaff. Interesting chaff, but chaff none the less.

[Nash]

But instead of calling holding, the ref went through a series of hand signals, including roughing the quarterback, pass interference, offsides and personal foul. Then said ignore all of that, I was just trying out my new hand signals, what I would have used had those infractions actually been what I called. The penalty is holding and all that other stuff doesn't matter. That's what your buddy did.

Sue, I love your extension of the metaphor. And, without being able to really get inside the man's head, yes, it sorta comes out looking exactly the way you describe.

It's frustrating, if so, but problem is that in the end, there WAS a penalty called on the play and we don't know if it affected the outcome of the play. We are waiting for the official review from the booth upstairs.

[Nash]

Mr. Fitzgerald kept asking the question over and over, several times, always in the form of something ala "are you sure that you didn't know about her status until July?"

"Status" is a very incorrect word choice by me. That is not how Mr. Fitzgerald asked those questions, instead it was as to whether Mr. Libby knew that she worked for the CIA, that's all. Indeed, Mr. Libby upped the ante (should have folded) by saying, "knew she worked for the CIA? Hell, I didn't know she existed until Timmy mentioned it."

[Again, I'm creating quotes, but I think they are representative.]

[Sue]

Nash,

You can wait on the official review. In the meantime, the team of Al Michaels and John Madden have spent the last 2 minutes tearing up your referee as the worst referee they have ever seen in their career. The price your ref pays for practicing hand signals that weren't part of the actual call.

[boris]

Cooper and Libby are saying more or less the same thing, and it's Fitzgerald who is "180 degrees bass-ackwards" from them.

Spot on cathy.

Fitz took "Libby said 'I hear that too' or words to that effect" as unqualified confirmation. It actually means, "I heard other people say that but I don't know if it's true myself". Which is fairly close to what Libby claims he said.

The Fitz claim is the outlier. And one might suggest that Cooper and Libby have agenda colored memories of the conversation. I distinctly distrust Cooper.

[Nash]

In the meantime, the team of Al Michaels and John Madden have spent the last 2 minutes tearing up your referee as the worst referee they have ever seen in their career.

Yes, I heard them say that too, and it's proof positive that the urban legend about the mainstream media being a monolithic leviathan enthrall to the leftwing is precisely that: a legend.

I mean, Al and Boom-Boom? Objectively pro-Bush ;)

[Barney Frank]

mary,
First, I believe the obstruction charge is a joke. I don't believe there was any underlying crime to obstruct the investigation of. (Pardon the preposition0
Second, I think he did lie for the reasons stated below to cathy.

Cathy,
The conversation re Cooper is probably a no- go, perjury wise. But the overall theme of testifying that he first heard of Plame from reporters when only days earlier he had been discussing her with others is just not plausible to me. And that is what he is at serious risk from; the overall story.
Having said that,
1. The lies are so nebulous and uncertain that he never should have been indicted,
2. Fitzgerald is a fool and a despicable fool for his press conference hyperbole and innuendo.
3. His appointment seems to me unconstitutional (although I think the judge will let it go).
4. Libby probably won't be convicted because it is hardly cut and dried that he lied. While I believe he lied, as a juror I would have a hard time, with the evidence we have so far, convicting anyone, even a Democrat :). It is quite possible he is merely a moron and not a dishonest one. I just am of the opinion that he did not tell the truth for whatever idiotic reason.

[cathyf]

But the overall theme of testifying that he first heard of Plame from reporters when only days earlier he had been discussing her with others is just not plausible to me.

That he testified that he heard it "for the first time" when Russert told him is certainly one reasonable way to interpret his words (at least in a contextless way) as reported in the indictment. But other reasonable ways to interpret the words are that when he heard it from Russert it was the first time he'd heard it from a reporter.

Even if his claim is that while he heard about it from others, he forgot about it until Russert said everybody knew, I don't find that particularly implausible, either. The husband is a college professor, and he tells students things over and over again over a period of days or weeks, and a significant fraction of them get to the test and it's as if they are "hearing it for the first time." (He had one student last semester who he had to explain the cosine function to about 37 times. And sure enough, on the final she didn't know how to use the cosine.) And this information that the students can't seem to remember is information that they are spending tens of thousands of dollars to acquire -- so you can't claim that it is not important to them.

cathy :-)