Showtime - Libby Subpoenas Reporters

From the Times we learn that the Libby team has subpoenaed notes and other material produced by Judy Miller and Nick Kristof; they also report that Matt Cooper and Tim Russert have made the first cut:

Lawyers for I. Lewis Libby Jr., a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who faces charges of obstruction of justice, served subpoenas on Tuesday on The New York Times Company and a former reporter for The Times, Judith Miller.

The subpoenas seek documents concerning the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Libby has been charged with lying to a grand jury about how he learned about Ms. Wilson's identity.

Ms. Miller testified before the grand jury last fall, after having served 85 days in jail to protect a confidential source later revealed to be Mr. Libby. She also provided the grand jury with edited notes of her interviews with Mr. Libby. Ms. Miller retired from The Times in November.

The new subpoenas seek her notes and other materials, including any other documents concerning Ms. Wilson prepared by Ms. Miller and Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times; drafts of a personal account by Ms. Miller published in The Times in October concerning her grand jury testimony; documents concerning her interactions with an editor of The Times; and documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article on the investigation.   

A lawyer for Mr. Libby, William H. Jeffress Jr., would not say whether other reporters and news organizations had been subpoenaed. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Tim Russert of NBC News have received subpoenas, their representatives said.

Why no separate subpoena for Nick Kristof?  A guess - Judy Miller got a separate subpoena because she is no longer a Times employee.

No word yet on subpoenas for Andrea Mitchell, Walter Pincus, Bob Novak, Bob Woodward, or others.

UPDATE:  From CNN:

Jeffress [a lawyer for Libby]  said more subpoenas likely would be issued, but would not name the targets or say when those might be sent.

UPDATE 2:  The AP adds some cryptic details:

The subpoena to the Times also calls for:

_Documents of contacts between any Times employee and any of eight people, including then-CIA Director George Tenet and then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, regarding Joe Wilson.

_Documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article in which Miller said she talked to many people in the government about Plame.

_Drafts of a personal account by Miller, published in the Times, about her grand jury testimony.

_Documents regarding Miller's interactions with a Times editor in which Miller may have been told to pursue a story about Joe Wilson and a trip he made to Niger on behalf of the CIA.

"Any Times employee", who contacted any of eight people including Tenet and Fleischer about Joe Wilson?

Won't that be the whole Washington desk, just to start?

BONUS:  The Libby team responded to Fitzgerald's filing requesting the right of the prosecution to file motions ex parte (which I take to mean, directly to the judge without alowing the defense to see it).  [6 page .pdf] [YARGB delivers the HTML version for cut/paste.  Thanks much].  [AP coverage] The defense vigorously pursued a point I noted earlier (in MORE)- one of Fitzgerald's arguments was that Libby could not be trusted with classified info, given the circumstances of the leak situation.

Oh, the defense went off on this: they noted that the government "continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth on this issue", since Fitzgerald is refusing to disclose anything about Ms. Plame's classified status by arguing that her status is not mentioned in the indictment and is not relevant to the perjury and obstruction charges.

The defense also amplifies a point made by Fitzgerald in an earlier filing when he wrote that "To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."

In the current filing, the defense says that "As far as we can tell from the allegations of the indictment or from discovery, there is no evidence to support a contention that Mr. Libby knew Ms. Wilson was employed in any capacity other than an analyst whose identity is neither secret nor sensitive."

At some point, Fitzgerald will probably need to address the question of Ms. Plame's actual status, and what Libby knew about it - this ties in to whether there was any underlying crime for Fitzgerald to have been investigating, and to Libby's motives to lie.

Comments

[clarice]

I think your guess re Miller and not Kristof is a good one.It appears that the NYT wrote about those reporters about whom they knew received subpoenas .(I believe the NYT is obligated to provide counsel for her even though she no longer workes for them).
Cooper and Russert also were supoenaed (per E &P) and that publication learned of those from their employers.

[danking70]

Why not subpoena notes concerning Mr. Wilson too? Same context. Same story.

[clarice]

That's one beautiful pleading!

[anonymous]

"February 16, 2006 Government's Consolidated Response to Defense Motions to Compel Discovery "

Fitz consolidated a criminal conspiracy and refused to commpel discovery. What is that called..........

[JM Hanes]

Let the good times roll! Team Libby's arguments are a real pleasure to read after wading through convoluted docs that are Fitz' filings. I suspect Judge Walton may heave a similar sigh of relief or two himself.

Maybe we should add Fitzing to Fisking. The Pontifficatrix will retire to contemplate an appropriate definition for the term. Suggestions welcome -- pending approval of my MUSES, of course. Or maybe it could work as a sort of FNL caption contest: Define This!

[sylvia]

The key is to get Russert. If Libby can prove that Russert had heard any gossip at all about Plame, through Andrea Mitchell perhaps, then that can cast reasonable doubt on Russert's testimony that he never said other reporters knew, and then that can domino onto the other two reporters. I don't know if notes will do it, as most of this would probably be office gossip, but can't hurt to try.

[Syl]

Let the show begin!!

[Kate]

Good. I like the way this is developing.

Seems we had the perfect storm for a bad prosecution:

Media designated bad guys (Rove, Libby);
FBI investigators doubting bad guys early stories leading to appointment of SP;
I suspect a White House source who told a tale of smearing to the willing Fitzgerald;
and...
Fitzgerald buying into the sleazy Wilson as wronged whistleblower; something even the more sophisticated leftist reporters sneer at, although they don't report.

Can't wait to see these media icons on the stand.

[eric]

Unless something has changed or I've been smoking my socks, Libby hasn't been charged with divulging Plame's identity. He's merely on the hook for lying to the grand jury during the investigation. The Plame investigation isn't over, and Libby hasn't been charged with anything concerning the leak. He just started lying early on, which is illegal even if the crime is committed midstream in the investigation.

[Patton]

The Libby response was quite a smackdown, although we all knew it was coming from reading Fitzs filing. That comment on handling classified stuck out like a sore thumb, after Fitz insisted that revealing classified information was not part of this case.

I think an even bigger issue, is the ability of the Executive to wage a war using his powers as President to decide what to tell the American people. The President certainly should have the ability to reveal classified information to the public if he deems it necessary toward the
goal of winning the war. Stopping embeds from undermining the war effort certainly should qualify as a Presidential duty, when Congress has declared war.

[Dwilkers]

WOOHOO! They have Kristof on the list! 8^)

I wonder how the Times learned about Miller's Subpoena. If I were her and they called to ask I'd tell them to...um, I'd say "no comment".

[pollyusa]

I wonder how the Times learned about Miller's Subpoena. If I were her and they called to ask I'd tell them to...um, I'd say "no comment".

Miller probably called them. She'll want the Times to pay for her lawyer.

[Patton]

Miller probably could not recall who subpeoned her, or when, or did they, I'm not sure, its in my notes, but I don't recall, I just remember the one sentence that got me out of having to disclose everything else I know.
Can I go now? And the names Filler, not Miller...I think.

[Patton]

I'm sorry for the above post, I don't know why I wrote that..Hmmm. Anyway...I've got to prepare for my deposition...now where are my crayons. I'm going to eat those Libby lawyers for lunch...I just hope Lewis isn't there...he's just sooo dreamy...where was I again? Oh yeah, protect the NYT, they sure looked out for me....or did they?

[kim]

What's the first lesson in mule training? Six lawyers signed that plea. That makes it a 2X4 plea.
=================================================

[Dwilkers]

I hadn't even considered that the Times would be paying for her lawyer Polly. Makes sense though.

Well, anyway I suppose we can all look forward to a year or so of litigation on these Subpoenas now.

[Beto Ochoa]

How long then before they issue subpoenas for Joe and Val? The nexus of this investigation was predicated on their actions. And just why did Val squirrel away the famous Niger Forgeries in her safe at Langley? Will the machine behind the political hit be fully exposed? Was it connected to the Oil for Food bribes?
There are a lot of Russian tools at Langley so were they trying to derail or delay the Iraq invasion until they could scrub up their involvement with Saddam?
Just askin'.

[Dwilkers]

Jeez man.

"Unseemly...reckless...foul blow"

Where's the part about Fitz' mother?

[Patton]

Dwilkers...Fitz Mom part ....REDACTED.

What's good for the goose.......

[TM]

I hadn't even considered that the Times would be paying for her lawyer Polly. Makes sense though.

Seems like a very sensible guess - does anyone disagree? I would think her severance deal included a right to separate counsel paid for by the Times.

Where's the part about Fitz' mother?

I think they covered that by scanning in the print of an Army boot.

And if anyone sees anyone announcement at all from NBC, please let us know. I'm also trying to check the media gossip sites like Wonkette or Arianna - one might think someone would have more, but if we have to go back to mocking No News Tim, so be it.

[Patton]

You'll be able to tell how many subpeones NBC got by how shrill Chris Mathews gets and how ridiculous Shusters reporting.

[Patton]

I'm hearing the media are going to fight these subpeonas so hard...it might even wake Ruth Bader Ginsburg up!!

[boris]

there is no evidence to support a contention that Mr. Libby knew Ms. Wilson was employed in any capacity other than an analyst whose identity is neither secret nor sensitive

This has been a sticking point all along. If the defense can claim this it would seem to be the case that in fact there is no evidence on the table. As a detail that could be debated as an unknown the opposiotion could huff "of course there's a case, Fitz is no dummy, best prosecutor, highest integrity blah blah"

If there's no evidence Libby knew Val had even phoney paper only cover, there's no case, no motive for outing or lying about it.

While investigation into possible crimes should expect truthful testimony with serious risk for lying, differences in recollections and self serving bafflegab from a target should not be prosecuted when it's discovered there was no crime. Failure to discover a crime because Libby wouldn't admit he was taking revenge on Joe by outing his wife would at the very least require the knowledge that the wife could even be outed, and the complete lack of another simpler motive. Protecting the administration from bogus accusations.

"So Mr. Vice President ... since it was you who sent Joe Wilson to Niger to find out the truth, why didn't you listen to his findings ??? Hmmmm ??? Not the answer you wanted for drumming up war fever Mr. Vice President, was it ???"

[noah]

Bet Fitz is starting to have 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) thoughts about the wisdom of this prosecution. Guess he was figuring a rollover by Libby.

Will Fitz be a party to any fight over the subpoenas? Also if the subpoenas are granted, what arguments could Miller, et al, make anyway...weren't the issues pretty much settled already? Just askin.

I am getting sort of pissed myself...a lot of time and money being wasted.

[TM]

If there's no evidence Libby knew Val had even phoney paper only cover, there's no case, no motive for outing or lying about it.

Well, that is the talking point and I'm sticking to it!

The problem is, by the time Libby testified in Oct 2003, plenty of press attention had been splashed on the question of whether Ms. Plame was covert (or, for folks who think that ought to mean "covered under the IIPA", whether her status was classified.

Which is where I get baffled - as a smart lawyer, Libby might have researched the statues and said, the truth will set me free.

Or, he might have said, hmm, how will I prove Tenet (or some senior CIA official) did *not* tell Cheney about her status, who told me?

Or maybe Cheney *did* tell him her status was classified, and this is one of Libby's lies (backed by a Cheney lie) that Fitzgerald senses/knows/believes, but can't prove. (E.g., maybe Tenet testifie dthat he mentioned her status to Cheney). Hence, he tries to flip Libby on other charges.

Or maybe Libby figured that the truth would set him free legally but not politically - outing a classified agent with the "Hey, who knew" excuse may not have seemed to suit the image the WH wanted to project.

An ongoing area of personal bafflement - if Libby is lying (seems likely, to say the least) why such silly lies?

I understand the police adage that "we don't catch the smart ones", but couldn't Libby have come up with a better story, or a more porous memory, in about five minutes?

How about this: "I had a wide-ranging talkwith Judy Miller, Plame may have been discussed, I don't recall; Cooper mentioned Plame to me, I tried to brush him off but I don;t recall my exact words; Russert an dI spoke about the deplorable coverage of the Niger trip by Chris Matthews, and I would have thought we talked about Plame, but I don't know".

Where is the perjury or obstruction there? And where is the exposure on the IIPA - Libby is certainly not revealing criminal intent with this testimony.

But reasoning backwards - since Libby *is* a smart guy, it may be possible that the story he told is the best possible story for concealing some other possible fact pattern.

But I don't see what fact pattern might be in play that wouldn't have been better covered by the vague but accurate testimony I suggested above.

(Hmm - having said that, suppose Libby was told by Cheney that Plame was classified, but Libby was not sure what Cheney remembered or would testify to. If Libby was worried that Cheney wouldn't protect him, Libby's actual story might have seemed safer. Oddly, that implies Libby lied because there was *not* a coordinated cover-up, at least in October 2003).

Well, it is a puzzle.

[noah]

OT, but I saw one report that Jafari is offering to step aside in Iraq...could be the breakthru needed for forming a government.

[Sue]

If Plame's status was covert, or classified, why is Fitz fighting Libby so hard over releasing that information? It would certainly shut the Libby team up if they received documentation proving her status was classified. As it is, the Libby team can continue to drip, drip, drip what they dripped, dripped, dripped in their recent filing. The government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Very strange behavior, on the part of the government. What is the government hiding?

[clarice]

TM, you keep making assumptions about the questions Libby was asked. Remember at some point he did tell Fitz he had been told about her by Cheney and others and simply hadn't remembered because he was more focused on other things. From the proceedings and pleadings it doesn't appear Fitz can take a straight line from a to b let alone write or speak in simple, coherent form.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Maybe Clarice could jump in on this, because I have to admit I've lost track, but doesn't "lying to a Federal official" require the lie to have been material to a crime investigation? Ditto perjury? If Fitz can't make the argument that a crime was committed, doesn't that make the whole thing suspect?

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

In requesting the information concerning Plame' status - why would we think that Team Libby doesn't know the answer?

I see the request as a method to force Fitzgerald to acknowledge that he's been knowingly chasing shadows from about day three. Another good tactical move.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well, it is a puzzle.

Yes it tis.

My bet is Mr. Smart Guy forgot the advice he would have given to himself if he were representing him, dont speculatew or give long answer when a short answer will do, and if you dont remember, say so and shut up.

Now on the the good stuff. Anybody else think Nick Kristoff sliming around on the witness stand will be the greatest fun to watch? I cant imagine a jury not seeing thru that guy in 20 seconds or less. Any other reporter gets some of the slime slung on them in the juries eyes I am afraid.

[clarice]

I can't wait for Pincus and Kristof to be handed their original articles, Wilson's letter demanding they make corrections--that he was misquoted--and an explanation from them about how they handled that demand and why..Charlie it does have to be material..

[clarice]

Rick, that August 2004 admission of no evidence Libby knew Plame was covert was made to the Miller Court at a time when Fitz represented that he was all done but for her testimony..What in the world does her testimony add to answer that question? Nada.

[TM]

Remember at some point he did tell Fitz he had been told about her by Cheney and others and simply hadn't remembered because he was more focused on other things.

Well, yes, but Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have any evidence of anyone telling Libby that Plame's status was classified, which is a key tidbit. *MAYBE* Cheney did tell Libby that, and both Libby and Cheney forgot to pass that on to Fitzgerald. Or maybe Cheney didn't mention it, or did not himself know that.

Well, another way to spin this is, Libby story is too dumb to be a lie - if he wanted to lie, he would have come up with a better one.

[boris]

If Fitz can't make the argument that a crime was committed, doesn't that make the whole thing suspect?

Suspect? sure but an investigation into possible crimes should expect truthful testimony with serious risk for lying.

Once determinted there was no crime, stuff like recollection mismatch and self serving versions from the target should not be a basis for prosecution.

[larwyn]

msNBC - only NYT'S subpoenas mentioned - just Miller and Kristoff.

Will force myself to keep longer watches on the MSNBC idiots today.

[larwyn]

msNBC - NOT MENTIONED - IT WAS ON THEIR SCROLL ONLY! Sorry.

[danking70]

Clarice, aren't there a few other Niger forgery stories out there that haven't been corrected yet?

Should they be questioned to see about their notes and see if they were also contacted by Wilson for a retraction?

[larwyn]

CSPAN's "Capital News" is also only reporting on the captioning the NYT's receipts.

[boris]

Well, that is the talking point and I'm sticking to it!

The problem is, by the time Libby testified in Oct 2003, plenty of press attention had been splashed on the question of whether Ms. Plame was covert

Well, ok possible motive for self serving bafflegab. Still my point was not about what's in Libby's head, but in Fitz's.

Fitz might believe part of his job is to get into Libby's head, but it shouldn't be the basis for the case.

If Libby's bafflegab indicates cover for some other unknown unsuspected government shenanigans, that would be a fish out of season for Mr. Fitz Fisherman.

[clarice]

danking--my point is that Kristof and Pincus have very little they can say (a) either they chose to keep the lies afloat, or (b)Wilson did tell them that and they didn't want to respond and publicly challenge his credibility. They look like biased hacks in either case.

[Sue]

Rick,

Which would stop if Fitz would stop fighting that issue. It makes no sense to me to fight this battle that would only strengthen Fitz's case and stop the Libby team from making the claim Fitz was chasing dust.

[JM Hanes]

"Sounds like a sensible guess."

Especially since Bob Bennett presumably helped design her severance package.

I'd love to know precisely how they set that up though. Usually, whoever pays the bills is technically the client. When that payor is your employer, or in this case, the former employer who ultimately hung you out to dry, you've got a potential Pandora's box of conflicting interests. On top of actual $$, Ms. Miller would also need some sort of formal recognition that she is the designated beneficiary of attorney-client privileges. Unless the package includes some sort of cap or exit clause, the Times may wish that they'd put Sulzberger's bonus in escrow for Miller's legal fees.

It will be interesting to see how much, and what kind of editorial support (if any!) Miller will get from the NYTimes, not to mention the press in general, in this new round, no? The Wilson's aren't exactly looking like the media darlings they once were either. No wonder they switched coasts -- if nothing else, Wilson's baser instincts seem intact.

If I ran a book publishing house right now, I'd be offering serious bounty money to any editor who could persuade Miller & Woodward to co-author an expose on the inner workings of the 4th Estate. Put that on your bestseller list, NYTimes!

[clarice]

Even if she didn't have such an agreement with the NYT to provice counsel (and on the first post I indicate I think she did), the think the NYT would be obligated to provide it. She made any pledges of confidentiality to others while still in the paper's employment.

[clarice]

Let me try again (I have to use preview all day it seems not just in the wee hours):

Even if she didn't have such an agreement with the NYT to proviDe counsel (and on the first post I indicate I think she did), I think the NYT would be obligated to provide it. She made any pledges of confidentiality to others while still in the paper's employment.

[danking70]

I agree Clarice.

I just thought if you add information from the other journalists who wrote about the Niger forgeries, it would help in the questioning of Pincus and Kristoff.

So 5 separate journalists misquoted Wilson or Wilson is lying...

[Syl]

Can I go now? And the names Filler, not Miller...I think.

LOL, Patton

The whole thing!

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I going back to item 10. on the list Tom posted:

10. Whether declassification had been decided upon prior to the publication or release of the data.

If Plame's status had been presented as "transitional" to Libby by either Cheney or Tenet, then Fitzgerald has been taking a flyer from the get go - and Libby knew and knows it.

Fitz keeps pawing the dirt and swinging his horns but he never charges. There is a very good reason for that - and Team Libby knows it.

[maryrose]

I agree with Syl; Let's get the show on the road. I wonder if these reporters saw this train coming down the track.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice

It's funny, but I almost never notice your typos till you point them out. You probably don't need to bother with corrections unless they seriously disssstort the meaning -- although I know just how hard it can be to let even minor mistakes stand. I too, end up kicking myself almost evey time I skip the preview. Have you ever seen one of those examples of a garbled but still clearly readable message designed to illustrate the function of linguistic redundacy? With apologies to boris, I suspect most folks fill in the blanks and skim over imperfections pretty automatically.

[JM Hanes]

Patton

Very funny this morning! Love the new lower case style too! Much easier to read.

[boris]

With apologies to boris,

No need. My claim is that happens as part of the larger process, not as "touch up".

[boris]

Libby story is too dumb to be a lie

Libby's testimony:

As a Lie: Lame and incoherent

As the truth: Lame and incoherent

But take into account ...

Fitz's questions: Lame and incoherent

Fitz's presser: Lame and incoherent

The charges: Lame and incoherent

Press coverage: Lame and incoherent

Fun to watch but ...

[clarice]

Much quicker to the chase than my effort, Boris. The man wouldn't know a straight line if it werre tattooed on him.
Rick, you are not the man to play Battleships with. You can tell with Fitz when you've pinged his ships by the tap dance he does to deflect your attention, can't you?

[PolarCat]

The liberal media spin on this courtcase being a summation of the Administration's "vengance" policy is one of the greatest accomplishments of the hapless Dem's in many years.

But since the facts of the case are something totally different, perjury, I have to wonder when the real purjuror will be arrested and this whole thing will be blown open for world to see what a circus it has become.

Ah, Joe Wilson, how I long for the day you are led away in handcuffs for the damage you have done to political discourse and this nation's security.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I still wonder if Miller doesn't have some sort of recourse for wrongful imprisonment based upon Fitz's affidavit in Aug. '04. His representations in the affidavit (which Tatel swallowed like a hungry trout) do not appear to be borne out by facts which he had in his possession at the time.

No solid #10 - no IIPA and no Espionage Act. Miller wasn't being prosecuted but she was being persecuted.

[maryrose]

Wilson started this whole kerfuffle with his mad desire to be a PLAYER and insinuate himself back into the wil political Washington whirl. When he was cashiered Val's posion provided the coat-tails and the access he wanted. That and the Kerry campaign with its false promises of high office and prominence again. What a sad story this is indeed. It reminds me of the "Bonfire of the Vanities"

[clarice]

Interesting question , Rick, I suppose if Libby persuades this Court that Fitz was faking it would improve her chances on such a suit.

That footnote in his presentation to the Miller court is a marvel of disingenousness .

Maybe the press is setting the framework for the denouement of the Fitz--Why suddenly did Bradley pop up and say I knew, too, and it wasn't Libby--it was the guy you're hiding behind by claiming he needs protection from disclosure? If I'm right, look for more to come forward with "I knew, too" badges.

[clarice]

I just want to emphasize that Fitz told the Miller Court in August of 2004 the case was virtually wrapped up and he only needed Miller's testimony to complete it,and at that late date he conceded he had no evidence Libby knew Plame was covert, and Miller added nothing of substance to the case.Certainly nothing on the missing piece of the puzzle.

I said this but in a way you might have missed it. From the recitation of CIA history that Ledeen gave some time ago on NRO--the CIA's normal practice was to conduct an internal investigation BEFORE referring the matter to the DoJ and normally with high ranking officials the investigation ended it .In this case, they sent the letter over on July 30,2003 and THEN conducted the investigation--a procedure I think was designed to put pressure on those inside to justify the original referral. N'est pas?

[larwyn]

IIRC Sue wondered how NBC would cover all this today..

Coalition forces in Iraq are in "Operation Swarmer" the largest air assault since the beginning of the Iraq invasion. Samarra, site of the Golden Dome bombing is the target of this op. Coverage of this is now only story on all 3 cable news station.

Bad luck gets NBC and all the broadcasters day/days (Op Swarmer to take at least 4 days) to figure out their spins. Betting that Matthews will be wall to wall Iraq tonight.

Pray for our soldiers and 101st Airborne.

[boris]

a procedure I think was designed to put pressure on those inside to justify the original referral. N'est pas?

Oui

[clarice]

I think a major Shia festival is about to occur and it seems we need to wipe out that den of vipers first.

Larwyn, I don't think this news will completely bury the subpoenas..And Friday we chould get the Fiz reply to the Motion to Dismiss, another thing to keep things aboil.

[maryrose]

Parce que, they have no stand-up case.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I don't think the press knives get buried in Fitz's back until the Motion to Dismiss is dealt with. If Judge Walton grants the motion, then Fitz goes out having lost on a "technicality" - no harm, no foul to the press and Libby stays in the crosshairs. If the motion is denied then Fitz becomes Inspector Clouvert and the "tenaciously incompetent" stories will start - first on the "slight error" of transmitting sensitive prosecution documents to the defense in the charities case, then on to a very close examination of the tap dancing done in that affidavit.

[noah]

Larwyn, I join you in your prayers. I am pretty confident that casualties will be very low. Of course every death is a trajedy.

The Army says they are attempting to obtain tactical surprise with overwhelming force...the best way to win decisively in battle.

[larwyn]

Clarice,
Agree that by Friday they may have to address - but you have to admit this gives them lots of breathing room to get their spins straight.

MSNBC now have little tabs that tell you the sequence of the scroll. The tab for the Libby story was CIA LEAK? I thought the scroll would be about the NSA leaks. Seems they didn't want to call much attention to LIBBY or PLAME. Can't recall them refering to this story as "CIA LEAK"? You guys are making me pickier than I was before I started hanging out a JOM!

Noah:
Operation Swarmer is brilliant on at least three fronts.
If you only see the stills that have been released of the blackhawks lined up and then taking off in sequence, you cannot but help but feel a thrill and hear some terrific swelling symphanic music in the background.
An outright appeal to American pride will change the polls.

The 101st get real training in this largest air assault.

Iran and those SOB's on the Afghan/Pak border are watching.

CNN has to keep up the fear of CIVIL WAR @ Bill Scneider - what a mealy mouth!

[larwyn]

MSNBC & CNN are both doing coverage of the assault then seging into the lastest polls on Iraq. You know the non-support, the civil war all that.
Must get them mentioned,mentioned, mentioned before they spoil!

[clarice]

Heh! Patton wasa right--America loves winners..and the sight of those copters..well, beats press mewlings about Civil War.

And, in the other corner, we have let's censure the President for trying to protect us.

You can't make this stuff up--Well Rove can, but not the rest of us. *wink*

[clarice]

BTW Rick, you have a low opinion of humankind and its ways. I really really like that.

[Javani]

"with edited notes of her interviews with Mr. Libby."

"edited notes"

"edited"

What else is in those notes? Her other sources who knew about Wilson's wife?

"Edited notes"

[larwyn]

Dems,CNN & MSNBC trying to frame Op
Swarmer as an "exercise". Rommer of the 911 Omission was just on Fox playing this game, but he "hopes it is successful" just in case.

[Rick Ballard]

Ex Parte Libby Response is available here in a format from which copying can be done. Tom asked about it on another thread.

[Jeff]

Tm - Two points. First, I don't believe it's entirely clear that Libby was upfront from the getgo about having heard Plame worked at CPD from Cheney. He may have been confronted with the evidence of his notes.

Regardless of that, though, it's important to note that this --

Well, yes, but Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have any evidence of anyone telling Libby that Plame's status was classified, which is a key tidbit. --

is incorrect. What Fitzgerald said is that he didn't have any direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Plame had done covert work. That is different and is specifically a reference to one of the requirements of IIPA. For the question of her classified status, remember that Cheney didn't just tell Libby that she worked for the CIA, he told her specifically she worked at CPD, which is (or was, rather, since it's been reorganized and renamed or whatever) on the clandestine side of the Agency. We don't know exactly what Cheney told Libby, but unless he specifically said something like, "She's at CPD, but she's an analyst," that means the probability was that she was undercover, classified.

In any case, I suspect that the reason your suggested lies would not work for Libby was that it was important, for some combination of political and legal reasons and to cover both for himself and for Cheney, to assert that he learned about Plame from reporters.

[boris]

is incorrect.

Is not. Libby's defense states this explicitly. The truth of the matter is a seperate issue and could easily depend on factors like technically maybe, actually not.

[Tom Maguire]

...is incorrect. What Fitzgerald said is that he didn't have any direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Plame had done covert work. That is different and is specifically a reference to one of the requirements of IIPA.

Boris beat me to it; unless the defense is lying to the judge, their new statement goes beyond Fitzgerald's old statement:

As far as we can tell from the allegations of the indictment or from discovery, there is no evidence to support a contention that Mr. Libby knew Ms. Wilson was employed in any capacity other than an analyst whose identity is neither secret nor sensitive.

Of course, the defense isn't saying that is what Libby believed or understood; they are just saying there is no evidence to the contrary.

[hrtshpdbox]

< Ah, Joe Wilson, how I long for the day you are led away in handcuffs..>

Frog-marched! Frog-marched!

[Jeff]

Tom - Like I said, unless Cheney said, even though she works at CPD, she's an analyst, both Cheney and Libby would know that the information that she worked at CPD meant she worked on the clandestine side of the CIA and made it much more likely that her status was classified than if she worked on the other side of the CIA. But it's easy to see how Fitzgerald would consider that evidence and Libby's team wouldn't, without anyone lying, right?

Plus -- but lawyers correct me if I'm wrong -- but it's doubtful Team Libby has gotten their hands on Cheney's testimony or his interview (to this day, I can't get a straight answer on whether he was under oath or not).

[Jeff]

Just to broaden out the last point, a question for you lawyers out there: would Fitzgerald have already produced as part of discovery any evidence he had, say from the testimony of upcoming prosecution witnesses, that Libby knew Plame was undercover? I'm not saying he's got it. I'm asking whether there's a leap from 1) Team Libby's claim that from discovery thus far they've seen no evidence that Libby knew her status was classified to 2)the claim that Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have any such evidence. So would Team Libby know about the evidence he had, if he does have any?

[boris]

Not a lawyer but, for Libby to know a "fact" there has to be a knowable "fact" to begin with. What Libby thought or may have been told or should have figured out is moot if her employment at CIA was not secret, hidden and protected.

[boris]

Remember, Libby did not reveal to anybody her "status" as a one time covert agent. That information, though "blown" already, was at least hidden.

[Sue]

Jeff,

Isn't that part of the discovery being fought by Fitz? Anything related to her classified status?

[Sue]

Only new thing at PACER:

Full docket text:
Set/Reset Hearings as to I. LEWIS LIBBY: Pretrial Conference pursuant to Section 2 of the CIPA that was originally set for 4/10/06 at 9:30 am was reset for 4/17/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Reggie B. Walton.

[kim]

Let's yearn for few appointments in Samarra. Let's hope this discovery goes forward. Let's pray for Joe's soul.
====================================

[kim]

"Think of the kids"!

Right, Joe, the dead ones, like Cindy's.
===================================

[ARC: Brian]

Ex Parte Libby Response is available here in a format from which copying can be done. Tom asked about it on another thread.

Thanks for that link, Rick.

One observation. Libby's lawyers would do well to post anything they file with the court (in public) to the www.scooterlibby.org website in a cut and pastable format.

It's a great way to get their arguments into the blogosphere conversation, which as we've seen in other instances can "leak out" into more mainstream media sources.

[maryrose]

Jeff:
Libby was upfront from the get-go about Plame and his testimony. Stop trying to impugn his character with undocumented accusations. You're starting to sound like Prosecutor Fitz.

[larwyn]

ARC:Brian:
"...in other instances can "leak out" into more mainstream media sources."

Michelle Malkin's reader notes how they won't let real news "leak out":

Reader Marty notes:

Funny how this story is buried on p. B4 in the WaPo and gee, isn't it convenient they leave Chuck Schumer's name out of the story? I wonder where the story would be if this criminal worked for the GOP?

MICHELLE:
Finally, but don't be too thrilled:

WAPO - PAGE B8:
Federal prosecutors have decided to bring charges against a Democratic researcher accused of fraudulently obtaining a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, now a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. Lauren B. Weiner, who has since resigned from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, will be charged with obtaining the report without authorization, according to a letter sent to Steele by the U.S. attorney's office in the District.

Can't wait for tonight's Hardball -
you all really have to see Chrissy's new promo. He "won't let them just throw TALKING POINTS AT HIM!" And Joe is having Cindy Sheehan tonight, so it looks like NBC is "laying low" until their attorneys write the scripts.

[ARC: Brian]

Yeah I know what you mean larwyn, but, if I were a lawyer for a defense team that had a client such as Libby, I'd want there to be documents out there that challenged the case in an easy to read (and discuss!) format.

The more its discussed in the blogosphere and not in the MSM, the greater the disconnect becomes. Witness the TANG memos, the Strom Thurmond blogswarm, etc.

And its cheap for their lawyers to do. Have the legal secretary print to PDF at the same time she prints to the paper they stick in the fedex box (or are they filing things electronically in the DC circuit these days?).

When I saw that scooterlibby.org existed I was impressed, until I realized that it appears to mainly be a fundraising site. The more they talk about the case on the site though (to the limit they can as counsel) the more traffic it generates, the more readers will see Libby's side, and, I speculate, the more dollars that will flow into the defense fund.

Obviously they can't host Just One Minute or give interviews discussing case strategy, but for a document that is public anyway, might as well release it in an easy to use format. It can't hurt. Surely they don't want that document only available to someone that goes down to the courthouse to get a copy.

Make it easy on the reporters to report the other side. Short of, you know, leaking.

[ARC: Brian]

I swear I didnt' turn on italics.....

[ARC: Brian]

Out now?

[Rick Ballard]

Brian - all they have to do is set the PDF to copiable format. It may be as simple as someone in the office not knowing that the "switch" exists. I don't have Pagemaker so I can't describe the switch but I know that it's there - I can copy from some PDF's via Acrobat but others block the copy function.

Actually, this one scanned clean without OCR screwups. I really don't think that they make it non-copiable intentionally when it takes about five minutes to scan it.

[Sue]

Rick,

Which one scanned cleanly?

[Sue]

Test

[Sue]

Looks like we're stuck on italics.

[MTT]

Me too, then.

[clarice]

Well, lArwyn the Schumer aide case is far less important than the Claude Allen shoplifting claim isn't it? I mean Allen was shooplifting to aid a smear job of a Black candidate wasn't he? ARF

[boris]

ItaliACTO!

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

The Libby ExParte. It scanned without a single error - as far as I can tell. I believe it was processed through Pagemaker where Fitz's stuff is just copied to a GIF or JPG and turned into a PDF. OCR really hiccups on those.