Granted In Part, Denied In Part

It was win some, lose some for the Libby defense team as Judge Walton handed down his opinion (40 pages) and order (2 pages) regarding subpoenas to various news organizations.

I expect to read these later.  Have a great weekend.

WORTH KNOWING:  On Judy Miller, the court says her public accounts of her testimony are reliable:

...after reviewing the subpoenaed documents (the draft articles and
transcripts) and comparing them to the indictment and other news articles reflecting Miller’s anticipated testimony, there is no indication that Miller’s trial testimony will deviate in any way from her prior written statements.

But I find this to be baffling:

This Court has greater difficultly concluding that documents responsive to request four are relevant. This request seeks documents “reflecting or referring to any request or recommendation by Judith Miller, prior to July 14, 2003 . . . to pursue a news story or investigation relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger or his claims concerning that trip.” N.Y. Times’ Mem., Ex. A.

Although the defendant claims that documents responsive to this request could be used to attack Miller’s credibility because there appears to be
a dispute as to whether such a request was actually made, Def.’s Opp’n at 23-24, Miller’s memory of these events is at best only tangentially related to her memory of her conversations with the defendant. The relevance of these documents, therefore, is suspect. In fact, the only possible way documents responsive to this request could be relevant is if the defendant, during his cross-examination of Miller, is permitted to inquire into whether she sought to pursue a story on Ambassador Wilson and his trip to Niger. However, unless something occurs during the trial which the Court cannot currently envision, it is virtually inconceivable that this line of inquiry will be permitted.

Huh?  Presumably Ms. Miller is going to be asked about why she was talking to Libby at all.  Presumably she will be asked why there are entries for "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" in her notebook, and to explain her testimony that she may have discussed Ms. Plame with other sources.  But the judge can't conceive of cirsumstances in which she will be asked whether she was actually working on a story?

TIME:  The defense asked for

2. All documents, whenever prepared or received, indicating or suggesting that any employee or agent of Time Inc. other than Matthew Cooper was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was employed by the CIA.

Neither TIME nor Matt Cooper have any documents that are responsive to that.

However, we love Matt Cooper - the judge has ordered TIME to turn over the preliminary drafts of his "What I Told The Grand Jury" story becasue they are not consistent:

At oral argument on this motion, counsel for Time asserted that the drafts will merely be cumulative, as the drafts are simply repetitive of the published story. Id. at 104. As already discussed, only after Cooper testifies will documents which impeach his testimony become admissible. However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight
alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. See TI00011. Compare TI00030, MCX0013, MCX0021, with, MCX0003, 0005, 00027.20 This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be
consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment.

I have been saying since Day One that Matt Cooper would be a bad witness against Libby or Rove.  And this may represent a straw in the wind against a Rove indictment, since Cooper would be a key witness there.

Comments

[clarice]

Bringing this over from the other thread:
"Well, York was faster on the draw..The big story is the Cooper drafts of his three stories :"A Question of Trust","What I Told the Grand Jury" and "What Scooter Libby and I Talked About". On p. 26 the Court notes there were alterations "between [several] drafts [of the articles] which will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions."

The Judge viewed documents the media had which were responsive to the subpoenas in camera and he gives us some hints of what they contain even in cases where he said Libby was not entitled to them unless the author of the articles was called to testify and then only after such tesimony for impeachment purposes.
Referring without namiing another Time reporter (obviously Calibresi) he says there are "notes of an interview with Wilson", that these notes might be relevant on the question of Cooper's credibility but only for impeachment.

For impeachment purposes, after Miller testifies Libby may renew his request for some NYT docs , the Judge says and says that in fact the NYT has produced draft articles by JM regarding her conversations with Libby. Unlike Cooper's however, these notes are internally consistent and suggests they will be turned over to Libby as impeachment material if he requests them after she testifies.The Judge adds (pp. 15-16) that if there is any documentation of JM's that "suggest JM was aware of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA before her first conversation with the defendant,it is at least arguably more likely that Miller, not the defendant , interjected that into the conversation"

The judge says the same thing applies to her notes reflecting ot pertaining to a conversation between JM and George Freeman, concerning Valerie Plame..."

Who is George Freeman? The only one I can find relevant to this case is the Times Co.'s assistant general counsel.

It looks to me so far as if Cooper is in trouble. Whatever he said on the stand in internally inconsistent with his drafts respecting his conversation with Libby.

It also looks to me that as soon as Miller concludes her direct testimony, Libby will seek and get some of the documents he wanted and argues she knew about Plame and Wilson before their conversations and it was she who interjected the subject into them.[The NYT agrees that it will not appeal such an order in the middle of trial]"

[cboldt]

Link to "html-ized" Opinion and Order

[John Loki]

So Basically the Judge is evoking the Jenks act saying Miller's note amount to a govt witnesses testimony?

[Dwilkers]

From York, quoting Walton:

"After the Court’s examination of the documents, there is no question that they are relevant...The admissibility of these documents again turns on whether they can be used as impeachment evidence...upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions...Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible...they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment."

Oh really.

The same Cooper that is the crux on which the 'Rove is about to be indicted' idea turns? That Cooper?

Well how about that.

[ed]

Just to be clear here, the judge refers to a "slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles." We don't know what this even is yet and could be of no use to either side.

[PaulV]

Is Judy Miller's reported Grand jury testimony internally consistent. "I cannot remember" does not convict anyone

[PaulV]

ed, it is of no use to Fitz. Of course inpeachment hurts credibility especially in disputes about who sad what

[dorf]

Still want that independent counsel MSM?

[ed]

Yes, PaulV, but there are degrees here. If someone makes a mistake in a minor detail in the first draft of a story, they are way more credible than someone who flubs a major detail in a later draft.

[Syl]

re WORTH KNOWING

I'm forgetting, but do we know why Judy and Libby had the conversations at all? We think we know Libby was to get the word out re the NIE. Did he call Miller? For the (July 8th?) date?

And, my mind feels like mush, but the other dates are in the indictment as well, no? The June one and another July one. One of the July ones Mrs Wilson didn't come up at all.

If Miller called Libby, then the defense can ask her why, no? If Libby called her, then I guess that line of questioning is out.

[Dwilkers]

What Paul said.

Plus that "slight" is belied by "his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions". Whatever difference is there is apparently significant however slight it may be. And remember the article for which these drafts were written was "What I Told The Grand Jury" (unfortunately firewalled - but TM has it here somewhere).

Count 1, 3 and 5 all rely heavily on specific differences between Libby's and Cooper's testimony.

[Patton]

I think the judge is wacko.

the only reason Millers testimony is 'consistent' is because she said she can't remeber and is relying on her notes.

Big DUH...if she is relying on notes and not memory...then we should see all the notes...period.

[lurker]

NRO believes that since Fitz is relying on Cooper's testimony to build a case against Rove and Walton's recent ruling pretty much weakens the case against Rove:

Cooper's Credibility

[clarice]

As to this:"The Judge adds (pp. 15-16) that if there is any documentation of JM's that "suggest JM was aware of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA before her first conversation with the defendant,it is at least arguably more likely that Miller, not the defendant , interjected that into the conversation""--I believe among other things this is a reference to Wilson's name and phone number in her notebook..And perhaps Flame, etc.

After she testifies, Libby will ask for it, he will get it and the NYT agrees to not appeal that.

As to the George Freeman convo docs which may be in the same category--available for impeachment only and only after she testifies--I have no idea what this is about.Clearly, it is not legal advice which would seem protected. Perhaps it relates to his role in telling her , in essence, what to say to fellow staffers about the convos with Libby and what she responded.

[Syl]

ed

We'd all love to see it.

But I doubt Walton thinks it was an error or a typo.

Drafts have edit marks and sometimes notes that make clear what is to be changed.

[ed]

Dwilkers, how is the "slight" belied by "his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions"? An incorrect yet slight detail would still be inconsistent. I just don't understand why the judge would use the adjective if it was meaningless.

[clarice]

HEH! From the NRO article, lurker just posted:
If anything, this ruling makes Karl Rove's indictment even less likely. Unlike Libby, the sole witness against Rove is Cooper. And at this point, Cooper is not exactly looking like the guy you want to build your case around.

[PaulV]

ed ed ed, even slight difference by such an intelligence member of unbiased MSM raises doubts and reasonable doubt

[clarice]

ed,It's getting tiresome to respond to your same remarks on 2 different threads..But as I said before..don't forget the difference between Cooper and Libby's versions of the conversation (per the indictment) is itself slight: "II heard that, too" vs, "I heard that, too, from other reporters". And to make it even worse, Cooper's post gj version is a weasely,Libby said "I heard that, too, or words to that affect"

[clarice]

Add to this the fact that Cooper seems originally to have denied that he called to "talk about welfare reform" and only after reviewing other docs in his office, conceded he had discussed welfare reform with Rove.

Cooper, moreover, has no contemporaneous notes of his conversation but Rove has his email to Hadley with his version.

[Syl]

Cooper: Well, Libby rambles when he talks. But I remember him saying 'I heard that too' or words to that effect. The other stuff I just ignored.

[clarice]

Sum and substance: Miller, a weak witness looks weaker; Cooper looks so weakened that the counts involving him may be dropped and the case against Rove sinks even lower in the horizon.

[Syl]

Defense Team: Did Libby say anything about hearing it from reporters?

Cooper: I don't know. Just something about not having a wife. I thought Libby

[Syl]

Defense Team: Did Libby say anything about hearing it from reporters?

Cooper: I don't know. Just something about not having a wife. I thought Libby was married?

[Syl]

Clarice

Yes! It's about time we get some good news!

[topsecretk9]

--The same Cooper that is the crux on which the 'Rove is about to be indicted' idea turns? That Cooper?

Well how about that.--

Dwilk

exactly what I thought in the other thread

[clarice]

Also, if Cooper takes the stand, the Judge indicates the notes of another Time reporter (probably Calabresi) might be relevant to his impeachment--they are of an interview with Wilson (op. p. 25). Would they be impeachable if they weren't made contemporaneously or before the Cooper/Libby convo? I don't think so.

[Syl]

Clarice

Aha!

And to make it even worse, Cooper's post gj version is a weasely,Libby said "I heard that, too, or words to that affect"

Do you think that could be it? Cooper added 'words to that effect' into the final version!

Slight but makes a HUGE difference.

[topsecretk9]

The irony of of course is that the hated Miller appears to be less troublesome than the lefts exalted hero Cooper.

[clarice]

I suggest Fitz is hearing all this for the very first time.

[clarice]

Piercing the veil of legalese, it appears there is evidence that Miller and Cooper knew before speaking to Libby about Plame, and they have documents that Libby will get to develop that, evidence that as the Judge indicates makes it reasonably likely that they raised the issue with Libby--and less likely that Libby was actively seeking to out Plame to get revenge on Munchausen.

[jwest]

Clarice,

Any idea how Walton could deny NBC (item 5) concerning documents relating to Andrea Mitchell’s famous “everyone knew” remark?

It sure seems that any degree of latitude that Walton has in decisions has leaned away from Libby.

[Kate]

My sense is that things have gotten better for Rove, not worse. He been making more high profile appearances, he's been given the immigation account, he was sent to brief Congress twice, and Wednesday there was an AP photograph of Bush and Rove alone, walking to the helicopter.

While, Fitzgerald may not be ready to officially clear Rove, he may have received some encourgaing news.

My sense in several months Fitz will close his investigation and issue any additional indictments then. I don't expect there will be any.

[Syl]

Well, Miller's 'maybe' and 'perhaps' and 'I don't recall' probably won't do much harm.

Cooper not credible.

It all hangs on Russert and his confusion with June for July. Perhaps Russert knew in June and forgot he knew in July. Wow, if I'd only known that! LOL He did, poor guy.

[lurker]

"Sum and substance: Miller, a weak witness looks weaker; Cooper looks so weakened that the counts involving him may be dropped and the case against Rove sinks even lower in the horizon."

If the case gets dropped, then what will Fitz do? Will this investigation come to cloture? According to Comey's memo, Fitz doesn't have the authority to remain as SP once this investigation reaches cloture, right? Not unless Fitz plans on going after somebody else.

"I suggest Fitz is hearing all this for the very first time."

Yeah, just like Al Gore did when the US Supreme Court release its decision on the 2000 vote recount. :)

Ya think this PLUS the ABC situation PLUS the declining advertisement base (PLUS the Dan Rather fake but accurate story) will finally force the MSM to turn around and beging reporting unbiased stories? NOT!

[clarice]

The Rule that they are dealing with has different consequences depending on the likelihood that someone will be a witness. Miller and Cooper's stuff is fair game because they are certain to be witnesses, but it is not yet clear that Mitchell will be. Further, the Court says (p. 23) Her notes form no basis for Libby to challenge Russert's recollection or credibility".

Now, that isn't saying Libby won't call her, or if he does, the Court will not reconsider the ruling.

[lurker]

So Walton still has NOT ruled on the CIA Referral letter?

[Kate]

Of course, I've been wanting to make the Rove not indicted predictions for weeks but was too much of a coward. Now that I have, will there be a surprise Friday before Memorial Day, no one in town, Fitz' press conference empty, indictment of Rove????

[JohnH]

In addition, the judge is ruling on relevance based only on the contents of these documents. If the defense has witnesses that add other elements, the documents might have increased relevance after that testimony.

[clarice]

Walton has not ruled on the referral letter.

Oh , Kate, announce he was cleared and get a headline. If you're wrong we have the precedent of "just getting out ahead of the story."

Didja notice, possums, post the TruthOut bust and the NSA investigation's reported progress, Munchausen and the VIPers have been relatively quiet?

[clarice]

Good point, JohnH.

[ghostcat]

Speaking of spouses, to whom is our man Cooper married and what has she done in her career?

[Kate]

clarice-right!! Why should Jason have all the fun!

[Kate]

Yes, I can tell the VIPs have been quiet. Poor Shuster has to do some original reporting and looks lost. He gets some prosecutors on who are anti-Rove and they have a "debate".

Gone are the fun days of just reporting the latest VIPS hysteria.

[clarice]

I'm sniffing ratline rollups everywhere..And diving media reputations.
What are the geniuses at ABC upt to today, still sensationalizing months old stories in such a creative way they set themselves up for defamation suits?

[owl]

After reading all that, I kept wondering how Miller even got into this mess. 85 days in jail and never wrote any of it before 7/14.

These three news reporters did not simply report on alleged criminal activity, but rather they were personally involved in the conversations with the defendant that form the predicate for several charges in the indictment. Their testimony is critical to the government's case

Is that almost the same as what we keep shouting that the witnesses promoted their script?

[Kate]

Someone refresh my memory. The call by Time's Calipresi (sp?) to Wilson before and after the Cooper call. Was that the Cooper call to Rove or Libby. Because if it was to Rove it smells of a setup, perhaps another reason for no indictment. It looks like they had their story, "War on Wilson"; had their hero, Wilson; had their bad guys, the White House; but now they actually had to get some pesky supporting facts.

[clarice]

IIRC the Calibresi calls were before and after Cooper called Libby. I do not recall when Cooper called Rove.

[Pete]

The more relevant question about Cooper is - was the final draft consistent with the GJ testimony? Minor discrepancies among the drafts could be easy to explain.

[clarice]

Even if one draft is consistent with what he told the gj, one draft is inconsistent and can be used to impeach him.

Draft 1:A
Draft 2:Not A
GJ testimony: If either A or NOT A it is inconsistent with one version he gave of his testimony.

[vnjagvet]

My reaction to this order is that it telegraphs to Fitzgerald and the defense Judge Walton's distinct impression that the Cooper Counts are in trouble. He also is not discounting that the Miller and Russert counts may be leaking oil after those two worthy witnesses take the stand.

[clarice]

Kate, Cooper called Rove on July 11.

[clarice]

Cooper called Libby on July 12. So it is possible Calibresi spoke to Wilson before Cooper called Rove and after he called Libby.

[clarice]

vnjagvet:Me, too..And we still haven't gotten to the referral letter, Fitz' esp argument about the Cheney annotations and the introductions into evidence of the news articles..

[ed]

pete, it's not even worth it.

[Kate]

Clairice - thanks. The Calibresi calls to Wilson came before and after the calls to Libby.

[clarice]

On that same day, Kate?

[owl]

Somebody remind me how Miller got into this..

[Kate]

clarice-the call to Libby was July 12. I had forgotten how close the calls were from Cooper to Rove: July 11; from Cooper to Libby; July 12.

[Syl]

owl

Somebody remind me how Miller got into this..

Phone logs or Libby's notes.

[cathyf]

Well I find the ruling that Miller's testimony is consistent with all the drafts of her articles about her testimony to be an interesting fact. Because Fitzgerald's summation of her testimony in the indictment is not consistent with her public statements. If Miller tells the same story everywhere, then it must be the indictment which is the false statement.

I asked this before -- are false statements by the prosecutor in an indictment considered perjury?

cathy :-)

[Syl]

Call to Wilson post Rove: We got Rove to spill the beans! Tomorrow we'll get somebody to confirm, probably Libby, and we'll be set to 'out your wife' and get them in trouble!

Call to Wilson post Libby: Done! We got our confirmation! We should have the article out on Monday!

(Meanwhile Novak's article is already filed)

[clarice]

Well, Russert's public statements are all about a conversation in JUNE and the indictment is about a conversation in JULY.

[owl]

Yep clarice.....was that just lawyer speak on pg 13 of Libby filing?

[topsecretk9]

---I asked this before -- are false statements by the prosecutor in an indictment considered perjury?

cathy :-)--

HEH

[clarice]

JW: Get Matt to tell them he heard Wilson's wife works at the CIA and she's the one who sent him to Niger.See if they bite.
GC: Why Matt?
JW:If you call they'll be on their guard. He's a newbie. Rove is interested in getting coverage on welfare reform, use that to get in the door with him. Act fast, Harlwo just called and told me he told Novak. Grossman says Armitage told him, too. If you want to be first, you have to act fast.

[clarice]

owl, I do not have the reference handy, would you mind telling me what you refer to?

[owl]

Have to go find it ...when I first saw Libby asking for June or July from Russert

[danking70]

vnjagvet, leaking oil?

Man, I passed a transmission and 2 break pads about 7 miles back....

[owl]

filing 5/17/06

"All documents reflecting or referring to any other telephone conversation between Tim Russert and I Lewis Libby during June or July 2003." (I took this from my note)

It was my first time to notice the June and July.....and then Russert said June.

[topsecretk9]

--The call by Time's Calipresi (sp?) to Wilson before and after the Cooper call.---

I think this is all in Libby REPLY to the motions to Quash...and I'm pretty sure it went

Calbressi(or whatever his name is) talked to Wilson before , THEN Cooper called Libby (and then Libby returned the call) THEN Calbressi called Wilson after- again

[tin]

The inconsistency in Cooper's versions might be used to impeach, but that doesn't mean it reflects well on Libby or Rove.

For instance, we know that the print version of Cooper's first artical didn't mention Wilson's wife, but that it was added into the online version after Novak's column ran. Perhaps there is a draft where that was edited out prior to print, suggesting Cooper already knew before Novak's column.

In this case, only the first print version would be inconsistent with his testimony.

[Kate]

I think this article refers to the one Cooper wrote in July 2005 re his testimony to the Grand Jury. I'll have to confirm. Time Magazine has put the article behind it's premium wall.

[clarice]

owl--it might just have been legalese to cover the entire period of Fitz' scrutiny.

ts-I know that, but dates aren't given and the 2 conversations were only 1 day apart. I first assumed these calls were all on the 12th and they may be.But before calling Libby could be vague enough to cover before calling Rove, too.
Afraid not, tin, the Judge indicates that there are different,inconsistent, drafts. As I recall the named articles two seem to have been written after the calls to Rove and Libby, indeed after Cooper's grand jury appearance.

One, A Question of Trust, was published on July 13, 2003 ,and Cooper is listed (along with Calabresi and others)as having contributed to it. I think the Judge is saying that Cooper had inconsistent drafts of his conversation with Libby and one is inconsistent with what he told the gj.

[Sue]

If the documents can be used to impeach a witness, then I suspect they will reflect poorly on Cooper and Cooper alone.

[clarice]

If the inconsistencies are in regard to the July 13, 2003 article, it is hard to imagine that Fitz didn't subpoena those drafts, or if he had, that he missed the inconsistency.
If the inconsistencies are in the post gj accounts, I have no reason to think Fitz subpoenaed them.

[Jane]

---I asked this before -- are false statements by the prosecutor in an indictment considered perjury?

No. The indictment is full of "allegations" and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove them.

Think of a guy wrongfully prosecuted for murder.

[Jane]

---I asked this before -- are false statements by the prosecutor in an indictment considered perjury?

No. The indictment is full of "allegations" and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove them.

Think of a guy wrongfully prosecuted for murder.

[clarice]

Still, Jane I think it would be unethical for a prosecutor to knowingly make charges in an indictment which are untrue.Don't you?

[Kate]

I think the article is Cooper's "What I Told the Grand Jury" written in July 2005, after his GJ appearance, of course. I did some search and the articles on this are confusing.

Reuters had the funniest headline though:

Judge rejects Libby request for Miller notes.

Reuter and AP which is worse, so hard to choose.

[tin]

Sorry, I realize now it was simply the version around the gj testimony. But I seem to recall Cooper's article was actually pretty sparse on details about what Libby or Rove actually told him. What if the drafts have more detail, but that it doesn't reflect well on Libby? Would they still use it in an attempt to impeach?

[owl]

Matthew's interview to Smerconish 11/01/05

and then all of a sudden we’re at war over Iraq because a lot of Americans in the middle politically say ‘I don’t know how we’re getting into that mess or why we’re getting in it, but I guess we have to protect ourselves against a mushroom cloud’, that is Condi’s phrase.
So having pulled this masterful move of moving the undecided middle into the war, they then became very sensitive to the charge by Joseph Wilson that they had done the very thing, pushed the nuclear button and then covered up any threat to that nuclear button, and Wilson was that threat, and then, going volcanic against anybody including me, who dared to say ‘Wait a minute, there is a pattern here of how we got into the war, and how they promoted the nuclear case and how they protected the nuclear case against Wilson’.

They didn’t like me doing that, I know that a number of Administration officials were screaming at my network at all levels about me raising this issue, the very points I’ve just made. They don’t like hearing it, Libby is in trouble now because he doesn’t like hearing it, the Vice President is very much a part of this, and the answer to your question is that you are on the right trail, Michael.”

So who else was screaming....

[Kate]

York seems to agree with Clarice that the Cooper charges are growing weaker and weaker.

[clarice]

Interesting..

[Javani]

""York seems to agree with Clarice that the Cooper charges are growing weaker and weaker.""

Fitz' reliance on the 1.5 year old memories of Cooper was blown out of the water when Cooper himself wrote his article about the grand jury.

Rove has contemporaneous documentary evidence Cooper talked about welfare reform.
Cooper testified that there was no discussion on welfare at all. Then he writes a story confirming his testimony but mentioning he indeed was working on a welfare story that same week.

So Rove is a mind reader?

[ghostcat]

Clarice -

Most of us hereabouts know that Cooper's wife is a long-time operative for the Democrats, with close ties to the Clintons. Is that fact likely to be admissable in this case?

[clarice]

Liby maight well be able to bring that out in cross, but as to Matt, there seems to be a lot of impeachment material already available which is far more to the point:the inconsistent drafts, the Calibresi/Wilson backstory/the variance between his gj account of the conversation and his article about it.

York notes that Cooper is the sole witness for 3 out of 5 of the Libby indictment counts, noting how thinly sourced the indictment is.

[vnjagvet]

Those anti Libby folks solely relying on AP and Reuters' feeds for their information on this story will be sadly disappointed when this case falls like a stone.

There is a stark contrast between the impression of the prosecution's case one got from watching Fitz's ballyhooed press briefing and the case now unravelling before Judge Walton.

The defense is methodically cutting off all paths the prosecution might have had to shoring up the credibility of its only witnesses to the conversations at issue.

Consider this. Every document that Judge Walton does not permit the defense to see is one less that is available to enhance the 3 reporters' credibility at trial.

Looks like there is not going to be much more than the oral testimony of the evasive Russert, the forgetful Miller and the wounded Cooper to prove the alleged perjury.

[maryrose]

OT
I have an opportunity to attend a presentation by Tim Russert in Cleveland at the Renaissance Hotel downtown. I don't know if there will be a Q and A , but if there is and I get the opportunity I might be able to pose a question. Can someone assist me in formulating a concise question re; His testimony and Andrea Mitchell's knowledge of Plame.Thanks in advance. The event is Tuesday May 30th.

[Sue]

I wonder if Fitzgerald was waiting to see how Walton ruled on Cooper, and the other reporters for that matter, before he decided whether or not to indict Rove?

[maryrose]

OT
I have an opportunity to attend a presentation by Tim Russert in Cleveland at the Renaissance Hotel downtown. I don't know if there will be a Q and A , but if there is and I get the opportunity I might be able to pose a question. Can someone assist me in formulating a concise question re; His testimony and Andrea Mitchell's knowledge of Plame.Thanks in advance. The event is Tuesday May 30th.

[maryrose]

OT
I have an opportunity to attend a presentation by Tim Russert in Cleveland at the Renaissance Hotel downtown. I don't know if there will be a Q and A , but if there is and I get the opportunity I might be able to pose a question. Can someone assist me in formulating a concise question re; His testimony and Andrea Mitchell's knowledge of Plame.Thanks in advance. The event is Tuesday May 30th.

[clarice]

There's a whole thread on that from yesterday..Take your pick and good luck, maryrose.

[cathyf]

---I asked this before -- are false statements by the prosecutor in an indictment considered perjury?

No. The indictment is full of "allegations" and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove them.

Think of a guy wrongfully prosecuted for murder.

I was thinking more along the lines of Fitzgerald asking why Miller's notes say "Valerie Flame" and Miller testifies under oath, gee, heck if I know, your guess is as good as mine. And Fitzgerald then writes in the indictment:

14. On or about June 23, 2003, ..., LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

That's more like a guy prosecuted for murder when there is no evidence that the "victim" is even dead.

(Speaking of "weasel words" -- so do you think Fitzgerald's story could be, "hey, she said my guess was as good as hers, and that is my guess after all!")

cathy :-)

[owl]

oooohh maryrose...too many!!

[maryrose]

sorry about the 3 posts and Sue I think your assumption about Fitz and Rove indictment is spot on.

[Dave in W-S]

Just a little more on Matt Cooper's frau.

The Fix, washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog says:

Clinton's main political consultants -- pollster Mark Penn and media consultant Mandy Grunwald -- do not appear on HILLPAC's payroll; since she is running for reelection this fall they are paid out of her principal Senate campaign committee -- Friends of Hillary.

What was she doing circa 2003, you ask? Well, per New Republic, via CBS, via Jim Moore,

And some of the best Clinton talent is heavily invested in non-Dean campaigns, especially Joe Lieberman's (Mandy Grunwald...

[vnjagvet]

The AP and Reuters' readers wishing for a Libby conviction will have a surprise coming, says I.

They think the prosecution is winning. What they are not being told is what is becoming a stark contrast between case presented by the jaunty confident prosecutor they last saw in the ballyhooed press conference announcing the Libby indictment and the case rapidly unravelling before Judge Walton.

Consider this:

Every document Judge Walton rules inadmissible under Rule 17 is no longer available to the prosecution to shore up its three reporter witnesses. Fitz is thus left with the oral testimony of the evasive Russert, the forgetful Miller and the damaged Cooper to prove its entire case.

It is now becoming chrystal clear that this case is exactly what many of us said the day after the indictment came out: a classic "he said she said" case. No more, no less.

[vnjagvet]

Another sorry duplication. I thought my first post on the subject didn't register.

Dagnabit.

[Dave in W-S]

Going back even further on Grunwald, she has been an active Clinton (pick one) operative since at least 1992.

Don't know what that means, except that it definitely puts Cooper in a non-neutral light vis-a-vis the Bush administration.