Powered by TypePad

« WARRANTS: Not Good Enough For Us, Too Good For You. | Main | Bring It On »

May 26, 2006

Comments

Javani

Maryrose:

Keep it simple.

"At the time you spoke with Mr. Libby did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife was connected to the CIA?"

clarice

"At the time you spoke with Mr. Libby IN JULY 2003,did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife was connected to the CIA?"

ghostcat

RE: Mandy

I only raise her work as a possible indicator of Cooper's motives.

Ralph

"At the time you spoke with Mr. Libby in July 2003, had you heard rumors that Ambassador Wilson's wife was connected to the CIA?"

clarice

I understand, but it is tangential and the other stuff is straight on. If you had nothing else you'd use it, but they don't need it, I think.
The trick in cross examination is to aim for the nuts, not the ankles.

Dave in W-S

Clarice,

The response I made to you on the Tiananmen thread still stands. ;-)

Kate

I always thought Cooper had a real motivation to lie. He was the new White House correspondent and he had this big story "War on Wilson" about evil White House guys going after Wilson. It now turns out that the sourcing for his story was pretty thin. They weren't calling him with the dirt, in fact, he was calling them.

That's why perjury is so difficult. Maybe Cooper can call Dan Rather and Brian Ross as character witnesses if Libby's team dares to try to put the media on trial.

ghostcat

ouch!

Sue

I have a personal example of not remembering exactly what you said. I was mad at someone yesterday and said something to my husband (not the person I was mad at, btw). I know what I was mad about. But for the life of me, I can't remember exactly what I said. Not even how I started the sentence. And I just said it yesterday.

skinnydog

maryrose make sure you don't say "did you know . . . " Use a formulation like the one TM has set out in a couple of recent threads. You might want to reference either June or July but make sure to include July. Good luck in gettin a question in.

Sue

I would just ask him why he was the only reporter in Washington that didn't know. ::grin::

owl

Yep Sue....considering that is all they talked about in his kingdom.

clarice

Where is that scamp, ts? She has a scoop that will drive the left over the cliff..TS!!!!!!!!!!

Sue

Owl,

And especially when Libby called him to complain about the coverage of the Wilson story. And especially when he admits he talks to his sources at State every day to find out what is going on. If his sources didn't at least give him a heads up, he needs better sources.

Sue

Clarice,

Give us a clue...a tidbit...a flavor...what is her scoop?

cathyf

We carpool with one of my son's classmates. Tuesday morning her mom called and said that she needed a ride Wednesday and Thursday but not Tuesday or Friday. So this morning I drove up to pick her up, and she's not there. At which point my kids inform me that I'm a dirtball because I forgot to pick her up yesterday.

I hope no prosecutors come after me for perjury -- after all, I was explicitly told the schedule just 48 hours before, and I clearly knew it the right way around on Tuesday and Wednesday...

cathy :-)

Jane

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.

Sounds like the Duke Rape case to me (altho I have no interest in rehashing that here)

I've never been a prosecutor, but prosecutors pick sides and craft their indictments accordingly. If they have a good faith basis, then they should be protected. Absent rather extraordinary evidence to the contrary, it's pretty hard to prove a lack of good faith basis.

Same with the "knowing' issue Clarice raised. If Fitzgerald knowingly alleged a lie, I'm sure that would put Fitzgerald in some jeopardy. But I can't imagine how you could prove that.

And even if you did, I'd be shocked if he was prosecuted. Dismissed yeah, prosecuted not.

(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!")

Fitzy doesn't have a story. I can see how he got to this place. The more interesting part is how he is going to get out of it.

Kate

I never thought Fitz indicted Libby to get Libby to flip on Cheney or anything like that. I think if he had indicted Rove and Libby he would have closed his investigation and then Woodward would have come forward and a bigger mess than today.

I think he felt he needed to indict senior White House aides to show the seriousness and value of his long and expensive investigation.

But what I don't get, is why didn't Fitz offer Libby a more attractive plea deal. If there were a deal with a hefty fine, probabtion, Libby might have accepted and certainly would have been sufficiently punished for this triffling nonsense.

Don't understand.

clarice

TS is too shy--but the latest lefty loonbot story is that Rove's indictment was blocked by McNulty and that is to be found in a May 26 pleading at the Courthouse called Sealed v. Sealed..Actually there is a sealed v. sealed it appears however to be a Libby case filing involving Time related to the subpoena request, and it is filed in that case. There is no Sealed v Sealed in the Rove case and once again they are stringing along their dupes:


Name Type Added Terminated
I. LEWIS LIBBY Defendant 03/28/2006
TIME INCORPORATED Movant 03/28/2006

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/26/2006 17:56:20
PACER Login: pe1230 Client Code:

Description: Filer List Search Criteria: 1:06-mc-00128-RBW
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
1:06-mc-00128-RBW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. LIBBY
Reggie B. Walton, presiding
Date filed: 03/28/2006 Date of last filing: 05/26/2006


Maybe ts can reproduce the screen capture. I can't.


Rick Ballard

"The more interesting part is how he is going to get out of it."

I'm leaning toward a couple of counts being bounced by Judge Walton followed by Fitz dropping the others based on the dismissals. Just a WAG but I agree with Vnjagvet that Walton is sending Fitz a rather unsubtle message.

Dave in W-S


Is this how you do it?

Kate

Can't believe they are still on that Rove indicted nonsense. If Fitz wanted to indict Rove why didn't he just do it. The fact that he invited him back for the 5th time indicates to me that he is leaning towards not indicting especially since the witnesses for the prosecution are, er, weak. Was the perjury trap not good enough the first 4 times.

Sue

Dave in W-S

Beat me to it.

Jane

But what I don't get, is why didn't Fitz offer Libby a more attractive plea deal.

What? And lose the spotlight? I'm pretty sure Fitzy loves the spotlight. And I'm not convinced that Fitzy thinks he is in as much trouble as we think he is. Although if the speculation here is correct, he will get there eventially.

I've been hearing about the whole secret indictment for about 10 days now. They don't call em "moonbats" for nothing.

Rick Ballard

Dave,

That is how you do it. I usually put three in - depending on who made the initial error.

Sara (The Squiggler)

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!

The MSM has the attention span of a 12 year old with ADHD. (I had one so I speak from experience.) The thing is now it is obvious that we have won the war in Iraq, Iraq is now an ally and the new government is not only pro-American but wants us to hang around as back up for at least another year and a half. The Iraqi war is now reduced to a police action against thugs, gangsters, and al-Queda last gaspers. And, it has become crystal clear that having our military and bases in Iraq is a definite plus in dealing with Iran, something even the idiot MSMers can't ignore. Will the MSM admit they have been wrong all along, nah! They will move on to the next story that they can gin up into another scandal ... first it was Katrina, and now they are looking very foolish on that one (see The Underside of Katrina media coverage and the immigration story and now they have Jefferson and Hastert. Jefferson has all but been ignored because he is a dem. up until this week. The Wilson War is old news, the Libby case is old news and has become boring news as well, there is nothing new on getting Rove and it looks like that is one more scandal du jour that has gone down in flames. The stories won't become less biased, they will just become different stories with different players.

Old Dad

But Rove was indicted, you silly fools, so far in front of the news cycle as to render Nostradamus impotent.

And the pure brilliance of Sealed v. Sealed. If one takes only the first letter of the second sentence of every other paragraph of the minutes of the meetings of the Priory of Sion from April 1, 2002 through present, excluding the inconvenient meetings of February-July 2005, one gets......and I kid you not.....

"Karl is dead."

Bwaaahhhaaahhhhaaaa!!

Are you "clear"?

kate

I would not underestimate the power of the media. Very few people know how bad the media coverage of Katrina was. In fact, most people think they were wonderful. How do we know that, because the media tells us so.

I think the media is biased, sloppy and immature. Their coverage of most stories is just bad.

But let's take Katrina...most people view it as a Bush failure and Fed failure led by FEMA.

As for Plame, most people still think Rove/Libby outed a spy to retaliate against a noble whistleblower.

And the Bush Administration needs to be very careaful...the media thinks the Marine story can be used to drive Bush's approval down another 10 points before the election.

If Bush plays this right, he should do fine. He knows their playbook now.

owl

Very few people know how bad the media coverage of Katrina was.

Too true. FOX received an email from me that said if they didn't get Shep Smith off my screen pronto, I pull their plug.

I started beating a drum that said why didn't that lazy hysterical media take themselves 50 miles up the road to the seat of power and ask why Blanco wouldn't send Baton Rouges' zazillion school buses (psst..a little water too). After all....it was a whole hour away.

PeterUK

A popular misconception is that journalists investigate until they get the truth,in fact they dig until they get a story which they can print or televise.
That is what they are paid to do.

Sue

I'm still confused on whether Fitzgerald has seen the drafts that Cooper has been ordered to turn over to Libby.

And Clarice, can Libby's lawyers, if Wilson is called to testify, ask him if he spoke with Judy Miller before the June 23rd meeting with Libby?

Sara (The Squiggler)

Kate, most people don't have a clue who Libby or Rove are. Sheesh, the other night there was a story where the majority of 18-26 year old couldn't identify a picture of Dick Cheney and a significant number of them couldn't name the name of the VP. They care who is the American Idol, maybe who makes it to the Super Bowl or the World Series, and how much it costs them to fill up their gas tanks. Even down here on the Southern Border of Calif. most people don't understand why the illegal alien story got ginned up so big at this time. Nothing has changed here in years, yet suddenly it is a national crisis. (Not that it shouldn't be) but we shake our heads and wonder, why now?

PeterUK

BTW Where are we on the Indictometer?

Sara (The Squiggler)

Harry Reid choking as Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh as judge for the appeals court.

Sue

Sara,

I just saw that. And laughed. ::grin::

Sue

I must laugh. Someone at Truthout is using Capitol Hill Blue as a source to show Truthout they are wrong. ::grin::

Rick Ballard

"Where are we on the Indictometer?"

What I hear is that the FBI did find Hoffa's body - he was stuffed in a barrel that was planted under the footings of an overpass. Apparently he was still alive in the barrel when buried and had scratched 'it was Rove' on the side. Chief Justice Roberts has issued a secret indictment and Rove will be picked up momentarily. It's a little unusual for the Chief Justice to issue an indictment but Robert's has explained his rationale for doing so in a sealed opinion that will be available for inspection in sixty years.

They've finally nailed him this time.

topsecretk9

Super Busy...but here are the screen shots on case numbers

Jason's sealed vs. sealed


Time Inc.

clarice

HEH!!

Again, Sue one would think Fitz had subpoenaed those records, but given all the other errors in this investigation and prosecution, I wouldn't bet on it.


As for Wilson ,if the defense calls him, I expect Libby would get to ask him about any convos he had with any of the three government wirnesses against Libby.

clarice

Which statue will be erected first at the National Press Club--St Patrick's or Ambassador Munchausen's.

maryrose

Thank you owl;
Many times I have thought the same thing .
I especially like the story about Nagin commandeering a bus for out of state tourists and pushing them to the head of a line of people either at the Superdome or the Convention Center. There is a good article about the magnificent work of the US Coast Guard at RCP I believe.

maryrose

I enjoyed the Bush/Blair press conference last night. We had an interesting discussion about it in the faculty room today.Sorry for the OT.

kate

The spin begins. According to the ever ojbective, AP, a source familiar with Cooper's drafts call the differences as trivial. Of course the source is anonymous, because he/she does not want to get in trouble with the judge.

PeterUK

So a sealed interment for Hoffa, a sealed indictment for Rove and a sealed fate for the Indictathon?

Jane

Well out of complete and utter boredom I'm watching Hardball. Nora O'Donnell is convinced that the key to this matter is the script Cheney wrote: "We need to get the truth out". Clearly she thinks that has to do with Wilson's wife and not the lies about Niger. And as is the way on Hardball, everyone is nodding in agreement.

She also says her sources "close to the VP" say he "expects to testify"

kate

Did Nora really say that. She is so dumb. I doubt she has any sources close to the VP who speak to her other than to float nonsens and laugh.

Rick Ballard

"Clearly she thinks that has to do with Wilson's wife and not the lies about Niger."

Wow. Is 'Epoxied to Stupid' the step after 'Stuck on Stupid'?

Javani

"But let's take Katrina...most people view it as a Bush failure and Fed failure led by FEMA."

I believe you imply state and local responsibilities and you have a good point but there was Brownie on TV before the cane over and over talking about all the wonderful things FEMA was going to do. People got the impression FEMA was in charge. Then Bush accepted "full responsibility." LOL, I blame Bush for a lot, but he takes responsibility for something I don't blame him for.

"According to the ever ojbective, AP, a source familiar with Cooper's drafts call the differences as trivial."

Who could that source be other than Time people or the prosecution? I bet it is trivial...to most eyes. But not who are aware of the minutiae of this case. It sure caught Judge Walton's attention didn't it? No waivering in his words.

kate

No, it's Cooper's crowd. The media is circling the wagon. I do with Bush would take a swipe at Fitzgerald, he's been getting a free ride. Nothing too harsh, just instead of no comment, raise an eyebrow and ask, isn't that the case about the reporters and who forgot what. Just trivilaize the whole thing. Bush needs to start fighting back. The media can't treat him any worse.

clarice

When Nora started she couldn't even pronounce basic English words of more than two syllables. She is good looking though..and that seems to be the test..good looking and bone stupid.(Goes for men on tv, too.)

Lurker

"As for Wilson ,if the defense calls him, I expect Libby would get to ask him about any convos he had with any of the three government wirnesses against Libby."

If the Libby Team calls Wilson to ask him about these convos, would the Team Libby have the evidence in case Wilson says something contradictory to the evidence?

Hhhmmm, I wonder.

clarice

It;s time to rev up the ridiculometer..it's the one thing that drives these poseurs nuts. From now on St. Patrick and Ambassador Munchausen and --what should be call Dame Plame?

sad

Correct reporting by Cooper is very important to the judge as Fitz was being supervised via info in the public domain. Cooper's inaccuracies may have caused Fitz to proceed wrongly.

Lurker

The Judge Walton implication of the Cooper documents, both draft and final, being contradictory calling for potential impeachment, doesn't mean that the differences had to be trivial.

kate

Shy spy.

Lurker

Dumb Blonde spy?

Sara (The Squiggler)

The report on Fox was entirely flipped and was touting that Libby scored with this filing.

sad

000

Barney Frank

clarice,

"When Nora started she couldn't even pronounce basic English words of more than two syllables.'

You saw that too, eh?
I used to cringe in embarrassment for her when she started; you could see those big doe eyes straining to read the teleprompter, her lips sounding all those big hard words out.

PeterUK

Clarice,
How about Doesn't Mata Hari?

Jane

Wow. Is 'Epoxied to Stupid' the step after 'Stuck on Stupid'?

Well even Tucker Carlson was nodding in agreement. And Matthews is definately in.

Goes to prove there is a completely different universe out there, one which if Libby is going to win, the lawyers can't ignore.

topsecretk9

The Nordstroms Spy

Carol Herman

I love this blog. And, I love following this story, HERE. Clarice Feldman's work, that I discovered on American Thinker are just a joy to read, too.

And, I'm a non-lawyer. I'd like to guess that Fitzgerald LOVED the limelight, when he came out for his presser. But he's not a stupid man. To the contrary, a poor kid that got into a great law school on his GRADES. And, he wanted to be Eliot Ness. At least. Where is he now?

He's unaware that he's got a terrible case? And, as someone above, here, put it "George Bush fully understands the MSM playbook, now."

Well doesn't Fitzy? With names attached to him like "Magoo?"

And, Judge Walton? Given that he's not stupid, can he want the tail end of Judge Ito's reputation? He seems to have undercut Fitzgerald's case but good! Letting stand, as far as my reading here, takes me, that it's gonna be a "he said, she said" presentation; with Fitzgerald looking like the liar. At the end of the day. Big money's gone into this thing. But Watergate? Nope. Don't think so.

Just the antique media against the new Internet, where real news analysis breaks in the comments section. AND, I'M WILLING TO READ EACH AND EVERY ONE!

Fitzgerald thinks he can pull this out, now? Or like someone said, here, what's interesting is HOW IS HE GONNA GET OUT OF IT, NOW? Especially if the judge is giving signals that the case proceeds. BUT THE PROSECUTOR'S WITNESSES won't be bearing up as truth tellers.

Seems to me Fitzgerald "could" turn around and indict WILSON. Or anyone else whose been part of a ploy to attack the White House through his services. But that's a long shot.

Still, how does Fitzgerald get out of this mess? An outsider whose gonna out-gun Theodore Wells on his own home turf?

Blacks may be stupid? That may be an on-going assumption in the White world. BUT WHAT IF CIRCUMSTANCES COME AND SLAP IT DOWN?

Hastert's just come to bat for his HOUSE's prerogatives. I've got no idea if the prosecutor in Jefferson's case got a legal angle for bypassing 200 years of "custom" for instance ... but something's not KOSHER.

ABC, running with Dennis Miller? Kosher? Because Hastert was put in the cross hairs?

How about a Justice that was really blind. Where there are enough Blacks with common sense, not just tossing Libby in jail. Perhaps, tossing him out of jeopardy's way?

Too many of the players were played for "stupid." Fitz, however, would have to be really, really stupid, not to see the set up. Not to understand he rode in on the wrong horse. Aren't lawyers trained in ETHICS? Wouldn't it behoove Fitzgerald to brush up on some of this stuff, now?

I'm going with the guess that the judge, ahead, dismisses some of the charges against Libby. And, then Fitzgerald's left to walk away from the rest? Possible for the deep-pocketed MSM to then go for broke? Wouldn't civil penalties be asked for? Wouldn't Libby then be on a roll? (Isn't Martha also gambling with the SEC now, fighting their charges?) Outcomes ahead? More than one road map for sale?

Rick Ballard

I like 0036D but Agent Smart works too.

PeterUK

Carol,
They are all public figures who hope to still be around when Bush has gone,all through this they have had one eye on the Law,one on the MSM and the one in the back of their heads on politics.
A worst case scenario,they want to survive and thrive under a Democratic administration.

PeterUK

Blameless Plame works also ,or shameless

Lurker

OT: Hayden confirmed. Too bad Specter voted against Hayden, which means that he still does not believe the legality of the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

maryrose

Rick:
Isn't Val more Like Agent99 from " Get Smart" fame only blonde instead of brunette.

PeterUK

Jane Blonde?

clarice

Thanks, Carol!

None of those nics for Val quite ring my bell, though..Don't forget to add the VIPers to the case of characters.

What about The Wasp?

owl

Agent Blameless

Rick Ballard

Why not VIPer Val then?

PeterUK

Agent Orange?

clarice

VIPER VAL--I like that..it has a kind of Soylent touch to it..

clarice

Agent Blaze? (for FLAME).

PeterUK

InVALid.

Rick Ballard

Or Viper's Val

clarice

VIPers Val or CIPers Pal.

PeterUK

Since none of this would have happened if Val had done her job,I quite like Calamity Plame.

BRW Their was an IED,see Massacre....and a handy Iraq trainee journalist to video the event to send to Time.

owl

Viper Val ....tells the story

Carol Herman

Ambassador Munchausen's wife.

She who must not be named.

So much ado about nothing.

Double-O Eye Candy.

How come so few in DC said they knew her? She sure looks like the kind of dame a lot of men would know, even if she was turned upside down. Especially upside down.

Val, is that you under the covers?

Val Pal. Around this nonsense, Fitzgerald built his case. Would you believe it, if you heard it for the first time, during it's dry run?

Seems Judge Walton had some fun today.

What's the odds the trial in January 007, evaporates?

Val-keries. Where the fat lady sings, I suppose?

The day you put a title on your book, Clarice, I'm calling Amazon and ordering my copy!

Sara (The Squiggler)

OT - As many of you may have figured out by now, I have a very strong interest in supporting our troops and honoring those who serve. I have posted a tribute in honor of Memorial Day and started a link list of other sites that are doing the same. I would invite you all to take a look and visit some of the sites. If you intend to put up your own tribute and it isn't already listed, please let me know and I'll add your link.

In Memory of our Honored Dead - a Memorial Day Tribute

Lurker

I bookmarked your site, squiggler. I notice that you have links to various sites about the Holocaust. I just want to let you know that Houston has its museum about the Holocaust.

Sara (The Squiggler)

Thanks Lurker, I've added it. Any others, either leave a comment on the site or send me an email at squiggler at squiggles dot com

topsecretk9

From Walton's opinion:

As for requests one, two, four and five, the defendant is seeking documents to challenge Miller’s credibility and recollection concerning conversations she had with the defendant. … There can be no doubt that documents that would tend to show that the defendant accurately relayed to the grand jury and the FBI Agents his conversation with Miller, Cooper, and Russert are relevant to the defendant’s effort to defeat the successful prosecution of this action. In the same vein, documents that would make it more or less probable that Miller, Cooper, or Russert did not accurately recount their conversations with the defendant implicate the likelihood that the conversations occurred as stated by the defendant. Thus, Miller, Cooper, and Russert’s recollection of their conversations with the defendant are equally important as the defendant’s recollection of those events. The documents sought by the defendant in requests one, two, four, and five contain information that go to these critical matters. For example, if there exist documents responsive to requests one and two that indicate or suggest that Miller was aware of Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA before her first conversation with the defendant, then it is at least arguably more likely that Miller, and not the defendant, interjected the topic into the conversation. The same is true for documents responsive to request five, which seeks documents “reflecting or pertaining to a conversation between Judith Miller and George Freeman concerning Valerie Plame . . . . Documents responsive to this request would demonstrate that Miller may have known Ms. Wilson’s name before her conversation with the defendant. For these reasons, and after reviewing the documents submitted for the Court’s in camera review, the Court concludes that documents responsive to requests one, two and five are relevant.

so, did Walton order --some of Miller/Times docs-- but not all and based on her testimony he might give the rest? Or is it that, all will be a wait for her testimony?

topsecretk9

Nevermind, I got it...it's a wait to see if she goofs..

AJ notes this

--More on Cooper later. Addendum: OK it’s later. The only thing you need to know about Cooper’s credibility problem is in this line:

"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."

One version of the article cleared Libby, and one did not apparently. The judge found the discrepancies obvious, clear and at the root of Fitzgerald’s case.


----
But the article is the one about Rove GJ no? Or Libby...I am confused....but

Fascinating...wouldn't that be a riot if the original was not biased enough, with no BA downside for their agenda, I mean magazine???


OK and so by that token all the articles, especially in the relevant time period (War on Wilson, Missing in Action Truth etc) could become summarily tainted

AKA - a bunch of crap.

clarice

ts--the decision was based on the rule under consideration. The judge held that AFTER Miller testifies Libby has to be given those documents so he can impeach her testimony on cross examination.

Ditto with the Calabresi stuff and the Mitchell stuff--Libby gets it only if (in the first case) Cooper testifies about something that brings that into issue and Libby needs it to impeach his teestimony or (in the second case) if Mitchell is called to testify.

kate

ts-Time Magazine has put the article "What I told the Grand Jury" behind their premium wall, but there is a section on Libby. I was going to try to play detective and see if I could imagine the "discrepencies."

kate

I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem that Fitz is getting more and more boxed in. Has to be careful how he questions Miller, can't bring in Mitchell. Am I right?

kate

OK, I found the article on of all place TruthOut.I hate to give them hits.

It was written in July 05 after the Rove testimony, however, Cooper write briefly also for the first time about his Libby testimony which he gave in August 2004.

Javani

Who is George Freeman?

clarice

Apparently an attorney for the NYT--I did a quick google to see what this might relate to and the closest I could find was a dispute JM had with him about what he wanted her to report to the newsroom about her gj testimony..Obviously it doesn't relate to legal advice..

topsecretk9

So Cooper has a credibility problem...with in the versions of his story are not consistant with his GJ testimony...I have 2 thing to note/question.

1) Since the drafts are from his GJ "story" primarily about Rove...As part of his testimony about Libby he was asked about Rove (maybe...something like "Did you tell Mr. Libby that you had talked to any other administration official or Mr. Rove?") and so if the discrepancies about what he testified DURING LIBBY are about Rove ...might make it even more FUBAR to indict Rove


ALSO

2) Not only does he have a credibility problem with what he testified to or not...but now, it is exposed that he "fudges up" his writing which in turn Libby's team can question his ORIGINAL "truthiness" and maybe "fudged up" War on Wilson

that is...if he's playing word games on his GJ article, it's likely he did on many including "War on Wilson" and Libby's guys have a right to show that.

topsecretk9

George Freeman---

Is this from the Vanity fair article...in which there is a quote or something about Judy telling him "she knew who Valerie Plame was ...blah, blah"

clarice

The best Fitz can salvage from Cooper is that his error was inadvertent, a mistake a lapse of memory...ehich TA DA is what Libby claims and then the question is why is one of these two people indicted and the toher not? Hardly persuasive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Lurker

"Ditto with the Calabresi stuff and the Mitchell stuff--Libby gets it only if (in the first case) Cooper testifies about something that brings that into issue and Libby needs it to impeach his teestimony or (in the second case) if Mitchell is called to testify."

Why would the judge rule it this way? What would be the reason to hold up on the documents until after Mitchell testified? Guess they would listen to her testify, then decide whether to ask for those documents?

clarice

The Rule of Criminal evidence that's applicable.

Javani

Freeman:

http://www.history.pomona.edu/vis/05h100r/readings/nyt_miller_case.html

There were other awkward moments. On Oct. 7, shortly before Ms. Miller was to conduct a telephone interview with two Times reporters, George Freeman, a Times company lawyer, sent her a four-page memorandum.

Ms. Miller and her outside lawyer, Mr. Bennett, reacted furiously, calling it a ''script'' and nearly canceling the interview. Mr. Freeman said later that he had prepared and sent what he called a ''narrative'' of what happened to Ms. Miller. Mr. Freeman said it had been written long before the interview with Ms. Miller had even been contemplated.

''It was not meant to be a script,'' Mr. Freeman said.

kate

I reread the indictment on Libby/Cooper and boy does it sound triffling.

Apparently Libby said: I heard that too from reporters and

according to Cooper said: I hear that too

Is this it?

I sometimes remember things and I tack on extra words....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame