Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Duke Lacrosse | Main | What About The Angry Middle? »

May 02, 2006

Comments

Sue

This is a side point to the response I was actually making to you, but it's not true. It's just not the case that only classified information can be leaked.

While true that the meaning, as Webster defines it, can be used as a verb to mean reveal something anonymously, most people using the word in the context of Libby and the NIE intend for the worst to be thought.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/leak>Webster

5. Unauthorized (especially deliberate) disclosure of confidential information.

Furthermore, even if Miller knew something or other about Plame before talking to Libby, that's hardly inconsistent with the basic claim that Libby targeted her for special attention for his pushback against Wilson.

A pushback against Wilson was not illegal, Jeff. You want it to be so you invent a twisted scenario in order to make it work.

Cecil Turner

I forgot to ask you how much you want to bet. Pincus has said his July 12 source was a White House official. And 1x2x6 showed up in a previous article by Allen and Priest, so almost certainly was one of their sources - perhaps Allen, who shares the credit for the story you cite with 1x2x6's reappearance.

I'm suggesting it could be (the characterizations in that piece were exactly the same, which is why it struck me). Regardless of who it was, it probably wasn't a right-winger leaking that information to the WaPo. And I'm not sure why you're citing Allen . . . unless you're contesting 1x2x6 is most likely Grossman. As to Pincus's disclaimer, I'd have to see it, but I'm a lot less willing to take his word on things than you are (e.g., key judgments).

Bill in AZ

It's not 72 virgins, it's 72 raisins. A lot of slopdeydopes are getting a huge surprise when they discover that... just a little too late.

cboldt

Off Topic: Regarding Moussaoui - No certainty is what I vote for - but no martyrdom. Killing him makes a martyr. Whatever he doesn't want, I want. The longer he consciously agonizes over trying to figure it out and piss me off, the happier I be.

Walter

Clarice,

Libby's previous requests for discovery have been made under Rule 16, using the "likely to lead to admissible evidence" standard.

This filing addresses Rule 17 third-party subpoenas.

For the benefit of others: Third parties are people or entities who are neither defendants nor prosecutors. While third parties may be witnesses, other Rules govern the production of documents or prior statements directly related to their testimony. Here, subpoenas are directed at least two entities which will not be summoned to testify at trial and which are not defendants nor (conspiracy minded insert "formally" here) allied with the prosecution (Time, Inc. and the New York Times).

Again, I'm no expert, but Libby gives his team's version of the standard the judge should use in deciding to enforce the subpoenas on page 3 of his filing [page 8 of the pdf]:

"In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that if a party's subpoena meets three critera--relevance, admissibility, and specificity--that subpoena should be enforced."

They go on to argue (p4[9]) that Libby must "make a 'sufficient preliminary showing' that the material sought 'contains evidence admissible' at trial."

In closing, Libby summarizes (p 45 [50]): "Here, Mr. Libby's subpoenas are narrowly tailored to obtain relevant and admissible evidence [possessed by the third parties]."

It's a small point, but, as I mentioned before, I view the motion practice here as a good tutorial.

Note also, that the third parties are claiming that Libby must actually show that the documents are going to be admitted before receiving them. Pretty tough standard.

danking70

Clarice, nice article.

Caught one little error in the NY Times section where you discuss Sanger. You say the "19 words in the SOTU address", when it should be 16.

“I knew Valerie Plame’s name. I knew who she was. I talked to many people in the government about her before and after Novak’s article.”

Did she really say this?

brenda taylor

i dont think taxpayers should have to pay forthis terrorist,amazing they sure did not hesitate on timothy mcveigh simply amazing.

clarice

I think he makes a good case that that is an impossible standard. In any event since it is patently clear that Fitz circumscribed his investigation far to much(esp. given the nature of his charges and claims in his presser and pleadings) he has made an appealing case for broad discovery.

topsecretk9

I think what the end-game is here, in a twist of irony and what the defense has set up...the reporters will have no choice but to throw Wilson under the train.

Defense will establish the reporters were in contact with Wilson before they talked to Libby or Rove, and given that...they will be dangerously close to revealing to Fitzgerald there is more than meets the eye as to what they led him believe they knew.

I feel pretty strongly, given that predicament, they will then allow that it was Wilson who supplied them with the kind and certain information to be able to judge the WH response as a "smear campaign"

markg8

"PeterUK, you might have missed it, but for years now many many people on the right, including many many people here, have been claiming quite ferociously that Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip did discredit Wilson. They've cared quite a lot."

Wrong Jeff,the left,decided that this trivia was designated the administrations push back.The whole affair is such an obvious stitch up,that it would not surprise me if UGO was CIA.

I remember when the screaming started,from the get go it was a "covert agent had been outed",this was on the finger tips of every leftesticle out there.This is not a new meme,it has been carefully nurtured to come to fruition in election year.

Of course the relationship between Plame and Wilson is interesting,but it does not, per se have any relevance to the veracity of Wilsons findings.What does reflect on this Jeff is the fact that a major uranium producing country was apparently not under examination by the CIA,and why they sent an amateur.

danking70

Of course it was a smear campaign. Joe Wilson told us so...

ghostcat

TSPooch@2:14.

kim

Nittypig's point there, cb, was that Russert is particularly suspected of parsing the difference between Valerie Plame and Mrs Joe Wilson and may have obstructed fitz's investigation with the distinction. Wonder what Fitz will think if that turns out to be the case?
====================================

Walter

Clarice,

Agreed.

I find it odd that Fitzgerald was so aggressive in pushing the envelope on Justice Department standards for subpoenaing reporters for incriminating evidence and yet respected the guidelines enough to not press the press for possibly exculpatory evidence.

Really, you've got them in front of the Grand Jury, testifying to details of confidential conversations. Is it that much more harmful to the First Amendment to find out the rest of what they know?

[really bad metaphor alert]
Fitzgerald went in for the penny, but stopped short of the pound. Saying that he respected the special privileges of the press except for these few questions is like finding your partner a little pregnant. You may not be unhappy with either result, but lack of conviction is diconcerting. [/alert]

Patton

One thing I thing some are missing is that the investigator interviews do not purport to be Libby's exact words, they are the investigators perception of what Libby was telling them. People don't speak one on one they same way they would explain that communication.

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE:


Actual Connversation:

Cooper: Scooter, do I just go down here and take a left to get to the Shell station?

Scooter: That's what I hear.


Investigation:

FBI: Mr. Libby, Did you tell Mr. Cooper where the gas station was.

Libby: Yes

FBI Report: Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper how to get to the gas station.

NOW WHILE THIS MAY BE 'TRUE'...IT IS NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE. It was actually Mr. Cooper that explained how to get to the gas station, not Libby.

topsecretk9

Walter you are really too hard on yourself

---[really bad metaphor alert]---

Your's was much better than Fitz't own

"According to VNovak's first-person account of her questioning (here) by Fitzgerald :"I would discuss only my interactions with Luskin that were relevant to the conversation in question. No fishing expeditions, no questions about my other reporting or sources in the case. He [Fitzgerald] agreed, telling my lawyer that he wanted to 'remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body.'"

kim

tspooch 2:14: It is no lose for the press. It is get Bush or sacrifice Joe. The scumbags. They have even made it possible for me to feel a little pity for Joe. Unbelievable. And if Val is, in fact, innocent of her husband's indiscretions, then they have stupidly, madly, recklessly and ruthlessly ruined any number of people, including children. There must be recompense.
================================

topsecretk9

Your's (strike was)

Walter

TS,

Thanks! But I'd hate to use Mr. "beanball" Fitzgerald as my metaphorical standard.

kim

Everyone is clear on the technical but very important point that the virgins remain eternally so. The devil is in the details.
========================

topsecretk9

It is no lose for the press. It is get Bush or sacrifice Joe.

No brainer, if they even think their ass is in a sling, they'll toss him out faster than Kerry's webmaster.

ghostcat

"There must be recompense."

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

Squiggler

Moussaoui will be transferred to the Colorado Super Max and spend the rest of his miserable life in virtual solitary confinement within the bowels of an old coal mine inside a mountain ... that's the way they describe it.

I actually think the life in prison is a much harsher sentence than the death he wanted so he could die a martyr. Now he is a nothing. Someone to forget. Good riddance.

cboldt

Patton

One thing I thing some are missing is that the investigator interviews do not purport to be Libby's exact words


I am aiming to make a summary that is an accurate reflection of what the indictment charges. A separate summary could represent Libby's defense, and there are many combinations and permutation between those two.


And the property you note, misconstruction of history, is an error that all are prone to commit. The jury's chore is to take the evidence and attempt to reconstruct a factual history that facilitates a decision in the case.


Not that it's needed, but I add that I do NOT take silence here as agreement with my reduction of Libby's testimony as stated by Fitz.

cboldt

kim

Nittypig's point there, cb, was that Russert is particularly suspected of parsing the difference between Valerie Plame and Mrs Joe Wilson and may have obstructed fitz's investigation with the distinction. Wonder what Fitz will think if that turns out to be the case?


I hope he's a vindictive SOB, because seeing as how I have a low opinion of Russert based on his being a crapweasel and a DEM party hack, it would be nice to see karma actually work for a change. Note that I wish no ill on people for being dumbshits.

kim

I have long thought that segregation and daily visits by a spiritual adept is far cheaper and just than capital punishment. And only the dangerous need be imprisoned. Surely the rest can be more intelligently corrected.
======================================

clarice

It's the prosecutor's job to question. The person being interrogated's job is to answer honestly yo the best of his ability--not to give testimony wrapped in a pink ribbon . Russert's testimony may have misled the prosecutor, but it was so obvious (hell, even TM got it *wink*), Fitz should have clarified it.

kim

He seems to be a vindictive such or another. I'm just waiting for him to come over from the dark side. Libby's defenders are lighting all the candelabrae in the Beast's castle.
=================================

ghostcat

According to CNS News (yeah, I know) Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ)has asked Goss for a damage assessment re: the "outing" of Flame.

Walter
"Libby's defenders are lighting all the candelabrae in the Beast's castle."

Appropos of nothing, was I the only one struck how cold Libby is to Fleisher? He implies that he knows that his beloved former colleague Ari discussed then-classified information with reporters and asks the reporters for documentation of those discussions. Because the returns from the subpoenas will be given to Fitzgerald, he is, in effect, offering crimes wrapped up with a bow.

Sure, it dramatizes the persnickety nature of a perjury prosecution ignoring more important things, but man, that's cold.

Walter

But, of course, I'd be inconsistent if I didn't point out that any such crimes would not be "related to" this particular "outing of a CIA agent", so Fitzgerald would not be able to do a thing with them.

cboldt

Apropos of nothing, I wonder if the number of "=" in kim's signoff line signifies anything. Points for style? Agreement? disagreement? Initial impression? Or just the amount of time the cat spent on the keyboard?

Patton

Regarding Moussaoui,

Here's hoping his life sentence will be shorter then a death sentence.

Jailhouse justice should be the appropriate punishment. We won't have to see all the leftist marching at midnight prior to his execution date 20 years from now.

larwyn

Beamer's father was on FNC after the verdict. He is worried that until Moussaui's "natural death" that every anniversary of 911, the LSM will do stories on him. On how he is "doing" in prison and others on how he is being "mistreated" in prison.

He didn't mention what has been a pattern with terrorists - taking hostages to get the release of a prisoner.

Moussaui's strange dream that Bush will let him go!

West Wing had an episode a few years ago where one of Bartlett's daughters was taken.

If you listened to the commentators on the verdit - even on CNN they said it did not make sense as to what they had found before.

I think jurors are afraid
But no one want to say/consider that aloud or in print.

Jurors are AFRAID!

The validity that the LSM, including the NYT's,WaPo, Borders'
Books and Comedy Central gave to this fear in refusing to publish
those Danish Cartoons is at work here. If the NEW YORK TIMES and CNN are afraid - who am I, an individual to not be afraid?

It's worked for years for the MOB!
And it works for gang members and drug dealers everyday all over the world.

The Judge had to give Sami Al arian the sentence and the
jurors hung on most of the charges against him.

Hey, I would be afraid if I were on a jury against a terrorist,
which is a reason these should be held in Military courts.

I would be afraid for those family members that live with me,
not for myself. I have often remarked that the Palestinians
would show me their sincerity if the old were the ones to
become the "suicide bombers". I mean the oldest ones
should have a memory of the land before there even was
an Israel. They prove their hypocrisy when they not only
send their young but get paid for doing so!!!$$$$$$$

Billions would not tempt me to strap an explosive belt
on any of my children or grandchildren.

But fear of retribution by Jihadis on my family would give me great reason to find something that might establish "reasonable doubt".

The Military should handle these.
And this jury may regret their decision when a plane full of Americans coming from overseas, or a cruise ship is taken hostage to get that scum released.

cboldt

larwyn

It's worked for years for the MOB!


Off topic agreement and inquisitive comment. What to do faced with MOB threat? Cower? or fight?

ghostcat

Paging Elliot Ness! Oh, wait ...

larwyn

Was easier to fight the MOB. They were not indiscriminate killers.

Just think about what they did to that young jewish man in France, the neighbors participated in his days and days of torture.

Could you sit on a jury and know that they will have your name and address and being internet savvy have info on your family and not feel intimidated by those thoughts.

When the news came out on the hung jury in Fla on Sami and on other outcomes with hung juries, that was the foremost thought in my mind.

I don't know how the jurors can be shielded or if that would be legal.

Hence my logically thinking tells me these cases belong in Military courts.

cboldt, may the summons for the next one be in your mailbox.

topsecretk9

Good Lord!

Biden Nods as Breitweiser Suggests Tenet, FBI Agents Merit Death as Much as Moussaoui


Imagine you're a US Senator. A citizen has just suggested that a former CIA Director and named FBI agents merit the death penalty as much as convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui (on 'Hardball' no less). Do you:

A. condemn such an outrageous comment?
B. move on to another topic?
C. congratulate the citizen for making "an absolutely accurate point"?

If you're Joe Biden [D-DE], the answer, incredibly, is 'C'.

clarice

He needed a brain transplant with the hair plugs.

cboldt

larwyn

cboldt, may the summons for the next one be in your mailbox.


That's the thanks I get for agreeing that intimidation works. I'll give you credit for recommending shoving the issue relatively out of sight via military trials. I suggest that when the military is dispensing the judgment, that it dispense with the trial and move directly to the remedy. Stakes being what they are, we can tolerate much more collateral damage.

Squiggler

I can't speak for the jurors, so I don't know if fear is what drove the life sentence, or not. But, had I been on that jury, it would have been hard to vote for death for two reasons ... first, he didn't actually participate in 9/11 and that would be mitigating to me, and two, I absolutely think that his sentence is far far harsher than a quick needle.

I do take the point about the anniversary stories apt to follow and even the point about future hostage situations, but those would come whether ZM is alive or dead.

Normally, I would agree that jail house justice will prevail in the end, and I might even be cheering on that result, but he will be in total solitary confinement in a Super Max and this outcome is less likely under those circumstances.

I saw a documentary on this Colorado Super Max and it is one scary place to be.

topsecretk9

Normally, I would agree that jail house justice will prevail in the end, and I might even be cheering on that result, but he will be in total solitary confinement in a Super Max and this outcome is less likely under those circumstances.

Don't know where I read it or mentioned it, but thats all fine and dandy until the ACLU jumps in and demands that he be released from solitary and equates it to the most evil of torture, or some such.

Squiggler

Another OT -- DA in Duke case says: "who says his (meaning the one defendant's) timeline is the same as his (the DA's)? Is this a clue to his case? He seemed pretty sure of himself.

Squiggler

TS ... let 'em try. I'm sure there have already been plenty of challenges to the Super Max system, and yet they build more.

larwyn

cboldt,
I was hoping they would pick you for your bravery!
That was a KUDO! to you.

Not sure I would be that brave with thoughts that my grandchildren might pay.

Let us just remember each one's
opinion on this and see what the years bring. As if it up to Fitz we'll all still be here working on Plame/Libby.

Andrea will have retired or died and it will still be going on.

cboldt

larwyn

I was hoping they would pick you for your bravery!


I think you mistook my "What to do faced with MOB threat? Cower? or fight?" for bravery. I'd cower in public. You all are on your own.

topsecretk9

Reality Alert Equal opportunity corruption...


Kentucky man pleads guilty to bribing lawmaker
By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; 4:53 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty on Wednesday to bribing Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson in an African Internet venture, the Justice Department said.

Louisville technology executive Vernon Jackson has pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, and will help investigators as they examine Jefferson's dealings with Jackson's company, iGate Inc., the Justice Department said.

Jackson, 53, faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000.

The plea deal could prove embarrassing for Democrats who have made corruption scandals involving Republicans a central theme of their campaign to take back control of Congress this November.

Kate

I get the sense that this whole sorry epidsode has come full circle. I believe it started with a Media/Wilson collaboration to set the White House up on pre-war intelligence.

Now the case is about memory, reporters' logs, conversations, White House phone logs, bias.

The trick by Schuster, Johnson, Matthews is to bring the case back to the prewar intelligence.

Actually, Schuster tried to do this before in October before Libby's indictment, he had a breathless report that Fitzgerald was examining the documents from Rome and that he was looking into pre-war intelligence, which, of course, turned out to be nonsense.

That is what the media and particularly MSNBC wanted from the beginning.

larwyn

cboldt,
Then may that summons NOT BE in your mailbox.

Perhaps prosecutors should try to keep people with families off and only pick single people with jobs that would allow them to relocate. Doubt that would work or be legal. So I just circle back around to Military taking care of these cases.

WE ARE AT WAR - FGS!

larwyn

Hope someone is watching Hardball, now Schummer is on - they are spinning this into every meme they can find to bash Bush.

I cannot stomach today.

topsecretk9

every meme they can find to bash Bush.

The party of ideas!

larwyn

CNN cut short presser by Rudy with him giving his reasons why he should have gotten Death.

Only showed a few sentences with very weird interruption.

They don't want Rudy to run against Hill!

boris

Jeff: boris has been floating a complete red herring for a while in insisting that somehow the argument is that Libby testified definitively, "I was Cooper's first source." And so, since Libby didn't testify to that, no problem.

That sentence is difficult to parse Jeff. My suggestion was that Libby's version and Cooper's version of the conversation were not inconsistent if Cooper brought up the subject instead of Libby. Certain quotes being discussed seemed to leave that possibility open. Longer versions of Libby's testimony appear to rule it out. I drew no inferrence either way.

Early on, before the indictment, I half seriously suggested that Libby intentionally drew the flag by bafflegabbing his way into being the focus of the investigation in order to protect the administration. This appears to be your working theory now.

Fine, you're welcome to it.

larwyn

Waiting for Hillary to release statement that Moussaui is the result of the failure of her "village!"

Oh dear lord!
Wanted to see what Peter King would have to say.

Isokof of Korans in toilets and Chris think that we can't bring the other 300 to trial because then the American public would find out about

"all the horrible torturing we are doing of these guys, like WATERBOARDING.."

Is there any possibility that Matthews has some brain damage or impairment? IIRC he was a "big drinker". He is just too far out there to not actually believe what is comming out of his mouth.

Feel better if he is nuts and not just evil.

Squiggler

Wouldn't a life in prison sentence be more damning in the eyes of terrorists than the death penalty providing martyrdom? Seems to me it would. So I wouldn't have any qualms over a death sentence (if I was inclined to vote that way) based on what a terrorist might do.

cboldt

larwyn

Then may that summons NOT BE in your mailbox.


I am so relieved. Thank you.

MayBee

Is there any reason to imagine that Wilson's friend approached only Novak on the street? Maybe I'm missing something from long ago, but why did that friend choose Novak?

About the pushback: Wilson has been pushing the idea of the pushback from the beginning. He's even gotten some reporters to buy the idea that he was being pushed back again on a personal level- the women, the drugs,etc. All reported with no evidence at all.
Oh! And starting March 3 when now even Wilson said he didn't start speaking out until May.
Wilson created the illusion of escalation all so that the little fact that his wife helped him get the job looked like revenge rather than information.

Sue

Would a reporter have asked Joe, for background, how he was tapped to go to Niger? For instance, would Kristoff had said, Joe, why would the CIA tap you for this mission? What were the circumstances? Who contacted you to come to the CIA offices? Where was the meeting? Who was there? Questions that would have led the reporter to his wife?

Big Louie Patooti

Not to worry cboldt,yous OK wit me,capice? Yous just handle a few bitsa legal woik.

topsecretk9

Sue

Yes. But Joe told Kristoff Cheney behested him.

Sue

Top,

Yeah, I know he played it up, but would they ask mundane questions like what time did you go there, who was there, how was the request transmitted? I don't know. I would. But I'm not a journalist.

PeterUK

"Is there any reason to imagine that Wilson's friend approached only Novak on the street? Maybe I'm missing something from long ago, but why did that friend choose Novak?"

Maybee,you answered your own question in the next paragraph.It was decided to sacrifice a pawn,Plame,to create this storm in a teacup.She was finished,careerwise,been outed by Ames,revealed to the Cubans and had suffered from depression.

cboldt

Big Louie Patooti

Not to worry cboldt,yous OK wit me,capice? Yous just handle a few bitsa legal woik.


I am not the droid you are looking for.

topsecretk9

Sue
Yes, and I am almost certain that WIlson used his wife who worked at CIA as back-up...he just neglected her "french contacts" memo and meeting starter.

Did you see Larry put my email up -- as if just clicking on my name wouldn't be a quicker way to contact me?

topsecretk9

I don't know. I would. But I'm not a journalist.

::grin::

ghostcat

Why Bob Novak?

Could it possibly be because he's a paleocon, a foreign policy "realist", and a long-time pal of the Saudis?

Imagine that!

clarice

"SECRET AGENT WOMAN [Byron York]

Valerie Plame, fresh from a high-profile appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, is continuing to zealously protect her privacy. According to the New York Times, the former CIA employee is "shopping a book proposal among a small group of publishers, according to two people familiar with the project." NRO The Corner

Sue

Top,

Yes, but I didn't correct the misinformation in his post. If he wants to subtract years from your age, and add other things, who am I to quibble? ::grin::

ghostcat

Re: R. Novak's bona fides

Forgot to add that he's been no friend if Israel. See a pattern?

topsecretk9

Sue


HE RESPONDED. AGAIN IN ALL CAPS AND OF COURSE I MISSED THE BASIC POINT, BUSH LIED BECAUSE LARRY WANTS IT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S EASIER.

Sue

Top,

He also responded to me, with tidbits from the SSCI report, the same report he trashes every other time he posts. ::grin::

MayBee

Wilson writes that six days before Novak's Plame column appeared, an unnamed friend of his approached Novak on a Washington, D.C., street near George Washington University and accompanied the columnist for a couple blocks. Novak didn't know that the friend knew Wilson as the two engaged in conversation about the Niger affair. The friend asked Novak what he thought of Wilson.

But are we to imagine that a friend of Wilson approached only Novak? Why would that be? The friend didn't have ESP that Novak was about to write about Val.

Can we imagine other reporters were also approached?
I would say that friends might have been approaching reporters all over town, and that's how they knew about Wilson.

patch

Blah, blah, blah...

After wading through 200 some comments, this was the only tidbit worth the effort:

"...that Joseph Wilson and the former Valerie Plame, etc --- wedding announcement that appeared in the NYT..."

Is this true? Anyone have a link?

clarice

Help, please. For some reason I am no longer getting the url of the page I'm on at the top of the page which makes it impossible to clip and paste. Anyone know how to fix that? Thanks

Big Louie Patooti

Cboldt,Wes like cats,you don' choose us we choose you.

Sue

Maybee,

Did the friend show up before or after Novak called Wilson?

clarice

patch--The announcement was an exhibit in Libby's latest filing I think.

Re Novak--Harlow and Wilson seemed to have talked after Novak's call. The "friend" was a set up to see what Novak knew.Novak lives in a big condo near the DoJ. It has a rear entrance thru the garage and a main entrance. You can sit in a coffee shop on the first floor and wait for him to come down. Easy.

ghostcat

Big red bow:

R. Novak had major misgivings about not only Operation Iraqi Freedom but even Desert Storm. He has generally been opposed to American intervention in the Middle East.

He is no Bushdroid. Whoever sought him out may very well have seen him as an ally.

MayBee

This is what Slate says Wilson's book says. I don't own Wilson's book, so maybe Jeff can correct it:

(continuing from above)Novak responded, "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him," and then the two parted.

The friend immediately called Wilson, and Wilson got in touch with Novak two days later. Novak apologized to Wilson for talking to a stranger about his wife but also repeated his claim that a CIA source had told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. When Novak asked Wilson to confirm it, Wilson told him he didn't answer questions about his wife.

It looks like friendy approached before Novak and Wilson talked.
Who else called Wilson? Who else did he talk to? Who else did his friends talk to?

clarice

More likely, it was a Wilson ally , assigned to find out why Wilson had found out. I doubt it was a chance encounter.

cboldt

Big Louie Patooti

Cboldt,Wes like cats, you don' choose us we choose you.


Me yow. Show me the tuna.

Squiggler

Novak is the perfect choice. A known conservative and avidly anti-war, anti-intervention. And, where the CIA is involved there is no such thing as a chance encounter.

I must have come to this discussion long after this point was discussed because reading it just now is to me as if hearing it for the first time. I now consider this a highly significant event and want to know why this encounter has not played a major role in Fitz's investigation?

brenda taylor

it was probaly the vipers trailing novak.

MayBee

I agree it wasn't a chance encounter, and it could well have been an attempt to see if Novak, a conservative, would be a Wilson backer.

BUT I have a hard time imagining Novak was the one and only guy approached by Team Wilson.

topsecretk9

I agree it wasn't a chance encounter, and it could well have been an attempt to see if Novak, a conservative, would be a Wilson backer.

I think Novak started calling around and talking around a bit...and Wilson got nervous, Novak was the first sign his little fantasy world was to be revealed, so he wanted to see what Novak knew and create a reason to contact him.

Sue

Okay, I thought Novak called Wilson first. My bad. So this random person just pops up on the street and starts discussing Wilson? I wonder if Novak has since figured out who the friend was?

brenda taylor

i thought i read that novak contacted wilson also ,not sure

clarice

Sue, brenda, you are right--Novak did call Wilson. I am not sure if the mysterious stranger popped up before or after the call.IIRC Plame also contacted Harlow after Novak did and I think in between Wilson and Harlow talked tho I am less certain of that.

MayBee

OK, the timing according to Pincus and VandeHei:

Lawyers have confirmed that Novak discussed Plame with White House senior adviser Karl Rove four or more days before the column identifying her ran. But the identity of another "administration" source cited in the column is still unknown. Rove's attorney has said Rove did not identify Plame to Novak.

In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.

Novak and his attorney, James Hamilton, have declined to discuss the investigation, as has Fitzgerald.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Soo....Wilson's number was in Judy's notebook, eh? I wonder if someone stopped her on the street and passed it along.

clarice

Scratch Harlow-Wilson call-Here's what I have from Libby's last filing:
Bill Harlow of the CIA press office is another source to reporters about whom Libby seeks media documentation. He notes that there is public record evidence that Harlow spoke to Valerie Plame and Robert Novak, Ms. Martin of the White House press office and others about Plame and her position.

Libby also notes that in his laughably misnamed book The Politics of Truth, Ambassador Munchausen states his wife spoke to Harlow after he (Wilson) spoke to Novak.

MayBee

clarice- when did Novak call Wilson? From where do we get that? I'm willing to stand corrected, I just can't find that.

topsecretk9

wonder if Novak has since figured out who the friend was?

Sue

Larry.


Wilson called Novak to complain (oddly Wilson had a complimntary article Novak mentioned him in years early at the ready), Novak wasn't in left message. Novake called and Wilson wasn't in...then Wilson return that call...is how I think it went , in Wilson's book anyways.

topsecretk9

About the Odd article --- much like Wilson polishing all his Bush 41 medals and letters in preparation for the smear campaign--when Wilson and Novak made contact, it began by Wilson reading the article to Novak, and all the nice things Novak said--- an effort of Wilson's to show Novak he commended him years ago -- as if that negates Novak from criticizing him today.

brenda taylor

well if val was the true noc that she claims to be i guess harlow did not get that across to novak ,because novak said he never would have written the story.so i see this as a cia cover up.

MayBee

Tops- so you think Wilson and Friend picked Novak on the street because Novak had written something nice about him before? Novak says "Wilson's an A##hole, wife is at CIA", friend calls Wilson with status report, Wilson calls Novak (telephone tag ensues).
Hmmm...
This still makes me wonder how many other reporters had been targeted as possible friendlies.

brenda taylor

i thimk grossman fits in here wyth novak also.

Jeff

For a long time I could not imagine how the all-powerful Joe Wilson sacrificed his wife as a pawn in his plot with State-CIA-MSM-Democrats-France by getting Novak to out his wife, as per PeterUK's rave. But then I saw this and it all made sense:

Why Bob Novak?

Could it possibly be because he's a paleocon, a foreign policy "realist", and a long-time pal of the Saudis?

Imagine that!

Novak was in on the plot! He was actually working on Wilson's behalf, or rather on behalf of their common master, the Saudis! He outed Plame in order to get Libby and Rove and Cheney!

Does anyone actually believe that?

topsecret has a more plausible scenario. But here's the question: if Wilson hears that Novak is calling around and Wilson is getting nervous, isn't that reason enough to call CNN to get in touch with Novak and complain. Why the need for the additional elaborate set-up of Novak? If Novak had not taken the bait, what then? No call? Back to the drawing board?

Why wouldn't Wilson just call Novak and say, "I hear you're chatting about some stuff you shouldn't be chatting about, doesn't matter where I heard, what's your problem?"

Sue

Larry has finally banned me. I had a typo in a post concerning the literary (I typed litary) flair of Joe Wilson.

TELL YOU WHAT? FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, LET'S AGREE THAT JOE USED "LITERARY FLAIR" (YOU NEED TO WORK ON YOUR SPELLING)..

When I kindly brought to his attention this post and something about nitpicking spelling biting you on the hiney...

First, he was the last American on the ground in Iraq (where he served as acting Ambassdor). Posted by: Larry Johnson | Wednesday, 03 May 2006 at 20:06

...the chickenshit banned me. ::grin::

Oh well. I'll survive.

MayBee

Jeff- so you think the friend just happened to stop Novak all on his own?
Weren't other reporters asking around? That's my point anyway. How many reporters did Team Wilson contact? Isn't a big part of this case about who was talking and from where they got their information?

And no, I don't know why Wilson wouldn't just call Novak and say don't talk about that (and he got an apology), but then went on to say "I don't talk about my wife". Hardly the pleading of a man desperate to keep the Iran intelligence from being destroyed.

I do think it's odd that Friendy approached Novak on the street. Was that a one-off?

Sue

Oops...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame