New Libby Material - The Cheney Notes

There is lots of new Libby material, so let's cut off a chewable bite.  Here is Newsweek on the Cheney-annotated Wilson op-ed.

And here are Fitzgerald's filing and the exhibits - the annotated op-ed is Exhibit A.

My two cents - if Newsweek wants to have fun by pretending this points at Cheney, let them - anything to sell papers.  But if anyone else wants to make that case, comments and trackbacks are open.

As to Libby, how is this not a major problem?  We all knew Cheney was interested, we all knew Cheney had mentioned Ms. Plame to Libby in June, but we did not know that Cheney had this documented interest in "the wife" on July 6.

How can Libby square that with his testimony that he had forgotten his June chat about Plame, and that when he heard about her from Tim Russert on July 10, it was if for the very first time?

And since Cheney's note is "Did his wife send him on a junket?", doesn't that make it highly likely that the conversation noted in the indictment at point 18 actually occurred:

18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

That sounds to me like the Chief of Staff, Libby, is following up on his boss's query about a junket.  Is it Libby's story that Cheney asked these questions of someone else, and ran it all without Libby's involvement?  Why would Cheney cut his Chief of Staff out of this?

I'm not saying I have become skeptical of Libby's story - I have never liked it.  But this latest seems like a real puzzle for his defenders (hmm, that includes me...)

UPDATE:  Well, paraphrasing Cecil Turner - Fitzgerald had this exhibit, Cheney's statement, and Libby's notebooks - did Cheney say he showed these notes to Libby and discussed them with him, or not?  And if Cheney did so, why not put that in the indictment?

ONE WEEK LATER: The defense responds - Libby's testimony was that he never saw this.  Of course, not seeing it is different from not discussing it with Cheney, but still.

Comments

[kim]

Confused answer to a confused question.
==========================

[kim]

I'm still betting that there was some new aspect of the case revealed to Libby which provoked the 'as for the first time'. It may even be a deliberate reference to a 'deja vu'.

Cheney's dawning comprehension of Wilson's wife's role supports Rove's hint of a 'trap'. Isn't Cheney's fisking of Joe's article immense? The Iron Fisk in the Velvet Love.
=========================================

[eli]

It points to Cheney, if there were going to be a IIPA charge, or a classified leak prosecution.

Obviously. And obviously the difficulty with those cases probably makes that very unlikely.

It's mostly just a nasty political barb... They played the "journalists kept saying to us" card too many times for this not to be a little embarrasing.

[kim]

Except, eli, by July 6th it's very likely they had heard it from journalists. Do you begin to see?
=====================================

[kim]

Remember too, please, that Cheney has declassification authority. It would seem to me to be his duty if he had knowledge from reporters that is classified, that he can legally declassify it in order to counter a disinformation campaign, a campaign dangerous to the republic.
===============================

[Marcel]

Kim is right - Cheney having authority to declassify is huge. It is Libby's best defense. The President said he would deal with anyone who had leaked classified information. When he said that, he knew that the information passed along by Libby (and Rove) had been declassified.

[kim]

It's just politically embarrassing. But she was, in fact, fair game; by her actions, Joe's actions, and probably those of others.

Really, it's a slam dunk. If they just hadn't been so secretive.
=================================

[boris]

Regarding such "reminders", if Libby heard about Wilson's wife from Woodward rather than Russert the timing could predate the op-ed and Cheney's annotation.

Otherwise it makes little sense that if Wilson's wife was part of the official pushback they wouldn't have been upfront about it. Authorization to discus the NIE and the trip would also apply to Plame if that was the plan.

[eli]

So they declassified her identity?
This is news. I've heard that about the NIE (although they can't say for sure when they declassified it).

And I thought it wasn't classified anyway.

Confused.

[maryrose]

I have a solution to end this kerfuffle. Give Joe and Val a lie detector test. When they flunk give them the choice of confessing all to Fitz or Val loses her pension and benefits.

[eli]

Also, is just telling someone something "declassifying" it? I would have thought you'd have to:
alert the CIA
document it
etc

Do you have a cite for this?

[kim]

eli, hon, had she been classified she was declassified. We've yet to see if she was classified. That may be some of the reason for the hesitation about the formal declassifying.
============================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It's more mountain of a molehill stuff. It's a perfectly understandable question; Do we normally do things this way, ask people to work for us pro bono? Did his wife send him on a junket?

Remember Wells telling Walton, 'It's a slice, only a slice.'? And, how do we know Cheney wasn't writing it to himself? I doodle notes to myself like this all the time.

Even if Libby did see it, why should he remember something so trivial several months later?

[maryrose]

kim;
Agreed Val is fair game because she insinuated herself into the trip and told Joe of her occupation at the CIA.

[eli]

I'm just seeing where the talking points are today, sweetie.

[kim]

Sourpuss, can't you be serious?
===================

[kim]

If you were serious you'd ask for the referral letter. It's existence was leaked, why not it's substance?
================================

[SteveMG]

where the talking points are today, sweetie

There are talking points here?

Most of the time we're all over the place. Twelve conversations going on simultaneously.

And when they get in the real tall grass of this case, I'm lost.

More like garbling points to me.

SMG

[Patton]

Let me take a stab at explaining this to the right wingers from a left field perspective:

1. The fact we can't prove a conspiracy just proves how deep and extensive the Bush conspiracy is..

2. The fact we can't find any evidence showing Bush lied about WMD just proves what great evil conspirators these republicans are...

3. The fact that Bush is a complete mindles idiot just shows how imporant Cheney is to controlling the evil conspiracy.

4. Just because Bush is an idiot, doesn't mean he's not an idiot sevant who is good at a few things like evil conpriaciesnd stealing elections from the brightest men who ever lived.

5. Just because the Bush National Guard documents were fake, doesn't mean Bush didn't go AWOL. They were fake but accurate.
And because the Niger documents were forgeries, they couldn't possibly be fake but accurate. They prove Bush lied about everything he said since 1962.

[eli]

SMG-

My bad, you're right.

I have argued on occasion with folks insisting she was not classified.

[kim]

We don't know if she was classified, or what that word even means, evergreens.
===============================

[Patton]

"""But this latest seems like a real puzzle for his defenders""""

I don't think it is a problem at all. We have never claimed everything Libby said was ground truth. What we have said is people can confuse dates and conversations when asked about the six months later.

That doesn't mean they are intentionally lying... it may simply mean they don't have total recall of every detail of every conversation, especially on a single issue when they work hundreds of issues per day.

Think of an issue you discussed with several people six months ago...can you remember the dates of those conversations? And the substance of the discussion?

Libby has never claimed that the Vice President didn't say those things, he's said he didn't recall it....now how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had to have recalled it??

Doesn't that require that memory has to be perfect?

Did the Vice President give Libby 50 other things to worry about that day? Did they involve the torture of hostages, the lives of our soldiers, the actions of our enemies and the little wifey thing??

I would ask the jury? have you ever forgotten a password to an account on-line? How is that possible, you just signed on 3 days ago? Have you ever forgotten a loved ones address, or phone number? How is that possible? Are they the people closest and dearest to you?

Well, if ou have, that is reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby would have total recall of all conversations.

[eli]

Patton,

Is there any perjury charge that you would buy?

This defense seems, um, universal.

[kim]

Confusing questions in an inadequately investigated prosecution does seem to be a universal marker of this affair.
================================

[eli]

Snook'ems.

You haven't seen ANY prosecution evidence yet.

[clarice]

Ahem..Didn't Libby testify he heard it from Cheney. Weren't there reporters talking about it first? Didn't in fact Cooper know from Calibresi, Miller (see his number in her notes), Russert says he didn't but then he seems to have been the only msnbc journo who didn't. Woodward knew. Novak knew.I am certain Kristof and Corn knew. Cliff May knew. Mitchell knew. General Vallely knew.

This is nonsense and fodder for reporters who really aren't paying attention and want to carry the ball for Joe.

The "evidence" in the media that Fitz wants to put before the jury is simply what he cannot call Ambassador Munchausen to say directly because Wilson is not credible.He isn't putting it in to prove much. But its prejudicial impact certainly outweighs what he claims he wants it for , and he has other ways to get in the non-prejudicial part assuming he has it.

The test he's setting up for introducing prejudicial media in a political show trial is did the official read the articles, did he make notations on them and (per the Time story) did he demand they correct a misquoatation of him?

From my piece which is going up tomorrow or Monday."Fitzgerald also wants to show the jury annotations apparently made by Vice President Cheney to the article to demonstrate that he and Libby were focused on the assertions in the article and in responding to them. So what? This is evidence in a case which the prosecutor claims is a small case about perjury respecting conversations with three reporters. Nowhere in the Op Ed does Wilson mention his wife or her role or her employment. If every article that caught an official’s attention—because, I might say, it involved a pack of lies harmful to an important matter—were to be considered evidence of wrongdoing, no one would be safe from such ridiculous probes."

[Cecil Turner]

As to Libby, how is this not a major problem? We all knew Cheney was interested, we all knew Cheney had mentioned Ms. Plame to Libby in June, but we did not know that Cheney had this documented interested in "the wife" on July 6.

If there is some indication Libby saw that before he talked to Miller, or that he and the VP discussed this in particular between the 6th and the 8th, it is a major problem for Libby. But I'd be surprised, if that's the case, that it doesn't show up in the indictment or Fitz's recent filing. And if he never saw it . . .

[MayBee]

So is all this to counter Libby's statement about Russert, that at that moment he didn't even remember if Wilson had a wife?

You know what is interesting about the Pincus article being entered. Someone (not contending it was Libby) told Pincus his wife sent him on the junket, and Pincus didn't believe that- previously he had been unsure Wilson had a wife.

I don't know if every word Libby said about his Russert conversation is accurate. My problem has been all along that this doesn't seem like justice to me.
If a man doesn't commit a crime, but is found guilty of saying he didn't remember at the time that someone was married, we've hit a bit of a low point in legal history. IMHO.

[loki]

How is this testimony material to the overall case? Plus perjury conviction REQUIRES proof of MENS REA.

[Syl]

"as if" for the first time was not forgetting it. It was putting himself in the state of mind of not know so he wouldn't confirm info officially to Russert.

I suspect the same with Cooper.

Libby's problem isn't that he claims he forgot Cheney told him, it's that he forgot which reporter told him and when.

[loki]

Eli, read Tile XVIII, Sect 1623. Convicting someone on perjury is very difficult, whether you are Scooter Libby or Barry Bonds.

[PeterUK]

Patton the best would be wife/husband etc birthday,life just keeps getting in the way of perfection.

[clarice]

And a major problem for Fitz is that his case revolves around a lying big mouth who he can't put on the stand.He also cannot show an intention on Libby's part to lie, and he keeps trying to get in through the backdoor hints of "classified" and "harm" which he cannot prove. And, of course, his witnesses in chief are members of the media who have no notes that say he said what they say he said (cooper and Miller) or what he didn't (Russert).

[Patton]

Eli just off the deep end:

""""Patton,

Is there any perjury charge that you would buy?"""

ABSOLUTELY, AND IT IS NO WHERE NEAR UNIVERSAL.

You are talking about a few conversations six months earlier. Now let's take another busy guy that works in politics...say Bill Clinton:

Question: Were you ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky?

Clinton: No

Now every man knows that if you are having sex with a girl half you age in your office you will CERTAINLY be able to remember being alone with her. And if Libby had sex with Plame and then denied it, I would find him guilty of perjury.

But we are not talking about ACTIONS, we are talking about conversations.

If Libby had followed Plame home in his car and then denied it, I would find him guilty...you could certainly remeber taling soemone.

If Libby has spit in Joe Wilsons crab cake and denied it, I would find him guitly.

But if six months later you asked him to recall every conversation he had about spitting in the crab cake, I would understand that he may not recall exactly.

If Clinton had talked to ten people in six days about having sex with interns, I would not expect him to have complete recall of the order and content of those conversations.

[clarice]

Why do juries so often ask to have the transcripts read back to them? Twelve people heard the testimong. Don't you think they all heard it the same way and had perfect recollection of it?

[clarice]

***testimonY****

[PeterUK]

BTW Does Fitz have clearance?

[cathyf]

I have argued on occasion with folks insisting she was not classified.

Her CIA affiliation was not classified, because according to Executive Order 13292 Sec. 1.7. (a) (1), (2), and (4) that information was not classifiable.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

I'm seeing that as if for the very first time, Cathy.I remember looking that up early on and then promptly forgetting why I knew her employment wasn't "classified". Fitz keeps sayiing that because he knows people will confuse that with "covert" and from there they will more readily accept his now abandoned for lack of evidence claim of harm to national security.

[eli]

If it's Clinton... I should have thought of that.

Seriously, though... I'm not going round and round. You obviously believe Libby forgot about his pushback that his boss tasked him with. I think you're sympathetic enough with him, you would be very unlikely to find fault with him in any case [there's a lot of that on both sides].

This is why we have juries. We'll see.

[clarice]

eli, I know that to people of a certain mindset, "his wife sent him" is a better refutation of the lies, that the NIE , but I don't think the OVP is among that subset of the semi-literate.

[windansea]

Leopold sez Karl has been indicted

here is the proof:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1181889

[clarice]

HEH! Looks like one person there hasn't lost his wit in that cesspool .

[Joe D.]

What was the date of the Cheney's notes? The newspaper's publish date? A week later? A month later? After a reporter brought it Wilson's wife? Obviously the paper was sitting around for a while if Fitz has it now.

[Syl]

I'm not sure he forgot. I'm mot even sure he actually claimed he forgot.

'As if for the first time' is not the same as 'for the first time.'

He didn't leak to Russert. He didn't confirm to Cooper. He mentioned it to Miller but it's not clear whether Miller already knew or whether she may have brought it up herself in one of the convos.

If Libby 'leaked' to Miller, he would be censured and lose his security clearance. He would not be criminally prosecuted because Miller didn't print and could be told not to.

So Libby did not obstruct a criminal investigation because Libby wasn't subject to one.

Fitz only wants to punish someone for allegedly punishing a whistleblower. But Wilson wasn't a whistleblower by statute because Wilson had no direct knowledge of what he was accusing the administration of.

There is nothing criminal here, there is only politics.

[SteveMG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

Hmm, my biohazard suit is at the dry cleaners (orange isn't really my color since I'm 6'4"; but what can a guy do?)

No way I'm wading in that toxic waste site without it.

SMG

[windansea]

No way I'm wading in that toxic waste site without it.

the post at DU has a verry funny photo

[maryrose]

It's hard to remain optimistic that justice will prevail when it doesn't seem like we are playing with a fair deck of cards. Why is Fitz concealing so much information and resorting as clarice calls it "razzle dazzle.:. He should lay his cards on the table and put forth his premise and give the defense what it needs to try this case. Stop grandstanding and telling us what this case is NOT about. Lay it out there and take your lumps when the judge sees you really don't have a substantial case.

[SteveMG]

the post at DU has a verry funny photo

Got it.

Very good.

If I start scratching and itching like crazy, you'll get my bill.

SMG

[clarice]

maryrose, this is a game like poker..everyone wants to keep his hole card hidden from everyone else.

[Maxwell]

Now we know the origins of the catchy phrase "Did his wife send him on a junket?" - Mr. Cheney wrote it one week before R. Novack identified "his wife". This phrase has been dutifully repeated for nearly 3 years, including thousands of times in comments here. So the next time that someone mentions "wife sent him on a junket", please remember to give credit to the idea's originator, Mr. Cheney.

[Jim E.]

TM asks "how is this not a major problem" for Libby, and many of the regulars around here guffaw about how weak Fitz's case is.

My favorite: clarice implies--never confronts him directly--that TM's comments about the significance of Cheney's notes are "nonsense," and that speculative anti-Libby interpretations of the notes are merely "fodder" for those "who really aren't paying attention." TM's not really paying attention, eh? TM is "carrying the ball for Joe" now? Ouch.

Even though I'd have to disagree with clarice about the import of the notes (as well as any implication that TM is pro-Joe Wilson all of a sudden), this is fascinating stuff. Carry on!

[maryrose]

clarice;
thank you, I think I've got it now. I didn't realize there was so much game-playing within the law. It should be more cut and dried.

[kim]

I must confess it is just as amusing to watch the alternative viewers trying to develop this whole thing as a criminal conspiracy to out the innocent wife of the noble whistleblower, Joe. Dream on.
======================================

[clarice]

Then anyone could play, maryrose. *wink*

_______

Again, Jess, Libby told him that Cheney said Ms Wilson was with the CIA.
When were the notes written?
Who say them?
Was it Libby's job to find that out or was he tasked with other things?
If Fitz doesn't think Libby's description of his conversation with Cheney on that score is the truth, why didn't he charge him with lying about it.
Why, in fact, does he hope to get this acrap of paper into evidence instead fo simply calling Cheney as a witness to ask him?

One must weigh (a) the probative value versus the prejudicial value and (b) determine if there is another, non prejudicial way to get probative material into evidence. Fitz has no probative evidence and is trying to razzle dazzle his way into poisoning the jury and the jury pool to hide the fact that he has bupkis.

[cathyf]

By the way, TM, why oh why did you put an extra 'y' in Cheney? (And why did it take 50+ comments for someone to comment on it? I noticed it at first, then forgot, then when the thread refreshed I saw it as if for the first time.)

cathy :-)

[clarice]

**JeFF, not JeSS and Scrap not acrap****88888

[Patton]

It is a funny coincidence that right now, we as government people are having to go through a minimum 4 HOUR course on GOOD LISTENING SKILLS.

Apparently, the government which Fitz belongs to thinks people don't listen well.

They told us in class that people remember LESS THAN 20% OF WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.

I should have told them, NOT ACCORDING TO FITZ!!

[Patton]

Its no wonder why the feds do not tape record, nor transcribe FBI interviews so it is there word against the defendent.

I would love to see Wells with a transcript asking the agent to recall the conversation with Libby line by line, sentence by sentence.

WHAT, YOU CAN'T RECALL BUDDY??

[kim]

It may get to that when they make the point that the agents didn't understand the questions they were asking. I'd fundamentally say the same of Fitz. He doesn't understand the investigation he undertook.
===========================

[windansea]

JimE

Praise Allah...you are alive!

your bud always.

Zarqawi

[cathyf]

I'm not sure that the judge's enthusiasm for an illiterate jury is such a bad thing for Libby. I can just see Libby's lawyer in opening and/or closing arguments, looking at the jurrors: "So, did you ever take a test, and you looked at a question, and you were sure that you never heard of this before? Well, when we did this in the past, we got the question wrong, and maybe we flunked the test or the class. But if you allow Mr. Fitzgerald's Bizzaro World to be established, now we'll send federal prosecutors into the class to haul our classmates before grand juries, and then when the classmates say, sure we remember the teacher going over that, the they will put you on trial for LYING about forgetting. Maybe to save time they'll just throw you in jail according to how many questions you get wrong."

I figure that the only people that are bad for Libby on a jury would be 12 autistics. His best bet are non-autistic people who work with the autistic every day. They'll know that Fitzgerald's logic is absurd.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

TM:18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip. By mid June UGO already told Woodward about Plame and her role. Before July 9 Woodward may have told Libby.

In any event, we have Munchausen's word that on July 8 Novak already knew.

[clarice]

In other words, the press beat the WH to the nugget.

[Syl]

JimE

TM is "carrying the ball for Joe" now?

You've been suckered again. Tom's popularity is due to just such statements as he made in this post. It brings the lefties in all joyous and ready to pounce, then we destroy them.

TM is a genius.

[Pete]

Hmm let see.

It is possible that the geniuses and top political dogs Rove and Libby were so busy doing business for the people that they totally forgot about the top political story of July 2003 - the one that they were very much involved in at that time, and instead of telling the FBI agents that they have selective amnesia, they just blurted out the first that came to mind.

How is that for a defense?

[MayBee]

So did Cheney ask about the junket because people were asking *them* if she'd set up the junket?

The idea obviously didn't originate with Cheney writing that note on the July 6 editorial.

[Lurker]

"18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip."

Uhhmmm...how much security clearance did Cheney, Libby, and Rove have? If they had security clearance, then wouldn't they already know about Plame's identity by then?

And how advantageous is this information to Fitz?

[eli]

To my knowledge, there's not one scrap of evidence that the press told the admin. about Plame.

I say it was the CIA briefer, and the State Dept. memo.

What's the evidence on the other side?

[clarice]

Weren;t they getting press calls asking that very thing at about that very time?

[Pete]

If I were a genius with an IQ of 180, and if a reporter told me a juicy tidbit which I would exploit against a political opponent, what are the odds that I would forget who told me. Especially when a few days later this becomes THE story.

[vnjagvet]

Pete:

It is said that Einstein often could not remember that he told his wife he would go to the grocery store after work.

Genius often has gaps.

[clarice]

Why is that more "juicy" than the fact that he never saw the forgeries when he said he did and that he made claims about the NIE which and the Administration ignoring his report?
I suppose to Oprah fans and those whose top news sources is Oprah that is particularly juicy, but Libby says and I agree with him that was chicken feed in a lot full of porterhouse steaks.

[eli]

Pete:

You need to start with the premise that the CIA is a cabal out to destroy the president.

Then, add infinite trust of anything Bush.

You're jsut coming at this all wrong.

[Lurker]

Each time Fitz ask Libby and Rove, the higher the odds are that Libby and Rove will forget over time. As for a few days later, the odds are different depending on the individual.

[clarice]

**about the NIE which WERE FABRICATIONS and about the Administration ignoring his report?

[Pete]

A genius may have gaps, but a genius would testify under oath that he forgot. Not make a false cover story.

[Syl]

eli

You need to start with the premise that the CIA is a cabal out to destroy the president.

If he did we'd tell him he was crazy. It's not the ENTIRE CIA. It's just an element within it. Most CIA employees simply do their jobs honorably and to the best of their abilities.

[Lurker]

Exactly what was the false cover story? Was there proof that Libby made a false cover story?

[Syl]

Pete

I doubt you know how a genius thinks.

[boris]

a juicy tidbit

Hindsight blindness. The NIE discredited the substance of Wilsons lies and that's where their attention was. If the OVP wanted to mention that Wilson's wife was part of the group who sent Joe to Niger on their own initiative, they could have been upfront about it.

If Fitz makes the case that Cheney authorized that disclosure, there goes any motive for Libby to give evasive testimony.

[clarice]

Yeah--note they sent Wilson without making him sign a non disclosure pledge, add in that they were leaking round the clock on matters of much greater import, and that they sent over a false referral letter which was IMMEDIATELY leaked to Mitchell, and the very notion that any part of the CIA was trying to destroy the Administration becomes laughable.

And to that throw in they let crazy Sheuer publish "Imperial Hubris" just before the election but refused to allow him to publish his second book in which he was critical of the Agency which was stupid enough to hire him and keep him on the payroll and play politics on our dime.

[lurker]

If Cheney did authorize the disclosure but Libby wasn't aware that it was disclosed at the time of his initial conversation and Libby can prove it, then Libby had good reason for evasive responses, right?

[eli]

Syl,

Why wouldn't he have said, "I forgot"?

[clarice]

Hey, that's a great game for the evening..Let's dream up why a guy who told the prosecution he'd had official notification of Plame and his status and role would lie about what he said to some reporters? Let's see if we can be as "creative" as Fitz.

[eli]

If a jury returns a guilty verdict, What are the bets on the jury being a cabal of Libruls out to destroy the country?

[cathyf]

Cheney had this documented interested in "the wife" on July 6.

How can Libby square that with his testimony that he had forgotten his June chat about Plame, and that when he heard about her from Time Russert on July 10, it was if for the very first time?

Ok, on May 6, at Prof Smith's Physics II problem session, Suzy Jones asks about question 15, chapter 23, which is calculating a circuit with 3 resistors in parallel. Prof Smith writes out the whole solution, and tells the assembled students that it is very important.

On May 10 is the Physics II final. Joe Jock, one of the students who had been at the problem session on the 6th, tells his buddies at dinner in the dining hall that night, "So then I came to this question about calculating a circuit with 3 resistors in parallel. What the heck?!?! I'm like totally sure, dudes, that I've never seen this before!"

Happens every semester, folks. The exact problem changes with the semester, and with the course. Fitzgerald has not come close to showing that there is any information at all that supports the conclusion that the Plame-Wilson triviality was anywhere near as important to anyone at the white house than all this physics that students forget when they are paying thousands of dollars to be in college, and the penalties for forgetting required material is failing class(es) and losing financial aid or not graduating on time, or getting put on academic probation, etc. etc. It's absurd to expect that anything bad would happen to Libbey if he ignored the Plame factlet, or made a comment to the OVP counsel and then forgot the whole thing. Normal human beings ignore and forget even when there are dire consequences. Only Through the Fitzing Glass is showing that Party A told Party B something "proof" that Party B couldn't have forgotten it.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

eli, I am positive that in the GJ he prefaced his remarks with a caveat that he didn't have perfect recall and was reciting what happened to the best of his recollection at the time. Why do you suppose every quote from the gj testimony Fitz gices us is full of ..............(Hint, it means he is selecting what he thinks best makes his case.

[Pete]

Syl - true :)

I wouldn't perjure myself like some of these geniuses have.

[Lurker]

Playing Devil's Advocate, how about the prosecutors telling Libby that they had security or sufficient clearance so Libby told the prosecutors the truth; yet, when Libby talked to the reporters, Libby knew they lacked the sufficient clearance, so he knew he was not able to talk much about it?

[MayBee]

What I love about Cheney's notes are all the notations about Wilson's drug habits and women. Because remember, that's how they were going after him at first. Murray Waas says so.
Those notes by Cheney just reek of Grossman's claims of retaliation, don't they?

[clarice]

I seriously doubt anyone wouod put you in a position where your recall ability would be put to the test, Pete.

[eli]

One reason people use ellipses is to cut through a lot of trivia involved in extempraneous oral communication.

Or it could be to selectively present his side. The latter likely has some role... I just don't see the Fitz is evil angle. He seems pretty solid... Libby is a partisan hack, that's his job, and I don't begrudge him being Very good at it.

I just don't see the balance of ethos the same way as you, I guess.

[clarice]

Lurker, many of us believe that he was responding to not well asked questions and was, in fact, testifying to what he told reporters and what his state of mind was at the time--e.g., he didn't want to drop that nugget.

[SteveMG]

A genius may have gaps, but a genius would testify under oath that he forgot. Not make a false cover story

Libby certainly knew that to protect himself against perjury/obstruction of justice he could simply state "I call recall" or "I can't remember" where he learned about Plame's status.

Why he didn't do that mystifies me.

The argument that he was trying to delay the prosecution past the election by throwing up false leads doesn't make sense to me anymore.

Tenable; but something isn't adding up.

My best guess is that he screwed up. So did, to a lesser extent, Rove. They didn't fully realize the consequences of discussing Plame's name/status/position.

After messing up, they tried to cover up their error.

And here we are.

SMG

[Pete]

clarice - true, but if that happened I would make sure not to lie through my teeth.

[clarice]

They didn't fully realize the consequences of discussing Plame's name/status/position. And what were those consequences, pray tell. Ask UGO.(And, maybe, Fleischer).

[eli]

SMG,

This is the most reasonable thing I've ev3er read here.

You may be attacked.

[boris]

I just don't see the balance of ethos the same way as you, I guess.

But you're ok with prosecuting someone for minor testimony conflicts during an investigation that went nowhere, to punish them for a crime they didn't commit and didn't happen.

Some ethos.

[Syl]

eli

Read Libby's letter to Miller for a sense of the way Libby talks.

Or listen to my Joe talk on the phone then tell me 2 minutes later that he said such and such, and believed it, when I KNOW he said no such thing because I was listening.

Libby thought he remembered the conversations. He testified to what he thought he remembered thinking at the time. To him it would have been a lie to say 'I forgot' and leave it at that.