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

[boris]

happens all the time

[windansea]

I am datamining the frogmarch meltdown at leftie sites and take pleasure in their pain. :)

[Specter]

Hey all - where's larwyn?

[boris]

"Do you really want the Democrats to run the National Security of this country, and protect US from the Evil Terrorists when they can't even tell the differnce between a RUMOR and a FACT?"

The bald man suppressed a giggle as he disengaged the mind ray device.

[Cecil Turner]

What is being protected is the very fact that a person has an assignment with the CIA. As far as the world is concerned, the person has no assignment or association with the CIA.

Yes. There has been a lot of discussion about the "Plame" name and other stuff, but it's all extraneous. The critical piece of information (that the US must be "taking affirmative measures to conceal") is the "individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States."

. . . changing Libby's smokescreen to "If Russert is a liar, then I didn't mislead investigators."

Well, if Russert is a liar, that certainly blows the first half of count two. The second half is more plausibly explained by suggesting Libby conflated an earlier conversation (with Woodward, perhaps?). In any event, concur it convolutes the testimony to the point many jurors might well give up. (Though I don't think that's necessarily good for Libby.)

[cathyf]

...it was one remark in a tewnty minute exchange. Wilson seemed sure about his source.

This is just f***ing priceless. "...one remark in a tewnty minute exchange..." Oh, you mean like Valerie Plame was just a couple of remarks in hours and hours and hours of WH discussions of GWOT strategy, media relations, and how to rebut Wilson?!?!?

cathy :-)

[cathyf]

boris -- don't use &lt use < (gotta put in a ; after the &lt )

cathy :-)

[boris]

works on my browser so I forget

[windansea]

The Mother of all Meltdowns

this thread is actually at Kos but it's got it all...Leopold and Pitt bashing, the Scamdy scam...Leopold sock puppetry, you name it...you have to scroll down about 1/4 of the way before it starts getting really good

***

Next time that asshole comes over to The Next Hurrah and a bunch of comments supposedly coming from numerous different people defending him are posted from the same ISP address as the comments signed by Jason Leopold, I'm writing it up and getting it out to everyone I can.

Pitt is an abusive, alcoholic, windbag.

All one has do is scan his posts on DU to see how often he goes off on people after a night of drinking down at the pub.

***

He is a pampered rich kid who rides his father's Democratic connections. The fact he is a third rate pundit on a net zine, and chief of the thought police at forth rate discussion forum says everything you need to know about his credibility and priorities.

Anyway, I have about 50 links to Pitt atrocities I've been saving for a rainy day.

He once threatened me physically and said he was going to fly to Toronto and beat me to a pulp, stomp on my head, then scrap me off his boot and feed me to his cat.

Then there was the time he was going to carve salt into my flesh or some such silliness.

All because I made him look foolish and shone a light on his murky credibility.

****

Symbolman on DU made a $1000 bet for Will Pitt to prove the April 26 target letter story, and Pitt told him to shove the $1000 up his ass or that he'd be willing to pay someone $1000 to do so.

***

I got into a bit dust-up with Will Pitt today on DU over this Rove indictment story. After it was done, I had zero respect for him.

But knowing that he faced you degenerates down on the scamdy thing makes me think a little better of him. I'm really hoping he or another of Andy's friends sues the living pants off you people for that cyberstalking.

****

they made it all up.

All anyone did was ask for proof.

Nobody stalked him. Nobody tried to block treatment.

As you can see from Mr. Pitt's post above everyone had every right to ask questions.

When Andy, Beth, and Will realized they couldn't answer the questions they created the Big Bad freeper myth.

Bev Harris was leader of the cabal out to kill Andy acording to legend, but even a quick glance at the facts prove that yet another lie.

And I'm no Bev fan.

***

and the meltdown continues

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/14/152723/909

[cathyf]

Yeah, the internet looks different on an standards-compliant browser...

cathy :-)

[Tom Maguire]

I think the implications are bad for Russert, and creation of a moderately beneficial smokescreen for Libby.

I think "moderately beneficial" is about right, although in terms or reasonable doubt, it may be even better - if THE Tim Russert is caught lying, how can the jury trust Cooper or Miller?

[cathyf]

I think what works better for Libby is "Russert lied" but in a very subtle variation on the usual lie -- which is that Russert forgot about the details of his conversation but that he lied when he did not say that he forgot.

Because if Russert had told the FBI, "Heck, I dunno, maybe I did insert a gossipy giggle about Wilson's wife sending him, but I sure don't remember one way or another," then eventually the obvious question would occur. Which is that the only way that it is possible is if Russert knew. And then a subpeona would arrive, demanding to know how Russert knew. So perhaps Russert knew about Wilson's wife, but didn't remember telling Libby, and skillfully answered questions in such a way that he didn't volunteer and they didn't ask. And they were thus left with the mistaken impression that it was impossible for Russert to tell Libby because he didn't know.

If Russert can be forced to admit this, then it does more than torpedo the Russert counts. It also would simultaneously show to the jury that a) nobody either in the press or the White House thought that the wifey gossip was all that interesting because everybody seems to have problems remembering whether they talked about it and what they said; and b) while it wasn't important, it was even less important to the WH than to the press.

In other words, when the FBI asked Russert "did you tell Libby?" Russert heard this and remembered "as if for the first time" that he knew that Wilson's wife sent him before his Libby conversation. Which makes Libby's "as if for the first time" just another one of those things everybody does.

cathy :-)

[kim]

cathyf, that rings true.
============

[Sara (Squiggler)]

cathf -- you can add me to the list of wonk vs gossip believers.

[clarice]

HEH! Midnight in the Garden of Mo and Curley.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis051606.htm