Powered by TypePad

« My Note To Dan Froomkin | Main | A Straw In The Wind? »

May 25, 2006

Comments

Gary Maxwell

Waas did not wnader off into left wing lala land. He makes his residency there.

Neuro-conservative

Maybe Overholser never heard about Mike Isikoff's Koran-flushing hoax. His second source was an official who merely remained silent when the story was presented to him.

Javani

"Tim Russert interviewed Matt Cooper and was a bit skeptical as well, but Cooper stuck to his story:"

If it turns out Russert did mention "Wilson's wife" to Libby, an ironic interview to look back at. "Skeptical" because it sets a precedent for grading Russert's testimony he, unlike Cooper, did not mention the wife?

Now this IMHO is somehtig to be skeptical about. From Miller:

""Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words ''Valerie Flame,'' clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall.""

I believe people's memories aren't perfect a year and a half after the fact, but if someone told her "Valerie Flame" and a few weeks later that unusual name becomes one of the most talked about names in the world, would it not have been "seared" in the memory of Miller at that time who told her that juicy bit?

Pete

Who was the source for Pincus? t doesn't sound like it was either Rove or Libby. Or am I mistaken?

Javani

"Walter Pincus thought his source was trying to *discourage* a story"

That seems to be exactly what happened. I'm not saying it is right to have said "Wilson's wife" on background, but there wasn't an intent to have her exposed in the media. They wanted to kibosh or bloody up Wilson's story.

Evidence of that is Novak had to make up an excuse why he went public with something he admits he was told not to make public, Wilson's wife. He rationalized he wasn't warned enough to keep the secret and he judged his agenda to raise alarm the Bush admin was hiring "liberals" outweighed the warnings given to him.

BTW, about Novak's "call" to Rove. Got to be B.S. Otherwise why bother to write that article about the leakers telegraphing to the world, and Rove, that SAO #2 only said "I heard that too?"

Pete

COOPER: ... And he did indeed give me a warning, saying don't get too far out on Wilson, which I took to mean don't lionize Wilson, don't believe everything you hear about Wilson.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/
0507/17/rs.01.html

Javani

"Who was the source for Pincus? t doesn't sound like it was either Rove or Libby. Or am I mistaken?"

You're not. It was another official. It may or may not have been the same who first leaked to Novak.

cathyf
I believe people's memories aren't perfect a year and a half after the fact, but if someone told her "Valerie Flame" and a few weeks later that unusual name becomes one of the most talked about names in the world, would it not have been "seared" in the memory of Miller at that time who told her that juicy bit?
Weeks?!?!? No, that's not the way memory works. If it's not put in long-term memory within a few minutes, it's gone. Gone. Not in some magic place where it can be retrieved if you really really really want it. Gone.

cathy :-)

Carol Herman

Ah. And, nobody's seen the REFERRAL letter from the CIA! There's rumor FOLEY wrote it. Not Tenet. But is Judge Walton without a clue, here? Not even "in camera?"

While the media keeps spinning, there still very limited in the information that's now so OBVIOUS. The Vice President NEVER sent Wilson on any trip to Niger. And, since false documents showed up on this trip, all that's known is that the french had something to do with it. And, the italians gave the scoop away. Plus, Wilson wasn't PRIVY to this information until after he blabbed about it.

Some day, there's gonna be a Trivia game, with all the facts in this case. People will play "slap your forehead if you remember this!" You'll see. It will morph.

And, unlike CNN when it said it was doing news 24/7; what they were doing were repetitive sound bites. NOT SO THE INTERNET. Here the site keeps moving forward. Gives a whole new meaning with how people can check out their observations, and their memories. This story is even more fake than the stuff Dan Rather tried to passw off. And, didn't.

Tom Maguire

Who was the source for Pincus?

Just before the indictment, Pincus said he had a White House source, but not Libby. I think Woodward and Novak shared a source, which seems to be non-WH, so Pincus can't be paired with Novak.

My guess is Ari Fleischer (about whom there have been some sealed filings indicative of who-knows-what.) Cathy Martin, Cheney's press flack, is a good guess as well.

topsecretk9
Woodward:

Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned. I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive.

You know, with that Bobby Ray Inman bit about Armitage and in hindsight, the italicized makes me wonder even more...

Javani

Cathy, Ace New York Times reporter would not keep a memory for a few weeks? You shot down another of my expectations that our country's "Best of the Best" have top smarts and their judgment is wise and mature. Kind of like the time I learned Scooter sent a letter to Miller in jail!

But Scooter did remember something. In the immediate days after the Novak article he was leaking the "all the reporters knew" explanation. If someone told him that such a short time before, he would have the id of that person memory seared in his memory (ironic Kerry allusion intended). And if he made that up out of whole cloth he would choose as his patsy Russert with whom he had an adversarial phone call, rather than and old pal like Miller? He wasn't close with Russert, and Libby's call wasn't made to spread the leak.

Maybe Libby did mixup who told him that. Or Russert did tell Libby about "all the reporters" as an inducement to corroborate something Russert learned. Would Russert lie to hide a dirty little secret about how journalists operate to tease out information in order to keep up public appearances? Or is he telling the truth but fears if he admits he knew about Wilson's wife it might make Libby's lie about him more plausible?

It's going to be a fun trial!

topsecretk9

Also, pardon me if this has been answered...but I was sure that there was much pixel ink devoted to the notion that Rove DID NOT cough up Novak in his first GJ appearance, let alone his 1 st FBI questioning?

Am I right to have this impression?


Also, Waas's article to me (because I have a pet theory) was far more wicked in terms of Novak and since that uncorrected and un-followed up on NYT's article on Rove's 5th appearance said Rove testified about Novak and that Novak made a GJ appearance in December makes me ...wonder...

Lesley

OT

Patron Saint of JOM


The Empire That Was Russia

The photo of Tolstoy is about 1000 plus photos from the beginning of the online exhibit. Gorgeous photography. Pics of Ekaterinberg also. I think you can pick out the house where the Tsar and his family were murdered.

Javani

Carol:

"Ah. And, nobody's seen the REFERRAL letter from the CIA! There's rumor FOLEY wrote it. Not Tenet. ...While the media keeps spinning"

Spin goes both ways. IIRC Foley had already resigned and wouldn't a "Legal Department" be the generator of it?

""Some day, there's gonna be a Trivia game""

Why don't you design it? Suggested game name, "The Politics of Truth."

topsecretk9

oh SNAP! I Larwny'd....

....who by the way is still blind as a bat but emailing occasionally in 24pt type in usual hilarious and Larwyn style opinions -- she is convinced ((and frankly has a point)) spanish media is in bed with Harry Reid -- she called it "Al Jazeera/MexiFornia"...anyhow I said why should they be any different than NPR))

topsecretk9

Thanks Lesley!!!

I dig that kind of thing. Thanks.

clarice

The referral letter would be initiated by the IG's office, but I think the details about Plame's employment might well come from her boss who was Alan Foley or his boss Pavitt.

clarice

topsecretk9

OK, on my Rove not testifying about Novak on Gj 1, but later -I am certain Jeff and TM had a go around about this...

Does anyone one remember?

JM Hanes

Carol:

"And, nobody's seen the REFERRAL letter from the CIA! There's rumor FOLEY wrote it. Not Tenet. But is Judge Walton without a clue, here? Not even "in camera?""

Actually no, he insisted on getting the referral letter awhile back. I don't recal having heard anything on it since then though.


BTW to anybody:

Is Walton overdue for a promised ruling? I had the impression there was something coming down the pike, but I can't remember what, offhand.

clarice

Last week I thought he said he thoought he'd had his discovery ruling out last Friday..

JM Hanes

TM

"Murray Waas is normally at the pinnacle of coverage in the Plame investigation...."

....from which he descended precipitously http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0425nj1.htm>last month. By the time he heads into the swamp with Rockefeller, I think it's pretty hard to dispute that he's carrying somebody else's water.

JM Hanes

Maybe he's been taken aback by some of the reading material that's been coming across his desk of late!

Pete

This has been mentioned by someone else to TM in a different blog, but I also felt the same:
1) Cooper's interpretation of what Rove said is quite different from what TM states here.
2) In the context of "consistent" you should consider that there may be multiple sources, not all sharing the same goal. So consistent is better evaluated by looking at the behavior of a source with reporters.

Lesley

Thanks, TS. I appreciated your comment

NB Should anyone outside the loop wonder why some loon (me) posts a photo of Tolstoy on the JOM site, it is in reference to another blogger commenting (a year or two ago) abou the Plame/Wilson mess, finding it complicated, arcane, almost Byzantine, and then said that going over to Tom McGuire's JOM was like "walking into a room full of people discussing a Russian novel you'd never read."

I found that hilarious. I still do. Whenever I bring this subject up to my friends and family, either their eyes glaze over and they slowly lose consciousness or they threaten me with institutionalization. Thank God for Tom and the rest of you.

clarice

Hee is the transcript of the Russert interview on H & Colmes:
"UPI reporting that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Plame case, said in court papers that Scooter Libby was told in 2003 that Valerie Plame was a classified CIA employee by his boss, Dick Cheney, and previously it was claimed that he was told about Plame by you.
RUSSERT: Yes.

COLMES: Which is the truth? Do you have any idea?

RUSSERT: Well, all I know is what I know personally. That Scooter Libby called me in June to complain about something that had been on a cable TV show. I didn't know who Valerie Plame was until I read Bob Novak's column.

COLMES: You had no idea? Was it known in Washington she was CIA?

RUSSERT: If it was, I missed it. I'll tell you that. And NBC didn't have the story. I wish we had.

COLMES: Yes.

RUSSERT: And now that I read what Mr. Fitzgerald has presented to the court, that not only the vice president, there are at least eight other officials in the government who had conversations with Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame.

COLMES: Right.

RUSSERT: So I'm pretty low down on the food chain. (((EXCEPT when your employee, Andrea Mitchell, and you chatted about it.)))

COLMES: Right.

RUSSERT: And I wish I had known.

COLMES: Was it your sense that he found that out from you before anybody else?

RUSSERT: How could he? I didn't know.

COLMES: Yes.

RUSSERT: If I had known who she was — you know, let me tell you. And I should say Libby never told me. I wish he had, because I would have called in my correspondents. I would have — as it turned out, after Libby called me to complain about what was on the show, I called the president of NBC News saying expect a call from Libby. He's furious about what he saw on TV. End of subject.

COLMES: Right. So you never told him. That's not what happened.

RUSSERT: I can't tell anyone what I didn't know myself."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196789,00.html

topsecretk9

Lesley
--"walking into a room full of people discussing a Russian novel you'd never read."--

Are you kidding? I remember that and should think KIM does too!

topsecretk9

Oh and Lesley---when I try and describe TM's site or blogging in general to friends...

their eyes glaze over and they slowly lose consciousness or they threaten me with institutionalization.
topsecretk9

See, when I read Waas I thought instantly -- good for Rove, bad for Novak.... this was based on 2 things...

1) I am certain there was much comment pixel ink devoted to the notion Rove DID NOT testify to Novak initially to the point of not having done so at GJ appearance 1 (Jeff I think--but open that I am wrong---was the commenter was floating this)
]
AND

2) the buried NYT's lede that Novak AFTER Woodward was called before the GJ..(which no lefty takes up

These are the sorts of things that set them OFF and into obivianal Hamsher blog-swarm hate, so?

JM Hanes

Lesley

I loved the Russian novel comment too! Thanks for the reminder.

JM Hanes

The most effective way to establish Cheney's "state of mind" as well as what he did or did not communicate to Libby would be to put V.P. on the stand, under oath, and ask him. The reason Fitz wants to use the annotated Wilson editorial is because calling Cheney is the very last thing he wants to do.

JM Hanes

Oops, wrong thread.

MayBee

I guess I'm not getting the big deal here.
Didn't all of the reporters contact the sources to find out if they were released or not? Didn't Woodward call his guy several times to find out if he could testify or not? Were they, too, concocting a story? (I say no).
And wasn't the standard assumption that the reporters wouldn't give up the source's name? (not that they could count on that *cough*Cooper*cough).

Of course, Phelps could tell us sometimes the source just quietly thanks the reporter afterwards, after the source has already lied on the witness stand.

MayBee

I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me.

Translation:Don't get too far ahead of the news cycle.

Rocco

OT..."Uranium is produced only as a by-product by the South African gold mines, and the two mines developed to be primary uranium producers - Beisa and Afrikander Lease (now Aflease) - were both closed down rapidly."
http://www.miningmx.com/energy/442959.htm

Didn't Wilson claim he was investing in gold mines and do you think this is worth investigating?

Kate

Waas must have lost his source. His last 2 article are essetially "Please indict Rove, Mr. Fitz, please. Yes, it's a weak case, but remember how bad Mr. Rove. Here are some things besides Cooper to help you remember."

Actually, it was Waas last column that made me begin to think Rove would not be indicted.

Syl

Tom is correct in pointing out Novak vs Cooper re 'I heard that too'.

Overholser is correct in that 'I heard that too' is simply passing on gossip and not confirmation.

However she is using that to imply that Novak and Rove were lying about 'I heard that too' and instead Rove had actually leaked to Novak.

In her eyes Novak couldn't use Rove as a confirming source, yet he says he did, so therefore Rove said more than 'I heard that too' and they are both lying.

Overholser is simply assuming the ideal she teaches is carried out in practice. Well, ms Overholser, it actually is! You just haven't figured out the game they play.

Novak had his two confirming sources: Armitage and Harlow. Saying he also had Rove is just a bit of literary flair to imply his story was really really credible. Three sources! See how diligent I am!

I doubt that Novak would have gone to print on Armitage and Rove's 'word' alone.

Cooper actually stated that he thought Libby's words were confirmation! But in the email he sent to his boss, he suggested calling the CIA (for what else but confirmation). Whether they called CIA and what CIA told them we don't know, but Cooper did not put anything about mrs. wilson in his story 'til AFTER Novak's article came out.

Therefore Cooper didn't use Libby's 'I heard that too' as confirmation of anything either. That was a bit of 'literary flair' on his part as well.

So, ms Overholser, you teach your students well. They don't go to print without proper confirmation, they just claim they have more sources than they actually have. Motive is usually self-serving.

Rocco

Cliff Kincaid points out a few flaws in that Newsday story.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A4188_0_2_0_C/

Seixon

Waas always churns out whoppers, uses almost only anonymous sources, and writes gigantic articles when it is not needed.

I was going to write about this article this morning after reading it last night, but since TM has taken a large bite out of it already, I think I'll spend my time on other more important matters...

Seixon

Oh, did they ever ask Miller to turn over her phone records? Wouldn't that answer quite a few questions? Oh, what am I saying. We all know Fitzgerald is disturbingly uncurious.

Pete

The story does not clarify what Rove mentioned to the FBI and what Rove mentioned in his subsequent grand jury investigations.

Pete

.. and also did Rove testify on this issue on his fifth grand jury appearnace?

Syl

Pete


The story does not clarify what Rove mentioned to the FBI and what Rove mentioned in his subsequent grand jury investigations.

I think you need to be more curious than that. If Novak called Rove and told him not to worry, I protect my sources don't you think Novak ALSO called Armitage to tell him the same thing?

The story did not mention Armitage telling the FBI that he got a call from Novak too.

Aren't you curious about that? Seems Armitage has been called back a couple times. Yes, for Woodward, but why not for Novak too. In fact if, as the times reported, Novak was called back again after Woodward, isn't it more likely Novak was called back re Armitage than re Rove?


Syl

Seixon

There's some interesting new data in the Waas article. I wouldn't dismiss it. In fact it's even more interesting for what it leaves out than for what it says. Think Armitage.

Sue

This may have already been mentioned, I haven't looked to see, but Tim Russert was on Greta's show last night, hawking his new book. At the end of the book interview, Greta asked him about his day. He described what he typically did, read several newspapers, contacted sources, CIA, State, WH, etc. I hope to see the transcript soon. Anyway, I thought it interesting that his typical day involves contacting State to see what's up. I suspect he knew exactly what was going on in the weeks surrounding Joe Wilson's Big Adventure.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Overholser is correct in that 'I heard that too' is simply passing on gossip and not confirmation.'

Sorta, but Novak and Rove may have worked out a code over the years and Novak would recognize 'You're on to something, Bob'.

However, as I said on an earlier thread, the real howler with the Overholser quote is that it's meant to suggest that Rove must have said more because it's 'too thin a reed' to support a story. But, as Syl recognizes, Novak had confirmation from the CIA itself that Val was with The Agency AND that(more or less) she had something to do with her husband going to Niger. The reeds don't get much stronger than that.

Patrick R. Sullivan

This from javani is almost perfect:

'...if someone told her "Valerie Flame" and a few weeks later that unusual name becomes one of the most talked about names in the world, would it not have been "seared" in the memory of Miller at that time who told her that juicy bit?'

A perfect enscapsulation of the logical fallacy behind the entire prosecution, that is.

Pete

Syl - I am interested in knowing who all Novak called. I'd be VERY interested to know if Novak called his other source, and told him that he would protect him. I do not think it is a given that Novak told the other source the same thing he said to Rove. And I would be very interested to know what Novak's other source told the FBI.

owl

Tim Russert was on Greta's show last night, hawking his new book. At the end of the book interview, Greta asked him about his day. He described what he typically did, read several newspapers, contacted sources, CIA, State, WH, etc.

I saw that Sue and agree that STATE jumped at me also. Playing my harp again....think June 13 Russert pushing so hard on Condi.

maryrose

They know there isn't going to be a Rove indictment; not now or in the future ergo: Waas comes out with this new attempt to tar and feather Rove. These guys are pathetic.

maryrose

Russert is concealing something. My guess is he won't come clean until he is done hawking his new book which is currently number one on the NYT best seller list. Really telling was Russert's interview with Matthews on Hardball. Not one word about Libby or Plame. Makes you go Hmmm....

ed

"Howler One" is completely disingenuous. First in that Woodward and Pincus did not speak to the "White House Official" that Copper, Novak and Miller did. Second in that, "Don't get too far out on Wilson" refers to Joe Wilson and has nothing to do with Plame. Rove is not discouraging Cooper from reporting on the relationship, he is discouraging him from writing the Joe Wilson side of the story. In fact, he appears to be directing Cooper in a new direction, clearly a form of encouragement.

topsecretk9

Walton Media opinion in...I emailed to Clarice...If anyone wants a copy email me.

NIBystander

Yup.

Cooper's testimony is that he interpreted the 'I heard it, too' comment as confirmation. And, since he is a professional, schooled journalist, he is certainly aware of the Overholser 'rule'. He, therefore, is misrepresenting facts ('knew or should have known'). Fitz should indict him. Come to think of it Fitz should just indict everybody, including particularly, himself.

What a bunch of nonsense!!

windansea

Update: Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesperson, has sent me this response to Murray's article:

"Karl Rove has never urged anyone, directly or indirectly, to withhold information from the Special Counsel or to testify falsely. No one has ever said or implied to Karl Rove that he intended to do so. The Special Counsel has never suggested that there is any evidence to support such an allegation. Frankly, it is hard to think of anything less reliable or less relevant than what investigators may or may not have speculated before they had started collecting evidence. Circulating such speculation now is nothing short of irresponsible."

talkleft

topsecretk9

Clarice is reviewing the order...but in light of the last few comments about Cooper ther is this


A NEW RULING IN THE CIA LEAK CASE: BAD NEWS FOR COOPER? [Byron York]

Judge Reggie Walton has ruled on Lewis Libby's request for documents from media organizations in the CIA leak case. The order is mostly negative for Libby; the judge has reviewed the requested documents, and in many instances has ruled that they would not be relevant to Libby's defense. For example, concerning Libby's request for notes from former New York Times reporter Judith Miller:

It is this Court’s firm conclusion after reviewing the notebooks that providing them to the defendant would not assist him in any way in his attempt to determine who may have provided information to Miller about Ambassador Wilson, his trip to Niger, or Valerie Plame Wilson, or when she acquired such information.

The result is the same for several other requests. But the judge gave one, possibly quite significant, victory to Libby. Libby had requested the various drafts for Time reporter Matthew Cooper's account of his testimony in the case, an account published in July 2005. Time's lawyers had argued that the drafts were simply different versions of the same thing and had no value. Judge Walton disagreed and suggested that the drafts could raise credibility issues about Cooper's testimony:

After the Court’s examination of the documents, there is no question that they are relevant, as they recount the conversation between Cooper and the defendant, which is the basis for several charges in the indictment. The admissibility of these documents again turns on whether they can be used as impeachment evidence. At oral argument on this motion, counsel for Time asserted that the drafts will merely be cumulative, as the drafts are simply repetitive of the published story. As already discussed, only after Cooper testifies will documents which impeach his testimony become admissible. However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment.
ed

Looks like he doesn't deny anything Waas reported in the article.

ed

Are those various drafts of Cooper's Time article he wrote after testifying?

topsecretk9

So, Coopers lawyers a while back made the concession to hand over notes to Fitz...apparently not these - drafts with notes...so is fitz left wondering a couple things about Cooper...like Time and Coope gipped him and Cooper wasn't candid about things...

Also, if Cooper has a problem then that speaks well for Rove...if he was to be indicted principally on his dealings with Cooper...Welfare Reform is floating around.

ed

Ok so his published account relays his testimony a bit differently then one of his drafts and Libby's team will get to ask why and Cooper will have to explain why the published account differs from what he originally intended to relay about his testimony?

ed

Topsecret, why would Fitz even want the drafts for Cooper's testimony story. He was in the room at the time and knows exactly what Cooper said. This is a case of Cooper not wanting to reveal to much to the public post testifying.

ed

Or of putting a different spin on what he testified to.

topsecretk9

---Are those various drafts of Cooper's Time article he wrote after testifying?

---


NO

topsecretk9

Ed
I imagine these ar working copies of the story and they contain communications amongst the authors on various aspects and obviously they reflect information that Cooper has not revealed.

Also, I don't think it matters if Fitz specially asked for them or not...he asked for everything during a relevant time period...apply this request to the WH...would you be happy if they were picking a choosing


As a sidenote too...wonder how this will relate to Fitz and the VNov situation

Pisistratus

TS9-according to the Libby stenographer York, whom you just quoted above: "Libby had requested the various drafts for Time reporter Matthew Cooper's account of his testimony in the case, an account published in July 2005."

owl

I posted it at the time (sorry no memory when) of seeing Cooper and Isinkof on PBS. It was just a drive-by viewing as I never watch that channel...but saw them and stopped. Did NOT see the full interview but what I heard...

Team Libby needs that tape because Cooper was really brushing off what Libby said as a 'nothing' more than a 'heard that too' thing. They were both after Rove's scalp.

Pisistratus

If Cooper's testimony can be impeached because he testifies differently than he testified before the grand jury, he's got greater problems than being impeached by the defense since we all know how Fitz feels about perjury.

ed

Topsecret:

Only one author here:

"What I Told the Grand Jury"
EXCLUSIVE Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on
By MATTHEW COOPER

Jul. 25, 2005

clarice

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

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

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

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

Jeff

However, it seems as if it was only 24 business hours ago that Jane Hamsher was reminding us of the Murray Waas story from March 2004 in which we were told that Rove denied discussing Wilson's wife with Novak in his early FBI interviews. Mr. Waas is now telling us that Rove discussed that in his first meeting with the FBI, so I think my talking points can be updated in Karl's favor.

Not so fast. What Rove actually testified to, and when, remains a real baffler. There are several things worth differentiating regarding what Rove testified to: 1)was he the source - that is, the first source - for Novak? 2)was he a source for Novak? 3)Did he discuss Plame with Novak? My suspicion is that Rove's initial testimony was that he talked with Novak about Plame, but was not a source for him, much less the (initial) source. And indeed, there have been reports that Rove was surprised to learn that he was in fact treated by Novak as a confirming source, in light of having just said, by his account, nothing more than "I've heard that too." And his story is that all he meant was that he too had heard such info as unsubstantiated gossip from journalists - though, so inconveniently, he can't remember who he heard it from.

Note what Waas' new story says:

Rove told the grand jury that the inference he took away from the conversation was that Novak would say that Rove was not a source of information for the column about Plame. Rove further testified that he believed he might not have been the source because when Novak mentioned to Rove that Plame worked for the CIA, Rove simply responded that he had heard the same information.

I don't want to get too far out on Rove on this, since there have been so many puzzling reports, but I'm not yet sure that there is any inconsistency between previous stories and this one. Furthermore, while it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't deny talking with Novak altogether from the getgo, there are some pretty funny-looking things in his testimony, it looks like. "I talked with him, but I wasn't a source. I told him I'd heard the same thing, but it was just gossip, although I didn't tell him that [maybe]."

Tom Maguire

From Waas:

Novak's quotes in Newsday -- that administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country -- were consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House officials for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

From Ed:

"Howler One" is completely disingenuous. First in that Woodward and Pincus did not speak to the "White House Official" that Copper, Novak and Miller did.

This is the "Insert fingrers in ears and hum" rebuttal.

Ed, re-read the Waas excerpt. He is *not* saying that only the official Novak spoke to was exhorting reporters to write about the wife. Let me help:

...consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House **officials** for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included **Judith Miller** of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

"Officials", plural - not just Rove.

"Judith Miller", who did not claim Rove as a source.

Send better spinners. Ands frannkly, I am not expecting any of the usual suspects on the left to try and defend Waas on this.

ed

Does Waas consider Armitage a White House Official, is the question I guess?

clarice

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

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

It also looks to me that as soon as Mille concludes her direct testimony, Libby will seek and get some of the documents he wanted and argues she knew about Plame and Wilson before their conversations and it was she who interjected the subject into them.

owl

Ya know....it's a sick thing when a Fitz can take crap like this and use it as blackmail and generate two/half years of negative headlines. Pretty powerful blackmail. Criminal.

ed

Even Miller's story could be taken as encouragement by Libby.

topsecretk9

Ed

Read the order...before you start snarking. I'll email it to you if you like

Sue

Top,

Can you email it to me? Thanks in advance.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

How could Cooper be in trouble for lying to the public? He's a journalist - that's what he is trained to do. He might have to admit it on the stand but that wouldn't surprise anyone, would it?

Maybe I'm missing something (and he certainly may be open to easy impeachment) but "I testified truthfully but shaded my reporting on my testimony" doesn't appear to be criminal.

owl

So.....you lying now or then.

ed

I'm not snarking

---Are those various drafts of Cooper's Time article he wrote after testifying?

---


NO


Uh, yes, they are. But please send it my way I'd love to see where I'm wrong. I think Rick Ballard has it right. But his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt if it's shown he lied to the public.

clarice

Yes, Rick, you are missing something. According to the opinion, Cooper's drafts report two inconsistent versions of his conversation with Libby and both cannot be consistent with his testimony.

Therefore, whatever he said is impeachable by his own hand.

clarice

Miller's notes may also provide material to impeach her tesimony, but they have the virtue of being internally consistent so Libby has to wait until she testifies to get them.

(My guess..Fitz may remove the Cooper counts from the indictment, rather than rely on Cooper as a witness.)

Pisistratus

Hope springs eternal.

hey, how's Hastert lawsuit against ABC progressing?

Sue

Is the Hastert lawsuit tied into the Plame case?

Sue

I guess I should have said alleged Hastert lawsuit, or threatened Hastert lawsuit, to be precise.

clarice

Well, Pis & ed, You both seem to think reporting what the opinion says is "being Libby's steno" or wishful thinking. If you think we have misquoted the opinion--YOU read the file and provide evidence of that.


We always knew Miller was a weak witness, and now after having read her notes, J Walton seems to signal that himself.
I always thought Cooper was a weak witness, and it appears the J thinks he certainly is.

That leaves Russert..and as far as I can tell his public statements are evasive and refer to a conversation he conveniently places in the wrong month and one in whichhe has no contemporary notes.

Pisistratus

An in-joke. Hastert is now saying the FBI maliciously leaked to ABC, rendering a libel case, a topic of discussion yesterday, sort of moot.

clarice

Why, would it render the case moot..And I never heard Hastert say he regarded that to be so.
Whatever someone may have told ABC, it is the DoJ which supervises the investigation and their denialS could not have been clearer.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I agree that he is easily impeachable, I took your "in trouble" to mean that he might have some criminal liability attached to his reporting. Actually, it's Fitz who is in trouble. He's down to Russert.

I would think that TeamLibby would file another Motion to Dismiss concerning charges related to anything to which Cooper testified.

Pisistratus

Clarice-you didn't misquote the opinion. TS9 misinterpreted it, however.

Personally, I think it was the Judge just throwing Libby a bone. Hell, for all we know now, Cooper's drafts are even tougher on Libby than the published story, and Times lawyers made him restrain himself.

It's the administartion officials who will sink Libby, however, not teh reporters.

clarice

It is unethical for a prosecutor to call as a witness (except as a hostile witness) someone whose credibility he does not vouch for. If Cooper has composed two inconsistent drafts of his conversation with Libby ,he is not a credible witness for the government and should not be called by Fitz to testify. In the absence of Cooper's testimony those counts fail.

cathyf
...if someone told her "Valerie Flame" and a few weeks later that unusual name becomes one of the most talked about names in the world, would it not have been "seared" in the memory of Miller at that time who told her that juicy bit?
If you stuck a nice raw steak out on the barbeque grill, and then a few weeks later turned the grill on, would you not have a wonderful steak "seared" just right?

(Don't try that experiment at home, or at least you should probably call 911 before the first bite of a steak which has been sitting outside rotting for a "few weeks".)

cathy :-)

Pisistratus

"It is unethical for a prosecutor to call as a witness...someone whose credibility he does not vouch for."

Clarice, you devious strategist, you're really trying to lay the grounds for not letting Fitz put Cheney or Bush on the stand, aren't you?

Syl

Jeff

Waas 2004: Rove denied discussing Wilson's wife

Waas 2005: Rove simply responded that he had heard the same information.

And you think there is no inconsistency? Waas knew damn well the implication of the words he used and how they'd be read. That's his damned job, silly.

Reminds me of something, now what was it. Oh yea. Behest.

Pisistratus

Syl-Waas 2004 article makes no such allegation that Rove denied discussing Plame with Novak:

"But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July."

You guys are expert in detecting evasive weaseling. You can't see it in Rove's denial?

ed

Clarice, I had no argument with what you wrote. It seems consistent with my comment. Topsecret claimed otherwise, that's all.

clarice

Well, why did you call York "a Libby stenographer" when all he did was accurately report on the opinion? Is that now a term of art for anyone who doesn't take the Wilsonista line? I first heard that description about Sue Schneider's reporting on the SSCI, a report which was singularly accurate in a sea of media misreporting or neglecting what the SSCI said.

ed

That wasn't me

ed

TS9-according to the Libby stenographer York, whom you just quoted above: "Libby had requested the various drafts for Time reporter Matthew Cooper's account of his testimony in the case, an account published in July 2005."

Posted by: Pisistratus | May 26, 2006 at 09:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.