Powered by TypePad

« Same Courtroom, Different Reality | Main | Teed, Totally »

May 06, 2006

Comments

kim

I think Shuster is distilling seeds and stems.
============================

kim

The mot injuste. Should have been steeping, not distilling.
==================================

Tom Maguire

CNN has a good story as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/05/cia.leak/

kim

Jeff, in #26, was nicely pointing out that when reporters try to speculate about this, they haven't a clue compared to the Plamisto.
======================================

Kate

Actually, I tbink Rove's indictment may be the beginning of an honest look into this flawed and political investigation, Fitzgerald's biases, the multiple mistakes.

I don't think conservatives are expecting a Rove indictment and this may be a wakeup call to how the left continues to criminalize policy differences.

Bring it on!

rXapt

Shuster should change his name to SHYSTER.

kim

Lilypads? Frogger was crossing a multi-lane highway. Maybe I got addicted to the raw stuff, and he was exposed to the Reality Free Based.
=========================

Tess

If they wanted to declassify the NIE, why didn't they just declassify the NIE?

If they wanted to "push back" on Wilson, why didn't they just push back on Wilson?

Why didn't they just do all this openly and publicly? Why all this sneaking around with Judy Miller, et. al.? Why all these little drips of information?

The arguments coming from all the White House excuse-makers are illogical. It just defies common sense.

Kate

Tess: my understanding is selective leaking is common practice in most White Houses. This White House had a hostile press, so its efforts may have been more clumsy, I agree.

In retrospect, the White House could have pushed back more openly but I suspect they still would have had a PR disaster on their hands, maybe not a legal one.

BumperStickerist

------

Joe Friday: Kos Diarist

"Not those facts, ma'am,
just those facts."

----

Seixon

So when is MSNBC going to fire Shuster? I seriously can't come up with a single reporter on television that is as dishonest and fraudulent as he is. He's like Murray Waas, but on TV.

After finding out that my ban at FDL had been lifted due to their site move, I started commenting again. That sure didn't last long! After making two comments, now all my comments disappear....

Seixon

Oh and for those who were following along my trek to Larry Johnson's TPMCafe blog, after about 10 days, Johnson has finally conceded that I was right and that he was wrong about the NIE.

I'll be writing a post about this later.

kim

S, they'd like to delete your memory; they're doing the next best thing, deleting their own.
=================================

Semanticleo

It’s groundhog day! Thanks for responding.

1.) Who am *I*?
Despite the fact that it shouldn’t matter who I am, (Meglomania demands fleas know
their place) suffice it to say I am an ordinary citizen with no political influence other
than what skills I possess in written form, and the freedom to express my views in that format in public forums, of which your site participates.

As for why you should care that *I* challenged GR to the same debate, it’s because
you seem linked at the hip and an ideal soulmate match for the god Janus. Why should he care? I have no idea what he cares about other than selling his books. But
he is, ostensibly, a professor of law and clings to that status.

2.) As to the reason for the debate in live format.

a.) Immediate feedback-
Too often I have noticed that written format’s primary advantage(The ability to stage,
in real time, those lost and forlorn moments when we think following a conversation
and fantasize about what ‘we would have said’) is also one of it’s most glaring
disadvantages. E.G. ‘cherry-picking’ through a surmised ‘hole’ and seizing on the
cheers of the hometeam grandstand. Then comes the belated response and the
original ‘truth’ of moment gets buried in a sea of bologna. It is much like the
defense of Libby (or OJ Simpson), wherein unlimited money buys unlimited braintrust
and time for the maximization of obfuscation, and sowing optimal confusion
amongst the bewildered population, who have neither the time, or the patience to
decipher the truth-tellers from the plausible denialists.

b.) Body language (video) ---Voice inflection (audio)
No explanation needed here, is there? That’s why courts conduct their business
In LIVE FORMAT, not written. Because human confrontation is the best way
To ROOT OUT PREVARICATION!

So Maguire, do you think you can can the condescension and join the ranks of
The humble masses (Molly Maguires et al) and challenge Greenwald to a live
Debate?

kim

Ah, yes, a paeon to staircase philosophy. That's what you think after you slam the door on the way out and start down the stairs. There are the insights you miss as you were screaming in the room just one minute ago.

Live? Conversation used to degenerate into fisticuffs, or, worse yet, agreement. Thank God, we have a new format.
=========================================

PeterUK

"Olbermann:...Scooter Libby's attorney says he was warned about the implication of outing Valerie Plame's name, any idea who warned him or how did this come out in court?"

How many times can the woman be outed? This is getting like multiple loss of virginity,presumably at some point Val would have to be inned again.

What a splendid line,
"Shuster tells us that his tea leaves, or whatever leaves form the basis for his reporting"

Wouldn't it be better if Libby simply claimed it was the drugs and got a lift home from the police.

kim

This bud's for you.
===========

Kate

Well, I went over to Crooks and Liars and read Shuster's, er, reporting.

Apparently, Fitzgerald's body language was "astounding" and screamed "I am going to indict Rove, hear that, Hillary."

I made that last part up. Schuster would be proud.

Semanticleo

"worse yet, AGREEMENT. Thank God, we have a new format."

There it is.

Sue

Either that or you are boring as hell.

kim

There it was. Walk out on the landing, and you wonder what it was. Then come the stairs. Pussycat, watch your step.
============================

Other Tom

Shuster is a bumptious simpleton. Does anyone know whether he is receiving feedback about his ridiculous factual errors?

topsecretk9

Teeth meet rearend


"WHAT HATH KELLER WROUGHT:

San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who wrote a book about Barry Bonds's alleged steroid use, were subpoenaed yesterday to testify before a federal grand jury regarding court documents they used in their articles, the newspaper reported. The subpoenas called for the authors to turn over their copies of grand jury transcripts from the 2003 investigation of a steroid distribution ring based at the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, according to the Chronicle. They also were asked to provide the identity of the person or persons who leaked the secret documents to them.

Reaping the whirlwind, to coin a phrase."

PeterUK

"he humble masses (Molly Maguires et al) and challenge Greenwald to a live
Debate?"

I'm up for that as long as I can use phrases and words like,stranger to the truth,pathological liar,fantasist,opportunist snake oil salesman,dissembler,fabulist,pseudologist,equivocator,
fabricator,palterer and tergversator on Schuster the Booster.

kim

It is the Madness of King Pinch the Third, pride overweened that brought journalism to this. Press power seems like an entitlement to him, not something earned through ruthless dedication to the truth.

And in America, yet.
===================================

Kate

Other Tom: Yes, he gets feedback. Matthews tells him reguarlary:

You're doing a heck of a job, Shustie!

or words to that effect.

Notice, I now spell Shuster's name correctly. He can't be my hero if I don't spell his name right, right?

Tom Maguire

From Tess:

If they wanted to "push back" on Wilson, why didn't they just push back on Wilson?

Why didn't they just do all this openly and publicly? Why all this sneaking around with Judy Miller, et. al.? Why all these little drips of information?

Well, no one was listening? Tenet made his push back attempt late on a Friday, and the only headline he got was taking the fall for the 16 Words.

Meanwhile, even *after* the Wilson op-ed in which he finally clarified that he was sent by the CIA, folks like Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews kept saying he was sent by Cheney.

Lew Clark

I challenge the "Deal No Deal" girls to a debate. I've seen their body language, and I want like it!

richard mcenroe

I think Jeff should join the debate IF and only IF

he is permitted to display video or prints of EVERY quote Shuster, the Times, Greenwald et al have truncated, abrudged, misquoted or just plain LIED ABOUT all through this invesigation.

Semanticleo

It's just as I thought.

*crickets*

What is the mating call?

Oh yeah. Bwaaaack...Buk Buk Buk Buk.....Bwaaaaaaack.Bk Bk

kim

Seixon might fall for it.
==============

kim

The would be instigator won't talk himself, but laughs at himself.
==================================

PeterUK

Gawd,Cement is your life so uneventful you have descended to pulling insects.Take plenty of cold showers and cut out the red meat.

kim

There's a mess of lightning bugs strewn around from where he tried to figure out how to light a fire in someone's ass.
========================================

Kate

I read Anon Lib on Rove and still believe that a prosecutor with good judgement would exercise discretion and not indict Rove.

Rove knew that there was talk about him being the leaker because Joe Wilson was talking about it early on.

It's like when your at a staff meeting and the boss gives this general warning about someone doing somthing dumb. You kinda run through a checklist in your mind and say ...hmm..feel sorry for the idiot that did that and glad it wasn't me.

Same thing here. Rove probably thought..oh, I had that conversation with Novak, but didn't recall the conversation with Cooper or didn't consider it leaking.

Fitz can go for it but he'll be overreaching. Why not just give him the same treatment Hillary got when a prosecutor opted not charge her.

clarice

Actually, in Hillary's case the prosecutor flat out said she'd lied, but he didn't think it would be sinsible to indict her because no jury in D.C. was likely to convict her (a Dem first lady).

OT: But for an excellent roundup of the stupidity of the not enough troops-failed war plan-Rummy's destroying the DID..I recommend this: http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5473

maryrose

Kate:
Don't worry , believe it or not I don't Think Fitz is so dumb that he would indict Rove. I think with Joe's speaking tour and Val's new book he now knows he has been played for the sucker that PT Barnum says is born every minute. I don't think he wants to go down that rocky road again and go up against Luskin either. He won't get lucky with a judge like Tatel either and the key thing here is the information was de-classified. His comment to the gj"Now do you understand tells me that he respects their intelligence and that they understand an honest mistake can be made.Rove has corrected the record-that should be enough for them. I find it ironic that Val's title of her new book is" Fair Game " Hasn't she tired of playing the victim yet? I have to admit I have very little patience for people who play the victim card instead of getting on with their life.

clarice

For $2.5 million I'd play Joan of Arc..

Barney Frank

Leo or cleo or whatever,

"a.) Immediate feedback-
Too often I have noticed that written format’s primary advantage(The ability to stage,
in real time, those lost and forlorn moments when we think following a conversation
and fantasize about what ‘we would have said’) is also one of it’s most glaring
disadvantages. E.G. ‘cherry-picking’ through a surmised ‘hole’ and seizing on the
cheers of the hometeam grandstand. Then comes the belated response and the
original ‘truth’ of moment gets buried in a sea of bologna. It is much like the
defense of Libby (or OJ Simpson), wherein unlimited money buys unlimited braintrust
and time for the maximization of obfuscation, and sowing optimal confusion
amongst the bewildered population, who have neither the time, or the patience to
decipher the truth-tellers from the plausible denialists."

This is simply and utterly fallacious. If you are correct then the time and care that has been lavished on books, essays and written speeches should take a back seat to all the extemporaneous ramblings of bloggers, popinjays and college debating societies through the ages. Extemporaneous debates serve a purpose but they favor the glib and facile; they do precious little to advance ideas and serious thought.

"b.) Body language (video) ---Voice inflection (audio)
No explanation needed here, is there? That’s why courts conduct their business
In LIVE FORMAT, not written. Because human confrontation is the best way
To ROOT OUT PREVARICATION!"

Have you ever heard of depositions, affadvaits and written briefs? Almost universally, when a judge wants a thorough and complete airing of an issue he requests writen briefs not oral argument.
And in an exchange of ideas and opinions it is even less useful to ROOT OUT PREVARICATION because opinions are just that, opinions. They are usually neither true nor false, but rather right or wrong or some combination of the two.

How many people can quote anything from the Lincoln Douglas debates versus how many people can quote the Gettysburg address? There's a reason for that.

AJStrata

Team Libby identified Marc Grossman as a long time friend and travelling companion to Joe Wilson, confirming the dots I connected on earlier posts.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1762

I just wonder if they ever traveled to Niger together?

Tom Maguire

I read Anon Lib on Rove and still believe that a prosecutor with good judgement would exercise discretion and not indict Rove.

Oh, I probably agree - I don't trust Fitzgerald's judgement on this.

However, my thought is this - the case against Rove is either a lot weaker or a lot stronger than we think.

To oustiders, the odd circumstances of the email and the phone log look suspicious.

But Fitzgerald has investigated this. Either he has evidecne that, for example, the emails were tampered with, or he doesn't.

If he does, Rove's goose is cooked.

If he doesn't, we are left with an odd conspiracy shot with holes - the prosecution theory would be that Rove pretended to forget about Cooper, then hoped the email to Hadley would not turn up.

Kate

TM: If Fitzgerald had that strong a case against Rove, he would have indicted him years ago or at least on 28 October.

I haven't heard any evidence that the e-mails were tampered with, none. If Fitzgerald has that evidence he got it recently.

My guess is he's going with the pretend to forget theory (how could anyone forget a conversation with Cooper?).

One thing I do find interesting is the number of trips to the GJ for Rove. This is a courtesy (?) not afforded Libby. Looks like Fitzgerald decided Libby lied early on and is having a more difficult time with Rove or he's just setting a more elaborate perjury trap.

Patton

OK guys, gather round...here's our Grand conspiracy:

1. We won't call any reporters, we will wait for them to call us. (BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN AND WHO WILL CALL? DO WE JUST GO WITH ANYONE?)

2. We will tell a NYT reporter on DEEP BACKGROUND so she won't publish the information, just use it to try to get her own paper to correct the story. (BUT WOULDN'T IT BE SMARTER TO CALL A COMPETITOR
WHO WOULD SPLASH 'LYING NEW YORK TIMES" ALL OVER THEIR FRONT PAGE?)

3. We won't tell Bob Novak and Bob Woodward. (BUT WOODWARD WAS THE FIRST TO KNOW AND NOVAK WAS THE FIRST TO PUBLISH)

4. We will tell reporters this is deep background information so they have to get other sources. (BUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANGE THE NEWS, HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN THEY WILL GET CONFIRMATIONS??)

5. We will tell thwem something that many already knew. (AND HOW DOES THIS HELP?)

6. We will tell them just that information that happens to be the main question, why didn't you listen to the guy Cheney sent to Niger. (BUT WHY NOT SOMETHING REAL JUICY?)

7. We will tell only two reporters and they have to have already heard the information, and we will tell them it is deep background information so they don't run off at the inkwell on the great Joe Wilson. (BUT COULDN'T WE JUST POINT OUT WILSON IS A HUGE LIAR??)

windansea

this just in...the NYT defends Zarqawi's rifle skills

The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.

todays times..link needs registration

Patton

I am still pissed off at the so-called judge.

Who does he think he is telling a defendent what his defense needs to look like.

If I was Wells, (and my client wasn't in jeopardy), I would have went off on judge high and mighty.

I would have said:

Yes, your honor, and I also don't know how Mr. Libby being the first to tell a reporter has anything to do with his perjury case, but it was in the governments press conference; and a compete lie I might add.

and I don't know how the CIA referral has anything to do with perjury, but I am sure old Fitz will wave it in front of the jury;

and I don't know how leaking of classified information has to do with this perjury, YET this prosecutor had it all over the front pages for a week. Filed it before this very court who said nothing until it came time to chastise the defense for daring to publicly correct the governments lies.

So if you aren't going to reign in this prosecutor, don't tell me how to try my case.

If this prosecutor believes Mr. Libby comitted some crime before his investigations started, why doesn't he indict on that evidence, rather then want to make the claims repeatedly and then go running behind a secrecy wall everythime someone calls him on it.

All we have seen from your honor is excuses for this prosecutors sorry behavior and amatuerish filings. Mr. Libby isn't the first man Fitz wrongly indicted for perjury and thanks to spineless judges like yourself, he won't be the last.

He sitting their pretty smug for a guy who
disclosed 18 boxes of government secrets compared to no proven or even charged instance of that by my client.

Sir.

Where do I pay my fine?

kim

One alternative blog is obsessed with the idea that the Rove email is fake, either created later, or composed with malice aforethought. It is beyond their ken to consider that it is a straightforward contemporaneous account of a White House aware that it was being baited.
================================

Rick Ballard

Theoretically ( and I admit that I have not seen any evidence that would validate the theory) Fitz is investigating the disclosure of Plame's "affiliation with the CIA". If that ever was what he was doing shouldn't he have a chat with the five defense witnesses in order to tie a bow on the "investigation"?

And if Ambassador Munchausen was indeed the source of information wouldn't his investigation be incomplete if he did not interrogate Munchausen himself? After all, if the defense can come up with five so quickly, how are we to be sure that there were not fifty in all? Or five hundred? And how can it be known if some of them were not grubby journos - precisely the focal points of the investigation as Fitz outlined it in the indictment?

Or does Munchie get the same free pass as Sir Dick?

kim

The jury is going to wonder why Fitz is hiding all this stuff. Fitz should be wondering why he is hiding all this stuff. Prosecutors, and the public, are supposed to love discovery. In this case, the outlet to the public, that is the press, is perverted by involvement, and the prosecutor is so used to unveiling conspiracies that he can't see the wool that he's pulled over his own eyes, on this one.
==================================

kim

I wonder if Joe yet regrets his last minute words with Fitz before the Libby indictment. Maybe that's why he wants it to be all about the perjury, now.
=========================

Kate

Kim - why do you think Wilson would regret his words with Fitzgerald. Every indication I have is that Fitzgerald has bought into the Wilson narrative of the poor, noble Whistleblower. Even leftists know Wilson is slime, not Fitzgerald though, he's a true believer.

PeterUK

Windansea,
New York Times in all its glory Sounds like the rreporter has a crush on the headhavker in chief.

PeterUK

TM,
Does Rove seem like the kind of man who could hide or fake an email? I suspect he would need help.

maryrose

Wilson tipped his hand too much in his last conversation with Fitz and now is open to suspicion . Wilson has to back off now because it looks increasingly likely that Rove will not be indicted-can't prove the leak claim -can't prove Val covert-his only shot now is Libby's perjury though initially I bet Joe was surprised that was the charge that was brought. He also knows obstruction charge is DOA. To bring that in exposes Joe for the liar he has always been!

topsecretk9

---To oustiders, the odd circumstances of the email and the phone log look suspicious.

But Fitzgerald has investigated this. Either he has evidecne that, for example, the emails were tampered with, or he doesn't.

If he does, Rove's goose is cooked.

If he doesn't, we are left with an odd conspiracy shot with holes - the prosecution theory would be that Rove pretended to forget about Cooper, then hoped the email to Hadley would not turn up.---

If this is the case...then- this would be a much more stronger case to bring Oct/05 (than Libby's) even without VNovak...

Kate

maryrose..can you elaborate on the conversation with Fitz. My understanding is that it took place after/before Miller testified and, according to Wilson, was friendly. What have you heard?

topsecretk9

--much more stronger--sigh

I should have just said...more better. grr

Rick Ballard

TS,

I think more stronger is more better than more better.

maryrose

My understanding;{please correct me if I am wrong} was Joe was giving Fitz his side of the kerfuffle and sharing how he felt his wife was targeted. He was putting his spin on it.

maryrose

TS:
much stronger would be best.

kim

I'm assuming that somewhere along the line Joe assured Fitz that his wife's privacy was desperately important. It could explain pursuit past when Fitz realized the statute had not been violated. If that is one of the rationales under which Fitz is proceeding, and he finds that there are five testimonies to Wilson not respecting her privacy, then, Joe may come to regret his words. I assume he reassured Fitz again of this in October of '05.
==========================

Kate

kim and maryrose-thanks for the clarification. I knew that Fitz/Wilson talked in Sept/Oct but wasn't sure what the topic was. Thanks.

Patrick R. Sullivan

It's been announced that Val will be getting $2.5 million for her memoir to be published in 2007.

maryrose

remember it is expensive to live in California so the Wilsons will need every penny of that 2.5 million.Is that before taxes or do they heve some Teraysa Heinz trust fund that entitles them to only pay 12% of their earnings?
I just figured it out;Joe and Val are grifters who cooked up this whole leak scheme so he could get speaking fees and she could write a book about how she was outed! Pretty darn clever...

PeterUK

Maryrose,
Hypothesis,for whatever reason Plame has the forged Niger documents forgotten in her safe,word comes that the WH wants information on Niger yellowcake.She y lets Joe see the documents,one or either realises that they have a blockbuster on their hands.
Val wangles a trip for Joe and the rest as they say is history.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

I just figured it out;Joe and Val are grifters who cooked up this whole leak scheme so he could get speaking fees and she could write a book about how she was outed!

This may not be far off the mark. And they wouldn't be the first to do it.

I do not see how Fitz will be able to stand in front of a jury with a straight face and claim any damage done by anything in this case with that book deal sitting there. I'd have the headline $2.5 million blown up to super size and have that sitting on an easel for the jurors to see thruout the trial.

Jeff

Tom - In a desperate effort to regain my Left-cred, and since you've brought up the case against Rove (or not, as the case may be) again, may I ask you to respond to this, which begins to suggest that if Rove is not guilty, he is an awfully lot more unlucky than you have suggested, and also argues that precisely to the extent that VNovak's tip to Luskin was seen as a fishing expedition, to that same extent Team Rove's claim that Rove would never lie to the grand jury in February 2004 knowing that others were claiming Rove was a source for Cooper loses credibility.

Kate

Jeff-a lot of people were claiming Rove was the source from the beginning, including Joe Wilson.

In Rove's mind, he had a problem with Novak, but not Cooper. In fact, if Rove was aware of the State Dept/CIA quarrel, he probably, righly so, thought that the leakers were State.

If I recall the conversation with Cooper was:

-originated by Cooper
-taken by Rove as he was headed out to vacation;
-lasted under 2 minutes

Cooper's article in Time (War on Wison) suggested something much more active and aggressive than that call. Rove was not aware he had a Cooper problem.

This is triffling.

Kate

I reread Cooper's account of his GJ testimoy. He isn't sure about the welfare reform, well, maybe. And Cooper makes a big deal out of Rove saying I've already said too much. This is the kinda statement people make all the time when they've thrown them an insignifcant bone and want to make them feel important. I swear, men are worse gossips than women.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

Do we know what Rove said and what the discrepencies are on this conversation.

maryrose

I've grown weary of your grasping at straws to get Rove indicted. Give it a rest! He is home free but I agree with Kate that Fitz will keep him dangling-because he can and for spite because he's mad he couldn't nail him!

maryrose

the above post was directed to Jeff

clarice

It's beautiful weather in DC--rather as it was on 9/11-- and we ran out to see Flight 93. I found it compelling..The fact that the actors were not professionals, that the filiming was done apparently with hand held cameras and, of course, the tragedy and heroism of the story itself, made it even more dramatic and real.

Having said that,after having been reminded once again of what happened here , I am in no mood to be as forgiving of the fucks in our government who allowed this to happen on their watch and even less for those who are busy trying to erase it from our consciousness or, worse, to somehow justify this outrage.
BTW we were scheduled to be on the flight from Dulles to LA the following day.

maryrose

clarice;
thank you for your eloquence. My husband suggested today we go and see Flight 93. You were close to the Pentagon site and the experience must have been awful for those in Washington D.C.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice, we went to see "United 93" last Sunday and I had nearly the identical reaction you describe.

My former boss had a sunrise breakfast meeting run over and she had to take a later shuttle flight to NYC for a meeting at the WTC. Her taxi pulled up to drop her off just as the first plane hit. I remember watching all the coverage that morning and then later getting a call telling me about this close call and suddenly the whole thing became very real and not just some TV animation of a disaster scene. Seeing the movie had me reliving all those feelings and getting very mad all over again.

clarice

It was not as bad as NYC. But it was bad..Late into the night you could still hear people walking to their himes from downtown on Connecticutt Ave. There was virtually no transport available. For weeks after, we had one scare after another as repeated intel on further threats came thru..Military planes fly over with regularity and then the anthrax attacks began..and with them fairly constant sirens rushing off to consulates, press offices, etc, as people feared anthrax laden letters had arrived.

I will never forget it.

clarice

***hOmes***planes flEW******

Sara (Squiggler)

PS: I thought the most effective scene in the movie was the one where the air traffic controllers in the booth across the river from the WTC watched that plane hit. No dialogue, just the look on their faces with the camera holding the scene and it summed up everything ... shock, anger, growing awareness, panic, the whole nine yards in one few seconds of a scene.

Tom Maguire

Hmm, Jeff reminds me that Libby just happened to testify in such a way that there was no indication that Cooper had a source previous to Libby.

I'm blocking. But yes, that has to be motivating Fitzgerald.

Sue

If Rove didn't remember the conversation, how would Libby know? Assuming Rove really didn't remember the conversation, of course.

clarice

Well, if Rove forgot the conversation he could not have told Libby about it, could he? If Jeff's thesis is correct, you get Rove for lying if he told Libby and Libby for lying for not disclosing it.
The alternative, is Rove (who was heading out of town) forgot about it and didn't tell Libby and therefore Libby didn't testify to that.

kim

I'll just toss this in to avoid confusing myself with it: We really don't know much about V. Novak.
======================================

kim

I'd suspect a rolling disclosure from V. Novak to Luskin; and that might address some of Jeff's skepticism, too.
==============================

Jeff

Tom - I would also remind you that there is probably a fatal flaw in your claim that Luskin and Rove didn't take VNovak's tip seriouslyin January 2004. Not only is VNovak's testimony to the contrary - Luskin did take it very seriously - but if they didn't take it seriously, then the claim Luskin and Rove are evidently making to Fitzgerald is undermined. That claim was repeated, and attributed to Rove's own recent testimony, in today's WaPo story:

In his most recent testimony, Rove said he would have been foolish to lie when he first testified and explained how he had been tipped before his first grand jury appearance that Time reporters were openly speculating about his conversation with Cooper. The details of the "tip" are in dispute, however. According to the source close to Rove, his message to the prosecutor was, in essence: Why would he risk lying when he could safely assume that his discussion of Plame with Cooper would soon get out?

If Rove says he thought the VNovak tip was just a fishing expedition, it follows that he could not simultaneously have safely assumed that his discussion of Plame with Cooper would soon get out, and therefore his central claim that he didn't lie because he would have been foolish to lie would be undermined.

The dilemma is that if Rove then has to say that he took VNovak's tip seriously, the question is: why did it apparently take so long to search for and find the Rove-Hadley email, and go back to the prosecutor to change his testimony? And that length of time is specifically a problem - and here again Rove is either guilty or the world's most unlucky man - because the eventual return to Fitzgerald coincided exactly with the sudden likelihood that Cooper was going to testify about this conversation with Rove. In other words, there is ample grounds for suspicion that Rove's motivation for changing his testimony in October 2004 was fear of being exposed by Cooper's testimony - in which case Rove's change in testimony doesn't get him off the hook for perjury - and not VNovaks' months-old tip.

kim

The increasing likelihood of Cooper's testimony intensified the search. An answer so simple it's probably wrong. Fitz has as much as admitted, though, that no one knows for sure if all the email in the White House is catalogued.
=================================

clarice

Let's suppose (a) you are Rove and have no recollection of the discussion.(b) the email was mis-archived.(c) Luskin reports V's conversation with him.
(d) you tell him you didn't talk to Cooper.(e) nothing comes up in the search.(f) later something does. (f) you give Luskin the email which largely says "I didn't fall for the bait" and Luskin passes this to Fitz.(g) Fitz is busy with other things and neither Luskin nor you go before the gj until recently..though for once Fitz shows some wit and postpones indicting you for God knows while he awaits your testimony.

boris

In other words, there is ample grounds for suspicion that Rove's motivation for changing his testimony in October 2004 was fear of being exposed by Cooper's testimony

Just being Republican is ample grounds for suspicion.

Can't get past Rove trusting in newbie Cooper and supposed DoJ restraints on Fitz all the way into October 2004. Methinks that logic relies on perception that the MSM was more pro-Bush than anti-Bush. A perception this sceptic shares NOT.

boris

A perception this skeptic shares NOT.

you can say that agien

Just did.

topsecretk9

WAPO:

Additionally, one former government official said he testified that Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. It was Wilson who accused Bush of twisting intelligence about Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear material from Africa. The official refused to be named out of fear of angering Fitzgerald and the White House.


Anyways, sounds like Grossman's getting the jitters...he's revised his "revenge" view

kim

Yes, pooch, Marc recognizes the possibility of repercussions; Joe's blithe.
===============================

clarice

Especially if you read it the way he more likely said it which I think should read like this:
Additionally, one former government official said he testified that Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. It was Wilson who accused Bush of twisting intelligence about Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear material from Africa. The official refused to be named out of fear of angering Fitzgerald and the White House.

Jeff

(f) you give Luskin the email which largely says "I didn't fall for the bait" and Luskin passes this to Fitz.(g) Fitz is busy with other things and neither Luskin nor you go before the gj until recently

The problem with this is that it is factually incorrect. Luskin passed the email to Fitzgerald some time in the first two weeks of October 2004, and Rove testified before the grand jury for the third time (and the first time since February 2004) on October 15, 2004. On September 13, 2004 Cooper had been subpoenaed for the second time, for sources other than Libby. On October 7, 2004, Cooper's and Time's effort to quash the subpoena was denied by the judge. And on October 13 or 14, 2004, Cooper was held in contempt by the judge.

Rove is really really unlucky if he's not guilty.

The increasing likelihood of Cooper's testimony intensified the search.

That's more or less what I think Luskin is trying to argue to Fitzgerald. The challenge is that that sure sounds like Rove's change in testimony was actually triggered by the increasing likelihood that Cooper was going to testify and expose the falsity of Rove's earlier testimony, in which case Rove is not off the hook for perjury even if he changes his testimony. Luskin has to argue, in effect, that Rove's change in testimony was connected to but not motivated by the increasing likelihood that Cooper was going to testify and contradict Rove's earlier testimony. That's a narrow needle to thread.

clarice

Do we know that Luskin did not notify Fitz earlier? That the original subpoena to Rove included a request for documents re Cooper?

clarice

Fitz was asking for different things at different times in his subpoenas, and sometimes (see Miller) he didn't even seek in a subpoena what he later asked for.

kim

Why is it so hard to argue that you made increasingly sophisticated searchs for any evidence of a conversation that you keep hearing is important? Not such a narrow eye to thread.
===================================

Jeff

Do we know that Luskin did not notify Fitz earlier?

Isikoff and Thomas, who have in general had very good access to Team Rove and have consistently produced stories friendly to Rove-Luskin and who appear to have had good access to Luskin again for this story, just reported that it was October 2004 that Luskin turned over the email.

Jeff

That the original subpoena to Rove included a request for documents re Cooper?

Regardless of the answer to what Fitzgerald asked the White House (not Rove in particular) for at different times, the issue concerns the delay between the early 2004 (or even late 2003) VNovak tip to Luskin and the October 2004 turning over of the email to Fitzgerald.

kim

Well, how about the rolling disclosure of what was a needle in a haystack to find? Maybe some of the herd had to process the hay, first.
=========================================

Jeff

Well, how about the rolling disclosure of what was a needle in a haystack to find?

Well, the Times the other day issued a correction making clear that VNovak's version is that she and Luskin talked just once - and this was taken as helpful to Rove by several commenters here, better than rolling disclosures.

Jeff

I should say that VNovak says they talked about the buzz at Time about Rove being Cooper's source just once among the numerous times they talked in general. And I don't think Luskin has a contradictory version.

clarice

Yes, kim.And it likely that Luskin told Fitz what they were searching for and how. And perhaps once they had that email and a date of the converation they continued to search for more rather than dealing with this piecemeal. Luskin's no dope.

No one here knows for certain what V. Novak told Luskin or when. When it comes to gj testimony remember the Sidney Blumenthal rule--say whatever you damn please, the prosecution can't respond until too late.

kim

Are you trying to tell me that V. Novak told Luskin about Cooper early on, and then they never talked about it again?
============================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame