Yet MORE Fun With David Shuster

David Shuster continues his "Keep Hope Alive" reporting and continues to play to the Kos crowd in his coverage of the Plame investigation [His earlier reporting puzzles are discussed here and here.]

Crooks and Liars has a partial transcript (and video) with this on Libby:

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?

Shuster: It came out from defense attorney's when they're talking about possible evidence that might get introduced to show that Scooter Libby did not intent to leak Valerie Plame's identity.... but it does explain one thing. If this information and if this warning to SL came from the CIA or an official representing the CIA. It does explain why the CIA was so infuriated right from the beginning when it was disclosed right from the beginning when it was disclosed that this information got leaked to reporters and why the criminal referral from the CIA to the justice dept. happened so quickly.

Well, until we get the transcript (and we WILL get the transcript! [Discussed here]), we have to settle for this from the Houston Chronicle:

The prosecutor also said he does not know when Bush and Cheney decided to declassify sections of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate dealing with Iraq's efforts to obtain yellowcake so Libby could share it with reporters.   

Fitzgerald said all he has is Libby's testimony, in which he said he might have shared the information with reporters before the decision was officially made in July 2003.   

Wells added that Libby was told several times to go forward but abruptly told to stop before he finally talked to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and The New York Times' Judith Miller.

That sounds a lot like the topic under discussion was the NIE leak, not the Plame leak.  Of course, Shuster has been both laughably ignorant and recklessly misleading about the NIE angle before, so we can't say we are surprised by this latest addition to his oeuvre.

And we have other non-surprises to report - Jane Hamsher of fdl reports the latest Shuster but provides a few grains of salt as well.  And one of her commenters, John Ford (#24) found the Houston Chronicle bit, so there was a bit of a truth-rally on the left.  (Jeff also made an appearance in the comments there and I would endorse his comment at #26 except that doing so may represent a kiss of death for his Left-cred.)

Well - in a recent defense filing Libby's attorneys told us that Libby "testified to the grand jury unequivocally that he did not understand Ms. Wilson’s employment by the CIA to be classified information."  The notion that three weeks later they would contradict that in open court and throw Libby under the bus seems a bit odd, but maybe the Libby Defense Trust missed a payment.

And one last non-surprise - Shuster tells us that his tea leaves, or whatever leaves form the basis for his reporting, suggest Rove will be indicted.  As I have noted earlier, I agree, and hope to explain why shortly (like, before an indictment - there's a plan!).  Meanwhile, the Anon Lib will get you started with Rove's problems. but I actually have some interesting ideas of my own.

[UPDATE:  Per the transcript, the AP is right that, at one point, the deferse described a go-stop-go with the NIE leak; I am partly right, in that Libby's lawyers did not contradcit theior previous filing; and Shuster is partly right - it was FITZGERALD, not Libby's lawyers, who said this:

FITZGERALD: ...So the issue of potential damage from discussing it may come up. In a different conversation that Mr. Libby was present for, a witness did describe to Mr. Libby and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson. It was before the grand jury. It was back in July of 2003.

MORE:  I have a motto, and now all I need is the right site for it - could be Raw Story, could be Shuster/Olbermann at MSNBC, and let's not rule out "Facts are for Cowards" Greenwald.  But the motto is "Countdown with Keith Olbermann - Where facts are just a speed-bump on the highway to revelation!

LEST WE FORGET:  The priest-Shuster smackdown is worth reprising.  This was from a live chat at the WaPo on Thursday:

Valley Forge, Pa.: Hi Dana,

Thanks for doing these chats.

Now we are reading that Valerie Plame was involved with tracking nuclear proliferation/capabilities in Iran. Isn't this old news? (I seem to remember reading this same thing quite a while ago in the MSM - I don't generally read blogs)

From what you hear, was Ms. Plame working on Iran, how important was she to the tracking efforts, and how much has her "outing" really set us back?

Dana Priest: It was reported before that she worked on proliferation issues for the CIA. The leap in this new round of information is that her outing significantly impacted our current intel on Iran. I don't buy it. First, no one person who quit clandestine work four years ago is going to make that big of a dent in current knowledge. But also, nothing like this came up at the time of her outing and I believe it would have. Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.

And let's hark back to last November with Ms. Priest:

Columbia, S.C.: Great Work!

How do you answer critics who point out this may be a 'leak' that could potentially compromise national security, ala the Plame leak?

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position.  As for my article, we tried to minimize that by not naming the countries involved and, otherwise, no, I don't believe it compromised national security at all.

UPDATE:  Here is a Friday transcript from Olbermann's show - he really hyped the Plame thing, and the AP version suggests the topic was the NIE leak.  I want a transcript.

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?
============================