Try To Remember...

Jeralyn Merritt delivers court filings and her thoughts on Libby's memory expert.  She also links to a NY Sun article by Josh Gerstein.

Briefly - memories about conversations are no more reliable than notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony.  As a bonus, people tend to tailor their memories to fit their "memories, expectations, schemas and goals", which may explain why Libby's memory lapses mostly seem to break his way - it would hardly have suited Libby's "schemas and goals" to remember Cheney ordering him to out Ms. Plame.

MORE:  Below are some articles on memory research.  The Sun mentions a fascinating case study involving John Dean and Richard Nixon - Dean gave detailed Senate testimony to the Watergate Comittee in which he recounted, with great detail, a number of Oval Office conversations.  Later, we all learned that the Oval Office was taped, and eventually a researcher used the Dean recollections as a case study.  A soundbite about his conclusion:

Dean's recall = accurate recollection of what he wished had happened, but not that faithful to gist of conversation nor to verbatim record.

In general, Dean was very confident about his memory for these conversations.  But, his memory turned out to be quite self-centered.  His memory was distorted in such a way as to make him look better, wiser, more appreciated by the President.  Nevertheless

"Yet even when he was wrong, there was a sense in which he was telling the truth; even when he was right, it was not necessarily because he remembered a particular conversation well."

What he did, was remember certain themes, and sprinkle them liberally about the details of specific conversations, even when they hadn't happened in those conversations.  He got the individual episodes wrong (and often completely wrong), but nevertheless he got the themes correct.

Tricked by Memory / Elizabeth F. Loftus

Memory, Autobiography, History / John F. Kihlstrom

Comments

[cboldt]

I wondered what happened to the Libby case ;-). On a (very) tangentially-related subject, Judge Swett;s ruling in favor of reportertte Miller has been reversed on appeal. THis is the "Holy Land / Global Relief Foundation" case that went nowhere (in Illinois) for want of evidence of who the government leaker is. Fitz brought the appeal.
http://howappealing.law.com/080106.html#016662 <- links to opinions. There is a dissent.

[jerry]

I was hoping they'd call that Harvard memory expert that studies alien abduction victims.

[clarice]

Is he being charged with failing to remember what Cheney told him? I thought it was because he misremembered conversations with reporters who themselves seemed to misremember.

[Larry's Johnson]

The Las Vegas Sun has this today as well.

[Jane]

I just think Libby needs a jury of people over 50. I've posted about this before but probably the biggest shock of growing older for me was losing my steel trap memory. It was the one thing I could always rely on. I knew that my memory was accurate - until empirical evidence started to prove me wrong. The I was flabberghasted. For some of us - maybe not all of us, it is a fact of aging.

Game, set and match.

[Other Tom]

My understanding is that he claims he remembers hearing the stuff from reporters first, and this expert is supposedly going to explain why he well may remember it that way. I don't know what Jeralyn has to say, because she banned me from her site for strenuous disagreement with the received wisdom over there.

[Jane]

I think Meritt also conflates two unrelated things - suggesting that differing eye-witness testimony is a function of bad memory. It might be, but more likely it is a function of people seeing the same thing differently.

I remember walking down the street in NYC with two friends of mine in the 70's. All three of us were trained in investigating accidents for insurance companies. A cab crashed into another car at an intersection within 10 yards of where we were walking.

While waiting for the police to arrive, we discussed what we had seen. All three of us, walking side by side, reported that we saw something different from the other person. And this was within minutes of the accident.

[clarice]

I'm sooo happy the NYT played the fool for the Dems.

[verner]

Agreed Jane.

This just highlights how ridiculous the whole thing has been from the beginning.

Wells will start by pointing out that no one has ever been indicted for outing Plame. Then he will rip that "sand in the umpire's face" business to shreds. First he'll destroy Miller and Cooper. Then he'll go after Russert's "he said she said." Then he'll point out the dozens of reporters Libby had contact with between June and Novak's piece--conversations where Plame never came up. Then they'll pull out his appointment book, phone log and e-mail covering the six week period in question. How many hundreds of contacts do you suppose the VP's right hand man has in that period of time?

Then we're ready for the memory expert.

It's over.

[cathyf]

At least from what Fitzgerald has told us, Libby's memories don't always seem to break his way. Libby first testified that Libby told Cooper, while Cooper testified that Cooper told Libby.

That's one of the major giggles of the case, after all. Libby first tells a story which is incriminating, then when pressed about details he changes his story to something not incriminating. This Fitagerald accepts as the completely honest vagueries of human memory. Then the other party to the conversation tells the same story as Libby does, and so then Libby gets indicted for lying about the conversation in the places where the accounts "differ." While anyone with a reading comprehension past stupid can tell that the two accounts don't differ in any material way.

cathy :-)

[PeterUK]

I think they will be on a sticky wicket if the memory angle is pushed.Fifteen years ago a book was published in a limited edition,which for one reason or another I neglected to buy.A copy turned up recently,the book always remembered as a normal sized medium thickness book,turned out to be a thin quarto volume,so much for memory,the only thing right was the title.

[Rick Ballard]

I think reading the questions asked of Libby by Fitz & C. early on in the defense then dropping the subject for a few days and coming back to it with a specific detail would give the jury pause regarding memory. The elliptical nature of the questions make them fairly confusing when they're on a piece of paper in front of you.

Slipping small things into the case presentation all along the way would be a great tactic in this one. Making reference to six - ten items in the summation that the jury could not remember without going to transcript should be fairly easy.

[danking70]

What are we talking about again???

[Martin]

It's always the reporters with you people, when Fitz's star witnesses are actually the former administration officials.

Do any of you have a solution for how Libby impeaches Fleischer-who is apparently quite prepared to testify Libby told him Plame worked at the CIA but that was "on the Q.T."

I myself think Fleischer is worthless scum. But what's his motive to lie about that?

[cboldt]

Not trying thread theft, no discussion planned. I figure this is as good a place as any to link to this case, because the "Fitz interested" folks are apt to appear on this post ...

For the PDF averse, the language from the 2nd Circuit appellate opinion by Kearse and Winter that reverses Judge Sweet's finding of reporter privilege in favor of reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon in the Holy Land Foundation / Global Relief Foundation leak investigation. Judge Sack's dissent follows the opinion ...


NYT v. Gonzales, 05-2639-cv: Text (Opinion and Dissent)

[Jane]

>Making reference to six - ten items in the summation that the jury could not remember without going to transcript should be fairly easy

Rick,

That's what I'd do. I'd ask the jury in their discussions to play a little game. Each person write down what they think someone nondescript said in testimony - then compare memories, and then go to the transcript and check it out. Or some variation thereof.

Of course it could backfire, but probably not.

[Tom Maguire]

Is he being charged with failing to remember what Cheney told him? I thought it was because he misremembered conversations with reporters who themselves seemed to misremember.

Hmm, a power failure crashed me out before I could really edit that thought - the Cheney sentence ought to have a "for example" or "for illustrative purposes only" in there somewhere.

At least from what Fitzgerald has told us, Libby's memories don't always seem to break his way. Libby first testified that Libby told Cooper, while Cooper testified that Cooper told Libby.

Well, a theory (OK, my theory) was that maybe Libby chose to testify that way to delay the discovery of the Rove-Cooper link. But a seemingly clear example of a non-self-serving memory lapse would relate to Glenn Kessler of the WaPo - Libby apparently testified that he discussed Ms. Plame with Kessler, but Kessler said, no way.

Of course, one might argue that Libby was craftily laying the groundwork for an "I'm Confused" defense.

[Rick Ballard]

"Of course, one might argue that Libby was craftily laying the groundwork for an "I'm Confused" defense."

As Jane noted, if the defense can push the average age of the jury north of fifty, the concept of "craftily laying the groundwork" will generate a storm of guffaws.

I know there was something else I wanted to say about this but I can't for the life of me....

[Tom Maguire]

I myself think Fleischer is worthless scum. But what's his motive to lie about that?

Hmm, that is MR Worthless Scum to you, sir.

IF someone held a gun to my head I would guess that Fleischer was the source for Walter Pincus on July 12.

Soooo, the theory would be that Ari overstated the importance of his Libby chat and understated his own reading of the INR memo on Air Force One in order to allocate the blame away from himself and onto Libby.

Now, is that "the truth"? Who knows? But it may fly in the land of reasonable doubt.

[Walter]

Martin,

I'm with you, and have disagreed with others (Hi CBoldt!) with regard to whether the discrepencies between the reporters' testimony and Libby's testimony make a difference either in a legal or practical sense.

I agree, differences between Libby and various credible witnesses are potentially more harmful (and yes, people on both sides of the aisle dispute whether any, let alone these particular, members of the current Administration should be considered credible, but that's beside the point.)

The problem for Mr. Fitzgerald is that he does not have a word-for-word description from Libby of each (or any) of the Administation conversations in dispute. Somehow Libby must have managed to remember to say "I don't remember discussing" Plame with the various Administration witnesses.

The only use to which Fitzgerald can put the Administration witnesses testimony is to argue that, given 7 conversations over two months, it sure is odd that Libby didn't remember the "facts" covered in the conversations.

[Insert random meme: Maybe Libby can argue that he, like Cooper, didn't think that Plame actually sent Wilson, so he paid it no more mind than any other gossip when wingnuts he worked advanced the loony idea. Works also for the "Don't quote me on this" angle--Peut etre he didn't want to be associated with such baseless attacks on hardworking civil servants and unpaid retireee volunteers.]

[Walter]

[adding to my random meme: Explains the surprise he expressed as well--"I expect paranoid CIA-conspiracy-theory-loving oddballs like the VP to espouse such nonsense, but it sure is wild to hear it from left-of-center grounded folks in the Fourth Estate. Maybe there's something to it after all. Hmmmm."]

[Martin]

The easiest explanation is Libby never dreamed these reporters would be called to testify.

[Walter]

Martin,

A slightly more easy explanation is that he actually believed what he said, but let's not quibble when we are so close to agreement.

errata: please read "worked" as "worked with" above.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

I think attributing all kinds of ulterior motives to Libby's memory is (excuse my language) CRAP! I do not believe and nothing has come to light that would make me believe that these very busy admin. people had either the time or the inclination to be interested in "outing" Plame. It is so stupid, it defies comprehension.

And as to the credibility slam made upthread, are you serious? What gives Matt Cooper any credibility? Or any of the other reporters. They are reporters!!!! They have no credibility. Criminey, this was such a nothing piece of business, they don't even have any useable notes on the subject. Yet, Libby is supposed to have an ironclad memory about something he probably had zero interest about in the first place. The Admin. cared about Wilson's LIES, not his wife's employment.

And if anyone wants to test memory and you have adult children, ask them to recite to you some episode from their childhood, preferably one where they got in trouble and you'll see how different the telling of a tale can be from the adult side (you as parent) and the memory (from a child's point of view). And don't forget the gossip vs. geek theory.

[Rick Ballard]

Walter,

I think that your conjecture that the escapades of a fourth rate exdip on a boondoggle arranged in the best nepotistic manner by his wife weren't of sufficient interest to generate a memory is quite credible. It was State that made sure that Fleischer had a memo to wave around - Armitage may well have the best idea of anyone as to how the farce came to be.

The defense may well want to question Fleischer very closely concerning who had the highest level of interest regarding Ambassador Munchausen.

[Martin]

Walter, let's try to stay within the bounds of reason though!

[boris]

All three of us, walking side by side, reported that we saw something different from the other person. And this was within minutes of the accident.

This has happened to me as well.

Unexpected events of some complexity do not produce a coherent memory recording. In order to offset the latency between sensory input and concious perception, a significant amount of what seems to be real time is actually predictive preprocessing. Fast events that take one by surprise lack the predictive tracking necessary for accurate perception which results in a disjoint jumbled recollection that is difficult to analyze.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Speaking of memory ... someone sent me an email recently that contained quoted content. The email writer was using the quote to jump off into a long diatribe. I read the quote and thought, hmmmm, I agree 100% with quoted writer and not the point the emailer was making. Imagine my surprise to learn that the quote was actually from something I wrote almost 18 months ago. When I found my original post and reread it, I was amazed that I had written such an ::wink:: erudite treatise ::wink:: I still agree with my own words, but to tell the truth, I can not remember writing the post or what prompted me to write it in the first place.

[Other Tom]

"Do any of you have a solution for how Libby impeaches Fleischer-who is apparently quite prepared to testify Libby told him Plame worked at the CIA but that was 'on the Q.T.'"

Maybe you don't understand the thrust of this part of the defense. Libby has no need to impeach Fleischer; he simply disagrees with Fleischer's recollection of their conversation. He testifies that as best he recalls he first heard of her status from reporters, as he told the grand jury. Do I believe that? Nah. Reasonable doubt? In spades.

[Neo]

We are reminded again that the NYT should have been careful what it wished for because you might get it.

[MJW]

Martin: Do any of you have a solution for how Libby impeaches Fleischer-who is apparently quite prepared to testify Libby told him Plame worked at the CIA but that was "on the Q.T."

Without further evidence of what Fleisher said, it's not possible to know for certain whether the "on the Q.T." comment refers specifically to Plame, or whether it was in regard to the general subject of Wilson's Niger trip. The specific reference comes from a patched together "quote" from Tatel's opinion:

For example, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer recalls that over lunch on July 7, the day before Libby’s meeting with Miller, Libby told him, "[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA." (II-545-47.) Describing the lunch as "kind of weird" (II-590-91), and noting that Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion" (II-592), Fleischer recalled that Libby "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t." (II-546-47.)

The inclusion was likely inspired by Fitz's claim in his affidavit that:

[Fleisher] testified that he went to lunch with Libby on Monday, July 7, 2003, and in a conversation Fleischer described as "weird," Libby told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby told Fleischer the information about Wilson's wife was "hush hush" or "on the QT."

We know from the "secure telephone" claims in the indictment that Fitzgerald is more than willing to infer that a conversation was related to Plame without evidence that it was. We also know from Tatel's misreading of the IIPA footnote (or just about any paragraph in Tatel's opinion) that Tatel is uncritically on board the Fitz train.

Also, related to the proposed memory expert testimony, is it not possible that Libby discussed only Wilson's Niger trip, and Fleisher misattributed the information learned from the INR memo to Libby? Misattribution is, after all, one of the most common memory errors.

[verner]

I'll tell you just how silly all of this has boiled down to.

Fitz's argument only works if he can prove that a) Cheney and Libby were obsessed with Plame, and Libby had a motive (shielding his boss?) to lie to the FBI etc. He has already stated that it was not illegal for members of the administration to discuss Plame (ie that little article that Cheney scrawled notes on.)

He can not prove that--esp. not beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as for memory--I have a little test for Jerelyn. Here's a comment from her very own blog. Can she tell us a) the poster, b) the date c) the name of the thread without looking through her archive or using google search?

"Another question is when was the NIE declassified? Why were 2 declassifications sought for the same material that was leaked to Miller on the 8th? Either Bush's permission to leak did not constitute a declassification and so a 2nd declassification on the 18th by Hadley was needed to cover-up what would then have been an initial leak of classified material."

[JM Hanes]

From the Sun:

One is a study of testimony from a Nixon White House aide, John Dean, about his conversations with President Nixon.

Given the tenor of John Dean's running commentary on the Bush administration, this little irony is, so to speak, disproportionately appealing.

[maryrose]

he movie Roshamon{I hope I spelled that right} comes to mind when speaking about how differently people remember events and conversations.
TM:
Your theory about Fleischer is very interesting.
Let's remember the original and only leaker UGO. What does Fleischer have to say about him? Fleischer also quit the administration shortly after the Plame Affair became news.

[Kate]

Please let me know if I'm reading this right. My understanding is that the perjury and obstruction was a result of differing recollections of conversations with reporters.

The only thing the Government sources can confirm is that Libby knew about Wilson's wife. This is not in dispute and I'm not sure how this plays into the perjury case.

[topsecretk9]

Posted by: danking70 | August 01, 2006 at 02:00 PM

I don't recall.

[Mariogeorgenitrini111]

Arianna Huffington has been "Supporting" the WRONG MAN:

http://bankrobber-stayfree.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-cusack-crimes-and-mr-meany.html

JOHN CUSACK - CRIMES AND MR. MEANY8 hours ago by SheraKnight
John Cusack, who I prefer to call Johnny PC, since such an oxymoron tends to give
me ... "John Cusack a Womanizer: John Cusack got married about a year ago to Jodi
... "REPS for John Cusack have shot down Internet gossip that the "High ...
JOHN CUSACK - CRIMES AND MR. MEANY - http://bankrobber-stayfree.blogspot.com - References

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
_________

The OJ Simpson Case

[Neo]

I think Libby should use the "two minds" approach to his memory mixup.

He should talk how administration officials have to think in two "streams of thought," a "public stream" and a "official stream." When working with the press and talking on the record, he used his "public stream," but when attending staff meetings and briefings and sometime on "off the record" conversations, he would use the "official stream."

The "public stream" heard about Ms Flame through the "media" but the "official stream" heard it from the CIA.

Simply, he got them mixed up when asked.

[larwyn]

Actual memory will only get worse!

Would you not agree that elite media and upper class biz and government persons would all be "early adopters".

So it has been quite a number of years that phone numbers are stored in the phone - not in the mind. (Since beginning to use the speed dial function and before one could take a phone along, some of my daughters have moved - I do not know their new phone numbers "by heart") But it is worse that that...

"Learning by rote" has been discontinued. Sure kids learn lyrics, but they learn from listening to poor speech. (Just think of all the lyrics you were sure of until you actually saw them in print).

You don't have to remember anything - just google it. No need to even to really concentrate when you can just copy and paste.

Think about what you actually depend on only your memory to accomplish today.

The good Ursuline nuns in high school didn't make us write a silly sentence 100's of times - they made us memorize long poems.
I could still recite accurately most of "The Raven" until recently.
Only know that as I was challenged by daughter while telling my grandson story to encourage him to memorize something. So they held the book and I recited from almost 45 years past. Daughter said "you must reread it a lot" Ha!

I'll add one disclaimer regarding aging and memory:
In many cases as we mature we realize many things are not worth full attention and or memory. I am and have been for most of adult life bad at celeb's name. Will admit to knowing pro football players and coaches = I was interested.

You'll also notice that I cannot bring myself to learn the names of the CNN "jurnos" and the MSNBC's stable of "bimbos" along with those lefty "think tankers".

[larwyn]

Tops,
Didn't see any status report from you here. email me if you don't want to publish as we know who could be involved.

[Jeff]

it would hardly have suited Libby's "schemas and goals" to remember Cheney ordering him to out Ms. Plame.

Agreed.

And it's not just that Libby may have led Fitzgerald to believe that he brought up Plame with Cooper. You have to look at what Libby testified he told Cooper, and in what context. His story is nothing like Cooper's story at all, and is oh-so-innocent. The difference between their stories is not that Cooper said Libby said words to the effect of, "I've heard that too," while Libby said he said, "I've heard that too, from reporters." Libby's story is that he brought her up simply by way of explaining, in sympathetic fashion, how Wilson, who he thought was fully qualified for his mission, might have come under the mistaken impression that his mission had been requested by the Vice President: he might have gotten some bad skinny from some people he knew at CIA through his wife, who happens to work there. That's Libby's story.

As for Kessler, given the rest of Libby's story about his conduct on July 12, 2003, Libby's testimony about Kessler is neither here nor there, and doesn't particularly break against him.

I suspect the glory days of Fitzgerald publicly revealing all kinds of juicy and damaging information about Libby and Cheney as he is compelled to respond to Libby's discovery motions are over. But there are a couple of comments in Libby's filing about the memory expert - and I wonder what happened to Shachter at Harvard? - that might elicit some decent documents from Fitzgerald, although I wouldn't imagine Fitzgerald would have a problem with Libby using such an expert. But that could be my own sympathy for defendants and the challenges they face with regard to misunderstandings about how human memory functions.

[Other Tom]

Doesn't anybody want to talk about the May 13 indictment of Rove? I really miss all that...

[Kate]

Other Tom- I still want to know who came up with the "24 hours to get his affairs in order" line. That was definitely pandering to the worst leftists. Even if Rove had been indicted all he would have had to do was get arraigned the next week. I'm trying to decide who fed JL that nonsense. I'm thinking the great Wilson himself since that seems to fit well with his frog march fantasy...would help Val's book deal.

I do want to talk about what a wonderful, credible witness Cooper will be.

[topsecretk9]

Larwyn,

I got my eye on a slicky chick in my neighborhood. It was too nice and neat like - they put the boxes of the items they stole - AWAY!

Anyhoo, this little number across the street, is in and out at all hours of the evening all the time. Didn't think much of it. Then there are cars honking -2ce - beep, beep - often, weird part is no one comes to the car and driver just drives off. Weird never put much thought to it. Weird thing number 3 is, she sits in her garage with door up 3 feet (she spends all her time in the garage -SUPER WEIRD - did I mention she doesn't WORK?) and shortly after "beep, beep" gets in her car - CLOSES garage (only time EVER) and is back in like a half hour (this usually happens anywhere after nine)

The night it happened I moved my car because it looked like I walked in on them and then thought - hey maybe they will come back.

Outside standing on the street ( I live in a nice quiet neighborhood)...car drives up (got good look at car and person, still no LIc. #) and stops in front of me and looks. Does quick U-Turn and starts to drives, hesitates, slows backs up in front of her house and honks two loud beeps and then drives up two blocks and parks in desolate, no lights church parking lot.

I'm thinking drugs, and I can see her in slippers walking around garage only up 3 feet. Like 3 minutes later, she comes out of garage CLOSES it, gets in car and drives past church parking lot and turns on main street. Car in parking lot (with no other cars-empty) leaves in same direction about 10 minutes later.

Last night? Same thing, only car drove past twice (same direction within 10 minutes) and beep beeped a little further away - never stopped.

I am thinking he fences.

[Rocco]

Sorry for the off topic here but I need some help. The SSCI states Ambassador Barbro Owens Kirkpatrick asked General Carlton Fulford to meet with Nigerien President Tandja Mamadou and her on Feb 24, 2002, to discuss the Iraq-Niger report. The SSCI states Owens Kirkpatrick and the CIA gave Fulford talking points to use. The odd thing here is that Fulford denies ever being told about an Iraq-Niger connection and instead voiced his concern to Mamadou about yellowcake falling into al Qaeda’s hands. This doesn’t bode well for Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick since she disseminated a cable on Feb. 18, 2002, prior to this Fulford-Mamadou meeting.

On February 18, 2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal "provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions. Etc, etc, etc.

She wants another “Hard Look” then fails to tell Fulford about the Niger-Iraq report? Anyway, several newsreports claim that General Fulford passed these findings on to General Joseph Ralston who passed them on to General Meyers.

Does General Ralston ring a bell with anyone? He was passed over for the Joint Chiefs position when he was caught having an affair with a CIA employee. He was separated from his wife at the time. But my question is, should this man be privy to sensitive intelligence since he was involved in a scandal with someone in an agency who might have incriminating evidence to use against him. For all we know, the CIA might have pictures of General Ralston dressed up like Madeleine Albright?

[Other Tom]

TS9: I would really make an effort to get that dude's license number. Then you can either go to the cops with your story and they can see if he has any kind of record; if you don't want to do that any private eye can get you what you want fairly cheaply. What is the total value of what was taken?

Kate: Crazy Larry told me in a private e-mail that he had "sources" for the May 13 indictment story at ABC, Knight-Ridder and one other (I forget). I asked him--twice- if he personally had spoken with the sources but he never answered that one. I suspect it all traces back to Joe the Fraud. One of the many avenues to be explored should discovery ever proceed, which I continue to doubt will happen. It is clear to me that if Joe told Larry the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, tomorrow night Larry would think it was morning.

[Sue]

tomorrow night Larry would think it was morning.

::grin::

[topsecretk9]

Other Tom:
I have started a journal of her wacky in's and outs'. I spotted the beep beep car and driver, driving around neighborhoods this afternoon after I stopped at the store. I need to get that Lic. Number. I will watch like a hawk to make sure and then will talk to the police, I also have a trusty friend who is gonna "tail" to make sure. I do not want to tell police that kind of thing unless I think it's hanky enough to say. Mrs. Kravitt's kinda thing.

[topsecretk9]

OtherTom:

Larry.

The left loves this phrase, but forget Larry embodies, lives, swims eats and shits on his masters command...Larry is a "LapPoodle"

[Other Tom]

TS9: With the license no., a P.I. can immediately get you the registered owner's name and address, and can do a "derogatory index" search to see what kind of record he has, if any. If you get some hits, then I think it would be entirely appropriate to tell the cops everything you have found out, if you're reluctant to go to them in the first instance. I assume you have reported the burglary to them.

[topsecretk9]

-What is the total value of what was taken?-

$9,000.

[topsecretk9]

-I assume you have reported the burglary to them.-

Yes, and fingerprints taken too.

I should say 9,000 and a YEARS worth of artwork!

[Other Tom]

Hell, with that amount, and the suspicious activity you've observed, I'd go straight to the police with everything you've seen, and the sooner the better.

[topsecretk9]

So the emptyheads, realize there is no more beef (whatsoever) and the only grizzle left is one memory expert over the other.

OK, well not all experts are available for just one person, which is why my lawyer SOUGHT (notice not bought) several for a very suspicious reason...to see if they were avaiable. Little known is Libby attorney filed an extension asking for a little more time to meet with "expert" due to, now get ready for it, the attorneys OWN calendar was on another case!!!!!!!!!-- very curious.

Anyhow. I wonder why none of the emptyheaders can wrap themselves around why their hero in charge WAS a source for Jason Leopold. They did their duty to trash Jason, but the undeniable fact remains, Wilson was WORKING WITH Truthout.

Someone pointed me at one point, that empty was sympathetic to the idea that Larry's(CIA code name " The LapDog) ideas were troublesome...but Wilson? All love, no matter how hard them man plays them. I suspect they ( The EHeaders) get it, but the investment they've shown is SOO freaking HUGE

[lurker]

Geesch! I'm so sorry for what's happened to you, TS9.

[topsecretk9]

Sued and bugerslrized? Do you think I made a jury today?

My son a few years ago asked me which way the bright side WAS?

Huh?

North, south, righ, left? Which way? "because If I always have to look at it, where is it?"

[Semanticleo]

Straying off the reservation again, eh? Isn't this memory expert nonsense somewhat like
the 'Twinkie' defense? Remember the guy who shot the San Francisco councilman in the late 70's, and then had some expert say he was a victim of 'sugar rush'. or similar baloney.
Is Libby's defense fund so rich he can extend
the 'bridge to nowhere' so that it reaches
'somewhere'?

[Bob]

Cleo your time away, has not helped you one bit.

Just because Harvey Milk was gay, does not give you the right to say the murderer used the "Twinkie Defense or other Baloney"!

A progressive like you should know better!

[MayBee]

Jeff: Libby's story is that he brought her up simply by way of explaining, in sympathetic fashion, how Wilson, who he thought was fully qualified for his mission, might have come under the mistaken impression that his mission had been requested by the Vice President: he might have gotten some bad skinny from some people he knew at CIA through his wife, who happens to work there. That's Libby's story.

Do you have a source on that?

As for Kessler, given the rest of Libby's story about his conduct on July 12, 2003, Libby's testimony about Kessler is neither here nor there, and doesn't particularly break against him.

So it's kind of a day by day thing, when Libby's story really matters and when it doesn't?

[MayBee]

Yikes

Sorry. My vacation has lasted too long.

[Sue]

My vacation has lasted too long.

Is there really such a thing as a too long vacation? ::grin::

[Jeff]

Fitz's argument only works if he can prove that a) Cheney and Libby were obsessed with Plame, and Libby had a motive (shielding his boss?) to lie to the FBI etc.

Incorrect! I see verner is competing with clarice for most astonishing inability to think dispassionately about the case. verner is presuming the jury will see things from Libby's perspective just because she does, but in fact Libby's attorneys will be seeking to persuade the jury that Libby would remember about Plame on July 10 (and remember that he remembered when he talked to the FBI four months later) from seven or so conversations about her in June and early July only if he were obsessed with Plame. Meanwhile, Fitzgerald will be seeking to persuade the jury that, while he is not claiming that Libby was obsessed by Plame, Libby talked about her enough over June and early July that he wouldn't simply forget about her on July 10. See? There's no agreement at the outset that only someone obsessed with Plame would remember about her - that is going to be one of the issues in dispute at the trial. verner, of course, has decided. But there's no reason to think the jury has as well.

Put it another way. We already know that Team Libby will be arguing that Plame was utterly peripheral to Libby's concerns, and therefore he forgot about her. Fitzgerald will argue not that she was utterly central to Libby's concerns, but that she was significant enough for Libby to talk about her seven or so times over June and July, both hearing about her and advising others about her, and therefore significant enough to remember.

As for motive, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald argues in court, regardless of what he thinks in reality. He has, presumably, several options, not all of which are mutually exclusive: Libby lied because 1)he was a rogue actor and didn't want to get found out by his boss; 2)he knew that if he got found out it would be political, and perhaps even legal, trouble for himself - he'd get fired, or at least lose his security clearance, and he might even face some kind of legal charge; 3)he knew that if he got found out it would be hugely embarrassing for the White House; 4)he was following Cheney's orders, and he wanted to insulate his boss from all of the same above problems; 5)he knew Bush was implicated politically, insofar as Bush, like Cheney, conveyed the message to "get it all out" on Wilson and the 16 words, and that discovery in fall 2003 would be politically disastrous, so he wanted to insulate Bush My guess is that Fitzgerald agrees with Tom's sentiment in this post and thinks in reality Libby was following Cheney's orders, but he is unlikely to argue that in court - it opens up an Ollie North defense to Libby, and he's well-positioned to take advantage of it, since everybody thinks his boss is an evil gnome (and I mean everybody - have you seen Cheney's approval ratings?).

[Jeff]

Do you have a source on that?

Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit and the partly unredacted version of Tatel's opinion.

So it's kind of a day by day thing, when Libby's story really matters and when it doesn't?

No, the point is that Libby's testimony about telling Kessler doesn't break against him in light of the fact that Libby testified that he was telling reporters about Plame on that day. Libby's false testimony about telling Kessler about Plame would break against him if Libby had testified that he did not speak with Miller or Cooper on the same day about Plame. If anything, in fact, I would say that Libby's false testimony about telling Kessler about Plame on July 12 breaks slightly in his favor, since it gives more consistency to his story that he was telling reporters about Plame in a completely innocent context, plus, as Tom suggested, it backs up any later claim that he was just all-around confused about his recollections. And if you think these guys aren't smart enough to think like that, I disagree.

[lurker]

"(and I mean everybody - have you seen Cheney's approval ratings?)."

Who really cares? He's doing a fantastic job.

And if your next democratic president's poll numbers are high and (s)he's not doing the right things, he won't be doing a fantastic job.

[Semanticleo]

omg

[lurker]

Jeff, How can you claim Libby's testimony was "false"?

I believe Libby's motives were true as a confirming source. That's it.

I have found myself to be obsessed with a topic for a few months, then forgetting about certain parts of it. It'll be hard for Fitz to argue memory beyond reasonable doubt based on what you're implying. If the only thing that's left is "He said, She said", then how can Fitz prove beyond reasonable doubt?

[cathyf]

verner is presuming the jury will see things from Libby's perspective just because she does,

No, she's presuming that the jury will see things from Libby's perspective because that's what a perjury case is about. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendent had a perspective different from what the defendent testified to.

cathy :-)

[MayBee]

Jeff- where do you have a link to the quotes from Libby stating that he was sympathetic to Wilson, that Wilson was highly qualified for the job in Libby's opinion, and that Wilson's wife's friends at the CIA gave Wilson the bad skinny? Can you show me?

[Cecil Turner]

Do you have a source on that?

Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit and the partly unredacted version of Tatel's opinion.

Well, close. Here are the pertinent quotes:

“[Y]ou know, off the- record, reporters are telling us that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works at the CIA and I don’t know if it’s true. . . . [W]e don’t know Mr. Wilson, we didn’t know anything about his mission, so I don’t know if it’s true. But if it’s true, it may explain how he knows some people at the Agency and maybe he got some bad skinny, you know, some bad information.”

and

Libby testified that Cooper then asked why Wilson was claiming that the Vice President had sent him to Niger if the Vice President had not. Libby testified that he then explained to Cooper that Wilson might have heard something unofficial (and inaccurate) about the Vice President sending Wilson and “in that context” and "off the record” Libby told Cooper that "reporters are telling us” that Wilson's wife worked at me CIA "and I don't know if it's true."

I don't know if that qualifies as "simply by way of explaining, in sympathetic fashion, how Wilson, who he thought was fully qualified for his mission, might have come under the mistaken impression" . . . or if it's a suggestion he was lied to by his wife's buddies at CIA. Personally, I'd characterize it as the latter. And I don't think Wilson's qualifications were the main issue (Who better to talk to a bunch of former officials, than a former official, anyway?), but the genesis of the trip, which appears to've been at least somewhat irregular.

[MayBee]

Thank you, Cecil.

Bad skinny indeed. Libby is saying Cheney didn't send Wilson. The rest Jeff seems to have added for perhaps a little literary flair.

[verner]

"Fitzgerald will argue not that she was utterly central to Libby's concerns, but that she was significant enough for Libby to talk about her seven or so times over June and July, both hearing about her and advising others about her, and therefore significant enough to remember."

You are assuming that the seven mentioned conversations were ABOUT valerie Plame. As far as I can tell, Plame was a fairly insignificant side note. (I heard that too? Miller can barely remember discussing her. Russert claims that they did not discuss her. She represented one "junket" line in Cheney's scrawlings on one news article. SO What? None of that was even illegal)

If anything, the administration was indicating to the press that they sould back off the Wilson story (Rove) because the ex-ambassador was not as truthful as he claimed (and SSCI proves that) and that the press could potentially get burned (as they have been).

Besides, ARMITAGE outed Plame to Novak-- and he has not, and likely will not be indicted, or Fitz would have done it by now. Libby had absolutely nothing to do with it. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY, AND FITZ HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS ONE.

Fitz just got mad, because he felt that the inconsistancies in Libby's testimony dragged his investigation out longer than it should have. Then, he indicted without having the entire picture. And now his case is falling apart.

There is simply not enough there to send a man to prison. He had no motive, and absolutely nothing to gain by lieing intentionally. The curtain needs to come down on this stinker of a trial.

[lurker]

"Fitz just got mad, because he felt that the inconsistancies in Libby's testimony dragged his investigation out longer than it should have. Then, he indicted without having the entire picture. And now his case is falling apart."

Wouldn't this be an analogy to the 9/11 commission's problems with military and aviation officials?

Israel got Hezzie's attention

While this is the beginning, looks like the end just may come sooner than we think.

Michael Totten's friend, Tony B., thinks Nasrallah will be hiding in a cave after this. Nasrallah's lost.

[SunnyDay]

I guess y'all enjoy arguing the same points repeatedly with Jeff and Cleo. I, for one, am tired of reading the same things over and over.

BOR-ING

[Cecil Turner]

I see verner is competing with clarice for most astonishing inability to think dispassionately about the case.

Self-parody alert.

Fitzgerald will argue not that she was utterly central to Libby's concerns, but that she was significant enough for Libby to talk about her seven or so times over June and July, both hearing about her and advising others about her, and therefore significant enough to remember.

It'd be a lot more convincing argument if there were some objective reason to believe Plame or her employment was of some, you know, actual significance. But the record appears bereft of any indication that was so. In fact, the only real significance attaching to Plame is her involvement in initiating her husband's mission. And as much as Wilson would like to claim she was totally uninvolved (and thus the only possible reason for bringing up her name was to blow her cover for revenge), it's far more plausible that the only reason anyone ever heard of her was her involvement, and that they never even knew of her supposed cover, which makes the "revenge" theory fall a trifle flat . . . and with it, the only explanation as to why she'd be memorable.

If the only reason to discuss her was in asides during conversations about Wilson's mission (which appears to be true), then it's quite conceivable that it'd be difficult to recall exactly which of those conversations she came up in four months on . . . let alone the exact context. There's little doubt that Libby, if truthful, conflated conversations. Which makes his testimony different from everyone else's . . . well, not at all.

[Jeff]

He's doing a fantastic job.

Luckily, we don't need to have a serious discussion of this issue, since whether Cheney is or is not doing a fantastic job is utterly beside the point. Let's posit that Cheney is doing a fantastic job. His disapproval ratings are still astronomically high, and I think it's safe to say that a rather large proportion of the jury pool views Cheney as some variation on an evil gnome. This means that if Fitzgerald argues that Libby was acting on orders from that evil gnome, and then tried to protect his evil gnome of a boss by lying, Team Libby has an opening: they face a jury likely to be very sympathetic to the argument that Libby was just an underling committed to serving his country who saw that such service required following the orders of his evil gnome of a boss. So don't blame poor Libby! He was just trying to do his job, and serve his country. Blame his evil boss, who happens not to be on trial.

I think that could be an effective argument even if Cheney were not viewed so negatively, and the fact that he is viewed so negatively just makes it likely to be an even more effective argument. Therefore, I suspect, Fitzgerald will not be arguing that he was following Cheney's orders. (Among other things, I suspect Fitzgerald is a close student of Iran-contra.) I do think Fitzgerald will argue that Libby took the whole issue seriously in part because his boss did. And I do think that he will argue that Libby lied in part to insulate his boss in general from the mess, since I don't think he can really avoid that argument. But I suspect the emphasis will fall on Libby's self-protection in fall 2003, as it will fall on Libby's autonomous action in June-July 2003. For instance, I suspect Fitzgerald will underline evidence indicating that in fall 2003 Bush did not know about Libby's leaks, and in fall 2003 Cheney did not know that Libby had known all along that Rove was one of Novak's sources.

So in answer to your question

Who really cares?

the obvious, relevant answer is: Libby's defense team, emphatically! And Fitzgerald.

[lurker]

What does Cheney's "disapproval" numbers have to do with this Libby's case?

[Jeff]

You are assuming that the seven mentioned conversations were ABOUT valerie Plame.

I am assuming no such thing. I do not believe such a thing, I do not believe Fitzgerald believes such a thing, and I do not believe Fitzgerald thinks he has to convince the jury of such a thing. Now, as for what Cecil says, I don't think we share the same definition of an "aside" and he's setting the bar awfully high for what makes a topic of conversation one deals with seven or so times over the course of a month memorable - but maybe I'm wrong and everyone, not just those to the right of Attila the hun (or however Cecil once described himself), sets the bar that high. I'm thinking it's pretty darn plausible to say that if Libby knew what he had learned about Plame over the course of June well enough to bring it up with, say, Fleischer and talk about it in some detail on July 8, that he'd remember enough about it to not testify the way he did in November. Again, I'm not saying Fitzgerald is going to be able to persuade the jury that what seems pretty darn plausible is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm just saying that the jury is not going to be composed of people who go into the courtroom already as convinced as verner (or Cecil) is that it's all bunk.

Of course, if all Cecil is talking about is what is conceivable, it's hard to disagree with it.

I forgot to include, for the idea that Libby testified that he thought Wilson was fully qualified for his mission, Fitzgerald's 5-12-06 filing. It also indicates that Libby testified he didn't think Wilson's wife played any role in his trip until he read the Novak article. (It's pp. 6-7.)

[Cecil Turner]

What does Cheney's "disapproval" numbers have to do with this Libby's case?

Persistent disinformation pertaining to the case is hurting Cheney in the polls? (E.g., "Dick Cheney had instructed Libby to lie" [about the NIE].) Other than that . . .

[lurker]

Ah...but there's no proof that Cheney instructed Libby to lie or Fitz would have indicted Cheney by now.

Besides, the handwritten questions and notes on the sidebar of an article by Cheney's hand in June or July proved that Cheney did NOT instruct Libby to lie.

[MayBee]

Jeff, can you do me a favor and actually quote the part you are talking about here?

I'd be very interested to see a quoted commentary from Libby indicating he was thinking the thoughts you attribute to him at the time he was talking to Cooper.
Do you think he was talking to Cooper, thinking about how utterly qualified Wilson was for the mission?
Did Cheney write the margin notes with Wilson's great qualifications in mind?

[Cecil Turner]

I don't think we share the same definition of an "aside" . . .

Heh. Find me one of those conversations that doesn't start with Wilson, meander through the reason why he was sent on the trip, and then finally mention Plame. (And, of course, in the majority of the conversations, she simply never came up.) Pretending Plame was the main subject of conversation is not supportable.

I'm thinking it's pretty darn plausible to say that if Libby knew what he had learned about Plame over the course of June well enough to bring it up with, say, Fleischer and talk about it in some detail on July 8, that he'd remember enough about it to not testify the way he did in November.

I think it's pretty darn obvious that the main subject of the July 8th conversation was the NIE, which Libby had been directed to discuss, and not Plame. And again, the contention that merely proving Libby knew about Plame on July 11th is sufficient to prove perjury is just silly. Libby is recalling a series of conversations four months later (and then several months later yet). Trying to prove that he couldn't honestly have gotten a few of them out of sequence looks to me to be the tough row to hoe.

Fitz: "Inconceivable!"
Team Libby: "You keep using that word . . ."

I'm just saying that the jury is not going to be composed of people . . .

Now that is if anything an understatement. Libby is undoubtedly going to face an unsympathetic jury, whose predominant political bias will be against him. I rather doubt it'll get to a verdict, but if it does, I suspect it'll be hung.

Cheney did NOT instruct Libby to lie.

That's why it's disinformation.

[verner]

"I'm thinking it's pretty darn plausible to say that if Libby knew what he had learned about Plame over the course of June well enough to bring it up with, say, Fleischer and talk about it in some detail on July 8, that he'd remember enough about it to not testify the way he did in November."

That's five months (June to November.) Think about all the stuff Libby had to deal with. I'm a lot younger than Libby, and I don't have anywhere near the schedule etc. that he does, and there are plenty of thing I don't remember that happened five months ago--especially if they were not very important to me. Valerie Plame was simply not that important, particularly to Libby, because he had absolutely nothing to do with Novak's piece, and had no fear of being prosecuted for leaking her name to Novak. And he was the first to publish her name.

Further, we now know, thanks to Valerie "Flame" and Cooper's article draft, that Libby was not the first to mention her name to Miller or Cooper. Indeed, there is much evidence to indicate that they already knew about "La Plame", and may have brought up the subject with him.

And add to that, it was not against the law to talk about her in the first place. Her so called "outing" was not a violation of the law because she had not been covert for many years per Harlow. And even if she was, there is nothing to indicate that Libby encouraged anyone to out her name in some sort of vindictive conspiracy. Not any at all.

It's over. Fitz need to dismiss and end this ridiculous witch hunt that is costing an innocent man millions in legal fees.

[Bob]

But Cecil don't see what your saying ? If "Cheney did not instruct Libby to lie" then there won't be no Fitzmas. Your breaking the little boys heart!

It's over Jeff. Find something else to wish for... like a higher minimum wage!

You should go over to the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2753077>DU to see what your fellow moonbats are all in a twitch about!

[lurker]

Bob, heh...if you're referring to the photo that Jane Hamsher put up, that's disgusting.

[MayBee]

For instance, I suspect Fitzgerald will underline evidence indicating that in fall 2003 Bush did not know about Libby's leaks, and in fall 2003 Cheney did not know that Libby had known all along that Rove was one of Novak's sources..

So the conspiracy idea has fallen by the wayside? No anatomy of a government smear?

[Jeff]

Pretending Plame was the main subject of conversation is not supportable.

Proof of what I said. I simply don't think, as you evidently do, that these are our two alternatives: either the main subject of conversation, or an aside.

July 8

I meant July 7, for the Fleischer conversation. Libby did bring up Plame on July 8 with Miller, it appears, but I agree that it was not the main topic of conversation. Indeed, there probably was not a main topic of a conversation that lasted two hours, except the general one of wmd and intel.

And again, I don't object to your scenario as being inconceivable, and I'm sure Fitzgerald wouldn't either. After all, inconceivable is a much higher standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do think it's often the standard you use to nitpick, object to, and otherwise criticize the claims of those you don't agree with. If the alternative is not inconceivable, it's not a fact, for you, sometimes.

I'd be very interested to see a quoted commentary from Libby indicating he was thinking the thoughts you attribute to him at the time he was talking to Cooper.

The bit about Libby thinking Wilson was fully qualified is not necessarily what he testified he was thinking about while he was talking to Cooper, though I'm not sure I see what difference that makes. But the initial point is that Libby's testimony about the Cooper conversation put it in the context of an innocent, not critical explanation for how he brought up Plame. Since Libby testified that he did not believe his wife was involved in his mission until Novak, and believed Wilson was fully qualified for his trip, it follows that he didn't testify that he didn't bring up Plame with Cooper in the context of asserting, much less asserting critically, that he'd heard from reporters that she was involved in sending him. Rather, he was explaining to Cooper why Wilson might have come to believe that Cheney was involved in his mission. And whether it was critical or not of the CIA, he presented it as not critical of Wilson or Plame.

[clarice]

Where do you suppose Miller got the tip off on the raid? Possibilities:(a)FBI(b)Courthouse personnel who handled the warrant (c) Fitz' own office.

[Jeff]

So the conspiracy idea has fallen by the wayside?

Was it ever on the way as a matter of prosecutorial strategy?

No anatomy of a government smear?

Not in the courtroom, as has been obvious for a long time. But those filings sure provide some ugly anatomy, as far as the real world is concerned. But Fitzgerald is prosecuting a case, which is an entirely different matter.

[verner]

Jeff,

I've read all of your posts and am left asking--what is your point?

No one denies that there were inconsistancies in Libby's testimony. But Fitz can not send him to jail for that. He must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Libby lied to derail the investigation.

What is your proof? What was Libby's motive? You have no answer to either of those questions that will hold water in a court of law. He was never in legal danger over "the leak," and neither was Cheney. And unlike Martha Stewart, he did not gain financially.

Not a single reporter that team Bush spoke to, from the original Kristof article in May, to the date that Novak published his piece, mentioned Valerie Plame's name in print. Armitage is the leaker--and he certainly was not a neo-con loving advocate for the Bushies.

[Bob]

There you go verner... your as bad a cecil!

Will you just let them have their Fitzmas dream. It'll be a lot easier on all of us!

[verner]

"Not in the courtroom, as has been obvious for a long time. But those filings sure provide some ugly anatomy, as far as the real world is concerned. But Fitzgerald is prosecuting a case, which is an entirely different matter."

No they don't. You are reading things into them that you want to see. Fitz went out of his way to state that he was not indicating any motive etc. on the part of the administration in his October press conference. He went out of his way to avoid any of that when asked. He stuck strictly to Libby's charges.

On the contrary, the recent filings show no proof of anything, unless you want to say that a few scrawled lines on an inaccurate news article written by Cheney as something ugly. Geez--Wilson LIED. Cheney knew absolutely nothing about him. Of course he was going to take note of that.

[boris]

unbold!

[Cecil Turner]

But I do think it's often the standard you use to nitpick, object to, and otherwise criticize the claims of those you don't agree with.

Jeff, your snarky snipes at others' inability to be "dispassionate" kicked off the current round, and so far you've hardly been abused. Your characterization of Libby's testimony is overstated, and not holding up very well. That's your fault, not mine.

It also indicates that Libby testified he didn't think Wilson's wife played any role in his trip until he read the Novak article.

Nitpick: that's not "Libby's testimony," but Fitz's characterization of Libby's testimony. And since in the immediate aftermath we see this:

Rather, the defendant claims that he told reporters that he was not sure Mr. Wilson even had a wife. Mr. Cooper, to the contrary, testified that the defendant had advised him on July 12 that the defendant had heard that Mr. Wilson’s wife was involved in sending Mr. Wilson on the trip to Niger.

Except that part is in the indictment, and that's not quite what it says:

Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

So what "time" is it that Libby references? June, or July? Did Libby misspeak about the month, or is Fitz claiming he implied something he obviously didn't? (Or, my pet theory, was Libby conflating the conversation with earlier talking points about the main subject--did the VP order Wilson sent--and mentioning they didn't know him from Adam until June? In which case, he and Fitz are talking past each other.)

[verner]

Cecil,

I think that Libby got into trouble because he did not take the original investigation as seriously as he should have--mainly because he didn't think he had anything to worry about. As Fitz stated himself, it was not illegal for Cheney and Libby to discuss Plame.

I'm wondering if he even checked his e-mail etc. before he initially talked to the FBI. Also, it seems like most of the stuff he's being pounded with for not remembering correctly has no back-up docs that he could have reviewed. Did he take notes from his meeting with Ari? Judy? Cooper? Russert? Not that I'm aware of.

As UGO(Armitage) stated, her outing was "inadvertant." So were the conflicts in Libby's testimony. There's just no proof to indicate any other explaination.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I vote for the courthouse. If we find that a member of the FISC signed the warrant then I vote for the courthouse six or eight times.

[clarice]

Me, too. And won't that be fun?

[clarice]

And here's a clue that we're right:
"Rory O'Connor and Scott Malone interviewed Judith Miller about pre-9/11 intel. Go read the whole thing:

“But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that [July Fourth] weekend. The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone’s attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaeda. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaeda operative was overheard saying to the other, ‘Don’t worry; we’re planning something so big now that the US will have to respond.’

“And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaeda operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack of the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major Page One-potential story.

“I remember going back to work in New York the next day and meeting with my editor Stephen Engelberg. I was rather excited, as I usually get about information of this kind, and I said, ‘Steve, I think we have a great story. And the story is that two members of Al Qaeda overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National Security Agency, because that’s who does these things) were heard complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also… contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They said this was such a big attack that the US would have to respond.’ Then I waited...."

http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/05/judy-miller-got-heads-up-before-911.html

Ain't the Gorelick wall wonderful--the important thing is it kept the info re the intercept from the FBI.

[SunnyDay]

Will you just let them have their Fitzmas dream. It'll be a lot easier on all of us!
*******************

If they would only have them somewhere else.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

A Tale of Two Jeffs:

1. 'Libby's story is that he brought her up simply by way of explaining, in sympathetic fashion, how Wilson, who he thought was fully qualified for his mission.... That's Libby's story.

2. '...The bit about Libby thinking Wilson was fully qualified is not necessarily what he testified he was thinking about while he was talking to Cooper....'

[Jeff]

I've read all of your posts and am left asking--what is your point?

My original point, verner, is 1)that the jury will not already share your belief that Libby would not have forgotten about Plame only if he were obsessed with her. They will need to be convinced of that. Fitzgerald will be trying to convince the jury not that Libby was indeed obsessed with Plame, but that there is enough evidence to indicate that Libby did not forget about her; 2)that Fitzgerald need not and probably is not going to try to prove that Libby was motivated to lie in order to protect his boss.

And your point that Fitzgerald was careful, in his press conference, to stay within the four corners of the indictment is exactly my point. Fitzgerald is prosecuting a case, and he is prosecuting it on a very narrow basis. It is not his brief to make claims about Cheney's role in any purported effort to get the Wilsons. But that doesn't mean that the information that has come out in connection with the pretrial motions paints a pretty picture of the conduct of the Vice President.

Cecil

It's sort of pointless, since you pretty much think whatever I say is nonsense. But I don't see how my characterization of Libby's testimony was overstated - because I said he was sympathetic to Wilson? But that holds whether Libby was criticizing the CIA or not. (And I realize for Patrick's sake I should have said "Libby testified that he believed Wilson was fully qualified for his mission, so he could not have been claiming Wilson was unqualified for his mission in mentioning his wife's affiliation with the CIA." I didn't realize Patrick would think I was suggesting that Libby testified, "While I was talking with Cooper, I was thinking to myself, 'Wilson was qualified for his mission, Wilson was qualified for his mission.'" Sorry for not being clear on that point, Patrick.)

As for Libby's testimony that you quote, are you seriously trying to suggest that Libby did not testify that he told Cooper he (Libby) didn't know if Wilson was in reality married? I agree that in the testimony you quote Libby is being ambiguous about what they learned in June, and he is probably taking advantage of the fact that he did in fact learn in June from Cheney that WIlson was married to someone who worked at the CIA. But remember, his story is that he had forgotten that he had learned about WIlson's wife from Cheney by the time he heard it from Russert in July, and Russert mentioning Wilson's wife triggered no recollection of what Cheney had said in June, and so when he talked to Cooper on July 12, his story goes, all he could report to Cooper was what reporters were saying, Libby himself having no actual knowledge of whether Wilson was married.

Another snippet of Libby's testimony from Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit (15n9):

"And when I talked to the reporters about it, I explicitly said, you know, I don't know if this is true, I don't know the man, I don't know if he has a wife, but reporters are telling us that." (Exhibit J at 177.)

It's true that this is just Fitzgerald quoting Libby, and sadly, we do not possess Exhibit J.

And then there's this from the indictment as well (p. 21):

And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know - I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.