In a new filing (9 page .pdf) the Libby defense team describes the classified documents they will need and how they plan to use them in presenting Libby's defense (AP coverage).
The section starting on page 7 discusses the documents relating to the Wilson/Niger trip. Among other things the defense hopes to introduce notes and emails to and from CIA employees Robert Grenier, Craig Schmall, and Bob Harlow.
Robert Grenier was the senior CIA official who, per the indictment, told Libby that Ms. Wilson was involved in selecting Joe for his trip; Craig Schmall was a CIA briefer to whom Libby mentioned Joe and Valerie Wilson; and Bob Harlow was in the CIA press office and spoke about Ms. Plame to Robert Novak and others.
The defense also expects to introduce the INR memo seen by Marc Grossman of State and (the defense believes) Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary.
Saddam is convinced he is innocent and speaks freely. God help the attorney who is charged with defending an attorney. Testifying will open many mansions for Fitz he otherwise would not be able to inspect.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 22, 2006 at 09:37 PM
I think the most interesting pasts of this are on pp. 2 and 7.
On p. 2 Libby says "We intend tointroduce a substantial number of classified documents to
corroborate the testimony of Kr. Libby and other witnesses
to provide the the evidentiary basis for the Power Point presentation that we intend to offer under Fed Reules of Evid 611(a) and/or 1006 in connection with Mr. Libby's direct testimony
to provide necessary context
to impeach govt witnesses and
to establish a prior recollection in any instance where a witness testifies to a lack of recollection
*********
p. 7 respecting the Wilson/Niger docs
He intends to use these, among other things, to "show the insignificance and lack of attention to Mrs. Wilson" in response to the controversy and to add credibility to his defense that he inadvertently forgot, confused or misremembered snippets of conversations mentioning Plame when asked about them months later.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a) Control by court.
The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
Rule 1006. Summaries
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 09:43 PM
His purpose is clear. The outcome is perched on triangulations he cannot control despite his self-righteous posturing.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 22, 2006 at 09:43 PM
From the AP link,
Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, discounted reports that the regime of Saddam Hussein had an agreement with the African nation of Niger to buy uranium yellowcake as part of a nuclear weapons program.
It is now official. We can disregard the SSIC reports (both I & II) since MSM reporters do not believe it contains accurate information. They continually assert as fact that Joey Baby had discounted the Niger story. Gotta keep the story alive...even as the case may be fading into history...
Posted by: Sue | September 22, 2006 at 09:48 PM
If this gets to court,
1) Does the jury consist of 12?
2) Is unanimous verdict required for guilt?
3) Is the jury pool likely to be anti-Republican?
4) Erle Stanley Gardner/Perry Mason. In almost every book, the formula was followed: The judge would say that THIS time, Mason was not going to be permitted to bring in a lot of extraneous information. THIS time the judge was going to be very focused and rein in Mason's antics.
And every time Mason got the judge so interested that he allowed the supposedly extraneous info in, always over the prosecutor's strong objections.
Are Libby's lawyers good enough to get the judge interested in the sneaky goings-on of the gum-chewing prosecutor et al.?
Posted by: Paul | September 22, 2006 at 09:53 PM
"Testifying will open many mansions for Fitz he otherwise would not be able to inspect."
Do you really think for one minute Libby would even think of taking the stand if that were the case? I don't. He has some of the best legal talent money can buy, and he's not small potatos either. He will testify because he is innocent, and wants to clear his name. And he also knows that Fitz has squat.
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 10:03 PM
He can waive a jury trial.
If he doesn't it will be a 12 person jury and their verdict must be unanimous.
The city (and jury pool) is about 98% Democrat.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:05 PM
He must be omniscient and omnipresent. He's certainly convinced you of his deity.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 22, 2006 at 10:06 PM
I'm persuaded he is innocent and no sane prosecutor would have pursued this or brought this indictment and continued with it after Woodward came forward.
That's quite a bit different than deifying him. I don't recall Dumas worshipping Dreyfus--just shouting that it was Count Esterhazy who was the spy and Dreyfus who was innocent..
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Clarice,
If you were Libby's counsel, would you advise him to waive a jury?
It seems on the surface that the D.C. (?) venue would be tough goings with a jury for a non-liberal.
Posted by: Paul | September 22, 2006 at 10:14 PM
I'll just add that I think Fitz should be the one sweating bullets over putting Grenier, Grossman, Ari, Miller, Cooper and Russert on the stand, cause they've all got real big problems. And that's not including the possibility that we get to call Armitage, Woodward, Pincus, etc.
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 10:17 PM
I don't know. I read a survey recently which indicated defendants had a better chance of acquittal in trials before judges, than they did in jury trials.
Libby's counsel Wells, is exceedingly competent, very charming and Black.Reportedly, he has good rapport with juries.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:18 PM
If he is not omniscient, he cannot forsee the outcome when he takes the stand. Arrogance and, or personal conviction leaves little room for the perspective and counsel of his paid
advisors. I am pretty certain they are strongly suggesting he refrain from testifying.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 22, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Clarice: "That's quite a bit different than deifying him. I don't recall Dumas worshipping Dreyfus--just shouting that it was Count Esterhazy who was the spy and Dreyfus who was innocent.."
Love it. I adore Zola, I visited his tomb in the Pantheon in January. Now THAT was a journalist! I wonder which high priced hack at the WaPo or NYT would have the courage to do a "J'accuse" for Libby?
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 10:23 PM
I can't believe I'm agreeing with semanticlown on something (I suppose nobody's perfect, not even tic.) Some jury of clowns will want to give him the death penalty for using big words and taking more than one sentence to explain himself. Which is the whole reason he got indicted in the first place...
Posted by: cathyf | September 22, 2006 at 10:25 PM
verner, thanks. Of course, I meant Zola.*palm to forehead*
Will Libby testify?
I think it entirely depends on his and his counsel's determination of the strength of the prosecution case, after they have cross examined the prosecution witnesses.
Any bets on Cooper or Miller withstanding it?
Russert?
If not them, who's left?
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:28 PM
terribly OT, but what is up with liberals and their touchy little whiny asses when a tough question comes their way? Colbert speaks truth to power, they are pros at inappropriate rude questions and behavior, but boy liberals WILT and FREAK when their feet are held to the fire...Clinton looks like a weenie baby boy.
Can you imagine if Bush got all red face and pointed and whined like Clinton? Sheesh
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 22, 2006 at 10:30 PM
This Sementickleo freak should go in to comedy. And take the short bus to the club.
Posted by: Horis Faaac | September 22, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Clarice:Libby's counsel Wells, is exceedingly competent, very charming and Black.Reportedly, he has good rapport with juries.
I'd also add very good looking. I sure wouldn't mind watching him in a courtroom.
If you did have jurors who hated Bush and Republicans, and would not be inclined to offer Libby the benefit of the doubt, I think Wells will be able to neutralize that in about ten minutes. The contrast between Wells and Fitz is going to be very striking if this case goes forward.
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 10:38 PM
The semantic one is good at semantics. But not trying cases. Of course, the rule is that defendants should not testify.
There are exceptions to every rule. In a perjury case, for example, it is often difficult to avoid taking the stand. I would trust a trial lawyer of Well's calibre to make the call. The defense, of course, must be prepared to go either way.
Hence the motion.
Posted by: vnjagvet | September 22, 2006 at 10:40 PM
Just for fun I was scanning some of Waas' stories on the case..I love this one (6/8/02)about what AShcroft knew in late fall 2003:
[quote]On October 16, about two weeks after the investigation had begun, Ashcroft assured the public, "I believe that we have been making progress that's valuable in this matter." Asked about the possible appointment of a special prosecutor, Ashcroft said, "I have not foreclosed any options in this matter."
What the public did not know was that two days earlier, the FBI had interviewed Libby for the first time. It was in that interview that Libby first insisted that in mentioning to reporters -- specifically Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times -- that Plame worked for the CIA, he had been careful to point out that the information was unsubstantiated gossip he had heard from other journalists. Libby also told the FBI that a day or two before he spoke to Cooper and Miller, he was told about Plame by NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert. "
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/waas.htm
My, my --what did his hot sources leave out?
LOL
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:41 PM
Who was feeding Waas this? Why? Why leave out the most important thing..by mid-October Ashcroft knew that Libby wasn't Novak's source.
Surely this disinfo came from DoJ or the FBI? Why?
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Here is a great profile of Wells from the Holy Cross Magazine. I didn't know he was a long time friend of Clarence Thomas.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/publicaffairs/hcm/fall05/GAA/gaa3.html
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 10:58 PM
The last part of that link that got cut off:
fall05/GAA/gaa3.html
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Assuming there's some wheat in the Waas chaff, there's this:
"The briefings for Ashcroft were conducted by Christopher Wray, then the assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division, and John Dion, a 30-year career prosecutor who was the day-to-day supervisor of the investigation"
So, it''s safe to assume that both Wray and Dion knew about AShcroft.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Clarice, it's late, and I'm tired so I can't remember, but which one was the former Kennedy Staffer? Was it Wray? If so, bingo. No one who worked for Ted Kennedy could possibly be a straight shooter. They couldn't stand working for him if they were.
Posted by: verner | September 22, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Margolis was the former Kennedy staffer.
Wray and Dion played key roles in the early days of the probe and surely know about Armitage:
"Christopher Wray, former U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division chief, handpicked the Washington prosecutors prior to the appointment of the special counsel, says a former Justice Department official familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
When the Justice Department launched its investigation in the fall of 2003 to learn who leaked Plame's identity, it was John Dion, head of the department's counterespionage section, who led the charge until Fitzgerald -- the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois -- came on board as special counsel in December 2003. Fitzgerald was chosen by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who has since left the department.
Plame's identity and covert status were revealed in a piece by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The column cited two senior administration officials as sources, which sparked an uproar and an investigation into whether the White House released Plame's name as retaliation for her husband Joseph Wilson's criticism of the administration.
Dion, a career prosecutor with the Justice Department since 1973, worked closely with FBI Special Agent John Eckenrode and other agents in the months following the leak. "
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:43g9gkKjm4EJ:www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp%3Fid%3D1130499505379+US+Dept+of+Justice+John+Dion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=19>Wray and Dion
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 11:12 PM
Dion cut that sweet deal with Sandy Berger.
http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=cache:udVlYad_XswJ:www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm+John+Dion&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&site=default_collection&ie=iso-8859-1&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=ISO-8859-1 in Socks
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Wray resigned on FEBRUARY 28, 2005
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Re Sandy Burglar and the Bill Clinton interview with Chris Wallace referenced above: Now THAT escapade would have been an excellent matter to bring up too.
Posted by: Paul | September 22, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Clarice -- As a legal matter, does Libby have a stronger claim on introducing classified evidence if he states his intention to testify personally on that evidence?
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | September 22, 2006 at 11:43 PM
vnjagvet:
"The semantic one is good at semantics."
LOL. More like Hooked on Phonics...
I'm sure the final decision about Libby testifying will hinge on the kind of case Fitzgerald mounts, but looking at their CIPA Memo they say "We expect to offer testimony about the classified information principally (but not exclusively) through Mr. Libby." Now this could all be a feint, but it seems clear that a lot of the critical evidence in this case is, in fact, classified, and it would be hard to introduce much of it without Libby's testimony as a basis for doing so.
A number of people have pointed out that in this case, ironically, it's the prosecutor, not the defendant, who is trying to keep evidence out. I suspect putting Libby on the stand doesn't pose the usual risk of opening unecessary doors.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 22, 2006 at 11:54 PM
No. I won't go into the pdf of the ruling to get his exact words, but as has been reported:
"Prosecutors had proposed a stringent three-part legal test that would have allowed information to be considered for the trial only when its benefit to the defense outweighed the government's need to keep it secret.
Walton sided with Libby's lawyers, who said any evidence that's relevant to the case should be considered for use. Once Walton rules on which evidence is relevant, government attorneys can propose portions to be blacked out or summarized, the judge said. "
Libby is showing the Court in this filing why this info is relevant to his defense and how he intends to use it.
Posted by: clarice | September 22, 2006 at 11:58 PM
OT...this clip of 'mad' Bill shouting that he at least tried but he KNOWS they didn't ...the jabbing finger is the cincher. Impossible to watch that finger and not think about it shaking out 'THAT woman'. He looks unhinged.
Posted by: owl | September 23, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Thanks, Clarice. What happens if Walton rules that a certain piece of evidence is irrelevant, but Libby mentions it on the stand anyway, stating that it was critical to his state of mind during June & July 2003?
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | September 23, 2006 at 12:03 AM
He must be omniscient and omnipresent. He's certainly convinced you of his deity.
Wow, what a weak post this is. Semanticleao are you feeling ok? Maybe you should lie down.
Posted by: GM | September 23, 2006 at 12:06 AM
JMH I think that's largely true of the PDBs, don't you?
Now it doesn't mean he has to testify if he gets these documents . It just means that if he testifies they are relevant and he needs them to make his case.In other words, he may get them and decide the case is so bad, he needn't testify.
He probably will test that before he puts on his case by making a motion to dismiss at the close of the prosecutor's case.
But I want to focus attention on something that's troubling to me. It is not unheard of for a prosecutor to go off track (See Nifong, for example, or even Fitz in Cowles).
But we have three Dos officials (Powell, Armitage and Taft); three of four DOJ officials..AShcroft, Comey, Dion and Wray) ; Tenet and who knows who else at CIA; a hadnful of people at the FBI--and all of them let this farce continue. Not a single leak although there were tons of them about everything else..even the referral.
Dion cut that deal with Berger! And yet they all let this shameful thing continue.And no leaks. No pangs of conscience over the direction the investigation took, the jailing of Miller, etc.
Maybe it was just political cowardice meeting rank perfidy and folding or soemthing more.
At some point
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:06 AM
--This Sementickleo freak should go in to comedy. And take the short bus to the club.
The bus where they have to wear their names around their necks and wear plastic helmets? Yes, I can see it now
"Hi My Name Is SEMANTICLESO"
Posted by: GM | September 23, 2006 at 12:09 AM
owl, I didn't see the tape. I wondered if we'd see that finger..Heh. You can't go there again, Bill. We've got your number.
***********
neuro, this fight is whether he'll get the docs at all. If the judge rules they are irrelevant, Libby won't have them to refer to ..
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:09 AM
--This Sementickleo freak should go in to comedy. And take the short bus to the club.
The bus where they have to wear their names around their necks and wear plastic helmets? Yes, I can see it now
"Hi My Name Is SEMANTICLESO"
Posted by: GM | September 23, 2006 at 12:11 AM
Owl
Did you notice the next "related" video listed at youtube is the one entitled "That Woman"?
Posted by: sad | September 23, 2006 at 12:13 AM
" I am pretty certain they are strongly suggesting he refrain from testifying."
I am pretty certain that you are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
Posted by: Other Tom | September 23, 2006 at 12:17 AM
2 posts above, my thought was interrupted..
I meant to say that at some point we have to consider whether there was not something more than perfidy by some and cowardice by others at work. Starts with c ends with y and while I'm loathe to go there, the possibility gets stronger with each revelation.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:19 AM
Clarice -- Please indulge me one more question. I do not understand how Walton could deny Libby these requests, since the heart of the case is his state of mind during the summer of 2003. If he claims he was more worried about various top-secret briefings about GWOT than about remembering a 30-second conversation with Russert about some washed-up, two-bit blowhard, how can Walton deny his right to say that (and support it with evidence from PDB's etc.)?
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | September 23, 2006 at 12:22 AM
Clarice,
I think if you factor in the lynch mob mentality of the Democrat's and the Press at the time, the dissaperaing spines may be understandable,although unforgiveable.
And perhaps knowing that Armitage was responsible,but not really in jeapordy,they may have thought the whole thing would blow over with no harm done.
Fitz then proceeded to hermetically seal Armitage,and carry on a very agressive investigation in another direction, by that time it was too late.
And given Fitz's loose cannon style, anyone coming forth could have found themselves alongside Libby.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 23, 2006 at 12:27 AM
I've no proof Grossman knew Armitage was the source, but let's consider him a strong "leaner" which adds another to the pack.
*******Neuro, I do not see why those pdbs cannot be summarized and truly secret things redacted.
Do we need to know the report was of a bombing planned at a specific bldg in LA?
Wouldn't it be enought to redact it and say an hour before he met with Miller on June 23, he'd learned from the PDB that a major building in one of America's largest cities was being tracked and we weren't certin we had all the plotters tracked?
(Disclosure:I'm prejudiced about secret evidence in civilan courts, and think it's best kept for real national security iissues or other important matters. I think even the routine protection of the name of rape victims harms the defendant. That policy has Victorian roots, and in some cases--esp where the assailant is someone known to the defendant --i.e., date rape--seems odd. For one thing, it means the defendant wouldn't be able to count on people in the area providing helpful information such as prior such claims made by the complainant.)
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:31 AM
Tom Morrissey, You might be right. If so, that is an amazing indictment of the culture of D.C., isn't it?
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:32 AM
The number of back stabbers and invertebrates mounts. And still just one person with honor in the whole story:Bob Woodward.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:40 AM
Clarice,
Which is why I like living in Boston,our local Politicians are honest thieves,none of this skullduggery like in D.C.
And the Moonbats here are harmless,they are annoying,and smell awful,but they have no teeth.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 23, 2006 at 12:40 AM
Thanks again, Clarice. FWIW, I agree with you completely. I just don't see how Walton can weigh Libby's right to a fair defense, combined with the state's desire to keep these briefings as secret as possible, with the minimal (*at best*) interest of the "people" in prosecuting this "crime." Call me an optimist, but I say the case is dismissed or dropped before trial.
As for the c********y theory, Occam's razor usually leads me to believe that people are cowardly, lazy, venal, or stupid, rather than diabolical. But it will be recorded by history as Bush's greatest weakness as president that he managed to appoint so many people with such little loyalty, and that he failed to dismiss so many more who were openly disloyal.
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | September 23, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Alternatively, all those people could have been convinced that Fitzgerald really was conducting a legitimate investigation. I mean suppose Cheney had told him that Libby's disclosure of the NIE was not authorized, and Fitzgerald needed Miller and Cooper to find out exactly what NIE stuff Libby told them? Nobody knew until the indictment that Fitzgerald didn't have anything legit like that.
Fitzgerald as an unsupervised all-powerful appointment (which the founding fathers took some care to make unconstitutional) was not just extraordinarily dangerous to get too close to, but without the give-and-take of negotiation with a supervisor there wasn't the natural oppoertunity for these things to come up.
Posted by: cathyf | September 23, 2006 at 12:46 AM
HEH! Well, those pols are regular people. These folks are often the kind of people who all their lives sat in the first row, died if they didn;t get teacher's approval and an A and live for outward approval. With a rather undeveloped interior sense of integrity
And then there's something that happens when there is that sense of power and importance that comes with press attention, etc.
Early one, when I still cared for the stuff George Will wrote, he had a column saying the problem with Washington is no one wanted to think they were so unimportant that they could keep regular hours, that the country and the world would be better off if they kept regular hours, had normal lives and human interests. Something sure happens here that twists one's sense of what's important.
It's just a damned job.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:46 AM
I've done a little googling on Christopher A. Wray, and I think you've described him to a T, Clarice.
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | September 23, 2006 at 12:50 AM
cathyf, that's another good point, I think. So, one one side we have DoS perfidy--and that it was. There was NO EXCUSE not to tell the President.
On the CIA side, I'm not sure if it was a fight with the WH or with DoS or both, but ehy were not behaving honestly in pressing for the investigation of this nonsense. Period. No Way.
I do think there was some perfidy at DoJ and the FBI though--bruised egos on WOT issue fights.
And then, taking Cathy's point--the truth was carefully encapsulated by Fitz who ran the case off the tracks.
Well, let's hope come of those people get some spine and start speaking out. (I am not sure that this super special appointment by Comey was benign, however..if there was an argument for a get Bush c ***y inside the govt I think this odd appointment is the strongest evidence of it.)
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:52 AM
I need some help. Isn't there something, a court document, an article, something, that says that UGO (before we knew UGO was Armitage) tried to warn reporters away from writing the Wilson story? I'm not sure I'm wording correctly what I'm looking for. Something is sticking in my mind about the good leaks and bad leaks and/or innocent accused.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 12:59 AM
I am pretty certain they are strongly suggesting he refrain from testifying.
I am surprised there are two points of view on this - it never ocurred to me that the defense might attempt a "My client testified truthfully to the grand jury but won't get on the stand to tell you so" defense.
That said, I agree that Plan A is to blow up enough prosecution witnesses that the case is dismissed.
Off the top of my head:
Grossman - college pal of Wilson who is throwing Libby to the wolves to protect Wilson, State;
Fleischer - wants to pretend that it was *not* the INR memo, marked secret, that tipped him to Plame; since he leaked to Pincus, he has a legal exposure and an incentive to give Fitzgerald a juicy story that shifts guilt to Libby;
Cooper - wrote somewhat different versions of his Rove encounter ("when I pressed him", Rove dished on the wife), apparently wrote different versions of his Libby encounter;
Miller - is going to baffle the jury with talk of other uninvestigated sources;
Russert - "Did you order the Code Red? "You're damn right I did!". We finally find out that yes, well, maybe he did say something about Wilson's wife, but not by name or job title.
Great courtroom drama. Oddly, even if Russert actually delivers on my fantasy, it shouldn't change the falsity of Libby's "I Forgot" story - presumably, there are still Addington and Martin to deal with. Addington claimed to have discussed the wife with Libby after the Wilson op-ed - the indictment says "on or about July 8", and Fitzgerald's affidavit puts it in "the week of July 7" (IIRC). If they can't pin that date down a bit more, maybe it was July 10 or 11, after the Libby-Russert memory boost. Or maybe Addington will say so - he is Cheney's current chief of staff.
And maybe the judge and jury will have seen enough.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 23, 2006 at 01:00 AM
I wish I could get one of those guys to talk to me ..I'd like to ask them what were you thinking?
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 01:01 AM
That's the way I see it TM..
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 01:16 AM
Hey, TM, you missed the most lurid "small world" piece of Grossman trivia. Which is that Valerie Plame was the sexy blond who worked in the Greek embassy in the early 90s when Grossman worked in the Turkish embassy.
One of the curious questions here is just who decided that "Valerie Plame" was The Answer to the question "who the hell is Joe Wilson?" There is lots of evidence that the person who decided that is Marc Grossman. I'm just a girl so I don't understand this whole thing of when a man thinks with his penis rather than his brain. But I've seen it happen enough times to wonder if Grossman didn't find The Blond way more memorable than someone who had never seen her and/or who didn't have a penis would have found her.
Posted by: cathyf | September 23, 2006 at 01:25 AM
A little tidbit which I just saw "as if for the first time" in this filing.
Wasn't the INR report delivered to Grossman on June 10? Is the evidence that Libby had a written "working file" on "Wilson's trip" which he used, and that written file didn't include any information on Mrs. Wilson at all? And that all Fitzgerald has are some government officials who sorta kinda remember that it came up verbally when Libby was in the room?Posted by: cathyf | September 23, 2006 at 01:57 AM
As I recall it the prosecutor is not claiming the Libby ever saw the June 20 INR report, that all the evidence respecting his prior knowledge relate to oral reports, cathy f.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 02:02 AM
What significance does the June 9th date have?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 23, 2006 at 02:16 AM
Clarice, I have no idea if this info helps
October 15
The New York Times reports that senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials criticized the Attorney General's failure to recuse himself or appoint a special counsel. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that whether the Attorney General should step aside has been discussed in the department and by his own senior advisors. They "fear Mr. Ashcroft could be damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general with a long career in Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president." (Johnston and Lichtblau, "Senior Federal Prosecutors and FBI Officials Fault Ashcroft Over Leak Inquiry," New York Times, October 16, 2003)
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 03:07 AM
Known or should have known
And that all Fitzgerald has are some government officials who sorta kinda remember that it came up verbally when Libby was in the room?
Yeah, doesn't it sound like Armitage and his boys (Well, Powell and his boys) shit a brick, when this thing turned into a cluster "you know what" because Armitage stepped on his own "you know what" -- and so Armitga just didn't discover he blabbed to anyone warm and breathing when he read the word "gunslinger"
Boy, I wonder if ever came out in questioning it was their first interview and Novak was summoned? That would be interesting.
Wasn't the INR report delivered to Grossman on June 10? Is the evidence that Libby had a written "working file" on "Wilson's trip" which he used, and that written file didn't include any information on Mrs. Wilson at all?
BUT, as always reported and held near and dear to their hearts on the left, Libby ordered up the INR!
Anyways, I've been saying for a LONG time, Grossman had mucho motivito to "sex up" the sinister house of Cheney...and started with CYA excuse for why he had an INR report.
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 03:24 AM
I've said this from the get go, although I will admit I'm not the best student when it comes to the time line and small details. But like Tom Morrissey said above, I never believed that the Wilson's or the Democrats ever expected this to last longer than the pre-election cycle. This was simply a poor attempt at a "Willie Horton" event for them... to simply tarnish Bush prior to the 2004 election. The Dems knew it was Armitage all along, as did the Bush Administration. The Dems expected Ashcroft, not recuse himself, leaving the suspicion of a Bush "cover-up". Which would have have been made out to be Bush's Watergate. But Bush Admin. called their bluff, and so then the Dems had to prove something, or look like the fools they really were. Fitz knew if he exposed Armitage as the leaker early on, the Dems would once again look like fools. So Fitz was off on a Crusade to find someone close to Bush... Rove or Cheney would have been the big prize, but all they could get was a flimsy non-existent charge on Libby.
Anything more complicated would give the Dems too much credit!
Posted by: Bob | September 23, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Lucianne comments
Heh!!
One poster said:
Posted by: lurker | September 23, 2006 at 09:57 AM
Other interesting Lucianne comments:
And that's including Jeff and emptywheel! :)
Posted by: lurker | September 23, 2006 at 09:59 AM
I cannot find it now, but someone on this thread commented about the terrible appointee/holdover decisions made by the Bush Administration.
1. Because of the unwillingness of Al Gore to concede, the transition was long delayed, and made governing in the first months extremely difficult, even chaotic. Gore was unpatriotic in the extreme to go to the lengths he did to undermine the new administration--and the Constitution.
2. The Clintonistas did all they could during the abbreviated trnasition to make life as difficult as possible for the incoming people.
3. Bush apponted Cheney to preside over appointments. Big mistake. In nearly all cases, except arguably Rumsfeld at Defense, Cheney/Libby made questionable choices. For example, who decided to keep George Tenet at CIA? Appoint Powell and Armitage? Ashcroft? I can't even remember the name of the Treasury guy, a weakling. Leave Richard Clarke to prowl about the White House for weeks lousing things up?
The President was unaccountably passive in this process and the consequences have hurt him big time. Yet he survives, and even seems to be thriving. Think how things might have been if he'd paid attention . . .
Posted by: John R | September 23, 2006 at 10:05 AM
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/12/neocon_tripe_my.html>This is the kind of analysis you get when you start with a conspiracy theory mindset and have to make the facts fit your theory. However, as much as I chuckled reading through it, knowing what we now know, there are some http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=28384&TM=32713.35>gems to consider. Could, as EW speculates, Grossman, Armitage, Carl Ford, or Larry Wilkerson, be the source mentioned? If so, it makes the claim now being made by Armitage that he saw the INR memo in early June, questionable. And puts a great big question mark on who was steering Fitzgerald and news media away from State.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 10:19 AM
I could see an order vacating their ruling that sent Miller to jail. I could see it accompanied by notice that nothing associated with Patrick Fitzgerald will be accepted in the Supreme Court in the future. Forget working as a law clerk -- he's gonna be flipping burgers at McDs.
I can't believe that the courts are just going to roll over and let a prosecutor lie to them without sanction. But, maybe they will...
You know, I have noticed something about the Supreme Court. Liberal, conservative, moderate, living constitution, strict constructionist, whatever differences they have in their theories of law, there is one thing that all nine of them agree on 100%. Which is that you don't dick around with the Supreme Court.Posted by: cathyf | September 23, 2006 at 10:48 AM
--However, as much as I chuckled reading through it, knowing what we now know, there are some gems to consider. Could, as EW speculates, Grossman, Armitage, Carl Ford, or Larry Wilkerson, be the source mentioned?--
SUE, can you just summarize so we don't have wade through....I took one gander and my eyes glazed.
---The Dems knew it was Armitage all along, as did the Bush Administration.--
Bob, the only hiccup with your analysis is the not all members of the Administration knew it was Armitage...the WH staff, the President, the ones Fitz was dogging - makes it worse huh?
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Top,
It is more fun to wade through, but just for you, I'll do a short summary. EW speculated that one of those 4 was the source of an AP story that claimed no one above Grossman had seen the INR memo prior to Armitage asking for it to be sent to Powell in early July. While EW's entire theory got blown to hell when it was revealed that Armitage did, in fact, leak to Novak and even earlier to Woodward, it doesn't take away from the AP story that was indeed sourced by someone in State. The article is pre-indictment and makes me wonder if Armitage fessed up to Fitzgerald, pre-Woodward, when he actually saw the INR memo. In early June 03, as he now claims, or did he tell Fitz, pre-Woodward revelation, that he learned of Wilson's wife when Powell did, in early July? I guess, since Fitzgerald has not seen fit to indict Armitage for any crime, he surely fessed up to seeing the memo in early June and this AP story, sourced by someone at State, was for media misdirection only.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Either that or Armitage's memory is just as shoddy as Libby's and Fitzgerald sees one as lying and the other as just forgetful.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 11:30 AM
It is more fun to wade through . . .
My eyes glazed as well. The whole "neocon Waldo game" was humorous for the first paragraph or so (especially because she was so obviously wrong on the facts), but it paled rapidly. This little bit of self-parody was typical (ad hominem defense of Armitage for something we now know he did):
Still, it's worth a chuckle or two, especially when read in conjunction with her later "Why Armitage Doesn't Exonerate Dick" sour grapes.Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 23, 2006 at 11:46 AM
THANK you Sue...I just did not have the energy.
---that he learned of Wilson's wife when Powell did, in early July? I guess, since Fitzgerald has not seen fit to indict Armitage for any crime, he surely fessed up to seeing the memo in early June and this AP story, sourced by someone at State, was for media misdirection only.---
In order to have sent to Powell, he would have to know it existed - right? Also, this sounds like someone (and the sand throwing) desperately trying to
---EW's entire theory got blown to hell when it was revealed that Armitage did, in fact, leak to Novak and even earlier to Woodward, it doesn't take away from the AP story that was indeed sourced by someone in State. ---
Doesn't it sound like State was really in a pickle with that INR memo....and all the sand has been a CYA for it.
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 11:48 AM
THANK you Sue...I just did not have the energy.
---that he learned of Wilson's wife when Powell did, in early July? I guess, since Fitzgerald has not seen fit to indict Armitage for any crime, he surely fessed up to seeing the memo in early June and this AP story, sourced by someone at State, was for media misdirection only.---
In order to have sent to Powell, he would have to know it existed - right? Also, this sounds like someone (and the sand throwing) desperately trying to
---EW's entire theory got blown to hell when it was revealed that Armitage did, in fact, leak to Novak and even earlier to Woodward, it doesn't take away from the AP story that was indeed sourced by someone in State. ---
Doesn't it sound like State was really in a pickle with that INR memo....and all the sand has been a CYA for it.
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 11:51 AM
THANK you Sue...I just did not have the energy.
---that he learned of Wilson's wife when Powell did, in early July? I guess, since Fitzgerald has not seen fit to indict Armitage for any crime, he surely fessed up to seeing the memo in early June and this AP story, sourced by someone at State, was for media misdirection only.---
In order to have sent to Powell, he would have to know it existed - right? Also, this sounds like someone (and the sand throwing) desperately trying to
---EW's entire theory got blown to hell when it was revealed that Armitage did, in fact, leak to Novak and even earlier to Woodward, it doesn't take away from the AP story that was indeed sourced by someone in State. ---
Doesn't it sound like State was really in a pickle with that INR memo....and all the sand has been a CYA for it.
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 11:51 AM
crap. Comment stuttering, too?
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Yeah TS. Just checked at Flat Tire. She seems to be betting the farm on Ari. Not a smart move.
Posted by: verner | September 23, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Top... I don't think there are many secrets in Washington anymore - and especially with something like this. Whether or not the Bush Admin wants to admit it, I do believe they knew... at least the fact that it wasn't Rove, Cheney, etc. Keep in mind back then, if Bush admitted he knew, it would have given the dems story more legs. And since Armitage wasn't within the Bush administration, he had every right to white lie about not knowing. It also allowed him to say he would punish anyone in his Admin. who leaked - he would have only said that if he knew who the real leaker was.
John R... I like your point about Al Gore. Never thought of that. But I wouldn't go so far as to blame Bush/Cheney for poor choices in his Admin.... for exactly the reason you point out - Sore Gore and the media. I think Bush was trying to be somewhat conciliatory towards the Dems... yes it was a mistake, but I think intentions were good, considering the close election.
Posted by: Bob | September 23, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Top,
I am looking for something I read yesterday, (and I know I read it dadgum it!), where one set of leakers was trying to steer the story away from Plame and the other (the WH/OVP, of course) was trying to steer it towards Plame. Can you help me with it?
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 12:01 PM
John R, the difficulties in the transition surely played a role. But it is not the only reason for the early bad appointments. I know for a fact that Rice was warned to remove the holdovers on the NSC--Beers and Clarke--and refused to do so.
I think honorable people--and I regard Bush as one--cannot conceive easily of the perfidy of others. And lots of things go into consideration on appointments. For example, many Republicans felt Ashcroft had been badly treated in the Carnahan election and wanted Bush to find a spot for him in the new Administration.
Comey was brought in, I think, because of the Enron scandal. The Administration wanted to target corporate crime and he seemed a natural.
Powell was the media and public darling and his appointment was considered a plus.
*********
Sue, that would explain the oddity of the INR memo being redated , wouldn't it? A simple cover letter would have done so why go thru this except to throw the scent off?
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:02 PM
I'll ask again ... why does Libby use the June 9, 2003 date? What is significant about that date. It sounds like he is sure that he either received or sent a fax on that date or close to it. What?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 23, 2006 at 12:28 PM
totop, There is no question that there was a media storm to push Ashcroft into recusing himself, nevertheless either cowardice or passive aggression remain my top two theories for why he didn't close down everything when Armitage came forward.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Sara,
I think the June 9 date is the date CIA faxed documents to the OVP concerning the still unnamed ambassador.
In the latest filing, Libby is asking to introduce notes from June 9 to June 14.
According to http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/libbys_powerpoi.html#more>EW
My theory is the 2 Grossman emails will show he verbally informed Libby on a date between June 9 and June 14, not the May 29th date.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Sara, I believe the record is that what records he got on June 9 didn't contain any reference to Mrs. Wilson and he never saw the June 10 INR which has a reference to her and her using the name Valerie Plame and describing her role in the Mission. In other words, he had no specific knowledge and wasn't using it to respond to the Wilson charges.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 12:38 PM
I get the impression that Libby believes he may have a file of stuff showing he was tuned in on the Wilson trip but that nowhere is Val mentioned and that at no time did he address her role. This would be pretty strong evidence in Libby's favor, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 23, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Sara,
Libby's lawyers have indicated as much.
Posted by: Sue | September 23, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Bob,
It's possible they let this whole farce tumble forward knowing it was Armitage, and that he was in little or no jeapordy,or had decided that since it was in fact his own fault he would have to live with the consequences.
It would just another instance where a Democrat/Media hissy-fit would blow up in their faces,as it since has done.
They may not have factored in Pat "Perjury-Trap" Fitzgerald and his demented monomania.
Think No Child Left Behind and movie Night with Ted Kennedy,and other failed outreach efforts, there definately was an ecumenical atmosphere early on.
Didn't work to well.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 23, 2006 at 02:51 PM
If I could speculate, I'd say that it means that Libby has this file, and it has real classified stuff in it, and it doesn't have anything about Plame in it. And Libby is going to call all these reporters at trial, and they are going to testify that 1) he told them Wilson was a loser and incompetent and that Cheney didn't send him and nobody outside of the CIA saw his report, 2) not only did he not mention Plame to them, but he didn't mention any of the properly classified information in his file to them, unless it was after it was declassified, and 3) not only he didn't tell them anything about Plame, he didn't tell them other unclassified things that weren't in the file.
In other words, his defense was that when he dealt with reporters about Wilson, he pulled out his file and told them things that the file said were ok to say. And that if Plame wasn't in there, then he didn't talk about her. And that when he was done he put his Wilson file away and moved on to other things like immediate terrorist attacks and the like.
And that's what he told the FBI and it's not his fault that they were so busy with their fingers in their ears chanting "liar liar pants on fire nyah nyah nyah lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"
Posted by: cathyf | September 23, 2006 at 02:51 PM
I'm going back over the NYT and Waas reports in mid October 2003. I have a theory: Someone on the Hill (not the FBI or DoJ) leaked this to them to pressure Ashcrfot to recuse himself--and the persons who told the Hill were inside the DoJ or FBI and knew that it was Armitage. Ashcroft was already shell shocked from all the attacks on him and didn't want to have another grenade thrown his way and the leaker(s) knew that.
Add this to Top's stuff about the Comey confirmation hearing-- Schumer just LOVED him up, Comey virtually promised if appointed and Aschcroft turned the portfolio to him he'd appoint a SP under the Statute and--then within days of his appointment-- he ignored the Statute and appointed Fitz. Both Comey and Schumer knew KNEW would, with a free hand, go after the WH..especially if pointed in that direction by those who oversaw the already ongoing investigation.
And then there's this--almost immediately after his appointment, Comey started fighting with the OVP on WOT measures. Pretty brassy for a new guy. Did he know he'd already sewn up oppo support on the Hill?
*sniffing around*
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 03:01 PM
**** Both Comey and Schumer KNEW FITZ would, with a free hand, go after the WH..especially if pointed in that direction by those who oversaw the already ongoing investigation.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 03:03 PM
cathyf --right on the mark again.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Thomas,
Yes that's exactly what I think. I believe both sides felt it was nothing more than your typical election season shenanigans and it would all blow over by the new year... but nobody was counting on the Wilsons and the nutroots to keep it alive.
What may have been their biggest mistake, was thinking that the Wilsons would know better to just let it fade away. But without Kerry in office, there would be no posh jobs for them. So all the poor souls could do now, was to keep it alive and play the victims!
Don't you think that if Kerry had won, this would have been dropped in a heartbeat? The mission would have been accomplished.
Posted by: Bob | September 23, 2006 at 03:17 PM
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-iTPrpG17KIJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/30/ldt.00.html+schumer+comey&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8>Schumer on how much he hearted Fitz
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 03:23 PM
Wonder if Comey has changed his mind / opinion once he returned to the private industry. After all, his objective would be to look for more business for the company he now works for.
Posted by: lurkerOT: | September 23, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Bob,
Loyalty and discretion being a rare commodity in the Wilson household,and given their proven record of backstabbing and conniving,they would most likely been given something.
A safe job in State for Joe, with no access to anything sensitive, and maybe Prom-Queen-for-Life for Val,but nothing that would give them anything to hurt Kerry.
They would always be looking for the next best thing on the horizon(Hillary,etc..) that type always does.
Joe and Val would sell their own Mother'sfor a new reason to feel important,another 5 minutes in the spotlight,they would turn on Kerry without a pause.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 23, 2006 at 03:43 PM
Can you help me with it?
Sue, I can't off the top of my head.
Posted by: totopsecretk9 | September 23, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Drudge--without more --says a paper is reporting :"Classified National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks"
I suppose the paper is the NYT and I'd be interested to see if the CIA sends a referral letter on this leak of classified information and if Schumer demands the appointment of outside counsel immediately to investigate it.
Posted by: clarice | September 23, 2006 at 04:04 PM