Powered by TypePad

« Duke: Rape Charges Dropped, Assault And Kidnapping Remain | Main | Bold Prediction - Duke Case To Be Dropped On/By Feb 5 »

December 23, 2006



We discussed it on the Nifong thread.


Let me add, the response is more interesting than one might suppose. For instance:

Moreover, recent disclosures by the government show that Mr. Wilson had a relationship with one of the government's key witnesses in the case and was in contact with that witness regarding certain issues key to the indictment during the relevant period.
I presume the witness is likely Grossman.


That's my guess and ts's , too.


Thanks Clarice.


Just curious...but

"recent disclosures by the government"

Is "recent" significant? Not sure. I guess I'd just expect them to say "disclosures by the government show"...not sure if that's too nit picky though.


-- "Is "recent" significant?" --



"Recent" is interesting, and cboldt's Jencks guess makes a lot of sense. If so, perhaps it's someone other than Grossman, whose relationship with Wilson was known long ago; or perhaps the specific revelation that Wilson "was in contact with that witness regarding certain issues key to the indictment during the relevant period" is what's recent.


I noticed in my previous post, a pronoun reference is unclear. I meant: If so, perhaps it's someone other than Grossman, since Grossman's relationship with Wilson was known long ago.


How can it be Jecks? No one has testified yet.
I suspect it is material which was turned over because it may impeach the govt witness--in other words exculpatory evidence which had been in the govt's possession.




Clarice, the Jencks material was given to Libby on December 22. As I understand it, the general practice in DC district courts is to release Jencks material prior to trials.


Ah--Thanks. Well, I must say if it is Grossman, the Libby team suspected that sometime ago.


Clarice, they not only suspected, but at least had some evidence as far back as the May 5 hearing:

MR. WELLS: Now let's return to Mr. Grossman. Mr. Grossman is going to take the stand and he's going to say this is what I did. I asked for a report to be prepared. I met with Mr. Libby and I told him certain things. Now let's assume I want to show this jury that Mr. Grossman is not being totally truthful, that I want to show, for example, that Mr. Grossman went to college with Mr. Wilson and they were classmates and throughout their careers they traveled together through the State Department and the diplomatic arena from college right on through. I want to give you a sample of just two emails that are classified so you will see the importance of these documents for purposes of discovery and how they may permit me to materially advance my examination of Mr. Grossman and to try to show that he is not being totally candid and that there are relationships that should cause the jurors to doubt what he said to Mr. Libby, when he said it.

THE COURT: These documents that the government may have regarding the Wilson trip, I don't see how that would advance that theory.

MR. WELLS: Let me just show you the documents. These are documents that I will assume --

THE COURT: These are classified documents?

MR. WELLS: Yes, sir.


Yes and Truthout's(?) reference to him as the source of the 1x2x6 story IIRC.


I'm rather skeptical of the Truthout story of Grossman being "1" in 1x2x6. I read some other, rather minor, official 'fessed up to that. On the other hand, I suspect Wilson was a major source to Truthout, so perhaps that gives the Grossman version a bit more credibility. Wilson may have been bragging about how his buddy Grossman revealed the evil White House plot.


I have a feeling you're right. That Grossman sprea a lot of gossip about the investigation to Wilson who spilled it to other reporters--maybe even Jason Leopold.


I miss Sue too

Awww! I'm around Top. I just haven't been able to add much to the discussion so I've mostly been reading not posting.


That Grossman spread a lot of gossip about the investigation to Wilson...

An interesting point that might explain why Wilson singled out Rove so earlier in the affair. Grossman may have been throwing Wilson off Armitage's trail.


More importantly, Grossman may have been trying to throw the press off Armitage's trail.


I read some other, rather minor, official 'fessed up to that.

Hubris (Corn- Isk) said it was Adam Levine - prior Hardball producer - low-level communications guy that the WAPO thought"why bother with a" source clarification.

Hey you Sue! You always have lots to add ::wink::


--Adam Levine - prior Hardball producer --

Who knows...maybe they are referring to AL...especially given the Matthew's connection - also he did IIRC testify to the grand jury at least once, maybe 2ce.


Thanks TSK9. I'll have to write down the guy's name, since I can never recall it when the 1x2x6 discussions begin.


It would be funny if Grossman or Wilson told Leopold that Grossman was the 1 in the 1x2x6, but he was wrong.
Maybe Grossman spread some disinfo to the press and just didn't realize the WaPo wasn't talking about him on that one.


AL may have been 1X2X6 but the reference to close personal relationship suggests Grossman and Grossman may also have been funnelling stuff to Wilson who blabbed it to the press.



Your welcome. Remembering dates, details and names is my only contribution.

I seriously doubt it's Levine.

However, reading the response I am more convinced one of the reporters intent of quashing a subpoena is M. Clalbresi now.

They also mentioned Pincus (but not Kristof) in this filing.

first pick

M.Calbresi and Pincus


M.Calabresi and Kristof



...For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Libby requests that the Court leave the subpoena in place so that Mr. Libby can, if needed, call Mr. Wilson as a witness at trial. Mr. Libby further submits that oral argument is not necessary and should not be heard on this matter. As the Court is aware, shortly after filing the motion to quash, Mr. Wilson's counsel appeared on television to comment publicly about the merits of this case, thus putting in jeopardy Mr. Libby's ability to receive a fair trial. See United States v. Libby, Misc. No. 06-560 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2006)(order admonishing Mr. Wilson and his counsel against making extrajudicial statements to the press). In light of this prior conduct, the defense sees no need for, and substantial risk in, further airing these issues in a public forum.

Is this a just another instance of setting up grounds for appeal -- if so surely helps that Walton b*7%#$-slapped Sloane (and Ironic another media whore goofed up /sarcasm off - what goes around comes around?)

I suspect WIlson feeds all kinds of crud to JL - and really who can blame JL for writing stories in that regard? It would be funny if yet again Wilson's BS caught up with him here.


Fitzgerald's Wild Source Chase [subscribers only]. An excerpt:

A wiser prosecutor than Mr. Fitzgerald would have ended his probe the minute he discovered that Mr. Armitage was the leaker. Instead, he told Mr. Armitage to keep quiet and let the public believe for two years that someone high up in the White House might have leaked for nefarious political purposes. In the end, Mr. Fitzgerald's case has been distilled to a perjury charge that, while serious as a matter of law, appears to come down to different memories about conversations Mr. Libby had with three journalists. (And, as we all know, journalists never get anything wrong.)

The comments to this entry are closed.