Who Are The Two And Where Is the Coverage?

I. Lewis Libby's defense team is planning to subpoena "several" reporters as defense witnesses in his upcoming trial, per recent court filings [Filing, Exhibit].  Two reporters are making legal noises suggesting they will resist being called.  But who are the two?  And wouldn't a bit of disclosure be appropriate here - reporters are in a legal tussle with Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, but that won't affect their Washington coverage?  Please.

We can rule out Judy Miller, Tim Russert, and Matt Cooper, all of whom should be prosecution witnesses.

Bob Woodward is mentioned separately in the filing as being inclined to cooperate with his subpoena.

So which reporters are being balky?  My first pick is Andrea Mitchell - what did Andrea know, when did she know it, and did she discuss it with Tim Russert are issues the defense will want to explore. 

I have a lot more detail here but briefly: in late June Ms. Mitchell had a scoop from State about the misplaced INR dissent (on Saddam's nuclear aspirations) in the NIE; she sat in for Russert and interviewed Joe Wilson on the July 6 'Meet The Press'; on July 8, she told the world that CIA sources told her that Wilson was sent by low-level CIA "operatives" (a word later used by Novak, to great controversy); on July 20, she had a public spat with Richard Armitage, who was no longer returning her phone calls; and on Sept 26 she broke the news of the CIA criminal referral of the Plame case.

And of course, there was her famous Oct 3, 2003 response that prior to Novak's column it was "widely known" amongst the journalists covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA.  She has since disavowed that.

So - she was covering the Niger-uranium story; she was talking with Armitage, until they fell out; she claimed at one time that Ms. Plame's CIA employment was "widely known" among reporters; and she works with Tim Russert.  She might have something helpful for the defense.

As to a second balky reporter, Nick Kristof comes to mind as a fellow who has managed to keep a very low profile on this, considering that it was his May and June 2003 columns that got Washington buzzing about the then-unnamed Ambassador.

AP coverage is here.  Oddly, none of the subpoenaed reporters seem to have considered their situation to be newsworthy.

STRAW-SPECK IN WIND:  The filing does use "he" in describing one reporter who may resist testifying, but is gender-neutral with the other one.  Just the luck of the way the sentences were written, or was that skill?

If someone can convert this file to HTML or text, we might deliver some relevant excerpts.  Thanks.

MORE:  Here are Libby's proposed jury instructions and Fitzgerald's status report.

UPDATE:  MSNBC does note the reporter issue:

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert are expected to be prosecution witnesses. Libby's lawyers said in court papers Thursday that several reporters will testify on Libby's behalf.

Two unidentified reporters may resist testifying, Libby's attorneys said, but they expect to resolve that issue before trial .

Libby also has sought a subpoena for the tape of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's interview with former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage has admitted he discussed Plame's job with Woodward in 2003 but said it was a passing, inadvertent comment.

If admitted into evidence, the tape could be played at trial. The tape has been turned over to prosecutors, and Libby's attorneys said they expect no objection to their subpoena.

C'mon - these reporters know who they are.  How can they be covering the Washington scene while secretly fending off this legal issue?  MSNBC ought to name some names, or start collecting denials.

Comments

[jerry]

I sort of agreed with EW, Pincus makes a lot of sense for the "he" and Mitchell might be dodging. Another one might be Novak, he's apparently cooperated with Fitz but is mighty particular about his public image, maybe Fitz agreed not to put him on the stand and he'd rather not get asked about Karl (coordinating testimony etc)?

Great to be back at the Plame story.

[clarice]

Pincus and Novak--to show that Wilson outed Plame.

[topsecretk9]

And wouldn't a bit of disclosure be appropriate here - reporters are in a legal tussle with Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, but that won't affect their Washington coverage? Please.

Exactly...and um....can't they break their own news?

Putting to rest a potential Jeff quibble

And of course, there was her famous Oct 3, 2003 response that prior to Novak's column it was "widely known" amongst the journalists covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA.

She said those covering the "intelligence" community, I think - same difference - I know/think - but surely a target for a pompous "bone to pick - point score" that needn't be.

[topsecretk9]

Novak

I don't know why, but just can't seem to gut it's him...I think Kristof...to show that Jusy Miller knew before she talked to Libby.

[clarice]

Get Kristof on the stand

Where he met them (Dem Sen Policy Conference)
Both there
Who introduced them
How did Wilson introduce his wife
Why would he believe Wilson
What did Plame say
Go thru the stuff Wilson said Kristof lied about
Get his notes
Who did he tell about this interview and his source..when

Pincus--Ditto
Conversation in the hall with Woodward
Who did he tell
When

[clarice]

TM, One of your posters has sent me the pleadins you want. If you send me your addy, I'll forward them to you.

[cboldt]

Link to HTML version (hand transcribed) here -> December 14, 2006 at 07:27 PM

HTML-ized Fitzgerald Status Report at December 14, 2006 at 06:12 PM

[topsecretk9]

Go thru the stuff Wilson said Kristof lied about

Oh yes sireee....and ask why Kritof was so confident and sarcastic to follow up with:

...To help out Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney, let me offer some more detail about the uranium saga. Piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it, the tale begins at the end of 2001, when third-rate forged documents turned up in West Africa purporting to show the sale by Niger to Iraq of tons of "yellowcake" uranium.

Funny...in hindsight, it sounds as if Kristof is aware that Cheney and Condi (and by proxy the Admin) were not privy to any of this - almost as if Kristof is in on the con no?

Also...I wonder if, do we know that Judith Miller was not approached at the same time or before Kristof was by the Wilson, only Judy thought the were full of prune juice -- since she had seen Plame's extraordinary "Iraq has WMD" Intel work?

[Jane]

Get Kristof on the stand

Depositions first - that's where the real fun is.

[cboldt]

The CIPA battles are far from over. Libby's December 15 proposed jury instruction, to partially cure CIPA 6(c) substitutions, illuminate what an underhanded prick Fitzgerald is, and also show the slam dunk of an appeal in case the jury is hoodwinked into finding Libby had any relevant recollection that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA. Fitz isn't even letting Libby put on a defense.

... the Court approved a series of substitutions proposed by the government, in many instances over the defense's objection that the substitutions were inadequate and/or misleading. ... In addition to omitting certain relevant facts or events, the substitutions at many points require Mr. Libby to use language drafted by the government, while testifying in his own defense. ...

In the defense's view, the government's substitutions threaten in several ways to undermine Mr. Libby's ability to present a full and effective defense. ...

... the instruction will mitigate, at least in part, the threats posed by the government's substitutions to Mr. Libby's Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense, including through his own testimony.

[Fan of Gas Queen]

I will wait until Clarice "Gas Queen" Feldman (as they call her over at - http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com ) speaks before I rush to any judgement.

[clarice]

HEH! With the little bit of information we have about the contents of the classified docs and the proposed substitutions, I can't imagine how we could evaluate this dispute or the judge's resolution of it.

[Doei]

I ended up looking up the CIPA 6(c) substitutions thinking it meant substituting a case study(Igot McVeighs) or something for the actual classified information. There are some strange things in there, like the assertion that:

'Since 1940, the primary method of classifying information has been through Executive Order.'

That's insane. It's the government employees who do most of the classifying. Most federal and DOD employees are classified.

Reciprocity is pretty interesting when one considers the intelligence community. For example, if Plame or Wilson defected to Moscow, the Russians would seek reciprocity for: 'Reciprocity: Section 6(f) provides that whenever the court rules that a defendant may use classified information after a Section 6(a) hearing, the government must provide the defendant with the information it expects to use to rebut such information. This "reciprocity" provision.....'

The rules for a non federal employee seem alot different than a civilian. For example, the federal employee may see the balancing approach: 'some courts have
endorsed a balancing approach. See, e.g., United States v. Sarkissian,
841 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1988).'

Anyhow, the intelligence community meant most intelligence services. The idea is that I get more intelligence working with the other service than not. The basis for the agreements and defections for operations officers were ususally based on psychiatry, which makes more sense for the community than legal work. All operations officers see those and you can figure who should really run things from there. Problems here would involve an operations officer's psychiatrist 'attacking' an 'innocent' American on behalf of the client and causing huge problems, not really addressing the legal end of the intelligence community.

For example: A federal employee overseas runs across operations officers and there is a complaint with the intention of using the psychiatrist to get rid of the problem, which they do. The federal employee might receive a call explaining the threat first from their psychitrist forcing a resignation because the threats were poisoning and employment that would lead to life threatening situations for someone who is a federal employee, but not an operations officer. As far as the psychiatrist's follow up, which is done outside legal framework, it would need disocovery and was not anticipated. To stop digression: Legally, you may find it impossible for a KGB guy to really defect.

Alot of this would be in CIPA III Outline of Procedures
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case01.htm

Notice #1. That is how to attack the president.#2 That is how it is denied and #3 has me completely baffled!

[Other Tom]

It's my recollection that pre-trial depositions are not allowed in federal criminal cases, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., to preserve the testimony of a witness who is not expected to live until the trial date). Am I wrong?

[clarice]

No, other Tom, you are right.

[Semanticleo]

Gas Queen. Did not know that. >chuckle>

[Semanticleo]

12.12.2006
Gas Queen...
Clarice Feldman, Esq?

Breaking Down Our Will For Freedom:
Gaslighting American Wingnuts

"I hope the airline if sued (by the "Lying Imams") will respond with a countersuit, and passengers subjected to such aggressive assaults (praying) will consider consulting counsel to determine if they have a cause of action against the imams for intentional infliction of emotional distress and compensation for the inconvenience caused by their conduct (and her ramblings?).

And I hope that the rest of us have the wit to challenge in every way possible the repeated attempts to gaslight us."

Confession...I look forward to the good whizgigging I always get whenever I read Clarice's twisted and noxious fumings - anxiously awaiting her next Libby release regarding:

"ORDERED that the government’s Supplemental Motion Pursuant to CIPA Section 6(c) for Substitutions in Lieu of Disclosure of Classified Information is GRANTED."

NEW CONTEST: What "law school" did Clarice attend?

posted by Patrick J. Fitzgerald at 12/12/2006

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2006/12/gas-queen.html

[Ranger]

Here's my take on candidates:

Kristof because he clearly knew Plame worked at the CIA (but he implies he did not know she was a former operations officer) before all this began and he talked about the Niger trip with Wilson in Plame's presences and he used a person who worked in non-proliferation as a second source. now, he claims that it wasn't Plame, but perhapse she put him in contact with one of her co-workers who backed up Wilson's story. If so, then Kristof would have known about her work in CPD and might have told others.

Andrea Mitchell, for the reasons already cited.

Might be Pincus, but he is still denying that the Woodward conversation ever took place which implies that he either really doesn't remember it (which has some value to the Libby defense but only stikes gold if they can prove that Pincus told someone else) or he never told anyone else, so he can lie with confidence.

It could be a third (yet unidentified) journalist that Pincus told, which would be interesting but only if it can be tied into a chain of knowledge that eventually leads back to a journalist that Libby talked to at some point.

[clarice]

I grant you that the 2d reporter is a toss up between Mitchell and Pincus, but I am inclined toward Pincus because Wilson took issue (after the Congressional Commission called him a liar) with the accuracy of the Kristof and Pincus original accounts. Kristof as TM noted played with that and never retracted anything much--The Wa Po had Pincus and Milbank write a long piece acknowledging that most of their report was baloney. It would be important to know that the original reports accurately reflected what Wilson had originally told them, and I suspect that Plame was present at both interviews which also takes care of the classified argument and lays the groundwork for a frameup AND indicates a lot of journos knew their relationship and her job and almost any of them could have mentioned it to Libby and other Bush officials.

[Cecil Turner]

I like Pincus and Kristof, but will be pleasantly surprised if Walton rules their testimony is material.

Clarice Feldman, Esq?

Yet another pseudonymous DKos clone specializing in empty assertions and ad hominem? You'd think that niche was full . . .

[Ranger]

Here's another thought about this. Maybe these are two as yet unidentified (by us that is) journalists that didn't write about this directly but did cite "a former ambasador with close ties to the CIA" at some point. That would show that Wilson's wife works at the CIA was common knowledge with a certain group of journalists long before this all became a big deal.

[clarice]

With no real discovery and the limitations on reporters' being forced to testify, can you see how NOT questioning Kristof and Mitchell and Pincus(in his case by very limited written interrogatories) not only skewed the investigation but as well makes it very hard for Libby to mount a full defense?
I do.

[cboldt]

Woodward, because Libby and Woodward did have a meeting, and Woodward's testimony plays directly into the misattribution theory. The fact that Libby is also considering bringing in a Woodward/Armitage tape doesn't preclude Woodward personally taking the stand - plus, the tape (Armitage) and testimony relating to meeting with Libby are two different matters.

Novak, because his testimony would tie into Armitage being the leaker, and Libby not being the leaker. That is, Woodward hears from Armitage, Libby hears from Woodward and misattributes it to Russert. Armitage telling Novak as well as Woodward makes a compelling case that Libby didn't leak at all (certainly not to Novak, whose story was the big trigger), therefore had no motive to mislead the FBI or the grand jury.

[clarice]

Oh, I think those two will testify but I doubt they are the two fighting testifying cboldt.

And that is what we are discussing--who are the two reporters balking at taking the stand?

[cboldt]

-- "And that is what we are discussing--who are the two reporters balking at taking the stand?" --

Me too. But as usual, you guys easily prove my speculation to be all wet ;-)

[Cecil Turner]

. . . not only skewed the investigation . . .

I agree, but think one could argue that broad an investigation wasn't in Fitz's charter. (He was assigned to investigate potentially criminal government leaks of classified information--and as a special counsel, supposed to focus on only those areas where a conflict of interest with a standard DOJ investigation existed.) He obviously didn't feel he had carte blanche to subpoena reporters unless they could testify to something directly related to those criminal charges . . . a view which has a legitimate basis in DOJ guidelines.

Oh, I think those two will testify but I doubt they are the two fighting testifying cboldt.

Woodward at least seems to be out . . . he's mentioned separately as not objecting (or at least they don't "anticipate" he will[--bottom of p3]).

[cboldt]

Oh, and Novak is the one who has the less strenuous balk. Woodward is the one who will file a Motion to quash if he recieves a subpoena.

[clarice]

If you cannot do a full investigation under the circumstances, then why pretend you can? Remember he made a point at his presser that Libby was the "first to tell", something under the circumstances he could never have known and which in any case was quickly proven false.

[clarice]

Both Woodward and Novak have been publicly forthcoming and have defended Libby, I do not see them refusing to testify.

[cboldt]

-- "Woodward at least seems to be out . . . he's mentioned separately as not objecting (or at least they don't "anticipate" he will [--bottom of p3])" --

I saw that and took it into account before composing my speculation. YMMV.

[Cecil Turner]

I saw that and took it into account . . .

Okay. I'm having a hard time seeing

• "The defense does not anticipate any objection to the subpoena from Mr. Woodward . . ."

and:
• "It is the defense's understanding, however, that the reporter will likely file a motion to quash upon issuance of any subpoena for testimony."

as being applied to the same reporter/subpoena. So my mileage does vary. Concur it's not proof.

[cboldt]

-- "... as being applied to the same reporter/subpoena." --

It isn't necessarily the same subpoena. See status report.

[Ranger]

What about Ben Bradley? Does he still count as a journalist? As an editor he could have pass it along to dozens of other journalists after Woodward told him.

[clarice]

cboldt, I have the same problem with your suggestion as Cecil does, could you explain what the difference in subpoenas is or whatever you are relying on?

[cboldt]

II. Trial Subpoenas ... two reporters who may resist testifying ... the reporter will likely file a motion to quash upon issuance of any subpoena for testimony

IV. Rule 17(c) Subpoenas ... The defense does not anticipate any objection to the subpoena from Mr. Woodward, assuming [IF?] the Court rules the tape recording relevant and admissible.

Would the court rule on relevance and admissibility "in advance" if the target of the subpoena complied without challenge?

[cboldt]

-- "I have the same problem with your suggestion as Cecil does" --

Plus you tout Woodward as a supporter of Libby, who in general has no reluctance to testify for the defense.

I'm not sure we'll ever find out who the recalcitrant reporters are, so this could be a fun guessing game that has no end-point.

[Jane]

It's my recollection that pre-trial depositions are not allowed in federal criminal cases, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., to preserve the testimony of a witness who is not expected to live until the trial date). Am I wrong?

Oh yeah, I think you are right. Bummer.

[Cecil Turner]

See status report.

I read it, but didn't get it the first time. Good point, completely different subpoenas (and subjects) . . . thanks. I still think it unlikely Woodward is resistant--since he essentially came forward without prompting--but it's a much closer call.

[cboldt]

-- "Woodward ... essentially came forward without prompting" --

Woodward's statement regarding his deposition on November 14, 2005 indicates that Fitz contacted Woodward, not the other way around.

I was first contacted by Fitzgerald's office on Nov. 3 after one of these officials went to Fitzgerald to discuss an interview with me in mid-June 2003 during which the person told me Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.

Other aspects of Woodward's statement (and otherwise, the general tenor of his writings regarding the Bush administration) incline me to think he is not forthcoming to Libby's defense, even though, as you say, he "essentially came forward without prompting."

Clarice seems to be of the opinion that Woodward is more or less eager to come to Libby's defense, and that's a good thing. I bet Woodward's testimony would help the jury see how minor Mrs. Wilson was, even to muckraking journalists, and would also be convincing as to Libby being confused (memory misattribution) as to which journalist he first recalled hearing of Plame from. The challenge will be to get Walton to make a reasonable ruling, finding Woodward's testimony to be relevant and admissible. Better to get this settled at trial than during an appeal following a wrongful conviction.

[MJW]

I find Libby's proposed CIPA jury instructions somewhat interesting because they in essence ask the court to admit that the CIPA substitutions imposed on Libby do not provide him with substantially the same ability to make his defense. On the other hand, if Libby really is as restricted in giving his testimony as the defense claims, I don't see how the court can deny him such an instruction.

[cboldt]

-- "... if Libby really is as restricted in giving his testimony as the defense claims, I don't see how the court can deny him such an instruction." --

Oh, he's severely restricted alright. Unreasonably restricted. Libby ought to be able to show all the details of what occupied his mind, which is generally the defense of the nation against terrorists and rouge states. The only cures to Walton's Fitz-friendly 6(c) ruling are verdicts of not-guilty, or winning on appeal on account of not being afforded 5th and 6th Amendment rights to meaningful defense. The instruction is necessary in order to urge the jury to a righteous conclusion.

[Cecil Turner]

Woodward's statement regarding his deposition on November 14, 2005 indicates that Fitz contacted Woodward, not the other way around.

True, but only after Woodward reminded Armitage that he'd mentioned it to him prior to Libby talking to Miller (contra Fitz's public statement).

After Fitzgerald's comment about Libby at a news conference, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reminded Armitage that he had made a passing comment to him days before Libby's conversation with Miller. That meant that Armitage, not Libby, had been the first to mention it to a reporter, and he quickly informed the prosecutor of that recollection.

Looks to me like Woodward prompted Armitage to contact Fitz. I suppose it's possible Woodward might not've expected Fitz to get back to him, but . . .

[cboldt]

-- "Looks to me like Woodward prompted Armitage to contact Fitz. I suppose it's possible Woodward might not've expected Fitz to get back to him, but . . ." --

cboldt: as you say, he "essentially came forward without prompting."

And of course, that translates into willingness to testify on behalf of the defense. It's settled by JOM then, Woodward will not move to quash a subpoena, not for a [17(c)] tape, and not for personal appearance and testimony.

[clarice]

That's how I recollect the events, Cecil.

And I recall that after he testified he that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.

[clarice]

Also, Woodward indicated that when Armitage told him he did so in a way that didn't in any way signal that the information was classified.

[Cecil Turner]

cboldt: as you say, he "essentially came forward without prompting."

Yes. Or, if you'd rather, he did the initial prompting.

It's settled by JOM then . . .

Ooh, I get to be "JOM" now? Coool. And no, not "settled," but a rationale for my speculation (that Woodward doesn't appear terribly shy about providing testimony). Cheers.

[cboldt]

-- "Ooh, I get to be "JOM" now? Coool. And no, not "settled," but a rationale for my speculation (that Woodward doesn't appear terribly shy about providing testimony)" --

Sloppy shorthand on my part. Turner and clarice support the proposition that Woodward doesn't appear terribly shy about providing testimony. I'll echo and tag along with that. Stupid on my part to even suggest otherwise. Cheers.

[MJW]

cboldt: Oh, he's severely restricted alright. Unreasonably restricted. Libby ought to be able to show all the details of what occupied his mind, which is generally the defense of the nation against terrorists and rouge states. The only cures to Walton's Fitz-friendly 6(c) ruling are verdicts of not-guilty, or winning on appeal on account of not being afforded 5th and 6th Amendment rights to meaningful defense. The instruction is necessary in order to urge the jury to a righteous conclusion.

Mockery aside, do you not agree that if Fitzgerald is actually dictating the exact words Libby can use to testify in his own defense, some constitutional issues are raised?

[maryrose]

If case goes to trial Libby will be acquitted. Fitzgerald is finished in the town of Washington D>C. This is almost as bad as the Duke case.Just substitute Fitz for NIFong.

[Walter]

Heading into the back nine the leaderboard reads:

Novak
+++++
Jerry,
Clarice,
CBoldt

Pincus
++++++
Emptywheel,
Jerry,
Clarice,
Ranger

Woodward
++++++++
CBoldt

{Jolly St Nick}
Kristof
+++++++
Tom Maguire,
TopSecretK9,
Clarice,
Jane,
Ranger,
Walter

Andrea Mitchell
+++++++++++++++
Tom Maguire,
EmptyWheel,
Jerry,
TopSecretK9,
Ranger,
Walter

Ben Bradlee
+++++++++++
Ranger

Not sure about Jane, MJW, Maryrose, or Cecil (just to mention the commentators on this thread). And some avatars voted early and often.

Tom 'Man of the Year' Maguire is the official scorekeeper, but it looks like Mrs. Greenspan is the only JOM consensus. Perhaps Jerry or Jeff or EW herself could summarize the TNH votes. We may have a holiday miracle consensus on at least one reporter.

On another topic, MJW, I find it difficult to determine whether I should be flattered or concerned when CBoldt's attempted parody of my position comes across as carefully reasoned analysis.

[clarice]

HEH!

[Jane]

Oh dear I have to take a stand? Well I'm voting for Andrea (everyone knew) Mitchell and Pincus - with no level of confidence at all.

So which of the players would you include in your dead pool? (She asks with some end of the year morbidity)

[MJW]

As boring as it may to follow the crowd, my guess is also Mitchell and Pincus.

The sentence about the first reporter (hypothesized to be Mitchell) is interesting:

In one case, we have agreed with counsel for the reporter that any objections that may be made in the event the reporter is called to testify can be addressed at the time of trial without causing any delay in the proceedings.

As TM pointed out, the sentence -- with its repeated use of "the reporter" -- seems to go out of the way to avoid using a gender-specific pronoun. However, if "he" is substituted for the second "the reporter," the pronoun's reference is unclear, since it could either be to "the reporter" or to "counsel for the reporter." So the repetition may simply be to avoid the ambiguous reference. Also, I'm not sure why Libby's lawyers would particularly care if anyone knows the sex, or even the identity, of the reporter; though I certainly concede they may have their reasons.

[TCO]

I also wonder wht keep it secret.

[Cecil Turner]

In order for Libby's defense to make sense, he has to show reporters were talking about Plame prior to July (and preferably prior to his first alleged mention of it to Judith Miller on June 23rd). It'd be even better if he could show general gossip that could've gotten back to him (even if he didn't remember the precise conversation).

Kristof broke the story in early May, and Pincus quoted a "senior CIA analyst" on June 12th (and accurately characterized the report and the fact Wilson's name wasn't in it). I'd put Andrea as number three (sayin' all the right stuff, but later) . . . and Novak, Woodward, et al much farther down the list.

[clarice]

Yes, taht's what I think, too, Cecil.

[TCO]

Why are they not just named?

[maryrose]

I'm going with Andrea Mitchell and Pincus with Kristof as the number three person. All had advanced knowledge and the ear of the Plames. I remember vividly Mitchell on Imus and her slip of the tongue.

[topsecretk9]

Judy Miller - "Victoria Plame" "Valerie Flame" before she first met Libby...suggested these to Libby to "trick"(for lack of a better word) him

[MJW]

According to this article, Libby's lawyers said in today's hearing that they intend to call Cheney. Seems kind of crazy to me -- I don't really see the upside, especially for a trial in front of a D.C. jury. The rest of the article is just a rehash. I hope we'll get more details from the hearing soon.

[clarice]

A little fanciful thinking from the WaPost:
"Cheney, who would be the trial's most anticipated witness, has said he may be called to testify. If so, prosecutors could ask how the White House responded to Wilson's criticisms. Cheney was upset by Wilson's comments, Fitzgerald has said, and told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.

That conversation is a key to Fitzgerald's perjury case. Libby testified that he learned about Plame's job from a reporter.

Cheney could also help prosecutors undermine Libby's defense that he was so preoccupied with national security matters, he forgot details about the less-important Plame issue. Prosecutors argue that Plame was a key concern of the vice president, and thus would have been important to Libby."

[Neo]

An appearance for Libby could work best if the Cheney plays up the fact that he had been "dissed" by Joe Wilson in the NYT (and elsewhere) and that he told Libby to take it to "the man" and show him who really is "the man."

Of course, Cheney could always say that everything that Libby did, including his memory loss, was on the direct request of Cheney and that Libby was "cleared" to undertake his mission.

It's sort of the opposite of the "Mission Impossible" claim that .. "in the event you are captured or killed, the secretary will .." but it could play, even for a DC jury.

[SunnyDay]

That conversation is a key to Fitzgerald's perjury case. ...Cheney could also help prosecutors undermine Libby's defense

That's why Libby's calling Cheney as a witness rather than Fitz calling him as a witness. You have to think about it for a while to see the logic behind it. ;)

[clarice]

Get real. He say why the false charges were damaging to us here and abroad and what steps they took to get the truth about the matter out..and that as far as anyone but the dynamic duo Plame was not of interest or concern to them..though when the Op ed came out he began to realize that this charge, like so much else, had been a dirty trick by opponents operating under the cover of the CIA . He will take that Op Ed with notations and shove it back at the SP in a way someone should have a long time ago.

[SunnyDay]

Yes, it will be fun to watch Cheney with Fitz. I hope it's all broadcast.

Do you think Libby can possibly get a jury of his peers in DC?

I recall recently reading Ollie North's comments that his jury was not a "jury of his peers," although he thought so at the time. I was astounded at the juror's comments he quoted. Something similar could certainly happen with this case.

[clarice]

A bit more detail from the AP:
"William Jeffress, another of Libby's attorneys, would not say whether Cheney is under a subpoena to testify. Issuing a court order to a sitting vice president could raise separation-of-powers concerns, but Jeffress said it was not an issue.

"We don't expect him to resist," Jeffress said.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who said last week he did not expect the White House to challenge his witnesses, said Tuesday he did not plan to call Cheney.

Wells immediately said he would.

"That settles that," Fitzgerald said.

Neither Jeffress nor Wells would say whether they expect Cheney to testify in the courtroom or offer videotaped testimony to avoid infringing on the separation of powers.

"We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved," said Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president. "As we've stated previously, we're not going to comment further on a legal proceeding."

http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/breaking_news/16275569.htm

I predict he testified by videotape and that he fully supports Libby's claims of overwork AND that he moks nicht of the motivation to lie theory of the SP.

[Don]

What a travesty. The Executive Branch is prosecuting Libby and the Vice-President is a defense witness!

Either Bush is totally blowing it by not pardoning Libby or Cheney is a liar.

[Don]

And how the hell could Cheney resist a subpoena anyway?

This ain't even a novel issue. The Supreme Court already ruled re: Clinton and the Jones case.

Cheney has no grounds to refuse to testify whatsoever.

[SunnyDay]

Whatever Cheney does will be wrong AFA the left is concerned. If he testifies, it is wrong. If he doesn't, it is wrong. No point in worrying about it.

[clarice]

Fitz' entire motivation to lie theory is based on the notion that Libby was trying to discredit Wilson by outing Plame. He assumed this was so and that in any event he was counting on Cheney not testifying to the contrary. (He made a number of suggestions in pretrial proceedings and pleadings which he latter "clarified" but only after leaving them hang in the air for a few days to harm the Administration, and Cheney in particular.

Cheney will make mincemeat of Fitzgerald.

[clarice]

Remember the misleading suggestion that the Administration declassified the NIE and Cheney ordered Libby to brief Miller, implying that was all about Plame? Remember the perposterous notion that when Cheney made those notations on the OP ED it proved that a month earlier that was Libby's motivation--get Plame?

[clarice]

Finally, while Libby has been limited in what he can say about the many threats we had received in that time, Cheney has a freer hand to describe how serious they were, how many houes a day Libby was in charge of handling them. He also can describe the animus of some other branches in the Administration to Libby for carrying out Cheney's directives..

[clarice]

**Preposterous notion****

[clarice]

Hardin at FDL can't read and is speculating that the VP might be called as a hostile witness. No. He's testifying for the defense and counsel for Libby has said he doesn't believe he'll even have to subpoena him so there will be no question of privilege. FDL also assumes Fitz will be allowed to ask Cheney anything he wants. He won't. On cross, he an only go into matters raised on direct.

On direct, as I said, Cheney will blast the notion that Plame was significant on the radar screen or a target and will as well underscore the overburdened with more important things defense.

[boris]

If Cheney is willing to testify (apparently so) that would seem to undermine the conspiracy theory about Plame and support the speculation that it was the NIE and Wilson's false allegations that were their concern at the time.

[Jane]

It also sets up a bit of a connundrum for the white house - because Fitz can really ask what he wants to attempt to undermine Cheney's credibility on cross. Might be a reason for a pardon.

I personally agree with Clarice - Cheney will make mincemeat of Fitzy. And if it's not televised I sure hope Clarice will get a ring side seat!

[clarice]

He can't go beyond anything asked on direct though..as for undermining Cheney's credibility--Fitz couldn't be on thinner ice than he already is, and I doubt he'd even try to go there.