Addington, Post Game

Here is some more Addington testimony from Marcy Wheeler (1, 2, 3).

Last night we had a flurry of excitement, since extinguished, because not all the reporters/bloggers caught Addington testifying that Libby asked about CIA trips involving a spouse.

Today, we are excited again - apparently Addington did not mention a spouse in his first FBI interview either.

In any case, Fitzgerald was not impressive in dating the Libby-Addington conversation.  Addington claims it was after the Wislon op-ed on July 6 but before the aircraft carrier christening on Saturday, July 12.  Great, but Libby claims that Russert sparked his memory on July 10 or 11, so there is not necessarily an inconsistency there.

Comments

[Dan S]

TM... you aren't suggesting that Fitz slightlyoverstated the strength of this testimonyin supporting his case, are you? Fitz would NEVER do that.

[Appalled Moderate]

Eek! And this is the strong point of Libby's case.

Wel, if Fitz can't date this, this portion of the testimony goes in the trash. (He probably has enough with Ari, though, on knowledge.)

Judy Miller -- this should be fascinating...(Suggested TM Heads for coverage -- When Insane Meets Inane; The Zealot and the Ditz; The Flame After Plam-ay)

[boris]

Tom, with my IE there's an html FUBAR in the Now-Traditional thread. Looks like an unclosed "<blockquote> I have a different memory."

[Cecil Turner]

Wel, if Fitz can't date this, this portion of the testimony goes in the trash. (He probably has enough with Ari, though, on knowledge.)

I suspect he's going to use the "declassify" bit to claim it had to be before the 8 July interview with Miller (the weak link to that line of reasoning is Miller). And I'm thinkin' Ari's a bit of a week reed if he stands alone. The reporter testimony looks to be a direct contradiction, and he's got an issue with the INR. His initial exchange with Bartlett also doesn't make much sense, nor does sitting on the information for 4 days.

[Tom Maguire]

Mega dittoes to Mr. Turner as to the declassifying and Ari Alone.

[Jeff]

Great, but Libby claims that Russert sparked his memory on July 10 or 11, so there is not necessarily an inconsistency there.

Not quite. Libby claims Russert did not spark his memory. Libby claims even when Russert told him about Plame, it did not recall to Libby's mind the fact that Cheney had told him the information one month earlier.

That is still consistent with the notion that Libby was looking into the truth of the matter after hearing about it from Russert. However, as you suggest, it would be odd if Libby had leaked the NIE to Miller on July 8 before assuring himself it had properly been declassified by the President.

Then again, Libby had already leaked the classified NIE to reporters on at least two occasions without any kind of authorization, so maybe he did it again and more extensively with Miller on July 8 before finding out if it was okay.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Is everyone lost or is it just me? So many new threads, can't we settle on one or two? This is impossible to follow with ten or more new threads going.

[David Walser]

Sara,

Are you complaining that Tom and Clarice are posting too much? That may be a first! (I agree with your larger point. It's hard to have a discussion among the regulars here when everybody is so spread out.)

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Libby claims even when Russert told him about Plame, it did not recall to Libby's mind the fact that Cheney had told him the information one month earlier.'

Libby didn't say that at all. That's Fitz's spin.

[hit and run]

Sara - it's not just you.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Far be it for me to complain about too much posting from either Tom or Clarice. Like every good Plamaniacs addict, I want more, more, more. I'd just like to see it a little more consolidated.

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

If I were the defense, I'd be making those arguments, but I am not sure I entirely buy it.

As for Ari over confessing -- it's possible, but it's also possible (per Clarice) that Ari told one reporter and not the other, that Ari told the reporters who just blew him off and forgot the conversation, or that the reporters did not clearly hear what he was saying. (It was outdoors).

As for Ari's story not making sense -- actually, it does. Ari is applying the "two independent sources" rule reporters like to use. Also, I don't think Ari would take marching oders from the OVP. A declaration from the WH Communications Director is going to have much more weight with him in formulating his approach. But, truth be told, logic here does not likely matter. What will matter is how the jury evaluated Ari. And he told a story that held together, and did not seem to fall apart on cross.

As for Fitz's use of Addington -- we'll see. But I would have thought he would have made that specific with his witnesses before calling Miller. Expecting the jury to pick that up in the closing statement is a bit much. I still think that the jury is likely to put that testimony in the trash.

With Miller, Fitz goes from the strong point of his case (Libby's focus on matters Wilson) to its weakest parts(reliance on the testimony of others to demonstrate "lying". The rest of today will likely be more thrilling to the regulars here.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

This has me laughing in light of my own state of confusion:

From Instapundit:

LOADS OF LIBBY-TRIAL COVERAGE at JustOneMinute.

[cathyf]

Are you complaining that Tom and Clarice are posting too much? That may be a first!

Heavens no! The correct complaint is that Typepad sucks.

[Cecil Turner]

Libby had already leaked the classified NIE to reporters on at least two occasions without any kind of authorization . . .

Gonna need some proof on that one. (And a claim by Fitz, or unsupported reporter statement does not suffice.)

. . . or that the reporters did not clearly hear what he was saying.

Seems to me that's the best of three bad choices. They were clearly interested, reported on it extensively without mentioning that tidbit, and it'd have been a scoop. Talking past each other is certainly possible, but . . .

And he told a story that held together, and did not seem to fall apart on cross.

I suspect we're not done yet on this point. There are a couple of hinky aspects to it . . . though no unifying theme I can spot.

I still think that the jury is likely to put that testimony in the trash.

Could be. I found his timeline credible (he avoids overstatement of certainty), it fits with the margin notes, and makes sense all 'round. Hard to evaluate through second-hand reports, though.

The rest of today will likely be more thrilling to the regulars here.

Concur. This should be fun for the -holics. (I can quit . . . I swear.)

[Dan S]

And if the NIE was still classified, and Libby leaked it, why isn't Fitz charging him on that one? That would be a much clearer case, I'd think, than this "I think I remember... I think it was that day... I think he said Plamay" stuff.