Powered by TypePad

« Richard Schmitt of the LA Times - Turn Over That Coin! | Main | Now-Traditional Plame Open Thread »

January 29, 2007

Comments

clarice

You're home--and we haven't thrown out the bottles and butts yet--Oh well, Rick said we should party hearty while you were out.

I agree Addington again doesn't deliver what the indictment promised.

I think (a) the declassification question shows what Miller said, Libby was always pinctikious about security matters and (b) he was making a perfectly legitimate inquiry about process in the CIA (something at this point of increased leaks, crap intelligence and a loony Niger trip with no NDA agreement to shut up the "consultant"--certainly triggered fears of an out of control rogue gang at Langley)

clarice

Rereading the indictment we now can see what the Special Prosecutor considers "in sum and substance"--i.e. anything at all he feels like mischaracterizing.

Sue

I typed that question out earlier, where was the wife, but I didn't have to time to verify she wasn't mentioned so I erased it. I'm glad you brought it up.

Jim

Hello. I've been enjoying and trying to keep up with this and keep wondering about one thing. Will the Wilson's ever be prosecuted or pay for all of the things that they have done? Do they have any exposure? What could or might happen to them?

Dan S

Yeah, another good point. Interesting, this common divergence between the indictment and the actual testimony.

What ever happened to setting lowish expectations so you can overdeliver? Oh, wait, I think the LIbby team may be doing that...

Sue

I also couldn't remember and didn't have time to figure out when this conversation took place? Do we know the date?

Walter

Is there a plausible theory of the case in which both Libby and Fleischer have been telling the truth to the best of their respective recollections all along?

I haven't been following this case as obsessively as many of you have, so maybe such a theory exists. If so, I would be interested in hearing it.

Foo, Bar,

Our buddy Fitzgerald has Dowdified five pages of grand jury transcripts with:

"When confronted on whether he had discussed Wilson's wife with other government officials earlier that week -- including White House press secretary Ari Fleisher, Director of Communciations for the Vice President Cathie [sic] Martin and others -- Libby's repeated refrain was that he could not have discussed the matter earlier in the week because he specifically recalled that he learned about Wilson's wife from Russert that week as if it were new information (Exh I. at 156-60)."

I'd say that, while Fleisher's and Libby's recollections are not the same, Fleischer & Libby (like, say, Fleischer and Dickerson) can have different recollections.

The test for perjury and false statements is whether one has testified truthfully as to one's recollections, not the literal truth.

cboldt

-- when did Libby mention the wife, as stated in the indictment? --

Scooter asked Addington if the President have the authority to declasify material? Addington said yes, and there was no grey area, he cited Dept. of the Navy, vs. Egan, which he knew well. The prosecutor did not ask, nor did Addington volunteer, whether Libby asked about the Vice President's power to declasify.

Conversation about CIA. If someone worked at CIA, and someone sent spouse to do work, would there be records at the CIA? Addington told him on the operational side that they couldn't just go use whoever they wanted. They had to get approval. On the analytical side it would be likely that you'd have a letter or contract, and failing that there was probably a paper trail of the payments to a freelancer.



Did Libby give a name about which he was interested? No. ...

... He (Addington) wondered in Libby was talking about Wilson, though Libby never mentioned a name.

Libby Trial - David Addington Testimony - Whizbang

Kevin Aylward - January 29, 2007

TCO

Tom, I like your analysis. Saying that Libby asked about a spouse-sent trip is certainly overpromoting the impact of this testimony. On its own, it is a very weak factor pointing to Libby guilt (in that he specified the CIA). Of course, he could have been asking about agencies in general, which is what makes it a weak point. But it is still another small circumstantial datum, pointing in the direction of Libby guilt...of him being significantly interested in this issue, that he would not have forgotten it and remembered it as new.

All the above repetitive of Tom's post, but I already know how the feces-throwing howler monkees will react to my postings, unless I repeat points.

Patton

Fitz appears to be acting just like the CIA did with the Iraq WMD. Instead of evaluating the evidence first, they started with a conclusion.

Saddam has WMD, then every pieve of evidence was evaluated not based on YES/NO, but based on does it support the conclusion we have already reached, that Iraq has WMD.

Fitz did the same thing. OVP intended to punish Wilson by outing wife. Therefore any conversation that could be interpreted as pertaining to the wife, becomes a FACT of talking about the wife based on the conclusion that he had to be talking about her because he had a scheme to out her.

I think its called circular logic. Iraq has WMD, therefore a piece of intelligence that says Iraq doesn't have WMD is proven wrong by the underlying fact that Iraq has WMD.

Therefore, OVP wants to out the wife, therefore eveything they did was to out the wife, even if the wife wasn't even mentioned.

Rick Ballard

"Rick said we should party hearty"

An unlocked liquor cabinet is a de facto invitation. I think it was an error to leave the gun safe unlocked, though. I like skeet shooting but that certainly wasn't my idea. Especially indoors.

I must say, Boris is a damn fine shot. LP's are easier to hit than CD's but 16 for 20 blindfolded is a helluva feat.

topsecretk9

a little OT, but Fitzy on Feb. 2006 (transcript)

The bottom line being, if he's trying to find out what reporters knew before July 14th, every reporter that we are aware of, which isn't many, that knew before July 14 we have disclosed that to him.

So to adopt an investigation of official one with no
showing how that's going to relate to anything, to cite
reporters, one reporter who said it was common knowledge, and
then the network withdrew it and said it is a mistake, the
bottom-line is the pool of reporters that we know, we have
identified to Mr. Libby. And there must be some logical
relevance to go there.

If Mr. Russert didn't even know it, he couldn't have
passed it on. I think we have to focus that it is not just one
part of the statement but he's claiming to have truthfully said
to these people, he didn't even know if the man had a wife but
he had been discussing it multiple times, and I think we go far
a field and jeopardize the rights of innocent people if start turning over an investigation of somebody else....

...MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, now that we have sort of
09 burned what was sealed, my understanding of that conversation, there are people talking over each other, my understanding is that was a reference that everyone knows it, that Mr. Wilson is the unnamed ambassador.

13 THE COURT: Right.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Wilson didn't reveal himself as the unnamed ambassador until July 6. This was prior to that
16 time. We turned it over in an abundance of caution but I don't believe that says it, and frankly there is a very limited
number of reporters that we found out who had known it. I
can't represent we know every reporter because we took
seriously the attorney general guidelines. But any reporter we
knew about we give over. If the point is to find out the
extent of knowledge of the reporters, we tell them every reporter we know about.


Anyways, that pool is getting bigger.

clarice

He is a marvel. Do you think the Christofle chandelier we superglued will hold together long enough for Tom to miss that teeny Boris mishap. mean blindfolded his feat was fantastic.

boris

Boris is a damn fine shot. LP's are easier to hit than CD's but 16 for 20 blindfolded is a helluva feat

You got to hear the wind in the grooves. My hearing aint what it used to be or I'd a gottem all.

Martin

I was just about to agree with you TM-just for kicks- but then cboldt threw a monkeywrench in there with Wizbang's reporting that apparently Addington testified Libby did mention a spouse.

EW is not providing an official transcript so the jury remains out.

roanoke

no mention of Edelman in EW's version of Fitz's opening-

Link to Fitz's Opening at FDL

Also at the end of Well's opeing EW makes this statement-

I'm guessing Wells is papering over the Pincus and TNR article because

They don't want to admit that Libby lied to Pincus about Cheney's role
They don't want to admit that Edelman (who Fitz didn't mention by name yet) wanted to leak in response to the TNR article.

LibbyLiveBlog-Well's Opening at FDL

cboldt

-- I have a new Addington thread going, and I do hope one of the conspiracists can explain to me why this was not another bad witness for Fitzgerald. --

-- cboldt threw a monkeywrench --

It's even worse. I'm not a conspiracist.

Syl

fitz (from tops above):

but he's claiming to have truthfully said to these people, he didn't even know if the man had a wife but he had been discussing it multiple times,

That's why I want to see Libby's testimony in FULL and with QUESTIONS.

Libby can lie to reporters! Libby can tell the GJ what he said to reporters. Lying to a reporter is not lying to the GJ.

How about he's truthfully claiming he told repoters he didn't know Wilson had a wife

Show us the testimony, Fitz. ALL of it. I dare you.

Patton

TCO says: ""But it is still another small circumstantial datum, pointing in the direction of Libby guilt""

OK, I'll bite, just what count of the indictment does this information pertain to??

clarice

Wilson revealed himself as the Ambassado r long before--to various people at DoS, to the Democratic Senate Policy Committee, To Pincus, Kristof (Judis?), Corn, (British reporters), the entire crowd at EPIC.(Now, apparently, Gregory and Dickerson--or--maybe not.)

It's Fitz' case. He's getting paid to investigate. He has the FBI as his dispoal.. How could all this be public and they not know this?

Patton

Therfore, ipso facto (I always wanted to use that), any action Libby took to get the OVP story out that Cheney didn't send Wilson, the CIA did, Fitz turns into actions by Libby to out the wifey.

Add to that Tenet doesn't want to admit his low level operatives were engaging in rank nepotism and a rougue part time operative was going public about his CIA mission for which they never had him sign a non-disclosure agreement and you have a real mess.

clarice

Reporters can lie to sources ("Victoria FLame"); Sources can lie to reporters, but Fitz is making a big mistake if he thinks he can make up stuff in the indictment which doesn't match the evidence and prevail.

How much of this overstatement was in the still sealed pleadings to the Ct of Appeals?

clarice

Oh and long before July 6, Wilson was calling Congressmen and Congressional staffers, too. What name did he give them? "Ex-envoy?"

topsecretk9

Patton

AND all of Wilson's claims were B O G U S. I just hope the jury is observing all these differing recollections and chaos all spurned by Wilson's HUBRIS and LIES while Ms Plame sat at breakfast with Kristof and listened as he spread them.

Sue

They can't tie the date down?

Can you date this conversation. After Wilson was on TV (Meet the Press with Tim Russert), but before Reagan naval aircraft carrier trip. He (Addington) wondered in Libby was talking about Wilson, though Libby never mentioned a name.

Why couldn't this conversation have been after Libby's phone call with Russert? Anyway, I wonder if Kevin mistyped or Addington misspoke the parenthetical (MTP with Tim Russert)?

topsecretk9

--What name did he give them? "Ex-envoy?"--

The National Command Authority Ambassador.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Also from the indictment:

'During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.'

but, from Libby's GJ testimony:

'. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

'Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this.'

Not that accurate a summary from Fitz in the indictment it seems:

'LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.'

Where does Libby say that?

Soldier4TheTruth

Face it, Rightards: Libby's going down, down down. And he's just the beginning. By 2008, the entire Bu$h cabal - all the way from the lying neofascist interns the Crook in Chief himself - will be in jail right alongside him. It's gonna be a great year!

IMPEACH BU$H!!!
FREE MUMIA!!!

topsecretk9

Did Fliehser sign a waiver?

Isn't the slightest bit wild that Fitz would grant blindly blanket immunity not knowing what Ari would say but then not follow up with the reporters Ari said he talked to or did Fitz not care to ask what reporters Ari talked to?

Sue

July 7, 2003 lunch with Libby. The only thing about he's not absolutely certain about is whether Libby mention the wife (Valerie Wilson) by name.

I was in and out today and thought it was a stated fact by Ari that Libby said Valerie Plame. Not according to Wizbang.

Sue

Top,

He wasn't looking for a leak. He was looking for a conspiracy. Fleischer's testimony doesn't give him the conspiracy.

Enlightened

Yes Sue - Ari is not 100% certain if he heard Libby say Valeri Plame, if he read Valerie Plame', or if he was on planet X at anytime recently (just being PC and adding in the moonbat population)

ed

Hmmmm.

FREE MUMIA!!!

Well that's rather idiotic, but par for the course.

Sara (Squiggler)

OT for Clarice and a few others --

I won! They offered me a decent settlement at the Settlement Hearing today. Less than I hoped for (of course) but much more than my attorney had cautioned me to expect. Six years, gallons of tears, long months of pain, and it is now done, finished, OVER!!! They tell me that once a cop gets a entry in his record that money damages were paid for charges of police brutality, his/her career is pretty much shut down. I hope that is true as this animal should not be allowed on the street with a gun on his hip.

Anyway no trial, so as soon as the check arrives, I can finally get a new life underway in Florida.

Thanks Clarice and the others here that gave me moral support and put up with my frustration as this case dragged on year after year.

MayBee

Fleisher was by then a private citizen, and didn't have the pressure from the WH to sign a waiver. Instead, he asked for immunity- a luxury I think anyone in the WH would have not had.

I was trying to puzzle this out yesterday, why Fitz wouldn't have followed up with reporters Ari said he told. It makes me think either Ari wasn't consistent on that, or Fitzgerald had a don't-ask-don't-tell with reporters if it didn't fit his theory.

topsecretk9

Chris Matthew's Libby drool caught on tape. Seriously. No joke, slobbering down his chin.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/01/29/chris-matthews-is-a-drooling-fool.php

Sue

Congratulations, Sara. I know you're glad it is finally over.

Sara (Squiggler)

LIbby tells Fleischer "hush hush" and Ari almost immediately goes out and blabs to a press gaggle on this side of a road? What's up with that?

topsecretk9

--or Fitzgerald had a don't-ask-don't-tell with reporters if it didn't fit his theory.--

OK, but I find it odd he'd not sorta like to know that his prize witness could be contradicted **before** going to court, especially when both reporters are connected to OTHER reporters in this case. But then I've found a lot odd.

Sue

I'm not following the Novak/Fleischer part of the story. Where is that coming from?

PaulL

A couple thoughts:

Jurors don't keep little scorecards and tally up the points at the end. Their ways are not so logical. A decision can be based on something as irrelevant as whether or not a juror dislikes counsel. Or it can be based on the big picture, "He doesn't deserve this!" or "The Bush administration must pay for Iraq!"

So I don't think it much matters how one particular witness does, whether a witness lands a "devastating blow to the defense" or however some sensationalized newscopy has it. There are going to be ups and downs in the trial, that's a given, so don't sweat it.

The jurors are not going to be able to keep all the details straight. If they have so far, they're going to get bogged down soon enough and give up. They're going to go more on overall impressions and consider: Whether the prosecutor is a vindictive little snot and going overboard? Whether they like or dislike reporters. Whether or not they feel sympathy for Scooter.

I don't think anyone here at JOM has the complex story completely down; certainly everyone here has misstated one fact or another, saying an incorrect name instead of the correct one, getting some date wrong (even by up to a year). There are just too darned many facts to keep straight and the more complicated it gets, the better for Libby, because the jurors are going to realize they can't remember every detail of testimony they've just heard.

So, anyway, while it's fun for us to try to make sense of every factoid, I don't think that's the method the jurors will use in reaching their verdict.

clarice

Brava, Sara.. You'll love it. (I have to tell you one thing though--the number one top sexy trait in most places in Fla is the ability to drive a car at night.
Find a nice place..It's cheaper than Cal and a lot of fun.)

sbw

Sara -- Good news! Warm feeling! BTW, Watch out for Boris' broken CDs on the floor.

Jane

Is there a plausible theory of the case in which both Libby and Fleischer have been telling the truth to the best of their respective recollections all along?

Foobar, I'm in your situation - busy and unable to keep up. I did follow the renditions of the testimony today and I was struck by how soft it all is - no one really remembers everything, it was unclear and fuzzy, which certainly leads credence to the fact that it wasn't all that important. Contrast Fleisher's recall of the whole SOTU issue which is an awful lot sharper than anything about Wilson's wife.

And I think, from what I've read, the defense's cross mirrors that softness. No harsh impeachment of witnesses, just highlighting that it wasn't in the forefront of anyone's mind which undercuts the whole "let's get val" meme that the moonbats embrace. An analogy might be someone questioning you about a nurse working the night your baby was born. I mean really, who cares?

SO perhaps no one really recalls something so incidental, and really why should they?

I will say Fleisher's grant of immunity coupled with his refusal to talk to the defense before trial really sort of pisses me off. What's that about?

sbw

TCO feces-throwing howler monkees.

So, TCO, bring me up to speed. What's the point of the childish name-calling?

topsecretk9

OH...Maybee

Fitz is out saying that Dickerson is giving his account he wasn't told about the wife

3-2006 ex parte affidavit:

More recently, Mr. Dickerson has published an online column setting forth his recollection of pertinent events which would seem to indicatethat he was not affirmatively told Ms. Wilson’s employment but that he was encouraged by officials to look into the question.of who sent Mr. Wilson on the U

Which means it must TRACK with Ari's account and Ari would be slightly concerned with Dickerson because his name shows up on the "War on Wilson" byline.

clarice

td--Matthews seems to have something seriously wrong with him--besides diabetes.
Isn't there some psychogenic prescription drug that causes excess salivation?

vnjagvet

Another congratulations, Sara(SQ). I know it is a load off of your mind. I am glad they ponied up enough to make it worth your while to settle.

Paull, I agree with you. But don't you agree that the constant underperformance of proof for each allegation of the indictment (if that indeed is what is happening) is not a good sign for the prosecution thus far?

MayBee

Tops- that is weird, isn't it? I'm sure Ari was worried about Dickerson being on that byline. Apparently Ari wasn't so sure that reporters wouldn't testify. Although in his case, they weren't even asked to.

Jane, I'm with you. It's all too soft.

MayBee

oh yes, congratulations Sara.

Syl

Sara!!!

I'm sooo happy for you it's over! Sorry your mom didn't live to see this day.

Congrats on your new life! Live it!

Patton

If the lie don't fit, you must aquit!!

Sara (Squiggler)

I haven't had a chance to read Wizbang's account except for what has been quoted here, but I do not understand Fleischer's testimony. He says Libby talks to him but cautions him the info, whatever it was, should be "hush hush." Fleischer says this varies from the way he was used to being cautioned about upcoming classified information to be relayed. But, Fleischer is leaving and won't be in his official role as press secretary.

Then almost immediately he reads about Plame in the INR and then hears Bartlet venting about it too. So instead of "hush hush" he blabs to the gaggle of reporters.

Doesn't sound to me like Fleischer took his duty to keep something to himself very seriously.

Does anyone think Fleischer was fired as the WH Press Secretary because of his big mouth.>

reliapundit

did joe joe wilson violate any cia confidentiality agreement when he dissembled publicly about a secret mission in his op-ed and speaking on background prior to that op ed?

Sara (Squiggler)

Thanks everyone. I didn't get the apology I asked for in my Mother's name, but I did get a kind of judicial warning to the Sheriff reps.
The judge suggested that it should be part of training that officers are aware that one out two women over 50 suffer broken bones due to osteoporosis and it might be a good idea not to tackle one as if she was a 300 lb. linebacker for the San Diego Chargers high on PCP. Everyone laughed and then he said, "I'm serious!"

All I could think was this guy must be a Sally Field fan because he was quoting from her TV ad for an osteoporosis med.

cathyf
Does anyone think Fleischer was fired as the WH Press Secretary because of his big mouth
Well, the dynamic of the Bush WH over 6 years has pretty much been that the press lies and the WH shrugs it off. That's got to be pretty frustrating for a press secretary. It's hard to blame him for grabbing on to something that discredited Wilson. For once he had something to say...
steve

Every time I reread Libby's GJ testimony, I wonder again how the defense can resist using the Subjunctive Defense. It is very easy to believe that Libby is saying NOT that he forgot where he learned about Plame but that he was dissembling to Russert.

"And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him."

He is describing the mindset he was simulating for Russert, not saying that he literally took in the information as if for the first time. It is quite common for people not to properly conditionalize their grammar (nobody says "If it be true" anymore, and "I wish I were" is running even with "I wish I was.") That's what Libby is doing here--arguably, at least.

If that passage in the GJ testimony is the core of Fitzgerald's case, I'd pound on this point. Of course, you still have to show that Plame even came up in the conversation, which Russert has publicly denied.

Javani

"did joe joe wilson violate any cia confidentiality agreement when he dissembled publicly about a secret mission in his op-ed and speaking on background prior to that op ed?"

No. In the Senate Report it is told he was asked why he blabbed and he said he hadn't signed any confidentiality agreement.

po

I agree Steve....

When I read Libby's statements, the back and forth tenses make it seem that he has a real "grammar defense". After I read the indictment for the first time, my thought was "this must be a misunderstanding"...

Specter

Sara,

Congratulations and welcome back to real life. Big question - when is the party and will Boris be allowed to bring TM's albums?

Sue

Sara,

Fleischer testified that he was leaving, which is why Libby had lunch with him. I think his leaving and all of this just sort of coincided, making it look like he left because of it.

MayBee

Did Fitzgerald mention in his press conference that giving a leaker immunity is just as good as punishing him for a leak?

Jeff

From Jeralyn blogging at fdl, bolstering what cboldt got against the version you are hoping for:

At the end of the day, Cheney former counsel, now his Chief of Staff [mod/ ed. note: David Addington] took the stand. He was friendly, not hostile yet seemed to bury Libby. He said that between July 6 and July 14, Libby asked him if the President could order material declassified and whether there would be a paper trail if a CIA employee's spouse went on a trip. He also said that at one point in the conversation, Libby used his hands to gesture him to speak lower.

PaulL

vnjagvet:

Certainly the prosecution's underperformance is good for Libby. I'm just saying that there will be moments here and there coming up where it will look like Fitz has scored, but that it won't really matter that much--the jury isn't going to decide that way.

The way it's going so far, Libby wouldn't even have to put on a defense. But that's assuming a fair jury, and we can't assume that.

TCO

Patton: I thought your 4:58 post was very interesting. (Not kissing your ass or anything...good point.)

Sue

Maybee,

::grin::

Did Fleischer know anything about Libby's testimony before he testified? For instance, if Fleischer was trying to take the heat off himself for revealing information he had seen marked 'secret' could he have used the lunch with Libby as a way to get past the 'knowing' part? At least in his own mind? If he didn't know what Libby had testified to, maybe his own problems, whether real or created in his own mind, led him to invent a conversation about Plame to avoid revealing how he really learned of her identity? I'm not sure I really believe anything I just typed, but I can't see why Libby would lie intentionally unless the left is right and Cheney ordered the code red.

Sue

Maybe that is why Libby felt he was being scapegoated? Maybe Ari had invented that story already?

Okay, I'm reaching, even for me, but what was happening that Libby and Cheney thought Libby was being singled out?

MayBee

For instance, if Fleischer was trying to take the heat off himself for revealing information he had seen marked 'secret' could he have used the lunch with Libby as a way to get past the 'knowing' part?

That's what I'm wondering. Did he give any testimony before he got immunity? Had he already said that he heard it from Libby, rather than read it in the INR?
Because his immunity agreement does not immunize him against perjury or giving false testimony.
He could have still been in trouble if he changed his story about how he learned.

Javani

"He also said that at one point in the conversation, Libby used his hands to gesture him to speak lower."

Looks like Fitz worked on the cryptic, dark memes early in the case.

I wonder how many of those 8 meeting with Ari it took Ari to "remember" "hush hush."

Sue

Maybee,

It is my understanding he wouldn't talk to them at all until he received immunity. But if he had told someone in the WH, say Rove or Bartlett, or Adam Levine, the story he is telling, would they have told Libby or Cheney? And if Libby didn't mention the wife, hush-hush, CPD or anything but Wilson, wouldn't Libby feel like someone was making him out to be the fall guy? All speculation, for those who don't understand hashing out a far fetched theory based on bits of information.

Javani

"Because his immunity agreement does not immunize him against perjury or giving false testimony."

MayBee,

In the real world the crime of "perjury" is

1. lying,

2. as to a material fact,

3. while sworn,

4. and such lie does not benefit the prosecution.

;)

Sara (Squiggler)

I am curious what the bloggers think of the courtroom demeanor of the lawyers.

As a juror in a very long murder trial, we had the poster boy of jerks for a prosecutor. He looked like Ichabod Crane, he was sarcastic, disrespectful to witnesses, even going so far to say to the defendant's mother, "how can you still love your son, he is a monster." There was an audible intake of breath from the jury and the gallery.

We on the jury, agreed that this man was despicable. In sharp contrast was a defense attorney of every girl's and mother's dream. A George Clooney type, clothes to die for, and he treated all witnesses with a softspoken and comforting respect.

I've often wondered how much this disparity played on our decision. I know that we were never willing to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Of course, the prosecution doesn't get the benefit of the doubt if doubt exists, it goes to the defense. I know we took our job very seriously and sure didn't want to be responsible for setting a murderer free, but the undercurrent was that if we did find the defendant not guilty it would serve the jerk right.

So, I'm curious how the two sides are stacking up in their demeanor and questioning style?

clarice

As I recall Wells' opening argument, Libby felt Rove was considered more valuable to the WH than him and that staffers would point to him to keep Rove. The McClelland presser in which he swore Rove never talked and said nothing about Libby probably heightened that fear.

And(my own thoughts) I have a feeling the FBI investigators lied to him and others when they questioned them--hoping no doubt that they'd tell on eachother to save themselves (as indeed Armitage and Fleischer did).
Finally, the very people heading the initial investigation at DoJ were the people Libby had been doing battle with on NSA etc.

MayBee

All I have figured out so far is that State was the most cohesive group in the Admin. And DoD had the ability to stay out of a fray.

Sue

I don't understand the lie, if it is a lie, that Libby told. With the little facts I know, I could have come up with a plausible lie that would have kept me out of trouble, with the leak and with Fitzgerald. And the only person who hasn't changed his story, from investigators to gj, is Libby.

RichatUF

from Sue

...I could have come up with a plausible lie that would have kept me out of trouble, with the leak and with Fitzgerald. And the only person who hasn't changed his story, from investigators to gj, is Libby...

Now if Libby would have said, "Yea, it was Cheney, he ordered me to do the code red..." Happy Fitzmas


RichatUF

Javani

Clarice:

Remember something like Rove going back to Fitz to correct something? Happened?

If testimony, how did he know what to correct?

Hmm

Sue

Why did Fleischer think he had committed a crime? If he had really learned of Plame's identity through Libby, without specifically being told it was classified, surely his lawyer would have told him he couldn't be prosecuted for IIPA or Espionage. So what about Fleischer hearing from Libby, without the code words that would have made it a crime, made Fleischer plead the 5th, ask for immunity and then tell his story? Precaution? Possibly, probably. But I still can't figure out why Fitzgerald didn't get Libby on leaking. He has him telling Cooper. He has him telling Miller. He has him telling Fleischer. And if you look at the perjury case, it is really weak, with everyone having memory problems. But if you were trying to flip someone to get someone...

For all you lawyers out there, can negotiations into a plea deal be brought up at trial? I think the answer is no, but I would surely like to know what Fitzgerald offered Libby to go lightly.

clarice

My recollection is that a Time reporter mantioned something to Rove's lawyer who caused yet another search to be done and it was then they found some doc that Rove presented to the SP--It is also my recollection that there was a lot of testimony about how it had been an archival problem which allowed it to slip thru the search but that Rove insisted wven with the doc that he had no independent recollection of the exchange.

MayBee

Has http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/entry/2158492/>this been posted? Dickerson at trial today.
I haven't read it yet.

vnjagvet

Paul:

Agreed.

Jeff:

It seems to indicate that Kevin picked up the testimony better than FDL. The transcript, of course will tell the tale, and as juror's don't get the transcript, some may remember it differently than others.

OTH, it seems to me that Jerralyn's commentary is somewhat overhyped in the overall scheme of things.

MayBee
So, why was Ari testifying about something that I don't think ever happened? I don't know. Ari asked for immunity from prosecution based on the idea that he'd told me and David Gregory of NBC that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, so Ari clearly believes he spilled the beans. But my memory is just the opposite. Could I have forgotten that Ari told me? I don't think so. Here's how I remember it:
ghostcat

Russert speaks. See Drudge, right column, scroll down.

Rick Ballard

Javani,

Cathie Martin corrected "false" (incorrect) statements made to investigators based upon her realization that logic dictated an answer different than that which she had given. We have no way of knowing at this point whether Rove was correcting prior testimony or dodging brand new Acme Perjury Traps set by Mr. Wile E. Clouvert, Esq.

Sue

worst like busy work from a CIA spouse who needed to find errands for her househusband.

Uh oh. Wilson doesn't like being belittled. Dickerson is trouble now!

Sue

Slight typo, but maybe it fits the way I originally typed it. Should read: Dickerson is **in** trouble now.

Syl

Ari says he told two reporters. The reporters say, who me?

Libby says Russert told him. Russert says, who me?

Libby says he told Cooper. Cooper says, puffing up, I told YOU.

Rove says 'You've heard that too?' to Novak. Novak says, Gotcha! You CONFIRMED.

Libby says he told Miller. Miller says, who me? I don't know who said it first. Valery Flame, Victoria Plame, Let's call the whole thing off!

Woodward says he told Pincus. Pincus says, who me?

I don't know about you, but I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Sue

Syl,

I can't help but think we had FBI agents chasing down this crap when they could have been out chasing down terrorists.

topsecretk9

Syl
I was seeing the pattern too...and recall that Cooper testified he didn't recall Welfare Reform -- until he went and looked back at his notes and found he was working on a WR story that very week!

Sue

Russert said that if he had known of Plame's connection to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Bush war critic and Plame's husband, or that she worked for the CIA, "believe me, NBC would have been up front on the story and not reading about it in Robert Novak's column."

See, this is why I have a problem with Russert's assertion. Why would NBC have treated the story of Plame any differently than others did? Fleischer testified their reaction was 'so what?'. But Russert continues to claim they would have been up front on the story. Maybe they should go back and talk to their source that gave Mitchell 'low level operatives' instead of Wilson's wife.

Rick Ballard

If Gregory covers Dickerson on a "you lie and I'll swear to it" basis what does Fitz do with dear Ari?

I don't believe that Ari is the prosecution's star witness to date any more. He might have slipped a notch or four.

topsecretk9

""I was not and never have been the recipient of the leak," Russert said. "Everyone acknowledges that. The question is, when Libby called me, what did he say? He called in protest to something he had seen on MSNBC 'Hardball,' and that was the extent of it.""

He was also using his careful crafty answer too. I wonder if Russert was trying to pull a Judy Miller and trick Libby with rumory tricky "Flame" stuff and when Libby didn't bite and he hadn't got official confirmation he reasons he **didn't know** wink, wink.

Syl

Russert is making that up because that's what he believes WOULD have happened--if Valery were NOT covert.

Remember that conversation with Russert, Andrea, and David. They were discussing this very thing. If they had known they would have blah blah. But then it seems some almost subterranean idea hit them all....

they would have called up the CIA to confirm plame and discovered she was covert and thus wouldn't have used her. They couldn't make a big splash of it.

Now Russert is thinking, well, she wasn't covert so we would have.

Hindsight blindness.

He's FULL of it.

Sara (Squiggler)

And Gregory hears it first not from a low level source but right out of the mouth of the President's press secretary and he neither does a story nor tells Russert? How can Russert claim with a straight face that they would have been "up front" on it.

Gregory knew more from Fleischman than anyone else in this whole story and more than Novak got from Armitage.

MayBee

Sue-
True. AND Gregory (NBC employee) either had been walked up to the CIA's phone line or had been told outright that Val sent Joe. It seems he did not jump out in front of the story.
Maybe he was drunk. (kidding!)

Rick Ballard

Syl,

Gregory is going to cover Dickerson and Russert. They've got their story pat and they have no fear of Clouvert.

Why should they? He was too dumb to even confirm Ari's story with Dickerson and Gregory. What do they have to worry about?

Syl

Substitute 'classified' for 'covert'.

Syl

Rick

Yes.

None of us know nothing because if we had known then it would have been a scoop and we would have splashed it all over!

Yeah, right.

Alternative, they're deaf and dumb as rocks.

clarice

Maybe he only follows up on stuff if he gets the tip from a guy in a trenchcoat in an alley so dark he can't tell who it was.
I love Dickerson's reaction--Now he must have a sense of what it feels to be Libby.
http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/entry/2158492/

John, go prove a negative!!

Rick Ballard

Is the Dickerson article sufficient grounds for a mistrial?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame