Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Meaning Of "It" | Main | Miller:The Judge's Dilemma »

January 30, 2007

Comments

Pete

Would love to hear Gregory's story. Are these NBC guys in the news business?

hit and run

I hear he becomes blabby when he drinks?

maryrose

Gregory:
The bell that hasn't rung..
The shoe that hasn't dropped..
The fat man that hasn't sung...
Russert: Still engaging in bafflegab per orders of MSNBC execs.

politicaobscura

"Scooter contends he learned from a journalist."

Mr. Williams,

NO NO NO NO...... Scooter does NOT contend he learned it from a journalist. He contends he learned it from the VP!!!!! He contends he HEARD it later from a journalist....

Martin

Pathetic I concur. No wonder Cheney loves those guys.

Eas

When I see blabby or blabbermouth, for some reason I think of Malkin. Has she been secretly posting here and H&R is covering up?

hit and run

If I am Malkin, I am most certainly hearing it as if for the first time.

cathyf
NO NO NO NO...... Scooter does NOT contend he learned it from a journalist. He contends he learned it from the VP!!!!! He contends he HEARD it later from a journalist....
No, politicaobscura, you are the one who got it backwards. Scooter testified that he heard it from the VP and wrote it in his notes, but he only learned it later when he heard it from a journalist.

Sort of like how you heard about the Gen Sherman's long march to the sea in history class, and even wrote it down in your notes, but you didn't learn it, and then years later you saw a fascinating PBS special and now know all about it. Which is how you explain that even though it was in the lecture and textbook back in high school, when you saw it on TV it was "like hearing it for the first time."

What is Rip Van Winkle's dog's name?

politicaobscura

cathyf, i think you are using the word "learn" in a different way I am.

Learning of a tidbit of information is not the same as "learning physics".

"Learning a tidbit" implies "for the first time".

Libby learned of it from VP.

Libby heard it later from Russert.

topsecretk9

He learned about the wife's connection in terms of the answering they OVP didn't send or arrange any trip.

It's when he "heard" it from Russert or whoever that he realized the wife- who he didn't give **her** too much importance (low level manager type hooked husband up) --OWN involvement was significant enough that all the reporters already knew about her, why?

Probably the bells went off who was doing this:

with Miller
"During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters."

JohnH

Is Clarice blogging the trial today? Where are her comments?
Thanks

Daddy

The actual name of Rip Van Winkle's dog was "Wolf." I don't know if that's pronounced with a French accent or not, since I've only seen it written, not heard it spoken.

Dan S

Must be "wolfay."

Syl

I would imagine if the tidbit was internal only and though not entirely negligible was only a small part of the issues Libby was dealing with, not anything he had any notions of making external---a private matter, so to speak---it would have been a shock to the psyche to have an outsider relay it to you.

I guess the word is compartmentalized. We've all experienced that. A part of your life totally unrelated to another part of your life.

Back in the old days, eighties, if you indulged in online stuff through GEnie or QLink and chatted with a bunch of folks and got to know them when you turned off your machine, they were not a part of your life.

If one day you're sitting watching tv and there's a knock at the door, you open it to find a perfect stranger staring at you. This perfect stranger says 'Hi, I'm DoublePoo!' and DoublePoo is only known to you online, it would be rather a shock to your psyche and a jolt in your worldview.

Two separate worlds colliding.

Syl

I can only imagine the thoughts that would bounce around your head. I also imagine trying to recall those thoughts would lead to almost utter incoherence.

Javani

I'm checking in.

Any big hits today?

TM, you say Dickerson has a vigorous denial.

A vigorous denial would be a brief "ARi didn't say that to me."

Instead we have couched, subjunctive language from D...

"...I have a different memory."

Soft.

"My recollection is that during a presidential trip to Africa in July 2003, Ari and another senior administration official had given me only hints."

Recollection and hints. Soft

"As far as I can remember—"

Soft.

"and I am pretty sure I would remember it-"

Soft.

"In a piece I wrote about a year ago, I figured that the very reason I'd never been subpoenaed in the case or questioned by any lawyers was that I'd been given only vague guidance and not the good stuff."

That would be two years after the fact. Dickerson's admission that he thought the investigation was after the truth of a leak is innocently charming. Does he really think if Ari told the prosecution that, and the prosecution cared about the leak, they wouldn't have hauled him in to verify? I guess so. Doesn't realize this is a perjury trap case to vidicate the expense of the investigation.

Since Dickerson undoubtedly lurks here, let me give a warning...

If you are not under subpoena already...

RUN AWAY! YOU ARE A FAT TUNA AMID A SCHOOL OF TIGER SHARKS! THE DEFENSE LAWYERS, MAYBE EVEN PROSECUTION, WILL TEAR YOU APART! DO YOU WANT TO BE FURTHER HUMILIATED? TO BE A CENTERPIECE OF THE COUNTER-NARRATIVE THAT DESTROYS THE DARK CHENEY MACHINATIONS/JOE WILSON TRUTH TELLER/BUSH MADE CIA SAY WMD/ DISCOURSE? YOU NEED TO QUIETLY CLOSE YOUR LAPTOP, QUIETLY WALK OUT THE DOOR, AND HAIL A CAB TO THE AIRPORT AND TAKE THE NEXT FLIGHT TO PARIS! "FRIENDS" OF JOE WILL HIDE YOU UNTIL THIS FARCE IS OVER.

Tom Maguire

cathyf, i think you are using the word "learn" in a different way I am.

Yes, she is - that would be the difference between the "right" way and the "wrong" way. Having received and reflected upon this admonition myself, it strikes me as quite accurate and helpful - if Libby heard it from the VP but promptly forgot, what does it mean to say he "learned" it?

Why bend words into odd shape? Libby heard it from the VP (or Cathie Martin), it didn't register, then he "learned" it when Rove told him reporters had the story and Russert blabbed it to him. Or so he says, anyway.

Cycloptichorn

I find that to be a rather uncompelling argument, and I doubt the jury will believe it either, Tom.

Since we have no way of knowing what Libby actually remembered and what he didn't - and since he has every reason to lie about it - the only information we can use to come up with a decision are the facts of the case which are now known, namely, that the VP (or Martin) told Libby before anyone else. This is the critical piece of information; not Scooter's account of a what point he decided to 'remember' or 'learn' something, but at what point he was told the info.

danking70

Has the trial restarted?

Clarice have you passed any notes to Dickerson?

TCO

Or maybe he learned it both times and lied about the month of forgetting.

Appalled Moderate

What can Dickerson testify to? My memory is different than Ari? Hardly earth shattering. And its not an especially important difference. It is the difference between "hinting around" and saying the thing flat out. Someone hinting around may be toying with the idea of a revelation, and, with the passage of time, may think he made the revelation, when the event only happened in his own mind.

Look, Fitz's case is essentially "when you, Mr. Libby, say you forgot about Plame, that statement is simply unreasonable, and can only be an intentional lie." And that case depends on whether Libby talked to Ari, not whether Ari talked to anyone else. Certainly, any bad memory by Ari is going to be exploited by the defense, because it goes against Fitz's most damaging witness. But, it's not going to be that big a deal.

Rick Ballard

DanKing,

Editorialized stenography is available at FDL. Be sure and leave a tip. Mine was "Soybean futures aren't for everybody."

topsecretk9

Miller:M He's a lowkey and controlled guy, what he said made me think I was correct. He was concerned that CIA was beginning to backpdal to distance self from unequivocal estimates it provided before the war through a "perverted war of leaks."

Probably the bells went off who was doing this:

with Miller
"During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters."

boris

forgot about Plame, that statement is simply unreasonable

And yet people who already knew about Plame can't seem to remember whether or how they told Libby. Their recollections need props and landmark events and changed over time.

The detail Libby claims he forgot is not the Victoria Secret Flame Spy Woman who Arranged the mission and Selected Joe. The detail He claims he forgot is "we [CIA] sent Joe because he knew the region and his wife works here. Hindsight blindness is conflating the two.

Javani

am

"Look, Fitz's case is essentially "when you, Mr. Libby, say you forgot about Plame, that statement is simply unreasonable, and can only be an intentional lie." And that case depends on whether Libby talked to Ari, not whether Ari talked to anyone else."

I like very much how you return the discussion to an actual trial issue. However, although your distillation is right, there is another element--did he lie, or was it unreaonable to "remember" 4 months after the fact, that Russert told him x, and he told Cooper y. So the Gregory/Dickerson connections are important, at lest for innuendo's sake.

But consider Russert now,

Libby said Russert asked him about Wilson's wife or similar..

What are the chances that Libby's recollection is 100% wrong?

So Libby tries to frame Russert? Why pick Russert? He's not a friend of Libby, Libby's contact with him was adversarial, and lo and behold just by "coincidence" the person framed by Libby out of the blue "just happens" to may have known something more about the case via a connection to Gregory and Ari. On top of that, Russert never has given a full denial to all aspects of Libby's claim.

Russert did it, IMO. It was a reporters' trick. Libby was gleeful he blundered onto cover to spread the Wilson's Wife story.

Syl

If this was a leak investigation, and fitz is trying to show that the documents subpoenaed were for ANY talks with ANY reporters about Wilson and/or wifey (to counter any notion that Libby would think it was only about Novak), then why wouldn't fitz INTERVIEW Gregory and Dickerson to verify Ari's story?

politicaobscura

When a reporter says, "Libby claims he learned of Wilson's wife from Russert", they are clearly implying that he claims to have heard it first from Russert, which is not true.

Libby claims he heard first from VP.

Libby claims he also heard it from Russert later.

Why can't the media just report that? They can go own and talk about the forgetting and the remembering etc. etc., but the for the media to say "Libby claims to have learned of Wilson's wife from Russert" is simply not a true statement.

brassband

I guess I'm not following this closely enough . . . but if Ari leaked to David Gregory, wouldn't Gregory almost certainly have passed that along to Russert, his bureau chief? And doesn't Russert deny that he had ever heard this before Libby mentioned it . . . and doesn't Libby claim that it was Russert who mentioned it to him?

PaulL

Judy is testifying.

What happened to Clarice?

Cycloptichorn

'Why can't the media just report that?'

Probably because they find the idea to be ridiculous, that Libby 'forgot' or didn't process this critical piece of information the first time he heard it. Testimony has shown that Libby was deeply involved in the response to Wilson's accusations; he wasn't simply going to 'forget' a little detail like this.

Pete

Why bend words into odd shape? Libby heard it from the VP (or Cathie Martin), it didn't register, then he "learned" it when Rove told him reporters had the story and Russert blabbed it to him. Or so he says, anyway.

Many other things happened in between where Libby had knowledge of Plame. Did Libby keep learning and forgetting about Plame?

Rick Ballard

"then why wouldn't fitz INTERVIEW Gregory and Dickerson to verify Ari's story?"

And risk impeaching Russert? Ari first testified in Jan '04. Fitz believed that he had Libby on the hook from day one based upon the FBI interviews done in Oct '03.

There's no way he was going to waste all the effort involved in digging Libby's gj perjury trap by interviewing someone who could impeach St. Russert.

Jane

Except Cycloptichorn it wasn't critical. What was critical was that Wilson was lying and undermining the War on Terror, not who sent him on some boondoggle.

Appalled Moderate

brassband:

I'm not clear on what Russert's editorial role is with respect to other reporters. Presumably, this will be delved into when his turn comes up.

Politca:

The distinction you are trying to draw doesn't seem that significant in the scheme of things. I doubt we'd be here if Libby hadn't claimed to have forgotten all about Plame until Russert reminded him. The lie that's chapping Fitz's be-hind is not the substance of Libby's conversations with certain reporters. It's the claim he couldn't have leaked becasue he did not remember the information to leak, and all he knew was what he heard from reporters.

Chris

"If this was a leak investigation, and fitz is trying to show that the documents subpoenaed were for ANY talks with ANY reporters about Wilson and/or wifey (to counter any notion that Libby would think it was only about Novak), then why wouldn't fitz INTERVIEW Gregory and Dickerson to verify Ari's story?"

And why didn't he ask Richard Armitage if he spoke with any other reporters besides Robert Novak, thereby not learning about the Woodward/June disclosure until after the indictment and Woodward stepping forward?

boris

It's the claim he couldn't have leaked

Wrong. He admitted leaking to Cooper. He claims he couldn't have been the SOURCE of the leak.

Javani

From Miller via FDL

"F relevance to Wilson

M(iller) People were beginning to focus on Wilson, but Wilson was a ruse, an irrelevance"

Ouch!!

Sue

Javani,

I'm trying to decide if those are Miller's words or what Libby said. Can you tell?

Syl

Wow. Reading from FDL.

The BIG STORY is in the case BIGTIME with Miller's testimony.

Libby furious that the CIA told administration unequivically that WMD were there, now CIA is leaking various doubts as if these doubts were prominent all along.

------

Wilson's wife involved in WMD stuff. I bet Libby is getting very suspicious SHE'S a part of this in an active way.

I think the lefties should change their accusation.

From 'Outed a covert officer to punish a noble whistleblower'

To 'Outed a CIA officer to punish her for disinformation campaign'.

:)

Martin

So Judy didn't admit to the June meeting in GJ testimony after being in jail for 85 days-but then Fitz tells her go see if she scrounge up any other info and she finds her June notebooks!

This is nuts. Who's Fitz's informant?

danking70

But how can the "debunker" be an irrelevance.

Especially with that hair.

Sue

Unless something was skipped by EW, Fitz didn't ask about July 12th meeting. Is he saving it for redirect? If so, why?

Martin

Syl-I've long maintained that Plame was the "whistleblower" Fitz describes as the subject of retaliation, but oh how they scoff.

topsecretk9

Clarice--where are you??

---

M I did not testify. I was sent to jail at Alexandria detention center, for 85 days. Shortly before I was released received waiver from Libby and oppty to question him on phone and **you agreed to narrow focus of questioning to mr. Libby** and to the subject matter of Plame Wilson leak.

M Later on, I told him that I had discussed Ms. Wilson, Ms. Plame, **with people**, but that I didn't think I was the target of concerted leak campaign, because I didn't know if there was one. (drinks more water, looks at lawyers, not breathing again)

John R

Since plain folks reading this thread have scads of questions, lots of theories, and few firm answers, think what's going on in a juror's mind. Their collective heads must be spinning.

Sue

?not breathing again)

Has she turned blue in the face yet?

Javani

Martin, it's worse. The magical notes are in a shopping bag!!

""M I found, when I returned to my office, I looked under my desk there was a shopping bag full of my notebooks. Looked through July, picked up June, and discovered entire conversation in June, that I had forgotten about. I happened to be on phone with Bennett, urged him to call you and tell you there was more info""

She also blames, tacitly, Libby for her trial stay. Nothing about her "other sources."

Barney Frank

Certainly, any bad memory by Ari is going to be exploited by the defense, because it goes against Fitz's most damaging witness. But, it's not going to be that big a deal.

It's seems reasonable that a juror might consider it a rather big deal given the scenario of, Libby tells Ari something. Ari then tells reporters that same thing. If the reporter(s) then maintain that Ari did not tell them that information it would seem a fairly big deal as his testimony as to what Libby told him is supported exclusively by his memory.
Of course if Gregory testifies that Ari did tell him then it becomes a very small deal indeed.

Cycloptichorn

Jane -

'Except Cycloptichorn it wasn't critical. What was critical was that Wilson was lying and undermining the War on Terror, not who sent him on some boondoggle.'

Well, from the point of view of those who were looking to discredit Wilson, it WAS critical. It was and remains the main attack used against him, namely, that he and his wife set the trip up to lie and embarrass the Bush admin. Remember?

Libby was tasked with dealing with the Wilson incident - the incident is dealt with by making Wilson out to be someone who was sent by his CIA wife - and Libby would have forgotten this? Once again I find this to be rather uncompelling.

Martin - It is likely that Fitz had some other evidence that Judy was lying and gave her an out.

Martin

Why would Libby want to confirm that Ari did NOT tell Gregory. It's his thread to hang onto a Russert told me defense.

Martin

I can't believe Judy would spend three months in jail and then play cutesy with the grand jury. She must have really been hiding something "bigtime".

Javani

TS:

"M Later on, I told him that I had discussed Ms. Wilson, Ms. Plame, **with people**, but that I didn't think I was the target of concerted leak campaign, because I didn't know if there was one. (drinks more water, looks at lawyers, not breathing again)"

Man, the Defense is going to shred her. First the Libby lie about why she didn't want to testify, now the non-"concerted" campaign-I guess this is the voice of Fitz telling us through coached witnesses why he didn't pursue other leakers, and the "shopping bag" of notes.

Lie after twisted lie.

Bill in AZ

Poor Joe Wilson - can't catch a break. From "low level" (and look what that caused!) to:
"...Wilson was a ruse, an irrelevance"

Better batten down the hatches... Joe Wilson and Scary Larry will come out with cap guns a blazin'

Barney Frank

It's his thread to hang onto a Russert told me defense.

Is that his defense? Or is his defense, I heard it from some reporter. I thought it was Russert but I could have misremembered and heard it from somone else.

That would seem a far safer strategy than depending on Gregory to say what he wants or failing that, hope to convince a jury Gregory and Russert are concealing what they knew.

PaulL

EW's description is good:

*****
Judy back. Looks like she's doing breathing exercises, pouring herself water. Got out of chair and is now back. Gets more water. Thanks person who brings more. Looking around cautiously. Closes eyes. Breathes. Breathes out. Looking straight foward. Head darts nervously. Staring forward. Shifts in chair. Looks toward Libby's team? Looks towawrd lawyers. Adjusts blouse. Looks at lawyers again. looks down, folds arms. Looks down. Looks toward Libby's team. Folds arms, leans back, turning in swivel chair. Takes glasses off. Looks for tissue to wipe her hands.

This is not the picture of someone who is relaxed.
*****

Javani

Speculation:

Has Walton barred the defense from asking Miller about other contacts?

Is this "concerted campaign" interpretation some kind of mumbo-jumbo rationalization why Fitz/Miller don't have to talk about Miller's other sources?

I AM RUNNING TO VEGAS RIGHT NOW AND BETTING THE HOUSE ARMITAGE WILL SAY HE WAS NOT PART OF A "CONCERTED" CAMPAIGN. I WILL BORROW MORE THAT FITZ' CLOSING WILL DISTINGUISH LIBBY FROM OTHERS ON THE "CONCERTED" THEME.

Judy Miller, coached, and coached and coached. "Concerted." Ha.

Cecil Turner

Probably because they find the idea to be ridiculous . . .

Just as they found Wilson to be credible. It's called "bias."

The lie that's chapping Fitz's be-hind is not the substance of Libby's conversations with certain reporters.

Us cynics would point out Fitz seemed awfully intent on a certain subset of "leakers" from the outset . . . to the point of immunizing or ignoring actual leakers and then changing the focus of the investigation once it was obvious the preferred guilty bastards hadn't actually leaked (or so little as to have no effect).

He claims he couldn't have been the SOURCE of the leak.

Which, despite Fitz's PR work to the contrary, he wasn't.

Sue

Okay, Media Bloggers must be having problems. Clarice is missing and so is Rory O'Connor. Either that or someone inside the courtroom has them held hostage.

boris

Us cynics would point out Fitz seemed awfully intent on a certain subset of "leakers" from the outset

Here's what supposedly steams Fitz. Libby derailed the investigation by claiming (truthfully) that it should look elsewhere for the SOURCE of the leak.

That's just Fitz BS. Fitz wanted a substitute charge to punish the "bad" leakers. When the law is unclear a prosecutor like Fitz makes a judgement what the law should be and finds an alternate way to serve the interest of justice.

hit and run

Either that or someone inside the courtroom has them held hostage.

Murray Waas?

danking70

Clarice popped up on "the meaning of it" post saying she was having wireless problems.

maryrose

danking70:
Remember with Wilson it's his Very Important Hair. Talk about trimming Wilson down to size. He has now been named irrelevant and a virtual afterthought and a house husband with time on his hands that needs a boondoggle trip to Niger to keep him busy.

Cycloptichorn

Cecil -

'Just as they found Wilson to be credible. It's called "bias."'

You can blame the Bush admin and their apology for including the wrong info in the SOTU for that. It gave Wilson instant credibility when there was an admission of error.

danking70

From Clarice's post:

It seems to be a wireless network adapter..I will post when I get home--Judy was obviously cooperating with the prosecution--and cross is taking her testimony apart.

sad

Either that or someone inside the courtroom has them held hostage.

My money is on a concerted effort by MSM reporters who are pi**ed that Clarice consistently outperforms them.

Dan S

"You can blame the Bush admin and their apology for including the wrong info in the SOTU for that. It gave Wilson instant credibility when there was an admission of error.

Posted by: Cycloptichorn | January 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM "

We agree on that point, Cyclo. That was a bad move. Talk about overconfessing! But I would narrow the instant credibility to the segment of the population that WANTED to believe him. Some of us still didn't. It just didn't make rational sense (just emotional sense to those who wanted a reason not to go to war.)


Sue

Just as an aside...Judith Miller looks like my stepmother.

Lesley

From the National Journal (Murray Waas) April 14, 2006

"It has long been known that Cheney was among the first people in the government to tell Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. The federal indictment of Libby -- who has been charged with five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators in the CIA leak case -- states: "On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

"Fitzgerald further asserted that just days before Libby divulged Plame's identity to Miller and Cooper on July 12, "Vice President Cheney, [Libby's] immediate superior, expressed concerns to [Libby] regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife." Although contained in a public court filing, this second conversation between Cheney and Libby had gone unreported."

This distinction is something that has bothered me. Its ONE thing to learn that Wilson's wife works at CIA (June 12), its QUITE ANOTHER to learn (July 12) Wilson's wife possibly set his trip to Niger in motion.

Could this distinction be part of the memory problem? ie, the June info, no big deal: a spouse works at CIA, July info BIG DEAL: CIA wife arranged junket. Or is this a distinction without a difference?

hit and run

Here's what supposedly steams Fitz. Libby derailed the investigation by claiming (truthfully) that it should look elsewhere for the SOURCE of the leak.

Libby didn't throw sand in an umpires eyes at a baseball game.

He kicked sand in a kid's face at the beach.

Libby just didn't realize that the puny kid was packing heat under his beach blanket.

I know the analogy doesn't work exactly. But there's sand on both sides, so what the hell

Sara (Squiggler)

Crossposting from the Miller Preview thread:

Okay, Miller is testifying and is reported as

Miller then described her June 23, 2003, interview with Libby where he mentioned former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife working at what he called "the bureau." At first she took it to mean the FBI but then concluded he meant the non-proliferation bureau at the CIA. Libby was upset that the vice president was getting accused of being behind Wilson's trip to Africa when it was CIA.

as reported by E&P &AP

but this is well after Grossman had his report back on Libby's original inquiry of May 29th and he reported to Libby on or about June 10-11. Miller's assumption is wrong, in my opinion. The "bureau" reference is from Grossman's report:

Grossman ultimately got a report on Wilson’s trip on June 10 or 11 from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). That report mentioned that “Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.” The context for this was that “Mrs. Wilson” chaired WMD panel and organized her husband’s trip. “I though this was pretty interesting. Kind of odd and remarkable that A) she worked at the Agency and B) she was involved in the organization of the trip.” He thought it was “inappropriate” that one spouse would arrange another’s trip.

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM

and

I should have added that the "bureau" was neither FBI or CIA:

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (or INR) is a small bureau in the U.S. State Department tasked with analyzing information for the State Department.

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Cecil Turner

It gave Wilson instant credibility when there was an admission of error.

Yes, and the critical moment was when that blithering idiot Fleischer talked himself into it in front of a gaggle of reporters:

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake" uranium "from Niger," Fleischer told reporters. "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."
The retraction followed inevitably. Timing? Just before 10:00 on July 7th, 2003. Two hours before the Libby lunch. Busy day for Ari, eh?

roanoke

wow- Judith Miller's testimony on cross is beginning to sound like Monty Python's Flying Circus-

J You didn't go into the GJ to lie.

M I did not remember it. I didn't remember that it even occurred.

J You've testified to his demeanor, very particular things that he said, said the wife "works in the bureau."

M Sir, having reviewed my notes, I have a memory of it.

M [With gusto] No, I have a MEMORY of it.

J Do you recall testifying to te GJ that

Now she's got a pissed look on her face.

J Did you say to the GJ:

I really have to rely on my notes because my memory is not good.

Yes! No! Yes!!!! Well wait a minute...

Sue

I think the cross of Miller is everything we thought it would be. ::grin:: He asked her what his question was, from a few minutes ago, and she sighed. No idea.

PaulL

A couple other hilariuos Miller quotes from EW:

****
M I don't remember what I remembered then.

. . . . .

M I've thought about those meetings, reading those notes brought back my memory about those memories.
****

Tom Maguire

Well, from the point of view of those who were looking to discredit Wilson, it [the wife] WAS critical. It was and remains the main attack used against him, namely, that he and his wife set the trip up to lie and embarrass the Bush admin. Remember?

Hmm. I remember questioning whether Wilson's report was in fact conclusive in saying Iraq had not come sniffing in Africa for weapons (it wasn't.)

I remember saying Wilson could not have debunked the forgeries (as per early Kristof/Pincus) because the CIA claimed not to have had them at the time (Wilson backpedaled).

I remember saying that Wilson had not been sent by the OVP, as per early Kristof (He hadn't been.)

In fact, I remember bashing Wilson even before I knew about the wife. And thr Admin talking points, with no mention of the wife, have been introduced as exhibits - remember?

politicaobscura


LMAO!!

J: Did you tell GJ your memory is sparked by notes

M: I think in certain contexts I said something like that.

J: That was a general question

M: Generally I'm note driven and they bring back a memory... Or they don't.

J Do you remember my question?

M Sighs.


lol

roanoke

I'm investing in Aricept....

Sara (Squiggler)

TM -- I remember you saying all that, I just don't remember what you said about all that.

Tom Maguire

Us cynics would point out Fitz seemed awfully intent on a certain subset of "leakers" from the outset . . . to the point of immunizing or ignoring actual leakers and then changing the focus of the investigation once it was obvious the preferred guilty bastards hadn't actually leaked (or so little as to have no effect).

I suspect that the pardon will go from "in the bag" to "in the bag and stamped 'approved'" once The Decider learns that Fitzgerald never even pursued Gregory, Dickerson, or Lipper - obviously, this was not a serious leak investigation at that point, and one is left wondering when the investigators lost interest in anything other than process crimes.

Sara (Squiggler)

I'm investing in Aricept....

Posted by: roanoke | January 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

LOL

Sue

What is Aricept?

Cecil Turner
M I don't remember what I remembered then.
Sounds like my hero:
"Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion."
And the Admin talking points, with no mention of the wife, have been introduced as exhibits - remember?

Yeah, but those were just the secret talking points. The double secret talking points . . . oh, whatever. Tom, you're arguing against faith. Give it up.

Chris

FDL also recorded that Miller claims the subpoena for the grand jury pertained only to July but in her first appearance she was asked about June and didn't remember a meeting with Libby, just his assistant, Jenny. On direct she said she opened up the June notebook when she found it in the shopping bag just on a whim. Under cross it appears she was asked about June.

I was glad defense asked if she remembered it while cooling her heels in jail, something I always wondered. She said she didn't.

Hm, defense has her on a program called Digital Age saying Wilson wife info didn't mean a thing to her.

Appalled Moderate

Good Lord. I would hate to be Judy Miller, who once had a reputation as a serious writer on difficult subjects, but will soon be remembered for her indifferent stenography, uncertain memory and a shopping bag filing system. No wonder she looks unhappy. She's been forced to sell out a source, and look stupid while doing so.

politicaobscura

LMAO, again:

J: Okay, you do remember, you do remember (in his soothing voice)

M: I remember what has been claimed on all sides, but since I didn't interview Mr Wilson I don't know what he said or didn't say.I know what he said in his book.

J: Oh, you read his book?

M: I glanced at it.

[Media room erupts]

danking70

Is that "Media room erupts (in laughter??)"

roanoke

Libby Trial-

Brought to you by your sponsors-Aricept.

Sue-

It's a relatively new drug for Alzheimers.

Syl

There is a program I use a lot. It's called DAZ Studio. I use it every day, sometimes for hours at a time. I'm very knowledgable about how the program works. I answer questions others have in the forums.

I was having trouble after I applied a MAT file to a figure. I had saved the MAT file from that figure in a previous session using Studio. The spcularity setting seemed off.

Last night I was revewing some notes I had written about the program. I had written 'there is a bug in v1.4 of Studio which causes saved MAT files to lose their specularity setting'.

That note explains my problem. I vaguely remember having learned that info. But I totally forgot it, and my notes don't trigger a memory of how or where I learned that specific info from, though I suspect it was from an online conversation.

If I had discovered the bug myself, I would have reported it and then would have remembered it. Maybe.

How can ANY trial be based solely on memories of conversations and notes without some physical evidence of a specific act having occurred? There was no murder. No theft of funds. No act of violence.

Only conversations. This trial is based ONLY on conversations--there is nothing else.

What a waste!

hit and run

J: Oh, you read his book?

M: I glanced at it.

[Media room erupts]

Dammit. I was working up a good parody of Miller's testimony. It was gonna be funny. Trust me. Then I read this, and I just deleted it all.

I can't compete with that.

danking70

It's starting to get good:

"J Your memory is largely note-drive

M Largely note-driven

3:44

J Do you recall that before ever meeting with Libby on June 23 you had been looking at the stoyr about uranium

J Did you have his name Joe Wilson and his telephone number and extension.

J So who did you talk to about Joe Wilson

M I don't remember

J Do you remember talking about Joe Wilson

J You told that someone had talked to you about Joe Wilson but you don't remember too.

J Do recall telling the GJ that his name was in your notes before June 23, So someone may have told me, but I don't remember.

M reading, GJ up on sccreen.

J was that your testimony.

M Looks closely at screen, follows with her finger

J How many people did you talk to, it was lots, wasn't it

M There were many people I talked to about WMD, and I have a vague memory of talking to them about it.

J What is "it"

M Joe Wilson

J There were several people you talked to about Wilson and Plame, before Novak's columne ever came out.

J You may have talked to someone about it before Mr. Libby

M I Don't remember talking about his wife before talking to Mr Libby

J You have no memory about that"

danking70

Lot's of big case and the Kristoff/Wilson article.

Damn you wireless networking problem!!!

I want Clarice back online!

Martin

TM-

1. You're assuming the investigation is over. Maybe. Maybe not.

2 There was something Fitz and Bush were talking about in Bush's office for over an hour and I'm sure it wasn't the Mets.

Bush has praised Fitz's handling of the investigation. Was Bush lying too?

Who knows what understandings are really in place?

Cecil Turner

Okay, this wasn't rocket science, but I nailed that one. And it's somewhat strange, but the FDL crowd are so gleeful at seeing Miller discomfited that they don't seem to care she's tubing Fitz's case for him.

Sue

It's a relatively new drug for Alzheimers.

I think I knew that but I might have forgotten.

Sue

Bush has praised Fitz's handling of the investigation. Was Bush lying too?

Bush also congratulated democrats for retaking the majority. You think he meant it?

danking70

Judy had other sources:


"J is it true that you were planning to write an article

M Sir I wasn't planning to write an article [ohh, angry Judy]

J Didn't you talk to the bureau chief

M I was not going to write the story. It was not my assignment.

J puts up affadvit from Miller

M Yes I signed it.

J You did contemplate writing one or more articles in July 2003, about issues related to Wilson.

M Yes, but not about Wilson and Plame, there were other things I wanted to pursue

J You said you met with several potential sources.

J Who were the others. Can you remember just one of them?

Judy wipes nose.

She's got her chin in her hand.

Now reading through something–looks like Kristof's article.

Judy back to looking straight ahead, now lookingfown, back to not breathing, bends forward t oget something. Arms folded. Eyes roll up into head. Looking down. Back to reading whatever is in front of her. Wipes nose.

Short recess. "

Micner

'.... Wilson was lying and undermining the War on Terror, not who sent him on some boondoggle......'

'.....Well, from the point of view of those who were looking to discredit Wilson, it WAS '.......he and his wife set the trip up to lie and embarrass the Bush admin. Remember?.....'
'..........Libby was tasked with dealing with the Wilson incident......' - the incident is dealt with by making Wilson out to be someone who was sent by his CIA wife.......'

Wilson was undermining the war on terror and the WMD program at CIA. Wilson was sent on a contract to disprove WMD. Libby was tasked with a trusted government employee who sent on a contract by a CIA operations officer. Howard and Wilson were the same. There's was a trainer and I wouldn't doubt Plame was one too. The fact that his wife sent him was a nice way out for everybody, but is not the real answer to what CIA and Plame had planned. The prewar WMD thing and Bolton should make this obvious. Sending him to the UN was pretty smart, but alot got fooled by his prewar WMD fun.

The task for Libby and Rove might have been to stop what happened to Ames and Howard from happening to Wilson. Plame would have just continued. Plame made some mistakes before the war and the WMD program. The mistakes were obvious and follow the same pattern. Ames may have had more of an affect on her than most thought and that's life. She got blown like everybody else and never had to go it on her own. She had it pretty nice and it's too bad she wasted her career, CIA, and DOJ on something that really was not worth anyone's time.

There should be more work on Plame's trip to NATO country, who sent her, and whether or not she is associated with Chayes and the WMD thing that happened in Afghanistan, but it's pretty old and the insurgency has already happened and Hillary and Pelosi have already shown up and said the leaders there must go, so why worry about the Iraq plan? Afghanistan failed for the same reason WMD failed, someone bailed out based on no more money or not liking policy. Like Plame, relationships with leaders were cultivated and later denounced and destoyed over money, not a strange fascination.

I watched Jack last night and he shot a cop between the eyes because of a terrorist who then facilitated the explosion of a nuclear device that his dad imported with his brother, who he beat and bagged. This makes sense when you look at Plame and the CIA. Ellen had a neat commercial on when the President fired that person after saying 'this just isn't working out for me,' then there was an Axe commercial. 'No like axe, axe smell funny.' This trial reminds me alot of that saying. No, there was no jaguar commercial, but, hey, nothing like seeing the real thing!

Fitz? He passed, so why deal with something with no controls? The investigation is over.

Pete

Bush also congratulated democrats for retaking the majority. You think he meant it?

Yes sure, unless Bush said that hw was happy about it.

Syl

Cecil

but the FDL crowd are so gleeful at seeing Miller discomfited that they don't seem to care she's tubing Fitz's case for him.

damned straight.

If I were a juror I'd be seeing Judy's discomfort. I would know she's battling some deep principle and has other information which she can't give. And since she's not giving it to the defense.....welllllllllll.

(and FDL commenters are slowing the site to a crawl.)

Martin

Well put it this way Sue-if Bush could fire the Democrats the way he can fire Fitz-would he do it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame