Fitzgerald And Fleischer - Isn't David Gregory A Reporter?

Last week at the Libby trial the defense dropped a bombshell with the announcement that Ari Fleischer had leaked about Valerie Plame to David Gregory of NBC News.  Mr. Gregory had been the opposite of forthcoming when the NBC News Washington Bureau discussed the absurdity of the idea that they would have received a leak and then simply sat on it.  I characterized this as, at a minimum, a lie of omission, but...

What about Patrick Fitzgerald?  Special Counsel Fitzgerald had asserted the following in a letter to the defense dated Jan 26, 2006 (Exhibit C):

"[The Special Counsel was] not aware of any reporters who knew prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame, Ambass. Wilson's wife, worked at the CIA, other than: Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak, Walter Pincus and Matthew Cooper."  (In a footnote, they add the clarification that they mean either "Valerie Plame" or 'Wilson's wife".)

Well, then - isn't David Gregory a reporter?  If not, why does he keep popping up to hassle that nice Mr. Snow?

Or, if David Gregory is a reporter, as seems likely, what does it mean for Mr. Fitzgerald to say he is not aware of whether Mr. Gregory received a leak?

I am only able to conjure two possibilities (but I welcome suggestions!):

(a) the defense attorneys made a misstatement (or were misinterpreted), and Ari Fleischer did not say he leaked to Mr. Gregory, or

(b) Mr. Fitzgerald is playing the now-classic "it depends on the meaning of 'aware'" game - since (again, based on the defense opening statement) he never took testimony from Mr. Gregory, perhaps he was prepared to argue that, having only Mr. Fleischer's uncorroborated testimony, he did not actually know whether Mr. Gregory received a leak or not.

Whether he was misleading the defense or not back in January 2006, it appears that they were brought up to speed at some later date; I suppose that if they are happy and the judge is happy, then it's all good.  Presumably, this Gregory-Fleishcer exchange will be clear by the end of the trial.

Props to the Anon Lib for noting the oddity in the Fitzgerald correspondence.

NOTE:  I suppose Fleischer could have come forward with the specific news about David Gregory after Jan 26, 2006, but that seems very strange to me.  He had already testified, and some of his evidence was in the indictment from Oct 2005.  Could he be one more guy whose memory improved with the passage of time?

Comments

[clarice]

My vote is (b).
AL had a good point, but can anyone doubt that in the context of the discussion his comment was part of, Gregory's comment was surely misleading.

Again--a recap of NBC in the middle
(a) Matthews' former producer is Fleischer's aide AND the source of the 1x2x6 story which sicced the SP on the WH (AFTER Armitage and Fleischer had leaked). Felischer claimed it was that very story that caused him to run to Williams and Connolly to get him an immunity agreemet.
(b) Fleischer leaked to Gregory
(c) Andrea Mitchell "everyone knew" and purveyor of a number of DOS leaks in the same period of time
(d) Russert's odd response to inquiries about whether he told Libby--the key charge in the indictment.

[Other Tom]

God's teeth! You can bet that Old Tom will be sitting bolt upright at his computer, cigar in mouth and coffee at hand, at 0600 Pacific Time tomorrow.

[Syl]

Fitzgerald also forgot that Novak's article was in 85 newsrooms on July 11th.

Yeah, all the reporters, plus Gregory, plus dozens more.

[Syl]

Russert simply doesn't remember. He seemed to have based his testimony on putting together in his head what he thought he would have known at the time.

Where's the transcript of the russert, mitchell, david convo where they're discussing what they would have done IF they had known?

They would have gone to their boss, except if---oh.

[Jeff]

You do yourself no good with such selective previews of witnesses. The Gregory angle is but one part of Fleischer's testimony. And you seem to be simply evading the parts that are going to be more troubling for Libby's defense. So put this together with your presentation of Martin, and then your presentation of the weaker witnesses, and you've gotten yourself off balance.'

And then there's Edelman. I think you misunderstand what Fitzgerald is going to do with Edelman. I don't think he's simply going to press the idea that the ambiguous subject matter might have been Plame, though he may do that. I think he's going to show that Libby was well aware of questions of sensitive and even classified information in connection with this case - and he was careful precisely when he wasn't sure about things, which is what he was supposed to do with regard to Plame, unless you believe he positively believed that her employment was not classified, which is presumably what the defense is going to seek to show or suggest.

But I think you misunderstand Edelman's significance if you think it's solely about whether he and Libby were discussing Plame specifically or not.

[MayBee]

Jeff- I asked you all at EW's but you didn't answer. Were you disappointed/surprised to see that Judy Miller was mentioned in Martin's notes.
In fact, Judy hasn't been mentioned much at all. Is she not the cornerstone of the OVP Pushing Wilson conspiracy?

[MayBee]

I think he's going to show that Libby was well aware of questions of sensitive and even classified information in connection with this case...
But I think you misunderstand Edelman's significance if you think it's solely about whether he and Libby were discussing Plame specifically or not.

But why? What does the other classified information matter in this case?
They've already agreed the NIE was declassified by July 8.
They've already passed on pressing charges against Armitage (and possibly Fleischer) for passing on the INR memo.

[clarice]

If Fitz has any information that Libby knew the Wilson-Plame link wife worked at CIA and played a role in sending him, the time to put that card on the table has long passed. He told the Ct of Appeals he had no evidence that Libby did .He told this court it is irrelevant to his case. And he has provided no discovery to establish any such evidence.

It simply is not part of this case and it isn't because it was not true.

[clarice]

If Fitz has any information that Libby knew the Wilson-Plame link wife worked at CIA and played a role in sending him, the time to put that card on the table has long passed. He told the Ct of Appeals he had no evidence that Libby did .He told this court it is irrelevant to his case. And he has provided no discovery to establish any such evidence.

It simply is not part of this case and it isn't because it was not true.

[Syl]

Jeff

(speak of the devil)

I think he's going to show that Libby was well aware of questions of sensitive and even classified information in connection with this case - and he was careful precisely when he wasn't sure about things, which is what he was supposed to do with regard to Plame

Honestly, I don't understand the significance. Libby isn't charged with leaking Wilson's wife's affiliation with the CIA. And stop calling her Plame. There is nothing to indicate Libby EVER knew her name.

As for being careful with sensitive information, no shit Sherlock. I'm glad that will be established because it explains the confusion/delay surrounding the response to Wilson's allegations. It explains that it was not a simple matter of telling reporters Wilson is incorrect because a, b, and c. The process was much more complex than that.

LOTS to figure out and declassify. The wife bit was just an unimportant detail. The POINT was that Cheney didn't send Wilson, the CIA did.

[clarice]

***If Fitz has any information that Libby knew the Wilson-Plame link wife worked at CIA and played a role in sending him WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATTION, the time to put that card on the table has long passed.********

[sylvia]

As to the indictment charges:

1.)Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

For this to be possibly true, the defense would have to show at least some way for Russert to know anything about Plame to inspire him to ask about her. I don't know if suggesting that someone within Russert's possible circle possibly told Russert about Plame is enough. It will be hard to prove the link without any witness testimony from Mitchell etc. However, just the idea that it was POSSIBLE that somehow news spread from Gergory to Russert by July 10th may be enough to create reasonable doubt in the jurors. The jurors would have to believe Russert is totally lying and he is a well-respected person, so might be tough.

2.) At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:

The jurors might not believe all the testimony from all the witnesses who have been shown to have problems so far, but with so many witnesses and so many ways for Libby to have heard about Plame, even if the jurors don't believe all, even if they believe just a portion of the testimony, it may be enough in totality to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or they could believe that any holes in the testimony from witnesses creates reasonable doubts. Tough to say. They will have to make a call on how important the issue was to Libby around July to decide whether or not Libby is credible that he could ever think he could "forget" such a thing.

[Syl]

Sylvia

I predict Russert will admit he simply doesn't remember and what he testified to was what he thought happened.

[Patton]

Jeff, we know that any public discussion of CIA activities is always onsidered by the CIA to be 'sensitive'.

It appears the CIA wanted this matter to be 'sensitive', not because anything was super secret, but they didn't want people to know what f--king amatuers they appear to be.

Joe Wilson has repeatedly said their was nothing secret about his trip and nothing secret in his report back.

They were already shown to be way off the mark with WMD, then we find nepotism used to send employees spouses on junkets to areas where they are trying to drum up business for their private jobs, etc.

Of course CIA didn't want any of that public.

But if your looking for major leakers, Larry Johnson just published an article revealing the CIA uses former Ambassadors all the time for mission, thus putting a big target on all their backs.

[Tom Maguire]

You do yourself no good with such selective previews of witnesses.

You would be shocked at how much good it does me to get to bed at a reasonable hour. That said, I was going to throw in a sentence noting that better days were ahead for Fitzgerald since Addington and Fleischer will probably be better witnesses for him, when my ISP died.

and [Libby] he was careful precisely when he wasn't sure about things,

Fitzgerald is going to argue that Libby was not sure whether the *Wilson report* was classified, so he took extra care circling around that? I can't wait.

Just for starters, why did Libby want the CIA to agree on a statement that could go to the press? Surely this reflected his belief that there were issues here.

[lurker]

Today is Monday...

a. Still no response from Fitz - guess Walton will bring Wells and Fitz into his chambers this morning? Result - Ari's immunity lifted?

b. Wells will cross Martin after this or some recess and Martin will come across as another witness with memory problems and not as damaging as Joyner thought last week.

c. Then Ari will go on the stands tomorrow or Wednesday?

[cboldt]

-- Result - Ari's immunity lifted? --

No. The list of possible remedies, assuming a remedy is available, does not include that option.

[Jeff]

Were you disappointed/surprised to see that Judy Miller was mentioned in Martin's notes.

I assume there's a "not" missing in there. The answer, though, is no.

In fact, Judy hasn't been mentioned much at all. Is she not the cornerstone of the OVP Pushing Wilson conspiracy?

This is just what one would expect if one believes that Miller was the selected target, the information to be conveyed was sensitive, and hence neither the information nor the fact of pushing it with the neocons' favorite MSM reporter was to be widely shared. If one believed that there was no grand conspiracy, but rather a rather narrow one that just happened to be conducted by two extremely powerful people - oh say the vice president and his righthand man - then one wouldn't expect the press flak to be taking notes on it.

[MayBee]

I see. So there's no way to either prove or disprove your conspiracy theory about Judy.
Perfect.

[MayBee]

Seriously, Jeff, how will that be brought into the trial?

[Jeff]

MayBee

There are plenty of ways of disproving it. For instance, if it could be shown that Libby never spoke with Miller about Plame. Or if it could be shown that Libby never spoke with Cheney about his forthcoming conversations with Miller. Or, alternately, if it turned out that LIbby talked to tons of reporters before Novak's column about Plame.

In fact, let me go further. If Martin were present for the conversation before Libby's July 8 meeting with Miller in which Cheney gave Libby directions about what to say, and Martin testified that Cheney said, "Leak the NIE and only the NIE, which we declassified, not any of that other stuff," that would be stronger evidence against the thought of Cheney and Libby coordinating action on the Plame info with regard to Judith Miller.

But the fact that Libby spoke with MIller three times in a 3 week period and Martin didn't know about it, even though she did know about other occasions on which Libby took over press-outreach duties (including with Mitchell, when he let her take the fall in front of Hadley for leaking info unhelpfully critical of the CIA), that strikes me as evidence in favor of the notion that Libby was keeping the Miller angle on the q.t. Why would that be?

[Jeff]

Seriously, Jeff, how will that be brought into the trial?

Not sure what the "that" is here. But if it's the notion of Cheney-Libby coordinated action, the short answer is, we'll see. It certainly doesn't have to be brought into the trial. But as we've already seen on several occasions in this trial, trials are highly artificial things, not things meant to get at the whole truth necessarily.

At the same time, Fitzgerald already brought out in his redirect the point that there are alternative explanations for what Martin remained ignorant of to the explanations offered by the defense.

[MayBee]

Not sure what the "that" is here. But if it's the notion of Cheney-Libby coordinated action, the short answer is, we'll see. It certainly doesn't have to be brought into the trial. But as we've already seen on several occasions in this trial, trials are highly artificial things, not things meant to get at the whole truth necessarily.

The idea that and Libby had a conspiracy to "out" Plame is the brainchild of you, ew, and a few others.

I would think the ball is in your court to prove it exists, or come up with some plausible explanation of how it could be proved to exist.
There are many that expect this conspiracy to be charged eventually, are there not?
I was reading ew and swopa to be among those believers.

[MayBee]

Sorry. The first sentence should read Cheney and Libby.

Let me reverse the question. At what point would you believe this conspiracy did not happen?

[Jeff]

At what point would you believe this conspiracy did not happen?

At the point where it turned out that 1)Cheney had not told Libby that Plame worked in CPD, where most people are classified or undercover, which information Libby repeated to Ari Fleischer; 2)Libby had not told Judith Miller on three separate occasions about Plame's CIA connections; 3)Cheney had not discussed the key meeting of those three - July 8 - beforehand with Libby and instructed him to "tell Miller"; 4)they did in fac tell lots of others about the Miller conversations, or about the declassification of the NIE; 5)Libby really did give Miller an exclusive on the NIE, as opposed to telling at least three other reporters about the NIE in the same period; and so on.

[MayBee]

So basically you are saying you already believe it, and there is no way to prove it isn't true.
The things that make you believe there was a conspiracy are the proof of the conspiracy, and in order for it not to have happened, those things have to not have happened.
Is that about right?

I think TM will be saddened.

[MayBee]

But wait- answer the other part of my question.

How will this ever come to light? Aren't people (ew, swopa, fdl) expecting charges on this conspiracy? Or at leas some sort of legal acknowledgement that it happened?

[Jeff]

MayBee

Your concern for TM's well-being is touching, but your uptick in sniping is not. Look, I think it remains possible that Libby simply over-interpreted Cheney's directive that he wanted all the facts out and aggressively acted on his own to leak Plame info to Miller. I really do.

But what, in turn, would make you believe it even plausible that Cheney and Libby might have engaged in an effort to leak information about Plame to Miller? Clearly those who engaged in such an effort aren't likely to admit to it. So what beyond that?

I proportion my claims to the evidence to the best of my ability. These are all judgments of probability. You and a number of others hear frequently have recourse to the wrong, literal-minded belief that there is nothing between absolute certainty and the merest speculation. I believe, with some but not complete confidence, that Cheney and Libby engaged in an effort of the kind I mentioned; I believe it is also possible that Libby was acting more on his own. I certainly have never expressed the belief that there will be charges of a criminal conspiracy.

And the notion that it is incumbent on me to prove something is ridiculous, since when I offer some evidence that forms the basis of my belief, you seem to discount it as support for the belief. You seem, in fact, to be operating on the assumption that I am just assuming something, rather than arriving at beliefs on the basis of my best assessment of the evidence.

[Syl]

Jeff

While you wait with baited breath for circumstantial evidence that will neither prove nor disprove your theory, please tell me how Cheney could believe that 'outing Plame' would punish wilson and thus get him out of his hair and have no repercussions?

How would that happen, exactly? Especially with the politics of the day--the crisis of finding no WMDs, the press on the administration's back with wall to wall skepticism over everything Bush, Cheney and Rice had said?

Puhlease.

Cheney's been in politics waaaaaay too long to even attempt something as stupid as that.

This WAS personal to him because Wilson called him a liar and accused him of something he did not do. The frustration and anger must have been palpable.

But Cheney's a big boy. He's been around. He knows the game. He also knows that doing something stupid like that, in this town at this time, would not go unnoticed.

I mean, just look what DID happen. Armigtage tells Novak, nothing to do with Cheney, and all hell broke loose.

Do you really believe that Cheney would purposely cause that type of nonsense?

If you do, you should be on meds.

[MayBee]

Jeff- I'm not meaning to snipe (or snip, not sure which verb it was). I'm trying to not be too too serious, and it apparently reads wrong. Sorry for that.

You and a number of others hear frequently have recourse to the wrong, literal-minded belief that there is nothing between absolute certainty and the merest speculation.
Well, I absolutely disagree with that. I believe that there is vast, vast space between certainty and speculation, and I believe we are all operating within that space.
You seem, in fact, to be operating on the assumption that I am just assuming something, rather than arriving at beliefs on the basis of my best assessment of the evidence.
Not really. I know we are all making assumptions- we have to. None of us are privvy to *most* of the facts here. But I do absolutely believe you come to your opinions through analysis and reason. I just disagree with your conclusions.

But what, in turn, would make you believe it even plausible that Cheney and Libby might have engaged in an effort to leak information about Plame to Miller?

An effort to leak information to Judy is different than a conspiracy to leak that Plame was a covert agent, at least in my reading.
I believe it is possible, I don't believe it makes any sense.
If Plame was indeed covert, Cheney and Libby knew that leaking her name was explosive. The political blowback would be (was) big. They'd already asked around about it to two groups that weren't sympathetic to them (CIA, State), they were telling Judy other informatio (NIE). Their fingerprints were already on this story.
I like to imagine they are big enough thinkers they would see they wouldn't get away with that-- their trail was in plain sight (obviously).

I like to think that the VP of the US, if he wanted to out a covert agent, would be much less feckless. Surely he could have gotten Jordanian intelligence to do it. Or found a document in Iraq with her name on it. Something besides leaking to an out-of-favor reporter that isn't even bothering to write a story.

I would need evidence that plenty of other people weren't talking about it. State. CIA. Wilson. Judy and whatever other sources she had.

Finally, I would need much more than Joe Wilson's word (he is not coming out well in this trial) and the evidence that has come out of this investigation. Charging Libby for being wrong about "we're hearing that from other reporters" is not a convincing way to show there is much, much more information waiting to surface. That's pretty bottom of the barrel stuff.

[boris]

Debating Jeff over anything to do with Valerie (Valerah) is a waste of time. Jeffy's in love.

If Cheney, Libby and Rove all agreed that Val was fair game that's good enough for Jeff's conspiracy. Fact is she was fair game.

The notion that Libby had even greater duty to protect her identity than Harlow Grenier and Schmall demonstrated is to wear the blinders of smitten love.