Powered by TypePad

« File This Under "Truly Bold Predictions" | Main | Libby Trial - Mystery 'Witnesses' »

January 16, 2007



"Mr. Libby may never even have mentioned Ms. Wilson’s name to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, whose testimony to the contrary may be the result of their remembering their conversations incorrectly."

Isn't this wrong? He doesn't deny talking about the wife, but didn't use her name, a la Plame. Jduy's notes have "Plame" but from another source.


I'd not put too much on May's not being mentioned. As best I can tell from the post, it was a list of names potential jurors were told might be witnesses or mentioned--just to see if any might be prejdiced by some connection or view of them.

I doubt that Libby has decided to play poker with all his cards facing up.


But May would have told the FBI the names of the people that told him about Wilson/Plame. It is their names that would then be mentioned, or them that would be called as witnesses. May's info was second-hand, he isn't going to be called in to report that. It's hearsay.


So Tom, did you decide to give poor Murray a pass and not smite him?


The best I can glean from the heavily redacted documents available publicly, is that whatever these other matters were, they must sound really scary and the concern is that the jury will get freaked out about some scary near miss and forget all about the issues at hand.

Perhaps the defense would do better to say they were busy *making up* threats and ways to get people freaked out.
It seems too difficult for our leftish friends to imagine there might have been real frightening issues occupying Libby's mind.

I swear they picture Scooter sitting alone in his office, drumming his fingers on his desk, and biding his time until he can next discuss his sole concern- Joe Wilson.


I answered the Hohlt question TM:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/libby_trial_nea.html#comment-27838077 and here>Kansteiner

He was the guy who Wilson reportedly talked to at DoS to get "permission" for the Mission. He resigned to spend time with his family on Oct 1 the same day Armitage went to the FBI.

He now works with Scowcroft.


Best "live" coverage? Robert Cox? All the above... C-span?


May said in a post on the corner many years back his friend was a democrat -- friend said May was being a little hard on Wilson (paraphrase) "his wife does work at the CIA" - suggesting Wilson did know what he was talking about and Cliff did consider this to be a positive to Wilson's credibility.

Tom Maguire

So Tom, did you decide to give poor Murray a pass and not smite him?

My time management collapsed, but tomorrow is another day!


Paul Wolfowitz

Does he have something to do with this case? Or do they just want to see if the potential jurors froth when they hear his name?


Could be either or both..

Other Tom

Clarice: don't both sides have to include on their witness list everyone they could possibly call (except in rebuttal), and can't a party be precluded from calling an unlisted witness? Why wouldn't Cliff May be on the defense list?


My guess about missing witnesses is that either the defense or prosecution found particular problems with their testimony and or their knowledge that are not generally known by media/blogs etc.


OT--Yes I you're right..But parties can--and often do--list names of persons they don't really expect to call. Sometimes they do that to force the other side to waste a lot of time researching and preparing for cross of witnesses they don't really intend to call..


Why wouldn't Cliff May be on the defense list?

I'm not seeing what Cliff adds. If they can't get the people that he was talking about to testify, I can't imagine his story would be allowed. And if they can get those people to testify, they don't need Cliff.


msnbc has a story on the jury selection--even noting two potential jurors were supportinve of the Administration !

A bit of information that might be useful about the processs:
"Twelve jurors along with four alternates will be chosen from the pool of 100 possible jurors. Once the jury pool has been narrowed to 36, Judge Walton will check the criminal backgrounds of those potential jurors before lawyers make their final selections"


It's not altogether clear but it seems we have not yet had any preemptory challenges..only challenges for cause or juros excused by the court for personal reasons--
First day therefore we have only 6 potential jurors.


Yeah Clarice...this is what brother said...he was not vexed that 3 - 1 for personal reasons - out of 9 were excused - or he was thinking that was pretty good even under normal circumstances.

I look forward to the under current of all EW or parachutes posts to include a visceral resentment that Libby is even allowed a defense.


Don Surber picked up on the same point you did about Parachute's post--Is he upset that his political opponents are entitled to the 6th Amendment provisions of a fair trial by an impartial jury. Would it make his hateful view seem justified if no impartial jury could be found?


Are there any potential witnesses who will testify that Russert knew about Wilson's wife before he talked to Libby? The key issue in the case is Russert's credibility. He has yet to relate the full conversation. If he choses to lie-and this is the likely scenerio- he must be discredited

r m flanagan

Glad to see your comment on Jane's cancer.
It was what I'd expect of you.


What a fargin' farce!

Free Scooter!

Other Tom

I think that if May were to testify that he knew Plame worked at the CIA because he had heard if from X, Y and Z, the testimony would be allowed regardless of whether the other three testified. It is not hearsay, because it is not offered to prove that Plame was at the CIA, it is offered to show knowledge on the part of May.

Clarice: that's the way we always did it, i.e. load the witness list up with every name that has ever been mentioned. First time I encountered this practice I thought it was sort of sleazy, but in the California state system if you didn't do it it was borderline malpractice.


It is clear only to a subset of partisans that Ms. Plame qualified for protection under the act.

While that is true, the partisans who claim Ms. Plame did not qualify have yet to offer anything substantial about why they make the claim.

If Plame did not qualify, the CIA could not have referred the case. And Ashcroft (who insisted on being briefed on all details of the case) would have easily killed the investigation citing that the IIPA requirements were not met.


Any potential list of witnesses that causes Fitz's team to scramble is ok with me. It's time for them to backup their inconclusive evidence with the truth and cold hard facts not suppositions.


Dear Pete: With the amendation in bold, your statement is true--
"If Plame did not qualify, the CIA could not have referred the case EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF FALSE STATEMENTS. And Ashcroft (who insisted on being briefed on all details of the case) would have easily killed the investigation citing that the IIPA requirements were not met IF HE HAD NOT LET THE DOJ CAREERISTS YANK HIM ABOUT BY THE NOSE WHICH HE APPARENTLY REGULARLY DID."


How's the Sandy Berger criminal trial going? You know, the incident that actually involved real breaches of national security for partisan purposes?

Oh, right.


If Plame did not qualify, the CIA could not have referred the case.

Right, and if there were no WMD in Iraq, the CIA couldn't have said it was a slam-dunk case.

That's the CIA: absolutely infallible.


OK, my last thought:

Anyone else wondering if Libby ever played lacrosse at Duke?


Right, and if there were no WMD in Iraq, the CIA couldn't have said it was a slam-dunk case.

The record clearly states that the CIA twice warned the Bush administration that the Niger information was unreliable, yet the Bush administration kept putting it back in its speeches.

IMO, Tenet ultimately succumbed to the pressure. Bush gave him a presidential medal for enabling him.


The theory that the CIA, Ashcroft, and the DOJ careerists somehow all conspired against the Bush administration sounds pretty looney to me.


IMO, Tenet ultimately succumbed to the pressure.

No actually, Tenet was a big curveball pusher. Go figure. It's almost like the bowels were stovepiping on purpose. They even threw their DCI under the bus. Wonder why?


The problem with the Libby defense outlined by TM is twofold:
1) Libby did not just talk with Cheney about Plame. There are several other chats as well which involved Plame. There was a chat with the Press Secretary. There was another chat with the VP's counsel where Libby asked what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip. There are other cases mentioned in the indictment. Libby did not mention any of these, but hid behind reporters.
2) Libby was a lawyer and should have known to consult his notes and testify truthfully when even Bush said that this was a serious matter and that he wanted to get to the bottom of this.


Well, that's it. Libby's guilty. Stop the trial, no need. Rethuglicans are guilty until proven innocent. And if proven innocent, it's a conspiracy masterminded by evil Rove and carried out by the devil Cheney. Haliburtonbushchimpwarforoilhitler.


Dear Pete:
If you think the notion of a beltway war against Bush is whacky, pay more attention to yesterday's jury selection process stories. Most DC residents live in a bubble and it's 9-1 Democrat, and most of them never believed that Bush would win a second term so it was in their interest to curry favor with the Dems in Congress and their media running dogs.
Look at the Berger case , for example, which involved many of the same players. It turns out that though the plea agreement which was astonishingly generous required Berger submit to a polygraph so the DoJ could learn exactly what he destroyed, the DoJ never gave him one.To this day we have no proof of what he destroyed,only his spin that he did this to make it easier to prepare for his Congressional testimony. The disparate treatment accorded Berger and Libby is not consistent with a notion that the DoJ apparatchniki played it straight.

As to Libby's converations with others in the WH about the Wilson trip, I have some credibility problems with those statements and even yet there is little evidence that Plame was the focus rather than the Wilson report itself.

I have always thought that there was a lot of projection going on--we know the Clintonistas savagely attacked in evey way possible their opponents. I do not see that was the case with this administration.

The comments to this entry are closed.