Libby Trial: Continued Misinformation From Neil Lewis of the Times

Times reporter Neil A. Lewis is resolute in his refusal to accurately summarize the central facts of the Libby case.  His effort for Monday, Jan 22 recycles his error from Jan 15.  Here we go, from his latest:

Mr. Libby had nothing to do with the leak to Mr. Novak, but he testified under oath that he had not disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to other journalists. Ms. Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine told the grand jury that he did, in fact, talk about Ms. Wilson with them. Mr. Libby also testified that he learned of Ms. Wilson’s identity from a third journalist, Tim Russert of NBC News, but Mr. Russert is expected to testify that that is false.

Folks following this case casually will find the actual testimony baffling if the Times is their source of basic information.  Let me try for something short and accurate - Libby testified that he learned about Ms. Plame from Dick Cheney, then promptly forgot it until he re-learned it a month later from reporters, specifically Tim Russert (Karl Rove also told Libby that Bob Novak had an upcoming story about Wilson and his CIA spouse).  Libby's testimony was that he provided information about Ms. Plame to Judy Miller, Matt Cooper of TIME, and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, in each case attributing his information to reporter gossip (Kessler testified that Libby told him no such thing; apparently, Libby over-confessed.)

Any chance that Mr. Lewis will get this right, or that the Times will run a correction?  I exhort Mr. Lewis to peruse the indictment of I. Lewis Libby - he will find it to be a font of information, includiong such nuggets as these:

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. 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.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

and this:

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

...

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

As a wildly optimistic aside, the central theme of Mr. Lewis' story is that this case may have changed the legal landscape for reporter-source relationships.    All very interesting, but - there remains a possibility that the defense will call as witnesses Nick Kristof, David Sanger, and/or James Risen, all of the Times - all three have had their names bandied about in recent court documents.

Any chance of the Times reporting on that before the event, or will they be as surprised as the rest of us?

Try the overworked, under-respected Public Editor, if they still have one - [email protected].  This Neil Lewis thing has gone beyond ridiculous.

Comments

[clarice]

Picky,picky.

[hit and run]

See also JPod on the Corner

The Head of The Columbia Journalism School... [John Podhoretz]

...gets really quite a lot of facts wrong in this one partial paragraph from this week's New Yorker:

"[T]he White House dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger, in February of 2002, to find proof that the country had shipped yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson not only came up empty-handed; he said so publicly, in a Times Op-Ed piece that he published five months later. The Administration then went on another search for evidence—the kind that could be used to discredit Wilson—and began disseminating it, off the record, to a few trusted reporters. That led to the unlawful exposure of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a C.I.A. agent."

Now, to correct Dean Nicholas Lemann:

First: The White House did not dispatch Wilson to Niger. The CIA — acting on the recommendation of Wilson's wife — did.

Second: Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times not five months later, but seventeen months later. There was an intervening event. It was called "the war in Iraq." Perhaps Lemann has heard of it.

Third: It is probably untrue that the "exposure" of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was "unlawful." No one has been charged with any such offense, and there is a significant question about whether she maintained covert status in the five years preceding the publication of her name by Robert Novak — the trigger for the possibility that a crime was committed.

Nicholas Lemann is a journalist with a remarkable record and is, I think, an honorable person. His inability to get straight what happened in the Wilson case is another example of why the prosecution of Scooter Libby is a shameful botch.

01/22 02:11 PM

[Rick Ballard]

To get really picky - JPod's "the trigger for the possibility that a crime was committed" is far too narrow. Hadley's confirmation of Plame's existence arguably broke another of the five pillars upon which the IIPA rests. The "served within five years" wouldn't be the factor drawing my bet.

I don't think it's fair to continue to pick on the Times. It isn't as if they have a any reputation left for journalism and this article is an example of their current strength. You simply can't fault them as propagandists.

[clarice]

Heh--yes the Harlow confirmation never got the attention it deserved. Maybe at trial--maybe not. That's the thing about smoke and mirror prosecutions like this one--now you see it , now you don't.

I offer one defense for both authors--actually taken from my utterly reasonable spouse:People keep messing up what the case is about because the case as it now stands is too stupid for any sane person to believe a prosecutor would take it to this level.(His words were pithier)

[Javani]

"but he testified under oath that he had not disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to other journalists."

That's beyond moonbat misunderstanding. That's Stalinesque revisionism. Makes it a comfortable, easier-to-understand anti-Libby narrative for the NYT Borg collective though.

Thanks for starting a new thread. I think at 200+ posts threads devolve into mostly petty spats and name calling.

[boris]

Oh yeah? Well frak you lamer!

[Rick Ballard]

Harlow, Hadley - hey, I got the first two letter right. Lessee, add in the "l" and I'm... three divided by seven... almost half way correct.

I'm qualified to work for the Times on that basis.

[sbw]

Aaaah! No Bold? No Italics? ::Inhale:: ::Exhale:: I can breathe again! ;-)

[hit and run]

Well frak you lamer!

And anyone who's grammer isn't write should be put too death.

[sad]

I'm qualified to work for the Times on that basis.

I have some pets qualified to work for the Times. In fact they may be over-qualified.

[Javani]

Hit and Run:

It's like the Senate Intelligence Report on Wilson and his claims didn't exist. Since this story is so important to journalism wouldn't the Report be fundamental and necessary reading?

It's an inconvenient truth that interferes with the Wilson-Truth-Teller narrative.

[Cecil Turner]

The "served within five years" wouldn't be the factor drawing my bet.

It has the virtue of being easy to disprove, but concur it's not the biggest hurdle. The "knew her status was classified" bit is arguably the weakest. (Especially since Fitz has admitted in court filings he has no information to indicate it's so.)

Oh yeah? Well frak you lamer!

Heh.

[hit and run]

sad:
I have some pets qualified to work for the Times. In fact they may be over-qualified.

And I have some pets for which copies of the Times would be well qualified. Just have to change the cage several times a week.

No, I made that up, I don't have said pets. But I can have imaginary pets if Schumer can have imaginary constituents:

Biking through New York's boroughs in 2005, I thought about some old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey. Though they are imaginary, I frequently talk to them. To me, they represent the hardworking and often-ignored families who are not tuned in to special-interest newsletters or editorial pages, but want a little something more from their government and their leaders.

[sad]

hit and run

schumer and ol smokin joe probably run into each other in thier respective fantasy worlds quite a bit. Who else do you suppose they talk to?

[hit and run]

"The Imagination-Based Community"

[windansea]

Though they are imaginary, I frequently talk to them. To me, they represent the hardworking and often-ignored families who are not tuned in to special-interest newsletters

you have to be really stupid and naive to be a dem these days

[Rick Ballard]

"Who else do you suppose they talk to?"

James Thurber, without a doubt.

[Javani]

Schumer:

"What are our eight words?" I thought.

Global Test. Stem cells will raise the dead.

or

Global Governance. Embrace carbon trade exchanges. Hate Bush.

or

Still explaining why we are not alienated elites.

[Sue]

you have to be really stupid and naive to be a dem these days

Can you imagine if Bush admitted to talking to imaginary friends? O. M. G. The moonbats would flip. And all we can do is laugh. Oh well, that is why I'm glad I'm not a moonbat. I don't have to defend the Chucky Schumer's of the democratic party.

[clarice]

Hillary channels Eleanor--Maybe it's a trend.

It so I want to speak to to the Khans, pere et fils.

[topsecretk9]

In order for Joe to be right all these other guys have to be wrong:

New Yorker Fact-checking Meets Columbia Journalism Ethics [Mark Steyn] JPod, Nicholas Lemann also moved the goalposts in that shoddy paragraph:

“[T]he White House dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger, in February of 2002, to find proof that the country had shipped yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson not only came up empty-handed; he said so publicly.”

Er, not quite. Who said anything about Niger “shipping” the stuff to Iraq? British Intelligence reported only that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. They stand by that report. But your e-mailers are right. That’s also what Joe Wilson found in Niger, and what he reported back to Washington.

Look at it from the point of view of The New Yorker’s famed multi-layered fact-checking regime. For Joe Wilson to be right, Bush, the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler (in his report to the British government), MI6, the French and Italian intelligence services, Ibrahim Mayaki, Prime Minister to Niger’s strongman Major Wanke (please no tittering), and the Niger Mining Minister who briefed Wilson all have to be wrong. Alternatively, they’re right, and it’s Wilson who’s lying.

Yet Mister Journalism Ethics Professor and the fact-checked-to-death New Yorker have cheerfully published a paragraph that not only contains hardly anything that isn’t demonstrably false but never even hints that these are matters of dispute.

For all his connection to reality, “Joe Wilson” might as well be one of Chuck Schumer’s imaginary friends…

01/22 03:27 PM

[hit and run]

Tom:
I exhort Mr. Lewis to peruse the indictment of I. Lewis Libby - he will find it to be a font of information

Javani:
It's like the Senate Intelligence Report on Wilson and his claims didn't exist. Since this story is so important to journalism wouldn't the Report be fundamental and necessary reading?

Man, and I thought I was the comedian.

Journalists reading up to get to the truth?

I gotta get new material.

[clarice]

I sent the link to the Public Editor of the Times. Who's going to write to the editors of the New Yorker?

[Rick Ballard]

"Who's going to write to the editors of the New Yorker?"

It would probably be helpful to write to them in their native tongue - is anyone here fluent in Lower Moronic? Otherwise it will have to be done with crayons on a couple of rolls of butcher paper...

Are there any good stick figure artists available in the audience?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Can all these incorrect and misleading stories be used somehow as evidence in the Libby trial? It is obvious from juror responses that they've had major impact on the public pysche.

[clarice]

The voir dire and instructions are supposed to rid them of impure thoughts , Sara.

Rick, I take it our earlier missives to the New Yorker so carefully cut from candy bar wrappers and glued to cardboard got no response?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

One has to wonder at the literacy level of those charged with investigation and report writing and on to fact checking. The Wilson junk that gets put forth as fact is high profile, but in my own case the dummies are confusing the words SPINAL TAP to rule out meningitis with back injury, which in my mind is about as far-fetched as the NYT, New Yorker and Fitz's claims about Wilson's trip. It makes me shudder, like nails on a blackboard, to think of the low quality of reporting in today's world.

[hit and run]

Rick Ballard:
Are there any good stick figure artists available in the audience?

Since Tony Snow ended up getting the job - I say we actually get Stick Figure to do the writing for us....

[Sara (Squiggler)]

should read "back injury for shattered vertebrae."

[lonetown]

"And I have some pets for which copies of the Times would be well qualified. Just have to change the cage several times a week."

I usually pee on it before the pets get to it.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

OT as reported on Drudge:

FBI: We Flubbed Foley E-mails

January 22, 2007 11:58 AM

Jason Ryan and Brian Ross Report:
The FBI should have done more to investigate the Mark Foley e-mails or, alternatively, notified House authorities in charge of the congressional page program, the FBI's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, said in a report today.

In effect, the report finds the FBI's inaction contributed to the failure of officials to detect Foley's inappropriate behavior, which eventually led to his resignation when ABC News revealed more sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to current and former pages.

While finding no official misconduct on the part of FBI officials, the inspector general said "the e-mails provided enough troubling indications on their face" to have warranted follow-up steps.

Instead, the inspector general found, the supervisory agent decided there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and "placed the e-mails in her in box and took no further action" even though she found the e-mails "odd."

The e-mails were provided to the FBI in July 2006 by the non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

The inspector general said the FBI "at a minimum" should have told CREW it had decided against an investigation because "CREW was relying on the FBI to pursue the matter and as a result had not notified anyone else about the e-mails."

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW, says the FBI's handling of the Foley e-mails was irresponsible. "They should take investigating potential, child sexual predators much more seriously," says Sloan. "Attorney General Gonzales said this is one of their top priorities, but their conduct in this case shows that clearly that is not the case."

The inspector general also concluded that widely reported comments by FBI officials on the e-mails provided by CREW were "not accurate."

Unnamed officials were quoted as saying "the reason that the FBI did nothing further at the time" was because CREW had provided heavily redacted e-mails and refused to provide information about the source of the e-mails.

Sloan says the agency owes her organization an apology. "The FBI didn't fail to take any action on the e-mails because of any of CREW's actions," she said. "What CREW gave the FBI, they failed to investigate all on their own."

The inspector general said it was unable to determine who was responsible for making the inaccurate statements to the media.

[Sue]

Tom,

I thought you might appreciate what I saw at http://firedoglake.com/>FDL

From the judge to the jurors on instructions before they go home...

"While I believe the press tries to report things accurately sometimes they get it wrong."

::grin::

[topsecretk9]

Thanks Clarice for mentioning this Robert Cox observation. Invaluable must read and Instapundit should link it...

Phone Tag Pundits Mislead Viewers

Of course, none of the three were present and so had no first hand knowledge. Matthews said he was basing his comments on David Shuster's report. Yet, Shuster himself was busy a good deal of the time running in and out of the Media Center throughout the day, presumably to do live reports for MSNBC. MSNBC had a producer in the Media Center as well as Shuster. He was generally there (not always) and when Shuster would return he would check the producer's notes. So, while David was keeping up on what was happening, his experience was not always first hand either.

With the luxury of doing my reports on a laptop, seated in the Media Room, I was able to watch a lot more of the proceedings than David. And like I said his report was not inaccurate but a bit misleading. Specifically,

- There were plenty of jurors who were excused for reasons having nothing to do with anyone in the Bush administation (financial hardship, ESL issues, previous legal issues, previous bad experiences with the police or justice system, etc.).

- There were some people who were excused largely because they were Bush supporters.

- A number of the anti-Bush/Cheney/Iraq War people went to great lengths to attempt to get themselves on the jury; the way their voir dire was dragged out meant far more time was spent on prospective jurors who were anti-Bush. For example, on Thursday morning just one, anti-Bush woman was questioned for over an hour until she finally admitted that her feelings about the Bush Administration might influence her decision on a verdict and that could not be sure she could be impartial. She was excused.

- Washington, DC is almost entirely anti-Bush; voters picked John Kerry over George Bush my a margin of nine to one.

The discussion on Hardball took Shuster's somewhat one-sided characterization of the voir dire and pushed it even further to the point of being completely one-sided with each pundit trying to top the next in extreme rhetoric. All of which I found to be hilarious because I knew that NONE of them actually knew what they were talking about; I was there and they weren't. A viewer would have to be forgiven if they came away from the segment with the (incorrect) understanding that voir dire was a parade of prospective jurors representing a cross-section of America all of whom despise Dick Cheney.

It was no small irony for me to watch this while reading some of the media coverage of the courts decision to credential bloggers to the Libby Trial. Some of the reports go to great pains to disparage bloggers for lacking journalistic standards and not having the value of editors and producers to vet stories before they are presented to the public. And yet we see it time and time again that, in the breach, the professional journalists do precisely those things for which they disparage bloggers - putting out information with out fact-checking it, not presenting both sides of a story, not going to the actual source, not correcting misinformation, and so on...

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Such classy people these Dems are --NOT!

“BUSH makes me literally ill. the bile is rising up in my stomach as we speak .... I wish I could race into bush’s office and vomit all over his face. I wish I could stand over him and puke and gag and wretch until nothing but the last nasty drop of yellowish green bile runs down his ugly hate filled face, off his chin and down over his suit.”

-- commenter “Sadie” at Democratic Party official website

• Thanks to James Taranto at WSJ’s “Best Of The Web Today” for this gem

[clarice]

Too facile and very snarky sum up of the case at cbs

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/courtwatch/main2386082.shtml

[Jim]

SARA
Your comments: Can all these incorrect and misleading stories be used somehow as evidence in the Libby trial? It is obvious from juror responses that they've had major impact on the public pysche.

I feel for and hope this comes out right for Libby but to me the real tragedy of all of this is that “all these incorrect and misleading stories” have been used for 6 years to undermine the President of the United States, his administration, the GWOT and the future of this country. Obviously, who pays for all of this?

[roanoke]

Jim-

The US military.

[roanoke]

After the US military-it'll be civilians-but maybe that's the way the public prefers the jihadis to fight us.

3,000 deaths all at once vs. armed military with a fighting chance.

Maybe the US has decided they like it fast and short.

Like getting a bandage ripped of or for the ladies-getting your legs waxed.

[Patton]

The very idea that the press even tries to get it right is BS. The press has their biases and they make it into their stories.

We have two local papers here and one is very anti-growth. I read the story on a recent county supervisors meeting and the two papers were complete opposites about what happened. One said the meeting was cordial and run smoothly and every basically agreeing with a contractors presentation of a development area.

Then the anti-growth paper who apparently didn't even attend the meeting comes out with huge headline the next day...GROUPS CLASH WITH DEVELOPER OVER WETLANDS.

THE FACT WAS THEIR WAS NO CLASK, THE ACTIVISTS HADN'T EVEN SHOWN UP FOR THE MEETING AND APPARENTLY THE PAPER DECIDED TO CALL THEM FOR THEIR 'KNOWLEDGEABLE' REACTION TO THE DEVELOPERS PLAN.

So the paper made it look like their was this huge fight between the developer and the community over their plan, when the 'activists' group wasn't even from our town and didn't even show up.

[roanoke]

Oh hell of=off.

Damn it-everytime I get full of it and don't think I need preview.

[Patton]

Are we sure he didn't say:

"While I believe the press tries to report things accurately, sometimes. They get it wrong."

[roanoke]

Patton-

Almost twenty years ago I took a national security course and the premise was that the media would be the biggest threat to it.

The prof was pretty dry and if I wasn't asleep I was flirting-but the things I did retain I have seen all come to fruition.

[topsecretk9]

--Damn it-everytime I get full of it and don't think I need preview.

Posted by: roanoke | January 22, 2007 at 04:07 PM--

Think we're all being a little too snickerly (made up word,so it doens't matter how it's spelled) about zee typo's. Ask Sue -- the den mom here - what she thinks. I think we all figure it out so don't worry yourself too much.

[Jim]

roanoke

I agree. I am and have always been very patriotic but it just really bothers me to see what is happening in Iraq. I personally believe that if we could look into a crystal ball, our situation in Iraq and a large per cent of the deaths have happened because of the disgraceful way that the media, Democratic party and the liberals have lied and misrepresented everything and fought this administration. United, this country can do anything but with these groups our country is doomed

[roanoke]

Jim-

Well they eroded public support, and thus eroded support from our allies...vicious cycle.

The war didn't start on 9/11 and the United States didn't start it. Maybe the public woke up to it on 9/11 but the military has been taking hits since the Beirut barracks bombing.

[topsecretk9]

I see Schuster as a hustler. I don't think he really cares, he just likes to dream up sensational crap that makes Chris Matthew's drool. You can almost sense his stories are tailor made for Chrissy Poo's nightly Cheney circle jerk.

[Sue]

Ask Sue -- the den mom here - what she thinks

The den mom? Cool. I think. As to spelling, it doesn't matter one way or the other to me, until the person calling someone out on their spelling incorrectly spells something. Then I comment. ::evil den mom grin:: Unless it totally screws up the content of a post, I ignore it and read it as it should have been.

United, this country can do anything but with these groups our country is doomed

We will never win another war. This country is too divided by party line. And politics have taken over. Bush has had the pleasure of being the first president to have his every move, his every word, his every gesture scrutinized by the new media. And the old media. The combination has created a country that only wants to win in Washington. I blame both parties for creating this atmosphere. Bush gets the blame for splitting the country, but only if you ignore the 2000 election. You don't get much more split than that.

[Sue]

Ask Sue -- the den mom here - what she thinks

The den mom? Cool. I think. As to spelling, it doesn't matter one way or the other to me, until the person calling someone out on their spelling incorrectly spells something. Then I comment. ::evil den mom grin:: Unless it totally screws up the content of a post, I ignore it and read it as it should have been.

United, this country can do anything but with these groups our country is doomed

We will never win another war. This country is too divided by party line. And politics have taken over. Bush has had the pleasure of being the first president to have his every move, his every word, his every gesture scrutinized by the new media. And the old media. The combination has created a country that only wants to win in Washington. I blame both parties for creating this atmosphere. Bush gets the blame for splitting the country, but only if you ignore the 2000 election. You don't get much more split than that.

[topsecretk9]

Sue...maybe this is better?

[Jim]

I think the only way that this country might get back on the right track is if we have another terrible attack. What a terrible choice? You wouldn’t hear a “peep” out of Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, etc. then………….couldn’t you just hear them raising hell about listening in on phone calls again right after thousands were killed in a terrorist attack?

[Sue]

Jim,

Are you kidding? Another terrorist attack and Bush will be impeached. Those 3 will lead the charge to impeach him, if they survive the attack. Nothing democrats propose are to make the US stronger. It is to bring us to the level as the rest of the world. They do not want us to be a super power.

[PaulL]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Democrats will BLAME BUSH for the next terrorist attack, whether it happens in the next two years or up to, let's say, six years from now.

They'll say that the President made the terrorists do it, by confronting them militarily instead of negotiating with them.

[roanoke]

Jim-

I'm afraid of what the hell it would take.

I think there is something inherit in the liberal mind set that prefers and revolves around being "the victim".

[roanoke]

Jim-

I'm afraid of what the hell it would take.

I think there is something inherit in the liberal mind set that prefers and revolves around being "the victim".

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Anyone know if Pelosi's husband is in Calif. citrus?

[roanoke]

Sara!

I guess we could hope for that...I love orange juice though!

I'm glad to see you back here Sara.

[Sue]

(Kessler testified that Libby told him no such thing; apparently, Libby over-confessed.)

I've been meaning to comment on this. I don't remember this at all. If he confessed to telling Kessler and Kessler says he didn't, why is Libby not charged with that too?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Hi, my name is Sara and I'm a Plameholic.

*wink* Thanks, roanoke.

[Jim]

Sue/PaulL

When we have another terrorist attack, if it’s in the next two years, it would be hard (even for them) to blame and impeach Bush. It is too obvious that he’s tried to protect the country and they haven’t. If it happens after President Bush’s term, hard telling. I won’t even let myself imagine life under Hillary.

[Jane]

I was at the gym this afternoon with the local news on and I was reading the anchor's report on the Libby trial (on that thing on the bottom of the page they do when you can't hear the sound). Essentially the nitwit said something to the effect:

"Jury selection continued today in the trial of former Bush administration official Scooter Libby who is accused of revealing covert CIA valerie Plame's identity to the public."

That was it. End of discussion. I'm confident that was exactly what she believes is going on.

The news media by and large are morons.

[Sue]

Jim,

I hope we never get to say I told you so to each other. This is one time I don't want to know which of us is right.

[TruthProbe]

The Real Deal will be if and when Karl Rove goes on trial.

[Javani]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62265-2004Jun22.html

"Kessler said he told prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald that, during conversations last July 12 and July 18, Libby did not mention Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, or Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger to investigate whether Iraq tried to buy uranium there.

In October, The Post reported that "on July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.""
________________________________

Which means Rove probably gave that information.

Where is it written Libby said he spoke to Kessler about the Wilson matter?

[Sue]

Why do you think it was Rove? Why not Armitage? It certainly sounds like what he told Novak. Does Kessler specifically say somewhere it came from someone 'inside' the WH or just the administration?

[Sue]

State Department reporter Glenn Kessler submitted to a tape-recorded interview

...

The article said Plame's name was not mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure was to cast doubt on Wilson's report rather than reveal her identity. Novak had reported a similar account on July 14 that he said was provided him by two administration officials.

Unless we know from somewhere else it wasn't Armitage, I would guess it was Armitage. Do we know?

[Sue]

Unless the WH was putting on a show, they didn't know it was a boondoggle set up by his wife.

had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife

Odd, that sentence. Why would someone inside the WH say that? Unless they knew in 2002 that Wilson went to Niger and his wife was involved. Which makes no sense unless Libby was covering his tracks by asking Grossman in May 2003 who the envoy was.

[Javani]

I thought Rove because the person said "the White House" didn't pay attention.

Until I see where Libby said he talked about Wilson to Kessler there isn't much I can say but if he says he did, and the jury believes Kessler, Fitz wouldn't charge Libby with perjury here because it would help Libby's faulty memory defense.

I think this one is intriguing, from Sept 28, 2003, a few days before action was taken -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11208-2003Sep27?language=printer

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak....

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility.""

--Could that have been Armitage? Deflecting attention from himself? That last statement is seemingly pro-Wilson over the top.

the reporters are "Mike Allen and Dana Priest"

[clarice]

Why do you suppose the Wa Po was disguising the source?

Let's suppose for example that Woodward told Kessler . Or he told Bradley who told Kessler. Or Pincus got it also from Armitage (or had in fact heard Woodward telling him) and told Kessler..
"We all gossip..that's what we do," said the Es Po reporter called for jury duty..

[Sue]

I have no idea, but it doesn't make sense for that statement to come out of the WH. They claimed they didn't know about Wilson and his wife until Libby asked Grossman and found out in June 2003. Why would the WH claim they paid no attention to what he reported because it was a boondoggle set up by his wife if they didn't know about him to begin with? Something isn't right here. Either the WH knew about the trip and dismissed it for those reasons, or the source is not inside the WH. I would guess it was from State, since State was Kessler's beat.

[Sue]

Let's suppose it is Armitage. Let's suppose Kessler is sitting on a bombshell. Not only did Armitage tell Woodward and Novak, he had a little gossip fest with Kessler. Is Kessler on the witness list for either side?

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Didn't Fleischer receive the postdated INR memo on AF1 from Powell on July 8? The language used seems a paraphrase of the memo.

Libby and the VP didn't see the memo for some time but the WH had it.

I vote Armitage, too, but WH covers more than Rove.

[Sue]

Why would Fleischer make the claim that the WH didn't pay attention to Wilson's report when the WH was claiming they didn't know anything about his report? If Fleischer is the source, then the WH has been playing loose with the truth about a number of things (who is the envoy, when they already knew) or the reporter got the quote wrong or the person making the quote didn't know what he/she was talking about.

[Javani]

Sue, the "attention" is not a direct quotation. Probably the reporter's gloss on what he was told, not exactly accurate.

[Sue]

I don't know. When Rick mentioned Fleischer, I had a flashback to earlier posts where the speculation was he was the source. But I really didn't pay that much attention to it, or if I did at the time I've forgotten it. What a juror I would have been. ::grin:: I still can't see why someone inside the WH would have alluded to a reason they didn't pay attention to a report they claimed they had no knowledge of. It is just a weirdly worded allegation.

[Rick Ballard]

"It is just a weirdly worded allegation."

There is no "Wilson report" to my knowledge. His handlers debriefing didn't include any reference to Wilson. It seems a fictional pastiche based upon Munchausen's tale and the INR memo.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Come on people, get with the program here. Grossman was setting up the White House. That's what that redated memo is all about. He orchestrated the Armitage leak. He's a buddy buddy of ol' Joe. He was running the show. Powell was lost in that job. The military doesn't prepare you for the back stabbing, intrigue, and loose cannons of the State Dept. He was trained in order and chain of command.

Grossman is going to turn out to be the Ehrlichman and Halderman of the State Dept.

[clarice]

Kessler is on the list of those whose names may be mentioned or called to be witnesses--per LH.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oUUybhQS3p0J:thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/01/weve_got_a_pote.html+Libby+case+witness+list+Glenn+Kessler&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>Kessler

[clarice]

Can we rank which witnesses we most want to see on the stand?
I rank Andrea Mitchell No. 1
Grossman No. 2

[Sue]

Actually, the reporter says the official told him they didn't pay attention to Wilson's trip. The reporter includes the term 'report' when saying why the person was telling him. "was to cast doubt on Wilson's report rather than reveal her identity".

[Sue]

Okay. I wonder how hard Kessler will fight to keep his source secret? If it is Armitage, and I'm not convinced it is, just sort of playing with the idea, how can the defense get that out of him?

[richard mcenroe]

"Anyone know if Pelosi's husband is in Calif. citrus?'

Well, several of her family's old 'business partners' are rumored to be buried out in the groves... dunno about her husband yet.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

It is quite possible that "trip" has the same validity as "report". What may have been said was "We didn't pay any attention to Wilson." The rest would be journo interpretive dance.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
I'd love to see Seymore Hersh up first.

He'd either have to say he was "lying" about CIA agents concocting and forging the Niger docs or he'd have to defend it and his own last shred of credibility and basically admitting CIA agent committed a huge massive crime.

I can dream.

[Sue]

Or someone who knew about the trip, say someone in State, made that remark. State knew about the trip at the time of the trip. They also knew about what he reported. And State paid no attention to his trip. It didn't change anyone's opinion, either at State or the CIA.

[windansea]

"While I believe the press tries to report things accurately sometimes they get it wrong."

I have 0% confidence in the former and 90% in the latter...

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Libby and Cheney. Especially Cheney on cross with Fitz.

[windansea]

3. Munchausen

[Rick Ballard]

I doubt that either side really wants Munchausen stinking up the court. It would be fun to watch Wells chew him up but what value does Libby get out of it?

[windansea]

what value does Libby get out of it?

Jurors get to see the difference

[clarice]

Cheney on cross is a close tie with Andrea Mitchell and here tap dance on everyone knew

[clarice]

***her tap dance******

[Javani]

"Can we rank which witnesses we most want to see on the stand? I rank Andrea Mitchell No. 1, Grossman No. 2"

I think Cheney will pretty much be a dud. "Did you tell Scooter" "Yes."

My no.1 is Novak.

[windansea]

Clarice

do we get to see this on TV?

[Sue]

Back to my original question. Did Libby tell Fitzgerald he told Kessler something about Wilson and/or Plame? Or did Fitzgerald see his name on Libby's calendar and in trying to chase down the 1x2x6 questioned him?

[Rick Ballard]

Winandsea,

The big difference will be Wells/Libby v Fitzpatrick. I expect Wells to go after the FBI agents - Eckenrode in particular on the basis of bafflegab and then do a very high degree of contrast of direct simplicity in questioning in comparison to Fitz's bafflegab.

Chopping up Munchausen opens the door to an attempt by Fitz to create sympathy for the pooorr widdle lying hornwhistleblower.

[clarice]

I wonder how the defense plans to deal with the obstruction count. To my mind it's weak and I think the defene is right to demand a mens re provision (intention) in the instructions.
But I think the strongest defense is the failings of the investigation itself--in sum, we know in effect the half-assed nature of the investigation, not Linyy, prevented the SP from getting to the truth and yet I think the defense is quite circumscribed in defending against it. (Another reason why over-reaching prosecutors love this law.)

[topsecretk9]

Yes but Rick...if Wilson is forced to admit his so-called claims were false, that he admitted he used literary flair and was mistaken and misquoted - then reporters who misquoted are asked to defend their stories...all this taking "lying" on purpose to a whole new level.

[windansea]

Jeff & the Wheel lose it

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Reposting from the other thread:

I don't know why I feel this way, but it seems, reading between everyone's lines, that Walton is a little shook at the blatant partisanship and faulty views this jury panel displayed. So, if I'm correct, how will this manifest itself thruout the trial. Clarice? Anyone?

Also, Clarice, you said the other day that Wells was quite a good questioner. He intends to speak for about 2 hours for opening statement. Based on what you saw the other day, do you think he will connect with the jury and that he'll be able to get them to see that there is another side to this case?

I know you can't predict for sure, just your impression, if you will.

I can't wait to hear what Wells says in his opening.

[Javani]

"Munch" will be brought in because there is so much to impeach him with. Fitz needs to keep a murky motive and narrow narrative, essentially Wilson wrote his Times piece, Libby reacted. Defense will begin months earlier with his earlier convos that got in the press, meetings, maybe even into his intrusion into British politics. This will show how widespread interest was in Wilson, many people knew about him, raise concerns about his activities, and show Libby to be a bit player. They will also trace his Kerry campaign connections which will show the battle to be presidential elections politics. Breadth will also validate the assertion that "all" or lots of reporters knew or could have known, making that statement true, whether or not he believed it at the time.