Libby Trial: Grossman And Grenier

James Joyner has thoughts on Grossman:

Marc Grossman, who came across as cool and cooperative in yesterday’s testimony, is bumbling and unhelpful today. Defense attorney Ted Wells asked him why, in two separate interviews with the FBI prior to his appearance before the grand jury, he told them that he had relayed information about Joe Wilson’s Niger trip by telephone but he is now telling the jury that it was in face-to-face meetings. He can not explain this.

Marcy Wheeler continues her fine effort, delivering another non-transcript (1, 2).

Joyner on Grenier:

That person [the CIA officier relaying info to Grenier on the Wilson trip] “mentioned” that Wilson’s wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip. “I am certain the individual did not tell me the name, only that it was Amb Wilson’s wife.”

However, Grenier had a fuzzy memory as well:

During FBI testimony, “do you recall if you talked about the topic of Mr. Wilson’s wife with Mr. Libby?” He told them that “if I think back, I think I would have said something to Mr. Libby but could not say for certain.”

At the grand jury?  “That I may have” but wasn’t sure.”

Since then, have you given it any more thought? Yes. “I’ve been going it over and over in my mind.” Eventually, he came to “feel guilty” thinking “maybe I had revealed too much,” eventually revealing the identity of a CIA officer.

Ms. Wheeler has more - apparently it was only in the fullness of time that Grenier realized he had mentioned Wilson's wife to Libby - in early meetings with investigators and the grand jury, he was unsure and couldn't remember.  And incredibly, Libby forgot about it.

Geez, and these are the prosecution witnesses. 

An excerpt of Grenier on his memory issue follows the break.

From Ms. Wheeler:

January 2004

When you were first interviewed by FBI. Were you asked if you had discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. I'm sure the topic came up.

My response was that I didn't clearly remember.

I believe, thinking back that I probably had said I relayed this information to Libby. But I couldn't say for certain.

In connection with your GJ testimony 2004, do you recall what you said what your memory was about saying about Wilson's wife.

I said I may have.

Some time after you testified in the GJ in January 2004. Did you continue to think about that question?

I was going over it in my mind. I was hoping that I hadn't mentioned anything to Mr. Libby, I really didn't remember anything new. But what I did remember was the way I felt immediately after.

I briefly felt guilty, that I had relayed too much information. I was going through a mental justification about why it was alright to have relayed this to Mr. Libby.

What part were you having concerns about. Having mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, revealing the identity of an agency officer, although it was indirect.

I didn't know her name, so I didn't give her name, but by saying Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer. It wasn't absolutely necessary, that is information that we guard pretty closely, and if we don't have to say it, we don't.

You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him.

Did you come to any conclusions. It wasn't as if one day I had a revelation. But as I thought about it over time, as I remembered specifically I developed a growing conviction that I had said it, I said to myself wake up and smell the coffee.

What did you do. Initially, nothing.

I was very interested in whether I had relayed that info or not–I didn't think it was significant in the investigation. As I understood it, it was about passing classified info the press. How people knew what they knew was a moot point.

At some point did your understanding change?

At a certain point, Spring 2005, I saw stories that what Libby knew and how he knew it was an open question. Accounts he may have learned about it from the press rather than the other way around.

When I saw that it seemed to me that my info was potentially relevant.

Got in touch with lawyers at CIA, relayed info to them. Asked whether we should call Special Counsel.

Comments

[Sue]

Ok Libby lied, but he should still get off. You won't be the last.

I might have been the 1st. You would have check old posts to verify that, but I am willing to say I was the 1st.

[Sue]

If Cathie Martin doesn't hit this out of the ballpark for Fitzgerald, I am going to be truly amazed he put a reporter in jail for 85 days because someone bruised the ego of Joe Wilson.

[Martin]

Correction noted, Sue.

[Rick Ballard]

Chants,

Kinda makes the IIPA chatter from Fitz in his perjured affidavit a little less than compelling don't it?

Or maybe CIA press liasions are tasked to disclose NOCs as part of a double secret undercover ruse?

[danking70]

The prosecution's witness is giving testimony that Harlow told her that Andrea Mitchell was calling him and writing stories about Wilson/Niger and Fitz and the FBI didn't interview her?

Weird.

[hit and run]

Where's clarice?

Waas yesterday and clarice today? Coincidence?

[Sue]

Weird.

So far, the prosecution's case has been made up of entirely weird.

[JohnH]

After Andrea Mitchell reversed her statement about "it was widely known" didn't she deny that she knew about Wilson's wife before the Novak column?
This seems like a pretty big revelation. And with Joe scheduled to go on MTP on July 6, how likely is it that she did not discuss with Russert what she had learned from Harlow?

[sylvia]

The thing I'm still wondering about is why on earth did Libby point to Tim Russert as maybe being his first source - and not just say "some reporter" like Rove did? That was pretty dumb there because by having a name, Fitz could go back and get dates and figure out what else Libby knew around that date, and then get that other person's specific denial. You can't get a denial from just "reporters". That was so stupid that Libby did that, that I kind of wonder whether he really did believe it.

[boris]

I was just thinking about the lovely and gracious JMH this mourning on topics we've discussed wrt perception and memory and my contention that they are more heavily constructed and reconstructed respectively than most people know, when voila there she is!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/libby_trial_subtle_distinctions_difference_between_guilt_and_innocence/
">Joyner on Grenier’s testimony ...

after nearly two years of reading stories about it in the press, he retroactively felt guilty that he might have mentioned that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA and ultimately this guilt became a reconstructed memory that he must have told Libby. This guilt, mind you, despite not even knowing Wilson’s CIA status as a possibly covert agent. That ain’t evidence

So the “evidence” is a number of reconstructed memories compared to Libby’s reconstructed memory and the difference = perjury. This is a situation where a control group should be needed. Have the reconstructed memory witnesses compared to each other. Seems highly unlikely theirs would match up very well. Reconstructions based on fragments and feelings remembered by different individuals are not going to be very similar.

[Rick Ballard]

Harlow disclosed our gal Val to Cathie Martin - not neccessarily to Mitchell. Mitchell may well have tried to do a little vetting of Wilson with the CIA and Harlow would be the fellow to call. After all, the pretense of objectivity is all important to the national press.

[Sue]

EW is back to editorializing.

[JohnH]

Fitz must be getting ready to reveal a real bombshell, because otherwise why did he call Cathy Martin? She is making Libby's case for him:

from "outside the beltway":
At some point “on or before July 9,” Cheney ordered to start keeping track of television commentary on the matter. (Collecting transcripts) Libby was present.

Especially paying attention to “Hardball with Chris Matthews” because “he had been talking about it a lot.” MSNBC was typically slow to provide transcripts.

They also had the ability to capture “shadow clips” for viewing on their computers of various news programs.

She was paying especial attention at that time to the “16 words” controversy.

July 17 talking points from Martin to Arie Fleisher:

-VP’s office did not request mission
-VP office not informed of mission
-VP office not briefed upon return
-VP office not even aware of mission until recent press reports

Second, more expansive talking points list handwritten and undated. Basically say same thing. No reference to “the wife.”

A third, typed version complied from the handwritten version. Apparently from July 18, 2003. Still no mention of “the wife.” Has scribble from Scooter Libby saying “Wilson” and some scribble numbers.

Scooter was going to call reporters, at behest of Cheney

[boris]

Sue, my earliest http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/waas_on_rove.html#comment-16759997" target="_blank">example of the "scapegoat" explanation.

And a later http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/waas_on_rove.html#comment-16781109" target="_blank">take on why he should not be convicted.

[everson]

I think Fitz and Nifong should partner up when this trial is over. They seem to have much in common.

[hit and run]

I think Fitz and Nifong should partner up when this trial is over.

I don't think they let inmates choose their cell mates?

[Ceor]

'Cheney ordered to start keeping track of television commentary on the matter. (Collecting transcripts) Libby was present.'

What matter? Ordered who to keep track? Wilson was going to CNN for an interview with an old Peace Corps friend, Chris Matthews. This is a Peace Corps and Ames issue and needs to be followed because of Plame, Ames, and her interest in some RPCVs. Harlow, was Cathi Martin already Peace Corps Nurse? The problems were coming out of RPCVs and Ames and, now Plame. Plame was considered a danger to those RPCVs.

Selling Plame off was an issue. If she was a threat and Wilson was afraid, it was time to explain who she was because of Ames. Any RPCV familiar with Ames would have talked because she is a threat.

When did Plame stop becoming 'Joe's wife' and 'Valerie Plame' Wilson - CIA operations officer, paramilitarily trained?

What is an SAO?

[cboldt]

-- Fitz must be getting ready to reveal a real bombshell, because otherwise why did he call Cathy Martin? --

Fitzgerald has no bombshell. Martin fits in the chronological order. Next would be Fleischer, then Addington. Fitz's case depends on the cumulative effect of witnesses and their notes. No witness has expressed any personal recollection that Libby showed signs of being aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Schmall's notes on his June 14 TOC are the only evidence that Libby expressed awareness, and the circumstances and lack of corroboration means Schmall could have "fudged" those notes into place at any time.

If Fitz had slam-dunk evidence, there would not be a trial.

[cboldt]

-- What is an SAO? --

Senior Aministration Official.

[Sue]

boris,

Underneath your post on the 'example' thread is one where cboldt responded to something I said. I swear, I have no recollection of writing it. None. Oh well, just interesting, not germane to anything you posted.

If you go back to the around the first time I posted at JOM, the fall of 05, I think, you will find that I thought Rove and Libby had an 'oh shit' moment. No one told us she might have been covert. Now what? I still think that is what happened.

[Sue]

cboldt,

Is this a fauxboldt or the realboldt? Is that what you truly believe or are you playing to your audience?

[helpmeouthere]

I think Fitz and Nifong should partner up when this trial is over. They seem to have much in common.

Posted by: everson | January 25, 2007 at 09:31 AM

Judge Walton told Fitz this morning "You have been one of the most scrupulous prosecutors before me."

[Cecil Turner]

I'm looking at the indictment and so far Fitzgerald's case is tracking chronologically with the allegations in it.

Yes, and I think it's worth reviewing the bidding. The first time the indictment alleges Libby heard of Plame was from Grossman:

6.On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

And he said substantially the same thing under oath. Unfortunately, in Oct 2003, he told the FBI about "two or three telephone conversations" and no face-to-face meetings. That's a major glaring error that can't be reconciled, the first story (no meeting) is obviously more persuasive, and it severely undercuts the contention he ever told Libby about the Plame detail. And since he's tying the date to his meeting calendar, his timeline falls apart as well.

Next up we have Mr Grenier:

7.On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Unfortunately, his actual claim was “I believe I did.” And even that is impossible to reconcile with an IG meeting Grenier had on July 31, 2003 about talking to Libby, in which he "didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame." Again, his latter version is unbelievable, and there's no credible indication he ever mentioned Plame to Libby.

We skip the undisputed VP reference, and go straight to Craig Schmall:

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.

The "displeasure" is obviously a different subject, perfectly valid, and Schmall tracks it down and finds the leaks are disinformation. Further, the only indication of "Valerie Wilson" are Schmall's handwritten notes . . . and he has no recollection of discussing it with Libby (or of much else).

Looks to me like Fitz is 0 for 3 on credibly demonstrating someone actually told Libby about Plame prior to the Wilson article (except for the one mention by the VP which Libby entered into his notes and duly reported to the FBI). It also looks to me like Fitz seriously overstated his evidence in the indictment, and that the witnesses' trend toward more incriminating statements over time suggest either groupthink due to media hype or being coached. In either event, Libby's paranoia over being "scapegoated" is a little more understandable. These were always the weakest of the allegations, but I can't believe this is how Fitz expected to start the case.

[clarice]

I'm back--was busy this morning. I'll check this out.
Is TM a genius or what?
We have proof of Mitchell checking around with Harlow (and I'm sure she was checking with DOS as well on Wilson).
Interesting and Martin knew and she told Libby and Cheney--Does this not confirm that reporters were checking around on this? Yes. Does it prove she made the connection? Not yet. But I bet we'll find out that such an access reporter did find out.

[clarice]

Here's Joyner:
"Discussion of distinctions between on-the-record (attribution by name), background (sourced by job description), and deep background (no direct reference can be made, merely provided for reporter’s information) discussions with press.

Libby generally spoke on background and then required specific requests for quotes to be released.

Libby had a practice of not reading his email, so any emails were sent to Jenny Mayfield, his assistant.

Entry into evidence of Nick Kristoff column “but not for the truth of the matter.” (Exhibit 401)

“Can you describe your reaction when you first read the column?” “Is it fair to say that it was viewed by the White House as a negative article?” Yes, but it’s not like “everyone was running around talking about it.”

“How much attention was paid at the time?” “Not that much.”

Was the issue of the Niger trip in the news at all before the May 6 Kristoff piece?” “Not to my knowledge.”

How did you learn Joe Wilson’s name? “From Bill Harlow at the CIA.” “He’s there equivalent of the public affairs or communications director.”

Can you give a precise date? No. Can you approximate? Sometime between the Kristoff piece and Wilson’s MTP appearance on July 6. “I knew his name already” when he appeared on MTP.

“Were you directed to speak to Mr. Harlow by anyone else?” Once by “press aide at National Security Council” and “another occasion” where Libby told her to pursuant to a telephone call with someone from CIA.

First instance was directed by Michael Anton, high press official in NSC. Normally talked to his boss, Anna Perez. Recollection is that “Anna wasn’t around” because she was with president and his team was in Africa.

What was gist of conversation with Mr. Harlow? Press accounts that VP had sent this guy to Africa, OVP knows nothing about, so who sent him? Harlow relayed that Wilson was sent. Also mentioned that Mrs. Wilson had some role in sending.

Later that day, she went to meet Libby and relayed Joe Wilson’s name and mentioned “apparently his wife works at the CIA.” She “doesn’t remember any specific response.”

Second call to Harlow to find out “who was continuing to call on this story.” OVP worried that press continued to tie Wilson’s trip to OVP even though not true. Harlow “a little less friendly and a little more reluctant.” Relayed that Andrea Mitchell and working on stories about this.

What was ordinary practice in OVP to keep track of news stories? Staff did search and cut-and-pasted stories into Word document with highlights and table of contents.

Did people generally cut things out of print papers? Not often.

At some point “on or before July 9,” Cheney ordered to start keeping track of television commentary on the matter. (Collecting transcripts) Libby was present.

Especially paying attention to “Hardball with Chris Matthews” because “he had been talking about it a lot.” MSNBC was typically slow to provide transcripts.

They also had the ability to capture “shadow clips” for viewing on their computers of various news programs.

She was paying especial attention at that time to the “16 words” controversy.

July 7 talking points from Martin to Arie Fleisher:

-VP’s office did not request mission
-VP office not informed of mission
-VP office not briefed upon return
-VP office not even aware of mission until recent press reports

Second, more expansive talking points list handwritten and undated. Basically say same thing. No reference to “the wife.”

A third, typed version complied from the handwritten version. Apparently from July 8, 2003. Still no mention of “the wife.” Has scribble from Scooter Libby saying “Wilson” and some scribble. Martin relayed that it said “Wilson 3 Points.”

Scooter was going to call reporters, at behest of Cheney, to get OVP’s story out. She thinks that might have happened July 8 but it seemed like a question rather than a statement.

Were there conversations about declassifying the NIE? She had urged that it be done but was not present at any meetings where doing it was ordered"

Cecil that is a brilliant precis..I am blogging it and will put your name in lights.
C

[Rick Ballard]

Thanks, Cecil. That's an excellent tracking summary.

Harlow's non-accidental disclosure concerning Val knocks any potential IIPA jeopardy right out of the water. I think an ethics investigation on the August Fitzgerald affidavit to Tatel is entirely warranted.

[Jane]

I have never been in the courtroom where the judge has made remarks of this nature, concerning a defendant.

Or reporters, or even the lawyers. I'd really like to hear the context of that remark.

[Ranger]

It also looks to me like Fitz seriously overstated his evidence in the indictment...

Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 25, 2007 at 09:57 AM

Yes, which is why he was adiment about not letting the jurors see it. It would create an expectation that he could never fulfill. Which of course raises the question of if the indictment represents a fraud against the court in my mind. He knew from the begining that he didn't have the evidence to back it up, but presented it to the court and the public anyway.

[Jane]

Same question re: this remark:

Judge Walton told Fitz this morning "You have been one of the most scrupulous prosecutors before me."

Makes no sense that some commenter here is hearing that.

[Martin]

Turner-not to disturb you're fantasy, but when someone says y did x, and when y is asked whether he did x, and y's sworn testimony is “I believe I did,” that's a yes.

Can he have his credibility destroyed. Sure, more power to Libby. But isn't it a little discomfiting that Libby's defense is to trash everyone else in the administration as not credible.

Gee-the CIA guy who used to brief Cheney and Libby is either brainwashed: "groupthink" or lying: "coached". That's comforting. What other misinformation is the CIA still feeding Cheney? No wonder Cheney's on CNN saying everything in Iraq is hunky-dory. He's getting briefed by the Manchurian candidate.

Martin's testified she told Libby too. So is it 0 for 4 with you, now? Even Joyner finally has to admit Martin's testimony is damaging. Can you anticipate how the defense will trash her in an hour or so?

She still works for the White House though. So is our real liar in the dock or in White House? It seems a no-win for a Bush supporter either way. Thus York's Dilemma, infra.

[Cecil Turner]

We have proof of Mitchell checking around with Harlow (and I'm sure she was checking with DOS as well on Wilson).

Yes, and her getting the Plame detail from Harlow (especially combined with him giving it to Novak) is big. TM is a genius.

[Ranger]

Judge Walton told Fitz this morning "You have been one of the most scrupulous prosecutors before me."

Yes, and that was apparently right before he chastised him for misleading him about how much work it would be to produce items for the defense counsel:

Fitz brings up a handful of documents.

Wells no–the box.

Fitz four pages, one single-sided, a second single-sided. the next one two pages, double sided. I can tell you that there were copies provided before..

Walton I thought we were talking about reams and reams of documents. With all the lawyer power you got over there I don't think you'll have a problem.

[clarice]

Harlow told Mitchell.
Gregory learned it.
And no one mentioned that to Russert, their boss-

Sure. (Or to quote Imus as he listened to Mitchell's various leaps and flips,"Oh.")

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

You may be conflating what Harlow told Martin with Martin's statement that Harlow told Martin that Mitchell was asking about Wilson.

Martin cannot testify to what Harlow said to Mitchell.

[SunnyDay]

... Further, the only indication of "Valerie Wilson" are Schmall's handwritten notes . . . and he has no recollection of discussing it with Libby (or of much else).

It looks to non-legally-educated me like the sidebar on this was about defense wanting to see the original doc. Perhaps because they think the notes were not on the original, but were added later?

Or did I misunderstand the whole thing? I read Joyner and FDL - comments were too sparse.

[clarice]

Harlow can--and since he wasn't tight lipped with Novak let's guess how tightlipped he was with Greenspan's wife.
Just saying..we haven't the evidence in yet (Cecil may in fact have confused the two) but I have a spidey sense that we will not be disappointed.

[SunnyDay]

Martic, a little test for you - is it possible for you to post without any snark?

A point for you to consider: Libby is looking at prison time, loss of license, and lots of big big legal bills. His defense attorney's are obligated to do anything legally possible to get him acquitted - that means trash anyone, say the administration was scapegoating him, ANYTHING. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to being out that teensy weensy little "shadow" of a reasonable doubt about Libby's guilt that qualifies asquittal.

It doesn't mean it's true. It means it's possible enough to warrant considering it when looking at Libby's situation.

Every time you post you show how little you know about what is going on in that courtroom. You make great entertainment. Keep it up. :)

[Rick Ballard]

What Harlow said to Martin:

What was gist of conversation with Mr. Harlow? Press accounts that VP had sent this guy to Africa, OVP knows nothing about, so who sent him? Harlow relayed that Wilson was sent. Also mentioned that Mrs. Wilson had some role in sending.

Martin about Harlow/Mitchell:

Second call to Harlow to find out “who was continuing to call on this story.” OVP worried that press continued to tie Wilson’s trip to OVP even though not true. Harlow “a little less friendly and a little more reluctant.” Relayed that Andrea Mitchell and working on stories about this.

[Martin]

Turner-you were corrected by Ballard. Congrats on a new low.

Martin's conversation with Harlow is the very one where Grenier handed off the phone to Harlow but was surprised to hear a woman come on the line, yes?

[helpmeouthere]

Ranger your highlighted comment was to Wells not Fitz. Wells wanted to review the documents and be given half a day to do so. Walton was directing that snide 'all that lawyer power' comment to the defense team.

[Martin]

Actually SunnyDay- I believe Bush should pardon Libby without further delay. Not just for me, this trial is further harming his administration, and by extension, the country.

But I believe the White House should simultaneously reveal the whole truth about this affair, take its lumps and move on.

[Ranger]

Ranger your highlighted comment was to Wells not Fitz. Wells wanted to review the documents and be given half a day to do so. Walton was directing that snide 'all that lawyer power' comment to the defense team.

Posted by: helpmeouthere | January 25, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Possible... my take was it was his response to why Fitz hadn't turnd them over yet, despite being asked for them repeatedly.

[hit and run]

Just saw the new (to me anyway) Apuzzo AP article.

Headline: Faulty memories abound at CIA leak trial

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 25, 3:03 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The CIA leak trial has so far been memorable for forgetfulness.

One by one, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's first three witnesses said they discussed with former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby the fact that a prominent Bush administration critic was married to a CIA operative.

And one by one, each witness conceded a memory problem. One could not actually remember the conversation. Another recalled it differently than when he first spoke to investigators. A third said his memory improved as time went on.

The early testimony points up the difficulty prosecutors will have proving their perjury and obstruction case against Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. In a case that hinges on whether Libby lied to investigators or simply remembered poorly, defense lawyers are eager to show a bad memory is in good company.

The article ends with:

Associated Press Writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report

I want to be the first on record ... if/when this particular person misstates some important aspect of the story ...

"What has that guy been Sniffen?"

[Rick Ballard]

If Fitz was strictly following the chronology of the indictment, Miller would be next up. Ari doesn't come onstage in the indictment until July 7.

I would have thought that Fitz might want to take testimony from someone directly involved in the charges by this point. Give the jury something to mull over for the weekend.

Clarice,

No trial court on Fridays, right?

[danking70]

"Martin cannot testify to what Harlow said to Mitchell."

That's true but Harlow is expected to take the stand and can be asked what he told Mitchell.

I'd put money on some form of "I forgot". Though I'm only 70/30 sure.

Then we can compare any response to AM's notes as well as direct questioning of Mrs. Greenspan. Harlow had no problem telling Novak about Mrs. Wilson so why would he be tight-lipped with AM?

Russert's foundation is getting shakier and shakier.

[boris]

Matt Apuzzo:

“We didn’t send him,” Martin recalled saying. “If we didn’t send him, you must’ve sent him. Who sent him?”

That’s when Martin said the CIA spokesman told her that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

Suggest the CIA spokesman did not actually say "It was his wife Valerie Plame who sent him, the CIA had nothing to do with it". It probably went more like this ...

CIA: "Yeah we sent Wilson ... "

Martin: "Why him instead of an agent?"

CIA: "Well his wife works here and he knows the region and we used him once before"

More Apuzzo:

Cheney took a personal interest in the issue, Martin said, and in the following days dictated media “talking points” making it clear that his office was not responsible for the Wilson trip.

James Joyner requests clarification:

I asked Matt what he meant with “the issue,” and he says he means the issue of who initiated the trip; i.e., that it wasn’t the Vice President’s office. As written, though it might lead people to think it was Plame’s role. No testimony so far has given that impression.

Seems like there's a lot of conflatin' goin' on out there. Interest in Joe Wilson and his disinfo = interest in Valerie Plame. Aint necessarily so. Not until the MSM turned it into a scandal.

[cathyf]

Given what I've read of Walton, I don't think he's "concerned" about being reversed on appeal (or afraid of political or other fallout) in a way that would cause him to shirk his role as a trial judge.

cboldt, I'm interested in your opinion of why Walton didn't take the option of shutting this whole thing down with Libby's argument that Fitzgerald's appointment is unconstitutional. I agree with you that he doesn't seem overly concerned with political fallout or being reversed on appeal. I thought that Libby's argument was insightful and very convincing. and Fitzgerald's response very weak.

Perhaps it's more a question of "thinking outside the box"? After all, when you have a federal prosecutor with accompanying support staff, 2+ years of legal process including something that went all the way to the supreme court, put somebody in jail for 3 months, etc., etc., etc., it would take some real intestinal fortitude to have an Emily Litella "never mind" reaction. It's one thing to do whatever it takes in his role as trial judge, quite another to say that he has no role as trial judge -- because there is no trial trial judge because there is no trial, there is no trial because there is no indictment, there is no indictment because there is no investigation, there is no investigation because there is no investigator, there is no investigator because the office that Comey and Fitzgerald constructed cannot exist under the constitution.

[Martin]

Novak was calling already knowing who Plame was and seeking confirmation and Harlow asked him not to publish.

That's a big difference from this new fantasy that Harlow spoonfed it to Mitchell.

[Martin]

Now Cathie M. officially confirms bad news is released late on Fridays. We really are inside the sausage factory.

[Rick Ballard]

From indictment:

23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.

Martin testimony:

Once they landed back at Andrews, Libby made a call to Cooper in her presence. Not on speaker phone, so she only heard Libby’s side.

Cooper new to WH beat, so had not previously spoken. No discussion about Amb. Wilson’s wife.

Just a tiny problem that I'm sure Fitz will straighten out.

[clarice]

Rick, the schedule is no hearings on Fridays-

Cecil--note the neon lights--
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/the_first_3_witnesses_in_the_l.html
Cathyf--he may have thought that that was a first impression decision of substantial magnitude and one better suited for an appellate court to make--
I, too, thought that was a logical, well-reasoned and beautifully written argument.

[Martin]

That's what Cooper for!

Martin could only hear Libby's side-so she only hears Libby say "Yes" when Cooper asks 'Have you "heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger."

Martin doesn't know Cooper was discussing Plame: "LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification..." i.e. a simple yes or no.

No problem. Except for Libby.

[Ranger]

Just a tiny problem that I'm sure Fitz will straighten out.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 25, 2007 at 11:28 AM

This is very strange. I guess it is still a false statement by Libby. He said he talked about it with Cooper but he didn't. So, Fitz can say the charge still stands, even if the details in the indictment are wrong.

[Martin]

Oh vey-Ranger-you guys are reaching! Libby confirmed it to Cooper! No elaborate discussion. Cooper already knew from Fleischer, I suppose.

True it depends on what Cooper says. But the guy already proved he ain't going to jail for Libby.

And Fitz knew what he was going to say when he drafted the indictment.

[hit and run]

Cecil in Lights

[Rick Ballard]

Cathie Martin:

When Cooper’s article came out Monday, she found it had been shortened considerably and taken out of context. Had discussion with Libby about how to fix this. She also called Cooper and expressed her displeasure that she had put him on the phone with Libby and he’d screwed up the quote. Cooper offered to put the full quote on the Web.

Add that to Walton's comment that Cooper is apparently self-impeached in his own notes and Fitz has a bit of an uphill march on the Cooper counts.

[danking70]

Cooper's testimony is impeachable and that came from the judge.

[Ranger]

New thread up by the way.

[cboldt]

Question / Answer Cathie Martin:

Prior to the newspaper article by Novak, had any reporters contacted you about Mrs. Wilson's working at CIA? No.

I wonder what sort of footprint or impression an "all the reporters are talking about it" rumor would have on Martin. Would she be hearing that from reporters herself? Her staff?

I'm wondering whether she would be spared the input that might create the impression "all the reporters are telling us that," while Libby would be getting the calls, questions and comments.

[ent]

Wilson three points.
Grenier third sentiment?

Cheney has to say everything is okay in Iraq. Grenier, who ran it for CIA, is testifying.

Why him instead of an agent? Wilson's dad was an agent. Wilson may have been an agent, and retired. Larry is a retired agent and someone sent him to Africa. See, it's all normal, except for the fact that the terrorists respond to Larry and Val.

The Fitz thing is strange because is supposed to be prosecuting a criminal conspiracy to commit murder/treason and, instead, he is prosecuting for a bad agent who had her named leaked a long time ago.

Yahoo is selling pictures now and I guess Libby is the debut. What's that guy with the razor doing at the bottom of the screen? AT&T commercial?

I thought thinking outside the box and group think went back to CIA as a manager, well, maybe a blue.

[clarice]

And about the time of that ruling, Cooper left Time for another publication not then in existence.

Coincidence?
I think not.

[cboldt]

Bah - I really screwed up my phrasing in that last. I know exactly what I was thinking, but said it poorly. Anyway, the gist of the question supposes an active rumor mill among reporters. Would Libby be in that mill, while Martin is out of it? Do reporters ask "rumor" questions of Martin? In general.

Would Martin's staff be receiving calls from reporters? Same idea - just wondering aloud from the supposition of more than a few reporters (and we have more than a few, Miller, Cooper, Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, all the reporters than might have read Novak's column as of July 11 when it was sent out to syndicators) knowing "Mrs. Wilson's wife works at the CIA and had a hand in arranging Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger."

[clarice]

So --Do we think Harlow did not disclose to the FBI he'd talked to Mitchell?
Given that and her tap dances on Imus, the FBI still didn't question her she says.
Gregory knew, too, and they never questioned him.
As for Russert they let him wander in and chat on his own terms.

This reverse battleships inquiry is looking more and more like a sound predicate for a claim of malicious prosecution.

No one can be this stupid .

[Sue]

Earlier it was noted that she mentioned David Martin. I thought maybe it was in reference to David Gregory, but it seems there really is a http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/broadcasts/main524917.shtml>David Martin who "has been CBS News’ national security correspondent, covering the Pentagon and the State Department, since 1993".

[Florence Schmieg]

Actually, one Saturday on the "Tim Russsert Show" Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, and someone else I don't recall who were sitting around discussing the investigation. They began talking about the FBI and Mitchell admitted that yes, she was interviewed by the FBI but that after that one encounter they never pursued anything with her again. That's all she said about it on that show. On that show also, Russert told them that Libby had called him as a viewer, not as a source, to complain about a program. They were all very casual and relaxed with one another and I thought it strange that Mitchell said what she did to them. They seemed surprised. I do not recall Gregory saying anything about what he knew.

[owl]

LOL... I guess better late than never that the OVP finally realized that someone better be watching the MTP/Hardball crew.

They wrote the script, produced it and are now the starring witnesses. Nice, huh?

[Other Tom]

"Martin cannot testify to what Harlow said to Mitchell."

Sure she can, so long as the testimony is not offered to prove that what Harlow said to Mitchell is true--and it would not be offered for that ppurpose. I can get on the stand and say, "I heard A say to B, 'C is in town.'" My testimony can't be used to establish that C was in town, but it can always be used to establish that B cannot deny being on notice that C might be in town.

Martin can say, "Harlow told me that he told Mitchell X, Y and Z." If we are not seeking to establish the truth of X, Y or Z, then all that is at issue is whether Harlow did or did not say that to Martin. Martin is one the stand, and can be cross-exmained on the point. There is no more need to cross-examine Harlow on this issue than there would be a need to cross-examine a stoplight if Martin testified, "I saw the stoplight and it was green."

[Cecil Turner]

You may be conflating what Harlow told Martin . . .

No, and I'm not claiming it's more than suggestive, but . . . Harlow told Martin about Plame (which, if she were actually covert, he certainly shouldn't have done). Harlow handled press inquiries. Harlow told Novak about Plame. Did Harlow tell anyone else? I think the default position has to be: "most likely." At which point the "what are we doing here, anyway" question has to enter any juror's open mind (if there is one). Again, I think this is big (but not huge--like the changing witness versions--unless there's some direct evidence).

Cecil--note the neon lights--

Thanks Clarice.

[HG]

LOL means what?
Now its OVP and not Cheney. Cheney is OVP now?

Screw up or down, it's the same.

I got alot about the FBI going international like DEA, which, really, is the NOC for WMD and terror, unlike CIA, but, I guess, that no one figured on that being a problem.

Since 93'? That's when the other RPCV COS'd. So what would that one know? Ask Wilson about his Feb 19/20 dates that Aimes was arrested. Wilson was a dupe for the Plame operations officer work in Africa and the documents in Italy. Ames was a dupe. Howard was a dupe.

I've met some trianers. None CIA. Plame was a trainer? This would explain using Wilson on the trips to Africa, just like Howard and Ames' trainer used them.

Star covers Pentagon.

[PeterUK]

For those who couldn't find the linkPENELOPE CRUZ at the crucial meeting
Go on then concentrate!

[hit and run]

Peter - I'm a big fan of your work here on JOM. I've read comments from you for years now. In a ranking of JOM commenters you undoubtedly would be in the top 5 - with very strong competition.

I am not exaggerating and not hesitating when I say that that is easily the best contribution you have made to this blog.

[pollyusa]

Marcy Wheeler and Byron York are on C-SPAN live now 7:55AM. Wheeler not getting much said so far, York doing all the talking

[PeterUK]

H&R,
Thanks,the photo session was hell,just couldn't keep her on that couch,but we got there in the end.

[hit and run]

You perseverance is commendable. No doubt it involved a stiff...er...upper lip.

[PeterUK]

No,Blu-Tack,we stuck her on with Blu-Tack.

[TCO]

The good thing about this whole process is those who had there heads in the sand about Libby lying are starting to take more seriously the strong likelihood that he did.

[boris]

Actually just the opposite, princess.

It's become rather clear that the case against Libby is based primarily on reconstructed "memories". Reasonable people know that memories reconstructed by different individuals are going to vary to a significant degree.

Also the factoid supposed to be interesting, that Valerie played a key role in planning the mission and selecting Joe, has not been testified to. Instead only that "his wife works for the CIA". That's not particularly interesting as it only indicates a comfort factor in using him.

Two of the main foundations for speculation on this case have turned out to be quite shakey. It had been assumed by many that the witness memories were clear rather than reconstructed, and that Valerie Plame's role in the mission had been discussed with Libby. Not so.