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.
Wilson's ego might not survive this trial. Seriously, they need to keep a close eye on his ego. It might commit suicide.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 04:31 PM
Oh great-EW at FireDogLAke-did the AP link to her directly-
J Do you remember my question. If you let me ask the questions and then you can answer them. [boy Jeffress is a big d*ck!]
asterisk added.
I think I'll redact my "I'm unfair" comment>
Plus this description of Schmall-
Schmall looks kind of rat-like. He has a very small chin. Dark hair. A rust? color tie. Biggish ears. (What is it with these big-eared people).
You know bloggers probably worked hard to get credentialed and this is what she does with "her" access.
Classy.
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 04:31 PM
""Walton new instruction, No evidence will be presented to you as to Valerie Wilson's status and whether or not disclosure posed a risk of damage to security. Her actual status, or damage, are totally irrelevant to your assessment of defendant's guilt or innocence. You may not speculate or guess about them. You may consider what Mr. Libby believed about her status.""
Yay for Walton! Libby saw note she was "CIA managerial type" (State dept. sneer) He won't chastise Fitzy for this break because Wells pulled a stunt like that too in his opening.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:32 PM
MEMORIES.MISTY MEMORIES
Joyner:"Discussion of Schmall’s January 8, 2004 interview with FBI. Told them that first time discussed the issue with Libby was after Novak article appeared? “Yes, that is correct.”
The next day, you sent email to colleague? Yes. “You told colleague that your memory of the events was quite poor, which probably extended the session?” Yes. "
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:33 PM
I began to notice a change in Walton a couple of weeks ago and it culminated when Clarice was wondering what Walton saw in the present re: Andrea Mitchell that wasn't being seen many moons ago.
I think Walton finally clued into the fact that Fitz had indicted on the basis of big case facts and then wanted to limit the defense to only his small case presentation. At some point, I think Walton realized that it would be impossible for Libby to get a fair trial with such a limitation. I think Walton had his thinking confirmed when he saw that the jury pool was thoroughly indoctrinated to the big case claims of the media and the prosecution.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 24, 2007 at 04:35 PM
I think in the batch of exculpatory evidence or in some other discovery , Wells found out about Gregory and that's what changed his mind about the relevance of Mitchell's notes, Sara, not some holistic eye opening.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:37 PM
BZZT 0-3
Joyner:
"Asked whether he had mentioned anything about Valerie or Joe Wilson in said email, he couldn’t recall. Presented the email, he quickly read and noted he did not.
April 22, 2004 you had second interview with govt? Sounds about right. He does not recall that Patrick Fitzgerald, or any government prosecutors, were there, despite memoranda to that affect. “I don’t have any independent memory of that.” "
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:39 PM
“I don’t have any independent memory of that.”
Is someone paying these guys to make Libby's case for him? 3 up, 3 down, so far. Memory experts not necessary.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 04:40 PM
That's what I mean, Clarice. Holistic? Moi? I don't think so. *smile*
I'm just saying that he seems, from his current rulings, to be **slightly** more open to Libby than he was in the early going. But, that may just be the difference between pretrial hearings hammering out dos and don'ts and actual trial.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 24, 2007 at 04:41 PM
It's fair to say that so far the prosecution's argument that Libby could not have forgotten because so many people told him in June officially is so far going nowhere. Who else is on the list?
Fleischer and Martin? Anyone else?
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:42 PM
""He does not recall that Patrick Fitzgerald, or any government prosecutors, were there, despite memoranda to that affect. “I don’t have any independent memory of that.” ""
Gosh, can't Walton shut down this trial for Naitonal Security reasons? These witnesses are proving our top intelligence officials are either incompetent liars or buffoons.
Scary when you think about it...
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Clarice,
I just don't see how you can expect these important government witnesses to remember anything so inconsequential as Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame. Why should they?
Besides, this has nothing to do with Libby's crime.
Can you deny that he's a Republican?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 24, 2007 at 04:43 PM
"C You're teling me Mr. Fitzgerald is forgettable."
One can hope...
Posted by: Dan S | January 24, 2007 at 04:45 PM
HEH..
Rick, you're a betting man. What do you suppose are the odds that Fleischer and Martin haven't voluntarily spoken to defense counsel and that their testimony will prove as inconclusive as the first 3 star witnesses?
I'm not an odds expert like you but I'd say somewhere between bupkus and gornisht.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Sarah,
Did you hear what the Judge said to the jurors about incorrect information in the news?
Message made.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:46 PM
So far, Fitzgerald's case is not air tight. I wish Jeff would come over and tell me where I am going wrong. Even cboldt would be okay. Though I tend to SOB* him. (*scroll on by)
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 04:46 PM
"C You're telling me Mr. Fitzgerald is forgettable."
One can hope...""
I smell a motion to reintroduce the memory expert who forgot about meeting Fitzgerald too!! LOL.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:47 PM
OT for Clarice -- a little humor. The "other side" on my civil case insisted I see one of their handpicked orthopods. They picked one that was as far from my home as they could get and still be in the same county. I went this morning, a 67 mile drive to get there. He saw me for all of 5 minutes. When he was leaving, I said, laughing, "I drove 67 miles for that?" He turned and in all seriousness said, "no, you drove 67 miles for this!" He held up a form and showed me that he'd written "Back terrible, in extremus(sp?)."
I'm still laughing. He is the expert for the other side. Sounds like the late G&G this morning in the Libby trial.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 24, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Joyner:
"April 24, 2004 sent email saying he was still looking for notes. “Still looking for any notes that would have triggered my memory.”
BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE IT'S BETTER ALMOST THREE YEARS LATER
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Oh come on. Libby's defense is his job was so important how can he remember niggling details like treason, but he has time to meet with Tom Cruise about how scientologists are treated in Germany!? And get excited about it?
Convicted.
Posted by: Martin | January 24, 2007 at 04:48 PM
jAVANI--THANKS..I'd forgotten that ..really.
Sara, what good news.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:50 PM
"So far, Fitzgerald's case is not air tight."
I SO want to riff on that, but I'll exercise restraint.
Posted by: Dan S | January 24, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Joyner: Witness excused until tomorrow morning..
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 04:51 PM
I SO want to riff on that, but I'll exercise restraint.
Why not? No one exercises around here.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Martin:
"..but he has time to meet with Tom Cruise about how scientologists are treated in Germany!? And get excited about it?
Convicted."
LOL. I knew your poses were blogosphere performance art. You're good.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:56 PM
-- Even cboldt would be okay. Though I tend to SOB* him. (*scroll on by) --
Heh.
Posted by: cboldt | January 24, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Rather read Clarice liveblogging, but EW did pretty well today.
I did make the mistake of reading the comments though. *winces*
Posted by: Dan S | January 24, 2007 at 04:59 PM
""I SO want to riff on that, but I'll exercise restraint.""
So far..
1. So far Everybody's memory has changed. Not charged with perjury, selective prosecution will be argued along with the memory defense.
2. Any prejudicial respect for top intel officials on the part of the jury is shot to hell by their "mis-memories" and words like "oh dear!"
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 04:59 PM
'Did you hear what the Judge said to the jurors about incorrect information in the news?'
Is the judge going over Plame's admission in 'vanity fair' that she is a CIA operations officer, paramilitarily trained; that was confirmed by Jim and Larry, her farm mates? The foreign intelligence investigations couldn't ask for better confirmation and neither could the terrorists who killed those operations officers in Iraq.
Reading comments is never a mistake. Adult s do it all the time and are okay.......
What does riff and AE mean?
Posted by: purorinwestigation | January 24, 2007 at 05:07 PM
'Can somebody please enter a pic of Penelope Cruz into evidence?'
We true connoisseurs of las Madrilenas prefer Paz Vega.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | January 24, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Heh.
Heh, yourself. Can you hurry up and get up to speed so I can see another side to what I'm seeing? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Cathie Martin is up tomorrow?
Posted by: Sue | January 24, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Don't know. Schmall's cross continues
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 05:53 PM
from Javani...
to the JOM lawyers guild...
So didn't the Prosecution just show that when the INR memo dropped for the first time that not only Libby, but Grenier, a top CIA official, got a chance to meet big Hollywood stars-TC and PC. The TC stuff seemed to be much more memorable than the back story on a marginal mission. Isn't this part of the Libby defense...Plame was an unimportant detail and "I'm a busy man" defense. Am I missing something, or thinking too much?
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Not only that but they gave the jurors something they could relate to--what's really important and what isn't.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 06:09 PM
from Martin
Libby's defense is his job was so important how can he remember niggling details like treason
Wow Martin, I thought Libby was only charged with false statements and obstruction. The prosecution seems to have made a pretty good case that the INR memo, with that small detail about Wilson and his wife, got pretty good circulation. They all seem to have made a splash that concurrent with the INR memo principles were getting hounded by Tom Cruise-trivial details...isn't this case suppose to be about Russert, Cooper, and Miller?
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 06:11 PM
pimf...
They all seem ...They ALSO seem
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 06:13 PM
from clarice...
Not only that but they gave the jurors something they could relate to--what's really important and what isn't.
Scary...Tom Cruise whining about how German's treat (unnamed group) IMPORTANT
A former ambassador going on a junket and able to tell the DC-NYC party circuit all about it without anyone from CIA, State, or OVP able to get timely answers UNIMPORTANT
Joe Wilson, smoking a cigar, regaling reports at his DC home of his African tea sampling abilities...Priceless
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Welcome to Rome.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Gosh, can't Walton shut down this trial for Naitonal Security reasons? These witnesses are proving our top intelligence officials are either incompetent liars or buffoons.
I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I think that's unfair.
These people got it wrong, they don't remember what they thought they did. It happens to all of us. It isn't their fault Fitzgerald indicted on it.
The only buffoon in this affair is the bouffant.
ps.h&r- the mirror!! Ha ha ha ha ha
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 06:23 PM
The TC stuff seemed to be much more memorable than the back story on a marginal mission.
Another huh? moment as to why fitz thought his testimony would be so useful to the prosecution. Obviously fitz wanted to establish that Libby was told on that date that Wilson's wife was CIA.
But if the briefer can only remember the Tom Cruise stuff? and that Libby was excited about it? Don't you think it's possible that that is all Libby would remember too?
Am I missing something, or thinking too much?
Not at all.
Though I hope that Libby's team points this out more clearly!
Posted by: Syl | January 24, 2007 at 06:24 PM
Tom Cruise day at the State Dept is the day Armitage told Woodward.
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 06:26 PM
"Am I missing something"
Nope, you got it.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 06:28 PM
Tom Cruise day at the State Dept is the day Armitage told Woodward
Yeah, Armitage met with Tom that day. Now we know the truth! Tom Cruise is the leaker! :)
Posted by: Syl | January 24, 2007 at 06:29 PM
The judge did have an epiphany, but I don't think it was while reading Mitchell's notes. I think it occurred during jury selection. He as much as stated "I can't believe that the entire jury pool has fallen for the lies in the media." Walton knows she was outed by Ames, and reouted by the Cuban message. And would have been re re reouted by her gabby boyfriend/husband if she were still covert when she hooked up with gabby Joe Wilson. But Walton knows she was (1) Never very covert. (2) In her last 5 or more years of employment, she had no contact with covert agents in any setting that would link them to the CIA through her. (3) The CIA's own damage assessment showed no adverse impact from the Novak article.
Now being a good technical judge he has instructed the jury to disregard her status. But, being a fair judge, he realizes that he has, or might have 12 people on that jury that came in believing that Plame was covert and this trial is about Libby intentionally outing her and then lying to cover it. Unlike the other 3,946 people who outed her innocently. He knows that Fitz has made his case in the press, and doesn't have to reintroduce it at the trial. So, in order for Libby to have a fair trial, the defense must be allowed to "accidentally" provide proof of her non-covert status.
Team Libby is well on their way to proving that. I can hardly wait for Tenet's testimony to see if Wells is allowed to ask. "Were you contacted by the administration as to Valerie Plame Wilson's status, and, if so, what was your response.
Posted by: Lew Clark | January 24, 2007 at 06:34 PM
To all. Drudge on Drudgeregort.com now has flashing siren:
"CIA MEMO REVEALED - FEMALE CASE OFFICER COMPLAINED ABOUT MEETING WITH TOM CRUISE AND PENELOPE CRUZ...more to follow"
Plame?
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 06:38 PM
LOL...in the Wheels latest post at TNH they are talking about the niger docs and asking why didn't CIA know they were forgeries
I told them to ask Val since the niger docs were found in the CPD safe
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 06:42 PM
What was she complaining about--they asked for a threesome? It distracted Libby and Grenier from concentrating on the beauteous Plame?
My hair is on fire waiting for an answer.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 06:44 PM
And, BTW!
Way back when I was an "Intelligence Professional", Joey Heatherton came to Vietnam with a USO show. To this day, I remember what she was (almost) wearing, what she sang, and every dance move. I can't remember 5 words about my super top secret mission or how it turned out.
So if you are not now, or never have been an "Intelligence Professional", don't tell us what is memorable and what is not!
Irony Off. That will be all!
Posted by: Lew Clark | January 24, 2007 at 06:47 PM
Wow! Now up on drudgeregort.com
"CIA MEMO REVEALED - FEMALE CASE OFFICER COMPLAINED ABOUT MEETING WITH TOM CRUISE AND PENELOPE CRUZ...
CASE OFFICER WROTE MEMO TO TENET ABOUT CONDUCT OF MALE HIGH OFFICIALS...SPECIAL CIA MEETING WITH TOM CRUISE AND PENELOPE CRUZ...THE MEN OGLED PENELOPE IGNORING TOM'S TALK ABOUT RELIGION...TOM JUMPED UP AND DOWN TO GET THEIR ATTENTION...FOR TWO DAYS OFFICER TRIED TO GET THE MEN REFOCUSED ON TERRORISM, WAR, SECURITY AND "SOME STUPID STORY ABOUT NIGER OR NIGERIA AND WILSON'S WIFE..." ALL THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT IS PENELOPE...FURTHER OFFICER COMPLAINS PENELOPE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LET ON PREMISES "THE WAY SHE WAS INAPPRORIATELY DRESSED"
Developing...
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 06:51 PM
--"CIA MEMO REVEALED - FEMALE CASE OFFICER COMPLAINED ABOUT MEETING WITH TOM CRUISE AND PENELOPE CRUZ...more to follow"--
I've not been able to catch up...is this real? I don't see it on Drudge.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 06:54 PM
OK...I was thinking it was a joke.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 06:55 PM
Javani-
Wow I don't see it is it flash or somethin"?
Dang it.
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 06:55 PM
Did Schmall testify that Libby was jumping up and down on the couch with excitment regarding the Cruise visit?
I would hope Libby was more excited to meet P Cruz, then T Cruise.
Posted by: Patton | January 24, 2007 at 06:56 PM
OMG...
...FOR TWO DAYS OFFICER TRIED TO GET THE MEN REFOCUSED ON TERRORISM, WAR, SECURITY AND "SOME STUPID STORY ABOUT NIGER OR NIGERIA AND WILSON'S WIFE"...
Some stupid story indeed. And to think CIA officials didn't even think about Wilson's wife...Fitzgerald has to be going for a mistrial...he can point to Comey and say, "he made me do it"
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Geez, and these are the prosecution witnesses.
And every one seems to have 'can't remember sh!t' disease, just like Libby.
If I were Libby's lawyer I'd start asking these guys, every time they say their memory has been refreshed or they now remember some new detail, something like "but the Special Prosecutor hasn't charged you with lying, has he?.
Posted by: Dwilkers | January 24, 2007 at 06:58 PM
"Wow I don't see it is it flash or somethin"?"
You're probably looking at that boring Drudge Report site. My info is from Drudge Regort, a different drudge, some call fictional.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Very good, Javani.
Grab the addys of those who believed--and we can sell them to Phishers of men.
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Javani-
You'll be hearing from Tom Cruise for that.
No One messes with Scientology!
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 07:01 PM
I am still believing Javani's hoax....cept it was Val complaining cuz Penelope wore a tighter dress
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 07:01 PM
You're probably looking at that boring Drudge Report site. My info is from Drudge Regort, a different drudge, some call fictional.
truth stranger than fiction. Yes, Javani, got me all of 3 minutes. Woulldn't it be funny though if such an email really existed. Laugh it up and sign me up for all the phishers...
Man I feel like an idiot
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 07:04 PM
I can't find my other comment, but did you see what the INR said about Joe's planning to go to Niger?
They were obviously mocking him.
I said it before and I'll say it again...a man with a smaller ego would have seen "if you want your story told, you'll have to write it yourself" as a blow-off.
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 07:04 PM
NRSC Petition urging our Republican Senators to vote against all non-binding resolutions.
Posted by: lurker | January 24, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Man I feel like an idiot.
Na let's come up with a cover story.{which is what that transcript that Tom last pointed to entre Mitchell, Russert and Gregory sounded like.}
We're jaded-nothing surprises us as to how stupid this has gotten.
Something like that.
Hell I can't believe clarice actually thinks calling NBC is worthwhile....
Heh.
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 07:11 PM
from the comments above:
He went to talk to the IG about the forgeries on June 11th (maybe with the INR memo) and this has nothing to do with Wilson. Wasn't Wilson shopping this as the "whistleblower whopper"?
RichatUF
//drudgeregort...I really wanted to believe
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Sunny Day has the INR memo--thought Joe was an ass clown, the mission a joke, and the behesting was by Plame.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v170/serenitybreeze/Libby%20trial/
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 07:16 PM
from roanoke
Na let's come up with a cover story
What nobody told me it was the drudgeregort? And wow, that Penelope, she's hot...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 07:18 PM
from roanoke
Na let's come up with a cover story
What nobody told me it was the drudgeregort? And wow, that Penelope, she's hot...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 07:19 PM
lurker -
If I'm ready to give up on those pols it's bad.
During the SOTU I'll I could keep thinking is I wish those bastards would get the hell out of the way.
You know half of them couldn't even stand up to applaud for "victory" that was too contaversial for them and there are guys and gals in the military risking their lives, earning less, and losing their families.
They can't risk their "popularity" to do the longterm right thing.
It's the usual vanities too.
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 07:20 PM
Wilson's presence would make the information spill forth...or he would scare them from making future sales.
State wanted nothing to do with him.
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 07:26 PM
CIA Manager Testifies Sending Wilson Was Val’s Idea
Sweet and Light took note of an omission in Matt Apuzzo's article published by AP.
So, MayBee, aren't the Wilsons now working for Bill Richardson, who is considering the '08 Presidential campaign?
Posted by: lurker | January 24, 2007 at 07:33 PM
Here it is:
Wilson believed the Nigeriens, understanding that he had worked at the NSC, would believe that he represented "national commmand authority" and that word of his presence would stir things up to such and extent that information would tumble out and/or the Nigeriens, if they were indeed planning on selling uranium to Iraq, would get scared and discontinue the sales project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the INR on our mighty hero.
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 07:34 PM
I thought the fake documents came out of the Nigerian embassy in Italy or something?
Posted by: MW | January 24, 2007 at 07:35 PM
I cannot get over the shape of Libby's skull.
Posted by: TruthProbe | January 24, 2007 at 07:37 PM
roanoke, sickening, isn't it?
Even my stern email to Hagel had no effect on him to no one's surprise.
Posted by: lurker | January 24, 2007 at 07:38 PM
David Corn's take (version)
He still thinks Fitz still has a chance.
Posted by: lurker | January 24, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Clarice:
Thanks for the link:
"Joe only played a walk-on part"
Ouch.!
See page two, it was State not CIA who doubted the aluminum pipes. Oh well, there goes the Valery challenged the aluminum pipe story..
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 07:41 PM
So, isn't it wrong to give a contract to your relative, husband, who's dad was a CIA operations officer in Spain?
Richardson is already screwed like Kerry?
Posted by: Bl | January 24, 2007 at 07:42 PM
So?
Does it matter whether Libby, Cheney, et al, knew about the Wilsons or not? What matters is who leaked Plame's identity to the public.
Posted by: lurker | January 24, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Aims.
Posted by: BR | January 24, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Damn I am having a hard time keeping up - too busy.
Maybee
What is this, where is it from, what does it mean?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 07:53 PM
lurker-
You know what?
God bless you for trying.
Hagel I was thinking of exactly him and Warner he's jumped ship hasn't he?{the irony...)
It's come to the point where I can barely look anymore.
Posted by: roanoke | January 24, 2007 at 07:53 PM
FURTHER OFFICER COMPLAINS PENELOPE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LET ON PREMISES "THE WAY SHE WAS INAPPRORIATELY DRESSED"
So this whole case could come down to the poor memories of men who were distracted by Penelope Cruz?
Posted by: lyle | January 24, 2007 at 07:53 PM
Bush' SOTU got very favorable reviews from the viewers..
Posted by: clarice | January 24, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Did Patrick Fitzgerald forget that it's an abuse of protest to haul people before a grand jury when it's clear, or ought to have been clear to him if he was doing his job, that no crime had been committed other than vicious, partisan, fallacious and treasonous attacks upon the CIC in a time of war.
Posted by: Terry Gain | January 24, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Sorry Tops-
That is from the INR memo, in the summary of the meeting at the CIA with Plame and Wilson.
Posted by: MayBee | January 24, 2007 at 08:00 PM
"He still thinks Fitz still has a chance."
So do I. The trial is scheduled to last 16-24 days and Fitz is getting his Arkansas Alzheimer's witnesses in early. I'm with Barney concerning the jury. You can't know what will stick in their minds but (IMO) the last third of the trial is what they will address first in deliberation.
Quick - what was the most important thing you remember about December 22? How about December 28?
Last Friday?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 24, 2007 at 08:04 PM
I have the honor of being banned from both TalkLeft and FireDogLake. The former axed me simply for expressing disagreement with their orthodoxy; the latter for cutting-and-pasting excertps from the blog of the estimable Larry Johnson, which were (correctly) deemed obscene. So I'm in exile, and I appreciate being kept up to speed on their rantings by posters here.
By far the most fun right now is waiting for each successive post from Martin/Don, who seems to be feeling a bit out of sorts at this point. (Hint for Martin: Try "Abraham" and "John" next, big fella.)
Posted by: Other Tom | January 24, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Oh well, there goes the Valery challenged the aluminum pipe story..
You know, was it Condi Rice who sought input from expert scientists? Like she wasn't altogether sure this analysts was trained or capable of knowing what they heck these tubes were for?
And not having read everything, but I am getting the sense that CIA types were flooding with unsolicited WMD like reporting then privately telling the willing media they were pressured and warning the admin, cherry-picking blah, blah, blah...or something like that...does that sound right?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Last Friday?
I got lucky and it's seared in my brain
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 08:12 PM
flooding "the admin" with unsolicited WMD like reporting then privately telling
I meant
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 08:14 PM
"I got lucky and it's seared in my brain"
Were you wearing a magic hat?
It's just a goshdarned shame that Jon Carey isn't going to run. I believe him to be the best Democratic politician of his generation.
The scummy jerk.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 24, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Scooter Libby’s CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, reports that he and Libby had a discussion on Saturday* June 14, 2003 about a visit from Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz, with the former interested in talking about Germany’s treatment of Scientologists. Libby was apparently quite excited about the visit.
Just got up to speed on his.
Richard Armitage DID have a meeting with Tom Cruise about this very thing on the week he met with Woodward -
Just in case this wasn't mentioned.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 08:20 PM
the essential Cheney
BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?
CHENEY: No, I don’t.
BLITZER: Why?
CHENEY: Because she’s a Democrat.
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 08:24 PM
a fireguppie sums things up
My only concern is that the members of the jury will walk out of the courtroom confused about what they heard. In closing statements Fitz will no doubt be reminding them that they heard all these people say they told Libby about Wilson’s wife being CIA, but the jurors are going to remember hearing a bunch of talk about whether the witnesses remember actually doing that.
snort!
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 08:29 PM
My vote for best passage from the Grenier testimony (note - from FDL, not official)
J does your memory get better with time?
G It depends.
J did you find a note?
G what improved was what I remember thinking and feeling afterwards. That only came to me afterwards. What triggered it and why, I don't know.
J And when did you forget that feeling?
G I didn't recall it.
J What triggered that feeling?
G I wish I could tell you.
Posted by: Javani | January 24, 2007 at 08:38 PM
I sort of recall that when Fitzgerald's excellent adventure began there were a few of us - including myself - where due to his apparent complete ineptness, it crossed my mind for approximately a nanosecond that maybe Fitz was really on the administrations side in this. That he was really going to just bungle along and ultimately expose the media, the CIA, DoS, etc, as the traitorous frauds they truly are.
So far in this "trial", that plan seems to be fulfilling, though that is the farthest thing from Fitz's mind. He still believes he has a case. I dunno what case he thinks he has, but he firmly belieeeeeeeeeeves.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | January 24, 2007 at 08:39 PM
from TS9
Richard Armitage DID have a meeting with Tom Cruise about this very thing on the week he met with Woodward -
It was on June 11, the day the INR memo dropped too, and right before his chat with Woodward. The AP FOIA-ed Armitage's schedule for that day
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | January 24, 2007 at 08:40 PM
--about whether the witnesses remember actually doing that.--
super sigh.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 24, 2007 at 08:40 PM
It depends.
What triggered it and why, I don't know.
I didn't recall it.
I wish I could tell you.
them there are some pretty big shadows
Posted by: windansea | January 24, 2007 at 08:41 PM