Libby Trial - Previewing Edelman

So far the prosecution witnesses have been a bit of a bust for Special Counsel Fitzgerald - of Grossman, Grenier, Martin, and Schmall, only Cathie Martin has a credible memory of mentioning Wilson's wife to Libby, and, by her account, it was a twenty to thirty second interlude, she did not describe Libby reacting to the news, and Libby never mentioned Ms. Plame in her presence again.

This week an early prosecution offering will be Eric Edelman, who was working in Dick Cheney's office in 2003 as the Principal Deputy.  Mr. Edelman will probably be a fizzle as well.  He appears in the Libby indictment here:

12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

Oooh!  Libby knew he had some secret news - that could only be the tidbit about the wife, yes!  Well, no - the whole Wilson trip and report was classified (although it was introduced as a trial exhibit (p. 8-9) last week), so Libby's concerns about security could have been much broader.  Special Counsel Fitzgerald admitted as much in a court hearing last May 5 when he said this (p. 21):

FITZGERALD:  ...I agree with Mr. Wells the New Republic article does not discuss the wife. There is an ambiguity about what Mr. Libby and this person are discussing on the phone afterward as to what the complication is.

An ambiguity!  If Libby mentioned the wife, there is no ambiguity; if he did not, then Edelman is taking us nowhere.

Now, maybe Libby does mention the wife but notes the security concern at a different point in the conversation, thus leaving an ambiguity as to whether Libby realizes that Ms. Plame's CIA status is classified.  But given the way these other witnesses have testified, my guess is that there is, in Fitzgerald's mind anyway, some "ambiguity" as to whether the wife was the topic of the conversation.  Which means that she was not mentioned, and that, for all but the most resolute of conspiracists, there will be no ambiguity at all.

We should know on Monday.

MORE:  Keep hope alive!  Better days should be ahead for Fitzgerald with Fleischer and Addington still to come, although I am betting Fleischer will be yet another fizzle.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Two comments.

First, it appears Edelman may not testify. Fitz has done all the witnesses in order so far, and Edelman would appear between Martin and Fleischer. Maybe there's some other reason he will show later, but for now I'm assuming he won't be called. (Note, the defense is fussing about some earlier Edelman stuff with Martin, so there may be some reason for the absence of Edelman).

Second, the report on Wilson's trip is no longer classified--it was declassified and released as an exhibit last week.

[Javani]

1. Fitz will show with Edelman the Wilson story was a tip-top concern in Libby's mind.

2. Wells will show that WWAKAVWAKAVP was not discussed.

A wash.

Nevertheless Plamaniacs will see the testimony as expertly proving Cheney and Rove created a false memory in our minds that during the Clinton admin. the CIA reported Saddam had WMDs too, or that Scooter Libby is so wonderful and would have always been careful...despite his "aspens" letter.

[clarice]

EW , Do you have a cite to that document, please? Thanks.

[Javani]

Yes, please post a link.

It was a different State memo/notes than the one using the term "CIA managerial type." A biting piece of intra-mural snark.

[Walter]

Crossposted from an earlier thread (_must type faster_):

He had four witnesses testifying yes, they did tell Libby about the wife. He has met his facial burden that Libby knew.

To reiterate, Libby never said that those conversations didn't happen. Our buddy Fitzgerald has Dowdified five pages of grand jury transcripts with:

"When confronted on whether he had discussed Wilson's wife with other government officials earlier that week -- including White House press secretary Ari Fleisher, Director of Communciations for the Vice President Cathie [sic] Martin and others -- Libby's repeated refrain was that he could not have discussed the matter earlier in the week because he specifically recalled that he learned about Wilson's wife from Russert that week as if it were new information (Exh I. at 156-60)."

For Libby's formulation to ring true, the discussions with CIA or DoS or Martin must not have taken place in the week prior to his discussions with Russert, Miller, and Cooper. Fitzgerald has yet to present a witness who can plausibly date their conversation with Libby to a period outside of the discussions with Cheney.

Based on Fitzgerald's presentation (ignoring cross), the first three witnesses were cumulative of the Cheney information. That is, they testified, at best, that Libby was exposed to Plame at a time that he has already admitted knowing about Plame.

Martin did not testify to a date certain in her direct; and in cross admitted that her conversations could well have taken place during that same period.

So, the witnesses presented by Fitzgerald have not yet directly contradicted any point of Libby's testimony that we have seen.

I should point out that it is at least possible that Fitzgerald did not completely capture the nuances of Libby's actual testimony in his summary above. But, I submit it's unlikely that Libby's testimony is more damaging to him than Fitzgerald's understanding of his testimony is.

So, I see Fleischer as a key witness. If he and Addington don't back up the "Discuss on Monday, Learn as new on Wednesday" meme, I'm prepared to throw in the towel on my prediction of a conviction.

I really expected more out of Fitzgerald. After all, how hard is it to draft an indictment that matches the evidence and testimony you've gathered?

And I'm prepared to jump on the "Pardon Now" bandwagon if we learn that Fitzgerald granted immunity from prosecution on National Security grounds solely in order to pursue a perjury/false statements/"he hurt my feelings by lying to me" obstruction of justice prosecution.

Proportionality matters.

[TCO]

Tom M: What would you bet as to Libby remembering the Wilson wife at CIA factoid given the strong interest that he and his boss were taking in the overall Wilson allegations?

[MayBee]

I think it is partially declassified- it is what we looked at last week, DX71.8 It was dated at the bottom 11/19/02 and has the source: A contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.

It seems not to be there in it's entirity.

[clarice]

Thank you, MayBee.

[MayBee]

This might be another good link for TM's sidebar:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html>The AP's collection of exhibits, defense and prosecution.

[Rick Ballard]

DX71.

The .8 refers to page 8 - about the COGEMA directors (among other things).

[clarice]

The June 10, 2003 INR report --just to make it clear when someone is skimmng thru the thread.
And parts are still classified.

[Rick Ballard]

If Fleischer does follow Martin tomorrow it makes sense to hold the OVP 3-point pushback that Martin prepared for Fleischer as being the primary reason for the Fleischer/Libby meeting. Cheney delegated the press effort to Libby because Martin was being ignored. Libby's job with respect to WH Press Secretary Fleischer was to present the OVP talking points prior to Fleischer hopping on AF-1 with the press gaggle a few hours later.

The luncheon is the first known effort at even minimal coordination of a pushback on the Munchausen fantasy.

[MayBee]

Yes, and page 9 is also there.
His 1999 trip seems to still be classified.

This particular report also mentions that Pakistan and Iran approached Niger.

Here's a choice source (Wilson) comment:Mai Manga appeared to regret that niger even discussed uranium sales with Iran in light of the international pressure that resulted.

Good for Joe. Wanted to make sure we didn't worry that Niger had sold anything to Iran either.

[Syl]

I remember Jeff LOVED the Edelman bit. )

BTW, even if Cathie Martin told him during the time period, there's no indication that Libby acknowledged the info.

[Syl]

Mai Manga appeared to regret that niger even discussed uranium sales with Iran in light of the international pressure that resulted.

::snort::

International pressure if they discussed with Iran. But they discussed with Iraq (with Baghdad Bob no less) and that was a 'flat-out lie'.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

Page 8 and 9 are the biggest load of self serving COGEMA ass covering crap one could ever hope to see. For example, how many "years ago" did the Paks visit? Was it before or after COGEMA sold the nondisclosed yellowcake tonnage to Libya? And BTW - wasn't Libya on that "rogue state" list? How did the nondisclosed sale stay out of Munchausen's report? And how did the fact that the COGEMA mines are ever so much closer to the Algerian and Libyan borders than they are to the Benin port of Cotonu fail to get mentioned. As to air freight being too expensive, five hundred tons of yellowcake was worth about $10M in '98-'99 and the cost to air freight would have been around $1M. Not an exorbitant monetary barrier.

[MJW]

Walton has said several time that if Libby doesn't testify, they'll be no "memory defense," and Fitz has complained that Libby's team might be trying to sneak in the memory defense through other witnesses without Libby testifying. At this point it isn't clear precisely what's involved in the restriction, but it seems to involve Libby's ability to use the CIPA material. Also, it seems to be an actual restriction, not merely a reference to the practical difficulty of introducing a defense based on Libby's memory without his testimony.

I think such a restriction violates the spirit and the letter of CIPA. CIPA "rests on the presumption that the defendant should not stand in a worse position, because of the fact that classified information is involved, than he would without this act." If the information related to Libby's memory defense weren't classified, Libby's lawyers would be able to introduce the evidence by any means that conformed to the rules of evidence, regardless of whether Libby testified. Walton has apparently decide Libby can only use the information if he gives up his Fifth amendment rights. Certainly that puts Libby in a worse position to make his defense.

[Ranger]

I really expected more out of Fitzgerald. After all, how hard is it to draft an indictment that matches the evidence and testimony you've gathered?

Posted by: Walter | January 28, 2007 at 08:24 PM

Walter, the first clue about this was shen Fitz told Judge Walton at one of the first pre-trial hearings that he would never let the Jurors see the indictment or the presser becuase it would be predjudicial to his case. That should have been a clue to everyone that Fitz was writting checks in the indictment that his evidence couldn't back up.

To write an indictment that conforms to the evidence you have to actually have evidence, and it is becoming apparent that Fitz really doesn't have any that comes close to being beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Tom Maguire]

This might be another good link for TM's sidebar:
The AP's collection of exhibits, defense and prosecution.

Thanks very much - it is now under "Wilson / Plame", just to confuse folks looking for it under "Plamaniacs".

Second, the report on Wilson's trip is no longer classified--it was declassified and released as an exhibit last week.

Thanks very much, I am coming up to speed.

First, it appears Edelman may not testify. Fitz has done all the witnesses in order so far, and Edelman would appear between Martin and Fleischer.

Time will tell, and soon, but - Edelman appears first in the indictment, but Martin is described in the indictment as June to July for her mention of the wife (although she is placed in the post-op-ed section.) So Fitzgerald may have figured she belongs up on June 11, where the defense eventually placed her anyway.

Tom M: What would you bet as to Libby remembering the Wilson wife at CIA factoid given the strong interest that he and his boss were taking in the overall Wilson allegations?

Tough call - on the one hand, it is an interesting detail supplementing the "CIA sent her, not the OVP", which was a main concern of Libby's.

OTOH, Ms. Martin admits that she did not think it was a useful/useable part of the story; if Libby had a similar reaction, he may have promptly forgotten it as useless info.

That would be his story, anyway. Buttressed by the apparent fact that Grossman, Schmall, and Grenier were also all hazy about whether they discussed it. Plenty of folks seemed to think the spousal news was neither important nor useful, so the notion that Libby must have found it to be memorable is not exactly rock-solid.

I would have been more impressed if any of these people had testified to Libby actually reacting to the news. That absence is also helpful to him.

My guess - Fleischer will be a disappointment for Fitzgerald as well. Since Libby was meeting (presumably) to apprise him of Cheney's talking points, and those did not mention, one would not expect Libby to have emphasized her role. And eventually, we will hear about whether Fleischer also read about the wife in the INR memo on Air Force One later that night on the trip to Africa.

Addington still looks like a high mountain, or a deep valley (OK, maybe a broad river - anyway, trouble for Libby).

[TCO]

Most of your answer seems to be on what "Libby's story" could be or on how the information is not overwhelming. I agree. But not, net...it is contributory to the case that Libby lied and damaging to his non-importance case, no?

[maryrose]

Libby forgot the to him unimportant detail of Plame. Wilson saw that no one was going to be indicted-least of all Armitage and Ari. Wilson must have had someone on the inside of the original investigation feeding him answers. That's the reason for the "frogmarch Rove" comment that was suppose to help solidify his spot in the Kerry camp. Sandy also thought he was safe in Kerry's camp.The discovery of his Archives heist did him in.Wilson thought by mentioning Rove by name he could get Fitz toindict. In that case Fitz was woefully short and couldn't close the deal on Rove. I will always believe the real target of Fitz was Cheney-but the VP never put himself in a position to have any adverse connection to this mess.Cheney knows how Washington works and I find it telling that Ari would not allow himself blind obedience to the investigation.

[Walter]

Ranger,

Thanks. Though I remember that the indictment was discussed in pre-trial hearings, I do not recall Fitzgerald saying that it would be detrimental to his case for it to go to the jury. Can you point me to the right hearing?

Syl,

I'm not sure that C. Martin's off-hand comment matters. We'll know more when we see the actual grand jury transcripts, but I suspect that Libby's comments with regard to her fall into the "Couldn't have happened when she says" category rather than the "Couldn't have happened" category.

I'm looking for a statement along the lines of "Well, it's possible that she mentioned it. Since I don't have a present recollection of my discussion with Cheney, I could have forgotten other things from that period as well. But I can't see how she could have told me after Wilson's op-ed as I remember learning it as if for the first time from Russert."

Tom,

I'm starting to wonder if Addington can be moved to either post-Russert or pre-July. Since Fitzgerald does not have a direct conflict between Libby and Adddington's testimony, the conversation poses no issue unless the circumstances create an impression of inconsistency.

I've also been impressed with the Libby team's gambit to move the Novak date from July 14 to July 11. I expect that we'll see that consistently reinforced from this point forward. If it takes with the jury, it removes the national security implications from the July 12 conversations.

[Cecil Turner]

His 1999 trip seems to still be classified.

And since he hasn't written a NYT OpEd on it yet, perhaps it can remain a secret [/snark]

Tough call - on the one hand, it is an interesting detail supplementing the "CIA sent her, not the OVP", which was a main concern of Libby's.

OTOH, Ms. Martin admits that she did not think it was a useful/useable part of the story; if Libby had a similar reaction, he may have promptly forgotten it as useless info.

It wasn't useful when Ms. Martin told him initially (assuming that was June 11th), because Wilson's name wasn't public yet. So a "his wife" reference wouldn't work, as it would have no referent (and it would actually backfire, showing the Administration was paying attention to him at a time they claimed they hadn't). Another interesting part of Martin's testimony is that she initially claimed to've discussed it on the week of July 7th . . . which is understandable, though apparently wrong, and another indication that's when it became more noteworthy.

[TCO]

I don't see how the judge can reasonably bar the general idea of a "memory defense" or link it to a requirement for Libby to take the stand. Perhaps something more specific is meant when talking about the "memory defense"--what? And how does even that specific area require Libby to take the stand? Surely defense lawyers can introduce circumstantial evidence in support of their client without having to have him on the stand?