Powered by TypePad

« Traditional Plame Open Thread | Main | Neil Lewis of the Times - Get The Wax Out »

January 26, 2007

Comments

Martin

Nope. After the 11th info from Martin, Cheney gets the scoop from the CIA and tells Libby the real deal on the 12th.

They then have the lunch with their "conservative" commentators buddies C. Martin testified about.

Bob ("They gave it to me") Novak says the veal ribs were delicious, and away we go!

Could Novak have known before he talked to Armitage?

Rick Ballard

Don't forget Edelman. It looks like Fleischer next but I'll bet Edelman follows and then Addington. Fitz will want

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.
just before
During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

danking70

Hey TM,

Do you have Clarice typing your posts now?

"The suspense mouhts..."

;-)

Martin

Perhaps Fitz's "Libby was the first known to leak to a reporter" is not to be rescinded in light of Woodward-Armitage?

clarice

Really, Martin? Name one conversation with a reporter where it is claimed the "leak" occurred PRIOR to Woodward's conversation with Armitage.

Martin

Who was at this lunch arranged by Cathie Martin for their "conservative" friends, Clarice?

I never even heard of it before, have you? Got a guest list? How about a date?

Dwilkers

Heh Clarice.

You know what struck me? If you hit the link to Martin's testimony in the previous post and read it through she's describing their reaction (to Wilson) exactly the way Libby has. Businesslike, offhand, not particularly interested.

clarice

No idea.
You made an assertion up thread. I called you.
Put up or fold.

Martin

Well C. Martin says it was July 18th, but it hardly seems definitive. TMs FPP is concerned with nailing down Martin's dates, so I'd like to nail this one down too. Were you there btw?

clarice

My last post was directed to martin, of course.
Yes--dwilkers,there is not a single suggestion that anyone thought this was signficiant .In fact, Martin said she thought it was not an appropriate way to deal with the charges, that the substance was more significant and the facts were on the WH's side.


I have always thought the notion that the Administration would use this mere projection by the "nuts and sluts" crowd. I have never seen any sign that this is the way the WH operated.

Martin

Do you expect Novak to testify?

daniel galogley

the president and the vp told their staffs to 'leak' plame. why are we still unclear about that? are americans really as dumb as cheney and bush think? maybe so.

clarice

No, Martin, I wasn't there. I have no connection to the Administration nor any connection with any conservative groups who might have been invited.

I think it astonishing that the left has made me its target and in fact does so on the very basis they assume the WH operated here--personal attacks .

If you recall Wilson said the WH sould surely go after him for his drug use and womanizing and yet, of course, only he ever raised it.

Javani

"Perhaps Fitz's "Libby was the first known to leak to a reporter" is not to be rescinded in light of Woodward-Armitage?"

Fitz isn't the uber-sage of the "whole truth." He's a prosecutor looking for a conviction, swaying with the times and the information flow. He saw the FBI notes of Libby and smelled raw meat, and tripped Libby up in his later testimony.

I want to thank TM for a new thread, and every poster here. Quite an electic group of opinions. I try to view FDL, but the going opinion there is tacitly if Cheney or Libby respond to an accusation against them its outrageous and even conspiratorial. There's quite a totalitarian mindset among many. I'm reading some of the mainline media articles and some have the same affect.

Martin

Because if Cathie Martin says lunch with their "conservative" friends was a tool to combat Wilson's allegations, maybe they didn't wait until July 18 to enlist them in the cause?

Martin

I was actually paying you a compliment Clarice. They should have called you. I'm sure you could have fought off Wilson and not ended up indicted.

Cecil Turner

The timeline on Martin's testimony was completely confusing. The initial call and e-mail suggest June 11th (and I think Joyner's got one typo of "july 11th" where he means "june 11th"), but her initial testimony was the week of July 7th? And she changed it based on Wilson's appearance on MTP? In any event, she apparently doesn't remember it much better than the others, and her memory, like the others, is improving over time. Not sure what the Defense will suggest . . . perhaps that "Ms Wilson" only came up the second time 'round, or that it wasn't passed to Libby the first time. Or that, like apparently everyone else, he simply couldn't remember when he heard it.

clarice

daniel-in your dreams--You simply have no evidence nor does the Prosecutor that the Administration did anything more than attack the substance of the charges Wilson raised,

Martin, I fully expect Novak to testify--and when he does I fully expect the defense to ask him about the call he got from a friend of Armitage assuring him the leak was inadvertent--I'll bet it was Grossman and I'll bet the jury will see what I do--another attempt by the perfidious bastard to manipulate witness testimony against him--the very sort of thing most people would consider improper if not a more useful employment of the obstruction statutes.

bellesouth

"They then have the lunch with their "conservative" commentators buddies C. Martin testified about."

Didn't this luncheon happen on July 12? Not June 12?

clarice

Martin, if it had been me, I'd not have waited until July to forecefully respond, 'd have called in Tenet in May and demanded a full report within days on who snt Wilson, what he reported and the distribution of that report, and I wouldn't have waited for the CIA to CYA by dwadling and providing half-assed answers dribbed in over weeks--

And I'd have declassified that report and released it.

And if that didn't work, I'd have directed the FBI to investigate why the CIA allowed this farce.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html

danking70

Clarice,

on top of knowing which Armitage friend called Novak, I'd like to know which Wilson friend bumped into Novak on the street.

Could it also have been Grossman?

Carol Herman

REPEAT AFTER ME: "The press was in on the conspiracy FIRST!" They were damned sure they were going to take out Bush's White House!

This Wilson toy was just the first step, in what was going to be a "Nixon Repeat." If the country continues to send republicans to the White House, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM will be treated to this madness.

Reagan bypassed the media's attempt to destroy his administration. He did this, partially, with his visual presence. But also with his refusal to FIRE ANYONE. Because "fired people" go to the press ... Yada, yada, yada. And, become hostile witnesses against your administration.

This President, however, has NOT been reluctant to fire those who are against the "game plan."

Today? Today, Murtha and Pelosi are in Iraq, talking to Maliki. Ripening the stage for their "impressions," on our war. (IDIOTS ON PARADE!) Will it sell? Well, it won't be for want of trying. The media is gonna heap this shit up at us by the bucketful.

On the other hand? The president is very clear that he is the decision-maker.

And, Fitzgerald, may or may not FLOP.

We've got to wait this out! Dan Rather attempted to interfere with our presidential election, in 2004. And, all he got for his efforts was to lose his job. In other words? No one goes to jail. Sandy Berg(l)er didn't face jail, either. This is "saved for" the republicans. And, the black judge is supposed to do the lynching. Okey dokey. Payback's a bitch. But that's gonna be the rest of the story.

hit and run

I try to view FDL, but the going opinion there is tacitly if Cheney or Libby respond to an accusation against them its outrageous and even conspiratorial.

It's the 1st Amendment! No, not freedom of the press......separation of church and state. May Tim Russert (PBUH) have mercy on Libby's soul.

clarice

I', sure that wasn't Grossman..I expect it was one of the VIPS who'd been tasked to find out what Novak knew.

My prior post in English:
****Martin, if it had been me, I'd not have waited until July to forcefully respond, I'd have called in Tenet in May and demanded a full report within days on who sent Wilson, what he reported and the distribution of that report, and I wouldn't have waited for the CIA to CYA by dwaddling and providing half-assed answers dribbled in over weeks--

And I'd have declassified that report and released it.

And if that didn't work, I'd have directed the FBI to investigate why the CIA allowed this farce.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html>CYA CIA

Posted by: clarice | January 26, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Javani

"Do you expect Novak to testify?"

Of course.

1. He gives context to the "leak."

2. He readily impeaches Fitz' so obviously contrived statments via the CIA official about the dangerousness of the leak.

3. He's the bad guy for breaching the protocols of politician background leaking that transcends partisan politics. Apparently all for his quest to root out "liberals" from the Bush Administration.

4. It shows the leaking went beyond the VP's office and that "all the reporters know" could be somewhat plausible. Others disliked Wilson too, though they are holding that back now.

5. And I want to hear about who it was he met on the street that reported back to Wilson.

Ranger

Well, here is a possible summary of the Armitage/Grossman conversaton in October:

A: Hi Marc, I just wanted you to know that I went in and confessed to telling Novak, so you don't have to cover for me.

G: Really? Why?

A: Well, since that 2x6 story came out in the Post, all the FBI seems interested in are White House people, so I told them it was inadvertant, I just slipped up.

G: What about Woodward?

A: No, I didn't say anything about that. 2x6 only gives me cover for July. Don't let them think anybody at State talked to the press before Joe was on MTP.

G: But what if they interview Woodward at some point?

A: They won't. He didn't write anything, so nobody has any idea he knew before Novak published.

G: Okay. Is there anything else I can do?

A: Yeah, give Novak a call: tell him that it was a mistake on my part. I never intended to do it, just chit chat.

G: Okay.

clarice

Gotta run--Will check in later.

Rick Ballard

Bellsouth,

I believe that you're correct about June 11th. On that date both the WH and the OVP were still in "Who is this idiot?" mode. Only State had the benefit of the INR memo and Ford's subtle deletion of "apparently" from the notes concerning Plame's setting up the boondoggle.

One has to follow the distribution of the INR memo to understand the Plame "outing" at all. That INR memo that was not seen at the OVP until...

Other Tom

"the president and the vp told their staffs to 'leak' plame. why are we still unclear about that?"

Really" Whose testimony was that?

Rick Ballard

"Whose testimony was that?"

Thread lice. The infestation will clear up after the trial.

Enlightened

Clarice - When you get back (Sorry for the OT folks)

Massive amounts of PO 210 in a TEAPOT at the Millenium hotel.

Quite obviously the so-called "smuggling ring" did not accidentally drop some PO 210 into a teapot right before serving Sahsa some tea.

He was asassinated just like we always thought.

sad

Regarding the confusion of Martin about the June 7th vs June 11th date: is it possible that she Tivoed or recorded the show in question and watched it several days later?

sad

Sorry previous post should read July dates, not June dates.

Charlie (Colorado)

Massive amounts of PO 210 in a TEAPOT at the Millennium hotel.

It was obvious the smuggling theory was a tinfoil-chapeau thing anyway.

Charlie (Colorado)
Who was at this lunch arranged by Cathie Martin for their "conservative" friends, Clarice?

I never even heard of it before, have you? Got a guest list? How about a date?

Screw that, Clarice; if you're making lunch dates, I want one. Forget this moron.

hit and run

Screw that, Clarice; if you're making lunch dates, I want one. Forget this moron.

What? You aren't on the guest list for the dinner party?

Loser ;-)

Publius

Cecil T.,

I agree. From reading Joyner, M is asked, "Were you directed to speak to Mr. Harlow by anyone else?" Once by 'press aide at NCS' and 'another occasionn' where Libby told her to pursuant to a telephone call with someone from CIA. First instance was directed by Michael Anton, high press offical in NSC. Normally talked to his boss, Anna Perez. Recollection is that 'Anna wasn't around' because she was with president and his team in Africa".

Dosen't this testimony place the date of her first call to Harlow between July 7th and the 12th, the time of the African trip?

Could it be that Martin is not as confused about the date of her conversation with Harlow as she is about from whom she first learned of Munchansen's name?

I realize I'm wading in way over my head but can someone help me out?

clarice

Thanks, Charlie

Enlightened--No kidding *sarc/*

Well , it was sweeps week in the blogosphere as I recall..


Curly Smith

Now I understand why there's a trial. Libby twice "forgot" that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? That just doesn't pass the smell test. You can't possibly believe that Libby had knowledge of cronyism or nepotism and just "forgot". You never see both spouses working for the federal government or any entity that might come in contact with the federal government. It just doesn't happen. You never see relatives working on a congressman's staff, even if a relative might be the most qualified. It just doesn't happen. Sure, there was the one case back in 1827 when a staffer discovered his brother, who had been put up for adoption, was working as an entry level clerk. Both immediately resigned in disgrace, and if I remember correctly one committed suicide, because preserving the honor and integrity of the government is a sacred duty. There must never be even the slightest hint of impropriety.

This trial isn't about leaking the wife's name, it's about not reporting potential cronyism or nepotism to the Inspector General. I wouldn't want to be in Cheney's shoes when Fitzgerald grills him on the stand and asks him to name just one (just one!) other example of cronyism or nepotism that he's encountered in all of his years in Washington. The silence will be deafening, Cheney won't have an answer because it's just not done. Cheney won't be able to give a single example of another couple with both working for the government, he won't be able to give a single example of any relatives working in or for the government, and he won't be able to list a single example of legislation that benefited any friend or acquaintance of anybody in the Legislative or Executive branches. It's just not done.

No wonder Fitzgerald is mad. Libby and Cheney have besmirched the fine reputation of the federal government by not immediately reporting the first case of cronyism or nepotism in over 175 years. There's simply no way that Libby "forgot", he would have been shocked (shocked I say!) by the revelation of cronyism or nepotism. It would have been a big deal. Libby's going down, the defense will try to get the jury to believe that both spouses working for the government is old hat, that it happens all of the time. Yeah, if all the time means once every 175 years then Libby will walk.

sad

Curly
hahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahaha

Sara (Squiggler)

Curly, you obviously know nothing about Washington employment practices. You have lots of married couples and related persons who work for the government and lots of reporters with spouses in high ranking places, and especially lots of government people married to or related to lobbyist types.

Sara (Squiggler)

Or think the jury doesn't even if in their own family there are twofers all over the place. Fitz is fixated on his false premise leading to his even faultier conclusions with a big heaping serving of incompetence thrown in.

Jane

Everytime I read a Martin post, I keep wondering why he has no outrage for Armitage.

(Well I really don't wonder at all, because I know all about the left's hypocrisy)

But still...

Curly Smith

Sara, that was my long winded point. Unfortunately, sarcasm sometimes gets lost in the pixels.

In more plain speak... We have some folks who think that "Wilson's wife worked for the CIA" is noteworthy. IMHO the scene played out like this:

Cheney: Libby! Who is this Wilson buffoon and why did the CIA send him to Niger?

Libby: His wife works for the CIA.

Cheney: OK, that explains it. Where's my bran muffin?

Both Cheney and Libby have been around Washington long enough to recognize a Hallmark moment: "When you don't care enough to send anyone competent, send a spouse or a relative".

It didn't matter who Wilson's wife was or what she did. Both Cheney and Libby understood that there was no deeper meaning in why Wilson got the trip than "his wife works for the CIA". Now you might wonder why, if Wilson's wife was a super secret agent, did the CIA send him even if "his wife works for the CIA"? The only explanations are: a) the CIA is full of spouses and relatives; and/or b) she wasn't a super secret agent.

Of course I would be remiss if I didn't finish the circle... Fitzgerald's appointment = cronyism

I'm sensing a trend...

Syl

Curly

:::::grin:::::::::

daniel galogley

will you guys get out of the fly specks! bush and cheney were upset about wilson. they knew who he was. wilson worked for reagan, bush and clinton. he is not unknown in washington. your nit picking won't work. libby is history, and the reason fitz has keeps the grand jury open is, he hopes to add some indictments, after some of these clowns mis-testify.

Charlie (Colorado)

What? You aren't on the guest list for the dinner party?

Well, I am 2000 miles away.

I want that risotto recipe though.

RichatUF

from clarice...

Name one conversation with a reporter where it is claimed the "leak" occurred PRIOR to Woodward's conversation with Armitage.

I know Kristof-opps, that was Plame (the super-secret agent) and Mr. National Command Authority Wilson who were talking to him...so I guess that really doesn't help the case...

Maybe Pincus (reading his June 12th piece again was like reading it for the first time)

What the hell is in the water in DC?

a legal question//can the defense on cross of some of the journalists see if they talked to Wilson or Plame before said journalist talked to Libby? And would that from a legal perspective make a difference

RichatUF

RichatUF

The timeline on Martin's testimony was completely confusing. The initial call and e-mail suggest June 11th (and I think Joyner's got one typo of "july 11th" where he means "june 11th"), but her initial testimony was the week of July 7th?

Hence the importance of the INR memo: released 10 June then 7 July..."Joe who?"

Both time before Joe Wilson took a big shit on the stage...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame