Miller:The Judge's Dilemma

JUDY MILLER The indictment counts –32and 33-- relating to Judy Miller do not charge perjury or false statements—only obstruction: In the indictment Fitzgerald asserts that Libby claimed: "32(c) LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true."(I have no recollection of the prosecution asking her this today.) and that "On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA" (If I recall today’s proceedings accurately,Miller testified that Libby said Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau, and she after some puzzlement took that to be a section of the CIA) and that" On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; " and that "33(c) LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;" (I don’t recall this being asked on direct today) Rory O’Connor has accurately described the direct testimony here: http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=223 And the cross examination here: http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=224 Miller had obviously prepped her testimony today with the prosecution and it was a startlingly different account than the "bafflegab" testimony earlier reported in pleadings and in her various accounts of that testimony. Like some other witnesses her memory is spotty on some critical issues, but like fine wine markedly has improved with age on others. In the court’s media room where she is not a favorite her lapses inspired some snickers and Rory documents the more serious memory failures. Much of the afternoon was taken up with a dispute relating to the promise the prosecutor gave her when she agreed to testify that she would not have to name other sources. In the dispute leading up to her agreement to testify before the grand jury she filed an affidavit saying she had other sources besides Libby and had promised confidentiality to "one or more of them." When she agreed to testify after serving time in jail for contempt, Fitzgerald promised her that she would not have to name those other sources. Today she confirmed in her testimony that she did have other sources, that she was investigating the Wilson story before the Novak story was published and she confirmed that she had Wilson’s name, phone number and his extension in the steno book with the June 23 notes of the meeting, and that that information was there before her meeting with Libby. At the grand jury, after being promised she wouldn’t have to name those sources, Fitzgerald asked her if she remembered those sources and she said she didn’t. Today, the defense tried to explore the same matter with her—for impeachment purposes they said. Her attorney, Bob Bennett joined the prosecution and defense counsel in a long bench conference followed by further debate outside the jury’s presence and proffered as an officer of the court that his client has no recollection of who those sources are.. I have always considered the prosecution offer one which might well collide with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The question, defense argues, is smaller. They want simply to put on the record that despite the affidavit, despite the long time in jail until she got that promise, she doesn’t even know who the sources are, according to a proffer by her lawyer. The defense wants her to say that under oath. Will the court permit it? We should find out tomorrow. The judge wants to sleep on it. Tom Maguire offers his pithy analysis on the judge’s dilemma: [quote] Miller is being asked about other sources and claims she does not remember them. The defense wants to argue this: 1. IF she honestly to god has forgotten, then how credible is her memory of the Libby conversations? 2. IF she remembers but has claimed bad memory because she doesn't want to say, then Libby is losing a chance to confront a key witness - as noted, her sources might include Powell, Armitage, Wilson, Rove... who knows, except maybe Judy? SO - Walton wants to avoid Judy staging a First Amendment meltdown; he also wants to avoid having Libby's people win an easy appeal. And his choices seem to be: 1. Disallow the question - Libby will squawk; 2. Allow the question, threaten her with contempt - Fitzgerald will squawk, because he sees this freight train coming - she will insist her memory has failed, and advise him to put an egg in his shoe and beat it. 3. Some middle ground - She can assure the court she remembers sources, but won't have to name them. This has the added benefit of assuring Walton a permanent gig on Comedy Central - c'mon, how is the Libby team supposed to refute that? I welcome suggestions here http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/david_gregory_w.html#comment-28483229 January 30, 200

Comments

[Patton]

Ohh come on, Look Judge, we aren't kids here...she damn well has to remember the other sources or the claim she had other sources and needed to protect them makes NO SENSE.
If she really can't remember any of them, then there was nothing to protect in the first place.

Make her answer the questions and give the man a fair trail.

[clarice]

I messed up the formatting.Rick was kind enough to help me but I did something wrong and--indict me.
I'm going to take a long hot shower and then come back, hoping TM doesn't smack me in the face with his keys.
Sorry.

[Javani]

O'Connor notes:

"At the grand jury, after being promised she wouldn’t have to name those sources, Fitzgerald asked her if she remembered those sources and she said she didn’t.""

I had noticed that too. She was w/o her lawyer before the GJ. Fitzgerald reneged and played dirty ball. I don't see any way to characterize that otherwise. Through the probable shock Miller gave a BS answer, BS, but since Fitz reneged, perhaps advisable.

[MayBee]

I didn't think that was dirty ball by Fitzgerald. I thought that was his way of establishing for the record, that Judy didn't remember (cough cough) who her sources were.
He could pretend that would make any questions from the defense about those sources unnecessary.

[sammy small]

The deal between Fitz and Miller was during the original GJ and investigation. How could he promise something that would take place during a trial for a different defendant at the time there was no defendant.

[Enlightened]

But..but..but I don't WANT a mistrial! I don't think I would survive another Chris Mathews apoplectic droolfest.

Jeezuz Mary 'n Joseph, I remember breaking my foot when I was three years old! Where I did it, what I was wearing, how I did it, the doctors office, the x-rays - that was 47 frickin years ago. These jerkwads can't remember 3 YEARS ago?

I'm sick already of every asshat that has now testified in this case about what they DON'T remember. I'm damn glad they all appear to remember to wipe their arses every day. The smell is already bad enough.

[Enlightened]

Well, Jeralyn does NOT think Judy did well at all on cross.

[Other Tom]

Fitz lacked the power to promise her that she wouldn't have to answer such a question at trial, and if she understood his promise to mean that she's a fool.

Something of an irony that it's no big deal if she forgets who told her what and when, since that's pretty much what the trial is about.

[clarice]

She remembered some other things now better than she did earlier at the gj and could answer quite honestly--well, sort of honestly--that she was alone, just out of a long stretch in the pokey and was reasonably surprised then by the question. She's had more time to think about it and now remembers.

Cmon , we all know it is someone she thinks is bigger than Libby who she's protecting, someone who hasn't given her a waiver.

Is it Armitage?
Powell?
Who?

[clarice]

Enlightened, I walked out of the courthouse with Jeralyn and She said Judy did well. Maybe I persuaded her otherwise or maybe like everyone else I misremembered. Doesn't the post look prettier? Rick helped me some more.

[Rick Ballard]

I'll take Kristoff for $20. Or Pincus or a half dozen other polijournos.

Think of a $3 bill political journalist and get your money down. It's a big field and they're all off at about even money.

[Carol Herman]

Well, more interesting, I wonder how average people, and those sitting on this jury, take to the way Bennett got to go on stage and talk for his client.

It's such a simple question!

And, even while Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail, one of the most surprising things to remember is that she SLID OFF THE FRONT PAGE, even of her own paper! (I'd bet that it made her furious!) By the time she got out of jail, she had about as much sympathy directed at her, that had been directed at Martha Stewart!

Yes. I think it matter is the public doesn't give a hoot. And, here? There were points Miller was sweating so much, her face had to get wiped of the sweat. It even pooled around her eyes. (And, on the stand? I read that she looked GLUM.)

Why even think people wouldn't feel "maniuplated?" Just so she can say "she doesn't remember!"

T'marra? Ya just gotta wonder what ghost visits Reggie Walton, t'nite. Because should he decide Libby isn't entitled to a FAIR TRIAL ... All he is doing is setting up the record that INNOCENT PEOPLE GO TO JAIL!

Seems to me that Walton was smart enough not to allow cameras in the courtroom. So it slows down the OUTRAGE.

But not giving Libby a fair chance to find out how many reporters were "in on this." And, how this became a rallying cry for the KERRY TEAM to win an election ... How does that get lost?

Seems to me the press, here, is coming off looking like shills and propaganda artists. So, if Miller, who now comes "baaack" ... is there to wow the jurors. I think she's wowing them even less than she wowed Jill Ambramson. (Who was her boss. And, who told her she couldn't report on WMD's.) Now, if you have faith in your reporter you don't do that!

And, you want the jurors to miss the signals? Why? They're invested in "halping" throw this trial?

At least Walton asked for some space to "breathe." Does he hit the law books to see if he has "wiggle room?" Or does he call friends? It seems as if he can't decide, if he should flush the toilet, or save water? Smells bad in that room. No matter what he chooses. (Should have had his answer for a FAIR TRIAL right at his fingertips.) All affirmative action hires SUCK.

[ghostcat]

It's always been Powell all the way down. Probably won't come out in court, though.

[MayBee]

If I were Nancy Drew, I would surmise that at least one person she spoke with is on that list of witnesses/discusees.
Judy could just lie on the stand, but only if she is positive Libby's people don't know something.

She can just re-state she doesn't know, but that's gonna kill Fitz.

[TalkLeft]

I thought Judy did great on direct and not well on cross. Jeffress is a tough examiner, a little bulldog who doesn't offend. I wrote a long post about it for Firedoglake tonight.

[MayBee]

Oh hey! Just because I'm right so very infrequently. Did you all note Judy's testimony about her short, only professional relationship with Scooter.

Take that, Murray Waas, you stuff-maker-upper.

[clarice]

Ah, Jeralyn that explaint it.

To add to this discussion, J Walton seemed concerned that whatever reason she put that graph in her affidavit , it was a different case and he must decide it's relevant to this case--which let me remind is not about leaking *wink*.
Wlls' response is , however,I think unassailable it is a direct hit on her credibility and impeachment evidence he should not --cannot --be denied presenting to the jury.

[PaulL]

Long before the trial started, Libby requested the admission of numerous Top Secret papers in order to show the kinds of serious things he was dealing with in his job. Fitz balked. Judge Walton suggested to Fitz that one way of dealing with Libby's request was simply for the government to dismiss the case. Then everyone compromised with redactions.

To me that means that Walton wants a fair trial. I don't think he's going to allow the prima donna not to answer the defense's question. If she refuses, Walton will dismiss the charge. That's my guess.

Walton is obviously no dummy. But even a dummy can see that Fitz's case is a crock. I think Walton would enjoy throwing some of it out.

[Jane]

I have a hard time understanding on what grounds Walton can forbid the question. It certainly seems key to an "I forgot" defense.

It's certainly not outside the scope - altho the scope seems to be ever narrowing. And I do think forbidding the inquiry could very well be grounds for appeal.

Since perjury requires a lie about a material issue - (if I recall correctly) is a refusal by Walton an exclusion of the material issue?

This trial, or at least the way I'm hearing it - with competing transcripts colored by competing hopes for the outcome, often makes me disbelieve that I am actually a lawyer.

[clarice]

Can't find Jeralyn's post there--here is EW's not transcript of the testimony:

F Did you talk to other people

M I think I did, as soon as I remember learning about Wilson's wife

M I don't remember who, I consulted my notes, references by initials and names, not tied to any interview in any notebook, can't remember whether it was before or after info became public.

________

It could also be Tenet.

[clarice]

Whoever, it is it's got to be someone (a) important and (b) who would be in some great political or legal jeopardy if she "remembered" I think.

[Sue]

I remember now, after reading the comments at FDL, why I'm not a lefty. I can't sink as low as they do to trash someone. I wouldn't ever want to be associated with such a low class of society. I was disappointed when I realized Ms. Merrit was talkleft. I thought she was classy when I saw her on television.

[topsecretk9]

---Doesn't the post look prettier?---

Um, I was going to say JOM is a lot of fun!

[topsecretk9]

--Take that, Murray Waas, you stuff-maker-upper.--

Stuff-maker-upper! I said we were fun!

[MayBee]

Who would have Joe Wilson's phone number and extension?

[Sue]

Marc Grossman.

[topsecretk9]

--Who would have Joe Wilson's phone number and extension?

--

Kristof?

[RichatUF]

from clarice

Cmon , we all know it is someone she thinks is bigger than Libby who she's protecting, someone who hasn't given her a waiver.

Is it Armitage?
Powell?
Who?

Money is on Plame (she gave the Wilson contact in); Tenet possible

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

NYt's man/editor Shipley - who Wilson began discussing his op-ed with?

[Enlightened]

Well, if you ask me, Judy sure had a good memory at some point in time.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1016-01.htm

Is the letter Scooter sent her in the GJ evidence?

This is curious:
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.

This is only one sentence. She had to read the last 3 paragraphs? Do we know what they said?

And surprisingly, Judy was in Iraq, an embed with the WMD people. Came back in June just in time to hear Scooter spew about Val? Hmmm.

[Sue]

Ooooo...good answer, Top.

[MayBee]

A Democrat that had been at the Senate meeting?

[topsecretk9]

Not to knock the HTML goddess, but TM has a prettier post up - fyi

[MayBee]

I've always kind of wondered if Judy went dumpster diving for that information. If she nosed around her editor's or Kristof's desk.
That would be embarassing to admit.

[RichatUF]

from PaulL...

I think Walton would enjoy throwing some of it out...

But well be back to the same issue with Cooper and Russert...let the proscution put on more of the case, then the defense walks Cooper down the road..."well what about the email Mr. Cooper about other sources"

The judge throws the case out a report at a time?

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

...a report at... a reportER at

[topsecretk9]

Well, one overlooked aspect that Miller was adamant about today and BEFORE today, was the rock solid Intel CIA-Intel agencies provided - she described again today what Libby said 'selective leaking" as what SHE had also suspected.

Now that, to me anyways, pretty much firmed up my belief that Judy had in the bowels sources who were assuring her the Intel on WMD was there. Judy wasn't just taking Admin's info on it, she was probing the intel providers.

So Vicky Flame fits the bill.

[clarice]

Oh just dang, ts.

Enlightned, I think it was some bafflegab about the aspens turning.
No, I don't think the letter is coming in..I believe the paries have some agreement about the dispute that preceded her testimony--Fitz wanted it in to show motive (that is, that Libby knew the reporters wouldn't talk--)but I think the testimony on that issue has been limited. We heard some today--Miller claimed she hadn't even seen his original waiver letter and Wells said it was the same one Cooper got and Abrams wqas the lawyer who represented them both, and Cooper talked as soon as Libby told Abrams the waivers had been voluntarily given.

[clarice]

ts--There's nothing so secret about Shipley worth sitting in jail about or even risking a perjury conviction about. Heck where did Ben Bradley get the scoop if not from Woodward blabbing at the WaPo?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice -

I would take the must fubarred formatted post by you ANY DANG DAY.

BTW - you are beautiful...it was sorta neat to see you in living grayscale at MBA.

[Enlightened]

Wait, Woah. I am reading this right (same link above)

Judith went on the embed in Iraq in June to report on the (lack)of WMD found? Okay, she's working on an article. And SHE made the first appointment with Libby, to interview him about the WMD? She wanted to go to THE guy on pre-war intel? So she intiated the first interview? Why is Fitz trying to make it look the other way around?

"On the afternoon of June 23, 2003, I arrived at the Old Executive Office Building to interview Mr. Libby, who was known to be an avid consumer of prewar intelligence assessments, which were already coming under fierce criticism. The first entry in my reporter's notebook from this interview neatly captured the question foremost in my mind.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
I was speculating on where the phone number came from, the scare may come from having dialed it.

[MayBee]

Why does Judy have Libby referring to Wilson as "That Clandestined Guy"?
Did he think Wilson was being secretive, or did he think Wilson was CIA?

[clarice]

ts*blush*
Enlightened, yes this started out as a most peculiar conspiracy where everyone in the WH waited for people to call them or ask to see them, isn't it?

Well except for Ari and Armitage who walked.

[MayBee]

I can see- Wells wants to use her note-triggered memory, right?
He wants to get her to have to refresh her memory on other Wilson sources, to see if she remembers more details than she thought she remembered she remembered.

[fdcol63]

" .... yes this started out as a most peculiar conspiracy where everyone in the WH waited for people to call them or ask to see them .."

LOL - Besides the fact that if, indeed, Bush & Company had really "lied" about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, then WMDs would have been promptly "found" by the ISG soon after Saddam's fall, conveniently transported to Iraq and hidden by Bush's fascist minions in the US military or Halliburton.

[Enlightened]

So she approaches Libby for background, and accuracy of what she knows? And in the course of the interview he tells her about wife/bureau?

Also notice how Judy refers to WMD et al as: Unconventional Weapons? That's funny that she was an embed with the same group of people in Iraq (searching for Saddams unconventionals) that presumably Val Plame was working for/with in WINPAC?

So let's say you are researching a story about Iraq unconventional weapons. You are on an embed in Iraq. Someone says you should talk to someone in WINPAC. Back home you go to the guy on war intel, and get more info on WINPAC. Let's say you further researched by going to a friend of a friend for more background. Like VP.

So let's say Judy is working on the story from her angle, and Scooter is working on an identical story from his angle. There is just one common denominator in that story.

[Enlightened]

Curiouser and Curiouser. I think Judy..Judy..Judy is mis-remembering what an aquaintence told her before she talked to Scooter. Sources, sources, where did I put my sources?

Gotta go....

[topsecretk9]

--Bush's fascist minions in the US military--

US Troops are fascist minions?

BUT DO NOT question their patriotism.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I don't know why I am so stuck on this point that everyone else seems to ignore, but I do think it is somehow important to Libby and Libby's frame of mind re: classified/covert, etc.

When Libby says Bureau to Judy, she assumes first FBI and then CIA and everyone else assumes CIA so Libby must have been concentrating on the "wife works at CIA." But I do not believe this at all. Libby had just gotten his answer back from Grossman regarding his original query as to who the former Ambassador is and what is the trip all about and he knows that Grossman tasked the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which is a State Department entity, not CIA.

I'm not sure why this is important, but my gut says it is important, especially if put Judy or anyone in a frame of mind of thinking Libby is talking CIA.

[MayBee]

Sara- I do think that could be something.

[Dan S]

"

--Bush's fascist minions in the US military--

US Troops are fascist minions?

BUT DO NOT question their patriotism.

Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 30, 2007 at 07:28 PM"

If they had any, I might.

[MJW]

TalkLeft: I thought Judy did great on direct and not well on cross.

And the explanation for both is the same: she lied. Somehow all that stuff from the Libby meetings she knew only from reading he notes became independent memories.

So far, based on EW's version, Libby's team hasn't really seemed to go after the 'bureau' and 'WINPAC' "memories." Perhaps they don't want to emphasize it too much to the jury, but I'll be sorely disappointed if they don't pursue the issue further. The chance Libby referred to the Counterproliferation Division as a "bureau" is small; the chance that Miller preserved it that way in her notes is tiny. They need to ask Miller if it might refer, instead, to the INR, while reminding the jurors (though the questions) that the INR is actually referred to as "the bureau," and was responsible for the State Department memo. The defense should show Miller doesn't have any independent recollection of this reference by making her try to explain how it occurred in the conversation and why she recorded it the way she did.

[Sue]

Sara,

The bureau part is why I don't believe Scooter told her anything about where she worked. Scooter knew shew worked for CIA. My guess has always been the word bureau is referring to the http://www.state.gov/s/inr/>Bureau of Intelligence and Research which is...tada...State, not CIA. I think her source for Wilson/Plame she is protecting is at State.

[Sue]

Or what MJW said. That makes sense too.

[MJW]

I see we're all thinking alike, bureau-wise. I hope Libby's team is aware of the possibility it's a reference to the INR. I'd think they would be.

[MJW]

Let me add that it's possible Miller knows what the "bureau" reference means, and is lying to protect a source. I'm somewhat reluctant to conclude she'd lie to that extent. Feigning independent memory when she only knows what her notes say, and pretending to have forgotten things she actually knows, are one thing -- that rises to a whole different level of dishonesty.

[topsecretk9]

Sara - Sue - MJW

--I'm not sure why this is important, but my gut says it is important, especially if put Judy or anyone in a frame of mind of thinking Libby is talking CIA.--

YOU ARE ALL RIGHT - Because where was Mizz Flame in the process of moving over too?

STATE

I actually had this revelation the other night - in the middle of the night and couldn't remember in the morning!

Russert.

His parsy wording.

Judy. Kristof.

They didn't know her connection to the CIA. But did they knew they were told she was at the INR - Bureau.

[Sue]

MJW,

I have speculated that that was the department in State that Valerie was transitioning into. My working theory based on pretty much nothing was along those lines. I like your theory better.

[MayBee]

I think her source for Wilson/Plame she is protecting is at State.

And as we've seen, the boys at State have been like glue, baby.
They have stuck together in their story.

[topsecretk9]

and on that note, does anyone remember the 3 sneakies article (windandsea does) that came out, like the night before the indictment was announced -- that said the reason Rove might not be indicted was because he had the wrong department she worked in?

[vnjagvet]

If someone from the Libby Team is not watching these JOM threads (and those on FDL for that matter), they are missing valuable information which could help inform their presentation.

These sites are almost like a shadow jury. And, better yet, they are free.

[MJW]

TSK9, that's a very reasonable hypothesis.

I did a Google search for "counterproliferation division" and got about 19400 matches. I then did a search for "counterproliferation bureau" and got two; both were comments on how unlikely it is that someone would use the term.

[Sue]

Maybee,

I can't figure out who she is protecting. The left thinks it is Cheney or Bolton. Or I should say they hope it is Cheney but are really guessing Bolton. I think it is someone at State, possibly Armitage, who has a tendency to keep quiet until forced out in the open. But I couldn't make it work with bureau until I read MJW's theory.

[topsecretk9]

--I have speculated that that was the department in State that Valerie was transitioning into. --

Sue,

Didn't the book Hubris say as much? (so you were right?) What department in State does a CIA - IRAQ - WMD specialist transition to?

[Rick Ballard]

MJW,

There's a dance going on concerning the INR memo. DoJ subpoenaed OVP for it specifically but the "when" of its arrival at the OVP has yet to be determined.

I found Addington's testimony more interesting than Miller's. Especially the item that over 12,000 docs were produced and that Libby produced "hundreds" of notes. That fact implies that he is the type who knows better than to rely solely upon memory. That's a real disadvantage when you don't have access to the notes.

[Carol Herman]

Judith Miller didn't make friends in jail. Martha Stewart did! (That's why her attorney, allowing her to wear such expensive clothes! Shows ya that what brought Martha Stewart down was a lousy hire for an attorney. And, a black, female judge, with prejudice, galore.)

Here?

I think Walton "took the night off for show." So that he can call it a mistrial in the morning.

If so? Where's the satisfaction?

But you got another way to save Fitzgerald's ass?

A steamer trunk full of conspiracy. Because "state" isn't independent. THere's a cabinet chair in the Executive White House. But there really is a terrible cabal of characters in our government.

If Walton pulls the plug tomorrow? I think there'll be screaming from both sides.

And, he can't quite give Miller a "First Amendment Ride," at the expense of the trial he happens to be sitting in judgement "of."

If there was no Internet? There'd be silence.

Meanwhile Miller wasn't like at the NY Times. She tended to expect because pinch liked her; she'd get further along. But Jill Abramson derailed her. And, other than the fact that Bennett really got a sweetheart deal out of the Gray Lady; (Heck, who do you think is paying HIS bills?) Not Judith Miller!

And, some day? When everybody can hold a text in their hands. And, all this declassified stuff will just sit out there; you'll see the conspiracy to take a sitting President. I'll even bet they thought they got "this close."

But the real monkey wrench? Came from Woodward. He should'a had "copywrite" rites, to his Nixon take down! Or a Patent on it. Same type of operation. Different names on the by-lines. And, an out-of-control prosecutor.

I think Libby's team, tonight, is worried that Walton will be pulling the plug. That's why they didn't unload on Miller; regarding the word "bureau" and her attempts at misdirecting everybody?

[vnjagvet]

The Libby Team is very well funded, very experienced and very able. I suspect the gang is extremely busy tonight.

[Rick Ballard]

"What department in State does a CIA - IRAQ - WMD specialist transition to?"

French trade.

[Sue]

Well dang. Bolton was at State. He could be her protected source and my theory work. He might only know where she was about to be working.

[vnjagvet]

Was that the reason for her name change from Plame to Plamay, Rick?

[Sue]

Something else just occurred to me. If Bolton knew Wilson, and I would suspect he did, he might not know that his current wife was Valerie P., but remember the French wife. Would explain Plamay too. Oh well, I'm jumping into never-never land with this train of thought. I think I've Plamed out tonight.

Later!

[MJW]

I don't think there's a chance Walton will pull the plug at this point. More likely, he'll narrow the definition of material evidence till he prevents Libby's lawyers from doing anything that might gum up the works. I base this on the way he backed off his CIPA ruling as soon as Fitz threatened to delay the trial by appealing.

[cathyf]

Can somebody please tell me that problem with this?

Walton comes in tomorrow morning and details the following logic:

1) According to Ms. Miller's testimony, she knew the name of the ambassador, the (approximate) name of his wife, and that the wife worked for the CIA before June 23rd.

2) Mr. Libby described a conversation with a reporter which he thought was Mr. Russert, and according to Mr. Russert's records, that conversation was on July 10th.

3) If Mr. Libby made an innocent error and confused Mr. Russert with some other journalist, while testifying correctly as to the content of the conversation, it is possible that the other journalist was Ms. Miller.

4) If the "as if hearing it for the first time" conversation happened with Ms. Miller, then, according to Mr. Fitzgerald's allegations, the conversation could have happened on June 23rd.

5) Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can convince me that there is some logical possibility of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby's "as if hearing it for the first time" conversation did not happen with Ms. Miller, then I am dismissing the charges involving Ms. Miller and Mr. Russert.

6) As such, Ms. Miller would be excused immediately, Mr. Russert would irrelevant and thus also excused, and jurors will be instructed to disregard all of the testimony so far regarding any events that happpened after June 23rd.

7) Mr. Fitzgerald will need to decide whether to continue with the charges relating to the July 12th conversation between Mr. Cooper and Mr. Libby.

So, tell me, it seems like the perfect way out for Judge Walton. He avoids the constitutional crisis and putting Miller in jail. Her testimony so far introduces reasonable doubt as to when the "as if for the first time" conversation could have happened, and Fitzgerald doesn't have any evidence at all to prove that the magic conversation described by Libby didn't happen if it could have happened on June 23rd.

(And Miller isn't even the most likely candidate for the "as if for the first time" conversation, Woodward is.)

So tell me, can Walton take the easy route out?

[clarice]

Wel, this is different..I don't see an appeal for one thing.

And if he follows my suggestion and says the dilemma is all Fitz' cause he promised her something he didn't have to and he cannot honor that promise at the price of the defendant's right to a fair trial.

[topsecretk9]

At this point in Miller's career (dead) I am just NOT buying she's protecting Bolten. Or Cheney. She had just returned from Iraq - exactly how much time did she have to GET interviews with Bolton or Cheney in between Libby?

I think at this point in her dead career she feels principled in protecting the sources aligned with her critics.

Kinda - "if they only knew"

- remember one point she will not relent - the CIA produced Intel was solid - she'd probed herself, WHY were they selectively undermining what they had once PROMOTED (not produced)

[topsecretk9]

she'd probed herself, WHY were they selectively undermining what they had once PROMOTED (not produced)
-----
Make that

PROMOTED (let alone produced)

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

Can't you hear her:

"Je m'appel Valerie Plamé, un ami intime de President Kerry. Je suis ici pour aider la belle France."

[MJW]

As experienced and sharp as Libby's team is, they do miss things. I remember during the dismissal motion based on the Appointment Clause, Clarice pointed the that Fitz, by making arguments on the interpretation of the clause as applied to special prosecutors, with no input from the Attorney General, was acting as a principal officer. I think that was a wonderfully ironic argument, that unfortunately wasn't made.

[clarice]

Cathy, I think that goes farther than he has to at this point.
Really.
At a minimum, he has to compel Miller herself to answer the first question.(Impeaches her credibility)For the moment, that's all Wells is asking for.
If he finds the fact that she talked to other sources before talking to Libby relevant and she concedes she does now remember, he has to allow the second question."Who"(Impeaches her credibility --and Bennett's and opens up door to whole stupid "obstruction" issue andd the right to a fair trial)
If he allows in the first question and she says yes and refuses to answer based on the prosecution's promise, all counts and evidence relating to her are out of the case.

It wasn't Bolton. He visited Judy when she was in jail and no one who had been a secret source to her on this issue would do that.And it was Cheney--what ever he wanted out he could just declassify and announce on MTP if he felt like it.

[JM Hanes]

Carol Herman

I am downright sick of your racist comments. Walton, btw, happens to be a first rate judge, a fact which you might actually be smart enough to recognize if you weren't such an obviously unembarassed bigot. Please cease and desist. I suspect I'm not the only one here who now routinely scrolls past your posts and I know I'm not the only one who would like to publicly disassociate myself from the opinions you register here.

[MayBee]

JMH- agreed. I have to admit I had never read beyond the first sentence of one of those comments. Yes, I disassociate myself from those opinions.

[topsecretk9]

JMH

I am SOOOOO happy to see you are back. I've missed you SOO much - your spitting intellect has been super missed too.

I think most just gloss over CH. Long time ago I found to be a spoofer and/or fake - i was told was a long time commenter somewhere else (interestingly though - after I said so, CH went away)

[clarice]

Walton seems to be a very good judge to me, too.
One of the only bright spots of this miserable day was the conversation I had with my cabbie on the way home.
He's an Afghani immigrant who besides being a cabdriver works as a translator and he told me how wonderful the D.C. judges are (they are very good).We shared stories of Judge Wm Bryant, the first black judge on the DC Circuit Ct. and we agreed he was one of the all time best.
When he began practicing law, it was so hard for him to find clients, he doubled as an elevator operator in the courthouse. The fairest judge and the nicest I have ever known.

[Florence Schmieg]

Surely Libby has told Wells what was meant by "the bureau".

[topsecretk9]

also -- these interesting "commenters' show up at certain times and SOME like to muddy and pervert the search terms.

They play fair and nice! /sarcasm off

[cathyf]

I think that goes farther than he has to at this point. Really.

Ah, but the question is whether it is further than he wants to, eh?

If he says she has to answer the question, and she refuses, then we already know that she'll go to jail. And remember, it was Fitzgerald who cried "uncle" the last time -- Miller wasn't ready to give up her non-Libby sources even after 85 days.

If he says that she doesn't have to answer the question, case tossed on appeal. (Or does the trial stop while the appeals court rules?) The appeals court rules that she has to answer the question, and we are back to Miller spending months in jail.

Sooner or later, somebody is going to have standing to file a brief pointing out the most relevant point -- that Fitzgerald's case on all but the Cooper charges is hopeless with or without Miller's answer, and so the question is moot. Walton already suggested the all-purpose way out -- dismiss the charges.

[JM Hanes]

On the "bureau" question:

I've always thought that the CIA linkage was a stretch. This would be a real opportunity to suggest that linkage was was what the Prosecution wanted to hear. It would simply take asking Ms. Miller if it's not more common to refer to the CIA as the "Agency" and the INR as the "Bureau."

This is a very specific -- and potentially memorable, jury-wise -- instance of (prosecution) assisted memory which could punctuate the theme that Team Libby is clearly pursuing in a more rhythmic way.

Sue, we've known practically forever that Val was "transitioning to State," so your theory isn't based on nothing much. It's just that out here in the real world, things actually get hazier over time.

P.S. Do folks think that Jeffries was actually mixing up dates with Miller by accident?

[clarice]

JMH:"P.S. Do folks think that Jeffries was actually mixing up dates with Miller by accident?"
This folk does..It was about 80 degrees in that place and much of the necessary questioning of Addington was utterly boring.

[topsecretk9]

Oh shoot - sort of close on that 3 sneakies article

but do many remember that Fitzgerald called Wilson just before the indictment?

[clarice]

Jeralyn's take:"It's going to be a long night for Judy Miller. In the end, I think the Judge will split the baby, telling Jeffress he can ask about her other sources for information about Joseph and Valerie Wilson, but not other sources for the broader topic of everything in Wilson's July 6 oped"

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/1/30/233250/861

Jeralyn says the worst outcome for Libby is that juror's identify with Judy's inability to recall things without refreshing their recollections by looking at notes. Well, that's not the worst thing. He had a lot more on his plate than most and claims he answered without being able to see his notes either.

[JM Hanes]

I've missed you too tops! And I see that your intuitive leaps are as inspired as ever. I'm only just now catching up this last week's worth of JOM -- and am completely ignoring all the Xmas decorations which I couldn't manage to put up before hitting the road in January to do it too. So much for the old Boxing Day excuse.

[MayBee]

that's what I was thinking, clarice. He didn't have his notes at the GJ, right?

It seems to me that if the judge lets them ask again about other sources, and she says she had them and can't remember, that plays right into (one aspect of) the Libby defense.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice: Thanks for your impression on the date tangling -- so hard to get a feel for that kind of thing from text dialogues. Do you have any sense that the Defense is trying to play up Miller's "deal" with the Prosecution?

[topsecretk9]

"Flip" decorations! this is show time! (admittedly my family is so thoroughly bored with this - this afternoon when i relayed that Judy Miller was protecting sources my son over after-school top ramin said 'why? I mean they'd screw her any chance they got, they whole thing is stupid...MOM!!!!

[JM Hanes]

That whole episode where Libby was basically begging to be allowed to look at the notes he'd turned over to the Prosecutor was one of weirder moments in the run up to the trial. Especially when the Fitz essentially had to turn around and ask for help with translations because they were so nearly illegible.

[JM Hanes]

LOL! The upside of an empty nest is indulging one's obsessions sans spectators.

[clarice]

JMH.No. I think they know that if she says she "can't remember" the names of the people she sat in jail for 85 days to protect and referred to in her affidacit the jury will find her not credible.
Also, since Fitz is trying to create the impression that Libby lied knowing reporters wouldn't talk, the defense wants to establish --and started to today before this came up--that she sat in jail to protect others,not Libby.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

Yes, I can see that would be a key objective. Assuming you won't mind, I think I'll migrate your comment over to the Open Plame thread, instead of switching back and forth.

[clarice]

Be my guest.I'm tired and have another day of this torture to endure. (I misplaced the media card, too.)URGH