Neil Lewis of the Times - Get The Wax Out

Let me take a quick hit on the trial coverage on offer from reporter Neil Lewis of the Times.

He is describing the testimony of Cathie Martin, who handled press relations for Dick Cheney, and reports this:

She testified that both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent to Africa to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger for his nuclear weapons program.

"Intensely interested in Ms. Wilson"? That is simply not supported by two versions of her testimony.  Here is James Joyner's liveblog:

Except for 10 or 20 seconds when you recollect you told Mr. Libby and VP Cheney about Wilson’s trip and his wife’s role, you had no other discussions with either of them about Mrs. Wilson?
“Not that I recall.”

At no time during the talking points discussion, did you mention Mrs. Wilson?  No.

You wanted to get the whole story out?   Yes.

But you didn’t think the wife was part of that whole story?   “I didn’t think it was helpful to us.”

Your understanding was that Vice President Cheney’s intention was to get all the truth out about Wilson’s trip?  Yes.

Is it correct that “at no time IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE” did the VP indicate to you that Mrs. Wilson or her status was part of getting that story out? Correct.

“Do you have any knowledge of Libby EVER discussing with ANY reporter information about Mrs. Wilson and her employment status?” No.

Ms. Wheeler offers a similar account:

W Fitz also asked questions whether you had recollection of discussions about what reporters were saying about Mrs. Valerie Wilson.

M No recollection

W Except for 10-20 seconds when you recollect you told Libby and Cheney about Mrs. Wilson's wife working at CIA

M My recollection was the only conversation is when I learned of his name and his wife worked there.

W and you never had any discussions about Mrs. Wilson.

W During this week when you were part of the team at no time did you say anything to Libby about Mrs. Wilson.  Your job, get whole story out, get whole story out, Libby wanted to get the whole story out. You did not view "the wife" as part of the story

M it seemed not helpful to us. It explained something to me about why he got sent.

W when you were on a mission, you did not view "the wife" as part of that story. When you listen to VP Cheney, at no time did you understand that to have anything to do with the wife.

Objection. 

Sidebar.

2:41

W [Wells walking away from mike] Vice President says you should be completely accurage, lay it all out. WRTresponding to Wilson's allegations.

M VP wanted whole story about trip, report, made public. 

W Wanted the WHOLE story out.

Objection

W Is it correct that at no time did VP indicate to you that he viewed Mrs. Wilson or her job status as part of the story?

M I did not have the conversatoin with the VP about that.

W VP Never uttered a WORD to you IN HIS LIFE.

M Not that I recall but I uttered words to him about.

W You have had no recollectoin

M I can't be sure it lasted 20-30 seconds. I remember my portion of the conversation.

W Conversation also involved other information about Wilson. Mr Fitzgerald asked you about what took place during week of July 7. Conversations with Hadely, Mitchell, Tenet, reporters, conversations with VP and Mr. Libby. Is it correct that you have no knowledge of Scooter Libby EVER discussing any information concerning Mrs. Wilson or her employment status. And the conversations that you were asked questions about involving Mitchell and Hadley. Those conversation had nothing to do with the wife, Mrs. Wilson.

M Correct.

I understand that it may suit Mr. Lewis' story line, but I don't understand how one mention of less than 30 seconds with no apparent follow-up can be construed as "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson".

Of course, Mr. Lewis is a sly fox - what he wrote was "intensely interested in Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV", which literalists and Times editors can defend as correct - Libby and Cheney had an intense interest in Mr. Wilson and no discernible interest in his wife, at least per the account of Ms. Martin.

This is deceptive reporting, whether by incompetence or design.

Comments

[clarice]

DoS wrote the memo--and they always thought the trip was stupid. Armitage made it a point to tell Novak and suggest he print the info..State was bashing the CIA.
That info did not belong in the memo is her status was classified--Armitage has publicly said he--who has great experience in dealing with classified information--has never, ever seen the name of a NOC in a memo before and thought there was absolutely nothing secret about the information.

[clarice]

DoS wrote the memo--and they always thought the trip was stupid. Armitage made it a point to tell Novak and suggest he print the info..State was bashing the CIA.
That info did not belong in the memo if her status was classified--Armitage has publicly said he--who has great experience in dealing with classified information--has never, ever seen the name of a NOC in a memo before and thought there was absolutely nothing secret about the information.

[boris]

The secrets of Wilson's wife ...

1. Works at the CIA;
2. Arranged the trip;
3. Selected Joe;
4. Spy name = Plame;
5. Had classified status (?).

So far testimony has only established Libby was probably exposed to (1), mentioned in passing without acknowledgement or comment.

IIRC the INR memo included (1) (2) and (3).
IIRC the Novak leak included (1) (3) and (4).

If Ari testifies that Libby told him all the rest that would look rather suspicious.

[clarice]

Only if you conflate (1) and (2) plus "hush hush" with it's classified information--as opposed to something we don't want to broadcast or was included in some other stuff that was classified and therefore related not to (5) but to mollifying the CYA which wanted to keep some stuff still classified.

[Doei]

Selected Joe.

Joe's dad worked as a diplomat in Spain. He was probably CIA. Joe may have been CIA. So, why would she be so focused on Ames and PC, Joe was one also.

Joe is a dupe or being set up by the trip, which no one wants?

[MayBee]

One thing the people at TNH will tell you is that Novak also had another bit in there- that Wilson never worked for the CIA. They think that points to Libby (as does everything), but that also could have come out of the (longer) INR memo.
That also could have come from Harlow, or been a statement based on Joe's bio.

[clarice]

Doel, I don't know or care if Joe was ever CIA or if his father was. Some--Macsmind, however, suggested his three trips to Niger were to cover for a rogue CIA uranium operation.
To date, I've seen no evidence of that.

[MJW]

Me: Fitz's position is self-contradictory: There's nothing there, and I refuse to say what it is.

Cboldt: Any position can be made self-contradictory, when the critic takes license to recast his opposition's position via paraphrase, literalism, strawman, or other rhetorical trickery.

Yes, me and my rhetorical trickery. I notice cboldt cites two examples of such alleged trickery on my part, but fails to note that the first was a mistake on my part, for which I apologized, while the second was a reasonable interpretation of what cboldt said, though as I acknowledged in a follow-up to cboldt's response, may not have been what cboldt intended (though, reading it over, I believe my point was close to the mark).

As to the original dispute, Clarice had just posted EW's version of the exchange, so I assumed everyone could read it and decide for themselves whether my interpretation was correct. At the risk of being accused of paraphrasing, let me offer a few Fitzian quotes:

There's nothing there:

There wasn't some representation of what he would say.

Frankly I didn't want to give him immunity, I was buying a pig in a poke.

I refuse to say what it is:

They're asking for things they're not entitled to. It's not fair.

I have been at the game long enough to know defense attorneys will say some things so they can learn things they're not entitled to learn.

So Fitz his saying he has nothing about the Fleisher immunity deal that would helpful to the defense, and hence covered by Brady or Giglio, yet also claiming it would be unfair to let them know what the deal was. Unfair how, if it's not helpful to their case? That cboldt can offer a counterargument doesn't make my point disingenuous.

Cboldt also calims I misrepresent his assertion that Giglio doesn't apply because:

In spite of a clever attempt to equate immunity in the leak investigation with immunity on a Libby false statements investigation, the two items are not the same thing.

He responds:

My rationale is partly based on the crime (investigating and giving immunity for a leak is not the same as investigating and giving immunity for a lie).

If you read my original comment, you'll see that was the very issue I was disputing (and do dispute). Again, I was disagreeing, not being disingenuous. Cboldt adds:

...regardless of that, as one reads on, it quickly becomes apparent, by example, that my rationale also involves the personal subject(s) involved in the witnesses testimony. "For all Fitzgerald knew, Fleischer would testify that he read the INR and blabbed as a lone wolf, not hearing of Mrs. Wilson from either Libby or Rove."

I didn't comment on this simply because the first reason struck me as interesting, while this baseless claim didn't. The entire issue is what exactly Fleischer indicated to Fitz he would testify to. If Fitz had no idea, there's no dispute: it's a blind offer of immunity. Now, if Fitz were indeed actually investigating the leaking of national security information, and if he knew Fleischer had leaked such information -- the very violation he's pursuing -- I find it surprising he'd grant immunity without knowing something of what he might gain.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I think Joe and Joe's trip to Niger are not what the CIA wants to keep under wraps. From Joe's first known trip to Niger thru 2003, the CIA and others were heavily invested in the A.Q. Khan ongoing investigation. This trip by Joe may or may not have been a cog in that investigation. More likely a loose cog that should the real details be revealed would put "operatives" and information at risk.

As far as I'm concerned this is a CIA screwup of mammoth proportions because their own man made little to no attempt to warn off the Senior people making inquiries. If they had told Cheney there are bigger fish being fried here and explained, I have no doubt we would not have heard another peep about Joe's trip. But they didn't include any warnings at all to Grossman, Grenier, Libby or appararently anyone else until we get to Novak. If anyone should be in the hot seat, it should be Harlow, of course, but someone was responsible for making sure the CIA's press person has enough info to know when to keep his big trap shut.

[clarice]

Yes, and in the exchange he rather admits that when Fleischer took the Fifth he knew he must have told a reporter but he didn't know which one.

I agree entirely with your view that Fitz has conceded it was more than a blind offer--though less than a written proffer was tendered by Fleischer.

[clarice]

Still no response by the govt to Libby's last 2 motions?

[lurker]

Strange, isn't it?

So what will happen tomorrow morning if Fitz had not responded to these two motions?

[MayBee]

indeed actually investigating the leaking of national security information, and if he knew Fleischer had leaked such information -- the very violation he's pursuing -- I find it surprising he'd grant immunity without knowing something of what he might gain.

It is part of a troublesome pattern.

[clarice]

Perhaps the govt has filed them and neither ts nor cboldt picked them up.
If no response, I expect the motion in limine will be granted and Fleischer not allowed to tesify the WaPo article was his motive for seeking immunity and the judge will hold an in chambers hearing on the circumstances under which the prosecution granted Fleischer immunity..If it turns out there was some tacit promise of evidence he'd provide on Libby, the jury will be allowed to know that.

[MayBee]

I suspect Fitzgerald knew he had this problem, so I'm surprised nothing is yet filed. On the morning before Martin was to testify, the defense wanted time to explore original notes, so Walton asked if the gov't had another witness ready. Fitz said no.
We know Ari was at the courthouse, because it was hot news in the media room that he'd been in the bathroom.
Of course, it's possible Fitz just didn't want to be played into not putting Martin on at the time.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jeralyn Merrit will be covering the trial this upcoming week. She is staying with EW. Although I don't like her leftist politics, I do trust her trial observations more than I would EW's.

[MayBee]

Wait.
So Fitzgerald knew that Ari talked to Gregory. In fact, had given Ari immunity. Why not talk to Gregory, then, about who else (non-gov't) he had spoken to about it?
Gregory couldn't hurt Ari with his testimony- Ari was home free. Isn't that the ultimate waiver? So wouldn't it make sense for Fitzgerald then to find out what other NBC employees Gregory had talked to?

[clarice]

You'd think, MayBee, but remember the restrictions on questioning reporters.

[MJW]

Jeralyn Merrit will be covering the trial this upcoming week.

How are Ms. Merrit's typing skills? The thing I liked about EW is the thoroughness of her report. Compare that to Joyner, who I no doubt have more similar views. In many cases, my impression from reading the testimony was different from his summary. For instance, I think he exaggerated the degree to which Libby's attorney attacked Martin's credentials, and missed the underlying theme that it was done to explain why Libby was assigned to talk with the press. Even more significant, is the selective reporting which only covers the highlights, missing subtleties which we who have been following the case so long might notice -- things like the fact that so far none of the witnesses has testified to telling Libby of Plame's involvement in arranging the trip.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jeralyn is first and foremost a defense atty. She can't help herself even when it conflicts with her lefty slant. I think she'll be very good at catching the lawyering/legal nuances.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

As far as I can tell no filing

this is all that showing in recent activity

Docketed by Notes
1:05-cr-00394-RBW
USA v. LIBBY
Entered: 01/27/2007
00:47:24
Filed: 01/27/2007 Category: motion
Event: In Limine
Document: 254 W. Jeffress
Type: aty Office: Washington, DC
Presider: Reggie B. Walton
Case Flags: APPEAL
Entered: 01/27/2007
00:52:27
Filed: 01/27/2007 Category: trial-cr
Event: Trial Brief
Document: 255

[MayBee]

clarice- I guess it always does come back to that. Which is why I am always frustrated that Fitzgerald chose to charge on these statements made to/heard from reporters. He knew the limitations of his own investigation.

New thread, based on Cecil's excellent indictment analysis.

[MJW]

Sara, having an attorney comment will certainly have advantages, but given a choice, I'd choose straight reporting over commentary. The commentary can be done at anytime, but if the testimony isn't recorded, it will be a long time, if at all, before we learn what actually took place.

[Syl]

boris

The secrets of Wilson's wife ...

1. Works at the CIA;
2. Arranged the trip;
3. Selected Joe;
4. Spy name = Plame;
5. Had classified status (?).

So far testimony has only established Libby was probably exposed to (1), mentioned in passing without acknowledgement or comment.

IIRC the INR memo included (1) (2) and (3).
IIRC the Novak leak included (1) (3) and (4).

If Ari testifies that Libby told him all the rest that would look rather suspicious.

Good on ya!

This type of granularity is EXACTLY what we need to be following.

Conflation is the reason this mess occurred in the first place.

[Patton]

Ari Lawyer: My client wants blanket immunity.

Fitz Office: Why?

Ari Lawyer: _______________

Regardless of what Aris lawyer said next, unless it was NO COMMENT...they need to turn it over.

[clarice]

Thank you, ts.

The comments on Joyner are interesting. He is a fine writer and analyst but by the middle of the day on Martin got clearly bored by the tedium of court reporting. He said so, said he prefers analytical writing.

It's kinda like watching Perry Mason and thinking it would be fun to be a criminal lawyer and then facing the reality of the work--tons of tedium for seconds of *viola*

[Patton]

Have any bloggers shown up for court in their pajamas?

Or do they just where them under their day clothese?

[Dan S]

Not seconds of violins? (voila!)

[sbw]

Sara: From Joe's first known trip to Niger thru 2003, the CIA and others were heavily invested in the A.Q. Khan ongoing investigation.

The CIA was monitoringKhan, to see who Khan would expose.

Suppose the CIA wanted someone with Wilson's non-skills, forbidden to talk with anyone in authority in the Niger government, because the CIA didn't want anything turned up.

If so, my goodness, they had the right man. At least until Wilson's inflated ego got so bruised by being ignored by the OVP that he crapped all over the mission by venting in the NY Times.

[cboldt]

-- Cboldt's rationale for not requiring disclosure, in my opinion, misses the point of Giglio --

On reflection I'll accept that, but only because of the "in your opinion" qualifier. The rationale that you said "misses the point" is not the rationale stated in the post.

The first sentence, the one that supposedly "misses the point," recites a brief contrast between "leak" and "lie" cases. The leak side of the contrast doesn't mention Libby's name, but the false statement side does. The following paragraph/sentence amplifies this "Libby out/Libby in" distinction with a hypothetical "Libby out" fact pattern.

One reason I responded to you (then) was to exhort other readers (who may have mistaken my rationale just as you did) to "read on," in order to have a better chance of understanding my rationale. Another reason was to express frustration at your persistent misconstruction of my positions. While I believe your interpretations are honestly taken, my frustration has, at this point, morphed into "I don't give a shit."

[Doel]

"Doel, I don't know or care if Joe was ever CIA or if his father was. Some--Macsmind, however, suggested his three trips to Niger were to cover for a rogue CIA uranium operation.
To date, I've seen no evidence of that."

Well, it was the Basques who did Madrid and if Joe's dad worked in Spain for CIA the
'get even' makes sense. So does Joe's 'special treatment' by CIA and Plame.

The uranium and tubes make more sense when you consider that Jordan now wants nukes. Plame was operating there? Her boss was Foley(CIA)? Foley(USAID) was assassinated in Jordan. Now it's not Plame who sent Joe, it's not Foley(CIA), but Grenier; who ran the whole Iraq CIA?

Uranium makes no sense because it's all over the ME. I'd go with the CIA 'rogues' planned to get rid of the covert WMD program at CIA before the war. Joe was a follow up and then protested the war, which it can be argued was started by CIA using Bush and the 'inevitable' Iraq war. This was Plame's job from the beginning, being the loyalist of them all(just ask). Joe was something to 'set up' with the mess. If he 'goes bad;' all the better for an operations officer.