Now-Traditional Plame Open Thread

Ari testimony, 1 , 2, 3 from Marcy Wheeler - grimmer than I expected for Libby, since I had guessed the "hush-hush, on the qt" comment would be a general statement about the Wilson trip, not a specific comment about the wife.

Also, when did Libby find out her name was Valerie "Plame" [which is how Ari said Libby  identified her, although he waffles on cross]?  She was "Wilson" in the INR memo; Novak says he got it from "Who's Who", but he should not have passed that back to Rove or Libby by July 7.

My old stand-by guess - someone got tired or referring to "Wilson's wife" and looked her up themselves.  But if Libby did that prior to July 7, his memory defense has a major problem.  Same point if Libby was told that by someone (no one who has testified has called her "Plame", I don't think, but I welcome advice on this point.)

Well - we can see why the defense wants to paint the picture that Ari is part of a "Protect Karl, Dump Libby" cabal.  And Ari Fleischer is describing an undocumented face to face meeting - he will never be tried for perjury if he is embellishing this story.  Still, this is the better day for Fitzgerald that we had expected.

As to Cathie Martin - obviously, the Usual Suspects will make a big deal out of this, from Ms. Wheeler(Martin IV):

W If you look at talking points before and after there is no mention of Mrs. Wilson.  Is it fair to say that when the Novak article came out, from your personal perspective that was not viewed as a big article.

M It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I KNEW, I knew it was a big deal that he had disclosed it.

Wells sensibly moved on, but Fitzgerald did not come back to that on re-examination, which one might have expected.  Is Fitzgerald asleep at his own trial, or was this some sort of misunderstanding?  Frankly, (I paraphrase) "it wasn't a huge revelation because I knew it was a big deal" is not a phrase that makes a lot of sense to me.

But in a pinch, go to re-write: "It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I knew".  And so she did - she already knew that Ms. Plame was at the CIA.  Ms. Martin then follows with, "I knew that it was a big deal that he had disclosed it". 

OK, how did she know it's a "big deal"?  Does any of her testimony suggest that Harlow, or anyone, had warned her to keep this quiet? 

Or was it a "big deal" that Novak had disclosed it because Novak was not on their target leak list and the wife was not one of their talking points, which meant (here comes the Big Deal!), that some other person or group was leaking their own story about the Wilson trip to the press.  The implication would be that the message coordination had collapsed, and for a pressie, that is a big deal.

I'll stop now - as noted, this is the traditional open thread.  But let me just say, the collapsed message coordination as the Big Deal is not a bad theory - hey, you try spinning this, uhh, stuff into something resembling non-stuff sometime.

UPDATE:  Who ya gonna believe, Ari Fleischer or John Dickerson, then of TIME?  Here is Mr. Fleischer (2):

P Were you in Uganda. Can you tell us if you had an occasion to talk to reporters by the side of the road.

Fl President walking toward second event. Meeting with young children who were going to sing songs. A group of reporters on the side of the road. I recall I said to these reporters, If you want to know who sent Amb Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there. Tamara Lippert Newsweek, David Gregory and John Dickerson, Time Magazine.

Here are two Slate articles by John Dickerson on that very topic:

My inbox was a mess. In the middle of it was an e-mail from Matt Cooper telling me to call him from a land line when I had some privacy. At some time after 1 p.m. his time, I called him. He told me that he had talked to Karl Rove that morning and that Rove had given him the same Wilson takedown I'd been getting in Uganda. But Matt had the one key fact I didn't: Rove had said that Wilson's wife sent him.

But if Ari is accurate, not only did John Dickerson know about the wife, he knew (and called the Washington bureau, but they were all busy) before Cooper talked to Rove.

Well, if Ari was making stuff up, that would have been a helpful detail for Rove, anyway. And as Mr. Dickerson notes, Fitzgerald had made a hash of the timeline in his Jan 26, 2006 letter to the defense the President was in Uganda on July 11, and Uganda is ahead of Washington, time-wise.

And how does this affect Libby's prospects?  Well, if Ari is lying, that probably helps Libby.  Or, if Mr. Dickerson was not fully forthcoming in his public writings and not investigated by Fitzgerald, one might wonder what other reporters are also, ahh, being parsimonious with the truth.

Since this is the age of instant information, John Dickerson has posted his reply at Slate:

I have a different memory. My recollection is that during a presidential trip to Africa in July 2003, Ari and another senior administration official had given me only hints. They told me to go inquire about who sent Wilson to Niger. As far as I can remember—and I am pretty sure I would remember it—neither of them ever told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Game on.

Comments

[Barry Quincy Tate]

Is Ari done?

Will he be up again or is that it?

[topsecretk9]

BQT

Ask Jason why he'd take it on the chin and let Wilson and Johnson throw him under a bus.

[cboldt]

My "all we had was reporters telling us" was an off the cuff paraphrase of this:

And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

The "us" in there I take to be the people in OVP and WH.

[Sue]

BQT,

Could you ask him to clarify Addington's testimony. Whether he mentioned wife or spouse?

[RichatUF]

from clarice (by way of rick Ballard)...

...Dan Bartlett beginning at 8:30AM. Fleischer places Bartlett's disclosure on AF-1...

A. Is Dan Bartlett on a witness list?

B. The re-issue of the INR memo was faxed to AF1 during the trip, has anyone established if it was given to Powell (or WH staff) before it AF1 took off?

"Bush v. the Beltway"...was that Malorie's book sometime in 2005, sounds fimiliar?

See also my comment above, would the cabal of CIA agents publishing to sack to Administration seek clearence from the IG's office?

RichatUF

[MayBee]

cboldt- Libby has never said he didn't hear anything until after Novak.

I'm still not understanding this (you said):
Libby needs to not hear (not recall hearing) from an official source -- at all -- before Novak's article clues the whole world.

[MayBee]

BQT-
could you also ask him about the motive part of Fitzgerald's opening statement?
In particular, did Fitzgerald list as part of the motive to lie that Libby was trying to hide his actions from Cheney?

Thanks.

Also,
is the text searchable? Has Edelman been mentioned?

[cboldt]

Water under the bridge by now. From a paper filed yesterday. It seems the prosecution conceded even before Judge Walton ruled.

While the government believes that the September 28, 2003 article that led Mr. Fleischer to fear that he was in legal jeopardy is admissible for the limited purpose of establishing Mr. Fleischer's state of mind, given the particular concerns expressed by the Court regarding the possibility that the jury might rely improperly on some of the contents of the article, the government has decided not to seek to admit a copy of the article through Mr. Fleischer. ...

The government has provided the defense with a copy of Mr. Fleischer's immunity order. There is nothing in any statement made by Mr. Fleischer's counsel to which the defense is entitled under the Jencks Act, Brady or Giglio. Mr. Fleischer was given immunity based on general information regarding the nature of his prospective testimony that added little or nothing to what the government had already determined in the course of its investigation. Neither Mr. Fleischer nor his counsel proffered that he would provide specific information incriminating Mr. Libby. Nothing that the government received prior to Mr. Fleischer being granted immunity is in any way inconsistent with the prior testimony and statements of Mr. Fleischer that have been provided to the defense, or in any way reflects the existence of any tacit agreements, incentives or benefits beyond the immunity order itself. There are none. ...

While the government strongly objects to the notion that the defense is entitled to anything beyond what has already been provided, it has provided the Court, in a separate pleading, filed ex parte and under seal, an Affidavit of Patrick J. Fitzgerald which sets forth the collective recollections of the prosecution team concerning any relevant conversations with Mr. Fleischer's counsel prior to the grant of immunity.

[cboldt]

-- Libby has never said he didn't hear anything until after Novak ... I'm still not understanding this --

It's my take on the indictment, cover ad nauseum months ago.

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

Bartlett is on a witness list and I've read that he has received a defense subpoena, as has Rove.

As to the INR - Fleischer said that Bartlett was reading from a document which contained information similiar to that contained in the INR. He testified that he did not know if it was the INR. Additionally, Dr. Rice mentioned information from pages 8 and 9 of the INR attachments that she had on the plane. I'm unsure as to whether she carried them onto or was given them after departure.

[clarice]

Richard:""Bush v. the Beltway"...was that Malorie's book sometime in 2005, sounds fimiliar? "
Laurie Mylroie

"See also my comment above, would the cabal of CIA agents publishing to sack to Administration seek clearence from the IG's office?"
I believe that's where they'd go. A few weeks ago Plame was complaining she couldn't get approval to publish. Did the story name an office? was it Mary McCarthy's old digs (the IG) or the Gneral COunsel's office.

[Barry Quincy Tate]

AAAAAAAH!

so many questions!

I am copying all down.

[cathyf]

The only reason I point it out was because it started to take on a life of its own on the comment thread and I think folks misread Dan S's post as though it was a quote from Ari, when it was not.

I know this is harder because typepad is stupid, but here's a little html lesson: to put something so that it is indented as a block quote (like I did with politicaobscura's words) you use the html blockquote command. For example,

<blockquote>The only reason I point it out was because it started to take on a life of its own on the comment thread and I think folks misread Dan S's post as though it was a quote from Ari, when it was not.</blockquote>

A little html, and it becomes much clearer what is a quote and what is not...

[Barry Quincy Tate]

by the way in case anyone else wants a direct answer his email, which he has permitted to give out, is jason@truthout.org

[RichatUF]

from clairce...

Laurie Mylroie...that's the name

A few weeks ago Plame was complaining she couldn't get approval to publish. Did the story name an office? I don't think an office was named...

but, something in the testimony a few days back caught my eye...now for the homework

RichatUF

[Cecil Turner]

Libby has never said he didn't hear anything until after Novak ... I'm still not understanding this

That's correct. Per Fitz's paraphrase, he said (after the confused "late July . .. bit"): "in any event not before defendant's conversation with Tim Russert." Note: that isn't "not before Novak's article."

[RichatUF]

from the Grenier testimony earlier...

J Conversation with Libby. Do you recall that about two weeks after the column. July 31, you were interviewed by IG at CIA.

G I couldn't vouch for date.

J Have you see this before.

G is reading.

G I don't believe I've seen this report before.

J does that refresh your recollection.

G dates are a problem. I vaguely recall talking to someone from IG. I was interviewed by them on a number of issues.

J You discussed your conversation with Libby.

J You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.

G I don't see it reflected in here.

J You can stop reading that now. [he's putting dates up on the board]

2:03

J You did not mention to the investigators about Mr. Wilson's wife.

G I couldn't have told you either way. The thrust of what they were after, I don't think that was a particularly relevant issue.

G I don't think there's any reason why I would have mentioned that.

J You don't remember either way.

G I have no reason to think I did.

J Does it strike you that your recollection of these meetings is a lot more vague than your conversation with Libby on June 11.

G My recollection of a lot of conversations from that time is vague. My recollection of my conversation with Libby has vagueness attached to it.

G What is true about this is that I've spent a lot of time thinking about that conversation.

Trust, but verify

from the article...

Tenet received the highly classified memo on Niger from his analysts on June 17, 2003, five days after Cheney and Libby spoke with each other about Plame's working for the CIA. Sources familiar with the matter say that both Cheney and Libby were informed of the findings in the June 17 memo only days after Tenet himself read and reviewed it.

In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."

The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations. It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.

But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible. Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" -- meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.

The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.

On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings. And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

and from Fleischer today...

P Did you hear someone on AF1 make another reference to Wilson's wife.

Fl Staff cabin, Dan Bartlett, Comm Dir, reading a different document. He said, "I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA. He said this in front of me.

P Would you characterize this as a conversation?

Fl Dan was venting. That became the second reference I learned, I overheard. I don't recall who was there.

P What was your reaction?

Fl I heard all this before. Never seemed very newsie. The one thing it backed up my statement, VP didn't send Ambassador, he was sent by his wife. I had one more nugget to back up that statement.

Do I need to come up for some air at this point? Or did Bartlett say, "I can't believe [he or they] are saying that that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger..." I know Bartlett is a media guy, but the whole White House staff just freaked out about the "16 words"...an INR memo with one story and a CIA memo with another???

RichatUF

[clarice]

Richard, I read that as Bartlett reading that it was Wilson who was sent (In the CIA briefing paper) and the press was still saying it was Cheney.

[sylvia]

Okay here are some latest possible weasly Clintonian defenses for Libby (depending on the actual wording he used) I came up with.

from the indictment:
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;

Libby could say he forgot to say "surprised to hear" from a "reporter"? Or surprised to "hear" when he had gotten it "written" before?

Okay kind of a stretch, but it worked for Bill right?

[Daddy]

Earlier I thought that Ari testified that in addition to Gregory and Dickerson there was a third reporter in Africa standing around hearing him leak about Plame. Did he renig on that testimony and later exclude her, or will she also be called to comment on whether his memory is faulty or true? Having waded thru hundreds of comments tonight, she seems to have disappeared. IANAL, but it appears to me that what those reporters say cuts 4 ways:

1) If they all stick together and impeach Ari's memory, that's a potential plus for Libby.

2) If they all fess up to hearing about the wife from Ari, that helps corroborate Libby's "all the reporter's knew" meme.

3) If they disagree among themselves, some saying yes, some saying know, that might be the absolute best, adding to the "reporter's knew" meme, plus impeaching everybody's memory.

4) If he now recollects the girl reporter wasn't leaked to, why should we now trust his memory when earlier he supposedly testified she was present for the leak.

It would also be interesting to know who else was in earshot when Bartlett was on the plane "venting". Any of those folks got loose lips?

[TCO]

It's interesting, I used to think that Clarice was incredibly sharp, logical and knowledgeable about the Plame case. Now, I'm coming more to the conclusion that she is very knowledgeable about the case. Nice lady, too.

Some things that bug me:

-That dude (recent here, I don't remember the thread or name) who took her down big time on her blithe assertions that outing of Plame could not have violated some security law. The rebuttal against her mentioned things like, that law had never been prosecuted...how could Clarice then be so confident in interpretation of it. (Clarice had no response...and the commenter really had a nice post.)
-JimE took her down on the Addington allegations. And instead of conceding points which JimE proved with direct points, she continues to contest. I think there is something slightly intellectually dishonest in not fessing up to points demonstrated by the opponent. It shows more interest in "winning the argument" than in being logical/truthful in explication. (Or maybe just not having the guts to admit when bested. But again: truth should win over pique/emotion.)
-"mistake versus lie" distinction helpful to her when defending Libby but not Fitz. (Not intellectually consistent.)

[TCO]

Naive big picture question (down howler monkees):

Why is reporting on the trial allowed, but not exact transcripts? Why can't one of the reporters who knows shorthand record and publish the entire thing? Why not allow either complete reporting or have a secret trial? And what is the benefit beleived to be acheived by restricting complete coverage (transcript) of the trial?

[cboldt]

-- MayBee: Libby has never said he didn't hear anything until after Novak.

I'm still not understanding this (you said): --

-- Libby needs to not hear (not recall hearing) from an official source -- at all -- before Novak's article clues the whole world. --

I don't know what specific issue your "not understand" represents. From the comments of Turner, I'll take that the objection is to my assignment of "cutoff date" to the Novak column, rather than to the Russert conversation.

Libby has said that at the time he spoke with reporters, he didn't have any recollection of hearing it from an official source (he didn't even recollect the early June conversation with Cheney).

A quick aside ... if you are thinking something like "show me in the pleadings where Libby said that," don't bother reading any further. Just write me off as a poster, and I'll do you the favor of reciprocity. I've had it up to (hand above head) here with objections based on pedantry and sophistry. Back to the attempt to explain what I'm thinking ...

Libby statements that he recalls hearing it from unofficial sources (Russert, or mystery reporter) do nothing to address the question of his recollection of hearing it from an official source.

Libby can change his story within the parameters of hearing from unofficial sources, in myriad ways (see reporter misattribution, Woodward for Russert, Cooper for Russert; date misattribution), up to the date of the Novak column, and still not cure the prosecutor's objection. The prosecutor does not believe Libby's assertion that at the time he had conversations with reporters, he had no recollection of hearing it from an official source (his absence of recollection of the early June conversation with Cheney is excused - forgetting that conversation is not part of the prosecutor's stated objection).

Certain pleadings assign the cutoff event to hearing from Russert, the event that Libby assigns to his "first hearing." The language in the pleadings is a concession to (or a reflection of) Libby's testimony ("Taking Libby's version as true ..."), but represents only one fact pattern (out of many possible hypotheticals) that fits the prosecutor's objection.

I hold that using a "first heard" standard can take one down a wrong path. It is possible for Libby to first hear rumors, then ask the CIA and learn for a fact, then play in the rumor mill, then tell investigators that he forgot he knew for a fact. The crux is forgetting he knew for a fact. The crux is not where he first heard. April 27, 2006 at 08:33 PM

[Ranger]

I still think there is a big jump from:

1. We sent him because we know him, his wife works here.

to

2. He was sent because his wife works here. She set the trip up.

Libby admitted to the GJ that he knew 1 rather early on. He may have suspected 2, but Fitz has not entered into evidence where he might have learned 2 from. It seems possible then that the surprise in the Russert conversation was hear 2 out of the mouth of a reporter. He then takes this newly confirmed idea and tracks down Addington to see how it might be supported on paper.

[Ranger]

*Libby admitted to the GJ*

should read:

Libby admitted to the FBI...

[boris]

The prosecutor does not believe Libby's assertion that at the time he had conversations with reporters, he had no recollection of hearing it from an official source

Duh.

The only official source that's confirmed, by Libby's own note, is the early June conversation with Cheney, "not part of the prosecutor's stated objection".

Grossman, Grenier, Schmall are somewhat less than "beyond reasonable doubt" due to inconsistencies and "must have"s and reconstructions. Further on July 7 Ari claims Libby knows far more than any of these have testified to telling Libby. Whassup?

[boris]

If I'm accurately catching the drift of your logical truck driveway, you're the one engaging in pedantry and sophistry.

[cboldt]

Three new "pleadings" in the past two days. Libby proposed verdict form, Libby response to gov't motion to admit Libby's NDA's and Fitz's response to Libby's motion to exclude (certain) Fleischer testimony (that thirdd one is water under the bridge).

[Cecil Turner]

That dude (recent here, I don't remember the thread or name) who took her down big time on her blithe assertions that outing of Plame could not have violated some security law.

Do yourself a favor, read the statutes. We've hammered this so many times nobody feels like hashing it out again. There are glaring problems with an IIPA prosecution (which include, but are not limited to: 1) she wasn't covert by definition; 2) the CIA wasn't taking "active measures" to protect her identity; and, 3) the prosecutor has admitted there was no evidence Libby even knew her status was classified . . . if it in fact was). Short answer is "no frickin way."

From the comments of Turner, I'll take that the objection is to my assignment of "cutoff date" to the Novak column, rather than to the Russert conversation.

AFAICT, Libby never mentioned the Novak column, and it's not an official source. Why you (and Fitz) are fascinated with July 14th eludes me, but showing Libby had official conversations on the 12th or 13th do absolutely nothing for the case. (I'll grant you the 7-11 stuff is problematic.) He was specifically asked about the conversations with the VP and couldn't give a good answer on dates, but specified them as after the Russert conversation. If you want to prove it's a lie, seems to me that's the only logical metric.

Further, we seem to be losing sight of the fact that if we accept Libby did not know Plame's identity was classified (and the evidence suggests he couldn't have . . . since nobody at CIA treated it as if it was), then he wouldn't initially have thought this investigation was aimed at him at all. And in the absence of guilty knowledge, he'd have been piecing this together three months on.

[boris]

For the record IIRC ...

Libby apparently admitted he must have been aware, based on his own note, that the CIA "sent Joe cuz he knew the region and his wife works here [CIA]" in early June. Which he then forgot.

He claims he was surprised when he learned from a reporter as if for the first time that "she works at the CIA, arranged the mission, selected Joe, Victoria Secret spy name is Valerie Plame, and she was the real life template for the Sidney Bristow character in the TV show Alias!"

IMO Fitz needs more than Grossman, Grenier, and Schmall to fill that gap in order to prove "surprise" is a lie.

[Cecil Turner]

IMO Fitz needs more than Grossman, Grenier, and Schmall to fill that gap in order to prove "surprise" is a lie.

Assuming Libby can provide a plausible version of the "surprise" conversation, I agree. If he can't, it's problematic. (In the middle, if he can't remember who or when, or has to reach back to Woodward, that's not good--somewhat less than a coin-flip, IMO.)

[boris]

Assuming Libby can provide a plausible version ...

Fitz didn't really clarify Libby's rambling testimony. Libby should be able to explain what he was "really" trying to say when he takes the stand. Doubt Libby is as married to the Fitz paraphrase of his testimony as some here claim. Tea leaves, ink blots etc ...

[TCO]

Cecil: I'm not sure you remember the conversation, but Clarice's assertion was blithe and unsupported. Another breezy comment from someone who has come down a couple notches in my respect. The objection was multifacted and well-argued. Clarice had no response.

Finally you seem to fall prey to the mistake of logic (which I find common) of thinking that (when you want it for your side), failure of the other side to prove A is proof of "not A" by your side. This is a flaw of logic/intellect.

[Barney Frank]

Finally you seem to fall prey to the mistake of logic (which I find common) of thinking that (when you want it for your side), failure of the other side to prove A is proof of "not A" by your side. This is a flaw of logic/intellect.

Pedant.

[TCO]

Yes, but at least I'm not a gay, or from Massachusetts. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay...

[Barney Frank]

I said pedant not pederast.

Glad you agree with me BTW.

[TCO]

Aim to please. Well, within reason..wouldn't become a Masshole. "Live free or die."