Powered by TypePad

« Addington - Uhh, When Did Libby Mention The Wife? | Main | Now Dickerson Knows How Libby Feels »

January 30, 2007

Comments

Javani

Clarice, all

My crystal ball tells me Judy's going to be asked a lot of questions about certain journalistic "practices" and how wide-spread they are in the industry.

I'd say more, but it's all hush-hush..

Ranger

Well, it does seem kind of odd that after supposedly being told who sent Joe, Libby starts asking how you would find out who sent someone. That implies either he didn't remember who sent Joe or he didn't beleive the CIA's answer.

clarice

Maybe he couldn't figure out who was b s ing the OVP more, the DoS or the CIA?
At this time remember the CIA --or parts of it--were working actively against the Administration:Pillar and others were out campaigning against the WH with official clearance; Sheuer was given permission to write his book critical of the Administration and let's not even get into the "selective leaking"
Frankly, from where I was sitting it looked like a coup effort.

cboldt

-- Well, it does seem kind of odd that after supposedly being told who sent Joe, Libby starts asking how you would find out who sent someone. --


If true that Libby is asking this sort of question, it shows a degree of interest on Libby's part, where the interest is to find out the name or identity of people on the the approval trail that led to the Wilson trip. He's best off being uninterested in "who" was involved in the decision to send Wilson, except to the extent "who" is the amorphous CIA as an organization.


In other words, to maximizing a showing of disinterest, he shouldn't be asking this question at all, at any time.

Patton

What Libby was tasked was to convince the media that Cheney did not send Wilson. That was part of Wilsons whole credibility with the press (I was directed to go by the VP of these United States).

Syl

cboldt

In other words, to maximizing a showing of disinterest, he shouldn't be asking this question at all, at any time.

I agree, if the defense position is that it was a minor detail that he simply forgot--which they're doing :(

On the other hand, if you discount the defense position, Libby would very well be interested in what was going on in the bowels of the CIA and what implications it had for our intel and seucrity without having any interest at all in letting the specific wifey info go public.

Cecil Turner

1. Libby talked to Ari about Wilson's wife. Kind of highlighted it by using cutsie language in describing how secret it was.

The alternate theory is that Ari got the information from the INR memo and blabbed the bit from the Top Secret memo preceded by the "Secret, NoForn" label. Not surprisingly, that's not the story he's telling. I think we need to see how the rest of Ari's story checks out before putting too much emphasis on this part.

2. Libby called a meeting to find out how one found out about who would send somebody on a trip.

Fairly obviously generated by the VP's margin question about "Or did his wife send him on a junket." which again, Libby admitted to, just pegged it as "late July." Again, the "forgotten" bit only applies to the first mention (in early June) until the subject came up again. And sorry, but there's exactly zero evidence anyone considered it important initially. If Libby can proffer a plausible reporter conversation (or a plausible way of misremembering one), this stuff all fits as well as it does for the other witnesses.

Syl

Urk

Libby **could** not necessarily Libby would.

Walter

Dickerson, in Slate, 2005:

"More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position. Why not? It certainly would have been helpful for him at the time. His colleagues were savaging him at the time for bungling the response to Wilson's July 6 New York Times opinion piece. They blamed him for not sufficiently refuting the article. By leaking the Plame information, Fleischer could have discredited Wilson, muddied the story, and won back the affection of his complaining colleagues."
clarice

HEH--Let's see whether he wins back their affection by testifying he, in fact, did tell them.

Walter

Link for Liar or Fool?
What's left of Scooter Libby's reputation
.
By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, Oct. 31, 2005, at 11:02 AM ET

cboldt

-- without having any interest at all in letting the specific wifey info go public. --


His statements and testimony don't correspond with that possibility. "I didn't know Wilson's wife worked at the CIA (save for the Cheney conversation I forgot) until I heard it from a reporter. I think the reporter I heard it from was Russert, but I'm darn sure it was a reporter, not any 'inside' source."


Any interest at all puts the truthfulness of his statements and testimony into question.


He didn't say "I knew, but I didn't leak." His testimony was "I didn't know (except for the Cheney conversation that I forgot), therefore I couldn't have leaked."

Javani

cboldt, all

On one hand the convening of a meeting shows it less likely Libby would have forgotten. On the other hand the convening of a meeting after Joe's article does verify, IIRC, some of Libby's rambling statements that he wasn't absolutely sure about the deal, eg,

"I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact."

cboldt

Was testimony elicited that indicated the "on the record / off the record / on background" nature of Fleischer's leak to Dickerson, et al?

Syl

Sheesh, this is what Christy Hardin Smith is saying about 'Hush Hush' and how Ari claims classified info is handled:

Can you say careless and shoddy treatment of classified information, violating the protocols for "need to know basis" transfer of national security information? I thought you could. Because those protocols, codified in the SF-312, apply to every member of the President's staff and every person from bottom to top of our nation's national security apparatus. That includes the CIA director who does not know the identities of covert agents unless and until he has a reason to "need to know." And, after thinking about that for a moment, can someone please tell me how it is that Karl Rove still has a high level clearance after admitting to verifying information about Valerie Plame Wilson to Robert Novak? Because I'd certainly love to hear a public answer to that question.

Just a couple leetle details, Christy.

First, you are assuming Val was secret. That assumption cannot be made.

Second, there is not one iota of evidence that anyone from the CIA, the people who first disseminate the info re Mrs. Wilson, said that the info was classified. No evidence that the CIA told anyone in the administration.

So if, as you claim, procedures were not followed, then it wasn't Libby, Rove, and Ari who committed that sin. They were not told by the people in CIA who KNOW and are OBLIGATED to relay that this was classified information that this was classified information.

Walter

It's interesting that Dickerson uses Fleischer's name in this article, but goes back to SAO when discussing">http://www.slate.com/id/2135554/">discussing his lack of a subpoena.

For what it's worth, I suspect that Libby is happier with Fleischer's testimony as is.

It does make it seem less plausible that he was surprised at hearing from Russert, but it doesn't directly contradict his testimony that he remembers being surprised.
Cue Boris and bafflegab...

Russert directly contradicts his testimony. Libby is better served with creating the impression that Russert knew than with discrediting someone who says someone who reports to Russert knew.

So, I'm betting no Dickerson, unless Russert admits to knowing.

Syl

cboldt

Any interest at all puts the truthfulness of his statements and testimony into question.

He didn't say "I knew, but I didn't leak." His testimony was "I didn't know (except for the Cheney conversation that I forgot), therefore I couldn't have leaked."

If Libby had a renewed interest AFTER learning about it from reporter(s), his testimony works. His interest in the trip genesis still would not necessarily conflate with an interest to make it public.

It IS definitely the timing, however. And if Libby can't show he heard anew it from a reporter closer to the first part of that famous week, then it all does seem to come apart.

clarice

Am I missing something?
If Dickerson confirms what he wrote, Fleischer is discredited.
If he now confirms what Fleischer said, he is impeached by his own article/

If Gregory denies that Fleischer told him , he discredits Fleischer
If Gregory admits that Fleischer told him, it makes Russerts robo-denial less plausible.

GR

WINPAC and CIA WMD were all leaked before the war. Plame was leaked by Ames. Plame went to Montreal before all the leaks. Plame is a French specialist. Quebec is leaving. Alot of people make money studying French Seperatists. Plame wanted to be involved here?

She's known CIA, she's known WINPAC, she's known by the Russians, she's known. So, who sent her and why Woolsey following up? She lost it there?

topsecretk9

more Dickerson (cover story?)

We boarded Air Force One about 11 a.m. Washington time and flew to Nigeria. When I got into the press filing center there, I picked my way though dubious local food and checked my e-mail. White House officials had warned us the country was a hot zone of infestation. To avoid parasites we were not only told not to drink the water but not to shower, wash, or brush our teeth with it. We were also advised to bring our own sheets to sleep on. So, eating the locally provided dinner was probably a bad idea. I pushed aside the clumps of stew. Karl Rove It had been a long week. I was co-writing a long story on the trip for the European edition, filing each day to the Web site and also filing for the domestic cover story on the fallout over the 16 words. Oh, and I also had to file a story on violence in Liberia. 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.

So, that explained the wink-wink nudge-nudge I was getting about who sent Wilson. Matt and I agreed to point out in our files to the cover story that White House officials were going so directly after Wilson. We also agreed that I wouldn't go back to my sources about the wife business. The universe of people who knew this information was undoubtedly small. Mentioning it to other officials would potentially out Rove as Time's source to his colleagues. Plus, it was Matt's scoop and his arrangement with Rove. He had a better sense of how to get the information confirmed without violating their agreement.

Ari said today it was not wink wink.

clarice

Bah--re the Addington stuff--from May on an "ex envoy was saying the VP sent him and the OVP didn't. The DoS didn't. That left the CIA..and without knowing about Plame or her name or role, it was peculair that the CIA sent him and perfectly natural to ask if that had happened what kind of paper trail would there be?
I asked the same damned question when I heard the CIA sent him. And my conclusion is that they sent him in the way they did to (a) minimize the paper trail and (b) make it harder for Tenet to figure out what they were up to and what had been done and by whom--allowing the lie to continue to gain credence while the Administration looked like liars or dopes.

GR

Plame center:


http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame

clarice

Dickerson:The universe of people who knew this information was undoubtedly small.
Only in comparison to the population of China it would seem.

Thanks, ts--Dickerson is too tied to that story to recant it wihout being himself impeached by his report.

Walter

Am I missing something?

If Russert is not discredited, Libby loses.

If Fleischer is discredited, Libby can still lose on the Russert conversation. It is, after all, one of the charges.

Libby merely said that he did not recall the Fleischer conversation. He and Russert have (dare I say it?) materially significantly (guess not) different recollections of their conversation.

cboldt

-- If Libby had a renewed interest AFTER learning about it from reporter(s), his testimony works. --


Interest upon hearing from reporters doesn't, on it's own, hurt his statements and testimony. But interest on hearing it from reporters, coupled with asking for and obtaining an official report -before- the Novak column comes out, hurts him. His statements and testimony were that he had no official contact, except for the Cheney mention, which he forgot.


Once the Novak column was out, "everybody knew." Why would a high-ranking government official be poking around for authoritative confirmation -after- Novak's column? To prove it wrong?

clarice

Yes--we have no idea outside of robo-talk what Russert has said and will said.
With this exchange we have Gregory knowing--and recall that hear no evil speak no evil, see not evil interview with Gregory"no one called me", Mitchell,"everyone knew" and Russert"I didn't know her name or job"

In the meantime, as well, the universe of reporters who knew is multiplying faster than rabbits.

topsecretk9

--We also agreed that I wouldn't go back to my sources about the wife business. The universe of people who knew this information was undoubtedly small. Mentioning it to other officials would potentially out Rove as Time's source to his colleagues. Plus, it was Matt's scoop and his arrangement with Rove. He had a better sense of how to get the information confirmed without violating their agreement.--

This is bizarre. It was "Matt's" scoop?...Ari says he outright told Dickerson.

clarice

He was concerned about a set up inside the CIA, I think, cboldt. He was asking more details about Wilson or Plame but ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PAPER TRAIL-- I think he was trying to sniff out what kind of political games playing and by whom was underfoot.

clarice

*******He was concerned about a set up inside the CIA, I think, cboldt. He was NOT asking more details about Wilson or Plame but ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PAPER TRAIL-- I think he was trying to sniff out what kind of political games playing and by whom was underfoot.***********

topsecretk9

Well one thing has been established that I was for certain would be the case...reporters are not the pillars of truth they proclaim to be.

That's why I say Gregory was/is a lousy proxy.

Martin

"The alternate theory is that Ari got the information from the INR memo and blabbed the bit from the Top Secret memo preceded by the "Secret, NoForn" label."

Except Ari already's been cross examined and dismissed and this theory is nowhere to be found. How's this 'theory' get into evidence?

You expect Libby to call Ari on direct and get him to tell a completely different story? B/c I really see no other way. That theory's dead.

Rick Ballard

TS,

And where did "Matt's scoop" get good old Matt?

I can keep my hands in my pockets when someone says "Here, hold this." but apparently Matt couldn't. Gregory could and Dickerson could but Matt couldn't.

I wonder how 'Sucker' Cooper likes Conde Nast?

Enlightened

The alternate theory somewhat in evidence is that Ari is "mis-remembering" reading VP's name in a document before hearing it at a luncheon.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Libby is better served with creating the impression that Russert knew than with discrediting someone who says someone who reports to Russert knew.'

I'm not so sure. Russert can be handled in other ways. 1. Libby merely confused him with someone else, or 2. Russert is lying (probably) because Andrea Mitchell said she knew, and Russert said in Oct. 2005 something about 'everyone' trying to figure out something about Wilson. 'Everyone' sounds like 'all the reporters'.

Of course, Dickerson could refute Ari and Gregory could confirm him. The best of both worlds for Libby; Ari's memory isn't that great AND Gregory told Russert.

topsecretk9

Fitz - Ex Parte Affidavit
3-1-2006

Morerecently, Mr. Dickerson haspublished an online column setting forth his recollection ofpertinent eventswhich would seem to indicatethat he was not affirmatively told Ms. Wilson’s employment but that he was encouraged by officials to look into the question.of who sent Mr. Wilson on the Ui

is this the letter?

Cecil Turner

And my conclusion is that they sent him in the way they did to (a) minimize the paper trail and (b) make it harder for Tenet to figure out what they were up to . . .

I have a hard time seeing a conspiracy this far out (a year before Wilson leaked). I've also been thinking that the NDA isn't a terribly important point, because his previous one would still be valid. The clearance and pro-bono aspects are at the least irregular, and Cheney's interest perfectly valid. Similarly, Libby's interest is understandable after his "surprise" reporter conversation . . . and Addington's range puts that as late as the 12th, so no real conflict there. (It's around the same time as the NIE declassification, but that could be for either the July 8th or 12th conversation with Judith Miller--her version is dubious at best.)

cboldt

-- I think he was trying to sniff out what kind of political games playing and by whom was underfoot. --

That shades his "above the gossip" presentation. With regard to Wilson, his attention is best focused solely on rebutting the substance of Wilson's contentions. The less interest he has in who sent Wilson, the better, and the less interest in Wilson lies, the better. He benefits from creating distance between himself and anything that has to do with Wilson.

it is to Libby's advantage to show that he was unconcerned and uninterested in "who sent Wilson" [March 21, 2006 at 10:19 AM]
clarice

To this point, Wells' closing writes itself--

If only he could play "Memories" when he gives it.

Tom Maguire

Nice to see that Libby apparently was a fan of LA Confidential.

Can we send Russel Crowe to question Ari and put the "bad" in bad cop?

Rick Ballard

I'd prefer Jack Bauer.

GR

NO FORN?
JP102

JP? NATO? Afghanistan? Plame?

She was already known. The issue would be why a CIA operations officer, paramilitarily trained, would be in country.

clarice

cboldt--I am Suggesting the Inquiry had absolutely nothing with the press. The way this was playing, if you were in the OVP something scarey looking is going on--something which when added to CIA officials on the road bashing the administration and feeding not so useful information (with contrary selective leaks showing up in the papers) and authorizing the publication of an anti-Administration book by one of their officers--looks like some inside political treachery which any one with any political instincts would want to know about.

L2

As far as the twins, maybe it's that fertility clinic in Bethesda that apologizes about mixing up sperm, not that some got lost or anything........

Eschaton is a spy too!!!!

Sue

The only thing left is for Libby's defense to impeach Ari on his statements to Dickerson and Gregory. That will open a small door for someone wanting to acquit. I imagine it only gets worse from here on out though. Of course, I always say that when the prosecution/plaintiff is presenting their side of the case.

Cecil Turner

Except Ari already's been cross examined and dismissed and this theory is nowhere to be found. How's this 'theory' get into evidence?

I believe that was the point of this little exchange:

JWas at this time when Bartlett came to you

Fl that's when he walked near me

J asks if it was INR memo

Fl I wouldn't know

J Did you see the doct that Bartlett had in hand. Do you know whether this was the doct?

Fl I wouldn't know one way or another.

(And I expect the Defense will have more to say about Ari's testimony as we hear from other witnesses.)

I think he was trying to sniff out what kind of political games playing and by whom was underfoot.

That is precisely the tone of the VP's margin notes, and again, I think it's obvious Libby was tracking down the last one of those with Addington.

clarice

Besides what Russert suggested he knew or didn't, we don't know what he asked.
Let us suppose the question was not did you know Wilson's wife was Plame and she sent him because she works at CIA and she could..

Suppose it was something else and it triggered Libby's recollection or surprise..Say,
I understand that Wilson wasn't sent by the OVP but Tenet, what do you hear?

cboldt

-- I am Suggesting the Inquiry had absolutely nothing with the press. --


I understand what you are suggesting, and I assume Libby was in fact very interested in who at the CIA sent Wilson, and that he was affirmatively asking around in order to obtain official word. But admitting this interest works against him in this trial. For purposes of this trial, he doesn't want to admit he was interested and asking around. The more he is interested and the more he is asking around, the less believable it is that he forgot whatever report he may have obtained.

topsecretk9

R2D2 L2

Can you in an uncryptic way just say why you feel the need to be cryptic at least? I fell like I need to drop a hit of acid to understand.

Martin

So Wells is going to argue in closing that when Fleischer testified he "wouldn't know" if it was the INR memo, that means he actually read the INR memo and Libby said nothing to him.

After Wells plays "Memories" for Clarice, he can do Hot Chocolates "I Believe in Miracles" for you.

clarice

cboldy, again we disagree..It's bad enough that theis prosecution suggests that it is inappropriate for the WH to respond to serial liars who are trying to discredit them it's even worse to suggest there is something unlawful or inappropriate to figure out why the then major intel agency seemed to be giving free reign to those who were acting to destroy it.
And that is something I think this jurty will understand.
This isn't Peoria and no one who has worked in any govt position can fail to see what was going on in the OVP's mind.

Walter

"His statements and testimony were that he had no official contact, except for the Cheney mention, which he forgot."

Cboldt, I've been beating the drums about this recently. I was under the impression that Libby testified he did not remember any other contact, rather than a blanket statement that he had no contact. Do you have a cite, or is this a distinction without a difference?

clarice

cboldt, the typo re your name was as inadvertent as the remaining ones in that post. Sorry.

topsecretk9

BTW...for Dickererson to recant on his being told and with also having said there obviously weren't very many people who would know Matt's ***scoop*** thereby stating it was important - he'd be tossing Cooper under a train no?

Foo Bar

Is there a plausible theory of the case in which both Libby and Fleischer have been telling the truth to the best of their respective recollections all along?

I haven't been following this case as obsessively as many of you have, so maybe such a theory exists. If so, I would be interested in hearing it.

RichatUF

from lurker...


If Fitz knew Armitage was the original source, when why bother asking questions to these witnesses when Libby used Plame's name or not?

After all, Libby's not charged with leaking her name.

Exactly what did Libby perjure on?

Exactly what did Libby obstruct on?

Maybe Fitzgerald is going with the Jedi Prosecution...these are not the leaks you are after, go look else where

Jury: It had to be Libby because all these other leaks are not what we are after

RichatUF

cboldt

-- again we disagree --


You think Libby admitting he was asking the CIA "Who sent Wilson?" is not harmful to his false statements case? Okaaaay.

boris

They were not told by the people in CIA who KNOW and are OBLIGATED to relay that this was classified information that this was classified information.

Worse. Grenier and Harlow claim they were mentioning "his wife works here" to whoever. The fact that they were not also including "but keep it to yourself, she's highly classified" is far less telling than the fact that they (1) knew about it and (2) were spreading it around.

Syl

Let's get the timing of Russert's vacation out of the way. He was back just after Wilson's appearance on MtP which Andrea handled and the day (or day before) Wilson's op-ed. Correct?

That makes Russert in town and involved during this week of all the flurry, correct?

MayBee

Gaah. Poor Libby. These are such dopey charges, especially when comparing to everyone else's bad memories and misdeeds.

There are many internet accounts that say Ari was contradicted by other witnesses, that he had been seen reading the INR memo. Maybe it was the CIA memo.

I would say that Libby asking around about a paper trail does a couple things-
1. It takes away from the conspiracy to out theory, because it seems they weren't quite ready for primetime on that particular connection
2. It could very easily be that Libby was surprised to hear someone (a reporter) stating as fact something that he only suspected, and was still looking into.

boris

You think Libby admitting he was asking the CIA "Who sent Wilson?" is not harmful to his false statements case? Okaaaay.

It only applies to "hearings" after an interest is shown. Has there been any?

Supposedly he's blabbing all 5 secrets of Wilson's wife on monday to Ari. Where did he get them?

Barry Quincy Tate

FWIW, Jason Leopold is the only reporter I know who has the daily transcripts of the day's proceedings and has been reporting directly from the transcripts. Maybe get in touch with him?

clarice

I didn't see any specific questions about Wilson to Addington just
(a) a question about declassification procedures which shows he was punctilious (as Miller testified he was) and
(b) a question about internal procedures

Do you suppose that the law somehow requires the WH political staff is to behave like the Supreme Court and only decide on whatever appears in the clerk's office with no independent inquiry on their own?

JohnH

Clarice
Just don't call him "Cbaldy"

RichatUF

from Patrick R Sullivian...

It's hard to imagine what would be better for Libby, 1. that Gregory and Dickerson stick to their stories that they didn't know, thus blowing up Fleischer's credibility. Or, 2. They fess up and damage Cooper and Russert's.

Or there is a papertrail that undermines Fleischer, Cooper, and Russert from the "War on Wilson" notes [Time] and the Joe Wilson MTP show [NBC]. Maybe something with Wilson asking not to use "Plame" if they go with the story (specultating)

RichatUF

topsecretk9

Maybe get in touch with him?


I would if I thought he'd be nice. He should blog them and ask for link/quote credit.

Sue

Maybee,

That isn't what he testified to. I wonder why Fitzgerald allowed everyone to change their stories but Libby?

Another thought occurred to me. Fitzgerald has Fleischer stating Libby told him 1) Valerie Plame 2) CPD 3) tells him it is hush/hush and Fitzgerald didn't indict on the leak? Why not? Something doesn't add up and I would bet you money we don't have a covert operative running around.

Tom Maguire

I have a new Addington thread going, and I do hope one of the conspiracists can explain to me why this was not another bad witness for Fitzgerald.

cboldt

Let me try it this way. It would be better for Libby if the jury never heard of the Addington/Libby conversation.

clarice

MTP had Wilson on the very morning that his oped appeared. Given that there is some lead time --at least a day or more--someone there knew who the anonymous ex-envoy was before hw removed his mask.

boris

The disinterest in June when the info was along the lines of "we thought Joe was ok for the mission because he knows the region and his wife works here" becomes interest in July when Cheney is saying "this is a major clusterfrak who's pushing this sabotage?"

At some point there Libby gets it, Val and Joe and their CIA and MSM Elect Kerry pals are running a CIA disinfo mission. When that happens he is "surprised as if hearing for the first time". When and who are at this point TBD.

RichatUF

from Dan S

So, Novak faxes Ari a copy of his preliminary draft asking if he's got it right? Before it goes out the the press rooms?

The Novak piece was released to the wires on the 11th, to be published on the 14th-if it was interesting (maybe Ari gave a heads up to watch the wires) it could have been faxed to AF1 anytime from the 11th to its publish date (don't know when they returned from Africa). I don't know when he started working on it-he talked to Armitage on what the 8th?

RichatUF

clarice

Wish I could see the phone log for that day..Did the note taker's pen slip when she wrote Novak is calling you about someone named Plame'

Syl

Foobar

Is there a plausible theory of the case in which both Libby and Fleischer have been telling the truth to the best of their respective recollections all along?

I hope so.

Without the memory defense? I don't know.

We need a timeline of the week from the MtP/Op-ed to Novak's article.

But ISTM Libby would have had to have heard it from a reporter very early on in that timeline, if not just before, for the bafflegab too hold up.

I would, however, like to see the bafflegab in context with the questions.

I don't necessarily trust fitz interpretation.

MayBee

It also appears that Ari was not Walter Pincus's source.

Foo Bar- yes. And I'm one that doesn't think any kind of formal memory defense is necessary. People make mistakes. It's up to Fitzgerald to prove Libby's actions were nefarious.

Barry Quincy Tate

I've heard him on the radio and he seems very pleasant. I think if he's not pleasant it's only because of the crap that people spread about him, his past, blah blah. I can certainly understand how that would piss someone off. It's one thing to criticize it's another to make it personal.

But besides, you're TSK9, and from what I have read around the blogosphere you're quite a charming woman and great on the eyes. So give it a shot, email the guy, for all of us :)

clarice

Ari wasn't Pincus' source
Woodward wasn't Pincus' source though he did tell him
Who was his source?

RichatUF

from Appalled Moderate...
1. Libby talked to Ari about Wilson's wife. Kind of highlighted it by using cutsie language in describing how secret it was.
The INR memo was classified, and Libby might just be a shifty guy...and Fitz sure does seem to have people scared that Top Secret Val was "covert"...

2. Libby called a meeting to find out how one found out about who would send somebody on a trip. Sacre bleu...as if finding out who is making serious charges against the OVP shouldn't be answered. Maybe they were worried Darth Cheney would show up at CIA headquarters and make the people say those things to his face? And Libby only made the inquiry AFTER the Wilson trifecta on July 6th...maybe all these promises of "will get back to you" went unanswered

RichatUF

Enlightened

"So Wells is going to argue in closing that when Fleischer testified he "wouldn't know" if it was the INR memo, that means he actually read the INR memo and Libby said nothing to him"

No, idiot - in closing Wells merely needs to remind the jury that yet another prosecution witness is not 100% certain where they learned Valerie Plames name.

It's called reasonable doubt.

MJW

cboldt: Interest upon hearing from reporters doesn't, on it's own, hurt his statements and testimony. But interest on hearing it from reporters, coupled with asking for and obtaining an official report -before- the Novak column comes out, hurts him.

I disagree that it's a problem if Libby showed interest before Novak's column came out. It's a problem for Libby only if he showed interest prior to July 10 when he claims he heard from Russert and Novak, through Rove, that Wilson's wife was with the CIA and was responsible for the trip.

MayBee

Do we know what Ari said before/after his immunity?

The INR was classified. If Ari was talking off from that, he might have wanted to ***kind of not highlight that*** and so made his conversation with Libby seem to be his source.

Of course, it's possible Ari didn't read the INR, but there was much speculation he did.

Enlightened

Clarice - maybe the message taker jotted down Plame! and in the fax copy it looks like Plame'

In any case, I'm not 100% certain, but I think Ari is a mis-remembering fool.

cboldt

-- It's a problem for Libby only if he showed interest prior to July 10 when he claims he heard from Russert and Novak --

I disagree. The above logic is that hearing first from a reporter cures the alleged infirmity in his testimony. Libby needs to not hear (not recall hearing) from an official source -- at all -- before Novak's article clues the whole world.

RichatUF

from clarice...

Frankly, from where I was sitting it looked like a coup effort....

Great book idea, take everything that was done by the CIA, State, and Justice to the Bush administration and instead make it a liberal democratic administration-hailed as one of the best books of the year...call it Silent Coup

RichtUF

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Ari's calendar shows a 45 minute meeting with Dan Bartlett beginning at 8:30AM. Fleischer places Bartlett's disclosure on AF-1 but I would imagine that Bartlett might have had a few things to say at that morning meeting.

topsecretk9

-- he's not pleasant it's only because of the crap that people spread about him, his past, blah blah.--

I've said snarky crap and I've also credited him with being very smart. He'd still likely not be nice to me.

Barry Quincy Tate

Does anyone understand why Libby is the only person that wss charged in this case? Why isn't anyone else indicted. I don't get it.

It certainly appears that NO ONE knew she was classified if she actually was. Also, I think the Gregory thing is going to get Libby off. There is no doubt Gregory told Russert

RichatUF

from clarice...

Pillar and others were out campaigning against the WH with official clearance; Sheuer was given permission to write his book critical of the Administration and let's not even get into the "selective leaking"

official clearence...from the IG's office?

RichatUF

MayBee

Libby is still on firm enough ground about being surprised to be hearing about the wife, as long as there is some reporter that told him that.

It wasn't an established fact that the wife sent Wilson. Libby was still looking for that evidence. Remember, Pincus didn't believe his source when he was told the wife sent Wilson. And this was soon after Pincus found out Wilson was even married.

As long as there is some reporter that told Libby -as if it were a fact- that Plame sent Wilson, I think he can explain his thought process well enough. At least he can get it up to the standards of testimony of those testifying against him.

Syl

cboldt

-- It's a problem for Libby only if he showed interest prior to July 10 when he claims he heard from Russert and Novak --

I disagree. The above logic is that hearing first from a reporter cures the alleged infirmity in his testimony. Libby needs to not hear (not recall hearing) from an official source -- at all -- before Novak's article clues the whole world.

Aren't you basing this assumption on Libby lying so nobody would think he could possibly be the leaker?

Libby could have (re)learned the info from a reporter AND heard it officially and STILL have been careful about confirming and thus not been a leaker.

Tom Maguire

Ari's burst to reporters sounds like he read Novak's article and just had to run out and share since it was going into print on monday.

Maybe, but given the time-zone differences, I doubt it - it appears that Dickerson was tipped by mid-moring Washington time - they were on the plane *leaving* Uganda by 11 AM Washington time.

If Fleischer got immunity, that wouldn't even be remotely possible, would it?

Depends on the immunity deal. I believe it is "use immunity" where the prosecutor cannot use your statements against you, but can make a case against you by other means (Walsh tried this with the Iran-Contra group, and got tossed on appeal, IIRC).

Absolute immunity would be, well, absolute. Is Ari's deal an exhibut here?

Was this the CIA attachment to the INR memo?

The CIA report was an attachment to the INR memo.

Dickerson's denial (that he heard what Ari told him) seems to be a Clintonesque parsing of words: Dickerson says he didn't know her name or her position.

But in Slate, Dickerson wrote this:

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.

Where is the wiggle room there?

Wrong. But don't make a mountain of a molehill on this point - by now, and by the time Fleischer testified in February 2004, "Plame" becomes convenient shorthand.

I'm with cboldt on this, although I wish the courtroom players would focus a bit

Their names don't appear on Fitz's letter of reporters who know. As someone noted elsewhere today, why?

Part of the reason is that Fitzgerald lost track of the time zones and convinced himself that Cooper learned before Dickerson:

In his letter to Libby, Fitzgerald has the chronology mixed up. When I had these conversations, I hadn't yet talked to my colleague Matt Cooper about Wilson, and Cooper hadn't yet talked to Rove.

Ooops.

MayBee

Yes, I don't understand cboldt's thinking in his statement Syl quoted.
Cboldt?

Rick Ballard

Ari's immunity

Use.

RichatUF

from Cecil Turner...

I've also been thinking that the NDA isn't a terribly important point, because his previous one would still be valid.

Is it? Has anyone dug up the details about his previous trips to the Niger to see if they were buried in the expense reports as well. His Feb 1999 trip-where he just happened to miss AQ Khan and Wissam al-Zahawie
link

RichatUF

Barry Quincy Tate

Thanks for saying that Tom. I think John DIckerson is lying when he wrote "where's my subpoena"?

He claims no one said anything to him about Plame. Clearly he chose to leave an important part of the story out.

What's most fascinating is how scummy all of these white house reporters are.

clarice

Rick:"Ari's calendar shows a 45 minute meeting with Dan Bartlett beginning at 8:30AM. Fleischer places Bartlett's disclosure on AF-1 but I would imagine that Bartlett might have had a few things to say at that morning meeting."

Interesting catch.

Richard, there is such a book, written a while ago before the situation got even worse"Bush v The Beltway"


I think there is some question raised by defense counsel about how solid Ari's memory is. Instead of trying to get him to concede further weaknesses, I think the defense will try to get more from other witnesses--like Bartlett and Novak and Dickerson etc.

cboldt

-- Libby could have (re)learned the info from a reporter AND heard it officially and STILL have been careful about confirming and thus not been a leaker. --

What if he is charged not with leaking, but with making false statements? "All we had was what the reporters were telling us." (and that conversation with Cheney that I forgot)

Barry Quincy Tate

Response from Leopold! Check it out TSK9!

Syl

cboldt

"All we had was what the reporters were telling us."

Which part was this from? Who is the 'we'?

If Libby forgot, then if all 'they' had was from what reporters were telling them, that's why he went to Addington to find out more.

Doesn't explain Ari, though.

Nor Miller :(

Though to see the entirety of the testimony from Libby AND Miller would be as revealing as seeing the entire testimony re Russert where it looks obvious to me that fitz made shit up.

Barry Quincy Tate

------ Forwarded Message
From: jason leopold
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:57:50 -0800
To: bqt@gmail.com
Conversation: Regarding court transcripts
Subject: Regarding court transcripts

Hey Barry
I'm happy to help out the folks at Tom Maguire's website. Let me know what
you need and I'll do my best. If there happens to be a woman named Clarice
posting there please tell her that I thought her article in the National
Review was superb and was an excellent analysis for why Libby shouldn't be
on trial.

Actually, I have always appreciated that most people on the Maguire website
have not personally attacked me, which is not something I can say about
those on the so-called left side of the blogosphere. I don't know any of
these individuals personally so I don't understand why they would be so damn
mean spirited.

Anyway, whatever you need let me know.

Kind regards
Jason

Jason Leopold
Senior Editor/Reporter
Truthout.org
10100 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(213) 270-4334
IM: JasLeopold

Jason Leopold is the author of the bestselling memoir NEWS JUNKIE. Visit
www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I think that Fleischer's refusal to meet with the defense is tied in part to that early meeting. Fitz began questioning Fleischer from the 9:30AM press gaggle. He was rather incurious as to what was discussed at the 7:30AM staff meeting or the 8:30AM Bartlett meeting. Kind of a "dog that didn't bark" to me.

Jeffress couldn't touch it because he didn't know the answer to the question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame