The first 3 witnesses in the Libby trial

Cecil Turner, a careful reader and most logical Just One Minute poster has done an outstanding job summarizing the testimony of the first three witnesses in the Libby trial. I cannot improve on it. (No one can.)

I'm looking at the indictment and so far Fitzgerald's case is tracking chronologically with the allegations in it.

Yes, and I think it's worth reviewing the bidding. The first time the indictment alleges Libby heard of Plame was from Grossman:

6.On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

And he said substantially the same thing under oath. Unfortunately, in Oct 2003, he told the FBI about "two or three telephone conversations" and no face-to-face meetings. That's a major glaring error that can't be reconciled, the first story (no meeting) is obviously more persuasive, and it severely undercuts the contention he ever told Libby about the Plame detail. And since he's tying the date to his meeting calendar, his timeline falls apart as well.

Next up we have Mr Grenier:

7.On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of

Wilson

’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that

Wilson

Wilson

’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending on the trip.

Unfortunately, his actual claim was “I believe I did.” And even that is impossible to reconcile with an IG meeting Grenier had on July 31, 2003 about talking to Libby, in which he "didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame." Again, his latter version is unbelievable, and there's no credible indication he ever mentioned Plame to Libby.

We skip the undisputed VP reference, and go straight to Craig Schmall:

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of

Wilson

’s trip to

Niger

.

The "displeasure" is obviously a different subject, perfectly valid, and Schmall tracks it down and finds the leaks are disinformation. Further, the only indication of "Valerie Wilson" are Schmall's handwritten notes . . . and he has no recollection of discussing it with Libby (or of much else).

Looks to me like Fitz is 0 for 3 on credibly demonstrating someone actually told Libby about Plame prior to the Wilson article (except for the one mention by the VP which Libby entered into his notes and duly reported to the FBI). It also looks to me like Fitz seriously overstated his evidence in the indictment, and that the witnesses' trend toward more incriminating statements over time suggest either groupthink due to media hype or being coached. In either event, Libby's paranoia over being "scapegoated" is a little more understandable. These were always the weakest of the allegations, but I can't believe this is how Fitz expected to start the case.

Comments

[clarice]

This thread was to get the story on the MBA feed folks.

[TruthProbe]

Is it just me or does anyone else see the parallels between the Libby leak trial and the Watergate hearings?

Both Nixon and Bush were escalating unwinnable wars. Both presidents lied to the people about the wars. And both men invaded the privacy of American citizens.

[Patton]

Don't worry TruthProbe. Its just you.

By 'unwinnable' wars you mean ones the left takes the other side on?

[PeterUK]

Perhaps somewhat late in the day,but if Plame were so vital a covert asset,or indeed so covert a vital asset,why on earth did the CIA send her husband to a country next door to Libya?

Was the entire agency down with avian flu,so strapped for personnel that they had do the equivalent of sending the brother-in-law Marvin to do the gig?

[SmokeVanThron]

Probe - It is just you.

[PeterUK]

Dear Mr/Mrs?Miss/Ms Probe,

No.

[LesLein]

Actually Nixon was descalating the Vietnam war at the time of the Watergate hearings.

To return to the subject, it doesn't look like much of a case. How many people can accurately account for all of their conversations from months or years ago? The real mystery is why anyone ever took Wilson seriously.

[PeterUK]

Patton,
"By 'unwinnable' wars you mean ones the left takes the other side on?"

Is there any other kind? If they had known Hitler was a socialist they wouldn't have fought WWII either.

[helpmeouthere]

Truth Probe - I see the parallels, but no one else here will. :-)

[SteveMG]

else see the parallels between the Libby leak trial and the Watergate hearings?

I guess the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that President Bush had anything to do with the Plame matter would not be, in your mind, a complicating factor.

On the other hand, why am I even trying?

[PeterUK]

Looks like the Hive night out folks.

[Ranger]

Yes, they have been given their marching orders. The 'Bush Lied' meme must not be challenged anywhere on the internet. Impeachment is just around the corner!

[richard mcenroe]

probe, like most lefties, apparently can 't pronounce the letters JFK or LBJ...

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Gee, I thought it was the Democrat JF Kennedy who got us into Vietnam and the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson who escalated the war. Silly me, and my silly military husband who was sent over there under the Johnson buildup.

[Ranger]

So, back on topic. I really wish we could see the juror's reactions to all this. So far I think the questions are leaning more to the defense, but there was one witness that they didn't ask any questions of as I recall.

[Syl]

truthprobe and helpmeouthere are pawns used by the Democrats to get votes. The Demos feed them stuff they want to hear and pretend to agree with them to keep them happy.

Then the Dems turn around and vote unanimously to confirm Patreus who thought up the surge and will carry it out.

Truthprobe and helpeouthere haven't clue how they're being used.

I love it.

[PeterUK]

Richard,
Don't be too hard on Truth Probe,been a bit traumatic having to change its name to truth.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Yeah and Hanoi Jane apologized for her actions of giving aid and comfort to the enemy with her lovefest in North Vietnam as being the folly of her youth. Now that she has reneged on that apology and become Jihad Jane will she, in a few more years, apologize and call it the folly of her senility?

[Syl]

"Jihad Jane"

LOL

[vnjagvet]

Probe and Help:

Quit the OT Bullsh**.

I have no sense of humor about your contention that Nixon "escalated" the Vietnam war. I happened to have been sent there in 1967 as a 27 year old who had been in the reserves since 1957, when I joined ROTC at age 17 (That's right, I'm 67 now -- you have good math skills).

Your history teachers should have taught you that until 1961, only a few military advisors (all volunteers) were stationed in the Republic of Vietnam. The Sainted JFK decided to approve the assassination of the South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem shortly before his own assassination in November 1963.

Then the fun began. The next Democratic President, LBJ decided we needed a big force in Vietnam. The level of troop strength there under LBJ went from 16,000 military advisers in early 1964 to more than 553,000 servicemen by 1969. I was one of the guys that increased that count.

Beginning in 1969, Nixon began a Vietnamization strategy which decreased the number of troops by 1974 (the next election) to about 150,000 (coincidentally the approximate troop strength in Iraq since 2003).

You can't recreate this history, you maroons.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Cecil has done a great service here. His application of the proof to the allegations shows that so far, Fitz has clearly exaggerated the facts in his indictment.

I have tried several hundred cases to verdict over the past 40 years, including 20 felony trials in Vietnam. I never had a good result under such circumstances.

Maybe he will be lucky, but I doubt it.

[Javani]

Nice job Cecil.

"Looks to me like Fitz is 0 for 3 on credibly demonstrating someone actually told Libby about Plame prior to the Wilson article (except for the one mention by the VP which Libby entered into his notes and duly reported to the FBI)."

Jurors need not decide the actuality of the events, if the witnesses memories of events vary this assists Libby's memory defense in the first place.

Sara, all, don't feed the disruptors. When an obsessive sees a factual discussion not going his or her way they throw out disruptive statements.

[Other Tom]

Having fought in the Vietnam war, and having lost many friends in that conflict, I (and their survivors) vividly recall the lies of Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy's brother. All I recall about Nixon is that he got us out of there. I recall that Nixon invaded the privacy of the Democratic National Committee, but not much more. More recently, I recall Bill Clinton's Echelon program, under which he tapped the phone conversations of every single American, and Princess Diana to boot, without any warrants at all.

And don't tell me the Vietnam war was "unwinnable," asshole.

[clarice]

For those reading the feed to learn about the Libby case, and not to find a new place ot post inane Bushitler stuff on the bottom of the Neil Lewis thread we have a dicussion of two pending matters preliminary to Fleischer's appearance anticipated to be tomorrow morning.

We have cites to two pleadings filed by the defense (1) seeks further information on the negotiations for the immunity deal and(2) seeks a ruling that the court prevent the government from allowing the witness to say that he sought an immunity deal because of an article he read detailing (falsely) the high penalty for the alleged offense.
Both pleadings are available in full form on cboldt's site listed on the right side of the blog.
We have checked the electronic filing system (pacer) to see if the government has filed a response.

When I say "we", I am referring to the regular JOM posters who work more or less in collaboration to ferret out details about the case and discuss them.

There is also a discussion on the thread about the 1X2x6 article which reportedly triggered Fleischer's concern (and there is more about it in Libby's filinf In Limine).The person believed to be the source of the claim that 2 white house officials "leaked" Plame's identity to 6 reporters is Adam Levine who worked under Fleischer (and previously was a producer for Chris Matthews). He was originally identified in that article as a "high adminsitration official" or some such which should give you a clue how frequently reporters and sources collude to disguise anonymous sources--something Fitzgerald laughably thinks odd in his analysis of the Miller-Libby exchange where he reportedly asked to be (correctly but misleadingly) identified as a "former hill staffer".

Boris, one of the regulars has succinctly outlined what Fleischer's dilemms is:
"The secrets of Wilson's wife ...

Works at the CIA;
Arranged the trip;
Selected Joe;
Spy name = Plame;
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."

[Rick Ballard]

I would note that if Fitz is strictly following the chronology of the indictment then Edelman should actually be the next witness. Martin will still be on the stand tomorrow morning and Fitz may have had Fleischer at the courthouse in order to draw the defense filing (to which he has yet to respond).

Fitz calling Edelman next (in lieu of Fleischer) would not surprise me in the least.

[Ranger]

Well, (4) Novak probably got from the Who's Who entry for Wilson.

[clarice]

I know we've discussed Eric Edelman several times on JOM. He has been identified as Libby's "principle aide". Do you recall the portions of the indictment in which he figures?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I have a history question regarding Fitz and the Defense attorneys. In past Fitz prosecutions, has he been faced with really top notch defense attorneys? Or is he used to being the smartest guy in the courtroom? He just seems so outclassed here and I wonder if it is having an impact on him?

[Patton]

Isn't it funny how the lefties want to bring up Nixon suppsoedly violating their rights, BUTT, don't mention that it was John kerry that attended a meeting and discussed assasinating American Senators, and then failed to report that conspiracy to the authorities.

[clarice]

And yesterday (right after Iranian agents reportedly kidnapped four of our troops and murdered them) sat at Davos with the Iranian leaders, condemned his own country and indicated he was fine with their nuclear program.

(See Hot Air for details).

[clarice]

I take it this paragraph in the indictment is the one referring to Eric Edelman:
"13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."

Looks to be like a little Fitzgerald conflation again--implying that it was the Wilson part of the story that couldn't be discussed when there has never been a shred of evidence (and Fitzgerald said as much to the Ct of Appeals in the Miller case) that he (or anyone else in the WH for that matter) were ever aware that there was something secret about her identity. Indeed, Fitzgerald has produced no evidence that her status was in any way classified and now, after implying it was in the presser announcing the indictment, says her status is irrelevant to the case.

[JJ]

Amazing Cecil. Indictment claim vs testimony. Good job. The points you make just sitting in plain view and no one else (MSM) has connected the dots for us...

[PeterUK]

Odd sort of a cove,John Kerry,never could let an enemy pass by without surrendering

[clarice]

Here's a direct cite to the Libby Motion in Limine:
http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/01/libby-motion-in-limine-to-preclude.html
At the same site you can find his motion respecting the Fleischer immunity deal and his right to discover the terms of its negotiation.

[Javani]

Clarice,

Regarding whether Plame was "classified," and given some things I read at TalkLeft about Fitz' interest in pushing that term and a breach of releasing "clasisfied" information would be a violation of his NDA sounding in contract...if Libby's violation flowed from the NDA would discipline be handled administratively rather than criminally?

IOW, in the background is there a concern on Fitz' part that he might have lack jurisdiction to examine this issue?

Just throwing out some ideas...

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

That's how I see it and given he's missed so much with his own sand interference, most likely.

I bet even the "unsecured line" wasn't explored much like Cathie" Martin was on her cell phone or Armitage may have had a previous reporter conversation about Plame. The investigators took "unsecured line" as proof Libby lied but it is not at all clear why Libby was conscientious enough to want an secure line and not clear it really has anything to do with her at all.

[topsecretk9]

CboldT writes:

For all Fitzgerald knew, Fleisher would testify that he read the INR and blabbed as a lone wolf, not hearing of Mrs. Wilson from either Libby or Rove.

----

So he'd risk blindly immunizing the bad guy or the only bad guy? Yeah, I doubt it.

[Other Tom]

Correct me if I'm wrong: no one, but absolutely no one, any longer believes the 1x2x6 stuff. Right?

I believe it's time for a little routine strafing and bombing over at the Crazy One's site...

[sad]

Does Fitz knoew exactly what Fleisher is going to say on the stand? Can Ari surprise him with anything or is his immunity conditioned upon only saying certain things?

[topsecretk9]

Sad
I wonder that too. did Fitz know Cathie Martin was on the phone and in another room on AF1?

[Dan S]

If his immunity IS conditioned on saying certain things, Fitz has a small problem with not releasing that information, I believe.

Fitz has stated TO the judge that Ari's immunity was not conditioned on... what was his term, "no factual proffer?"

If what EW blogged is at all close to what was actually said, I would expect any such "discovery" to result in some sort of action by Walton.

[sad]

Fitz seemed unprepared for his first 4 witnesses. Is he similarly unprepared for Ari? Is it possible there are facts Ari possesses that Fitz neglected to discover because he thought he had a "slam dunk;" facts that could singlehandedly torpedo Fitz' case against Libby?

[clarice]

Javani:"if Libby's violation flowed from the NDA would discipline be handled administratively rather than criminally?"
I think it is generally treated administratively. Yesterday was looking at DoJ's OPR decisions and noticed administrative discipline was rendered against a DoJ atty who mishandled classified materials.
ts:"
The investigators took "unsecured line" as proof Libby lied but it is not at all clear why Libby was conscientious enough to want an secure line and not clear it really has anything to do with her at all."

Thr only non bafflegab thing Miller said was that Libby was always very careful about handling classified materials..I think not talking on an unsecured line means no more than that-The New Republic article which triggered the Edelman/Libby conversation was published on June 19, well before the NIE declassification was complete, and he probably did not want to risk discussing this on an unsecured line then.

[Javani]

"Fitz seemed unprepared for his first 4 witnesses."

Yes, if we expect him to evidence "Bush Lied", "1x2x6", "covert v. classified v. ..." "sought v. bought", etc. etc.

That's not his case.

His case is to show Libby lied about forgetting about Wilson's Wife, and lied about what he told reporters. The element being evidence now is Libby had known about the wife.

He had four witnesses testifying yes, they did tell Libby about the wife. He has met his facial burden that Libby knew.

That's the core, for now.

Yes, the defense, as is their job not the prosecutor's, showed that the witnesses have changed their stories or weren't mentioning it a lot to Libby.

After more of "Libby knew" the prosecutor will move on to what he told the reporters. The reporters will say one thing (or a myriad), Libby will say another.

[Javani]

What does "bafflegab" mean?

[Dan S]

Hmm, I'd say bafflegab means deliberately misleading by carefully not answering questions directly, while trying to appear to be answering the questions even more helpfully than necessary.

[topsecretk9]

tm has a new post up.

[Syl]

He has met his facial burden that Libby knew.

He has met his burden of having four witnesses listed in the indictment testify. :)

[clarice]

javani, it's a JOM term to describe testimony--largely Miller's --which is utterly incomprehensible especially when read in conjnction with the speaker's accounts of what her testimony was.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

This is way OT but ... This is a very disturbing story (on so many levels) about the antiwar protests yesterday in our nation's capital...
The Hill reported today:

Anti-war protesters spray paint Capitol building
Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. "They were the commanders on the scene," one source said,who requested anonymity. "It was disgusting."

After police ceded the stairs, located on the lower west front of the Capitol, the building was locked down, the source added.

A second source who witnessed the incident said that the police had the crowd stopped at Third Street, but were told to bring the police line in front of the Capitol.
Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint "anarchist symbols" and phrase such as "Our capitol building" and "you can’t stop us" around the area, the source said.
Morse responded to these claims in an e-mail Sunday afternoon,explaining that the protesters were seeking confrontation with the police.

[Dan S]

Should have granted them a confrontation.

[clarice]

For the feed readers--Tom Maguire has a new post up on Fleischer and David Gregory:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/fitzgerald_and_.html

[clarice]

Tom also has a new post up on Eric Edelman who may precede Fleischer to the stand.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/libby_trial_pre.html

I agree with him that Edelman is likely to be a bust for the very reasons Tom notes..Again another count in the indictment which most certainly promises more than the prosecutor can deliver.

[Walter]

He had four witnesses testifying yes, they did tell Libby about the wife. He has met his facial burden that Libby knew.

To reiterate, Libby never said that those conversations didn't happen. Our buddy Fitzgerald has Dowdified five pages of grand jury transcripts with:

"When confronted on whether he had discussed Wilson's wife with other government officials earlier that week -- including White House press secretary Ari Fleisher, Director of Communciations for the Vice President Cathie [sic] Martin and others -- Libby's repeated refrain was that he could not have discussed the matter earlier in the week because he specifically recalled that he learned about Wilson's wife from Russert that week as if it were new information (Exh I. at 156-60)."

For Libby's formulation to ring true, the discussions with CIA or DoS or Martin must not have taken place in the week prior to his discussions with Russert, Miller, and Cooper. Fitzgerald has yet to present a witness who can plausibly date their conversation with Libby to a period outside of the discussions with Cheney.

Based on Fitzgerald's presentation (ignoring cross), the first three witnesses were cumulative of the Cheney information. That is, they testified, at best, that Libby was exposed to Plame at a time that he has already admitted knowing about Plame.

Martin did not testify to a date certain in her direct; and in cross admitted that her conversations could well have taken place during that same period.

So, the witnesses presented by Fitzgerald have not yet directly contradicted any point of Libby's testimony that we have seen.

I should point out that it is at least possible that Fitzgerald did not completely capture the nuances of Libby's actual testimony in his summary above. But, I submit it's unlikely that Libby's testimony is more damaging to him than Fitzgerald's understanding of his testimony is.

So, I see Fleischer as a key witness. If he and Addington don't back up the "Discuss on Monday, Learn as new on Wednesday" meme, I'm prepared to throw in the towel on my prediction of a conviction.

I really expected more out of Fitzgerald. After all, how hard is it to draft an indictment that matches the evidence and testimony you've gathered?

And I'm prepared to jump on the "Pardon Now" bandwagon if we learn that Fitzgerald granted immunity from prosecution on National Security grounds solely in order to pursue a perjury/false statements/"he hurt my feelings by lying to me" obstruction of justice prosecution.

Proportionality matters.

[Walter]

Please ignore the previous. I reposted to the current thread.

Sorry.

[clarice]

It was good enough to bear repeating, walter.

[richard mcenroe]

Now I can believe Chris Matthews was a Capitol Cop...

[TCO]

It's fascinating to watch the self-deluders and the politics over morality types here abandon the barricades of Libby didn't lie, fall back to the Fitz can't prove it, and then further retreat to pardon "hopes".

[clarice]

Hmm.. So you think it odd that now that we are in the trial stage, the discussion is more focused on the evidence being presented, do you?
I think THAT is odd.

[TCO]

Clarice: It's well warranted and natural to discuss legal proof issues and assessments during the trial stage. Good point.

From my observation, though, there seems like a lack of interest in discussing the aspect of new information (from the trial presentations) as to the impact on Libby having lied. This seems to fit in well with the defensive muddling (by commenters) here of legal proof versus did Libby lie issues.

Finally, you have not addressed my comment on the last barricade of the pardon hopers (many of whom advocate one even if the two previous barricades are well-breached).

[vnjagvet]

TCO:

Here is your forensic problem for this thread:

Using the evidence adduced thus far at trial (either the Joyner or FDL version will do), please show us your prood that Libby (or Bush, Cheney or Rove at your discretion) "lied".

We Bushitlerites await breathlessly your respons.

[vnjagvet]

"prood" = "proof"

[vnjagvet]

respons=response

[clarice]

TCO:"there seems like a lack of interest in discussing the aspect of new information (from the trial presentations) as to the impact on Libby having lied."

Because,TCO, the trial presentations do NOT show that Libby lied. What they do show is that like his overblown presser announcing the indictment, the indictment itself promised more than the prosecution delivered.

Most of those expressing wishes for a pardon also wish someone had had the balls to shut dowh this nothingburger travesty .
This is the most outrageously weak major federal prosecution I have ever seen and most of the lawyers commenting here share that opinion.

[MayBee]

I'm making a cut and paste for TCO, as a handy tool so his future posts will be easier:

clarice, pay attention to me clarice, pay attention to me clarice, pay attention to me
clarice, say Libby Lied clarice, say Libby Lied clarice, say Libby Lied
clarice, tell everyone else they are wrong
clarice clarice clarice clarice clarice clarice
Libby lied libby lied libby lied Libby lied libby lied libby lied Libby lied libby lied libby lied

[clarice]

HEH

[Syl]

TCO, read Walter again.

Cathie Martin is the only witness so far who has said she told Libby within the timeframe that would make 'learned on Monday, forgot on Friday' a valid contention.

And she testified Libby didn't acnowledge hearing the info.

Even still, if along comes Ari who says Libby told him something a day before the Russert conversation and Ari's testimony is deemed credible and his memory is sound and he's positive it was that day and not later, Libby still has his memory defense to come. And he could have mixed up Russert with someone else, gotten dates confused, calls confused.

The defense hasn't even BEGUN its case yet! All we're hearing so far is the prosecution side.

[TCO]

The trial has shown more and more preponderance of evidence that it is unlikely that the Plame wife thingie was unimportant to Libby given how much attention was being spent on that issue. If the gun is really at your head...and you have to make the call on Libby lied or not...and you die if you make the wrong call...those extra tidbits of info make your lady and the tiger choice sway a bit more to one side.

[TCO]

The added information on importance and time spent on the issue within the WH, lowers the likelihood of "forgetting" being true.

[TCO]

Clarice ("Most of those expressing wishes for a pardon also wish someone had had the balls to shut dowh this nothingburger travesty...") Several of "your side" have advocated a pardon even if Libby is found to have lied becuase "Clinton got away with it" or similar statements of (im)moral logic.

[clarice]

TCO--Only to someone who thought that was more imposrtant than the substance of Munchausen's serial lies--in other words only to a dunce.

[TCO]

Are you contesting my observation or are you agreeing with those who make that type of statement?

[MayBee]

Plame wife thingie was unimportant to Libby given how much attention was being spent on that issue

According to trial testimony so far, how much time (up to this point in the narrative) has been spent by the OVP on the Plame issue.

Grossman mentioned it at some point, in between meetings, 10 seconds.
Cathie Martin got off the phone and mentioned it, about 30 seconds.

Neither recall exactly what they said, but they don't think they used her name.
Martin doesn't recall Libby responding.
Grossman said he responded by saying, "Well, we didn't send him".

Have you seen something else, TCO? Some evidence of more time and greater focus on PLAME?

[TCO]

Maybee: By "the issue", I mean the Wilson article and trip. If we learn that the Wilson article and the negative publicity (and felt hurt) was so important that multiple meetings were spent on it (despite all the super-secret top security stuff that is supposed to occupy Libby), than it makes it more likely that an aspect (wife tidbit) of that larger issue (Wilson criticism) would be memorable. That's reasonable, no? I mean, knowing nothing else, wouldn't that shift the scales some amount in the direction, I contend.)

[Syl]

TCO

The added information on importance and time spent on the issue within the WH, lowers the likelihood of "forgetting" being true.

LOLOLOLOL

You just can't help yourself, can you?

"time spent on the issue"

WHICH issue? the NIE? the Jan 24 report? The report of Wilson's trip? State's take on it? How much to declassify to show the public to rebut Wilson's accusations? Persuading the CIA to admit they sent Wilson, not OVP?

You mean THAT issue?

With all that going on and the 'time spent' on it, it looks like it actually INCREASES the likelihood of forgetting a minor detail--that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

[TCO]

Wilson's article, the associated trip, and press/public response to the article.

[Syl]

TCO

Wilson's article, the associated trip, and press/public response to the article.

Yes. And it took time and research to figure out what would constitute the last part, and determining what should be de-classified and getting it done. The talking points Cathi Martin laid out covered a lot of ground. And none of that had anything to do with Wilson's wife.

[MayBee]

Yes, I think Libby was focused on the press/public response to the article more than the trip or the article itself. As you can see now, it's difficult to maintain support for a war when you are being accused of lying. We were in the beginning of a war, it was important for them to show they hadn't been lying.

The most practical response I can give you, TCO, is to think about a time you've forgotten something important. It's really easy to do, it happens to everyone, so you should be able to apply your own experience to the testimony so far.

I know when I was pregnant- actually 2 weeks overdue- with my first baby, my husband forgot my birthday. Here he was, intensely focused on me, thrilled that we were headed for this miraculous experience together, calling me from work at least once an hour. You would think that would make him remember my birthday more, wouldn't you? But it was just the opposite. That's the way life (and memory) works.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

It was May 29th when Libby first tasked Grossman with who is this "former Ambassador" and what's the deal on his trip? Grossman didn't know. It took him approx. 12 days to get back to Libby with the information that he received from his own inquiries through phone calls and emails. He passed the info on to Libby, he thinks, in passing between 2 meetings scheduled at 11:15 and 11:30. So far Libby has spent about zero time on the issue other than to ask the question.

Libby was interested in who the "former Ambassador" is not who his wife is. He was interested in finding out if State had sent him on the trip and tells Grossman that the OVP did not. Grossman knows nada or so he testified.

To another point you were trying to snark about -- the prosecution has the burden here not Libby. It is up to the prosecution to convince beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges are true. So far, about all we have is a bunch of people saying Wilson's wife was an unremarkable factoid and even if it wasn't, they don't remember it anyway.

And then we get to the two people who actually did know because they saw the INR and then leaked the contents are the only two who Fitzgerald has elected for some bizarre and unknown reason to protect and not charge.

The various threads dealing with this trial are devoted to testing Fitz's claims against his case at trial and look for reasonable doubt. That is the nature of the system. The burden is not on Libby to prove his innocence, it is on Fitz to probe Libby's guilt. In a trial expected to last 4 to 6 weeks, it is way to early to know whether Fitz can meet his burden, but the first 4 witnesses haven't done much to help his cause at this point.

[TCO]

Syl: Perhaps you think I am making an argument that the issue (article hubbub) created a conspiracy to "punish Wilson" by "outing his CIA wife"? I have never been in that camp.

[TCO]

Maybee: Have no arguments with your latest post. I have forgotten things and it is possible that Libby did too.

I understand how the Bush Admin felt about the war and the importance of the PR battle related to perception of the war. (This is not relevant to the issue of Libby and his memory...if anything it hurts Libby, because it makes it more likely that the issue was important and memorable and related matters would be more memorable as a result).

[MayBee]

(This is not relevant to the issue of Libby and his memory...if anything it hurts Libby, because it makes it more likely that the issue was important and memorable and related matters would be more memorable as a result).

Well then, you do have arguments with my last post.
You can't say it would be 'more likely he remembered, simply because his focus was on related matters (and many other matters as well). So far, there is no evidence Libby was even interested in Plame. None.

[MayBee]

by the way, TCO, you said you wanted to talk about the evidence.
Talk about it. Tell me the evidence that Plame was interesting to Libby.

[TCO]

Maybe: I have made comments on interesting aspects of the evidence in last couple days on this BBS. Let me respond to the areas in discussion at this time.

[TCO]

Maybe: I do agree with the (trite) points that you have made. You are not agreeing with the trite points that I am making. Just because I agree on A or on B, does not mean I am st C, D or E or F (even if you think that leads naturally). And even if I know you are headed to F and I disagree with you, I will not contest you on A, if I agree with you on A. That is called being intellectually honest in discussion, vice a tendentious sophist (ooops I mean lawyer).

[TCO]

On the point of something being more memorable if it is related to something notable, yes, I do say that this tends to be the case. You should be able to think of how this works in your daily life (note, if you are going to fall to the all or nothing fallacy) that this is not an argument that it has to happen this way. But one of the tendancy for how the brain works.

As someone from the outside trying to evaluate an alleged liar (as a general public person not a juror), I find inferences like this useful.

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks for the kind words, folks.

As someone from the outside trying to evaluate an alleged liar . . .

Oh nonsense, TCO. While some of the more gullible might've bought your "just askin'" routine on earlier threads, the persistent accusations of closed-mindedness while spouting fallacious arguments makes that incredible. You're obviously not open-minded, nor trying to evaluate anything, and the pretense is getting tiresome. Give it up, or try addressing some of the actual evidence.

[cathyf]

By "the issue", I mean the Wilson article and trip. If we learn that the Wilson article and the negative publicity (and felt hurt) was so important that multiple meetings were spent on it (despite all the super-secret top security stuff that is supposed to occupy Libby), than it makes it more likely that an aspect (wife tidbit) of that larger issue (Wilson criticism) would be memorable. That's reasonable, no? I mean, knowing nothing else, wouldn't that shift the scales some amount in the direction, I contend.)

If you are going to go on the interest in "the issue" in general, then partition out "interest" to various aspects, then you need to use a complete set. If you are looking at Joe Wilson, and what is interesting about Joe Wilson, that his wife works for the CIA is going to be somewhat less interesting than the fact that he is the father of two sets of boy/girl fraternal twins. Splitting into identical twins is something that the embryo does, but fraternal twins come about when the mother pops out two eggs at once. So the tendency to split into identical twins can be inherited by the twins from either mother or father, but there is no tendency to be a fraternal twin, only a tendency to conceive fraternal twins. In other words, this is something that Joe's first and third wives have, and they didn't get it from him.

So fathering two sets of fraternal twins is a fascinating coincidence. Sort of like only entering the lottery twice and winning both times. It's pretty rare and interesting. More interesting than having a wife who is in the CIA. I'll bet that the number of 2-sets-of-fraternal-twins families in the US is much smaller than the number of married employees of the CIA...

There is no evidence at all that anyone at the WH or OVP had the slightest interest in Joe Wilson's twin-lotto winnings, which is a very strong indication that they wouldn't be interested in his wives, either.

And anyway, Joe's second wife, the foreign national with the murky resume that looks an awful lot like what a spy's resume would look like, the wife who did not bear him fraternal twins, looks like the interesting wife. There is no evidence that anyone in the WH and OVP was interested in her, either. Not any other department of the US government, for that matter. That the State Department didn't seem real concerned that one of their ambassadors might be married to a foreign spy is a bit apalling, but, of course, not really germane to the question of what Libby was interested in.

[TCO]

I'll stand my ground, gyrene.

[cathyf]

I understand how the Bush Admin felt about the war and the importance of the PR battle related to perception of the war.

Really? Upon what evidence do you base your "understanding"? All of the evidence that I have seen is that the Bush administration is almost entirely a no-show when it comes to responding to people lying about them. It's hard to fault them -- what they have experienced over the past six years is akin to jr-high "queen bee" girls bullying the "uncool" girls in the bathrooms in order to jockey for status among the other "queen bees." And those of us who were once jr-high girls can attest to the difficulty of the task of responding to this when you are one of the "uncool" kids -- mostly because the bullying isn't about the "uncool" kids it's about performing for the other "queen bees."

The whole six year history of this administration is that they reply to lies by (mostly) ignoring them and (occasionally) responding by telling the truth. In this case, The Truth is that the NIE didn't say what Joe Wilson said that it said. The president and vice president had the ability to rebut Joe Wilson's lies about the NIE simply by declassifying and releasing enough of it to discredit Joe Wilson. The State Department had no ability to declassify the NIE, so they were stuck with discrediting Joe Wilson by ridiculing him. And sure enough, Fitzgerald collected evidence, which he has already released, showing that the vice president attempted to discredit Wilson by declassifying and releasing the NIE, while the State Department attempted to discredit Wilson by ridiculing him.

And, TCO, notice that I am not one of the "oh Libby lied but he should get away with it because Clinton did too" camp. I am in the "Bush should be impeached because he used his authority as head prosecutor (one of the chief executive's many roles) to turn a purely administrative matter into a criminal investigation, by making an unconstitutional appointment and having his DoJ stormtroopers violate the constitutional rights of journalists and WH and OVP staffers" camp.

[TCO]

Cathyf:

Interesting point. You are not just contesting my point, but really more basically attacking the basis of the remark from Maybee. Thanks for playing and please note how both Maybee's chiding and your view can not be consistent. Nevertheless, I actually agree with the basis of Maybee's remark, just not with her intended implications.

I don't think that Bush should be impeached for this imbroglio. I do agree with cboldt, though that the admin deserves much of the blame for allowing this thing to progress to such stages rather than just taking the PR hit, but being honest on what transpired with the nepotistic-wife outing.

Of interest, irregardless of your desire to impeach Bush, do you support frying Libby's ass if he is proven to have deliberately lied to investigators/GJ?