The Headline Ends In A Question Mark

The Headline Ends With a Question Mark

Wednesday was a good day for the Libby defense. Judy Miller, as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post,  and the AP’s Matt Apuzzo noted was not an all star witness for the prosecution. I don’t like ploughing a field that’s already been tilled and refer you again to my media bloggers association colleague, Rory O’Connor who has some good thumbnails on  the last portion of her testimony (1, 2).

The most amusing witness of the trial was up today, the charming Matt Cooper who with his sloppy notes, shoddy journalism and wry humor brought the old play “Front Page” to life before our eyes. He is the sort of person it would be fun to have dinner with, not the sort of person whose news story should be taken as a bit of serious journalism

Cooper is one of the prosecution’s chief witnesses and surely by now even those who believed in the “Elliott Ness with a law degree” fluff about the prosecutor must be thinking more along the lines of “Get Smart”. In a brutally devastating but gentlemanly low key way the defense destroyed a key prosecution witness. The defense showed through an examination of the internal Time emails and documents that the story that brought Matt Cooper into this, “A War on Wilson?” was something concocted out of thin air.

Cooper’s notes showed he claimed as "confirmation" a minute’s long “off the record conversation”( something never to be considered confirmatory) in response to a question about Wilson’s wife playing a role in this Mission . Libby seems in fact—from Cooper’s own notes (haphazard and mistyped as they are) --to have said very much what he said he did: That he heard that too but didn’t even know if that was true.

The key story “A War on Wilson?” coauthored by Matt begins:

“Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps.”

This war as it turns out  existed only in  in Matt’s mind.  Unless you consider efforts to respond  to inquiries about Wilson's claims with the truth to be war or to be as Cooper does  “dissing” or “disparaging” Wilson. It seems Libby engaged in  perfectly appropriate conduct such  as noting all the elements of Wilson's claim were false (Something the bi-partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee confirmed):Wilson was not sent at the “behest of the vice president; he did not refute, but rather supported, the existing intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger; his report never made it to the vice president.

But beyond that, we saw how to meet a  pressing deadline while on a summer weekend's jaunt  at a country club, Matt took a noncommittal off the record response  from Libby, pretended Rove’s statement about Plame had been confirmed by Libby and that he had a third confirmation from his colleague  Dickerson who still claims that despite what Fleischer testified to the other day, Fleischer did not tell him about Plame but merely said that if he wanted to know who sent Wilson to Africa he should ask the CIA.

Even better, the quote in the article’s account of Libby’s response to Cooper is not in his notes, wasn’t even in his first draft of the story. It was a revision suggested by someone higher up the food chain at the magazine.  It clearly fit better into an account which without factual basis claimed there was a  “War on Wilson”.

Cooper, in defense of this shoddy journalism (the phrase “watching sausage being made” was muttered in the media room and not by the bloggers) reminded us that “The headline ends in a question mark."

Clarice Feldman.

Comments

[Dan S]

That seems to sum it up, Clarice. I think you're more generous to Cooper that I could be. I wouldn't particularly want to have dinner with him. Well, maybe if he were paying.

And only if sausage wasn't on the menu.

[Dan S]

Darn it, why always 'that' for 'than?' That's one are I can sympathize with Cooper on!

[clarice]

He actually does erform in local comedy clubs. He's not a serious person though.

[clarice]

well I meant Perform so..big deal..

[roanoke]

Don't get too war on Wilson and not sent by the director of the cia and when it comes out whoand it was the agency and somebody at the agency atinvolved in wmd and like his wife....notable...and this guy was not an emissary and did not and his report is nowhehre near and there's nowhere andiragis have not and it's the

[roanoke]

Ghee my typing is awful, erh and I didn't finish my thought...

[clarice]

You signed up for my course, roanoke..good.soon this whole place will be tapping away incomprehensibly. (Consider it my contribution to deconstructionist blogging.)

[roanoke]

But thankfully that's not me-it's Matt Cooper-typing three years ago-

Defense Exhibit DX817 at AP

[clarice]

He is one of the premier grads of the Clarice typing and notetaking course, roanoke. Don't "diss" him.

[roanoke]

clarice-

Gad-that was a Matt Cooper specimen and to think the FDLers thought the Defense was being hard on him...

Next I'm going to link the other exhibit where he is cya about every second.

He's got question marks strewn all over the place.

[topsecretk9]

WOW...this post is PRETTY!

[roanoke]

Link to Defense Exhibit 820-

Matt Cooper's War on Punctuation

[Neo]

Capital punishment opponents and NRA 2nd amendment supporters are always looking for the "perfect case" but live in fear of a bad case making bad law.

Fitz has managed to seize the day rendering the best example so far on why "special counsels" always seem to be "special" or is that "touched" ?

Fitz, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, just seems to embody the spirit of Oliver Twist. Unfortunately, the "Oversight by Public Domain" has completely failed, as he should have been give a quick "No" (or perhaps a kick in the asp) to his request for "More?"..

[Kazinski]

There should be spellchecking controls for comments in blogging software. Spelling is a hobgoblin of little minds, but there are a lot of little minds out there, and they can be snarky.

[Carol Herman]

After Cooper's testimony, the judge read a few questions the jurors had written. One, which he said he "couldn't answer in court" but what does that mean?

And, one juror asked about Plame. Because the judge said "she's not part of this case."

It seems the jurors do pay attention!

And, then the judge asked Fitzgerald "when he'd be finished." Not sure if he wraps up tomorrow. Or Monday.

But at first it seems Wells was being told to be ready for Wednesday. Then, Wells, at the bench said RULE 29. He would like to know if the day he starts is MONDAY. Because he has to tell Jill Abramson, from the NY Times to come and testify.

That means? Wells is gonna use Jill Ambramson to impeach Judith Miller. (And, RULE 29 "knocks one prong off of her testimony.)

I guess we just wait for it all to play out.

Walton also thinks the trial, in its entirity, will be over in two weeks. That fast?

[Dan S]

Ok, the first seven comments here resulted in my best belly laugh of all day. None of us can type.

[roanoke]

clarice

Deconstuctionist!? LOL
Are you accusing us of being Foucualt Freaks!?

Let me go out on a limb and say that I am "disparaging" him...

[clarice]

He look demented today when he was arguing that his note of the Matalin conversation should be admitted because having noted that MM said Wilson was a "snake" who was harming the administration with his lies showed he had a motive to lie..The judge's eyebrows rose ..

So did his assistant when he argued they should be allowed to show all the McClellan pressers in which people raised questions about Libby--to show that (shades of Martha Stewart) that in getting McClellan to finally deny Libby "leaked" he was showing motive again.

Some people need to get a life.

[lurker]

And, one juror asked about Plame. Because the judge said "she's not part of this case."

Huh? After thousands of questions regarding Wilson and his wife, Walton told the juror that Plame is not part of this case?

Was the juror asking for Plame's status or what?

[Dan S]

Roanoke,

Without meaning to exactly defend Cooper's punctuation, there are some circumstances where apostrophes translate into question marks when transferring text from one document type to another. That sure appears to be what's happening (mostly) in that document.

And as far as typos go, most of us need go no farther than say, "I'm on a notebook." Those keyboards are painful.

[roanoke]

Oh frig I misspelled Foucault, Foucault-the French always render me dyslexic.

Pisht!

[clarice]

In his testimony Cooper made reference to Plame as a CIA officer..the judge again made the warning to the jury that this is not part of the case.
Then a question from a juror along those lines and the judge said he wasn't asking it because once again jurors that is not part of the case..
Over all, the jury's questions are very good.
(Jeralyn and I have different views on the wisdom of this. She doesn't like the notion of juror questions, I love it..)

[roanoke]

Dan S-

Oh ya I thought of that I think it's a ghost in html codes but I thought with the question mark theme today it was just too rich to pass up..

I'm easily amused.

[Other Tom]

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

(a) Before Submission to the Jury.

After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

[Dan S]

I'm no "Foucualt Freak!" My Foucault length is too short. (And I prefer Russian critics to French any day too! Yes, I'm dissing the French.)

But I do like the idea of postmodern blogging including deconstructionist typing.

[roanoke]

lurker-

Plame's status.

I think that goes to clarice's complaint about Fitzgerald's press conference or why the general public think that the case is about revealing Plame's covert CIA status.

[lurker]

So...Rule 29 is a motion submitted to Judge Walton and he decides?

[Neo]

So where is NBC's Tim Russert ?

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Walton hasn't caught all cases of "covert" either. I saw at least one slip past today unchallenged. I think from Fitz's team.

[MayBee]

Cooper's notes:
had somethine about the wilson thing and not sure if it's ever...
-----
That is the closest thing Cooper's notes get to showing Libby might have mentioned the wife (the "thing).

I canNOT believe there are perjury charges on Libby against this.

[clarice]

It turns out as it came in on cross that that means
"heard something about the Wilson thing and not even (sure that it's right)"

[Dan S]

Here we go, part 1 of EW Cooper stuff:

"12:25

MC Describes statement. Varying degrees of confidentiality. First on background. Was your office involved in 16 words into SOTU. No, his office was more focused on other aspect of SOTU, project bioshield. Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that. I asked what he had heard about Wilson's wife.

MC Mr Libby said, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that too." Pleasantries at the end, maybe another question or two in there.

F Groundrules?

MC I said on background, before I said Langley. Just before Wilson's wife, I said off the record.

F Did he say covert status?

MC No

F Did he indicate her affiliation was classified, Did Libby say who he had heard it from. Did he say he heard from reporters? Did you type notes?

MC No"

No Walton instruction that time.

[clarice]

The judge and defense make every effort to continue to correct the record when "covert" ears its head..

I expect that the closing arguments will hit this with a sledgehammer and so will the instructions.

[roanoke]

Dan S.

I also detest and deride Derrida.

And before a Foucualt freak emerges. Yes "it's" beyond me...

Foucualt talk about a cya "artist".

[roanoke]

Neo-

Fritz was promising to wrap up with Russert and was estimating by next Monday or Tuesday.

[centralcal]

I've been trying to go to Slate.com for hours - couldn't get on. Wanted to see Dickerson's take on today's testimony by his pal Cooper. Finally got in just a minute ago and the site is all funky looking. Hmmmm, guess we won't be getting John D.'s first hand report. how funny.

[Dan S]

Roanoake,

Derrida? That's an old ditty right?

Der-a-dah... der-ah-doh. Der-ah-dee, der-ah-dumdadumdadumdadumdadoh...

Reads about like that.

[clarice]

Tomorrow the trial will resume late--10:40 or so..There was some talk of a "mystery witness"(don't know which side) and some in chambers argument to be made on top of that..Still they are talking about the defense opening on about Monday.

[Dan S]

centralcal...

Oh, oh. I bet Cooper posted some comments there and his typing screwed up the formatting templates.

[clarice]

Not too long after Cooper mentioned Dickerson as a confirming source..and there were hoots and hollers in the media room..Dickerson left.

I don't know yet if he's consulting with attys or Libby or Fitz..Maybe he's on a fact finding mission to Africa.

This is all so embarrassing for everyone.

Did you know that in Matalin's note she advised Libby to call Russert because he "hates Matthews"

[roanoke]

clarice-

He look demented today when he was arguing that his note of the Matalin conversation should be admitted because having noted that MM said Wilson was a "snake" who was harming the administration with his lies showed he had a motive to lie..The judge's eyebrows rose ..

Is Fitz about to have his Captain Queeg moment?

Also Fitz was saying that he had one more witness but it was still to be discussed.

I wonder who that could be?

[Dan S]

One of the NRO crew picked up on that Matalin tidbit, Clarice. That "snake" remark was... gratifying. But where Fitz wanted to take it, that was odd, to say the least. I guess we can start blaming reporters for the quotes of others they print. Goes to their state of mind! (Well, in Cooper's case that may actually apply.)

It's interesting that Dickerson left. He was probably dodging the press, knowing their tactics (personally!)

[centralcal]

Dan S: too funny! (probably true!)

Clarice: "mystery witness?" Any more info on that? Also, what was the reaction in the peanut gallery to the Mary Matalin comment about Russert hating Matthews?

[Dan S]

Mystery witness... I vote for Val!

"By my feelings were sooooo hurt when I was outed! I felt like a Republican Congress dragged out of the closet by a hostile blogger! I mean, so what if I'm married to a snake? That's my personal life! They had no right to conflate that with my professional life and me sending an emminently qualified ambassador to Africa to drink tea with ex-dictatorial stooges and investigate the ginned up bogus intel the Vice President psychically ordered me to deliver so Karl could insert 16 words into the SOTU.

"That's my story and I'm stuck with it."

[centralcal]

Clarice said "This is all so embarrassing for everyone."

Well, embarassing for the media! Dang, why couldn't this trial have been televised!

[topsecretk9]

--Did you know that in Matalin's note she advised Libby to call Russert because he "hates Matthews"--

I think the note helps Libby because it has MM advising to call Tim about Wilson - and the snake bit? Wouldn't MM be pleased as punch to describe why SHE thought Wilson was a snake? I should think so.

[roanoke]

clarice-

You have a direct quote from Instapundit-

In a brutally devastating but gentlemanly low key way the prosecution destroyed a key prosecution witness.

Shoot is that what you meant?

Because Fritz didn't help Cooper much.

But- I think you meant the Defense.

[Pofarmer]

and there were hoots and hollers in the media room..Dickerson left.

He might have just needed a stiff drink. I know I would if I just became rather closer to the center of all this.

[centralcal]

oh puhleeze Clarice say you meant it just the way you typed it! I just loved that sentence! (...the prosecution destroyed a key prosecution witness...)

[roanoke]

centralcal

Ya-I love it too but cripes there's nothing "gentlemanly" about the Prosecution.

[Other Tom]

Yeah, a Rule 29 motion is the one where the defense asks the judge to throw out one or more counts, or the whole case, on the ground that the proseuction hasn't carried its burden. What the defense argues is that on the state of the record prsented by the prosecution, no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense almost always makes such a motion at the close of the prosecution case, and again after all the evidence from both sides is in (assuming that some or all of the case survives the first motion). Someone mentioned above that Wells was mentioning "Rule 29" in a sidebar, in all probability just alerting the judge to the fact that he would be making such a motion when Fitz is done.

[clarice]

centrcal--thanks!! I edited it..YIPES>>

[centralcal]

Roanoke: Agreed, not gentlemanly. oh well. Hope Fitz reads Instapundit and has apoplexy!

[clarice]

I think an FBI agent named...BOND.

[roanoke]

centralcal-

LOL! I'd pay to see that...

Ha! I like the way you think.

[Dan S]

Darn it, Roanoke! I like it the way it was! Now she's fixed it!

Sheesh, fun is so hard to find around here. (Goes back to picturing a balndly smiling, suited and tied Fitz jackhammering away at Russert or whoever is next)

[centralcal]

Roanoke: grazie!

[Dan S]

Oops, or was it that nasty centralcal who spoiled our fun by tattling to Clarice about Clarice. (That's almost like the prosecution destroying the prosecution witness, isn't it?)

[centralcal]

Dan S: let's hope Glen Reynolds does sleep sometimes and he doesn't "update" with any corrections until tomorrow. Heck ... think of all the people who will read that beautiful sentence Clarice wrote - I see literary fame ahead for her (and her typing errors).

[clarice]

*thwack, thwack,thwack*

[Dan S]

Ok, as I go out with one more belly laugh... night!

(When the thwacks start, someone has scored...)

[JM Hanes]

Oh lordy, who needs keyboards anyway?

"WOW...this post is PRETTY!" Laughing out loud!

I join roanoke in disparaging Cooper! I deride Foucault. I fault
Derrida!

[MJW]

I believe the Rule 29 motion Wells mentioned is on a specific issue, not just the obligatory motion made at the close of the government case. He'll ask that the Miller related part of the obstruction charge be dropped because there was no evidence offered to support it.

Here is what the indictment claims was false in Libby's version:

LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

Here is EW's version of the Miller's July 12 meeting testimony:

F Did you speak to him again?

M Wanted follow-up. We agreed to speak on phone, I recall less about that meeting. The first time Libby called me I was getting into a taxi, I couldn't take notes, Didn't want to talk in a taxi, spoke from home in Sag Harbor.

F Did you take notes, have you reviewed those notes, clear memory of conversation?

M Not very clearly–

F what do you remember?

M I remember telling him that I didn't think I was going to write a story about it, the NYT wasn't interested in pursuing Plame story. We talked about retraction of 16 words. It was more following up on other two conversations. Don't have specific memory of other things.

Nothing Miller says contradicts Libby's version.

I believe there only references to "hearing it from reporters":

On direct, referring to the June 23 meeting:

F Returning to conversation about the wife working in bureau, did he indicate whether he had heard it from reporters?

On direct, referring to the June 8 meeting:

F Any discussion of learning this from other newspaper reporters?

[MJW]

That is, I believe there only two references to "hearing it from reporters"

[clarice]

Yes MJW it relates to the July 12 conversation.

[JM Hanes]

Dan S: "Sheesh, fun is so hard to find around here." Surely you jest!

MJW:

"I believe the Rule 29 motion Wells mentioned is on a specific issue, not just the obligatory motion made at the close of the government case."

Sounded that way to me too.

[clarice]

Well--I suppose I could have kept it in its original form and it would be true, too. If Fitz had not forced Cooper into this case we'd never know about the depth of his journalistic skills or integrity.

[MJW]

I'm quite interested in how the Rule 29 motion plays out. Given the wording of the indictment, and assuming EW didn't miss something significant in her record, I don't see how it could be denied. And if it is denied, I think Walton is broadening the scope of the indictment in a way that will be reversed on appeal.

[Syl]

If Fitz had not forced Cooper into this case we'd never know about the depth of his journalistic skills or integrity.

True! LOL

When this is all over I wonder if Vivica Novak will tell about the water cooler stuff.

Kinda doubt it. But I'm keepin' hope alive!

Can't wait for Time's retired boss's book.

[Syl]

MJW

How does that work.

Rick posted the parts of the indictment related to Cooper and Miller in another thread.

Isn't all that's going to be thrown out just the secion on July12/Miller? Isn't that just a PART of the Obstruction charge? So how would that broaden the indictment?

If the whole obstruction part is thrown out, it would become a leak case, I agree.

[topsecretk9]

-- If Fitz had not forced Cooper into this case we'd never know about the depth of his journalistic skills or integrity. --

Somewhere, Jason Leopold is having a party (and he should!). Why JL continues to carry Wilson water is beyond me, because he could certainly FACE these people big time.

[JM Hanes]

Further amusements by way of the Byron York article cited earlier:

"Take the case of Judith Miller, the once-celebrated reporter for the New York Times."

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

[JM Hanes]

Can someone refresh my memory? I have the impression that the obstruction charge is the one that carries the heaviest penalty.

[clarice]

Syl:"If the whole obstruction part is thrown out, it would become a leak case, I agree." No, it would be a perjury, false statements case.

I'd really like to know where JL is getting the cash for a $500/day transcript.
Is he writing anything on it.

BTW at the end of the day Isikoff showed up in the media room--He was wearing a Lord Byronish looking dark velvet jacket and a snappy red tie.
David Shuster looks more pained every day. He has to constantly run out for videotaping and it must be getting harder to make stuff up..

[topsecretk9]

--"Take the case of Judith Miller, the once-celebrated reporter for the New York Times."

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.--

JMH

I won't back away from Judy only enduring this (not that you are protesting me) to protect the sources her critics care about...if she offered up, say Bolton, she'd be a front page re-hire at NYT's.

[Syl]

"Take the case of Judith Miller, the once-celebrated reporter for the New York Times."

I think Byron went too far.

I see Judy as someone who is testifying as honestly as she can without compromising her principles of source protection.

It's got to be very conflicting on some levels for her. I'm sure she doesn't want to go to jail again, and since it already happened she doesn't trust that her lawyers can prevent it from happening in the future, and had no idea where the defense questions would lead...nor fitz' even.

[MayBee]

I'd really like to know where JL is getting the cash for a $500/day transcript.

Wilson's civil trial team? Crew?

[topsecretk9]

--I'd really like to know where JL is getting the cash for a $500/day transcript.
Is he writing anything on it.--

TruthOrg prolly pays with their donations and god knows what else money they get ( ahem Soros? ahem or some weird taxpayer loophole) --but wouldn't the transcripts a write-off for them or Leopold?

[MayBee]

"Take the case of Judith Miller, the once-celebrated reporter for the New York Times."

I think Byron went too far.

But it was her bretheren that turned against her. Keller fired her and decried her "entanglements" with the administration. Do these three meetings look like entanglements to you? I mean, she's lived with Congressmen before. Yet meeting with a government source is an entanglement?
MoDo smacked her hard.
And even David Corn talked about how the left turned on her while she was in prision. Remember Arianna Huffington?

[clarice]

JMH: From the presser:
"QUESTION: Can you tell just us in laymen's terms -- because I don't know a lot about this -- what is the maximum sentence that Mr. Libby could receive -- that he's charged with all...

FITZGERALD: I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years. The perjury counts and the false statements counts each have a maximum penalty of five years.

FITZGERALD: So there's four five-year counts and one 10-year count. "

[MayBee]

Sorry. Not three meetings. One meeting, two days of phone calls. That's an "entanglement" to Keller.

[Syl]

MayBee

But it was her bretheren that turned against her.

Yeah. Then it would have been nice for Byron to qualify that statement.

[topsecretk9]

--That's an "entanglement" to Keller.--

And from that he fed the fever swamps to infer she's a slut.

NO, Judy's protecting their people and taking it on the chin. Principle does not include Bolton - revealing Bolton would get her star billing and a big finger at Keller.

I looked into Wilson disparaging Judy directly - not sure i found it - found his basking in her torture - which usually means something.

Judy didn't print the pro WMD solely on Admin - she probed the providers and they assured her. She WAS adamant about this point.

THAT's why they waged a war on Judy, just like OVP and Admin.

And seriously, if Plame was that incompetent was she facing firing? Since when has a bureaucrat been fired...they are forced into retirement....remember the weird congressional bill asking to fund her unqualified pension?

[clarice]

I agree that Judy has been unfairly pilloried,ts.

But I also find it not credible that she cannot remember the names of the people she went to jail for. OTOH I think some of those names deal with things beyond this caase--and the subpoena issued to her went beyond this case to information generally about WMDs etc..

[JM Hanes]

Actually, I've always thought that Miller & Woodward were a serious journalistic notch above the whole press crowd that was so eager to cast them as Admin shills. Millers motives may have included the self-serving, but she was the only one who was willing to ante up with time in the slammer. That's not small potatoes.

[topsecretk9]

--But I also find it not credible that she cannot remember the names of the people she went to jail for.--

I don't either, but I think those people --if revealed - AREN'T the people her critics think ...ie Plame herself.

Judy feels principled, (if they only knew)

She was OK testifying against Libby - it was they others -- what? Bolton IS WORTH GOING TO JAIL OVER LIBBY?

NOT.

[MJW]

Syl, if Libby wins the Rule 29 motion, presumably the part of the obstruction charge related to Miller (paragraph 32(c)) will be removed.

What I meant by broadening the indictment is that by holding that the section still applies, despite the lack of supporting evidence, Walton would be allowing general evidence that Libby did something that obstructed that investigation related to Miller to be used to convict Libby. For example, the difference between Libby's and Miller's version of the July 8 meeting. Fitz attempted to interpolate that into the obstruction charge in the original version of his proposed jury instruction, and Walton, at least initially, seemed inclined to allow it (even after Fitz agreed to the defense version). Doing so would, in my opinion, violate Libby's due process rights to be made aware of the charges he must defend against, along with his right to be indicted only by a grand jury.

[MJW]

Syl, I totally disagree that Miller is being honest. If she were honest, she would have testified she had no independent recollection of what occurred in the meetings with Libby. Instead, she recites what's in her inadmissible notes, pretending to remember it. That gives credence to the belief that Libby told Miller that Ms. Wilson worked for a bureau of the CIA, and that she worked for WINPAC. In protecting her sources, she hanging Libby out to dry.

[MJW]

While I'm at it, let me say why I think the defense would love to get the Miller part of the obstruction count dropped, even if the Cooper and Russert parts remain.

With the Miller part, there's a much greater risk that the jury will convict based on conduct that isn't charged in the indictment. The testimony of Cooper, and presumably Russert, is largely confined to the specific related charges; most of Miller's testimony concerned meetings that aren't directly related to the Miller part of the obstruction count, but the jury may not make so fine a distinction.

[Patton]

I don't see how the Cooper charge stands.

[Patton]

Is it true that Fitz tried to get Millers phone records and the NYT fought against it??

But I thought we had a right to know.....

[Ranger]

remember the weird congressional bill asking to fund her unqualified pension?

Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

As I recall, her last full year at the CIA was under suspension without pay. If that's the case, the CIA may have denied her pension stating that she did not have enough time in service. Even if they did approve her pension, I think CIA rules are like the military system in that your base pay for calculating your retirement pay is an average of your last three years. That means that Val would have lost 1/3d of her pension off the top for the year with no pay.

Doesn't sound like she is very popular with the career administrators at the CIA.

[Pete]

I was a little surprised to read this article till I got to the bottom and saw that Clarice authored it (I was wrongly assuming it was Tom Maguire)

The usual strawmen arguments of a "bi-partisan" report "demolishing" Wilson when it was the partisans who took issue with Wilson and even some Republicans did not join in the Wilson bash. You've got to be kidding me. Wilson was vindicated when the Bush administration right away conceded that the "sixteen words" should not have been in the State of the Union speech. Talk about shoddy journalism.

[Pete]

And what about Matalin calling Wilson a snake. If that is not declaring war tell me what is? Don't tell me that people are stupid and cannot discern what the attitude of the WH was.

[hit and run]

And what about Matalin calling Wilson a snake. If that is not declaring war tell me what is?

"Wilson's a snake..." is not enough by itself.

"...who needs to be invited on a hunting trip with Cheney" would do the trick.

[clarice]

Pete, the SSCI, discredited Wilson; the 9/11 Commission confirmed the pre-war intel estimates were not manipulated by the WH; and the British Butler Commission concluded that the Brit intel that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa was based on sound analysis and not cooked up either.

But I realize that for you this is a faith based thing.

[Dave V.]

I happened to have Court TV on this am. Lisa Bloom asserted during her questioning of a "Republican strategist" whose name I didn't catch that Wilson's claims were true. During the brief time I watched, said strategist made no effort to correct her. Watching the media continue to flog this crap is maddening.

[Pete]

Clarice - I didn't even know that the 9/11 Commission was looking at the Iraq war. Butler report is http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009725.php>full of holes and is not even a US document. In terms of the administration cooking up intelligence, Pat Roberts has stalled Phase II of SSCI report. Thank God he no longer is in charge of the stonewalling.

But back to the critical point - Wilson was vindicated when the Bush administration conceded that the sixteen words should not have been there. That is the point Wilson was making, and that is the point that people (not partisan Republicans) were concerned about. There is nothing faith based about this.

[clarice]

No. What happened is that every grown up was out of town and that incompetent Hadley pissed his pants.

[Pete]

No. What happened is that every grown up was out of town and that incompetent Hadley pissed his pants.

That implies Bush likes to promote incompetent people (since he promoted Hadley from deputy NSA to the NSA)?

Both Bush's spokesperson and Condi Rice stood behind the statement.