What You See (in the Media) Is Not What You Get (In the Trial)

In the wake of the first week of the Libby Trial, Patrick Fitzgerald's soufflé has turned into a pancake. Of course, if you are getting your news of the trial from the press you're certain to believe Libby is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reporting is as bad as I've ever seen (Matt Apuzzo of AP being the rare exception of a reporter who's getting it mostly right).

I don't have the official trial transcript but the Media Bloggers Association has had people in the media room reporting summaries of the proceeding on a live feed and so does Firedog Lake. Meanwhile,  the regulars at Just One Minute have been commenting from an informed perspective providing a view of the trial at substantial odds with what has been presented by those who (for some reason we can't figure out) are getting paid for their work, which largely consists of a fantasy version of the event.

In this rogue's gallery, David Shuster of NBC makes it into the JOM spotlight twice;  And Neil Lewis of the New York Times got star billing, as did the National Journal's Murray Waas.

Newsweek's "Spikey" Isikoff filed too late to see his name in JOM's lights yet but he, too, deserves mention for a preposterously fantastical article on the trial. The article begins, "White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect" that Rove and Bartlett may testify. Isikoff is on the White House speed dial? He knows this how?

Only at the end of the article - the very last sentence -- is it clear this is all his fevered speculation that he's passed on at the beginning of the article as a factual assertion.

In the second paragraph, he mischaracterizes defense counsel Wells' argument saying it was that Libby "had been made a scapegoat" to protect Rove. Actually, Wells said that during the investigation Libby feared he was being scapegoated, not that, in fact, he was. (I think it may well be that his fear was based in part of something not yet revealed -- that the FBI agents doing the investigation mischaracterized to Libby and others what various people had said, probably in the hope of getting them to turn on each other. I think, in sum, the investigators lied to Libby as I believe they did to others.)

Another mischaracterization from Spikey:

"Libby is charged about when and from whom he learned about Plame."

Actually Libby's own admission to investigators from day one was that he learned this from Cheney in June, that it was not a significant fact to him at the time, and that he'd forgotten about this side matter until reporters called asking about it. Certainly, a reporter as intimately familiar with this case as Isikoff, who wrote a book about it, could do a better job on this basic fact.

Next utterly false "fact": Spikey says Wilson said there was nothing to the reports that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium in Niger.

We all know that is a lie. For one thing, the bi-partisan Congressional Committee investigating this said it was. Despite the restrictions on whom he could talk to (ex-officials), and what he was permitted to ask and the short length and nature of his "investigation", Wilson was told and reported back that there had been an Iraqi trade delegation to Niger and that it was believed they had been seeking to purchase uranium. Surely there was enough room in the article to tell readers that.

As to Rove's testimony, Spikey reports that Rove will testify that Libby told him on July 11 he learned of Plame and her role from Russert. That would, of course, seem to support Libby's contention that Russert told him. (Something in an odd formulation, hardly dispositive of the matter, Russert has publicly denied. That is, he says he didn't know her name and her job at the CIA. Of course, if Russert follows the pattern of the first four witnesses, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the prosecution's characterization of his testimony is as distorted as it has been of the first four prosecution witnesses.)

Spikey notes that,

"More than a half dozen officials have said they passed along the same information earlier than that."

Yeah, we heard four of them (Grossman, Grenier, Schmall and Martin) last week at the trial, and not one had a firm handle on when and where they told him, nor mentioned a reference longer than about 30 seconds.  Fitzgerald's theory is that these remarks were so consequential Libby could not have forgotten this information. But the trial testimony shows this is preposterous and the prosecution's own witnesses have been demonstrating that claim is preposterous. In the process they have revealed

(a) they have substantial memory problems themselves; and

(b) the indictment and Fitzgerald press conference when he announced the indictment  substantially overstated what these four witnesses had told the investigators and grand jury; and

(c) not a single witness believed the information about Plame  was significant that early in time.

More fiction offered up as news: Spikey says Rove is "edgy" because after his conversation with Libby he told Cooper about Plame. He knows this, how? Oh dear.

Libby says he told Cooper, Cooper says HE told Libby. Rove says, I believe, that he may have told Cooper but forgot the entire conversation until a fellow Time staffer reminded his lawyer and some note was found to refresh his recollection. The judge has sent a strong signal that Cooper lied (ruling after reading his notes of his conversation with Libby that no matter how Cooper testifies his notes will impeach him). Rove must really be sweating this out - not.

Isikoff does remind us of something interesting. Ari Fleischer, who had an immunity deal negotiated by Williams and Connolly, had publicly said he wasn't even represented by a lawyer. (Who else said that? Armitage...  the only other witness who appears to have been granted immunity - per the AP's Apuzzo - and the only other person known to have deliberately leaked the information about Plame.)

You can be sure that Fleischer's comment that he wasn't even represented by counsel will be used to impeach him at trial, and if it turns out that Apuzzo's hint that Armitage had a similar deal is true, Armitage's claim that he also had no counsel will be impeaching.

Spikey says Libby told Fleischer that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA and that was "hush hush".  Having seen the mischaracterization of all the witness statements to date by the prosecution and the odd inferences drawn by the special prosecutor from them, I'll wait and see to what Fleischer actually testifies. My recollection is the hush hush was about other matters relating to the uranium in Africa tale, which was moving through the CIA   declassification process at the speed of frozen molasses (because the agency was clearly trying to forestall further embarrassment that this nonsensical Mission to Africa was causing it).

Finally, Spikey says Fleischer then heard about Plame from Bartlett and passed it on to NBC's David Gregory.  Last week during the trial, we learned for the very first time that Gregory who had earlier claimed  "no one called him"-implying he'd received no information about Plame -- was leaked the information by Fleischer. There were a number of earlier reports  that Fleischer saw the details about Plame in the INR which he was given while flying on Air Force One,  and immediately told Gregory, who ever afterward pretended he never knew this and who was never questioned by the crack special prosecution team.

A friend with a long distinguished career in law enforcement also has looked at the Isikoff story and says of my analysis:

"Well, FWIW [for what it's worth], I think you're right all up and down the line. The mischaracterization of Libby's scapegoating concerns is laughable, but this (from the article) is precious:

Rove has said in secret testimony that, during a chat on July 11, 2003, Libby told him he learned about Plame's employment at the CIA from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, a legal source who asked not to be identified talking about grand jury matters told NEWSWEEK. If Rove repeats that story on the witness stand, it could back up Libby's core assertion that he honestly, if mistakenly, thought he had heard about Wilson's wife from the "Meet the Press" host ... [/quote]

"And what would be the reason that Rove would take an oath and then not repeat what he said to the Grand Jury? To show Libby that his scapegoating concerns were well founded? To give Fitz  [Gerald] another shot at himself (Rove)? You can go to the bank on Rove repeating his G[rand] J[ury] testimony--and he won't just repeat his "story": Wells will make sure that the jury understands that the unindicted Rove said the same thing to the G[rand] J[ury], if at all possible. And that will be a BIG hit to the prosecution. If, as we and just about everyone else suspects, Russert will end up having to unpack his highly nuanced testimony, the perjury rap will collapse at that point.

"The scenario you sketch in #3[that whatever conversations in which Plame was mentioned in June to Libby were minor, of seconds' duration and utterly unmemorable] is coming through pretty clearly already--from the prosecution witnesses!

"I did not realize that Fleischer denied being represented, and I had taken Armitage's similar claim at face value--now I wonder. Can Fleischer's public statement in this respect be used to impeach him? The statement did concern the investigation. I say I took A[rmitage]'s claim at face value, only because when I heard it I thought that meant he received immediate assurances that he was safe. If he lied about that, too, and was going around trying to nobble witnesses to boot...." [Grossman testified that Armitage met with him before Grossman's first appearance before the grand jury and informed him he had been the leaker. Further he testified that he spoke to Armitage before all his discussions with investigators and the grand jury, setting up a strong implication that Armitage was trying to manipulate his testimony.]

With his own witnesses taking the air out of this thin case, the prosecutor's soufflé of an indictment has turned into a pancake when it came to trial.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/what_you_see_in_the_media_is_n_1.html

Comments

[clarice]

I don't want to embarrass Tom --this is my doing and I neglected to sign it when I posted it for the MBA feed.(I'd edit it to make that clear, but I'm such a technoklutz I'm afraid I'll blow up the blog or something.)
Sorry, Tom

[TCO]

You, yourself, are presenting a misleading picture of the trial by only focusing on flaws within the anti-Libby press peices or the prosecution's efforts. You never cite issues where things slant against Libby (and sometimes they do). This selective criticism is misleading...even amond yourselves as you reinforce your initial opinions and your political sympathies with the accused (at the expense of open-minded obseration, analysis and discussion).

[Syl]

TCO

Tell that to Spikey.

[TCO]

I am repeating points at this point. Part of the reason is that I respect you all enough to want to push you in the direction of improvement.

Of course, you all repeat points all the time, too. I will try not to rise to the temptation to repeat myself in argument, regardless.

[Nan]

For anyone interested, here is the link to the U.S. Department of Justice website where you can access each day's trial exhibits:

DOJ website - Libby Trial Exhibits

Nan

[Ranger]

TCO,

Are you simply not paying any attention to the cross examination of the witnesses?

So far the only witness who has a somewhat clear memeory (and even that is fuzzy as to phone calls [plural] vs. one face to face talk with no other witnesses) and has said from the begining they told Libby about Wilson's Wife was Grossman. Unfortunately for the prosecution he also had a chat the Armitage (the first leaker) the night before his first FBI interview, which might tend to have influenced the story he told the FBI.

Other than that, none of the other three witnesses has any independent recollection that they told Libby anything before July 7th. The only reason that they can place the times before then is because the investigators/prosecutor has "refreshed" their memory with documentary evidence, thus giving them a chance to correct their "incorrect" statements to the FBI,and in some cases the GJ as well. Under the standards you set for Libby having lied, at least three of the prosecution witnesses "lied" too. That's not a good case for the prosecutor.

[TCO]

I have been paying attention, but not in a detailed manner, Ranger. I agree that there are several aspects of the trial that show the vagaries of memory (never doubted that, really, so doesn't change my thinking much, but agree they are nice little snippets for the Libby side to enjoy.

However some things have gone in the opposite direction for Libby:
-we learn of a multitude of internal Plame wife references (even if poor in detail...numbers move the scale).
-we learn of the very high importance, attention and time spent by leadership (Cheney, Libby) on the general hubbub from the Wilson article. Makes the "I was so busy with national security, that I forgot things, this wasn't important" defense less likely. Now, of course, one could make a strained argument (if on had a tendancy for strained arguments) that Wilson article hubbub was super-important, but the Plame thing wasn't. But reasonably thinking, the two are connected and raising the importance of the former, means it is more likely that the nepotistic referal of a pro bono intelligence agent would be memorable.

[TCO]

Actually even if you don't make the logical argument of connection of the importance linkage, just the natural way the mind works, if two things are topically related and one is elevated in memory it makes it more likely the other will be remembered.

[Ranger]

TCO,

Given all the documentation about the OVP push back that is coming in through Martin, if Wilson's wife was so improtant, why are there absolutely no references in any of the written materials related to the Wilson push back? None, nada, not a word. It is not a streach, given the factualy evidence provided, that Wilson was a significant issue for the OVP, but his wife wasn't.

The only people who we know for certain leaked (Armitage and Ari) both read the information in the INR. Libby never even saw the INR. Based on that pattern of facts, it would seem that the only people who in government who remembered Wilson's Wife were people who had read the INR which had her discussed prominently in the very begining. Much more memerable than a short conversation on the side of a larger issue.

[TCO]

I agree that the wife thing being out of the Martin docs is a minor point in your favor. Scale can move both ways. I would like to look at those docs and at other ones on other issues and get the perspective of someone familiar with this sort of thing.

But to answer your question, one POSSIBLE (not certian, not argued, but worth considering) reason why the name was not in those docs was that it was considered a catty type of thing that was better leaked than discussed officially. Note, I've never thought that the OVP, etc. leaked as some sort of "burn a CIA agent, screw security" decision. I think they knew she was a chair jockey and just never really thought about what they were doing when the leaked Plame out. Then when it blew up as she was a potential agent and they were being portrayed as not caring about spies lies, they lied about what they did.

[Ranger]

But to answer your question, one POSSIBLE (not certian, not argued, but worth considering) reason why the name was not in those docs was that it was considered a catty type of thing that was better leaked than discussed officially...

Posted by: TCO | January 29, 2007 at 01:59 AM

TCO,

The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt for the prosecutor. Just providing the jurors with a POSSIBLE explanation is not enough. The fact that it is only one POSSIBLE explanation means that there are other, reasonable explanations (that don't incriminate the defendant), and that is all that is nessessary for reasonble doubt.

[Patton]

Man people have gone beyond stupid on this one. If all these people were rushing to Libby to tell him about Wilsons wife, and if the wifes position and her being involved in sending him was SOOO IMPORTANT to Libby, why during this time period (June/Early July) why isn't that releted in any of Libby's, Martins, Cheneys notes and/or any office products (Briefing cards, etc.)

[TCO]

Ranger: I agree and have stated so before.

Patton: that comment was made better and earlier by Ranger within this thread.

[Ranger]

TCO,

So, you admit that the prosecutor's own case is full of reasonable doubt, yet you claim that Fitz is scoring points?

Oh, that's right, you don't really care about the trial, you just want to make sure everybody knows that "Libby Lied" so that even if he is aquitted, everyone will know he is guilty as sin and just got off on a technicality like "reasonable doubt" because the defense muddied up the waters with extranious stuff.

[SunnyDay]

AP's collection of Documents includes some defense documents.

[TCO]

Ranger: Please don't put words in my mouth. You ended up with a total tangle of truth, untruths and questions.

[Ranger]

Ranger: Please don't put words in my mouth. You ended up with a total tangle of truth, untruths and questions.

Posted by: TCO | January 29, 2007 at 04:10 AM

Why not? You put words in other people's mouths all the time. For example:

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.

Posted by: TCO | January 28, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Now, to be honset, I don't recall any of the regulars here arguing that if Libby lied he should get a pardon any way "becuase "Clinton got away with it" or similar statements of (im)moral logic."

I have heard people argue that Libby should get a pardon because of the charater of the investigation, (for example: the fact that Armitage, the first person to knowingly pass on Plame's relationhip to the mission to a reporter concealed that information for over a year and faced no jepardy from Fitz for doing so).

The only difference here is that I have called you out for the logic of your argument by name, and you simply accuse Several of "your side" without being specific.

You say you want to discuss the evidence, but then when we bring out the significant elements that lead to reasonable doubt on the part of the prosectutions case, you say what you care about is the "truth" not the legal issues. Which is it?

Oh, and in case you missed it, by your standard of truthfulness for Libby, all four of the prosecutions witnesses so far have admitted "lieing" to the FBI or the GJ.

[moneyrunner]

Ranger,

That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).

[Ranger]

Ranger,

That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).

Posted by: moneyrunner | January 29, 2007 at 05:08 AM

That is a question for the ages, but my personal take is that these types of cases are worked backwards. The FBI developes the theory of the case, then attempts to prove that theory, regardless of any inconvenient facts that come up during the investigation.

Just take a look at the long series of FBI cases that have fallen appart:

Wen Ho Lee
The Olympic Bomber
The Antrhax Case
The Sandy Burger Case

Each had a narrative, and in the end we learned that the facts didn't fit the narrative, but the FBI ignored them and pressed on.

[Specter]

LOL - simple. That's because good police work no longer involves good investigation, it is just "go with your gut". Find a suspect and then match the story to that person. Voila - open and shut.

[Dwilkers]

Good post Clarice.

I've been reading my local paper and watching what little television news reports I see with growing dismay. It seems to me that the media simply do not care if the narrative they've spun is false - they're going to keep spinning it.

Really, the only thing I can conclude is they think their audience is stupid. They apparently think their audience will not notice or doesn't care that the storyline they continue to report on this case is false.

Its going to be interesting to see how they report it if Libby is found not guilty. Although even with the prosecution's witnesses in effect reinforcing Libby's story I'd hate to be Libby facing a DC jury.

[clarice]

How the Plame info was passed around with no apparent knowledge of anything "secret" about it at the time.
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/16570722.htm?source=rss&channel=montereyherald_nation>Secte?

Remember TOensing has repeatedly said any CIA referral must include a sworn statement about how the agency has done everything in its power to keep the identity of the classified person secret.

[capitano]

Each had a narrative, and in the end we learned that the facts didn't fit the narrative, but the FBI ignored them and pressed on.

Posted by: Ranger | January 29, 2007 at 05:20 AM

LOL - simple. That's because good police work no longer involves good investigation, it is just "go with your gut". Find a suspect and then match the story to that person. Voila - open and shut.

Posted by: Specter | January 29, 2007 at 05:41 AM

Given the list of key players in the Plame who were not questioned by Fitzgerald and similar "don't ask -- don't tell" investigative failures by Nifong in the Duke case, will there be more pressure on law enforcement and prosecutors toward getting the truth rather than collecting scalps?

[Jim E.]

clarice is *still* overstating the Armitage/immunity thing. It's total BS to attribute the immunity deal to the AP when the linked article doesn't say there's an immunity deal. And if you're going to "read between the lines," well, you could link to just about any article and speculate like crazy. But it's unfair to attribute this to Apuzzo when Appuzo didn't actually suggest it. At least clarice didn't disingenuously and misleadingly label the Apuzzo link "Armitage Immunity Agreement" like she did last time the last time she pushed this speculation as fact.

This is what clarice herself wrote late this weekend: Indications are "that Apuzzo's suggestion that Armitage was also granted immunity is in error." In the memory hole, I guess. Does clarice read what clarice has written?

It sure is awesome that clarice can just "know" that the defendant is not in any trouble. ("Nothing could be further from the truth," assures clarice.) Because as we all know, never in the history of jurisprudence does the jury ever surprise self-appointed experts.

At least clarice isn't blaming the mean ol' biased judge (yet), which suggests that she thinks Libby is getting a fair shake.

[Aaron Adams]

Will the jury believe Libby made false statements to protect his boss? Or will the jury believe Libby made false statements because he "forgot"?

Apparently, on which side of the protect/forgot dichotomy posters here fall can, by and large, be foreseen by noting the posters' ideological predilections.

The underlying assumption on the "forgot" side of the split appears to be some perversion or inversion of the doctrine of respondeat superior. In other words, if one attributes a degree of infallibility/incapability of intentional wrongdoing to the President and Vice President, then that trait is imputed to their underlings. In other words, if the Emperor can do no wrong, then his minions can do no wrong either if they are acting for or on behalf of the Emperor. I believe the traditional understanding was derived from the Divine Right of Kings.

Another example of BDS*?

* Bush Derangement Syndrome

[jwest]

Disregarding the actual evidence (as most liberals and reporters tend to do), and focusing solely on the public perception of the trial, the “bombshell” will be Russert.

If Russert testifies that he knew Valerie Wilson (in any of her names) worked at the CIA prior to Libby’s conversation, Wells will be able to effectively paint the media as politically motivated liars and Fitz as a bumbling, easily mislead buffoon.

Although the press will want to cover for one of their own using the same level of fantasy reporting outlined by Clarice, the temptation to take down the King of the Hill will be too much to resist. Imus will go berserk. Fox will have a field day. CBS and ABC will not leave this one on the table.

I wish this was on Pay Per View.

[Other Tom]

TCO, I respect the point you are making, but I think you miss the thrust of Clarice's article. I think it is fair to say that she is contending that the errors and omissions of the MSM (particularly Isikoff) invariably run in one direction only: Libby is in trouble, based upon the evidence to date. Can you think of anything unfavorable to Libby, or favorable to the prosecution, that the MSM have missed? Can you think of any error they have made that makes things look worse for the prosecution than they actually are? I can't, but I would certainly be willing to consider any that you, or others, could offer. I can't speak for Clarice, but I would wager that she would do the same.

[azaghal]

Ranger wrote:

That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).

Good point, Ranger. This case is a perfect illustration of why perjury charges are used rarely and with great circumspection--because over the centuries prosecutors, judges, juries and investigators have all come to realize that the memories of witnesses can differ without any criminal intent, for many reasons both honorable and sometimes less than honorable.

Slightly OT. Yesterday there was some discussion of the Sandy Burglar case, a comparison of charges brought and what their relevance might be to Plamegate. John Fund has an article on that continuing controversey this morning:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

[Jim E.]

Other Tom wrote: "Can you think of anything unfavorable to Libby, or favorable to the prosecution, that the MSM have missed?"

Yes. The judge told Wells that it would be "suicide" if Libby didn't take the stand in his own defense because without taking the stand, the judge wouldn't allow in the memory defense.

I double-checked with EW if the "suicide" quote was accurate, and she said it was. She also said it came at the end of the day on Friday, by which time many of the reporters had already left the courthouse.

[JM Hanes]

Jim E:

Clarice has, in fact, made the correction you were previously calling for. In terms of the impression on the jury that she's discussing, however, I think you're the one who is "overstating" the distinction between Fleischer's official immunity and the de facto immunity clearly afforded to Armitage.

[cboldt]

-- it came at the end of the day on Friday --

Would have been Thursday.

[Jim E.]

Another example for Other Tom. Also at the end of Thursday, when discussing a contentious matter outside of the jury, Wells (Libby's lawyer) said something along the lines of: "We're probably going to argue this … maybe going to argue this after the trial."

Perhaps it was just a mild slip-of-the-tongue, but in that exchange, Wells was already acting like an appeal was inevitable. Only the defense can appeal a verdict. Not a big deal, but this was not reported in the dreaded MSM.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...one could make a strained argument (if on had a tendancy for strained arguments) that Wilson article hubbub was super-important, but the Plame thing wasn't. But reasonably thinking, the two are connected...'

Obvious non-sequitur, and as Ranger pointed out there's evidence she wasn't important to Libby (not mentioned in the talking points, eg). Fitzgerald has the burden of proof, not Libby, and Fitz hasn't established that she was important.

That said, after Juan Williams performance on FNS yesterday, Washington DC is probably not very thick with logicians of the caliber of Cecil Turner, and unjustified conclusions of the type by TCO may predominate in the jury room.

[Jim E.]

JM Haynes: In her post, clarice is not referring to de facto immunity.

[Jim E.]

The judge this morning: "Regarding the underlying information on immunity–it's essentially moot, govt has given everything that has transpired. It is my view that Giglio ensures that any benefit that a govt witness will get, that info be made available so defense can impugn credibility. I didn't see that there was anything of that nature. The govt has basically provided what has occurred. "

Ha!

[Sue]

Who is liveblogging today?

[sbw]

I forget what it's called when you bottom out a thread, but my reply to Sara did in this instance and want to repost, with apologies to the crowd, because this conjecture is so far off the wall that it ought to be considered as a wheels-within-wheels possibility earlier in a thread:

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

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

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

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

[clarice]

True--and neither was Apuzzo who I cited for the point.
The fact remains true whether or not Armitage was formally granted immunity--and as Cboldt notes since the prosecution is not calling him as a witness we do not yet have sufficient information to tell if Apuzzo was right--the two people who actually saw the then not declassified INR with all that information and deliberately leaked it have not and will not be charged .

[clarice]

Due to some schedule shifts I will be live blogging from the courthouse tomorrow and Wednesday . At the end of the day when we know who is up I'll ask your help in pulling together relevant stuff to make the commentary more useful.

[TCO]

Ranger: I can back that statement up, and trust me, on my honor, it was made in response to seeing someone here say words to exactly that effect. BTW, your idea that it's ok to put words in my mouth, because (you think) I do, is a rather beautiful and recent example of how you are willing to misebehave in a tit for tat fashion based on "sides" rather than be intellectually honest.

OT: It may be that the media is biased. I mean certainly, they are a bunch of liberals and one would expect it to bleed over to their job. That said, point stands on Clarice (and many other here) objectivity. But I already said that.

[cboldt]

-- Giglio ensures that any benefit that a govt witness will get, that info be made available so defense can impugn credibility --

I found this additional disclosure by the prosecution to be potentially helpful to the defense, in that it paints Fleischer as in exactly the same boat as Libby: no motive to lie, because in his heart of hearts, he didn't think he'd committed a crime.

[Bonamici of the prosecution talking] Our understanding from Mr. Fleischer was that he might be in legal jeopardy he hadn't done anything with Novak he hadn't done anything intentionally wrt disclosure of covert agent, he should not be in position where he might be convicted of a crime. Rather than a normal case, where you have a witness who IS guilty, here you have a witness where in his heart of hearts he didn't believe he had done something wrong.

Immunity to Fleischer is a difficult issue for Team Libby to manage, because it can be suggested to indicate so many different (and some at odds with each other) possible motives, in quite a few situations (motive to talk to reporters, motive to seek immunity, motive to curry favor with the government, etc. etc. etc.)

[maryrose]

I want to know why Ari got immunity and why Armitage was not indicted for leaking. Somehow that info has to be made loud and clear to the jury. Val was and continues to be a non-event in this story. No one was out to get her. That is bruised ego Joe talking and dummy Fitz bought this tall tale. Now he doesn't know how to extricate himself from Joe's web of lies.

[Sue]

That was the birthday [when he says it, it sounds like, "birfday"]

It's shit like that that makes me wonder about Marcy Wheeler. What is the relevance of how the man pronounces birthday? Other than to show some racial issue, which I am assured those on the left don't have.

[Other Tom]

Jim E, I'll accept your representation that the MSM ("dreaded" is your word, not mine) have not picked up on either of the two points you mention. I don't consider either of them ominous, as you apparently do. Walton's comments are not at all unusual for a judge to make in a jury trial, and in any event I've been assuming all along that Libby will, indeed, take the stand. And I don't interpret Wells's comment as alluding to an appeal--if I recall the context correctly, it seems to me that he was simply saying that when this is all over we'll learn a lot more. At least that's the way I read it at the time.

But again, my initial point concerned the MSM's take on the evidence adduced thus far at the trial, and neither of the points you raise have to do with the evidence.

[hit and run]

clarice:
Due to some schedule shifts I will be live blogging from the courthouse tomorrow and Wednesday .

Thanks! Wonderful news! I'll let my boss know I'll be useless those days.

(His response? "How is that different from any other day." Ouch.)

[clarice]

Firedoglake and Wizbang are live blogging today and so far Wizbang's comments are rather truncated. It seems another juror was lost today.(One left last week). There are still 34.

Martin is still up. It seems the morning was taken up with a chambers discussion and then a side bar obviously relating to Fleischer. It seems that the judge has accepted that there is no GIglio problem and has taken steps to dimiish the prejudicial effect of the 1X2X6 story by not having him read the account,by testifying generally that he sought counsel after it appeared and by advising the judge that the article has nothing to do with Libby.
(Wizbang is very truncated reporting and EW is full of snarky stuff about junk like Martin's pearls, are they real and where she got them..PHEH)

[cboldt]

Just to connect the dots in my last message, if Fleisher's motive for seeking immunity includes a belief that he has not committed a leak crime, then Libby wants to be cautious about impugning Fleisher's credibility.

If the above "reason for seeking immunity" is accurate, Libby needs to impeach Fleischer as to fact testimony, but not as to motive for asserting 5th amendment privilege.

[Jim E.]

clarice never gives up. Now she writes: "We do not yet have sufficient information to tell if Apuzzo was right--the two people who actually saw the then not declassified INR with all that information and deliberately leaked it have not and will not be charged."

1. Appuzzo didn't make the claim you attribute to him, so it's not possible for him to be "right" or "wrong" on this point.

2. Are you suggesting that you know that Fleischer "deliberately" leaked classified INR? If so, how do you know that, since he hasn't testified yet? If not, who else are you referring to?

And in terms of folks not being charged, would you sit there and let me post as fact that Karl Rove has an immunity agreement? After all, he hasn't been charged. By your "logic," he must be guilty of something then, huh?

[azaghal]

Ranger, I was thinking over your earlier remark:

That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).

One issue that tends to get lost in all the discussion over the evidence (or lack thereof), the credibility of witnesses (or lack thereof), etc., is this whole question of bringing a perjury charge against Libby. What's lost is the fact that the only reason that Fitz was able to bring this charge is almost certainly because as Special Counsel (in so many senses) he was exempted from the DOJ guidelines for prosecutors.  Those guidelines would have precluded Fitz from indicting Libby from perjury because it is Department policy not to charge perjury unless the false testimony pertained to some criminal violation. For example, knowingly lying to a GJ about the weather would not be chargeable--unless the weather was directly relevant to some criminal violation.

Libby's dealings with Russert had nothing to do with any criminal violation that we know of, and certainly none that Fitz even alluded to in his marathon press conference. Now, some might say, well didn't Libby's purported lies make it more difficult to come to an understanding of the WH conspiracy to out our gal Val? Well, what we're seeing now in the prosecution's case is that there clearly was no such conspiracy and that Fitz knew that from a pretty early date.

Fitz' exemption from Departmental policy actually played a major role in this whole charade. I'm sure others can bring up other examples. I believe Jane or cathyf got into that, in part, in bringing up the extra-constitutional nature of the SC. All this
should be deeply troubling to anyone who gives a fig for truth, justice and the American way.

[sbw]

Wizbang is very truncated reporting

That's because Wizbang is in the actual courtroom with a pencil -- no laptop allowed -- so she can only blog on breaks. FDL is in the extra CCTV courtroom banging away on her keyboard.

[cboldt]

Wells's cross exam of Martin resembles, a bit, the memory defense. He is pointing out the bigger picture, SOTU, disabusing the press of the notion that Wilson's trip was directly precipitated by an OVP question (OVP wasn't looking for a trip, just an answer), etc.

In short, he's spending time on subjects OTHER THAN Mrs. Wilson working at the CIA. The more the jury hears of things other than Mrs. Wilson, the better for Libby. If the trial has 25 days of other than Mrs. Wilson testimony, and 30 minutes of testimony about Mrs. Wilson, the jury will also conclude she's forgettable - forgettable to them, forgettable to Libby, would go the natural mental comparison and "leap." I call it a "leap" not because it's incorrect, BTW. Just meaning it's a more a "feeling" than a conclusion based on an accurate reconstruction.

[azaghal]

Um, hat tip to moneyrunner, who was quoted by Ranger, and whose thoughts I attributed to Ranger. They both are thinking about essential issues here--like the role of the investigators as opposed to prosecutors. My belief is that Fitz controlled every aspect of this investigation--not just the prosecutive aspects. That raises the issue of what the investigators should have done if they felt the prosecutor was abusing his position. Traditionally the FBI has had a lot of independence but I think we're seeing a seachange in that respect--in this case and possibly others that Ranger cites.

[clarice]

John Fund notes the disparity (in some detail) of the treatment the DoJ gave Berger and Libby. Most of us know these details, but if you don't, it's telling.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591>BergerM/a>
azaghal, that is such a good post, I'm going to blog it to AT and hope the editor runs it.

[SRf]

DX71. There isn't much there but a sensitive source.

Who sent Wilson? Maybe it was the intelligence committee? Shays is an RPCV and so is Wilson. Plame is CIA operations officer. Shay's wife runs a mirror INR at PC. It was created so she could run it. Shays admitted he worked in Fiji, not Morrocco, like his wife in PC and that day Fiji had their coup. PC is still in Fiji even though State should have them pulled based on the PC agreement, but Rice is keeping them there. Negroponte, DNI, was moved by Bush to State. Rumor from CBS is he'll replace her and she goes to VP when Cheney leaves. Maybe it's political?

The change in FBI prosecution of criminal conspiracies at CIA has changed. It will continue to do so.

As far as the theories at JOM; there are thousands. Unlike FDL and the other dem blogs, there are opinions other than the OVP is Satan and Darth Vaider and Presidential advisors weren't offered up instead of the OVP or POTUS, which appears to be the goal. JOM doesn't delete based on not liking opinions or theories. All the other blogs do and it's obvious Plame's work has become a dem agenda and that's really sad.

So, it's okay to have opinions and theories because that is normal and a way to participate fairly and honestly; something other blogs are not doing.

I've got millions of 'fantasies and facts.' Look at the facts and you may form another opinion, but don't hide(delete) from those because that is where the truth really is found.

[topsecretk9]

-clarice never gives up.-

I was thinking the same thing about and your obsession with her. It's creepy.

[cboldt]

On cross exam, there is evidence that "Wilson's wife works at the CIA" made an impression on Martin's mind. When the Novak article came out, Martin recalled that she knew Wilson's wife works at the CIA, and she testified that her impression was that Novak's public disclosure of that fact -- a fact that she recalled from the time it was presented to her by the CIA until the time that she became aware of the Novak article -- was a significant event. Emptywheel put the words "I knew it [publication] was a big deal" into Martin's mouth (not as a quote, just EW's paraphrase).

---===---
The "right" side of the blogosphere is underrepresented in this blow-by-blow recapitulation. IN fairness, maybe the plug ought to be pulled from the left ;-)

[Other Tom]

I've been banned at both FDL and TalkLeft. Free-wheeling discussion and dissent are not long suits in those precincts.

[TexasIsHeaven]

Topsecret9

I wondered if anyone else noticed this - I've been reading JOM for about the last 6 months or so and ever so often you will see two or three that just go bonkers when Clarice makes a post on anything - it does look strange - and creepy.

[Jim E.]

I think it is pretty clear that I'm upset with clarice playing fast-and-loose with the known facts in this case (in a post dedicated to criticizing the MSM for playing fast-and-loose with the facts in the case). clarice repeatedly fails to differentiate between her personal speculation and the known evidence in the case. She is misleading people. I've even quoted her disagreeing with what she's now put on the main page! (And as I've already said: speculation is part of the fun in this case. But to disguise speculation as fact, or to KNOWINGLY misrepresent AP articles is just wrong.)

I notice that folks imply that I am somehow out of line (I think TS9 ridiculously warned clarice to "stay safe" yesterday, as if I'm someone to be feared) without actually ever defending clarice on the merits. Quite the PC bunch around here.

Poor clarice. I guess I should just stop pointing out her misrepresentations.

[boris]

I'm upset with clarice playing fast-and-loose with the known facts in this case

crybaby

[clarice]

Jim E --I try to be as accurate and precise in what I say as possible and to correct any errors when I can.
Apuzzo indicates Armitage had an immunity agreement.
Whether he did or not we cannot know until and unless he is called to testify.
And whether he did or didn't he has certainly be given exceptional treatment. He was apparently never asked to bring in HIS records although everyone else in this had to. He apparently never disclosed the Woodward revelation (and who knows what else) when he came forward in Oct of 2003. He has been fiddling with at least one other witness--Grossman--in an odorous way.
And yet he has never been charged with leaking, perjury or obstruction.
Go figure.
Did Berger hand him the Get out of Jail free pass?

[maryrose]

JimE:
Get over yourself. You are jealous of clarice's mastery of this case and her ability to have a front row seat at the actual trial and be able to blog about it. 95% of the coverage of this case in the MSM{especially on MSNBC] is completely false. clarice is trying to get the real truth out there. You are afraid of the truth which is that Fitz's case is incredibly weak here and he is going to lose it big time. That's the part that you can't handle-that and the truth to quote Jack Nicholson.

[boris]

Two days ago clarice admits this:

(c) Both Isikoff and Apuzzo say Fleischer had immunity
(d) Apuzzo hints that Armtage did as well

Based on this from Apuzzo:

The Fleischer gamble is the second such arrangement that prosecutors are known to have made with leakers in the case.

At the onset of the investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he told authorities that he was the source behind columnist Robert Novak's story that revealed Plame's identity and triggered the probe.

Fitzgerald has not discussed the arrangement with Armitage but said Thursday that he granted immunity to Fleischer believing only that he had "relevant information."

And lil crybaby jimmy still can't get over how OVERSTATED it was to take that at face value.

[Jim E.]

clarice wrote: "Apuzzo indicates Armitage had an immunity agreement."

Nope. The article doesn't indicate that. Which is my problem with what you're writing.

I totally agree that Armitage's treatment is a head-scratcher, though. Heck, maybe he does have an immunity agreement. Maybe Rove does. Maybe McClennan does. But we don't know, and Apuzzo didn't claim to know, either.

Also: care to clarify this statement? I want to know if you're referring to Fleischer and Armitage, or Armitage and someone else: "the two people who actually saw the then not declassified INR with all that information and deliberately leaked it have not and will not be charged."

[Patton]

Jim E,
You really need to grow up and get a life. Guess what blog posters give their opinions, most of us...I exclude you, are smart enough to separate facts from speculation.

Part of the fun is to speculate about the mysteries of Fitzmas (You did have a great time at the weeks leading up to Fitzmas didn't you?).

The MSM claim they report hardmews, they say they don't speculate..just the facts, double sourced ya know.

But if you loking for jusdt straight facts, go to TruthOut.

[jwest]

Could someone explain what Fitz was trying to accomplish during his redirect of Martin.

I'm totally confused here.

[Patton]

Jim E. """clarice wrote: "Apuzzo indicates Armitage had an immunity agreement."

Nope. The article doesn't indicate that. Which is my problem with what you're writing."""

Now your doing it JIM E. Clarice does not say Apuzzos' article, she just says Apuzzo.

So, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH JIM E. WRITING
ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T FACTS AND GETTING STUFF WRONG. BURN HIM AT THE STAKE.

[Sue]

jwest,

That Martin heard the entire phone call between Libby and Cooper and he didn't say what he told investigators and the GJ he said.

[clarice]

jwest--I've been busy and missed that..could you tell us what happened?

azaghal, your name is in lights.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/why_fitzgerald_went_off_the_ra.html>Azaghal on DoJ regs

I will be talking about this on the Dennis Prager show at 10:20 EST.
Podcast info is at pragerradio.som

[Sue]

If y'all would just ignore Mr. E he would slink back over to EW and FDL and talk about us there. I prefer that, don't y'all?

[TexasIsHeaven]

I am not an attorney and have no legal training but I have been reading the exibits and following what is going on in the courtroom. I have a nephew who is a county prosecuter and have gotten insight on how a prosecuter goes about trying a case and the preparation that must go into a trial. Sometimes I agree whith what is posted by the "regulars" here and sometimes I don't - but it does seem like she is constantly singled out as trying to mislead and misrepresent - and it is creepy.

[cboldt]

-- what Fitz was trying to accomplish during his redirect of Martin --

That Martin was more of an outside observer of the OVP Wilson pushback, than a director or inside participant. At another point, Fitz seems to be impeaching some of Libby's GJ testimony - he reads something that Libby said he uttered, and asked Martin if she would remember hearing something like that. She said she would.

Wells's recross was aimed at having Martin's GJ testimony corroborate Libby's version of the Cooper conversation (for what little that is worth to the defense).

[hit and run]

Sue:
If y'all would just ignore Mr. E he would slink back over to EW and FDL and talk about us there. I prefer that, don't y'all?

Who?

[clarice]

If this isn't an assertion that Armitage like Fleischer had an immunity agreement, what is it?
The Fleischer gamble is the second such arrangement that prosecutors are known to have made with leakers in the case.
Remember the "gamble" he is talking about is granting immunity to someone who admits he may have violated the law.

[Ranger]

TCO,

To be honest, I get really tired of people on the left who can dish it out, but then refuse to take it. I'm a big beleaver in reciprocity. I respond in kind. You made a very broad and undified statement about "some people" and attached it to a critiqie of someone buy name (who had never made that argument. Now you say "I can back it up, believe me!" Ok, then why didn't you in your initial post? Making the matter worse, you used the unatributed quote to disparage the morality of everybody you disagree with.

My suspicion is that you didn't name the person because it is probably someone that Clarice does not agree with on a regular basis, or the coment was not made in ernest. By just attributing it to "some people" you stripped it of all context for others to judge the validity of your accusation.

[Other Tom]

Jim E--If Rove has an immunity agreement, wouldn't that mean that his relief upon being informed that he wouldn't be indicted was all an act? And his attorney was acting, too? And if so, why would they have put on such an act?

[Fedderrrr]

EW and FDL? They delete and, to be honest, if you read the articles there by guests; it looks like a lesbian coming out fundraiser party during the trial.

Where is Fitz exempted from Departmental policy? The integrity department at DOJ is not an exemption from DOJ criminal conspiracy investigations, regardless of the investigation.

[Sue]

H&R,

Have you ever seen Jeff Dunham's act? I tend to put faces on people that I blog with based on their personalities, etc. http://www.onastick.com/website/walter/walter.html>Mr. E (Jim)

[Patton]

Hey Jim E. Here is EmptyWheel and NextHurrah:

January 29, 2007
by emptywheel

This is going to be really quick--but there's a lot of confusion about where there are smoking guns and where there are not. So I'm going to lay out what I think went on in May-July 2003. It's SPECULATIVE, but this is the picture we're beginning to see.
""

SPECULATIVE, Ehhh Jim E.

GO BEAT ON HER FOR AWHILE.

[boris]

the OVP Wilson pushback

If Fitz is basing part of his case on the claim that Valerie was a component of the pushback then shouldn't that fall apart when Cheney says it wasn't and there's zero evidence to support it was? Doesn't that depend in large part on hoping the jury really believes the only reason this is even a big deal super trial is because of said conspiracy to destroy poor Valerie the Victoria Secret Flame Spy Woman?

[Sue]

Walton Was it unusual not to involve the communicators when responses being made to inquiries by the press. Did you have concerns about communicators not being included. [damn good question, juror!!]

M I was concerend about DC. I wasn't aware about what was going on on the Plane, I was concerned that we couldn't advise them about this matter.

I don't understand this answer to the question.

[Jim E.]

Patton:

Since you kant reed reel gud, I'll re-post a something I've already written above: "Speculation is part of the fun in this case. But to disguise speculation as fact, or to KNOWINGLY misrepresent AP articles is just wrong. . . . clarice repeatedly fails to differentiate between her personal speculation and the known evidence in the case."

Now why would I have a problem with EW when she warns in capital letters that she's going to SPECULATE? I look forward to your learned response.

[clarice]

Jim E--I thought there was more to Apuzzo. Here's the first and second graph of that piece that is relevant:
The Fleischer gamble is the second such arrangement that prosecutors are known to have made with leakers in the case.

At the onset of the investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he told authorities that he was the source behind columnist Robert Novak's story that revealed Plame's identity and triggered the probe.

____

It is utterly fair given the juxtaposition of these two graphs to say as I did that Apuzzo hints that Armitage also received a grant of immunity.

[jwest]

Thanks Sue.

But I still don’t get it.

Fitz calls Martin to testify over 2 days, she credibly paints the OVP as a group of people whose main concern was getting the whole truth out to the media, she nails down the fact that no one was talking about Val, no one was putting her in talking points or discussing leaking her name, all for prosecutorial benefit of showing Libby didn’t disclose anything to Cooper?

I’m missing the nuance.

[clarice]

Boldly onward.

[Sue]

jwest,

She was not involved in all of their conversations. She did not know Libby talked to Miller, on any date. She did not know that the NIE had been declassified. She was left out of the loop and Fitzgerald got that point across, considering a juror wants to know is it a normal occurrence.

[Pete]

Would clarice and the regulars here accept the result of this trial? After all Fitz has such a weak case, right?

[lurker]

"This is going to be really quick--but there's a lot of confusion about where there are smoking guns and where there are not. So I'm going to lay out what I think went on in May-July 2003. It's SPECULATIVE, but this is the picture we're beginning to see."

So what were they speculating....?

[lurker]

The results are very clear right up front.

[Sue]

Would clarice and the regulars here accept the result of this trial?

Sure, if you'll accept Clinton was impeached for perjury and not a blow job. ::grin::

Will you accept the result of this trial if Libby is acquitted?

[Sue]

Every premise to every speculation at EW and FDL is Cheney ordered the code red. If you know that when you read there, it makes your stay shorter.

[JM Hanes]

TCO:

"You never cite issues where things slant against Libby (and sometimes they do)."

Having just returned from an extended absence and read most of the recent commentary in on fell swoop, I'd say that's just not so. The specifics you go on to cite have been covered and recognized as problematic for Libby, although in in the opinion of many the testimony to date may well be having the opposite of its intended effect.

In fact, in your second post, you sum up the prosecution's case pretty well, and in the process demonstrate just how weak a case it is:

1. Swamp the jury with enough witnesses who vaguely remember the subject of Wilsn's wife coming up somewhere and sheer numbers will "move the scale."

2. Never mention Wilson without mentionning Wilson's wife until the two are so thoroughly conflated that it's impossible to believe that "Wilson article hubbub was super-important, but the Plame thing wasn't."

That argument was considerably less "strained" back when Vanity Fair's blonde bombshell was a faceless "managerial type" in the lower reaches of the CIA, of course, but you yourself gloss right over the real stretch here. Outing Wilson's trip as an extra-curricular junket is still a far cry from a conspiracy to compromise a covert agent for revenge.

The prosecution's case hinges almost entirely on on making pushback against Wilson synonymous with pushback against Plame. Declassifying the NIE becomes synonymous with outing Val, etc. That meme has gone pretty much uncontested in the mainstream press; we're in the process of seeing how it fares in the courtroom.

[clarice]

http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=211
Here's O'Connor on the remaining cross and redirect of Martin.

I do not see that she has been particularly damaging to the defense because , inter alia, the timing issue about the remark she made in Libby's presence and the absence of any indication that he heard or registered what she had said.(You know, like Woodward saying he told Pincus in the halls of the WasPo and Pincus saying he never heard what Woodward said)

[clarice]

Welcome back JMH, we've missed you.

[Pete]

Sure, if you'll accept Clinton was impeached for perjury and not a blow job. ::grin::

Will you accept the result of this trial if Libby is acquitted?

I don't know why every reference to the misdeeds of the Bush administration gets a reply here about Clinton, especially when I have never defended Clinton.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Yes, if Libby is acquitted I will accept the decision of the jury.

[Epk]

EW and FDL? I got Dick's duaghter?

Anway, Plame's intent was to leak herself, blame OVP and POTUS, and not get caught in a criminal conspiracy with a criminal conspiracy investigator.

I'm not a regular here because of....... them......

[Jim E.]

Dude--Libby used "Valerie Plame" in meeting with Ari on July 7...

[jwest]

From FDL. Walton asking juror questions at end of Martin testimony.
Walton: do you believe reporters got stories wrong and ommitted critical facts. What would you do?
M reporters often get things incorrect. You have to make a judgment call to decide whether you're going to confront the reporter, whether you're going to ask for a correction. We often have back and forth, they don't want to do corrections because they believe they were right. In some cases I feel that it would be productive. In some cases I won, In some cases I lost. I guess in reference to Kristof, if you don't have relationship and I didn't have a relationship and it was a columnist who tended to not agree with us, to be a little more aggressive to us, you might aggravate and create another story by calling them on it.
Looks like someone on the jury is figuring out what the real story is.

[boris]

why every reference to the misdeeds of the Bush administration gets a reply here about Clinton

Because they were both accused of lies about leaks.

[Cecil Turner]

Could someone explain what Fitz was trying to accomplish during his redirect of Martin.

There was an outing conspiracy, but Ms Martin wasn't in on it. (They used her "leak" idea, though.)

shouldn't that fall apart when Cheney says it wasn't and there's zero evidence to support it was?

Dream on, Boris. Cheney saying it wasn't is proof! He lies! (Except, apparently, when he claims the CIA information supported the Niger uranium claim, or that he never heard of Wilson.)