Powered by TypePad

« "Official" Equals "Classified? | Main | Saturday Night Libby »

February 02, 2007



I don't know but before the trial the prosecution had provided to the defense a statement that Dickerson had challenged directly Fleischer's account. It is an ethical violation for the prosecutor to allow his witness to perjure himself and it may be that Fitz had a concern about that.
The computer ate my notes but the defense went thru the email exchanges and telephone records to nail down the time and noted for the record that there was a 7 hour difference between Africa and DC. (I don't think that EW covered this in detail) I had intended to review this and figure it out at home, but my impression was that the claimed Dickerson communication could not have come before the story was done--which means MC could not have had anything but Rove's comment and Libby's off the record (clearly not confirmatory statement) at that time.A detailed look at the Exhibits may reconstruct this course of questioning.If true,
this would of course be another hit to MC's credibility and raise the question of how Cooper knew..My guess is the Calibresi /Wilson phone calls before and after the Rove conversation. In other words, Cooper got what he had about Plame not from administration officials directly nor from Fleischer thru Dickerson but from Joe Wilson
With all that in the record I expect Calibresi will be called by the defense or the attack on Cooper will be made on the record evidence.


Clarice ... you are incredible. Cooper is such a liar that he really heard about Plame from Wilson himself. Cooper fought testifying and was going to go to jail to protect Joe Wilson as his source.



Yeah, if my hunch is right the "War on Wilson?" was written by Wilson himself with some creative editing at Time.

sammy small

I agree that the scenario you suggest sure fits with Wilson's m.o. from the start.

Anonymous Liberal

You're so full of it, Clarice. Where's your evidence that Wilson was Cooper's source? Why would Cooper perjure himself? That's crazy.

As for your evidentiary question, Tom, the defense clearly want this testimony in order to prove the truth of the underlying statement, i.e., that Dickerson had in fact been told about the wife (and therefore Gregory had too). You are correct that hearsay can be admitted to show the state of mind of the witness (in which case it's technically not hearsay), but your theories as to the relevance of such testimony seem pretty weak to me. My hunch is that the judge thought this testimony would be only marginally relevant, if at all, in shedding light on Cooper's state of mind, and that the defense was attempting to admit obvious hearsay evidence through a backdoor, so he didn't allow it.


If someone cares to he/she could pull up those exhibits and confirm my hunch about the Wells' careful questioning on the timeline.
(Credit goes to ts for having caught the Fitz notification to the defense on Dickerson's denial )


IIRC AL in pretrial hearings there was a great deal of discussion about Time's documents. The judge reviewed everything and said because they showed that no matter how Cooper testified those docs would impeach him, the defense was entitled to see them before he testified .
In the discussion it was revealed that Cooper's co-author had been on the phone to Calibresi before and after Cooper's call to Rove. Further, re Libby, Cooper took simultaneous notes of the Libby conversation and there is not a single reference in them to Wilson's wife (in an variant form)


**was revealed that Cooper's co-author CALIBRESI had been on the phone to WILSON before and after Cooper's call to Rove. Further, re Libby, Cooper took simultaneous notes of the Libby conversation and there is not a single reference in them to Wilson's wife (in an variant form)**********


Why would Cooper perjure himself?

according to his notes and the Judge, he already has


Al, not to say that this part of your comment wasn't ridiculous enough to make me laugh:
"My hunch is that the judge thought this testimony would be only marginally relevant, if at all, in shedding light on Cooper's state of mind, and that the defense was attempting to admit obvious hearsay evidence through a backdoor, so he didn't allow it."

On a question relating to where he got the information for his article--"marginally relevant"?
I am certain that the Fitz note on Cooper was made in connection with his obligation to provide any excuptaory evidence to the defense and that his objection was not on hearsay..

Appalled Moderate

Um, Clarice, mc *knew* courtesy of Karl Rove. He didn't need Joe Wilson to tell him or his co-author.

If you are talking about the name, Valerie Plame's name was findable by locating Wilson's consulting firm bio. (I did this myself back out of idle curiosity when the scandal broke.) This tallies with Cooper's own testimony.

In other words, on this issue, I concur with AL.


--You're so full of it, Clarice. Where's your evidence that Wilson was Cooper's source? Why would Cooper perjure himself? That's crazy.--

Novak had called Wilson days before and asked about Wilson's wife.

Wilson to Calbresi - Here is what the adminstaration is putting out to smear me and it is total bulls*&%

Read the story -pretty much tracks that.


P.S. Do you suppose that yesterday's Time piece "Free Scooter!" by an Administration critic, Kinsley, calling for an end to this farce of a trial is just one of those coincidences..?

Great Banana

"Um, Clarice, mc *knew* courtesy of Karl Rove. He didn't need Joe Wilson to tell him or his co-author."

then why is it so important what Libby told him and when? Since none of the reporters' various stories match up with each other, why is Libby the only person on trial for perjury in this matter? Seems like Fitz had a whole bunch of people he could have alleged committed perjury, but for some reason, only chose Libby. I wonder why? (I don't wonder why, really).

Carol Herman

It's obvious that Fitzgerald is being allowed to HIDE information from Libby. And, the judge CONCURS. So? Appeal? If you think this crap is worth the money.

On the other hand? What does this say about "da law?" Since when does a defendent have to find "what shell the pea is hidden under?"

As to the reporters, ALL OF THEM were in on the charade. ALL to get Kerry elected. And, this didn't happen. Since what Dan Rather did was on television; and not in a court of law. Rather lost his anchor chair.

As if you need an "anchor chair" in a swamp!

As to the "Rovian phone call," REMEMBER THIS: Cooper called Rove. And, TO GET THROUGH, since Rove was about to exit on holiday, said: SUBJECT IS WELFARE! (Rove? Just told Cooper, who was new at his job, "to not get too far out on this stinking limb of a story, because Tenet was about to divulge FACTS." If you want to call Tenet's "sacrifice" of his horizontal blonde agent, as anything much. Because he didn't divulge how many twenties it would cost ya "to get a hand job.") And, the russians had been warned off this "soft touch" since Aldrich Ames, went for Kremlin money.

Anyway. "That" DO NOT GET AHEAD ON WILSON'S STORY ... is what is going to put Libby in jail for ten years?

And, the left doesn't smell the swamp.

And, the judge? A stink-o affirmative action hire.

No. I have no hope left for our judicial system.

As to Cooper saying "Libby was disparaging," because his note said "DISS." Dis and Dat don't work for me at all.


And, nothing makes it to the level of "confirmation!" Sorry.

Other Tom

I, too, simply don't believe Cooper would perjure himself. Why on earth would he do so?

Is Fitz's grand jury still alive, or has its term expired, or has it been dismissed? Anybody know?


Remember the story was that Libby and Rove had declared a war on Wilson and that Cooper claimed three sources for the article.

Well he had Rove
He claimed he had Libby but the record is clear that the off the record remark would never be considered confirmation by a serious writer (and the media room erupted in laughter when Cooper having explained what off the record meant, nevertheless claimed this was a confrimation). (Some--I remember corn joking about destroying interview notes after this trial).
And then his records show only DIckerson--but Dickerson denied this and if I am right about the timeline Dickerson could not have confirmed it)
It seems more than reasonable with Calibresi on the line with Wilson before the call to Rove--that Wilson fed Time the "war" story, that Rove described that Tenet was about to respond to it and that Cooper shouldn't get out too far on this not credible Wilson tale. Then Calibresi calls Wilson back and reports what Rove said.Rove tells Libby about the inquiry and Cooper calls Libby (not sure which came first).
Wilson wrote the war story and Cooper and Calibresi were the stenographers.
Dickerson had nothing to do with the story's genesis or devlopment.
Despite what Fleischer says, he says Fleischer only told him to check with the CIA.

Appalled Moderate


What's clear from Cooper's testimony is his flexible standard about what constitutes "confirmation". If he has heard from Rove that wife did it, and hears from Dickenson that White House folks are suggesting that reporters really need to dig into how Wilson was sent by some low level CIA person, he is going to lie down on his bed, tap some incoherent notes into his laptop, and figure he got confirmation.

Wilson did it? Sorry. That's unprovable and implausible.


Cooper threatened with jail was originally asked to testify against Rove.
After that Fitz hauled him in on Libby.
Perhaps Cooper forgot. Perhaps he had no waiver from Wilson and was in no mood to try and test what seemed a losing case. Perhaps weighing the risks of busting Wilson and the Dem case to shreds and ruining his vocation and that of his Dem big wig wife's, he decided not to tell.
Read Kinsley's "Free Scooter!" as "Get Cooper and Time off the hotseat"

At least a year ago Macsmind predicted something like this about Cooper's gj testimony.


Your explanation makes the most sense. What would prevent Wells from presenting your scenario and asking Cooper-true or false?

Other Tom

Jesus, Carol, can it with that racist crap, will you? You're worse than Joe Biden...


And invite him to lie at the trial? Invite him to incriminate himself by stating his testimony before the gj was less than accurate?

See, if the objection had been to hearsay or something like that, it'd been made publicly. Instead as I recall there was a call for a bench conference where the dilemma was explained.

AM I do not believe it was possible for Dickerson to have contacted him in the timeframe he described. And telling someone to check with the CIA is (a) at odds with what Fleischer testified telling Dickerson and (b) no confirmation at all.

Perhaps the gj inquiry was as half assed as the rest of the investigation. Perhaps he just said he had three confirmations and turned over his Time memos and correspondence which "suggested" that Dickerson was the third and he was never probed on that before the GJ.

"Perhaps. "(As he ended the first graph of his story)But it makes no sense unless he had some other source and we know his co-author was noodling with Wilson as the story was being put together, we know Cooper has no such indication in his notes, and we know the defense has all the Time notes.

But I think it clear Wilson was a source..

Appalled Moderate


Are you saying that Cooper's conversation with Rove was not substantially as Cooper reported? That it had to be Wilson, because Cooper did not really get the famous warning about Ms. Wilson from Rove?


Okay, Clarice, I am slow to comprehend much of this. Do you think Wells will try to reveal that Wilson was sourcing journalists?


Wilson did it? Sorry. That's unprovable and implausible.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 02, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Unprovable maybe, but implausible? Remember this guy was putting himself out to the press as "A former ambasador with close ties to the CIA." How do you think he backed up that claim of "close ties"? Remember, Joe and Val both sat down to breakfast with Kristoff at the beginning of this whole thing. Do you really think she just sat there and said nothing during that whole meeting?


I'm saying Wilson told Calibresi the Administration was after him. Probably told about Plame and her job.Calibresi had Cooper call Rove to see what was up. Rove told him not to get too far out on that because there was going to be a statement by Tenet coming out and that Wilson hadn't been sent by the VP etc.
This was reported back to Wilson via Calibresi.Who gave him more details .
But they can't write the story w/out a second confirmation. They call Libby who really doesn't confirm it and then suggest Dickerson did , too, but he couldn't have in the timeframe, says he didn't, and says Fleischer never, in fact, gave him any confirmatory information.
Time's "sources" were Wilson and then ROve. Period.

Libby never said (per Cooper's notes) anything about Wilson's wife, only that he heard "somethine and didn't "eve[n] [know if it were true]

Calibresi will certainly be called to testify.

Dan S

I think the Vanity Fair (SUCH an appropriate venue) article on Val & pal is more evidence of Wilson's approach to this. He was shopping his story, before and after. We don't (yet) know the degree, but there are hints it's more than most people suspect.

Molly Malone

At risk of betraying my ignorance on the subject, I have to ask if trying Libby for perjury automatically means that Fitz won't attempt, at a later date, to indict Rove, Cheney, and the rest of the gang for outing a CIA agent. I realize that he said Libby's lies prevented him from getting at the truth of this matter, but it looks as if Libby's attorneys are handing those folks to Fitz on a platter. Could it be that Libby was the most easily broken link in the chain, the one with the greatest evidence stacked against him, and Fitz is using this perjury trial to lay the ground work for the next step -- the convening of another grand jury to again investigate the outing of a CIA agent? Help me out, please. Is there some point of law I'm missing here?


You're missing more than a point of law if this is what you are taking away from the trial, Molly.

Dan S


What is lacking is evidence. If Fitz somehow gets a conviction on Libby, Libby is then a convicted perjuror. He's not terribly useful as a witness against anyone else.

If he doesn't get a conviction, his chance of doing MORE with this sample of witnesses is slim to none.

IANAL, just a somewhat informed interested citizen.

Appalled Moderate


I think you are wrong on the chrononolgy. (Sorry to be a pest).

If you look at Dickerson's own story, you realize that his attempts to contact Time came after this July 11 event . Dickerson's story is oddly coy about the date chronology, and one has to click on his links to establish it. But it breaks down like this:

10:30 am wash (5:30pm -- Uganda) on July 11, Entebbe event ends. Dickerson calls DC, but no luck.

1 pm 7/11 (DC) -- (7:00 pm in Nigeria, hardly unreasonable for our hero to be calling)

This is Dickerson's account:

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

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

The Cooper conversaton with Libby occurred the next day -- 7/12.

So, Cooper's timeline does work, without the Joe Wilson ex machina you have imported. And, given what we have seen of Cooper, it is plausible that he would taken Dickenson's reporting as "confirmation." He, apparently, is that slack...

Patrick R. Sullivan

'AM I do not believe it was possible for Dickerson to have contacted him in the timeframe he described.'

I don't see this. Cooper talked with Rove on Friday the 11th. Apparently in the afternoon, before Tenet's statement later that day. Say 3:00 PM EDT, which is 10:00 PM in East Africa.

The deadline is the next afternoon, Saturday the 12th. There's plenty of time to talk with Dickerson. But, I agree that the Time guys got it out of Wilson too.


Let me see if I can pull up the relevant exhibits of the original Time documents because those, not Dickerson's account, are the evidence.


I mentioned this two days ago in a comment wondering, "what's going on here?" Something STRANGE is happening here:

J: What is the word in your email, dissing, what do you mean by that.

MC: disparaging comments about Wilson. I'm trying to answer carefully. There were disparaging comments about Wilson and comments that pointed to his wife.

J: Disparaging comments being what?

MC: the precise comments Dickerson heard from his source.

J: Let me stay away from that. Tell me every disparaging statement Libby said about Wilson.

Dan S

That would be heresay, no, PO?

Dan S

err, hearsay.

Molly Malone

Clarice, I appreciate the significance of much of what in taking place in the Libby trial. My question was more in the nature of a side issue about which I needed some clarification.

Dan, thank you for your response. I can see where a not guilty verdict for Libby would put an end to any further legal inquiry. If Libby is convicted of perjury, however, even though his testimony would be suspect,
the evidence given by other parties seems to indicate quite strongly that Libby did not act on his own in outing Plame. Strong enough to pursue in court? My degree is not in jurisprudence, a subject in which I am woefully ignorant. Thank you for your insights, Dan.


Why wouldn't it be simply "state of mind"... as in, "Mr. Cooper, what led you to believe that Mr. Wilson was being dissed? Specifically, what was said to you that made you think the administration was waging a war on Mr. Wilson?"

It would seem to me that a Cooper answer of "One of the things that led me to believe this was Mr. Dickerson telling me that Ari had said, "XYZ".....

The judge could tell the jury that they couldn't take Coopers account of what Ari said as evidence of what Ari said, but they could take it as evidence of what Mr. Cooper thought was going on...


the evidence given by other parties seems to indicate quite strongly that Libby did not act on his own in outing Plame.

Posted by: Molly Malone | February 02, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Actually, the evidence, if Armitage is a witness, will show that Libby didn't act at all in outing Plame. She was outed on June 14 by Armitage, and again on July 7. Libby was not involved in either of those outings.

Other Tom

No, it wouldn't be hearsay. The out-of-court statements of a party are not hearsay, by definition. The reason for the rule against hearsay is that the jury should not hear about assertions of fact made by a person who is not subject to cross-examination. A party can't complain that he himself is not subject to cross. He can always cross-examine the person who is putting the words in his mouth.


I was disappointed that Cooper wasn't cross examined on the Calibresi and Wilson contact. I wonder if it's something the defense won't pursue, or if they've decided to call Calibresi (and perhaps Wilson) in rebuttal. I certainly hope it's the latter.

Dan S


I suppose that could be argued, but it appears Jefress wasn't intending to go there. I suspect he wanted to show that Cooper's assertion that Wilson was being "dissed" did not from from anything that Ari said. Probably suggestive of "and how much else Cooper says came from the conversation with Ari really didn't if he plays this fast and loose?"

That leaves open the question, "then whence came it?" Cooper says Dickerson's source via Dickerson. Dickerson was not on the stand, thus hearsay, thus not open to exploration at the moment.

Not sure how Cooper's state of mind vis-a-vis that is important enough to go into over a sure objection that would follow heading in that direction. Better to leave Cooper looking like a jerk than risk looking like one yourself by heading in the direction of hearsay, maybe?

Dan S


Dickerson was present at the time, was he not? He wasn't on the stand, but he may be (not sure) on the witness list.

Dan S

err, hearsay.


But then why even cut off the response that he got it from Dickerson?


I mean why not let him say--without going into what he heard that Dickerson was his third source?

It is so odd--I can only NOT post when I give the cites to the docs.


Clarice -your favorite e-mail from Cooper on changing the Libby line content - is from 2005? He was having someone change his notes in 2005?

What's up with that?

Florence Schmieg

I would guess that Molly is a kool-aid drinker on the left. She has so bought in to the meme spouted by Matthews and Olberman about the cabal to out Plame as revenge, she just cannot let it go. If Fitzgerald were going to flip Libby and use him to substantiate this fantasy, it would already have happened.

Dan S

I admit it struck me as odd at the time. And still does. I'm just trying to speculate on what MIGHT have been going on.

I do think it lead away from where he wanted to go, but it did seem it might prove useful too.


Enlightened What a great catch!I enlarged it and it indeed says 7/16/2005.

Looks like there's a glitch in the Time email system

Dan S


Well, from what I understand of typical mob-chasing methodology as employed by Fitz and others, that would be it: Flip the lower to get to the higher levels.

But this is not the mob, despite what the Kool-Aid drinkers want to believe. There are different cultures at work.

I'm not ruling out it may be what Fitz is falling back on, we all get into ruts and try to use the wrench in place of a hammer, or vice versa. But I don't think it's a very viable theory of what THIS trial is about.

I think this trial is about salvaging something from a farce, the something being ANY sort of conviction he can get.

So Molly may be sincere, or she may be trolling. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, that they just have been exposed to the media accounts (as is true in most cases, after all), until they give me evidence otherwise.


It's obviously a massive left wing conspiracy led by Bill Clintonites!


Would it have anything to do with the prosecution didn't bring it up in their case? Since defense can only delve into what the prosecution presents until defense's own case? I don't remember if that is even a possibility, because I can't remember if Fitzgerald brought it up.


Fitz didn't object on that ground as far as I could see, and the subject of his source that day was definitely opened on direct.So such an objection would not have been sustained.

Rick Ballard


We'll be visited by the ghost of Fitzmas past for the rest of our lives. It's going to be interesting to watch the left go after Fitz should Libby be acquitted. It won't be pretty.

So far, he looks a lot like Marcia Clark at her finest.



Why so cynical?

Molly may be a seeker of truth and justice, lost in the wilderness, being pummeled by the MSM with distortions and thirsty for long, cool glass of logic.

She walks into the University of Maguire, hears some conversation going on and stumbles headlong into Advanced Plame Theory 805.

We should publish a primer with the basics to bring folks up to speed.

Dan S

hehe, jwest.

Ok, Enlightened, you refer to DX850?

That IS most odd. I wonder how competent the IT guys are in preserving this sort of evidence. Email headers would tell us a lot.


jwest: you may have only been joshing, but I think the "primer" is a hellava good idea. I followed this pretty regularly until the indictment and then it pretty much fell off my radar, until now - the trial. I keep having to ask dumb questions to keep up with the voluminous info you guys all seem to have filed neatly in your heads. grin.

I think a flow chart of the cast of characters in itself would be marvelous! Meanwhile, I try not to miss any posts and keep up with the flow.


Clarice - That means Cooper changed his notes almost to the day he testified to the GJ - And after he waffled about the jail time/release crap.

Appalled Moderate


As I understand your theory:

Rove spoke.

Libby's statement wasn't confirmation, and Dickenson's statement was not confirmation (and wasn't timely).

Time won't print without confirmation.

Therefore, for Cooper article to have printed, Wilson must have confirmed, because nobody else was available to confirm.

I think you assume, in this, that Time won't play fast and loose with what "confirmation" is. And it's pretty clear, from Cooper's testimony, that he's the kind of guy that would bend the rules a bit. I think cutting corners on the two source rule is far more likely than asking Joe Wilson if his wife is CIA. This is a guy who does not finish his sentences in his notes and messes with quotes. Clarice, you're giving the guy too much credit for meeting journalistic standards.


Clarice - That means Cooper changed his notes almost to the day he testified to the GJ - And after he waffled about the jail time/release crap.


Actually - that e-mail was changed AFTER he testified at GJ and the day before his article in TIME on what he told the GJ. I originally thought it read the 10th of July but it doe slook like the 16th. A Friday night, and most def a deadline for his article re the GJ.

Dan S

So, is 850 referring to an 2005 article of some sort in Time? And it's meant as a demonstration of how those articles get "edited" resulting in changes to what are supposed to be quotes?

Or is it a pretty major screwup in preserving email evidence? (Having a hard time coming up with how THAT could happen.)


docDef 845
Def 850

deadline timeline


email to Dickerson

Cooper report on Rove conversation. Note to call Harlow



Rest of links am working on if I do more than that I am coming up with the same error page that Syl was talking about.


Cooper memo on conversation with Libby
Cooper note on Rove
Cooper note on orig call from Libby with background stmemt


It's possible that for preparation for the gj he asked her to go thru her emails and resend him the substance of her 2003 email.
I don't think that was concoted, just the article's quote of Libby which has ever after been Cooper's version of what Libby said.
And that is a version at odds with his simultaneous note "h[e]a[r]d somethine about Wilson and doesn't eve[n][know if it's true"


Thanks boris!

Dan S

There's another version of "this" email? Or is the issue just that it's dated 10/16/2005?


Thanks both of you!


Dan S I do not believe the date is the issue. It's that the quote was not what Cooper first had, but his editor's (who wasn't a party to the conversation).


Why would a 2005 e-mail be entered as evidence against Scooter?

Well, again - call me confused.

In the 850 email Cooper says Scooter said "yeah I heard that too" (or words to that effect, ie: put some words in Scooters mouth)

But in the other supporting docs, I do not see that phrase, or WORDS TO THAT EFFECT anywhere?

Dan S

Clarice, thanks. Okay, starting to make more sense now. Sort of.

Dan S

This still sounds like really poor preservation of evidence on someone's part though.


So is that the impeachment Walton is referring to?

And so before he talked to Scooter on the 12th - he also spoke with Ari, after he had spoken to Dickerson?

820.2 - Libby reiterated what Ari said earlier that day?


I do not see his original draft of the article in evidence.
We have his "somethine" note as a simultanous record of that conversation.
Whatever he wrote, his editor edited it to say what he now testifies he recalls Libby saying.
The 2005 date is a nothing--I think it must be an email from his editor(in connection with his gj appearance) repeating the substance of what was in the email editing his original account of the conversation which he had written in the draft article.


Sorry if this isn't part of the current stream but this has been bugging me for two days-it might have more to do with the "groovy"-

But in an email to Michael Duffy, Cooper responds with-

groovy. i guess no tenet mea culpa?

Link to email exchange

Does anyone understand the full meaning of that?

Molon Labe

As I understand it, the request to change the quote was FROM Bambi TO Cooper.

But 850 is an email apparently sent FROM Cooper TO Bambi, in 2005. What's up with that?

Why isn't the original email in evidence?

Why did Cooper recreate this email? Did Bambi ask him, "Hey I deleted my old email do you remember me sending you something about changing quote? Can you send it to me?" Why?


So is that the impeachment Walton is referring to?
the impeachment is that his testimony doesn't match his simultaneous notes of the conversation nor apparently his version of it in the first draft of the article.

And so before he talked to Scooter on the 12th - he also spoke with Ari, after he had spoken to Dickerson?
there is no evidence that he spoke to Ari.If he did speak to Dickerson in time, Dickerson could not have converyed more to him than Dickerson said he knew--that he should call the CIA. There is a note in one of these docs to call Harlow, but no record that Cooper or anyone else did in these exhibits.

820.2 - Libby reiterated what Ari said earlier that day?

Rick Ballard


On July 11 a 'warning' to the press had been issued that Tenet would take responsibility for the 16 words, which he did (vide "massimo hears from NSC that it's coming end of day". It had not been issued at the time the email was sent. The "I'm betting 10PM" probably refers to the time that Duffy expected the statement to be issued - that's what the "ah, the old friday night dump" refers to.

"groovy" ties to Duffy's "I'm up to five pages".


Yeah - Why did Cooper assume a Tenet Mea Culpa was forthcoming at 5:12 pm on the very day it was issued?

And Mike Duffy had word from NSC (via Massimo) that something was coming.


Now, my head is spinning.Did I hear this wrong (remember my notes were chewed up) Was this in connection with a later story--one about his testimony before the grand jury ? Did he write to Bambi asking her to put in a different version of what he said than what he had in his original draft? Looks like it.


Rove warned him not to "get out too far ahead on this"--something was coming..They anticipated a Tenet statement.


Clarice -

In 802.1 - Off The Record paragraph, p2.

"He (ie: Libby) reiterated what ARI SAID EARLIER TODAY"

Does that mean Cooper spoke with Libby AFTER he spoke to Rove and to both Dickerson AND Ari?



massimo? Seems like that might be Calebresi.


OK maybe I'm Cartman and I just hate hippies.heh.

groovy-who talks like that still? Sheesh.



Only Fitz knows!

It's his damn "story".


Woah wait. Am I losing it? 820.1 is soley regarding the Cooper/Libby convo -

In the same 820.1 same paragraph as above - Cooper says Ari gave TIME???? a statement re Wilson/Niger et al?

The reciever of this memo is "Nation"??? Who is that? Cooper is telling the reciever of the memo, who I assume works for TIME to read "Ari's statement" for full account?


From Wikipedia:
"17 July 2003: Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, along with two other writers, Massimo Calabresi and John F. Dickerson, "first mentioned the name of Joseph Wilson's wife in an online article posted July 17, 2003. In that article Cooper ask[s], 'Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium?'"[46]
Cooper et al. trace the controversy surrounding President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech and the African uranium controversy. Anonymous sources of information are attributed to "two senior Administration officials," "another official," and "an intelligence official." Named sources include Vice President Dick Cheney's assistant Scooter Libby, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame's superior Alan Foley, and former State Department proliferation expert Greg Thielmann. "

From the NPR timeline:

"July 17, 2005: In Time magazine, Matt Cooper discusses his testimony before the grand jury investigating the leak. He says Rove never referred to Valerie Plame by name, but that Cooper did learn from that conversation with Rove that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in WMD issues. "

That email could be in connection with this story which I'll try to find.


--The reciever of this memo is "Nation"??? Who is that?--

The Nation - David Corn?

Dan S

Yeah, sounds like the 10/16/2005 email was about a correction to that 10/17/2005 article.

But the other bit in 820 is interesting.


Here's the Link:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1083878,00.html>What I told the grand jury
And here's what he said:
"Cooper also writes about his August 2004 testimony before the grand jury relating to his conversation with Vice President Cheney?s Chief of Staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Cooper writes that, like Rove, Libby never used Plame?s name or indicated that her status was covert and he never told Cooper that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated. On background, Cooper had asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson?s wife sending him to Niger. Libby answered with words to the effect of ?Yeah, I?ve heard that too.?"

Now, we do not know what his original draft said about his testimony.
I think the Bambi link is now explained though..it relates to this story not the 2003 one, and it changes his draft version of what he'd said to the gj about Libby.

Sorry I caused so much confusion, but that's why I hate to work without a real transcript and the exhibits in front of me.


ts--"Nation means national desk--it's an internal router.



I know, I was being cute.

Dan S

"Nation" might be the section of Time it's meant for?


But, why would this e-mail from 2005 be evidence against Scooter?

Dan S


Was there an Ari presser on 7/12/2003? (816 has some similar language, not sure of the context of that one).

JM Hanes


"And, given what we have seen of Cooper, it is plausible that he would taken Dickenson's reporting as 'confirmation.'"

Except that acc. to your citation, both Cooper & Dickinson plainly considered Dickinson's info to be suggestive, not confirming. Hence the discussion where they decide that rather than risk exposing Rove by having Dickinson attempt to confirm "the wife business" with his sources (Rice/Fleischer), Cooper will seek the confirmation they need elsewhere on his end.

Further along, Dickinson says that when the "attack on Wilson" wasn't run in the print edition that week, Cooper wanted to run it online, and notes that:

Our editors delayed publication of the Web piece, uncertain there was enough evidence the White House was trying to undermine Wilson's credibility. That was frustrating, since by that time the White House spokesman, Fleischer, was undermining him on the record. Bob Novak's story revealing Plame's name had come out, but those of us working on the story in Washington, which now included Massimo Calabresi, thought we still had a few facts Novak didn't. Our piece finally ran on the Web on July 17, 2003, six days after Cooper had learned about Wilson's wife."

Cooper was watching his big scoop go down the drain. I wouldn't be surprised if he just went with whatever he had, never imagining at that point that anyone would ever challenge his sourcing. It takes a darn big shoehorn to turn Dickinson and Libby into legitimate confirmations.

Of course, I suppose it's also worth remembering that at the time Dickinson wrote his article, he was wondering about getting subpoena'd himself.

Dan S

Didn't Libby introduce 820? I thought that came in on cross, but I may be misremembering.


OT but perhaps TM will post on the QT:

The European Central Bank has ordered SWIFT to cease providing banking data to the United States for use in investigations of al Qaeda. “Under European Union rules information on money transfers can be used only for banking purposes and not for other uses, like combating terrorism.”


The comments to this entry are closed.