Powered by TypePad

« Editors At The WaPo? | Main | Libby Thread »

February 05, 2007

Comments

hit and run

Rick - see my comment above. It was the Maine guy who said that if Libby read those articles then he would have known Plame was covert and he would be in trouble if he disclosed it.

Maybe he was rushed in the liveblogging mode - or maybe I misread and that's something Fitz said.

Otherwise, I have no problem with what he's doing.......and I have no reason to suspect he's going to go off into BDS moonbattery. Just that sentence jumped out at me.

topsecretk9

--CIA. Libby -> it is possible he could have talked about Wilson. They talked about Miami Dolphin football,etc.”
Defense focusing on the ‘Libby does not recall’ notes. Wells asks Bond if agent typed different information than what was contained in the notes. Bond says probably discrepencies between notes and typed version.
Difference here is between ‘adamantly denied’ and the handwritten notes that say ‘did not recall’. --

Adamantly denied?

roanoke

FDL-

Wells is now picking apart Bond's notes from her own interview with Libby, and says they don't mention the July 12 conversation with Miller either. Bond agrees. She's not happy with this.

Wells: The first time Mr. Libby was asked about the substance of this conversation was in the grand jury, nine months after he spoke with Ms. Miller.

Bonds: Yes.

W: Now I want to go to a different subject…. the November 2003 interview of Mr. Libby about the flight of Air Force Two. (Puts up a transcript of Bond describing the interview — her grand jury testimony, I think.)

Wells walks her through her answers as shown in the transcript — that Libby said he "may have discussed" Plame with Cheney on AF2 after supposedly hearing about her from Russert.

Now Wells pulls out Bond's notes, about which she was testifying. (Uh-oh…. Walton says, "These are your notes?" and then an objection. Pause.)

I don't see how Bond can be considered a good witness. She essentially wouldn't be testifying if not for Cooper and Miller.

Cooper and Miller's testimony has created a foundation for the Prosecution that I wouldn't pop a tent over.

Fitz-he'd send a guy to do thirty.

Pofarmer

The judge in the case doesn't even know if Plame was covert or not. Yet these reporters know it. Priceless.

What you are witnessing, folks, is the criminalization of politics, right before our eyes, in broad daylight. Let's see how good of an antiseptic it is.

Pofarmer

Maybe criminalization of politics isn't the right phrase.

How about Politicization of the Law?

hit and run

roanoke:
I don't see how Bond can be considered a good witness.

Or a good interviewing agent?

clarice

Here is my sum up of the Bond testimony on point:
" think I misspoke, and this charade is even worse than I thought..I am reviewing Bond's notes of the first interview and it seems Libby told her about the june 12 disclosure at the very first Oct 21, 2003 interview:
FDL:
"Wells: I want to go to different area. (The Libby CP note)

Wells; This is document Libby produced prior to his interview.

DB: No. I believe it was October 21.

W: It wsa discussed.

DB Libby brought it. Libby did not give it to us.

W Jun 12 2003, Libby had a telephone call during which Cheney disclosed to Libby that Wilson's wife worked in Counter Proliferation. At the very outset of interview, he said to you he had reviewed this exhibit, it had refreshed his recollection, he now recollected that he first learned of Plame from VP.

DB THat's what he claimed.

W (mad) THat's what he said, that's not what he claimed.
"
This is the exhibit he brought to the interview:
Wife works in CP

Posted by: clarice | February 03, 2007 at 07:56 PM "

Here is my extract of the three FDL posts last week on Bond:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/saturday_night_.html#comment-28723439>Notes

cboldt

-- Maybe he was rushed in the liveblogging mode --


"The Maine Guy" isn't, I don't think, steeped in the case like many of the readers here are. He also isn't trained in the law. He is, however, lining back to JOM, so readers clicking on his link will land on this thread.

topsecretk9

Is it not incredible the Prosecutor is fighting releasing the FBI notes be made public? The basis of his case and he'd fight to hide them?

Carol Herman

Small problem with video tape. Bill Gates, in court, had a deposition that he allowed to be videotaped to be used. And, the press pointed out "his stiffness." And, that he wasn't "photogenic."

Ronald Reagan, however, understood the importance of being "telegenic." Because he used his skills to offset what he, himself, would say in responding to questions. And, the PEOPLE preferred REAGAN.

Yes, there are partisans. Here. There. And, everywhere. (Or as someone said yesterday on another thread: NOTHING NEW. Because Americans have always been served by partisan newspapers. Except? Towns with at least 7,500 people could support TWO papers. For a penny, they could buy opposing views.)

I still stay the real players are the American People. (When Sneddon AND the press tried to hang Michael Jackson; the jury failed to see the evidence. And, they aquitted.)

What will a DC jury do? Will it be different than a Santa Monica jury? Or an LA jury? Well? Juries are a crap shoot. So, what the jury does, ahead, remains to be seen.

Walton? He has no fears of being "reversed." Because other judges will give him "discretionary" rights. (The only place where there was a "take-down" on discretionary, came with the LEGISLATURE voted into LAW, "SENTENCING GUIDELINES." And, all the judges yelped like pigs.

But before "guidelines?" The hodge podge of sentences was so great, they no longer held "enough" consistency to be fair.

Yesterday, Clarice mentioned Linda Tripp. Since one partisan side always bemoans her treatment. (But the public didn't like what she did all that much.) So, you've got insiders that are partisan. And, most of America not "choosing sides." Not even when asked "party affiliation" these days.

Yes. Lots of hostility. At the 50 yard line.

What if Libby is convicted, or not? It's not the Rovian Frog March, ya know?

And, because Tripp's name got mentioned yesterday, I thought of ROGAN. Rogan was a member of the HOUSE, and one of the lawyers that questioned Monica. (Monica actually won it. WITH THE PEOPLE.) And, Rogan, when he ran again? Got tossed. (I know. He represented the district I call home.)

And, I also noticed? The innocent days when Rogan was first running, the lawns around here, for miles, were peppered with his signs. But in today's environment? Lawn signs have gone the way of bumper stickers. And, political buttons.

It should tell you that Mainstream has not picked sides. But if I had to guess? A win that's predicated on a lynching, will just get smirked at. (Martha Stewart survived her's. And, her empire is still in business.)

roanoke

hit and run-

Well maybe for McDonald's except she'd forget the "I can't work weekends!" clause.

hit and run

And you're from Maine, cboldt? My brother and family are thinking about moving up there.

Sorrry!!!!!!! No OT stuff on the live thread. SORRY!!!!!!


cboldt

-- Here is my sum up of the Bond testimony on point --


I hope you aren't repeating that for my benefit, because if you are, it's a waste of space. I usually read these threads carefully, and I saw your comments (in fact, IIRC, I replied to some of them). Both sides of the case are already presented upthread. I'm not going to assert my point of view on it again - you have the stage, and may tout your point of view with no opposition from me.

Sue

More nitpicking detailed dissection of Bond's notes

From the live blogger at FDL. The irony is so rich I can't resist commenting on it.

topsecretk9
Now Wells pulls out Bond's notes, about which she was testifying. (Uh-oh…. Walton says, "These are your notes?" and then an objection. Pause.)

Is the judge surprised her note say something entirely different than what was written in the final report?

Alcibiades

Clarice, you wrote:

Remember, she also noted that Eckenrod took the notes of the second interview, left out some stuff that Libby said and that in reviewing his summary she did nothing to correct it by supplying the missing information.

One point about this which is unclear to me is what is the basis for the additional information, not in the notes; is it simply the memory of Libby and whatever council he had for him?

Is that generally given the same weight as written notes by juries?

TIA

Neo

Let's call it now.

Every witness that has appeared to date in this trial have either changed their story, remembered "new facts" or forgotten (credit to Al Gore) "inconvenient facts." Additionally, agent Bond needs a remedial course on note taking.

Frankly, the lot of them should be in jail by Fitz's own standard of honesty.

Fitzmas

I will bring Dick Cheney to his knees.

hit and run

Sue - I noticed that FDL is not emptywheel today. And in the comments (AGAIN I BLAME ALL OF YOU FOR FORCING ME THIS DEEP INTO THIS, I now feel dirty) emptywheel contended that this guy is even more snarky than she.

whooo boy!

hit and run

Is the judge surprised her note say something entirely different than what was written in the final report?

Or is he surprised that the notes resemble Miller's?

Ranger

cboldt,

I think at this point we can establish at least one lie that the FBI agents told Libby; that they were going to conduct a full, impartial, and profesional investigation. Starting to look like that's not what happened.

Carol Herman

Jut a reminder that Bill Gates once used videotaping permission for a deposition. But when it played in court, he looked awful.

There's a big difference between HOW the FIB records spoken testimony. And, what they could add, to make an innocent person look diabolical to the extreme, just playing with the lights. And, sound.

Is Libby getting a fair trial? No.

Were all the "big case" items once tossed out by this judge? Yes.

And, yet, they're baack. Is this a trial, or a slasher movie?

This case, by the way, is still very partisan. And, inside the beltway. There's a good chance it doesn't reach out to most Americans. Where there's an atitude growing, "A pox on both houses."

clarice

Alcibiades. It appears:She(Bond) said that she participated with Eckenrode in the second interview. She took her own notes and Eckenrode who did the questioning took his. Her notes were at variance with his. He wrote up the summary of the interview (Form 302) but she did not confront him with the variation between his account of what Libby said and what Eckenrode said Libby said.

topsecretk9
Wells points out that Bond testified that Cheney was "frustrated and upset" over the uranium issue in talking to Libby, but her notes just say "frustrated." ("'Upset' is your word, correct?")

Well if the FBI gig doesn't work out, looks like she has a future at Time Magazine.

Publius

Clarice,

Has the paint dried on your
"FREE THE FITZGERALD ONE"
sign, and are you on your way
to the courthouse yet? :)

hit and run

Frankly, the lot of them should be in jail by Fitz's own standard of honesty.

Or, the media witnesses should go into government and government witnesses should go into media.

Dan S

Alci,

Bond agreed on the stand that Libby and lawyer had made statements about memory as prelude to the interview.

That opens the door to the question: "What else was left out?"

And the CIA witness also thought the fibbie report/transcript/whatever of his interview with them was wrong. He's not on trial.

I suspect weight by juries is based on how believable they find any given witness. Written notes can be devalued if the jury suspects the note-taker wasn't doing a good job, for whatever reason.

cboldt

-- And you're from Maine, cboldt? My brother and family are thinking about moving up there. --


Yeah. Transplanted midwesterner. Fair warning, this state is a liberal's paradise. If liberal politics makes your blood boil, this place will give you hypertension. One of the highest-tax states (#1 - #3 range), relatively unfriendly to business.


I engage in political research for entertainment, and don't mentally attach my personal fate to which elected idiots occupy the offices. If I did, I wouldn't live here. The GOP up here resembles the party of George McGovern.


But I like the geography, climate, and other aspects of the state.

Dan S

"

Is the judge surprised her note say something entirely different than what was written in the final report?

Or is he surprised that the notes resemble Miller's?

Posted by: hit and run"

I'd say a leading indicator of dismissal of all charges would be if he asks Fitz if he keeps his case notes in shopping bags.

William Jefferson Clinton

"This is precisely why Star Chambers were abolished."

Yes, the GOP prefers the "Starr Chambers."

I think in retrospect that we can say the seven year investigation into my peckerdillos was conducted much more fairly, judiciously, and objectively than this witch-hunt. I never felt that there was any vendetta or vindictiveness on the part of the $70 million dollar Starr army. And the media barely took note of my legal pickle.

Yes, I think we can say that this trial would be proceeding much more equitably if only they were conducted in the same manner as the Lewinsky case.

Jane

How about Politicization of the Law?

And how. And it is very very very scary, at least to this lawyer.

azaghal

Well said, Flo!
I am dismayed that Pete and others on the left side of things are so eager for conviction of Libby that they would throw a defendent's rights under a bus. I doubt they would be saying things like: "It is the responsibility of the defense to make their case, not the responsibility of the FBI to make the case of the defense" under any other circumstances. This could be you guys some day. Innocent until proven guilty is a blessing to all of us. Libby deserves the same blessing.

Posted by: Florence Schmieg | February 05, 2007 at 08:55 AM

It used to be that it was considered the duty of all officers of the court to strive to see that justice is done. Check out the FBI seal sometime. If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't say: we do whatever the prosecutor tells us to do, and it's up to the defense to deal with that.

Sue

Have I just misplaced it, or did the live blogger at FDL remove something earlier posted? There was a sentence where Wells turned to Fitz and said you coached her testimony this weekend, didn't you? I can't find it now.

Ranger

Wells characterizes the investigators as continuously asking him ‘Is it possible you said this?’, and that Libby says ‘Well I guess it’s possible’. Bond doesn’t confirm this, but doesn’t deny it convincingly either.

Bond testified last week that Libby ‘claims’ to have had no knowledge of Wilsons wife between June 12 and July 11th, when he spoke with Tim Russert. Wells says she inferred that, Libby didn’t actually say that.
“True or false” says Wells, wants her to admit she inferred that and Libby never said that.
Bond is sketchy right now. Wells gets her to admit “not in those exact words”. Now he has her admitting to testifying incorrectly.

Wells:
“Isn’t it true Libby stated numerous times he had ‘no recollection’ about Wilsons wife prior to the discussion with Russert?”
Bond seems to be answering not about the interview, but about her understanding of the overall Libby testimony. Bond confirms that Libby specifically testified ‘he did not recall’.

Bond’s answers play directly into Wells’ apparent contention that Bond’s previous testimony and possibly the reports filed were chock full of inference, and in some cases contrary to the facts as the handwritten notes relay.

Ok, now I think I may see why the Judge let the articles in. He needs there to be some explanation for the jury as to why the FBI skewed Libby's interviews to the GJ. Maybe he was doing Libby a favor by letting them in, and showing how the FBI got put on the wrong track.

SunnyDay

FDL coverage has degenerated into politics rather than reporting today. Mainewebreport is doing a good job with what I've read so far.

It's a shame about FDL - maybe someone will explain that it's all important, not just the parts that bolster the reporter's POV.

topsecretk9

Oh...you know things aren't going their way when they are reduced to bashing Kenneth Starr.

clarice

So--Libby said at the interview that he "didn't recall" and Eckenrode writes Libby "adamantly denied it", Bond knows he;s wrong, keeps her mouth shut, and at the gj he is confronted with "adamantly denied" and has no evidence to contest that that is what he said.And it is before the gj where he has no counsel to object to this.

Do you like this, possums?


Patrick R. Sullivan

I've been waiting for this:

'Wells says, Libby doesn't explicitly claim that he didn't know anything about Wilson's wife between June 12 (when Cheney told him) and July 10 (when Tim Russert supposedly told him). Bond says, he said when he learned from Russert, that it was as if he learned for the first time.'

She jumped to a conclusion, and Fitz ran with it. Put it in the indictment just as dishonestly as 'said his wife works at a bureau of the CIA'.

Chris

It's there, Sue, the FDL blogger created a page 2 and seems to have put some of his/her notes on that page. Here's the reference you noticed (and I just read and my eyebrows went UP):

Wells keeps hammering on, but he didn't specifically say he didn't know anything in that time period. Bond fumbles, trying to find a polite way to tell Wells that he's inventing a discrepancy that doesn't exist. Wells turns to a prosecutor and says, "Mr. Zeidenberg, you practiced her testimony, didn't you?" Gasps from the media room at that (implying that Bond should know what she's going to say).

roanoke

Wow. Look at this from the Maine blogger-

Bond is an interesting witness. Her voice betrays her emotion so clearly, it reminds me of how my teenage son reacts when I have caught him doing something wrong. Initially she was in control and emphatic, now she is resigned and diminished. It appears that she has a vested interest in her credibility, but that Wells has succesfully impugned that credibility.

I think he heard Ranger's Queen lyrics.

P

Sounds like Wells is picking her apart piece by piece. Sounds like she would have been a great closing witness for the defense....

Dan S

Ranger,

So, you think Walton was just feeing out rope to Fitz?

I had that thought, but considered it suspect as I don't dare be that hopeful.

I suppose if Walton thinks there's an aquittal in progress he can afford to let in some things that might lead to reversal on appeal. Maybe that's involved in his apparent lenience considering the larger case/smaller case stuff. Those articles, to me, swing wide the doors of the larger case.


clarice

***to make pronoun references clearer***
"So--Libby said at the interview says that he "didn't recall" and Eckenrode writes Libby "adamantly denied it", Bond knows Eckenrode's characterization is wrong, but keeps her mouth shut, and at the gj Libby is confronted with "adamantly denied" and has no evidence to contest that that is what he said.And it is before the gj where he has no counsel to object to this.

Do you like this, possums?"*****

hit and run

SunnyDay:
FDL coverage has degenerated into politics rather than reporting today

Did you ever dream that there might be a day where you would practically be begging to read emptywheel?

Yeeeeeeikes.

cboldt

The fellow from Maine is, I think, coming at this with an open and honest report of how the testimony strikes hi, Regarding Bond, he concludes ...


Her voice betrays her emotion so clearly, it reminds me of how my teenage son reacts when I have caught him doing something wrong. Initially she was in control and emphatic, now she is resigned and diminished. It appears that she has a vested interest in her credibility, but that Wells has succesfully impugned that credibility.


The investigator's credibility is also what hangs in the balance when the investigator "held back" that Libby expressed uncertainty in recollection at his first interview.

Pete

To azaghal @ 08:44AM:

1) The investigation was not solely focused on Novak. It was a broader investigation than just Novak.
2) Armitage's contacts are totally irrelevant to Libby's lies.
3) If Plame had not been covert, Ashcroft would have dismissed the investigation in a nanosecond. If you want to know about Plame's covert work - go read "Hubris" by Isikoff.

Sue

Nevermind, I found it. For those of you as slow as I am, there are 2 pages of liveblogging at FDL. ::sheepish grin::

Dan S

"Sounds like Wells is picking her apart piece by piece. Sounds like she would have been a great closing witness for the defense....

Posted by: P | February 05, 2007 at 09:24 AM"

Heh, who says she's not?

politicaobscura

Sunny Day,

I completely agree... I thought the live-blogging was very opinion oriented today at FDL so I just assumed someone got up on the wrong side of bed, but then discovered it was a different live-blogger than last week.. maybe this person is more interested in their own views on the case as opposed to caputuring what is actually going on in there.

today is the first day I saw the Maine blog stuff and it is good...

Chris

Even the FDL blogger realizes this point when it's made:

The kicker on the above discussion: Wells cites part of Bond's own testimony where someone asks if she denies something and she replied, "I'm not denying it, I just don't recall it."

Sue

Wells getting Bond to confirm:
Libby testified that on 9/30/03, Colin Powell told him that ‘everyone knows’ about Wilsons wife, and that he was at the meeting where Wilson’s wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger.

Wow. Just wow. If true. Wow.

Rick Ballard

We're down to a 20 minute tightly constrained interview of a man who got his current job based upon his performance as a flack for Governor Cuomo and Senator Moynihan after seeing a man who got his job on the basis of satisfying Mandy Grunewald's desire to have her husband working somewhere where he "might make a difference" testify to his own incompetence.

All that in a trial about Presidential candidate Kerry's "advisor" getting a hit piece published in the Democratic party propaganda organ in conjunction with an appearance on a TV show run by - Governor Cuomo and Senator Moynihan's former press flack.

And it is very very very scary, at least to this lawyer.

Now Jane, why would you say that? Remember this is the noble and incorruptible institution of the FIB working as an arm of the DoJ.

Give them all the respect they deserve please.

cathyf
The caveats have no real value to the defense in this case. "I wasn't sure if my testimony in the first interview was truthful, and I told the investigator that I needed to review my notes to be sure. I reviewed my notes, and in a later interview, confirmed that my testimony in the first interview was truthful." I just don't see adding, "The investigator is lying about my testimony by omitting telling about the uncertainty I expressed initially."


I can imagine a case where the caveats would have value - but I don't see it in this one, given that Libby never changed his testimony.

cboldt, you're conflating. Libby and his lawyer told the FBI that every single solitary thing that he said to the FBI was based upon extremely limited access to his notes. So he found one note, that noted something that he had no memory of, and he found it before his first FBI meeting, and reported it to the FBI at that first meeting. Then between the first and second meeting, when he still had very limited access to his notes, he did not find any other notes which either contradicted that first note he found, added any more detail to the June ~12 note, or described any other later or earlier official notice of Wilson's wife and/or where she worked.

But as you and lots of other people know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Libby no-notes caveat applied to everything he said. Juries are supposed to apply common sense, and this particular jury saw other witnesses (Martin, for example) who first testified that certain things had happened at certain times, and then came back and said that after reviewing notes they realized that they had to have been mistaken and that they needed to correct.

If the grand jury assumed (because the FBI omitted the caveat that they promised to insert into the record) that Libby had been given the same opportunity to compare his memory with the written record that all of the other witnesses were given, and Libby assumed (because the FBI promised to insert the caveat into the record) that the grand jury didn't need to be told that this assumption is incorrect, then this is a material falsehood that clearly should have influenced any reasonable grand jury to come to a different conclusion than they would have if the FBI had told the truth.

A reasonable grand jury applying common sense would have known that Libby's memory that the "as if for the first time" conversation happening specifically with Russert would be much less certain without access to notes which might have alerted Libby to something that might have made that impossible. Just because Libby's story about the June ~12 meeting didn't change after a review of some notes doesn't mean that it wouldn't have changed after review of more notes, or that his stories about conversations with Cooper, Miller, Russert, etc., etc. wouldn't have changed with access to more notes. If a reasonable grand jury had not been lied to about Libby's access to notes, then the reasonable grand jury would probably have come to a very different conclusion about Libby's guilt and whether or not to indict him.

Which, if I'm understanding what you lawyers keep telling me, is precisely obstruction of justice.

politicaobscura

From Maine lol:

"Now Bond is saying that she misspoke. Wells is entertainingly empathizing with her, about how sometimes people make mistakes, and until they have a chance to read over the notes, sometimes thay say ‘Wow I cant believe I said that’."

azaghal

To Pete | February 05, 2007 at 09:26 AM

Whatever, demento.

Chris

So last week I caught Bond saying Libby told them he spoke with Rove about his Russert conversation and I see it has come up again. Is it known if Libby told Rove at that time the part about Russert bringing up Plame? If so, will Rove confirm it making it a contemporaneous confirmation of Libby's version? If so that would be a stunner, IMO.

roanoke

Clin Powell enters stage right-

Wells getting Bond to confirm: Libby testified that on 9/30/03, Colin Powell told him that ‘everyone knows’ about Wilsons wife, and that he was at the meeting where Wilson’s wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger.
[mainewebreport.com]

Notice how the Secretary of State sounds like Andrea Mitchell reporter covering The State Department.

Ranger

Wells getting Bond to confirm:
Libby testified that on 9/30/03, Colin Powell told him that ‘everyone knows’ about Wilsons wife, and that he was at the meeting where Wilson’s wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger.

Ouch... That's gona leave a mark. Had anyone heard anything about Powell peronally being at the meeting where Val suggested Wilson go? That is blockbuster. State knew from the very beginning who Val and Joe were. No need for an INR memo if Powell was there at the conception of the mission.

hit and run
Wells getting Bond to confirm: Libby testified that on 9/30/03, Colin Powell told him that ‘everyone knows’ about Wilsons wife, and that he was at the meeting where Wilson’s wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger.

Wow. Just wow. If true. Wow.

Posted by: Sue | February 05, 2007 at 09:30 AM

This can't possibly be true??!??!!!

Molon Labe

I get the idea that Bond's notes are probably perfectly adequate for the original purpose of the investigation...Who leaked?

But when scrutinized in hindsight as support for Fitz's trumped-up charges they are woefully inadequate.

I'm surprised she is so defensive about them.

Sue

H&R,

I think the Main blogger missed the part about the Situation Room. FDL blogger mentions it. So, I'm backing off my Wow factor for the moment.

clarice

cathyf--pretend you're in the gj..You told the FBI agents that you didn't recall something, you are (as Libby was) confronted with a summary of the interview which says instead that you "adamantly denied" the very thing you told them you couldn't recall..how would you respond?

Then imagine hours of this.

Kafkaesque.No?

hit and run

Thx Sue. I was about to go google Perry Mason's phone# and ask him to go to the court.

I'll just go get it and keep on file for now.

Dan S

Okay, Cboldt,

I concede. Bond may have done Libby a great service with her note-taking. :)


PO,

Wow.


Cathyf,

Thanks for saying it MUCH better than I did.


Sue,

Allow me to echo your reaction. WOWOWOWOW

Sue

H&R,

::grin:: I had the same thought. If Powell actually told Libby that then freaking Wow. But FDL blogger says Libby told investigators about Powell on the Situation Room. Big difference, I would think.

Ranger

I am wondering if Fitz putting the GJ foreman on the stand isn't a super gamble for him. Given everything that Wells has just dug up about how inaccurate the FBI report was, can you imagine Wells asking the GJ member:

"If you had know that Mr. Libby's actual response to the question from the FBI agent was... would you still have voted to indict?"

If there is any waffling at all, Fitz is done.

Sue

That's the problem with paraphrasing trial testimony as opposed to transcripts of testimony. Slight differences in paraphrasing make a huge difference, especially in this one instance.

hit and run

Now, just imagine if the situation was reversed? You know a misreported statement of that magnitude casting a shadow over Libby.

It would be on all the wires now...and no one but no one could reverse it. It would already be irrefutable received wisdom

SunnyDay

Did you ever dream that there might be a day where you would practically be begging to read emptywheel?

Yeeeeeeikes.

Hahahaha!! seriously! But Jane and Marcie provided good coverage. I didn't mind thier ittle comments - they did separate them from the coverage, and it's their blog. But this today is bad, glossing over the parts they don't like. ugh.

Where's all the truth, justice and the American way? oopsie. Just for us, not for you. ;)

Ranger

The question is, did Powell actually say that he [Powwll] was at the meeting where Val suggested Wilson go, or was Powell saying that Wilson was at the meeting where Val suggested he go?

roanoke

Ranger-

I perused the Niger section of the Senate Intel Committee Report pretty thoroughly and I didn't see a mention of Colin Powell.

There was a mention of CIA agents confirming that Plame sent Wilson and corresponding paper work that verified it.

Dan S

Molon,

Excellent point. But it re-iterates also that the real problem here is the FBI did not act in an impartial, fact-finding manner. If they had, Bond WOULD say, "look, we were leaker-hunting. The notes reflect that. We left out things that didn't bear on that. Now the prosecutor is using them to establish tangental issues: obstruction of justice and perjury. There are gaps. These notes weren't taken in support of those charges."

But she didn't, and she hasn't.

She COULD come off looking very professional, impartial and good at her job. But she let partisanship ruin that chance.

Jane

Notice how the Secretary of State sounds like Andrea Mitchell reporter covering The State Department.

That was my first thought too. The plot thickens - that's for sure. Before you know it we will find out that Bill Clinton was behind the whole thing.

hit and run

Whew, they're on lunch break?

I haven't ever tried to keep up this much before.

::deep breath::

Ranger

Yeah, I guess I just misread the pronoun. I should know better, I do the same thing with pronouns all the time.

cboldt

-- you are (as Libby was) confronted with a summary of the interview which says instead that you "adamantly denied" the very thing you told them you couldn't recall..how would you respond? --


After I told the GJ that the interview was a gross misrepresentation of my state of mind (and then went on to correct the record to them), I would lodge a written complaint with the investigating agent's superior.


And I tend to recall whether I stated something in terms of denial or in terms of uncertainty, such as would accompany lack of knowledge or recollection.

topsecretk9

Sue

I do recall this in pre-trial and Fitz insisted when Powell was in a room full of people he said this, Fitz said he was talking only about Wilson - but I dod not recall it being in September.

hit and run

Ranger:
Yeah, I guess I just misread the pronoun. I should know better, I do the same thing with pronouns all the time

That's why I'm anti-noun.

DOWN WITH NOUNS!!!

DOWN WITH NOUNS!!!


Sorry. I feel better now. Almost the entire morning without an off-topic joke.

Ahhh, I needed that.

SunnyDay

Wow!

Patrick R. Sullivan

Another one bites the dust for Fitz. He's getting drubbed, and ought to throw in the towel.

clarice

After a while of this you'd get confused--you'd not know what you said and you'd be thinking who'd believe you because they have the notes and you don't. That's the point of not videotaping, it puts the weight on the scale where the FBI guy is sitting.

Rick Ballard

Wells probably won't be able to get ot Russert on cross. The brevity of the interview and the probable brevity of the direct mitigates the number of questions that Wells will be able to ask.

I'll bet they call him for the defense as a hostile witness.

Dan S

"Bond confirms that Libby never said that Rove leaked to Novak. And that Libby told investigators that he heard from Rove that Novak gave the information about Wilson’s wife to Rove." -Maine man

Another wow.

topsecretk9

FDL

Wells catches Bond in a misstatement from her previous testimony regarding that conversation, and has a good time playing with it. ("People make mistakes, right?" Bond said something wrong that she needed to see documents about, etc., etc.)

W: So, even if the Tim Russert never took place, Mr. Libby told you that he understood as of July 11th that Robert Novak knew Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA.

W: So there's no reason for Mr. Libby to make up a conversation with Tim Russert, since he already knew of a reporter — (Objection. Sustained. Change of subject.)

It's 12:21.

Wells walks through Libby's testimony that Colin Powell said during a Situation Room meeting, "Everyone knows Wilson's wife works for the CIA," and other information about Niger and uranium, on September 30, 2003, just two weeks before his Oct. 14th interview. More repetition of Libby's testimony on a few subjects. All Bond says is, "That's what he said."

Ranger

"Bond confirms that Libby never said that Rove leaked to Novak. And that Libby told investigators that he heard from Rove that Novak gave the information about Wilson’s wife to Rove." -Maine man

Hmmm... sounds like the FBI report was written with the intent of showing it to Rove and say, 'look, Libby's giving you up, you might as well just confess and tell the truth' (or words to that effect). As opposed to what Libby actually told the FBI.

Barney Frank

cboldt,

Not sure if you've ever been deposed or questioned by investigating officers in a case in which you have a great deal at personal stake, as opposed to just representing someone who has, but clarice's description of what goes through one's mind is considerably more accurate than your's. It's not quite so easy to do the 'total recall and put them in their place' act when your freedom or assets are being threatened. I imagine it is exponentially more difficult when it is a Federal Prosecuter and the FBI doing the digging and you have limited access to your records.

clarice

Rick--If you were sitting on the jury and heard Russert--the linchpin of this case--was only interviewed for 20 minutes (and after formalities that was more like 10),what would you think?

Wells will bring out--no notes, perhaps he can get in what he did know. (I think something though not name and job).

I want to highlight something I have said before "as if for the very first time" may mean CIA--Libby's note on the VP conversation simply says wife worked in Counter proliferation" and that does not mean CIA..So when reporters start saying CIA, and he learns CIA sent Wilson,the connection to him first became apparent.

politicaobscura

OT -

I can't help but to read every once in a while a FDL post that is non-Libby. Wow, there are alot of haters over there. The poster (not a commenter, but a poster) says this as an aside to an article about Afghanistan:

"The increasing instability in Afghanistan is the result of a lot of factors, not the least of which is that, once again, the United States is failing to live up to its hollow promise of support."

How viciously anti-American can that be? As one who has two friends over there putting their lives on the line fighting the Taliban everyday, this kind of cheap shot against the US is disgusting (not to mention, untrue as my friends would attest to.)

Is this kind of anti-Americanism typical of FDL?

hit and run

Wells catches Bond in a misstatement from her previous testimony regarding that conversation, and has a good time playing with it. ("People make mistakes, right?" Bond said something wrong that she needed to see documents about, etc., etc.)

And I've said a few times that any time Wells has to use someone's notes to refresh their memory, he should ask "Are you hearing this as if for the first time, then?"

I know, it's too cute, but along the same lines as this.....

Dan S

"Novak gave the information about Wilson’s wife to Rove."

I was referring to this part. That's not Libby giving up Rove, that's Libby saying he thought Novak already had the info and passed it back THROUGH Rove.

Maybe I missed this before. I wasn't aware of this twist in the twisty maze of twisting paths.

Rick Ballard

C'mon Ranger, do you know how hard it is to prove an event that didn't happen? Or a conspiracy that never existed?

Cut Agents Bond and Eckenrode some slack here. Maybe there was a small degree of literary license taken with Libby's statements but, hey, all in a good cause.

Dan S

"Is this kind of anti-Americanism typical of FDL?

Posted by: politicaobscura | February 05, 2007 at 09:56 AM "

Rhetorical question?

Rick Ballard

"Is this kind of anti-Americanism typical of FDL?"

No. Generally the Copperheads at FDL are much worse.

topsecretk9

When reading all the FBI mumbo jumbo remind yourself of Wilson under oath at the SSCI admitting he misspoke and used a lot of Literary Flair, will you? Because Wilson - misspeak and literary flair did not become public until July 2004

windansea

Because Wilson - misspeak and literary flair did not become public until July 2004

you got that right

cboldt

-- but clarice's description of what goes through one's mind is considerably more accurate than your's --


The question though, was phrased as though the GJ hits you with an investigator's report that strikes you as mischaracterizing your state of mind. What would go though my mind at that point would probably first be puzzlement, then anger as I realized the investigator is a lying sack of shit.


Now, if the GJ hit me with a report (about me) that didn't strike that chord, I'd react differently.


Thus ends my response.

Dan S

Tops,

Wilson lied to Congress under oath and hasn't been hunted down by Fitz? (or for that matter anyone in DoJ?)

lordy

Is this kind of anti-Americanism typical of FDL?

Posted by: politicaobscura | February 05, 2007 at 09:56 AM

How is that quote anti-American? Criticizing this administration's mis-management of the WOT, and the lack of focus on Afganistan is NOT anti-American. Most objective observers worry that the effort Afganistan is faltering. Gates sees the need for more troops, the State Department sees the need for more funding. Are Gates and Condi anti-American too?

clarice

Odd, in the Weekly Standard piece I wrote, I said that very thing:That that ridiculous article sourced to a "high administration official"(who it turns out was actually Adam Levine,Fleischer's briefcase carrier and Matthews' former producer) was the template for Fitz' investigation.

Rick Ballard

"Rick--If you were sitting on the jury and heard Russert--the linchpin of this case--was only interviewed for 20 minutes (and after formalities that was more like 10),what would you think?"

After hearing whatever amount of gj testimony the jurors are now going to endure and after hearing every prosecution witness (with the possible exceptions of Fleischer and Addington) acknowledge that memory is but fleeting and insubstantial I believe that I would be looking at the prosecutor with a certain degree of negative curiosity.

As in "That's it? A bunch of muddled contradictions that have failed to support your central premise capped by this?

What are we doing here?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame