Agent Bond

Cross-posted at American Thinker:

The Libby trial finished for last week on Thursday with the start of the cross examination of FBI agent Deborah Bond, the interrogator who first questioned Libby. The cross examination revealed that Bond was hostile, that she had neglected to fully incorporate into her notes of the interview important portions of his testimony, most especially some matters that Libby's counsel had specifically asked be included. These were:

o Libby's statement at the initial interview that he had been unable to review his own notes;

o that his memory of the events was imperfect;

o that he was offering up just his present sketchy recollection; and

o that he could be more precise after he'd had an opportunity to review his notes.

(Neverthess, even in that initial interview when he was relying solely on his recollection he said he believed the Vice President had told him on about June 12, 2003 that Wilson's wife worked in counter proliferation.)

In his second interview, after he'd had an opportunity to review his notes, he volunteered to the FBI again that he'd first heard about Joseph Wilson's wife on June 12, 2003, when the Vice President told him. (I do not have transcripts of the trial testimony but there are summaries of the testimony provided by Firedoglake .)

Just One Minute trial mavens note that in the counts of the indictment relevant to the FBI interviews, once again the prosecution has far overstated the evidence in the indictment. We are also learning that the FBI still relies on the antique and inaccurate method of recording these interviews: the hand written notes of the interrogator, instead of videotapes. This process is surely inadequate and subject to bias.

This lack of an actual video or even audio recording of the interview is certainly going to appear more significant as the cross examination proceeds. This method of interview recording by interrogator's hand is also under fire in the Hamdania court martial, where the defense had put into evidence interview notes taken by members of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service at direct odds with affidavits sworn by those who provided those interviews.

At one time, before the more aggressive prosecution of those accused of making false statements to investigators, this technique with all its flaws may have escaped the scrutiny it deserved. The Libby case is a rare case, seemingly outside the Department of Justice practice: a case where he prosecution is seeking to convict on "lies" not made about any criminal conduct.

Azaghal, one of my favorite commentors and one most knowledgeable about law enforcement procedures and practices observes:

Fitz[gerald's] distillation of Libby's Russert related testimony bears little resemblance to his actual testimony. It sounds to me more like a man trying to provide as clear as possible an account of what transpired months previously to the best of his recollection, not someone trying to confuse. Given that he corrected his initial statements to the FBI, I don't see what interest of justice is served in pursuing him with a perjury or obstruction or false statement prosecution. The correction it seems to me obviates any obstacle to the investigators; therefore it's abusive to prosecute on such flimsy grounds. I should add, that in circumstances in which a witness has been directed by his superiors to cooperate and not assert his constitutional rights, the prosecutor should definitely take into account the entire sum of the witnesses testimony, the cumulative effect and merit of the information he provides--has it assisted the investigation overall. After all, even cooperating and immunized witnesses like Fleischer offer testimony that conflicts with other witnesses who have no reason to lie (Dickerson, for example), and there's no apparent reason why Fleischer should lie about anything--his recollection, like that of virtually everyone, is fallible. From what I've seen of Libby's testimony and from the FBI's testimony about his correcting his initial statements it seems absurd for the prosecution to claim that the meat of his testimony and statements to investigators was an attempt to derail an investigation. And that's especially true given what we know about the predication of the investigation--information that Fitz[gerald] concealed from courts of review, thus depriving these courts of information that could well have affected their decision regarding the disclosure of journalistic sources. In a situation like this, when the prosecutor doesn't exactly have clean hands himself, it's doubly abusive for him to bring such charges.

Do we really want a situation in this country in which, whenever the FBI comes knocking, the citizenry's first reaction is to lawyer up and assert their 5th amendment rights for fear of being prosecuted for any inaccuracies in what they might say? I doubt that the FBI itself wants that to happen, but the excesses of prosecutors like Fitz[gerald] and Comey will lead toward that becoming more the norm than it is."

Indeed, that is my advice to all of you under the present circumstances, should you ever be questioned in an investigation: Lawyer up, unless the FBI  gets honest and uses videotapes or prosecutors stop such nonsense.

And the next time there's a president who agrees to the appointment of such a "special special prosecutor" and demands the cooperation of all officials and staff with it, everyone working for him should resign and take the Fifth.

Working in the White House is hard, thankless, underpaid work. It is too much to ask that one should also agree to be a piñata for an unsupervised, unreasonable, utterly abusive proceeding like this.

This is precisely why Star Chambers were abolished.

Clarice Feldman

Comments

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Good morning all. Since the trial seems to be on lunch break, I thought I'd toss in this completely OT remark when I remind everyone of the fun had at us poor Californians suffering with a billion dollars of frost damage and snow in Malibu. Now, that cold blast has made its way to the Midwest and East Coast with temps in the minus figures, while today I am presently enjoying temps of 85 degrees outside. I've fired up the Jacuzzi and have the pool sweep running so it is ready for an afternoon swim, I promise I will think about my Indianapolis friends and relatives celebrating the Colts win in minus 15 degrees below zero today.

[Jane]

Thus ends my response

Cbolt -

Don't get defensive, (if you were). I think you are greatly appreciated around here. If I knew as much about the Libby case (or any case) as many people here know, you are precisely the person I would want to talk about it with. Collectively we are very pro-Libby, and you tend to keep everyone grounded without entering into moonbatdom. I for one am so glad you happened by here. Keep up the good work.

[windansea]

Hey Clarice

Emptywheel is calling you names...funny how lefties always claim victory in their protected little nanny sites like FDL

LOL. I asked a detail, mostly of David Corn. And Clarice piped in and said, “Oh, I’m sure yadda yadda yadda.” Even more so than normal, she had NO FUCKING CLUE what she was talking about. SHe was just making stuff up. And she suggested I check the JOM threads for the details. Turns out she asked them my question–and learned she had no fucking clue. So she’s probably miffed that I exposed her rank ignorance and willingness to make stuff up about things about which she had no fucking clue.

If that makes me an old time prohibitionist, great!!! I’ll take out my hatchets and rip through the lies and obfuscations.

[ghostcat]

CFC: Covering-for-Colin or, alternatively, Contortions-for-Colin.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Heh re: Maine site.

[azaghal]

How perfidious is Powell looking here? Add him to the "Repurations Shredded" list? Can anyone doubt that this was a total putup job from day one?

[Other Tom]

Anybody seen any indication as to Bond's demeanor today? Still hostile, defensive and snotty?

[Dan S]

Dan's Rule:

The factual value and logical consistency of statements tends to be inversely proportional to the quanitity of potty talk.

[clarice]

Thanks for commenting there, Dan.

[Dan S]

OT,

There has been some indication in the reports at FDL and Maine.

I believe I read comments that she started out confident and composed and went downhill from there again. Wells is very much playing a one-man good cop/bad cop routine with her, is the impression I'm getting. He's laying on the faux sympathy when she restates earlier testimony, pointing out how hard it is to get things exactly right, remember what you said, etc, etc.

Then he bores in again to get her to admit what she put in her report isn't exactly consistent what she recalls Libby saying.

[Barney Frank]

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.

Perhaps, but just as likely is confusion when blind sided by inaccurate representations. You start trying to sort through your memory and if you have no access to your records and the prosecutor is applying the pressure your memory becomes a confused and panicked hodge podge.
I speak from more than one experience. The most egregious was when US Forest Service law enforcement cold-called me and was questioning me about my logging along a common boundary. They had an obvious ax to grind and my memory of events and exculpatory evidence flew right out the window when they started pressing me, even though I was logging along a line that the Forest Service itself had established and given me an oral OK to cut along. It was only the subsequent intervention of the Forest Service supervisor who knew the facts that prevented me from being hoisted on the petard of my own stress confused memory of events and conversations.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

I just found the irony that he invited people to check your old articles too delicious to not try to turn back on him. But, as usual, you beat me to it!

We won't convert any true believers, but we may open the eyes of a few seekers.

[Alcibiades]

Is this kind of anti-Americanism typical of FDL?

As others have already said, this represents extreme moderation. Read the comments by people following the Libby trial, for example. People there rave.

[Grand and Old]

Ms. Feldman,

I am enjoying your perspective and commentary. Do you have an opinion on how Judge Reggie Walton is handling this case?

Also, do you think the fact that he was appointed by a Republican administration that that will weigh in Mr. Libby's favor?

[windansea]

Jeff still desparately seeking someone, anyone but Libby :)

Jeff @ 4
Swopa

Please can you fill in the 1×2x6 discussion. In particular, who were all the reporters Fitzgerald listed? And was Fitzgerald suggesting that Rove and Fleischer were two? Did the defense have anything to say about why it was false, who 1 was, and so on? And what was the outcome of that discussion?
————
Swopa @ 71
I have to talk with David Corn about it first. It was a VERY interesting moment. Fitz was speechless for several seconds before he talked about it.
————
Swopa @ 94
Getting back to this — there WAS no outcome. The defense simply said it was utterly false (implying, why would Libby care about a false article). Fitzgerald said, we don’t agree. When he started getting pressed on what was true, he just froze for several seconds, then very nervously improvised his way through a “Hubris”-like 2×3 scenario. Life went on.

[PaulL]

OtherTom,

From MaineWebReport:
*****
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.
******

[Jane]

Hmmm,

30 minutes since the last post? Is my refresh broken?

[roanoke]

OK What in the heck is going on with comments?

Comments are going in above Ranger's-

I think there is a mess up in the timestamps.

[james malcolm]

I can't follow all this testimony but the comments made this morning are making things clearer to me. But I still don't understand how a grand jury can be convened and citizens sworn to tell the truth without a crime being committed. Fitzgerald, it seems to me, is the liar. He had to know from the first day that Plame was not undercover according to the law and therefore he was interrogating people as a gossip monger might. Why has a judge allowed this? She was undercover. She was outed when her husband wrote an op-ed piece about a trip involving her. And any White House has a right, maybe even an obligation, to discredit a critic especially a dishonest one. This is all political. No? Thank you, JM

[roanoke]

Ranger is your computer clock set right?

[Dan S]

Hey, Clarice,

How much are you paying just... to advertise for you? :)

[Jane]

Okay, now this is weird. Ranger's post is timed at 11:04 AM which hasn't happened yet in CA - so all new posts are going in before his, which keeps defaulting to the last post.

Or is it just me?

[Dan S]

That ranger post has to be a glitch on JOM's end. Our computer clocks don't set the post times, the host does.

[Alcibiades]

I need a refresher on the 2x6 story.

Is that the story about how WH staffers had tried to sell this story to at least 6 reporters? In which case, what's the "2"?

[Ranger]

Well, I am going to reboot and see what is going on.

[james malcolm]

Ooops. I meant She was not undercover. thank you, jm

[Jim]

Ranger is living in the future.

[clarice]

Grand, Thank you. J Walton seems very fair to me. I believe assignments to cases in the US Dist Ct here (once notoriously managed to favor Clinton until it was exposed) are now done scrupulously fairly.
*******

Apuzzo's story on Bond is up:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An FBI agent acknowledged Monday that some of her testimony could not be backed up by notes, an admission that attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby seized on in an effort to undercut perjury and obstruction charges.
Agent Deborah Bond testified last week that, in his FBI interview Libby adamantly denied discussing a CIA operative's identity with White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Under cross-examination Monday, however, Bond conceded that FBI notes contain no record of such a denial. Rather, they say he may have discussed it but couldn't recall.

"Adamantly might not be the perfect word," Bond said. "

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/05/D8N3N8N01.html>Bond

[roanoke]

Jim-

Do you think he can tell us the verdict?

[Dan S]

It's not Ranger, as you can tell from his 10:39 post :). It's some glitch in the JOM content management software end.

[cboldt]

Ranger's post got a bad timestamp from typead. It's happened before. Good for a round of laughs as posters "anticipate" Ranger's post, and make what appear to be, in hindsight, prescient comments.

The clock on your computer is irrelevant to the timestamp assigned by typead.

[Jim]

The heck with the verdict. Can he tell us what the lottery numbers are going to be?!

[Rick Ballard]

"It's some glitch in the JOM content management software end."

OK. Time to burn some incense.

[Dan S]

Snarkless FDL:

"So, how was your lunch? David Corn's got off to a miserable start, as I spent 15-20 minutes haranguing him about our competing theories of the 1×2x6 Plame leaks, in the light of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald nearly having to give himself the Heimlich maneuver after being asked just what his team had confirmed about them. Neither Corn nor I gave an inch, so that will remain a cliffhanger for the time being. (Expect a post about this tonight, if I'm not too exhausted.) But thanks to David for being a good sport about discussing it.

It's 1:30 p.m. in Washington, D.C., FBI agent Bond is back at the stand for more Chinese water torture, so it looks like we're ready to get under way."

Is the 1x2x6 theory Corn's?

Seems Fitz buys in but today's FDL blogger doesn't.

[windansea]

I predict Ranger will make a prescient post at 11:04am

[topsecretk9]

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

DanS...no, he lied in public and in secret under oath to the SCCII..he was admitting to the SSCI that he misspoke was misquoted and used literary flair in JUNE 2003

On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all.

For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."

Described here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

[roanoke]

cboldt-

The clock on your computer is irrelevant to the timestamp assigned by typead.

Damn it! I was looking for an easy fix. I was trying to "scapegoat" Ranger-and he should fear that.

Rangers lead!

[Dan S]

" Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald successfully fought to enter the tapes into evidence, and he planned to play about eight hours of Libby's closed-door testimony."

Oh joy. I'm sure the jury is thrillied.

[clarice]

Well, a number of us have the same questions, JM.Even if it is technically possible, it seems abusive and some of us also think it would have ended if(a) DoS and DOJ had gone to the President and told him about Armitage, instead of hiding his confessionm and (b) if the representations by the prosecutor to the Miller Ct of Appeals had not been disingenuous about what Libby knew, about Plame's status, and about the course of the investigation.

[Dan S]

Tops,

Oh, that's okay then. He was just playing media person.

Can we get them all under oath and see how they actually testify regarding some recent stories?

[Ranger]

Well, that's the first time it has ever happened to me. I guess I will just keep on making my point... over and over again, until a new thread opens up.

[roanoke]

Jim-

The heck with the verdict. Can he tell us what the lottery numbers are going to be?!

LOL! Oh man am I obsessed or what!?

Jeez. You and Sara about the only folks with some perspective here.

Gad!

btw Sara I nominate your comment about the most evil one here ever ;-)

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Do you think Wells will stretch a bit here in order to begin the defense case on Wednesday morning rather than starting immediately after Fitz rests tomorrow afternoon?

[Jane]

Now Wells asks Bond, was it your understanding when you started working on this investigation, that it was about who leaked Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA to Robert Novak? (Yes.) And are you aware that Richard Armitage has admitted to relating this information to Novak? (Yes.)

Touche'

[Dan S]

Jane,

You beat me to that one. Indeed.

[Jane]

You beat me to that one. Indeed.

Dan,

Beating anyone here to anything is a rarity.

[clarice]

Rick--I don't know. I recall the prosecution has one more witness though I don't know who that might be or how long it'll take,

I'm supposed to be there Mon and Tue when I suppose we will be hearing the gj tapes. That is a hard duty--the sound is not very clear and there will be few breaks so it will be hard to take notes and put anything in any context worse yet to analyze it.

[Dan S]

It's a shame there was no way at that point to get the begged question out:

"Then what the heck was this investigation continuing for?"

[hit and run]

DanS:
It's a shame there was no way at that point to get the begged question out:

"Then what the heck was this investigation continuing for?"

Wouldn't it be nice if that came up in the jury questions????

One can dream...

[Dan S]

I just want to say that in my opinion in six minutes Ranger is history.

[clarice]

From Syl who is still locked out:
"fitz use of Ari was not for the July 7th conversation, though he
thought
that would surely help. Fitz already knew about the inconsistency
vis-a-vis
Dickerson and the possibility Ari's testimony of the conversation could
be
impeached due to a possible false memory.

He used Ari for Ari's 'OMG' reaction to reading articles. Thus
Ari's
testimony goes to Libby's motive more than to Libby's knowledge of
Wilson's
wife's employment.

Syl"

[cathyf]

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?

Actually, I think it sounds like something a bit more subtle happened... I would interpret the notes to have conflated two things -- that in fact Libby did adamantly deny that he recalled anything about Wilson's wife before he "heard it as if for the first time" from a reporter.

(vocabulary lesson: There seems to be continual confusion about what "recall" and "learn" and "hear" means. When I say that at time T, person X remembered Y, I mean that at time T person X possessed in his own brain cells the electrochemical signature of a memory of event Y.)

The distinctions are confusing. Notice that we here at JOM have spent years bickering back and forth to nail down exactly what we mean by these words. Even people acting in good faith can say things in a confusing way that doesn't properly reflect what they intend, and can easily misunderstand what others are saying. Because the whole past-present-future construct of English grammar does not really support discussion of learning then what I didn't know before. Or the distinction between what you remember and what you don't actually remember but instead infer based upon your memories and the laws of space/time.

And in this case, it appears that the people taking the notes were not acting in good faith.

[hit and run]

FREE SYL!!!

FREE SYL!!!

I miss you Syl!!!!

[lurker]

I knew and expected Wells to tear Bond's testimony to shreds.

One more day closer to acquittal of some sort.

Looks like Fitz's case continues to fall apart.

Whatever happened to last weekend's motive briefs?

[Jane]

It's a shame there was no way at that point to get the begged question out:

"Then what the heck was this investigation continuing for?"

You never want to do that at trial. It's the "begged questions" that impact the jury the most.

[Jane]

OT:

Rudy just filed

[danking70]

"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 didn't know that the prosecution could make an objection to the judge's comments.

[Ranger]

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.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 05, 2007 at 09:57 AM

Well, maybe your right. It's not like Wells has already established that there were significant differences between what Libby told the FBI and what the FBI told the GJ Libby told them.

Oh wait, Wells has established that.

And it's not like the 2x6 story was out there just a couple of weeks before the FBI started inteviewing everyone. Oh wait, it was.

Nope, no reason to believe that the FBI taylored their reports to meet the narrative of a White House conspiracy that was "common knowledge" in DC at the time.

[clarice]

I've now seen that post 20 times, Ranger. Who is "taylor" and what does it mean to be "taylored"? *wink*

[Ranger]

clarice,

Well, I just have to say that I never claimed to be a good speller, just an improving speller.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Ranger's time has passed. Let bygones be bygones.

[Dan S]

"You never want to do that at trial. It's the "begged questions" that impact the jury the most.

Posted by: Jane | February 05, 2007 at 11:03 AM"

I suppose that's true. It's our nature to remember best the things we figure out for ourselves, including this sort of question that hasn't been asked.

The one planting it just has to be very careful to ensure it's properly set up.

Now we see if Fitz can shoot it down.

[Ranger]

Has the trial started again yet? I can't seem to get the liveblog page to update.

[Alcibiades]

No further questions. Time for re-direct, by prosecutor Debra Bon Amici Peter Zeidenberg.

It's 1:49.

Z: Agent Bond, when Mr. Libby was first interviewed, his attorney stated that Mr. Libby felt he had not had enough time to review documents, right?

B: Yes.

Z: Tell us about the scheduling of the second interview.

B: It was scheduled for five weeks later.

Z: Did Mr. Libby convey that he still had not had enough time to review documents?

B: No.

Z: Was there any material difference in what he said in the second interview versus the first?

B: No.

Zeidenberg starts to ask another question that I didn't catch, and is interrupted by an objection. There's a private chat in front of Judge Walton.

Z: Did any of the documentation that Libby provided show that the President had authorized the leaking declassification of the NIE prior to July 8, 2003? (Whoa,

B: No.

Zeidenberg brings up the didn't recall/denied dust-up regarding Ari Fleischer. Cites notes saying "No conversations with Rove, Ari."

Z: No conversations regarding…?

B: Wilson's wife.

Zeidenberg brings up similar notes of Libby saying he didn't have any conversations with other government officials — he would only have talked about Wilson's wife with Cheney or Cathie Martin.

It's 2:05.

[roanoke]

FDL is liveblogging the Mainewebreport hasn't updated yet.

[windansea]

yeah Ranger..it started at 11:04...where were you?

the maine guy has not updated for awhile...FDL has some of the redirect

[hit and run]

Ranger - I think you're just stuck at 11:04 am.

[Ranger]

I'm Free... Free At Last!!!

[Dan S]

Nothing on Maine...

FDL has a new thread.

[cboldt]

-- that in fact Libby did adamantly deny that he recalled anything --

There are some questions where the notions of "denial" (even adamant denial) and "absence of recollection" are about the same thing. Questions that begin with "Do you recall ..." fit there. The answer either admits recollection, or denies recollection.

A different question, "Were you at WalMart at 10 AM last Sunday?" or "Where were you at 10 AM on Sunday?" Could be met with a darn certain "NO!" or a less certain "I don't recall" or some middle ground such as "I was most likely driving to church, but may have still been at home."

I'm still weighing the logical effect of the Bond cross exam (did Libby mean to convey, in his statements, the uncertainty that comes from vague or absent recollection? Or did he mean to convey near certainty that he first heard from a reporter, and hadn't heard from an official source?) - but as a matter of investigator credibility and the emotional impact that the cross exam of Bond may have had on the jury, I'd say that the false statements counts are at risk.

[Other Tom]

Apropos (kinda) of the vitriol at FDL, I just want to put in a plug here for the Democratic strategist and consultant Bob Beckel. He's a professional partisan and can dish it out with the best of them, but to my astonishment I saw him on one of the shows, back when everyone assumed Rove was about to be indicted, and he said, "Well, I certainly hope he isn't. There is no ordeal on earth quite like being under a federal indictment. It ruins your life, and it ruins the lives of your family. I think it is not something that should happen to anyone as a result of what really is just a policy dispute." I will cut Bob Beckel a lot of slack, and have a very warm spot in my heart for him, as long as we both shall live. They could use some of that spirit at FDL, but don't hold your breath.

[hit and run]

From swopa (the liveblogger at FDL) in the comments:

Also, following the defense cross-examination line for line is just too excruciating, because you can’t tell where they’re going with anything.

No, apparently you can't. But it's probably good for you to have admited it. That type of self-awareness seems uncommon at lefty blogs.

[Rick Ballard]

Maine Web Report guys name is Lance Dutson. It might be nice to refer to him as Lance, seeing that he's reporting for a bit.

He has a very decent blog and no super apparent bias on display.

[Jane]

I like Beckel too - for his spirit of fairness. He often surprises me. Kirsten Powers is okay too.

[hit and run]

Maine dood's up and running...

[Martin]

Swopa should have practiced first by reading the comments at JOM.

[clarice]

So let's see..On days where the direct ends in the morning and the cross continues into the afternoon, too late for deadline, we get little if anything of the cross in the msm and the blogger is not going to cover it much because cross examination is too hard?

Just report it. It's not like we give 2 figs for your analysis of it.

[hit and run]

Lance is up and running...

[clarice]

Lance is a very nice guy who's been working behind the scenes to pull this mba thing together.

[SunnyDay]

I like Beckel too - for his spirit of fairness. He often surprises me. Kirsten Powers is okay too.

ITA - honest, fair and pleasant to their opponents (as opposed to hateful), without conceding their points. I thoroughly enjoy listening to them debate with the republicans when they're on Fox.

Kirsten does HotAir blog videos with Michelle Malkin also.

[SunnyDay]

Click on his ads or donate to his site - his server is taking the traffic kinda hard. He needs to buy some bandwidth or something. ;)

[roanoke]

Well if it's true confessions time about which Democrat strategists we can stomach-

I'll take Donna Brazile.

{running for the hills)

[Rick Ballard]

Better yet, hit the MWR
Freedom of Access Fund tipjar as hard as you feel justified.

You have been taking the polls here every day as Tom asked, haven't you?

[SunnyDay]

You have been taking the polls here every day as Tom asked, haven't you?

Always. I run a site that depends on advertising to pay the bills.

[SunnyDay]

BWAHAHAHA look at the comments by Clarice's non-fan. That's a hoot.

[Chioce Conventions]

NOW?

Lawyer Up?!

The government is all lawyers. So, maybe we should call those Congressmen and not worry about overthrwoing the President. Plame is following a pattern that was called off by AF under Bill. Funny that everyone jumped on.

I'm at Best Buy and maybe that's what we should buy!!!!!!

[hit and run]

Lance does have a Maine Lobster advertiser on his site. I might not need a lot of arm twisting to offer that kind of support...

[windansea]

BWAHAHAHA look at the comments by Clarice's non-fan. That's a hoot.

thats Marci Wheeler (emptywheel) who I quoted upthread. I would love to see a one on one Thunderdome between the two...TM can moderate

[Jane]

Talk about an unfair fight. Clarice would win with one hand tied behind her back!

[clarice]

Looks like Bond is up for re-cross.

[Package Price]

It's Marci Wheeler of Deceit; the beginnings of anoperations officer.

The blog looks great on a 60 inch TV, but won't take up the whole screen Maybe they have an add that will let it take up the whole screen? Samsung is better than the rest!

Google earth looks neat too, but like Casey he fell out of the canoe(navy). Anyone know his insurance broker?!!

[Pofarmer]

Maybe he was doing Libby a favor by letting them in, and showing how the FBI got put on the wrong track.

I suppose it cuts both ways, then, heh?

[danking70]

Glad she's back on cross. She's a gem.

[Ranger]

I suppose it cuts both ways, then, heh?

Posted by: Pofarmer | February 05, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Well, at some point the jury has to ask themselves 'why did the FBI have it in for this guy? what were they thinking when they wrote up those reports that skewed his testemony so much?'

Especially since he got the FBI agent to admit that they were looking for Novaks source, and they already had him when they interviewed Libby. Should have been a 'just a few questions to wrap things up' interview and it turned into the center of the entire SP's office.

[danking70]

"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 was rightfully snarky in my earlier post but I am still curious as to who Fitz was objecting to.

Walton or Wells?

[Jane]

IMX objections tend to be reactions. You develop a gut for them. You can object to a Judge, but you probably shouldn't expect that objection to be sustained.

Sometimes a Judge asks the nature of the objection, and sometimes he (thinks he) knows the nature of the objection. Some are obvious, some are attempts to interrupt the flow of things, some are mistakes. It's an art not a science.

[cathyf]

So, does that mean that the defense gets to introduce all of the WSJ editorials making fun of Plame and Wilson? ("Who is Valerie Plame?" and "The Plame Kerfuffle" and all of the other ones.) Maybe Team Libby could buy a souvenir Kerfuffle T-shirt for the judge, each juror, the court reporter, bailiff, even Fitzgerald and his team...

("Please Judge Walton, please oh please don't throw me into the briar patch...")

[windansea]

Juror questions for agent Bond, read by Judge Walton (JW):

JW: (to jury) Several of the questions you've submitted I can't ask. Please note that in these cases, you shouldn't speculate to yourself about the answer, nor should you discuss it with your fellow jurors.

JW: (to Bond) Why didn't you write down the comments by Mr. Libby's lawyer in October 2003 that Libby hadn't had enough time to review documents?

B: I typically just write down the notes from the interviewee.

[Ranger]

Juror question:

JW: (to Bond) Why didn't you write down the comments by Mr. Libby's lawyer in October 2003 that Libby hadn't had enough time to review documents?

B: I typically just write down the notes from the interviewee.

Yes, I would say the false statement counts are in jepardy. Doesn't sound like they have faith in the FBI's treatment of Libby at this point.

[hit and run]

Bond confirms that she was aware Libby, Cheney, and Mayfield left on October 3rd, flew to Philadelphia and then Wyoming, and didnt return till Monday the 6th.

OT -- That's Jackson, WY, subject of previous thread over the weekend.