Powered by TypePad

« Monday - Trial By (Or Of) Media | Main | Monday Post-Game Thread »

February 12, 2007

Comments

JM Hanes

This seems like an approriate moment to flesh out the atmosphere over at Colin Powell’s State Dept. Here’s one of my favorite bits from Libby’s 2nd GJ appearance. In the course of explaining his (non) conversation with Grossman, offers this backstory (GX2 at p.5ff abridged for pasting by yours truly):

In, in the summer of 2002, before President Bush went to the U.N. and challenged the U.N to respond seriously to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein …there was a debate within the interagency, meaning State Department, Pentagon, White House, about what, what type of resolution --what resolution and what type of resolution we would need from the U.N. And one of the issues was if we were going to go the U.N. and ask the U.N. to get inspectors to Iraq readmitted, what sort of rights would we need?…

At the Vice President’s behest, :)

I went to the interagency, to the NSC, and they went out to the interagency and said, we would like to get a study going of what are the types of rights you would need if you were a U.N. inspector. What would you most want to have if you could have the best set of rights you could possibly have? I received word back from some people on the NSC that I Undersecretary Grossman had refused to participate, and he -- his view was that we couldn't get an ideal set of rights and that he told the NSC that I was asking for this solely in an attempt to get a long list that couldn't be achieved and then to leak it, give it to the press to embarrass Secretary Powell. That was not true and it was not why the Vice I President had asked me to go develop this list. It was in order to get the best possible rights for the U.N. But it was bothersome that he was not only not just calling me and saying, hey, what's this about, but talking to people in the NSC and accusing us, in effect, of, of putting this request in bad faith when it was a request in good faith to find out what does the U.N. need.

Eventually we went ahead with the study as best we could. The State Department participated only up to the point of what they thought the Secretary was likely to get, or something like that.

The business of Powell's State Department was tending Powell's image from Day One.

Dwilkers

I'm trying to decide; if I were Wells, would I want to put Cheney on the stand.

On the one hand, anything that distracts from or obfuscates this more is good for Libby as it increases doubt. So if Fitz beats Cheney up, or Cheney makes some mistake, that's likely to help Libby. I think I could use Cheney to make a lot of smoke if I were Wells.

On the other hand, if you put Cheney on the stand you tie your client - up close, in person, visually - to an administration this jury must really dislike.

Could it be better from a defense strategy PoV to just forget about Cheney altogether and leave it? I guess I would call him...but man I'm just not sure its worth the risk.

There's similar stuff going round in my mind about calling Libby too - a really risky move either way you go. They've introduced a lot of doubt...but is it enough?

hit and run

One can only imagine how Libby feels.


Wells: Your honor, the defendant would like to enter a motion into evidence.

Walton: I'm going to need to see it first.

Wells: Go ahead, Mr. Libby, make your motion

Libby: ::Flips off Fitzgerald::

Fitzgerald: I object!

Walton: No, I'll allow it.

BarbaraS

Armitage clearly wanted this story about Plame to get out. First he told Woodward June 13.....no story. Then he told Mitchell on June 23???........no story. Maybe he told Miller on June 23.......no story. Then he contacted Novak in early July and .......bingo....story.

clarice

Did I mention Murray Waas and Sid Blumenthal have been lurking here? Huddled around Corn and then slink out--leaving only a sulpherous trail. (lOL)sHUSTER WAS HERE , but I don't see him now.. (mR. 15%) Evan Thomas UP

steve

I don't see what the point of calling Cheney is. It will reinforce the Cheney-haters on the jury in their sentiments, and what exactly would his testimony add? I guess he could say that he was working Libby's ass off so it's not surprising that Libby got mixed up about when and exactly what he heard about Plame, but the risk-reward ratio seems too high to me.

Semanticleo

"The business of Powell's State Department was tending Powell's image from Day One."

No doubt a learned behavior after having dealings with his morally bankrupt 'superiors'.

But it does make one wonder why he took their cooked books to the UN in such apparent 'good faith'.

biomom

When a bigger than life type like Cheney testifies you risk that causing everything else that came before to be blown out of the jurors' minds. You lose your momentum. Actually, the same problem could happen if Libby testifies.

Javani

"I'm trying to decide; if I were Wells, would I want to put Cheney on the stand."

Cheney would be interesting to hear from, so would Wilson, but what information could they have that's material to the defense of the actual charges?

cathyf
With every reporter--on cross- Fitz goes into the arrangement re their depo--I think the Russert thing is something he is worried about.
I don't get this -- why is Fitzgerald making a big deal about why his investigation is deficient? Does he really believe that the rules are that if DoJ guidelines prevent you from asking questions, you get to just make up whatever answers you want and then indict someone based upon your made-up stuff?

Emphasizing that it's not his fault that his case sucks just serves to emphasize that his case sucks! What the heck is he thinking?!?

clarice

I heart cathyf--Slices to the point.

clarice

Carl Ford up..Interestng that he is a defense witness.

topsecretkk9

Clarice


What did you mean about Kessler forgetting about telling Libby?

Co o ram

Coast to Coast AM Radio with George Noory has that made human thing so don't worry about what's going on in your mind. Only a painer may know this. The computer uses the human and it becomes the human, so don't worry about becoming a perfect human. The thinking part goes away and so does all that seeing and dreaming and there's not too much brain damage or posting to a TV.

It's worth the time. Tape, I NEED the tape!!!

clarice

Turned out my hunch was wrong==He established that the ref in an Oct article by Pincus about someone in WH CALLING wILSON TRIP A "BOONDOGGLE"Kessler says that perosn was not Libby..And he never told anyone that it was

Jay Currie

Despond on the left - the shorter Nora Ephron from Huffpo:

-------
"But the saddest thing about this case is that we had high hopes for it...

The Libby case was the real deal. The Libby case had legs. The Libby case was about WMD. The Libby case was going to be the truth about this White House -- about its obsession with spin, its gift for pulling focus, its pathological use of lies as a means to war....

In the months when the case became a prosecutorial fishing expedition, we all had some hope that in the end Karl Rove would end up on the hook... For a minute there, we even dared to dream of bringing down the big Kahuna, Dick Cheney. But the smoking gun never really materialized, and the trail instead led to Dick Armitage. The wrong Dick.

---------

As the expression goes, "Fitz!"

Or should that be "Dick" as in "You ain't got..."

JM Hanes

I like today's tempo in the courtroom a lot so far. I started out wondering why Wells didn't do more with Pincus & Woodward. (BTW, love that he didn't ask Pincus about hearing from Woodward (which meant, I assume that Fitz couldn't ask him either?). He's just asking folks, one after the other, did Libby tell you about Plame? No. Bing, bing, bing. It's good, I think, very clean. Uses anticipation of Defense opening to make one thing memorable & really, really clear. Mushy stuff will come later.

cathyf
Eventually we went ahead with the study as best we could. The State Department participated only up to the point of what they thought the Secretary was likely to get, or something like that.
The State Dept has been this way for decades, at least. During the mid 70's, during the Law of the Sea negotiations, State had a single negotiating strategy. They would go into each session with a list of concessions that the Administration was willing to horsetrade for, and the list of priorities that the administration wanted to get in exchange for making these concessions. Then, the State guys would start the session by making all of the concessions while asking for nothing in return.

The really hilarious incident (in the bitter ironic sense of "hilarious") was the time a deputy secretary went in, plopped all of the concessions on the table, and then went to sleep. Not figuratively, but literally dozed off, right there at the negotiating table.

(Thank God Reagan killed that thing...)

glenda waggoner

Great updates. We all know the MSM will focus mainly on Russert's lies, excuse me, faulty memory,
not all the facts coming out about this sad tale
of Joe Wilson&Co using the liberal press to bash Bush&Co-the one neon sign flashing through all this-CIA & STATE bureaucrats no longer powerful enough because of republican majorities at the time, will break any law, use any means available to try and sway public opinion to reverse that "conservative" trend and elect democrat sheep
they can herd and mold to further shape and change
US policies, home and abroad and give all the unemployed hacks, like Joe Wilson, et al, a job.
And the unindicted co-conspirators-the willing press-Russert,Mitchell,Gregory,Pincus,Kristof,Priest,Matthews,Shuster,NYTimes,most of the WashPost,LATimes,
Globe,Newsweek,Time,CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,etc..Never do they report both sides, on any subject-but Mr.
Libby has been slandered by all of them. The depression they must all have felt when Karl Rove
was not indicted-makes me smile. People realize
politics is a game played to maintain power by influencing the electorate, but this trial is a
political "crime scene." If it wasn't for the great efforts of Clarice, JOM, and all-it would be
a very different version the public heard.

defnc

Oh ya, perfect means no defects and the UN TV needs it's Security agency.

Currie was good for Bill, but I think he payed for that.

Dick Fitz? Hilly likes Rove. She's wants to be President.

clarice

Kansteiner..DX 71 (orig INR memo).No meetings w/Kansteiner on this.
Did Grossman ever ask him to correct or supplement the memo? No (we get to the repressing, I think.)

Cecil Turner

Still have the problem of the 7/7 conversation with Ari. (And, frankly, a "heard about it from reporters" conversation on 7/8 would be completely impossible in light of the 7/7 conversation with Ari.

I don't think so. Ari fouled up badly in specifying Libby told him "CPD." He has another obvious source that mentions "analyst" and "WMD manager" and an obvious motive to lie (i.e., I did not read the Top Secret memo and gossip about it immediately afterward). Pincus cites him on "analyst" and "boondoggle" (no CPD) and as the source of the clearly fictional 1x2x6. Further, he's got direct contradictions on his supposed leaks to Dickerson and Gregory. In sum, Ari's testimony isn't terribly credible. The only fly in the ointment is that the jury doesn't know 1x2x6 is a pipe dream, and Team Libby really ought to start in to educate them straight away.

What the Defense really needed was an alternate to the Russert conversation, and Novak just gave it to 'em. Huge.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Whether or not Wells calls Cheney is not "of this moment." What can be recognized, however, is that Cheney is WILLING. And, not fighting being a witness.

Same can't be said about the dreck witnesses Fitz has; who are running to the lifeboats. Only to find the Titanic left port, short of life boats, because it paid more money to hold more passengers.

You said, you want ice? The Titanic got way too much ice.

As to "hot seats?" Russert sat on one.

Novak did not.

Hot and Cold. Either way, no fun in the shower. Or hell.

Charlie (Colorado)

Can the beby pixel clubbing wait until later??

Can anyone explain to me what this riff is about? please?

Alcibiades

Kansteiner..DX 71 (orig INR memo).No meetings w/Kansteiner on this.
Did Grossman ever ask him to correct or supplement the memo? No (we get to the repressing, I think.)

Translation into English, please, Clarice, when you get the chance.

clarice

Jury excused Judge has another matter..(Back to how to get in memory defense if Libby doesn't testify--
Witness current NS adviser to VP , was Libby's deputy...fully aware of Libby's workload and the issues..want him on to describe nature of his duties, vol of info and range of issues he dealt with..And ask specifics of focus at that time (give jury sense of vol and urgence)


Charlie (Colorado)

Wells: Your honor, the defendant would like to enter a motion into evidence.

Walton: I'm going to need to see it first.

Wells: Go ahead, Mr. Libby, make your motion

Libby: ::Flips off Fitzgerald::

Fitzgerald: I object!

Walton: No, I'll allow it.

Me likee.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: GLENDA WAGGONER

By tomorrow, Bob Woodward, Walter Pincus, and Bob Novak, have money enhancing career moves to make. And, they'll be able to talk about their testimony.

Doubt if Russert gets a word in edgewise.

clarice

Cecil, I'd never try to pull your leg..Exactly--sloppy prosecutor leaves giant hole in middle of his theory and evidence..

Alcibiades

Carol, oh yeah, about Cheney.

I saw him on either John Gibson or Neil Cavuto within the last month - and boy is he angry about this entire job against Libby.

He'd testify in a minute.

cathyf

BTW -- just in case typepad crashes under the load, backup JOM site is here at flares.

(Occasionally it's good to throw that in a thread -- because once typepad does crash it's too late.)

Appalled Moderate

Cecil:

I missed direct contradiction by Gregory. When did that happen?

Also, all jury knows right now is Pincus got leak from Ari in addition to Dickerson and Gregory. I think the Pincus bit is going to damge Ari's credibility, particularly if Wells conncets those dots.

Giving jury an alternative was an OK job by Wells, but, frankly, Libby has a motive in October 2003 not to cop to talking to Novak about Plame. Don't think Fitz won't exploit it -- he's been grabbing on Libby's sense of victimization hinted at by Wells in his opening.

Charlie (Colorado)

But it does make one wonder why he took their cooked books to the UN in such apparent 'good faith'.

Leo, honey, I sure hope you're cute, 'cause you ain't gonna make it on wits alone.

Charlie (Colorado)

Oh ya, perfect means no defects and the UN TV needs it's Security agency.

Currie was good for Bill, but I think he payed for that.

Dick Fitz? Hilly likes Rove. She's wants to be President.

Did someone put something in the water? Some of these new comments are deranged.

dorf

Newman the mailman would not have taken this case to trial.

John R

We love Clarice and all that, but isn't there someone who could blog from the holding pen on this web site who is computer literate? Then Clarice would be free of worry per machinery breakdowns and could opine at leisure--something she does very well-and we would have a blow-by-blow. Win-win.

cathyf

Yeah, John R., I know what you mean. I'd go do tech support for her, but I'm 1000 miles away...

Anybody closer?

Alcibiades

Cecil -

What the Defense really needed was an alternate to the Russert conversation, and Novak just gave it to 'em. Huge.

Are you referring to the fact that the news was all over town? Or something else?

topsecretkk9

Byron on Ari Fliesher

"Was the person who told you this on July 12 a government official?" defense attorney William Jeffress asked.

"Yes," said Pincus.

"Was it Mr. Libby?"

"No."

"Who was it?"

"It was Ari Fleischer."

Pincus' recollection conflicts with Fleischer's testimony, delivered on January 29. "Did you tell Walter Pincus, during that conversation on July 12th, that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA?" asked defense attorney William Jeffress.

"No sir, I have no recollection of telling that — " Fleischer answered.

"No recollection of telling him that at all? You would remember if it happened?"

"Sure I would. I do not," Fleischer said.

Pincus is the second journalist whose memory conflicts with Fleischer's. Fleischer testified that he told NBC's David Gregory and Time's John Dickerson about Mrs. Wilson, but Dickerson says Fleischer did not tell him about Mrs. Wilson. Gregory has not made any public comment.

I did not realize or remember Ari being asked about Pincus.

clarice

I am not the only person having problems with the connection..I think the JOM thing also contributes. Tomorrow is predicted to be a storm day, and I think I'll do this from Home..This IS a poor use of my time and energy..


I think the prosecution is seriously taken aback by the development re letting stuff in on memory if Libby doesn't testify..

That's my sense of this anyway. The judge is trying to get the prosecution off the hook on the stipulation, but I am sure we'll hear more on this, and the defense will get a lot of they want in anyway..

Defers on ruling...

hit and run

Great cathyf, now we're gonna get a gratuitous reference to driving in a diaper.

But not by me. I would never stoop that low.

owl

It looks like a Grossman/Armitage keep Powell squeakie plan. With courts' permission, of course.

everson

Another Bob,

Thanks for the link, good music and one Hell of a nicely appointed 'cave.'

clarice

No one can do a blow by blow and analysis at the same time--can't be done--let fdl do the stenography.

smh10

Clarice:

In your trial background have you ever come across a time when the judge so often discusses the testimony or lack thereof of the defendant?

Patrick R. Sullivan

I'm really surprised that the Defense didn't elicit from Novak that he'd gotten confirmation from the CIA in the person of Harlow. It took a juror's question to get that out.

Anyway, I'm with Cecil, Novak is a definite possibility as an alternate to Russert.

james

Some of these new comments are deranged.

A HuffPo link will do that.

Cecil Turner

I missed direct contradiction by Gregory. When did that happen?

Okay, good point, not direct contradiction . . . it's more in the nature of a non-barking dog.

Also, all jury knows right now is Pincus got leak from Ari in addition to Dickerson and Gregory.

Using the verbiage from the INR memo, as opposed to the more specific "CPD" info he claims to've gotten (and remembered!) from Libby. Doesn't quite work, now, does it?

Giving jury an alternative was an OK job by Wells, but, frankly, Libby has a motive in October 2003 not to cop to talking to Novak about Plame. Don't think Fitz won't exploit it --

Huh? Novak just gave his two sources, both admit the conversations, and neither is named "Libby." How do you think any attempt to "exploit" this by Fitz will look to the 1-2 jurors not suffering from BDS?

Are you referring to the fact that the news was all over town? Or something else?

Something else. Libby believes Russert told him, which isn't very plausible (among other reasons because it happened too late). If Libby is mixing up a conversation with Novak (on, say, the 8th) with the conversation with Russert, it all works.

clarice

Closer shot of counsel during this bench conference.(It's not seersucker..but some tropical weight shmata.In case this matters to you.

Another Bob

Anyone know if Harlow is still on NBC's payroll?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Up at FREE REPUBLIC they have a link to today's testimony. Flying by, with so many witnesses.

The last one? CARL FORD. The guy with the business card that now reads FORD & ASSOCIATES. Even though he works for himself. He said he added "Associates" to make his business card look better.

ANd, this tidbit: CARL FORD, when he was working for State (?) was tasked with finding out about the stuff swirling around Iraq. And, early assessments leading to Tommy Franks entry into Iraq.

THE ASIDE: This is the guy who complained that JOHN BOLTON was the type of fighter that would really go at you. I gather the kind of boss that didn't pussy foot around.

If John Bolton comes by to read our comments, I'd like to say "Yoohoo, I love you."

topsecretkk9

--but some tropical weight shmata--

LOL.

azaghal

JM Hanes, in light of Libby's testimony about State's attitude--are you surprised that Armitage, Grossman, Powell, Taft et alios just left the WH twisting in the MSM winds?

Skip

OK, per FDL we have this:


Walton My concern, if a party is going to be held to agree to submission, it's unfair. we want juries to decide cases based on facts. If a party will agree to facts with an understanding of how that evidence will be presented, that's fair game. My understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify. That would be the predicate for the vast majority of the information they jury is going to hear. To put his mental state before the jury is just unfair. I'll defer the ruling. I don't necessarily agree with govt's arguments in second paragraph, but the third paragraph I do agree with their redact re the last three paragraphs. They do indicate what defendant's state of mind was. In my view it wasn't clear that they were being asked to make that concession.

Through all of this wrangling it's really seemed to indicate that Walton thought he'd been told by Libby's side that Libby was going to testify. I wonder if that has anything to do with him letting in the marked-up articles for Libby's state of mind? Since if Libby's going to testify he can contradict that in front of the jury?


percipio

Clarice, are you have similar problems as last time with the connection? If you are using a Mac now, rather than the Dell, you should have an option under "Network Connections/WIFI" to "keep connection live while asleep". (That's the computer - not you - you're not allowed to nap just yet!) Otherwise the ISP will kick you off with inactivity, and upon rewaking your computer has a entire checklist it has to go through.

Let us know what the specific difficulties are; would be glad to help if we can.

Dan S

"Walton My concern, if a party is going to be held to agree to submission, it's unfair. we want juries to decide cases based on facts. "

Facts, like those great MSM news articles?

Martin

"the 1-2 jurors not suffering from BDS?"

The former White House spokesman is a liar and the jurors have a mental disorder recognized only by the far right. A tough world for Libby.

Who diagnosed the BDS? Was it Dr. Frist by videotape?

clarice


Defense wants to bring out that JM -Libby conversation testimony is impeachable because Plame never worked in WINPAC.
Fitz tries to sneak in Plame worked in CP--(sailing over judge's head at this pt.)
Def "Wife works in Bureau" is in her notes.
Judge catches plan to smudge her testimony and paper the error over. HEH


(I took the dell after all..I refuse to bother one more minute with this tech issue..) I'll post when I can even if it's from home. I find this intolerable..

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Drudge is headlining, above the fold, and on the right side, 3 LINKS to today's testimony.

clarice

Every sloppy, short cut the SP TOOK, IS COMING BACK TO BITE HIM..

topsecretkk9

U.S. ENVOY: NORTH KOREA TENTATIVELY AGREES TO DISARM Drudge in Red.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

-- tropical weight schmata --

Then ghost cat was right, not from Sears. Probably polyester; You can fly in it all day and it doesn't wrinkle. So? Definitely, material for a Cox' sucker.

Sue

Is the defense through with reporters? Does that mean we aren't going to hear from Gregory or Dickerson?

clarice

I'm going to wait around for Maid Marion and then head home. C

cathyf
Defense wants to bring out that JM -Libby conversation testimony is impeachable because Plame never worked in WINPAC. Fitz tries to sneak in Plame worked in CP--(sailing over judge's head at this pt.) Def "Wife works in Bureau" is in her notes. Judge catches plan to smudge her testimony and paper the error over. HEH
Did Walton just have a V-8 moment?

I was surprised that the defense didn't bring this up on Miller's cross -- is there some technical reason that it had to be left until now? Or is this strategy?

Cecil Turner

Who diagnosed the BDS? Was it Dr. Frist by videotape?

Nah, it was nothing that subtle. (We keep Dr. Frist in reserve for the tough calls.) The AP's Matt Apuzzo could handle this one at the beginning of voir dire: Leak Lawyer Wants Bush Critics on Jury.

topsecretkk9

There is more on that last part on FDL...

Bob

clarice, it sounds like a bandwidth problem. You are sharing it with all others there and your probably being bounced when going idle - someone else jumps in and steals your spot so to speak... well that's my guess anyway.

Martin

Yeah-but that's why Team Libby countered with their snowjob that Cheney is going to testify: exactly to challenge off the "BDS" types.

Cheney ain't coming close to a place where they put him under oath. It's a vampire and sunlight situation.

cathyf

Martin pegs the irony meter. (Or maybe that last one was somebody parodying Martin?)

hit and run

From: Team JOM
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 4:27 PM
To: Libby Defense Fund [info@scooterlibby.com]
Cc: Richard B. Cheney [vice_president@whitehouse.gov]; G. Michael Green, Esq. [gmgtrustee@dsmo.com]; Stacey Lukens [Stacey@thelukensgrp.com]
Subject: Clarice Feldman

To whom it may concern,

Get Clarice a working connection NOW!

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Team JOM

Dan S

Topsdog,

I, and others, have been remarking all along on how so many dates that are up in question would be nailed down with a few phone records (or at least, narrowed down). Then we see Novak on the stand doing just that with phone records that Wells clearly has.

Why didn't Fitz do this? He did a LITTLE with gov side phone records, but not really all that much. I haven't seen any admittance of phone records from his reporter witnesses.

One would almost think he needs the timeline to be fuzzy.

Martin

I have to stay absurd to compete CathyF.

Turner links Apuzzo, supra, to say the Jury hates Bush-but Apuzzo writes in the 2nd paragraph: "Attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby have weeded the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration out of the jury pool."

Facts really don't matter here.

Cecil Turner

Sounded like Martin . . . especially the demand to prove the snarky bits.

Dan S

oops, darned typekey got me again.

Cecil Turner

Ah, if I'd waited 30 seconds . . .

Trolls

Get your own blog now.

Martin

A demand at which you failed miserably, I might add. Trash the prosecutor all you want-this is America. But the jury is just our fellow countrymen doing a job for which they were drafted.

Please remember that if Libby is acquitted-you accused the jury of being morons! Cause on that day, we'll finally agree.

topsecretkk9

Novak on Wilson's loud mouth in the Green Room?

General Valely and...Victor Davis Hansen said similar - loudly talking, admonishing the makeup person to be careful of the powder on his rolex.

Tom Bowler

Looking down the road, would anyone like to speculate on the any chance that the defense will argue that Libby was only intent on refuting Wilson's charges on their merits, and then put Joe Wilson on the stand to tear him a new one as their way of making that case?

roanoke

CNN played the Armitage-Woodward tape.

Had a phone sex quality to it.

Murtha followed and the SOB ended up belittling the Australian's contribution to the Iraqi War effort.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

"Every sloppy, short cut the SP TOOK, IS COMING BACK TO BITE HIM.."

And, in particular, if Walton rules the way he sounds like he's going to rule, Fitz's determined effort to conflate Judy Miller's "bureau" with the CIA. That blatant piece of disingenuity has bugged me from the start & it's about time it bit the dust!

The Prosecution managed to slip CIA into their examination of Miller -- I'll have to check the "transcript" to see whether she was volunteering "CIA" on her own, or just responding to/confirming the prosecutor's formulation.

I'm really glad you were in attendance today, because FDL's transcription is pretty mushy this time around -- a lot of specific Q&A is not terribly clear.

JM Hanes

So, did Armitage come off as "no partisan gunslinger" on the Woodward tape? Just an offhand, casual revelation, eh?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

As mentioned, Drudge already has articles up on today's testimony. The "3rd" one links to APUZZO of the AP. And, Drudge "pulls out" his own headline: LIBBY IS COUNTING ON NBC testimony to clear his name.

Perhaps this means Novak, who was on NBC, when Wilson was there. And, found him to be "boorish in the Green Room,' is the key to understanding the Apuzzo piece?

There's also the happiest of smiling faces, photo. Of Woodward this morning. Entering the court house.

Now that this part of the testimony is over ... someone referred to it (at Freeper's) as if the "COACH WAS CLEARING THE BENCH" might me the game is going so well, even freshmen can be handed the ball to play?

Sure feels like a "first" good day for Wells.

And? Fitz' ship is sinking. A "lightweight tropical suit" as he slides underwater? Ain't gonna help him. And, I don't think he has a life boat yet to row.

As to the mean guesses about DC jurors; go ahead. But calling names is more things the left does than the right. And, the jurors questions appear to be on target, too. I don't think people who stay alert. And, ask smart questions. Are part of a cabal that will hang Libby (because everyone knows republicans can get shot when they fill up for gas.) You don't get my last sentence? Pity. It's a play on words I just made. Because last night Drudge was terrific!

Pete
Facts really don't matter here.

That's the assumption I operate under when I post too, Martin.

And if you get called out on anything incredibly stupid you can always claim it was just someone else writing under your name.

Win-win!

cathyf
And, in particular, if Walton rules the way he sounds like he's going to rule, Fitz's determined effort to conflate Judy Miller's "bureau" with the CIA. That blatant piece of disingenuity has bugged me from the start & it's about time it bit the dust!
I've always wondered at that bit -- why can't Team Libby pull up the Miller grand jury recording where she showing them that her notes say "bureau" against the indictment claiming that her notes say "CIA" and then use the comparison to accuse Fitzgerald of perjury? Ya know, impeach the whole indictment...
ghostcat

BTW, I will not be satisfied with just a Libby acquittal. I want to see NBC "News" disemboweled. In fact, I might accept a Libby conviction if that 's the price of NBC's evisceration.

Naw.

Molon Labe

Wasn't Foley head of WINPAC?

Didn't Wilsons claim Foley was Val's boss?

Did they make that claim only after "WINPAC" started showing up in this kerfuffle?

Yet another deceitful manipulative lie by the Wilsons?

Martin

Right-wing you are, FakePete. I'll tell you what my purpose here is in commenting on JOM by quoting the inimitable Clarice:

"Into every bully boy's world a tougher opponent will appear."

topsecretkk9

WINPAC

That's why I wish I could dredge up that article on indictment eve with the 3 sneakies...3 anon's said Rove may not be indicted because he was confused where she worked as WINPAC.

Molon Labe

And with a nom de guerre of "Martin" you will make a particularly formidable opponent I must say.

ghostcat

Martin -

Check your weight class.

Martin

My full name is MarIwillkickyourscrawnyRepublicanbutttin.

MikeH

"And if you get called out on anything incredibly stupid you can always claim it was just someone else writing under your name."

Or you can show your uber-understanding by labeling all as "fascist children of the corn." SOP.

vnjagvet

JMH:

Armit[r]age is not a "partisan" gunslinger. That is literally true. But he sure as he** was a "State Departement" gunslinger.

In bureaucratic infighting, "party" has nothing to do with it, as you well know.

Armit[r]age is one skilled practitioner of the art of bureaucratic infighting, as the testimony today has revealed with chrystal clarity. I will pay for a transcript as soon as it is available to see just how it's done.

It is no wonder that FDL was a bit shaky on the details. When you have your fingers in your ears it is tough to type.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Had a phone sex quality to it.'

You know this how?

topsecretkk9

hmmm.

--

(Cannistraro says she worked at WINPAC..another VIPS who says so.)

"Vincent Cannistraro, Plame's former boss in Counter-terrorism, says she works in WINPAC
Contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s reporting, former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro said that Plame worked undercover for the Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control, or WINPAC. (Wilson xl)

Cecil Turner

But the jury is just our fellow countrymen doing a job for which they were drafted.

Drafted from the most liberal pool in the nation. 89% Kerry, 9% Bush . . . closest was MA at 62% Kerry. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but pretending it's a representative sample of our fellow citizens is, well, moronic.

Please remember that if Libby is acquitted-you accused the jury of being morons! Cause on that day, we'll finally agree.

Morons? No, "liberal." (Okay, in some cases . . . ) And if even they acquit Libby, well, yeah, I'd say that says something.

"Into every bully boy's world a tougher opponent will appear."

If guys like you were in charge, bullies would sleep better at night.

roanoke

JM Hanes- vnjagvet

So, did Armitage come off as "no partisan gunslinger" on the Woodward tape? Just an offhand, casual revelation, eh?

I can't explain how creepy it sounds I am keeping an eye on CNN and searching other places so I can leave a link to the audio here at JOM.

It is truly creepy you have to hear it to believe it.

roanoke

Patrick-

It reminded me of the Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles tapes.

Look are yuo a democrat?


You should be really proud of Murtha's performance afterwards-disgustiing.

Democrats have treated our allies like crrrrrrrap.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame