Powered by TypePad

« The WaPo - "Reporting Of Dubious Quality Or Reliability” | Main | Plame Open Thread »

February 10, 2007

Comments

clarice

Thanks. kate.

windansea

a nice depo with his lawyers present in THEIR offices.

is transcript available for this? (Russert depo)

I'd like to see how questions were worded

Rick Ballard

I wonder if the disappearance of the notes was a condition required to get HRH Young Tim's audience with Fitz?

Mitchell was mentioned numerous times during Libby's March gj appearance. Did he not mention her during his FBI interview in October? It seems that every journo mentioned by Libby was contacted (that's what the Sanger bit is about), did they somehow skip Andrea - or was she part of Tim's Very Special Super Deal?

How long is Walton going to let this farce continue?

clarice

Rick, sometimes you are too good for words. Like here:
"Mitchell was mentioned numerous times during Libby's March gj appearance. Did he not mention her during his FBI interview in October? It seems that every journo mentioned by Libby was contacted (that's what the Sanger bit is about), did they somehow skip Andrea - or was she part of Tim's Very Special Super Deal?"

Possibly not part of the special deal so much as a prime recipient of something from a "good leaker"-that is Wilson/Plame/Armitage/Powell or their deisngated players.

ghostcat

Suggested blog distribution list for maximum exposure: Power Line, Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, and (of course) Insty.

As for Limbaugh, he and Russert have been surprisingly friendly over the years.

Patton

Here's a fun thing:

Call Russerts number and tell whoever picks up that you are from Judge Hogans office.

windansea

and (of course) Insty

I just sent it to him

Martin

Clarice says Fitz has suborned perjury.

Do Wells and Jeffres agree with Clarice? Kinda odd they wouldn't bring it up that the prosecutor is committing felonies-if it was really the case-doncha' think?.

So does Clarice know more than Wells et al or vice versa?

clarice

Patton, I had no idea you were that evil..ghostcat, Rush loves me, too. It'll be a dilemma.

Sara (Squiggler)

Send it to O'Reilly, he is the one dogging NBC and his ratings are double all the others combined. And he is TV.

Jane

Kinda odd they wouldn't bring it up that the prosecutor is committing felonies-if it was really the case-doncha' think?.

Not the least bit odd Martin. My gawd you have a bug up your butt.

clarice

Martin, where did I say that? On the other hand it might be a good idea to wait until closing arguments to see what Wells says about the prosecution and the king of mtp.

Patton

Let's look at this from Fitz's perspective...WHY NOT HAVE ECKENRODE TESTIFY?
He doesn't have his notes, this was the first interview of Russert.

If Eckenrode gave him some reason why he shouldn't be put on the stand, did the notes have to disappear as well?
Given his other witnesses shaky memory and changes in testimony from their FBI interview to the GJ testimony, wouldn't have been great to show Russert told a consistent story in both cases??

Tom Maguire

I have not had a chance to read through the thread, but:

I mean, do you really think Fitz told Eckenrode, hey Jack, sometime between now and when we close up shop give Russert a buzz and see whether he wants to talk about whatever?

I am quite certain Fitzgerald did not tell him that, since Eckenrode called Russert in fall 2003 and Fitzgerald only got the case at New Years.

That said, I accept the larger point - there had to be some oversight of this call - just check the Novak example when he first met with the FBI - they asked about his conversations but did not press him for sources.

Martin:

Clarice, you and TM really ought to back up your charges before you just spew them out there. Yesterday TM charged that Russert lied on the stand.

Martin, why do I bother with caveats if youare going to ignore them? From Thursday's "spew":

Let me point out a few dots that the defense has introduced and make some predictions about how they will attempt to connect them.

...Please keep in mind - I am attempting to predict defense strategy, not ascertain "the truth".

...So, Fitzgerald kept quiet about Russert's problem, and now Russert is delivering payback with his still-helpful testimony. True? Who knows? Reasonable doubt? Make the call!

...As to the "truth" of the above scenario, who can say? But I do predict that the defense will insinuate something like this as a motive for Russert to stick with his story.

Should I not bother?

Oh, well - my next Russert-basher will even have a question mark in the headline, as a special Matt Cooper salute. Hope that helps.

lurker

The facts that are available to us prove that Fitz suborned perjury. You're just not reading and comprehending the facts as presented to you.

It's not part of their (Wells and Jeffrees) job to stake claims of perjuries performed by the witnesses on the stand. Their job is to defend Libby.

Clarice doesn't have to know more than Wells to understand and interpret the facts available to her. These facts lead her to reach the conclusion that Fitz suborned perjury of his witnesses.

sbw

Martin, I don't know firsthand, of course, but it would seem reasonable that some lackey in Wells' office pops in on JOM from time to time. Of course, that would be nothing special, one probably dons rubber gloves and lurks elsewhere.

You could deduce that probability yourself. Which is to suggest your snark is irrelevant. And the question undeserving an answer.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice says Fitz has suborned perjury.-- This is a bald-faced lie Martin. It is the NBC attorneys and Russert in front Judge Hogan, not Fitz. And I believe Clarice said it would be "contempt of court" not perjury.Clarice says Fitz has suborned perjury.

lurker
The facts that are available to us prove that Fitz suborned perjury. You're just not reading and comprehending the facts as presented to you.

Since Clarice just posted that she did not claim that Fitz suborned perjury, the point remains that his witnesses did not do well on the stand - "misremembering", "lie", "inability to recall", et al. None of the witnesses gave Fitz anything beyond reasonable doubt of Libby's charges to date and now Fitz rests.

Alcibiades

I just sent links to Hot Air, Instapundit, Powerline, LGF and Michelle Malkin. We'll see what happens.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CLARICE

On Monday, what do you think would surprise you the most?

Walton agrees with Fitz, and Mitchell does not come in?

OR. Mitchell comes in and Fitzgerald moves to dismiss this case?

I know, if I can't make you laugh, I make you angry. And, there's more than one way to filet Monday, AFTER the horses are run.

But sometimes I think you're Nick The Greek.

Odds were his business. He didn't die in Vegas. He grew rich.

And, I am pre-supposing that the phones are ringing off the hook to Fitzgerald. That Russert wants the SHOW STOPPED. Do you know why? So he can get off the stage without breaking his other leg.

Martin

Au contraire sbw. The fact Wells pops in here proves how full of it Clarice is.

Clarice says Fitz is suborning perjury. Now if you were Wells defending Libby-wouldn't you bring it up that the prosecutor was committing felonies? At least in passing? Sort of?

So either Clarice has greater insight than Wells et al. or Clarice is mistaken. What think you?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Andrea Mitchell told Gloria Borger and Alan Murray in the infamous Oct. 23, 2003 CR interview that SHE saw the NY Times Op-Ed on Saturday night, July 5th, and SHE called him an invited him on the next day's MTP.

Meaning she already had his phone number. Libby's attorney's should have put that in their motion to compel her testimony.

clarice

Someone upthread asked whther it was NBC which ironically accused Libby of destroying documents.
It was Shuster who heard it as if in a dream in a crowded media center where only he got that particular message from the SP's opening remarks.And since he is so careless he never checked to learn that nothing like that was ever charged..instead he ran to the camera with another fairytale so typical of that network.

MSNBC (Your dreams made real)
OTOH I distinctly remember the left's feverish fantasies that because Gonzales waited until the morning to tell the WH staff that they had to save every piece of crap in their offices, the WH had certainly been running the shredders full speed the entire night before. Projection is a funny thing. It tells the listener what kind of conduct the accuser would pull..Here , however, we have key notes. They are missing and WHOA who lost them?

lurker

"Clarice doesn't have to know more than Wells to understand and interpret the facts available to her. These facts lead her to reach the conclusion that Fitz suborned perjury of his witnesses."

Reword...the facts available to us show that this is a case of a missing crime.

Martin, can you tell us what the crime is?

topsecretk9

Going through Kate's link - someone on that thread point out that Ekenrod was on the Connecticut Anthrax Investigation Team (the little old lady who died)

I had a weird thought...Judy Miller was also involved in the Hatfill reporting along with Kristof - and she was in some way litigating to protect her FBI sources. (I'll have to look that up)

Judy was also the reciepient of and Anthrax laced letter way back (2000? 2001?)

Anyways...back to my weird thought. Fitz finally did get Judy's phone records regarding the Holy Cross - she was tipped off by FBI (or Govt. officials who knew they were going to be raided)

Longshot and tinfoil - but it would be weird if one of Judy's FBI sources were Ekenrode and showed up last year when he got the phone records (IIRC Fitz did nothing with them after goig after them for so long)

Patrick R. Sullivan

Andrea Mitchell told Gloria Borger and Alan Murray in the infamous Oct. 23, 2003 CR interview that SHE saw the NY Times Op-Ed on Saturday night, July 5th, and SHE called him an invited him on the next day's MTP.

Meaning she already had his phone number. Libby's attorney's should have put that in their motion to compel her testimony.

lurker

Are the democrats addressing lobbying reform?

Read Democratic Lobbying Reform: More Middlemen

Answer is no.

topsecretk9

ehgads...typos. Sorry.

Martin

Clarice: what is this if not suborning perjury:

"The same prosecutor now proclaiming Mitchell has nothing to add knew the Russert affidavit was false and did nothing to correct the record in that case."

Here's the Wikipedia definition, maybe you have a different one:

"Subornation of Perjury is a legal term describing the act of an attorney who presents testimony (or an affidavit) the attorney knows is materially false to a judge or jury as if it were factual."

clarice

PRS, Perhaps she meant it as a "royal she" meaning she got an assistant to do it. So much time for TV news people is spent on wardrobe, makeup and hair,gadding about importantly after hours, phone calling to anonymous sources is about all they have time for. (Send me something for the 5 o''clock show. Your enemy is mine and we never check it--)

Jane

Now if you were Wells defending Libby-wouldn't you bring it up that the prosecutor was committing felonies? At least in passing? Sort of?

Martin,

You are too stupid to deal with so this will be my last shot.

Imagine for a second Wells asking for a sidebar to complain to the Judge that Fitzy is suborning perjury.

What do you think would happen next?

Let me guess, you were picked on by bullys as a child.

michman

I really enjoy this site - very entertaining and interesting for a non-lawyer. What really struck me about the news conference Fitz gave was his response to questions as to why there were no indictments for disclosure of a covert operative. He said that sometimes justice has to be satisfied with tangential charges. This seems to be a belief that many of the media-politico-complex hold. Dan Rather's response to the TANG forgeries reflected this view. If you strongly believe that the White House crossed the line by exposing Plame then a little flexibility in the evidence is only ensuring the offenders meet justice.

Rick Ballard

"You are too stupid to deal with so this will be my last shot."

Words that we should all hold in our hearts...

Sara (Squiggler)

Martin: You appear to be on a one man crusade against Clarice. You treat her as if you think she is a wet behind the ears teenager rather than a skilled attorney who has been nominated on more than one occasion to be a federal judge and has worked on some of the biggest cases of our time. She has decades of experience. I doubt seriously she needs your Wiki definitions, but whatever floats your boat. Your disrespect of her as a person and as a professional shows both how ill informed you are and what a small man you are as a man.

clarice

Did Fitzgerald prepare the affidavit or was it NBC counsel? Is it clear that Russert told the counsel who prepared the affidavit the truth or was this shunted off to someone down the line who had no idea and just filled in the boilerplate?Some associate, awed by Russert who just did a boilerplate shtick and had it messengered over to his offices for signature.
You are playing in a big playpen now, and they know how to do it w/o getting in trouble.(32 degrees of separation, Martin.)

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Oh, well - my next Russert-basher will even have a question mark in the headline, as a special Matt Cooper salute. Hope that helps.'

How about something like:

NBC Have a Dog in the Libby Fight?

After all, Joe Wilson made his first TV appearance as the Sage of Niger on MTP. The following week Chris Matthews promoted his cause on Hardball. Andrea Mitchell broke the stories about the NIE footnote and the DoJ investigation of the Plame 'leak'.

Tim Russert described the atmosphere as like Christmas Eve while they were waiting for Fitz to announce his decisions.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'He said that sometimes justice has to be satisfied with tangential charges.'

The 'fake, but accurate' indictment.

lurker
Au contraire sbw. The fact Wells pops in here proves how full of it Clarice is.

Clarice says Fitz is suborning perjury. Now if you were Wells defending Libby-wouldn't you bring it up that the prosecutor was committing felonies? At least in passing? Sort of?

So either Clarice has greater insight than Wells et al. or Clarice is mistaken. What think you?

Wells or any members of his team popping in does not make Clarice full of it.

Wells has access to the same facts that are available to us plus more. Wells doesn't need Clarice's insight, greater or not. Clarice's predictions have come true so far. So she's not mistaken.

I'm with Sara on her last post.

vnjagvet

The "reasonable doubt" chart now has a significant number of entries for the jury to consider.

And the defense case has not even begun yet.

Clarice:

It might be fun to construct such a chart among ourselves.

Use the jury instructions on the elements of the offense and the proof required and key the doubts by category.

tina

Off Topic, but for a good hearty chuckle:

Just now on the Beltway Boys, they were talking about the picture of Rudy and his wife kissing, that was on the front page of some newspaper, and whether it was appropriate or not. Barnes said:

"Well, I can see Clinton doing that, just not with his wife"

Anyway, I got a good laugh out of it, and thought a good laugh would be enjoyed by all here as well.

PaulL

At least a few times I've heard Rush Limbaugh state that the American Thinker is one of his very favorite internet sites.

Martin

Jane-if Wells could PROVE it I would expect that what would happen next is that Fitz would be removed from the courtroom by the bailiff and a mistrial declared.

If you mean what would happen if Wells came armed only with Clarice's facts and logic, Walton would laugh in his face.

As I am doing here.

clarice

I once had a case where my client, his wife and daughter were murdered in their beds. The guys who did the job were picked up rather early and were sitting in jail. We knew they got money from the union to do the job and needed to get the next guys up the ladder and get them to finger the guy who ordered it. We had the union under Dept of Labor oversight at that point. We found out the union was continung to pay the killers' salaries. DoL refused to act saying innocent until proven guilty. The union had bigtime counsel, they got a young associate (brilliant guy just graduated from Harvard in) he wrote a fancy memo on that topic. We went in and said it was a breach of fiduciary duty and it was to keep the perps from talking. Judge Bryant looked out at all of us, said "I could get any grandmother in off the street to answer this. Those guys are being paid to keep their mouths shut. I order you to take them off the payroll within 24 hours."
Big boys in the playpen know how to do this sort of thing. It doesn't always work though.

lurker

vnjagvet,

But the first thing that needs to be done is to determine what the crime is "is".

Martin

Sara-I respect Clarice. I just happen to think she's full of it here. I do think Ballard is a moron though, and make no apologies for it.

ghostcat

SURGE!

Rick Ballard

Conjecture:

Eckenrode got the "quit or be fired" message for babbling to Jason.

If he babbles on that low a level, why wouldn't he be on someone at NBC's speed dial as an FBI source? Say, oh , I dunno, Andrea Mitchell? Did Andrea do any reporting on the Connecticut Anthrax case? Just riffing off of Top's conjecture above.

clarice

Someone (was it Rick?) did a stripped down version of the indictment. I can post it and we can analyze.

Libby Indictment Short Form

Here is a summary I made when the indictment came out of the allegations against Libby, with the wording taken almost directly from the indictment. The Miller count is shown in italics.
1. Obstruction of Justice
(1)(a)(i) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Russert did not ask Libby, on or about July 10, 2003, if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it.
(1)(a)(ii) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, at the time of Libby's conversation with Russert, on or about July 10, 2003, Libby was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, Libby had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic.
(1)(b) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

(1)(c) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise her that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true.
2. False Statement
(2) Contrary to Libby's statements to FBI investigators on Oct. 14 and Nov. 26, 2003, Russert did not ask Libby, on July 10 or 11, 2003, if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it; and at the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
3. False Statement
(3) Contrary to Libby's statements to FBI investigators on Oct. 14 and Nov. 26, 2003, Libby did not advise Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this was true; rather, Libby confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
4. Perjury
(4) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony on March 5, 2004, Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it; and at the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
5. Perjury
(5) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony on March 5 and 24, 2004, Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise Cooper or other reporters that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true.
(Credit MJW)

Sara (Squiggler)

If Wells wants Clarice to write his briefs for him, he'll hire her to do so. Or I suppose she could file one of those amicus briefs on her own. But, to take an opinion piece from Clarice and use it would put Wells in the same category as Fitz with his reliance on blind sourced articles published in the New York Slime and WaPoor.

Walter

Martin,

Not that it matters, but we discussed this extensively. Fitzgerald represented a party opposed to the motion supported by Russert's affidavit.

The ethical duty which (IMO arguably at best) is violated is to bring the other side's misrepresentations of material facts to the attention of the judge.

Whatever it is, 'taint commiting, requesting or submitting perjury.

clarice

Someone at the CIA was her obvious source for the Sept 2003 leak she had on the CIA referral letter. FOolish to think that an "access" reporter has to rely only on one source.

clarice

I see at the end of my short form indictment it was MJW who prepared it.

percipio

"Andrea Mitchell told Gloria Borger and Alan Murray in the infamous Oct. 23, 2003 CR interview that SHE saw the NY Times Op-Ed on Saturday night, July 5th, and SHE called him an invited him on the next day's MTP." - Patrick R. Sullivan

Thank you for finding that bit, Patrick. That is part of the point I attempted to make earlier (and in which I failed miserably!). The (live-blogged) exchange with Russert was:

W: How did you book Wilson?
R: Producer saw the NY Times oped Saturday night, called Wilson at home and booked.

W: Is this common?
R: Don’t know, wasn’t there that night

And I was looking at Russert's train of thought at this moment and wondering at the immediate obtuseness of his non-answer. The question was: "is this common?" and his immediate reaction was: OMG I need to distance myself from this event and make sure I don't mention Andrea Mitchell's name.

Barney Frank

Martin you knucklehead,

--Clarice: what is this if not suborning perjury:

"The same prosecutor now proclaiming Mitchell has nothing to add knew the Russert affidavit was false and did nothing to correct the record in that case."

Here's the Wikipedia definition, maybe you have a different one:

"Subornation of Perjury is a legal term describing the act of an attorney who presents testimony (or an affidavit) the attorney knows is materially false to a judge or jury as if it were factual."--

Fitzgerald did not present submit or otherwise have anything to do with introducing Russert's affidavit. He was in opposition to Russert's motion to quash the subpoena.
He no doubt should have alerted the court to the misleading nature of it, but that is by definition not suborning perjury. Jeez.

topsecretk9

Of slight interest...(notice the WH dening Iraq connection way back when - even though, you know they were always cooking the Iraq intel)

UNDER A MICROSCOPE The anthrax investigation is stymied, NBC’s Williams told us: “The FBI laboratory has yet to start analyzing the letters for fingerprints, DNA and type of ink. Technicians have to work out how to decontaminate them without harming evidence.” Microbiologists told ABC’s Brian Ross they had identified the spore-separating additive as Bentonite, “a trademark of Saddam Hussein’s weapons program.” The White House told ABC’s Terry Moran “flat out, it is not Bentonite” and CIA sources told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the anthrax “probably did not come from Iraq.” She added that the State Department hiked its reward for Osama bin Laden to $25m, “but right now letters to the Bounty Program cannot be opened—they were sent to the mail center and may be contaminated with anthrax.”

Andrea's CIA sources who would say such a thing?

Chants

Martin.

Fitz did not present the affidavit in question. NBC lawyers did.

Clarice is not a prosecutor. She can't "charge" anyone.

Clarice can not "swear out a complaint" against Fitz. She has no cause of action against him.

She has already written a letter to the professional conduct board.

Martin. You think like a 15 year old.

Rick Ballard

Slowkey

The notes are lost, but nothing I've seen indicates when or if Fitz ever even saw them. I'd be curious to have that question answered. Also the write up would normally indicate who else was on the call.

Agents not being able to find their notes or losing evidence is far from unheard of but I have to come down on the side of incompetence as suggested above.

I'm shocked Wells isn't making a bigger deal of this, highlighting it through some type of motion. Isn't there a jury instruction regarding lost evidence?

PS If I was going to confuse two reporters and I had a predominantly visual memory, I might tend to confuse two jowly smug round boys (Russert and Cooper)

Sara (Squiggler)

I just thought of something. Suppose that Libby is right and he talked to Russert twice, the 2nd time on the 11th. Suppose Russert already knew that Andrea was booking Wilson by the time Libby and Russert talk for the 2nd time. Now, suppose Russert said absolutely nothing about "da wife" in any way, shape, or form, but he did say that Wilson was emergency booked for MTP because of Novak's upcoming article about Wilson and how he got sent to Niger.

Wouldn't that possibly be the V-8 moment if Libby knew there was an article in the works. The moment when he realized that "all the reporters are talking about it." ??????

Molon Labe

Did the Libby/Russert call(s) take place after the Novak article had hit the advanced wires?

If it did, then isn't it highly likely that Russert had read it? I mean he has already given an example showing that his producers scan the advanced wires (by getting Wilson on MTP).

Wouldn't they have alerted him to the article? At the very least, it would show that it's not "impossible" for Russert to have known about Plame.

At best, it obviates the need for Russert to have learned about Plame through Mitchell/Gregory.

Rick Ballard

Slowkey,

Wells may take a hammer to the "missing" notes in conjunction with some comments about lead agents "retiring" at a point in the future. We know he didn't miss the fact but we also know that he's a maximum impact litigator. The notes are good for a 10:30AM appearance - right after the morning coffee has kicked in and the jurors are wide awake.

ghostcat

Ah assume y'all know Clarice's article is now on Miss Goldberg's verandah.

MayBee

How nice of Eckenrode to grant interviews to Corn and Isikoff before the case went to trial!!

clarice

Charlie(locked out in) Colorado asks me to post this:
"would you note to the
various people re Russert's claim to not know how people were booked
on MTP, either that night or in general (whichever it is), that
Russert is the Managing Editor, and responsible for exactly those
issues --- just as the managing partner of alaw firm is responsible
for keeping the clerks at their desk, ponding the drum, cracking the
whip, and throwing the laggards over the side."

********
Am I the only one that thinks the July 14 , 2003 spat between Andrea and Armitage relates to the possibility that he told her the story on deep background not for publication or whatever folderol they use to mean for your ears only and then gave Novak the scoop?
I can't prove it, of course just not the conjunction of events and my curiosity.

ghostcat

Heck hath no fury.

Rick Ballard

Vnjagvet, Clarice,

When JMH shows up maybe we could ask her to use RazzleDazzle to work on the reasonable doubt deal. It would be better to split MJW's synopsis into five posts and work on them separately. If Charlie(CO) drops by he can put up a a wiki on it if JMH doesn't care to use RazzleDazzle.

topsecrtetk9

Here is a fun game...guess Murray Waas's Source

clarice

MayBee, why shouldn't Eckenrode grant them interviews --they were his ticket to the bright lights.Corn took a story that was going nowhere, tied Emma Peel to the railroad tracks by evil warmongers so it would fit the average intellectual level of the general population (all these acronyms give us a headache we need something more like People mag) and gave this nothingburger wings.And certainly the VIPS fed him god knows what pablum to keep him on the track.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The Judge Bryant story was funny, but gory.

There's one I know that happened when Alan King went on Ed Sullivan's show. And, said, that he'd just come from the airport. Where TWA lost his luggage. And, he added. You know what that conveyor belt is? Where they put your luggage, and it goes through some black rubber curtains? The reason TWA wants you to report to the airport early is so you can wave bye-bye to your luggage.

TWA SUED.

And, Alan King tells the story that he skipped college (couldn't afford it.) But made so much money he sent his younger brother to law school. Only thing was his brother wasn't a polished dresser. He looks at his brother. Food stains on his tie. He looks over to TWA's counsel. POLISHED. HARVARD. And, thinks he's gonna lose the case.

When the judge hears the case. He rules by saying: "They lost my luggage, too."

Alan King reserved the right to use the real name of the airline. TWA? Tried to get him to make something up.

I kid you not. It was funny then. And, it's still funny, now.

Sorry to interrupt the flow of things.

clarice

ts, you are great--Waas' story sounds an awful lot like the Eckenrode story to Corn and Isikoff, doesn;t it?


Sara (Squiggler)

Remember that NBC has a strict policy -- say what you want as long as you NEVER EVER make NBC look bad. This Russert flap certainly makes NBC look bad.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Okay. Fitz comes on board January 2004. But he's given the WHOLE file. And, Eckenrode has an airport ride they share together, too.

Wouldn't he be responsible for KNOWING, when charging "process" crimes, that the ORIGINAL notes are important? I'd be surprised if the supreme court would uphold a conviction based on NON-SWORN testimony. ANd, worse. Sworn testimony in court; where Fitz's witness, BOND, said the FBI's notes, and what she thinks she typed, are different. To say nothing of Russert not making a match.

Fitz can't walk by saying he arrived too late at the party, can he?

BarbaraS

I agree. I have said for a long time I think the FBI agents handling this case, lied to the WH witnesses to get them to rat on others..and I think that it very likely what happened with Russert.

Clarice

Do you suppose this whole scam is still to get Rove or maybe Cheney? Maybe they hope Libby will toss Rove to them to save himself. Maybe they still think he will which is why they are still pressing on. Unfortunely for them, they can't get the real goods on the POTUS or the VP.

This whole thing sounds like a set up. I had thought Wilson started this himself, but now I wonder if it is a larger group of people in various departments of government at war with the administration and want to bring them down. It has the smell of Watergate press reactions. Bring out the crime. Get the VP disgraced. Then get the president. Do they never think of a new plot?

I thought it was a given that the investigating officer (FBI agent) testified at the trial he investigated. That anyone else testifying would be hearsay. Bond seems to have been brought into the case as an afterthought maybe so she could testify legally. It is very fishy that this guy would retire just before the trial of a case he so diligently investigated. You would think he would want to see it through to the finish.

centralcal

Oh, I think Eckenrode wanted to see it through to the finish and had every intention of doing so. However, HE became a liability to Fitz at some point, when he (Eckenrode) started leaking himself. I have become convinced that the whole "Fitzmas" excitement was a direct result of Eckenrode's loose lips.

kate

TS9-I always wondered who was feeding Waas. His stories were always very accurate, filled with insider info. Many acknowledged him to be the best investigative reporter on this story. I always thought his source was an assistant prosecutor on Fitz's staff. Now I think we know who it was.

Ranger

Martin,

You may have missed it, but Wells did state openly on the first day of Russert's cross words to the effect of:

You filed a false pleading, you mislead a federal judge.

Neither Fitz or Judge Walton objected to that comment. Making such an accusation in court is usually call for an immediate objection from the opposing counsel and/or an admonishment from the judge to not make accusations of the witness. It doesn't appear that either of those happened, presumably because the accuracy of Wells' statement was so obvious.

PaulV

We know that Fitz made untrue statement on his Miller affidavit and Russert make untrue statement on his affidavit.
Fitz had Russert testify when he knew or should have know that Russert had lied to court without revealing that fact to jury. Bad show. Should Russert's testimony be struck or cam the matter be handled in jury instructions.

topsecrtetk9

Waas' story sounds an awful lot like the Eckenrode story to Corn and Isikoff, doesn;t it?

and Kate.

YUP.
---

Also...that truthout JL article entered (the one that said Grossman was the 1 in 1x2x6) -- does that article have details that appear to be coming From FBI-ekenrode?

kate

It could be that Fitz was annoyed by the continuous leaks to Waas which were clearly not authorized. I think one leak to the New York Times the night before the indictment was probably authorized and came from Fitz office.

When Eckenrode was actually named as a source, in a Jason story of all places, Fitz decided that Eckenrode could not testify for the prosecution.

Canadianhoser

Wow....This has to be the single worst analysis that I have yet seen.
Are you guys sure that Ms. Feldman is legally trained?
I wish that I met lawyers like her in court, because I would be rich from beating them like a drum.
What a waste of my time to read 4th rate analysis. Maybe 4th rate is too charitable actually.
I would not even accept this analysis from my first year law students.

boris

buzz off eh

MayBee

Waas: His stories were always very accurate, filled with insider info.

Were being the operative word here. Someone should figure out when Waas slowed down vs. when Eckenrode retired.
And why Waas's book seems to have been pulled.
And why Waas seems to be steering pretty clear of this trial, although at one time he was our Woodward.

mytwocents

As another fan of JOM, I have been reading and thinking. It seems to me that Libby’s main focus was to get out the correction that the VP’s office was not involved. As the information was gathered, all sorts of little details entered the picture, but were over powered by the primary goal. The primary details were received as a shout while “Wilson’s wife, etc” was heard as a faint whisper of little note until Russert said something to bring that detail into clear focus.

In the short form of the indictment count 1b, Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; (not the truth of the statement, but that other reporters) Didn’t that come directly from the conversation with Harlow?

paladin2

I have been a Johnny one note from the start. This case is about the the distinction between "plame" and "wilson's wife" and the sucessfull ability, so far, to lie and conceal based on this distinction. Wells stayed away from this on the case in chief. Unless i am totally wrong, he will hit this hard n his defense. After a series of witnesses, I predict Russert will be recalled to show what he meant when he said he "didn't know who she was".

MarkO

May I make some observations that relate more to litigation generally and not necessarily to the discrete “facts” of this case?

These players are all exceptionally smart and seasoned. One would not expect them to be careless, but one could reasonably assume that the “evidence” differs from the “facts.” That is, unfortunately, the nature of litigation today.

First, the reason Tim Russert could and did testify that he did not tell his bosses about the FBI call was that he did not need to tell them. His lawyers told them. Remember, the lawyers are NBC’s lawyers and that was on purpose. Certainly, Russert could have hired a Cravath lawyer, so why the staff? Well, in so doing, the lawyers can inform others they represent under the umbrella of NBC of the conversations they are having with all the control group and the clients. They did this so there would be no actual conversations between or among Russert, Mitchell and the bosses. At the same time, the information would be passed among the group by counsel with the protection of the attorney client privilege. When Russert and Mitchell have the same lawyers there are no secrets between them. Yet, any seasoned observer knows that each of them knew exactly what the other would say. You will likely hear Mitchell say she has not discussed this matter with Russert. It will be strictly true. Moreover, Mr. Wells will not be permitted to ask if her lawyer told he anything Russert would say.

As to the FBI call to Russert, he likely has the useful mental reservation that he need not disclose any conversation with counsel. So, he would not describe how the call came about. Maybe not, but reading his other answers, he seems to follow that pattern of response. Take for example his parsing of his declaration. It was wonderful. How many times to you think he practiced that with counsel? How many different ways was it asked? How many rehearsals? Wonderful answer, but deceptive. And, this is the important point here: it is impossible to do anything about it.

Russert’s testimony seemed contrived to me. Unnatural, even when delivered by a pro. When he got a question he hadn’t woodshedded, he stumbled. He’s the only lawyer, and one of only twenty people in America, who doesn’t know one cannot have a lawyer in the GJ.

I hope this is not merely clutter.

This happens all the time. Even worse in civil litigation.

paladin2

I have been a Johnny one note from the start. This case is about the the distinction between "plame" and "wilson's wife" and the sucessfull ability, so far, to lie and conceal based on this distinction. Wells stayed away from this on the case in chief. Unless i am totally wrong, he will hit this hard n his defense. After a series of witnesses, I predict Russert will be recalled to show what he meant when he said he "didn't know who she was".

percipio

Would it be possible to find out if notes have gone 'missing' in any of Eckenrode's previous investigations?

sbw

Martin: Au contraire sbw. ... What think you?

I think you should stick to French -- French language, logic, law. Under French law, strange things can happen and mainstream media can disregard the truth with impunity.

And instead, the French courts and media have given us a classic case of aristocratic justice, the kind that Dreyfus elicited initially.
...
When faced with the classic dilemma of the Dreyfus affair, and here, the Muhammad al Durah affair — honor or honesty — those in favor of “social order” choose honor.
...
The real test of a democracy is not whether its courts are corrupt, but how it allows the news to reach the public and how it responds to that discovery.
Had you a modicum of appreciation of what our country is supposed to stand for, you would stand up, point to the MSM and Fitz, and shout, "J'accuse!"

Jane

You always know that Clarice has gotten it just right when the trolls come calling.

clarice

Not clutter at all, MarkO.

Jane

MarkO

I think you hit the nail on the head!

(Is typepad giving other people fits today?)

Sara (Squiggler)

Marko, could they ask if "anyone" relayed to her Russert's conversation or some rewording of that question? Or could they ask Andrea if she was prepped for her testimony and by whom?

MayBee

Ranger:
Fitz then sets up a public show of Russert's resistence to help the investigation. This makes everyone, including the Grand Jury think that Russert does not want to "burn" his "source."

Ahhh...another public show of resistance to testify by a Libby source, set up by Fitzgerald. This seems to be his general construct:
1- Libby counted on reporters not testifying
2- Three reporters publicly fought subpoenas, all Libby-related
3- The fact that they resisted testifying has been publicly pointed out by Fitzgerald and John Conyers as a sign of Libby's guilt


However,
Miller resisted to protect other sources
Cooper didn't resist that much more than any other reporter, it just got more coverage
Russert had already provided information to the FBI, a fact that was not publicly revealed

It seems to me Fitzgerald created a situation to make Libby look guilty, and then saw it as evidence of Libby's guilt.

Sara (Squiggler)


NBC's Big Black Kettle: Becoming Scooter Libby

clarice

MayBee, what a great analysis!

boris

Sara, access denied

kate

I always thought there were 3 sources of leaks from the investigation:

Larry and the VIPS-actually this was more wishful thinking than real leaks, the 22 indictments, Hadley/Rove, the world is ending because Val left, 24 business hours and ususally wrong. Faux leaks.

The authorized leak: only one from Fitz, the night before the indictment to the Times that Libby would be indicted, Rove would not for the time being.

The leaks to Waas. Someone with the investigation. Too broad a view to just be a "lawyer associated with the case".

For Waas, I have to see if Enkenode got gabby after his retirement or if he was the source all along.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

People should remember that GROSSMAN went to college (in Santa Barbara, I think), with JOE WILSON. And, in a "tight circle of friends," the only person who had none was Nixon.

The inner-circle in DC pointed this out.

So when you say GROSSMAN. You're talking about a "lantsman" to Wilson; which gives you better road directions than a Triple-A-Trip-Tic. To find your way among all the byways to Ecken Road.

Silence was good enough for Sherlock Holmes. It solved a mystery.

Here?

Ya know? I'm not so sure Fitzgerald's road-to-ho has been all that easy. He got great press coverage. And, then it seems to have stopped on a dime. He lost "praise" faster than Marlon Brando.

And, in getting Russert in trouble like this?

I don't care what Russert's public face looks like. He was heading towards David Broder's chair. Talk about removing him from a destination. Because of this lousy hot seat.

AND? Since Ranger points it out. Wells voice BOOMED in the courtroom. About the lies to Judge Hogan. And, the lies on the Affidavit. NOBODY SAID "BOO." And, Fitz just slid his behind downard in his chair (per Kristinn, who was sitting in the audience.) It's as if some of the air was let out of his tires.

Don't know what to make of Judge Walton's NOT admonishing Wells, if it isn't kosher to claim a witness lies to the court (any court). And, no challenge from the judge appeared, either.

On Monday, those who tune in will find out more. The curtain rises on the Defense.

I still say there are phones ringing off the hook telling Fitz to FOLD! (Well? Around the poker table, if you see you don't have cards. And, the bet's been raised. What do you do?) Again, the press is QUIET. They've made the trial disappear. But not to those who count! Not to Judge and Jury. And, not to others, like us, who peer in here, rather than into crystal balls.

My guess? Russert is now FRITZ-FRIED. Quiet now? Just you wait. The ketchup lady is gonna throw sauce on this thing. (Chance now goes to Andrea Mitchell, if the judge allows her IN. And, NBC has to come back with the notes, the judge has seen "inside-his-famous-camera.") Can't fundge him now with Burkett's Lucy Ramirez envelope. But she probably did get away with the notes she found, not at the rodeo, but on Eken Road Drive.

By the time this show is over, Harry Potter will be released.

Canadianhoser

By the way, I'm still enjoying my sabbatical.

Morons.

Love,
TCO

ghostcat

TCO -

That makes a bunch of us.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame