Powered by TypePad

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

February 10, 2007



oh, in the Waas quote above, the laugher is that it was well known by investigators who Novak's source was (or is waas playing cute with the 'name' thing?)

Barney Frank

--Rich, after all, was widely thought to be a very bad man.--

He is a very bad man and a very wealthy one. Clinton pardons don't come cheap.

Sorry about the 3:30 'italiactoing'; I was heading out the door and hit 'post' too quick. Only my first I think.


azaghal-here goes

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0533,waasweb1,66861,2.html


--It strikes me as a desperate attempt to find anyone who leaked earlier than the then known Armitage to Novak leak.--



Thank you for your response:

"Jerry: Both Tucker and Scarborough are at best RINOs. As far as Fox, you've got a rabid anti-military guy in Cavuto who is what I call a "captitalist democrat," unusual as most are socialists. The "fair and balanced" refers to guests not anchors. Try to find dissenting views on the other NBC"

Interesting, what I like is this bit

"The 'fair and balanced' refers to guests not anchors."

That does sound fair, compared to NBC for instance... oh, please, how extremely left are the guests on the Tucker or Scarborough show? Just let me see Fox have one truely liberal host in prime time, I'd shut up if they dared to do this.

Why not just admit that it is hugely hypocritical of O'Reilly to attack NBC?

But the goal of Fox isn't integrity (despite the posturing), it hypocritically attacks all other media sources -- hoping that it's viewers won't bother to test what they read/hear/see on Fox by checking any another media sources.


Absolutely, jerry, if you click on FNC, you're frozen at the dial and cannot no matter how hard you try switch to another.
*rolling eyes*


Did Russert testify that he and Libby did not discuss Wilson, as in Joe, during their phone call?


Clarice quotes Jason Leopold.




Your beloved Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson work with and feed info to Jason Leopold.


Carol Herman


Here's the best one liner I read (Rumplemeyer's comment up at FREEPERS). Adds something to look forward to:

"Look out boys, the Rats are abandoning ship, stand back and watch the SS Setup capsize and sink."

Barney Frank

--Just let me see Fox have one truely liberal host in prime time, I'd shut up if they dared to do this.

You don't understand. Fox has to balance three broadcast networks and several cable ones. They need exponentially more conservative hosts before that occurs.

BTW Greta van Susteren is a scientoligist. Does that count? The stuff they believe isn't any goofier than what the nutroots do.


Sue- I believe Russert testified that Wilson was not discussed AT ALL in his conversation with Libby. A bit implausible, as it seems Libby was complaining about Matthew's coverage of the Wilson story.


Thanks, kate. Obviously well-sourced article, but like most lefty commentary very short on what legal theories were being used to keep the investigation going.

Carol Herman


You know, Marc Rich has a wife, Denise, that has huge breasts. That she showed to Bubba. Honest, I always thought the wife got Clinton "interested." And, the pardon followed.

You'd pay a lawyer, even a good one like Libby, big bucks for getting your wife inside Bubba's pants? News to me. I grow up every day.


Oh Rick, btw, hilarious. Obviously Wells is there to bury Fitzgerald, not to praise him.

ps. I see we were having the same fantasy about a Waas subpoena. I do think it is interesting his book disappeared.

Carol Herman


Oh, my gawd. You're better than Neil Simon. I'm reposting this of yours, because it is so good. And, funny, too. It should not get lost in the ether.

"Eckenrode missing and Ecknrodes' missing notes are the equivalent of the superscipt on the Bush National Guard documents.

In the guard case, the superscript (th) should not have been there. In Fitzs case, Eckenrode and his notes should have been front and center.

Rick Ballard


Skip's reply was correct. I would only add that the term to describe an attorney who asks questions in court to which he does not know the answer is 'unemployed'. Wells called Russert a liar without any objection being raised. I'm not sure that Eckenrode could add value to that impeachment.

I'd like to see him on the stand but only under the prisoner's dilemma circumstance.


You know, Marc Rich has a wife, Denise, that has huge breasts

Carol, now I have to take back what I said about my Jr. Prom.


clarice quotes Waas:

By November, investigators had obtained personal notes of Libby's that indicated he had first learned from Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer. But Libby was insisting in FBI interviews that he had learned Plame's name and identity from journalists. Libby was also telling investigators that when he told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, he was only passing along an unsubstantiated rumor.
I have read it three times, but I still can't answer this question - did Libby, with or without the assistance of his notes, tell the FBI in his October interview that he first learned about Ms. Plame from Dick Cheney?
Except that we have now seen that the note said that Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife worked in "CP" (as in counterproliferation.) That could be several different agencies -- besides the CIA there would be the DIA, NSA, State Dept., even the DOE. (The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is under the DOE, and employs many of our nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.) There is no evidence that Cheney told Libby that it was "CIA" in particular. Fitzgerald has not proven who told Libby "CIA" and when. (No, the reconstructed memories of people who felt guilty and are guessing that they did something are not proof.)

Sara (Squiggler)

Jerry, MSNBC is a joke that has only gotten worse since they put Dan Abrams in charge. It is like watching an even more sordid tabloid version of the National Enquirer. CNN, although head and tails above MSNBC, is still a leftist mouthpiece for jihadists, socialists and communists. I cannot speak to the network news of CBS, NBC, or ABC as I stopped watching them at least 10 years ago.

I cannot say that I'm particularly enamored of most Fox coverage. For instance, I cannot stand Sean Hannity. But I do like their specials, especially the more recent ones on Radical Islam. I also like Fox and Friends. For crime coverage, I like Greta. I usually check in for O'Reilly's talking points and if there is a subject of interest, I'll stick around. I really like Ollie North's segments he does. The new one is a must see.

I get the majority of my news online, either from blogs, online news sources, or sites like CENTCOM, DOD, White House, and I read several milbloggers and at least ten blogs from Iraq by Iraqis. I scan the major headlines of at least 10 foreign newspapers as well. So I think I stay pretty well informed from a variety of sources coming from a variety of positions.


"Absolutely, jerry, if you click on FNC, you're frozen at the dial and cannot no matter how hard you try switch to another.
*rolling eyes*"

Clarice, if you believe this you should certainly agree with me about O'Reilly.

Not only does Fox have NO liberal hosts for their shows, unsuprising to me (while NBC has Republicans), but simply switching the channel would solve his unhappiness about a leftward tilt at NBC or about discussion being "Fair and Balanced."

I don't mind strong left or right wing shows, I watch Matthews and Scarborough most every night, but I'm annoyed by O'Reilly attacking NBC when Fox doesn't make any effort to have a liberal show.

BTW, the idea that the whole of the media is liberal is also a red herring, sure can't say this of talk radio, or that anti-establishment rag the Wall Street Journal! Come to think of it, does the WSJ have even one liberal columnist now that Al Hunt has left? The NYT has Brooks and that other guy (sorry can't remember his name) as well as Safire.

I just don't think this is an honest argument.


Ha, make that jerry not kim... the world is such a complicated place.


Why are we discussing Bill O'Reilly's opinion of MSNBC?


I do not have the sort of knowledge of the available evidence in this case and in that blind spot may be the answer to the question I am about to pose. Why not call the VP?

If I were trying this case, I would clearly call the VP to testify. With the limiting rulings of the Judge (some of which seem erroneous) there seems to be no downside to Libby’s defense.

Moreover, he is the equivalent of a renown expert. He is commanding. He is knowledgeable. And, he is, after all the Vice-President. Larger than life. Even if a juror does not like his policies, no juror would brook a mean spirited attack by Fitzgerald, if he even dared. Taking on the VP would be like cross examining a child. No good can come of it.

After all the foul things that had been said about Ken Starr, he was unfailingly polite to President Clinton. He was the President. Anyone who claims to “want a piece” of the VP doesn’t understand litigation and has never cross-examined a strong-minded witness.

This is the dirty little secret. The witness gets to answer; the lawyer can only ask questions. A good witness is always in charge. See, e.g. T. Russet.

Bring it on.


If you look at the Fox primetime lineup you've got:

Greta van Susteren, who's no conservative.
Hannity and Colmes, one of each.
O'Reilly, who's a conservative populist

Seems pretty balanced, no?

BTW, I pretty much can't watch more than 3-4 minutes of O'Reilly unless he's got a segment on a topic I really want to see. Hannity and Colmes is moderately more watchable, just to see whether or not Colmes eyebrows will roll over the top of his head.

Greta's watchable unless there's some particular crime beat going on - but whenever something's in the news that's her area it's beaten to death.


"Why are we discussing Bill O'Reilly's opinion of MSNBC?"

There was a link at the beginning of this thread about O'Reilly and NBC, and I thought it would be a good debating topic (in my limited trollish way I had a point I wanted to make).

I won't be boorish about it though.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well Jerry/Kim, I can tell you that just about the time you are totally convinced that O'Reilly is conservative, he'll pull a fast one on you and go after that side with a vengeance. O'Reilly isn't about political sides, he is about ratings and pissing people off. One of his favorite guests is Al Sharpton, second favorite, Barney Frank. And his beef with NBC is Arkin and his stupid remarks against our troops in a war zone. I think if Arkin had an cajones, they should be castrated, so to me O'Reilly isn't tough enough on him.


HEH--I am tired but it was puzzling jerry/kim.

I think Brit Hume is the best tv news on the air..and I think while it may sound very very conservative to you, it is straight down the middle.

Everything else is entertainment and Shep Smith is no more a comservative than you are.

Now MSNBC is unlikely to take news tips from me, but my guess is that the moonbat audience which is theirs is not changing much and in fact probably shrinking as the woodstock crowd fades into retirement homes and their younger viewers start earning enough money to pay real taxes. I think if they tried to one run show that didn't require you be batshit crazy as a test of my theory they might increase viewership. OTOH I think it even more likely they will just turn the place into a complete circus of vulgar inanities and stop pretending they have a news service at all.

TV may be good for many things, but it is essentially an emotive , visual vehicle which simply is not a good forum for serious news coverage, and anyone who thinks it is, is not being honest. The best we can hope for is that the people who run them get more responsible in their coverage than they have been.

Barney Frank

--I won't be boorish about it though.--

Is that your jerry personality talking or kim?



Carol Herman


In poker, you get cards that are face down.

Wells doesn't have to show that he will call the veep. He just has a stack of aces. He can roll out when needed.

IF HE SAID NOW, that he was calling Cheney? Every other witness would get ignored. (And, I might find a way to fly to DC, so I can be in the court room and flash him.) You laugh? In my younger years, I remember campaign workers who'd pin their Kennedy for President buttons to the front of their panties. ANd, then they'd do the Can-Can.

AH, but we get old. And, I can no longer kick that high.

WHomever Wells calls now. People who can't get news out of the press, or TV? They are here. And, they play PONG. From here to Maine Blogger. And, back. IF only my backside got as much exercise.


Just a guess here, but I think Fitz' day of reckoning is coming, and it is coming in the courtroom.

Ooooh. I'll bet not. Walton finds him very scrupulous, remember.

Posted by: MayBee | February 10, 2007 at 06:20 PM

Unfortunately, at this point, I agree with Maybee.

Rick Ballard


Call the VP one day and Karl Rove the next with both of them confirming that Libby had spoken to them right after he talked to Russert and that Libby was amazed that Russert asked him about Wilson's wife.


Sue- I believe Russert testified that Wilson was not discussed AT ALL in his conversation with Libby.

That is why I think Russert is lying. If the jury saw the transcripts of the two shows Libby called about, they wouldn't believe Russert that Libby didn't discuss Wilson. Which is why I think this trial is a farce.

As to the person asking about liberals on FoxNews in primetime, you have Alan Colmes, and Greta Van Sustren's husband worked for the Kerry campaign, in a prominent position. Something she told you repeatedly when she did reports about the 04 campaign.


a little OT...but TM referred to Cooper's MTP appearance where he refers to "other" sources and also said the GJ knows what he knows (he said in that appearance 2 of his sources were Rove and Libby) but Byron York also got a little more from Cooper's attorney in July of 2005

Russert moved on to another issue, but the line of questioning left open the matter of who the additional source or sources might have been. Contacted by National Review Online, Cooper's lawyer, Richard Sauber, played down the issue.

"It really is not something that I would spend a lot of time on," Sauber said, adding that Cooper has told everything he knows to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. But Sauber declined to say why Cooper has not publicly discussed the possible additional sources. Even though Cooper is legally free to discuss his grand-jury testimony publicly — indeed, he wrote an entire article entitled, "What I Told the Grand Jury," in which described his conversations with Rove and Libby — Cooper has remained publicly silent about other possible sources.

"There are good reasons for it that have nothing to do with protecting sources," Sauber said. "Fitzgerald knows the story." Asked again why Cooper has chosen not to speak publicly about the other sources, when he has spoken publicly about Rove and Libby, Sauber said, "Let's just leave it at that. I would not spend any time on it, because I think it's sort of pointless."

At the moment, it is simply not possible to know whether the additional source or sources mentioned by Cooper are bit players, or tangentially involved, as Sauber's words might suggest, or whether they are important figures in the investigation.


Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice, I'm with you on Brit Hume. I also think he has trained up both Jim Angle and Brian Wilson to his standards. Shep is a joke who really belongs on MSNBC. He makes me want to gag. And those women lawyer/commentators are all harridans in my opinion. I sometimes wonder what world they live in.

Barney Frank


--A good witness is always in charge. See, e.g. T. Russet.--

Agreed about Cheney. Even if he wasn't VP, he is not one to be rattled. He made a monkey out of Lieberman in 2000 who is no fool.

On Russert however you lost me. Are you saying he was in charge? On at least two occasions I count, he was forced by Wells to deliberately lie concerning two different aspects of trying to cover for the affidavit he filed.


T. Russet, eh? Is that a clever pun about Mr. Potato Head?


I'd just first like to say, again, that I was a fully integrated kim until I came to JOM but here there already was a kim (======, if you recall) so I chose jerry from "what's the story jerry?" a famous ad from my youth around NYC. I've maintained jerry, hoping kim (===) might return and feeling it would be too confusing for everyone for me to change to kim now. But I use kim elsewhere, thus the confusion. No, Clarice, not Kerry, Please!

I'd still like to see Fox have a few real liberals as hosts, given their balanced rallying cry (not to mention changing those anemic liberal pundits - Hannity and Kondrake, I've renewed my regard for Juan Williams, though I'm turned off by Brit's tendency toward tongue lashing).


kim/jerry- keep in mind that FoxNews is just FoxNews, but NBC news is MSNBC, CNBC (who O'Reilly was complaining about in the story), NBC News, and possibly the Today Show (which is technically in the NBC entertainment group).



It turns out that putting Kennedy on one’s panties was more than just patriotism, it was foreshadowing.

I don’t expect Mr. Wells to do more than he has regarding his decision, but my question is less about that (and the blessing of flashbacks) than why he would not call the Veep.

Certainly, the defense has a shadow jury and has already gone through this with other rehearsal juries and the jury consultant. Perhaps, these samplings have shown the D.C. reaction to the VP is so hostile that ordinary considerations fail.

Some of the other proposed witnesses are nothing but upside. A mistake from Mitchell (and I can’t wait to hear the equivocation the NBC lawyers have approved for her) and it’s another plus. Even if she sticks to her story, she will give evidence that once she said that everyone knew. In my view, the government’s argument that the defense is calling her merely for impeachment is dishonest. In addition, it merely restates the NBC position. Do you think the NBC lawyers have reviewed this with Fitzgerald? If they didn’t, they have malpracticed.

Whatever come into evidence, at the worst, it’s something to add to the list of evidence for argument (more on that another time). Gregory and the others are the same. If they deny knowledge, their denials can be argued as irrational. Maybe, they will forget that no lawyers are permitted in the GJ.

The Veep seems to me to be the only positive witness Libby has.


I don't understand why anyone on the left cares what is on Fox News? Don't watch it. Turn the channel. That is what I do with MSNBC. And most of CNN.

Caveat: I love MSNBC Investigates. They have some great story lines that really go indepth.


Sue- you raise a good point. I suppose getting a tape or transcript of the Matthews show during Russert's testimony was impossible for Wells to do, for some reason. I think it would have been brilliant.



I din't mean to suggest that Mr. Wells did not effectively cross Russert (or in my imitable spelling, Russet), it was difficult and a lesser lawyer might not have made any points.

It can be very difficult with a good witness.


The good thing about Juan Williams is that he is a decent guy and not very smart..his notions on foreign policy, however, represent a straight line from the DoS to you--consider a peek into Foggy Bottom.

Even when I want to smack my hand thru the screen and tell him he's an idiot, I remember what he said of the goofy Black Yale alums who made such dumb charges about Anita Hill(like I could tell the way she looked at me across the room she really wanted me).Juan famously wrote "Now I can see the wisdom of the saying that Yale has ruined more good Black men than crack."
He won my heart forever with that.But I rarely agree with him.
(I think he and Brit are actually very, very close friends.)

Curly Smith

What are the odds that at least one member of the jury sent the judge a question late Thursday along the lines of "That's it? Can we go home now?"


Imitable, smitiable. This is why I have a secretary.

I meant “inimitable.” No joke is good if it has to be explained.


"I don't understand why anyone on the left cares what is on Fox News?"

I've very interested, around half of the country watches Fox, the Republican establishment gets their side of the story (and their bias) out on Fox.

I have the feelings that I've expressed because I watch Fox and think that it is often very misleading - "fair and balanced" being the perfect Orwellian mis-statement that defines that network.


I am very tired and regret I must leave you to your devises. MarkO I think the decision about the VP has not yet been made. I think the defense has a great deal more in their portfolio than we can dream of..

BTW, before I go, what do you suppose the judge's ereaction would be if it turned out the defense could prove at least one key member of the SP staff was regularly leaking to reporters and potential witnesses about about gj matters?


Azaghal wrote: So how about this? Maybe the intel people at the FBI had it in for neocons. Remember Martin said Libby thought "neocon" was an antisemitic codeword? I've read more than once that the FBI has long been bitter over the Pollard case, and the accusation that neocons are essentially agents of Israel--that is, they try to direct US foreign policy with Israel's benefit in mind rather than that of the US--has certainly been made more than once. From this standpoint, the selling point for the FBI would be roughly something like this: here is your chance for a little payback. The neocons who gave us Pollard and have protected Israeli agents are now outing covert agents who dare to question their agenda. This is our chance to get them on a short leash.

Only problem is that Pollard is not AFAIK a neocon. In fact, he appears to have self generated. No one brought him. He brought himself.

And we're talking 20 years on. I suppose it is possible that Eckenrode was there for Pollard and was still bitter about it - but the FBI culture generally being still bitter about it? Wasn't he in naval intelligence, not the FBI. Without more facts, I feel resistant to going down this path.

Though the fact that Clarice appears to agree makes me think that there is a whole lot of nasty stuff percolating through the bowels of the FBI.

Can anyone say more.


Buenas noches.
Nos veremos, manana.



I thiink the left is in a snit about Fox not because it is so conservative because it isn't, but because it represents the loss of a one-time monopoly and a diminution of the cultural hegemony the left held just decades ago.


Special Report/Brit Hume is my favourite newscast as well. I love it when Charles Krauthammer is on the panel and at the introduction, the camera zooms in on him and he always looks like a big 'ol cat, ready to oh-so-elegantly (and eloquently!) pounce.


Alcibiades..Google David Szady--And then check into the AIPAC trial which I may cover this summer if I survive this one.

Carol Herman


Oh, now we have a Cheney MEME going?

Wells will do the "calling" business folks.

You gotta remember who IS in charge. Mark O, in a terrific analysis showed WHY Cheney would be great on the stand! He used examples. The Lieberman debate from 2000. (Remember? Both men vying for the veep slot? You do remember who ran with Algore, no? It's not like I'm asking to remember Hannibal Hamlin.)

Answer on Hannibal Hamlin is that he was Lincoln's VEEP, first term. It's okay. I don't give tests.

The trial, by the way, for those as addicted as me, runs a total from four to six weeks. With Wells "mapping out" a general idea that he has two more weeks to go. Or, "8-business days." The court is never in session of Fridays.

Can the clock be extended? Well, they can take the one that gets set up for football games. I think if you throw the right color handkerchief onto the floor,the clock stops.

All I know about Monday, coming? Clarice is in the court room. Free Republic is also a good site, when my PONG game needs "alternates." And, I go to DRUDGE. Just to see what the "wires" are carrying, and what he thinks is headline news worthy.

Ah. And, Jill Abramson is ON. My guess is more details will come out about Andrea Mitchell as well.

Whose in charge of the court room, here? JUDGE REGGIE WALTON.

We don't even know if (curtesy to Patton), Eecon-o-road, ends up FONT and centered. With a typewriter expert, or Mary Mapes, following in his wake. Let's see how the SS SET-UP actrually manages to get tugged into port. You don't think a lot of careers are riding on this? Flame or Plam-ay'ed. Your choice. It comes with FRITZ-FRIES, too. If you want 'em.


BTW, before I go, what do you suppose the judge's ereaction would be

errr....your typo implies you think he'd find it very exciting


Heh..I'll be typing little letters into the anti-spam bot in my sleep.



If it lasts more than 4 hours, he should see his physician.


Una cosa mas,


Mistrial and a full Nifongification.

Followed by Denise Rich---if only for the "eraction."

I know you did that on purpose to make me feel better.


Speaking of Waas and leaked GJ testimony, I know his "explosive" Cathie Martin article was considered -if true- to be leaked GJ testimony -- obviously she wasn't explosive or whatever, but did any of the story and her trial testimony match up to be leaked GJ stuff/

Bill in AZ

jerry, Foxnews being to the right of you says more about you than it does about Foxnews.


"I thiink the left is in a snit about Fox not because it is so conservative because it isn't, but because it represents the loss of a one-time monopoly and a diminution of the cultural hegemony the left held just decades ago. "

Representing the left this evening, I'd say that I want an argument out of Fox, or the WH, that at least makes an effort toward integrity.

I hate to insist on this, but if Fox has no liberal hosts (yet commplains about balance), and Iraq never had any WMDs, I tend to think that the truth is irrelevant to Fox, and to my President.

Am I the only one who thinks that malign leaders pushing fraudulent arguments should be called to account?


Anyone who thinks this " malign leaders pushing fraudulent arguments "is an accurate description of this administration might find it easier to get news from Trudeau cartoons.

You may disagree with the Administratiion's foreign policy initiatives, but "malign'? "fraudulent arguments"? you don't want a liberal host on Fox. As I said what you want is a return to the 60's when you could count on all the networks parroting crap like that.

Niters. This time I mean it.

Sara (Squiggler)

A bit of Fox trivia, sort of. In my first newspaper job, my immediate supervisor and super bitch was Roger Ailes' sister. As heavy as Roger is, his sister was just the opposite. Very anorexic looking. Of course, this was years before anyone knew that brother Roger would turn out to be a big wig.


Why can't they put Fitz and Eckenrode in jail till the produce the interview notes of the interview between Eckenrode adn Russert ?

It seems to work with Judy Miller.

Sara (Squiggler

Oh and don't forget that Roger Ailes left CNBC to do the start up of the Fox Network. A big career risk at the time.


Late to the party. But wanted you to know that I sent out Clarice's post this afternoon. I just resent it along with the SWOPA "transcripts" to FNC. Put Subject as "Is FOX afraid of Russert and NBC", if I have your email address, it is in you inbox now. Sent to every FNC email address I have. I also changed title and text to send to all the blogs including my list of MilBlogs to ask them to join in on this and to closely watch MTP tomorrow.

Just yesterday FOX announced the start of a business channel to challenge CNBC. Can't see that softballing Russert and his gang's participation in Plamegate will make NBC hold Fox in high regard. ::::laughing::::


Hey Larwyn...I miss you! Nice to hear from you.

Sara (Squiggler

Hey Larwyn, good to see you posting. You should also check out the article at Maine Web Report (mainewebreport.com) Lance Dunston has been doing a terrific job of live blogging the trial and he deserves some publicity, IMHO.


Tops- Do you mean the Waas report that came out just before the trial started?
The following parts are almost totally bunk:
On the flight back to Washington, Cheney huddled with two of his top ... According to federal court records, the three discussed how to counter and discredit the allegations made by a former U.S. ambassador,

Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.

During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said virtually nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson. [Editor's note: This sentence is worded differently than in the original version posted on January 12, 2007.]

Instead, both testified that Libby discussed the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger. The discussion between Libby and Cooper was the first that the then-vice presidential chief of staff and the Time correspondent spoke of Plame.

But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship. Before the two telephone calls that Libby placed to Miller that day, both had spoken about Plame on two earlier occasions, on June 23, 2003 and July 8, 2003.

Libby spoke to Cooper, Miller, Thomas, and Kessler. He told them all about the report, making the statement Cheney had asked him to make.

What Miller herself did not know during her grand jury testimony was that a key issue for federal investigators was whether she would testify as to whether Libby had attempted to leak her anything about the CIA debriefing report of Wilson after his Niger trip. Prosecutors believed that Miller was perhaps attempting to protect Libby in her testimony.
Why that would be a key issue, I have no idea. It certainly wasn't a "key issue" at trial.

During one of his initial interviews with the FBI, Libby was shown copies of his own notes showing that as early as June 11 or June 12, 2003, Vice President Cheney was either the first or second person to tell him that Plame was a CIA officer

Bunk. Libby voluntarily produced those notes to the FBI, and showed them to his interviewer.

In his interviews by the FBI and testimony before the federal grand jury, Libby testified that it was the reporters who told him, and not the other way around, that Plame was a CIA officer.

Bunk. Libby "admitted" He told Cooper and Kessler.

There's more, but this is impossibly long in a long thread. Maybe TM would enjoy a post-trial debunking of Waas.

Sara (Squiggler

Gee Maybee, I'm surprised. From the git go of coming to JOM a couple weeks after the Presser, I got the impression that Waas was TM's hero. He certainly quoted him as gospel often enough back then, which is something I always thought weird. It has only been recently that I've begun to doubt my ongoing impression that TM has believed Libby guilty as hell because Waas says so. Are you saying this impression has been wrong all this time.


Wouldn't it be a scene out of a Hollywood movie if Eckenrode showed up on Monday at the courthouse with a copy of his notes of the interview with Tim Russert ?

Sara (Squiggler

Wish we had an email for Eckenrode, I'd write and ask him, "Hey G-man, whadja do with the Libby notes? Bet he'd say Fitz had them last when he turned over the whole file.

Sara (Squiggler

Or maybe those notes ended up in a courier pouch on the way to Cuba or somewhere.


Fitgerald was looking for someone who leaked about Plame before Armitage did. That's why he was so insistant about Judy Miller's meeting with Libby on June 23. He was trying to set him up even then. It might be that he wanted to set him up from before he was appointed and he got Comey to appoint him for that reason.

I think Armitage leaked about Plame to Miller and Mitchell off the record. That's why she was so mad at him because Novak got the scoop and she kept silent. She has more or less exposed her source, Armitage, when she sniped that he no longer returned her phone calls. But look at it this way. If Armitage told Mitchell about Plame what would be the odds that she did not tell Russert immediately. I'll bet she did and that is why NBC if fighting tooth and nail to keep her off the stand. She probably can't say she did not discuss this the Russert and Russert's credibility would then be absolutely shot.

I saw her say on tv that reporters knew about Plame. She really didn't want to answer and was quite hesitant to do so but she did say it because she was on the spot

The chances of Russert not knowing about Plame are slim. He is in with all these people and if they knew so did he. What it boils down to is he lied again on the stand and should be up for perjury charges. Wouldn't that be a hoot?



I appreciate you doing that. I just remember it was based on "GJ testimony"

So. Waas is not **alone** in getting these misleading "scoops" - wonder who could be prompting this?

You asked the timeline of the Waas slow-down. I seem to recall it was exactly right after the big KOS convention that was just before Jason's big scoopdeloo.

I remember thinking it must be a bitter pill for Waas to **internally** swallow. He did in fact share the same fibbing source with discredited JL-- and that source was supposed to be the hero in all this.



--Fitzgerald was looking for someone who leaked about Plame before Armitage did. That's why he was so insistant about Judy Miller's meeting with Libby on June 23.--

I have always said that Woodward was the beginning of Fitz's headache. No doubt he had a "WHAT?" moment but played it cool and subjected Mr. Woodward to the Pres. Depo treatment.

I think the straw was the judges ruling --based on notes Fitz did NOT have -- Cooper -- his star against Rove, would be impeached

That ruling was about roughly when Ekenrode retired - Feb. 2005.


I am still only at ~ 7:20pm in reading comments and links - but the talk of Mrs. Rich and her boobs made me go back to gmail which put a little "weblink" headline at top of form. The one I wanted to actually see was re Clinton's new "friend" - the page reads "The First Post: Bill and Belinda's Excellent Adventure.


Bill and Belinda’s excellent adventure

But Clinton’s new, er, friendship isn’t helping his wife’s presidential aims, writes eric reguly

As potential girlfriends go, Belinda Stronach would rank as a true catch. She is single, youngish (she just turned 40), attractive, wealthy, impeccably well-connected and politically ambitious - glamorous in every respect. Two years ago, Time magazine listed her as one of the 100 most powerful people on the planet. The tabloids cut to the chase: they called her the "blonde bombshell" or "Bubba's blonde."

Bubba, of course, is Bill Clinton. He has been photographed with Stronach (right) several times. The sightings seem to be getting more frequent, leading to
press speculation that their relationship has moved beyond official "friendship" - the description used by Stronach's PR people - to true romance. Poor Hillary Clinton. In the run-up to her presidential campaign, the last thing the New York senator needs is lurid stories about her skirt-chasing husband....

There are actually links to 4 separate posts on this. I'd love to see the South Park guys or somesuch do a few episodes of the 1st Female President chasing her First Laddy out of his JFK baptized "special places".

Hope all on the west coast will tune into SNL - I missed the first half hour but they went after Obama and Pelosi on Newscast and in skit with Jessie and Sharpton - so I'm wondering how they opened the show?

Now back to reading the comments from 7:20pm. By the time I catch up, you'll all be abed.


TS- I would guess from some postings here and at ew's that some JL fans are quite hostile toward Waas. It could be because Waas has said bad things about Leopold's reporting (at YK). That would indeed be ironic if that caused Waas's source to dry up. Or maybe his source just retired.
I'm looking back through some of his stuff. He seems like he did have a source, but a lot of his reporting was smoke and mirrors.
Sara- I don't know if TM is/was a fan of Waas. I didn't get the impression that he thought he was always right, though. I don't know.


He was trying to set him up even then. It might be that he wanted to set him up from before he was appointed and he got Comey to appoint him for that reason.

If you look at the other cases he's tried, that would make sense.



I don't it think caused Waas's source to dry up (although that is a good point) but I can't shake that Waas had an "internal" come to jesus moment.

During the "24 bizHours" - T-out founder had a self defending moment - the man behind the curtain - helping, working with, deleting sources for T-out was Wilson.

Waas weighing ideological devotion vs, career defining reporting, it would be demoralizing to learn your man behind the curtain was the same as JL's man behind the curtain (and talk about the mind boggling realization the "Hero" was WORKING everyone in every direction - a man whose charge you were championing engaging in the same crap he was accusing?)

I am sure wilson "directed" more legit info to Waas - and used T-Out for other reasons. But I get a feeling a "trust" problem popped up with Waas.


Case in point - while David Corn's pieces was SOOOO propaganda - if you read it - he puts out a bunch of only wilson supplied info and accusations - but h does in ALL in the hypothetical - so he can pretend to hold his head up high - and in a way he has a point.

He did Wilson's bidding - but in no way to the point he truly bent the rules.

Clever that one.

Sara (Squiggler

A few people have mentioned their fantasy Perry Mason moments that they wish they could see during this trial. I have my own. It is Woodward coming in and telling it straight out -- Armitage is a lowlife, gutless coward who was/is willing to sit safe while another man takes the rap for him.



Woodward likes Armitage.

Do you wonder if "Hubris" - the printing before the trial was a purposeful derailment or just a derailment inadvertently?

Sara (Squiggler

TS -- Woodward might have liked him, but when I saw Woodward on, I think, Larry King, right after Armitage finally went public, he wasn't very charitable towards Armitage for keeping quiet for so long and for not taking Woodward's calls regarding giving him permission to come forward. There was real anger there. I don't think Novak thinks very kindly of him either, which makes me think maybe Armitage also rubbed Andrea so far the wrong way, she may not be as protective as she could be either.



I did NOT mean that to sound snotty, I hope it didn't. I hope you are right, and agree Novak isn't so pleased with Armitgae. I am not getting a vibe Woodward was/is angry with RA - in fact Woodward carried water for RA this whole time - calling the investigation ridiculous - Fitz a junkyard prosecutor - all for Amritage or to insulate from being subpoenaed - because Woodward was only involved by him.

My personal opinion is there were 2 NON secrets in DC

1. VP worked at CIA and was Wilson's wife
2. Armitage talked, told, gossiped, blabbed, conversed this to a bunch of reporters and everyone knew his info AND he was the "leaker" from day one

Sara (Squiggler

Has anyone read this book listed at Wiki under Andrea Mitchell:

Also in 2005, Mitchell wrote a book entitled Talking Back... to Presidents, Dictators, and Assorted Scoundrels, chronicling her work as a journalist.

Sara (Squiggler

No TS, I did not think you were sounding snotty. I don't really know, other than what I thought I was picking up in an otherwise controlled interview. Larry King isn't exactly deep, if you get my meaning.

If Woodward thinks it is a junk prosecution, that seems like good news for Libby.

My impression from Woodward's remarks was he was disappointed that Armitage wasn't standing up as a man, like Woodward, I think, thought he should have.

Also in 2005, Mitchell wrote a book entitled Talking Back... to Presidents, Dictators, and Assorted Scoundrels, chronicling her work as a journalist.

The local library has a couple of copies, so I just may trot over there in the Morning.


I have what's probably a silly questions for our lawyer commenters. As has been discussed many times, one of the requirements for the perjury counts is that the question be material to the investigation. What I'd like to know is how the government established the subject of the investigation to the jury. I assumed they'd have to, for instance, call the grand jury foreman and ask about the subject of the grand jury inquiry. I'm pretty sure no grand jury related witnesses were called, and the DOJ website doesn't show any grand jury related evidence except the Libby transcripts. Were the comments made by Fitz in the transcripts sufficient to establish the purpose of the grand jury?

Sara (Squiggler

I was trying to figure out what Mitchell was doing in 2002 and 2003 because her resume seems to skip those years. I found this paragraph at MSNBC in a bio:

Throughout 2002 and 2003, Mitchell covered the United Nations debate leading up to the Iraq war and provided detailed reports on the questions surrounding pre-war intelligence and weapons of mass destruction.
Sara (Squiggler

Boy oh boy is Mitchell ever full of herself.

washingtonpost.com Media Mix-It-Up At State Department

By Lloyd Grove

Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page D03

It can't be said often enough: Don't mess with Andrea Mitchell.

Last Monday afternoon, the State Department's public affairs shop e-mailed beat reporters that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had agreed to appear that very night on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, "On the Record."

Mitchell went ballistic.

"This is OUTRAGEOUS," NBC's foreign policy correspondent scorched the State Department flacks in an e-mail. "He [Armitage] can't answer telephone calls or REPEATED requests for backgrounders or an on-camera interview from the correspondent representing the most widely watched NETWORK newscast . . . and he's doing a FOX talk show that has no relationship to foreign policy?"

Mitchell vented: "I don't get it but it is very upsetting. It also defies any understanding of the difference between the NBC Nightly News, TODAY program, CNBC and MSNBC PLUS the nation's biggest Web site. Is the administration that desperate to appeal to a niche audience? If I sound upset, it's because I am."

Mitchell's e-mail was widely circulated to an appreciative audience and eventually came to us. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker defended Armitage's level of accessibility. "He is well represented across the spectrum of this nation's and the world's electronic media." But Reeker declined to discuss Mitchell's complaints. "That," he said cheerfully, "would betray my relationship with Andrea Mitchell."

Mitchell, meanwhile, said: "I'm never going to apologize for aggressively trying to get the deputy secretary of state to come on NBC, especially since we have the biggest audience and do such extensive reporting on foreign policy."

Van Susteren, for her part, told us: "I don't know what she means by 'niche' programming. At Fox, we covered the war in Iraq wall to wall. I really think she is tipping her hat to me because I beat her out. If she would like, I would be more than happy to give Andrea Mitchell an interview on foreign policy."

Ralph L.

MarkO said:
These players are all exceptionally smart and seasoned.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
It appears everyone involved in this trumped up scandal, from Wilson to the FBI to Fitz to Little Lord Timmyboy, has come out looking careless, stupid, dishonest, or all of the above. Can you say "own-goal?"
Original targets Bush, Cheney, and Rove walk away.

Sara (Squiggler

Agree Ralph.

For me, I can't get past Armitage's betrayal in all this. I don't know if any others feel as I do, but frankly, I think Armitage had a DUTY to go to the President immediately. The fact that DOJ/FBI told him not to is not an excuse, in my mind. Had he gone to the President, I doubt Fitz would have been appointed and this whole mess would have been avoided. The fact that he didn't is a pure and simple act of cowardice and deceit.

Sara (Squiggler

Just a note to answer an earlier question -- Jack Eckenrode, FBI is on the potential witness list but it combines names that might be mentioned at trial so it is hard to tell which category he falls under.


TS9: I believe that Wilson blabbed to whomever would listen,although he tried not to be the front man. He and his lawyer would not have access to the entire GJ proceeding and could make guesses based on Wilson's agenda. That's why the flurry of activity when Val was shopping her book, when their lawsuit hit. Also, the constant surfacing of Hadley. Most of Wilson's stuff was wrong.

Waas had a different source. I remember that TM looked forward to a new Waas article because it had so much good info. No someone associated with the investigation was leaking to Waas.


I'm not a lawyer but for me Ekenrode is such a big part of Russert's testimony. Unless Wells would rather have the jury ponder over the bizarre circumstances behind the infamous Ekenrode/Russert telephone conversation, I would imagine having a real go at Ekenrode over the missing notes cannot do any harm to Libby. And did he really bump into Russert when the church group toured the NBC HQ? Was the tour for real? Can he name any other member who would vouch for his presence in the tour? When a person is under oath, strange things can happen. I'm just a layman.


Let's take a look at what I think the broad implicaitons of the Russert situation for Fitz's entire case. First, to get an indictment Fitz had to provide the Grand Jury with evidence of Means, Motive, and Opportunity to commit a crime. I'm going to take those in reverse order:

Opportunity: Since this was a process crime he was alleging, the investigation itself was the oportunity.

Motive: Fitz sold the Grand Jury on the idea that Libby's motive to lie was that he was trying to obstruct the investigators from discovering that he (Libby) was the "first leaker." His story of recieving the leak from reporters was to insulate him from the fact that, as Fitz put it, he was at the beginning, not the end of a chain of phone calls. Armitage destoryed that argument, so now Fitz is questing for a new motive.

Means: This is where the Russert issue comes in. Fitz sold the Grand Jury on the idea that Libby thought he could lie because reporters would fight to keep their conversations with him secret. In fact, Libby had already signed blaket waivers for reporters, so Fitz needed to convince the Grand Jury that Libby thought reporters would protect him despite the waivers. To do this, Fitz engineered two very public privlidge fights with reporters that were, ultimately shams. The fight with Miller was presented to the Grand Jury as Libby's fault, when in fact, Miller made clear afterwards that even after Libby gave her a personal waiver Fitz was still refusing to limit his questions to just Libby, and that is why she stayed in jail.

With Russert, the issue was if Libby ever even thought his conversation would be privlidged or confidential. Given that it was a compalint about Hardball, it really defies belief that Libby never expected Russert to the contents of the call to be confidential. What Libby wanted was Russert to use the contents of the call to justify corrective action. To convince the Grand Jury that Russert's testimony was in fact 'extracted' rather than freely given was critical to Fitz's proof of means for Libby to commit the crime in question.

This also explains why Fitz only filed charges dealing with reporters. There are two other statements that should have been included if Fitz really thought he could prove obstruction and perjury. Libby specificly denied ever asking Grossman for any information relating to Wilson. Libby also denied saying anything to Ari about Wilson's Wife. Yet, those statements didn't lead to charges because Libby has no "means" to the crime. Libby never had any reason to believe that Grossman or Ari would refuse to testify about conversations they had with him. In fact he had every reason to believe that they would fully co-operate with the investigation. Thus, Fitz couldn't prove means to the Grand Jury, so he never even tried to charge on those mis-statements by Libby.

Wells is probably going bring all this up in his closing I would hope because I think a big part of the closing needs to be a pitch that it wasn't Libby that obstructed the investigation, it was Fitz who did. He sold a bill of goods to the Grand Jury that wouldn't have indicted Libby if they had known the games Fitz was playing with all the supposed fighting to get reportes testemony. Wells, should argue that this jury has a chance to undo what the mislead Grand Jury did.


But those of you who are lawyers, would you, in general, give up documents that you don't think you're required to, regardless of their contents?

I can't see that others have taken a stab at this. I'll go out on a limb and say "it depends".

AS a rule, the answer would be, no, primarily for privacy issues. Litigation is very invasive, unfairly so in many cases, so it's important to protect what you can of your client's privacy.

OTOH there is the issue of money. Would your client want you to spend $5k of their cash to defend the release of a meaningless document? So like most things it is a balancing act.

I try very hard to get along with and even like opposing counsel. I never take a case that I don't plan on winning and my theory is it is always easier to lose to someone you like. I forge relationships, so in the case you describe, my approach would be to call them up, tell them that there is nothing in the document that will help them, and that I'm not turning it over. I might even give them a synopsis over the phone. That works more often than you would believe.

I tend to be a very practical lawyer. I have real issues with litigation geared to nothing more than lining the lawyer's pockets, and I really loathe games that promote just that.


And for the rest of you - wake up! You are missing the best part of the day.


Isn't Fitz's Micthell submission kind of embarrassing.

Fitz is arguing that she shouldn't be in court because she has, since admitting on live television that she knew Wilsons wife worked for the agency, she has since retracted that statament and has repeatedly claimed she made a mistake.

Well, excuse me Mr. Fitz, but isn't that exactly why your prosecuting Libby.

The comments to this entry are closed.