Libby's Theory Of His Defense

Libby's defense team has posted their theory of his defense, some version of which ought to be included in the final jury instruction (Jeralyn Merritt explains this).

The .pdf is only two pages but the very short version is, Libby forgot but the errors were innocent and the information was trivial.

No surprise, but... I question this:

Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began he was confident that... he had not disclosed classified information about Mr. Wilson or his wife to any other reporters.

Really?  I am confident Libby could argue that there is no evidence that he was aware that Ms. Wilson's status was classified at the time he disclosed it [which would be relevant under the IIPA or the Espionage Act].  However, is he really going to convince the court that as of October 2003 he was "confident" that Ms. Plame's status was not classified?  Addington (OVP Counsel), Schmall (CIA briefer) and some newspaper articles Libby marked up all suggest that he was aware of such a possibility.

Comments

[cboldt]

There are a number of FR/JOM crossovers.

[hit and run]

Hell, give him 4 cheers!

[Sue]

If that is enough to be convicted of perjury, I will cry for my country like CheChe's daughter.

Stranger things have happened. It is the part of Libby's story that no one has corroborated. And if Fitzgerald hammers in closing on Libby making up a story where his source was not official, I think he may be able to sway the jury, since there isn't one instance of a witness saying he said reporters are telling him.

[Martin]

Fitz doesn't have to justify a thing. This is hardly the biggest case in his career. He did take down the entire Republican mafia game in Illinois, you know.

Really, this case is simply about a cheap petty little liar too incompetent to even fire back at Wilson correctly, and who let his chief of staff get indicted for it.

[Chants]

My apologies, Harry, if you did not want an introduction.

Sometimes I can be so impolite.

[Jane]

Three Cheers indeed. Altho hell, I mentioned a "coup" 47 minutes before Harry arrived! Harrumph!

[Rick Ballard]

"We never had a clue about Libya, for example."

Except maybe a little about the ship carrying the centrifuge parts at the end. That was the first time and just luck, I suppose.

[hit and run]

6 cheers for Jane!!!!!

[clarice]

We're cheering Harry for TANG, but I'll cheer Jane, too..although I noticed the coup aspect a long time ago.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html>Wilson Gambit

[MayBee]

absolutely, it is great to see you here.

[hit and run]

9 cheers for Clarice!!!

(that's as high as I go)

[Chants]

To protect themselves - the bureaucratic prime directive.

But from what?

Posted by: Harry MacD | February 07, 2007 at 07:02 AM

From discovering that the serious stovepiping of WMD intelligence took place under the previous administration?

[clarice]

"Everybody's special":Mr. Rogers.

[windansea]

you da man Buckhead..

[Appalled Moderate]

Ranger:

It's certainly a decent theory. But the same question would aply to the Ari F conversation, too. And Ari, unlike Cooper and Judy, was a good witness.

Thereofore, its plausible the explication of your mystery lies in whatever ground would link the conversations with Grossman and Ari. And, in this case, at least one common factor, missing in the case of Russert and Cooper is the absence of Libby affirmatively testifying that he affirmatively told certain people something that they deny.

(With Miller, I think you don't put a person in jail for 85 days, and then not base your indictment on her...)

[clarice]

I'm not sure I get what you meant AM, but the one thing common to Grossman and Arri I can think of is that unlike Libby they'd both apparently seen the INR which mentioned Plame by name , identified her as Wilson's wife and mentioned her role in the Mission.

[cboldt]

-- So far, there has not been one witness who has testified that Libby said reporters were telling him --

I wonder what sort of footprint or impression an "all the reporters are talking about it" rumor would have on Martin. Would she be hearing that from reporters herself? Her staff? ... January 25, 2007 at 11:54 AM

It's one piece in an accumulation of pieces - there is not, nor will there be one unequivocal "smoking gun." If there was, there would not be a trial.

[jwest]

Bringing Rather down made this a better world. Harry is a hero.

Who would like to speculate on the fate of Russert if, as I suspect, he is forced under cross examination to admit he knew of Val’s association with the CIA prior to end of his second conversation with Libby?

As Fitz says, Russert has made it perfectly clear in his (heavily parsed) public statements that the wife did not enter into the conversations because he had no knowledge of it.

Will this (expected) revelation blow Russert’s career?

[Feroz]

nice blog! really liked it N i really like to read your blog n i would like to do link exchange with ya blog . mine blog link below plz check out if you thinks its suits for ur blog let me know by email …
Please Care to reply

My Blog is Something Very Beautiful
http://somethingbeautifull.blogspot.com

Thx in Advance

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

"I think the thing that is going to get Libby is the phrase that includes reporters. So far, there has not been one witness who has testified that Libby said reporters were telling him, or any variation thereof. If I were Wells, that would be my concern."

Telling Cooper he'd been hearing that too, but didn't know if was ever[n true], comes fairly close -- on top of Cooper's assertion the he is the one who brought it up, not Libby. It can also be mitigated obliquely if Wells can demonstrate that a lot of reporters were, in fact, already talking about Val. At the moment, you've got two reporters whose credibility has taken major hits, both of whom apparently were aware of Wilson's wife before the conversations with Libby at issue in the trial.

If Fitz is actually planning to bring in Fleissner "to speak to allegations of improper handling of witnesses" (how defensive can a Prosecutor get!), he knows the deals he made w. reporters are going to hurt him big time and is probably trying to get out ahead of the Defense. I hope he does call Fleissner, because I'd really like to hear that testimony.

[Sue]

If there was, there would not be a trial.

Is that a fact, counselor? I've seen lots of trials where there was a smoking gun, at least as far as the jury was concerned.

[danking70]

Chris Matthews drops a F-bomb on Imus during Bush Bash.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/07/video-chris-matthews-drops-f-bomb-on-imus-during-bush-bush/

Producer makes fun of Chris suggesting that Matthews would put on diapers and drive 900 miles to abduct Cheney.

This kind of explains the drool episode. lol

[Sue]

JM,

I am already on record as predicting the Cooper charges will be tossed by the jury.

[Appalled Moderate]

clarice:

Libby is under indictment for (allegedly) making statements about what transpired in conversations that were not correct. Libby said he told Cooper his information "came from reporters". Cooper denies he said that. Libby claims Russert told him about Plame, and Libby denies it.

If I remember correctly, all Libby said about his conversations with Ari and Grossman is that he does not remember them covering Plame.

In one case, Libby is volunteering an allegedly false memory. In other, he is simply saying "I don't recall."

Not being a lawyer, I don't know the significance of it. I just notice it and leave it to you all to theorize at will.

[clarice]

I think Libby wants Fleissner on the stand and if Fitz puts him there the entire notion of his having obstructed anything will be risible.

Am I the only one suspicious of the lengths to which the prosecution is going to keep Mitchell off the stand, the details of the Russert testimony silent, and the effort to pretend that only DOJ regs kept him from subpoenaing reporters. (For example, assuming the prosecution was limited by the DOJ regs..after Fleischer told them he'd told Gregory and Dickerson, what excuse could there have been for not subpoenaing them?)

[Ranger]

If Fitz is actually planning to bring in Fleissner "to speak to allegations of improper handling of witnesses" (how defensive can a Prosecutor get!), he knows the deals he made w. reporters are going to hurt him big time and is probably trying to get out ahead of the Defense. I hope he does call Fleissner, because I'd really like to hear that testimony.

Posted by: JM Hanes | February 07, 2007 at 08:10 AM

I think Fitz has finally figured out that he is facing top notch defense counsel for the first time in his career. I still find it hard to fathom that he didn't prep the jury for Grossman's changing story or Bond's notes challenging the final FBI report.

[Cecil Turner]

The whole Libby "I forgot I ever knew" is implausible, given the nature of some of his contacts and the number of them.

Not so much. He's discussing the period between June and early July, in which he almost certainly forgot the one noteworthy mention of Wilson's wife (and two other possibles). After all, everyone else did. Further, he's trying to remember the sequence months later (after he knows from various news reports and later discussions all about the wife angle). Getting the sequence wrong is hardly a stretch. The only real problem is the Russert angle, unless he can identify another conversation in which he might've been memorably "surprised."

From discovering that the serious stovepiping of WMD intelligence took place under the previous administration?

The CIA would like to claim it was "stovepiping" . . . but the bottom line is that the finished intelligence products supported the WMD claims.

And I haven't noticed much discussion about Walton (per SWOPA) allowing the 1x2x6 article in in its entirety. That seems to me grossly prejudicial (much like Grenier's supposed after-the-fact "warning") and the biggest recent news.

[Dan S]

"Producer makes fun of Chris suggesting that Matthews would put on diapers and drive 900 miles to abduct Cheney.

This kind of explains the drool episode. lol

Posted by: danking70 | February 07, 2007 at 08:12 AM"

Who says he'd have to put them on?

[Asw]

Woodward went to Toronto to tell the US that he knew about Plame. Plame went to Montreal before all the leaks started.

[Jane]

Imus used to hate Matthews. I guess he got the memo.

[MayBee]

Libby today, on the Swoplogue:

F: Did Cooper say he had heard about the wife before, when you told him

L: Don't think so

F: Did Miller?

L: Don't think so.

F: Did Kessler?

L: Don't know if I told Kessler that day, but whenever it was, don't think so.

LibBy says he told Kessler and Cooper about the wife, and none of the three of them had heard about her before.
He is an artful obstructionist, that is for sure.

[Sue]

The whole Libby "I forgot I ever knew" is implausible, given the nature of some of his contacts and the number of them.

If you believe Libby's I forgot is implausible, then you also have to believe Miller's I forgot is implausible. The question then becomes do you believe anything Miller says? Or do you pick and choose what to believe? ::shrug:: Jurors are only as strong as the strongest amongst them.

[clarice]

ASw did she go to Montreal to talk to Cogema?

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

Conversation with Russert comes after conversation with Ari. That's the piece that makes Libby "implausible" to me. (It's always been the Russert count that makes me think Libby is likely guilty of violaing some laws.)

But we have yet to "hear" Russert. I am open to changing my mind.

[Dan S]

But is that consistent with his other testimony, MayBee?

I thought he said Cooper told him, and he replied, I heard something like that.

[clarice]

Why not consider that Ari is wrong--Dickerson says he is and we have not yet heard from the strangely silent Gregory?

[Dan S]

Of course, we have to remember we aren't dealing with real transcripts at this point too. Swopa may be compressing out relevant information.

[cboldt]

-- Am I the only one suspicious of the lengths to which the prosecution is going to keep Mitchell off the stand, the details of the Russert testimony silent, and the effort to pretend that only DOJ regs kept him from subpoenaing reporters. --

Probably not.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

It beats the daylights out of me why it's not pointed out that Joe Wilson has TWO WIVES who were espionage agents. And, the middle marriage, to the french secret service agent, Jacqueline, not only lasted longer. Plame was living in her DC house BEFORE Joe divorced #2. For #3. You might want to call this whole thing a french-CIA pretzel.

But all this lack of talk; about stuff that was obvious to the eyeballs of Colin Powell. And, how the president (with Constitutional Powers), could DIRECT his EXECUTIVE STAFF to "come clean," and Powell and Armitage go after this president the way MARK FELT WENT AFTER NIXON!

Subtle. But we're having a PARTISAN WAR. Between two opposing parties. And, Bush decided instead of PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION, which is his #1 JOB, he just tossed a LIBBY log onto the fire.

BEDLAM: That was a corruption of BETHLEHEM.

Most Americans are not identifying with either party these days. And, even in the bloggosphere; we've got the opposing sides "translating" what's happening in Walton's courtroom "for all of us peasants."

"LET JUSTICE BE SERVED," is our "dish" in this Civil War. How sad. And, my, oh, my, how far the law has gotten released from its moorings.

[Asie]

Woodward went to a foreign country to leak he knew about Plame. Is this a legal thing? Maybe congressmen should do the same thing?

[Ranger]

Appalled Moderate,

Ari's story doesn't stick with me personally. To me it sounds like CIA guy #1's 'I felt guilty so I must have said something about it.' I think Libby mentioned Wilson, and also said it was hush, hush because they didn't want to distract people from Tenant's upcoming statement (that, by the way, is Rove's underlying reason for telling Cooper not to get too far out on the story). Since Fitz has not shown that Libby even knew Wilson's Wife's name was Plame before the conversation with Ari, I find it hard to believe (especially since Grossman specificly said he never showed the INR memo to Libby) that Libby said that name. If that part of Ari's story is questionable, then the rest is too.

[Tom Bowler]

The CIA sent him. The CIA let him lie in the NYT. The CIA very reluctantly on a Friday evening issued a statement contradicting Wilson. The CIA first supported the 16 words, but then withdrew the support when it was completely unnecessary to do so, severely discrediting the President. The CIA resisted decassifying NIE portions that discredited Wilson, but was obviated by the President's declassification decision - a decision that was kept from the CIA at first. It was Tenet who first said Iraqi WMD was a slam dunk but later allowed Wilson to spread his lies, and later demanded a DOJ criminal prosecution over the WH's rebuttal of Wilson's lies. The target of that referral was Cheney.

It may seem like a non sequiter, but I wonder what David Corn knew about all this stuff. One thing that always struck me as suspicious was the speed with which the White House was accused of outing Val. IIRC his was the article that first made the accusation coming out on 7/16, two days after Novak's article was published. I suppose he could first have seen Novak's article on the 11th, which would have given him several days to concoct his story. Still, reaching his conclusion that quickly seems to support Andrea's original assertion - Val's CIA connection was widely known among the press.

Bottom line: I don't think members of the press were simply played by the agencies. There are too many signs of cooperation.

[centralcal]

Just arrived at work and caught up, so I am late to the cheering section for "Buckhead."

Belatedly, then - extra cheers! (I don't want to try and top or compete with H & R's 9 cheers. grin.

[Jane]

I like the fact that Libby doesn't bash Wilson, or his credentials in his testimony. He comes across very well, even when reading the transcription at a left wing blog.

[centralcal]

Tom Bowler: I think you are correct about Corn, but I would even say he might have known earlier than you theorize.

[Dan S]

Interesting too:

F: This article mentions WaPo reporter was called on July 12. You had spoken to Kessler of WaPo on July 12. Did you think article was talking about you?

L: No. Did realize I had talked to reporter on July 12.

F: You didn't think you had told him (quoting from column) that Wilson trip was boondoggle set up by his wife.

L: No, because I said the opposite, we discounted report because findings weren't definitive, nothing about boondoggle

F: But VP had expressed concerns about this, as you say.

L: Our main concerns were other points.

F: I'm not concerned about other points. Was boondoggle one of the points, among others?

L: Actually, Kessler raised it with me (hubbub in media room) Asked me, "was this a boondoggle?"

F: Did you agree?

L: Felt it might have been a boondoggle in the sense of wife arranged trip, but not really in a bad way, we had not discounted report because of it

There we go, Fitz on the record :)

F: I'm not concerned about other points.

Again we see the media concern with Plame origin of trip in this, rather than the opposite. But Fitz is clearly fishing for the opposite. Thesis based investigation, perchance? It's great if the thesis turns out to be right.

[Other Tom]

I guess I am the last one to tumble to this, but apparently the "crazy story" Val was alluding to was the DIA'z, not the VP's. Thinking back, I guess that was clear all along, but nevertheless I've always assumed she was denigrating the VP.

[Cecil Turner]

Conversation with Russert comes after conversation with Ari. That's the piece that makes Libby "implausible" to me.

Assuming Ari is correct, do you really think misremembering the sequence of two conversations three days apart when trying to reconstruct it three months later is implausible?

But we have yet to "hear" Russert. I am open to changing my mind.

I suspect Russert will be a non-event, and will claim the subject never came up. And I'd bet he's right, and Libby is conflating reporter conversations.

[Ranger]

Oh, and my cheers to Buckhead too. That was an important thing to do. Many piled on afterwards, but it takes courage to be the first to act in a situaiton like that. Sometimes history is made by one couragious individual leading the way.

[Dan S]

Bad blood between DIA and CIA comes out pretty clearly if you know anyone in those communities. I was given the impression Plame could be decribed in the same fashion Matalin described Wilson. Didn't know whether it was just the bad blood talking, or there was more substance though.

The evidence is moounting to support the latter.

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

My point was that Fitzgerald can't really serve up much in the way of incontrovertible evidence that Libby didn't say as much. Short of a defense witness who testifies affirmatively that Libby put it that way in conversations elsewhere, I'm saying that if the Defense can convincingly suggest that a lot of reporters did, in fact, know about Wilson/Plame and Libby could have justifiably made that assertion, then whether or not he actually did or didn't in the case of Miller & Cooper may not be as damning as Fitzgerald would like it to sound.

In short, I don't think it's as much of a problem as you do. OTOH, I can also see the jury tossing the obstruction charge, while convicting on a lie or perjury.

[clarice]

Tom Bowler, I always assumed Corn's source for the Emma Peel tied to the railroad tracks by evil warmongers tale was a concoction between Wilson (directly or thru their lefty VIPS connections) and Corn. COrn earlier admitted that he had Wilson on his rolodex and was in contact with him during this period.

Leading figures in VIPS joined with Wilson in the Kerry anti-war film used at fundraisers around the country. The film was financed by Soros and IIRC Corn made a guest appearance in it.

[EggMcMuffin]

"the "crazy story" Val was alluding to was the DIA'z, not the VP's."

Where is the crazy story? I would like to read it.

Thanks

[Sue]

In short, I don't think it's as much of a problem as you do. OTOH, I can also see the jury tossing the obstruction charge, while convicting on a lie or perjury.

We need a prediction thread. Winner gets dinner with Tom, at Tom's expense. In the event more than one winner, Tom will draw from the hat, loaned by Kerry for such a momentous occasion, in order to keep our host from going broke wining and dining an entire blog community. ::grin::

[windansea]

F: Have you talked to Russert since July 14th & Novak column about uranium/Niger

L: (pause) No

F: Have you talked to him about leak investigation

L: Once, to ask if he would talk to my lawyer

F: Did you talk to him about substance of investigation

L: No

F: Did you talk to him about whether he would testify

L: No

F: Have you talked to people other than your lawyer about what happened in GJ last time

L: (pause) no

F: Have you talked to VP about any of your interviews or testimony

L: Only told him that I would be absent for this general matter

F: Have you spoken to Karl Rove about the investigation since it began?

L: No.

I wonder if Fitz asked Armitage/Grossman about their little pre testimony confab

[Alcibiades]

Rick wrote: I'd actually make a small wager that the Niger angle was a small part of the Khan play. The CIA did have some success with Khan and COGEMA may have been playing a double game.

Can someone describe the Khan play - if I once knew, I've forgotten.

Also, I'd always surmised that Joe's Niger "business" was to line his own pockets and that of his friends. I'd never even considered that it was to fund hidden ops.

I'm a little incredulous on the latter - which is to say that perhaps I wouldn't be if I knew the ex-CIA culture better.

[Appalled Moderate]

Ranger & Clarice:

Think we'll disagree as to Ari. His story holds together, and the difference between what Ari remember and what Dickerson remembers (which is a matter of degree) seems like the vagaries of memory. Also, surrounding episodes tend to support rather diminish Ari.

(The next press secretary defends Rove, does not defend Libby until the Veep intervenes. Why is that? Could it be some knowledge about Libby trickled down from one press scty to the next? Why does Libby feel he is to be the designated fall guy? In a Machiavellian universe, Ari is a far better target, as long as we are wandering afield from Novak.)

[Dan S]

Windandsea:

F: I'm not concerned about other points.

[SurvivorFiji]

I'm not sure who she talked to in Montreal, but the guy blogged it.

Mining and exploration makes sense because it's under national security. Canada would definitely want to know who the CIA agent is.

[maryrose]

Congrats Buckhead-You are a true American to take on the likes of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Kudos!

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

Compare the cross of Ari to the cross of Miller or Cooper. That's really the best answer to you. Also, recall that Ari hardly ever talked to Libby. If Libby introduced the subject (hush hush, on the qt -- how Danny DiVito of him) in a memorable fashion, it is credible Ari would have remembered it.

[Walter]

Can I be the first to predict that Team Libby will elicit from a friendly witness that "hush, hush, on the q.t." refers to gossip? The defense may want to highlight the provenence of the phrase for the benefit of culture-deprived members of the jury.

(& I know that others have mentioned the LA Confidential reference--I stand on the shoulders of giants.)

[clarice]

I have rechecked my files on the movie and do not see Corn in it. Wilson and the VIPs with whom Corn certainly was in contact with are stars in it though.
Some details here (more at hyperlinks at site)
http://www.truthuncovered.com/

[clarice]

I have rechecked my files on the movie and do not see Corn in it. Wilson and the VIPs with whom Corn certainly was in contact with are stars in it though.
Some details here (more at hyperlinks at site)
http://www.truthuncovered.com/

[boris]

His story holds together

Here's Ari's version ...

Libby => Ari => Dickerson

Libby and Dickerson say not. Believe what you want to believe.

[cboldt]

Another Fitz filing ... Doc 271

[clarice]

I have rechecked my files on the movie and do not see Corn in it. Wilson and the VIPs with whom Corn certainly was in contact with are stars in it though.
Some details here (more at hyperlinks at site)
http://www.truthuncovered.com/

[Appalled Moderate]

Boris:

What Dickerson says is a lot more subtle than that. He says Ari was broadly hinting at a connection, rather than coming right out and saying it.

[Other Tom]

EggMcMuffin: IIRC, in her memo recommending her husband, she referred to the suggestion of Iraqi interest in uranium from Niger as "this crazy story." (Can't find the document itself.)

[Dan S]

cboldt,

Are these normally brought up in cases? Or are we seeing some special concern on Fitz's part?

If a defendant attempts to call a law enforcement agent or use that agent's report as proof of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness...

Attempts at impeachment by omissions from agent reports also warrant careful scrutiny, as the test for admission of such evidence is "plainly elastic": "Prior statements that omit details covered at trial are inconsistent if it would have been `natural' for the witness to include them in the earlier statement."

[Ranger]

"Am I the only one suspicious of the lengths to which the prosecution is going to keep Mitchell off the stand...?"

I think Fitz is pretty scared of the defense playing the Mitchell clip and then pointing out that very little effort was made by his office to question her about it. If you are conducting a leak investigation, you would think the idea that lots of reporters knew would be kind of important to the investigation. Mitchell just supports the idea that this trial doesn't have anything to do with what Fitz was supposedly hired to investigate.

[Ranger]

"Am I the only one suspicious of the lengths to which the prosecution is going to keep Mitchell off the stand...?"

I think Fitz is pretty scared of the defense playing the Mitchell clip and then pointing out that very little effort was made by his office to question her about it. If you are conducting a leak investigation, you would think the idea that lots of reporters knew would be kind of important to the investigation. Mitchell just supports the idea that this trial doesn't have anything to do with what Fitz was supposedly hired to investigate.

[Dan S]

cboldt,

Are these normally brought up in cases? Or are we seeing some special concern on Fitz's part?

If a defendant attempts to call a law enforcement agent or use that agent's report as proof of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness...

Attempts at impeachment by omissions from agent reports also warrant careful scrutiny, as the test for admission of such evidence is "plainly elastic": "Prior statements that omit details covered at trial are inconsistent if it would have been `natural' for the witness to include them in the earlier statement."

[windansea]

Another Fitz filing ... Doc 271

shorter version...even though most of my witnesses testimony had some huge discrepancies from what they said to the GJ, please hamstring the defense in exploring this

he is especially worried about Bond

[Sue]

Is he crazy? He argues to keep memory experts out then presents memory cases as an argument to prevent impeaching government witnesses?

[Ranger]

"Am I the only one suspicious of the lengths to which the prosecution is going to keep Mitchell off the stand...?"

I think Fitz is pretty scared of the defense playing the Mitchell clip and then pointing out that very little effort was made by his office to question her about it. If you are conducting a leak investigation, you would think the idea that lots of reporters knew would be kind of important to the investigation. Mitchell just supports the idea that this trial doesn't have anything to do with what Fitz was supposedly hired to investigate.

[boris]

Italiacto!

[Another Bob]

Pretty naked attempt to say "never mind" about Bond?

[Skip]

It looks like Fitz wants the Judge to severely curtail the impeachment of his witnesses. Under his theory nobody gets to bring up prior inconsistent statements, or point out omissions in notes. It will be interesting to see the Libby response.

[fdcol63]

Other Tom,

Here's a helpful link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

[Dan S]

Sorry, posting lag got me there.

Making sure that tag is really closed too.

[Walter]

Cboldt,

My favorite quote from your copy of Fitzgerald's filing?

"("a claim of faulty memory does not constitute an inconsistent statement")

Oh, the irony...

[Cecil Turner]

Compare the cross of Ari to the cross of Miller or Cooper. That's really the best answer to you.

Actually, it's no answer at all. Is it really "implausible" to get the sequence wrong three months later? (So that the person remembering it that way must be lying? Beyond a reasonable doubt?) If that's the best argument Fitz has, he has to lose.

He says Ari was broadly hinting at a connection . . .

So Ari hints, while Scooter drafts talking points? Okay.

[clarice]

(OT but remarkably parallel if true):"Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) announced today in Houston, TX that DHS-Inspector General Richard Skinner admitted that his deputy inspectors Lisa Redman and James Taylor as well as DHS congressional liaison Tamara Faulkner LIED to members of Congress about statements that are foundational to the prosecution’s case against Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos.

The DHS inspectors claimed that the Border Patrol agents were “rogue cops” and that they had very damning sworn statements to that effect:

1. They knew that he was unarmed.

2. They knew that he was not a threat to them.

3. That they had said that morning that they were going to “go out and shoot them some Mexicans.”

Furthermore, the DHS officials promised Congress that they would produce those sworn statements for Congressional review. That was four and a half months ago. Since then, DHS has stalled and obfuscated every time the Congressional members wrote letters or made phone calls to collect those statements from DHS.

All three of those statements have now been proven as false. DHS-IG Skinner admitted yesterday that his deputies lied to Congress and that those sworn statements do not exist and that Congress had been “misled”.

Culberson has concluded that DHS deliberately lied to Congress and gave them false information in order to “throw them off the scent” of their investigation into the Border Patrol case. He said this is indicative of a large-scale cover-up inside of DHS, the Department of Justice, and the entire prosecution against Compean and Ramos. He and other Congressman will be announcing today their demand for a full investigation into the DHS cover-up and the immediate resignations of the DHS officials involved"

http://euphoricreality.com/2007/02/07/dhs-inspectors-admittedly-lied-to-congress-about-border-patrol-case/>The govt is your friend

[hit and run]

Clarice:
I have rechecked my files on the movie and do not see Corn in it. Wilson and the VIPs with whom Corn certainly was in contact with are stars in it though.
Some details here (more at hyperlinks at site)
http://www.truthuncovered.com

Their tagline:
"You want the truth? We won't cover the truth!"

[Another Bob]

Pretty naked attempt to say "never mind" about Bond?

[Ranger]

Boris:

What Dickerson says is a lot more subtle than that. He says Ari was broadly hinting at a connection, rather than coming right out and saying it.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 07, 2007 at 08:52 AM

Which directly controdicts Ari's own statement, which is that he ran out and called out to reporters that Plame sent Wilson. Ari seems to have inserted the name Plame into his memory of this whole thing.

[Dan S]

*starts looking for libertarian candidates for everything*

[Alcibiades]

Responding to Byron York's column today, a veteran of the intelligence community (but clearly not a VIPS) writes in:

Let me add a bit of inside baseball to your Libby story: There is an intense and mutual rivalry between CIA and DIA. One time at a top secret meeting in Reagan I, I made the mistake of taking a chair between the CIA and DIA experts on a certain subject and they threw venom at each other across my nose for an hour and a half. Most unpleasant experience.

As I read your story, CIA [Val and pals] were reacting to a very important DIA story. In my experience, their gut reaction would have been to knock it down from the get-go. Hence the initial bureaucratic purpose of sending the husband out would have been to skewer DIA, not advance the issue. Obviously, they wouldn't have said this or put it in print but everyone in the system would know what the real game was.

[JM Hanes]

"F[itzgerald]: I'm not concerned about other points."

Just imagine the investigation we might have gotten, if he had been remotely interested in all the other info that was being served up to him on a platter.

[pete]

We are now four years into BushCo's preemptive war preempting nothing. Trillions have been spent and 100s of thousands of lives have been lost but, hey, how long are Fitzy's nose hairs today?

After Libby is convicted what new denial and avoidance mechanisms will you turn to?

[Thread Herder]

New Thread Up.

Let's wrap things up here and move along. Finish any current conversations, but please do not introduce any new topics on this thread.

Giddy'up

[pete]

Libby is the new topic. The 800,000 lb gorilla topic sitting in the corner is Iraq.

[Barney Frank]

Cecil,

If Libby introduced the subject (hush hush, on the qt -- how Danny DiVito of him) in a memorable fashion, it is credible Ari would have remembered it.

Cecil, you and AM seem to be talking about two different things. In your post at 8:31 you explicity assume "Ari is correct" while AM's post seems to impute to you the idea that Ari is not. My understanding of your argument is that Libby, months later, may have confused the sequence of the conversations with Fleischer and Russert, not that Ari's memory of his conversation with Libby was necessarily inaccurate. Correct?

[Bruce Hayden]

My vote after reading this last Fitz filing is that it is aimed in particular at protecting the testimony of Bond. How many other law enforcement officers have testified anyway?

[Jane]

"("a claim of faulty memory does not constitute an inconsistent statement")

Oh my gawd.

That just says it all.

[Dan S]

Bruce,

I agree. I don't recall any other LE officers either.

I think he's trying to avoid having Bond questioned on other things about the investigation that might show this was targetted AT certain people before Fitz has any evidence to support going at certain people... especially considering the ones he did not go after.

Doing so would go some distance to establishing this was most likely a perjury trap, aimed at tripping Libby into a gotcha statement. The GJ testimony would appear to support that also, with the constant repetition of the exact same questions.

Based on Fitz's prior style, I'd say the probability this was indeed the game plan approaches 1 asymptotically. Putting that before the jury, with some testimony from Bond to support it (beyond what we've already inferred from laecunae and her "corrections") might go a long way to undermining Fitz's case.

Can't have that.

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

If your argument on Ari is timing, I did not pick that up. Sorry. (So many threads, so little time.)

I am not aware of any subsequent meeting between these two being testified to. I also don't think the timeline works quite right for a later conversation. Ari puts Libby first -- Bartlett on Air Force One second in his meory of events. Dickenson then has Libby "hinting" on the 11th, which is still before Libby talking to Russert.

based on Dickenson's article, I think it is fair to impute Ari with deadly Plame knowledge by the 11th. (To hint, you actually have to know). And, unless you believe Bartlett came first (which does not strike me as the most likely of memory tricks), you still have Libby talking to Ari well before he talks to Russert.

[Jofes]

Before the thread closes..........

"sending the husband out would have been to skewer DIA, not advance the issue. Obviously, they wouldn't have said this or put it in print but everyone in the system would know what the real game was."

Skewer DIA? She was committing a criminal conspiracy. I don't think DIA is a good excuse, anyway CIA analysts now work there, so maybe she planned that too.........

"It's apparent that many, if not all, figures in this knew enough about "tradecraft" to know that good tradecraft wouldn't have used a Covert CIA agent's civilian husband on a CIA "mission"."

Why not? The goal like Ames' and Howard's trainer may have been to use him.

Fitz wants an appeal in this trial if criminal conspiracy charges are filed against Plame. The reason there is a trial is to avoid this.

[Rick Ballard]

Eckenrode can impeach Bond and blow Fritz's case out of the courtroom. He has nothing to lose and he has a little bone to pick with the DoJ.