Monday Post-Game Thread

After a full day of blogger meth, let's recap the defense's opening day in the Libby trial.

Marcy Wheeler  provided the Opening, Pincus 1, Woodward 1, Sanger, Novak 1, 2, a press gaggle, (Glenn Kessler, Evan Thomas, Carl Ford of INR, bench discussion of memory defense and the controversial stipulation.)

Jeralyn Merritt provided 1, 2 at the Huffington Blog.

One might have expected the defense to score a few points on their opening day, and they did: Bob Woodward and Bob Novak both testified that they might have asked Libby about Wilson's wife; Novak would have done so on July 9, the day before Libby remembers his chat with Russert.

Judy Miller's testimony about WINPAC versus CPD is also drawing fire, and there is a bit of puzzlement as to why Ari Fleischer leaked the INR version of Ms. Wilson's employment to Walter Pincus (I have to come back to that later)

DEVELOPING...

Comments

[sylvia]

"Bob Novak both testified that they might have asked Libby about Wilson's wife; Novak would have done so on July 9, the day before Libby remembers his chat with Russert."

Okay this cuts both ways. In one way it's good that it bolsters Libby statement that he said "other reporters knew it too". On the other hand, it's bad as it's just one more incident of Libby being contemporaneously reminded about Plame, and the day before Russert even. Libby's "temporary Alzheimer's" bit is not getting good testimony with that one.

[PaulV]

Slyvia, it bosters the misremembering defense especially since they were telephone call.

[kazinski]

It seems to me the trial is over if Wells asks Libby one question on the stand:

W: Novak said he may have asked you about Wilsons's wife on July 9, you say that Russert asked you about Wilson's wife on July 10, is it possible you have gotten the two conversations mixed up?

L: I don't think so, but its possible. At this point I can't say for sure it was Russert or Novak, both of the conversations were over the phone so it is possible that months later when asked, I got the two confused.

[azaghal]

Tom, the only way Eckenrode was deposed is if he went over to the defense's camp. That's a recurrent fantasy of mine, because that's the guy with beans to spill. For a number of reasons I doubt it.

Let me repeat: both sides have been looking at WH phone records--who the WH was calling. The defense has made good use of them, and the prosecution is afraid of what pursuing leads from the phone records would do to their case. The defense is confirming to the prosecution that they were right to be cautious in that regard, but foolish to think that the defense would be at all reticent.

[JM Hanes]

sylvia:

Not so bad, if the Defense team can persuasively argue that Libby was mistaken about the Who not the What. I.E. he was actually talking with either Novak or Woodward, both of whom described conversations with Libby that were very similar to the one Libby says he remembers.

[clarice]

Looks like the defense is getting into the "second pressing" of the INR:
FDL on Carl Ford testimony:
"Putting up calendar.

D Taking a look at June 9, Monday, does that help refresh the date he asked you to provide information

CF It was Monday June 9

D Did Grossman tell you why he wanted it. Did he recall asking you because Libby requested the information? Is that the kind of info you would recall. After Grossman asked you to find out, what did you do?

CF Called people in INR responsible for following WMD issue. Neil Silver, I gave him the assignment I just received.

D Was a memo created to capture that info?

CF Yes.

CF memo created in response to Grossman's request. Grossman didn't request you put it in memo.

D Top corner, date.

CF June 10, 2003.

D How long did it take you and your staff to prepare this

CF less than a day

D Do you know who Walter Kansteiner is

CF Asst SOS for Africa

D How long had you known him,

CF We were in many of the same meetings. There were at least one or two occasions in which we worked with Africa Bureau and I went down and talked about the project. We had more than just recognizing name relationship.

D Was Mr. Kansteiner, did you have any meetings or relations with Kansteiner in doing this memo

CF No, I did not.

D Was there a point when Grossman indicated to you that the info was somehow incomplete?

CF I don't recall anything of that nature. I don't recall him saying anything about the memo after it went to his office.

Pass the witness."

Very subtle--Again, no reason to rewrite this and redate it and circulate it to a bigger circle EXCEPT I think to hide who knew by making sure more people knew when.

[sylvia]

Yes I agree with JmHanes and Kazinsky. THAT (finally, after all the defenses I mulled over) is the best defense so far. He got the two switched. Still a little iffy on the "I heard it as if for the first time" but makes a lot more sense with Novak, who said he knew about Plame and that they discussed Plame, than with Russert who denies either.

[Jane]

TM,

Congratulations on the hits explosion. What's a typical day here in terms of hits?

[Sue]

I wonder if Wells can establish that Mitchell was talking to Armitage during this timeframe? If he can, man oh man, with the gabbiness of Armitage and Mitchell asking him questions about Wilson...man oh man.

[clarice]

What was in her notes that gave him pause the other day?

[MayBee]

OT: I want to have my photo done by the HuffPo bio people.

[Sue]

Someone told Mitchell about low level operatives. Who was that someone? Wells is close. If he can just hit the homerun...Fitz will just wish Libby threw sand in his eyes.

Something else bothers me. The judge said something along the lines of even if you establish that Mitchell knew how does that impeach Russert (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to wait for dialup to go look for the actual quotes) when Russert himself testified that if Mitchell knew she would have told him. Gregory too. I don't think the judge is keeping up very well with the testimony.

[Other Tom]

I'm with Kazinski. Guts ball to do it, but given the conflicting and confused accounts we've already heard from so many other witnesses, it's eminently plausible. I think it gets you well into reasonable doubt.

I'm still fixated on materiality. If the gist of the perjury and obstruction case is that Libby lied when he said he heard it from Russert, what is that material to?

[Rick Ballard]

Azghal,

Presuming no prep by the defense, what line of questioning do you think Wells will pursue with Eckenrode? I just can't see the defense making a blind stab at impeaching Russert via the phone interview. I know it's a low probability that he switched sides but I can't figurre out how he fits in strategy at this point if he hasn't.

Jane,

Site Meter stats Click over on the left on week/month/year to see what's going on.

[windansea]

Pass the witness."

BOOM...I'm getting EPUed so I just strut ahead and act confidently :)

[Patton]

Developing.....

Now that's hitting the big time!

[MaidMarion]

Was in the courtroom again all day today starting at 9am…and had the opportunity to meet-up at the end of the action with the great Clarice who pulled duty in the media room downstairs.

Here is a quick dump of my observations…keep in mind I have yet read any JOM postings today and have no legal background so much of what went on, especially between the lawyers, was over my head:

1) Overall this felt like a VERY strong day for the Defense and the first time I’ve seen Fitz nervous. I annotated in my notes “Fitz is nervous today” by the part where he was cross-examining Woodward about the Q-cards, which was in the morning, although he had been nervous even prior to that questioning. And he got worse as the day went on. Didn’t write this down so don’t have a time or topic, but at some point he was flailing (sp?) around trying to find some piece of paper…”chicken with its head cut-off” is what came to mind.

2) I felt a real difference between today’s witnesses (not so much Evan Thomas, though) and Russert and was wondering if the jury was making comparisons in their minds. Pincus, Sanger, Woodward, Novak and Kessler gave natural sounding answers…nothing pre-canned which is how some of Russert’s statements sounded (eg., his twice mentioning that the Buffalo News guy has “every right to his own opinion but not the facts” or his story as to the reason why it was “impossible” he didn’t tell Libby about Wilson’s wife.) Russert sounded rehearsed. Evan Thomas didn’t sound pre-canned, he just gave off huge vibes that he really wished he wasn’t in the courtroom; not so the others. Wondered why Fitz didn’t cross-examine Evan.

3) Thought it was odd that Fitz felt the need to bring up the fact that Judy Miller was a Pulitzer prize winner…did he forget to mention that when he had her on the witness stand? Anyone know? Or was he just trying to remind the jurors?

4) First thing this a.m. the Judge and lawyers discussed whether or not Mitchell should testify. The NBC lawyer was sitting in the front row (Prosecution side), where he had been seated last week during Russert’s testimony. However, after that business was taken care of and before Pincus was brought into the courtroom, he moved to the far back row in the courtroom. I could see when he made notes and when he received incoming messages on his blackberry. There was a part in Pincus’s testimony which was of keen interest to the NBC lawyer. It was when Pincus testified that on Saturday, July 12, while at his WaPo office writing up his article about Niger and WMD he received a call from a government official asking him “Why do you keep writing about Wilson?” Defense asked “Who was the government official?” Pincus replied “Ari Fletcher” at which point the NBC lawyer whipped out his blackberry and typed away. This was the first time he used his blackberry and then subsequently received incoming messages intermittently from this point forward in the trial until the break. I didn’t copy down all the times he wrote down notes, but here are the ones I recorded: a) When Pincus talked about Rice’s appearance on June 8, 2003 MTP; b) when Defense wrote down on the easel the specific words Ari used with Pincus; c) when Pincus talked about his Sept 2004 subpoena and whether Ari had given him a waiver.

5) Jane Hamsher (is that her last name) sat next to Sid Blumenthal when she was present inside the courtroom today. Nina Totenberg has been in court everyday I’ve been there…sits in the same seat. I have to remember to check to see if she has a “Reserved for Nina” sign affixed to the seat. It’s right behind where Mrs. Libby sits…

6) Why didn’t Defense elicit testimony from Novak regarding his conversation with Harlow? It was a Juror who brought this out…and Judge Walton seemed taken aback by the answer.

7) Was fascinated that Glenn Kessler was so very certain Libby didn’t talk about Wilson’s wife. If I’m not mistaken, that’s not what Libby claimed in his March 2004 testimony. Libby sure has a bad memory, doesn’t he?

8) Why did Fitz keep asking these witnesses to confirm that back when they gave their depositions to the prosecutor in the specially arranged settings that they were under oath? What does he gain? I got the impression he didn’t have much to ask…so these were his emergency backup questions. Can any of you lawyers think of a legal reason?

9) Karl Ford’s testimony was interesting. Made me think of Greg Thielmann…remember that name? Early on, I think it was pre-Novak, he was part of that group (Lang, Johnson, Canistraro) who was insinuating that intelligence analysts were being “forced” by the Administration to change their assessments. For some reason I thought he held Ford’s position. Where did Greg fall within State INR? Perhaps the “Non-proliferation Bureau”? Who was head of INR’s Non-proliferation Bureau from Jan 1-July 12, 2003?

After hearing Pincus’s testimony, what popped into my mind was “Did Ari call Andrea?” and “Did Ari give Andrea a waiver?”. After hearing Woodward, all I could think of was “Armitage sounds like Andrea Mitchell…or vice-versa.” The NBC lawyer told someone who told me that he thinks Mitchell will take the stand tomorrow afternoon. If I understand correctly, this will be without the jury present. The Judge still needs to be persuaded by Defense.

[MayBee]

What's a typical day here in terms of hits?

I think I give Tom about 2,500 hits a day.

Harlow could have told Mitchell low level covert operatives sent Wilson. That seems to be the CIA story.
Notice that Woodward never for one minute asked Armitage if OVP had anything to do with sending Wilson.
There was something/someone else in Judy's notes - or something the defense knew- that they wanted to ask last week and Fitz objected. Remember? It was a cliffhanger that went nowhere.

I'm glad the defense has noticed the WINPAC thing. It is an oddly persistent rumor. Also, is Fitzgerald saying she was WINPAC until 2000, or just that she wasn't after that date?

[Sue]

If Wells keeps digging, we are going to find out that the VF article was partially true. Val was transitioning from CIA to State, probably to WINPAC, which would have made Alan Foley not know her yet and technically not be her boss. Plausible deniability.

[MayBee]

re 8)Fitzgerald is trying to say, "Look Jury! Russert didn't get Imperial Treatment! I treated lots of reporters this way."
His proble is that Russert is the only one he treated this way that he charged against. He didn't put Russert against the more rigorous questioning of the GJ before he charged.

[clarice]

Re E:
They can ask him about the phone call to Russert--aall the details..The prep of the summary--read it into the record with the equivocation. Last time saw notes.

Then --if he's playing games with them--pick out leaks and ask if TO was right when they quoted him? Did you tell JL you were going to testify in this case even if you had retired? If yes, did the prosecutor ask you to testify?
Did he talk to Waas? Etc/(whole list of those who published leaks.)
Go thru Hubris..Did he really tell this stuff to COrn/Isikoff? When were you first talking to them?
Show them Corn's Emma Peel--Did you ever call him on source? Kristof?

Oh, my--he either cooperates and tells the truth about Russert which torpedoes what little is left of this case,,,or they take him down the path to perdition and torpedo it another way.

[Alcibiades]

Clarice, what's the significance of the "second pressing" of the INR?
This thing about not re-redacting the memo was completely lost on me.

[Patton]

By George I've solved it!

Its was Armitage, in the State Dept, with the big mouth!

Fitz seems to think its always the high ups directing the peons; but sometimes its the peons just covering their asses.

[clarice]

Normally, when you have a memo that you decide to recirculate to a broader audirence you just redo the cover letter with the new date and new circulation list. Here, Ford (or Grossman) took the old memo, had it redone, redated and recirculated. Why? I cannot think of any reason except to hide who saw it when.(No one in the WH saw it the first time around..Armitage saw it the 2d time, but I bet Grossman told him the Wilson/Plame stuff the first time around or gave him a copy of it then w/o his name appearing on the circulation list of the first pressing..

[ghostcat]

Patton -

That would be covering their bosses.

[Sue]

MM,

Great commentary. I enjoyed the part about NBC's attorney.

[Rick Ballard]

"Did he talk to Waas? Etc/(whole list of those who published leaks."

That's the one I'd like to hear. I wonder if the 5th applies to administrative action involving loss of pension? Unless there is an actual law involved that applies to chief investigators leaking in a leak case.

Pushing on the Russert notes seems a little risky if Wells doesn't know the answer. What happens if he replies with "Russert vehemently denied, etc."?

[Jane]

Thanks Rick,

That is just so impressive!

[arcanorum]

"Pincus replied “Ari Fletcher” at which point the NBC lawyer whipped out his blackberry and typed away. This was the first time he used his blackberry and then subsequently received incoming messages intermittently from this point forward in the trial until the break. I didn’t copy down all the times he wrote down notes, but here are the ones I recorded: a) When Pincus talked about Rice’s appearance on June 8, 2003 MTP; b) when Defense wrote down on the easel the specific words Ari used with Pincus; c) when Pincus talked about his Sept 2004 subpoena and whether Ari had given him a waiver."

Busted, hahahaha
Keep up the EXCELLENT work.

and lets not forget, that Fitzgerald SLUMPED in his chair when his witness was impeached last week. And now, he is 'running like a chicken with his head cut off', dont worry he's probably looking for the missing DrEckenrode notes, or maybe he's frantically seeking his missing case. HAHA

[clarice]

Then he's a liar, because he (E) prepared the summary and it says Russert said he could not be positive that he didn't tell Libby that.

Take your pick. Machts nicht. No way out.

[Jane]

maid Marion,

I asked this in the prior thread: What was your impression of the jury's reaction today?

And what do you think the NBC guy had on his mind?

[MayBee]

MM- thanks ever so!

The NBC guy would have to protect Gregory as well, right? Interesting blackberrying. I wonder if he is supposed to have that thing in the courtroom.

clarice- FDL had some back and forth with the lawyers and Walton and what the 302 said about what Russert said he might have said. Did you catch any of that?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'6) Why didn’t Defense elicit testimony from Novak regarding his conversation with Harlow? It was a Juror who brought this out…and Judge Walton seemed taken aback by the answer.'

I wondered about this too. Maybe they wanted to save it for Harlow to reveal.

[clarice]

About the re-pressing-remember it was the SECOND pressing that Fitz focused on. But from the very detail Armitage used--which seems to have circulated widely--came from the INR..and he was using that language BEFORE anyone in the WH saw it.

[MayBee]

Maybe Ekenrode left when he realized Fitzgerald wasn't really going for the underlying crimes. He'd had Eckenrode go through all of this just for perjury charges.

[Patton]

It appeared that the judge was very interested in Novaks answers about who else he talked to about Plame prior to the Article being published.

Just from reading the transcript you get the feeling the wheels are turning in his brain, while Fitz was trying to stop the train anyway he could.

If someone claims they told Andrea or someone else at NBC, and Andrea/NBC denies it on the stand..this could get real ugly.

[Skip]

I suspect that the Eckenrode testimony will go something like Wells laying out who Eckenrode is, and getting in the inference that he was relieved from the case with cause, if Wells can.

But I suspect the actual questioning is going to just be:

1. What was the procedure you followed in contacting Russert? IE, did you clear it with counsel, etc.

2. Who was in the room with you?

3. What happened to the notes?

And the questioning will then depend on the answer to that. If it's "I misplaced them before Fitz was on the case" he gets to ask whether or not he's lost notes on any other cases, the procedures that the FBI agents are supposed to follow, etc.

If the answer is "I handed them over to x in Fitz's office" then you plan on calling that person next.

Of course, Fitz is going to be objecting about every third word of this.

[MayBee]

6)'6) Why didn’t Defense elicit testimony from Novak regarding his conversation with Harlow?
---
I'm guessing they didn't want Fitzgerald to question him about Harlow telling Novak not to print her name.

[clarice]

Both today and when Russert was on the stand Wells read the language of the 302 summary which says Russert was not sure that he hadn't told Libby. Russert said he did not think the summary accurately described what he said to E on the phone. Either E prepared a false summary or the missing notes on which it was supposedly prepared confirms that Russert said he might have told Libby.

[MaidMarion]

Jane,

When I've been present, which only started last Monday, the jury has always been awake and paying attention...either looking at the witness/judge or taking notes. Mostly looking down...if anything.

Today, there seemed to be a bit more interest...more heads up...more interest in looking at what Jeffers (sp?) wrote on the easel, for example. I didn't consciously focus on the jury in particular today...but did look at them as I always do. Compared with last week, their demeanor today was much more "active". They were a bit more awake, so to speak.

[Sue]

MM,

Did you hear the Woodward/Armitage tape? What did you think about it?

[clarice]

BTW when reading the Armitage--Woodward exchange, the ellipses are not talking over..they are expletives deleted. Read them that way and you can get a better picture of what "everyone knows"

[Alcibiades]

MM great summary. But on one point, I have a quibble. You wrote: Jane Hamsher (is that her last name) sat next to Sid Blumenthal when she was present inside the courtroom today.

That's way too mature. How about "The execrable Jane Hamsher (of Rape Gurney Joe fame) sat next to the even more execrable Sid Blumenthal when she was present inside the courtroom today."

That combo has me in stitches.

[topsecretkk9]

--I wondered about this too. Maybe they wanted to save it for Harlow to reveal.--

But I bet Wells and Co were pleased as punch the jury asked the question that even shocked the judge,

[MayBee]

I think it's interesting that Kessler was asking questions for a colleague. I wonder who. Did he tell that to Libby? Wouldn't that practice make it confusing for a source when he sees his info in someone else's article?

[granny]

Roanoke's link to the .wav file in the previous thread is working.

There is a definite pause after Armitage says "His wife works in the agency" and Woodward's question, "Why doesn't that come out?" Therefore, it appears to me the question is absolutely about the wife.

And, BTW, has everyone seen the story in the Post on the FBI's missing computers? (E's notes? )

[dorf]

MM: all great stuff, but still a "DC" jury. I'm just too cynical I guess with the current political environment.

[Jane]

Maid Marion,

Based on the reaction, do you think they knew before today that Armitage was the leaker. I know you can't know, but was the uptick in activity around that revelation by either Woodward or Novak?

[narciso]

Carl Ford was a fellow member of the neo-con group, who was forced out over his
role in a lobbying scheme by Taiwan, as
opposed to Thielmann, who is career State
also a member of VIPs with Cannistraro,
Johnson, et al)Kessler, I haven't trusted
since his book on the Intifada, where he
painted Amir (the pacifist general, turned
future Labor party nominee) as the hero,
and Sharon, Shamir, et al; as villains. If
Plame actually worked for CPD as Isikoff &
Corn assert, than at least two accounts of
the organizational chart of that institution
(namely Susskind's One Percent Solution, &
Risen's State of War are wrong) As I've pointed out before, Susskind names the CPd's
chief as a former Moscow and Beijing station chief with former special forces;
ranger: background. He doesn't appear in the
other accounts, and despite my posts, in any
other part of the blogosphere. Which is odd
considering the use of "One Percent" as a bludgeon against the administration, including the bizarre observation of Osama
favoring the administration in his election
eve video broadcast. John Maguire, the 1st Baghdad station chief, outed by I & C, and
we now know as a prime source for KR's Landay & Strobel, aardwolf cable, is repeated cited although he has no direct
link to VP even though they supposedly both
worked on DB/ANABASIS (one of the code names
Arkin did not divulge)for Luis or Saul's Task Force on Iraq. If there was said contact, Fitz(hume) would use to reintroduce
the IOIA violation, that was supposedly the
core of the case.

[Dan S]

Great info, MM, thanks for sharing that.

Heh, Blackberries as state-of-mind signals. How soon before that ends up in a case?

[AJStrata]

Folks,

My listening and reading of Armitage's comments to Woodward conclude Armitage had personal knowledge that the news about Plame was getting out because of WIlson's calls, which means (as I predicted) Wilson outed Plame - which is why there were no charges on that matter

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3352

AJStrata

[clarice]

Here-the adult version:
2:15 WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by
2:16 the agency. I mean that's just *&^(%---
2:17 ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.
2:18 WOODWARD: -&*(^&()-- Why doesn't that come out? Why does --(*)&^-
2:19 ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.
2:20 WOODWARD: -*&(^%--that have to be a big secret?

[Skip]

OK, cboldt's site has the Libby request for a jury instruction on the Miller count that was dropped.

When this trial started, I described to you the charges against Mr. Libby. I told you that Count One, which charges obstruction of justice, alleges that Mr. Libby falsely testified to the grand jury concerning conversations with three reporters, Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper, and Ms. Miller. Now, however, this trial has progressed to the point where the government has rested its case and one of those allegations - that Mr. Libby lied about his conversation with Judith Miller on July 12, 2003 - has been dropped. That aspect of the obstruction of justice count must be of no further concern to you, and the fact that Mr. Libby was previously alleged to have obstructed justice by lying about his conversation with Ms. Miller on July 12, 2003 cannot in any way influence your verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of Mr. Libby on the remaining charges in the indictment. Count One, the obstruction of justice count, is now based solely on the allegation that Mr. Libby falsely testified to the grand jury concerning his conversations with two reporters, Mr. Russert and Mr. Cooper.

So it sounds like he wants a jury instruction now, rather than when the jury gets the case? Is that something that would normally be done? I guess that I'd figured that the final version of the jury instructions just wouldn't contain that count.

[james]

"And, BTW, has everyone seen the story in the Post on the FBI's missing computers? (E's notes? )"

I have not seen that. Got a link?

[Pofarmer]

Well said AJ Strata

[clarice]

AJ--there was nno way to charge an IIPA violation even if Wilson hadn't talked.
If you read my Weekly Standard article on the case, you see it is factually preposterous to claim no one knew about Wilson and his wife until Novak's article..I list all his public stuff much of it done with Plame listed as his wife or by his side (and undoubtedly a second source for the reporters like Kristof) Additionally, there are lots of people like Valelly wo can confirm Wilson regularly blabbed this info to pump up his own credentials.

[clarice]

Skip. I think you misunderstood. Libby isn;t asking for this instruction to be read tothe jury now--this is part of an ongoing effort to resolve what instructions will go to the jury at the end of the case.

[Jim]

Wonder if Eckenrode has a copy of his Russert interview(s): 1 or 2???

[boris]

mega-kudos Clarice

[Jane]

James,

Drudge has it.

[Alcibiades]

Does someone have a link to cbolt's blog.

[Sue]

Who is up tomorrow?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Let's put "REASONABLE DOUBT" up on everyone's thread, so those who lived for years on Fitzmas fumes, can have a little of this ammonia wife travel up their nose hairs.

All Wells needs to do "TO FREE SCOOTER LIBBY" is show that Fitz has not proven his case (whatever that case may be? Who know?) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Wells does not have to prove that this case is HIDING in Rove's sox. Or is something that the press cooked up. (As tasty a dish as one could imagine.)

When this case is over, though. A lot of COOKED UP RECIPES WILL FINALLY FLOW. The levee breached. The water comes in. And, we may yet travel freely about DC, no longer hip deep in a swamp.

NBC? Okay. I know. The best I can do to reach NBC, is turn to Number FOUR on my dial. But take it for what it is worth. There's a bigger back stage area to NBC, than just the crap you see on your screens.

And, BACKSTAGE? You think these people are in love with each other? You think that because they're all so rich and famous, they glitter, smile, wave, and kiss? OR they fight like Miss America contestants, when the crown's at play? Hmm?

My money is on Alan Greenspan talking common sense into that ditz he's married. And, he only married her because she can suck like Monica. Greenspan will not allow his wife to go marching around outside their house, as if she's a hooker in a Blue Gap Dress.

Russert? Give me a break. More famous men than he have been told to retire. How do I know? Look at what Hollywood did to Ronald Reagan? HE WAS ONLY 40. And, his career, as leading man went kaput.

Only the American People put Reagan back in the saddle, again.

To Tim, however, will go the prize in naming how you can take a russet, peeled or not. ANd, Flash plam-ay it; Legs up. So you know if Fritz & French Fried.

[MaidMarion]

Sue,

After hearing the Woodward/Armitage tape the only thing I could think of was: Will Defense call Armitage to the stand to ask him if he talked to Andrea Mitchell?

[granny]

Sorry, I don't know how to do links, but here is URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200629.html

[clarice]

Danke, Boris

[boris]

Granny's link

[Skip]

Clarice:

I was getting that from this:

Now, however, this trial has progressed to the point where the government has rested its case and one of those allegations - that Mr. Libby lied about his conversation with Judith Miller on July 12, 2003 - has been dropped.

That statement doesn't seem to make sense when the jury gets the case, but rather now. But I'll accept what you say as correct.

[Sue]

I can't imagine what the jury is thinking. I hope they are scratching their heads in wonderment at what Fitz brought to trial.

[boris]

Does someone have a link to cbolt's blog.

Should be on the right side blogroll for Plamaniacs.

[maryrose]

MM:
Great job today! You really caught the flavor of the courtroom.Thanks for your posts.

[MaidMarion]

MayBee,

Don't know about the court's blackberry rules. Wondered that myself. Last week I sat by a CNN person...she was doing it too. And I've noticed the DOJ Deputy checking his blackberry...

It is annoying, though.

[Tom Maguire]

Re Novak calling Libby about Plame:

Clearly the defense is cracking open the door for a "misremembered" defense - Libby had his eye-opening phone call with Novak, not Russert.

HOWEVER - on July 10, when Rove and Libby compare notes, Rove says Novak has the story and Libby says, yeah, so does Russert.

Wouldn't it have been pretty easy for Libby to remember that he and Rove had the same source?

Well. Maybe Rove never mentioned a name, and Libby got completely turned around on this point. Plenty of others have had "I Forgot" moments.

Congratulations on the hits explosion. What's a typical day here in terms of hits?

In non-Plame eras, about 5,000 per day. I would saythat in the summer of 2005, or around Fitzmas, maybe 10,000 daily.

So the current average (26,000) is off the charts.

And we will all lapse back into well-deserved obscurity in a few weeks, but for now, we can star at various dinner and cocktail parties. Well, unless Paris Hilton dies.

Something else bothers me. The judge said something along the lines of even if you establish that Mitchell knew how does that impeach Russert (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to wait for dialup to go look for the actual quotes) when Russert himself testified that if Mitchell knew she would have told him. Gregory too. I don't think the judge is keeping up very well with the testimony.

I wanted to slap him - if Russert said it was impossible, it is hardly asking the jury to speculate if it suddenly becomes very possible.

I mean, is the idea here that we have a trial about Libby's bad memory or deceit but assume everyone else is honest and has accurate memories? I thought it was juries that decided who was credible. Grr.

Wow - great wrap-up from MaidMarion, thanks. I agree that this was a grim day for Fitzgerald, but it was the defenses's turn.

[centralcal]

MaidMarion - great "reporting" and observations! They really help to give us a feel of what it's like inside the courtroom. It is good you are not a lawyer, you can focus on the stuff that Clarice, the lawyer isn't able to focus on. I think the two of you make a great team!

[boris]

MaidMarion you are a great spy to bear the news of Nottingham back here to the forest.

[MaidMarion]

Alcibiades,

Truly, I don't know what her last name is... But what I really wanted to say about Jane...yet decided not to do because it was so totally irrelevant...was that she was wearing a smock that reminded me of the 1960's. Somebody help me here..I've forgotten what those dresses were called. Not an empire dress...it was the rage back then...gathered below the bust...what were they called.

And the material was just dreadful...not of the period even. Plus she had the knee boots...!

In high contrast to the oh so dapper Mr. Blumenthal.

Time warp...

[Sue]

CNN's headline: Columnist testifies Rove confirmed agent's name

What a freakin' joke.

[AJStrata]

Clarice,

Agreed on the IIPA requirements. But more basic is the fact that the only person who cannot be charged for outing a NOC is the NOC themselves! All other requirements aside, if Plame let reporters know she worked at the CIA then there is no way to charge the administration for an act already done by the Wilsons.

[Lesley]

Peasant dress?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: PATTON

This is a love note to you for your sense of humor. This post made me smile. And, it also reminded me that CONDI is now at State. (Plus, that JOHN BOLTON was Carl Ford's boss. And, Ford is the one who tanked the senate's confirmation, I think, of nominating Bolton to the UN.)

So? THe game doesn't end, yet. Though this was prescious:

"By George I've solved it!

Its was Armitage, in the State Dept, with the big mouth!"

[pldew]

I saw this about Mitchell. Did I miss something?

"Also this morning, Libby's attorneys lost an effort to summon NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify as a witness in his defense. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled that Mitchell does not need to testify"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200588_pf.html

[Pofarmer]

I mean, is the idea here that we have a trial about Libby's bad memory or deceit but assume everyone else is honest and has accurate memories?

But they are the great annointed ones, sacrosanct in our constitution, they are journalists. Would they ever tell a lie?

[Sue]

Just a thought here, but over at the swamp they are not having their usual after party victory lap. Instead we get 2 threads about "Bush's ill-conceived escalation of the US presence in Iraq." and Jack Bauer. Wonder what that means? ::grin::

[Pofarmer]

Not an empire dress...it was the rage back then...gathered below the bust...what were they called.

Ugly. I'm aghast that's coming back in style.

[percipio]

"Somebody help me here..I've forgotten what those dresses were called..."

Erm... not sure but I think they were called "peasant" dresses.

And Maid Marion, thanks so much for your insightful observations in the courtroom.

[windansea]

So the current average (26,000) is off the charts.

revenge is best served cold :)

congrats

[Dwilkers]

I find it odd that the NBC lawyer is in there with a Blackberry.

In the federal courthouse down here you cannot even get on the elevators that lead to the courtroom floors with any sort of electronic device at all, pager, cell phone, PDA, anything. They have a full walled off security checkpoint where they take anything like that and give you a token for you to turn in to retrieve it when you leave.

Even if lawyers are given special permission to have these devices, which isn't in keeping with what I've seen down here, they certainly wouldn't be allowed to use them in the courtroom when court is in session.

[Jane]

But what I really wanted to say about Jane...yet decided not to do because it was so totally irrelevant...was that she was wearing a smock that reminded me of the 1960's. Somebody help me here..I've forgotten what those dresses were called.

Since it is a different Jane, this is the kind of dish that is music to my ears, proving once and for all that I am a truly bad person.

[dorf]

Dwilkers: rules do not apply to journalists. That's what this whole trial is about.

[clarice]

Yes, AJ.True.
Please do not talk to TM about the possibility of his numbers falling. In the backroom when I posted I am certain I saw clippings on Anna Nicole Smith shoved under the coffeemaker.

[MayBee]

I would find it understandable if Jane Hamsher was wearing loose-fitting clothing. She just underwent surgery for breast cancer.

I don't like her blogging, but I have sympathy for her on that.
Besides, I really like baby doll and empire waist dresses. Very Heidi Klum.

[maryrose]

Is it a babydoll dress? I saw some like it in the most recent issue of "InStyle"

[windansea]

I've read about 500 posts since arriving home

mongel horde: 497

others: 3

Fitzlemas :)

[centralcal]

Ladies, you are easily entertained! Jane Hamsher's dress no less! Hey, earlier today, Clarice was noting Fitz's lightweight (she first thought seersucker, then later changed it) suit!

Clothing? We're reduced to clothing? lol.

[GnuCarSmell]

This trial strongly suggests that Fitzgerald is much more confused about the facts than Libby.

[clarice]

It was loose fitting but it was very 70's--and gauzy fabric not suitable for DC winter.

Dwikers.it's a no no for anyone to use those in the courtrooms here. I asked before they set up the media room and the clerk told me absolutely no text messaging of computers allowed.

[MayBee]

Clarice-
This is what I was asking about, regarding the argument about the 302

Wells: Russert says there was a buzz. We've already got on the record. The 302 states, I cannot rule it out as a possibility.

Bonamici: That is a quote from the 302, but you recall that when he was questioned, immediately after that, he pointed to the passage that he believed this was after the Novak was published.

Walton asks for the 302.

Walton: [Referring to the 302] This seems to say different from what you say.

Wells: I'm going to call the Agent [Eckenrode] tomorrow. This is the one instance bc the notes cannot be found–there was a diligent search for the notes.

Do you remember anything about that?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: MAID MARION

"That" dress was probably called a TRAPEZE.

It came off the Dior runway, and was the first or second show done by St. Laurent. Year? 1957? Or 1967? Grow old enough, and decades merge.

Women who wanted to get pregnant, and finally got pregnant hated those really loose dresses. And, then went back to the "shifts." Which fit like "tank sox" ... Where a tank sox has no heel. And, the dress has no waist line at all. STICK FIGURE CLOTHING. Or preganancy wraps. Take your pick. And, in those days women didn't wear tight fitting clothes that showed off their pregnant bellies, either. (Ah. And, when we went to shop? The nicer stores had pillows we could put on, to see how the stuff would handle the growth of girth.)

Today, however, you can by MOO-MOO's. Mu-mu's?

[dorf]

Was Nina Totebag wearing a mumu too?

[JM Hanes]

What's most remarkable about the number of hits, after the sheer (well deserved:) magnitude of the thing, of course, is how few of the available trolls can come up with anything to say. They do seem a little off their feed, don't they?