Powered by TypePad

« Knocking the Prosecutor for Some Loops | Main | Tuesday Pre-Game Show »

February 12, 2007



road dog, no matter why he retired, the fact that Fitz used Bond and not E to authenticate the Libby notes and didn't have E as his witness to explain the missing Russert notes or the telephone interview of Russert makes me think there is something odd.


Who "memo'd" the January doc 4 days before the SOTUS?




I think I'm back!!!!


Is anyone still awake?

Jill Abramson is up tomorrow, and I'm sure she is expected to testify that Judy didn't really ask her about writing a column.

I know this impeaches Judy. But does it give anything else? There was a lot of push-n-pull in her testimony, with what could be asked about her sources for her article about Wilson's op-ed, vs. what other sources she could be asked about.
Does the defense gain something ELSE about Judy if they can show she might not have been working on one specific article at all?
Or is this strictly a memory defense thing?

Road Dog

Odd - yes. With Bond blowing up in Fitz' face, a tactical blunder? Probably. Will Wells exploit the Catch 22 E now gives him? A certainty. Will Wells get more than that? I hope so. But I doubt he'll find a falling out between Fitz and E or that E has flipped to be anti Fitz. But, I may be wrong, and we'll know tomorrow. Get some rest, tomorrow (today!) should be busy.


An alternative theory (speculation) on how Eckenrode got his telephone interview with Russert: Suppose Eckenrode posed as a confidential source with inside information on the investigation. Russert would think he was interviewing Eckenrode instead of the other way around. This would explain Eckenrode giving Russert the details of Libby’s account before asking what Russert knew. It would also perhaps explain why Russert didn’t include a mention of the Eckenrode conversation when the NBC lawyers filed to forestall his testimony later.



re Abramson I think it's what Miller said she was writing vs what editor says she was working on. Though Judy had a pretty long leash I think. Probably mostly to do with memory/hearing thing.

So many claimed they told someone something, so many said no you didn't or they don't remember.

What am I talking about! That's all this case is about!!


Syl- good to have you back (fingers crossed).
Thanks for answering. I was just trying to do some digging without, you know, actually thinking. But yeah, I'm guessing a lie about Abramson and the WINPAC stuff will be good impeachment for Judy.



I'm sure the phonecall was set up beforehand and Russert said he informed NY counsel. As MarkO has explained, this would all be handled through NBC lawyers so answers were well-crafted and nothing that was privileged (client/attorney) was revealed--and that would include any attorney involvement in arranging the call.

There may not have been. FBI set up a file on me when my SO and I got together because of his high security clearance. Every year they'd drop by and talk to neighbors. But they'd also contact where I worked, by phone, to get information.

It all seemed very informal and as far as I know nobody objected to talking to them.



the WINPAC stuff

I didn't clip the part of the pseudo transcript of the discussion about the WINPAK stuff, but it was a good learning experience.

Walton is not a judge of facts but a judge of the law. Thus thought the talk about rehabilitation against impeachment was interesting.

Walton said fitz can't use what judy thought she thought to rehabilitate what she said.

I liked that. :)



"JMH, it won't be videotaped."

But will they have a transcript of Mitchell's "mock trial" to use for impeachment? They must have some way to keep her from getting a free practice run, right?


left-leaning CIA ?

If our parents would read this ......

Posted by: TexasToast | February 12, 2007 at 09:30 PM

In case you weren't aware of it, there was a major turn over in CIA staff in the 70s. Many of the old "Wild Bill" types left after the Congress closed down a lot of thier more "outside the box" operations. Then the Carter administration made the decision to pretty much junk Humint in favor of Sigint and other technical means of gathering info. And a lot of those retirees in the 70s were replaced with idealistic young democrats who joined government to "make it better" after the Nixon era.

So yes, you now (30 years later) have a lot of 70s era Carterite dems in very important career places in the CIA.

JM Hanes

Could there be something else we don't know about Abramson & Miller? Just bringing her in to say she never talked to Miller about a possible article seems like a fairly minor thing, although I suppose it could be cleaning up loose ends, & putting the definitive nail into the Miller coffin, but still. I suppose I could also go back to scan Miller's testimony, but then again, I guess we'll know soon enough.


"""the tape was bleeped as I recall and the jury told it was profanity."""

Now what was the reason for that? Are these jurors too sensitive to hear the evidence?

Imagine if they had to see pictures of a deas body, would the judge sensor those?

I am amazed by how much work goes into making sure the jury doesn't even get a whiff of reality.

Other Tom

Ranger's right about the leftish odor at CIA. Following the Church investigation and report we had Carter's appointment of the hapless Stansfield Turner as the DCI. From that point on it's been a real goofball kindergarten.

Why can't Pete realize that indeed we do have a new idol? It's the nuanced Professor Juan Cole with his disappearing time machine. (We certainly won't get his kind of insight on any right-wing blogs.)

Other Tom

Jesus--0230 here on the left coast, and I'm doing beatdowns of the lower order of trolls. Back to bed...


Wake up! You are missing the best time of the day!


The Mitchell dress rehearsal bugs me too. By the time the jury arrives she will be all nice and comfy, she will have had a chance to confer with her lawyers about the best way to frame things, and the butterflies will have gone away. The jury probably won't even see her take the oath.

OTOH she will have to testify before her peers the first time, right? The peanut gallery and the news media get to watch?


Or, Jane, she could be rattled. Russert ended his first day of testimony a little rattled over the waiver - and yes, he had regrouped by the next day.

At the beginning of this trial, there were some notes of Mitchell's that the Judge allowed in, and Clarice noted it. Any theories about what might be in her notes (pretty illegible, as I recall)?

hit and run

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.

I've put "hit and run on JOM" on my business card.


I've put "hit and run on JOM" on my business card.

Funny. So have I.


Azhghal - I agree that Eckenrode not showing up as a prosecution witness is very curious. OK, very very curious. But I still think that E hitting mandatory retirement age (coupled w/ a good post-retirement job which may not have been there if he stayed on the Fitz project) is the likeliest scenario for his retirement. This case has enough conspiracies.

The FBI doesn't keep a lot of people past their "sell by" dates. They try not to keep SACs who hit mandatory retirement. It hurts morale for those wanting to move up the ranks. I suspect that Fitz keeping E off the stand (as his witness) was tactical because E interviewed too many people (including journalists) and the risks of too much coming out on cross outweighed the benefits of his testimony. Now that Russert's testimony is in disputing the 302 summary, the defense has little downside to calling Eckenrode. He'll either contradict Russert or admit the FBI notes are faulty. The defense makes points either way.

Posted by: Road Dog | February 12, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Road Dog, you don't know what you're talking about. Among other mistakes you make, Eckenrode retired at 53, mandatory retirement is 57.

The comments to this entry are closed.