Powered by TypePad

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

February 12, 2007



Clarice, Maid,

Is Dickerson the reporter still around the courthouse?

Christopher Fotos

Folks, I have a quick question with apologies if this has already been discussed. WaPo's Goldstein/Leonnig filed a story at 5:22 and it includes this line:

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, despite strenuous arguments by Wells that the well-known television journalist could help discredit her colleague, the prosecution's key witness, Tim Russert, NBC News' Washington bureau chief.

Is that right? I thought there was some drill set up whereby Mitchell would testify absent the jury to see if Wells's line satisfies him.


Javani, excellent question. Have you noticed that Seth whatshisname is now the one covering the trial at Slate. I think Mr. Dickerson has lawyered up and been told to zip his lip!



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

I just can't tell. They really do seem to me to be taking their responsibility seriously.

I keep trying to put myself in their place when I hear the testimonies; I try to shed my pre-conceived bias. Even if I factor into the equation that they may not have been able to follow the minute details, I just can help but believe that they all haven't come to the realization...at this point of the trial...that memories are fallible.

Presumably Defense will bring out in closing statement the fact (I think I have this right) that Libby testified in March 2004 as to having told Kessler about Wilson's wife, for instance. Yet Kessler says he absolutely didn't. Golly, it seems Mr. Libby has a memory problem. Why would he testify to that kind of a statement?

My guess is some of the jurors haven't figured this disconnect yet...but that they do sense, at least, that the Prosecutor doesn't have all the facts.

Someone (or two or three, etc.) on this jury are asking really great questions. That has to be a good sign when it gets down to jury deliberation, it seems to me.

And whichever juror it was who asked the question of Novak which elicited the Harlow answer...and the Judge's surprise...that person has to be feeling really good right about now.

That juror will continue to pay close attention.


Dorf, LOL!!



Eckenrode (if I have the right person) will be called to testify Russert said it wasn't out of the realm of possibilty he spoke about "the wife." If E doesn't remember he will be shown the "report" I assume he wrote, to refresh his memory.

I don't see how he's material to much any other point we know about.

Cheney is irrelevant and Wilson now too -- I can't see what either's testimony could go to any side's position.


Javani, I didn't see Dickerson today.

Chris--They must have been watching a different trial--the judge still hasn't made a decision and has agreed to the "mock trial" I described before he does.

Have at it.


Sorry if someone has already posted this-

At Cboldt-



Mr. I. Lewis Libby, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court to give an instruction at the beginning of the defense's case informing the jury that the July 12, 2003 conversation has been dismissed as one of the allegedly obstructive actions. The Court, upon the request of Mr. Libby, instructed the jury upon its empanelment as to the three allegedly obstructive actions set forth in the obstruction of justice count. Now that one has been dropped, a jury instruction is appropriate so that the jury does not distract itself unnecessarily by questioning why Mr. Libby' s case-in-chief and his closing argument do not focus upon this conversation. Mr. Libby proposes the following instruction, which is modified from Redbook Instruction 1.17(B):


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

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 279 Filed 02/12/2007 Page 2 of 2

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.

Date: February 12, 2007

Cboldt's blog is-noeasyanswer.blogspot.com

Bill in AZ

I see some hits from NM on the sitemeter map. The Plamays??


Mr. Fotos,

You are correct, Mitchell will testify tomorrow absent the jury. The WaPo is mistaken. There should be a blog about that.



MM: roger all of that. You never know with a jury. I think right now it would be 8-4 to convict, last week 12-0. The defense is moving the ball. The ref still seems weak though.


Thanks, javani.
I'm mostly just trying to figure out if the judge is saying that he doesn't read the 302 the way the defense does, or the way the prosecution does.

Carol Herman


Yes, I do think, as Clarice also states, Mitchell comes in. Sits down in the witness box. BUT THE JURY IS OUT IN THE HALLWAY. (Be funny if, out there, they play musical chairs?)

Anyway, I think Walton loves V-8 in the morning. He tends to get "shocked" at stuff we anticipate. Meaning? Well, he's human.

So, for t'marra's ticket? Mitchell. Sans, jury. But with the NBC lawyer, AND his BlackBerry? I think the lawyers are aware that the Titanic is gonna be short of life boats. Passengers? PREPARE!

Dreck'N-rode will be an FBI critter, that I said will remind everybody of Mark Felt. Who here said Mark Furhman? Will he testify he "can't say" without using racy language? So what he does say will all be redacted to "I DON'T KNOW WHO'S ON FIRST?"


About the blackberry -- could that be used to either record the trial, or to transmit it on a phone call?


My impression about the judge and the 302 waffle:He seemed not to have caught that at all, but he has it now.

Rick Ballard

Clarice, MM,

Many thanks to you both. Did either of you notice any reaction at all when Pincus directly impeached Fleischer's testimony? Pincus had to know but neither of the bloggers took note and I'm wondering if maybe Fitz clutched his chest or threw up on an associate?


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

Libby testified in March 2004 that this conversation took place July 11.


Hamsher's Firedogs face Reality

Jane drops some names as usual and then punts...the lump of coal fizzles


I listened to the tape and it sounded to me like Woodward said -everyone knows too? Everyone knows, why isn't this being told?

Anyhoo, I loved when Woodward said - it's just weird.

Also, since Woodward was able to put all the pieces together there

A- I am certain he would have told Pincus this. It's a "Ah HA" to Woodward. Pincus, Priest, Woodward and a few others set up their version of the morning "Iraq group" also.

B- It's clear why it isn't memorable or not if Woodward raised it with Admin - most likely not. He's not a gullible or worse dolt like Kristof. Once it was put together he saw it for what it was. Wilson's ego.

Christopher Fotos

You are correct, Mitchell will testify tomorrow absent the jury. The WaPo is mistaken. There should be a blog about that.


thanks very much. I have a brief post up with nothing original in it--until now!

(I excerpted Maid Marion and AJ Strata, really to help me figure out what went on today.)

JM Hanes


Moo-moos! LOL! Although MM's & shifts were long gone by the time I was shopping for maternity clothes, I was amazed to discover that almost everything on offer had you buttoned up to the neck like a virgin with little ruffles, tiny flower patterns, etc. Sex? Who me? As if it weren't absolutely clear that somebody obviously thought you were hot.


Heh! There's a new article out saying that the journalists cited additional sources for Plame's identity.



"I think Mr. Dickerson has lawyered up and been told to zip his lip!"

If I were a reporter watching my name being bandied in a trial like this I wouldn't continue to sit around the courthouse watching the trial like a fat target for a subpoena, I'd be deciding to take on another story, say, one that just happened to be outside national boundaries, hey, the Bahamas are nice this time of year!


My impression about the judge and the 302 waffle:He seemed not to have caught that at all, but he has it now.

Thanks, Clarice. Well he'll really have it after Eckenrode. Should we be looking for a filing from Fitz to keep Eckenrode from testifying on the grounds that it may corroborate the government's case?


They do seem a little off their feed, don't they?

poor little pixel babies running from the Lake to the Wheel and back to the DUmp.

Desperately seeking Cheney :)

JM Hanes


Next time you see someone on a blackberry, pass a note to the bailiff!:)

I'm a bad girl too, Jane!


Rick, in the media room I can't see the jury and when a witness is on the stand all I can see is the witness.

Now--let's go to the opening about Libby being scapegoated:
(a) there is some evidence that Libby thought so (Cheney note)
(b) Any Bush haters in the jury may distance Libby from those they hate.
(c) It can explain Fleischer trying to nail Libby w/ a story that w/ time will hold less and less water (Bartlett, language used, Plamay, Dickerson disavowal and now Pincus)


MM: don't be a tattle, keep getting all the good intel. The atmospherics of the court room tell the real story.


"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?"

Don't know about pre-knowledge of Armitage...would hazard a guess that most didn't know. But yeah, Woodward's testimony...especially the tape recording. Even for me, that was totally unexpected and in the end rather awesome.

And compare that audio with last week's audio of Russert's appearance on the IMUS show. Russert, even after hearing HIS OWN VOICE...couldn't recall being on IMUS's show.

Woodward didn't have any problem recalling HIS recorded interview...


The history of fashion is a particular interest of mine, therefore, I greatly appreciated Clarice's and Maid Marion's comments about Blumenthal, Hamsher and Fitzgerald. I always notice what people are wearing because it is a great historical signifier of both the personal and the political.

"Dress is, on the other hand, the only art that relates so closely to the narrative of our lives, both as individuals and in relation to the wider world; for clothing is simultaneously intensely personal (a reflection of our self-image) and, as fashion, it is, in the words of Louis XIV, 'the mirror of history'."

THE ART OF DRESS (Fashion in England and France 1750 to 1820), Aileen Ribeiro, Yale Press 1995


(Marcotte, Edward's foul mouthed anti-Christian blogger has resigned.


firepup experts compare notes:

I think Rove has been indicted and it is sealed. Will it be set aside or not, that is the question.

But wouldn’t that mean that Jason Leopold was right about something?


and yeah..thats from today


Lesley: does that apply to overalls?


BTW Prof Kim, the other mba blogger there, today is the nicest person. A real doll. I only regret that having to blog in the break (using her computer) kept me from taking her to lunch.


from clarice...

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

The defense went after this point pretty hard with Bond. Fitzgerald says the notes were lost and they couldn't find them. Could it have been a prosecution screw up and they accidentally sent over the originals say mis-filed with other discovery so only the defense would have them. I doubt somthing quite so amaturish would happen, but it would be funny



Wind: even Fitz could not get away with that.


Lesley: does that apply to overalls?

LOL Hmmmmm.


I don;t think so. The prosecution noted they were missing in response to the motion for all material relating to Russert's accommodation. The prosecution did turn over the summary.


Oh for petes sake. We're back to Rove sealed indictment? Now they are embracing Jason back into their arms?

I feel very sorry for all the people Joe and Valerie have used and manipulated.


but it would be funny

Poetic justice would be more like it. I'd love to see Russerts ass handed to him with E's notes.


2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson’s
2:23 been calling everybody. He’s pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he’s all pissed off.

"Most people in the green room quietly read. He was giving his opinion at some length about how things were done in the Clinton NSC, in a very loud voice, I thought that was an obnoxious performance."
- Novak

The scales are dropping from a lot of eyes as they see the wheels come off this 'case'.


From Syl (still locked out):

Did either of you notice any reaction at all when Pincus directly
impeached Fleischer's testimony? Pincus had to know but neither of the
bloggers took note and I'm wondering if maybe Fitz clutched his chest
threw up on an associate?

Ari is a little dissembler, isn't he? I mean he tells fitz he told two
people he didn't, then claims he didn't tell the person he DID.

Would mean a wild goose chase on Gregory and Dickerson but a huge
possibility with Andrea. Which is why NBC's lawyer's ears, fingers, and
blackberry all coordinated at the sound of Ari's name.


Po: that's a big order man.


Okay, maybe I am all wet, but I think it was this morning when counsel was arguing Mitchell testimony that Eckenrode got mentioned as a witness. My theory is that it was downhill all day for Fitz after that piece of news. I mean, not being a legalese speaker and all, what exactly will he argue to the Judge about not allowing that?

And our mystery visitor this weekend, ZorrO (sorry, Carol, you are not the only one that can free associate) was he maybe gleaning info from some of our exemplary legal minds and found out more about Eckenrode than was previously known by the defense team?

Okay, I will quit drinking the red wine, before I post again!

Ralph L.

In my small experience on 3 juries in the People's Republic of Alexandria, if a juror reveals an obvious prejudice, he gets slapped down pretty quick. Of course, those were one day trials, so no OJ mind meld/melt occurred. It was also true that odd minor details (and a little browbeating, heh heh) would push the hold-outs to a verdict.

Rick Ballard

At the same time that Jeffress drew the flat denial from Fleischer about having told Pincus about Plame, he drew the fact that Bartlett was tasked to talk to Sunday morning talks shows. That was on Saturday, July 12 with Novak's column on the wire and Mitchell...

I wonder if Walton picked up on the impeachment?


Ralph: DC: 99.999999 Democratic. 'Nuf said.


dorf, LOL again!


If Fleischer is in Andrea's notes/phone records, it would explain NBC counsel's frantic blackberrying..otherwise, one might expect a quick note and no more..Just a FYI.

Everybody's been reading JOM..I've seen DOJ lurkers and lurkers from the press and all counsel etc. Take it as a badge of honor..and future witnesses --don't try a fast one, we're on to you.


I feel very sorry for all the people Joe and Valerie have used and manipulated.

not me...to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear their lamentations

I left out the last part to avoid being La Crossed


I don't think the ladies in the swamp got the implication that Ari impeached himself, though some in the comment section seemed to notice. They also didn't notice he was quoting from the INR, not what Libby allegedly told him. Plus, they are still hoping for a Cheney indictment. Not to mention Rove. I can't believe they think Fitz wants to go down this road again, especially with the Wilson's playing star roles in any case that involves the 'big' case.


W: just keep watching the New York Times' stock price drop.


Po: that's a big order man.

A guy can dream.



Yes! Peasant dress! Matched up now with the institutional Mr. Dapper!

The left has come full circle...


Clarice - you've "seen" lurkers? In the pressroom on their computers? Or, you have more techy-savvy than you are letting on, and can "see" when they visit here?

Never. Mind. Don't give away your secrets!


Plus the ladies think Libby's defense is bringing Abramson only to hear her say that Miller was under probation for her crappy reporting on WMDs. Sure. More likely she will testify that Judith Miller never mentioned the wife to her.


.....and dream BIG. :)

Carol Herman


Now, that would be hilarious. As Fitz gets cut down in this courtroom. (He's looking more and more like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail). That when it's over, chicken without head stuff; the head, itself, on the ground says: COME HERE AND LET ME BITE YA.

Yeah. Rove's indicted. Those leftoids won't recover even if you passed ammonia under their noses. Jason Leopold, indeed.

Career wise, however, I do think there are some opportunities available to train FORMER TV job holders, and former hacks who work for print outlets; on how to go about applying for new jobs.

They could start with learning the wrist movements needed to flip burgers efficiently. Hmm. What else comes to mind? This case is looking more like a pancake every day.

And, ya know what? At this rate Wells will be able to close this down, sooner rather than later. When is the storms due to hit DC?

Rick Ballard

I'm dividing the press into two camps on this. One camp is NYT/NBC (black hats - boo - hiss), the other camp is WaPo/all others (white hats - our heroes!!). Now I'm not doing this personally (personally - "Smythe, take them all out and shoot them. There's a lad.") but I do believe that I'm seeing this dichotomy even in some of the reporting. That may be one of the reasons that the AP Apuzzo/Sniffen team (a giggle if you know where to look) has been shooting relatively straight.

Is anyone else seeing this?

JM Hanes


Yes, I think that's a plausible approach to Eckenrode. Defense can start up as though they're just filling in a few blanks or confirming the record, in the absence of his notes on Russert. They can test the waters with a few limited questions on more sensitive matters to see how touchy or cooperative he might be, and then close up shop if it looks like he's not inclined to give them what they're looking for -- as though they've accomplished all they set out to do.

On the other hand, it's possible they've got something specific here and have taken a logical way to slide him into the line-up without tipping their hands to the prosecution.

It's interesting that at the time of his retirement, he apparently still thought indictments against Hadley & Rove, or both, were in the offing and expected to testify at the trial. This per Jason Leopold, although published by the "Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel" not Truthout (although he may have put it up there as well.

We'll probably be able to tell within the first few questions which way things are headed.



Go http://www.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s20justoneminute>here and have fun watching who our visitors are. Someone at DoJ has been lurking for months. ::grin:: ((((Waving))))


Dorf - indeed it does. The agrarian/blue collar origin of the overall was a significant political/counter culture statement in the 60's and 70's.

However silly you might find it (which is completely understandable, I know my interests are not everyone's), if you contrast the appearances of Fitzgerald (rumply, inexpensive suit), Blumenthal (exquisitely dressed - Brioni?), and Hamsher (a nod to the retro currently being paraded down the haute couture runways), you could draw some intriguing conclusions about the wearers and the times in which we live.


Two new filings (279) Libby's Proposed jury instructions..(SKIP< you were right, I was wrong--they want the reference to the dropped count brought to jury's attention NOW because there was reference to that count in the opening and will be none in the closing. Sorry. You were right. I was wrong.http://members.cox.net/liinda/280.htm

Other pleading Fitz on state of mind evidence if Libby doesn't testify

thnx to SD


Well, Rick, I am not sure I can agree with you on the WaPo. Did you read Cohen's column tonite? I think I would divid the WaPo into halves. Maybe. Maybe half white hats, half black villains.



Dickerson has been inside the courtroom everyday since last Monday...for most the entire day.


Sorry, but you need to know about "empire" waists, named after the fashion inaugurated by Josephine, (first) wife of Napoleon (I); once he crowned himself emperor and his wife empress, the gauzy high-waisted things she wore became known as empire gowns and were all the rage. Napoleon divorce Josephine within a year of the David painting commemorating their coronation. Okay, back to current events... (but you have to admit that Napoleon and Josephine were bigger in their day than this particular episode of deeply insider baseball...)


Lesley: I agree with you. Sorry for my lame attempt at humor. Dress counts. The suit you wear in court is the only armor you have. Funny how the nasty lefty (El Sid) dresses so sharp. When the revolution comes he'll switch to overalls.


Sue - Cool! I think. Okay how do you know who is who from that. I looked around, but, um, I am not techy-savvy, so what is a dead give away?

Ralph L.

Dorf, you have to remember, 98% aren't eligible for jury duty. The one DC resident I know is your 0.0000001.

I'm more worried about their ability to follow the important bits than their prejudices. But if they're confused, that should be good for the defendant, right?

Had to remember Monty Python to spell def-end-ant correctly.


Sue, I went there, I found me.

Look! I'm waving!

How cool


Ralph: you know W? :)


Well, Wind...you have a point. They are adults after all, but there is still a stench.

I dunno, but I just cannot get past a seasoned prosecutor listening to that Woodward tape and concluding..."this is no big, I still have a case"...I mean come on! The whole flipping state department were laughing their asses off at Wilson especially knowing the National Command Authority Envoy who was so pissed, got his super important not even wanted or necessary "mission" via his wife!

JM Hanes

Afraid I can't provide a link, but back in Sept. '05, the Philadelphia Inquirer had this to say in an article about Eckenrode:

In late June, just days before Live 8, Jack Eckenrode, the senior FBI agent in Philadelphia, wrapped up a news conference about the free concert with a question of his own.

"Did you notice the Supreme Court decision about the reporters?" Eckenrode said, smiling broadly. "They're not going to hear the case."

Eckenrode, the FBI agent-in-charge in Philadelphia, is also lead agent in the CIA-leak case, the one that later triggered a New York Times reporter's jailing and, most recently, front-page scrutiny of White House aide Karl Rove.

Eckenrode said he could not comment on the case, but others involved said he has interrogated most of the central players, including Rove; Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose cover was blown; and her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. He has also participated in interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It could not be determined whether Eckenrode has also interviewed syndicated columnist Robert Novak, whose July 2003 column sparked the controversy. Novak's column, naming Plame as a CIA operative who worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues, appeared shortly after Plame's husband had written an op-ed column accusing Bush of exaggerating the WMD threat.

Shortly afterward, FBI Director Robert Mueller tapped Eckenrode to lead the investigation into who leaked Plame's name.

The case stalled last fall after Times reporter Judith Miller declined to reveal her sources to a grand jury. After the Supreme Court's decision last month not to take the case, a judge ordered Miller jailed on contempt charges. As a U.S. marshal took Miller into custody in Washington last week, Eckenrode watched from a seat at the prosecution table.

Wilson, in a telephone interview from his home in Washington this week, recalled several interviews with Eckenrode and said the agent also interviewed his wife. Plame, a graduate of Pennsylvania State University, grew up in Huntingdon Valley.

"He's serious, he's committed, he's thoughtful and he's thorough," Wilson said. "He's also extraordinarily discreet. He took all my information and gave nothing back, which is, of course, totally appropriate. I have great respect for him."

Efforts by Eckenrode and other officials to force the reporters to disclose their sources have troubled many journalists, but Wilson noted that public interest in the case had escalated since Time magazine complied with the court order and disclosed an e-mail that suggests reporter Matthew Cooper and Rove discussed the matter.

It represents a "significant change in people's understanding of how this thing happened," Wilson said.

Both Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and Miller's attorney, Saul M. Pilchen, declined to comment.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago who is the special counsel in the case, has a policy of not commenting on it. But through a spokeswoman, Fitzgerald said Eckenrode "defines what it is to be an FBI agent. . . . Jack is honest, smart and hardworking and plays it straight at all times."

"When I met with him I found him to be trustworthy, vigorous and very professional," said Joseph A. Tate, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Patrick Meehan, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, noted that Eckenrode was promoted to Philadelphia just as the City Hall corruption indictments came down.

"He was juggling a tremendous responsibility in Washington as well as walking into the midst of a very challenging period here," Meehan said.

Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, where Eckenrode worked from 1999 to 2002, said, "The consensus is that Jack is a rising star in the bureau."

I was struck by Wilson's odd emphasis on Eckenrode's discretion, when as far as I know, it wasn't an issue yet.


Two quick questions, guys: (1) did the jurors hear the unbleeped Armitage/Woodward? and (2) what was Novak's response to the juror question that seemed to startle the judge?

2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson’s 2:23 been calling everybody. He’s pissed off because he was 2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, 2:25 he’s all pissed off.

Joe Wilson "National Command Authority", can say BOO!!! and those uranium deals just evaporate...this trial must have really deflated his ego a bit, wonder how that book deal they have is going to deal with all this?



Dorf - no offense taken. I laughed when you commented about overalls. In Sid's case, dress adds class, stature and sophistication to a man who might, otherwise, not be noticed. In Jane's case, I wouldn't doubt she was wearing a designer dress - tres chic appealing to a hip, fashion conscious audience. In Fitz's case, I think his dress is also part of a carefully crafted personna - the humble public prosecutor, doing the nation's work.

Molon Labe

Sue, I posted this on other thread...I'm way behind...had to watch "24"

My translation of this garbled line:

Woodward: But INR thought that she could say, oh yeah, I'' be [garbled]

Woodward: but INR thought that she could say, "Oh yea, hubby will go"

Ralph L.

Dorf: You mean W's a Republican?

Speaking of clothes, my first celebrity sighting, 20 years ago at Dulles, was Robert Novak, in his TV outfit of black pinstripes and red tie. I think it must be a tattoo.

Christopher Fotos

I'm dividing the press into two camps on this. One camp is NYT/NBC (black hats - boo - hiss), the other camp is WaPo/all others (white hats - our heroes!!

White-hatted WaPos? I don't think so. Especially if you are talking about the reporting. Maybe the Post looks great by comparison and I certainly can't read into motives, but take a look at This post by yours truly about major gaps in Wapo's reporting. Beat reporters Leonnig and Goldstein have completely missed the FBI interview with Russert, the fact that this wasn't disclosed in the affidavit, the fact that the original notes were lost and the fact that the summary later put together has Russert agreeing he couldn't rule out the possibility that Plame came up in that conversation. That was last Thursday and they still haven't covered it. There was a sidebar in the Post today that included Russert's "impossible to have mentioned her) quote with no reference to it.

So, no white hats. Today's main story was better but still had some key omissions.


Ralph: I saw Novak on the treet in DC in '92. With the red tie and a three piece.



When I heard that Armitage was slightly starting to cough (illustrates the casual) and laugh (illustrates the hilarity) at the same time.

It was actually priceless.

Carol Herman


Which general said "kill them all and let God sort it out?"

Woodward wants his reputation BACK. He's not tossing it aware for this "imposter to deep throat" be it Armitage or Dreck'N-road.

The WaPo suffered bigger hits than "just lost circulation." She got her Art Buchwald moment, where he woke up sans leg, and no will to live. Cuts the comedy routines right out from under you, so to speak.

And, if you're at sea? And, you know you can limp back to port, not sinking alongside the FItz-Titanic; exactly how to you intend to repair your vessel?

Let alone repair your vessel with enough due speed that you recover from Kerry. You make believe Joe Wilson was NEVER a friend of yours! And, you scuttle hillary!

Remember this. The best contacts in the world for reporters come from their connections to the "A" TEAM. Doesn't work, if on the bottom of your shoes, is Dreck, picked up 'N-rode. Because then nobody will take your phone calls.

And, you'll be saying into your dottering old age, alla Joan Crawford, "I'm ready for my close up, now, Mr. DeMille."

Sherlock Holmes solves some crimes.

And, others? The murderous dame is willing to go out in "flames" (Blame it on the Plame's, boys). For one more moment in the sun. Good reputations, not going to the losers.

Christopher Fotos

And I should add on WaPo, Howard Kurtz hasn't mentioned much of this stuff either. He does think Russert was completely justified in resisting Fitz's subpoena, to protect sources etc., but I dont' think he's mentioned the fact that Tim blabbed it all to some guy on the phone who identified himself as Mr. FBI.

Other Tom

The Silence of the Trolls.

Ralph L.

Dorf: So, you know Wilson?

I told you it's a tattoo.


"I was struck by Wilson's odd emphasis on Eckenrode's discretion, when as far as I know, it wasn't an issue yet."

JM Hanes, the Philadelphia Inquirer had a similar emphasis in another story about Eckenrode's retirement:

"Patrick L. Meehan, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, who worked closely with Eckenrode, said his appointment in the Plame case "recognized the esteem with which he was held by his colleagues."...
"Meehan recalled that the night before Libby was indicted - a subject of profound media speculation with a grand jury deadline approaching - he rode a train with Eckenrode to Washington. While drinking Bud Lite, he said, they discussed many things, but not the Plame case.

"I would never ask and he would never betray Pat Fitzgerald's confidence," said Meehan, who was headed to Washington to attend an unrelated meeting."

I found that odd when I read it. It just seemed so...unprompted.


Zorro? The Fox so cunning and free?

Qué cosa.

Good work today. Thanks for the summaries.

Carol Herman


Have I got a test to see how Walton reacts to BlackBerry's in his courtroom, t'marra?

You think someone may whisper in Walton's ear that the NBC lawyer sat in back and played with his "own?" Seems odd behavior for laywers to do in the courtroom. Even fancy, dancy, pin striped suiters from NBC.

And, IF the Marshal t'marra, scans the back row, we all will learn the POWER OF THIS SITE on the Internet. Made stronger if Glenn Reynolds sends a link this way, too.

This is some see-journey. There's enough eyes that nothing escapes attention, anymore.

Odds Woodward is peeking in? High there, Mr. Deep Throat handler. Just in case you are. What a pickle. Same script. But you don't have Nixon to kick around, anymore.


RalphL: Nope. I am not that cool. I don't have that faux horsey look that Val and he try so hard to front. If you didn't go to Oldfields or Phillips or Hill, you just can't fake it.

Rick Ballard


Personally, as I stated, there are no white hats. I'm writing about some subtle turns of phrase with Apuzzo in particular that seem to push that dichotomy within the press corps. It isn't the solid wall that AP usually makes sure goes into print.

I'll try and grab a few examples for you. I'm really not talking about the quality of reporting - that stinks all round, with the exception of Apuzzo and one or two others.

Other Tom

Clarice, if you get a chance during a break, perhaps you could ask the disgraced reptile Sidney Blumenthal a few questions. Some "how did it feel" queries about when the grand jury foreman lectured him about lying in his teeth on the steps of the courthouse following his gj testimony. One of the great facials of all time...


And what about this JM:

"He's serious, he's committed, he's thoughtful and he's thorough," Wilson said. "He's also extraordinarily discreet. He took all my information and gave nothing back, which is, of course, totally appropriate. I have great respect for him."

He took all of my information, and gave nothing back? One can only ask, what "information" did he require of Wilson? Did he even ask about Joe sourcing reporters? He certainly never asked any number of reporters if Wilson was their source--as we are now seeing from the stand.

Are any notes available from the meeting with Joe? Or did they get lost too?

And let's not forget, Fitz was sending FBI agents out to the neighbors at the 11th hour to make sure than none of them knew that Val worked for the CIA. Gives you a clue, doesn't it.

Wonder if they asked Joe about who his "friend" who approached Novak on the street was...


"About the blackberry -- could that be used to either record the trial, or to transmit it on a phone call?"

Well, I don't see where that makes much difference now...since they're allowing the media to sit in and transcribe/transmit the proceedings real time.

In the lunchroom I heard a guy (lawyer?) who I recognized as having been in the courtroom talking on the phone. Didn't know who he was...but was curious. After a certain point it became obvious that he was talking to Evan Thomas. He told him about the previous witnesses from the morning's proceedings and told him at what time to expect to be put on the stand.

And by the way...almost forgot the best scoop...!

I noticed when I went downstairs to meet up with Clarice (about 4:40pm) that Mr. Shuster was typing away on his laptop. I then saw that he was transferring input from an incoming email onto his steno pad, which is what I presume is what he takes along as reference when he tapes his Hardball reports. I'm sure he was prepping for the 5pm Hardball segment. Someone from higher up was giving him instructions on what to say...it looked to me. He doesn't have a free hand in what he reports.


The great thing about the WaPo is they never agitated for an investigation as the NYTs did, and the reporters involved distinctly said there was no crime. Walter Pincus has said he believed Joe and the Dems turned politics into a crime.

So yes, some of their reporters are off- and Howard Kurtz is willfully blind- but at least the WaPo never asked for this farce.


Could all the talk about Eckenrode being so discreet be a way to offset the supposed leaking he had been doing?

Ralph L.

Dorf: I was referring to the friend of Wilson who accosted Novak in the street. Or am I thinking of another reporter? You should change your name, I keep typing Dork.


R: not far off the mark.


A former Prime Minister Of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, looked into Joe Wilson's eyes and told him that in 1999, an Iraqi delegation approached him and insisted on meeting to discuss uranium sales.

Wilson returns home and writes his infamous op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa", never mentioning what this very credible source had told him, labeling Bush the liar.

His propaganda with the media as his get away vehicle turned public opinion against a just cause, which as far as I'm concerned is treason!

Those 16 words the President used in the SOTU, were not then, are not now, and never will be a lie! I won't rest until I find out who forged those Niger Documents.

"It is in our best interest to punish the first insult, because an insult unpunished is the parent of many more."

Thomas Jefferson

JM Hanes

Molon Labe:

Yes, that was just my best guess transcription on the previous thread. I hate to do a second long paste, as you can now find a PDF of the offical transcript of the whole excerpt played to the jury on the APs exhibit site. If folks want to quote from it, that's the best source to use. Just for the record here though, here's the corrected passage you're referring to:

3:13 WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
3:14 ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.
3:15 WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh
3:16 yeah, hubby will go."
3:17 ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.
3:18 WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?
3:19 ARMITAGE: No.
3:20 WOODWARD: When he was ambassador?
3:21 ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know.
3:22 I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in
3:23 the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [ ]?

Unfortunately, I can't get the .wav file they posted to play again, although it worked the first time. Next time I do, I'll download it, if poss.

The comments to this entry are closed.