Monday - Trial By (Or Of) Media

Here's an open thread to cover the liveblooging.

Marcy Wheeler is back for the firedogs (EW 1, Pincus 1, Woodward 1); she did a fine job last time around, but I am red-penning this editorial aside from her first post - the attorneys and judge are discussing whether Amdrea Mitchell is admissible:

Wells: If she's working on the story, covering the State Department, where Armitage worked [but of course he wasn't returning her calls].

The story that Armitage had stopped taking her calls came out on July 20 - plenty of time for him to have second thoughts about ther previous chats, especially since by that time the Plame story had been broken by Novak, Corn, and TIME.

And while we are her, let's call the defense's attention to the fact that Mitchell did not begin covering the Wilson story on July 6 - she had his phone number handy and called him at home on July 5 to set up the July 6 appearance, after the Wislon/NY Times op-ed hit the wires Saturday night.

And of greater interest - on June 26 she broke the news about the misplaced INR dissent on Niger, uranium and Iraq in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. That certainly suggests she was covering the Niger/uranium story and talking to State-friendly sources (not a surprise, since she is the NBC foreign affairs correspondent.)  A snippet:

NBC News has learn that in a footnote buried in a classified CIA report, last October, the State Department said charges Iraq had attempted to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from Africa were, quote, "highly dubious." And, U.S. officials tell NBC News, the CIA still passed along the erroneous charge to the president and his war cabinet, adding only a small caveat, quote, "we don't know the status of these arrangements."

My thought - the live-blog transcripts do gain some extra charm and character with the editorial asides.  However, given the time pressure, the color commentary had better be right, or omitted.  As I write, a minor bit of misinformation is bouncing all over the blogosphere for no good reason.  (And for the first time!)

THE NEW LEGAL SYSTEM:  Evidently, we have moved beyond the world of reasonable doubt.  From EW 1, here is Judge Walton, paraphrased, ruminating about whether the jury should hear from Andrea Mitchell:

I think there's a lot of mischief that comes with [bringing in Mitchell and trying to impeach her]. If you were to do that, it doesn't add to your case, it seems to me once you do that and you throw that before the jury, the jury may draw the inference that she knew about it, Russert knew about it...

Ya think?  Since Russert says that it was "impossible" that he knew about Plame prior to the Novak column and that his reporters share information with him, if Mitchell testifes that she did know about Wilson's wife, then expect the impossible.

Or, since Woodward claims he told Pincus yet Pincus forgot, and Fleischer claims he told Dickerson yet Dickerson remembers it differently, well, maybe Russert is having a memory issue here too. Unprecedented?

Apparently the judge is leaning towards bringing Mitchell in for sworn testimony without the jury present.  Please - if she comes across as a weaselling liar, I want the jury to see that - Russert might have as much reason to be lying as Libby, after all - the revelation that he misled the investigation for two years (and perjured himself on the witness stand last week) certainly might give Ms. Mitchell reason to lie herself.

And if she does have a source, she might want to lie to protect that source - *if* her source is Armitage, her testimony could be strike three against him - Armitage would have three leaks that we know about and he would have "forgotten" two of them in chatting with Fitzgerald. I doubt it, but that might just create a situation where Ms. Mitchell is given an opportuity to star in the trial of Richard Amritage - do you think she would prefer to avoid that?

The notion that we have to be scrupulous in avoiding any contamination of the *prosecution* case strikes me as laughably un-American.

No worries - reversed on appeal anyway.  No Mitchell no peace.

HARRUMPH:  Walter Pincus says his source was Ari Fleischer - how did Fleischer testify and never mention that?  Geez, I spend two weeks wondering how I could have been wrong about that...

And the defense is done with Walter Pincus.  OK, what was their point?  Throw Ari to the wolves, give him an additional motive to cut a deal and "cooperate" with Fitzgerald by giving up Libby?

ILLUMINATION:  Cecil Turner casts a light where I saw shadows:

Ari told Pincus about Plame. But he didn't use the information Libby supposedly told him at lunch (CIA, works in CPD), he gave the "analyst" stuff out of the INR memo. Actually fairly telling point . . . but too subtle for any juror without driving it home.

Good point, but since Ari had heard both versions, I suppose he had to pick one, and he went with the more recent one he had heard.  Or, he is confused about Libby.

ENOUGH WITH THE EDITORIALIZING!  From the liveblog:

F Goes to paragraphs starting "CIA's decision." Is it fair to say Libby was a source. I'll read you a line. "The CIA's decision was triggered by an aide."

BINGO!! Fitz got Libby in a lie!!

F Did Libby tell you it was the VP

WP He told me it was an aide.

F That's clear in your mind

They seem to be discussing the Pincus June 12 2003 story, which included this:

 

The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

What we think we know is that on Feb 12, 2002, the DIA circulated a report linking Iraq, Niger, and uranium; Cheney asked his CIA briefer about it on July 13.

So, did Libby read the report on Feb 12 and prepare a few questions for his boss to ask the CIA briefer the next morning?  If so, it it a "lie" for Libby to tell a reporter that the aide's question triggered the CIA follow-up?

Or was Libby in the meeting asking the questions while Cheney nodded menacingly?  If I were a CIA briefer, I might still write that up as Vice-Presidential interest.

Or, I might leap to conclusions and shout that Libby is lying to reporters to protect Cheney.  Whatever.

MORE:  In Woodward 1, there is this:

To explain my point in the last thread about Fitz catching Libby in a lie…

WP testified that Libby was one of his sources for the claim that "an aide to VP Cheney" asked for more information, which eventually led to Wilson being sent. But in fact, Cheney was the one who asked for more information. So Libby lied to Pincus to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip.

Sure.  Maybe.  Congrats - you caught him in a maybe-lie, maybe-true.  Close enough!

ON TO WOODWARD:  Here is the WaPo story describing his emergence, and his own version.

From Woodward:

I was first contacted by Fitzgerald's office on Nov. 3 after one of these officials went to Fitzgerald to discuss an interview with me in mid-June 2003 during which the person told me Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.

I have not been released to disclose the source's name publicly.  

Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned. I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive. I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position.

From the non-transcript of the Woodward-Armitage tape: 

A Why doesn't it come out. Everyone knows. 

BW Why did they send him. 

A Because his Wife's an ANalyst . 

BW Oh, she's the chief WMD? 

A No, she isn't the chief no. 

BW High enough she can say, oh hubby will go. 

A Not to my knowledge. His wife is a WMD analyst. HOw about that [redacted–shit?]

Casual?  Works for me.

Comments

[Christopher Fotos]

reposted from earlier thread:

Folks, I have a Libby 101 question--I'm reading Carol Leonnig's story in WaPo today before I blog it (PostWatch corporate headquarters requires that for some reason) and Leonnig writes the following:

...That admission helped the prosecution suggest Libby was part of a White House campaign to discredit Wilson.

and

Woodward's testimony could help bolster Libby's contention that there was no White House campaign to discredit Wilson and that other reporters knew about Plame before the time that prosecutors say Libby began to discuss her.

One or two other times as well. Now obviously it is not per se illegal for the White House to try to "discredit" anyone, but my question is, does Libby contend "there was no White House campaign to discredit Wilson" or are we just getting into a parsing match--e.g. Libby saying sure, we tried to counter false information being shopped by Libby.

[PaulL]

Fitz to Pincus: "Some speak to you for noble reasons, some less noble."

Same crap as good leaks and bad leaks.

[MayBee]

Christopher- I've not heard a direct quote like that from Libby, but I'd certainly say he made it obvious they wanted to discredit Wilson. He certainly didn't deny that. He only denies he wanted to use the wife to do it.

[Alcibiades]

Heh Maybee - not discredit Wilson - discredit Wilson's story. That was how Libby parsed it over and over in the GJ testimony.

[Dan S]

PaulL,

I actually am fine with that statement. It's true. Some do it because they think government is breaking the law (which is a good reason to leak, but they should be prepared to take some return fire for doing it, no anonymous nonsense) and some do it because they don't LIKE what the government is doing. As long as both are willing to take their lumps for breaking the law themselves (leaking classified info, etc.), I saw leak away. It's when they want to do it anonymously and get away without consequences of their actions that I don't like it one bit.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM: Actually looks like you get your wish. Andrea gets to deliver sworn testimony. And it looks like Fitz gets his wish -- the jury is not likely to hear any of it.

Ah, as a Moderate devoted to the art of compromise, I just love a win win situation...

[Dan S]

Sue (carryover from last thread)...

I think EW is crowing more because it would appear to implicate OVP (especially Cheney) in outing Plame as revenge. Don't see how it's a lie, though. That's a stretch.

[theo]

Christopher -- Libby told the grand jury that Cheney wanted the "facts" to come out on Wilson. The BDS crowd does not want any stinkin' facts and translate this remark into a Cheney direction to "smear" (or when polite, "discredit") Wilson. There is no doubt the White House did want Wilson's falsehoods exposed. This is the "plot to discredit Wilson" they are talking about. Semantics and spin.

[Dan S]

AM,

I think that decision is reasonable. If Andrea says what Wells hopes, though, the jury WILL hear it. That will determine if they get to hear her testimony.

Oh, and on the other topic, EW's "lie!"...

If it was such a big deal why no redirect? Clearly Jeffress isn't worried.

[Ranger]

Ha... now Fitz is afraid of jury nulification if they hear Armitage leaking to Woodward on June 13th. Maybe Fitz should have charged Armitage with leaking and he wouldn't have that problem.

[lurker]

Dan S., with the possibility of impeaching Russert's testimony?

[clarice]

Remember Pincus 2 1/2 years later ran a story in the Wa Po admitting that virtually everything in the Wilson sourced story was a lie.

[lurker]

What is jury nullification?

[Christopher Fotos]

Thanks folks.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Did the jury ask any questions about the Pincus testimony?

[MayBee]

Yes, thank you Alchi..you are correct.

[Ranger]

Jury nullification is when the jorors find not guilty even if the prosectusion proves its case because they are unhappy about some aspect of the case (such as selective prosecution). It is essentially the jury throwing out the reasonable doubt standard to "do the right thing."

In this case, well deserved, because Fitz has been trying to get the jury to think that this is about leaking a covert agents name, even though that isn't charged. The problem Fitz has is if that is true, then he needs to not have the jury know that he gave Armitage a pass on the exact same thing. And he really needs them not to know that he didn't tell the investigators for almost a year after he confessed to leaking to Novak.

[azaghal]

Maybe Fitz should have charged Armitage with leaking and he wouldn't have that problem.

Posted by: Ranger | February 12, 2007 at 08:09 AM

And maybe he would have--if she had been covert for purposes of the IIPA! :-)

[topsecretkk9]

Lurker

wiki

Jury nullification occurs where a jury, apparently ignoring the letter of the law and the instructions by the court, and taking into account all of the evidence presented, renders a verdict in contradiction to the law. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, juries are reluctant to pass a verdict contrary to law. Jury nullification may signal an unwillingness by the members of the jury to accept the law and may have far reaching implications. In a case of jury nullification, the jury sometimes bases its verdict on the jury members' view about the validity of the law itself, a consequence of recognising a right to trial by one's peers.[1]

Ever read or see "A Time to Kill"

[clarice]

Fitz seems to me to look like he just realized his railroad car has been shunted off the tracks,turned in the roundhouse and is heading back to where he's standing. This edifice is crumbling fast.

He wants very much to keep out of evidence the tape of Woodward's interview with Armitage (redacted to remove profanity, we are told) and a question sheet from Woodward to Andy Card which asked about Wilson's wife.

[Dan S]

Jury nullification, he sure is worried about that for some reason. :P

As I understand it, that's when jury says, "the heck with this, this is a stupid case that shouldn't have been brought and we don't give a damn if this guy is guilty, we're out of here, NOT GUILTY!"

[james]

So if I'm following correctly, the jury has not heard yet that Armitage was the initial leaker? And the trick for Well's is to try to get this information to them, while the judge acts to block him?

What a wonderful justice system we have.

[Ranger]

Well, he could have at least charged Armitage with perjury and obstruction, or at least obstruction for "fogetting" his leak to Woodward for over a year.

[FedkaTheConvict]

Is anyone other than FireDogLake blogging this trial? I'd love to read the proceedings without the editorial comments.

[Ranger]

Well, then Fitz shouldn't be trying to trick the jury into thinking that she was covert or that classified information was compromised. Fitz put himself in this box, so he needs to just suck it up. Or he could have at least charged Armitage with perjury and obstruction, or at least obstruction for "fogetting" his leak to Woodward for over a year. Then the jury wouldn't get the notion that there was differential treatment between Libby and Armitage.

[topsecretkk9]

--And the defense is donw with Walter Pincus. OK, what was their point? Throw Ari to the wolves, give him an additional motive to cut a deal and "cooperate" with Fitzgerald by giving up Libby? --

A jury who's constantly asking themselves "Why are we here?"

[Dan S]

Fedka

Hey, the editorial comments are what's keeping my pulse rate up to where I can skip my exercising today!

[Sue]

What a wonderful justice system we have.

Exactly. They are trying to put a man in prison. He should have every opportunity to present what is going on surrounding this case. I understand the law prevails, but crikey! Let the jury decide.

[Appalled Moderate]

Problem is, jury nullification is the best answer to the charges in this case, and is a useful (if unacknowledged) check to prosecutors run amok.

That said, I'm not sure how Armitage gets in if Woodward doesn't.

[Rick Ballard]

Ranger,

He could never charge Armitage. Armitage is on the 'good guys' team.

This is Fitzlaw, remember?

[JM Hanes]

Speaking of editorial asides, how about this eyepopper from EW:

Pincus is paging through the article, now looking to the easel. Jeffress comes off fairly nice here, but then he's not impugning Pincus. Hooray! A journalist whose credibility remains intact.

News must have been slow up in Michigan last week!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The notion that we have to be scrupulous in avoiding any contamination of the *prosecution* case strikes me as laughably un-American.'

Ever since Walton ruled against bringing in memory experts I've suspected he's dumb as a post. Now I'm sure of it.

Jeralyn is blogging at Huffington Post, and she did a better job than Marcy explaining what was going on with Pincus.

[Cecil Turner]

And the defense is donw with Walter Pincus. OK, what was their point?

Ari told Pincus about Plame. But he didn't use the information Libby supposedly told him at lunch (CIA, works in CPD), he gave the "analyst" stuff out of the INR memo. Actually fairly telling point . . . but too subtle for any juror without driving it home.

[Sue]

Armitage tape is in. That is a small something, I guess.

[danking70]

Any particular reason why the defense would leave out questions about Pincus' mea culpa two years post?

All these breathless articles about a mysterious envoy on a secret mission being full of crap...

[Les Nessman]

Jury nullification can work both ways though, right?

This particular jury might say 'Geez. I really don't know what the hell the proscecution is talking about, but I don't like that mean Mr. Bush outing that truth-telling Wilson person, ...so let's send this Libby person to jail.'

[Other Tom]

Thanks, Cecil, that clears up at least one point for me (as of now I'm in need of help). I can't figure exactly what is the "lie" that Wheeler thinks Fitz caught Libby in.

I assume Wells will drive Cecil's point home rather forcefully in closing.

[Ranger]

Armitage tape is in. That is a small something, I guess.

Posted by: Sue | February 12, 2007 at 08:37 AM

I think Judge Walton is making Fitz pay for fighting so hard to get the two articles in. This is just using the same logic. Fitz opened the door to this kind of evidence, now he has to deal with it. I have a feeling that Wells has tons of it and will use it all.

[MayBee]

So, am I understanding (thanks for the tip about Jeralyn at Huffpo by the way)....Woodward intended to or did ask Andrew Card about Wilson's wife? There seems to be a question about her written on a card for Card.

[sammy small]

Jury nullification....puhleeze..there has got to be at least one juror suffering from BDS. The best that will come out of this will he a hung jury.

[Skip]

Is there a backup discussion site? The last time I tried to load this thread I got a typepad 'This account has been suspended' page. Please, don't make me have to deal with the snark at FDL.

[Alcibiades]

The argument is going to be made, it's a bit of a logical stretch, that bc he had questions for Card, maybe he went off the 20-page sheet with Libby, all of which goes back to hearing from Armitage on June 13. We're getting pretty attenuated to then put in a taperecording. We're getting far afield of what's relevant here, that Woodward imparted this to Libby, and now he's going to say maybe he confused the conversation. I think it' s an attempt at Jury nullification. I think we're way too far afield. My bottom line, I don't see the relevance, I don't see what probative value the tape has.

And you can see Fitz is being straightforward here. From his POV, this has no relevance at all, which is why he brought this ridiculous case.

He's obviously an extremely linear thinker, cutting through from point to point, when the reality is that there was a buzz of information going around and the environment is more circular than linear.

[sammy small]

Jury nullification....puhleeze..there has got to be at least one juror suffering from BDS. The best that will come out of this will be a hung jury.

[MayBee]

And let's give props to Armitage for NOW telling Woodward to go set Libby freeeeee. Or at least encouraged him to testify fully.

[FedkaTheConvict]

Thank you Mr. Sullivan.

[boris]

"lie" that Wheeler thinks Fitz caught Libby in

Wheeler, like Jeff is keeping hope alive that it was Cheney's request for CIA analysis of the DIA report that triggered the mission to Niger. Libby's lie was covering for Cheney by saying an "aid" made the request. Since the mission was already in the works when Cheney requested analysis, it's sorta mox nix but Wheeler won't let go.

[Dan S]

That's my thinking, sammy.

But there's hope that sense will, for once, override passion.

[Alcibiades]

EW just explicated what she meant by lie. It's even stupider and less relevant to the case than we thought:

To explain my point in the last thread about Fitz catching Libby in a lie…

WP testified that Libby was one of his sources for the claim that "an aide to VP Cheney" asked for more information, which eventually led to Wilson being sent. But in fact, Cheney was the one who asked for more information. So Libby lied to Pincus to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip.

[Cecil Turner]

Jury nullification....puhleeze..there has got to be at least one juror suffering from BDS.

If DC voting stats are any guide, you'd expect about 11. And considering the disparity in numbers in the initial pool, you'd also expect Fitz to have a huge advantage when exercising preremptory challenges (at the very least, striking all registered Republicans--assuming that's legal--heck, even if it ain't). Concur, any jury impact will not benefit Libby.

[Dan S]

He's coming across on the page as very confident. But then he was working on a book and had stacks of notes, tapes, etc, and clearly has poured over them. Very credible. Not many "I don't recalls."

And he knows yellowcake<>uranium. Wow. One reporter who isn't completely ignorant.

[steve]

I thought it was legislation that was supposed to be like watching sausage get made. Here we have a trial and Fitz's railroading tactics are making me sick to my stomach.

[Jane]

Does anyone have a link to Jerylyn's transcript. I actually did go to the Huff Post and couldn't see it - which is par for the course.

[cathyf]

The problem Fitz has is if that is true, then he needs to not have the jury know that he gave Armitage a pass on the exact same thing. And he really needs them not to know that he didn't tell the investigators for almost a year after he confessed to leaking to Novak.

A quibble, of course, but it was over two years. Armitage copped to telling Novak on Oct 1, 2003, and did not "tell the truth" to Fitzgerald about Woodward until November, 2005, right after the indictment. Right after Woodward called Armitage and said, roughly, Fitzgerald said in his presser that Libby was the first to leak, on June 23rd. You leaked to me at least a week earlier. Are you going to the prosecutor first or am I?. To which Armitage responded, "I have to go and tell him; I have to tell the truth."

[boris]

From his POV, this has no relevance at all, which is why he brought this ridiculous case.

And the deference Walton seems to grant this blinkered POV is infuriating. It's as if any alternative explanation can not be presented as long as the prosecution "case" remains in effect. Only one explanation allowed at a time and burden of proof has to dislodge Fitz to be relevant.

[biomom]

But it is not against the law to lie to a reporter anyway!!

[miriam]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/libby-defense-begins-with_b_41009.html

[Ranger]

Well, sounds like the jury is picking up on the "everyone knew" before Andrea even gets on the stand:

Jury Question:

Walton: Is it your understanding that any other journalist knew about Plame.

BW The reporter working on it knew it. I told him.

[Jane]

I got it Thanks

[Dan S]

Interesting:

"J It's not you saying, "everyone knows it." That's him speaking.

BW correct."

So even at this point Libby was saying that.

[Dan S]

Almost no cross happening. It's almost like Fitz never talked to these guys so doesn't want to risk opening Pandora's Box, isn't it? Odd. :P

[danking70]

Sorry, who's BW?

[Other Tom]

"WP testified that Libby was one of his sources for the claim that 'an aide to VP Cheney' asked for more information, which eventually led to Wilson being sent. But in fact, Cheney was the one who asked for more information. So Libby lied to Pincus to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip."

I think Boris just beat me to it, but the "lie" is in the phrase, "which eventually led to Wilson's trip." As we now know, Val had launched the trip before Cheney (or an aide) asked for anything at all.

If that's what's got Wheeler all excited, I'm encouraged...

[Ranger]

Dan S,

No, that's Armitage speaking.

[miriam]

Dan S
"Interesting:

"J It's not you saying, "everyone knows it." That's him speaking.

BW correct."

So even at this point Libby was saying that."

Dan wasn't that Armitage saying that everyone knows?

[topsecretkk9]

Walton: Is it your understanding that any other journalist knew about Plame.

BW The reporter working on it knew it. I told him.

---

Bob's sticking by his telling Pincus?

[Dan S]

"But it is not against the law to lie to a reporter anyway!!

Posted by: biomom"

In fact, it's recommended to lie to reporters. For example, politicians are recommended to say "No comment." But at the same time we KNOW they have comments that they'd LOVE to make, along the lines of, "*&!@)(*!@ and your )(@*)! too."

[MayBee]

One thing that is interesting is that Fitzgerald has been trying to point out that Woodward and Pincus, like Russert, testified in a lawyers office. He wants to make it appear as if this isn't special treatment. The difference, of course, is that Russert is the only one that was used to charge Libby. Fitzgerald did bring Cooper and Miller to the Grand Jury. That's a big difference.

[Dan S]

"No, that's Armitage speaking.

Posted by: Ranger "

Oh, maybe it was. Got lost there. That's even better.

Of course, he WOULD know that everyone knew, wouldn't he?

[danking70]

Bob Woodward. He's up already?

[azaghal]

Well, he could have at least charged Armitage with perjury and obstruction, or at least obstruction for "fogetting" his leak to Woodward for over a year.

Posted by: Ranger | February 12, 2007 at 08:23 AM

Possibly. But it would have been been as abusive as this Libby prosecution--no underlying substantive crime. Ya see, Fitz has a strict quota on abusive prosecutions, so to avoid his limit he decided to go on Libby and ignore Armitage. :-)

[Jane]

BW = Bob Woodward

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Jeralyn blogging

[Dan S]

DS=David Sanger is up now. :) This is really moving along. Very little cross compared to prosecution case. Odd, isn't it?

[Tom Maguire]

AM,

I think that decision is reasonable. If Andrea says what Wells hopes, though, the jury WILL hear it. That will determine if they get to hear her testimony.

Well, it is defensible - however, if she sobs, tears her hair, wrings her hands, rends her clothes, and faints on the stand while swearing she knew nothing, I will be troubled that the jury missed it.

A jury who's constantly asking themselves "Why are we here?"

Good point.

Ari told Pincus about Plame. But he didn't use the information Libby supposedly told him at lunch (CIA, works in CPD), he gave the "analyst" stuff out of the INR memo. Actually fairly telling point . . . but too subtle for any juror without driving it home.

[azaghal]

What a wonderful justice system we have.

Posted by: james | February 12, 2007 at 08:21 AM

I like to say we have a legal system, not a justice system. Helps me make sense of things. :-(

[steve]

Walton's decisions make me wonder if the defense would not have been better served by filing a theory of the case which directly impugned Fitzgerald's motives and practices. If Walton signed off on that--and I assume he would have had to at least listen to arguments from the defense before making a decision about that--it might be easier for the defense to get some of this stuff before the jury without pulling teeth.

[Dan S]

from Jeralyn:

"July 2d at 10 am. Under an hour. Interview was at Sanger's request. Set it up with Cathie Martin. Told Ms. Martin in general terms of the subjects he wanted to discuss with Libby, which included the 16 words in SOTU.

He is certain Joseph Wilson's wife did not come up during the interviewHe's written extensively on non-proliferation issues. "

Odd that Plame didn't come up, since there was a concerted campaign going on to out her in revenge.

[Rick Ballard]

"Ya see, Fitz has a strict quota on abusive prosecutions, so to avoid his limit he decided to go on Libby and ignore Armitage."

You sure? My understanding of the canons of Fitzlaw is that means are infinitely flexible. Only ends remain constant and even those are subject to revision at the full moon.

[Dan S]

steve,

I suspect Clarice would sign on for that theory, but CAN such a theory be entered if Fitz isn't on trial? :)

[Alcibiades]

If Armitage and Andrea use precisely the same language about Plame independently - the "everyone knew" - does that not make the Andrea tape extremely relevant to what is going on here.

I don't understand how the judge can keep it out after this testimony from Armitage, when we all believe that Armitage leaked it to Andrea.

There's the basis for appeal right there. IMO. But then IANAL.

[Sue]

What is the significance of Sangar? I forget what he is supposed to know.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Sheesh, Fitz is no genius either. He made Woodward name Pincus as someone he told on or about June 13th. But Pincus has testified he heard it (as if for the first time?) on July 12th from Ari.

Maybe Fitz feels bad about keeping out Andrea's testimony, so, being a sport, underlines for the Defense that it's possible for someone to hear something in June and forget it in July.

[cathyf]

Jury nullification is an inevitable product of jury-of-peers, which is a right enshrined in the constitution. Somebody once explained (claimed?) that it was either illegal or unethical for the defense to tell the jury about jury nullification, or to argue for it, though.

(I don't understand this -- it seems to me that the right to make a pitch for jury nullification is implied by the defendent's right to trial by a jury of his/her peers.)

[Toots Steinway]

THIS IS HUGE (from Jeralyn's live-blogging of the trial at HuffPo):

Juror question: As of June 27, did other reporters know anything about Wilson's wife working for the CIA?
Woodward: It's possible. He told Pincus.

[topsecretkk9]

Sue
I believe, like Woodward, he had an interview with Libby - working on a "16 words" yellowcakey story and Libby did not mention anything about Wilson's wife or her connection...hence not a very concerted smear campaign and no "leaking"

[azaghal]

"Ya see, Fitz has a strict quota on abusive prosecutions, so to avoid his limit he decided to go on Libby and ignore Armitage."

You sure? My understanding of the canons of Fitzlaw is that means are infinitely flexible. Only ends remain constant and even those are subject to revision at the full moon.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 12, 2007 at 09:08 AM

Hmmmm. Looks like Fitzlaw trumps the quota theory.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Sanger's testimony demonstrates that Libby did not discuss Plame with every reporter he spoke to, contrary to the Fitz theory of some sort of organized campaign.

Sanger is an excellent illustration because he was very focused on covering the yellowcake/non-proliferation/16 word issues.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Last night on DRUDGE, he read the first paragraph of TENET'S new book "CENTER OF THE STORM."

Drudge read it with sounds of distaste in his mouth: Starts with... "On 9/12/2001, was the first time I saw the President. I was walking into his office, when RICHARD PERL came out, and [allegedly] said to me, "NOW WE CAN GET SADDAM."

Tenet is going to try his best (like Fitzgerald), to smoke & mirror away "true causes." And take a mighty big dump on the President, Libby, AND, CONDI. Mark his words ... The CIA is "innocent, I tell ya."

Like Verdun, how the bodies pile up ...

[cathyf]

Juror question: As of June 27, did other reporters know anything about Wilson's wife working for the CIA?

Woodward: It's possible. He told Pincus.

Who is he? Wilson? Armitage? I'm confused!

[Sara (Squiggler]

So if I have this right -- in the first 3 witnesses we have learned that Ari was Pincus'' source from INR language not Libby's, that Woodward knew and told Pincus too. And that 'Armitage told Woodward "everyone knows"

Plus the jury picks up on the other sources right away.

[azaghal]

THIS IS HUGE (from Jeralyn's live-blogging of the trial at HuffPo):

Juror question: As of June 27, did other reporters know anything about Wilson's wife working for the CIA?
Woodward: It's possible. He told Pincus.

Posted by: Toots Steinway | February 12, 2007 at 09:18 AM

Looks like the jury is getting the big picture. Libby wasn't the first to leak, per the presser. Sure makes Wells' closing easier.

[miriam]

I believe BW told Pincus.

[azaghal]

It's a summary. "He" is BW himself.

[PaulL]

Clearer on FDL:

*****
Walton: Is it your understanding that any other journalist knew about Plame.

BW The reporter working on it knew it. I told him.

Walton: gives another instruction not to consider the tape for the truth.

Fitz: One follow-up question. One reporter who might have known.

BW Walter Pincus.

*****

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'I believe BW told Pincus.'

Of course he did. It's June 13th, and Nick Kristoff has a column in the NY Times ridiculing Pincus for believing the VP's denial of knowing anything about Wilson's trip.

Woodward goes back and says something like, 'Walt, I asked Dic Armitage about this little spat you and Kristoff are having. He says you've got it right. Wilson's wife works at the CIA and she arranged the trip.'

[topsecretkk9]

Did ya'll catch Fitz asking Sangar if Judy had a pulitzer?

EW delighted no one asked Judy that - Fitz realized a little too late...Libby talked with one of the most renowned journalists--Woodward (and Pincus too!) and didn't leak to the ones that matter HEH!

But the one he chose to "leak" his concerted campaign to? -- can't remember who she went to jail to protect and keeps her notes in Saks Fifth Avenue bags.

(I have no bones against Judy - but to EW's chagrin, at this point Fitz needs Judy to be Woodward quality)

[Cecil Turner]

Walter Pincus says his source was Ari Fleischer - how did Fleischer testify and never mention that?

Man, no kidding. That's a credibility shot-in-the-foot that was entirely self-inflicted. And Pincus says Fleischer encouraged his testimony, which makes it hard to figure.

[steve]

Dan S: IANAL, but I don't think there is any law or rule of procedure that precludes even much more aggressive defense claims about the prosecution. For example, I think it would violate the Sixth Amendment to preclude defendants from claiming they were framed by malicious law enforcement or prosecutors. O.J. Simpson basically made that argument.

Of course, you still have to follow the rules of evidence, but the defense in this case is spoiled for choice there. You have Fitz's past defeats at the hands of Libby and his failure to recuse when Libby got on his radar screen. The perjury trap, the knowledge that Libby wasn't the first leaker, the deceptive press conference, etc. I suspect that Wells and company would burn a lot of bridges that they would need on future cases if they went that way, though.

[topsecretkk9]

Cathyf

Who is he? Wilson? Armitage? I'm confused!

I am pretty sure the "HE" is Woodward. Woodward told Pincus.

[Epphan]

Top: Great point.

And you can bet that the jurors paid more attention to Woodward than the other print guys. EVERYONE knows Bob Woodward...he's like a celebrity...Miller and Pincus...not so much...just everyday-reporters despite Fitz's efforts to paint them all as Pulitzer winners.