No Mitchell No Peace

Jeralyn Merritt has copies of Fitzgerald's filing opposing the defense's effort to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness.

Shorter Fitzgerald: Since I never got around to asking Ms. Mitchell for her testimony under oath, it is not fair if the defense does.

Slightly Longer Fitzgerald: We don't need Ms. Mitchell's sworn testimony, since we can rely on her many public statements denying any involvement.

That is a pretty bold notion of jurisprudence, but it may represent a huge time-saver for police and prosecutors - just read the papers and if a person denies any involvement, well, case closed.  Maybe in the day of Web 2.0, prosecutors can survey Facebook and YouTube to see if folks have posted denials there as well.  "CSI-Miami" can become "CNN-Miami".  Cool.

That should save all the tedium of swearing people in - gosh, it must be tiresome for poor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has no doubt had to sit through thousands of people raising their right hands.

And it would save on downtown parking, since folks won't have to come to court.  It's all good!

Of course, there is the little matter of Libby's right to confront the witnesses against him.  And Ms. Mitchell does work for Tim Russert, and Tim Russert has said it's "Impossible" that he knew about Ms. Plame, but Mitchell at one time said she did know about Ms. Plame, and the jury may want to assess Ms. Mitchell's denials for themselves - she was so timorous and evasive on Imus that folks listening nearly hurt themselves laughing, but perhaps this jury is made of sterner stuff. 

And since we have heard from plenty of reporters who have tried to minimize their involvement in this case - Bob Woodward, for example, explained that he kept quiet about his leak in order to avoid a subpoena - it is even possible that Ms. Mitchell's public statements were meant to, uhh, deflect the prosecutor.  Mission Accomplished!

Fitzgerald will lose this round as soon as the judge can get over the giggles.

Or, if Mitchell does not appear, I can offer a prediction - righties (yes, starting with me!) will never accept a guilty verdict and will be begging The Decider for a pardon.

MORE:  The defense also responds to a prosecution attempt to keep NY Times editor Jill Abrahmson out of the trial.  Again, this looks likes a loser for Fitzgerald - per the filing, Ms. Miller testified that shortly after getting the July 8 leak from Libby, she discussed the idea of a Wilson story with Ms. Abrahmson; in her public statement, Ms. Abrahmson has denied this.  The defense notes that this ties directly to Ms. Miller's credibility, and believes that the jury might be interested to hear Ms. Miller flatly contradicted by her editor.  I bet the judge will agree.

Comments

[lauraw]

Would the judge have himself seen the Mitchell/Imus gigglefest?

[centralcal]

This is an excellent post and needs to be read far and wide. I hope Instapundit links you tonight.

[lurker]

What if Wells files for Rule 29 and Walton agrees that there is insufficient evidence to allow the jury to reach a verdict?

[Sue]

righties (yes, starting with me!) will never accept a guilty verdict and will be begging The Decider for a pardon.

Right behind you dear leader. Only I will begging for a pardon whether Mitchell testifies or not.

[David Walser]

TM,

That's Swift quality sarcasm and wit. It's an instant classic!

[lurker]

If our predictions come true, this might be a sign of desperation upon Fitz's filing of these motions.

[Other Tom]

"--Anna Nicole Smith has died.--"

How can they tell?

[Martin]

Mitchell is not one of Libby's accusers.

Your restatements of Fitz's position completely miss the point regarding hearsay.

If all the defense wants is to get in evidence that Plame was widely known among the power elite, just call your National Review boy Cliff May, who wrote the same thing write on that little rightie gabfest The Corner.

Or did he make a cowardly retraction I missed?

[kazinski]

I think Fitz's next motion will argue that Libby's defense is bound by his agreements with Russert, Miller, and Cooper not to ask any questions about other sources. As in Wells can't ask if Mitchell or Gregory told Russert about "Wilson's wife" because Fitz couldn't ask it during the deposition.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I'm beginning to smell a new rat. Fitz had Rove before the GJ enough times to have quizzed him about his recollections of his conversation with Libby on July 11th. So, Fitz knows whether or not Rove can corroborate Libby's having told about Russert knowing.

What's Fitz up to? Trying to force Libby to get Rove on the stand, in public, so Fitz can have another shot at him?

Force Cheney to testify he remembers Libby telling him about Russert, and get him on cross?

[centralcal]

Remember the recent interview Cheney did with Wolfie Blitzer? The silence and the glares? I don't think he would be very intimidated by Fitz, should he decide to testify.

[Martin]

What do you mean "force" Sullivan.

If Rove can corroborate that he told Rove about Russert, Libby should be jumping at the chance to call him.

And if Rove disagrees with Libby, that could have been the basis for another false statement charge. So either Rove said he has no recollection or Fitz thinks he's otherwise too impeachable to use as a witness.

[MikeH]

Martin: "If all the defense wants is to get in evidence that Plame was widely known among the power elite, just call your National Review boy Cliff May..."

Cliff May worked with and for Russert?

"If Rove can corroborate that he told Rove about Russert, Libby should be jumping at the chance to call him."

Don't get ahead of yourself in your Rovian excitement.

[Martin]

What does "work with him" have to do with it?

As Fitz says, and apparently goes right over TM's head, the defense wants to call Mitchell solely so they can impeach with a prior inconsistent statement that Plame's identity was widely known. Impeach Mitchell, not Russert.

Are you saying they should be able to ask her if she told Russert?

Fine. Call her. If she says yes, Russert's impeached. But if she says no, they have leave it at that and the defense looks worse. But that's not what they want.

The defense just wants to get her say that Plame was not known, to impeach her with a statement previously ruled hearsay. It's an endrun-the basis of Fitz's motion that TM fails to grasp.

I remember the days when everyone on this blog was shouting how everybody knew about Plame way before Novak. Cliff may even wrote it.

Now when push comes to shove they can't dig up one person to so testify. How odd.

[Sue]

FNC reporter, Katherine Herridge? just said that what was important was Russert continued to say that on July 10, 2003, he never raised CIA operative Valerie Plame's name. Hmmm...that isn't the issue. I don't think Libby claimed he did.

[Jane]

Maid Marion,

Tell us more.

What were your impressions today?

[Sue]

Martin,

How do you know they can't? The defense hasn't put on its case yet. Fitzgerald certainly wouldn't call someone that would testify to that.

[Andrea Mitchell]

Martin- it would be ridiculous for the Defense to call Cliff May, because he only had second hand knowledge. The defense will have spoken with May, and will have interviewed the people he named as having that knowledge from Wilson. They may call those people. I suspect some of those people are on the possible witness list.

[anonymous]

Oh. That may not have been Andrea Mitchell. She would never make such a cogent, important, insightful point.

[Pofarmer]

The defense just wants to get her say that Plame was not known, to impeach her with a statement previously ruled hearsay. It's an endrun-the basis of Fitz's motion that TM fails to grasp.

Doubtfull. The Defense wants to flesh out the "Everbody knew" statement, and flush this whole thing down the toilet.

[Jane]

So Fitzy, who recent introduced newspaper articles to bloster his case now rebels against bad information in the WP and says even Tom Brokow agrees with him so Andrea Mitchell shouldn't have to testify? Plus she was "off the record" and if you are off the record it apparently doesn't matter what you know or say?

And all this without ever talking to her.

He's amazing!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'What does "work with him" have to do with it?'

Oh yeah, you're the one Fitz ought to be indicting, what with your short term memory difficulties.

Russert testified that after he read Novak's column and slapped himself upside the head, he went to the newsroom and asked everyone if they knew about the wife. Everyone told him no, they didn't.

Andrea's admission on Capitol Report that she did, impeaches Russert (AN ACCUSER, he has the right to confront).

Her risible attempt to retract that on Imus demonstrates she has a reason not to tell the truth. It's an admission against interest that should be allowed.

[Dan S]

TM,

You missed the point of his filing. He's hoping for a precedent so he can go after a Vice President! Just look at all the "evidence" out there in the media that Cheney is evil and behind outing a covert CIA agent and ruining her career, making her noble ex-ambassador's life hell, forcing her to star in a Vanity Fair (the irony!) article, and making her look like a domineering wife who sends her husband on junkets to Africa just to let her get our of his huge hair!

If he can keep Mitchell out because we know where she stand based on her media "testimony," how big a leap can it be?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: KAZINSKI

I know you're not Alex, but your comments are good.

I'm thrilled Walton's let Wells bring in witnesses that Fitz didn't bother with.

Sure. It's the COMEY RULE. Which is "oversight of fitz involves reading the morning papers." Must make the WaPo proud.

[boris]

It's an admission against interest that should be allowed.

Pretty much the exact situation the term "admission against interest" was created for.

[Pofarmer]

Speaking of Comey. He comes on the scene, appoints this monstrosity, "With the powers of the AG regarding this case" then retires and leaves? Some oversight. Who's watchin the store now?

[ghostcat]

Gee, wonder why Fitz is fighting so desperately to keep Andrea out of the witness box? (Hint: she, and perhaps only she, knows chapter and verse of the back story.)

[ghostcat]

But the Raporter may also know.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: TOM McQUIRE

I loved it when you wrote about all those people Fitz faces "who raise their hands." And, to paraphrase, "why not cut to the chase."

But since you've drifted in the direction "of raised hands?"

How many "raised hands" would there be of people who got polled about Russert's comments that he could testify against Libby BECAUSE LIBBY'S CALL FROM THE VEEP'S SVP was about a customer complaint? Not a confidential call. RIIGHT? You think this isn't risible?

Again, I think if LIBBY TESTIFIES? He'd let the jurors see the differences between FINALLY BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT CHENEY WANTED ... which was to PROVE THE VEEP DIDN'T ASK FOR WILSON TO GO TO NIGER!

Boy, would that get people's heads focussed.

Even the juror who keeps asking about PLAME!

She's "unimportant," now to Fitz' investigation. But he was charged with finding the leaker, wasn't he? HOW COME HE CAN KEEP THAT FACT HIDDEN UNDER HIS HAT?

By the way, "admission against interest" ... if WORDS MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN ... don't get applied to Libby! HE GAVE YOU HIS MEMORY OF THIS! He told Fitz he REMEMBERED what he heard from Russert.

Russert's got a big sign flashing that says?

[MaidMarion]

Does Wells appreciate the difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame"?

Andreas Mitchell has already broadcast to the world that she was aware that "Valerie Plame worked at the CIA."

No one has proven that Andrea Mitchell new that "Valerie Plame" was the "wife of Amb. Wilson".

[Javani]

According to Mitchell in the Fitz papers, she was not "a recipient of the leak." But that is used to imply a govt. official told her, not that she heard otherwise.

Mitchell said,

"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger."

Which is not a statement Wilson's wife was widely known. But it sounds like what Libby says her superior told him, and she adds another sentence,

"So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Referring to the wife. So not widely known, but "a number" might have. That could very well include her co worker Gregory. And she works under Russert, showing Russert could have had access to such knowledge.

Mitchell's coming in, she's relevant and material.

I don't know if Novak and Wilson would meet a materiality test.

[Other Tom]

"So either Rove said he has no recollection or Fitz thinks he's otherwise too impeachable to use as a witness."

Jeez, Martin, aren't you forgetting about the best evidence rule?

[Jane]

Does Wells appreciate the difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame"?

Maid Marion,

There is a line in the most recent pleading that says something to the effect: "Mitchell states she did not know who Valerie Plame was". I thought of your last post when I read it.

[Seixon]

If Fitzgerald's case was as ironclad as the Jason Leopolds of the world have always claimed, why all the fuss to keep people from taking the stand? This is starting to get very interesting.

[clarice]

Meanwhile--here's msnbc's account of the case today. Guess who's missing from the story?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17029067/
(right hand side of p.)If you guessed Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory you won.Bonus prize if you also noticed no mention is made of the FBI interview.

[Javani]

Clarice:

Here or another thread you relate your husband found Russert good for Libby because Russert says Libby didn't mention W's wife.

After the juror questions Wells asked one question (via FDL)

Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you.

---looks like Wells and hubby think alike!

[lurker]

And Jane, wouldn't that be the same for Libby, Matalin, Cheney, et al, to figure out eventually that Valerie Plame is the same as Valerie Wilson, wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Bennett NEGOTIATED with the NY TIMES that Judith Miller could write ONE ARTICLE they had to publish AND COULD NOT CENSOR!

And, you bet, in that article Miller discussed how she got treated by the editorial staff at the NY TIMES. She made the place seem ugly. And, vindictive. And, pinch? He only lived "upstairs." He 'mostly' never came down to the floor.

There was a picture, I think, of pinch hugging Judy. And, she did refer to Jill Ambramson as being a bitch for not allowing her to write "the story." (My guess is this is where David Sanger comes in to play.)

It won't matter if Jill Abramson admits to not liking Miller. (She won't be able to work a smooth angle out, considering how unhappy Judith Miller was "with her pen." After spending 85 days IN THE PEN.)

The only good part? Bennett worked it out that the NY TIMES covers all of Miller's bills with his office. She's free to call him anytime. FREE. The charges, however, go to pinch's empire.

We're gonna read more about Well's technique in questioning witnesses. ANd, on Monday? Clarice is there! WOWZA.

[Barney Frank]

--why all the fuss to keep people from taking the stand?--

That's what lawyers do; try and keep the opposition's witnesses off the stand and limit their testimony as much as possible.

[Jim E.]

TM writes: "if Mitchell does not appear, I can offer a prediction - righties (yes, starting with me!) will never accept a guilty verdict and will be begging The Decider for a pardon."

This is so lame. Of the regulars who comment here, there's hardly anyone who would have accepted a guilty verdict. You folks have your minds made up, and they were made up a long time ago. That's fine, but don't pretend today's discussions about Mitchell had anything to do with it.

And it's disingenuous for TM to start acting like this Mitchell thing has finally got him excited about a pardon. As if. On Jan 30, in reference to Judy Miller's appearance, TM was writing, "I also think The Decider (aka, the 13th Juror, aka, George Bush) has seen enough, and Libby's pardon is now gift-wrapped." Funny how a pardon has always been the right thing to do, and as if for the first time.

[Barney Frank]

Javani,

--Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you.--

Yes that was an interesting question. Wells knew what the answer would be. I can't see him ending with Russert on that unless he knows he has something good to impeach it.

[birdseye]

If Walton rules against the defense re Mitchell, can she be called as a witness by the defense when the ball is on their court?

[Barney Frank]

You folks have your minds made up, and they were made up a long time ago.

Suggest you post under the pseudonym "Kreskin" from now on Jim.

[clarice]

The ball is NOW in THEIR court and it IS the defense trying to call her as a witness.

[Jane]

The ball is in their court birdseye. The prosecution rested today.

[clarice]

Yes, Javani--I told him. (Doesn't it kill you when you've worked yourself to death arguing something and someone just waltzes in with a damned good point like that?) URGH

[boris]

there's hardly anyone who would have accepted a guilty verdict. You folks have your minds made up

Speak for yourself.

[JM Hanes]

Jim E:

Thank heavens we have you here to tell us what we think!

[Jane]

lurker,

Maid Marion was thinking that maybe Mitchell would weasel out of a question of whether she knew Mrs. Wilson because she actually knew her as Valerie Plame (or vice versa, I forget). But the pleading that Fitzy filed, referred to the fact that Mitchell said she didn't know Plame.

[lurker]

The prosecution team hasn't done a good job proving those charges against Libby beyond reasonable doubt. Just my opinion.

[lurker]

Thanks, Jane! :)

[birdseye]

Clarice,

Thanks and please forgive my ignorance.
TM summed up prosecution's filing as "Since I never got around to asking Ms. Mitchell for her testimony under oath, it is not fair if the defense does." Do you know of any precedence of such a pleading ?

[boris]

It's funny because it's probably true.

[MaidMarion]

Wells lost a chance to ask Russert what he meant on the Oct 29, 2003 "Tim Russert Show" when Russert stated:

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece (Sunday, July 6, 2003), and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

On Oct 29, 2005 Russert admits to the world that he knew, pre-Novak, that something was amiss ("in the air" as Ari characterized it) when he says "It's his wife". But today, 02/08/07, he says about Novak's article "This is the first I heard it." On Oct 29, 2005, Russert has already admitted something was amiss with "Wilson's wife" yet today he acts as if this is the first he's heard about "Wilson's wife."

My take: Russsert had Mitchell's "2" in his left hand plus Gregory's (input from Ari in Africa's) "2" in his right hand but he somehow couldn't come up with the total "4".

I had anticipated Wells's query of Russert on this...but it never materialized.

And it seems to me NBC is STILL parsing the difference between "Valerie Plame" and "Wilson's Wife" on purpose. As you read today's proceedings keep that thought in mind. I'm going to look through NBC's past legal documents to see how they parsed it.

[miriam]

Javani,

--Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you.--

Yes that was an interesting question. Wells knew what the answer would be. I can't see him ending with Russert on that unless he knows he has something good to impeach it.

Barney, why would Wells want to impeach that answer? Libby has always said he didn't tell Russert. Russert told him.

Or am I really sideways here?

[clarice]

It's a complicated question as to why the defense wants to call her and what it can go into.

I'm waiting to see the parties' motions on this.

The problem with this case has always been one at the heart of the right to free speech. There is no question that many reporters who received leaks or passed them on about Plame and Wilson (and Plame and Wilson themselves) were never questioned by the prosecution.
This was because the investigation was unfairly and (as it turns out--Armitage) completely focused on the WH and more particularly Rove and Libby and the prosecution frankly said "good leaks" which promoted Wilson were okay.
But there is very limited discovery available for criminal defendants and it is unlikely that any of the non-questioned reporters will willingly provide evidence to the defense. In sum, the defendant is deprived of the normally available avenues to find exculpatory evidence.

[JM Hanes]

Martin:

"The defense just wants to get her say that Plame was not known, to impeach her with a statement previously ruled hearsay."

You need to quit using legal terms you so clearly don't understand. The Mitchell statement would be hearsay for impeachment purposes WRT Russert when Mitchell herself had never even been on the stand. The statement is not intrinsically hearsay. Hence this exchange per FDL:

Wells asks if he can confront Russert with her statement. Walton says no. Says maybe they can revisit if Mitchell herself can be asked.

And you talk about stuff sailing right over heads?

[clarice]

miriam,, here's why I think he asked that--
IF Libby knew about Plame when he called to complain that Matthews kept saying Cheney sent wilson, why didn't Libby just say "It was Wilson's wife who sent him"?

[Jane]

Barney, why would Wells want to impeach that answer? Libby has always said he didn't tell Russert. Russert told him.

When I read it, I thought that Wells was reiterating that there was no leak about Val, for a couple of reasons. First because the media still refers to this as the "leak case" so it's important to keep hearing there was no leak and secondly to reiterate that Mrs. Wilson wasn't important to the story as Libby knew it - the only thing he cared about was putting out correct information about the intelligence issue.

I do think if you take Val out of the equation, Libby's actions make a lot of sense.

I also think the whole "outing my wife" thing was something wilson cooked up for attention and to deflect attention from the fact that he lied.

It's also possible that Wells is 4 steps ahead of what I'm thinking.

[MaidMarion]

After the jury was dismissed today the judge discussed three topics, one of which was whether or not to agree to Defense's request to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness.

Her attorney stood up and said, to the effect, that "If Ms. Mitchell is compelled to testify she will state that she did not know that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

I'm sure that's a true statement.

I believe Andrea Mitchell did not know whether or not Amb. Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I believe Andrea Mitchell knew that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA but did not know WHERE or in what capacity.

It's that simple.

Reread the last two days of defense's cross of Tim Russert with that in mind and tell me what you think.

[Festus]

Forgive me, but I return for only one purpose: Carol Herman, Please shut up.

All the Best..

[JM Hanes]

Festus:

Glad you don't make a habit of stopping by.

[MaidMarion]

Correct my last post... Andrea Mitchell knew that "Valerie Plame" (not Valerie Wilson) worked at the CIA.

Which is what she claimed to Alan Murray on CNBC... She just didn't know WHERE in the CIA or that she was an operative.

[Extraneus]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about this case, even after reading this blog on and off for over a year, but I've heard a few news reports lately, mostly on the radio, and the reporters (and their editors) are either just totally clueless or purposely slanting their coverage. There's no chance this will ever be understood by the public.

[ghostcat]

Extraneus -

If Libby is acquitted, the media will be forced to do some 'splainin'. They won't be able to blithely ignore that outcome, thanks to blogs, Drudge, AM radio and the FNC.

[clarice]

Well,MM a good look thru years of the Wash Po society section might provide a clue..we need to find mbassador and Mrs. Wilson at a dinner party with Mr and Mrs Alan Greenspan. Maybe that WH dinner with Clinton that Rocco dug up will do it.

[JM Hanes]

Point well taken, MaidMarion. I do think there's serious parsing going on here somehwere, I'm just not sure we're anywhere close to knowing what sort of jeopardy (legal, professional, financial etc.) the various players might be trying to avoid.

[MaidMarion]

Extraneus,

Joe Wilson's "He Lied" Op-ed and all its subsequent MSM hype is the best textbook case of yellow journalism to date.

That the public doesn't appreciate this aspect of the case is to be expected.

My biophysicist cousin, who continually tells me I'm wasting my time thinking about this, doesn't understand my interest in the media aspect of the case. Moreover, her retired CIA covert-ops husband is convinced Cheney fingered Plame and should go to jail.

My worry is focused on the Chris Matthews and David Shusters of the world...

[ghostcat]

Clarice -

Not all roads lead to DC. Some lead to Aspen.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, check Instapundit for how to fix your Dell WiFi. It is a Windows Update problem with an easy fix.

[roanoke]

Jim E.

You folks have your minds made up, and they were made up a long time ago.

Try posting something like that at FDL.

Then, define the term prejudice.

Finally-sad for you but our system isn't like the French.[google Dreyfus or try J'Accuse]

We've got this little motto that goes something like-

Innocent till proven guilty.

[MaidMarion]

Clarice,

I wouldn't be surprised if Andrea knew that Plame was "Mrs. Wilson" but for the purposes of this trial and trying to devine what happened inside NBC vis-a-vis Libby's testimony, keep it simple. Assume Mitchell only knew Valerie Plame as Valerie Plame as you try to put the puzzle pieces together.

[JOMJunkie]

Does Russert and crew really care about Wilson's wife before David Corn's conspiracy article sourced by Joe Wilson. I thought I read earlier that Novak's column was no big deal until Corn's piece came out.

[Pofarmer]

I also think the whole "outing my wife" thing was something wilson cooked up for attention and to deflect attention from the fact that he lied.

Well, yeah. But, he had help.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The WaPo reports:

Testifying for a second day at Libby's perjury trial, Russert said he took no joy in Libby's fate and was excited only about a major news story regarding anticipated indictments in the CIA leak case in October 2005. He said his motivation as the prosecution's key witness was to tell the truth: That he did not disclose an undercover CIA officer's identity to Libby, as Libby claims.

But Russert sounded giddy in an audiotape played in court this afternoon of his on-air interview with radio personality Don Imus on the morning of Oct. 28, when charges were expected against Libby.

"It was like Christmas Eve here last night," Russert chortled, as he told Imus about the much-anticipated results of a CIA leak investigation that Fitzgerald was expected to announce later that afternoon. "Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises! What's going to be under the tree?"

[Pofarmer]

You saying Russert has motive to lie and obstruct, Sara?

[Rocco]

Is this the link you were thinking about Clarice?

Georgetown University

[topsecretk9]

--I thought I read earlier that Novak's column was no big deal until Corn's piece came out.--

My Plame Problem — And Yours By Timothy M. Phelps

The forces unleashed by Robert Novak’s column unveiling the secret agent Valerie Plame have shaken the White House, helped destroy any pretense of a reporter’s privilege in federal criminal cases, and obliged at least ten Washington journalists, including me, to confront a new, insidious tactic that has altered the balance of power between journalist and leak investigator.But it is interesting to remember that when Novak’s column came out in July 2003, it failed to create much of a stir in the equatorial-strength humidity of a Washington summer

Perhaps it was because Novak mentioned Plame only in passing in the sixth paragraph. Perhaps the aging warrior of the Right just does not have the impact he used to. But if the aim was to discredit Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, or, as Wilson alleges, intimidate others from calling attention to government misstatements, as Wilson had in a July 6 op-ed in The New York Times, the arrow fell short..

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/1/phelps.asp

[Chants]

Jim E.,

I for one am really glad you come by here to post. You are, for the most part, polite and witty and add a perspective a lot of us don't really consider.

For example, yesterday you posted something about reading the transcripts of Libby's grand jury testimony that was played for the jury yesterday. You said Libby's being very sure he heard it from Russert re Plame came through loud and clear.

I know I suffer from selective hearing, so that was helpful advice for me.

[clarice]

Rocco..I'm thinkin our best bet may be the Feb 24 1999 White House Dinner for Ghana's President Rawlings. I know val and joe were there..were Alan and Andrea? It's a stab in the dark because somuch entertaining goes on but we know Val and Joe were there that time.

[clarice]

Rocco..I'm thinking our best bet may be the Feb 24 1999 White House Dinner for Ghana's President Rawlings. I know val and joe were there..were Alan and Andrea? It's a stab in the dark because somuch entertaining goes on but we know Val and Joe were there that time.

[MaidMarion]

Here's another thing I've been pondering...

When Andrea Mitchell claimed to Alan Murray that she knew "Valerie Plame" worked at the CIA and that this fact was well-known within the beltway, what effect did this statement have on the "outing" aspect of Fitz's investigation?

[JM Hanes]

MM

"My worry is focused on the Chris Matthews and David Shusters of the world..."

What amazes me is that virtually no one in the press has expressed any discernable interest in the potentially HUGE backstory here -- at the CIA/State, all the long term connections between the players (Turkey/Africa/Uranium) etc. It has been treated as a straight political story from start to finish.

When it is political, all the relevant media biases (like Thomas' 12 points to Kerry, courtesy of the MSM on the one hand, and ideological knee jerking on the other) end up being the controlling authorities, so to speak.

[clarice]

MM I believe she made that statement on Oct 3 the very day Armitage confessed and Addinton told everyone in the WH to save their records , the investigation had begun.

[topsecretk9]

Rocco

Can you provide a dummies diagram or summary of your link?

[Rocco]

hmm...I don't remember that one but I'll take a look

[JOMJunkie]

Thanks TSK9 - My theory is Mitchell and Gregory knew who Mrs. Wilson was prior to the Novak column but it was of no consequence until Corn's conspiracy column courtesy of Joe Wilson.

[Thread Herder]

New Thread

Uh, yeah, if you don't know the story yet and want to, let me know. Or search previous threads.

Post wherever your heart desires. I am in no position to do more than abjectly humble myself before everyone here.

[Rocco]

What caught my eye about that one was Yaser Abu Shaban from Rock Creek Corp, Charles Merimee from Banque Paribas and a slew of Intel personnel.

[MaidMarion]

The WaPo reports:

Testifying for a second day at Libby's perjury trial, Russert said he took no joy in Libby's fate and was excited only about a major news story regarding anticipated indictments in the CIA leak case in October 2005. He said his motivation as the prosecution's key witness was to tell the truth: That he did not disclose an undercover CIA officer's identity to Libby, as Libby claims.

Russert never testified in these proceedings that he "did not disclose an undercover CIA officer's identity to Libby as Libby claims."

And neither has Libby ever claimed this. Libby has only claimed that Russert asked him whether he knew that "Wilson's wife worked at CIA."

But Andrea Mitchell DID claim to Alan Murray in Oct 2003 that she, Andrea Mitchell, knew (we don't know how long) that a person named Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and that it was common knowledge.

Is Andrea Mitchell the reason why Fitz didn't pursue the "covert outing" aspect of his investigation?

[Pofarmer]

Well, if these MSM folks knew "Valerie Plame" or "Valerie Wilson" but didn't really realise what she did, and really didn't know that she was involved in sending Joe to Africa, then it all starts to make a little more sense. Like "Whoa, she sent him" kind of thing. It's probably all just a huge missunderstanding. Unfortunately, the MSM players dissembling on the finer points could be what gets a man put in jail.

[topsecretk9]

Rocco

I did notice Anthony Lake. Ugh.

JOMJunkie

If you read Phelps piece he says it wasn't a big deal and only leftist propagandist - Corn - were the ONLY ones on it.

[Javani]

"But Andrea Mitchell DID claim to Alan Murray in Oct 2003 that she, Andrea Mitchell, knew (we don't know how long) that a person named Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and that it was common knowledge."

No she didn't.

She said it was common knowledge the mystery ambassador was Joe Wilson. She hinted some were looking into the wife matter.

[topsecretk9]

Well riddle me this...Harlow told Novak that while she probably wouldn't be sent oversea's again - (I take that to mean in a covert capacity) but it might me kinda of embarrassing on say vacations overseas

If Hubris is correct and she flew to Jordan to inspect the Aluminum tubes -- i doubt she went as Brewster Jennings Energy analyst here to inspect the Aluminum tubes -- she clearly noted to be CIA

and then here husbands twisted logic that he be able to TELL his Niger contacts he was there on behalf of the Government - because to not do so -his mere presence would send shock waves of fear he was there on National Command Authority -- because he used to be on NSC

(think about that for a second - he's supposedly an expert Africa business relations guy who takes trips to Niger for business that he's willing to do a bit of work for the CIA back in 1999 just after he quit the NSC - but this trip he needs to TELL them he's on official Gov biz so they don't get the weird idea he's there on behalf of the Gov't??? Um yeah - it totally shoots down his complete BS that Cheney sent him the left lap up, but it's apparent he wanted to tell them for some reason)

OK...so she take a CIA trip to inspect the tubes - and he goes to Niger on official Govt. business ...then HE writes an OP-ED and says I went to Niger world - for Cheney -to do Intel work.

Wilson outed his own wife - if Novak didn't write that paragraph they'd still be embarrassed when they went overseas because of his op-ed.

[GnuCarSmell]

Here's the actual 'widely known' exchange on Oct. 3, 2003:

Alan Murray: "Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

Andrea Mitchell: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

This link also shows the Imus/Mitchell exchange where she tried to pretend she didn't say what she said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml

[Javani]

"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Well the "it" could be the wife, I withdraw my earlier comment.

[hit and run]

This thing could be exposed real quick.

Joe Wilson is easy enough to "flip".

Just start saying that he is a little, little man who is pussy-whipped by his 3rd wife. He is a "former" diplomat because he serves no purpose, has no relevance.

And if that don't flush him out, say that Val has claimed that he uses Rogaine.

[MaidMarion]

Andrea Mitchell screwed Fitz's case. To Alan Murray she claimed knowledge of the fact that "Valerie Plame worked at CIA" but caveated that knowledge by saying she didn't know "where" or "in what capacity (ie, as an operative)" this Plame person worked. Mitchell was clearly implying that because she didn't know the "where" and "in what capacity" part, she did not know the classified aspect about Plame's employment at the CIA.

Unfortunately Andrea's "Valerie Plame" statement on CNBC deflated whatever case Fitz might have developed around the "leaked classified information" scenario.

[clarice]

We need to get the list of attendees at the WH state dinner on Feb 2, 1999 when we know Val and Joe were guests. et's see if Mrs. Greenspan or Tim were there.

[clarice]

TM, promise me please that when this case is over, no matter how long and involved the Anna Nicole Smith child custody case becomes, you will never, and I mean never, make it a thread topic.