Open Thread - The Trial So Far

While we wait through the weekend for Tim Russert let me ask this: how is the trial going?  I would like folks to make two or three picks in a few categories:

1.  Biggest surprise helping the defense;

2.  Biggest surprises helping the prosecution;

3.  Best evidence for the defense so far;

4.  Best evidence for the prosecution so far.

My picks:  Helping the defense, the biggest surprise was the absurd weakness of Grenier, Grossman, and Schmall.  None of these three were at all convincing that they ever discussed Plame with Libby or took the news to be important, which reinforces Libby's implicit contention that she just was not that big a deal.

My second surprise was that Addington's chat with Libby about a CIA spouse was not dated, except to the week after the Wilson op-ed.  Since Libby discussed the legality of the instant de-classification of the NIE by Cheney at the same time, he apparently testified that he had the chat before meeting with Judy Miller on July 8.  However, that looks like a recreated memory - if it will keep him out of jail, Libby may "remember" that perhaps he met to discuss the instant de-classification *after* talking to Judy.

Finally, I was surprised that Cathie Martin's discussion of Plame with Libby slipped all the way back to June 11.

And post-finally, the Ari Fleischer revelation that he leaked the Plame news to Dickerson and Gregory is still baffling, but it looks to be good for the defense.

For the prosecution - I expected Judy Miller to be awful, but she was merely miserable - regardless of how many other sources she had for any Plame news, she stuck to her story that Libby discussed it with her on June 23 and July 8 and did not say she raised it herself, and that was probably as much as Fitzgerald could have hoped for.

Ari Fleischer was better for Fitzgerald than I expected - I had thought Libby's "hush, hush" would apply to the whole Wilson trip, but Ari made it clear that it covered the wife specifically.

I thought Addington helped Fitzgerald with Libby's talk about "I didn't do it".  Fitzgerald is stuck for a motive, but that might help.

Best overall for the defense - how many dreadful witnesses can Fitzgerald put up there?  Grenier, Grossman, Schmall, Miller, and Cooper seemed like "before" adverts for Gingko-Bilboa.

Best for the prosecution - Has to be Ari.  Russert may change the rankings, although Russert may blow up the whole trial.  Or Libby may yet emerge as the best prosecution witness.  Hard to believe that this is it for Fitzgerald - this was his case?

One last question - if anyone has a link to a tormented dead-ender conspiracist still explaining how (a) Plame's CIA affiliation was a big deal, (b) Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing, and (c) Libby and Cheney led a massive conspiracy to punish Joe Wilson and make him cry by outing the wife, then I would love to see it.

At this point, it is clear that (a) not even the CIA thought the Plame tidbit was explosive; (b) Fitzgerald won't be hinting at any sort of Cheney-led conspiracy to do anything; and (c) this investigation is long over.

UPDATE:  Here is a surprise from the Bond testimony (MW 4), as described by the AP:

Bond said that during Libby's second FBI interview in his office on Nov. 23, 2003, Libby described flying back from Norfolk, Va., with Cheney on July 12, 2003, at the height of public controversy over allegations made by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Libby told the FBI he went to the front of the plane to get a statement Cheney wanted released to the press. It denied Wilson's suggestion that Cheney was behind Wilson's trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there for nuclear weapons.

Wilson had said in print and on television on July 6, 2003, that he debunked the uranium report and Cheney should have known that long before Bush cited the uranium story in his January 2003 State of Union speech as a justification for war with Iraq.

Bond testified Libby told the FBI ''there was a discussion whether to report to the press that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.'' She added that Libby expressed some doubt.

''Mr. Libby told us he believed they may have talked about it but he wasn't sure,'' she said.

She said Libby did say he had discussed Wilson's wife with Cheney sometime after discussing her with NBC reporter Tim Russert on either July 10 or 11, 2003.

So, Libby and Cheney *MAY* have discussed Plame before Cheney dictated a statement and Libby called Cooper and Miller.  Of course, Cooper asked Libby about Plame, so it's hard to pin that on Libby or Cheney.  And, if I recall, the question of who introduced the Plame topic was ambiguous for the July 12 Miller-Libby chats.

Comments

[hit and run]

If someone asked me if President Bush wears boxers, I would intentionally avoid confirming that because I know nothing about it.

That is, I would do whatever necessary to make sure they knew I didn't know.

Speaking hypothetically of course.

I can neither confirm nor deny knowledge of the type of underwear President Bush wears.

[jwest]

Sara,

When did Libby talk to Russert's boss?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Let's hope as they do witness prep with Libby that they get someone in there that can condense down his long sentences and statements to soundbite length with impact.

[topsecretk9]

--BOSS: Valerie, the OVP has asked us to look into the uranium intelligence. We could send your husband again. Write me up a memo of why he would be good for the job, even though I supposedly already know he would be since I am asking you to get him for the mission.

PLAME: Sure thing boss!--

HEH!

[boris]

If someone asked me if President Bush wears boxers, I would intentionally avoid confirming that because I know nothing about it.

But you can't ACTUALLY confirm it if you know nothing about it.

You might ACCIDENTLY confirm it or FALSLY confirm it but INTENTIONALLY AVOID confirming it not so much.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

jwest -- I thought Russert transferred him, but I may be wrong. This part of the story is before I came to JOM and I'm only going on memory of passing mention in posts.

[Rick Ballard]

"Even the truth hasn't changed it."

What in the world does the truth have to do with an MSM generated meme? Cooper (and his boss, Ignatius) were sitting with the CIA/OVP/WH response to the credibility of Munchausen's Fantasy in their hands on July 11 and proceeded to turn it just the amount necessary to create the War on Wilson.

The MSM has been a barrier to understanding the complete "truth" about anything that can be slanted politically since (as sbw noted) the invention of the printing press.

[Dan S]

On the "Feeb" topic... My "boss" (he's my boss when he has me working on a contract, at least) calls the "fibbies." I never much liked that, though I think in his case it's just a "pronounciation" of the initials. I'm not sure where he got it from, but he has a couple ex-FBI types in the consulting pool so it may actually come from them.

But after Bond's performance on the stand they will always be "fibbies" to me now.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

One of the ironies of this case is the lack of electronic evidence of all these calls. Hasn't the left been telling us about the big bad Bushhitlerhaliburton cabal and how we are all losing our liberties because of wiretapped phone calls? Where's the electronic record?

[boris]

I guess I'll just state that if you want to INTENTIONALLY AVOID ACCIDENTLY confirming something you KNOW NOTHEING ABOUT you at least need a reason to do so.

Assuming such a convoluted bend over backwards posture for no clear reason makes the pose less than plausible.

[Dan S]

Sara,

I agree. I asked early on where the records of phone calls were. Then later some crept in in a case with ONE witness, I think. Why just one? It seems to me phone records could really nail down at least PART of the choronology.

But in the case of reporters I bet it would be fought tooth and nail to avoid exposing sources again.

[hit and run]

boris:

I guess I'll just state that if you want to INTENTIONALLY AVOID ACCIDENTLY confirming something you KNOW NOTHEING ABOUT you at least need a reason to do so.

Yeah, that's where my mind was going -- accidentally or falsely.

I was just thinking of the case where Judy said it was possible that she put Flame in there to trick Libby. Or where someone like Cooper might take you itching your nose to be confirmation.

That is, Libby and other officials may have there guard up against reporters trying to weasel confirmations out of them -- and thereby are actively trying to avoid an accidental or false confirmation.

[clarice]

As I said the reason was they were trying to avoid a pissing match with the CIA by waiting and doing a coordinated response..Since there was (even by Fitz' and Armitage's admissions) no reason to believe there was anything wrong with the disclosure, that motive is as good as any Fitz has come up with, Boris.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Boris -- How about it is above your job description to do something without authorization?

It happens. I got in trouble for confirming my Congresswoman's position on a controversial position. I knew she had a White Paper on the issue and I knew what it said, but what I didn't know was that it was still sitting on her desk for approval before release. My answer was taken as an affirmative on something I did not have the authority to confirm or deny. In my defense, it was my first week on the job and I didn't fully appreciate the difference between my own personal knowledge about the Congresswoman's position and official policy statements. My "punishment" was being sent to a 3 day seminar on "handling press and constituent inquiries on policy issues."

[clarice]

Yes, DanS.Fitz and the NYT are fighting that very issue--the right to telephone records--in another court.

At the bottom of a WaPo story on the trial today there is a note that the judge refused Libby's counsel the right to go thru JM's other books to determine who her other sources were.

[Other Tom]

Boris, I would intentionally avoid confirming anything I didn't know about, precisely because I didn't know about it. If you suggest some proposition to me that out of ignorance I can neither confirm nor deny, I would be at great pains to avoid saying anything that you might construe as confirmation. This is particularly true where you might erroneously assume that I had some knowledge.

If you suggested to me that my wife was seeing someone on the side, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. If you suggested that one of my children had been seen drunk in public, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. In both instances, I might or might not undertake to look into the facts after having heard your suggestion--but at the time, being uncertain, I would intentionally avoid confirming it.

I guess we might all conclude that this is a slow day for trial blogging...

[clarice]

Yes, DanS.Fitz and the NYT are fighting that very issue--the right to telephone records--in another court.

At the bottom of a WaPo story on the trial today there is a note that the judge refused Libby's counsel the right to go thru JM's other books to determine who her other sources were.

[maryrose]

Best prosecution gain- Articles from the mainstream press allowed to be admitted in as evidence. Big case and words like covert or classified not challenged by Judge Walton.
Biggest Defense Gain:
Fitz scrambling to get anthing in that will prop up this case and give it some ballast.
Incredibly weak witnesses who don't remember anything without their notes or prep by Fitz.

[Other Tom]

If you suggested to me that my wife was seeing someone on the side, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. If you suggested that one of my children had been seen drunk in public, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. In both instances I might subsequently undertake to investigate the facts, but I would intentionally avoid confirming your suggestion because you might very well think, erroneously, that I had some knowledge on the point.

[Other Tom]

If you suggested to me that my wife was seeing someone on the side, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. If you suggested that one of my children had been seen drunk in public, I would intentionally avoid confirming it. In both instances I might subsequently undertake to investigate the facts, but I would intentionally avoid confirming your suggestion because you might very well think, erroneously, that I had some knowledge on the point.

[Rick Ballard]

Well, that was refreshing.

[Other Tom]

Sorry for the multiple posts--having a little trouble here. And besides, I'm boring everyone, I know.

New subject: does anyone know whether the Fitz grand jury is still sitting? Is there a record of its having been dismissed, or its term having expired? Thanks...

[Tom Bowler]

The most remarkable thing I've learned, I learned right here today. It was on 2/12/02 that Val wrote her memo recommending Joe for the task of answering a question Cheney didn't ask until 2/13/02. Maybe there's an innocent explanation, but it's not at all clear to me what it would be.

[boris]

actively trying to avoid an accidental or false confirmation.

Well the Flame trick wouldn't work unless Libby knew something. It's just fewer assumptions needed to intentionally avoid confirming something you DO know about.

[Dan S]

Justine Levine has a post up at Patterico on "actual malice." He wants to see Posner's legal definition accepted.

In reading it I couldn't help but think, "does any of the behavior we've seen by the media on this case comprise 'actual malice?'" Who comes closest to fitting that definition in their handling (or creation of) this case?

Does Wilson's Op-ed comprise "actual malice" towards Cheney?

Here's part of the Posener cite. More at Justin's post:

[“Actual malice”] is a term of legal art that means not what it seems to mean but that the defendant either knew that the defamatory statement was false or was recklessly indifferent to whether it was true or false. E.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991); Milsap v. Journal/Sentinel Inc., 100 F.3d 1265, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). “Reckless indifference” denotes the same state of mind that must be proved to establish liability for infringement of a federal right under color of state law or for violation of the federal mail fraud statute: knowledge by the defendant that there was a high risk of harm to the plaintiff coupled with a failure to take any feasible measure to counter the risk, either by investigating further to see whether there really is a risk and how serious it is or by desisting from the risky activity. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994); Tesch v. County of Green Lake, 157 F.3d 465, 474-75 (7th Cir. 1998); Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 788-89 (7th Cir. 1995); Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1219
(7th Cir. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Dick, 744 F.2d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 1984); Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703-04 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. DeSantis, 134 F.3d 760, 764 (6th Cir. 1998); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997).

[boris]

If you suggested that one of my children had been seen drunk in public, I would intentionally avoid confirming it.

Just disagree with that use of the language. Invoking some caution to respond in absense of knowledge is not what I call intentionally avoided confirmatiom. Without knowledge the capacity to confirm does not exist. You have to speculate on the danger of accidental "confirmation". Different animal.

[clarice]

Looks like the trial will be the approximate length of time between Cheney's statement to Libby and the calls with reporters. Would it be unthinkable to ask the jury --without reference to their notes--to describe in detail the parties' opening remarks? I think everyone on that jury can empathize with the inability to recall the details of such oral communications.

[Other Tom]

Beautiful suggestion, Clarice. I'll bet there are a lot of us here who are mentally drafting Wells's closing for him. I'm at my best in that regard at about 3 a.m.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

It is my theory that we recall bad memories more easily than good ones, hence so many people with "old baggage" dragging them down. It is my theory that we remember good memories before we remember every day memories and every day memories more than we remember the exact details like date and time. So, what each of 12 jurors will remember from the opening will probably be remembered because there was something that they could relate to personally, good or bad.

I also think that we remember less detail when memories/conversations happen in a group or on the fly and tend to form impressions of the overall rather than recall specific detail as to who said what when and to whom. That is why we take notes. And if we are in a meeting with a meeting agenda, I think we all tend to "sleep with our eyes open" through the parts that have nothing to do with our own agenda. As my Aunt used to say, "listening with half an ear."

And on notes -- when I gave my depo last week, we had a court reporter in the room. Why isn't at least that antiquated technology used by the FBI interviewer?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

OT -- but I have to go on the record saying this makes my blood boil:

“I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today. These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.”

-- William Arkin, Washington Post blogger in a post yesterday entitled “The Arrogant And Intolerant Speak Out” in which he started to apologize for calling American troops “mercenaries” but ended up bashing the troops anyway as well as thousands of people who responded angrily to his earlier post which was entitled “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People”

[Sue]

Where did Rove tell Fitzgerald he learned of Plame?

[hit and run]

Clarice:
Would it be unthinkable to ask the jury --without reference to their notes--to describe in detail the parties' opening remarks?

Other Tom:
Beautiful suggestion, Clarice.

I'm not above begging for a little love and attention....

I had this idea too:

Pofarmer: I think, just for fun, the jury should be made to reconstruct some business dealings from a couple years ago over a period of about a month, and see how close they come to what the final contract states, without benefit of notes. That would be eye opening.

How about just ask them to reconstruct the jury instructions they received at the opening of the trial?

Or opening statements from both prosecution and defense?

Posted by: hit and run | January 31, 2007 at 07:39 AM

[Dan S]

H&R,

The difference is Clarice is SERIOUS. We know you're just joshing. :P

[hit and run]

boris:
Without knowledge the capacity to confirm does not exist. You have to speculate on the danger of accidental "confirmation". Different animal.

It's in the context...

If you use the textbook definition of confirm, I agree with what you're saying. But in the context of political/media interaction, confirm doesn't always conform to that.

Somebody used Joe Wilson to "confirm" that he was sent at Cheney's behest, but Joe had no knowledge of that.

Ahhh, maybe that's it. We just needed the scare quotes around "confirm" the whole time :)

[Good Captain]

To PR Sullivan's post indicating a possible basis for calling the man who started everything, (Mr. Wilson), to the stand, is there a legitimate chance of that happening & if so, that the judge would permit it?

[clarice]

See the Cooper thread. Yes.Once a foundation has been laid for showing he has relevant information to provide.

[boris]

If you use the textbook definition of confirm

Of course, otherwise you are overparsing based on some assumption.

When someone says they intentionally avoided confirming a statment, plain English implies it's something they know about.

If they know nothing about it, plain English would recommend a less convoluted turn of phrase.

[Good Captain]

Thanks Clarice and to all the commenters here. To bad such insight is no longer available (if it ever was) on the MSM.

[MaidMarion]

JW's post:

"W During first interview you asked questions about conversation with Russert. He told you he had telephone conversations on July 10 and/or July 11. Libby told you it was very possible that he had two conversations."

July 10th was a Thursday and the 11th a Friday. This is how the discussion begins on the 10/29/05 http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/circle_the_wago.html>Tim Russert Show which aired after Fitz's indictment was handed down:

"RUSSERT: In a lawyer's office here in Washington, and not before a grand jury. But I was under oath and I said, `You can share this with anyone you want.' I was asked about a phone call that Scooter Libby made to me, as the indictment says, on or about July 10th or 11th. I'm sure not which day it was.

WILLIAMS: So Wednesday or Thursday.

RUSSERT: Yeah."

While watching that show it struck me as odd how Williams was constantly clarifying things Russert said. It was curious to me why Williams had felt the need to place the "Wednesday or Thursday" caveat out on the table.

Russert's "Yeah." to William's "Wednesday or Thursday" means the phone call he talked to Fitz about under oath actually took place on July 9 or 10...not July 10 or 11. I'd conclude, then, that the phone call took place on July 10.

If indeed "two" phone calls occurred between Libby & Russert, during the Prosecutor's requested timeframe of "o/a July 10th or 11th", then Russert would have had to reveal this.

But if another call occurred outside of the "on or about July 10/11" window, then of course Russert didn't address it.

Perhaps Libby called Russert on July 9th, at which time Russert brings up "Wilson's wife sent him."

[sbw]

Sara... Regarding Arkin:

Sometimes vomit on a page ought to be regarded as such.

[Sue]

H&R,

Typical. It tracks right along with this trial. Everyone read what you wrote. It wasn't until Clarice said it that it registered.

::grin::

[Dan S]

Yeah, when Clarice said it I read it as if for the first time... then I remembered H&R had said basically the same thing earlier in another thread!

So I guess I was lying to myself the whole time.

[hit and run]

You're lying!

You could not have forgotten my comment!

My original comment was behested by Tom!

I am too important!

You're going down!

My hair is only 1/8" long, though, do I have a chance?

[Rick Ballard]

DanS,

Agent Bond of the FIB (that's pronounced 'feeb') will be in contact with you this afternoon. Please retain any notes that you may have made concerning your acknowledged false statement(s) (except for anything of an exculpatory nature - there's no sense in hanging onto anything exculpatory). You may have an attorney present and you (and/or your attorney) may prepare a written statement if you believe that futile gestures are of any utility.

[sbw]

Excuse me, TS9, but do I recall that the forgeries were found in Plame's CIA safe afterwards and supposedly unread?

[clarice]

sbw--yes that is true--it is detailed in either the majority SSCI report or in Robert's separate report--all of which is accessible by hyperlink on the right eide of this blog.

As I recall someone on the distribution list in Plame's office was out when it was distributed, it was put in the office safe and forgetten for about 6 months--that's the story given to the SSCI.

[danking70]

1. Biggest surprise helping the defense;

a) Armitage colluding/meeting with Grossman before and after Grossman's testimony with investigators. Just pile that on top of the Armitage and Woodward love fest. Also, remember that Woodward said that the case was dumb (my paraphrase) and that the CIA did a damage assessment and concluded that there was no damage. That would be a nice question to ask Woodward.

"W: Who told you about the CIA's damage assessment?

Woody: Tenet."

Wouldn't that be nice.

(b) Ari testifying that he blabbed to Dickerson and Gregory after potentially speaking with Novak in the morning and Libby at lunch. The lunch were Libby might have mentioned Plame and that the info was Hush Hush. I've known teenage girls who could keep a secret longer.

(c)The juror picking up on Judy Miller going to jail to protect other sources that she can't remember anymore. (I wonder if the prosecution is trying to backdoor the defenses memory case for them?) Also with Miller the fact that she testified that her notes help her spark memories only when it relates to Libby. Victoria? Flame? Amb. Munchausen's phone #? How did those get in there? Her matches must be wet.

(d) Cooper's "it ends in a question mark" with accompanying press gaggle guffaws.

Priceless.

(e) Bond's recollection of Libby's counsel statements for the FBI interviews.

B: Who's Tate

2. Biggest surprises helping the prosecution;

Ari's testimony. So far this is the most damaging to Libby. (There's also many ways for the defense to challenge it.) I'll be very disappointed if Dickerson and Gregory are not called.

3. Best evidence for the defense so far;

The Miller/Cooper crosses. (definetely the most entertaining.)

4. Best evidence for the prosecution so far.

Ari's

[Dan S]

Rick,

I sure hope she's ready to be video recorded! I think I'll title it: DanSing and Libby-do with a Fibbie.

[MJW]

It seems to me that that little gigglefest between Russert, Mitchell, and Gregory (Then I would have called Andrea, and she would have called Dave, and we all would have got together to talk about it and make s'mores) did the defense a big favor. Mitchell has no believable way out of her statement that she knew about Plame prior to the Novak column (other that to say she was making it up). If she admits to knowing, but denies telling Russert, her testimony will be contradicted by their own words that it was something they would have shared.

[John R]

A number of folks here have speculated that whatever the trial's outcome, the President would issue a pardon, should one be needed, to keep "Scooter" out of jail. I wonder about that.

Ann Coulter has a good column posted yesterday bemoaning the lack of fight in the GOP particularly when a fellow Republican is attacked. I attribute this passivity (which I personally have seen at work) to a "be nice" country-club mentality. The President's mother is prime example No. 1, a grande dame of old New England stock, trained to bury her feelings and be polite at all times. Above all, keep dirty laundry private. (The playwright A. R. Gurney ["The Cocktail Hour"] has perfect pitch for these people.)

A significant amount of this "be nice" rubbed off on Bush 43 obviously, given his initial and continuing loyalty to bureacracies whose employees have actively skewered him--including DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc.

I wouldn't count on any last-minute pardon's emanating from the President simply because it (I would guess) would be seen by the Bush parents and son as unseemly.

* * *

By the way, Clarice, your observations and commentaries are invaluable.

[karris56]

Fitzgerald is stuck for a motive

Could someone tell me again why trying to make sure that Bush gets reelected is not a plausible motive? Has everyone at JOM forgotten how biased, left-leaning, and prone to distortion the media is? Even if there wasn't anything actually illegal or consequential about telling reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, if it had become public knowledge in late '03 or '04 that Libby had done so, surely there was enough raw material there for the traitorous liberal MSM to distort and exaggerate into a politically damaging frenzy, wasn't there?

I suppose some might point out that Libby's testimony was to be sealed, but do you really want to argue that Libby should have felt free to confess to leaking because there was no chance his confession would get leaked?

Posted by: Foo Bar | February 01, 2007 at 11:10 PM
When I first heard this story and read some on it my take was Cheney read Wilson's story in the NYT and got angry. Who wouldn't ? He thought he could show Wilson lied about who sent him. The NYT was leaking info about the WH so let them leak this also. The Times were leaking info that made the WH look bad and the secrets used to fight the WOT. Cheney probably thought it fitting that they expose Wilson . When confronted Wilson would probably say the CIA sent him because of Cheney's questions. If they kept digging they would find Cheney did not ask for THIS. And find his wife with a role in sending him.

But when confronted Wilson claimed they were after his wife to get even. Instead of first checking if Wilson lied they jumped on Wilson's claim. This is where I am not sure of what happens after. I think Cheney thought no matter what they said the NYT and the media would side with Wilson. Elections were coming soon and he knew they would keep hammering them till then. He must of told Libby to stall or not tell them anything. Cheney knew there was no crime here anyway. But somehow Fitz found one and thats why this trial.

[steve]

As a Subjunctivist, I have to agree with Boris's interpretation of Libby's statement. The fallibile-memory argument is still important for Libby, though, because it a) gives him cover if it turns out that Russert wasn't the reporter he talked to about Wilson and Plame and b) could be applied to his questionable GJ and FBI statements themselves (i.e. his meta-memory while talking to Bond and the GJ might have been incorrect about his memory during the conversations themselves).

[Sara (Squiggler)]

to a "be nice" country-club mentality. The President's mother is prime example No. 1, a grande dame of old New England stock, trained to bury her feelings and be polite at all times. Above all, keep dirty laundry private.

This is spot on. I grew up in a home just like this. Maybe it is why I seem to understand GWB. I recently had this come back to bite me in my own civil deposition last week. I was asked why we (Mother and I) didn't take action against a neighbor we thought was dishonest (thief) and a liar who had a significant roll in what happened to cause my civil suit. My answer was to say, we don't do those kinds of things and even if I had wanted to go after her, my Mother would never have permitted it. The old school idea that a woman only gets her name in the paper at birth, marriage and obit kind of thing. The county attorney looked at me like I came from outer space. I then said, "hey I'm an Eastern seaboard gal." And he said, "oh, above the fray, huh."

If you haven't grown up in that culture, it seems odd to others, I guess. All I know is that good manners trumped all and one never pointed out another's flaws, fallacies, or misdeeds, it was considered tacky and unclassy.

[JJ]

Well, hey, late to the party, but...

James Joyner of OTB, after his stint at liveblogging, probably had my best revelation/confirmation: He said the average journalist's job is boring.

Yes, average journalism is boring. Watching the grass grow. Things move in extreme slow motion, not a sexy speed.

Which jives well, I thought, with the slightly confused recollections of who talked with whom when during the trial.

It's true to life.

That Libby may have been overloaded and not the constant plotter and schemer he and Rove are portrayed to be is, my bet, THE truth.

Sorry, Fitz got sucked into BDS.

And makes me wonder how this all started. (Hitchens at Hugh Hewitt had an interesting take on that.)

[topsecretk9]

--Hitchens at Hugh Hewitt had an interesting take on that.--

Today?

[JJ]

...and one other mention is the schizy course of the commentary of the trial.

1. The MSM's headlines of Libby taking the hard fall with every testimony.

2. The left blogosphere even worst "gotcha" posts.

3. The biggest: the lack of commentary on the testimony and how it impacts the charges. Did Libby lie and obstruct based on what has been said? I. don't. see. much. to. convince. a. jury. yet.

[JJ]

CH: Just to take a step back from this, I mean, Mr. Fitzgerald found that there had been no breach of the relevant act governing the identity of intelligence agents. It had never been breached. We know that the people, actually, the specific person who let her identity out was a foe within the Bush administration over its Iraq policy, Mr. Richard Armitage, or Armitaj, some people called him. I never know. We know that it’s all been a complete much ado about nothing. But in the course of it, unfortunately, the President told everyone who worked for him to sign a waiver, it made collaboration with Fitzgerald compulsory, and eventually meant that Fitzgerald could go to the press and say well, basically, I know what he’s done, so I now want you to come and say it, which has destroyed completely one of the cornerstones of our profession. And all of this because of a nothing vendetta.

1-31-07 at 8:14 PM

[MJW]

One more surprise, though perhaps someone else mentioned it: none of the three witnesses who claimed to have told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA claimed to have told him she was behind sending Wilson to Niger. Minus that detail, the information is less memorable.

[MJW]

In re-reading EW's version of the testimony (which I should have done previously), I realize it isn't complete clear what Grossman and Grenier said of Plame's role in the trip.

The record of Grossman's testimony about his discussions with Libby doesn't clearly mention Plame was involved in sending Wilson, but is a little fuzzy:

I went up to him and I wanted him to recall that Wilson was involved in the trip. He ought to know that his wife worked in the agency. Happened just outside or just inside the meeting room. No recollection of where the conversation took place.

The record of Grenier's testimony concerning his recovered memory of the Libby discussion is ambiguous:

I believe I did mention only in passing about Wilson's wife. In fact Wilson's wife works there and that's where the idea came from.

"that's where the idea came from" could mean they thought of Wilson because his wife worked there; but it could also mean the idea came from his wife. That depends on the meaning of the word that.

[Carol Herman]

Ya know what?

Libby never said the Wilson's 2nd WIFE works for french intelligence. So, he can "claim surprise" at the CIA label. He was looking for the french one. (No. I'm not kidding.)

And, as to what happens on Monday; will depend on what the judge does with RULE 29.

Seems it would be a favor to Fitz to toss Cooper's charges. And, take away from the defense the whole set up going into the Wilson was being warred upon. Where would you put Dickerson, if the judge tosses?

And, then? What happens to juries? Do they hear of the "toss?" Or to they have to wait for the charge sheet? Where cooper's charges show up missing?

Yeah. I'm sure you could fool most juries with "smoke and mirrors." But the judge has to agree with their use.

[T.J. King]

Per your request for dead enders that are still hanging on to Plame's covert status as significant, here is a winner:

http://coffeehouse.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/04/dick_cheney_was_briefed_by_cia_on_niger

This is Larry Johnson's article arguing that Cheney was debriefed by CIA the week after the Niger Junket and that they CIA updated Cheney on Wilson.

**Note: Remember, former CIA official Larry Johnson was the first person from the Agency to confirm that Wilson's wife had worked there.