Preliminaries

The morning started with argument on two issues:(a) Mitchell's testimony was the first.

Wells argued that his would love to have her statements on Oct 3 and on the various Imus shows  taken as substantive evidence, but acknowledges that the judge is resistent to that. Nevertheless, he says he shouldl be allowed to introduce that evidence to impeach her and (Russert) with limiting instructions to the jury that this is not to be considered substantive evidence.
He pointed out the close way Russert/Gregory and Mitchell worked on this story ;indicated that on July 8 M contacted Harlow, Fleischer reportedly told Gregory (per the govt's own case). The judge had missed that Harlow had confirmed Plame to Novak. In fact, he seemed not to know many of the facts.
He has taken a break to consider this.

*Ruling--Will allow Wells to question Mitchell on these things outside presence of jury to see whether he can do what he wishes to w/o running afoul of the Johnson case. Also Wells announces Eckenrode has been called as a defense witness to clarify what Russert actually said as the notes as missing.***

(b) The other issue is the dropped count..Fiz is palaying his usual smoke and mirrors game arguing the instructions should not strike that language. Wells is fairly livid--He says that the obstruction count is based solely on 3 conversations (with Cooper, with Russert and with Miller but only with her on July 12)That the judge made this clear in opening instructions--required Libby to waive at opening to deal with this, that Wells , following the agreement, made this his very opening..and that now that the July 12 conversation with Miller is dropped, Fitz should not be allowed to leave in that stuff in the jury instructions onm some smoke and mirrors thing that the jury can ifer it from conversations elsewhere.
(Translation--I think sloppy drafting of the indcitment has  come to bite the prosecution. The defendant has a right to know what he is charged with, and I think the judge will rule for Libby on this one, substantially weakening the obstruction counts.

Pincus Up

Comments

[MayBee]

You're up!

My two favorite things:
Pincus says Ari was his source.
Fitzgerald tries to keep Wells from asking Pincus about the Mitchell might know portion of an article he wrote. Wells says, the Gov't put that article in over my objections-- of course I'm asking those questions on it.

[Alcibiades]

Did we know that Ari Fleischer told Pincus?

J Government official? Who was it.

WP Ari Fleischer.

[MayBee]

No, we didn't know. Ari didn't testify to it last week. Also notice- Ari said she was an analyst.

[Dan S]

Yeah, MayBee, I loved that bit about the article too.

[james]

The judge had missed that Harlow had confirmed Plame to Novak. In fact, he seemed not to know many of the facts.

This judge seems like a bit of a doofus. Is this a normal level of cluelessness for a judge in a trial of this magnitude?

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, I noticed that. And no reference to Counterproliferation - which is what info Libby had originally from the VP.

[Dan S]

This is pretty definite:

"J Are you certain it was Fleischer

WP Yes."

[Alcibiades]

I missed the article stuff. Is that on FDL?

[Dan S]

Here's the bit on where Plame worked that Ari passed on at this stage:

"J What were Ari's words in describing Wilson's wife.

WP Wilson's wife, an analyst, and WMD.

J An analyst in WMD?

WP I don't know the phrasing.

J Did he say and do your notes reflect anything about her working in CounterProliferation?

WP No."

If she was an analyst, she wasn't covert. So assuming that was what Ari knew (analyst versus covert) he would be in the clear legally.

[Other Tom]

Christ--I'm lost.

[Appalled Herder]

Keep moving! Keep moving. TM's got some new speculation up!

[lurker]

Dan S., let's hope Wells makes sure that the jury understands that "analyst" means that she wasn't covert. Ya think Wells will ask for the clarification of "analyst" v. covert?

Looks like Wells is on the way to destroy one count after another count. It also looks like Wells and Jeffress are trying to get more counts dropped before letting the case go to the jury.

It also looks like Walton is understanding more and more that this is a case of a missing crime.

[MayBee]

OH, but then Dan S, he appears not to have asked him about Mitchell after all.

[Sue]

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 him in a lie!!

Who lied?

[Dan S]

Sue,

Trying to figure that one out too. I think EW is saying Pincus lied. Don't see it.

[theo]

Astute readers of this blog were tipped off days ago that a very likely ruling on Mitchell was that the Wells could ask her the questions outside the presence of the jury. Its a small step and may not lead anywhere, but Wells is at least still in the game.

[Alcibiades]

I think EW is implying Libby lied - but it's not clear to me.

[MayBee]

I think she's saying it's a lie that the CIA's decision was triggered by an aide, so Libby is lying to say that. She would also say that Cheney triggered the decision.
The problem with saying it's a lie is that at that point, Libby had no independent idea why Wilson went, and was only working off what the CIA told him.

[lurker]

I thought that it was the aide that lied. Would this aide be...Valerie Plame or someone that did the investigation?

[Sue]

I think EW is saying Pincus lied

I would have thought so from the context of where she shouted out, but she was probably referring to Libby. It is not a crime to lie to reporters, EW. In fact, he isn't even charged with lying to reporters. If indeed he was lying to Pincus.

[topsecretkk9]

Well, I guess if it is not clear to us here, then I'd imagine the jury isn't keying into EW's arcane catch.

[clarice]

I think she's saying Libby lied when he told Pincus the trip was triggered by an aide's question. Machts nicht. But as this case crumblesw, every microscopic crumb is delicious fodder for the Fitzmas crowd.

[MayBee]

Here's her explanation:
Cheney was the one who asked for more information. Pincus’ testimony shows that Libby was lying to protect Cheney when he spoke with journalists.

But as I said, this article is from late May, and I don't think OVP had a clear understanding from the CIA about why the CIA sent Wilson.

[jwest]

Clarice,

Since you seem to understand Wheelereze, what is the deal with “Que” and “Cue”?

[Dan S]

Sue,

Yeah, that makes sense. Never occurred to me that she was talking about Libby. And I agree he couldn't know the whole thing originated with Plame at that point, so don't see how it's a lie in any case. At that point he did know Cheney had sent across a "how did this come about?" query.

And, as Clarice says, so what if he did lie to Pincus anyway. No law against that.

We're over on next thread, btw. :)

[Sue]

Well, I think she is stretching here. But she stretches all the time so she probably is very limber.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'what is the deal with “Que” and “Cue”?'

No habla Espanol?

[Jim]

Maybee,

That is one of my questions: Do we know why the Wilson's were so interested in getting Joe to go to Africa? It seems that there is something else there. He needed to get over there so that he could hide or cover something???

[cathyf]

If the Cheney aide who informed the CIA that Cheney was interested in African yellowcake reports is taken to be Cheney's CIA briefer, then that story is simple, straightforward, and we have documentary evidence that it is true. (And not very interesting.)

[MayBee]

Jim- Joe was an independent business consultant, who did risk evaluations for people wanting to do business in Africa. Among other things. Getting paid travel to Niger would help him develop contacts and/or clients.

[Jim]

Thanks Maybee,

The "Among other things", are there any other suspicions there. Something just does not "smell" right here?

[Annoying Old Guy]

While I realize that, despite reading here extensively, I am missing big parts of the picture, this post brings up the primary thing that's been bothering me but I haven't seen addressed —

If the covert status of Plame is not allowed to influence the jurors, what then is the basis for the prosecution's claim that Libby had motive to lie? I thought it was that Libby didn't want to get tagged without outing Plame, but doesn't that "assume facts not in evidence" if Plame's covert status is irrelevant? Is there a motive ascribed to Libby in this case that doesn't have Plame's covertness as a lynchpin?

P.S. Sorry if this is an obviously beaten to death horse.

[crazy]

Amen, Jim

Val and her gang could have tasked the US ambassador and others in country to ask the questions hubby was sent to ask but that would have classified and they would have been bound by nondisclosure agreements. The INR memo even indicates the ambassador wasn't happy CIA was sending someone and sent instructions limiting his contacts and activities in country. So why Joe? why then? My bet is Joe wasn't sent to gather intel he was sent to deliver a message about what was coming and what to look out for...

[nittypig]

Old Guy,

I think the answer is that the question of whether she was covert or not is irrelevent. The question of whether Libby THOUGHT she was covert would presumably be relevent.

[JM Hanes]

jwest:

The thread's moved on, but if you're still reading, I believe "Q Card" is how Woodward labels his list of Q[uestions] for [Andrew] Card, etc.

[topsecretkk9]

-Posted by: crazy | February 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM-

Exactly. Sort of a "you see me" meassage

[hit and run]

Christ--I'm lost.

Posted by: Other Tom | February 12, 2007 at 07:56 AM

I have some Good News!

--You just saved a bunch of money on your car insurance?

No. Luke 19:10

(i am not trying to make things theological here, just a quick joke)