Ten Little, Nine Little, Eight Little Witnesses...

Maybe he is not a numbers guy - from Patrick Fitzgerald's summation in the Libby trial:

Is this world’s greatest coincidence that nine conversations with eight people, all misremembering the same way, that the defendant is talking about Joseph Wilson’s wife?

...When you look at the evidence, you have all the evidence taken together and you realize that nine witnesses can’t all misremember wrong the same way

...You can’t explain how nine people misremember the same way.

...You have nine conversations with eight reporters about Wilson’s wife and you can’t remember any of them.

...He had ten conversations with nine people about the wife.

...I submit you can't believe that nine witnesses remembered ten conversations exactly the same wrong way to put it in there?

Mr. Steel Trap presumably had in mind, as the nine witnesses, Martin, Grenier, Grossman, Schmall, Fleischer, and Addington of the Administration and reporters Cooper, Miller, and Russert.

However, Russert quite specifically ruled out any discussion of the wife with Libby, so his memory was quite different from the other eight - "Nine conversations with eight people" was right the first time (Judy Miller was the double).  His other variations are harder to interpret.

Fortunately he was not under oath.

MORE:  This whole summation begs to be Fisked - this, for example, is a classic:

I’ll tell you that Tim Russert alone could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But let me make a different point.

On, no , let me make a different point - instead of telling us that Russert could be proved, why not prove it?  Call Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory and let them deny under oath that they had received a Plame leak.  Produce phone records nailing down the time of the Libby call, so we know it was not after the Novak column hit the news service wire on Friday.  Call some producers at NBC, find out who watches the wires, and see whether anyone flagged the Novak column while looking for ideas for the Sunday shows.

It was Fitzgerald's job to prove this, not talk about how he could have proved it.

And in the Buried Lede department - Fitzgerald keeps going on about how all these people told Libby that Ms. Plame was the answer to the question "Who sent Joe Wilson?", but that is not the case across the board by any means.

Cathie Martin (1, 2, 3) was apparently told by Bill Harlow that the wife worked in the CIA.

Grenier seemed to link her role with Wilson's trip, although he only remembered mentioning her to Libby in 2005.

Grossman claimed to have noted to Libby that the wife was with the CIA, but did not seem to link her to Joe Wilson's trip.

And Schmall (1, 2) told us that Joe and Valerie Wilson appeared in his notes, so he must have had some discussion with Libby, but he has no memory of what that might have been.

Fleischer and Addington described what Libby allegedly told them.

DID FITZGERALD SAY THIS?  From the transcript:

The defendant said I don’t remember these conversations. He testifies in the Grand Jury that he learned the name Joe Wilson at the time of the op-ed, July 6th.

From Libby's first session, this seems to be what Fitzgerald had in mind (p 79-80):

Q. And can you tell us about the first time you discussed the article with Vice President Cheney?

A. You know, I don't remember it in any detail. It was the same claim that we had had around since May. It's just now it had a name of it. Now we knew it was Ambassador Wilson. And there was this, you know, accusation of twisting the facts directly by somebody by name. So it was a concern.

So Fitzgerald wants to pretend that "we" meant only Libby and Cheney and not the broader public; that Libby wasn't simply noting that now the world knew what Washington insiders had long since  learned.  Yet  Fitzgerald did not even follow-up on this shocker during the actual questioning.

Whatever.  Maybe someone can find a better cite, but this looks like Fitzgerald is desperate. 

Comments

[TexasToast]

The jury (or what is left of it) will decide. The rest is political posturing .....

[Pofarmer]

Proof?? You can't handle the proof!!!!

[Pofarmer]

So, how many of these people actually had a real memory, not just something brought back by notes, of "discussing" Mrs. Wilson with Mr. Libby?

[hit and run]

Pofarmer:
Proof?? You can't handle the proof!!!!

OK, so if we have a reference to the most quoted movie in the Plame affair, and a post about witnesses...here is my lament of the trial (in an attempt to tie the two together).

Cheney on the stand during Fitz' cross:

You see Patty, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty searsucker suit and with your Harvard mouth extend me some fucking courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.

[bad]

Yeah TM, another bitch slapping!! Couldn't happen to a more desrving guy.

[Dwilkers]

Heh.

Looks like If he'd have gone on another hour or so it would have been 18 conversations with 17 people.

[bad]

TM Are you saying that Fitz lied in his closer? After all, we already know that his standards IRT memory and recall are extremely high.

[Pofarmer]

O.K. Dangit.

This Russert thing has been bugging the heck out of me. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that neither Libby, nor Russert, is lying.

We know that Libby called to complain about Mathews saying that "Cheney Behested" Joe Wilson to go to Africa. Cheney, and Libby, are saying, "No such thing, We didn't send him."

What if Tim asked something as innocuous as "Well, do you know who at the CIA did send him?" Or, "Would someone in CPD have sent Wilson?" Whatever the question was, it jogged Libby's memory and he put together all the little snippets of information that he'd kind of gathered over the last few days, and he finally realized what was going on, "As if for the first time."

Now, why not put Libby on the stand?

I think, that with Fitz putting the full 8 hours of testimony in, it just gave Fitz too many openings as Libby tried to explain what he meant. Any little change would immediately be jumped on.

[Pofarmer]

but this looks like Fitzgerald is desperate.

Disengenuous.

[MayBee]

I found this part to be establishing an excellent argument while demonstrating the value of expert wordsmithery:

The Buffalo News article, I’m sure Mr. Russert has been criticized before. It was four years old.

By the time this thing happened in 2004, he remembered writing the guy a letter. Doesn’t remember giving a phone call. Let’s get over it. This issue in the deposition, he went in. He took a deposition that allows lawyers, okay, so do a lot of other people.

[hit and run]

Whoever knocked out the power in the courthouse yesterday, please do so again today. Mmmmkay? Thanks.

Too much flippin' work to pay close attention....

[ed. -- that's news...you work?]
As little as possible.

[maryrose]

TM:
Agreed-Fitz is desperate to make the glove fit so the jury doesn't acquit. This whole case smacks of desperation. FBI agents in Wilson's neighborhood the night before and that untrue abominable presser. Pressure from the netroots for 22 indictments forced Fitz to indict someone-unfortunately when the music stopped Libby had no place to sit.
Just for good measure Fitz kept hope alive by dangling the possibility of a Rove indictment for far too long. Prosecutorial misconduct is what we have witnessed. Truly despicable behavior.

[C. Bowers]

I have not seen any of the raw info but it would seem to me that some of these folks, especially Libby, could be saying Wilson's wife, and others hearing Valerie Wilson, and others hearing Valerie Plame depending on what they personally knew at the time. They would then report the conversation as what they heard/knew at the time. I realize this is late thinking but it just came to me.

[Pofarmer]

Wouldn't it be really interesting to know who knew what, and when, with regards to "the wife"? Unfortunately, it seems the press has something similar to attorney client privledge, though I have no idea why, and we'll probably never know.

[Jane]

OT-

I've been thinking about the dismissal of the juror yesterday. As I recall, the word came out at 9:15 that the lawyers had been summoned, because there was a problem with the jury. And we know that the juror was reported, she did not report herself.

My question is, did the breach happen last Friday, or first thing on Monday morning? The timing to me suggests that it went on Friday, and they all stewed about it over the weekend.

Anyone else think that?

[maryrose]

Jane:
Interesting theory. I think you are onto something.

[Other Tom]

"The rest is political posturing ....."

Ya think? Jeez, I had no idea this investigation and trial involved political posturing. Heaven forbid!

[clarice]

Hmm, Jane, that is certainly possible. OTOH the jurors are picked up at a central location and brought to the courthouse which would have given the juror time to raise it before court began.

TM, Lucianne has made your raw story interview a must read today.

[Jane]

Well if I am correct that would mean that deliberations on Friday were tainted and the jury would have gone back yesterday to re-deliberate what had gone on Friday. Which would in turn mean that the actual deliberations were shorter than we are thinking they are.

Which probably means nothing, except that they may not be close to hanging but just going thru the stuff meticulously.

[Elliott]

I wonder if the dismissed juror came across some court filings.

maryrose: Thank you for the welcome on the other thread.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Fitz has a pretty loose idea of 'conversation'. Mostly the witnesses simply mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that was it.

[Jim]

Fitz reminds me of a track runner. He's so hyped up by the crowd, he doesn't want to dissappoint them.

Maybe he wants to be the best known US Atty, maybe it is peer pressure, maybe somebody threw dirt in his face as a child...something..

So with the Dem's cheering, "Get 'em, get 'em...Fitz didn't feel he should quit. No, he is in a race for his "personal best" as they call it.

[Patton]

I suspect that their never was a cobnversation about Plame with Schmall.

He may very well have simply taken a note on a subject that he was hearing the principals talk to each other about.

If you hear principals talking about somone in your organization, you might want to jot that down....even though it was never directly addressed to you.

You can throw Grenier and Miller out, they have no solid, firm, reasonable memory

[Christopher Fotos]

And we know that the juror was reported, she did not report herself.

Some accounts including today's WaPo/Leonnig/Goldstein story suggest the juror reported herself:

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the juror, an art curator in her 70s, after she disclosed to her peers that she had come in contact over the weekend with information about the case of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

[clarice]

That rather kills Jane's theory that the problem occurred on Friday, doesn't it? Well, assuming the report is true.

[Jane]

Interesting. Jim Engle reported just the opposite.

It's pretty amazing that you can never believe the media about anything.

[JM Hanes]

If I were FitzFisking I'd work through the evidence showing that everything Fitzgerald imputes to the OVP & Libby is true...of State & Armitage -- including both of Armitage's "as if for the first time" epiphanies. In fact, the list of everybody's AHA! moments, alone, is long enough for a thread of it's own.

Russert reading Novak, realizes as if for the first time what everybody was talking about. And who were the everybodies Russert was talking about?

As if for the first time, Judy Miller discovers that the shopping bag she's been snagging her stockings on for a couple of years has evidence in it!

The government discovers that the Eckenrode/Russert notes have gone missing. As if.

And the beat goes on and on.

[Christopher Fotos]

Interesting. Jim Engle reported just the opposite.

Yes, I've heard it and read it both ways. Very non-helpful.

[bRight & Early]

I don't think that this really shows that she reported herself:

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the juror, an art curator in her 70s, after she disclosed to her peers that she had come in contact over the weekend with information about the case of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Reading that sounds as if she told the other jurrors, not that she told the judge. However, if that quote is accurate we can throw out the idea that it happened on Friday.

[Christopher Fotos]

I don't think that this really shows that she reported herself:

That's why I said "suggest," bright & early; though other reports have flat-out stated she reported herself.

However, if the dynamic duo in this case had information that other jurors "discovered" somehow that she was accessing information outside the trial, that's a radically different story and one hopes/assumes/prays the reporters and editors have enough of a command of English to say so.

[Jane]

I just find it odd that it happened so early on Monday. The jury comes in, gets their coffee, gathers their materials, says "good morning", has small talk - by now it's 10:45. Yet yesterday at 9:15 the lawyers were summoned.

It's a small point and makes very little difference, but it stuck with me.

[PMII]

I like Jan'e theory. I don't buy that someone will fess up on their own. Believe others forced her to after they had time to reflect on it.

[JM Hanes]

I think the phrase "she disclosed to her peers" doesn't necessarily imply a confession. It could also be a discreet way of saying she showed up Monday morning saying she checked out something that was at issue, or in contention, Friday afternoon. There are plenty of ways to fill in that blank, but it would certainly not be surprising if she ran across the ubiquitous assertion that Val was covert, etc., which would make her lapse doubly problematic.

[maryrose]

OT:
Carville was on Imus today trying to rehab Hil's reputation and make up for her horrible week. It's funny that Carville and Hil have EXACTLY the same talking points. She tells a group in Washinton that Bill is the most popular man in the world right now and lo and behold Carville says the same thing on Imus. Folks we have entered the SPIN ZONE!
Also Carville believes Gore is going to make a run for the WH in 08.

[Christopher Fotos]

I just find it odd that it happened so early on Monday. The jury comes in, gets their coffee, gathers their materials, says "good morning", has small talk - by now it's 10:45. Yet yesterday at 9:15 the lawyers were summoned.

That's a very good point.

[clarice]

I told you--they ride in together on the bus. Of course, we have a couple of totally inconsistent reports on what happened..One suggests she turned herself in; another that the foreman did.
I think it plausible that on the bus to the courthouse she disclosed this to the foreman and as soon as they got to the courthouse he informed the bailiff.
But , as with most of this, who knows?

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

Maybe she'd been waiting all day Sunday for her "I told you so!" moment Monday morning?

[PMII]

Most people aren't ethical enough to turn themselves in. Human nature can justify anything.

[windansea]

If I were FitzFisking

speaking of FitzFisking...TM's excellent RawStory interview is now featured as a must read at lucianne.com

[Jane]

It's funny that Carville and Hil have EXACTLY the same talking points.

That's because they were revealed over the weekend. Everyone shilling for Hill has them.

Clarice,

My guess is they don't start deliberations in the bus, but I could be wrong.

[clarice]

Oh, I don't think they do deliberate on the bus. But if she felt she'd done something wrong over the weekend, why wouldn't she tell the foreman then rather than waiting until they got to the courthouse? And if she told him then, why wouldn't the foreman tell the bailiff right away instead of risking she'd say something about what she'd found in the deliberations?

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

Ms. Curator could have told all about her weekend discovery on the bus though. I lean toward chitchat prior to beginning the deliberation as being the probable point of revelation. I also lean toward her being a real thorn and having been driven back a bit on Friday only to show up on Monday with 'new proof'. IOW - the rest of the jurors won't miss her.

Just speculation. What I can't figure out is Well's smile and Fitz's frown. Did the jury foreman flip Fitz off and give Wells a hug in chambers?

[clarice]

Wells knew what she'd said, and he was present when they interviewed the other jurors to see what they'd heard. I think he has a good feel for people, Rick.

[Joseph Somsel]

How would have Charlie Chan handled this investigation?

[Rick Ballard]

Inscrutably?

[Pofarmer]

Is this world’s greatest coincidence that nine conversations with eight people, all misremembering the same way, that the defendant is talking about Joseph Wilson’s wife?

This bugs me too. If the OVP wasn't concentrating on "the Wife" then that is totally consistent.

[Jane]

What I can't figure out is Well's smile and Fitz's frown.

Yup. I can't believe we don't know someone in that firm that we can call to give us a hint. What kind of merry band are we anyway?

[Other Tom]

I'm very encouraged to learn that all of the jurors were interviewed, and that Wells was present for those interviews. On the other hand (there's always an other hand), Wells is kind of predisposed to smiling by nature. Fitz's apparent consternation, however, is delightful to contemplate.

[Barney Frank]

Jane and OT,

My lawyer always smiles when I pay him, so perhaps Libby's check cleared yesterday.

With Fitz, I'm not sure how you can tell when he's grimacing. He looks to me like he was weaned on a pickle, as Alice Roosevelt said of Calvin Coolidge.

[Gary Maxwell]

The story of Cal Coolidge I always heard was one that emphasized him to be a man of few words. Once its said he was approached by a man at cocktail party who told him he had bet his friend that he could get quiet Cal to say more than three words. Coolidge look at him and replied " you lose."

[Jane]

He looks to me like he was weaned on a pickle

Not to be rude or anything but he always looks to me like he has a stick up his ass.

[Mike Sorensen]

Charlie Chan would say, "Sometime owner of face not see nose. Russert say no discuss Plame. Why Libby lie about that?"

[roanoke]

If this goes over the weekend hopefully Walton will sequester the jury.

If I were Wells I wouldn't want to have to ask for that.

As to Wells et al being happy yesterday-maybe they were just glad to keep the ""eye rolling" alternate out of the jury.

[maryrose]

Jane:
I concur with your last statement.

[Sue]

weaned on a pickle

I'll have to remember that...great analogy for a sour face...

::grin::

[bad]

My pastor refers to the grumpy, negative Christians as the "weaned on pickle juice" crowd.

[Alcibiades]

Slightly OT:

Is Fitz part of the Conrad Brown prosecution team as well?
I think I may have read that here, but I may be misremembering.

That starts next month. David Frum has a piece about it today.