Powered by TypePad

« Plame Open Thread | Main | Masterful Summation of Plame Situation »

February 11, 2007

Comments

MarkO

For example, I would not want to be prosecuted by David Boies.

clarice

My point is all prosecutors use some tricks and a style they repeat over and over..And if you are regularly making your bones using the same tricks with dummies you get sloppy and then when you come up against a first rate adversary those short cuts can come back to hurt you..

MarkO

Clarice,

Right. And, there are many rooms in which he will not be the smartest.

Sara (Squiggler

I was just taking another look at the Libby Legal Defense Fund page and noticed something as if for the first time.

Isn't Bob Bennett representing Miller and Cooper? And then I see his brother, Bill Bennett, as a Member of the Libby Legal Defense Fund.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Given that the Wilson's have sold their home in DC. What prompted them to do that? I thought we were sold on the idea they were "INSIDE THE DC NODE."

Could it be that the twins, when going to those fab "private schools," were being rebuffed? The way kids get signals from their own parents, "not to play with those two?"

There's a lot of back-peddling away from Val and her "pals." While it seems she's hit a trip wire, too.

The good news, and the good coverage, in Russert places like Vanity Fair, (where Tim's wife is an editor) also speaks that something went awry. We just don't know what it is, yet.

It's possible AFTER the Libby trial is over, there will be more public cleansing, involved?" Because what good does it do know for Russert to be accused of sending Libby "up river?" The appeals would go one way. Proffers to Libby would come down another pike.

And, for all we know there's a very good, (personal feelings being hurt, and all), reason for the Wilson's to hightail it out of town. All the way to New Mexico.

Do you know the size of Val's party clothes in her closet? Mostly, DC loves formal. And, Val could have picked hollywood. But didn't. Did she have a garage sail for all her formal wear?

IF there was a life after Libby, where they'll probably be some money to be made from the publishing moguls, you bet, I'm being serious about her new address. So far off the beaten track from the DC/New York "circle."

Ya know what? In the world of Poker Tells? Val and Joe folded.

And, Andrea Mitchell? Her husband let's her go under Libby Trial's bus? (The trial will have enough legs in it, to house Andrea Mitchell's boots. Among others.) Alan Greenspan might look old. So does Woodward, these days, too. But stupid? Stupid is not a card in that deck. Salvation?

Salvation is when you know other career types will be thrown to their deaths. And, you want to hold onto something called "a good reputation."

Judge Walton can't be considered the Ron Popiel of judges, who slices and dices cases to smitherines; just to railroad Libby "to a higher court's attrition."

Sara (Squiggler

Re: David Boies, here is a quote, as published on the Libby site:

Former Attorney To Vice President Al Gore, David Boies: “[W]e’ve gone from a presumption of innocence until proven guilty to a presumption of innocence until you’re charged. Once you’re charged, now, by a prosecutor, you’re assumed to be guilty... Everybody talks about how the last time this happened was 130 years ago. But what people don’t talk about is 130 years ago, the White House official that was indicted was kept in his position by the President and was acquitted.” (Fox News’ “Hannity And Colmes,” 10/31/05)
Sara (Squiggler

And another quote from the Libby site that may come into play this coming week:

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova: “”I think this is a very serious development for the prosecutor [the Bob Woodward story]….By alleging that Mr. Libby was the initial source he publicly bootstrapped his case on this fact. That is now totally false and requires him now under Justice Department guidelines to seriously consider dismissing the case because you cannot indict when there’s a reasonable doubt and I believe now that there is a reasonable doubt about Mr. Libby’s state of mind.” (Joseph diGenova on Fox News, 11/16/05)
Kazinski

Forget using Mitchell to impeach Russert, the best witness the defense can call to impeach Russert is: Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald can speak to Russert's motivation to lie. Fitzgerald knew that Russerts pleading was false, and he knew that the Eckenrode conversation was something that Russert did not want disclosed. So did Fitz make a deal with Russert to lose the Eckenrode notes in an attempt to coverup the conversation, in order to get Russert's friendly testimony? Probably not, but shouldn't the defense get the opportunity to explore the possibility? And they can't ask Russert, his attorney probably did all the talking, and Russert's attorney would have AC privilege. So that leaves Fitz (or whoever in is office negotiated Russerts testimony). Now I realize Wells can't just come out and ask Fitz if he blackmailed a key witness, destroyed exculpatory evidence, and suborned purjury. But he can dance around the edges, and at least ask Fitz why he kept quiet about the pleading.

Sara (Squiggler

And one more because it also talks about the government guidelines:

Former Justice Department Attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey: "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should drop his prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. In light of Bob Woodward's recent revelations, suggesting that he could have told Mr. Libby of Valerie Plame's CIA employment, Mr. Libby's conviction seems unlikely. Although Mr. Fitzgerald was exempted from the normal Department of Justice regulations governing the conduct of a special counsel, he should nevertheless follow the requirements of the U.S. Attorneys Manual, which provides that "both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact." Mr. Fitzgerald may well have believed this standard met when he sought the indictment; he should now reconsider." ("Woodward and the Plame Affair," The Washington Times, 11/17/05)
Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Seems the giant media conglomerate decided to put the whole justice system to a Ron Popiel slicing and dicing machine.

What may be provided? Enough vegetables to throw on this stage, so the audiences can close it down the way they did vaudeville.

Shows ya what happens when the stage manager loses the hook. And, the crap without talent tap dances away.

If Fitzgerald asks for a dismissal now, though? He'll be accused of pulling the curtain, so the audience will be left to the frustrations of a man with premature ejaculation problems. Should he yank? It ain't gonna be the curtain coming down on this farce.

As to hell and pergatory? Fitzgerald's reputation is gonna suffer long after he passes from this "stage."

ATTENTION WILL BE PAID. (The one best line a woman speaks, in Death of a Salesman.)

Other Tom

Wilson did, in fact, lie repeatedly. Regardless of whether he had an honest belief that his trip--not really "his" trip, but "a" trip (or, more accurately, an investigation)--had been requested by the VP, he assiduously claimed that his wife had had "nothing to do with it." He also lied about what he had discovered, and what he had orally reported to the CIA upon his return. He lied about the documents in which "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong." That's the kind of thing that Scooter Libby is now being prosecuted for. The man is a serial, dedicated liar, and to deny that is simply to deny reality.

kate

Who is scheduled to testify tomorrow? Thanks in advance.

Patton

"""he did no such thing. He was told it was the VP. So was the INR analyst asked to give INR's assessment of the question.

Posted by: Jeff |"""

SORRY JEFF, BUT THE FACTS CLEARLY POINT TO WILSON, ONCE AGAIN, NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Byron York reported on it last week.
Valerie Plame wrote the e-mail recomending him for the trip BEFORE Cheney was even briefed and asked his question.

Now you may want to claim that Wilson didn't know what his wife had done, but that is highly doubtful.

1. Normally someone would call you to make sure you wanted to do it, that call had to have happened on the 12th and Cheney would not have been the reason at that point.

2. Joe's wife, certainly knew she was recommedning him for the trip, BEFORE they heard anything from the Cheney brief.

So Wilson clearly should have known and his wife certainly did know that choosing him to go on a trip had nothing to do with Cheney. Her recommednation hapened BEFORE Cheney even received a briefing.

Jim O'Sullivan

Russert went onImus in the Morning the next day to talk about his experience as a witness in Federal criminal trial. I was struck as I listened to him say how concerned he was, not about his examination by FitzGerald, but his cross examination by the defense. For example as a review of the transcript of the Imus show will reveal, he said"If you let the defense counsel get into a rhythm that’s yes, no, yes, no, yes no and you are not thinking about what you are saying, you are going to be in trouble." Trouble? Why would he care what cross-examination brought out, if he were a disinterested witness? Why not just answer the questions directly and without hesitition, and go home ASAP? This post suggests one possible answer.

clarice

To the best of my knowledge it's Woodward, then Sanger,and Abramson, then (if the motion to quash is denied) Mitchell.

JM Hanes

Jeff:

"I'm just not going to let my forthright acknowledgment of where Cecil was right and I was wrong be taken as license to draw all manner of baseless inferences."

LOL! You just can't help yourself, can you? You should have stuck with your forthright acknowledgement, rather than leaping straight to "He was told it was the VP" which you establish by...you guessed it.

So nitpick away if you must; everyone who has wrangled over the house of cards you inferred from the VP's putative role knows just how substantive a blow the newly established sequencing represents.

So many trees, so little forest.

clarice

I'm handing out licenses to draw all kinds of "baseless inferences". Cecil gets the first. I'm tossing the rest into the air like a brideal bouquet and letting you fight for yours.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

RE: OF ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES


Immelt owns the franchise "NBC." What if he is not like those dodo-birds at Black Rock? What if he wants to can Russert? And, Andrea Mitchell? What if he does so by claiming these two buzzards went to bed with the prosecutor to "tilt the case?" What if the NBC lawyers, knowing where their bread comes from, suddenly discover "they didn't get their clients input" ... and so "they too suffer from not being able to do ESP?"

How many ways can Russert be fried? or Mashed?

And, what if Andrea Mitchell is now exposing Alan Greenspan to some upcoming (or up-chucking) of some very bad press?

You want a forest with trees? Why? To see if liberals really do hide and hug? Or do they just "chat and run?"

Patton

Jeff, I do not doubt with Joe Wilsons ego, he certainly believed the VP sent him. I am sure in his mind, Cheney received a briefing in which Joe Wilsons 5 foot high picture and physical stats were briefed, hsi expertise in the field, etc.

I am sure Joe pictures the briefing ending with Cheney saying, 'Thank God, for big Joe Wislon', or words to that affect.

He probably even imagined his debriefing was hand delivered to Cheney by George Tenet in a gold embossed envelope on a fluffy pillow carried by a giant steed.

that Cheney knelt before the report and asked God for 1,000 Joe Wilons to save America, etc. etc.

Sara (Squiggler


I apologize in advance for how OT this link is, but the visual of this headline made me spit my Diet Coke and we could use some levity:


Talking Urinals Offer Drinking And Driving Advice...

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I really have no need for a 'baseless inference' license. I wouldn't mind having one for 'warrantless speculation' though? Maybe one for 'unjustified implication' too, if you have one around?

windansea

Drudge has "developing" that Cheney will testify

Here comes Colonel Jessop

windansea

also on Drudge

CENTER OF STORM: Former CIA director George Tenet fights back in new book... Developing...

windansea

cue Calvary trumpets

clarice

I had just two "warrantless speculation "licenses. I gave one to TM and was kinds hoping to hang on to the other myself..but I can give you two 'unjustified implication" ones. Paste them together and--*viola* there you go--same thing really in this jurisdiction.

ghostcat

FWIW, Drudge is announcing in red (1) that Tenet's book is a-comin' and (2) that Cheney will testify. (FWIW.)

Sara (Squiggler


A must read:


 Scooter Libby Trial Stops The Presses!


Other Tom

I'm intrigued by the suggestion someone made about Woodward's possibly being asked "why did you decide to come forward?" Although I doubt that his response would be as devastating a rebuke of Fitzgerald as we might like, I'm wondering if the question gets past a relevance objection--any thoughts?

ghostcat

(Read upthread first, idiot.)

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CLARICE

If Cheney is coming, I'll lay odds he comes in FIRST THING, tomorrow. HE starts the ball rolling. And, the scene? Just as I described it to Mark O in my email last night. Which he told me to post. Showing?

Cheney will walk into a hushed courtroom.

Wells will "call his first witness."

The Marshal in the Court will call out: ALL RISE. And, even the judge bounces up out of his chair. To honor the entry of the Vice President, through the Judge's Chamber Door.

People will need to have on hand extra underpants. So be prepared.

kate

I never had the sense that Cheney was dreading testifying. I think he is looking forward to it. I think Cheney is very smart and careful. I doubt Cheney will be bested by Fitz, except, of course in the parallel universe of our wonderful media.

Rick Ballard

"(Read upthread first, idiot.)"

OK, but I really wish you wouldn't talk to me like that.

How'd you know I always start at the bottom?

windansea

(Read upthread first, idiot.)

don't call yourself idiot...I am strutting cuz I beat the GhostCat :)

ghostcat

I'm so ashamed.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The TENET book is out! Published Feb. 6th. "CENTER OF THE STORM," I think. here's the Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_/104-2844678-5406301?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=george+tenet&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

topsecretk9

When was Wilson to have learned he went for Cheney? It couldn't have been at "the" meeting, because Wilson needed to get Walter K. at States' permission before he agreed to go.

I can totally understand that because it's common knowledge that Walter K's word on things certainly trumps Cheney.

MayBee

Jeff: he did no such thing. He was told it was the VP. So was the INR analyst asked to give INR's assessment of the question.

In the Grand Jury testimony, Libby said it would be against procedure for someone to tell Wilson who wanted him sent.
Grossman testified that when he told Wilson that the VP didn't send him, Wilson said he thought it was the VP.
Kristoff mocked, according to testimony, the OVP when they tried to tell him they didn't send Wilson.
Whatever he was saying, it sounds like he was more forceful about Cheney sending him than he knew or had the right to know.

topsecretk9

I seem to remember little chest thumping too

"Senior enough to ask, senior enough to get your answer"

Imagine how crestfallen Cheney would have been when told his idea to send Wilson was nixed by Walter K. at State.

boris

Since the Wilsons knew they had the mission already in the works BEFORE Cheney was even briefed then THEY LIED if they misled anyone into believing VP was more than a contributing factor..

kate

So Woodward leads off. Is this how Wells get the Fitzgerald press conference and Armitage in there?

Now I don't Fitzgerald will get much positive out of Woodward. I expect cross will be short.

I'm starting to forget things. Was Armitage Woodward's only source on this?

Sara (Squiggler

You mean Mr. "low level command authority" Wilson has an ego that he enhances with "literary flair?" Perish the thought!

Sara (Squiggler

Do we know Kate, since Woodward didn't write a story?

JM Hanes

Goddess! ROTFL!

Sara (Squiggler

I want to hear Woodward say that he came forward after he heard Fitzgerald lie in the presser.

ghostcat

TS -

You probably long ago discovered that Mr. Kansteiner is extraordinarly well-connected. Very close to Powell and Scowcroft, et al.

His abrupt resignation "for family reasons" on 10/31/03 is intriquing.

Pete

At the time Libby made his statement to the FBI, the investigation was under Ashcroft and the reporters would not have been pursued. It didn't matter what reporter Libby mentioned, but he may have wanted to mention Cheney's best format Russert who is well associated with OVP.

The record is pretty clear that Russert did not want to hurt Libby/Cheney and did everything he could (short of perjury) to shield them. Russert agreed to talk to FBi since he thought that his testimony was meaningless as he was not leaked to. Only after the FBI interrogation did Russert finally grasp the implications and then he went to the silent mode. He could have revealed his side of the story before the 2004 election which would have been very damaging to the Bush administration, but he did not do so.

MayBee

Patton: You may want to throw in the Russert witenssed anyone that didn't hang Libby was attacked and ridiculed by the media dn the left.

That is an excellent observation. Witness Howard Kurtz's response-- this trial is making the press look bad because it looks like it is carrying water for the administration.
Russert couldn't let that taint NBC news.

If reading newspaper articles is Libby's motive to lie, can't it be Russert's motive to....remember selectively?

ghostcat

I for one expect The Raporter (Woodward) to be an eye-opener for Joe and Jodi Sixpack.

kate

Sara - I'm not sure about Woodward. He's probably a good leadoff.

I'm trying to find how the defense is structuring the case or the theme. The prosecution seemed to go chronologically.

I'm wondering if the theme is the carelessness of the investigation since it's leading off with Woodward.

Also, Sanger and Abrahmson. Tomorrow should be interesting.

MayBee

Pete: At the time Libby made his statement to the FBI, the investigation was under Ashcroft and the reporters would not have been pursued.

Pete! Where have you been? The FBI called Russert and got a statement from in in NOVEMBER 2003.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

You can just give me license. I'll fill in the blanks.

ghostcat

kate -

Team Libby has to rewrite the dominant backstory narrative. No better way to start than The Raporter.

clarice

Sara thanks for the link to pw--great article:
"Perhaps America really doesn’t care about your sad, pathetic plight because they believe the whole mess in Washington deserves each other. Oh and then there’s this: Fitzgerald is just one more guy in a long line of DA’s, prosecutors, and lawyers generally, that have too much power. The whole trial is bogus. Who can remember what they say on a given day when they’ve talked to fifty people? This is much ado about nothing, but the press just wouldn’t let it go. America’s national security was at stake, came the somber cries from the same people who revealed serious state secrets like the NSA and audio surveillance. This was to be a “gotcha!” moment for the President. Turns out it’s a “gotcha!” moment for the press. Oops! Once again, a Martha Stewart sin is being prosecuted like it’s the end of the world.

Isn’t that what the press wanted? "

*********
I heard it on the moonbat grapevine--Cheney's coming in to declare martial law and thru Fitz in a dungeon. And I know that's solid. You can bank on it.

Other Tom

"...and the reporters would not have been pursued." Why not?

kate

ghostcat..yes and apparently Sanger was called because he was New York Times and Libby didn't leak to him so why would he leak to Judy Miller. So they are going after the Judy Miller stuff tomorrow. So maybe the defense is going chronologically also.

Woodward received the earliest known leak, right. I sure there were other earlier ones which maybe they'll try to show tomorrow.

clarice

JNK, the license is in your mailbox. Use it in good health.

clarice

How did KMH turn into JNK? I blame my computer.

Rick Ballard

Ghostcat,

Woodward under oath will be very interesting. I think it may be more than just the presser and Armitage. His 'watercooler' remark to Pincus might be the only one he has publicly acknowledged but would it necessarily be the only check he ran in the newsroom? If I'm not mistaken he had some responsibilities analogous to Russert's at NBC. Would he have stopped with Pincus? Or would he have asked a 'few' others? If he asked others could he have been the genesis for the "everybody knows" comments?

Extraneus

Cheney's coming in to declare martial law and thru Fitz in a dungeon.

Great!

Hey, I think it was MarkO who gave a nice explanation of how the NBC crew could basically coordinate their stories without ever talking to each other, by using NBC lawyers with attorney-client privilege. Are lawyers also protected when they talk to each other, so that they could, for example, coordinate their clients' stories when these clients don't have common attorneys?

windansea

I'm starting to forget things.

starting to?? I don't remember what I posted yesterday

:)

centralcal

Okay, I don't mind being the one with all the dumb questions around here, so, Clarice -

If Cheney were to testify, does he just drive over to the courthouse and sit in the witness box? or does he do some kind of video testimony?

windansea

Cheney's coming in to declare martial law and thru Fitz in a dungeon.

LOL...I hear Deadeye is bringing a loaded shotgun and will take out the jury.

Patton

I can picture Shuster now on the Cheney testimony:

Shuster: Well Chris it was an exciting today here at the court room, but no one expected it to go so badly for the Vice President.

Mathews: That's what I'm hearing here too, can Cheney survive the drubbing he took from Fitz today?

Shuster: Chris, I can't imagine after his performance today, he will be in office much longer. Let me set the stage if I can, the Special prosecutors very first question which pretty much ended the Vice Presidents career, was clear and concise.
And I'm quoting here for the history books, and he said: "Sir, did you order your staff to out Valerie Plame to punish Joe Wilson."

Mathews: WOW!..Wow! Really. Commin' from a old catholic boy ehh. I always said this was how Dick was going to go out. So tell us slowly please what was the Veeps response?

Shuster: Chris, you've probably heard the word, PRICELESS, but it never fit more perfect then this very moment in history.

Mathews: Really, Wow! So what did he say?
For us that didn't get the satisfaction of staring him down like you and Fitz. You little six shooter, you. Didn't know you had it in you..

Shuster: Well Chris, the Vice President learned forward and cleared his throat, and said, "No".

Mathews: Wow! Really. Never expected such an admission, Wow, cleared his throat ehh.
Guess he was backed into a corner, Fitz had him and he was stuck.

Shuster: That's right Chris, with one throat clearly, the Vice President basically admitted not just outing Valerie Plame, but sending Joe Wilsons, and signle handedly starting the Iraq war. It was amazing.

Mathews: Well, it is nuanced, I'll give him that, but its great to know we have crack journalists like yourself to interpret these nuances for our audience.
Now what do you make of the NO, after the admissions by the Vice President.

Shuster: Chris, we are still taking a look at that, we don't want to get out on a limb here, but were thinking Cheney may have also been copping to playing a major role in Global Warming.!!

Mathews: Wow, Wow. Thank Your David Shuster. For that quick analysis. Amazing admissions today by the Vice President.
Bu the way, there was no truth to the rumor that Dick showed up today wearing a wig and diaper. Your safe Tim!

kate

OK. according to AP, Team Libby wants Abramson to repeat her denials of Miller's testimony that, after her conversation with Libby, she suggested Abramson, the Times DC bureau chief, pursue the Plame link. An under oath denial could cast some doubt on Miller's testimony re her talk w/Libby.

That could be interesting. I'm sure the New York Times is conflicted tonight. They already threw Judy under the bus, but they don't want to help Libby.

MayBee

Russert also generalizes it out so tht it's not just national security reporters (plus Russert as head of bureau chief and all-around node in DC gossip-mobile would be more plausible for hearing all about it from everywhere);

But it doesn't have to be from any old gossipy source. Russert hearing it from Mitchell is just as good, it doesn't hurt Libby in any way if he heard it from another security reporter.

Furthermore, Libby already knew that Mitchell was working on this story- Harlow told him. It would have been perfect, because he KNEW she was out there looking for it. She could have found out from anyone (and she probably did), as long as it wasn't Libby, he's off the hook.

SunnyDay

cbolt has Miller's motion to quash posted. -First thing you see on his site.

Jane

I'm not as convinced as the rest of you that Woodward will hit it out of the part for Libby. He's a member of the press afterall. I think Bob Woodward will testify truthfully in the way that best protects his self interest. I don't expect the earth to move. I hope I'm wrong.

Sara (Squiggler

I'm having a back attack so I'm going off to soak it, but a research question:

Has anyone done a even a cursory look at the headlines for the day or two in either direction surrounding each of the dates that Libby was supposed to have heard about "his wife works at CIA?"

This thought came to me when I saw that WaPo article written on July 20, 2003 where Andrea went ballistic over Armitage. So, we kind of know what she was focused on all that week after the supposedly earth shaking Wilson wife news from Novak, but what was the Admin. focusing on starting with the Grossman dates and working forward?

Andrea obviously knew the backstory was with Armitage and State, BTW.

centralcal

Jane, I think you are correct.

MJW

I'm going to re-ask a question I asked earlier in a way I hope is clearer. (BTW, thanks to Sid for mentioning my question on this thread.)

In order for Fitz to prove Libby committed perjury, he must show that Libby's responses were material to the grand jury investigation. It would seem that to do this, Fitz must put forward evidence to the trial jury to show what the grand jury was impaneled to investigate. Otherwise, how could the jury know whether Libby's allegedly false grand jury testimony was material? I expected this would be done by, for example, having the grand jury foreman testify. This didn't happen, and I don't see any government exhibits on the matter. If no evidence was entered, assuming Libby's side didn't stipulate to the materiality of his testimony, it seems to me the charges fail as a matter of law (i.e., Walton must dismiss them).

Now, I really doubt Fitz would make such an obvious blunder, so I assume either the evidence was entered in a way that escaped the notice of the bloggers, or Libby stipulated that the testimony was material.

Pete

Pete! Where have you been? The FBI called Russert and got a statement from in in NOVEMBER 2003.

I meant that the reporters would not have to be forced to testify if they did not want to.

Jane

Jane, I think you are correct.

Bummer. I'd rather be incorrect.

kate

Jane - I don't expect Woodward or any of the journalists to want to do Libby any favors. In fact, Woodward seemed very eager to please Fitz when he testified in November 2005, IIRC.

Woodward will have to talk about the presser and Armitage and that's important.

Plus I believe Libby talked with Woodward but did not mention Plame so the defense may want to show that Libby talked to lots of reporters and that's why he got confused.

lurker

I thought Woodward was more than eager to tell Fitz who told him about Plame. Not that he cared about Libby. It appeared that Woodward's actions were based on his own principles.

lurker

"The record is pretty clear that Russert did not want to hurt Libby/Cheney and did everything he could (short of perjury) to shield them. Russert agreed to talk to FBi since he thought that his testimony was meaningless as he was not leaked to."

What about his XMAS comment? Sounded like he was more than happy once he heard Libby was indicted.

Russert still wouldn't have enough evidence damaging enough for the WH. You seem to be so intent in destroying the WH based on no or very little evidence.

MayBee

MJW- I recall Fitzgerald eliciting testimony about what various witnesses believed the investigation to be about. Addington, I think, and Bond, were asked at least about the scope of the investigation as they understood it.
I don't know if that is enough.

MayBee

Pete:
Pete! Where have you been? The FBI called Russert and got a statement from in in NOVEMBER 2003.
I meant that the reporters would not have to be forced to testify if they did not want to.

And????
The FBI was calling reporters, not protecting them. Ashcroft didn't do anything to stop the FBI from going 'after' reporters' statements.

lurker

Maybee, you'll make a fine witness for Fitz for forgetting what you posted yesterday.

lurker

Oh, that was windandsea. Sorry, maybee.

MayBee

Ah lurker, you'll make a fine witness yourself :-)

kate

I know we discussed this before but Woodward met with Libby on June 27 about a week after Armitage spilled the beans to Woodward.

They apparently discussed the NIE and other things. Woodward says he didn't think Libby mentioned Plame.

I know we've wondered before whether Woodward raised Plame with Libby. If that comes up, that would be a big moment.

Other Tom

"Are lawyers also protected when they talk to each other, so that they could, for example, coordinate their clients' stories when these clients don't have common attorneys?"

Great question. Where you have multiple lawyers representing multiple separate clients, all of whom are targets of a grand jury investigation, you typically enter into a "joint defense agreement" in which you try to protect communications among the lawyers from discovery. You can never be sure whether a particular court will respect the agreement. It would in any event be unethical for lawyers to "coordinate" their clients' stories, but it is very helpful to have meetings of defense counsel at which you not only share the gist of your respective clients' testimony, but also discuss trial strategy and the like. It's a good time to play things rather close to the vest, because of uncertainty (at least as of twenty years ago) over the effect of the agreement.

In the case of the witnesses, who of course are not targets, I think their attorneys probably proceed on the assumption that their conversations with one another are not privileged, but also on the knowledge that it would be an extraordinarily unusual step for a prosecutor to try to discover those communications. I can see it happening in a mob case, or a drug ring, but not here.

As to multiple witnesses from NBC, I would assume that they all are reprsented by common counsel.

I am very much with Jane on the Woodward stuff. I'm not even sure that Wells will be able to ask him why he came forward. He can certainly go into the Armitage conversation, but I expect tha overall it will be underwhelming.

kate

For those who are forgetful like me, Woodward's story:

Shortcut to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857_pf.html

boris

not even sure that Wells will be able to ask him why he came forward

The constraints placed on defense in this case seem grotesque.

Jane

He can certainly go into the Armitage conversation, but I expect tha overall it will be underwhelming.

Isn't the Armitage conversation the BIG case that they aren't supposed to talk about. Where is the line, anyway?

And if you are a juror and don't know the back story, how does this all sound.

Finally, I would be the perfect Fitz witness, every day I know less about this case than more.

Curly Smith

So Novak is on the stand and is asked:

Wells: "Mr. Novak, you and your research staff located Mrs. Wilson. You and your staff scooped ABC, CBS, NBC and all of the newspapers. Tell us Mr. Novak, how many researchers do you have?"

Novak: "There's just me, I'm a one man shop".

Wells: "A one man shop... Tell me Mr. Novak, just how did you determine Mrs. Wilson's name"

Novak: "I opened Who's Who, turned to Wilson, found a name and googled the rest."

Wells: "I see. Are you the only reporter with access to Who's Who?"

Novak: "Evidently"

Then poor Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory get to explain their utter incompetence, they have to explain that they were waiting for a source to whisper in their ear "Who's Who, page 324".

You can be sure that at NBC the pucker factor is high...

clarice

Cmon
Wells: Did you have a conversation with Richard Armitage
When?
In the course of that did he mention Wilson's trip to Niger?
What did he say?
Did you thereafter speak to Libby?
When?
blah blah

Did you ever raise this matter with Armitage again? When?(2 attempts)
Did he give you a waiver to talk to the SP?
When?
Did you speak to the sp?
When?
Did the sp ever ask you who you told about the Armitage disclosure?
Did there come a time when you told the sp about that conversation with Armitage?
H

Extraneus

Curly, agreed that the order of defense witnesses will probably be more interesting than that of the prosecution.

Is Waas on the list, by any chance?

Extraneus

(Thanks, Other Tom.)

Cecil Turner

Not that INR guy. This one, from SSCI, 42: [. . .] And remember, this is to bolster the likelihood that Wilson was told some such thing; it's not to reargue the Feb 12-13 point (for now).

An INR analysis is close to what the VP actually asked for. As for Wilson's trip, he might possibly have been told that, but certainly his wife knows better. And again, I presume they talked about his mission.

It's easy to imagine too by the time Wilson came in on Feb 19, the VP's interest loomed larger than anyone else's . . .

That may have been the drift on Feb 19th, but CPD sent a cable requesting concurrence to send Wilson on the 13th. The idea that the decision hadn't been taken seems hard to defend, nor is it plausible that decision was in response to the VP's request for the CIA's analysis of the DIA report. And if only he wasn't sleeping with the originator, it'd be plausible
Wilson made a simple mistake. As it is . . .

clarice

I think both Woodward and Novak will be very good witnesses for the defense, and I expect Novak will just be very happy to pay back Russert and the press jackals who hypocritically attacked him.

windansea

Oh, that was windandsea. Sorry, maybee.

see what I mean?

Finally, I would be the perfect Fitz witness, every day I know less about this case than more.

me too, there is so much "remembering" going on I just rely on my sense of smell

windansea

I predict there is a 70% chance McGuire will use a Few Good Men quote in his next post

Jane

I just rely on my sense of smell

Same here. I've got a pretty good gut, but I feel hampered by my inability to see the jury.

Oh yeah, and read the transcript.

HA!

Steve

Tom/Jeff et al...
Could he have picked Russert because of the possibility of the discovery of a paper trail...Like phone logs...

It does Libby no good to name a reporter if there's if no contact can be found- IOW, he names Joe Schmoe of the Nowhere Times, if there's no record of a call from Joe's office to Libbys office, or from Libby's office to Joe's office, cell, home, whatever, it looks MORE like Libby fabricated the call...

At least by naming Russert, he covers himself since phone records would/could sho wteh call, etc...

There's still the discrepancy between what Libby's He said and Russerts He said, but that works toLibby's advantage, no? We could just be arguing that Libby made up a press contact by naming Joe Schmoe...

Jane

YOu know what else is different? Clarice and a few others know this case as if they are trying it. They know the facts as well as they know their own names. I've never mastered the facts well enough to be much help. So really all I have is gut.

Jane

From Roger Simon:

February 11, 2007: "Senior Moments" at the Libby Trial

I have long last patience for the Valerie Plame Affair, but I had to smile when I read today's coverage by Byron York in the New York Post. This whole silly exercise in taxpayer waste has turned into a kind of Boomer Opera Bouffe filled with strange memory lapses. Judith Miller, Tim Russert... hardly anyone seems to remember what they did or heard. Can't say I blame them. I have similar lapses myself. And it's going to get worse. But there is hope, at least according to this report.

Of course, this is all about whether Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury, a crime for which he may pay dearly. Which is also ironic since virtually everybody connected to this creepy affair is lying in some way or other. Joseph C. Wilson, the instigator of this nonsense, lied quite publicly on the oped page of New York Times. As for the reporters covering the case, well, the less said the better. After all, they have their livelihoods to protect. Where would they be without illegal leaks?

This tedious business has turned into a money machine for lawyers and authors. But beneath is something serious - the ongoing rivalry between the DIA and the CIA. The latter, the mammoth bureaucracy famous for missing the fall of the Soviet Union, doesn't like its competition. Who does?

~

I can relate

windansea

Same here. I've got a pretty good gut, but I feel hampered by my inability to see the jury.

tomorrow we will have Jeralyn of TalkLeft live blogging, and she will be better than EmptyWheel or the FDL goons, I think Clarice is also going to live blog, and we have Maid Marion who I think sits ins the courtroom and she has given some excellent observations on body language etc

windansea

Boomer Opera Bouffe filled with strange memory lapses

perfect...no wonder he makes the big bucks as a writer

clarice

Jane, I have in the past been on lots of long involved cases and I suppose it's something I just learned, but it's very hard for me. When these things go on and on it's like a page with millions of dots on it and you cannot tell for a long time which are important and which aren't and lots of times you ignore dots only to find out later they are important. In the beginning, it's just "gut" for everyone and lots of rereading things ..The difference between me and Fitz, for example, is when I see the dots aren't making a picture, I just don't pretend they do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame