Powered by TypePad

« Monday Post-Game Thread | Main | I Love Coincidences »

February 13, 2007

Comments

Big Al

Micthell will deny any knowledge of a Plame leak or knowing Val's identity before Novak's article was published.

Not very dramatic.

bubarooni

a horrible revelation has just manifested itself to me after watching the beat down Fitz suffered yesterday. this thing is pretty well over.

after two years of squandering my mornings diligently reading through JOM posts, it's about to end and i'm gonna have to go back to studying for my CCNA.

i'm gonna need methadone or something to help me thru...

Jane

Even if everything goes like a pro-Libby fairy tale, I can't imagine that Tim, Andrea or anyone else at NBC will get the ax. The media won't report it, at least accurately; NBC will spin it; and the left will blame it on George Bush.

Clearly I have lost any faith I once had in a fair press.

jean

Mitchell could start talking like her husband. Then no one understands what she is saying

Tom Bowler

Then again - would the wife of Alan Greenspan let her false testimony help convict a man?

Who also works for NBC and Tim Russert? In a heartbeat!

ordi

It is also a possibility that Andrea would like Tim's job, she may turn on him on the stand.

ordi

bubarooni,

Not to worry Joe and Val's case is yet to come!

Jane

Joe must be horrorified at this trial. It's quite delightful to imagine.

centralcal

Tom B: "Who also works for NBC and Tim Russert? In a heartbeat!"

I think you are dead on. I do not think Andrea Mitchell cares about the preservation of anything but Andrea Mitchell. She is not a nice lady, and she didn't get where she is by being a nice lady.

lurker

Jane, Bob Woodward's tape pretty much throws that other Wilson / Plame civil lawsuit out of the window, huh?

bubarooni

ordi:

ohhhhhhhh....

civil?
would they dare?
libby would?

Jane

Lurker,

I'd have to look at it again to see, but I certainly hope so. I just wish we would hear some testimony about Wilson outing his own wife. I suspect there are just too many degrees of separation to accomplish that.

I wonder if he is still being canonized by the left. Most likely since they never seem to learn anything.

tina

From the "Morning Talk Show Thread" Thread on Free Republic, here is a recap:
===================================
"Imus tells Crawford there's something funny going on with Mitchell, Russert and Gregory"

And he said it more than once. He reminded listeners that Fleischer told David Gregory about Wilson's wife, and there's no way Gregory wouldn't have told Russert that tidbit.
====================================

Jane

Oooh that's good. I turned into Imus briefly but I couldn't bear it.

Jeff

Bob Woodward remembers telling Walter Pincus about Valerie Plame, but Pincus does not remember hearing it; Ari Fleischer remembers telling John Dickerson about Valerie Plame, but Dickerson does not remember hearing it.

Inaccurate. Pincus is much more emphatic than that. It's not that he does not remember hearing it. He is very clear that he heard no such thing, that he would certainly remember if he had, and that as far as he is concerned, Woodward never told him.

Somewhat less emphatically, Dickerson just says it didn't happen, not that he doesn't remember hearing it, which implies that he accepts that it happened and he simply does not now remember.

Why even bother with the jury on Mitchell? You've decided she knew, Russert knew, and they're lying. Why let a jury stop you?

Alcibiades

Joe must be horrorified at this trial. It's quite delightful to imagine.

With the media blackout going on?

Joe's ego hasn't noticed yet.

centralcal

"Imus tells Crawford there's something funny going on with Mitchell, Russert and Gregory"

I love it! One thing about Imus, he really likes to stir the pot! And he isn't the only one thinking there is something funny going on with those three and he knows it, that's why he said it on the air.

Chuck

From the "Morning Talk Show Thread" Thread on Free Republic, here is a recap:

I browse FR and didn't know there was a "Morning Talk Show Thread".

Could you tell me where I might find it as it does sound like an interesting "browse".

Thanks

P

PETE: """Pincus is much more emphatic than that. It's not that he does not remember hearing it. He is very clear that he heard no such thing""""

Yeah, my grandfather was like that. He got mad when we suggested he forgot. Its scarry getting old.

Another Lurker

Jane, the MSM spin will be that the trial revealed a conspiracy, at the White House, to "get" Joe Wilson. They won't mention that Wilson was a liar and the WH was trying to refute his lies. Libby's exoneration will be a footnote.

Alcibiades

Another Lurker: Jane, the MSM spin will be that the trial revealed a conspiracy, at the White House, to "get" Joe Wilson.

That won't be so easy anymore, after the release of the tape, the transcript of which says:

And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's
2:23 been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he's all pissed off.

Apparently CNN was playing this last night, or at least snips from it, and it's now up on the internet for everyone to hear.

boris

he would certainly remember if he had

Actually the phrase "does not remember hearing it" covers the bases adequately. Woodward has a memory of an event that Pincus does not have a memory of. That description works even if Pincus' call waiting was beeping at the time and he missed the comment.

If it had been written that Woodward remembers but Pincus "forgot", that would be a fair point. As it is you are overparsing as usual. Like when you asserted the White House was lying on the trigger point but now claim it is "baseless inference" to call the Wilson's liars on the same basis.

maryrose

Finally the real truth about Wilson is getting out. He however will spin it that they are harassing him again. What a putz! I bet Val is sorry she lowered herself to marry him.I don't care how important he thinks his hair is. Kerry thinks he has important hair too!
I love Imus-he doesn't pull any punches and he doesn't believe Andrea was drunk either!

Jane

You know the left wing spin on all of this is that reporters are the arm of the WH. I keep getting the exact opposite message - that reporters pushing their own agenda. It's as if they all see themselves as Woodward and Bernstein saving the world from what they believe is the evil of George Bush.

The spin is disheartening but expected.

Jane

And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's
2:23 been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he's all pissed off.

Is this part of the Armitage tape? Was it played at trial yesterday?

centralcal

Jane: yes

Jane

WEll cool!

boris

The spin is disheartening but expected.

The sheer centrifugal force of dhimicrat spin is what finally spun me over the fence during Reagan. Think if it as UrBrainium Enrichment.

windansea

Why let a jury stop you?

thats rich coming from a Cheney conspiracy artist

Jane

FDL is all aghast of the the idea of Rove colluding with Novak, producing no evidence of same, admitting if they did it would not be a crime, and suggesting it would be the end of Novak's career.

Funny they have no such worry, or prediction about the folks at NBC.

Another Lurker

Alcibiades, while I always enjoy the MSM turning on its own (think how much fun the other networks had with Rathergate), doesn't presenting Wilson as a liar then lead to the conclusion that the administration was on to something as far as Saddam and uranium from Africa? "Bush lied" about the uranium is an article of faith for them.

Can they maintain two contradictory premises at the same time: Bush lied AND Wilson lied? Well, I suppose if they don't care about logic, they can.

klem

What parallel universe do guys live in? A beat down for Fitz yesterday? Wilson horrified with how the trial is going?

All Team Libby did was show that their client didn't leak to every journalist in town. This is true--no one is arguing that he did. However, he did leak to at least three people: Miller, Russert and Fleischer--that has yet to be impeached. Nothing Team Libby has said or done even comes close to denying this. (Cooper, however, I have some doubts about.)

As far as Russert knowing because Mitchell or Gregory told him--do you really think that Russert's fancy title means anything? You act like he is a modern day Lou Grant--poking his head out into the newsroom to see what's news. The title just means he is NBC's chief shill for all Washington matters. It means he has to go on Imus, the Today Show, etc. to provide teasers for the NBC news shows. He probably hasn't done any real reporting in years--he has staff members who prep him for MTP. And Gregory and Mitchell sure aren't going to share any hot tips with him.

If yesterday was the best that Team Libby can do, it does not look good for Libby.

hit and run

JOB POSTING

Job Title: Reasearch Assistant
Position Id: 169103
Date Posted: Feb-13-2007
Date Needed: Immediately
Salary: Negotiable

Job Description:
-Read Just One Minute during off hours.
-Prepare summaries of key comments and posts.
-Other tasks as designated.

Skills/Experience Required:
-Advanced analytical and reading comprehension.
-Advanced knowledge of current political events.
-Advanced knowledge of and experience with blogosphere
-Experience with MSM will not be accepted.

Other Requirements:
-Must be willing to work nights and weekends.
-Must provide own computer and internet access.


hit and run is an EEOC employer

Jane

And we know logic is not their strong suit!

boris

kadiddlehopper ??? is that you ???

Extraneus

I wonder if he is still being canonized by the left.

My take? He's Saint Joe forever! The man who opened the door to the "Bush Lied" meme, allowing the shifty Dems to recant their former belligerent statements about Saddam and WMDs -- including my personal favorites, those made before Bush was even President. Helped along by a cooperative and participating MSM, the value of this to the Democrats was incalculable, and they can thank Joe for it, regardless of whether it was honest, which of course it wasn't.

Jim

HOW DO WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THIS IS TRUE.

Or, knowing that no notes or emails have been discovered to contradict her if she denies receiving a Plame leak, does she want to be, hmm, very careful in what she "remembers"?

In my opinion, notes or email may have been discovered. Maybe even discovered by the prosecution, but they may have been "misplaced" Or, have been discovered by Libby's team, just waiting for a proper moment to disclose them.

Oh, how I like surprises such as the Armitage-Novak tape recording yesterday.

Chuck

However, he did leak to at least three people: Miller, Russert and Fleischer--that has yet to be impeached.

Am I reading about the same trial? I thought Libby was on trial for perjury, not leaking.

Dream on MSM, Libby walks.

Bill in AZ

Jane: "And we know logic is not their strong suit!"

Jane, you must have read klem's post too...

Tom Maguire

I heard the whole Imus thing and I would describe it as huge.

He was talking to Frank Rich (who could have been even more clueless if he had started calling Don ny some other name, I guess... Rich did not even know that there was an Andrea Mitchell controversy and still thinks this trial is tearing the lid off the manipulation of pre-war intel.)

Anyway, of Russert and Plame, he said "I think Russert knew". He is less sure that Russert told Scooter (and would believe Russert before he would believe Scooter), but said that Mitchell's answers were not impressive (he recounted asking her if she was drunk when she made the initial claim), and that Gregory is very tense on this subject.

He also could not imagine a motive for Russert to lie (I can help there).

Why even bother with the jury on Mitchell? You've decided she knew, Russert knew, and they're lying. Why let a jury stop you?

Go to the firedogs right now and post a similar question about Libby, 'kay? Anytime in the last two years would have been fine.

And why do I even bother with these hedges and qualifications? I am casting my caveats before... well, before folks who don't like caveats, I guess.

Jane

H&R

And I thought you were going to hire an assistant threadhearder for the best part of the day.

(ripping up resume)

hit and run

Uh, Thread Herder called from beyond the grave with a message.....

I'll give you 3 guesses as to what it was.

theo

Klem --

So you think that Libby leaked to Russert do you? Based on what? Let's review the evidence. Libby says he did not leak to Russert. Russert said Libby did not leak to Russert. No one else was in on the conversation. Sounds like you have an alternative universe for your facts.

Jane --

How are the eyes?

I agree with you that Russert et al do not appear to be in serious danger. The MSM will protect its own. Also, with all due respect to TM, while the incentive for Russert to keep telling the same story is pretty intense, why would he have not told investigators the truth in the beginning? What would have prevented him from telling Eckenrode (when relaying Libby's version of the conversation) "yep, that is pretty much what happened."?

I think the real defense here, and the trial shows it, is that everyone remembers different.

owl

Oh come on TM.....after 3 years....put it in lights with a Drudge siren. Impossible to even dream stuff such as this.....

And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's
2:23 been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he's all pissed off
.

Sue

Weren't we close to never hearing that tape during Libby's trial? And weren't we close to never hearing Armitage's name? Things that make you go hmmmmm....

Sue

As far as Russert knowing because Mitchell or Gregory told him--do you really think that Russert's fancy title means anything?

He thinks it means something. I take it you missed Russert's testimony on this very issue. If Mitchell and/or Gregory knew, they would have told me. His words. Look it up.

Sue

Joe must be horrorified at this trial.

I take special delight in picturing the look on his face everytime someone testifies that he called them pissed off because he was described as low level. And along comes Novak with the kick in the gut. ::grin:: No matter the outcome of the trial, it isn't me facing prison so I can say this without personal consequences, it has been worth it to hear those juicy tidbits about Joe I AM IMPORTANT Wilson.

Alcibiades

Heh, Tom. It looks like Old Imus must be reading JOM (or he has a personal source somewhere telling him straight what is going on) - because he sure wouldn't know about this from any MSM source.

Sue

Inaccurate. Pincus is much more emphatic than that. It's not that he does not remember hearing it. He is very clear that he heard no such thing, that he would certainly remember if he had, and that as far as he is concerned, Woodward never told him.

I would say Woodward was just as emphatic that he told Pincus. He testified to that. Did he commit perjury? Or is the original statement you are disputing probably accurate?

theo

Sue --

I feel the same way. In truth, I think it is likely that Libby testified inaccurately in some of his testimony to the grand jury. It is not implausible to me that he may have deliberately done so. But what I cannot stand about this case is the way the BDSers have made a Saint out of Joe Wilson. The man is an obvious serial self aggrandizer. This whole thing was not about "Bush Lied" it was all about Joe having his "Fatal Attraction" moment in which he insisted "I will not be ignored."

Tom Bowler

There is the possibility that the defense has evidence that will contradict Mitchell's retraction of her "everybody knew" comment. Or she may be lead to think they do. Then she might have to choose between losing her job or gaining a perjury conviction. This could be pretty interesting.

At work now. Time to lay low.

Other Tom

"Why even bother with the jury on Mitchell?"

Well, Jeff, it goes something like this: it's the jury that will decide whether or not this man goes to federal prison. We won't. Got it?

As for the portly "Ambassador's" civil suit, it alleges a White House conspiracy to out Plame. Yesterday we had six different journalists who spoke with Libby when the conspiracy was supposedly raging, and all testified that Libby passed on the opportunity to out her. And two of them said that the source of the leak was in the State Department, a guy who was not at all friendly with the White House. That clown's suit will never reach the discovery stage. And it's just as well for him; the last thing he needs is to be cross-examined under oath about this mess.

centralcal

I wish I could join everyone in feeling that there is anything that could cause Russert or Mitchell to lose their jobs at NBC. If they both stood in front of a peacock camera tomorrow and announced to the world that they misrememberd or they lied, they would still be revered at NBC and they would still have thier jobs.

I think it is just pie-in-the-sky to think otherwise. Now, they might quietly retire, like Eckenrode, somewhere down the road, but get fired? Never.

Pete

So what about the N. Korea nuclear deal? Bush will probably take the deal as he needs to show progress on the foreign policy front.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/nkorea.talks/index.html>Ahead of the deal, a senior administration official in Washington told CNN that the White House and State Department were "cautiously optimistic" about the proposal.

"The U.S. believes it's a strong draft," the official said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070213/D8N8R6G80.html>Already before its adoption, the deal drew strong criticism from John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., who urged President Bush to reject it.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," Bolton told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done."

Deal or no deal?

Jane

How are the eyes?

Theo,

Sore, swollen, I look like Morticia. I am every Valentine's worst nightmare. So much so that we took a picture. And I can't see very well. The good news is I really can't work so I can spend the whole day making typos here. My eyes will get better but I wish I had some of those vicadin. Thanks for asking.

Other Tom

Don't know about the deal, Pete. We're waiting for Professor Cole to tell us how things will be six months after it's done.

Neo

I fully expect Eckenrode's original interview notes, that were claimed apparently lost, to make a reappearance.

Pofarmer

Helped along by a cooperative and participating MSM, the value of this to the Democrats was incalculable, and they can thank Joe for it, regardless of whether it was honest, which of course it wasn't.

As John Edwards said the other day, "It's not the truth, but it's great politics." I get pissed off everytime I think about that statement. It's seared, seared in my memory I tell ya.

owl

Sending best wishes your way Jane as I enjoy reading your comments.

Sue...I giggle with them. Think that tape is way beyond my imagination. Darn shame we could hear it with the fire. Since when can they tamper with evidence?

Christopher Fotos

There is the possibility that the defense has evidence that will contradict Mitchell's retraction of her "everybody knew" comment.

That's the antimatter equivalent of Fitzmas, isn't it?

clarice

Let's look at this part of the Armitage tape:
everybody. He's pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
"

As far as I can tell, this is direct from Goodman who talked to Wilson who was furious that Rice had said that about him on MTP.
If you recall, the stupid investigation concentrated on everyone who saw the "second pressing of the INR" and Armitage appears on the circulation list of that second pressing, but only Ford and Grossman got the first pressing.
Can we now conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that at least with regard to the Plame portion of the INR Grossman told Armitage in June when it was prepared.
Doesn't that suggest that my theory on the "second pressing"--that it was to throw the scent off the leaker and onto the WH--is correct?

clarice

*** this is direct from GROSSman who talked to Wilson who was furious ***

hit and run

Thread Herder called again. This thread is now 2 behind...FWIW

Pete

Don't know about the deal, Pete. We're waiting for Professor Cole to tell us how things will be six months after it's done.

Cole's website did not have anything today on Korea. It mainly talked about the "tremendous progress" in Iraq: 139 Killed, as Iraqi Public Doubts Security Plan
16,000 Demonstrate in Karbala

Here is another piece on his website which should cause concern to those wishing to attack Iran: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is unwilling to allege that the Iranian government itself is deliberately providing deadly weaponry to militiamen in Iraq.

Sue

Doesn't that suggest that my theory on the "second pressing"--that it was to throw the scent off the leaker and onto the WH--is correct?

When it was sent the 2nd time, there was no investigation into the leak.

Pofarmer

That's the antimatter equivalent of Fitzmas, isn't it?

So would they all be wearing black leather and tall boots. Sorry, one too many episodes of DS9, I think.

biomom

I have always believed that Joe Wilson suffers from narcissism. John Kerry is like that too. A narcissist cannot let go if his self-image is involved. Thus, Wilson will pursue his case until the day he dies.

Imus does have an internal radar for detecting hypocrisy and is not afraid to say what he thinks. He will criticize MSNBC, Gregory, Mitchell, maybe even Russert (if he has the nerve, that will be a hard one) if he feels they are not being straight.

azaghal

Azhghal - I agree that Eckenrode not showing up as a prosecution witness is very curious. OK, very very curious. But I still think that E hitting mandatory retirement age (coupled w/ a good post-retirement job which may not have been there if he stayed on the Fitz project) is the likeliest scenario for his retirement. This case has enough conspiracies.

The FBI doesn't keep a lot of people past their "sell by" dates. They try not to keep SACs who hit mandatory retirement. It hurts morale for those wanting to move up the ranks. I suspect that Fitz keeping E off the stand (as his witness) was tactical because E interviewed too many people (including journalists) and the risks of too much coming out on cross outweighed the benefits of his testimony. Now that Russert's testimony is in disputing the 302 summary, the defense has little downside to calling Eckenrode. He'll either contradict Russert or admit the FBI notes are faulty. The defense makes points either way.

Posted by: Road Dog | February 12, 2007 at 10:06 PM


Road Dog, you don't know what you're talking about. Among many other mistakes you make, Eckenrode retired at 53, mandatory retirement is 57.

Jane

Thanks owl -

sylvia

The point is Libby has to pick a defense now. Is he going to go with Russert lied, or is he going to go with I confused Russert with Novak? If he is going with the Novak defense, it doesn't matter anymore about Mitchell and Russert.

Ranger

Well, to bring back the issue of jury nullification from yesterday. Let's remember that we now have two people who have been identfied as violating the espionage act. Both Ari and Armitage got their information from reading the INR, which was clearlly marked as classified, and then sharing that information with others without verrifying that it was safe to do so. In contrast, Libby learned of Wilson's wife from either face to face or phone conversations in which apparently no classification status was ever mentioned. Funny that the two people Fitz had dead to rights on a real crime go immunity deals and Libby is on trial.

owl

There is another tape out there of Andrea...unless the same dog that ate the FBI's notes got it.

I repeat....in hopes those other 2 people that were watching Hardball that day saw it. Matthews is going on and on...he says something like 'is this really someone that makes all the parties, etc and everyone around town knows it'. He is into full motormouth and might be what some of their transcripts call 'talkovers'. Andrea is standing someplace outside, nodding her head yes and muttering. This I can swear to....I believe (no swear) it was Gregory at a different location and they swing those camera shots back and forth.

Either this is on film somewhere....or....that is one hungry dog.

sylvia

A little review of the indictment now that we have more information. (I'm guessing false statements are statements to the FBI, perjury is to the grand jury.)

Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice - (not sure about that one)

Count 2 False Statement- Russert

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Count 3 False Statement –

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Count 4 –Perjury - Rusert

Libby about Russert - I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.

Count 5 – Perjury - Cooper –

Libby about Cooper - I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.

Count 2 I think may be not guilty on reasonable doubt that Russert may be fudging. Count 3 also dropped because Cooper did admit brinding up Plame, and the wording differences may be mild. Count 4 is hung up on the statement "that I was first learning" which is problematic but refers only to his state of mind, so maybe he walks on that. Count 5 is problematic because he of the words that he says that all he "had is this information from reporters". I think he gets nailed for that one.

Tom Maguire

Also, with all due respect to TM, while the incentive for Russert to keep telling the same story is pretty intense, why would he have not told investigators the truth in the beginning? What would have prevented him from telling Eckenrode (when relaying Libby's version of the conversation) "yep, that is pretty much what happened."?

IF Russert had said that, he woul dhave reasonably expected a follow-up along the lines of "Care to tell us your source?"

And since Russert did not want to tell, he could anticipate a subpoena and court fight, which he might well lose.

In fact, Novak wrote he had sources and was investigated.

Pincus wrote he had sources and was subpoenaed.

Cooper wrote and was subpoenaed for Libby; during that round he told Fitzgerald he had other sources, and he was subpoenaed again.

Woodward kept quiet - he said that was to avoid a subpoena and protect his source. Mission Accomplished.

Russert had a pretty easy calculation in Nov 2003 about the road ahead if he confirmed Libby's story.

sylvia

I think the situation with Russert is so bizarre, ie, did they even speak about
Plame, why would Libby say they did if they didn't as it would only hurt himself, did Libby mix up Russert with Novak, did Russert really have sources about Plame before, etc. it will confuse the jury into dropping the charge.

CAL

Sylvia,

I think Libbys best defense is to maintain he told the truth to the best of his recollection. He thinks the conversation that first really registered Plames importance to him was with Russert. But it was all so long ago that maybe it was Novak. He doesn't think that was the case but memories are fallible and he had a lot of irons in the fire.

With that out of the way, the Cooper stuff is laughed out of court and all you have is Miller the Forgetful and her shopping bag archive system.

sylvia

The problem with the Cooper situation is not what Cooper said about Libby, it's Libby's own words to the gj when he was talking about Cooper. He said "all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters." I don't think the jury is going to buy this temporary amnesia defense which he was using to get out of "knowingly" talking about classified info. It's still hard to believe that he forgot about Plame coincidentally at the very same time he was talking to reporters about her. Really Libby was his own worst enemy in his testimony. He should have fired the lawyer who prepared him for that.

CAL

As a general rule, Libby says when he talked to reporters and Plame came up, he said he had heard the same thing from other reporters (Novak and Woodward stepped up to take this role) but he wasn't even sure if it was true. Coopers own 'notes' can reasonably be read to agree with this practice. Coopers notes do nothing to validate Coopers version of the conversation. You can't get much more reasonable doubt than that.

theo

Sylvia -- I do not think the Cooper thing adds up to anything. The differences are slight in their recollections. You have the timeline confused. His testimony is that he spoke to Cooper AFTER he spoke to Russert and was "refreshed" about Plame. I do not think the Cooper counts can possibly get past a "reasonable doubt."

The Miller allegations are laughable too, given Judy's lack of memory.

The real problem is Russert. I think Libby needs to argue either that Russert is wrong -- probably lying -- or that Libby confused Russert with someone else, perhaps Novak.

TM --

Sorry, I do not really buy it. Russert could have refused to answer, or claimed lack of memory. He is smart enough to know that you do not just casually lie to an FBI agent. Besides, being subpoenaed is not a big deal -- or that big of one anyway. It's possible of course, but still unlikely that Tim lied to Eckenrode just for a minor convenience and now is committing full blown perjury to protect that white lie.

theo

What has always struck me is that the difference between Cooper's version of the conversation and Libby's version is so minimal that it is hard to imagine a perjury conviction. Both admit that COOPER brought up the subject of Plame. Both admit that Libby said something that could arguably be seen as backhanded confirmation. Libby recalls a bit more circumspection in terms of this "confirmation" but really the difference in recollection is perfectly normal and not likely to be caused by lies.

Cecil Turner

Inaccurate. Pincus is much more emphatic than that. It's not that he does not remember hearing it. He is very clear that he heard no such thing, that he would certainly remember if he had, and that as far as he is concerned, Woodward never told him.

Again from the memory expert filings:

Dr. Bjork also proposes to testify that, according to numerous studies, the correlation between confidence and accuraccy in memory is weak, if it exists at all.
In short, Pincus being emphatic doesn't mean he's more likely to have a correct memory. And that elides the very distinct possibility he knew from (and is protecting) another source. In either case, it ain't evidence.

On to the tape. I hear something slightly different from the transcript in spots (e.g.: "He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy who'd have to look at it"). Not sure any of that matters. But it does seem to me most likely they meant "Joe Wilson" in the "everyone knows" bit.

I don't think the jury is going to buy this temporary amnesia defense which he was using to get out of "knowingly" talking about classified info.

Sorry, Sylvia, but there's no evidence anyone told Libby this was classified. He doesn't need temporary amnesia to get out of "knowingly."

The real problem is Russert. I think Libby needs to argue either that Russert is wrong -- probably lying -- or that Libby confused Russert with someone else, perhaps Novak.

Bingo. And it looks to me like they're going to argue both.

Cecil Turner

Inaccurate. Pincus is much more emphatic than that. It's not that he does not remember hearing it. He is very clear that he heard no such thing, that he would certainly remember if he had, and that as far as he is concerned, Woodward never told him.

Again from the memory expert filings:

Dr. Bjork also proposes to testify that, according to numerous studies, the correlation between confidence and accuraccy in memory is weak, if it exists at all.
In short, Pincus being emphatic doesn't mean he's more likely to have a correct memory. And that elides the very distinct possibility he knew from (and is protecting) another source. In either case, it ain't evidence.

On to the tape. I hear something slightly different from the transcript in spots (e.g.: "He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy who'd have to look at it"). Not sure any of that matters. But it does seem to me most likely they meant "Joe Wilson" in the "everyone knows" bit.

I don't think the jury is going to buy this temporary amnesia defense which he was using to get out of "knowingly" talking about classified info.

Sorry, Sylvia, but there's no evidence anyone told Libby this was classified. He doesn't need temporary amnesia to get out of "knowingly."

The real problem is Russert. I think Libby needs to argue either that Russert is wrong -- probably lying -- or that Libby confused Russert with someone else, perhaps Novak.

Bingo. And it looks to me like they're going to argue both.

Other Tom

The most plausible defense to me--and one I think the jury would buy, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt--is the one set forth above by Cal and others. It also has the added attraction of very possibly being true. In fact, if God could come down and tell us every detail of what actually happened, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that every single witness in this case, both in the GJ and at trial and in FBI interviews, has told what he thought at the time was the truth.

Mind-steps

Tom:

You speculate that it is possible that Andrea Mitchell might lie to cover for her superior and keep her job.

With all due respect sir, you have absolutely no reason to question the veracity of the media. Anybody who questions the honesty of the media has got to have something wrong with them. I mean, the only people I can think of with more integrity than our esteemed media figures are our governmental servants, especially those truthful individuals in the president's and vice president's offices. And I know, you would never question the honesty of those of us who work in the federal government.

best,

Scoober Litty

Jeff

I would say Woodward was just as emphatic that he told Pincus. He testified to that. Did he commit perjury? Or is the original statement you are disputing probably accurate?

No, and the point is not that the intensity of his emphasis matters, the point is that it's not that he's said he doesn't remember hearing, as though maybe he heard and now he's forgotten. He simply heard no such thing. It's perfectly possible Woodward said something and Pincus didn't hear it. But it's not like he's said that he doesn't remember hearing such a thing. He's said that he didn't hear such a thing, and that if he had heard such a thing, he would remember it.

It's an important difference.

But again, it's not how intensely he said it that's the point. It's that he was very clear in stating something different from what TM attributed to him.

Put it differently, Pincus' position is that it's possible that Woodward said something, but it's not possible that Pincus learned or heard something about Plame in June 2003.

Cecil Turner

. . . it's not that he's said he doesn't remember hearing, as though maybe he heard and now he's forgotten.

If he'd forgotten, why would he say it that way? Sorry, but that's just another way of saying he was confident about it, which studies indicate have no correlation with accuracy . . .

Put it differently, Pincus' position is that it's possible that Woodward said something, but it's not possible that Pincus learned or heard something about Plame in June 2003.

Unless, of course, he forgot. (Or is lying.)

clarice

And when we talk of the 30 second notice to Libby in between the Cheney talk in June and the I heard it on the grapevine, the very point about Woodward-Pincus is applicable to all the preliminary witnesses put on the stand by the prosecution.

boris

Nobody claimed Pincus "forgot". In English it just means that Woodward has a memory of an event that Pincus does not have a memory of. That description works even if Pincus' call waiting was beeping at the time and he missed the comment.

glenda waggoner

Jane-put down the keyboard-call the doctor for your
vicodin-Clarice--if Eckenrode shows up with "notes"
would they be enterable as evidence? Wouldn't Wells
object? And make a huge deal out of Convenience for
SP? And, we all know AM will continue to perpetuate
the MSM "I know nothing" line, but how many people
do we know, who actually are smart; would answer
questions so freely over the phone to someone who
identified themselves "as special agent in charge"-
especially journalists who say they live and die
protecting their sources? And the SP must have
guilty pangs about jailing a pulitzer winner for
her faulty memory-it's her recall that's impeachable, right? Looking forward to today's
reports,,Thanks in advance. Oh, and now Woodward
is back on the MSM hit list, I guess.

clarice

If that odd possiblity occurs, the prosecution which had a duty to produce them to the defense and asserted diligent search had failed to find them will be in enormous trouble along with their case.

bubarooni

Klem:

hit the back button on your browser. it'll take you back to the kiddie pool where you'll be safe. you are now in the deep end of the pool where the big kids play.

myself, i always wear a life perserver and NEVER, EVER let go of the side of the pool. i just watch the action.

the dunking and general horseplay in the middle of the pool can be rough. i'd hate to see you get 'jeffed' or 'semanticleoed' out there.

Syl

Jeff

Put it differently, Pincus' position is that it's possible that Woodward said something, but it's not possible that Pincus learned or heard something about Plame in June 2003.

Because Pincus has no memory of hearing/learning it.

What's your point beyond being petty with Tom?

Russert has no memory of those two phone calls to the reporter in upstate NY. Even after having seen evidence that he made them.

sylvia

I'm not so sure about the Cooper thing. For instance there is a Count 3 -False Statement and Count 5 -Perjury. I'm sure in effect he said the same thing to the FBI for the false statement and to the grand jury for the perjury. However, the way Fitz puts the wording for Count 3 does not seem to rise to much difference between the two people.

However, since we have the actual words written for the Perjury charge for Count 5, it seems to me those words are impeachable. Again the phrase that Libby uttered to the GJ that all Libby knew about Plame at the point he spoke to Cooper "is this information from reporters", has been shown to be questionable due to the testimony from other witnesses. Libby could claim he didn't know that Plame was classified etc, and that's fine because this is not a "leaking" charge, it's perjury. I think it has been shown that he did know at least something about Plame from other sources. Unless the jury buys the temporary amnesia defense, I think Count 5 may be the one that surprises us and sticks - not the Russert count.

By the way, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how this works. If Fitz lists several statements in a perjury charge, and the jury only disbelieves one of those statements, does the count stick or not - I wonder?

sylvia

Here's more of Libby's words from Count 5:
***

Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June.

And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married.

And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

****

Okay Libby may not have known Plame was classified then, but he definitely knew Wilson had a wife by that point. And he had more on Wilson than just what reporters were telling him.

sylvia

Okay just to play the game and be fair to Libby we could parse the statements. Libby says he didn't know Wilson had a wife but did he mean in June or when he was speaking to Wilson. Whether he actually said that to Cooper is another matter. And then is he submitting that he just TOLD Cooper he didn't know about Wilson, or are his statements meant to mean he really didn't know himself about Wilson at that time. Could maybe go either way.

sylvia

"Sorry, Sylvia, but there's no evidence anyone told Libby this was classified. He doesn't need temporary amnesia to get out of "knowingly.""

Just to continue about this again (sorry) yes we know NOW that there's no real provable evidence that Libby knew Plame was classified, but Libby didn't KNOW that for sure at the time he was testifying. Successful people are often the most anally paranoid about their positions and status. (That's probably the drive that got them the straight A's in school to begin with.) That is why he constructed the temporary amnesia angle, in an abundance of caution. However, that caution is what got him in the trouble he is in now.

boris

but Libby didn't KNOW that for sure at the time he was testifying

Why not, had he maybe FORGOTTEN exactly what he'd been told ???

What is with loony logic that is more willing to suppose FORGOT and LIED is more plausible than simply FORGOT.

clarice

Boris, until I saw you debating law and logic with Sylvia, I thought you were a sharp cookie.........

sylvia

Clarice, I am leaving you alone to do your thing. I suggest you act like a grown-up and do the same to me.

sylvia

"Why not, had he maybe FORGOTTEN exactly what he'd been told ???"

Come on. It doesn't pass the laugh test. His only hope is jury nullification of sorts in that charge in that they don't think it reaches any level of importance.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame