Powered by TypePad

« Maybe We Can Seize Control Of The Punchline... | Main | Did We Learn Anything In The Libby Trial? »

March 12, 2007

Comments

Spartacvs

Or, Fleischer did leak to Gregory but Gregory didn't pass on the tidbit to Tim. Occam's Razor and all that.

Neo

On a vist to DC last year, I spotted Dick Gregory on the lawn facing Pennsylvania Avenue.

I kept looking to see if Barbie was going to join him.

Tom Maguire

From Russert's testimony:

W: Was it the expected practice that if a key reporter got important information, they would report it to the group?

T; Yes.

W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?

T: Yes, and they never came forward.

If Gregory had the Plame tip and did not come forward, would Russert's testimony on that point be discredited or not?

Barney Frank

--Or, Fleischer did leak to Gregory but Gregory didn't pass on the tidbit to Tim.--

So the crime of the century is now just a tidbit, eh?

Pofarmer

So, Gregory maybe didn't think it was important either, if Fleischer did tell him?

Well, that kinda blows the whole motive thingy. It also underlines that nobody thought it was important untill Corn started Chumming the waters.

clarice

Maybe Waxman can ask him.

Daddy

I just wish that Gregory and Ari and Armitage and Joe Wilson had all had sex with Anna Nicole. Then the media would be hounding them 24/7 to get answers to every possible question one could imagine. Since they apparantly didn't, your quest TM I suspect will prove fruitless.

Sara (The Squiggler)

Or, Russert was on vacation, Gregory reported to Andrea, Andrea confirms with CIA, Andrea is not a team player, she doesn't tell Russert. NBC lawyers protect NBC brand by holding their nose and not firing Andrea but protecting her and Russert instead.

Wouldn't Gregory be traveling in South America as part of the President's press gaggle?

Syl

Wouldn't Gregory be traveling in South America as part of the President's press gaggle?

Gregory was demoted to Hardball duty. (Sat in for Chrissy tonite.)

BritAm
Wouldn't Gregory be traveling in South America as part of the President's press gaggle?

Looked like DG was holding fort on Hardball as I surfed by this afternoon.

MarkO

I surmise that Mr. Gregory is closeted with NBC’s legal staff (who beat everyone in this case). He will have a well-formulated response that reconciles all deviant threads. If you doubt this, you have not paid attention to this case.

Wait in vain.

clarice

FYI:

The steps by which the Justice Department conducts
investigations of unauthorized disclosures of classified
information ("leaks") were described by then-Attorney General
Janet Reno in 2000 testimony before a closed hearing of the
Senate Intelligence Committee.

At a moment when some, such as Senator Jon Kyl, are proposing to
enact new statutory penalties against leaks, it is noteworthy
that the Attorney General concluded that such penalties are
unnecessary.

"We believe that the criminal statutes currently on the books
are adequate to allow us to prosecute almost all leak cases,"
she testified.

Significantly, "We have never been forced to decline a
prosecution solely because the criminal statutes were not broad
enough."

(A similar judgment was offered by Attorney General John
Ashcroft in a 2002 report to Congress: "I conclude that current
statutes provide a legal basis to prosecute those who engage in
unauthorized disclosures, if they can be identified.")

Ms. Reno's testimony, formally released under the Freedom of
Information Act last week, provides perhaps the best single
overview of the Justice Department's handling of leak cases,
from the initial "crime report" (sometimes called a "crimes
report") that advises the Justice Department of the leak, to
the agency's submission of answers to eleven specific questions
about the leak, to the difficulties of conducting an
investigation and the Department's decision whether to
prosecute.

"While we are prepared to prosecute vigorously those who are
responsible for leaks of classified information,... I also want
to say that the Department of Justice believes that criminal
prosecution is not the most effective way to address the leak
problem," she said.

"In addition to the difficulties of identifying leakers, bring
leak prosecutions is highly complex, requiring overcoming
defenses such as apparent authority, improper classification,
and First Amendment concerns, and prosecutions are likely to
result in more leaks in the course of litigation."

"In general, we believe that the better way to address the
problem of leaks is to try to prevent them through stricter
personnel security practices, including prohibitions of
unauthorized contacts with the press, regular security
reminders, and through administrative sanctions, such as
revocation of clearances," she told the Senate Intelligence
Committee.

The Committee proceeded to endorse a new anti-leak statute
against her advice. It was enacted by Congress and then
vetoed in November 2000 by President Clinton.

The Justice Department Office of Public Affairs released the
Reno testimony in October 2003 to reporters from the Washington
Post and the Associated Press, who briefly quoted it in
passing. But others who requested a copy, including Secrecy
News, were told to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

Following a pointless and wasteful three-and-a-half year
"review" by the Justice Department, the testimony has now been
formally released under the FOIA without redaction. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/renoleaks.html

MayBee

Looked like DG was holding fort on Hardball as I surfed by this afternoon.

So he was the one interviewing Chuck Hagel's brother about his announcement that he's not announcing?
What was that, anyway? Do you think Hagel was going to say something else and changed his mind?

boris

would Russert's testimony on that point be discredited or not?

Hostages? Don't need no steekeen hostages! Condense the actual case down to it’s bare elements.

  1. June 12 Cheney (Martin) mentioned Wilson’s CIA wife to Libby who writes it in his notes;

  2. July 7 Ari Fleischer claims Libby told him about Wilson’s CIA wife;

  3. Wilson’s CIA wife somehow slips Libby’s mind;

  4. July 11 Libby claims to have learned anew from Russert;

  5. July 12 Libby told Cheney and Rove what Russert told him;

  6. July 14 Libby told Cooper that he heard something about Wilson’s CIA wife (from reporters) but doesn’t know if it’s even true.

The Cooper note is too similar to Libby’s testimony to be coincidence. The speculation that Cheney and Rove were ready to testify to (5) has strong circumstantial support.

That means that if Libby lied about (4) he did it before July 12 and used it on his boss, a coworker and Cooper. Most speculation for motive to lie does not apply to this time period and targets.

The inference that Liiby didn’t lie about (4) implies that Russert did. Supporting that implication is the original Mitchell claim that she (and others) knew before Novak’s column and that her suspicious and embarrassing retraction (must have been drunk) were orchestrated by NBC legal eagles.

That leaves only the conflict between (2) and (3). However the granting of (5) applies here as well so the tally is actually Libby, Cheney and Rove vs. Ari. If one of them must be mistaken, it could well be Ari.

Pofarmer

3 vs 1. That's not good odds with anything other than a DC jury.

Jeff

Oh man, I've only seen a snippet of it so far, but it's a doozy: David Gregory guest hosting on Hardball with Andrea Mitchell as guest discussing the fallout from the Libby trial. Mitchell appears to want the whole thing to go away so badly that she attributes a desire to the American people to see Libby pardoned that simply does not exist, at least according to the new CNN poll (a real one) that indicates 18% of respondents support a pardon for Libby, in contrast to 69% who are against a pardon.

Ralph L.

"NBC’s legal staff (who beat everyone in this case). "
Except that to sensible, informed people, and Arianna Huffington, Russert did not come out too well, or Madame Greenspan either.

Ralph L.

"The speculation that Cheney and Rove were ready to testify to (5) has strong circumstantial support"
If this were true, why the hell didn't one of them testify?

boris

Most likely the defense had a mock jury that would not find them credible.

Bikerken

When they make the movie of the Wilson Plame affair, I hope they use Virgina Madsen for Valerie, she's a dead ringer. For Joe, they could just take that guy in the Rat suit out of Chucky Cheese, same deal.

Pofarmer

David Gregory guest hosting on Hardball with Andrea Mitchell as guest

Holy crap. Talk about CYA.

If this were true, why the hell didn't one of them testify?

Agree with boris. The jury would have just found even more reasons to convict Libby. Probably would have reccomended the death penalty and set upon Rove and Cheney right in the courtroom.

And, with the closer as a reference, can you imagine Fitz with Cheney on the stand? Or Rove? Man oh man, that line would get the moonbat juices pumping. I just don't see where there was much to be gained there.

boris

The jury would have just found even more reasons to convict Libby.

The derivation I presented is not proof and clearly would not work on those afflicted with BDS, moonbattery, or MSM disease.

clarice

If I thought any of the NBC stars had a conscience I'd be certain it was bothering them all by now, but I don't.

Pofarmer

Gregory? Conscience? Have you heard the wildassed accusations he makes and questions he asks at press conferences? Not. Likely.

MayBee

I believe Andrea Mitchell would have a conscience over it.
What I think should happen, though, is Armitage (or Powell) should do the right thing if they told her, and step up to the plate and say it.
As it stands now, Ari said he told Gregory and Gregory hasn't disputed it. I'll take that as a yes.

Alcibiades

I surmise that Mr. Gregory is closeted with NBC’s legal staff (who beat everyone in this case). He will have a well-formulated response that reconciles all deviant threads. If you doubt this, you have not paid attention to this case.

I disagree with MarkO. They didn't beat FItz - because Fitz overcharged, knew he was racheting up the overcharges, and got nearly all of them.

clarice

Let me guess:The CNN poll was taken on a Sunday afternoon and 69% of the responders were Dems.

TexasToast

Ya think Clarice? I didn't think folks like Beldar or Patterico were Dems.

maryrose

I think Russert is suffering from a guilty conscience. He still looks like hell every time I see him on tv. His leg can't hurt that much. I'm sure if Big Russ suspected he be mighty disappointed in Tim. I really think that these reporters never thought it would get this far. When it did they were trapped and had to make a deal with the devil{Fitz} to save themselves. Gregory doesn't have a conscience at least not one that someone would be aware of in dealing with him.

Spartacvs

Tom Maguire :

If Gregory had the Plame tip and did not come forward, would Russert's testimony on that point be discredited or not?

Yer 'avin a laugh?

danking70

How about some e-mails to Imus asking him to question Gregory about what Ari told him when Ari leaked in Africa and why he presumably didn't tell Russert.

I can only imagine the silence and a whole lot of Ums and Ahs.

Frank Warner

It's time for a Joseph Wilson trial by fire.

President Bush should issue this challenge:

He will not pardon Scooter Libby if, by Jan. 1, 2009, Wilson can name one thing, anything, that Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved “false” President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union statement, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Wilson has said Bush’s statement was “false.” Wilson also has implied strongly -- in countless books, speeches, magazines and newspaper articles -- that he found something in his CIA-paid Niger trip that proves Bush wasn’t telling the truth.

OK, Wilson, here’s your chance to reveal what you found in Africa to refute the president’s point. We’ve all been wondering.

The Wilson Truth Challenge would focus the American people on the central question of Saddam’s uranium shopping. And by Jan. 2, 2009, we’d all know who in this controversy has been by far the biggest liar.

Debunk, Wilson, or Libby goes free.

danking70

Can't believe Andrea Mitchell's saying that.

Let's get her drunk and she was else she spills. LOL!

Ralph L.

"she was else she spills"

Umm, who's getting drunk?

danking70

the appropriate phrase is "already drunk".

not that there's anything wrong with that.

SlimGuy

Clarice

You were not far off on the poll numbers

Per Mac Ranger

Interviews with 1,027 adult Americans, including 401 registered voters who describe themselves as Republicans Independents who lean Republican, conducted by telephone Opinion Research Corporation on March 9-11, 2007. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points and for results based half-samples is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.”

PWT

Thank goodness Ms. Mitchell did not swallow the Kos(r) Brand random word generator. It causes the user to scream 'Halliburton' every seventh word of every sentence.

bio mom

Nothing bothers me more than when the so-called NBC news reporters sit in as pundits on MSNBC shows!! Make a choice!! Are you a serious news journalist or a political commentator? You cannot be both and maintain any credibility. David Gregory is a disgrace. (But not as bad as David Shuster who should be fired for outright lies and incomplete quotes that completely change the meaning of documents, etc.).

windansea

during the next televised WH press briefing I double dog dare Tony Snow to ask Gregory on live TV if Fleischer told him

PeterUK

One thing that is never considered, when examining the Libby jury and its verdict, is the peer pressure of the social groups they belong to.During and after the trial jurors have to return to family,friends and colleagues,there was not a snowball in hell's chance of them bringing a "Not guilty" verdict under those circumstances.

Tom Maguire

Here is the Hardball transcript for Monday.

You would never guess from reading it that Gregory had any involvement in the case at all.

clarice feldman

Maybe we should start a petition drive to remove the duct tape from Gregory's mouth.

SunnyDay

Did I miss something? Is Gregory no longer covering the WH??

SunnyDay

BWAHAHAHA Listening to Rush - the Dems are furious because Haliburton is moving their headquarters to Dubai. Now all we need is for Walmart fo leave AR for some other country.

Then we'll see which company they want to demonize next, hehe.

sylvia

Why wasn't Gregory called to the stand by Wells again? And why couldn't Wells introduce the comment Michell made about knowing about Plame, even if she wasn't allowed to the stand. (or was it, I can't remember now)

sylvia

"W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?

T: Yes, and they never came forward."

See Russert is the master of slippery legal language. He said they "never came forward". That does not exclude that Russert found out through a memo, or he asked them, or in some other manner other than "coming forward". Wells should have pinned him down more.

maryrose

I hold Walton responsible for giving Russert and Mitchell a pass. Gregory's testimony would have been interesting but I think the fix was in.

sylvia

Is there someway to try and get a mistrial put in? How were the jurors to establish the credibilty of Russert without Wells being allowed to ask Gregory and Mitchel under oath about their knowledge of Plame and whether they told Russert? There should be some legal thing to address that even though I don't know what it would be called. Okay Fitz tries to act like the elements of the charge are separate, but having the jurors believe Russert if he is lying, is unfairly prejudicial to the jurors.

Tom Bowler

W: Was it the expected practice that if a key reporter got important information, they would report it to the group?
T; Yes.

W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?

T: Yes, and they never came forward.

Turns out Libby was the fall guy - for Russert.

sylvia

I'm wondering if Wells thought it better to leave it hanging about Gregory, cause if Gregory flat out denied telling Russert, that would leave Libby in a worse position. I also suppose Wells will have, or would have had, to put out some sort of probable cause thing for Gregory and Mitchell to testify - like is there some good reason to think that they told him, other than just a fishing expedition. I suppose Wells could argue the point some more who they were a team and one knowing is the same as all knowing.

danking70

And the alternative is that Gregory got the juicy tip from Ari, sat on it and didn't follow-up with homebase or the CIA?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame