No Dead Horse Left Behind

Let me toss out a Plame-related thought which may be relevant for the Libby appeal - did Andrea Mitchell actually talk to the FBI or not, and was that made clear to the defense and to Judge Walton in the trial?  I ask because Ms. Mitchell's status is one likely element of the Libby appeal, and here is the puzzle:

Tim Russert's cooperation with the FBI investigation of the Plame leak in the fall of 2003 was famously concealed until his dramatic courtroom testimony.  In fact, both Russert and Fitzgerald, in court filings tussling over his grand jury subpoena, concealed his cooperation with the FBI.

So, might Fitzgerald have been similarly accommodating with Ms. Mitchell?  Who knows?  But there is this cryptic comment from Ms. Mitchell's television appearance in October 2005 on the Tim Russert Show, following the Libby indictment:

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.

"I was called by the CIA" almost surely should have been "FBI".  And she is presumably referring to an early WaPo story that suggested  she was a leak recipient; here is the NBC denial reprised on the PBS NewsHour on Sept 30, 2003:

TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.

Geez, another Swiss-cheese denial.  What's "the matter"?  I don't know, what's the matter with you?  Ms. Mitchell certainly had discussions about the Niger uranium story prior to the Novak column.

Well, while we are here let's cite the WaPo story that I believe dragged her into this and the Newsweek follow up.  WaPo, Sept 29 2003:

[Ambassador Joseph ] Wilson said that in the week after the Novak column appeared, several journalists told him that the White House was trying to call attention to his wife, apparently hoping to undermine his credibility by implying he had received the Niger assignment only because his wife had suggested the mission and recommended him for the job.

"Each of the reporters quoted the White House official as using some variation on, 'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said. "The time frame led me to deduce that the White House was continuing to try to push this story."

Wilson identified one of the reporters as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News. Mitchell did not respond to requests for comment.

Or let's put Howard Kurtz in the mix - this report, also from Monday Sept 29 2003, also suggests that Ms. Mitchell knew something, perhaps before the Novak column:

A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Some follow up from Newsweek, Oct 5:

NEW YORK, Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV tells Newsweek that in the days after Robert Novak's column appeared, in which Novak identified the ambassador's wife as a CIA operative, Wilson got calls from several well-connected Washington reporters. One was NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell. She tells Newsweek in the October 13 issue (on newsstands Monday, October 6) that she said to Wilson: "I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story."

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20031005/NYSU003) The next day, Wilson got a call from Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC cable show "Hardball." According to a source close to Wilson, Matthews said, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game." Matthews told Newsweek: "I'm not going to talk about off-the-record conversations."

Interesting.  It would not have been unreasonable for the FBI to chat with Ms. Mitchell, and she certainly seems to say that they did.  Yet at the trial, when the defense wanted to talk about her Oct 3, 2003 public admission that Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation was "widely known" among reporters working the Niger story, we never heard from the prosecution about her contemporaneous denial in her FBI interview - instead, the prosecution went on about her public denials on Imus (in 2005) and her proposed affidavit from the same legal team that provided Russert's misleading affidavit.

If I were preparing a defense brief, I would certainly give some thought to whether and how to address this.  We have good evidence that the prosecutor helped Russert keep his FBI interview secret as long as possible; we have a statement from Ms. Mitchell that she spoke with the "CIA" (presumably FBI); but we do not have any prosecution evidence confirming or denying that.  Dare we say "hmmm"?

RANDOM HITS:

1.  Richard Cohen of the WaPo normally attacks from the left flank, but:

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

...I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.

Do keep in mind that the official editorial position of the Times and many other media groups (back when they sponsored an amicus brief by Victoria Toensing opposing the Judy Miller subpoena) was that there was no underlying crime.  To watch the same papers bray about Libby's sentence being commuted will be fun.

2.  The de facto CIA General Counsel will endure a confirmation hearing today.  Per the Times, Dems will grill him on his efforts to keep enhanced interrogation withing the law, but... might an enterprising Rep ask him about the CIA criminal referral in the Plame case?  And might they ask whether the CIA Counsel has yet ascertained whether Ms. Plame is covert as defined by the IIPA statute, not just as defined by the CIA handbook?  When last we looked in on the CIA, Novak had reported this:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

3.  If I were inclined to express some support for Patrick Fitzgerald (am I sufficiently deeply buried in this post to do that?) I would note that he resisted manfully the opportunity to expand his jurisdiction when Rove's missing emails turned out to be part of a larger story about White House employees using and probably abusing the RNC email system.

4.  It's going to come back to me...

Comments

[clarice]

You know, TM, it rankles to know that people like you and ts can remember all these details for so long. Even if I've researched this stuff and written about it, within days my brain downloads it . Were I ever in Scooter's position having to recall conversations from months before everything would be "as if for the very first time". Indict me and get it over with.

[BarbaraS]

As far as I remember neither Mitchell nor Gregory were interviewed by the FBI. This is puzzling considering that Mitchell covered State and Gregory covered the WH. Defense knew Mitchell had not been interviewed at all or they would have demanded notes of her interview surely. Defense probably knew Mitchell had not been investigated at all when Fitzgerald cherry- picked his witnesses and the people he imunized.

I heard Mitchell declare that "everybody knew". She wasn't drunk or out of it in any way. Actually, she was reluctant to comment. The truth is, she back-tracked on Imus' show when she said she was drunk. I think Russert messed up when he talked to the FBI agent on the phone and her subsequent remakrs was to cover Russert's butt.

[cathyf]

"Each of the reporters quoted the White House official as using some variation on, 'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said. "The time frame led me to deduce that the White House was continuing to try to push this story."

Interesting little piece of propaganda, this. Because from what we learned at the trial, it was CIA and State who were telling any and all comers that "The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife". And two of the targets of their campaign was the OVP and the WH.

[Sue]

Don't forget, the CIA press person (Harlow?) testified that he told Cathy Martin that reporters were still asking him about Wilson and named Andrea Mitchell as one of them continuing to call. And this was before the Novak column.

"Each of the reporters quoted the White House official as using some variation on, 'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said. ...

Sure sounds like an Armitage quote, doesn't it?

[cathyf]

It's not just that it sounds like an Armitage quote. It's also the CIA answering the OVP and WH question, "who the f*** is Joe Wilson?!?!?!" with the answer "oh, his wife works for us." That was the elephant in the room; the whole curious question of just why the CIA seemed to think that "oh, his wife works for us" was an actual answer (and THE actual answer) to the question that they were being asked. Were they just stalling, misdirecting, answering a question not asked to avoid the question that was asked? I suppose...

[Cecil Turner]

Was this denial supposed to impress?

But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. [emphasis added]

Call me crazy, but I'm more interested in her first discussion about the matter . . . whether or not it was with an Administration official. In fact, it's a lot more pertinent if it's not with an Administration official, but with, say, another reporter.

[Tom Maguire]

As far as I remember neither Mitchell nor Gregory were interviewed by the FBI.

Well, they were never called by the grand jury, but I don't think we know anything for sure about their FBI status. That said, Gregory was dragged into the story by Ari Fleischer when he finally talked in Jan 2004 (with his immunity grant), so the FBI would probably not have talke dto Gregory in fall 2003.

Don't forget, the CIA press person (Harlow?) testified that he told Cathy Martin that reporters were still asking him about Wilson and named Andrea Mitchell as one of them continuing to call.

Whatsa matter? Good point, trial testimony that she was probing that story would tie in nicely to her July 8 report about "operatives" launching the Wilson trip.

It ends any question that she was working the story, but leaves one wondering what "the matter" is.

Just to show off my flawed memory - did that come from Catherine Martin describing her talks with Harlow, or from Harlow himself?

[Tom Maguire]

Yikes - re Cathy Martin, I could even read the post on Andrea Mitchell to which I linked:

MORE: Cathie Martin (of Cheney's press office) testified that Bill Harlow (CIA press guy) mentioned that Andrea Mitchell was calling. Well, that is not a surprise, considering her July 8 report.

[clarice]

I take back my original comment on this thread, TM. You did that just to make me kook bad, didn't you,TM?

[fortif]

'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said. "The time frame led me to deduce that the White House was continuing to try to push this story."

The real story was Wilson. He is an x PC. In the speech, Bush says he has doubled the size of the CIA(the liguists Tenet hired and later transferred to NSA/DoD like most congressional agencies do when dems are done providing federal jobs and tryes to keep the jobs by transferring the agency employees to DoD). In the next sentence, he says he would like to double the size of Peace Corps in FIVE years. This has been mentioned by Congress since then. So, if your x PC this is news because it mentions CIA and PC in the same remarks. It also mentions doubling the size. This is something PC tries to avoid because, like the budget, PC exists by being small and relatively inexpensive. Turns out that Wilson's wife is CIA and that's news because of the speech. PC and CIA. So, the real leak happened here. Plame was known and now it's news. It wasn't the White House, it was x PCs. Ames, Howard, the CIA Trainer, Plame, Wilson.

Plame went bad. The assassinations in Iraq and the Madrid bombing were because of the 'vanity Fair' admission, without CIA approval. Fitz passed on this and Plame was 'exonerated.'

As far as being drunk, if she has an alcohol problem, it is something they need to condsider. She may have psychiatric problems because of the physical effects of alcohol consumption. She may have been sold out to the CIA by FBI. In these types of cases, like with Ames, FBI should have avoided her speaking to CIA. CIA, in fact, would prefer to protect Plame. Like with Ames, maybe she was sold out with the intent of telling CIA and other intelligence agencies who she was; Maybe 'she met a Plame' someplace. FBI can't do much when it's CIA investigating. Like Plame went after the Ames people, maybe someone went after her. FBI would say they can't be responsible and it probably would have gone to DIA, but that's where CIA works now. How much background work was done on her by CIA is important because, like Ames and Plame's work on those(files), it would have consequences. She, in fact, would be in danger expecially if Plame was subject of an investigation. She might be poisoned.

Blackburn: After Plame, the evil is out of the boxWaco Tribune Herald, TX - 2 hours ago

Waco, evil out of the box. Well, if we look at how CIA was handled, moving it to DoD and the DoJ losing it's leadership; It should be obvious that both the DoJ and DoD may begin operating like agencies at Congress, CIA. The intelligence community is just going to note the behaviour and assume this was the plan from the beginning. Jesus "ye shall know the truth' and Lucifer. So, they'll be watched and soon, probably, we can all start laughing. Alot of people already are.

[Sue]

Oops. I think I just committed a Libby. I could have sworn Harlow was the one who testified that Mitchell was calling him.

[Tom Maguire]

You did that just to make me kook bad, didn't you,TM?

I am embarrassed to admit it but I can't even remember whether Harlow testified. I am nothing without Google (but try telling that to a grand jury).

[cathyf]

NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter

I'm wondering how many semantic games are going on here.

That Plame worked for the CIA wasn't classified, so it wasn't a leak?

The class "administration official" is limited to people who work in the WH and OVP? (So Armitage doesn't count...) Or it has to be a political appointee, so if one of Plame's coworkers told Mitchell about Plame in the midst of an apolitical catty anti-blond vent that wouldn't count either? This fits with the Standard MSM Model which is that when the president is a republican "the administration" is an occupying force which has (temporarily) displaced the rightful democrat leadership, and it is the duty of every right-thinking government employee to resist the usurpers...

[clarice]

Whoa--Marcy's book says the press was too cozy with the Administration!

I think these media stars have the morals of the old communist apparatchniki

[Cecil Turner]

Whoa--Marcy's book says the press was too cozy with the Administration!

I guess if you're standing far enough to the left . . .

Still, you'd figure eventually they'd fall into the Pacific Ocean or something.

[danking]

Cathyf re: semantic games

This isn't the only instance where JOM has talked about semantics regarding MSM testimony about the Plame leak.

I'm surprised that the defense hasn't picked up on it or called anyone on it.

[Sue]

Totally off subject, but I just heard a commercial on the radio for a grocery chain, which is probably only in the south. It has been around since Noah (or at least my childhood, I'll research later to see how old the chain is) but what do you want to bet the odds are that at some point Muslims will rebel and the name of the chain will become an issue, along with its famous (for us in the south, anyway) symbol?

http://www.pigglywiggly.com/>Click here

Ahhh...according to the link, it was founded in 1916.

[SlimGuy]

All right I hate to do all the heavy lifting , but I'm gonna have to break down and send Clarice a case of Ginkgo Biloba flavored Sticky Notes and move quickly out of my residence before she has friends in high places accidentally have a cruise missile fall on my house because of unexplained guidance and engine failure.

[anduril]

In re semantic games, it's interesting to juxtapose Brokaw's account of Mitchell's role:

NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter

with her own:

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it [i.e., the leak] from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.

Does Mitchell just have a thing about definite articles or is this typical overly specific denials from the media? Is she actually saying something like: I didn't get the same leak that Novak got? There are lots of possibilities here. What was the nature of her leak, and was it tailored for her specific needs, which may have been somewhat different than Novak's?

[clarice]

Border agent (Sipes) conviction overturned and reinstatement ordered because of prosecutorial misconduct:
"Mr. Sipe won a new trial after disclosures that an illegal alien received a "get out of jail free card" plus U.S. legal documents and monetary compensation from federal prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against the agent, accused of using excessive force during the 2000 arrest of Mexican national Jose Guevara.
A federal appeals court in Texas ordered the new trial, saying prosecutors gave Mr. Guevara and two other illegal aliens additional inducements not disclosed at the time for their testimony, including Social Security cards, witness fees, permits allowing travel to and from Mexico, living expenses and free use of government phones.
"The government stated in writing the aliens were allowed to remain and work in the United States pending trial and specified that 'no other promises or advantages' had been given," the court said. "That was not true."
Mr. Sipe was convicted in 2001 after a five-day jury trial in McAllen, Texas, before U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa. U.S. Attorney Mervyn Mosbacker Jr.'s office charged the agent with using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest.
But Mr. Sipe's attorney, Jack Lamar Wolfe, sought a new trial, accusing prosecutors of "misrepresentations and nondisclosures" and, after a hearing, Judge Hinojosa ordered a new trial -- a ruling upheld by a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Austin, Texas.
The appeals court said prosecutors suppressed evidence that would have been favorable to Mr. Sipe's defense. The new trial was moved to Brownsville, Texas, before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen and an acquittal was handed down Jan. 26.
In its ruling, the appeals court also said that the government failed to disclose information that after Mr. Sipe's arrest and before the trial, Mr. Guevara was caught by Border Patrol agents in the company of illegal aliens, and the arresting agents released him when he displayed a card given to him by prosecutors. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070618-115002-8358r.htm

The Bar, the various states and the DOJ need to focus more attention on oversight than they presently are.

[anduril]

Me vain? Noooo. I have a good reason for reposting this from the previous thread:

-----------------------------------------

Here are the line's from Cohen's article that got me to Laugh Out Loud:

This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

If you, a well informed citizen, read this without the surrounding context, what would you guess?

1. Shouldn't lie to grand jury? Political prosecution? OK, Libby--we won't argue the merits.

2. Sex? Gotta be Clinton, and again we won't argue the merits.

3. Real Estate? Real Estate???

I don't think I'm stupid, but all I could come up with off the top of my head--no Google--was: Has Harry Reid been lying about real estate? And if he has been, exactly why is it that he should get a pass? Is Cohen really suggesting that politicians should not "be called to account" for their real estate transactions? That we, the citizenry, would be best advised "to keep the lights off?"

Cohen almost certainly came up with the reference to Robert Jackson from reading Scalia's dissent in Morrison--no hat tip given, he wants to create a certain image of himself in his readers. We can all heartily agree with Jackson's and Scalia's warnings about abusive prosecutors: since Morrison, Scalia's worst fears have all come true. But...don't look at real estate transactions? Puh-leeze!

-------------------------------------

Let me try to distill my point. The idea that we should all turn a blind eye to real estate transactions is absurd on its face--given that real estate transactions are custom made as a device for feeding large amounts of money to corrupt politicians. In follow up posts the names of several Democratic politicians (Reid, Obama, Mollohan) came up.

What's Cohen up to here? How pure are his motive?

I'd say, he's blowing smoke in our faces. What he wants to do is to set it up so that Liberal pundits will be able to say, hey, we went to bat for Libby so now return the favor by laying off Harry and Barack. Aaaaaaaand, if you play nice, we'll even invite you on our talk shows, like Byron.

Republican pundits in unison chant: Oh gosh, you're so good to us.

A pardon will not clear Libby in the one court that matters most to him and to his cause: the court of public opinion. Still less will a commutation of his sentence. What he needs is ringing slam dunk opinion from a court of review. Beware of Cohen bearing gifts.

[cathyf]

I'm not sure I'm following the timeline here, clarice -- it says that

Judge Hinojosa ordered a new trial -- a ruling upheld by a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Austin, Texas. The appeals court said prosecutors suppressed evidence that would have been favorable to Mr. Sipe's defense. The new trial was moved to Brownsville, Texas, before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen and an acquittal was handed down Jan. 26.

So if the original trial judge overturned the first trial, why did the appeals court get involved? If the government appealed that ruling, why did the new trial take place before the appeal was settled?

[PeterUK.]

I question the timing,why would Mitchell want to get out from under after it is all over?

[anduril]

Hmmmm. My lurking brother just reminded me that there's some Representative from California who's made a lot of money off real estate details--something involving the Presidio, I think. Name of Nancy Pelosi.

Nope, I don't think Cohen was thinking about Whitewater.

[anduril]

"Mr. Guevara was caught by Border Patrol agents in the company of illegal aliens, and the arresting agents released him when he displayed a card given to him by prosecutors."

LOL. The famous "get out of jail free" card.

[danking]

No Mitchell no peace...

[clarice]

cathyf-- I believe the most recent case which is the subject of the article involved Sipes reinstatement.
I quoted what I did to show the genesis of the case.

[NIB]

The missing notes from FBI Agent Eckenrode's early interview with Tim Russert seem to continue as a central pivot point in the overall Russert 'story'. The whole idea that these notes have somehow been 'lost' just does not feel right. I keep getting this thought that perhaps the initial contact between Eckenrode and Russert is being misrepresented. Is it at all possible that in this early part of the Wilson/Plame saga that Eckenrode was not contacting Russert as part of the investigation, but was, in fact, acting as an anonymous source for the 'story'? And, adding another layer of tin foil to my hat, could Andrea Mitchell have been engaged in a similar set of activities - FBI contacts as sources, rather than the other way around.

This would certainly explain why official government notes of such contacts would be 'missing'.

Remove tin foil hats now

[anduril]

Looks like I better cut Cohen a little slack. After a little googling I learned that Cohen has been saying similar things about the Libby case for quite some time. Even more astounding, however, is that he wrote a column applauding Monica Goodling (sp?) for insisting on immunity to testify in the Gonzo show trial.

But...

Turn a blind eye to politicians turning lucrative R/E deals? Bad idea.

[DubiousD]

Question:

Are there any legal obstacles that would prevent someone else in the AG's office from pursuing perjury charges against Russert/Mitchell/et al? Given Fitz's "special status", if another US attorney deems a suspected crime worthy of further investigation, would they have the authority to go forward, or are they playing in Fitz's court?

Whose jurisdiction is it, anyway?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Border agent (Sipes) conviction overturned and reinstatement ordered because of prosecutorial misconduct:
"Mr. Sipe won a new trial after disclosures that an illegal alien received a "get out of jail free card" plus U.S. legal documents and monetary compensation from federal prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against the agent, accused of using excessive force during the 2000 arrest of Mexican national Jose Guevara.

notice that Sipes wouldn't have gotten reinstatement and compensation if he'd have been pardoned....

[clarice]

Why? A pardon is as if the conviction never occurred and wilpes away all consequences of the conviction. Commutation is a different matter.

[cathyf]

NIB -- I'll buy you some tinfoil, too. Various hagiographies of Fitzgerald have told the story of Eckenrode and Fitzgerald's first meeting, where Eckenrode complained bitterly of all of the dead-end leak investigations because it was government policy not to subpoena journalists without some extraordinary circumstance. Fitzgerald assured him that he had the plenary power of the AG, and that wasn't going to be his policy.

Ok, well put that little story up against the fact that it is pretty obvious that Eckenrode is the source of virtually all of the prosecution leaks that Murray Waas received, both in the Plame kerfuffle and the NSA leak investigation, which Eckenrode also headed. (Ok, it was either Eckenrode or his mother -- in a Waas story about either case, Eckenrode is always the heroic center of all action...)

It looks to me like Agent Eckenrode thinks that leak laws apply to everyone but himself.

If Eckenrode was being Russert's source, then the whole Russert subpoena fight fandango takes on a new and pretty ominous turn. And another angle... If the situation was that Russert rolled over and let the FBI scratch his belly, and was embarrassed about it, and that's what he was hiding, then we can still think that Eckenrode conducted a fairly professional FBI interview of a witness. But if instead, Russert was the one interviewing Eckenrode, then that totally changes things. Now the information is going the other way. And information flowing in that direction would have allowed Russert to tailor his testimony to keep NBC news staffers out of the investigation -- oh, yeah, and frame Libby, but that would be an unintended if unlamented side-effect.

Note that this could have happened even if Eckenrode had no intention to "coach" Russert (he wasn't thinking about him as a witness) or to suborn perjury.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Why *would* Sipes get either reinstatement or compensation? Surely a pardon doesn't wipe out *all* consequences of a previous conviction, like a country song played in reverase (ie, you get out of jail, you get your truck back, you get your job back, you get your girl back and you sober up.)

[birdseye]

All this speculation concerning what might have happened concerning Eckenrode/Russet is moot, isn't it? If Eckenrode's role was so important, why didn't the defense call him to testify?

[danking]

Eckenrode was in-line for testimony but was never called. I forget whether it was the prosecution or the defense that wanted him to testify

[Rick Ballard]

"why didn't the defense call him to testify?"

He's known to be a better liar than Agent Bond?

Nobody really wanted to hear how the dog ate his homework?

Is your next question: "Why didn't Libby testify?"

[anduril]

This border patrol agent case...

I believe that's another one where Andy McCarthy went to the mat for the prosecutors and vilified the defendant.

Guy's ethically tone deaf.

[Luke]

The more I read about this case, the ineptness of the handling, and watch it unfold, I continue to be amazed.

I am always in awe at the WH, the Libby Defense team, the judge and his laughable bias in this case.

I thought this could never happen again. This much ineptness just could not surface again. Then the Gonzales saga rears it's ugly head.

When is the WH going to come out on the offense. They are beaten like the proverbial rented mule and act just as beaten. Leahy, Schumer, et all, own the WH. Pity.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Trust the Force, Luke.

Last I looked, the WH was so "owned" that Gonzalez is still AG, the "no confidence" motion was beaten, the Iraq Campaign was fully funded without conditions, the Immigration Bill is coming out the way Bush wanted it (whether it's the way anyone else wants or not is another question), and the betting is that Libby will win on appeal, but Bush still has both pardon and commutation in his pocket.

As I've said before, try as a model that bnush is saying "you can say what you want as long as I get what *I* want."

[clarice]

I don't have it handy, Charlie but the other day OT cited the authority that a pardon wipes out the conviction entirely...it's as if it never happened. If I find something along that line I'll post it.

A commutation leaves in place the conviction and merely wipes out all or part of the sentence.

[Tom Maguire]

But if instead, Russert was the one interviewing Eckenrode, then that totally changes things. Now the information is going the other way.

Well, hold on - set aside the possibility that Eckenrode leaked to Russert about Plame in July and reflect on something else - if we are pretty sure Eckenrode leaked to Waas, why should we think Eckenrode had no other favored reporters?

Or, if Eckenrode did have other favored reporters, maybe Russert was one of them.

Or maybe Ms. Mitchell - she got a leak about the CIA criminal referral from someone, after all. I will try to find the original coverage to see what sources she cited. [Here, and no source other than "NBC News has learned"]

So, let's assume for a moment that Eckenrode was cozy with NBC. That certainly explains his easy access to Russert early on and explains the lost notes.

I am not sure what it means - Ecke could call Russert and say, look, here is Libby's story involving you, what do you say? Is that a leak or an investigation?

Of course, the notion that Russert may have been lying was seemingly unexplored, so knowing Eck and Russert were close would be relevant there.

Well. How might one prove it? Russert will never admit to this - that would be betraying a real source, not Libby.

[clarice]

Good thing for the prosecution Eck resigned early, was unavailable for the trial and his notes of that conversation just vanished, itn't it?

One wonders where all the investigative reporters are...

**********Charlie it is possible that a pardon would not have presented the gurad's reinstatementL
"You have asked us to address specifically whether a pardon removes only the consequences of a conviction or whether it also removes the consequences of an offense even where there has not yet been a conviction. Throughout the Nation's history, Presidents have asserted the power to issue pardons prior to conviction, and the consistent view of the Attorneys General has been that such pardons have as full an effect as pardons issued after conviction. See, e.g., Pardoning Power of the President, 6 Op. Att'y Gen. 20 (1853); Pardons, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 341 (1820). Indeed, in two of the best-known exercises of the pardon power (President Andrew Johnson's offer of pardons to persons involved in secession but willing to take an oath of loyalty, and President Jimmy Carter's pardon of persons who avoided military service during the Vietnam War), the vast majority of those pardoned had not been convicted of any crime.

The language of the Court's opinion in Garland is instructive on this issue:

A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt [for the offense], so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.

Garland, 71 U.S. at 380 (emphasis added). We understand this passage to mean that a pardon removes or prevents the attachment of all consequences that are based on guilt for the offense. In the great majority of cases, a pardon comes after a conviction; thus, there has already been a finding of guilt in the criminal justice process. It is important to understand, however, that the pardon is for the guilt for an offense, not just the conviction of the offense. Thus, a pardon for an offense that is issued prior to a conviction has the same effect as one that is issued after a conviction. Any consequences that would have attached had there been a conviction are precluded. (4)

The foregoing analysis does not mean that a pardoned person cannot be held accountable for the conduct underlying the offense by a governmental entity seeking to determine suitability for a position of confidence or trust, adherence to a code of conduct, or eligibility for a benefit. In Garland the Court stated that a pardon makes "the offender . . . as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." Id. (emphasis added). We do not interpret this to mean that the pardon creates the fiction that the conduct never took place. Rather, a pardon represents the Executive's determination that the offender should not be penalized or punished for the offense. There may be instances where an individual's conduct constitutes not only a federal offense, but also a violation of a separate code of conduct or ethics that the individual is obligated to comply with by virtue of his or her professional license. Discipline associated with the breach of the conditions of a professional license, where the disciplinary action is not triggered merely by the fact of commission or conviction of a federal offense, generally would not be barred by a pardon. "

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SLgHdjuh-eYJ:www.usdoj.gov/olc/pardon3.19.htm+effect+of+presidential+pardon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>effect of pardon

[clarice]

**would have preVented the GUARD's reinstatement***********

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Clarice, it's not that a pardon would have *prevented* the guard's reinstatement; I'd be an idiot to argue the legal point with you anyway. but my point is that this judgment affirmatively *requires* the guard's reinstatement, and back pay etc. I'm pretty sure a pardon won't do that.

[clarice]

Well--that may be a closer issue (one within the character exception the DoJ notes) Charlie, but as the guard was removed from his position solely upon a conviction which had by pardon been rendered nugatory (as if it didn't exist) I am not certain he wouldn't be entitled to reinstatement, etc. after pardon.

[Carol_Herman]

Eckenrode is still a big hole in Fitz' case. Because he called Tim Russert at home. Russert had UNDUBLICATABLE memory inhancement, on past events. WITH ALL THE NOTES GONE MISSING.

Not exactly how business is done.

Now, I don't know about you. Like any country club, I thought judges stood up for their own members; while they farted in the general direction of the public. AND, THEN, ALONG CAME NIFONG.

Seems judges are human's too. And, they don't like odious behaviors carried out under the umbrella of "law."

That's where Fitz sits now. Nifong moves out. And, on.

With Reggie Jackson actually providing a TIPPING POINT, where there are enough angry law professors (the 13 Amigos, and growing stronger); who got dissed in a very unprofessional way.

While all Walton did was ADD enemies to his list. Against, the rules of Sun Tzu, who advises all generals NOT to make enemies during the day, that he didn't start out with when he awoke in the morning.

So far? With the 4th in SUMMER RECESS; even though it isn't summer, yet; we'll see what Libby's Appeals team can do. (And, I'll guess they do better than Wells.) But then, I have no respect for "hires by color," or agents like Fitz, who use the authority of the law, by being fascists. It's not in our system. This stuff will be purged.

Oh, and ya know what I'm waiting to see? Eventually, and perhaps from Scalia's pen, it would almost be worth it, to be in the audience as he reads from his Opinion. Because? The ERROR is gonna go to the Executive. (This is not a legislative problem. But how will Scalia handle an "executive over-reach" when it's obvious taking away presidential powers just drops things into the legislative bucket? And, the legislative dogs are disliked even more than Bush?)

Perhaps it will all isolate out, like Jimmy Carter's comments. Free speech. And, all that. While trying to take down Libby, Bush forgot that he actually owned the bully pulpit.

I'm betting money that Libby does not go to jail this summer.

And, I'm also betting that Walton will not get the case back to re-try.

However, law schools will bring this case under the microscope; teaching others how to handle court room dramas.

[Carol_Herman]

Guess what.

I'm gonna add that Congress went after AG Gonzales, not just to humiliate Bush; but for the added advantage that congress sits outside of what's gonna come down the pike on Libby's appeal.

Sure. I'm trying to guess the future. The choices aren't infinite. You could choose the DC circuit "shrugs." Or not.

Tatel is one of the judges reviewing this appeal from Libby, now. Or not.

Judith Miller lost her pens. Or not.

Robert Bennett will add weight, later on, to the discussions of out-of-countrol prosecutors. Or not.

And, I'm betting money, as I said. That Libby does not go to jail this summer. Heck, in the worst case scenario; should the DC circuit make the mistake of shrugging Libby's Appeal off; then Bush will modify Walton's order. How can he not? A slow Appelate process would get slammed by Bush. But he'd provide for the judges to put on their black dresses; to pontificate. Not till the end of time. (I really wish they'd be assigned to put numbers on the backs of their black robes. So we can tell them apart, one circuit breaker from another.

[clarice]

Libby has filed his application for release pending appeal. The document is 122 pages with exhibits and argues that the appointment issue,the preclusion of memory defense materials because of his refusal to testify issue and the refusal to allow him to call Andrea Mitchell to restify are all close issues warranting the relief sought. I have no easy way to post this. It's in pdf format.

[Ralph]

Clarice,

Can you post a link to where it can be obtained?

IF it's in character mode (rather than a scan of paper copies) I can convert it and send it to you in whatever form you'd like.

All the Best,

Ralph

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I am not certain he wouldn't be entitled to reinstatement, etc. after pardon.

I think I'm trapped in terms of art that don't quite correspond to the way we outsiders use the language.

I agree that if he'd been dismissed *because* of the conviction, and the conviction were reversed or nullified by pardon, he's be *entitled* to be reinstated. But how would he *enforce* the result?

Consider, by analogy, Chuck Colson, who I think was finally pardoned. Does he get his job back at the White House? Does he get back pay for the time between his conviction and his pardon?

Similarly, these people who are released after years because DNA evidence exonerates them. I don't recall ever hearing that they automatically get their old jobs back, and it seems they generally have to go through some proceeding to be reimbursed for they're time in jail. The Duke kids don't automatically get re-admitted to Duke, and Dave Evans doesn't automatically get his Wall Street job back with back pay.

[clarice]

Ralph, if you send me your email addy (crfdc@yahoo.com)I will email the adobe file to you.

[clarice]

Charlie the difference is that this is a civil service job from which he was fired very recently because of the conviction.

We are not talking an appointed position, a release after years of imprisonment and a potential return to private employment nor a university slot--although Duke did offer reinstatement to the defendants and most schools would I think be obligated to offer reinstatement in similar situations.

It's most analogous to a marine being drummed out of the service because of a court martial conviction which was rather immediately reversed.

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

Speaking of Marines, if you haven't read Gary Gross on the Haditha hearings, I would recommend it:

The Cover-Up Unravels

He quotes what he calls the money quote from a Phil Brennan article:

According to one intelligence officer who had viewed the entire video and who was talking to some on the defense counsel who had been shown part of it, the tape cuts off just as they see the insurgents fleeing the neighborhood — they were denied any further views of the video.

“To me, there was an obvious agenda to cover up the true nature of the day, and only focus on that piece which could be used to implicate battalion officers,” he told NewsMax.com.

He added that of the hours of video shot by the UAV, the NCIS showed only a few minutes of what was filmed and acted as if that was all there was. The media eagerly picked up that fiction and ran with it, and the public was prevented from knowing the full story.

There is much more.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

" Ecke could call Russert and say, look, here is Libby's story involving you, what do you say? "

Or Ecke could have simply asked him "When did you tell Scooter Libby that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA?" Russert's answer "I never told him that." Bam.

Have you guys gamed out Mitchell's testimony based on her statements already on record? She has gone on record a couple of times to address her role in the Plame leak hasn't she? Besides her one October statement is there other evidence that she knew prior to the Novak column? From my interested, yet not (as) obsessive, standpoint, it seems like you're basing the case on the jury not believing her when she says she lied. Is there any evidence, besides the disavowed statement, that indicates she knew prior to Novak? For example, who told her, if she knew? That would be a critical question to answer to build your case upon. If you're saying she learned from Greenspan, where did he learn? I'm no fan of Andrea Mitchell, or Tim Russert or of the whole cast of slimy suckups our "beltway journalists" have proven themselves to be, and would love to see the lot of them turned out for new blood. Please take Mitchell down, if you can.

[Sue]

you're basing the case on the jury not believing her when she says she lied.

Maybe you remember her testifying to the jury, but I don't. The jury didn't have to decide whether or not she was lying.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

"'I was called by the CIA' almost surely should have been 'FBI'."

Why should it be?

If Mitchell were already cosy with the CIA crowd, it's not hard to imagine someone from The Agency giving her a ring in order to scope out the situation in the press, or attitudes at the White House, or her own possible role in the brouhaha. When you're nurturing your connections & sources, I'm sure you have to do some info sharing of your own. I notice she didn't say she was interviewed by the CIA either.

If she was, in fact, interviewed by the FBI, either "unofficially" a la Russert or officially, it would pose huge problems for Fitzgerald, wouldn't it -- from discovery issues to the final showdown over her testimony. It would make Fitz' role in the whole tangle over her lawyer's representations on her testimony look like a serious sham -- which given precisely the same m.o. in regard to Russert, doesn't exactly seem like a stretch. Don't have the energy to dig into the Mitchell subpoena docs, but if the F.B.I. didn't interview Mitchell, that should be problematic too, really. Of course, Russert was always the too good to check story, and Fitz did his all to isolate him from everyone, everywhere -- including the grand jury! throughout.

At one point, I thought Mitchell said she had been interviewed by (?), but maybe I'm just confusing that statement with the one you excerpted above.

[boris]

any evidence, besides the disavowed statement

Mitchell worked the same beat as Miller who had Wilson's phone number and the names Victoria, Valerie, and Flame in her notes before ever talking to Libby. Mitchell's original statement was that reporters working that beat, like Miller, already knew. Since Miller apparently already did know that looks like a true statement confirmed later by physical evidence (Miller's notes).

Also the CIA info guy Harlow admitted he had spoken with her on the general subject and Harlow also confirmed to Novak weeks later.

Keep looking ... you're bound to find that pony somewhere.

[sbwaters]

TM: "I was called by the CIA" almost surely should have been "FBI".

Not necessarily.

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been.

... could well have been, "You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this -- [that] I was called by the CIA -- because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been."

It makes sense read like that.

[clarice]

Andrea broke the story of the referral. The most likely sources for that leak were inside the CIA or DoJ. Either is possible, but as the referral put the heat on DoJ I tend to believe she got it from the CIA.

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

Looks like Byron York heard someone ... but not on the Russert issue:

Will Libby Remain Free?

On "Meet the Press" Sunday, I gave a pretty stark assessment of Lewis Libby's chances of staying out of jail while he appeals his conviction for perjury and obstruction:

Well, the fact is, the White House has shown no inclination at all to pardon Libby. They were hoping that all this would come later in the president's term; that he could essentially do it on the way out the door. The thing that has triggered all of this is Judge Reggie Walton, the judge in the case, deciding that Libby had to go to jail now rather than stay free pending his appeal. That's what has caused this problem, and I think that we're likely to see Libby go to jail in six weeks or so.

If I were asked the question today, all of 48 hours later, I might say it a bit differently.  First, I think it is absolutely certain that the president will not take any action on Libby's behalf during the relatively short period in which a federal appeals court is considering Libby's emergency request to stay out of jail while the appeal of his conviction goes forward.  If the court were to let Libby remain free, I think it's safe to say the White House would take no action as Libby awaited the final result of his appeal.  If, on the other hand — as some observers think likely — the appeals court denies Libby's emergency request, meaning that he will have to report to jail by, say, the end of summer, I now think it is possible that the president would step in to assure that Libby does not go to jail.  I'm not sure what form that action would take — perhaps a commutation or delay of the sentence without an outright pardon — but there now seems to be a real possibility that Libby will not go to jail while his appeal is considered.

[JM Hanes]

anduril:

"A" leak, "the" matter, yes indeedy. As opposed to "any" leak or the same info in non-leaky form, or virtually the same matter save for an otherwise insignificant but strategic detail. Oh what a modified limited hangout we weave, when first we practice to deceive. After that, it just comes naturally.

[Rick Ballard]

"the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now." [Dana Perino speaking for Dan Bartlett]

Was "now" strictly temporal rather than a circumlocution for "in this instance"?

Is today a new "now" based upon the effect of the heat of the potato on the space time continuum?

Seems like York is a bit flummoxed by this development.

[Tom Maguire]

Libby has filed his application for release pending appeal. The document is 122 pages with exhibits and argues that the appointment issue,the preclusion of memory defense materials because of his refusal to testify issue and the refusal to allow him to call Andrea Mitchell to restify are all close issues warranting the relief sought.

Clarice - I would be delighted to post it if you email it to me, but why is it not on Pacer?

[Tom Maguire]

Ahh - is it maybe on PACER but in a new docket for Appeals? How do I find it then?

[Cecil Turner]

any evidence, besides the disavowed statement

Good roundup by TM, over at a TalkLeft comment. Short version:

• She scooped the INR footnote misplacement in the NIE
• She called Wilson at home July 5 to set up an interview
• She used [covert] "operative" to discuss who sent Joe several days before Novak
• Martin claimed Harlow reported he'd talked to her July 8th

Bonus conflict-of-interest for conspiracy theorists:

MR. RUSSERT: As you know, Carlo—Harlow works as an NBC News consultant. I talked to him on Friday. He said that he told you, “It’d be really bad if you wrote her publicly.” [emphasis added]

That's nice. Nah, they ain't cozy.

[clarice]

TM, I just sent it to you. Thanks. And thanks, too, to Ralph even though I miffed the process and he couldn't do it.

[Ralph]

Clarice,

If Tom posts it, I'll convert it and forward it to you and whoever else may want it.

Anything I can do to help with getting it sent?

[danking]

Well, when the whole Haditha mess is finished, I'll still want to see some court martials as well as a libel suit.

I want those officers who are purposely sacrificing our Joes on the alter of their political masters court martialed and Time and Time's McGirk sued for libel.

[clarice]

I hit file and save. I then used the title of the doc on the yahoo email browser and hit attach and I can't understand why it didn't go thru,Ralph.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

What type of joss did you burn prior to hitting 'Send'? You may need a Feng Shui consultant to reorient your computer.

[RichatUF]

typepad going on the fitz again...don't know if the comment is stale:

Looking...

Besides her one October statement is there other evidence that she knew prior to the Novak column? From my interested, yet not (as) obsessive, standpoint, it seems like you're basing the case on the jury not believing her when she says she lied. Is there any evidence, besides the disavowed statement, that indicates she knew prior to Novak?

She did the Wilson interview on July 6th, 2003

She broke the CIA criminal referal story (Sept03)

In pre-trial motions, when Mitchell testifying was a possibility, the Judge said 'if she is called to testify then I don't see how I'll be able to keep the notes out' [or words to that affect]

She got caught up in the WaPo 1x2x6 gossip

The Tim Russert Show appearence with Russert, Gregory, Williams in which they were all getting their story straight (tampering?)

Her Imus show appearence

She flogged statement from the Capitol Report

I came up with these off the top of my head-Mitchell had notes and was much more involved in the story than Russert. Russert didn't have notes. Also didn't it come out that Enkenrode and Russert attended the same church (or am I confusing this with one of the jurors)

RichatUF

[clarice]

Yeah, Rick, some joss..adobe is my nemesis.

[RichatUF]

Or I could just keep AT open, because Clarice has probably written something...

Libby Trial: The NBC Connection

graf-

...According to him, he was home on a Sunday when a man called and said that he was FBI agent Eckenrode, that he'd met Russert earlier when his church group had toured the NBC Washington headquarters. The man who identified himself as the agent then related to Russert what Libby had told the FBI about a conversation the two men had had on July 10 or 11 of that year. Russert said he gave his recollection of the statements to the man who'd identified himself as Eckenrode...

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

fixed?

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

Danking, re: Haditha, you might also want to look at:
Some Inconvenient Facts about the Haditha Incident

[SlimGuy]

Recovered from the wayback machine

Sometimes I wonder if the reason there are no notes from Eckenrodes call to Russert is simply due to the fact he was calling as a source for Russert rather than as an investigative interview.

Then someone tried to reverse the lens at a later date.

Posted by: SlimGuy | March 08, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Also in the same or an earlier thread there was speculation by Owl that Eckenrode may also have been the mysterious man in the street Novak made his Wilson comment to.

Anyone else think all this might really fit? 

[SlimGuy]

Owl's speculation makes sense, because Novak may have talked to him because they could have been another "source / reporter" relationship.

[danking]

I don't think Novak has ever mentioned who it was that "bumped" into him.

[fortif]

Fred Rustmann on Plame's covert. http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260005#20051110

Unclassified summary has Plame training, it looks even more like Ames and Howard.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Tennet and 'the farm.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070620.PICKTON20/TPStory/National

Aliens and the Wayback Machine(Herman)

Posidon is the king of Atlantis. His son was known as 'Moon Man of the Mountain.' Sargon Ark was an ark of refuge, God's live in the mountains according to Cane's bloodline. Atlantis was Norad. It travelled through time and was known as Atlantis. Norad actually is the time travel location for the Air Force and off world teleporting, not that they are the same thing.

[cathyf]

Norad actually is the time travel location for the Air Force and off world teleporting, not that they are the same thing.

Oh. My.

[JM Hanes]

cathyf:

It's hard to beat time travel, but "Tennet and 'the farm'" comes close. We seem to be in Beautiful Mind territory here.

[cathyf]

Yeah -- for anybody who didn't follow the link, it is about a Tenant on a farm testifying in a trial about his knowlege about several murders that happened on the farm in question.

[fortif]

It's important to understand that the teleporter is designed for off world trips and the time stuff is kinda an after thing. When ceasing existence a person may use this 'misunderstanding' as a stall from the ceasement of all things, which, in fact, defines them. Another example of a stall is the creation of a fission event using existing matter in our atmosphere; In fact the eye or the device are not necessary here, which can be confusing because most think the device is fission when it really is teleportation.

What tennet really was and how he was defined. Basic maintenance.
http://www.southeasternequipment.net/PhotoGallery.asp?ProductCode=ERTN7200C

Anyhow, Beautiful Mind seems like the standard damning of a male. He chooses to be good and not cease all existence and is damned to live life with a female - defining his error.