I just want to commemorate this lest the fdl moderators delete it.
Comment 66
Tom Maguire says:
Non sequiteur, but I see from my traffic stats that most readers here won’t follow the link to see for themselves.
Just to sample one of my problems with Fitzgerald - in a letter to defense in Dec 2005 negotiating discovery, he named the five reporters who had received a Plame leak, then added this:
We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson’s wife. Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11.
Why no mention of David Gregory, who received the same leak at the same time (or didn’t - Dickerson denies it)?
Is that, hmm, ethical? I would think a prosecutor ought to tell the truth in discovery, but perhaps opinions vary.
And what this has to do with Ken Starr, or in being tight-lipped, absolutely eludes me.
From Marcy Wheeler at 98, who quotes my post and then adds this:
I don’t know Tom (as someone who did follow the link). You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists? Dickerson sure thinks so. At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too. Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.
But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed. You want suspicious, I call that suspicious. You want a reason why Russert fought testimony, you might look to what Libby’s lawyer told him (same guy who tried to tell Judy not to testify unless she’d corroborate Libby’s story).
Truth goes two ways, you know.
I reappear at 125:
From 98: You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists?
Huh? Maybe if we had some evidence, for starters; secondly, if the prosecution didn’t believe Ari, why cite Dickerson at all; third, if Gregory “talked” to them, where is the NBC News announcement or discovery to the defense?
At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too.
Bring it. It’s been months now, IIRC. But I may be having a Libby moment.
Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.
It is the job of the defense to introduce reasonable doubt, not mount an independent investigation. But I welcome your theories as to why neither Dickerson nor Gregory were called by Fitzgerald; for a guy ostensibly running a leak investigation, who was mighty incurious about Ari’s leaks. (I think Fitzgerald didn’t want to further undermine Fleischer after he washed out on Pincus, but that is just me).
But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed.
I’m not following - I presume you are not arguing that it is OK for Fitzgerald to file false affidavits and offer phony discovery letters when he is going after perjurers (that would be really tough on the legal system if he were going after a murderer…)
But I can’t imagine your actual point. Is it that Libby is a liar? I thought we were talking about tight-lipped Fitzgerald.
Ms. Wheeler at 150:
From 98: You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists?
Huh? Maybe if we had some evidence, for starters; secondly, if the prosecution didn’t believe Ari, why cite Dickerson at all; third, if Gregory “talked” to them, where is the NBC News announcement or discovery to the defense?
You have this remarkable habit of believing your absence of evidence is stronger than common sense. You have never had evidence to support your Mitchell charges, your Russert charges, most of your “theories.” I’m just suggesting there are very SIMPLE explanations that you like to overlook in the face of your overwhelming lack of evidence.
As to the “evidence” of a Gregory conversation? You might look to the same place as they put the announcement abotu Russert talking to FBI in Fall 2003. We don’t get such announcements every time.
I don’t know that they spoke with him–but then neither do you know that they didn’t speak with him. I should think the Dickerson explanation–as a way of saying there was a conversation that didn’t apparently include a leak, actually hurts your argument.
At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too.
Bring it. It’s been months now, IIRC. But I may be having a Libby moment.
Oh, it hasn’t. I really thought your Mitchell points were fair until the Defense acted in the way it did. The main point is, the defense chose not to call Andrea Mitchell, even though they were sure she got a leak. They chose not to get her notes, just as it became clear they could have them. They likely know what Libby said to her on July 8. You want evidence? That strikes me as evidence that they did not want her unless they could use her for self-impeachment. THey certainly didn’t want her “truth.”
Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.
It is the job of the defense to introduce reasonable doubt, not mount an independent investigation. But I welcome your theories as to why neither Dickerson nor Gregory were called by Fitzgerald; for a guy ostensibly running a leak investigation, who was mighty incurious about Ari’s leaks. (I think Fitzgerald didn’t want to further undermine Fleischer after he washed out on Pincus, but that is just me).
Well, Ari’s leaks couldn’t qualify him for IIPA, since Libby was so sloppy in the way he informed him of the matter. On the other hand, Libby COULD have been found guilty of IIPA, depending on what he said to Judy. You keep whining about underlying crime. Ari couldn’t have been guilty of IIPA, LIbby could have. SImple difference.
But as to your independent investigation theory. Hmm. Gregory and Mitchell were central to Wells’ opening. But he didn’t call them. Instead, he called a bunch of people–Sanger, Woodward, Thomas, etc–who were safe. Why not Mitchell? Again, it’s pretty clear they didn’t think they’d help.
But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed.
I’m not following - I presume you are not arguing that it is OK for Fitzgerald to file false affidavits and offer phony discovery letters when he is going after perjurers (that would be really tough on the legal system if he were going after a murderer…)
But I can’t imagine your actual point. Is it that Libby is a liar? I thought we were talking about tight-lipped Fitzgerald.
No. You keep babblng on and on about how suspicious Russert’s fight against testifying is, which is the basis (I might call it “evidence” if I were more generous) for your allegation that Fitz filed a false affadavit. But in every one of those discussions, you ignore a very simple explanation, one that has an exact parallel with Judy. Libby contacted Russert in the same manner as he did Judy, at an equivalent time. It is not unreasonable to assume he acted in teh same way–that is, telling Russert he shouldn’t testify if he couldnt’ corroborate Libby’s story.
Given the absnece of real evidence behind the rest of your allegations, I’d think someone smart as you would start where teh evidence is–in another Libby attempt to coach a witness.
But I guess you don’t want to go there, do you?
I reappear at 283:
From Ms. Wheeler at 150:
You have this remarkable habit of believing your absence of evidence is stronger than common sense.
I am declaring a Self Awareness Moment before I read any further.
I’m just suggesting there are very SIMPLE explanations that you like to overlook in the face of your overwhelming lack of evidence.
Sorry, one last Self Awareness Moment and I will press on. As the conversation unfolds, I suspect we will see that I am not alone in leaping from small hills of fact across great chasms of, well, emptiness.
Meanwhile, if you can stray back to the actual point for a moment - I don’t see any attempt by you to explain why Fitzgerald thought it was worth flagging Dickerson but not Gregory in his discovery letter to the defense. Your earlier guess, as I understood it, was that the prosecution investigated Gregory’s story (but not Dickerson’s) in a way that produced no paper trail or discoverable info. Hard to see how they could do that and stay within the rules.
My guess was that Fitzgerald chose to leave it out to protect Gregory and Russert. Which idea is simpler?
The main point is, the defense chose not to call Andrea Mitchell, even though they were sure she got a leak.
You should check the live-blogging - the opportunity to call her was quite restricted (unless the reporting is wrong.)
And that relates to Fitzgerald’s dubious affidavits and discovery how?
Well, Ari’s leaks couldn’t qualify him for IIPA, since Libby was so sloppy in the way he informed him of the matter.
Again, I exhort you to follow the trial on the fabulous FDL liveblog - Ari also learned about Ms. Plame from Dan Bartlett while paging through a classified CIA memo describing the Wislon trip.
Since the CIA memo in question is an attachment to the INR memo (also marked Top Secret), one might surmise that Ari saw the INR memo as well, but who can tell - either way, he was surrounded by classified info when he learned it from Bartlett - worth investigating?
On the other hand, Libby COULD have been found guilty of IIPA, depending on what he said to Judy. You keep whining about underlying crime. Ari couldn’t have been guilty of IIPA, LIbby could have. SImple difference.
Having been reminded of the Ari’s Bartlett chat, do you want to stand by that?
You keep babblng on and on about how suspicious Russert’s fight against testifying is, which is the basis (I might call it “evidence” if I were more generous) for your allegation that Fitz filed a false affadavit.
Whining, babbling - folks can judge for themselves who is doing what, I suppose; for myself, I figure that ad homninems are a sign of a collapsing argument.
Anyway, since my point may have not been made sufficiently clear, my allegation is that *RUSSERT* filed a false affidavit, with Fitzgerald as a complicit bystander. The specific phrase I question is in paragraph six, where Russert tells the judge that he cannot even confirm to the government that he has spoken to the government official in question - that seems like a lie of omission, since he had already confirmed that to the FBI.
SO, do you think that statement of Russert’s was true, or false? Ethical or not?
And Fitzgerald said nothing. Fitzgerald also made a point of *not* mentioning Russert’s FBI testimony in his own filing. Why? Should an officer of the court countenance a false filing with a judge?
My theory - he was coddling Russert, his star witness. Seems simple. Your view?
Libby contacted Russert in the same manner as he did Judy, at an equivalent time. It is not unreasonable to assume he acted in teh same way–that is, telling Russert he shouldn’t testify if he couldnt’ corroborate Libby’s story.
I refer to your opening comment about absence of evidence not being a bar to speculation. Did Libby send Russert a poem about Aspens, too?
Well. Your delightful flight of fancy notwithstanding, is it your argument that, since Libby called Russert, it is OK for Russert to lie to a judge while Fitzgerald plays along?
Given the absnece of real evidence behind the rest of your allegations, I’d think someone smart as you would start where teh evidence is–in another Libby attempt to coach a witness.
But I guess you don’t want to go there, do you?
I’m sorry - the absence of evidence that Russert’s affidavit has a lie in it? Have you read the affidavit?
Or the absence of evidence that Fitzgerald disclosed Dickerson but not Gregory, despite Ari’s court testimony that he leaked to both? Have you read that letter, or the trial reports?
Those are facts - everything you have offered in defense of that is speculation, much of it (Libby was coaching Russert, a near-perfect stranger?) irrelevant.
Just trying to clarify the difference here.
I then pitch in the Libby GJ testimony at 284:
Sorry to chew up bandwidth, but this is from Libby’s GJ testimony:
Q. Since, since July 14th when the Novak column
appeared, have you spoken to Tim Russert about the
uranium/Niger issue?
A. I — no, I think not.
Q. Have you spoken to him about the leak investigation?
A. Not directly, but I did speak to him once.
Q. Okay. And, and what do you mean by not directly?
A. I mean, I spoke to him but not — I didn’t talk to
him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at
one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.
Q. Okay. And did you talk to him about — besides
asking him if he would be willing to your lawyer, did you talk
about the substance of the leak investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you indicate whether or not you thought you were
involved in the leak?
A. Whether I thought I was involved in the leak?
Q. Right, to Mr. Russert.
A. No.
Q. And did you ask him what his position would be about
whether he would testify or not if asked?
A. No.
Q. And do you know the time when you reached out to
talk to Mr. Russert?
A. A few weeks back.
Q. Okay. A few weeks back being in March of 2004 or –
A. February, March, somewhere in there.
Q. And have you spoken to Mr. Russert since?
A. No.A question - what do we suppose Russert said when asked about this vile attempt at witness-tampering?
Or dare we infer by the absence of any charges or discussion that Russert did not see it as tampering?
FWIW - you know I am going to check the liveblog to see if Russert was asked about this in court. Forewarned…
And here we sit.
Just to sample one of my problems with Fitzgerald - in a letter to defense in Dec 2005 negotiating discovery, he named the five reporters who had received a Plame leak, then added this:
Posted by: Jade Jewelry Sale | August 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM