Libby's Contradictory NIE Leak Stories

by emptywheel

Scooter Libby's claim to have leaked the NIE is getting increasing attention, not least because it lies at the core of Murray Waas' latest. But the media is missing the underlying importance of the leak. So I'm writing a post showing that Libby's contradictory stories about the NIE get right to the issue of leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

Fitzgerald and Libby's lawyer Ted Wells are both considering using the NIE leakage as evidence--but in entirely different ways. And I suspect that Wells is missing the true landmine of where Fitzgerald may take it (or ignoring it, because he knows the evidence is admissible so he's trying to make the most of a shitty position).

Why It's Important

Libby's claims about leaking the NIE are admissible because he has an instruction in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8. When asked what that note referred to, Libby said it referred to leaking the NIE. From the May 5 hearing:

HE COURT: How is it relevant then?

MR. FITZGERALD: Only to the extent that if Mr. Libby had an instruction to tell information to Ms. Miller on July 8 and he's saying the instruction reflected in his notes to tell me Judith Miller refers to the NIE. He says he did not discuss Mr. Wilson's wife that day. To our understand both were discussed.

Libby's claims about the NIE are admissible because they lie at the heart of his explanation of what he said to Judy Miller on July 8. Here is how Fitzgerald explained the importance of the NIE in a January 23 letter to Libby's team.

As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") to such reporters in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003 (and caused at least one other government official to discuss the NIE with the media in July 2003). We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors. We expect that such conduct will be the subject of proof at trial in that we intend to introduce Libby's grand jury transcript in evidence and Mr. Libby has testified that the purpose of his July 8 meeting with Ms. Miller was to transmit information concerning the NIE. Our anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain.

We can fill in some of the details on dates: We know Libby testified to leaking the NIE to Judy on July 8, and we know Libby caused some lackey to leak the NIE to WSJ for a July 17 article. Presumably, Libby's reference to June leaking refers to Bob Woodward on June 27, which Woodward has also testified to.

There is one more reason Libby gave for the NIE's importance--because it was part of the reason he spoke to journalists on July 12. From an April 5 response:

Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003, in place of then-Assistant to the President for Public Affairs, Cathie Martin, the usual press contact person from OVP.  

So Libby said the NIE was the reason for his conversation with Judy on July 8. But it was also an integral part of his campaign to rebut Joe Wilson starting on June 27, when he leaked it to Woodward, continuing on two days during Leak Week, and lasting until July 17, the day before the NIE was officially declassified.

How Wells Might Use It

On May 5, Ted Wells revealed a bit how he might deal with the NIE--by claiming that it proves that the WMD issues, and not Plame, were the central thrust of their smear strategy.

That is why I say in the brief when I wrote it that the indictment really distorts what was going on because it makes the wife look like she was central to what Mr. Libby was doing or what the administration was doing because when you read the indictment, you really think a lot is revolving around Mrs. Wilson. It was not and I'll be able to show that because the response was on the merits. That's why the NIE was declassified and disclosed. That's why people put together information to show that the forgeries, that Mr. Wilson didn't know anything about the forgeries, that Mr. Wilson had not been sent by the vice president. (May 5 transcript)

This claim relies on precisely the continuity of the NIE claims I described above: the NIE leak was an integral part of Libby's campaign, from start to finish.

Libby the Renegade

But Wells' potential approach to the NIE has one big landmine, even within the bounds of the way he wants to use it. Wells wants to argue that the NIE leaking was part of a systematic response to Wilson that basically attempted to prove the administration had justification to use the Niger claim in January 2003 (never mind that they were cherry picking which intelligence to use, both in January 2003 to write the SOTU, and in July 2003 to justify their earlier choices). But Libby's own testimony about the NIE provides evidence that his actions weren't coordinated with the other administration officials responding to Wilson that week. Fitzgerald goes to some length to demonstrate that Libby was not only not coordinating his NIE leaking with his colleagues, he wasn't even telling them about it.

According to defendant, at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people – the President, the Vice President and defendant – knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials – including Cabinet level officials – were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson’s trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003. (April 5 response)

So the whole story of the NIE leak is going to raise a question Judge Walton himself asked.

THE COURT: But only as it relates to any internal discussions. Are you saying even if Libby wasn't a part of it?

MR. WELLS: Of course, Your Honor, because it helps corroborate what Libby was doing because Libby may not have been a part of a discussion on a particular day.

THE COURT: But what if he was a renegade?

MR. WELLS: But he wasn't.

THE COURT: I know that's your position. But just because other people may have had discussions outside of his presence about what the strategy was going to be I don't see how that would shed light on whether or not he kept to the company line.

MR. WELLS: Your Honor, I have a right to try to show he kept to the company line and that what he says was the company line which is really the important thing, was really the company line and look at what other people have. Mr. Libby was part of the team, Your Honor. (May 5 transcript)

Wells would like to use the talking points the WH distributed that week, show that the talking points included no mention of Plame, and therefore claim that Libby couldn't have mentioned Plame. But his behavior with the NIE demonstrates fairly clearly that he and Dick were working on their own here--renegade Vice President and his sidekick Scooter. So there's nothing about the talking points the rest of the WH was using that can be assumed to apply to Libby.

Woodward's Testimony

The other reason the NIE is so critical, to Wells, is it determines whether they should call Woodward as a witness. I'm sure they'd like to call Woodward, because Woodward's testimony that it was possible he mentioned Plame to Libby means Libby can claim the whole "journalists are saying" dates to June 27 and maybe even June 23 (it's unclear whether Libby spoke to Judy or Woodward first on June 23), and he just forgot the details.

But there's one problem with calling Woodward. Libby first testified to being authorized to leak the NIE on July 2.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Let me explain how it came up. In a meeting I think six days before July 8 Mr. Libby testified that he recalled that he was given the specific authority for identification and that he checked, in fact, he checked with the vice president because he was concerned. He checked with someone else as to the lawfulness... (May 5 transcript)

This passage appears to put a date, July 2, to some of the key events described in this passage:

As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. (April 5 response; my emphasis)

Note, Fitzgerald used "key judgments" throughout this April 5 response, which Libby's lawyers promptly made him retract. So every time you read "key judgments," just pretend it says, "judgments which some--but by no means all--intelligence analysts agreed with."

In any case, putting these two passages together suggests that at least part of the authorization to leak the NIE occurred on July 2 and related exclusively to his conversation with Judy. Need I point out that--whatever they were authorizing--they were doing it four days before Joe Wilson's op-ed appeared?

There's a problem with that July 2 date, though. The remaining part of the May 5 transcript passage suggests that Libby said he was first authorized to leak the NIE on July 2, but also that he leaked it 6 days earlier (to Bob Woodward), but then, um, well, maybe he's not so clear on when it was authorized.

...but said that this was the first time that he was authorized to describe particular language in the, a particular quote. It didn't turn out that he had talked to a reporter I think six days before and it came up and he testified and it's not going to be a big focus but it is in the grand jury. He said, well, either the declassification occurred earlier than I recalled it because he said it was before July 8th or I made a mistake or it was someone else out there. That was in the grand jury and he was examined about it. It wasn't followed up upon. We're not charging a violation. (May 5 transcript)

Fitzgerald doesn't seem too interested in pressing this detail, that Libby apparently leaked the still-classified NIE to Woodward. But he is hedging, in case Wells calls Woodward as a witness.

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. What I'm saying is that, look, that is not the focus of what we are doing and I'm not going to dispute that he was authorized on July 8. I don't know what happened before so I am not going to stipulate that he was authorized on June 23 or July 2. But that's not what the trial is about. The trial is about what happened in the grand jury, you know, lying about the wife.

THE COURT: Since the trial is not about those earlier occasions, that's why I'm asking, are you going to seek to introduce evidence about those earlier events?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think, Your Honor, we may or may not. Let me be straight. I don't know what the defense is going to be asking about that conversation, whether we're going to be talking about whether he had a conversation with Mr. Woodward or not. We are not calling Mr. Woodward. Mr. Libby had a conversation with Mr. Woodward. I don't know if we're going to get into that or not. And in the grand jury -- I don't know how Mr. Wells is going to open or what he's going to say. The earlier disclosure to NIE isn't the crux of the case. I will be honest. I am a little afraid of tying my hands by saying this isn't important, this isn't important. Then all of a sudden at the trial I'm hearing an opening and I've given away everything that might be responsive. (May 5 transcript)

Fitzgerald is not going to claim that Libby definitely broke the law by leaking classified information, but neither is he willing to say that there isn't something wrong with Libby's claims about the NIE leak. He will hew to Libby's grand jury testimony, in which Libby said he didn't know whether he had the authority to leak the NIE in June. Or, as Wells, characterizes it, first Libby had authorization, then he didn't, then he did.

THE COURT: I understand that he might open the door in some way that would cause you to have to bring in some information but it seems to me that, if you have any information right now that you know would potentially undermine Mr. Libby's credibility or suggest something sinister on his part if he brings out information about these earlier events, then it seems to me he has a right to know that.

MR. FITZGERALD: And he has it. It is the grand jury transcript. It is not a big deal. It is his client saying I'm not sure if I had the authority when I talked on July 2nd or not, and he has it. But it is not a focus.

THE COURT: You don't have anything that would definitively show that he did not have authority.

MR. FITZGERALD: As to the timing, no, I don't have anything that sets the date other than before, my belief is it is before July 8th. Besides saying July 8 it happened by, I can't move the date into June or July, a specific date.

MR. WELLS: Just so the record is clear what the grand jury testimony is. He said that the disclosure of the material was a go, then it was a stop and then it was a go. Then he is asked at some point was it possible that you went too fast. He says I could have made a mistake but I know I was supposed to go, then I was told to stop, and then I was told to go. (May 5 transcript; my emphasis)

There are two important issues coming out of this discussion. First, Fitzgerald is not contesting that Libby had authorization, at least by July 8, to leak the NIE. Many people are still questioning whether Dick's insta-declassification is legal, whether you can declassify something without the bureaucratic process of doing so. We can argue that until we're blue in the face, but Fitzgerald, either because he knows the insta-declassification is legal or because it suits his purposes not to fight that issue, is not arguing the point.

The other important point, though, is that Fitzgerald is not contesting the legality of the timing of Libby's leak to Woodward, which appears to be Wells' big concern. But neither is Fitzgerald ceding that everything is kosher with the NIE leak story. As he describes it, the "sinister" thing about Libby's NIE leak to Woodward is that Libby said, "I'm not sure if I had the authority when I talked on July 2nd" (and, presumably, on June 27). The sinister thing isn't that he definitely leaked classified information, it's that he leaked it but isn't sure whether he was authorized to leak it.

How Fitzgerald Might Use It

Which gets into how I think Fitzgerald will use this. Scooter Libby is telling two contradictory stories with respect to the NIE. The first is that the NIE was a consistent prop in administration attempts to rebut Joe Wilson, one they used on June 27 with Bob Woodward, on July 2 with an unnamed journalist, on July 8 with Judy Miller, on July 12 with Cooper and Judy, and on July 17 with the WSJ. This story seems to correlate with the normal declassification of the NIE that Bartlett, Hadley, and Tenet were pursuing. This is a story that suggests the NIE leak was an everyday event, and one that constituted no more than a fair refutation of Joe Wilson's claims.

But then Libby tells a completely different story. He describes that the leak of the NIE to Judy Miller on July 8 was a unique event. It was unique because he was so worried about the declassification of the NIE that he asked Dick, David Addington, and through Dick, the President, for authorization to conduct this leaking. (All the following references come from the April 5 response.)

Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

This was a unique event because he didn't tell anyone else about it, not even those who were conducting a parallel effort to declassify the NIE.

Defendant fails to mention, however, that he consciously decided not to make Mr. Hadley aware of the fact that defendant himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified.

This was a unique event because, never before in his government career had Scooter Libby relied on Presidential authorization to leak something.

Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed.

This was a unique event because the sheer sensitivity of leaking the NIE, Libby claimed, required he meet Judy at a hotel and that Judy attribute this leak falsely,

Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively. In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.” (my emphasis)

See, Scooter Libby is simultaneously claiming that the NIE leak was part of a larger campaign, a leak he repeated at least six times. And he's claiming that his leak to Judy was a unique event, an exclusive leak.

Those claims can't both be true.

And Bob Woodward's testimony, in particular, will demonstrate that fact. Libby claims his leak of the NIE was unique, but he leaked the same "vigorously trying to procure" passage to both Woodward and Judy (and apparently three other people, including, demonstrably, the WSJ). Libby claims the leak was so sensitive he had to meet Judy at a hotel. But he had leaked it to Woodard in his office. Libby claims that the leak to Judy was so unique, he had to get presidential authorization to leak it. But he testified he's not sure whether he had authorization at all to leak it to Woodward, much less presidential authorization.

It's not the timing of the authorization that proves Libby is lying about what unique leak he gave to Judy Miller. It is the two stories Libby tells, that directly contradict each other.

Neither the NIE, nor the CIA report on Joe Wilson's trip (which was a central part of Tenet's statement and Ari's press briefings that week), were leaks uniquely targeted to Judy Miller. So if there was a unique leak on July 8, it had to be something else. And as Fitzgerald will demonstrate, the one other leak Libby shared with Judy pertains to Valerie Plame's identity.

So let me return to two statements Fitzgerald made at the May 5 hearing regarding how the NIE relates to the July 8 leak. First, Fitzgerald's aim is not to prove that Libby inappropriately leaked the NIE. His aim is to prove that Libby lied about what he said about Valerie Plame.

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. What I'm saying is that, look, that is not the focus of what we are doing and I'm not going to dispute that he was authorized on July 8. I don't know what happened before so I am not going to stipulate that he was authorized on June 23 or July 2. But that's not what the trial is about. The trial is about what happened in the grand jury, you know, lying about the wife.

[snip]

The earlier disclosure to NIE isn't the crux of the case.

And the discussion about the NIE all relates back to Libby's claim that the instruction in his notes, to leak something to Judy Miller, related to the the NIE.

MR. FITZGERALD: Only to the extent that if Mr. Libby had an instruction to tell information to Ms. Miller on July 8 and he's saying the instruction reflected in his notes to tell me Judith Miller refers to the NIE. He says he did not discuss Mr. Wilson's wife that day. To our understand both were discussed.

The NIE leak claims are important because they prove that Libby lied when he said that the instruction in his notes related exclusively to the NIE and had nothing to do with Valerie Plame.

Now, curiously, Fitzgerald has not yet indicted Libby for this lie, the claim that this instruction relates to the NIE. Perhaps he doesn't have the rock-solid evidence this is a lie yet. Or perhaps he's saving this lie for different charges, and perhaps a different person.

Comments

[freepatriot]

so scooter has two different stories, what's new ???

"two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"

or "oh what a wicked net we weave when first we practice to decieve"

scooter never heard these two gems ???

maybe he really is as stupid as his defense claims

[emptywheel]

Here's another interesting point, or question.

We know Libby testified to leaking the NIE in both June and July. But it appears he leaked it on July 2 to a journalist that Fitzgerald is just discovering--and that Wells doesn't appear to readily admit. Does that mean Libby didn't identify who the other journalists he leaked to were, besides Judy? Because that would leave open the possibility that he didn't admit to leaking to Woodward. Which would mean Woodward's bombshell may have hurt Libby even more than I think. Though we can't tell, one way or another about that.

[jwest]

EW,

Libby testified that he released portions of the NIE in June and July that directly contradicted the lies Wilson told to reporters and his NYT Op-Ed. During this time, other people in the administration where working on a parallel path to declassify the entire NIE.

What is the dispute?

Libby testified that he didn’t mention Plame to Judy Miller in June. Miller says the same thing.

Where is the conflict?

Now that Matt Cooper’s testimony is worthless (according to Judge Watson), is this some last ditch effort to enhance the Miller side of the indictment?

Also, Woodward said he knew of Plame well before July 2nd, and that Libby was not the source. Have you discovered something new that disputes that?

[Kagro X]

Are we sure that the go-stop-go sequence doesn't synchronize with the meeting with Woodward (go), then the interim (stop), and then the July 2nd preparation for the meeting with Miller (go)? Or that Fitzgerald's recollection of the six day figure is accurate and ironclad?

[emptywheel]

Um, jwest, I really find it difficult to give wingers reading lessons online. Read the post. It's fairly clear, maybe not the 2nd grade reading level you're used to, but your assertion 1 is clearly addressed in this post, assertion two is false according to Judy's own testimony, assertion three is a gross exaggeration, and assertion four is completely beside the point of the post.

Any other questions?

[emptywheel]

Kagro

It doesn't matter. That's Fitz' point. First, because Libby is simultaneously claiming to have been hyper worried about getting authorization for the Judy leak, but not being sure if he had authorization for the Woodward leak. Second, Libby testified in several ways to the uniqueness of his leak to Judy. Uniqueness does not allow for go stop go on the same kind of leak. Either his claims about uniqueness for the Judy leak are false (and there must be some reason, perhaps reflected in his notes, why he testified to that effect). Or his claims for the multiple leaks are false, which we know they're not because we have concrete evidence of them.

The July 2 date may be corroborated, though, by whatever piece of evidence they have that revealed Libby leaked the NIE on that date. But Fitzgerald clearly doesn't intend to raise the date issue in this trial--it only becomes relevant in an IIPA or conspiracy trial.

[Kagro X]

Are we talking about the same thing here?

Fitzgerald mentions the six days with respect to an authorization "for identification." Leaking findings from the NIE doesn't sound to me like the sort of thing anyone would refer to as an "identification."

[John Casper]

"See, Scooter Libby is simultaneously claiming that the NIE leak was part of a larger campaign, a leak he repeated at least six times. And he's claiming that his leak to Judy was a unique event, an exclusive leak."
So so kewl, emptywheel, thanks for all you do.
"Need I point out that--whatever they were authorizing--they were doing it four days before Joe Wilson's op-ed appeared?"
Probably not for most of your readers, but for me, it really helped.

[SaltinWound]

Wheel, you've been circling this point like a buzzard for months now. I'm glad you finally devoted this post to it. Very interesting, as always.

[jwest]

I failed to recognize that you had joined the Hamsher School of Blogging.

Your post tries to infer something sinister in the timing of the release of portions of the NIE, with my comment pointing out that it was a logical progression based on the events of that time. So, as far as assertion 1, I have to assume that once a subject is speculated on by you, the matter is closed for discussion.

On assertion 2, Fitz is charging that the mention of Plame relates to a July 8th meeting, not the June meeting. Since you are sure Judy unequivocally testified that Libby “outted” Plame in June, perhaps you should notify Fitz so that he could amend his indictment.

You claim assertion 3 is a “gross exaggeration”. This is what I would classify Fitz’s indictment as, but there is no need to get into a semantic game. It’s sufficient to point to Fitz’s immediate and total retreat (cut and run, if you will) regarding Rove just after Watson made his assessment of Cooper’s credibility known.

Assertion 4 regarded the timing of Woodward’s knowledge of Plame. Since Woodward knew of Plame far in advance of Libby’s first contact with reporters on this subject, the idea that reporters brought up the name “Plame” to Libby is easily shown.

I’ll work on the reading comprehension and you try to keep an open mind.

[lilnubber]

KagroX, the term "identification" is, I believe, an error in the transcript. When I first read the transcripts, I couldn't believe all the errors. Surely the DOJ can afford a better court reporting firm?

[Kagro X]

That's certainly possible. Even these excerpts seem to be somehow off-kilter in a number of places. I just attributed it to the inexactness of unscripted speech.

Are we saying that "identification" is the wrong word, accidentally used? Or that the court reporter misunderstood what Fitz said?

[lilnubber]

I believe the court reporter either misunderstood or entered the wrong word. The transcripts are TERRIBLE.

[Pete]

Since Woodward knew of Plame, then somehow magically Libby who was holding a seance that day came to know about it, even though Libby cannot point to any reporter who told him about it.

Is this the Voodoo defense?

[Pete]

And furthermore it must have been the voodoo which cause Libby to go back and forth between learning about Plame from Cheney, then forgetting it, then re-learning it through the spirits, and so on. Brilliant.

[lilnubber]

It should be "declassification."

[emptywheel]

lilnubber and Kagro

I've always attributed that to a Freudian slip. I think it's a correctly transcribed moment where Fitz was saying what he was thinking, rather than what he was arguing.

jwest--reading comprehension:

Assertion 1: The dispute is that Libby is saying the NIE leak to Judy is unique, while he admits he made the same (and therefore not unique) leak to Woodward, the July 2 reporter, the WSJ, and Cooper. Unique doesn't equal not unique. That is the dispute.

Assertion 2: From Judy's own version of her testimony, referring to the June conversation.

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A.

I consider "Mr. Wilson's wife" to be a mention of Plame. Or does Wilson have another wife I don't know about?

Assertion 3: First, the judge's name is Walton, and Walton said there is a slight discrepancy. I suspect he wouldn't consider Cooper claiming to have heard of Plame for the first time a slight discrepancy. So no matter what that slight discrepancy is, it doesn't negate Libby's claim that he was the first to tell Cooper of Plame in spite of the fact that Cooper, indisputably, heard from Rove first. So I highly doubt Cooper's testimony is "worthless."

Assertion 4: The point of this post has nothing to do with when Woodward heard of Plame. The point of this post is that Libby claimed a reference in his notes referred exclusively to the NIE, but several things (just one of which is Woodward's testimony about his conversation with Libby in which Libby didn't mention Plame) make that claim utterly ridiculous.

Any other questions?

[emptywheel]

lilnubber

I agree that logically that's what Fitzgerald should have said. But I strongly suspect that this is Freudian slip and not a court reporter's slip. Most of the other errors are in spelling or grammar or whatnot, not completely unrelated words substituted for each other.

[Kagro X]

You're positive about that? Because the follow-up question is whether it might not be the case that the go-stop-go was with respect to the entire plan, but that the July 2nd authorization is with respect specifically to the identification (to Miller, exclusively) of Plame. The "stop" here would be the stutter-step caused by the monkey wrench issue of the Plame identification.

The explanation here would be that Woodward did indeed identify Plame to Libby, who reported it back at the White House, where it was confirmed, and then handed back to Libby with instructions to pass it on to Miller. Libby then double-checked the legality (clearly hoping that Woodward's prior knowledge would preclude criminal liability), then went ahead.

Of course, that makes it much more difficult to believe that the notes about the Miller meeting refer exclusively to the NIE, which is emptywheel's point. Not impossible, but more difficult. It's plausible, I suppose, that the notes really are about the NIE and not Plame, for which Libby kept only a mental note. But there's still the issue of the testimony that the meeting was to be so sensitive it could only be done outside of the office, where Woodward's meeting had been in his office.

Of course, if the claim is that Woodward brought Plame's name up, then Libby would have had no reason to insist on meeting elsewhere, and would have been caught by surprise, perhaps only then concluding that further meetings should be held away from the offices.

In any case, it should probably be pointed out that Libby's grand jury testimony is admissible in any case, no matter who gets called, so long as Fitz offers the same foundation he's already laid out.

[vachon]

ew,

OK, it's taken me a bit to get off my NIE high horse. For some reason, I considered it the smoking memo and it's taken Froomkin's column today to disabuse me of that notion.

I hate when one of my cherished beliefs goes down in flanes.

[emptywheel]

Oh, I see what you mean, Kagro. They could offer an out that way. I also think they're arguing that the timing of the Grossman conversation is wrong to try to place it after the Woodward discussion (in an attempt to trace this all back to State).

Then a lot more depends on who spoke to Libby first on June 23--Woodward or Judy.

[lilnubber]

OK, now I'll backtrack.

On the first page of the transcript, it says, "Reported by Voice Writing and transcribed using SpeechCAT."

Do the court reporters in Fed.Ct. use stenographic machines? Or those voice deals?

[emptywheel]

A couple of more thoughts, now that France has advanced to the finals.

First, if Wells chooses to take Kagro's advice, then a lot hinges on who that unnamed journalist is on July 2. I think it might be Novak, but that's my own little hobby. But if the journalist is going to testify, it could really be the key damage to the NIE story.

Second, note how Fitzgerald says they didn't follow-up with the NIE. Well, why not, you ask? Why not hammer him on it, so he has another perjury charge. Well, because you don't want to give him the opportunity to recant. Which suggests (only suggests, mind you), that Fitz wasn't really after Rove's perjury all those five times. I really think Fitz used a credible perjury indictment to force Rove to talk.

[zAmboni]

To be fair, something that seems unclear with me (to be honest, I am nowhere on top of every little detail of this case as others here are) dealing with Miller's article that EW quoted in the comments. The way I read the article, if you go to the previous paragraph, it is unclear just what meeting Miller is talking about when she says that Libby talked about Wilson's wife:

Almost two weeks earlier, in an interview with me on June 23, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12, Mr. Libby, who is Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance.

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.

See she starts off talking bout June, then hops to July8/12, but does not specifically say when Libby told her about Wilson's wife. If there are other places where she nailed down when Libby told her about Plame could you point me in the right direction?

Also...Could you please elucidate the importance on why this stuff was happening before Wilson's Op-ed was published?

[zAmboni]

Just to point out why I think my last post is important (to me at least in understanding all of this), is that I follow the post clearly, but was thrown for a bit when ppl were talking about Libby leaking Wilson's wife to Miller in June.

From what I got from the article above:
1) Libby says the whole time-line of leaking is consistant with the declassification of the NIE
2) Fitz says "no way", Libby leaks to at least two people before July 8th, and then when you go to Miller and say "get your exclusive here", and then check to make sure it is kosher to leak this info....
2a) unique is not unique if Libby only discussed the NIE to Miller, which he had already done earlier (Libby lies in his GJ testimony about this)
2b) The information leaked to Miller on July 8 would become unique if he also first leaked word of Wilson's wife at this time. (Libby lies to GJ about not leaking Wilson's wife to Miller)

This is what I was getting from your post and how you think Fitz will play it. If he told Miller about Wilson's wife in June, then why would the July meeting be unique?