Plamemania Countdown: 15 Days

by emptywheel

Jeff and I have been exchanging a bit of neurotic Plame email this January 1, just 15 days short of Scooter Libby's trial. And I think we might be closing in on some outstanding questions. (Normal caveats about speculation definitely apply--and a warning--these weeds are as deep as they get.)

First some background. Jeff and I were emailing about how the report on Wilson's trip might be used. And Jeff had a great find--this passage from a May 19 Fitzgerald response to Libby's motion to compel discovery.

The defendant has identified as potential defense witnesses Richard Armitage, Stephen Hadley, Bill Harlow, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Wilson and seeks documents from “the files of these witnesses – and others – that relate to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger” on the ground that they may aid in preparing to examine these witnesses. The government has produced to defendant all documents received from the Office of the Vice President relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, and all documents received from any source relating to conversations, correspondence, or meetings in which defendant was involved, or which relate to the defendant’s inquiries regarding former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rsp. 8. Moreover, the government has gone beyond its obligations under Rule 16 to produce some additional materials from the OVP, CIA and the State Department that relate generally to Mr. Wilson’s trip. Id.; 5/5/06 Tr. 49. [my emphasis]

Basically, Libby is trying to get documents from people like Marc Grossman and Richard Armitage and others relating to Wilson's trip so he can claim they have reason to fear prosecution. But Fitzgerald is saying he will only give documents relating to conversations in which Libby was involved, since the trial is about Libby's alleged perjury, not Armitage's alleged leaking. He's not going to give all of Grossman's and Armitage's materials. But then there's that reference to a section of the May 5 court transcript, which implies the cited passage deals with additional materials from OVP, CIA, or State. Here's the passage with my commentary:

THE COURT: In reference to, and I have tried to map this out in my mind as to how we deal with this issue regarding the various witnesses. It would seem to me, and I think from my point of view is the easiest. If there are individuals who the government has documentation on and those individuals had discussions with Mr. Libby or Mr. Libby had discussions with them about the issue of Mr. Wilson's trip and, in specific, Mr. Wilson's wife, and those individuals also spoke to the press about this issue and the government intends to call as a witness, is the government taking the position that if we have somebody who fits in that category that the government would not have an obligation to produce documentation related to such individual? This is an individual who talked to Mr. Libby about this whole issue, also made a statement to the press about this issue, and the government intends to call as a witness to testify during this trial.

In this passage, Walton describes someone whose materials Libby's team still wants. The person:

• Discussed Wilson's trip--and Plame--with Libby
• Made a statement to the press about Wilson's trip
• Is a government witness

Note, if Walton has his details straight, this passage could refer to Cathie Martin (whom Libby's own testimony describes as taking the lead on responding to the press before the July 12 Air Force 2 meeting) and Ari Fleischer (we know they spoke on July 7). But if it refers to Grossman, it means Grossman made a statement to the press that we haven't heard of. That is--either Walton is confused, Grossman spoke to the press, or this doesn't refer to Grossman).

But if we connect it to the passage Jeff found--which says this who exchange relates to "OVP, CIA, or State," then it presumably rules out Fleischer as someone unrelated to the named departments (though it suggest Harlow might be a candidate--though he is never named as having a conversation with Libby about the Wilsons). In other words, there is some evidence that this passage either reveals an unknown Grossman contact with the press--or this passage likely refers to Cathie Martin.

Fitzgerald responds that the government has provided everything except Jencks (which, of course, the government has now provided, having turned it over on December 22).

MR. FITZGERALD: I think we have produced that. I think the only thing we haven't produced is, putting aside the Jencks/Giglio, like the grand jury or 302s. But if there are documents or emails or things, showing, you know documents showing that Mr. or Ms. Ex spoke to Mr. Libby during the relevant time about the relevant topic and they are calling as a witness, we have produced that.

THE COURT: Do you believe you have all of that, Mr. Wells? I know it is hard to say. He says he's given you that, anybody who would fit in that category, and it would be my view that obviously you have a right to have that. [my emphasis--note the use of both genders of salutation]

Walton asks whether Wells has everything he wants, and Wells references someone about whom he has written a sealed affadavit--he's looking for all the evidence of that person's contact with the press.

MR. WELLS: One second, Your Honor.

(Pause.)

MR. WELLS: Your Honor, could you ask Mr. Fitzgerald if he is saying with respect to a particular individual who is the subject of a sealed affidavit by me, is he saying he's given us everything concerning that individual's [page 49 begins] conversations with the press?

THE COURT: I don't know what individual you are talking about and I'm not asking counsel to reveal that since it is under seal but --

I have always assumed that this affadavit related to Armitage or Fleischer. But if it is a direct follow from the previous discussion, it rules out both of them, Armitage since he won't be called as a government witness, and Fleischer because he's not OVP, CIA, or State. Again, Grossman and Martin seem to be more likely candidates.

Fitzgerald responds generally that he has given over everything that relates to contemporary documentation about conversations with Libby

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not revealing Jencks Act material or Giglio material so let me take a case removed from this case so I could just be vaguer. If there were a person with a cooperation agreement or impeachment material and had a long rap sheet with six arrests and they gave a 302 for an FBI interview and they went in the grand jury, I wouldn't turn that material over now. But if that same person was someone who had spoken to Mr. Libby, spoken to the press and was being a witness and at the time they wrote down an email that said, just had a meeting with Mr. Libby, sent it off to someone and we looked for the email and we found it and we had it or they wrote a memo to file at a time which was not an FBI interview after the investigation started but a memo to file at the time or handwritten notes and we have that, we've given that over.

We are not sitting on documents or emails or other things calling it Jencks because it was created at the time of the events. We would only sit on Jencks/Giglio.

But then Wells catches Fitzgerald's caveat--he's only referring to materials directly relating to Libby. So then he goes after anything mentioning Plame, whether or not it relates to Libby.

MR. WELLS: He qualified it by emails that specifically mention Mr. Libby. But we would take the position, Your Honor, that if that particular individual has emails concerning Mrs. Wilson, whether they are sent to Mr. Libby, and if that individual also had discussions with the press as part of how you described the situation, we are to get all of the emails or memos or notes or whatever that that individual has concerning Mrs. Wilson regardless of whether they went to Mr. Libby because it is highly relevant.

THE COURT: You are saying that that would be Giglio, right?

MR. WELLS: No, not necessarily, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It seems to me that would go to the issue of whether they would have some motive to curry favor with the government because they also had revealed information that conceivably they could be charged with.

MR. WELLS: It also could lead to discoverable evidence and for purposes of cross-examination. It wouldn't necessarily mean just Giglio. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald didn't mean to carve out that piece.

Which is where, presumably, Fitzgerald discusses what he referenced in the later filing, the fact that he gave over everything that would incriminate his witnesses except a rap sheet or FBI/grand jury testimony, even though some of it would be Giglio.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is moot. I agree with Your Honor it would be Giglio. But if we don't have it, where we had it we've given it over. We haven't held back if it's not testimony or not impeachment by a rap sheet or something else. It's not like we took the emails and said the ones that discussed topics X and Y from July 2003 he gets. The other ones we sit on until later. So it is moot.

The whole point of this is that, taking Jeff's passage and this transcript passage together, it seems to suggest the sealed affadavit Wells filed doesn't relate the most obvious candidates: Armitage, Rove, or Fleischer. Rather, the most likely candidates are Grossman and Martin.

Did Grossman speak to the press? I can't think of a known conversation he'd be a source for. Pincus' source was in the White House. And Phelps and Royce's source is intelligence. Perhaps he spoke to Cooper? In any case, we have no known evidence of him speaking to the press.

So unless there's another conversation, it seems like Cathie Martin is the most likely subject of this affadavit.

---

So now that we're speculating wildly, let's try out a wildarsed scenario, one which would answer two key unknown details. Let's pretend that Martin is the subject of this affadavit (unknown detail #1). Here's how she'd fit:

Discussed Wilson's trip--and Plame--with Libby
The indictment tells us that:

Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

So we know that she did say something to Libby--and that she'll be a witness to him knowing Plame worked at the CIA before he claimed to learn it from Russert "as if it were new." Wells would want any records she has of this conversation, of course, but he also wants to impeach Martin, so he's likely to want anything else on Martin that might make her a potential target of the investigation, such as the details of the conversation with the CIA official about Plame.

Made a statement to the press about Wilson's trip
We don't actually know whom Martin spoke to. But Libby testified that in the July 12 meeting (which took place mid-day, remember), Dick and Libby took Martin off the point-person role in responding to the media about Wilson and Libby took over.

This leaves a tantalizing possibility. What if Martin is Pincus' source (unknown detail #2)--but she spoke with him before that July 12 flight? Jeff pointed out via email that Pincus' source botched the talking points.

Whoever Pincus' source was totally botched the talking points: his source told him that the White House had ignored the Wilson report because it was a boondoggle - directly implying that the White House had knowledge at the time of its production of the Wilson trip and its results, which was WAY off the reservation of the official story the White House and OVP were pushing in July 2003.  The story that OVP and WH were pushing was that Wilson's trip was NOT known about, the report NOT received, back in 2002 - that OVP at least did not know about it until June 2003 or so.  And that was more or less the same at the WH more broadly.

That is, Libby and Dick would have reason to be pissed with Pincus' source, because she would have effectively admitted that OVP did know about Wilson's trip, contrary to all their claims. If Martin had botched the talking points on Thursday morning, it might explain why they would change point-people at that mid-day flight. It also might explain why (as Libby has revealed) she sat watching Libby's conversation to Cooper later that day.

Is a government witness
This is the easy part. Martin is witness to the Cooper conversation (which explains why Fitzgerald thought he had enough evidence to indict on that charge). And she's witness that Libby knew of Plame's identity sometime not long before he claimed not to know it. And, she's witness to whatever went on on Air Force 2, which seems to implicate Dick directly.

As I've pointed out before, Martin is likely to be one of the most important witnesses in this trial--given what we know (that is--assuming she isn't Pincus' source), she would be very hard to impeach. Unless, of course, she was a journalist's source on July 12. I've also suggested, of course, that having Dick testify might be the easiest way to impeach Martin--particularly if he was witness to a discussion in which she admitted talking to Pincus.

All of this is wildarsed speculation, of course. Though, if it is remotely correct, it has a bright side. It would mean that Martin's testimony might be badly discredited. But it would mean that Ari's testimony--including the detail that Libby was calling Plame's identity "hush hush" the day before he leaked it to Judy--would not be the one Wells was busy impeaching with his sealed affadavit.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Two more details.

First, Pincus makes it clear that his source could be male or female:

(In writing this story, I am using the masculine pronoun simply for convenience).

Second, remember unknown fact #3: someone used Wilson's trip report on February 4, 2003, to justify the Niger claims. The most likely candidates are Libby, Hadley, or State. It'd be kind of gravy if we learned that this person was in fact Libby, huh? because it would expose him as a lying sack.

[space]

Just a lurker with a question.

Leaving aside for a moment the present issues of lying, perjury, and obstruction of justice, I never understood why the OVP and WH was so insistent back in July 2003 that Cheney didn't know about and didn't send Wilson in 2002. Why did they see that position as being so important politically?

On one hand, I can understand that they wouldn't want to admit that Cheney knew the CIA had "debunked" the yellowcake claims. However...

It seems to me there are two scenarios that could have played out:

A. Cheney Knew
1. Cheney pushes Niger/yellowcake story.
2. CIA raises questions about the veracity of that story.
3. CIA sends someone (possibly at Cheney's behest)
4. Wilson goes and debunks story
5. Cheney hears the report but discounts the trip as a "boondoggle"

B. Cheney didn't know
1. Cheney pushes Niger/yellowcake story
2. CIA raises questions about the veracity of that story
3. Cheney ignores CIA's questions, doesn't ask CIA to send someone, and doesn't ask any agency or anybody to look confirm veracity of Niger story.
4. CIA sends Wilson on own
5. Wilson debunks story
6. Cheney doesn't know in 2002 but hears the report in 2003, and THEN discounts the trip as a "boondoggle"

I just never understood how scenario B made Cheney look better. He wanted to look like a guy who did NOTHING when the CIA came and questioned the yellowcake story? It seems to me that the burden was never on the CIA and Wilson to disprove a story before we went to war. The burden was on the WH and OVP to prove their case...which Cheney adamantly insists that he refused to do. What gives?

[emptywheel]

I think the Cheney knew story is a little more damaging. When you refer to "Cheney knew" you're actually referring to the content of the trip report from Wilson's trip. That is, if you say, "Cheney knew about Wilson's report," then you're saying he knew (and didn't dispute) Wilson's results.

Recall that the Kristof and Pincus stories effectively said Wilson debunked the forgeries (the op-ed did not--and Wilson specifically said he hadn't seen the forgeries). So "Cheney knew" meant that "Cheney knew the Niger allegation was based on forgeries but continued to use the allegation anyway."

But I think there's another underlying issue, assuming either Hadley or Libby was the one who used Wilson's trip report as support FOR the allegations. They knew they were full of it--it was basically a childish effort to sustain the Niger allegation after the larger claim--that Iraq had BOUGHT uranium--had been soundly debunked. So even though Wilson's trip report didn't mention forgeries, there was the embarrassing fact that Libby/Hadley got caught making a BS argument to the IAEA (the pointedly didn't include Wilson's report when they gave more "evidence" to Senator Levin).

And there always is the possibility that Cheney DID know (even though Wilson didn't report on it) that the Niger allegations were based on forgeries. eriposte at Left Coaster is going to have a post on this shortly, I think. But there is significant reason to believe that Hadley was warned about the forgeries on September 8, 2002. So it may be that--although Wilson never alleged directly that he had disproved the forgeries--THEY knew they were forgeries, so they had been caught by mistake.

[SaltinWound]

If Martin talked to Pincus on the morning of the 12th, from whom did Libby and Cheney hear that she blew the talking points? From Martin herself? Or had the story appeared already by the time they were on Air Force 2? I guess I'm questioning why/how she would let Libby and Cheney know she screwed up. I'm thinking human nature would be cover, unless she didn't know she screwed up, I suppose. Of course, if they knew from the Pincus story, this is moot. Meanwhile, I'm still pissed about Armitage being the leaker. We had so many more elegant, satisfying theories over the course of the last year and a half. Imagine how much fun we'd be having right now if it had been someone like Bolton.

[katie Jensen]

Again, very satisfying discussion. With visions of treasonous traitors dancing in my head.

[emptywheel]

Saltin

I think the logic would be she told them herself (which is the point about Dick testifying--if Dick is testifying, among other things, to discredit her, then it makes sense that she said something incriminating.

[Alice]

January 15 is Martin Luther King Monday.

[kim]

If Cheney and Martin disagree about an event (a discussion of Plame or Wilson for instance), can Fitz vigorously pursue this in court? Could Cheney somehow wind up with a perjury charge due to his trial testimony in the Libby case? As a non-lawyer, and if it is convenient, I'd appreciate a simple answer about this EW. Thanks.

[emptywheel]

I doubt it'd be that simple, kim. Remember, Libby's lawyers are calling Cheney and he is presumably testifying as a friendly witness.

[tryggth]

Sorry for this off topic, but I ran across this and it struck me as something amusing you folks might enjoy.

While searching though old Stephen Hayes articles (to see when he first references Niger uranium) I ran across this pdf at the PNAC site.

Check out the "pull quote" in the middle of page 4. Its a little odd.

[Sara]

EW -- have we ever made a hard identification of the person whom Novak accosted on the street on July 8th to whom he revealed elements of the campaign against Wilson (use his wife's ID to get at and smear Joe Wilson) who then went to Wilson's DC office and delivered Novak's message? In turn, Wilson then moved to attempt to get CNN to prevent Novak moving forward with smear/disinformation campaign, and within a day Wilson personally confronts Novak on the matter? Wilson also apparently lets CIA know that Valerie may be being used in such a smear/disinformation effort in the same timeframe -- on or about July 8th. Do we know in any reliable way who this person is? Do we know how it was that Novak picked this essential stranger out on the street to deliver this message? How did Novak know or predict that this individual would immediately tell his friend, Joe Wilson, what he had been told by Novak?

My guess has always been Marc Grossman, simply because in his book Joe goes out of his way to lay the predicate that they were friends and had worked together when Joe was Ambassador to NATO, and Marc was Ambassador to Turkey, and they had to deal with complications of using Turkish bases for the air campaign over N. Iraq. (Northern No-Fly Zone came under NATO command, Southern Zone under Central Command.) It was also when Valerie and Joe were just beginning to seriously date, and Grossman could well have known about this. In fact Grossman might even have known Valerie's Covert Status as his position as Ambassador might have involved his knowing this? (who knows, we don't really know what Valerie actually did.) What we do know is that Grossman and Wilson were brother FSO's, had served together, and were of approximately the same rank and seniority, being professional Career Ambassadors during the first Clinton Administration, responsible for a small but significant part of the US Iraq policy execution. (protecting the Kurds.) So for whatever it is worth, I suspect Joe's July 8th informant was Marc Grossman.

[Jodi]

My God!?

How many angels were dancing on that pin head?

Again, I ask. How is a jury going to weed through all this?

[lukery]

Sara, Leopold apparently found 'the stranger':

This is the first time the man who met Novak on the street has spoken out publicly about his interaction with Novak three years ago. He was interviewed by Truthout several times over the past two months and has requested anonymity for fear of retribution for disclosing his role in the leak investigation. Truthout has confirmed the man's identity with former Ambassador Wilson. He is a former magazine publisher, and currently works as a consultant, mainly with private businesses helping local governments improve their infrastructure - such as building pipelines to improve water flow in one municipality. The man no longer lives in Washington, DC.

[freepatriot]

so let's see if I got this straight

scooter wants to introduce evidence of ANOTHER conversation he had about Plame before he spoke to potatohead ???

that would be 8 conversations, not counting the notes and dead eye dick's doodlings

how does introducing another conversation help scooter ???

[Miguel]

Marc Grossman is a crook- an absolute criminal- who has leaked information to Turkey for money.

[looseheadprop]

EW

NOt sure if you saw my back track on a rpior thread. I condirmed "with a source close to the the investigation" (I always wanted to use that term-*g*) that the jury selection will begin on January 16th with the Opening Statements to begin "immediatly thereafter" which probably means Jan 22, but could be as early as Jan 18th.

This uncertainty aas to date is screwing up my ability to make plane reservations, so I am chaffing a bit.

[Easpi]

All those people mentioned, except for Powell, had time. So, why would they be different?

[looseheadprop]

Jodi

How is the jury going to wade through all this?
Pat Fitz has presnted MUCH more convoluted cases than this to juries before, and won. This case, the actual indicted case, is actually pretty plain vanilla and straight forward.

[smiley]

lukery: You may not know this, but you do a disservice to TNH by citing Leopold as a credible source on Plame. He predicted a Rove indictment at the end of 2005, stated that he had a high-level whitehouse source who confirmed it... and then the indictment never materialized. He has been in verbal sparring matches here with various folks over this issue and did not comport himself professionally in those encounters. It is still unclear whether he was used as an unwitting mouthpiece or if instead he just made the whole thing up.

I'm not picking on you, just giving you the wink- you should probably read anything Leopold writes with a driveway-sized helping of salt. For all I know this claim of his is true and correct- but I'm reluctant to believe anything he writes without additional attribution, and I think you'll find the same skepticism prevails here.

[smiley]

Hi Jodi!

Fitz will present his case this way:

1. Libby told the grand jury the sky was green.
2. Everyone else says the sky was blue.
3. Behold, the sky ACTUALLY IS blue!
4. Libby knew the sky was blue.

Therefore, Libby knowingly lied to the grand jury.

Everything else is red herrings and wrong paths. Sure, the Keep Dick Out Of Jail team is going to fight hard to walk the jury down those paths. But Fitzgerald's case is very easy- Libby lied, he knew he was lying, he's still lying now, and anyone who agrees with his story is ALSO lying. Your Honor, doesn't it dishonor your courtroom to have the accused standing here, telling bald-faced lies to the jury? Your Honor, do you think that the accused has deceived his counsel too? It would certainly be unfortuntate if his attorneys were knowingly misleading the court.

[Cae]

Compel discovery of CIA operations officers? Grossman and Wilson may be FSOs, but so was Joe Wilson's dad in Spain where he grew up. He was probably an CIA operations officer and his Peace Corps service, meeting Plame, and follow through with an CIA operations officer is clearer. They are both legacies. He is FS(CIA) and she is AF, NSA(which is DOD).

Is it possible other intelligence agencies are attempting to compel discovery with Plame, Joe Wilson-his dad in Spain-to show that Plame's identity was actually leaked by her in 'Vanity Fair' with the intent of having actions taken by persons in Iraq and Spain?

The terror pattern is the same as an operations officer using informants and the response in Iraq and Spain would have been expected with the background of Plame as a CIA operations officer.

As far as potatoe heads and potatoe houses, if you met Plame there was a problem. Alot of those who did in Iraq are dead. Plame was the 'kiss of death' and alot of people ran rather than be in speaking distance of her; Scooter was in trouble every time he met her.

[John Casper]

smiley, thanks very much.

[Jodi]

smiley, looseheadprop, others,

I understand that what Libby told the FBI and grandjury was incorrect but his defense seems to be that his error was (take your pick) accidental, a mistake, a miscommunication, a lack of understanding, a lack of sleep, a really hectic schedule, his bad time of the month, or some such. i.e. not intentional

And then I see all the messed up murky/muddy/twisted/convoluted web of reporters/spokesman/leakers/people saying this and saying that, and not sure of time, what, who, where, contradictions, etc. that are being discussed by emptywheel and others in this very blog and others, and I see a real mess of facts/ideas going to the jury.

Sure Fitzs says it is a simple case that Libby said something that wasn't true. Then Libby's high powered team says But, ..... but, ....., but .......

I honestly don't think that Libby deliberately leaked Plame, but yes what he said to the FBI and the GJ wasn't true. So the question now seems to be one of intent.

i.e. If you say the King is in the counting house, but he really is out in the barn milking maids, you are wrong, but did you lie to the Queen, or were you misled/mistaken yourself. That is how I see this case.

[emptywheel]

Jodi

I think I ought to explain my perspective on justice. A top official can be held to justice in one of three ways: via the Courts, via public opinion, and via Congressional oversight.

The latter has limits, particularly if the "crime" was committed by a REpublican in the last 6 years.

The Courts have inherent limits--burden of proof, Constitutional limits, and so on. Fitzgerald, for this charge, has dramatically limited his charges so as to avoid some of the minefields that prior prosecutions of similar crimes have fallen on. Therefore, as lhp says, his case is really pretty simple, so long as Walton keeps the trial focused on the charges at had, as so far he has done. As a result, the jury won't hear a fraction of the things I talk about on this blog.

Public opinion, though, is an area where blogs have instrumental in the Plame thing--largely because the DC press corps has an incentive not to complain when they get a leak, even if it is an illegal one. Much of what I do on this blog is attempt to do what the press corps appears not to want to do--really look at the available information to discover what really happened. Fitz may not be able (politically or legally, both of which likely function here) to prosecute on these issues, but as citizens it is our job to hold people accountable nevertheless.

What I have shown on this blog is that there was a great deal of intentional planning to smear Joe Wilson. That's stuff not even Libby's lawyers are refuting. Does that include information on Plame? Well, there's also a great deal of circumstantial evidence that that did include Plame's identity. Basically, Libby and Cheney are telling a story that reeks with the same odor as their justification for war. It's a totally implausible story. I may not be able to prove that Cheney ordered the leaking of Plame's identity. But I will do my part to show that an abundance of evidence suggests he did order her identity to be leaked.

[smiley]

John Casper: I am pleased to serve.