« Follow-up On Polling About Escalation | Main | Pelosi Culture »

January 10, 2007

Comments

I am so happy to have bought your book for myself in nj and my best friend in houston; we will follow the trial together with your help. Thank you, ew, and many wishes for your continued success.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine how Libby got himself into this mess! He is presumably smart and sophisticated enough to be working at the White House at the highest levels, but from what I've seen and heard, he may have a law degree, but I wouldn't want him defending me, due to the poor job he is doing defending himself. I'll repeat myself from the below thread, where did he buy his law degree, at Sears? Why did he leave himself no wiggle room. I'm sure college dropout Karl Rove gave himself wiggle room, and he appears to have completely wiggled out of his loose lips problem. I just can't understand it.

My other point is that, to me it is totally unbelieveable that he could have talked to so many people on this subject, and yet forgot that he once knew Valerie Plame's identity as Joe Wilson's wife when he talked to Russert. Then to point a finger at Tim Russert, who is not only a journalist with a lot of credibility, but is also a lawyer who would understand the full implications of perjuring himself is utterly outrageous. Plus, Russert would have no apparent motive to lie about not telling Libby about Plame. If anything, he might actually have had a motive to lie the other way...I mean look at Woodward's behavior when he discovered that he was the first journalist to have been told about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. He couldn't wait to get the information to the public, regardless that he would become embroiled in the legal tangle of this case. Look at Andrea Mitchell's behavior when she believed that other journalists may have known something that she now claims not to have known. But she sure appeared to claiming that she, too, was privy to the information, with her statements about "All the journalist knew!" She had to backpedal wildly to keep from being drawn in. Unless Libby can actually convince the jury that he is an idiot, it would seem that he's sunk, but then, I guess stranger things have happened.

scooter libby had EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSAYIONS with government officials, who WERE NOT WOODWARD, about Valerie Plame

June 11 or 12: Marc Grossman June 11: Roger Grenier June 12: Dick Cheney June 14: Craig Schmall shortly after June 19: Eric Edelman sometime in this period: Cathie Martin July 7: Ari Fleischer sometime after July 6: David Addington

and then when he was asked about his conversations about Valerie Plame, he mistakenly misremembered A SINGLE CONVERSATION WITH BOB WOODWARD AS BEING A CONVERSATION WITH POTATOHEAD ???

so how does scooter explain his failure to remember EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ???

As LBJ would say: that dog don't hunt

I would just underline that Fitzgerald seems to have structured the charge so that even if Russert did tell Libby about Plame, Libby still lied insofar as he testified that he was surprised by the information and was hearing it as though he were learning for the first time. I presume part of the point is to make the charge as strong as possible, but also part of the point is that Libby's alleged lie about being surprised goes right to the key question of how he learned about Plame's employment, and therefore what he passed on about it.

At the same time, I do think that, as long as Libby's defense can get all reference to Libby's leak of the NIE to Woodward kept out of the trial, they will likely argue that Libby may just have confused hearing from Russert with hearing from Woodward. And that could presumably work with the jury. The problem with it - in the real world, if not in the trial - is that that would mean there was only a period of little more than two weeks between the time that Cheney told Libby about Plame - and Libby noted it down in his notes - and that Libby would have heard from Woodward, which makes the idea that Libby forgot about Cheney telling him and wasn't even reminded of it by the conversation with the journalist harder to believe.

But again, that may not matter for the purposes of Libby's defense.

I usually just stick to the facts of this case, but here's a little speculation:

what if Ari testifies about scooter's "Wilson" scrap book ???

wouldn't that kinda destroy all of scooter's defense ???

I stand by my bet that scooter is going for an insanity plea, or an incompetent council appeal

no other action fits the evidence

unless scooter thinks a DC jury will buy the repugnican idea of "Up Is Downism"

kinda hard to say you "heard something as if it were new information" when you had EIGHT CONVERSATIONS about the topic, took NOTES during some of those conversations, and your main witness TOTALLY REFUTES YOUR CLAIMS

maybe a DC jury can be as delusional as the freepi, but I doubt it

Wait a second. How do you draw the conclusion from Wooodward's testimony, that it in any way backs Libby's? Neither Woodward nor Russert recall speaking about
Plame to Libby. Fitzgerald is going to attack this so mercilessly, that I don't even think Libby will be allowed to take the stand.

Libby will take the stand, definitely (otherwise Walton is going to be utterly furioius at him for taking two months of CIPA time that was all premised on Libby testifying).

And while I don't think the Woodward stuff by itself damages the case, I'm just thinking of what Libby's team will do. It really really really doesn't pay to forget that Ted Wells is a brilliant lawyer, just like Fitz. And all he has to do is create doubt.

If both Woodward and Russert testify that they don't recall speaking of Plame to Libby, what possible doubt could there be? Another thing. Woodward did remember that Armitage spoke to him about Plame. How could he possibly not remember whether he spoke to Libby about Plame?

Slightly OT - EW do you think David Corn was the recipient of Novak's "Wilson is an asshole" diatribe?

Getting the book from Amazon. Thanks for all your tireless efforts to drain this swamp!

Additional Libby testimony related to Russert

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that he had told you back in June, June 12th or before, prior to the Pincus article, that his wife worked in the functional office of Counterproliferation of the CIA. Correct?

Q.So when you say, that after we learned that his worked at the Agency, that became a question. Isn't it to say that you already knew it from June 12th or earlier?

A. I believe by this week I no longer remembered that. I had forgotten it. And I believe that because when it was told to me on July 10, a few days after this article, it seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time. When I knew it when I heard.

[snip]


A. No, no, I'm not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife -- that reporters were telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation then with the Vice-President either late on the llth or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that. When I had that conversation I had forgotten about the earlier conversations in which he told me about -- reflected in my notes that we went over this morning, in early June, before the Pincus article, when he had told me that the wife worked at the CIA. I had just forgotten it.

Q. And you just affixed the, the person -- who did you speak to on July 10th or llth that you recalled learning again, thinking it was for the first time, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. Tim Russert of NBC News, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News.

REDACTED

[snip]

Q. And from July 6th, when the Novak -- July 6, when the Wilson piece appears, until July 12, when you were talking to reporters after Air Force Two, do you recall any conversation during that week where Vice-President Cheney observed or had it brought to his attention that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. I certainly don't recall any discussion about that prior to the Russert/Novak conversations when I learned about the wife, what I thought was the first time. And I don't recall, as I told you before, whether we discussed that on the plane that day.


REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL filed 5/24/06
Exhibits A & B

... scooter libby had EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSATIONS with government officials...

Um, I believe you're confusing this with the phone sex he had with Judy Miller on July 12th.

I believe by this week I no longer remembered that. I had forgotten it. And I believe that because when it was told to me on July 10, a few days after this article, it seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time.

Oh Ari. Oh Judy. Oh David. You have stabbed me in the back.

I could not have foreseen it.

And on post July 6 dates. That especially hurts.

--I. Lewis Libby

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

For anyone who would like to get a closer look at "Mr. Republican" Ken Duberstein (Armitage's 'good buddy'), apparently he will be interviewed on Charlie Rose tonight along with (if anyone can stomach it) William PNAC Kristol, to assess Bush's latest product pitch... Duberstein's level of loyalty to Bush at this stage might be an interesting tell (Duberstein was right at the front of the line with campaign cash for the Joseph Lieberman's fall Neocon Party re-election campaign). [Rose doesn't do free transcripts, as I recall, so watching or recording is the only route to catching his guests.]

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

Particularly since he made a point of saying the conversation was after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NYT on July 7th.

Particularly since he made a point of saying the conversation was after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NYT on July 7th

July 6th actually

Walton filed the Rules of Order for the trial today.

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

To be clear, in the real world, it is preposterous. But in the context of the trial, Libby only needs to achieve reasonable doubt, and all he needs to argue, more or less, is something like this: recollecting events that were marginal to the overall arc of my very important and death-defying life several months after the fact, I made a basic error or memory in confusing Woodward on June 27 with Russert on July 10, and from there, I did the very natural thing of reconstructing everything else around it, which produce a whole bunch of false information but it was all innocent, and I'm not on trial for those specific false statements anyway. What's more, to make my story more plausible, here for your consideration is the very dean of the Washington press corps, who took down a Republican president, so no friend of mine, to testify that during that very conversation on June 27, he had notes in his hands that referred to Wilson's wife, and what's more, he says it's possible that he did mention it to me (that's true, he did say that, by the way).

Now, presumably, Fitzgerald is prepared for that, and has questions for Woodward like, "You say it's possible. But there's nothing in your notes reflecting Libby saying anything about it, and you testified that you would certainly have noted it down, correct? Which means that Libby did not say anything, correct? Which means that if you said something about WIlson's wife, he said absolutely nothing in response, correct? Now, you've said it's possible. Anything is possible, correct? In addition to what we've gone through, do you have any recollection of saying anything about her to Libby? none, you say? None whatsoever? Not even maybe? N, how would you estimate the probability that you said something to Libby about Wilson's wife? As close to zero as is possible, is that what you say? Thank you."

Or whatever.

Whenever. :) Thanks, Polly.

By the way, my understanding was that the motion hearing was supposed to continue today, dealing with the motions in limine, and perhaps the new CIPA stuff? But I've seen not a single report on any such thing, and I'd think reporters would be gearing up for the trial. Anybody know?

Same here, Jeff. I've been keeping a look-out for any brief synopsis of today's proceedings, but haven't seen a thing. I take that as a sign that things are proceeding on schedule; any news favorable to Libby regarding a CIPA delay would have hit the wires lickety-split, I figure. Also, the Rules of Order that Polly posted above definitely make it sound like things are on track.

At a minimum, today was supposed to a Status/Scheduling Conference, and some media must have been there. But they're keeping the details to themselves, if so. Thanks to emptywheel and FDL, though, that won't be the case much longer. [It's going to be a mighty interesting and distracting scene in that First Floor Media Center where the live laptop blogging will be allowed to take place (for credentialed press pass holders anyway), what with all the corporate media milling about... I really do appreciate the fact that Judge Walton actually wrote the word "blogging" in his Rules of Order. Right on.]

I think freepatriot is right. Libby is dead in the water. He had multiple conversations about Plame before he spoke with any reporters. The phone interview with Woodward occured on the same day, June 23, that he spoke with Miller. If the meeting with Miller occurred before his interview with Woodward then Libby is finished:

On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7.
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8.
Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
4
9.
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
10.
On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger afteran aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.
11.
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.
12.
On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” Among other things, the article questioned the “sixteen words” and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
5
13.
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that therewouldbe complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
14.
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
The July 6 “Op Ed” Article by Wilson
15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson. Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show “Meet the Press.” In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip.
6
LIBBY’s Actions Following Wilson’s July 6 “Op Ed” Column
16.
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.
17.
On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
18.
Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip.
19.
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 Judge Walton considers certain bloggers competent and intelligent enough to follow and comment upon his case? And making space for them? (as professionals sitting in a room rather than making a negotiable hazard of the hallways) Impressive and most excellent! :)

Libby must testify if he has any hope of convincing the jury that he has a rare form of bipolar disease: brilliant right-hand man to the most powerful man* in the country one hour and "nincompoop nellie" with a mind like a plastic sieve the next. If he doesn't take the stand and testify under oath in front of them, not only will the Judge be irritated, but the jurors will believe that Libby is hiding and obstructing. Like a man building a fence around a cesspool: he might obscure a direct view, but the stench will be obvious a mile away.

*Cheney runs the government, Bush struts around doing photo-ops.

now I'm a straigh man for Swopa ???

and that's considered a promotion in my neighborhood

life could be worse

I could be scooter libby

The only sense I can make of the Cooper charges is that Libby told a lie within a lie, a veritable chinese box of lies. He claims that he was relaying information about Plame from other reporters to Cooper. Apparently, not only did Libby never make this statement, according to Cooper, but the statement is itself a lie. Russert and Woodward will seemingly deny they recall having told Libby about Plame. Libby had already disseminated the info about Plame to Miller seemingly before he had a chance to learn of it from any reporter. It is definitively established that he had already obtained the info about Plame from numerous goverment officals. So the fact that he was merely relaying info from reporters is lie number one. Lie number two is that he never actually made this statement to Cooper. In other words what he lied about saying to Cooper is itself a lie.

Honestly it has taken forever for these details to come together for me. But I think I've got it. Libby's lie truly does put a cabosh on the conspiracy theory. But if Fitz can establish legally, that scooter lied, the conspiracy becomes a viable explanation. Libby is the finger holding back the water in the dike. And thank you so much for these posts. I just almost want to sqeal with delight whenever there is a post on plame.

I've been following the case for the past few months and I have a few questions I'm hoping some of you can shed light on.
1. What were the charges Fitz contemplated charging Rove with?
2. Do we know whether Fitz offered a plea deal to Libby?
3. How do the lies Libby alledgedly told protect either himself or Cheney (or others) from prosecution under the IIPA?

I look forward to reading your responses.

1. Fitz contemplated false statements and perjury charges based on his denying the Cooper conversation.

2. We don't know whether Fitz offered a plea deal. There were reports of lots of lawyers negotiating madly before the GJ gave out and I believe there were reports of Libby refusing to do anything that involved jail time.

3. If Fitzgerald were able to prove that Cheney ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity, he would have intent and prior knowlege, two key aspects to the IIPA (though he would be in a constitutional quandry regarding whether Cheney could declassify Plame's identity without telling her first).

Excellent summary.

Stray thoughts - however weak you think Judy Miller may be, I bet she will be weaker. *IF* the defense is allowed to wander there, they may explore the fact that both she and Richard Armitage were in the Aspen Institute (with Libby, natch). I can't imagine why she would *not* have called him on the Niger story (if memory serves, she certainly had senior State officals in earlier stories, but I can't remember if she ever quoted him directly.)

And given her haze about possible other Plame conversations, and the apparent fact that she spoke about Plame with others, a Miller-Armitage link could really set back her notion that she thinks she first heard about Plame from Libby.

Plus, Russert would have no apparent motive to lie about not telling Libby about Plame. If anything, he might actually have had a motive to lie the other way...

First, it is not clear that he did *lie* - the excerpt from his grand jury testimony that appeared in some footnote or other suggests he was as evasive there as in his public statements. Hard to believe he gulled Fitzgerald, but all we have is one excerpt plus an indictment. And as has been noted, even if he did tell Libby about Plame, so what?

Secondly, the motives would be to protect other sources by simply disavowing all knowledge of Plame, and to preserve the apparent integrity of their show - since Andrea Mitchell gave Wilson the open mike on July 6, 2003 (she guest-hosted MTP in Tim's absence) and did *not* disclose an obviously news-worthy tidbit that maybe Wilson's pro-CIA leanings had a spousal component, well, that is bad journalism worth concealing.

Maybe. At this point, Mitchell and Russert have a story, they are sticking to it, and there are not notes or emails to contradict them.

Well. I have thought that Addington will be hard to get around. Cooper and Miller will be laughed off the stand. The rap on Fleischer will be that he took immunity on his leak to Pincus which was inspired by his reading of the INR memo, and then exaggerated his lunch with Libby.

Oh - shouldn't the Rove-Libby chat figure in here? I thought that was on the 9th or 10th, which means that Libby's "reporters" would include Novak (for Cooper, but not Miller).

The rap on Fleischer will be that he took immunity on his leak to Pincus which was inspired by his reading of the INR memo, and then exaggerated his lunch with Libby.

I like the assertiveness of all that!

Miller is not going to be as weak on the grounds you suggest as you suggest. She'll testify that Libby was her first source on Plame, that she had other, subsequent sources, including administration sources that could well include Armitage, but only subsequent to the cover-blowing leak from Libby.

Miller is not going to be as weak on the grounds you suggest as you suggest.

She is going to cry on the stand and legally change her name afterwards. Yes, she is.

Actually, her entire grand jury testimony seemed to amount to a re-reading of her notes, and she was quite careful to caveat everything not noted (Libby, take note yourself. Oops - too late!)

My guess is she will go with a Woodward-like "It's possible" as to whether she had other, earlier sources, since nothing in her notes seems to preclude that possibility.

And certainly she has a reason to be evasive on this point - maybe some other dramatic source *will* come forward and admit to having leaked to Miller (maybe Armitage has been taking fish oil...) - why she should she put her neck out and expose herself to that? She may or may not be sympathetic to Libby, but she certainly is not a fan of Fitzgerald's, and won't lose sleep over blowing his case. IMHO.

Her basic plan - stick to her notes and remember nothing independently - was smart. I can't see why she would change.

My guess is she will go with a Woodward-like "It's possible" as to whether she had other, earlier sources, since nothing in her notes seems to preclude that possibility.

Yes, since anything is possible and she can't absolutely rule it out. However, she will also testify that she believes the June 23 occasion was the first time she was told that Wilson's wife might work for the CIA, as she reported in her story on her testimony. It also appears that while she's not sure of exactly when the other conversations took place, they included conversations before her July 12 conversation with Libby.

On another note, it looks from the docket like there was in fact a hearing yesterday, that it included both the motion hearing (on the motions in limine) and more CIPA hearings, and that - if I'm reading the docket entry right - the hearings were concluded, since there is no note about when they'd be continued. My suspicion, since there was no news coverage whatsoever, is that there was almost no substance to the motion hearing. Maybe Walton announced that he'd made his decisions and what they were, or that he'd be making them public soon. I bet most of the time was spent on closed CIPA hearings.

This latest ew series of witness-centric views of what the criminal trial will include is among the most important views yet developed concerning the prewar hype strategies the administration used and the people it trampled to accomplish that modality of inciting the US populace to approve of the authorization to use military force, as well as the UN resolutions to remove the inspection teams and send in the 'coalition' armies. This series of witness vignettes captures as well the attorney-client sensibility of planning how to stage a story for the jury within the Defense's dot chart parameters and avoiding the topics mutually agreed in pretrial CIPA hearings to be eliminated, ignored, and 'treated as if never heard for the first time or any time.'
It would be novel, I suppose, for the trial to be open to a wide spectrum of journalists, or even for its transcript to become available. I found this mention yesterday that Tuesday judge Walton definitively stated no yet more instantaneous record (tape recordings) of the proceedings would be made available to media.

Here is the report on the Libby plea deal

a source close to the investigation told TIME that Fitzgerald and Libby's attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some "serious" jail time. TIME 10/31/05

-- "the apparent fact that she spoke about Plame with others, a Miller-Armitage link could really set back her notion that she thinks she first heard about Plame from Libby." --

Yes, that it would. But so what? It wouldn't result in concluding that she flat out didn't hear it from Libby on or about June 23, July 8 and/or July 12. Libby needs to be able to rebut the possibility that he knew (other than the forgotten June conversation with Cheney) that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The jury will have to conclude that none of Miller's notes (in that time frame) relating to Wilson's wife were in response to meetings or discussions with Libby.

Walton was scheduled to hear arguments on the Wilson subpoena on 1/10/07 but instead denied Wilson's motion to quash on 1/9/07.

This Court anticipated hearing argument on this motion on January 10, 2007 at 12:30. However, after reviewing the papers filed in connection with this motion, the Court has concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. (footnote)

[]

ORDERED that the Motion of Non-Party Joseph C. Wilson IV to Quash Subpoena is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ORDER filed 1/9/07

The jury will have to conclude that none of Miller's notes (in that time frame) relating to Wilson's wife were in response to meetings or discussions with Libby.

Not quite. The jury will have to conclude that it might reasonably be doubted whether Miller's notes reflect Libby telling Miller about Plame. If Miller already knew about Plame before she talked to Libby, it becomes more reasonable to imagine that Miller might have told him about Plame, not vice versa. Once again, if that were so, it would make it clear that much of Libby's overall account were false - but that would be a falsity that Libby could happily embrace, if after all, he claims, he was in fact hearing it from reporters before he was talking about it with administration officials and so on.

Yes, that it would. But so what? It wouldn't result in concluding that she flat out didn't hear it from Libby on or about June 23, July 8 and/or July 12.

Ouch - Jeff has beatne me to my seemingly brilliant riposte - if Miller starts waffling on when and how she first learned about Plame, she opens the possibility that she brought it up in June. From the recent Mikller/Cooper EW post:

Judy leaves open the possibility that Libby was uncertain of her CIA employ on June 23.

As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

Maybe it meant she asked Libby. Look, the defense may just sling out ideas to see what sticks.

The defense may also want to drag in Miller's problems with Fitzgerald over the Islamic Charities - does it suggest a quid pro quo for her testimony here?

I personally think the opposite - Miller will be happy to throw sand in Fitzgerald's case - but inquiring jurors might wonder.

Maybe it meant she asked Libby. Look, the defense may just sling out ideas to see what sticks.

But again, Miller has specifically asserted, and testified, that she believes that June 23 from Libby was the first she heard about Plame's CIA employment. As with Woodward, that leaves open the possibility that in fact she had heard before. But it's not like she's saying it's fifty-fifty. And again, you've got to expect that Fitzgerald will have some questions ready to drive home the point that anything is possible, but that Miller is confident that this was the first she'd heard about Plame.

That's why when Miller lists various possible explanations for the question mark in her notes, she most definitely does not include the one you'd like her to include. All of her explanations rest on the presumption that this was the first she was hearing about Plame's CIA employment.

-- The jury will have to conclude that none of Miller's notes (in that time frame) relating to Wilson's wife were in response to meetings or discussions with Libby --


-- The jury will have to conclude that it might reasonably be doubted whether Miller's notes reflect Libby telling Miller about Plame --

Same (but not identical) idea, different phrasing. Of course, the jury's ULTIMATE conclusion involves the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In getting there, they will have various intermediate conclusions with varying degrees of uncertainty.


Hearing first from Armitage wouldn't [necessarily] result in concluding that she flat out didn't hear it from Libby. Would it change the degree of uncertainty? No doubt. And the jury will have the benefit of notebooks, her live testimony, demeanor, etc. to throw into the calculus.

BTW thanks to cboldt for his html versions of the court filings

BTW thanks to cboldt for his html versions of the court filings

Posted by: pollyusa | January 11, 2007 at 14:07

I was wondering when this meeting of the great obsessive chroniclers left and right was going to happen.

-- I was wondering when this meeting of the great obsessive chroniclers left and right was going to happen. --


The trial event tends to focus attention ;-)


-- thanks to cboldt for his html versions of the court filings --


Glad they are of some use - citing with a link is plenty of attribution & thanks. Index (messy) here. Careful about citing to plain old noeasyanswer.blogspot.com, I put all sorts of things there, and the Libby stuff is apt to quickly disappear from the "general"/"home" link.

I was wondering when this meeting of the great obsessive chroniclers left and right was going to happen.

cboldt may not have been aware, but this obsessive has been linking to him since last May... saw he was on this thread and finally had the opportunity to thank him. Got the index, thanks again. I will add attribution.

-- I will add attribution. --
No need for that - the link alone is attribution enough

Tom

Excellent summary.

Thank you. Your commenters may think I'm a raging partisan, but I really do try to be objective given the facts in front of us.

Don't look to me to try to convince that Judy will be convincing on the stand. Though I doubt your whole Armitage scenario (you may fault Fitz for not subpoenaing every contact between an SAO and journalists in the two months leading up to the leak, but I presume that, after he discovered Armitage's selective memory, Fitz asked Armitage specifically if he had any contacts with Judy, and may well have checked Armitage's phone records).

But I also have a sneaking suspicion that, pending decision on Libby's motion to exclude all mention of how Judy went to jail for him, Fitzgerald may find a way to turn Judy's very unreliability back onto Libby.

None of these things are isolated. Miller, Cooper, Russert, Woodward. Fittzgerald is going to show a pattern of deceit so incontrevertible that it will leave no wiggle room for Libby.

I presume that, after he discovered Armitage's selective memory, Fitz asked Armitage specifically if he had any contacts with Judy, and may well have checked Armitage's phone records.

One would hope so. However, that would all have ocurred post-Woodward and post-indictment - do we also presume that Fitzgerald was keen to re-subpoena Ms. Miller to get her views on a possible chat with Armitage? He had already let her slide on her admission that she had discussed Plame with others.

Obviously, I don't know, but Fitzgerald might have been tempted to simply take Armitage at his word, just to postpone further complications.

But it doesn't matter - Armitage would be nice in terms of dramatic arc, but all the defense will need to do is emphasize that Miller had other contacts, that she is not certain of the names or dates, and that Fitzgerald did not question her about them. If they can't spin that into confusion about just what Libby told her on June 23, they don't deserve their paychecks.

(Much as I hate to inject a bit of disharmony in the pre-game locker room, only Pete has stayed with me on an earlier "Double-edged Classified Swords" thread were I was getting an education on Novak, the Brewster-Jennings leak, and the utility of Occams's razor. I follow up in the next comment withg more research.)

Just FYI

We received word that we got the second press pass for the Libby trial we were trying to get.

That means there will be liveblogging of the trial, either here, FDL, and/or DKos.

That's super news, EW. I hope the second press pass will make the coordination of things easier for you gals in the midst of all of the dizzying hubbub of the courthouse environment. Sitting in the main courtroom soaking up the scene should definitely be a part of the citizen journalist experience, without being tied down to a keyboard or notepad without relief.

It sounds as though access to the evidence exhibits for the credentialed media is going to be very extensive and helpful, thanks to Judge Walton's Order, as well -- emailed to I assume every press pass holder (though maybe I'm reading that wrong). What with all the CIPA memory defense exhibits Libby plans to enter, that could be quite a document dump, if they are included in the dissemination.

If all of the expenses haven't been covered yet (or even if they have), I do hope that FDL puts up another donation post at the start of coverage to give everyone another highlighted opportunity to contribute to this amazing, collaborative, citizen-powered effort to bring "the public's right to know" back to center stage, with all of the immediacy that only live blogging can bring to every twist and turn of the trial.

He had already let her slide on her admission that she had discussed Plame with others.

that Fitzgerald did not question her about them

What are you talking about? This is one of the things one hears a lot at JOM. But it makes no sense. Miller said she didn't remember who her other sources were, Fitzgerald asked her. What else was he supposed to do?

Do i believe MIller? No. But what was he supposed to do, ask her really really who they were?

Actually, he could have done something like a witness at a police line-up, but aurally.

Have all the Administration staffers from the kid who takes out the trash to the codpiece-in-chief record the same phone message "Hello, Judy... have you heard that Wilson's wife is CIA?", but phrased in their own words. "Hey, sweetcheeks! Didja get the scuttlebutt? Wilson's missus is a spy, if you can believe that!" or however they would frame leak. Miller sits there with a polygraph machine listening to all of the messages. When the ink lines make earthquake jiggles (or her eyelids blink like Tricky-Dick's) the official's name is noted for follow-up. She'd still have to listen to all of them, since there are multiple sources blabbing away. If she doesn't recognize the voice, the speaker can be eliminated. That would cut through the clutter. :)

Personally, as much fun as that would be to set up, I think the relevant information is in her notebooks. When she wrote "Valerie Flame", what else was on the pages before and after that? Did she hear it from David Kelley?

Carolly

What are you talking about? This is one of the things one hears a lot at JOM. But it makes no sense. Miller said she didn't remember who her other sources were, Fitzgerald asked her. What else was he supposed to do?

Do i believe MIller? No. But what was he supposed to do, ask her really really who they were?

Sure. He seems not to have hesitated to press other witnesses when they gave answers he didn't believe. For heaven's sake, he threw her in jail to get her to testify- do you think throwing someone in jail is less aggressive than pressing them on the witness stand if they are evasive?
Besides, Abrams said the deal was that she wouldn't have to talk about her other sources. "I don't know" was the answer Fizgerald knew he'd get, and he was fine with that.

For some reason.

I'm going to get some extra popcorn laid in for when the trial finally starts. Peanuts too. My wine supply is good.

What I would really love is something to listen to while I work, so is anyone going to do evening vocal-TV/Radio summations or even blow by blow, object by sustain, object by overrule on the trial?

I would love to tape it on C-Span.

Yo Tom Maguire

She may or may not be sympathetic to Libby, but she certainly is not a fan of Fitzgerald's, and won't lose sleep over blowing his case. IMHO.

this ain't Patrick Fitgerald's first rodeo either

I think Fitz is "Familiar" with that tactic

can anybody think of a reason to be HAPPY about being called as a witness for a federal prosecutor ???

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad