« What's Coming Up | Main | Libby Trial: Collective Forgetting in the Office of the Vice President »

February 02, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d834dfefe553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fairly Prejudicial:

Comments

in your politicstv clip, is that "smoking gun in cheney's hand" line a whittington joke on purpose?

good one!

You look great, and you are doing an awesome job. It would be nice if one of those cable news shows would book someone like you instead of the typical right wing nut jobs who cheerled us into this mess in Iraq and who are wrong on everything. Hint, hint ... MSNBC and CNN.

Dr. Wheeler you are cute as a button and smart as a whip.

FYI - Armani.

Marcy, thank you for what you are doing. I drool for these tidbits of info...you do such a great job of framing them.

Okay...I know I am obsessed and I admit it. I'll work the 12 steps on this...but darn it... I want the president too. I want the whole administration to come down like Nixon. People seem to think the pres is untouchable in this. However, I haven't heard your opinion on this since the trial has begun and we have gotten more info. Do you think pres is untouchable in the conspiracy and that it will all fall on Cheney...?? Do you think Rove is truly exonerated from the leak...or do you think it's possible that there is proof that they all were involved??

Marcy...

to me, the most shocking testimony yesterday came when Bond said that during his first interview that Libby claimed he only found out Wilson's name when his Times Op-Ed was published.

I thought maybe that was a typo, but the guy blogging for MBA reported the same thing.

Is this something that you already knew about? Or is this actual "news" that -- given what else we know, makes it abundantly obvious that Libby has been lying through his teeth from Day 1?

Great job Marcy. You win in substance over all the rest.

In the movie "A Few Good Men" Tom Cruise wonders why the marine did not pack his clothes and call his relatives when he was "supposedly given a transfer".

In this trial there is a similar clue. Libby claims that he forgot Cheney told him. He just remembered that Russert told him that all the journalists know that Plame works at CIA. Similarly with Cooper and Miller. And yet a few days later he strategizes with Cheney on AF2 whether they should leak that information to reporters. If all reporters already know that then why do they need to leak?

Katie,
I want to see them held accountable in a way Nixon, because of Ford's pardon, never was. These guys need to be punished so they will never be able to show their faces in public again. They need to be so firmly discredited and disgraced that they will never be allowed to opine on cable news (ala Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson) or anywhere else.

At this point, I would say that the Libby side is slightly behind. Mainly because it is a "political" trial in Washington, DC, and Libby is with a much despised (especially in DC) Administration.

The FBI agent is probably more convincing than the reporters, at least so far. Maybe Tim Russert will blow the case out the water one way or another.

At this point I would say it might be better for Libby not to testify. I just don't know how he would come across in this setting with Fitz pulling the pit bull on him.

Pete, it is a matter of getting the story out, and though reporters may know some things, obviously they wanted it more "visible."

Katie,
I would suggest rather than the 12 step programs, SMART, or AVRT (Rational Recovery), or WFS. Those aided a relative of mine more than AA. (Though there are modified 12 steps without God, for athiests, agnostics, and intellectuals)

For a lot of commentators, including Emptywheel, an expression by Libby of innocence or a plea to others to help clear his name, is not a sign of guilt.
If you think so, then would you consider an expression of guilt, and a pleas to others to help indict him, a sign of innocence?
Personally if I was coming under attack or suspicion, I would be running around and trying to explain my case and innocence to everyone. I certainly would not retire to my den, put the rock over the entrance, and just hope the storm blew away.

Jodi shut up!

I'm with p luk on the shocking bit that Libby told the FBI that the first time he had heard of Wilson's name was his op-ed. That's just such a bald-faced lie; I wonder why Fitz didn't add a 3rd count of false statements for that! It would be incredibly easy to prove.

The only thing I can see that would explain why not is that perhaps Libby recanted this lie in front of the GJ, or in a subsequent FBI interview that Bond did not testify about. Or maybe Fitz thought this was just too ticky-tack to charge (ie it had nothing to do with "the wife", whereas his other false statements/perjury charges are about lies regarding what he told journalists about Plame or what he knew about Plame's ID).

Pete, it is a matter of getting the story out, and though reporters may know some things, obviously they wanted it more "visible."

Getting the story out?

Libby claims he did not even remember Cheney telling him about Plame's CIA affiliation. As far as Libby's mindframe was concerned he did not even have definite knowledge that Plame was CIA. How can it be part of the story?

More visible

According to Libby - at least four reporters told administration about Plame. And at least two of them said that all reporters know. What more visibility do you want on something that you do not even know to be a fact?

Marcy,
You can give your fingers and shoulders a well deserved rest, and accept the thanks of all of us, not alone for your live-blogging, but for your acumen in identifying the tenderloin in all of the meat you've been feeding us. I, for one, kept getting all the thises and whats confused, especially as it related to which documents came from whom and what they held of importance. This post of yours cuts all the fat away, and leaves nothing but the lean, raw meat of yesterday's wrangling. And you're absolutely right about the difference between just prejudicial and 'unfairly' prejudicial. At some level every piece of evidence and testimony proferred by Fitzgerald is 'prejudical', in the sense that it paints the defendant in a bad light. So far in this case, the prosecution has presented plenty of 'opportunity' and little motive. Especially the underlined article you mention is eminently admissible, or I'm a bear of very little brain. Take your pick.

marcy, you've been amazing to watch during this trial, and the lead up to it , too. and btw, you don't look the least bit rumpled. thanks for being an industrial strength flashlight on the murky path.

i was surprised to learn that Libby had the fall articles on Brewster-Jennings in his files, let alone underlined one of them. do we know if any of the Grand Jury investigation[s] dealt with Novak's fall CNN interview where he mentioned B-J? i've always thought of it as Outing, part 2. well, it certainly was dropping the other shoe... a few months later. in case any interested parties hadn't dug into Valerie Plame's activities and associations by then, Novak, et. al, handed the goods right over.

but gee, it's not like there was anything big at stake here, like nuclear proliferation or anything. after three plus years i still can't find the right word to describe the level of contempt i feel for all those responsible for this.

Dear Marcy,
Your appearance is fine. You don't have the wardrobe and makeup people like the MSM has. What you are producing is far more than the snippets we get on the tube in the evening. For we Plameologists you are the John Madden of the Libby trial. This is our Super Bowl. What a hoot to hear Judge Walton is a Steeler fan. Me too. I was born the same year as the Steelers. Please keep up the same outstanding reporting on this trial. I am grateful.

P.S. How dense is David Schuster to need two rings to put his phone on vibrate? I know they are here to stay but that is one of the reasons I hate them. And it isn't the phones fault.

Here in the Phoenix area someone at a Borders' information desk says none of their stores will they have Anatomy of Deceit on the shelf before the second week in February. The company web site suggests otherwise but that's what I was told in store yesterday.

rumpled? more like seductively tussled in the hotbed of poli-blogging...

Marcy,

You have an unquenchable beauty made up of the purity of the desire for truth and justice. Where would our world be without people like yourself? Even "truth and justice" gets up in the morning in a bathrobe and rumpled hair.

i keep thinking about Libby negotiating his many different identities with Miller... former hill staffer, senior admin official, etc... sorta snakey?

In my generally uninformed opinion, neither Libby nor Cheney will testify. The defense has been trying hard to get in whatever it can that Libby would testify to, e.g., showing the holes in the memory of journalist witnesses. If Libby does not testify, I suspect that the court will not allow the defense to argue the memory defense in closing arguments. It is only a defense if Libby says his memory failed. He has too much to explain to take the stand in order to make that defense.

As to Cheney, his testimony could lead to Bush having to dump him or to him being impeached. The evidence as to his deep involvement in the outing of Plame -- indeed the evidence that he directed that outing -- has just gotten too deep for him to wade into without undermining his standing at a constitutional officer of the United States. He won't testify; he can't.

FYI, Marcy: your book arrived yeterday from Amazon. I'll have it read before the trial resumes.

FWIW, Bill Wilson and the original group of addicts who started AA in the 30's? specifically rejected "God language." A lot of them were atheists/agnostics. They used the term "higher power." Later generations got sloppy imho and reintroduced the "God language." Full disclosure, I am a theist.

"At this point I would say it might be better for Libby not to testify."

It's my understanding that that is not an option according to Judge Walton. Ted Wells opened with the memory defense and it has been a key in his and Jeffers' cross of prosecution witnesses. If Scooter doesn't testify, I think Walton will be very pissed and basically instruct the jury to disregard all of that.

Pete, thanks a lot of the excellent, "why didn't the marine pack his clothes," moment. Andrea Mitchell did exactly what you said, she stated on Hardball iirc, that DC journalists knew Plame was CIA. That's what got Mrs. Greenspan a subpoena for Fitz's GJ.

Marcia, for years (maybe since the death of Murrow) many of us have been looking for Industrial Strength Intellect in News and Public Policy, and not the output of the fashion industry or the hairdressing trade. You've done that passion of mine proud. I frankly doubt if many in that press room could do what you've done -- accurately transcribe and paraphrase as the words are spoken, put in the descriptive remarks about body language, expressions and all, and then add in just a touch of the snark that is the result of several years of impassioned discourse among those of us who sit comfortably and snuggly at home (it was 22 below zero this morning) and engage in both the detail and the mega aspects of Wilson/Plame.

Now, just a guess, but more and more I am thinking that the Indictment, Sealed v. Sealed that Fitzgerald filed after Rove's last GJ appearance is an indictment of Cheney based entirely on evidence gathered as of that date last fall. Should Libby be found guilty, Fitz would be prepared to play the Elliott Richardson precedent out -- simply show Conyers the indictment, and get the leadership of the House and the Judiciary Committee to follow the precedents established in the Agnew case, and rule that the Constitution does not preclude indictment of a sitting VP -- that only the President is intitled to impeachment and conviction first. Then, Fitz could go ahead and unseal the indictment -- let Libby decided if he wants a lesser sentence by turning states evidence, and that would essentially force Cheney to resign. It could happen very fast if you drop back and look at how fast Richardson engineered the exit of Agnew once the bribe taking indictment had been filed.

Anyhow -- have a nice Superbowl weekend. As someone who hates Football with a passion, I for one will be watching the puppy bowl on Animal Planet.

Pete, I've not seen 'A Few Good Men' so can't speak specifically to your clue, but here's my take:

Wilson and his truth-telling obviously posed such a threat to the Bush/Cheney administration (and the neocons) that they pulled out ALL the stops smear, undercut, and demean him. But in order to work their dark deeds, the Bush/Cheney administration needed a 'curtain' or a 'shield'.

The 'shield' or 'curtain' they used was the right of a reporter to protect confidential sources: give me info, and I'll keep your identity a secret. Basically, the Bush administration committed a crime, and counted on implicit agreements with reporters to hide knowledge of the crime. Which basically made the media paid prostitutes for the Bushies.

I interpret EW's post to mean that at least a few members of the press may in fact have called bullshit on the Bush administration -- Walter Pincus at WaPo appears to be a 'bullshit caller'.

In summer 2005, a legal decision in the Plame case -- sending Cooper and Miller to jail to force them to reveal their sources -- upended assumptions about reporter privilege (in the case of a crime), and pulled the veil away from what is basically a criminal conspiracy. The legal decision said, "protecting sources does not authorize you to hide evidence of a crime." Nevertheless, Judy Miller insisted she still had the right to protect her sources; mistaking compliance for principle, she went to jail to shield Libby's criminal behavior. But then Scooter wrote her that Aspens Letter, which was her Get Out Of Jail card.

Fitz has not charged conspiracy; he has only charged that Libby prevented him from trying to determine whether there had been a criminal conspiracy. Thus, the counts of perjury.

The FBI is certainly rising in my esteem with each new revelation.

John Casper:

I agree. But not testifying is always an option because of the Fifth Amendment. Correct about Walton. He would likely have to instruct the jury to disregard anything they had heard in the opening statements or cross-examination of witnesses about problems of memory. Such an instruction would be tantamount to telling the jury to convict Libby. That is how tight the hole has become that Libby finds himself in.

If you are right about Sealed v. Sealed, and the Libby defense team suspects the same thing -- it's a sealed indictment of Cheney -- that suggests to me that Libby and Cheney never intended to testify, expect there to be a conviction, and are counting on a pardon to follow conviction rapidly. Even so, a pardon of all involved would keep Cheney out of prison, but insure his impeachment. If what we are reading elsewhere is true, about James Baker trying to broker a Cheney resignation as the only way to save the Bush presidency, a Libby conviction and this scenario adds impetus to Baker's efforts.

EW - Actually, the camera likes you, as they say. The jacket looked right smart today. As I suspect many of us have found out one way or another, it is very difficult to speak on camera, and you're doing great. The thing about those simonized and flash fried pros on network TV is they are picked to have the "look" which is so misirably out of touch and corporate, don't even give them any thought. Also I read an article a while back, I think in NY times magazine, that went in to the mind of the network anchor, and the thing is they don't think, IN fact thinking makes it hard for them to be a face through which information can simply be poured. You just worry about doing what you do, it's not the same thing, and you are doing a very good job, and actually getting stronger on camera every day. The fact is you are making history, as perhaps the first famous blogger ever, and I for one hope you are shaping the future of journalism. What you are doing may very well be of historical importance, so just keep on trucking, and keep you eye on the ball. I'll bet there are a million young reporters just starting out in major media who wish they were you. Alas for lack of courage they will soon be simonized as well.

Dear Marcy,

The other day I meant to record Keith but recorded Hardball instead (they are back to back here in S.F. ca). I almost lost my dinner hearing Tweety say that the jury is uneducated. I deleted the recording at that moment. You look stunning and I agree that you shoulb be doing the MSNBC day by day.

xxx

Wow, Sara. I hope former Vice-President Al Gore has his clothes packed. We need him NOW. I would say Speaker Pelosi rather than Gore except none of our elected officials seem to have any idea of the serious condition our government is in which demands action sooner rather than later.

I just picked up on what it means that something is in Libby's file--he can't effectively say he didn't see it.

Thank you, Marcie, and all who are adding to the enlightenment.

Thanks ArthurKC.

What Dismayed said at 13:49.

Marcy - you are doing a fantastic job on camera. You present the high points of the day extemporaneously in a logical manner using no notes (or teleprompter or wire in your ear.) Your command of the facts and intricacies of the case is awe-inspiring. Your live blogging is accurate and compelling as well as sometimes colorful.

I hope to see you on national TV soon, plus I can't wait til my copy of the book gets here!

You look fabulous!
You sound fabulous!
We love you and we thank you!

Brains and beauty is a great way to go through life and you got 'em both, kid!

Rumpled???? You are hot. Not plastic coated like MSM reporters.....yuk. Humor, brains, wit, tenacity and very, very cute.

Froomkin points out:

The Firedoglake blog continues to shame the traditional media with its liveblogging, making it the only place where you can find out what's going on in real time, and in any detail.

froomkin

From Jason Leopold's report quoting directly from the court transcript about that article. This is what the prosecutor says about the article from the post that libby kept. He UNDERLINED it!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012907J.shtml

Libby Questioned About Washington Post Story

Zeidenberg went a step further, and disclosed some new facts during Thursday's court session that may poke a few holes in the defense's assertion that Libby "misremembered" how and when he found out about Plame.

The prosecutor said some elements of the September 28, 2003, Washington Post story - specifically, the allegation that "two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife," and that a federal crime may have been committed - were reprinted in an October 12, 2003, story in the Washington Post under the headline "Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak to Reporters."

The article, written by Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, was published two days before Libby was first questioned by the FBI about how he found out about Plame, and whether he played a role leaking her name to reporters. Libby told the FBI that he was told in July of 2003 by Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press," that Plame was married to Wilson, worked for the CIA, and sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger. But the October 12, 2003, article was discovered in Libby's files by federal investigators. Libby underlined the passages cited above, Zeidenberg said.

Libby "was specifically questioned about the ... allegation that two White House officials were contacting six reporters with this information," Zeidenberg told Walton. "And he was asked his impressions of that. He acknowledged that he had that article. That he read that article. It was an October 12 [2003] article, which was two days before the FBI interviewed him. So clearly, it's going to be relevant and it's admissible independently of Mr. Fleischer's testimony."

Walton agreed with Zeidenberg, saying that the September 28, 2003, Post story can be admitted into evidence by the prosecution regardless of the inaccuracy because it establishes the reasons Fleischer sought immunity. Furthermore, the October 12, 2003, article is relevant for the jury to hear about as well.

"If Mr. Libby has an article of this nature in his possession and he's underlined information that would tend to suggest that he had concerns about whether he committed a crime by having revealed this information, obviously, it seems to me that does become relevant because it may relate to what his state of mind was when he talked to the FBI and when he ultimately appeared before the grand jury," Walton said. "So, even if the article is wrong in that respect as it relates to Mr. Libby, if he's got it in his possession, and he's got it underlined, that would suggest that, well, maybe he had a motive to lie, from the government's perspective, because he felt that he had committed a crime by revealing the information and therefore had to seek to cover it up."

Marcy,

I love to watch your video comments for the triple beauty of your clarity, your empathy and your humor.

I get none of these feelings watching Candy Crawley or Wolf Blitzer, and they spend more on makeup and hair products than most of us make in a year.

Money can't make Candy beautiful or Wolf smart. You are far richer, infinitly more beautiful. You enrich us in the process. Many thanks!

Firstly and most importantly, once again many thanks for your excellent insight and skilled liveblogging...that can't said enough. (Will you be doing it for the whole trial???)

Secondly, I agree that Libby's state of mind is important to the gov't side of the case and not only in relation to the perjury charges against him but also the obstruction of justice charges they are going for here. The gov't has to provide the jury with the motive Libby might have had as to why he lied and why he may have obstructed justice and therefeore needs some context here.

So far we had Schmall's testimony (he said he spoke to Libby and Cheney in a meeting about the dangers of outing a CIA operative before Libby testified before FBI and GJ and most likely just after the Novak article came out). Plus, you had Addington's testimony discussing covert versus non covert status and Libby offering IIPA info to Libby again prior to Libby's FBI testimony and GJ. Lastly, we have 2 articles in Liby's own personal files one of which is underlined and deals with the criminal consequences and possible ramifications that resulted from the outing. Oh yeah, those certainly are key pieces of evidence (especially the one that was 2 days prior to his FBI testimony that you cite here). Those in addition to the other testimony we heard, definitely provide context as to Libby's frame of mind and yes his motive (or at least one motive, there may be others too) for lying and obstructing justice at least on the big picture issue of the case that isn't being tried here (who was responsible for outing a CIA operative). In my opinion it's not only the "did he lie", but the "Why did he lie" piece that the jury needs to hear in order to best judge if he obstructed justice.

great title - "fairly prejudicial"

I hope you're going to continue the politicstv.com video clips next week even though you're not live-blogging, and actually I wish you'd include a video clip with each of your posts here, explaining the gist of it conversationally. Your speaking style is very direct and easy to follow for those of us who are burdened with the IANAP acronym.

... and don't worry about rumples - they only enhance your appeal. All you need to become a regular on these stupid cable news shows is to get really comfortable in your wry and witty, but sincere and passionate in an understated way, slightly rumpled persona.

For a lot of commentators, including Emptywheel, an expression by Libby of innocence or a plea to others to help clear his name, is not a sign of guilt.

Libby's lawyers disagree with you.

I had not caught the info that Jim Baker might be sniffing around trying to find the best way to move Cheney out, but it would fit his mode of operation. It would also go a ways toward providing a rational for Cheney's Blitzer interview, and a few others he's done recently that reveal him as slightly off his rocker. Unless Baker can do it cleanly, I doubt if he can "save" GWB's ass this time. Recent polls asked the question about Bush -- results suggested a majority just want this administration over with, period.

One thing that makes these times different from 1974 when Nixon finally got caught up in his own lies is that we've recently had an election that was a real decision. The Republicans lost virtually everything, and came close to a greater loss. In 74 the election came after the abdication. Putting Jerry Ford into place made sense based on 1972 election returns. I am not sure that will pass muster now, particularly because the underlying issue is a profoundly mismanaged use of all forms of American Power, colored by all the Corruption recently laid out for all to contemplate. In 74 you could isolate Nixon and his WH circle, now you have four years of Republicans in the Senate and House totally rejecting all responsibility for oversight. I think that makes some sort of restoration much much more difficult.

Just remember, if Cheney is cast out a new VP would have to get a majority vote in both the Senate and the House -- and if you follow the Rockefeller Precedent, that means very elaborate hearings in both houses, that got into Nelson's family fortune, and his art collection. The Democrats probably would insist that any nominee swear he will not run in 08, and have a fairly solid reputation in opposition to the neo-cons and the Iraq War. Find me a Republican that smells like that these days!!! The House Democrats with Pelosi's leadership, have the votes to block any nomination that would continue supporting the current administration policy. I am not so sure about the Senate -- but for a VP nomination you need both houses, so that makes this different from most appointments.

I have three Republican candidates in mind who might pass muster. Senator John Warner, Brent Scowcroft and Junior's own dad. (Yes, GHWBush would not be excluded as he only served one term as President.) All three might be good babysitters till we can actually have another election and do it right. And yea, I suspect Colin Powell would pass congressional muster, but Junior would never consider him. Condi-- forget it. It would have to be someone who could discipline Jr.

By the way, was watching the DNC this morning, and between speakers they approved the revision of party rules and the Call for 2008, and who should be the co-chair of Rules for the DNC? -- James Roosevelt, and he is a dead ringer for the younger healthy version of his grandfather. It made me all nostalgic for a time.

Marcy...you have looked great in all of your tvpolitics videos
and they are appreciated!! Thank you for the wonderful reporting and personal comments during the week. It is amazing that the media does so little reporting about this trial. BUT..why am I
surprised! Your coverage during Jane's illness is a tribute to the kind of person you are....this also applies to so many others out there who have come to the top of the best!! All of you have informed us as to the day to day issues going on in the court.

Just as a note...I bought your book last night and look forward
to sitting down some snowy day and reading it cover to cover.
You are the best!!

Best from Boston,
Maureen

Sara:

Here is a link to Poputonian over at Digby yesterday discussing and linking to reports about James Baker working the ropes to swing Cheney out of the picture:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117033444311745581

Great comment, as per usual Sara.

I would add former WI Governor Tommy Thompson to your list. I'm not sure he would promise not to run in 08, but he's a smart guy.

I think the other payoff to a DeadEye resignation might be that Bush would have to move to the middle. DeadEye is his firewall, without him, the GOP might look to rid themselves of Bush going into 2008. John Dean says GOP Senators would never impeach Bush, he knows a lot more than I do, but I keep hoping.

"John Dean says GOP Senators would never impeach Bush, he knows a lot more than I do, but I keep hoping."

Sorry, meant "convict," not impeach.

Sara, respectfully, when is the last time Democrats in both Houses engaged in elaborate hearings on anything Bush wanted? I am not waiting for the good guys to rescue our country. If there any, it's not nearly enough. We surrendered our democracy to Bush and his henchmen, and I have no idea why except for the self-interest of our elected officials. I wonder if some benevolent country might be the answer to Bush et al as we go the way of other former world powers.

Marcy, you are the best! I can't wait until Monday; this trial is riveting. Your tireless liveblogging is setting a new standard for journalism, and you should be mighty proud of what you're doing.

I'm falling in love with M.T.Wheel(er)

First, Marcy you are the best! While your looks are fine and as someone said the camera loves you, we are here for substance which you deliver in spades.

Second,

have three Republican candidates in mind who might pass muster. Senator John Warner, Brent Scowcroft and Junior's own dad. (Yes, GHWBush would not be excluded as he only served one term as President.)

OMG!!!! Can you imagine the pout on Dubya's face if Poppa had to come in and clean up his mess. but this time in public? I'd give him 24 hours before he gave a "You won't have Dubya to kick around anymore" speech and hightailed it to Paraguay.

Personally, I think we are seeing that Cheney does not intend to go without a fight and if one of them has to go, as far as he is concerned, it will be Dub. After all his former COS has made sure it has come out that "this pres" had the bright idea to out a CIA operative to get back at an Administration critic.

I'm not saying it was his idea (doubt he has many) but that's not what we know now, is it?

"--boy do I look rumpled"

Funny. When I saw the video I thought, "How can she look so fresh after that day in court?" It was a great day - tedious, but full of stuff. We've all speculated for years about Cheney's involvement in the leak. Involvement hell, he was the Supreme Chancellor:

I’ve talked to Libby. I said it was ridiculous about Karl and it is ridiculous about Libby. Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information. Libby’s talking points for McClellan

Has to happen today. Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that we asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.
Cheney add-on

That's a mighty loud we in his written note. But as to this post, my thought was similar but less informed. How can you exclude evidence because it makes a guilty man look guilty?

In all my readings, it never occurred to me that McClellan exonerated Rove, but not Libby, and that there was internal jousting on that point. I guess I made the assumption that they were all adults and in things together. The truth is that Iago and Othello were rookies at Palace intrigue compared to these children in high places.

After that day in court, they're the ones that look rumpled...

hey jodi, I got a bridge in San Francisco that I could sell to you for a really cheap price

since you'll believe any foolish bullshit that anybody says, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, don't believe that a government agency owns the bridge instead of me

I'll sell you the Golden Gate bridge for 50 bucks, and you can collect tolls, jump off the fucking bridge, or whatever your little mind desires

if you believe the lies of scooter libby, you should be able to believe me too

send the check to emptywheel (I trust her)

Hey Mickey...(I am refraining from singing that silly song...your so fine you blow my mind...HEY MICKEY) Did I say I was refraining?

Your post made me "happy". That's one more little clue...co conspirators--both of them.

To Jodi...I don't know why but for some reason I like you. It takes a lot of guts and or payola to come on this site and over and over again have to try to defend this gang of absolute criminals. But the logic and the facts make it pretty clear that this administration lied to congress and senate about our reasons for killing people. (see that's what a war is...killing people).

If these little tiny details are there for us to see, I would have to bet that there are bigger ones that Fitz can see.

This makes it clear to me that there is a higher power...and it has to do with the structure of the universe, truth and effectiveness.

John casper...your words on the 12 steps...so true.

E.W you have created a revolution...We could use a little good old John Lennon...these days.

freepatriot and greenhouse,

Please keep your remarks to what people say, without attacking the person herself! We are civil here. We maintain the right to present our own theories as well as tidbits from other sites or quotes from experts of varying credentials.

I may disagree with Jodi, but I'd never order her to shut up. Humans are not dogs.

As for silliness, look at the polls. Look at the numbers of people (fine educated adult Americans) who believe that Jesus Christ will drop down from Heaven this very year, or that dinosaurs were on the ark but unicorns weren't, or that Bush is annointed by God, etc., and etc..

At least Jodi is willing to come in here and discuss matters, not personalities. My understanding is that her family is military and conservative. If we can persuade (not browbeat) her, with good arguments and evidence, she can carry the fight onward. If we have to resort to insults, we have already lost the argument.

Sara, your message made my day, and whether it comes true or not, Fitzgerald will always have Superman status in my book.

Like you, I can't wait to see Libby's annotated 1x2x6. So will Jane Hamsher be doing the liveblogging next week? Or Swopa? I guess I missed the rotation. So emptywheel, you will be in the courtroom, taking notes?

(FYI, the smoking gun line is great, in fact, the whole finish to your Libby live vlog, my favorite one yet. And good news: an email today said that Amazon has just shipped.)

Thanks Katie,
you brought something back to my attention. I hadn't really thought much about it before though I have noticed some seemingly strange comments before. No one would pay my rates to have me come here to post. It is strictly pro bono. Why do I come here? I am not positive.
I think it is because though I believe in a lot of what the site stands for, I see it going off half cocked a lot, and then regular people will just distain and disregard your main message that Bush is a failure in Iraq because you are painting him as a DEMON. Your message will fail because you are too damning in your rhetoric. (It becomes a little like "Chicken Little" and "Crying Wolf."

On 12 steps John, and Katie, it really works for some people. Others not. That is why there are alternatives. However I am told that most all the courts use AA, despite the God references. I don't know why the ACLU hasn't stopped that.

Freepatriot, wonderful to hear from you again!

Pete, we seem to be working off different material. I was talking about the reporters knowing about the Wilson(Joe and Yellow Cake, and the CIA) matter, and that was what they were trying to get more attention brought to. Not about his wife Valerie.
The other thing, I am not sure I follow, but I stand my my statement.

Sally, since 2001 the Democrats have only been in control of any congressional committees during that one year plus period in the Senate after Jeffords left the GOP and went independent but in caucus with the democrats. And then, only by one vote. I expect much better of them in the House now, given the leadership, and given a margin of 30 votes. I don't think Pelosi has much tolerance for Bush's finer emotions. She will be polite about it, but she will keep the Democrats in the House unified, but targeted.

Hearings to confirm a new VP would be a priceless opportunity to put everything on the table, torture, the national debt, the hollowing out of the military, Wiretapping, the intended independence of independent regulatory agencies, --- I can think of lots of lines of questioning to ask a prospective VP. I know my reference to Nelson Rockefeller's VP confirmation hearing in 1974 may be a bit obscure, but look it up and you can see how such can be used. I've always been convinced that opening up Nelson's taste in Modern Art and his tax exempt relationship with MOMA is what really did him in with the hard right. How can you ever trust someone who spends millions on abstract expressionism?

tweez @ 17:50 comments:
"I'm falling in love with M.T.Wheel(er)"

To the back of the line, buster!

In this trial there is a similar clue. Libby claims that he forgot Cheney told him. He just remembered that Russert told him that all the journalists know that Plame works at CIA. Similarly with Cooper and Miller. And yet a few days later he strategizes with Cheney on AF2 whether they should leak that information to reporters. If all reporters already know that then why do they need to leak?

Posted by: Pete | February 02, 2007 at 10:38

Pete, that's a damn fine point. It's the logic that comes from accepting Libby's story as the factual premise, and then evaluating his subsequent actions in light of that premise.

Following up on a comment I made in EW's last Bond liveblog of the week @ FDL, I'm becoming more convinced of my supposition that Libby in fact concealed the notes of his June 11th phone conversation with the CIA's Iraq Mission Manager Robert Grenier, by pretending that they were June "12" notes of a telephone conversation Libby had with Cheney. [These are the notes that Libby claims (including to the FBI from day one) record that Cheney told him about Plame's position in the CP section of CIA - the notes aren't clear enough for an uninvolved party to know who's talking to whom. Obviously, if Libby learned from Grenier on 6/11, the VP didn't need to try to learn it elsewhere on 6/11 or 6/12, himself.]

I just reread the Grenier testimony, and he practically gives a line-by-line summation of that June 12th Libby note, including the fact that Wilson's wife worked in the pertinent division at CP and that's how CP knew the details Grenier relayed to Libby. [The lower 1-3 talking points may have been added later when Libby rehearsed a statement to include in Walter Pincus's June 12 article, or have been points Libby made to Grenier - Grenier didn't testify about those, from what I can tell.] The heading of that note has also not yet been explained, as far as I know (it seems to reference - but not by its title - a Kristof NYT column that apparently appeared either the next day, or a month earlier). The handwriting seems less tight in the heading than in the body of the note as well (and Libby has admitted writing over the original date with the number 2 a couple of days later). I assume "Uranium and Iraq" in the heading may be a quote of what Cheney was inquiring about, at some juncture, but that's unclear too.

Basically, I've assumed that Cheney learned about what he told Libby in mid-June about Plame's CIA connection (as Libby professed was the case at his first FBI interview and since) from a casual conversation with someone like George Tenet at a top-level PDB meeting or something similar. But there's no reason for Tenet (or his Deputy) to have such knowledge about an undercover agent by chance, at the beginning of this process, without digging for it first. Cheney in general seems to avoid asking questions himself at non-OVP meetings - he used Libby to dig out what he wanted to know, which Libby obviously did with Grenier (after failing to reach DDCI McLaughlin). So Libby concocted his cover story for the FBI, fearing an IIPA prosecution, using Cheney as the cover for his knowledge, when in fact Libby originally conveyed the details to Cheney, first from Grossman, and then (pretty much from the 'horse's mouth') from Grenier, I figure, and not the other way around.

A possible kicker to my speculation is that it may tie in with why Tenet was unceremoniously dumped the same month that apparently both Bush and Cheney were interviewed by the Special Counsel. Did one or both of them learn that Tenet had not helped them to keep their cover story credible, I wonder...? [By not "forgetting" whether or not he'd told Cheney about Plame, or not remembering that he had had at least one conversation about her with the VP, etc., etc.]

Regarding your speculation: I think it's absolutely charming that you look a bit rumpled, like you had just been inn volved in a certain inn timate tete a tete at a secret hideaway or a bed & breakfast, to which you arrived separately, paid cash and wore dark glasses - et voila! Here, live on TV, you reveal yourself feely!! How sexy!!
But if I were to say one word to you, and one word alone, it would be 'pluck' dear.

Sara, thank you for paying attention to my frustration. It drives me nuts to hear the Democrats could not do anything to thwart the Republicans because the Dems were in a minority. What is the use of having a two-party system? If we do.

FYI:

The government motion in limine about these two articles filed today states that in addition to underlining of the key 1x2x6 passage in the 10/12/03 article, and of the passage where Walter Pincus relays his (anonymous) conversation about Wilson's wife with a source, this passage is underlined:

One reason investigators are looking back is that even before Novak's column appeared, government officials had been trying for more than a month to convince journalists that Wilson's mission was not as important as it was being portrayed.

Also highlighted are names of journalists, along with a quote from the TIME article and another more generic (and somewhat exculpatory) anonymous statement.

Jodi,

Bush lied. That doesn't make him a demon, but it means this was a war of choice, that means we chose to kill other people to bring about regime change despite the fact that we had other options. While the pro life crowd demonizes the woman who has an abortion for killing by choice...the same argument can be used against Bush. He had other options to protect the united states. He chose violence to meet his own agenda...one he did not share with the american people. In making that choice he left the american people out of the loop. Your relatives are dying for the choice he made, unilaterally. The choice he made for the sake of war profiteers not a politically sound, challenged and debated strategy. Demon...I hate that word because it has not true meaning. Factually Bush has behaved in a treasonous manner by lying to the American people, the senate and congress. I personally do not think that anyone would have given him permission to go to war for the reasons that he went. He lied, people died. At the very least it makes him a murderer and a fascist. He has behaved in ways that are unamerican and damaging to our country and troops. He has increased the danger in this world and the danger for our troops. Demon is a soft word. Lying murderer is much more factual.

Katie,

I see your fervor. I can understand it. I can agree with you a lot.

But I think personally that Mark Twain was correct. He said something like:
~And he is a Legislator and a Liar, but then I repeat myself.~

I believe that all politicans and most champions of causes exxagerate, shade the truth, tell less than the whole truth, and certainly not all the truth (or lie to put it less gently) to prove their case. It is nothing new in this world of ours.

But we must be careful to temper our language lest we lose the broader audience by appearing to be just frothing at the mouth.

hauksdottir

that is right.

And we could sit for quite a while over a cup of tea and blast Mr Bush for stupidity on Iraq, the MidEast on Social Security, Katrina, Medicare, and other subjects very easily, though he is not responsible for all the mess. Still, he is the one in the current best position to help.
Further, I think that we might differ on the Supreme Court, Affirmative Action, and NSA, and other similar subjects.

You know I even disagree with my own positions of a few years ago.

But I don't tilt at windmills, and I will remark when others are doing same, though I will not malign them personally.

:)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad