Libby's Missing Document

by emptywheel

So here's what I've been thinking about while I wait on the jury (and reunite with my MilleniaLab, who missed me quite a bit). There's a potential smoking gun document that seems remarkably absent from any of the trial exhibits.

You see, as Libby has testified [big PDF] (and his lawyers reminded us over and over during their case), there are no notes from any of the conversations Libby had with any of the three reporters in question: Russert, Cooper, and Judy. So we can't just look at his notes, compare his notes with those of Matt Cooper and Judy Miller, to discern the truth. It's Libby's word versus Russert's word and Cooper and Judy's notes.

But there is a document from his July 8 conversation with Judy. Or at least, there should be.

You see, Libby testified in his Grand Jury that he talked through his talking points about Plame's identity from the NIE with Judy:

Q. Okay. And with, with -- was it your understanding that you would show the text of the relevant portions of the NIE to Judith Miller when you discussed it with the Vice President?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you in fact show those relevant portions of the text?

A. Talked it through with her and I think I gave it to her, showed it to her, an excerpt.

Q. Okay. And when you showed it to her did you let her read the relevant portions of the whole document or did you have a redacted version?

A. Oh, no, redacted.

Q. And did she get to keep the redacted copy?

A. I think I gave her a page which had bullets from it, not a Xerox of it but bullets of it, I think, where it was redacted and I think, I think what I showed her had country names omitted. It was less than what I had been authorized to share with her. (34-35)

Gosh, a document with the talking points he was authorized to share with her? That sure seems like it might substitute for notes of the conversation, huh? But then Fitzgerald asks Libby some questions about the production of this document that makes me wonder whether, well, it has mysteriously disappeared.

Q. Okay. Who created that document?

A. I did.

Q . Personally?

A. Yes. Well, you know, I, I didn't type it I don't suppose, but I directed it to be done.

Q. Okay. So do you know who would have typed it?

A. Well, if I didn't type it, then I assume it would have been Jenny Mayfield, my assistant.

Q. Do you type?

A. I do type.

Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job. (35)

Side question--I wonder if Fitzgerald still believes that Libby's "not big on e-mail," after having found 250 pages of emails that remarkably got lost in the subpoena process.

Q. Okay. And when you type, do you type at a word processor and print it out?

A. Yeah.

Q. In reviewing the documents for production for discovery or compliance with the subpoenas, have you ever seen a copy of the redacted document that you shared with Ms. Miller?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. Well, I'm not sure exactly what I shared but I think I have.

Q. And how long was the document in terms of pages?

A. A third of a page.

Q. And did you share that document with the Vice President prior to sharing it with Judith Miller?

A. No, sir. (35-36)

Huh. Libby gives a pretty specific description of this particular document. So it ought to be easy to pick out from a stack of documents produced in response to a subpoena. And Libby suggests its was typed up, meaning it ought to be on someone's hard drive. Unless I was right about someone nicking a hard drive to hide some evidence.

Now perhaps I'm asking for too much when I say I want to see this document. But it seems to me that, if there were a document that showed nothing but NIE bullet points, the Defense would have introduced it. And if there were a more detailed document about Valerie Plam-ay's WINPAC career, Fitzgerald would have produced it. But we've got nothing. In spite of the fact that we've seen a whole slew of OVP talking points generated during this period (and while you're at that link, notice how I did a short version of the weedy analysis Fitzgerald did during his closing the other day).

Now, before you say Libby's probably just mistaken--that this set of talking points never existed--consider what Judy had to say about that document.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn't think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.

"Reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket." Sure sounds like Libby "talked it through with her."

Libby and Judy agree about one thing. There was a document that contained the talking points Libby used that day. But neither one of them seems to have handed it over.

Comments

[cathy]

Emptywheel-
Do you think Fitz actually doesn't have it or may be saving it for later?

[Sally]

cathy, let's hope Mr. Fitzgerald has the document ready to use in the next OVP indictment. I seriously doubt he's overlooked it. A male Marcy.

[J. Thomason]

I for one am curious about what inferential assumptions can be reasonably made about the grand jury testimony of Rove, Hadley and Armitage. Given your acumen at reading textual foreshadowing is there enough to make an attempt at this?

Oh, and the other question, a question about method really, is whether you have developed a critical taxonomy of deceit as it were so that spin and misdirection might be identified more specifically by label for the kind of obfuscation each such communication seeks to illicit? I know its a technical question but one that seems crucial in taking the general lessons of this episode into a critical method moving forward.

And one final observation, that really relates to the framing issues you raise with respect to Wells closing. In the end does it matter what Wells did came off smoothly. Perhaps all he needs to do is provide identication for the defense with say an insane relative. And the "who's your daddy" analysis merely reflects the foreground of a "victim/perpatrator" dichotomy where the goal of identification could have been in fact a kind of victim empathy. So in the end the rational assesment while valuable does not fully encompass the "wholism" of meaning any argument may in fact engage. From this light what Wells needed to do was merely touch (or should I say elicit) the potential in the make up of one juror. I suppose we could hope for a critical dedication to the rational in the deliberative process, but I suppose much is at play.

[J. Thomason]

Freudian yes: the first "illicit" should in fact be "elicit" too.

[Carolyn in Baltimore]

Weren't there a few shredder tractor trailers outside the VP's house last year?

[margaret]

J.Thomason: you are some smart "fellow," but I've always found that intuition works"a critical taxonomy of deceit as it were so that spin and misdirection might be identified more specifically by label for the kind of obfuscation each such communication seeks to illicit"quite well, and labels or markers along the way to a big Lie don't strengthen the impression of a big Lie. The WMD argument heard and seen by someone 900 miles south of Washington was seen as a Lie. The Grand Jury testimony of Libby reads like a series of Lies. Truth is a clear, bright thing, like a beam of sunshine coming out of a dark cloud. Patrick Fitzpatrick holds that beam in his hands.

[hizzhoner]

My compliments on a very thorough job.

I have a question, though...

Given the Fitzgerald closing argument which was so incredibly damaging to the VP, can Fitz NOT bring an indictment?

hizzhoner

[jerry]

As you've suggested, he might be saving Jenny Mayfield's testimony for later?

[J. Thomason]

Margaret: All I am getting at is that while a statement that "Iraq is seeking WMD" may be false there is an artful ploy in place in "saying British Intelligence has been told Iraq is seeking WMD", which maybe true in as so far as they had been told this but the the meaning could infer, or suggest or connotate a lie. It is lie wrapped in something that could be true. And this kind of misdirection is rife in the communications disseminated in this Plame matter. I would just like a way to name them more quickly. Inasmuch as emptywheel has been working with this material I just thought she may have come up with some critical tags as it were.

[J. Thomason]

Or how do we characterize something like "a former hills staffer." What about this makes it dishonest? Yes it is misleading, but it is true. Maybe the tag is "true but misleading?" It is misleading because it points away from the fact that the "former hill staffer" is also COS of the VP. I don't know maybe the day of shopping attributions is over. But this is just another gambit in a quiver of disinformation methods.

[emptywheel]

Jerry

Yes, I was thinking of that myself. Jenny Mayfield would be witness to this document, if it were typed.

She certainly sounds like someone useful to flip, if it came to that. Not least, because (we learned at the trial) she was the one stamping everything with "treated as Top Secret/SCI," which would come back into play if Dick were ever indicted.

[Jim E.]

EW,

Have you yet offered any speculation about what you think Cheney told investigators during his interview with them? Did Cheney tell the same story as Libby (remembered as if for the first time), or did he tell some other tall tale? Seems pretty clear that whatever Cheney (and, heck, maybe even Bush) said to investigators set off alarm bells for Fitz.

[William Ockham]

ew,

I have a few semi-related observations. That June 12 (ha, 18) note looks like the talking points for the June 23rd leak to Miller. Also, it sure seems like Rove leaked Novak's article to Cooper. Finally, I want to know when they started saying Valerie Plame instead of Valerie Wilson. I believe the first known use of Plame is by Libby to Fleischer on July 7. Does anybody know of an earlier usage (besides the famous Who's Who article, of course)? I am starting to think that the key to unraveling the wider conspiracy is figuring out who connected Valerie Wilson, the CIA bureaucrat (as they supposed in June) to the covert operative named Valerie Plame. All the signs point to Cheney, but who told him?

[Canuck Stuck in Muck]

Ockham's razor-blade parsimony revealed;
George Tenet.

[kim/jerry]

"she was the one stamping everything with 'treated as Top Secret/SCI,'"

EW, what is the significance of this stamp? I know it's not an official form of classification, just a way for Cheney/Libby to (obsessively) control information, but I don't remember if a specific misuse of this routine was discussed during the trial.

[emptywheel]

kim/jerry

They had stamped many of the most sensitive notes. I think Fitz was going to use it to support the obstruction charge, but somewhere along the way, either CIA or Team Libby objected successfully, bc they took all the stamps off.

But it'd be nice to ask Ms. Mayfield about, no?

[Mad Dogs]

EW, one question that I've been meaning to ask was jogged into memory by your writing of this:

"Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

Side question--I wonder if Fitzgerald still believes that Libby's "not big on e-mail," after having found 250 pages of emails that remarkably got lost in the subpoena process."

Just whose 250 pages of email are we talking about? Ever since I heard that Junya DOES NOT use email because of the potential legal discovery implications, I've often thought that Deadeye was the instigator of this policy, and of course, DOES NOT use email himself.

Deadeye's non-usage of email is probably a combination of both his proclivity to work in "hush-hush, Top Secret Whisper-mode" as well as a result of the legal discovery implications.

Lastly, based on Libby's GJ statement above, I suspect that he too has no "official" WH email account because of the legal discovery implications, and I wonder who else in that WH cesspool was part of the "can't use email" cabal?

Abu Gonzales? Karl Rove? Condi Rice?

[Axey]

In the event of an appeal, will Fitzgerald handle it? I hope not because I would like for him to be free to handle the case against the person or persons who leaked CIA agents identities to the LATimes.

[oldtree]

Doesn't this indicate the government has this document, but did not use it except to show to Judy. It seems as though the defense didn't pick up on it? or am I missing what you are saying here?
If that is what he handed her and she testified to, it would seem to indicate that he has another case that he is saving that document for. Could he have used this in GJ testimony and not brought it to trial perhaps? Since he has her and novak in what seems to be perjury, he just turned scoot and novak, has judy up on perjury charges..... and we will see some serious trials that will make the watergate a hotel story.

or am I missing your point entirely?

[Heidi]

Emptywheel--George Tenet rarely comes up in these discussions, but my feeling is that he made sure the investigation of this leak happened, and that he has some key testimony that will come back to haunt Cheney. Cheney and Libby stomped on his toes and bullied his people for a long time before this, and when he was made to fall on his sword for the 16 words that the VP muscled into the SOTU, he was PISSED. When they outed one of his people to cover up their culpability, the gloves came off, and he told the FBI everything he knew. I think Fitz has been saving him for the Cheney trial. What do you think?

[mickey]

How do you do that? You've taken the CompLit buzzwords "a close reading" to new heights. Amazing...

This would be a very, very destroyable document - being that those bullets probably include something like:

• Joe Wilson - wife Valerie Flame Plame works at CIA in CPD. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger.

[jackie]

Cheney is not just the 'link' in the Plame Affair, but is also the *door* to 'big business'. He can't really afford to have us look too long or too closely, he has an interesting history, too many ties to dirty business deals etc, Pappy Bush, long and interesting ties to all sorts of people.
Cheney has been around for a long time, lots of secrets...
People are going to learn all sorts of things about Cheney and friends.
Yep, Merry Fritzmas.....
Jackie

[Axey]

Joe Wilson - wife Valerie Flame Plame works at CIA in CPD. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger

That doesn't work in EW's scenario. The note would have to say WINPAC because that is what Miller had written down. It should be easily identifiable and since she didn't work there you wouldn't find too many with those words on it. If they didn't find one, then it must mean Libby destroyed it.

[mickey]

Axie,
Good point. Close readers everywhere!

• Joe Wilson - wife Valerie Flame Plame works at WINPAC. Sent him on boondoggle to Niger.

[Axey]

I was wondering about the WINPAC reference. It doesn't make sense unless you consider Libby was lying to Miller about where she worked. Like asking her to reference him as a former hill staffer, maybe he told Miller where she worked but asked her to instead refer to her as being employed in WINPAC. Then you have Vanity Fair claiming Alan Foley was her boss, which puts her squarely back at WINPAC, but at the trial you have a stipulation that she never worked in WINPAC. Very confusing.