Libby's Lawyers: "Just Joking!"

by emptywheel

It may be that the people paying Libby's defense team are a little uncomfortable with the recent turn of events. Because William Jeffress (the Nixon lawyer on Libby's team, not the Iran-Contra lawyer) has released the following statement:

There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby's lawyers have advised the court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors. Indeed, there has never been any conference call between Mr. Libby's defense lawyers and Judge Walton. We do not know who reporters are relying on as sources for this story, but any such persons are neither knowledgeable nor authorized to speak for Mr. Libby's defense team.

Now, I gotta admit, Mr. Nixon lawyer, you're confusing me a bit here. Because I see no place in Waas' story (nor in Carol Leonnig's, which also confirms that Cheney is one of the superiors who authorized Libby to leak classified information) which alleges either that "Libby's lawyers have advised the ... Special Counsel" how they will defend Libby or that there has been a conference call between Libby's lawyers and Judge Walton.

In other words, Jeffress' rebuttal is complete and utter bullshit. It refutes a claim that--as far as I know--no reporters have made.

Then what's going on here?

Jeffress' feint could mean one of three things. It may mean that one of Waas' (and Leonnig's) sources yesterday was one of Libby's lawyers. And that this feint by Jeffress is just a pathetic attempt to continue to pursue the "I was authorized" defense strategy while trying to put the press uproar upon hearing about it back in the box. That is, Jeffress may just be making this feint in the hopes that the corporate media is as stupid as we think it is, and that they'll drop the entire story of Cheney (and, I still suspect, Bush) authorizing Libby's leaking.

But this could also be a real CYA attempt to make Jeffress' bosses more comfortable. Consider--the new information in Waas' article (as opposed to the stuff I talked about over a week ago) is that Cheney was authorizing Libby to leak classified information before the war, to justify the war. Couple that with today's Pincus article basically confirming that Bush and Cheney cherry-picked their way to a war justification, and the revelations of the last 24 hours really put a dent in the Neocon justifications. You know, the Neocons, the people employing Jeffress et al?

A comment clarice made over at Tom Maguire's place might support this interpretation. When I asked her for a link to Jeffress' statement, she helpfully said:

Contact Barbara Comstock's (Libby's press contact)office..They released it. If you have difficulty reaching her, email me your addy, and I'll ask her to send it to you.

Barbara Comstock, of course, is in charge of Libby's Defense Fund, not Libby's press contact office. So this suggests that the Neocon moneybags didn't like yesterday's big news. Maybe they've even jettisoned the greymail strategy (note, this statement came over Jeffress' signature, the guy who, in addition to being the Nixon lawyer on the team, is also the guy who shares a board room with Bush consligliere James Baker III. It didn't come from Cline, the greymail specialist.) for fear it would tax Cheney's always-fragile heart.

One final option is possible. We'll be sorting through the intra-White House politics on the Plame Affair for quite some time. But is it possible that Waas' source is someone from the Andy Card side of the White House? I mean, neither Waas nor Leonnig make the leap I've made, that a guy who works as the Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor for the Veep and as an Assistant to the President might include POTUS as one of his superiors. Is it possible the leaks to Waas and Leonnig were designed to incriminate Dick and, by association, draw attention away from Bush? Which would explain why Jeffress responded so quickly (and so oddly??)--because he realized someone had scored a few points against him.

Anyway, I don't know. But I do know either Jeffress is reading a different Waas article than I am, or this statement is complete bullshit.

Comments

[John Casper]

"in the hopes that the corporate media is as stupid as we think it is," LMAO

[emptywheel]

John Casper,

Well, I still don't know how, a week after ReddHedd remarked on the authorized leaking of the NIE on a blog with a daily readership of 50,000, a NYT reporter could claim this news had first been reported by Waas. I mean, nothing against Waas at all. But geez, even the NYDN had published on that letter.

So I'm going to make all the digs in at the MSM I can today.

[emptywheel]

One more point.

Imagine that Waas' and Leonnig's source is one of Libby's lawyers. That would mean they're abusing reporter's privilege again. They'd basically be leaking something to a journalist, then the next day denying that they had said it, fully expecting the journalists to keep quiet about it.

[ReddHedd]

ew -- you ought to give yourself props as well. As I recall, you hit the same point on the same day that I did about the NIE "authorized" release. But frankly, although the media props would be nice, the fact that the news is spreading just makes me smile. (You know, that cheshire cat sort of grin, with the evil kick-ass gleam in my eyes...)

[emptywheel]

Yeah, we both found it, I know. And I did the math that Cheney (and Bush) were probably Libby's superiors.

But this blog doesn't have a readership that (I imagine) exceeds that of the National Journal. I don't expect them to see it on my blog. On yours, yes.

[lemondloulou54]

EW, Sorry to have disappeared after my last message, but you've definitely run with it. The Note didn't have a link, btw. I had just pasted it in t the message. . .

I'm going with your Andy Card to Muarry Waas theory. Libby's lawyers have to use statements like Jeffress' to communicate to Cheney and Bush.

[emptywheel]

lemond

That's alright. Telling me it was at the Note was enough...

Imagine if Andy Card has been a big Waas source for a while. Just imagine that for a second.

[freepatriot]

curiouser and curiouser

can we execute libby before the trial, or do we have to wait for tea ???

on the serious side, are you sure that libby leaked BEFORE the war ???

as I understand it, libby claimed he leaked the NIE to judy miller in may of 2003

but I could be wrong abouit that

[emptywheel]

freepatriot

I'm just repeating what Waas' source appears to be saying. Libby leaking in July 2003, and leaking before the war. But it'd be alomst absurd to believe he wasn't. SOMEONE leaked the aluminum tubes story to Judy (as well as a lot of the INC defector information). The aluminum tubes story in particular HAS to be a WHIG leak, because Judy's story was basically the same info all the SAOs on the Sunday talk shows wanted to talk about.

[SaltinWound]

I've always had an instinct that Card didn't do anything with the twelve hour head start he got from Gonzales. He didn't mind this happening to Rove and Libby at all.

[William Ockham]

Gee, I think I was the only one who alleged "an authorization by superiors" defense, although I never said anything about a conference call. Seriously, I don't think it's very hard to figure out what's going on here. Everybody in Washington knows that Libby, in fact, was following orders when he leaked Plame's identity and when he lied to the grand jury. The Waas article made it sound like he might be willing to say that in court. That is absolutely the last thing that Libby and his defense team want anybody thinking, even if he decides to do that (and I don't think he will). His entire future rides on being the good soldier.

[JohnLopresti]

This is the Rove so-what that's-what-we-do-for-a-living defense; it fits other things the administration is doing, as well.

[Jeff]

I've got a question about Rove, prompted by an intriguing reference to Rove in Fitzgerald's August 27, 2004 affidavit. If I'm not mistaken, the most up-to-date report on Rove's story is that he acknowledges that he had heard about Wilson's wife before he talked with Novak (and for the life of me I can't figure out whether the Novak-Rove conversation took place on July 8 or 9), but he can't remember where he had heard it exactly, and he learned her name for the first time only from Novak. But here's what FItzgerald's 2004 affidavit says, in the context of Libby's claimed basis for knowledge about Wilson's wife (transcribing):

Libby further testified that he thereafter spoke to reporters [REDACTED: but we believe Glenn Kessler,] Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed with them the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA relaying what he heard from Russert (and what Karl Rove also told him that Rove had learned from Robert Novak).

That Rove reported his conversation with Novak to Libby, on July 10 or 11, obviously after Libby's conversation with Russert, has been a consistent part of their story. But my impression is that the content of the Rove-Novak conversation, on Rove's and Libby's version, has changed over time (and I think there have been various reports to this effect). It's my impression from this bit of Fitzgerald's affidavit that Rove and Libby's story as of August 2004 was that Rove had first learned about Wilson's wife from Novak. This fits with the odd thing Tom Maguire noticed: according to Libby's testimony (as reported in Tatel's less redacted opinion and also now in Fitzgerald's still partly redacted affidavit), and in contradiction to Cooper's testimony, Libby brought up Wilson's wife, not Cooper. That was surprising, but as Maguire suggests, it would make sense as a way to keep Rove out of it, since Libby's version does not mean that Cooper learned of Wilson's wife somewhere else and suggests otherwise. So no Rove-Cooper conversation, which in turn coheres with the idea that Rove only knew about Plame at all from Novak. Was that Rove's initial story? And has he changed his story? Or am I missing something? It wouldn't sit easily with Libby's story if Rove were knoweldgeable enough from some other source to confirm info for Novak on July 8 or 9, and report about it to Libby shortly thereafter.

Or to put it another way: I seriously doubt Fitzgerald would be considering charging Rove solely on the Cooper conversation remembered or denied, and though I have no idea whether Fitzgerald is going to charge Rove, if he does, I strongly suspect we'll see something about Rove's changing story on his conevrsation with Novak and his inability to remember where he actually learned about Plame. Again, unless I'm just missing something important.

[Wintermute]

I'm interested in the chains of command in this executive branch, considering the the Vice-President is charged by the Constiution only to preside over the Senate and to be first in succession. I suppose there is some executive order empowering Cheney to quiz the CIA and so forth, but the degree he has acted like a deputy president is unparallelled in my lifetime. This may become a legal issue before this affair is done.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

Oh yeah, he has changed his story. In addition to first saying he didn't talk to anyone about Plame, he also said in a later version that he didn't talk to any reporter about Plame until after the Novak article. In 2004 it wasn't yet clear that Novak had substantially flipped, so Novak was still peddling the "heard from Novak" line. And Fitz apparently had only a new suspicion that Rove told Cooper.

In other words, the attempt to protect Rove almost worked.

[John Casper]

ew->OfT, if you are ever inclined, I would be interested in your take on the extreme selectivity with which the WH applies the "unitary executive theory." The WH seems to have completely abandoned it when Katrina demolished the New Orleans' levees.

[Jeff]

ew - Thanks. Just to be clear, what I'm after is Rove's testimony. I know Rove changed his public story, but my sense is that the Rove-friendly claim now is that he was up front in his testimony about talking with Novak from the getgo. And that appears to be true. But are you saying that Rove has changed his testimony regarding the content of his July 8 or 9 conversation with Novak, as appears to be the case? Do we have any reporting to that effect?

The thing is, if even the pieces we have public knowledge of fit together so well into a story of a contrived cover-up, and Novak has flipped or whatever, then the case against Rove is a slam dunk and I cannot imagine how Fitzgerald would have refrained from indicting him already. So the fact that Rove wasn't indicted gives me pause.

On a related note, a friend of mine and I were recently speculating over whether Novak is under a gag order. Or rather, I was excited by the discovery of this old Slate explainer raising the possibility that Novak is under a gag order, and my friend was pointing out that the article fairly botched the relevant case law on the issue. But a gag order certainly would explain Novak's distinctive public refusals to discuss his role in the case, the reason for which he also says he can't reveal. See, for instance, Novak's intriguing final appearance on CNN as an employee back in December.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

There is a Waas article (and either an Anonymous Liberal or Talkleft post) detailing Rove's public statements about his testimony. And Waas, IIRC, says that his testimony did in fact change.

FWIW, I think Rove may not have been indicted yet for two reasons. One, because after he refused to take a plea deal, Fitz decided to go back for more charges, not just perjury, but also obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.

And the reason why Novak hasn't talked, I've always assumed, is because he's working his own way out of an obstruction of justice charge. In the same way Fitz perjury trapped Judy into testifying more than she wanted (and she couldn't say anything in the interim because he hadn't released her from her contempt), I think he presented Novak with the evidence that he had conspired with Rove and Libby to obstruct justice. He has to be quiet until Fitz clears him of those charges. Which won't be until Rove gets his indictment.

But here's a thought I've been having. How weird is it that Novak got hired at Fox. They know that he's likely to be the star witness at a Rove trial. But they hired him anyway. Meanwhile, Judy hasn't gotten hired yet, not even by the obvious think tanks. I think part of the problem with Judy is that she's likely to be subpoenaed in so many other cases (not least the Franklin case; some of Judy's former colleagues just had a chat with the FBI. I'd be surprised if they didn't talk to her as well.

[semiot]

I know we clarions of the left blogosphere like to give the raspberry to Wolf, the Beard of CNN, particularly for his typical assistance to the BushCo interests in framing the news of the day.

So perhaps he might be a useful tell to the seriousness of the growing frame problem the powerpeople are having with the Plame Affair.

In the 5:00 segment of the Situation Room yesterday (10 FEB) Wolf had Richard Benveniste and Jerk DeGenova discussing the issue of Libby's "authorization" to reveal material from the NIE, etc. Wolf pointed to an executive order Bush signed in 2003 that called for release of classified info "in the public interest." DeGenova was ranting that if release was authorized then it's legal and it's not a "leak" at all. Period. Benvensite countered that but of course it's a leak when information is given to one or two reporters under the guise of a "former Hill staffer." Wolf cut off the discussion at that point, saying in his typical fatuous way, "on that point of agreement . . . "

What struck me in this were two things. 1) DeGenova's angry, almost desparate insistance that "this is all legal." 2) Wolf's framing of questions that gave Benveniste a better than even chance to make DeGenova - and the White House - look like crumbs.

Transcript up at this link:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/10/sitroom.02.html

[Jeff]

Thanks, ew, I will try to track down the Waas and AL/TL references. Or I could just wait for pollyusa to show up and provide an exhaustive specification of every article that has dealt with the issue of Rove's testimony, with links.

As for Novak and Miller's new employment situations, I suspect it's just that Judy hasn't applied for jobs yet. She's probably just enjoying her severance windfall and working on her book. I predict she'll end up at one of the obvious think tanks, writing books about how the intelligence community is udnerestimating this that or the other threat. As for Novak, Fox may just not think there is going to be a Rove trial, or that Novak will be a star witness. On the other hand, if they know he'll be a star at Rove's trial, what more sensible move than to hire him?

[emptywheel]

LOL

Here I was, pre-coffee, thinking, "Damn, I know I linked the Waas article somewhere but I'm just too damn tired to find it. Where's pollyusa when you need her?"

I don't think Novak is going to be the star at the trial in a way that will reflect well on Fox. Novak will be playing chief snitch, the guy who bailed out on the cover-up that was going to save them all, and in the process screwed over the mastermind of conservative dominance. Don't think that will play well on teevee.

[JohnLopresti]

EW and Jeff: I found this approaching your reference to polyusa in a comment p-usa added in a Maguire thread end of last year.
J

[Begonia Buzzkill]

Barbara Comstock, currently a partner at Blank Rome Government Relations, LLC, was employed by the United States Department of Justice during the DOJ's investigation of the Plame Leak, which disqualifies her from representing Scooter Libby, and any people who are charged with crimes as a result of the investigation.

She is doing exactly that at this moment.

Barbara Comstock Joins Blank Rome Government Relations LLC

WASHINGTON, DC, Monday, September 8, 2003 - David F. Girard-diCarlo, chairman and CEO of Blank Rome Government Relations LLC (BRGR LLC), today announced that Barbara Comstock, Director, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, will join the firm as a Principal effective October 1, 2003, and will serve clients both as a lobbyist and strategic communications specialist. Most recently, Comstock served as Director, Office of Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice since January 2002. In this position, Comstock was the chief spokesperson and communications strategist for Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as the spokesperson for the entire Department with responsibility for all public affairs and communications matters. Comstock also oversaw the public affairs offices of the Justice Department components including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Marshals Service.

This makes one ponder . . ..why Ms. Comstock engineered an exit from the DOJ in September, effective four days after the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

Washington Post, Oct 29, 2005 wrote:

On Sept. 26, 2003, the FBI and Justice Department began an investigation, and after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago was named as a special counsel in December 2003 to investigate whether the identification of Plame, who was an undercover CIA officer, was a violation of federal law.

This is extraordinarily inappropriate and unethical that an employee of the Prosecutor's Office and begins defending people who were actively being investigated by the Prosecutor's Office. It violates this all-important Rule of Professional Conduct, enacted by the Washington DC Bar Association, and virtually identical to the rule that applies in all fifty states of the Union:

DC Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct wrote:

Rule 1.9 — Conflict of Interest: Former Client

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.

The "interpretive comment" to DC Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 leaves no doubt that this problem cannot be overcome.

When a law firm is disqualified from representing someone because it has previously represented a client whose interests are adverse to the new client, all of their lawyers are disqualified. The US DOJ is the law firm for the People of the United States. The entire DOJ lawyer corps that has been on the job since the start of the investigation is disqualified.

Ms. Comstock wants us to think she's now stepping out of government employment, the obligation to not switch sides continues after one's employment with the client ends. So even though she thinks she left the DOJ, she retains her obligation to not switch sides.

Comstock is wallowing in unethical conduct and the press is responsible for continuing the destruction of the rules of law in this nation by not notifying the American public. So that's the story. If you can't kill an investigation by rigging the prosecution, then just CHANGE SIDES AND DEFEND THE ACCUSED CRIMINAL.

[Jeff]

ew - First off, congratulations on getting the storm going with your drawing-out of the ever-delightful clarice on Comstock over at JOM.

On Rove, I think I've tracked down most of the references you were talking about: Waas, with a litte more here; talkleft; and also JOM. A particularly significant article is this one by VandeHei and Leonnig in the WaPo October 20, 2005, though it has a deeply misleading headline.

Short version of the question I have: according to Fitzgerald's August 27, 2004 affidavit, again, Libby testified that he discussed with Miller, Kessler and Cooper on July 12 "the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA relaying what he heard from Russert (and what Karl Rove also told him that Rove had learned from Robert Novak)." It's not entirely clear how to interpret that parenthesis. But if Libby testified that Rove told him he (Rove) first learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from Novak, then either we can just add Rove to the list of people who contradicted Libby's testimony (and that's possible, since Fitzgerald goes on to say that essentially every material witness questioned to that point is substantially at odds with Libby), or this was Rove's story as well, in which case Rove is probably in trouble for his testimony not just about Cooper (which is what most people have focused on) but also about Novak. And if their testimony is contradictory, then it is highly doubtful that Libby and Rove conspired after the fact to contrive a cover story. But there are a lot of other things that seem best made sense of in light of such a cover-up.

[emptywheel]

I've been thinking I need to update my Anatomy of a White House Smear, but here's what I think has gone on.

July 20s.
BushCo realizes this has been recommended for investigation and they get very quiet.

Late Septemeber to October.
Libby, Rove, and Novak (and, I strongly suspect) Judy conspire to obstruct justice. Both Judy and Novak tell people they weren't targets of an organized leak (Judy to Taubman, Novak in his Town Hall column). At this point, here is what their stories are to be:

Novak: A lot of journalists knew this already. He called Ari, then spoke to Mr. X, then Karl, who confirmed what the journalists were saying. [Note, I think Ari was put in charge of public response on Plame this week, so they figured if they directed enough suspicion in his direction, Fitz might believe Ari was the leaker; they probably didn't realize that Ari would quickly realize they were setting him up as the scapegoat and start singing.]

Libby: He didn't speak to Judy about Wilson on July 8 (or before). He spoke to Russert on July 10, and first learned of Plame's identity. Then he confirmed it for Kessler, Judy, and Cooper on July 12. [Note, I don't yet know why he said this about Kessler, but I think he's trying to make the July 12 strategy session look less damaging to Dick.]

Rove: He learned of this from a journalist, not sure whom. He confirmed he had heard it to Novak. He mentioned that Novak was writing a story to Libby on July 10, after Libby had spoken to Russert. He didn't speak to COoper at all (having hidden the record of that conversation)--they buried this because they figured Cooper would not cooperate in a cover-up.

Judy: I don't know WHAT Judy's story was supposed to be. I think they were keeping her June reporting on this in the back pocket, hoping to hide it and then claim Judy was the one who started the rumor. But either they realized her source in June (who may not be Libby) wasn't hidden, or they were just totally taken by surprise with the perjury trap, so they weren't able to mobilize this secondary defense properly. In any case, Judy was simply supposed to not talk at all, since Fitz couldn't prove she had gotten the leak (so long as Jill Abramson and Joe Lelyveld hid the fact that Judy had tried to publish the story, which for some obscure reason they seem to have done).

Libby's testimony has never changed, largely because his notes require him to stick with a script and largely because he is designed as the firewall, the place where consistent lying may protect Dick.

Novak's testimony was the first to change. At first, he testified as designed. But then after Fitz took over (I'm guessing sometime around May 2004), they went after the October records, and saw the phone calls between Novak and Rove. After Fitz went after Novak with an obstruction charge, Novak changed his tune, all the while (like Judy) trying to limit the damage. He admitted that Karl confirmed his story, rather than some random journalist. And probably he admitted he spoke to Libby on July 8, about FF Townsend, though not yet admitting he also talked about Plame.

This probably wasn't significant enough yet to convince Karl to change his testimony. But after it became clear Cooper would have to testify (and they had no reason to expect him to lie), Karl testified again (in October 2004) and admitted to talking to Cooper, as well as admitting he had confirmed the story for Novak (that is, he changed his testimony about Novak, too). But at this point, he still maintained he hadn't talked to any journalist until after Novak's story.

Then, in July, (I think they offered to testify again before Cooper testified but after Time released the email) he changed his tune again. Of course, Fitz wouldn't let him testify again until after Judy testified. But by October 2005, he admitted he told Cooper of Plame's identity, but still claimed he didn't know she was covert (therefore no IIPA violation).

The Rove told jury Libby told him, I think, was October 2005 testimony, as part of an effort to appear more believable to Fitz.

[TheOracle]

Aaaah, when the neo-con Republican ship of state is sinking...it's every rat for themselves.

[Jeff]

ew- Right now I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the big picture, so some small bore comments on your current take, and a couple of localized questions about Fitzgerald's affidavit.

Then he confirmed it for Kessler, Judy, and Cooper on July 12.

This is incorrect, at least with regard to Libby''s story about Cooper. One of the oddities of Libby's testimony revealed by Fitzgerald's affidavit is that Libby testified that he brought up Plame with Cooper. One plausible motivation for such a story is to hide the fact of the Rove-Cooper conversation.

And probably he admitted he spoke to Libby on July 8, about FF Townsend, though not yet admitting he also talked about Plame.

So your take is that Libby was Novak's first source?

The Rove told jury Libby told him, I think, was October 2005 testimony, as part of an effort to appear more believable to Fitz.

I actually think this was just misleading pr by Rove's people around October 20, presenting the Rove-Libby conversation as something that it's not. But I am very curious as to what Rove's version of his July 10 or 11 conversation with Libby was. particularly with regard to Russert. Did Rove testify in a way consistent with Libby's aellegedly false story about hearing from Russert? Was he specific about it, or did he just not give an affirmatively different story? The AP reported on October 19, 2005, in a story apparently sourced to Rove's team, that Rove testified that the conversation with Libby touched on what they both had been hearing from reporters. If true, this suggests that Rove almost certainly lied about that conversation too, even if he didn't say anything specifically about Russert. Unless this story was floated simply to persuade Libby that Rove had not contradicted him in his testimony. As for Libby's version of that conversation, the AP story also says that "Libby's testimony stated that Rove had told him about his contact with Novak and that Libby had told Rove about information he had gotten about Wilson's wife from NBC's Tim Russert, according to a person familiar with the information shown to Rove." But note that this is sourced through Rove basically. The WaPo version of this story on October 20 states, "Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said." That doesn't go well with what we know of the allegations against Libby.

Questions:
What do you think happened on July 7 that is redacted in Fitzgerald's affidavit at the end of paragraph 10? It's clear from the strangely unredacted footnote 4, which is attached to redacted material either in paragraph 10, 11 or 12, that contact between government officials and reporters is discussed there, probably some of the leaks.

What do you think is redacted about Fleischer at paragraph 27(7)? Is it just his security clearance level or something like that? Or might it be something to the effect of, "who is cooperating with the inevstigation and has pled guilty"?

One other random note: I just realized that the Rule 404(b) paragraph of Fitzgerald's letter to Libby's defense provides an explanation for why the subpoena to Miller included that bit about Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium. Libby's story was that the July 8 conversation dealt with the NIE exclusive of Plame. Fitzgerald had to allow for that possibility in the subpoena.

[Jeff]

ew - Check it out. Here's what Libby's people were responding to with that press statement. Shuster on Hardball Thursday evening:

Legal sources in case, Chris, are telling us that this came up recently in a conference call with the judge in the case and Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. There was a discussion about evidence and requests by the defense, by Scooter Libby to get classified documents and it was during this conversation, according to lawyers, that Scooter Libby‘s lawyers said that part of their defense is based on the idea that Scooter Libby was acting on orders by his superiors, including Vice President Cheney.

Whatever the case, I hate to say it, but I think Shuster is running together some distinct stuff. Anyway, there it is.

[emptywheel]

One plausible motivation for such a story is to hide the fact of the Rove-Cooper conversation.

This is what Cooper said about it:

All morning I had been trying to reach I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby for a cover story about both President George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's controversial Op-Ed.

[snip]

The Wilson part that really interested Fitzgerald was tiny, as I told TIME readers. Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

Which suggests Cooper was the one asking. I think you're right that Libby told it differently to shield Rove. But also to shield Cheney (not sure how that works yet, but it's a gut instinct).

So your take is that Libby was Novak's first source?

I go back and forth. I think Libby DID tell Novak something about Plame. But I'm not sure he's the first (I do think there's a Mr. X, who is perhaps either Ari or Hadley, but I'm not sure when their call would have been). But it seems like Fitz either doesn't know about that, or is holding it in reserve for an IIPA violation. The question is, if Novak were under threat of an obstruction charge, how far would he go to protect Libby?

But I am very curious as to what Rove's version of his July 10 or 11 conversation with Libby was. particularly with regard to Russert.

I think Rove said precisely what appeared in the indictment, that he told Libby Novak was writing a story (I think Rove is the source for this information). Fitz may have left unclear whether Rove said Libby talked about Russert or not, because he can't use Rove--or even base any of Libby's perjury case--on Rove, bc Rove is likely to ruin the case. So it's unclear whether Libby SAID anything about Libby, but Fitz isn't relying on it. (For teh record, I'm sure they had an extensive conversation, so they're both still obscuring the truth, but that's what you get from these creeps.)

What do you think happened on July 7 that is redacted in Fitzgerald's affidavit at the end of paragraph 10? It's clear from the strangely unredacted footnote 4, which is attached to redacted material either in paragraph 10, 11 or 12, that contact between government officials and reporters is discussed there, probably some of the leaks.

I think that paragraph either refers to the WH backpedalling from Ari's comments after the 8th, or to a background comment Ari made.

And footnote 4 probably relates either to the Dickerson conversations (and Isikoff and whoever else "walked reporters up to" Plame's identity), or more likely refers to things Condi said on deep background in the July 12 briefing. There were a number of weird briefing comments that show up in the July 9, 11, and 12 briefing (actually one or more is a gaggle), so there are probably details in there.

One of those paragraphs also probably talks about the genesis and delivery of Tenet's statement.

What do you think is redacted about Fleischer at paragraph 27(7)?

I was just trying to figure that out yesterday. It may say he's cooperating. It might even say he made a plea agreement, testimony in exchange for immunity from an IIPA charge or something. I'm actually leaning toward something less negarious, for now, something like, "Rove tasked Fleischer with taking the lead on responding to the Joe Wilson talk."

Libby's story was that the July 8 conversation dealt with the NIE exclusive of Plame. Fitzgerald had to allow for that possibility in the subpoena.

Yeah, great point. So here's an interesting question about it then. Judy's deal was that Fitz was only going to ask her about Libby and only regarding Plame. At least some accounts of her deal said he couldn't ask about other topics, which I kind of figured referred to uranium. So did he ask her about the NIE on her first day of testimony, or only after he set his perjury trap?

[emptywheel]

About Shuster:

Why do you hate to admit it? Remember, Shuster was the one who had Bolton testifying in this case, which he had to retract after Condi Rice ripped his source's arms both off. I think he's pretty critical of this administration.

Anyway, thanks for that. Just turned the TV off for the summer. And I miss all the TV things anyway.

[emptywheel]

Actually, Shuster's wrong. Look at the following paragraph:

Now this conference call was a follow up to an exchange of letters between Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby. Again, they are battling over classified information and Scooter Libby‘s lawyers wrote to Patrick Fitzgerald and they said, quote, “as we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the national intelligence estimate in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003. We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors.”

But that quote is from Fitzgerald's January 23 response to Tate's letters, not Libby's lawyers writing to Fitzgerald.

Also note, this document doesn't appear to be one of the ones that was document dumped; I've always been working off of the rawstory copy, but it's certainly not one of the ones linked at FDL. So it may be that this is still supposed to be under wraps.

In any case, I'm not sure what that says about Waas' piece. Because if that's the evidence he's using (that is, if Shuster asked him, and Waas pointed him to this letter), then he's misinterpreting it. Fitzgerald is saying he's going to introduce Dick's authorization of leaking at the trial; Libby's lawyers aren't saying this.

[Jeff]

ew - Thanks.

Fitz may have left unclear whether Rove said Libby talked about Russert or not, because he can't use Rove--or even base any of Libby's perjury case--on Rove, bc Rove is likely to ruin the case.

Right. The reason it's interesting has nothing to do with the indictment of Libby. The point is that if Rove said anything about Russert, then Fitzgerald has to be utterly convinced there was a cover story concocted, since he doesn't believe the Libby-Russert conversation took place. And it has to add to Fitzgerald's suspicion if Rove testified at all affirmatively that Libby told him about what reporters were saying about Plame, although I suppose it's possible Libby reported to Rove info garnered from Miller.

I think that paragraph either refers to the WH backpedalling from Ari's comments after the 8th, or to a background comment Ari made.

From the first sentence of paragraph 11, it looks like the redacted sentence at the end of paragraph 10 has to do with events on July 7. I was sort of wondering whether it might read something like, "Later that day, speaking on background, Fleischer told reporter Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had inspired his trip." But I was also wondering similarly about 27(7), and I'm skeptical of my own maximalist imaginings.

At least some accounts of her deal said he couldn't ask about other topics, which I kind of figured referred to uranium. So did he ask her about the NIE on her first day of testimony, or only after he set his perjury trap?

I was really confused about just what the deal was at the time. But in light of what we know now, I suspect Fitzgerald clarified that he only was going to ask about Plame-related matters, and the bit about uranium only referred to the same conversation with Libby on July 8, thereby reassuring Miller that he wasn't going after other sources, except insofar as she might have talked about Plame with them. He had no interest in her awful reporting on the nuclear case for war per se. So I also remain skeptical there was any perjury trap, and I also am skeptical that Miller played any role in a Sept-Oct 2003 coverup, if there was one. I do think Miller was targeted for special attention by Libby with the Plame info in the hopes that she would publish, since she was uniquely well-placed and sympathetic to his point of view. But no conspiracy was necessary on that count.

Just turned the TV off for the summer.

What, you live in Australia or something? As for Shuster, my sense is his reporting has been pretty sloppy and mostly second-hand.

Just heard the news that Cheney's not competent at hunting either. What a loser.