« Sorting out the Generals | Main | Is Rove Stepping Down to Save Mehlman's Arse? »

April 19, 2006

Comments

Can someone explain to me why they aren't issuing a subpoena to Robert Novak?

Nope.

Um. How about this. If you believe my Waas-based theory that Libby talked to Novak sometime in the days before the leak about Frances Fragos Townsend, then he might not want to let Fitz put Novak on the stand for fear of exposing a more substantive conversation than revealed in the indictment. They really are just facing perjury at this point, and they'd probably like to keep it that way?

Or this. Novak did get subpoenaed, he hasn't chosen to quash, so we don't know about it?

Or this. For reasons related to my first notion, Libby has decided he'll go with just Rove on the stand there, rather than Rove and Novak?

Or how about this. I don't have any clue.

I'm also very curious about this item from the Time subpoena:

5. The original of the document produced to the grand jury or Office of Special Counsel bearing Bates number MC 0043-44.

They also ask for unredacted copies of many (all?) redacted documents produced for the investigation from Matthew Cooper and Time Magazine. Since the document mentioned above would fall in the sequence described in the request for unredacted copies, presumably they have some reason for wanting the original.

Am I overreading, or does Bennett elide the difference between the documents covered by Request 3 (all docs relating to Plame) and Request 1 (the notebooks that Fitzgerald already obtained)? Or is Bennett implying that Miller has nothing responsive to Request 3 beyond the notebooks she already turned over to Fitzgerald?

Very interesting to see those Judy quotes about analysts on the bioweapons trailers.

It makes me wonder wonder just how far back she was getting classified info, passed under the table by the W Administration?

Must have been a whole lot of declassifying going on over there.

Besides dust bunny memoirs, Libby's people are on the record as wanting to pressure these two journalists especially. My guess aligns with EW's cherrypicking the evidence theories; but, as Christy likely would suggest, that is what defense is supposed to do. I would expect Libby's people to want pressure on the two organizations, Time, NY Times; and recordkeeping systems and internal communications in those two news businesses; no shield for personnel matters, or candid executive branch deliberative processes. I wonder how serious Jeff would take the step to MTQ right away; maybe it is a routine reply, perhaps the only way to deny discovery. Though it is a stretch to see Judy as a hostile witness. Wonder what is in those notes; probably enough to keep the folks busy the rest of 2006 devising a revisionist history by the time the trial date arrives in 1Q2007. Got to clear the dust bunny to find at least one more notebook.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad