Libby Forgets Dick

by emptywheel

Before I get into the part of Fitzgerald's new filings on Dick Cheney that everyone is talking about, let me just share my favorite part of the Libby testimony Fitzgerald released as an exhibit. If, like me, you believe Libby may be hiding a Novak conversation or two, then you're going to enjoy this slip.

I don't recall the conversation until after the Novak piece. I don't recall it during the week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak conver -- after the Novak article appeared I recall it, and I recall being asked by the Vice President early on, you know, about this envoy, you know, who is it -- but I don't recall that early on he asked about it in connection with the wife, although he may well have given the note that I took.

Silly Libby! Novak wrote an article, he didn't have a conver ... conver ... conversation with you. Or did he?

Then later on, he as much as admits a conversation with Novak.

I certainly don't recall any discussion about [Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip] prior to the Russert/Novak conversations when I learned about the wife, what I thought was the first time.

Though I presume this is supposed to refer to his conversation with Russert and his conversation with Rove about Novak--though this, and Jeffress' prior suggestion Novak told Libby his source directly really make me wonder...

As you can probably tell, the central issue of this part of Libby's testimony is that he did have conversations about Dick's annotated copy of Wilson's op-ed. But that he must not have had them until after Novak's column. Because if he had, then he obviously would have re-remembered Plame's identity, given the way Dick had suggested in the notes that Plame had sent Wilson on a junket. Which puts Libby in the position of arguing that he and Dick had a conversation in which Dick made the case that Plame sent Wilson on a junket ... after Novak already published a column to that effect. Okay, whatever Scooter.

Fitzgerald's not buying it. In one passage, he takes one Dick annotation after another Dick annotation and asks whether Libby remembers Dick talking to him about the questions he wrote on Wilson's op-ed. Then Fitzgerald points out the same logical problem with Libby's claims I pointed out.

Q. And lastly it says, or did his wife send him on a junket? Do you recall the Vice-President indicating or asking you or anyone in your presence whether or not Ambassador Wilson's wife had arranged to have him sent on a junket?

A. I think I recall him -- I don't recall him asking me that particular question, but I think I recall him musing about that.

Q. Okay, and do you recall when it was that he mused about that?

A. I think it was after the Wilson column.

Q. Okay, and obviously --

A. I don't mean the Wilson column, I'm sorry, I misspoke. I think it was after the Novak column.

Q. Okay. And you mentioned last time that you thought he had written, handwritten here, may have been discussed at a later date, like August or September by the Vice-President?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And --

A. I don't know, later. I don't know when, but yes.

Q. Okay. And can you tell us why it would be that the Vice-President read the Novak column and had the questions some of which apparently seem to be answered by the Novak column, would go back and pull out an original July 6th op-ed piece and write on that?

In his filing accompanying this testimony, Fitzgerald states clearly that the conversation--the one Libby seems to think occurred after Novak's column? Well, it happened immediately after Wilson's op-ed appeared.

As the defendant admitted in his grand jury testimony, he communicated extensively with the Vice President regarding the Wilson Op Ed during the relevant period, and received direction from the Vice President regarding his response to the Wilson Op Ed. The Vice President’s handwritten notes on a clipping of the Wilson Op Ed, which reflect his views concerning Mr. Wilson and his wife, are evidence of the views the Vice President communicated during the conversations that the Vice President and his chief of staff had during the period immediately following the publication of the Wilson Op Ed, and corroborate other evidence regarding these communications, which are central to the government’s proof that defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury. Accordingly, the Vice President’s annotations of the Wilson Op Ed are uniquely relevant to the issues of this case.

Funny, all this time Libby has been worried about impugning Ari's testimony, while it looks like Dick--or Dick's notes--are the most important witness against him. Things don't look good for the Libby team. Which is, I think, the real message of this filing. I almost get the sense that Fitzgerald is trying to demonstrate how futile arguing this case will be, perhaps in the hope that Libby will settle. Knowing that Libby's team is really the cabal defense team, mightn't the threat of the Vice-President being called to testify make the defense team think seriously about avoiding trial?

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the government has not represented that it does not intend to call the Vice President as a witness at trial. To the best of government’s counsel’s recollection, the government has not commented on whether it intends to call the Vice President as a witness, and the representations it has made regarding the identity of potential government witnesses have been limited to responses to the defense assertions in defendant’s Third Motion to Compel.

This is, in my opinion, a threat. Remember--if Dick testified at trial, he'd be under oath, unlike when he chatted with Fitzgerald the last time.

My second favorite thing about Libby's testimony is his description of Dick's reading habits. By all rights, Dick ought to be a blogger:

Q. Did you often see him with the actual newspaper column -- actual physical columns from newspapers?

A Yes, he often will cut out from a newspaper an article using a little pen knife that he has and put it on the edge of his desk or put it on his desk and then pull it out and look at it, think about it. That will often happen.

Q. Okay. And do you recall if he did that on this occasion on July 6th?

A. Evidently he did, but I don't recall.

Q. Okay. And fair to say --

A. Once again, this, this column came out, I believe he got this column when he was in Wyoming, not in Washington, over the July 4 recess. And so it's -- I don't think it would have been there the day I walked in the office, for example.

Q. How long does the Vice President keep the columns that he cuts out with a pen knife and puts on the corner of his desk?

A. Sometimes a long time.

Q. And if you walk in the Vice-President's office, would you see a stack of old newspaper articles on the corner of his desk?

A. He doesn't necessarily always keep it on the corner of his desk. He keeps it underneath papers or in a briefcase ore [sic] something. I've seen him produce them from different places. And since the FBI showed me this, I have on occasion, noticed him still -- you know, having a document on his desk which is a cut out newspaper article.

See what I mean? Cut out the newspaper, put it on the edge of his desk, then take it out and look at it and think about it? Columns sitting there on the corner of his desk a long time? Producing columns from underneath papers, from briefcases, from that corner of his desk?

Damn. Someone get this man a blog. We might have avoided this whole unpleasant incident if Dick had just channeled these energies into a blog of his own...

Update: Some glitches removed.

Comments

[lemondloulou54]

Wonderful. Just a glitch here: Fitzgerald's not buying it. In one passage, he asks him Dick annotation by Dick annotation

[lemondloulou54]

Know that I've read that again, maybe you mean "Dick-annotation-by-Dick-annotation" ?

[emptywheel]

Several glitches. Didn't drink enough coffee before I posted, I guess.

[MK]

I still wonder where Fitz got the Cheney annotated column. From Cheney? Well, maybe, though I'm doubting Dick would have coughed it up without directly being asked to, and maybe not even then. Or could Cheney (or Libby for that matter) have handed it over to someone else -- or made someone a copy with Dick's notes on it and handed it off? Ari, maybe? or Cathie Martin? Or discussed it on Air Force 2 or maybe in some meeting, where other people are there, and passed out copies of the annotated article for everyone to have one? So maybe the provenance of the article isn't something Libby can really challenge -- and maybe there's additional testimony that will contradict what Libby says about seeing the article before? And maybe finding out that testimony is what Libby's bankrolled defense really wants?
Good on Fitz -- he doesn't HAVE to have that testimony to authenticate the annotated article, just as he doesn't have to call Dick -- but I can imagine why the Libby team is oh so anxious to find out what all these other people will testify to....

[emptywheel]

MK

There's one more passage where Fitz seems to address provenance.

The fact that comments regarding Wilson’s wife were included among the Vice President’s annotations also supports the proposition that defendant’s conversation with the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson’s wife more likely than not occurred shortly after the publication of the Wilson Op Ed, rather than later, as defendant claimed.5 Evidence placing defendant’s conversation with the Vice President shortly after the publication of the Wilson Op Ed also corroborates the accounts of a number of government witnesses who will testify that defendant discussed Mr. Wilson’s wife on or before July 8, 2003.

First, he seems less sure here than in the passage I cited above when the conversation occurred. But the "Evidence placing..." seems to say that he does have some kind of evidence that the conversation occurred, which would go straight to provenance questions (that is, if Dick and Libby had a conversation about the annotations, then it suggests that one of them actually wrote the annotations). Though I don't know what that evidence could be. It also sounds like he has more witnesses to Libby talking about Plame on July 8. In the indictment he mentions Addington, and he places the Cathie Martin conversation on or before July 8 (wonder if he knows it was July 8).

[William Ockham]

I'm with MK. Where did the investigators get the Cheney-annotated column? It would really mess with my world-view to think that Cheney willingly turned that over. After all the trivial stuff the Administration has claimed executive privilege on, the idea that Cheney would just give that up seems incomprehensible. Did someone (maybe Cathie Martin) tell the FBI that she saw the article, leading the FBI to request it. Remember, the FBI seems to have had this article from the beginning (before Fitzgerald). And, as near as I can tell, they had the original, not just a copy, and showed it to Libby.

[Anne]

As I read the filing, it seems like Fitzgerald has drawn a pretty straight line to Cheney, and that Fitzgerald is more or less acknowledging that Cheney probably told Libby what to do, that Libby was probably just "following orders," but that Libby lied about it.

Is Cheney Fitzgerald's ultimate target? And how does Libby defend himself without throwing Cheney under the bus, and eliminating any possibilty of a pardon by a pissed-off president?

[emptywheel]

Anne

I think that's the point. There's some evidence that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity. It may not be enough to indict him on (Jeff makes a good argument that Fitz wouldn't keep mentioning these details about Cheney if he intended to indict, though I'm not entirely convinced). But Libby's defense is causing this evidence to get out there anyway. Too bad no one seems to give a damn.

[hauksdottir]

"but I don't recall that early on he asked about it in connection with the wife"

"when I learned about the wife"

:pffffft:

Feminist that I am, I cringe when I hear some chavinistic, porn-writing, fart-faced bastard refer to an accomplished woman with the disregard used for mere property. The wife?

Or... is he still playing the game that betraying her was a strike against her husband, and that Ms Plame/Flame was insignificant, lest we uncover too much information that silencing her and destroying the Brewster-Jennings operation was their primary goal in the march towards warfare throughout the Middle East.

[emptywheel]

hauksdottir

Glad you pointed out. I immediately thought of his bear and child porn when I read that. As if the wife is a mere inanimate appendage, or maybe a cancer that must be removed.

Not that I want to make excuses, but I wonder whether he trained himself to use that reference to avoid having to say her name, which might make him slip and say Plame.

In any case, with the two Freudian slips even in just the passages I quote here, I wonder how good a lawyer this guy is, because he doesn't seem to be able to control his mouth very well.

[QuickSilver]

Too bad no one seems to give a damn.

Glad to see Johnston at the New York Times covering this story, foregrounding the possibility that Cheney will be a trial witness. Even so, I keep thinking that if we lived in a functioning democracy -- one whose media/corporate interests didn't fall so completely in this administration's lap -- we would already hear drums beating for Cheney's impeachment. Not only are Cheney's notes a smoking gun, the fact of other witnesses to Libby/Cheney conversations might very possibly illuminate the Vice President's own efforts to deceive the FBI and Fitzgerald.

This trial will be a spectacle. Believe me, when it comes to lying to the police and lying to the public, Americans do give a damn, particularly when the same man lied us into war. Despite the Times' studied reticence on the subject, those bigger lies will be Cheney's legacy, and plenty of Americans already connect the dots.

[obsessed]

New Murray Waas on Rove-Novak Conversation

Also at National Journal is a piece co-written by Waas on the foiling of the NSA investigation.

[bling]

Did anybody notice this passage in Jeffrey Smith's WaPo story on Libby this morning:

A previous court filing by Fitzgerald revealed that Cheney had annotated his copy of the column with this question about Wilson: "Did his wife send him on a junket?" Cheney's defense lawyers said in a subsequent filing that Libby had testified he never saw those annotations until the FBI showed him a copy. In Libby's actual testimony, as released by Fitzgerald, he said, "It's possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it."

See that 3rd sentence: "Cheney's defense lawyers said..." Is this a typo? Did they mean Libby's lawyers? Or has Cheney been filing motions in the case also? If so, I don't remember hearing that previously. Weird.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402597.html

[Swopa]

Bling,

Sounds like a great moment in copyediting to me.

[emptywheel]

Hahahahaha!!

That's priceless, bling. Because it is a typo, it must mean Libby's lawyers (because they said just that in their last filing). But Smith is just admitting what everyone realizes--that these guys are really working to save Dick's ass.

[bling]

I'm betting media harpy Mary Matalin or Dick's new mouthpiece is on the phone with Len Downie right this minute screaming bloody murder.

[spiderleaf]

It may not be enough to indict him on (Jeff makes a good argument that Fitz wouldn't keep mentioning these details about Cheney if he intended to indict, though I'm not entirely convinced). But Libby's defense is causing this evidence to get out there anyway.

EW, I think it is exactly Libby that is forcing Fitz's hand here. See his response above about who was on the witness list... he was playing his cards close but Libby's team keeps filing motions to compel...

the government has not commented on whether it intends to call the Vice President as a witness, and the representations it has made regarding the identity of potential government witnesses have been limited to responses to the defense assertions in defendant’s Third Motion to Compel.

To me this says Fitz could very well charge the VP too and then he may or may not be called as a witness for the gov't against Libby because he would self-incriminate. Fitz is just leaving all the options open... but it's Libby who is making all this stuff public by trying to call Fitz's bluff, probably on orders from Cheney to see what kind of a case they have against him... a pretty good one it would seem...

[lukery]

re Bling's catch, it actually seems like more than a Cheney-for-Libby type, because wouldn't they naturally refer simply to "Libby's lawyers" (as they did earlier in the article) rather than "Libby's defense lawyers"

(notwithstanding EW's observation that Libby's lawyers did indeed say that)