by emptywheel
As I mentioned in my last post, the court filing gods have rained down upon us. In their filing moving to prevent the government from introducing any information relating to Valerie Plame's status, Libby's lawyers have pulled off a full Fitzgerald--revealing key information in a filing which in turn releases it to the media. This is, IMO, a bid to create the false impression that Plame was not covered by IIPA, but it also accomplishes the completely justified task of preventing the government from introducing things they haven't given to Libby for discovery.
Having steadfastly refused to provide discovery relating to these issues (other than the conclusory assertions included in two brief two "summaries" prepared by the CIA), the government cannot now be permitted to inflame the jury--and encourage it to punish uncharged and unfounded national security violations--by offering irrelevant and largely speculative evidence that sheds no light on the guilt or innocence of the charges that were brought.
Let me interrupt for a moment and point out that Libby knows what the conclusion of those two CIA reports were. He doesn't tell us what the conclusion was. I'm guessing that conclusion doesn't help his case. You see where I'm going. And based on that, he wants to prevent Fitzgerald from referring to Plame's status as classified. One more point. Summaries are all he gets on the rest of the classified data. But for this, he's arguing that summaries aren't good enough (the motion notes that Jeffress has filed a separate sealed declaration explaining why). If Fitzgerald feels the need to fight this, it's on this basis I suspect he'd make his argument.
Cherry Picking
Anyway, having argued no one should publish anything about Plame's status, Libby's team cherry picks the bits that do help their case. No doubt the JOMers will misunderstand this process of cherry picking--so whoever's turn it is to monitor JOM today, you get double credit for it.
And as for the picking? Well, there's Jeff's favorite, where Libby's lawyers insert a comma into Libby's own notes to make those notes look less incriminating.
as working in a "functional office[,]CP"
This suggests, to the uninformed, that CP (Counter-Proliferation) is a functional office. What it communicates without the comma is that she worked in the functional office of CP. The motion goes on to suggest that someone working in a functional office of Counter-Proliferation--part of the covert side of CIA--would be "an analyst." Uh huh, all those functional operatives, risking their lives at their functional desk jobs.
Libby then extracts one line from the summaries he has gotten (which, again, almost certainly show that Plame was classified and/or covert given the context):
Notes from a July 2003 internal CIA interview of William Harlow, then spokesperson for the agency, indicate that, at the same time as he was confirming to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA, Mr. Harlow "found out" that Ms. Wilson was "not under cover."
Anyone want to bet that the following line of the summary reads something to the effect of, "but then Harlow asked specifically and learned she was a NOC, at which point Harlow called Novak back to give him the strongest warning he was permitted to give"? That would be perfectly consistent with the suggestion that the summaries conclude Plame was covert.
With these two cherry picks, Libby's team seems to want to put the press out there in their full idiotic regalia, arguing that because one line of a summary that concludes Plame was covert implies the contrary, Libby should get an apology. (I'm looking at you, David Broder).
Potential Damage
Thus far, I actually think Libby's motion is reasonably fair. To the degree that this trial is about perjury, and that Fitzgerald has limited discussions about Libby's security sock drawer because it's about perjury, then Fitzgerald shouldn't be able to make a big argument about Plame's actual status. But then the motion takes a pretty radical turn. It attempts to prevent Fitzgerald from talking about the potential damage of leaking Plame's identity.
Now, potential damage is central to the case--Libby lied about these conversations because he knew he shouldn't have had them, they risked national security. So by arguing that Fitzgerald can't talk about potential damage, I suspect they're trying to prevent Fitzgerald from explaining Libby's motive.
Of particular concern is the way Libby's team argues this. They cite a passage of the May 5 Transcript in which Fitzgerald talks about discussion potential damage at trial (at 42-43). In the passage, Fitzgerald talks about how it's relevant:
One of the articles that came out in the New Republic in June of 2003. There was some discussion in there. After that article a witness spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone who was describing what it is that some of the problems were about Mr. Wilson's trip and the person said, can you make some information public, and Mr. Libby said, we can't because there are complications at the CIA which he didn't further explain, and he said, we can't talk about it on an open telephone line.
So the issue of potential damage from discussing it may come up. In a different conversation that Mr. Libby was present for, a witness did describe to Mr. Libby and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson. It was before the grand jury. It was back in July of 2003.
The first example shows that, in a conversation with Eric Edelman, Libby betrayed that he believed Plame's identity (or something else about Wilson's trip) was classified. So this example of "potential harm" goes right to proving that Libby had a reason to lie about this later on. And the second example again shows Libby learning that his leaking may have caused harm--which would give him cause to lie about his leaking later on (and there's the possibility that the other OVP person at this meeting was Dick, but that's just a suspicion). In other words, in arguing that Fitzgerald shouldn't be able to talk about potential harm, Libby's team is trying to rule out a lot of the motive discussion and, potentially, trying to exclude some of the government's witnesses.
The upshot is the same, but I actually think the point about the comma is sort of the opposite. The point is that CPD is a functional office, where the implicit contrast is between offices defined by their function (like counterproliferation) and offices defined by their regional focus (NESA, for instance). But again, the upshot is that the comma is trying to obscure the simple fact that Cheney told Libby that she worked in CPD which is part of the Directorate of Operations, where all the people under cover are.
I suspect you're right about cherry picking the notes from the interview of Harlow, and I hope that Fitzgerald responds by giving us a more complete picture.
Posted by: Jeff | October 31, 2006 at 11:09
Thanks for your continued efforts! Hope the bookwriting is going smoothly!
Did folks see the Chicago Trib article?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/sns-ap-cia-leak,1,286672.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Posted by: Nan | October 31, 2006 at 11:14
Just a quick note on ongoing doings: it turns out that the continuation of the CIPA hearing did happen yesterday, and the docket says that it is going to continue on Thursday.
Posted by: Jeff | October 31, 2006 at 11:26
I am not trying upset or annoy people, and I am certainly no lawyer. However I am very curious and interested in this subject, so I offer my apologies ahead of time if my questions or statements annoy people.
Now, I have a few questions since I see a "jury" mentioned above.
How will the jury be selected?
Can a fair and impartial jury be found in DC? That is where I think this trial will be.
Will they automatically exclude people that voted Democratic or Republican? Go with more independent people?
Will they exclude people that are connected to the Iraqi War? I mean that have family over there or family that died there. Will they exclude people that work for the government directly?
Will they have a similar policy like some courts have when the case involves alcohol where they automatically exclude MADD members or sympathizers?
In other words how will the court handle those people that have a very fervent belief one way or another on the war, and on Bush. How will the court identify those people?
Posted by: Jodi | October 31, 2006 at 11:27
so when scooter loses this motion, Fitz gets to introduce the info that directly states that scooter violated national security, right ???
scooter should dig up
this is a debate he don't want to have
Posted by: freepatriot | October 31, 2006 at 11:48
My apologies, jodi. I had gotten the impression that you were in fact not very interested or curious about this subject, what with all the complaints about the intense interest and curiosity of people who are very interested and curious about the topic. Presumably your questions about jury selection will be answered when Walton rules on the voir dire questions the parties submit on November 13. I do think I can say with confidence, even though I'm not a lawyer, that they will not automatically exclude people who voted Democratic or Republican.
Two guesses. Part of Fitzgerald's response on the classified status issue will be to explain that he needs to say that Plame's status was classified information in order to explain what the investigation was about. Second, I think Libby's argument about potential damage is very very weak, and Fitzgerald will not have trouble with that one. a)Libby's defense tries to limit the time when Libby's knowledge of potential damage would be relevant to before he spoke with reporters. But of course Fitzgerlad will argue that the time that is in fact relevant is before Libby spoke with investigators; in fact, he's already made that clear in discussing in a previous filing the CIA briefer who told Libby about the damage that could come from Novak's revelation shortly after Novak published his column.
Finally, I am curious to see whether Fitzgerald has any response to Libby's citation of the infamous footnote 15 on p. 28 of Fitzgerald's August 27, 2004 affidavit, which Libby's defense cites on p. 9 of its motion in limine. For two reasons. First, it only covers the issue of Libby's knowledge of covertness, not of classified status. And second, it's been over two years since Fitzgerald made that assertion. I am curious whether anything has changed, such as whether he learned anything new from Robert Grenier, who does not seem to appear in that affidavit and who may well have testified since then.
Posted by: Jeff | October 31, 2006 at 12:43
Off Topic, but did anybody notice how quickly the repuglican slime machine went to work on Kerry ???
why can't these assholes turn their awesome powers of attention and attack on the FUCKING WAR IN IRAQ
how does the presnit manage to attack Kerry in under an hour, but can't come up with a single new idea to fight the insurgency in Iraq for THREE FUCKING YEARS
anybody else notice that ???
Posted by: freepatriot | October 31, 2006 at 13:41
Plame leaked her own identity at 'Vanity Fair.' She admitted being a CIA operations officer, paramilitarily trained. This was confirmed by her 'farm' mates Larry Johnson and Jim Marcowski. Immediately following her article, ten opertions officers were assassinated in Iraq. They were not Americans like the Mercy Corps(Provisional Authority)volunteer assassinated in Iraq(first civilian casualty).
She was an attorney who worked with a local judge to bulldoze a house(bad idea according to her training at Peace Corps). The Director of Mercy Corps, Sarah Chayes, who is not supposed to be an operations officer, was also Peace Corps like Plame's husband Wilson. This happened at a time that judges were forming an international group to go overseas after they retire. The funding at Mercy Corps came from USAID(alot of it is CIA money)while Chris Shayes was on the intelligence committee who is also a Peace Corps volunteer like Chayes, both from Morocco.
The original damage goes back to Aimes, who was also a Peace Corps Volunteer and who's trainer(as well as other CIA operations officers) may or may not have retired as a Peace Corps Volunteer in, guess; Morocco. So, if Aimes leaked most operations officers and he did, Plame was already blown, which accounts for her behaviour of constantly trying to blow herself to someone important so that the repurcussions would follow and the imporatant person, like Cheney, would be blamed for the murders(like Iraq, but that was her blowing herself). Aimes operated like this killing over forty operations officers(foreign), which is why he was allowed to committ treason for so long; he was killing the enemy. This may have got someone set up who was also a Peace Corps Volunteer, but that was the point and Putin probably knows this. That volutneer may have seem Plame once and decided he did'nt want what was going to happen. Plame followed the same pattern and it's sad to see them repeat, but then there is the trainer going back and helping out Chayes and Shayes, right?
WMD was blown during the inspections by Blix. 'There is no WMD' and it may have been CIA selling off a program that was not liked because of Rice's 'close' relationship to Bush and her schooling him in WMD, which was mandatroy for all operations officers at CIA, yes, alot like the nuclear stuff. The Russians found out about the program and found the universities teaching WMD to the operations officers by Rice's degree. The KGB/FSB person who figured this out was assassinated in Russia in a contract killing (private security) around Rice's visit. Bush hired the University Presidents at CIA; Universities that taught WMD at CIA. CIA and and the WMD trained oeprations officers probalby were 'selling' the program at CIA off before the war and using Bush and Rice as an excuse for the 'inevitable' Bush Iraq war and WMD. The war was in their interest and protesting it later was also; Plame(CIA WMD) and Wilson were 'working' toward this from the beginning-Yellowcake.
Plame is a card game. Foley is an artist. Foley, who was also a Peace Corps Volunteer and USAID(not that he was CIA), was assassinated in Jordan; not that Plame's boss' name was also Foley. Plame's dad was Air force and worked at NSA. The new Director at CIA (after Porter the union man went out in the 'party' scandal) is also NSA and Air Force as Plame's old boss (denied now), Foley moves all the CIA analysts over to DIA/NSA. It works out nicely for Plame's little 'journey' with her government service CIA career at the NSA monitoring domestical political groups, not that they would monitor a member of the intelligence committee who had a unique ability to get terror warnings, that happen the next day, out of Morocco. there were also all those 500 things that congress was investigating started by, guess, retired CIA operations officers who came out around Plame.
The real threat is global warming and it's not like blair wants some G8 GDP money from other countries as the dems rise in the poles and Gore finds out he actually started global warming like the internet, but that's not important to: Libby Libby Libby on the Table Table Table.............or was he Bush's brain?
Fitzgerald said he was in independent and that is because he knows you have to be a dem to work for the federal government and he is only interested in protecting all those union employees and destroying politicians like, guess, Plame. Anyway, everything is new now that a criminal conspiracy investigator will no longer indict a CIA operations officer like Aimes, so who does? CIA opereations officers did not make the move to NSA/DIA, but will probably be legacies to the military like Plame was to the CIA.
Posted by: Made | October 31, 2006 at 13:41
All three motions are filled with irony. Lucky for Libby that he doesn't have to operate under the rules of detainees in Gitmo, eh?
Posted by: lemond54 | October 31, 2006 at 13:44
Hmmm.
I don't see how Libby is going to keep JudyJudyJudy from testifying about her time in the clink. She went to jail for 2 1/2 months for him. And all this First Amendment crap just isn't going to wash. She knew he was guilty as hell, and she knew her testimony would be damning. If she had known her testimony wouldn't hurt Scooter, she would have just testified at the start and said, "I'm going to preface my testimony by saying that I firmly believe that the First Amendment protects me from being compelled to testify here, and I am only doing so because my source has specifically given me clear permission to do so. If he had been in any way ambiguous about it, because he knew my testimony could ship his ass off to Federal Prison, then I would have been willing to go to jail to protect him."
As for the cherry picking about the was-she-or-wasn't-she-covert issue, it seems to me that Fitz can simply say that he'll limit his presentation of "potential damage" to things that Libby himself has already said. The statement "we can't talk about it" is pretty clear evidence that Libby knew he shouldn't be talking about it. The "why" is largely irrelevant. He knew he wasn't supposed to be talking about it, which is a clear motive to lie about the fact that he was, in fact, running off at the mouth about it.
Anyone know if Tenet will be talking about Plame in his book? That could really make trouble for Libby.
Posted by: Frank Probst | October 31, 2006 at 14:20
I always thought the Peace Corps was behind all this...
Posted by: TWI-Tom | October 31, 2006 at 19:02
"Plame leaked her own identity at 'Vanity Fair.'"
Novak "leaked" Plame's identity in July 2002 in the Chicago Sun Times. How could she "leak" it again in January 2004 in Vanity Fair?
Posted by: John Casper | October 31, 2006 at 20:44
John Casper:
Your insistence on these so-called facts is so tedious. Can you not grasp the inherent truthiness of these accusations? The Peace Corps; I mean, c'mon, who else could it be?
Posted by: Leslie in CA | October 31, 2006 at 21:29
EW, do you consult an attorney or federal prosecutor at all?
Posted by: robbie c. | October 31, 2006 at 23:25
John Casper, I think you mean 2003.
Posted by: KevinNYC | October 31, 2006 at 23:34
Leslie in CA, you are absoltuely correct, thank you.
KevinNYC, ditto, Novak's column was July 2003, not 2002 as I wrote.
Posted by: John Casper | November 01, 2006 at 00:32
Attorneys: No Backstory in CIA Leak Case
By Matt Apuzzo
Associated Press Writer
October 31,2006 | WASHINGTON -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby are asking a federal judge not to allow three years of politically charged backstory in the CIA leak case to seep into Libby's perjury trial in January.
In new court documents, Fitzgerald argued that he shouldn't have to explain why Libby was charged while others, including the source of the leak, escaped prosecution. Libby said jurors shouldn't hear about New York Times reporter Judith Miller's 85-day jail term for refusing to discuss her conversations with him.
The court documents, filed late Monday, are an effort to keep the trial focused on whether Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, lied to investigators about his conversation with reporters regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame.
[shortened for copyright reasons]
Posted by: general panzer | November 01, 2006 at 05:03
ew, I put a late nite comment in the thread in which you and Jeff first discuss the 3 motions Libby filed October 30, though you are way ahead of most of us on this material. I need to revisit the new Judy link you left for us the other day. I wonder how closely her new map of the region might dovetail with Baker-III's.
Posted by: JohnLopresti | November 01, 2006 at 13:09
That guy was wrong abut Shays. He served in Fiji and, yes, there was a coup today in fiji as he announced his service at CBS news.
Plame was leaked and sold the KGB in 1993.
Casper was a friendly ghost?
It's not really Peace Corps. Both CIA and Peace Corps were created by Congress. Both agencies have the same work, just different.
Posted by: J. Hipresta | November 01, 2006 at 14:53
I understand the defense requests to limit information about the NIE, the reporters' resistance to divulge information, Plame's status, and the damage from leaking her name. To some extent I agree:
1) Fitz shouldn't "sandbag" Libby by claiming he leaked classified NIE information;
2) Fitz can't present a claim that reporters (esp Miller) were keeping silent because Libby directed them (her) to do so
3) Fitz can not be permitted to inflame a jury by calling Plame covert--if she wasn't--and claiming there was actual damage done to the nation--if there wasn't (setting aside the actual facts).
In my mind, though, Fitz should get all he needs, and I think the defense is simply trying to quash everything they possibly can. I think Fitz can counter each of these points:
1) Fine, the NIE was declassified--partially. He agrees not to try and sandbag Libby. He will stick to the charges of perjury, obstruction, and false statements;
2) Fitz does not need to claim that the reporters (esp Miller) resisted testifying at Libby's instruction (which would be obstruction--though this isn't the obstruction Libby is charged with). Instead, Libby's motive for believing he could lie to the FBI is based on the journalistic integrity of Judith Miller (yes, tongue in cheek), and the confidence that she would protect her source (or lover ;-)). This may be sufficient for Fitz to be willing to ignore all the legal wranglings Miller was involved with. Besides, *at the time Libby first testified* he had no reason to think that *novak* was a problem--and once he had testified, his story was set. Libby had to either change his tune, or else gamble. He gambled. The rest of the reporter story seems generally irrelevant;
3) The defense motion about Plame/damage is weak. Yes, Fitz should not be allowed to inflame a jury by hinting at damage; however, if he has evidence that Libby was informed of *potential* damage, that goes to motive. If that evidence shows Libby was informed of the potential for damage *after* talking to reporters and *before* talking to the FBI, that is strong motivational evidence. The actual damage is irrelevant, and Fitz doesn't need it.
I don't think these motions successfully argue against introducing reporter testimony. I also don't think it successfully argues against introducing evidence *in the possession of Libby* about Plame's status, regardless of it's truth. Heck, the facts could say that not only was Plame not NOC, but that she didn't work for the CIA, isn't married to Joe Wilson, and isn't even female. What matters is what Libby knew, and all Fitz needs (and he is entitled to) is the evidence showing what Libby knew (even if Libby claims he forgot it all).
Posted by: clbrune | November 01, 2006 at 15:20
Frank P - Tenet is taking a job with a British co., a chunk of which is owned by the Carlyle Group.
I think he's still working at earning his medal. I thought of him today watching the votevets ad.
Posted by: Mary | November 01, 2006 at 16:44
No doubt the JOMers will misunderstand this process of cherry picking--so whoever's turn it is to monitor JOM today, you get double credit for it.
I would like to think that I qualify as at least an honorary JOMer, and I posted this on what I see is Jeff's favorite:
(2) Unless Maureen Dowd handled the redactions (a possibility), Cheney did not tell Libby much about Plame's status - per the notes (page 6), she was described as "working in a 'functional office'[,] CP".
I have no idea what may have been redacted there, but my understanding was that Cheney told Libby that Ms. Plame was in the CPD.
I suppose I could pass the time insinuating that folks here are liars or fools - is that really the way we need to go? I would like to remain open to the possibility that people disagree in good faith.
I may return when I am done fuming - I was going to point out an absurdity in your previous post on this, but why bother.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | November 02, 2006 at 07:32
I would like to think that I qualify as at least an honorary JOMer
Tom
Is the object of an authoritarian cult a member of that cult? I'm just kidding, there is obviously a strong distinction to be made, on the basis of things like the fact that JOMers tend to blow right by any point you make not amenable to a pre-established view of the case, for instance your very nice point the other day that if Mayfield and Martin had backed up Libby's version of his July 12 conversation with Cooper, it's doubtful Libby would have been indicted in part on the basis of his account of that conversation.
On the issue of Libby's notes, leaving aside for the moment my initial point that LIbby's note about Plame working in the functional office of Counterproliferation at the CIA would indicate the very opposite of what Libby's lawyers suggest it would, you might have missed an interesting point in an earlier filing that might speak to a question we have gone around on in the past: the question of when and how exactly Libby disclosed to investigators that he had been told by Cheney about Plame in June 2003. It turns out that Libby's notes were written in a shorthand format unique to Libby, and which only someone familiar with would be able to decipher. Now, it looks like the note about Cheney telling Libby about Plame in June, which Libby's defense cites, may not have been written in that shorthand (although they could also be quoting the already deciphered rendition). But if it were it raises the obvious questions: how and when did investigators decipher Libby's notes? Did Libby go through it with them? Did someone else - like, say, Jenny Mayfield? Did Libby fully anticipate that they would be able to read his notes?
On a related note, another matter on which JOMers departed from your own take on things is the related question of Cheney's notes on Miller's article. As I recall, it was a classic moment at JOM - your confidence that there was nothing to it seemed to be shaken, and this drove JOMers absolutely bonkers. But here's my question. Can you explain to me how someone could infer from Cheney's notes that he did not then know about Wilson's wife - that he too had forgotten - or that he had no clue of the idea that she was involved in his trip? It boggles my mind, maybe I'm missing something. But that seems to be, more or less, the orthodox view over at JOM - though, once again, it appears to be an orthodoxy from which the object of JOMers veneration (I mean you, not clarice) departs.
Posted by: Jeff | November 02, 2006 at 08:25
Tom,
My point was simple. It is inconceivable that the summaries given to Libby conclude that Plame's identity was not classified (they may be poorly argued, but we can be sure the conclusion at least labels her classified). Therefore, the choice to select just that bit about Harlow out of a summary that otherwise almost certainly concludes her identity was classified was probably targeted at least as much to folks like JOMers, who would ignore the logic and assume Harlow's doubt is all there was, as it was to Walton. Note that I said that was a very Fitzgeraldian move--to reveal something that helps your case publicly but not legally by concluding that detail in the filing. Kudos to Libby's team for using their filings to introduce trial evidence pre-emptively. Though their mention of the Novak meeting kind of puts them even for the day.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 02, 2006 at 08:40
I understand that keeping the focus very narrow and related solely to the charges to Libby helps to protect Fitz et al from the grey mail issue. However, I wonder if someone could elaborate on the possibilities, if Cheney does in fact testify, related to fitz "working his way up the chain." Many blogs continue to discuss the potential for this to occur given Fitz's history with the mob, al-queda and other ne'er do wells. Is there any potential for this to occur given the very narrow focus that Fitz must take? It does seem to me that many of the most explosive issues will not come to light. Of course, for many of us, the fascination with this case stems from the obvious concern that Plame occured because Bush lied to congress and the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq. Can the arguement ever reach the conclusion that Libby's motive for lying was to cover this story, or will that have to be avoided entirely due to the security issues? (ie to protect Cheney?) I know that this is the million dollar question but I wonder if someone could elaborate on the effect these decisions might have on that outcome.
Posted by: katie Jensen | November 02, 2006 at 09:33
Very simple Katie.
If Cheney goes on the stand it will relate to two things. To talk about the centrality of the Wilson thing that week, and to talk about Cheney's role in directing the response. Cheney will have to lie on the stand, to say he didn't authorize Plame's outing. Which might give Fitz a charge (to say nothing of what might happen if Cheney's story, out of self-preservation, doesn't match Libby's).
Posted by: emptywheel | November 02, 2006 at 10:04
just that bit about Harlow out of a summary
You know, I don't think the notes of the interview with Harlow come from the summary of Plame's employment furnished to Libby by Fitzgerald at all. Those notes are either part of discovery from the prosecution to the defense or - and this is what the footnote appears to suggest - something that the defense came up with in their own investigation. Similarly, the text that the footnote is attached to is explicit in saying the other references to Plame it cites (Libby's notes, the INR memo and underlying report, and the other one) were included in discovery, not from the summary of Plame's employment.
It doesn't affect the point that Libby may well be cherry-picking what it presents, however.
Posted by: Jeff | November 02, 2006 at 11:04
'Plame occured because Bush lied to congress and the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq.'
Plame occurred because of the speech. Bush announced he had doubled the size of CIA(Tenet really is'nt that smart, but knows how to hire federal employees like dems)and wanted to do the same for Peace Corps. This brought Wilson, a Peace Corps Volunteer, back up and same with Plame. She was 'going way far' using Wilson for what was obviously a desire to get rid of covert WMD training at CIA before the war started. Plame was a problem even before she married Wilson as she tended to take interest in, for whatever reason; maybe because Aimes was a PCV like her husband, Peace Corps Volunteers that may or may not have been involved with the Aimes thing, which, if you consider she was blown by Aimes in 1993, should make the person(s) of interest concerned about her Russian issues that may or may not have occurred directly after her hello. So, like if someone else doesn't get you in trouble, Plame shows up and so do all these Russians in Limos and trawlers. This may have been the point, but who knows Plame and why would someone be forced to trust the DIA? The person(s) of interest did not beyond the fact that she was threatening with files that person(s) of interest were just assured never existed, with the excepetion of the standard 'your an alcoholic, etc.' that was designed to make sure it was a 'bad file.' However, the problem they may have run into is that everyone the person(s) of interest had known in operations were, in fact, alcoholics and abused like Clinton; go do the math. So, yes, if they don't like you they send their psychiatrists', which can be intmidating considering the follow up work that those do after leaving service. Try and outthink one.
Posted by: VF | November 02, 2006 at 13:13
Thanks empty wheel. I guess I was concerned that they are really narrowing the focus of the discussion about plame/wilson. I guess I was thinking that her status was central to the discussion but it's not. Also we have no idea what cheney said to Fitz in his interview with him way back in the beginning.(or Bush for that matter). What other tricks might they pull to prevent Cheney from getting on the stand (besides the already discussed chance that Libby would be pardoned)?
Posted by: Katie Jensen | November 02, 2006 at 13:33
I hope Tom will return, and forgive EW her partisan sensitivities... It's that suspicious approach, I think, that allows her to pierce through so much of the partisan spin that blankets the airwaves.
An EW argument in her DailyKos diary about these new motions the other day strikes me as unlikely, as well, and I've propounded on it a bit below, FWIW.
Re the Libby case:
Just to re-emphasize what Libby's three new motions have revealed for the first time:
1. Cathie Martin and Jenny Mayfield were witnesses to the Libby end of his Cooper telephone conversation on July 12th. [I'd submit that both witnesses did their best to be forgetful about the specific content of this conversation that they overheard, however, because their testimony apparently failed to alert the investigators to the fact that Libby was only a confirming source for Cooper and not the one who first gave the information to him, as Libby himself apparently lead the investigators to believe.]
2. Libby admits speaking with Novak in the period in question, but not as "a source for Robert Novak's column mentioning Ms. Wilson's CIA employment." Wonder what Libby did admit to speaking to Novak about (the NIE?), and how the conversation came to light. Novak's story, as EW picked right up on, is that Fitzgerald came to Novak's lawyer's office to interview him in January, 2004 carrying three waivers, and only three waivers, indicating that Novak's sources Armitage, Rove and Harlow were already known. So when did Libby's waiver for you get selected, Mr. Novak??
3. Walter Pincus's secret source has been revealed to be Scooter Libby, by Scooter Libby himself (wasn't there a reason that Libby was not considered likely to be the source for Pincus? - it does make sense to me though, timeline-wise).
4. Evan Thomas of Newsweek spoke to Scooter Libby in the period in question, and David Sanger of the New York Times is also confirmed as a reporter Libby spoke to (apparently on July 2nd in Sanger's case, and presumably about the NIE at most in both cases).
Re the Investigation:
litigatormom's revealing comment in EW's DailyKos diary has stayed with me: Based on that credible commenter's personal knowledge, and the course of public events, there seem to now be some very definite and credible indications that Karl Rove was or is indicted, absent the existence of a plea bargain or cooperation of some sort or perhaps in fact by sealed indictment pending only further indictments in a conspiracy. litigatormom knows the lawyer of a witness in the case (whose identity she also knows) who has been led to believe as much. To wit:
I trust her disinterested information at least as much as the spin leaked to members of the corporate media by interested anonymous parties in the case.
So that really makes me question and want to test Emptywheel's theory explaining the lack of any known indictment of Rove, in that same diary: namely, EW's conclusion that two of the key, primary witnesses who she thinks would be testifying against Rove, are impeachable (Armitage and Cooper) and therefore the government felt unable to proceed, at least with perjury. [I'm pretty positive though that the grand jury did not indict only to have Fitzgerald somehow quash the indictment because it wasn't a slam-dunk prosecution - that one just doesn't compute for me on multiple levels.]
First, as I've indicated before, I don't understand what Richard Armitage would be able to testify to in a perjury case against Rove, based on what we now know. Robert Novak is the one (though with impossibly poor credibility) in a position to dispute Rove's account of events, but I don't see how Armitage is - again, using only what's in the public record at this point (I feel myself that Armitage could provide a LOT of direct evidence against Rove, but I don't believe EW shares that view/speculation). If Armitage would be a key witness against Rove solely to recount what Armitage (allegedly) DIDN'T tell Novak (thus implying that Rove - and now even perhaps Libby - must have done the telling instead), such testimony is worth basically nil to begin with: Armitage has a motive to self-protect that makes any such testimony from him marginal at the very best, and he can't affirmatively testify to what DID happen. So that isn't so much simply a matter of impeachment of Armitage, as it is a lack of direct knowledge on Armitage's part of Rove's behavior that prevents Armitage from being a key witness to perjury by Rove. It took a couple of years, and unearthing hidden emails and all, but I think credible evidence was probably obtained to indict Rove without any role being played by Armitage - though I'm not at all sure that perjury would necessarily be one of the counts.
Secondly, the comment that Cooper is alleged to have made on a radio show about his conversation with Rove does not make me doubt Cooper's version of events ["If I were Karl Rove, I wouldn't have remembered that phone call either"]. In fact, I believe that Cooper's comment could be read to reinforce Cooper's testimony -- i.e., that his conversation with Rove was quite damning for Rove, and/or that Cooper is more in the nature of a hostile witness for the government and therefore more credible as a witness against Rove. But in addition, Cooper's contemporaneous notes/emails and later sworn testimony about his conversation carry far more weight than an opinion Cooper may have expressed about his impression of Rove's position. Fundamentally, if Cooper was that impeachable because of stray opinions he may have expressed along the way (such as to Viveca Novak and other colleagues), I don't think he would be on the government's (so far-informal) witness list for the Libby case, either. [Is it true that there really is such a radio interview of Cooper - or is that still rumor?] Cooper I think would be used as a government witness against Rove, if it came to that.
It does really start to seem that the now-confirmed existence of a Novak-Libby conversation, in addition to the Novak-Armitage and Novak-Rove conversations, is adding weight to the possibility that there was an Armitage/Libby/Rove conspiracy of some sort. Maybe beforehand, maybe only in the cover-up. It is also starting to seem telling that Stephen Hadley, for one, seems to have had (that we know of) little to no contact with the media on this issue. It's a Rove/Libby/Armitage operation, in the interactions with journalists at least. Those three, of course, just happened to be the very-trusted top deputies of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Powell, respectively. All we're missing is the involvement of the trusted top deputy (Wolfowitz?) of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to complete this ominous picture... Perhaps, apparently like Hadley - top deputy to National Security Advisor Rice - Rumsfeld's top deputy played a behind-the-scenes role only.
Posted by: pow wow | November 02, 2006 at 18:32
Walter Pincus's secret source has been revealed to be Scooter Libby
No. Libby was a source for some of Pincus' stories, but not Pincus' source on July 12 blowing Plame's cover.
there seem to now be some very definite and credible indications that Karl Rove was or is indicted, absent the existence of a plea bargain or cooperation of some sort or perhaps in fact by sealed indictment pending only further indictments in a conspiracy.
No, the indications only are that the grand jury voted to indict, but Fitzgerald didn't go ahead with the prosecution and hence the indictment. Rove wasn't indicted.
Posted by: Jeff | November 02, 2006 at 21:32
No, the indications only are that the grand jury voted to indict, but Fitzgerald didn't go ahead with the prosecution and hence the indictment.
Where do these indications come from?
Posted by: MayBee | November 02, 2006 at 22:00
I can't discern whether I'm mistaken about the significance of the mention of Walter Pincus in the latest Libby motion, or not. According to Susan Schmidt in the Washington Post on September 16, 2004, in a story focused on Pincus's deposition the day before about his conversation with his confidential source (via Talkleft.com):
The new motion in limine from Libby regarding the reporters says:
On July 6, 2005 Pincus wrote about his 2004 testimony:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/12/205/68949
If there was only one (singular) deposition given by Walter Pincus (on 9/15/04), surely the main confidential source who granted permission for Pincus to testify [about the source's own Plame-related conversation as well as perhaps other conversations Pincus may have had with different sources or even the same source about other topics] is the one who "asked [Pincus] to speak to the Special Counsel"? Was Schmidt's article a ham-handed way of reporting on only the non-Plame-related conversations of Pincus/Libby, when in fact Pincus had both Plame-related and non-Plame-related conversations with Libby? [The "identity of Wilson's wife" in Schmidt's article could simply be referring to the providing of her first/maiden name, as opposed to referring to her simply as "Wilson's/His wife", I suppose.]
I can't tell whether I've read too much into the latest Libby motion's information about Pincus or not. So I may in fact have that wrong.
Posted by: pow wow | November 02, 2006 at 23:50
I have a question for Jeff. You speak with utmost certainty whereas others here hypothesize. How do you know what you are saying is truly the case? Isn't it possible that you could be wrong?
Posted by: robbie c. | November 03, 2006 at 00:15
From Editor & Publisher 5-31-05:
"Libby was not my source but was someone I spoke to on a confidential basis," Pincus said. "I had written about Wilson's trip [to Africa] and spoke to everyone involved in it." Wilson is Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame.
As for the indications, I'm just saying what the indications themselves indicate, not what is necessarily the case. I have no idea of that, obviously. But the fact is that what ew and litigatormom indicated is that the grand jury voted to indict Rove but Fitzgerald didn't follow through, not that Rove was in fact indicted.
Obviously I could be wrong on either count.
Posted by: Jeff | November 03, 2006 at 00:57
I'm just saying what the indications themselves indicate, not what is necessarily the case. I have no idea of that, obviously. But the fact is that what ew and litigatormom indicated is that the grand jury voted to indict Rove but Fitzgerald didn't follow through, not that Rove was in fact indicted.
The indications that indicate what was indicated by ew and litigatormom?
No source, so quote, no identity, no explanation? Just a trust me, the grand jury voted to indict as requested by Fitzgerald, but he decided not to indict. I suppose the reasons why he would continue this investigation and yet turn down the indictments have not yet been indicated.
What are ew's sources on this? Are they better than Joe Wilson's sources have been? And who is litigatormom?
Would you laugh if something similar was asserted by someone at JOM?
Posted by: MayBee | November 03, 2006 at 05:43
MayBee
I would laugh if Tom offered such an assertion in a post. I have not, I've offered it in comments, in response to questions. I'm not confident enough to publish this in a post.
That said, Wilson's sources on the Rove indictment (note, not that the indictment was filed, but that it was going to happen) were journalists, some respectable, who had it on single source. litigatormom is telling a similar story, her friend's client was told Rove would be indicted, not that he had been. Her source could have been a source for the journalists who spoke to Wilson about it. Then, there is a completely different source who says GJ voted for indictment but the indictment wasn't filed. This is not my source (therefore I can't vouch for him), but this person would have the means to know. So in other words, there are two sources, but they are not saying the same thing.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 03, 2006 at 12:15
ew-
It would never occur to me to judge the seriousness of a blogger's assertions by the whether it was placed in a post or comment.
As you can see it the comment section here, it seems others have found your comment and litigator mom's comments to be either very definite and credible indications , or as jeff said indications. I don't see it qualified as speculation at all.
Having said that, I still wonder how plausible it might be, and wonder if you've done anything to investigate plausibility. It is hard for me to imagine a Prosecutor would spend the time and money to continue an investigation and ask a grand jury to indict, only to refuse to file it.
You will forgive me not accepting commenters with friends with clients as a terribly compelling source. I don' think you would normally accept that either. It sounds a like an electronic, anonymous cocktail weenie-esque rumour.
Posted by: MayBee | November 04, 2006 at 00:56
emptywheel and the other assholes on this blog owe Jason Leopold an apology. Emptywheel I suggest you seek the expertise of an attorney and a prosecutor. if a grand jury votes to indict then an indictment was returned. Any first year law student will tell you that. And it's the grand jury that has the power not the prosecutor in this federal case. So if the grand jury voted to indict they indicted. They returned a bill of indictment. Speak to experts or enroll in law school
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 01:27
for your sake I hope your book is not full of your "opinion" and actually contains some actual reporting.
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 01:29
MayBee
That seems rather odd. After all, JOM's threads are full of speculation. What is the claim that Plame was not covert, or that Armitage spoke to some other journalist, after all, except a speculation based only on the rumors spread by interested parties (if even that)?
And just to clarify: I know litigatormom well enough to trust her. She was never one of the ones frothing on this story. That said, the other source is not a commentor and has impeccable credibility. I don't expect you to take my word for it. But there is a reason I give it credibility, which is why I feel comfortable mentioning it. I don't expect (or really care) to convince you. But it's worth considering that during the period when everyone was blathering about Rove, I refrained, because there wasn't much clarity or consistency to the rumors.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 04, 2006 at 08:11
MayBee
That seems rather odd. After all, JOM's threads are full of speculation.
What seems rather odd, ew? Of course JOM's threads are full of speculation, as are this blog's threads. I'm not sure what you find odd.
I understand that you don't care to convince me. I'm just telling you I think it is hard to convince anyone if the most you are willing to offer is that there is some good anonymous source. I think people come to blogs because the newsmedia tries to use that tactic all the time, and we find it unconvicing. Don't you?
Again, that being said-- how likely is such a thing? How likely is it that Fitzgerald would spend his time, and the grand jury's time, and the witnesses' time, and the other attorneys' time, and the taxpayers' money to ask for an indictment and then simply not file it? How often does that happen, and why would it happen?
Posted by: MayBee | November 04, 2006 at 08:33
emptywheel, you're pathetic. Go find some humility.
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 09:50
emptywheel, you're pathetic. Go find some humility.
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 09:51
Maybee makes a very good point. You suddenly are singing a different tune emptywheel.
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 09:52
That's the point, though, MayBee. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Some people raised an issue. I passed on what I've heard, which comes from the most reliable source that I know that has commented on this. That's all. Take it at face value--I don't blame you if you don't take it seriously, not at all.
And as for the reasons not to file the indictment, I can think of several of them, not least the fact that a Prosecutor considering indicting a top administration figure is going to treat an indictment a lot differently than a bunch of anonymous grand jury members. He may well be sure the person is guilty, but have real doubts about his ability to convict. I also don't know the date of the Matt Cooper comment. If it happened at precisely that time (that'd be interesting, don't you think??), then it might explain things.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 04, 2006 at 10:32
you speak like a novice of on legal issues. Your theories are not based in reality. If a grand jury returns an indictment it's an indictment. Stop trying to move the goal posts and admit your error
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 11:11
I'm just telling you I think it is hard to convince anyone if the most you are willing to offer is that there is some good anonymous source. I think people come to blogs because the newsmedia tries to use that tactic all the time, and we find it unconvicing. Don't you?
Oh please, stop the bluster. "That tactic"? The small nugget of truth here is that anonymous sourcing in reporting can produce really bad and unreliable reporting, even as it can also be an essential tool for good reporting. So you have to look at it with a critical eye, and exercise, as in everything, the best indepedendent judgment you can. That means, among other things, developing your own judgments of how reliable the reporting of reporters or other individuals who use anonymous sources has been in the past.
But people turning to blogs instead of reporting carries its own, rather massive danger - that it becomes a huge exercise in confirmation bias. Sound familiar?
Just to take a couple of random examples, particular commenters at JOM can call Murray Waas funny names all they want to try to suggest that his reporting is not reliable - for instance, clarice likes to refer to him as Waas Nicht. (Get it? Hahahaha) But the fact remains that his reporting, which depends a lot on anonymous sources, has been nearly if not entirely impeccable. (All reporters get something wrong at some point, though I'm not aware of anything that Waas has.) To be sure, some of his reports, which have lapped the competition, remain to be confirmed. But many others have been confirmed and passed any test of reliability. And those that remain to be confirmed are not of the unfalsifiable variety. In other words, his reporting has been impeccable, he's broken a huge number of stories, and his reporting has stood up, all while depending to a considerable extent on anonymous sources. On the other hand, one of the denizens of JOM publishes six thousand words in the Weekly Standard which - though I strongly suspect it used Libby's defense machine, the one fronted by Barbara Comstock as a deep background source - does not seek to break any new factual ground (which is fine) but makes an argument using published sources and speculation and is filled with very basic errors of fact as well as containing speculation that is almost certainly wrong, in the service of an argument that proportionally suffers.
And yes, if you all at JOM want to exert your collective influence to get me 6000 words at the Weekly Standard to respond and do my own thing, I'd be more than happy to comply and put my work up to the same scrutiny. At least I know what 1x2x6 is, and it's not a trivial thing in this case.
Meanwhile, I'll do what I can. ;)
Posted by: Jeff | November 04, 2006 at 17:41
for your sake I hope your book is not full of your "opinion" and actually contains some actual reporting.
Harold S. Reyes
That is a useful cautionary reminder, though I don't think you really mean emptywheel should keep her opinion out, you mean that she should not present her own opinion or guesses as factual reporting. In my experience, she's pretty good at being clear on what's what. But it's a good reminder, because we've seen what can happen when reporting in this case overruns facts and makes something more out of them.
As for the present case, Harold, make sure you're precise. emptywheel didn't say she'd heard that the grand jury returned an indictment. She said something about them wanting to or voting to indict Rove or some such. Obviously, as she made clear, this is fragmentary information, and it's unclear what it's about exactly and what it means. I'm not a lawyer, but, for instance, unless grand juries are positively prohibited from taking straw votes to see where things stand, maybe the grand jury took a straw vote and it went for indictment of Rove, they told that Fitzgerald, and he said, "You know what, folks, I'm the guy who has to bring the case, and I'm not sufficiently confident I can win a conviction, so I'm not going to officially ask you to indict Rove, and he's off the hook." Of course, that's just a possible scenario, not something I know anything about. The point is to illustrate the useful reminder robbie c gave me above, which is to proportion your claims to the evidence and the possibilities.
Posted by: Jeff | November 04, 2006 at 18:03
Jeff
there was a specific mention made about the grand jury voting to indict rove and since this is a federal case under DC statutes the grand jury wields the power. If they voted to indict there would in fact be a bill of indictment and there would be a paper trail to back this up. Emptywheel has said that she personally supports the litigatormom comment which another commenter here brought up. So being that this is new information that has suddenly popped up is in and of itself a very serious charge and not one that should be dismissed passively in a comment on a blog. A federal prosecutor could easily explain this to you or her and it's not that difficult. This is a matter of moving the goal posts. All of you were under the belief that Mr. Rove had not been indicted. How can you honestly try and rationalize the fact that if a grand jury votes to indict it is not the same as an indictment being filed. It's bullshit and it shows just how much you don't know about federal law. you are wrong
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 04, 2006 at 19:47
Jeff-
I was just dashing off a few quick sentences, not an entire thesis on blogs vs. other news media. However, [t]hat means, among other things, developing your own judgments of how reliable the reporting of reporters or other individuals who use anonymous sources has been in the past sums up what I was trying to say. Bloggers have a very short history, not much "past" upon which we can judge them. It doesn't take more than a few turns at the "trust me" trough to lose a broad audience and be left only with those that are already sold on what you're telling them.
I'm not as convinced about the brilliance of Waas as you are. He seems to have lost his luster. How is his book selling?
And yes, if you all at JOM want to exert your collective influence to get me 6000 words at the Weekly Standard to respond and do my own thing, I'd be more than happy to comply and put my work up to the same scrutiny.
Alas, I think the best I can do for you is a column in my club newsletter.
Posted by: MayBee | November 04, 2006 at 21:05
I also don't know the date of the Matt Cooper comment. If it happened at precisely that time (that'd be interesting, don't you think??), then it might explain things.
I find it completely implausible that after all the damning things Matt Cooper has said publicly against Rove, and after his hours of testimony would have been considered by the grand jury in a vote to indict Rove, that a throw away, two sentence, out of context public blurb by Cooper would be the deal breaker.
I remain curious whether it is possible, probable, or likely that a Federal Investigator would receive an indictment from a grand jury and refuse to file it. I am curious whether that would be part of a public record. I am wondering if you asked a legal source with knowledge about the Federal Grand Jury system about your theory before you put it forth.
Posted by: MayBee | November 04, 2006 at 21:42
Harold
It's increasingly obvious to me that you really are unclear what my position is, yet you're expounding on it as if you do. Your comments about litigatormom don't even make grammatical sense, much less logical sense given the accusations you're throwing around.
Care to repeat it back to me, so I can be familiar with what you're accusing me of? Real slowly like, what is it that you, someone who has never commented on this blog (under your current identity, at least) think I have said? Providing quotes and links might help you clarify it a little.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 04, 2006 at 22:15
MayBee
As a general matter, I don't see how you can take seriously the idea I was pushing about the importance of judging for yourself and then turn around and say
I'm not as convinced about the brilliance of Waas as you are. He seems to have lost his luster. How is his book selling?
If his book had sold two copies or two million, it makes not one whit of difference. The market tells you how well something sells on the market. That's it. Only you can tell you how good something is.
Similarly, if you've just been offering emptywheel advice about how to do well on the market - how to maintain a broad audience - fine. I've misunderstood you. I thought you were making an actual set of points about quality and judgment. My counter-advice, not that she asked for it, is that she should just do her work - which frankly, as much and as often as I disagree with her, she does pretty damn well - and not worry self-consciously about maintaining an audience. Who wants an audience who turns away when they hear something they don't like?
What kind of club is the newsletter attached to?
And Harold, I too would like clarity and grammaticality from you. You're making about seven different, mostly inconsistent points.
Posted by: Jeff | November 04, 2006 at 23:03
As a general matter, I don't see how you can take seriously the idea I was pushing about the importance of judging for yourself and then turn around and say
I'm not as convinced about the brilliance of Waas as you are. He seems to have lost his luster. How is his book selling?
If his book had sold two copies or two million, it makes not one whit of difference. The market tells you how well something sells on the market. That's it. Only you can tell you how good something is.
Hmm. I firmly believe in the concept of judging for one's self, but one also needs information upon which to make sound judgement. It is impossible to judge in a vaccuum whether information is is good or not. It isn't that only I can tell how good something is, it is that only I can tell how good I think something is. Only I can tell how important something is to me, and only I can tell if I agree with something. But no, I (or you) aren't the ultimate judge of whether something (like information) is actually good.
You are right that Waas's booksales have no bearing on the accuracy of his information. It only tells me how important others perceive his point of view to be- and I ask because at one time his star was rising in that regard (he is our new Woodward!). Perhaps that is because others perceive him to have been discredited too often for their own taste, perhaps people have simply lost interest, or perhaps...almost anything. I should have simply said that in retrospect, his reporting seems less heroic than it seemed to many at the times. I never judged it to be exceptional, so it isn't my opinion that seems to have changed.
Similarly, if you've just been offering emptywheel advice about how to do well on the market - how to maintain a broad audience - fine. I've misunderstood you. I thought you were making an actual set of points about quality and judgment.
I say the two (three?) go hand in hand.
My counter-advice, not that she asked for it, is that she should just do her work - which frankly, as much and as often as I disagree with her, she does pretty damn well - and not worry self-consciously about maintaining an audience. Who wants an audience who turns away when they hear something they don't like?
True. But is an audience that will believe anything they want to hear any better?
Overall, you are right. She should satisfy herself in her book and her postings, but when we involve ourselves in an exchange of ideas we all open ourselves to criticism and challenges, no?
What kind of club is the newsletter attached to?
An international nonpolitical social/business/athletic/family club.
Posted by: MayBee | November 05, 2006 at 00:06
Anyway, I want to make it clear that I don't even begin to imagine that I should be giving ew any blogging or writing advice. I can barely eek out a grammatically correct sentence.
I'm just trying to get the best tools available to judge whether the unfiled indictment story seems reasonable. So I asked the person making the assertion for more information.
Posted by: MayBee | November 05, 2006 at 01:12
interesting response. when in doubt spin.
MayBee
I would laugh if Tom offered such an assertion in a post. I have not, I've offered it in comments, in response to questions. I'm not confident enough to publish this in a post.
That said, Wilson's sources on the Rove indictment (note, not that the indictment was filed, but that it was going to happen) were journalists, some respectable, who had it on single source. litigatormom is telling a similar story, her friend's client was told Rove would be indicted, not that he had been. Her source could have been a source for the journalists who spoke to Wilson about it. Then, there is a completely different source who says GJ voted for indictment but the indictment wasn't filed. This is not my source (therefore I can't vouch for him), but this person would have the means to know. So in other words, there are two sources, but they are not saying the same thing.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 03, 2006 at 12:15
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 05, 2006 at 01:15
mind you your comments posted on Daily Kos are a bit more detailed and written with much more certainty. It appears you toned down your comments.
Posted by: Harold S. Reyes | November 05, 2006 at 01:24
I'm not sure what your last two comments suggest, Harold.
You made an accusation that I have said things in the past. You don't seem to know, though, what I have said in the past. And the post of mine you've just reposted contradicts some of the things you've said in your past posts. For example, you still don't seem to get that the litigatormom story doesn't prove or disprove what my source has said. Since it's a story that relates only to what a witness in the case learned BEFORE the GJ came together, it doesn't really have a bearing on what happened next. You also seem to insinuate I made a bunch of comments about Leopold's story. Tell me, what did I say? Because right now you're making accusations and you don't seem to have the least comprehension about what you've made accusations about.
Posted by: emptywheel | November 05, 2006 at 03:20
MayBee
Frankly that strikes me mostly as a bunch of hemming and hawing to walk back your earlier silliness to the sensible request for as much information as you can get. You have a knack for insinuating things without having the courage to come out and say them and back them up. Earlier you did it with emptywheel and now you're doing it with Waas. Discredited? I defy you to find an instance where that is the case - and again clarice crying Waas Nicht doesn't count, since she never offers any substance, and, as I said, she can't even get the most elementary and fundamental facts of the case straight. Moreover, there's some shiftiness and dishonesty in your point of view, as you suggest you're just looking for what is thought of Waas in general, but really in hopes of confirming what you always believed. Why don't you instead provide some specifics with regard to his reporting?
And yes, of course criticism and challenges are great. But the idea that your motivation was always just to try to emptywheel maintain an audience, and the right kind of audience, is, shall we say, unpersuasive. Just do the criticism.
Posted by: Jeff | November 05, 2006 at 08:51
How it may be done (excerpted from an October 13, 2006 Associated Press article out of Rome, GA):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/13/national/main2089027.shtml
The above-referenced information or indictment, the plea agreement, and the plea hearing were all kept under seal, and secret, in federal court in Georgia for about a month and a half this year.
Whether Karl Rove hammered out a plea deal before an indictment was returned or after (after makes more sense to me at this point, based on Rove's behavior throughout), I can absolutely believe that there is a sealed plea agreement for Karl Rove in federal district court in D.C., and that a plea hearing in front of the judge was perhaps conducted in secret as well. Based on the publicly-known existence of some sort of written communication between Fitzgerald and Rove/Luskin on the same day Fitzgerald visited the federal judge who oversees the Washington grand jury (to present the plea agreement to the Court?), and also taking the Leopold/Truthout reporting and lack of retraction (concerning the government/Hale Dorr marathon meeting) into consideration, I think the existence of a sealed plea agreement is probably more likely than the existence of a sealed indictment, and even more likely than no legal jeopardy for Rove at all. [And I'm starting to wonder if Richard Armitage's similar-sounding February letter is a bird of the same feather...]
Luskin could continue to bluff the public with denials 'in the service of justice' if it is in the interests of the government to keep the whole matter secret at this time. Luskin would consider himself to be aiding the prosecution, rather than just helping out his client, probably.
But since the government, if my theory happens to be correct, has a reason for keeping this matter under seal, I am going to shut up about it now, and take my own advice to heed (what may well be) the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation.
P.S. Just to clarify, EW, on the litigatormom comments in your DailyKos diary: I understood litigatormom to be saying that the lawyer/friend (rather than the witness/client) himself was led to believe that Rove was indicted (not would be). If you have a different understanding from litigatormom, then litigatormom's comments were apparently not accurately or precisely worded in that diary (and I may therefore be giving them a little too much weight).
Posted by: pow wow | November 05, 2006 at 16:09
Moreover, there's some shiftiness and dishonesty in your point of view, as you suggest you're just looking for what is thought of Waas in general, but really in hopes of confirming what you always believed. Why don't you instead provide some specifics with regard to his reporting?
Because I'm not up to writing an entire thesis right now. When I am, I'll let you know. There's no shiftiness or dishonesty (but thanks for the ad hom!) in my position, I simply have no interest in getting an an overarching debate with you.
And yes, of course criticism and challenges are great. But the idea that your motivation was always just to try to emptywheel maintain an audience, and the right kind of audience, is, shall we say, unpersuasive
No, I was never just trying to get emptywheel to maintain an audience. I was trying to get more information about a stunning assertion she made, which is why I asked about that over and over. She seems not to want to give more information, and you seem content running interference for her.
Posted by: MayBee | November 05, 2006 at 17:06
Ok, MayBee, when you're ready to provide some instances of Waas' reporting being problematic, I'll listen.
As for the rest, I agree, it's vague and unclear just what happened. I assume that reflected the degree of knowledge ew actually had about the thing. So I strongly suspect there's nothing more to give you than that. What I take that to mean is, that's what she's got. And I trust indeed that she is not just making shit up. But that doesn't mean that, say, Rove was indicted, that the grand jury returned an indictment, and so on. I'll leave such speculation-turned-fact to certain others.
Posted by: Jeff | November 05, 2006 at 21:24
Please read "Patton Boggs" for "Hale Dorr" in my preceding comment.
Posted by: pow wow | November 05, 2006 at 21:40
lack of retraction
Oh please. If you call all that a lack of retraction, I'd hate to see what a retraction looks like.
Posted by: Jeff | November 05, 2006 at 23:03
What's the problem, Jeff? What are you referencing with your "all that" phrasing?
As far as I know Truthout has stood behind the main body of Leopold's anonymously-sourced mid-May to mid-June reporting about an alleged Rove indictment and meeting at Patton Boggs. They may only have half the story, but they seem to be pretty firmly sticking to the half they have, after spending a couple more months investigating. I don't have a problem acknowledging them for their efforts in that regard, nor in using their information to try to understand what's going on, especially as they have yet to retract it, to my knowledge, six months on. Knowing the resources at the corporate media that are simply going to waste while owners and editors make not the slightest effort to cover this investigation and case, I am not about to condemn Truthout and Leopold for the shoestring operation of an investigation they have put together to try to cover this story. At least they're trying, if not at the professional standard one might expect from the (AWOL) mass media.
This gives me an opportunity, though, to give credit (if someone else hasn't already done so) to Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun, who wrote a very good article a week ago about the in limine motions. He makes some good deductions of his own, and used Jeff's favorite recent Judge Walton vacation statement in closing, to boot:
http://www.nysun.com/article/42583
Posted by: pow wow | November 06, 2006 at 18:44
Jeff, if I can chime in here, I agree with Pow Wow. Why would someone retract a story if there's no evidence yet that the story is absolutely, 100% wrong? All you have is a lawyer saying something on behalf of his client. Now with EW hearing some rumor on the street about the possibility of a GJ voting to indict may have some truth. One truthout reader posted the company's public IRS filing and it shows that Truthout ain't some lowbrow operation. According to the tax filing, the company has a $1.2 million annual budget, a board of directors and a full time editorial staff. So I think that if the organization stands behind its report it has good reason to. Of course, I am watching things from the sidelines just as you are so I have no idea what is true and what isn't. I'm just saying I am not about to write anything off either. I think there is a lot of truth in that initial report they put out. And I am one who would certainly love to know more about the person who heard the GJ voted to indict Rove. I think it really speaks volumes that we have yet to see that letter from Luskin. I mean think about it. Six months have gone by. What is the reason to keep that document under a tight lid at this point? And when I asked if you were an attorney I meant it sincerely not in an offensive nature.
I'm with Pow Wow, there is some truth out there regarding Rove and the GJ. Hopefully, EW will present that backstory in her book.
Speaking of the GJ, isn't there term about to expire?
Posted by: robbie c. | November 06, 2006 at 20:42
By the way, there is an ABC News producer who had the same story as Truthout regarding Rove. She wrote about electronic voting machines last week. This is what Joe Wilson has told to some people. That it wasn't just Truthout. There was a major network that had the same story and for whatever reason they couldn't or didn't run it. So if Joe Wilson is saying that then something is still up
Posted by: robbie c. | November 06, 2006 at 20:45
Pow Wow and robbie c.
I'll just make it simple and say I agree with this:
I'm with Pow Wow, there is some truth out there regarding Rove and the GJ.
I also agree that the Gerstein piece was the best thing that's been published on recent developments in the case.
Posted by: Jeff | November 06, 2006 at 21:45
fair enough, Jeff. I respect that.. and you!
Posted by: robbie c. | November 06, 2006 at 23:27
Because I know on this night of all nights, you're on the edge of your seats for new updates in the Libby case, let me report that there are a bunch of new filings in the case, but none of them substantive in the least. Mainly they are notices of or entirely redacted versions of sealed filings regarding Fitzgerald's first round of proposed substitutions for evidence that is classified information in the context of the CIPA process. So evidently Walton has ruled some classified information admissible as evidence for Libby. It's unclear whether Walton has completed his ruling, though I sort of doubt it because, first, he would have had to do it during or after the hearing today, and, second, Libby's response to Fitzgerald's proposed substitution refers to the latter as the first, implying that it is not the end of the story.
So it remains unclear whether the CIPA hearing will continue or if it's done. But at least we know that Walton has determined that some classified information is admissible for Libby, Fitzgerald is seeking to enter a substitution in place of the actual classified information, and Libby is presumably disputing the substitution.
Posted by: Jeff | November 08, 2006 at 01:12
I guess the CIPA dot-chart process documents are Pacer archives. I wonder if that is where Jeff saw them.
It was nice having Jeralyn's collection of the in limine triad of motions October 31, 2006. However, the TL index seems out of date, even the in-limine group are datestamped after the last entry in TL's index although they are archived on that site. I would expect the CIPA redacted materials to contain some meaning; recall the mundane appearance of the INR memo set we reviewed in April 2006. I am glad you are taking time to meet on dKos; time constraints rule that out for me at this juncture; but I appreciate the echos of the highlights. I think the KR barter may be flexible, as several people upthread observe; the kind of joisting both he and Fitzgerald would find most advantageous. Next witness, reporter M.Cooper; take the stand, please.
Posted by: John Lopresti | November 08, 2006 at 21:23
It turns out the CIPA hearing was not completed yesterday, and it will be continued on November 15. As Walton goes on vacation shortly after that, it's unclear to me whether he expects to complete the hearing that day or is fine with it continuing after his vacation.
Posted by: Jeff | November 09, 2006 at 01:15
The DC court site is very out of date. Likewise, Fitzgerald's OSP site, most recent documents last spring. Reggie Walton is a fairly conservative judge; he is reviewing a case which involves government suppression of testimony by one of the Gitmo detainees regarding prisoner abuse, a document from which surfaced this past week, but there again, the entire filing must be for Pacer pay-as-you-go people. $0.08/pageview puts investigative journalism on a separate plateau, for only those individuals whose work product is sufficiently remunerative to justify the cost of documents. I understand Jeff, ew, and others are better positioned to accept those outlays. And yours are valuable work produts. Meanwhile, there is the option of the desultory visit to Jeralyn's site, as she is pretty thorough about making key documents available on her own server to that site's visitors. If you should want to email me, Jeff, during kind Judge Walton's vacation in the approximate region of Bimini, notice it is a new email changed since last we communicated offline.
Posted by: John Lopresti | November 09, 2006 at 12:27
$0.08/pageview puts investigative journalism on a separate plateau, for only those individuals whose work product is sufficiently remunerative to justify the cost of documents.
If only!
Posted by: Jeff | November 09, 2006 at 12:54
ew's two years of research should be compensated, though, like many creditworthy efforts, its largest contribution might be its infusion of humanity and humor into the history writing of a serious breach of public trust. Jane has an excellent timeline teleology for the publication. There were several missing documents congress had requested in the various forms of Phase I and II, which may be available soon, as well; this shift in atmosphere likely is creating turbulence in the Libby Tries a Fitzgerald Nondivulgation Divulgation strategy.
I am beginning to understand who it might be who drives by the court house to pick up the transcript$.
Posted by: John Lopresti | November 09, 2006 at 18:28
Hi Jeff and Emptywheel. I asked a former federal prosecutor about the comments above about the claims that a grand jury asked to indict Rove and here is what I was told.
Only a grand jury can vote to indict. If they did they serve up a bill of indictment. The only way it can be quashed is if Fitzgerald then asks the judge to quash it but he would need an extraordinary reason to do that and it would have to be that the person who was indicted was either becoming a cooperating witness for the prosecution or agreed to plea deal. He cannot just say I want to quash an indictment because there isn't enough evidence to prosecute a person or because he can't win a case.
But if he didn't ask to quash and accepted the bill of indictment he could go to a judge and ask the judge to have an indictment sealed and then he has to inform the grand jury that he put it on hold while he continues an investigation.
If there was a vote by the grand jury to indict fitzgerald can't say "no you can't." And if they did vote to indict there will be evidence to show they did indict.
the claim that you guys made that an indictment isn't an indictment until it's filed is not true. An indictment is when a grand jury votes to indict and if they all vote in favor of the indictment.
Posted by: robbie c. | November 09, 2006 at 23:20
robbie c
Are grand juries prohibited from having straw ballots? That's one question i would like answered directly and straightforwardly.
Posted by: Jeff | November 10, 2006 at 01:22
hmmm. I will ask. that's a good question.
Posted by: robbie c. | November 10, 2006 at 16:25
Jeff, It may be possible this person is a visitor here pseudanonymously, however, her biography is here, and an article by her, there; the latter cite includes an email address; she has a book forthcoming in a few weeks. Occasionally she has written about Fitzgerald's options, her usual venue TomDispatch.
I have re-registered at Jeralyn's site now that they are on a new platform, and when topical plan to ask what her archive might contain from this new secret plea bargain activity; likely she is curious about it. The new software there is like dKos', with nice capability to add a comment adjoining the related subconversation; TL has become a busy site. They are on the DoD news now, and that is too impassioned to visit with an off-topic question. Doubtless, Jeralyn, litagatorm and ew could accomplish document interchange offline easily.
J.
Posted by: John Lopresti | November 10, 2006 at 20:02
It may be possible this person is a visitor here pseudanonymously
It seems to be going around. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that, mind you.
Posted by: Jeff | November 10, 2006 at 22:50
hey guys: interesting story in the chicago trib about fitzgerald and rove
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0611100142nov10,1,6224700.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true
Posted by: robbie c. | November 11, 2006 at 16:06
In the newest filing from Fitzgerald on the NIE, there is some really intriguing information. Probably the most intriguing is what we learn about Libby's interaction with Addington. It turns out that it was in the same, apparently brief conversation that 1)Libby asked what paperwork there would be when the spouse of a CIA employee traveled abroad - i.e. the Wilsons; and 2)Libby asked about the president's declassification authority. We knew Libby had asked both those things of Addington, but didn't know it was in the same conversation. Addington testified it was some time after July 6. The indictment puts it on or about July 8. Libby evidently testified about asking question 2 but not question 1, and the idea was, obviously, that it was about the NIE. But it sounds like investigators may have suspected that, since Libby asked these two questions together, according to Addington's version, he was asking about presidential authorization vis-a-vis the paperwork on the CIA spousal trip.
In this regard, it would be more helpful for Libby if the conversation on July 8 with Addington took place before his meeting with Miller for breakfast that morning. I sort of suspect that's how it happened. But it's worth pointing out that Waas reported pretty categorically that the Libby-Addington conversation took place after the breakfast with Miller, which would look worse for Libby. The first scenario makes it more plausible, the second less plausible, that Libby was asking about the NIE.
Posted by: Jeff | November 15, 2006 at 11:30
in case anyone still checks this thread Leopold has transcripts from Oct 26 2006 Libby hearings.
Posted by: robbie c. | November 20, 2006 at 17:48