« Flu Stories: Arlen Specter Says, "I Am Concerned..." | Main | What the Dems Can Do About Iraq (and Iran) »

January 26, 2007

Comments

A very nice side benefit to the prosecution of Libby by Patrick Fitzgerald:

While detailing his prosecution case against Libby for the sole reason of obtaining a conviction on all counts (that's his job)........Fitzgerald is pulling back the entire curtain on the Oz world that is the White House.

As this curtain is pulled back and sunlight and oxygen rush into the White House, our discovery of HOW the WH works will result in self-induced scorched-earth damage to the WH.

It's like throwing open the curtains and watching Dracula dissolve in the sunlight.

Helluva job, Fitz!!!!! (The Libby convictions will almost be anticlimatic to the devastation befalling the White House.)

(((((((((((((Marci))))))))))))))

you're doing an amazing job of live blogging the trial --- but I really miss you insights into the bigger picture ---

is there any chance that you could talk on the phone to someone who could transcribe you thoughts each day as you eat/drink dinner (I'd be happy to do so...)

Is Russert the laugh of Washington yet?

Hey Russert - you are a TOOL! (per the White House) Whaddya thinka that?????!!!!!

Wow!

Study the above, everybody!

EW, great work live blogging the trial. Its on my daily evening reading list.

I hope the Martin testimony is just an appetizer and we will learn/confirm more about the inner workings of the Cheney administration.

I wonder how we can raise the profile that Timmeh et al were essentially steno's for this malAdministration?

Woodward did his verbal version of an op-ed on the talk show circuit, downplaying the whole thing. What a shill. Wheel, I'm starting to think Cathie Martin didn't need to get immunity. So who's left?

Loved you on C-Span this morning and you did a great job against Byron York. Thanks for typing your fingers to the bone for all of us.

Related to the whole media issue.....what is it exactly that Ari gave to Fitz in exchange for immunity? Fitz seems to indicate that giving Ari immunity was a huge risk on the government's part (Ari: "Pig in a poke" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial). What was the huge risk here? It seems like Fitz could have nailed Ari in the ordinary pursuit of the case -- so what did Ari bring to the table that made that huge immunity risk worthwile?????

Seems like Fitz has been keeping his prize parakeet under wraps and out of sight. Kinda like he doesn't want to draw any attention to Ari?

Will Ari lob a bombshell into the White House next week?????

Never did I think that Ari would end up being the hero in this case. I always hated his smug face. Still hard for me to root for him. But, if he squeels like a pig.......!

can I run a theory past you....

June 11th... Martin goes to Cheney's office, tells libby and cheney that Valerie is a "CIA agent" and was involved in sending Joe to Niger

June 12th... Cheney tells Libby that Valerie is part of CPD (i.e. covert ops)

June 14.... Schmall's TOC notes indicate that on the same day that Libby and Cheney complain about press reports that CIA personnel felt "pressured" by their visits, Valerie and Joe's name are also mentioned....

Is it possible that Cheney suspects that Joe Wilson was a source for the story about CIA personnel feeling pressure from Libby/Cheney -- and that he got his info from Valerie -- and THAT is why Valerie was outed?

As I've said elsewhere, emptywheel, your efforts are nothing short of Olympian! Don't let my boss see this, but I did n-o-t-h-i-n-g for the past two days but live-read the live-blogging you and Christy were providing us. And thanks for going above and beyond with added analyses like this and Christy's train-wreck piece. But enough effusive praise. About Martin... her testimony is damaging to Libby's timeline, but, I think, not to his defense. But wait! Be not dismayed by this possibility. Instead, be heartened by this thought... as far as we know, no one declassified Valerie Wilson's CIA status. And let's face it, the folks in the executive branch averred that she 'arranged' for Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Not one of them should have assumed she was mentionable, not Armitage, not Harlow, not Grenier, not Schmall, nor Martin, nor Libby, nor Cheney, nor Rove (lest we forget him), nor Bush. To have assumed she was ok to talk about would have amounted to gross incompetence, if not negligence, regardless of who spoke to whom. So, even though Libby's trial is all about lying, the other actors will be wanting to watch their backs, since under the circumstance their 'unwitting' outing of an undercover CIA agent would constitute, at a minimum, an impeachable offense (especially since the mention of her name was designed to cover their own sorry asses).

Emptywheel, your liveblogging is playing havoc with my real work. I just can't stay away. Thank you for letting us all in to see and hear the court proceedings and for your insightful comments. BTW, I read that line under NIE as "What is threat?"

Hey folks I think this is very important.

A person over at FDL says he emailed Leopold and Leopold has the transcript where they are talking about the 1x2x6 and they mention Mike Allen and Dana Priest and they go into a lot of detail and more stuff about flesicher immunity.

Anyone here have an email for Leopold? Can someone email him and find out what they are talking about? I was following the live blogging but it cut off yesterday I think and I was left hanging

thanks

"is there any chance that you could talk on the phone to someone who could transcribe your thoughts each day as you eat/drink dinner..."

"Bleah, this chicken is overcooked. At least the wine is good -- where's that %#$*! waiter..."

I'd suggest that Martin's comments under the heading op/ed more plausibly relate to getting someone outside the administration to write one (i.e., a think-tank person or somebody like that).

People like Novak are usually referred to as columnists. They do fall under the newspaper heading of op/ed, but most insiders wouldn't call their writings op/eds. They write columns.

Marci

An amazing week's work. Thank-you so much.

I'm curious. What surprised you most from what you have heard this week?

Todd,

Haven't Leopold's high profile inventions of facts pushed him off the list of people we listen to? Or is this some other Leopold I'm not aware of?

Great job on C-SPAN with the Human Bow Tie (which they just rebroadcast)!

EW, was this the same time frame that armitage leaked to woodward? maybe they made up a top secret book for novak too. his famous words "they brought it to me and i wrote it" or some such nonsense. Did armitage leak to novak too? hum very fishy. i am delurking to tell you how much i appreciate all your hard work. lolo

It's the transcript from the court that's what i am looking for. he has it.

that's what i wanna get

I think Fitz has been aiming for the conspiracy all the time. Juggling two balls, so to speak, setting up the big case as he prosecutes Libby. I also think that he has played it just right by not showing his cards. The administration seems desperate in it's attempt to get Fitz to show his hand. Technically, if the dream scenario played out, and Rove and Cheney are guilty as sin, the conspiracy will unfold.

If it unfolds there will further indictments for Libby as well. That's pretty darn scary for Libby. He may well be pardoned but not if Bush/Cheney go down in the conspiracy. While many have left Bush out of the picture, the facts remain that he hired a criminal lawyer in 2003 because of this case. I know it was most likely just because that's the smart thing to do, but he could have simply utilized Harriet Meyers who already knows lots of his secrets. He chose not to use the white house legal team. I think there is something to this despite the fact that we haven't discussed it. Bush was on the same plane as the rest of them. I think if Cheney is a conspirator, so too, is Bush. Then, there would be no pardon.

A person over at FDL says he emailed Leopold and Leopold has the transcript where they are talking about the 1x2x6 and they mention Mike Allen and Dana Priest and they go into a lot of detail and more stuff about flesicher immunity.

I don't see any comment like that at FDL.


Anyone here have an email for Leopold? Can someone email him and find out what they are talking about? I was following the live blogging but it cut off yesterday I think and I was left hanging

No, it wasn't cut off. Are you reading the same FDL as everybody else?

I'll add my voice to the choir that you kicked ass on C-SPAN today.

There was a moment where you nailed York on a point, and your nicely contained shit-eating grin was wonderful.

Marcy! Great job on the live-blogging! I'm in awe of your listening/typing/thinking at the same time abilities.

karl rove subpoeaned to testify in libby case. Newsweek just broke the story,

Very few people have commented that CM might habve perjured herself to protect Libby by denying that Liby mentioned Plame in his conversation with Cooper. According to Waas:

Rather, Miller and Cooper testified that Libby intensely focused on the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger. The discussion between Libby and Cooper was the first that the then-vice presidential chief of staff and the Time correspondent spoke of Plame. It would be the third interview for Miller in which Libby talked about Plame.

Did she deny it, or did she just say that she didn't hear it?
The way I remember EW's liveblogging, she was there when he made the call, but stepped out and took a cell call at some point. So it's possible that he said it but she didn't hear it herself.

And the way I see it, Fitz has coopers testimony about the libby-cooper conversation...MArtin just confirms that it happened, it happened the way Cooper will testify to, egtc.. I don't think that the indictment has Martin as a fact witness to Libby mentioning Plames's name, does it?

At what point are Cathie Martin's efforts NOT conspiracy? Martin clearly knew that Plame was CIA; I can't see that she made any effort to clarify appropriate handling of this information at this point.

Agh...after re-reading her comments in Seymour Hersh's "Stovepipe" article, I just want to reach out and slap her for her spineless stupidity and blindness. She was annoyingly protective then, and now in the light of her testimony to date, malignant.

"And the way I see it, Fitz has coopers testimony about the libby-cooper conversation...MArtin just confirms that it happened, it happened the way Cooper will testify to, egtc.. I don't think that the indictment has Martin as a fact witness to Libby mentioning Plames's name, does it?"

The way I see it, Martin should have been called as an hostile witness. I don't think your other arguments have merit. They are not supported by EW's notes.

seeing as tim russert is such a favored go-to guy when the administration needs to wipe up its mess--
am i going too far in wondering why it's russert that scooter chose to say told him about valerie plame? did he think perhaps russert would cover him on this?

forgive me if i'm way out there but the more i learn about the workings of this white house, the more outrageous things i'm willing to consider as possible.

Canuck Stuck in Muck,

I agree with you on Martin's testimony, Not really damaging. But I disagree with you and many, including Katie Jensen about the big conspiracy that you keep hoping Fitz will uncover, is uncovering, in this trial.

The old adage hope springs eternal in the human breast would seem to apply to most here.

Emptywheel,
I think you misread "control the message." If Cheney goes on MTP, he gives the message personally in his own words, which is what I think Martin meant by controlling the message.

As for the "underbelly" of the WH as it has been described, does anyone here believe that other WHs acted differently. I have heard that Clinton himself tailored all the messages, and only slept 4 to 5 hours a night because of micromanaging things, especially on the Monica L thing.. (and he did a masterful job of it too.)

And of course on "West Wing" they did far more than C. Martin talked about. That is where I got all my White House/Washington savy from.

:)

Ha! It's a race. I left home without Plan of Attack too. Looking through State of Denial right now.

But I've got lexis-nexis too, and I carry it with me.

Jodi -- ever hear the phrase, "Art imitates life"...?

West Wing = Art.

I hope they're paying compensating you well.

CM might have perjured herself to protect Libby by denying that Libby mentioned Plame in his conversation with Cooper.

Nope, because she only heard Libby's side of the conversation -- which, according to Cooper, consisted solely of saying, "I heard that, too" when Cooper mentioned Joseph Wilson's wife.

Martin's presence in the room may be part of the reason why Libby was so terse about it.

Hope Fitz has Martin's cell phone records, or the assistant's cell phone records. Seems like plausible deniability at work to claim that she didn't hear the conversation. And if she had the plan laid out -- suggested much if not all of it -- then it seems odd that she wouldn't have asked Libby how he did and where she needed to pick up and carry the ball if at all.

Two things. I suspect that Newsweek story has a big fat red herring in it:

Rove has said in secret testimony that, during a chat on July 11, 2003, Libby told him he learned about Plame’s employment at the CIA from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, a legal source who asked not to be identified talking about grand jury matters told NEWSWEEK.

My suspicion is this is total bs. Because if it's not, it pretty much compels the investigators to believe that Rove participated in a cover-up with Libby - at least if you think the alternative explanation (from those who are skeptical of Libby's story about Russert) offered by Isikoff is less probable - that Libby was lying about how he'd learned about Plame even in July 2003, telling Rove he'd heard from Russert when in fact he hadn't. So I think it's bs floated by Team Libby, or perhaps Team Rove, perhaps in an effort to push in practice the theory Isikoff raised in his last column, that Libbys' defense was bringing in Rove and the White House in order to put pressure on for a pardon (something I'm skeptical of, but whatever). Part of the reason i think it's bs is that I believe earlier reporting had Rove testifying in the grand jury in a much vaguer fashion, in two senses: his recollection was purportedly dim, and he suggested that he remembered Libby saying he'd learned something about Plame from reporters, but couldn't pin down from where.

But if Rove really testified that Libby told him on July 11 that he'd learned of Plame from Russert on July 10 0r 11, that will be just great.

Also, Newsweek notes that Bartlett has been subpoenaed too. Doesn't mean eithe rhe or Rove will necessarily be called. But it would sure be fun. And settle some bets.

Second, does the AP know what it's talking about, or not? From the story on Fitzgerald's pig in a poke deal with Fleischer:

The Fleischer gamble is the second such arrangement that prosecutors are known to have made with leakers in the case.

At the onset of the investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he told authorities that he was the source behind columnist Robert Novak's story that revealed Plame's identity and triggered the probe.

Fitzgerald has not discussed the arrangement with Armitage but said Thursday that he granted immunity to Fleischer believing only that he had ''relevant information.''

I have not seen a single reference to an arrangement with Armitage, and, though I find it completely plausible, it's unclear whether AP knows something about such an arrangement, or is just sort of hypothesizing. It refers to "the arrangement with Armitage" that Fitzgerald has never discussed as though it exists; but provides no evidence.

Jeff
have you ever considered the fact that YOU could be wrong? Do you know what Rove has testified to? Do you have any reason to believe that Isikoff, who has done solid reporting, is wrong? Give it a rest. If he's reporting it than there is something to it

Are you disappointed to not see Judy on the list?

by the way, Rove can plead the fifth. And it's entirely plausible that Rove HAS A DEAL!

Wake up!

Luke,

It's entirely possible that Jeff is wrong. I am infallible, however, and I agree with everything he says in his comment above.

P.S. Don't get me started about Isikoff. :-)

what's the deal with Isikoff? I thought everyone likes his reporting and the book Hubris seems to be pretty revelatory to me. What am I missing? Please dish

"Nope, because she only heard Libby's side of the conversation -- which, according to Cooper, consisted solely of saying, "I heard that, too" when Cooper mentioned Joseph Wilson's wife.

Martin's presence in the room may be part of the reason why Libby was so terse about it."

Not according to Waas. Libby "intensly focused" on Plame according to Waas. You are willfully ignoring the evidence.

I would bet Rove has a deal. I've believed there had to be something to the hullaballoo last spring. Rove testified many times for goodness sake. There's a reason for that. I am not buying the tales told but something was going on.

I think there is a real risk to Libby that he won't be pardoned because the conspiracy has the potential to completely unravel, and if I were Libby's lawyer I would be worried with Bush's ratings, Cheney's ratings that they would be forced to step down. Not that they would, but who knows what the court of public opinion will do. I mean at some point this administration risks that the american people will no longer tolerate their behavior. Therefore, if anyone is doing risk assessment possibility has to be part of the discussion. I think the whole whig group was in on the plan. My bet is that Fitz knows this but needs the tightest case he can get. That's his way. And in a big case like this...it's the ONLY way. Fitz saw what happened in Iran Contra.

I think that explains the desperation we are seeing from Wells and I think it explains why the staff is so split. This looks nothing like Iran contra, in that, there is anxiety and lots of emotion going on in the white house. Cheney's interview with Wolf is evidence of the emotion. Tight as a drum.

I also think that the build up with Iran, was part of the plan all along but I think it will be used as a diversion during this case as the truth comes marching out. This is what the bully in your class would do. He would create a diversion, pull the fire alarm and not give a crap about how many kids have to march outside in the cold.

We have had many respectable and intelligent experts comment on the destruction caused by the lies this administration told to go to war. Senators stating they were lied to. We have a war that is deteriorating. The noble get their act together and the sickest stoop to lower and lower levels of depravity in the selfish race to protect their own skins.

We have already established that Bush meets criteria for a authoritarian personality and I would throw in that both Bush and Cheney are also on the narcissistic side of life.

If I thought they still had that tight disciplined rigid act together, I would say that they were conspiring to lay one on Fitz, but I really think that the old brittle oak tree has cracked. We aren't seeing crisp hitler like effectiveness anymore. Which tells me... that the gig is up or close enough that they will bomb Iran very soon, and the lies will become completely irrelevant.

I keep asking this question, but have not seen an answer:

What did Karl tell Fitz that got him a last minute indictment reprieve ?

what would you all do if Rove really was indicted or copped a deal at the 11th hour and truthout was right the whole time?

But it sure raises the question whether Woodward got involved in this story again. Remember--Woodward issued a weird non-denial denial when asked if he spoke with Cheney on this issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by again. We know Libby spoke with Woodward on June 23 and June 27. Woodward has testified he had already been told about Plame, by Armitage.
Isn't it possible they were talking about what had already been discussed with Woodward? Or what Libby would discuss with him?

Anyway, Woodward has been subpoened, so we'll probably know soon enough.

Luke, here's my critique of Isikoff's reporting in Hubris (the 1x2x6 material is largely an outgrowth of a story he wrote for Newsweek).

In particular, you'll see I bash Isikoff for ignoring an October 12, 2003 Washington Post story that was written as an implicit refutation of his theory. (As it happens, I blogged about this in real time back in '03.) His oversight/memory-hole treatment of the article is made all the more glaring by something Fitz's team mentioned in court Thursday -- it turns out Libby had a copy of that article, with underlined passages, among his notes. It was printed two days before he was first interviewed by the FBI, and IMO it shaped his story.

TNHblog, I think Waas botched that passage. What I said is based on Cooper's own account of his testimony.

katie 23:24 -- agreed with the Iran build-up; this has been in the works since mid-90's, maybe earlier, other dark players involved. Need only follow much of what Michael Ledeen has said and what PNAC pushed for to see that this was a long-term project (Larisa Alexandrovna covered same this week in RawStory). But it is also wagging the dog -- the very thing they used like a hammer on Clinton. They are going to beat the drum on Iraq as well, the escalation also wagging the dog in order to change the story and manipulate public attention.

But that brings me to the Newsweeks Rove-Barlett story; we know from Martin's testimony that the OVP and the WH use the media like toilet paper. How much of the Newsweek story was fed to them? Just look at the parsing on these few words, for example:

Rove has said in secret testimony that,

How do you take those words? Rove told a reporter or a source about his secret testimony? Somebody relayed secret testimony? There's nothing to grab onto here; it's a fingerprint like those left before in other manipulated stories.

Bottom line, I think Rove got a deal, but it wasn't immunity. The Sealed v. Sealed indictment names him, in order to ensure his cooperation. The reason he didn't get immunity like Ari got is that immunity would not assure Rove's full cooperation, up to and including testimony against Cheney and possibly his lifetime meal ticket, Bush. Ari couldn't offer as much; he probably begged for immunity, which makes the situation different. No idea where Bartlett is, but I'd suspect immunity if anything at all.

The schism between OVP and EO could also be a ploy, designed to muddy the waters, putting everything either side says in questionable light. More wagging the dog. Poor dog.

"TNHblog, I think Waas botched that passage. What I said is based on Cooper's own account of his testimony."

The more likely explanation is that Waas has insider info. Review Waas' previous articles on this case. He was able to info on Bush's testimony to investigators. Why would it be hard for him to get info on Cooper's testimony?

What did Karl tell Fitz that got him a last minute indictment reprieve?

I don't think Rove dropped a dime on anyone if that's what you mean. The third- or fourth-hand rumor I hear is that Fitz very reluctantly concluded he didn't have a strong enough case to convict.

Swopa this is great! I knew isikoff took some heat for the Koran being flushed down the toilet story but this is news to me. Fantastic!

luke

Is Rove testifying for the prosecution?

I've got nothing against Isikoff whatsoever, I'm just following out the implications of various scenarios, and expressing my suspicion about what's going on. Frankly I just think there's no way Rove would have escaped indictment in October 2005 if he had testified that Libby told him on July 11 that Tim Russert had just told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and all the reporters knew it. But I could be wrong.

Nobody is really invested in the fate of truthout, by the way, regardless of the fact that you're mischaracterizing what the report said, and that report simply cannot be right, even if it was onto something. But it's not a big deal. These things fade. Nobody cares.

I cannot believe, at least after reading the stories and the blogging on the trial this week, that Fitz did not have a strong case against Rove. Based on what we already know about Rove I think he had a very strong case. But if Rove testifies I bet we will find out the whole thing.

FWIW, Isikoff and Corn are the ones who wrote in Hubris that Fitzgerald didnt have a strong case against Rove. I think they're flat wrong because they have no attribution to that not even anonymous.

jeff, can you at least elaborate on your 2005 theory?

if you read Isikoff's piece, I think it was in April of last year, but he says that Rove was GOING to be indicted and that Fitzgerald told that to Luskin but Luskin made a last minute deal with Fitzgerald. It's actually in Isikoffs story. I'll look for it.

But still, why is it not possible that there was a deal for Rove? What if there is a lot more that we dont know? We didn't know that David Gregory was involved. There very well could be truth to everything and we just don't have the facts. I'm just saying that your argument seems weak because you're just saying there's no way this could have happened and there's no way this story could be true.

If he testifies I think he will take the fifth. That's what his attorney should tell him. He would be digging a grave for himself because what if his testimony at the trial differs from what he told to the GJ??

As I don't watch TV, much less C-SPAN, does anyone have a link for the much-praised clip with EW and BY? Thanks!

seeing as tim russert is such a favored go-to guy when the administration needs to wipe up its mess--
am i going too far in wondering why it's russert that scooter chose to say told him about valerie plame? did he think perhaps russert would cover him on this?

forgive me if i'm way out there but the more i learn about the workings of this white house, the more outrageous things i'm willing to consider as possible.

Posted by: irene | January 26, 2007 at 21:17

Russert, we just found out, is the White House's bitch. Plain and simple.

I feel sorry for Russert once he figures this out. Not really...but I do.

luke

Nobody cares about vindicating one little report from last year, except for you evidently.

But let me ask you this: a deal usually implies both sides get something out of it? What did Fitzgerald get from Rove, if he is not calling Rove as a witness?

And the point is, if Rove really testified that Libby told him Russert told Libby about Plame, then prosecutors would have to think that Rove was lying in coordination with Libby, unless they thought LIbby started lying about his RUssert contact the day or the day after it happened, which I find unlikely. Consequently, Rove would not have been passed over in October 2005 for an indictment when they are indicting Libby for telling a story that pivots around his conversation with Russert.

In fact, I suspect that, as the 10-19-05 AP story suggests, Rove testified that Libby's story matched his general recollection, but Rove was as vague as possible on details of his conversation with Libby on July 11, and did not testify that he recalled Libby specifying that he'd heard about Plame on July 11. Or else Rove had to talk himself out of a much deeper whole than just the Matt Cooper hole. But then what did Fitzgerald get out of it?

thump: Here's your link.

clueless -- Pumpkinhead has been very well compensated, as whores go. I don't feel sorry for him at all. He is a slut of the first water, a sell out in so many ways.

But he's not the only one. Makes everything that we read or watch in virtually any media outlet questionable. If we have to spend this much time unparsing and reading between the lines, is the media relevant any longer, or merely a lousy contractor for work we should do ourselves?

Occurred to me while watching the Wheeler-York pairing this morning that he'd been assigned to her as the noisemaker-minder; what use is he to us? what utility did York provide to somebody else on C-SPAN this morning?

jeff, what the heck are you talking about? I don't care about vindicating any report, let alone one from a year ago. I posed a question, a hypothetical. That's it. YOU said Iskikoff's story was BS. Then another story BS. Tell how you read that as I wanting to vindicate a report. I didn't even use the word vindicate. I simply said that if you are going to poke holes in Isikoff's story then at least provide a more thorough argument then I think it's BS.

But you're getting a bit hostile and I think you need to settle down.

Admittedly, you don't know who said what when and to whom. There is a lot about this case that we don't know and I think this week proved that. So before you start jumping around flailing your arms I think you should admit that you have no idea what Fitz said to Rove, to Libby, to Cheney other than what has been made public.

hence the fact that something bigger could be brewing and the almighty Jeff may very well not have been told about it. Then again maybe none of that happened. Who knows. I don't know who Isikoff's sources are but I believe he is reporting what he is being told. And it's my guess that whoever is telling him these things is someone in the know. Do you have someone in your back pocket who tells you otherwise? Do you have a direct connection into Fitz's mind?

But don't mischaracterize what I am saying and put words in my mouth.

Did you read the AP story about Fleischer? Fleischer got a deal without Fitzgerald even knowing what he was going to offer. Fitzgerald said he had no idea what was on the table but he gave Fleischer a deal reluctantly. Coudl that apply to others? yes. What does Fitz get out of it? A strong case against Libby.

luke

This is silly. I'll leave it at this, I didn't say Isikoff's story was bs, I suspect it's bs specifically that Rove testified that Libby told him specifically that Tim Russert and no one else told him (Libby) that Plame worked at the CIA and all the reporters knew it.

I provided an argument. Go and look.

Yes, I don't know blah blah blah.

luke

I didn't need to read the AP story to get that about Fleischer's deal, I got that from emptywheel's rendition of the proceedings. But so what? What is your point? If you are trying to suggest Fitzgerald got a stronger case against Libby by making some kind of deal with Rove, I'm going to ask you again, is Rove going to be a witness for the prosecution? What kind of deal is it where you don't even get the testimony of the deal-maker?

What, the emails?

Occurred to me while watching the Wheeler-York pairing this morning that he'd been assigned to her as the noisemaker-minder; what use is he to us? what utility did York provide to somebody else on C-SPAN this morning?

Rayne, if you think everyone has some utility for someone else, couldn't you ask what utility Marcy provided someone?

There seems to be this big assumption here that only those on the right use the media to get a message out. And that those on the right only get a message out at someone else's behest.

Aside from the fact that Libby is on trial for perjury and other crimes, I believe there is validity in the opening statements asserting that the Rove was being protected to some degree so the WH wouldn't be politically vulnerable. How that factored into an arrangement that Rove made with Fitzgerald is anyone's guess. But it is entirely possible that Rove gave up info on Libby to protect his own sorry ass.

Come on Jeff, you don't honestly believe that five separate appearances before a grand jury means there isn't strong evidence to get a GJ to return an indictment. I know you're not that naive.

a deal does not have to be one that requires sworn testimony. It could be providing information about materials, assisting in evidence production, etc.

I am not suggesting Rove HAS a deal. I am saying it is a possibility. I am also saying that there is likely much more to the story of his five GJ appearances than simply the assertions that there was not enough evidence to make a case. I am saying there is a gap in the narrative.

In high profile federal cases witnesses are not always required to testify. A brief look at Rico trials will show you that. You provide evidence or information and if it's information that the prosecutor can use to further an investigation then there's reason for a deal.

What do you mean "the emails?"

Rove has been subpoened by Libby's lawyers. How does the idea of a deal with Fitzgerald fit into that?

Jeff, don't mean to beat a dead horse or harp on the issue...well maybe I do. but here is what you said in your first comment

Rove has said in secret testimony that, during a chat on July 11, 2003, Libby told him he learned about Plame’s employment at the CIA from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, a legal source who asked not to be identified talking about grand jury matters told NEWSWEEK.

My suspicion is this is total bs

I interpret that as saying the story itself is BS because it's the information in the story that you are saying is BS therefore the story would be BS.

How does it fit into that?

Because they can question Rove about it. They can ask him about the letter he supposedly received. Ask him what the letter stated. They can also call Luskin as a witness because Luskin testified as a witness before the GJ.

Jeff
blah blah blah.

Intelligent. I see that you are unaccustomed to being challenged. And when you are, when someone challenges you, you get frustrated.

You must be used to having an audience fawn over you.

Welcome to the real world

... when someone challenges you, you get frustrated.

Someone who's just posted six consecutive comments should probably not be speculating on whether other people are getting emotional over a subject. ;-)

This has got to be a trial balloon. Rove is supposed to testify as to Libby's defense -- that Libby found out about Mrs. Wilson after the Novak column? Yeah, right! That is so laughable. As if anyone would believe him and/or Cheney. Subpoenas usually do mean that you want your witnesses there, friendly or not. Very odd turn of events.

M.T. -- this link over at AP has both the prosecution and defense exhibits -- very interesting -- you need to see them -- have you see these. They say a ton.

Swopa! I am glad you are here! I just read that Libby and Bartlette told Ari so, does that mean that now Ari is one of the six? No, that doesn't make sense. Where are we now with the 1X2X6?

Newsweek does say that both Rove and Bartlett were subpoenaed, by Libby's lawyers. No 100% guarantee that they will be called to the stand... but at this point, given the way the defense is running both sides against the middle, I wouldn't bet against it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16832257/site/newsweek/

Money quote from Wells:

“Wow, for all the talk about this being a White House that prides itself on loyalty and discipline, you’re not seeing much of it,” the lawyer said.

If Libby was sacrificed to save Rove, Libby's lawyer might feel that a wee spot of payback is in order.

BTW, many many many thanks for the months of preparation you have given us, as well as for the current live-blogging. We'd be lost without it.

What does six consecutive comments have to do with emotional? I am simply a fast typist

re: Martin's notes

NIE

We do these when not sure
[then something I can't read] <==My best guess: "What is threat?"

MayBee, you said:
...couldn't you ask what utility Marcy provided someone?

how about at the very, very least... instant fact check! there were assertions york made about the facts in this case that were simply wrong. marcy was able to correct him immediately, not that he willingly accepted it. but otherwise, those mistakes stand and become the conventional wisdom by default. case[s] in point:
• valerie plame wasn't undercover.
• joe wilson outed his own wife. he talked about her job at cocktail parties.
• everyone knew she was a cia agent.
• joe wilson said the vp sent him to niger.

the fudging of facts, and/or the outright misstatements continue. i'd call marcy pointing out and york's mistakes and providing the correct information a serious public service if someone watching this morning were interested in knowing the factual background of this case.

irene- I don't think that was the kind of utility Rayne was talking about.
Having said that, most of the 'fact checks' you give are not, with all due respect, in Marcy's power to know.
Your last point
• joe wilson said the vp sent him to niger

for example, was stated by Grossman under oath this week. I read it in Marcy's liveblogging.

MayBee,

i gave some examples of things being repeated as facts that are not facts. and without someone there to debunk they stand by default. it has nothing to do with ew. sorry if that wasn't clear.

about your second point, i'll go reread grossman's words from the liveblog. my understanding is that what joe wilson said is that the vp's office requested the niger/uranium story be checked out by cia. and he was sent. jw never said OVP requested he personally be the one to go. they didn't. by putting those words in his mouth they attacked his credibility on the rest of the story.

and last, that was simply my take on your question, '...what's the utility?' rayne does a wonderful job of speaking for herself.

"Having said that, most of the 'fact checks' you give are not, with all due respect, in Marcy's power to know."

But it is in the power of the wingnuts to know the contrary and state them as facts!

The wingnuts have "faith based" powers to know the facts.

But it is in the power of the wingnuts to know the contrary and state them as facts!

Well, it depends which wignuts of course, and which "facts".
If Joe Wilson talked about Valerie's job at parties, then there are some people with the ability to discuss it as a fact. If he didn't do it, it obviously isn't a fact.
The main point is, though, whether someone states something as a fact or as a fact-check, they have to be in the position to know something to be true.
Marcy isn't in that postion. Byron York probably isn't either.
They both gave their view of the facts.

I don't think that was the kind of utility Rayne was talking about.

Why not? I just re-read Rayne's comment, and I think that's precisely the utility that was meant, i.e. utility as a discussant about an issue that involves actual events and other matters of fact, rather than someone whose presence is meant to mark another person's trail, or so confuse the discussion that is taking place that it has no value.

If you want to have a discussion on the Libby trial or related matters, then emptywheel has utility for you in that regard. York, it appears, does not. What the Lord thinks of either is the Lord's business.

i gave some examples of things being repeated as facts that are not facts. and without someone there to debunk they stand by default. it has nothing to do with ew. sorry if that wasn't clear.

ahh, yes, I see what you are saying.

EW did have power, it's called evidence. What "evidence" did York present? All of his so-called facts are wingnut talking points.

EW -- I checked Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack" for all references to the NIE. There are nine of them, some to several pages of narrative. Considerable attention given to process for creating any NIE, and to the argument with Senator Graham regarding his call for one in Sept, 2002. The references seem to all be to the Executive Summary of the less classified version that any Senator could read. The last NIE entry deals with how Powell felt in the wake of the invasion, and the failure to find WMD when Tenet gave a speech that more or less cut Powell of at the knees, as Tenet described the Nuances and Caviats in the more highly classified version. Thus Woodward doesn't tell us if he had the longer, highly classified version as a source -- what he had was how Powell felt about Tenet. That could be a cover for the full source, or just what Woodward says it is.

Gads -- Just imagine walking into the court house with a trunk full of all the necessary research books and files to do this -- what you want to bet most folk in that media room have not done all that much homework?

Anyhow, anything you need looked up, just ask. Somebody probably has the volume.

a couple of points...

"tnhblog" is a conern troll who made the exact same "Martin committed perjury because what she said was inconsistent with what Waas reported" argument as "fdlblog" over at Firedoglake. A bunch of us shut him down over there.... so he is coming here to put out his ridiculousness....

"Maybee" is another troll --- pretty sure she's either clarice herself, or one of clarice's minions from JOM....

as for "luke".... Jeff has been around here and following the story for quite some time. "luke" shows up, and doesn't know what he is talking about, but challenges Jeff anyway --- and derails the conversation.

As Marcy's excellent live blogging gets more attention, we're likely to wind up with a lot more trolls in these parts....

I completely agree that tnhblog = fdlblog. FWIW, I think both are Jason Leopold, who I think might also be "luke" and "Todd Snider" on this thread.

In my humble opinion, the trolls have added greatly to the quality of the debate. They have forced us all to decipher fact from theory. And in my opinion E.W does a fabulous and effective job of this. What makes me truly sad is that our democratic country has a leader who made a unilateral decision about going to war. War. This is the most sobering decision the leadership of this country ever makes. And instead of engaging in this very debate before going to Iraq, the decision was made. Without the people, without the debate. Unilateral. Unilateral decision making is a symptom of alcoholism. The 12 steps have a tradition that states that decision are made for the good of the group, the many. Very democratic. It's called recovery.

Just saying...to the trolls.

irene

To be fair to Byron, he was the one who responded to the Aldrich Ames question--and he did so by saying Plame had been covert, was in transition, but still counted as covert.

MayBee

I understand what you're saying about utility. Just FYI, though, I'm not the one who came in with notes. And I'm not pushing the talking points that those you're talking about--the issue for me is what Libby was doing when he was being paid to ensure our national security, not about Plame in particular.

p luk

First, MayBee is not a troll. He (she?) is conservative, but well versed in this case and often willing to listen to reason.

But as to your argument about the timing in June--I think you're on to something. Recall that Pincus' article quoted CIA that Dick pressured analysts. So it is quite likely that they connected Wilson and those complaints, whether or not there was a basis for it. (Damn! I took a line to that effect out of the book for space reasons. I would have looked fricking prescient if I kept it in!!)

FWIW
1 We admitted we were powerless over alcohol that our lives had become unmanageable.
2 Came to believe that a Higher Power (HP) greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3 Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of HP as we understood HP.
4 Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5 Admitted to HP, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6 Were entirely ready to have HP remove all these defects of character.
7 Humbly asked HP to remove our shortcomings.
8 Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9 Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10 Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11 Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with HP as we understood HP, praying only for knowledge of HP's will for us and the power to carry that out.
12 Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Ahhh...Our VP Mr. Cheney, he's one in a million, isn't he?? What a genuinely nice guy. Not sure if you've seen seen this Daily Show 'interview' or not, but it's pretty hilarious stuff:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/01/jon-stewart-covers-dick-cheneywolf.html

Yes, John Casper those are the "steps". There are also 12 traditions and 12 concepts. Also 12 promises. The 12 traditions and concepts are the ways in which business is conducted in our lives. It's our agreement about how we will interact with one another, both inside and out of the program. "In all our affairs."

One thing is certain, our leader is not working a program, because he is "the decider".

Also, you may notice that folks in recovery practice a set of behavior regarding accountability. If we are working a program when we are wrong, we "promptly" admit it and then make amends. We do practice these behaviors "in all our affairs". I am not going to post the traditions, concepts and principles, but they are worth reading. And it's pretty obvious when you read it, that believing in a higher power is only part of the program.

MayBee 00:44 -- when media ownership in this country is not overwhelmingly owned by Republican/conservative/right-wing entities, it may actually be possible for Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left to "use" the media to get out their message. In the meantime, the left is only able to purvey their points when they are coincident with the aims of the media's ownership. As an example I'll point to the frequent use of Joe Klein and Joe Lieberman by media outlets as token Democrats, when in truth they are reviled by a substantive majority of Democrats; Klein and Lieberman push perspectives that are coincident with the interests of the current media ownership. Note how infrequently other Democrats appear except as rebroadcast soundbites and snippets, let alone Green Party or other left-leaning representatives (I can't think of a time recently when I saw any Green Party member on TV).

What utility did Marcy provide on C-SPAN? For me, a counterpoint to what would otherwise have been a tepid, inaccurate corporate-media response to the trial. Marcy also provides the perspective of a well-informed citizen, uncompensated by corporate interests, representing only herself but in doing so making the case that the current media is less informed and less capable than citizens.

Were it not for Marcy's appearance on C-SPAN, when would there have been any representative from the left on broadcast/cable this past week to talk about this case? Look at the weak coverage that the compromised and co-opted corporate media provided to a case against a senior administration official in which the Vice President and several other former senior administration officials are expected to testify? Had a government-filed suit against a senior administration office occurred during previous Democratic administrations, there would have been more than a buried mention less than a minute long at the end of a broadcast. Just look at Whitewater's coverage in contrast to the amount of coverage U.S. vs. Libby has received; shouldn't the breach of national security and the possible misuse of inadequate intelligence leading to war during this administration rise to a higher level of coverage than a failed real estate deal that occurred prior to the beginning of the Clinton administration? Is it at all possible that the consolidation of media ownership in this country weighted the disparity in attention?

In that light, Marcy provided an immense amount of utility to the public's benefit on C-SPAN. It's a shame, though, that a single American citizen has to do this on her own rather than the Fourth Estate.

How very fortunate for the minority of conservatives in this country that they lack not for opportunity to be heard -- even at the loss of the truth.

As a substance abuse counselor 25 years, even though I am by not means wedded to the 12 steps as the only way to recovery (contrary to many 12 steppers), I think a reference to Bush and 12 steps in the same breath demeans the program. Why would anyone even want to imply that Bush, so obviouisly in a non-stop "dry drunk", if not a sociopath, knows anything more about recovery than he seems to know about the lives of ordinary human beings? One need not cite his lack of "recovery" behavior to validate his failure to measure up as a human being, much less a purportedly responsible, power possessing one.

I'm not trying to dis anyone hear, it's just that Bush gives alcoholics a bad name, and I am too tired of hearing addiction being used (indirectly) as even a smidgen of an excuse for what is more simply explained by ignorance, incompetence, remoteness from reality, spoiled brat, petullence, you name it.

Right-o Rayne. I noticed CSPAN host deferred to York and allowed him to dominate the time and story. ew had to assert and jump in to offset York's story.

Ardant -- exactly. There is deference given to members of the Fourth Estate that is undeserved, as if they were elected officials serving the will of the people when they clearly serve the will of corporate masters instead.

Why wasn't a citizen given the same deference? York's content could be promoted by the same citizen; why didn't York show Marcy deference? Because the media no longer feels it has to respect readers, or in broadcast, viewers/listeners?

luke: What does six consecutive comments have to do with emotional? I am simply a fast typist

I think Swopa is busting your chops, my man :-)

But seriously. If Rove really _IS_ indicted, and Leopold really _WAS_ right about that story, the answer is obvious: we'll owe him a big apology for not having faith in his original reporting. But so far, nothing has really changed w/r/t Rove to make anyone think that such an apology might be necessary.

That's the nice thing about having integrity- it means you can admit mistakes and go on with life! I'm sure if she ever needs to apologize, to anyone, for anything, ew will be the first to admit it and take appropriate action.

John Casper

This is rhetorical question but perhaps you could answer it anyway.

Are you an idiot? A moron? Or is it just in your nature to be a jerkoff?

As you are aware the AP is distributing the live blogging of the libby trial. So people from all walks of life are coming to these blogs to observe and luckily we get to engage in conversation. I am one of the individuals who came here via Media Bloggers Assn.

So, if you don't mind, please keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.

100

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad