by emptywheel
There you are, ladies and gentleman, the list of all potential witnesses who may be called at Scooter Libby's trial. The most interesting surprise? Dougie Feith, propaganda artist extraordinaire. And yes, Karl is on there. Condi Rice is on there. George Tenet. Scottie McClellan. Andy Card. Adam Levine--who has said clearly that Libby and Rove were in charge of the Wilson response and who Hubris suggest might be 1--he's on there.
There are fifteen (oops, missed some) people from OVP, including Libby and Dick. Call me crazy, but this trial is probably going to shine more light on the dark corner that is the Vice President's office than anything we've seen before.
I'll comment more below, but for now I wanted to share this with you. This trial is going to be nuts!!!
Update: As cboldt notes, this is a list of everyone who may be mentioned at the trial, not witnesses. And per his request, here's the voir dire questions.
Update:
Here's a take on why certain groups of people have been called/will be mentioned.
People named in Indictment
David Addington
Dick Cheney
Matt Cooper
Eric Edelman
Ari
Robert Grenier
Marc Grossman
Bill Harlow (named as Cathie Martin's source)
Scooter
Cathie Martin
Judy Judy Judy
Novak
Turdblossom
Tim Russert
Craig Schmall
Joe and Valerie Wilson
Nothing surprising here--just all the witnesses we expect. Everyone but, presumably, Novak, Joe, and Valerie will definitely testify. The others would depend on what Walton allows/whether Novak has a real use at all.
Negotiations on Judy's testimony
Floyd Abrams
Robert Bennett
Joseph Tate
The fact that these guys are included suggests Fitz will be able to introduce details surrounding negotiations over Judy's testimony. Not included, though, is the NYT lawyer (Levine? I'll look for it) and Keller/Sulzberger).
Those who knew of the smear, but haven't been named in indictment
Dan Bartlett
Adam Levine
OVP people (asterixes are former OVP not known to be still-chummy)
Jennifer Field*
John Hannah
Debra Heiden
Carol Kuntz*
Emily Lawrimore
Mary Matalin
Jenny Mayfield* (witnessed Libby's end of the Cooper call)
Dean McGrath
Jennifer Millerwise
Neil Patel
Hannah Siemers
I've asterisked the ones who are former employees who aren't still chums (like Matalin and Millerwise) because they're more likely to offer interesting testimony about Dick. The rest may well be witnesses to Libby's business?
Those involved in fall 2003 response
Andrew Card
Scottie McClellan
Larry Thompson
I'm not positive about Larry Thompson. But we know Scottie was encouraged to say nice things about Scooter, so that may come up. I'm intrigued that Card is testifying. Don't forget, Card and Scottie got ousted about the time of the Rove non-indictment.
The Shiny Object that is Armitage--and those related
Richard Armitage
Carl Ford
Walter Kansteiner (will be called to talk about conversations with Wilson leading up to his op-ed)
Colin Powell
William Taft IV
Look, pretty shiny gossip-monger. As Mary has mentioned, the most interesting tidbit here is that Duberstein is not included.
People involved in the SOTU
Alan Foley
Bob Joseph
I'm intrigued to see Foley and Joseph, because it suggests there will be active discussion of how the 16 words got into the SOTU. Others involved are Hadley, Bartlett, Ari, and Condi. So there may well be extensive discussion of that?
Journalists whose stories that will be mentioned
Spencer Ackerman (June article that inspired Edelman to leak)
Mike Allen (1X2X6)
Massimo Calabresi (talked to Wilson after Cooper talked to Libby)
Jay Carney (all the Time fun--and maybe something he said to Cooper/receiving Cooper's email)
John Dickerson (will almost certainly be called to impeach Ari)
Sy Hersh (the Stovepipe article from fall 2003 may be introduced as evidence)
John Judis (June article that inspired Edelman to leak)
Glenn Kessler (Libby call on 7/12--will likely testify that he didn't learn of Plame)
Nicholas Kristof (the original column)
Chris "I'm not an anti-semite" Matthews (blamed Libby for the Niger claims; "fair game")
Andrea Mitchell (has been subpoenaed, will be forced to explain her dithering about her knowledge of Plame)
Timothy Phelps (the confirmation of Plame's status)
Walter Pincus (the June 12 article, as well as the July 12 leak)
Dana Priest (1X2X6)
Knut Royce (the confirmation of Plame's status)
David Sanger (received the NIE leak, has not been subpoenaed)
Evan Thomas (had a conversation with Libby, but Plame did not come up)
Woodward (see also shiny object, was leaked the NIE)
People involved in the investigation
Kirk Armfield, FBI
Deborah Bond, FBI
Jack Eckenrode, FBI
Gerard Francisco, Office of Special Counsel
Other Journalists (who may have been in Africa??)
David Gregory
David Martin
James Risen
Risen is a surprise. But I'd guess the other two were in Africa.
Others
Michael Anton (NSC)
Dougie Feith, Propagandist extraordinaire
Donald Fierce (Government Relations Consultant)
Hadley
Richard Hohlt (Consultant)
John McLaughlin
Condi Rice
Bruce Swartz (Attorney, DOJ--don't know whether he's investigation or Armitage)
Tenet (allegedly he told Cheney of Plame's ID, but I'm not sure I believe that)
Paul Vallely (Retired Major General, will say Wilson told him of Plame)
Wolfowitz
A big mix here. Some of them will, according to cboldt, claim Wilson told them of Plame. Others are unsure--a lot of NSC might relate to the SOTU, the response, or may have been in the June Grossman meeting where he briefed on Plame. Also, those who would have been in the situation room (like Condi) may be witness to something Powell said--Libby wasn't, but Condi might be.
First, let me say that I find it interesting that Card and Scottie are on the list. Remember, they both resigned about the same time. Card was involved in the slow-walking of evidence requests, giving time for the disappearance of 250 emails.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 10:49
Yaay!
EW, I have been enjoying your track on this scandal from the beginning, and I am beside myself that you are there giving us the bird's eye view of history.
The Gang of 500 can't keep us in the dark and covered in manure like a field of mushrooms any longer.
Posted by: Gary Reilly | January 16, 2007 at 11:33
No one has Duberstein on their lists? The guy who set up the Novak/Armitage meeting?
Any spec on what Thompson will be called to testify about? And Thompson, but no Ashcroft, even though Ashcroft was running the show through all the initial reports of FBI concerns.
Interesting list.
Posted by: Mary | January 16, 2007 at 11:45
The list seems expansive for a perjury and obstruction case, but spot on for insights into a larger case coming up. Talk about setting the stage, better buy stock in Orville Redenbacker!
Posted by: mainsailset | January 16, 2007 at 11:45
Witnesses, and names that may be mentioned. We still haven't seen a list of witnesses, except it's pretty certain that Libby and Cheney will be on the defense, and Russert, Cooper and Miller for the prosecution.
Paul Valleley is on the list because Libby wants to raise the point that Wilson mentioned Plame, in other words, that Wilson himself may have been (probably was, IMO) a leaker.
Is the entire questionnaire available?
Posted by: cboldt | January 16, 2007 at 11:53
I had the distinct honor & priveledge of spending some time with EW last weekend at the Media Reform conference and inhaling 'Anatomy of Deceit' in a single breath.
Marcy you Rock!
How surprised are you at how expansive the witness list is?
Posted by: John Forde | January 16, 2007 at 11:58
Toronto Star has an article. Is the VP going to be subpeoned and have to testify in a criminal trial and what does that mean legally. Congressmen are banned for five years after being served by Plame.
Posted by: ir | January 16, 2007 at 12:09
cboldt
Posted. And thanks for the correction. Wanted to get the list out there quickly, then got into a meeting and couldn't fix it.
Mary
Yes, I think the absence of Duberstein is the biggest surprise.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 12:23
Important detail for scheduling, emptywheel, if we can trust this AP account today, as follows:
Found that in Christy's link to MSNBC's AP photo of Libby that was in Pachacutec's first live-blogging thread today at FDL. Wanted you and looseheadprop to see it since your schedules are tight with regard to opening statements day. [I thought Walton might just go ahead and declare Monday the earliest date for opening, and this seems to confirm that he did in fact do so at some point recently.]
Posted by: pow wow | January 16, 2007 at 12:55
From the questions:
"Statement of the Case:
In July 2003, there were press accounts discussing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger (a country in Africa) and his criticism of the Bush Administration concerning the reasoning for the United States going to war in Iraq. In those accounts it was revealed that former Ambassador Wilson’s wife (Valerie Plame) worked at the Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA). After the articles were published, a federal investigation commenced to determine whether any violations of the law had been committed by the disclosure to the news media, and if so, who disclosed the information. Arising out of this investigation, was the issuance of the grand jury indictment charging Mr. Libby, who as I indicated was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agents and a grand jury resulting from statements Mr. Libby made during the investigation."
Looks like Libby got what he wanted on this issue. No mention of "classified" and a pretty limited description of the investigation. (Certainly not as broad as Fitzgerald's contention in other filings that the grand jury's purpose included investigating lies to the grand jury.)
Posted by: Walter | January 16, 2007 at 13:22
Isn't this the list to see if potential jurors have any relationship to people involved or potentially involved in the case to screen them out? That is standard practice.
Posted by: Mimikatz | January 16, 2007 at 13:24
-- Looks like Libby got what he wanted on this issue. --
Tough call. The language he objected to to was "investigation into the possible leak of classified information," to which he proposed "investigation into the possible leak of alleged classified information." Libby's point being that the former language asserts somehow that the information was classified, or that the leak represented a criminal violation.
You indicate the following as being in Libby's favor ...
This seems to say that first there was in fact a determination that the leak constituted a violation of the law. Because if there was a violation, then the investigation would move to who disclosed the information. The inference being that if there hadn't been a violation (the "if" condition not being met) then the investigation would not proceed to the "who" question. I think this is the wrong conclusion to draw (that is, I think the statement is not an accurate paraphrase of the investigation) FWIW, but some people will draw that conclusion by what they fancy to be "careful parsing" of the language.
Posted by: cboldt | January 16, 2007 at 13:35
I didn't much like that question 17 in the voir dire, seemed like it was demanding that the jurors accept the defense theories of memory. But I'm no lawyer.
Posted by: kim | January 16, 2007 at 13:38
Kim beat me to it...
To say nothing of this (from the same list of questions):
"At this time, I want to ask you some questions about your beliefs or opinions about human memory:
(A.) Is there anyone who believes that everyone’s memory is like a tape recorder and therefore all individuals are able to remember exactly what they said and were told in the past?
(B.) Is there anyone who feels that a person could not honestly say something about a matter he or she truly believed to be the true when that person several months earlier actually said something totally different about that same matter?
(C.) Is there anyone who believes that it is impossible for a person to mistakenly believe that he or she was told something by one person when in fact the person was actually told the information by someone totally different several months earlier?
(D.) Is there anyone who believes that it is absolutely impossible for a person to believe very strongly that he or she has certain memories about something, even though it is determined that those memories are inaccurate?
Pretty far from the form jury instruction that Fitzgerald wanted.
Posted by: Walter | January 16, 2007 at 13:44
Tough voir dire question: the Cheney one.
I could honestly answer genewrally that I could give a member of the Bush administration a fair trial. But how do you answer the Cheney question? He's been in the news for 7 years. If you pay any attention to the news one would have questions about his honesty - ie: variance between his pronouncements on anything and reported facts.
What would constitute a jury who has no opinion on the man?
I believe I am an open-minded person and would listen carefully. But I'd be blown off a jury so fast on this question. I could say I'd have an open mind but would have to say he has a history of at least saying things other than what other people are saying and that I would have questions.......
Posted by: Carolyn in Baltimore | January 16, 2007 at 13:49
cboldt,
Quite correct. Many things could be read into the actual phrasing. I simply recalled the "classified" vs "allegedly classified".
"The inference being that if there hadn't been a violation (the "if" condition not being met) then the investigation would not proceed to the "who" question."
As the jury may not get to hear any evidence of "who" leaked to Novak, that could cut both ways.
Posted by: Walter | January 16, 2007 at 13:50
-- I didn't much like that question 17 in the voir dire, seemed like it was demanding that the jurors accept the defense theories of memory. --
Those questions are phrased in such absolute terms that I doubt anybody would disagree with them.
In the general sense, any one of us has probably switched sides, mistaken attribution, and otherwise have flaws in memory. That's one reason why humans take written notes or otherwise reduce material to tangible form.
The trial, on the other hand, is quite fact specific. What was the defendant presented with, how important was "Mrs. Wilson works at the CIA" to him, and do you believe him when he says he forgot?
Posted by: cboldt | January 16, 2007 at 13:52
pow wow
Yeah, Walton set aside all of Thursday for voir dire. From Pach's latest, it looks like they're going to need it.
Walter
I think I agree with cboldt. The instruction is different from what both proposed, but a juror might assume that, since the investigation got to teh "whom," it must have passed the "if" stage. Of course, that's true in general--if DOJ declares an investigation, then the if has passed. Assuming, of course, that the CIA has represented things fairly.
Also not surprised about the memory stuff--or bugged, really. Libby doesn't get to have his expert, so he needs to be allowed to present his memory case based on jurors' common sense (which is how Walton ruled). Better to have this than to have any verdict overturned.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 13:52
Carolyn,
I'd go down on the news question. I mean really, no access to TNH, etc?
Posted by: Walter | January 16, 2007 at 13:56
Hmmm. So the question conditions the jurors to believe that disclosure was (is) a crime.
That does lend more importance to establishing the disclosures to Judy Miller and Cooper. But once established, points directly at motive.
Careless drafting, fair and equal treatment, or a hint into J. Walton's understanding of the case?
I wonder if Fitzgerald would have (or did actually, in oral arguments) suggested or agreed to this wording?
Posted by: Walter | January 16, 2007 at 14:13
Perhaps a stupid question, but is the POTUS not going to be mentioned at all during the trial (or is it just assumed that any potential juror has an opinion on the president)?
Posted by: DanM | January 16, 2007 at 14:38
If you find anything else out about why Risen's name comes up - dish. *g* He was the other one I was going to ask about.
I'm still not certain why Thompson's name would come up, but Ashcroft's not. Oh well, it will be what it will be.
Posted by: Mary | January 16, 2007 at 15:07
Pretty sure Dickerson will not be a witness, and is probably on the list for key communications with Matt Cooper. Also, he will probably come up in the defense's cross-examination of Fleischer, I'd imagine.
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2007 at 15:16
Is this going to be on Court TV? I may have to get a VCR if it is.
Can you imagine if all those people are actually called and they have to testify? Be still my heart. Who needs chocolate when I can rerun Opening Statements? Don't get me started.
Posted by: vachon | January 16, 2007 at 15:19
I am really curious about Richard Hohlt. He is a Republican lobbyist. What connection to the case does he have?
Posted by: William Ockham | January 16, 2007 at 15:42
Which is particularly interesting, Mary, since he wasn't IIRC named in subpoenas to the Times.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 15:53
WO
There are several people who might be on the list whose identity I don't know: the other 4 people who were willing to testify that Joe outed Valerie. And Joe's friend, to whom Novak blabbed Plame's identity.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 15:55
Some questions about the reporters. On the one hand, Fitzgerald's narratives of the investigation usually seem to include the 1x2x6 article, by Allen and Priest with sourcing perhaps from some combination of Bartlett and Levine. On the other hand, Fitzgerald's 5-12-06 filing, which I took to include an exhaustive specification of the news articles he intends to submit as evidence or refer to, has not mention of the 1x2x6 article. Could it be that Libby intends to go into this, to show the possible flaws in the story and its role in the investigation?
Same question, for the same reasons, regarding Royce and Phelps' article.
Hersh: Given what we know of Libby's defense, I'd say it's almost certain that Fitzgerald will introduce the multiple copies of "Stovepipe" with annotations by Libby and others in OVP into evidence.
David Martin: He may belong with Armitage et al, as he was the reporter who did the interview and story when Armitage did his public confession.
I'd bet Risen spoke with Libby in the relevant period on subjects in our ballpark, with no mention of Plame, though who knows, given his area of best sourcing.
How do we know Sanger hasn't been subpoenaed?
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2007 at 16:39
I thought we did know that Sanger hadn't been subpoenaed. Of course, I'd love if he had been.
1X2X6 may be a new angle on the early stuff, given the mention of Scottie and Andy Card (and Bartlett and Levine). In other words, there may be some detailed description of the early investigation. Imagine, if you will, that DOJ said "Investigate Novak leak," and then 1X2X6 came out, and then investigation switched to "Investigate all 6 potential leaks." I could see this whole line of questioning being part of Libby's apparent effort to declare the false statements immaterial. And that may be why Thompson is on there.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 16:47
I could see this whole line of questioning being part of Libby's apparent effort to declare the false statements immaterial.
That's the lines I was thinking along, though Thompson hadn't occurred to me as part of it.
Evan Thomas remains a puzzler.
As for the reporters Libby is going to call, I'd guess, apart from the possibility of calling the three central ones, Mitchell, which we know; Woodward, Pincus and Kessler from the Post; Risen, possibly Sanger and more likely Kristof from the Times; and David Gregory, though I'm not sure why.
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2007 at 16:56
Here are some interesting quotes from a Sanger-Risen July 12 article.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 16:57
In other words, I wonder if the 16 words is going to be more of a big deal than we know. That doesn't make sense at all, but who knows?
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 17:04
In other words, I wonder if the 16 words is going to be more of a big deal than we know.
Yes, one possibility is that Libby is going to use all of this to bolster his argument that the OVP just wanted to get the truth out on the merits while their integrity was under attack by the State Department and the CIA, witness the inaccurate coverage in the press, including Sanger and Risen's pick-up both on Powell and on the Joseph-Foley dispute. Risen might make a convenient witness too since Sanger might make an inconvenient one, depending on how Walton rules (or has ruled, for all I know) on Libby's motion in limine to exclude pre-July 8 NIE disclosure info.
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2007 at 17:11
Funny that Bush is not on the list, by the way.
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2007 at 17:12
Perhaps surprisingly, NBC News's former president, Neal Shapiro, isn't on the list.
Posted by: MJW | January 16, 2007 at 17:25
Excellent point, MJW.
Bush is weird, but they're clearly asking about him in any case, as one juror today got herself excused when she answered there was no way she could be objective about Bush--she went on to list his crimes. Buh bye.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 16, 2007 at 18:07
is this Jeff?
GUEST STAR OF THE LIBBY TRIAL: CHENEY. Jury selection began today in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements. Opening statements are expected early next week. (I'll be doing a few posts from the trial here on Tapped.) This trial is the first and, for all we know, the only fruit of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year-long inquiry into how the cover of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was blown and whether anyone violated the law in doing so.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton has been emphatic in keeping the trial focused on Libby's alleged lying about his conversations with reporters Tim Russert, Judith Miller and Matt Cooper in July 2003, which Fitzgerald has charged was part of Libby's effort to obstruct the investigation. Despite this narrow framing of the issues at trial, however, it will be a dramatic public event for at least two reasons.
First, the events about which Libby is accused of lying involve the intersection of top government officials and elite DC reporters as they negotiated the prewar intel fiasco that turned out to be the beginning of the unraveling of the Bush administration. The trial will not be a forum for debating that fiasco; but it will be an occasion for publicly revisiting it.
Second, we are going to get unprecedented insight into the workings of the most powerful and most secretive Office of Vice President in history. As we just learned this morning, there are fifteen present or former members of the vice president's office who are likely to be witnesses or to come up in the course of the trial. The most spectacular, of course, will be Cheney himself, whom the defense has indicated it will call as a witness. We may in fact learn more from key Cheney aides like David Addington and Cathie Martin. One of the central questions about the trial is just how Fitzgerald intends to portray Libby's acting on behalf of Cheney. Information from pretrial motions has revealed a vice president intensively focused on responding to Joe Wilson's incendiary July 6 op-ed accusing the Bush administration of twisting the prewar intel. Cheney took unusual steps, such as directing media strategy himself, and in that context instructed Libby to leak classified information to reporters. Is Fitzgerald going to seek to show that one of the reasons Libby lied was to cover up the fact that Cheney directed him to leak Plame's CIA identity? Or is he going to suggest that Libby leaked information about Plame on his own -- and lied in order to prevent political embarrassment to the White House and to keep his own job? Either way, we are about to learn a lot more about how the vice president's office responded to a crisis of integrity from which it never recovered.
--Jeff Lomonaco
Posted by: robbie c | January 16, 2007 at 19:46
political animal says that is Jeff from the next hurrah
Posted by: robbie c | January 16, 2007 at 19:49
No Cliff May?
From a Sept 2006 Toensing piece in the WSJ:
Hugh Sidey is not on the list for other reasons, primarily, no one wants to host a seance.
I think Sanger is still an open question - just because the Times has not reported his being supoenaed does not mean it is not happening.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 16, 2007 at 19:53
I would imagine Cliff's friend is either on the list, or didn't pan out. Cliff only ever had hearsay.
I'm guessing either Fierce or Hohlt, whomever they may be, is May's acquaintance.
Posted by: MayBee | January 16, 2007 at 20:06
Excellent suggestion re Hohlt (donations) and Fierce (background).
Here is more than you want to know about Cliff May - he was at the RNC from 1997 to 2001; Fierce was at RNC from 1993-95 but stayed in touch with Rep politics afterwards (I checked the FEC database.)
Could be either or both, or neither. But I bet those two are on the list for Vallely-type reasons.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 16, 2007 at 22:07
I really like the way this Jeff Lomonaco writes.
Posted by: obsessed | January 16, 2007 at 22:10
Check out picture #7, do we have a story here?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2005/10/28/GA2005102800657_index_frames.htm?startat=undefined
Posted by: kim | January 16, 2007 at 22:42
A language pointer - voire dire questions are not jury instructions. Jury instructions will come in at the end of the trial.
Posted by: Mary | January 16, 2007 at 23:30
Another excellent article by Mr. Lomonaco can be found at The American Prospect.
"Discovery Phase"
10/13/06 Jeff Lomonaco
Posted by: pollyusa | January 16, 2007 at 23:47
Other NSC / Michael Anton
Anton is quoted in a Sanger NYT article during leak week
Michael Anton is quoted in an Allen/Millbank/Pincus page one WaPo article about Rice's role in the 16 word controversy.
Posted by: pollyusa | January 17, 2007 at 00:45
A few questions guys.
This is looking beyond the Libby trial.
1) Did Cheney have the authority under Bush's Executive Order to declassify material, specifically - Plame's cover status and portions of the National Intelligence Estimates?
2) If Cheney did not have the authority or the proper authority, did he break Federal Laws for outing Agents and/or Bush's Executive Order? If so, what could happen next?
3) If Bush retroactively declasified the same material leaked by Cheney, which at the time was still classified, because Bush knew Cheney lacked any authority to declassify or became aware that Cheney lacked proper authority, then could Bush be named as a Co-Conspirator charged under the same Federal Law regarding outing intellenge agents?
Can a President violate his own Executive Order regarding the declassification procedure under the National Security Act when the reasoning behind the disclassification itself is not in the name of National Security?
Posted by: Quick Question | January 17, 2007 at 03:24
Ah, polly, you're brilliant!! Thanks.
In both State of Denial and One Percent, they give versions of a big spat between NSC and CIA over who would take the fall for the 16 words. Early in the week (presumably, on the 7th), the NSC was preparing to take the fall. Then, by the end of the week, we know Condi basically hung Tenet out as laundry.
So I'm guessing Anton was actively involved in that discussion. And that that July 8 statement was NSC's attempt to take some responsibility.
Also, it shows a pretty dramatic difference in approach from OVP--which is where Hadley would come in, I guess.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 17, 2007 at 05:03
Quick Question
I suspect we'd very quickly get into Constitutional issues. Fitz could pursue it if he made the case strongly enough in this trial that Libby was trying to hide such activity. But it would be difficult to do without really winning the PR battle in this trial. And given the makeup of SCOTUS, I'm not sure how productive this would be. Though who knows? It might be a good chance for Anthony Kennedy to restore some balance to our government.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 17, 2007 at 05:07
It seems that if we skirt the constitutionality of all of this we leave to the future an issue of vital importance. Have we become such a nation of avoiders that we no longer have the will or tolerance of the ambiguity? If our forefathers were willing to face the discomfort, it seems that we need to be willing to face the challenge of this discussion. I hope Fitz will allow the process despite the risk of losing the immediate battle.
Posted by: katie Jensen | January 17, 2007 at 08:54
Pow Wow,
Thanks for looking out for me. Actually, after the dismal amount of progress yesterday, I'm not sure they will even get to Opening Statements on Monday.
Walton must be pissed. Unless they make up some lost time today and tomorrow, this is a lot of slippage for so early in the trial
Posted by: looseheadprop | January 17, 2007 at 08:55
I just pre-ordered your book.
Are you thinking about doing a follow on book after all of this is over?
Posted by: Lisa | January 17, 2007 at 10:24
From Barnes & Noble-Tenet's publisher has backed off the publishing date from January to March for his version.
Posted by: mainsailset | January 17, 2007 at 10:31
Though, Katie, there's a case to be made that we don't want SCOTUS to decide these constitutional issues until we have two or three more sane justices on it.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 17, 2007 at 11:41
Where did you get the Potential Witness (and Mention) List?
Posted by: pollyusa | January 17, 2007 at 14:12
Another excellent article by Mr. Lomonaco can be found at The American Prospect.
"Discovery Phase"
10/13/06 Jeff Lomonaco
Thanks for the tip Polly - this one's also very good.
Posted by: obsessed | January 17, 2007 at 14:16
I love it when the Post does this! Speaking of a potential juror, they drop this in the middle of today's report from the courtroom, as though it were just well-known, confirmation of something I've suspected:
And he had gone to parties with The Post's Walter Pincus, another defense witness.
Posted by: Jeff | January 17, 2007 at 15:45
Duh. I somehow missed the sentence two before the one I mentioned, which identifies Woodward as a defense witness too:
He had worked in the paper's Metro section, he said, where his editor was Woodward, a key defense witness.
And here is the article.
Posted by: Jeff | January 17, 2007 at 16:04
More on Walter's friend from MSNBC
Posted by: pollyusa | January 17, 2007 at 16:12
One interesting little item from Libby's filing today on jury instructions. They refer to the inclusion in the exhibit list at least one article - Pincus and Allen's 10-4-03 WaPo article on the exposure of Brewster-Jennings, which is intriguing - that was not among the articles Fitzgerald specified as ones he would introduce back in May 2006.
Also this, from p. 8:
the defense may well argue that Mr. liby or government witnesses have mistakenly combined accurate memories of different conversations or events to form one inaccurate composite memory of an event or conversation. Likewise, the defense may argue that Mr. libby, or government witnesses, have remembered the content of a conversation more or less accurately, but have misremembered with whom he or she had that conversaion.
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2007 at 01:36
That's about what I've been suggesting. They'll say Woodward was Russert, Kessler was someone else, Judy was earlier and yadda yadda. That's probably their best shot, too, assuming the June 23 Woodward conversation happened before the June 23 Judy conversation.
Posted by: emptywheel | January 18, 2007 at 08:41
re Hohlt (donations) and Fierce (background)
One of them could be this guy
Posted by: pollyusa | January 18, 2007 at 09:24
Pincus and Allen's 10-4-03 WaPo article on the exposure of Brewster-Jennings
"Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm"
WaPo 10/4/03
Posted by: pollyusa | January 18, 2007 at 09:55
Some people not named as "Potential Witnesses and Names that may be Mentioned"
Ashcroft
Gonzales
Wurmser
Fleitz
Douglas Rohn INR Memo
Rove related
Israel Hernandez
Susan Ralston
Viveca Novak
Reporters
David Cloud WSJ
Isikoff
Posted by: pollyusa | January 18, 2007 at 09:56
polly
Don't forget our favorite reporter Cliff May, also absent from the list. I can't imagine why. Some righties have expressed full confidence that May and his source were going to be a part of the defense's takedown of Wilson.
Your reminder of that old 2003 article reminded me of the early coverage, which you've repeatedly drawn attention to, of the pursuit of the RNC in this stuff. That sort of disappeared, but I wonder if somehow that is where Hohlt and Fierce fit. I'm still curious which side will be using them, if that's so, to tell its narrative of the early stages of the investigation.
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2007 at 10:13
EW-
I've always wondered if the plan was to confuse Russert and Tweety, because the way Libby quoted Russert it sounded much more like Tweety flying off the handle, and it would be very easy for Libby to just say later, oops I meant Tweety, I always get those two confused. And I could see Tweety, the inveterate gossip that he is, getting all excited about something that he thought only he knew.
But possibly it could have been Woodward telling tales out of school. I guess if it were Tweety we would have known by now.
Posted by: vigethttp://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/01/weve_got_a_pote.html#comments | January 18, 2007 at 10:22
Yeah, I saw Maguire mentioned Cliff May upthread.
On the RNC connection, Waas had this in October 2003
Posted by: pollyusa | January 18, 2007 at 10:24
That and maybe a couple of other passages from Waas was what I had in mind, polly. I'm curious whether those two Republican bigdonors/lobbyists will be witnesses, or just mentioned in the prosecution's narrative of the underlying events and/or the course of the investigation.
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2007 at 12:35
enkflviht jznbypgq glkxoqat sajpg xtvqzaws uixoqtj ahvwigzym
Posted by: bzlkhf rtkvfsyh | July 03, 2007 at 21:24
grysacif sikwqya lcjve prhti esmkqnrhb nmtygpzsb lxdpfsh http://www.acdjqetu.grzdibey.com
Posted by: rpoeacnui dizxw | July 03, 2007 at 21:24
A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !
Posted by: WebMan | September 26, 2007 at 16:08