« More thoughts on Libby | Main | The Defense Rests (Almost) »

February 12, 2007


Dang Empty, sounds like you're having the time of you're life out there. Jam on.

Hi Everyone at Plamehouse. Thanks for the video. Glad to see PoliticsTV.com up and running again.

EW, Judy's response to Libby's Aspen letter is such a non sequitur. It could easily be a coded message back to Libby (Didn't Condi warn us that terrorists could try to send messages to one another via the media? and aren't Judy and Libby well-versed in terrorism tactics?)

Have you or anyone else thought that Judy's reference to "how the Aspen conference had gone" is meant to signal "how the GJ testimony had gone"?

boy, it sounds like scooter is awfully lucky he didn't get charged with witness tampering.

hearing novak testify today that armitage called him having suddenly turned on his 'available' sign, i remembered [but not as if it were new, just remembered i'd forgotten] i'd read some time ago that armitage refused to meet with novak when approached. didn't want to give him the time of day, it sounded like. yet suddenly, during leak week [love that] armitage initiates this meeting.

any speculation, or has it been established who put the notion in armitage's head? seems like it would go toward conspiracy, no?

EW, How convincing was the dialoug between Armi and Woodward? It sounded very staged to me. Think Fitz had the audio tested by the FBI to see if it was fake? How is Fitz holding up? The video is excellent as always. Three naughtygirls all gigling, so cute. lolo

Great detective work on the Libby/Novak pre-leak conversation.

Did Fitz ask Novak today whether or not Novak met with Libby's lawyers?

Because when Novak "came clean" on Fox, he seems to have admitted discussing the case, post-Rove-lawyering-up:

NOVAK: No, I took that as a confirmation that she worked with the CIA and initiated it. He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"

Now Karl, the reason I'm using Karl's name is he talked to his lawyer about the conversation. As he remembered, he said to me, "Oh, you heard that, too?" I really distinctly remember him saying, "you know that too." There is a difference there.

Cooperative lawering would seem to work just as well for Libby.

These video reports are just way too fun. I'm with you EW, no way dirty dick takes the stand. Much, much too risky. Oh, but how much will we love it if the arrogant SOB does?

Not only he lie, he was actively covering his track.

Similarities to "A Few Good Men" abound. So, part of me thinks that Jack, oops, Cheney will testify just to try to rub our faces in it.

Canuck: Cheney will testify just to try to rub our faces in it.

Sure would be neat to see the VPOTUS get frog-marched out of the courtroom :-D

Well, we might want to consider whether Scooter's call to Russert between his JG appearances had anything to do with Russert's hesitancy to talk. This is Libby admitting that he spoke to Russert, "a few weeks back" before his second JG testimony on March 24.

Again, I don't think this is entirely accurate. Libby admits talking to Russert, but he's vague as to when, and in response to a juror question at the end of his grand jury testimony he says this:

Q. And you mentioned that you reached out to him in the last month, like either in February or March. And the question was whether you'd reached out to Mr. Russert before or after your first Grand Jury appearance?

A. I don't recall. I think before but I'm not sure.

I'm not saying he didn't talk to Russert between appearances, I'm just saying he hasn't explicitly admitted it.

The more interesting parts of LIbby's grand jury testimony are, I think, what Libby says he disclosed to various reporters on July 12.

Given the really bizarre contraditions between what Libby says he told these reporters and what these reporters said as defence witnesses under oath today, I think the chances of Libby testifying are pretty much nil.

[And since I'm getting it all off my chest, I'll say that I think that the underlining on the document they're talking about in this next quote (which may be the document recovered from Libby's(?) safe) is Dick Cheney's.

[I have absolutely no evidence to back this up except that Cheney is known to underlined things, and Libby in the rest of his testimony would voluntarily identify handwriting that wasn't his, but he doesn't here.]

Q. 4846. If we could just show Mr. Libby the column that's 4846, 4847, 4848. And first of all, before you read it, it's an article entitled, "FBI Agents Tracing Linkeage on Envoy CIA Operative." Do you see that the -- it's underlined at various portions in the article. I'll make that Grand Jury Exhibit 70. Do you recognize -- does that underlining appear to be your underlining?

A. I don't, I don't usually underline like this, but it could be my underlining. But I don't, I don't usually do it this way.

18 page Q Cheney posted at Fitzies website but not at AP website. Wonder why? (teeheehee)

Great post, EW -- and there are even more fishy conversations worth noting. I'll try to post today about those, using your work here as a starting point.

a great feuilleton!

Speaking of conveniently timed conversations, I've always hoped it would be possible to get to the bottom of this stuff:

According to Waas, investigators have been interested in "a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation."

Also, I read the book emptywheel. You did a great job.

There's a formula that is understood by Russert and his guests. Russert asks the tough, piercing question, the guest, using their finest obfuscation, dance around the question without ever answering it - then Russert, true to form, FAILS TO ASK THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION REPEATEDLY UNTIL THE ANSWER IS PROVIDED.

That is the nature of not only Russert's show, but ALL Mainstream "journalism."

That's the entire game being played - all of it orchestrated from on-high by David Rockefeller.

The "Appearance" of news reporters. That's all we have. No investigation, no follow-up questions - no actual truth.

Hey Tim...it's goes like this:

"Answer the question."

"That's fine - but now answer my question."


When you ask a question, listen for the answer. When they fail to answer your question, ask it again. And again.

Journalism 101.

Unless you're JUST A SHILL.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American public believes is false."

-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

There is no "Bin Laden"
There is no "AlQaeda"
You = Piano

Can someone explain in simple terms these repeated claims that David Rockefeller (who???) is behind everything? By simple I mean without multiple links to ghu-knows-where, using the kind of writing which your high-school English teacher would like to have seen. Otherwise I will continue to assume that anyone claiming this is a wingnut conspiracy theorist.

I think Cheney will testify, though that may not be the most sensible thing for him to do.

Now that might be wishful thinking on my part, but it seems that after all this Plame furor something big should happen. So far it has only been a fizzle, no matter where Libby's verdict goes.

I doubt Cheney will testify.

He's starting on a ten-day Asia trip next week. Frequent press-conferences with foreign leaders where he won't be able to control the questions and, I imagine, a few would ask about his testimony. When he doesn't testify, he can brush off any questions re Libby.

And there you have it. Chicken shit Cheney will NOT testify. No shit? The vice president doesn't want to get on the stand under the public eye and purger himself. Cheney never was going to testify, never was going to take the oath. He can't and he knows it.

So who planted the story at the New York Times about Cheney testifying?

The trial surely seemed to end in a whimper. I thought that there would be more from the defense.

I have been following this trial via the posts at FDL. I must say that emptywheeler is superb in her ability to type and report on this trial.

However today I noticed because some posters at FDL expressed their opinion that they found it difficult to follow because of the moniker attached to Hadley, (The year of the war in Iran), they were immediately accosted by the owner of the website, Christy, as attacking MTW. The tone was authoritarian and the comments by the posters, excepting those who agreed, were pathetic to me, being sheep who love their Mr. Murgatroyd and will defend that authoritarian command no matter what.

I do not read any longer the commentators on that site, although I do lurk to find the reporting of MTW.

Someone, in this case, and this is not the first time I have observed this garnering of the troops to the cause and stop circling the wagons, needs to open up a little and not be so paranoid as to attack, as the owner of the site, those who are making a comment expressing their dismay, as being an "enemy" who has the nerve to not follow the sheep but who is interested in commenting on their own impressions. They were not derogatory--at all toward MTW--they merely were commentig and I have noticed over time a tendency on FDL to do this,

If you want to circle the wagons and diminish those who are commenting you may as well limit the discussions to those who say "you are wonderful, Mr. Murgatroyd"

My two cents

Soychips: you have it wrong. Christy was telling people to cool it on the complaints about Hannah being called TYOI, because (1) the number of complaints was threatening to overwhelm the bandwidth and (2) it was irrelevant to the liveblogging.


I am not going to argue--this is my observation--and the bandwidth, imo, was the excuse to defend MTW and diminish those who , so to speak, went against the grain of the bewitched admierers. The number of those who were expressing dismay at the ability to read the moniker inserted in the commentary by MTW was small compared to the number of off topic comments that were not ADDRESSED in the same manner, from what I observe. They were told, in effect, to STFU because MTW was typing her fingers off and could use the words she chose even if some found it confusing to read.

My two cents

Soychips, PJ was correct in explaining why CHS told us to not waste our comments on that. Sometimes we all have the same grip or comment and it really slows things down. She has ways of letting EW know and that is why EW soon apologized in the thread. It was a creative decision to give him the moniker. Please, she didn't want to cause anyone to think or feel that they cannot comment. Thats what the moderator is for to keep us all in line so we don't get carried away.


Unfortunately, responders are chiding you without realizing that they're doing exactly what you were bothered about. "If you want to circle the wagons and diminish those who are commenting you may as well limit the discussions to those who say 'you are wonderful, Mr. Murgatroyd'" is a good point. They do spit at dissent too often, and I expect your calling them on it will have an impact...

Wow, I thought bloggers could tolerate dissention. And my opinion having visited both this site and FDL frequently over the last year or so is that both Christy and mtw can handle people disagreeing with them just fine. I've witnessed that many times. They may slice and dice the facts, but that's what these blogs are all about. I am not really sure what the point is in sharing this information on this site?? What is it that you want from sharing it? What are you trying to accomplish?? What's the solution to the situation you describe? That might be helpful to know. How would you prefer people to behave?

No chiding just trying to explain. Ew, sorry I fed the trolls. I just thought soychips needed a confirmation that Pj was correct. It is not circling the wagons, it is for respect. Respect for EW, TNH, and FDL.

Marcy! You are wonderfully insightful! I have never laughed so hard as I did with your designation of Hannah in his testimony! ITYOI!!!! Nor, have I smiled so, in recognition of what he testified to, that Libby used other people's ideas (and his) as his own....say! how many women out there have had very successful men coopt your ideas as their own. This is how mediocre people rise to the top...on the backs of smarter people! (And, btw, why there is the exression "behind every successful man is........" I hope Fitzgerald will state this obvious fact as rebuttal.

Nevertheless, I am worried that Fitzgerald is going to lose this one because the Judge has a bad cold. With medications for same, can he think straight? Let us hope so!

I hate Google Video, I haven't been able to watch this video for a day now.

soychips, mickey, per PJ, lolo, and Katie you can find the text below on practically every Libby live blogging thread over at FDL.

"New visitors to FDL live-blog of Libby Trial, please read

The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also, please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.[...]"

Bold is mine.

Thank you John Casper. To our rescue once again with your links. Your the best. *g*

what the fuck ...

now we're arguing over the monikers used by emptywheel ???

that sounds like a real fucking productive exercise

let's all argue symantics while the couintry goes to hell in a hand basket

it's not like soldiers are dying or anything

I'm disappointed that the defense case is nearly over and we have no Scooter, no Shooter, and no "dot chart." Man, what a rip off. Reminds me of the hype of shock and awe -- how we were going to be tripping over WMD in Iraq, only to find bupkus. Same team, same result.

FWIW, I loved "The Year of Iran", and Marcy's comments. The added bonus was that it pissed off the rightwingers.

I think everyone is doing a good job with their "non-transcript."

And again, I think emptywheel looks great. So young. I thought she was older.

I am crushed. I thought Cheney was going to show us his storied brillance and steel trap mind.
As for Libby not testifying, I am not surprised. Fitz would have just reminded everyone that Libby said one thing and 6 other people say something else, and that Libby and his own notes disagreed. Sure Libby can claim he forgot, but then Fitz would have been scarcastic about how he could do such a complicated job if he is so mentally challenged. {Libby made personally a terrible mistake by just not using the "old don't recall, or not sure" when he wasn't positive or his notes didn't reflect exactly what he was saying.

But I will offer a bit of caution to the good readers. The defense has done a pretty good job. I won't venture how it will go, but I won't be surprised either way.

Fascinating to "hear" the jurors' questions. If I were more wide awake, i'd expand on this. Can't say I've got a feeling on how they'll go, though....

But Libby's trial has reinforced my sense from the last six years: This is what happens when a bunch of ideologues run the show. Total dysfunctional crap.

Thanks, Marcy!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad