Oscarsmom #138

%u201CNow doesn%u2019t that meet all the criteria for illegally outing a CIA agent?%u201D

Tom Maguire #177:

“And it is an excellent bet that neither of these CIA officers told Libby that Plame%u2019s status was classified – if they had, Fitzgerald would have (or should have) mentioned that in his May 12 filing, rather than the post-Novak warning (and the description of the warning curiously omits the word %u201Cclassified%u201D as well).”

Now that we have it on the record that Libby was advised a full month before Novackula’s article, wouldn’t this really demonstrate that the SF-312 was violated? I think it does, but hey–no one else seems to. If not, then perhaps it’s just my desire to shove a violation of that form, down Victoria Tsoensing’s throat.

I can’t even believe I think I can post about this, but I believe that assumption is incorrect. I believe grand jury testimony is Jencks material, which I take to mean, at least among other things, it is material relating to prosecution witnesses that the prosecution doesn’t have to give to the defense until we get much closer to those witnesses actually testifying at trial.

In other words, Team Libby does not have the presumably meatiest stuff from the prosecution witnesses. But my understanding is that Fitzgerald is not going to wait nearly as long as he could to hand the Jencks material over to the defense. And it doesn’t mean that Fitzgerald does have a surprise along these lines ready for the defense. It just means he still might. But I would bet against it.

Like I said, I can’t believe I can say anything about this. If any of it is incorrect, I blame Plamania.

As for Grossman, it now occurs to me that Team Libby may try to inflate his significance precisely because he is the richest target for discrediting; so by focusing on Grossman, they can depict Libby as more of a victim.

2)we simply haven’t heard as much of what they have to say about the CIA folks because, I presume, they will be covered in some of the non-public hearings. Presumably they are going to argue that some are misremembering, and others are motivated by institutional and personal animosity and CIA-protection to go after Libby.

I am not sure why Libby is worried about Grossman, since Grossman told Libby about Plame in mid-June, just before Libby’s mind went blank (Libby’s chat with Ari’s on July 7 is clearly a problem for the defense).

Since the two CIA guys are also mid-June, I am not sure they are bad witnesses for the defense – apparently, Grenier will say that (quoting the indictment) “Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.”

And it is an excellent bet that neither of these CIA officers told Libby that Plame’s status was classified – if they had, Fitzgerald would have (or should have) mentioned that in his May 12 filing, rather than the post-Novak warning (and the description of the warning curiously omits the word “classified” as well).

To be clear – I have no doubt that Plame’s status was classified, but Fitzgerald has not offered any evidence of anyone telling that to Libby.

Nor do I think he is planning a surprise for the defense and the judge (which would violate the spirit of discovery). From the April 5 Fitzgerald filing:

In addition, the government has produced to defendant documents, received from any source, relating to conversations, correspondence, or meetings involving defendant in which Mr. Wilson’s trip was discussed…

I assume that would cover the grand jury testimony of Grenier and Schmall.

I think the defense can endure two CIA guys saying they mentioned Plame to Libby in mid-June, did not say she was classified, and (in one case) saying she was involved with Wilson’s trip.

J

Here is a passage where Pincus is clearly confused on dates:

The CIA official discussed “the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees,” according to a May 12 court filing by the government.

At the oral argument that same day, Fitzgerald, referring to the conversation, described the CIA official as a witness who described to Libby “and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson.”

That oral argument was May 5, 2006. There is also the fact that Pincus talks about “last week’s court argument on pretrial motions.” The article was published on May 22, so there is no way to call May 5 last week.

The mixup on March 5 is from the May 12, 2006 filing, where Fitzgerald states:

At some time thereafter, as discussed briefly at the March 5 oral argument, the CIA official discussed in the defendant’s presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column

I still don’t see it Jeff. In every instance Pincus refers to the May 12th court filing. I don’t think he’s confused, he’s just refering readers to the filing about the hearing. Never does he use the word hearing. However, he does add that Fitz’s oral argument in court last week reflected the same thoughts that were in the filing.

Secondly, the only March date mentioned in the article was Libby’s testimony before the grand jury.

Now where confusion sets in between the Pincus article and the Daily News is that the DN is claiming that Grenier and Schmall are two CIA guys who WILL testify against Libby as they had discussed Plame with Libby in early June (before speaking to reporters). These two guys were among five CIA names mentioned in Libby’s attorney’s filing on Mar. 17th, the others being McLaughlin, Clement or Barrett.

In the Pincus article, Fitz references the CIA person who spoke to Libby and another person in July after the Novak article and Libby’s attorneys state they believe that person to be Bill Harlowe.

The Daily News is the first article to state definitively that the two testifiying will be Grenier and Schmall.

I’m not able to check this,as I can’t recall exactly where I saw the comments,but concerning the “Sealed” indictments,I recall seeing this covered somewhere a few days ago,it may even have been here at FDL,but the issue was discussed,and if my memory serves me well,the conclusion reached was that the story was a piece of crap(although that viewpoint is definitely NOT borne out by the Poll on Daily Kos).

I think I recall one commenter stating that there would be a legal problem with this,as apparently Abu Gonzo is not legally empowered to quash an indictment,I presume for similar reasons why(at least here in TonyB.LiarLand) the law does not to my knowledge provide for anyone(government or accused,the law takes its course unless the law decides otherwise) to object to arrest or charge,only to an actual court verdict,when then of course there is the right to an appeal.I seem to recall that a similar statute is in play here,ie the fact that Abu G cannot interfere at this point,no one can.Please don’t shout too loudly at me if I am completely wrong,I am an old man with sensitive ears.

Secondly,I recall that someone else took time to check the Court Dockets in the relevant place on the relevant day,and found no entry which could refer to the one quoted in the article which was being discussed,which I am assuming was the one from the Daily Kos,unless it had appeared elsewhere previously.I only wish I could provide definite links etc,but I am sure someone out there will know more about this than I do.

Sorry if this is a load of nonsense,but I have just read all the comments,and (at the time of writing this)this hasn’t been mentioned,so I thought I would venture the info,and see if it strikes a chord anywhere else.

Peace,Love and Respect to all the FDL community,I agree with those who speak of addiction in relation to FDL,I would love to chip in my £0.10 worth more often,but I always want to read the comments before I say anything,and by then it is a case of being EPU squared,so usually I just lurk and learn.
Really I should be continuing where I left off on the thread I got half way through last night before the brain turned to green cheese.

So,if I STFU eventually,I can do just that.

Take Care you lot,Life would not be the same without you all,too many to pass on individual respects,but even though I really only hang on the periphery,and in a different country too,the real sense of community is easy to see here,most especially in the ways folks,(We shall ignore the species Trollus Fuckwittii Repuglithuganium) interact with each other in personal matters,congratulation,moral support,sympathy,understanding etc.And all this and some wicked humour too.I am truly hooked.

Goodnight All,Rambling Ghost,Lincoln,England

If Novak isn’t on Gonzales’ list of journalist being considered for prosecution for publishing leaked classified information, doesn’t that open up a selected prosecution defense for ones that are?

PS – Redd has yr daughter passed her polygraph lately!? And we are all keeping encrypted backups stored off site are we not? Security culture begins at home.

Talkleft at 167 – I assume the notable negativity in tone in Team Libby’s treatment of Grossman and Fleischer is some combination of 1)they’ve got stronger grounds for going negative on Grossman and Fleischer – Grossman because he’s an old pal of Wilson’s, and Fleischer because, apparently, he’s operating with a cooperation agreement; 2)we simply haven’t heard as much of what they have to say about the CIA folks because, I presume, they will be covered in some of the non-public hearings. Presumably they are going to argue that some are misremembering, and others are motivated by institutional and personal animosity and CIA-protection to go after Libby.