egregious!

Almost.

Marcy’s book!!

funny, i was just thinking about Ari earlier this AM when going through the whitehouse.gov searching for info on upcoming pressers

Fitz and twolf1!

twolf1 @ 3

funny, i was just thinking about Ari earlier this AM when going through the whitehouse.gov searching for info on upcoming pressers

Oh dear god, it’s contagious.

angie!

I like the way you think Swopa.
There is much more to this convoluted story than has been shown.
Are mass subpeonas too much to ask for?

twolf1 @ 1

egregious!

You scooped me at the end of the last thread too.
We’ve gotta stop meeting like this.

Either that, or gang up and figure out how to share the loot.

Swopa!

egregious @ 8

twolf1 @ 1

egregious!

You scooped me at the end of the last thread too.
We’ve gotta stop meeting like this.

Either that, or gang up and figure out how to share the loot.

Scooped like free ice cream ;)

A lot of us wished to see that WSJ op-ed about the upcoming trial the other day. Here it is:

Dow Jones, which owns this newspaper, and the AP are also requesting that the court now release all of the redacted parts of Judge David Tatel’s 2005 concurring opinion in the D.C. Circuit ruling that compelled the reporters to testify. Responding to an earlier DJ-AP motion, the court released part of the redacted eight pages in early 2006. But it held back the rest, as well as Mr. Fitzgerald’s affidavits in the case, because the prosecutor insisted his investigation was continuing.

That was a stretch even then, but it’s certainly no longer true. Mr. Fitzgerald months ago told the lawyer for Karl Rove that the senior White House aide will not be indicted. And more to the point of Mr. Fitzgerald’s wild newspaper source chase, we learned last summer that neither Mr. Libby nor Mr. Rove was the original source of the leak of CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. As the Dow Jones-AP motion points out, “The public now knows that the Special Counsel [Mr. Fitzgerald] knew the identity of that leaker — Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State — from the very beginning of his investigation.”

Finding the leaker was Mr. Fitzgerald’s main charge from the Justice Department, so why did he keep pursuing reporters with such hyper-zeal for another two years? His pursuit led to a constitutional showdown over the media’s right to protect sources, going all the way to the Supreme Court. And the precedent — a bad one for the press — may well encourage a wave of attempts by prosecutors across the country to force journalists to betray their sources. The press and public both have a right to know what evidence was so compelling that Judge Tatel and Mr. Fitzgerald thought it warranted such a legal collision. All the more so now that Congress is also debating a “shield” law to protect media sources.

A wiser prosecutor than Mr. Fitzgerald would have ended his probe the minute he discovered that Mr. Armitage was the leaker. Instead, he told Mr. Armitage to keep quiet and let the public believe for two years that someone high up in the White House might have leaked for nefarious political purposes. In the end, Mr. Fitzgerald’s case has been distilled to a perjury charge that, while serious as a matter of law, appears to come down to different memories about conversations Mr. Libby had with three journalists. (And, as we all know, journalists never get anything wrong.)

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald ever discloses a motive for a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Libby to have lied, the unsealing of the affidavits and Judge Tatel’s redacted pages will help us better understand the prosecutor’s motives for his troubling zeal.

sorry for early OT – Feingold, Sununu Introduce Bill to Require Reports on Data-Mining

JoyB @ 11

Has anyone explained to the WSJ that Fitz does tight cases, not fast cases? There are probably indictments waiting in the wings for folks at the White House.

twolf1 @ 1
egregious!

You scooped me at the end of the last thread too.
We’ve gotta stop meeting like this.

Either that, or gang up and figure out how to share the loot.

Scooped like free ice cream ;)

Now you’re speaking my language.
Cool.

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bustednuckles @
7

There is much more to this convoluted story than has been shown.

My fear is this will be too complicated for the press and electronic media producers to follow, they will decide that it’s too detailed for their dumbed-down audience and will not cover it much, and then mostly in pundit soundbites. Guess it’ll be our loyal blogging reporters bringing sunshine to this dark chapter.

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

That’s the beauty of Plame’s civil suit. Plus Congressional hearings. Not over by any means. And besides, how do they know who needs a pardon? It tells the public somebody did something wrong, which is against their current pose of innocence.

I’d forgotten how much fun this stuff can be. Nice post, Swopa. And when do we get the reminders that Condi Rice told reporters on the Africa trip to go find out who in the CIA sent Joe Wilson? Always thought that was curious.

Kudos for laying this all out, Swopa. I admire your willingness to do so.

I, of course, have a couple of nits. First, you say:

The conventional wisdom (as typified in David Corn and Michael Isikoff’s Hubris) is that the Post’s 126 article turned out to be a red herring, the unhelpful product of a source who was confused about his or her facts.

I would argue (and if Jeff shows up, he will argue more compellingly) that Isikoff and Corn’s version of 1X2X6 is a poor attempt to rescue Isikoff’s 1X2X6 refutation. Isikoff claims the original WaPo story was written as it was because of an editorial mistake (which would make his later article valid). But he doesn’t explain why WaPo repeated that same editorial mistake for its October 12 article, and another one the following summer. So I would argue that the “mistake” claim is not CW, but rather Isikoff scrambling to retain the validity of an article of his that sure made him look like a compromised shill when he wrote it (and still to this day).

Moreover, the rest of Hubris belies that claim. IIRC, you originally developed this theory because you were sure that the only way someone would state what 1 stated is if he were an eyewitness. You argued that any leaking would have been so secretive that otherwise a likely 1 would never come forward.

But Hubris shows there are two people who could have been 1–neither of which could have been witness to all the calls. First, there’s Levine (who as much as says he could have been 1 except that he wouldn’t have said it was done out of revenge). Note, too, that Levine allows himself to be quoted as telling Novak that Libby and Rove were handling teh Wilson smear. And there’s Bartlett, who objects to the targeting of Plame. In other words, you don’t need an eyewitness to get to 1.

TBC.

to make sure there aren’t any restaurants in Washington, D.C., that serve crow.

None that politicians frequent. . .

scarecrow @ 18

I’d forgotten how much fun this stuff can be. Nice post, Swopa. And when do we get the reminders that Condi Rice told reporters on the Africa trip to go find out who in the CIA sent Joe Wilson? Always thought that was curious.

[whistling…conspiracy…]

Marcy in the house! All rise.

oregondave @ 20

to make sure there aren’t any restaurants in Washington, D.C., that serve crow.

None that politicians frequent. . .

Maybe the House of Representatives dining room, on the Repub side.

My but the WSJ doth protest, don’t they?

And my second nit.

Libby’s team have given an explicit reason in filings why they want Powell. In a meeting in the Situation Room in September 2003, he apparently said, “everyone knew” pertaining IN SOME way to this case. I believe there is a dispute about what it refers to (Wilson’s identity or Plame’s). In any case, they have said they want to call Powell to sow the idea that everyone (at least everyone at State) knew of Plame’s identity.

Swopa,

So Libby felt compelled to falsely claim that he had leaked to Kessler.

Did Libby have some reason to believe that Kessler had been leaked to by someone in the administration? This isn’t a deep question, I just want to understand the situation.

Anyway, if Libby thought that Kessler had been leaked to by Ari, how would it be helpful for Libby to take the “credit” for the leak?

Did Libby expect that Kessler would lie to investigators or make false public statements saying that he had gotten the leak from Libby rather than from Ari?

If so, why did Libby form this expectation, and why did Kessler violate it?

Were there any communications between the administration and Kessler, either via public “smoke signals” or in private, where they tried to get him to shape his testimony to pin the leak on Libby?

Or was such communication unneccessary as Kessler would have already known based on his awareness of Libby’s testimony by the time that Kessler was quoted on this matter?

I’d like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bush is a psychopath, if Libby goes to prison it means no more to Bush then blowing-up frogs with firecrackers. As long as it doesn’t blow back on him, it means no more than killing 600,000 Iraqi’s.

twolf1 @ 12

sorry for early OT – Feingold, Sununu Introduce Bill to Require Reports on Data-Mining

I feel a presidential signing statement coming on.

I’ve been scratching my head about the mess with Valerie’s book, which the CIA is preventing her from publishing. According to Newsweek this week,

The [CIA publications review] panel refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a “nonofficial cover” officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman, according to an adviser to Plame, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive issue. “She believes this will effectively gut the book,” said the adviser. Larry Johnson, a former colleague, said the agency’s action seems punitive, given that other ex-CIA undercover officers have published books. But even Plame’s friends acknowledge that few NOCs have done so.

Few NOCs have written books, I supppose, since few NOCs have ever been punitively outed by those who knew they were NOCs.

Maybe she could re-write it with the title “If I Had Been a NOC.”

egregious @ 28

twolf1 @ 12

sorry for early OT – Feingold, Sununu Introduce Bill to Require Reports on Data-Mining

I feel a presidential signing statement coming on.

I, GW Bush, do hereby declare that the NSA may now rifle through the underwear drawers of suspected foreign or domestic terrists (and by ‘terrists’ I mean Democrats).

-chimpy

Maybe she could re-write it with the title “If I Had Been a NOC.”

“This is how I would have done it.”

Dow Jones, which owns this newspaper, and the AP are also requesting that the court now release all of the redacted parts of Judge David Tatel’s 2005 concurring opinion in the D.C. Circuit ruling that compelled the reporters to testify. Responding to an earlier DJ-AP motion, the court released part of the redacted eight pages in early 2006. But it held back the rest, as well as Mr. Fitzgerald’s affidavits in the case, because the prosecutor insisted his investigation was continuing.

That was a stretch even then, but it’s certainly no longer true. Mr. Fitzgerald months ago told the lawyer for Karl Rove that the senior White House aide will not be indicted. And more to the point of Mr. Fitzgerald’s wild newspaper source chase, we learned last summer that neither Mr. Libby nor Mr. Rove was the original source of the leak of CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. As the Dow Jones-AP motion points out, “The public now knows that the Special Counsel [Mr. Fitzgerald] knew the identity of that leaker — Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State — from the very beginning of his investigation.”

Finding the leaker was Mr. Fitzgerald’s main charge from the Justice Department, so why did he keep pursuing reporters with such hyper-zeal for another two years? . . .

A wiser prosecutor than Mr. Fitzgerald would have ended his probe the minute he discovered that Mr. Armitage was the leaker.

I see the WSJ’s lawyers operate with the same intellectual honesty and diligence as its editorial pages.

Fitzgerald didn’t “discover” Armitage had talked to Novak, since Armitage went to the DOJ three months before Fitzgerald was appointed.

What the WSJ really ought to be asking is what evidence was so damning that even after Armitage came forward, the DOJ’s career staff was able to pressure John Ashcroft into recusing himself and allowing Comey to appoint Fitz as special prosecutor.

Then again, in their own way, I suppose they do:

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald ever discloses a motive for a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Libby to have lied, the unsealing of the affidavits and Judge Tatel’s redacted pages will help us better understand the prosecutor’s motives for his troubling zeal.

What they really mean is, “Could you please tell us what other evidence you have against Libby?”

What they really mean is, “Could you please tell us what other evidence you have against Libby?”

… and Cheney?

… and Chimpy?

So, is Hamilton Burger Luskin still Scooters lawyer?
I noticed I hadn’t heard him flapping his gums much lately.

*xyz @ 26

Swopa,

So Libby felt compelled to falsely claim that he had leaked to Kessler.

Did Libby have some reason to believe that Kessler had been leaked to by someone in the administration? This isn’t a deep question, I just want to understand the situation.

Anyway, if Libby thought that Kessler had been leaked to by Ari, how would it be helpful for Libby to take the “credit” for the leak?

Did Libby expect that Kessler would lie to investigators or make false public statements saying that he had gotten the leak from Libby rather than from Ari?

If so, why did Libby form this expectation, and why did Kessler violate it?

Were there any communications between the administration and Kessler, either via public “smoke signals” or in private, where they tried to get him to shape his testimony to pin the leak on Libby?

Or was such communication unneccessary as Kessler would have already known based on his awareness of Libby’s testimony by the time that Kessler was quoted on this matter?

I’d like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Not Swopa, but since he has started such a fun discussion, I’ll weigh in.

The idea is that by testifying he leaked to Kessler, he hid the identity of the person who really leaked to the WaPo–that is, Pincus’ source.

I think Swopa’s right that Ari is a candidate to have leaked to Pincus, though I think others are also likely (Cathie Martin and Hadley, for example), and Libby might have more reason to protect their identity (Martin to keep this away from OVP, Hadley because he is a Cheney sleeper agent and because that is more parallel to the way Libby appears to have hid Rove’s identity as Cooper’s leaker).

But as to whether Kessler could have gotten a leak from someone else–no, probably not. That’s true, first of all, because Pincus has testified he was the one referenced in the article. And two, because Fitz likely worked off of phone records, which is why he though Kessler was a possibility, bc he had calls with Libby on both July 12 and July 18. I assume there are no other Kessler calls of interest in the time period.

Steve @ 27

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bush is a psychopath, if Libby goes to prison it means no more to Bush then blowing-up frogs with firecrackers. As long as it doesn’t blow back on him, it means no more than killing 600,000 Iraqi’s.

I believe that one reason to think there won’t be as pardon is that if Scooter is pardoned then he can’t incriminate himself, therefore can’t take the fifth if subpoenaed for a subsequent investigation. Check, if not mate. Also, since he is not actually charged with leaking, only perjury, then as I understand it, he could be charged with the leak, although I don’t understand what ramifications there would be to that.

twolf1 @ 30

egregious @ 28

twolf1 @ 12

sorry for early OT – Feingold, Sununu Introduce Bill to Require Reports on Data-Mining

I feel a presidential signing statement coming on.

I, GW Bush, do hereby declare that the NSA may now rifle through the underwear drawers of suspected foreign or domestic terrists (and by ‘terrists’ I mean Democrats).

-chimpy

Everyone knows that DFH’s don’t wear underwear.

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

That’s my take on it. Super secret Lame Duck POTUS would never allow exposure of his administration’s misdeeds. If the pardon happens it will be before Cheney’s testimony

Semper ubi sub ubi.

emptywheel @ 25

And my second nit.

Libby’s team have given an explicit reason in filings why they want Powell. In a meeting in the Situation Room in September 2003, he apparently said, “everyone knew” pertaining IN SOME way to this case. I believe there is a dispute about what it refers to (Wilson’s identity or Plame’s). In any case, they have said they want to call Powell to sow the idea that everyone (at least everyone at State) knew of Plame’s identity.

Suffice to say that I think there are unstated reasons.

I doubt they’d go through the trouble of calling Powell just to have him say, “No that’s not what I meant.”

JoyB –

There are so many barf-worthy sentences in that godawful WSJ piece, I don’t know where to begin.

Since I had an almost sleepless night in anxious anticipation of an early a.m. appt with a doc specialist and am now ready to keel over into a coma nap, maybe I’ll just let it be.

But I did want to thank Swopa for this thread — your musings are always of interest! — as well as to give warm greetings to all Firepups today!

Msgs for specific Firepups (from lurking in earlier threads) who may show up here:

Rayne —

My heart goes out to you, as I remember what it was like to have racist relatives (they’re all deceased now, so those fights are in the past). One question arises — are your relatives at all religious? There was a tactic which sometimes stunned our family bigots in their tracks. When faced with disgusting racist remarks on an Easter Sunday, simply saying “You can say such a thing when you went to Mass today??? Shame on you!!!” made them blush — and shut up at once. Good luck with the tough situation, I’ll be thinking of you.

tejanarusa –

I’m so very sorry for you on the loss of your beloved pet. Having a dog with cancer makes me well aware of the depth of sorrow you must be going through now, as I often involuntarily “rehearse” the inevitable emotions to come someday in our house. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

cbl –

Congratulations to you and your husband on the wonderful union job news! Keep enjoying the Snoopy dances! And thanks for sharing that bit of news — your happiness is good for our morale too, you know.

I hope these Firepups get to see these msgs. If not, and any of you spot ‘em in later threads, would you mention it for me if you think of it? Thanks!

Now to go keel over.

Keep fighting the good fight, y’all. You inspire and encourage me here at the Lake.

P J Evans @ 13

JoyB @ 11

Has anyone explained to the WSJ that Fitz does tight cases, not fast cases? There are probably indictments waiting in the wings for folks at the White House.

I have no idea. Do you think I’m vouching for the WSJ’s opinions?

egregious @ 39

Semper ubi sub ubi.

Hear here! Wear where? There, there!

My third point (not a nit).

What I like best about your theory–and something I’ve been VERY slow to figure out–is that hte July 12 meeting was an attempt to fix something gone wrong. To have Libby take the lead since someone had fucked up. You have elsewhere stated that you think it was the Pincus conversation, in which the source basically fucked up and admitted that they had received Wilson’s report, but simply hadn’t paid attention to it. I think that’s all great logic.

But I don’t know that it leads definitely to Ari. After all, Cathie Martin had been fielding Pincus’ inquiries going back to before the June 12 Pincus article–she was on the plane. She may have fucked up the response to Pincus, admitted it (or refused to lie about having received the report), and been taken off smear duty. That, after all, is how Libby described it–him taking over for Martin. But the scenario even makes sense with Hadley or Rove. If it were Hadley, I’d say it’s a natural response, because NSC did have slightly different access to Wilson’s report, they may well have been the ones who gave Wilson’s report to the IAEA in support of the Niger claim, and there had been discussions going back to the weekend about the NSA eating some crow on this affair. Hadley is also a likely candidate since Pincus’ July 13 article is about … Hadley.

As to ROve, it would also fit with your “fucked up” story. That is, that Rove fucked up the response to Pincus, so Libby was going to take over–perhaps even make sure ROve got the Cooper story straight. I don’t think Rove is all that likely, but it’s possible.

Swopa’s on 1×2×6 again, must be Fitzmas.

Jane Hamsher @ 45

Swopa’s on 1×2×6 again, must be Fitzmas.

More like, “Swopa’s on 1×2×6 again, sun must have come up this morning.” :)

Swopa @ 46

Jane Hamsher @ 45

Swopa’s on 1×2×6 again, must be Fitzmas.

More like, “Swopa’s on 1×2×6 again, sun must have come up this morning.” :)

Oh, I suspect it’ll be this thick for the next three months, unless we actually get some resolution to these issues!!

JoyB @ 42

Not directed at you, or any one person in particular, but at whoever thinks up the WSJ’s topics, not to mention the people who write the articles.

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

And Swopa – great post and great pic of Fleischer. July 12th is a fascinating date indeed.

Who would’ve thought a plane like Air Force One would have a leak. It’s mad, I tell ya.

Maybe she could re-write it with the title “If I Had Been a NOC.”

good one. Peterr!

emptywheel @ 44

My third point (not a nit).

What I like best about your theory–and something I’ve been VERY slow to figure out–is that hte July 12 meeting was an attempt to fix something gone wrong. To have Libby take the lead since someone had fucked up. You have elsewhere stated that you think it was the Pincus conversation, in which the source basically fucked up and admitted that they had received Wilson’s report, but simply hadn’t paid attention to it. I think that’s all great logic.

But I don’t know that it leads definitely to Ari. After all, Cathie Martin had been fielding Pincus’ inquiries going back to before the June 12 Pincus article–she was on the plane. She may have fucked up the response to Pincus, admitted it (or refused to lie about having received the report), and been taken off smear duty. That, after all, is how Libby described it–him taking over for Martin. But the scenario even makes sense with Hadley or Rove. If it were Hadley, I’d say it’s a natural response, because NSC did have slightly different access to Wilson’s report, they may well have been the ones who gave Wilson’s report to the IAEA in support of the Niger claim, and there had been discussions going back to the weekend about the NSA eating some crow on this affair. Hadley is also a likely candidate since Pincus’ July 13 article is about … Hadley.

As to ROve, it would also fit with your “fucked up” story. That is, that Rove fucked up the response to Pincus, so Libby was going to take over–perhaps even make sure ROve got the Cooper story straight. I don’t think Rove is all that likely, but it’s possible.

Actually, I don’t think a screwed-up Pincus leak is what drove the July 12 Cheney-Libby summit; that was just a hypothetical scenario based on Cathie Martin being the Pincus leaker. (The Pincus leak — along with the other 1×2×6 leaks — was a result of that meeting, not the other way around.)

I really think Cheney and Libby met because Rove told them he had leaked to Matt Cooper, which wasn’t something they had planned.

JoyB @ 49

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

Thanks, we’re grateful for the effort.

I wasn’t trying to shoot the messenger, and I doubt anyone else was.

HotFlash @ 36

Steve @ 27

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bush is a psychopath, if Libby goes to prison it means no more to Bush then blowing-up frogs with firecrackers. As long as it doesn’t blow back on him, it means no more than killing 600,000 Iraqi’s.

I believe that one reason to think there won’t be as pardon is that if Scooter is pardoned then he can’t incriminate himself, therefore can’t take the fifth if subpoenaed for a subsequent investigation. Check, if not mate. Also, since he is not actually charged with leaking, only perjury, then as I understand it, he could be charged with the leak, although I don’t understand what ramifications there would be to that.

Remember, George H.W. Bush pardoned Iran-Contra away. There were no further ramifications once the pardon action took place. Why won’t that happen this time?

JoyB @ 49

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

I got a phone call just now and am glad I took one last peek here so I could maybe dispel some worries.

Joy, I’m really glad you posted that article here, esp since it’s not normally accessible. At the same time, this piece from the WSJ editorial page made me wanna barf — and that’s not unusual for something published there! That they pull these stunts over the Plame matter makes for ANGRY barfing from me (big grin).

No suspicions of anything even vaguely trollish about you coming from me, that’s for sure. And I doubt anybody else feels that way either.

It was kind of you to bring it here. Thanks!

Now off to bed…

This is semi-OT, but when was the last time anyone saw/heard from KKKarl?

Badwater @ 55

HotFlash @ 36

Steve @ 27

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bush is a psychopath, if Libby goes to prison it means no more to Bush then blowing-up frogs with firecrackers. As long as it doesn’t blow back on him, it means no more than killing 600,000 Iraqi’s.

I believe that one reason to think there won’t be as pardon is that if Scooter is pardoned then he can’t incriminate himself, therefore can’t take the fifth if subpoenaed for a subsequent investigation. Check, if not mate. Also, since he is not actually charged with leaking, only perjury, then as I understand it, he could be charged with the leak, although I don’t understand what ramifications there would be to that.

Remember, George H.W. Bush pardoned Iran-Contra away. There were no further ramifications once the pardon action took place. Why won’t that happen this time?

Civil suit.

They can’t pardon away a civil suit, for one. And if they pardon Libby it may affect their ability to get the civil suit thrown out.

There was no civil suit in Iran-Contra.

Swopa @ 53

emptywheel @ 44

My third point (not a nit).

What I like best about your theory–and something I’ve been VERY slow to figure out–is that hte July 12 meeting was an attempt to fix something gone wrong. To have Libby take the lead since someone had fucked up. You have elsewhere stated that you think it was the Pincus conversation, in which the source basically fucked up and admitted that they had received Wilson’s report, but simply hadn’t paid attention to it. I think that’s all great logic.

But I don’t know that it leads definitely to Ari. After all, Cathie Martin had been fielding Pincus’ inquiries going back to before the June 12 Pincus article–she was on the plane. She may have fucked up the response to Pincus, admitted it (or refused to lie about having received the report), and been taken off smear duty. That, after all, is how Libby described it–him taking over for Martin. But the scenario even makes sense with Hadley or Rove. If it were Hadley, I’d say it’s a natural response, because NSC did have slightly different access to Wilson’s report, they may well have been the ones who gave Wilson’s report to the IAEA in support of the Niger claim, and there had been discussions going back to the weekend about the NSA eating some crow on this affair. Hadley is also a likely candidate since Pincus’ July 13 article is about … Hadley.

As to ROve, it would also fit with your “fucked up” story. That is, that Rove fucked up the response to Pincus, so Libby was going to take over–perhaps even make sure ROve got the Cooper story straight. I don’t think Rove is all that likely, but it’s possible.

Actually, I don’t think a screwed-up Pincus leak is what drove the July 12 Cheney-Libby summit; that was just a hypothetical scenario based on Cathie Martin being the Pincus leaker. (The Pincus leak — along with the other 1×2×6 leaks — was a result of that meeting, not the other way around.)

I really think Cheney and Libby met because Rove told them he had leaked to Matt Cooper, which wasn’t something they had planned.

Fair enough–though the Levine quote “Libby and Karl are dealing with this,” would suggest that Karl WAS supposed to be involved.

I just raised the Pincus because it may well have slightly preceded that AF2 meeting.

Marcy and Swopa,

In Watergate, the refrain “follow the money” became a shorthand for pursuing the means and motives for the illegal activities. Campaign slush funds, payments to burglars, crazy donors, etc. – lots to track down.

Here, the trail is slightly different, and I think Marcy captured it well @ 44 – this was an attempt to fix something gone terribly wrong. The larger “thing” of course is the handling of the Iraq/WMD/16 words mess, but the immediate “thing” is the Joe Wilson op-ed.

So we follow not the money, but the meetings. Leaks to Novak, conversations and phone calls on Air Force One, etc., asking again and again “Why these two people are talking?”

I like the notion of Ari in the middle of this mess, because when it came to dealing with the press around the White House, that’s what he did. Unlike some other WH spokespeople, Ari was “inside the room” when things happened, whether he would tell the media about them or not. If Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Co. were mounting a media-based pushback against Joe Wilson, it wouldn’t have happened without dear Ari.

And I think early on in the investigation, Ari realized that Fitz realized that. Ari’s no fool – enter the likely immunity deal – and that can’t make certain (potential or actual) defendants happy.

I’m afraid it’s nothing but a lump of coal for Irving on Fitzmas.

I don’t know about anyone else but this is pretty cool to watch these two go back and forth.
Talk about depth!

OT TPM:

… Sen. McCain…just made the argument that if the message of the 2006 election were really to wind up our involvement in Iraq, then Joe Lieberman wouldn’t have been reelected in Connecticut. Now, I know Lieberman’s a pretty touchy topic. But even in the most generous interpretation, didn’t Lieberman run his whole general election campaign asking Connecticut voters to look beyond his position on Iraq which most of them disagreed with?

I thought the drugs wore off years ago, but I must be having a flashback to Oct. ‘05.

disgusting display of gooperism on msnbc

“in vietnam, when we left, they couldnt follow us here. Now, we know, if we don’t achieve victory in iraq, we will be fighting them on the streets here”

(not direct quote, but close)

Pelosi and Reid look mighty pissed and tough in their brief presser just now at the White House after meeting with Bush – all but Fox cable news broke away before they completed their remarks and C-Span 1 and 2 did not carry it live at all. Hope and trust viewers can see it in its entirety sooner than later. Will try to find a linky for everyone sometime later today – made me late for work but well worth it.

I do think that Isikoff is more misleading than he should be about how much of 1×2×6 still stands, motivated by the desire to vindicate his initial, quite skeptical report on it in Newsweek back in 2003. Also, he gets some key facts on the Post’s reporting wrong or incomplete. But I do think it’s likely that the initial 1×2×6 story got some details wrong: there were probably not 6 reporters who were called before Novak’s column, and in fact some of the contacts were probably initiated by reporters. But neither of those things calls into question what I take to be the heart of the 1×2×6 claim, which is that two top White House officials disclosed information about Plame to multiple reporters before Novak’s column ran.

I take those two officials to be Libby and Rove, and like emptywheel, I suspect that the Post’s source was not necessarily an eyewitness to all the calls but heard about them afterward. My own guess is that Dan Bartlett might be 1, although Hubris does work mightily to hint that it’s Levine – which led Robert Novak, that eminently reliable journalist, to assert that Hubris asserted that it was Levine. We know about Novak, Miller and Cooper as Rove and/or Libby’s press contacts. I have no firm view on whether Pincus was part of this, although I doubt Rove was his source; more likely candidates are, as ew says, Fleischer, Hadley or Martin.

So sorry to go OT but I just wanted to bring this Salon article to everyone’s attention:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/k…..index.html

“But like so many revenge tragedy protagonists, Bush is fatally flawed. By taking revenge against a foe who had not actually injured him, he opened a Pandora’s Box of gratuitous violence, one he cannot now close. In a larger sense, he is trying to play the part of Vindice in a Shakespearean world, one far too complex to be comprehended by his black-and-white morality. By failing to grasp that the world is larger than his simplistic vision, and insisting that he must carry on to the climax and kill a villain who can no longer be identified, Bush is trapping us in a failed chess game, condemning us to a bloody perpetual check. He is threatening to repeat dramatic history and himself become a villain — a blood-drenched avenger no longer morally distinguishable from the evildoers he is fighting.

And the final act in this grim drama, Bush’s absurd call for a meaningless “surge,” resembles one of those hideous masques in revenge plays during which the protagonist kills his enemies, then is killed himself. This little play-within-a-play may demonstrate Bush’s resolve and put off the unhappy ending, but it is real men and women who will die for his dumb show.”

Swopa @ 53

emptywheel @ 44

My third point (not a nit).

What I like best about your theory–and something I’ve been VERY slow to figure out–is that hte July 12 meeting was an attempt to fix something gone wrong. To have Libby take the lead since someone had fucked up. You have elsewhere stated that you think it was the Pincus conversation, in which the source basically fucked up and admitted that they had received Wilson’s report, but simply hadn’t paid attention to it. I think that’s all great logic.

But I don’t know that it leads definitely to Ari. After all, Cathie Martin had been fielding Pincus’ inquiries going back to before the June 12 Pincus article–she was on the plane. She may have fucked up the response to Pincus, admitted it (or refused to lie about having received the report), and been taken off smear duty. That, after all, is how Libby described it–him taking over for Martin. But the scenario even makes sense with Hadley or Rove. If it were Hadley, I’d say it’s a natural response, because NSC did have slightly different access to Wilson’s report, they may well have been the ones who gave Wilson’s report to the IAEA in support of the Niger claim, and there had been discussions going back to the weekend about the NSA eating some crow on this affair. Hadley is also a likely candidate since Pincus’ July 13 article is about … Hadley.

As to ROve, it would also fit with your “fucked up” story. That is, that Rove fucked up the response to Pincus, so Libby was going to take over–perhaps even make sure ROve got the Cooper story straight. I don’t think Rove is all that likely, but it’s possible.

Actually, I don’t think a screwed-up Pincus leak is what drove the July 12 Cheney-Libby summit; that was just a hypothetical scenario based on Cathie Martin being the Pincus leaker. (The Pincus leak — along with the other 1×2×6 leaks — was a result of that meeting, not the other way around.)

I really think Cheney and Libby met because Rove told them he had leaked to Matt Cooper, which wasn’t something they had planned.

Remember too what else Rove told Libby on July 11: that Novak had told him (Rove) that he was going to be publishing on Plame. So by July 12, Libby had every reason to expect, and to convey to Cheney his expectation, that Novak had something coming out on Plame soon. So in a sense, the cat was coming out of the bag, which might have led them to alter their media strategy. In fact, according to Hubris, I believe, Novak’s column hit the wires on July 12, so perhaps Libby knew for a fact it was already, in some sense, out, though that may be a stretch. I also remain somewhat skeptical that it was really on the wires then, although the column itself does show signs of having been written before the end of the day on July 11, as it shows no sign of awareness of Tenet’s July 11 statement, which was important news.

Mrs.K8 — if you’re still around, thank you for your support.

They’re religious, but I think they are looking at immigration in very tight terms. These people broke the law and are not supposed to be here. These children are skipping school to protest.

And they’re doing it while brown, which doesn’t help.

The day will come when the cosmos will give me the right weapon to use on their incuriosity — at least I hope it does, before Hispanic and Philippino family members get “detained accidentally”.

emptywheel @ 59

I really think Cheney and Libby met because Rove told them he had leaked to Matt Cooper, which wasn’t something they had planned.

Fair enough–though the Levine quote “Libby and Karl are dealing with this,” would suggest that Karl WAS supposed to be involved.

For reasons described in my previous Plame 1×2×6 post, I don’t buy Levine as “1.”

I’d have to dig up Hubris to say anything else about the quote you mention, but in general I think his “confession” is kind of like Scooter falsely claiming he leaked to Cooper, Miller, Kessler (”Aw, shucks, I think I might be your guy. Guess there’s no need for you to look into this any further!”)

Ditto Bartlett to some extent, although I do think he could have been “1″ (and he would have been an eyewitness, since he was on the plane with Fleischer).

“Take the idea of a “surge,” for instance. The much-debated escalation suggests a lot of troops moving quickly to Iraq. Yet two senior White House officials, who declined to be named discussing sensitive policy matters in advance of the speech, tell NEWSWEEK that the president’s approach will be far more cautious. The White House expects all the new troops to be deployed in Iraq. But they won’t go until the Iraqis have met several conditions–or benchmarks–to get the extra help they say they need.”

A Stagger, More than a Surge
Don’t believe all the hype. What Bush really hopes to accomplish in his Iraq speech.

By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey
Updated: 10:29 a.m. CT Jan 10, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16…../newsweek/

Jeff (68) — ever read DKos’ diarist EZWriter? They always have WaPo stories the night before they appear online or in print.

You might want to contact them to see how this works, if they are able to share. I suspect the story was in the pipeline before the 11th for this reason.

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

mc @ 67

Real men and women will die for his dumb show, but they will not be any that he is related to or even remotely knows. They are the little people and, like a good Bush, George W. Bush does not care if they are hurt or killed.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

I predicted one Friedman unit.

Marcy,

I know it’s a little late, but do you think you could encourage your publisher to include a CD with spreadsheet prepared with all the main players, dates, some of the known elements filled in, connections, etc., for the weaker-minded of us? This is like three-dimensional chess to those of us who haven’t put the brain-power you and the other primary Plameologists have dedicated to this mystery. It’s a doozie.

Knut — I think you really meant to ask Jane and our orange overlord, Kos that question.

;-)

My guess is that you’ll get one during/after voir dire, if things are very, very tedious.

Rayne @ 72

Jeff (68) — ever read DKos’ diarist EZWriter? They always have WaPo stories the night before they appear online or in print.

You might want to contact them to see how this works, if they are able to share. I suspect the story was in the pipeline before the 11th for this reason.

Thanks, I’ve noticed that. But this is a little different because it was a wire service, not one of the Post’s own stories, and also it was a little while ago anyway.

Just to be clear, though, Novak’s column was published on July 14, a Monday. It seems pretty clear that Novak was done with it and had it off before he left work on the previous Friday, July 11, since it clearly doesn not take into account Tenet’s statement, which was released late that very day. So it is perfectly believable that Novak’s syndication outfit would have distributed it publicly on July 12, though it could equally have been the 13th.

In any case, regardless of that, from what we know, Libby knew that Novak was about to publish something on Plame, since Novak had told Rove earlier in the week and Rove had told Libby the morning of July 11. That would give Libby the knowledge that might prompt him to look for the column. But he’d know it was coming in any case. Which might alter his behavior.

Jeff @ 68

Remember too what else Rove told Libby on July 11: that Novak had told him (Rove) that he was going to be publishing on Plame. So by July 12, Libby had every reason to expect, and to convey to Cheney his expectation, that Novak had something coming out on Plame soon. So in a sense, the cat was coming out of the bag, which might have led them to alter their media strategy.

Yes, that’s always been part of my thinking — Libby told Cheney about Rove’s leak to Cooper, and given that Novak was committed to writing about Plame, Cheney gave the order/permission to “go wide” with the leak.

I’m agnostic about whether Novak’s story had hit the wires or not. I don’t think it matters (i.e., if it had, no one relevant saw it & learned of Plame that way).

By the usual WDC rules I really don’t think Scooter would cover for Ari like that… you only take that kind of fall for people who can destroy you (worse than a criminal prosecution would.. and that means swimming with the fishes), who can make your family rich beyond your wildest dreams (only if the money is already in the bank somewhere), or for your immediate boss out of a combination of loyalty and fear. That would be the Vice President.

Bustednuckles @ 75

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

I predicted one Friedman unit.

That long!

I just hope this Libby thing doesn’t take any longer than the Saddam trial. I could live with that.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 81

Bustednuckles @ 75

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

I predicted one Friedman unit.

That long!

That might be a great question the next time Looseheadprop does a Fitz post. On the one hand, Judge Walton really wants to move things along briskly, but if Team Irving is serious about using the “oooh look: a bright shiny object” defense strategy to attempt to bewilder and confuse the jury (”gosh, I don’t know, must be reasonable doubt”), there will be plenty of motions and irrelevant stuff being brought out, all of which takes time to dispense with.

Disregard this if it’s already been mentioned here.

When Fitzgerald subpeonaed the phone logs for AF1 he may have been looking for the fax record of the memo being transmitted from the WH. This (could be) is the memo compiled by Ford, by request, of seperate memos and reports as a sort of summary. It also had unclear markings of attribution or lacked some since it was an assemblage of various reports. I’m pretty sure this is the one reported to have been in Ari’s possession at some time on that flight.

Special Prosecutor’s Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls

… On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it is not clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.

The Novak call may loom large in the investigation because Fleischer was among a group of administration officials who left Washington later that day on a presidential trip to Africa. On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip. …

…A key question will be which officials received the report and when. The special prosecutor has subpoenaed telephone and fax records from Air Force One and the White House….

Yes, that’s always been part of my thinking

always? No alert reader to point it out? To note the go wide hypothesis? ;)

JoyB @ 49

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

This barfworthy OP-ED’s (air)”questions”(end air) only gives me more confidence that this is more than just a perjury trial. Thanks for sharing it.

(Is there an emoticon for “air quotes” as sometimes you need stress the point)

Bustednuckles @ 75

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

I predicted one Friedman unit.

I thought FDL was expecting to spend only two months at the trial.

Roflmao

” I predicted one Friedman unit”.
/snark

One worrisome thing is if upon conviction, what will a man like Libby, assuming no priors, expect the sentence to be? Years ago when writing pre-sentence reports and recommendations as a probation officer for ’super-court’, I always shot for twice the sentence I thought the judge would hand down. Usually it worked out. Of course I knew the judges and how they did things.

Speaking of barfing, am I the only one who will be keeping a trash can by the couch while the SOTU is on?

OT.. I have the House debate on the minimum wage on in the background.. Dems are being ruthless. They’re basically running the House through points of order, with the chair ruling Republican procedural challenges diletory without discussion. If this is bi-partisanship, I’m all for bi-partisanship :)

You know what’s particularly annoying about that WSJ article that JoyB so kindly posted for us at (11)?

The fishing tackle attached to it.

Wasn’t WSJ the first outlet to publish that Plame’s status was marked [S], in an article 19-JUL-2005?

Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame’s Identity
By Anne Marie Squeo and John D. McKinnon Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Word Count: 1,008

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband’s intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn’t be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative. Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.

News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity …

I don’t have the full article at the link provided, sorry. Seems stupid, though, that they knew two years ago that there was [S] content in this case, that the investigation was on-going, and now they’re asking for an unredacted version of Judge Tatel’s opinion?

Fishing. Big. Time.

And a helpful OVP tool.

Blub @ 80

By the usual WDC rules I really don’t think Scooter would cover for Ari like that… you only take that kind of fall for people who can destroy you (worse than a criminal prosecution would.. and that means swimming with the fishes), who can make your family rich beyond your wildest dreams (only if the money is already in the bank somewhere), or for your immediate boss out of a combination of loyalty and fear. That would be the Vice President.

Wow, you make it sound like an organized crime syndicate.

Oh, wait, never mind.

Peterr @ 60

Marcy and Swopa,

[snip]

I like the notion of Ari in the middle of this mess, because when it came to dealing with the press around the White House, that’s what he did. Unlike some other WH spokespeople, Ari was “inside the room” when things happened, whether he would tell the media about them or not. If Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Co. were mounting a media-based pushback against Joe Wilson, it wouldn’t have happened without dear Ari.

And I think early on in the investigation, Ari realized that Fitz realized that. Ari’s no fool – enter the likely immunity deal – and that can’t make certain (potential or actual) defendants happy.

Just two problems with this. First, press reports as early as May described Ari’s resignation as being due to the fact that he wasn’t an insider–he wasn’t part of the TX mafia. Second, Ari was far enough out of the loop the week this all occurred that he only learned of Tony Blair’s upcoming (July 17) US visit from reporters.

My feeling is this trial could drag out. I sure hope I’m wrong.

Reuters giving some details on the 21,500 troop deployment plan. 4,000 will be sent to Anbar province to pacify it. OK, Anbar is 53,000 square miles. That’s 1 new soldier per 13.25 square miles… Presently, there are about 33,000 US troops in Anbar. Sherman’s march this is not.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

Original estimates were for 6 weeks. Though of late I’ve been hearing two months.

Rayne, further, it was marked [S-NF], which is one level below top secret. The snippet of the WSJ piece talks about sensitive…

Blub @ 96

Reuters giving some details on the 21,500 troop deployment plan. 4,000 will be sent to Anbar province to pacify it. OK, Anbar is 53,000 square miles. That’s 1 new soldier per 13.25 square miles… Presently, there are about 33,000 US troops in Anbar. Sherman’s march this is not.

I love the spin with the numbers. It is not a round number, so there must have been number crunching to come up with 21,500 instead of 20,000, right? This is to make us thing they did not just pull a number out of the hat.

Was it ever determined exactly when the Ford memo/report was compiled? I’ve seen conflicting accounts, even here at FDL.

Truthout

…After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified “Secret” that included a description of Wilson’s trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to “Wilson’s wife.”

The memo was kept in a safe at the State Department along with notes from an analyst who attended the CIA meeting at which Wilson was suggested for the Niger assignment. Those with top security clearance at State, like their counterparts in the White House, had been trained in the rules about classified information. They could not be shared with anyone who did not have the same clearance.

Less than a month later, Wilson went public with his charges.

The next day, July 7, this memo and the notes were removed from the safe and forwarded to Powell via a secure fax line to Air Force One. Powell was on the way to Africa with the president, and his aides knew the secretary would be getting questions.

Fitzgerald has become interested in this memo, the earliest known document seen by administration officials revealing that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One. It is believed that all officials in that part of the aircraft had high-level security clearance.

At first, White House personnel responding to Wilson’s New York Times op-ed article July 6 made no reference to Wilson’s wife. Then-Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters the next day that the former diplomat’s article contained nothing new – “zero, nada, nothing” – and that the vice president knew nothing about Wilson’s trip to Africa. But Fleischer acknowledged that the president’s State of the Union statement on African uranium may have relied on bad information.

That evening, as Air Force One streaked toward Africa, officials decided that to defuse the pressure, they would issue a formal acknowledgment to selected journalists that, as the New York Times reported the next morning, the White House “no longer stood behind Mr. Bush’s statement about the uranium – the first such official concession on the sensitive issue of the intelligence that led to the war.” …

Peterr @
29

I’ve been scratching my head about the mess with Valerie’s book, which the CIA is preventing her from publishing. …

Few NOCs have written books, I supppose, since few NOCs have ever been punitively outed by those who knew they were NOCs.

Maybe she could re-write it with the title “If I Had Been a NOC.”

published by Judith Regan….

Jane’s upstairs.

rumi @ 100

Was it ever determined exactly when the Ford memo/report was compiled? I’ve seen conflicting accounts, even here at FDL.

The dates of the two memos are June 10 and July 7.

Isikiff’s a whore and Corn’s a CIA tool.

Judge Walton estimated a month-long (at least) trial yesterday in his Order denying the media’s trial coverage requests. I excerpted some informative details from that Order in the EPU zone (very end) of lhp’s “School Daze” morning thread yesterday.

emptywheel @ 103

rumi @ 100

Was it ever determined exactly when the Ford memo/report was compiled? I’ve seen conflicting accounts, even here at FDL.

The dates of the two memos are June 10 and July 7.

Thanks for the links and letting me regain my sanity…for the moment, anyway. :-)

I’ve followed this from the beginning, but as you know so well, there’s just been soooo much to keep track of that time takes it’s toll. I thought for sure that there were 2 seperate ‘memos’ of the same information. Actually, I was perusing some old posts of yours elsewhere while you were posting the help.

Once again, thanks, and congratulations for your hard work being met with success. We’re all very proud of what you’ve done.

And some new information (also posted in the current thread) for the FDL Citizen Journalist Brigade, from a Judge Walton Order today:

LIVE BLOGGING IS PERMITTED on laptop computers in the First Floor Media Center (which will have a live feed from the trial courtroom).

“Trial of this matter will begin promptly at 9:30 a.m., Monday through Thursday. The one hour lunch recess will generally be from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. … The doors to the Courtroom will open at 9:00 a.m.”

Some of the other details include no electronic devices, including laptop computers, will be allowed in the trial courtroom [Courtroom 16] by the public. Credentialed press must be seated 15 minutes before the start of proceedings or forfeit their seat. Courtroom 17 is the overflow courtroom (not 5; for legal tourists et al), along with the First Floor Media Center. I can’t tell if laptop computers are banned from Courtroom 17 too, or not (they may be banned from only 16). Seating in 17 will be first come, first served.

Hats Off to Judge Walton’s accommodation of live trial blogging!

Swopa @ 32

Dow Jones, which owns this newspaper, and the AP are also requesting that the court now release all of the redacted parts of Judge David Tatel’s 2005 concurring opinion in the D.C. Circuit ruling that compelled the reporters to testify. Responding to an earlier DJ-AP motion, the court released part of the redacted eight pages in early 2006. But it held back the rest, as well as Mr. Fitzgerald’s affidavits in the case, because the prosecutor insisted his investigation was continuing.

That was a stretch even then, but it’s certainly no longer true. Mr. Fitzgerald months ago told the lawyer for Karl Rove that the senior White House aide will not be indicted. And more to the point of Mr. Fitzgerald’s wild newspaper source chase, we learned last summer that neither Mr. Libby nor Mr. Rove was the original source of the leak of CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. As the Dow Jones-AP motion points out, “The public now knows that the Special Counsel [Mr. Fitzgerald] knew the identity of that leaker — Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State — from the very beginning of his investigation.”

Finding the leaker was Mr. Fitzgerald’s main charge from the Justice Department, so why did he keep pursuing reporters with such hyper-zeal for another two years? . . .

A wiser prosecutor than Mr. Fitzgerald would have ended his probe the minute he discovered that Mr. Armitage was the leaker.

I see the WSJ’s lawyers operate with the same intellectual honesty and diligence as its editorial pages.

Fitzgerald didn’t “discover” Armitage had talked to Novak, since Armitage went to the DOJ three months before Fitzgerald was appointed.

What the WSJ really ought to be asking is what evidence was so damning that even after Armitage came forward, the DOJ’s career staff was able to pressure John Ashcroft into recusing himself and allowing Comey to appoint Fitz as special prosecutor.

Then again, in their own way, I suppose they do:

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald ever discloses a motive for a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Libby to have lied, the unsealing of the affidavits and Judge Tatel’s redacted pages will help us better understand the prosecutor’s motives for his troubling zeal.

What they really mean is, “Could you please tell us what other evidence you have against Libby?”

No, it doesn’t. It means “Can you tell us what other evidence you have against others in the WH?”

JoyB @ 49

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

Thanks Joy,
My almost Ex-Husband was reading it and when he finished he gave it to me. Expected to watch me go postal. I just sighed.

Badwater @ 55

HotFlash @ 36

Steve @ 27

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

Bush is a psychopath, if Libby goes to prison it means no more to Bush then blowing-up frogs with firecrackers. As long as it doesn’t blow back on him, it means no more than killing 600,000 Iraqi’s.

I believe that one reason to think there won’t be as pardon is that if Scooter is pardoned then he can’t incriminate himself, therefore can’t take the fifth if subpoenaed for a subsequent investigation. Check, if not mate. Also, since he is not actually charged with leaking, only perjury, then as I understand it, he could be charged with the leak, although I don’t understand what ramifications there would be to that.

Remember, George H.W. Bush pardoned Iran-Contra away. There were no further ramifications once the pardon action took place. Why won’t that happen this time?

Because the Congressional hearings had already occured and the Congress critters were too busy granting immunity (which fucked up some of the criminal cases) and grandstanding to do a decent job.

Walsh could have fought on, but lost heart.

Peterr @ 83

Oklahoma kiddo @ 81

Bustednuckles @ 75

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

I predicted one Friedman unit.

That long!

That might be a great question the next time Looseheadprop does a Fitz post. On the one hand, Judge Walton really wants to move things along briskly, but if Team Irving is serious about using the “oooh look: a bright shiny object” defense strategy to attempt to bewilder and confuse the jury (”gosh, I don’t know, must be reasonable doubt”), there will be plenty of motions and irrelevant stuff being brought out, all of which takes time to dispense with.

My current bet is 2 months.

looseheadprop @ 109

JoyB @ 49

Hey folks, I agree that the WSJ editorial is “barfworthy,” and I have been pounding on the fact to anyone I communicate with about this that Armitage was known 3 months before Fitz came on to the case.

I HOPE that my simply doing the favor of pulling something from behind the firewall doesn’t make me a WSJ representative! I’m sort of sensing that some of you are taking me for a “concern troll,” and you are mistaken. Looseheadprop was wishing she could get a copy the other day, and here it is. Thanks.

Thanks Joy,
My almost Ex-Husband was reading it and when he finished he gave it to me. Expected to watch me go postal. I just sighed.

I’m pretty fatigued from the aggressive obtuseness, too. Hang in there! We’re still teachable here!

looseheadprop @ 108

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald ever discloses a motive for a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Libby to have lied, the unsealing of the affidavits and Judge Tatel’s redacted pages will help us better understand the prosecutor’s motives for his troubling zeal.

What they really mean is, “Could you please tell us what other evidence you have against Libby?”

No, it doesn’t. It means “Can you tell us what other evidence you have against others in the WH?”

I stand corrected.

Can someone tell me what’s wrong with Scooter Libby’s skin? Is this what happens after too many generations of WASP inbreeding, someone who’s so fucking sallow that he puts over cooked hamburger to shame? How the hell does he get laid? Or doesn’t he? Jesus Christ: be careful ladies, there’s still a law against necrophilia out there. Ughh…

Summerisle,

You might be new and not realize that we have a tradition of not judging someone on their physical appearance.

Moral emptiness, go for it but not what they look like.

*xyz @ 26

Swopa,

So Libby felt compelled to falsely claim that he had leaked to Kessler.

Did Libby have some reason to believe that Kessler had been leaked to by someone in the administration? This isn’t a deep question, I just want to understand the situation.

As I said in the post, just two days before Scooter faced the FBI, the Post confirmed that six reporters had been called, including apparently one from the WaPo.

If Kessler was the only WaPo reporter Libby talked to on July 12, and Scooter wanted to “cover” for the 1×2×6 leaks, then Kessler would have to be the one Libby said he leaked to.

Anyway, if Libby thought that Kessler had been leaked to by Ari, how would it be helpful for Libby to take the “credit” for the leak?

Presumably because Ari leaking on Cheney/Libby’s orders would make clear that this was a conscious tell-the-world strategy rather than offhand gossip. Also, Ari might be able to directly implicate Cheney somehow. Perhaps Libby was hoping that if he “confessed” to the FBI, they wouldn’t think of talking to Fleischer (or maybe Fleischer was told to clam up, a la Rove “forgetting” to mention that he had talked to Matt Cooper).

Did Libby expect that Kessler would lie to investigators or make false public statements saying that he had gotten the leak from Libby rather than from Ari?

If so, why did Libby form this expectation, and why did Kessler violate it?

Were there any communications between the administration and Kessler, either via public “smoke signals” or in private, where they tried to get him to shape his testimony to pin the leak on Libby?

Or was such communication unneccessary as Kessler would have already known based on his awareness of Libby’s testimony by the time that Kessler was quoted on this matter?

I don’t think they expected that reporters would be forced to testify at all.

egregious @ 17

Badwater @ 15

Is there any reason to believe that the trial won’t be stopped by a pardon? The tightness of the case does not trump constitutional powers.

That’s the beauty of Plame’s civil suit. Plus Congressional hearings. Not over by any means. And besides, how do they know who needs a pardon? It tells the public somebody did something wrong, which is against their current pose of innocence.

That is why it’s going to trial. They don’t know what Fitz has. You are good. You are very good.

egregious @ 14

twolf1 @ 1
egregious!

You scooped me at the end of the last thread too.
We’ve gotta stop meeting like this.

Either that, or gang up and figure out how to share the loot.

Scooped like free ice cream ;)

Now you’re speaking my language.
Cool.

we got LOOT AND FREE ICE CREAM ???

all I got was a lousy Tee Shirt

emptywheel @ 97

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Are there any projections how long this Libby trial might last? Assuming no pardons of course.

Original estimates were for 6 weeks. Though of late I’ve been hearing two months.

Six to eight weeks then. Good to know. Here’s a question for you, will any other indictments result from testimony or findings during the trial?

David Ehrenstein @ 104

Isikiff’s a whore and Corn’s a CIA tool.

Care to elaborate, substantiate?

Bustednuckles @ 34

So, is Hamilton Burger Luskin still Scooters lawyer?
I noticed I hadn’t heard him flapping his gums much lately.

IIRC, goldbars luskin is rover’s lawyer

Summerisle @ 114

Can someone tell me what’s wrong with Scooter Libby’s skin? Is this what happens after too many generations of WASP inbreeding, someone who’s so fucking sallow that he puts over cooked hamburger to shame? How the hell does he get laid? Or doesn’t he? Jesus Christ: be careful ladies, there’s still a law against necrophilia out there. Ughh…

Dunno but sometimes chronic smokers get pasty… or maybe its from standing in the shade of the aspens, whose roots are all intermingled. snark. Talking about aspena does anyone know if the Aspen Institute’s payroll is a matter of public record? Just curious.