Ok .. for once I’m trying to follow more than the barebones of the case, because this is so riveting. Is there someplace where I can get read up on a concise version of the whole case? It should make it more interesting to follow this excellent live blogging.

The New York Times Online is carrying an interative Libby Timeline that is useful.

I think Team Libby’s big problem today is that two witnesses were able to say that Plame was probably covert. One said that the vast majority of people in her unit were covert, and the other talked about the danger that people can wind up getting killed when a CIA agent’s name turns up in the press. I don’t think either witness was terribly convincing in saying that they told Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, but they hurt Libby nonetheless, because Walton had to say that nobody could talk about whether Plame was covert. A sensible juror will wonder why that subject keeps coming up over and over again, and she’ll probably conclude that it’s unlikely that Walton would keep having to address it if Plame were merely the ditzy receptionist at the CIA’s front desk.

Exactly! If Plame were not covert at the time then why hasn’t her status been declassified so that it would be probatory to the defense? Why hasn’t the CIA acquiesced to the repeated requests of the media to declassify her status? A mere analyst or desk jockey would have had her employment specifics revealed years ago.

The problem Fitz has always had on nailing these individuals on the Intelligence Agents Identy Protection Act was not the issue of “covertness”…but rather whether those who leaked did so with knowledge of that covert status and intent to harm the security of the United States. That’s a tough burden to establish.

Regarding Schmall’s being asked by Cheney/Libby his opinion on whether the leak was dangerous…this happened AFTER the leaks had occurred. Basically, Schmall was hinting that IF PLAME WERE COVERT that whoever did leak her identity really screwed up and threatened US Intelligence Assets.

That may have made them realize that they needed to cover up for their screw-up.

“Schmall: Noted that the press and pundits talking about Valerie Wilson and her career, People were saying this was no big deal. I thought there was very grave danger to leaking name of CIA officer. Now that Valerie Wilson’s name in press foreign intell in countries she worked have an opportunity to investigation all the people she worked with can be harrassed, lose their jobs, arrested, tortured, or killed.

Fitz: Did anyone say anything in response?

Schmall: No.”

beth meacham @ 92

Schmall is there to testify that on June 14th he briefed Scooter and the veep that Joe Wilson’s wife Valerie worked for the CIA.

Not only that, but that he was asked his opinion and told them that having her name leaked was potentially very bad. At this point Libby can’t claim that it was okay for him to leak it because he didn’t know if she was covert–he was told she might be, and the potential consequences of such a leak. Goes to what he believed at the time and state of mind.

Actually he didn’t brief them on THAT…but what his notations indicate is that two days (Saturday) before the publication of the Novak article Libby asked him about BOTH Ambassador (and by name) “Valerie Wilson”!!!!! Schmall has a bad memory but his notations show that, despite all the terrible events in the world, Libby had only a few things he was really concerned enough to ask questions of his CIA briefer: Tom Cruise and Valerie Plame!

Bingo!

Repeat post from last thread (EPU’d):

The testimony of Grenier as reported here seems to me very compelling. He is being portrayed in the liveblogging as not giving Wells an inch.

If I were on the jury hearing someone say:

-I didn’t think my firm was being portrayed fairly.
-I had a sinking feeling so I kept mulling it over.
-I realized when it all blew up that my sinking feeling might really mean something.

I would identify with that guy and perhaps be grateful to him for doing something about the third sentiment rather than letting it slide (the far easier thing to do).

My question for you wonderful people who can hear him in person: Was Grenier coming off as sincere as I hope? Was he really not giving in to Wells.

Thanks again guys for all that you are doing–sent a paypal the other day. –CJ

‘The Third Sentiment.’ It sounds like a good book or something. Serving your country proudly and honorably. Like the third goal of the agency…….to create understanding between CIA Operations Directorate and other cultures…….It’s Peace Man, I’m crying!!!!

beth meacham @
92

Schmall is there to testify that on June 14th he briefed Scooter and the veep that Joe Wilson’s wife Valerie worked for the CIA.

Except that he doesn’t remember doing this, at least independent of his notes.
… If I thought that outing Plame was a big deal, I think I’d remember asking Libby and Cheney about the wisdom of the Novak article. Especially if they blew me off with the “not your problem” line.

His amnesia might be selective failure… we don’t know whether after this encounter he may have facilitated the VPs office. Remember there was infighting within the CIA as to whether defending to go to war intell was more important than questioning the go to war intell. If this witness was in the defend bad intell camp he may well have reason to be fuzzy on the defend whistle blowers camp.

Fitz is using his notes, and their time stamp, without regard to which camp this briefer favored.

Probably a TicTac, to cover the sulphur-breath.

Damn. I hate it when beer comes out my nose. *g*

Yeah well I spit hot tea on myself, which may be worse.

Meanwhile over at HuffPo is the transcript of Wolf Blitzer interview with Antichrist Sulphurbreath. Frightening stuff. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..39524.html

[Mod Note; Hey Skippy. Always great to see you around the Lake. Refresh the front page and see if it’s fixed]

Wells is trying to conflate two different memory processes. One is the day-to-day short term memory of people transmitting info to Decision makers. Remembering who said what, when would have no particular importance for them. There are some people (like a few good secretaries I have known) who would remember much of this w/o notes, but most would not.
The other memory process is that of a person engaged in a conspiracy to promote a certain view of events. As such he is totally interested in what happened, when and w/ who. He is trying to weave a plausible story of events for the world that may or may not comport w/ reality. That he may not later remember exact dates is possible, but to behave and testify as if he wasn’t concerned or involved is not.
Regardless of the sand being thrown by Wells, this is the essence of what Fitz must convey to the jury.

Good points.