Login Here
What a way to end the week in the Libby trial! As emptywheel ably depicted with her adamantium fingers, today's testimony featured tension between the legal teams and the drama of a former aide somewhat reluctantly giving evidence against her arrogant boss -- which was suspended among more intramural squabbling, with cross-examination to resume on Monday. (I bet Cathie Martin isn't going to have a very enjoyable weekend.)
But the most tantalizing surprise of all concerned a witness who didn't even testify -- White House spokesliar Ari Fleischer, in whose story I've taken a rather obsessive interest. Marcy/EW and other courthouse observers were treated to a vivid, if cryptic argument between the respective lawyers over how much could be said about the immunity Ari was granted before he testified to Fitz's grand jury. As her paraphrasing captured, the legal teams also bickered over a famed Washington Post article ("a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists..."), of which I've felt Ari was a key subject:
... they want to put in 1X2X6 article. Jeffress contends the claims in the article was totally untrue.
What?!? The blasphemers! But Marcy would go on to catch (and personally highlight in bold) something even more potentially crippling to my theories in the response from one of Fitz's prosecutors:
... the FBI would have been remiss not to be seeking if there's anything behind the allegation. The article is not being offered for the truth. Ari did not believe for a second that he telephoned a reporter…
Walton: [interrupts] Why can't he testify he read an article...
Oh, how I'd love to know how that sentence would have ended. Because other remarks in the same sidebar make clear that Ari did indeed speak to reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife working for the CIA:
Fitz: ... We understood he had given it out to SOMEONE but I didn't know which reporter.
Just one reporter? Here's the paraphrase of prosecutor Zeidenberg explaining Ari's viewpoint:
Fleischer's going to testify that he did seek immunity and he would not talk to the govt before he obtained it and he'll explain why he wanted immunity the reason he wanted it the evening of 9/28 he found the story online which indicated a criminal investigation into possible disclosure of covert agent he knew he had conveyed info to reporters that was previously conveyed to him by Libby. He realized -- your heart goes in your throat. The following day obtained legal counsel began discussing with attorneys.
Sounds like he recognized himself in the article just as surely as if he was looking in the mirror, doesn't it? And the judge seems to imply as much:
Walton: ... Even if the article is wrong as it relates to Libby and he's got it underlined, maybe he had a motive to lie. However, in reference to Mr. Fleischer...
So even though I know Marcy is checking menus and inquiring into restaurants' most expensive wines even as I type this, I'd argue that our dinner bet isn't quite settled yet.
But for those of you with less mundane concerns -- like, say, the legal mystery we've all been trying to unravel along with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- the intriguing question is, why are they fighting over this? Team Libby seems intent on flushing out everything that Fleischer told the grand jury, especially as it pertains to Scooter, but Fitz is determined to hold something back:
Fitz I have been at the game long enough to know defense attorneys will say some things so they can learn things they're not entitled to learn.
My guess is that that the truth of the 1x2x6 story relates strongly to whatever conspiracy charges Fitz hopes to bring against Cheney and/or Libby for outing Valerie Plame Wilson, and the insistence on the story being false by Scooter's attorneys is a bluff intended to force the prosecutors to reveal their cards. But what do all of you think?
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitzalicious!
What do I think? Guilty!
Yeah! Zed!!
Mr. emptywheel’s wife!
Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the War and Smear a Critic
Please help… What is the 1×2x6 story?
Fitz! Jane! Peanut!
Are we speculating that Ari = 1, but didn’t actually telephone a journalist to make the accusation of 2×6? That’s what these incomplete fragments sound like to me — a guy who read an article online, realized he was the source and lawyered up and immunitized himself.
I agree that Fitz seems to have in mind (and is protecting the viability of) some kind of follow-on indictment. Could be Cheney, could be Rove, could be all of them - for conspiracy of some kind.
I hope that’s his plan: prove Scooter committed perjury, then bargain with him on sentence if he reveals the whole conspiracy.
What do I think? I think I’d like someone to pass me some more popcorn, I’m so enjoying this!
Didn’t we get that Ari leaked to David Gregory, and ‘walked somebody right up to” Plame’s ID while in Africa?
That could very well be what Ari was worried about-
Anna K @
6
I’m assuming
1 Senior Administration Official
2 White House Aides
6 Reporters
but it’s new to me too.
Anna K @
6
Oh Geez, I’m sorry. I was using my own damn shorthand and didn’t notice.
An article published in the WaPo on 29 September 2003, which quoted 1 person saying 2 SAOs called 6 reporters to leak Plame’s identity. The theory espoused in it (and repeated in the 12 October article referenced) is that there was a deliberate, serial attempt to leak her name.
Libby would not have done this whole Plame thing without prior knowledge and blessing by Cheney, Rove and Bush. This is for me at least, not a difficult concept. The Libby defense (I forgot; I’m being setup; I misspoke) is something I’d expect from my students when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Unbelievable. And insulting.
Anna, I may have this slightly wrong, but the WaPo published an article (by Pincus?) that said 1 senior admin official told him that 2 other SAO’s had told 6 journalists about Plame…
Some of the 6 are obvious, the 2 have always been assumed to be ROver and Scoots, the mystery was who was the 1 in position to know about the 2…
OfT: Petition in support of the February 2008 California Presidential primary.
It does seem to me that Fitz is trying to keep a limit on Fleischer’s testimony and AFAIK the grand jury is still open to him to use.
niggle- and I just learned this recently from Peterr here
“The Special Prosecutor statute lapsed years ago, and it was never a formal title given to Fitzgerald. Lots of folks use is as a shorthand, given that Fitz was appointed under unusual circumstances - “
emptywheel @ 13
EW… what did the lawyers call it? Just “the Post article”?
When EW paraphrases Fitz (”defense attorneys will say some things so they can learn things they’re not entitled to learn”) I thought it was in the context of Fitz arguing that the defense had no legal claim to learn the blow-by-blow account as to how Fleischer requested, and was granted, immunity. So I didn’t read that as some opaque reference to the larger conspiracy, just as a response to the specific conversation about Ari’s immunity deal.
It is interesting that even if the 1×2x6 account wasn’t 100 percent accurate, it was accurate enough for Ari to read it and lawyer-up immediately. Wasn’t it David Corn who reported awhile ago that Ari’s GJ appearance lasted days, not hours? That seems pretty interesting, considering Russert’s depo apparently only took 22 minutes.
Steve @ 11
Yes, but there are two problems
1) Wells told a good many “stretchers” in his opening. So it’s unclear whether Ari “leaked” Plame’s ID, or just did as he did with Dickerson, told him to go look who had sent Plame. It must be closer to the former or Wells will get laughed out of court, but then he’s halfway there already.
2) Wells said they thought Ari might have called “multiple” (say, 6) journalists.
So the question is, who do you believe?
I actually agree with Swopa, I have in no way won our bet (though frankly, I’m gaining confidence I’m going to win at least the beer on Pincus). I still think it possible Ari called multiple people.
Though I would point out that with Mitchell and David Martin, we’re now at 6 reporters for Libby.
1 Judy Judy Judy
2 Mitchell
3 David Martin
4 Cooper
5 Kessler or not-Kessler
6 Novak, in an unrevealed conversation
TeddySanFran @ 16
Catch me up, please. Is this a good thing? Why/why not? Thanks.
I don’t think it’s clear from what was said in court today that Ari is being referred to as “1″ in the 1×2x6 formula.
When Ari read the article, maybe not knowing any better, he could have thought he was being referred to in the article as one of the “2″ — even though he would have been wrong.
Correct?
I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that it’s not the ONLY interpretation of what was said in court today.
If Ari believed that people were saying he was one of the “2″ — that would explain his lawyering up immediately the next day.
Steve @ 15
The 29 September article was Mike Allen and Dana Priest.
The 12 October article was Mike Allen and (reporting that he had received a leak) Walter Pincus.
Fitz doesn’t want the jury to know Ari has an immunity deal? do I have that right?
Steve @ 15
I linked the story above, but here’s the link again. The 1×2x6 comes from the key quote:
1 = “a senior administration official said that…”
2 = “… before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called…”
6 = “… at least six Washington journalists“
My longtime theory has been that Ari was one of the 2 WH officials (Dan Bartlett being the other) who did the leaking, from Air Force One during its return from Africa on June 12, 2003.
re: “Ari did not believe for a second that he telephoned a reporter…”
A reporter/ reporters telephoned Ari?
Great post, Swopa, at least for we weed-wanderers (and did you see my note on deep in the weeds to Jane??–you certainly saw the passage I bolded for you personally!!!) It’s really valuable to have you doing this from afar to give a big picture.
I frankly have no idea whether we’re closer to resolving the bet. I think either of us may well win … though I’m a little more optimistic we MIGHT resolve it now.
And the lawyers referred to it by author and date–but that was too wordy to do quickly. I apologize for the shorthand.
emptywheel @ 24
I knew I didn’t have everything right. Which is why I’m sitting at home in teh cheap seats, and not blogging from teh courthouse…
(Good job by the way, EW…)
Someone should attach a rider to this bill requiring Arnie to switch parties…
TeddySanFran @ 16
No — I think Fitz DOES want the jury to know. It’s the *defense* that doesn’t want Ari talking about the “crime” of outing a covert agent, and his worry about getting nailed for said crime, to the point of demanding immunity.
The defense doesn’t want the jury thinking about the possible dangers to Valerie and others around the world. They might dislike Scooty-Scoot if they think about that.
What are TNR & TNH from previous threads? Anyone?
Mocha Dem @ 7
peanut?
Emptywheel, you are awesome.
I was confused by the Walton conversation. I assumed that Jeffress was complaining that he didn’t get to see Ari’s testimony before he was called as a witness. But the comments make it seem like there is something that even after his testimony Libby’s team would still like to see. Is that the impression you got EW?
I think Marcy should check out Restaurant 1789 in Georegtown… one of the best in DC. :)
Swopa @ 26
Hooo boy, have I been mistaken about what I thought your theory was. I thought you had Ari pegged as #1 — the SAO ratting out two other SAOs.
So who do you have in the #1 slot? I would go look up your blog and read in detail, except that I have limited computer time…(sorry!)….will read your detailed blog when real life is more generous to me.
ccmask @ 32
The New Republic (magazine/website) and The Next Hurrah (blog).
Profiles in yellow:
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 31 minutes ago
As more U.S. forces head to Iraq, senators across the political spectrum denounced President Bush’s plan for a troop “surge” Thursday but were waging a behind-the-scenes battle over how strongly they could afford to confront him.
quick question for an attorney;
does Fitzgerald have to inform the defense team if he has sealed indictments for witnesses, either defense or prosecution?
I love Adam-ant-ium. This is soooooo great, please, everyone, stay with it.
Oh, now I get it, Swopa, “(1/25)” is the date. Last night I read “1/24″ and I thought “Part one of twenty-four? That’s really planning ahead!” *g*
Blub @ 33
Christy’s cutie-pie daughter, Fi. a.k.a. The Peanut.
Dunno about the conspiracy charges. I think the only way to break that open–in court–is for Libby to say something clearly suggesting a conspiracy–otherwise, it’s not something that Fitzgerald and his team can introduce on their own during cross. And, I can’t imagine Libby cracking open that far, especially when there’s still a chance for an eventual pardon.
At the time of the indictment, there was no indication that Cheney would testify, so there was no possibility that some sudden, in-the-courtroom conflict of testimony between Cheney and Libby could be used to pry open an avenue to conspiracy indictments.
Might still be possible, but it’s a long, long shot, at best. If Fitzgerald and team have one opening to explore a little, it will likely be related to Wells’ opening–that Scooter was being set up as the fall guy. If Wells or Jeffress bring that up on direct, there might be some wiggle room to expand on that during cross.
emptywheel @ 24
BTW, the October 12 article seems to be no longer available online, but here’s my post from Oct. 12, 2003 about the article (which reiterates the 1×2x6 story)
Mrs. K8 @ 38
Thanks!
EW- do you remember this part of Fitzgerald’s opening statement? This is from Dickerson at Slate on Tuesday:
If Fitzgerald says hiding his involvement from Cheney is Libby’s motive to lie, how does that fit with the idea that Fitzgerald thinks Cheney was part of the conspiracy?
Intense! I expect to experience some mild withdrawal symptoms throughout the day Friday. Emptywheel, can you liveblog SOMETHING tomorrow?!
So many thanks! Beer thirty, indeed.
I wonder, is there a more nefarious underlying conspiracy, or is this hubris and balls-out CYA?
Mrs. K8 @ 37
I’ve bounced around a little on that … my leading contender is Colin Powell, but theoretically it could be any senior official on Air Force One that trip. An amusing dark-horse theory is that it’s Dan Bartlett, blowing the whistle on both himself and Ari (so Dan is both “1″ and one of the “2″) .
lina @ 25
I got that Fitz doesn’t want the defense claiming that Ari can’t be trusted because he offered to testify in certain ways in return for immunity, when in fact he wanted immunity before he would tell them anything specific. And also doesn’t want them introducing an article that didn’t turn out to be completely accurate and implying that it is. But I may not have everything attributed to the correct side of the argument.
Oklahoma kiddo @
14
You relate to your students… I’m relating to my students, my children and my grandchildren… it’s not the cookie jar, however insulting that may be…
Fitz is going to have to “prove” to the jury that Cheney goaded Libby into putting his hand into the cookie jar…
Wells has cleared the analytical thinkers from the jury pool and what’s left is the folks who need to know “why” something happened. If Libby is guilty of lies, he was forced into lying. If he was forced, the jury wants to know who forced the lies and why… or they will let Libby off with “doubts”
Wondering what you guys think about my post on an earlier thread in response to a post by p.lusiak regarding who told Cheney about Plame’s work in Counterproliferation the DAY AFTER Cheney and Libby found out from Cathie Martin that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA (from today’s testimony by Martin). The post also noted that “What’s odd is that somehow Mr. Novak also obtained precisely the same information about Plame’s position….Thus two lineages appear to have known about Plame’s employment activities…do these converge to one source?
My money is on Bolton as the source (perhaps via Fleitz) for Cheney’s info about Plame’s status in Counterproliferation. After Cathie Martin told Libby and Cheney about Plame, Cheney then went to Bolton to get more information on her. I have been convinced for quite some time that it was Bolton. Novak and Judy both relied heavily on Bolton as a source in their reporting on WMDs in the run-up to the war. Shit, Bolton even visited Judy in jail. Novak and Rove are also two peas in a pod and it seems more and more likely that Rove was told by Cheney (and maybe Libby) about the planned smear, was asked (or volunteered) to spread it. After all, Cooper called Libby to CONFIRM what Rove told him. That means Rove had the info at the exact same time that Cheney and Libby did. Whether he knew that she was at Counterproliferation and therefore covert can be argued, but he was clearly involved in the conspiracy to leak her name and employment.
Bolton was likely also tasked by Cheney to pour over raw intelligence on Iran’s nuclear programs which would then be stovepiped through the intelligence channels in their efforts to wage war in Iran. We know that Valerie Plame was gathering intelligence on Iran at this time as a consultant with Brewster Jennings, a CIA cover firm.
It’s my hope that once Fitz gets Libby convicted, he can lay it all out for us in an IIPA case against Cheney and Libby. I don’t know that he has the evidence right now (although Turdblossom might very well have given it too him in exchange for no perjury and future conspiracy indictment–another one of my growing hunches), but if Libby faces a conspiracy to commit treason charge he will be a lot more likely to provide that evidence to the prosecutor.
ccmask, if you are still here, I have a suggestion for your glossary. 707 - LOL upside down cuz you’re ROFLAO?
The second motivation, Fitzgerald explained, was that Libby had promised Vice President Cheney he wasn’t involved, and on that promise Cheney had gone to bat for him.
MB@47, somehow we all know in our gut that this one ain’t it.
emptywheel @ 21
I don’t think you mean Plame. I think you mean ‘the husband.’
Can a guy who’s gotten himself an immunity agreemtent become an unindicted co-conspirator?
EW - there’s a book signing tomorrow. But, my understanding is - the books haven’t shipped! What are you going to sign?
Off to bed, will check back in the mornin.
I always thought 1×2x6 was Cheney to Libby and Rove to six reporters, and ID’ing Cheney as SAO in the story was bogus.
But so far in the trial, Rove seems to be missing except for the opening statement.
Ari Fleisher is a turd that needs to be thoroughly flushed in these proceedings. Even if he has immunity he is right in the middle of the Wilson smear campaign orchestrated by Cheney. I believe that Ari will sing like a canary and the most damning evidence against Cheney will come to light. The cockroaches are are running away and the rank sewage that is Cheney will be laid bare for all the world to see.
May he rot in hell.
Powell was one of the first to resign…
Swopa –
I remember debating with you, a long time ago, about who #1 was. My thought was that it was Tenet — and I was thinking how clever it was that in the newspaper, right across from the article was a picture of Tenet in his office, talking on the phone.
I remember you saying, nah, that can’t be right — just couldn’t remember tonight what your argument was…
Does it HAVE to be someone who was on the plane? If so, why?
Do we yet have a clue about the information Rove gave at the “last moment” that kept him from being indicted?
Must read from McClatchy interview with Sen. Rockefeller. Chee-knee bullied Pat Roberts into stalling investigation of cooked intelligence. [my words]
Read for yourself at: http://www.realcities.com/mld/.....546019.htm
Chee-knee throwing his weight around? Mah, mah…whut a surpriz.
Cheney has got to be loving all of this attention.
Tir3edfed@53- I have that one on the glossary at #17. I’m up to 87.
Ari was told what to say, remember, he is a spokesliar. That is what is so important about his testimony and why he isn’t easily impeached
ccmask @ 60
Powell “resigned” because it’s pro forma to submit a letter of resignation for a new term. His was accepted so Condi could be moved into State.
Don’ be puttin’ any white hat on that outlaw’s head. He would’ve stayed on with Georgie the Kid had he his druthers.
MayBee @
47
Fitz won’t charge the conspiracy until he can prove it- and to do that, maybe he needs to flip someone who was on the inside. So, convict Libby on the obstruction charge, and then offer him a deal if he’ll witness against Big Time… or even better, get Deadeye himself on the stand and have a Colonel Jessop moment. But you can’t base an argument on a conspiracy if you can’t prove the conspiracy, because that would be slandering public officials… that’s probably frowned on in federal court :-)
Kevin J @ 59
Hey, I’m perfectly happy with immunity for Ari if he gives us bigtime and/or Rovey. He’s just another mouth. They do the evil.. he just fronts for them. Sing Ari. Sing!
Great Pelosi quote from today: on shrub’s refusal to engage in bipartisan dialogue on Iraq - “They have to do what they have to do. They have to appeal to their base, appeal to their party. I have to do what I have to do.”
Lisa @ 52
I think both of those points (highlighted in bold above) might be important insights.
I’m not sure one way or the other about the rest of the details you mention.
You know. Right about now I wish the Whisky Bar was still open.
smiley, dipper- but do you think Fitzgerald would argue that as motive if plans later to prove the opposite?
I am a criminal defense lawyer practicing in federal court. Here are some fundamentals–Fitz does have to disclose any immunity deals made with govmint witnesses to the defense. But, he does not have to reveal any of the witnesses’ prior statements (including Grand Jury testimony) to the defense until after the witness has actually testified for the guvmint on direct examination. That late disclosed impeachment material is called Jencks material and you may hear that discussed. usually, the court will strongly encourage the guvmint not to wait that long to mkae disclosures of lengthy material because it holds up thetrial. I bet Wells is getting a chunk every night before the next guvmint witness is called.
Ari (or any other witness) is also subject to cross examination by the defense about his immunity deal–as to what criminal liability he understood he was being protected from when he demanded immunity in exchange for foregoing his 5th amendment privilege to remain silent.
The defense is so far a giant clusterf%#k in my opinion. I agree with MrsK8 in 31. I can’t believe the defense wants to get too deeply into just how scared Ari was to potentially be accused of the crime of outing a CIA agent. How would that help Scooter? But, how will they cross exam him to show that his testimony was tailored to please the guvmint if they don’t say that he sold his soul for immunity to protect himself from serious criminal liabilty?
WRT the 1×2x6 article–I think they are probably arguing over if/how it will come into evidence. Defense is saying it is hearsay and overly prejudicial because it more than implies that Scooter is the “2″ and suggests he committed th ecrime of outing a CIA agent, and there is no evidentiary foundation for that implication/assertion so the article should be kept out. Fitz is arguing it is not offered for the truth of the matters asserted in the article but rather, just to explain Ari’s mental state and motivation for what Ari did next after reading it.
As to other new investigations or charges–Fitz also has no obligation to disclose anything still going on in his Grand Jury that has not yet been made public. In fact he is required to keep it secret. However, he can’t force a witness not to reveal the witness’ own testimony to GJ. So, if a witness is asked and reveals that he has recently testfied in a still ongoing investigation, then that new testimony may or may not be Jencks material to be disclosed, depending on what the Judge rules is its relevance and materiality and the need for it in the trial. that would be a messy problem.
As always, I could be talking completely out of my ass here but it is a very expensively educated ass.
MayBee @ 47
I looked back at the liveblogging of Fitz’s opening statement, and I’d say Dickerson’s on crack. There’s nothing I can see in there that gives the impression that Fitz is trying to establish that as a motive. There’s plenty of talk about Cheney being involved, and nothing about Libby hiding anything from him.
Mrs. K8 @ 61
The thing that always jumped out at me from the WaPo stories, way back in the fall of 2003, was that the SAO was there when the leaking happened — he or she wasn’t just describing who talked to whom, or what was said, but the tone of the conversations.
So if the calls were made from (or to) the plane, then the SAO who blew the whistle had to have been on the plane, too.
posted on no quarter, so what if;
scooter and his photographic memory
they have been all over the CIA and the intel from Iraq and Iran. We saw them create pure fiction for Iraq by destroying agents lives and giving them fear of their superiors
and they don’t know about Wilson long before this all started? She was high enough up that she was mentioned by Tenet. She handled Iraq WMD. and Iran.
is this too much speculation about people that have access and need for information about their plans with Iran?
Hey, where’s Jeff? I haven’t seen him pop into these FDL threads…anyhow, in regards to the 1×2x6 bet you folks (Swopa, emptywheel, Jeff) had going:
1×2x6 = Swopa’s bet =
[Any AF1 x Ari/Bartlett X (Pincus plus 5)]
(where AF1 = any SAO on Air Force 1)
1′x2′x6 = EW’s bet =
[(not 1) x (not Ari/Bartlett) x (Pincus plus 5)]
(where ‘ = prime, distinguishing different values of the same variable in a mathematical expression)
1″x2″x6 = Jeff’s bet =
[(any 1 or 1′) x (Rove/Libby ONLY) x (Multiple, but likely less than 6)]
(where ” = distinquishes different values of same variable not previously expressed)
Are any of these bets now changed??
Of course this could be why Jeff hasn’t popped in; his (2″) is shot if one of the 2 is Ari.
And now my own opinion: why should I trust anything that was written if the administration had input into the process? How much of the original 1×2x6 was spun by someone (singular or plural) so that the equation was muddied anyhow?
Was Ari really one of the 2, but the original spin from #1 was meant to put anybody off the trail by claiming Ari “called” reporters when he merely talked with them, in person or otherwise?
The administration’s manipulation of the media and the tight reins with which they maneuvered them, documented by Cathie Martin today, makes it clear we really cannot trust the media if it has interacted with this administration on a letter-by-letter, literal basis.
Capice?
The second motivation, Fitzgerald explained, was that Libby had promised Vice President Cheney he wasn’t involved, and on that promise Cheney had gone to bat for him.
Does that imply that Cheney might have lied in his testimony?
And with Ari, it might be that Fitz doesn’t want to say that he got evidence against Cheney as part of the deal…
ccmask @ 71
You and me both. Buy you a drink?
MayBee @ 72
Perhaps to get deadeye to take the stand.
From lina above:
“But so far in the trial, Rove seems to be missing except for the opening statement.”
And isn’t that strange? Here is a man that visited with the prosecutor before the grand jury, what, four times, and he’s not present at all in this whole web?
I don’t think so.
Rove begged to come back before the grand jury and he had to say SOMETHING interesting in those many hours to get Fitz to agree. Methinks the split between the EOP and OVP became chasmic about the time Fitz, at least temporarily, called off the dogs on KR. Dick had his, well, dick cut off until the elections did the same to KR. That’s why we’re starting to see ol’ Deadeye emerging from the thickets.
Down in front!
BTW, I’m still updating a running primer or resource catalog for this trial. Will post explainers for terminology in the morning.
But I’m in need of a link to the original list of potential witnesses; would rather link to a list provided by defendant’s representatives or USOSC-Fitzgerald rather than a media or blog outlet. Anybody got a link? I haven’t been able to local an original source. Thanks!!
Otis @ 73 — thanks for adding clarity. These freewheeling evening recaps are invaluable for many reasons, and your commentary adds to the well of knowledge.
Wouldn’t reinstating the special prosecutor law be an appropriate response from Congress to the sacking of the US Attorneys?
Fascinating spinoff into MSM-land this week.
Suggest close look at mrC’s attempt to blitz wolfie during interview 1/24 (ouch!), AND subsequent blowback of sorts from CNN 1/25 in & around blitzie’s gig (OMG, he just might grow a spine). …& stay tuned….
On MSNBC, Shuster doing a dandy job - very good at keeping reportage of complicated stuff understandable & succinct. Matthews looking kinda subdued today, and angry(?). Much mention of trial revelations @ admin. targetting Hardball/MSNBC for special scrutiny & tracking b/c of [too many questions being asked about admin. doings by Matthews way back when.] Pretty obvious that this probably came as a shock to Chris, & he’s really, really shaken/furious at being duped(?) or worse(?). Whatever, it’s my guess he will never try to cozy up to this administration again… Whatever bond of trust there might have been has been sorely damaged.
Olbermann, what can we say, heh…
Scarborough, on the other hand, is back to his usual brand of fence-straddling w/ a heavy dose of pandering, it seems.
The various networks surely have a funny way of playing dipsydoodle with the idea of fair & balanced.
Still, I suspect the blogs have forever changed a bunch a things, largely for the better. There is no longer any way for the MSM or a nefarious pol./industry/crook/special interest to hide behind a short news cycle or a slash-n-dash smear campaign. There will undoubtedly be bumps along the way, as the blog movement develops, but this trial alone is a terrific way for the best blogs to show what they alone can do, and why people should commend them for their efforts, as well as take them seriously in the future.
Congrats FDL. I’m so proud! And yeah, sigh, the hard work’s only just begun…..
ember @ 64
Actually I think he values his privacy and hates publicity. That’s what someone on MSNBC was saying tonight with regard to his interview with Wolf Blitzer where Wolf asked about Mary’s baby.
Thanks very much.
OtisIsHunrgy @ 73
Swopa @ 75
Ah, yes, now I remember.
I don’t suppose Tenet could know the tone of voice because he was — ahem — “listening in” from a listening station at the CIA.
That would be too much like the movies, huh?
neurophius @ 85
neuro - I was teasing.
I would have liked to see Billmon’s take on the last couple of days events.
I would bet Billmon is lurking around blogdom somewhere.
Mrs. K8 @ 88
LOL! If they had Air Force One bugged, then Libby might have a point about the “war” between the CIA and the White House. :)
Otis @ 73 - Great stuff, thanks.
Your interpretation of the 1×2x6 argument fits with what my non-lawyer ass got out of the discussion.
In the mean time, let’s all thank Cathie Martin for giving us a big 2 x 4 with which to whack the corporate media, and driving a couple of big ol’ nails in for good measure.
I’m sure GrandmaJ…
Jim E. @
20
I hadn’t heard that - verrry interesting indeed!
This all makes it seems more unlikely that Ari is the 1.
A guy doesn’t realize he needs to lawyer up on reading an article on a Sunday that he himself had talked to the reporters about on a Friday or a Saturday.
(Prosecution is presenting it that what he learned from the article is the first paragraph, that there was an investigation. But what I think he really learned, is that at least one person was talking.)
Adie! Hi there!
Before I go make dinner, I just wanted to tell you — now that we’re both in the same thread in real time — that I caught sight of a very, very nice and thoughtful comment you made to me a couple days ago. You had clearly put a lot of thought and care into it.
But I didn’t see it until way later — a day or two later. Just wanted to be sure to thank you!
BTW — I find it hard to believe Tweety didn’t already know he had been under observation — after all, he must have known that “regular viewer” Libby called Russert up to complain about Tweety’s show.
Hope you are doing well! These sure are exciting days, aren’t they?
Boy oh boy, it also looks like Washington is on pins and needles.
McCain was lashing out bitterly and illogically at Levin today.
Rockerfeller is pushing the revolting Pat Roberts firmly under the wheels of an oncoming bus stating that Roberts buckled under to direct pressure from Cheney in order to stonewall any investigation of pre-war intelligence.
Now the new revelations about the Whitehouse in the Libby trial.
This is just heating up.
-GSD
Also looks like the regional chiefs in the Middle East are starting to think the prospects of a US attack on Iran are likely. Pakistan has warned us as has Mohammed El Baradei.
Hold onto your seats.
ember @ 89
Sorry! Sometimes my snark detecter doesn’t work very well. I realized after writing my comment that you probably meant NOT loving…
ember @ 89