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.

But what do all of you think?

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

Please help… What is the 1×2x6 story?

I’m assuming

1 Senior Administration Official
2 White House Aides
6 Reporters

but it’s new to me too.

Anna K @
6

Please help… What is the 1×2x6 story?

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

Anna K @
6

Please help… What is the 1×2x6 story?

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.

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

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-

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

OfT: Petition in support of the February 2008 California Presidential primary.

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

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…

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

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…

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

Steve @ 15

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…

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.

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

OfT: Petition in support of the February 2008 California Presidential primary.

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

Fitz! Jane! Peanut!

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

Steve @ 15

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…

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.

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

What are TNR & TNH from previous threads? Anyone?

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

Mocha Dem @ 7

Fitz! Jane! Peanut!

peanut?

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

Steve @ 15

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…

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.

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

ccmask @ 32

What are TNR & TNH from previous threads? Anyone?

The New Republic (magazine/website) and The Next Hurrah (blog).

Thanks!

EW- do you remember this part of Fitzgerald’s opening statement? This is from Dickerson at Slate on Tuesday:

To explain why Libby would be motivated to lie, Fitzgerald offered two main arguments. The first was that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had told the press that anyone involved in the business would be fired. If Libby was found to be the leaker, he’d lose his job, or at least cause a massive public embarrassment for the administration.

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.

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

Swopa @ 26

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.

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.

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

Fitz doesn’t want the jury to know Ari has an immunity deal? do I have that right?

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

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.

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

Steve @ 11

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-

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. [snip]

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 was one of the first to resign…

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

EW- do you remember this part of Fitzgerald’s opening statement? This is from Dickerson at Slate on Tuesday:

To explain why Libby would be motivated to lie, Fitzgerald offered two main arguments. The first was that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had told the press that anyone involved in the business would be fired. If Libby was found to be the leaker, he’d lose his job, or at least cause a massive public embarrassment for the administration.

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.

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?

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

Ari Fleisher is a turd that needs to be thoroughly flushed in these proceedings

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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 know. Right about now I wish the Whisky Bar was still open.

You and me both. Buy you a drink?

MayBee @ 72

smiley, dipper- but do you think Fitzgerald would argue that as motive if plans later to prove the opposite?

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

Cheney has got to be loving all of this attention.

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

I am a criminal defense lawyer practicing in federal court….

Swopa @ 75

Mrs. K8 @ 61

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?

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.

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

ember @ 64

Cheney has got to be loving all of this attention.

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.

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

Swopa @ 75

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.

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?

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

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.

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

neurophius @ 85

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.

neuro - I was teasing.

Sorry! Sometimes my snark detecter doesn’t work very well. I realized after writing my comment that you probably meant NOT loving…

ember @ 89

neurophius @ 85

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.

neuro - I was teasing.

Figured! Almost added a GUFFAW! Then tried to hold back. Just can’t. L.O.L.!!!
Anyone who saw the interview with wolfie knows. the smoke was pouring out bigtime’s ears ;->

We’ll have to start calling the mainstream media the feign-theme media.

EW prepared the best witness list I’ve seen:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c.....tion_5.pdf

Blub @
30

Someone should attach a rider to this bill requiring Arnie to switch parties…

TeddySanFran @ 16

OfT: Petition in support of the February 2008 California Presidential primary.

Heck no, we don’t want him!

Ari Fleisher in the hot seat, squirming, sweating and thinking about jail. Now that is a dream come true for me. Ari, buddy, they want to kick you to the curb..sing man, sing like a canary.

Swopa (92) — have always wondered about that curmudgeonly walrus Bolton and the NSA transcripts…but I can’t see Bolton ever dishing to the media as #1 of 1×2x6.

Ever seen any other names mentioned with regard to NSA transcripts?

Rayne @ 82

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!!

This is the only link I have. It’s through a blog, but has the original filing (it looks like). Don’t know if it will help. The original is probably in PACER I guess.

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.c.....st-of.html

The Nefarious Leslie @ 103

Heck no, we don’t want him!

I’ll bet the Constitution Party would be sorta happy with him….

Curious in Central Texas (102) — thanks, I personally consider that one the best, but there must have been originating source for that. I’d ask Marcy directly, but she must be toddling off to bed by now.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 103

Blub @
30

Someone should attach a rider to this bill requiring Arnie to switch parties…

Heck no, we don’t want him!

Can we get him into the California for Schwartzenegger party?

Was Condi on that plane? Or was she on the other plane?

Wasn’t there like over 2,000 of them on that Africa trip?

Swopa, how would the conspiracy be constructed? Can it be charged with this current conviction and a deal?

On the face, at best it has to do with Libby protecting on Cheney hiding he used the classified in his media rebut.

On the one hand that may not seem big. but a disregard (and more tellingly, ignorance) may be the revelation that truly does justice.

However, I need to think about the earnestness of Cathie’s timeline, given what big dick, Scooter and the House Intelligence Committee knew to figure out whether the hope that Americans would never know and become disillusioned about the Iraq War was the real activity.

choochmac — thanks, gets me even closer to the source, can see that the list was integral to the voir dire questions submitted. And you’re right, it’s probably in PACER, but I think I might find it in USOSC-Fitz’ files, too.

Oh well, time for bed here. Will hit it again in the morning. Less pressure tomorrow since the court won’t convene until Monday for this case.

But best be on look out for a Friday news dump…

edit: p.s. cboldt, if you’re out there, nice job on the website, “No Easy Answers”. Good stuff.

Probably one document submitted by the defense and one document by the prosecution. Access to legal documents is a nice thing.

Rayne @
108

Curious in Central Texas (102) — thanks, I personally consider that one the best, but there must have been originating source for that. I’d ask Marcy directly, but she must be toddling off to bed by now.

Swopa, trying to keep up…

Who did the translation of the forgeries?

Regarding settling a dinner bet…

When money is no object, there is only one place to go in DC—Citronelle.

(From a resident)

Rayne @ 113

But best be on look out for a Friday news dump…

Especially since Cathie Martin told us all today that the Friday evening dump is policy. :)

As always, I could be talking completely out of my ass here but it is a very expensively educated ass.

LMAO.

8-7-2003: This was his August 2003 visit to Africa…

Bush, who will meet President Thabo Mbeki on Wednesday, is accompanied by a contingent of at least 600 security staff, doctors, chefs, communications technicians and American journalists.

http://www.news24.com/News24/S.....46,00.html

MayBee @
47

EW- do you remember this part of Fitzgerald’s opening statement? This is from Dickerson at Slate on Tuesday:

To explain why Libby would be motivated to lie, Fitzgerald offered two main arguments. The first was that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had told the press that anyone involved in the business would be fired. If Libby was found to be the leaker, he’d lose his job, or at least cause a massive public embarrassment for the administration.

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.

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?

I can’t believe that Cheney and WHIG are NOT involved. I can’t believe that Libby would go off on his own and pull a stunt like that without clearing it with his boss first.

But here’s my main question: Is Wells only working for Libby, or is he also on Team Cheney? Oh, yes, Virginia, even though Mr Cheney has not yet been charged with anything, I have no doubt that they are working to prevent any such charges. Now, admittedly, its probably illegal to coordinate defense strategies, but the lawyers will do what they can do, I’m sure.

The thing to watch for here is when Team White House starts to fracture. Were Wells opening comments about Rove just a head fake? Or do they reveal the beginnings of a rift? Who will be the first to wander off the reservation?

Bob in HI

Otis @ 73 - love your closing statement!

One thing bothers me about this great fishing expedition that Wells appears to be on, relative to sniffing out Ari’s testimony. AFAIK, Wells is Libby’s lawyer, not Cheney’s and not Rove’s. Thus, to be fishing on behalf of someone OTHER THAN your own client would appear to this non-lawyer as either a stupid mistake or legal malpractice.

I have a hard time attributing either to Wells, which leaves only the possibility that he’s been retained by the whole stinking bunch. If that’s the case, then is he in danger of conflict of interest - giving Libby a less than complete defense, in hopes of strengthening the defense of other not-yet-charged clients in their not-yet-scheduled trials?

Let the good times roll….goodnite all
*poof*

Bob Schacht @ 120

Great minds think alike . . .

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 :-)

Not necessarily. So long as there is a good faith basis for the charge, and yes that presumes there being some evidence, then you’re ok. If that weren’t the rule, then anyone acquited of a crime would have a defamation claim against the gov’t, since it wasn’t proved.

And there is no law in this country regarding “slandering public officials.” There is defamation (slander and libel), but it is almost impossible for a public official (or public figure) to win a defamation case.

Curious in Central Texas @ 102

EW prepared the best witness list I’ve seen:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c.....tion_5.pdf

actually, Marcy didn’t prepare that list…it appears to be the list prepared for potential jurors — a list of names of people connected to the trial who might testify or be mentioned. The court would want to know what the relationship was between a potential juror and someone on the list before voir dire began.

**********

and re: that list, and Lisa’s theory re: Bolton/Fleitz — I WISH it were true, but neither name appears on the list. Because Cheney is expected to testify, and will doubtless be asked from whom he found out that Plame was CPD, if it were Bolton or Fleitz their names would probably be on the list….

OtisIsHunrgy @ 73

WRT the 1×2x6 article– . . .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.

MORE–The defense will say that Fitz can just ask Ari “what did you do and why did you do it,” and Fitz doesn’t need the “prejudicial” article itself to elicit that testimony. Of course Fitz wants it anyway because it IS so prejudicial. The legal question for the Judge is “whether its prejudicial value outweighs it’s probative value.” We’ll find out.

On another note, I think “1′ is definitely someone present on AF2 who participated in the leak discussions with “2″ and “2A” and Cheney. . .someone who was told they might have criminal liability for participating in the leak conspiracy, and someone who’s lawyer put the need to protect his/her client ahead of the need to be politically protective of the administration. That’s how Ari got some immunity. In truth, Ari may be no more or less liable for the crime than a lot of the other witnesses who were just more loyal and less self-protective than Ari.

Lastly, does anyone else think that Fitz plans to show that he can positively prove a criminal case against Cheney in this Libby trial so that politics, not law, will “take care of” Cheney (with the threat of indictment so clear as to force him out, like Nixon). I think that’s the strategy–knock wood!

Thanks.
p.lukasiak @ 125

Fast trial… throwing Rove and Cheney under the bus… hmmm…

Babs, how far will Jr. and Shooter go to save their necks? Who is paying your bills?

As far as 1×2x6 goes, I’ve always assumed 1 was Ari, 2 were Rove and Libby, and 6 were…well, whoever. But now it’s looking like Ari was one of the 2, and when he read the article, he immediately went to his lawyers and asked for an immunity deal. That’s not the behavior of an honorable man who’s made an honest mistake. That’s the behavior of a criminal who thinks (correctly, it seems) that one of his co-conspirators is trying to shiv him. What if Rove was #1? That would fit with Ari’s immediate paranoia as well as Libby’s bizarre “Rove set me up” opening argument. When did Libby start complaining to Cheney that he thought he was being sacrificed for Rove? Maybe Rove WAS trying to set him up. Rove may have leaked to only Novak (because he thought Novak would lie for him) and Cooper (late in the game, because he knew Ari and Libby had already let the cat out of the bag). He may have realized his mistake in leaking to Cooper and tried to use Ari and Libby to take the fall for the whole disaster.

James Robinson @ 109

The Nefarious Leslie @ 103

Blub @
30

Heck no, we don’t want him!

Can we get him into the California for Schwartzenegger party?

Hmm … maybe the PCH Elites for Schwarzenegger Party.

njr @ 51

Oklahoma kiddo @
14

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.

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”

njr this is offers me some insight into the previous pique. Its a subtle argument based on psychological type. Context is often inferred especially if there is a predisposition toward metaphysics as you suggest has been engineered into this jury pool. Still I see jurors experiencing disappointment if the facts of the story Wells has vouched for do note meet the expectations created in the opening statements. All types are aware when they have been promised something not forthcoming. Its the very principle which the natural outrage at the erroneous “16 words” illustrates.

Lastly, does anyone else think that Fitz plans to show that he can positively prove a criminal case against Cheney in this Libby trial so that politics, not law, will “take care of” Cheney (with the threat of indictment so clear as to force him out, like Nixon). I think that’s the strategy–knock wood!

I’ve been thinking that all day, but your “expensively educated ass” stated it far better than I could.

Jim E. @ 20

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.

I took the reference to legal issues as well, though Swopa might have a point.

But as to the 1X2X6 story, the emphasis (sorry Swopa) was absolutely on his reading that IIPA could have a big jail sentence, and not on the 1X2X6. Which is not to say Swopa is wrong–but Fitz wasn’t emphasizing that part of the story.

OtisIsHunrgy @ 126

OtisIsHunrgy @ 73
Lastly, does anyone else think that Fitz plans to show that he can positively prove a criminal case against Cheney in this Libby trial so that politics, not law, will “take care of” Cheney (with the threat of indictment so clear as to force him out, like Nixon). I think that’s the strategy–knock wood!

I don’t think Fitz works that way. I think that politics may very well take care of Cheney, but I don’t think that that’s what Fitz is angling for. I think Fitz intends to go after Dick whether he’s the Vice-President or not.

John Casper @ 118

As always, I could be talking completely out of my ass here but it is a very expensively educated ass.

LMAO.

So, OtisIsHungry could say LMVEEAO … ;)

Pat_AlexVA @ 57

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.

Books. I’ll either bring the digital ones right here in Plame House with me–or I’ll have the real ones that are due to arrive tomorrow mid-day. We’re talking FRESH off the presses.

emptywheel: A peripheral question that I was EPUed on:

They’re making a big deal about the fact that the OVP didn’t know about Wilson’s trip. Do we know why the CIA never sent them a report? I mean, they sent him to Niger at the reqest of the OVP, State, and Defense. Condi seems to have known about the trip. Why didn’t anyone tell the OVP? Is it because they already knew not to bother Cheney with intelligence that he wouldn’t like?

MayBee @ 72

smiley, dipper- but do you think Fitzgerald would argue that as motive if plans later to prove the opposite?

It doesn’t feel like a totally accurate description, but I’d have to go review my liveblog to get how I’d describe it differently.

Marcy -

Any guesses (or knowledge) as to whether Wells is also working for Team Cheney (see 120 & 121 above)?

Any idea why Cathie Martin had to keep looking to her lawyers? or why she would even need lawyers?
Wasn’t she just a cog in the wheel? (i.e., innocent of any potential charges?)

or does it suggest she had knowledge of an alleged crime and therefore is potentially an accomplice even after the fact?

OtisIsHunrgy @ 73

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.

Fitz turned over all Jencks on December 22. Wells is going for further disclosure of the conversation between Ftiz and Ari’s Connelly lawyers.

pdaly @ 140

Any idea why Cathie Martin had to keep looking to her lawyers? or why she would even need lawyers?
Wasn’t she just a cog in the wheel? (i.e., innocent of any potential charges?)

or does it suggest she had knowledge of an alleged crime and therefore is potentially an accomplice even after the fact?

She’s still working in the WH, so my guess would be she’s trying to answer the questions as tactfully (and minimally) as possible without lying outright.

Marcy, after all this you’ll be able to pass the bar exam. :)

Swopa @ 75

Mrs. K8 @ 61

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?

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.

Evidence for that? That, to me, is the biggest part of your theory that gets blown away by Hubris. You once theorized he would have HAD to have been there–no one would have ‘fessed to this. But there is abundant evidence that either Levine or Bartlett could be 1 without having witnessed the conversation.

emptywheel @ 133

But as to the 1X2X6 story, the emphasis (sorry Swopa) was absolutely on his reading that IIPA could have a big jail sentence, and not on the 1X2X6. Which is not to say Swopa is wrong–but Fitz wasn’t emphasizing that part of the story.

OK. But still, Fitz wants the article in to emphasize Ari’s “legitimate” fear that an IIPA charge was possible–for Scooter as well. That provides Scooter another motivation to lie and given the Judge’s rulings, isn’t Fitz not otherwise going to get into the IIPA? Maybe this is the best way he has to show Scooter’s motivation to protect himself and Cheney from the IIPA liability? Or at least, like Ari, from what Scooter like Ari BELIEVED was potential IIPA liability?

Bob Schacht @ 120

The thing to watch for here is when Team White House starts to fracture. Were Wells opening comments about Rove just a head fake? Or do they reveal the beginnings of a rift? Who will be the first to wander off the reservation?

It will be interesting to see. One of the things that should be emphasized in this is that Libby earned a lot of money from Marc Rich working Rich’s request for pardon, and he spent enough time on it that he knows that process very well.

So, the trial and informal negotiations for pardon may be going on simultaneously… and, Scooter’s got Shooter in his corner–that’s a pretty powerful influence on Bush.

M’self, I think Wells is doing something like a head fake by mentioning Rove. Bush knows that if Rove gets in the thick of it, he can just cut him loose, because there are no more electoral battles for Bush to win. He’d rather not (that would leave him completely brainless). But, there’s not much honor among thieves these days.

The big, big deal here for Scooter is protecting Shooter. If he does that, Shooter goes to Bush and says, “both our asses are saved. Give Scooter his pardon.” Because Bush knows that Cheney would turn on him in an instant if Cheney’s ass were on the line.

That’s what happens when you’ve got a White House full of amoral pricks.

Frank Probst @ 137

emptywheel: A peripheral question that I was EPUed on:

They’re making a big deal about the fact that the OVP didn’t know about Wilson’s trip.

A laconic “heh”.

At the time they were making that point they knew the whole uranium thing was bullshit. Why didn’t they just lay out the timeline of their knowledge and the evidence? It was known then.

Rayne @ 77

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?

No, I actually think mine is 1 = Levine or Bartlett or other, 2 = Rove and Libby (based on several people saying they were the 2 people doing the leaking) and 6 = Judy, Novak, Cooper, Mitchell (before or after), and 2 players to be named later; Pincus is always an unknown for me–he may be one of 6 or may not be.

I think that stays the same. Pincus is still a big fat question–Hadley, Rove, Cheney, or Jenny Mayfield could all be possibilites.

emptywheel @ 141
Fitz turned over all Jencks on December 22. Wells is going for further disclosure of the conversation between Ftiz and Ari’s Connelly lawyers.

From a practical standpoint, I can’t figure out what Wells is after. If he wants to know the particulars of Ari’s plea deal, he can just ask him on the stand. Could he be trying to set a precedent for some other witness? I guess he could just be trying to avoid a really awkward answer to the question:

Q: Why did you immediately ask for immunity when Fitz called you to testify?

A: Because my lawyers told me that Scooter and I were both guilty as hell, and I wanted to get a deal before Scooter did. Thank God I have better lawyers than he does.

tryggth @ 147

Frank Probst @ 137

emptywheel: A peripheral question that I was EPUed on:

They’re making a big deal about the fact that the OVP didn’t know about Wilson’s trip.

A laconic “heh”.

At the time they were making that point they knew the whole uranium thing was bullshit. Why didn’t they just lay out the timeline of their knowledge and the evidence? It was known then.

Oh. Shit. Forgot… Jr. didn’t know.

Frank Probst @ 137

emptywheel: A peripheral question that I was EPUed on:

They’re making a big deal about the fact that the OVP didn’t know about Wilson’s trip. Do we know why the CIA never sent them a report? I mean, they sent him to Niger at the reqest of the OVP, State, and Defense. Condi seems to have known about the trip. Why didn’t anyone tell the OVP? Is it because they already knew not to bother Cheney with intelligence that he wouldn’t like?

There was actually a sustained objection today when Wells asked Martin about this, so I don’t know for sure. I think, first of all, they got the report but just deep-sixed it. More importantly, though, is that SOMEONE suggested that Wilson’s trip report supported the Niger claims IN FEBRUARY when IAEA asked for evidence. I don’t know whether State, OVP, or NSC did this, but one of them is lying about not knowing about the trip.

Frank Probst @ 149

emptywheel @ 141
Fitz turned over all Jencks on December 22. Wells is going for further disclosure of the conversation between Ftiz and Ari’s Connelly lawyers.

From a practical standpoint, I can’t figure out what Wells is after. If he wants to know the particulars of Ari’s plea deal, he can just ask him on the stand. Could he be trying to set a precedent for some other witness? I guess he could just be trying to avoid a really awkward answer to the question:

Q: Why did you immediately ask for immunity when Fitz called you to testify?

A: Because my lawyers told me that Scooter and I were both guilty as hell, and I wanted to get a deal before Scooter did. Thank God I have better lawyers than he does.

I think they’re after two things.

1) More evidence that his guilt is bigger than Libby’s (which they won’t get), and 2) a cause for appeal.

I’ll post somewhere tomorrow about Wells’ comment on appeal, but trust me, he’s not confident about his case. He’s laying grounds for appeal about as much as anything else at this point.

G’Nite everybody! I’m taking on Byron York tomorrow on Washington Journal!

Ari didn’t get immunity for his testimony in this trial. He got it for his testimony to the Grand Jury about the Plame Leak. I suspect strongly that his testimony about Libby’s perjury is merely incidental to the bulk of his testimony.

Libby wants to know what Ari has told Fitzgerald. All of it. Because Libby lied to protect himself and Cheney, and maybe Bush himself, from being charged with the leak itself.

EW at 141–Wells is going for further disclosure of the conversation between Ftiz and Ari’s Connelly lawyers.
Hmmm. How can that disclosure possibly help Scooter? Either, Wells wants Ari to acknowledge that he knows Fitz told Ari’s lawyers that Ari was NOT a target because they did not actually have evidence of IIPA crime or a conspiracy to commit one, but that Ari’s lawyers INSISTED on immunity anyway to be over-cautious (which I always wondered about). That would remove the motivation about Scooter lying to protect himself and Cheney from IIPA charge. Although, if I were Fitz I’d argue that the discussions about Ari’s liability aren’t relevant to Scooter’s state of mind unless Wells can show that Scooter had prescient knowledge of Fitz’s position before he lied. HA! OR, maybe, Scooter’s team is just fishing for Cheney, OR, maybe Wells is just trying to establish whether (before the immunity was provided), there was a substantive “attorney’s proffer” from Ari’s lawyer which Wells might try to impute to Ari and cross examine him about.Anything else?

whatever it is it sounds heavy.

like Libby (SAO #1) is throwing Rove (SAO #2) under the bus to protect that delinquent Cheney (#1) and Ari is the know-it-all.

bye Cheney!

CSPAN ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL

Friday, January 26
7:45am - Marcy Wheeler, Author,“Anatomy of Deceit” & Byron York, National Review, White House Correspondent

In tomorrow’s WashPost, Milbank has a story about the trial. He mentions in passing that Cathie Martin “a close pal of Bush counselor Dan Bartlett.”

I suppose it makes sense that communications folks would be “pals,” but Milbank doesn’t identify Bartlett as a PR person like Martin. They way Milbank writes it, it seems like an unnecessary detail. It probably means nothing. But . . . I just thought the idea that Martin-Bartlett are buddies slightly undercuts the idea that the OVP and White House were at odds with each other. And it suggests a way that Bartlett might have had a way to know enough info about the OVP to leak the 1×2x6 story (if he indeed leaked that one).

Frank Probst @ 134

I’m totally OK with your theory too. Any way Cheney goes is fine with me! LMEEAO!

G’night, before I turn into a pumpkin now. I’ll tune back in late tomorrow night.

OtisIsHunrgy @ 154

EW at 141–Wells is going for further disclosure of the conversation between Ftiz and Ari’s Connelly lawyers.
Hmmm. How can that disclosure possibly help Scooter?

I think the idea is that Wells is wondering if Fitz only gave immunity after hearing Ari proffer some specific info against Libby. Wells is suggesting (I think) that Ari promised to tell some tall tales about Libby to protect his own ass, and is therefore not to be trusted. Wells would love to show that Fitz only rewarded Ari with immunity after hearing Ari promise to go all anti-Libby with his testimony.

Fitz denies this speculation, saying he bought a “pig in a poke” when he reluctantly offered Ari immunity — he basically offered immunity blindly. From EW blogging, Fitz seemed offended at Wells’ implications.

I think formerly xyz @ 78 is on to something. I wonder how Scooter Libby is feeling if he learned on Tuesday for the first time that Cheney told Fitzgerald that Libbey had assured Cheney that Libby was not involved thereby inferring a motive to Libby that may not have existed otherwise. Mr. Fitzgerald does seem to have a knack of playing the ends against the middle.

It strikes me that this could explain Fitzgerald’s not calling Cheney given the Jenck’s obligation.

I still think the VP will claim a privilege against testifying as to certain matters that will muck this trial up.

And I wonder. How does this live blogging effect “the rule”, with respect to potential witnesses being theoretically sequestered from ongoing testimony?

Because this thread still looks active, I’m reposting a question I had from Schall’s testimony, thread 2 today. If anyone can comment….

HeirofPatriots @
153

From about 10:12 through several paragraphs of 10:36 entry, I’m lost. Can someone explain what’s going on? Someone was objecting to Fitz, now they’re arguing about Cline’s questions, what’s CIPA? This paragraph is especially confusing.

Cline’s questions were proper questions. He’s arguing that should end the question. We’re swallowing a question we thought was improper. We’re not going to address the substance of the question.

This is great coverage, by the way. Thanks for doing it.

edit: the what’s CIPA was already answered.

Frank Probst - I’m not sure Rove qualifies as a SAO (but I could be very wrong about that) in being the 1… as far as going after Cheney - wouldn’t be easier to bust Cheney when he is no longer the VP?

seems like drying up his resources on some level couldn’t hurt…

Heir of Patriots @ 161

Your best answer might be from a post Christy did about a year ago, laying out a brief primer on CIPA - the Classified Information Procedures Act - and graymail. CIPA is a way to allow prosecutors and defense attorneys to deal with classified information, so as to (a) keep things secret that ought to remain so while (b) giving a defendant a fair shake at trial.

Enjoy!

pdaly @ 140

Any idea why Cathie Martin had to keep looking to her lawyers? or why she would even need lawyers?
Wasn’t she just a cog in the wheel? (i.e., innocent of any potential charges?)

or does it suggest she had knowledge of an alleged crime and therefore is potentially an accomplice even after the fact?

The professional code of ethics for attorneys generally states that you can’t tell your client when they should shut up and take the 5th. But from ew’s description today, it sounds to me like Cathie might have been looking for that kind of advice.

OtisIsHungry: Welcome back! You’ve lost none of your edge!

beth meacham @ 153

Ari didn’t get immunity for his testimony in this trial. He got it for his testimony to the Grand Jury about the Plame Leak. I suspect strongly that his testimony about Libby’s perjury is merely incidental to the bulk of his testimony.

Libby wants to know what Ari has told Fitzgerald. All of it. Because Libby lied to protect himself and Cheney, and maybe Bush himself, from being charged with the leak itself.

Beth, I think this is a very persuasive argument. Libby wants to know how much Fitz knows, so he doesn’t perjure himself any further… remember, from the NeoCon perspective, it’s not a lie unless someone knows the truth.

Thanks Peterr. The CIPA part of the question was answered by the time my comments posted in the earlier thread, but I forgot it was in the quote. About 20 of us posted that one. ;)

Part of the confusion in that paragraph is I don’t know who was saying what at that point. I also have to steal some time online to read it live.

Off to bed. I’ll check this thread again tomorrow. Goodnight everyone.

“But what do all of you think? “

I think I’m really glad that people with superior minds than I are gleefully engorging on all the nuances and loose ends of this case. Frankly, I’m just a caveman…..

I’m clueless when it comes to legalese, so I ask: why would Fitz prefer to restrict the testimony so as not to encroach on potential follow-on cases against Cheney or Rove? Wouldn’t a good prosecuting attorney use this very opportunity to flush out as much trash on Cheney/Rove while he can? After all, Libby’s just on trial for simple perjury, not causing the war itself. All Fitz needs to do is prove perjury to win, and anything else is bonus, right?
I get the ’sacrificial barking order’ idea; minions first, then Libby, then Rove, never Cheney. But the defense’s tactic of tearing the whole roof wide open is a mystery to me. Is Fitz afraid the testimonies will slide into classified issues and result in a mistrial? I cannot for a second believe that Libby has either gone rogue or decided to tell the truth, under any circumstances.
I’m a simple mollusk, and evil people disgust/bore me. Somebody please explain this one aspect to me; powerpoint, finger-puppets, anything. Thx in advance.

I’m sort of surprised there are no bets here on Andrew Card for #1 of 1×2x6. He seemed to fit a lot of the specs, and may have had an attitude on at the time about ‘don’t rock the boat for the POTUS’/they did it just for spite, etc.

Is there a disqualifier(s) for Card?
-

smiley @ 166

beth meacham @ 153

Ari didn’t get immunity for his testimony in this trial. He got it for his testimony to the Grand Jury about the Plame Leak. I suspect strongly that his testimony about Libby’s perjury is merely incidental to the bulk of his testimony.

Libby wants to know what Ari has told Fitzgerald. All of it. Because Libby lied to protect himself and Cheney, and maybe Bush himself, from being charged with the leak itself.

Beth, I think this is a very persuasive argument. Libby wants to know how much Fitz knows, so he doesn’t perjure himself any further… remember, from the NeoCon perspective, it’s not a lie unless someone knows the truth.

Great point. It would also explain why Wells seems to be suggesting that Libby might not testify at all–in turn prompting Walton to threaten to take away the memory defense. Ari’s potential testimony puts the defense into a pretty deep conundrum: either risk further perjury, take the Fifth, or find another defense(ergo the WH- under -the- bus defense). None of those options looks very good, but I’m warming to the possibility that they punt the memory defense, take their lumps in this trial and cross fingers for appeal. (I’m one who does not believe pardon is anything they can count on, for a variety of reasons, beginning with the loss of 5th Amendment rights.)

We’re all so blessed with Team FDL and I so deeply appreciate the brilliant minds of all FDL-ers. Thanks for all you do so freely and generously. I wish there were something I could do for you all to show my true appreciation. Be safe and well and if there’s anything we can do, just let us know. Mary

presque vu @ 84

Wouldn’t reinstating the special prosecutor law be an appropriate response from Congress to the sacking of the US Attorneys?

Oooh! Sweet vengeance! Or they could then appoint these US Attorneys to undertake Congressional Investigations!

I think that these folks would probably even do the work pro bono ;-)

Blub @
30

Someone should attach a rider to this bill requiring Arnie to switch parties…

TeddySanFran @ 16

OfT: Petition in support of the February 2008 California Presidential primary.

presque vu @
84

Wouldn’t reinstating the special prosecutor law be an appropriate response from Congress to the sacking of the US Attorneys?

Great idea - should we tell our senators and congresscritters to move on this stat!?!

Frank Probst @ 137

emptywheel: A peripheral question that I was EPUed on:

They’re making a big deal about the fact that the OVP didn’t know about Wilson’s trip. Do we know why the CIA never sent them a report? I mean, they sent him to Niger at the reqest of the OVP, State, and Defense. Condi seems to have known about the trip. Why didn’t anyone tell the OVP? Is it because they already knew not to bother Cheney with intelligence that he wouldn’t like?

My theory, for what it’s worth is that the CIA DID send the report on to the WH Situation Room (as well as through other Intelligence Channels…that’s how Grossman obtained a copy through the INR). I will bet you that Cheney’s briefer simply said something like - “our source turned out not to find anything useful and his report will be summarized and sent to the WH Situation Room.”

The Situation Room simply filtered it out…just as they did US Ambassador to Niger’s (Babro Owens-Kilpatrick) negative report, and NATO Chief of Command, Gen, Carlton Fulford’s report…also negative.

Every report from US Intelligence came up negative…but was still filtered out. We just don’t know who was involved in the filtering in detail yet, but I’m sure that part of the problem was that Cheney simply read materials with his own set of filters. EG If Wilson had produced evidence suggestive of Iraq having made a deal for yellowcake he would not have been treated as a “Democratic shill” sent on a junket.

RE: Ari and immunity. I think Wells wants to use the fact that Ari refused to testify at all without immunity to impugn Ari’s entire testimony.

Fitz wants to be able to ask Ari why he demanded immunity. Ari’s answer is that although he did nothing wrong, he immediately sought immunity because of the seriousness of the charges in relation to the ramifications of the outing of a CIA agent.

Wells does not want Ari to be able to give that answer because it will remind the jury of what may have happened when Valerie was named. Fitz says that since Wells referred to the immunity in his opening statement, he wants Ari to be able to explain himself.

I think that since Ari had already left the gov’t, he really worried that he was the one who would get thrown under the bus and Scooter and Karl would pile all the blame on him. I can’t wait to hear (read) what he has to say.

RE: Cathie Martin and Bartlett. Milbank’s sentence was poorly constructed. It is unclear if it is Cathie Martin OR her husband who is Bartlett’s close pal. I vote for the husband, who looks like he’s about 14.

In his opening Fitz gave two reasons that may have caused Scooter to lie. Does it matter that both of them now seem to be inoperative?

Wish I could come to your book event tomorrow evening, Marcy. You, Christy, Jane, Pach, Swopa et al are true American heroes!

BTW a Useful document site for evidence presented in the trial

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

Here’s an AP story on what the whole Fitz vs. Wells imbroglio over Ari’s immunized testimony was all about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....leak_trial

From their discussion it seems that TeamLibby was blindsided by all of this.

Seems they have very little negotiating space here…if they require some Statement to the jury that Ari obtained immunized protection then Fitz can likely ask Ari why he came to offer a deal. And that brings up the 1×2x6 Article.

But while Ari may have had some qualms about the content of that article in its details, it does seem that he was involved in leaking Plame’s identity as a CIA operative to SOME reporters (maybe not SIX). And he will testify that it was Libby who told him that “Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA”.

Since Ari is immunized he better not say anything that is untrue…expect him to go into great detail under Fitz’s examination about WHY Libby told him, and what Libby expected him to do with that information.

He’ll also have to pony up what Rove and others knew.

g’morning and ..hey, is that Marcy on CSpan Washington Journal?

rock on, Marcy!

oh, and some guy named Byron something or other
:-)

oldtree @ 40

quick question for an attorney;

does Fitzgerald have to inform the defense team if he has sealed indictments for witnesses, either defense or prosecution?

No, if they are still sealed he may not tll anyone. It is a violation of the court’s sealing order to disclose.

It seems clear to me Milbank was saying Cathie Martin is a close pal of Bartlett because he included “and” in the background information.

“During her testimony, Martin, a Harvard Law School graduate married to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and a close pal of Bush counselor Dan Bartlett, seemed uncomfortable, shifting in her chair, squinting at her interrogators, stealing quick glances at the jury, and repeatedly touching her cheek, ear, nose, lips and scalp.”

There’s something about Texas that quickly enlists “Martins” to become part of the Texas Mafia.

Swopa - I have been following your 1×2x6 theory for a long time. Do you think that the 1 is Collin Powell and that he somewhat backtracked on his story after he found out that Armitage had also disclosed (possibly without the revenge motive)?

I, too, think the Milbank sentence is clear. It is Martin and Bartlett who are “close.”

The only reason I mentioned the Milbank article is that the Bartlett connection seemed unnecessary for him to mention. . . .

Rayne -

Don’t know if you will see this in the morning, but here is a nice link to the trial exhibits - both Gov and defense. No list of witnesses, but they exhibits are nicely categorized. Supposed to be updated daily. I know the DOJ site has Fitz’s but wasn’t sure if they posted defenese exhibits.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

choochmac, cinnamonape - thanks for the link, will get this embedded in the “primer/catalog/directory” this morning. Looks like the best source so far since it has docs from both sides.

Pete @ 182

Swopa - I have been following your 1×2x6 theory for a long time. Do you think that the 1 is Colin Powell and that he somewhat backtracked on his story after he found out that Armitage had also disclosed (possibly without the revenge motive)?

Yes, I think the “1″ is probably Powell, and I think that’s actually why Armitage stayed quiet for so long.

Imagine Powell coming back from Africa and into the office on Monday, July 14, seeing Novak’s column and raging to Armitage about overhearing a series of leaks on Air Force One. Imagine Armitage’s awkward silence before mumbling something like, “Yeah, boss, that’s unforgivable… I can’t imagine what they were thinking.” :-)

Ari has implicated Bush and Cheney..

Is it possible for Fitzgerald to bring charges against others (Cheney, Rove, etc.) if it is revealed in the Libby trial that crimes were committed? For example, if a conspiracy is revealed, can others be charged for their part in it? Thanks.

But best be on look out for a Friday news dump…

Over time, you’d think all the media types with weekend plans would take Monday morning off instead.

Fitz is first clearing the view, then he will prosecute the big crimes of Obstruction by higher-ups, maybe even the Intelligence Identities Act, as the leak was done for political intimidation and revenge.

> Fitz is first clearing the view, then
> he will prosecute the big crimes of
> Obstruction by higher-ups,

I’ll be the cold water guy :-(. This is inconsistent with Fitzgerald’s behavior in September(?) of 2004. Libby will be the one and only indictment; there will be nothing past the obstruction charges.

Cranky

Marcy did a good job on CSPAN. How come they only took calls from the right wingers?

Thanks Swopa. There was also some discussion that the 1 source had backtracked later on. Did he backtrack later, and if so was that because of Armitage?

p.lukasiak @
125

Curious in Central Texas @ 102

EW prepared the best witness list I’ve seen:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c.....tion_5.pdf

actually, Marcy didn’t prepare that list…it appears to be the list prepared for potential jurors — a list of names of people connected to the trial who might testify or be mentioned. The court would want to know what the relationship was between a potential juror and someone on the list before voir dire began.

**********

and re: that list, and Lisa’s theory re: Bolton/Fleitz — I WISH it were true, but neither name appears on the list. Because Cheney is expected to testify, and will doubtless be asked from whom he found out that Plame was CPD, if it were Bolton or Fleitz their names would probably be on the list….

Fitz wouldn’t need to call Bolton as a witness in this trial, would he? Who told Dick about Plame’s status in Counterproliferation is not relevant to the particular charges against Libby (false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice). Bolton could however, be on the witness list in a conspiracy trial against Cheney, Libby, and Rove.

OtisIsHunrgy @ 126

Lastly, does anyone else think that Fitz plans to show that he can positively prove a criminal case against Cheney in this Libby trial so that politics, not law, will “take care of” Cheney (with the threat of indictment so clear as to force him out, like Nixon). I think that’s the strategy–knock wood!

I sure hope not - after Rover, Cheney is who I most want behind bars. Loss of job is far too little a price to pay . . .

One good thing - this is all proceeding so slowly that by the time Rove and Cheney go to trial, the shrub may already be out of office with no access to a pardon pen.

Cranky Observer @
191

> Fitz is first clearing the view, then
> he will prosecute the big crimes of
> Obstruction by higher-ups,

I’ll be the cold water guy :-(. This is inconsistent with Fitzgerald’s behavior in September(?) of 2004. Libby will be the one and only indictment; there will be nothing past the obstruction charges.

Cranky

“nothing past the obstruction charges” In this trial. The information he’s getting from testimony in this trial and the fact that the larger investigation is still ongoing, may prove otherwise.

Pete @ 193

Thanks Swopa. There was also some discussion that the 1 source had backtracked later on. Did he backtrack later, and if so was that because of Armitage?

I addressed that just before YearlyKos last June:

The bloggers who have done the most to keep the Plame fires burning now seem to never mention the so-called “1×2x6″ story (”a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife”). One who did was Steve Clemons, who cast some doubt on the story’s accuracy:

I spoke to a well-informed and connected Washington Post reporter recently with some familiarity with these national security topics, and this source — who did not state that he/she was familiar with the Priest/Allen source — did suggest that sources can get wobbly. In this particular case, according to the person to whom I was speaking, a source might have become “confused” as to what occurred before the Novak article and what after.

In fact, as I documented at the time, this was a possibility floated by Newsweek right after the original 1×2x6 article. It also seemed to be immediately refuted by a follow-up Post article … but could it have been right after all?

Looking back, I think I know exactly what happened. The famous 1×2x6 article contains this problematic passage:

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson’s credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, “The real issue is Wilson and his wife.”

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson’s wife as “fair game.”

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists.

In these sentences, the 1×2x6 story veers from talking about the calls heard by the anonymous official to others we now know were made after the Novak column that outed Plame, then back again … could it be that all the calls, then, were made after the column was printed?

The crucial clue comes when you ask how we know that the “real issue” and “fair game” calls came after the Novak column. One reason is that the follow-up Post story says so:

After Novak’s column appeared, several high-profile reporters told Wilson that they had received calls from White House officials drawing attention to his wife’s role. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said she received one of those calls.

Wilson said another reporter called him on July 21 and said he had just hung up with Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove. The reporter quoted Rove as describing Wilson’s wife as “fair game,” Wilson said.

Notice how this is clearly an unacknowledged correction of the previous article? The anonymous administration official makes a return appearance as well, but his recollections are placed squarely between July 7 and July 12 in the follow-up story’s chronological retelling of the Plame leak saga.

In short, the WaPo did exactly what a responsible news organization should when its reporting was challenged: It went back to its sources to double-check, and wrote a new story that clarified what happened when. And, in fact, a source did “go wobbly” — but it was Joe Wilson, not the senior administration official.

I didn’t want this comment to get stuck in moderation, so I didn’t copy over the links — see the original post linked above if you want to click through to the various sources.

> the fact that the larger investigation
> is still ongoing

Is there some information to indicate that this is the case? Everything I have read up to now implies that Fitzgerald has shut down the investigation and is just cleaning up the Libby situation.

I fear that the abhorrance that many here have for Richard Cheney and his (self-professed) secret cabalis leading people to see white knights (and further prosecutions) where there are none.

Cranky