Enjoy the fantasy of your choice.

WOW, what legal beagles we have here at FDL.

Cathie Martin also never heard Libby say anything about sinking the Titanic, so he must have been the culprit. This would be ‘damaging’ if Libby was the kind of guy that sat around gossiping with her about what reporters are saying. I do not believe Cathie Martin said, NORMALLY LIBBY SPENDS ALOT OF TIME GOSSIPING WITH ME ABOUT REPORTERS TALKING, BUT THIS TIME HE WAS SILENT.

But hey, enjoy the fantasy, I am sure Fitzmas also gave you many satisfying moments of righteous bliss.

Marcy,

You were great on Washington Journal this past 01/26/2007. The video can be found here (you might have to go to “problems with video” in the left hand column and reconfigure RealPlayer in Tools to play it).

However, at 1:13:10 Byron York challenged Joe Wilson’s credibility saying that Wilson had falsely claimed to some reporters that he had reviewed the Niger forgeries before his trip. York said that was not possible because the US government had not received them yet. You responded by saying that the French had made the documents available to our government by then. Whether or not that is true, I think you might have given a different response.

Wilson says that it was Nick Kristof who got the story wrong, that he, Wilson, did not claim to have seen the documents before his trip.

I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN.

Yes, I know. It was one of the times I tried to add something but was not permitted to.

You were great on Washington Journal this past 01/26/2007. The video can be found here (you might have to go to “problems with video” in the left hand column and reconfigure RealPlayer in Tools to play it).

However, at 1:13:10 Byron York challenged Joe Wilson’s credibility saying that Wilson had falsely claimed to some reporters that he had reviewed the Niger forgeries before his trip. York said that was not possible because the US government had not received them yet. You responded by saying that the French had made the documents available to our government by then. Whether or not that is true, I think you might have given a different response.

Wilson says that it was Nick Kristof who got the story wrong, that he, Wilson, did not claim to have seen the documents before his trip.

I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN.

Marcie, if I may ask, how are sales going on the book? I’m planning on ordering at least two more and giving them as gifts.

Well, as far as I’ve heard. I only know vaguely, though.

1. Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman, invoked his 5th Amendment rights and refused to testify before the grand jury until he was given an immunity deal. That means that at least one person on the inside wasn’t sure that Bush was going to throw out pardons to everyone involved.

2. Team Libby does not appear to know the details (if there are any) of Fleischer’s immunity deal, which probably means that Team Fleischer isn’t talking to Team Libby. That looks REALLY bad for Team Libby. Think about it: If one of your former co-workers, even one you didn’t like, was on trial for a crime that you thought he was innocent of, wouldn’t you at least let your lawyer talk to him? On the other hand, if one of your former co-workers was on trial for a crime that you thought he was not only guilty of, but also intentionally dragged you into, then you’d probably not want your lawyer to tell him a damn thing. And that seems to be exactly what Fleischer’s lawyers have done.

Hey Marcy!! How was the march? Are your dogs barking after walking for hours? ;-)

Lots of sock puppetry at your blog – or at least they sure look like sock puppets.

Yeah, the sock puppets are out in style.

March was good. My knees, but not my feet, are really sore. I marched with Pachacutec and litigatormom, which was great.

Ghost of Joe Liebling’s Dog @ 101

“Sourcing it anonymously makes it seem like Isikoff did some hard digging,”

Isikoff? Digging?

“… when all he’s doing is regurgitating spin.”

Oh. That Isikoff.

Nice!

SharonW @
22

Swopa, I assumed that the leak had to come from Libby’s attorney regarding Rove and was wondering what their purpose was in doing so. We know Fitz’s side is always tight-lipped.

BTW, can you answer this question for me? I posed it over at TNH, but nobody has answered it and perhaps that’s because it’s just a dumb question. Anyway, I read this just today:

“Defense attorneys are skeptical. Fleischer is expected to testify Monday against Libby, who is accused of lying and obstructing Fitzgerald’s investigation. Attorneys are preparing court documents demanding to know exactly what Fleischer promised in exchange for immunity.
“I’m not sure we’re getting the full story here,” defense attorney William Jeffress said in court.

Once the deal was struck in February 2004, Fleischer revealed that he had discussed Plame with reporters in July 2003, days before leaving his job at the White House. He also said he learned about Plame from Libby, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Fleischer’s testimony is significant because he says he talked to Libby about Plame days before Libby told the FBI he was surprised to learn it from a reporter.”

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Poli…..id=2826728

We suspected this, but was this known as a fact beforehand? I mean, in any of the testimony and court documents that have become public was there anywhere written that Ari specifically said Libby told him and he then leaked it to reporters? I’m having trouble remembering what is conjecture and what is known testimony.

If this is new information, isn’t it sort of a bombshell?

As lhp said @ 59, the opening statements for both sides fingered Ari as having leaked.

The shoe we’re waiting to see drop is exactly who Ari leaked to and when, and who told him to do it.

One new tidbit in the article is that Fleischer’s deal was in February 2004. I wonder where Apuzzo learned that.

Fitz revealed the February 2004 date.

Careful with your characterization of what was said, too. Fitz said Ari “said things he shouldn’t have said.” It was Wells who asserted that Ari leaked Plame’s identity–and he did it in statements that included a number of other verifiable lies.

Finally, keep in mind that in January 2006, almost 2 years after Ari’s immunity deal, Fitzgerald asserted that he was only aware of 5 journalists who knew of Plame’s CIA employ–and Gregory is not one of those five. So either Ari took two years to ‘fess up (which makes no sense, given that this is what he is supposed to have ‘fessed up to in February 2004), Fitzgerald either forgot or illegally misrepresented Gregory’s knowledge, or Wells exaggerated what Ari said to Gregory.