Buy emptywheel's Anatomy of Deceit from Amazon.
We'll start by finishing Cathie Martin's cross today. Then Ari and his "hush hush" conversation with Libby.
While we're waiting, I just wanted to add something to Friday's liveblog that I clarified with journalists, who are much better at quotes than me. In the midst of the big squabble over whether Fitzgerald has to reveal every detail of Ari's immunity deal, Wells said something to the effect of, "We're probably going to argue this … maybe going to argue this after the trial." He slipped. While I totally understand his interest in recording an objection so he can appeal it, he should not reveal he thinks he "probably" will have to appeal his case. You see, if you win this one, Wells, you won't need to appeal.
Milling around. Fitz has a bright blue tie on this morning.
Martin's got a white button-up shirt, black jacket, maybe pearls. She came in with a big smile (looks rested), but now has her "I don't want to be here" face on. Poured herself water, glance at her lawyers (assuming they're the same place they were last week). Catches someone's eye and smiles. She's not happy to be here, but seems more relaxed than on Thursday.
If I had to guess, I'd say more of the journalists are actually IN the court room today–it looks more crowded.
Fitz and Jeffress had been in chambers with the judge–everyone thought they were the judge when they came out. Laughter all around.
Unsubstantiated rumors in the media room–the pearls are cultured, a gift from Libby. Others say the FCC chairman gave them to her.
Here we go.
9:36
Ah geez. They come out of chambers, then go into sidebar!! Not a good way to start a Monday Morning. Everyone agrees that Fitz has gotten a hair cut.
Walton: Issues relating to Fleischer. Regarding the underlying information on immunity–it's essentially moot, govt has given everything that has transpired. It is my view that Giglio ensures that any benefit that a govt witness will get, that info be made available so defense can impugn credibility. I didn't see that there was anything of that nature. The govt has basically provided what has occurred.
Fitz: We provided an ex parte affadavit to you, they don't have it.
Walton: I'm satisfied that there was nothing that conferred a benefit on Ari–in my view no Giglio violation that occurred here. Whether govt can bring out information as to why Ari sought counsel, it seems that in reference to that, the Defense is going to attack Fleischer's credibility, I think it would be fundamentally unfair for me not to permit the govt to establish why he thought it was important to seek counsel. I think to not permit the govt to do that would cause them to have to fight battle regarding his credibility with one hand behind back. Will give instruction that it cannot be used to assess Libby's guilt or innocence. [I think Walton said Ari doesn't believe he committed a crime, but I'm not sure about it.]
[Short version--they won't introduce the 1X2X6 article, but get to explain why he was worried.]
Jeffress: Mr. Fleischer's reading of this article was not the reason he got immunity, it's the reason he hired counsel. The reason he refused to testify was based on advice of counsel. Jeffress is pushing that Ari refused to testify on advice of counsel. 2/3 of the people in this case hired counsel. [Did he do this math? Let's see your numbers, Jeffress.] Jeffress trying to assert that govt is saying if Ari thought he might have a problem, then Libby might have thought he had a problem. They're trying to prove Mr. Fleischer's state of mind to prove that Libby had a certain state of mind.
Walton: this is only beind admitted as it relates to Fleishcer.
J: Want to make one more thing clear.
Walton: You can take it off the table if in closing argument you say you're not raising any issue about his credibility.
J: Thank you your honor, but no. So that the record is clear we do not intend to cross as to why he got immunity.
W: You've already done that in the opening statement.
J: No, I don't believe that's true.
9:47
W: Is it the government's understanding that he thought others would think he had committed a crime.
Bonamici is up. B: Yes, that's our understanding. The process of obtaining immunity was begun shortly after that date.
W: Jeffress wants to suggest it was his counsel's decision, not his own.
B: We're not going to be asking about attorney-client privilege.
B: Zeidenberg is whispering to me something that was reported on Thursday, that upon reading the article. We haven't asked him about those conversations (about attorney-client). Our understanding from Mr. F was that he might be in legal jeopardy he hadn't done anything with Novak he hadn't done anything intentionally wrt disclosure of covert agent, he should not be in position where he might be convicted of a crime. Rather than a normal case, where you have a witness who IS guilty, here you have a witness where in his heart of hearts he didn't believe he had done something wrong.
They'll get to describe Ari reading the article, and Walton will give the jurors an instruction that it doesn't relate to Libby.
9:51
Martin back–she had been out chatting with her lawyers.
Jurors in.
W: I assume that eveyrone was able to avoid the media coverage about this case. We have lost one juror. [Shoot, I hope Pach can ID her.]
Wells up:
Wells: I'd like to develop a demonstrative timeline Sunday July 6 until after publication of Novak article.
Timeline up on exhibit board.
W will be Wells from here on out.
W: July 6, Joe's article., July 7, you developed talking points–
M I didnt develop them for him, I had them and I just sent them to him.
W Sometime on July 7 WH admitted use of 16 words was a mistake
M sometime that evening.
Wells gives her a document to ID. She looks unsure.
M Looks like a press article that I forwarded on to West Wing press office and to Scooter's assistant. I don't recall the article.
W Turn to the second page.
She's nodding.
W does that refresh your recollection?
Email from Martin forwarding AP article–article and email admitted.
9:58
W: page two states Ari set off a furor when he acknowledged that [16 words] should not have been included.
W: July 8, you meet with VP Cheney and others staffers at VP's office on Hill. At that time Cheney personally dictates the talking points that he wants you to deliver wrt Wilson allegations. And also Andrea Mitchell goes on TV and reports that certain people at WH are saying CIA is at fault. If we go to Wednesday July 9 that is the day Matthews continues to severely criticize VP.
M He was reporting about this. I don't recall that specifically.
W shows her a document to refresh her recollection. Matthews reported certain criticisms. She's looking.
W Now, if we go to July 10, you work on draft of Tenet statement, work late into the night. Do you recall what you were doing during the day?
M Following the story.
W July 11, you drafted talking points that would be used by Condi on Sunday shows.
M I assisted the press office to prepare Rice for her appearance on the Sunday shows.
Martin identifies email to Anton with her talking points for Condi's briefing book, made comments on Q&A and some additional suggestions. Admitted into evidence.
W Also on July 11, there was a press gaggle containing comments from Ari and Dr. Rice [Hey, someone told Wells that maybe he should show a woman some respect!] Was it your job to keep track of the press gaggles.
M It's always my job to monitor the news. We were also monitoring what was coming from Africa in the press gaggles.
Martin identifies July 11 gaggle. Martin looks shocked by something.And confused. Like maybe she needs classes glasses [oops, not a transcript] too.
W Mr Fleischer is saying the CIA cleared on it. I apologize, it was Dr. Rice who was speaking. The CIA cleared on it.
M I believe so.
W She goes on to say there was even some discussion on that particular sentence so it reflected better. Now she goes on to say [this is Condi sticking the shiv into Tenet].
10:07
W Knowing what we know now. [he's just reading from Condi's statement] From the press perspective the press is asking whether Dr. Rice and WH are attacking CIA and putting blame on CIA.
W Late on July 11, some discussion about putting it out late on Friday it wouldn't get as much coverage. You wanted the statement to put it out to get as much coverage. The reason it went out late is because CIA was slow in approving.
M I don't know that, but I assumed that.
W July 12. Travel to Norfolk. The plane left very early. That was the birthday [when he says it, it sounds like, "birfday"; update 7/28: I need to explain something about Wells. In the media room, we've joked about counting how many personalities he'll appear in. In particular, he shifts readily between a downhome personality to a very patrician attitude. It appears to be something he turns off and on at will. So I read the pronounciation as an effort to make this whole family thing seem more down to earth, which is the reason I mentioned the pronounciation.] So the kids had to be up very early to be on the plane to Norfolk. You understood Libby was anxious to get home bc of the kids.
M I understood it was bc it was his son's birthday, and his son shouldn't have to wait on his birthday.
W Part of the reason for bringing the kids was so they could enjoy the celebration.
M It was a fun trip.
W By the time you got back it had been a pretty long day. Also on July 12, call to Cooper. Libby made a call to Kessler. And Libby made a call to Evan Thomas.
M And left a message.
W Then on Sunday July 13, Dr. Rice appears on Sunday talk shows. Going back to the 12, I asked you a question about nagging. Just so the record is clear, the word nagging is your word. That wasn't my word. [Yup, someone got to him about appearing to be a shit to women.]
M I would accurately describe it as bugging, nagging Scooter.
W On Monday one of Cooper's articles comes out.
Now showing the article, I think.
10:13
IDs the Time article that mentions "part of" Libby's quote.
W A question of trust, Michael Duffy, James Carney. Also Mr. Matthew Cooper. [reading from article]
Martin smiles when he gets to the words, "suspicious of kings."
W When you said last week that your involvement in addressing the criticism was much bigger than addressing the narrow allegations of Joseph Wilson.
M the story grew–it started as Joe Wilson piece. That was our original piece of it. As Wilson comes forward. As the press begins asking questions it becomes a larger story about the SOTU.
W BC Bush and senior comm team were in Africa, you and Libby and Cheney were tasked to responding to the larger issue.
M I don't think I specifically said I was tasked. I felt an obligation to help the larger WH. If folks had been at the WH, I might not have been as involved.
W Turn to page that … contains portion of quotation that Mr. Libby gave to Cooper. You indicated last week you were upset with how Mr. Cooper had portrayed Libby's quote.
M All is says is that VP asked a question about the [Niger] report. The implication in my view was that it had been a seed to lead to Joe Wilson's trip because he had asked about this piece of intell.
W You thought the way he used the quote gave the opposite impression.
M We had given a much broader quote. We had no knowledge of anybody being sent to Niger because we asked a question.
W Did you express your frustration.
M I explained it was unfair.
W Did Cooper offer a response?
M I wouldn't say he agreed with me, but understood why I was upset, said he'd talk to his editors and he got back to me to say they would publish quote in web story.
W It was too late to correct print magazine.
M We agreed it was too late to do that. He got back to me to say they'd include the full quote online.
W introduces web story.
10:22
M This looks like a version of the full web story.
W In online article Cooper wrote, "in exclusive interview." [Reading the full quote] Is it correct that in the online version, Cooper included the full quote. [Now on page 1--this is "War on Wilson"--where Time reveals it got the leak too.] [Reading] has the Bush Administration declared war on Wilson?
Now reading the quote on "Wilson's wife."
W This article specifically refers to the fact that Ambassador's wife is a CIA official. It also refers to the fact that Novak had written about Plame.
M It implies that.
W You recall that Novak's article came out in press on Monday July 14. [Places that article up]
W Do you recall reading Mr. Novak's article when it came out?
M Yes
W You remember reading that Wilson's wife was employed by CIA. After Novak disclosed Mr. Wilson's wife. Is it correct that the talking points you were using WRT OVP was using did not change. At no time after it was disclosed did OVP change its position that the talking points should be on the merits and there was no need to mention Mrs. Wilson.
M We did not change our talking points.
W If you look at talking points before and after there is no mention of Mrs. Wilson. Is it fair to say that when the Novak article came out, from your personal perspective that was not viewed as a big article.
M It wasn't a huge revelation to me because I KNEW, I knew it was a big deal that he had disclosed it.
W Even in terms of the public, the Novak article did not take on huge importance.
Walton interrupts and notes she has no way of testifying about public. [Oops, that didn't work out the way Wells wanted.]
Wells returns to his timeline–he's on a second page now.
W On July 15 you recall drafting a set of talking points to respond to Chris Matthews.
M I recall that I did it, I don't recall the date. [Wells gives them to her] Yes, these are the talking points, we already thought the claims he was making had been disproved or rebutted and he wasn't making any rebuttal.
[Wells is trying to use the WHIG related response after the leak to show that the WH was obsessed with Plame, thereby making his argument that Rove was the guilty one, and WH was sacrificing Libby]
W These are the first talking points you drafted after the Novak article?
M I believe.
W Is it correct that these did not make any reference to Mrs. Wilson.
W By 17, the version of Time article we discussed came out.
W July 18 lunch, Cheney did not use disclosure of Plame as a talking point.
W September 28 criminal investigation announced in newspapers. First time you're interviewed on October 22.
M Timeframe sounds about right.
W One of the things you're asked, you're asked about telephone call with Cooper.
M I know I was asked about it.
W You were being asked about a telephone call that took place 3 months earlier.
Objection, sustained.
W You did not hear the entire conversation bc you took a telephone call from Jennifer Millerwise. During the time you were on the call you were unable to hear the conversation. You only heard one side of the call. Even during the period when you were not on the telephone with Millerwise, you were not paying close attention.
M I was paying attention, I was not taking notes bc Scooter was reading a quote, I had the quote.
He's trying to say she didn't pay attention, she's saying she didn't take notes.
W you do not have a specific recollection of the words. You have stated that it's not memorable to you.
M That's a good description of the call.
W When you said you had no recollection of Libby saying that some "reporters are saying" you say you have no recollection of those words. Is it also correct that you're not sure one way or another.
M I have no recollection of it.
W when you replied to Mr. Fitz last week and said you have no recollection, what you meant is that you have no recollection of whether he did or didn't use those words.
[Fitz objecting through here]
M My recollection is that I did not hear him say those words.
Walton interrupts. "I think she said she doesn't recall those words." She does not recall him ever saying those words.
W You're not saying he didn't say those words, you just didn't hear it.
W Your honor, I know it's not your standard practice… I was going to offer the document in evidence [the timeline]
Fitz Can we take it up at the next sidebar.
W You've testified that you worked on four sets of talking points.
M Four sets, yeah.
Wells is going through to point out that none of the talking points includes a mention of Plame.
10:41
Wells is introducing all the talking points. July 7, July 8, July 12, July 14. [these are just the typed ones]
W to the respect that jurors want to understand in real time, those documents set forth what the talking points were. All those talking points respond to Joseph Wilson's claims and none of those mention Valerie Wilson. Mr Libby reviewed these talking points with you.
M He reviewed the dictated version on July 8, those are the only ones I remember him reviewing with me. I don't recall the Ari ones. I gave him a copy of the Matthews ones.
W Libby brought you the talking points on July 12.
M Yes.
W [Goes through Libby's involvement in the July 12 talking points] Mr. Libby saw all of the talking points.
W From the entire period form July 6 through the conservative columnist luncheon, he never raised it with you and you didn't raise it with him. You're not aware of any evidence that the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was an important point.
Objection. Overruled.
M I'm not aware of any specific evidence that would suggest that.
W Want to go back to July 8. You had two conversations with Harlow. During the first he was a lot friendlier than the second one. On July 8 Harlow told you that he had conversations with Mitchell.
M That at least they had called.
M I remember him giving me info she was doing piece.
W You understand the part that WH criticizing CIA.
M When it came out, I don't think I knew that ahead of time.
W Hadley talked to you about finger-pointing from OVP.
M I believe it as on July 9.
W Do you know that Hadley went to work as consultant for NBC. [Oops, meant Harlow]
Objection, seems to have been sustained.
W I want to go to Tenet statement. You said discussions were delicate. Why did you use term delicate.
M Seemed delicate given tight nit group, Hadley had asked to exclude communicators, it appeared to me based on conversation with Scooter, Hadley was talking to Tenet, and Hadley was relaying back and forth.
W Do you recall Hadley saying Tenet was mad and upset.
M He suggested that that was the case, I can't recall the specific words.
W Hadley's position was what? Hadley was Dr. Rice's chief assistant. What you understood was taking place on July 10 was that Hadley was serving as a go-beween between Tenet on one side and VP and Libby on the other side.
10:51
W Is it fair to say you and Mr. Libby thought the Tenet statement was a good statement but did not go far enough? Is it correct that Tenet statement only makes one mention of what VP knew about Wilson's trip.
M It makes clear that they didn't brief VP about Wilson's trip.
W Except for that brief reference, the thrust of it was whether or not Bush was in error.
M correct, but I remember somewhere in here, it also makes clear w/o referring to VP that he was sent on own initiative by CIA.
W I want to go to a different subject. You testified that Libby's primary job was to focus on National security issues. During the week of July 7 when you were working with Libby, you observed that Libby still was attending to regular national security responsibilities.
M I observed that he was busy. I never knew precisely what he was doing. Spent a good deal of time with VP.
W He was not just working on Tenet statement.
M I assume not.
W You remember you had to workaround getting access to him.
M Yes
W Those meetings would include national security issues.
M I don't know. I just know he was busy in meetings and often with the VP.
W You were asked about whether you had discomfort about fact that Libby was talking to Mitchell while he had NIE open. Is it correct that had you [witdrawn] had you know NIE had been declassified, you would not have had those feelings of discomfort. The fact that you put a question mark by item #8 involving notes, had you know that NIE had been declassified, you would not have put the question mark by question #8.
M Probably not.
W You testified you went to senior staff meetings every day. Still held while President in Africa. Who would be there.
M Clare Buchan, Adam Levine, they might have taken turns that week, someone from NSC, Steve Hadley, someone from comm, not sure who was there other than me, but I was there in VP role, Deputy COS office, counsel's office,
W Would Karl Rove be there.
W Who's Karl Rove?
M Senior advisor to Pres.
W He's still there. And in 2003 he held those titles.
M Deputy COS got added, I don't remember when it happened.
W Karl Rove, one of his primary jobs was political strategy. Karl Rove viewed as one of the persons most responsible for election in 2000?
Objection, sustained.
W I asked you a question last week–I'm almost finished. See if I can find it. I asked you the following question. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out, you did not view "the wife" as part of that story. You answered "no," I believe you meant "correct." Let me put the question to you fresh. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out WRT VP's response, you did not view "the wife" as part of that story. Correct?
M Correct.
W I'm just about finished. You were asked some questions last week concerning govt ex, the notes you took during the time you were working on Tenet statement. Exhibit is contained in two plastic folders but if you put docs together, you can see that they were stapled together as one and what happened was that you were given a copy of the draft of Tenet statement, and also some notes, concerning exactly what VP was saying and then bc you didn't have any paper, you wrote your notes on the back of the draft, this is the doct that Ms Mayfield later came and asked for the notes back. Nothing was destroyed.
M Those are my notes.
W One second. [Cathie drinks water]
M Identifies email traffic between Cooper and Martin
F Makes sure personal phonenumbers will be redacted.
Puts up email:
Matt, I got it but have not gotten your answers. I am traveling with VP tomorrow morning and will likely be able to corner some folks. Any chance we can do this first in the am? That was you can add to your questoins. Let me know.
W What did you understand deadline.
M I knew mags don't close until Saturday afternoon, I knew I might be able to get him answers
W It was your rec that Libby talk to Cooper.
M It was my recommendation that we a) decide whether we want to be in the story, and I recommended we should be in it.
W Libby followed your rec. Libby had not talked to Cooper in his life.
M Correct
W no further questions.
10 minute break for court reporters. Apparently we media folks have been too slobby. cleaning people not so happy.
11:08
Wells corrects the Hadley/Harlow mistake.
Jury coming in.
Fitzgerald up. Good morning Ms. Martin. I'll try to direct your attention to the questions as best as I can.
F Wells described a "make sense date" regarding your conversation might be. Prior to this trial had the govt told you what Grenier might be. Had the govt told you the testimony about Grossman. Or Schmall. Your testimony was given with the knowledge of what the others would say.
m Yes
F Burden, not enough people to deal with communications crisis. The fact that people were in Africa, was that what caused the problem with Matthews?
M No Christ Matthews' continued reference to Wilson's trip having been at bequest of VP, reference to Scooter by name, that "we should have known" about Wilson's trip.
F What is OVP. What was their focus.
M Office of Vice President. Talking about our narrow piece of the story which was that VP didn't know Mr. Wilson got sent on any mission and didn't know that his trip had occurred.
F You were asked whether your talking points made reference to Mrs. Wilson
F Is it fair to say that if anyone in OVP did talk to reporters about Wilson's wife, they didn't do it based on your talking points.
Objection sustained, I think.
F Did the VP every specifically tell you whether or not the whole truth included Mr Wilson's wife. Did the VP ever show you copy of op-ed that he marked up personally. Did the VP keep you current on anything they were doing WRT the press–on everything.
M No
F When you told them about Mrs Wilson, did they tell you whether or not they had heard it. Did they ever tell you whether or not other people had told them same info. Did VP ever direct you to speak to Judith Miller. Were you aware of June 23 meeting? July 8 meeting? July 12, anxious to get hom. Did Libby tell you he'd call Miller from home. Did he tell you he called Miller? Did he ever tell you about any of the conversations with Miller. Did anyone tell you the NIE had been declassified.
M No, I was still urging.
F On July 10, handwritten notes. Wells took you some things about. You testified about giving someone an exclusive. Did Libby indicate whether he had given some of that information already. Libby was in the loop on your talking points. Were you in the loop on what Libby was going to say to the press.
F Do you recall what Libby was doing when you took telephone call from Millerwise on July 12. Reading the quote precisely. Do you recall what Libby was doing when you finished the call with Jennifer.
M I think he was still reading from the card.
F did you hear the end of the conversation.
M I believe so.
F You were asked questions about whether what you heard was memorable. I'm going to ask whether this is something you heard, whether it'd be memorable.
He reads from Libby's testimony.
Schuster's phone is singing Hail to the Victors behind me. I'm the only one not pissed, since I'm a wolverine tool
M looks overwhelmed by all the things Libby was saying.
F Did you hear that conversation
M Not that I recall.
F Would that would be memorable.
M I think so
F DId you ever hear Libby make a statement that Libby didn't know if Wilson had a wife.
M No.
F do you have a personal knowledge about Grossman's conversation with Libby. Grenier?
Objection, overruled.
F As you sit here now, do you have personal knoweldge about what Cheney and Libby talked about Wilson's wife when you're not in the room. (Goes through the Miller conversations again, repeating, "Do you have personal knowledge."
M No
F Thank you.
Wells wants back up.
11:34
Sidebar
Wells: Ms Martin did you hear what occurred at end of Cooper conversation.
M Yes, I believe so.
W Testified before GJ, at that time sworn to tell the truth. In the GJ you were asked the following question. "What happened at the end of the conversation?" Answer, "It's not memorable to me, I don't remember. They finished the quote and did whatever their back and forth was on verifying the pieces and he hung up, done." You told the GJ that wrt end of conversation.
M I don't have a specific recollection of what words they were doing.
W It was much closer in time during GJ. You have not been able to refresh your memory.
Fitz Is it still your testimony that you heard the end of conversation.
M Yes
F Do you remember any words?
M No
F Anthing change?
M No.
(Media room laughs. Fitz is not impressed with Wells' response.)
Sidebar again. I think Martin sees the end is in sight. leaning back. She's got a bit of relief on her face, looking at lawyers. Makes a face, a bit of a smirk.
11:40
Walton–a juror question: In reference to call between Libby and Mitchell, you indicated some concerns about NIE being revealed. Can you tell us what your concerns were?
M I thought the NIE was classified, and we shouldn't talk about it.
Walton, did you do anything, inform anyone about that.
M I was still not clear what it mean when VP says, "you can say this." I was still urging them to declassify it and disclose it to the public.
Walton, if you had concerns, why didn't you take action?
M BC VP of US had told me to say it, I didn't know where I was going to go. [she had this snitty tone, as if to say 'what are you, kidding? he's the VP']
Walton, in reference to the questions I was asking the witness, There is no dispute between the parties that on July 8 2003, that certain portions of the NIE had been declassified although Ms. Martin had not been made aware of the declassification.
Walton, in reference to the discussion that Libby had to Cooper at Andrews AFB, you indicated that certain portions of that conversation you didn't hear bc you were on another telephone call, you were in the same room, but on a call. Did you ever ask him what he said to Cooper while you were on the other telephone.
M No.
Walton When you discussed your first telephone call with Mr. Harlow. How did you describe Ms. Wilson's employement
M I believe I said, former Ambassador Joe Wilson his wife worked over there, I didn't say she was an agent, but I wrote it in my notes.
Walton you didn't say that
M No.
Walton Was it unusual not to involve the communicators when responses being made to inquiries by the press. Did you have concerns about communicators not being included. [damn good question, juror!!]
M I was concerend about DC. I wasn't aware about what was going on on the Plane, I was concerned that we couldn't advise them about this matter.
Walton refers to an exhibit, asks why Hadley and Scooter got crossed off of her notes. I was thinking about who could be "actors," crossed that out then wrote "messengers," then I crossed out Hadley and Scooter I thought they weren't the appropriate Admin people, we needed to have, not the deputies, not the number 2s we needed the number 1.
Walton do you believe reporters got stories wrong and ommitted critical facts. What would you do?
M reporters often get things incorrect. You have to make a judgment call to decide whether you're going to confront the reporter, whether you're going to ask for a correction. We often have back and forth, they don't want to do corrections because they believe they were right. In some cases I feel that it would be productive. In some cases I won, In some cases I lost. I guess in reference to Kristof, if you don't have relationship and I didn't have a relationship and it was a columnist who tended to not agree with us, to be a little more aggressive to us, you might aggravate and create another story by calling them on it.
Thanks, Witness dismissed.
12:02, onto Ari.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Guilty!
Fitzmas, Emptywheel, wow!
Good morning, Marcy! That’s an interesting rumor about the pearls. The aspens, they are connected at the roots, no?
Have a great day!
Pat_AlexVA @ 1
As Charged!!
fitz!
jane!
Everybody else!
Does anyone know who Ari’s lawyer is?
Marcy, Jane, Christy, Fitz!
Another day, another infamous witness!
It looks like another day I might not get much done at work.
I couldn’t post at FDL this weekend from my home computer. I kept getting a server error message, but it was instantaeous when I hit the SUBMIT COMMENT button. All weekend, this went on. I found that disconcerting. It didn’t appear, by the number of comments, that anyone else was having a problem.
copied from previous thread…
also, copies or links to other posts (like the one warning about the dreaded ziggarut and other “no-no’s” for comments/moderation policies, etc.) would be helpful here, since its a brand new week.
Great detail about the pearls, but are they being clutched? And if so, by whom?
The Martins in black tie…
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/b…..artins.jpg
as a long-time lurker, just want to add my compliments and gratitude to emptywheel and FDL in total for the liveblogging. Monday doesn’t seem so bad when it’s Fitzmass, the aspens are turning, and Ari is on deck. I spent the weekend catching up with last week’s testimony and comments. (comments on this blog have to be THE BEST anywhere) I usually feel too unworthy to comment here, but just had to pass on my great thanks… history is being made, man, and here we are. carry on!
zeppo at 9 — Sometimes that can happen when your browser cache is full. Next time that occurs for you, try restarting yoru computer and see if that helps. Wordpress is cache heavy — I’ve had to do that myself a few times. Just FYI.
oh, and I think we need a new graphic for this week…. I’d like to nominate Cathie Martin’s note identifying Valerie as a CIA agent….
p.lukasiak @
10
You mean like this?
Thanks for the reminder!
Thank you,thank you thank you.
In the on deck circle…
“Ari Fleischer has a unique view of crisis communications. During his time at the White House, he worked through the September 11th attacks, two wars, economic turbulence and the outing a covert CIA operative. His meatless pronouncements on Bush policy were generally in keeping with a White House that keeps a tight lid on the truth. He often professed ignorance about details. These days, he’s leading Ari Fleischer Communications, a firm (he spends his days unshaven and in his boxers) that supplies advice to clients (himself) on how to handle the press and how to strategically develop communication ideas hopefully for really high fees (because he is broke).” – AFC, Inc.
Kids, don’t let this happen to you. Work hard, stay in school, say “No, thank you!” to graft, “Hell no!” to drugs, and most importantly, stay awake during ethics class.
The cultured pearl detail/query – perfect Marcy!! And of course the pearl is basically a piece of dirt (sand) covered over with layers of layers until you get a shiny bright pearl. Isn’t this what Libby’s defense and this admin’s response to criticism isall about?!
Peterr @ 11
I think “clutching cultured pearls” is a great metaphor for manufactured outrage.
Gotcha! Team Libby tried to backpedal by saying they wouldn’t talk about Ari’s immunity deal, and Walton (not Fitz, but Walton!) pointed out that they’d already opened the door in their opening statement. Oops! Not a good start for the week for Team Libby.
p.lukasiak @
15
There’s a new one coming up with Ari…
pluk, thanks for the link to Cathie’s note. I had not seen it.
Are they black pearls?
Ari’s gonna sing like a canary.
Just a giglio, everywhere I go
People know the part I’m playing
Paid for every dance
Selling each romance
Every night some heart betraying
There will come a day
Youth will pass away
Then what will they say about me
When the end comes I know
They’ll say just a giglio
As life goes on without me
/couldn’t help it!
//great job everybody!
“Rather than a normal case, where you have a witness who IS guilty, here you have a witness where in his heart of hearts he didn’t believe he had done something wrong.”
Sing Ari, sing!
Thanks, Peterr. Had just gone digging for that same post you’d put up in comments last week.
If I ever get zed again in a liveblog thread, I’ll be sure to post it after shouting FITZ!
In case I forget to tell you, Marcy, great job!!
Love the site. Tnx all. (((Jane)))
… would I be out of line (as it were) :) in wondering whether it might help if someone were to post a comment in here that a new bunch of liveblogging is available at the top of the string?
And does a comment refresh make any new liveblogging visible?
Or is this already being done, and I should just shaddup and Wait For It?
I’ve seen where folx write something in the comments to the effect that a new post is available, and that’s definitely a Good Thing.
Go get ‘em Fitz, and keep on top of it all, FDL. This one will go down in the History Of The Toobz.
I wonder if it was the juror whose boss said she could only get one week paid leave and if it ran over a week, he would not pay her…
Peterr @ 16
question for mods re: ziggarut (since I have a crappy monitor, the zuggarut can cause major problems for me)…. would it be possible to flag for “moderation” comments with too many “@” signs (signfifying a ziggarut in the making?)
I wish I was a juror. Ari’s gonna tell some good stories. Not the meatless type. But, Ari is not gonna tell all he knows!
Go Fitzie & Team!!!
What I Think Happned
New post that emptywheel put up this morning over at tnh.
P.luk at 31 — We try to clean up the zigs as they come along, but we simply do not have the time to pull everything back into moderation every few minutes. If everyone can PLEASE do no more than two nested comments to be quoted, all of our lives will be easier. Thanks.
Thanks for that link to the Martin note, p.lukasiak.
TRex, you out there? Wonder if this is the same blue pen from which Martin was separated at some point, had to use black ink pen instead. Pen looks like rollerball, NOT a cheapie…was the black ink same type or no?
I know, sounds anal to be so obsessed, but if this was a 200 dollar pen, wouldn’t you make a beeline to grab it back if you’d been forced to leave a room without it? (That’s where TRex may be of help – he’s a pen freak like me.)
“W: July 6, Joe’s article., July 7, you developed talking points–
M I didnt develop them for him, I had them and I just sent them to him.”
I didn’t think she developed them, it would be interesting to know who did.
I think they were developed before Wilson’s article came out, Pincus’ article, also on July 6, suggested this for me.
Any1 tell me why my page seems to be stuck at 9:58am Jan 29th??? I thought this was a LIVE Libby Case courtroom blog. Any information would be appreciated Thx
July 6, 2003 was a Sunday. Must have been submitted to the paper on Friday already; can anybody confirm? Can’t remember seeing this anywhere (not possessed of Marcy’s remarkable photographic memory!).
Could someone please post a link to the article that apparently scared the bejeebus out of Ari and led him to get a lawyer and seek immunity. I’d like to read the article. thanks.
mine is stuck too..help!!
Karen @ 38
“refresh comments” does not refresh the liveblog…for that, hit your “refresh” button on your brownser (or the F5 key)
Karen @ 38
Marcy’s updates appear every 15 minutes or so in the main post, not the comments. You have to reload your brower window – not “refresh comments” – to see them.
Doing it this way lets the flow of the trial appear by itself at the top, and not get spread out between all the comments.
Sooo…
Monday morn.
New haircut.
Bright blue tie.
Instantaneous sidebar.
uh oh, watch out. Might want to fasten seatbelts, heh.
Oh man, Ari Fleischertime.
Can. Not. Wait.
Peterr @ 43
Okay Thx we are moving now….lol TY
NEWBIES TAKE NOTE: Marcy will add a bolded time “stamp” about every 15 minutes in her content as she adds it.
Try NOT to F5-Refresh more frequently than every 15 minutes (less is better) as this places extra burden on the server. Thank you.
Edit: yes, I see that she’s had updates more frequently this morning than 15 minutes – but if things get hot and she’s typing away like crazy, updates may be more widely spaced. Please keep the server in mind. Thank you.
=============
Rich — the article that allegedly spooked Ari Fleischer is this one at WaPo.
Pretty much all pearls are cultured these days, I think. It’s a pretty interesting process.
the 1×2×6 WaPo (not AP — AP may have distributed it as well) article from September 28. 2003
Rich, I was wrong, see Rayne above.
Karen at 38 — Well, because Marcy is typing this in by hand and has to type and then update. Patience is truly a virtue, given how much work it is to liveblog this. Thanks.
Dumb question. There is no diff between “Refresh Comments” and F5 Refresh in terms of the impact on the server, right?
WAG, but Ari’s worry that he was implicated in the conspiracy isn’t really something defense wants to point any more attention to??
Peterr @ 43
Another reminder guys. We’ve been warned not to try to refresh constantly. 1. It won’t do any good since Marcy only refreshes input every 15 or so, & 2. With expected heavy traffic, the whole system gets overloaded & cranky.
[Did I get that sorta correct, Peterr? I’m definitely not a techie-whiz myself.]
oops! knew that was unnecessary… I see Rayne beat me to the punch on that…
WHAT a crew we have here at the Lake! Thanks all. We are sooooo spoiled! ;->
p.lukasiak @ 42
…”refresh comments” does not refresh the liveblog…for that, hit your “refresh” button on your brownser (or the F5 key)
Tnx, this answers most of my @29. Carry on Dogs!
/a pup
===
(((Jane)))
kim @ 37
Interesting, these behind the scenes types. Its a freaking puppet show (preparing talking points for Condi). Wells appears to be attempting to discredit Martin, muddy the waters and spread the blame. He is blowing it, there is too much detail being exposed.
Aha, thanks! How do they do dat?
S.O.S. from MA @ 55
Tnx, this answers most of my @29. Carry on Dogs!
/a pup
===
(((Jane)))
Just adding more info for S.O.S. MA @29, lurkers and newbies:
When people in comments talk about a “new post” they mean a totally new blog entry, not an update. When the comments on an entry get too long, lo and behold, one of the FDL regulars posts a new entry “upstairs.” People usually abandon the old post “downstairs” and start yakking away in the new one. Therefore, any new comments in the old post aren’t really looked at, and are said to have fallen into an “Evil Parallel Universe,” or EPU’d for short.
This applies mostly to normal blogging, where entries aren’t updated like this. Marcy’s Libby posts are a special case. :-)
raven (52) — F5-Refresh Page and “Refresh Comments” button both place a call to the same server.
Think of these two functions as two different phone calls through the same reception desk. They pull different information, but they still have to go through the same operator who will pitch a b*tch if too many calls are made at the same time.
Posts to the server and comments also make calls upon the server as well. Don’t want to discourage conversation (hell, who am I to talk about that?), but it’s better for us to all understand how we impact the system.
emptywheel @
22
I like the present idea of having new graphic start with new witness. Helps keep track when we’re whizzing thru trying to locate stuff ;->
Jane S. @
6
Yes. Wells or Jeffress referred to it during the conversation on Thursday — that he didn’t just hire an attorney, he hired Williams & Connolly, perhaps the most prominent and legendary defense firm in Washington, DC. (They’re the firm Clinton hired during Lewinskymania.)
(Note: Now that I think about it, Jeffress may just have been making his argument that Fleischer’s legal counsel, not Fleischer himself, is responsible for the immunity request.)
raven (52) — F5-Refresh Page and “Refresh Comments” buttons both place a call to the same server.
but doesn’t “refresh comments” involved a much shorter conversation? (especially true when the comments section gets really big….)
So, what’s on everyone’s Fitzmas wish list?
Very helpful, I guess I should know this since I’m i the online education biz!!
Rayne @ 59
Swopa — ah. Now the fluffy non-tell-all book published by Ari after he left the WH makes even more sense.
It was wing-nut welfare to pay for his defense attorney, not just a farewell kiss-off. Hence a book that said little-to-nothing making it to #7 on Best Seller list.
Anybody seen a copy in a Dollar Store yet? (that’s where the unsold bulk sale copies go to die…)
Gang, I know that everyone is on pins and needles about testimony, but everyone needs to take a step back and take a deep breath this morning. Marcy will blog things as the proceedings move forward — she has no control whatsoever of how quickly or not things go in teh courtroom. In order to come close to transcribing a lot of the proceedings, she has to type very quickly and proceed carefully, so as to be accurate. And thus far, the system she has been using to do these updates has worked very well.
In terms of comments, conversation is great, but our server load increases exponentially as comment numbers increase — and when we get to around 200 or so, Marcy has to start a new thread, so please try to keep extraneous comments to a minumum wherever possible. We are all working our butts off, on the page and behind the scenes to keep things running as smoothly as possible for everyone. But we aren’t exactly getting paid the huge bucks to do this or anything — we’re doing this because it needed doing — and we’ve had to fight a number of denial of service (DOS) attacks over the last week to keep the servers humming along. So, please, a little patience would be very much appreciated by all of us. Thanks.
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_
_|
_|
_|
_|
_|
_|
I love the looks of ziggarats! Alas, only virtual now at FDL! ;-
why not shut down the comments during the live blogging?
CHS @ 51
You are so kind!!! Don’t people realize the historic nature of what is happening here with you and Marcy?
Rayne @ 65
i.did.not.know.that! KEWL! might go back to browsing those things again *g*
apologies here, pant pant. will just lurk. hadn’t noticed Christy comment yet…
Rayne @ 65
I suppose he would have written the book anyway (he may have signed up to write it before the DOJ investigation began & the WaPo story fingered him). But he certainly had concerns about his legal bills — there was a Wonkette item at some point that he wouldn’t tell reporters who was representing him, because “You’ll call them, and it’ll cost me money.”
It might be helpful to post a standard instruction at the top of Marcy’s diaries that explains about her updating every fifteen minutes and to hold off refreshing until at least 15 minutes have passed since the time stamp of the bottom post.
Many folks who are trying to work, as well as follow, may stay out of the comments section as a last ditch effort to do something besides read Marcy.
And a standard post about the ziggurats and the donating at the top of the comments for the duration would be a good idea too. Sorry to all the elusive zero seekers (the zero is elusive not the seekers), but everyone has to make sacrifices at this important time. ;o)
raven at 68 — We don’t shut down comments because people have questions about testimony or about the facts that can be answered in real time, and that is useful for all of us.
rain on the parade? no cookie for you!
raven @ 68
Been 20 minutes since last refresh …can I try now?
p.lukasiak (62) – it’s a shorter call in most cases, but it’s still a call that the same operator has to answer, to continue the analogy.
The posts are in a sequential list, each having a unique identity assigned as soon as it is posted for the first time.
Each post has a sequential list of comments attached to it, with each new comment assigned a new identifying number as the commenter hits the “Submit Comment” button.
In other words, there are two linked databases – one is posts, the other comments.
When you hit F5-Refresh Page/Refresh button in browser window, you pull up the blog post including any new content in the post and comments.
When you hit “Refresh Comments”, you pull up only the new content in the Comment database.
But both databases are in the same server, and all calls for refreshed or new content go through the same processor(s). Server service here has improved dramatically since the move to WP (thank you, little techie ghosts-in-the-machine) but even the biggest and best servers can be bogged down by too much traffic, as evidenced by problems across the internet on Black Monday after Thanksgiving.
Does that make sense?
TRex said it best the other night, and try as I might, I have not been able to help or improve an already sagacious and pithy statement. To wit:
“You’re a wrong sandwich with extra wrong and a side order of super-wrong wrongness smothered in wrong sauce.”
Anyone who has followed this knows it was said concerning Ms. Malkin, but it just seems to apply to so many people in this sad sordid affair. So apt.
Trex I bow to your linguistic skills and acumen.
Great job Marcy.
Next break, need to ask Marcy about this:
“Martin identifies July 11 gaggle. Martin looks shocked by something.And confused. Like maybe she needs classes too.”
Should that be “glasses”?
No hope in hell for Libby’s memory defense if he can remember how very important it is for a small boy to not have to wait for his birthday celebration. [sigh]
p.s. “somebody” getting to Wells about “nagging” may be us here in blogs, if Wells’ team has been tippy-toeing around here as commenter/blogger Fitzmas pointed out
I’m sorry, I just thought it might help. Maybe we could find another way to comment on another site and have 2 browsers open.
Fitzmas @
74
“Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—and life.”
He meant that this project for the new american century was rooted long ago in the west and may take more generations to complete, come back to work is keep going we will win in the end.
Whooooo!
Now I have to cut down on all the other internets cause I kin only deal with one obsession at a time. I have a life, damn it!
But Fitzmas comes when it comes, not when it’s convenient.
(looking for a small pic o’ Fitzy to stick on my lapel while I go about my business.)
Can only lurk here some much but I will be thinking about FDL and your work to get the truth that Fitzy is exposing out to the rest of us.
Thanks to all!
****
Just stopping in to see what you smelly, commie-pinkos are doing to embolden the terrorists today.
Last week it was engaging in a vigorous constitutional debate….This week it will be exercizing your civil liberties.
This emboldening must stop.
-GSD
I saw that, and figured the person meat to say glasses, but then realized that Marin probably needs some sort of classes too. Remedial ones.
emptywheel…you should get a pulitzer for this incredible effort. Thanks so much for the vicarious birds-eye view of the trial. ALl we need now is a court artist that can draw as fast as you can write.
They turn in clusterf*cks.
-GSD
Rayne@78
p.s. “somebody” getting to Wells about “nagging” may be us here in blogs, if Wells’ team has been tippy-toeing around here as commenter/blogger Fitzmas pointed out
wrong faux Fitz blog link ;) real one has IP snapshot of Wells visiting and reading yesterday. I am sure they are all over FDL and TNH even more so.
Just FYI everyone — the court is likely having it’s mid-morning break at the moment. Judge Walton tries to give the jury and attorneys regular bathroom availability.
marjo @ 13
Me too… could not have said it better. Thanks FDL!
“W From the entire period form July 6 through the conservative columnist luncheon, he never raised it with you and you didn’t raise it with him. You’re not aware of any evidence that the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was an important point.”
But what about before July 6? That’s when the strategy was developed.
Becca @ 80
Good old Conservative Think Tankers from way back – Joseph And Adolf Coors. Cheney’s favorite beer. Adolf?
Looks like Wells is just trying to push Ari’s testimony until after lunch. I can’t see how ANY of this helps Scooter. You aren’t going to be able to claim that nobody cared about Plame if you’ve got the Vice President’s own notes to the contrary. The Shooter obviously thought it was important. Cathie just said that it was a big deal that Plame was identified. The fact the she didn’t make it into your official talking points doesn’t help you. If anything, it hurts, because it makes it look like you were deliberately avoiding the topic in public, even though you were talking about it behind the scenes.
I don’t get what Wells it trying to get at with all the questions about Plame not being in the talking points. I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that leaking information that is at least arguably secret would go into the official press talking points. (For example, is leaking the NIE in the talking points?)
Or is his purpose something else entirely?
GSD @ 86
707, you are a riot!
Can someone confirm that this is the real Patrick Fitzgerald blog?
Do they have a bathroom monitor for Ari today?
Is Christy Hardin Smith going to be at the trial this week? If not, will she still be posting her analysis at the end of the day? I hope so–her take could not be more interesting…
LoneStarLberal at 97 — Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft is there for the legal perspective this week for us — we thought getting a defense counse take on the proceedings would be a good match-up for my prosecutor mind-set. She’ll be doing a wrap-up for us every day this week. :)
Thanks for the compliment, btw, much appreciated.
Wapo has an article up, prelude to Ari’s testimony.
Renee in Ohio @
95
No.
LoneStarLiberal @ 97
Negative, LSL. CHS is back home. Jeralyn is covering the courtroom this week. Her take should also be quite riveting…
Hey Peterr — I wonder if a post with all the pertinent “Rules of the Road” for reading and commenting here at FDL during live blogging should be a post of its own, used as an open thread — and then linked to within first couple of posts for each new live blog thread.
We could put an explainer about Refresh and server load in it as well.
???
This makes no sense to me as a defense strategy. It will be just as easy for the jurors to infer that if the WH was obsessed with Plame, so was OVP. Indeed, from what I’ve read in the last few days from Marcy’s live-blogging, it sounds like OVP was leading the effort to respond to the Wilson charges. So proving that the WH was obsessed with Plame doesn’t support the “Libby as sacrificial lamb” theory — at least not without confirmation from Rove or someone else in the EOP, which I doubt will be forthcoming.
In addition, I do not understand why Wells is flogging the talking points as evidence that OVP did not see Plame as a big part of the debunking Wilson effort. The fact that they did not commit to writing their intention to out a CIA agent doesn’t mean they didn’t do it — especially when several reporters will testify that they did. The talking points don’t contradict that testimony.
Redshift @ 93
No, that’s what he’s going to argue–that Libby was working solely w/in talking points.Bustednuckles @ 96
He’s in the building. Can’t tell you about his bathroom habits today, sorry. What will we joke about.
Folks, I’m going to stay with this thread, since Fitz’ team tends not to have a lot of questions at this point. WE’ll start a new thread with Ari.
Renee in Ohio @ 95
It’s Fitzmas’s. See # 87 above.
I don’t get what Wells it trying to get at with all the questions about Plame not being in the talking points.
its called “confusing the jury”….
as in, “if its not in the talking points being distributed throughout the administration, its not important — and since its not important, Libby wouldn’t remember it.”
AKA The Chewbacca Defense
In addition, I do not understand why Wells is flogging the talking points as evidence that OVP did not see Plame as a big part of the debunking Wilson effort. The fact that they did not commit to writing their intention to out a CIA agent doesn’t mean they didn’t do it — especially when several reporters will testify that they did. The talking points don’t contradict that testimony.
The jurors are getting many clues that the whole dang OVP bunch are a crafty, clever, detailed, cunning and manipulative lot.
Thanks, wheel. I can’t believe that, after all this time and speculation, we’ve finally made it to the chaotic July 11th press gaggle, July 12th on Air Force 2, and, coming up…the trip to Africa! Very exciting.
Rayne @ 102
I’ll defer to Christy for this one, but if she’s interested I’d be willing to put the post together.
you had discomfort about fact that Libby was talking to Mitchell while he had NIE open.
Andrea Mitchell???
emptywheel @ 104
How can Wells think he is going to convince the jury that Libby stuck entirely to the talking points? The talking points don’t contradict the testimony of the reporters that Libby in fact did mention “the wife.” All he should be trying to do is convince the jury that Libby didn’t remember during his early interviews and GJ appearances that he’d mentioned “the wife.” Is he saying he didn’t remember mentioning “the wife” because she wasn’t in the talking points? That is crap, to use a technical legal term.
For your viewing pleasure between breaks.
Robert Greenwald and McCain vs. McCain.
-GSD
p.lukasiak @
49
Thanks — I was wondering what 1×2×6 referred to!
If he was talking to John Mitchell, I’d be worried, too.
-
Marci bolded this…
Now, combine this with her use of the words “CIA agent” to describe Valerie in her handwritten notes, and it would appear that Harlow (or someone else) had made it clear to Martin herself that Valerie was “covert” — or at the very least her work with the CIA should not be disclosed….
If the relatively low-level Martin knew, is there any question that Libby didn’t know?
hackworth @
107
Obsessed with Joe Wilson and with attacking critics of the Bush/Cheney policy.
-GSD
Hey Marcy — Was Wells leading her here and she wasn’t catching on?
QuentinCompson @ 114
Maybe Martha Mitchell? After all, I think she used to go to a psychic. Maybe she’s been talking to Scooter from the Great Beyond.
Rayne @ 39
Rayne: I brought up this point the other day. I agree.
GSD @ 83
We embolden so that others don’t have to. It’s how we “sacrifice,” and it’s hard work.
litigatormom @ 118
can’t. stop. laughing.
“W You were asked about whether you had discomfort about fact that Libby was talking to Mitchell while he had NIE open.”
Does this mean Mitchell was sitting in a room with Libby with the NIE open on the desk so that both could view it?
I remember some guest on John Stewart, a reporter, and John ask how the declassification worked and the reporter’s description was they would both sit at a desk and “Senior Administration Official” would be ask can you declassify that? and SAO would say sure take a look at this page.
As oppossed to the “conservative luncheon”, what day was the liberal leftist luncheon?
Why doesn’t the wh make life easier for themselves and just write the stories for Matthews, Novak, etc., themselves?
Oh, that’s right, they already do. Must piss off guys like Olberman…
So, media people, pick up after yourselves, already. Who could it hurt?
From what I can see, Wells’ cross has just established that Martin’s brief didn’t include ‘the wife’, but the prosecution got her to testify that there was plenty of Scoot-Veep strategy going on way beyond that brief, and that she knew it was going on.
Don’t see how that helps Scoots.
Phoenix Woman @ 113
I just skimmed the WaPo article and couldn’t grok where 1×2×6 came from… Elucidation pls?
… and OBTW the orientation pointers I saw this morning explained what EPU and EPU’d mean hereabouts… this newbie sez thanks.
… in the interests of Zig-trimming, I’d appreciate a quick primer on where to trim in HTML-land…
I also learned a couple days back that I am
/a Pup
:)
PS — Looking fwd to Ari! Go FDL.
Frank Probst @ 92
OVP
To Do List:
1. Get VP on MTP
2. Push back with Scottie
2. Leak covert agent’s identity
3. F*ck up national security
4. Pick up bread on way home
Great to hear that Jeralyn will be covering the courtroom this week–although I do hope that Christy will pipe in from time to time.
SOS from MA @ 126
Lots of ways to do it, but keep in mind the pairing of the blockquote and /blockquote tags. The easiest way is to go in and snip out the inner-most comment or two (highlight the inner comments, then delete), leaving only that last one.
And remember: Preview is your friend.
Anytime I do zig maintenence, I *always* preview it to make sure I snipped out what I wanted. There’s nothing worse than mis-cutting and ending up attributing one person’s comments to someone else.
So, the gist of this morning’s testimony is that the OVP was working-up talking points in response to the Wilson Op-Ed, and Cathie Martin the Press Officer is saying that none of these talking points mentions Valerie Wilson.
Wells appears to be heading towards pointing the finger at Rove for unauthorized expansion of the talking points by slipping Valerie’s CIA info to Novak, and to Matt Cooper “on double super secret background.”
Once the story hit the papers, the question within the White House became – Who ADDED the Valerie detail to the talking points?
We ALL KNOW IT WAS ROVE – Joe Wilson KNEW the MINUTE IT HAPPENED – but Rove was too important to Bush to lose.
So, Scooter got thrown to the wolves by Bush, with Cheney’s notes saying “not going to sacrifice one staffer to protect another.”
That’s where Well’s is going.
Wow, those Fitz questions were enjoyable.
pseudonymous in nc @ 125
Wells is implying that Karl Rove is the Dastardly Deed Doer. Seems that Wells is asking a lot of questions that reveal information that is outside the scope of the charges against Scoots and the information is damning his client further.
Historical passing.
Father Robert Drinan, former congressman and priest from Mass. passed away.
He was the first in congress to bring impeachment charges against Tricky Dick…for bombing Cambodia.
-GSD
IIRC, it was ~Rove~ who made the comment to Tweety that Wilson’s wife was “fair game.”
The outing may have its roots with Rove and not the OVP. Seems that’s what the Libby team is tring to get across.
Rove is likely who strategized for the WHIG selling of the war too. He’s probably who decided it would be a good idea to threaten America that we would all be nuked if we didn’t support their plan for war in Iraq.
It is ~possible~, I am suggesting, that the OVP really was attempting to cover their *sses in an honest way but Rove had already taken a vindictive approach, both with the original ~big lie~ and with the response to Wilson’s suggesting that the nuke threat was a lie.
That said, there were a bunch of people involved in the WHIG strategizing. Condi is up to her neck in it too, don;t recal of Cheney was a member.. Anybody?
Maybe Wells is secretly throwing the game in order to save the nation from destruction at the hands of Cheney and Bush.
Just mere speculation and also some psycholigical warfare in the event there are any Libby and Rove loyalists reading this blog.
-GSD
Sounds to me like after they got the story out, then the VP found out she was covert, no?
S.O.S. from MA — note this key paragraph in the WaPo 1×2×6 article:
1 SAO
2 WHO
6 Journalists
This may or may not be accurate; watch this develop closely, as there are many beers and expensive dinners riding on the ultimate elucidation of the 1×2×6.
How about that Fitz on re-direct? Wowza! At least for now, I think we know… Who’s your Daddy!
ccmask @ 136
i thought he found out from cia that she worked in CPD.
I’m just waiting for Cheney to take the stand and have Fitz grill the little weasel.
> The outing may have its roots with Rove
> and not the OVP. Seems that’s what the
> Libby team is tring to get across.
Libby is not (currently) charged with the outing. If Wells’ strategy is to get that across, seems he might be in a bit of a pickle when Walton gives the jury their final instructions.
Cranky
But radiofreewill (@130): I agree that Wells will try to argue that, but the absence of any mention of “the wife” from the talking points does not mean Libby didn’t talk about them — whether or not Rove did too. Wells will be asking the jurors to infer something that is contradicted by the testimony they will hear from the reporters who got it from Libby.
The WH may well have been willing to let Libby hang out to dry while protecting Turdblossom — but that doesn’t erase the evidence the jury will hear that Libby mentioned “the wife” to the press, at times and in a manner inconsistent with his FBI interviews and GJ testimony.
We’re in sidebar again, arguing over another juror question. They’re so close to being done with her. And then we get Ari.
ROFLMFAO
Go Irish!
Next year in Ann Arbor will be very bleak for the Irish.
Ari Ferrari
emptywheel @ 143 We’re in sidebar again, arguing over another juror question. They’re so close to being done with her. And then we get Ari.
You’re the best.
Still in sidebar fighting over a juror question.
John Casper @ 144
Shoot. And I meant, “wolverine too!, not wolverine tool.”
Damn I hope no Buckeyes are watching.
emptywheel @ 147 Still in sidebar fighting over a juror question.
You’re still the best.
Any info yet on change in the jury box?
Wonder if Judge Walton will deal with the juror questions and then break between Martin and Ari, and come back early from lunch? Guess it depends on how they are catering the jury lunch as to whether he could logistically do that, I suppose. Would make sense to start fresh with Ari after a break, but he likely is going to want to push forward, as much witness time as cross exam is taking.
Marcy — that “tool” slip was humorously Freudian.
Heh. Loved the humanity punctuating the drilling going on in the background.
Do we know what the specific lie is that Libby told to Fitz that put him in this predicament?
Anna K — My guess is that the juror who had to go was one of the alternates — but that’s a guess. Hopefully Jeralyn or Pach will have some insight on that from inside the courtroom.
hackworth at 153 — Go back and look at the blogging on the openng statements. Fitzgerald went through some of Libby’s grand jury testimony during that for the perjury counts.
This is sidebar is going to push Ari until after lunch. AARGHHH!!
(My kids are only getting attention today in between refreshes – which I am doing much less than I would prefer to keep the servers in action)
emptywheel @ 148
TOO LATE, MARCY! But I forgive you. ;-)
Observations of Babs Comstock’s sartorial selection?
I may have been unclear, sorry – Rephrase: Do we know what the specific lie is that Libby told to Fitz during Libby’s GJ testimony that impeded Fitzgerald’s forward progress? (And landed Libby in court as we speak, on charges of the obstruction type, only.)
So any guesses? Is the smirk just because it is almost over? Or is it because it is almost over and some major area was left unaddressed?
marjo @ 127
Proposed revision:
1. Get VP on MTP
2. Push back with Scottie
3. Commit TREASON by leaking covert agent’s identity
4. Get a twofer: Punish Ambassador Wilson and (by blowing Valerie Plame’s “brass-plate” operation named Brewster Jennings) blind the USA to worldwide nuclear proliferation, thus f*cking up national security. (PS — that’s also TREASON)
5. Pick up bread on way home
Beautiful.
LOL – Schuster’s phone was playing “Hail to the Victors”? You must have just loved that, Marcy. I wonder if it’s the same version I have on mine.
what? no sidebar? gotta have another sidebar! :)
OT (on Huffington Post) Air America radio has been “saved” in a last minute buy out by Steven Green (brother of Mark). (Tom Hartman will be replacing Frankin when the latter leaves the air to run for office). Now if only we can get Clear Channel to actually allow the station back on the air in the places they pulled it after the election when the Dems won.
I feel a little bit proud of myself, having read Fitz’s redirect. Though he managed to spell it out much better: there was a Cathie Martin media brief, and there was whatever Scoots and Cheney got up to when they told her to make herself busy.
Christy 155
We were typing at the same time please excuse me. I’ll go back and read it again, thanks. I’m forgetting some things. All the testimony is throwing me off the trail. Probably how the jurors feel. Maybe Ari will blow this thing open!
I lurk more than I write, because I could never even approach the intellectual firepower on this site.
Marcy, Christy, Pach, Swopa, looseheadprop and everyone else, thank you. It is thrilling to read this every day, and I am just so grateful for it. You all are doing an amazing job.
I’d also like to add that I have hit the PayPal button more than once as well, and will continue hitting it. Marcy, I look forward to giving a copy of “Anatomy of Deceit” to our grandpa (former G-Man) when it gets here.
-S
Christy Hardin Smith @ 154
Have they already designated alternates? In my experience, they just treat the whole bunch as “real” jurors to keep them involved, and then dismiss the alternates before deliberations.
stingray @
134
WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.
If this is appealed, would the timeline put the final verdict past January 2009?
Eric at 169 — The judge and attorneys know who the alternates are, as do those of us who were watching the process. But the jurors themselves have no idea who is or is not. Old trick to keep the whole jury’s attention span on all of the trial. *g*
CHS or any other legal beagles out there—
Is the latitude given to jury questions rather unusual for a trial of this magnitude? That is, not only is Walton asking the questions, but he’s also doing some follow-up that may or may not have been in the submitted question. Is that okay? Or is this legit grounds for appeal, saying that his interpretations of the jury questions may be unduly influencing the jury?
In any case, I thought all the jury questions were very good, it seems as though the jury is really paying attention to the case.
Marcy has begun a new thread for the Ari testimony.
Evidence of a “good German”; surprised she didn’t say, “I was just following orders.”
GSD @
83
;->
Anyone else having trouble viewing Cathie Martin’s note, which identifies Mrs. Wilson as a CIA agent? That’s apparently from her conversation with Harlow (and she relayed it immediately and directly to Libby and Cheney, she said). I can’t get the pdf to open. Is that because of web traffic?
I just love that Martin testified that she knew the Plame disclosure was wrong when she saw the Novak article. You know the jury heard it. Devastating stuff.
choochmac @ 156
I printed out a huge section of Marcy’s live blogging and read it while playing Jr. Monopoly with my daughter. She has a teacher workday! The agony. I started throwing my money in her pile so that she would win quicker.
Great question, lousy answer. She never answered whether or not it was unusual which makes me suspect it was.
p.s. “somebody” getting to Wells about “nagging” may be us here in blogs, if Wells’ team has been tippy-toeing around here as commenter/blogger Fitzmas pointed out
excellent point and well taken…
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS
they are hungry … and they lurk
Christy Hardin Smith @ 174
Thank you C, this is VERY helpful. I’d be waiting on this old thread hitting refresh until, out of frustration, I looked up.
In the interests of faster typing, you might want to use “J” for Judge Walton.
veslkid @ 180
excellent point and well taken…
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS
they are hungry … and they lurk
fwiw, I tried mightily last week to suggest same. Feeling while commenting here is so familial, folk just don’t GET it, sigh! Any way to add a warning stickynote a-top each major fitzmas post, along w/ the other ‘housekeeping’ cautions?
veslkid @ 180
I don’t understand how your suggestion would work. Are you saying we shouldn’t comment on the proceedings in ways the defense might find useful?
If the defense is coming here to learn substantive things about their case, they have more serious problems than we know.
Doesn’t “Trolls” mean people who post provacative replies to hijack the thread and disrupt the discussion?
emptywheel up in post:
LOL!
Betcha they’ve all discovered you’re so good, Marcy, they can just copy yer stuff, instead of pretending to work hard themselves. Slip in somethin’ goofy sometime, & see if you can catch ‘um at it. all’s fair….
Litigatormom (@142) I agree that the testimony will show Libby disclosed the identity of Wilson’s wife to Miller (and why not Mitchell, too, since he had the NIE out with her, also?) – but she/they didn’t write a story on it.
It was Rove/Armitage’s leaks to Novak and Cooper that ‘outted’ Valerie – even after Novak was warned at least twice by the CIA not to publish Valerie’s cover.
What I’m saying is – Wells is tacking towards a ‘Scooter’ version of the story that shows Libby faithfully serving his ‘under seige’ boss, Cheney, in an attempt to defend the VP from accusations – supported by the NIE – of stampeding the Country to war with lies.
Scooter, and Dick, are going to say that the extent of their involvement with the Leak Case ends with ‘clearing the record’ that the VP did not send Wilson on the trip to Niger.
The fact that Scooter appears to have ‘lied’ to the investigators and the Grand Jury will be put off as having a vague memory of ‘low-priority’ issues in the face of the more pressing global hot topics he was following.
Fitz is likely to hold his cards close to the vest and not use Fleischer for anything more than to show that many staffers were tasked with ‘getting the word out on Wilson.’ Any additional testimony regarding Fleischer’s knowledge of what Rove and Bush knew will probably be held until after Rove’s testimony.
For me, Libby is a line of prosecution (like a RICO squeeze) that leads to ‘entanglement’ with Rove, Cheney and Bush. Since Fitz still has an open Grand Jury sitting, follow-on indictments (un-sealing in the case of Rove, or new in the case of Armitage, etc) are almost certainly in his prosecution plan.
So, no doubt Libby is guilty of leaking – but no one wrote a story on it – and he did give false testimony, which he puts down to poor memory performance.
My guess is that nobody, short of Libby, really cares about the charges against him. Everyone is tuned-in to this trial because it could very well expose a cover-up the import of which not been seen since Watergate.
neil @ 184
You’ve got the right definition of trolls, neil, and you’re also right about Wells & Co. coming by and what that may say about their case. Maybe we ought to send them a bill for consulting services: what’s a fair hourly rate for a couple dozen lawyers (both prosecutors and defense folks), psychologists, communications specialists, former jurors . . . ?
Welcome to the Lake, counsellors!
ccmask @ 30
I think that was the cleaning lady at the Watergate. She was already excused, no?
Adie (183), neil (184) –
I think this has to work like open source software development. It’s all out in the open, they can see what we are doing, and they may be changing their efforts because of what they read here.
By “they” I mean the media, the Bush administration, the prosecution and defense — anybody with access to the internet and a vested interest in this case. There could even be “disruptive agents” watching this stuff.
I don’t think we stop discussing this case out here in the open, but I do think we need to be extremely conscious that this is not a quiet, dark, cloistered room in which we are whispering to our best, most trusted friends. We should be writing as if were going to be read by our kids and their kids, and we should be writing as if we are speaking in a public venue like a PTA or school board meeting.
(Yeah, my kids are already well-acquainted with my salty talk and my obsession with this case. Apparently my grandchildren will learn of this in detail as well…)
As for trolls: you will know them when you see them. The mods here do a fabulous job with the very worst of them, but we will have visits from “concern trolls” that leak through from time to time. Don’t engage them and they’ll typically move on.
Question on Martin’s demeanor – anyone there have any comments on whether the jury had any reaction to Martin’s frequent looks at her lawyers or when her tone of voice got snippy?
I don’t see how the Administration can be displeased with the Ari testimony.
Rayne @ 175
Man! I wish that the juror (or Walton) had asked some follow up questions here.
“Do you mean that you were concerned that the VP was insisting you release what you believed to be classified material that this might put you in legal jeopardy?”
“Did that suggest that the response to the Wilson report had reached very high importance to the OVP?”
“Did the VP at any time tell you that the NIE had been declassified? Did he tell you that either he or the President had authorized the declassification?”
Oklahoma kiddo @ 191
LOL! Just wait! There is a famous adage about how politics is sort of like watching what goes into making sausage….you wouldn’t eat it if you saw how it was made and what went into it.
I think Ari will show that what went into the process of defaming Wilson was a bit like sausage making. It involved a large cast of characters that we would normally think would be involved in more important issues than countering a former Ambassador who exposed an erroneous statement in the SOU Speech. [WHY they were so obsessed with this particular expose…when there were many others is still a matter of theory IMO]. It seemed that their overt counters to Wilson’s op-ed were not having the traction they wanted…so they went to things like the selective declassification of the NIE (an act authorized at the HIGHEST LEVELS…by the President himself)…down to the “off-the-record” Deep background revelation of Plame’s work at the CIA.
I cannot figure out for the life of me why Libby did not enter into a plea agreement. Probation/fine would be far superior to this trial which for an inside-the-Beltway observer is one fo the most fascinating peeks inside the WH ever!!! I guess we should be grateful that some people like Martha Stewart and LIbby, despite overwhelming evidence, want to go to trial to prove that it wasn’t exactly, really really like the way the government lays it out. These people provide fascinating insights into human behavior! Plus amusement and recreation for the rest of us.
For anyone who might be interested, I am doing a link index of the Liveblog at Politics Plus Stuff along with some notes on who the various people are. Click on the link “liveblog” to get all of them and none of my other posts.
If there is anything I can add or change, would someone leave me a comment? I find it useful for going directly to the specific testimony of any particular witness and for linking to summaries or analysis that is useful for making the details more relevant.
If there is a really good post analzing or summarizing the testimony that I have missed, please leave me a comment. All comments are copied to my email.
Ok. Click on Politics Plus Stuff Liveblog to get to my index blogs.
The general blog is at Politics Plus Stuff.
Rayne 189
Fair enough. Makes sense to me.
I’ve been likening this whole process to peer-reviewed scientific research – this in a less rigorous setting, obviously. But in the same way as sci., things are honed down, and corrected, to the point that the end result is incredibly valuable, and the truth is gonna come out more often than not.
I commend all you guys! ;->