What a day at the Scooter Libby trial. This is what I came to Washington for — that sense of being right in the middle of the action, totally engrossed in the moment, never once looking at my watch, and when 5:00 came, wishing we didn't have to go home.
The day began slowly enough, with David Addington still on the stand and Libby lawyer Ted Wells questioning him about documents for almost two hours. Enough about that.
The main attraction, of course, was journalist and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She looked stunning, very pretty and impeccably groomed. The reporters in the courtroom all turned to watch her stride into the courtroom, chin up. Her lawyer, Washington powerhouse Bob Bennett, took a seat behind the Government's table. She was calm as she took the stand.
Fitzgerald did a crisp and clean direct examination, taking only 40 minutes to go through her career, how she hooked up with Libby, their meetings, her legal fight over being subpoenaed, her 85 days in jail, and her two subsequent grand jury appearances. Judy and Fitz were like a well-oiled machine. Unlike Ari who played to the jury, Judy directed her answers to Fitz, occasionally turning to the jury to explain a term, but then returning her attention to Fitz. The jury hung on to every word.
For the whole story, read Marcy's great live-blogging. Shorter version: She met with an agitated, frustrated Scooter Libby on June 23, 2003. Libby complained to her about Joseph Wilson, whom he called "that clandestine guy," and Wilson's attack on the Administration's WMD claims, which he called "an irrelevant ruse." During this off-the-record meeting, Libby told her Wilson's wife worked in "the Bureau" which at first she interpreted as being the F.B.I., but then figured out he meant the C.I.A. and its non-proliferation division.
They met again on July 8, spending two hours in the dining room of the St. Regis hotel. Libby again was agitated. They had a wide-ranging discussion on the intelligence leading up to the war, and Libby asked her to not to mention him, but to attribute his statements to a former Hill staffer. He told her Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's WINPAC, the unit focused on WMD's. She spoke to Libby twice on the phone on July 12. He didn't tell her where he got the information about Valerie Wilson and they had no discussions about whether her status was covert.
Fitz then took her through her legal fight to avoid testifying which she said was the result of her not having received a personal, voluntary waiver from Scooter. As soon as she did, and as soon as Fitz agreed to limit her questioning to the topic of Libby, Wilson and Plame, she agreed to testify. The day after leaving jail, she went before the grand jury and told them about the July 8 meeting and July 12 calls, but had forgotten the June 23 meeting. That night, she found notes of the June 23 meeting, had Bennett call Fitz, and returned to the grand jury to describe that meeting in detail, her memory having been refreshed by her notes.
Judy, you see, has a note-triggered memory. She can forget an event even happened, but upon finding notes that it did, she remembers not only the event itself but details beyond those contained in the notes. Until she found those notes, she had zero recollection of having met with Libby on June 23, let alone what he told her. Once she reviewed her notes, she regained her independent memory of the meeting, Scooter's demeanor and his disclosures about Joseph and Valerie Wilson. Enter Libby lawyer Bill Jeffress. He's a little guy, but a dynamo. Focused, no nonsense, polite but firm and pressing. He challenged Judy again and again on her selective memory, eliciting answers like, "I don't remember what I remembered then" and "Counselor, I already said, I didn't remember it, I just didn't remember it." Yet, she's now sure Libby told her about Wilson's wife working for the CIA.
It's not that she was repeating what was in her notes, she said, it's that her notes brought back her independent memory. Jeffress, being a skilled lawyer, began to test her credibility on her note-triggered memories. And that's what brought the trial to a standstill.
She told him that she had no memory of discussing Valerie Plame Wilson before her June 23 meeting with Libby. He introduces a paragraph from an affidavit she signed, in which she mentions other sources for information related to Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed. Jeffress wants to know whether she can remember who those sources were and if so, he's going to ask her to identify them. Sidebar after sidebar results.
This isn't about the First Amendment, it's about Libby's right to impeach Miller's credibility, Wells argues. Fitz says asking her about sources related to the op-ed as opposed only to sources of information about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment is too broad and not relevant to the case. Bennett weighs in.
They go back and forth, and I'm nodding my head in agreement with each of them as they argue opposite sides. The Judge leans toward Fitz's position but is clearly concerned about not wanting to infringe on Libby's 6th Amendment right to confront and impeach Miller. Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She's repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose and taking sips of water.
Finally, the Judge says he's going to sleep on it and he'll have an answer in the morning. It's going to be a long night for Judy Miller. In the end, I think the Judge will split the baby, telling Jeffress he can ask about her other sources for information about Joseph and Valerie Wilson, but not other sources for the broader topic of everything in Wilson's July 6 oped.
What's the best that can happen for Libby? That the jury will conclude that Miller's memory is so unreliable and selective they can't trust any of it.
The worst? That some of jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.
Matthew Cooper will follow Judy Miller. He and his lawyer were at the courthouse, waiting in the wings today, relieved I think they had another day before facing what's sure to be a grueling grilling by Jeffress. Don't miss Jeralyn and Marcy on tonight's installment of politicsTV.com.
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
Jeralyn!
YAHOO! Even with “real life” intruding, timing is everything. Nyah nyah guys!
I look fwd to back-tracking & reading your post Jeralyn. ;-> bye for now guys while I read…
If I’d known there were a zed down here I wouldn’t have stopped to read…
Curses, foiled again!
It sounds like you are somewhat sympathetic to Judy. Slightly different than EW’s reaction. Did you find her to be somewhat imperious?
Actually there is validity to notes triggering memories of an event beyond initial rememberance. Going back to old daytimers or yearbooks for example. Seeing our own notes links us visually to the event, and extra details can pop up then…
Not defending Judy or anything, just an observation…
Aha. Judy see notes, Judy recall suddenly refreshed — pop up like Pop-Tarts!
So Pavlovian.
Veracity, it seems, will not be this trial’s strong suit.
Game on…
Kelven @ 5
I agree with the observation, but I don’t think for a second that that’s what happened.
Back to Addington, what was it with the AQ Khan reference? Was that a defense-introduced document (because it’s not on Fitz’s site!)?
Haven’t you ever had an “Oh, now I remember!” moment?
No Blood for Hubris @ 5
I gotta agree with Jeralyn above. My mind works that way too. So this is a toughie. Often I’ll scribble a word, knowing that will bring back a flood of “real” memory when I see it in my notes. Especially happens with music – a money-saver, ’cause I don’t need any I-pod to hear a symphony while I exercise.
But I digress. Jus’ sayin’, memory’s a strange thing. I’d hate to put my money on either side of that sorta choice.
Jury’s on their own to develop a gut feeling of truthiness, combine with facts presented, & do their best.
Been on juries before. Not much fun…. Always an emotional trial for the jurors also in my experience, no matter the circumstances…
Major kudos to Marcy and everyone at FDL. The work you all are doing is astonishing.
Also, the commentary is terrific. Lots of great analysis here, and some pretty funny jokes, too.
I was just reading through most of the liveblogging from Judy’s very bad day at court. I am so intrigued to figure out if she’s panicking because she’s worried about spilling the beans to protect someone else (Cheney?), or if she’s only worried about her pretty (?) little self. Sounds like there is a good chance she committed perjury before the GJ.
I wanted to comment from an earlier thread:
Rayne @ 248
Rayne, that is exactly what I was thinking yesterday when Ari Fleischer said “Plame or Pla-may”, not able to remember the pronunciation. I figured that meant that Scooter was given the name in writing, and then gave it to Ari orally and spelled it out. Why else would Ari be confused how Scooter pronounced her name? Either he pronounced it both ways (”Plame, or Pla-may, she’s Wilson’s wife”), or Ari is talking out of his behind.
Then, I remembered Judy’s surprise notebooks, with “Flame/Plame” written. It made perfect sense that Scooter had learned how to pronounce Ms. Plame’s name, and wanted to make a point to Judy of how it SOUNDED and was spelled. (I never came up with the French connection, though… could it also be that Scooter showed Judy and Ari some documents?
(About those notebooks that just magically showed up one day… doesn’t it seem inconsistent that Judy says she takes all of her notes in notebooks, writes a Table of Contents after she finishes each notebook, and both can’t remember a damn thing AND didn’t even realize she had a lot of missing notebooks? Wow, her story really smells very rotten, indeed.)
I did not find Judy at all imperious. In fact, she came across as very needy.
I used to make her out as a potential narcissist, but she reminds me in a jillion ways, through all very very eloquent and rapid fire non-verbal tells and communications, like a former patient I had for a year. Diagnosis of that one was dependent personality disorder with histrionic features.
She does not show the imperious grandiosity of the narcissist
I think the attention seeking (narcissism) is secondary to Judy in her quest to be loved loved loved, in order to feel like a real person. Without that, she wilts, as if she feels she does not exist. I saw this live on the stand when she felt all alone up there, trapped, during sidebars. So she’s not so much fundamentally narcissistic as she is deeply craving approval.
It’s amusing to me how confused I am, following the live blog during the day and understanding barely a whit of it all, and then at last the evenings synopsis makes it all clear as a bell ringing my poor, tired & outclassed neurons to attention; like a sharp wack on the side of my head, creating a beautiful crystalline cognition of the day’s events.
I didn’t understand that I understood it, until I understood that I did understand it….
Yes, I agree that Post-its and Dayrunners can prompt our memories. However, I don’t think Judy’s memory is the least bit faulty. She was protecting Scooter and was determined not to reveal anything if she could get away with it. I’m more interested in exactly what Fitz said between GJ #1 and GJ#2 that made Judy “remember” she had notebooks stashed under her desk. Could Fitz have found out about the existence of those notebooks from another source? Was Judy required to keep these notebooks as documents for her employer, the NYT? What would have prevented her from shredding them, or would their absence have looked even worse?
On the subject of note-triggered memory…I’ve been called to testify in a case only once. It was three or so years after, as a cub reporter, I’d written a story about a police union conflict with the local police chief over whether some officers had gone off duty and had others clock out for them later.
When the case went to trial and I received a subpoena (a real surprise as I’d only written one story about the dispute), I was working for a different newspaper and my notes from the previous employer I’d long since chucked into the trash.
On the morning of my testimony, the police chief’s attorney handed me a copy of the story. I can only say the SOME of it came flooding back. The rest of it was hazy.
Would I have written the acknowledgement from one officer that he was in the changing room — and not at his post — when he was supposed to be on the clock? No. But did I remember precisely how the conversation went when he told me so? How much detail he went into? How much time we spent on the phone? No again.
Memory’s a slippery thing. While Ms. Miller unquestionably allowed herself to be played like a violin in the run-up to war, parts of her testimony today ring true to me.
FWIW, of course.
I think Scooter’s goose is totally cooked at this point. Even the judge is saying that he’s going to have to take the stand in his own defense, and that means he’s going to have to answer a number of very uncomfortable questions, starting with: “Has the evidence presented at this trial, INCLUDING YOUR OWN NOTES, refreshed your memory about leaking the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife?”
Kelven @ 5
I am with you on that one. Notes bringing back all sorts of stuff…but not remembering at all…hmmm…maybe a little convenient.
“Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She’s repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose…”
MoDo must be jumping up and down with glee. Just think of the snark she will serve up describing Judy’s day in court.
Adie @ 12
I still don’t buy it. She could have just gone to the GJ and said, “I don’t remember any of this, and for the record, I wouldn’t tell you about it even if I did.” That would have saved her 2 1/2 months in federal prison.
On the other hand, it’s more likely that she never forgot the things she now remembers.
It may be that Cheney is Fitz’s ultimate target, but the defense attempt to draw Bush-Rove into the story makes for fascinating drama. Of course, Fitz drew up the indictment narrowly in order to keep the actual underlying crime out of the charges, so the revelations are not necessarily useful to the defense. That’s why impeaching Ari as a witness doesn’t help Scooter much, because the defense couldn’t prove anything more than that Ari was trying to protect the Resident against the original investigation, which is not germane to the actual charges against Libby.
Pachacutec @ 14
Thanks, Pach. I’ve been waiting for your take on Judy all afternoon/evening. How lucky you were in the courtroom today.
No wonder she’s both crushed and clueless as to why people might be disgusted with her role in the debacle that is Iraq.
In Libby #1 today, Judy Miller stated that one time taking notes, the pen didn’t work. How in the hell can she remember a flipping pen didn’t work 3 years ago, but not remember sources for a story? I know she thinks we’re stupid because she contributed her part to a nation being gullible enough to be dragged into war, but come on.
I hold many of these witnesses and the accused as owning some responsibility for our dead and wounded soldiers and over half a million Iraqis who have perished. I am angry.
“Diagnosis of that one was dependent personality disorder with histrionic features…”
What are histrionic features?
susan @ 20
I truly cannot stand MoDo – I’d say despise is more the word.
Has she ever done anything constructive with her column? No. She’ll go after anyone for any reason – as long as she can rip them to shreds with her snark.
Frank Probst @
18
Oh, I’m pretty sure that Scooter will admit to talking about Plame now — it’s just that he’ll say, like Judy Judy Judy, that his memory has been refreshed.
We’ll see. I’m going to put my marker down as saying that he won’t testify, regardless of all that indications that he and his lawyers have made. It’s just too perilous. Like another commenter said about Cheney — Libby will only testify if he thinks it’s close. If he’s a dead duck, what’s the point? If he’s clearly ahead, they why potentially step into quicksand?
Thad
dab from CT @ 23
And she can’t not try to climb back into good graces.
The first time she left the courtroom, during a break, after reviewing all her history with Fitz on direct, including reference to all meetings with Scooter, I almost felt bad for her. Walking down the center aisle of the court past all the press was a serious walk of shame for her. She had a quickness to her step and was looking down, not just to avoid eye contact out of professional awareness of her role as a witness, but according to my eye, because she is also deeply ashamed.
In my view, she’s a very weak woman, for all her past intransigence, which I see as tied to her desperate (it feels like literal survival) need to remain attached to the people whose approval she had so cultivated for so long.
Her actions don’t in my view stem from any any malicious neocon ideology, nor do they represent any conscious “fuck you” to the world. Quite the contrary. She didn’t want to lose the approval of her set of crucial validators.
Funny you should mention Judy’s pretty. My boyfriend says that whenever he sees her picture. It drives me crazy.
Now Fitz – he’s just dreamy……….
susan @ 26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..r#Symptoms
“I truly cannot stand MoDo – I’d say despise is more the word…”
You’re not alone. I have read the the Bush family cannot stand her. Somehow this endears her to me.
Pach 13
Hoo boy-oh-boy! I was only reading Marcy, so whadda I know?! No chance it was an “act” by Miller today?
- Or strain caused by a very real sense of being trapped by her own recklessness into losing all the fancy schmancy lifestyle & kudos she’s been used to enjoying lo these many yrs?
I’ve seen an absolute snake of a fella act same as described in the play-by-play today, and… well, he mighta been a totally mixed-up fella, he still acted like a dangerous, deliberately hurtful scum on a regular basis till brought to heel.
Does being an emotional mess absolve one from consequences of one’s actions that are admittedly hurtful to others and are, in fact, illegal?
your court….
As Pach above said at #14, he sees Judy as being very needy. This makes perfect sense to me (having seen my share of therapy from the patient side). The whole Bush dynamic seems to be to pull needy people to them so they can shower them with attention and then get them to do things they would never consider independently.
Gonzales? Meirs? Condi? Judy? Even Scooter perhaps. And some journalists wanting to be with the ‘in’ crowd gets them to suspend objectivity. If they ever become truly objective, they will lose affection. And with the Bush crowd — even worse, derision.
Oh, yes, Judy was played like a fiddle. But we knew that. She was not a player but an instument.
Kelven @
5
It’s sort of an absurd argument by Jeffers. Don’t lawyers on both sides use exhibits and show testimony to witnesses to “refresh their memories”.
Any psychologist that gets up and testifies that there is such a thing as non-contextual recollection isn’t worth their degree. Memory is based on integrated multiple pathways that can be triggered by many external stimuli. Photographs, timelines, notes, letters, visits to ones old grade school or athletic field, bumping into old friends, smells, etc. all can elucidate poorly remembered memories otherwise.
You watch how many times the Defense Team uses “memory aids” for their witnesses and that will be accepted by them as accurate testimony. While it’s true that subsequent events can alter recollections, the use of external resources such as contemporary notes, actually IMPROVES the recollection of events devoid of intervening occurances.
The fact that there are scads of notes demonstrating that Libby did, in fact, know Plame’s identity (or Flame’s identity) indicates that he did, in fact, know her identity. I think that the sheer number of occurances and depth of his involvement (after all he was repeatedly very upset about the Wilson leak…and emotional states like this make the events stand out in memory) would indicate that he WOULD remember his being put into the “meat grinder”.
This blog has been amazing. Every day it seems more like a watershed event in the development of information collection, dissemination and analysis. The points raised in the comments have been excellent also.
Kudos to Marcy and Jeralyn for the video linked at the end of the post. Great summation. Keep it up!
Frank Probst 20
I’m not saying I buy her act. I’m just saying that such memory techniques are not beyond the realm of plausibility, given my own experience with others, and myself.
Her discovering the shopping bag of notes under the desk. OHGAWD! That’s a whole other pile of % &#! Geesh! Sooooo glad I’m not on that jury, trying to keep a straight face(!)
GrandmaJ @ 34
And, she knows it. I sounds like it is very obvious to any onsite observers that she is shamefully aware of what a tool she was, and that no one is going to help her now.
If I have this right, it appears that Addington, Fleischer and Miller are all saying that they learned of Plame from Libby prior to the date Libby claims he heard it from Russert, and Russert himself is likely to testify that he did not give it to Libby, but instead got it from Libby (or someone else.)
So, unless the jury believes that Libby’s memory failed him badly, with several people, he will be convicted of perjury. Dunno about obstruction.
At which point, will it be time for Let’s Make a Deal? Will Scooter cough up Big Time to avoid the slammer? Bush could pardon him, but that carries a lot of political risk. Smarter people than me are beginning to suggest that Cheney’s on borrowed time in the VP’s office…
Adie @ 37
I was waiting for a joke about the Evidence Fairy.
Adie @
33
If my hypothesized character profile is right:
In some sense, she’s always acting, because she does not have a very solid core of a self from which to operate. But when she’s not on favorable ground of her own choosing, and she is not getting admiration or approval, the stress for her gets very intense, and I don’t believe what I saw of all that today was false. You had to see it.
Her face flashed so much rapid transition of emotions, her body so many postures, going from almost a cry in her voice a few times, to phony bravura to slouching churlishness during breaks to furtive attempt to get the jury to look at her/like her during breaks (but not so they would think she, you know, needs them), etc. Emotionally, she was like the new 8 year old in school sometimes in trouble with the teacher and sometimes wanting to sit with the cool girls at lunch.
She functions at a higher level than my old patient, so she might be more squarely in the histrionic personality disorder territory, not as deeply dependent as my patient was, but a lot of their whole vocal styles, facial features, responses to stress, body language and little tics. . . all the same.
Judy might have visual memory – seeing something triggers the whole set of memories of the occasion. I can look at a map, at work, and remember stuff from ten or twenty years ago (not necessarily in great detail, that far back), but without the map, it isn’t always accessible to me.
I recognize myself in that “note triggered” thing as well.
I often do that, take notes at a meeting or during a phone call and completely forget the whole thing until I read the notes again.
Y’know, it’s possible that Judy, Judy, Judy can’t remember events without prompting from her notes. M’self, I find that, appositely, taking notes inclines me to remember an event without further prompting, but, that’s just me.
But, how did this woman ever get through school when she had to take an exam without her notes?
Be that as it may, though, if I had 85 days in jail to think about why I was sitting there, and what the events were that put me in that position, my brain would start working on that, with all that time to do so. I would also think that my company’s lawyers weren’t earning their retainer if they couldn’t tell the difference between protecting a source and being a potential witness to the commission of a crime, and decide my fate accordingly.
There’s much that Miss I’mtherealvictiminallofthisreallyIam knows and is not telling….
Yesterday, while trying to avoid the REFRESH button, I was sorting trough my desk and came across an address book from 30 years ago. My hubby and I had a hoot last night going through it and remembering people and events that were triggered by the visual stimulus of the names.
Here it is, from Libby #1:
“F Did you take notes, anything particular about process
Obejction sustained
F Pen or pencil
M Used pen. The pen didn’t work”
If she can remember this minute detail from that long ago, the rest of her testimony is bullshit. Memory triggers, my ass.
Don’t know why I’m in such a foul mood over this, but this makes me crazy.
Pachacutec @ 14
And just how easily can a person like this be manipulated by someone else (under the right circumstances)?
Any insights about the body language of the lawyers, judge or jury? I am not asking for specifics – especially of the jury – but just a general sense of the attitude in the courtroom?
From EW liveblogging, it seemed like the prosecution was objecting a lot and the judge was sustaining … true?
I also noticed Fitzgerald was joking at a couple of points, did you notice any change in the demeanor of the prosecution or defense team?
Wells interrupted Walton a couple of times. How did Walton react to that?
Just trying to get your sense of the atmospherics – if possible. Following the trial this way has been so cool. Thanks.
susan @ 32
Well, yes. There’s that. And I’d like to like her for that reason.
But she’s an equal opportunity offender.
I enjoy snark – but to my mind she’s just snarky because it makes her “cool” – not because she stands for anything or believes in anything.
Just my humble opinion. I simply don’t like her.
clueless @ 47
Easily.
As I mentioned above, I wonder how many other of these ‘needy’ women and men have been choosen to surround Bush. Condi and Harriet Meirs come to mind. Fleischer maybe. Gonzales?
mauricehall @ 16
Sounds like she indexed them pretty well. Maybe Fitz got/saw her index log and figured it out (or guessed correctly).
Suddenly ‘losing’ things does look fishy, but the prosecutor is going to have to prove they existed & what they said before he can make a federal case out of it. I think.
I’d start here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..our-daddy/
No noticeable changes in demeanor, but Fitz’s objections were mostly upheld. There were more of them today than perhaps has been his baseline standard.
Walton does not have a real bug up his ass. He lets Wells express himself as long as Wells knows who’s in charge, and Wells’ has not taken it to that level of disrespect.
Please don’t say Judy’s pretty. It makes me nauseous.
The more I hear about Judy Judy Judy, the more someone comes to mind…”Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.”
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mp…..amp;seq=29
dab from CT @ 49
I’m with you. I still remember what a hatchet job she did on Gore in 2000. She likes to pile on when someone is under sttack.
Got around to reading Scooter’s “Dolphin” memo to Ari. Standard goodye stuff except for this key graf: “We’ll still count on you to come to our rescue when the going gets tough.”
Very possile to read that in an Aspen sort of way.
Yes, me too. Especially when you have a lot going on at once… I’ve completely forgotten about projects I’ve done in only the last couple of years, only to run across the documents in my archives, say to myself “what was that project?”, read a few paragraphs, and had it all start trickling back to me.
The pen rings true too, since its the modus for the memories, it’s linked to the memory in several different ways.
Norma Desmond
bonkers @ 54
So is the gist that she said she met Libby writing a book, then she talked on the phone every so often, but she hadn’t seen him in a long time, then he calls her up and wants to meet her in person on June 23, so she goes, but the event is so unmemorable she forgets. then he wants to meet again, and she remember that occasion? Huh. I feel like a memory master at this point compared to the so-called elites that both drive opinion and make decisions in this country.
Pach~
Come to think of it…
Don’t the hardcore Evangelicals fit in this “needy” mold? “Please tell me what to believe?”
Is this what ties the Bushies and the Christianists together?
I don’t doubt that the notes may trigger some memory. But what I found unbelievable is how Judy went to jail knowing what this was about, agreed to testify, did not look for all notes, and then suddenly found her notes just as Fitzgerald caught her lying.
She did all she could (and is still doing all she can) to protect Libby, short of getting caught for perjury.
The irony is that Fitz is using her testimony (because it helps him), and the Libby’s team is tearing her down.
Joel @ 56
“We’ll…”
Very mafioso-sounding isn’t it?
lectric lady @ 61
I think John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience (which was discussed on the Lake) would suggest that they’re authoritarian followers.
Pach:
Thank you for your insights. They ring true-I just so appreciate both your insight and your williness to share it.
And Marcy -you are amazing.
Like so many others-I am addicted to this live blogging!
Jon Stewart live-blogging at the trial – watch out Marcy.
The Daily Show is on the case now. Especially good on Novakula.
fourlegsgood @ 43
But not, I dare say, if you had 85 days in jail to think about precisely the thing you “forgot”
I know that I sound like a Dowd defender; however, she often irritates me too. Nonetheless, if you remember this column, she was dead on, IMHO. I would imagine that Miller is still smarting from it.
Woman of Mass Destruction
By MAUREEN DOWD
I’ve always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate’s Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy – her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur – have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.
Once when I was covering the first Bush White House, I was in The Times’s seat in the crowded White House press room, listening to an administration official’s background briefing. Judy had moved on from her tempestuous tenure as a Washington editor to be a reporter based in New York, but she showed up at this national security affairs briefing.
At first she leaned against the wall near where I was sitting, but I noticed that she seemed agitated about something. Midway through the briefing, she came over and whispered to me, “I think I should be sitting in the Times seat.”
It was such an outrageous move, I could only laugh. I got up and stood in the back of the room, while Judy claimed what she felt was her rightful power perch.
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet “Miss Run Amok.”
Judy’s stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House’s case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that Senator Bob Graham, now retired, dubbed “incestuous amplification.” Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
When Bill Keller became executive editor in the summer of 2003, he barred Judy from covering Iraq and W.M.D. issues. But he acknowledged in The Times’s Sunday story about Judy’s role in the Plame leak case that she had kept “drifting” back. Why did nobody stop this drift?
Judy admitted in the story that she “got it totally wrong” about W.M.D. “If your sources are wrong,” she said, “you are wrong.” But investigative reporting is not stenography.
The Times’s story and Judy’s own first-person account had the unfortunate effect of raising more questions. As Bill said yesterday in an e-mail note to the staff, Judy seemed to have “misled” the Washington bureau chief, Phil Taubman, about the extent of her involvement in the Valerie Plame leak case.
She casually revealed that she had agreed to identify her source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, as a “former Hill staffer” because he had once worked on Capitol Hill. The implication was that this bit of deception was a common practice for reporters. It isn’t.
She said that she had wanted to write about the Wilson-Plame matter, but that her editor would not allow it. But Managing Editor Jill Abramson, then the Washington bureau chief, denied this, saying that Judy had never broached the subject with her.
It also doesn’t seem credible that Judy wouldn’t remember a Marvel comics name like “Valerie Flame.” Nor does it seem credible that she doesn’t know how the name got into her notebook and that, as she wrote, she “did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby.”
An Associated Press story yesterday reported that Judy had coughed up the details of an earlier meeting with Mr. Libby only after prosecutors confronted her with a visitor log showing that she had met with him on June 23, 2003. This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
Judy refused to answer a lot of questions put to her by Times reporters, or show the notes that she shared with the grand jury. I admire Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller for aggressively backing reporters in the cross hairs of a prosecutor. But before turning Judy’s case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover “the same thing I’ve always covered – threats to our country.” If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.
Pach, thanks for the well-expressed, keen observations and analysis.
Three questions. From Marcy’s amazingly detailed descriptions of Miller’s postures, facial expressions and activities during “downtimes” I got the sense the woman was having a panic attack. Certainly this was a stressful situation, but would you suspect an anxiety disorder component that intruded into her long-term behaviors and that made her testimony today sometimes unbelievably incoherent? Not?
Second, did anything about Miller suggest to you that she could have legitimate psychological problems with memory? Much of her testimony revolved around having a certain “kind” of memory, which implies a disconnect from other kinds of memories. Is the “forgotten” shopping bag of notes perhaps too bizarre to be fiction? Most of us could make up a better story, couldn’t we?
Would you hazard a guess as to the genesis of the personality disorder that you suspect? Anything that might compartmentalize memory?
I have to say I LOVE the youtube videos. We can see the beginnings of progressive TV right here. No need to corporate news when we’ve got our own great sources of information.
Fantastic stuff.
Frank Probst @ 20
Just to muddy the waters s’more, I’m gonna bet she’s a different personna now, in lotsa ways, than she was before this all started.
e.g., co-workers apparently regarded her as imperious?…, Pach now struck by her obvious vulnerability.
The self-proclaimed mighty fall farther & harder, perhaps? in their own estimation, if & when they’re brought down/cause their own undoing.
Pach. Do such people usually blame others, or themselves?
Sorry to sound so harsh. Not sure I buy her act. But then I wasn’t there to see her. Still, suggest you revisit video of her perky-looking step as she walked up to the courthouse today…
Is she putting all her personal eggs in the pity-poor-me basket? as a last ditch attempt to salvage whatever dwindling reputation she may still claim?
All the above just speculation. Just want people to think, deeply, about all this. A lot of people have been killed or grievously, brutally injured as a result of these folks’ shoddy behavior. I do want justice, but I don’t hold special sympathy for some of the players in this courtroom right now
… except for Fitz & the FDL crew!!! ;->
*hits head on keyboard*
Own and read John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience.
Just remade the connection that Judy is in the same camp.
Pach, Thanks for your take on Judy M and the link to Histrionic Personality Disorder. The word histrionic comes from latin for actor, not the greek hsyterical, but the two adjectives come together in the disorder.
I have developed a mental image from the description provided by Ari Fleisher of the gang on the plane. They were like the Rat Pack or a fraternity. Some of the lower level individuals in the adminstration may not hold neoconservatism and American hegemony as a core belief. They are simply going with the flow for the money, connections and prestige.
It’s interesting how details of the emotional states of Libby lend a stonger valence to the testimony. It translates as more genuine.
Jeralyn does a nice job of bringing that out.
.
TRex is in the house, and apparently so is John Dickerson.
Oh but it was so much fun when she was sleeping with her sources! Shame on you Judy, women like you make us look bad…
Can you see any level of personal exchange between Lewis and Judith?
Hmmmm….
Judy may not have been imperious TODAY –
But does anyone remember a certain story about Judy being called “Queen of All Fucking Iraq”? Imperious sounds like just the right word.
And that NY Mag article about Judy –yes it was catty, but if there was truth to it, it seems Judy bossed everybody in the newsroom around. Telling everyone she should have the prime real estate in the joint because she was their most valuable employee, etc.
Remember?
Maybe she knows well enough to not do any bossing around on the stand, eh?
Jeralyn, thanks for a great post. Even with all the live blogging today, I was jonesing for another informed opinion, such as your’s.
Pach in the comments is just frosting. Thanks a lot Pach, your analysis really makes sense. I was just floored by her admission that she rarely read the NYT’s. A very small person, trying to scratch her way to approval and blissfully unaware of the enormous amount of damage she and her editors at the NYT’s did in the process. Her editors had to have some sense know that Judy was just a subtler version of Jason Leopold. She was a stenographer and her value to the NYT’s came with her ability to gain access to anonymous sources, not her ability to ask questions or to inoculate her stories against spin.
Memory is strange. In December, I was flown back to the US to testify about what happened for about five minutes in 1979. 1979? Was there ever such a time?
I refreshed my memory by looking at the police report, only to have the defense attny suggest that the report was hearsay, since I hadn’t written the report myself and didn’t know the person (policeman) who had written the report.
OK, why are a few people finding it hard to believe that she actually remembers minute details so hard to believe? As though she’s just making this stuff up now. As for a pen not working, that’s easy: when a pen doesn’t work it fades out and you make lots of circles and scratches on the paper trying to make it work again. It’s right there in your notes. Duh.
It’s not a question of how reliable her memory is. It’s a question of how honest she is. She never forgot a damn thing. She purposefully withheld information from the grand jury until she was almost caught. And then she miraculously found the notes and made up an implausible story about her memory. She was protecting Libby who she knew was guilty. Hopefully that will be clearer to the jurors that it is to some of the posters here.
Pach, ditto on analysis.
Doug Keenan @ 77
Judy really lit up when she told two stories.
The first was when she first met Scooter and he praised the book she coauthored, and asked for an inscribed copy. She really lit up at that, thinking back fondly. Sccoter smiled, but down to the table where he sat.
The same thing happened when Judy related, in detail, her meeting of Scooter in Aspen, when she at first did not recognize him, at the rodeo, as previously described in her writing. Sje glowed with that memory, too, nd Libby smiled a bit as if in memory or reflection, or perhaps, at what a pliant tool she was. . . who can tell?
Pach — As long as we’re tossing out diagnoses, can I throw in my best guess, which is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)? You might not have seen it on full display in this courtroom, but I have to admit, Judith Miller reminds me a lot of someone I knew a few years ago who had BPD with narcissistic/histrionic tendencies.
The woman I knew was highly manipulative, and cunning, but with rescue fantasies (perhaps because she was never rescued herself, her mother having the same psychological make-up). Once caught in one of her schemes, you could see the fright, the shame in her eyes, even as she went on to repeat her constant, needy manipulations. You are apparently more likely to find women with BPD working as psychiatric nurses than in the journalistic profession, because these people are very difficult to work with (as a rule). But under the right circumstances, a borderline personality could make an efficient and prolific reporter — someone like Judy Miller.
There’s a pop paperback on BPD with a memorable title, “I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me.” I always thought that phrase summed up well the rollercoaster emotional life of these individuals. (I also feel sorry for Judith Miller on some level, Pach, and was touched by your remarks about her. But who has any doubt that she blew lies in her first gj appearance, then recovered the June 23 notebook to relieve herself of contempt? I think the jury pretty much got that point. But even so, her notebooks tell a story.)
Pachacutec @ 41
good call pach and she is so tormented with fear ‘you’re either with us or against us’
I think you’re missing somethng that I’m saying.
I’m not saying she can never come across as imperious. In fact, her drive for love will cause her to be quite nasty to people who she thinks threaten her status or position with the really important people whose approval she seeks. The key here is that this does not stem so much from a grandiose sense of her own innate superiority, but from the need need need to be loved.
The distinction is subtle, and certainly she can come across with narcissistic features at times, but my hypothesis – and this is just a hypothesis – is that she’s not the classic, grandiose narcissist.
As for blame, weak egos always blame others first, though Judy has more capacity to harbor doubt and shame related to self-recrimination. The classic narcissist would probably not betray or tolerate that much vulnerability.
Of course she’s trying to play the pity card to get back status. That’s what her reporter’s shield speaking tour is all about, even though the proposed law would not have covered her in a criminal investigation.
Another thing people misunderstand: when I speak in a way to shed understanding on a person or their motivations, this is entirely separate from the question of their moral or legal culpability. To understand is not to excuse.
Pachacutec @ 49
Does that absolve them from culpability for willful wrongdoing?
(Sorry. That’s where I get snagged in the net. If she’s capable enuf to carry off the supreme goddess role during regular routine, how much MUST we excuse in the realm of ordinarily inexcusable, hurtful behavior just because she now acts “needy”?)
Answer this at your peril. Next up would be jr or the faceshooter: take yer pick(!)
No I don’t expect to carry this on all night. But could we keep the discussion in mind in the future? I value opinions of all you guys. Please stay tuned for continuation ‘nother day. I gotta go konk out soon or tip over. Long dayzzzzzz.
p.s., thanx all for the mental & moral philosophy gymnastics xrcises ;->
I think she’s too high functioning for a borderline, for the most part, and not just because she’s held a job for so long. Borderlines have periods where they really dip into psychosis, and that’s not Judy.
Answered above.
John Casper @ 79
Judy harmed herself and her country but Jason Leopold only harmed himself. I think any comparison of one to the other is quite a stretch. The only thing they have in common is they let themselves be snookered and set up by Cheney’s Evil Empire minions and/or storm troopers.
Thanks for all this all day, Team FDL.
I would have to go back in the “transcript” from the day, but there was something Judy did/said that totally resonates with me about the profile you have mentioned, Pach.
I thought it seemed like she was just SOOO grateful to have been in the glow of the inner circle, and I still think she is protecting someone/some aspect of her “access.” It seems to me that she was most reluctant to give up that “edge” she had, the ear of the admin., to further her in her work.
She was special. She needs special. But she’s not so special right now.
Oh heck. Was typing same time as you, Pach. so some disconnect to be sure.
Thanks for the diagnostic info. Very interesting and helpful.
Bottom line wild-guess: do we need to check 3/4 of D.C. part-timers into Betty Ford clinic in order to get out of Iraq?
I know I know. cheap shot. Night. Look fwd to talking again soon. Peace, good friend. ;->
Judy claiming that she didn’t recall ANY MEETINGS ABOUT WILSON/NIGER to the Grand Jury is simply absurd. She fought toorth-and-nail for almost two years so that she wouldn’t have to testify about her sources on the specific topics that the subpoena covered.
If she had NO MEETINGS WITH LIBBY to her best recollection ~ which is what she INITIALLY testified to…then she submitted herself to jail FOR NO REASON???? She could have said simply…I don’t recollect any meetings, Mr. Libby was not a source to the best of my knowledge.
There could be no “reporter-source” agreement if there was no meeting!
Yet her whole argument about resisting testimony was that Libby hadn’t freely given her the right to testify about their discussions on this narrow issue. Huh! If she didn’t recollect any meetings with him then any statement he made was irrelevant.
She clearly recalled meetings and she clearly recalled the topics discussed included the subjects of the subpoena.
In addition she was steadfastly protected her notes that supposedly had no “relevant meeting”…but she goes on the stand and asserts that she hadn’t actually looked into them over the previous two years to see if there were meetings?
She doesn’t even seem to realize the illogic of what she did in her first testimony before the GJ…I think shev realizes that she is a whisker away from Perjury Charges herself. I would think that her lawyer quickly get Fitz on the phone and try to work out some deal were she finally admits to lying in that first GJ testimony to protect Libby (her source) in exchange for some statement by the Prosecutor that she finally cooperated…otherwise she is gonna lie before TWO juries.
No wonder her frenum is moist and her eyes watering!
I was out of town for about a week and couldn’t follow this blog. So, what I’m seeing is a fingernail sketch based on reading recent blog posts.
My impression is that Judy was very friendly with Scooter, even like Aspen one might say. But that was back when the Bush v. Cheney fight was just simmering. Now it’s come to a boil and Bush has Judy by the b***s and has forced her to turn on Libby and that’s why she’s so nervous, anxious and needy. I’m suggesting she’s in a horrible position of having to turn on a friend.
It’s Bush v. Cheney 100% and Libby says Rove is being protected. Well, maybe that’s the truth. It might surprise some people, but the truth does occasionally out in the courtroom.
What irks me is that the scum might be set free and the other scum might not be tried, so they’ll both be free — and that’s just not right.
At least a lot of juicy stuff will come out during this trial and that might open avenues for further action. One can hope.
“Does that absolve them from culpability for willful wrongdoing?”
No.
“If she’s capable enuf to carry off the supreme goddess role during regular routine, how much MUST we excuse in the realm of ordinarily inexcusable, hurtful behavior just because she now acts “needy”?
None. The trial is not about anyone’s mental health.
Adie @ 37
This is the single most bizarre thing about Judy’s position. She “forgot” she had earlier notes? Even if she didn’t given them to Fitz — because he initially asked for notes for July — she didn’t just give her lawyer all her notes, and let her lawyer review them?
I can tell you I’ve sometimes been able to withhold documents from production because they fell outside the date ranges subpoenaed. But I knew what was in them. And if I was Judy’s attorney, and I was preparing her for GJ testimony, I would have prepared her on the earlier notes, and produced them to Fitz voluntarily. Win Brownie points after making Fitz wait three months for her testimony.
But that’s just me.
litigatormom:
Her claim, plausible or not, is that before she testified to the grand jury, she had been directed to review all her notes for the period of July, per her subpoena.
She claims to have reviewed those notes prior to her testimony to refresh her memory, but had not reviewed, and therefore had not remembered, anything from June.
But her questioning in her first appearance led her to be instructed to. . . look again. That’s when she says she found the June notebook in her office as you described. Odd indeed. And that, she says, refreshed her memory. She says.
Here is a nice TITLED LIST of links to the Governments and Libby Defense Submitted Exhibits.
LIBBY TRIAL EXHIBITS/DOCUMENTS
I noticed that nothing related to the testimony and exhibits that were used in the Judy Miller examination is on there yet.
Frustrating…because I so, so, so wanted to see if she put a little accent above the at the end of Valerie Flam.
Annx at 48 asked about body language of the jury during all of this. They were riveted during Judy’s testimony, but they don’t get to hear the sidebars and they were sent out of the room during the legal arguments. When the first objection to Jeffers asking about other sources came up, the sidebar was quickly convened and the jurors all looked like they had figured it out.
Most of the jurors take notes. One juror (I won’t say which one) perks up and smiles everytime a tv reporter’s name is mentioned (David Gregory brings a big smile.) When Judy came on, s/he turned 90 degrees in the chair and leaned way forward to catch every word. This is not a jury that grimaces or gives a lot of knowing glances. They sit in the same seats every day. As days go by, reporters lucky to be there for the whole trial will begin to see alliances form. The jurors sit right next to the proseuction table and across the room from the defense table, which allows them to bond more with the prosecutor’s side.
In my own trials, this is about the time I start figuring out which one is going to be foreman.
Really rich clients can have their laywers use shadow juries, 12 avg people who for $50 will sit through a mock trial and say what they like and don’t like about the witnesses, the lawyers, etc. Supposedly, that knowledge makes the lawyer try a better case by knowing the obstacles he has to overcome.
There’s been so much tech progress in the law field in the past 25 years that the older lawyers don’t want to learn it and ask their associates do it –the prep work– and then get them up to speed for the trial. Some lawyers do get a great support team, others don’t. Just another question you might ask the next doctor or lawyer that you have to interview: how high tech are you, will you contact me by email; can I call in my scripts, yada,yada;.
Pachacutec @ 98
So where did she keep her notes from July. In a different shopping bag?
When we supervise a document production, we don’t leave it up to the witnesses to make the cuts about what is and isn’t responsive. It’s really hard for me to believe that Bennett, at least, had not looked at the earlier notes, even if he felt that they were not responsive to the subpoena. The notion that they were still sitting in a shopping bag under her desk is incredible to me.
The other interesting thing is that Fitz knew to ask her to look again. How did he know that there as a June meeting BEFORE he got Judy’s notes? Must have been something he got from the White House….
To quote Woody Allen, Judy wears ‘Proustian Rush’, a perfume with top-notes that bring back all those memories.
Jeralyn Merritt @ 100
jeralyn, if you are still here thank you, so much.
What are the chances that the prosecution has info gained from one of the illegal wiretapping/datamining programs?
Thanks so much Jeralyn and Pach!
If I understand correctly Judy was saying that her first GJ instructions (immediately after she got out of jail–did she go there directly from jail?) were to talk about any contact she might have had with Libby in July. So she did. Then she went in to her office for the first time in months, found a big bag of notebooks under her desk and discovered the notebook with the notes from the 6/23 meeting and said “oh shit”, and had her lawyer call up Fitz to say “oops”. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong, please?)
I suppose that might be possible, if you work from the premise that she is very scattered and mentally unorganized.
BTW Pach, I have a friend who exhibits a lot of the symptoms listed in the wikipedia article, and yes, imperious/overbearing/tactless is certainly one of her mindsets … until someone criticizes her, at which point she falls apart, loudly and dramatically.
In fact, from what you & Marcy described and from what I’ve seen (in other people) myself, I’d venture a guess that Judyjudyjudy actually had herself under pretty tight control today.
Just saw today’s EW and Jeralyn news video up top.
Great stuff. Keep it going!
.
presque vu @ 104
That would be poetic justice if their own law breaking brings down this administration a la Nixon and Watergate. Show those assholes not to skip their history lessons!
I wonder to what extent Fitzgerald has poked around within the federal government agencies to see if he might uncover evidence that Libby/Rove/Addington or anyone else requested background information on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? I would think that the FBI and other agencies may have been enlisted to help do the dirty work, and there just might be some evidence of that somewhere…..
cinnamonape @
99
Sorry about the links that didn’t come through
AP’s Roster of Exhibits in the Libby Trial
US DOJ Exhibit List for the Libby Trial
BTW My accents show up when I put the prior comment into “quote this comment”: prep mode. But it shows them as ? when I actually SUBMIT.
presque vu @ 104
Slim. I seem to remember Fitz saying in one of his filings that there were no wiretaps.
global yokel @ 108
I suspect that the CIA pays attention to who asks about their covert agents. I also suspect that they were–and continue to be–very pissed off about this whole affair, and about having to shoulder the blame for the “missing” WMDs. I seem to recall the previous Bush flunkie that got sent over there to “clean house” didn’t see this incident as a big deal. He left abruptly a few months later under the cloud of a scandal. I would not want to be on the CIA’s shit list, and calling one of their agents “fair game” is just asking for a fight. I have no doubt that they’re quietly involved in this.
Pachacutec (14)– great stuff, very helpful. Would expect it to be predictive. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know if Fitz’s previous experiences with Miller make a difference in how he approaches the process of getting her testimony? If she gets called for another trial with Fitz as prosecutor (may the cosmos hear my plea), I hope you can sit in and compare (assuming that hard*ss boss of yours lets you do so – heh). litigatormom looked at the explainer article Miller wrote for NYT before she left; having read your assessment, the article must have been written not only to coaching, but by someone who no longer had any core with which to draft a first-person experience, could only do it as third-person. Weird. (thanks again, litigatormom.)
Jeralyn (100) — wow. I think that comment deserves a post of its own towards the end of the trial; in fact, why not a joint post, with a defense attorney and prosecutor giving their perspectives on juries, you and Christy together? I think that would be fabulous!! Great stuff here, thanks much for a fine summary.
global yokel @ 108
Of course Fitz searched high and low…and I’m sure that the CIA provided reams of material about people in the WH contacting them; note that the gov’t exhibits include CIA telephone logs. Of course, he can’t use (and doesn’t want to in this trial) any information about Plame’s covert/classified status. But we can assume that her specific tasks in the CPD was classified since there have been innumerable requests by the media for it to be declassified or identified (if not classified) and the Agency has always refused to detail what she did. Since the jobs of analysts, and even retired covert agents are often declassified at their request, we can only infer that her position remains one that is sensitive. Since Saddam fell years ago it seems that her involvement was with still ongoing operational units, not Iraq. In addition, her husband was first sent to Niger after she learned of a potential smuggling effort by IRAN or PAKISTAN (A.Q.Khan). That suggests (and I hope I don’t get killed for saying this) her involvement in those areas…since she would have to be “need-to-know” to get details of these.
The State Department also seems to have been quite cooperative, although they may have received subpoenas.
I’m sure that many members of the government voluntarily provided information or heads up to the FBI and or Fitz…in fact, it would be their responsibility as a government employee to provide any relevant evidence in a felony investigation of this nature. Willful withholding of such evidence might result in a charge of “misprision of felony” (concealing knowledge of actors or acts of a felony by others).
You guys are funny – you ar eboth sort of smirking as you are reporting this deal.
Nice job overall and please keep on keeping on.
Try not to smirk so much – you aren’t supposed to be having this much fun…
Frank Probst @ 111
Sort of makes one wonder if the appointment of Porter Goss and his cronies were an effort to “encourage” the resignation of just such “cooperative” CIA officers who were willing to provide Fitz with evidence. Seems that, as time has gone on, sections of initially redacted documents have turned out to have crucial evidence of very little need to be classified. The selection of what to redact often seemed designed to give erroneous impressions about events
and to obscure embarassing acts by the Administration.
For example, sections of the INR report requested by Grossman were initially redacted…but when they were later “revealed” one can see that the two actual INR “witnesses” to the meeting where Wilson was briefed were never interviewed or contacted ~ only “individuals at the margins” were actually talked to, and this seems really strange when there were a half dozen or more persons at the meetibng that could have said precisely what was presented and whether Plame ran the meeting, if the plan was her idea, and what details of the contents of the (now known to be forged) documents were presented in discussion.
But they never seemed to have asked???? AND pared out the fact that they hadn’t.
In addition THIS DOCUMENT was the one that was distributed to AF1, and ended up to be the source of info for the Senate Select Intellignece Committee Report. Again, the staff of that Roberts-led committee never seemed to go to those attending the meeting…using this tainted third-hand document for their conclusions.
Tug @ 114: hate to disagree with another good dog, but I like ‘em just they way they are.
“Don’t change a hair for me, not if you care for me…”
What really struck me about what happened today is how Fitz truly is in the driver’s seat now. After all the wrangling Judy and him went through, she now has a major perjury hammer hanging over her head if she missteps. She knows it and she’s sweating bullets on the stand.
Fitz has got his ducks in a row big time, and the evidence presented at this trial could very well possibly restart the original “who leaked?” investigation. I don’t think we’ve seen the most interesting parts of this whole thing yet.
litigatormom @101,
How did Fitz know to ask about the June 23rd meeting?
Murray Waas via TalkLeft.
This is probably one of many reasons Bush and the Secret Service signed a “memorandum of understanding” that visitor logs fall under executive priviledge and they aren’t given out anymore. Not without a fight anyway.
Just sent Judy a mash note about our quivering interconnected roots. Got this back –
Judith Miller is no longer at The New York Times.
Her new e-mail is JudithMillerOrg@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Help! I’m trying to catch up. Jeralyn Merritt wrote @ 5:30 pm on Jan. 29 in a blog titled “Never in His Wildest Dreams”:
Wait! If that’s true, how are Marcy and the FDL team doing their live blogging? ? ? ?
Bob in HI
Three important links wrt Miller:
7-28-2005, From Huff Post:
For starters, of course, we have her still unfolding involvement in the Plame leak. Earlier this month, Howard Kurtz reported that Miller and Libby spoke a few days before Novak outed Plame — and I’m hearing that the Libby/Miller conversation occurred over breakfast in Washington. Did Valerie Plame come up — and, if so, who brought her up? There is no question that Miller was angry at Joe Wilson… and continues to be. A social acquaintance of Miller told me that, once, when she spoke of Wilson, it was with “a passionate and heated disgust that went beyond the political and included an irrelevant bit of deeply personal innuendo about him, her mouth twisting in hatred.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/….._4845.html
snip
In the lead-in period to the Iraqi war, she published article after article about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chemical/Biological weapons, and Al Qaeda connections. Her sources were un-named, officials and Iraqi expatriots. As Bush increased his stampede to war, her articles fueled the fire – so much so that many now wonder if the Administration was feeding her directly. A few examples: December 20, 2001 – An Iraqi Defector Tells of Work on at Least 20 Hidden Weapons Sites , September 8, 2002 – U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts , September 2, 2002 – White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons, January 24, 2003 – Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq. A complete listing of Judith Miller’s articles from September 11, 2001 to May 26, 2003 produces 165 articles, many in this vein.
http://3oldmen.com/2005/08/01/…..ark-actor/
snip
That night he wrote an email to his pal, Judith Miller, saying that there were “many dark actors” at work. Two days later, he walked into the woods and was found dead – wrist cut and bloodstream full of a tranquillizer. Not long thereafter, it was announced that he was the only source for the report. Many suspected murder, but an inquest by Lord Hutton declared it a suicide. Miller’s own article [July 21, 2003 - Scientist Was the ‘Bane of Proliferators] about Dr. Kelly was sympathetic but failed to mention their personal relationship, or that his final email was to her.
http://3oldmen.com/2005/08/01/…..ark-actor/
=====
Why did Judy hate Wilson so much?
Did Judy ever meet Valerie?
Was OSP writing the stories for Judy?
What happened to Dr. Kelly?
“What really struck me about what happened today is how Fitz truly is in the driver’s seat now. After all the wrangling Judy and him went through, she now has a major perjury hammer hanging over her head if she missteps. She knows it and she’s sweating bullets on the stand.”
-
Yeah, one gets the impression Darth Cheney
is watching her *very* closely. And his whole
shtick is about fear and intimidation.
He pulled it on the CIA. He pulled it on Wolf
Blitzer very recently. What’s to stop
him from pulling the same thing on a little
old lady like Miller?
I used to have problems remembering unless I wrote notes,……..but usually I was to drunk to write notes.
I’m all in agreement with notes refreshing memory of an event for people. At work when things are really busy, there are times when you have 3-4 pressing and important issues going on at a time I often am sometimes just taking notes at certain meetings that are less of a priority for me at the time knowing that “I don’t have to think about this right and I don’t have to worry about this at the time but I know I will need it at a future date so I take lots of notes”. I literally put those thoughts and memories out of my mind in order to focus (and free up my brain cells) on more important and pressing issues I am dealing with at the time. There are times when people will approach me about an issue way into the future, where I say, I can’t even think about that and don’t even ask me about that issue right now because I am so focused on the present issue and concentrating all my efforts and thinking power into the here and now.
But I do have a problem with her just finding the notebooks after her 1st GJ testimony…nah gah buy that one. The reason being, if knew I was testifying about an issue I most definitely would have scrounged around in all my notes (notebooks) from that time period and before to help me refresh my memory. Especially after sitting in jail for 85 days where I had all that free time to actually think about where all my stuff/information was to help me testify.
> Wait! If that’s true, how
> are Marcy and the FDL team
> doing their live blogging? ? ? ?
There is a separate “jouralists and bloggers” room with a live video feed.
Cranky
Over at Just One Minute they seem
sure that this issue will ultimately either lead to a mistrial or provide the rationale for W’s pardon .
Bob at 120: There is a courtroom and a media room with a video monitor broadcasting audio and video from the courtroom. You can have a laptop in the media room but not the courtroom. Marcy is liveblogging from the media room. I have been both in the courtroom (without my laptop) and in the media room (with it.)
The main difference is that the media room has no camera showing the jury.
Pachacutec @
14
[snipped for brevity: snb]
so what does that make one who is played by a Judy-type?
Could Scooter have been played by Judy as well?
I personally do not believe Miller forgot about the June 23 meeting when testifying before the Grand Jury. I think she conveniently forgot about it, as a favor to Libby, until she was confronted with records of the meeting, probably OVP or Libby’s records. She then went back and “found” her notebook and “remembered” the meeting. I do believe that the meeting took place and that Libby said what Miller described, I just don’t believe Miller’s convenient excuse of “forgetting” the meeting. It may be that the possibility of being sanctioned for this initial perjury that has made her such a cooperative witness for the prosecution.
lectric lady @ 61
Oh, shucks,
With all this talk about neediness I’d
have to lump the whole (pardon the expression)
ditz/functional bunch together and who
could be more needy than Bush Sr’s, Baby
George who needed daddy/mommy to prepare
the throne and all the while the jokers
bowing and fawning while the rest of the sycophants play any tune they want to hear. Isn’t this the most crippled and dysfunctional family of aunties, uncles and friends?