We've been in a break–it appears that Walton wanted to do some research on the last objection–over classification issues. As I pointed out below, Wells has put the word "documents" when it refers to declassification in Addington's mouth. But the issue may well have to do with this novel theory of declassification, in which a few select journalists get something.
Just a reminder of emptywheel's rules: Not a transcript, Refresh judiciously, and Buy my book.
Walton: Let me give you a further instruction regarding the NIE. You have heard evidence regarding discussions Libby had with reporters. There is no dispute that President has power to declassify previously classified information. Nor is there dispute that at least by July 8 2003, this was done. Libby didn't do anything wrong when he discussed the NIE with reporters after July 8.
Wells back. Looking at Libby's notes.
W Prior to your interview with FBI, you reviewed this document.
A I'm not certain of the timing. I certainly saw it before I went to the GJ.
W Makes reference to you by name. Addington.
A Yes.
Addington on 1) declass 2) Wilson K
A The symbol K is often used to refer to a contract.
W You had a meeting with Mr. Libby where two subjects discussed, subjects were declassification, he asked some questions concerning information CIA might have WRT a trip.
A Only my recollection is they went in reverse order.
W Mr. Libby used the term spouse in portion dealing with CIA. In that section of the note, there's no reference to spouse.
Wells approaching witness stand.
W WRT whether you had reviewed that document prior to FBI. You were interviewed on 2/12/2004.
A I wouldn't have remembered the date, I assume govt stipulates it was that date.
W Review this document see whether that refreshes memory about reviewing doct prior to FBI interview.
A agrees he had reviewed
W It says Dept of Navy v Egan. Supreme Court Addington
W Two lines down declassify [it says AQ Khan in between]
W You recall reviewing these notes. You referred to Navy V Egan
A I cited it, I didn't hand him a copy of it. He has ADD, but I'm sure that must refer to me.
W Two lines down from that it says declassify
A It says Declas, which I assume means declassify.
W Senior staff–looking at a reference to Rove.
W Reads
Uranium story: becoming a question of President's trustworthiness & eads al lnews. Turning to process: Rove: now they have accepted Joe Wilson as credible expert. Were 1 day late with getting CIA right response.
A explains that senior staff, with Rove, this must be a note from Bush's senior staff meeting.
W Do you have any personal concerns wrt Rove disclosing info to reporters. [not sure if this is right]
A No I do not.
W No reference to spouse. There is another note that has the word wife, the first note I showed you.
W The note referring to discussion in anteroom does not mention spouse or wife. There's another one that refers to wife, correct?
W You testified yesterday that when Mr. Libby was asking you a question about CIA paperwork involved wrt trip, Mr. Libby said what would be involved if a spouse had been sent on a trip, by a CIA employee.
A That's my recollection.
W going to FBI interview. You were asked to describe my conversation with Libby.
A [looks up, remembering] Not sure I have an independent memory of that but that's what that paragraph says in this FBI document.
Objection, sustained.
W In your description to FBI in February 2004, you made no statement that Libby referred to spouse or wife.
A I don't have a memory about whether FBI asked that and what I have is the FBI write-up.
W I showed that to you
A You shoved it over to me, I'm not sure I read it.
W What happened was…
Objection
W We sat there and read to you relevant portions.
Objection
Sidebar.
10:49
Walton: In reference to several documents you've seen in this trial, portions have been blacked out. There are reasons: personal information, classified information, or the information may be irrelevant to these proceedings.
W Mr Addington, is it correct that you don't have a specific recollection one way or another whether you told them you used the word spouse or wife wt conversation in anteroom.
A I don't remember what they asked and I responded.
W You have no reason to believe they didn't take down
Objection sustained
W In connection with your review of the documents, is it also correct that you had a practice of having discussions with WH counsel Abu Gonzales wrt certain of the documents you were collecting
A When I got a packet to release to govt, I'd share some of them.
W Mr. Gonzales' job was to protect President.
A First, to protect Constition, second, to protect the institution of the President, and third, to protect legal interests of President.
W And yours was just wrt OVP
A I'd take package to him and he could go through it.
W You would report to him content of witness interviews
A Witness interviews I got to see didn't strike me as important.
W Do you recall doct in handwriting of VP that one staffer should be protected while another sacrificed.
A I don't recall it, I didn't hold back anything.
We're getting the copy of this.
10:56
Fitz notes that they're going to introduce the original later.
Addington reading the note on the screen.
Fitz is putting up the original.
W You recall reviewing this in evidence.
A I produced it to the govt.
W You personally reviewed it. It's your recollection that you may have had conversations about the document.
A I showed it to him, may have talked about it.
W You called Terry O'Donnell, counsel to VP. You told him you thought this was a very important document.
W Top half of document in Libby's handwriting.
A The word classified there looks like his handwriting.
W Bottom half in Cheney's handwriting. Writes;
Has to happen today. Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy.
W Can you make out what's crossed out?
A I can't tell.
Walton reminds people to talk to each other, maintain proper decorum.
A Now that it's been expanded I can read it. Pres is scratched through. I read that as two words This Pres.
W This Pres was crossed out by VP and note goes on to read.
that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.
W Did you come to have any understanding of what was meant.
Objection sustained
W You don't have personal understanding of what was meant, one way or the other.
[Again, I wonder if Wells is trying to introduce this through Addington to avoid VP getting on stand.]
A verifies Scooter's note, but notes that "Tenet Wilson memo" is in VP handwriting.
A Explains that "The Vice President Has Seen" stamp is standard practice.
W reads though Libby's sonnet. You have no personal knowledge wrt what was meant by the words.
A When you put it that way, yes, I have no idea how they came to be written, but I can recall that Press Office had made some statement about Karl and I know this bc staff gets transcripts of statements. It would lead hearer to assume that whatever was bad Karl Rove didn't do it.
W They exonerated Rove publicly.
A Yes, I don't remember the words
W Press Sec had made a statement exonerating Karl Rove.
A Yes, reason it sticks in my mind, I had conversation with Bartlett by this point something had been said that included Libby. I made the comment to Bartlett, I don't know why you're making these statements about this case. He said Your boss is the one who wanted us to do it. There are there things Press Offices shouldn't do–intell, You can't talk about sources and methods. 2nd Rules of engagement. 3rd, what's going on in a criminal investigation, because you don't know, you haven't conducted the investigation. Those three subjects are not fit subjects for a press office to be talking about.
W When Bartlett said, Your boss, that's VP Cheney.
W WH went out and exonerated Karl Rove, just Karl Rove. They did not exonerate Libby. By exonerating Karl Rove in the media and the public it created a clear impression that Scooter Libby had done someting.
A I can't reach that conclusion. Not to me, what bothered me is that press offices should not be discussing what's going on in criminal investigations, they don't know.
W He said the VP instructed him to clear Libby in the same way that WH cleared Rove.
A Let me repeat. Staff table in WH, he happened to be at the table. So was I. I didn't ask question why did you, I said you ought not be out there saying you did or didn't do something. He said, your boss is the one who wanted us to.
W Just the way the WH exonerated Rove.
Objection sustained.
W I want to go to another area. You said that Mr. Libby came to you at the beginning of this investigation and said, I didn't do it.
A I didn't say he came to me, I went to his office and he said that.
W While you were in his presence, he uttered the words, "I did not do it."
A I didn't inquire what "it" meant.
[media says, oh, no, what the meaning of the word "it" is ]
A I don't recall when it was, we all knew there was going to be an investigation.
W Looking back at the evidence documents. 10/3/2003, you indicated you were sending material that consists of 11 pages. Attached is the memorandum of instructions. Looks at memo of instructions.
11:12
W Now goes to document request. Contact wiht any member of media, or his wife's purported relationship with the CIA. Item # B is very broad. It connects to any member of news media. Correct? Item C is more focused bc it focuses on particular people: Royce, Phelps, and Novak. Now that's the document request, right? In terms of how the investigation is described, the investigation is described in a letter by justice department.
A I made it part of the memo so they could read it.
W Libby would have received copy of memo of instruction. If we go to attachment one. That is letter from Bruce Schwarz, the first paragraph reads, thank you for your telephone call. "Concerning the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information in July 14 Sun Times and the July 22 edition of Newsday." If we go to the next page, we find the 9/30 letter from Christopher Wray, to Abu Gonzales. If we go back to the first page, it shows that Wray has written as follows: Criminal Div of DOJ are conducting an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosure of information in [Novak's article and Phelps and Royce's article]. The first paragraph in the letter from Mr. Wray states that FBI and DOJ are conducting investigation into Novak and Newsday article. Then it goes on, in the second paragraph, followed by 3 bullet points to describe scope of document request. Scope of document request is broader than definition of criminal investigation.
Objection sustained.
W If we go to the next letter that's part of the package, we see 10/2/2003 letter. And that letter is addressed to Leach, Deputy Counsel to Pres, signed by Schwarz, you understood that Schwarz worked directly under Wray. First paragraph is identical to Wray's letter. Letter from Schwarz states investigation into possible unauthorized disclosure of information in Novak and Phelps/Royce article. You understood that the refence related to article from Novak.
A I don't know that I gave it thought. I saw that in WaPo, which was syndicated, I guess.
W Remember Fitz discussed documents relating to documents.
A describing letter to Counsel of President's notice regarding document preservation.
W You're sending to Libby and others in which you describe scope of document production.
A Nosir–that's a postmaster message, all that means is it's going out to everyone. I forwarded his email to heads of offices to ensure staffs comply with instructions. This is standard thing at beginning of every investigation.
W I represent to you Libby interviwed by FBI 10/14/2003 and 11/26/2003. Is it correct that …
Fitz just handed Wells something. Wells is writing chronology.
11:27
W You can point to no other letters that described investigation in any different fashion.
A I don't remember any off the top of my head.
W certainly what was sent to you to Mr. Libby, what you gave to Libby were the two letters by Wray and Schwarz. In your instructions, you define scope as broader universe than how paragraph one defines investigation.
W Just for the record, Exhibit 54 not given to Libby.
A I'd have to see the instructions to see if I'd attached subpoena on back of that.
W There's no evidence that that document was given to Libby.
A I'd keep subpoena that came, a number of times, I would attach a copy of the document to the back. Whether there's a memo, I'd have to go the memo to see.
W Exhibit 55, that's a letter to you 1/23/2004, that letter was not given to Libby. If while I am reviewing all of the documents, if we get to any document that shows instructions. that Libby got, I want you to tell jury that.
A My memory would not be able to say every particular document without looking at it. Reviews another subpoena.
W set of certifications from employees 10/7/2003, signed it wrt having produced certain docs for later production to DOJ. Every time one of these employees produced in batch, they'd have to sign certification.
A Technically he's not an employee of OVP, but his function was COS.
W G60 Schwarz states, in connection with investigation concerning possible unauthorized disclosure regarding Novak and Phelps/Royce. As of 12/16/2003, Schwarz still referring to Novak and Phelps/Royce article. Three weeks after Libby FBI interview date. Mr Libby did not receive this letter.
A I'd have to look at the instructions.
W G61
A a subpoena for contacts from July 12
A GJ subpoena 2/4/2004, GJ 10/14/2005 looking for Libby's notes, 6/16 through 7/3. Note to Eckenrode.
A I'm certain this was not given to Libby.
A 3/18/2004 Letter to Eckenrode forwarding documents responsive to telephone request. I'm certain it was not given to Libby.
Wells asks Fitz if that covers the universe of all documents relating to investigation.
W One second, I may be finished.
Sidebar.
11:39
10 Minute Break–we'll be back around 12:00. We should finish up Addington before lunch.
Wells back up.
W Fitz didn't enter this.
A I remember this document. I don't remember what all you agreed to. Giving them instructions on how to search for documents.
W Do you recall that exhibit 65 a number of docts that expand a fair period. Do you recall describing it as your file?
A I don't recall calling it my file.
W And when I was asking questions a minute ago, whether there was anything on the face of the docts but there may be some instructions somewhere. I want to go through what instructions exist so we can understand what docs were given to Libby.
Jeebus. We're reading through his fricking binder, page by page.
12:01
One document to Libby. Fitz has no objection to display to jurors. Just trying to get this introduced.
W Were you aware that at the end of Mr Libby's second interview Mr Libby was given a statement of waiver by FBI that defined investigation in broader sense beyond Novak and Newsday.
A Although I don't know the date, I do know at some point he was given a form to waive confidentiality with press people.
Shows him Libby's waiver.
A I believe I have seen it, but without the signatures. I may have asked Libby if he was willing to give me a copy, but it wouldn't appear with the handwritten notes.
Wells tries to enter into evidence.
Fitz I object at this time, for this witness.
Objection Sustained
Sidebar.
A desribes email to everyone on OVP. Tells them they've got to preserve documents.
A email to Libby with copy to Mayfield. Subject to special instructions unique to Libby as regards to subpoenas. His records are VP records, even though his paycheck comes from WH. The scope for documents was different for WH and OVP.
A memo by me to everyone in OVP noting two subpoenas and these are the instructions.
W Is it correct that you were describing the investgation as the investigation into possible disclosure of classified information. Your personal description of the investigation was tracking the document request.
A I think I took it from FBI waiver of confidentiality.
Wells tries to introduce, Fitz objects, sustained.
W You took your description from the statement of waiver FBI
A Yes, but I see there's a reference to the wife, which wasn't in the waiver. It came form somebody's legal document. I didn't make it up onmy own.
Walton, nothing should be shown to jury until I admit it.
A note to Mayfield. A set of instructions on how to collect info.
Argh. This is tedious. Wells is still going through the damn binder document by document.
12:20
Recess for lunch. come back 1:30.
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
F I T Z !!!
. . .don’t hate me ’cause I’m zediful
okay,
E M P T Y !!!
C H R I S T Y !!!
J E R A L Y N !!!
Barbaro! Delbert! Ned!
Addington’s testimony is like watching paint dry.
EW: Great live-blogging, as usual. Thanks!
Who’s got the popcorn?
Gromit and SOS from MA – thanks for the tip. Hopefully, I’ll catch Nina totenberg during the 2nd hr of ATC herre in my van.
A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. . .
FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
That’s also how Marcy makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. (If she did it in the comments, her jewels would be scattered among our great questions and snark.) But have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 15 minutes to update, you can wait 15 minutes to reload.
And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, sheckles, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket up there on the right side of the page. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
Watching paint dry may be boring, but it’s one of those things you have to sit thru to get to your goal…
Redesigning the OVP suite…
here tpres2000, we’ve got it kanban’d*g*
A The symbol K is often used to refer to a contract.
Shit, Addington never played baseball…
Go Fitzie & Team!!!
I knew there were some cockroaches under the admins. rocks, but geeez…
I speechless.
I bought your book. I bought your book. The book is in the mail, I’m told. And I love you live-blogging in the morning, too.
(Nag, nag, nag.)
Outstanding play-by-play, MT. Please … make sure all you guys wear garlic necklaces when Judith “Dark Side” Miller takes the stand. Be safe!
Yes. And check out its current sale rank:
Did anybody else notice this? It was just one little nugget in Newsweek’s interview with Cheney, but it gave me shivers. Not the good kind:
Telegraphing???
“You shoved it over to me”!!! Is Addington a wee bit hostile to Team Libby?
excellent – it was at 22,6xx just last week !
steve @ 9
I prefer the metaphor “watching a master brickmason at work, one brick at a time.” Addington’s testimony is, for Fitz, like placing bricks around the corners of some vital part of the structure. Slow, careful…..
Yes, yes and yes. Amazon sent me an email yesterday telling me your book is shipping to me today. Hurray! Any chance FDL and Emptywheel will do a Book Salon when the jury is deliberating?
Oh, also. There are references to A.Q Khan in the notes? Is this some sleight of hand? Wasn’t V. Plame one of the people working on getting intelligence on A.Q.Khan? I think I remember reading that.
beth meacham @ 17
Is this cross or re-cross? I missed part of yesterday’s A
beth meacham @ 21
Yes
ET,
it’s cross
Rayne @ 51 in the last thread:
I went back and looked at Judy’s article on her GJ testimony (obviously, I’m not getting any work done this morning).
Her description of her own testimony suggests that she had done a memory purge. For something that she had spent so much time and energy refusing to disclose — the details of her conversations with her source — she remembers very little. At least, she testified that she remembered very little.
It’s possible that she remembers more, but was a bit overzealous in following what would be standard advice from her lawyer not to “reconstruct” her memory based on what she thinks NOW she might have done in the past.
I’m with Katie Jensen…
The Decider in Chief decided to smear Wilson
and had his fuckin’ minions carry it out…
Bush lied in both his pronouncements to the press… Impeach
I think “the wife” terminology must have some meaning. Maybe there’s a way Rove described something somewhere that we’ll learn later.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 16
Wow, great catch.
Cheney telegraphing??? He’s already given Jr. his instructions-next step is the public and press. And so now Cokie can say, “Pardons? Well, the Vice President spoke about the possibility so it’s out there now.”
cbl @ 24
I thought so. If Addington is “testy” in cross, I suppose re-direct is going to be even more so. He’s very insecure outside of his tight little world. He’ll never get that bigger office he craves so fully. Never.
oh yeah, OVP with armies of weasels out there searching for any slight, any threat to it’s power – witness interviews aren’t important ?!?!
Sounds like Wells is getting pretty confrontational again. Is that how this is coming across, EW?
WaPo has a picture of Judy entering the courthouse. No mink. Big sunglasses. Red lipstick. Starbucks in hand. Looking “aggrieved”
Oooooh, now Abu G is part of the conspiracy to sacrifice Scooter? Ha!
(BTW, did anyone else throw up when Addington described Abu G’s first obligation as “protecting the Constitution”?)
I like where this is heading…
What happened if Gonzales interfered with the
investigation somehow?
Jack
instantaneously, the thread became a vomitorium
Empty, I just got an email from Amazon saying they can’t send me your book for another week (even though I’d pre-ordered it!). Disappointing for me, but a great sign for the book. Hope there are a whole lot more copies in press. Congratulations and, always, thanks for your terrific work.
W “Mr. Gonzales’ job was to protect President.”
Yeah, no s**t. In other words, whatever the presnit wants to do, figure out a way to make it look legal.
He has ADD, but I’m sure that must refer to me.
lol
Not quite as exciting as yesterday – is it me or does Addington remind anyone else of Captain Kangaroo’s evil twin? And Libby Mr. Green Jeans’? picture
I haven’t noticed any mention of this – remember when Cheney went on the teevee to “apologize” for shooting his buddy? The real purpose of that interview was to make the statment that the VP can declassify info. IMHO, that was a set-up for this defense. Yes, Scooter leaked, but the VP had already de-classified! Didn’t even have to be the President! Didn’t even have to do any paperwork!
Naturally, Wells didn’t respond.
Will Fitz pick that up do you think, if there is another note that mentions Plame, or is it not important?
l.chase @ 40
I’ve heard this argument but I don’t think even this overly broad declassification process applies to outing covert agents. I mean I read Tenet only had information on N.O.C.s on a “need to know” basis. You can’t ask agents to go undercover without govt. protection but compromise their identity willy nilly.
litigator mom @ 33 (BTW, did anyone else throw up when Addington described Abu G’s first obligation as “protecting the Constitution”?)
Just a little bit, in my mouth.
I was even more disgusted when Abu Gonzalez told Sen Leahy that the Constitution technically doesn’t assert the rights of citizens to the priveleges of the great writ of habeas corpus, except in two circumstances. Abu was being a snarky wise ass, making a theoretical point rather than dealing in a straight forward manner with the oversight issues the committee was raising.
EPU’d from last thread in reference to this bit of Addington testimony
******************
So, what are you both saying? That Libby possibly knew that Valerie was CIA AND her status even BEFORE Martin told him & Cheney?
Marcy disagrees….. but I think that Scooter met valerie PLAME at the CIA, but didn’t make the connection to Joe Wilson until much later — like June 12, the day that Cheney told Libby that Valerie was CPD (and the day after Cathie Martin told him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA)
***************
now the reason I think Libby is referring to Valerie (and not Harlow or someone else) is that I don’t see what relevance “if they introduced themselves to you” would have with regard to Harlow. We do know that Libby spent time at the CIA asking about Iraq intelligence, we know that Val was working at the CIA on Iraq intelligence in a “supervisory” role of some sort….
So I think “Valerie Plame” and Libby met during one of these visits, and Libby did not immediately realize that “Wilson’s wife Valerie who worked at the CIA” was ALSO known as “Valerie Plame”
Aha. Of course. The fairy dust defense.
Pres/VP has power to sprinkle fairy dust to turn all their bad twinkies into — good twinkies?
Jane S. @ 32
That’s how she always is…in Manhattan. The big sunglasses and the red lipstick. As I understand, she takes her tips from the fashion industry.
Here’s a direct link to Judy Kneepads pic arriving at court, from the WaPo:
http://media.washingtonpost.co…..30-07a.jpg
Libby asks Addy — Gee, how would you know if you met a NOC?
Well, Scooter, you’d know from the big bright sparkly pink NOC badge that CIA issues and NOCs must at all times wear!!
did gonzalez interfere? that is funny. it will be disbarred if the country survives these hitler youth running amok
Sparkles the Iguana @
16
Judged favorably by whom? The Right Wing Corporate Media which takes their talking points from Cathie Martin? Why sure.
I am consoled that in (probably less than) 30 years Cheney, and maybe Bush, will be subject to entirely different judgment.
Shez @ 47
Yep. And the big scarf. That’s hubby Jason Epstein to her right. It’s great to see Judy again. *g*
neil @ 43
Less a theoretical point, I think, than the abuse of the concept of strict constructionism as a smokescreen. Let’s face it, the only reason the Constitution doesn’t explicitly assert habeas is because it was already thoroughly enshrined in the English common law that the U.S. adopted outright except in the few places where the structure of American government demanded an alteration. The Constitution does a lot of not reinventing wheels. In many ways, it’s a minimalist document, laying out its principles in broad form and leaving a good deal of particularism to existing law that wasn’t broken. It’s a damned shame that our current leadership is so ignorant of and/or indifferent to such basic high-school civics points.
With the approval of the moderators, I couldn’t find a legible version of the Libby letter to Judith Miller (the Times’ pdf is challenging). In anticipation of Miller’s testimony, I transcribed it this morning from the Times’ pdf. Feel free to take it off-thread if you want; I also posted it on dKos on the morning Miller thread. It remains as tantalizing as when it was published.
Cheers…
September 15, 2005
Ms. Judith Miller
c/o Mr. Robert S. Bennett, Esp.
Skadden, Arps
Dear Judy,
Your reporting, and you, are missed. Like many Americans, I admire your principled stand. But, like many of your friends and readers, I would welcome you back among the rest of us, doing what you do best — reporting.
A few days ago, your counsel, Mr. Bennett, asked that I repeat for you the waiver of confidentiality that I specifically gave to your counsel over a year ago. His request surprised me, but I am pleased to comply, if it will speed your return.
I was surprised at Mr. Bennett’s request because my counsel had reassured yours well over a year ago that I had voluntarily waived the confidentiality of discussions, if any, we may have had related to the Wilson-Plame matter. As you know, in January 2004 I waived the privilege for purpose of allowing certain reporters identified by the Special Counsel to testify before the Grand Jury about any discussions I may have had related to the Wilson-Plame matter. The Special Counsel identified every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003, including you. My counsel then called counsel for each of the reporters, including yours, and confirmed that my waiver was voluntary. Your counsel reassured us that he understood this, that your stand was one of principle or otherwise unrelated to us, and that there was nothing more we could do. In all the months since, we have never heard otherwise from anyone on your legal team, until your new counsel’s request just a few days go.
In case you have any concerns about this letter, I note that the Special Counsel wrote to my attorney last week. In his letter, the Special Counsel offered that he would welcome my reaching out to you to reaffirm my earlier waiver. As you may know by now, my counsel responded to the Special Counsel, repeating all that we had done over a year ago, but offering to do it again. Finally, this letter has been approved by my counsel and will only reach you after your lawyer’s review.
In the spirit of your counsel’s and the Special Counsel’s request, I would like to dispel any remaining concerns you may have that circumstances forced this waiver upon me. As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me or knew about her before our call. I waived the privilege voluntarily to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but also because the reporters’ testimony served my best interests. I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will benefit all.
I admire your principled fight with the Government. But for my part, this is the rare case when this “source” would be better off if you testified. That’s the one reason why I waived over a year ago, and in large measure, why I write again today. Consider this the Miller Corollary: “It’s okay to testify about a privileged communication, when the person you seek to protect has waived the privilege and would be better off if you testify.” If you can find a way to testify about discussions we had, if any, that relate to the Wilson-Plame matter, I remain today just as interested as I was over a year ago.
You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover — Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. 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.
Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
With admiration,
[signed Scooter Libby]
Lewis Libby
Judy pic
bwaaahaaahaaa – she’s been imbibing heavily lately – 35 years in the hospitality industry says so – threadlift appointment next week my dear ?
Shez @ 47
She ages remarkably
well, uh, I’ll pass…Caught Nina Totenberg this hr on NPR. Good, succinct. Nina, Terry Gross – 90% of the quality of NPR right there.
ET
o/t
Murkowski questioning Negroponte, wrt N Korea on CSpan3
The Pardon Paradox
or
Why Scoots has to take a bullet
Many have wondered (cynically or otherwise), why has there been no pardon for Scooter Libby. Given the never ending lawless nature of this Administration, one could hardly blame the cynics. However, this is a commentary on why I believe that a pardon for Scoots won’t occur.
In a conspiracy (and this is indeed a conspiracy!), if there were a pardon for one of the conspirators, other members of the conspiracy would still be afraid, very afraid! Especially, the Head Conspirator!
Numerous commenters have made the point that a pardon for Scooter Libby, while relieving him of a conviction for criminal conduct, would nevertheless remove his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during a civil trial like the one Joe and Valerie Wilson have brought.
In essence, Scoots would be required to fess up and tell all or suffer the consequences of perjury, contempt of court or other imprisoning outcomes should he attempt to continue to prevaricate or remain mute.
Others have made the point that the very same jeopardy would arise should Scoots be pardoned and be hauled in front of a Congressional committee or two. No more 5th Amendment right, so spill the beans lest ye again be sent to languish in the stocks.
While both of these scenarios are valid, and perhaps even likely to occur, the more immediate concern and dare I say bigger threat, as viewed from the highest perch of this Administration, is something else altogether. This the one that brings nightmares to even the sleep of his minence grise, the Lord of Darkness, the Head Conspirator, Dick “Deadeyes” Cheney.
Deadeyes’ pacemaker has been heatedly working overtime trying to keep up since the very moment The Fitz burst onto the scene. The “oh-too-rapid” heartbeats are not his alone however. So too have many of his White House compadres developed that very same anxiety for which no medication seems to be able to cure.
I believe that Deadeyes held a mind-meld with Scoots before he exited the White House and impressed upon Scoots that he was going to have to take a bullet for the Gipper (isn’t he dead?).
What could this be, this scenario that strikes fear even into the hearts of the undead?
The “We’ve all screwed the pooch” scenario that is most likely to occur should Scoots be pardoned is thus:
Patrick Fitzgerald will immediately and without hesitation or mercy, drag Scooter Libby’s sorry ass right back into the Grand Jury. And there Fitz will powerfully and lawfully insist that Scoots tell all. Worth repeating again is the fact that a pardon for Scooter Libby does not allow him to retain his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, nor does it allow him to remain mute.
On the contrary, Scoots must then tell all he knows or find himself right back in the “going-to-jail” jeopardy soup. I really don’t think that Junya would then pardon Scoots again, ’cause then Fitz would haul Scooter Libby’s sorry ass right back into the Grand Jury, and around and around it would go ad infinitum. Methinks Junya would blink before Fitz did!
This is why a likely counter-intuitive effort against a pardon for Scooter Libby has I believe been undertaken by Dick “Deadeyes” Cheney.
I believe that Deadeyes has made the case to Junya, either explicitly or implicitly, that while Scoots is true-blue, a loyal trooper and his BFF, a pardon for Scooter Libby is a no-no! Don’t. Do. It!
If one of the conspirators was forced to tell all, then a whole bunch of other rat-fink conspirators would suddenly have no way off that stinkin’, sinkin’ ship.
And who might those other rats be you ask? How about the whole enchilada? Can you say Rove, Hadley, Bartlett, maybe Rice and assorted smaller fry? And of course, lest we be remiss, how about the “Leader of the Pack” Dick “Deadeyes” Cheney? And if one believed in miracles, one could always
preypray for Junya too!Now, some folks can make the argument that Junya could always just pardon everbody involved in betraying Valerie Plame. You know, a blanket pardon. Kinda like Jimmy Carter did when he gave a blanket pardon to all those who went to Canada to evade the draft during the Vietnam war.
But in my mind, and I suspect a whole lot of other folks including lots and lots of Congresscritters, it ain’t close to being the same thing, and pardoning everybody involved in betraying Valerie Plame might just be the straw that breaks the Impeachment camel’s back.
And do you know what? I think that Junya maybe just might, though it is a real stretch to think this, he just might have the one or two brain cells enough to realize that a pardon for everbody involved in betraying Valerie Plame would be the final nail in his own coffin.
Ipso facto, Scoots has to take a bullet.
Of course, I could be wrong. *g*
“I didn’t do it”
It meaning spilled the milk? Broke the window with my baseball? Out a covert operative and got a bunch of people in serious life threatening situations?
Addington didn’t want to know. Better to be not in the know. Must be a lot he doesn’t know.
from the testimony:
BWAHAHAHA
Sorry, quick OT for cbl only: If your still there, I know exactly what you mean about the Firescout thing. That’s happened to me, too!!
On the Clock @ 53: Thanks.
If I’m not mistaken, Scooter stole this line from Paul Valery, the early 20th-Century French Symbolist poet. That’s why Paul Valery’s name appeared on that long list of “witnesses” that Pach had on his live-blog during voir dire.
Shez @
47
Does she get compensation for product placement? Come to think of it, don’t we see stock footage of Fitz carrying a Starbuck’s cup? Hey, didn’t Christy mention that there is a Starbuck’s cart at the courthouse? Is Starbuck’s underwriting this trial?
Ed*ard Teller @
55
Nina Totenberg is one of the reasons I haven’t completely given up on NPR.
Libby: “I didn’t do it!”
Addington: ::crickets::
How’d that go over with the jury?
United States Attorney General
I think David’s got an overactive imagination wrt second and third.
Re: Aspens letter:
I had forgotten the bolded language. That, coupled with the reference to other reporters’ testimony, sure does sound like coaching to me. Especially with the “aspens turning in clusters.” Reporters testifying in clusters, connected at the roots?
Pat_AlexVA @
64
“I didn’t say that you did it. I said we are going to blame you.”
John Casper @ 65
If Addington didn’t say “not necessarily in that order,” he should be nailed for contempt. (If he did, he should be nailed for contempt anyway.) :-)
Thanks p.lukasiak@44 for bringing my question forward from the last thread, and thanks for the reply.
To anyone: Why would Libby ask Addington “How would you know whether someone was undercover?” How would knowing the answer to that then help or hurt him? Was it just a general question?
John Casper @
65
What “it” meant…and when “it” was. Lovely. Just lovely. De-lovely.
Terre @ 69
Answer: Does the document you saw say “classified” or “confidential” or “top secret”? Those would be your clues.
Marcy writes:
Fitz just handed Wells something.
His ass? If not, hopefully he’ll do that in redirect…
Terre-
if Libby didn’t know that Plame was undercover, IIPA is off the table…(there’s an intent aspect to it)
If he did know, it’s on…
So if he did know, he’s got reason to make up stories, mislead, ‘forget’ obvious stuff, etc, to try and hide his culpability…
From 11:12
“…If we go to the next page, we find the 9/30 letter from Christopher Wray, to Abu Gonzales. If we go back to the first page,…”
I know this isn’t a transcript, but for a brief moment, I actually thought Wells had referred to Gonzo as “Abu”.
God, I love your mind, Marcy Wheeler. Once again, THANK YOU to EW and FDL for your hard work. Gosh, how I wish my dad were alive to see this unfold, the truth brought forth by patriotic citizens.
Returning now to my regularly scheduled lurkage.
Pat_AlexVA @
4
Jaa…..my thinking is running along these lines. My gawd, I’m nodding off.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 16
That was how the media was busy spinning Fords legacy during the funeral obsession. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now covered Ford’s legacy honestly…he confirmed for the public that a President was indeed above the law and Ford confirmed that with “the pardon”
The message is clear lie about a BLOW JOB and you get impeached. Lie about an INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB and you get……
litigatormom (25) — interesting, thanks much for that. Any chance you have a copy of that article? I’d like to forward it to katie jensen and kristinejoy; there was a curious third-party perspective from which Miller wrote that struck me as bizarre, as if she wrote from an out-of-body experience. Did you notice it?
Hilde with an E @ 75
I actually almost went back. And then I decided those who don’t know the reference will just think I was shortening it. He will always be Abu Gonzales in my mind.
Muzzy @ 38
Just to be fair, he isn’t commenting on concentration disorders. “ADD” short for “Addington.”
Abbreviated writing, not abbreviated attention span.
I want to donate to help cover the added bandwidth cost. However, if I use the donate link, paypal is set up to give out my full name and address. I prefer to maintain my anonymity.
If someone will email me the correct email address to use on paypal (I couldn’t find it), I will be glad to send some money, since I’ve been using your site to keep up with the Libby trial.
Thanks for providing the coverage.
AC
Is it just me or does it sound like Cheney started to write: “…sacrifice the guy this President asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder …,” and then thought better of it, crossed out “this Pres” and wrote “that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder?”
beth meacham @
17
There’s speculation that Bush may be preparing to throw Cheney over the side. If so, it will be interesting to see where Addington lands.
Grateful long-time lurker here with a question: Is this all part of an ongoing war between the WH and the CIA?
The WH was not pleased with the lack of support fot their “evidence” of WMD, etc.
The CIA, in reponse to Cheney’s sort of off the cuff request for info, sends a pro rather than a cipher to Niger.
The pro pushes the truth.
WH hits back, outs Plame. A warning to others?
CIA retaliates with the Libby case.
Yesterday Bush announces political appointees to supervize policy. Does this include the CIA?
Would appreciate comments. Thanks all for what you do.
Rayne @ 78
Yes. She was distancing herself not only from her own testimony, but from her own recollection, as if she had been a grand juror taking notes on someone else’s testimony.
joel @ 80
Considering its was Addington talking about ’scooter’, you know, ‘SCOOTER’ , that is why I laughed.
I gotta say, Addington is doing a good job under cross. he’s treating it like a deposition. Answering with as few words as possible.
Having been deposed (I won the case Pro Per) I can vouch for the tactic of the monosyllabic answer as a tactic. They like to get you yapping. Never let them.
10 minute break. We may or may not start a new thread.
seenos @ 82:
Yes, it sounded like that to me too. The most benign interpretation would be that Cheney was initially thinking of Dubya’s partial declassification of the NIE so that Scooter could tell Judy about all the other great yellowcake intel they had, and then realized that he shouldn’t be suggesting that the President told Scooter to leak Plame’s identity.
Ed*ard Teller @ 23
Take out Valerie take out intelligence on Iran, more reasons( no verifiable intelligence) to pre-emptively attack Iran
One fly in your ointment there…what if the President issues a blanker pardon on his way out of office?
TahitiNut @ 14
Hey, Tahitinut — nice to run into you here. You missed a great DU meetup in DC, where EW spoke and a lot of us bought her book.
neil @ 20
Just a reminder BOYCOTT JUDY MILLER’S NEXT BOOK (who could believe anything in it anyway)
Shez — I think I found “it”.
“It’s” for sale, too.
Marcy — what’s your best guess on how much longer they’ll work over Addington?
joel @ 80
LOL! Thanks for the notation. I was thinking attention deficit disorder, too.
Rayne @
95
She said probably before lunch, which break comes at 12:30 EST. Very soon. Then Kneeepads at 1:30 or shortly thereafter, figuring in possible sidebars out of the presence of the jury.
Rayne @ 95
They’ll start up at 12. Wells said he was “almost done, might be done.” I think Fitz might take another 15 minutes to get addington to admit that he understood the investigation to relate to anything relating to the investigation.
In other words, they’ll finish this by lunch at 12:30.
I was just checking emptywheel’s book at Amazon. They have more than 2000 titles selling faster than Anatomy of Deceit. Since Amazon probably adds a couple of thousand new titles every month (I’m guessing), this doesn’t sound too bad, but we can do better. Also, for anyone who has already received their copy, Amazon still does not have a reader’s review of it. I’ll check on Borders when I get a chance, unless someone beats me to it.
litigatormom @ 33
I sure did.
hilde@75 – Same here! I had to do a double read, and realized it was EW, and not Wells.
steve@74
That I understand. My mind keeps going to the fact that he possibly didn’t know then. Otherwise, why would he have asked that question – (paraphrasing) “How does one know whether someone is undercover?”
Am I making sense? Does it even matter? Could it be that he’s asking that question as a way to use it later for a CYA?
Brain fry, and we’re not even to Judy yet. :o)
@ 53 (thanks for transcribing)
Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me or knew about her before our call.
Lol – Maybe this was news to Judy? Could get interesting this afternoon..
SharonRB @ 92
It’s great to see both of you here. Let’s just say you know me on DU under another name ;-).
-S
jan @ 84
How does this not wreak of Soviet style totalitarianism (read “Politburo”). Republican economic interests give no truck to free market progress in the face of dying petro-economy, no? Will Libby be toasted as a patriot at Republican banquets in years ahead if he is convicted?
Attorney General’s job to protect interest of the President? Is the imprimatur under which Fitzgerald is moving ahead? As this notion has gone unchallenged from the witness box has it garnered some tacit approval in the context of the proceeding?
Congress can not act to quickly at this point to preserve the interest of a free people.
Jane S. @
32
*psnerkh*
while we wait
o/t
Top GOP senator snubs Bush as experts tell Committee Congress can end Iraq war
The Worm Turns . . .temporarily
pari-ah! pari-ah!, they call the Chimp pari-ah!
Phoenix Woman @ 83
I can’t see Cheney going quietly, he must have more than enough on Bush to protect himself from that quarter.
A: I was delighted to see the outpouring of tributes to his leadership…and praise for the tough, tough decisions he made – in particular, for example, the pardon. ….[he] suffered for it in the public opinion polls and the press, and how history judged him 30 years later very, very favorably because of what he’d done….”
Telegraphing???
Perhaps, Foreshadowing as well. The blanket pardons come on the last hour of Dubya’s last day in office. See ya later, buh bye! Sorry about your luck.
“pari-ah! pari-ah!, they call the Chimp pari-ah!”
Too funny!
portia.vz says @ 70
Way too much on my plate to dive into the weeds like this but I think Wells was more correct than Addington here:
“W Mr. Gonzales’ job was to protect President.
A First, to protect Constition, second, to protect the institution of the President, and third, to protect legal interests of President.”
IIRC, Abu was head of Office of Counsel during this timeframe, not AG. Not a constitutional office – created in the 40’s, I think.
I read and pondered about Abu’s position here WRT previous admin’s difficulties and the rulings regarding attorney/client privilege. I’m not suggesting that Addington was trying anything here, but it’s on the record now and the jury’s left with that impressions.
Just sayin’
Heading back to Lukersville, where whipperwills call and evening is nigh…
Terre, hilde@75, yes emptywheel is typing in Bloglish. Not to be confused with Winglish (rightwingnut remedial).
Rayne, SPEW! Puuuuurrrfect.
litigatormom @ 33
in re yer BTW: learning to handle hot liquids more cautiously… but, oh yeahhhh.
“W When Bartlett said, Your boss, that’s VP Cheney.
W WH went out and exonerated Karl Rove, just Karl Rove. They did not exonerate Libby. By exonerating Karl Rove in the media and the public it created a clear impression that Scooter Libby had done someting.
A I can’t reach that conclusion. Not to me, what bothered me is that press offices should not be discussing what’s going on in criminal investigations, they don’t know.
W He said the VP instructed him to clear Libby in the same way that WH cleared Rove.
A Let me repeat. Staff table in WH, he happened to be at the table. So was I. I didn’t ask question why did you, I said you ought not be out there saying you did or didn’t do something. He said, your boss is the one who wanted us to.”
So, it sounds to me like Wells is trying to get Addington to say “your boss” is Cheney, but Addington never says it. Could it also be referring to Bush as “your boss”? Is that important?
A I cited it, I didn’t hand him a copy of it. He has ADD, but I’m sure that must refer to me.
Who has ADD? Libby? Is this going to be the “He has ADD and he’s scattered” defense? Sorry if this has been addressed.
So when can we expect Addington to go all Jack Nicholson and start screaming’YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”?
Linda at 113 — I think Bartlett’s clear implication is that he is talking about Cheney. But, as Cheney is still Addington’s current boss, it makes sense that he’s dancing around confirming that for Wells. At least, it does in my mind…
Hilde with an E @ 110
Thank you for this clarification. Was it made clear to the jury that Gonzalez was not AG at the time?
I guess Wells wants the jury to conclude, “It’s all very complicated!”
I think it more likely they’ll conclude, “You’re an asshole!”
SharonW @ 91
Agree that fly is stuck in the ointment.
In that example as IANAL, I don’t really know what the chance of Scoots staying out of jail while the appeal process takes place (assuming he is convicted), so waiting 2 long years in the pokey until Junya leaves office might take the bloom off Scooter’s rose.
Another possible “fly in ointment” scenario is the idea of running out the clock on Fitz’s jurisdiction and then pardoning Scoots.
Again as IANAL, I don’t know just when Fitz has to close down, so if Scoots was convicted, we’re back to possibly waiting in the pokey until pardon time.
Margot at 114 — The “ADD” notation on the page is an abbreviation for Adington, I think is what he is saying there.
Pach 31
If true, you incubatin’ ideas as to deliberate motive(s) for W to ignite somethin’, or?
Margot @ 114
LOL! First thing I thought of too, until I read the next couple of entries. ADD = Addington
Bustednuckles @ 115
No, that will come when Cheney testifies.
Speaking of loving Marcy’s mind, I adore her choice of icon image to apply to her Addington posts.
Crapola – I meant the same sentence. :o)
I AM brain-fried. Gonna get some more coffee.
Pachacutec @ 118
“Sand in the eyes” Fitz….”throw spaghetti on the walls” D.Corn
SharonW says:
January 30th, 2007 at 8:50 am
One fly in your ointment there…what if the President issues a blanker pardon on his way out of office?
I don’t think that there’s any serious question that he will *not* do so – the more interesting question is whether he has the smarts and self-control to keep his powder dry until then.
Wells is starting to look damn stupid to me.
He spent all that time getting Cathie Maryin to say Valerie was not part of all the talking points documents she prepared the week after Wilson went public, and wanted the jury to infer that there was no plan or importance attached to Valerie.
But the jurors are not sophisticated in knowing how the White House works and plays the press, creating talking points and messages. I think it’s more likely they will conclude that no messages come out of the White House by accident; everything is planned. So when Fitz, on redirect, established quickly that Martin was out of the loop on a lot of what Scooter and Cheney were up to on the media pushback to Wilson, everything Wells had done may have hurt Libby more than helped him.
I know I’m not an attorney, but can Wells possibly be this stupid?
I continue to repeat, I think that Cheney vs Bush is occurring in front of us, with Libby being on the Cheney side and Rove on the Bush side. I think it’s highly likely that they whole administration will be completely tainted by a conspiracy charge with Bush and Cheney as co-conspirators. In which case, neither will leave office in a position to pardon anyone. That’s my hope. Pray folks!!
Linda @ 113
No, what Addington was objecting to was that he didn’t agree that the Karl exoneration meant Libby had sone something.
anon conservative @
81
You could always send something via snail mail to the address provided. As for anonymity, Christy is an attorney and takes confidentiality *very* seriously.
AnnieB @ 123
funny
beth meacham @
21
that jumped out at me, too. seeing how AQ Khan is considered the brains behind the Pakistani Nuke Program
Adie @ 121
I’m not much of a theorist in that regard; I take a very healthy skepticism wrt what I know or can divine. There’s so much hidden.
But, as a behavioral scientist and a pretty sophisticated person in terms of messaging, narrative, persuasive speech, personalities and presentations before audiences, I can monitor and comment on what is happening in that courtroom.
I’m interested in how Wells is continuing to play his hand, because from where I sit, I’m a bit shocked at how unimpressed I’m becoming. As I keep saying, though, he has time to turn things around.
katie Jensen @ 129
Can this happen? If it does I do believe in god!
SharonRB @
92
I’ve had to miss a LOT of things in the past few years, sadly. As I watched WJ/CSPAN, I had/have this nagging, vague recollection that I’ve met MT(W) somewhere, but I’ll be damned if I remember where or when. It seems ‘memory’ is a theme these days. Maybe she’ll get roped into a book tour and I can find the time to get in line.
I’m REALLY looking forward to the Princess of Darkness taking the stand … and seeing how Fitz discloses her evil.
the antithesis @ 133
It’s a reference to the 1999 trip that Wilson took to Niger–Wilson was looking into a possible uranium deal bt AQK and Niger
Bay State Librul @
34
If he didn’t, wouldn’t that be out of character for him? Seems ‘is finnerprints ‘r on everthang else, plus verypublic happyface admissions of same as the new normal democratic-way-a-bidness. *shudder*
& don’t miss jr. action rep’t on huffpo t’day.
“Bush Signs Directive To Exert Power Over Congress.” – more of same
watching Bush v. Cheney in this manner is akin to watching two ferrets fight it out in somebody’s trousers.
am I wrong?
VP: “…sacrifice the guy this President asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder …,”
Is that like being hung upside down by your ankles and then slowly lowered into a meat grinder? Do you beg for mercy and blurt out the truth on your way down?
Hell, let’s sacrifice all of them! Will the video be captured on a cell phone, to the sounds of “Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich!” ?
That’d be about the only way to top FDL!
:) :)
If you guys need artwork for the Judy threads, feel free.
;-)
Man, I wish I could watch that live.
Pach @ 134, I was totally unimpressed with Martha Stewart’s high-powered lawyers. She may have felt the same way after it was all over but to my knowledge has never expressed an opinion. I’m impressed with the Atticus fellows but then they are fiction, aren’t they?
Kathleen @ 77
clinton was impeached becuase he was a democrat that republicans liked
they couldn’t assail his recorde of performance yet they needed to attack his legacy
Pach 128
laying grounds for mistrial on-account-a
idiotic incompetence by hissownself?
hm-m-m-m-m…
Per Pach above, iirc, everytime Fitz objects, Walton says “sustained.” It sure sounds from that as though Wells isn’t “getting it.“
Ok gang, good news: I actually had a really productive morning and my boss (me) is giving me the afternoon to head back to the courthouse to view La Diva live.
Thanks, Christy. Ay yi yi, such a “Duh!” moment!
Quick OT from RawStory:
SURPRISE!
Pachacutec @ 146
You lucky, lucky bastard!
Pachacutec @ 145
ooh ooh, wish we could all be there with you . . . but then again, in a sense, we are.
THANKS!
Pachacutec @ 128
I think Jeralyn said it best last night in her post: If there was anything new, I didn’t learn it. If he had a point, I didn’t get it.
Lou Costello @ 147
My spouse finally gets why I was working so hard for Ned. It’s taken this long.
Biodun @ 15
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,253 in Books
She is #1 in our listing!
Go Marcy!
emptywheel @
137
Lou Costello @ 148
They want to make sure they got their money’s worth. After all, they helped raise the 20 million Lieberman needed to actually win re-election.
Sadly for them, it didn’t work. The Iraq Study Group, Hagel, Warner et al put the lie to Lieberman’s sanctimonious use of the “need for bipartisan support, it is treasonous to oppose a war-time president” meme.
F*&% you Lieberliar
Important reminder: Wells et. al. are not the bad guys.
I liken them to the attorneys representing detainees in Gitmo. Their job is to ensure that our system of rule of law wins, no matter what the verdict in the given case.
Wells’s job is to poke holes in Fitzgerald’s case. I don’t pity him that job.
Mocha at 151 — That was the feeling that I had with Wells all of last week, and Jeralyn and I talked about it Saturday before she flew to DC. I wanted to be certain it wasn’t just my prosecutorial skepticism — so I’m veryglad to get Jeralyn’s defense-leaning perspective on this and see that it is the same as mine. Tactically, I just do not see where Wells is going with this, unless they are trying to target a specific juror’s background with targeted confusion or something. All it takes is a lone hold-out on the jury for a hung jury.
Fresh thread for everyone. Thought you guys could use some fresh digs until we get back to testimony after lunch.
TahitiNut @ 136
It’s entirely possible, as she’s one of Michigan’s own, from Ann Arbor.
Pach 134
Precisely why I love reading your commentary. Please trust – I’m trying not to read more into it than you intend, but might have a question on occasion, if that works for you. Are you actually in the courtroom? (I’d think that would make a big difference in ability to “read” behav.)
Thanks(!) for wonderful input. ;->
Lou Costello @ 148
You don’t say?! Well, ya coulda knocked me over with a feather, that’s for sure. ;)
Pach 145
OH HAPPY DAY! Thanks boss-person!?! ;->
It’s a little disappointing that Addington is dragging on for so long. But I don’t mind seeing the testimony of Ms. Miller, the mother of all misinformation, stretched out over a couple of days.
Don’t want to get my expectations too high but, in terms of the sordid relationship between this administration and the press, this could really be powerful. I think it might actually be Fitzmas!
It does not seem like the true strategy of wells has anything to do with “the memory defense”. I do not know the “lawyer rules” but could he have presented that strategy but replaced it with proving the leak was true and outting Rove?? It seems that this is truly his strategy. He can’t get anywhere with the memory defense, with the current testimony and I can’t believe he didn’t know that the testimony would be what it is. Can you switch strategies like that in a case like this??
Can’t help but thinking that these, these, are the kinds of men running the country. And now, with their little ponzi scheme being exposed, they are polishing their brass knuckles and opening the last ditch scenario to save their power, even if it means disaster. I do hope that our newly elected Democratic majority has the nerve to act, and not just concentrate on their own political placement for the next election, which will in all probability be too late (IMHO).
Kathleen 135, katie 129
I hazard not-too-wild guess you have plenty company. We may not be commenting much on same, but do hope you can “see” all our crossed fingers thru the toobz? Makes typing a real bear. *g*
marjo @ 139
trousers of… the ‘mercun people?
YEEEOOOOUCH! Sounds ’bout right, ewwww…
Hi all,
Just got here and jumping down quickly to ask a question:
I thought the NIE was declassified on the 18th, not the 8th.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Help, please!
TIA
Margot THANKS for your question. And thanks Christy 120 for answer(!) I had thot the same thing, so glad to have it cleared up.
Terre @ 161
Still OT but just to follow up with a link:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0130.html
Lieberliar = J-LIE = Ho
This coverage is fascinating. THIS EXCERPT SAYS IT ALL.
The difference between the universe of Wells/Libby/Cheney and the one Addington clarifies – the one we are fighting for wherein the constitution comes first.
emptywheel @
137
Thanks, Marcy. I am not up on that ‘99 trip; So the notes indicate that Libby and co. were aware that Joe Wilson had made a previous investigation trip for the CIA? Hmmmmm.
Libby channels Bart Simpson:
I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.
From the Forest Through The Trees Department:
Ed Teller@23 and Beth Meacham @ 21:
Oh, also. There are references to A.Q Khan in the notes? Is this some sleight of hand? Wasn’t V. Plame one of the people working on getting intelligence on A.Q.Khan? I think I remember reading that.
Combined with Sparkles comment from yesterday that revealing Plame was payback for the CIA CPD uncovering Halliburton’s-Iran Nukey connection.
Quite a picture is emerging through the trees regarding just how right Eisenhower was about the MIC.
cbl @ 35
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, so I just went out and shot a 95 year old man in the face.
i thought, ‘whoa there, buddy. you’re under oath.’
New live blog thread.
beth meacham @
21
Plame Pakistan/Iran Connection
And Wilson’s source Mai Manga refers back to the 1999 Mission that Wilson investigated for the CIA that involved both Iranian and Pakistani (i.e. AQ Khan) efforts to obtain yellowcake from Niger…that’s in the CIA/ “unnamed” (Wilson) Debrief that Grossman & Ford passed about [should be in Fitz’s evidence on Day 1 or 2]
stingray @
140
Wow!!!!! In other words this points to BUSH…BUSH…BUSH himself being the ONE that asked LIBBY to do the dirty work!!!
Does anyone else see the significance of this? CHENEY fingered Bush, then said, maybe I shouldn’t say WHO asked Libby to “stick his head in the meat grinder”!!!!
There goes the plausible deniability…this is perhaps the SMOKING GUN!
portia.vz @
58
Wasn’t this when Addington then told the Libster that he was a Civil Officer and that he might be asked to testify? IE Shut your GOB you IDIOT! But then maybe Libby WANTED him to say “Libby said ‘I’m pure as the driven snow’.”
Biodun @
61
I think that the witness referred to is General Vallehy, Fox’s rightwing “military expert” that swears that Wilson “outed his wife” to him in the Green Room of Fox back in 2002! Given that he got all his dates wrong and that he never even mentioned this fact, or contacted the Prosecutor about for several years, and only waited until days after the first GJ expired…have to say that I’m dubious he’s willing to swear on the threat of perjury to this “recollection”.