(Bob Bennett, Judy Miller, and friends enter the Prettyman Courthouse, pending Judy's testimony today. Note that Judy has a "fidget with her hair" tell when she's nervous. Great quick shot grabbed by Kevin Wolf of the AP. The photographers have been stationing themselves at various entrances at the courthouse and have gotten some fantastic snapshots of the comings and goings of the witnesses and folks involved in the proceedings. I see we have another quilted jacket on today — this one looks like it is a nice, warm down one, doesn't it?)
Whew, what a morning of testimony already. And all of the mess with Judy Miller about to hit the fan.
I wanted to hit a couple of highlights from David Addington's testimony this morning — especially when you look back at the pieces that Ari Fleischer and Cathie Martin added yesterday to the puzzle — it's looking not so good for Scooter at this point in the government's case. From Addington today via Marcy's fantastic liveblogging:
Fitz: When we broke, published one exhibit, I'd like to publish one additional exhibit. Can you tell the jury what that is?
A: Subpoena from this court dated 1/22/2004, return date 2/6/2004.
Fitz: Attachment A describes all documents relating to discussion of the following (Addington to read).
A: 1) Wilson or his wife, 2) Valerie Plame Wilson or Plame, 3) stuff related to Wilson's trip including long list of reporters. [reading list of names into the record–it's the long list of journalists listed in subpoenas at the beginning of the investigation (including Jeff Gannon, which elicited some laughs here)
Fitz: Coversation about paperwork related to CIA employee spouse trip. Did you ever have a later occasion to discuss this.
A: Yes, right before investigation started. Fitz: Describe what you recall. A Larger office in OEOB, I knew it would have to do with the case. I reminded them that I was employee for the govt, our conversation wouldn't be privileged. He said, I just want to tell you I didn't do it.
F: What else was said?
A: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you'd ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you'd know. I told him you wouldn't know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him. (Emphasis mine.)
Ouch. That had to hurt. I find myself wondering if that vein that pops out on Scooter's left temple when he's peevish or stressed has made an appearance this morning, and whether the hand wringing has been going on in earnest just under the lip of the table and out of sight of the jurors. Two questions leap to mind here: (1) Libby just voluntarily and out of the blue said "I didn't do it." Does that smack of guilty conscience to anyone else? and (2) Why would Addington feel the need to go through all of the privilege mantra with Libby, unless he feared that Libby was about to reveal something to him that Addington did not want to have to later repeat to investigators? (Or was this a warning to Libby not to say anything about Cheney? Okay, that's three questions.)
And then there was this further point from Addington this morning (again, via Marcy's exceptional liveblogging):
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. (Emphasis mine.)
Double ouch. Somehow, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think this Ted Wells fishing expedition with David Addington is working out like he had planned. And, it seems to me, Wells is drawing out more damning information about Libby on cross-examination than Fitzgerald brought out on direct, and Fitz pulled out some great information yesterday. That has to hurt for Jeffress and Cline sitting back at defense counsel table. (Can't wait to get Jeralyn's perspective on this from her perch inside the courtroom. Yeeeowch.)
What is striking you this morning in the testimony? Any particular facts or testimony or phrasing that jump out at you as significant? Information you can't quite square with what we knew up to today? Any guesses on La Diva Judy's testimony?
Related posts:
- The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
- Jim Cooper and Karl Rove Talking Health Care in Nashville This Saturday
- Washington Post: Rove More Involved in US Attorney Firings Than He Claims
- Karl Rove: That’s Why They Call It a Limited Hang-Out
- The Contents of the Fitzgerald-Cheney Interview, Annotated Edition
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 !!!
FITZ
I’m hoping they read the “Aspens” poem to the jury.
FITZMAS is here and it gets better every day!
mad mad love to all doggies – actually have to go to Austin for a commitment long planned Xo – mebbe I’ll stop by my Senator’s offices while there -
This bitch is toast !
RevDeb @ 4
happy fitzmas to you too! fitzmas is rapidly turning into my favorite holiday.
It’s not earth shattering, but I enjoy that Gannon got a mention, since he obfuscated any personal involvement in the investigation; it seems he may have been subpoenaed after all. Pillow talk?
I’m concerned about Fleischer’s testimony yesterday regarding what he says he said to Dickerson at the side of the road in Uganda. Dickerson relates that Fleischer simply encouraged him to ‘ask the CIA who sent Wilson’. Now, I’ve heard that claim for at least the last year about what Fleischer said. So, obviously it’s not new. Fleischer’s testimony, however, does sound new. Whaddayathink?
cbl,
Be sure and stop by corhole’s office and see how they’re doing. Or as we used to say back in the old days, “sweating like a republican under oath.”
Double ouch. Somehow, and maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think this Ted Wells fishing expedition with David Addington is working out like he had planned. And, it seems to me, Wells is drawing out more damning information about Libby on cross-examination than Fitzgerald brought out on direct, and Fitz pulled out some great information yesterday.
Yeah, that occurred to me. It seems like to me, a novice admittedly, that Wells hasn’t been doing a bang up job of defense. In fact, at times, it seems like a double team on the witnesses with he and Fritz.
It’s hard to keep track of “what is important here”. I keep rooting for all the sordid little secrets that have been hiding under rocks the last 6 years to make their way out in the open. And Wells is helping this process as much, or more, than Fitz is. Fitz’s job is to convict Libby.
It’s hard to keep track of the sub-currents going on…..
Little press was given to the gift included with the letter: “My friends went to Aspen and all I got was this stupid T-shirt.”
Not a lawyer but I don’t understand what Wells was trying to do. Saying that b/c Libby wasn’t the leaker for the Novak article he shouldn’t be held accountable for lying to a GJ?
It’s striking me that Wells’ cross is providing as much damaging testimony as Fitz’ direct.
I keep thinking both of these attorneys (f & w) are prosecution. :)
If Wells it attempting to impeach the witness or provide reasonable doubt, he’s doing a horrible job. I’m no lawyer, but it’s almost painful to watch, although it could be all the popcorn and champagne thats giving me the tummy ache.
Am I missing something here?
“My friends went to Aspen and all I got was this stupid subpoena and contempt citation.”
dqueue @ 7
I’d love to see him on the stand. I chuckled a bit when I saw his name, too.
Nice meeting you in DC the other night.
watertiger @ 3
I thought yesterday Fitz said he wasn’t going to introduce the letter….will Wells???
The Aspens letter will be fascinating, if Judy tries to explain what that meant to her. Also, I can’t wait to hear how she heard three times from Scooter about Plame and the details of those meetings. Am also wondering if her time in jail will be discussed–is that relevant?
Sandy,
Wells is trying to argue that the investigation was centered only on who leaked to Novakula, so if scootstah lied about other leaks, that wouldn’t be “material” and therefore not an obstruction of the investigation.
OT (via thinkprogress):
“Lieberman said he was not interested in “looking back, and assigning blame would be a waste of Congress’ time.” Responding to yesterday’s protestor, Lieberman said, “We don’t want to play ‘gotcha’ anymore.”
My contempt for Joe Lieberman grows daily by leaps and bounds.
Pirate at 13
I think Wells is trying to show that Libby was unaware that the investigation extended beyond conversations with Novak, etc, to preclude the suggestion, later on, that finding the set of missing emails a year or so after the deadline was a result of Libby’s misapprehension of the scope, and not, as seems most likely, that he was trying to bury the emails.
a question for the legal beagles hanging out here. Is Wells defending Libbey on the actual charges or trying to lay groundwork for Libbey’s defense on other potential charges?
jmba @ 15
I missed that bit. I doubt Wells would.
Crap. I wanted to hear her read it aloud in her Minnie Mouse voice.
Be sure to let us know how much quivering is going on at the defendant’s table when Judy takes the stand.
Whose side is Wells on, anyway? Wells seems to be working better for the prosecution than for *poor, hapless, forgetful* Scooter. Any chance that Rove is paying for Libbys’ defense team?
Zeppo, it seems to me that it’s a matter of the facts—and witnesses—not supporting the defense’s attempts to show Libby in an innocent light. I imagine Wells is doing as good a job as any defense counsel could, but if the glove fits…
I see photos of Team Libby & witnesses on TV and the web everyday. Why are there no photos of Team Fitz?
jmba @ 16
You’re right, he said he wasn’t going to introduce it (with Judy’s testimony, perhaps?) Maybe Fitz will introduce the letter if/when Libby takes the stand…
watertiger @ 22
I know, I was disappointed when I read that :(
Sorry, Sandy. Sorry UP. 20 was in response to 12!
mc @ 19
Liebermann Gets Heckled in NOLA
I’m reminded of the LIRR shooter trial (the man who shot up a train on long island and then defended himself)
defense atty/defendent “Do you see the man who shot you”
witness “yes”
Defense/defendent “Would you point to that person”
witness (pointing) “It was you! (you crazy f*ck)”
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.
Does the VP COS always serve two Masters? Does that win the player extra ‘health’?
-
Apologies for confusing Bob Bennett with Jason Epstein (Judy’s husband) in the last thread. They do look alike. Question is: Where is her husband? Remember that he took a vacation cruise while Judy was in prison under false pretenses. That cruise was the topic of multiple speculation in MSM.
Do you have to be outside of the Beltway to have common sense? Libby asking how to tell if a CIA agent is covert? Everyone else in the world would make the common sense assumption that if you find out the name of someone who works at the CIA you do not repeat that name–to anyone. You err on the cautious side. Sounds to me as though Libby was in way over his head as COS to Cheney.
Chady @ 26
There is no “sensation” in a tight lipped prosecutor.
“‘Cause now it’s Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
‘Cause Ari’s come back to me.
Oh, when Judy left with Irving at my party
And came back wearing his ring
I sat down and cried my eyes out,
Now that was a foolish thing!
‘Cause now it’s Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
‘Cause Ari’s come back to me.
Well, it hurt me so to see them dance together,
I felt like making a scene.
Then my tears just fell like raindrops
‘Cause Judy’s smile was so mean.
But now it’s Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
‘Cause Ari’s come back to me.
Oh, one night I saw them kissin’ at a party,
So I kissed some other guy.
Ari jumped up and he slapped him,
‘Cause he still loved me, that’s why.
So now it’s Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
‘Cause Ari’s come back to me.
Yay, now it’s Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry,
Judy’s turn to cry…”
Just a drive by because I’m meant to be working, but from the great live blogging from EW it seems Wells is not a control type cross-examiner. My technique is that every answer from the witness is “yes” and I never ask a question where either I don’t know the answer or, in rare cases, don’t care, and have a way to punish the witness or impeach him if the answer is not “yes”. Any other technique is too risky IMHO.
Also, just to put it in perspective, this is the prosecutor’s innings so you’d expect Scooter to be taking a lot of hits (if he he wasn’t Fitz would not be doing his job), but it ain’t over till it’s over.
Now back to something I can bill for. Thanks to everyone at FDL, this is great coverage, unmatched by the MSM.
Chady @ 26
LA Times has photos of everybody this morning. Fitz looking steely and professional in his mug shot.
The courtroom artist is putting big white patches in Fitz’s hair. Is he going white already?? Also, are he and his team bunking at the courthouse? Because there aren’t any photos of them arriving and departing.
It seems to me that Wells is trying to get Addington to say something that would be helpful to Libby (or totally confuse the jury), do you have any thoughts on what it is?
SLEEPOVER AT FITZ’S PLACE!
Bit NOLA @ 23
Yeah..that and if he gets an erection!!! :)
Sparkles the Iguana @ 40
big pattern bald spot on top and back of head. Pach described seeing it on the big screen looking like a white yarmulke.
marksb @ 39
Are they online? I can’t find them.
Note to self: never play poker with Christy Hardin Smith…
twolf1 @ 30
Let’s recall that Lieberman said on Fox News on Sunday that he might vote for the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. (This is assuming whether or not he’s on the so-called “dream-fusion-unity” ticket with buddy McCain.)
This is standard when counsel for a corporation is interviewing an employee. You have to remind the witness that you are acting for the corporation, not the employee as an individual. While the conversations are privileged in the first instance (on the theory that the corporation only acts through its employees and agents), it is the corporation’s privilege to waive — not the individual’s. So if the corporation’s senior management later decides it’s in the corporation’s interest to throw the employee under the bus, the fact that you thought the conversation was privileged in the first instance doesn’t allow you to stop the waiver. If there are things you want to tell a lawyer that you don’t want someone else to have the power to disclose, you need to get your own lawyer. Which is why, in many investigations into possible corporate misconduct, every single officer and director has his or her own lawyer, in addition to the corporation’s lawyer.
What Addington was telling Libby was analogous: I represent the OVP, not you personally, so whatever you tell me may not be privileged. If you want to make sure that what you tell me stays privileged, you need your own lawyer.
While there may or may not have been sinister motivations within Addington’s head as he said this, it is actually standard advice to individual employees at the start of a corporate investigation.
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 20
But hasn’t Fitz specifically said he’s not implying emails/documents weren’t provided?
I do see the other argument that if the scope was limited than lying would be “ok” – weak argument imo, but I see it.
RevDeb @ 44
No, this is not the bald spot. This was white patches in his hair.
I want to know why it took 2 hours to have lunch at a hotel.
(wink wink, nudge nudge)
Dead Horse @35- There is for me.
marksb @39 -Thanks!
My memory on this is fuzzy, but I really believe Gannon was subpoenaed and testified before the GJ. I think that he said so himself in an interview last year. If not, then somewhere on the web is a list of reporters who were subpoenaed, and I may have seen it there.
Do you think Fitzgerald will bring up Bolton’s visit to Judy while she was in jail? What was that all about?
Chady @ 26
That’s ok by me. Let’s not try to make Fitz a rock star to the rest of the country, thereby decreasing his credibility. Those in the know all seem to be giving Fitz the squeeky-clean Elliott Ness treatment. Good. Keep it up. Makes all that brown shit on the WH characters all the more vivid.
Didn’t they subpeona Judy Judy Judy’s notes? IIRC, she had some problems coming up w/ them.
Damn, this is the scariest picture of Novak I have EVER seen. Brace yourselves.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-30/33907.html
David Shuster on MSNBC now, 1pm EST.
What strikes me about today’s testimony is that
Addington seems hostile towards Wells. What is that about?
The second thing that strikes me about today’s testimony is that Wells’ is doing a miserable job. You never fish on cross. He was hurt yesterday by Martin and again today by Addington for casting into cloudy water.
RH, you’ve got mail. TF
Got epu’d so I’m bumpking this up:
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.
FAS Note: The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The declassified NIE document in its original format is here.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Help, please!
TIA
From stray remarks by Wells, I believe it was yesterday, he may already view the jury portion of Libby’s case as lost.
He could be/is establishing the bases for appeal on points like Martin’s notes (a nonstarter that one), Fleischer’s immunity deal from yesterday and the scope of Fitzgerald’s subpoenas today. I would think he may want to kick things into a venue where only lawyers, judges, and briefs are presence and keep this case going for years on appeal.
This would feed into the theory of a possible last day pardon by Bush on his way out the door. I am of two minds about this. Bush is very much a “f*ck you” kind of a guy. So such a pardon is conceivable as a way for Bush to say that to us all.
OTOH, there is abundant evidence that Bush’s f*ck you-ism extends equally to those who leave his Administration. Once you are no longer serving him, it’s like you cease to exist for him. So the subject of a pardon might not even come up for him. In his mind, I can see him thinking, why should I bother with these clowns who screwed up my Administration. F*ck’em.
A last note: I agree with Christy that Wells seems unnecessarily to be drawing out testimony prejudicial to his client.
Continuing Asperger’s comments from last threat, since I know a bit about it. I think Nixon was high-functioning Aspies. A brilliant man, but got to the heights just by trading favors, rather than personal charm. The man couldn’t open an asprin bottle. So I think an Asperger’s can do politics.
Most likely tho most of these people are narcissistic sociopaths
Biodun @ 33
Maybe Judy should be glad she was in jail and not on that cruise. She’d be cleaning out Davy Jones’ locker by now.
litigatormom at 47 — I know it’s standard in the corporate world. And I also know it’s fairly standard if you are dealing with an ongiong investigation situation. But as Libby and Addington are both JD’s, and this was an immediate pronouncement on Addington’s part (at least seemingly from his testimony anyway), it just seemed very abrupt following the “I didn’t do it.” I got the sense that Addigton thought Libby was about to spill a whole lot of beans and that he (addington) was trying to staunch the flow, so to speak.
mc @ 19
As if that’s not enough to get you started, you may want to read the NYT article crossing the web on Bush’s new powers to appoint political lackeys to reg agencies…
NYT Article
Sheesh, when are people gonna start suing the pants off this guy & his administration??
As an Irish woman with totally white hair at the age of 45, let me just say:
We are the silver foxes of nationalities!!(the Irish)
You know, you can’t tell one Irish person from another, they all look alike.
Raw Story has Schuster’s take on Judy, Judy, Judy’s testimony. Most hilarious thing … look at the photo. That’s not Judy – that’s an actress that usually plays psycho out of control women. ROTF.
Rawstorylink
Bustednuckles @ 55
One of many great moments in FDL/emptywheel lore, the dustbunny theory.
Temple of the Dust Bunnies
mc @ 19
How about learning from our mistakes????
What a friggin tool.
Litigatormom #46:
Libby is an attorney. I find it really odd that Addington would have to say something like that to him at all. Libby was finding out at that moment that he was somehow going to be thrown under the bus. Addington was basically saying, I can’t help you, “get your affairs in order”, I’ll get you a copy of the crime you might have committed. “The Aspens are turning.”
RevDeb @ 43
i believe it is his halo
Do we have a date on exactly when Addington delivered the copy of the IIPA law that spells out that it’s a crime to reveal the identity of a covert agent? Before or after the investigation started? And if before, was it before or after his conversations with…well, EVERYONE about Wilsons’ wife? And does it stike anyone else as weird that Addington felt it was necessary to not only offer to get a copy of that law to Libby, but actually delivered it himself??
BTW – Anatomy of Deceit seems to be climbing Amazon’s charts.
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,184 in Books
Biodun @ 46
Please..please…please! Let this dynamic dream ticket represent the repubs! PLEASE!
Addington used to work for the CIA. Maybe he takes outing an agent seriously?
katie Jensen @ 66
I’m only 50% Irish but I’ve been going gray since my early 20s–I color it but it appears to be almost completely white and I am not 40. My husband is a silver fox (100% Irish) and has been going gray since he was 16.
dab from CT @ 69
Seems to be standard MO. When a crisis is fresh “Now’s not the time to play the blame game”, then after time has passed, it’s “We need to look forward and not backward”
Same story with the selling of the war.
Great gig if you can get it. I wish I had that kind of immunity from my actions.
Re: Zeppo, it seems to me that it’s a matter of the facts—and witnesses—not supporting the defense’s attempts to show Libby in an innocent light. I imagine Wells is doing as good a job as any defense counsel could, but if the glove fits…
Don’t you mean, “if the glove Fitz?”
Linda at 70–Bingo!! That’s the impression I got as well.
I still find the aspen note completely fascinating. I hope we get a tid bit or two on that, but doubt it, today.
HappyDays @ 52
It is an interesting issue. IIRC it was Gannon bragging that he had been subpoenaed that sparked SusanG’s interest, which led to the formation of ePluribus Media. I am not sure if that had any connection to John Aravosis’ desire to investigate, but because of Gannon’s braggadocio the limelight shone on him.
As a result, his sidejob as a male escort, his lack of any military experience (something he claimed), and generally sad little reality came out.
And after all of that, he denied he had actually been subpoenaed and only knew what he knew from reading the WSJ.
For all of that, Gannon has played a very interesting role that has not been fully explained. My own WAG is that he was placed in plain view (circa March 2003 iirc) in the WH press pool to silence any military/government sorts who had a little prelediction for man on man action on the side and weren’t on board with W’s plans to invide Iraq.
Linda @ 70, ouch. Succinct. Deadly.
I think that I’ll throw up in my mouth if I hear Judy tell her version of what the Aspens thing meant.
Emptywheel, I don’t know how to thank you enough. What you are doing is blogging at its best. This may even cure my addiction to the Young and the Restless.
Wrt Patrick Fitzgerald’s white hair:
Think of the weight on this man’s shoulders right now.
Holy crap, annx, that is too funny (regarding RawStory photo of not-Judy).
Linda @ 69, (was 70?), that’s got to be quote of the day.
Pat_AlexVA @ 76
I wonder if he was ops, or analysis? Are there really any former ops folks?
katie Jensen @ 66
Being of the Irish persuasion, What hair I have went white in less than 5 years.Beard and all.
This all looks like a well laid Rove plan, to me. Please dear lord, can we get him??? I can’t believe that Fitz wouldn’t want Rove on a platter, my fear is he offers libby on a plate. My prayer is that Fitz knew exactly what was going on as he had interviewed V.P and scotus and so, my hope is that Rove is only protected from the perjury charge. I don’t think for a moment rove et al, have been cleared from the other charge.
although, I keep remembering fitz’s quote about not expecting “other indictment’s” but he could well have been making sure the kitchen didn’t get too hot.
I also keep remembering that Wells is a democrat. He may want to do what’s best for his client which his job, but might not be as inclined to do it in a way the protects the administration. If I were him, I would want to protect my client at any cost. He sure isn’t helping the administration…
Pat_AlexVA @ 73
I ordered my copy.
Also, re contributing to FDL, I’ve decided to make a monthly contribution going forward. I still wish there was some way of doing a subscription so those who pay the bills at FDL have a better idea of what funds they will have at their disposal.
Semi-EPU, but Marcy’s use of J.-L. David today reminded me of a little bit of photoshoppery I did last year: George W. Napoleon.
RevDeb @
21
Or someone else’s defense? Who is footing the bill for Team Libby? Funded by donors whose names are not public? I see. I would like to know who is paying Wells et al to pipe. What do you do when you attorney is helping throw you under the bus?
Bionic @ 81
Great post. Yes, he did first brag about, then later deny involvement with the investigation
Two and three are sure worth speculating upon, but as an innocent person accused of a crime, I can tell you how difficult it is to want to tell people you respect that you “didn’t do it”, knowing what a burden you put on them by the very saying of it. I think it’s wrong to imply that denying guilt is always, automatically a sign of it.
Any particular facts or testimony or phrasing that jump out at you as significant?
yeah: Addington buried Cheney with this….
Right before this, Addington said that there were three things that a press office shouldn’t be talking about 1) intelligence sources and methods 2) (wartime) rules of engagement, and 3) ongoing criminal investigations.
and Bartlett is saying “hey, don’t tell me, tell your own boss — he’s the one who gave the order.”
***************
2nd thing….this is the chewbacca defense, and its not going to work. The prosecution is getting up and establishing relevant facts in an economical fashion. Defense gets up, and goes all over the place annoying the crap out of the jury. Prosecution gets up, gets the witness to restate the relevant info, and sits down.
If I’m a juror, I’m pissed off.
dqueue @ 87
Yeah. Valerie Plame.
Biodun @
33
Biodun
Thanks for the clarification. When I looked at the picture earlier, I said to myself – “That looks a lot like Bob Bennett”.
Bennett did a cross on me in a gov’t procurement trial. Seemed real sharp – pointed out a variation in an answer I had given to GJ vice what I answered in the witness box pretty quick.
These people really do lawyer up pretty heavy. Wonder what he is making an hour these days?
PS: Absolutely great work by everyone. What a pleasure to lurk and occansionally put a bit in.
I’m having trouble with the idea that lying worm Fleischer and neocon lunatic Addington have suddenly flipped over to the side of sweetness and light. Or even that Ari hasn’t been in communication with the defense. How could that be? Maybe one or both of them will lie enough to get discredited (both their trial testimony and their GJ testimony) and Libby gets off. Then Ari and/or Addington can be pardoned since they don’t have juciy testimony to give anyway (besides being discredited).
I also don’t believe that pardoning Libby or anyone else means that Fitz will be able to compel useful testimony against the higher-ups out of them. Look at the Iran-Contra pardons, look at Nixon’s pardon, nobody ever got anything useful out of those guys. Why should this be different?
Jane S. @ 77
I was 80% grey at 40. Left handed, too. Both possible autoimmune issues. They call me Mary Margaret. Irish, French, German, English, Native American, et al. But I don’t have asperger’s
I thought Fitz was Catholic. If so, it’s not a yarmulke, it’s a tonsure…
dqueue @ 86
You mean, other than Valerie Plame?
Maggie @ 53
One is known by the company one keeps….
pseudonymous in nc at 10:14 am
Loved it.
Reminded me of so many of darkblack’s great work.
montag @ 102
Speaking of Bolton, he is now publicly stating that Iraq should be split up. Worms turning all over the place…
My rough guess, filled with all kinds of speculation:
Wilson’s oped and Senate testimony was that administration hyped up rationale for war. He spoke specifically to the Niger situation because that is something he had direct knowledge of. Niger memo is considered as rationale. Doubts as to validity surface. Cheney asks CIA to nail down truth of the memo. Plame’s group is researching, and she suggests to her boss that Amb. Wilson had knowledge of Iraq and contacts in Niger, so might have information to share. He is present (she is not) at the critical meeting where the group decides to send Wilson on a fact-finding trip. Wilson returns from his trip, reports that there is no credible evidence to support the Niger memo. CIA writes report, sends to VP. VP’s office makes no further notice of this report until after the brouhaha, which gives credence to Wilson’s central assertion that the administration was simply disregarding evidence that did not support its case for war.
Meanwhile, back in the White House, Bush either misreads or misinterprets the published Wilson material. He takes it to mean that Cheney is sending people around trying to second-guess the WMD rationale. Serious loyalty test for Cheney. Cheney is called in, and says he doesn’t know Wilson and never sent him on any trip. Cheney doesn’t want to appear disloyal. Bush tells Cheney, perhaps senior advisors, to find out who did send Wilson, then, and smear ‘em good. Word comes around that “the wife” works at CIA and sent Wilson. Cheney latches on to this as a way of proving his loyalty. “See, I didn’t send him, it was his wife. She sent him.” This leads senior advisors to scratch around, and they discover Plame is NOC. Bush won’t back down from the “smear ‘em” position, so the situation festers while they figure out a way to spread the nepotism angle without getting into trouble. This causes “the wife” meme to bounce around the senior admins–it’s a bottled secret, they can’t talk about it and it frustrates them. Rove and Libby are the dedicated points here, because there is an acknowledgment that this particular leak has serious legal implications (which acknowledgment in itself should be damning).
All this talk about “who really sent him” was, at its start, a loyalty response to Bush, who misread or misinterpreted the original Wilson articles. He’s pissed at Cheney, and Cheney has to prove his loyalty bona fides by finding out “who really did send Wilson”. He can’t, under any circumstance, admit that he really did ask the CIA to do some more research. Bush is pissed at Cheney, and Cheney is pissed that Bush is pissed. So Cheney sits in his office, fuming and muttering about how he didn’t send Wilson. Thus begins the operation to find out who did send him (as it turns out, the CIA did, just as Wilson maintained very openly from the start).
And so that, in my speculative opinion, was the genesis of the whole mess. Given the confidential nature of Plame’s status, only Libby and Rove were involved. Minors got the standard-issue talking points that Cheney didn’t send Wilson, which sort of suggested impeachment of Wilson’s credibility but also elicited the question “so who did?” in the hopes that an enterprising reporter might dig deeper.
And on another note, I think Fleischer was downright pissed that Libby had used him. If his testimony put a shiv in Libby’s back, it was just the same shiv Libby used on Ari at the 7/8 hush-hush, QT lunch.
Biodun @
46
Well, do you suppose he’s setting us up for such a thing? As we know, he’s not big on the voice of the people wrt primaries.
Bionic (81) — Exactly my sentiments, although I think the amount of time that Gannon/Guckert spent at the WH indicated something other than his utility as a “honeypot.”
Or maybe he was a highly successful honeypot…
The question that was never adequately satisfied to my mind: if G/G is/was a honeypot, to whom did he belong?
Never saw a birth certificate that verified his actual citizenship and parentage.
katie Jensen @ 89
Fitz (anticipated response): “That statement was very true at that time – I was not expecting other indictments. But, new information has come forward that compels me to indict Rove’s ass today. But I do not expect any other indictments at this time. (teehee!)”
Great headline though not about this case:
Reuters:
“Miller Unsure About Defending Downhill World Title”
Judy, Judy, Judy . . . going downhill fast.
Or someone else’s defense? Who is footing the bill for Team Libby? Funded by donors whose names are not public? I see. I would like to know who is paying Wells et al to pipe. What do you do when you attorney is helping throw you under the bus?
sorry, but Team Libby can represent ONLY Libby’s interests — were it determined that they were acting in anyone else’s interest, they’d be disbarred.
dqueue @ 93
The funniest part was his accounting of how it went. He claimed to have seen the NIE from 2002. He then claimed that he was interviewed by the FBI who asked him for the sources of his information. He said that he told the FBI that as a journalist he wasn’t required to reveal his sources and would not violate them. The interviewers apparently said “ok” and released him from further questions.
Wells sounds as if he’s putting up bricks as high as he can, in effort to wall things in?/out?, but he’s not much of a mason. He’s got mortar crumbling down from every seam, & surely more bricks to follow.
You s’pose these type of folk (e.g., Addington, Libby himself) are so-o-o-o used to being completely close-mouthed with anyone not of their own inner-world, that the defense team is flying blind on much of this, because they may not have been given enough background by Libby et al. to prepare a proper defense?
I was only half kidding downstairs, wondering if lawyerly ineptitoodiness is fair game for mounting an appeal later. IANAL, zero experience, except being on a jury 2-3X. I defer to you lawyer-types. eh?
none, AFAIK, what’s in the background is that Ashcroft had to recuse himself, because of Comey. I think a lot of these guys testified very openly, prior to Fitz taking over. They figured they could tell the FBI everything, because Ashcroft was going to bury everything.
Then Fitz takes over and they are stuck with their old testimony and no Ashcroft to protect them.
pluk, thanks very much for your 10:16.
I just ordered my copy of Marcy’s book. On Amazon, it was only $13 with shipping–seems like the least that can be done to thank her for the heroic job she’s doing at the courthouse.
And with Judy just about the take the stand, and the sense of anticipation building, could there be a more perfect time to order a book called Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy?
I can’t find pics. of prosecution team going into court house this morning. Wanted to check out Fitz’s suit since EW’s description intrigued me. Anyone have a link?
Really curious. Apologies if this already covered earlier but, pretty-please, who’s there today from FDL? & where? Thanks ;->
Marcy in press room
Pach in courtroom?
Jane?
Christy?
Rayne,
Are you perhaps getting at the Johnny Gosch, child porn republican party conspiracy??? That whole story has laid on the floor for so many years with only peaks of interest. I live in nebraska and read everything on it back “in the day”. I think it was very weird indeed that Johnny Gosch’s mom got that strange photograph on her porch. That some big media mogul who did not see her picture denied it was Gosch, in the press without ever seeing, and that she still maintains on her web site that the child in the picture is her son. I think you combine this with the page scandal and the arrest and hush, hush of several high profile republicans (at least two) on child porn charges…then add the evangelicals…and it makes you wonder….
Definetly off topic…but I can’t wait for Judy. I took the day off today… no suicidal clients on my list..just following up folks who are doing well…good day to stay home!!
Request:
I know a lot of people here despise Judy, but can we possibly refrain from the kneepads comments? Let’s not bring sex and degradation into it, ok?
RevDeb @
109
that does not Bode well for her
clueless @ 108
I for one believe the only way rove could have avoided indictment was to cooperate
RevDeb @ 21
If I had a lawyer who was not defending me on the actual charges, I’d have to think his ass would be grass.
I once asked a professor I suspected was/had been CIA if he was a spook. He said, “Oh, no. But then, if I was, I wouldn’t tell you so,” and we both laughed.
katie Jensen @ 116
Do you recall this news piece about Rusty Nelson?
Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after Thompson suicide
Sparkles the Iguana @ 40
RevDeb @ 44
Sparkles the Iguana @ 49
Miost likely the artist using white for highlights to indicate light falling on object. Std proced is to draw shape, then put in highlights and shadows to give sense of 3 dimensions.
FYI – Porter Goss former operative?
A Neo-woman Warrior’s Wardrobe
joel @ 105
Joel – take your speculation one step further for us. When the FBI interviewed Bush/Cheney originally, how did Bush react to FBI sitting in his office asking HIM all the questions? Did Bush continue the ‘fuck you’ attititude to the FBI agents, saying ‘yeah, hell yeah, I did it. so what. what the fuck are you goin to do about it? I’m the KING OF THE UNITED STATES, you little pissant civil servant.’ meanwhile, Cheney sitting there thinking, man I could set this fool up to take the heat.’
who’s there today from FDL? & where? Thanks ;->
Marcy in the pressroom, liveblogging.
Jeralyn (from talkleft) in the courtroom itself this AM…pach will be joining him this afternoon.
Christy is at home with Peanut! ((((peanut)))))
****************
oh, and people, don’t get your hopes up too much with Judy Miller. I seriously doubt she is going to tell us anything we don’t already know during direct, and then we can expect about six hours of Team Libby getting “I don’t recall” answers from her …..
will the rest of the day be refreshed above?
or is it on a different page?
cs, art is bread @ 121
I once heard that one unwritten rule around the DC government establishment is that you never, ever ask a person what they do. If they can tell you, they will. If they can’t, they’ll have to lie. Either way, what have you actually gained? You aren’t sure of the answer either way.
Pat_AlexVA @ 73
I’m assigning the book for the Legal Ethics/Virtue Jurisprudence seminar I teach. MTWheeler’s work is perfect in so many ways. Thanks again, Marcy, for all of your efforts.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 118
Second that! Plus some a t’others that occasionally float around. Just not funny, & definitely not appropriate at the moment.
*hands bar of soap to mods*
Adie at 116 — Marcy is liveblogging and Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft is in the courtroom for us this week. And Pach just said in the comments earlier that he planned to go to the courthouse for some of Judy’s testimony this afternoon as well.
Wonder what was factored into Wells’ decision to take Libby’s case. Besides money.
Sally @ 134
Even scum is entitled to a defense.
Jane S. @ 76
My Dad’s Irish w/black hair, grey at the temples in high schools (quite the heart-throb, I’ve been told). I’m red Irish, I’m just now greying at nearly 60. Better red ;)
Adie @ 132
I didn’t read every comment here, but I don’t think I saw anything approaching this for Judy Judy Judy. For Gannon/Guckert, yes.
P.lukasiak at 128 — I’d say that pretty much covers what I’m expecting, unless we get a temper flare or two. *g*
katie Jensen @ 89
Make no bones about it, Wells’s #1 priority is to defend the judicial process and rule of law, and his #2 priority is to defend his client as aggressively as #1 will allow.
Protecting the administration’s ass is, we now find out, Alberto G’s job.
Hey FDL gang – can we get a tiny update? I’m trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to not refresh too often. Jes a little update telling us when to come back?
Thanks
Pax et Bonum @ 131
YeeHaw! I didn’t order, because I want to march in local store personally, buy one & get ‘em to put the others OUT FRONT! instead of burying them in “Politics & Govt” section at back of the store. AND to get them to order more than the paltry [3!] they have on order.
Please: does anyone know when Marcybooks are due to arrive in brick-&-mortar bookstores?
Rayne @ 107
My point is not about him servicing people in the WH per se, especially after he was ensconced in the press corps.
What I imagine is someone who may have used his services, who was not sufficiently loyal, or who may have been thinking about stopping Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC in their plans would have sh*t a brick to see him inside the WH.
Kind of like a horse head in the bed.
I’ve always wondered about the men he serviced. IIRC his advertising site said he served clients who were used to command.
Seems to me they left themselves open to being blackmailed.
Gannon himself strikes me as someone who believed the role he was assigned to play — Jeff Gannon, handsome Washington Bureau Chief of a major news organization.
I think his off the record jaunts at the WH were more about massaging his ego to keep him in line, than his massaging anyone else’s — er — you get the picture.
Last I heard of him is that he has come out (again). Don’t know where he is working. Perhaps he went back to his
daynight job, but I doubt he would still enjoy the same level of clientele.As to his identity, I think it was fairly established through the fraternity contacts. He bragged to them that he had “entertained Blair”. In the light of the seamier side of his life, it makes you go hmmmm. And FWIW it sounded from the way they reported this comment that it was another of Jimmy Guckert’s shaggy dog stories.
There is a book on the conspiracy and it is fascinating. I am certain there are many untruths but the book has yet to be seriously debunked or validated. I also thought the death of hunter thompson would open doors, and it was right after his death that Gannon was debunked and Johnny Gosch’s mom got the icky photo.
annx @ 67
Wtf, that’s the psycho from Desperate Housewives….
pardon me… will todays proceedings appear above or on a different page? thank you
Often cited in appeals, has a 1 in a million chance of working. Seriously, the issue isn’t whether an attorney is incompetent (or anything else), but whether whatever “mistakes” were made equate to “harmful error” (but for the mistake the trial would have turned out differently). And, most, most, most of the time, the appeals court finds that even in spite of the errors, the person would have been convicted. Even in capital cases, that is the analysis that is applied (something to think about if you are ever going to be a defendant).
It really isn’t a basket to put any eggs in.
And as for the job the defense is doing? I think Marksb put it best in that they are doing the best with what they have. Since the beginning I’ve been saying it wouldn’t be a fair fight, and it isn’t (for many reasons but starting with the most salient fact that most people who are indicted are in fact guilty and the gov’t has the evidence to prove it, the laws, rules and regs as interpreted by the judge favor the prosecution).
The most interesting thing that anyones posted in the comments was concerning whether if Rover has a deal (I think he has some agreement with the gov’t), would it prevent the gov’t from prosecuting him for “greater” crimes, such as under IIPA.
Plea Agreements typically contain language that states “….will not be further prosecuted for Crime X and related crimes.”
The key word is “related” and whether the gov’t would agree that conspiracy is, say related, to whatever the charge plead to was.
And it is really not that simple, b/c “related” does not mean RELATED as you or I know it in the world of plea agreements. Experientially both prosecutors and judges take a very narrow view of its meaning and your client can be prosecuted for seemingly “related” crimes. Scary but true also.
#136–Much better red. Although my silver fox husband is a law professor (a young one) and I think the gray hair adds to his gravitas.
Sally at 134 — It’s a difficult case factually, which presents a unique challenge for a trial attorney. Whatever you think of Libby or this Administration, a defendent deserves excellent representation and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wells and Jeffress and Cline are trying to provide that representation, just like defense counsel across the country do every day. The government has to be forced to prove its case, regardless of the identity of the defendant or the stack of evidence amassed against him.
It’s a tough job, and I wouldn’t want it — but it needs to be done, and done well. I hope they lose the case, but I am still glad hat Libby has competent trial counsel because that’s not only appropriate, it’s constitutionally sound.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 138
Oh please oh please oh please…
Where is Judy’s husband? He went on the cruise again?
zeppo @
10
I keep thinking of Rumpole’s two prime directives: “Never plead guilty!” and “Never ask a question to which you do not know the answer!” Wells is heeding the first and bollixing the second.
Question: Do you think that Team Libby went with Wells because they somehow figured that Walton would go easy on a fellow African-American? ‘Cuz if they did, it sure looks like they figured wrong.: Wells has done nothing but piss off Walton every damn day, from the start of voir dire to today.
HotFlash @ 124
it’s a halo
Jane S. @135, agree, but does that explain Wells’ decision?
robert @ 145
marci will start a new post when addington’s testimony resumes (delay is probably related to issues concerning Judy’s testimony being discussed in the judges chamber).
make sure to read the rules of the road that are posted at the start of each testimony thread….
I presume Marcy will start a new thread when the session resumes.
Christy 133 thanks!
To Christy:
Your weakness for courthouse couture gives me a warm tingle inside.
whaleshaman @ 126
The crossing guard is cute, whoever he is.
Sally @ 134
His strong desire to get to the truth.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sally @ 153
See CHS at #148 but maybe Wells felt like Libby is sacrificing himself for Cheney. I definitely think this defense team is preparing for appeal and better prepare to help him out in the sentencing phase, although the sentencing guidelines might prevent much mitigation there.
cs, art is bread @
94
As an attorney, I conducted a number investigations of corporate wrong-doing on behalf of various boards of directors. We were outside counsel and we represented to company. I don’t find Addington’s statement at all strange. I practically had that disclaimer tatooed on my forehead. When we conducted interviews, we always had two attorneys present so we had a witness for the warning. I would naturally repeated the warning anytime I thought someone might say something to me other than, here’s a box of documents.
On another note, I watched Ted Wells defend a trial a couple of years ago. (I was in the back taking notes for my client.) He lost. Big time. Cheers.
Yes, that’s Harriet Sansom Harris — Paul Rudnick’s muse. She was really great last season on Desperate Housewives , among many other things.
When Judygate started I proposed her as perfect casting for La Miller in the movie — which will of course be called Curve Ball
That deciding not to go to law school way back when was a better idea than I knew at the time!
My, my-it certainly seems as though Scooter is slowly but surely being dragged into the bear cage. We’ll see what kind of assistance the disgraced former journalist for the NYT can provide for our furry friend.
Court has gone back into session. Marcy is liveblogging again here.
Bionic @ 142
HOLY SHIT. If this is true, it provides a key answer as to why Blair played “the poodle” to Bush. Not only did Bush have amazing blackmail material, but conceivably they shared a similar “interest.”
Rushton @ 163
Hey, no sex. Even with bears. We agreed.
Richmond 137 just noticed a bit in a post much earlier – might even have been in a linked article.
Not a total prude, but would love if we could keep these threads the way they have been so far – what an incredibly wonderful gang here at the Lake.
Frankly, I don’t see we have anything to worry about – just bubbled over & added my own unnecessary comment, sigh. ;->
Action upstairs.
Sally @ 134
Moolah, wampum, dough, shekels?
live blogging upstairs
sweetgumroot at 157 — Well, secretly (or not so secretly at this point), I’m an avid InStyle reader. So the details on the attire are just fun color commentary for everyone. :)
Gucky had White House access simply to be a whore and two-bit propagandist. He’s far too simpleminded to be entrusted with any important information.
Incidentally he’s MIA these days, his Southern Voice column having been pulled.
p.lukasiak @ 154
thank you big guy
Hugh – Your take on Dubya seems very solid to me. Its almost as if you know the SOB ;-)
Joel, you give Dubya a lot of credit, I think, for being smarter than he is. I think that Cheney is and always has been the man.
Funny how we still have two camps on this and its b/c nobody really knows for sure – Though there are tons of clues to support Bush as empty suit and Cheney as the man.
katie jensen (117) — was thinking of Craig Spence, in particular, circa same era and same scandal.
Bionic (142) — hmm. I don’t know about a horse-head. I think there were enough dark players looking to ensure they got what they needed out of this administration that G/G could have been their boy. It would merely be a bonus if G/G had also caught a few other flies in the honeypot, could ensure leverage. Perhaps that’s how the Repugs managed to stay so tight and on party line during their majority…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 172
Speaking of the costumes–I wanted to see Fitz today, someone said there was a photo of him today at the LA Times but I couldn’t find it. Anyone know where I can see the prosecution team coming in today?
p.lukasiak (128) — agh, here we go, Miller’s “remote testimony”.
Rather like “remote viewing“, only fuzzier.
zeppo @ 130
Nah, I’ve lived here all my life, and people ask that just as much as they do out in the real world. For the people who actually work for intelligence agencies, there are any number of ways to say “I work for the government” without being too specific, and people who are actually covert have a cover story.
It’s probably true that most people know that if someone says says “I work for the government” without being specific, there’s no point in asking further, though for a lot of jobs people will simply say “I can’t tell you.” The other distinction is that you can tell someone is a contractor or beginner instead of career if they enjoy the fact that they can’t tell you.
Thanks EPU 146.
Lots to learn…
Sparkles the Iguana @
144
Hey, this past weekend in an FDL thread I said she (the pictured actress) should play Judy in the Plame movie!
Linda @ 70
Just because Libby is an attorney doesn’t mean he didn’t need the reminder (as an attorney, he should also know better than to lie to the FBI and the GJ!), but having said that, I think you may be right. Libby may have thought “we’re all on the same side,” but Addington strikes me as someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and he may have considered Libby a fool at that point.
10:1 Judy takes the Fifth and doesn’t testify at all.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 170
More than that — celebrity. Litigators like high profile cases. Even if the case is hopeless. Indeed, especially if the case is hopeless. Wells won’t be blamed if Libby is convicted.
Rayne @ 176
Gannon played two roles, IMO. The I laid out previously and as the putative Bureau Chief for Talon News, he was the face for the propaganda machine that spread the WH talking points out into the small Republican websites and little local papaers and to Limp and BOR who would talk to Gannon and the “news” which would then legitimize it and thus get picked up by the MSM.
Most of the Talon News posting were barely rewritten press releases and any official writing by “Gannon” is dissimilar to the writing he did on his own after the fact. Maybe he just showed up at hte WH to pick up his copy. ;o)
Talon News wasn’t even up as a website when he got clearance as a daily visitor to the WH press corps and Gannon had no journalist bona fides. Or even copy, I think.
Personally, I think he came off off as a vain blowhard, desperate to be admired but not very smart.
If you ask me, that’s a perfect combination for someone like Rove to use. Stroke his ego while he is useful and he’ll happily do whatever you ask. But easily disposable.
Jane S. @ 76
OK, I’ll bite. Is there an alternate blog universe going on here?
I’m 45 years old with 40% grey hair and 60% brown hair. I have english/german ancestry.
Did I miss a post here?
Troubled