
(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?
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
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-gues