Comments on: Libby Live: Matt Cooper Three

By: riverwalker

riverwalker — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:10:42 +0000

If I were a juror, I would have reasonable doubt as to Libby’s intentional perjury. Other witnesses seemed to have told different stories at different times and Cooper has given two different versions of Libby’s words to him. The defense showed both versions. Why should Libby be expected to have a perfect memory no matter what’s going on around him but others do not? I’m not yet convinced of guilt and Miller is still hiding something.
I wish this trial was actually about the initial charge that Fitzpatrick was given to investigate.

By: mahopac maze

mahopac maze — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:18:43 +0000

One issue that’s unresolved is how Judith Miller really learned about the Joe Wilson op-ed piece. Her story seems to be that none of her editors/superiors at the New York Times gave her the courtesy of a heads-up warning that they were about to publish an op-ed that would throw her WMD work under a bus, and she read it only after it was published. If true, this one-hand-doesn’t-know-what-the-other-is-doing behavior reflects badly on the situation at the Times, and seems bizarre conduct for any business. But if not true, who/what is she protecting? Perhaps Jill Abramson’s testimony will address it, but I’m not hopeful.

By: 1 Boring Old Man » courtroom lingo…

1 Boring Old Man » courtroom lingo… — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:24:06 +0000

[…] I hope it doesn’t come down to that – a contest over lawyers managing minutia. Not that I care about whether Libby goes to jail or not. What I care about is that the trial gets us an inch closer to the truth about this Administration and their Iraq war. This kind of dialogue doesn’t seem to be heading that way: Jefress: Do you ever type an r when you mean to type an n?/> Jefress: I don’t need to introduce these, but I do need to display them. Jefress: Brings up page. [Jeffress has found a note where MC clearly typed r instead of n] Jefress: were you typing notes while you were talking to someone. Jefress: You meant to type erroneous but you hit an "r" instead, so it became "erroreous." Matthew Cooper: Sure Jefress: Shows him typing "eregy" instead of "energy" [on an aluminum tube story] […]

By: whl

whl — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:01:40 +0000

General observation: in attempting to assess the questions, comments, sidebars, and references by the defense attornies, it may be useful to keep in mind that they are setting up a set of conditions from which to launch appeals.

As many have noted here, so far about 5 folks have absolutely, flat-out contradicted Libby’s statements to the FBI & sworn testimony to the grand jury. Wells is trying to lay out many paths of appeal about the witnesses against Libby & their individual abilities to remember specific actions, words & published or aired comments. Anything the defense can do to get a contradiction, a prejudicial ruling or comment, a prosecutorial mis-step, may lead to workable “stuff” in the appeals process.

By: Valley Girl

Valley Girl — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:11:12 +0000

cinnamonape @ 203

Valley Girl @ 157

dab in PA @ 150

Valley Girl @ 143

NefLes- thx- that makes sense. Am I correct in assuming that there is a top down order of “badness”?

Perjury is more serious than making false statements.

Thanks- where is obstruction of justice in the hierarchy?

The obstruction charges relate to lying to the Prosecutors/Investigators in interviews.

The Perjury charges relate to lying to the Grand Jury while sworn.

Thx. Actually, I was trying to figure out if obstruction is a more serious crime than perjury/ false statements.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:08:24 +0000

none @ 201

I said it in the other thread but I’m pretty sure the so-called typos in Cooper’s notes are actually scanning errors, i.e. he printed out the notes and gave them on paper to Fitz or Wells and they ran them through optical character recognition. That r vs n error happens all the time when you do that.

This would be quite funny if Fitz brings out the actual notes. puts them up in a digital photograph, and says…look there’s the “n” that Mr. Wells said was an “r”.

But I suppose the defense could argue that it was all a “dirty trick”…unless the copy that was presented by Wells was itself scanned and it was HIS copy that only had the misreads!

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:04:32 +0000

Valley Girl @ 157

dab in PA @ 150

Valley Girl @ 143

NefLes- thx- that makes sense. Am I correct in assuming that there is a top down order of “badness”?

Perjury is more serious than making false statements.

Thanks- where is obstruction of justice in the hierarchy?

The obstruction charges relate to lying to the Prosecutors/Investigators in interviews.

The Perjury charges relate to lying to the Grand Jury while sworn.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:09:52 +0000

Many thanks to FDL for the wonderful coverage, and to all the readers for illuminating and helpful posts. As a dimwit, I am quite lost and wish someone could give us a wrap-up each day about what happened and What It All Means. I’m sorry if I’m the only reader who can’t figure things out from the not-transcripts and apologize for being dim.

By: none

none — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:03:17 +0000

I said it in the other thread but I’m pretty sure the so-called typos in Cooper’s notes are actually scanning errors, i.e. he printed out the notes and gave them on paper to Fitz or Wells and they ran them through optical character recognition. That r vs n error happens all the time when you do that.

By: mrJJ

mrJJ — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:00:22 +0000

On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.

Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.

http://news.nationaljournal.co.....525nj1.htm