Having fun yet? Not a transcript, buy my book (look over <<< for a link), and don't refresh wildly.
Now we're talking about Grossman's 302, but we're in sidebar. She has said she saw it, long after it was written. She's leaning WAY back in her chair.
Wells up again.
Wells: I want to go to different area. (The Libby CP note)
Wells; This is document Libby produced prior to his interview.
DB: No. I believe it was October 21.
W: It wsa discussed.
DB Libby brought it. Libby did not give it to us.
W Jun 12 2003, Libby had a telephone call during which Cheney disclosed to Libby that Wilson's wife worked in Counter Proliferation. At the very outset of interview, he said to you he had reviewed this exhibit, it had refreshed his recollection, he now recollected that he first learned of Plame from VP.
DB THat's what he claimed.
W (mad) THat's what he said, that's not what he claimed.
DB He told us that, yes.
W He told us his name was Scooter Libby
DB Yes, it took us a long time to get him to tell us what his first initial stood for.
W He still won't tell me. He also said he was COS to VP.
DB Yes.
W He made clear that he did not first learn from Russert,but rather, he learned from Cheney on or about 6/12.
DB He told us he had forgotten about it until her reviewed his documents. but his first memory of it was that he learned of it from Russert.
W First memory after criminal investigation started.
DB I'm not sure his exact words. At the time when we talked to him on 10/14.
W Do you have a copy of your report.
DB I didn't bring it up here, no.
W You know where I can get it
DB It's probably on that table.
4:40
Copy of your notes that you took in that interview.
W Do you have a recollection that Mr. Libby told you early on during the interview that "early this month" when he was reviewing documents he found notes reflecting a telephone conversation reflecting a conversation.
DB The 10/03 is October 2003, not October 3.
W Libby also told you those notes refreshed his memory of his conversation with Cheney
DB That's what it says.
W He told you that he recalled being told of Plame
DB Yes, but that he had forgotten about it
W He was telling you about his recollection when he was sitting with you.
W The note says CP and then says Division
DB At the end.
W he told you that Mrs Wilson works at Counter proliferation at CIA. The note does not say Wilson worked at a bureau.
DB No
W NOte does not reflect that Libby said that Mrs Wilson worked at WINPAC. At no time during October interview or November interview did he state that Mrs Wilson worked at a bureah. At no time did he state that he understand that she worked at WINPAC. WRT Date of (CP note) he told you that note prepared one or two days before date 6/12/03.
DB He told us it was before then, he couldn't place the date.
W That squiggly sign was an approximation.
DB that's correct.
W He told you that he wrote the date at a different time than when the note was created.
DB What page did you say it was on
W Page 2, third paragraph. I'm in November
DB You'll have to give that one to me.
W I'll show you a copy of November interview report. Unlike October interview, you didn't take notes. What did you do in second interview.
DB I asked some questions, but Eckenrode was lead. I took no notes.
W Is it correct in second interview that Libby filled in date and time within a day or two of the date. He was not sure of the exact date, so he wrote over the original writing. He also told you that notes written in preparation for speaking to Walter Pincus, who was writing article for 6/12. He also told you he wrote note bc Pincus was asking certain questions. He had phone conversation with VP on or about 6/12.
W During first interview you asked questions about conversation with Russert. He told you he had telephone conversations on July 10 and/or July 11. Libby told you it was very possible that he had two conversations.
DB I don't know about the very, but it was possible.
W You were asking about that conversation that occured three months before. Libby had no notes, to your knowledge.
DB To my knowledge.
W You also asked LIbby questions concerning 7/12 concerning Matt Cooper. Your understanding that Libby had no notes. That telephone conversation had taken place three months prior to the invterview. Do you recall having discussions with Libby about 7/12 conversation with Judith Miller. During first interview.
DB I didn't until I recently looked at my notes, it's not in the 302.
W There's no statement in 302 about Libby relating to you his recollection of 7/12 conversation with Miller.
DB It looked like it's an oversight on my part.
W I think there may be brief reference to 7/12 telephone call. You see a reference to probable conversation with Miller.
DB it's probably the same one.
W During the discussion of July 12 conversation with Mrs. Miller, Libby did not relate to you his recollection of conversation with Miller? You didn't ask in the same fashion.
DB I didn't put it in my 302, and I don't know why that is, but it's not in my notes.
W You don't have the same detail.
DB True, bc it reflects what Libby told us.
W Only thing notes reflect is that Wilson's wife may have been mentioned indirectly, which probably meant I wanted to go back and ask him, since i wasn't lead I didn't always have same opportunity to finish it.
W Questions weren't focused on same fashion
DB We were focused on what Libby was telling us. We were listening to his story. With questions interjected, of course. Since we only had an hour and a half, we wanted him to talk as much as he could.
W when you convened for the second interview, you did not have a lot of discussion about Libby and Miller.
DB I don't believe so.
W The first time you asked LIbby to set forth his recollection of Judith Miller conversation was March 2003 (2004).
DB I wasn't at GJ
W That would have been 9 months.
Walton Might as well recess. Couple of things to discuss with counsel. We will recess at this time. We won't be sitting tomorrow. Come back on Monday at 9"30. Meet Marshalls at predesignated location. We're moving the case along fairly efficiently, we'll hopefully be able to complete government case. I'll ask again to comply with the instructions. Stay away from radio news program and TV news programs. Have a nice weekend.
Someone asks about Super Bowl.
Walton: I don't have a preference, my Steelers aren't there.
(Still more discussion coming)
4:58
Fitz: An hour and a half on Monday with Bond. Then we'll publish GJ testimony. One more witness. And then we'll have Russert. And then we'll rest Tuesday.
Wells: we're trying to resolve evidentiary issue that we're trying to resolve ourselves. If we can't resolve, we would file by tomorrow. We'll set forth to preclude certain issues. THen Fitz can file by end of day.
Walton: Alright Superbowl doesn't start till 6:30 Sunday, so if I get stuff by Saturday, I'll still have all day Sunday to review.
Walton: I would like to have you submit, there's one case which is analgous. US v. Yusef. A discussion starts on page 63. It involves a letter found in defendants computer relating to other threats to commit terrorist acts and defendant charged with terrorist related type threat activity. Court concluded that even though that letter related to other threatening acts. it was not unduly prejudicial. In regards to what you're going to submit to me, we already have letter in evidence, do those letters encompass a lot if not all of what's at issue now. I assuem they cover some of the ground.
Jeffress: You mean newspaper articles.
Walton: I assume they cover some of the ground.
Fitz: They do and that limits prejudicial value. Point is to show that Libby was aware of it.
Walton: Submit your filings.
Jeffress; GJ tape takes 8 hours. And of course we've got Russert. It's quite clear that if we finish, we'll barely finish. We'll schedule other witnesses on Wednesday. Motion to quash for Sanger. And from what I understand there will be an issue relating to release of recordings of Libby's testimony, objecting to release to the press.
Jeffress: It has never been done in this court.
Walton: I have concerns, and it's tough when you have a case, it's even more difficult to ensure Defendant receives a fair trial. Press will be here. They can report it to the extent that they want. It compromises my ability to ensure fair trial. Sensationalism of his voice. I'm struggling all I can that I don't have a problem with the journey. I understand someone from the AP to represent the press. We'll address that once. We'll address that issue next week. Anything else.
Fitz No thanks.
Beer thirty!! Have fun with Swopa and Jane next week!
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Emptywheel!
FITZ
Fitz, Marcy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EPU’d:
Back to work. Emptywheel, you’re an amazing hero.
I’m still holding out for this thing going into April, especially if Deadeye Darth testilies.
wow. Fitz?
empty wheel!
Christy!
Jane!
Swopa!
How many women on the jury again?
Agent Bond rocks the witness stand!
annx @ 7
9
Biodun @ 9
Thanks.
Buy The Book It’s Worth It!!!!
Do juries find Wells to be a sympathetic lawyer? It’s not just that he questions the witnesses rigorously, which he should. But he insults them and their intelligence. Does this sort of thing go over well with the jury?
Buy the book–review the book for your hometown alt newspaper if the msm paper won’t cover it…just a thought.
Support the Lake…upper right corner.
I think I’m in love with Debbie Bond….
This is so funny- Scooters got his hand in the cookie jar, his mother walks in and he say’s
“No I don’t” What a moron!!
Bond-Deborah Bond
Wells doing anything he can to prevent Fitz’ team from getting in redirect before the weekend hiatis?
Wells seems to be trying awfully hard to harp on agent Bond’s notes, like it’s her fault about something.
He’d better watch out, because under redirect, you can bet that Fitz will focus in on the core of her testimony, leaving his main points fresh in their minds before adjournment.
The jury will see that the defense was playing the typical defense attorney waltz, and I don’t think the jury is there to dance. At least not to the tune of discrediting an FBI agent.
Deborah Bond is quick-witted.
And she’s nobody’s fool.
“W Do you have a copy of your report.
DB I didn’t bring it up here, no.
W You know where I can get it
DB It’s probably on that table.”
LOL Wells probably hoped it’d take til spring to get.
I wrote a grand total of eight words.
And they’re in moderation!
Anybody around to help? (Although it wasn’t a super-urgent comment or anything…)
edit — Oooh, thanks! That was right quick!
Which table?
“Cause w/discovery shouldn’t Wells already have a copy of it?
Hope she pointed to the defense table, make him look like an ass…
W: Do you have a copy of your report.
DB: I didn’t bring it up here, no.
W: You know where I can get it
DB: It’s probably on that table.
that is……….deadpan. like dylan’s ‘clothesline saga’…..
‘the neighbour asked ‘are those clothes yours?’
I said ’some of em, not all of em…’
and the neighbour he just blew his nose
dab from CT @ 12
In my humble opinion, he comes off as arrogant. He keeps refering to Valerie as “The Wife” w/ 9 women on the jury I don’t think this is a wise way to go. He also seems combative towards people who might be able to help Scooter i.e. not overtly helpful, but perhaps shaky on certain points. He doesn’t seem to recognize an opportuntiy to capitalize on an opportunity when he see’s it.
A side comment – I’m curious about the ex-court reporter’s utility, offered upthread. I wonder if it allows names/identifiers of speakers to be typed w/ a keystroke?
One thing that confuses me here is that I’m used to reading (a speaker i.d.’d) as “W” to mean “Witness,” and”J” to mean “Judge.” Since we have 2 surnames beginning with W and one beginning with J, figuring out who’s speaking sometimes takes a couple tries.
I didn’t mention it sooner as most of us are not lawyers, and it’s very minor compared to the great info Marcy is giving us, obtainable no other way.
But if the utility proves useful, and allows consistent id-ing of who is speaking, that could help all of us, reporters and readers.
http://www.editorandpublisher……1003540604
Link to good summary of today at the trial. Reporter has gotten all information RIGHT HERE- and so aknowledges.
emptywheel
Anatomy arrived today.
Should be able to finish before Sunday Kick-Off
(I’m in Chicago – this is important)
Sent a copy to best friend for early birthday present.
From the first chapter, I think every American should have one
(I’m not that flush)
Thanks for everything.
ps
Is Pizza Bobs still around?
You missed her better dig – He wouldn’t be forth coming about his given first name, and if he wasn’t forthcoming about that…..it is not difficult to assume that he wasn’t forth-coming about more important facts. That was planned on her part (if she could get it in) and telegraphed right to the jury. Well’s didn’t get the point of it, he went along with the “joke.”
Not that any of it matters. Toast. Toast. Toast.
BTW…. Libby says he may have talked to Cheney about outing Plame on the airplane on July 12. Nevertheless, we are expected to believe that Libby is CERTAIN he sourced “other reporters” when he discussed wilson’s wife with Cooper and Miller….
Doesn’t add up — Cheney knew Plame was CIA — he’d told Libby. But supposedly Libby goes to Cheney, and says “hey I heard from Russert that Wilson’s wife was CIA…can we go public with that?”
And the answer isn’t “NO”? Libby may have buried Cheney here….
I’m a left coaster so I’m 3 hours behind and trying to catch up so sorry if this has already been discussed but I have been trying to come at this from the perspective of being on the jury and this occurred to me while reading the first part of agent Bond’s testimony…
Libby admitted (and showed the note) stating that he found out from VP in June that Val worked at CIA in CP. Then he says he forgot that and said he did not remember it when Russert told him.
Then he said he remembered it when he read the note again after the first interview with FBI
So, I look at my own experiences with memory and I have to wonder why he didn’t remember when he heard it from Russert but he did remember it when he read the note?
Personally, my memory would have kicked in on both occasions.
I would remember when I was told something I already knew just as surly as I would if I read something I already knew.
So for me, his “Faulty memory” simply does not make sense.
Anyone else feel like this?
Mack @
25
Yes it is, and boy is it goooooooooooooooddddddd!
tejanarusa @ 24
You know what worried me was that it could be someone posing as an interested party but is in actuality an operative trying to screw this up!! stranger things have happened- that’s why we’re here!
Yes, Libby claimed, Agent Bond, I concur… (from EPU-land):
“That’s what he said, not what he claimed!”
Mr. Semantics strikes again.
That’s what he uttered, mumbled, shouted, whined, whatever.
I used to like firedoglake before it became more important than the work on my desk…
joysness -I think that’s a great point. It’s called opportunistic recall, or lying, whichever you prefer.
Might have that wrong.
joysness @ 29
I do
That makes is sound as if redirect will be Monday? That might be better for Fitzgerald – start the week off by reiterating 007’s testimony in the jury’s mind.
Cranky
From last thread:
perris @ 109
Considering how casual this crowd are with classified information, I’m not sure a deal to have Rove’s security clearance revoked would have much weight.
Rats! The jury won’t get to hear Fitz’s redirect ringing in their ears all weekend. Wells should be pleased about that.
Joyness @ 29:
So for me, his “Faulty memory” simply does not make sense. Anyone else feel like this?
Oh yeah. Absolutely. Common sense, no?
Libby had a choice to make:
Plead guilty- and try to get a deal
Claim that he didn’t say the things that Fitz claims he said- (but it’s on tape)
Claim that what he said was TRUE (but the evidence against him on that one is monumental).
Claim that he “forgot”– that’s about it- unless he likes “innocent by reason of insanity”.
Also, I think the whole discussion on “memory” yesterday misses what the jury will most likely focus on, which isn’t whether Miller or Cooper or any witness for that matter have perfect or even good memories, or how any witness “remembers,” and then will use their “memories” or “remembering” as a basis on which to judge Scooter. And the key point it misses is the IMPORTANCE to the person of what is being remembered. And there Scooter (and others, but not the witnesses) stands alone – its why he’s on trial. And that will be what the jury thinks about. And as support for that position, that is where the whole defense idea that Scooter was a busy man and the Wilson’s were not important to him comes from. (PS – If someone brought this up before, congrats)
The prosecution has done a very good job of showing it was important to Scooter, and that is what the jury will concentrate on (and among the reasons why he is toast).
Muzzy at 34
Yea, that’s what I thought.
Tap Dunan @ 36
;>)
I remember listening to the Don Imus show one morning and he had Andrea Mitchell on. They were discussing the Plame afair and Imus pressed Mitchell about a phone call she was being coy about. After a few minutes she revealed she recieved a call from Rove who was fishing for reporters to reveal dirt on Wilson.
She stated she declined the offer.
Must be on tape somewhere…..
Judge Walton sez to the ladies and gentlement of the jury, regarding what media they should avoid over the long weekend: “Stay away from radio news program and TV news programs.” Hey, yer Honor, wottabout the Toobz? :) :)
Tap Duncan @ 31
Hmmm. Once upon a time I would have dismissed such a suggestion as paranoid…these days, not so much. Sigh.
Bond talks about not taking notes during second Libby interview because it was conducted by Eckenrode…. will Eckenrode be testifying? Did he take notes?
p.lukasiak @
28
Who did Libby talk to after he went to see Cheney?
w- did this refresh his memory
db – yes, he remebered what he forgot to remember
w-forgot or remembered? (mad)
db- remembered, yes …. a cowboy suit
w-it’s starting to turn, the aspens
db- stop calling me shirley!
Walton- Not Guilty by insanity!
EPU @ 40:
I discussed this yesterday, in an EPU, how the Scoots was spending a LOT of time and energy on it. Which is precisely why I htought hte testimony from the get-go was so damning. In fact, I think that was precisely the INTENT of Fitz!’s direct, was to show how important it was to the Scoots.
You’re abso right.
Might as well bring it up again though as I think most of us ae missing it, now that we’re down deep in the muck.
tejanarusa @ 24
I don’t know what EW writes in but you could easily record a few macros to do the names in MS Word.
Mrs. K8 @ 18
This Bond, you might say, was stirred; not shaken.
p.lukasiak @ 46
I wondered that, too. I know from previous he has retired, but it is possible his notes could be entered, or could they? If they were I guess he’d have to testify. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t mind, and he might have a legal obligation. I’ll have to call my buddy in the FBI to find out for sure.
froggermarch @ 51
NICE!
Sorry–the notes weren’t Eckenrode’s. They were another FBI agent’s notes. Also there was the objection when Wells tried to get Bond to comment on the Grossman 302 (the one, Grossman says, that was inaccurate). So I assume they wouldn’t let her comment on those notes either.
Can someone refresh my memory – who’s Sanger? A reporter?
Jeffress: Motion to quash for Sanger
Does Walton’s last statement imply that there will be only one AP reporter in the courtroom for the GJ video? Does that mean no other reporters, no bloggers, and no remote press/blog room?
Cranky
Judith Miller and Irving Libby only have memories that are “note driven”….
Redshift @ 38
Heh. Sad but true.
Jury members I’d imagine will recall when they recieved ’shocking’ information (Mom had an affair with WHO????) and know full well that none of their brothers or sisters would forget they ever heard this?
Or even more to the point ‘mom’ forgets a month after the fact.
Scooter’s little memory defense is pitiful but the best money can buy.
Justice Galore
froggermarch @ 51
David Sanger, NYT.
Sparkles @ 58: Yeah, I’m thinking his status is “Treat as Having Top Secret Access.”
Cranky Observer @ 56
I doubt it. My first thought was that there will be arguments on press’s right get copies, and AP atty will argue press side…but that doesn’t really make sense. A “representative” does seem more like a pool person…but then it would probably refer only to rep inside courtroom – eliminating the media room would raise way too much furor from all the rest of the press.
Who is the mystery witness before Russert??
Next up:
The Foggoten Defense
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002453.php
I figgered the ref to AP person meant a lawyer for the AP pushing for audio of Libby. Makes sense to me, but Walton sounded dubious, for now. Not that he would prejudge it. :)
-
Super, super job, Marcy.
We are all deeply indebted to you and to FDL, for your stellar coverage.
I doubt it. My first thought was that there will be arguments on press’s right get copies, and AP atty will argue press side…but that doesn’t really make sense. A “representative” does seem more like a pool person…but then it would probably refer only to rep inside courtroom – eliminating the media room would raise way too much furor from all the rest of the press.
my impression is that the AP has filed for release of the Libby grand jury testimony tapes on the grounds that they are exhibits in the case, and thus should be considered public documents — and an AP lawyer will be present in the courtroom to discuss the issue/file an objection before the tapes are played….
Wilkes and Foggo, eh. I recall wondering if Bush canning UA-A Lam in San Diego was an attempt to shut this down. Good news.
Thank you emptywheel for all your hard work! Are you going to continue next week??? I hope so!! I was a bit worried reading your “have fun” comment at the end of today.
I am confused about something today and thought that Fitz should have done a better job bringing this out on direct with Bond, if indeed the sequences is what I think it is. From the cross, it seems that in Libby’s first interview with the FBI in 10/03, that he said he learned about Valerie Plame from Russert (in 7/03), and then when he came to his second FBI interview in 11/03, he brought the note from around 6/12/03 and corrected his prior statement and now said that because of finding this note, he recalled that he learned of Valerie Plame around 6/12/03 from the Vice President. Am I understanding this right? Is that what even Fitz is trying to say happened?? In direct, Fitz did not get those facts out, that it was in the second interview that Libby said he learned about Plame from Cheney. HE NEEDS TO CLARIFY THAT ON RE-DIRECT. The problem I see is that if the above set of facts are accurate, that it really does not appear beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby’s false statement to the FBI that he learned of Plame from Russert, was willful or intentional, which would mean he is / could easily be found by the jury to be not guilty of that count. I think this one is a hard sell since it was only a month later that he corrected his initial (false/Russert) statement and he claims he did not (or was not able to??) look at his notes before that first interview, but after he did, in the very next interview, he corrected himself. I feel a bit po’d because nowhere have I read before that Libby corrected himself as to how he learned about Plame in his interviews to the FBI. I’m a trial lawyer, and I’m confused about this; so, I HOPE FITZ IS GOING TO STRENGTHEN THIS WITNESS’ TESTIMONY ON RE-DIRECT OR WITH OTHER EVIDENCE (perhaps Libby said he learned it from Russert to the Grand Jury, which was after that second FBI interview, I’m pretty sure. But, if Libby lied to the GJ after having corrected himself to the FBI, then he’s primarily guilty of stupidity). I would really like to hear what people think about this comment and if I’m getting the timetable right as to Russert and the correction. Thanks!!
Who is the mystery witness before Russert??
according to Marci, someone from the DoJ… possibly, someone there to certify that the tapes and transcripts of Libby’s testimony ARE what they purport to be, etc…..
p.lukasiak @ 68
Thanks – note to self – stick with your first guess! Don’t overthink!
I am confused about something today and thought that Fitz should have done a better job bringing this out on direct with Bond, if indeed the sequences is what I think it is. From the cross, it seems that in Libby’s first interview with the FBI in 10/03, that he said he learned about Valerie Plame from Russert (in 7/03), and then when he came to his second FBI interview in 11/03, he brought the note from around 6/12/03 and corrected his prior statement and now said that because of finding this note, he recalled that he learned of Valerie Plame around 6/12/03 from the Vice President. Am I understanding this right?
no. The story from Libby was the same in both FBI interviews…. Libby heard it first from Cheney around June 12, forgot it, and then heard it “as if for the first time” from Russert on July 10.
your confusion is probably because Libby brought the notes to the first interview, but the FBI didn’t have their own copies until the second interview.
ok.. trying to synthesize todays stuf. Libby learns Plame fromm Veep the Creep 6/12.
Tells FBI he learned it from Russert. Forgot that he learned it from Veep, but told reportes in July because they already knew anyway and Prez would declassify it anyway to cover everyone’s ass.
Well.. it’s shoddy conclusion but I am a busy guy.
tejanarusa/tap duncan 24-31-45: LindaR, the former court reporter, is a longtime FDL regular and frequent contributor.
Well now my head is swimming.
Is Libby’s contention that just days after “running around with his hair on fire” about Joe Wilson and sorting everything out with Cheney, Addington, Martin, McC, Rove et al, a week later this has all gone by the bye and when he purportedly hears Russert say that Plame worked for the CIA he has totally forgotten what he knew the week before?
Isn’t that the crux of this case?
Then, if Libby’s story included learning about Plame from Cheney even in his first interview with the FBI, why is Fitz saying he lied when he said he learned it first from Russert?? What is going on? Fitz has not been claiming that Libby lied that he learned it on 6/12/03 from Cheney. He’s put on all those early witnesses to prove that Libby learned about her ID and that Plame was in the CIA PRIOR to his discussion with Russert. I realize Russert claims he did not even discuss Plame with Libby at all; so, that’s a lie, but why this claim from Fitz that Libby learned it before Russert, if Libby admitted he did in the first FBI interview. The only thing I can see that was obstructionist was that he minimized or lied or “forgot” about having discussed Plame with other reporters.
rosalind @ 75
Whew! I’m really glad to hear that. I like not having to feel fatallly naive, not to have thought of the nefarious angle. Thanks.
Tap Duncan @
36
Absolutely. This is part of what makes this whole thing so utterly fascinating.
To me, if it was a matter of a few DAYS between the time Libby claims to have known and the time the press knew (and thus, Plames identity and position were made public), that would be one thing, but we’re talking a frigging MONTH! This doesn’t even go to the other levels of detail.
Moreover, if you, as a high level government official, find out the person who was outed (even BEFORE the press gets wind of it), you CERTAINLY have to know that it’s illegal to out a CIA operative — and certainly one who is in CP. So, even IF Libby did not remember being told of Plame’s identity at first, I cannot believe he would have forgotten all details at the first reminder when he spoke with Russert. Give me a break.
Call me naive or stupid, but on that basis alone, Libby’s credibility is utterly shot. The pity is that his real crime is being loyal to three guys who truly couldn’t be trusted. I ask you, would YOU trust Dick Cheney, GW or KR? Would YOU put your ass out on a sling for them??
IANAL but if I was, this is a defense case I suspect I would never have wished on my worst enemy.
Atty A @ 77
Give me a break
rosalind @ 75
I am so glad to hear that. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I just had that thought. I hope that she can help, although, this is still pretty great. Like anything, we always have to let others help us improve. I apologize Linda for not recognising you. I, unlike our prez., enjoy being shown to be wrong. I just want to become a more well informed observer.
We have some of the most fabulous people here that I could ever wish for.
The list would be endless.
To all;
Thank You.
On another note, I think it’s pretty obvious that the Pres didn’t really declassify the NIE prior to his staff going around trashing Wilson. I think he did it retroactively or just said he did to cover all their asses. So, my question now is, can a Pres retroactively declassify a document without pardoning all the prior leakers and make all the wrong-doing go bye-bye? I think that should be grounds for impeachment — conspiracy to commit a felony/treason. Can’t someone prove that Bush (& Cheney if he was granted the power) did not really declassify that document prior to the leaking? Wouldn’t there have to be some paper trail saying it really was declassified and on what date? Has anyone seen any documents proving it was declassified?
Just in case folks missed it, Swopa’s upstairs
froggermarch @
51
Just popped back in and caught this! Witty!
And, hey, froggermarch! Good to see you!
Seems I haven’t seen you for a while, but then again, @#$%^ stuff in my life has kept me away from my FDL online home more often than I care to think. So maybe you’ve been here when I haven’t.
How’ve you been, pal? Hope all is well in the froggermarch world.
arga warga
Can someone please clear up for me something tht I hope is not confusing just me…
So Libby told the FBI agent that he got the info from VP in June. That contradicts him saying that he got it from Russert – but he told the truth first, to the FBI, in Oct. 2003, and then lied later????
Re: Atty A: Don’t feed the trolls.
**************
That being said…. If this means what it says, its stunning (from the Bond Three liveblog)
in other words, Libby is claiming that he learned there was an envoy in May (after Kristof article), learned that the envoy’s wife worked for the CIA in June from Cheney (then forgot it) but didn’t learn that Joe Wilson was the “envoy” until Joe wrote his column?!?!?!?!
I have to believe this is a transcription error, because if that was Libby’s story (and, according to Bond, he stuck with the same story during the second FBI interview) he’s not merely toast, he’s the crumbs at the bottom of the toaster you have to clean out every so often…..
Uh-oh. Mod?
What’d I do now?
Stuck in moderation again. I feel like a kid made to stay after school for detention.
The Libby Defense: “Whatever it was, I didn’t do it!”
edit: Hot damn! You’s FAST! Thanks!
Still wanna know what the bleep I’m doing wrong. [scuffs pavement with tip of shoe, looks down, shuffles away]
[Mod Note; refreshing is a good thing, and you are not alone.]
p.lukasiak @ 73
I had same question, but got EPU’d twice. (hope not 3 now). So what did he lie about? Telling reporters? Said when he spoke to reporters they brought it up and he didn’t remember at all his conversation with Cheney?
Pretty ridiculous to think anyone would believe he completely blacked out and not triggered when spoke to reporters.
Atty A
But what you’re saying, or not saying, is that it would mean he forgot what he told the friggin FBI too!
Don’t be so dense.
Is par of the confusion the fact that there were two different investigations: the FBi at first, and then Fitz’s??
p.lukasiak @
87
Bwahahaha!
We’re about to give away an old, but functional, toaster. It’s sitting on the kitchen counter waiting for me to clean the bitsy bits of crumbs in the bottom tray.
Thanks for giving me something great to think about when I do that thankless job!
p.luk @ 87
You read my mind. Must. Not. . . .
I think I’m getting this. Someone call Oliver Stone! It’s the Magic Memory Defense!
So what did he lie about? Telling reporters? Said when he spoke to reporters they brought it up and he didn’t remember at all his conversation with Cheney?
What he lied about
1) [paraphrase] “although my notes refresh my memory about the VP telling me about the “envoy’s wife” working for the CIA, I’d forgotten that by the time I talked to Russert, and when I heard about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA from Russert it was as if for the first time”
2) [paraphrase] I didn’t talk to Judy Miller about Wilson’s wife on July 8.
3) [paraphrase] when I told Matt Cooper and Judy Miller about Wilson’s wife on July 12th, I told both of them that my only source was other reporters
Are you calling me a troll?! How rude.
Atty. you gotta say who you’re talking to.
…
I just can’t imagine how a mind like Libby’s works. Willing to help set up a ruse to go to war, out Valerie with all of the potential loss of life world-wide, assume the FBI is so stupid they can’t catch you, lie to a Grand Jury and think you’ll get away with it because you are so IMPORTANT. Never a thought for his own kids, much less America.
I was referring to post # 87.
p/luk @ 95
I noticed he also forgot his lunch with Miller on the 23rd. Makes me wonder if Miller was taking her notes in bed too.
rwcole @
25
But they got the headline wrong. “FBI Agent Testifies Libby Learned of Plame’s Name from Cheney.” hope i got the quote right.
But what she testified was that was Libby’s testimony.
Dear FDL Ladies,
Thank you so much for your incredible work. I just wrote the check to my credit card to pay for my donation to this exquisite cause and could not have been happier to have done so. I sincerely hope those of you at Plame House are comfortable. God Bless.
In post #96, I was referring to post # 87.
Are you aware that Bob Cox, founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) – the association responsible for securing blogger access to the Libby trial, is also widely recognized as running one of the most virulently right-wing presences on the internet – http://www.olbermannwatch.com?
The raison d’etre of Cox’s blog is a critique of veteran news anchor Keith Olbermann. If you’re not familiar with MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, it’s been the only cable network program to openly express disagreement with the Bush administration’s policies, in particular on the war in Iraq.
In his own words:
“Not that it was ever my goal in life but I am now the leading blog critic of Keith Olbermann and a recognized authority on Keith Olbermann (citation: quoted in Washington Post, New York Observer, Hartford Courant, Online Journalism Review, etc.).”
Bob Cox refers to supporters of Keith Olbermann as “Olbyloons” – a derisive term whose only purpose can be to evoke scorn and distain for those who support Olbermann’s informative, entertaining, and thought-provoking newscast.
Here’s one example of Cox’s use of the term from an October 18, 2007 interview with Ken Berwitz :
“We asked Ken if he could apply the research in his book to help us better understand those afflicted with OlbyLoon Disorder, those disturbed people known the world over as ‘OlbyLoons.’”
and
“Let’s start with hygiene. OlbyLoons spend a great deal of time in the bathtub in order to emulate their hero, Keith Olbermann. What did you learn about the bathing habits of OlbyLoons.”
and
“OlbyLoons, often unable to apply logic in an argument, resort to vituperation. Why?”
Given the importance of the Libby trial, this may help to put the MBA’s activities in this broader context. The blogging community has thrived on the principle of questioning accepted wisdom. In that same spirit, I would encourage you to reflect on the background of MBA’s spokesperson.
Are you confident about the absence of a right-wing bias from MBA? Do you believe that the information that you are receiving from them is both fair and accurate?
It is a watershed moment to have the Libby trial opened to live blogging coverage. It would be a tragedy to have that honor somehow compromised by demonstrable partisan affiliations among the organizers of those pioneers.
[Mod Note; please see siun’s comment below at 4:03pm to clarify that there is no connection between Media Bloggers Association and Firedoglake.]
I was just thinking that when Libby saw Card and McC were “blowing him off” he’d worry that the President’s position was (had become) that he’d never declassified Plame. That would be a gut check.
new thread upstairs…………..
Crazy Horse @ 100
According to what was discussed here, that article GOT IT WRONG. It says Libby changed his story between interviews.
Atty A – Libby, while “recollecting” about Cheney, still stood by the testimony that Russert told him, which does not appear to be true; and that he (Libby) didn’t tell anyone else until he “learned it” from Russert, bc, when Libby heard it from Russert it was like it fell on virgin ears. Madonna will be coming out with the single.
Of course, in between learning it from Cheney and “relearning” it [not] from Russert, Libby discussed the topic with others, including Fleischer.
I agree on the NIE and will also say that I don’t think authorizing dissemination to Miller, with no CA, and granting HER de facto authority over what she would or would not “declassify” for the rest of us, from what cherrypicked info she was given, really counts as “declassification” and falls more under the heading, “abuse of discretion.” But the Spec Counsel has no authority on the NIE front, can’t charge for it even if they bought that it wasn’t proper, and so the judge has repeatedly instructed the jury that there is “no dispute among the parties” about the NIE classification.
you’re right….I doublechecked… like I said earlier, Libby had the “cheney told me first” note with him during the first interview….
but they must have changed the headline, because it no longer refers to “Plame’s Name”
Mary!!! Lots of Marys but only one of you!
BTW, I think calling people “trolls” is not the *very* best way to address doubtful comments.
VG – think of me as Windows 1. *g*
Bugs and bit slow, but ez.
Steelthing,
Thank you, dear steelthing. This is remarkable coverage, and I thank you so much for your help.
Mary @ 112
You know I love your comments. They are just so… one of a kind.
Valley Girl @
114
Many may claim the name…but the original is truly one of a kind.
RBG- so funny, I thought after, that I didn’t even hesitate a moment in knowing that it was the “original” who had written that comment. What with all the new visitors, someone else might just choose that name. It was “Madonna will be coming out with a single” (plus the legal knowledge) that made it so obvious.
S.O.S. from MA @ 44
Whatya wanta bet that the WH has some “Breaking News Announcement” during the Superbowl with a Statement from Cheney or Bush regarding Rove or Libby that will taint this jury!
Atty A@70
There’s been more than enough evidence already admitted showing that Libby couldn’t have had the Russert Memory – it was a LIE.
Besides, looking at the timeline it’s obvious that OVP went into maximum overdrive with Wilson’s July 6th Op-Ed. Libby is meeting with Roachman continuously, who is himself penning talking-points for his staff, and shutting out Martin and the ‘communicators.’
These guys – Cheney, Libby, Rove and many others – are determined to discredit Wilson. They have the NIE de-classification process going on, but that is still a long way from being officially completed. They also know that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA in the Counter-Proliferation Division and had something to do with her husband going to Niger.
So, what course of action do they choose?
1) ON THE RECORD – They are going to challenge Wilson and make it known that the VP had no knowledge of Wilson’s Niger trip or results.
2) ON BACKGROUND – They are going to put the blame for the 16 Words on the CIA
3) OFF THE RECORD – Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, who works at the CIA on Weapons of Mass Destruction – can you say *nepotism*?
What can you say – they made the best of a bad script?
1) It turns out there is a paper trail showing Cheney asked for more info, which initiated the trip. It might even be the case that Cheney knew about the trip and objected to Wilson being selected to go on it. In any case, upon his return Wilson gave a verbal report that got written up later at CIA – and sent to Cheney.
2) They were successful on this one – they pinned the 16 Words on Tenet, he resigned and got the MoF.
3) In their rush to show *nepotism* at the ‘incompetent’ CIA – Valerie sending her husband on a boondoggle – they outted a CIA Agent and her CIA front company – Ooops!
They were so scared of Wilson – who had accused BushCo of ‘twisting’ intelligence to LIE us into a war of choice – that they took a low-blow, ‘hay-maker’ swing at him through his wife – and hit a real, live CIA Agent.
Luckily for America, Cheney’s panic was cause for an investigation strong enough to mow-down the treasured Protection of Confidential Sources principle that empowers our Freedom of the Press – and there they found Libby and Rove cowering and lying away to protect Bush and Cheney from a charge of the Highest Treason.
They thought they were ‘untouchable’ behind the confidentiality of press and sources – negligently ignorant (at the least) that all the while they were endangering the security of the Country, at large, in their zeal to throttle a ‘disloyal’ Agency and a CRITIC WITH A JUST COMPLAINT.
Watching Olberman Watch – I just want to officially point out on behalf of FDL that our credentials are completely separate from any arrangement by MBA or Cox. Our credentials were arranged for Jane and Firedoglake with the help and extraordinary assistance of our friends at Huffington Post.
Siun @ 120
I thought that was the case, but it’s never been stated directly. Thanks for clearing that up – you might mention that a bit more widely in your capacity as Press Secretary when you talk to folks. It’s not clear whether MBA and Cox are trying to claim all the credit, or if the MSM simply lumps all bloggers together in an unthinking way. Either way, we’re getting lumped in with them.
emptywheel- Have a good weekend. May you be stirred, not shaken.
Smartlady and I are definitely Olbyloons along with being fans of Marcy and FDL! Keep up the good work and the pressure on the koolaid drinkers!
Terry Olson @ 98
He is an ideologue. As for too many of this bunch it is about zion, a misdirected and very ignorant (uneducated) sense of what would promote Isr*el security in th Middle East! Alas, just the opposite has happened.
I vote for radiofreewill to make the closing argument.
Marcy. How are your hands feeling?
p.lukasiak @ 28
Wow. Just… wow.
p.lukasiak @ 28
You are right, it doesn’t add up. Good catch.
Ladies and Gents of the Lake, Marcy, steelthing and all pups. Great Job. Thanks so much.
In case you wondered, it’s easy to SEE THE TRIAL in person. I had thought it was like getting superbowl tickets the day before, but a note somewhere in the FDL coverage said the room was half-full one day. Sure enough, I got in yesterday. First of all, the Prettyman court house is at the intersection of Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues. The court house opens at 8:00AM and if you get upstairs to the 6th floor by 9:00 you can usually get a seat in the courtroom, and if not, the overflow room is next door and has the same video coverage EW has been depending on downstairs in the press room. Apparently the court room was only full opening day and for Judy Miller.
To see it in person is great.
For example, the exchange noted in the comments above where Bond had been using the phrase ‘Libby claimed’ and Wells knew that word was reminding the jury that Libby was on trial for lying so he tried to get her to use ‘he said’ even Walton smiled and asked, ‘did he say that?’ Bond came back with ‘he told us’. Wells said, ‘She won’t give an inch…’ and in joking about Libby hiding his first name Wells again tries to get her to shift to ‘he says’ but she refuses. There’s a level of struggle that is visible in person that the words alone can’t fully convey. (and I fully agree EW’s marathon reporting is invaluable!)
Main point? If you can get to DC you can see it in person.
SEE the dramatic debate in which Wells seeks to exclude video of McC and the newspaper article! SEE Fitz argue they’re basic to the guts of his case- who’s going to sway the judge? When is continuing to protest becoming self-defeating? But don’t take my seat!