DB Story didn't change in second interview. He had refreshed his memory with documents.
DB As he told us before, he said he had had a conversation about 6/12/2003.
Z Had you acquired Libby's notes by this time. Did you discuss note he referred to and showed you.
New exhibit. This also is marked "Treat as TS/SCI."
DB [reading it] 6/12/03 with line over top. T=telephone, y=VP, regarding uranium and, Q means Iraq. Kristof, NYT. [Note, 12 is darker, as if written over]
DB next bullet point. Took place at our behest, functional office, CP, counterproliferation. Libby told us. Just below CP, His wife works in that dvision. Was referring to Joe Wilson's wife. Debriefing took place here and was meeting in region.
Z below that, 4 and then 1, 2, 3
DB 1 didn't know about mission, 2 didn't get report, 3 didn't have any indication of forgery was from iAEA. 4, OVP Defense and State expressed strong interest in issue. Arrow pointing to 4, VP: agency to say that.
Z Read that
DB I just did: VP was telling him–"hold get agency to answer that."
Z did he tell you about his memory
DB again Libby told us he had forgotten about this until he looked for it in October. First memory came from Russert.
3:32
Z Ask him about Grenier
DB Libby told us, he had been trying to get ahold of DDCI, McLaughlin, in June 9 timeframe, When unable, he contacted Grenier. Told us he played phone tage. It might have had to do with Kristof article.
Z Did Wilson's wife come up with Grenier
DB No
Z Lunch with Ari Fleischer?
DB wanted to go to lunch with Fleischer since Ari was leaving next week, had lunch on July 7 at WH mess.
Z What they spoke about
DB Fleischer's future plans, Joe Wilson issue. Their mutual like of Miami Dolphin football team.
Z other than Fleischer's future plans anything else come up
DB Not that I recall
Z did you ask if the subject of Wilson's wife came up
DB We asked him, he adamantly denied knowing about Wilson's wife or discussing it.
Z How so sure
DB He didn't know that Wilson's wife worked at Agency until he talked to Russert on July 10 or 11.
Z Miller's July 8 conversation
DB Yes, again Libby told us he did not recall having that discussion with Miller.
Z Russert conversation
DB Yes. Repeats story about Hardball. Like Libby had told us before. Libby claimed that Russert brought up, issue about Wife.
Z Libby say Russert said
DB Russert asked him whether or not he knew, and again Libby told us that he told Russert he did not know that. All the reporters knew that.
Z ground rules
DB He went off the record when he had this discussion.
Z How sure he was he learned it from Russert
DB He was sure he spoke to Russert and not any other reporter.
Z Subject of Mitchell come up again.
DB Basically the same as he said on 10/14
Z Opportunity to show him draft of 7/11 Tenet statement. Document you had obtained in previous 5 weeks.
Entering Tenet statement.
3:39
DB Fax cover sheet, from McLaughlin. (says unstasfactory)
DB dated 7/11, from DDCI, states, Steve, Here is our draft we plan to release at 1315 H. John McLaughlin
Z Draft of Tenet statement?
DB It is but it came out later in the day, it might have been a draft. A version.
DB Unsatisfactory, underline. We asked Libby he said it looked like it could be VP but it also could be Hadley.
Z Whose production?
DB Coming from Deborah Heiden. Exec Asst to VP.
DB VP reaction to Tenet statement. They were not happy with statement. It did not explain that VP did not send Joe Wilson.
Z Did Rove come up again
DB Libby told us he may have brought up conversation with Russert before Rove explained to him conversation with Novak.
Z Did you speak as well about trip to Norfolk? More about VP feelings about Wilson matter.
DB They weren't satisfied with Tenet statement, wanted to get out to press that OVP did not send Wilson to Niger.
Z VP mood?
DB frustrated and upset that press was still claiming that VP sent Wilson. When they [OVP] claim they didn't send him.
Z Conversation on AF2?
DB Like he told us before, went to VP cabin. Some discussoin about whether they should report to press about Wilson's wife working for CIA.
Z Conversation about Wilson's wife on AF2
DB After he spoke with Russert, he discussed with VP, not certain exactly when they discussed it.
Z Did you ask whether they discussed making it public
DB They MAY have talked about it.
Z Tell you about what he said transpired once he landed at Edward AFB, did he tell you about Cooper.
DB Like he had told us previously, along with Mayfield and Martin, when he contacted Cooper, and read the statement, to Cooper. And Libby claimed after Cooper asked about Wilson he went off the record and told him the info being spread might not be true.
Z Who said.
DB I'm sorry, Mr Libby. Mr Libby then told us he told Cooper that reporters were telling admin that Wilson's wife worked at CIA, but he didn't know if that was true.
Z End of interview, did you ask Libby to sign waiver.
DB Yes,
Z What that waiver was
DB A Waiver we were showing to people and asking them to sign that would released confidentiality so reporters would talk to us.
Z Before I finish waiver. Did you in fact on 11/26 302 other than talking about Cooper did you also talk
Fitz comes up and says something to Z
Z During the interview, go back to first interview. Did he tell you about conversation with Kessler. Did he tell you whether he got in touch with Kessler. Best of recollection about Kessler.
DB He talked to Kessler during the weekend. Kessler told him he was at the zoo.
10 minute break
3:49
BTW, In the first interview, Libby said Rove said that his impression was that Novak already knew of Plame's ID.
Btw, now that I get a moment. Bond looks like she's late 40s, she's got a short haircut, with a streak of blond or gray. Her delivery is VERY no-nonsense. Barely any inflection. Towards the end, she was getting flustered with the nesting of pronouns. She is wearing a pick shirt under a gray jacket (it's a pants suit).
Libby left the room at the break, with his wife. There he is again.
Man, I'll say what I said when I saw the indictment. If Libby lied (innocent until proven and all that), couldn't he have at least told a decent story?!?!?!
Libby got up, said something to Wells. Wells, of course, had to bend down to hear him. I'm not sure I've seen Libby this active at break.
Bond sitting back in chair with a rock hard look on her face.
Jury's back.
Z Before we detoured back to Glenn Kessler, I'll take you back to waiver. What that statement and waiver was.
DB Asking people to sign a waiver, we were trying to get them to waiver privilege between reporters and sources.
Z It was a blank form.
DB I think Eckenrode had put his name and my name, we gave it to Libby through Attorney.
New exhibit.
Z Highlights top portion.
I LSL have been advised by agents that they are conducting an investigation in possible disclosure in connection with Wilson, trip to Niger and matter relating thereto. I have informed FBI of my recollection of any communications with members of media. I hereby waive any promise of confidentiality made to me by any member of the media re the subject matters under investigation including on background, off the record, and not for attribution. I request any member of media to fully disclose. In particular I request that no member assert and privilege.
Z Was this signed in your presence
DB No, it was after the date, 1/5/2004.
Z In January 2004, did a GJ begin investigating this case? Purpose of investigation,
DB gathering all the facts. In addition, we wanted to make sure the info we were receiving was truthful and accurate.
Wells up
W When did you start working on in
DB October 2003, worked under Eckenrode.
W Who was supervising Atty
DB Bruce Schwarz. I don't know if I met any attorneys at that time, if not that day, then soon thereafter.
W Schwarz was supervising Atty. Fitz was appointed when
DB End of December, early January
W First interview Feb 14, 2003
DB No
W I'm sorry. 10/14. It was a 2 hour
DB I thought 1/5 hour, but it could have been 2
W Libby sat down willingly
DB Yes, he volunteered, we came to his office.
W Asking about events that occurred in June july 2003. About 3 months or more after the events.
4:09
W Tate had made statement that Libby had not been able to refresh as he normally would have, no access to emails, no conversations with his staff.
DB I don't recall him making that exact statement. I do remember that before they wanted the ability to look at documents and we agreed to that.
W Do you recall at outset of interview before Libby answered any questions that in substance Libby had not had ability to refresh his memory, no access to emails, limited access to documents.
DB I recall part of that, I do not recall all of that statement that he made.
W Communicated the substance.
DB The first part, I don't recall the last part. I remember not being able to look at documents. That's what I remember.
W They told you that at beginning of interview. Do you remember that Tate said Libby did his best to prepare for interview. Asked you to put in your report that it might be inaccurate.
DB I was taking notes of what LIbby said. But the substance. I don't recall him making him that statement. Just the part where he wanted to refresh memory more.
W Do you remember where he asked to include in 302 report that he had not been able to refresh memory.
DB No, I don't. I'm not saying it did not happen. I tried to keep up. I don't believe it's in my notes.
W Your notes don't reflect anything that Tate said. You do remember he made certain statements that Libby had not been able to refresh his recollectoin. Do you recall him making the following statement.
I have been a prosecutor, and Libby has worked with FBI, therefore please be cautious about his recollection.
DB I take notes as accurately as possible. I don't recall him saying that.
W You didn't take any notes as to what Tate said. Your notes do not reflect what Tate said at the beginning. Are you saying it was not made.
DB I recollect Tate making statements to us, but not exactly what he said.
W The thrust was that Libby had not refreshed his memory.
DB They wanted more time before he interviewed again.
W He said it right up front.
DB We said we could come back after he refreshed his memory.
W You were asked questions about scope of investigation, you told him at beginning of interview that investigation involved possible disclosure WRT classified information. Regarding Wilson. Is it correct that your claim that you made such a statement is not reflected in your notes.
DB That's true.
W I'd like to show you G53. October 3 memo.
4:17
W Had you seen that interview before Libby's interview.
DB No
W When did you see it.
DB Maybe when we first got documents. I strated October 14
W Your first day on the job was the day of the interview. Schwarz was the leadinvestigator. Dear ADD, thank you for your telephone call to Abu Gonzales regarding possible unauthorized disclosure of classified info in Newsday and Novak. He refers to two articles, one, Novak, and two, Newsday.
DB That's what it says.
W Next letter. Who signs. Signed by Wray, AAG. Did you understand that Wray was head of Criminal Div.
DB I don't know if I knew that. I'm at the low level. He's way up there in DOJ. I knew that Swarz overseeing. Eckenrode had agents overseeing inevstigation. I've seen the name, I see that he's AAG, but personally I don't know that I knew that then.
W FBI agent for 19 years.
DB I don't normally memorize who's at DOJ. Unless I have a need to know their name.
W Is it your testimony that having been agent for 19 years you did not know who was head of Criminal Div.
DB I would not have been able to tell you, but I would have been able to find out.
W Yellow pages
DB Blue pages (she looks away from him with disdain)
W reviews the terms of the letter–Nocvak and Newsday.
4:23
W Is it fair to say Newsday fell by the wayside early in inevstigtaion.
DB We were asking about it.
W To your knowledge, Libby had no involvement with the Newsday article. Next letter. [Note, he didn't ask if Libby had anything to do with the Novak article.]
W Letter signed by Schwarz, to Deputy Counsel to Pres. Again focused on Novak and Newsday info. State the investigation concerned unauthorized disclosure of information. Both letters describe the scope of document request as broader than 1.
DB If it's the same attachement we saw in here yesterday.
W Can you point to any document that Libby received prior to first interview that said the investigation involved possible disclosure to unauthorized persons in connection with Wilson, and matters relating thereto.
DB I don't know what Libby received, these were address to General Counsel's office.
W Do you know of any document.
DB Not that I have seen. But I didn't prepare any letters. I wasn't in a position to read all the letters that went to the WH.
W Your position was as FBI case agent who worked under Schwarz.
DB No, I was one of several other agents under inspections Div. The first couple of months we didn't have any details with anyone besides Eckenrode.
W Mr Schwarz was the ultimate supervisor of the investigation
DB At that time.
W As one of the agents in the case. Would you attend every interview. How would you keep track.
DB Discussions at meetings.
W Have you seen 302 from interview from Marc Grossman, that it concerned column by Novak.
DB I believe I've read it, I don't know when I read it.
New exhibit.
4:30
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Marci!
Marcy! Jane!
Is it wishful thinking or is DB burying the defense?
This is great!!!!
FITZ!
Tap Duncan @ 4
Great, greater, greatest!
Why isn’t Mitchell on the docket to testify?
dab from CT @ 3
I’m reading and I’m not quite believing it, but yes, it does seem like Scooter is toast.
dab from CT @ 3
I’m thinking that, even if the jury is getting foggy about specific details, the overwhelming sense, to me, is that there is no way that Libby “forgot” about where he had learned about Mrs. Wilson. How could someone forget something like that when he had put this much energy into? I think that is what the jury is going to come away with.
“Claimed he went off the record and told Cooper that Reporters were telling admin that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA but that he did not know if it were true. “
This solidifies that Cooper got told. Wow, this seems like the burying quote to me.
It does seem to me that Bond- Deborah Bond, is taking him down more than just a few notches.
Pat_AlexVA @ 7
she may be a defense witness…
just a guess, but Libby may actually have told her that “everybody knew” about valerie being wilson’s wife after Novak’s column came out….
which explains why she made that statement, and then backed off of it when she realized that her only source for it was Libby….
dab from CT @
3
She’s an FBI agent. As Christy said earlier, they are excellent on the stand — it’s part of their job.
DB Cooper…
From the live-blogging in the previous thread:
I’m sure this coincidence caused much merriment and rolling of eyes among the career staff at the Dept. of Justice…
ROVE: “Scooter, old chap! Just had the strangest conversation. Our dear friend Robert Novak and I were talking about Joe Wilson, and Robert said Mr. Wilson’s wife works for the CIA!”
LIBBY: “You don’t say! Why, Timothy Russert and I were on the phone, and he told me Wilson’s wife works for the CIA! Amazing coincidence, what?!”
ROVE: “Astonishing!”
LIBBY: “Astounding!”
Libby never denied that Cooper was told. Libby claims he sourced it to “other reporters”. Cooper said he sourced it to no one…just confirmed it when Cooper asked about it (”I heard that too.”) Cathie Martin backs Cooper up.
dab from CT @
3
She is showing Libby buried himself…
thinking the FBI too stupid to get a timeline when he knew what
or expecting all this investigation stuff to go away when Ashcroft pulled a few strings…
And this, my friends, is exactly why you should never, ever lie to the FBI. I’m just saying…
Stop it Swopa – you are killing me
GUILTY. The contortionist Team Libby beg-offs are getting more poignant by the day.
“Hi” to our nsa.gov lurkers. Diff’rent day, same shit-for-brains boss y’all got.
_
Isn’t “seer-suckery” to fellate a prophet?
Oh, behave.
This witness is providing the peverbial (sp) ’stake thru the heart’ !!
He denies all converstaions except for where Russert “told” him. Yeah, right.
p.lukasiak @16
Jeralyn indicated that Cooper’s testimony was soft. I think this exchange hardens it.
Swopa @ 15
Rove: Brilliant!
Libby: Brilliant!
OT- I’d like to reitterate something from yesterday. Law school is all about memorizing all kinds of things. And that’s just the beginning of it. You have to develop an ability for instant recall that most people don’t have. Think about crappy lawyers and think about great lawyers. Now, think about how good one has to be to operate in the realm of national politics at this level. How is it they just keep forgetting shit? They don’t. They lie their way thru.
From The Fugitive, 1993. Quote via IMDB.
Cranky
I guess part of me wants all the reporters on the stand, hearing them say…
“Then Libby told me Plame worked for the CIA”. Have a running record of this manure spreading machine at work.
p.lukasiak @ 12
Oh yes! That is THE perfect explanation for that behavior. Good one.
Swopa @ 15
LOL! Excellent.
I am thoroughly enjoying this testimony.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 18
We must recall the context. This was just a little pesky zit mucking up the otherwise radiant complexion of Bushdom War Glory onset of the PNAC world domination march. Typical of the criminal mind. They never think they’re gonna get caught.
_
njr -
That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
The slimeballs thought they could conspire to out a covert CIA agent (for revenge and because she was getting in their way) and that Ashcroft would cover their collective asses and make the whole thing go away.
p.lukasiak @ 16
Just to take a ride on my usual hobbyhorse, I’ll note that he claimed to have told the same story to Kessler and Judy Miller and Andrea Mitchell… and that he had a copy of a WaPo story about the 1×2×6 leaks in his desk.
Sounds like he was trying to pretend he was the leaker, to cover for what actually happened.
Similarly, the “I heard originally from Cheney” story may be an attempt to cover for your theory of Grenier telling both Libby and Cheney, then Cheney investigating to find more details. Lies for every occasion.
Damn.. this good entertainment!! Goin to the fridge for a frosty, who wants one w/ me?? It’s 5:00 PM somewhere right!?
drinksforall @ 35
Tease.
> or expecting all this investigation
> stuff to go away when Ashcroft pulled
> a few strings…
Apparently at some point Ashcroft decided there was a line between being a power-hungry authoritarian jerk on the one hand, and treason on the other. And decided not to cross that line. A friend of mine from Missouri predicted that might have been what happened; I owe him a 5-spot.
Cranky
Shuster on now, “not whether to charge Libby but how many charges of lying!”
This liveblogging is best enjoyed with a cup of Constant Comment and a box of Le Petit Ecolier chocolate covered biscuits.
Wish I had some.
How does he keep track of all the lies!??? I sure hope he testifies…what a treat that will be.
drinksforall @ 35
I’ve got my brand new bottle of Don Julio calling me- hold on Don, I’m coming!!!
actually, my theory is that Libby and Cheney heard from Martin who got it from Harlow
(this of course was after Grenier had given it to Libby, and Libby and Grenier agree to get the story to the press that it was State and Defense, not OVP, that wanted to know about Niger… so Libby hands the phone to Martin, and Grenier hands his phone to Harlow)
confused yet? :)
Tap Duncan @26
“Law school is all about memorizing all kinds of things.”
I have to disagree. Plenty of stuff to learn/memorize, sure, especially for the bar exam.
But law school itself is still, AFAIK, or mine was, about learning how to think like a lawyer, to sort through unnecessary stuff (analyze) to find the point, to reason, to argue persuasively.
My professors constantly reminded us that, in practice, we’ll be looking up facts, and even the law, since laws change. More important to learn how to find the facts and how to make the arguments.
Apparently, YMMV.
Ha!
They all must’ve thought that because Rove had done tons of direct-mail work for Ashcroft back in the day (y’know — Ashcroft, the guy who lost to a DEAD man?) that everything was comfy cozy.
Ha!
“DB Like he told us before, went to VP cabin. Some discussion about whether they should report to press about Wilson’s wife working for CIA. “
I sure wish we explored this angle a little bit more.
Marcy,
Any views of Libby’s body language through Bond’s testimony thusfar?
This is only the prosecution’s case.
Wait till we get the defense’s case.
“Intentional” lies is difficult to get a jury to convict.
Mrs. K8 @ 44
cozy fan tutti
back to Shuster, “question about Cheney. . .Issacoff says that on a plane ride (sorry I missed the date) “Libby and Cheney MAY have discussed” dropping the dime on Valerie!
Tap Duncan @ 26
And I would think that this is one of the points that Fitz’s team would try to make if/when Libby takes the stand, i.e. his training as a lawyer, what it takes to be at the highest level of govt, etc.
Cranky Observer @ 37
James Comey went to Ashcroft and put the squeeze on him. And had the backing of others in Justice. I’ve always wondered if they had something to hold over Ashcroft’s head.
Is Dominick Dunne in the courtroom?
what I would give to see libby’s face while this testimony was going down
Angel @ 40
With his steel trap memory…..
Mrs. K8 @ 51
Hopefully it was that f-ing eagle.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 39
“Constant Comment” is the perfect item for a live-blogging thread, no?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 39
I prefer Le Petit Heineken!!!!
Angel @ 40
How can he not testify after this??? He is a dead duck. Testifying now seems worth the risk, since he must be a professional liar anyway.
Crap, lunch over, back to work.
Hey Drinksforall, have one for me.
A federal jury has aquitted two alleged members of a Palestinian terror network of racketeering charges but convicted them of lesser charges.
So it goes for our hero.
Wonder what the cross for this witness is going to be about? Wells can’t try to impeach the witness. What’s he going to do, nitpick her note taking while lying on the bed?
Mrs. K8 @ 56
Yah – hot, clear and perfumed with spice!
given this testimony and presumably Fitz knew the testimony, the fact that rove is not indicted strengthens my belief that rove has rolled over
thoughts?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 52
I think this trial would be too dull for Dunn. Doesn’t involve high society or celebrities. No opportunity for name dropping (at least not the kind of names that appear in Women’s Wear Daily & the society pages of Town & Country)
tejanarusa @ 43
Oh yeah, I agree, I’m only relating what my brother in law was telling me, but, he did say it was mostly just to pass the bar. So I do stand corrected if for only that point. Because like I said at this level of gov’t. they remember everything, their job depends on it.
zeppo @ 61
No its all the shopping bags of notebooks under her desk!
Mrs. K8 @ 51
I never really understood Ashcroft’s “conflict of interest”. He had a personal conflict of interest beyond being a Bush appointee?
Mrs. K8, 51–
I think James Comey had the LAW to hold over Ashcroft’s head.
Perhaps Rove eventually copped to the Armitage defense? I’m an idiot and I didn’t know her identity was classified? Which still makes me wonder about security clearences….!!!!!!
froggermarch @ 73
does cheney testify now?
my prediction was if it looked like libby walked cheney wouldn’t testify, if it looked like nothing would help cheney wouldn’t testify
if it looked like a toss up, cheney goes to the video tape
so what are the predictions, does he testify or not?
raven @ 49
Isikoff was quite breathless wasn’t he?! I think if he and David could have kept up their dialogue, they woulda been really happy campers. Count me in on that.
Then Tucker came up. sigh
dab at 50:
“And I would think that this is one of the points that Fitz’s team would try to make if/when Libby takes the stand, i.e. his training as a lawyer, what it takes to be at the highest level of govt, etc.”
Despite my disagreement w/ TD’s premise about memorization in law school, that still leaves your arguments -especially the second. Libby wasn’t working as the 4th clerk in the municipal sewer department, he was working for the VP, for heaven’s sake. Lawyer’s training – he knew well the implications for his boss, AND witness after witness, whatever their vagueness on dates, show that Libby was calling people he never called, having lunch with people he never lunched with, putting in a heck of a lot of energy on the issues of Wilson and “his wife.” VP’s COS don’t do that and forget all about it when mentioned to them by a reporter.
The defense case will have to be awfully good to overcome that, IMHO.
No way, imho, Libby takes the stand. At this point, the defense just puts on whatever weak ass case it can without him and says that the prosecution never proved that Libby ever intended to make any false statements.
Then they bend over, kiss a little pusteleux (from Moliere for “pimply, red ass”) and hope they laid some groundwork for appeal.
To testify is to invite things to get much, much worse. Again, IMHO.
ALso Tejanausa, what is your impression of these proceedings since you are a lawyer? I think it would be more great insight since there are alot of legal eagles here today.
Ok – so DB has provided the stake through the heart in Team Libby..
what I do not understand is, why is Rove exhonorated ..? OR did Rove just reach some agreement that he would have to ‘flip’ if in fact Dr Evil [Cheney] is on the stand…?
perris @ 63
I agree. I find it hard to believe that Fitzgerald has a warm spot in his heart for “five-times-at-the-GJ Rove.”
drinksforall @
22
this is just his interview…
I’m waiting for the tapes of his grand jury testimony
kristinejoy @ 55
Hopefully it was that f-ing eagle.
LOL! visual – giant eagle being held above Ashcroft in hospital bed…
6 Miles from Ovalus Corruptous @ 75
I can only believe rove flipped for him to not be indicted
njr @ 77
Do we know definitively that these will be played for the jury? (crossing fingers)
tejanarusa @ 78
LOL! visual – giant eagle being held above Ashcroft in hospital bed…
crapping on his head.
Angel @
40
Didn’t Mark Twain say something about always telling the truth, ’cause then you don’t have to REMEMBER anything?
Richmond @ 62
And perhaps just a drop or two of Bushmills 1608?
Sparkles –
Ashcroft was keeping Rove up to date on the “status” of the investigation. (What was going down in the interviews, I suppose — that’s my guess.)
This raised hackles among the career types, understandably.
The fact that Ashcroft had a history with Rove going back a ways — Rove having helped him in his political campaigns — it was at least giving the appearance that Ashcroft was beholden to Rove.
ooh ooh ooh (MANG! am I ever dating myself or what!)
Anyway, i think it’s be fanfriggintastic if AYL (all you lawyers) had your OWN thread the rest of us would just read (possibly ask questions – ONLY pertinetn Q’s) – we who are not lawyers could follow y’alls expert commentary in tandem with the testimony
perris @ 79
But if Rove flipped, why is his testimony not going to be used by the prosecution? That wouldn’t make sense to “flip” someone and then not use the info, would it?
(At least, I don’t think Rove is going to testify for the pro. Could he be the mystery witness?)
I just want to say, FDL – if Cheney OR Libby testifies, you’re going to need some extra juice in the servers on those days.
kristinejoy –
Thanks a lot! ;-)
Now I have the memory of that hideous so-called “song” (and that hideous so-called “singing voice”) ringing in my ears.
Yuck!
Tap Duncan @ 74
Actually, I used to be a lawyer – I’m in recovery now for some years. No recent trial experience.
But, see my post to Kristinjoy at 72 for my general take. Of course we haven’t seen the defense’s case yet — maybe — they don’t have to put on witnesses of their own — but my skimming of Marcy’s notes makes me agree with those who think Libby’s toast on the perjury charge.
Ashcroft’s conflict related to the fact that Rove did private campaign consulting for Ashcroft in his pre-AG days and the fact Rove is up his snout in all this.
Art in Heaven @ 60
Has someone passed a note to Fitz?
Sparkles –
Also — Ashcroft was insisting there was no need for a “special prosecutor” — that he himself could be impartial.
Ha!
zeppo @ 61
LOL – He’ll ride her till she breaks and admits to typing r’s instead of n’s – and leaving out key statements that totally exonerate Libby
Art in Heaven @ 60
Don’t worry about Fitz; he gets the big fish
He’s the one who got the conviction against Bin Laden
zeppo @ 86
might be part of the deal;
“I’ll tell you what you need to know, how to get it, but don’t put me on the stand”
Mrs. K8 @
51
Two things come to mind:
(1)testifying publicly to Congress about interfering and refusal to recuse despite obvious conflicts of interest; and
(2) a threat/promise to resign by himself and various others on the case if Ashcroft didn’t recuse himself, followed by lots of public press interviews.
Congress, even a republican controlled one, could not have stood still if Comey et al. resigned over this and brought the mess to their doorsteps – and Ashcroft knew it.
kristinejoy @ 81
crapping on his head.
Actually he had more tapes of Ashcroft singing!! (ever hear that crap??)
Tejanausa Thanks for that- Glad to have you here with us I’m sure your opinion will be appreciated like the others- Litigatormom, etc.
Rove can’t be flipped – he keeps bouncing back
perris @ 70
I agreed with your analysis and I think we’re in Nothingcanhelpville”. The WH-throws-Scooter-under-the-bus meme doesn’t seem to be working out too well, and that’s the only logical reason to bring Shooter in for Scooter at this point. But that would mean, KR and Shrub to counter and that can’t be good for anyone.
We won’t see either Scooter or Shooter in this trial, but the good news is that there may be more to come. IMHO.
perris @
63
Much as I’d like to believe this (in that Rove would also be toast once his rollitude comes out publicly), I kinda wonder why he still works at the WH rather than being hung out to dry like Libby? Perhaps because he knows too much? One can only hope…
=====
PS, I clicked the PayPal button again, tnx for my daily fix of unprecedented “nooz-on-the-toobz!”
RIP Molly
((((Jane))))
perris @ 95
zeppo @ 86
perris @ 79
6 Miles from Ovalus Corruptous @ 75
But if Rove flipped, why is his testimony not going to be used by the prosecution? That wouldn’t make sense to “flip” someone and then not use the info, would it?
Was Rove’s indictment sealed?
Mrs. K8 @ 92
That is an awesome point!! I forgot that, yeah sure John! I just hope that when the “Eagle Soars” he grabs you by the scrape of your neck and drops you the ocean far, far,away!!!
Couple of tidbits about Deborah Bond: (1) She scares the bejeebers out of many of hte journalists covering the trial. Bond does a lot of public corruption work, and she has looked into MANY leaks in the Beltway through the years. (2) She is VERY serious about her job, very no nonsense, but she also has a lovely smile. (I let her jump line in front of me in the ladies’ room during a short break one day while I was there, and she was quite grateful. With two stalls in the sole restroom on the floor, we were often quite a bit crowded, and I know what it is like to rush around during trial. She thanked me and we chatted a bit about how long she and I respectively thought the trial would go.)
perris @ 95
Bingo, methinks. What else could POSSIBLY explain his what, 5 trips to the GJ with no indictments?
EW – I’m taking it that snake is poisenous. *G* Bonamici (BonAmici?) did a lovely job (belowthread). Nice team.
Is Fitz using the stalls, or the urinals?
(sorry, I blame Christy for introducing it)
*xyz @
80
not sure yet… hope, hope
Notta Flatlander @ 105
the only problem I have with this is that rove still has access to our most vital secrets
I don’t believe fitz would work that deal unless rove rescinded his top secret access
now, if I remember correctly, that actally did happen but I can’t be sure
Surely, people aren’t suggesting Rove flipped, as in Fitz used an indictment (as in sealed v. sealed) as leverage to get him to cooperate? Go figure…
Peterr –
Your points are logical, make sense!
I guess I always enjoyed thinking they had more dirt on Ashcroft — that he had off-hours dress-up habits like J. Edgar Hoover or such-like.
Not very Christian of me, eh?
I thought they were going to play some of the gj but had to be snipped. Or was that the McC press breifing?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 104
I love these little insights. So what did you and Bond conclude?
Christy @ #104,
She thanked me and we chatted a bit about how long she and I respectively thought the trial would go….
and..? We can’t let that one float on by down the river.
floatie?
Mrs. K8 @ 111
I’m sure it’s nothing that nasty. Probably just some man-on-eagle love.
and leave the eagles out of it, unless you want the Colbert Report on your case…
Fitzmas @ 110
But, as others have said, how do you flip a guy and then not call him to testify?
W Yellow pages
DB Blue pages (she looks away from him with disdain)
Go, Deb Bond! It seems to me that Wells was really pushing this way beyond worthwhile. Any jury member who’s ever worked in a large organization would empathize with her answers, and figure Wells is a jerk for pushing her.
Mrs. K8 @ 111
Sit on your hands PJ, sit on your hands! I may not be able to help myself!!!!!!
Sparkles the Iguana @ 116
Sanatorum was right after all.
drinksforall @
35
Exactly. Next round’s on me. ;-)
The servers are humming but let’s not push them with extraneous comments.
Even if Christy did start it.
As a confidential informant?
A different take on 96 (from someone who, disclosure – after Comey’s role in Padilla and the Arar defense of Ashcroft/Thompson, isn’t such a fan)
Lest anyone forget, Congress was under quite a bit of pressure when the story came out to appoint an Independent Counsel. Not the very narrow, AG set limitations, Spec Counsel – but an Indep Counsel who could have blasted a lot of holes in a lot of walls. This was such a big deal that even someone like JOE LIEBERMAN (yep – him) was PUSHING for an indep counsel.
I know I was rooting for an indep counsel. Things were snowballing, then all of a sudden Comey pulls the rabbit out of the hat to save Ashcroft and the administration’s butt. Comey’s “new” and not tainted with the scandal, he can get Ashcroft to recuse, then Comey can play the press (which he does pretty well) and appoint someone who has enough credibility to make the dogs barking for an indep counsel back off – someone the investigating agents won’t gripe over – and in so doing, things get very narrowed in scope.
No Indep Counsel trolling through all the many things that were ripe for trolling through going into an election year and a year when the truth about the Bin Laden failures and the lies about Iraq were both seeking an advocate -counsel or media.
Ashcroft would have to have been an idiot not to take what was offered. With his torture memos and general lunacy and an outed agent and a pissed electorate and a Pres taking the public tone that he actually wanted to get to the bottom of things – a spec counsel was, imo, the proverbial rabbit out of the hat for him.
Of course, it could very well be that I continue to be tainted by how pissed I was that the indep counsel groundswell faded so fast after Comey’s prestidigitation. fwiw
So doesn’t that statement to Libby sink the defense tactic that he was forced to make inaccurate statements because he hadn’t had time to review his notes?
They told him he could do the interview when he had reviewed his notes. He didn’t take them up on their offer and during the interview it doesn’t look like he said “I don’t remember” or “I’m not clear, I’ll have to go back & check”
been lurking but can’t resist. I heard it mentioned that Fitz couldnt prosecute the crime because Libby Lied. As we know, Fitz has not closed the investigation. Is this trial serving the purpose of for lack of a better word fixing the lies and in essence getting the truth that would enable this investigation to reach its conclusion. thoughts?
tejanausa:
Don’t you have federal crimes to prosecute down there in tejas? ;)
All:
I don’t get exactly what Libby said to CIA. Didn’t Bond testify that he told them he learned about Plame from Cheney? But she also testified he told them he learned about it from Russert? Did he tell them both? Or did he lie about who he told, not where/when he learned it?
Fitz wants to play all seven hours of Libby’s Grand Jury testimony — and I assume that the jury will also be given transcripts to follow along….
Everything that Libby said in GJ is admissible….
Christy Hardin Smith @
18
I’ll remember that. Also, be careful how you nest your pronouns around Agent Bond. Apparently it makes her testy.
I was nervous this case was beginning to go to hell yesterday, now I’m happy to see Fitz has other master bricklayers out there working for him.
Btw, I started a new thread. It’ll be up shortly. They’re in sidebar.
“Man, I’ll say what I said when I saw the indictment. If Libby lied (innocent until proven and all that), couldn’t he have at least told a decent story?!?!?!”
Best available explanation, it’s an Insanity Defense ploy. ;)
????
I don’t consider Libby and Rove big fish. Do you? More like bait.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 118
maybe he’s saving rove for a rebuttal witness…. or given Libby’s statements to DB, just daring Wells to make Rove a defense witness (which gives Fitz more leeway in questioning Rove)
Google is my friend.
Sleight of hand.
Good one!
dab in PA @ 128
p.lukasiak @ 135
Ooo! A game of high stakes Risk! Love it….
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.
tejanarusa @ 137
So much for my sleuthing, I thought tejanausa stood for “Texas assistant U.S. attorney” i.e. that you were an AUSA in one of the texas districts and I had unearthed a prosecutor hiding out here. Thought I would call you on it. Oh well…
Bustednuckles @133:
prestidigitation = sleight of hand = magic.
The June “12″th (11th?) Libby note [Gov’t Exhibit 104 already entered before today] seems to me to be very much the same information that Grenier of the CIA testified he relayed to (and discussed with) Libby on June 11th, or thereabouts. [Which makes me wonder if Libby was trying to conceal his conversation with Grenier, and substituting the VP’s knowledge for the Grenier information, or whether the VP never learned about Valerie’s job independently of Libby, in fact, until after he (the VP) first learned of it from Libby.]
The margin note pointing with an arrow to Bullet Point 4 could be the VP’s input into the details Libby learned from and discussed with Grenier – specifically, with regard to getting the CIA to announce that it was Defense and State inquiries, in addition to OVP’s, which lead to Wilson’s CIA mission. That margin note seems like the most direct indication of VP’s input to Libby, rather than the other way around.
But whether Libby’s giving the straight scoop about that June 12th note or not, on its face there’s really no way to prove, absent Libby’s translation and testimony, that the June 12th note is recording the VP telling Libby, rather than Libby telling the VP.
p.lukasiak @ 129
oh please oh please oh please
new thread
helllpppp!
at work – no volume on the teevee – what in the hell was Jizzicoff so breathless about with Shuster ?!?!?- had a “Breaking News” on screen as he prattled
sorry guys, don’t have time to read thread
anyone ??? :)
OT Rove Novak blast from the past..
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..525nj1.htm
Fitzmas @ 134
I guess I’d like to think of them as bait, but I’ve always gotten the vibe from Fitz that this trial is the end of the road. Like at the press conference when he said this all could have been over back in October 2004 rather than October 2005. His investigation was basically “done” in 2004, except for the reporters who wouldn’t talk, and then he had to force them to talk, etc. I’ve just never gotten the feeling that this case is like the George Ryan case, or any of the Illinois cases.
> but I’ve always gotten the vibe from Fitz that
> this trial is the end of the road. Like at the
> press conference when he said this all could
> have been over back in October 2004 rather than
> October 2005.
Agreed. This is the one and only trial in this case. Even with a conviction of Libby, the greymail and executive privilage arguments still apply to anyone up the chain.
Cranky
Thank you, FDL.
A complete waste of money and time.
Great compliment to firedoglake Libby Blogger in AP article: “FBI Agent Testifies Libby Learned About Plame from Cheney
Scooter Libby”
QUOTE:
“As always, we base our updates here mainly on nearly minute-by-minute blogging from the courthouse by the women at FireDogLake.com, which has proven extremely accurate so far, along with other bloggers and wire service reports as they come in.”
CONGRATS! WELL-DESERVED!!
http://www.editorandpublisher……1003540604
Moderators! Troll spewage in Aisle Ten!