
Hey Mary!! Here's your snake, baby.
A reminder of the housekeeping rules. I'll timestamp the updates, so you know when to expect one–don't go crazy with updates in the interim. Please treat this as a rough approximation; I'm no court reporter, but am sure developing an appreciation for the difficulty of their job (Slow DOWN, Fitz). And buy Anatomy of Deceit.
Maybe we'll actually get to Agent Bond and Libby's testimony huh? Then again, maybe I'll leave it for Monday, when Jane and Swopa will be here…
Walton in, Jeffress up addressing the nondisclosure agreements.
Paragraph in dispute: paragraph 3.
Jeffress: Two problems, this is the one that talks about what Bonamici was talking about this morning, it talks about the fact that he should have gone and asked somebody. Your honor has agreed to put it in for motive, but this will go to behavior he should have done. This is the paragraph that remains. This is the negligence standard. Your honor will recall, we've asked for discovery about what other people thought, the govt denied us discovery on that issue. If we're going to get into this standard. I think the govt trying to insert some additional violation, it would be highly prejudicial, he's not even charged with leaking classified information much less failing to check. We would object to putting any of the other agreements in. There's just no suggestion that her occupation was in some compartment. Bonamici pointed out that note (from Cheney) was stamped with a "treat as Top Secret/SCI." Miss Mayfield is the one who puts stamps on it, they just stamp everything. That's why it was done, it would be completely unfair in light of the testimony.
Walton. The testimony about that, wouldn't that be confusing to jury.
Bonamici, I don't agree with the characterization, about how it got the stamp. It bears an TS/SCI stamp.
Walton. Is there something in the record that the jury will consider to see whether there was a violation of these other agreements.
B: The jury will be asked to consider whether defendant had state of mind that he might have violated one of these agreements.
W: Will that end up being confusing.
B I don't think it's confusing, it's the crux of the govt case.
W They have to make some assessment?
J They would if Govt contending there were a violation. Why is an agreement regarding a certain compartment.
W Compartments, what are you talking about?
Some issue. should do in chambers. (Looks like CIA lawyer had an objection.)
2:00
Walton: I just talked to a security expert. And I think if jury doesn't have somebody who explains this, they'll be confused about whether there was a violation. As I understand it there was a violation of 5A, if they start looking at those, they'll become confused. Even given what was explained to me, I'd have to have some testimony in order to make the assessment you're asking for.
B: The jury is not going to be asked to assess whether there was a violation, only
Walton: Only whether he thought there was a violation.
Walton: What he did, is it from Govt's idea that he could have violated something without also violating 5A?
B: No, he would also violate 5A, including paragraph 3.
W: The issue they have to focus on is whether defendant would have thought that conceivably there was a problem,he would have obligation to check. It seems to me they focus on his mental state. If he had concerns about whether it was appropriate to reveal this.
B: The real issue here is that the defendant made up a story that took the classified nature of information out of the picture.
W: You're saying he did that because he throught there was a violation.
J There's no evidence he is worried about this.
B There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.
W: Conceivably, maybe it was only the political revelation, but maybe it did. And I don't think that that determination can be made. Question is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that he didn't want that out there. If he knows he signed a nondisclosure, that seems relevant. The jury has a right to be able to take that into consideration.
J How is the jury to evaluate this info. Are they going to be given law?
W They only look at Libby's conduct in assessing whether he felt it was inappropriate to disclose this. I don't think they have to make a determination of whether he violated this.
J They're arguing that he was worried that he hadn't done enough to find out whether her status was classified or not.
W What are you going to argue WRT paragraph 3.
B The defendant knows what's being looked at, as your honor just pointed out, there's a whole range of things he might have done, when he decided to make up a story. Addington testified that he provided defendant copy of statute that might come into effect. He understood that one of possible ramifications of conduct was a violation of this agreement.
W I think the question is sufficient to jury.
J All he asked Addington whether she was covert or not covert.
W I have an obligation not to disclose anything I understand that and if I don't do that, if I end up being prosecuted for a crime, the govt can present to jury that I had an obligation not to do, so long as they argue in appropriate way. Note for the record. I will permit govt to admit entire exhibit and preclude them from entering the others.
Walton: You're taking a toll on me today.
Jury IN!! Finally!!
2:17
While we're waiting for the jury to come in, counsel approach. Oh no!!!
Jury!! We finally have a jury!!
Walton: Good afternoon. Apologize profusely for the delays. Lots of legal issues. If you're angry with anyone about delays, be angry at me.
Fitz team (blond woman I don't know) entering the WH Transcripts. [Update: Kathleen Kedian]
She asks to Publish portions.
First shows that the transcript from Press briefing sent via email to Jennie Mayfield. It's the passage that shows McC refusing to exonerate Libby.
One more section from gaggle. Page 7. Full cooperation is full cooperation, the President directed WH to cooperate fully. Pres has always said that leaking classified info is very serious matter. He made it clear that if someone did this no one wants to know more than he does.
Second: Scott, you have said you went to Rove, Libby, and Abrams, why did you do this.
Now she's playing the clip of Scottie explaining why he asked them.
I had no doubt in the beginning, but that's why I asked.
The blond lawyer reads the press questions.
One more section from October 7 2003 transcript.
No one wants to get to bottom of matter more than President. If someone leaked classified info they will no longer be part of admin.
Publishing portions of transcript 10/10/2003 transcript.
Those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.
Can I follow up on that.
They assured me that they were not involved in this.
They were not involved in what.
The leaking of classified information.
Newspaper articles.
Approach. [I think they're trying to enter the 10/12 followup on the 1X2X6 article]
2:28
Walton: We're going to have to take a break. You cannot consider the transcripts or video for truth. Only for state of mind. Jury out again.
2:31
A comment to all about couture. No one on the Defense team has a new haircut. Neither Wells nor Fitz are wearing their gray suits. Bonamici has the most interesting outfit. She's wearing a black sweater and a bright bright red jacket. Which makes her look very authoritative at the podium. [Cue Christy for her admiring comments about Bonamici's no-nonsense demeanor.
Walton: Waht's teh essential challenge to these--if they were found in Libby's records. They would be relevant to state of mind.
J He can be asked about state of mind. Let's take October 4 Washignton Post article. "The leak of a CIA agent has exposed." We are totally precluded from discovery on this. That would be so prejudicial for the defense I don't think we would be able to recover. The next one, talks about clandestine case officer. that same week, two top AOs disclosed her identity to 6 journalists. This is a trick, your honor. These cannot possibly go into evidence. You'll hear him testify in the GJ. To put in the articles themselves. We would deprive Libby of a fair trial.
Fitz This is not a trick to show state of mind. It is appropriate to consider Libby's state of mind. Libby was told by a CIA briefer that there are dangers in disclosing a CIA agent's identity. It's relevant to Libby's state of mind. They've told jury Libby had no motive to lie. That's a trick, to remove all the evidence that he had state of mind. He kept these aritcles. The jury's entitled to know what was in his head. That was in head and his file.
J It's in the GJ transcript. That's in the record. They're trying to prejudice the jury by putting in the actual articles. It is highly prejudicial.
Fitz The jury has a right to see what Libby saw before he testified. Coming from someone's files, what's in someone's state of mind. They want to stand up and say this is stupid. It's not stupid if you fear that you may have been involved in something, you switch your story that puts it on a journalist. These are form his files. They may be prejudicial in that they help us prove our case. But they're not unfairly prejudicial.
Walton It seems that in spite of the instruction. Since they do indicate what they say somebody who had conceivably committed a crime referenced to what's in the article. It does show notice that it's being said even if the allegations in the paper aren't true. They are relevant as to state of mind. If he was questioned in GJ and he has acknowledged that he read them, and if we could agree to what's in the article. I don't want to tie the govt's hands. but I don't want to throw stuff on the jury that relates to potential damage. And claim regarding disclosure of potential covert agent. If they kepe getting all this stuff, they'll reach conclusions that they wouldn't reach if they had this. [suggests putting a summary in there]
J May I suggest, once your honor listens to the whole GJ testimony.
F We're trying to show state of mind before Ms. Bond testifies as to his interview. First of all I don't think we're going to be limited to things that were said in GJ.
Walton. Let me just ask. Do you know of any cases of an analgous situation, where someone is charged with a crime that suggests the commission of another criminal activity that suggests it's unduly prejudicial.
F I recognize, In all the traffic, we gave notice. It's not other criminal activity. It's the crime for which he's accused of obstructing justice. He's about to be interviewed by FBI, what's in his files includes reference to statements beyond Novak. They've told the jury that he had no motive to lie, that he understood that there was only focus on Novak. He is reading about the investigation that he's about to obstruct. They're trying to redact out the motive. To remove that would unduly hamper us.
W The itming of the admission of them problematic. If they come in after I hear GJ testimony. I guess if you need to tesify that these were in fact found.
F In one of them, it may or may not have been his underlining. He remembers reading it. Half the time they say if it's in the grand jury we can't use it. The other half the time, they say we can't introduce stuff that wasn't in the GJ.
W I haven't had the chance to read anything to see if it puts the whole prosecution in jeopardy. Even though I think it does disservice. I hope the court does not interpret my willingness to adjourn as believing this is not admissible. This is right down main street.
2:51
Agent Bond taking the stand. Hey!!! A jury AND a witness!!! David Corn warns you not to get used to it.
Zeidenberg; Govt calls agent Debbie Bond.
DB: Deborah S Bond.
Z How you're employed
DB Agent with FBI. Employed 19 years.
Z How much of your career has been on white collar or public corruption.
DB 16 years. Been involved since 10/2003.
DB I'm the current case agent. I took over a year ago, when Jack Eckenrode retired.
Z What this was about.
DB The possible unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity to the media.
Z Determine in this investigation.
DB How it happened her name and employment got to the media. Trying to find out identities of those participating in disclosing her identity to media,whether they knew it was classified, what their intent was on disclosing information.
Z Identiy and intent–what underlying facts
DB We were trying to find out source. I could give you two examples. If they learn info from govt source and they went out and just told somebody we would think there was more likelihood they knew info was classified and they had an intent to do so. Another extreme they were out talking to someone and they gave them info, it'd be less likely it was intentionally disclosed info.
Z Other underlying facts.
DB People who knew her identity and name, and where they learned it, who they told, whether they learned it or discussed it for others, whether someone told them to disclose it to the media. If they told reporters, we wanted to know who they told.
Z Were you present for an interview with Mr Libby on 10/14/2003. Who else was present?
DB Inspector Eckenrode, (another agent) Libby and attorney. Took place in Libby's office in OEOB adjascent to WH. About 1/5 hour. Interview set up in advance. Seated at conference table, agents on one side, Libby and lawyer on other side. I sat across from him. Told him our names, credentials. He was told that we were there for investigation possible unauthorized disclosure. Libby's attorney present for entire time.
Z During interview, Libby give you documents.
DB Yes. He told us that in prep for interview, he had prepared a document and had it typed, 4 bullet points that Wilson was claiming in press.
Introducing exhibit. (Govt 10)
3:00
DB He prepared it for interview, Allegations Wilson was making
Z What did he tell you about bullet points
DB that they weren't true–he didn't believe they were true.
Z how many times referred to this doc.
DB 3 or 4 times.
Z did you talk about how he learned of Plame's id
DB he first learned about Plame from VP, during telephone call on or about June 12, 2003. Description of phone call. A handwritten note he claimed he had written during this conversation.
Z What did he tell you. Precise date.
DB On the note 6/12/03, line on top, meant approximately. Regarding an article by Pincus. Written for newspaper on June 12, he believed he talked about this note prior to that. He had written the date afterwards, within a couple of days, couldn't remember precisely when.
Z He dated it afterwards. He told you what about when.
DB A day or two before 6/12
Z What did he tell you VP told him
DB Libby told us that VP told him that AMb's wife worked in CP division. Libby explained that CP stood for Counter Proliferation.
Z Did Libby tell you where he tought VP learned this.
DB Yes–VP told him he received it from someone at CIA. He believed VP had learned it from Tenet. However he was not certain if it was Tenet or someone else.
Z Did Libby tell you what happened to memory.
DB He forgot it. When he heard it from Russert in July that he learned it for the first time. Not until Fall 2003 that he realized he learned of it in June 2003.
Z When he learned name of former Ambassador
DB Claimed to have learned as Joe Wilson,when he read Joe Wilson's op-ed on July 6. That's what he told us.
Z What about existence of envoy
DB after reading Kristof article.
Z Did you ask about other reporters.
DB Yes.
Z David Sanger
DB Mr Libby brought up Sanger. He brought it up. Told him he worked at NYT.
3:08
DB Libby told us it was July 2.
Z Conversation with Miller
DB Libby told us he met with Miller on July 8 at St Regis.
Z What did he tell you
DB Prior to meeting with Miler, he had had discussion regarding 10/2002 NIE which Libby said VP wanted him to get to public. However. Libby knew info classified, went to Addington to discuss whether president had authority to declassify document. Addington told him Pres did, he felt he could go talk about it.
Z What did Libby say he did
DB During meeting he discussed NIE with her.
Z What else
DB They discussed a book she had co-authored Germs, and he answered questions about WMD, and in general Joe Wilson matter.
Z Was he asked if subject of wife came up.
DB Yes. He told us he had no recollection of discussing Wilson's wife with Ms Miller.
Z Conscious knowledge?
Objection sustained
Z Did he tell you memory of Wilson's wife
DB Claimed he had no knowledge of Wilson's wife.
Z Subject of Matthews and Hardball.
DB Yes. Told us that he heard reports on 7/8 or 9, that Matthews was criticizing OVP and Libby and OVP. Libby believed that Matthews was misleading public and decided to call Russert. He believed that since MSNBC was under NBC that Russert could help convince Matthews to tell both sides of story. Russert works at NBC news, bureau chief at Washington. Told us he got in touch with Russert. Contacted Russert and vented complaints.
Z When
DB spoke with Russert on 7/10 or 7/11 2003.
Z What Libby told you
DB After he told Russert about what he felt about Matthews. Russert wasn't anything he could do, could call producer of Hardball.
Z what he said after he complained
DB Russert asked him whether Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Libby claimed that no, he did not know that. Libby said told him that all the reporters knew that. Libby told us that he didn't know that either.
Z Did he tell you what he understood?
DB Libby told us that reporters in DC area.
Z Reaction to news from Russert?
DB he was surprised, it was the first time he heard it.
Z Conversation with Rove?
DB Libby told us spoke to Rove July 11. Libby told us that he spoke to Rove WRT statement by Tenet and Joe WIlson matter. Libby told us Rove related to him that Rove had conversation with Novak that Novak told Rove he had seen Wilson in green room prior to TV program. Novak wasnt very impressed was planning on writing article about him. Libby told us that Rove had the understanding that Novak already knew that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.
3:17
DB [LIbby aware that Rove didn't tell Novak.not sure if this is right] After hearing this from Rove, he told Rove about his conversation about Russert.
DB July 12 trip. On return trip, he went to sit with VP to discuss matters with VP to tell on the record WRT Joe Wilson matter. Told us that he wrote notes, verbatim. Libby and assistant Mayfield and Martin went to office adjascent to lobby of Andrews AFC where they made calls to press. Said they call. Cooper, Glenn Kessler, Evan Thomas of Newsweek. Was able to get in touch with Cooper. Told us that he called Cooper and read verbatim what he had written and read them to Cooper. Lbby told us that Cooper asked him why Wilson continued to blame VP or say that VP sent him to Niger. 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.
Z Any conversations with anyone else?
DB Left message to Thomas, spoke to him later. Told us he got in touch with Kessler was at zoo, he'd call back later.
Z Mitchell?
DB Yes. Believed he contacted Mitchell after 7/10 more likely after 7/14, according to Libby Mitchell had made negative comments about OVP, and he wanted to discuss them. He said he spoke to her. Mr Libby told us he explained to her about . Mitchell asked question about why VP sent him to Niger. may have told her what reporters were telling him that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Said it in way that she wouldn't ask him how he found out, didn't want her to know he learned it from Russert. Libby told us he thought it might be awkward, if he said he learned it from Russert.
3:24
DB Told us he didn't speak to Novak week of 7/7. Talked to him later, around 7/25.
DB Asked him if he'd be available again. He and attorney would like to review documents prior to interview.
DB First interview on 10/14. Set up second interview. Eckenrode contacted attorney. 11/26 second interview, Wednesday before X giving. Same participants, same seating arrangements, same office.
New thread
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

Jury must be having a lovely day! I do hope they’re brainstorming many more interesting questions to proxy through Judge Walton!
Great work following everything! Thank you, thank you!
empty wheel!
Fitz!!
Don’t leave us Marcy!
oh yeah, Fitz!
FYI, in the highest classified world, there are compartments. You may have a TS/SCI clearance but there will be many things (compartments) you do not have the “need to know”. You have to be cleared for each “compartment”.
I would imagine that the CIA lawyer is saying, “You guys are supposed to be pretending like she might not have been covert. Instead, you’re making it abundantly clear that her identity was classified. Stick to the talking points!”
I assume the jury remains seated in the courtroom while the lawyers and judge talk in chambers.
Can you dish on people in court today? Journalists in the media room? Fashion faux pas?
Marcy, you said Jane and Swopa will be live blogging next week. You’re leaving? Say it ain’t so. Say it ain’t so Joe.
doo-doo-doo-doo
doo-doo-doo [playing theme from Jeopardy]
Frank Probst @ 7
Is the reason they are being so cagey about Plame’s covert status is that the CIA doesn’t want to publicly acknowlege this?
I don’t see how Fitz can lose this. Libby’s side is claiming that Libby had no motive to lie. Fitz’s team is saying that, EVEN IF SHE WASN’T COVERT, you had a duty check the status of the information you were blabbing to the press. You didn’t check, which means you were sloppy (at best), and that gives you a motive to lie.
neil @
8
Yeah, Marcy. If you got time then dish, baby. What kind of suit is Wells wearing? (I’m not on his side but he is quite a dapper dresser.) How is B doing for Fitz’s team?
Corn and Dickerson hanging around? Ana Marie Cox actually has been doing some coherent trial summaries. (I know … I’m shocked too. She didn’t mention sex once.)
Woodhall Hollow @
10
I believe that standard procedure for the CIA is to neither confirm nor deny that someone even works there. I would think that this is a special case, though, seeing as how the CIA initiated the investigation to begin with.
Woodhall Hollow @
10
I recall that the CIA wouldn’t confirm or deny, which is one reason no prosecution of leaking her identity — at this time.
annx @ 13
Ana Marie is with Time now, no more Wonkin-off!
Marcy- your book just arrived, at my doorstep, from Amazon.com. I’m looking forward to a good weekend of reading!
Congratulations.
This issue of classified status that came up yesterday when Walton shut down a jury question that used the term “CIA agent” is what grabbed me then and it’s getting major play now.
It sure looks to me like Libby’s attys are trying to blur the distinction between covert and classified to get references to ‘classified’ walled out from the jury even though it speaks to the very crux of the motive for Libby lying ! Classified is the term used in the indictment that has been present this whole time.
To Walton
Agree with Fitzy, Wells and Company will appeal anyways.
We need Bush out before he bombs Iran…
that’s the priority…
Jack
Former Fed @
6
Thanks for clearing that up.
From the perspective of a recent former juror on a relatively simple robbery and assault with a deadly weapon case, we had to sit through what seemed like interminable delays while the judge had to leave to handle another matter, sidebars or other occassions. The first couple of times were ok, but subsequently we got very itchy to just get going. I think we were about ready to tell the judge and the lawyers: “get on with it”. This whole day has been very unfair to the jurors who have been couped up in a small jury room all day. Of course since you can’t discuss the case until both sides have concluded their cases, you’re forced to make small talk. I’ll bet those jurors are hopping mad right now. I know I would be.
neil @
8
Yup, I’ve got politicking to do in MI next week. I’ll be back week after next. Swopa will do the liveblogging, Jane will do the “watch Dick Cheney sweat” stuff (I hear that’s the best medecine out there).
neil @
8
I think the lawyers and judge talk in the courtroom. If it’s just for a short sidebar they turn on a noise generator so the jury can’t overhere. If it’s for longer they send the jury to another room. The idea is observers and media are supposed to be able to hear the judge/lawyer conversations even if the jury cannot.
neil @ 8
No, that’s why people are saying they hope the jury’s doing something interesting. They have not yet been brought into the courtroom; lawyers have been arguing about evidence all day today.
YOu can tell that these arguments are in the courtroom without jury because Marcy is able to report them. She(and other reporters) have no access to arguments in chambers. Neither would they be made out loud in the presence of the jury.
W I think the question is sufficient to jury.
YESSSSSSSSSSS
neil @
4
Oh, man, people are freaking out even before they’ve seen my crappy live-blogging. :-)
Fear not, Marcy’s just taking a week off to tend to some business in “flyover country,” after which she’ll come back to DC. So you’ll only have to put up with my inferior product for a few days.
Frank Probst @
11
It was obvious all along that they were going to have to argue about this, so can anyone explain why it wasn’t done and decided before the trial started?
Swopa @ 26
Hey, we appreciate all the efforts of everyone involved in this great leap forward!
Bits and pieces from a virtuoso duck and bob session, also known as a White House briefing by Scott McClellan from September 29, 2003 Part I:
On Rove:
And
And
emptywheel @ 22
EW, we’ll miss you! Not that I don’t want Swopa and Jane, I just want you too–your expertise here has been invaluable.
Are you going to do a book tour/signings?
Swopa @ 26
I’m sure all that Jane and Christy give the car keys to will do an excellent job. Marcy, thank you again for all of your amazing work on this.
Swopa, you’ll do us proud.
-S
swopa @26
marcy is a hard act to follow for sure
but i have complete confidence in your upcoming contributions swopa!
don’t despair!
Miss Mayfield is the one who puts stamps on it, they just stamp everything.
I thought her name was Moneypenny.
Heres the thing
Wells and Jeffress better take a loooonng hard look at the road ahead and plan on taking a very looonng siesta after this trial is concluded.
If they thought this trial was a career maker, they sure are stupid.
This is a stinker and they know they have a guilty as hell client.
Not only that, but Ari had the identical fear sitting in an office right down the hall from Libby.
Part II:
On Punishment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..929-7.html
Swopa – you may want to brush up on descriptions of court room attire in prep for next week. Marci set a new bar with “Seer-suckery” for Fitz’s suit.
Swopa @ 26
Not at all Swopa, you’re going to rock and we’re all delighted you’re going to be there liveblogging for us. We’re just greedy–we want you AND Jane AND Marcy!
Marcy, Swopa & Jane,
I, for one, have all the faith in the world of each of your abilities. I am a long-time web searcher (a/k/a googler) of all things political. I can be dense at times and not get things as quickly as I should, BUT, I do know quality and this site is phenomenal.
Keep up the good work. And Marcy, a toast to you when it hits 5 PM here. :)
Oh, and btw, I am hitting the bookstores this afternoon in search of your book!
Pardon the flyby — trying something to see if it works. This should be a FDL link to Marcy’s book: Anatomy of Deceit
testing testing
Dover Bitch @
35
Correction, Ari was gone already. But still…
annx: “Ana Marie Cox actually has been doing some coherent trial summaries. (I know … I’m shocked too. She didn’t mention sex once.)”
Kinda hard to make the buttsex jokes funny when it’s maybe the whole country getting reamed.
Swopa @
26
you have my sympathy and my gratitude.
i have tried, on a couple of occassions, to attempt a half-assed live blogging here of senate committee hearings. it is REALLY hard.
thank you!
Swopa @
26
Swopa, i’m a great emptywheel fan but i’ve read too many of your pieces to think there will be “inferior product” next week. with your blogging and jane’s razor sharp comments and interjections all will be well at the lake ……
I cannot believe how transfixed I am.
THX 4 doing this!
Pran
dqueue @
1
I used to really like this site but since this obsession with Libby I tend to skip it. None of the real criminals are being tried and we all know The Shrub will pardon him.
selise @ 43
Live blogging Joe Biden I think would be more torture than difficult: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I’m great, blah, blah, blah, gratuitous racial remark, blah, blah, blah, blah.
See, you’re taking that out of context. When he says “at a minimum”, he’s not referring back to “lose their job.” He must be referring to something he said way earlier. Like, “gentle tap on wrist” or “promotion”.
Marcy, is the blond prosecutor Kathleen Kedian?
He’s absolutely a magnificent fella! A true stand-up guy. The original post-watergate NUMBER 1 Ratf**ker!!!
Hugh @ 48
lol. i’ve just cheated and skipped the more torturous ones… now, though, we have marcy’s gold standard… in the future, i’ll be more hesitant to give it a try. *g*
MacDries @ 46
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya…
What are the Popular headlines so far- (at least what SHOULD be the headlines?)
One that jumps out at me is “While Clusterfuck threatened to fire anyone who leaked info- Cheney asked to protect the leaker”
The blond could be Kathleen “Katy” Kedian, of the DOJ’s counterespionage section, who has been sitting at the prosecution table right along.
neil at 4 — Do not panic. Marcy has been working her ass off and deserves a break and, frankly, Swopa and Jane kick ass. There will continue to be liveblog coverage. But Marcy and her tired fingers will get a well-deserved respite.
As a general guideline, let’s keep conversations that start on one thread on that thread and not carry them over into the new one.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54
Hear, hear.
emptywheel @ 22
You have set the bar very, very high for Swopa. Beautiful, wonderful, important work you’ve done here. Thank you.
LindaR @
40
passes test! great
and wow, look at the company she keeps
[Customers who bought this item also bought]
epu’d again:
dmac says:
epu’d from a link-article from new york magazine:
**When Colonel Richard McPhee ordered MET Alpha to pull back from a search mission and regroup in the town of Talil, Miller disagreed vehemently with the decision—and let her opinions be loudly known. The Washington Post ’s Howard Kurtz reprinted a note in which she told public-affairs officers that she would write negatively about his decision if McPhee didn’t back down. What’s more, Kurtz reported that Miller complained to her friend Major General David Petraeus. Even though McPhee’s unit fell outside the general’s line of command, Petraeus’s rank gave his recommendation serious heft. According to Kurtz, in an account that was later denied, “McPhee rescinded his withdrawal order after Petraeus advised him to do so.”**
i believe he is the new man in charge in iraq! “her friend”…. you all were talking about the ’small circle’ in washington…….and the aspen theory.
@83 forgot to say was when judy judy judy was imbedded in iraq, gathering wmd info……….was from article about her old boyfriends in washington that was posted in earlier thread
————————————————–
epu’d;
Chady says:
The Miller/Petraeus link is mentioned in Marcy’s book.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:56 am
thanks chady, is one more reason to get the book…….am getting the book.
dmac
Some background on Fitz’s lawyers:
Also from Washington is Kathleen Kedian, a relative newcomer to the counterespionage section. Her role in the case involves handling much of the grunt work, like sorting through stacks of documents, says the former DOJ official.
Peter Zeidenberg, a Justice Department prosecutor with the public integrity section, brings to Fitzgerald’s team experience in high-profile cases involving public officials. Despite a recent failure to convict David Rosen — the former campaign finance director for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who is accused of lying to the Federal Election Commission — his r�sum� includes a number of wins in other public corruption cases.
Locally, he’s widely known as the prosecutor who, in the longest criminal trial in D.C. history, brought down the infamous K Street Crew, a gang of marijuana dealers known for killing witnesses.
Bonamici (appellate specialist out of Fitz’s Chicago office) made a name for herself in Chicago after convicting members of an exotic animal ring, in which nearly two dozen tigers and leopards were killed for their skins.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article…..0499505379
MacDries @ 46
Actually, MacDries, following this blog has convinced me this trial may be the surest way to get to “the real criminals.” More and more it seems Fitzgerald is starting with the easiest to convict to use the trial to develop the foundation for further prosecution. The “throwing Scooter under the bus” line, for example, had not come out previously and is a classic wedge for pursuing Rove and the WH.
And the pardon you suggest might happen would only fan the flames of prosecuting the “real criminal” since those pardoned would revoke 5th amendment privilege and be forced to testify in an impeachment trial against the pardoner. Not to mention, of course, the political firestorm that ultimately moves such impeachment proceedings.
I understand this coverage may not float everyone’s boat (happily, I hear, there are other blogs, just in case), but for my money there is not better vehicle “to get the real criminals.”
Sparkles the Iguana @
48
or medal
Thanks for sharing…
Hugh @ 29
he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct
OMG I am laughing so hard at that statement. If that got introduced into the trial the jury would know that anything the administration says is a lie.
Swopa!!! Jane!!!! rrruff, rruff.
Tired Typing Fingers alert:
Christy, if you see this, can you email me? I am a former court reporter and I’ve been working on a utility to help you all with your liveblogging.
This trial is really feeling like a brushfire for the administration and the press that is getting out of control.
There’s the growing suggestion that Fitz is homing in on a possible leak charge and the sad spectacle overall of the establishment media’s abject failures to hold the government accountable.
Libby was the firewall, but that wall is taking a lot of heat. No matter what the legal outcome of this case, it appears everything is going to come out, one way or another.
MacDries @ 46
Most of us discovered FDL due to our obsession with all affairs Plame, can you honestly expect us to ignore this? And dahling, determining whether or not Libby perjured himself or obstructed justice is pivotal to the rest.
none @ 27
Could they say he forgot?
If the Reuters photographs are at all representative of reality, Libby needs to groom his eyebrows. They’re, like, four-dimensional.
I think MacDries @46 is one of those half-glass-full kind of guys that Bush was referring to when talking about Cheney.
You know I really used to like this blog but then they stopped using semi-colons and it just hasn;t been the same.
LindaR @ 67
try her email listed in the contact link
re: MacDries…
Don’t feed the trolls.
thank you.
Hmmm
This is Walton, not Wells, right?
Hard to keep track :)
MacDries @ 46
Actually, we really DON’T know what’s going to happen-that’s what’s so incredible about this trial. Where will it all lead? And BTW, without the live-blogging (have I said “thanks,” FDL?), it wouldn’t be half as compelling.
Also, if there is a counterespionage expert on the prosecution team, is it reasonable to conclude that’s where Fitz’s thinking is in terms of where the case goes after this trial?
Just dropping in to see how things are going here in Fitzworld. Fantastic work as usual.
Moderators, emptywheel, A techie suggestion for you that would greatly lessen the “refresh” hit on your servers:
Request that readers set their browsers *not* to load images when refreshing. That would probably reduce the traffic significantly, and readers will see a faster refresh.
Swopa: I am looking forward to your live blogging style.
W I haven’t had the chance to read anything to see if it puts the whole prosecution in jeopardy. Even though I think it does disservice. I hope the court does not interpret my willingness to adjourn as believing this is not admissible. This is right down main street.
Someone with legal expertise–could you please explain what Walton might mean by “my willingness to adjourn”? Does he mean for the day, the week, or altogether?
ya this trial is gonna be wrapped up by wednesday, lol
DB How it happened her name and employment got to the media. Trying to find out identities of those participating in disclosing her identity to media,whether they knew it was classified, what their intent was on disclosing information.
Whoa! Agent Bond just confirmed that Plame’s identity WAS classified info!
Bionic @ 65
Yes – no wonder Walton was concerned that the reaction of the gaggle to Scottie’s statement would be prejudicial to Libby. I don’t think any of the journalists present were rolling on the floor, but apparently there is no doubt from the tape that they found his declaration quite amusing.
njr @ 59
Wow! They’ve teamed Marcy up with Olbermann. If you buy hers and his together you get a discounted price.
Marcy — You really need to talk to Schuster about getting on KO’s show. What an experience that would be — and you’d have a huge audience.
dingo kidneys @ 78
I know I’m going to be accused of heresy here….but what if FDL did not include images at the top of each LiveBlogging post at all? Personally, I could live with that, and if it made things run smoother/faster, I’d be all for it.
Marcy’s couture report reads like the beginning of logic question from the GRE: “No one on the Defense team has a new haircut. Neither Wells nor Fitz are wearing their gray suits. Bonamici has the most interesting outfit.” It will be interesting to see whether the answer to the question is eventually “Cheney changes his underwear as Scooter tries on his new orange jumpsuit.”
So apparently it’s Libby’s strategy to argue that Libby had no motive to lie- and they attempt to do this by keeping anything out of court that had to do with his potential legal culpability at the time- the consequences of Fitz not going for the underlying charge is that Libby can now claim that he had no reason to lie- and Fitz is frustrated in his attempts to bring out the very real legal liability that Libby knew damned well he had..
Whadda bunch of shit!
Good afternoon everyone, and thanks to Marcy and all at FDL!!
So Irving show up @ the interview w/ his own talking points. How kind of him. Trying to steer the investigation from day one.
I used to really like this blog when it was about fires and dogs and lakes. What happened?
Wow
Did DB really testify that Libby claimed to learn Wilson’s name on July 6th?
A big case out of Fitz’s Chicago office.
Look for someone to slip him a note in the courtroom.
Did DB really testify that Libby claimed to learn Wilson’s name on July 6th?
You know he had a very important job and memory is a tricky thing. Got a problem with that? :-)
this is either really damning, or something is getting lost in tranlastion…
from what Bond is saying, Libby claimed that on June 12 he was told ambassador who had been sent to niger had a wife who worked at the CIA…. but DIDN’T know the Ambassador was Joe Wilson until he read the op-ed!?!??!
p.lukasiak @ 84
I think you’re protected under Rule 801
Q: how would one set his/her browser to *not* load images, in Explorer, for instance?
Tap Duncan @ 87
This cracked me up, too. Four bullet points about Wilson? Come on, Scooter.
I, Scooter. I will not cause harm to the office of the Vice President or to the occupant thereof, nor through inaction allow the office of the Vice President or the occupant thereof come to harm.
Cycloptichorn @ 89
I believe so. Bob Woodward knew Wilson’s name the second week in June, but the National Security Advisor to the Vice President only found out three weeks later when it was published in the New York Times.
If this was the info he was telling the admin during the early part of the investigation, they shouldn’t have waited on an indictment. They should have fired him for incompetence.
Pachacutec @
68
From your lips to God’s ears, I hope. Once the TV media stars (i.e., Russert) start having to testify, the rest of the media will be forced to pay more attention and to report on the case. Yee-ha!
Question por favor? When Walton asks juror questions at the end of a witness testimony are they questions from the judge or jurors?
btw I really used to like this blog before addiction set in….)
p.lukasiak @ 85: “I know I’m going to be accused of heresy here….but what if FDL did not include images at the top of each LiveBlogging post at all? Personally, I could live with that, and if it made things run smoother/faster, I’d be all for it.”
I’m for it, though I doubt the bandwidth savings will be that significant — a decent browser should merely check to see if the image is new and, if not, load the image from cache.
Still, every little bit helps, especially when you’re getting over 150,000 visitors to begin with.
dqueue @
1
Jury is not allowed to talk about the case so they can’t brainstorm questions. They can chat with each other about Houston Rockets vs Dallas Mavericks and stuff like that. Under the circumstances I don’t think they’re allowed to talk about the Miami Dolphins. (j/k)
Blue Dido @ 97
Will Russert cover himself, or will he continue to pretend he’s not part of the case?
Yes just what I was thinking – a medal!
njr @ 63
Pachacutec @
68
I would love to believe that was the case but I suspect instead the ‘truth’ will dribble out over the next twenty years.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 98
Jurors.
punaise @ 94
Without looking at the author of the post, I click on the link, see the post, and say “that’s gotta be punaise….” :)
Sparkles at 102:
Excellent question. I’m thinking Russert will consider himself the star, rather than either the reporter or the object of reporting.
Or perhaps he will conjure up the ghost of Big Russ, who will then interview him.
The facts have a pro-prosecution bias.
After seeing all this crap come out about government misdeeds, coverups, and whack jobs, you know, I think I believe all those X-Files episodes now.
This is a perfect example of how people like Addington are a danger to our democracy. He has interpretation of the constitution and since he’s in a high level position he’s going to behave as such. Even if it undermines the one document that keeps us afloat. What a prick!!
Dumb question – what does WRT stand for?
Racked brain trying to come up with abbreviation and just KNOW will feel silly once it is explained.
Go FDL – the place to be for coverage of the trial. MSM buy a clue.
Democrat 4 Ever @ 111
With regard to
joel @
97
This interview was conducted while John Ashcroft was still Attorney General…
most of those involved were expecting him to kick all these bullet points under a carpet somewhere.
Dem 4 ever- don’t feel bad, it happens to all of us at one time or another.
Jeez, I used to really like this blog back when…I could keep up with both the posts and all the comments.
;-)
Seriously, y’all — this place is just the best! It’s a one-stop shop for history as it happens (in the live-blogging threads) and the finest in well-informed, patriotically-inspired snark (in all the other threads).
Mucho love especially to Marcy!
I sent Christy an fdl glossary the other day. I listed 85 abbreviations. I think Rayne was also working on one.
p.lukasiak @ 104
well, if you’re gonna lob them over the plate like that… :~)
btw, http://www.acronymfinder.com/ is a good resource
Exqueese me,Iv’e been busy working, but this caught my eye;
DB he first learned about Plame from VP,
Guilty MF’r.
I think in all the great heresy trials in history, hearsay was admitted, no?
How else could you get rid of your religio-political enemies expeditiously?
ccmask @ 115
The list, so far,for the Libby trial,
http://rayne-today.blogspot.co…..rimer.html
Rayne has a great one, from yesterday in one of the threads there is a link to it. Although I’d hate to have go search for it.
Bustedknuckles –
I’d sure like to see Cheney on the stand — asked whether HE signed any non-disclosure agreements.
The see the steam pour out of his ears.
DB “…. Said it in way that she wouldn’t ask him how he found out, didn’t want her to know he learned it from Russert. Libby told us he thought it might be awkward, if he said he learned it from Russert.”
Scoots: (said it in a way) “you know, this is hush-hush, on the q.t.”
I know this is a stupid question but are we really supposed to continue to believe that the chief of staff for the vp got his news from reporters?
New thread
Beuhler? Beuhler? Anyone? Anyone?
Has the “secret witness” been called yet?
[I’ve been busy the last few days and I’m too lazy to read through all the earlier threads]
Thanks
should be “THEN see the steam”
Was the “edit this comment” feature disabled to ease up on the servers?
It doesn’t work for me — nor does the “quote this comment” feature work.
[If any techie has an idea that the problem is on my end, please jump in. I just upgraded to the latest Firefox version (from 1.5 to 2.0.1) — so if there’s a setting I need to go in and fix, please let me know. I have FDL scripts permitted on my “NoScript” add-on, as usual.]
Tap Duncan @
112
White Republican T*urd
From what my poor, addled brain could gather,
they seem to be dancing very closely to the edge of the treasonous act of outing Valerie.
{{{{{{{{{Heroine}}}}}}}}}}
john in sacramento –
This is the “mystery witness” — Agent (Debbie, I think) Bond.
Not as exciting as all the musings had fantasized, but still a good witness, I think.
WRT = with respect to.
Mrs. K8 @ 131
Thanks Mrs. K8 ;-)
p.s. “Quote This Comment” works for me
p.lukasiak @ 85
But the photos are a good part of all the fun! Although seeing the photo once at the beginning is plenty.
ccmask — if you’d like to send it to me, I can add what you have to my “catalog”.
Bustedknuckles — thanks for the link.
FYI, just click on my name, will take you to the “catalog” or primer. If you have something I should add, leave me a comment in the post.
I have to add a new table with the commonly used slang in blogging and at FDL, including the ever-ubiquitous “EPU’d” — which I have just done to myself.
BTW I don’t have “edit” either
[d’uoh, yea I do]
Mrs.K8—nothing’s turned off on our end and FF 2.0.x seems to work for many of us. Might try clearing the FF cache to make sure everything transitioned properly to the new browser.
Any other ideas to help our good friend are welcome.
Rayne.
Just so you know, Awesome job there.
Very much appreciated.
Oh crap, I can’t keep up!! Now I have to add “TS/SCI” and “5A” because of this post!
Heh.
The government had to decide not whether to charge Libby, but rather how many charges to make. paraphrasing David Shuster just now.
-
LBrowne @
86
LMFAO!!!!! That was priceless! Thank you.
I don’t follow: Did Libby tell the CIA he learned of Plame from Cheney on June 12, 2003? or did he tell them he learned from Russert in July? If the former, what did he lie about?
p.lukasiak @ 85
It wouldn’t help much. After the first load, the images will usually be cached in the browser so they won’t actually get retransmitted when the user hits reload since they haven’t changed since the last load. Also, they’re typically served statically which means that while they consume bandwidth, they don’t use as much server-side compute resources such as database traffic, and that computing is what usually hoses a server in this type of application. If you look at something like a porn site, they burn a lot more bandwidth than a large blog does, but on a fraction of the server hardware because they are just serving the same static files (pics and videos) over and over, not dynamic content that needs a lot of crunching.
Swopa @ 26
Swopa,
“Flyover country”? You are referring to MICHIGAN?
My name is HotFlash. You insulted my state. Prepare to die, er, buy me a beer.
Oops, Mr HotFlash’s info on this computer, should be mine (blush).
john in sacramento @ 133
Thanks for reporting the status on your computer. I finally figured it out — it was a setting for tab mgmt in this @#$%^&!!! version of Firefox.
I wish there had been a simple setting — “choosing this will enable this version to behave exactly like v. 1.5 behaved” or some such.
Turns out that when I hit “quote this comment” and “edit this comment” it came up — in a brand new tab!!! And it was all unbeknownst to me as I have numerous tabs open — and I was focused on the one I was working on.
Grrrr….
I say this only in part to vent — but also because someone else may have run into the same stupid situation.
RBG @ 137
Thanks, sweetie! See my above comment to John in Sacramento for my rantings about FF2.
You’re the best!
Eureka Springs, AR @ 99
Jurors…but he examines them for relevance and whether or not they are allowable (e.g. they clearly couldn’t ask if Plame WAS COVERT, or ask for hearsay interpretations, etc.) Walton usually tells they Jury why a certain question can’t be asked obliquely.
It does appear that if a question isn’t responded to fully that he, himself, may be interjecting “follow-up” questions. I think these are his…although perhaps he’s instructed the jurors to tell him what they are looking for in response and/or they do include follow ups.
Damiana @ 82
Watch the wingnuts studiously ignore this revelation!