Fitz, Jane, Redd, and Jeralyn… What a team.

Jeralyn’s piece about Fitz and the case wasn’t exactly encouraging was it?

Yeah, as I said in comments some time last night, however this case is going for Libby, it’s definitely going badly for the administration. Shoulda invested in popcorn futures when I had the chance!

Timmy the tool!

Court will be starting later this morning, gang — not until around 10:30 am ET or so — because Judge Walton had a prior commitment for this morning that he needed to attend. Wanted to be sure everyone was aware that the liveblogging will begin a bit later than usual for today.

Just saw the tail end of Real Genius last night, where the good nerds, um guys, fill the nasty perfessor’s house with what looks like a giant canister of Jiffy-Pop and reprogram the death laser the professor has sold to the military cook it – the house comes apart at the seems from too much popcorn.

Just be careful, Christy, is all I’m saying.

raven at 2 — Jeralyn is coming at all of this from a defens counsel perspective — she’s never worked the prosecution end of things, and her counter-point to my government angle is a useful one. But I think the government’s case on the charges in the indictment is going well, based on my observations and the testimony and such — and since we have yet to get to any of the FBI agents, who are generally very good on the stand, we haven’t even gotten to the big guns as yet.

Who’s up on the witness stand today?

Hey, Christy,

I haven’t been able to follow this as closely as I would like. Tell me… are Scooter and the Bush House of Cards finally going down?

mornin. nothing on PACER since Monday. are they using monks on papyrus? mebbe they should just use Marcy’s blogscript.

I guess I’m not used to getting a “balanced” view. Thanks

Christy Hardin Smith @ 7

raven at 2 — Jeralyn is coming at all of this from a defens counsel perspective — she’s never worked the prosecution end of things, and her counter-point to my government angle is a useful one. But I think the government’s case on the charges in the indictment is going well, based on my observations and the testimony and such — and since we have yet to get to any of the FBI agents, who are generally very good on the stand, we haven’t even gotten to the big guns as yet.

If my wife went on television and indicated my “size” as Matalin is doing to her husband here, I wouldn’t be snickering about it as James seems to be doing. Is there nothing a wingnut won’t do? Gawd, these people have no class.

Frank at 8 — I don’t think we know. I thought that Cooper was excused at the end, but that isn’t completely certain. I would guess that Russert would be a likely choice for the next witness, given the way Fitzgerald and his team have been progressing through the chronology and witness type, but I do not know that for certain. They might want to interject an FBI agent as a palate cleanser at this point — just not certain. But I think Russert is a logical next step — we’re just al going to have to see this morning hen court begins.

these are not nice people.

coffee anyone?

OT ~ Who does Hugo think he is…President or something?

Venezuela’s Chavez gets sweeping new powers to govern alone.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0201.html

Maybe what we need in addition to a new administration is a shakeup of the press?
What will Chris and Tim’s boss do?
Are not people going to be very suspect of the news these two deliver from now on?

The other question I have from the previous post…
Judith Miller went to jail about her conversations with Libby.
Are not jurors going to remember that?
If she didn’t have such damning evidence why did she go?
She has been revealed as a less then honest person since then.
I’m still thinking what did she want to hide by going to jail!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 7

raven at 2 — Jeralyn is coming at all of this from a defens counsel perspective — she’s never worked the prosecution end of things, and her counter-point to my government angle is a useful one. But I think the government’s case on the charges in the indictment is going well, based on my observations and the testimony and such — and since we have yet to get to any of the FBI agents, who are generally very good on the stand, we haven’t even gotten to the big guns as yet.

Good morning everyone. I think it is going well too although IANAL. I now sign my emails to my husband that way–he is a lawyer. But Christy, I do think if I was a juror that I would discount Judy Miller. One of the juror’s questions I thought brought that home, they asked her something along the lines of “Have you had other memory incidents?”

But I disagree with Jeralyn on Cooper–people don’t write every word in their notes. Rove told him about Plame; he wanted it confirmed by Libby. He got that. He didn’t need to write it all down–at that point, in his head, he knew he could go to print with it.

Frank Probst @
8

Who’s up on the witness stand today?

Christy – how many more prosecution witnesses are likely to appear?

Mutant Poodle @ 6

Just saw the tail end of Real Genius last night, where the good nerds, um guys, fill the nasty perfessor’s house with what looks like a giant canister of Jiffy-Pop and reprogram the death laser the professor has sold to the military cook it – the house comes apart at the seems from too much popcorn.

Just be careful, Christy, is all I’m saying.

found the you tube
loved the end … hysterical

Christy Hardin Smith @ 7

raven at 2 — Jeralyn is coming at all of this from a defens counsel perspective — she’s never worked the prosecution end of things, and her counter-point to my government angle is a useful one. But I think the government’s case on the charges in the indictment is going well, based on my observations and the testimony and such — and since we have yet to get to any of the FBI agents, who are generally very good on the stand, we haven’t even gotten to the big guns as yet.

A question for Jeralyn, as a defense lawyer: What would your move be if you were Team Libby? It seems to me that they have no good options. The only 3 I see are:

1. Don’t put Libby on the stand. Looks horrible. He’s accused of lying, and the jury will rightly assume that if he doesn’t take the stand, it’s because he and his lawyers don’t think there’s anything he could say that would make him look like he’s NOT lying. I agree with Walton on this: It’s suicide.

2. Put Libby up and have him testify that he forgot. This helps the prosecution more than the defense, I think. Fitz has already said he brought charges against Libby because Libby was preventing him from getting at the truth. If Libby says he forgot, then Fitz can get him to cough up what really happened on cross.

3. Put Libby up and have him stick to his story. I can’t see this working. The jury would have to buy the theory that Libby STILL “remembers” that he heard about Plame from Russert even though he was blabbing about her in the days beforehand. Won’t fly.

Thoughts?

And ole punkinhead still has a job why?

Oh, great piece on Matalin, FDL. Snark it up, snark it WAY up.
Molly’d be proud on ya.
(((Jane)))
/a grateful pup

Stephen at 18 — You know, I’m not certain. I thik Fitz indicated yesterday that he thought they might be able to finish up on Tuesday, at the earliest, which says to me they have maybe four or five witnesses to go, maximum. I’m sure we’re looking at Russert, Eckenrode from the FBI (who was lead investigator for so long) and likely Deborah Bond (who is lead investigtor now, I believe), and a few other possibilities.

can’t wait to follow emptywheel’s liveblogging the trial. she’s amazing.

also today senate foreign relations committee hearing, “Iraq in the Strategic Context“, with scowcroft and brzezinski. the audio stream is at http://www.capitolhearings.org/ . steve clemons has early release of zig’s statement.

also of interest… excellent chalmers johnson article, “Empire v. Democracy“, at tomdispatch.

sean-paul reviews the iran warmonging drumbeat, Iran: “The Edge of The Abyss“, at the agonist…. and our own prof foland has more, “Daily Dose of War-with-Iran Links“, at nuclear mangos.

‘Morning, Christy!! ‘Morning, FirePups!!

And it is definitely morning in America, what with this wealth of snark-o-licious riches!!

Saw Tweety this morning on The Today Show, looking rather tired. My daughter disingenuously says to me, Wow, Mom, he’s got a BIG mouth, goes from here (points under right ear) to here (points under left ear).

Ah, from the mouths of babes…

cheviteau — my first reaction to the pic posted was a classic punch line: 6 inches. Heh.

Christy – Was there a mention of a “mystery witness”? Is that still a possibility?

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs -

bwaaahaaahaaa!

“ – no one could have imagined such an attack could be launched against Russert” . . . “no one could have imagined that anyone would ever use Hardballs as weapons” …“no one anticipated the breach of civility”

bwaaahaaahaaa !!!

petedownunder @ 25

Christy – Was there a mention of a “mystery witness”? Is that still a possibility?

I thought that I read every bit of the live-blogging yesterday but I totally didn’t register the mystery witness although it is a lot of information to absorb.

gnipgnop at 9 — I think that one of the greatest assets of this trial is exposing so much of the ush Administration’s manipulative, lying practices to the sunlight of public scrutiny. If nothing else, it’s undercutting a whole lot of their ability to spin all but the kool-aid-addled for the next two years. And that is quite powerful. Especially given that a whole lot of the media folks have to be feeling a lot more skeptical about anything they are told (I would have hoped for that skepticism previously — a la Froomkin — but alas, I’m not certain that it was present in all quarters.)

And how is it that everyone seems to have forgotten that Mr. Libby was not merely the Chief of Staff for the VP? As described in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine): “When he joined the administration in 2001, Mr. Libby was given three titles: Chief of Staff to the Vice President, National-Security Adviser to the Vice President and Assistant to the President. In the White House, Mr. Libby’s inner-circle cachet is so great that he has been a full participant — not a stand-in — at the weekly lunch of the president’s top economic advisers held every Wednesday in the private dining room in the White House mess. “Scooter’s a half-step below a cabinet member,” a former official says.”

mahopac maze @ 29

And how is it that everyone seems to have forgotten that Mr. Libby was not merely the Chief of Staff for the VP? As described in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine): “When he joined the administration in 2001, Mr. Libby was given three titles: Chief of Staff to the Vice President, National-Security Adviser to the Vice President and Assistant to the President. In the White House, Mr. Libby’s inner-circle cachet is so great that he has been a full participant — not a stand-in — at the weekly lunch of the president’s top economic advisers held every Wednesday in the private dining room in the White House mess. “Scooter’s a half-step below a cabinet member,” a former official says.”

I think since he got indicted, there has beeen a concerted effort by Republicans to play down his importance. He was the #2 man in the OVP and I think we all know that this VP is running the country. It’s a huge deal.

oh, and Redshift

Soylent Fox is Sheeple !

went to sleep literally lmao !

Jane S. @ 27

petedownunder @ 25

Christy – Was there a mention of a “mystery witness”? Is that still a possibility?

I thought that I read every bit of the live-blogging yesterday but I totally didn’t register the mystery witness although it is a lot of information to absorb.

I thought it was mentioned by Marcy in the post game video, but jet lag may still be interfering with comprehension.

Christy, I just cannot say enough good about all the coverage. As I have said before, the summaries that you, Jeralyn, and emptywheel provide in addition to the live blogging really help. There’s a lot of data and your commentary really helps to emphasize the high points.

It’ll be interesting to see how many people remember that the trial will start late today, because Judge Walton has to go to some function for an old clerk.

Finally, I’m telling Joe Biden to go Dick Cheney himself.

petedownunder @ 32

Jane S. @ 27

petedownunder @ 25

Christy – Was there a mention of a “mystery witness”? Is that still a possibility?

I thought that I read every bit of the live-blogging yesterday but I totally didn’t register the mystery witness although it is a lot of information to absorb.

I thought it was mentioned by Marcy in the post game video, but jet lag may still be interfering with comprehension.

It was mentioned by Marcie–I just missed it. When FDL crashed, I interpreted that as a sign from a higher power to stop obsessing and get some stuff done. But I did go to the migrant diary over at Kos–but I may have missed a few paragraphs there.

pete at 33 — I believe there is some sort of argument about a “mystery witness,” but I am not at all certain if it is a government one or a defense one. (btw, I would guess it is a defense one, since the government doesn’t really get to pull surprises out of their hats unless they have gotten to rebuttal and are impaching someone…defense counsel get more latitude about that.) Walton held off discussion on that until this morning — it will be what they start with today, I believe, outside the purview of the jury, with motions arguments before the judge.

Libby had to protect Cheney. Period. Look at how hard they were trying to divert attention from the possibility that the public would find out that the VP had direct hand in sending Wilson. That seems to me is what this was all about. Diverting attention away from Cheney and Cheney was orchestrating everything. Libby’s first and most important job want to protect the VP. Lying to the FBI was part of the job description.

(He will be pardoned on January 10, 2008.)

Sorry Christy, I missed your comment 5.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 35

pete at 33 — I believe there is some sort of argument about a “mystery witness,” but I am not at al certain if it is a government one or a defense one. Walton held off discussion on that until this morning — it will be what they start with today, I believe, outside the purview of the jury, with motions arguments before the judge.

Thanks. Glad I’m not delusional, at least not yet.

Thanks Christy – For everything!!!!

My first question of the day. Do you know if anyone is parsing the jury questions specifically (as separated out from others) to see if we can get a gist of what they are thinking (questioning) so far? Even the broad trends in terms of questions they ask which Walton says he can’t ask would be interesting i.e. in conjunction with which witness. Also, I assume that these questions are pooled, i.e. we don’t know which specific juror brought what specific question.

Oh, and I thought your response above, providing a different pov of view to Jeralyn was nice – not only in professional terms, but also as the resident FDL meta-Mom. Your “kids” here like that “everything will be fine in the end” touch.

Late in the day yesterday, there was a lot of speculation on whether the jury would decide for or against Libby.

I’d like to remind everyone that such speculation is really pretty unfounded at this point. We won’t really begin to know how this will play out until the defense presents its case.

So, just a caution, it may be best to wait until later next week, after the defense has had a day or two to start presenting its case, before you come to any conclusions about how the jury may decide.

(And, yes, I think is Libby is guilty as sin. I just don’t think we have enough information yet to knowledgably specualte on how the jury will ultimately decide.)

Watch the video on the FDL homepage for all you need to know about the rest of Fitz’s case, including mystery witness…

If FDL were to send Jeralyn Merritt to the Plains of Giza in Egypt, would she file a report on large, irregular and weathered stones?

Frank @ 5:50 am -

I agree with your analysis; he appears to have no good options. Have you already mentioned in a comment on a previous thread what you think about Team Scooter blaming what happened on someone else? I don’t think that option will fly. A deal may be the best that he can hope for.

Richmond @ 39

Thanks Christy – For everything!!!!

My first question of the day. Do you know if anyone is parsing the jury questions specifically (as separated out from others) to see if we can get a gist of what they are thinking (questioning) so far? Even the broad trends in terms of questions they ask which Walton says he can’t ask would be interesting i.e. in conjunction with which witness. Also, I assume that these questions are pooled, i.e. we don’t know which specific juror brought what specific question.

Oh, and I thought your response above, providing a different pov of view to Jeralyn was nice – not only in professional terms, but also as the resident FDL meta-Mom. Your “kids” here like that “everything will be fine in the end” touch.

Interesting article on juror questions in today’s WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01940.html

Thanks Jane for the link. I’ll take a look.

Richmond at 40 — Well, I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t believe it. I think everyone has always known that Judy’s…um…credibility, shall we say?…is less than stellar. Which is why, I think, that there is no one charge which rests solely on her testimony. She’s only a part of the obstruction count, for which there is a whole lot of other evidence. In my experience, though, finishing with the investigators if they are good on the stand — and I have never met an FBI agent who wasn’t quite polished, sincere and in command of their facts on the stand — is a good thing for the government.

It’s an advantage that prosecutors enjoy, to be honest, because people have a tendency to give a lot more credence to something they are hearing from a police officer or agent who has investigated a crime. Especially if that person comes off as a decent, credible person interested in the public’s interest. From everything I have heard about Eckenrode, he’s a boy scout, a great guy, and very personable as well as serious about his job, and I think he’ll be an asset to the case. But, as with any trial, you never know how things are going to play in the courtroom with any particular jury and with any particular defense counsel trying to poke holes — some are more successful than others. So, we’ll just have to see how the case closes out. Thus far, though, the bricks that have been laid, even Judy’s wobbly one, seem pretty solid when you think about the similarity in Libby’s statements across the board as reported by a whole lot of people, some of whom have strong ties to this Administration still — so you don’t have that bias argument that Wells tried to injectin his opening.

I really thought Cooper spelled out something interesting about the whole Wilson affair. He mentioned that this administration rarely (read NEVER) admits mistakes but they took back the 16 words. But in the same breath, they attacked the guy who said they should not have had the 16 words. It didn’t make sense but here is Cooper saying from Marcie’s live blogging:

MC If I may elucidate. What struck me as a contradiction, on one hand, after Wilson published op-ed, the Admin did something that it rarely does, which is acknowledge a big error. That was a big deal, I was very struck by that. But then I was struck all week by statements that seemed to be disparaging Mr Wilson. They were saying you’re right, it shouldn’t have been. Then they were saying, he’s a momma’s boy, his report was bad.

Grossly OT, and yet not…

That twit Tara Conner has had nearly a half hour of time on The Today Show, consisting of a veritable deification.

Did they not get the memo that we are aware what crap the media is in this country? Do they have to be so in-our-face about being crap?

Ugh. Biggest scandal, much bigger than Watergate, and NBC covers it over with a thick layer of missing-white-girl-version-307.

The LA Times has a good article on the relationship between the press and the white house as shown by the Libby trial.

But in many respects, it is the ugly mutual exploitation that goes on every day in Washington between powerful government officials and influential members of the media that is on trial in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Jane S. @ 47

I really thought Cooper spelled out something interesting about the whole Wilson affair. He mentioned that this administration rarely (read NEVER) admits mistakes but they took back the 16 words. But in the same breath, they attacked the guy who said they should not have had the 16 words. It didn’t make sense but here is Cooper saying from Marcie’s live blogging:

MC If I may elucidate. What struck me as a contradiction, on one hand, after Wilson published op-ed, the Admin did something that it rarely does, which is acknowledge a big error. That was a big deal, I was very struck by that. But then I was struck all week by statements that seemed to be disparaging Mr Wilson. They were saying you’re right, it shouldn’t have been. Then they were saying, he’s a momma’s boy, his report was bad.

Very interesting point Jane. And, I think it was not only “payback” but an effort – which we saw ample evidence of later – to take back the words, put hoist the whole WMD scenario back into the Saddam & Iraq scenario. Still today the right wing nuts are insisting the WMD got moved to Syria. Yeah right!

OfT I haven’t read it, but
Jesus’ General has been plugging Steve Hendrick’s book. Below is a recent post he did for patriotboy. Maybe he is a candidate for the FDL Book Salon?

Steve Earle, the Virgil of the Left, once lamented that he wished he were as certain of anything as Bill Monroe, the Isaac Newton of bluegrass, was of everything. It is a problem unique to the Left. Thought begets doubt. The Right, lacking the impetus of the former, rarely suffers from the latter.

I thought of Earle’s lament often while writing my new book, The Unquiet Grave: The FBI and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country (which Jesus’ General has unabashedly, and heterosexually, plugged on this page). In the tangled story of how the FBI sabotaged the Indian rights movement of the 1970s and how the Indian activists themselves turned violent under the FBI’s provocations in the badlands of South Dakota, shades of gray were as prevalent as those of black or white.

Some certitudes did, however, emerge. One was that if there is a hell, it has an endowed wing for the press of South Dakota. Last week this infernal annex grew by a few chambers as Wild Bill Janklow, the longtime Dakota governor and congressman who ran over a motorcyclist in 2003, had his manslaughter conviction erased. After his trial, Janklow was given a trifling hundred days in jail, a suspended sentence, and a promise that his record would be erased in 2007 if he didn’t slaughter anyone else in the interim. It was enough, the judge said, that Janklow had to undergo the “special humiliation” of giving up his congressional seat. The Dakota press, which over the years had ignored the hundreds of speeding and reckless-driving tickets that Wild Bill racked up, thought the punishment Solomonic. No surprise that newsrooms offered not a bleat of critique when Janklow’s record was scrubbed last week.

The manslaughter was covered at all only because it had to be. A dead cyclist at a public crossroads is hard to ignore. Not so Janklow’s other, often legal crimes. Three decades back, Janklow was the George Wallace of Indian Country, a onetime hayseed who rode his state’s racist winds to power, then used that power to fan the gusts of anti-Indian prejudice into prairie gales. He did so unchallenged by a cowardly Fourth Estate—yellow journalism indeed. The difference between Dakota and Dixie is that George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Bull Connor, and other mastodons of Jim Crow were eventually speared and fossilized. Janklow endured, the stegosaurus in the state’s living room. Given the choice of appeasing the grocers and car dealers who peopled their display ads or lending a voice to the Plains Indians who had been raped for a century, the newsmen of Rapid City and Sioux Falls always sided with its fellow burghers. May the memories of fat ad accounts be cool comfort in hell….

I apologize for quoting all of it, but it’s not at the top of patriotboy’s site, and I couldn’t link directly to it. My musical tastes are far from refined by FDL standards, but even I know Steve Earle and Bill Monroe are pretty good.

Rayne @ 48

Grossly OT, and yet not…

That twit Tara Conner has had nearly a half hour of time on The Today Show, consisting of a veritable deification.

Did they not get the memo that we are aware what crap the media is in this country? Do they have to be so in-our-face about being crap?

Ugh. Biggest scandal, much bigger than Watergate, and NBC covers it over with a thick layer of missing-white-girl-version-307.

Fair and balanced; fair and balanced; fair and balanced; f&b f&b f&b f&b f&b f&b ffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbffffffffffffffffbbbbbbbbbfbfb.

The best thing Carville ever did was to agitate Novak into cursing and storming off the set of CNN.

Jane S., thanks for the WaPo link about juror’s questions. I find them a fascinating window into the mind of the jurors. It certainly appears they are paying attention.

John Casper @ 54

Jane S., thanks for the WaPo link about juror’s questions. I find them a fascinating window into the mind of the jurors. It certainly appears they are paying attention.

I’ve loved the juror’s questions and it does give me confidence that they are paying close attention.

Secret Witness guess: Dana Priest, her weekly WaPo chat has been canceled for today.

kim @ 56

Secret Witness guess: Dana Priest, her weekly WaPo chat has been canceled for today.

Secret mystery witness–the “1″ in 1 x 2 x 6

Heather @ 37

Libby had to protect Cheney. Period. Look at how hard they were trying to divert attention from the possibility that the public would find out that the VP had direct hand in sending Wilson. That seems to me is what this was all about. Diverting attention away from Cheney and Cheney was orchestrating everything. Libby’s first and most important job want to protect the VP. Lying to the FBI was part of the job description.

(He will be pardoned on January 10, 2008.)

From Wikipedia: (my emphasis)

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.

The United States Supreme Court has held that a pardon can be rejected, must be affirmatively accepted to be effective, and that acceptance carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).

Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned Supreme Court decision:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

In short, there are some strings attached to pardons: admission of guilt, exposure to civil suits, loss of ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment…

Richmond (52) — hey, there’s an unconscious point there (or maybe it was conscious?).

The scandal is SOOOO BIG that NBC’s 10 seconds of coverage must be weighted with a half-hour circus with allegedly former substance abuser Tara Conner getting Matt Lauer to sit up, speak, roll over…

Rayne @ 59

Richmond (52) — hey, there’s an unconscious point there (or maybe it was conscious?).

The scandal is SOOOO BIG that NBC’s 10 seconds of coverage must be weighted with a half-hour circus with allegedly former substance abuser Tara Conner getting Matt Lauer to sit up, speak, roll over…

Oh Jeez!! *h* lol (with a slanted mouth)

Just had to say how much I appreciate all the hard work that is being done to bring this truly remarkable trial to the ‘people.’ It is fascinating to glimpse inside this slimeball administration. And…

OT, please excuse, GrandmaJo and GrandmaJ are going to YearlyKos together. I am smiling. It comes as no surprise that we have alot in common, including being a political junkie surrounded by republicans. [Waving at GrandmaJo who says she will be hanging around here reading all day]

selise @ 24

also today senate foreign relations committee hearing, “Iraq in the Strategic Context“, with scowcroft and brzezinski. the audio stream is at http://www.capitolhearings.org/ . steve clemons has early release of zig’s statement.

I have a “thing” for Ziggy. He is so smart and speaks with such authority. I’m glad he & Scowcroft are speaking out.

Morning FDL pups.

Definitely not OT–

In*cest/Nepotism in the Beltway:

One strain of a thread yesterday touched on Beltway incest.

I pointed out in one comment that Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, a long-time trusted aide of Hillary Clinton.

What I forgot to do was close the loop: Mandy Grunwald is the daughter of Henry Grunwald, who was the managing editor of Time and the editor-in-chief of Time Inc. Matt Cooper, of course, was a Time reporter until recently.

Again: Who said there’s no in*cest in DC?

dab from CT @ 62

selise @ 24

also today senate foreign relations committee hearing, “Iraq in the Strategic Context“, with scowcroft and brzezinski. the audio stream is at http://www.capitolhearings.org/ . steve clemons has early release of zig’s statement.

I have a “thing” for Ziggy. He is so smart and speaks with such authority. I’m glad he & Scowcroft are speaking out.

My daughter used to play with his grandson. And I met him at the grandson’s birthday party. I joked with a friend that rather than having Barney at the 2 year old party, Zbignew Brzezinski would be there discussing global challenges in a post 9-11 world. (I think this was Oct. 2001.)

Jane S. at 65 — Too funny. I’m picturing a birthday theme of board games…Risk, anyone? *g*

I’ll second GrandmaJ’s thanks to all of you who are working so incredibly hard, and an especially big thank you to the techies and mods who aren’t seen, but whose presence sure is felt and appreciated!

Pfifferling @ 67

I’ll second GrandmaJ’s thanks to all of you who are working so incredibly hard, and an especially big thank you to the techies and mods who aren’t seen, but whose presence sure is felt and appreciated!

Hear, hear!

65 & 66–Thanks from me! I’m sure it hasn’t been easy.

BTW: Word has it that today Judge Walton will decide whether to let the jury watch seven hours videotape of Scott McClellan clearing or not clearing Libby of any involvement in the leak of Plame’s identity. Fitzgerald wants the jury to see the videotapes of McClellan’s press briefings.

I take it those bitchez at Wonkette couldn’t get a press pass?

Smells like sour grapes to me.

Watching “My Dinner with Andre” right now, listening to the part of the conversation discussing consciousness and awareness, Andre’s theory about a new concentration camp where the inmates have built it themselves.

I give you Washington DC and the Beltway Media as Exhibit A.

Loved these lines:

Andre: But, Wally, don’t you see that comfort can be dangerous? I mean, you like to be comfortable and I like to be comfortable too, but comfort can lull you into a dangerous tranquility.

===

Andre: But I mean, the main thing, Wally, is that I think that kind of comfort just separates you from reality in a very direct way.

Oh, how this so fits the media covering the Bush administration…

Guten Morgen, Peterr!

So I used to be obsessed with this story, got distracted and now have slowly been drawn back in with the trial and all. I used to write diaries at Kos about it, read emptywheel and eRiposte religiously. Anyway, with all the studying I did in the past, the trial and all its goodies are an awesome read and sucking me right back in!

This is off topic, but I read today how Tweetie and Shuster are all surprised that it took until now for the information to be admitted that the VP office did request the CIA to investigate the Niger claims. When I read that, I was like, this isn’t news! I did a diary somewhat related to that a year ago! So, I went back to DailyKos to find the diary I wrote up and there it was. What I found funny is that as I was reading my own diary, I was thinking, “Jeez! I wrote that? That’s not bad!” lol

Anyway, here’s the link if anyone is remotely interested… Plame News: Something Odd…

An-FITZ-i-pation, anFITZ-i-pa-aa-aation
Is making me late
Is keeping me waiting

Biodun,

thought it was 7 hours of Scooter’s testimony before GJ ??

How come no one takes pictures of Fitz going into the courthouse? So I can flesh out the description Marcie gives us of his suits? How many pictures do they need of Libby going in?

emmajoe — it’s not news, you know that, we know that and can validate your well-earned bemusement.

It’s news to the traditional, corporate-owned media who obviously wouldn’t know news if the news was shoving a cocktail weenie down its throat sideways with a silver pitchfork while simultaneously biting media’s ass.

Biodun @ 63

Morning FDL pups.

Definitely not OT–

In*cest/Nepotism in the Beltway:

One strain of a thread yesterday touched on Beltway incest.

I pointed out in one comment that Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, a long-time trusted aide of Hillary Clinton.

What I forgot to do was close the loop: Mandy Grunwald is the daughter of Henry Grunwald, who was the managing editor of Time and the editor-in-chief of Time Inc. Matt Cooper, of course, was a Time reporter until recently.

Again: Who said there’s no in*cest in DC?

Holy shit! Media In*cest would be a great future blog topic. Judith Miller also has some in*cest in her marriage connections. And by the way, where was her husband yesterday?

Pfifferling @ 72

Guten Morgen, Peterr!

Guten Morgen! Wie geht’s?

Remember how long it took them to read Fitzgerald’s filings and report that Libby leaked the NIE at the behest of the VP and Pres. I think Marcie posted that nugget about a month before it came out of Brian Williams’ mouth or any traditional news person’s mouth. And all they had to do was read the damn filings!!!

Meanwhile, yet more speculations about Libby’s aspen letter to Judy Miller. From Salon’s War Room:

(snip)

The Aspen Strategy Group was and is a veritable who’s who of the Washington foreign policy-media establishment.

(snip)

So are members of the Aspen Strategy Group the “aspens” of which Libby wrote? They meet “out west,” where Libby had seen Miller on vacation. And like arboreal aspens, the members of the group are closely “connected,” not only at the “roots” — early members of the group included Walter Mondale, Paul Nitze, Les Aspin, Zbigniew Brzezinski and and Robert McNamara — but also at the branches. A profile of the group posted on its Web site says it’s “credited” with launching many careers, including that of Condoleezza Rice; Scowcroft invited her to start attending meetings in the 1980s because, he said, “I thought I should get to know her better and introduce her to some of these groups who would move her along.”

But if the members of the Aspen group are the aspens in Libby’s letter, what did he mean when he said that they would “already be turning”?

(snip)

BTW, this also ties in with the in*cest/nepotism strain.

Ann Coulter calls the dogs out to go after Fitz and Co.:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..gerald_one dot html

(Sorry, I’m not providing Ann Coulter any traffic. You’ll have to type in the URL on your own. Thanks. — CHS)

My daughter used to play with his grandson. And I met him at the grandson’s birthday party.

I am so jealous. What’s he like in person?

Boy, am I slow. I just now figured out what IANAL means.

(Very sad this morning concerning the passing of Molly. I would have voted for her for president.)

Today’s To-Do List…

Run videos of Scott McClelland addressing the press.

Call Special Agent Bond to testify – Bond, Deborah Bond!

Present Scooter’s GJ testimony.

Discuss mystery witness with Judge Reggie.

Place Tim Russert in the hot seat.

Prepare for tonight’s full moon.

FYI, Team America will rest late Monday or Tuesday -with Super Bowl flu and ALL the sidebars, Wednesday at the latest.

Go Bears!

raven @ 2

Jeralyn’s piece about Fitz and the case wasn’t exactly encouraging was it?

Shows the difference in perspective from a defense lawyer to a former prosecutor. I thought that Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony did the job it it was meant to do. I was sort of surprised that Jerilyn felt so differently.

I am much more sanguine about the trial at this point than she is.

dab from CT @ 79

My daughter used to play with his grandson. And I met him at the grandson’s birthday party.

I am so jealous. What’s he like in person?

I knew his daughter-in-law and the grandson better than the great man himself but he seemed like a lovely, caring grandpa. At that time, his son left a high level (Senate?) staff position to go to the Pentagon and work under Rumsfeld. Hopefully the son was a voice of reason over there–he may have left at this point. I lost touch although I think I sent them a Xmas card. (I heard from them last Xmas but mostly about how the kids were doing in school, etc.)

Lurker @ 80

Ann Coulter calls the dogs out to go after Fitz and Co.:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti…..gerald_one dot html

(Sorry, I’m not providing Ann Coulter any traffic. You’ll have to type in the URL on your own. Thanks. — CHS)

That is an interesting piece, largely because I think it shows their fear and how much Libby’s actions were on behalf on the admin. It also is sort of a threat to Russert to do the right thing, or who knows…. And the fact that she turns to Clinton and Lewinski for comparison shows how hard up she/they are.

Well, now the estimable Wonkette wankers can go back to doing what they do best: covering hemorrhoidal sex. You see they developed this expertise as a result of spending most of their sorry lives with their heads buried deeply up their ……

#83–I should say about the son, this was immediately after 9-11; he made that change Fall 2001. Rumsfeld was not reviled and it might have been an act of patriotism for him to go over to the Pentagon at that time.

Could someone explain please what “1 x 2 x 6″ means?

Given that Robert Novak was one of the people who published the leak, anyone know why he’s not part of this trial? (Correct me if he is) TIA.

OBTW Tnx FDL. You honor the Toobz.

Gooood Mornnnnninng FDLLLL!!!!
First: Jane speedy recovery. Second: With the passing of Molly WE lost a voice of sanity, credulity and humor. My condolences to her family friends and fellow employees. I can’t imagine the depth of your loss. Third: Mary and Greta must have used the same plastics surgeon. He only knows one face. Fourth: You guys in DC are just fabulous. REAL reporting. REAL time.

he seemed like a lovely, caring grandpa

Jane S. – I’m glad to hear that. He sounds pretty down to earth, which I think Madeleine Albright is, as well.

Wow – his son took a position in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld? That must have led to some fun discussions over Thanksgiving dinner…

Peterr @ 78

Guten Morgen! Wie geht’s?

Mir tut der Nacken weh! Too many hours of hunching over my laptop here. :)

But the real deal is that nobody can really predict what a jury will do, right?

looseheadprop @ 84

raven @ 2

Jeralyn’s piece about Fitz and the case wasn’t exactly encouraging was it?

Shows the difference in perspective from a defense lawyer to a former prosecutor. I thought that Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony did the job it it was meant to do. I was sort of surprised that Jerilyn felt so differently.

I am much more sanguine about the trial at this point than she is.

dab from CT @ 89

he seemed like a lovely, caring grandpa

Jane S. – I’m glad to hear that. He sounds pretty down to earth, which I think Madeleine Albright is, as well.

Wow – his son took a position in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld? That must have led to some fun discussions over Thanksgiving dinner…

See my #86. Let’s hope he is long gone.

Richmond @ 77

Biodun @ 63

Morning FDL pups.

Definitely not OT–

In*cest/Nepotism in the Beltway:

One strain of a thread yesterday touched on Beltway in*cest.

I pointed out in one comment that Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, a long-time trusted aide of Hillary Clinton.

What I forgot to do was close the loop: Mandy Grunwald is the daughter of Henry Grunwald, who was the managing editor of Time and the editor-in-chief of Time Inc. Matt Cooper, of course, was a Time reporter until recently.

Again: Who said there’s no in*cest in DC?

Holy shit! Media In*cest would be a great future blog topic. Judith Miller also has some in*cest in her marriage connections. And by the way, where was her husband yesterday?

Yes. Judy Miller is married to Jason Epstein, whose first wife was Barbara Epstein, who was the editor of The New York Review of Books. And Jason Epstein was the editor-in-chief of Random House, who published books by many of her friends in NYC and DC.

Where was her husband yesterday, you ask. Maybe he went on another cruise, like the one he took when she was serving 85 days in prison under false pretenses.

cbl @
74

An-FITZ-i-pation, anFITZ-i-pa-aa-aation
Is making me late
Is keeping me waiting

Biodun,

thought it was 7 hours of Scooter’s testimony before GJ ??

Or possibly some of it, according to this AP story on MSNBC’s site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16921197/

What I find curious is that it appears that the prosecution is going to close w/o calling Edeleman.

You can argue this both ways: (a) that Edelman’s testimony is less definitive than that implied in the indictment or (b) the prosecution is using the minimum amount of evidence they need to get the conviction thus holding their remaining cards close to the vest for follow-on prosecutions.

As Redd says: pass the popcorn….

Talk about a den of vipers.

-GSD

Could someone explain please what “1 x 2 x 6″ means?

Swopa knows.

Yesterday’s link from here to Occam’s Hatchet diary at dkos made for incredibly captivating and scary reading. It does make sense that the coup d’etat regime was going against Ms. Wilson directly. very scary.

Once again kudos to the FDL team. and if anyone’s interested in the future of energy in amurka, i’ve been intereviewed on the front page of Truthout. the interview’s called “In Love with the Lusty Wind.”

S.O.S. from MA — refers to a particular paragraph in one of the earliest articles about the outing of Plame, in WaPo by Allen and Priest.*

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.

Watch this flesh out as multiple beers and expensive dinners are riding on bets related to the 1×2×6.

* edit, was by Mike Allen and Dana Priest, not Walter Pincus. There is speculation that Dana Priest could be the “mystery witness” discussed at close of day yesterday — and it could be due to this very article.

The sad thing is that Russert, et al, know that they’re getting played and frankly don’t care as long as the ratings are good.

Lurker @
81

Ann Coulter calls the dogs out to go after Fitz and Co.:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..gerald_one dot html

(Sorry, I’m not providing Ann Coulter any traffic. You’ll have to type in the URL on your own. Thanks. — CHS)

There must be a similar law to Godwin’s law that prevents the evocation of this road weary skanks fascist ramblings. A Coulter Caveat if you will.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Fitz is out of control, Mulsims wear diapers on their heads and Bill Clinton is a rapist because Hillary wouldn’t blow him.

Yawn.

-GSD

Given that Robert Novak was one of the people who published the leak, anyone know why he’s not part of this trial? (Correct me if he is) TIA.

IMHO, he sang like a canary completely flipped in his Grand Jury testimony and that in large part helped Fitz call Rover and his bottom feeding attorney, gold bars Luskin before the GJ five times.

here’s a bit from zig’s prepared statement for today’s senate foreign relations committee hearing, “Iraq in the Strategic Context“.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran — though gaining in regional influence — is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

it is the possibility of this “self-fulfilling prophecy” that keeps me up at night.

Christy, I am curious what you think of the crossed out “the Pres.” in Cheney’s handwritten note?

Keith Olbermann has been reviewing the Libby trial with David Shuster and while I thing David is an excellent journalist, his reports lack some of these more colorful details. It’s a shame that NBC is so mired in this mess.

106–So nice to read a brilliant man using his intelligence for the public good. The NYT ran an interesting piece a while back. It was a guest writer who talked about the fallacy of trying to impose “democracy” on certain parts of the world where it will never make sense. I thought the ideas in the piece were good but I didn’t think it was particularly well-written.

portia.vz (105) — agreed; I do wonder whether Shuster has been hamstrung by NBC’s legal department because of NBC’s “complicity” in this debacle.

And Kelly O’Donnell covering this, too; agh, what a lightweight, hardly the pitbull this case needs and deserves. The only pitbull they have left has probably been put on a short leash, what with Libby leaking to David Gregory so early in the smear campaign.

edit: you know who I wish was covering this? Dan Abrams. Might still be compromised, but more legal knowledge would be better than worse.

I always thought Matalin and Carville was a schtick, you know, like George Burns and Gracie Allen. I’ve even heard Timmeh congratulate them on what a good show they put on during the fade outs when he thinks the mike is off. They’ll be back on. They’re all swimming in the same soup. It’s not a war really, more like a pageant.

As for Fitzie needing Libby to testify to prove the prosecution’s case, I’m not a lawyer, but I thought all Fitzie had to do was prove Libby’s timeline for knowing about Plame was not consistent with the truth. Not that he was the leaker. It seems to me Fitzie had done that.

At any rate, today should be interesting.

Biodun @
70

BTW: Word has it that today Judge Walton will decide whether to let the jury watch seven hours videotape of Scott McClellan clearing or not clearing Libby of any involvement in the leak of Plame’s identity. Fitzgerald wants the jury to see the videotapes of McClellan’s press briefings.

Actually, let me clarify.

Walton will decide which–if any–of Scottie’s statements from Fall 2003 are admissible. He has as much as ruled out the pre-exoneration statements. What’s in question is whether Fitz can introduce the ones where Scottie, on Dick’s orders, exonerated Libby.

There is no question, AFAIK, that Libby’s GJ testimony will be played, as some of it was during opening statements. The question with THOSE is whether the MP3s (blogosphere–did you hear that) will be released publicly before the end of the trial.

Fitzmas at 106 — You know, that is AWFULLY interesting, isn’t it? As though perhaps someone thought keeping him out of the loop would be good idea — or perhaps he asked to be kept out of the loop purposely — or…so many permutations and possibilities on that one, aren’t there? *g* (Yep, gonna need more popcorn…)

Al Gore nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
Makes me feel proud to be an American for a change.

Quoting myself, upthread in #90: “Given that Robert Novak was one of the people who published the leak, anyone know why he’s not part of this trial? (Correct me if he is) TIA.”

Answering my own question: According to the list of “POSSIBLE LIBBY TRIAL WITNESSES” at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16921197/ , he may be called as a defense witness. Par for the course. Talk about snakes… That fella will do or say anything to save the Bush Gang (and his access to their power and influence), including perjure himself like many of the witnesses have been doing so far (and more will as this trial goes on)… He knows that comes the revolution when the Bushies are gone (please GOD, and soon) that he will be out on his ear, or worse. Hopefully far worse.

Nice photo of Carville and Matalin. How the hell did the photographer get frozen corpses to appear animated and even smile?

ooohhhh snowcroft is getting grilled hard. i don’t know which senator (it’s audio only) yet, but snowcroft is almost yelling he’s so upset (trying to justify keeping combat troops in iraq).

didn’t hear the whole thing, but that was good. wish this hearing was on c-span.

Re # 106.

Only the Bushian nitwits could elevate a sociopath like Osama Bin Laden to cult figure status by constantly giving intellectual heft to Osama’s ramblings.

Sort of like giving a lot of credit to Charles Manson and his efforts at pushing a race war in America…

“But Manson has laid out his plans…we must take him seriously!”

-GSD

emptywheel — oooooh, how fortunate that Santa got me a nice 40GB MP3 player this Christmas.

Timely, to the point of serendipitous.

Regarding the “mystery witness.” It is a Proescution witness. I think the possibiliites are Rove (that would make sense since Libby staked his defense on an anti-Rove stance; also, it would make sense for him to precede Russert; the problem with this is that Libby hasn’t had full discovery on Rove), Edelman (who is named in the indictment), Cheney (so Fitz gets to determine the scope, rather than Libby’s team), Matalin (so we can see her snake), or perhaps someone like Scottie McC (so Fitz can introduce the stuff surrounding the Scottie statements from Fall 2003).

Biodun @ 80

Meanwhile, yet more speculations about Libby’s aspen letter to Judy Miller. From Salon’s War Room:

(snip)

The Aspen Strategy Group was and is a veritable who’s who of the Washington foreign policy-media establishment.

(snip)

So are members of the Aspen Strategy Group the “aspens” of which Libby wrote? They meet “out west,” where Libby had seen Miller on vacation. And like arboreal aspens, the members of the group are closely “connected,” not only at the “roots” — early members of the group included Walter Mondale, Paul Nitze, Les Aspin, Zbigniew Brzezinski and and Robert McNamara — but also at the branches. A profile of the group posted on its Web site says it’s “credited” with launching many careers, including that of Condoleezza Rice; Scowcroft invited her to start attending meetings in the 1980s because, he said, “I thought I should get to know her better and introduce her to some of these groups who would move her along.”

But if the members of the Aspen group are the aspens in Libby’s letter, what did he mean when he said that they would “already be turning”?

(snip)

BTW, this also ties in with the in*cest/nepotism strain.

(my bold)

Judy was Aspin’s live-in girlfriend for some time. (Warning, this article will turn your stomach.)

So I have to ask (feeling idiotic after all these years not realizing it): is “Aspin” any possible reference for the whole weird “aspen” letter?
(Edit: As GSD pointed out below, Aspin is now dead, so it’s unlikely.)

taking one for the team – just got back from a cruise through Right Blogspazstan . . .

20 years of hearing about the Librul Media and now, through this trial they have ample reassurance the Biased Press has been solidly in their corner all along – and . . . and. . . . zip, nada, zilch, not even a gossipy mention of Tweety/L’il Russ from Our Lady of the Albumen™ (h/t TBogg)

guess it’s a formula: provision popcorn in direct proportion to the volume of the crickets chirping

Emptywheel–First off, I am not worthy but I read your piece on Mr. Unitary Executive and I (of course) read Froomkin and I had this little thought. Froomkin writes about Addington explaining that Libby told him “I didn’t do it” and Addington didn’t ask what “it” was. I thought of that moment in the movie “The Fugitive” where Harrison Ford says to Tommy Lee Jones “I didn’t do it” and Tommy Lee Jones responds “I don’t care”. That is how Addington came across to me, “I keep my head down, I subvert the constitution every chance I get, and I don’t care what you political schemers are doing.”

Saint Brigid @ 111

I always thought Matalin and Carville was a schtick, you know, like George Burns and Gracie Allen. I’ve even heard Timmeh congratulate them on what a good show they put on during the fade outs when he thinks the mike is off. They’ll be back on. They’re all swimming in the same soup. It’s not a war really, more like a pageant.

Yes, agreed. Especially since the Rethugs want to want aganst Hilly (Carville’s candidate) and both big business and DCCC support her. Alas, this is only the beginnning.

emptywheel @ 110

There is no question, AFAIK, that Libby’s GJ testimony will be played, as some of it was during opening statements. The question with THOSE is whether the MP3s (blogosphere–did you hear that) will be released publicly before the end of the trial.

wow. fingers crossed. and toes too.

snowbird42 — You know, I’m pretty much always happy to be an American. I refuse to let my viewpoint on my nation, on our founding principles and ideals, be defined by the current asshats in the White House. And good on Al Gore — what a year he’s having, eh?

egregious, are you there? I have a clever sneaky project that I think might be fun to collaborate on. :-) The URL attached to your screen name takes me to an error page — any alternate way to reach you to discuss the C.S.P.?

Les Aspen has been dead since the 90’s….so unless the “Aspin’s turning” means he’s rolling over in his grave, I doubt there is a corrallation.

-GSD

To continue the nepotism strain: Zbignew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger are each other’s foil or nemesis. Brzezinski’s daughter Mika has bounced between CBS and NBC for years. She’s now back with NBC/MSNBC.

Ted Koppel’s daughter Andrea is a CNN correspondent.

ew at 120 — Interesting — I wonder if Walton will alow them that latitude, since generally the government is reined in pretty tightly from any surprises. Unless, of course, they can argue that Wells opened the door with his free-wheeling opening — because he REALLY did open a lot of doors with that lengthy soliloquy, didn’t he?

emptywheel @ 120

Regarding the “mystery witness.” It is a Proescution witness. I think the possibiliites are Rove (that would make sense since Libby staked his defense on an anti-Rove stance; also, it would make sense for him to precede Russert; the problem with this is that Libby hasn’t had full discovery on Rove), Edelman (who is named in the indictment), Cheney (so Fitz gets to determine the scope, rather than Libby’s team), Matalin (so we can see her snake), or perhaps someone like Scottie McC (so Fitz can introduce the stuff surrounding the Scottie statements from Fall 2003).

I don’t see why Scott McC.’s testimony is germane here. (??) I know they lied to him, but that seems too removed from when/if Libby knew about Plame.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 125

snowbird42 — You know, I’m pretty much always happy to be an American. I refuse to let my viewpoint on my nation, on our founding principles and ideals, be defined by the current asshats in the White House. And good on Al Gore — what a year he’s having, eh?

I wouldnt want to be anything else, and I still hope that people are basically good but its nice to feel National pride. And I love Al Gore.

GSD @ 127

Les Aspen has been dead since the 90’s….so unless the “Aspin’s turning” means he’s rolling over in his grave, I doubt there is a corrallation.

-GSD

Dammit, I was just reading Wikipedia and going back to fix that to try avoiding looking like such a moron. Too late.

Oh well, it’s still related to the nepotism angle :)

lina, #131, maybe Fitz wants Scottie to testify about the pressure exerted to make a statement on Libby equal to his Rove statement. B/c clearly Fitz is showing how anxious Libby was to be clear of this leak.

Pfifferling @ 92

Peterr @ 78

Guten Morgen! Wie geht’s?

Mir tut der Nacken weh! Too many hours of hunching over my laptop here. :)

Have some beer with your popcorn – it’s afternoon there, right? – and maybe that will help.

Alas, I’ll be missing the opening this AM, as I’ve got to go to the dentist to get an old filling replaced. (Caught it during a routine checkup – not in my dinner!) I’d like to tell him to hurry, so I can hear all about the opening witness this morning, but I don’t think asking the guy to hurry with sharp pointy things in my mouth is a good idea.

See you all later, but catching up on the comments will be hard!

Blast from the past..

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

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

raven @ 94

But the real deal is that nobody can really predict what a jury will do, right?

looseheadprop @ 84

raven @ 2

Jeralyn’s piece about Fitz and the case wasn’t exactly encouraging was it?

Shows the difference in perspective from a defense lawyer to a former prosecutor. I thought that Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony did the job it it was meant to do. I was sort of surprised that Jerilyn felt so differently.

I am much more sanguine about the trial at this point than she is.

Oh, I quite agree with you there. And Jerilyn had the benefit of being inthe courtroom and judging the juror’s body language, an advantage I don’t have.

portia.vz @ 108

Keith Olbermann has been reviewing the Libby trial with David Shuster and while I thing David is an excellent journalist, his reports lack some of these more colorful details. It’s a shame that NBC is so mired in this mess.

On NPR last night, Nina went into the whole Tim hates Chris and Wilson is a snake business. Probably the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever heard on NPR.

This is like goddam high school.

the MP3s (blogosphere–did you hear that) will be released publicly before the end of the trial.

emptywheel – laughing with, not at you -letting someone as analytical as you, Christy, Prof. Prop at these Mp3’s is like the Chess Club getting to meet Valdimir Kramnik *g* sweet jeebus

I’m learning a ton about the judicial process following this trial. I had no idea the restrictions on getting evidence introduced. I have a much better grasp on the objections now.

Knowing that the side-bars, the judge / lawyers have argued about something – objections which immediately follow often have to do with material discussed in previous side-bars and bounding the questions / evidence….

Anyway, learning a lot. I think I’ll have a much easier time with the court room mechanics if I’m ever on a jury again.

JGabriel @
41

Late in the day yesterday, there was a lot of speculation on whether the jury would decide for or against Libby.

I’d like to remind everyone that such speculation is really pretty unfounded at this point. We won’t really begin to know how this will play out until the defense presents its case.

So, just a caution, it may be best to wait until later next week, after the defense has had a day or two to start presenting its case, before you come to any conclusions about how the jury may decide.

(And, yes, I think is Libby is guilty as sin. I just don’t think we have enough information yet to knowledgably specualte on how the jury will ultimately decide.)

Is it too early to speculate on the chance that martial law might be declared at some point before the 08 election?

How can there be such a thing as a mystery or surprise witness for the prosecution? I thought the prosecution (but not the defense) had to disclose their witness list up front, as part of their burden of proof.

mc @ 138

portia.vz @ 108

Keith Olbermann has been reviewing the Libby trial with David Shuster and while I thing David is an excellent journalist, his reports lack some of these more colorful details. It’s a shame that NBC is so mired in this mess.

On NPR last night, Nina went into the whole Tim hates Chris and Wilson is a snake business. Probably the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever heard on NPR.

This is like goddam high school.

Refer madness

From 2006 – V.P. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said in response to a question regarding Dick testifying in the Libby trail, “Since the inquiry relates to a case in the courts, I refer you to the Office of the Special Counsel.”

Anyone referred to us we refer to Jason Leopold who refers it to Truthout who refers it to Raw Story who refers it to TalkLeft who refers it to Robert Luskin who refers it to Mark Corallo who refers it to Howard Kurtz who refers it to Byron York who refers it to Clarice Feldman who refers it to David Shuster who refers it to Keith Olberman who refers it to Chris Matthews who refers it to Brian Ross who refers it to Randall Sanborn who refers it to me and I refer it to Lea Anne McBride because she is glue.

Carrville and Matalin are frequently guests of Timmeh on Sunday mornings. I’ve even seen shows where Timmeh had the whole family on–including the two little daughters. So if Mary says she knows Timmeh hates Chris, she KNOWS it!

Loosehead Prop is right, no one can predict what a jury will do. Cooper has finished as a witness. The more I think about his testimony, the more I think he is Fitz’ biggest problem. But Libby has to avoid conviction on all counts — even if he gets convicted of a single count, he’s down and Fitz won.

I was watching the jury during Cooper’s testimony, they were following along and taking notes on Cooper’s faulty note taking as presented by Jeffress. He was very understandable.

It’s true I see things from a defense perspective, and people should keep that in mind. I’m always looking for the reasonable doubt, not for who is telling the truth.

I just see reasonable doubt all over Cooper’s testimony, which I will write more about later today, but here’s the gist.

Cooper’s notes of his conversation with Libby on Wilson’s wife read (his typos, not mine):

had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s ever

Because he tends to type “r” for “n” — Jeffords showed three examples of this — and is a terrible speller when typing fast — Libby will contend Cooper meant to write:

heard something about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s even true

Cooper testified his memory today is that Libby said something to the effect of “I heard that too” and didn’t say he was unsure of whether it was true.

The jury won’t be asked to decide which version they believe more. That’s the burden of proof in a civil case. In a criminal case, if they have a reasonable doubt that Cooper’s memory today is right, or think Jeffress’ version makes sense, that should result in a not guilty verdict on charges emanating from that statement.

Oh, and congratulations to Al Gore.

Who could possibly have imagined that a Nobel Peace Prize recipient could win the Presidency of the United Sates in 2008?

Well, I can dream, can’t I?

eeewwww What a perfect picture.
Captures it all!
Can you spell m-e-r-c-e-n-a-r-i-e-s?!

My contempt for these two (MM&JC] knows no bounds. Where’s the muck, I want some dirt. Expose! I’ve been lurking along here these days and it don’t sound like too much fun listening to Looter Skiby’s stuff. Many many thanks.

What a lovely couple in that picture *snark*. They look like ssssnakes.
Does anybody have any ideas why Father Tim hates Matthews? Whatever it is, I’m taking Matthews side on this. *hahaha*

Talk about “like high school” check this out, it was posted yesterday on FDL

Ze-Frank

mc @
138

portia.vz @ 108

Keith Olbermann has been reviewing the Libby trial with David Shuster and while I thing David is an excellent journalist, his reports lack some of these more colorful details. It’s a shame that NBC is so mired in this mess.

On NPR last night, Nina went into the whole Tim hates Chris and Wilson is a snake business. Probably the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever heard on NPR.

This is like goddam high school.

mc @ 138

portia.vz @ 108

Keith Olbermann has been reviewing the Libby trial with David Shuster and while I thing David is an excellent journalist, his reports lack some of these more colorful details. It’s a shame that NBC is so mired in this mess.

On NPR last night, Nina went into the whole Tim hates Chris and Wilson is a snake business. Probably the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever heard on NPR.

This is like goddam high school.

Junior high.
And given that the Novak comment about covering Rove’s as* was public knowledge long ago, WTF is he doing getting column space in the WaPoo?

Oh, nevahmind….

Jane S. @ 133

lina, #131, maybe Fitz wants Scottie to testify about the pressure exerted to make a statement on Libby equal to his Rove statement. B/c clearly Fitz is showing how anxious Libby was to be clear of this leak.

Precisely. Fitz wasn’t allowed to introduce at least some of the videos. Another way to get it in would be to call Scottie himself.

Professor Foland @ 121

Biodun @ 80

Meanwhile, yet more speculations about Libby’s aspen letter to Judy Miller. From Salon’s War Room:

(snip)

The Aspen Strategy Group was and is a veritable who’s who of the Washington foreign policy-media establishment.

(snip)

So are members of the Aspen Strategy Group the “aspens” of which Libby wrote? They meet “out west,” where Libby had seen Miller on vacation. And like arboreal aspens, the members of the group are closely “connected,” not only at the “roots” — early members of the group included Walter Mondale, Paul Nitze, Les Aspin, Zbigniew Brzezinski and and Robert McNamara — but also at the branches. A profile of the group posted on its Web site says it’s “credited” with launching many careers, including that of Condoleezza Rice; Scowcroft invited her to start attending meetings in the 1980s because, he said, “I thought I should get to know her better and introduce her to some of these groups who would move her along.”

But if the members of the Aspen group are the aspens in Libby’s letter, what did he mean when he said that they would “already be turning”?

(snip)

BTW, this also ties in with the in*cest/nepotism strain.

(my bold)

Judy was Aspin’s live-in girlfriend for some time. (Warning, this article will turn your stomach.)

So I have to ask (feeling idiotic after all these years not realizing it): is “Aspin” any possible reference for the whole weird “aspen” letter?
(Edit: As GSD pointed out below, Aspin is now dead, so it’s unlikely.)

I long have thought there is something to the Aspen Institute connection. They have a meeting place in Maryland close to the beltway. And 2 key issues are middle east policy & proliferation. Its bi-partisan (in principle) and Judy was/is a member. In saying the Aspens are turning, I think Libby may have meant that some of the key principles (Hagel, Feinstein) may be “turning” against the neo-cons they had previously supported (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Armitrage etc). The Iraq Study group also seems connected in some ways.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..tegy_Group

Incredible that any media still jump on the bandwagon with the lies spewed. I heard Diane Sawyer yesterday putting out the Iran meme on the raid with the US uniforms. Pure speculation, as far as I am concerned, yet they repeat it.

BTW, someone had a link up to the actual Cheney note with the cross out. From what I could see, it looked like the cross out was done as the note was written. There was a pause in the flow of the writing as if the writer thought immediately, “better not write that.” I would have done a better job of “redacting” myself, and it is amazing that the note was found.

emptywheel @ 151

Jane S. @ 133

lina, #131, maybe Fitz wants Scottie to testify about the pressure exerted to make a statement on Libby equal to his Rove statement. B/c clearly Fitz is showing how anxious Libby was to be clear of this leak.

Precisely. Fitz wasn’t allowed to introduce at least some of the videos. Another way to get it in would be to call Scottie himself.

I thought Walton was not right on this one. I think it is fair to say Libby was glued to the TV during the presser where he was supposed to be cleared.

Jeralyn can someone establish the source of Cooper’s notes as read in court? I’m still sticking with the theory of a scanning error, i.e. he didn’t type r for n. He instead gave someone a printout of the notes, they scanned the printout and the scanning/OCR software confused r with n. Scanning software does that all the time.

Where did these notes come from?

Didn’t Libby also claim that he told Cooper he heard about Plame from reporters? Even if you could twist Cooper’s handwriting into that sentence – Libby also had other claims in his GJ testimony about the Cooper conversation.

Fitzmas @ 143

Refer madness

From 2006 – V.P. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said in response to a question regarding Dick testifying in the Libby trail, “Since the inquiry relates to a case in the courts, I refer you to the Office of the Special Counsel.”

Anyone referred to us we refer to Jason Leopold who refers it to Truthout who refers it to Raw Story who refers it to TalkLeft who refers it to Robert Luskin who refers it to Mark Corallo who refers it to Howard Kurtz who refers it to Byron York who refers it to Clarice Feldman who refers it to David Shuster who refers it to Keith Olberman who refers it to Chris Matthews who refers it to Brian Ross who refers it to Randall Sanborn who refers it to me and I refer it to Lea Anne McBride because she is glue.

In the spirit of quenchable curiosity as you illustrated in the refer madness, you might appreciate the cooperation found in creatively hyper-linking stories where they disparage each other.

Arrogance and vanity can be their own reward when some Google their own reputations.

:-)

Yesterday I was able to read along as Marcy/Jeralyn filled us in on the testimony. I got the feeling yesterday’s proceedings were somehow different than any previous day’s. Then, with Jeralyn’s critique yesterday evening – which I had hoped she’d been able to hang around and explain in detail – I couldn’t help but throw out there the dim possibility that sombebody or something had taken the wind out of Fitz’s sails.

old gold @ 43

If FDL were to send Jeralyn Merritt to the Plains of Giza in Egypt, would she file a report on large, irregular and weathered stones?

Jeralyn, The pyramids are a sight to behold.

Jeralyn Merritt @ 145

Loosehead Prop is right, no one can predict what a jury will do. Cooper has finished as a witness. The more I think about his testimony, the more I think he is Fitz’ biggest problem. But Libby has to avoid conviction on all counts — even if he gets convicted of a single count, he’s down and Fitz won.

I was watching the jury during Cooper’s testimony, they were following along and taking notes on Cooper’s faulty note taking as presented by Jeffress. He was very understandable.

It’s true I see things from a defense perspective, and people should keep that in mind. I’m always looking for the reasonable doubt, not for who is telling the truth.

I just see reasonable doubt all over Cooper’s testimony, which I will write more about later today, but here’s the gist.

Cooper’s notes of his conversation with Libby on Wilson’s wife read (his typos, not mine):

had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s ever

Because he tends to type “r” for “n” — Jeffords showed three examples of this — and is a terrible speller when typing fast — Libby will contend Cooper meant to write:

heard something about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s even true

Cooper testified his memory today is that Libby said something to the effect of “I heard that too” and didn’t say he was unsure of whether it was true.

The jury won’t be asked to decide which version they believe more. That’s the burden of proof in a civil case. In a criminal case, if they have a reasonable doubt that Cooper’s memory today is right, or think Jeffress’ version makes sense, that should result in a not guilty verdict on charges emanating from that statement.

Wow, I would have thought that the rather dismal job Judy did would have been the part that you found of most concern. None of the liveblogging of Judy’s testimony came across as credible to me.
She is obviously so determined not to say anything that will give Pat an opening in his OTHER case involving her, that she was all over the place about such basic things as the lcoation of her notes.

This moving the notes to her hime business was obvously to avoid having the NYTImes decide that the notes are the property of the Times and could be turned over w/o her consent.

What I got from Judy’s testimony is that she is hiding information from … everybody.

The Cooper incomplete notes thingy, did not concern me as much. Perhps that’s because of my own note taking habits. Same thing for the Cooper typos.

Sometimes I re read something I have put in the threads and it is not at all what I thought I typed. But I still know what I was trying to type.

rumi @ 141

Scary! Check out urbansurvival.com website–George is reporting a big announcement from CDC about flu pandemic. My first reaction was that they need a front page/nightly news opening to distract from today’s mystery witness. On the hand, I have no trouble believing they would launch a pandemic just to bring about the scenario you suggested.

Hier geht’s auch gut.

Loosehead Prop/161–IANAL but I thought if I was a juror I would have to discredit everything Judy said whereas Cooper comes across as credible, his notes just don’t tell us much about what happened during the conversation with Libby. But perhaps, unlike Judy, Cooper’s memory is NOT “note-driven”.

emptywheel @ 120

Regarding the “mystery witness.” It is a Proescution witness. I think the possibiliites are Rove (that would make sense since Libby staked his defense on an anti-Rove stance; also, it would make sense for him to precede Russert; the problem with this is that Libby hasn’t had full discovery on Rove), Edelman (who is named in the indictment), Cheney (so Fitz gets to determine the scope, rather than Libby’s team), Matalin (so we can see her snake), or perhaps someone like Scottie McC (so Fitz can introduce the stuff surrounding the Scottie statements from Fall 2003).

Seems to me that if it was going to be Edelman or Scottie, they would have been on the original witness list rather than introduced as a “surprise” witness.

Rove makes the most sense to me since this would explain his last minute reprieve after the fifth trip to the GJ – which was widely interpreted as an indication that “Rove flipped!”

Perhaps Fitz made a deal not to call Rove with regard to the charges against Libby (for whatever reasons, but mostly because he didn’t think Rove would be needed to prove the case)

However, after Libby’s “I won’t be a scapegoat for Rove” opening statement, Fitz needs some testimony from Rove in order to head off that defense.

This also fits the theory that Fitz’ real end game is to get Cheney, and he is willing to use Rove (clearly a bigger fish than Libby) to do it!

I can hope, anyway!

That would be Raven’s “predict” comment.

looseheadprop @
161

Jeralyn Merritt @ 145

Loosehead Prop is right, no one can predict what a jury will do. Cooper has finished as a witness. The more I think about his testimony, the more I think he is Fitz’ biggest problem. But Libby has to avoid conviction on all counts — even if he gets convicted of a single count, he’s down and Fitz won.

I was watching the jury during Cooper’s testimony, they were following along and taking notes on Cooper’s faulty note taking as presented by Jeffress. He was very understandable.

It’s true I see things from a defense perspective, and people should keep that in mind. I’m always looking for the reasonable doubt, not for who is telling the truth.

I just see reasonable doubt all over Cooper’s testimony, which I will write more about later today, but here’s the gist.

Cooper’s notes of his conversation with Libby on Wilson’s wife read (his typos, not mine):

had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s ever

Because he tends to type “r” for “n” — Jeffords showed three examples of this — and is a terrible speller when typing fast — Libby will contend Cooper meant to write:

heard something about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s even true

Cooper testified his memory today is that Libby said something to the effect of “I heard that too” and didn’t say he was unsure of whether it was true.

The jury won’t be asked to decide which version they believe more. That’s the burden of proof in a civil case. In a criminal case, if they have a reasonable doubt that Cooper’s memory today is right, or think Jeffress’ version makes sense, that should result in a not guilty verdict on charges emanating from that statement.

Wow, I would have thought that the rather dismal job Judy did would have been the part that you found of most concern. None of the liveblogging of Judy’s testimony came across as credible to me.
She is obviously so determined not to say anything that will give Pat an opening in his OTHER case involving her, that she was all over the place about such basic things as the lcoation of her notes.

This moving the notes to her hime business was obvously to avoid having the NYTImes decide that the notes are the property of the Times and could be turned over w/o her consent.

What I got from Judy’s testimony is that she is hiding information from … everybody.

The Cooper incomplete notes thingy, did not concern me as much. Perhps that’s because of my own note taking habits. Same thing for the Cooper typos.

Sometimes I re read something I have put in the threads and it is not at all what I thought I typed. But I still know what I was trying to type.

Jane S. @ 155

emptywheel @ 151

Jane S. @ 133

lina, #131, maybe Fitz wants Scottie to testify about the pressure exerted to make a statement on Libby equal to his Rove statement. B/c clearly Fitz is showing how anxious Libby was to be clear of this leak.

Precisely. Fitz wasn’t allowed to introduce at least some of the videos. Another way to get it in would be to call Scottie himself.

I thought Walton was not right on this one. I think it is fair to say Libby was glued to the TV during the presser where he was supposed to be cleared.

Although common sense tells us that Libby watched this, there is no evidence in the case ,yet, that Libby did. There is no foundation for the admission of the press confernece footage on that basis.

Had I been Pat I would have tried to put it in as a hearsay exception for press accounts. He failed to use the magic citation to the Federal Rules of Evidence. A rare mental error for the tall man in the rumpled suit. He must have been getting tired. It was toward the end of the day.

So, is it me, or does it seem that when Rove is plotting, the communicators are out of the room and earshod.

In France, the women sat knitting beside the guillotine – I guess popcorn is easier! But waiting for the tumbril – I wonder: at the end of all this, will anyone be on it? I’m not talking vengeance, but of accountability. When will ol’ Smarmy Face pay? Cheney claims he’s above the law. When do we get to the bottom line? When Libby’s nailed, what then? Is that all there is? What’s the bottom line? Will there be one? Ever?

p.s. by the time I’ve knocked this out, the thread will likely be closed!

Richmond @ 153

In saying the Aspens are turning, I think Libby may have meant that some of the key principles (Hagel, Feinstein) may be “turning” against the neo-cons they had previously supported (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Armitrage etc). The Iraq Study group also seems connected in some ways.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..tegy_Group

Although Scowcraft was already writing editorials against the war, wasn’t he?

Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They’re in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life.

I think this was meant to reassure Judy. Maybe it refers to neocon support, but it certainly has icky suggestiveness to it. If I received a note like this, as a woman, personally?

Jane S. @ 168

So, is it me, or does it seem that when Rove is plotting, the communicators are out of the room and earshod.

Ooh, shoes for ears – slippers might be nice.

Hey Rayne-
I saw your list of Code for the trial, then forgot to print it out. If you’re still around could you put your link up again.

Thanks, FDL!

heskikastor at 169 — The victory, in this case, is so much more in the exposure of all of this mess than in any conviction. So much of this mess hs NOT been reported because so many of the media personalities involved were complicit in the secret exchange of a whole lot of information that should have been reported to the public long before any war with Iraq got going. This comes back to a whole lot of questions on how business is done in Washington — not just within the Bush Administration, but also with the entangled mess that is the media push for access and all the nasty strings that such access entails. THOSE are the questions we’ll all be asking for a long time to come. And the peek behind that curtain has been invaluable the last few days of testimony.

Fresh thread,everyone. Liveblogging getting started.

Fitzmas #106
CHS #113

On a related note, I’m curious what ‘The President should wave his wand.’ means in the above Matlin quote.

rumi @
141

JGabriel @
41

Late in the day yesterday, there was a lot of speculation on whether the jury would decide for or against Libby.

I’d like to remind everyone that such speculation is really pretty unfounded at this point. We won’t really begin to know how this will play out until the defense presents its case.

So, just a caution, it may be best to wait until later next week, after the defense has had a day or two to start presenting its case, before you come to any conclusions about how the jury may decide.

(And, yes, I think is Libby is guilty as sin. I just don’t think we have enough information yet to knowledgably specualte on how the jury will ultimately decide.)

Is it too early to speculate on the chance that martial law might be declared at some point before the 08 election?

Unless some other law of which I am unaware has subsequently been enacted, here is one of the reasons why it is too early: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..encies_Act

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain “procedural formalities” on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers. (My emphasis)

(snip)

Jeralyn @ 144

I don’t buy the “r” for “n” bit – at all.

Typically, when people are typing fast they’ll either transpose “taht” for “that” or they’ll mis-strike from the same hand “thst” for “that”.

To argue that one would hit the wrong letter from the other hand on the keyboard, and at the same time misspells words from a second grade spelling bee is a a bit of a stretch.

(had to correct for at least transpositions as I was typing this btw….)

emptywheel @ 120

Regarding the “mystery witness.” It is a Proescution witness. I think the possibiliites are Rove (that would make sense since Libby staked his defense on an anti-Rove stance; also, it would make sense for him to precede Russert; the problem with this is that Libby hasn’t had full discovery on Rove), Edelman (who is named in the indictment), Cheney (so Fitz gets to determine the scope, rather than Libby’s team), Matalin (so we can see her snake), or perhaps someone like Scottie McC (so Fitz can introduce the stuff surrounding the Scottie statements from Fall 2003).

Perhaps David Gregory? Confirming that (a) Ari told him about Plame; and (b) he didn’t tell Russert (at least not before Libby called Russert to complain about Tweety)?

Terry Olson @172
Just click on Rayne’s name here, or on one of his posts.

looseheadprop @ 161

Sometimes I re read something I have put in the threads and it is not at all what I thought I typed. But I still know what I was trying to type.

From college memory psychology: recall memory is a great and powerful thing. It works for you, it works for me and it probably worked for Cooper. The typos were irrelevant. Even a smell can brings back a conversation.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @
176

rumi @
141

JGabriel @
41

Late in the day yesterday, there was a lot of speculation on whether the jury would decide for or against Libby.

I’d like to remind everyone that such speculation is really pretty unfounded at this point. We won’t really begin to know how this will play out until the defense presents its case.

So, just a caution, it may be best to wait until later next week, after the defense has had a day or two to start presenting its case, before you come to any conclusions about how the jury may decide.

(And, yes, I think is Libby is guilty as sin. I just don’t think we have enough information yet to knowledgably specualte on how the jury will ultimately decide.)

Is it too early to speculate on the chance that martial law might be declared at some point before the 08 election?

Unless some other law of which I am unaware has subsequently been enacted, here is one of the reasons why it is too early: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..encies_Act

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain “procedural formalities” on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers. (My emphasis)

(snip)

I’ll check after work but I’m pretty sure the MCA gave the pres open-ended power in these matters. That was the check/balance that the judicial branch suggested but Congress went to far in surrendering.

mui @ 180

looseheadprop @ 161

Sometimes I re read something I have put in the threads and it is not at all what I thought I typed. But I still know what I was trying to type.

From college memory psychology: recall memory is a great and powerful thing. It works for you, it works for me and it probably worked for Cooper. The typos were irrelevant. Even a smell can brings back a conversation.

I agree. Cooper came across as credible. Judy did not. Especially since she admitted, explicitly, that she couldn’t be sure that she first heard about Plame from Libby.

Pat_AlexVA — thanks for putting up the link, had to step away, will have to step away again shortly.

Hope someone put up Peterr’s Road Rules in the Live Blog, can’t get to it because of work.

p.s. Rayne = her. This place is Estrogen Central. ;-)

Court TV has a story on it now. Says audio of Libby’s GJ testimony will play on Monday.
-

Court TV reporter also said that Russert would be the final gov witness.
-

annx @ 157

Didn’t Libby also claim that he told Cooper he heard about Plame from reporters? Even if you could twist Cooper’s handwriting into that sentence – Libby also had other claims in his GJ testimony about the Cooper conversation.

Seriously – I’m sorry but taking ever and twisting it into “even true” I think is a pretty big leap.

Why does Russert hate Chris? Russert gets all the face time with all the big Republican cheeses in Washington , all the while lovingly massaging their egos and tossing softballs. And then we’re supposed to get all excited when he decides to ask a marginally tough question just to prove he’s a real “journalist.” Seems like Matalin was eyeing him as a propagandist tool. Any why, pray, might that be?

I’m no big fan of Tweety, but if I had to choose . . .

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 176

rumi @
141

JGabriel @
41

Late in the day yesterday, there was a lot of speculation on whether the jury would decide for or against Libby.

I’d like to remind everyone that such speculation is really pretty unfounded at this point. We won’t really begin to know how this will play out until the defense presents its case.

So, just a caution, it may be best to wait until later next week, after the defense has had a day or two to start presenting its case, before you come to any conclusions about how the jury may decide.

(And, yes, I think is Libby is guilty as sin. I just don’t think we have enough information yet to knowledgably specualte on how the jury will ultimately decide.)

Is it too early to speculate on the chance that martial law might be declared at some point before the 08 election?

Unless some other law of which I am unaware has subsequently been enacted, here is one of the reasons why it is too early: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..encies_Act

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain “procedural formalities” on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers. (My emphasis)

(snip)

Stephen Parrish,

As a CPA, how come you are so much better a lawyer than me? I always feel so humble around you.

Swordswoman @ 127

egregious, are you there? I have a clever sneaky project that I think might be fun to collaborate on. :-) The URL attached to your screen name takes me to an error page — any alternate way to reach you to discuss the C.S.P.?

Blogger was down for a while.

There’s a shocker.

Rayne, Doh! Sorry about that.
Estrogen central indeed. BTW – one of the reasons I love my church is there are a lot of strong women in leadership roles there. I very much want my daughter to consider all pathways open to her.

On Topic

The MSM is hopefully beginning, what in economic theory is called “the vicious circle”. A positive feedback (blowback) loop where they attempt to consume and devour one another.

Initially, they will rationalize the Tweedy/Pumpkinhead hissy fit as being good as a contrived sensational ratings booster, but in the not to distant future, their advertisers will Freak Out at the shabby spectacle. This is not going to sell soap for them in the long run.

Barack Obama cutting off Faux Snooze is just a first baby step in goading the MSM to eat it’s own alive in nasty, petty, personal vendetta style.

It is the ancient symbol of the Ouroboros, the snake, the ‘tail swallower’, sprung to life again.

The double Ouroboros is when two creatures are struggling to swallow each others tails.

Carville and Matalin are about to reap the whirlwind on this incestuous media baby. (69)

Question por favor? When Walton asks juror questions at the end of a witness testimony are they questions from the judge or jurors?

Eureka Springs, AR @ 190

Question por favor? When Walton asks juror questions at the end of a witness testimony are they questions from the judge or jurors?

Jurors.

But guys…My only problem with this is that we need not only Cheney to go down, but Bush as well. (so there will be no pardons). I think Bush was also involved.

1) hired a criminal attorney and did not use white house attorney for this issue as he has for other issues in the past.

2) the handwritten note by Cheney that has “this pres.” crossed out and replace by “this guy” in reference to asking Libby to leak.

3) Was on Af1 when the whole plan may have been hatched and discussed with the top secret papers.

4) According to Fleischer’s testimony, that he was walking along a roadside in africa, with the president when Fleischer leaked to Gregory.

In order for my fantasy to come true, I need the whole cabal to go down. I think it will be interesting to see how Bush testified and whether or not their truly is some tension between the V.P’s office and the Pres. office in the form of Libby vs Rove.

Isn’t it easier to prove conspiracy than to pin it on one…and couldn’t you argue that the pres. ’should’ have knowledge of what his ‘folks’ are doing?? I won’t be satisfied with just Libby or Dick’s head…it needs to be Scooter, Cheney, Georgey, and Rover…I know it’s black and white but that’s what the original rumors were.

Let’s all think positive…visualize…let’s get rid of them all and make Pelosi the new pres!!! Am I asking for too much???

Richmond @
51

Jane S. @ 47

I really thought Cooper spelled out something interesting about the whole Wilson affair. He mentioned that this administration rarely (read NEVER) admits mistakes but they took back the 16 words. But in the same breath, they attacked the guy who said they should not have had the 16 words. It didn’t make sense but here is Cooper saying from Marcie’s live blogging:

MC If I may elucidate. What struck me as a contradiction, on one hand, after Wilson published op-ed, the Admin did something that it rarely does, which is acknowledge a big error. That was a big deal, I was very struck by that. But then I was struck all week by statements that seemed to be disparaging Mr Wilson. They were saying you’re right, it shouldn’t have been. Then they were saying, he’s a momma’s boy, his report was bad.

Very interesting point Jane. And, I think it was not only “payback” but an effort – which we saw ample evidence of later – to take back the words, put hoist the whole WMD scenario back into the Saddam & Iraq scenario. Still today the right wing nuts are insisting the WMD got moved to Syria. Yeah right!

It was also a very strong message from this administration to other potential ‘Wilsons’, saying “Yeah, you may be right when you point out things we do wrong, but if you insist, we’ll ruin you.”

dab from CT @ 92

he seemed like a lovely, caring grandpa

Jane S. – I’m glad to hear that. He sounds pretty down to earth, which I think Madeleine Albright is, as well.

Wow – his son took a position in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld? That must have led to some fun discussions over Thanksgiving dinner…

I’ve met her. She’s cool. But I won’t defend her comment about civilian deaths in Iraq.

cbl @ 122

taking one for the team – just got back from a cruise through Right Blogspazstan . . .

20 years of hearing about the Librul Media and now, through this trial they have ample reassurance the Biased Press has been solidly in their corner all along – and . . . and. . . . zip, nada, zilch, not even a gossipy mention of Tweety/L’il Russ from Our Lady of the Albumen™ (h/t TBogg)

guess it’s a formula: provision popcorn in direct proportion to the volume of the crickets chirping

Girl you make me laugh.

Peterr@7:28

I hope the dental visit was painless. :)

egregious: dang, blogger is still down, and I’m going to be away from the computer till about 10 PM your time. If you want to drop me a line, try mailbag at bookrats dot net and I’ll see it this evening.

“Wilson is a snake.” didn’t necessarily refer to Joe. They could’ve been referring to Valerie Plame Wilson’s push to discredit the Niger uranium story and how they felt that was traitorous to their NeoCon agenda.

Did Fleischer REALLY leak right in front of the President on a road in Africa (Dubya’s favorite country)? Or, more likely, did George leak and Ari is just taking the fall to protect him?

S.O.S. from MA @ 115

Quoting myself, upthread in #90: “Given that Robert Novak was one of the people who published the leak, anyone know why he’s not part of this trial? (Correct me if he is) TIA.”

Answering my own question: According to the list of “POSSIBLE LIBBY TRIAL WITNESSES” at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16921197/ , he may be called as a defense witness. Par for the course. Talk about snakes… That fella will do or say anything to save the Bush Gang (and his access to their power and influence), including perjure himself like many of the witnesses have been doing so far (and more will as this trial goes on)… He knows that comes the revolution when the Bushies are gone (please GOD, and soon) that he will be out on his ear, or worse. Hopefully far worse.

But has Fitz asserted that Novak was Libby’s source, or that they even conversed about Wilson? Generally it’s held that Novak’s sources were Armitage and Rove.

So is Libby going to march out a bunch of reporters that he contacted who will say ~ “he never told US about Plame”?

It would seem to me that the strategy would have been to maintain as low a profile as possible for deniability…making statements “on background” and “off the record”; trying to make the statements appear to the reporter to be “off-the-cuff”
[Novak asserted this was the case several times…but later stated that Armitage was the one that started discussing Wilson and, unprompted, revealed Plame’s identity…and that would also have to be the case with his revelation to Woodward since “the Ambassador” was NOT even publicaly identified yet, and thus his wife wasn’t either. And Armitage telling reporters “accidently” twice is probative of intent.

The same is true of Libby.

I think that what is forgotten here is that the defense has largely conceded that Libby DID tell the witnesses about Wilson’s wife (Plame) prior to the Novak article coming out. That was a concession made when they said that they would demonstrate that Libby was so caught up with important Security issues that he would have forgotten (i.e. he did it…it just slipped his mind) events that occurred during this critical time period when he testified.

That concedes that he DID make the statements as documented by Millers notes, Cooper’s recollections, Fleisher’s memory, Martin’s testimony, his own notes, etc.

The Defense is simply showing that some of these reporters have faulty memories about some aspect of what would have been a singular event to them.

But there is a very big difference between a reporter forgetting (a la Miller) the details of a conversation RECEIVED from another…and a series of events in which one received information, digested it, acted upon it by passing on that information weeks if not months later, again and again and again. Such actions mean that the information was well integrated within the neural networks involved with memory.

Fitz has demonstrated this and it seems that the defense largely has conceded that point. I don’t recall that they held in their opening arguments that they were going to show that in each and every case that they would show that Mr. Libby did NOT pass on the information or learn about “Wilson’s wife” before Robert Novak’s article.

They are simply asserting that he knew it and forgot that he learned it throughout this period and thought that Timmee gave him the dope.

I can’t see the jury swallowing the assertion that Libby FORGOT that he obtained Plame’s identity and was marketing it given the body of Fitz’s evidence and Libby’s deep involvement.

Or maybe the DEFENSE is now going to argue that the media were in on the conspiracy by the Rovians in the WH? Or maybe they passed Libby some drug that caused selective amnesia???

Christy Hardin Smith @ 126

snowbird42 — You know, I’m pretty much always happy to be an American. I refuse to let my viewpoint on my nation, on our founding principles and ideals, be defined by the current asshats in the White House. And good on Al Gore — what a year he’s having, eh?

I’m thrilled he is getting the respect and admiration he deserves after being kicked around for so long.

Eat it, wingnuts!!

egregious

I’ve met her. She’s cool. But I won’t defend her comment about civilian deaths in Iraq.

What did she say? I watched her at one of the hearings and I could tell she was being very careful about what she said about Iraq. I immediately suspected her caution was due to Hillary’s war position before the bottom dropped out over there. She is remaining loyal to the Clintons, I suspect.

litigatormom @ 182

mui @ 180

looseheadprop @ 161

Sometimes I re read something I have put in the threads and it is not at all what I thought I typed. But I still know what I was trying to type.

From college memory psychology: recall memory is a great and powerful thing. It works for you, it works for me and it probably worked for Cooper. The typos were irrelevant. Even a smell can brings back a conversation.

I agree. Cooper came across as credible. Judy did not. Especially since she admitted, explicitly, that she couldn’t be sure that she first heard about Plame from Libby.

But her NOTES did!

Conversely Cooper’s memory came off as credible (despite the absence of discussion in his notes) because he placed it in a solid context with his
actions after being informed by ROVE about Plame.

I mean it simply makes good common sense that after his discussion with Rove that he’d ask Libby about Wilson’s wife! Right!

It would have been negligent otherwise.

It was the only Off The Record thing of importance to discuss!

And he doesn’t EMBELLISH what Libby said to make it into something like a major revelation. It’s simply a confirmation…with is what a reporter knows that they need to go forward with a story.

The whole thing about whether Libby said something supplemental about whether or not “I’ve heard that, but I don’t know it was true” seems irrelevant. Libby learned that Plame worked from the CIA from many WH, CIA and State Dept. sources before that.

If anything, that might even suggest that he was intent on CONCEALING official sourcing. Is there really any way that he could attribute to Russert his knowledge at THAT time? Look at the time frame! I think it’s simply impossible!

litigatormom @ 178

emptywheel @ 120

Regarding the “mystery witness.” It is a Proescution witness. I think the possibiliites are Rove (that would make sense since Libby staked his defense on an anti-Rove stance; also, it would make sense for him to precede Russert; the problem with this is that Libby hasn’t had full discovery on Rove), Edelman (who is named in the indictment), Cheney (so Fitz gets to determine the scope, rather than Libby’s team), Matalin (so we can see her snake), or perhaps someone like Scottie McC (so Fitz can introduce the stuff surrounding the Scottie statements from Fall 2003).

Perhaps David Gregory? Confirming that (a) Ari told him about Plame; and (b) he didn’t tell Russert (at least not before Libby called Russert to complain about Tweety)?

Wasn’t there another reporter in that clutch of “journalistas” on that Ugandan road? Some gal with Ari, Gregory, and Dickenson?

What’s odd is Ari says Dickenson probably heard what he said about Plame…and Cooper says that Dickenson said he had already heard. But Dickenson now says that he didn’t hear Ari say it???

Seems that Dickenson is the odd man in the ring in Mexican tag-team wrestling.

And I bet that Fitz has either affidavits or witnesses in the wings that could be called to impugn Dickensons’ public “unsworn” assertions ~ to support ARI’s statement.

Maybe that’s why neither the defense or prosecution apparently bothered to subpoena or interview Dickenson! He’d be squashed as a witness!

For background on The National Energencies Act and a list of actions in effect for more than 2 years (renewed or re-enacted) the following CRS report is an excellent read

National Emergency Powers (pdf)

National Emergency Powers (PDF)
Congressional Research Service, Updated November, 2006
The President of the United States has certain powers that he may exercise if the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances. This report discusses the scope, limits, and restraints on the President in exercising these powers.