Interesting day today in the Libby trial. It began with the judge's decision to release the Libby grand jury testimony tapes to the AP. While not necessarily a victory for the prosecution — Fitzgerald did not weigh in on either side — it was definitely a defeat for the defense. Walton also indicated he was likely to decide that certain articles that Team Libby wanted to keep away from the jury — specifically two followup articles to the famous 1×2x6 article in the Washington Post — were well within the prosecution's right to show to them. One has to wonder if Wells hasn't tested whatever good will he might have needed with the judge with regard to these sorts of decisions. Walton has noted that Wells never followed up with any line of questioning the Karl Rove red herring he tossed out in opening statements, and he has also expressed irritation that Libby might not testify after all the song and dance he put everyone through during discovery. As Swopa says, it will all just probably provide more fodder for a Libby appeal, which Wells has already mentioned is on his mind.
Speaking of 1×2x6 article, I was in the courtroom when the subject came up but Pach and I looked at each other knowing that this has been Swopa's pet theory for quite some time and that somewhere down in the bowels of the media room they were probably having to peel him off the ceiling. We discuss the subject in the Politics TV video above, but Swopa was right — it definitely seemed to be a topic Fitzgerald was trying to steer away from at all costs. Although Team Libby tried to argue that the article was bunk, Fitzgerald parsed his words carefully but said that it was well within the realm of what was known that two administration officials — at the very least Libby and Ari Fliescher — contacted more than six journalists in an effort to out Plame as part of an attempt to discredit Wilson. Fitz mentioned that Cooper, Miller and Novak had been contacted, and that Fleischer had contacted two journalists on the trip to Africa (he didn't say, but probably Dickerson and Gregory), and that the defense might call Walter Pincus, and then of course there was Bob Woodward. He definitely did not want to get pinned down on the topic, almost as much as Team Libby wanted to pin him. It was an interesting little wrestling match.
FBI Agent Bond was then called to the stand, and Wells seemed positively bored as he drilled through a series of inconsistencies between her notes, her partner's notes and the write-up that was ultimately done for the FBI of Libby's original interviews. All I can say is that he wasn't as bored as I was, and I was positively rapt compared to the jury. Wells looked like he was reading it for the first time, it was a bunch of minutiae and Bond eventually got testy. I don't know what the defense strategy is here but bore the jury to tears probably isn't going to work as long as the prosecution gets to redirect and concisely bring everyone's attention back around to their points.
The day finished with the beginning of the tapes of Libby's appearance before the grand jury. Initially Libby sounded careful but at ease, like he didn't fear Fitzgerald or anything that might come of his testimony. He seems like a cool character but at that point in time they probably all thought that the levee of journalists the Administration had constructed would hold. It probably didn't occur to them that Fitzgerald would start to break it down by making people sign waivers. Well, here we are. If there is a defense strategy in action it seems to be as elusive to everyone else as it is to me. Nobody knows who they plan to call, if anyone. Will they just waive a white flag as Swopa is guessing, hoping to cast their lot for an accommodating appeals judge? Or does Wells have such a brilliant and subtle defense planned that none of us mere mortals can yet gauge its contours?
All I know is — Russert on Wednesday. Now that ought to be worth the price of admission. BTW, anyone seen Richard Clarke lately?
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

JANE!!!
Fitz!
I’m getting a YouTube error message.
Maybe it’s not completely uploaded yet.
Arrghhhh! What happened to the video?
Jane, You look great. I hope you are having as much fun as you seem to be.
And Swopa, out in the open and a dashing figure of a man!
Same here, Pachacutec. I think I’ve been spoiled by all of these liveblogging threads of the trial!
Jane! Pach! Fitz! Swopa! TRex! EW!
What do we know of the ‘1′ in the 1×2×6?
Was Fitz shy about being drawn into an ID?
Jane you look gorgeous. Swopa, WOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..#038;eurl=
now up at YouTube
Thanks Jane. Get some extra rest and heal well.
I can’t wait to see what Russert has to say. If he has any residual anger at being exposed as the Veep’s go-to PR bitch, he’s got the perfect chance to vent it.
There’s not enough popcorn in the house for that one, gotta make a store run.
The video is stating “This video is no longer available”.
My understanding is Russert is a lawyer as are FBI agents. Is this the case?
great work Jane and Swopa – thanks
Refresh and try the video again please.
Looking Good, both of you!!!
You both look mahhhhvelous!
Thanks for all the great reporting that all of you are doing.
So is this week’s crew less into coffee than the previous liveblogging stars? Are you getting it done on sheer adrenaline? Didn’t see one reference to coffee in today’s efforts.
I posted the above comment, and still had my finger on the “Submit” button as the video began.
Computers haven’t liked me since we first met in 1965.
Considering how windblown and freezing we were, that didn’t come out too bad! Next time, I’m keeping the overcoat buttoned up.
ROFL, love the Agent Scully pic… spew alert!!!
Swopa @ 20
Are you ready for all of your fan mail?
Jane you look fabulous, make sure you get enough rest! Thanks for the updates and great analysis you two!!!
Fitzgerald followed a bubble-up practice/theme in his prosecution of the drivers-license-for-sale scandal in Illinois. First, he got two lowel-level flacks convicted. At the end, he had 66 indictments including the Governor of the State of Illinois. He was like a bulldog, tenacious and never letting go of his goal.
The Libby trial is just the beginning. Cheney? Rove? Bushboy?
I want to chime in on Libby’s tone: I would use the words “alert, congenial, careful,” but there were moments when he gave long pauses and was very careful indeed.
I have a theory: Libby did not go into his grand jury testimony thinking he had to lie. His strategy was to keep saying, as much as he could, variations of, “I have no recollection of any such conversation.”
But then, he did not anticipate all of Fitzgerald’s questions, and I think he may have genuinely been surprised by, and had perhaps forgotten, some conversations he did have, such as the bits with Grossman. That’s when his answers got most careful.
So, in this theory, Fitz was better prepared than Libby expected, and each subsequent answer brought him closer and closer to real perjury: he just had no way out, other than the truth, without perjuring himself. My instinct tells me he thought he would get through the grand jury okay, even though he knew he was a subject, and perhaps he thought his statements to the FBI before the grand jury had gone fine.
We’re 1 hour and 32 minutes into 8 hours of Libby grand jury testimony. I won’t be there tomorrow to hear most of the rest, but I hope Jane and Swopa will be able to listen to the rest to gain more insight into whether my theory is total bullshit or not. It’s only based on my sense of the sound of his voice, diction and speech today. Eventually, all this audio will come out, before the trial is over.
Just when you think it couldn’t get any better than it already is! LOVED the video!
THIS is what media looks like!
Jane and Swopa are too kind to tell you what a pain in the ass control queen I was from behind the camera, waving at them to keep their answers concise.
With the cold blowing wind and my hot air histrionics, they done did good.
My video stream is very slow here in the woods, with voice completely disconnected from the slow motion of the video. Which allowed me to catch a “still” of your beautiful face, Jane, and the first thing I thought was how much you look like the picture of you Mom!
You look magnificent! I hope you feel 100% magnificent soon as well.
SWOPA…a total babe in a double-breasted suit. David Schuster, move over!
Pachacutec @ 27
Ya did a good job! They come off well.
Wonder what Rove is thinking about tonight.
Swopa = stud muffin
IANAL but it’s clear that Wells et al are definitely going to appeal. Most of the grounds look evidentiary, such as the admission today of the articles or the release of the GJ testimony. I don’ think they will succeed. More importantly, I believe they can’t raise issues that they chose not to raise at the trial. So if they choose not to pursue the scapegoat or memory defenses, I don’t think they can pursue these on appeal. Anyone should feel free to correct me on this.
GReAt work Jane and Swopa! (hell, hope no one saw the earlier typoed version!)
thanks for the update
and Jane u look fantastic !!
I had an English teacher in high school. And she was always telling me: kiddo, keep it economical.
Oh, Jane, how wonderful to see you! Thanks, PoliticsTV, for bringing our heroine right into my home tonight.
And Swopa, I still trust TRex!
Nicely done, you two — and excellent direction, Pach.
Pachacutec @
27
I was saving my “Cecil B. DePachacutec” remark for later in the thread…
1. Defense attorneys are ALWAYS planning for an appeal – it is part of the strategy going in. Why? A) b/c they think there are good odds their client is going to be convicted, and B) it’s their job. (Hint – That’s why there are so many objections, cause if you don’t object to something during the trial, you can’t appeal it).
2. Trials really are boring. And no, boring the jury isn’t a strategy, it’s just par for the course, since Juror’s are for the most part bored even during what you consider the exciting parts (at least for white collar criminal trials; murder and other physical crimes might appeal to jurors’ prurient interest, but not so much in the white collar world).
3. The “fixed” appeal route. I’m not sure why this gets promoted so much, but the odds of winning an appeal are less than the odds of winning at trial. Sometimes you get lucky and the law does change so, eventhough the judge was right at the time, at the time of appeal the world has changed, but that’s different than winning an appeal b/c the judge made a material mistake. And it is unlikely that Walton will make a reversible ruling. Not that I’m going to change anyone’s mind about a fix being in, but it really isn’t how the justice system works (even for wealthy white folks).
4. Is there a brilliant hidden strategy that we don’t see? Nope. As previously stated, you go with what you have against what the government has and you do the best you can. And the prosecution has a lot and the defense has little. Not that the prosecution witnesses are a station wagon full of nuns,* but it is very hard to sell a story that everyone elses’ memory is wrong or they are lying and the defendant is telling the truth that he forgot even though he was obsessed with it; or, alternatively, that your client was set up by his friends, and he’s guilty but their not on trial so don’t convict him – which is creative though makes no sense, but at least IS creative. No, we’ve seen the best they can come up with, and its…….not so good. Shorter me: Perry Mason loses this one – at least that’s the way to bet.
______________________________________
Great episode of All in the Family, where Archie gets in to an accident, says it wasn’t his fault, till he’s told that there is a station wagon full of nun’s who saw him cause the accident.
Mocha Dem @ 31
Most definitely!
the both of you are perfectly charming!
I love the End of the Day Politics TV wrap up!
Valley Girl @
33
you owe me one: I held back. barely….
From the wapo 1×2×6 article.
What’s the best guess on who the SAO (#1) is?
Is this what had Fitz stammering?
Jane, did you see Babs today?
Well…that would explain the video hiccup.
Thank you to the Plame house group and FDL for bringing all of us yet another day of the fun and games at Prettyman.
I hope you’re all staying warm, and Jane, I hope you’re getting enough rest. As everyone else has said, you look great!
-S
What a blast to not only read my favorite bloggers’ take on the Plame Betrayal trial, but get a video too!
The camera likes both Jane and Swopa! Next time, please ham it up a bit! *g*
RBG @ 44
Yep. My fault.
Jane,
Can we ask if your funding is sufficient? If we need to kick in for another round we need to know that.
Congratulations are in order.
Historic work folks, the blogs will be an even more influential place tomorrow because of what you did today…
Three cheers for these stalwart bloggers; they seek truth in a sea of lies.
Nice “meeting” all of you, and look forward to your observations tomorrow.
If it’s still that cold in DC this week, you guys should find an indoor spot to do a recap.
How bout the restaurant & lounge at St. Regis ? mwahaahaa.
Russ’ stint on Countdown is now up on C&L.
punaise @ 41
Yep, I owe you!
Again IANAL but Libby always had the option while he was testifying before the Grand Jury to come clean on any issues he had lied about without any prejudice to himself and so avoid perjury charges. There would still be the false statements made to the FBI but looking at what has happened (or conspicuously did not happen) with Rove I very much doubt that there would have been much of a push to pursue them.
My theory is the “unfair trial” fodder – which Jeffress played up quite a bit today based on the potential of Walton’s telegraphed evidentiary decisions – is not so much a plan to win an actual appeal, but a PR strategy they will propel to till the earth of public opinion, hoping to create a more congenial climate for an eventual
appealpardon.If I were Barbara Comstock (eep!), that’s what I would do. And yes, we did see her today, though we don’t talk to her. She did come up to me one day, maybe during voir dire, to introduce herself.
Muzzy @ 50
perfect!
jeffreyw @ 42
My bet is on Colin Powell. Isn’t payback a bitch? *g*
Swopa- where are you from? Trying to place your accent. It sounds familiar, but I can’t quite get it.
Interesting how Fiztgerald had a 8 to 9 second brain freez when the Washington Post article regarding Cheney was mentioned. Could prosecutor Fitzgerald already know Cheney is on his way out. Others seem to think so.
http://www.worldreports.org
MASSIVE PAYMENTS ALL WEEK LONG
All week long, massive secret financial transactions have been instigated by the Treasury, with CIA-controlled funds being delivered all over the world. Payments were being made to central banks and to some ‘Bretton Woods’ payees. Meanwhile the Pentagon is expecting to receive funds for Iraq next week, even though the idea of putting 21,500 extra troops into a city of over 6 million people in the prevailing circumstances is acknowledged by almost everyone, including senior US military officers, to be certifiable lunacy.
As is well known, Cheney is being exposed in the Libby trial, the outcome of which, along with the ICJ subpoena which remains in place, makes it a virtual certainty that this ever more discredited Vice President will be unable to extend his borrowed time in office in accordance with his evident preference. Sources say he adamantly refuses to resign, but it is thought that events, domestic and foreign, may not accommodate him on this score.
When Cheney is called as a witness, the first question the Prosecutor should ask is: ‘Are you presently subject to any subpoena or any other judicially assisted court process?’
Jane — You look mahvelous!
Great seeing you two live and in person on video. Can’t wait to hear Russert’s testimony on Wednesday.
Another great day. And I love the whole gabbly thing we learned about today — in spite of the trolls.
I don’t think Cheney would lie to protect powell. I don’t think Libby would lie to protect powell. I think they would let him go down. The idea originated in the situation room and I believe they were all in on it. I think per Cheney’s notes the plan was that several were chosen, “to put their necks in the meat grinder”. But I have no doubt the plan was hatched from top down.
Dairymaid,
had that exact same thought upon seeing that gorgeous smile
Valley Girl – thanks so much for the link – youtube was moving slowly and I was only on page 3 of 7 when I found yours
Jane and Swopa – excellent ! you both looked and sounded great – props to ol Cecil B as well ;>
close enough for you to actually see the nictating membrane ?
Check out Libby’s calendar for July 8th.
Swopa- maybe San Diego on adrenaline?
RevDeb: yes, we do stil need to raise funds. I fact, we’re looking hard at the need to create self-sustaining, predictable revenue streams to support people who don’t want to work in campaigns or for the party, but who want to work in politics as progressive movement people to keep up the pressure from the outside. Without that, we as a movement will surely lose momentum over the next few years and fizzle out completely.
We need career paths for people like, for example, Matt Ortega if they want to stay in politics but not work for the party. We also need to be able, not only to compensate ourselves fairly, but to finance Roots Project, which now probably needs a paid developer to take it to the next level.
Expect to hear more about this as we do more study on our options. We don’t want to become beholden to big money interests who will try to twist us away from the roots, and that will mean actively cultivating many, many donor/subscribers.
You state above that the “unfair” trial is not for appeal, but then state that is a strategy for an ultimate appeal based on its PR effect.
Anyway, doesn’t matter. Here’s the scoop – the evidentiary and other motion decisions are ALWAYS telegraphed, at least the important stuff – the judge might occasionally throw the defense an immaterial bone. The laws, rules and regs that Judges follow in making those decisions favor the prosecution. And, at least in my experience, at times it seems like the judge is an extra prosecutor. But that is true in all fed criminal cases, so in that sense NO trial is “fair” to the defendant, but that’s our system, and those issues have already been well appealed by people with more money than Scooter and as serious connections.
isn’t Scooter “SAO #1″? in the 1×2×6?
Count on me as a subscriber.
punaise @ 41
I thought you guys were talking about this:
but it’s still in the post after I refreshed. Of course, I suppose they could waive waving the white flag. That might work.
Valley Girl @ 57
I have an accent?!?!?!
I always thought it was the rest of you.
OldCoastie @ 66
Scooter is S.O.L. #1
EPU’d:
TeddySanFran @
184
Feedback does have an impact! Same graf now (my bold):
I will not let up on my party (Dems). I want out of Iraq. No attacking Iran. And a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And I want Bush tax cuts for the rich rolled back. Democrats, these are not difficult concepts.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 65
It was a typo. I fixed it before your comment. Refresh.
Hugh- my comment originally read (with typos)- Get work Jane and Swopa! (quickly edited to GReAt work…)
punaise @ 70
keeping my fingers crossed that Cheney is SOL 1 (or at least 2)
OldCoastie @ 66
I think he’s one of the “2″.
I’ve heard Powell as the “1″, and it may be true.
Hugh @ 32
Will the appeal be before one of these illegitimate Judges W is stocking the courts with?
Swopa @ 69
No, it’s quite noticeable. I think it’s the way you italicize when typing.
Swopa- ah, please tell. I relate. I was shocked when I came back to (undisclosed location) from CA, and person I worked with also CAian said- oh! you’ve gotten your California accent back!
Valley Girl @ 74
So the great white flag will continue to waive. *g*
Oh man … I REALLY love these politicstv clips. It gives my brain such a rest to hear you guys actually talking about this stuff conversationally. I’ve OD’d on reading.
Also fascinating to see the famous Swopa … very smooth on camera, and great job of live blogging by the way. Jane, it goes without saying, is always brilliant. This narrows the list of mystery Plameologists who have never appeared on camera to:
1) Jeff (or is he really Murray Waas?)
2) Pachacutec
3) Clarice (probably more appropriately the subject of some other sort of -ologist, but still, I’m curious)
4) Tom McGuire
5) LooseHeadProp (what a handle that is)
Kathryn in MA @ 77
That’s a good question that I don’t know the answer to. Who is on the court of appeals for the DC circuit?
So does anyone think Fitz’s momentary pause and refusal to be pinned down on 1×2×6 might be an indication of lurking conspiracy charges?
“Really interesting details…like how Scooter Libby got his nickname”
rofl
Chaboard @ 83
Shh, it’s secret.
Pach,
I understand the “meta” of your $$ answer and that is something we need to be talking about at length after the trial is over. In the mean time, do you all have enough to pay for Plame House and related expenses?
After the trial, lets do talk about the bigger picture.
cbl @ 61
hee-hee!
Thanks for the summary, Jane. The video was great! Loved the pics of Cheney – he sure is a charmer, huh? Gotta wonder why the defense won’t put him on the stand (hmmm… like you said, it won’t help the defense, and it sure will bring a lot more attention to this case than it’s currently getting from Joe Sixpack).
It looks like it must have been rather chilly & windy when you filmed the video!
Awesome little post you have linked from the question about Richard Clarke. I’ll bet you’re looking forward to Russert’s testimony. Do you think Fitz will ask a lot of questions about Russert’s actions regarding “protecting sources”, or do you think Fitz will stick to the main question that will prove Scooter’s defense to be moot: “Did you tell Scooter Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, and is Joe Wilson’s wife?”
I think you’re very correct that Mr. Russert’s credibility has gone deep into the toilet. I am almost as interested to hear Russert’s testimony as I am to see how NBC and other networks cover it. ;)
Just checked in and seeing Jane brings tears to an old surgeons eyes. After what she has been through..Jesus she is a tough broad and obviously committed to saving our country.
jeffreyw @
85
Oh. In that case I meant constipation charges.
RevDeb @ 86
With all the expenses related to this effort, Marcy’s book, etc., let’s just say we’ve got a red pen for the books. Any $5 or $10 that people can still afford is appreciated. That’s why we have the new donation plugs embedded at the end of the CIA Leak Case posts.
Chaboard @ 83
Could be but he plays his cards way too close to the vest to tell. As karen allen #24 pointed out, he started small and built up but who knows here?
Accents? There’s not a day passes without someone asking me where I’m from or why do I talk funny. You see, I speak Californian, for even though I was born just a few miles from here, I don’t talk with that Okie twang. And that’s because I spent most of my life in Calif. One of these days I would like to say to someone who tells me I talk strange, ‘did it ever occur to you that I think YOU talk funny?’ But of course I won’t.
Not to go too lowbrow on the funding issue, but a good while back several people mentioned an FDL cookbook based on recipes from Pull up a Chair. And, a few offers to help, including from those who had compiled the recipes. Recipes as such are not copyrighted, only the exact way that they are originally published. I, for one, would love to have such, and I think you could count on many to help.
Pachacutec @ 91
Pach – that’s a great point and one that deserves repeating. I think some people are apologetic that they can “only” give $5 or $10 to help defer Plamehouse costs. I think it’s helpful to stress and repeat that any amount donated is helpful.
Okay OT: Jane you look fantastic! Whoo-hoo.
Chaboard @ 83
Ding ding ding! That’s my hunch… that part of the investigation is on hold until Fitz finds out if he can flip Libby (against Cheney), but he wants to wall it off from the current case so Libby can’t do “discovery” to find out just what cards Fitz has.
Thus the defense is trying to bait Fitz into showing his hand, even as they have to pretend they have no idea about the 1×2×6 leaks (otherwise, they’re implicitly admitting knowledge of the conspiracy).
Jane!!! As an old timer here, you were the one who drew me to fdl. You’ve been missed.
To see you back in the saddle, well, it just warms my heart on this frigid New York City night. Sock it to Cheney! You look and sound- well, like a 10 and a half.
Swopa- again, ahhh…. please tell. San Diego on adrenaline?
Funny about that. How the “clear bright truth in this miscarriage of justice” can be deemed something to be hidden – shameful.
What is the story again?
* Libby’s lawyer tells Irving’s story may be defective
* Libby tells FBI Russert tells him about Plame. He knew once but nobody says anything about Plame until Russert, and damn… he had forgotten the conversation with Cheney.
* Later, after time to collect himself, and time to check with the bosses, he tells the FBI the same story.
* Yowza! More time… still an opportunity to take input from Judy, Rove, Ari (hmmm, why not talk to Ari?), Cathi – maybe she was still around and said, “hey!,Irv” (she is the only one to know his true identity) “you did pass along classified info did you? Becasue I sort of remember…”
* Irv goes to GJ… oddly, same story. Ari, Small, Grossman, Martin and Judy don’t remind – I mean ask him about their role in the outing of a CIA agent involved in finding the truth about weapons which may kill Americans.
* Rove goes to GJ about a zillion times correcting his recollection.
* Trial starts and the defense only mildly suggests that Libby’s testimony was false because he mis-remembered it during his testimony before law-enforcement entities. No such claim in opening testimony.
* During course of trial there is a shift to trying to seed the notion that Scoot’s memory was wrong. There certainly is no hope now of trying to claim the GJ testimony was true.
So what is going on?
Swopa @ 97
Ah! I like that explanation. Explains why Fitz was (apparently) tossing out random names.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 93
Spoken like a politician. Run, OK k, Run!
I’m wondering what could be in the full 8 hours of Grand Jury testimony. That’s a long long time, and much could be said.
Any guesses?
Pachacutec @ 25 -
Interesting take, Pach. In reading Swopa’s blogging of the Libby GJ testimony, something similar struck me, as well. There were indications of far more attempts to give ‘non-denial denials’ – the typical “I don’t recall” answers that prevent legal jeopardy by feigning a useless memory, than the indictment and proceedings to-date have revealed in Libby’s case. Libby seems to have indeed worked hard, after all, at ‘I don’t think so, but, well, maybe’ responses or for the key Robert Grenier conversation – ‘I think I talked to Grenier about something at about that time, but I don’t think it was about this subject’ to avoid the sort of categorical denials that would expose his fancy footwork poor memory responses to legal jeopardy.
So perhaps he indeed got outsmarted by the Special Counsel, as you surmise, by growing a bit too bold with his misleading denials. And perhaps scuttlebut around the White House misled him into dark alleys that he should have stayed out of.
My theory that the changed-date June 12th Libby note is covering up his key Robert Grenier conversation seems to be alive and kicking — directly after raising details about that note with Libby in the GJ, Fitzgerald asked him about his memory of a conversation with Grenier. And Libby stated clearly that the entire “heading” of that June 12th note was added later (the part about a telephone call with the Vice President about Iraq and Kristof, etc.), except apparently for the date, which was instead ‘amended’ at some unknown subsequent point in time. Libby sure wanted the FBI and GJ to believe that the June 12th note was about a conversation with the VP, but I think it was primarily the notes of the hot news Grenier gave Libby on June 11th straight from the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division in the Directorate of Operations [plus some talking points (1-3) for Pincus that Libby added down below, perhaps in subsequent consultation with the VP on June 11].
What happened to any Libby notes about his conversation with Marc Grossman, right after Grossman got the full ’scoop’ at Libby’s request (minus “the wife”) from State’s INR Bureau and Joe Wilson himself on May 29, I wonder? They seem to have mysteriously disappeared… I’m also puzzled about why Judy Miller’s notes weren’t entered into evidence (neither side seemed too eager about entering them).
[Now that’s how to wear a beret.]
dab from CT @
95
The little bits are the best.
We have about 1% of our readers who comment, and a subset of passionate and generous commenters who donate.
We need to get better at asking for help from everyone, not just the commenters, and making it part, not only of FDL culture, but progressive grassroots culture. I expect we’ll be talking about this some more.
In a way I feel bad about bringing this up to commenters, because we have a lot more readers than that, and we need to tap them on the shoulders, too. But RevDeb brought this up, so I’m just sharing with people more of our thinking, in the interests of transparency.
Imagine what we could do if we got 10,000 people – a fraction of our daily readership – willing to give $5 per week. We could really use that seed capital to transform the country. We could publish more books, build out Roots Project, and many other worthy projects.
o/t
US ATTY Firings – did everyone see this in yesterday’s WaPo ?
US ATTYs Firings – WaPo
h/t C&L
I just tossed a little donation your way… didn’t end it in any cents – use it how you see fit…
anyone else? 5 bucks? 10?
Great coverage, thanks.
Can you set up a pac, like the act blue one? I’m in for a monthly donation to the one at MyDD.
There are currently 10 active judgeships on the appeals court for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit). These are:
Douglas H. Ginsburg, Chief Judge
David B. Sentelle
Karen L. Henderson
Arthur Raymond Randolph
Judith Ann Wilson Rogers
David S. Tatel
Merrick B. Garland
Janice Rogers Brown
Thomas B. Griffith
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh are Bush II appointees. Brown and Griffith were part of the infamous Gang of 14 compromise. Kavanaugh was confirmed separately although he was generally considered to be unqualified.
The court has 3 Senior (semi-retired) Judges:
Harry T. Edwards
Laurence H. Silberman
Stephen F. Williams
A panel of 3 judges would hear any appeal stemming from the Libby case. Feel free to expand or correct.
Pach- not to add to the load at FDL, but I think donors would be encouraged to donate again if they got a personal “thanks” from FDL, even if automated. I used to contribute quite regularly to BradBlog, and got a personal email note from Brad each time. Now, I realize that his traffic is small compared to FDL’s, but it did keep the personal connection going.
OldCoastie @ 106
I’m in.
OldCoastie @
107
I just sent 20.07. Anyone care to match me?
BTW, just finished Marcy’s book – can’t wait for the sequel!
Oh Hugh, I vote for the same three that heard the appeal on Miller/Cooper…especially Tatel. They really gave it their all.
pow wow @ 104
Commend the original comment to everyone.
Thanks for the scratch, gang.
We do deliver results; we have a strong track record. I hope and really believe you can feel proud to offer us your hard earned cash.
Many thanks!
I’m so glad to see you two. Jane, you look great.
What about the lobby of the Watergate to shoot this? lol
Laurence H. Silberman rings a bell.
Valley Girl @ 111
One of the things we’re toying with is the development of email lists of donors for just this kind of thing. Like everything else about this stuff, it’s probably not that hard to do, but it does require us to learn the right ways to do these things. Time is a barrier, as we all multi-task. But we have not decided on that approach, or any specific approach, yet.
OldCoastie @ 107
Just anted up a bill plus .07.
Chaboard @ 113
See your $20.07 and raised ya $30 for $50.07!!
Late Nite is upstairs, gang, and I’m off to bed. Papa TRex will provide for your nightly entertainment and snacks from here on out.
Thanks again!
Valley Girl at 111 — You know, we have tried to do personal thank you notes all along. But with Jane’s recent surgery, it’s been all we can do to coordinate schedules and such and keep the posting going regularly on the blog. Unfortunately, at least the last few weeks, the thank you notes have had to go on the back burner, as I’m sure everyone can understand under the circumstances. We’ll try to get back to them as soon as we can, though, because it is important.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 123
no worries, Redd…
Great job, Jane and Swopa.
I agree it is fun watching videos and listening to your words. (No wonder emptywheel listens to books on tape from time to time).
re: Richard Clarke, I don’t know where he is at the moment, but during the fall semester ‘06 he was in Cambridge, MA teaching a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers. See his KSG webpage and click on the course outline.
I received my copies of emptywheel’s Anatomy of Deceit this weekend and am halfway through. Great job! Looking forward to the second book soon.
Today I dropped off a copy of Anatomy of Deceit to the Director of the “Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy” at Harvard’s Kennedy School. His name is Alex S. Jones–formerly with the NY Times and a Pulitzer prizewinner (and he is NOT to be confused with the ‘other’ Alex Jones on the web nor OTHER former NY Times/Pulitzer prizewinners). Maybe he or his colleagues will read the book and contact you.
Also dropped off copies of the book to my local public library today (they were a little reticent to accept a gift! but promised to let me know if they could not add it to their collection) I’ll hand-deliver the copy to Lexington, MA public library if not.
I also met a VERY interested librarian at a branch of the Boston Public Library today who was excited to hear about a book born from ‘citizen journalism’ (I know Marcy likes to make a distinction between journalism and blogging, but this librarian seemed to respond to this pitch). She had even “heard of” DKos before! and she was happy to learn that Anatomy of Deceit was the first book of the newly formed Vaster Books by founders Kos and Jane Hamsher.
This BPL librarian took the book with thanks, and (I have a strong feeling) she will convince the Main Boston Public Library staff to enter a ‘bibliographical index’ of the book in the BPL system so that she can place the book officially into circulation.
Who knew there was so much red tape to adding books to a library’s collection?
I encourage everyone to place a purchase request of Anatomy of Deceit by Marcy Wheeler with their local library to ensure this book is accessible to future generations of budding bloggers and citizen journalists. Afterall, public libraries are institutions whose mission is to preserve and spread knowledge for all.
Thanks again FDL and TNH.
TheOtherWA @
62
That’s from the text version, which was (poorly) OCRed from an original which had hand-written an addition. That garbage at the end is apparently the OCR version of “Private Meeting @ St. Regis”, as shown in the pdf version.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 122
Christy- good on you! Perhaps I was extrapolating too much from my own experience of a donation to the EW enterprise. It was a large amount (for my budget), and I somehow ended up feeling like it didn’t matter one way or the other. Maybe just a glitch. And, if you can manage some kind of automation, as Pach hinted at, that would certainly keep your time free for the work that you all do best.
Christy–
I sent you an email a couple of weeks back offering to give some ideas in the fundraising department when the time is right (and I understand now it is not). Now that I’m probably alone here at the bottom of the thread, I’ll just say that one harsh reality of Reagan-Bush-anomics is that all of us are NOT created equally and a $20 gift from one person may be a lot more of a sacrifice than for others. One key to effective fundraising is to find the appropriate level for everyone–so that the bigger gifts ensure that financial goals CAN be met and the smaller gifts put you over the top. It’s a tough reality for liberals, because it seems undemocratic and elitist, but in fact, such an approach helps redistribute wealth voluntarily and joyfully, with a place for everyone that actually accomplishes our goals.
The wingnuts get a LOT more money not just because they have more, but also because they understand and are comfortable with asking. Progressives are actually more generous on average; we just aren’t asking as effectively.
Kudos to Pach, BTW, (if he’s responsible) for putting the Paypal logo at the bottom of the thread. A good start!
RevDeb @
51
Everybody needs to watch this. Everybody. Russ Feingold is the real thing. Finegold needs to be the candidate for President. Period.
If you squint, swopa looks like wells
Swopa, thank you for the posts today I’ve only made it through half of them so far … saving the rest for in the morning. I’m so glad that you could go to D.C. and be part of this effort. It is thrilling to see you there too!
Any chance that you will run into Mike Allen or Dana Priest at the Courthouse???
LandOfTheFree @
88
….. no longer in the toilet. the alligator ate it last week …..
I just want to say, “Jane! you look great!” No one watching the video would imagine you’ve recently had surgery. OK so I’m a bit off topic, but If affect and glow and demeanor reflect your inner health, then, baby, you are on the right path.
Best wishes
In Illinois, Fitzgerald worked on the truck-drivers-license-for-money scandal. Truck drivers who couldn’t pass the driving test, and who often did not speak a word of English–mostly Russians, could wrongfully purchase their licenses thru agents of the Governor. One of these fake-license drivers struck a van of two parents and 8 children, killing ALL of the children.
After each indictment/conviction Fitzgerald obtained, the conspirators breathed a sigh of relief, thinking the worst was over. It wasn’t. Fitzgerald just kept moving up higher up on the feeding chain, eventually convicting the Governor of Illinois, George Ryan. Ryan was a longtime career politician/crook, but never got tripped up until Fitzgerald.
Jane, welcome back. Hope you feel as good as you look.
SWOPA- this will seem silly to you, but for little ole me out here in the boonies, seeing you, after reading your posts here and on needlenose, has kind of a wow feeling for me. Yeah, silly.
Here’s my speculation on why the defense is trying to raise the 1-2-6 article so much, and are attempting to get details about it.
It would require Fitz to give up the names of those that either Rove or Libby contacted…and the name of the secret witness.
I suspect that the secret witness is someone that is on the DEFENSES witness list and that they blew it by not obtaining all the information about Libby meetings or statements from him. Or perhaps they put several people on THEIR witness list to feint…implying to Fitz that these individuals would, in fact, have exculpatory testimony exonerating Libby.
Let me guess further…Pincus is after all, on the DEFENSES witness list. So how in the world they can actually put Pincus on the stand and NOT allow the 1-2-6 article into evidence seems a bit strained to me. If they have him testify it will have to come in. And given that Libby says that he might be a source for information in that article, and kept an annotated copy of it in his files, it seems utterly germane to demonstrating his state of mind.
No…and this could be wildly delicious. Fitz asked several times in the taped GJ interrogation of Libby if Libby recalled EVER telling Pincus about “the wife” of the Ambassadior working in the CIA. Apparently he asked this in several different ways. In every case Libby said that he didn’t recall it, but was pretty certain he didn’t.
So it might just be that Fitz has learned from Pincus that Libby, in fact, did reveal that “Wilson’s wife” worked for the CIA back on June 12th. Pincus could be Fitz’s “secret witness”, and he didn’t want to reveal this by discussing the 1-2-6 doc in detail…esp. which reporters were told. That would have revealed precisely who the “secret witness” was…Pincus!
And maybe because Pincus is on Libby’s witness list Fitz doesn’t have to reveal him in “discovery”? Anyone know about the rules for this? But it sure seems that Fitz has somehow preserved a witness that is secret to the Defense and has them fishing for that individuals identity.
Imagine if Pincus testifies that Libby told him all back in early June! The direct result of Cheney’s little note!
Todd Larason @
126
Yeah, I figured that out eventually. Darn it. I should just change my nickname to Emily Litella.
Chuck E. is DEFINITELY in love!
karen allen @ 134
Waaaay laayaaayaate to this great party.
Nevertheless, your reminder of Fitz’s tenacity warms my heart on this subzero morning.
Thanks.
Chaboard @
83
Yeah. I strongly get the impression that this was something he wanted to be kept as a surprise — something he didn’t want Wells et al to know about just yet.
cinnamonape @
136
Aha! Yes, that would explain it. But Fitz didn’t fall for it.
Memo to Keith Olbermann:
Put Jane Hamsher on your show. Nightly. This is what good journalism looks like: in addition to being articulate, bright, thorough, she’s BEAUTIFUL. At least ONE of those qualities should satisfy NBC “suits.”
Haha. Jane gets to be in front of the camera now. (After all those fun times wheeling and dealing off camera). Seems like everyone here thinks you should be. Great video. You’re such a badass.