Tweet
HiMore? You want more Libby trial live-blogging? Haven't you already been on this ride enough times today? Oh, very well, step this way and climb on board…
A further reminder about these posts… as Marcy/emptywheel was fond of saying, we are not court reporters. Even though an exchange may look like verbatim dialogue, what I'm usually doing is boiling down a two-sentence question and a four-sentence answer (with plenty of false starts) into a short sentence each — the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. With that, here we go with the afternoon session. [NOTE: Through some awful error on my part, I pasted over the introduction I intended to use here (the crossed-out lines above are from the previous post. On the plus side, you probably didn't miss much; the actual live-blogging is below.]
NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.
Libby's being sworn in for his second grand jury appearance, a week or two after his first one in March 2004.
F: You said you had some items in your earlier testimony you wanted to clarify or amend.
L: You had asked me about Marc Grossman, and I couldn't remember any conversations about Wilson's wife. But one of your questions was whether I asked if State Dept. had sent Wilson, which was so far from what I believed that it stuck in my head, and so I kept thinking why you might have asked that, and I now recall joking with Grossman about it.
F: Tell me about that.
L: (long story about Bush seeking UN resolution against Saddam in Fall 2002, whether and how to let inspectors back in to Iraq) We had meetings about this, and I was told Grossman wouldn't participate. He felt it was just an effort to prevent inspectors from going, and would end up in a newspaper leak embarrassing Colin Powell. Six months later, we were in a deputies' meeting, and to fill time I ribbed Grossman by saying "this guy who went to Niger was one of yours," and he said, "No he was one of theirs," pointing at a CIA official. I said, "But he was an ambassador, it's a sad state of affairs when the CIA has to get their own ambassadors to find things out," again just joking.
F: When was this in regard to the Kristof and Pincus articles? (accidentally says Pincus both times, Libby corrects him)
L: I don't remember.
F: May or June, or earlier?
L: First half of June, I think.
F: Did you ever have a conversation asking Grossman for information?
L: Not that I recall.
F: Anyone say anything about Wilson's wife?
L: Not that I recall.
F: You said there was a second part you wanted to clarify/amplify?
L: Yes, Ari Fleischer lunch on July 7th, and gaggle that day. I couldn't remember then that gaggle had happened before lunch, and I did thank him for his statement on uranium during the gaggle.
F: No recollection of talking about Wilson's wife (asks in excruciating detail about all parts of Ari's story)
L: No.
F: Something we ask you before… your calendar shows a June 6th meeting with Richard Armitage. Did you ever talk to him about Wilson's wife?
L: No.
(Fitz and Libby establish that Libby/Armitage are not close, but have known each other since '82, and Libby once represented Armitage in a legal matter in '89.)
F: Do you remember receiving a fax from the CIA in June 2003 addressed to you and John Hannah? (paging Eriposte!)
L: Not specifically.
F: (shows Libby a document prepared by Hannah on Niger & uranium, summarizing an eight-page CIA memo faxed to OVP on June 9, 2003) Did you receive this when it was sent to Congress [by Hannah]?
L: I don't think so.
F: Did you attend any meetings or discussions about this document?
L: I don't recall any specific meetings. I remember talking about it and referring to it.
F: Did you discuss this with the VP around June 9th?
L: Do you know if you discussed the identity of the envoy sent to investigate Niger claims?
F: Yes, at varous times, don't recall exactly.
F: (shows another document) Do you recognize this?
It's 3:21.
(Fitz shows Libby a batch of documents, but I'm not clear what they are — went by too fast. One has the notation "Wilson.")
F: What prompted the delivery of the CIA memo, marked ASAP, on June 9th?
L: May have been the Pincus article [which was published June 12, 2003]. (Libby amusingly tries to explain that "ASAP" doesn't necessarily mean it was "a hair-on-fire thing.")
(More documents, including apparently a CIA cable about the Wilson trip. Somewhere in here, Fitz asks if Libby knew at this time that Wilson was the envoy sent to Niger; Libby says he didn't.)
(F. points out that one document, a version of the CIA cable, has "Joseph Wilson" written on it.)
F: Do you recognize the handwriting?
L: (with a little hedging) It looks like the Vice President's.
(F. pulls out a copy of the eight-page CIA memo. The second page has "Joseph Wilson" printed, and "Wilson" in script underneath.)
F: Do you recognize the handwriting?
L: Not the printing. The script is mine.
F: When would you have written this?
L: I don't think it was in the June time frame.
F: How often did you go back to these documents, to refresh your memory?
L: Several times.
F: In what situations?
L: Before talking to reporters, or to the Vice President.
F: Did you review these documents around when you were told by the VP, June 12 or so, that the ambassador's wife worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA?
L: I think so.
F: And this was around the time you were interviewed by Pincus?
L: Yes.
F: Did you mention to Pincus that the envoy's wife worked for the CIA?
L: No.
F: Did you understand that you were legally prohibited from doing so?
L: No.
F: We spoke before about your conversation with Judith Miller on July 8th. What information did the VP want you to convey in this meeting?
L: That NIE backed up our view of Iraq intelligence (explains at length)
It's 3:39.
F: When was the NIE officially declassified?
L: July 18th.
F: Did the President specifically authorize you to give this information with Judith Miller.
L: He didn't know Judith Miller, but did authorize sharing it with the press.
F: Was Miller the first reporter that you discussed the NIE with?
L The first I discussed the text of the NIE with, yes.
F: And you showed her the text of the NIE
L: The relevant portions, yes
F: Of a full or redacted copy of the NIE?
L: Redacted.
F: Did you give her the redacted copy?
L: No, just a page with bullet points.
F: Did you share the document you gave with Judith Miller with the VP first?
L: No.
F: Who prepared the redacted copy?
L: I did. Well, I didn't type it, I directed VP's assistant, Jenny Mayfield to type it.
F: Do you type?
L: Yes.
F: Not big on email, are you?
L: Not in this job. I was in my prior job.
F: Did you discuss the NIE with David Sanger around July 2?
L: In more general terms, not the specific language
F: Did the VP know?
I told him I would be meeting with Sanger, not all the details.
F: So this didn't trigger the concern about revealing classified material that the conversation with Miller on July 8th did.
L: (sorry, missed how explained this)
F: Did atmosphere surrounding conversation with Judith Miller change due to Wilson op-ed July 6th?
L: Certainly changed after Fleischer statement [backing away from 16 words] on July 7
F: Was authorization to talk to Miller after July 6th, or before?
L: Both. Was discussed before final okay was given.
(F. pulls out Libby note, VP instructions to talk to Miller on July 8th)
F: Was Miller in Washington or NY when trip arrangements were made?
L: Either in DC or coming to DC, it wasn't a special trip.
F: Why meet with her at her hotel?
L: I wanted to meet for lunch, but her schedule didn't permit, so coffee instead.
F: Do you usually meet reporters outside the office?
L: Depends on purpose. If it's about VP, a soft news profile, they will come to office. If I talk to reporter off the record, will meet for lunch, more of an off the record atmosphere.
F: Was the nature of the exclusive information involved in meeting at hotel?
L: Probably.
F: Was the document declassified, or classified?
L: Declassified, because the President authorized it.
F: In your career had you discussed other documents this way?
L: This would be the first time.
(Fitz walks through Addington authorizing insta-declassification [TM emptywheel].)
It's 4:02.
(Fitz establishes that only Dubya, Cheney, and Libby knew about insta-declassification, even as rest of government — including Rice and Hadley, and Tenet, and Andrew Card — engaged in official discussions about declassification through July 18th.)
F: Was it typical to keep members of intelligence in the dark about declassification issues?
L: Plenty of times VP tells me something I'm not supposed to tell anyone. (tangled Q&A that draws some smiles in press rooms about why it was OK not to tell)
F: How well did you know Judith Miller?
L: Had only met her once before July 8th. (repeats answer from previous testimony about "responsible journalist," etc.)
F: When did you meet her before? May, June?
L: It would be on my schedule.
F: Did Miller ever write anything based on your meeting?
L: No. It was a failed effort to get the NIE out, in my opinion.
F: And you also talked with Miller on July 12.
L: Yes.
(Long exchange about Libby's phones, phone number, phone bills — including "who's your long distance carrier," etc.)
F: Did you call Miller using your personal phone?
L: I think so.
F: Any chance you used your cell phone?
L: I don't think so.
And with that, Walton says we're recessing for the evening… he has some documents he has to review, and then pick up his daughter from school. (So we have no idea whatsoever where that phone-bill line of questioning was going!!)
But first, Fitz has a few things he wants to share. The "mystery witness" is apparently a DOJ attorney who will testify about the rules for subpoenaing journalists, since people have raised questions (Fitz mentions Don Imus!) about why Russert was forced to testify, but not purported leakees like David Gregory (Jeff, are you out there?). He may not testify, because Fitz isn't sure that's how he wants to end his case. He also wants to enter a bunch of other documents as evidence, including a packet of articles showing Libby's obsession interest regarding the press response to Wilson… and he also mentions "the aspens letter."
It's 4:29, and we're not quite done yet.
The defense makes its pitch for excluding the new batch of articles, and Walton seems receptive, saying they are "of little probative value and potentially prejudicial." Fitz says they show Libby's focus and the Wilson issue and that the govt. feels the "Wilson issue" and "Wilson's wife issue" are inextricably entertained — a little snark as he says, "just because someone charged with perjury says the two were separate, that doesn't mean we should be constrained" (or words to that effect). Walton says he'll think it over.
School's out! Catch ya later.
138 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
FITZ!
Russ Feingold for President.
EPU’d:
Swopa, Marcy, Christy, or anyone interested in the timeline, QUESTION re: Sanger
I’ve been wondering for a while about the timeline discrepancy in which Judy Miller first learns that Valerie Wilson works for CIA on June 23 but hardly anyone else – except maybe Bob Woodward – learns until July 8, give or take a day or two.
Now Team Libby wants to call NYT’s Sanger to show that Libby didn’t leak when he and Sanger met on July 2, as supporting evidence that Valerie Wilson’s CIA status wasn’t something Libby was consistently pushing to reporters.
• Here’s the question: Is it possible, or likely, that Scooter didn’t find out Valerie Wilson had a classified NOC standing until *after* he leaked to Judy on June 23, but before he met with Sanger on July 2?
I’m imagining a conversation like this:
We know that Libby was told Wilson worked with CPD, which means he should have know her status was classified. I think he was told that before meeting with Judy, but I’m not certain.
Anyway, maybe Libby didn’t realize Valerie Wilson was a NOC when he first discussed it with Miller, then was told afterwards and became more cautious until the Joe Wilson op-ed on July 6.
I know that seems a little shakey given that:
A) Libby probably knew Wilson was CPD before talking to Miller, and
B) That he told Miller that Wilson worked for WINPAC instead of CPD,
but, there could be other explanations for that, whereas pushing the Valerie Wilson leak on Miller, then pulling back until the Joe Wilson op-ed, seems to indicate a hesitancy — maybe due to thinking it was okay to leak Valerie’s CIA affiliation then finding out it was not.
Obviously, this doesn’t exculpate Libby in any way. But it may help clear up some of the timeline issues.
.
Psssssst,
we are over here, under CIA leak case…
Can anyone explain why Libby testified to the Grand Jury that he: “ Wanted a land line, so went to lounge at Andrews Air Force Base” and then later says: “We got him on a cell phone when we were driving back to my house from Andrews.” Why would he prefer to use a land line rather than a phone on Air Force 2? Why did he then chose to use a cell phone to make a call?
Thanks to all involved in exposing this den of rats!!!
F: Do you remember receiving a fax from the CIA in June 2003 addressed to you and John Hannah? (paging Eriposte!)
These are the three reports that Schmall had faxed over to OVP on June 9 which provide tons of details about Wilson’s trip. They were introduced to evidence two weeks ago–they’re the reports eriposte has been working on in his FDL posts.
L: (long story about Bush seeking UN resolution against Saddam in Fall 2002, whether and how to let inspectors back in to Iraq) We had meetings about this, and I was told Grossman wouldn’t participate. He felt it was just an effort to prevent inspectors from going, and would end up in a newspaper leak embarrassing Colin Powell. Six months later, we were in a deputies’ meeting, and to fill time I ribbed Grossman by saying “this guy who went to Niger was one of yours,” and he said, “No he was one of theirs,” pointing at a CIA official. I said, “But he was an ambassador, it’s a sad state of affairs when the CIA has to get their own ambassadors to find things out,” again just joking
It sure looks like a toxic relationship among several executive agencies. Why was there so much mistrust? Fear of dissension? Punitive measures taken toward dissenters? BECAUSE THEY WERE AT RISK. THEY HAD SOMETHING BIG TO HIDE.
JGabriel @3
I did respond at the end of the last thread.
I’d put Libby’s knowledge of Plame’s covert status at June 18, which is when I believe Dick really told him she was CPD, and is one day before Libby told Eric Edelman there would be problems leaking info from the Wilsons to rebut the TNR article.
Just a wildarsed guess, of course. But it is Emptywheel Vindication Day.
I’m astonished that the Vice President of the United States would have a chief of staff who had such a poor memory. The secret service must have to remind him every day where his office is…
stillonmt @ 5
The person he was calling was on the cell phone.
But, apart from other considerations, satellite phone isn’t perfect–there are delays and dropouts, etc.–and he probably didn’t want a lot of “what did you say?” interrupting the conversation.
The other obvious consideration is that AF2 call records would be available. Picking up a gov’t phone in the lobby of an Air Force base would be more difficult to track down.
merciless @ 10
“Good morning Mr. Libby, when you come out of the elevator you’re in the last office on the left”
Libby: “Damn Liberals”
Reading this GJ testimony certainly brings the Obstruction of Justice charge into the light.
EW: “I’d put Libby’s knowledge of Plame’s covert status at June 18, which is when I believe Dick really told him she was CPD, and is one day before Libby told Eric Edelman there would be problems leaking info from the Wilsons to rebut the TNR article.”
Thanks, Marcy. That makes sense. I guess I’ve always been a little bothered by the amount of time between the initial leak and the multiple leaks that occurred after Wilson’s op-ed, but maybe I’m just looking for an explanation where one isn’t needed. Two weeks isn’t really that long.
P.S. Sorry I didn’t catch your response in the last thread before reposting here.
JGabriel @
3
see emptywheel’s response, June 18, last thread
EPU here…
Recognizing this isn’t a transcript so I have to ask: Did the Scoots OFFER all those details up – who he got on the phone when? Or did Fitz! elicit that wiht more questions?
If the former, Libby is even dumber than I thought.
stillonmt @ 5
Simple — all phone conversations from any of the Presidential air fleet are taped. So, if he didn’t want a record of the call, he’d leave the plane. Not sure why he shifted to cellphone…
neil @ 8
Cheney had a long standing distrust of the CIA. Patrick Moynihan at one point called for its abolition since it had failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union, the analysis and understanding of which had been its raison d’etre. Saddam in Kuwait, the Pakistani and Indian nuclear bombs, 911, the list of CIA failures is long.
The problem is that Cheney thought he could do better. His idea of better was to gather a bunch of fools and have them analyze flakey stories that even the CIA didn’t buy. The results speak for themselves.
Oops…I’m slowing down at posting these! FireDogLake Live Blog “Rules of the Road” – help us all share the road during Live Blogging!
Don’t forget that Firedoglake is self-sustaining; help defray expenses by making a donation using the links at the end of the post.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled irregular testimony…
merciless @
10
That’s exactly the limitation of the Sergeant Schultz Defense: Trying to get a group of people to believe that someone could be simultaneously smart enough to work for the second-most-powerful man in the world, yet dumber than a bag of hammers.
emptywheel @ 9
Congratulations are in order? I missed first mention of EVD. Pray tell!
TIMELINE OF THE LIBBY CASE
The contested timeline for the Libby case is a convoluted mess, to say the least. There are three main timelines, divided thus:
1. The so-called Wilson Report.
2. Libby’s reaction.
3. The criminal investigation.
To sort it all out, please go to this Washington Post site.
Warning: It’s highly complicated but readable. Be patient, careful, and please read closely.
neil @ 8
Six months after the UN resolution is earlier than June 2003, is it not?
If the jury acquits the Libster, does this then fall under the category of ‘nullification’?
While reading the liveblogging on FDL, Dick Cheney begins to nervously stroke his cat nestled warmly on his lap.
-GSD
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
No. Bribery.
Biodun @
22
click on Amazon, buy Marcy’s book Anatomy of Deceit… it is not complicated, it is easy to read
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
I would say so. They would have to find that there is more than a speculative possibility that he really didn’t recall conversations with Grossman, Fleischer, Martin, Cheney, Bartlett, Cooper, Miller, he really had “forgotten” that he already knew about Plame’s identity. Not to mention his made up conversation with Russert, which is an outright fabrication. I would say that a reasonable jury could not reach the conclusion that Libby’s purported memory loss created reasonable doubt.
But then, I’m a card-carrying librul bitch.
litigatormom @ 23
Yes, indeed, probably around the time of the start of the invasion, or thereabouts. Sort of smears shit all over Libby’s and Cheney’s not knowing anything about Wilson’s trip and his conclusions, doesn’t it?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
If the jury bought the scapegoat defense, this would be nullification since it does not address the issue of Libby’s lying.
The memory defense would not be nullification since it is predicated on the notion that Libby never lied. He merely misremembered.
Are the children going to take home any lessons from this trial? This does not seem to be a burning issue with my high school students.
I swear this is not Ted Wells typing. Why did Libby pick the Russert conversation? It wasn’t protected although Russert tried to claim it was. If he said Judith Miller told him, she would have testified that she might have. Was it just the panic that made him concoct the stupidest cover story in the history of cover stories?
Hugh @ 30
“misremembered” I like that!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 31
Guess we can hope by the end of this trial.. a strong lesson would be learned.. one that resonates.
Ok kiddo #31 – Don’t you understand CNN when they tell us and kids that rabid astronauts in love and diapers are more important…)
bellesouth @
21
Emptywheel Vindication Day
Wherein the Libby testimony reveals what I have been arguing since September 30, 2005, that there was a conversation between Libby and Novak the week or the leak.
Wherein Libby validates the argument I’ve always given as to why Judy never wrote her Plame article (she was on probation and not writing).
And in this thread, wherein Libby admits that it was Dick and he who wrote “Joe Wilson” on the CIA reports faxed over on June 9.
All my wildarsed guesses (and not so wildarsed) coming true on one day!!
litigatormom @ 28
Where can I get one of those cards?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 35
Is that bizarre? Or what?
Jane S. @ 32
Why pick Russert:
He had to pick the conversation that preceded the Cooper conversation, but which postdated the July 8 conversation. He’s hiding two things. First, he leaked Plame’s identity before Armitage leaked it to NOvak. And two, he leaked Plame’s identity because Dick Cheney ordered him to leak it.
Cinnamonape (great name) made an extremely interesting point a few threads back.
Fitzgerald’s modus operandi when questioning Libby sometimes involves jumping around in the chronology of the events and based on connections between events that seem tenuous or non-existent.
So, one question from Fitzgerald may involve an event, and the next question may involve a preceding or following event, or an event that occurred at a wholly different time.
The idea behind this, according to cinnamonape, is that a truth-teller has an organic, whole, three dimensional understanding of the events as they actually occurred and the chronology thereof.
For a truth-teller, it is not too difficult to jump around chronologically and thematically in the story they are telling.
For a liar, not so much.
Even the best constructed lie is more difficult to remember and reconstruct than the true sequence of events. Especially, when each question is directed from a different chronological or thematic angle.
I am reminded of a scene in Reservoir Dogs, where the undercover agent explains how he makes a false vignette (about almost getting busted by police in a restroom when he had contraband) seem convincing – he tells it to himself so many times, and with such conviction, that he is almost reliving it, and he comes to almost believe that the story is true.
I wonder if Libby did something like this in preparing for trial.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 38
All’s fair in love and diapers.
emptywheel @ 36
Happy EVD!
Which leads me to ask . . . I’ve got this little pension investment account that I’d like to grow into a big pension investment account. Got any guesses (wildarsed or otherwise) as to where I might want to invest it?
;)
Jane S. @ 32
Because Libby was used to Timmeh acting as a useful tool.
My emphasis, quoting from what Swopa posted:
F: Did you review these documents around when you were told by the VP, June 12 or so, that the ambassador’s wife worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA?
L: I think so.
F: And this was around the time you were interviewed by Pincus?
L: Yes.
F: Did you mention to Pincus that the envoy’s wife worked for the CIA?
L: No.
F: Did you understand that you were legally prohibited from doing so?
L: No.
How does he explain his lack of awareness of the legal prohibition to which Fitz referred?
Anyone see the evidence of a cover-up conspiracy brought out by Libby’s GJ testimony today (assuming, as I do, that Tim Russert never told Libby about Valerie Wilson)?
Libby testified under oath in March, 2004 that he told Karl Rove on July 11, 2003 about a cover story lie that Libby undoubtedly didn’t concoct until fall, 2003. Meaning, for starters I presume, that Libby was quite confident that Karl Rove would testify to the same cover story lie (as leaks to the media seem to indicate that Rove may in fact have done) about a piece of classified intelligence that was never actually conveyed in said 7/03 Russert conversation, in order to back Libby up and to support Libby’s cover story rather than to help repudiate it.
In short, Libby and Rove (if Rove in fact also testifed that Libby told him on 7/11/03 that Russert told Libby about Valerie Wilson that day) conspired in fall, 2003 to hide the government source(s) of their knowledge about CIA Officer Valerie Wilson, by trying to source their knowledge to reporters and by conspiring to concoct and then uphold under oath their respective cover stories that they both knew were false.
[I also noted the “offhand” wording in Libby’s description of how Cheney allegedly conveyed the information about Valerie Wilson to him in mid-June, 2003. That makes at least three “offhand” descriptions in this saga: used to describe how Armitage supposedly ‘in an offhanded manner’ relayed that classified information to both Woodward and Novak (a month apart), in addition to how Cheney supposedly relayed the classified information about a CIA Officer in the Directorate of Operations to Scooter Libby in mid-June.]
The bigger story here is that the President knew. Libby has become small potato’s at this point.
Scooter Libby trial crossword puzzle – (medium hard version)
EW @ 36 — Very Cool, very cool!
Also, Froomkin is up and has a very tasty treat at the end — Kristof’s op-ed today:
CNN is much more bizarre to me on this day of Irvings trial and Waxmans hearings than the mental health of the astronaut.
Sorry for the brief OT.
Jane S. @ 32
Who knows? Why did these guys lie us into an unnecessary war? We may be seeking rational explanations where there aren’t any.
This said, Cathie Martin did say that Russert was viewed as Cheney’s main
shillman and Scooter may have thought ascribing a conversation to him was the easiest and most authoritative way to go, secure in the knowledge that Russert like all the other reporters would refuse to divulge their side of the story by invoking privilege.EW, got my book, working through it. Very easy read. Lovely writing style – very straight forward.
Will have to take notes as I work my way through it.
*xyz @ 40
Thus, the lawyer’s advice to his client: “Tell the truth, it’s easier to remember.”
emptywheel @ 39
Thanks for this. I forget that there is a paper trail on the calls so he has to mind the dates. And congrats on EWVD, I got my copy of your book in the mail today (2 copies actually, one goes to my Mom) and I feel vindicated that what I read is unlikely to be contradicted by what comes out in this trial. I’ve been reading you for a long time but I’m looking forward to seeing it all put together and I hope easy for a lesser brain like myself to follow!!!
Stephen @ 44- YEAH MAN!!!! Thats what I thought, what you don’t know the parameters of your job responsibilities (SPell CHeck) How did he get this job anyway????
I Peterr @ 42
I swear on a stack of bibles that one day when I was flipping channels and I landed on Fox News, there was someone there talking about stocks and actually promoting people to buy Halliburton.
Phoenix Woman…
“All’s fair in love and diapers.” Now that’s funny. This appeals to my rather twisted sense of humor. ;0)
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!
I dare you to call Woodward to the stand, you lying sack of shit!!! How can Judy have been the first reporter, unless you leaked it to her on June 23, since you leaked it to Woodward on June 27!?!?!?!? In which case, this big hush hush exclusive leak had nothing to do with the NIE!
Jane S. @
32
Libby created a false story he thought would never be questioned in court. He thought the reporters would all cover for him and refuse to testify. Fitzgerald did not take no for an answer. Judith Miller went to jail and still testified.
Fitzmas @ 46
Correct.
A “yes” answer would have been an outright confession of committing a crime.
But an outright denial opens the door to perjury charges, if it can be proven Libby was aware that he outing an agent and doing so was illegal.
This may be another “money line” for the prosecution. It is surely a lie.
Pat_AlexVA @ 50
Credit for the easy read, if you find it to be so, goes to my editor, Safir Ahmed. But thanks for the kind words!!
halobeam @ 34
they’ll get the bill later for this whole mess, best not to think about it at the moment! thanks kid, old sport!
njr @ 57
I know this but the Russert call was in Libby’s lawyer’s parlance “a consumer complaint”, hard to claim that the first amendment protects those kind of calls. EW has some good analysis above.
I’m curious about Libby’s GJ testimony. Is it audio and video, or just audio? Any idea if those files have yet been delivered to the AP?
Thanks for all the hard work FDL crew!
> F: Did you mention to Pincus that
> the envoy’s wife worked for the CIA?
> L: No.
> F: Did you understand that you were legally
> prohibited from doing so?
> L: No.
A five-year-old would know not to tell anyone his parent worked for the CIA whether or not she was covert. But the Chief of Staff for the Vice-President of the United States claims he didn’t know that or couldn’t figure it out from first principles?
Cranky
I am imagining EW rolling all over the floor. EW, I would die for you to be in the media room right now.
emptywheel @ 56
Ha! Woodhead might be a good prosecution witness!! “I, not that little twerp Judy Miller, am the first reporter to whom Libby leaked information! I, Bob Woodhead, investigative reporter extraordinaire!”
By the way, am I the only one who spit coffee on the monitor when s/he read Scooter’s description of a hotel as a more “off the record atmosphere” in which to meet Judy Judy Judy?
In other news, was any
Fitzmas @ 46
Absolutely. All that talk about Bush not knowing anything about this, it’s a big administration with alot of senior officials and anyone involved will be fired, blah, blah, blah – all lies.
Just impeach him already.
From Last Thread:
OK Kiddo: re: doctors operating on their own children. I have experience with doctors treating family members: BAD IDEA! My father in law is a pediatrician, and probably a very good one. He thinks he can diagnose his family better than anyone else. He has in fact discovered serious “problems” in each of my kids that no one realizes, e.g. one kid doesn’t hear well, one should be walking sooner, etc. The reason that no one else has discovered the problems is that they do not exist. He is simply too close to his own grandchildren to be objective.
The same goes for lawyers representing themselves.
As for the general “lawyers are bad” point, this sounds an awful lot like the talking points the chamber of commerce, grover norquist and other right wing cronies have pushed for at least a decade to advance their agenda of obtaining exemptions for corporations from ponying up when they screw up and hurt some one (physically or financially). (Demonizing lawsuits is also a time-honored tactic of rulers and politicians seeking to take away peoples’ rights.)
I do not know much about the British legal system, but I know they have lawyers, just like us.
And I think the U.S. system, while not ideal, works reasonably well, in part because the adversary system ensures (hopefully) that the government can not just decide who should be locked up, without giving the defendant a fair chance to rebut. That bothers people when the defendant appears to be clearly guilty, but it’s better to make it harder to convict the guilty than to make it easy to convict the innocent.
And I know that people do better in lawsuits when they have lawyers
F: Not big on email, are you?
L: Not in this job. I was in my prior job.
Handy, that.
BTW, I hope the jury picks up on something from Libby’s GJ testimony (from part three). Fitz asks: Were you pleased to know a story was coming out on Wilson’s background that weekend or so?
Libby responds: More concerned with Tenet statement, glad it was finally coming out but concerned it would miss Friday evening TV news and get lost in Saturday papers. Felt like CIA rebuttal on facts was more effective way to answer Wilson charges.
Cathie Martin helpfully explained to us (and to the jury) about the Friday news dump being intended to hide stories… here, Scooter was concerned it would miss the Friday news, when OVP was urging Tenet to fall on his sword for Cheney? Hmm.
Phoenix Woman @ 41
Yeah, but THIS story has leak-guard protection.
No shit.
Yup. The Post bugs.
zig alert!
ANother OT but your favorite independent Senator story: Via Raw Story/Reuters
Reuters) – Sen. Joseph Lieberman said on Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.
….
“I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax,” the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. “I mean people keep saying we’re not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it.”
Such a genuis.
Fitz: Did you understand that you were prhibited from doing that?
Libby: No
(Did you tell her that she was no longer undercover? Did the pres. inform her that she was no longer undercover? Well then, how can you say her position was declassified and not inform the agent?
Libby: Have you ever worked for Dick Cheney?
The Congress has full power to stop funding for a possible Bush attack on Iran. Stop him from launching on Iran, Congress.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 58
Oy, from your lips to God’s ears…
AZ Matt- Waht a moron!! During WW II there were taxes imposed on luxury items such as lipstick, make up, after shave lotion, etc. , But they didn’t call it an anti-nazi tax!!!
Paaahhhleeezee Joe, go away, you’re never going to be anything other than what you are now… a backstabbing lying loser. You’re pathetic, Joe.
Am I missing something or is it quite odd that Judy Miller–on probation from her paper and unable to write a story–wouldn’t let Scooter know at some point that she is actually a pretty lousy person to be leaking to?
I guess she just like it when Scooter
pripicked her.Biodun @
22
Thanks muchly! How was Sawatdee?
froggermarch @
79
Apparently Libby didn’t notice when Raines got canned and everyone and their mother were questioning Judy’s Iraq reporting.
He only notices, you see, when the press criticizes him. Not when they fellate him.
froggermarch @
79
Betcha Cathie Martin, the *actual* press person in OVP, knew that.
emptywheel @
56
So good, it had to be repeated.
njr @
57
Yes, this is all part of Libby’s “beautiful lie” on par with the intricate plot of John LeCarre’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”. Russert would not have had access to the GJ testimony about what Libby had said. Russert would always be thinking that Libby was innocent of leaking Plame’s name because he hadn’t done it in their conversation. Russert would want to defend reporter’s confidentiality about an administration official simply complaining about a network broadcast, thus insuring that his MTP would not be blacklisted by administration officials in the future. If only Ashcroft had not recused himself, the lie would have worked beautifully.
merciless @
10
You’re being kinder than I was. I was thinking along the lines of helping him remember where his (bleep) was.
Good Grief, no wonder we’re in trouble … none of our politicians can rememmber a damn thing!
What is bothering me (enormously) is that there needs to be more indictments after this trial. If finding Libby guilty of perjury etc. is the only result of all this, then I will be devastated. I need to have others indicted for revealing Plame’s name to feel that there is justice. So, what do you think? It seems Rove will not be indicted. Will anyone else? Finding L guilty will in NO WAY satisfy my need to believe that there is justice in this country. This administration has done such harm to our country and they keep getting away with it. I NEED to have someone STOP them.
Phoenix Woman @ 80:
Lunch at Sawatdee was lovely. Besides the food, johnSwifty, John Forde, and I had a grand old tme. We’re all self-employed, so we spent some time talking about FDL and all the interesting handles. KathieinMN wanted to join us but had to teach all day.
We’ll all (including Balrog and Puppethead) find a convenient time to meet frequently to organize and get Norm Coleman out of the Senate in 2008.
Do you live in Phoenix?
As e go into the relationship w/ scooter and judy- I can’t help but think that we are going to the Penthouse Forum part of the trial
Libby: I come from a small town down south and after attending a private boys school, I’ve never had anything like this happen to me before, but I gotta tell you…”
Re Solai #86 — Just as we were all SO devastated that Fitz just came out with this one indictment of Scootster. There HAVE to be other shoes to drop… there just HAVE to…
Off-topic Drive by …
Tonight we are presenting a very special Masterpiece Theatre
Oklahomas kiddo 43 asks
No, they will not, unless they understand that the trial is about the lengths to which this Administration which manipulated us into fighting a war they will be paying with their own sweat and blood for a very long time.
(staring at clock, waiting to refresh – a THUD at the door. could it be?? yes!! my books are here! one copy for me, one copy to donate to the los angeles public library. thanks EW for your wonderful work.)
(reading my book, waiting to refresh…)
I want my party (Dems) to stop George Bush from attacking Iran. Do something, Democrats.
Twenty six down is a toughy – eleven letters?
26. synonymous w/ liveblogging
Scooter Libby trial crossword puzzle. ;)
Is it just me or don’t we all wish that we could be the peers on the jury that he has to face?
Iran. Now’s your chance Senator Clinton to win this heart. Do something.
Ditto Oklahoma kiddo, I called my Congresswoman today and made an appeal. Bring my beautiful soldiers home Now!
Here’s what I was referring to in Gabbly
emptywheel @
9
Let me see, on the one hand Marcy et al are making journalism history, on the other, Marcy is seeing her predictions come home to roost, one after another.
making history, or EWVDay? How about both!?
Went through as much GJ non-transcription as I could over lunch.
Keep up the good work, everyone.
rosalind @ 92
Good for you!!! I donate all of my books to the library when I’m done with them, mostly because they don’t purchase left leaning books, and I believe it is my duty to inform the “Other Masses”
Oooooooh — A “packet of articles” showing Libby’s obssession with media reports about Wilson. Can anyone say LATimes article — man, I hope so, because I have been waiting to see if this was a fluke report or something they had more on but just haven’t followed up in terms of reporting…
emptywheel @ 81
I suspect that the OVP’s office was quite pleased with Judy’s foot-stamping petulance and her threatening of various generals (”if you don’t go out and find some WMDs, right now!, I’m going to complain to Donny Rummy!”), and they fully expected her to ram through their story on her own initiative–just as she had always done.
Otherwise, why else would there have been two meetings between Scooter and Blooper, two weeks apart? (Leaving aside the implication, for which there is no evidence, that there might be something untoward going on for two hours at the St. Regis.)
It’s possible that Miller thought she was just trying to cultivate a source to which she’d previously had only marginal access–since Libby didn’t talk to the press much before–but, that doesn’t explain why Libby was going back to her reiterating the WH version of the Wilson trip (there were two instances, at different times, of Miller getting Plame’s name wrong, so it’s apparent there was more than one attempt to get her onto the story).
Wonder if Michael Gordon was getting calls from Judy, Judy, Judy, saying, “geez, you just gotta print this….”
So much we still don’t know.
Hmmmm…
F: How well did you know Judith Miller?
L: Had only met her once before July 8th. (repeats answer from previous testimony about
F: When did you meet her before? May, June?
L: It would be on my schedule.
Caught in another lie Scooter. Caught on audio. Scooter, you need to check your schedule according to the gov’t exhibit:
SCOOTER LIBBYS SCHEDULE
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 205
MONDAY JUNE 232003
300PM MEETING WITH JUDITH MILIER
30 MINUTES
LOCATION YOUR OFFICE EEOB
Sorry, Scooter…Busted!
Swopa
Yes, yes, I’m out here, and I figure even though it looks like not all the elements of your 1×2×6 theory are going to come together – it seems very unlikely at this point that 1 overheard or witnessed 2 making phone calls to 6 from AF1 – I express due admiration for how many elements of your theory have been borne out. And yes, I got the reference to DOJ regulations that would lead Fitzgerald not to pursue Gregory since Fleischer could not be charged with a crime for it.
But my question is: did Fitzegerald say he may not have the DoJ witness testify, or he may not have Russert testify?
I’m devastated, by the way, that we’re not going to get the grand jury tapes and transcripts this evening.
They almost always start out saying that, then, as the arguments go on, or they think about it more, it gets in. I’m not saying the judge isn’t giving serious thought to both sides arguments, I’m sure he is, it’s just that in the end, the scales always tip to the prosecution, and it gets in. Anyone want to bet?
Is valuable time being wasted with this ‘non-binding’ business? Is this PR?
Just mailed snailmail my contribution with the “.07″ at the end. Wish I could have afforded to send a thousand bucks.
BWAH!
Rat, believe me, kindness is not one of my virtues. But reading his testimony, I was struck by how much it sounded like something I would say. That is, “Do you remember a conversation you had with someone two years ago?” I’d be hopeless, but I really do have a terrible memory, and I don’t have any sort of security clearance.
In my fantasies, I’m CJ Cregg. In reality, I’m more like Mrs. Magoo. But I don’t have Scooter’s job.
new thread
itwasntme at 107 — Thank you so much. We promise to put it to good use — and however much it was, it was very much appreciated. :)
GSD @ 25
I LOVE the kitlers!
Biodun @
87
I was emailing John Forde. We grew up a half a mile from each other and went to the same Elementary school as our newest Senator, Amy Klobuchar. Talk about six degrees.
We’ll definitely have to organize an evening get together for, “Normy-Be-Gone,” rallies and what not. Mpls seems to be pretty well represented in the world of flaming liberal thinkers!
poor scooter. he seems to be able to handle lying really, really well. he is so tired and sees soooo much, but he has a photographic memory and was working as chief tribal witch doctor in the hunt for competitors. but he forgot that because he is soooo tired and has so much to do
when fitz puts the bare facts out to the jury, the ramblings of the defense are going to look good only to rubes
O-K @ 97..I Think it’s too late for Hillary and Iran. She gave a dog-whistle talk to A*PAC. Blah..blah..threat to Israel and USA..blah..blah..nothing off the table (I’ll nukle them if you want me to)
I apologize. I know this has been covered before, but I didn’t have the money then. When I try to donate via my credit card, it keeps taking me to Paypal which I don’t want to use. Any suggestions?
Otherwise, it is snailmail from NZ.
dabpa:
Well barristers and solicitors (and they wear wigs and robes in court).
Hugh @ 49
That’s as good a theory as any for why he chose to pin it on Russert. THe bottom line for me is that it didn’t much matter which trusted court stenographer he chose, as I believe that the (mis)calculation behind the cover-up was the assumption that there was no way in hell reporters were going to testify: everyone knows that news organizations will fight such subpoenas and for that reason, the conspirators assumed that no prosecutor would subpoena them (cue Nelson Muntz Haw-ha!) and that if that did happen, the reporters would win (cue double Muntz) and that if that happened, the reporters would play ball (cue triple Muntz). That was not quite the harebrained set of assumptions that it now appears to be in hindsight. The general received folk wisdom here in Washington — supported by experience — is that in these politically charged cases especially prosecutors just won’t chase down reporters, either because of the pure pain in the ass involved or because of the sensitive (high-minded) First-Amendment and (low-minded) government-press symbiosis issues involved.
NZExpat at 116 — I am by no means an expert, but I think you have to put an amount in first, and then scroll to the very bottom where it says it will take a credit card payment and click thru from there. But I’m not positive — so perhaps someone who has actually done this can confirm for you. Try the next thread up of Peterr’s and see if someone might know there.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 101
From the link; bears repeating!
“Sure, creating this public perception of Libby as obsessed, nutball, loyal staffer might be useful to some others under scrutiny, but is this the strategy that the WH has come up with to distance the Preznit from all of this? “The people who work for me are unstable. It’s not my fault.”
So that insistent June 11 phone call from Libby to Grenier at the CIA, the one that pulls Grenier out of a 4:15 p.m. meeting with George Tenet?
Kinda looks like Ahmed Chalabi is sitting across the desk from Libby as Libby makes the call.
kristinejoy @
69
yea, that jumped out at me, too. Like the “landline” comment.
my spidey sense says there’s something there
Garrett @
121
Aha! That was something I was going to go back and do–match the phone times to the schedules. Nice catch. Scary nice catch.
emptywheel @ 123
Doublecheck the doc–the schedule seems to be based on boilerplate issued by his assistant, and was not prepared by Libby (note the to-be-determined remarks, and “your office” notations).
If the call was initiated at 4:15 PM, Chalabi is not scheduled until 4:30 PM, and if the schedule was prepared in advance, may not have been there at all.
Although, it would be fun if he were….
Garrett says:
So that insistent June 11 phone call from Libby to Grenier at the CIA, the one that pulls Grenier out of a 4:15 p.m. meeting with George Tenet?
Kinda looks like Ahmed Chalabi is sitting across the desk from Libby as Libby makes the call.
Wow – I bet Chalabi was there, waiting for their 4:30 pm appt.
For those not familiar, Chalabi was a key link in the chain of false intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program.
stingray @ 125
And he also had Judy Judy Judy’s steno pad. Dang the whole place is like some weird soap-opera.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but there’s a new column out by Eric Boehlert on Media Matters concerning the Libby trial and he quotes from our very own Marcy Wheeler and her book, Anatomy of Deceit. Congrats Marcy!
Check it out: Scooter Libby and the media debacle
Excerpt from
http://www.iht.com/articles/20…..halabi.php
A New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was one of Chalabi’s primary conduits; in an e-mail message sent in 2003 that has been widely quoted since, she wrote that Chalabi “has provided most of the front-page exclusives on W.M.D. to our paper” and that the Army unit she was then traveling with was “using Chalabi’s intell and document network for its own W.M.D. work.”
More from http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/03/a frica/web.1103chalabi.php
David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, offers one of the most compelling explanations for how pivotal Chalabi’s role was in taking America to war. Kay said that while the C.I.A. had long regarded Chalabi with suspicion, disregarding much of what he gave them, Chalabi had succeeded in persuading his more powerful friends in other parts of the government – Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance
This is the worst timing possible for me to have a spontaneous busy stretch at work. …it’s killin’ me to me miss all of this great conversation in real time.
In playing catch-up, I’m not sure if this has been mentioned lately. Has the subject of Ashcroft’s regular updates to Rove been an issue yet?
from Aug 2005 By Waas
Stingray @ 129 – The legen of Team B lives on.
montaq (124) — ah. I note the top of the schedule says “Draft 2″.
But I also note that Libby had a meeting earlier in the day with one of the neo-cons of the Vulcan group — former Ambassador Blackwill. Was named a Deputy Natl Security Advisor in 2003, not certain when.
Christy Hardin Smith @101 says:
Oooooooh — A “packet of articles” showing Libby’s obssession with media reports about Wilson. Can anyone say LATimes article — man, I hope so, because I have been waiting to see if this was a fluke report or something they had more on but just haven’t followed up in terms of reporting…
You’re right, any background to that “obsession” article would appear to be highly prejudicial wrt his state of mind. Hard to argue the “too busy to be concerned with Wilson, kept forgetting all about him” line, when he’s put in this light.
Geez – I wonder who the source was for all that?
I absolutely love reading the coverage of the Libby trial by firedoglake. But it strikes me that while we are focused on events of the past-this administraion has it eyes on the future. Look to Iran, rumors abound in DC these days about the impending storm on Iraq’s western horizon and the defenses that Iran has erected within our border to secure itself from a nuclear strike. It is frightening if true, and who knows? This Congress will not impeach Bush, he remains free as will Libby, if convicted-will be pardoned by Bush. While I think your coverage of this trial is important I wish someone else would keep critical eyes focused on the next Iraq like debacle about to unfold. An attack on Iran seems almost inevitable the way this war in Iran felt during the build up. And an attack would feed so seemlessly into the Bush family commitment to the house of Saud, and to the mistaken belief they hold control of the flow of oil and its revenues. A Bush-sunni controlled middle east is their dream, and why not? I hope my fears are unfounded-but I think this Libby trial is now being used by the Bush administration as a huge diversion of the left blogosphere, while they plot the next catastrophe.
montag @
124
Actually Scooter called Grenier at 13:15 according to the call slip
Garrett @
121
Well even more interesting is that Libby makes his first effort to call Grenier when he’s in a meeting with Cheney!
http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..X70101.pdf
cinnamonape @ 134Garrett @
121
Well even more interesting is that Libby makes his first effort to call Grenier when he’s in a meeting with Cheney!
http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..X70101.pdf
Anyone recall what Cathie Martin said about this meeting? Wasn’t it the one where she said that Cheney and Libby were freaking out about the Kristof article!
stillonmt @ 5
Land lines are more secure. He used a cell phone meeting Miller. They were subject to a roving wiretap. Do not think Ahmed Chalabi did not use this on Miller every chance he got.
Any disclosures to Miller at this time totally compromised our Intelligence Community. Any conversation had in the proximity of a cell phone(in use or not) was a danger.
dqueue @ 70
The OVP ran its media with the help of Russert.
Look to see if Tenet’s words are part of MTP topics that same weekend.
That is what Libby had in mind-get the story out in front of Russert just enough to let him shape it on the mTp wrap-up.
The WINPAC reference accomplishes 3 things.
1)Plausible context, a half lie instead of a whole lie, goes along with a “misquoted/misremembered” line of defense.
2)A shot across the bow, as Amb. Wilson notes, to anyone else that would think of whistleblowing.
3)As intimidation to standing people in WINPAC who were trying to resist the John Bolton Stovepipe.
As for Plame’s outing, it affected the ability to track peak oil and petroleum price fixing, it helped Cheney get out from under scrutiny regarding oil for food graft(one of the biggest profiteers lived in Houston). It also helped the Sauds because this could hide their peak numbers, when Oil for Food shipments probably arrived at their Indian Ocean end of the Trans Arabian Pipeline, due for Euro and American Med/Atlantic trade after departure from the oil refineries/Saud TSP destination of southern Lebanon.
It was more than just CPD. It was the OPEC putsch west, to South America. Hooking up cartels and oil barons to run puppet gov’t in our Southern hemisphere, against persons like Chavez and the new emerging left in Central/South America.
Plame’s outing was an artery clearing for Cheney. It took out any back channel resistance to the fascistas in foreign business avenues.
Colin Powell was in South America on 9-11, visiting OPEC members of South America’s states, along with the deposed King of Afghanistan.
Coincidence?