More? 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.
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.
First, the usual preliminary side issues. Walton says he will admit the October 12, 2003 Washington Post article (this one) in its entirety, overruling the defense request to redact the 1×2x6-related material (see yesterday's posts for details). Also the defense is claiming that Russert shouldn't testify tomorrow unless they get further information about what "accommodations" Fitzgerald made to allow Russert testify. The government says the affidavits in question deal with the broader investigation, and are protected under grand jury secrecy rules. (For example, a prosecutor says, the legal effort to force Russert's testimony involved "another reporter related to another part of the investigation." … Anyone out there want to track down the details?)
It's 1:49.
The Russert affidavit imbroglio bubbles on… the defense solves the mystery in the paragraph above, explaining that the other reporter was Matt Cooper. Walton seems intent on ruling in favor of Fitzgerald, but Wells suggests that maybe once he begins cross-examination the judge may want to reconsider the issue. Walton says if Russert testifies inconsistently with what the affidavits say, there's an issue — absent that, he asks, what is the rule or case law under which the defense has a right to the documents? Libby's lawyer Ted Wells insists that he thinks the documents are relevant, but doesn't answer the question about the specific legal rationale. (Is this just filibustering?)
But wait — defense attorney Bill Jeffress says that Russert's attorney will be called as a witness! Does this change things? I don't know. Walton says, let's move on to testimony.
It's 2:07.
Walton flips the switch on the wayback machine, and we're once again reliving Scooter Libby's grand jury testimony in March 2004. The questioning is about July 12, 2003, when Libby is hanging out with VP Dick Cheney in Virginia, then flying back to Washington, DC…
Fitz: And there was an outstanding request from Matt Cooper of Time magazine.
Libby: Yes, most of these calls go to Cathie Martin. But the Cooper inquiry was one she wanted to discuss.
Fitz: When you discussed this with Martin, were you in a part of Air Force Two apart from the VP?
Libby: Yes.
Fitz: And at some point you went to talk with the VP?
Libby: Yes.
Fitz: Was Martin with you?
Libby: I'm not sure. I might have been alone.
F: What did you talk to VP about?
L: Larger issue of how to draw attention to Tenet statement. Decided he wanted me to make a statement on the record, which he felt would get more attention.
F: (hunting for card with VP statement) Why not just have press officer make statement?
L: Because there were also comments to be made on background and on deep background… on deep background what was on NIE,
F: What is this crossed out?
L: Deny VP-Wilson link… did he want us to deny it on the record? We covered that point and I crossed out the line.
F: (asks L. to read full talking points)
L: (reads talking points — VP unaware of Wilson trip, NIE backs up WH story, etc.)
F: Do you know if you had talked to VP by this time about Russert conversation?
L: I don't know, it's not on my notes to talk about.
F: You remember talking to Rove, but not the VP?
L: I remember Rove conv. because of the Novak element… didn't have private time with VP.
F: Why not have Cathie Martin make call?
L: Because VP said for me to do it. Think he just wanted to make sure it was done right, with background, deep background, etc.
F: When did you make the calls?
L: Wanted a land line, so went to lounge at Andrews Air Force Base. Tried to call Cooper, Evan Thomas of Newsweek, Glenn Kessler of WaPo and tried to call Judith Miller later. Think I might have tried to call her then, everyone at once. Couldn't get hold of Kessler and Thomas right away.
F: Tell me about Cooper conversation.
L: I hadn't spoken to him before — some preliminaries, then went through talking points.
F: Tell me about discussing Wilson's wife.
L: After I finished talking points, Cooper continued to ask questions — if Wilson is wrong, why is he saying what he is? (explains telling Cooper about wife as something reporters have told him, maybe since she works for CIA she told Wilson something unofficially that was wrong)
F: What was Cooper's response?
L: I don't recall.
F: And you attributed your knowledge about Wilson's wife to reporters?
L: Yes. (goes into already-published excerpt from indictment about "I don't know if he has a wife," etc. I'm not retyping this.)
F: Any other reporters you talked to?
L: I talked to three other reporters that day. I talked to Judith Miller, and I know I talked to her about Wilson's wife.
F: Tell me about that conversation.
L: (walks through Tenet statement again) I don't know exactly how it came up, but I told her I didn't know if it was true, but reporters are telling us (etc., etc.) I also talked to Evan Thomas.
F: Let me finish with Judith Miller. Was there something in your conversation that made you mention Wilson's wife?
L: I think there was, I don't recall exactly what. You know, it was something important to Tim Russert, it seemed important to Matt Cooper — it seemed like this unanswered question, who told Wilson that the VP had requested his trip? He wouldn't have learned that officially, so maybe he was told unofficially (i.e., by his wife).
F: Tell me about Evan Thomas conversation.
L: Drew his attention to the Tenet statement, Thomas said "I got it." (conversation apparently stopped there, no mention of Wilson's wife)
F: And did you talk to Glenn Kessler that day?
L: We got him on a cell phone when we were driving back to my house from Andrews. Cathie Martin and Jenny Mayfield were with me, along with my family. Kessler was mostly interested in the Feb 2003 Colin Powell presentation to the UN. What I remember is that Kessler was at the zoo with his kids, and he was able to have this lucid conversation.
F: Talk about Wilson's wife?
L: I'm pretty sure I did. I'm not sure if it was in that conversation, or a later one.
F: Any more attempts to speak to Andrea Mitchell that day?
L: I don't think so.
F: What about Mark Mathews of the the Baltimore Sun?
L: I don't think I spoke to him that weekend.
F: One more name: Michael Isikoff.
L: I don't think I knew Isikoff then. Would have been duplicative since I spoke to Evan Thomas.
F: Did you ever see an advance copy of the Novak column, any indication that anyone else did?
F: What about the comment by Cheney that Wilson was sent on a "junket"?
L: Think I heard about that later, after July 14.
F: Okay, let's take a break.
L: I'd like to make one comment. I work from 6AM to 8:30 pm, so I take in a lot of information, and a lot of times I'll have to pool my staff and ask questions to get a fuller recollection. So I'm sorry if my recollection is not perfect, but this is not normally how I do things.
The grand jury adjourns for the day. Walton says it's time for the live jury to break, too.
It's 2:52. (P.S. There's a key point I left out above that I'll share in the next update.)
Okay, here's what I didn't have time to type before — Fitzgerald made sure to force Libby to retell the whole story of telling Cooper/Miller/etc. about Wilson's wife, each time. At one point (about Kessler, I think) he started to say "… you know, the same thing I told Cooper." And Fitz said, "No, don't shorten it. Tell us the whole conversation." As Jane says, Fitz would be a child's worst nightmare as a parent.
It's 3:00. Going to a new thread.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Thanks Swopa. Go Fitz!
A near Zed?
JANE! and SWOPA!
The broader investigation is nowhere near over, friends.
Fitz! Swopa! Christy! Jane!
Fitz!!!
Note to mods: all of the “Home” links do not reveal this thread (it only shows up thru the Libby GJ testimony three link).
Also, clicking the FDL logo in the upper left corner doesn’t show this thread (it shows the “Because Russ Asked You To” thread as the last one posted.
The only way I found this was from the forward links near the top of the last thread.
You might be on top of this, but I thought I’d let ya know just in case.
[Mod Note; all threads are visible to us.This is likely a cache issue with your browser. Please clear your cache. If that does does not resolve the issue, let’s meet back on the lunch thread.]
Well now, what of the people who claimed Fitzgerald had finished his investigation?
Egg, meet faces.
Pachacutec @ 8
I never thought he was done. Bring. It. On. FITZ!
FireDogLake Live Blog “Rules of the Road” – help us all share the road during Live Blogging! (Thanks to Peterr for drafting these!)
Don’t forget that Firedoglake is self-sustaining; give any amount at links provided at the end of the thread.
And now, take it away, Swopa and the hostesses with the mostesses, Jane and Christy!!
Interested Observer @ 4
I’ll bet that little tidbit has got some people shaking in their boots!!!
Land – our mods took care of that.
“broader investigation”
me likey
PS to Christy/Mods: I tried a full refresh at the homepage – still getting the same results.
Back to the trial: I’m very curious to see how both Fitz and the defense handle the 1×2×6 article being introduced as evidence. It seems to be a hot potato – people indicated that Fitz might not want to talk about it in detail because it may tip off the defense on investigations underway.
Yes, Swopa, we readers are back. :) And thanks for the fabulous live blogging.
Anyone wish to comment on the identity of “Interested Observer?”
Crazy Horse @ 16
Funny, I was wondering that myself.
And where has Ghostman been lately? (If you’re reading, Hi!)
GOOOOOOOO Fitz!
Still investigating these crooked MFrs.
Bwaaaahhhaaaahhaaa. Lawyer up, Dick.
RH, you’ve got mail. Enjoy! Back to work now.
Having a broader investigation is prejudicial. /watb
-
I too am in the media room at the Prettyman court and am liveblogging this from my little, minor blog. Just for today.
On declassification.
1. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere since the beginning of the Plame affair that there are specific procedures in order to declassify a CIA agent. Paperwork, probably committee/director approval, informing the agent involved etc.
2. If Plame were declassified, it never would’ve been submitted to the FBI for a criminal investigation.
3. I think Cheney was blowing smoke up Libby’s ass, or Libby just outright lying again.
-Safi
Interested Observer @
4
Delicious good news!
safi@22- The pres. CANNOT declassify info. without going thru the proper channels, procedures. However that lunatic Addington believes that his interpretation of the constitution say he can. It’s like saying “Horses can’t fly” “Oh yeah well that’s your opinion.” Utterly ridiculous argument.
Interested Observer @ 4
I’m a relative newbie in these parts, but I’d like to extend the warmest welcome to the Lake.
In the meantime, thank you for the belated Christmas present!
-S
Safi — Cheney didn’t “own” Plame’s classification. Not certain that either Cheney or Dubya “owned” the content that was classified in NIE, either. Neither of them can simply declare something declassified if they don’t “own” it.
But that’s another compartmentalized investigation within the investigation, I’m sure.
Interesting yet again to see so many folks from *.edu domains visiting today, and a few *.gov domains, including state and feds. Also amusing to see the Chicago Trib in here last night, too.
Thanks Swopa, Jane, Christy & Pach for the continuing coverage.
I’ve been playing a very bad game of catch-up for the last 2 days, but the blogging is outstanding (as usual).
WAG about secret reporter involved in Russert affy: Tweety.
We know that Tweety has been interviewed by the GJ. Plus he could corroborate Russert’s story, IF Russert had called him after talking with Libby. And Tweety has gone on record before saying that he was willing to cooperate with the prosecution.
Mandos @ 21
Hey, thanks. Always nice to get another perspective. Cool blog.
great stuff
will the transcript and/or audio tapes of this trial be made public?
will fitz be involved in the appeals?
Can they do that? Aren’t attny-client conversations privileged????? (& what of Luskin, one wonders…)
This is awesome. Thank you both for being there and all your efforts. I’m all for paying in support of your endeavors!
So, Russert is going to be called as a prosecution witness, and Russert’s lawyer will be called as a defense witness?
Whiplash hurts.
Tap Duncan @
24
Except that the Bush Administration is up there in the helicopter, pushing the horses out the door.
LandOfTheFree @ 33
Whiplash? I feel like I’ve got Exorcist syndrome with all the head spinning I feel like I’m doing.
OT My letter to Obama
I am writing to urge you to back a binding resolution rejecting Bush’s escalation in Iraq. 4 years of failure that have seen Iraq descend into chaos are enough. Bush has lost Iraq. Another last ditch effort will do nothing except kill more Americans and Iraqis needlessly. There is no mission. I am not sure there ever was one.
Senators Hagel and Warner have already bailed on their “bipartisan” compromises by backing a filibuster. When it comes to a choice between their party and the country, they have shown which is the more important to them.
I ask that you just say no to them, to Bush, to this war. Appropriation bills are coming up and I urge you to attach binding amendments to them to stop the escalation and begin the process of our withdrawal from Iraq. We need to start thinking about managing the aftermath rather than denying it and hoping it will go away.
Mandos @
21
(*craning neck around*)
How can they call Russert’s attorney as a witness?
Mandos @
21
Say “Hi.” I’m the one in the pink shirt and Swopa is the handsome devil sitting on my right.
Rayne @ 26
The theory of the President being able to declassify is that either the person who originally classified the info or his/her SUPERVISOR may declassify, and the president is the supervisor of anyone in the Executive Branch. I find that a bit shaky, and the case that Addington identified in his testimony doesn’t really speak to declassification — it only speaks to the president’s authority to decide whether certain employees in the Executive Branch may be given access to classified information.
I think confirmation that there is a broader investigation still ongoing is a fabulous way of celebrating Emptywheel Vindication Day.
Frank Probst @ 38
I know! This is getting weirder by the minute.
Rayne @ 10 –
Thanks for the constant re-posting. I’ve been in and out of things here this week, but I’m glad you and others have passed them along as helpful hints to keep things rolling smoothly.
Beth @ 34- It reminds me of a ‘wkrp in cincinnatti’ episode where they throw turkeys out of a helicopter for Thanksgiving, not knowing that turkeys can’t fly!!
Frank Probst @ 38
Russert’s attorney could be called to testify about conversations he had with the government, or with Libby’s attorneys — anything that doesn’t involve a privileged conversation between Russert and the attorney. Otherwise, Russert would have to give the attorney permission to testify by waiving the privilege.
broader investigation
REG-U-LAR grand juries have a term of 18 months, with extension to 24 if necessary. The new grand jury was seated just after Fitzy’s press conference 9 28 05, so their term will be up at the end of March. We’ll know for sure if there is a broader investigation if Fitzy extends this one too. (?)
Do I have that right? IANAL.
Pachacutec @
8
Yes, and no. If the other investigations were complete, the rules on grand jury secrecy would still apply (protecting the innocent from undue speculation, etc.). So, the issue could still be one of inapplicability to the current proceedings.
Fitzgerald, as a matter of course, doesn’t want Wells and Jeffress rummaging through the grand jury’s sock drawer looking for anything and everything.
That said, when Fitzgerald says his investigation is over and he steps down from the Special Counsel position is when we’ll know for sure.
Interested Observer @ 4
Hi, just stopped by to read the trial updates. Thank you to the reporters – this is the best coverage I’ve seen.
It may be proved that Libby is lying re Russert – it sure isn’t going well for him. But Wilson was surely lying to reporters and in his op-ed.
Wilson reported that he had found no evidence of a uranium purchase, but not being a spook himself, he either didn’t appreciate the significance of his findings, or was deliberately obtuse. His verbal report re trade talks led the real spooks (CI A’s) to believe that Saddam was indeed trying to get uranium. It was Wilson’s CIA debriefers who found that his report bolstered other reports that Iraq was seeking uranium.
Please note seeking vs purchase.
Wilson also lied to Pincus, telling him he had debunked the forgeries that were not even in CIA’s possession until month’s after Wilson’s junket. Wilson says he “misspoke.”
I believe the Adm. was trying to get the correct info out. They screwed it all up by not just addressing it directly after the info was declassified. By that time, Wilson and friends had already spread the false story about punishing him by outing his wife.
Of course they were trying to discredit Wilson – his was wrong and he was lying.
Could Wilson’s be the target of a broader investigation?
Talking about Libby’s notes now. Wish emptywheel was here.
so fitz has access to the sitting GJ to present evidence or ask for charges in any ongoing investigation?
Take a look at Mandos’ blog, he just stopped by to say “hi.” He’s live blogging here too from the courthouse.
BTW, Swopa is a typing fiend.
o/t Hugh @ 36, saw this at Kos.
why are trolls always link-free?
litigatormom @ 44
And Russert would waive that privilege with his attorney because… hmmm, I can’t think of why he would. His ass is already in bad enough shape thanks to this trial. Why would he want to remove his legal protections, allow his lawyer to possibly testify in contradiction to his own testimony, and possibly open himself up for even more media scrutiny and snickering?
Could this be the “secret witness” that has been alluded to?
Seems like a big stretch for the defense to me. Trying to make a distraction from the testimony of Russert, which could pretty well seal up the prosecution’s case. This “Hail Mary Pass” ain’t gonna work, unless Russert is stupid and his attorney will rebut his testimony.
> Could Wilson’s be the target of a broader
> investigation?
Wow – I haven’t heard this one since the day before the Libby indictment. Is the Radical Counter-Blogging Project really getting that desperate?
Cranky
I agree with much of what has been said above. The President has broad powers to classify and declassify. His decision, however, only begins a process that ends in one or the other of these. Classification is easier since it requires only notification of the owners of the information. Declassification on the other hand requires that the originators of the classified information assess it and notify the declassifiers of any poetential problems the declassification may present. These assessments and notifications take time.
It is both a gross oversimplification and misleading on the part of Addington, Cheney, and the Bush Administration that they somehow can wave a magic wand and hey! presto something is declassified. It’s not but they would like you to think that it is, that it is this easy, and that they can and have done it this way.
Jane Hamsher @ 52
If you had any doubts about Jane, let’s make it official: Sheeeeee’s baaaaack!
“broader investigation” has a nice ring to it.
Hey everyone go check out Mandos’ Blog, it’s pretty cool!! For those who might not know, click on his name…
JudeanPeople’sFront @ 49
I don’t know. I remember the papers commenting on the new GJ at the time, and reading something (here?) about Fitzy’s team walking in and bringing the new GJ up to speed, but now I’m not so sure about *my* memory. I’m hoping somebody will step in and clarify. I don’t want my bad thoughts to turn into rumors.
Jane Hamsher @ 52
But are they wrinkle free? Time to iron them away.
Jane Hamsher @ 52
But not lint free.
litigator mom at 40
First off, let’s just be clear that this is retroactive bullshit. It’s clear than Cheney was directing these leaks long before anybody ever talked to the president.
But there’s bigger issue here. There is no way that the president or vice president or any WH staff member has a need to know on the identity of a particular covert agent, except under very special circumstances, like being accused of spying by another country.
Security is not just a question of clearances and authority. It’s a question of compartmentalization. If this administration (and it is not unique in this regard) actually took security processes seriously, this case could never have happened.
why are trolls always link-free?
LOL. Link-free, Truth-free. Pretty much the same thing.
JPF at 49 — Yes, Fitz has been using the regular Grand Jury all along, not a special G/J, and they sit every week in the federal courthouse to hear evidence. He can use them to do more investigative work along with every other federal prosecutor in that particular jurisdiction.
Cranky Observer @
54
Right up there with Valerie Plame outing herself to discredit Cheney and Bush.
This is about the last place that little stinkbomb would have any effect. :) Makes me wonder why they’d bother. Oh, yeah, they don’t know any better…. :)
“Lint free, or die” – isn’t that a state motto?
litigatormom @ 44
Russert (a lawyer). Attorneys with attorneys. Geesh. And I am appraised of all the arguments about lawyers representing themselves. I mean don’t some carpenters actually build themselves fine houses? Give me a break. Why does Tim need a mouth piece? Perhaps he’s just a stupid lawyer and a dumb talking head to boot. I dunno. Perhaps I am just being naive. Maybe I need to consult a lawyer to tell me how I should think. And talk. And write.
punaise @ 66
No, it is static motto!
Interested observer needs to check into “the best coverage he has seen” and do more reading, doesn’t he??? I don’t understand why people like to stand in dark closets…do they fear that the truth, like sunlight will kill them?? Read more, my friend, about the niger forgeries and the the truth about the wilson report and how the wh spun it and re-wired it to fit their treasonous call to kill people. I just hope that the facts get set straight in the mainstream media soon, it about gives me a heart attack hearing the misinformation. It’s like someone trying to tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5. sniffing salts please.
Trolls can’t tell Ambasadors from Admirals either.
Some sort of perceptive disorder.
LandOfTheFree @ 53
I don’t think that Russert’s attorney is the secret witness, because the secret witness is supposed to be a prosecution witness.
I agree that there is no reason for Russert to release his attorney to testify about privileged conversations. And he can’t be forced to waive that privilege, certainly not by Team Libby. So it’s either an empty threat, or he’s being called to testify about a non-privileged matter. Presumably, it would be a conversations between Team Libby and Russert’s attorney — maybe a description of what the attorney thought Russert would tell the GJ? But he wouldn’t have told them that unless they had a joint defense agreement, and I can’t imagine they did. So it’s all a mystery to me.
Tap Duncan @ 58
Just checked it out. Pretty straightforward, easy-to-understand reporting. Nice summary of the proceedings.
The second grand jury Fitzgerald used is one that is regularly empaneled and Plamegate is just one of the cases they deal with. When its term expires, Fitzgerald can if he has other matters relating to Plamegate he wishes to pursue use another regular grand jury, empanel a new special one, or ask I suppose for an extension of the term of the current one, although I would think he would do this last only if he was just about finished with his work.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 51
Thanks for the link.
Re: theory of Tweety as other reporter…did Fitz put the squeeze play on Russert by using a reporter that Pumpkinhead hated against him?
Delish, just thinking about it. Especially since I’m not that crazy about either of them. I’m picturing the internecine cat fight these two have been having for top dog at NBC, that’s what it looks like from here. No wonder Pumpkinhead was so devastated by the loss of David Bloom; it meant Tweety was a bigger player.
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 the defense, Team Libby, wants to call David Sanger to show that Libby didn’t leak to Sanger when he and Libby met on July 2, as some sort of supporting evidence that Valerie Wilson’s CIA status wasn’t something Libby was 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 with the CIA until *after* he leaked to Judy on June 23 but before he met with Sanger on July 2?
•
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 the 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 may sense of some of the timeline issues.
Swopa, Marcy, et. al., what do you think?
.
As for Russert and his attorney,
other than evidence of criminal stupidity, his conversations with counsel might not regard anything requiring privilege.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
First of all, that little proverb about a lawyer representing himself having a fool for a client is true. I’ve represented other lawyers who’ve tried to represent themselves, and they always screw it up.
Second, Russert is a non-practicing lawywer, and was never a criminal defense lawyer. When you are a subject, target or even just a witness in a GJ investigation, you always want someone who practices in that area. An experienced criminal defense lawyer — often a former prosecutor — can interface with the prosecutors much more easily.
Katie @ six-niner- I have this same conversation with my repub. parents all the time. There are some people who just seem to be either blissfully ignorant, or not intelectually curious. Very frustrating, indeed.
OK at 67 — When one is in legal jeopardy, you are concerned about your own well-being and not exactly thinking tactically. And this is why any lawyer with a brain does not represent him or herself. Plus, it is difficult to do an arms length negotiation in terms of a p[lea deal, an agreement, or what have you when your own personal interest is hanging in the balance. No lawyer worth their degree would represent themselves in anything of import. Period. Because your judgment is seriously impaired in terms fo the bigger picture when your butt is on the line. Aside from that, the law is subdivided into a lot of specialties — Russert worked on the Hill before going to NBC. I’d bet he’s never practiced in a criminal courtroom or, if he did, it was years and years ago. Your legal skills do not stay sharp if you don’t use your brain on them. And if Russert’s specialty was governmental law and not criminal, he’d be an idiot to try and walk himself through a grand jury with no real knowledge of the process or the procedures involved. THAT is why you hire someone — you pay for their specialized knowledge ahead of walking into something difficult, because it keeps your ass out of the sling later because you stepped into something you would have known was coming if you’d only asked someone with the background to tell you.
Too funny. USDOJ.gov — howdy, hope you’re a friendly!!
LOL — Lawrence O’Donnell on Franken just now said the only reason not to put a defendant on the stand is because they’re guilty or they’d hurt their case by testifying. Ya think?
I don’t think that because Fitz mentioned the “broader investigation” it means that he is still investigating. After all, it’s clear that Libby wasn’t the only person in Fitz’s sight. There was, at one point, a broader investigation, but there’s no evidence it’s still going on. Unfortunately, I think Libby’s all we’re going to see. I think Fitz just doesn’t want to let the defense go fishing, and give up any information he doesn’t have to give them.
In short, I would caution against any of us getting our hopes up that the investigation is still going on. Unless Libby suddenly turns on Cheney (which I think is never going to happen), there’s nothing left for Fitz to do after the conclusion of this trial.
YES! While Googling yesterday, I saw a blog entry by someone (presumably a journalist) who had been requested to write an overview of conservative blogs that are covering the Libby trial. The author was complaining that s/he had only found two, and asking for leads to others.
Like they say, “if you can’t refute them with facts, then baffle them with bullsh_t.”
litigatormom @ 71
Thanks – I thought the secret witness was supposed to be a prosecution witness, but then I thought i might be confused.
Thanks also for the clarification on what Russert’s atty could be asked to testify about. It seems like the defense is doing as emptywheel stated this morning – making a whole lotta muck to wade through.
Oklahoma Kiddo @67: I can understand why a lawyer like Russert needs a lawyer, especially as this stuff is going down. Even Bill Clinton had his own lawyers when he gave testimony. IANAL, but I’d imagine it is considered helpful and more credible to have someone else arguing your case, and also give a different perspective to the case when they’re not directly involved.
The last post I have was at 2:07. Is my screen not refreshing, or has a sidebar been going on for more than half an hour?
Jim E. — the trial is the investigation.
It’s going on, right under our noses.
Just because the bulk of the investigation is done doesn’t mean that Fitz isn’t currently drawing lines between the dots. Obviously some of the witnesses are still trying to hide pertinent facts — how can a guy of Scooter’s rep and stature in the administration, who remembers lots of details about breakfast with Judy, forget stuff that was his every day, morning-after-morning-after-morning-intel-briefing job?
teh crazy talk…
scooters non-defense seems to be a way of introducing the VP,pres authority angle. has the executive asserted secret privledges during the investigation that tie fitz’s hands, and scooter is pushing fitz into those restricted areas.
what if russerts lawyer was coerced or made to comply with a direct order from the executive, and it bolsters scoots position that even if he did lie, it was under direct orders, national secutity, exec priv. etc.
could cheney be holding something over fitz’ head?
sealed plea agreements or exec orders, pardons?
Hugh @ 36
http://atrios.blogspot.com/200…..3636141330
Obama introduced a new bill.
Wells sure seems to be scared as shit about a lot of things, doesn’t he?
Yannow, if I were on the jury and I saw the defense spend 95% of their time trying to exclude things, it’d make me wonder what the hell they were trying to hide.
Rayne @ 80
HI, DOJ.gov, welcome, and your boss is still an ignorant, arrogant asshole. As is the dumbass Oath-violating twerp that heads your department.
litigatormom @
85
me too, litigatormom…
BobbyG @ 90
Hey, not so fast! Maybe it’s Abu Gonzalez hisself! :)
Since I don’t think Fitz has introduced any evidence relating to the missing 250 pages of email that Rove “accidentally” found, I find it hard to believe that the investigation is officially over at the conclusion of this trial.
I guess it’s possible that there was just exculpatory info for Rove in those emails, but if so, then why didn’t the WH produce them in the beginning? Also, I thought I read somewhere that the emails were possibly from the OVP, not the EOP.
Finally, the defense team has been doing an awful lot of fishing around during sidebars and motions to get more evidence from Fitz than they’re entitled to. EW has always speculated that a secondary (primary?) purpose of Comstock’s bought-and-paid-for legal team was to get info from Fitz on the larger investigation relating to the conspiracy. There seems to be an awful lot of this going on, rather than truly just trying to defend Libby.
Phoenix Woman at 89 — Which is why the judge does the motions arguments on exclusions and otherwise outside the viewing of the jury. They are only allowed to make heir decision based on the information which is entered into evidence in the trial and nothing else.
we seem to have lost washington….
could USDOJ be fitz?
Then it applies in spades.
Then there’s guys like Abe Lincoln. I have heard all these arguments so many times. Are we talking about superior gamespersonship (adversarial) here?
Case of mistaken identity here.
Interested observer is one of the good guys.
ctm is the author of this…this…lint. Comes from thinking with the gut I suppose.
katie jensen @ 69
SharonRB @ 81
Fifth Amendment protections come to mind. If the prosecution fails to make its case, why should a defendant give them a second shot at it? Almost anyone testifying on their own behalf would likely hurt their case by testifying. It’s why this is avoided as much as possible.
Sorry for taking so long to update. A lot of info was coming thick and fast!
S.O.S. from MA @ 92
BobbyG @ 90
Rayne @ 80
Too funny. USDOJ.gov — howdy, hope you’re a friendly!!
HI, DOJ.gov, welcome, and your boss is still an ignorant, arrogant asshole. As is the dumbass Oath-violating twerp that heads your department.
Hey, not so fast! Maybe it’s Abu Gonzalez hisself! :)
In which case, it’s still true, yes?
Edit, ok Busted you owe me a coke or vice versa.
S.O.S. from MA @ 90
Go to Mandos’ blog, he has a recess @2:43
Here’s a link to the archive & wayback machine, if you’ve never been there.
http://www.archive.org/index.php
JGabriel @
75
Libby told Eric Edelman there would be problems leaking things about the Wilsons to rebut the TNR article sometime around June 19. Which is just one day after Libby says his note on CPD was first dated, before he altered the date. So I’m guessing that CPD conversation included details about her status, and I’d date his awareness she was covert to that day, June 18.
I’d be delighted to buy you a coke EG.
Hugh @ 99
Which is basically what O’Donnell’s point was, I think.
F: Did you ever see an advance copy of the Novak column, any indication that anyone else did?
What was Libby’s answer to that question?
Tap Duncan @ 102
Tnx, Tap. Patience is a virchoo :)
My apologies to interested observer…should have been ctm. I just needed the sniffing salts cause I got whoozy…sorry interested observer!!!
EW — that date sure looked like a scratched out 18 to me.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
Russert (a lawyer). Attorneys with attorneys. Geesh. And I am appraised of all the arguments about lawyers representing themselves. I mean don’t some carpenters actually build themselves fine houses? Give me a break. Why does Tim need a mouth piece? Perhaps he’s just a stupid lawyer and a dumb talking head to boot. I dunno. Perhaps I am just being naive. Maybe I need to consult a lawyer to tell me how I should think. And talk. And write.
For the same reason surgeons don’t operate on their own children. You need the intellectual distance to work.
Jane Hamsher @
52
these might be trools ……
Rayne–
I’m surprised there are not more DC observers. There’s a law firm and someone from DHHS in last pass I made. Lotsa people at home on their cable modems.
katie jensen @ 69
Actually, I was responding to Interested Observer re a broader investigation. Really, I don’t mean to be a troll, but I haven’t read much about the case for a while.
My understanding of it was that Bush’s statement in the State of the Union was based on British findings – not the forgeries that Wilson claimed, and that both the Senate and British investigations supported this. Am I wrong?
in re Russert engaging a lawyer: could be that NBC “encouraged” him to get one.
I think confirmation that there is a broader investigation still ongoing is a fabulous way of celebrating Emptywheel Vindication Day.
It is no insult to what is really a rolling holiday to ask – was there confirmation that the investigation is still ongoing?
Remember, there are other reasons to protect grand jury secrecy besides an ongoing investigation. For instance, protection of innocent accused.
Jane Hamsher @
52
because they know how sausage is made ………
JGabriel, re your timeline question, I think we need Marcy or eRiposte.
The whole question of her WINPAC work versus her undercover work, and who knew about the latter when, is an intruiging and possibly crucial part of the case.
There was someone who came over to the OVP to explain to them that outing a NOC was a Very Bad Idea. The timing of that might explain other events.
My understanding of it was that Bush’s statement in the State of the Union was based on British findings – not the forgeries that Wilson claimed, and that both the Senate and British investigations supported this. Am I wrong?
Yes. The CIA had already debunked this story. It was pulled from an earlier speech because of its debunking. The british reference was added to make the lie deniable. (Of course, in the event, it makes the lie more palpable, because they felt the need to insert a deniability element.)
check it out. I don’t know why my comment is getting posted
Just in from the beltway Wonkette circuit
From what I hear in the rumor mill that is the beltway you are about to find out that an indictment was returned by the GJ against Rove and that he cut a last minute deal.
this should be good.
Jeff at 116 — FWIW, I didn’t take that comment from Fitz on “broader investigation” to necessarily mean that the investigation is ongoing. Although, I’ve never heard him say — ever — that it was closed, either. That’s only come from Luskin, Rove’s attorney, whose word on this issue I do NOT trust. I think it meant that there may be others who may, or may not, still be under investigation or who may, or may not, be innocent accuseds, and that, either way, Fitz isn’t telling Wells or any others who might have a “personal interest” in the answers about them. *g*
L: I’d like to make one comment. I work from 6AM to 8:30 pm, so I take in a lot of information, and a lot of times I’ll have to pool my staff and ask questions to get a fuller recollection. So I’m sorry if my recollection is not perfect, but this is not normally how I do things.
Shorter Libby: I’m the hardest working smear merchant at the Lie Factory.
I had an ethics professor many years ago at Cal State who was constantly hammering us with the idea that our legal system was by far not the best. He was forever pointing out that the British system, which is based upon, as the prof. said, “a pooling of information between the interested parties”, which was, in his opinion, the best approach to achieving justice. For years, I thought this guy, Max Bernoff, didn’t have a clue. But the older I get, the more I side with him. Prof. Bernoff railed against the ‘adversarial’ system we have in America. And so do I. One could say it’s, in the main, the lawyers who are the lobbyists. And it’s the lawyers who are the politicians. Draw your own conclusions.
ctm@114- I believe that the forgeries came to light via Italian intel. to British intel. to US intel. Very poorly written, one of the Iraqi ministers whose signature was on the forms was a guy who had been out of office in Iraq for 10 years!! I think that this is what tipped off the CIA- Maybe. Also, Wilson having been ambsdr. to Iraq in that time period 10 yrs. prior may even have known him.
L: I think there was, I don’t recall exactly what. You know, it was something important to Tim Russert, it seemed important to Matt Cooper — it seemed like this unanswered question, who told Wilson that the VP had requested his trip? He wouldn’t have learned that officially, so maybe he was told unofficially (i.e., by his wife).
For a guy that doesn’t know much about how to identify a CIA agent, he seems know that Wilson would NOT have been informed that the inquiry about Niger Uranium would have come from OVP.
Arlington VA @ 120
Does this validate Leopold’s story? I wonder what kind of deal he struck.
Lawyers representing lawyers, representing lawyers, representing lawyers…
> From what I hear in the rumor mill that
> is the beltway you are about to find out
> that an indictment was returned by the GJ
> against Rove and that he cut a last minute
> deal.
My alternate theory being that the GJ did indict Rove, but that Fitzgerald sealed and quashed the indictment (for any number of reasons – mine being that he didn’t think he could bring the case).
Cranky
THe jury took a break at 3pm. When will they be back?
Tap Duncan @ 124
i thought it was one of the Niger ministers who had been out of office for ten years …….
Didn’t Michael Ledeen have something to do wrt forgeries?
eRiposte did a series of 4 posts on all the intricacies of the Niger story on February 2 and 3. The first was a day or two before this. You can check them out by clicking the calendar on the left side of the screen near the top of the page.
ctm @ 47: It was Wilson’s CIA debriefers who found that his report bolstered other reports that Iraq was seeking uranium.
What other reports?
Ahgoo @
32
and so am I, so I broke down and contributed yesterday (although I forgot the 7 cents.)
I say “broke down”, because I usually feel that I can’t possibly support all the blogs that I lurk at. I subscribe to just a few magazines, but all those many blogs are independent (thank goodness) and I can’t subscribe to all of them.
But Firedoglake is way in a different class, and I’ve been spending way too much time here. So thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you’ve done for us.
What’s going on in this Scootie Libber trial anyhow?
-GSD
And why do we have a shortage of engineers, mathematicians, scientists, and other countries don’t? Why do we out-source so much technical stuff? We in America graduate far more lawyers than they do, in ratio, to tech grads. And to what end? Exactly?
stingray @ 133
there was a marine general (colonel?) who was sent by State (i believe). also the ambassador to Niger (a woman, but i don’t remember her name), but their reports agreed with Wilson’s that there was no purchase by Iraq ……
fahrender @ 130
Boy I hate when I get facts screwed up!! Argh!
neil @ 125
And why wouldn’t he have been told officially? If they called him in and asked him to go to Niger and check out these rumors, Couldn’t this have happened:
Uknown CIA peep: “Hey Joe, we’ve been hearing rumors about iraq trying to buy Uranium…The VP’s office is all over our ass to find out if it’s true or not…You knw the peeps there, Val says you’d be willing to go, will you fly over, snoop around a little for us?”
Bustednuckles @ 131
I asked eRiposte about this in the thread after one of his later posts here. Said he doesn’t have any hard evidence that Ledeen was involved. You should read for context.
Re: 136. Apparently the Soviet Union always graduated a lot more engineers than we did and fewer lawyers. It also had a much larger army. Where did that get them, exactly? What you need are creative minds, leaders and not followers. Let a thousand freedoms bloom!
Thanks, Was something stuck in my foggy memory banks, will investigate.
Tap Duncan @ 124
The British investigation said that their reports about Iraq, uranium and Africa were not based on the forgeries. And the forgeries were specifically about Niger.
Tap Duncan @
124
edited out, no need to pile on, see eRiposte.
CTM @ 47 seems to be confusing Wilson’s earlier (1999?) report with his later one. S/he should take time to read eriposte’s detailed 4-part analysis of the Niger/uranium claims, which were posted both here and at The Left Coaster.
Risking 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.
ctm @
114
Yes. The British have distanced themselves frm this, see the Downing Street Memo here at wiki, google for more on this.
QuentinCompson @ 20
Or to paraphrase Fitz…”Your honor, we can’t help it if the TRUTH prejudices the jury!”
No, it’s PROBATIVE!
:-)
If I were a brain-neuro-surgeon and my daughter needed a life saving operation on her brain, I wouldn’t trust the procedure to anyone else. Period. It would of course be up to my daughter, but I think she would say… Pops… no one but you.
Tap Duncan @
43
Les Nesman on the scene: …it’s a helicopter and it’s flying this way…. there’s.. no, something just came out of the back of the helicopter, it’s a dark object… perhaps a skydiver… plummeting from the earth from 2,000 feet in the air… now a second.. a third.. there’s no parachutes yet… it can’t be skydivers… I can’t tell what they are…. OH MY GOD!! THEY’RE TURKEYS!! OH! THEY’RE CRUNCHING TO THE EARTH RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES! One just went throught the windshield of a parked car! This is terrible. The crowd is running around pushing each other… oh my goodness! Oh the humanity! The people are running about! The turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!!!
Hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement. Kinda sums up the last six years of US foreign policy in one succinct phrase, don’t ya think?
pinson@150
And the guy playing Les Nesman did a perfect rendition of the tenor and timbre of the announcer at the Hindenburg disaster..
stingray @ 133
I only know about the British report which is what Bush referenced. The Brits’ investigation (Butler Report) said their evidence about Saddam, uranium and Africa was not based on the forgeries.
Woodhall Hollow @ 31
I suppose that the client could waive the privilege. And there is one more exception that I know of…the “crime-fraud exception”. A client can’t protect as privileged statements that he makes that indicates that he is about to commit a crime, wants the attorney to participate in a crime (destroying evidence, tampering with a witness, etc.), or is going to lie to the court.
That has to be revealed to the judge.
JGabriel @ 75: Is it possible, or likely, that Scooter didn’t find out Valerie Wilson had a classified NOC standing with the CIA until *after* he leaked to Judy on June 23 but before he met with Sanger on July 2?
Seems plausible enough.
I have often wondered if Armitage realized her identity was classified when he spoke to Novak. It’s possible Armitage was told about Plame but (conveniently) not told her status. Meaning that he got used too.
CTM@114
Again, I refer you to eriposte’s work. The Senate Committee’s investigation and report into this matter was favorably edited by Pat Roberts, who redacted certain crucial items.
For example, the redacted report says, in effect: The British told the CIA about the Niger claim rumor. The following clause is redacted: The CIA told the British that claim was not from a reliable source.
jayackroyd @ 119
I like the way you frame the notion that if I try and lend credibility to something I know is false by attributing it to someone else it is yet still dishonest. Its not really a misleading truth is it? There is an inference of vouching for British Intelligence. And in as much as this inference did not hold in the end the statement needed to be withdrawn and a CIA cheif lost his job. How convenient. Odd how so many who have left this administration are uncomplemenatry. The entire point of uttering the notion should be to vouch for its credibility. Would we have ever known of this falsehood had not Amb. Wilson begun to protest.
What is clear that White House communications at this time had mastered the techniques of a media echo chamber and Ms. Miller was only too willing to cry wolf out into the vast open spaces the NYT reaches. I suppose the real question is why does the press shy away from looking at the preponderance of misleading truths and cunningly attributed lies parceled out as spin in some kind of critical way. But then I forget that the media has its master. If Ms. Clinton is signing onto the notion that the invasion of Iraq was a congruent response to 9/11 then we have a long way to go in some kind of legistlative check of the executive and its practice of the politics of expediency and violence.
Alas perhaps the only truth we are treated to in the press is the advertising. There is alot more that could be said about this I suppose, but the effort of Mr. Libby to scapegoat the media really is far more eloquent in this light.
I wonder if the “broader investigation” includes “The Rove report.”
Anything like the Colbert Report?
stingray @ 155
It’s appears too many of you have your tin-foil hats on waiting for the blackhelicopters…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 121
Well, he was presenting evidence to the new grand jury (including Rove’s last round of testimony) AFTER the current indictments were handed down, so I doubt he’s done with his work.
As for Luskin, all we really need to know is that he won’t show anyone Fitz’s letter that supposedly exonerates Rove. Best guess is that Rove coughed up someone else to save his own ass. I’d initially thought it was Cheney, but Cheney seems to have delegated all of his dirty work to Scooter. My bet now is that Rove gave up Hadley, who was reportedly expecting to be indicted early on.
Happy Days @ 156
In fact, Fitzgerald’s broader investigation comment is by no means an indication that it is still ongoing, since we know it had to do with Matt Cooper, and as far as we know the other part of the investigation Cooper was involved in had to do with Rove, who appears to be one of those innocent accused.
As for Hadley, the information that he was worried about being indicted never got any kind of reliable confirmation, it was just a rumor.
stingray @ 154
I’m willing to give Armitage the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was just a complete moron, but I agree that we need to know how he found out about Plame to begin with. Could he have been set up before the fact? I doubt it. I think he blabbed to Woodward and Novak out of sheer stupidity. Novak went to Rove, who then realized that he could spread the story around and then pin it all on Armitage if all hell broke loose.
Armitage doesn’t seem too happy about being played the fool, though, and I’m quite sure he remembers who told him about Plame to begin with. If he thinks the whole thing was a setup, he would have told Fitz (and the FBI) up front. Possible, but not probable. It would, however, explain why the FBI (and then Fitz) were so persistent about their investigation even after Armitage owned up to the leak to Novak.
Jeff @ 160
There’s also the point that this entire trial is taking place because Fitz said that Libby’s lying under oath is what prevented him from getting at the truth.
ctm @ 47
I hate to deflate your bubble. But Wilson REPORTED and was correct there was no evidence of a Uranium PURCHASE. And regards to evidence of Iraq SEEKING Uranium…he did report the SPECULATION of the Nigerien PM that a businessman who approached Mayaki about an Iraqi trade delegation wanting to speak may have meant that they wanted to discuss Uranium. But is THAT speculation EVIDENCE? Note that Wilson’s report states that there was NO ACTUAL MEETING (and it turns out that the “trade delegation” wasn’t even in Niger…it was at a big African trade conference in Algiers).
Wilson had no way to think that such speculation by the PM of Niger would ever be taken seriously by the CIA analysts (WINPAC) as evidence of a transaction. In fact, it seems that they didn’t take it seriously either…as they never reported their analysis onward, either to Tenet, the Vice President or other intelligence channels. The assertion only emerged AFTER Wilson’s article came out!
This is simply playing a rightwing semantics game here. Wilson was detailed several things about the REPORTS regarding the Niger-Iraq transactions that had been relayed to the CIA from Italian Intelligence (i.e. a foreign governments intelligence service”). These details on documents that Italian Intelligence claimed they HELD were clearly discussed at his briefing meeting BEFORE he departed. These details included information about the quantities (500 tons), number of shipments, routes that WINPAC believed would be taken, dates, who he should talk to, and shouldn’t talk to, etc. Did Wilson see the actual documents? NO! He never said that he did.
But in order to show that the reports were forgeries all he needed to do was establish that the principals or facts related to him were erroneous. Mayaki and Mai Manga both provided enough information to assure Wilson that they were not involved and that such a transaction, as related to by the claims presented to him as derived from the documents. The fact that the IAEA actually had been presented the documents by the CIA, and demonstrated quite quickly, that these were forgeries…may have suggested to Wilson that by the time of his trip the CIA DID have in their hands the actual documents…since these conform almost precisely to the quantities and other information he was briefed upon. But that doesn’t mean that he LIED! He was mistaken, and his inference was not all that far out.
BTW If one provides INFORMATION that would establish a document is a forgery before that document comes into the hands of another…and that information, if it was examined, would show that the document is a forgery…has that first individual given evidence that the doc was a forgery?
I would say so!
You’re still drinking the Kool-Aid, it seems. They WERE punishing Wilson by outing his wife. They WERE trying to discredit him by suggesting his mission was a junket set up by his wife…and not by a request by the OVP for the CIA to seek out more information.
Have you followed ANY of the testimony and evidence in this case? Or do you simply filter-feed off the rightwing pundits that are fed the WH line?
Nope.
Weren’t the turkeys dropped over Cincinnati by WKRP frozen. Turkeys are even worse than usual at flying when frozen solid!
Rayne @ 110
Or an “8″ with the “1″ added!
Hint…June 8, 2003 ~ the day that Condy had to deal with the Kristof article on “Meet The Press”.
ctm @ 114
Yes! Since Tenet shot down the use of the British “findings” back in October 2002. And, in fact, the British “findings” were based on the same forgeries that the Italians leaked to the CIA. So the reality is that Bush’s SOTU statements were simply a “backdoor” way of getting the same information that the CIA (and State Dept.) had already rejected as questionable into the SOTU. And they did it knowing that TENET had already said that the British reports were dubious.
cinnamonape/Rayne:
Need to get TRex or another expert witness on pens and ink to look at that “18″ under a microscope, to see whether the 1 and the 8 appear contemporaneous…
Could Wilson’s be the target of a broader investigation?
Have we all read “The Politics of Truth” (yet)?
Thank you. This is great and I will be happy to donate.