The jury has returned, so we're back for more Libby grand jury testimony from March 2004. Don't forget the ground rules…
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.
F: Do you remember talking to Judith Miller on July 8th?
L: Yes.
(discussion of what Miller had been up to — just back from Iraq, etc.)
L: This was our first meeting, or she may have come to my office once before. She's a very responsible reporter, and I'd wanted to meet her because she cares about the WMD issue and threats to America. As we started to discuss week of July 7th, the NIE had said … (discusses NIE, asks for permission to discussion January 24 document) A January 24 document had said exactly the same thing as the NIE supporting the notion of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. The CIA had issued this in October 2002 and January 2003, and we wanted people to know that this went against what Wilson said.
I was unaware that she was not writing during this period, but the VP instructed me to talk to Judith Miller. I said, but NIE is classified, but Cheney said Pres. had authorized it. Libby went to Addington to confirm that Pres. could declassify (this is all stuff that has been reported, so sorry if I miss details). So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this, and I selected Judith Miller because I felt she was a responsible reporter (Uhh, you just said Cheney picked her, didnt you?).
(Fitz and Libby discuss declassification of NIE and Jan. 24th document, Addington saying Pres has absolute ability to declassify anything whenever he want — this has all been reported previously)
F: Getting back to Judith Miller, did you talk about Mr. Wilson?
L: I don't remember specifically, but probably since we discussed it since we talked about Niger and uranium.
F: What about Mr. Wilson's wife?
L: I don't believe I did.
F: Do you recall a meeting on July 9th chaired by Stephen Hadley?
L: Not specifically.
F: Hadley was angry, saying that Tenet was upset by Andrea Mitchell report… do you recall him looking at Cathie Martin and Claire Buchan of OVP?
L: Not specifically.
F: This was just after you spoke with Andrea Mitchell, right?
(Fitz explains that Martin and Buchan were removed from contacting CIA during that period, Libby says he doesn't remember it for that reason, was because of work on Tenet statement at higher levels)
F: Do you recall Hadley saying on July 9th that we need to do something about Wilson now, discredit him? (Oh, my.)
L: I don't recall that specific phrase, but I'd have to check my notes.
F: Do you remember that concept coming across, regardless of specific words?
L: Yes, to discredit what Wilson was saying. Don't recall about discrediting him personally.
F: (pulls out notes) Do you recall Rove complaining that Wilson was viewed as a credible expert?
L: Remember wanting to discredit his story, but not him personally
F: Were people saying, "Let's be careful to discredit his story, but not discredit him personally"?
L: Don't recall any statement like that.
F: Do you recall an effort to push back on Wilson's credibility that week?
L: Yes, trying to get statement from Rice and Tenet explaining that Wilson's findings didn't really undermine intelligence, but supported it (gives the whole spiel again)
It's 11:36.
F: Did you consider Wilson's wife working at the CIA as something that undermined his credibility?
L: No, I thought he was credible to do what he did.
F: Do you believe it reflected nepotism in his hiring?
L: I… I don't think I knew then why he was hired. That didn't come out until later, with the Rove report. (??? I have no idea what this means. ???)
F: You're clear that you didn't give this information with Ari Fleischer
L: I don't recall it. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but all I recall is being surprised when I talked about it with Tim Russert.
F: (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA)
F: Does this say, "Wilson is declassified"?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, "The president is comfortable"?
L: Yes.
F: And the next line:
L: Hadley saying it's the NIE should be leaked.
F: Did anyone say it was OK to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President's approval.
F: Did you tell Hadley this?
L: No.
F: Why not?
L: Because the VP was there, and he knew, and didn't say anything.
F: What is this line?
L: Hadley saying whole truth has to get out, and he'd told Tenet that.
F: Was he getting ticked off?
L: More or less, Tenet statement was supposed to come out Tuesday, and was being delayed.
F: Tell me about conversation with Mr. Russert.
L: Chris Matthews has a TV show, and is an outspoken fellow, and he was saying Wilson report had been seen by VP and should have convinced WH that Niger uranium intelligence was false, not even referring to denials by WH, OVP, and CIA. This was frustrating to us, and we wanted him to acknowledge that the public record was different. Wasn't first time Matthews had criticized us. So I called Mary Matalin and asked for advice on how we should get Matthews to acknowledge public record. Mary had own opinions on where we were, so she gave them, then suggested I call Tim Russert.
So I called Russert, can't remember if I got him right away or had to call back. We spoke briefly, and then I turned to our issues. I mentioned Andrea Mitchell but said I'm not really calling about Mitchell, then went into problems with Matthews. I think Russert said he had to call me back. And I think in the second phone call, if there was one, or a delay in the first call, we had a fuller conversation. He said not much he could do about Chris Matthews, and then he said did you know Ambassador Wilson's wife works for the CIA? I remeber being taken aback by that, and I said "No, I don't know that." Intentionally, because I didn't want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.
So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, "I don't know that," and he said, "Yeah, all the reporters know that," and I said "I don't know that." Again.
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it's Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?
L: No. We asked someone in the WH press office who knew him. Adam Levine.
F: Did he succeed?
L: No. Matthews kept saying same things.
It's 11:55.
(Fitz and Libby discuss note from Matalin conversation about calling Russert… see emptywheel's post last week for details)
F: What's this,
L: This is Matalin talking, "get David Sanger of NYT or someone, get Wilson's whole story out"… "we need to address Wilson's motivation"
(Yeah, the snake part gets discussed, too, but it's snipped out of the audio and shown as "REDACTED" in the transcript.)
(Fitz walks Libby again through all the conversations about Plame he doesn't remember — Grossman, Fleischer, etc. — he still doesn't recall them.)
F: You're sure you spoke with Russert on the 10th or 11th?
L: My notes show that I called Matalin on the 10th and then tried to reach Russert the same day.
F: When you called Russert, were you calling as a source?
L: No.
F: When you spoke to Pincus and Miller, you did so as an official giving the WH point of view
L: Yes.
F: But not with Russert?
L: I was just trying to get him to influence Chris Matthews.
F: You say you were giving the name of Russert's producer. Did you write it down in your notes?
L: I may not have.
(Fitz walks through Russert conversation details — all the reporters know it, etc.)
F: Was there anything sensitive about Wilson's wife working for the CIA that made you especially not want to confirm it?
L: No. I just didn't want him to think I was confirming it.
F: If Cathie Martin had told you about Wilson's wife before July 10th, your testimony is that you don't remember that.
L: Could you repeat the question? (Fitz does.) My testimony is that I don't recall that.
F: When Russert told you what you said he did, did you call the CIA press office to say, have you heard about reporters knowing this?
L: No.
F: Did you tell any other WH official, or the VP?
L: No.
F: What's the next discussion you recall where you discussed Wilson's wife's employment with anyone?
L: On the 11th, as we were still waiting for Tenet statement, at the end of the day I spoke to Karl Rove. During this conversation he said Bob Novak had told him he'd be writing a story about Wilson that weekend, he felt Wilson might not be impartial, and that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. So this was confirmation of a sort of what I'd heard from Tim Russert. I told Karl that I had heard from Tim Russert the same thing. I don't remember the exact order of this conversation, but that's the sum and substance.
It's 12:13.
F: When was this conversation with Rove?
L: On the 11th, I think in the afternoon or evening.
F: Did you tell Rove how you responded to Tim Russert?
L: I don't think so.
F: Did you learn how Rove responded to Novak?
L: No.
F: Was there a sense of relief that Novak was responding to WH being beaten up all week?
L: The more important thing was that the Tenet statement was going to come out, rebutting Wilson on the facts.
F: Were you pleased to know a story was coming out on Wilson's background that weekend or so?
L: 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.
F: It wouldn't help to know that his wife had sent Wilson?
L: I didn't know that at that time, lots of people work at the CIA. I didn't know anything about the wife sending him until I read the Novak article.
F: Did you tell Rove that Novak called you that week?
L: No. I didn't know that Novak had called me, and my recollection is still hazy on that point.
F: Did you talk to Andrea Mitchell about Wilson and his wife sometime in this time frame?
L: I talked to Andrea Mitchell after Russert, and I see that NBC has stated that she didn't know about Wilson's wife until after July 14th.
F: What do you remember about talking to Mitchell?
L: I remember an awkward moment in talking to her, because I thought about what Russert told me, but I didn't know if she knew, and I didn't want to get Russert in trouble by saying he'd told me.
F: Did you talk to Mitchell about it after the 14th?
L: I don't recall. I was worried about her asking where I found out.
F: Why not just say you couldn't comment.
L: I don't like to obfuscate in that way. (smiles in media room)
Fitz starts to ask about July 12, and being with Cheney. Walton stops the tape and says it's time for lunch.
It's 12:25. New thread when we return.
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
TEAM FDL
the picture html are wrong, no image
Swopa, great job! Keep up the good work!
perris @
2
Uhhh… do not adjust your TV sets… just refresh the thread. :)
Swopa!
Great, great job!
Swopa @ 4
swopa, you are right ON it!
got it…feel free to delete our posts concerning your lack of html skills
Libby’s goin’ downtown !!
Deftly, quietly, Mrs. Libby pulls the scarf from around her neck, suddenly the gallery’s attention is zeroed in on the Defendant as his eyes bulge and he gasps for breath . . .
sorry, I’ll be over here
FITZ!!!!!
A Blast from the past…
Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..703nj1.htm
[No jokes about corporal punishment. Period. Love you, but these have to stop. — CHS]
Swopa – great work. The video of Jane and you was awesome.
Could we ever hope our MSM would be capable of this kind of reporting? Probably not, they are not up to your level of honesty.
OBTW at this point, Paul (Medal of Freedom) Bremer, former head of the CPA, is blathering over on c-span 1… What an amazingly arrogant bastard.. Now he’s saying what a great job he did. Now we’re getting the old reliable “No one could have anticipated” defense again. This guy is gonna get flayed alive.
Now back to reading this amazing liveblogging. Kudos!
Man, I’m going to rename February 6 “emptywheel vindication day” in honor of this testimony. First, Marcy scoops everyone on the Libby to Novak meetings.
Second, how does this help the defense claim Judy’s lacks credibility:
And lastly this:
Which of course is the reason that one Marcy Wheeler has always given to explain why they failed in their efforts to launder Plame’s identity through Judy.
Thanks, Scooter.
ouch ouch!! I sprained my shoulder patting myself on the back!!
EW @ 14
No need for you to pat your back — you did enough already. We’ll do it for you. :D
Can’t congratulate and thank you enough, Marcy.
Pulitzer Blogging Prize for FDL, please!!!! :)
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day, everybody!!
emptywheel @ 14
One has to sacrifice for success. Kudos Marcy!
Yay for Marcy!
And, for the record, I really AM impressed by this place and the people in it.
BTW, Swopa, you’re doing a TERRIFIC job!
(and I had to clean my monitor after spitting out coffee when I read Scooter calling Miller a “responsible reporter.” )
“Cheney picked Judith Miller.”
1). Is that a typo?
2.) Pretty much cuts the rug out from under the Sanger testimony, doesn’t it? If they are selectively leaking (duh), by definition they wouldn’t be telling Sanger.
[Mod Note; that’s a good one, but let’s save it for a time we’re not live blogging. OK?]
From the National Journal link @ 10 from MrJJ:
Ah ah.
Statement coming from Bremer on CSPAN live right now should qualify him to be eaten whole by Waxman & Co…
and somewhere, Dan Senor is searching for a clean pair of underoos ; )
Marcy @14 SCORES!
Hurrah for the NextHurrah!
“L: This was our first meeting, or she may have come to my office once before.”
another obvious lie, kind of stupid for him to tack on that “or she may have…” deferral (my children are better liars than these neocons)
Again, it just makes logical sense your first meeting with someone is always memorable, even for a purportedly foggy minded Scooter.
Lets all say thank you to Scooter for that.
GSD @
22
Ooops…
It was all Bill Clinton’s fault.
-GSD
(cut)
F: Do you recall Hadley saying on July 9th that we need to do something about Wilson now, discredit him? (Oh, my.)
L: I don’t recall that specific phrase, but I’d have to check my notes.
F: Do you remember that concept coming across, regardless of specific words?
L: Yes, to discredit what Wilson was saying. Don’t recall about discrediting him personally.
F: (pulls out notes) Do you recall Rove complaining that Wilson was viewed as a credible expert?
L: Remember wanting to discredit his story, but not him personally
F: Were people saying, “Let’s be careful to discredit his story, but not discredit him personally”?
L: Don’t recall any statement like that.
(paste)
Boy, Scooter is coming across to me like he has something to hide. This reminds me of the game I play with my teenagers: “Hide the truth”. In this game, the questioner has to ask the right question in the right way to get a response. The respondent’s goal in the game is to hide as much truth as possible without telling (obvious) lies.
I think Hasbro should be watching this… “Hide the truth” could be in stores by Christmas…
“Pulitzer Blogging Prize for FDL, please!!!! :)”
Double ditto on that one, when nomination time comes, we’ll know who to vote for.
Iif there’s as yet no blogger’s pulitzer prize, surely we can make up one of our own.
Or we could all overwhelm the Pulitzer website with demands for a bloggers’ award.
Now there’s a thought…
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive!!
might have been a slip of the tongue, but did Libby really say Cheney said to talk to JudyJudyJudy? oops. sorry about that mental image.
I’m no expert on attorneys, but to me this question is one example of what makes Fitz such a talent. He’s sees where Libby wants to go, let’s him go there, and then slams the door on him with this question.
Peter Gabriel!
No, Libby said that Cheney said that Junior Evil said to talk to JudyJudyJudy.
I’m finally confused! If Wilson’s report supported the 16 words claim, then why would they try to discredit Wilson _and_ disown the VP involvement in him being sent?
I’m also somewhat confused by the fact that the CIA and State were also interested in the Niger story in 2002. If all were interested, it must have been a big deal.
I’m also wondering what would have happened if Bush had been able to use the 16 words in Nov 2002. There might have been enough time to debunk prior to war. Could this be the reason for the rush?
Jwoods @ 30
F: did you steal the cookie?
L: No
F: did you eat cookies yesterday
L: I don’t remember, I might have
F: did you take a cookie from the cookie jar?
L: i think so
F: did you eat the cookie you took?
L: i dont know if the cookie i took is the same one i ate
February 6th, 2007 at 8:43 am
JEP at 26 says:
Wasn’t their first meeting at the Colorado meeting–Aspen?
But what I really wanted to comment on is that Libby is a very bad liar, but some other neocons are much more devious. One named Rove in particular, unfortunately. Fitz can’t pin a thing on him regardless how much he lies.
JEP @ 31
When are Pulitzer nominations done, how, etc.? This should be done, for sure.
OBTW, the flaying of Bremer over on C-SPAN 1 is getting up to steam… :)
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day!
Swopa, your live-blogging on this is fantastic.
I love how Cheney/Libby specially selected Judy Judy Judy to leak to because she was so “responsible.” Yeah, OVP must have used her a lot, just like Meet the Press.
And yes, it undermines the attempt to get Sanger as a defense witness, which is ridiculous anyway. Whether Libby leaked to Sanger is irrelevant to whether Libby lied to FBI/GJ. Is Wells really trying to argue that Libby must not have lied about his conversations with Ms. Miller, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fleischer, et al, because he didn’t lie about his conversations with Mr. Sanger? Or is he trying to disprove perjury by proving he didn’t leak to Sanger? Either way, it’s totally non-probative.
WOW, FDL, this is fantabulous coverage!
Libby is acting like Fitz is a friggin reporter! One talking point after another.
“Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.’
Oh, COME ON!
TomJ @ 37
The claim that the Wilson’s op-ed piece supported the 16 words was all spin. Wilson said that his report debunked the whole notion of uranium from Niger, and that the WH should have known, and Bush never should have claimed it.
The spin came from the assumption that in 1999, when Iraqi representatives came to Niger about “possible trade relations” that this could have been their “attempt to get uranium.”
This thinking is akin to charging my 8 year old son with attempted armed robbery because he asked the Toys R Us stock guy if the Avitar gun was real.
Of course, the problem is that when the story is true, all you’ve got left is to discredit someone personally. That’s been the GOP playbook for decades, and a hallmark of the Bushies.
What the hell is the Rove report? Libby mentioned that it was only after “the Rove report” that they knew why Wilson was “hired” by the CIA to go to Niger?
Ann in AZ @ 39
Fitz was about to pull the trigger on indicting Rove when Rove got a lucky break. Some reporter told his Rove’s lawyer that they had proof that Rove leaked. Rove then went before the GJ and “came clean” just before the indictment.
If anyone could find Hardball transcripts where Matthews was discussing Wilson’s trip prior to Libby’s conversation with Russert on July 10 or 11 it would be really helpful. Looks like Libby/Cheney totally obsessed with it.
I wonder how well this “Wilson report supported NIE claim” is going to fly, given all the other evidence–foremost among that evidence is that Wilson himself was wandering all over the government for months trying to find out why no one in the White House paid any attention to his findings and finally had to go public with it.
If the report made by Wilson supported the WH, why was Wilson saying it didn’t?
I know this has been discussed ad infinitum, and most here know the reasons why (Niger v. Algeria meetings, French process control, etc., etc.), but it’s well worth highlighting this little inconsistency at every point when this WH bullshit appears (along with the fact that the Pat Roberts’ pack of whores also picked up this little meme to distort the SSCI Phase I report in favor of the WH).
I’ve heard of VE Day and VJ Day after another big war, but now we have EV Day and soon JV Day [vindication for emptywheel, and Jane].
litigatormom @ 46
I am so hoping that Fitz has KKKarl on record about what “the Rove Report” is.
Libby: “Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.”
That’s just bad lying. The jury must know he’s lying through his teeth.
You don’t forget that the thorn in your team’s side has a great big secret once you’ve learned the secret.
How come I can never use the I don’t recall defense to get out of a speeding ticket, but when it comes to national security it’s o.k?
Am I bonkers to read this as meaning Junya was “comfortable” betraying Valerie Plame/Wilson because “Wilson is declassified”?
BTW, I didn’t think that Libby’s story was that Libby told Russert “I don’t know that” when Russert supposedly informed him of what he had previously forgotten about “the wife.”
Isn’t that an odd formulation? “I don’t know that”? Wouldn’t you say something like, “Who told you that?” Or, “I’m not aware of that,” or “are you sure”?
I think this is wrong:
Jwoods at 44—The spin came from the assumption that in 1999, when Iraqi representatives came to Niger about “possible trade relations” that this could have been their “attempt to get uranium.”
I think this meeting took place OUTSIDE of Niger.
Somebody approached somebody else at a party. That’s their big evidence. The rest is utterly fabricated.
This is an extremely interesting sequence:
“So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, “I don’t know that,” and he said, “Yeah, all the reporters know that,” and I said “I don’t know that.” Again.
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it’s Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?”
I find this sequence interesting because Fitzgerald’s questioning jumped immediately away from Scooter’s critical statement about Russert giving away the CIA identity of Wilson’s wife.
After Scooter made the claim about Russert, Fitz immediately shifted his questioning to ask about the resolution with Matthews.
Why did Fitzgerald tack away from Scooter’s statement about Russert?
Am I missing something here?
Jwoods @ 47
Wouldn’t “Coming clean” to the charge of leaking be an admission of guilt? Rover’s cover story is that he came clean to avoid a perjury indictment.
I don’t believe that. Fitz has Rover by the nads. Rove slow walked until he made an informal deal: specific testimony in exchange for a sealed indictment. If Rover delivers on all his testimony Sealed vs Sealed will be dismissed. IANAL but it wouldn’t surprise me if Walton signed off on this -agreeing to dismiss Rove if he delivers his testimony.
I think this is different than a plea bargain. Technically, no “deal” has been reached. So Fitz does not have to disclose to the defense.
Man, Libby’s the worst liar of the bunch! What an underachiever!
I hope they play that clip of the shrub saying “Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
about nine million times tonite.
Remember that what Swopa is blogging here are the tapes of Libby’s grand jury appearance. It’s possible that this questioning took place before Russert had testified.
F: (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA)
F: Does this say, “Wilson is declassified”?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, “The president is comfortable”?
L: Yes.
F: And the next line:
L: Hadley saying it’s the NIE should be leaked.
F: Did anyone say it was OK to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President’s approval.
F: Did you tell Hadley this?
L: No.
——
What is that foul smell?
beth meacham @ 60
I think it is almost certain that this questioning took place before Russert testified.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald had to know, at the time, that this was a critical point in Libby’s testimony. Why didn’t he pursue it further? I imagine that he had his reasons, and I am just curious as to what they may have been.
“I wonder how well this “Wilson report supported NIE claim” is going to fly,”
like a big lead balloon…
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President’s approval.
Bush in September 2003:
*xyz @ 62
Maybe Fitzgerald wanted Scooter’s unambiguous statement on the record, and didn’t want to dwell on the subject, as doing so would have given Scooter a chance to equivocate.
*xyz @ 62
How many seperate times did LIbby testify? Becuase it seems to me that this is something that Fitz would return to at a later date, after Russert testified.
Is the “Wilson is declassified” thing referring to Joe or Valerie?
L: Ok, let’s keep Hadley in the dark, ’cause Deadeyes has his own National Security Staff (me and a few other neo-fools), and anyways, me and Deadeyes are really running this place anyhow.
Now don’t go tellin’ Junya or you’ll get him confused. The poor boy has got enough problems without letting him know he ain’t really in charge here.
I just used the PayPal (Easy) button below the article to donate $5.07 to FDL’s history-making, Live-blogging of the Libby Trial.
I’m going to keep donating $5.07 each week of the Trial to support the effort.
The FDL Team needs a revenue stream to keep the effort going – it’s much better than erratic calls for support.
If you’ve been giving, or are planning to give now, please consider steady, even giving to support the cause.
Where else are we going to get THIS KIND of information from people THIS COMMITTED?
Go FDL!
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day!
tankards of schadenfreude and orange marmalade toast for the house ! and there should probably be a commemorative dog eating of the notes ceremony – I know this gorgeous Standard Poodle . . .
XYZ @57-
Could be that Fitz at that point was looking for other people to call to confirm/deny the story-
IOW, Libby says that, Fitz makes mental note to subpoena Russert.
Asks who else did you talk to..
Levine (mental note to subpoena Levine)
Levine talked to Shapiro (mental note- interview Shapiro, confirm call was made, etc…)
Swopa, you’re doing a GREAT job!
“The president is comfortable.”
Afflict the comfortable.
Question: As I understand it, Wilson reported orally on his trip, then someone somewhere in CIA produced a written memo/report based on what Wilson said when debriefed. Is that wrong or right?
JohnCasper wrote:
“I hope they play that clip of the shrub saying ‘Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.’
about nine million times tonite.”
Problem with that is that Bush had declassified the information so that it could be disseminated. That’s why he kept saying “classified information”. Rove and Cheney knew what they were doing. They’re old pros at covering their silvery, slimy tracks. They had to destroy Wilson any way they could. So, they declassified information regarding his actions and his wife. What slugs they are!
Leak.
Leak.
Leak.
The NYT was being hassled over “leaking” a story more than a year later after it was news…but these officials are actively pursuing a policy of leak, leak, leaking.
If it was “disclosure” or “releasing”, why would they call it “leaking”?
Leak.
Leak.
Leak.
“Hadley saying it’s the NIE should be leaked.”
Isn’t there as law against conspiring to leak classified information? Aren’t they supposed to declassify it before they “leaked” it?
Or can the President leak anytime he wants to…
radiofreewill @
70
Thank you!
At some point, perhaps we’ll set up an automated, recurring subscription feature. I’m thinking of putting a survey together to ask readers about their thoughts regarding funding models for what we do here.
Neil @ 62
Sulpher.
*xyz @ 62
At that point, he had what he needed–a denial from Libby that he’d told Russert, and, rather, that Russert had told Libby. I would guess preliminary reports from the FBI had indicated that confusion, and all he wanted from Scooter was that. Once he had it, he just went on to the next issue. Had he dwelt upon it, Scooter might have figured out he was in deep shit and started some weasel-wording to create some doubt that he was lying.
Having gotten the definitive statement from Libby, there was no reason to pursue it further.
Reminds me of an amusing scene from an old Pink Panther movie…
One of the amusing scenes from Peter Seller’s classic Pink Panther series of films is where he goes into a small hotel to get a room. Sellers, playing the part of the bumbling Inspector Clouseau, steps up to a desk where a room clerk is standing, and a dog is lying at his feet beside him. . . while Clouseau waited for the clerk to register him, he noticed the dog lying on the floor beside him. Clouseau asked the clerk, “Does your dog bite?” The clerk said, “No, he doesn’t.”
Clouseau bent over to pet the dog, which suddenly snapped at his hand and growled. Clouseau, quickly stepped back and said indignantly, “I thought your dog didn’t bite!” The clerk, without looking up, said, “That’s not my dog.”
Scooter is utilizing this same concept of “desceptive truth” early and often.
Jwoods @
44
I was talking about the logical argument: Wilson’s internal report about his trip substantiated the 16 words claim, but Wilson can’t be believed.
If the report actually substantiated the 16 words (Libby is claiming this even in the GJ to Fitz), then why try to distance the VP from sending Wilson and never seeing the report?
Summary: he did good work back then, but we never knew about it, and it wasn’t because of anything we did.
radiofreewill, I like the idea, but my guess is that FDL has to pay a processing charge on each $5.07 you donate. It probably doesn’t make much difference for just your donations, but if others followed suit, it might cut into what FDL is actually receiving.
I don’t know for sure and I don’t speak in any way for FDL, but I really appreciate your willingness to donate.
Jane and Swopa – enjoyed your interview from yesterday – and Jane, it was heartwarming to see you looking so well. I guess that cold weather puts some pink in your cheeks.
Can one of the legal experts give a quick summary during the lunch break? I gather from the comments that this was not a good day for Mr. I. Libby, but I can’t break out exactly how myself.
Thanks.
Cranky
I didn’t want to appear to be confirming something that I didn’t know and was hearing as if for the first time. Uh, right. Why would he think that “I don’t know that” could be taken as confirmation, especially since he claims he wasn’t talking to Russert as a source?
And of course, having learned that a CIA agent’s identity was public knowledge, he took no action to find out whether this was true or whether this created a security problem.
politicalpolyanna at 9:18 am
Thanks I had forgotten that. I’m not sure it will make much difference to Joe and Jane Sixpack. Also, I’m not sure the President has the right to “selectively” declassify. There’s been a lot of discussion about it here at FDL. Sure the President can order something declassified, but it still has to go through a process informing everyone else that it’s been declassified. Bob Novak and the Chicago Sun Times aren’t part of the chain and that’s how the CIA found out first about Valerie and later that Brewster Jennings had been “declassified.”
theExile @
85
Completely agree, you both did great!
Neil @ 62 & Mad Dog @ 69, I’m with you all the way:
Dick & Scooter: we didn’t want to let on that we were already putting this out in the hopes that Hadley & Rove would put out parallel leaks – which they did. Shazamm.
ew 14
Here. Let me take over. Just finished listening to the NPR interview with u & Byron.
Yahoo! You are f.a.n.t.a.s.t.i.c! THANKS for the link.
Anyone else want to revisit emptywheel vs. mr.hairdoo, Round 2? ‘ere…
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=7181395
Wow what a pack of lies.
1.Either Libby or Russert is lying about their conversation
2.Libby claims to have learned and then forgotten Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Cheney told Libby and Libby told many reporters within the week of this discussion with Russert.
3. Ironic that immediatly after Matthews topic is concluded, RUSSERT brings up Plame. Libby’s memory is REAL clear on this conversation but completely opaque on his conversations with other reports earlier n the week.
4. Liiby’s described his conversation with RUSSERT as denial after denial IN THE PRESENT TENSE of his knowledge about Plame. Even after Russert repeats the info, Libby responds as if he must assert he is again learning it anew.
This will be kniown as the “as if” defense.
He says “I don’t know that” and again “I don’t know that.” He dosen’t say “I didn’t know that” and then “I didn’t know that, so what do you make of it?”
He said not much he could do about Chris Matthews, and then he said did you know Ambassador Wilson’s wife works for the CIA? I remember being taken aback by that, and I said “No, I don’t know that.” Intentionally, because I didn’t want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.
So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, “I don’t know that,” and he said, “Yeah, all the reporters know that,” and I said “I don’t know that.” Again.
*xyz @
57
Scooter’s attorneys want to try and trick Fitz into coughing up the name of a witness that the defense doesn’t know about. Fitz is trying to protect the witness.
Jane Hamsher @
48
jane, not sure which one you’re refering to. is it the one with Katrina vanden Heuvel on, i think, july 10th?
if so, here’s the link – but it seems the page is gone, apparently the hardball archive doesn’t seem to go back that far.
i’ve only found snippets of the transcript (posted on other sites) so far – but i haven’t looked very hard… let me know if i’m on the right track and i’ll look further (if someone else doesn’t beat me to it).
WP article up on today’s testimony up …
WP article
Mauimom @ 79
Sulpher.
shooter’s a mouthbreather?
Swopa–great job!
In your reporting between 11:36 and 11:55, you wrote that after Russert mentioned Plame worked for the CIA, Libby said, “No I don’t know that.” The next sentence you wrote is critical:
“Intentionally, because I didn’t want him to take it as confirming it.”
Is that an EXACT quote? Because if so, I think it’s the money quote. If Libby didn’t remember at that time that he knew Plame worked for the CIA, he wouldn’t have made an “intentional” comment and he would have known to confirm it, because he couldn’t remember that he knew it.
Wow!
Jwoods (#30):
don’t give such good ideas away. if this trial keeps building and having repercussions that could be a christmas ‘07 blockbuster…..
This is actually quite funny:
This is the “we’re just dedicated public servants checking in with each other on the business of the day and trying to solve a problem that the nasty ol’ press had caused for us” routine.
I’ll bet Rove’s cumulative testimony on this conversation is like a verbal version of “Snakes and Ladders.” :)
John Casper @ 84
PayPal basic merchant fees are pretty low here. Processing fee .30 per transaction, plus percentage. So, not a big deal, and 4.70 now is often better than 24.70 next month.
punaise @
35
followed by:
Biko, ooh oh oh Biko ………
re: comment 97
meant to say he would NOT have known NOT to confirm it because he couldn’t remember that he knew it.
John Forde @ 58
My investigation showed that Rove “voluntarily” testified and admitted to his leaks. This was done after his lawyers received knowledge that Fitz had evidence that Rove leaked. Rove’s story was that he “remembered” his leaks and provided documentation of such. That is why Fitz didn’t indict. He was dead in his sights until some reporter tipped off his attorney.
obvious lies;
“F: When Russert told you what you said he did, did you call the CIA press office to say, have you heard about reporters knowing this?
L: No.
F: Did you tell any other WH official, or the VP?
L: No.”
The only posible reasons he would not pass this along was;
A. he’s a total incompetent who does not recognize when national security might be at risk.
B. he’s lying through his gap again
C. he was the one who started the “rumor.”
I would guess its actually a combo of #2 and #3. Bush is the only member of this administration who fits the first category.
Actually, my opinion of Matthews (some of you call him “Tweety” and it is a very funny mental image I get when I read that) has risen a notch or two, hopefully all this will prove he’s still “one of us.”
Meaning, just another regular citizen.
I always liked the guy, and except for his rude interrupting and “conservative in centrist clothing” image, it sounds like he came through for “us” on this one.
John Casper @ 88
Declassifying a functioning CIA NOC *and* and entire functioning cover organization with all its ‘human assets’, and exposing them to possible death is a high crime. Impeach?
I’m struck by the fact that he remembered the name of Russert’s producer, all those months later, but he was claiming to have forgotten that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA within a month of having learned it.
politicalpolyanna @ 76
Apart from Plame’s name, wasnt the de-Leakified info that they were “trying to put out” already debunked by various intel community peeples? And wasnt that why JudyJudyJudy wasnt to interested in their “story” (to write about it)?
And isnt it so that the admin “explanation” runs into a timing issue here as to when the already debunked info that they were peddling/leaking/declassifing (including Plame’s status) doesnt jive with the dates that Libby started spilling the Plame identity to any reporter he could talk to?
Fresh thread for lunchtime discussion, gang. Thought you could use some fresh digs. :)
‘L: I didn’t know that at that time, lots of people work at the CIA. I didn’t know anything about the wife sending him until I read the Novak article.’
From the timeline –
June 11 or 12 – * Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman tells Scooter Libby that “Joe Wilson’s wife works for the CIA”, and that State Department personnel are saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of the trip (Libby indictment, p. 4; Fitzgerald affadavit, p. 11; Hearing transcript, pdf p. 6).
June 12 – Vice President Dick Cheney tells Libby that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA’s counter-proliferation division. Libby understands the information to have come from the CIA (Libby Indictment, p. 5). This is during a conversation about the Pincus inquiry (Fitzgerald response, p. 4).
June 14 – * Scooter Libby meets with CIA briefer Craig Schmall at Libby’s home, and they discuss the Niger trip (Libby Indictment, p. 5). Schmall’s handwritten notes indicate that Libby referred to “Joe Wilson” and “Valerie Wilson” (Fitzgerald affadavit, p. 12; Tatel opinion, p. 31; Schmall testimony).
—
Hard to see how this stands up to any reasonable investigation of the facts.
Lurker here.
Amaing job swopa and Jane.
Yesterday too.
I am so blown away by all of this, what you are doing over here.
Riveted. Can’t leave Computer.
Need Shower.
Seriously, I found myself reading and not wanting to get up for more coffee because I might miss something!
That is how good you guys… and you who are commenting are.
Thanks.
ok, more lurking.
Thanks so much.
beth meacham @ 106
Ha! I caught that too. That Fitz is one clever guy. Memory defense, be damned…
Is the Libby/Russert conversation after the “Wilson has been declassified” discussion when Hadley was kept in the dark?
Jane Hamsher @
48
Jane, I just got off the phone with Hardball. They were all over it, and said they would email me the transcripts from those shows. I will forward them to you as soon as I get them.
theExile @
85
Jane Hamsher has — excuse me, is — an unstoppable life force.
John Casper @ 113
that’s the ticket! excellent job… would you post them on a public site (if copyright allows)?
using google, this is the best i’ve been able to do… but i don’t know if i have the show that jane wants..
Insouciant @
97
NOTHING is an exact quote. Most typically, it’s one sentence summing up three or four (Libby sure can gab). But the gist is correct — he consciously made sure to say he didn’t know.
To be fair, his argument was that in general, reporters are quick to take things as confirmation, so he was acting on that principle rather than any specific sensitivity about Plame’s employment.
Excellent representation for the left by Marcy Wheeler re: Monday’s Neil Conen NPR piece with Byron York. Marcy controlled the dialogue in the beginning of the segment thereby preventing York from turning the interview into a bootlicking toadyfest. York had to play it straight. Caller David probably thought that the Lewinsky affair was an appropriate use of public monies. Malkin? WTF?
Marcy is cool as a cucumber and that is awesome!
Russert. What a shill. He deserves getting “fingered” by Scooter. I’ll enjoy his indignant testimony. I hope you guys will report the shades of Russert’s face( pink flush>hot angry tomato red), and various expressions. I’m just so curious as to why Al Scooter/Darth Cheney thought Russert would have any influence on Tweetie though.
emptywheel @
14
Bigtime vindication on the Novak-Libby link.
But do you really think Libby didn’t know about Judy being in the NYT doghouse?
Swopa @ 116
Bear in mind that the reporters and government witnesses, including Agent Bond, were just as deeply involved in this story as Libby was–and every one of them has demonstrated a shaky recollection, even with the aid of notes.
More choice lines:
Wells is going to have a real hard explaining away that marked-up column from Dick with the note about “wife sent him on junket…”
David scherrey @ 121
Byron… is that you?
Hello – I just got back home and I’m trying to catch up what happened in the last two hours. Interesting.
Probably the most shocking exchange I saw was this one (testimony is from the last thread):
IMO, this shows that Scooter believes he has a good memory. It shows that Scooter himself beleives he would remember conversations with reporters on this topic. He says, then confirms that he would remember conversations with reporters.
To me, this exchange goes a very long way to proving all of the charges against Mr. Libby.
Do you think that in this exchange, Scooter was trying to give Fitz the impression that he may not have “remembered” who gave him the Plame=CIA information or who told him it was classified, or who in the WH told him to leak it? After all, he’d be more likely to remember discussing this info with reporters than discussing it with WH officials. He claims he wouldn’t be as likely to remember who GAVE him the info as he would remember who HE GAVE IT TO.
This smells like somebody’s protecting himself (and his boss) from a conspiracy or treason charge.
He’s so busy trying to skirt the conspiracy, he managed to obstruct, give false statements, and commit perjury in the process.
I’d also like to know what the ‘Rove Report’ was?
litigatormom @ 46
Hissssssssss.
LIBBY: *spoken with lower lip stuck out and a kind of hangdog voice*
I was “[m]ore 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.”
You lying, conniving, deceitful snake! AS IF Scooter wouldn’t KNOW that that Friday night’s Tenet apology was carefully timed to MISS the news and be forgotten by Monday.
You little shit!
Byron York is a (The “C” Word).
JEP @
78
a Pythonic quip:
“pissed on from a great height ……”
Mauimom @
80
Sulpher.
Bwa, ha, ha, ha.
mui @ 119
Russert was NBC Washington Bureau Chief. Matthews worked out of DC office.
Pach@79 and John Casper@84
Glad to support healthy citizen-participation in Government!
Personally, I would like to see public subscription only – no Corporate support.
Speaking for myself, if the FDL *Vision* is to better inform and involve us in our Government processes through efforts like Live-blogging, deep legal and background expertise, and penetrating analysis that includes insights into human motivation – Count Me In for a monthly subscription!
It would be a shame not to build-on the Live-blogging effort of the Libby Trial and take the same basic model to ALL THE KEY ACTION SPOTS right on thru the ‘08 Election Cycle and beyond.
So, I’ll re-swizzle my contribution to $25.07 per month to keep the processing charges from ‘piling-on’ and still encourage everyone to give steadily for a good cause.
Thanks
Swopa @ 114
Life feels better now that Jane is back.
p.lukasiak @ 130
Tweety works for MSNBC and is in his own studio/office on Capitol Hill. He is completely out of NBC’s Washington bureau purview.
i’m surprised Matalin thought Russert held any authority over Tweety.
L: I didn’t want to get Russert in trouble by saying he’d told me.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
:)
p.lukasiak @ 130
Hmm, now Russert is a stinking valentine.
Hmmm so many damning things in that whole testimony (so far), but just one tidbit I found interesting is this one when Fitz questions him about his conversations with Mitchell. Libby’s response here tells me he has a motive to lie. (as he was worried that Timmeh might have gotten in trouble for talking about Wilson’s wife)
F: Did you talk to Andrea Mitchell about Wilson and his wife sometime in this time frame?
L: I talked to Andrea Mitchell after Russert, and I see that NBC has stated that she didn’t know about Wilson’s wife until after July 14th.
L: I remember an awkward moment in talking to her, because I thought about what Russert told me, but I didn’t know if she knew, and I didn’t want to get Russert in trouble by saying he’d told me.
Wow, and I see NBC has said she didn’t know until the 14th ! So much for Libby’s bogus memory defense as he even remembers what NBC has said about Mitchell’s knowledge.
Yes, why would Libby be worried that Tim would be in trouble if he told Andrea Mitchell about this fact (that Tim told him about Wilson’s wife) if it was just gossip or an innocent fact at the time of this conversation with Mitchell. Could it be because he knew the legal significance and dangers at the time of outing an operative so he(Libby) had a motive to lie.
stingray @ 135
Scooter seems to have a genius for telling the worst kind of lies.
Libby repeatedly embellishes his lie about Russert giving him Plame’s name:
Since Russert hadn’t told Libby about Plame, there is no way that Libby could have felt awkward talking to Mitchell, or being worried about his favorite tool Russert (what a nice person Libby is to have been so worried about Russert passing on a noc’s name!).
The fact that the original lie has been embellished three times over (”I was surprised at Russert’s statement about Plame”, “I felt awkward in talking to Mitchell”, and “I was worried about Russert”) demolishes any innocent explanation. It’s one thing to not remember what someone else said, but it’s something very strange to remember personal emotions which never could have happened.
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it’s Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?
L: No. We asked someone in the WH press office who knew him. Adam Levine.
AND
L: I was just trying to get him to influence Chris Matthews.
F: You say you were giving the name of Russert’s producer. Did you write it down in your notes?
L: I may not have.
I find this exchange VERY interesting. First, I think Fitz mispoke in the question…he meant Matthew’s producer, not Russert’s.
But Scooter was able to remember the name of the producer, and the name of the guy tasked with contacting him…WITHOUT WRITING IT DOWN. So he could remember that, but not remember the first time he heard that Wilson’s wife was CIA?!?
Hope I did this HTML stuff correctly.
did anyone else notice this, or am I just way off base.
It seems to me he is saying he intentionally told Russert he didn’t know …and then seemed to catch himself and add
Seems odd to use htis word.
maybe being too analytical.
Wish I couldld HEAR!
you lucky Swopa and Jane.
back to lurking
Thread Theorist @ 139
Bingo!
The Jury will notice this embellishment.
Excellent comment, Thread Theorist.
Adie @
91
Marcelled York ……….
Thread Theorist @ 139
This bears repeating.
In the Grand Jury testimony, Fitz shows Libby a note (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA), probably a note from Libby’s files and asks
F: Does this say, “Wilson is declassified”?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, “The president is comfortable”?
L: Yes.
This is NOT an offical transcript of the trial of the Grand Jury testimony so do not assume it is correct. However, if it is correct, then Libby would have us beleive the President declassified Plames status as a CIA agent. The only concievable reason for doing this is to discredit or punish Wilson for his public op-ed piece challenging BushCo’s case for war in Iraq.
If Wilson was full of shit, and Bush’s case for war was solid, why go to the trouble to discredit Wilson and use presidential powers to “legally” declassifiy a CIA agents status in order to reveal it publicly and thereby ruin her career?
*xyz @ 142
Yes, especially since Libby stated very clearly that he would have remembered conversations with reporters on this topic (see my comment @ 124). That makes the likelihood of intentional embellishment by Mr. Libby rather clear.
accountability @ 141
Seems odd to use htis word.
maybe being too analytical.
Wish I couldld HEAR!
you lucky Swopa and Jane.
back to lurking
Oh, I noticed that too. Libby is spinning so hard in circles, he doesn’t know how to keep up.
Welcome to the delurkers club, accountability. I “came out” a few weeks ago. Once you dip your toe in, you realize the water is very warm and inviting!
Insouciant @ 97
Yes!
that struck me too. I made a comment, I should have refreshed first and I would have seen yours.
This is very curious to me as well.
Money Quote indeed.
“If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
With this administration’s history of double-speak,”appropriate action” probably actually meant “don’t worry guys, you’ll get a pardon”
neil @ 145
IF this is correct and IF they are referring to Valerie Plame Wilson, they did more than ruin her career. They intentionally compromised the security of the United States by exposing a covert CIA operation for their own political gain.
This is treasonous (imho)!
I just found out Scooter was born in New Haven CT. Once again I am embarrassed for my homestate.
neil @ 145
Are we sure this refers to Mrs. Wilson’s status, not Mr. Wilson’s trip?
The pressident may be able to unilaterally out a NOC, but wouldn’t you think it would be a good idea to let her know that her cover is blown, and to officially notify her employer at the CIA so that they could take action to protect all people and assets that were jeopardized by this declassification?
Libby: I remember an awkward moment in talking to her, because I thought about what Russert told me, but I didn’t know if she knew, and I didn’t want to get Russert in trouble by saying he’d told me.
Thread Theorist @ 139: The fact that the original lie has been embellished three times over (”I was surprised at Russert’s statement about Plame”, “I felt awkward in talking to Mitchell”, and “I was worried about Russert”) demolishes any innocent explanation. It’s one thing to not remember what someone else said, but it’s something very strange to remember personal emotions which never could have happened.
Not to mention the fact that Libby and NOT Russert would have legal liability for intentionally disclosing such classified information. How could Libby, by revealing Russert’s alleged Wilson/Plame/CIA scoop to Mitchell, get Russert in trouble? It would not under any circumstance. It could however get someone else in trouble, someone subject to IIPA, if it were traced from Russert back to them.
Man, I’m going to rename February 6 “emptywheel vindication day” in honor of this testimony. First, Marcy scoops everyone on the Libby to Novak meetings.
Please remind us the significance is of this?
Is the suggestion that Libby is one of the 2 in the 1×2×6? That Libby intentionally fed Plame to Novak?
Rich @ 152: Are we sure this refers to Mrs. Wilson’s status, not Mr. Wilson’s trip?
I’m with you, it almost certainly refers to the Wilson report – not Plame.
Maybe this is why they can’t remember that the VP tolkd the CIA to investigate the Iraq-Niger “reports”. It seems they can’t even recall who asked Libby to talk to Judy Miller!
L: I was unaware that she was not writing during this period, but the VP instructed me to talk to Judith Miller….So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this, and I selected Judith Miller because I felt she was a responsible reporter
(Uhh, you just said Cheney picked her, didnt you?).
F: Getting back to Judith Miller, did you talk about Mr. Wilson?
L: I don’t remember specifically, but probably since we discu
F: Does this say, “Wilson is declassified”?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, “The president is comfortable”?
L: Yes.
F: And the next line:
L: Hadley saying it’s the NIE should be leaked.
F: Did anyone say it was OK to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President’s approval.”
“Wilson is declassified”? Which Wilson?
“I said, but NIE is classified, but Cheney said Pres. had authorized it. Libby went to Addington to confirm that Pres. could declassify (this is all stuff that has been reported, so sorry if I miss details). So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this, and I selected Judith Miller because I felt she was a responsible reporter” (Uhh, you just said Cheney picked her, didnt you?).
De-classifying just to take out a critic.
Just what type of reasons are required to de-classify? Just because you feel like it or can?
Rich @
152
The only people the Administration was trying to protect were themselves. They conspired to scorch and burn the Wilsons to protect themselves and their fake propaganda taking this nation to war resulting in the deaths of the soldiers under their command. They just didn’t think they’d get caught, but just in case they might get caught, they put in an Executive order (allowing Cheney to declassify as well as the President) to try to cover their sorry behinds. This all came from the top down.
“The president is comfortable”
DECLASSIFY JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN
“but wouldn’t you think it would be a good idea to let her know that her cover is blown,”
John Dean has referred to the “outing” as a potential “hit,” as in death by murder. And anyone else who perfdormed such an outing would be subject to accusations of treason.
When her cover was blown, her rassociated circle people may have been blown away by “the bad guys” and she herself could have been in danger.
Do I smell more impeachment smoke? Billows and billows of it? Is the impeachment fire getting ready to burst into flames?
And will this trial fan those flames into an impeachment bonfire?
Much more of this talk about Cheney and Bush deliberately declassifying dangerous information, and a lot of Real American Patriots will start thinking “betrayal” and “treason.”
And maybe that is just exactly what it was.
Here’s the Wikktionary definition and some interesting history of how to deal with these rogues…
“Treason”
The crime of betraying one’s government.
(Here in the States, “government” means you and me, “We, the People.”)
“Formerly, the punishment for high treason was of a most barbarous character….Women were burnt. A male traitor was dragged or drawn to the place of execution and hanged; but while still alive, he was cut down and disembowelled. His head was then severed from his body which was quartered. The head and quarters, which were at the Kings disposal, were usually exposed in some conspicuous place – the Temple Bar being a favourite spot – after being boiled in salt to prevent putrification and in cumin seed to prevent birds feasting on them.”
1952: James Avery Joyce: Justice At Work: (this edition Pan 1957) Page 105.
Damn! Makes Old Sparky seem downright civilized…
I wonder how comfortable the President is now.
From directly above swopa’s 11:36am time stamp:
L: Yes, trying to get statement from Rice and Tenet explaining that Wilson’s findings didn’t really undermine intelligence, but supported it (gives the whole spiel again)
Does this not further support eRiposte’s hypothesis that, in fact, they had actually been using Wilson as the ’sensitive source’ supporting their two bogus streams prior to his July 06 OpEd (see eRiposte’s Part IV from last weekend)?
.
Clearly Scooter is lying his guts out. His testimony is even more incriminating than I would have guessed. The interesting question becomes why. In this case, I think Fitz will pull a Bush Administration – losing job is the easiest explanation for jury. Lets speculate on real reasons for blatant lying… Let me throw these out:
1. Ironically, Scooter is the only one of the bunch with some moral compass. He feels guilty for his part in lynching, he feels guilty about being part of effort to sell war. He still is not over being wrong and being used – see how he is trying to spin Fitz in 2004 about events from 2002 – he cannot let go.
2. Cheney. If Cheney is the one who told him and then later they had conversation, unless Cheney also “forgot”, wouldn’t Cheney have said something to Scooter that made him re-remember that Cheney had actually told him this the previous month? Is it possible that Cheney had idea for Russert lie?
mui @
151
Don’t feel too bad, I was born in New Haven, it is a nice city, but has some downsides, yale, skull and bones, Bush’s birthplace, but on the plus side, the best god damn pizza in the country.
[/i] works?
now?
[NOTE: Please be sure to close you HTML tags. Thanks! — CHS]
FYI: there is a new lunchtime thread (available if you click the forward link at the top of the page, or visible if you click the FDL logo. If you click either of the HOME links, the new thread isn’t showing up at the moment.)
This link should take you there:
Because Russ Asked You To
“The only people the Administration was trying to protect were themselves.”
So they could make sure their book-cooking no-bid bubbas got those easy-money contracts.
Wonder what that has to do with the troop buildup? Is there some grotesque trivial mis-purpose, maybe some Texas contractors want a bigger piece of the action or something?
Just who will profit from this troop surge? I mean financially, who gets the gravy for hauling them back and forth and feeding them while they’re there?
Sure seems like this “surge” has few advocates or beneficiaries outside the Bushes family and friends, and that means the only beneficiaries will, once more, be those greedy, power-hungry, insatiable billionaires who actually move the chess pieces on the board.
Linda @ 158
mui @
119
They were told Mary that Tim would so they just believed it and followed orders. The testimony shows a similar mentality to the Nixon Whitehouse where folks who were doing the bidding of the President set aside any moral or ethical constraints and went after critics without concern for the law.
Jwoods @
44
It’s even worse…since Mayaki never even met that “Iraqi trade delegation”…in fact it didn’t even happen in Niamey, Niger!
A “businessman” approached Mayaki in Algiers at an African Trade Summit encouraging Mayaki to speak with the Iraqis. Mayaki blew him off.
The Iraqis didn’t even bother to go to Niger specifically. Mayaki’s belief that the approached him specifically was based upon supposition. The Iraqi’s could have been trying to talk to dozens of African countries, not just Niger. The Commercial Sanctions bill against Iraq was coming up for a vote in the UN just the next year.
You don’t think that the Iraqis weren’t lobbying people to vote against renewal, do you!????
Yet the Administration attempts (supposedly retroactively) to claim that Mayaki’s mention of his remote mind-meld with the Iraqi delegation indicated that they SOUGHT to purchase yellowcake from Niger???
On this sort of “intelligence” they justify out invasion of IRAQ? This is why we’ve spent 1 trillion dollars and had 3000 soldiers killed, and well over 20,000 maimed for life? This is why we condemned the Iraqi people to generations of inter-religious wars, and hundreds of thousands of people killed?
Because they relied on the “pop psychology” of some fifth-rank African satrap?
DairyMaid @140
Good catch! I’m not reading the testimony rea carefully so it’s great to have someone pick out the best parts.
Fitz may have anticipated the memory defense, he was getting lots of data poins wrt Libbey’s ability to recall details. He knew Libby was giving false testimony so he just tossed that bait out there, wanting to get Libby to identify numerous specifics. I mean, what great technique! The Scoots bit so hard Fitz didn’t even have to set the hook.
L: I was unaware that she was not writing during this period, but the VP instructed me to talk to Judith Miller….So the Pres and VP wanted me to
discuss thismake the hit. Unfortunately Judy was all crabby about “still can’t get the sand out of my *ss” after herwild goose chasesearch for WMDs in Iraq and was all, like “what the f*ck???” and didn’t seem very inclined to run with it, so I dialed Novak next.beth meacham @
51
Maybe he “meant” to say the NOVAK report? But I thought that Rove was simply a “confirm” on this. And didn’t Libby just say that in his discussion with Rove about the Novak discussion that he didn’t really ask about whether Rove “confirmed” Novak’s statement about Plame?
Why call it the “Rove report” if Rove didn’t tell Novak anything about Wilson or Plame?
It seems that Libby basically is saying – “Yeah, I knew that Rove told Novak everything”.
Where is that report about the effects of Plames outing on National Security?
Hopefully (R) Senator Pat Roberts is not in charge of that investigation. He did his absolutely best in diverting and delaying Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Let’s hope that it does not take LIES ABOUT A BLOW JOB to get the Democrats to complete that investigation of the INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB! Holding those accountable for false intelligence is the very least that our reps can do for those who have needleslly lost their lives in this war of choice
LandOfTheFree @ 147
Oh, I noticed that too. Libby is spinning so hard in circles, he doesn’t know how to keep up.
Welcome to the delurkers club, accountability. I “came out” a few weeks ago. Once you dip your toe in, you realize the water is very warm and inviting!
Thank you, thank you, thank you…
I have to say I probably won’t join in much since I’m not a lawyer, haven’t ever really been political, (though I am now looking for an Impeachment activist group in my area) so don’t feel like I can add much. That just jumped out at me.
This is so fascinating I can barely do anything else.
Ok… more lurking.
Thanks for the encouragement and the warm welcome.
;)
Yeah, the “Rove report.” I’ve been wondering about that too. Freudian slip I think; he misspoke bc he had Rove and Novak tied firmly together in his with the associated word “leak”. As in, he knew Rove had leaked – BEFORE anyone outside knew it. It WAS before, wasn’t it?
“they had actually been using Wilson as the ’sensitive source’ supporting their two bogus streams”
Wilson was their “sensitive source!?!?”
The one they claimed had the proof that Saddam was building nukes?
that’s beyond Machiavelian…
But it might just be true.
Was it Goebbels or Goering who said “make the lie so big, they can only believe it…”
Anyone ever find out any more about the forged French documents? After what we are learning from old Scoot, there’s a good chance Cheney’s office ordered those lies to be fabricated when the real evidence failed to appear from Wilson’s “junket.”
cinnamonape @ 172
DEMAND THAT OUR REPS COMPLETE PHASE II OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITEE ON INTELLIGENCE. DEMAND THAT THE INDIVIDUALS OR OFFICES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FALSE PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
AS IT STANDS MANY OF THESE SAME INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN MARCHING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOWARDS IRAN
*xyz @
57
Yes, Fitz’s technique is to spin away from the EASILY REMEMBERED LINEAR SEQUENCE OF FABRICATION. By asking about things out of order it trips up someone who has constructed a lie.
Each event has to be explained by the witness without the ability to have the fabricated narrative as a “memory prop”. If the events really happened as a fact…then the context is embedded already.
But by stripping away Libby’s ability to say “All of this happened BEFORE Russert” and I didn’t recall THAT…and then “That happened after Russert”…Libby then is put in a position of clearly remembering acts that ONLY make sense in the light of his prior and ongoing knowledge and then justifying them.
*xyz @
63
Don’t worry. Recall that Libby made several “recall” appearances before the Grand Jury. By that time I’m sure that he would have had Russerts statement. But I suspect that he had FBI interviews with Russert by that time.
He simply was using the “technique” of switching Libby from giving a linear narrative that is easily recalled by a liar. By switchiung back-and-forth between time-frames it results in a liar getting all confused about what happened when and what they knew when.
Thanks cinnamonape. That is extremely helpful.
Another thing to remember: Wilson is proxy for CIA. The real “cold war” that was going on was between CIA and administration. First the CIA was too wimpy on Iraq, and then they were to blame for not standing up to the Admin’s misuse of information. The real issue admin had with Valerie Plame was not
btw I LUV the way the CIA used admin’s tactic of releasing info on Friday afternoon and it irritated WH. A little taste of their own medicine…
If there isn’t a “Rove Report,” if it was just a mis-statement, I for one will be very disappointed.
Just the thought of an 80 page document with those words printed on the cover gives me hope for future expose’, I’d order that one from Barnes and Noble.
PS; Just have to add, Edwards is using the “T” word,(taxes) quite courageously the last couple days, I wonder, when will any of the other candidates speak the same inevitable economic truth?
mui @ 151
GHWB, GWB, and the Scootermobile. AND Lieberman.
I’m thinking we’re going to have to kick you out of the union. You don’t even get that many strikes in baseball or California.
how about “King Arthur in a Connecticut Yankee’s Court?”
or was that King George?
obsessed says :
Clearly Scooter is lying his guts out. His testimony is even more incriminating than I would have guessed. .. Lets speculate on real reasons for blatant lying… Let me throw these out:
1. Ironically, Scooter is the only one of the bunch with some moral compass. He feels guilty for his part in lynching, he feels guilty about being part of effort to sell war. He still is not over being wrong and being used – see how he is trying to spin Fitz in 2004 about events from 2002 – he cannot let go.
Scooter was IN CHARGE of building the case for war by finding connections to Al Queda tieing it nuclear capabilities.
He may have been a koolaid drinker but – like everyone else – he got used. He was ordered to manufacture a case and then defend it to the end.
When his case started to fold he was ordered to defending it by sticking his head “in the meat grinder” (Cheney’s term for the press, who were suddenly asking questions like “ummm… But where the hell are the WMDS???”)
The decision to sell the war on that basis was undoubtedly not his decision – it was almost certainly Rove’s. Campaigns are his specialty and that’s what the case for war was – a campaign to sell it to the public and Congress. It’s natural he would be the one to design the campaign.
The decision to out Plame was likely Rove’s too, recall the “fair game” comment by Rove to CM.
When Libby says “So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this” the orders came from “above” but I suspect this also came on Rove’s specific advice.
Like WMD @ 125, I’d sure like to know more about the “Rove Report” he mentioned.
It’s also worth noting that Wilson still maintains it all goes back to Rove.
Slightly OT: Does anyone have a link to the Tenet statement being referred to?
“L: I don’t like to obfuscate in that way.”
But, of course, there’s alway more than one “way” with these framing experts…
Interested Observer @
82
Exactly! IF INDEED Libby had FORGOTTEN that he had ever known…that the information was FRESH…his motive for saying “No, I don’t know that.” Intentionally, because I didn’t want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.” is absurd. The rationalization is something that would make sense only after he discovered he HAD forgotten.
But that, according to his alibi, occurred months later…not AT the Russert discussion!
His real rationale should have been that he simply didn’t know. And why would he have to be worried about “confirming” something that Russert assured him that the whole Washington DC Press Corps was aware of?
F: Did anyone say that it was ok to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judy Miller, with the Presidents’ approval.
My question: Presidents’ aproval to leak the NIE or approval to leak Plame?
ps- are we sure that swopa didn’t accidentially leave off “vice”?
The Sgt. Schultz Obfuscation:
“So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, “I don’t know that,” and he said, “Yeah, all the reporters know that,” and I said “I don’t know that.” Again.
“I know naaaahthink! Naaathink!”
Phoenix Woman @
93
Except that Libby’s attorneys are not allowed into the GJ Room…and although Libby is a lawyer, I seriously doubt that he would be able to think that well on his feet in his first set of testimony.
Fitz’s diversion is simply because either a) he had not yet been able to interview Russert on the topic; or
b) he didn’t want Libby to be able to establish a linear sequence that would allow him to easily recall his “lie”.
I still don’t see Libby protecting himself yet, he’s protecting Scattergun.
Scooter’s still falling on his sword, and a reprise shows that the lies all line up for one purpose; get us into this war, at all costs, then after we get Saddam and our people make billions, we’ll sort it all out”
Except that it was just too big a mess to sort out, at least as far as our military is concerned.
And all this “Libby” evidence just proves the underlying subterfuge.
Think about it; There is only one thing we can say they knew for certain about this war before they started it; that Halliburton, CACI and Parsons would get the no-bid contracts.
Everything else was pure speculation, a lost gamble on “open arms greeting us”. Since that just didn’t happen, then all they got from this mess was that Halliburton, CACI and Parsons got the contracts.
But since that was their first priority, (that and hanging Saddam for revenge), I would suggest that there is a very wealthy class of Texans (and a few Virginians and Californians) who feel as if this war has gone quite well for them.
neil @ 145
These documents will surely be placed as evidence in the trail. Check the DOJ website for the new exhibits submitted today!
Again, in this clip, we are expected to believe that detail-obsessed Rove and Libby failed to compare notes about the most important national security issues of the day?
Maybe they had to get home to watch “Desperate Housewives…”
“”F: Did you tell Rove how you responded to Tim Russert?
L: I don’t think so.
F: Did you learn how Rove responded to Novak?
L: No.”"
I can’t believe they think we could believe this. Do they think we are all fools?
OK, don’t respond to that one, we all know the answer..
“Some of The People all of the time..”
stingray @ 154
All it is necessary is that Libby thought the the “source” (#1) had told the reporter that he was one of the #2’s that leaked to some of the SIX reporters. People, I think, are obsessing, too much about this shorthand formula for the (Pincus?) article.
If Libby tghought that he had been outed he would be concerned about his status…and start covering up. The article (since this is marked by Libby and was in his files) goes to his state-of-mind.
The formulation doesn’t have to be accurate. There could be many more reporters, there could be more than two leakers, there could be more steps in the pyramid.
All Libby needed to know is that the reporters or a “internal source” had suggested that the leaks were not accidental…but were a part of a broader conspiracy…and intentional. That made things a crime!
And the cover-up of that crime, just like Watergate, is where the prosecution found its foothold.
The crime of covering up a crime…
So how deep does it go? Whatever indictments get handed down after this, only Fitz knows, and even he may have a floating list. But there’s little doubt, the can of worms he’s opened should provide all the bait he needs to catch the bigger fish.
is this possible;
1=Cheney
2=Rove and Libby
6=each of those 2 called three reporters, totalling 6 leaks?
Libby’s 3 were Miller, Copper and Russert, Rove’s trio was Novak, ? and ?.
Who were the other two of the six? Or am I totally off here.
First time I’ve felt all alone on this blog…
Is this just a long recess, or am I missing a thread?
Come join us upstairs.
I’m a late comer today….Regarding the ‘Rove Report’, it might be the collection of ‘white papers’ ginned out of the WHIG group. So far we have not heard about what this group was doing to sell the war…
I’m sorry to keep repeating this, but all I recall is being surprised when I talked about it with Tim Russert.
Unnecessary apology to divert from lie.
my too sense @ 137
In addition, according to Libby, Russert told him that “all the reporters” knew.
So why would he be “getting Russert in trouble” if this information was all over the Press Corps? Russert would be just one blabber of many?
And why would he assume that Andrea Mitchell DIDN’T KNOW…given what Russert told him?
None of this makes any sense!!!
I think the story about Libby calling Russert to complain about Tweety is a lie. The whole point of that phone call was to establish the fact that “he didn’t know”. And I think Matalin is engaged in the coverup. Here’s why:
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it’s Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?
L: No. We asked someone in the WH press office who knew him. Adam Levine.
F: Did he succeed?
L: No. Matthews kept saying same things.
He was given the name of the producer but didn’t write it down.
He asked some press staffer to call the producer.
He struck out and seemed to be fine with it. Doesn’t sound like it was that urgent to begin with yet they were going straight to the top with Russert.
F: When Russert told you what you said he did, did you call the CIA press office to say, have you heard about reporters knowing this?
L: No.
F: Did you tell any other WH official, or the VP?
L: No.
There’s no reason to call the CIA if what he says never happened. Same with telling WH officials.
‘ Fifth rate satrap’ is one way of describing a Minister in any government yet Niger is a republic ( Unlike the USA Empire since 2000?) and so I respectfully dissent from any inadvertant participation in the smear-on-Niger that the lunar right are pushing.
We simply have no need to get into the gutter with well-known fascists such as Hitchens and Ledeen.
When more is known about all this scandal then racism could be found to be a significant factor behind what looks to me like a criminal *Yellowgate* conspiracy.