Jane and I had cab issues this morning, so we arrived at the courthouse with pre-jury jousting already underway. The arguments appear to be about whether David Sanger of the New York Times will be forced to testify as a defense witness. Stay tuned for clarifications as we get our mental bearings.
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.
Ted Wells, an attorney for Libby, just got up to respond to the attorney for Sanger. He claimed that Sanger's testimony is needed because the fact that Scooter didn't leak to Sanger about Plame on July 2, 2003, shows that he wouldn't have leaked to Judith Miller or anyone else. He also, somewhat apropos of nothing, chooses this moment to dispute the notion that Scooter and Judy "had a close personal relationship," suggesting that their June 23rd conversation was the first time they had ever met in person. Um, or maybe there was one prior occasion, but that's it.
Judge Walton is now talking about the First Amendment issues involved. It's 9:50. (P.S. He just ruled for the defense that Sanger must testify; I suppose there will be an appeal.)
The jury had been brought in, and they're resuming the replay of Libby's grand jury testimony in March.
Fitzgerald (F): Did you speak to David Sanger of the NYT?
Libby (L): Yes.
F: When?
L: My notes show July 2nd.
F: Did you meet in person?
L: Yes.
F: Had you done that before?
L: Yes (suggests it was informal)
F: Was this the first time you'd met with him as a source?
L: I'm not sure.
F: Did you talk about Wilson's wife?
L: I've looked at my notes, and I don't recall discussing that. He was mostly interested in the Powell UN presentation before the war.
F: Sanger wrote about doubts regarding in Iraq and uranium. Did you tell him that the Wilson warnings never reached the WH?
L: (long commentary disputing that Wilson's report constituted a warning that Iraq uranium intelligence was bogus… not sure how he segued to this)
F: Let's talk about July 6th. Wilson op-ed, appears on Meet the Press with Andrea Mitchell, and WaPo article. Did you see/read those items?
L: Don't think I saw MTP. I think I read the articles later, I took Sunday off.
F: Your reaction?
L: He was saying he had proven no attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. That's not what his report said. He was saying VP must have gotten report, and because his report was definitive — which it wasn't — that VP must have known intelligence was wrong and so twisted the facts. But he also said he would want to know if we thought there was something wrong with his report, so we hoped that he might withdraw the accusation if informed of why we felt it didn't prove what he thought it did.
F: Fair to say this was seen as an attack on the administration?
L: Yes.
It's 10:06.
F: (gives Libby the Wilson op-ed) What was your reaction? Were you angry?
L: I was confident that the facts were clear, that this was wrong.
F: Were you upset?
L: (long pause) I guess I was upset. I didn't like the article.
F: And did you discuss it with the VP?
L: (pause) Yes.
F: Are you uncertain?
L: I'm just trying to remember when. I didn't see him on Sunday.
F: Tell me about that conversation.
L: I don't remember it in detail. It was the same claims we had seen before.
F: Leaving aside if charges were true or false, is it fair to say this was most serious attack on administration credibility?
L: (doesn't want to concede this, but finally does)
F: Was this discussed on a daily basis in WH over the next week?
L: Yes.
F: Multiple times each day?
L: Yes.
F: What was Cheney's opinion.
L: He wanted to get all the facts out (this is an excerpt we've all read about before, I'm going to skim the main points)
(discussion of Cheney clipping out Wilson op-ed and keeping it on his desk)
(confirmation that copy of op-ed has Cheney's handwriting & underlining – "I have no choice but to conclude Iraqi intelligence was twisted")
(walks Libby through Cheney's notes about "did wife send him on
F: Do you recall discussing those issues with VP?
L: He was interested in how this person came to be selected for this mission. At some point after he learned that his wife worked
F: Cheney had told you this in June.
L: Yes.
F: So when you say "after we learned…" didn't you already know?
L: By this week I no longer remembered that. (mentions Russert conversation on July 10)
F: Do you recall when you discussed this with the VP, about Wilson's wife?
L: I don't recall it happening until after the Novak piece. I don't recall that he asked about it early on, though he may have given the note he took.
F: Prior to that, you didn't discuss it with the VP?
L: Don't recall discussing it before conversation with Russert on July 10th.
F: You didn't talk about it with anyone between the 6th and the 10th?
L: No. I recall being surprised when Russert told me.
F: Do you remember lunch with Ari Fleischer on July 7th?
L: Yes.
F: What did you talk about?
L: His leaving, future plans, Miami Dolphins. We probably also talked about uranium issue, but I don't recall that as well as the Dolphins.
F: Do you recall asking Craig Schmall in your 6:45 briefing on July 7th about the origins of Wilson's trip?
L: Makes sense that we would have asked.
F: Do you recall Karl Rove saying in the 8:45 senior staff meeting that WH needed to get a message out about Wilson?
L: Recall Rove saying something similar around that time.
F: Do you recall Cathie Martin sending talking points to Ari Fleischer at 9:22 am? (shows talking points)
L: Don't remember that email, but recognize the talking points and know Ari made a statement; we probably talked about it at lunch.
It's 10:23.
F: Do you recall discussing Mr. Wilson with Ari Fleischer?
L: It makes sense, but I don't recall it. (rambles about what they would have discussed)
F: Do you recall discussing Mr. Wilson's wife?
L: I don't recall discussing the wife, because I was surprised later in talking with Russert.
F: Do you recall Ari saying later on July 7th that the WH no longer stood behind the 16 words?
L: I remember reading the statement afterward, not the actual statement by Ari.
F: But you do remember the future plans, Miami Dolphins, etc.?
L: I had many conversations about the uranium during this time, but only one about the Dolphins.
F: (walks through Ari account of lunch with Libby, who doesn't recall any of it)
F: What do you remember about Novak article?
L: The name, Valerie Plame.
F: How would you pronounce that? Like blame, or in a French way?
L: Like blame, I suppose.
F: You don't recall discussing Wilson's wife with either Fleischer or VP between July 6th and July 10th?
(no answer, Fitz repeats)
L: I'm sorry, my mind wandered. No, I don't recall.
F: You don't recall a conversation with Cathie Martin about this on July 8th?
L: No.
F: Do you recall being told to call Andrea Mitchell and David Martin this week?
L: Yes.
F: Do you recall talking to Andrea Mitchell?
L: Yes, once before Russert, and once after.
F: What was conversation before Russert?
L: Not sure. Maybe Halliburton, maybe Wilson.
F: (shows transcript of Andrea Mitchell on TV on July 8th) Something ring a bell when you read that?
L: Yes, it says "WH blamed an October CIA report for ignoring Wilson's information & not requesting original Niger documents for a year." This isn't right. I don't think anyone blamed the CIA for that, in fact the Wilson information supported the claim, and the CIA rightly concluded in the NIE that there was reason to believe Iraq was trying to procure uranium.
F: Do you now recall talking to Mitchell about Mr. Wilson before the conversation with Russert?
L: I was looking at the clip — could you repeat the question? (F. does) I think I probably did.
F: Do you recall what was said?
L: I was discussing something she had said about Wilson that was wrong. I also complained to Tim Russert about something she said, so maybe… I don't know.
F: Do you recall talking to her about Wilson's wife?
L: I don't have any recollection about that. She's a member of the press, not a WH official, so that would make an impact in my mind.
F: You would remember talking to a reporter about it more than a WH official?
L: Yes.
F: Do you remember Novak calling you on July 8th?
L: No.
F: Do you recall talking to Novak during this time?
L: I remember talking to him, and that he knew everything we had in our talking points about uranium. I have a note in late July that I talked to Novak about uranium, so I think that was when.
It's 10:42.
F: (shows Libby the Novak July 14th column) Do you recognize anything in there as being something you might have told him?
L: (nitpicks about various things in story he says are wrong) I don't recall being a source for any of this.
F: Do you recall any conversation with Novak about Wilson or uranium before that column?
L: (repeats that he recalls talking to Novak, but his notes show that happened July 25th or so — says Novak seemed to know everything, "more him talking to me than me to him, he had all this stuff")
F: Have you been a source for Novak in the past?
L: I don't think so (various half-sentences here)
F: Have you given him information off the record?
L: Not frequently, and I don't think I've ever given him anything intentionally for his column, just talking to him socially.
F: No conversation where he said he was writing a column and asking for information?
L: I don't think so. I've not intended to be a source for him at any time.
F: Has he ever called you at your office for information?
L: Just this time in July that I recall.
F: (repeats question more specifically)
L: He has called a few times, but I've only given some info off the record, never anything to be reported in his column.
F: I'll show you a phone bill showing that Mr. Novak called you between July 8th and 11th. Do you see your number on this phone bill?
L: (recognizes an extension, but says it's not his main number)
F: Do you remember talking with Novak about timeline for writing State of the Union address?
L: No.
F: Do you recall discussing with anyone in the WH a timeline to be given to Novak?
L: (not sure)
It's 10:53.
I can't give a play-by-play by this, because I was distracted for a moment — and it seems to have caught everyone else by surprise, too — but Fitz brings up a note from Cathie Martin (I think) that talks about Niger officials and then has an arrow with "charge in Baghdad, his wife works there." Some conversation in the media room about what this is, and the conclusion seems to be it's from Cathie Martin talking to the CIA's Bill Harlow sometime between June 10th or so and July 8th. I failed to catch Libby's specific reaction to thie. Be sure to check this out when the transcripts are released.
There's a break just before 11:00. I'm going to start 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
FITZ
Swopa!
Fitz!
Fitz!
and Jane!!
All o’ ya!
we gonna try the FDL-related chat service available at http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com again today (at least till the trolls descend)? It worked well yesterday, at lessening the server load (I think) :)
epu’d from downstairs and I would like a professional opinion on the following regarding libby’s rights to present his defense and at the same time not to incriminate himself
I think the judge might be able to say they are welcome to introduce the memory defense, they are welcome not to testify
however the judge would inform team libby that his charge to the jury will include instruction that they cannot consider a memory defense without the defendant testifying that he forget
all arguments would be satisfied
thought?
I’m looking up bumper sticker slogans.
Fight Truth Decay. How about-
FDL Fights Truth Decay!
Good morning, Jane and Swopa!
Can someone remind us what David Sanger might have to offer the defense, and why he might not want to testify for the defense?
Uh oh, is the Scooter-Miller affair going to be revealed?
My understanding is that the prosecution will wrap up Wednesday, after the audio of the grand jury testimony, and after Tim Russert takes the stand.
excellent Renee. I’m still waiting for one of the resident Drag Queens to channel Rita and upload Put The Blame on Plame on the youtube :)
Good morning, everyone!
With all of the evidence to the contrary, why would they purport that Scooter and Judy had never met until June? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Wow, that’s pretty significant. Wonder how Sanger will respond.
Didn’t Judy testify about meeting Scooter in Wyoming long before this?
that’s it? that’s all wells has — scooter didn’t leak to sanger, thus he didn’t leak to another reporter?
seriously starting to consider that libby’s counsel is more about protecting cheney than it is about, you know, presenting a decent defense for its ostensible client.
beth meacham @
14
I get it, it’s an insanity defense.
LandOfTheFree @ 8
Ostensibly, to testify that he met with Libby and Plame didn’t come up. But they might believe that Judy and Sanger talked about Plame–which may well be true, since Sanger and Judy were working the same circles in that time period. Judy may have given the tip to Sanger in hopes he would publish it.
Also, maybe they know that Sanger spoke with someone else about Plame and he doesn’t want to testify bc he wants to protect his source.
Also note, they were going to call Jill Abramson, and she was fighting that subpoena. So maybe it’s just Pinch Sulzberger viewing everything (including Abramson’s meeting with Judy in her role as a manager) as a First Amendment issue.
LOVE the Peter Gabriel, Swopa. LOL And Sanger may have to testify, but I’m not certain that it helps to say that Libby planted the story with some journalists and not with others — and, oh! Look over here! Shiny object!
I wonder if I’ll have to testify. After all, Libby didn’t tell me about Plame, either.
Well, I don’t work for the NYT. But I don’t understand the defense argument that if Scooter talked to both Sanger and Miller of NYT, and there is evidence that Libby told Miller of Plame, but Sanger says Libby didn’t personally tell him of Plame, what does it matter? Do you have to tell everyone you speak to in order for it to be a leak? In order for it to be a coverup?
I also don’t see how this protects Libby legally from the charges filed. It seems like it’s something to muddy the waters.
Judy Miller was known to have sexual liaisons with just anybody. Scooter wasn’t special, just one of the gang of 500.
Maybe all the MSM should be brought into the court room. Libby’s lawyers can say: “Ok, all of you Scooter leaked to, stand on the right. All of you Scooter did not leak to, stand on the left.
LandOfTheFree @ 19
Prepare for at least a week of big muddy, then, bc that’s just about all they’ve got.
emptywheel @
17
Ding ding ding!
Though I think they knew they would lose this, and I think they know they will lose on Abramson as well. Both she and Sanger may also be used to impeach Judy in various ways, anticipated and perhaps unanticipated.
The NYT has made a choice to fight the First Amendment issues. They are also planning a coming Sunday Magazine feature that will likely do its best to make freedom of the press arguments related to this case and perhaps widening the focus to include other government actions lately.
Libby didn’t tell me anything, either. I demand to be a defense witness!
Umm, I didn’t realize that this case was about whether Libby leaked to Sanger or not. I thought that this trial was about his lying to investigators and in front of the grand jury. Isn’t that what this trial is about. Is anyone (the prosecution) contending that he leaked to Sanger but Sanger is going dispute that? Could someone explain how Sanger’s testimony exactly is this suppose to help Scooter defend the relevant charges against him here…umm perjury charges etc. To me this is very irrelevant testimony, but what do I know…I’m no lawyer.
the only thing ican come up with is that wells wants the jury to think the times washbureau is some great collective, where all thoughts are shared and individuals must give way to the groupthink.
like the borg or, now that i think of it, the bush administration.
So what he is saying the since someone didn’t rob the liquor store on the corner is proof that he didn’t rob the one across the street. Gotta love that logic.
Peter gabriel, I’m certain he’d remember, he’d recall.
Pachacutec @ 22
actually, i think you’re right — more compelled smack talk under oath. and judy is, shall we say, vulnerable to such an attack.
Jane at 13!
Does this mean you are in the media room today and we will get to hear your comments in real time–or did they forget to confiscate your Treo in the courtroom? (wink)
–
Angry, uncivil liberal bloggers
The National Review today promotes Byron York’s article on Valerie Plame:
“The C Word”
The sheer hatred directed at Valerie Plame by Bush followers has always been intense, extreme, and deeply personal — even when assessed within the context of their standard operating procedure of despising any government employee, civil servant, and especially any military or intelligence professional who is perceived to have done something politically harmful to the Leader (the textbook case for that were the immediate threats of criminal prosecution directed at former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill after he criticized the Leader upon resigning his position). But for reasons best left to the field of psychology rather than political science, many of them harbor a special, particularly deranged and particularly irrational hatred for Valerie Plame. LINK TO MORE
Christy Hardin Smith @
18
Christy, have you been watching Finding Nemo with the Peanut again? My daughter is the same age and whenever she tries to distract us from something she ought not be doing we say…”look, something shiny” from when she went on a Nemo watching jag around 15-18 months. Now that she is almost 4 it is still pretty funny!
i’m still wondering about what jane and swopa touched on yesterday in their round-up — how fitz halted before not taking the bait from the defense concerning a link to cheney.
is there something more to come?
jeanette @ 26
It is right up there with the argument that if one person leaks confidential CIA information first, then everyone else can leak it too, and it isn’t a big deal (or illegal) for everyone who leaked after the initial leaker.
I’m a little late to this morning’s party. From viewing Jane & Swopa’s interview from yesterday, I wrote a
Memo to Keith Olbermann:
Put Jane Hamsher on your show. Nightly. This is what true journalism looks like. In addition to being articulate, intelligent, funny, and well-versed in the details of this case, she is beautiful. Surely the “suits” at NBC would appreciate one or more of those qualities! Get moving!
CityGirl @ 29
We got here a bit late and so I’m in the media room for right now, but I’ll probably sneak up to the courtroom in a bit.
It’s a perfect defense.
Since Sanger failed to sneeze on me, he failed to sneeze on anyone else, ipso facto.
Mauimom @ 34
She is definitely cuter than David Shuster! Even though reports from the courthouse are that he is dashing in person.
We can laugh at the Sanger defense, but this is just the sort of “if it does not fit, you must acquit” type of evidentiary testimony that allows one juror with a predisposition to acquit to infer reasonable doubt.
The War To Save The Surge
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on record opposing President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq war through a “surge” of troops, Bush’s backers are saying one thing and doing another.
They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy. LINK TO MORE
Pachacutec @ 38
Agreed.
It is the Prosecution’s task to reduce that (non) argument to the rubble it is.
LandOfTheFree @
19
Great point! Me neither [I’m kind of hurt to be in the un-leaked-to minority]. Was it something I said?
There’s a pretty decent realtime chat for FDL users going on at http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com — you can interact with many of us w/o burdening the FDL servers. Put substantive points here of course :)
AP has a new article up on that Libby and Cheney might not testify.
CheneyandLibbymaynottestify
Thanks for the insight. I’m still confused on an issue:
Why would impeaching Miller’s testimony have any affect on Libby’s guilt or innocence vis-a-vis these charges? I don’t understand why her credibility matters that much. After all, her own lucky notebooks show “Flame/Plame”.
Are the charges not revolving around what Libby claimed in testimony, and Judy’s impeachability (is that a word?) doesn’t have any real effect on this – unless someone can prove Judy learned about Flame/Plame from someone else and was trying to frame (prame?) Libby.
1. false statement that Russert told him about Plame (not related to Judy’s testimony)
2. false statements to FBI regarding his discussions with Matt Cooper (not related to Judy’s testimony)
3. perjury regarding discussion of Russert in GJ (not related to Judy’s testimony)
4. perjury regarding discussion of Matt Cooper in GJ (not related to Judy’s testimony)
5. obstructing justice regarding when he knew about Plame (could be related to Judy’s testimony, but the notebooks are pretty solid evidence. Plus, there is ample additional evidence from other sources to support this charge)
IANAL, so feel free to slap me upside the head if I’m totally off the mark here. I just don’t get it.
Tidbit for FDL’s livebloggers, from Slate’s dispatch from the trial yesterday:
Think we needed the FDL Road Rules posted and an encouragement for OT on open thread…?
Still not grokking this Sanger stuff, makes no sense to me based on the charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction…. Is Wells already working on the appeal or what?
And did Judy not share her special info from her sweetie Scooter because she actually understood and read her own SF-312? ;-)
Considering what Cathie Martin told the jury about the OVP’s tiered messaging system for choosing who they believed was the most reliable for doing their bidding, it shouldn’t be hard for the jury to recognize the potential differences between OVP relationships to various reporters and who might preferentially get special information for use.
Lie number one from today’s tape;
“F: Was this the first time you’d met with him as a source?
L: I’m not sure.”
Simple logic dictates that while you may not remember every time you meet someone, you ALWAYS remember the FIRST time you meet someone. Again, hollow-ringing words, and the jury surely hears it.
Mack @ 40
At which point Pat Fitzgerald says, “Okay,now that you want to put Sanger on the stand, I’m entitled to bring in the fact that when Libby leaked the NIE to Sanger, Libby was unsure whether it was declassified or not.
Wow, this is fascinating. This is the moment when Fitzgerald is confronting Libby with all the people who challenge his Russert story. You see Libby go from affable and calm to distracted and foggy. He makes Fitzgerald repeat himself, saying “my mind is wandering.”
Fitzgerald is dogged. Asks the same question six different ways until Libby finally answers it. Libbby sticks to his story but he’s coming apart.
“F: Do you recall Karl Rove saying in the 8:45 senior staff meeting that WH needed to get a message out about Wilson?
L: Recall Rove saying something similar around that time. “
Hello, Karl.
Jane at 50 — Fitz is so good at picking things apart into manageable slivers. I’m not certain that Libby expected a prosecutor on this case that was actually going to do the work. BIG mistake.
Jane Hamsher @ 50
Reason #2145 why Libby won’t take the stand.
OkKiddo – you here anywhere?
Sorry if OT, but does anyone have a link for OKK’s reference under Budget thread #130?
Quote from it below:
would greatly appreciate, THANKS!
I was busy writing letters to Senators all yesterday instead of concentrating on trial, dang.
- for all the good it did, sigh…
From AP:
Here’s a lie followed by an obfuscation
F: Did you talk about Wilson’s wife?
L: I’ve looked at my notes, and I don’t recall discussing that. He was mostly interested in the Powell UN presentation before the war.
F: Sanger wrote about doubts regarding in Iraq and uranium. Did you tell him that the Wilson warnings never reached the WH?
L: (long commentary disputing that Wilson’s report constituted a warning that Iraq uranium intelligence was bogus… not sure how he segued to this)”
Here’s a reporter interviewing Libby about Powell’s WMD UN speech, and Libby doesn’t toss the primary objective (outing Plame) into the mix, however casually?
What is Sanger’s version of the story? Sounds like we will hear soon enough, but is there a SANGER statement already on the record?
And who is Sanger, that he might not be included in Scooter’s “Circle of Plame-enlightenment?”
Is Sanger less willing to play a pawn than Novak or Miller, therefore he was left out of the original Scooter outing loop?
Mack @ 40
(Long-time lurker & admirer here.)
Cathie Martin herself gave Fitz the wrecking-ball: she described their standard practice of dangling exclusive scoops to reporters as part that now-revealed-to-all media manipulation.
LMAO.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 51
This audio tape of Libby’s testimony dates back to the early stages of the Grand Jury process, correct?
If so, that means that Karl has been spilling assorted beans since very early on.
Not necessarily all of the beans, mind you, but enough to hurt Libby and help himself.
“Hello, Karl.”
Makes the ganglia twitch!
Adie,
here ya go
http://www.latimes.com/news/op…..-rightrail
*xyz at 7:44 am
Great catch.
ReneND @ 7
Nice, but wouldn’t that look better on a, erm, plaque?
cbl THANK YOU! ;->
GOOD STUFF goin on here – hated to interrupt.
GO FIREPUPS! Swopa! Jane! Pach! Jeralyn! Christy! & all!
Biodun @ 55
I believe that’s a misquote. If this is the incident I was present for, Walton said, “It would be suicide” to attempt a memory defense without Libby taking the stand. [Or suicidal, but he definitely used some form of the word “suicide.”
John Casper @ 62
Thanks. If I am right about this, it helps support the inference that Rove and his attorney have been playing their cards cleverly since the outset of his GJ testimony.
waxman hearings up on CSpan 1
back to your regularly scheduled Libby beatdown
cbl @
67
an embarrassment of riches today! what to watch?! *g*
I like the fact that Mr. Libby remembers the VP talking about the Miami Dolphins on a certain day, but seemes to be so foggy in his recollections about the important stuff!
cbl @
67
Wow, just too much good stuff going on. It’s been such a desert for so long, couldn’t we have spread it out some?
Not the slightest bit of personal or political integrity is the hallmark of thie Republican administration. Foul mouths; foul souls.
They still remind me of a passel of schoolyard bullies and thugs.
And o how they lie, and love to lie. Greed, and lies.
fah
Jane Hamsher @ 70
It’s bedlam “dreaming of rain.”
Adie @ 68
I’ve got the hearing in RealPlayer down in the corner of my screen while I try to keep up with FDL and get a bit of work done.
mjvpi @ 69
heh. Hope the jury catches that… maybe with a little help from fitzer ;->
RE Novak
Boy I can’t WAIT to be on with Byron again. I’ve been pushing him hard on this Novak thing and he’s been a snake (to borrow Matalin’s word) about it.
Novak called Libby during the week. As I’ve been arguing since September 30, 2005.
I’m really really really hoping we get to see the phone records…
Biodun @
45
Jane and I have noted this, thanks. :)
The cafe at the National Gallery is lovely — it’s in the old art building, not the modern art one, as I recall. And they have a lovely tea selection. :) Mr. ReddHedd and I have eaten there many times in the pre-Peanut days.
Reading this transcript of Scooter’s lies is like listening to/reading/watching when one of my students at the university makes excuses–painful and depressing and OBVIOUS that they are lying (which really ticks me off because I bend over backwards to give them every chance in the world).
Excuse me, I have to turn down the volume on my bu!!$hit detector as it won’t stop going off….
Fitz: When Dick cuts out newspaper clippings when super pissed, does he use a blade or scissors?
Does it make you nervous?
ew 75
pix in my head of Byron’s hair all straggly down in his bleary/tear-y eyes, after yer done wit ‘im.
Do give us a headzup when you can arrange a co-presser again. Saw the delightful 1st go-round. *snortgh*
BRAVO GAL!!! ;->
Christy Hardin Smith @ 77
Less than 100 feet the best public collection of Camille Pissarro in the USA, if I remember the gallery correctly…
Here’s awhopper..
“What was Cheney’s opinion.
L: He wanted to get all the facts out (this is an excerpt we’ve all read about before, I’m going to skim the main points)”
actually, Quickdraw Dick said “you and Karl go after that *&%$#@ Wilson, even if you have to out his #$%^& CIA wife!!!
I can’t testify to that fact, but it is fun knowing that every day there’s more proof it’s probably quite accurate.
But only a fly on the window of the VP’s morning limo could have witnessed the event, so it is unlikely we can ever do more than speculate which swear-words Cheney used.
But they are quite interchangeable, especially for a world-class cusser like old Hair-trigger.
hackworth @ 79
teeth – where ya think that lovely smile came from?!
Adie @ 80
We had the second go-around yesterday.
I’m hoping for the knockout blow in round 3.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 77
The cafe is underground in the link between the “new” East wing and the older building. Last year when I was there they were doing some major remodel work. But good selection of all kinds of foods.
hackworth @ 79
Libby: I can’t recall. I know I have seen him drag his sharpened fingernail around the articles and they just sort of pop out. I can’t really recall any specific instances of using the scissors…maybe the blade.
Sounds like a variation of the Vicky Pollard defense.
http://www.littlebritain.tv/characters_vicky.htm
emptywheel @ 84
If only the truth mattered to Byron – it would make it so much easier to engage him in a debate.
Question: While listening to the audio do you hear anything besides the voices of the people speaking? Can you, for instance, hear what sounds like squirming as Scooter lies? Shuffling of paper as Fitz tosses the phone bills at Scooter? Seriously.
Too much! Too good! My book came yesterday! Sorry if this has been answered already, is Sanger one of the 1×2×6?
Citizen Jane @ 89
Scooter is talking about meeting Judy Miller now. We’re getting coughing, sighing and squirming. Very different from how he started out.
Shopgirlove @ 90
No, Scooter will call Sanger to prove that he did NOT leak Plame’s identity to him. Since that evidently proves something — we’re just not quite sure what.
Jane Hamsher @ 92
That just seems dumb to me. Cathie Martin’s quote about selectively leaking to different reporters should squash that one. There must be something else we don’t know about with Sanger.
ew 84
OMG I HAVE missed a lot, writin’ all those dang senators instead of paying attn. THANKS.
Gonna go watch it right now, after I get out the popcorn….
EW You were absolutely awesome with your play-by-play. Hope your fingers have recovered.
And CONGRATS on the book! Do you know sales ranking at this time? &/or how to look those figures up? Citing that to some Borders folk when I got my book REALLY got their attn & made ‘em open up the book. I could tell you hooked them right then & there. Thank you for your dedication. I hope it feels good to have all the hard work & headaches paying off.
How does it feel to be an instant Rock Star?! heh.
Is it too late for the “Insanity Defense”?
Oh wait a minute…it’s not Deadeyes Cheney that is on trial…yet.
Any reason not to mention these are the words of Glenn Greenwald, not Byron York?
neil @ 30
Neil, and again at 39 you didn’t say the quote was from the WaPo. Please give the source of quotes, thx.
Since we’re in kind of a court break, way, way OT: Haggard Pronounced ‘Completely Heterosexual’.
Guess I can’t use that joke about “feeling haggard” anymore.
Jane Hamsher @ 70
So true (((Jane)))!! I’ve got three things going on — the Gabbly chat for FDL, this liveblogging, and cspan in the audio background. Love it!! Plus I am trying to work… HaHa
OBTW you looked great on TV yesterday. From strength to strength, dear lady
Fresh thread from Swopa, everyone — more liveblogging upstairs.
“L: No. I recall being surprised when Russert told me.”
I bet Russert’s real surprised, too! That should be an interesting point in Russert’s testimony.
The prosecution will play this for Russert, then ask, if only for effect, “did Mr.Libby seem surprised when you mentioned Valerie Plame’s CIA connections.”
Then Russert will get a all red-faced and angry and start shaking his head before the question is finished and he’ll cry out plaintively “I did not tell Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame, he told me…”
Simple enough
Case closed…
xyz at 88
I think people like that are afraid to deal with the truth, fearing things might get messy and ruin their nice neat strings of refrigerator-magnet talking points.
So, when threatened, standard custom is to filibuster into commercial. That’s what killed “Crossfire”, -uh, with a little help from Jon Stewart, heh.
With the blogs now hammering 24/7 for facts and truth, heck, even Tweety is occasionally posturing grandly & showing impatience with filibuster-ers. NEVER thot I’d see the day… *g*
hackworth @ 79
Wow, Scooter’s grand jury testimony reeks. He wanted everyone to believe he didnt remember talking about Plame to Ari Fleischer because he & Ari were too wrapped up in the Dolphins? Oh he says, *smacks head!* because Russert told me later. Riiiight!
I can’t wait for Russert’s testimony.
Eeeew, does this mean John Dickerson will be there?
Of course, a juror for any reason can find a defendant not guilty. But, more importantly, directly providing non-circumstantial doubt that a glove the prosecution claims was used by the murderer in a murder didn’t fit the defendant’s hand, is very different than trying to circumstantially prove innocense by effectively stating that a defendant on trial for robbing bank A didn’t rob bank Z.
Sure, it’s possible that it might put doubt in to some jurors mind, extremely unlikely, but there is nothing analagous to what was done at the OJ trial.
dmg @
15
Ah, so it’s Defense By Logical Fallacy.
That could very well be: “Hey, we’ll arrange for one of our sugar daddies to pay your legal fees — just sit tight until Bush pardons you.” (Except that if Bush pardons him, it throws the final shovelful of dirt on the GOP’s chances in 2008.)
Mad Dogs @
97
Did they watch?
Citizen Jane @
78
Fitz did the same thing yesterday with Libby in his interrogation about the June “12th” meeting…getting him to detail all sorts of things about his impressions of Cheney and his feelings about the information about learning that “the Ambassador’s wife” worked in CPD, saying that it was just “trivia”, not one of the talking points, so “I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t have passed it on” to Pincus, etc. Fitz shows that Libby recalls all sorts of details about the meeting and even that he had impressions that he recalled about their reaction to the information.
But then he forgot! And then he recalls it in this superb, self-exonerating detail. Fitz brilliantly laid this trap…demonstrating that Libby never did forget…or if he did, he made up all the other information to make it appear that he’s innocent.
Money quote (but not a quote, just a transcription, yadda yadda):
Man, I just looked at that NRO piece by Byron York, Libby Judge: Even I Don’t Know Plame’s Status. What an ideological messenger that guy is. I sent him this email.
_______________________________________________________
Dear Mr. York,
I’m an evil liberal who has been following your reportage on the Libby trial. It helps me to have fair and balanced debate with my righteous pro-american Conservative friends. May I please share with you a few thoughts on today’s article- “Libby Judge: Even I Don’t Know Plame’s Status”
“Of course, Mrs. Wilson is the woman at the center of the CIA-leak affair”
If it weren’t for the leaker, we wouldn’t have an ‘affair’.
Libby is the defendant at the center of this trial. You are obfuscating from the get-go.
judge to jury: “…’not even to think about’ — Mrs. Wilson’s job status”
A search of the trial transcript doesn’t reveal this instruction.
“…stunning in its implications”:
Perhaps to avoid a conflict of interest, preserve judiciary ethics, and without any material need to know; the judge simply respects national security secrets- past and present. Kind of hard for you to fathom?
stunning- causing or capable of causing, astonishment, bewilderment, or loss of consciousness or strength (Random House). Your choice of words clarifies your own state of mind, not the judge’s.
“Perhaps the judge’s position is the legally correct one;… But…”
What are you saying Mr. York? Screw the law? You’re a White House correspondent, get back in your place.
“…it allows the prosecution to suggest, without actually saying, that Libby and the Bush administration committed some sort of crime.”
a) The opposite could be argued.
b) Is the defense served if the prosecution is free to state explicitly that a [perhaps treasonous] crime was committed. Huh?
Your conclusion:
“It’s a bizarre situation — a CIA-leak trial without the CIA leak. And, at least under its present restrictions, without much hope for justice, either.”
I would have to concur with you on this though likely for different reasons than your own.
Warm Regards
_______________________________________________________
In Marcy’s roundtable with Byron York on C-Span a week or so ago, she fielded two antagonistic calls as compared to none for York (if I recall correctly). One of these calls was straight out of the Fox/WH playbook laid out for this issue over three years ago: denounce Wilson’s character, Plame’s professional status, Fitzgerald’s politics and Marcie’s (”the liberal attack Press”) integrity.
As an aside, the caller(a man) accused Marcy of being a co-conspirator with Katie Couric; it was precious.
York is just like his audience: educated, intelligent and incapable of extricating his own emotions and values from a non-human system of government. He’s telling the judge what to do here. He’s a journalist. What a punhead.
Phoenix Woman @
106
That action[the pardon]wonld be after november,2hrs before the new prez,John Edwards is sworn
JEP @ 100
Dang dude, why did you have to write that and cause me to uncontrolably spit my lunch out across my desk? I truly lost it when I read your post. You win! Someone make sure Fitz really does pull this tactic!!! That would be worth a trip to DC, just to see it happen.