From last thread, correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Woodward say Armitage identified “Wilson’s wife” as an analyst which might suggest WINPAC or at least something non-operational while Novak is saying that Armitage was saying she was CPD, which would be operational and almost certainly covert? Do I remember correctly and isn’t this a discrepancy?

It might mean that Armitage got an “corrected” bit of info on VALERIE.

I can’t see where in all of this stuff where Armitage may have learned her name?

If HE ALSO went out of the way to look her name up in Who’s Who then it wasn’t simply a bit of “trivia” that he was passing on by “mistake”…as he implied to Grossman.

If Novak isn’t lying then Armitage is in trouble…TWO incidents of leaking AND actually “seeking out” more info on “Wilson’s wife” to tell Novak.

Libby had a June 6th meeting with Armitage listed in his schedule.

stingray @ 43

Why did the defense call him as a witness.
Biodun @ 30

TPhilip @ 22:

The question remains: Why did the defense call him as a witness.

To get to when his column hit the AP wire. I guess so they can argue Russert knew when he talked to Libby, and he told Libby about the wife, and Libby heard it “as if it were new” – just like his GJ testimony?

I think you’ve nailed it! They were trying to introduce the idea (speculatively, of course) how “the press” could have the information before Novak’s column was published, to try to undermine Fitz’s timeline. All you have to do is accept that news organizations would violate the publication embargo and pass stuff around to everyone in the press, including their competitors!

So, to say they learned it from Novak’s column would seem to imply the version the public first saw in print when it could’ve been the embargoed version not yet public.

That would explain it. Now, can Wells provide ANY evidence of it? Can he question Andrea “Heather” Mitchell or some other reporter who’ll support that view?

Then, can they provide ANY evidence that Libby had forgotten and then heard it anew from Timmeh?

It’s far-fetched.

All-in-all the defense seems to be, “Let’s show the whole damn conspiracy and embarass the White House into providing us a pardon to shut us up.”

Something doesn’t seem right here.

And just what firms/organizations/countries does Mr. Holt lobby for?

That is a good question.

W Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.

Novackula: A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.
Uh huh. This testimony oozes with the essence of slime supreme. It’s an “obnoxious performance.”

In other words is Holt “in bed with Novak”? EVERY DAY? I don’t even see my girlfriend EVERY DAY!

He doesn’t work with this guy and he’s that intimate with him?

And just what firms/organizations/countries does Mr. Holt lobby for?

*xyz @ 53

What is up with the juror questions regarding Holt? The questions seem to come from a juror who may be inclined toward the “everyone knew it” gossip theory. Thoughts?

Or did this Holt question come from Wells? (this would make more sense)

Walton asked a series of follow up questions from the jurors questions.

Actually, from the non-verbatim transcript it seemed that Fitz was a bit surprised at either this (new?)information or the fact that a juror was asking it.

If it was “new” information (and if it wasn’t then why didn’t Wells “use” it in his – “maybe it leaked out to Russert” argument) then it suggests that Novak perhaps DISSEMBLED in his Grand Jury testimony.

I wonder if that means that Fitz may be considering perjury charges for Novak at this very moment?

Personally, i hope you’re right–but I’m not sure I share your optimism.