Is Jeralyn throwing gang signs in that video?!

Oh, and lest I forget…

Fitz!

Vindication!

POODLES!

What a bunch of cuties!

Fitz, Jane, Marcy!

When you said it was an all-star lineup, I thought you meant the three women in the picture. You all look fabulous, and you’re all doing excellent work. Thank you.

I say no, yo!

I’ll eat my hat* if the Dark One takes the stand. Hell, I don’t think Scooter will either. Surely there’s been a quid pro quo pardon agreement in exchange for Libby falling on his sword. No? Should a boy dare to dream?

*Actually, I will not eat my hat.

Such an Impressive Bunch!

A wee bit OT:

Dreaming of Beanlam.

Or

We be just regular folks, doncha know?.

Ah knew it…ah knew it!

From CNN:

Her two twin daughters, Jenna and Laura, aren’t “picky eaters,” though neither “eat a lot of meat,” Bush said.

“They mainly have fish and vegetables…and beans, they love beans,”she said.

Excerpted from my Junya Herds Cats:

Junya: What did you rustle up for supper, Laura Belle?

Laura Belle: Ah made bean burritos, baked beans, lima beans and bean muffins. And all the 3 bean coffee ya can drink.

Junya: Oh my, I’m gonna be floatin’ on air! What’s for dessert, Sugarbun?

Laura Belle: I baked ya a special treat. Your favorite, tumbleweed pie.

Junya: My oh my. Did ya hear that? Laura Belle’s right proud of her tumbleweed pie. She caught and skinned it her own self.

Jenna and Not-Jenna: We take after the ol’ man. Another round barkeep on the house…the White House. We be just regular…ahmmm…phew!!!…ahmmm…folks, doncha know?

Tithonia @ 4

When you said it was an all-star lineup, I thought you meant the three women in the picture. You all look fabulous, and you’re all doing excellent work. Thank you.

So did I actually. These are the days I wish I was retired or the very least, worked part-time.

It is so refreshing to listen to three intelligent ladies instead of three talking heads. Great job by the D.C. team. I wish that all newscasts were this professional.

Postdragon – I respond end of last thread. And no (or very) few typos.

I’m betting neither Libby nor Cheney testify, but I hope I’m wrong!

$10 on no-show.

Shooter and Scooter, show or no? Place yer bets….

No way in hell will the deferred-dick testify.

Putting him on the witness list was a stunt. Even if he could add “value” to the defense, he would refuse Libby’s request to testify because he is afraid to. Libby can theoretically – has a legal right to – make him testify. However, the reality is the deferred-dick can tell Scoot’s team “no” and they will obey his command.

The defense used his name for fishing during jury selection and for strategic reasons such as preserving an option and making more work for the prosecution. That’s it.

Cheney is a life-long coward and that reason alone will keep him off the stand. There are too many mines for him to step on if he testifies and he knows it. He’s afraid to raise his hand, he’s afraid to be cross examined and he’s afraid to lie almost as much as he is afraid to tell the truth.

No way will the deferred-dick take the stand. He won’t do it.

sláinte,
cl

I am glad for these videos because they do help clarify for me what is happening. Thank you Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn, Swopa and everyone else contributing to these reports.

Great job Ladies – keep up the wonderful effort!!

Boy, that’s a rogue’s gallery of Fearless Warrior Queens of New Media in that YouTube. Trad-media look out!

Well, hopefully it’s only a matter of time before Shooter takes the stand, as a defendant.

A boy can wish, can’t he?

I, too, wonder if the abject arrogance of Dick Cheney is such that he thinks he can withstand an interrogation by Mr. Fitzgerald. He strikes me as the sort of inveterate asshole who has believed his own shit does not stink for so long that he is delusional enough to not even suppose anyone else will realize from whence the reek emanates.

The Non-Dixie Chicks.

Smart women rock.

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

Thanks for the wonderful job — and you all look absolutely fabulous! Cheers!

I think if either were take the stand we would have been seeing more of build up to it already. They are going to want the wingnut shills hyping it and getting the base to start chugging the Kool-Aid by the gallon.

So, how typical is it for new indictments to spring up from testimony in the first indictment? Cheney already seems to be all kind of implicated, and I’m wondering if Pincus’s testimony about yet more Ari leaking gets a little too close to Rove.

So if Libby’s defense is that he talked to many reporters without outing Plame, so he must not have outed her to anyone, then what about Ari Fleischer, Carl Rove, and others?

Ari talke to a lot of people, and only leaked to one person. How is that possible? Only one leak?

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

No for Chee-knee. Just when was that convenient little 10-day getaway excursion organized anyway? Can you say “Cut and run”?

Don’t know re Libby.

And [with a nod to CHS], no 24…
zapped in midhour. Whaddya suppose is up with that?

Oh, and Koward Kristol attacking Obama? No guts. Just cheap shots.

Prof @ 24

So if Libby’s defense is that he talked to many reporters without outing Plame, so he must not have outed her to anyone, then what about Ari Fleischer, Carl Rove, and others?

Ari talke to a lot of people, and only leaked to one person. How is that possible? Only one leak?

Maybe this is just a variation of the administration’s defense of Iraq: “Why isn’t anyone talking about all the reporters Scooter *didn’t* leak to?”

And I’ll go on record (though I don’t think it is going out on a limb): Neither Scooter nor Dickie will testify; too dangerous – so its the way to bet (but it is always the way to bet, at least for the defendant (see that limb thing)). And, on the chance I am wrong (only about Cheney, I really don’t see how in hell Scooter can testify and not get crossed up on cross), I don’t see Cheney, if he did testify, as being such as benefit to Scooter – since I’d bet that Dickie would come across as he does whenever he asked questions – as an imperious Dick (pun intended), so unless there is some Dickie that I’m not aware who actually comes across as being able to suffer the impertinence of others, I’m sticking with not testifying.

Eli @ 23

So, how typical is it for new indictments to spring up from testimony in the first indictment? Cheney already seems to be all kind of implicated, and I’m wondering if Pincus’s testimony about yet more Ari leaking gets a little too close to Rove.

I think Rove has been indicted and it is sealed. Will it be set aside or not, that is the question.

tommy yum @
6

I’ll eat my hat* if the Dark One takes the stand. Hell, I don’t think Scooter will either. Surely there’s been a quid pro quo pardon agreement in exchange for Libby falling on his sword. No? Should a boy dare to dream?

*Actually, I will not eat my hat.

Tommy – let me repost my comments posted on at least one other FDL thread:

From Wikipedia:

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.

The United States Supreme Court has held that a pardon can be rejected, must be affirmatively accepted to be effective, and that acceptance carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). That Richard M. Nixon accepted his pardon is noted by Justice Stevens (the only Supreme Court justice appointed by President Gerald Ford) in his concurring opinion in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977).

For additional information, you might wish to click on these links:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

There are some other considerations, oft repeated on other FDL threads, apart from admission of guilt as a condition of accepting a pardon: (1) in Scooter’s case, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in subsequent investigations, if I recall correctly, and (2) a pardon doesn’t shield him from civil suits.

with all these leaks they should have called in the Watergate plumbers.

johnSwifty @ 29

Eli @ 23

So, how typical is it for new indictments to spring up from testimony in the first indictment? Cheney already seems to be all kind of implicated, and I’m wondering if Pincus’s testimony about yet more Ari leaking gets a little too close to Rove.

I think Rove has been indicted and it is sealed. Will it be set aside or not, that is the question.

Then it will be Barney the First Dog.

My bet (at a Gazillion X Infinity to one):

Ms. M cops to scarfing down a big whack of the Shooter’s Ibogaine just before going on the TeeVee….

As a result, the S&S boys both decide to take the stand and utilize the ‘BooHoo’ defense first perfected by Ed Muskie and Rosey Grier.

Or some such thing.

.

johnSwifty @ 29

Eli @ 23

So, how typical is it for new indictments to spring up from testimony in the first indictment? Cheney already seems to be all kind of implicated, and I’m wondering if Pincus’s testimony about yet more Ari leaking gets a little too close to Rove.

I think Rove has been indicted and it is sealed. Will it be set aside or not, that is the question.

But wouldn’t that mean that Jason Leopold was right about something?

punaise @ 31

with all these leaks they should have called in the Watergate plumbers.

I think it more like the levees breaking in NOLA. Hurricane Fitzgerald is blowing through!

God I so love smart funny well informed and powerful women. YOU LADIES RULE!

AZ Matt @ 35

I think it more like the levees breaking in NOLA. Hurricane Fitzgerald is blowing through!

You misspelled Libby.

I wonder if the Michael Gordon article in this weekend’s NYT will make it more difficult for Abramson to discredit Miller — after all, Gordon was Judy’s co-author on the aluminum tubes story. Comstock’s money might be buying more nuanced testimony now that the same journalists are being used to beat drums for the War on Iran. Can Abramson really say that Miller was on probation for her crap WMD reporting on Iraq when her co-author was used just this weekend to rev up the new case for war?

I’m voting yes Shooter, no on Scooter; but I bet the defense would rest today, so pay no attention to me. I think Cheney figures that since he can handle Wolfie, he can handle Fitz. It’s not so, but the Veep is delusional.

Nice report, y’all — keep up the good work. Present at the creation of the new media paradigm, etc!

Cheney was not under oath when he chatted with the GJ. If he testifies in court, he will be. Will he walk into that trap? I’d love to see it but think he’ll be a no-show.

Girls……you all look so GREAT best video ever. Is it cold?

I think any benefit to Libby from Cheney’s ‘gravitas’ would be offset by the potential for some fresh can of beans to be spilled on Dickie, should the house of ‘cut-out’ cards that Wells has built begin to topple.

That said, I hope he shows…The fun I could have with that

;>)

TeddySanFran @ 38

I think Cheney figures that since he can handle Wolfie, he can handle Fitz.

Oh, I would *love* to see him tell Fitz that his question is out of line.

Eli @ 45

What are you hinting at, exactly? Not so much that I’m suspicious, so much as that it sounds juicy…

Oh, it’s not so salacious in my own speculation. Just that, after reading Truthout for months, Jason was pretty darn sure and made a convincing argument…laid himself out there pretty hard. This is a guy whose been burned before and should know better; maybe he didn’t (possible) or maybe he came by information about the contents of an indictment that was sealed in a federal court of law. Well, that wouldn’t be information that anyone should come by legally. So, call me a romantic, but I think he fell on his pen.

Gawd what a great show. Whoever said “smart women rock” was SO right. No comments on looks need apply. Brains were stellar!!!! I’ll never forget that image of Marcy blinking briefly as she was riffling thru her photographic memory and coming up with date, actions, chapter and verse. Outstanding work. Everyone was so articulate, witty… thanks so SO much!!! :)

johnSwifty @ 43

Eli @ 34

But wouldn’t that mean that Jason Leopold was right about something?

I think he was right about quite a lot, but to ‘prove’ it, I think he would have to implicate many people, including himself, in potential felony activities to have arrived at that proof.

What are you hinting at, exactly? Not so much that I’m suspicious, so much as that it sounds juicy…

TRex @
17

Boy, that’s a rogue’s gallery of Fearless Warrior Queens of New Media in that YouTube. Trad-media look out!

I want that on a T-shirt: Fearless Warrior Queen of New Media. (and a purple/green pen)

TeddySanFran @
38

I’m voting yes Shooter, no on Scooter; but I bet the defense would rest today, so pay no attention to me. I think Cheney figures that since he can handle Wolfie, he can handle Fitz. It’s not so, but the Veep is delusional.

Nice report, y’all — keep up the good work. Present at the creation of the new media paradigm, etc!

That seems to be the way that the CW is blowing. I sure hope so. I wanna see Shooter break a sweat on the stand.

S.O.S. in MA @ 44

Gawd what a great show. Whoever said “smart women rock” was SO right. No comments on looks need apply. Brains were stellar!!!! I’ll never forget that image of Marcy blinking briefly as she was riffling thru her photographic memory and coming up with date, actions, chapter and verse. Outstanding work. Everyone was so articulate, witty… thanks so SO much!!! :)

Unfortunately, I can only watch one episode of Heroes at a time…

Thanks for another fine day of reporting, everyone. Nice to have you back, Marcy! (That’s not a slam at Swopa — he did a great job, too.) I just wish I had had more time today to keep up.

Nice seeing you all wrap up the day on video, too.

I don’t think Cheney will testify.

Libby might.

Hello Jane,

Might the testimony of big name journalists who weren’t told the big secret by Libby undercut the narrative of a full-court press by the WH?

My bet is that Shooter takes the stand. If one or more jurors decides that Cheney is the architect of all this, they might not feel like punishing his minion.

Cheers,

Prof @ 24

So if Libby’s defense is that he talked to many reporters without outing Plame, so he must not have outed her to anyone, then what about Ari Fleischer, Carl Rove, and others?

Ari talke to a lot of people, and only leaked to one person. How is that possible? Only one leak?

Is it possible that Ari participated, perhaps unwittingly, in one of several leaks perpetrated by others in a pattern of activities described in 50 USC 421(c)? If so, please look at 50 USC 421(c) and see what you think:

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

Eli @ 48

S.O.S. in MA @ 44

Gawd what a great show. Whoever said “smart women rock” was SO right. No comments on looks need apply. Brains were stellar!!!! I’ll never forget that image of Marcy blinking briefly as she was riffling thru her photographic memory and coming up with date, actions, chapter and verse. Outstanding work. Everyone was so articulate, witty… thanks so SO much!!! :)

Unfortunately, I can only watch one episode of Heroes at a time…

LOL – I’m watching, too. My daughter got me hooked.

adam eli clem @ 51

Hello Jane,

Might the testimony of big name journalists who weren’t told the big secret by Libby undercut the narrative of a full-court press by the WH?

My bet is that Shooter takes the stand. If one or more jurors decides that Cheney is the architect of all this, they might not feel like punishing his minion.

Cheers,

So how does Cheney take the heat off Scooter without taking it onto himself? And who would Fitz be trying to implicate when he questions him?

My prediction is that neither Libby nor Cheney will testify.

Simpy on Knees Libby Ration Army

These politicstv spots are very cool — you are all so natural and informative. It will be shame to end these at the conclusion of the trial.

The parade of journalists saying that Libby didn’t leak to them seems to reveal the lack of any Libby defense. Would a murder defendant bring in all the people he did NOT murder and think that would help him?

I don’t see how Pincus helps Libby. Pincus testified that he learned about Wilson’s wife from Ari Fleischer, but Ari Fleischer already testified that *he* learned it from Libby. So using the transitive property from geometry class, we learned that Libby leaked to Pincus via Fleischer. How, exactly, does that help Libby? (And why didn’t Pincus come up when Ari originally testified?)

When Cathie Martin was on the stand, Fitz got her to explain the upside of only leaking info to a select reporter or two. Martin testified that sometimes the OVP preferred to give info to only a handful of reporters (rather than every reporter on a particular beat) in order to get extra play. She said that reporters might give more emphasis to a piece of news they leaked if it was considered an exclusive. I’d expect Fitz to remind the jury of that in his closing.

Another fantastic job by the blog ladies. I’m hoping both Scooter and Shooter testify but my hunch is that their respective lawyers would see it as too risky for either one of them. And I can’t see Scooter forcing Shooter to take the stand as long as there’s a potential pardon somewhere down the road should he be convicted. I got the feeling that Libby’s lawyers are throwing up chaff to try and disorient the jurors.

Wow, how snazzy you all look in that video shot. And savvy, too.

I’m reeling from the audiotape excerpt of the Woodward/Armitage interview (DX 511A) here:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

I’ve long been confident that Richard Armitage was in this up to his neck, but man, what a gangster he sounds like in this June 13, 2003 interview with Woodward… I sure wish Armitage’s profanity had been left in. The news about Wilson’s wife was eating at Dick Armitage, and he and Woodward were discussing, with vindictive undertones, the intrigue and backstory of Wilson’s trip like political colleagues in the halls of the White House. “Offhand” reference my eye, Woodward and Armitage – Armitage had to repeat himself when Woodward didn’t catch Armitage’s first sexist inference about Mrs. Wilson….

There is so obviously so much more to all of this than so far meets the eye in public… Wonder when the dam is really going to break. [Fleischer knows damn well still, to this day, that Scooter Libby told him on Monday, July 7 that Valerie Plame was a ‘hush hush’ employee of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, and yet on Saturday, July 12th, Fleischer is suddenly ‘innocently’ telling veteran reporter Walter Pincus (who positively knows the difference between a CIA DI analyst and a DO agent) that Wilson’s wife is an “analyst” at the CIA. Who conspired with Fleischer between Monday and Saturday to tweak his ’story’ just so, and why…, etc., etc., etc.?]

Prairie Sunshine @ 26

No for Chee-knee. Just when was that convenient little 10-day getaway excursion organized anyway? Can you say “Cut and run”?

Seems awful coincidental, doesn’t it?

Deadeye heads overseas for a foreign policy junket. Hmmm…what’s wrong with that picture?

Don’t we have a Secretary of State who’s job it is to handle foreign policy stuff?

Oh…it’s Condi..nevermind. What was I drinking thinking?

grayslady @
10

It is so refreshing to listen to three intelligent ladies instead of three talking heads. Great job by the D.C. team. I wish that all newscasts were this professional.

…Wish I had a buck for every IQ point in that video.

Mad Dogs @ 60

Prairie Sunshine @ 26

No for Chee-knee. Just when was that convenient little 10-day getaway excursion organized anyway? Can you say “Cut and run”?

Seems awful coincidental, doesn’t it?

Deadeye heads overseas for a foreign policy junket. Hmmm…what’s wrong with that picture?

Don’t we have a Secretary of State who’s job it is to handle foreign policy stuff?

Oh…it’s Condi..nevermind. What was I drinking thinking?

Yes – how often does he travel overseas?

On the Clock @ 61

…Wish I had a buck for every IQ point in that video.

What would you do with 600 bucs?

johnSwifty @ 63

On the Clock @ 61

…Wish I had a buck for every IQ point in that video.

What would you do with 600 bucs?

I’d give it to the Gore ‘08 campaign.

caoimhin laochdha @ 14

Shooter and Scooter, show or no? Place yer bets….

No way in hell will the deferred-dick testify.

Putting him on the witness list was a stunt. Even if he could add “value” to the defense, he would refuse Libby’s request to testify because he is afraid to. Libby can theoretically – has a legal right to – make him testify. However, the reality is the deferred-dick can tell Scoot’s team “no” and they will obey his command.

The defense used his name for fishing during jury selection and for strategic reasons such as preserving an option and making more work for the prosecution. That’s it.

Cheney is a life-long coward and that reason alone will keep him off the stand. There are too many mines for him to step on if he testifies and he knows it. He’s afraid to raise his hand, he’s afraid to be cross examined and he’s afraid to lie almost as much as he is afraid to tell the truth.

No way will the deferred-dick take the stand. He won’t do it.

slinte,
cl

I agree with you in every particular.

He won’t testify — he probably told Libby to sit tight, burn through that $5 million legal defense fund, and do appeal after appeal until Bush can get around to pardoning Libby round about November 5, 2008. (If Bush pardons him anytime before then, the Republicans can forget about the White House (and Congress) next year.)

But the question is: Can Wells run out the clock that long? What happens if they lose on appeal? And on the appeal after that? Other than enriching Wells and his law offices, what will this do?

All this talking/not-talking about Plame to all these different reporters was the WH/OVP strategy. It was all part of the the smokescreen aspect of disclosing Plame’s status, whether she “sent” her husband, and what he found/didn’t find in Niger. Talking to lots of reporters, mentioning some things to some and some things to others — and knowing they might talk with one another — meant that the source of the story would be muddled. The WH/OVP counted on reporters gong to jail to protect their sources — look who did go to jail, their most loyal stenographer!!

Fitzgerald understands this, and thus doesn’t mind having all these non-leaked-to Pulitzer Prize winners telling about their conversations that didn’t involve Plame — it’s all part of the “sand in the umpire’s face” aspect of the story that he alluded to in October 2005 when he read Libby’s indictment.

The jury will have that explained to them in Fitz’s closing, I betcha — it’s not just that Libby talked to lots of reporters and didn’t mention Plame; it’s much more than that. There was a central strategy at work from the very start — and that strategy was Cheney’s.

Eli @ 64

I’d give it to the Gore ‘08 campaign.

you mean this one?

(Mike Stark’s Draft Gore diary broke the DKos record for # of recommendations)

pow wow @
59

Wow, how snazzy you all look in that video shot. And savvy, too.

Aha – A new adjective for the team: snavvy!

My gut says neither Shooter nor Scooter testify…but if I was to make a long shot bet, I’d say Shooter would be the one to testify and not Scooter.
Scooter just doesn’t come off as a very good witness and looks like he would easily get crossed up in cross. HOwever there is something about the arrogant confidence and disdain that the VP possesses in most if not all his interviews. He lies with impugnity and never blinks an eye or misses a beat, even when he’s called on it…he’s like a robot…it’s just second nature to the guy in a pathological sense. Plus his general nature and a big part of his control freak obsessive/complusiveness is to attack, attack attack and take on issues head on! He does it because I really think he thinks he’s invincible and untouchable, even to someone like Fitz -who no doubt Shooter thinks is a runaway traitorous prosecutor for even suggesting the administration and his good patriotic friend Scooter lied. (hello he’s Scalia Duck hunting buddy-hey wonder if Scalia has stopped doing that now that Withington met with a bullet in the face).

Anyway, you gals Rule! Thanks soooo much once again.

TeddySanFran @ 66

All this talking/not-talking about Plame to all these different reporters was the WH/OVP strategy. It was all part of the the smokescreen aspect of disclosing Plame’s status, whether she “sent” her husband, and what he found/didn’t find in Niger. Talking to lots of reporters, mentioning some things to some and some things to others — and knowing they might talk with one another — meant that the source of the story would be muddled. The WH/OVP counted on reporters gong to jail to protect their sources — look who did go to jail, their most loyal stenographer!!

Fitzgerald understands this, and thus doesn’t mind having all these non-leaked-to Pulitzer Prize winners telling about their conversations that didn’t involve Plame — it’s all part of the “sand in the umpire’s face” aspect of the story that he alluded to in October 2005 when he read Libby’s indictment.

The jury will have that explained to them in Fitz’s closing, I betcha — it’s not just that Libby talked to lots of reporters and didn’t mention Plame; it’s much more than that. There was a central strategy at work from the very start — and that strategy was Cheney’s.

Teddy, much of what you say has already achieved pop culture status as the Chewbacca defense. Once again, the brilliance of human satire predicts a reality that would not have been thought possible. Yes, Chewbacca told Libby, not Cheney.

Teddy in SF @66–

Not just sand and smoke, but cut-outs too.

Which of course, in the end, is all they figured Mr. Fleischer was good for – a (less than) cardboard cutout.

Me thinks Fleischer likely had that ‘Oh my Goddess!’ moment a heckfire of a lot sooner than he has proposed.

So….. from a legal point of view, can Fitz now call him back to the stand to clarify his Wally Dodging?

.

THIS IS THE BIG STORY OF THE DAY

Tenet sticks a shiv in Bushco.

Armitage: They knew with yellowcake, the CIA is not going to be hurt by this one–

Woodward: I know, that’s–

Armitage: — Hadley and Bob Joseph know. It’s documented. We’ve got our documents on it. We’re clean as a f***ing whistle. And George personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.

SNIP

Armitage: George said you can’t do this.

Woodward: How come it wasn’t taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House.

Whoever “overruled” Tenet used a forgery to start a war.

Bush?
Cheney?
Condi?

Someone is looking at an indictment with the possibility of capital punishment.

That’s the biggest story today.

Last I recall BigTime going overseas was to get his orders updated from this guy, just before the Baker/Hamilton Commission (remember them?) issued their recommendations.

In terms of Scooter and Shooter: for all we know, Shooter’s interview with investigators contradicts Libby on key points. It seems pretty clear that Libby’s willingly taking the fall for Cheney in this. As EW points out, how likely would it be for Cheney to have the same memory issues about Wilson’s wife as Libby does? I say Cheney doesn’t testify. (Of course, this would make me ask why Fitz didn’t call Cheney himself. Maybe Fitz just wanted to avoid a fight over executive privilege and figured he could convict Libby without Cheney?)

My one general fear about the trial is this: isn’t there a good possibility that the jury is overwhelmed by all of the different moving parts in this story? I think the defense is doing a really good job at bringing in all sorts of extraneous and unnecessary details. I mean, Jane Hamsher knows this case inside and out, and she’s having a hard time following the defense’s case. I suppose such a smoke-screen could piss of a jury, but I fear it may also be a basis for reasonable doubt. The defense is confusing, which may be the whole point. Fitz needs a good close (which shouldn’t be too hard: this case is actually pretty simple).

I discovered FDL at the beginning of the trial through HuffPo, and have been tapping my toes and paying taxes ever since with a very grateful heart. But my gratitude is growing and spilling over and I’m compelled to write.
Those who are eagle-eying the trial, and those who comment, have inspired me. Your community heartens me. Your commitment, energy, intelligence and humor will save this Democracy. Thank you. *standing ovation*

TeddySanFran @
66

All this talking/not-talking about Plame to all these different reporters was the WH/OVP strategy. It was all part of the the smokescreen aspect of disclosing Plame’s status, whether she “sent” her husband, and what he found/didn’t find in Niger. Talking to lots of reporters, mentioning some things to some and some things to others — and knowing they might talk with one another — meant that the source of the story would be muddled. The WH/OVP counted on reporters gong to jail to protect their sources — look who did go to jail, their most loyal stenographer!!

Fitzgerald understands this, and thus doesn’t mind having all these non-leaked-to Pulitzer Prize winners telling about their conversations that didn’t involve Plame — it’s all part of the “sand in the umpire’s face” aspect of the story that he alluded to in October 2005 when he read Libby’s indictment.

The jury will have that explained to them in Fitz’s closing, I betcha — it’s not just that Libby talked to lots of reporters and didn’t mention Plame; it’s much more than that. There was a central strategy at work from the very start — and that strategy was Cheney’s.

And that central strategy may have included a pattern of activities to which I alluded in my comment posted above at 6:41 pm.

Mutant Poodle @ 68

Aha – A new adjective for the team: snavvy!

Very Dr. Seuss…

welcome, toolpusher!

Eli @ 42

Oh, I would *love* to see him tell Fitz that his question is out of line.

I’ve had that fantasy too…

F: “And Mr. Vice President, did you instruct Mr. Libby to disseminate, to friendly journalists, not only those parts of the NIE which you declared “unclassified,” but also the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson and of Brewster Jennings?”

VP: “Mr. Fitzgerald, that question is out of line.”

F: “Mr. Vice President, with all due respect to your office, this is a Court of Law and you are bound by our Constitution to answer with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.”

Judge Walton: “Unless you would prefer to claim your Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Vice President…”

F, continuing: “Now I repeat, Sir: Did you instruct Mr. Libby to disseminate, to friendly journalists, not only those parts of the NIE which you declared “unclassified,” but also the identity of Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson and of Brewster Jennings?”

VP: “Aieee! I’m melting, I’m melllting!!! Who would have thought a little US Attorney like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness! Melltinng… mellt…” (disappears into puddle on the witness stand)

F: (allowing a wan grin to cross his face) “Pay some attention to the United States Constitution in your next life, Sir… there are only THREE co-equal branches of our Government.”

“…Now will someone come and clean up this mess before it corrodes the floor of the witness stand? There are a lot more trials I have yet to handle.”

dab from CT @ 62

Yes – how often does he travel overseas?

Only at the drop of the hat when the Saudis wanna complain. Otherwise, he never leaves the crypt bunker.

This comment by leveymg on SWOPAs post this morning has an air of plausibilty to it.

A snippet here

The crime was structured to avoid prosecution under IIPA – information about Plame was leaked by
multiple officials in partial chunks. This was done so no one official divulged or knew enough information to breach the legal threshold for an Intelligence Identities prosecution.

This crime was conceived by lawyers who knew exactly what they were doing. The very fact that Valerie worked for the Directorate of Operations, the covert side of CIA, told everyone that her identity was protected. On the face of it, the only person who likely had knowledge of all seven elements was Scooter, so he was tapped to take the rap, in case there was an actual prosecution. They didn’t think there would be, so they all lied to front to FBI investigators. After that, with that leverage, it was a piece of cake for Fitz to get each of them to make a deal in exchange for leniency.

The structuring of the crime is proof of a conspiracy and the intent to commit a crime by its originator. That originating source was Dick Cheney. In my opinion, Fitz has effectively proved the elements of a conspiracy charge against the Vice President.

I’ve got a crush on Marcy. That’s all I’ve got to say.

Mad Dogs @ 60

…Deadeye heads overseas for a foreign policy junket…

I’ll forgive you, you meant to say “boondoggle,” neh? :)

I don’t think Jane’s having a hard time following the defense’s case; I think the defense is having a hard time putting on a coherent case.

TeddySanFran @ 84

I don’t think Jane’s having a hard time following the defense’s case; I think the defense is having a hard time putting on a coherent case.

Or is trying to do the exact opposite of putting on a coherent case. When the truth is not on your side, smoke is your best friend.

Thanks for a great summary.

Update from Matt Stoller on the Edwards bloggers; Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the campaign.

TeddySanFran @ 87

Update from Matt Stoller on the Edwards bloggers; Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the campaign.

Bugger.

S.O.S. in MA @ 83

Mad Dogs @ 60

…Deadeye heads overseas for a foreign policy junket…

I’ll forgive you, you meant to say “boondoggle,” neh? :)

Yup, doggles, a boon’s best friend. *g*

Eli @ 25

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

Ari testified that he leaked to two reports while in Africa. He was not asked if he leaked to any reporters later. That is how he is off the hook.

Cheney’s Inner Demons Debate the Issue:

Testify Demon: “Go for it, Big Guy. Wanna look like a chicken? You’re the Veep! Biggest Bad-Ass in the country! Not afraid of some piss-ant prosecutor, are ya? Hell, you shoot lawyers in the face! And you’re a damn sight smarter than everyone who ever set foot in that courtroom. Nothing you can’t handle. Put those uppity Legacy-Breakers in their places!”

Don’t Testify Demon: “Are you kidding? Trek down there like some commoner? Get sworn in, for pity’s sake. That’s just demeaning. You have been running this country for 6 years. Libby doesn’t need you. Your sock-puppet will fork over a pardon. And what’s the law got to do with you, anyway? You make the laws. You break the laws. You are the law!”

S.O.S. in MA @ 83

Mad Dogs @ 60

…Deadeye heads overseas for a foreign policy junket…

I’ll forgive you, you meant to say “boondoggle,” neh? :)

Is Cheney being sent by “the wife”?

TeddySanFran @ 87

Update from Matt Stoller on the Edwards bloggers; Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the campaign.

I’m surprised she took the assignment to begin with; political writing is the antithesis of blogging (and she’s a good one). With blogging, you shoot from the hip; with politics, you pay service from the lip.

Evil Parallel Universe @
11

Postdragon – I respond end of last thread. And no (or very) few typos.

Bingo. Me, too. :)

Put me down for two don’ts for Scooter or The Penguin taking the stand.

I hope I am wrong, It would be verrry interesting. I’d like to see it.

John Forde @72, Eureka Springs @81: wow. I hope these predictions come true.

These defense witnesses sure shed a bit of light onto what was happening in the back rooms of the WH and OVP. I’m astounded by the brashness which is displayed by admin members, in partciular in the Armitage and Woodward conversation. It sure smells like an orchestrated campaign to leak.

However, the charges at hand are whether or not Libby lied to the FBI, perjured himself in the GJ, and obstructed justice. The leak itself is fascinating (and incredibly important to unearth). I can’t see any reason the defense would want to put all of these witnesses on the stand when they reveal so much about the inner workings of this apparent conspiracy – unless they’re trying to see what Fitz knows and can learn in this trial, therefore helping their defense for the next set of trials.

Wow.

Swopa where were you? Next time, Gadget, next time.

I met Jane and Marcy today [eeeeek] and am to meet Jeralyn tomorrow at THE TRIAL. Dear God a dream come true. My hillbilly/HLS father could only imagine such a scenario.

Apparently tomorrow I will be called to account for alleged steno skills. Eeeek for real. CHS babysitting offer valid for whole or half days, either chez egregious [with both of you overnight—big house lots of room and toys] or Plamehouse yr choice. I’m excellent w 3 yr olds because they are so honest about what they feel. My destiny to work w children, oldest of 7, then children’s hospital.

Impressions: the poodles are overwhelmingly beautiful. Jane is sacrificing beyond what you think. Marcy is a force of nature.

Bottom line: good people are doing all they can and more. Give generously to FDL because it matters. I thank you.

OT, but how sweet it is. I have been so looking forward to this!

There is a meeting of the House Rules Committee going on right now on C-SPAN. As I foretold, David Dreier is complaining about the Dems not giving the Republicans open rules on legislation.

Louise Slaughter, the Rules Committee Chairman, just informed the gentleman from California that with the open rule on a piece of legislation they had last week, the 110th congress has already equaled the number of open rules in the 109th congress.

ha fkn ha

Eli @ 25

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

I have to believe there’s a missing piece, but I must be too tired to find it. Would Fitz open his case up to that? Did he address it on cross? If Ari did just lie, wouldn’t Fitz have carted him away right after court?

Pectopah @ 90

Eli @ 25

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

Ari testified that he leaked to two reports while in Africa. He was not asked if he leaked to any reporters later. That is how he is off the hook.

Thanks! Now I can sleep. I like this place.

Eureka Springs, AR @
81

This comment by leveymg on SWOPAs post this morning has an air of plausibilty to it.

A snippet here

The crime was structured to avoid prosecution under IIPA – information about Plame was leaked by
multiple officials in partial chunks. This was done so no one official divulged or knew enough information to breach the legal threshold for an Intelligence Identities prosecution.

This crime was conceived by lawyers who knew exactly what they were doing. The very fact that Valerie worked for the Directorate of Operations, the covert side of CIA, told everyone that her identity was protected. On the face of it, the only person who likely had knowledge of all seven elements was Scooter, so he was tapped to take the rap, in case there was an actual prosecution. They didn’t think there would be, so they all lied to front to FBI investigators. After that, with that leverage, it was a piece of cake for Fitz to get each of them to make a deal in exchange for leniency.

The structuring of the crime is proof of a conspiracy and the intent to commit a crime by its originator. That originating source was Dick Cheney. In my opinion, Fitz has effectively proved the elements of a conspiracy charge against the Vice President.

There is more: please refer to my comment above, which I posted at 6:41 pm.

LindaR @ 98

OT, but how sweet it is. I have been so looking forward to this!

There is a meeting of the House Rules Committee going on right now on C-SPAN. As I foretold, David Dreier is complaining about the Dems not giving the Republicans open rules on legislation.

Louise Slaughter, the Rules Committee Chairman, just informed the gentleman from California that with the open rule on a piece of legislation they had last week, the 110th congress has already equaled the number of open rules in the 109th congress.

ha fkn ha

I hope that Nancy Pelosi put the word out that no slack shall be given. Payback is a bitch.

I bet BigTime was really getting pissed off as they waited for Woodward to take the Armitage bait, and then waited, and waited, and waited. And had to go into mad clusterfuck Plan B. Poor Woody — not even a useful tool anymore!

Stephen Parrish – I took the liberty of cutting and pasting the whole leveymg post below. It is a compelling analysis, although, needless to say, it is unprovable at this point.

——————————————–

“The OP raises this interesting question: “Was all that strategizing aboard Air Force Two merely devoted to telling two people something they already knew?”

The answer is, the crime was structured by Cheney and his lawyers, Libby and Addington, and Martin (yes, everyone involved in this are lawyers, except Cheney), to avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protections Act (IIPA) of 1982.

Libby and Martin were aboard the plane coming back from Norfolk, and Libby buttonholed Addington the next day to get his opinion of how this thing should work.

What they all came up with was a plan that multiple officials would leak bits and pieces of Plame’s identity to various reporters, knowing that the journos would talk to each other, and someone would “take the bait”, and put the pieces togther in print, “outing” Plame.

You see, an IIPA conviction requires a showing that the government official doing the leak has to carry out all of the following elementsof the crime:

The elements of a crime under the IIPA are extremely demanding; one of its drafters has been quoted as saying that the law was written so as to be “hard to break.” The elements are: (1) authorized access to classified information, (2) learning the identity of a covert agent (3) intentional disclosure of information identifying the agent to (4) an individual not authorized to receive classified information (5) knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent and (6) knowledge that the United States is taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the agent’s role. For the purposes of the bill, someone is a “covert agent” only if he or she has “served overseas” within the previous five years, creating an effective seventh element.

The crime was structured to avoid prosecution under IIPA – information about Plame was leaked by
multiple officials in partial chunks. This was done so no one official divulged or knew enough information to breach the legal threshold for an Intelligence Identities prosecution.

This crime was conceived by lawyers who knew exactly what they were doing. The very fact that Valerie worked for the Directorate of Operations, the covert side of CIA, told everyone that her identity was protected. On the face of it, the only person who likely had knowledge of all seven elements was Scooter, so he was tapped to take the rap, in case there was an actual prosecution. They didn’t think there would be, so they all lied to front to FBI investigators. After that, with that leverage, it was a piece of cake for Fitz to get each of them to make a deal in exchange for leniency.

The structuring of the crime is proof of a conspiracy and the intent to commit a crime by its originator. That originating source was Dick Cheney. In my opinion, Fitz has effectively proved the elements of a conspiracy charge against the Vice President.”

egregious, Thanks for sharing and offering to share more.

Scooter isn’t testifying.

You said it, hackworth. Nancy Pelosi is looking so presidential these days, don’t you think?

Why Scooter can’t testify: “Mr Libby, is this your thick, heavily-annotated file on Joseph Wilson? I’m going to ask you a few questions. About each page.”

Why the Shooter can’t testify: “Mr Cheney, in the last twelve months, have you shot any old men in the face? I see. And in the twelve hours prior to shooting that old man in the face, had you consumed any alcohol?”

In many ways, you all are three beautiful women. Hallelujah

Eli @ 88

TeddySanFran @ 87

Update from Matt Stoller on the Edwards bloggers; Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the campaign.

Bugger.

Well, that’s going to do wonders for the “Bloggers aren’t flaky” meme. Bloody hell, that girl needs to make up her mind.

Does anyone remember the last time someone sent a process server to the White House?

So, if Cheney is compelled to testify, he’ll probably ignore it. Then, he’ll be in Asia (so he’ll think he can’t be blamed for starting the latest war).

By the time he gets back, everybody will have given up on his testifying, and Wells/Jeffress/Cline will say, well, without Shooter’s testimony, we just can’t have Scooter go up on the stand blind like that (`cause, you know, Scooter’s testimony has to, sort of, evolve as the trial goes on).

Shooter will be Scooter’s excuse. I don’t guess we’ll see either of them on the stand.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 30

tommy yum @
6

I’ll eat my hat* if the Dark One takes the stand. Hell, I don’t think Scooter will either. Surely there’s been a quid pro quo pardon agreement in exchange for Libby falling on his sword. No? Should a boy dare to dream?

*Actually, I will not eat my hat.

Tommy – let me repost my comments posted on at least one other FDL thread:

From Wikipedia:

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; [snip]

The United States Supreme Court has held that a pardon can be rejected, must be affirmatively accepted to be effective, and that acceptance carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

There are some other considerations, oft repeated on other FDL threads, apart from admission of guilt as a condition of accepting a pardon: (1) in Scooter’s case, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in subsequent investigations, if I recall correctly, and (2) a pardon doesn’t shield him from civil suits.

A couple of quick thoughts on pardons.

This needs some more detailed research, but keep in mind that the law on this may not be as settled as the Wikipedia blurb suggests. In fact, the blurb is probably wrong.

Pardoning someone before he is charged or convicted is the functional equivalent of giving them a license to commit a crime.

The constitution does not authorize presidential pardons for random pre-indictment criminal activity, and the courts/congress have not ceded this authority either.

Pardoning someone before conviction is no different, from a procedural and constitutional standpoint, than issuing a veto on legislation that has not yet passed congress. The bill may be written, introduced, the vote scheduled and a whip tally confirmed, but until the bill is enrolled and sent to the executive (until the person is charged, tried and sentenced) there is nothing to veto (there is no criminal pardon to issue).

Ford, for instance, did get away with pardoning Nixon before indictment & a conviction. However, Ford’s action was not subjected to a legal challenge. In fact, many in congress welcomed it and merely let Ford slide on the issue. Just because Ford did it does not mean he had the constitutional authority to do it or that it was even legal. The fact is it was never challenged in the courts by anyone with standing or in congress.

The power to pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime is a theoretical “power.” It is not an inherent or established one. There is no established legal precedent for this authority.

The Ford/Nixon pardon, for instance, is not a legal precedent it is only an example of a president who escaped unchallenged after doing something to/for a former president in historically unique and extraordinary circumstances.

slainte,
cl

Of course we want them to testify. Of course it’s hard to imagine that they would gain anything by testifying. But I keep thinking about the White House Tapes. Nixon was saying things in the Oval Office that he should have known would be disasterous if revealed, and still taping away for posterity. I am amazed that the Vice President who is demonized by most will speak out at the drop of a hat, still apparently thinking his is the last word on the truth [like on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer]. I wouldn’t bet my 401K on it, but I would pick it in a low stakes game. “Pride,” they say, “goeth before a fall.” If he takes the stand, he’ll say that with the special powers of the Vice President, his Chief of Staff can do whatever he is told to do. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine Libby testifying. I can’t imagine what he’d say…

Maybe I’m just crazy or haven’t had time to read everything possible to be able to understand, but it seems to me that Libby’s team is defending against the wrong crime. So far as I can tell, they are defending against the crime of disclosing the identity of an NOC, but none of what they are saying justifies false statements to FBI agents, perjury or obstruction of justice.

In describing how little he can recall of events in the summer of 2003, I would love to see Libby expound about having no idea wtf he was talking about with Tom Cruise.

Amidst the bravado here, I’m going to suggest that we don’t want Dick on the stand.

His Kaa the Snake routine has worked for years, and we don’t know how it will affect the jury.

I don’t believe that a Perry Mason moment will happen with him testifying, and I think there are far more upsides to not letting him lie under oath in this case.

teehee:

His Kaa the Snake routine . . . .

trust in me, just in me . . .

So I see the cast of “Dreamgirls” also blogs the Libby trial. :D

By way, for some inaleckshual ennertainment, check out my Daily Kos diary “Cheney the Exec/Leg Hybrid, Con Law, & the unitary? executive” at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/11/11738/4912 .

Now maybe I should post this at the HuffyPo version of this Fireblog diary. Hm.

Monday Evening News, brought to you by FireDogLake. Ah, yes, excellence in news once again. ;-)

With all due respect to Jeralyn’s opinion on the matter, from here it sure looks like Wells and the rest of Libby’s defense team have adopted the “spaghetti defense” — throw anything and everything at the wall and see what sticks. Sad, pathetic, not to mention messy.

Thanks for chasing the pardons info, Stephen Parrish, and to caoimhin laochdha for fleshing it out a bit further. Great stuff.

As for the vote:
Scooter –> NO, he would melt like a puddle on the stand, weep like a little boy

Shooter –> HELL NO, he would pull a Col. Jessup and he knows it.

Libby’s serving time. Only remaining questions are 1) how long, and 2) when does Fitz have his next presser to announce next indictments.

Balrog @ 116

Amidst the bravado here, I’m going to suggest that we don’t want Dick on the stand.

His Kaa the Snake routine has worked for years, and we don’t know how it will affect the jury.

I don’t believe that a Perry Mason moment will happen with him testifying, and I think there are far more upsides to not letting him lie under oath in this case.

Bring on the snake, the pups repond:

‘Night-Song in the Jungle’

Now Chil the Kite brings home the night
That Mang the Bat sets free.
The herds are shut in byre and hut -
For loosed till dawn are we.
This is the hour of pride and power,
Talon and tush and claw.
O hear the call! Good Hunting, All
That keep the Jungle Law!

— Rudyard Kipling

Great coverage today – congrats to all of you and thanks for your hard work!

I’m a little confused about the references to “inferring”. If I’m reading it right, it sounds like the defense wants Libby’s briefers to list some subjects that Libby would have been concerned about (Iraq, etc.), and as a result of his overloaded mind, his “memory” might have taken a time-out. The defense seems not to want Libby to actually testify and confirm these subjects – just let the briefers mention stuff and then let the jury understand and “infer” from what the briefers say, that Libby was a really busy guy who just “forgot” some things when it came to Plame and Wilson. Am I getting this right? Or am I hopelessly confused? (I do not have a legal mind or legal training.)

As Judge Walton said, (am paraphrasing, badly probably) juries must judge on facts, not hearsay and it would seem that the briefers would be offering hearsay unless Libby backed it up personally.

However, if the “memory-stuff or lack-of-memory- stuff” by briefers, about how busy Libby was, is allowed into evidence by Judge Walton, then indeed, the jury actually MAY infer what the defense wants them to infer. How can this be right?

My question then becomes, if Libby doesn’t take the stand in his own defense, then will Judge Walton caution the jury, at the end of the trial, NOT to infer, by this lack of testimony on his own behalf, any admission of guilt by Libby?

Perhaps this is a dumb question – but I don’t understand how a jury can be permitted to infer some things at one point in a trial, but not be allowed to infer other things at the end of the trial (should Libby not testify, that is).

Can some patient soul try and explain this for me, please?

I have dial-up, but the picture of you three is priceless! It’s so good to see you all, and Marcy’s book is so intriguing…thank you for this informative and elucidating website: I am very grateful to all the contributers whom I have read. Thank you indeed.

Forgot, my above-linked DKos diary has a poll option re “Shooter and Scooter”. Gotta mention.

CatelynK @91

you nailed it with the Cheney testify/don’t testify demons.

Remember just who Or what the hell were dealing with…not your ordinary human being. Here’s a man that placed himself in the position of VP (isn’t that just special),thinks he’ s the 4 branch of gov’t, has good friends in the Scotus that he duck hunts with and who don’t recuse themselves from cases he’s involved in despite that, didn’t have to reveal his Secret Energy task Force Oil buddies, shot a man in the face and had the friend he shot apologizing to him for it, has told people (John Edwards) to their face he’s never met them when the record clearly showed otherwise, accuses others of nepotism -hello Ms. Plame, when both his daughters both work in high places in the gov’t, has defied Congressional requests for information and has stated he doesn’t have to appear before them, deliberately lied us into a War of Choice, reads books such as Failing Forward ,nd eats babies for breakfast in his bunker for breakfast-okay so I made that one up but it’s not far of a stretch….and that list was just off the top of my head. The
VP is out of control!

Muzzy @
115

In describing how little he can recall of events in the summer of 2003, I would love to see Libby expound about having no idea wtf he was talking about with Tom Cruise.

I am sitting next to emptywheel on the sofa, who says “excellent.”

LindaR @ 117

teehee:

His Kaa the Snake routine . . . .

trust in me, just in me . . .

Kaa the snake from The Jungle Book?

That is one fine analogy.

Just for kicks & grins…”the market” seems to agree with us that this trial is not going well for Libby. The TradeSports price chart for Libby being convicted on at least one charge hit an alltime high today. ;)

(Warning: long link)

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading /tradingHTML.jsp?evID=37596&eventSelect =37596&updateList=true&showExpired=false#

Jim E. @
57

… When Cathie Martin was on the stand, Fitz got her to explain the upside of only leaking info to a select reporter or two. Martin testified that sometimes the OVP preferred to give info to only a handful of reporters (rather than every reporter on a particular beat) in order to get extra play. She said that reporters might give more emphasis to a piece of news they leaked if it was considered an exclusive. …

I just got a flash vision from the Vice-Presidential Leaking Hall: “So glad all of you were able to make it today…”

Has Wells sufficiently annoyed Judge Walton on non-memory matters that not having Libby testify can no longer hurt? If so, then I would think neither he nor Cheney would testify, but then as others have said, who’d a thought defense would have bothered with today’s cavalcade?

(And yes, I too thought the all-star lineup were supposed to be the ones on the YouTube.;)

johnSwifty @
120

Balrog @ 116

Amidst the bravado here, I’m going to suggest that we don’t want Dick on the stand.

His Kaa the Snake routine has worked for years, and we don’t know how it will affect the jury.

I don’t believe that a Perry Mason moment will happen with him testifying, and I think there are far more upsides to not letting him lie under oath in this case.

Bring on the snake, the pups repond:

Don’t get cocky, kid. We don’t know the makeup of the jury, and it only takes one boner for Cheney to acquit.

I’m deeply, achingly in love with all three of you. And swopa, too. Keep after it, be bulldogs. I’m watching and listening.

Eureka Springs, AR @ 105

egregious, Thanks for sharing and offering to share more.

Yr appetite coming back?

sweetgumroot @ 109

In many ways, you all are three beautiful women. Hallelujah

Stick around til tomorrow my dear, make it four.

can fitzgerald hand cheney (of command, thanks keith o.) an indictment when he is on the stand, or just before cheney has to sit down to testify?
i hope so, for it might make for the last turd post mortem.

egregious @
97

Swopa where were you? Next time, Gadget, next time.

I met Jane and Marcy today [eeeeek] and am to meet Jeralyn tomorrow at THE TRIAL. Dear God a dream come true. My hillbilly/HLS father could only imagine such a scenario.

Apparently tomorrow I will be called to account for alleged steno skills. Eeeek for real.

Egregious took me & Marcy out for a lovely dinner tonight, and tomorrow we may tap her for a little liveblogging assist if Marcy goes in the courtroom to see Jill Abramson & I run out of steam.

We have the most wonderful people here at FDL. The fact that Marcy’s book made it to publication is due to the generosity of people like egregious. It’s an amazing community to be a part of.

Toe-Tappin’

Given current developments, any speculation out there on sealed v. sealed?

Balrog @ 129

Perhaps, but I don’t think that Dick has one boner left.

egregious @ 132

sweetgumroot @ 109

In many ways, you all are three beautiful women. Hallelujah

Stick around til tomorrow my dear, make it four.

One can always hope EG that you’ll be included in tomorrow’s video! And can’t wait to see what shoes you’re gonna wear!

Feel free to let the Australian Tourism website to know what you think about their Prime Minister John “Ratty” Howard claiming that terrorists support Democrats and Barack Obama.

Go wank it, mate.

-GSD

johnSwifty @
136

Balrog @ 129

Perhaps, but I don’t think that Dick has one boner left.

My Peter-Meter certainly registers NO.

Will Cheney take the stand rather than letting Libby take a bullet for him? This is the guy who shot his friend in the face, then went home and had dinner rather than visiting his friend in the hospital to apologize and see how he was doing. Some people think Cheney went home to save his hide, because he was drunk and would have been found out at the hospital. So don’t bet on Cheney bravely standing up and facing Fitzgerald on the witness stand to save his friend Scooter Libby.

Good grief! This warrior queen download is going to take three hours.
The ladies got a little chatty this afternoon…)

Rayne @ 119

Monday Evening News, brought to you by FireDogLake. Ah, yes, excellence in news once again. ;-)

With all due respect to Jeralyn’s opinion on the matter, from here it sure looks like Wells and the rest of Libby’s defense team have adopted the “spaghetti defense” — throw anything and everything at the wall and see what sticks. Sad, pathetic, not to mention messy.

Thanks for chasing the pardons info, Stephen Parrish, and to caoimhin laochdha for fleshing it out a bit further. Great stuff.

As for the vote:
Scooter –> NO, he would melt like a puddle on the stand, weep like a little boy

Shooter –> HELL NO, he would pull a Col. Jessup and he knows it.

Libby’s serving time. Only remaining questions are 1) how long, and 2) when does Fitz have his next presser to announce next indictments.

Indeed. Can’t wait.

Jane or Marcy a quick question, are the MSM types still thick there or are they getting bored and not showing up?

Jane, get your rest, woman. Valkyries and Amazons and our own resident Boadicias [sp?] are in short supply, and we need you for the long haul.

[Sidebar: See the article making the rounds on the importance of siestas…good for the heart and the recoveries from all life’s ails.]

Balrog @ 139

johnSwifty @
136

Balrog @ 129

Perhaps, but I don’t think that Dick has one boner left.

My Peter-Meter certainly registers NO.

I hear you though. The very fact that the man was given a pass for saying, “Go eff yourself,” to a member of congress, says something for the ponderous amount of weight he brings to the table. I’m just thinking, more and more, it’s dead weight.

best part of my day-watching you guys! thank you so much for caring about our country.

p.s am i the only one who would like to know what fitz is wearing each day?

Hi ya’ll.
Having to observe this from afar. Lurking, Big Time.
Wonder how that IranContra/Watergate crew likes the feel of the FDL Barbarians at the Gate?

We have the most wonderful people here at FDL. The fact that Marcy’s book made it to publication is due to the generosity of people like egregious. It’s an amazing community to be a part of.

Jane, if you build it, we will come. You are revolutionary. Lincolnesque.

Hi grege. You’ll do us proud. Type on.

squirrel hiller @ 146

best part of my day-watching you guys! thank you so much for caring about our country.

p.s am i the only one who would like to know what fitz is wearing each day?

Clothes. We need Pach or others to discuss that. And they don’t make the man.

T- @ 147

Hi ya’ll.
Having to observe this from afar. Lurking, Big Time.
Wonder how that IranContra/Watergate crew likes the feel of the FDL Barbarians at the Gate?

We have the most wonderful people here at FDL. The fact that Marcy’s book made it to publication is due to the generosity of people like egregious. It’s an amazing community to be a part of.

Jane, if you build it, we will come. You are revolutionary. Lincolnesque.

Hi grege. You’ll do us proud. Type on.

So that typing/steno course when I was 13 and couldn’t swim all summer from surgery? God opens doors, I just walk thru them.

Mad Dogs @ 137

egregious @ 132

sweetgumroot @ 109

In many ways, you all are three beautiful women. Hallelujah

Stick around til tomorrow my dear, make it four.

One can always hope EG that you’ll be included in tomorrow’s video! And can’t wait to see what shoes you’re gonna wear!

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

Balrog # 129: ‘We don’t know the makeup of the jury, and it only takes one boner for Cheney to acquit.’

I’m stuck on the whiteness of the jury and the original pool that produced it.

DC is 8% Hispanic and 60% Black. DC denizen Pachacutec reported during jury selection that ‘the pool looks a lot whiter than DC, and this is true of the 100 people who answered the jury summons … for whatever reason, this is kind of a sea of whitey.’

I don’t want to get into tinfoil hat territory, but was this just a coincidence? Have the forces of darkness planted a sleeper cell of Cheneybots on the jury? Libby hired Wells because DC juries are predominately black. Why was this pool so white?

Most US courts select jurors from motor vehicle and voter records. Both lists tilt upward on income and tend to lose people who change residence frequently, so the resulting juries are white-skewed.

DC supposedly selects jurors randomly from motor vehicle and voter records, plus the records of the tax and public assistance departments, http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/jury-FAQ.pdf, (that’s better than most jurisdictions, although adding phone and utility records would be even better).

If I understood Pachacutec correctly, black potential jurors were surprisingly few to begin with, and were excused for cause in far greater proportion than whites for agreeing to Wells’ suggestion during jury selection that BushCo and Cheney are not credible.

‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a high standard, particularly in a trial where the defendant brings Libby’s resources. Libby needs only one hold-out.

egregious- thank you for all that you have done to support this FDL. I am grateful to you for all your support.

egregious @ 150
Mad Dogs @ 137
egregious @ 132
sweetgumroot @ 109
In many ways, you all are three beautiful women. Hallelujah

Stick around til tomorrow my dear, make it four.

———————————————–

One can always hope EG that you’ll be included in tomorrow’s video! And can’t wait to see what shoes you’re gonna wear!

————————————————-

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

————————————————-

magnifique!

mhpcr @ 152

egregious- thank you for all that you have done to support this FDL. I am grateful to you for all your support.

I grew up when it was cool to be patriotic. What can I say.

According to this passage from Media Bloggers notes (Libby Trial 1.29 Post 6), Fleischer does mention calling Pincus in his testimony:

Fleischer then called Walter Pincus at the Washington Post and another unnamed reporter at the New York Times in an attempt to counter the CBS report that the President had known the sixteen words were erroneous but had included them in the SOTU address nonetheless. He cannot recall whom Dan Bartlett contacted in regard to the matter, but presumes it was the “Sunday talk shows.”

Fleischer called Pincus because he knew he was covering the controversy but was not on the trip to Africa with Condi Rice.

klem

I hope to go a second day. I’ve got a killer set of purple shoes and jewelry.

BetteB @ 121

…Can some patient soul try and explain this for me, please?

Could be all the experts have hit the hay, but with all those good questions/issues you raised, I sure hope you’ll re-post ‘em during the day tommorrow so we all can read the fine responses!

egregious @ 150

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

Oh my…be still our pounding hearts! I may have to save tommorrow’s video for posterity!

Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

Pectopah @ 90

Eli @ 25

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

Ari testified that he leaked to two reports while in Africa. He was not asked if he leaked to any reporters later. That is how he is off the hook.

I have to disagree with your conclusion if FDL’s blogging is correct. In the entry “Libby Live: Ari Fleischer Two”, there is a portion of the blog that says that Ari WAS asked about Pincus in Cross:

Did you and Bartlett have a discussion about reaching out to reporters. We talked about that CBS report. We should find out who else is writing this story. I said we should get this out to everyone we talk to about Tenet.

Fl I called Pincus at WaPo, I think I called someone at NYT. I can’t recall what Bartlett did.

J Is it a fact that you and Bartlett agreed to contact several print and media journalists. Ari NYT and Wapo and Bartlett the Sunday talk shows.

J You did meet with the FBI on June 10 2004. Did you tell the FBI that Bartlett was going to contact the Sunday talk shows.

Fl I don’t recall who I said he was going to call.

J One of the Sunday talk shows would be MTP. Who is the NBC correspondant?

Fl Correspondant? Anchor is Tim Russert.

J Walter Pincus–can you say what area he writes in?

Fl I called him bc, WH reporters taht covered this story. I was working off of who was covering the controversy. I knew he wasn’t on the trip, so I could reach him.

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

He was asked directly if he told Pincus, and he said that he did NOT. Either Fitz is going to let that stand, or he will have to call Ari back for rebuttal. Or, perhaps he wants to catch Ari in a fib, dump his immunity agreement, and try him for the base crime behind the whole investigation?

It will be interesting to see just where this goes from here.

Armitage’s blithe disclosure to Woody spoke to the schism between State and the WH over the WMD intel. His knowledge and motivation don’t seem to correlate to the concerted effort to leak undertaken by OVP even though the lineage of knowledge was familial.

With Rove in the mix and pushing the project to get Wilson, OVP and WH were colluding as brothers in arms. Moreover Rove’s Cheneyesque temperment, just short of a shotgun, suggests his trigger finger is dipped in red and bears as much responsibility for the group’s actions as Libby. While Libby’s dilemma is to beat the narrow charges while staying mute, his defense needs to create the sensational buzz of a disturbed working environment that overwhelms rational behavior. (Just another day at the office!)

This theme hasn’t been developed to my satisfaction — the purported sacrificial lamb theory regarding Rove. Maybe it is a last resort for the defense if the rest of the spaghetti doesn’t stick. There’s alot of stuff to try before going all-in. The defense may try to get the evidence that speaks to the Libby’s mindset through a drip drip drip of witnesses, each adding a piece to the puzzle.

Dick can avoid the dock long enough for the whole thing to play out while the vanilla villains shuck and jive. It doesn’t matter how deep they dig their hole, what matters is how crazy they can make the whole sordid affair sound to the jury. We haven’t gotten very far down the rabbit hole yet and I’d guess that the last three to testify would be Rover, Scooter and Shooter in that order. After Rove, things may just be crazy enough to call Chewbacca a rationalist.

The bottom line is not how Scootter fibbed, but how insane the key players are. Not a memory defense but an insanity defense dressed as a memory defense.

My daughter has a “Mrs. Fitz” T-shirt that she’s worn to school(she’s a teacher) a few times since the trial began. Think anyone would like to borrow it?

pow wow @ 59

Wow, how snazzy you all look in that video shot. And savvy, too.

I’m reeling from the audiotape excerpt of the Woodward/Armitage interview (DX 511A) here:

link

I’ve long been confident that Richard Armitage was in this up to his neck, but man, what a gangster he sounds like in this June 13, 2003 interview with Woodward… I sure wish Armitage’s profanity had been left in. The news about Wilson’s wife was eating at Dick Armitage, and he and Woodward were discussing, with vindictive undertones, the intrigue and backstory of Wilson’s trip like political colleagues in the halls of the White House. “Offhand” reference my eye, Woodward and Armitage – Armitage had to repeat himself when Woodward didn’t catch Armitage’s first sexist inference about Mrs. Wilson….

There is so obviously so much more to all of this than so far meets the eye in public… Wonder when the dam is really going to break. [Fleischer knows damn well still, to this day, that Scooter Libby told him on Monday, July 7 that Valerie Plame was a ‘hush hush’ employee of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, and yet on Saturday, July 12th, Fleischer is suddenly ‘innocently’ telling veteran reporter Walter Pincus (who positively knows the difference between a CIA DI analyst and a DO agent) that Wilson’s wife is an “analyst” at the CIA. Who conspired with Fleischer between Monday and Saturday to tweak his ’story’ just so, and why…, etc., etc., etc.?]

And all of this establishes that Armitage didn’t simply make a “mistake” or slip of the tongue when he disclosed Plame’s identity to EITHER Woodward or Novak.

His revelation was intentional BOTH TIMES!

http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..erview.pdf

Man this guy is facing some heavy charges!

Sydnie @ 160

Pectopah @ 90

Eli @ 25

Patsy Stone @ 21

So, did Ari perjure himself? I’m confused.

I can’t see that he would, unless he’s insane, but something’s wrong here isn’t it?

I was wondering about that too – he gave Pincus permission to testify when he knew it would incriminate him?

Ari testified that he leaked to two reports while in Africa. He was not asked if he leaked to any reporters later. That is how he is off the hook.

I have to disagree with your conclusion if FDL’s blogging is correct. In the entry “Libby Live: Ari Fleischer Two”, there is a portion of the blog that says that Ari WAS asked about Pincus in Cross:

Did you and Bartlett have a discussion about reaching out to reporters. We talked about that CBS report. We should find out who else is writing this story. I said we should get this out to everyone we talk to about Tenet.

Fl I called Pincus at WaPo, I think I called someone at NYT. I can’t recall what Bartlett did.

J Is it a fact that you and Bartlett agreed to contact several print and media journalists. Ari NYT and Wapo and Bartlett the Sunday talk shows.

J You did meet with the FBI on June 10 2004. Did you tell the FBI that Bartlett was going to contact the Sunday talk shows.

Fl I don’t recall who I said he was going to call.

J One of the Sunday talk shows would be MTP. Who is the NBC correspondant?

Fl Correspondant? Anchor is Tim Russert.

J Walter Pincus–can you say what area he writes in?

Fl I called him bc, WH reporters taht covered this story. I was working off of who was covering the controversy. I knew he wasn’t on the trip, so I could reach him.

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

He was asked directly if he told Pincus, and he said that he did NOT. Either Fitz is going to let that stand, or he will have to call Ari back for rebuttal. Or, perhaps he wants to catch Ari in a fib, dump his immunity agreement, and try him for the base crime behind the whole investigation?

It will be interesting to see just where this goes from here.

I was parsing a WaPo article about the trial. At first I thought from reading it that Ari perjured himself. But I read the WaPo wording closely and realized it refered to the leaking while in Africa, as opposed to later. But you may be on to something. The article containted the same awkward syntax that got Andrea Mitchell in trouble: you can read it anyway you want.

ohioblue @ 162

My daughter has a “Mrs. Fitz” T-shirt that she’s worn to school(she’s a teacher) a few times since the trial began. Think anyone would like to borrow it?

Get in line honey.

egregious @ 150

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

Will that be Carnellian red?

Thank you for another fantastic day of coverage!!

I don’t think Scooter testifies. I think he can only make things worse on cross-examination. I was glad to see Judge Walton call down Libby’s attorneys on being disingenuous before as to whether he was going to testify. It is ironic that with his own credibility on trial his attorneys seemed to have so managed to retain so little with the court on his behalf.

I don’t think Cheney will testify. He has a lot to risk personally and could expose himself to some very pointed and uncomfortable questions on cross. This is a man who won’t even talk to the press unless its a controlled setting with ground rules established up front. Cheney is primarily concerned with looking out for Dick Cheney. And he sure doesn’t help himself by taking the stand.

…beautiful, smart, articulate young women doing superb analysis.
Bravo

I truly have enjoyed the great coverage. Thanks to all three of you, oh, and Marcy rocks !

Pectopah @ 166

egregious @ 150

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

Will that be Carnellian red?

Cornellian red, Mr. Restaurant/Pectopan. My university color :)

egregious @ 156

I hope to go a second day. I’ve got a killer set of purple shoes and jewelry.

We know you do. And that you have money to contribute, which is needed and necessary,is appreciated. Those of us who do now have jewelry and clothes or opportunity or money, may feel a bit as though we have nothing to contribute…you have so much, and we have so little. It’s somewhat overwhelming. I want to contrubute, but I feel unworthy…
Can you speak to that?

by the way, is Libbystan now part of the Axis of Evil ?

Patsy Stone @
159

Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

I think it was stated in court today that Pincus revealed Fleischer’s name for the first time and that Pincus said he had just contacted Fleischer prior to today’s testimony to make sure it was still OK to testify to their conversation. I don’t think Fleischer would have given the OK if he thought it would get him in trouble.

klem

egregious @ 170

Pectopah @ 166

egregious @ 150

Black form fitting dress, green pashmina, black midi heels, with a tiny red and green velvet stripe to match my emeralds. The opposition won’t know what hit them :)

Will that be Carnellian red?

Cornellian red. My university color :)

MNE TOXE. Mine too.

mhpcr @ 171

egregious @ 156

I hope to go a second day. I’ve got a killer set of purple shoes and jewelry.

We know you do. And that you have money to contribute, which is needed and necessary,is appreciated. Those of us who do now have jewelry and clothes or opportunity or money, may feel a bit as though we have nothing to contribute…you have so much, and we have so little. It’s somewhat overwhelming. I want to contrubute, but I feel unworthy…
Can you speak to that?

EMOTIONAL. SUPPORT. GREATLY. NEEDED.
Prayers. Energy. Letters of encouragement. Love.

Everyone can do something:

Act. Support. Encourage. Teach. Learn.

Believe me as someone who works overseas the necessary support is high and the available support is not always there. YOU can make the difference.

Where can I do that? I don’t have emeralds.

klem @ 173

Patsy Stone @
159

Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

I think it was stated in court today that Pincus revealed Fleischer’s name for the first time and that Pincus said he had just contacted Fleischer prior to today’s testimony to make sure it was still OK to testify to their conversation. I don’t think Fleischer would have given the OK if he thought it would get him in trouble.

klem

Me neither. That’s why I’m sure I’m missing something, either that or Ari’s a huge moron.

BetteB #121 and Mad Dogs #157 – I’m not an expert, but since I haven’t hit the hay yet:

I think BettyB is correct about there being an inconsistency. I was trying to get at this in an earlier thread.

‘Libby was indicted for lying to the FBI and the grand jury in 2003-4.
So the issue is the state of his memory then, not now, right?
Fitz put Libby’s FBI interviews and grand jury testimony in evidence. Why does Libby have to take the stand now to contest the assertion that he was lying rather than ‘mis-remembering’ then?’

It’s traditionally the province of the jury to evaluate a witness’s powers of perception and recollection by observing the witness on the stand. Perhaps Judge Walton is assuming that, absent evidence of some intervening illness or trauma, Libby’s mental faculties would not have changed in three years, and therefore he won’t excuse Libby’s appearance.

It appears that Judge Walton is leaning toward allowing Libby to put in evidence that he was very busy without taking the stand, but won’t allow him to explicitly argue that being very busy affected his memory unless he takes the stand.

And all of this establishes that Armitage didn’t simply make a “mistake” or slip of the tongue when he disclosed Plame’s identity to EITHER Woodward or Novak.

His revelation was intentional BOTH TIMES!

…

Man this guy is facing some heavy charges!

And if we have Armitage deliberately leaking over there, so to speak, and LIbby on trial over here for lying about his own actions, but having clearly been acting under Cheney’s direction on the Wilson smear, well, there’s got to be some kind of arc joining those two points. I’d say we’re very close to one very large enchilada being served up somewhere.

Cheney on the stand . . .

BetteB –

Your understanding of what the defense is trying to do is correct.

A defendant’s right to not have not testifying held against him is a constituional right and thus different from other inferences that juries are allowed to make, and they often do. For example, circumstantial evidence is by definition inferential. Likewise, in the liveblog, we’ve seen Walton often tell the jury that they consider the evidence for the “truth” but can use it to infer intent or motive or other things.

And, in effect, that is what the defense wants to use the “proof” of being busy for – circumstantial evidence of innocence (rather than guilt, with which it is usually associated). The problem, as far as I can tell, is that Walton does not believe it rises to the level of even circumstantial evidence of innocence – that it isn’t probative of whether Scooter actually was working on that stuff to the detriment of his memory one way or the other – that that can only come from Scooter himself (why he needs to testify). I don’t know how he’ll rule, but personally I don’t see it as being prejudicial to the prosecution (though if I were a prosecutor of course I would want to keep it out).

That a jury cannot infer guilt b/c you don’t testify on your own behalf exists b/c otherwise the 5th Am. right against self incrimination would be meaningless, and it doesn’t get traded off for anything else the judge might or might not let in – it stands alone.

One important typo to correct…

“…Walton often tell the jury that they CANNOT consider the evidence for the “truth” but can use it to infer intent or motive or other things….”

Hope that helps

From the Juror question to Novakula:

Walton: Without relating what someone would have said in response to what you said. Did you, once you learned about Wilson’s wife and the fact that she worked at the CIA, did you discuss it with anyone prior to your article…

W Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.

Novak: A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him EVERY DAY.

W did you have conversations with him about it. Did you give him a draft of the article. Novak: Yes.

W Mr. Holt had the article in his hand by 4:00 that day. And Holt is a lobbyist about town. Would you describe him as a gossip.

Novak: He talks to a lot of people, even me, he’s a good news source.

W He talks to a lot of media people.

Fitz: Did you have an understanding about what he could do with the copy of the article

Novak: No sir.I didn’t have an understanding with him. I had assumed he would not share it, there was not an agreement made between us.

Fitz: Did he ever tell you he had shared it?

Novak: Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out in those conversations I had with him on Friday.

Fitz: Your belief is that he told the WH ON FRIDAY that an interesting piece coming out. Novak: Yes

Fitz: Thank you.”

The friend and confidente of Novak that he confides in EVERY DAY is one of the biggest advisors and contributors to the Bush-Cheney Campaign ( A Bush “Ranger” raising over $250K) and other Right Wing Causes…Richard HOHLT! This guy is definitely in the status of Jack Abrahmoff!

http://www.opensecrets.org/lob…..ame=Hohlt, Richard F&year=2005

http://www.opensecrets.org/lob…..ame=Hohlt, Richard F&year=1999

Some have speculated that he was going to actually testify to assert that he “had heard about Plame being a CIA operative before Novak’s article came out”.

Can’t imagine how THAT could have happened!

Does this suggest just how slimey the Defense might be to throw sand in the face of this jury!

I imagine that they quickly realized that calling him as a witness would simply reveal the fact that he was told by his good friend Novak and then gave the White House several days notice before the Novak article emerged.

BTW Notice how the WH didn’t bother to inform the CIA or the Wilsons themselves about this potential security breach!

[Mod Note; please close your tags before you submit your comment and remember, preview is your friend.]

Forgot to close the quotation marks

Let’s see if that’ll work.

[Mod note; nice try, but we got it for you.]

Patsy Stone @
177

klem @ 173

Patsy Stone @
159

Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

I think it was stated in court today that Pincus revealed Fleischer’s name for the first time and that Pincus said he had just contacted Fleischer prior to today’s testimony to make sure it was still OK to testify to their conversation. I don’t think Fleischer would have given the OK if he thought it would get him in trouble.

klem

Me neither. That’s why I’m sure I’m missing something, either that or Ari’s a huge moron.

I think the problem may be in the way Fleischer’s testimony was blogged. I didn’t review the FDL blog on this because it wouldn’t come up, but Media Bloggers makes no reference to Fleischer saying he didn’t tell Pincus about Plame. We would probably have to look at the actual court transcript.

egregious @ 97

Swopa where were you? Next time, Gadget, next time.

I met Jane and Marcy today [eeeeek] and am to meet Jeralyn tomorrow at THE TRIAL. Dear God a dream come true. My hillbilly/HLS father could only imagine such a scenario.

Apparently tomorrow I will be called to account for alleged steno skills. Eeeek for real. CHS babysitting offer valid for whole or half days, either chez egregious [with both of you overnight—big house lots of room and toys] or Plamehouse yr choice. I’m excellent w 3 yr olds because they are so honest about what they feel. My destiny to work w children, oldest of 7, then children’s hospital.

Impressions: the poodles are overwhelmingly beautiful. Jane is sacrificing beyond what you think. Marcy is a force of nature.

Bottom line: good people are doing all they can and more. Give generously to FDL because it matters. I thank you.

Ding!

I’d love to be proved wrong, but I don’t think Deferment Dick will testify. It’s obvious Deferment Dick is incredibly arrogant, and he might therefore conclude that he can easily outmanuver Fitzgerald while on the stand. But taking the stand, and having to be questioned would be unpleasant. Deferment Dick sees himself as being far above any such indignity. He demands deference and submission from all those he condescends to speak to. And it’s not as if he really thinks he owes Loser Libby anything, after all. To Deferment Dick, Loser Libby is a mere servant, a follower whose duty it is to protect and serve His Imperial Majesty, the Great Deferment Dick. If Loser Libby does his duty and serves well, then Deferment Dick may condescend to grant him a pardon, at a politically expedient moment. But that is as far as Deferment Dick is prepared to go.

I just don’t understand why this isn’t bigger news. To me, this trial should be receiving the kind of coverage the O.J. Simpson trial received.

Isn’t this exactly what Lib’s lawyers are trying to prove – a string of reporters who assert they knew about Plame – it seems to support the claim that “everyone knew about it” (i’m paraphrasing here).

klem @ 185
Patsy Stone @
177
klem @ 173
Patsy Stone @
159
Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

——————————————
But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

——————————————
I think it was stated in court today that Pincus revealed Fleischer’s name for the first time and that Pincus said he had just contacted Fleischer prior to today’s testimony to make sure it was still OK to testify to their conversation. I don’t think Fleischer would have given the OK if he thought it would get him in trouble.

klem

——————————————-
Me neither. That’s why I’m sure I’m missing something, either that or Ari’s a huge moron.

———————————————-

I think the problem may be in the way Fleischer’s testimony was blogged. I didn’t review the FDL blog on this because it wouldn’t come up, but Media Bloggers makes no reference to Fleischer saying he didn’t tell Pincus about Plame. We would probably have to look at the actual court transcript.

———————————————-

Ari’s in NO BIND – he negotiated immunity, remember?

kim @
82

I’ve got a crush on Marcy. That’s all I’ve got to say.

me too.

well it took a good bit of the night but this am I got to view the video. THANK YOU one and all…

I believe that I’m pretty much on record already as saying that neither will testify.

Cheney can be nothing other than a lay memory witnes and a character witness – the efficacy of which is dubious at best. The dangers, on the other hand, are significant, both that his direct opens the door for, or Walton simply allows, a more wide-open cross.

Libby I’m less sure of – but he’ll have a hard time explaining how complex and important his job was, while at the same time trying to put forward info basically showing that he was unqualified to perform it.

So: Cheney – no way.
Scoots – I don’t think so, but he’s the more possible of the two.

Mary Ellen @ 190

Ari’s in NO BIND – he negotiated immunity, remember?

His immunity does not include immunity from perjury. This question is about what he said on the stand, and what Pincus said on the stand. The two don’t match. Either he didn’t tell Pincus Valerie worked for the CIA as he testified, or he did as Pincus testified.

As I said, it might just be in the blogging, if you read upthread. Just trying to get it straight in my head.

Very late to the party, but what a fantastic interview. You ladies are GOOD!

Bent

Great job ladies.
I sure am gonna have me some ‘Jane Tee Vee withdrawls’ when this trial is over.

Mary Ellen @
190
klem @ 185
Patsy Stone @
177
klem @ 173
Patsy Stone @
159
Actually, I hate to be a pain about this, but an astute someone found this in Ari’s testimony at FDL:

J Did you tell Pincus that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA.

Fl nossir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

———————————————–
But Pincus says he did.

This still looks like perjury, and unless the question Jefress asked was different than the FDL record (more specific like “Did you tell Pincus that his wife was a NOC?”) then it seems like Ari’s in a bind.

———————————————-
I think it was stated in court today that Pincus revealed Fleischer’s name for the first time and that Pincus said he had just contacted Fleischer prior to today’s testimony to make sure it was still OK to testify to their conversation. I don’t think Fleischer would have given the OK if he thought it would get him in trouble.

klem

———————————————–
Me neither. That’s why I’m sure I’m missing something, either that or Ari’s a huge moron.

————————————————-
I think the problem may be in the way Fleischer’s testimony was blogged. I didn’t review the FDL blog on this because it wouldn’t come up, but Media Bloggers makes no reference to Fleischer saying he didn’t tell Pincus about Plame. We would probably have to look at the actual court transcript.

————————————————–

Ari’s in NO BIND – he negotiated immunity, remember?

—————————————————

Fleischer said during his testimony that the immunity deal does not cover perjury.

[Mod Note; please do not use “Quote this Comment” on this comment. It will break the page margins. Thanks]

tommy yum @ 2

What a bunch of cuties!

That’s exactly what I was thinking!

Am I too simple minded to grasp the nuances or is the “It-never-occurred-to-me-that-the-identity-of-someone-working-at-the-CIA-might-be-classified-and-I-shouldn’t-be-talking-about-her-to-every-Tom,-Dick-and-Harry-that-might-listen!” defense utterly RIDICULOUS?! I mean I am but a lowly bookkeeper, a worker bee; but I am smart enough to realize that should I know the identity of a CIA employee that I shouldn’t be spreading that information like so much celebrity gossip. Come on! These guys expect us to believe they are smart enough to lead the nation into war, to govern and to “fix” the ills of the nation. But they also want to claim stupidity as a defense when it suits their needs?

BS. Pure, fresh off the farm . . . . .BS!

caoimhin laochdha @ 14

Shooter and Scooter, show or no? Place yer bets….

No way in hell will the deferred-dick testify.

Putting him on the witness list was a stunt. Even if he could add “value” to the defense, he would refuse Libby’s request to testify because he is afraid to. Libby can theoretically – has a legal right to – make him testify. However, the reality is the deferred-dick can tell Scoot’s team “no” and they will obey his command.

The defense used his name for fishing during jury selection and for strategic reasons such as preserving an option and making more work for the prosecution. That’s it.

Cheney is a life-long coward and that reason alone will keep him off the stand. There are too many mines for him to step on if he testifies and he knows it. He’s afraid to raise his hand, he’s afraid to be cross examined and he’s afraid to lie almost as much as he is afraid to tell the truth.

No way will the deferred-dick take the stand. He won’t do it.

slinte,
cl

I totally agree!!!!

I totally agree!!!

I totally agree!!!!

Let me get this straight..On Meet the Press
Gwen Ifel suggested news people should burn their notes to avoid testifying in cases like Libby’s So….Journalist using unnamed sources
and having bad meomories and no notes writing hard news stories that might send people to prison….not sure i want to live in that world

Alright let me get this straight
Cheney is not on trial OK
Andrea Mitchell dosen’t want to testify
Joe Wilson doesn’t want to testify
Valerie Plame doesn’t want to testify
Cheney doesn’t want to testify

Verdict Cheney guilty????

I hate Google Video, I haven’t been able to watch this video for a day now.