
Here's a little spare Plameology as we wait to learn if there's a possible Libby trial verdict, or whether the jury simply asked for a flip chart, masking tape, and Post-It notes to track Britney's trips in and out of rehab put together an Oscars pool on the government's dime.
First, something that seems obvious in retrospect, but I'm not sure if anyone's specifically pointed it out yet. One of the pieces of new information that has come out in the trial is that columnist/ghoul Robert Novak gave a advance draft of his piece outing Valerie Plame Wilson to buddy/GOP lobbyist Richard Hohlt on Friday, July 11th, 2003, and Holht immediately forwarded it on to Karl Rove. What else happened with Rove on July 11th? That's right, he blurted out to Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife had been responsible for his now-famous trip to Niger. So, I guess we know now what prompted Rove to "say too much" to Cooper — his excitement at learning the cat was finally coming out of the bag, courtesy of Novakula.
I've long speculated that Rove made an unauthorized leak to Cooper, which in turn led to the conspiracy I believe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald still has his eye on — VP Dick Cheney's possible authorization of additional, still-unacknowledged Plame leaks on July 12th (including Ari Fleischer's now-confirmed call to the Washington Post's Walter Pincus). But one still-missing piece of the puzzle is whether and how Rove communicated to Scooter Libby that he had leaked to Cooper. In fact, I don't believe Libby was called back to testify after it turned out Rove was Cooper's original source, so Scooter's probably never been directly asked about it.
We also learned (in a major vindication of emptywheel's hunch) that Novak did indeed speak to Libby during that contentious week, on July 9th. According to Novakula, though, Libby didn't say anything of import to him about Joe Wilson's wife — even though Libby had given the name "Valerie Plame" to Ari Fleischer on July 7th, had coffee with Judith Miller on July 8th (in a meeting for which her notes include the words "Valerie Flame"), and Novak just coincidentally went on to write a column two days later outing "Valerie Plame" (the maiden name she no longer used). Does anybody here believe that?
There's also the curious miracle by which Karl Rove mysteriously forgot to tell FBI investigators and the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper until Cooper himself was forced to testify, while Libby just coincidentally made up a story that he had been the first to tell Cooper where Joe Wilson's wife worked. Odd that those two lies fit together so well, isn't it?
Murray Waas has long reported that FBI investigators as far back as the fall of 2003 believed that Libby, Rove, and Novak had cooked up joint alibis to minimize their wrongdoing — but as he pointed out, it's a truism of criminal probes that if all parties to a private conversation lie about it, there's almost no way to convict them for obstruction of justice. If Libby is convicted of the current charges, however, and he wants to cut a deal without sacrificing his boss Big Dick… maybe he could start by coming clean about his collaborations with Turdblossom and Novakula?
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

me first!!! fitz!!!
PLEA DEAL
The Conspiracy Patrick Fitzgerald Couldn’t Crack… Yet.
He’s already telegraphed his desire to get Cheney. Hence his resuming radio silence once this trial is done.
tick. tick. tick. tick. Fitz, Fitz, bo-bitz, banana-fana fo itz, me my mo mitz, Fitz… (its the Plame game…)
Congratulations, Joy, on the big, bad ZED!
-S
Strategerie! Bad Girl! You know “zed” is a pet peeve of mine!! ALPHA, not zed!
As in, quiet alpha male. FITZ!
We can only hope that Fitz isn’t finished with investigating, maybe more of these treasonous bastards will be exposed and put on trial, we can only hope.
Vinny @ 6:
Yes, the exposure alone is good. But I’m really, really annoyed about the lack of coverage on the MSM yesterday and today. Almost like a news blackout of it.
Swopa!
Does anybody here believe that?
Depends. Does Libby read FDL?
no, fitz has no interest in nova or turdo, he wants the source, it’s cheney or bust
I don’t see Scooter snitching on his boss. Scooter knows if he cooporates, then the whole government crime family would go down in flames. Scooter just doesn’t seem like one to pull a ‘Sammy the Bull’ on his pals.
Now Rove on the other hand..He looks like a snitch 100 percent. And certainly one who would if he was getting busted.
JoyB @ 8
It seems to me that they are reluctant to pick the scabs off of the fresh wounds they just received courtesy of our man Fitz in the trial.
OMG – those pictures are priceless. The arrogance of power
Bustednuckles @ 11:
That makes sense. So I have a big, oozy bandaid across the screen, not a blackout. Thanks!
If Libby is convicted of the current charges, however, and he wants to cut a deal without sacrificing his boss Big Dick… maybe he could start by coming clean about his collaborations with Turdblossom and Novakula?
Good point, but Libby is smart enough to know that that would likely just be an indirect way of getting to his boss. So it’s as little likely to happen as a convicted Libby turning directly on his boss.
There is still the mystery of where Novak got the undercover name Plame. He claims that he got it from Who’s Who, but that doesn’t make any sense. Why would someone use a person’s maiden name in a news story, especially if he is trying to make the connection between Joe Wilson and his wife. Do you refer to Laura Bush in news stories by her maiden name Welch? Someone must have told him that Plame was her CIA cover name, which also contradicts his claim that he didn’t know she was under cover.
Jeff @ 14
Oh please. A lot of people thought JudyJudyJudy would never flip, either.
Add the Libby trial to the list of stories virtually blacked out by the msm.
Cunningham’s (R) bribers getting indicted, and the #3 at the CIA indicted, for swinging defense and military intelligence contracts during a war to their buddies for money, vacations and hookers.
Seven US Attorneys get fired for no reason right after a change is snuck into the Patriot Act that now makes it legal for Bush to put in any hack for the interim, which can last until Jan. 2009.
The country is being attacked from within, and the media haven’t noticed, except blogs of course.
Yeah the MSM has been pathetic as they usually are, Brittany is going back to rehab and Anna Nicleos body is rotting away. Maybe if Perris is correct and Cheney is the next target for Fitz then perhaps the MSM will be forced into dealing covering the obvious obstruction, I guess it depends on the conviction of Libby though.
All well and good, but, unfortunately, it will come to nothing as the lame-duck will pardon Libby to keep his Rove-condeming lips sealed.
ArthurKC @ 20
Thanks for the enlightenment. I had never considered the possibility of a pardon until now. My whole world has changed.
lol
Jeff @ 15
I considered that, but then I thought, Rove and Novak probably don’t have any evidence they can give against Cheney. Scooter was probably the gatekeeper/firewall in that sense, too.
A jury update: The BLT Blog of Legal Times says the jury now wants pictures of the witnesses.
Actually, the only way I see Libby cooporating with Fitzgerald is if there was some sort of *conspiracy* from the White House, and Libby was the patsy for this whole CIA outing.
Yeah, it is a little farfetched, but if there was a way to disrupt and punish Wilson and Plame so openly, they knew heat would come for them. Stack the reporters against Libby, and voila! Libby is the fallboy.
Bob @ 16
IIRC, Novak testified that he looked her up in a biography of Joe Wilson.
Or the Dark Angel Beazelbub gave it to him. He couldn’t say for sure.
Y’know, the conspiracy to obstruct would have been easier (if not actually practicable) to prove if Asscraft hadn’t given Card advance notice to get the shredders fired up and make sure they had time to cook up their joint lies.
I think you’re right about Rove. I think he overplayed his hand. He knew the leak about Plame was in the pipe, and he blabbed to Cooper after he saw the pre-release of Novak’s column, figuring that the cat was finally out of the bag and he was in the clear. If he got caught, he could just say that reporters were already talking about it. The problem he ran into is that Novak listed Rove as a confirming source. Novak thought this would clear Rove, since Rove wasn’t his FIRST source, but instead it put Rove in the position of having to claim that he heard about Plame from a column that he himself was a source for. That doesn’t look very good.
I still haven’t figured out how Armitage found out about Plame, and I’m not willing to assume it was from a memo he read. I still think someone may have fed the info to Armitage, knowing that he would blab it. Thoughts?
HappyDays @ 23
Any ideas about the reason the jury may want to see those photos?
If Libby gets pardoned, doesn’t that mean he could be forced to testify in the Wilson’s civil suit, since he would no longer be in any legal jeopardy criminally?
That seems to be the risk to the Bush regime, IMO.
Vinny @ 29
Yes, perhaps to cut them out and use them as visual markers on a timeline. Images are very helpful for refreshing the memory.
Vinny @ 29
See previous thread and above for discussion of this issue.
“There’s also the curious miracle by which Karl Rove mysteriously forgot to tell FBI investigators and the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper until Cooper himself was forced to testify, while Libby just coincidentally made up a story that he had been the first to tell Cooper where Joe Wilson’s wife worked. Odd that those two lies fit together so well, isn’t it?”
I think this goes to a previous post suggesting that they all thought they would be protected from “deep” scrutiny by the DOJ, and when Ashcroft recused himself and the buck got passed along, there was a wild pachydermish scramble to cover all those bare elephant asses.
These guys are lucky they’re hooked up so tight to the petroleum industry, they will have an unlimited supply of petroleum jelly you never know who they’ll end up with, when they get assigned to their new cellmates.
ArthurKC @ 20
The LAST thing the Idiot-In-Chief will do is pardon Libby. If GWB does so, it takes away Libby’s ability to plead the 5th, which means Fitz can bring him back before a Grand Jury and Libby will have to spill his guts…
Besides Libby isn’t Bush’s man, he’s Cheney’s. GWB has demonstrated little if any loyalty to the staff of the OVP.
TheOtherWA @ 30
Not quite right. Libby will be subpoenaed for the civil trial regardless of any pardon. Preznitchal parons can only absolve criminal acts, they have zero affect wrt civil actions.
Scan through the last couple days of comments here for why the WH very well would deny poor Scootsie a pardon – it’s been hashed over a googillion times.
Swopa, thanks for reminding us about that interesting Hohlt tidbit. I’m so curious to see if Hohlt will be interviewed by Fitz after this trial concludes. I’d love to know what, if anything, he did with that knowledge.
I’m with ArthurKC that the Unitary Decider will pardon Libby to put a lid on everything (after appeals are exhausted). I can’t see any reason Libby would flip, and I can see plenty of reasons that this unpopular President would promise Scooter a pardon.
I hope, I hope, I hope for a conviction. I remain convinced that Irving is going to be a tough pancake to flip. He’s an idealogue. He’s protected from on-high.
If convicted, and he opts to cooperate, he may “earn”, what, a three-point departure with 5k1? And perhaps Fitz’s good graces to recommend a lesser sentence toward the lower end of the guidelines?
IIRC, ofuscation was a primary element of the Scooter defense strategy. They endeavored to confuse and inhibit the jury’s comprehension of the case – muddying the sequence of events and the roles played by the characters.
As such, I believe that the office supplies that the jury requested are to be used to diagram and clarify the timeline and cast of characters. This is just what the prosecution did. I am compelled to view this development as a good sign for the prosecution.
I said three days and guilty and I’m sticking with it. Three days are yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Swopa @ 23
That’s a very good point, and it would make sense. But somehow I’d think Rove knew enough, directly, via Libby and via Bush, to at least keep Libby from turning on him.
Jeff @
15
The reason I think a pardon is in the bag is: Libby has never had the demeanor of a person facing 30 years in prison. I predict he will be found guilty, he will go to prison for a while, and at the end of Our Leader’s reign, Libby will get a pardon — so long as he keeps his trap shut.
EPU’d (with a couple edits) from a thread a few back this AM:
My earlier response:
Yabbut yabbut, FDL just sits there until you explicitly think to Refresh; that’s the only way you’ll know about the verdict from here.
What I do is leave the FDL “gabbly” window
open with its sounds turned ON. (Of course, I also leave my computer’s speakers ON and loud!
So, when verdict stuff begins to happen, and in the hopes that “the usual gang” gathers over in GabblyVille, :) my computer will begin to beep and boop at me, recruiting my attention. So I’ll be there because Gabbly is “push-based” rather than “pull-based” like the web is.
Remember, because Gabbly runs on a completely other server somewhere on the ‘net, using it takes some of the heavy load off the FDL servers!
Hint: Use two windows. Put the above URL in one, and this one in the other. Position the windows where you can see both the chat about FDL and the real FDL. Refresh only the REAL FDL window.
Go jury, give us back the truth! All hail Fitz and the entire (((FDL Crew))), additional best loyal vibes to ((((Jane)))) — and Godspeed to us all.
Mod Note; we love that you’re all helping with server load and think gabbly is a great thing, but could we shorten these instructions, please. Another option for future threads might be to just link back to this comment. Thanks.]
TheOtherWA @
18
Oh, but they’re finally starting to notice the all-important blackout of all the thuggery that happened in Las Vegas during the NBA game….
The media have noticed. They’re just part of the assault. Which makes all the more offensive things like Bob Schieffer’s smugness about the role of an independent press.
Name two in the MSM other than Dana Priest-and-Anne Hull and Olbermann-Schuster and Matthews. Grandpa Gibson’s already told Imus it’s just too-too-complicated for his beautiful mind…. I don’t watch the other guys.
Another example of the DC Media’s and the Administration’s game of Round Robin. Admin official A anonymously “leaks” a talking point. Admin official B turns around and quotes that “leak.”
The bit about telling Novak Valerie Plame’s name (& it had to be Libby since he also passed the name along to Miller) was pure mean spiritedness.
BTW–NPR has been running updates on the trial every hour. Jury is deliberating, which gives them an excuse to “explain” something about the case. Nina has been on a couple of times.
JEP @ 33
While I’ve been generally appreciative of your comments the last few days, please: no “jokes” about prison sex, rape etc. It’s not something to treat lightly and doing so only helps to diminish the real importance.
Thanks.
While we are just hanging around I thought this was worthy of consideration:
SWOPA, Is there a chance that you could visit the exchanges between boudicea and me at the end of TRex’s post? It starts after 300. Thanks. I would appreciate a response, even a small one.
It would put TRex at 400 plus.
This is something that bothers me. I think Tim Russert made a decision which was about duty to country.
“Murray Waas has long reported that FBI investigators as far back as the fall of 2003 believed that Libby, Rove, and Novak had cooked up joint alibis to minimize their wrongdoing — but as he pointed out, it’s a truism of criminal probes that if all parties to a private conversation lie about it, there’s almost no way to convict them for obstruction of justice.”
But how about a RICO application? The obstruction charge might be difficult, but a conspiracy may be much easier to prove to a jury.
And I wonder where the faxed copy drifted off to and if it ended up with any talking points directives noted on it from Cheney to Ari or if Rove was allowed to edit it? Oh, to have been a part of the shredding team at Cheney’s house.
Wouldn’t that be loverly???
I still hope ther is more to come in this affair.
I wonder if this nation will rise in protest if found guilty Bush pardon’s Libby?
Heard an interresting discussion about this the other evening.
Bush’s numbers are so low that it wouldn’t hurt him but would it hurt Repubs or would people forget in 2 years??
JoyB @ 8
MSM is controlled by and large by big corporate America and hence our corporate executive branch of government trambles the Constitution without hesitation. Bush is probably glued to the live gavel to gavel coverage of the ghoulish Florida trial of white trash fighting over the dazzling millions of Anna Marie. The best we can do is hope and pray Bush doesn’t elevate that judge to a federal court.
Vinny @ 29
Obviously to create the “Libby Trial Puppet Show”.
LindaR @
39
I think that Libby THINKS a pardon is in the bag.
But much depends on how long Libby can keep using the appeals process to stall for time. He can’t count on a pardon until after November 4, 2008, for reasons which should be obvious. Besides, as has been noted, a pardon takes away Libby’s ability to plead the 5th, which means Fitz can bring him back before another Grand Jury and Libby will be compelled to testify.
And there’s still the Wilson civil suit, waiting in the wings.
raven @ 43
George P. could take a break from law school…
Jenna and not-Jenna could take a break from….
well, there is the Meadow Soprano-style beak-dipping by Jenna into the publishing world.
I think Scooter has good reason to flip – he’s got a wife and 2 (I think) fairly young children.
The problem is he is between the devil and the deep blue sea. What is he more afraid of? Prison or what might happen to his family at the hands of Cheney and company…?
Prolley be hard to hide him in witness protection.
George P. could take a break from law school…
Jenna and not-Jenna could take a break from….
well, there is the Meadow Soprano-style beak-dipping by Jenna into the publishing world.
I got some beak dippin!
Can someone please ease my mind about the following.
I saw a post on MLW basically calling into question Fitz’s loyalty (basically a republican tool). I’ve seen this general statement on other message boards as well.
It’s hooey right? I have a real hard time believing Fitz is anyone’s monkey boy.
Expect this:
“Anna Nicole Smith’s partner/agent/attorney Howard K. Stern announced today at a break from court proceedings that, in a departure to what he called a “serious role where she will get to use her acting chops”, the actress and former Playboy Playmate will play the title role of Addie Bundrun in the film version of William Faulkner’s classic As I Lay Dying.
Sorry, NF, you are quite right, I will refrain henceforth, from not-so-subtle suggestiveness.
And I’m sure their connections to the oil industry will provide much more wholesome rewards and protections for their silence.
And Swopa, thanks for the synopsis and observations, it opens a wider range of possibilities for us to ponder.
Hat tip to thinkprogress.org for linking to this post on ABC Blotter:
Is Cheney Next?
It’s a bit of speculation as to whether a Libby conviction signals that Fitz will be further investigating Cheney. Not much real news here… but some nice quotes from Waas. The comments are an interesting read, too.
JEP @
45
I don’t think that we’re going to see a US Attorney basically try to have the sitting government of the United States of America declared a criminal organization. If it was going to come to that he’d be fired and the firing would be celebrated by many as just and wise, leaving impeachment as truly the only alternative. I don’t think Fitzgerald wakes up every morning with an ambition to create a constitutional crisis.
I’d hope that the sand gets out of the FBI’s eyes so that there can be an honest evaluation of if “underlying” crimes were committed, behind the perjury and obstruction currently staring the justice system in the face.
Phoenix Woman @ 51
good point
CH Truth @ 60
rabid lamb, i am.
Notta Flatlander;
I’m from Highlander blood myself, my great-great grandmother’s name was Mary St. Clair, she was from somewhere on the Isle of Skye.
So, I’m not a flatlander, either. Just thought I’d tell you that, might explain my occasional bawdy posts…
CH Truth @
62
omigod — you’re right! What have I been thinking? What have I been doing with my life? Oh, woe is me . . . oh, what am I supposed to do now? Oh, thank you THANK YOU for pointing this out to me!!!
Pardon of Libby
First, as soon as Libby is found guilty, Gonzalez will terminate Fitzgerald’s assignment to this matter and the case will be closed. Fitzgerald is not legally independent, he just acts that way. He is the full-time U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, with the added special assignment of this case, thanks to a protector in the Justice Deparment who is no longer there. If you doubt that this assignment will be ended, just look at the seven U.S. Attorney’s around the country who have all recently been investigating official (Republican) corruption and have now been fired for their efforts. Sure, there will be a big stink for a few days after Fitz is taken off the case, and the Democrats will cry havoc, but they will not unleash the dogs of war, and the traditional media will move on to the next Bush fiasco.
Then, Libby remains free on bond while he appeals, a process that will take about 15 months, then a cert application to the Supreme Court, all with Libby free. Only then, either just before he must go to prison, or just before Bush leaves office, whichever comes first, bingo: Libby is pardoned and everyone will have long since forgotten about Fitzgerld’s investigation having been prematurely gutted just before it reached Rove and Cheney.
LindaR @ 59
Maybe that’s the push by Faux and the Repubs for HIllary? She’ll guarantee the pardon a la Ford? Anybody looked at the Carlyle Group/Bill Clinton connection lately? Have they dusted off Blair’s seat yet?
[sidebar shoutout to ReneND — See ya at the Dil Depot Saturday. Sounds fun.]
Don’t feed morons from Mankato State!
raven @ 45
very nice catch.
JB from Canada
“I don’t think that we’re going to see a US Attorney basically try to have the sitting government of the United States of America declared a criminal organization.”
Well, just what is the definition of a criminal organization?
Crazy Horse @ 66
Yea, ask CH Truth what outfit his punk ass was in.
ArthurKC @ 63
I’m glad that at least someone around here has all the answers. What’s your method – entrails or tea leaves?
I apologize for my appalling lack of self-control at 64. Mods, please feel free to delete!!
49dharmabum
Obviously to create the “Libby Trial Puppet Show”.
Funny, but true. They’re gonna tape them up on the board next to their timestamp and deed. The jurors heard testimony from each of them, but they may have forgotten who they are.
They will remember them by their long faces in the photos.
froggermarch @
26
Yes, but in Who’s Who (where he supposedly got the name), she was listed as Valerie Wilson, while Novak wrote that her last name was Plame.
D’ya think maybe he’s lying????
That’s when Congress will have to make a stink for Independent Counsel!
Deja Vu all over again
The longer the sentence the harder for Bush to pardon.How long will it take to pass sentence after the verdict is returned?
Folks, when you use “Quote This Comment” to respond to a troll, you really make it much harder on the mods.
For future reference, please expect your witty retort to be deleted along with any other necessary clean up.
Thanks.
in a nutshell:
courtesy of ArthurKC
CancerCures @ 11
I’m guessing if he is convicted, he will run through a string of appeals. If the appeals fail, then and only then will a deal even be considered. I bet he won’t cut one based on who is paying for his legal fees anyway, so Scooter may just take one for the team.
This matches what appears to me to be the theme anyway–the team is more important than national security, civil liberties, and the truth.
Yeah, why do all you hateful bloggers have to talk about the media & Libby. Can’t you talk about fun things to make with popsickle sticks?
LindaR @ 71
Hey, LindaR! I like your lack of self-control …
raven @ 67
Good catch! Someone did their research.
kml @
56
It’s hooey.
Just ask the former Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan. Of course, you may want to hurry, as he’s headed to prison right after his appeals run out.
The Nefarious Leslie @
81
you Nefarious Leslie, you !! How ya doing, girl! Is it piled higher and deeper yet?
Will @ 73
I don’t think Sen. Leahy would take too long to make something happen. He’s probably already chomping at the bit over the firing of the 7 prosecutors.
LindaR @
72
We still love you…and your retort.
I can’t imagine that it’s a coincidence that Prince Harry goes to Iraq and Blair starts to pull his troops out. If anything were to happen to him, the outcry in Britain will be deafening. The only way to keep that from happening is to end British occupation.
RBG @ 85
But all that love doesn’t keep RBG from asking for some retort reform.
What if he shaved his head, beat up a car, tried suiced a few times, then blew in and out of rehab daily? Maybe that would help???
Retort Reform! LOL.
I sorry!
LindaR @ 82
It’s getting deeper every day, LindaR … howzit with you? Still working on your project?
IIRC, I saw something on this earlier today.
Leahy? wrote Abu a letter asking for an explanation which was promptly ignored.
they now have written a second letter. I would assume a personal confrontation would not be far behind.
To quote a certain 60 ft. therapod;
” ATTACK ATTACK ATTAAAAAAAAAACK.”
musicsleuth @
4
Now that was fun! Thanks.
should we call quoting a troll at bad tortillia?
sorry mod, wont happen again.
IIPA applies to Senior Cabinet positions.
Higher than Libby.
“Fair game” constitute intent enough to pursue Rove, but the law’s letter applies towards the senior positions.
Hmm – I wonder if, as a MacDonald clan member, we’re at war or allies or what? In any case, nothing a few drams wouldn’t fix….
BTW, Flatland also refers to my being a (former) ridge runner from Pennsylvania, as well as the Abbott Edwin Abbott book.
Now back to our regularly scheduled pardon theories.
Woodhall Hollow @ 89
707 harr harr !
xyz:
I’m glad that at least someone around here has all the answers. What’s your method – entrails or tea leaves?
I am just an old country lawyer who has been been appalled by Republicans and disappointed by Democrats ever since Mo Udall lost in ‘76, giving MHO.
Of course there are certain elements of the MSM that are guilty as hell in all this, but I also think to a certain extent the rest of the MSM are just holding back waiting to see what the verdict is.
Just like when the schoolyard bully is finally brought down, nobody is willing to jump in while there’s still a fight. But once it’s clear the bully is down for good, you can be sure that they will all be more than happy to pile on and get in a shot or two of their own.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 94
Wait wait, I thought it was me!
Anyone care for some chocolate retort?
Peterr @ 82
Hooey!?
Bill Clinton was the last person i heard use that word on Chris Wallace’s show! I love it!
Yeah, Fitz went after Ryan alright, who was a republican. I think Fitz’s only formal link to the repubs is that he was recommended for his US Attorney post by Peter Fitz from Illinois (no relation).
kml @ 55
I just read the same post (I think its the same post) and I came away exactly the opposite impression:
twolf1 @ 99
With a banana appeal?
Any chance the jury would go past 5:00? I’m still sitting here waiting to take a shower and it’s 3:40 my time. :)
Great post Swopa. While reading it I had an image of Dick Cheney getting up every morning and saying, “Gotta read FDL and see what they figured out this week”. you know he is reading here, watching his world being found out a little at a time by the amazing posters and commenters here. I am in awe of the work you all do.
twolf1 @ 102
Yes – again and again.
P.S. to Swopa – I just caught the Rove pic you used at the top of the post. Priceless!
JoyB @
8
Nina Totenburg (sp?) has been on NPR every morning for the 6:00 AM news giving her take on the Libby trial. What she says is a pretty close mirror to what’s on FDL. Even the Fitz historical summation close.
We are on the slippery banana appeal slope.
On CNN: “Ruling expected soon in Anna Nicole Smith hearing”
Kafka, where are you when we need you?
Re: Rover and what he knows, and how likely or un it might be that Fitz now goes after him. I can’t get Sealed vs. Sealed out of my head. It’s now come out, in a court of law, that Rover spewed classified information. We have ear-witnesses to that effect. When Fitz famously said that he wouldn’t be pursuing an indictment of Rove ‘at that time’, perhaps he was signalling that he a) wasn’t finished his investigation, b) that he has the goods on Rove, but needs somebody to turn state’s evidence. So, I’m going out on a limb (not a good place for bears of little brain, mind you!), and fearlessly predicting that we’ll soon know the specifics of Sealed vs. Sealed, and moreover that Sealed is the Government (Fitz!) and otherSealed is Rover. Anybody else feel like swallowing that flavor of kool-aid?
With jury deliberations underway in the trial of Scooter Libby, Perrspectives has updated its CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center. The PlameGate document repository features all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson.
For more, see:
The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.
LindaR @ 110
In Franz
Swopa @ top:
A conspiracy to obstruct justice, yes. I don’t think that can get you to a conspiracy to violate IIPA or disseminate classified information, though.
(Just pointing this out for the ‘treason charge’ buffs.)
It’s possible, of course. But you would have to show that Libby shared the information that Valerie Wilson was undercover, or at least that her status was classified. Which would be an incredibly stupid thing for Libby to do, as it (a) provides two witnesses to corroborate that *he* knew Wilson’s status was classified, and (b) potentially gives them an incentive not to leak it, or even touch it, due to the security issues involved.
Could Libby be that stupid and arrogantly careless? Definitely, on the arrogantly careless part. I’m not sure he’s *that* stupid, though.
And even if you get Libby to ‘fess up, his testimony wouldn’t have much evidentiary value due to the ‘good behavior’ trade-off for a reduced sentence, early parole, or whatever deal he made in return for his testimony. You’d have to find some other way to prove your case, if only to have a parallel track to Libby’s testimony, as evidence that’s *independently* strong enough indict and convict.
karnak12 @ 107
I noticed the same thing. Way to go Nina!
I have always loved her Supreme Court reporting; she really knows how to spin a narrative, though one senses that she had to go through a steep learning curve with the Libby trial likely because she wasn’t paying as close attention to its run-up as she should’ve. But bless her for making up for lost time.
Can congress investigate if Fitz decides to throw in the towel on Dick? I just want to see him invoke his 5th Amendment rights on TV.
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 108
I’ll have a double.
raven @
113
Were Kafka alive, he could well be right here, commenting, laughing his head off, subbing for TRex every once in a while.
Woodhall Hollow @ 103
I’m not sure if Fitz would go away. Trivia question: which current US Attorney was involved in successfully prosecuting terrorists back in the 90s? The same has investigated Al Qaida before many of us had even heard of such a group according to Dick Clarke.
Swopa — Nice post, cogent thoughts.
But i do think Fitz cracked the conspiracy. I also think he has influential contacts who help him decipher the political landscape, which is different than just thinking about how one can obtain a conviction. They have spun the various potentialities like chess masters and experienced spooks, and made appropriate moves.
This case is not about the leak of “the wife” rather it’s about the civil war that’s going on in amurka. Despite the detail found nowhere else on Plamegate but here, we still do not see this civil war being fought in the background. (Though there are posts which seem to eminate from some of the fighters.)
Even Amb. Wilson, who will never get enough credit for his cojo…, strike that, courage, likely does not see the entire picture. Let’s just assume that there is a certain Agency which is (incredibly, powerfully, returningfireingly) pissed at the damage caused by the premature demise of carefully crafted Brewster Jennings.
Let’s assume some of them know Fitz’s private number. Let’s assume from some of the posts here, and real-world data ohne ende, that no matter what the jury verdict, this is just another battle in the ongoing civil war. and it will not stop whatever the verdict, only the strategy will be altered.
That said, (too much), i only hope that Jane’s disappointment at not seeing Chainey burn is recalibrated by seeing Libby found guilty on all five counts. and whatever happens, FDL has to rise to the defense of the Ambassador and his wife and some twins, just as Wells tried to intimidate.
surfsup at 74 Yes, but in Who’s Who (where he supposedly got the name), she was listed as Valerie Wilson, while Novak wrote that her last name was Plame. D’ya think maybe he’s lying????
Iirc the PDF for Who’s Who under Joseph Wilson listed Valerie Plame. But my understanding is that all wives are listed by their maiden names.
So how did Novak know that she USED her maiden name at the agency unless somebody told him that specific fact?
surfsup @ 74
Actually, we’re both right. The Who’s Who listing:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..hoswho.pdf
DOES identify her as Plame, but in the area where it would be her maiden name, as you suggest. Still, it may have been the ONLY place Novak could find a reference to “Plame” outside the administration. So yes, he COULD say he got the name “Plame” from Who’s Who, and yes, he is lying.
Jwoods @ 117
Just to be clear, those were not my words, but from the post in question at MLW. And I agree with you that Fitz would not go quietly. Although I am not an expert in this, I seem to recall reading on this site that the way the thing Cormey (sp?) was written pretty much shielded Fitz from being fired. Not that they aren’t already trying to figure out a way to get rid of him, but I also think they must be very afraid of him due to what he knows.
Is Christy hanging around these here toobz?
The judge in Anna Nicole case is pulling a Wells and crying as he decides who gets the corpse
froggermarch@ 56: Good one!
Swopa:
I was wondering if anyone thinks Fitz knew about Hohlt prior to court? I would assume so, because my understanding of lawyers is that they don’t generally wait until court to find out what answers they will get for things. Do you suppose he’s already heard it from Rove?
CancerCures at 11 says:
Think it could actually go anywhere? (I hope, I hope, I hope!)
Any bets on how many SECONDS it will take John Conyers or Leahy to offer Fitz a job with their respective Judiciary Committees, should Gonzo fire him?
OT:
Somebody give that judge some prozac. WTF?!
Crazy Horse @ 118
Nice writin’ there yerself! That phrase is a keeper :)
Yuck. I’ve been expecting that the jury will return a (guilty) verdict sometime on Friday. But that’s the Cheney administration’s favorite day for diminishing the impact of bad news.
Dammit, they’re good.
dharmabum @ 125
LOL! I was just at
http://newdharmabums.blogspot.com/
Maybe this has been asked and answered already, but I didn’t see it. With respect to the witness pictures requested by the jury, do we know if they were sent a complete set of actual photos or a set of photos and two CIA Shields? I would sure love to see Fitz’s stunt carried over into the jury deliberation room!
froggermarch,
You owe me a coke.
On TRex’s overnight, I posted, after 300, my concerns that in looking at all of mainstream media with disdain, we may run the risk of condemning Tim Russert of conspiring with the White House to break the law.
In one of Christy’s threads this morning, Cheney’s Worst Nightmare posted an exchange between Cheney and Russert. I pointed out that in my opinion, Russert’s questions were far from softballs.
My most important point about Russert is that he made a monumentally important decision to talk with the FBI without invoking privilege.
I have called that doing duty to country.
The exchanges are 300 on on TRex’s post. Please look for Cheney’s Worst Nightmare in Chrity’s first post today.
I am in no way a personal friend of Tim Russert. I am a concerned citizen, thankful to all who are confronting this deadly government.
I thank FDL again for great coverage and insight into this trial. I do not have to malign all of mainstream media in order to appreciate the great work of FDL.
This Executive Branch has taken unprecedented steps to increase its power at the expense of the other three branches (I’ve included the press). These steps included a decision to out a CIA agent which in turn may have led to the deaths of other agents.
I cannot conclude that Tim Russert conspired in this treasonous act. As a matter of fact, his decision to speak with the FBI without invoking privilege was a decision of conscience.
I believe he knew full well what he was doing. He told the FBI what it needed to know. He did not invoke privilege.
Thank you Tim Russert.
At talkleft.com they have copies of the actual notes from the jury. In addition to flip chart and post it notes, they want “anyone” of the document that have the witnesses’ pictures in it. Remember the prosecution’s closing argument used a slide showing Libby in the middle and arrows to the people he talked to. By requesting a flip chart, post it notes, making tapes and witness pictures. I believe the jurors are making their own powerpoint presentation.
I just broke up a fight between two women at work. As a woman, I find this shocking. Geez….I lost all that blog time.
ArthurKC at 12:19 p
What’s also very relevant about the firings of the USA’s is that the AG replaced them with candidates who did not have to go through the Senate confirmation process.
FDL and the liberal blogs have been all over this story.
Do you want to roll up your sleeves and try to fix it or do you want to continue whining?
Swopa—
Do you remember when it became known that the prosecution had the article with Cheney’s handwritten notes?
Specifically before or after when Fitzgerald had his contract renewed in [I want to say October but cd be wrong]. Thx.
John Aravosis’ Neighbor Barbara @ 12:55
Great point.
As Mary has pointed out, the problem with Fitz’s current mandate is that it is too narrow.
Canuck:
Not the right flavor for me, sorry. Rove went back to the GJ, and back again, and again, and again… WTF was with that, eh?
My preferred flavor: Rove told Fitz and the GJ a LOT – maybe more than he had to in order to save himself; he told them Libby was lying; probably blabbed about Cheney and basically spilled his guts when he got trapped. All on the promise of a sealed indictment. His reward: as long as the dominos are falling, the seal stays on.
Howzzat for wild-assed speculation?
LandOfTheFree @ 36:
I think a lot depends on when Libby’s sentence begins, if he’s convicted.
Judge Walton will probably be choosing between two options:
1) Letting Libby remain free until his appeals are exhausted, or,
2) Giving Libby a month or so to put his affairs in order before starting a jail term.
A third option is forcing Libby to immediately start his sentence, but that’s unlikely for a number of reasons, that I needn’t go into here.
If Libby is allowed to remain free until his appeals are exhausted, then he’s unlikely to ever work a deal with Fitz. He’ll just try to keep the appeals going until it’s politically convenient for Bush to pardon him, most likely after the 2008 election.
If, however, Libby is required to start his sentence while awaiting appeals, then Fitz will have some leverage to cut a deal, because at that point Libby will do as much as he can to avoid jail time, or reduce his sentence.
Alternately, it would force Bush to issue an early pardon, before Libby’s sentence were to begin. It would be kind of interesting to see how badly that turns out for Bush and the Republic Party if he tries it.
In either case, Fitz only has leverage if Libby is forced to start his sentence before the appeals process is completed.
I have literally no idea how Walton will rule on that.
I would imagine that the case of a perjury conviction during a potentially ongoing investigation would provide Walton some incentive to rule that Libby’s sentence should begin as soon as is reasonable.
On the other hand, where the offender isn’t violent, there is reason to let the appeals process play out first, so a defendent won’t have to serve a sentence reversed on a appeal, and to allow the defendent to take part in his defense.
How Walton will weigh those issues, and what he ultimately will decide, is anyone’s guess.
New York Pundit @ 89
Seriously, though. She is one sick puppy. I hope she gets the help she needs.
See you guys later
Canuck:
Fitz didn’t say anything at all. Rove’s lawyer claimed that Fitz had sent him a letter saying Rove would not be indicted. He then immediately refused to let anyone see the letter. Fitz has made NO comment at all on Rove’s status. The fact that he wasn’t called as a witness leads me to believe that Rove is nowhere near out of the woods.
John Casper @ 137
JC—
I have to disagree with your approach on this one. Did you see his later comment:
I am just an old country lawyer who has been been appalled by Republicans and disappointed by Democrats ever since Mo Udall lost in ‘76, giving MHO.
This is somebody who is helping sketch out possible outcomes, we need the full set of possibilities to start making plans in case things are not so rosy for us.
I don’t see his comment as whining, just a very different point of view from someone who is (a) an attorney and (b) sympathetic to what we are doing.
Frank Probst @ 28
How about Bolton.
OT to cmask @ 133
Catfight ala Seinfeld?
The categories of disinformation (emerging):
A lie wrapped in truth: e.g. the 16 words.
True but misleading: e.g. “a former hill staffer”.
Echo chamber: quoting a leaked falsehood as true e.g. aluminum tubes.
I am trying to get a handle on methods.
Pach up your jury supplies and come on upstairs.
Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Bush-Cheney administration in connection with the Plame outing didn’t even get put in evidence during the trial. That is the fact that Karl Rove, then deputy chief of staff to the President, was faxed a copy of the Robert Novak column outing Plame three days before it was published and did nothing to stop its publication.
Rove could easily have suppressed a story exposing a CIA officer’s identity with the same tactics that cowered the NY Times into withholding its illegal surveillance stories. This time a story’s suppression would have been for a valid reason.
Did Rove tell the Plame grand jury about receiving a pre-publication copy of the Novak article and doing nothing about it? Was that smoking fax itself among the documents turned over to Fitz’s investigators?
One hopes that Fitz is re-evaluating his decision against charging Rove in this case.
Between the Libby trial testimony and the extra-judicial evidence it spawned, surely Rove, if not Cheney, can now be charged with violation of the Identities Protection Act as well as violation of his non-disclosure agreement.
Marcy and the Firedoglake crew has done an spectacular job in blogging the Libby trial.
Thanks for your riveting reporting.
Justina @ 149
Nice.
Justina @149–
Just a great point. And the IIPA isn’t by any means the only relevant statute. The Espianoge Act and the Intelligence Act of 1947 may each apply as well.
Boston1775 @ 134
My impression, IIRC, is that Russert merely told the FBI that he and Libby never discussed Valerie Plame. He believed that they were only trying to find out who the leakers were and had no idea that his statement went directly against what Libby had testified to.
So, I don’t think he was particularly evil to mention this to the FBI (though Jane has pointed to at least one other instance where Russert was quick to name sources when he found it to be in his interests). I think–if I may–that people are upset with Russert for a number of other things: suggesting that absolutely every conversation with gov’t officials is off the record until told otherwise, and providing the forum of choice to get the Bush administration’s message out (as testified to by none other than Cathie Martin).
Peterr @ 83:
Thank you. That whole line of thought just doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t think the trial would have even gotten this far if Fitz was a tool.
I believe from analyses I’ve read concerning the enabling documents for Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation, that to conduct the investigation, he has all the powers of the Attorney General and that Comey granted him further powers, in another enabling document, that gave Fitzpatrick the authority to go wherever the investigation took him. As a result, it is my understanding that Fitzpatrick cannot be fired and can charge whatever crimes he discovers. Does anyone here know if this analysis is correct?
Remember that Libby testified that he called Mary Matalin? I am wondering if Mary gave Russert a call telling him to expect a contact from Libby and why. James Carville does have a business association with Russert’s son (is that Little Russ or Tiny Tim?) She did tell Scooter to call Russert, right after she said Bush should wave his wand. When she said “he hates Chris Matthews”, I thought she meant Bush hates Chris. Maybe I misunderstood the context.
This FDL coverage is the best of the best – Thanks to all posters and commenters.
Again @ 154
That’s my understanding. I don’t think (IANAL) that Abu Gonzales can fire him. I’d appreciate (as would Again, I’m sure) corroboration.
Phoenix Woman @ 52
When he heard about the pardon from a reporter, he learned it as if it were new.
But seriously.. If there ~have~ already been discussions about a pardon, then would those conversations be illegal? It would affect the way he plays out his defense, right? Would that be akin to a conspiracy to obstruct?
zig alert
There’s also the curious miracle by which Karl Rove mysteriously forgot to tell FBI investigators and the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper until Cooper himself was forced to testify, while Libby just coincidentally made up a story that he had been the first to tell Cooper where Joe Wilson’s wife worked. Odd that those two lies fit together so well, isn’t it?
BINGO!
Great article Swopa!
I hope there will be an Alexander Butterfield moment.
Backwoods @ 162
It already happened when the existence and location of backup email records became known.
Backwoods @ 162
I’ll never forget the original one. I and my group of my engineers had previously invented “forensic acoustics” and had successfully used it to analyze tape-recorded evidence. I remember almost driving off the road when I heard of Butterfield’s revelation. We began hoping that we’d get a crack at those tapes. We did; loooong story.
For me, the display of the clipped-out, printed original WaPo editorial (with scrawled markup in a hand that’s acknowleged to be Shooter’s) was that moment in TraitorGate.
He’s goin’ down! And his little sockpuppet, too! :)
I apologize if this has been discussed – I may have missed it – but I remember that one tactic used by the College Republican group, and Rove in particular, was to start a rumor about an opposing candidate in, for instance, a law school just before the law school was to break for a holiday, like spring break, or Christmas. The rumor was started so close to the break that no one had time at the school to chase it down. And then when everybody went home, it became a talking point that cropped up all over the state, carried by the students. So all these little fires were set in lots of different places, and all that was needed to start a conflagration was one well placed news item, and then everybody started saying – “Oh yeah, I heard about that.” I really think something like that happened with the Plame leak. All these little leaks to different people at a time when everybody was going out of the country, so that the rumor seemed to be everywhere at once.
Surfsup 154
The idea that Meet the Press was the best place for the VP to get the message out has been repeated as if that is something indicating…
Well, indicating what?
The idea that Meet the Press is a propaganda arm of the White House and that Tim Russert sold his soul to the devil when he said that his conversations are off the record needs to be revisited.
He did not invoke the privilege. Why?
Is it that he was just too stupid to look down the line?
Did he not understand how complicated and damaging this decision might be?
Did he not consider how difficult it would be when the FBI asked him not to speak to anyone? Did he not appreciate the strange void he was entering when he answered the questions.
He had a lot to lose. He’s become a villain in some eyes.
I figure that he understood that others had more to lose than he.
BinGA @ 165
Very interesting, BinGA. I don’t recall having heard the time period discussed, esp. with ref to previous TurdBlossom dirty tricks (if not treason, in this case). Could you pls refresh my memory as to the relationship between the times of the gaggle of leaks and peoples’ being out of the country? TIA.
cathy @ 87
Speaking as a Canadian (where we get lots of Royals news) of British extraction (nuff said) I don’t think you have the right take on the British royals or people.
Harry’s uncle Prince Andrew was flew a helicopter as an Exocet missile decoy during the Falklands War. He honestly risked his life like others in the military. Many of the Royals have chafed in the past because they were limited in how they could serve. It’s been a family tradition since George V.
I think people in Gt. Britain would applaud his desire to serve like his fellows and would mourn him, if he died, like them too. But I don’t think they would change their attitude about the war if he died. They already don’t like it.
Blair can’t play King like Bush can. His party can force him far more than Bush’s can, assuming they wanted to.
Not only are they forcing him to get out of Iraq, but the Brits have approached their job in Iraq in a different way than the Americans. The argument there can be more easily made that the job is done and now get out. They wouldn’t make that policy just to save a Royal.
Boston1775 @ 135:
I think that maybe the reason you haven’t gotten much response to this contention is that it looks a bit like a straw-man argument.
No one that I know of has accused Russert of being treasonous or evil.
Mostly, Russert’s just accused of being a useful idiot, willfully inoffensive to the people in power, especially Republicers in power, to maintain his access (which he doesn’t seem to use in the public’s interest) and cocktail party invitations.
In other words, no one thinks Russert is part of a conspiracy, especially a conspiracy to out Plame. We just think he’s a self-aggrandizing fuckwit.
SOS @ 167:
I have to confess that I haven’t printed out a timeline, so I confess that the basis for my comment is just a feeling. But it seems that the leaked info was somewhat circular. Didn’t one of the folks on the prosecution side [Cathie Martin?] testify about how the OVP was having to deal with things extensively since the president and his folks were out of the country. And then there was testimony about ranting overheard on AF2, and Fleischer blurting out to some journalists in Africa, and phone calls from the AFB when the plane got back, and lunch with Judy, and that all seemed to be happening with sources from Libby, Armitage, Fleischer, Rove and who knows who else. And the Novack article being circulated on the 11th, but not published till the 14th. Like I said, lots of little fires popping up in lots of different places, making it hard to say which happened first, and who started it all, and making it seem like everybody knew about Valerie Plame. It just has the feel of the whisper campaigns used before. I could be completely wrong.
S.O.S. in MA @ 164
I’ll never forget the original one. I and my group of my engineers had previously invented “forensic acoustics” and had successfully used it to analyze tape-recorded evidence. I remember almost driving off the road when I heard of Butterfield’s revelation. We began hoping that we’d get a crack at those tapes. We did; loooong story.
For me, the display of the clipped-out, printed original WaPo editorial (with scrawled markup in a hand that’s acknowleged to be Shooter’s) was that moment in TraitorGate.
He’s goin’ down! And his little sockpuppet, too! :)
Loooong story, ok, we’ve got time.
Spill. Maybe on the next thread to maximize the audience.
We’re waiting….
Canuck Stuck in Muck @
111
I think it’s Schroedinger v. Cat, but we can’t really know until it’s unsealed, opened up and the Cat jumps out of that bag. Far be it from me to let that Cat out of the bag, er envelope.
Just wondering: is Hohlt the one who called Wilson and said I just saw Novak on the street corner and he said “Wilson’s an asshole and his wife sent him to Niger.” Was he the friend/acquaintance that Wilson was talking about?
Hi JGabriel at 169
Tim Russert “is a self-aggrandizing f***wit.”
You know, someone has to do that job, and I am thankful Tim Russert has done it.
Apparently, you are clear that he is unfit for the position.
I am quite happy with the job he is doing. I will be happy if he continues in this thankless position.
And while I’m at it, thanks to Imus…
You figured out that Mary sold out Tim.
Thanks for letting her announce that on your program.
I’ve written to you about the Old Lions and how much we need them now.
Here’s to the Old Lions.
JGabriel @ 142
Hi JGabriel – sorry I didn’t reply earlier. I had to finally get some work done today!
I think you’re right. My assumption is that if Libby’s convicted of some or all of these charges, the judge likely would not jail him immediately while appeals are ongoing. I assume that because these chargest are non-violent, he’s probably not considered a flight risk, and he’s a first-time offender, he might be allowed to be free or on house arrest while pending appeal. I’m not clear if Walton or a different judge would rule on that – do you know?
So, my assumptions were that he’d not be in prison… or if he was, he’d be in a Ken Lay country-club like prison. Serve a little soft time for six months at the most, just in time to see if all investigations are complete before Bush gives him the pardon. It’s just a theory… probably one Scooter and the VP didn’t expect to have to resort to. I’m hoping he’ll be convicted and we’ll see just how Rove, Cheney & Bush manage this crisis.
Boston1775 @ 135
Your dad’s name wasn’t Russ was it? Big Russ? :)
John Aravosis’ Neighbor Barbara @
128
Comforting thought!
Again @
156
The DOJ Articles appointing Fitz can be seen here;(pdf alert)
SO, it looks like the Atty Gnl cannot fire Fitz as Special Prosecutor although he can fire him as US Attorney. However, I think Fitz can be impeached and he can probably be scotched by someone out of the DOJ, as, for instance, a unitary executive. But if W tries it he’ll wish he hadn’t.
I don’t think the timing works
So, I guess we know now what prompted Rove to “say too much” to Cooper — his excitement at learning the cat was finally coming out of the bag, courtesy of Novakula.
Rove talked to Cooper before before 11:07 friday morning.
Novak didn’t finish until 1:00PM
Here Wells says Holdt had the column at 4:00, but also says draft.