![]()
Bonamici and Cline up (B and C).
Preparing for Schmall. Bonamici explaining that Libby's team wants to question Schmall about stuff relating to Libby's memory defense.
Cline. Schmall will talk about June 14. Wants to cross about briefing on that day. He doesn't recall any of the briefing on that day. He's still not going to recall them. Not putting documents into evidence. I want him to read the documents to the jury so they have context for the briefing.
B We don't object to the Defense asking him if he recalls the content of the briefing documents.
Walton He remembers the Wilson related stuff. But he doesn't remember the briefing items.
B Exactly, he just doesn't remember the particular items.
W You're saying that Libby would not remember this alleged conversation? (To Cline)
C It goes to both their memories. That there were 27 intelligence items.
W I have no problem with you bringing up the number of items.
C I'm not offering them for the truth, I'm offering them for the impact they would have.
W I assume govt is not disagreeing that he was briefed on those items.
B We're not disagreeing that.
W if this is going to memory defense, the more appropriate time would be defense case.
C We could call him back. This conversation happened during this briefing.
W I think it's fair game if the suggestion is going to be made that he can't be believed that he told Libby about the items from the briefing. He can be asked whether he remembers having briefed Libby on these things. I don't know that you can introduce the substance of what he was briefed on.
C We'll keep the substance for our case.
W Govt have a problem with that?
B No objection to that.
W Second item?
C We have substitutions for a number of things for June and July. This is the witness through whom they can come in.
[Hey this is a way for them to get it introduced without Libby--I wonder if they're getting cold feet on having Libby testify?!?!?!?]
Discussion about Tuoey rights--have to provide notice to agency, so the agency can assess whether there are any problems with the employee giving notice. I don't know if the Defense has complied with Tuoey rights.
W Does the CIA know what he's going to be asked by the Defense.
C They're briefings for which there are substitutions agreed upon.
Fitz: It may be during the period when he was the briefer.
W He'd only be competent on those areas where he actually did the briefing.
5 minute break
3:31
Cline and Fitz having a somewhat animated discussion.
Schmall looks kind of rat-like. He has a very small chin. Dark hair. A rust? color tie. Biggish ears. (What is it with these big-eared people).
Fitz is doing the questioning.
Schmall mger in Directorate of Intelligence.
F What job you held in 2003?
S Libby's morning intell briefer, later on became Cheney's morning intell briefer.
S Mr Libby's MIB Summer 2002 until Fall 2003. Cheney until May 2004.
F for the one year and change did their come a time when the practice you had included VP at same time.
S Prior to that time, brief Libby in office, 5 days, at home on Saturday AM. Around winter, 2003 VP asked Libby to sit into VP meetings. Worked out schedule with VP briefer. Schmall on Monday Tuesday, Libby alone on Saturday.
F When you briefed them together where was it?
S usually at VP residence, occasionally at office. Begin at 7 AM, last about 40 minutes.
F What would you bring?
S 3 books or binders. (MIB for VP and Libby) plus my background book.
S Briefing like this: analytic articles up front. Then a tab. Behind tab, stuff of specific interest for VP.
F And you also had another tab for Libby,
S In Mr Libby's book I would often have a third tab. I would get the books back the following day. The materials woul dgo into a burn bag. We'd destroy them properly. Table of Contents. VP Briefer developed a template for the briefing book. Breifing was mostly reading. Talking I'd do would be to tee up items. Here's why it's in the book. Once they started reading, we'd let them read. VP tended to do more of the talking--it was really his briefing session. VP did more of the talking. I'd make notes in the TOC. I'd note reaction to reading the items. I'd mark off if they'd read the item or if they skipped it, so I could provide feedback to HQ.
F What if they asked questions you felt comfortable answering on the spot.
S answer. If I didn't feel comfortable answering, I'd mark it down to take back to HQ. Things where they wanted a formal answer, I'd mark with T with a circle around it. Made it easier to find out which needed a tasking. I'd write it down right after the question was asked. I'd never offer my personal opinion, only if I was invited to.
F We have a stipulation that June 14 was a Saturday. Have you looked at a redacted TOC for your briefing.
S Would have involved Libby at his home.
Govt exhibit.
F Have you looked at that document. Are there 3 questions or statements indicated on that document. Do you remember some of that indepdendent of the document. Turn it over so it's not a distraction? Describe the two you remember.
S The first one was a visit by Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz Cruise [update--oops, not a transcript].
S Mr Libby told me about it--he was excited about it I was excited about it. Tom Cruise was there to talk to Libby about how Germany treats Scientologists.
3:51
S would have remembered the Tom Cruise conversation.
F Second one
S He was pretty annoyed about this. He told me that a reporter had talked to him and this reporter told him that a direct source had told him—the reporter—that analysts were feeling pressured and bullied at one of the recent briefings that Libby and Cheney had participated in. He was annoyed that someone was talking about this to a reporter.
F Would that be proper—someone talking to a reporter about a briefing.
S no
S I talked to a manager who was present at the briefing. I asked her if she or her folks felt pressured. She said absolutely not. They were happy to talk directly to Libby and Cheney about their topics.
F Do you refer the third part?
S Not an independent memory.
F has introduced this TOC, We've gone over the Tom Cruise and complaint about the briefing
Schmall reads from the TOC: "Why was the [ex. Schmall explains] Amb told this was VP office question? Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson."
S Just Libby and myself were in the room that day.
S No recollection of this conversation independently.
F Stipulation July 14 2003 was a Monday.
F Are you familiar with the Novak column from 7/14
F Can you remember the conversation without your notes.
Fitz puts this into evidence. On screen. Shows notes.
"Did you read the Novak article. -- Not your problem."
Has a circled T for Tasker for something underneath this.
F hadn't read the column yet.
No
S Had VP and Libby on TOC
F Can't identify who asked the question.
No
F can't say who said the words "Not your problem"
S No.
S Can't reconstruct the conversation.
Later read Novak article.
S During a time when the issue of the leak was being talked about by the press and pundits. Took place at Naval observatory. Libby and VP wearing suits. What info does it give you about dates. Rules out August--Jackson Hole Wyoming.
F What was said about Novak article.
S Invited to offer opinion about leak
F Did you know Plame
S No
F Have you ever met her?
S No
F Had no idea about damage caused by her being named.
S Noted that the press and pundits talking about Valerie Wilson and her career, People were saying this was no big deal. I thought there was very grave danger to leaking name of CIA officer. Now that Valerie Wilson's name in press foreign intell in countries she worked have an opportunity to investigation all the people she worked with can be harrassed, lose their jobs, arrested, tortured, or killed.
F did anyone say anything in response?
S No
F FBI interviews--had you interviewed any documents.
S Poor state of memory. Hadn't reviewed the two documents.
Fitz is done.
4:02
Walton new instruction, No evidence will be presented to you as to Valerie Wilson's status and whether or not disclosure posed a risk of damage to security. Her actual status, or damage, are totally irrelevant to your assessment of defendant's guilt or innocence. You may not speculate or guess about them. You may consider what Mr. Libby believed about her status.
Cline up for Schmall.
C The goal of these MIBs to provide Libby and Cheney with the most significant intell available. Part of your job to select intell.
S Yes, Some of it.
C Some that would be routinely in there. And some they were interested.
C You'd get to work at 2:30 AM, correct?
S Yes.
S Four hours to prepare books.
C You're review latest intell and put together these briefing books.
S Yes
C Libby's book would have everything VP had, plus some
S Yes.
C Over time you developed a good undestanding of what issues he found important.
C Terrorist threat information. Was there a name for that?
S Yes.
C Listing of terrorist threat best current intell on terrorist threat.
S It listed every terrorist threat we were aware of.
C Change and updated over time.
S Yes.
C Some on well-known terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda and some less well known.
S Yes.
C Reviewing the schedule for briefing. Familiar with the content on the other briefing books.
S on days he did the briefing I'd come in at a normal hour, say 8
S feedback session on what counterpart presented. Generally speaking, wouldn't attend all the feedback sessions.
C Part of it to coordinate to not duplicate or follow up.
C VP and Libby would read through materials. An interactive process. Sometimes you could answer on the spot, sometimes you would have to have an analyst ask about it.
S Yes [to all questions]
S we had a database where we'd list the materials, that database had space for taskers. The DI in general would be able to look at the Tasker that one or another shop needed to answer.
C Those are the anlaysts, not the people in the field.
S Breifings end at 7:40, I'd get back to HQ a little after 8.
C Would you prepare briefing book.
S Would prepare briefing report--it's the database.
C Would you put important info there?
S A lot of times it would end up on my TOC.
C Any other place you'd record what happened in briefings?
S Not formally or regularly. If it's something taht isn't really tasker, I might send an email or call them up.
4:12
Talking about briefers' meeting pooling what had happened during the morning meetings.
C You'd take notes in the TOC. You'd use those notes to talk about this briefing at the DCI briefing.
C You'd remind yourself to set taskings.
C wrote notes you'd like to share with Libby or VP.
S Things I could pass on, but didn't have an analytical report worth putting in the book. I'd pass on either first thing or maybe at the end. Just wanted to remind,something like a bombing in Indonesia about which we had no information.
C Took your work seriously.
S Yes sir.
C Allowed them to address very serious issues. Terrorism, terroist threats, homeland security, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Middle East.
C Going to the stuff that was blacked out.
C Want to take you through those topics, to see if you can recall. Say yes or no.
C Bomb defused in W residential compound
C POlice arresting someone in terrorism in country can't be identified
C Nearly simultaneous explosions
C East AFrican terroist group
C Al Qaeda plot in US
C Specific vulnerability
C Middle East security plan
C Country's security measures hampering AQ
C A country's nuclear program
C Iraq's porous borders present security threat
C Violent demonstrations in Iran
C A total of 27 items that day
[No to all these questions.]
C review underedacted TOC
S I didn't pay that much attention to specific items in briefing
C This was very important stuff.
C Challenge posed by Palestinian something
C Libby asked some of them returned to him
S That did happen
C You don't recall any of them.
C list of terrorist threats, but we can't name them. A concern over suicide operations in an international airport by AQ?
C concern about terrorists providing support to AQ business gig
C Suicide attacks in Iraq by terrorist group
C About potential attacks against US embassy in Kenya
C 11 pages of terrorist threats
S It's not clear whether I gave that to him on that day--it wasn't listed on my TOC -- there was a time we stopped putting it in the briefing book.
C Unspecified group videotaping something at a university? [The Quakers!!]
No on all counts.
C You don't recall anything that happened on June 14.
C Those types of items kind of items briefed to Libby 6 days a week.
Shifting gears.
C You knew Eric Edelman
C He left to become Ambasador to Turkey
C You would occasionally stop by and brief him too
S Yes, when I was briefing Libby at EOB
C May 2003. An article came out by Kristof.
S Yes I recall.
C You discussed it with Edelman.
S I don't have an independent memory.
C You faxed a series of items.
C You addressed them asked them to be taken to Hannah and Libby.
C Hannah took over after Edelman left.
S Not sure, I don't know who took over for Edelman
C You sent this to Edelman to be directed to Hannah and Libby.
4:25
C shows him the documents
S The handwriting is not mine
C you had someone fax these.
C Put them to one side.
C June 14 notes, July 14 not your problem, risks of exposing CIA employee
C you became aware of investigation and asked to provide interview to FBI
C First interview January 8 2004.
C First time in trial
C interview lasted about an hour
S It's in the ballpark
C Aware that Libby was one of the people they focused on
S I don't know I was aware
C Aware they asked questions about Libby, Edelman, and Cheney
C durng that interview, didn't say anything about that "not your problem" note
C Or about Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson note
C You had no memory of those notes or events
C told FBI that the first you heard of Wilson's trip was around the time of Novak's article.
C Told those FBI agents that you heard about the trip from a CIA employee, heard it from DDCI
C you testified about thsi "dangers of exposing Wilson"
C First time you discussed the Wilsons to Libby
C Your best memory that the first time you discussed Valerie Wilson was after Novak.
C Agents asked you to review any notes-- Calendars and notes and official databases.
C January 9 2004, send an email describing that interview
C You said your memory was quite poor, which probably extended the session.
C End of that email, after the interview, you remembered that Libby expressed irritation about conversation with reporter about Cheney's direct visits to the Agency.
C Mr. Libby and VP would come out to CIA to be briefed. Sometimes involved Iraq and other topics. Would be an exchange of views.
C Your understanding was that both sides viewed those sessions as valuable.
C Libby's concern was that someone at CIA said Cheney was pressuring the analysts, Libby was upset because those weren't true.
S Libby also upset because CIA talking to the press about conversations that shouldn't have been revealed.
C Didn't say anything about Joe or Valerie Wilson.
C Direct you to second page, review that see if you said anything on January 9 about the Wilsons.
C THere's no mention of the "not your problem" conversation
C Another interview on April 22 2004, about 9 months after the events, at CIA HQ, two FBI agents
S Don't know how many were there.
C CIA lawyer there
C Who else was there from the govt.
C Asks if one of the people at Fitz' table was there
S maybe Debra (Bonamici)
C You don't remember that Fitz and Zeidenberg were there?
S No, I don't remember that
C You're teling me Mr. Fitzgerald is forgettable.
S I don't want to go that far.
Showing him the interview notes.
C does that refresh your recollection of who was present
S No, I don't have an independent memory, sir
C Do you recall that Federal prosecutors were there
S tell you the truth, no.
C you're meeting for the second time, you knew it was important to get things right, you were determined to give your best memory.
C You again didn't mention this June 14 Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson mention in TOC or comment on July 14, "not your problem"
4:39
C you were doing your best, but you didn't recall those two conversations
C CIA lawyer asked you to follow up on some items
S That's plausible
C Review your files, see what triggered your memory about Libby's complaint about the Cheney pressure
C mentioned that since the interview you had recalled the Libby complaint
C You provided that info about Libby being irritated
C CIA lawyer asks you to follow-up to see if you could figure out what triggered your recollection of that
C You emailed back to that lawyer, still looking for notes.
S Sounds plausible.
C going over his email
C take a look at the first sentence in your email, April 23 2004, you hadn't located those notes
C You say in that same email you have found anote in July 14 that VP or Libby had asked if you read the article. THis is the first time in the interviews that you made any mention of that TOC item. Mention it in your email only because you had just found that TOC.
Now reviewing how he keeps these TOCs
S laughs
C is there a story there?
S No, I throw them in a binder
C you'd shred the contents
S except for the TOCs.
S I'd put them in another binder
C You still have it today
C does it have the original notes that you took
C You'd make it in pen
S in whatever pen I had
C Do those TOCs still exist
C Has anyone ever asked you for those.
Sidebar.
4:46
Walton recessing the jury. Ragging on one of the jurors for being late.
The sidebar seemed to be about the "original" of Schmall's notes from these days. I'm guessing Cline has an original that doesn't include it? Or that one of these didn't have the original?
Cline and Fitz talking.
Schmall, then Martin, we'll have a witness behind Ms. Martin. It seems like he's going in order of their chronology.
BuhBye. It's beer thirty!
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Fitz!
Fitz
I guess this is what is called a drive-by zed. I got a server error a moment ago and now a reward. I need to run to the store and get more popcorn. aauuggh!
Erg. Who are Bomani and Cline?
Gnome de Plume @ 3
Popcorn for lunch?
No, popcorn for the show. I am glued to the screen, but my popcorn ran out. That’s a joke around here, but I do sometimes eat cheddar popcorn for lunch, if it is cold rainy like it is today or I am too busy to break away, which I should be, but Marcy and Christie have me in their thrall. I didn’t watch the OJ trial. (Didn’t care.) This is the first one I’ve ever followed so closely.
OT ~ LOVE THIS:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....iraq-vote-‘if-you-wanted-a-safe-job-go-sell-shoes’/
Whee! This is so much fun!
Bomani would seem to be a lawyer on Fitz’ team, although Google isn’t coughing up much.
As for Cline, from Yahoo! News: “Libby’s legal team also includes John Cline, a leading expert on the use of classified information at trial.”
Bomani is one of Fitz’s guys and Cline is Wells’s, BTW.
Oops - remember all those contributions to the Libby defense fund. Cheney just told Wolf Blitzer that HE didn’t contribute …
From TPM
“Q All right, there’s a lot of good questions — let’s move on to some other domestic issues. The whole notion of your long-time aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby — he’s in the papers, his lawyer now suggesting on opening day of the trial that he was basically set up by people in the White House to protect Karl Rove, the President’s political aide. What do you make of this?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Now, Wolf, you knew when we set up the interview you can ask all the questions you want, I’m going to be a witness in that trial within a matter of weeks, I’m not going to discuss it. I haven’t discussed with anybody in the press yet, I’m not going to discuss it with you today.
Q Are you — but you’ve –
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you’ve got my answer. You’ve got my answer.
Q Have you contributed to his legal defense fund?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am a strong friend and supporter of Scooter’s. I have not contributed to the legal defense fund. I think he’s an extraordinarily talented and capable individual.
“
OUCH!
EPU’d:
Thom: “Team Libby is using this because they have permission to from the WH.”
I agree. I think there are multiple scenarios (conspiracy theory, office politics, damage control, etc.) that could be used to justify such a decision.
Ultimately, though, whatever the reasoning, the fact is that Cheney has agreed to appear on behalf of the defense. There’s no way Cheney would have done so without knowing Team Libby’s strategy — especially if it includes throwing Karl ‘under the bus’.
Therefore, I have to conclude that whatever the strategy is, the WH has approved it. Or at least Cheney has, in the unlikely event that there’s any distinction between the two.
Bonamici = a contraction of “good friends” in Italian
Ok .. for once I’m trying to follow more than the barebones of the case, because this is so riveting. Is there someplace where I can get read up on a concise version of the whole case? It should make it more interesting to follow this excellent live blogging.
Thanks JR.
Sometimes difficult to follow - questions posted but no answers and the like - but I certainly understand why. And it is riveting. Glad to be here and glad y’all are there.
[Hey this is a way for them to get it introduced without Libby–I wonder if they’re getting cold feet on having Libby testify?!?!?!?]
Whoa! IANAL but I got the feeling yesterday that the defense was adlibbing because of some unexpected development. This is probably me reading more into it than is there but I wonder if anyone else felt that way.
I was watching Cheney last night and hoping to see him clutch his chest. Perhaps that’s evil, but he is Cheney.
Debra Riggs Bonamici, Team Fitz.
IIRC, the lawyer-wonks here were saying how elegant her instructions to the jury were on Monday.
Repeat post from last thread (EPU’d):
The testimony of Grenier as reported here seems to me very compelling. He is being portrayed in the liveblogging as not giving Wells an inch.
If I were on the jury hearing someone say:
-I didn’t think my firm was being portrayed fairly.
-I had a sinking feeling so I kept mulling it over.
-I realized when it all blew up that my sinking feeling might really mean something.
I would identify with that guy and perhaps be grateful to him for doing something about the third sentiment rather than letting it slide (the far easier thing to do).
My question for you wonderful people who can hear him in person: Was Grenier coming off as sincere as I hope? Was he really not giving in to Wells.
Thanks again guys for all that you are doing–sent a paypal the other day. –CJ
Thom @
4
Bonamici is with the prosecution and Cline is the defense graymail expert attorney.
lostingeekdom -
here’s a great place to get all the info:)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redir.....ative=9325
hey y’all, lurking and following along as best I can
James Robinson @ 8
Misspelled–try Bonamici.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=....._reply.pdf bonamici esq&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
JGabriel @ 11
Agree. And something that backs it up is how they “threw Rove under the bus.” They did it by not saying a damn thing about what he did! To make a case that Y is being scapegoated to save X, wouldn’t you say what it was that X did? Just doesn’t make sense.
And thanks for remembering that comment from the other thread!
spurious - that would explain why nothing was coming up. Thanks!
incredible - - thanks for all of your hard work -the folks at fdl
shaped history 2005 and 6, this is different though. something major is happening - - the webb-response to SOTU on C&L
-what a shift we’re in the midst of…
Wow! A freakin’ scientology mention. WTF?!
Thanks Pachacutec also
Yeah, spurious, I know. It worked though…
And I know what it refers to, but what does EPU stand for?
Oh damn, sorry, JR - I thought it would be obvious that I was riffing on the name.
“How Germany treats Scientologists.”
Seriously!?!?!
This is the point where you leave me hanging?!!!
:)
Thanks for blogging all of this…my boss thanks you, too…no work getting done today, that’s for sure!!
Your blogging is fantastic!
FYI, file this away for future reference; Team Fitzgerald for USA includes:
Peter Zeidenberg, Kathleen Kedian, Debra Bonamici, Debbie Bond, Gerard Francisco, Jared Richards, Katie Hance, Bonnie Hansen, and Harry Brady
Some of these folks may be paralegals and staffers, not certain.
punaise @
12
punster - incoming mail.
ROFL!
Now Larry King can cover the trial.
lostingeekdom @ 13
I gather there’s a recently written book…
There are a lot of visits by Scientologists to WH. I remember from the Time Magazine cover story that CIA is terrified of Scientology because they think that Scient’s spooks and hackers are at least as good as theirs.
I have a feeling that if someone turned over that rock, they’d find a whole nest of aggressive, extremely poisonous spiders. And I think that’s one reason why nobody’s turned over that rock.
(For completeness’ sake, Germany has banned Scientology on the grounds that it’s a dangerous cult.)
Pachacutec @ 31
Unbelieveable! LOLMAO!
ROTFL! Libby excited over Tom and Penelope Cruise. I don’t know why that strikes me as so funny. Maybe he’s got “Top Gun” issues. It seems like the whole administration does.
newspaperbrat @ 30
merci - I replied
James Robinson @ 23
Prego
Tom Cruise was there to talk to Libby about how Germany treats Scientologists.
Add that to the long list of things Libby was so quivering with excitement about he didn’t have time to think about Wilson and Wilson’s little lady.
Penelope Cruz, not Cruise
Thom @
26
Evil Parallel Universe, the poster who always got left behind in the bottom thread. ..
Thom,
EPU stands for “Evil Parallel Universe”. There’s an FDL regular with that handle who found his posts often showing up in a thread right after a new one had been started.
Since his handle also conveyed the idea of being left behind in an abandoned thread - i.e., an evil parallel universe - EPU’d became the FDL shorthand for indicating that someone was reposting or responding to a comment from an earlier thread.
Badwater @ 16
There was a moment when Pelosi popped up like a Jack in the box, and Cheney was verrrry slow to rise, like the ticker needed much more of a warm-up.
SharonW @ 34
I’d be pretty excited if Penelope Cruz was coming to see me.
Thank for the wonderful work–I cannot keep up with either the posts or the comments, but you are all creating a wonderful resource for our ongoing discussion of our democracy, its legal system, and our future generations.
Pachacutec @
31
Cruise met with Armitage at about the same time — remember when his appointment calendar got leaked, showing a June meeting with Woodward? Cruise was on the calendar, too.
Laura Rozen at War and Piece says:
she links to this AP article at the NYT
marcy/pach/christy et al. - are you also getting the sense that the witnesses memory is a problem?
I just donated to the extraordinary efforts you are doing via PayPal, Christy, Marcy, Pach.
I can’t get this kind of inside info anywhere else!! I find it riveting. Like looking for glasses or Scooter’s thumb-clenching, priceless :-)
This is the kind of reporting I want to support.
I hesitated to donate at first because I knew I could only send $20 but figure it all adds up.
Old HP lasers are workhorses by the way. I hope you got your printer.
Is Penelope Cruise his sister? Or was that a typo and supposed to be Penlope Cruz? Because I’d love a visit from Penlope Cruz myself.
We were told how busy Libby was really important things. Like Cruise and Cruz.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 42
He was just taunting us. lol
lostingeekdom @ 13: The “recently written book” referenced at comment 32 is “Anatomy of Deceit,” by Marcy Wheeler…none other than emptywheel who’s doing such a terrific job live blogging. Not sure, but I think it ships next week. Check Amazon. Marcy, who regularly blogs at Next Hurrah, is a scholar on this case and her book should be what you’re looking for.
I can’t believe how fast this case is progressing, man
now that we’re under way, how long do we think before closings?
SharonW @
35
You’d think he’d be too busy, busy, busy with Important Issues to talk to Tom Cruise… well I think that, but maybe I’m just being glib. I notice that the prosecution didn’t waste an early opportunity to tell the jury just what damage might have been wrought by outing Ms. Plame. Well done.
Entertaining visiting royalty…
Tom Cruise… that’ll make breaking news…
Heh. Cheney doesn’t get easy-to-read one-page summaries. As if we needed any more confirmation of who’s really in charge.
selise @ 45
it’s definitely been on my mind while reading here. If I was a witness it’d be a lock - what were we talking about?
thanks for the EPU info, everyone. Funny
Our tax dollars at work. Armitage and Libby meeting with Top Gun and what’s-her-name. What a comedy this Administration is!
BTW, kudos again to Marcy/EW for the amazing stamina you’re showing.
When I take your spot in a couple weeks, there will be plenty of Rosemary Woods-style gaps. :)
You know, Tom Cruise stopping by and Scooter just calling Timmeh up to complain as a common viewer, it is just another day inside the Beltway.
lostingeekdom @ 13
Try emptywheel’s posts on The Next Hurrah; this one may be a good place to start for an overview.
Tom Cruise? Hmm, back before WWII stars such as Greta Garbo, David Niven and Noel Coward spied for the British Secret Service (OSS). They were ideal spies — they could go anywhere and even Hitler and Il Duce were star-struck enough to fall over themselves for a chance to meet with them.
Guess it still works.
Aha, it all makes sense now!
Dennis Hans scooped everyone when he revealed in 2005 that Tom Cruise outed Valerie Plame.
Now, who will investigate Dennis?
LBrowne @ 53
Er — or “by outing “the wife.” Well done!
melior @ 62
I love that. Particularly the insinuation that Valerie sending Joe to Niger, far from being “nepotism”, was actually an insidious plan to put him IN harm’s way.
Tom Cruise to take the witness stand next:
“I outed Valerie Plame. I figured it would be a distraction, so I wouldn’t get outed. It’s all my fault. And I was the one who leaked it to Novak. Scientology and Opus Dei, we’re like this man (holds up two entwined fingers). I told Scooter he’d make Thetan Level 7 if he just took the fall for me. (Jumps up on witness chair, thumbs up, screams:)Scooter, you’re my man!!! I never woulda asked it of you had I known how far it would go. (Jumps behind Walton’s podium and hugs him) Let him go, Judgie, pleeaaase?”
(Tom Cruise is subsequently subdued by several bailiffs and carted out of the courtroom.)
bellesouth @ 63, that was “loverly.”
The faulty memory defense is nonsense. Plame was irrelevant to the CIA because they didn’t anticipate that she’d be used as the centerpiece in a smear campaign. Trying to apply this to Libby et al, who tried to make Wilson and Plame the central issue rather than the botched, or deliberately falsified intelligence, is ludicrous.
Is the pace of the trial going fast? Can someone comment on that?
BTW, why didn’t Fitzgerald at any time ask either Schmall or Greneir, whether Libby at any time inquired as to Plame’s status, to establish dereliction of duty or unprecedented disregard of established procedures?
Tom Cruise: “I want the truth!”
Scooter: “You can’t handle the truth!”
Best line of the day.
fdlblog @
70
i think you’ve got to know/trust/be assured that Fitz knows what he’s doing in that regard.
fdlblog @ 70
Probably because that is not what he’s trying to prove. A quote from Christy’s summary:
Seems like pretty standard cross examinations to me.
Try to remember two things:
We can’t assess credibility in the witness via liveblogging, unless there’s some reporting of an obvious point of impeachment. It’s just not in the medium to convey this. Even ew is not giving many impressions of the dynamic or the people so much as keeping up, heroically, with the content.
It’s more possible to get a sense of possible credibility from the behavioral observations and the “feel” of energy in the actual courtroom, but that stuff, potentially from Christy, can only come later, and it’s all subject to one person’s impressions anyway, just as all of mine have been.
Moreover, the is a marathon, not a sprint. I’m reminded of Jem and Scout watching Tom Robinson’s trial. Fitz is patient like Atticus as a courtroom presence. He’s not a thunderer, and juries often appreciate that.
No one can predict where all this is headed, other than the liklihood of some convictions on at least some counts, since that’s what usually happens. But for people pulling for either side, to quote Atticus again, It’s not time to worry yet.
Did Libby really get a report about the Quakers videotaping at a University, or was that [snark]? The Scientology reference threw me off, but I’m ready for anything now.
Sure goes to show that the evil lord Xenu works in mysterious ways….
I’m on the edge of my seat here! Thanks SO MUCH Marcy–your work is amazing and very much appreciated.
Is it just me or does it seem like Cline is talking a lot to the point of testifying, rather than questioning the witness?
Any chance we can get Dick Cheney to appear dressed in a papier mache ham costume?
-GSD
I’m a little worried about this witness. Doesn’t seem to be cooperating. He can’t remember anything. Almost like he is doing it on purpose to show that Scooter’s “bad memory” defense is for real.
I mean surely the CIA doesn’t want Libby to get away with this…
I’m not a lawyer. The Cline question stream, as written (I know, not a transcript), sounds like a lot of “ask and answer”, designed to create a scenario in the jurors’ mind, without concern about the witness response.
#1. Is that an accurate assessment of what’s really going on?
#2. If so, isn’t that (legally) objectionable?
#3. If so, why not object?
Bear in mind that my experience of criminal trials is entirely fictional.
QuickSilver @ 76
No, the Quakers was snark.
And I assume this was Penelope Cruz. I’m a failure at pop culture.
Yes, but it goes to his motives for lying. If Fitz can establish that Libby was knowlegeable, or knowingly ignorant of Plame’s status, then he has essentially won the case.
I think this Schmall guy must be the only other person on the planet with a memory as bad as Libby’s is. I wonder why Fitz even bothered to put him on the stand, he doesn’t remember anything. I guess it’s just to introduce the note about why Wilson said the OVP sent him (and Valerie’s name) as well as the “Not your problem” ref.
You’d be excited by a visit by Penelope Cruz, too, if most of the rest of the time you hung out with Dick Cheney.
Now I really am out of popcorn. I am guessing that the show is over for today and that it is OK to leave?
Grrr .. damned work, interfering with the fun of following this trial. Thanks everyone for the heads up on the books, and Redshift @ 60 for the link. I’m trying to play catch up.
viget @ 83
I think Schmall is there to show that the other issues that Libby was looking at were “routine” by their standards. Everyday there is another threat and none of them were particularly noteworthy.
Schmall remembers that which was out of the norm only, very similar to most of us.
fdlblog: “… why didn’t Fitzgerald at any time ask either Schmall or Greneir, whether Libby at any time inquired as to Plame’s status, to establish dereliction of duty or unprecedented disregard of established procedures?”
Four possible reasons, and there are probably others:
A) Maybe it’s not relevant to proving whether Libby lied or not;
B) Maybe Fitz already know that the answer is “No”, which wouldn’t do anything for the case he’s building;
C) Maybe Walton has already ruled that type of question, regarding Plame’s status, out of order;
D) Maybe Fitz is holding that question for someone who can give a definitive and absolute confirmation - Grenier and Schmall haven’t proven to have the most exacting of recollections so far…
emptywheel, Christy,
Ten thousand thanks to you iron-fingered ladies, and a huge thank you to steelthing, too, the angel of Fitz/FLD liveblogging.
I have a headache, you guys must be absolute *toast*.
Huge thanks to Marcy for all her good and fast work today.
I guess this means that Libby wants Tom to play him in “The Plame Affair.” (A major motion picture coming SOON to a theater near you!)
Of course, I’ll see that movie just to watch Tom Cruise referred to as “Scooter.”
Schmall is there to testify that on June 14th he briefed Scooter and the veep that Joe Wilson’s wife Valerie worked for the CIA.
Buh bye. It’s beer thirty!
This is what I love about blogging. :)
Beerthirty!?!
Marcy,
Take a quick flight home. I’ll buy all you can drink at the Peak.
Thanks for the great coverage today.
emptywheel @
81
In other words, if this were a B-list celebrity murder trial (and not about the CIA leak), you’d be the perfect juror. I’ve sometimes had that feeling myself; it’s funny where our culture placs its priorities.
By all means, keep up the snark!
beth meacham @ 92
Not only that, but that he was asked his opinion and told them that having her name leaked was potentially very bad. At this point Libby can’t claim that it was okay for him to leak it because he didn’t know if she was covert–he was told she might be, and the potential consequences of such a leak. Goes to what he believed at the time and state of mind.
What I picked up on was the reference to a bomb on shrubs private presidential palace!!??
How come I have never heard of this? I might have missed it in the news, but I doubt it. It reminds me of when Karl “The turd polisher” Rove claimed that the dems had bugged his campaign headquarters. Which was found to be TOTAL bullshit!!! I see how they are trying to gain sympathy for anyone associated with shrub. In the words of Sir Anthony Hopkins in Legends Of The Fall “Screw ‘em”