
The jury has returned, so we're back for more Libby grand jury testimony from March 2004. Don't forget the ground rules...
NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript -- just a very loose paraphrase, at best -- so don't treat it as one. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing -- but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.
F: Do you remember talking to Judith Miller on July 8th?
L: Yes.
(discussion of what Miller had been up to -- just back from Iraq, etc.)
L: This was our first meeting, or she may have come to my office once before. She's a very responsible reporter, and I'd wanted to meet her because she cares about the WMD issue and threats to America. As we started to discuss week of July 7th, the NIE had said ... (discusses NIE, asks for permission to discussion January 24 document) A January 24 document had said exactly the same thing as the NIE supporting the notion of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. The CIA had issued this in October 2002 and January 2003, and we wanted people to know that this went against what Wilson said.
I was unaware that she was not writing during this period, but the VP instructed me to talk to Judith Miller. I said, but NIE is classified, but Cheney said Pres. had authorized it. Libby went to Addington to confirm that Pres. could declassify (this is all stuff that has been reported, so sorry if I miss details). So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this, and I selected Judith Miller because I felt she was a responsible reporter (Uhh, you just said Cheney picked her, didnt you?).
(Fitz and Libby discuss declassification of NIE and Jan. 24th document, Addington saying Pres has absolute ability to declassify anything whenever he want -- this has all been reported previously)
F: Getting back to Judith Miller, did you talk about Mr. Wilson?
L: I don't remember specifically, but probably since we discussed it since we talked about Niger and uranium.
F: What about Mr. Wilson's wife?
L: I don't believe I did.
F: Do you recall a meeting on July 9th chaired by Stephen Hadley?
L: Not specifically.
F: Hadley was angry, saying that Tenet was upset by Andrea Mitchell report... do you recall him looking at Cathie Martin and Claire Buchan of OVP?
L: Not specifically.
F: This was just after you spoke with Andrea Mitchell, right?
(Fitz explains that Martin and Buchan were removed from contacting CIA during that period, Libby says he doesn't remember it for that reason, was because of work on Tenet statement at higher levels)
F: Do you recall Hadley saying on July 9th that we need to do something about Wilson now, discredit him? (Oh, my.)
L: I don't recall that specific phrase, but I'd have to check my notes.
F: Do you remember that concept coming across, regardless of specific words?
L: Yes, to discredit what Wilson was saying. Don't recall about discrediting him personally.
F: (pulls out notes) Do you recall Rove complaining that Wilson was viewed as a credible expert?
L: Remember wanting to discredit his story, but not him personally
F: Were people saying, "Let's be careful to discredit his story, but not discredit him personally"?
L: Don't recall any statement like that.
F: Do you recall an effort to push back on Wilson's credibility that week?
L: Yes, trying to get statement from Rice and Tenet explaining that Wilson's findings didn't really undermine intelligence, but supported it (gives the whole spiel again)
It's 11:36.
F: Did you consider Wilson's wife working at the CIA as something that undermined his credibility?
L: No, I thought he was credible to do what he did.
F: Do you believe it reflected nepotism in his hiring?
L: I... I don't think I knew then why he was hired. That didn't come out until later, with the Rove report. (??? I have no idea what this means. ???)
F: You're clear that you didn't give this information with Ari Fleischer
L: I don't recall it. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but all I recall is being surprised when I talked about it with Tim Russert.
F: (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA)
F: Does this say, "Wilson is declassified"?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, "The president is comfortable"?
L: Yes.
F: And the next line:
L: Hadley saying it's the NIE should be leaked.
F: Did anyone say it was OK to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President's approval.
F: Did you tell Hadley this?
L: No.
F: Why not?
L: Because the VP was there, and he knew, and didn't say anything.
F: What is this line?
L: Hadley saying whole truth has to get out, and he'd told Tenet that.
F: Was he getting ticked off?
L: More or less, Tenet statement was supposed to come out Tuesday, and was being delayed.
F: Tell me about conversation with Mr. Russert.
L: Chris Matthews has a TV show, and is an outspoken fellow, and he was saying Wilson report had been seen by VP and should have convinced WH that Niger uranium intelligence was false, not even referring to denials by WH, OVP, and CIA. This was frustrating to us, and we wanted him to acknowledge that the public record was different. Wasn't first time Matthews had criticized us. So I called Mary Matalin and asked for advice on how we should get Matthews to acknowledge public record. Mary had own opinions on where we were, so she gave them, then suggested I call Tim Russert.
So I called Russert, can't remember if I got him right away or had to call back. We spoke briefly, and then I turned to our issues. I mentioned Andrea Mitchell but said I'm not really calling about Mitchell, then went into problems with Matthews. I think Russert said he had to call me back. And I think in the second phone call, if there was one, or a delay in the first call, we had a fuller conversation. He said not much he could do about Chris Matthews, and then he said did you know Ambassador Wilson's wife works for the CIA? I remeber being taken aback by that, and I said "No, I don't know that." Intentionally, because I didn't want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.
So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, "I don't know that," and he said, "Yeah, all the reporters know that," and I said "I don't know that." Again.
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it's Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?
L: No. We asked someone in the WH press office who knew him. Adam Levine.
F: Did he succeed?
L: No. Matthews kept saying same things.
It's 11:55.
(Fitz and Libby discuss note from Matalin conversation about calling Russert... see emptywheel's post last week for details)
F: What's this,
L: This is Matalin talking, "get David Sanger of NYT or someone, get Wilson's whole story out"... "we need to address Wilson's motivation"
(Yeah, the snake part gets discussed, too, but it's snipped out of the audio and shown as "REDACTED" in the transcript.)
(Fitz walks Libby again through all the conversations about Plame he doesn't remember -- Grossman, Fleischer, etc. -- he still doesn't recall them.)
F: You're sure you spoke with Russert on the 10th or 11th?
L: My notes show that I called Matalin on the 10th and then tried to reach Russert the same day.
F: When you called Russert, were you calling as a source?
L: No.
F: When you spoke to Pincus and Miller, you did so as an official giving the WH point of view
L: Yes.
F: But not with Russert?
L: I was just trying to get him to influence Chris Matthews.
F: You say you were giving the name of Russert's producer. Did you write it down in your notes?
L: I may not have.
(Fitz walks through Russert conversation details -- all the reporters know it, etc.)
F: Was there anything sensitive about Wilson's wife working for the CIA that made you especially not want to confirm it?
L: No. I just didn't want him to think I was confirming it.
F: If Cathie Martin had told you about Wilson's wife before July 10th, your testimony is that you don't remember that.
L: Could you repeat the question? (Fitz does.) My testimony is that I don't recall that.
F: When Russert told you what you said he did, did you call the CIA press office to say, have you heard about reporters knowing this?
L: No.
F: Did you tell any other WH official, or the VP?
L: No.
F: What's the next discussion you recall where you discussed Wilson's wife's employment with anyone?
L: On the 11th, as we were still waiting for Tenet statement, at the end of the day I spoke to Karl Rove. During this conversation he said Bob Novak had told him he'd be writing a story about Wilson that weekend, he felt Wilson might not be impartial, and that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. So this was confirmation of a sort of what I'd heard from Tim Russert. I told Karl that I had heard from Tim Russert the same thing. I don't remember the exact order of this conversation, but that's the sum and substance.
It's 12:13.
F: When was this conversation with Rove?
L: On the 11th, I think in the afternoon or evening.
F: Did you tell Rove how you responded to Tim Russert?
L: I don't think so.
F: Did you learn how Rove responded to Novak?
L: No.
F: Was there a sense of relief that Novak was responding to WH being beaten up all week?
L: The more important thing was that the Tenet statement was going to come out, rebutting Wilson on the facts.
F: Were you pleased to know a story was coming out on Wilson's background that weekend or so?
L: More concerned with Tenet statement, glad it was finally coming out but concerned it would miss Friday evening TV news and get lost in Saturday papers. Felt like CIA rebuttal on facts was more effective way to answer Wilson charges.
F: It wouldn't help to know that his wife had sent Wilson?
L: I didn't know that at that time, lots of people work at the CIA. I didn't know anything about the wife sending him until I read the Novak article.
F: Did you tell Rove that Novak called you that week?
L: No. I didn't know that Novak had called me, and my recollection is still hazy on that point.
F: Did you talk to Andrea Mitchell about Wilson and his wife sometime in this time frame?
L: I talked to Andrea Mitchell after Russert, and I see that NBC has stated that she didn't know about Wilson's wife until after July 14th.
F: What do you remember about talking to Mitchell?
L: I remember an awkward moment in talking to her, because I thought about what Russert told me, but I didn't know if she knew, and I didn't want to get Russert in trouble by saying he'd told me.
F: Did you talk to Mitchell about it after the 14th?
L: I don't recall. I was worried about her asking where I found out.
F: Why not just say you couldn't comment.
L: I don't like to obfuscate in that way. (smiles in media room)
Fitz starts to ask about July 12, and being with Cheney. Walton stops the tape and says it's time for lunch.
It's 12:25. New thread when we return.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
TEAM FDL
the picture html are wrong, no image
Swopa, great job! Keep up the good work!
perris @
2
Uhhh… do not adjust your TV sets… just refresh the thread. :)
Swopa!
Great, great job!
Swopa @ 4
swopa, you are right ON it!
got it…feel free to delete our posts concerning your lack of html skills
Libby’s goin’ downtown !!
Deftly, quietly, Mrs. Libby pulls the scarf from around her neck, suddenly the gallery’s attention is zeroed in on the Defendant as his eyes bulge and he gasps for breath . . .
sorry, I’ll be over here
FITZ!!!!!
A Blast from the past…
Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
http://news.nationaljournal.co.....703nj1.htm
[No jokes about corporal punishment. Period. Love you, but these have to stop. — CHS]
Swopa - great work. The video of Jane and you was awesome.
Could we ever hope our MSM would be capable of this kind of reporting? Probably not, they are not up to your level of honesty.
OBTW at this point, Paul (Medal of Freedom) Bremer, former head of the CPA, is blathering over on c-span 1… What an amazingly arrogant bastard.. Now he’s saying what a great job he did. Now we’re getting the old reliable “No one could have anticipated” defense again. This guy is gonna get flayed alive.
Now back to reading this amazing liveblogging. Kudos!
Man, I’m going to rename February 6 “emptywheel vindication day” in honor of this testimony. First, Marcy scoops everyone on the Libby to Novak meetings.
Second, how does this help the defense claim Judy’s lacks credibility:
And lastly this:
Which of course is the reason that one Marcy Wheeler has always given to explain why they failed in their efforts to launder Plame’s identity through Judy.
Thanks, Scooter.
ouch ouch!! I sprained my shoulder patting myself on the back!!
EW @ 14
No need for you to pat your back — you did enough already. We’ll do it for you. :D
Can’t congratulate and thank you enough, Marcy.
Pulitzer Blogging Prize for FDL, please!!!! :)
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day, everybody!!
emptywheel @ 14
One has to sacrifice for success. Kudos Marcy!
Yay for Marcy!
And, for the record, I really AM impressed by this place and the people in it.
BTW, Swopa, you’re doing a TERRIFIC job!
(and I had to clean my monitor after spitting out coffee when I read Scooter calling Miller a “responsible reporter.” )
“Cheney picked Judith Miller.”
1). Is that a typo?
2.) Pretty much cuts the rug out from under the Sanger testimony, doesn’t it? If they are selectively leaking (duh), by definition they wouldn’t be telling Sanger.
[Mod Note; that’s a good one, but let’s save it for a time we’re not live blogging. OK?]
From the National Journal link @ 10 from MrJJ:
Ah ah.
Statement coming from Bremer on CSPAN live right now should qualify him to be eaten whole by Waxman & Co…
and somewhere, Dan Senor is searching for a clean pair of underoos ; )
Marcy @14 SCORES!
Hurrah for the NextHurrah!
“L: This was our first meeting, or she may have come to my office once before.”
another obvious lie, kind of stupid for him to tack on that “or she may have…” deferral (my children are better liars than these neocons)
Again, it just makes logical sense your first meeting with someone is always memorable, even for a purportedly foggy minded Scooter.
Lets all say thank you to Scooter for that.
GSD @
22
Ooops…
It was all Bill Clinton’s fault.
-GSD
(cut)
F: Do you recall Hadley saying on July 9th that we need to do something about Wilson now, discredit him? (Oh, my.)
L: I don’t recall that specific phrase, but I’d have to check my notes.
F: Do you remember that concept coming across, regardless of specific words?
L: Yes, to discredit what Wilson was saying. Don’t recall about discrediting him personally.
F: (pulls out notes) Do you recall Rove complaining that Wilson was viewed as a credible expert?
L: Remember wanting to discredit his story, but not him personally
F: Were people saying, “Let’s be careful to discredit his story, but not discredit him personally”?
L: Don’t recall any statement like that.
(paste)
Boy, Scooter is coming across to me like he has something to hide. This reminds me of the game I play with my teenagers: “Hide the truth”. In this game, the questioner has to ask the right question in the right way to get a response. The respondent’s goal in the game is to hide as much truth as possible without telling (obvious) lies.
I think Hasbro should be watching this… “Hide the truth” could be in stores by Christmas…
“Pulitzer Blogging Prize for FDL, please!!!! :)”
Double ditto on that one, when nomination time comes, we’ll know who to vote for.
Iif there’s as yet no blogger’s pulitzer prize, surely we can make up one of our own.
Or we could all overwhelm the Pulitzer website with demands for a bloggers’ award.
Now there’s a thought…
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive!!
might have been a slip of the tongue, but did Libby really say Cheney said to talk to JudyJudyJudy? oops. sorry about that mental image.
I’m no expert on attorneys, but to me this question is one example of what makes Fitz such a talent. He’s sees where Libby wants to go, let’s him go there, and then slams the door on him with this question.
Peter Gabriel!
No, Libby said that Cheney said that Junior Evil said to talk to JudyJudyJudy.
I’m finally confused! If Wilson’s report supported the 16 words claim, then why would they try to discredit Wilson _and_ disown the VP involvement in him being sent?
I’m also somewhat confused by the fact that the CIA and State were also interested in the Niger story in 2002. If all were interested, it must have been a big deal.
I’m also wondering what would have happened if Bush had been able to use the 16 words in Nov 2002. There might have been enough time to debunk prior to war. Could this be the reason for the rush?
Jwoods @ 30
F: did you steal the cookie?
L: No
F: did you eat cookies yesterday
L: I don’t remember, I might have
F: did you take a cookie from the cookie jar?
L: i think so
F: did you eat the cookie you took?
L: i dont know if the cookie i took is the same one i ate
February 6th, 2007 at 8:43 am
JEP at 26 says:
Wasn’t their first meeting at the Colorado meeting–Aspen?
But what I really wanted to comment on is that Libby is a very bad liar, but some other neocons are much more devious. One named Rove in particular, unfortunately. Fitz can’t pin a thing on him regardless how much he lies.
JEP @ 31
When are Pulitzer nominations done, how, etc.? This should be done, for sure.
OBTW, the flaying of Bremer over on C-SPAN 1 is getting up to steam… :)
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day!
Swopa, your live-blogging on this is fantastic.
I love how Cheney/Libby specially selected Judy Judy Judy to leak to because she was so “responsible.” Yeah, OVP must have used her a lot, just like Meet the Press.
And yes, it undermines the attempt to get Sanger as a defense witness, which is ridiculous anyway. Whether Libby leaked to Sanger is irrelevant to whether Libby lied to FBI/GJ. Is Wells really trying to argue that Libby must not have lied about his conversations with Ms. Miller, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fleischer, et al, because he didn’t lie about his conversations with Mr. Sanger? Or is he trying to disprove perjury by proving he didn’t leak to Sanger? Either way, it’s totally non-probative.
WOW, FDL, this is fantabulous coverage!
Libby is acting like Fitz is a friggin reporter! One talking point after another.
“Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.’
Oh, COME ON!
TomJ @ 37
The claim that the Wilson’s op-ed piece supported the 16 words was all spin. Wilson said that his report debunked the whole notion of uranium from Niger, and that the WH should have known, and Bush never should have claimed it.
The spin came from the assumption that in 1999, when Iraqi representatives came to Niger about “possible trade relations” that this could have been their “attempt to get uranium.”
This thinking is akin to charging my 8 year old son with attempted armed robbery because he asked the Toys R Us stock guy if the Avitar gun was real.
Of course, the problem is that when the story is true, all you’ve got left is to discredit someone personally. That’s been the GOP playbook for decades, and a hallmark of the Bushies.
What the hell is the Rove report? Libby mentioned that it was only after “the Rove report” that they knew why Wilson was “hired” by the CIA to go to Niger?
Ann in AZ @ 39
Fitz was about to pull the trigger on indicting Rove when Rove got a lucky break. Some reporter told his Rove’s lawyer that they had proof that Rove leaked. Rove then went before the GJ and “came clean” just before the indictment.
If anyone could find Hardball transcripts where Matthews was discussing Wilson’s trip prior to Libby’s conversation with Russert on July 10 or 11 it would be really helpful. Looks like Libby/Cheney totally obsessed with it.
I wonder how well this “Wilson report supported NIE claim” is going to fly, given all the other evidence–foremost among that evidence is that Wilson himself was wandering all over the government for months trying to find out why no one in the White House paid any attention to his findings and finally had to go public with it.
If the report made by Wilson supported the WH, why was Wilson saying it didn’t?
I know this has been discussed ad infinitum, and most here know the reasons why (Niger v. Algeria meetings, French process control, etc., etc.), but it’s well worth highlighting this little inconsistency at every point when this WH bullshit appears (along with the fact that the Pat Roberts’ pack of whores also picked up this little meme to distort the SSCI Phase I report in favor of the WH).
I’ve heard of VE Day and VJ Day after another big war, but now we have EV Day and soon JV Day [vindication for emptywheel, and Jane].
litigatormom @ 46
I am so hoping that Fitz has KKKarl on record about what “the Rove Report” is.
Libby: “Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.”
That’s just bad lying. The jury must know he’s lying through his teeth.
You don’t forget that the thorn in your team’s side has a great big secret once you’ve learned the secret.
How come I can never use the I don’t recall defense to get out of a speeding ticket, but when it comes to national security it’s o.k?
Am I bonkers to read this as meaning Junya was “comfortable” betraying Valerie Plame/Wilson because “Wilson is declassified”?
BTW, I didn’t think that Libby’s story was that Libby told Russert “I don’t know that” when Russert supposedly informed him of what he had previously forgotten about “the wife.”
Isn’t that an odd formulation? “I don’t know that”? Wouldn’t you say something like, “Who told you that?” Or, “I’m not aware of that,” or “are you sure”?
I think this is wrong:
Jwoods at 44—The spin came from the assumption that in 1999, when Iraqi representatives came to Niger about “possible trade relations” that this could have been their “attempt to get uranium.”
I think this meeting took place OUTSIDE of Niger.
Somebody approached somebody else at a party. That’s their big evidence. The rest is utterly fabricated.
This is an extremely interesting sequence:
“So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, “I don’t know that,” and he said, “Yeah, all the reporters know that,” and I said “I don’t know that.” Again.
F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.
L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.
F: Did he give you the name of the producer?
L: Yes. I think it’s Shapiro.
F: Did you call him?”
I find this sequence interesting because Fitzgerald’s questioning jumped immediately away from Scooter’s critical statement about Russert giving away the CIA identity of Wilson’s wife.
After Scooter made the claim about Russert, Fitz immediately shifted his questioning to ask about the resolution with Matthews.
Why did Fitzgerald tack away from Scooter’s statement about Russert?
Am I missing something here?
Jwoods @ 47
Wouldn’t “Coming clean” to the charge of leaking be an admission of guilt? Rover’s cover story is that he came clean to avoid a perjury indictment.
I don’t believe that. Fitz has Rover by the nads. Rove slow walked until he made an informal deal: specific testimony in exchange for a sealed indictment. If Rover delivers on all his testimony Sealed vs Sealed will be dismissed. IANAL but it wouldn’t surprise me if Walton signed off on this -agreeing to dismiss Rove if he delivers his testimony.
I think this is different than a plea bargain. Technically, no “deal” has been reached. So Fitz does not have to disclose to the defense.
Man, Libby’s the worst liar of the bunch! What an underachiever!
I hope they play that clip of the shrub saying “Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
about nine million times tonite.
Remember that what Swopa is blogging here are the tapes of Libby’s grand jury appearance. It’s possible that this questioning took place before Russert had testified.
F: (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA)
F: Does this say, “Wilson is declassified”?
L: Yes.
F: Does this say, “The president is comfortable”?
L: Yes.
F: And the next line:
L: Hadley saying it’s the NIE should be leaked.
F: Did anyone say it was OK to leak the NIE that week?
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President’s approval.
F: Did you tell Hadley this?
L: No.
——
What is that foul smell?
beth meacham @ 60
I think it is almost certain that this questioning took place before Russert testified.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald had to know, at the time, that this was a critical point in Libby’s testimony. Why didn’t he pursue it further? I imagine that he had his reasons, and I am just curious as to what they may have been.
“I wonder how well this “Wilson report supported NIE claim” is going to fly,”
like a big lead balloon…
L: I had already talked to Judith Miller, with the President’s approval.
Bush in September 2003:
*xyz @ 62
Maybe Fitzgerald wanted Scooter’s unambiguous statement on the record, and didn’t want to dwell on the subject, as doing so would have given Scooter a chance to equivocate.
*xyz @ 62
How many seperate times did LIbby testify? Becuase it seems to me that this is something that Fitz would return to at a later date, after Russert testified.
Is the “Wilson is declassified” thing referring to Joe or Valerie?
L: Ok, let’s keep Hadley in the dark, ’cause Deadeyes has his own National Security Staff (me and a few other neo-fools), and anyways, me and Deadeyes are really running this place anyhow.
Now don’t go tellin’ Junya or you’ll get him confused. The poor boy has got enough problems without letting him know he ain’t really in charge here.
I just used the PayPal (Easy) button below the article to donate $5.07 to FDL’s history-making, Live-blogging of the Libby Trial.
I’m going to keep donating $5.07 each week of the Trial to support the effort.
The FDL Team needs a revenue stream to keep the effort going - it’s much better than erratic calls for support.
If you’ve been giving, or are planning to give now, please consider steady, even giving to support the cause.
Where else are we going to get THIS KIND of information from people THIS COMMITTED?
Go FDL!
Happy Emptywheel Vindication Day!
tankards of schadenfreude and orange marmalade toast for the house ! and there should probably be a commemorative dog eating of the notes ceremony - I know this gorgeous Standard Poodle . . .
XYZ @57-
Could be that Fitz at that point was looking for other people to call to confirm/deny the story-
IOW, Libby says that, Fitz makes mental note to subpoena Russert.
Asks who else did you talk to..
Levine (mental note to subpoena Levine)
Levine talked to Shapiro (mental note- interview Shapiro, confirm call was made, etc…)
Swopa, you’re doing a GREAT job!
“The president is comfortable.”
Afflict the comfortable.
Question: As I understand it, Wilson reported orally on his trip, then someone somewhere in CIA produced a written memo/report based on what Wilson said when debriefed. Is that wrong or right?
JohnCasper wrote:
“I hope they play that clip of the shrub saying ‘Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.’
about nine million times tonite.”
Problem with that is that Bush had declassified the information so that it could be disseminated. That’s why he kept saying “classified information”. Rove and Cheney knew what they were doing. They’re old pros at covering their silvery, slimy tracks. They had to destroy Wilson any way they could. So, they declassified information regarding his actions and his wife. What slugs they are!
Leak.
Leak.
Leak.
The NYT was being hassled over “leaking” a story more than a year later after it was news…but these officials are actively pursuing a policy of leak, leak, leaking.
If it was “disclosure” or “releasing”, why would they call it “leaking”?
Leak.
Leak.
Leak.
“Hadley saying it’s the NIE should be leaked.”
Isn’t there as law against conspiring to leak classified information? Aren’t they supposed to declassify it before they “leaked” it?
Or can the President leak anytime he wants to…
radiofreewill @
70
Thank you!
At some point, perhaps we’ll set up an automated, recurring subscription feature. I’m thinking of putting a survey together to ask readers about their thoughts regarding funding models for what we do here.
Neil @ 62
Sulpher.
*xyz @ 62
At that point, he had what he needed–a denial from Libby that he’d told Russert, and, rather, that Russert had told Libby. I would guess preliminary reports from the FBI had indicated that confusion, and all he wanted from Scooter was that. Once he had it, he just went on to the next issue. Had he dwelt upon it, Scooter might have figured out he was in deep shit and started some weasel-wording to create some doubt that he was lying.
Having gotten the definitive statement from Libby, there was no reason to pursue it further.
Reminds me of an amusing scene from an old Pink Panther movie…
One of the amusing scenes from Peter Seller’s classic Pink Panther series of films is where he goes into a small hotel to get a room. Sellers, playing the part of the bumbling Inspector Clouseau, steps up to a desk where a room clerk is standing, and a dog is lying at his feet beside him. . . while Clouseau waited for the clerk to register him, he noticed the dog lying on the floor beside him. Clouseau asked the clerk, “Does your dog bite?” The clerk said, “No, he doesn’t.”
Clouseau bent over to pet the dog, which suddenly snapped at his hand and growled. Clouseau, quickly stepped back and said indignantly, “I thought your dog didn’t bite!” The clerk, without looking up, said, “That’s not my dog.”
Scooter is utilizing this same concept of “desceptive truth” early and often.
Jwoods @
44
I was talking about the logical argument: Wilson’s internal report about his trip substantiated the 16 words claim, but Wilson can’t be believed.
If the report actually substantiated the 16 words (Libby is claiming this even in the GJ to Fitz), then why try to distance the VP from sending Wilson and never seeing the report?
Summary: he did good work back then, but we never knew about it, and it wasn’t because of anything we did.
radiofreewill, I like the idea, but my guess is that FDL has to pay a processing charge on each $5.07 you donate. It probably doesn’t make much difference for just your donations, but if others followed suit, it might cut into what FDL is actually receiving.
I don’t know for sure and I don’t speak in any way for FDL, but I really appreciate your willingness to donate.
Jane and Swopa - enjoyed your interview from yesterday - and Jane, it was heartwarming to see you looking so well. I guess that cold weather puts some pink in your cheeks.
Can one of the legal experts give a quick summary during the lunch break? I gather from the comments that this was not a good day for Mr. I. Libby, but I can’t break out exactly how myself.
Thanks.
Cranky
I didn’t want to appear to be confirming something that I didn’t know and was hearing as if for the first time. Uh, right. Why would he think that “I don’t know that” could be taken as confirmation, especially since he claims he wasn’t talking to Russert as a source?
And of course, having learned that a CIA agent’s identity was public knowledge, he took no action to find out whether this was true or whether this created a security problem.
politicalpolyanna at 9:18 am
Thanks I had forgotten that. I’m not sure it will make much difference to Joe and Jane Sixpack. Also, I’m not sure the President has the right to “selectively” declassify. There’s been a lot of discussion about it here at FDL. Sure the President can order something declassified, but it still has to go through a process informing everyone else that it’s been declassified. Bob Novak and the Chicago Sun Times aren’t part of the chain and that’s how the CIA found out first about Valerie and later that Brewster Jennings had been “declassified.”
theExile @
85
Completely agree, you both did great!
Neil @ 62 & Mad Dog @ 69, I’m with you all the way:
Dick & Scooter: we didn’t want to let on that we were already putting this out in the hopes that Hadley & Rove would put out parallel leaks - which they did. Shazamm.
ew 14
Here. Let me take over. Just finished listening to the NPR interview with u & Byron.
Yahoo! You are f.a.n.t.a.s.t.i.c! THANKS for the link.
Anyone else want to revisit emptywheel vs. mr.hairdoo, Round 2? ‘ere…
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=7181395
Wow what a pack of lies.
1.Either Libby or Russert is lying about their conversation
2.Libby claims to have learned and then forgotten Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Cheney told Libby and Libby told many reporters within the week of this discussion with Russert.
3. Ironic that immediatly after Matthews topic is concluded, RUSSERT brings up Plame. Libby’s memory is REAL clear on this conversation but completely opaque on his conversations with other reports earlier n the week.
4. Liiby’s described his conversation with RUSSERT as denial after denial IN THE PRESENT TENSE of his knowledge about Plame. Even after Russert repeats the info, Libby responds as if he must assert he is again learning it anew.
This will be kniown as the “as if” defense.
He says “I don’t know that” and again “I don’t know that.” He dosen’t say “I didn’t know that” and then “I didn’t know that, so what do you make of it?”
He said not much he could do about Chris Matthews, and then he said did you know Ambassador Wilson’s wife works for the CIA? I remember being taken aback by that, and I said “No, I don’t know that.” Intentionally, because I didn’t want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.
So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, “I don’t know that,” and he said, “Yeah, all the reporters know that,” and I said “I don’t know that.” Again.
*xyz @
57
Scooter’s attorneys want to try and trick Fitz into coughing up the name of a witness that the defense doesn’t know about. Fitz is trying to protect the witness.
Jane Hamsher @
48
jane, not sure which one you’re refering to. is it the one with Katrina vanden Heuvel on, i think, july 10th?
if so, here’s the link - but it seems the page is gone, apparently the hardball archive doesn’t seem to go back that far.
i’ve only found snippets of the transcript (posted on other sites) so far - but i haven’t looked very hard… let me know if i’m on the right track and i’ll look further (if someone else doesn’t beat me to it).
WP article up on today’s testimony up …
WP article
Mauimom @ 79
Sulpher.
shooter’s a mouthbreather?
Swopa–great job!
In your reporting between 11:36 and 11:55, you wrote that after Russert mentioned Plame worked for the CIA, Libby said, “No I don’t know that.” The next sentence you wrote is critical:
“Intentionally, because I didn’t want him to take it as confirming it.”
Is that an EXACT quote? Because if so, I think it’s the money quote. If Libby didn’t remember at that time that he knew Plame worked for the CIA, he wouldn’t have made an