The Libby Conviction (Plame Thread #2)

[H2O Man]

"Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation. … Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather facts. It’s critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury, they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

"Agent Eckenrode doesn’t send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, ‘Just come back if you find wire fraud.’ If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that. That’s the way this investigation was conducted."
--Patrick Fitzgerald; Libby Indictment Press Conference; 10-28-05

The indictment of Scooter Libby presented the Office of the Vice President with a number of serious problems. Before the indictments were even announced, people connected to the White House Iraq Group had announced plans for "attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor." But then President Bush had told reporters that, "The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation – he’s doing it in a very dignified way."

But it wasn’t just Patrick Ftzgerald who presented problems for the OVP. In many ways, he was the third in a series of individuals in the Plame scandal investigation who were proving difficult for the administration to deal with. And this was on top of the frustrations the OVP/WHIG had with what they believed to be a surprising reaction from progressive democrats, who had embraced Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.

Progressive democrats, along with the rest of the country, are finding the jury selection for the Libby trial fascinating. The court has recognized the significance of bloggers – and the fact that much of the most important reporting on this scandal has been found on the internet – and the result is that we are treated to the impressions of a much wider range of reporters. I thank Judge Walton for honoring Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

As we prepare for the trial to swing into higher gear with the opening statements, I thought it might be interesting to look closer at one of the less "well known," but most important people involved in the trial. He is someone who the OVP/WHIG does not want you to learn about in the context of this trial. His name is Jack Eckenrode, and he was the FBI Investigator who is responsible for having the Department of Justice name a special counsel for the CIA leak case.

Last year, John Shiffman reported that , "Eckenrode, 53, grew up in the Lehigh Valley, attended Bethlehem Catholic High School, and graduated from St. Francis College in Loretto, Pa. According to an FBI biography, Eckenrode joined the bureau as a budget analyst in 1974 and became a special agent in 1983, specializing in white-collar and public corruption cases.

"In addition to the Plame case, Eckenrode has led several sensitive and high-profile cases: an FBI task force on campaign-finance infractions from the 1996 presidential election and the investigation into who leaked classified National Security Agency intercepts related to 9/11 but not translated until Sept.12. Also, he directed the FBI’s operations center in New York after the Sept. 11 attacks wiped out the bureau’s headquarters there." (Phila.’s FBI chief, part of CIA-leak case, leaving; The Philadelphia Inquirer)

Isikoff and Corn call Jack a "dogged investigator who reminded some of the Tommy Lee Jones character in The Fugitive. (Hubris; page 330) His intensity in attempting to solve crimes had unnerved a number of people: he believed that in cases involving national security, that it was sometimes necessary to force reporters to testify in front of federal grand juries, and he was also willing to target high-ranking politicians of both parties when he suspected them of wrong-doing.

In September of 2003, he was assigned to investigate the CIA’s concerns about potential illegal activities connected to the administration’s leaking Valerie Plame’s identity to several reporters, including Bob Novak. It was Brave Bob who went on Meet the Press on October 5, 2003 and snarled, "I will not give up the source. If I were to give up that name, I would leave journalism." On October 7th, Eckenrode and two other investigators met a quivering Bob Novak at his attorney’s office. They did not need to press Novak to give up his sources: they already knew that they were Dick Armitage and Karl Rove.

On October 10th, the investigators Karl Rove. He admitted that he had told Bob Novak that he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. As Murray Waas has reported, the FBI had evidence that showed phone conversations between Novak and Rove after the investigation was announced, and they suspected the two may have agreed to a "cover story." (See "Rove-Novak Call Was Concern to Leak Investigators"; 5-25-06, by Waas; also, Corn & Isikoff, page 333.)

On October 14th, Jack Eckenrode interviewed Scooter Libby. Corn & Isikoff write, "Unlike Rove, Libby didn’t say he couldn’t remember how he had first heard about Valerie Plame. He offered the FBI a specific recollection. … with this account, Libby was keeping Cheney out of the picture. In Libby’s telling, Cheney was not a party to any plot to assail a critic. But at this point Libby’s defense already had one big potential flaw. He had identified two specific reporters with whom he had spoken …."

Jack Eckenrode believed that both Rove and Libby were being dishonest. He pushed the issue. Attorney General John Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself after what John Dean called "months of dillydallying" (Worse Than Watergate; page 173) because of Eckenrode’s investigation. Ashcroft put his deputy James Comey in charge of the investigation, and Comey delegated his authority to his friend Patrick Fitzgerald. The OVP/WHIG would come to believe that Comey had betrayed them; Eckenrode, Comey, and Fitzgerald are the three people they are unable to smear.

Comey has called Fitzgerald "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor." Eckenrode had never met Mr. Fitzgerald before. Isikoff & Corn note the two met at the Justice Department in late December 2003, and Jack gave him a briefing on the case. Jack gave Patrick a huge file on the case, and then drove him to the airport. The two discussed their plans for New Year’s Eve.

"Eckenrode would be spending it with his family. Fitzgerald, a longtime bachelor, mentioned he had a date with a woman he’d been seeing. On New Year’s Day, Fitzgerald called Eckenrode at home. He wanted to talk about those (files). Fitzgerald had read them all. Having mastered the most obscure details, he started questioning Eckenrode about the interviews. He tossed out ideas – brilliant ones, Eckenrode thought – for moving the case forward." (Hubris; pages 342-3)

The grand jury investigation started shortly thereafter. Though Patrick had broken his New Year’s Eve date, he was prepared for something very important to this country. His investigation continued to be coordinated with Jack Eckenrode. The two were reported to have met with Rove’s attorney two days before the October 2005 indictments were announced.

People interested in the case will recall the opening of Mr. Fitzgerald’s press conference: "Good afternoon. I’m Pat Fitzgerald. I’m the United States attorney in Chicago, but I’m appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special Counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

"Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation."

Now, I can appreciate that progressive democrats are concerned about the potential make-up of the Libby jury. But, I would remind them, that even law-and-order folks are likely to be impressed with "Eliot Ness" and "Lt. Samuel Girard."

[aquart]

1. Who are you quoting?

Link?

[seemslikeadream]

6. himself

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

11. LOL! I don't think H2O Man can link his brain.

He's the Plame/Libby/Cheney expert around here. :)

[CatWoman]

15. But if he could

wouldn't that be a glorious thing? :)

[Catherine Vincent]

21. Oh yes!

:hi:

[Scout1071]

46. If anybody could figure out a way to do it,

it would be H2O Man.

[robertpaulsen]

73. He is quoting the wise liberal scholar Patrick O'Waterman.

Here is the link, which he put at the bottom of the OP:

http://h2oman.blogspot.com/

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

2. Pat and Jack

America needs you now.

Thanks, H2O Man!

[fooj]

7. Hell, we needed them YESTERDAY!

My tummy is in knots. These rat bastards are turning me GRAY!!!

[H2O Man]

8. It sounds like

jury selection slowed today. David Shuster (MSNBC) just reported that 9 of 11 potential jurors examined today were dismissed.

One said she believed it was likely that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity. Judge Walton asked her another question about Cheney, and she replied, "Guilty!" She was excused.

Looks like jury selection will continue on Friday!

[Patsy Stone]

19. And at this rate...

Right up until Valentine's Day. :)

[rosesaylavee]

3. Great post.

Especially liked the mental image of a 'quivering' Novak.

K & R

[H2O Man]

9. It's funny

to think about how long he went before telling the truth about confirming his sources.

[PRETZEL]

4. great post, n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Fitzgerald is laying the groundwork

for more OVP personnel to be indicted as he had an incredibly thorough investigator in Eckenrode. This is more serious than what the MSM is portraying as Fitzgerald is seeking a jury that is responsive to the rule of law and not intimidated by the OVP. That had been the veneer the OVP had used to great effect was intimidation. Fitzgerald, by example, is showing no fear and this bodes poorly as all the testimony on the record for Libby's perjury trial is the forerunner to more serious charges if the witnesses lie.

:popcorn: This shall be fascinating!

[H2O Man]

13. That's right.

These are serious men. They didn't put this much effort into investigating the case, because they thought Scooter made an honest mistake when he said Tim Russert and Matt Cooper told him about Plame.

Jack had access to Scooter's notes. And Scooter wrote a lot of notes.

A number of bloggers I respect have been commenting on the power of an opening statement. The prosecutor that comes to mind for me is Vince Bugliosi; Vince said that he began working on his outline when he first started investigating a case. I think that DUers are in for a real treat next week, when Mr. Fitzgerald delivers the word. I'll bet even Scooter will be taking notes.

[Pithy Cherub]

17. That opening will be powerful, spare and deadly.

Fitzgerald is not tipping his hand, but Scooter is trying to pre-empt Fitzgerald by relying on of all people Cheney to butress his claims. Fitz's opening will be the subject of much debate amongst Libby's lawyers as to whether they can afford to leave him on or off the witness stand. Scooter is going to have to rely on himself and that opening does double duty on negotiating a plea as to whether Team Libby wants to chance it with a jury.

:popcorn:

[H2O Man]

20. They know.

Team Libby is fully aware of how good Mr. Fitzgerald is. I think it's interesting that Joseph Tate, one of the best legal minds in the country (why did he sign on to help Scooter?), has called Jack Eckenrode, "very fair and very thorough -- what an agent should be" in an article about Jack's role in the investigation that led to Scooter's indictment. (The Philadelphia Inquirer; 2-16-06)

[riderinthestorm]

31. Will you speculate on if you believe any more indictments will come out of Libby's trial?

:evilgrin:

And if so, who?

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

44. That is THE question.

I can say this: Jack knew from the first time he interviewed Libby that he was lying to cover up VP Cheney's role in the operation against the Wilsons. And I believe that Mr. Fitzgerald recognizes this, too. But to charge the VP with a crime is a very, very serious move, and neither man would advocate doing so, unless they were fully confident of getting a conviction.

Will this trial make clearer what difficulties that a criminal case against Cheney would face? Could it expose the VP to charges that he participated in a conspiracy? Those are interesting things to consider. I do believe that by mid-February, a far larger number of American citizens will believe the Congress should impeach Dich Cheney. I think the reporting that surrounds the trial -- and I include the positive influence of bloggers -- will expose more than enough to justify impeachment.

[kohodog]

50. Agnew resigned before Nixon.

Who will be the next Gerald Ford?

[H2O Man]

51. One suspects

that large brown stain on McCain's nose is a sign that he is ready to assume the position.

[kohodog]

52. lol!!

I was thinking Condi might be sucking up to Bush. But isn't W likely to find someone from poppy's group like James Baker?

[H2O Man]

53. Baker, like Scowcroft,

views George W. with contempt. And Brent is Woodward's source for this bit about Condi, from page 420 of "State of Denial":

""Even the president's father had confided that he was unhappy with Rice. 'Condi is a disappointment, isn't she?' the former president had offered, adding, "she's not up to the job'."

They might think that Hagel suits their needs, at this time.

[Patsy Stone]

55. I fear it's Joe Lieberman

:scared:

[krispos42]

90. [wilhelm scream]

Don't say such evil things!

(and you do know what a Wilhelm scream is, you just don't know it. More infohere.)

[ms liberty]

68. And I'm soooo looking forward to it!!!

I agree with you about Vincent Bugliosi...IIRC, he also worked on his closing argument throughout the whole trial too, taking advantage of each days new information and incorporating it into his closing.

[Me.]

10. Fantastic Background

Some questions starting with, wondering if I am correct in that Eckenrode has now retired?

Also:

“who leaked classified National Security Agency intercepts related to 9/11 but not translated until Sept.12.”

Was this ever resolved?


“If I were to give up that name, I would leave journalism”

Why didn’t he?


“they suspected the two may have agreed to a "cover story.”

Why then wasn’t Novak indicted, did he do a deal?


As for Rove, I am one of those who thinks that he's done a deal and as Jerrilyn Merritt states in one of her pieces, we may hear the results/details of that once the Libby case is completed, though she believes whatever the deal was, it doesn’t include jail time, probably probation. Also, if Rove made a deal, wouldn’t that have to be disclosed to the defense, and, isn’t it possible that even though he is listed as a defense witness in places/blogs the only reason to call him would be to impeach him, which makes it somewhat tricky for him to be a defense witness because I believe and you can’t impeach your own witness. Also, the defense surely knows that he is the guy who helped FitzG. access all those emails?

[leveymg]

22. An answer to some of those great questions.

Some questions starting with, wondering if I am correct in that Eckenrode has now retired?

HADN'T HEARD THAT, BUT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.


Also:

“who leaked classified National Security Agency intercepts related to 9/11 but not translated until Sept.12.”

Was this ever resolved?

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE FAMOUS. "THE MATCH IS LIT" CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOH. ATTA AND KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED (KSM), THE ALLEGED 9/11 MASTERMIND, THAT WAS PURPORTEDLY NOT TRANSLATED UNTIL 09-12-01. KSM WAS CAPTURED IN PAKISTAN ABOUT 15 MONTHS LATER, AND HE WAS THEN TAKEN BY THE CIA, WHICH INTERROGATED HIM AT GREAT LENGTH.


“If I were to give up that name, I would leave journalism”

Why didn’t he?

I DON'T CONSIDER HIM TO BE A JOURNALIST, ANYMORE - DO YOU? HE CEASED HIS COLUMN FOR THE CHICAGO TRIB FOR A WHILE, BUT I BELIEVE HE'S BACK.


“they suspected the two may have agreed to a "cover story.”

Why then wasn’t Novak indicted, did he do a deal?

THAT'S WHAT MANY OF US HAVE CONCLUDED. SAME FOR ROVE AND A COUPLE DOZEN OTHER MATERIAL WITNESSES.


As for Rove, I am one of those who thinks that he's done a deal and as Jerrilyn Merritt states in one of her pieces, we may hear the results/details of that once the Libby case is completed, though she believes whatever the deal was, it doesn’t include jail time, probably probation. Also, if Rove made a deal, wouldn’t that have to be disclosed to the defense, and, isn’t it possible that even though he is listed as a defense witness in places/blogs the only reason to call him would be to impeach him, which makes it somewhat tricky for him to be a defense witness because I believe and you can’t impeach your own witness. Also, the defense surely knows that he is the guy who helped FitzG. access all those emails?

YES. IF ROVE IS A COOPERATING WITNESS, RELEVANT PARTS OF HIS TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE BEEN REVEALED TO THE DEFENSE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEFENSE IS UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO ANNOUNCE THAT TO THE PUBLIC. FINALLY, SOME OF WHAT ROVE HAD TO SAY -- PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE ROLE OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, WOULDN'T BE REVEALED TO THE DEFENSE.

[Me.]

30. Interesting Thoughts

What I'm wondering about the intercepts is if they ever found out who leaked them.

As for Rove, I wasn't expecting the defense to make an announcement, but I have seen him listed as a defense witness and wonder how this can be as it doesn't make sense. I am thinking particularly of him being credited with helping Fitzgerald find the hundreds of emails that helped Fitzgerald make his case. My understanding is that the defense can only impeach Rove (which they would surely want to do) if he is called as a prosecution witness and only on the subjects the prosecutor raises. As for the extent of discovery in this case, I can't say, but wonder just how much Fitzgerald was obligated to turn over.

Just heard on Hardball they may have a witness who will testify to impeach Cheney's testimony, and that Cheney's role in this investigation may be more critical than most have reported.

[leveymg]

32. Reply below

Don't know if the FBI ever determined the source of that leak.

One may speculate that Libby's lawyers may have named Rove as a cooperating witness because that was Karl's preference. Karl's testimony is likely to be supportive of Libby, and Karl will be highly coached on his answers. Karl wants to keep the patina of being a team player, after all.

Karl can be deposed either way, as a friendly or a hostile witness.

Wonder who that witness to impeach Cheney might be?

[Me.]

34. Not Sure I Agree About Rove Being Supportive Of Libby

Primarily because ever since Rove read (article by Corn in the Nation) that what they were doing was illegal, he was furious with the OVP, and there have been tensions ever since. Also, I believe that Rove (as potentially part of a deal) gave up Libby and pointed Fitzgerald in the directions of the missing emails which was not in the least helpful to Libby.

Mere speculation on my part has to do with a pardon for Libby which his high powered pub friends lobbied the president. It was not and is not in *'s best interest to give such a pardon, but I also wondered if Karl whispered in his ear that it was a bad idea. As I say, sheer speculation here.

[H2O Man]

41. One of my favorite parts

of Wilson's book is found on page 444:

"Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration."

[H2O Man]

42. PS:

Perhaps we should add a quote from page 443:

"According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles."

[Me.]

33. As For Eckenrode

You're quite right, it doesn't make any difference to his testimony if he is or is not retired, which it turns out he is,

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/weis052406.htm

However, just as with football where they provide color, I find it helpful and interesting to know all we can about the people involved. The nuances are intriguing, and while I do not question Mr. Eckenrode's integrity or honesty, I am delighted to know that as he is retired he has nothing to lose here and they cannot hurt him. I also found it interesting, in my reading, that it was put very strongly that he retired rather than resigned.

[H2O Man]

39. I believe he

retired almost a year ago, to direct the forensic services for KPMG.

[H2O Man]

25. Good questions.

When investigators and prosecutors sit down to decide what direction to go in, they look at things including what crimes might have been commited, and if they would be likely to get a conviction if they indict. Now let's look at that in two instances in this investigation.

The first is Rove and Novak. The FBI was pretty sure that these two reviewed their story, which is really a "no-no." The problem is that the two are the only witnesses to their conversation. Neither made notes that indicated they agreed to lie.

When men like Eckenrode look at a Bob Novak, they see a pathetic troll who was willingly used by forces in the administration. Was the idea of charging him ever brought up? Yes, of course. But not to any serious extent, despite the public's dislike of him. There was a reduced chance of conviction, because of lack of evidence. And everything Bob had to offer, he pretty much did, other than the truth about Rove.

Now for Karl. It is enough to say he was in front of the grand jury many times, updating and adding to his story. Several times, on the Plame Threads, I have quoted what Mark Felt told Bob Woodweird in the Watergate days, about how investigators "turn" suspects into witnesses. In a 2004 Plame Thread, I noted that I believed Karl had the personality type that a good investigator or prosecutor would target in this manner.

A similar situation seems to be discussions between Libby and Cheney. I do not think that either Eckenrode or Fitzgerald believe that they have been told the truth about all the details these fellows discussed. I think it's far more significant, in terms of the Plame scandal, than the Rove-Novak discussion in question. I think it may still be on the table.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. 'I believed Karl had the personality type

that a good investigator or prosecutor would target in this manner.'

Yep, he's a weasel. :rofl:

[Patsy Stone]

43. Fitzgerald is quite used to dealing with the Mob

This is no different. There are Capos and Soldiers and Stooges and Dons. These guys are experienced in organized crime, so they were a step ahead before they began. This is nothing but just another bunch of wiseguys to put away for Fitz and his team.

[H2O Man]

45. I agree.

Though in the past, the mob was known for an honor system that is clearly lacking in this administration.

[Patsy Stone]

54. True

...and I never meant to insult the Mob.

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. More like Toad of Toad Hall. All mouth and trousers.

[Annces]

12. Twelve labors of Hercules

""The second labor of Hercules was to kill the Lernean Hydra. From the murky waters of the swamps near a place called Lerna, the hydra would rise up and terrorize the countryside. A monstrous serpent with nine heads, the hydra attacked with poisonous venom. Nor was this beast easy prey, for one of the nine heads was immortal and therefore indestructible.""


It has been interesting seeing how jurors are selected.

[CatWoman]

14. you know, wingnuts like to taunt and claim that "Fitzmas was a bust"

just because Karl Rove got off the hook.

Fuck Rove.

We have bigger fish to fry, and I'm looking for Fritz to scale and filet a couple of them right before he throws them in the deep fryer.

P.S. -- I wear a size XXL :)

K&R

[bleever]

16. Amusing bit from Schuster's blog yesterday:

This is day #2 of jury selection, and it has become another bad day for a few of America’s elite universities. This morning, a young woman with degrees from Swarthmore and Emory University said she had no opinion about the Bush Administration’s case for war with Iraq. She also said she never watches the news or reads the paper, and said she would consider Vice President Cheney “a perfect stranger.” Yesterday, a potential juror with two degrees from Northwestern, including one in journalism, said she thought she knew something about the CIA leak case but “couldn’t recall anything.” When asked about the types of stories she covered as a graduate school journalist, that woman repeatedly said, “I don’t really remember...just stuff at the court, stuff at the city council.” Asked what else? She said, “Other stuff.” Asked to be more specific, she said “I don’t remember. It was a bunch of stuff.” This exchange prompted endless teasing of one of my journalism colleagues covering the trial who is a Northwestern graduate. “Stuff happens,” noted one of the other reporters here.

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/

[H2O Man]

24. His blog

is a fun and important read. I look forward to seeing him on MSNBC tonight, too.

[Recursion]

18. Fitz said something very interesting at the indictment

Which unfortunately I can't find a link for. Somebody gave him the "So it's just a coverup not the underlying leak?" question and he said something like, "When a prosecutor has discovered a crime his responsibility is to effect a conviction -- it's not as important which underlying statute is used to effect it." I find it very interesting that he said that about this.

[H2O Man]

23. It was one of the most

important things he said, yet it is one of the least understood among corporate media journalists. I thank you for bringing it up.

The question was this: "The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identity of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?"

Fitzgerald: "That's a good question .... In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is. So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

"But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminial case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest. ...."

[malaise]

26. Great thread

but please put the link for Thread 1.

[Me.]

35. Here You Go - Thread #1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?%20az=view_all&address=364x3130523

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Well now, I feel MUCH better! Great post, H2O Man!

How does Armitage come into play in all this? I know Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice, but Armitage admitted he is the one who told Novak about Plame. Will Armitage have any impact in this trial or are the Libby, Cheney, and KKKRove lies going to ruin them because now Fitz has dug so deep he has much more dirt than he ever would have had, had they told the truth.

I saw Fineman (Newsweek (?) on Tweety the other night and he said that Libby's excuse has been that he had more important things on his mind at the time of the leak and that's why he didn't remember the conversations with Russert and Matthews. He also said that Libby said Russert told him about Plame, but Russert says Libby called him to tell him about Plame. Fineman also said that IF Libby uses the "I had more important things on my mind at the time" defense, that opens the door for Fitz to explore just what exactly those 'more important' things were...which leads to Iraq, yellow cake, WMD lies, and many more secrets the administration doesn't want to be explored. What's your take on what Fineman is saying? Does he make sense to you?

I am so looking forward to this trial. I wish it was going to be aired on TEEVEE.

[rosesaylavee]

38. It's not going to be televised?

aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

[myrna minx]

28. Thank you once again, H20 Man.

I can't wait for the opening statements. :-)

[annabanana]

36. "When last we visited Patrick Fitzgerald. . . . . . "

Excellent update. Everyone is up to speed and ready to catch the next episode in this epic drama.
Thank you H2Oman!

[H2O Man]

40. Glad to

be able to add to the discussion.

[porphyrian]

37. Oh yeah, I'll kick that. - n/t

[CatWoman]

47. a kick for

the evening crowd

:kick:

[Scout1071]

48. K&R

[Scout1071]

49. K&R

[Tatiana]

56. Kick for H20's tireless work.

It's a longshot, but as I think Fitzgerald has enough evidence to secure a conviction, the real question is will Libby finger bigger fish to save himself? As I understand it, he's facing a maximum of 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine.

If things start to go south, will he be willing to cut a deal and give up Cheney (who Fitzgerald could also possibly indict if he gets enough cooperation from Libby)?

"We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."

-- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald

[H2O Man]

57. Incarceration is no joke.

Judith Miller thought she would produce a "Soul on Ice" from her time in jail. It's not what happened. The harsh, cold reality of life behind bars overwhelmed her.

Scooter isn't facing time in a country club. He has to be experiencing a type of fear and a degree of anxiety he has never known before. Fear does strange things to a man, especially late in the night.

I'm not a fan of our prison/jail system. I take no pleasure in the idea of sending people to prison. But people like Scooter have to be removed from positions of power in America: they have proven that they are incapable of resisting the urge to engage in gross abuses of power -- things like lying about yellow cake from Niger, and like exposing a CIA NOC. Thousands of people are dead because of Scooter Libby's crimes. Thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and we really have no idea how many Iraqi people have died or been wounded. There are consequences.

[cassiepriam]

58. The most important question of all:

Who is the girl Fitz took out on New Year's eve?
Where did they go, what did she wear?
And what kind of relationship do they have??

When you write the book H2O man please include all the details!
Enquiring minds want to know :)

OK, kidding aside, very nice work here H2O man!

I love the fact that there are public servants who actually
understand that their job is to serve the public, not the power/money structure.

[Me.]

59. Did He Take Her Out

Or did he cancel on the poor thing?

[cassiepriam]

61. Canceling a date on New Year's Eve??? Could Fitz be that cruel??

[Me.]

70. What Do You Want To Bet

She forgave him?

[cassiepriam]

83. Just because he is good looking, famous, and a sweetheart

is no reason to let him get away with murder.

OK, maybe it is :)

[H2O Man]

62. It's funny:

Corn & Isikoff note on page 343 of "Hubris" that when the media heard about this, a "Fitzgerald spokesman .... denied that the prosecutor had 'stood up' his date."

Perhaps more interesting information is found on the following pages, where Chapter 18 begins:

"When Deputy Attorney General Comey compared Pat Fitzgerald to Eliot Ness of The Untouchables fame, he wasn't joking. The forty-three-year-old prosecutor had gotten his job as U.S. attorney because a Republican senatorhad been looking for a no-nonsense, non-political crime fighter. .... The senator called around, looking for the best assistant U.S. attorney in the country. Both FBI Director and Mary Jo White, the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney in New York, gave him the same answer: Patrick Fitzgerald. The senator interviewed the prosecutor, and his search was over: 'You could just see, without question, he was an incredible straight shooter, a real straight arrow,' the senator recalled.

"Not everyone wanted the prosecutor from New York. House Speaker Dennis Hassert ... didn't want (Fitzgerald); he had his own candidate .... He complained to the White House. ... Months later, (when the republican senator) was meeting with Karl Rove about another U.S. attorney selection .... the White House political advisor started yelling at him about the Patrick Fitzgerald pick. You got great headlines for yourself, Rove told him, but you ticked off the base." (pages 344-345)

[cassiepriam]

84. H2Oman, I know Fitz's love life is none of my business, but

what the heck really happened? The spokesman denied
a no show. But did Fitz cancel the date at the last minute?
Or end up going?

Geesh H20 man, don't you think when you write the book on the trial
you will want to jazz it up with Fitz's love life info?
People like that kind of thing :)

And keep your eye open for Plame's beauty secrets.
She is a knock out.

[H2O Man]

85. Ha!

Of course, we can only speculate, but Jack did give Mr. Fitzgerald a huge binder full of 302s ..... if I were to guess, I'd say it is very likely that Mr. Fitzgerald started reading them in the early afternoon, and didn't focus on anything else until about 4 am on January 1.

[cassiepriam]

86. A binder of 302's doesn't sound as good as dinner, dancing and champaign.

His girl friend could not have been too happy, trial of a lifetime or not.

Of course Fitz is a quick study. I say he was able to read them
all and still go out for the evening.

[Me.]

60. Opening Statements Delayed

“WASHINGTON - A federal judge is putting more potential jurors on standby in the
CIA leak trial because so many people have been dismissed, mostly because of strong feelings against the Bush administration and the
Iraq war.
ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton had hoped to have a 12-person jury picked Thursday so opening statements could be held Monday. After three days of hearings, however, Walton did not even have a pool of 36 impartial people from which to choose the final jury. He pushed opening statements back to Tuesday.

Attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby have been asking pointed questions about each juror's political views. Several have been dismissed because they said they could not set aside their opinions on
President Bush, Vice President
Dick Cheney or the war in Iraq.” cont

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

[H2O Man]

63. I anticipate

a meeting between the Judge, Team Libby, and Mr. Fitzgerald before the jury selection begins this morning. Team Libby has been rigid in their demands that politics not play a role in the trial -- and they are correct. Libby is on trial for lying to the FBI investigators and to the grand jury. But the defense has been saying that the trial will be about politics when they talk to potential jurors. I've read that Mr. Fitzgerald finally addressed this yesterday afternoon. Ted apparently agreed to step back from this approach, but I am sure that Judge Walton is going to address it, firmly, out of public view.

[H2O Man]

72. From LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby19jan19,1,3517367.story?coll=la-headlines-nation


Jury selection goes slowly in Libby trial
Opening statements are postponed in the CIA leak case.
From the Associated Press
January 19, 2007


WASHINGTON — The prosecutor took a more aggressive stance and jury selection slowed so much Thursday in the perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby that the judge postponed opening statements until Tuesday.

Libby, a former aide to President Bush and chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is charged with perjury and obstruction of the investigation into the disclosure in 2003 of the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her husband, ex-ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, claimed that the Bush administration lied about intelligence to get approval to invade Iraq.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald successfully objected to the way Libby's defense lawyers were questioning prospective jurors. The lawyers had been asking for their opinions of top Bush administration officials and whether the officials lied to push the nation into the Iraq war.

"The jury will not be asked to render a verdict on the war or what they think of the war," Fitzgerald said. ......

[Me.]

74. Beautiful

There's also this:

"Fitzgerald also changed his own questioning to put Libby's attorneys, Theodore V. Wells Jr. and William Jeffress, more on the defensive.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton had hoped to begin opening statements Monday. But by day's end, only 30 potential jurors had been qualified.

And questions arose in nonpublic bench conferences about two who had been deemed qualified earlier; Walton said he would rule today on whether they must be excused."

So was he holding his powder dry for the first 2 days? Love how they are re-visiting those two jurors, I bet we can guess which 2 they are.

[H2O Man]

75. I also think

it's interesting that David Shuster thinks it is likely that the witness who will expose some of VP Cheney's lies is an Agency briefer, rather than Ms. Martin. I always think it's worth listening -- closely -- to David's opinion.

Maybe it'll be both!

[Me.]

76. A Double Down?

To put it in terms Cheney would be familiar with.

I too put credence in Schuster, he has been watching this story so closely. He was jumping up and down last May presumably because he knew something we didn't. We still don't know why, but maybe he'll get to tell the whole story when this trial is over. Now there's someone who should write a book about this case.

[Alamom]

64. Thank you, H2O Man. Could we be on the verge of seeing the

first of (several) "TRIALS of the CENTURY".........


With much optimism, I hope so and pray JUSTICE is quick and fierce for all who have seen themselves above the law, the Constitution, the people of America and the world.



Thank you again for your unending work. THRILLING & THRILLED comes to mind everytime I read this thread with completely credible information, facts and answers to all questions presented.

[H2O Man]

65. There may be two

of the more important trials in our nation's history in the first 6 months of 2007: first, the Libby trial, and second, the trial of two defendants in the neocon/AIPAC espionage. I think that both involve exactly what you describe: people who have no respect for the US Constitution, nor our democratic institutions.

[rosesaylavee]

66. Will this trial

be televised on C-span? (Please say yes)

[H2O Man]

67. I had hoped so.

Federal courts do not allow for that. I know that Judge Walton was hoping to make the trial as open to the public as possible. Allowing bloggers in is a very significant, and indeed progressive move in that direction.

I'm confident that the variety of talented journalists there will make it the next best thing to being there. And I am equally confident that the Democratic Underground's "Plame Threads" will provide us with analysis that will be as good as any found anywhere on the planet.

[rosesaylavee]

78. That is very disappointing.

I was all set to watch PK deliver his opening remarks. :(

What bloggers are they allowing in? Will NPR be able to broadcast from the court? Is there a place on the web you can point to that would post the day-to-day info as it gets underway?

[H2O Man]

80. If you google

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 242, you will find Judge Walton's 5 page Order, filed on January 10, 2007, regarding the way the court will run. It includes information on the actual court, and another viewing room for the overflow audience. (I do not have the link handy. Oh, for the days when we had the updated Plame research thread!)

[rosesaylavee]

81. You are kind.

Thanks.

edit to add link to above mentioned doc: http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/libbytrialorder.pdf

[Alamom]

69. Thank you. n/t

[Me.]

71. The Libby Guilty Verdict Should Be In

Just about the time the AIPAC trial begins. Here's hoping Judge Ellis doesn't screwn that one up

[robertpaulsen]

77. Great to see The Plame Threads back!

I anticipate the 2007 edition to be extra juicy!

Thanks for all the info on Jack Eckenrode. I especially loved the Samuel Girard comparison. Recalling the movie, I can just picture his interview of Scooter:

LIBBY: I didn't out Valerie Plame!

ECKENRODE: I don't care!

Does anyone know if Eckenrode was questioning Cheney when he was brought before Fitzgerald? I'm sure he prepped Fitz with a lot of good questions, but I'm wondering if he was in the room, bringing the heat.

[H2O Man]

79. Mr. Eckenrode

was present when both Cheney and Bush were questioned.

[H2O Man]

87. National Intelligence Estimate .....

A few people have expressed some interest in the "debate" about the NIE information, and how it relates to Mr. Libby's upcoming convictions. This is something that has been a topic of debate as recently as a January 3, 2007, Document 229-1 (Reply of I. Lewis Libby in Support of His Proposed Jury Instructions). Section VI, titled "Mr. Libby's Proposed Jury Instruction No. 7: National Intelligence Estimate," can be found on pages 8 to 9.

In it, Team Libby requests that Judge Walton not allow Mr. Fitzgerald to introduce evidence -- evidence from Mr. Libby's mouth -- not be allowed into evidence. And what evidence might that be? Any "evidence regarding pre-July 8 disclosures..."

And what has Mr. Fitzgerald said in regard to this evidence? Let's look back to a November 14, 2006 document that he filed with the Court, shall we?

In it, Mr. Fitzgerald notes that he is not going to argue that Mr. Libby's release of classified NIE information was illegal. Scooter isn't on trial for that. However, he notes that he wants the option to counter any suggestion by Team Libby should they argue that all of Scooter's disclosures of classified NIE information had been clearly authorized by his superiors.

"The timing of the declassification relative to defendant's disclosure of the NIE to reporters is unclear. The government should not be muzzled from raising any questions about the declassification's timing. ...."

What is at issue, which is largely unknown to the general public, is a couple discussions Scooter had with two reporters -- Bob Woodward and David Sanger -- in which Scooter would later admit he was "unsure" if the NIE information he shared was declassified by his bosses.

"Defendant testified that he recalled a 'go-stop-go' sequence in discussions concerning authorization to disclose the NIE, that is, he was authorized to disclose, then he was instructed to hold off, and then later told again to disclose ..... The government simply wishes to make clear that it cannot affirmatively agree that each time defendant disclosed the NIE, he was authorized to do so."

There are, of course, two ways to view this. I happen to agree 100% with Mr. Fitzgerald. I recognize that others have the right to believe that Team Libby is correct, and that testimony that Scooter gave the grand jury should not be presented to the jury in his criminal case.

[H2O Man]

88. Also:

On this blog, look down about 7 comments ......

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/18/36260.aspx

[Me.]

89. Pertinent...To Me

1.Mr. Fitzgerald notes that he is not going to argue that Mr. Libby's release of classified NIE information was illegal. Scooter isn't on trial for that.

2.However, he notes that he wants the option to counter any suggestion by Team Libby should they argue that all of Scooter's disclosures of classified NIE information had been clearly authorized by his superiors.

3. "Defendant testified that he recalled a 'go-stop-go' sequence in discussions concerning authorization to disclose the NIE, that is, he was authorized to disclose, then he was instructed to hold off, and then later told again to disclose .....

[H2O Man]

126. Right.

Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney "wanted all the facts out." That was the message that Libby said that Cheney gave him when they discussed Ambassador Wilson's op-ed.

[Me.]

127. Which Get Us Back, Once Again

To the instructions Cheney wrote on the copy of Wilson's op-ed.

[H2O Man]

91. Is anyone watching Hardball?

David Shuster just dropped a bomb.

[Pithy Cherub]

92. My jaw is still open!

:wow: What did you think?

[H2O Man]

94. Democracy

is on the move.

[Pithy Cherub]

97. Shuster is on it

and if that witness is on the record, Cheney is going to be impeached on the stand in the first trial featuring of a sitting VP as witness in American history. Fitzgerald is not playing and these guys may have actually underestimated him.

H20 Man you must have a daily thread! Ya just gotta!
:popcorn:

[H2O Man]

100. I'm hoping that we can

have a good series of "new" Plame Threads. I have a TON of information that I haven't posted yet, and I think that DUers are going to enjoy it. I've seen a number of the old gang on other Plame-related threads, and am hoping that they will participate on the ones I start, as well.

In 2004, a few of us said this scandal went directly to the Office of Vice President Cheney. We knew that there would not be immediate gratification .... this is the most complex set of scandals our nation has faced. But we are on track.

[Pithy Cherub]

107. We need a recap complete

with a bibliography that are must reads to ensure everyone catches up. Team Libby's timing of waiting until after the midterms for this is looking as a terrible decision the closer they get to trial. Best part is, the political atmosphere is now so bad a pardon would spur a certain congressional action...

Cheney is being coached/prepped by whom?

[janx]

93. What did he say?

I'll watch it in an hour, but I'm dying to know!

[H2O Man]

95. Shuster

seems to have reason to believe that a prosecution witness -- an Agency briefer -- will testify that he told VP Cheney about Wilson's Niger trip, and about Plame's job, a full month before the July articles.

[janx]

96. Holy cow!

Agency as in CIA?

July articles as in Novak?

[H2O Man]

101. Yes .....

and yes, the Wilson and Novak articles were 7-6 and 7-14.

[janx]

103. I think immediately of the notes Cheney wrote on the

newspaper article. Covering his backside must be second nature to him. If this witness is correct, Cheney wrote those notes to try and convince people that the article was the first he'd heard of Wilson's trip. They also served as a basis for talking points.

[Me.]

98. So Much For Boondoggle

with a question mark

[H2O Man]

102. Exactly.

As I have said, Cheney's notes on the edges of the Wilson op-ed were not so much his sincere questions, as they were his outlining the approach they would take.

[janx]

104. Ha Ha--see my post 103.

Those of us who suspected as much previously were RIGHT! :rofl:

[H2O Man]

105. I saw it!

Soon, more Americans are going to hear what DUers have known for years.

[rosesaylavee]

99. How about we take up a collection here at DU

to fund you being there in the courtroom to feed us daily reports?

What do you suppose that would cost... and I guess we should ask if you have the time to do so? :)

Edit to add smiley

[H2O Man]

106. More from David ....

Here is a quote from David Shuster from last night on Hardball:

"But once this trial starts, Chris, of course, a central figure not only will be Scooter Libby, whose testimony, of course, is going to be contradicted. But there some strong indications today that Vice President Cheney, that his testimony offered so far in this case, might also be contradicted.

During questions of a prospective juror, Scooter Libby‘s own attorney asked the prospective juror about his own bias about the vice president and said look, Vice President Cheney is going to testify in this case. How would you feel if another witness came forward, took the witness stand, and completely contradicted him? Would you have bias against the vice president in favor of this other person?

Now, it‘s quite possible this was simply a hypothetical, but then there was a second example today. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in questioning another prospective juror, expressed some admiration for the office of the vice presidency. He said, would you have any problem if counsel—if me—conducted an aggressive cross-examination of Vice President Cheney about his testimony?

And then the third example, Chris, was that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mentioned two CIA briefers, one of whom we know had briefed the vice president‘s office about the Wilsons, in asking jurors various names of people that they recognize in the case. There was one prospective juror who was bounced who worked at the CIA, so Fitzgerald tipped his hand about some of the CIA witnesses."

[vickitulsa]

108. Question: During the course of the trial, might not some new avenues of

questioning be opened up by things witnesses say that were not anticipated?

We often see this sort of thing in courtroom dramas, but as a sometime legal assistant I knew it to happen in real life as well. In fact, one criminal defense attorney I worked for was always on pins and needles during a trial because he could never be certain every one of his witnesses (including the defendant) would refrain from bringing up the very things he'd worked so hard to get a judge to preclude from discussion at the trial.

Once a witness mentions something on the record, it can then be pursued by the prosecution, right? And whole new cans of worms can be opened that way, as I understand it.

This is something I've wondered about regarding the Libby trial every since he was first indicted. Clearly from what you, H2O Man, and others have said about the jury selection process, Team Libby is very concerned about the "political" directions this trial might take once it gets under way.

It strikes me that certain other parties in the OVP or elsewhere in the Bu$h administration might be very worried that things will come out during the trial that could lead directly to more indictments.

Do you think there is much potential for this?

[H2O Man]

109. Very good point.

When the defense calls a witness, Mr. Fitzgerald & Co are limited, to an extent, to covering areas brought up by the defense's direct. But small doors often open into large rooms. It is fair to say that we should not be surprised by the things that will come out in this trial.

[janx]

110. Now I have a question, sort of along the same lines.

This trial is to ascertain whether or not Libby committed perjury. That is the extent of it. However, if perjury was committed, there must have been a motive. That's where Cheney comes in.

Most of us are well aware of the above.

Within the confines of this trial, though, is it not impossible to indict Cheney for leaking Plame's name, since that is not the purpose of the trial? Wouldn't that require another trial? (I'm fairly ignorant regarding law.)

[Pithy Cherub]

112. There is the rub...

Scooter's defense is predicated on how "busy, busy, busy" he was with national security items. His witnesses need to buttress his claims. Cheney says he had him busy doing these things. And the door cracks open for a vigorous cross examination. Libby is on trial fo lying and so Fitz's role is to prove it and impeach his witnesses, including the VP. If in an overbroad explanation they open the door well based on sworn testimony, Fitz can reconvene a GJ should evidence arise at trial. Next, Team Libby had every opportunity to plead and they are betting the farm on witnesses that have a certain element of stature on the stand and if Fitz ruins that well, it also messes up Libby for appeals later saying he did not get a fair trial or error or whatever rationale he and his leagle beagles can derive.

If Fitz gets a conviction, then the only negotiable stance Libby has is to throw himself at Fitzgerald for a reduction in time or recommendation from Fritz IF Libby provides the link that ties his bosses to the outing of Plame. Libby is Cheney's firewall.

[H2O Man]

113. Right.

And there's another thing to keep in mind: Libby is on trial for {a} lying to the FBI investigators, and {b} then lying in a court hearing. In the investigation, he was not under oath; in the grand jury, he was. The charges for each offense are the same, including potential penalties.

Now, for Cheney. He has spoken to the investigators (Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Eckenrode). They suspect that he was no more honest than Libby. Now, he is going to be testifying in court. The first time, he wasn't under oath; this time, he will be.

There is a pattern.

[robertpaulsen]

111. Could someone post links to the blogs covering Libby's rotisserie roast?

I'd like to have them bookmarked for daily reference.

[Annces]

114. Someone named Pachacutec is blogging from the trial for Firedoglake

He will be back on Monday blogging.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/18/libby-trial-day-three-is-the-jury-selection-process-fair/#comments

[robertpaulsen]

118. Thanks!

I will be tuning in!

[H2O Man]

115. New ruling .....

Reporter's Notes Make Way Into Leak Case
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

January 19, 2007, 6:11 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge said Friday that he likely would allow NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell's notes to be used in the CIA leak trial, setting up another potential fight between journalists and the court in the case.

Mitchell's notes on her conversation with former White House aide "Scooter" Libby have been under subpoena for nearly a year, but U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton had ruled that, because Mitchell was unlikely to testify at trial, her notes would not be released.

Attorneys for I. Lewis Libby said in court Friday that they planned to call Mitchell as a defense witness during his perjury and obstruction trial. Opening arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

.......
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-trial-notes,0,1247916.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[janx]

116. The only thing I can remember about Mitchell re this case is

the offhanded comment that she made on the air (and subsequently redacted) about how "everybody knew" Plame worked for the CIA.

Am I missing something?

[H2O Man]

117. "Hubris" pages 296-7 ....

"The Novak column had not received as much attention as some in the White House had hoped. Days after its appearance, Bush aides, including Rove, were still pointing reporters to the article and its disclosure about Valerie Wilson. On Sunday, July 20, Andrea Mitchell of NBC called Wilson and said that she was being told by sources in the White House that 'the real story here is ... Wilson and his wife.' Mitchell later told Newsweek she said to Wilson, 'I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that was the real story.' She didn't say to whom she had spoken."

[janx]

119. Thanks. Hey. Look what I found:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/picking_a_jury_.html

:rofl:

[lovuian]

121. AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME work H20 Man

:woohoo: D Day is finally approaching

My feelings on this momentous trial
1. Fitz you better show me sumthin like a conviction or you will go down as the WORST Independent Counsel seen in American History...(whatcha want your legacy to be??? worse than your former Independant Counsel Ken Starr he found the president had a Blowjob)Conviction like someone go to freakin jail... and you better get CHENEY... if you don't your legacy will NOT be pretty
PS I hope your reading this Hon your a cutie and I have total respect SHOW ME A CONVICTION

2. For people who are in dillusion land for lets see like 6 years now that Cheney is leaving that Whitehouse... let me pop that bubble... He is only leaving by being carried out...
He has taken over this country and he has no intention of leaving his castle
Cheney isn't stupid he knows he leaves he goes to jail...He would destroy Congress America and Whitehouse before that happens... he is one scary dude...unfortunately for him the people dedicated to him like Libby are running for the hills...I would like to warn Negroponte this guy shot his friend in the face

3. Libby isn't going to jail for Cheney be assured... I'm looking for Miller Novak Cheney Rove Powell Rice Ari Fleischer the whole Bush team to be exposed as traitor to this country which they are everyone of them... Plus I hope Fitzgerald explores the closing of Plames company and the exposure of hundreds of agents to danger and death..

4. Fitz needs this to remind the jurors that this exposure of an agent probably resulted in murder of agents...Plus I hope this exposes the Lie of WMD of Iraq so we will get the trial Congress denied us

ok I got that off my chest
I'm rootin on ya Fitz :woohoo: Nobody said being a Independant prosecutor wasn't tough

[H2O Man]

120. Document 246-1

Team Libby filed this on January 16, 2007, along with several attachments. They are upset by the amount of pre-trial publicity, although a good bit of it seems to have to do with VP Cheney.

"Record of Pre-Trial Publicity

"As previously noted by the defense, the pretrial publicity in this case has been significant and in many cases has included inaccurate and inflammatory statements and assertions that are unduly prejudicial to Mr. Libby. Therefore, in connection with the voir dire, the defense will need to ask certain venire members about their exposure to such publicity and probe whether that exposure has affected their ability to impartially judge the facts in this case. Such individualized voir dire is necessary to give the Court an adequate basis for determining whether the venire member will be able to render a verdict based on the evidence adduced at trial, and not incomplete facts and speculation circulating before trial. See United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 434-35 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Attached to this pleading are a sample of instances of publicity about which the defense may want to question jurors. ....."

The attachments concern such things as a PBS documentary on Cheney's "dark side," and an interview with Ambassador Wilson. I think it is safe to assume that Team Libby has waited until this late date to file this nonsense, in hopes that Mr. Fitzgerald and Judge Walton will not have time to properly address it, and that it may serve as grounds to appeal Libby's convictions.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

122. That is exactly what I'm afraid of. I was eating dinner tonight

when Keith Olbermann and David Schuster were going over what happened in the courtroom today so I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have, but the thought that all the questioning of the prospective jurors regarding their attitudes toward the Iraq War, Cheney, etc, sounds to me like Libby's defense lawyers are trying to set up their appeal already.

Methinks Libby's lawyers are taking lessons from George Ryan's lawyers here in Chicago regarding Ryan's appeal.

H20 Man, thank you for all your hard work covering this. You've made it very easy for even someone like myself to follow all the twists and turns in this case.

This trial will be fascinating to follow.

Thanks again.

[Me.]

123. Good Waas Re-Cap Of Case

How could it be that Libby--- seemingly such a stickler for the rules-- outed Valerie Plame, as prosecutors claim in their case against him?

One possibility for Libby's seemingly incongruous behavior--if prosecutors prove their case--is that Libby acted out of character simply because he was so agitated by what he thought was unfair criticism of himself and the vice president for supposedly misrepresenting intelligence to go to war.

But if Libby's grand jury testimony is to be believed, it was Cheney, not Libby, who constantly was the one pushing Libby to leak classified information to the press. Both Cheney and Libby have said that Cheney never ordered him to leak information to the press about Plame. And Libby has claimed that if he did speak to reporters about Plame, he was merely passing along to them rumors that he had heard from Russert and other reporters that Plame was a CIA officer.

But federal investigators from the earliest days of the leak investigation have theorized that Libby was attempting to cover up for Cheney. The loyal staff man was only being loyal. Even in defending Libby, his friend, the political operative, Mary Matalin has described him as "Cheney's Cheney"; "an absolutely salient translator" for the man he adored and was his boss.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-waas/exclusive-the-paradox-th_b_38902.html

[Me.]

124. Bit More

“Two days after Wilson's column appeared, on July 8, 2003, Libby met for a two hour breakfast meeting with Judith Miller at the St. Regis hotel in Washington. During that meeting, Miller has testified and the federal grand jury of Libby has alleged, Libby spoke at some length as to the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. Libby has denied Miller's account, saying the two never discussed Plame that morning.

According to Fitzgerald, Cheney not only knew that his aide was about to meet with Miller, but encouraged him as to what to say at the meeting. Libby's own notes contained an instruction, presumably from Cheney, to "tell information to Ms. Miller on July 8." cont…

“Cheney, Libby, and Martin discussed a then-still highly classified CIA document that they believed had information in it that would undercut Wilson's credibility. The document was a March 8, 2002 debriefing of Wilson by the CIA's Directorate of Operations after his trip to Niger. The report did not name Wilson or even describe him as a former U.S. ambassador who had served time in the region, but rather as a "contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report made no mention of the fact that his wife was Valerie Plame, or that she may have played a role in having her husband sent to Niger.

Cheney told Libby that he wanted him to leak the report to the press, according to people with first-hand knowledge of federal grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case, and federal court records.” Cont…

[Me.]

125. Come On Monday

:popcorn:

[Me.]

128. Good Waas Interview On Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/1541219