WO

Good catch, but I think their argument is slightly different. First, they’re trying to do several things with this language–win broad access to the NYT’s notes, but be able to respond to spin whatever they find as helpful to them. It seems the honestly don’t know whether the NYT would have heard already about Plame. So they want to go after earlier Marin leaking (that Libby no doubt directed, so he’s got a good idea that Martin, following the talking points, didn’t use Plame’s identity). But they want to include both possibilities (that someone mentioned Plame) just in case.

I said this over at DKos, though. I haven’t read the media response to this. But I suspect they will not be as attuned to the inconsistencies WRT the indictment as you or I. I’m sure they can argue better than I to defend their First Amendment rights (though I doubt that it protects intra-office communication at NYT that is not otherwise protected under attorney-client privilege. But I question how well they’ll be able to show that much of the requests from Judy, in particular, are totally irrelevant given her utterly minor part in the indictments.

William Ockham, I suspect Fitz may be using your razor.

On page 18, they appear to be setting up their argument about Martin. If she was only talking to reporters based on Wilson’s credibility, then it must mean OVP was doing so. This goes to your point, William. He’s trying to turn Martin into a friendly witness for him at trial.

Not quite, it seems – check out footnote 5 on p. 19, which basically shows that either way you slice it with Martin, they’re going to try to turn her role to their advantage.

I take it the prosecution’s alternative explanation for the relative rarity of administration officials disclosing info on Plame to reporters is that they knew to be careful with its disclosure, not that the information was not important, and Exhibit A in support of this alternative explanation is, of course, Fleischer. I am very curious now as to whether Martin is going to be a hostile witness for the prosecution or not.

I found the descriptions of Miller’s notebooks to be pretty interesting. She had all sorts of versions of the name, including Flame and Plame. I’d love to see with my own eyes those notebooks. I’ve always assumed Libby told her Flame/Plame directly, but the account of the notebooks given by Libby’s lawyers makes me think it even more. I thought emptywheel nicely shows how Libby, though his lawyers, are going to trash Miller every which way, even though she single-handedly saved him from the worst possible charge on the table.

I wonder if Miller would ever turn on him if things get particularly nasty? Nah, no way. It would mean she’d admit to perjury during her previous testimony.

I find it a bit odd that, with all the trashing of Miller, they don’t even mention the fact that she lost her notebook. If I were making the case that someone was unreliable, I would certainly bring that up.

Here’s a question.

How does Libby know that Calabresi was the Time reporter who interviewed Wilson?

â€How does Libby know that Calabresi was the Time reporter who interviewed Wilson?â€

I’m not sure that they â€know†this since they qualify it with the word â€probably.â€

The other co-authors of the article–Cooper and Dickerson–have penned their own accounts of their reporting without mentioning a call to Wilson (at least I think that is the case), so it is probably an educated guess that Calabresi, or some other unnamed staffer on Cooper’s team, made the call to Wilson.

somethingsrotten

But isn’t the second Cooper? My question is, why does Libby suspect Calabresi did the Wilson interview? I think Jim E provides a plausible explanation, but I just thought I’d ask.

Leopold on the radio:

I just heard a full 30 minutes of Jason Leopold being casually interviewed and taking questions on a liberal talk show.

With the usual caveat that the experts here generally assess Leopold’s credibility as being somewhat less than Waas and more than the traditional media, I found it much more interesting to hear him speak that to parse through his carefully phrased articles.

The bottom line is that he sounded VERY confident of the following:

1) GJ meets tomorrow at 9:30 EST
2) Rove received a target letter a month ago
3) Fitz had charges drawn up a month ago for false statements and perjury, but not obstruction
4) The â€no target letter†spin was carefully phrased by Luskin to mean â€only in relation to Rove’s most recent appearanceâ€
5) The â€nothing for at least 10 days†story was spin control to keep the story out of the news cycle.
6) A Friday press conference is predicted to be announced Thursday
7) The investigation will continue to remain open.
Rove will be indicted for false statements and perjury, and conceivably, but not probably, obstruction of justice.

Make of it what you will. We’ll know soon enough.

obsessed

Do you know what show you were listening to? I would love to see if I can find a transcript.

I heard the interview on this station:

http://www.krxa540.com/

which broadcasts in Monterey CA, Humboldt CA, and Phoenix AZ.

And â€Kim ====†— (no offense to the other Kim) — well, you may be right. This one may fizzle. And you know, Kim ====, I almost hope you are right. I certainly understand where you’re coming from on this, because even though I disagree with his politics, Karl is such a good person, such a patriot, such a delightful and caring human being, that it would be a tragedy for his long career of selfless public service to end in disgrace and humiliation.

If I might try to bite through to the meat of your very tough ironic nut, are you saying that because you think he is bad, then he should be indicted? Why bother with crime investigation?
=============================

Evaluating the Leopold Prophecy I: buried in ABC’s nauseating â€The Note†(subtitle: â€Access Journalism for Dummiesâ€) is this:

The grand jury investigating the CIA leak may meet this morning at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC.

=====: Of course I think Karl is innocent. Only the maddest tinfoil hatter could look at the currently available information and conclude that he lied to the FBI or the GJ.

Jeff,

I’m not sure it makes a difference. I’m convinced they’ve leaked to the press to create those published reports, although I admit I have no evidence of that. I agree with you though, they seem to be implying that Fleisher copped a plea. And whether or not that’s true, it does seem to be a handy strategy for them right now. I don’t think it’ll play that well at trial, though.

I suspect Ari got some immunity, but I also suspect he wasn’t under that much danger anyway. I kind of suspect they tried to launder this through Ari and he, being as much of an asshole as they are, realized it, and refused to play along.

But like I’ve been saying, they spent some energy last summer framing Ari, so they’re going to use that!!

I have a slightly different read on Fleischer’s involvement. Based mostly on the Dickerson article in Slate, I think Fleischer was a good team player back in July 2003, but he was smart enough to realize not to mention Wilson’s wife. In fact, if you look at what Fleischer actually said, it really looks like the safe (and smart) way to accomplish the Cabal’s goals. The thing that set off Libby and Cheney was the idea that Cheney sent Wilson. Even State would have played along with the idea that low-level CIA people sent Wilson.

When the whole thing blew up in their faces, Fleischer (ex-Administration official) made a pretty simple calculation and decided to tell everything he knew. Libby now desperately needs to impugn Fleischer’s credibility because Fleischer didn’t stick with the cover story. With all that, I can’t imagine what that sealed argument is about. And I thought I had a pretty good imagination about this case.

Anyone have any opinions on the significance of this new Walton ruling?

William

I think Ari was working off talking points with Dickerson (he must have been, since Barlett was working off the same talking points). But Libby has as much as told us that the people who were working off of talking points–notably, Cathie Martin–didn’t leak Plame’s identity.

Fitz has the luxury of being able to prove a conspiracy to smear Wilson including some classified information (including details from Wilson’s trip). And on top of that, evidence that Libby and Rove went beyond the talking points with reporters (and Pincus’ Mr. X too, probably). I think libby was trying to muddle the issue with Ari. But Ari, like a good talking head, stuck to the approved talking points.

Obsessed, I have two reactions to Walton’s ruling, and neither are good news for the defense:

One, he doesn’t trust Libby’s legal team to keep to itself information it gets during an adversarial hearing on Sec. 4 evidence – a distrust well grounded in Team Libby’s tactics so far.

Two, classified evidence the Libby team might see as a result of a court ruling in its favor in a Sec. 4 proceeding would still not be introducible during the trial, as the jurors are unlikely to all have the necessary clearances. That’d make for a farcical situation in which the two sides refer to evidence the jury can’t see, trying to build arguments on evidence the jury can’t evaluate.