One thing I note about this–both Libby and Novak wanted to limit the people they had to testify about. Libby wanted to, presumably, not testify about Novak (again, presuming they claim that their conversation didn’t relate to Wilson–though perhaps there are other journalists he was trying to shield). And Novak wanted to not testify about everyone, as well. If I’m reading this right, their conversation may have been excluded from both categories under which they willingly testified.

Fair point, pow wow, and actually I just didn’t see it in the filing.

But the point still stands. How does the Aspen letter help him convince Walton not to allow the Judy testimony in? Because it sure seems like it supports the case against, that is, that his behavior after March 24 2004 is relevant. And why include the NOvak stuff at all, which it seems really defeats your claim that Novak testified willingly and with no fear. Not least because Libby wants to make clear that Rove-related testimony doesn’t affect his motion?

SWE

I don’t mind your comments. But let’s make a deal. You do it with a consistent name, and I’ll leave them there. I’m a little tired of more substantive commenters trying to make sense of your comments, as if you’re a different commenter every time.

So what say you? Consistent pseudonym?

(okey-doke, then….)

emptywheel, this stuff makes my head spin, but thanks for laying it out for us lay-people.

I have to agree with punaise.

But I picture emptywheel set up in a van parked outside Libby’s courthouse in January. With a printing press or photocopy machine inside to produce up-to-the-minute updates, emptywheel’s spot will be as popular as a Goodhumor icecream truck in mid-summer– handing out treats to a hungry press corps. I hope they bring their appetites.

And charge them well, emptywheel.

I wonder if some here have an idea who the two reporters are who are resisting defense subpoena, though it is under negotiation still.

I think the take on RNov’s column is right; defense wants the topics on which he expounds to be far from the kind of material that elicited his hasty exit in the notorious Who’s Who interview.

The rooting around Aspens letter was a conflicted expression of concern. I think Libby was nonplussed she went to jail for him, but was breathing easy just then, that is, until Fitzgerald cut a deal with Judy after she got out, and then Woodward began the process that unraveled parts of Libby’s alibis.

The different pseudonyms from SWE and 01 aren’t confusing to me. There seems to be a consistent voice at play. Thanks for the latest, wheel.

Saltin

Ah, but you’re a regular at this bar. It’s the newbies who get confused…

Rayne:

I’m not sure I know what the Novak-Libby conversation was. Here are three possibilities:

Novak and Libby met around July 5 to go over pending smears, including the Frances Fragos Townsend smear and the Wilson smear–as they regularly used to
Libby met with Novak sometime on July 8, and Libby told him, â€go try to find out why Wilson got sent–I can tell you he never worked for the CIA, so find out why the CIA would send him
Libby met with Novak after Judy basically said, no dice; he told him what he told Judy and, when he talked to Judy during their second conversation on July 12 (presumably when Libby was no longer in the same room as his assistant and Cathie Martin), he told her, â€don’t worry about the Wilson leak, Novakula has it covered

Wouldn’t Novak’s conversations with Rove also be made available if he testified and got questioned by Fitz (I’m a clueless non-lawyer), if Rove discussed Libby or Cheney or Armitage or Woodward etc… or if Libby discussed Rove and W etc…?

I think that all but the third possibility are ambiguous whether it was a crime or not. Which makes me believe the third is the most liklely–if you’re going to risk a cover-up, you do it if the crime is obvious. Besides, it would explain the remaining Novak BS, like the use of the word â€covert.â€

I want to cede the bully pulpit to the exegetes here, but thought I should leave one apocryphum from a late night vision here. Libby did not write the following, patently, as in some passages it seems to counter his own message. That is why I filed it in the humor section of the Plame file, which I intend to archive until much later, and retire from blog posting until way into 2008. Greetings, and if you have the interest, the inaccurate letter is reproduced from the dream here:

Dear Judy, I am loyal to Cheney. Cheney is beholden to Bush1 and Bush 2. Rove is ruling gray eminently in the White House. You and I are neoCon theorists of the first order, pretty much. There may be even more risk for you in your regular occupation, globe trotting these days, than for me, though this is the White House. I remain ignorant of whether you are a double or triple agent, but you are so helpful on arms trade and Middle East politics that I feel we are soulmates. I know we appreciate each other’s formal speeches and writings on WMD and relevant strategies beyond. In a way I am glad you, and even your employer NYT, were both brave enough to accept jail rather than snitching on our secrets, and, besides, Novakula was amenable to doing the skulduggery so we let him do it instead of somehow coercing you to. Prima facie it was risky for us to collaborate on the subterfuge of ’retaliation’, as NYT now has taken to calling our conjoint work to expose the envoy’s spy wife’s real occupation in McLean. This ploy to out Plame affects the president, too; and, as you know, Bolton gets riled if we start messing with the dynamic of revealing the undercover identity of a key analyst of Middle East arms trade at a time when Bolton and other neoCons finally have shoved the UN out of Middle East affairs at least long enough to prosecute Bush and Cheney’s war. And, if you are a double or triple agent, outing Plame could be much more risky for you than even I imagine; though, something deep inside me speaks reassuringly that you are only what you seem, the intrepid neoCon reporter at NYT expert for decades now in WMD and Middle East politics. You have helped the neoCon cause immensely. I even can feel like I regret reporters have no federal shield from the kind of roughshod tactics these 2 Attorneys General have developed for Bush and the NSA, for dealing with the terrorism crisis, information restraints by the administration augmented by information prying. This whole process of using a federal grand jury to flush out this administration’s modus operandi is anomalous. It continues to puzzle us why Ashcroft suffered such a lapse of disloyalty in his permitting Comey to appoint Fitzgerald special prosecutor in this matter. And deepest of all, I feel compassion for your plight as the object of Fitzgerald’s implaccable investigation. You did the right thing going to jail in my stead; Fitzgerald even probably would rather you did not endure that ignominy, as he is a decent sort. But this remains a democracy. Though, in these turbulent times, even that seems under duress. I hope we can stave off much damage to the administration; this is my protectorate in OVP like it is Rove’s in EOP. You were right to grasp my pro forma release for you and other reporters to speak with investigators was authored by Cheney at Bush2’s instruction, and that I really had not agreed to let anyone know your essential complicity in our plan to destroy the envoy’s credibility, though as I write this now in redacted version I think ew had your personna right, you were just being coy about participating as the 1×2×6 gambit was destined to go way beyond your ordinary propagandist genre’s telological reach. I even puzzle sometimes over Rove’s insistence that Wilson needed quashing; the information was out there, and he only confirmed what other arms specialists related to the UN inspectors had said all along, and even the unstovepiped parts of our intelligence agencies were telling us too, all in agreement with Wilson that the uranium sales claim would not withstand any due diligence to verify its veracity. You know, war is part emotional; we had to hype the populace, so congress would agree to the plan to start several wars. I know you worked hard with our propaganda division to keep ahead of real reporting, always a day or two early, writing for the NYT often on the frontpage, stories that told the administration’s inflammatory tale our way. For your journalism and brave spirit, and gift of intelligence you have my solid support. Sometimes it feels like we are merely trees in a large neoCon forest near the pinnacle of some Colorado craggy peak whereon the great ideologues of our time have developed a truly pure wingnut theophany of moralist western democracy. We are like the knotted coppices of aspens, you and I, caught by nearly identical currents in this sham exercise in democracy which Fitzgerald is pursuing. I am glad for the peace and security of our land, and appreciative of your help writing our propaganda for us and going to jail for us, indeed, for me, so our neoCon land can stay free. Yours adoringly, The Rodeo Clown of Intellect, The one they call Scoot.

LHP — you know, that still fits the [â€dog that didn’t bark†+ 3rd possibility] schema.

Sounds plausible to me.

we need a new method of exposing and (maybe) punishing political crimes in this country.

impeachment is too elaborate, time-consuming and blunt

grand juries do not expose the crime, and take too long

I am not sure what the answer might be. But the present system is inadequate.

Lawyer falls to death at hotel
RIP Paul Sanford
[EXCERPT]

…Mills said Sanford decided in recent years to add journalism to his many occupations.

Almost immediately, he caused a stir after he joined the White House Press Corps in 2005, making waves as the first reporter to ask then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan whether the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name might be considered an act of treason.

â€There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove,†Sanford asked. â€The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?â€

http://www.montereyherald.com/…..326502.htm
Lawyer falls to death at hotel
Seaside: Police suspect Paul Sanford committed suicide