And what, pray tell, did Tatel say in his opinion?

I’m assuming you’re referring to this?

Libby called several journalists, including Cooper and Miller. (I-202-03.) As Libby tells it, Cooper, whom he reached first, asked him why Wilson claimed Cheney had ordered the trip, to which Libby responded, “[Y]ou know, off-the-record, reporters are telling us that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works at the CIA and I don’t know if it’s true. . . . [W]e don’t know Mr. Wilson, we didn’t know anything about his mission, so I don’t know if it’s true.

But if it’s true, it may explain how he knows some people at the Agency and maybe he got some bad skinny, you know, some bad information.†(I-203-06.) According to Libby, Miller, too, said something that “triggered†him to mention that “reporters had told us that the ambassador’s wife works at the CIA.†(I-207-09.)

In contrast, in a deposition limited to Cooper’s contacts with Libby (see II-32-33, 107), Cooper said that he (Cooper) asked Libby “something along the lines of what do you know about Wilson’s wife being involved in, you know, sending him on this mission?†(II-53.) According to Cooper, Libby responded, “[Y]eah, I’ve heard that too†(II-54), which Cooper took as confirmation (II-81-91).

In other words, it has to do with an attempt to hide knowledge of Wilson’s trip?

What reporters is Libby referring to? Wasn’t it Russert? Wasn’t that the biggest lie of all?

emptywheel

What makes you think there was a third reporter to whom Libby leaked?

As for Libby’s story about Cooper, what’s striking to me is that Libby’s story is essentially that Plame came up in a context that was not even remotely critical of Wilson. He brought up Plame by way of possible explanation for why Wilson was under a misimpression with regard to Cheney’s role in his mission, and it appears to put the blame entirely on the CIA. There is not the least suggestion from Libby that she had anything to do with his trip or that there was anything untoward about his trip, for which he was perfectly qualified.

Which perfectly matches their current stance, of course. I still think we might get evidence (from Ari?) that they knew of this. If, for example, Pincus’ source was telling the truth–that is, that they knew, but dismissed Wilson’s trip repot–we might learn of it.

I don’t know that there is a third. I’ve been thinking a lot about Evan Thomas, though, why he wouldn’t get subpoenaed? Mostly it’s because they couldn’t prove he had gotten a leak. Though looking back at his later work, he seems to have had a thing in for Libby.

But I also can’t understand why Libby would say he leaked to several journalists–did he raise Kessler, too, to hide another â€several†(Thomas?).

By the three, though, I was mostly talking about intent–w/o the caveats, then whatever Libby was doing looks to be a real campaign.

Watson

Honestly, your guess is as good as mine.

I think she only told half truths in her testimony. So she’s screwed, because her story is shaky, but she can’t recant her testimony (particularly not if Fitz perjury trapped her with the June 23 meeting).

But both Libby and Fitz know this. So the question is, who has more leverage over Judy. Will Judy sit nicely while Libby slams her credibility? Or will Fitz find some way to turn it on her–to use her lack of credibility to argue she and Libby are in cahoots. A lot depends on how much of the details pertaining Judy’s unwillingness to testify are admissible, I think.

But like I said–your guess is as good as mine. It’s one of the three or four things I’m most curious about with this case.

– â€transcribing from a pdf (and I don’t know how to do otherwise) is a pain in the ass†–

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov…..-3138a.pdf

That particular pdf is easily translated to text, is amenable to cut and paste, etc.

emptywheel,

Your suggestion from the other day for everyone to go the original sources I took to heart. Tonight I reread Libby’s indictment and was surprised to realize Novak’s name, his article and how Novak came to know the details of Plame’s CIA affiliation are NEVER mentioned. His infamous article is just alluded to ONLY ONCE and very INDIRECTLY by the inclusion of the date on page 10 line 28 of the Libby indictment:

â€A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA,and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures,…â€

I assume Fitzgerald is doing this purposely to keep Novak and Armitage out of the story and away from Libby’s lawyers, but I wonder if you could flesh out this tactic or point me to a prior post if you have covered these details already.

Thanks cboldt. I agree Libby is not accused of leaking to Novak. But everyone knows Novak authored the article that started this case. It seems Fitz went out of his way however NOT to place Novak’s name in Libby’s indictment. Not being a lawyer I would have added it– just curions what loopholes doing so would have created for Libby’s defense, if any.

In fact, it is in Libby’s defense’s interest to emphasize Novak, since Libby was not a leaker to Novak. Contrariwise, Fitzgerald has been pointing out in response to this effort by Libby’s defense that in fact the investigation had to do with pre-July 14 2003 leaks from government officials to reporters, and was not solely focused on Novak. Which seems sensible to me, since it’s not clear why the investigation should have followed the contingencies of which reporter leaked to by some pair of people managed to scoop which other reporter leaked to by someone else and others, i.e. Novak scooped Miller, in part because Miller couldn’t get her editor to sign off on a story on the Wilsons she wanted to pursue and write.

It’s one of the three or four things I’m most curious about with this case.

and the others, marcy?

The indictment is a hard place to start, unfortunately. As you read it, force yourself to remember this is a â€lying to investigators†case – and picture yourself as an investigator who holds Libby as a suspect.

â€A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media … information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIAâ€

Take Libby’s alleged testimony as TRUE. Was he a government official who COULD NOT have disclosed to the media? Was he unaware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA?

I’m not sure what you mean, cboldt. Are you trying to make a case that the charges wouldn’t have been central if Fitz didn’t already suspect Libby? (Though, given that Libby had already told some implausible stories by the time Fitz came on board, that may be natural.)

It seems to me once you find the notation about CHeney informing you of Plame’s identity (not to mention the notation that he was supposed to leak something to Judy), I don’t understand how you could avoid being suspicious.

Also, if State cooperated fully and quickly as a result of Armitage coming forward, the FBI may have had Grossman’s testimony quite early, which would go to how obsessive Libby was on these issues.

In other words, I just can’t imagine a scenario where these things wouldn’t appear very suspicious. Add in Novak’s changing story, and you’ve got reason to be suspicious, I think.