Posted on 02/12/2007 8:30:00 AM PST by Bahbah
Libby Live: Mystery Witnesses By: emptywheel
NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Firedoglake. I've had a bracing week away from the liveblog, shivering through Michigan's 25 below windchills all last week. Thanks to Swopa for doing such a great job with the liveblogging so I could go home and freeze. I'm using this leftover question mark from Fitzgerald's unused mystery witness because … well, we have no idea what Libby is going to throw at us this morning. I've heard verying reports as to the first witness, including Cheney, Novak, Woodward, Sanger, Mitchell, Even Thomas, or Pincus (so I spent about 2 hours loading slugs up to ancitipate any possible witness; if I had to guess, it'll be some of the journalists). My best guess? We're going to spend the morning arguing motions and I'll have plenty of notice as to who is up first.
Walton up (jury not here) to deal with motions. We're going to start with the motion to quash Andrea Mitchell's subpoena.
Wells: We wish to call Ms. Mitchell, and elicit testimony at a minimum that would show how intensely she was working on the Wilson story. When this story started, Russert was on vacation. Gregory is on the record as knowing Plame's identity. We have the right to show how intensely NBC was covering this story from which one can infer that she learned Plame's identity. "We think this case presents a different factual model" than any of the cases the government has cited.
Walton: But you want this to go to the truth.
Wells: No, what I want, to the extent that I have a wish list, my extreme wish is that your honor would treat it as residual evidence. But I have also said that if it is not treated as substantive evidence, it still should come in as impeachment evidence with a limiting instruction.
Walton: Impeaching her on what?
Wells: Impeaching her on her testimony that she can rule out that Plame worked at the CIA.
Walton: Assuming you can ask that, then what are you planning on doing with that, just argue it for that purpose? You're not going to seek to do the other, which is to suggest that she would have had conversations with Russert about it?
Wells: I could not do that if your honor limits it. I've made it clear that I have a more extreme argument that you treat it as residual evidence.
Walton: You've said a lot more in Chambers.
[Pachacutec is here–says he's doing Eddie Haskell]
Wells: I have every right to use it for impeachment. I want to start at that beginning, which makes it very unique from Johnson.
Walton: I don't buy the argument that it can be used for substantive purposes. But I'd like to hear what govt says about impeachment.
Bonamici: The question to be asked is what purpose would be served by impeaching their witness? Defense intends to ask about an unrelated subject–what Libby said to Mitchell, we presume that Defense would want her to be credible. This is a ruse to present the non-admissible testimony. They've got no reason to impeach, they're setting up a straw man so they can impeach.
Walton: How is this different than Buffalo.
Bonamici: The Buffalo case is an outlier. There's not much case law that says the defendant should be in a different position than govt. It's a completely different situation. As your honor pointed out earlier, the statement was corroborated by other evidence, it's hard to imagine a statement more untrustworthy than this one? [not sure which statement she's referring to] A statement that even if it were offered for the truth, it would only serve as source of speculation to the jury. They're just trying to pile speculation on top of speculation. We would say that even if this had not been denied by Mitchell, it would be inadmissable under 403.
Walton: 403 doesn't require evidence is substantive. If they only wanted it for impeachment purposes.
Bonamici: Even if this didn't pose the problem of Johnson, there's no reason to put this hearsay before the jury.
[unknown–maybe it's Mitchell's lawyer?] The Buffalo case is not the rule of this Circuit, even if you go to Buffalo,
Wells: Let's assume that if Russert and Mitchell worked at NBC but they were entertainment reporters. [Yeah, let's just say that, huh Wells?] If they said I didn't know about it bc I was covering the grammys, that would be plausible. NBC was one of the lead networks covering this story. They started with Mr. Wilson. The jury could conclude based on intensity of this story, that there was such a possibility.
Walton [fed up]: So you want to put this before the jury for the truth!
Wells: the point I want to make is this. If she had never made the impeachment statement of 10/3, I could still call her.
Walton: But you couldn't argue from that she would have heard it.
Walton: To say that you're working on a subject and then to ask the jury to presume that you had heard about Mrs. Wilson,
Wells: If she's working on the story, covering the State Department, where Armitage worked [but of course he wasn't returning her calls].
Walton: I don't think it's logical to assume that Harlow told her.
Wells: Harlow told Novak, he confirms it. [he says he'll call Harlow]
Walton: In a roundabout way, you want to get before the jury this statement that maybe she knew using a roundabout basis.
Wells; She was the lead investigative reporter, she was out working on the case.
Walton: You want the jury to infer that because she was working on it, she would have heard about Mrs. Wilson. The only basis for assuming that is the inconsistent statement. You'd be asking the jury to speculate that just because she was working on this, he would have heard it.
Wells: Russert says there was a buzz. We've already got on the record. The 302 states, I cannot rule it out as a possibility.
Bonamici: That is a quote from the 302, but you recall that when he was questioned, immediately after that, he pointed to the passage that he believed this was after the Novak was published. He was standing there looking at the 302, "Well, Counsel, it also says right here" that it was after the Novak column. This is contradicted by every bit of evidence.
Walton asks for the 302.
9:25
Walton: [Referring to the 302] This seems to say different from what you say.
Wells: I'm going to call the Agent [Eckenrode] tomorrow. This is the one instance bc the notes cannot be found–there was a diligent search for the notes.
Walton: but you're still trying to ask the jury to speculate.
Wells: I am allowed to present this with an instruction.
Walton: I agree, if there is a reason to show this in the first place. You want the inference to be drawn that because of the intensity that she was working the story, she would have heard of this.
Wells: Analytically we have a different perspective. It's a team. Russert and Mitchell and Gregory are a team.
Walton: I've heard all that, counselor, and I just don't buy it.
Well: For the govt to put Russert on, they created a situation for the jury that he's out by himself, and Ms. Mitchell is the reporter working on the ground.
Walton: We have one other issue, then I'll come back and rule. Have you reached an agreement regarding GX###,
Fitz says yes, they'll introduce something with instruction.
Walton: proposed instruction regarding dismissed instruction of obstruction count, it seems to be consistent with red book. We're talking about dismissal of a count,
Fitz That's what I think the appropriate distinction is that by separating out language from the indictment. There were 33 paragraphs or more form part one, the Judy Miller conversations are still an important part of the evidence in this case. It says that Libby misled and deceived the GJ as to the manner by which he acquired and disclosed, so the essential tenor of charge is about when he got it and gave it out. A juror hearing this that Miller was dismissed from the case would be highly inappropriate.
[As I suspected, Libby's team is trying to go after the July 12 conversation, and with it dismiss the importance of Judy as a witness that on July 8 that Libby knew Plame's ID]
Walton: Does anything that has happened at this point impact that statement (About Libby's lie). My only concern is if I said anything in my preliminary instruction if that's been left out.
Fitz: We'd like to look at preliminary instruction in context.
Wells: I strongly disagree with Fitz' characterization of what took place. The obstruction count was based on three false statements. We wanted it clear that on terms of the obstruction that there was nothing wih Grossman and Miller, What the obstruction count was predicated on was that obstruction was based on three-prong statement. I opened on it. The Jury can consider June 23 and July 8 in terms of what Libby knew.
[Yup–Wells is trying to hide the what was obstructed–that Libby was trying to hide his conversation to Judy. Clever move, utterly dishonest, but clever. I think they emphasized the third false statement charge (which there was none) so by dismissing it, they could dismiss the obstruction charge.]
Fitz: I'll briefly respond, The vice in taking language out, as opposed to a count is that you're asking them to rule beforehand. I think the jury could find that the description of July 12 was a lie, but not using the language in the count, the jury can use that evidence against Mr. Libby, they can also use that evidence that when he said the first time he told her on July 12, that that was a lie. This proposed instruction would focus on July 12–and the language in the indictment, even though they were never going to see the indictment–would lead them to focus inappropriately on July 12.
Wells; We're not going to address that conversation. It has been dismissed. The jurors should know that it has been dismissed.
Walton: I'm going to have to … I'll have to go back and re-evaluate the evidence to see whether… I don't want something before the jury that could be prejudicial. I need to go back and review the indictment.
Taking a short break.
9:44
Apparently the clock upstairs in the courtroom is now working.
Fitz is in his seersuckery grey suit again–probably wants to wear it before it starts to snow heavily here this week. Jane's upstairs with Sidney Blumenthal and Pachachutec. And Jeralyn is here blogging for Arianna.
To explain a little more a little more about what I think happened. Originally, there were two alleged lies: the lie about Russert, and the lie about Cooper. Somehow, Judy got put in there in a way she wasn't from the start. I think she testified differently than what the charge said. So Wells got that charge thrown out (not that there was a charge on it). But now he wants to say, effectively, the Judy charge has been thrown out, even though, as um, questionable a witness as she is, she is a central witness of Libby's obstruction. That is, Wells has manufactured a very clever way to suggest everything about Judy is irrelevant, even though he only got the July 12 conversation as a lie thrown out. Now if that doesn't make sense–better ask Christy if you've got questions.
Walton: [about Wells' ploy to call Mitchell] I've thought about the issue and went back and looked at Johnson It seems to be wrt how you want to dress it up, you only want to bring that out has no relevance. It doesn't help the defense case whatsoever, the only reason you want to bring it out, you're going to do exactly what Johnson says you cannot do. I think there's a lot of mischief that comes with that. If you were to do that, it doesn't add to your case, it seems to me once you do that and you throw that before the jury, the jury may draw the inference that she knew about it, Russert knew about it, I just don't think Johnson permits that. I can hear from her, so we have a record, you can ask the questions of her, I'll do that outside of the presence of the jury, I am prepared to live with the ruling. Maybe the circuit will find a distinction between this and Johnson. You can dress it up as much as you want, but all the rest of this is purely done to get that prior inconsistent statement in.
Wells: Tomorrow afternoon can we have a hearing, just so the record's clear, it is our position that the questions I would ask her about her involvement in the story would be relevant.
Walton: What would that relevance be?
Wells; This is a situation where NBC team was working intensely on the story?
Walton: What relevance would that have unless you trying to impute something to Russert?
Wells: There's no question that I'm trying to impute something to Russert.
Walton: I appreciate your candor. The only way you can have that imputed is if there's truth given to her statement. If she's just impeached on it, you can't use it.
Wells: The issue is, bc of the intensity, could the jury decide, doggonit, they're working on it so hard, maybe it's not sure.
Walton: You have a chance, with the FBI agent, you have a chance arguing it from the FBI witness.
Wells: Where we do differ is on relevancy. If Russert had said, that particular week I was in Russia on vacation.
Walton: everything you say, counselor, has a ring of asking the jury to infer.
Wells: The intensity with which she's working on the story, is independent evidentiary that she may have learned.
Walton: As the law exists you can't do this.
Fitz: Three small things. I assume Pincus is the next witness. Pincus co-author on article about Mitchell possibly knowing, I assume there won't be any question about Pincus.
Jeffress: that article was put in evidence by the government over my objections and certainly there will be questions on it.
Fitz: Is he going to ask Pincus about it. WRT Woodward, we have an issue to discuss, but I don't want to hold the jury any long. And we need to flip the flip chart.
10:10
HERE IS A LONG ONE:
We've run out of witnesses for the day, I guess all the Pulitzer prize-winners who spoke to Libby and didn't speak about Wilson are done.
Now we've got to continue the memory issue.
Cline up, 3 categories of evidence. 2 potential categories of witnesses. One category, Witnesses from OVP. A representative witness, this witness is current NSA to VP [John Hannah], at the time we're talking about Mr. Libby's deputy. This is a person who took direction from Libby, met with him, briefed him, knew as well as anyone the issues Libby was grappling with. We want to put him on to describe nature of Mr. Libby's duties at the time, volume of info, the range of issues, AFAIK, govt has no problem with that. We would also want to ask him about specific issues about the 9 topics, he and Mr Libby were focused on. To covey to jury a sense of volume he was dealing with.
Bonamici. That's a pretty broad description. It's not clear to us from that description, there's no way to determine the info they want to elicit from Hannah. In the general sense, the volume of info, in terms of pages and numbers of issues, and a general sense of the range of issues. We can't tell what that means, or whether Hannah would be competent to testify.
C WRT Mr. Hannah, there were certain areas, IE middle east, where he was Dpty in charge of that area. For those areas, I'd walk though the details in form of leading questions. Other areas, where he's well aware of what was responsible.
Walton He has first hand knowledge about that first area.
C He was doing the ME stuff every day. For areas personally familiar with but did not have principle responsibility. We'd ask what the issue was, was it a focus of OVP
Walton You'll have to be more specific than OVP
C Mr Libby, that would be his testimony
Walton so long as he has first hand knowledge.
C He does, we'll lay that foundation before we move into it. The other cateogory of witnesses, morning briefers, we'd like to elicit from the briefer the items during the two weeks in June and July and the June 23, which is the Miller conversation. We're not getting into any details, bc we don't have them. We're not even going to elicit all the items, we're going to pick the ones that were in the 9 topics. With the exception of June 14, Schmall's briefing, the info that may or may not have been transmitted. for that one, I'd like to have him testify to topic summaries, so jury has range of information, so they know that if those words were spoken how it is he may have missed or forgotten about it. One line topic summaries. The brief descriptions that were in the terrorist list.
Bonamici. Back to Hannah's list. What precise topics, both generally and specifically. There was a huge amount of info covered in the 2.5 months of CIPA. There's no practical way to include everything. It seems to us that it's reasonable to get. This is something that is really brand new.
Walton, maybe you can discuss them.
C I don't have a problem describing what they'll be in some detail. Iran, Iraq, ME, Turkey. Small piece of Topic one, terroist threats.
Fitz Can I make a suggestion. When we went through the 2.5 months about what was coming in and what wasn't. Your honor gave deference to let in more levels of detail when it was let in bc the defendant was going to testify about that level of detail. All we're asking, since the narrative is laid out, if these are going to be leading questions, can we know what the questions are going to be. Cline could circle what he would cover. We can look to see if anything was only let in because your honor only let it in bc Libby was going to testify that he was consumed by it. It's not fair to us, having spent 2.5 months slogging through it, to suddenly say the outer limit is okay.
Walton, it would be appropriate for you all to meet, and go over what he intends to bring out.
Fitz nodding, Bonamici nodding.
Our level may be very small or large.
Bonamici. Back to the discussion that we had before. Evidence already come in about MIBs and they lasted half hours and a number of topics. WRT specific items that were covered you previously found there was a lack of foundation to explaining the importance that Libby attached to these briefings. The CIA made a decision to put this in, other than the issues that Libby requested f-up, there's no evidence that suggests Libby attached ANY importance on items he did not request f-up on. WRT June 14, that's something that your honor has not yet ruled on CIPA, so that would need to be addressed.
C In terms of foundation Schmall testified on Cross that he would select items that were of interest to Libby. With that evidence, along with evidence that Libby would read this, I think it is a fair inference that this was important to him.
Walton I don't know how it can be classified of significant to him unless he says that out of his mouth. If his deputy says he worked on the matter that he worked and spent X amount of time on it, the mere fact that he was briefed on it, it seems to me, it can't be done.
C The deputy will testify that the 9 topics were day in and day out of significance. Each of the topics falls within the 9 topics.
Walton if he was briefed on those topics, if his deputy says they worked on it.
B The morning intell briefings carry dates. There may be some dates that the deputy can talk about on which stuff was worked on. What we're trying to do is draw an inference that Libby received a briefing on a particular day, that w/o asking more, with none of that evidence to draw a link between that briefing and what was important to Libby. We're asking the jury to infer that he was CONSUMED by this.
Walton If at that time they were working on it on a daily basis.
C These were the issues. that's why back in the CIPA process, these really were the ones.
B We would suggest that only if there's additional foundation.
Walton, it depends on what the deputy says, if he can say that even though he may not have been briefed, he can say this was something that was higher on our agenda. I think that's probably sufficient for the jury to infer.
B We would ask for an opportunity to assess what Cline will give us. We need to know in advance.
Walton, I think it will probably be a sufficient foundation.
C One suggestion on statement. May I suggest you table the statement until you've heard from the other witnesses.
B We object. We can always address it later.
Walton My concern, if a party is going to be held to agree to submission, it's unfair. we want juries to decide cases based on facts. If a party will agree to facts with an understanding of how that evidence will be presented, that's fair game. My understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify. That would be the predicate for the vast majority of the information they jury is going to hear. To put his mental state before the jury is just unfair. I'll defer the ruling. I don't necessarily agree with govt's arguments in second paragraph, but the third paragraph I do agree with their redact re the last three paragraphs. They do indicate what defendant's state of mind was. In my view it wasn't clear that they were being asked to make that concession.
B The truth is we did assume that Libby was going to testify, and we did so because Mr Cline asked us to assume that. Everything we did was based on the asumption and it would be fundamentally unfair to hold us to an agreement we made based on those assumptions.
Fitz, May I approach for one minute.
4:02
This judge is a real piece of work. He insists he is not "forcing" Libby to testify, but he rules that the only way Libby can argue that he was greatly involved in weighty matters at the time of the relevant conversations {i.e. the "faulty memory" defense} is for Libby to personally testify that such is the case. Of course, anyone with common sense can understand that aides and assistants could establish those facts sufficiently for a jury to consider the defense.
This is what will get the case reversed on appeal.
Same here.
Maybe some kind soul will come along and give us the Cliff Notes until we can read it all later.
That and the fact that he won't allow Andrea Mitchell to be questioned on the "everyone knew" statement. (Don't know if he has made the ruling yet, but everything he has said indicates very strongly that if he will force her to testify at all the defence will be extremely limited in the questions they will be allowed to ask.)
I'm no lawyer, but the judge seems to have a very broad definition of "hearsay." If aides could testify that Libby had responsibility for areas a, b, and c, was working long hours, was attending numerous meetings, was briefed daily on various topics, was responsible for reporting to the VP, that should be good enough. The aides were THERE.
According to your snips from the transcript, the judge ended the discussion as follows:
Walton: I'm going to have to … I'll have to go back and re-evaluate the evidence to see whether… I don't want something before the jury that could be prejudicial. I need to go back and review the indictment.
So, he didn't agree to admit these witnesses, but he is still open to considering it. On the other hand, he said earlier that he "didn't buy" the theory that these people were working together, even though they obviously were working together.
If Walton refuses to allow this testimony, it might be grounds for an appeal. Which, of course, might eventually get Libby off but would please the Democrats very well, since it would keep the whole thing alive for propaganda purposes, and they don't care what is actually said in court as they can continue to spin it as Republican dirty tricks.
Cliff notes--no way, but I will say this:
A number of reporters have testified that Libby did NOT discuss Plame with them during the critical period--Thus, the proseutor's theory that Libby was at the heart of a conspiracy to "out" 007 V. Plame is FOS.
Also, the discussions between Walton and the lawyers has been of interest. Defense wants to put in evidence of Libby's routine security briefings to show he was very busy with very important matters, and the prosecution stipulated early on that Libby was involved daily in a number of different such areas.
Now, the judge says, "well, when the prosection made that deal it was with the understanding that Libby would testify, right?" The defense says, "We had no such deal" the prosecution says, "Yeah, Judge, that's the ticket. We had an understanding, and we want to back out if he does not testify"
Defense says, "We have relied on the stipulation and there was no deal about Libby testifying"
It looks like Walton is out to cover Fitz-fong's backside on this.
Your sense of the matter is correct. That stuff ain't heresay. The aides would be testifying from first hand knowledge. Now, they may not be able to testify that Scooter "thought this or that was real important", but they could testify about the subject matter of the briefings, the length of time involved, whether "plame" was ever a part of such briefings, whether Libby took specific action and all that stuff. It seems to me that it would at least raise a question that Scooter had bigger fish to fry than Joe Wilson.
Yes, refusal to allow relevant witnesses for the defense, especially "hostile" or "reluctant" ones, guarantees appeal and almost likely acquittal. It's first time that I see prosecution trying to squash defense calling witnesses - if prosecution has airtight case, what damage can they do?
I suspect Walton, being a judge in DC, is trying to sneak in reasons for appeal, while looking "fair" to DC populace and trying not to rattle the DC media class too much.
Yes, if Libby is convicted and acquitted on appeal, we'll have status quo in Washington, Dems' apple cart is not upset, media gets a pass and a boost for their propaganda and Wilson's civil case may get some sort of a boost.
Meek Republican pundits and politicians didn't lay a glove on Fitzfong.
THIS WRAPS IT UP FOR THE DAY:
Walton Seems to me that it's proper to bring out the fact that she did not work with WINPAC
Fitz Here are the simple facts January 2000 forward, she worked at CPD and not at WINPAC. If the defense were to ask them, did you check whether she worked at WINPAC, we would ask if she worked at CPD.
Walton The defense inquiry was to show the accuracy of the info that he alleged to relay to others.
F We've alleged that he's also relayed CPD to other people, Mr Fleischer. There's no classified info involved. We're trying to show that some of the info was sometimes accurate. Even if it was also inaccurate.
Jeffress. As we've discussed before, we're not entitled to discovery on what her job was. Worked out an instruction. We're trying to establish a fact. It's a very specific fact that's necessary to combat Ms Miller's testimony. If Miller heard that, she heard that somewhere else.
Walton Defense only wants to bring it out for impeaching Ms Miller. If they're only bringing out for that purpose. Why can you bring out that she worked at CPD bc Libby allegedly said that to other people.
F First, in the earlier conversation, he said she worked at the bureau, she understood that to be Nonproliferation.
Walton if she said that she construed what he was saying as an indication that Plame worked in that division, it can only come out if it meets the force of what the Defense brings out.
F If he told her wrong one day, the other day it was close to what it says.
Jeffress, I remember showing her that NP is in State, not in CIA.
Walton, if she's saying that he told me that, if that were not in play, then I agree, If she says that he also said that she worked in CP even though there may not be an exact name of that bureau. It meets the force of what you're saying.
J All her notes show is "wife works in bureau ?"
Walton I'm not bound by what's in her notes. I jsut don't think it'd be fair to let you show where she did not work, if in fact her testimony suggested it gave a name to where she actually worked.
F Your honor, I can cite at least part of the transcript.
4:14
Walton Why should you be able to rehabilitate her consistent to what she thought rather than what he said? They're going to bring out the fact that she actually said that he said she worked at WINPAC.
[Of course, this all assumes that LIbby didn't specifically tell her WINPAC so she could leak that, without quite leaking Plame's CPD employ…]
Walton She's being impeached, based on what she said. How can she be rehabilitated based on her perception of what he said.
F He used the word bureau. She has also said she knew it was CIA. Doesn't it show that if her understanding of the conversation turns out to be correct? Doesn't that rehabilitate her memory.
F She based this on a conversation that she participated in. Understanding that wife worked in nonproliferation.
Walton, she specifically said he said WINPAC.
F We did bring it out, as to what her understanding was
Walton how can you do that without info on where she actually worked
F That's the point.
Walton, you may have been able to bring this out during your case. What you bring out to rehabilitate has to meet force of impeachment.
Fitz The rule of completeness, I've never seen before where we ask someone to come and say she didn't work in one place but did work in another. Why doesn't it go to the weight.
Walton they're saying if she got it wrong, it would be inconsistent since Libby knew where she worked. They're suggesting that should be used to discredit her testimony. I'm having a hard time concluding that once they do that you bring out what she assumed they said. It just doesn't seem to me to be appropriate rehabilitation.
Fitz the supposition is in the record.
Walton She said WINPAC but she also felt she was also saying CPD.
Jeffress What he said was that the wife worked in the bureau. She said, I thought he was using the word bureau to mean NP bureau, but I wasn't sure. And, there is no NP bureau in the CIA.
Beer thirty see you at 9:00 tomorrow.
Judge Walton has made several of these statements to the effect that "well an Appeals Court might overrule this" -- these strike me as cowardly weasel words from a man who recognizes that he is frequently erring on the side of helping the prosecution by limiting the ability of the defense to present their case. If the judge and the prosecutor actually cared about the FACTS they would support a broad presentation of the defense with strict legal instructions from judge to jury about how certain evidence may be considered.
Instead, the judge prefers to stack the deck against Libby, saying repeatedly that Libby can have another bite of the apple on appeal. Since appeals can only consider very limited issues of law and trial procedure, it is NOT helpful to the cause of justice to narrow the defense case excessively. Let the jury hear it all and decide!!
That's pretty despicable, really. People will trumpet a conviction, and people will remember it. They will not much note a subsequent reversal on appeal years down the road and even then it will be portrayed as a "technicality." That is a really rotten thing for this judge to permit.
Here is the foam at the mouth DU version:
Tin Man (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-12-07 05:37 PM
Original message
Armitage, Woodward, and the "End of an Affair"
Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 05:39 PM by Tin Man
Oh man, this Libby trial is opening lots of doors into the scope of the CheneyGate conspiracy, specifically the complicity of many heralded Washington reporters. Like Bob Woodward.
Today's testimony at the Libby trial calls into question the nature of Woodward's involvement in CheneyGate. Was he just a bit player, a non-event, as he had originally claimed - or something more sinister? Follow along with me for a couple paragraphs...
1) Does anybody here remember prominent NeoCon Richard Armitage's mea culpa last August, that it was he who had innocently and inadvertently disclosed CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity to Robert Novak? The suggestion being, that Armitage alone was responsible for PlameGate - and that there was no conspiracy in the OVP, and no ensuing coverup of the effort to discredit Wilson.
2) Today, at the Libby trial, we learned that Armitage was the source for BOTH Novak AND Bob Woodward. I guess this means that Armitage innocently and inadvertently slipped, not once, but twice. Some accident. But I digress...
3) And remember how, at the time of Armitage's mea culpa, the Corporate Media were so quick to accept and publish the claim as simple fact? Consider the 9/1/2006 WaPo editorial, "End of an Affair", in which the editorial staff so confidently dismissed PlameGate as much ado about nothing. It was all a mistake. There was no conspiracy in the OVP. Armitage was the accidental source of the whole affair. Hoo-boy, did the Post buy into that Armitage diversion - hook, line and sinker...
4) Kinda makes you wonder:
a) How could the distinguished Washington Post have been so thoroughly fooled?
b) Who among the WaPo staff actually authored the editorial?
c) And why, only for the first time today, did WaPo correspondent Bob Woodward confess his source was Armitage?
.
.
.
Holy shit! Did Bob Woodward write the "End of an Affair" editorial in the 9/1/06 Washington Post ? Might this editorial have been Woodward's "red herring" attempt to assist in the CheneyGate cover-up???
Not to mention the time and money Libby will spend on an appeal. Plus an appeal is always an uphill struggle.
Our DUer is wrong. Woodward said some time ago, right after Armitage came out of the woodwork, that he had heard it from him as well. This is not new. Poor Duer.
What is even worse is their inability to see how hard the WaPo works for the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.