May 13 2006

More Grossman II

Published by at 9:39 am under All General Discussions,Plame Game

This post is a recreation of one I lost yesterday in a Hosting Matters server and cpu crash. I was pointing out in the latest cour transcript (H/T Tom Maguire) how it is appears evident that Marc Grossman has some credibility issues. Issues Fitzgerald is very much aware of. To summarize the contents: (1) the link between Grossman and Wilson seems to be quite extensive and their may be some documentation or emails linking the two, (2) it is now understoond Libby did not discuss ‘Plame’ with Miller during the first two meetings they had, and probably never used the name ‘Wilson’ (as we argued earlier), and (3) during the prior meeting between Woodward and Libby it seems understood Libby did not mention Plame, but Woodward may have (having heard it from UGO/Armitage), making Libby’s statements regarding the story coming to him from the press accurate. Not onto the gory details.
First off comes more details on how close Grossman and Wilson were, a connection we discovered a while back and posted on.

MR WELLS: … Libby and I told him certain things. Now let’s assume I want to show this jury that Mr. Grossman is not being totally truthful, that I want to show, for example, that Mr. Grossman went to college with Mr. Wilson and they were classmates and throughout their careers they traveled together through the State Department and the diplomatic arena from college right on through.

The word that still catches my eye is ‘traveled’. Given their close proximity (Turkey and Iraq) and their identical positions (Chief of Station) I would not be surprised if they literally travelled together and attended regional functions. I wonder if they travelled together to such events as ceremonies celebrating a new democratic government in a certain African country? But I think it is clear Team Libby may have some records of joint efforts, to say the least. And they appear to have more:

MR WELLS. … I want to give you a sample of just two emails that are classified so you will see the importance of these documents for purposes of discovery and how they may permit me to materially advance my examination of Mr. Grossman and to try to show that he is not being totally candid and that there are relationships that should cause the jurors to doubt what he said to Mr. Libby, when he said it.

Just a sample of two emails. If Grossman and Wilson were fairly close (big assumption here) then they would have each other’s email address. But more importantly, Joe Wilson admits to contacting someone in the State Department to warn Condi Rice to get the story straight. Wilson should be smart enough to know no one in State could threaten the NSA like that. That explanation for phone and email contacts always sounded like a lame cover story to try and spin discussions that might sound conspiratorial.

But the evidence seems to point towards inconsistencies in what Grossman knew compared to when he said he talked to Libby.

MR. WELLS: When he reported back, it may go to how 17 we cross-examine Mr. Grossman and other witnesses in terms of 18 what Mr. Libby was told by Mr. Grossman and when he was told it 19 because I may try to show that it is impossible that he told 20 Mr. Libby certain things or that he shouldn’t be believed and 21 that he has a relationship with Mr. Wilson.

Grossman is one of the key witnesses that builds the foundation for the obstruction charge, which in turn is the underpinning of the perjury and false statement charges. Destroy the foundation of count one and the case disintegrates. I mentioned Fitzgerald is aware of this, which is probably why he is attempting to limit the damage by holding back exculpatory information under various legal rueses.

THE COURT: It seems to me you could satisfy your ability to develop your defense along those lines by making specific Brady demands of the government in reference to the information that would seek to establish that relationship or information which honestly I think the government already is on notice of that, based upon what you just said, that if the government has information inconsistent with what Grossman is going to say, then obviously under Brady or Giglio they would have an obligation to produce that.

So the Grossman connection to Wilson is not marginal in anyone’s eyes. Not the defense, not the judge and not Fitzgeralds. There is one more snippet of interest on Grossman before we get to the bombshells about Ms. Miller.

MR. WELLS: Well, if I’m trying to show that Mr. Grossman should not be believed and I can show that what Mr. Grossman says he told Mr. Libby that either he could not have learned it by that particular date or it was wrong

THE COURT: If the government has any information that would support that position, I will order that they turn it over because I think that would qualify as Brady.

MR. WELLS: But I have the right, Your Honor, not just as Brady, I have the right to get the information in — let’s just stick with Mr. Grossman’s files for a minute. Information in Mr. Grossman’s files about the trip that he would rely on in any way for purposes of his communication with my client for purposes of cross-examining him. I can’t see how it could be denied, the documents that he had or emails showing his discussion —

These hypotheticals always have some basis in reality, or point to something that clearly all are aware of. I think that Fitzgerald’s case may be in trouble here. And also it is in trouble with Ms. Miller. The key is in this exchange where we learn a lot about the content of three meetings from Miller (which I argued showed no discussion of Plame), as Fitzgerald admits. The first hint of something comes in the discussion of the NIE and the noting of July 8 (Libby’s last meeting with Ms. Miller)

MR. FITZGERALD: Judge, I am not alleging that there was anything illegal about giving over material in the NIE that was declassified by direction of a superior. But when someone says commit that it is background material, I don’t know what that means, background. We’re not alleging that he committed a crime when he talked to Ms. Miller about the NIE on July 8 and was told you can tell her so much and was told so much.

So keep in mind there is something important about that date. Then there are vague statements regarding the period before Jlu 8th, 2003:

THE COURT: That’s what you’re saying. You’re not going to challenge that. MR.

WELLS: No. What he said, he put in there, he slipped something in. He said as of July 8, because the government knows that one might make it —
THE COURT: But that was the conversation that he had with Ms. Miller on July 8.
MR. WELLS: Right. But the government knows there may be, there is certainly an argument that the government could make that there was an earlier conversation with somebody else maybe 10 days earlier.

To summarize, Fitzgerald is trying to protect documents he has under “Jencks” which means he is not obligated to turnover documents regarding a witness until the testify because he (Fitz) deems the witness to be tangential to the core case. But then things get interesting:

MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I’ll say this and I’ll
be very clear. I think there may have been two earlier disclosures that we’re not alleging or a crime that’s not the focus. We didn’t charge it. But what I want to be clear is —

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. The earlier one which was July 2 only the NIE was discussed, and that’s not particularly relevant but also in I think an earlier conversation we’re not getting into it may have come up once before then. It is not a focus of things. I think when we go through the grand jury transcript I’m sure that there maybe something that Mr. Wells raises as —

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. What I’m saying is that, look, that is not the focus of what we are doing and I’m not going to dispute that he was authorized on July 8. I don’t know what happened before so I am not going to stipulate that he was authorized on June 23 or July 2.

THE COURT: I’m sympathetic with you on that point because it does seem to me that conceivably you might want to tactically decide to bring out these discussions that took place earlier with Ms. Miller for the purpose of showing that at that time Mr. Libby said nothing about Ms. Plame and what he said earlier to Ms. Miller would be consistent with what he would have said before or at least it would suggest that really was important to him and not the outing of Ms. Plame. And therefore, the jury should not accept the testimony by Ms. Miller that Mr. Libby did, in fact, say something about Ms. Plame on this third occasion when on the two earlier occasions he did not.

These snippets run across many pages. Wells is trying to get a determination that the information Fitz is holding falls under Brady and should be turned over now. Fitzgerald is trying to claim it is Jencks material. What the judge is doing is discussing why the material could be seen as Brady in the last bit. But he is also basically acknowledging that the two earlier meetings with Ms. Miller have become irrelevant.

We all knew Miller’s notes and testimony were very vague on the matter of Plame. And that, in fact, I and others have argued that Miller knew the names Wilson and Plame when she went into those meetings, or possibly annotated her notes later with the names. But it was clear Libby did not divulge the names Wilson or Plame in the first two meetings. The way the judge is discussing this indicates to me that is a conclusion now shared by the judge, Team Libby and Fitzgerald – which is why Fitzgerald is resisting turning over the documents. In fact, that seems to be his argument for not turning over the documents.

And if that is not enough to cripple Fitzgerald’s case (he is now down to one meeting with Miller where there is clear dispute on whether Plame was discussed), Bob Woodward comes up to further destroy Fitz’s argument. Notice that it appears Woodward did tell Libby prior to his meetings with Miller about Plame – making Libby’s statements to Miller and Cooper that he heard ‘that’ from reporters completely true and supported:

MR. WELLS: Correct. Your Honor, it is even further because the first conversation is with Mr. Woodward before either of the Miller conversations. There is no dispute that during the conversation Mr. Libby did not mention Ms. Plame though Ms. Plame may have been mentioned by Mr. Woodward.

This is all fascinating because Wells is getting to this information by his demands to get information on the declassification of the NIE. He used that subject to get access to the records Fitz has regarding all his exaggerations in the indictment. The indictment tells a completely different (and apparently erroneous) story. And Fitzgerald near the end gets down right whiney:

MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I will stipulate that the declassification happened. I don’t know when. The notion that we’re laying low in the tall grass and weeds I think is unfair.

You did this to yourself counselor. Fitzgerald is also borderline contempt of court. Fitzgerald is arguing and arguing about giving over information, and then turns around and says this:

MR. FITZGERALD: And he has it. It is the grand jury transcript. It is not a big deal.

Then why argue so strongly counselor? That seems like an out and out lie after arguing against giving information over.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “More Grossman II”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    What a sick storyl! Grossman is a college classmate of Wilson’s.

    There’s probably a lot of skullduggery, when it comes to the CIA’s knowledge of how money was made from the African transactions of Yellow Cake. How the french government took payola. And, also how it is possible that FRENCH INTELLIGENCE, through Wilson’s 2nd wife, is also involved in money schemes.

    What kind? Why not think of this as huge cash sums ending up into the pockets of some of the CIA players? George Tenet might have loved the idea of having a safe in his office loaded with cash that didn’t come from Congress. To pay off for “black bag” operations.

    Ya know, there never was a single bullet that works at killing JFK. The only piece is WHERE DID MONEY FROM A CONSPIRACY get drawn from? And, some people assumed the Mafia.

    We also know, against Woodward’s will, Mark Felt came forward. Old now. And, angry that he didn’t become rich. While he watched Woodward become a millionaire.

    So? Where’s the money trail?

    Is Fitzy the man behind the curtain in this “wizard’s” tale? Isn’t this CONSPIRACY a desire to destroy Bush? To lower his ratings and make him unpopular? Where the MSM’s efforts are also going gangbusters after our War on Terror, and our 3 week’s war in Iraq?

    Something really stinks. Judge Walton’s fantasy that he can get illiterate jurors, is probably coupled with his future attempt to seal his courtroom and gag everybody. A “small case,” huh?

    Or a Black judge, involved with the donks, in an attempt to smear an innocent man, and perhaps reach at Rove, too? Where’s Walton’s brains?

    Just because MARTHA STEWART decided to throw in the towel, should clue some idiots into the fact that many Americans agree with her. Justice isn’t there. And, it’s not worth the price of admission.

    The flip side of this case is gonna be the anger that bubbles up when PC, itself, stands exposed.

  2. AJStrata says:


    I am going to have to ask you to stop bringing up race on my blog. I had hoped it was a one time thing, but it seems to be coming out more and more. I want your opinions, not your racist remarks. I think you have a lot to offer. But I cannot stand the references to race as if that implies something.

    Please do as I requests since you are a guest on my site. I would very much appreciate it.


  3. CatoRenasci says:

    It’s interesting that Wilson and Grossman were classmates at UC Santa Barbara. I just happen to have the 1969 (their freshman year), 1970 (Bodine’s class) and 1972 yearbooks (Wilson’s and Grossman’s class). The only picture of Joe Wilson is in the Kappa Sigma fraternity picture in 1969. There are no pictures of Marc Grossman in any of the yearbooks. It is possible, although not ascertainable from the yearbooks (as substantial numbers of students skipped dorm hall pictures), that Wilson and Grossman were in the same dorm as freshmen. Kappa Sigma seems to have disappeared from the yearbooks after 1969.

  4. Carol_Herman says:

    I’m not being wicked. Theodore Wells is a sublime attorney. But Libby stays in terrible trouble because there’s been an attempt to hurt the President of the United States.

    In a different time, perhaps, a better judge would have tossed the case out the door. And, admonished the persecutor in this case. But that hasn’t happened.

    All you get are murky clues. Where Judge Walton seems to give Fitzgerald the idea that a “little case” may prevail. It may be held behind closed doors. And, because of the length of time juries sit these days, it may need illiterate people (who can’t fill out written forms), special dispensation so they can be called in to do the jury duty.

    What I noticed Martha Stewart do, is weigh “going to jail” (even though she didn’t break any laws); and “lying” shouldn’t involve an accused person, declaring in public, BECAUSE THEY ARE A PUBLIC FIGURE, that she was innocent.

    However, the jury saw it a different way. (And at that time I wrote Gerry Spence an e-mail. I had also read his books. So I know he didn’t think all that much about “country club lawyers.” Or how rich people tended to pick a lawyer from those who traveled in their circles. Even though that person may have had very little time spent in front of juries.)

    Spence, himself, started out poor. And, defending those who got court appointed lawyers. In time he became very experienced in handling cases. And, he’s written about how he tries cases. And, what real juries are like.

    Martha Stewart, being rich, dressed in expensive clothes. And, I’m sure the poor jurors hated her guts. Why not?

    It led to a miscarriage of justice. And, Martha had to make a decision. Was it worth it to her to throw good money after bad; and lots of it, for the possibility that she could be vindicated in appeal? OR would have have taken years. And, millions. Where if she gave her persecutor a chance to jail her, she could be done with the whole mess in a few months? And, she opted for prison.

    OJ,on the other hand, opted to avoid prison. And, lots of Americans gasped at that.

    Here we have Libby standing accused, not just with perjury charges thrown at him. It really is a weak case. But Ambassador Munchausen gets away with the lies. And, some in the MSM have parsed sentences even better than Clinton.

    It’s a sad day. And, yes. It does have consequences.

    Sad, too, that instead of having a Civil Rights progrm that would have righted wrongs, we got something that created PC. Created an atmosphere where the lying is obvious. But we’re not going to say words. Just like the Victorians would have died before asking anyone for directions to the public toilet. Even bathroom was forbidden. Loo worked. But that’s a word removed from reality.

    And, in time it’s disappeared.

    Now we have a system in place, heavily seeded with democrats who have used their powers to block Republican presidents from making judicial appointments. Even though the Constition is quite clear on this.

    In the 1950’s a married couple, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were charged with treason. And, both were electrocuted. Today, treason isn’t even something that is defined much beyond Libby being guilty of a few conversations where his memory and that of his accusors, differ.

    Even so, the public who follows this knows that Marc Grossman was a fellow graduate, along with Joe Wilson, from UC Santa Barbara. And, there careers take twists and turns in common. (Let alone that working for spy agencies usually required personal recommendations; and you can draw your own conclusions.)

    And, in time, all the dots will be connected. (Or as Libby wrote to Judith Miller, “underneath the web of roots interconnect.” Even though Miller didn’t recognize Libby when he saw her at some rodeo. He walked over to her to say hello. And, in his outfit of jeans and boots, she didn’t recognize him at all.

    Interesting too that Fitzgerald weaves a web. Shakespeare said it’s only the beginners at web spinning who screw it up. Otherwise the lies fly and nobody recognizes reality.

    IF Walton doesn’t come to the aid of Wells, it will prove that sometimes the best lawyer in the world is still limited by the judge.

    Judges have that kind of power.

    I’m sure that whatever happens, forward, is going to be much more unpleasant overall that what befell Martha Stewart. Who cut her losses. The way you get out of bad business deals.

    On the other hand, Theodore Wells, like Paul Robeson walking into a Shakespearean role, can prove he’s cut out to be Perry Mason. As it seems, even going back to the genre of the old detective stories; the prosecutors were brainless twits … when the best arrived on the scene.

    Perry Mason and Sherlock Holmes are fictional characters. Theodore Wells is not. Neither is Clarice Feldman. Who can cut to the chase better than Bob Woodward.

    Some stars ahead may yet shine. Unlike Martha Stewart’s story which ended on such a bad note. Who knows? We may be able to rid ourselves of some of the worst deformities of democrats, PC, and a hollywood blind to what makes people heroes?