Apr 20 2006

Miller/Bennet Response A Pearl Of Diversion

Published by at 8:08 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

Color me confused. The Team Libby’s subpoena requests documents in the possession of the targets regarding any information they have on Plame and Wilson during specific times. Pretty clear cut focus couched in legalese. Here is the Miller subpoena, which one can argue is too broad and non-specific in item 2. Item 8 is tailored to specific people so it is not too broad, but like item 2 it doesn’t relate to the Wilson’s somehow. All the rest do. So, I am confused by this line in the Miller/Bennet filing (I’ll find a link ASAP):

…the material now sought by Mr. Libby persuant to Rule 17(c) (aside from the information already produced by Ms. Miller to the grand jury, which she agrees should be produced to the defense), does not relate to [1] any conversation between Libby and any news reporters, or to[2] conversations Ms. Miller had with any other individual with the respect to Mr. Libby, Ms. Plame or her husband Joseph Wilson.

I find this stunning! It sounds initially like, outside what was provided to Fitzgerald before, there is nothing more in Ms. Miller’s posession regarding the Wilsons. Now I emphasized the use of ‘Ms. Plame’ because the subpoena asks for information that refers to ‘the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whether by name or otherwise‘ [from item 3]. I hope Miller’s council is not playing semantic games here.

This is a truly risky gambit. If Team Libby know of something that does discuss the Wilsons, then Miller is going to be in a world of hurt. Which is why I am confused. Why move to squash if there is nothing of any relevance to provide? This makes no sense, which is why I am wondering about the semantics dodge.

The sentence structure is interesting, which is why I added the numbers. Two groups of people identified: [1] Libby talking to reporters and [2] Miller talking to anyone. Supposedly there is no information, relating to either group, associated with Wilson and Plame. Or is it simply there is no information related to ‘conversations’?

I think it simply relates to conversations, which means there is other information that does relate the Wilsons. Nice try, but when parcing words, it is interesting to not only look at the inclusive set (what the subject is), it is more times interesting to focus in the exclusive set (what it does not include). Some simple logic says these highly specificied consversations are the only area where Team Miller is claiming nothing compliant exists. QED: non-conversational material, which is compliant, does exist – or the claim of non compliance would have been broader and there is no need to quash.

We see this in the a later section, where Bennet and Co. try and hide relevant information in a sea of irrelevant.

Given the confidential nature of the material covered by the subpoena, which includes personal references and contacts, as well as sensitive information obtained from Ms. Millers journalistic sources other than Mr. Libby, in matters completely unrelated to the instant case, the court should be [sic] examine critically the arguments Mr. Libby may put forth with respect to relevance in the wake of the instant motion.

The filing goes on to mimic the SP counsel’s argument this can only be about ‘narrow issues’. The problem is Bennett has tipped his hand a bit here. He knows matters not associated with the Wilsons are not covered under the subpoena. It is a faux haystack he has tried to place over the material which he could not outright claim did not exist, as he did with the ‘conversations’. In doing so he is admitting there is more information pertinent information than the myopic SP ‘discovered’ – probably because, like with Cooper, it did not meet his fantasy conspiracy theory.

Nice try – but no sale. Miller, like Time, is sitting on pertinent material. So is Fitzgerald, information that is exculpatory.  In all three cases information that a jury should decide supports or destroys the case against Libby.  to Libby.Not Fitzgerald and not the witnesses.

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Miller/Bennet Response A Pearl Of Diversion”

  1. Sue says:

    Hi AJ. I don’t have anything to say at this time. I am just so danged proud of myself. I was finally able to login to your site. So many times I’ve wanted to comment and wasn’t able.

    I enjoy reading your site.

  2. AJStrata says:

    Well Sue,

    Welcome! Post to your hearts content. Sorry it was such a challenge.


  3. topsecretk9@AJ says:

    Hey I did too, but my “topsecretk9” never came to my email and then I couldn’t use the same name –since it was in the system – I guess.

    Anyhow, linked this in JOM.

  4. topsecretk9@AJ says:

    I thought I made it, did I?