Feb 08 2007
Andrea Mitchell
The venerable Mark [what was I thinking?] Tom Maguire lays out the context of one of the first defense witnesses we will see in the Libby Trial – and it is an enlightening description:
Ms. Mitchell’s time is coming – here is lots of material and transcripts of her past efforts on this subject.
And let’s recap some commentary on her detailed coverage of the Iraq/Niger/uranium story.
On June 23 she broke the State-friendly scoop that a State dissent on Iraq’s nuclear aspirations had been misplaced in the NIE.
On July 6, she interviewed Joe Wilson on Meet The Press while Tim Russert was on vacation.
On July 8 she told us that CIA “operatives” had sent Joe Wilson to Niger without the knowledge of the top CIA brass. In his July 14 column Bob Novak used “operative” to describe Ms. Plame, who he also linked to the decision to send Wilson. Coincidence, same source, or what? FWIW, Novak got the Plame leak from Armitage of State on July 8.
On July 20 she got laughs by going public with a bit of a snit that Richard Armitage would no longer return her phone calls.
I was not aware of all the connections between Mitchell and Armitage, but it is clear she could have had access to the same material that Woodward got in June and Novak got in July. Given her husband’s role in the Government (then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan) it is easy to see how she was able to make connections to all the big players. What is going to be interesting is if someone has records (phone or schedules or sign in sheets) that place Mitchell with Armitage (or Grossman) during the period of May 3 – July 8th. If they place her at State Department then there will be some interesting fire works. Recall that Fitzgerald had his “obessession blinders” on and did not want to find any exculpatory evidence for Libby – so he avoided people like Mitchell and Gregory and others. This leaves Fitzgerald ignorant of what may be out there to bite him!
Not only is she in! But Imus’ tapes should be coming, too.
Walton told Wells to bring law cases to his attention, regarding the Imus show.
As Russert is supposed to show up at Imus, t’marra; I’m gonna guess he’ll spout “on-going” trial as a reason “he still can’t talk.”
Or? Cat’s got his tongue.
Isn’t Andrea Mitchell also Greenspan’s wife?
If you answer ‘yes,’ then;
Isn’t Wolfowitz the head of the world bank, now? (Wasn’t that where Greenspan sat before he retired?)
Gosh, I thought it was only the russian aristocracy that suffered from hemophelia because of so much inter-marriage. Have you ever seen so much potential for blood, running, in your life?
No wonder Russert thought he was safe gossipping. Until Andrea Mitchell “announced” this fact of “Everybody Knew” prior to the Novak article … He thought ONLY INSIDER’S KNEW.
How long will it take viewers of Meet The Press to get angry at their TV sets, when Russert goes back to his “interviewing techniques,” I wonder?
Some day, Russert’s gonna be replaced by Ron Popiel. He’ll just slice and dice. And, NBC won’t have to pay $5,000,000 for a Russert potato.
Uh, did you mean TOM McGuire? I’ve been over there reading up. Fascinating case and what’s happening.
OT but…
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN THREATENS TO CUT DEFENSE FUNDING AFTER AMERICA LEARNS OF PELOSI PLANE DEMAND
“Late Wednesday afternoon, one of Pelosi’s closest allies in the House, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the key Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense, told CNN that the Pentagon was making ‘a mistake’ by leaking information unfavorable to the speaker ’since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense.’â€
(CNN, ABC News, 2/8/2007)
(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)
Our nation is at war.
It is irresponsible, inappropriate and reckless for a member of Congress to threaten the Pentagon and men and women of our armed forces.
from Kathryn Jean Lopez
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
I am absolutely SPEECHLESS!! Get this horse’s A** out of Congress NOW!! And take Pelosi with him! I’ll pay for the one-way ticket on an aircraft of their choice…this is absolutely sickening!
I hope they sink this clown Fitzfong like they have Nifong, and in the act of doing so, teach these skeevy lawyers a little lesson.
Am I understanding this right? The media is absolutely playing this down…but supposedly…there are FBI notes from an interview with Russert that say Russert told them that he “may” have discussed Wilson’s wife with Libby?? Did Russert admit in court that he in fact did say that to the FBI? Or did Wells force him to read it off the FBI notes from the interview?
Dang, AJ… can’t blame you for posting on this Libby crap since that’s all the news wants to talk about (in between Anna Nicole Smith’s death). But can you say “snore… yawn… zzzzzzzz” to all this stuff?
Such a load of ta dooo about a non-crime. It’s just media fodder to entertain the hate Bush masses as they search for a scandal… any scandal. He said, she said. In the end, it’s all a waste of our attentions.
And if revealing obsolete, psuedo espionage stuff is such a crime, why wasn’t William Arkin put on trial for opening revealing operations, exercises, procedures, and plans of the military and the intelligence community in Code Names? Not much different, IMHO. Probably more concepts and exercises became useless after that publishing than whomever revealed Ms. Plame’s innocuous job description.
Same with this meaningless Congressional “resolution” stuff that is nothing but a cover for posturing Congress members merely for poll numbers and 2008 (re)electability. They’d do alot better to stop arguing amongst themselves, and start reading reports about the Iraq/US crackdown in Baghdad that is enjoying steady little successes daily. Evidently the Iraqis “don’t need no stinkin’ benchmarks” mandated by Congress. Good thing, because if they had to wait for that mandate, they’d already be in the hands of radical rule once again when they got around to it.
Frankly, I’d more mesmorized monitoring a Sandy Berger trial about stealing classified docs – painting his toenails bright, glow in the night pink and forcing him to wear sandals until he tells us what it was he took. But OH… that’s right. Real crimes aren’t tried here, and “humiliating torture” can’t be used.
But nooooo…. Instead we’re all forced to listen to “non-news” passed off as news, 24/7, from talking head to talking head, blog to blog. I don’t know about you, but I’m sure tired of it all.
Could I request maybe a good cartoon instead, guy? LOL
He said he thought the notes were wrong. Mind you that was the FBI summary. The original agents’ notes are mysteriously “missing” from the prosecution’s files.
Nevertheless, that’s what the record shows.
The record also shows that when he was fighting a subpoena, he hid the conversations with the FBI in his affidavit and the prosecution knew the affidavit was false and said nothing–NBC and the prosecution then worked out a little “presidential appearance” by Russert where with his counsel present he answered questions in a 22 minute deposition.
Just think how the media would squawk if a member of the administration got the same gj treatment that Russert got. They would go bananas.
A thought came to me about the prosecutorial malfeasance that has been in the news lately. Does anyone suppose that the dems are using prosecutors to take their enemies down because they can no longer buy judges?
I remember seeing that part on Meet the Press when Andrea Mitchell said “Everyone knew” about Wilsons wife working for the CIA. If they could show that video, I would think it would help Libby’s case. BUT, I’m going to say it again, I don’t think the jury is going to care a rat’s ass about what the facts are, this is a D.C. jury that exposed their liberal bias in the jury selection process. At least some of them, maybe all of them, will vote to convict no matter what. Then they will be local heroes down at Starbucks. See if I’m wrong. I have no confidence in our jury system whatsoever. After seeing so many high profile cases such as OJ’s, it matters who you are and who the jury is that decides whether you are guilty or not these days. Those two Border Patrolman down in El Paso faced a jury full of hispanics who had no love for the border patrol at all. Now they are doing over ten years for doing their job and getting beat up in prison because mysteriously, someone moved them into a general population medium security prison where they would be exposed to A LOT of illegals in prison. That was no mistake. And I still say Tom Delay will be skewered by a liberal jury in Austin in the same way. Lets face it, if those lacrosse players in N.C. were to go to trial in front of an all black jury, they would more than likely be found guilty and we all know it. The jury system is corrupt and broken beyond repair. Most jurors are chock full of hostile liberal ideaology and pretty weak on brains and ethics.
Did I not read that in court today, Fitz objected to Andrea being called and the judge agreed to keep her out? I hope I am wrong.
Thanks Clarice for the clarification.
IVEHADIT,
I think what you may be referring to concerns a video clip Wells wanted to show today of Andrea that Fitz objected to and the judge did not allow.
Fitz..has also ..objected to Andrea being called as a witness…but the outcome of that has not been decided yet that I know of.
Let me guess?
Wells is going to call RUSSERT BACK!
His last question? Couples Wilson to MRS. WILSON.
But RUSSERT responded “NO”
To “impeach” Wells has to set out a story. He gets people onto the stand. To IMPEACH both Judith Miller. And, RUSSERT.
Isn’t that the purpose of getting Mitchell and Ambramson up on the stand?
If the testimony doesn’t match what the jurors of heard,
I’ll guess, again. “IMPEACHED” means Walton tosses charges, as UNPROVEN. And, Walton closes the case. Not even the jury.
Or? IF Walton doesn’t dismiss; it goes to the jury; only because?
Clarice, since the ORIGNAL NOTES are missing, I think there are rulings that the FBI is tough out of luck. As the “missing documentation” is the RULE. Not the chopped liver the witness won’t identify.
That would make LIBBY’S statement to RUSSERT true.
Wells, got the permission to call Andrea Mitchell. And, I think the IMUS tapes are coming in, too. (So? Andrea Mitchell can say “she was drunk,” or she can be impeached right in front of this jury.)
Geez. I’d love to see both RUSSERT and JUDITH MILLER called back as “hostile” witnesses; following Wells’ ground work.
ALSO: Wells charge to RUSSERT that he LIED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT TO QUASH, hasn’t exactly been “resolved.” Seems more that’s it’s been bypassed, for now. Can this, too, be resurrected?
We live in exciting times!
Bikerken: TAKE HEART!
Snedden had the press in his pocket. And, yes, Michael Jackson does look “weird.” BUT THE JURY BOUGHT THE DEFENSE’s presentation.
And, in the jury room (where debate went on long enough that these people bonded and became friends); a little old lady, grandma type. Was made the foreman. And, as the charge sheet was address, item by item, and people were swaying back and forth to conviction. She made all the other jurors use the RECORD. And, they AQUITTED.
When the jurors reluctently met the press, afterwards, the press peppered them with questions about “how could they?” When Michael Jackson looks so weird.
THERE WAS NOT EVIDENCE. We aquitted because the prosecutor did NOT present any evidence that demonstrated his charges.
Now, we’re in DC. And, you’re worried because you think people in DC are “different.” Got news for you! That hostility that Americans are somehow “different” in Blue States is just WRONG.
Plus, the judge is there. He’s letting the jury ask questions to witnesses. NOT JUST THE ATTORNEYS. If he got a feeling that this was a hanging jury? He’ll aquit. He seems to be a judge who loves our laws. And, Clarice says he’s a GOOD GUY. I trust her. She’s an attorney in DC. (An insider who knows the judges from their rulings, and their reputation.) Just as you know Wells is TOPS as a Trial Lawyer. In the world of attorneys these guys walk on water.
For some reason, where I was terrified of this judge. And, went overboard with easy to make racist remarks BECAUSE I HATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I’ve stepped down. Wells is terrific. Libby’s married to a beautiful woman. And, the Judge is a good guy.
Want to know the press’ failure? The reason they have “privileges” is to KEEP INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT OF PRISON! Russert? His ideas of privilege are pretty sick. Privilege? Probably means he goes ahead of you on any line. And, his staff is full of “yes, sir” people. What a son of a bitch! What a black eye for what the partisan press has become.
We’ll see Carol, I really do hope you are proven right and I’m wrong. I think it’s a travesty what they are doing to this guy.
Off topic, too bad about Anna Nicole, she was an American story. We should remember her in some small way……………maybe a bust.
Thanks for the clarification, DC. I am so glad to hear that! Andrea has been doing the two-step about this…Imus nailed her on one of his shows, imho.
Let the truth be set free!
And what about David Gregory-Did he lie to Russert?
Clarice
Here’s a point missed entirely…today:
Russert testified that his conversation with Libby was completely one-sided. Libby did all the talking (was mad). Russert was in “listening mode”. He didn’t say anything other than listen and suggest Libby to contact someone else who could help him.
But, then…when Wells questions Russert about why he tried to assert confidentiality when he had already spoken to the FBI…Russert says…because I only spoke to them about “my” side of the conversation??? Which was “what” exactly? Listening? Didn’t he just testify that he didn’t say anything? That the converstion was entirely one-sided? That he couldn’t get a word in edge-wise? That he was in “listening mode”? Just “what” exactly did he share with the FBI that he considered “his words'” if he didn’t speak any? Would he care to share those words with us now?
What was that process like? Like 2 actors reading a script? FBI agent plays the part of Libby….Russert plays himself?
FBI agent playing Libby: talk talk talk, talk talk atlkat talktalk talk talk, talk talk atlkat talktalk talk talk, talk talk atlkat damn talk talk, Chrissipoo talk
Russert: [listen]
FBI agent playing Libby: alk talk talk, talk talk hell talktalk talk talk, talk talk atlkat talktalk talk talk, talk talk atlkat talktalk talk talk, talk talk atlkat talk
Russert: [listen]
??
I think there’s more to explore there.
this just in ….
“U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled that Libby‘s lawyers can call New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson over objections from the prosecutors and her lawyer, Charles Leeper.”
I will pay $$$ to see David or is it Dick Gregory be put through the ringer by Wells.