Posted by Curt on 2 May, 2006 at 11:20 pm. Be the first to comment!


Second day in a row I’m referencing AJStrata. No one better at analyzing these things. This one is about the Libby filing today which is quite large, 45 pages long (JustOneMinute has the whole thing in .PDF form). AJ has gone through it and found some very interesting things. In fact he may have found the smoking gun in the Miller notes:

OK, back to reality. What has me intrigued is the part of Libby?s request dealing with any documents prior to her Libby meetings mentioning the Wilson under any name (NY Times editors and Kristof come to mind). I think they know something exists regarding other Miller sources. Possibly UGO, possibly others. The tip off will be in the Miller-NY Times response – if they produce one. They should give up and just let the chips fall where they may.

Here is the bombshell I have been looking for:

For example, the highly redacted notebooks provided to Mr. Libby by the government indicate that Ms. Miller was given Mr. Wilson?s name and phone number before she spoke with Mr. Libby on June 23. Armed with the unredacted page on which that notation appears, Mr. Libby may ask Ms. Miller why and from whom she obtained Mr. Wilson?s contact information – and whether she may have learned of Ms. Wilson?s CIA affiliation from the same source at the same time, before she first spoke with Mr. Libby.

Boy, oh boy. If this is true Fitzgerald is in a world of hurt. Not only will he have known the true source of Plame?s identity, he will have known Miller had know about the Wilsons prior to meeting Libby, exposing his interpretation of her notes as something akin to a fantasy! Remember, in this country we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Fitzgerald ignored this and tried to slant evidence through omission and withholding the guy deserves to be drummed out of the DoJ and disbarred for life. And there is more:

Likewise, the redacted version of the notes suggests that Ms. Miller?s notation ?Victoria Wilson? may have been made before her conversation with Mr. Libby on July 12, perhaps based on information received from someone else.

Well, let?s see what Ms. Judith Miller had to say about notations in her notes regaring one Valerie Plame Wilson:

On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name ?Valerie Flame.? Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.


My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak?s column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative. I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson?s wife. In my notebook I had written the words ?Victoria Wilson? with a box around it, another apparent reference to Ms. Plame, who is also known as Valerie Wilson.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity.

I also told the grand jury I thought it was odd that I had written ?Wilson? because my memory is that I had heard her referred to only as Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether this suggested that Mr. Libby had given me the name Wilson. I told him I didn?t know and didn?t want to guess.

In the first case, dealing with the name ?Flame? Miller states the name is nowhere near notes on discussions with Libby. In the second case where the name is ?Victoria? – and is on July 12 – Miller hints that it could have been a trap she set for Libby to confirm the name. The pathetic thing is this ?Victoria? designation comes well after Wilson outed himself in the NY Times and Miller admits, in her notes, she knew Wilson?s wife had something to do with his trip much earlier (she has that noted nearly a month earlier in the June 23rd meeting). Mrs. Wilson is not news at this stage. Wilson is out in the open and his wife was tagged to him when he was known as ?clandestine guy? with no name attached.

And I can see some handwriting experts being called into court as well. Fitzgerald missed the most obvious check on notes: where they all written at the same time! Apparently not (page 18 PDF):

? an entry on the second page of Ms. Miller?s notes regarding her June 23 conversation with Mr. libby reads ?(Wife works in bureau?).? An entry on the fourth page, referring to the July 8 interview, contains an entry, also in parenthesis, ?(wife works in Winpac).? ? The condition of the original pages (e.g., the color of the ink and the weight of the markings) may allow Mr. Libby to ask Ms. Miller whether it is possible that she did not write the parenthetical references to Mr. Wilson?s wife when she interviewed Mr. Libby, but added them later, based on information she learned from a source other than Mr. Libby.

Emphasis in the original. Fitz probably sent out xeroxed copies, but the hint is in the pen line width. Even in a black and white copy you can detect different pens easily if they have different widths and ink flows. Team Libby has something and I think they have caught Fitzgerald cold.

I don’t know about you but me thinks ole’ Fitz may be getting a bit worried right about now.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x