Hi Everyone at Plamehouse. Thanks for the video. Glad to see PoliticsTV.com up and running again.

EW, Judy’s response to Libby’s Aspen letter is such a non sequitur. It could easily be a coded message back to Libby (Didn’t Condi warn us that terrorists could try to send messages to one another via the media? and aren’t Judy and Libby well-versed in terrorism tactics?)

Have you or anyone else thought that Judy’s reference to â€how the Aspen conference had gone†is meant to signal â€how the GJ testimony had goneâ€?

EW, How convincing was the dialoug between Armi and Woodward? It sounded very staged to me. Think Fitz had the audio tested by the FBI to see if it was fake? How is Fitz holding up? The video is excellent as always. Three naughtygirls all gigling, so cute. lolo

These video reports are just way too fun. I’m with you EW, no way dirty dick takes the stand. Much, much too risky. Oh, but how much will we love it if the arrogant SOB does?

Similarities to â€A Few Good Men†abound. So, part of me thinks that Jack, oops, Cheney will testify just to try to rub our faces in it.

Well, we might want to consider whether Scooter’s call to Russert between his JG appearances had anything to do with Russert’s hesitancy to talk. This is Libby admitting that he spoke to Russert, â€a few weeks back†before his second JG testimony on March 24.

Again, I don’t think this is entirely accurate. Libby admits talking to Russert, but he’s vague as to when, and in response to a juror question at the end of his grand jury testimony he says this:

Q. And you mentioned that you reached out to him in the last month, like either in February or March. And the question was whether you’d reached out to Mr. Russert before or after your first Grand Jury appearance?

A. I don’t recall. I think before but I’m not sure.

I’m not saying he didn’t talk to Russert between appearances, I’m just saying he hasn’t explicitly admitted it.

The more interesting parts of LIbby’s grand jury testimony are, I think, what Libby says he disclosed to various reporters on July 12.

Given the really bizarre contraditions between what Libby says he told these reporters and what these reporters said as defence witnesses under oath today, I think the chances of Libby testifying are pretty much nil.

[And since I’m getting it all off my chest, I’ll say that I think that the underlining on the document they’re talking about in this next quote (which may be the document recovered from Libby’s(?) safe) is Dick Cheney’s.

[I have absolutely no evidence to back this up except that Cheney is known to underlined things, and Libby in the rest of his testimony would voluntarily identify handwriting that wasn’t his, but he doesn’t here.]

Q. 4846. If we could just show Mr. Libby the column that’s 4846, 4847, 4848. And first of all, before you read it, it’s an article entitled, â€FBI Agents Tracing Linkeage on Envoy CIA Operative.†Do you see that the — it’s underlinedat various portions in the article. I’ll make that Grand Jury Exhibit 70. Do you recognize — does that underlining appear to be your underlining?

A. I don’t, I don’t usually underline like this, but it could be my underlining. But I don’t, I don’t usually do it this way.

Great post, EW — and there are even more fishy conversations worth noting. I’ll try to post today about those, using your work here as a starting point.

Speaking of conveniently timed conversations, I’ve always hoped it would be possible to get to the bottom of this stuff:

According to Waas, investigators have been interested in â€a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation.â€

Also, I read the book emptywheel. You did a great job.

Can someone explain in simple terms these repeated claims that David Rockefeller (who???) is behind everything? By simple I mean without multiple links to ghu-knows-where, using the kind of writing which your high-school English teacher would like to have seen. Otherwise I will continue to assume that anyone claiming this is a wingnut conspiracy theorist.

I doubt Cheney will testify.

He’s starting on a ten-day Asia trip next week. Frequent press-conferences with foreign leaders where he won’t be able to control the questions and, I imagine, a few would ask about his testimony. When he doesn’t testify, he can brush off any questions re Libby.

So who planted the story at the New York Times about Cheney testifying?

The trial surely seemed to end in a whimper. I thought that there would be more from the defense.

Soychips: you have it wrong. Christy was telling people to cool it on the complaints about Hannah being called TYOI, because (1) the number of complaints was threatening to overwhelm the bandwidth and (2) it was irrelevant to the liveblogging.

Soychips, PJ was correct in explaining why CHS told us to not waste our comments on that. Sometimes we all have the same grip or comment and it really slows things down. She has ways of letting EW know and that is why EW soon apologized in the thread. It was a creative decision to give him the moniker. Please, she didn’t want to cause anyone to think or feel that they cannot comment. Thats what the moderator is for to keep us all in line so we don’t get carried away.

Wow, I thought bloggers could tolerate dissention. And my opinion having visited both this site and FDL frequently over the last year or so is that both Christy and mtw can handle people disagreeing with them just fine. I’ve witnessed that many times. They may slice and dice the facts, but that’s what these blogs are all about. I am not really sure what the point is in sharing this information on this site?? What is it that you want from sharing it? What are you trying to accomplish?? What’s the solution to the situation you describe? That might be helpful to know. How would you prefer people to behave?

Marcy! You are wonderfully insightful! I have never laughed so hard as I did with your designation of Hannah in his testimony! ITYOI!!!! Nor, have I smiled so, in recognition of what he testified to, that Libby used other people’s ideas (and his) as his own….say! how many women out there have had very successful men coopt your ideas as their own. This is how mediocre people rise to the top…on the backs of smarter people! (And, btw, why there is the exression â€behind every successful man is……..†I hope Fitzgerald will state this obvious fact as rebuttal.

Nevertheless, I am worried that Fitzgerald is going to lose this one because the Judge has a bad cold. With medications for same, can he think straight? Let us hope so!

soychips, mickey, per PJ, lolo, and Katie you can find the text below on practically every Libby live blogging thread over at FDL.

â€New visitors to FDL live-blog of Libby Trial, please read

The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload†the page more frequently than that. Also, please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.[…]â€

Bold is mine.

what the fuck …

now we’re arguing over the monikers used by emptywheel ???

that sounds like a real fucking productive exercise

let’s all argue symantics while the couintry goes to hell in a hand basket

it’s not like soldiers are dying or anything

FWIW, I loved â€The Year of Iranâ€, and Marcy’s comments. The added bonus was that it pissed off the rightwingers.

Fascinating to â€hear†the jurors’ questions. If I were more wide awake, i’d expand on this. Can’t say I’ve got a feeling on how they’ll go, though….

But Libby’s trial has reinforced my sense from the last six years: This is what happens when a bunch of ideologues run the show. Total dysfunctional crap.

Thanks, Marcy!