Thanks to now humbled Jason Leapold over at NoTruthOut we have acces to the 126 page transcript of the May 26th hearing on the Libby subpoenas against the news media (H/T Tom Maguire”). There are some very interesting tidbits in these transcripts, showing a further collapse in Fitzegerald’s already crumbling case:

[Page 7]JEFFRESS (Libby Counsel): NUMBER ONE, YOU WILL SEE THAT MS. MILLER WAS INVESTIGATING AND FOCUSING ON MR. WILSON BEFORE THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT SHE MET WITH MR. LIBBY, THAT IS, BEFORE JUNE 23RD OF 2003, WHICH IS THE DATE SHE SAYS THAT SHE AND MR. LIBBY FIRST DISCUSSED OR THAT MR. WILSON’S WIFE WAS FIRST MENTIONED IN A CONVERSATION WITH MR. LIBBY.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS ENTRIES THROUGHOUT THOSE NOTEBOOKS TO “V. F.” OR “VICTORIA WILSON” OR TO “VALERIE WILSON,” ALL OF WHICH INDICATE THAT SHE IS TALKING TO SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT MR. WILSON’S WIFE.

…

{Page 8}THE SECOND ENTRY THAT IS OF IMPORTANCE HERE IS ON JULY 8TH OF 2003. AND YOUR HONOR AGAIN WILL SEE IN HER NOTES — IN THE MIDST OF HER NOTES OF HER MEETING WITH MR. LIBBY, THERE IS AGAIN A PARENTHETICAL — IT’S SORT OF ODD, BUT THERE IS A PARENTHETICAL THAT SAYS “WIFE WORKS IN WINPAC, QUESTION MARK.”

NOW, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL — AND WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN DISCOVERY FROM THE GOVERNMENT ON THIS ISSUE AS YET, BUT AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, MS. PLAME DID NOT WORK IN WINPAC. AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, NOBODY CLAIMS TO HAVE SAID TO MR. LIBBY THAT SHE DID WORK IN WINPAC. SO WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?

This is a really, really important detail. If (a) Plame never worked for WINPAC then (b) Libby could not be her source for this information since he would either know the right area in the CIA she worked or not know at all. Miller has testified, and her notes bear this out, that she talked to many people about Plame. Who? Who made this mistake in Plame’s position? But what is really interesting is it seems Miller was in talks with Wilson at this time:

[page 10} JEFFRESS: THAT THE REDACTED MATERIAL THAT APPEARS ON THE SAME PAGE AS THESE REFERENCES TO JOE WILSON WITH HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER AND HIS EXTENSION — THE REFERENCES TO V. F., TO VALERIE FLAME, TO WHERE SHE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WINPAC STANDS FOR — ALL OF THESE ARE REDACTED ENTRIES THAT ARE IN THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE.

And there is only one person who would be willing to confirm Wilson’s fake-but-accurate claim that he debunked the Niger forgeries at his debriefing in March 2002. And that person was the only other person present as Joe Wilson was debriefed by two CO at his House in DC. That person is one Valerie Plame. I still get the feeling Plame was attempting to use her maiden name as a confirmation source to Joe Wilson. I think they were hoping to get the story out before anyone caught on to their little game. That is why many reporters kept getting confused regarding Plame and Wilson’s wife.Anyway, it is interesting to know for sure Miller had other contacts previous to Libby on Plame and Wilson.

Another interesting item is there apparently are three times as many reporters willing to testify that Libby never mentioned Valerie Plame when discussing Joe Wilson’s lame charges (note: that would include Tim Russert making Miller and Cooper the only two who will claim a conversation about Plame):

THERE ARE THREE REPORTERS WHO ARE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES — KEY WITNESSES IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE AT LEAST SIX OTHERS AND POSSIBLY SEVEN — WE JUST DON’T KNOW QUITE WHEN THAT CERTAIN CONVERSATION OCCURRED — WHO ARE LIKELY TO BE CALLED AS WITNESSES BY THE DEFENSE. THEY ARE REPORTERS TO WHOM MR. LIBBY TALKED ON THE SAME SUBJECT AND WILL TESTIFY NEVER MENTIONED THE WIFE.

That is a serious mismatch for Fitzgerald’s argument of a concerted effort to expose Val and then cover it up. Well, it was a fantasy theory anyway. It is clear Fitzgerald is hiding evidence again, because there seems to be a lot of notes in Miller’s notebook about Plame in the time periods between her meetings with Libby, and since Libby is not mentioned Fitzgerald has been claiming these are not germaine:

[Page 16} JEFFRESS: WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE MY ANSWER ON THE OTHER ONE, THOUGH, YOUR HONOR. I TOOK YOU UP TO JUNE 23RD. BETWEEN JUNE 23RD AND JULY 8TH, AND ALSO BETWEEN JULY 8TH AND JULY 12TH, THERE ARE NUMEROUS REFERENCES TO VALERIE PLAME, VALERIE FLAME, V. F., AND OTHER REFERENCES TO THE NAME OF MR. WILSON’S WIFE. THOSE DID NOT COME FROM MR. LIBBY. AND SHE HAS SAID PUBLICLY IN WHAT SHE HAS WRITTEN THAT SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE THESE CAME FROM MR. LIBBY.

OBVIOUSLY, SHE HAD ANOTHER SOURCE.

Fitzgerald is not going to be able to dodge this in trial. Because the fact this information exists is enough to sow reasonable doubt. Fitzgerald is giving Team Libby the case so as to not expose how badly he was duped into the leftwing conspiracy theories. And let’s also note the NY Times is admitting to withholding evidence of other reporters who discussed Plame/Wilson on the grounds that, while they meet the subpoena requirements, the request was too broad!

[Page 44] LEEPER (NY Times Counsel):LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW SOME OF THESE DRAFT ARTICLES ARE RESPONSIVE. … THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY ONE OF THESE OTHER NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS — OTHER THAN MS. MILLER — OR ANY OF THESE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORS, OR ANY OF THESE OUTSIDERS WHO WERE COMMENTING ON THIS CASE, WILL EVER SHOW UP ON THE GOVERNMENT WITNESS LIST.

AND AS TO THE STATEMENTS IN THE DRAFT ARTICLES THAT MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO MS. MILLER, THEY ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY VERBATIM STATEMENTS.

So, documents exist that list Wilson/Plame but they are of no value because the writers will not be witnesses so there is no need to impeach them, and there writings were not verbatim so they are ‘inaccurate’??? Well, at least the NY Times admits they report inaccurately as a matter of course.

THE SECOND GROUP OF NEW YORK TIMES DOCUMENTS THAT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS SUBPOENA ARE, AS I SAID, TRANSCRIPTS OF THE INTERVIEWS THAT WERE DONE IN PREPARATION FOR THAT OCTOBER 16, 2005, GENERAL ARTICLE.

Well, there you have it. The NY Times did interviews of people who would know how this issue played out inside the NY Times, yet they feel they are not germaine because the defendent didn’t use specific words in asking for them. So much for due process. Anyway, it seems Team Libby has some evidence up their sleeves, as they make the point that it is more than possible that Miller learned about Plame from inside the NY Times prior to meeting with Libby (my contention for some time now):

[Page 68} JEFFRESS: AND THIS IS EXACTLY THAT SORT OF A CASE, YOUR HONOR. I MEAN THE QUESTION IS: COULD JUDY MILLER HAVE LEARNED INFORMATION ABOUT THE WIFE FROM SOMEBODY OTHER THAN MR. LIBBY ON OR PRIOR TO THESE DATES? AND WE WOULD BE ENTITLED, YOUR HONOR, TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE JURY THAT MAKES THAT POSSIBLE, AND WE WOULD BE ABLE ALSO TO INTRODUCE TESTIMONY THAT MAKES THAT MORE THAN POSSIBLE. AND EVIDENCE THAT OTHER NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS KNEW IT WOULD BE MORE THAN POSSIBLE.

While this interchange is discussing some hypotheticals, I think that Team Libby is again tipping their hand and letting the Judge know they have evidence that it is more likely Miller learned about Plame from inside the NY Times than from Libby. This would leave only a uncredible Cooper as the last witness standing to claim Libby talked about Plame as part of a plot to get Joe Wilson and then tried to cover it up. It is speculation on my part, but it does seem that Team Libby is foreshadowing a bit here. This next section is a bit of a surprise to me, because it seems to claim no one at the NY Times other than Miller knew about Valerie Plame at the CIA before her meeting with Libby in late June. I find that one hard to believe!

[Page 85] LEEPER:I APOLOGIZE THAT OUR REPLY WAS NOT CLEARER THAN IT COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WE HAVE NO DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT TIMES REPORTERS, OTHER THAN MS. MILLER, WERE AWARE OF THE IDENTITY OF VALERIE PLAME, OR THAT MENTION VALERIE PLAME, OR THE WIFE OF JOSEPH WILSON PRIOR TO THE DATE SPECIFIED IN CATEGORY NUMBER ONE AND CATEGORY NUMBER TWO OF THE SUBPOENA.

That is a bold statement, and one that could really come back to bite the NY Times and Fitzgerald if that is true. It flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that Kristof met with the Wilsons the weekend before his original May story broke. Pincus at the WaPo seems to have known Valerie prior to all this. But no one else at the venerable NY Times had learned of the nepotism? They break the Wilson story but miss his wife being the one who sent him? How is that possible if there was an effort to discredit Wilson by outing Plame if the Times did not know this? But what is impossible to square is Kristof’s initial article clearly claimed to have witnesses – plural – at the Wilson debriefing. It was a year later in the Senate report that we would learn only four people attended that debriefing at the Wilson’s house. It was Valerie, Joe and two CO agents doing the debriefing (and the CIA has records on who was there). For Kristof to have plural ‘sources’ means someone else talked to Kristof as supporting his side of the Niger Forgeries story. We all know from the Senate Report that it was not the two CO agents – they debunked Joe’s claims in their sworn testimony. That leaves Valerie and a serious question regarding the NY Times claim.

Speaking of Pincus, it seems Libby did testify to talking to a reporter about Plame who denies any such conversation, a reporter at the Washington Post:

[Page 94] MR. JEFFRESS: IT WOULD CERTAINLY GO TO SHOW WHY HE SHOULD BE CONFUSED. I WILL SAY HE TESTIFIED THAT HE DID MENTION THE WIFE TO A CERTAIN WASHINGTON POST REPORTER WHO SAYS IT NEVER HAPPENED. NO WAY.

When you step back and think about the stupidity of this trial it is stunning to think Libby testified he talked to Russert and this mystery reporter at WaPo about Plame, the original quest of Fitzgerald’s investigation, but these two reporters DENY he leaked to them anything! For not leaking, and not remembering he did not leak, Libby is facing jail time. Can anything better represent Fitzgerald’s folly?

Now on to the last group, Time and Cooper. What we have is a failure to comply:

[Page 101]:LACHOW (Time Inc Counsel):WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORY THREE — THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED TO SOME EXTENT TODAY, YOUR HONOR — WE DO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT REFERS TO MS. PLAME. AND OUR CONTENTION IS THAT THAT DOCUMENT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE AND NEED NOT BE PRODUCED.

…

THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE OR THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE SHEDS ABSOLUTELY NO LIGHT ON THAT CHARGE. WHETHER OR NOT A TIME, INC. REPORTER KNEW ABOUT VALERIE PLAME PRIOR TO ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT — OR AROUND THE TIME OF A LIBBY/COOPER CONVERSATION IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

EVEN IF OTHER TIME, INC. REPORTERS KNEW ABOUT MS. PLAME, THAT WOULD IN NO WAY SUPPORT MR. LIBBY’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHICH WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO.

No wonder Cooper did not skate. How could anyone say prior knowledge of Plame and documentation showing that knowledge is not relevant? This is one of the only reporters to admit talking to Libby about Plame, and the one who admits they brought up the subject (Miller cannot recall anything about anyone). I am not surprised with this revelation the Judge denied the hiding of key evidence from a fair trial. And the last statement seems to be an open admission that Time had done their howework on Wilson (unlike the NY Times). That other Reporter was Massimo and his contact was none other than Joe Wilson:

…
I AM SAYING THAT MR. COOPER HAD SAID SOMETHING TO MR. MASSIMO, AT LEAST ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH KARL ROVE, WHICH CAUSED MR. MASSIMO TO CALL JOE WILSON TO ASK JOE WILSON ABOUT HIS WIFE AND ABOUT WHAT COOPER HAD HEARD FROM KARL ROVE.

Let me stop here a second to point out this is what good reporters do. This is why Miller and the NY Times should have done and probably did do the minute word started spreading (from Armitage no less) about the nepotism implications with Wilson. What is fishy here is that Time, Inc is acting like reporters and digging on each new detail, the the NY Times is claiming they did and knew nothing. Yeah – right! More details of interest, with another case of Libby not leaking and therefore being indicted:

I DON’T HAVE HIS JENCKS MATERIAL, BUT THIS IS WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN. HE TALKED TO KARL ROVE ON JULY 11TH. KARL ROVE TOLD HIM THAT WILSON’S WIFE WORKED AT THE C.I.A. AND MAY HAVE SENT WILSON ON THE TRIP. AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE. I AM SAYING THIS IS WHAT MR. COOPER HAS TESTIFIED. HE THEN TALKS TO MR. LIBBY ON THE 12TH. MR. LIBBY’S RECOLLECTION WAS THAT WHEN HE TALKED TO MR. COOPER, IT WAS HE, MR. LIBBY, WHO RAISED THE SUBJECT OF WILSON’S WIFE.

MR. COOPER’S TESTIMONY IS THAT’S NOT TRUE. MR. COOPER SAYS, “I RAISED THE SUBJECT OF WILSON’S WIFE WITH MR. LIBBY.”
…
NOW, YOUR HONOR, MR. COOPER TOOK NOTES — HE SAT THERE AND TYPED ON HIS COMPUTER AS HE TALKED TO MR. LIBBY — OF EVERYTHING THEY TALKED ABOUT. WE HAVE THOSE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE WIFE WHATSOEVER. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CALL WITH MR. LIBBY, MR. COOPER SENT TO HIS EDITOR AN E-MAIL DESCRIBING THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MR. LIBBY HAD SAID. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE WIFE. NONE WHATSOEVER.
…
THERE IS ANOTHER E-MAIL. AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS ONE. THERE IS AN E-MAIL BY MR. COOPER, AGAIN TO HIS EDITOR, ON JULY 16, FOUR DAYS AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. LIBBY AND FIVE DAYS AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. ROVE, ABOUT THE ARTICLE THEY ARE PLANNING TO WRITE IN WHICH THEY ARE GOING TO MENTION THE WIFE. AND THE E-MAIL SAYS — TALKS ABOUT HIM HAVING AN ADMINISTRATION SOURCE FOR THE INFORMATION ABOUT MS. WILSON.

We know with hindsight Time and Cooper lose this battle. What is important to note is that Massimo talked to Wilson after the tip, and the question is whether that was a single call or a series. Wilson had already had felt the push back by June 14th, when he was at the EPIC forum and came out of the woodwork as the source for the Pincus and Kristof articles. The phone calls to Rove and Libby were in July, a month later. At the EPIC forum Wilson says, a entire month earlier, that folks inside the CIA need to tell their stories about the forgeries (Val would be one of these it seems) and only a scandal fed by the press would fuel this story and get Bush out of office (here is my coverage of the audio tape, which is still available on the EPIC site). Interesting that one month later, a call comes from Massimo that gives Wilson that press scandal. Coincidence? I think not. Wilson was one of the first to claim injured victim (with some well coordinated ‘journalists’ from the far left). The time line for this sequence is very interesting. If Massimo called Joe, and then Joe responded later, you could see the makings of a planted story being fed to a pliant press.