Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libby Live: Mystery Witness
firedoglake.com ^ | 2/12/07 | firedoglake.com

Posted on 02/12/2007 8:30:00 AM PST by Bahbah

Libby Live: Mystery Witnesses By: emptywheel

NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good morning Firedoglake. I've had a bracing week away from the liveblog, shivering through Michigan's 25 below windchills all last week. Thanks to Swopa for doing such a great job with the liveblogging so I could go home and freeze. I'm using this leftover question mark from Fitzgerald's unused mystery witness because … well, we have no idea what Libby is going to throw at us this morning. I've heard verying reports as to the first witness, including Cheney, Novak, Woodward, Sanger, Mitchell, Even Thomas, or Pincus (so I spent about 2 hours loading slugs up to ancitipate any possible witness; if I had to guess, it'll be some of the journalists). My best guess? We're going to spend the morning arguing motions and I'll have plenty of notice as to who is up first.

Walton up (jury not here) to deal with motions. We're going to start with the motion to quash Andrea Mitchell's subpoena.

Wells: We wish to call Ms. Mitchell, and elicit testimony at a minimum that would show how intensely she was working on the Wilson story. When this story started, Russert was on vacation. Gregory is on the record as knowing Plame's identity. We have the right to show how intensely NBC was covering this story from which one can infer that she learned Plame's identity. "We think this case presents a different factual model" than any of the cases the government has cited.

Walton: But you want this to go to the truth.

Wells: No, what I want, to the extent that I have a wish list, my extreme wish is that your honor would treat it as residual evidence. But I have also said that if it is not treated as substantive evidence, it still should come in as impeachment evidence with a limiting instruction.

Walton: Impeaching her on what?

Wells: Impeaching her on her testimony that she can rule out that Plame worked at the CIA.

Walton: Assuming you can ask that, then what are you planning on doing with that, just argue it for that purpose? You're not going to seek to do the other, which is to suggest that she would have had conversations with Russert about it?

Wells: I could not do that if your honor limits it. I've made it clear that I have a more extreme argument that you treat it as residual evidence.

Walton: You've said a lot more in Chambers.

[Pachacutec is here–says he's doing Eddie Haskell]

Wells: I have every right to use it for impeachment. I want to start at that beginning, which makes it very unique from Johnson.

Walton: I don't buy the argument that it can be used for substantive purposes. But I'd like to hear what govt says about impeachment.

Bonamici: The question to be asked is what purpose would be served by impeaching their witness? Defense intends to ask about an unrelated subject–what Libby said to Mitchell, we presume that Defense would want her to be credible. This is a ruse to present the non-admissible testimony. They've got no reason to impeach, they're setting up a straw man so they can impeach.

Walton: How is this different than Buffalo.

Bonamici: The Buffalo case is an outlier. There's not much case law that says the defendant should be in a different position than govt. It's a completely different situation. As your honor pointed out earlier, the statement was corroborated by other evidence, it's hard to imagine a statement more untrustworthy than this one? [not sure which statement she's referring to] A statement that even if it were offered for the truth, it would only serve as source of speculation to the jury. They're just trying to pile speculation on top of speculation. We would say that even if this had not been denied by Mitchell, it would be inadmissable under 403.

Walton: 403 doesn't require evidence is substantive. If they only wanted it for impeachment purposes.

Bonamici: Even if this didn't pose the problem of Johnson, there's no reason to put this hearsay before the jury.

[unknown–maybe it's Mitchell's lawyer?] The Buffalo case is not the rule of this Circuit, even if you go to Buffalo,

Wells: Let's assume that if Russert and Mitchell worked at NBC but they were entertainment reporters. [Yeah, let's just say that, huh Wells?] If they said I didn't know about it bc I was covering the grammys, that would be plausible. NBC was one of the lead networks covering this story. They started with Mr. Wilson. The jury could conclude based on intensity of this story, that there was such a possibility.

Walton [fed up]: So you want to put this before the jury for the truth!

Wells: the point I want to make is this. If she had never made the impeachment statement of 10/3, I could still call her.

Walton: But you couldn't argue from that she would have heard it.

Walton: To say that you're working on a subject and then to ask the jury to presume that you had heard about Mrs. Wilson,

Wells: If she's working on the story, covering the State Department, where Armitage worked [but of course he wasn't returning her calls].

Walton: I don't think it's logical to assume that Harlow told her.

Wells: Harlow told Novak, he confirms it. [he says he'll call Harlow]

Walton: In a roundabout way, you want to get before the jury this statement that maybe she knew using a roundabout basis.

Wells; She was the lead investigative reporter, she was out working on the case.

Walton: You want the jury to infer that because she was working on it, she would have heard about Mrs. Wilson. The only basis for assuming that is the inconsistent statement. You'd be asking the jury to speculate that just because she was working on this, he would have heard it.

Wells: Russert says there was a buzz. We've already got on the record. The 302 states, I cannot rule it out as a possibility.

Bonamici: That is a quote from the 302, but you recall that when he was questioned, immediately after that, he pointed to the passage that he believed this was after the Novak was published. He was standing there looking at the 302, "Well, Counsel, it also says right here" that it was after the Novak column. This is contradicted by every bit of evidence.

Walton asks for the 302.

9:25

Walton: [Referring to the 302] This seems to say different from what you say.

Wells: I'm going to call the Agent [Eckenrode] tomorrow. This is the one instance bc the notes cannot be found–there was a diligent search for the notes.

Walton: but you're still trying to ask the jury to speculate.

Wells: I am allowed to present this with an instruction.

Walton: I agree, if there is a reason to show this in the first place. You want the inference to be drawn that because of the intensity that she was working the story, she would have heard of this.

Wells: Analytically we have a different perspective. It's a team. Russert and Mitchell and Gregory are a team.

Walton: I've heard all that, counselor, and I just don't buy it.

Well: For the govt to put Russert on, they created a situation for the jury that he's out by himself, and Ms. Mitchell is the reporter working on the ground.

Walton: We have one other issue, then I'll come back and rule. Have you reached an agreement regarding GX###,

Fitz says yes, they'll introduce something with instruction.

Walton: proposed instruction regarding dismissed instruction of obstruction count, it seems to be consistent with red book. We're talking about dismissal of a count,

Fitz That's what I think the appropriate distinction is that by separating out language from the indictment. There were 33 paragraphs or more form part one, the Judy Miller conversations are still an important part of the evidence in this case. It says that Libby misled and deceived the GJ as to the manner by which he acquired and disclosed, so the essential tenor of charge is about when he got it and gave it out. A juror hearing this that Miller was dismissed from the case would be highly inappropriate.

[As I suspected, Libby's team is trying to go after the July 12 conversation, and with it dismiss the importance of Judy as a witness that on July 8 that Libby knew Plame's ID]

Walton: Does anything that has happened at this point impact that statement (About Libby's lie). My only concern is if I said anything in my preliminary instruction if that's been left out.

Fitz: We'd like to look at preliminary instruction in context.

Wells: I strongly disagree with Fitz' characterization of what took place. The obstruction count was based on three false statements. We wanted it clear that on terms of the obstruction that there was nothing wih Grossman and Miller, What the obstruction count was predicated on was that obstruction was based on three-prong statement. I opened on it. The Jury can consider June 23 and July 8 in terms of what Libby knew.

[Yup–Wells is trying to hide the what was obstructed–that Libby was trying to hide his conversation to Judy. Clever move, utterly dishonest, but clever. I think they emphasized the third false statement charge (which there was none) so by dismissing it, they could dismiss the obstruction charge.]

Fitz: I'll briefly respond, The vice in taking language out, as opposed to a count is that you're asking them to rule beforehand. I think the jury could find that the description of July 12 was a lie, but not using the language in the count, the jury can use that evidence against Mr. Libby, they can also use that evidence that when he said the first time he told her on July 12, that that was a lie. This proposed instruction would focus on July 12–and the language in the indictment, even though they were never going to see the indictment–would lead them to focus inappropriately on July 12.

Wells; We're not going to address that conversation. It has been dismissed. The jurors should know that it has been dismissed.

Walton: I'm going to have to … I'll have to go back and re-evaluate the evidence to see whether… I don't want something before the jury that could be prejudicial. I need to go back and review the indictment.

Taking a short break.

9:44

Apparently the clock upstairs in the courtroom is now working.

Fitz is in his seersuckery grey suit again–probably wants to wear it before it starts to snow heavily here this week. Jane's upstairs with Sidney Blumenthal and Pachachutec. And Jeralyn is here blogging for Arianna.

To explain a little more a little more about what I think happened. Originally, there were two alleged lies: the lie about Russert, and the lie about Cooper. Somehow, Judy got put in there in a way she wasn't from the start. I think she testified differently than what the charge said. So Wells got that charge thrown out (not that there was a charge on it). But now he wants to say, effectively, the Judy charge has been thrown out, even though, as um, questionable a witness as she is, she is a central witness of Libby's obstruction. That is, Wells has manufactured a very clever way to suggest everything about Judy is irrelevant, even though he only got the July 12 conversation as a lie thrown out. Now if that doesn't make sense–better ask Christy if you've got questions.

Walton: [about Wells' ploy to call Mitchell] I've thought about the issue and went back and looked at Johnson It seems to be wrt how you want to dress it up, you only want to bring that out has no relevance. It doesn't help the defense case whatsoever, the only reason you want to bring it out, you're going to do exactly what Johnson says you cannot do. I think there's a lot of mischief that comes with that. If you were to do that, it doesn't add to your case, it seems to me once you do that and you throw that before the jury, the jury may draw the inference that she knew about it, Russert knew about it, I just don't think Johnson permits that. I can hear from her, so we have a record, you can ask the questions of her, I'll do that outside of the presence of the jury, I am prepared to live with the ruling. Maybe the circuit will find a distinction between this and Johnson. You can dress it up as much as you want, but all the rest of this is purely done to get that prior inconsistent statement in.

Wells: Tomorrow afternoon can we have a hearing, just so the record's clear, it is our position that the questions I would ask her about her involvement in the story would be relevant.

Walton: What would that relevance be?

Wells; This is a situation where NBC team was working intensely on the story?

Walton: What relevance would that have unless you trying to impute something to Russert?

Wells: There's no question that I'm trying to impute something to Russert.

Walton: I appreciate your candor. The only way you can have that imputed is if there's truth given to her statement. If she's just impeached on it, you can't use it.

Wells: The issue is, bc of the intensity, could the jury decide, doggonit, they're working on it so hard, maybe it's not sure.

Walton: You have a chance, with the FBI agent, you have a chance arguing it from the FBI witness.

Wells: Where we do differ is on relevancy. If Russert had said, that particular week I was in Russia on vacation.

Walton: everything you say, counselor, has a ring of asking the jury to infer.

Wells: The intensity with which she's working on the story, is independent evidentiary that she may have learned.

Walton: As the law exists you can't do this.

Fitz: Three small things. I assume Pincus is the next witness. Pincus co-author on article about Mitchell possibly knowing, I assume there won't be any question about Pincus.

Jeffress: that article was put in evidence by the government over my objections and certainly there will be questions on it.

Fitz: Is he going to ask Pincus about it. WRT Woodward, we have an issue to discuss, but I don't want to hold the jury any long. And we need to flip the flip chart.

10:10


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: andreamitchell; cialeak; libby; scooterlibby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last
I am substituting today and I have no idea whether I have done this correctly. I apologize if I have messed up.
1 posted on 02/12/2007 8:30:05 AM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Howlin

Dear Mod, I see this topic has been going into Bloggers & Personal but I did not know how to get it there, so please move it if that is appropriate and forgive my lake of knowledge.

Howlin, do you have the ping list for this? If so, HELP!


2 posted on 02/12/2007 8:32:11 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; STARWISE; Howlin

Thanks...Actually everyone...she is helping ME out..since I couldn't figure out how to to this!!

Howlin...could you ping your list, please??


3 posted on 02/12/2007 8:32:33 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

The proceedings continue with Woodward, I think.

I am finding this somewhat confusing. Can you tell (LOL)

To explain my point in the last thread about Fitz catching Libby in a lie…

WP testified that Libby was one of his sources for the claim that "an aide to VP Cheney" asked for more information, which eventually led to Wilson being sent. But in fact, Cheney was the one who asked for more information. So Libby lied to Pincus to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip.

Now onto Woodward. Anyone remember who broke the story of Watergate? You think the guy who broke that story would sit on his knowledge of a leak for over a year?!?!? Nahhhh!

One big question I have on Woodward is whether Fitz will be allowed to point out that Libby leaked to Woodward exactly what he said he had to get Presidential authorization to leak to Judy Judy Judy two weeks later–but that when he leaked it to Woodward, he had no idea whether it had been declassified or not.

Fitzgerald up, objecting to putting Cue Card into evidence, particularly since it has been redacted to include just Wilson's name.

Jeffress: This is the document as it was redacted by Woodward to Fitzgerald to us.

Walton: That's all they were provided.

Fitz: That's all we were provided.

Walton: I think you can bring out that there was a lot of other information on it.

Waiting for the jury.

Jeffress up calls Woodward.

Woodward: Aqua tie. I do, loudly,

J: What do you do for a living.

BW: Assistant MG Editor for WaPo, and a book author.

BW Starting with Watergate most about Presidents or CIA or SCOTUS.

J Recipient of any Pulitzers? [Hey, how come Jeffress didn't ask this question of Pulitzer prize winner Judy Judy Judy??]

BW Shared in two

J June 2003, what were you working on

BW: Plan of Attack.

J How many sources

BW: Several hundred and 75 primary sources

J Was one Libby? When did you speak to Libby?

BW Lots of times?

J June 17 2003? How did that interview get arranged?

BW June 2 [note, Woodward never mentioned THIS meeting before], I was trying to interview VP Cheney, it looked like it had been arranged. 4 days before the June 27 interview, on June 23, I sent 16 pages of questions to Libby.

11:22


4 posted on 02/12/2007 8:36:07 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

BW On June 23 (I think) Libby told me I had overplayed my hand, sent in too many questions.

J terms of this book?

BW Background, deep background. Post had given me a year to work on this book. I was going through questions to see if he could do the questions on deep background.

J Did you interview VP for book?

BW stumbles

J If it makes you uncomfortable, I'll withdraw that

BW Thank you.

J If a source told you info off the record, could you use info using that source?

BW You shouldn't. You know what somebody has told you, Off the record, but it should no be in the story.

J Condition of Deep Background in which Libby spoke to you on June 27, is that uncommon.

BW No.

J Before you met with Libby on 27, had you received info on Wilson's wife.

BW Two weeks before on June 23 [fucks up] I was doing a lengthy interview with Armitage.

J Can I interrupt, you said June 23.

BW, Sorry, June 13. On June 13 I interviewed Armitage for the book.

J Do you recall there was an article in WaPo by Pincus that discussed a former ambassador?

BW Yes, I read the article.

J Did you raise the subject, or did he.

BW I raised it, I knew it was Wilson [doesn't say how], so I asked Armitage why he had been sent.

J going to introduce tape from interview.

BW Could I just say one thing. This was a background interview, since this arose, Armitage has released me, he said I could testify about it, He has gone so far as to request that I present any info on it.

Tape and transcript.

Woodward drinking water. He looks much greyer

BW What's Scowcroft up tp

A Looking into yellowcake

A PFIAB

BW What happened there

A CIA is not going to be hurt by this one.

A Hadley and Bob Joseph know.

A We've got our documents

A George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech.

BW How come it was in the SOTU.

A Condi doesn't like to be on the hotspot.

A Why doesn't it come out. Everyone knows.

BW Why did they send him.

A Because his Wife's an ANalyst .

BW Oh, she's the chief WMD?

A No, she isn't the chief no.

BW High enough she can say, oh hubby will go.

A Not to my knowledge. His wife is a WMD analyst. HOw about that [redacted–shit?]

J You didn't write about this did you?

BW For the WaPo, no.

Now puts up the Q Card card.

BW A list of potential questions I did with Card on June 20,

J A week after your conversation with Armitage

J What does that say

BW Joe Wilson's wife

J What's the nature of what's in redacted portions

BW I'm trying to find out why Bush went to war in Iraq.

11:31


5 posted on 02/12/2007 8:42:51 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Somehow this reminds me of the Clinton impeachment trial ...Lets not have any witnesses or evidence ,it might cloud the jury's judgement


6 posted on 02/12/2007 8:44:39 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth; woofie

Sleuthie, woofie...does the thread get updated as new testimony appears? I can do that if that is how it's done.


7 posted on 02/12/2007 8:48:22 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: woofie

Great point...

The judge obviously doesn't want the poor jurors to have to put 2 and 2 together.


8 posted on 02/12/2007 8:50:21 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Yes...I was told to go back and refresh at firedog every 20-30 minutes...and then transfer here.


9 posted on 02/12/2007 8:51:17 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

I dont know for sure but it makes sense to me


10 posted on 02/12/2007 8:51:44 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth; woofie

Got it.

More coming up. (Woodward talks alot...surprise.)


11 posted on 02/12/2007 8:52:56 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Laverne; the Real fifi

PING...

Here is the Libby trial notes...do you all know anyone else that we should ping??


12 posted on 02/12/2007 8:53:48 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

MORE TESTIMONY

Did you ask Card about Wilson's wife?

BW I did not, This interview was taperecorded. It did not come up.

J Did you take this list of questions for Card with you?

BW I believe I did

J What time did it start?

BW On 27, a week after Card interview, I have it as 5

BW It was clearly the end of the day, we had the Q Cheney questions to go through. What I do is take questions from earlier interviews and bring them to interviews that I'm doing, and in my Cheney-Libby file, this full list of questions from Card was in there, along with the Q Cheney 18 pages, 16 pages and maybe other list of questions. The subject of the NIE came up. I don't recall specifically whether the 16 words were discussed. I don't think there was public controversy beyond what had been appearing in the WaPo.

J Did uranium from Africa come up

BW yellowcake, which is a form of uranium oxide, did come up

J Did you ask any questions about Wilson's wife

BW Not that I recall

J is it possible you did

BW Yes

J Did Libby say anything to you?

BW THere's no doubt that Libby didn't say anything, I dictated a memo. I would have written it down. This was an interview where we're going through questions on the Cheney list. I'm seeing where we're going to go. Hopefully I'm going to be able to talk to Cheney. I'm also seeing what I can get from him.

J Going back to Armitage. When Armi said CIA not going to be hurt and we're clean as a whistle. Was he referring to 16 words?

BW Speech Bush gave October 7 in Cincinnati, what he told me was that Tenet got the reference to uranium, Africa removed.

J That removal of claim was being raised.

BW that's what I asked Armitage. How come if it was removed a version was in SOTU?

J Why did you get into Wilson's trip

BW We were talking about Cincinnati speech and NIE and this and other subjects. I'm interested in what was the intell. Why did the President go to war.

J You mean NIE October 2002. Some of which had been released and some was still classified.

BW I had a sense of what was in NIE.

J What Armitage told you, did that indicate to you she was covert.

BW Just the opposite, in that portion you played, you've redacted words that are offenseive. "In the raw it has a little more fire." What he said specifically was that Wilson's wife was an analyst.

Pass the witness.

Fitzgerald: When you were first interviewed, appeared in Lawyers office? Because member of media?

BW Not sure the reason, you and your lawyer arranged that.

F Nothing about testifying in lawyers office affected the substance. Two questions about tape. Is it fair to say all redactions are the firey words. They don't relate to covert nature of someone's employment.

BW Correct

F You say, why doesn't that come out, everyone knows.

BW Pincus' article did not name Wilson, I knew it Armitage knew it, and I was wondering why it was not disclosed at that time.

F Did you know that Wilson's wife was alleged to work at CIA? Were you referring to her CIA employ when you said everyone knows it?

BW No–I was referring to Wilson.

F Turning to doct in front of you, Q Card, one page or more?

BW Just one page.

F A number of other entries.

F You believe you brought Q Card with you to interview with Libby

BW Yes, we went through the Q Cheney card of questions.

BW I am certain I brought Q Cheney, I believe I brought Q Card, it is my habit to bring list of questions from one interview to the next.

F New exhibit.

11:43

BW Identifies Q Cheney questions, "that goes on and on and on."

F In this list of questions there's no reference to Wilson's wife.

F Do you recall that during interview on June 27, 2003, Libby was extremely defensive and protective of Cheney.

BW In my notes, when we got to the NIE. 4 months after invasion, no WMD had been found. Pres and Admin had said with great certainty we know WMD, part of the basis for this was the NIE, as I went through that with Libby, he was taking the position that the CIA had insisted that there were WMD. He was defenseive about things Pres had said publicly.

F Did you note that he went on and on and on about defending the VP?

BW I believe you have a copy of my notes, Libby released me like Armitage. And it says that when Libby talked about NIE he was very defensive. And one of the lines says he went on and on and on.

F This was for a book?

BW Correct

F And any articles would be released when the book was published. And you have no recollection of talking about Libby.

F Was it your understanding that all the reporters knew about Wilson's wife?

BW I have no idea.

Jeffress Would you expect someone who works for VP to defend boss?

BW Yes.

Jeffress goes back to transcript, focuses just on two lines of the interview.

J It's not you saying, "everyone knows it." That's him speaking.

BW correct.


13 posted on 02/12/2007 8:57:07 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Oops, looks like this blogger may be finishing (see last line). I'll see if I can figure out where to go from here.




Jury Question:

Walton: Is it your understanding that any other journalist knew about Plame.

BW The reporter working on it knew it. I told him.

Walton: gives another instruction not to consider the tape for the truth.

Fitz: One follow-up question. One reporter who might have known.

BW Walter Pincus.

Okay, this is done–I'll see you in the David Sanger thread.

11:52


14 posted on 02/12/2007 8:59:27 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

You are doing a good job...

The testimony is confusing...but that is my problem, I am not up on all of the dates and stuff.


15 posted on 02/12/2007 9:10:55 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SANGER BEGINS:

"



Jeffress: Spell your name, What do you do for a living. [I'll use J and DS]

DS Chief Washington correspondant for Times. For 20 years, just a few monts as Wash Correspondant, before that WH correspondant.

J June 2003,

DS I was one of the WH correspondants.

J Have you written on nonproliferation?

DS extensively.

J Have you received a Pulitzer? And topics.

DS Two teams. Space Shuttle Challenger. Exports to China

J Part of your job to gather info from WH? Goes through agencies, background, deep background, OTR. They're common terms? Do you accept info from Admin officials on background? Off the record?

DS [to the last, off the record] As rarely as possible.

J Why do you do that?

DS People will only speek off the record. The only way to obtain important info that we feel is needed to explain situation. We prefer it to be on the record.

J Late June, July 2003, story on intell. co-authors?

DS James Risen, Tom Shakar, Don Van Natta,

J Article dated July 20, is that the article you were working on?

J Was Scooter Libby one of the people you interviewed? Among how many?

DS Well more than a dozen, perhaps 2 dozen.

J Date of interview

DS Early July 2003.

11:57


16 posted on 02/12/2007 9:11:12 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Thanks, sleuthie. They've go to a bench conference at the end of this bit.

" introduces notes so he can identify time, how long?

DS Under an hour?

J His request, or yours

DS Mine, I believe I had spoke to Cathie Martin.

J Did you give any indication of subjects you wanted to cover. Did those subjects include 16 words controversy? Did you cover that subject? What did he say to you about Wilson's wife.

DS Nothing. I don't believe her name came up.

J You're certain of that? You also continued to write articles about VP.

New exhibit.

J You recognize that article? Does it refer to 16 words? Was anything in this article based on what Libby said in interview on July 2.

DS Not to my recollection. This was a spot story that came out of revelations that come from WH the day before.

J Do you recall that was a statement by George Tenet?

DS, that was a response to it.

J Did you mention anything about Wilson's wife?

DS I believe I probably did not know it at the time. Almost quite certain of that.

Fitzgerald: I believe you're the third pulitzer prize winner to testify. Has Judy shared any pulitzers?

DS I believe she has

F Was the focus concerning the presentation of Powell to UN

DS I was trying to understand the sources of data that went into the presentation. As I understood it, Libby was one of the people who had provided info to Powell.

F What was the concern about the Powell presdentation.

Bench conference

12:03


17 posted on 02/12/2007 9:13:36 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Ya gotta be a lawyer to understand a lot of this stuff but here is my question on limiting stuff.

The prosecution has to proove that Scooter intentionally lied ...

Why cant the defense call in anyone they want to show what Scooters intentions were .

If there is no motivation to lie ....doesnt that mean he didnt intentionally lie?


18 posted on 02/12/2007 9:15:46 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: woofie
If there is no motivation to lie ....doesnt that mean he didnt intentionally lie?

I would put it this way...if he had no motive to lie, then we don't really have a lie at all, but rather simple forgetfulness. Only people like the Clinton's lie when there is absolutely no reason to do so. Libby is a lawyer and a smart one. The hue and cry was that the identity of a covert agent had been revealed in violation of a statute. A quick look at the statute would reveal that Plame didn't fall within it's protection...hence, no crime. There was no reason whatever for Libby to lie since, even if he had leaked her name, it was NOT a crime.

19 posted on 02/12/2007 9:20:13 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi; Laverne; onyx; Howlin; SE Mom; Grampa Dave; samadams2000; popdonnelly; ...

HOORAY, we have the ping list.


20 posted on 02/12/2007 9:21:59 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

???


21 posted on 02/12/2007 9:24:20 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Double ?????


22 posted on 02/12/2007 9:26:06 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Do you need a ping to this? (Sorry, I was out.)


23 posted on 02/12/2007 9:26:43 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Not anymore, thanks. STARWISE emailed it to me.

MORE TESTIMONY:

Fitz back. Is it fair to say that the discussion about the Powell presentation did not involve allegations by Joseph Wilson.

DS Fair to say

Fitz Interview occurred in OEOB, you walked into building, during total interview, Cathie Martin was present, During an interview in the present of Cathie Martin, Wilson's wife not mentioned?

DS Correct

Sidebar

Walton: Did there come a time when you learned of Wilson's wife.

DS With the publication of Novak's column.

Walton: that was how you found out.

DS Yes.

Sidebar

Walton: Memory defense, what the defense can say if Libby didn't testify. I misspoke when I said Defense couldn't put on anything. There's a misperception by defense that I was definitively saying that anything admissable would be admitted into evidence. Obviously I was making my rulings predicated on the basis for info going before jury. There has to be an appropriate foundation on the info I ruled on to be presented. Out of thin air, just because I ruled on it doesn't mean it can come in. There are going to be restrictions. For example, it seems to me, unless he testifies, it will be impossible to argue that these matters were of greater importance than this info regarding Wilson and that he would not remember the event that's the subject of this trial. I just don't see how that argument can be made. He would be the foundation for presenting this to the jury. Whether there are other things that won't be admissible unless he testifies.

Bonamici. One preliminary issue is whether these issues can be discussed in open court. If we're going to get into classified info, we shouldn't do in open court.

Walton. We're only talking about stuff that is presumptively admissible.

B We filed under seal because we referenced to intell. We don't think there's anything that's classified. We think there's plenty of unclassified info and general info that can reasonably go in through different sources. The real question is what matters can be talked about WRT particular issues he was engaged in. WRT those matters, there has not yet been a sufficient link between particulars and things that mattered to defendant.

Walton: Specifics?

B The parties have broken out types of info into categories. One is the testimony of former colleagues. One is admitting relevant facts. Your honor very expressly ruled that matters in Morning Intell Briefings–except for stuff that Libby asked for f-up–could not be introduced.

Walton: If he was briefed on something–why wouldn't that be relevant. There will be restrictions on what is said about it.

B To read from 6A ruling, your honor said Morning briefings are not relevant, they merely represent what Intell Community thought was important.

12:15



24 posted on 02/12/2007 9:28:46 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Bahbah

STARWISE couldn't post the notes from firedoglake this week...and asked me to help her out.

I couldn't figure it out (Dumb me)...and so Bahbah is stepping in to help out.

I pinged you, because I noticed on last week's threads that you had a ping list that you used.


25 posted on 02/12/2007 9:29:11 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Over at firedoglake, I posed the question of whether those folks had followed the trial of Sandy Berger with such avid interest.


26 posted on 02/12/2007 9:32:44 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

MORNING BUSINESS CONCLUDES WITH A LITTLE ARGUMENT BETWEEN ATTORNEY'S AND JUDGE:

B According to your ruling, they'd be inadmissable.

Walton: It was my understanding that these were so significant they would have dwarfed the Wilson matter. If he's not going to testify, there's a different theory, that he had overload, and so didn't remember this event.

B That's fine, but that would not make the individual items including the details included in MIB relevant. What that theory would make relevant is that he received MIBs, that it lasted half an hour, that he received a book of materials that he often kept overnight.

Walton: They would be able to infer that if was briefed on Iraq war, they wouldn't be able to suggest it has greater significance than this matter.

B If the evidence that we're talking about is that he was assigned that he was supposed to be in charge of the Iraq war. We went through 2.5 months of CIPA hearings and the details went FAR beyond that level of detail. The indiv details were expressly admitted on the condition that there would be a link made between focus of defendant and the matter itself. Time and time again, your honor ruled that if he is going to testify that these things consumed him, you said it was only relevant if he testified.

Walton I didn't argue that those decisions were exclusive of any other theory. I was made to understand that Libby would testify. I did not mean to suggest that my rulings were the exclusive predicate for how this was presented and established.

B What we would say, having sat through the proceedings for 2.5 months, that that was brought to bear. That's where the line was drawn. There wasn't a whole lot of discussion that defendant would be able to put before jury.

Walton: I don't want to talk about hypothetical. But if he's not going to testify we have to revisit what he can present. I don't think my prior rulings can be use to say they required him to testify. That's something we'll have to revisit.

B That' was the foundation on which we all relyed. If we need to revist, we need to revisit. One thing that should not happen is that the defense can enter all this information based on the specific theory that was advanced to you.

Cline: Let me address the three ways we want to put this in. We have made no decision whether he will testify. Statement admitting relevant facts. To some degree it serves as substitute, we relied on it as unconditional admission. This would be the first step that we would take.

Walton: I don't agree that if the govt admitted this based on expectation he wouldn't testify.

Cline: This was never conditioned on his testimony.

Walton: That was not my understanding.

Cline: there was never any condition on this whatsoever. Three principle issues on which govt objects. Each of those three paragraphs admits that Libby was concerned or very concerned with those issues. We have a predicate that govt admits it. This admission right here. If you look at final three paragraphs, the first paragraph discussing AQ and Ansar el Islam.

Walton: How are you going to establish predicate for that. Was the govt agreeing to this based on understanding that Libby would testify.

Fitz I remember losing a number of arguments on level of detail,

Walton: I'm not going to hold govt to this statement. The only way jury would know is if he testified. There has to be a factual basis, otherwise, you're telling the govt they've got to agree to something that only could be established through some predicate. I'm not going to do it, counselor, I'm just not going to do it.

Cline: For the record, from the very beginning there was this possiblity that Libby would testify. We raised it on Jan 10 at CIPA hearing. Put it on the record. Nothing was said about it conditional on Libby testifying. During voir dire, your honor,

Walton: I do that as a formality. I anticipated, none of my rulings were predicated on open-ended situation. I assume you're saying that if you decided to present no evidence you would be able to come in and read it. If the C of Appeals wants to tell me that's the law, that's their job. That's fundamentally unfair to govt for you to be able to establish facts that you haven't proven.

Cline: That's where we disagree. This admission by the govt establishes Libby's concern.

Walton: I think you should have made it perfectly clear to me and the govt that these were based on Libby not testifying, that would have made an impact on how I would have ruled on this. Did the govt have the impression that you were entering into this unconditionally.

Fitz: No. Your rulings were predicated on it.

Cline: First of all, 9.27, page 7 of CIPA transcript, we plan to present primarily through Libby's direct testimony.

Walton: I don't dispute that you said that, my mindset was that Libby was going to testify. I'm not going to hold the govt to this, if C of Appeals wants to reverse me, and allow defense to present a defense without any evidence to support based upon agreement that govt entered into, then I guess they'll tell me that's the case. Unless there's express indication by govt, that regardless of whether he testifies or not, we're agreeing that these are facts.

Cline: We have relied upon.

Walton: Should have gotten clarification counsel. I don't think we can deal in a nebulous way on this. I'm perfectly sure that if you felt the govt was doing this without them proving it, you would say that this agreement is unfair. And I think it is unfair. If it was going to be this issue, I should have been and the govt should have been put on notice. I don't think your statement was sufficiently succinct and clear. I'm just not going to buy that.

Cline: The other evidence will provide foundation for govt.

Walton I think we're scheduled to have further discussions at 4:30–see you at 1:30

12:31


27 posted on 02/12/2007 9:36:43 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; All

Reading this on a quick break, I have little faith in Judge Walton's sense or judicial discretion. He's out of his mind to fantasize that the Russert/Mitchell wasn't one of organizational networking AND with Russert in a managerial/oversight role. God bless Scooter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wells: I'm going to call the Agent [Eckenrode] tomorrow. This is the one instance bc the notes cannot be found–there was a diligent search for the notes.

Walton: but you're still trying to ask the jury to speculate.

Wells: I am allowed to present this with an instruction.

Walton: I agree, if there is a reason to show this in the first place. You want the inference to be drawn that because of the intensity that she was working the story, she would have heard of this.

Wells: Analytically we have a different perspective. It's a team. Russert and Mitchell and Gregory are a team.

Walton: I've heard all that, counselor, and I just don't buy it.


28 posted on 02/12/2007 10:01:05 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; Enchante; Cicero; the Real fifi

Ping.

Yup, Mitchell - Gregory - Russert, and Mitchell - Harlow - Novak dots are asked by defense to be connected to impeach the witness testimony ;-) wants Eckenrode on the stand...



Walton up (jury not here) to deal with motions. We're going to start with the motion to quash Andrea Mitchell's subpoena.

Wells: We wish to call Ms. Mitchell, and elicit testimony at a minimum that would show how intensely she was working on the Wilson story. When this story started, Russert was on vacation. Gregory is on the record as knowing Plame's identity. We have the right to show how intensely NBC was covering this story from which one can infer that she learned Plame's identity. "We think this case presents a different factual model" than any of the cases the government has cited.

Walton: But you want this to go to the truth.

Wells: No, what I want, to the extent that I have a wish list, my extreme wish is that your honor would treat it as residual evidence. But I have also said that if it is not treated as substantive evidence, it still should come in as impeachment evidence with a limiting instruction.

Walton: Impeaching her on what?

Wells: Impeaching her on her testimony that she can rule out that Plame worked at the CIA.





Walton: But you couldn't argue from that she would have heard it.

Walton: To say that you're working on a subject and then to ask the jury to presume that you had heard about Mrs. Wilson,

Wells: If she's working on the story, covering the State Department, where Armitage worked [but of course he wasn't returning her calls].

Walton: I don't think it's logical to assume that Harlow told her.

Wells: Harlow told Novak, he confirms it. [he says he'll call Harlow]

Walton: In a roundabout way, you want to get before the jury this statement that maybe she knew using a roundabout basis.

Wells; She was the lead investigative reporter, she was out working on the case.

Walton: You want the jury to infer that because she was working on it, she would have heard about Mrs. Wilson. The only basis for assuming that is the inconsistent statement. You'd be asking the jury to speculate that just because she was working on this, he would have heard it.

Wells: Russert says there was a buzz. We've already got on the record. The 302 states, I cannot rule it out as a possibility.





Wells: I'm going to call the Agent [Eckenrode] tomorrow. This is the one instance bc the notes cannot be found–there was a diligent search for the notes.

Walton: but you're still trying to ask the jury to speculate.

Wells: I am allowed to present this with an instruction.

Walton: I agree, if there is a reason to show this in the first place. You want the inference to be drawn that because of the intensity that she was working the story, she would have heard of this.

Wells: Analytically we have a different perspective. It's a team. Russert and Mitchell and Gregory are a team.

Walton: I've heard all that, counselor, and I just don't buy it.

Well: For the govt to put Russert on, they created a situation for the jury that he's out by himself, and Ms. Mitchell is the reporter working on the ground.





Wells: I strongly disagree with Fitz' characterization of what took place. The obstruction count was based on three false statements. We wanted it clear that on terms of the obstruction that there was nothing wih Grossman and Miller, What the obstruction count was predicated on was that obstruction was based on three-prong statement. I opened on it. The Jury can consider June 23 and July 8 in terms of what Libby knew.

Fitz: I'll briefly respond, The vice in taking language out, as opposed to a count is that you're asking them to rule beforehand. I think the jury could find that the description of July 12 was a lie, but not using the language in the count, the jury can use that evidence against Mr. Libby, they can also use that evidence that when he said the first time he told her on July 12, that that was a lie. This proposed instruction would focus on July 12–and the language in the indictment, even though they were never going to see the indictment–would lead them to focus inappropriately on July 12.

Wells; We're not going to address that conversation. It has been dismissed. The jurors should know that it has been dismissed.

Walton: I'm going to have to … I'll have to go back and re-evaluate the evidence to see whether… I don't want something before the jury that could be prejudicial. I need to go back and review the indictment.



29 posted on 02/12/2007 10:01:29 AM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Somehow I doubt it...and I am sure if this was Wilson on trial...the notes would be JUST a little different.


30 posted on 02/12/2007 10:11:59 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I was struck by that part of the testimony myself...and Walton being purposely DENSE.


31 posted on 02/12/2007 10:14:43 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Unless something happens soon, a lot will depend on the impressions created in the closing arguments. I feel very bewildered and the whole issue is decidedly foggy. Good luk to any jury member trying to unravel it.


32 posted on 02/12/2007 10:14:57 AM PST by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I have little faith in Judge Walton's sense or judicial discretion

I am inclined to agree with that.

33 posted on 02/12/2007 10:15:30 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Maybe a lawyer will have to explain to me why Walton is prohibiting testimony which might lead the jurors to draw "inferences." Isn't that what the prosecution has been doing all along? In particular, he won't allow the defense to introduce evidence that Russert, Mitchell, and Gregory work as a team and share information, which they almost certainly do. It would be bizarre if they didn't. Walton wants to shield the jury from Mitchell's "everybody knew" statement.


34 posted on 02/12/2007 10:28:34 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
Political prosecutions are very hard to understand because those involved namely Fitz and the judge sound illogical.

No room here for unemotional discretion, they must stretch credulity to the max, lol.
35 posted on 02/12/2007 10:41:43 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

God forbid that the jury should hear anything prejudicial to Fitz's case. /s


36 posted on 02/12/2007 10:42:20 AM PST by Carolinamom (Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure -- President Bush SOTU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah; maica
DS I believe I probably did not know it at the time. Almost quite certain of that.

and based on comments like this we the taxpayers are spending millions prosecuting one man. Four weasel words in one statement.....believe....probably...almost...quite....yikes!

37 posted on 02/12/2007 10:44:53 AM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame

THEY'RE BACK AND IT'S NOVAK TIME:

Well,I guess Libby's team thought we'd be tired after lunch. Or perhaps they want us to lose our lunch. Becuase we're getting Novak.

Novak sitting there looking shiftily from right to left, kind of sitting back in the seat. He's got a three piece suit (like the one in the picture, but a yellow tie or some such thing. And he's wearing glasses. Maybe he noticed earlier that losing one's glasses is a good way to stall for time?!?!

Fitzgerald and Wells chatting about something–bench conference on something relating to Novak.

Libby is very animated right now, laughing with Jeffress. Whatever he said, they're both cracking up.

Novak has one cup of water to the side and one in front of him. He looks more comfortable than Judy, but not all that much more. But maybe that's because he looks shifty by his very nature? That took abotu 5 minutes or so. Jury now coming in.

I think Walton is getting tired–he's not as chatty as he was with the jury week before last.

[Wells up, I'll use W and RN]

RN: I'm a journalist, staffer for Sun Times, syndicated columnist, also a (clears throat) contributor for Fox, Bloomberg, editor in chief for Evans-Novak.

W: In 2003 who did you work for?

RN Sun Times, CNN. Exec producer for Capital game [His voice sounds A LOT more nasaly than normal], been political commentator since 1963.

Wells: Work history.

RN: goes through military service, AP, Evans, since Evans retirement.

Now Novak is sitting up on edge of seat.

W: Week of July 7 2003.

RN: Change of coutnerterrorism aide, Ms. Townsend, and several small stories ran in item, working on Amb Joe Wilson's mission to Niger which he had written about.

W How did you come to be working on Wilson column

RN: Previous Sunday, alleged attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger, he had written op-ed, he was on MTP, I happened to be on roundtable and came in contact with him, had been interested in story, became more interested in it, and whether Pres had ignored report in opting for invasion of Iraq.

Wells, itnroduces the column.

1:41


38 posted on 02/12/2007 10:46:35 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

You can sure tell the blogger is a lib...by the remarks..like the "clears throat" before naming Fox News...LOL


39 posted on 02/12/2007 10:49:45 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

And the reference to Novak looking "shifty."


40 posted on 02/12/2007 10:54:51 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
........the Wilson matter. If he's not going to testify, there's a different theory, that he had overload, and so didn't remember this event.

So Wilson won't have to testify because he had overload !

Isn't "Overload" what the memory defense is all about? Wilson was retired, visiting Africa where he has business interests. Get Wilson on the stand!

41 posted on 02/12/2007 10:55:29 AM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame

Bttt


42 posted on 02/12/2007 10:56:38 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Just remember, fully HALF of the people you encounter in life are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Some color commentary from JustOneMinute:

What we are watching today is the defense knocking the starch out of "Elliott Ness with a law degree" by highlighting a series of blunders the prosecution made. (I'm sure some want to know if Fitz is sweating as he was at the presser. Can't tell from the feed, but he does seem to be wearing that washable seersucker suit again.)

.Two of the biggest blunders to date were failing to put anything on to support the July 12 count on Miller.With that out, obstruction is only available on the Cooper count(are you kidding?) and the Russert count.Fitz seemed shook as he made what I thought was a very week argument that the jury could infer the July 12 stuff from the other conversations. .(I will detail this further tonight when I get home but he never charged Libby with perjury re Miller, only with obstruction and if that's out, it would only seem logical to tell the jury to disregard all that.)

A potentially bigger issue is the offhand remarks the judge made earlier that Libby couldn't put in the memory defense if he didn't testify..Most particualry the CIPA stuff. There was heated argument on it and at 4:30 it will continue. Basically, in stipulating to relevant facts (including that Libby was focused on all that stuff in the CIPA materials) the govt never reserved that the stipulation applied only if Libby testified.

The defense is arguing an agreement was made, not based on Libby's testimony, and they have based their opening statement and case on that agreement.

We will hear more about this.


43 posted on 02/12/2007 10:59:42 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

I thought the rest of the commentary at JOM was as interesting as that first bit, so here it is:

"I predict that while the stipulation might be whittled down a bit--the judge thinking the govt might have misunderstood (ie. been taken to the cleaners by shrewder counsel), most of this stuff will find it's way into the record even if Libby does not testify.
WHAT IS CRITICAL AT THIS POINT IS THAT THE JUDGE HAS BACKED WAY OFF of earlier comments suggesting Libby can't use CIPA stuff etc if he doesn't testify. He can, if he lays the proper foundation.

The more subtle point is the defense counsel has outmaneuvered the prosecution at several key points and the prosecution knows it and is off its edge in my opinion.

(I lent Jim Engle last night's pleading and we discussed this. We seem to be in agreement on this point-- The defense is both fighting for its points on the evidence AND Smacking the SP around a little.)

I thought Woodward was an impressive witness, helpful to Libby and that the jury is paying attention--asking him if anyone else knew--to which he said he'd told Pincus."


44 posted on 02/12/2007 11:03:22 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
The defense is arguing an agreement was made, not based on Libby's testimony, and they have based their opening statement and case on that agreement.

Even so, it is clear that Walton will protect Fitz-fong on this. Walton believes it is just impossible that the stipulation would be made without it being conditioned on Libby taking the stand. Walton is extremely biased in favor of the prosecution.

45 posted on 02/12/2007 11:09:34 AM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Thanks for posting the JOM notes...they make more sense to my ignorant mind than the testimony at this time.


46 posted on 02/12/2007 11:19:50 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
they make more sense to my ignorant mind than the testimony at this time.

Ditto that for me.

47 posted on 02/12/2007 11:22:56 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
A potentially bigger issue is the offhand remarks the judge made earlier that Libby couldn't put in the memory defense if he didn't testify..

Very difficult for a foreigner to understand. Why can't the defendant make just any defence. "Wasn't me M'lord, I hadn't returned from Mars". Well, if the jury believes that, so be it. If they don't then it was probably not good for the defence to put forward a frivolous argument. But why would they be barred from doing so?

Sorry, but reading these threads I can't help but thinking of Dickens very often:

"If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

48 posted on 02/12/2007 11:23:34 AM PST by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy

THE TESTIMONY CONTINUES (for some reason, I was having trouble getting it to update for awhile):

1:41

W: Focuses on the key paragraph of the column. Two SAOs told me. WRT statement about 2 SAOs, who were the two?

RN: Both of those officials have signed waivers I'm free to give their names, then Dpty SOS Armitage, and Senior WH Aide, Karl Rove.

W: Start with how you came to speak with Armitage.

RN: I had been trying to get appointment with Armitage since 2001, he had declined to see me, had indicated he just didn't want to see me. After 9/11 I tried again, got rebuffed. At the end of June, last week of June, his office contacted me, said he'd see me. Made appointment for July 8, afternoon, his office, State.

W: What you recall about conversation.

RN: The only people in room were Armi and me, no aides, no tape recorders, I did not take notes, it was by tacit agreement rather than by stipulation, a background, I assumed I could write what he said, but I wouldn't be able to identify him, I also got to the point, I had decided by then I was going to write a column about Wilson's mission to Niger.

W What he told you WRT Wilson's wife.

RN: After we talked about mission, I asked why in the world they named WIlson when he had been staffer in Clinton NSC, he was believed to be critical of Bush, no experience in policy, had not been in Niger since 1970s [wrong again, Novak], so Armi said he was suggested by wife Valerie who was employee in CPD at CIA.

W You specifically recall that Armi referred to Wilson's wife by name,

RN Yes, as Valerie

W How did you come to learn her last name

RN Wilson's entry in Who's Who. It was listed as Valerie Plame.

W Armitage did not give you the last name.

W You used the term Agency operative. Did that come from Armitage

RN I've referred to people probably too much as operatives politicians as political operatives. Didn't indicate I had knowledge of her being intell operative but as employee of CIA.

W Did you have knowledge she was covert.

RN No.

W Fair to say Armi primary source. Did you have confirming source.

RN That was Karl Rove. In 2003 he was senior advisor to Pres on a wide variety of subjects. He had a lot to do with political strategy.

W To make sure they stayed in office.

RN MOre than that, that they were successful.

W That they were re-elected.

RN He was trying to do a good job for country.

W Personal Friend?

RN I wouldn't call him friend, I'd say very good source.

W When did you speak with Rove.

RN I called as soon as I returned, I can never remember getting him back right away, I think it was that day he returned the call.

W Conversaion the next on July 9

RN When we had that conversation–it could have been July 8, I haven't been able to pin it down. Mainly I was interested in Rove, I'm sorry, mostly Wilson mission to Niger, Asked him about that and policy. Near the end, I asked about Wilson's wife, I asked if he knew, I commented, I had been told that she was an employee of CPD of CIA and had suggested mission. He said, "oh you know that too."

W Did you take that as confirmation

RN I took it as confirmation


49 posted on 02/12/2007 11:25:40 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

STILL MORE:

1:51

W To what extent was your long-standing relationship with him factor into the fact that you took that as confirmation.

RN I knew when he was confirming something. When he said "oh you know that too" I took that as confirmation.

W I want to go to your conversations with Libby. Did you also speak with Libby.

RN Yessir.

W Relationship with Libby.

RN I had never had contact until election of VP Cheney in 2000 [interesting way to describe that!]. I asked him out to lunch, a couple of social events, I went to his book party, I called him a couple of three times during that year, that was about the extent of it.

W Introduces his phone bill.

RN What was the question?

W Describe to jurors

RN Phone record of phoned in call from my number in Washington at 4:46 PM on July 8 to Mr. Libby's office at WH.

W Going through phone number. It says Inside.

RN That's the name of my column.

W How do you know that shows you call.

RN It's like an eye test.

W magnifies it. Walton points out that it's in front of him on a screen.

RN That says one minute, I didn't talk to him for one minute. I asked for him, and he was unavailable.–they took a message.

RN I believe he returned call on July 9.

W Describe your recollection of your conversation.

RN I was trying to find out more information about Wilson's mission to Niger and VP's connection. Most memorable about call, I asked Libby if he might be helpful to me in establishing timeline in 16 words. When they came in, who proposed it, sort of a consecutive account that I could put in column. I interpreted him as saying he could be helpful.

W In context of talking to Libby did Wilson's wife come up.

RN I don't remember exactly, I might have raised that question, I got no help, and no confirmation on that issue. The reason I'm fuzzy is that I talk to a lot of people in govt an politics everyday and a lot of them are not very helpful and I discard unhelpful conversations in my memory bank.

W You have a clear recollection he gave you no info about it.

RN I'm sure he gave be no info about it.

W You might have asked if he knew that "the wife" worked at the CIA.

W Timeline, on July 8 you talked to Armi, then July 9, you talked to Rove, and also on July 9 you talked to Libby.

RN I'm not positive about the Rove conversation, I'm not positive about whether it was 8th or 9th.

W Back to Novak's column


50 posted on 02/12/2007 11:27:05 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson