*** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Trial: Motion Opens Door For No

[ralps]

Libby Testimony
By: Christy Hardin Smith
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/06/libby-trial-motion-opens-door-for-no-libby-testimony/

Jeralyn of TalkLeft caught a new motion filing (PDF) from TeamLibby last night after I'd already gone to sleep, and graciously sent it along to me last night for my review as well. (Thanks, Jeralyn!) The key points are as follows: (1) Team Libby wants Judge Walton to reconsider them being allowed to introduce circumstantial and other evidence regarding Libby's memory, whether or not Libby takes the stand; (2) that exclusion of such evidence would violate his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and to not incriminate himself, among other arguments; and that this evidence satisfies the requirements of Rule 401 of the Rules of Evidence defining relevance as "means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Team Libby is doing its job here in re-arguing this point with Judge Walton, and making a record for the appellate court should the judge fail to rule their way and should Libby be convicted by the jury at the close of trial deliberations. This is what lawyers do on both sides — leave a clear trail in their oral arguments on the record and in their paper filings as to what the interpretation of the law ought to be — if everything went the way they would hope for their particular side of the case, and lining out what they think the law says to support those facts and arguments.

The strongest argument for Team Libby is the Fifth Amendment one, I think — arguing that Libby has a fundamental right to remain silent and that conditioning the entry of this evidence on Libby's testimony violates that right. Since the Government's case has already touched on some of the National Security material, I think an argument can be made that this is tangentially related (although, oddly, the Team Libby brief glosses over THAT particular nuance, and I'm not certain why, since an argument that the government already "opened the door" for this particular issue would have been a stronger one for them with Judge Walton — at least, I think so, having read through the copious rulings in this case from the start of motions proceedings.)

That said, this would not, nor should it, open the door for Team Libby to introduce reams and reams of national security materials in an attempt to confuse the jury or to overwhelm them and to obfuscate the fact that, despite having substantial national security matters on his plate, that Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, Libby, were honing in on Amb. Joe Wilson with a laser focus from the moment the Vice President received criticism about his credibility.

snip

[ralps]

1. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury ...

Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony, Two
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/06/libby-live-libby-grand-jury-testimony-two/

Jane and I had cab issues this morning, so we arrived at the courthouse with pre-jury jousting already underway. The arguments appear to be about whether David Sanger of the New York Times will be forced to testify as a defense witness. Stay tuned for clarifications as we get our mental bearings.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.

Ted Wells, an attorney for Libby, just got up to respond to the attorney for Sanger. He claimed that Sanger's testimony is needed because the fact that Scooter didn't leak to Sanger about Plame on July 2, 2003, shows that he wouldn't have leaked to Judith Miller or anyone else. He also, somewhat apropos of nothing, chooses this moment to dispute the notion that Scooter and Judy "had a close personal relationship," suggesting that their June 23rd conversation was the first time they had ever met in person. Um, or maybe there was one prior occasion, but that's it.
Judge Walton is now talking about the First Amendment issues involved. It's 9:50. (P.S. He just ruled for the defense that Sanger must testify; I suppose there will be an appeal.)

The jury had been brought in, and they're resuming the replay of Libby's grand jury testimony in March.

snip

[SpiralHawk]

2. Libby leaked to stooge republicon propagand-'journalists'

republicon journo-whores he KNEW would catapult his propaganda.

The fact that he did not out a CIA agent to a real journalist is no argument in his favor.

Scooter had his corporate media stooges all planned out already.

[ralps]

6. Hi SpiralHawk

[ralps]

4. ***10:06, 10:23

It's 10:06.

F: (gives Libby the Wilson op-ed) What was your reaction? Were you angry?

L: I was confident that the facts were clear, that this was wrong.

F: Were you upset?

L: (long pause) I guess I was upset. I didn't like the article.

F: And did you discuss it with the VP?

L: (pause) Yes.

F: Are you uncertain?

L: I'm just trying to remember when. I didn't see him on Sunday.

F: Tell me about that conversation.

L: I don't remember it in detail. It was the same claims we had seen before.

F: Leaving aside if charges were true or false, is it fair to say this was most serious attack on administration credibility?

L: (doesn't want to concede this, but finally does)

F: Was this discussed on a daily basis in WH over the next week?

L: Yes.

F: Multiple times each day?

L: Yes.

snip

It's 10:23.

F: Do you recall discussing Mr. Wilson with Ari Fleischer?

L: It makes sense, but I don't recall it. (rambles about what they would have discussed)

F: Do you recall discussing Mr. Wilson's wife?

L: I don't recall discussing the wife, because I was surprised later in talking with Russert.

F: Do you recall Ari saying later on July 7th that the WH no longer stood behind the 16 words?

L: I remember reading the statement afterward, not the actual statement by Ari.

F: But you do remember the future plans, Miami Dolphins, etc.?

L: I had many conversations about the uranium during this time, but only one about the Dolphins.

F: (walks through Ari account of lunch with Libby, who doesn't recall any of it)

F: What do you remember about Novak article?

L: The name, Valerie Plame.

snip

[ralps]

7. ***10:42, 10:53

It's 10:42.

F: (shows Libby the Novak July 14th column) Do you recognize anything in there as being something you might have told him?

L: (nitpicks about various things in story he says are wrong) I don't recall being a source for any of this.

F: Do you recall any conversation with Novak about Wilson or uranium before that column?

L: (repeats that he recalls talking to Novak, but his notes show that happened July 25th or so — says Novak seemed to know everything, "more him talking to me than me to him, he had all this stuff")

F: Have you been a source for Novak in the past?

L: I don't think so (various half-sentences here)

F: Have you given him information off the record?

L: Not frequently, and I don't think I've ever given him anything intentionally for his column, just talking to him socially.

snip

It's 10:53.

I can't give a play-by-play by this, because I was distracted for a moment — and it seems to have caught everyone else by surprise, too — but Fitz brings up a note from Cathie Martin (I think) that talks about Niger officials and then has an arrow with "charge in Baghdad, his wife works there." Some conversation in the media room about what this is, and the conclusion seems to be it's from Cathie Martin talking to the CIA's Bill Harlow sometime between June 10th or so and July 8th. I failed to catch Libby's specific reaction to thie. Be sure to check this out when the transcripts are released.

There's a break just before 11:00. I'm going to start a new thread.

[Cerridwen]

19. Er?!

From this piece of testimony

L: He was interested in how this person came to be selected for this mission. At some point after he learned that his wife worked

F: Cheney had told you this in June.

L: Yes.

F: So when you say "after we learned…" didn't you already know?

L: By this week I no longer remembered that. (mentions Russert conversation on July 10)

F: Do you recall when you discussed this with the VP, about Wilson's wife? (bold mine)

Did I read the part I bolded correctly: libby just said, "I remember that I didn't remember"?

My head hurts.

[Cerridwen]

3. G'morning, ralps...

I brought coffee and donuts this morning. :D

edit: oops, too much...we'll all OD on sugar with that...


ah, much better


:donut:

[ralps]

5. Hi Cerridwen, Thanks I'm on my 2nd mug of coffee & I'm watching the

Waxman Iraq hearing. Multitasking in a sense.

[Cerridwen]

8. I'm not yet to the hearings..

My multi-tasking is being limited by a 12 lb. terrier who insists sitting in my lap and getting pets trumps any ol' stupid human stuff and an 80 lb greyhound who would like to know why it is I think I can sit on 'his' couch.

:D

[ralps]

10. Paul Bremmer gave his opening statement & now Stuart Bowen is giving his

[ralps]

9. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony, Three

Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony, Three
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/06/libby-live-libby-grand-jury-testimony-three/

The jury has returned, so we're back for more Libby grand jury testimony from March 2004. Don't forget the ground rules…

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. My own previous writings on Plamemania can be found here. (4) My own notes will be in parentheses and italics.
F: Do you remember talking to Judith Miller on July 8th?

L: Yes.

(discussion of what Miller had been up to — just back from Iraq, etc.)

L: This was our first meeting, or she may have come to my office once before. She's a very responsible reporter, and I'd wanted to meet her because she cares about the WMD issue and threats to America. As we started to discuss week of July 7th, the NIE had said … (discusses NIE, asks for permission to discussion January 24 document) A January 24 document had said exactly the same thing as the NIE supporting the notion of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. The CIA had issued this in October 2002 and January 2003, and we wanted people to know that this went against what Wilson said.

I was unaware that she was not writing during this period, but the VP instructed me to talk to Judith Miller. I said, but NIE is classified, but Cheney said Pres. had authorized it. Libby went to Addington to confirm that Pres. could declassify (this is all stuff that has been reported, so sorry if I miss details). So the Pres and VP wanted me to discuss this, and I selected Judith Miller because I felt she was a responsible reporter (Uhh, you just said Cheney picked her, didnt you?).

[ralps]

17. ***continuing opening section

F: Getting back to Judith Miller, did you talk about Mr. Wilson?

L: I don't remember specifically, but probably since we discu

F: What about Mr. Wilson's wife?

L: I don't believe I did.

F: Do you recall a meeting on July 9th chaired by Stephen Hadley?

L: Not specifically.

F: Hadley was angry, saying that Tenet was upset by Andrea Mitchell report… do you recall him looking at Cathie Martin and Claire Buchan of OVP?

L: Not specifically.

F: This was just after you spoke with Andrea Mitchell, right?

(Fitz explains that Martin and Buchan were removed from contacting CIA during that period, Libby says he doesn't remember it for that reason, was because of work on Tenet statement at higher levels)

F: Do you recall Hadley saying on July 9th that we need to do something about Wilson now, discredit him? (Oh, my.)

L: I don't recall that specific phrase, but I'd have to check my notes.

F: Do you remember that concept coming across, regardless of specific words?

L: Yes, to discredit what Wilson was saying. Don't recall about discrediting him personally.

F: (pulls out notes) Do you recall Rove complaining that Wilson was viewed as a credible expert?

L: Remember wanting to discredit his story, but not him personally

F: Were people saying, "Let's be careful to discredit his story, but not discredit him personally"?

L: Don't recall any statement like that.

F: Do you recall an effort to push back on Wilson's credibility that week?

L: Yes, trying to get statement from Rice and Tenet explaining that Wilson's findings didn't really undermine intelligence, but supported it (gives the whole spiel again)

It's 11:36.

[ralps]

20. ***11:36

It's 11:36.

F: Did you consider Wilson's wife working at the CIA as something that undermined his credibility?

L: No, I thought he was credible to do what he did.

F: Do you believe it reflected nepotism in his hiring?

L: I… I don't think I knew then why he was hired. That didn't come out until later, with the Rove report. (??? I have no idea what this means. ???)

F: You're clear that you didn't give this information with Ari Fleischer

L: I don't recall it. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but all I recall is being surprised when I talked about it with Tim Russert.

F: (pulls out note from conversation about Tenet statement, with references to Cheney, Hadley, plus Harlow/McLaughlin on CIA)

F: Does this say, "Wilson is declassified"?

L: Yes.

F: Does this say, "The president is comfortable"?

L: Yes.

F: And the next line:

L: Hadley saying it's the NIE should be leaked.

snip

F: Tell me about conversation with Mr. Russert.

L: Chris Matthews has a TV show, and is an outspoken fellow, and he was saying Wilson report had been seen by VP and should have convinced WH that Niger uranium intelligence was false, not even referring to denials by WH, OVP, and CIA. This was frustrating to us, and we wanted him to acknowledge that the public record was different. Wasn't first time Matthews had criticized us. So I called Mary Matalin and asked for advice on how we should get Matthews to acknowledge public record. Mary had own opinions on where we were, so she gave them, then suggested I call Tim Russert.

So I called Russert, can't remember if I got him right away or had to call back. We spoke briefly, and then I turned to our issues. I mentioned Andrea Mitchell but said I'm not really calling about Mitchell, then went into problems with Matthews. I think Russert said he had to call me back. And I think in the second phone call, if there was one, or a delay in the first call, we had a fuller conversation. He said not much he could do about Chris Matthews, and then he said did you know Ambassador Wilson's wife works for the CIA? I remeber being taken aback by that, and I said "No, I don't know that." Intentionally, because I didn't want him to take me as confirming it. Because I had forgotten by then that I had ever known.

So he said wife works at CIA, and I said, "I don't know that," and he said, "Yeah, all the reporters know that," and I said "I don't know that." Again.

F: What was resolution with Chris Matthews.

L: We were told to go to his producer. In short, I struck out.

snip

[ralps]

21. ***11:55

It's 11:55.

(Fitz and Libby discuss note from Matalin conversation about calling Russert… see emptywheel's post last week for details)

F: What's this,

L: This is Matalin talking, "get David Sanger of NYT or someone, get Wilson's whole story out"… "we need to address Wilson's motivation"

(Yeah, the snake part gets discussed, too, but it's snipped out of the audio and shown as "REDACTED" in the transcript.)

(Fitz walks Libby again through all the conversations about Plame he doesn't remember — Grossman, Fleischer, etc. — he still doesn't recall them.)

F: You're sure you spoke with Russert on the 10th or 11th?

L: My notes show that I called Matalin on the 10th and then tried to reach Russert the same day.

F: When you called Russert, were you calling as a source?

L: No.

snip

F: When Russert told you what you said he did, did you call the CIA press office to say, have you heard about reporters knowing this?

L: No.

F: Did you tell any other WH official, or the VP?

L: No.

F: What's the next discussion you recall where you discussed Wilson's wife's employment with anyone?

L: On the 11th, as we were still waiting for Tenet statement, at the end of the day I spoke to Karl Rove. During this conversation he said Bob Novak had told him he'd be writing a story about Wilson that weekend, he felt Wilson might not be impartial, and that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. So this was confirmation of a sort of what I'd heard from Tim Russert. I told Karl that I had heard from Tim Russert the same thing. I don't remember the exact order of this conversation, but that's the sum and substance.

It's 12:13.

[ralps]

24. ***12:13

It's 12:13.

F: When was this conversation with Rove?

L: On the 11th, I think in the afternoon or evening.

F: Did you tell Rove how you responded to Tim Russert?

L: I don't think so.

F: Did you learn how Rove responded to Novak?

L: No.

F: Was there a sense of relief that Novak was responding to WH being beaten up all week?

L: The more important thing was that the Tenet statement was going to come out, rebutting Wilson on the facts.

F: Were you pleased to know a story was coming out on Wilson's background that weekend or so?

L: More concerned with Tenet statement, glad it was finally coming out but concerned it would miss Friday evening TV news and get lost in Saturday papers. Felt like CIA rebuttal on facts was more effective way to answer Wilson charges.

snip

F: Did you talk to Andrea Mitchell about Wilson and his wife sometime in this time frame?

L: I talked to Andrea Mitchell after Russert, and I see that NBC has stated that she didn't know about Wilson's wife until after July 14th.

F: What do you remember about talking to Mitchell?

L: I remember an awkward moment in talking to her, because I thought about what Russert told me, but I didn't know if she knew, and I didn't want to get Russert in trouble by saying he'd told me.

F: Did you talk to Mitchell about it after the 14th?

L: I don't recall. I was worried about her asking where I found out.

F: Why not just say you couldn't comment.

L: I don't like to obfuscate in that way. (smiles in media room)

Fitz starts to ask about July 12, and being with Cheney. Walton stops the tape and says it's time for lunch.

It's 12:25. New thread when we return.

[H2O Man]

11. Good day!

Team Libby is being out-done by Mr. Fitzgerald in every area of the trial. The coverage on FDL allows the "grass roots" to have a ringside seat to this trial!

[ralps]

13. Good Morning H2O Man!

[Blackhatjack]

12. Once again this should have been decided pretrial and included in a pretrial order by J. Walton...

... Rule 401 evidence cannot come into a trial unless first a foundation is laid and then it is 'authenticated' OR prior to its offer to the Court as evidence the opposing counsel has not objected to its admission.

My understanding is that the Fitz team has objected to entry of most of these documents without there first being a foundation and authentication in the normal manner contemplated by the rules.

Does this go back to J. Walton's decision that he would not allow 'memory loss' experts to be presented by the Defense at trial?

If so, it is hard to see how they get these into evidence with someone other than Libby testifying. Team Libby is coming up against the decision as to whether Libby will take the stand. If I were the Judge, I would be perturbed at counsel for filing this motion since this has already been hashed out pretrial and after a hearing the Court ruled. The time to make this motion was post hearing and pretrial, not during trial.

[ralps]

14. Hi Blackhatjack

[SpiralHawk]

15. Thanks ralps -- for spreading the news

you get an official Wig-Wag of the SpiralHawk wings

[H2O Man]

16. Great photo!

Very nice!

[ralps]

18. Cool photo!!!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

22. K&R Thank You Ralps! nt.

[ralps]

23. Hi OnceUponTimeOnTheNet, thanks

[ralps]

25. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony,

Four
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/06/libby-live-libby-grand-jury-testimony-four/

More? You want more Libby trial live-blogging? Haven't you already been on this ride enough times today? Oh, very well, step this way and climb on board…

A further reminder about these posts… as Marcy/emptywheel was fond of saying, we are not court reporters. Even though an exchange may look like verbatim dialogue, what I'm usually doing is boiling down a two-sentence question and a four-sentence answer (with plenty of false starts) into a short sentence each — the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. With that, here we go with the afternoon session.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.

First, the usual preliminary side issues. Walton says he will admit the October 12, 2003 Washington Post article (this one) in its entirety, overruling the defense request to redact the 1×2x6-related material (see yesterday's posts for details). Also the defense is claiming that Russert shouldn't testify tomorrow unless they get further information about what "accommodations" Fitzgerald made to allow Russert testify. The government says the affidavits in question deal with the broader investigation, and are protected under grand jury secrecy rules. (For example, a prosecutor says, the legal effort to force Russert's testimony involved "another reporter related to another part of the investigation." … Anyone out there want to track down the details?)
It's 1:49.

[ralps]

30. ***1:49

It's 1:49.

The Russert affidavit imbroglio bubbles on… the defense solves the mystery in the paragraph above, explaining that the other reporter was Matt Cooper. Walton seems intent on ruling in favor of Fitzgerald, but Wells suggests that maybe once he begins cross-examination the judge may want to reconsider the issue. Walton says if Russert testifies inconsistently with what the affidavits say, there's an issue — absent that, he asks, what is the rule or case law under which the defense has a right to the documents? Libby's lawyer Ted Wells insists that he thinks the documents are relevant, but doesn't answer the question about the specific legal rationale. (Is this just filibustering?)

But wait — defense attorney Bill Jeffress says that Russert's attorney will be called as a witness! Does this change things? I don't know. Walton says, let's move on to testimony.

It's 2:07.

[ralps]

31. ***2:07

It's 2:07.

Walton flips the switch on the wayback machine, and we're once again reliving Scooter Libby's grand jury testimony in March 2004. The questioning is about July 12, 2003, when Libby is hanging out with VP Dick Cheney in Virginia, then flying back to Washington, DC…


Fitz: And there was an outstanding request from Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Libby: Yes, most of these calls go to Cathie Martin. But the Cooper inquiry was one she wanted to discuss.

Fitz: When you discussed this with Martin, were you in a part of Air Force Two apart from the VP?

Libby: Yes.

Fitz: And at some point you went to talk with the VP?

Libby: Yes.

Fitz: Was Martin with you?

Libby: I'm not sure. I might have been alone.

F: What did you talk to VP about?

L: Larger issue of how to draw attention to Tenet statement. Decided he wanted me to make a statement on the record, which he felt would get more attention.

snip

F: When did you make the calls?

L: Wanted a land line, so went to lounge at Andrews Air Force Base. Tried to call Cooper, Evan Thomas of Newsweek, Glenn Kessler of WaPo and tried to call Judith Miller later. Think I might have tried to call her then, everyone at once. Couldn't get hold of Kessler and Thomas right away.

F: Tell me about Cooper conversation.

L: I hadn't spoken to him before — some preliminaries, then went through talking points.

F: Tell me about discussing Wilson's wife.

L: After I finished talking points, Cooper continued to ask questions — if Wilson is wrong, why is he saying what he is? C

F: What was Cooper's response?

L: I don't recall.

F: And you attributed your knowledge about Wilson's wife to reporters?

L: Yes. (goes into already-published excerpt from indictment about "I don't know if he has a wife," etc. I'm not retyping this.)

F: Any other reporters you talked to?

L: I talked to three other reporters that day. I talked to Judith Miller, and I know I talked to her about Wilson's wife.

F: Tell me about that conversation.

L: (walks through Tenet statement again) I don't know exactly how it came up, but I told her I didn't know if it was true, but reporters are telling us (etc., etc.) I also talked to Evan Thomas.

snip

[ralps]

34. ***2:52

It's 2:52. (P.S. There's a key point I left out above that I'll share in the next update.)

Okay, here's what I didn't have time to type before — Fitzgerald made sure to force Libby to retell the whole story of telling Cooper/Miller/etc. about Wilson's wife, each time. At one point (about Kessler, I think) he started to say "… you know, the same thing I told Cooper." And Fitz said, "No, don't shorten it. Tell us the whole conversation." As Jane says, Fitz would be a child's worst nightmare as a parent.

It's 3:00. Going to a new thread.

[helderheid]

26. rec 4

[ralps]

28. Hi helderheid, thanks

[JNelson6563]

27. To the greatest page with you!

:toast:

[ralps]

29. Hi JNelson6563, thanks

[Gelliebeans]

32. I enjoyed this throughly

I loved it when Fitz while interviewing Libby asked about Libby's conversation with Ari about the Miami Dolphins. Libby could remember the Dolphins but conveniently "forgot" about Valerie Plame. hmmm...not a good day for Libby. Very good day for the rest of us that want to see justice.

Thanks again for the post ralps!

[ralps]

33. Hi Gelliebeans, you're welcome

[ralps]

35. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony,

Libby Live: Libby Grand Jury Testimony, Five
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/06/libby-live-libby-grand-jury-testimony-five/

HiMore? You want more Libby trial live-blogging? Haven't you already been on this ride enough times today? Oh, very well, step this way and climb on board…

A further reminder about these posts… as Marcy/emptywheel was fond of saying, we are not court reporters. Even though an exchange may look like verbatim dialogue, what I'm usually doing is boiling down a two-sentence question and a four-sentence answer (with plenty of false starts) into a short sentence each — the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. With that, here we go with the afternoon session.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.

Libby's being sworn in for his second grand jury appearance, a week or two after his first one in March 2004.
F: You said you had some items in your earlier testimony you wanted to clarify or amend.

L: You had asked me about Marc Grossman, and I couldn't remember any conversations about Wilson's wife. But one of your questions was whether I asked if State Dept. had sent Wilson, which was so far from what I believed that it stuck in my head, and so I kept thinking why you might have asked that, and I now recall joking with Grossman about it.

F: Tell me about that.

L: (long story about Bush seeking UN resolution against Saddam in Fall 2002, whether and how to let inspectors back in to Iraq) We had meetings about this, and I was told Grossman wouldn't participate. He felt it was just an effort to prevent inspectors from going, and would end up in a newspaper leak embarrassing Colin Powell. Six months later, we were in a deputies' meeting, and to fill time I ribbed Grossman by saying "this guy who went to Niger was one of yours," and he said, "No he was one of theirs," pointing at a CIA official. I said, "But he was an ambassador, it's a sad state of affairs when the CIA has to get their own ambassadors to find things out," again just joking

snip

[ralps]

36. ***3:21, 3:39

t's 3:21.

(Fitz shows Libby a batch of documents, but I'm not clear what they are — went by too fast. One has the notation "Wilson.")

F: What prompted the delivery of the CIA memo, marked ASAP, on June 9th?

L: May have been the Pincus article . (Libby amusingly tries to explain that "ASAP" doesn't necessarily mean it was "a hair-on-fire thing.")

(More documents, including apparently a CIA cable about the Wilson trip. Somewhere in here, Fitz asks if Libby knew at this time that Wilson was the envoy sent to Niger; Libby says he didn't.)

(F. points out that one document, a version of the CIA cable, has "Joseph Wilson" written on it.)

F: Do you recognize the handwriting?

L: (with a little hedging) It looks like the Vice President's.

(F. pulls out a copy of the eight-page CIA memo. The second page has "Joseph Wilson" printed, and "Wilson" in script underneath.)

F: Do you recognize the handwriting?

L: Not the printing. The script is mine.

snip

It's 3:39.

F: When was the NIE officially declassified?

L: July 18th.

F: Did the President specifically authorize you to give this information with Judith Miller.

L:

The first reporter that I discussed the NIE with.

The first I discussed the text of the NIE with, yes.

F: And you showed her the text of the NIE

L: The relevant portions, yes

F: Of a full or redacted copy of the NIE?

L: Redacted.

F: Did you give her the redacted copy?

L: No, just a page with bullet points.

F: Did you share the document you gave with Judith Miller with the VP first?

L: No.

snip

[ralps]

37. ***4:02

It's 4:02.

(Fitz establishes that only Dubya, Cheney, and Libby knew about insta-declassification, even as rest of government — including Rice and Hadley, and Tenet, and Andrew Card — engaged in official discussions about declassification through July 18th.)

F: Was it typical to keep members of intelligence in the dark about declassification issues?

L: Plenty of times VP tells me something I'm not supposed to tell anyone. (tangled Q&A that draws some smiles in press rooms about why it was OK not to tell)

F: How well did you know Judith Miller?

L: Had only met her once before July 8th. (repeats answer from previous testimony about

F: When did you meet her before? May, June?

L: It would be on my schedule.

F: Did Miller ever write anything based on your meeting?

L: No. It was a failed effort to get the NIE out, in my opinion.

F: And you also talked with Miller on July 12.

L: Yes.

snip

And with that, Walton says we're recessing for the evening… he has some documents he has to review, and then pick up his daughter from school. (So we have no idea whatsoever where that phone-bill line of questioning was going!!)
But first, Fitz has a few things he wants to share. The "mystery witness" is apparently a DOJ attorney who will testify about the rules for subpoenaing journalists, since people have raised questions (Fitz mentions Don Imus!) about why Russert was forced to testify, but not purported leakees like David Gregory (Jeff, are you out there?). He may not testify, because Fitz isn't sure that's how he wants to end his case. He also wants to enter a bunch of other documents as evidence, including a packet of articles showing Libby's obsession interest regarding the press response to Wilson… and he also mentions "the aspens letter."

It's 4:29, and we're not quite done yet.

[ralps]

38. ***4:29

It's 4:29, and we're not quite done yet.

The defense makes its pitch for excluding the new batch of articles, and Walton seems receptive, saying they are "of little probative value and potentially prejudicial." Fitz says they show Libby's focus and the Wilson issue and that the govt. feels the "Wilson issue" and "Wilson's wife issue" are inextricably entertained — a little snark as he says, "just because someone charged with perjury says the two were separate, that doesn't mean we should be constrained" (or words to that effect). Walton says he'll think it over.

School's out! Catch ya later.

I'll see you all in the next Libby Liveblogging thread tomorrow, unless you all want to check out the nightly Malloy Truthseeker thread
:hi: :loveya: :hug: :pals: :woohoo: