*** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Tim Russert, Three

[ralps]

Libby Live: Tim Russert, Three
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/08/libby-live-tim-russert-three/

Good morning, my friends, and welcome back to the cross-examination that never ends … we're due to see more of NBC's Tim Russert being raked over the coals by Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells. Yesterday afternoon's grilling raised several questions that Jane Hamsher, Arianna Huffington, and I kicked around after the court session. The main question from a media standpoint, even if some supposed media critics missed it (hat tip to commenter Thegris at Hullabaloo) is how Russert's loudly proclaimed First Amendment journalistic principles square with his unhesitating spilling of the beans to FBI agent John Eckenrode when he was first questioned about his phone call from Libby in July 2003.

And speak of the devil — as the judge and attorneys file into the courtroom, Judge Walton announces a problem with some of the jurors? There was an oversight in the redaction of newspapers, and the photo of Tim Russert and headline ("Tim Russert on the Uncomfortable Side of a Question") accompanying Howard Kurtz's article in the WaPo style section (which is linked above) was seen by some of the jurors. The jury is brought in, and no one 'fesses up to reading the article; a juror who saw the headline and photo immediately called it to marshals' attention. Mistrial averted, we hope.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. Even exchanges that look like verbatim dialogue are just the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. (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.

Russert takes his place on the stand. Wells tries to pick up where he left off, asking why if (as Tim said yesterday) that his chat with Libby was not something he considered confidential, why did he fight the subpoena and file an affidavit saying it was confidential? Did he make a false statement to a federal judge?

snip

[ralps]

1. ***9:44, 10:01

It's 9:44.

Wells notes that Russert refers to Libby as a "source" in the 2004 affidavit, but said yesterday that Libby had not called as a source (which Wells melodramatically wrote on the board for this purpose).

Russert explains that Libby was assumed to be a source until it became clear he was making a viewer complaint. Wells says, but he complained in the very first sentence! They go back and forth on this until Walton tells Wells to move on.

W: You said in the affidavit that you couldn't even confirm that you and a source had communicated at all. But you told the jury yesterdaj

T: In my mind there are two different situations. The FBI gave me information, I did not divulge information. When the FBI said how Libby had described the call, I felt compelled to correct information that was incorrect.

W: Did you think it was misleading to file an affidavit with Judge Hogan that did not mention those facts?

T: A subpoena was a much different situation, I would be asked to go before a jury and provide information, with open-ended questioning. I could not agree to that.

snip

It's 10:01

T: Did you disclose to the FBI that you had a conversation with Libby?

T: I did not volunteer any information.

W: Did you disclose to the court in the affidavit that you had confirmed to the FBI the conversation with Libby?

T: I did not volunteer any information.

W: That's a different matter. (repeats the question — they go around this three or four times)

Walton: I think its the way you're asking the question that's confusing.

W: Does anything in the affidavit say you had a conversation with Eckenrode?

T: No.

W: Let's go to a different matter

W: Do you know that you and government worked out a deal without it being considered a waiver? (?? by Libby, I guess)

T: I don't know

W: You never heard that before? Do you know what was communicated between Fitz and judge regarding your testimony?

T: I have no recollection of that.

snip

[ralps]

2. ***10:17, 10:34

It's 10:17.

W: There's nothing in letter about agreement not to use your disclosures to the FBI as an argument that you had already waived your confidentiality, correct?

Fitz objects. Sidebar. Walton sustains the objection.

W: (puts up a letter dated June 2, 2004, the first letter from Fitz to Russert's lawyer) Is there any reference in this letter to that it would not view your disclosures to the FBI as a waiver of confidentiality (Ahh, that's what the "waiver" thing up above was about.)

T: (asks to read letter) No, sir.

W: When you were deposed, the questions were limited to Libby conversation on July 10, right?

T: I was asked about any conversation iwth my colleagues or anyone else about Valerie Plame.

W: Deposition was about 22 minutes, right?

T: About that, yes.

W: You were asked, "At that time, did you have any understanding that Wilson's wife worked at CIA?" Just one question, right?

T:

W: you were not asked specifically about Dav

T: I believe I referred to my colleagues in one of m

W: Were you asked any specific questions on what information D Gregory might have had?

T: Don't think his name came up

W: Or what information Andrea Mitchell migth have had?

T: Not her specific name, no.

snip

It's 10:34.

W: You have never divulged on TV your conversation with Eckenrode, right?

T: Was a confidential conversation I did not report on.

W: Do you recall a statement by NBC News that NBC had done its best not to hide anything about its involvement or Tim Russert's involvement in leak investigation?

T: Yes.

Objection. Sidebar (after Fitz shrugs, a little frustrated, and says, "May be approach?"). Sustained.

It's 10:43. New thread coming up.

[ralps]

3. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Tim Russert, Four

Libby Live: Tim Russert, Four
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/08/libby-live-tim-russert-four/

The filleting of Tim Russert continues into a second hour this morning… the first hour focused on Russert never disclosing his gabby interview with the FBI in November 2003, either to TV viewers or in fighting a grand jury subpoena in 2004. Of special interest to the defense is why the special counsel never declared this interview to be a waiver of Russert's First Amendment claims to confidentiality, nor did they specifically agreed not to use it against Russert. This explains why the defense was saying a few days ago that they wanted to get their hands on any communication between Russert's lawyers and Team Fitz, because this should have been a topic that was negotiated about.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. Even exchanges that look like verbatim dialogue are just the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. (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.

Wells (W): Do you remember going on TV on October 29, 2005 and saying your role in the case was very simple? (plays tape — Russert begins story with March 2004 subpoena) You made no reference to the discussions with Eckenrode in November 2003, right?

Tim Russert (T): Right.

W: Did Fitz ask you not to disclose this conversation?

T: Never spoke to Fitzgerald about it.

W: Did Eckenrode ask you in November 2003 to keep conversation secret?

T: He did — I was thinking as a journalist, wanted to address misstatement, but when he asked to keep confidential, I was bound. I did tell him I would share it with NBC counsel.

snip

[ralps]

5. ***10:50,

It's 10:50.

W: Not one word in this statement (reads flowery language about First Amendent) that you had talked to Agent Eckenrode?

T: Two very different and distinct events.

W: I asked, did you mention it?

T: No, it was confidential.

W: And you didn't ask anyone to be released, for the sake of your credibility?

T: No.

W: Did you think it might be the right thing to do, to ask?

T: When I talk confidentially, I keep it confidential.

W: That's not what I asked.

Walton (interrupts): Asked and answered. (silence for a moment)

W: (quotes Pete Williams on TV, "all you testified was what someone would have heard standing in your office," Russert says I also said I did not receive leak about Wilson's wife — tape is played) When Pete Williams said that, and you agreed, that was inaccurate, right?

T: I also mentioned viewer complaint. That was the totality of the conversation.

snip

W: So what you said to Pete Williams is incorrect?

T: No I went on to talk about viewer complaint

W: But you said "Right" to Pete Williams

T: But I went on to talk about viewer complaint, it was a free-flowing conversation.

W: Given that you have gone on so many TV shows to talk about your deposition, would it be embarrassing if it turned out you had a mistaken recollection?

Objection. Sidebar. Now they're taking a break.

[ralps]

10. ***11:02

It's 11:02.

We're back. Wells says he only has about five minutes left with Russert (fist-pumping by irreverent sorts in media room) — but there's something everyone feels should be handled first. Tim is excused for a moment.

Wells explains to the judge that after the five minutes (apparently just that line of questioning — oh, well), he wants to ask about Russert's knowledge of Andrea Mitchell's infamous statement (since disavowed) that she and others knew about Wilson's wife. Notes that Mitchell said this after Libby indictment, then disavowed it on Don Imus show. Mitchell goes back on Imus show and says she doesn't know why she said what she said. Apparently Mitchell said she had discussed statement controversy with Russert, also admits that question/answer were clear when she said she knew.

Tape is played — Mitchell answers a question about Wilson's wife working at CIA, saying it was known among people who were trying to learn about Wilson, but she didn't know specific role at CIA. Then tape of Imus interview is played, Mitchell says statement was out of context (Imus says something like, "Isn't that always the case when you're threatened with having to testify?"), then explains that she obviously didn't know because she talked to Wilson on MTP on July 6th and matter didn't come up on or off screen.

Well, well maybe we'll find out what Andrea Mitchell(Mrs. Greenspan) knew??- my comment

[ralps]

23. ***11:20

It's 11:20.

Tape of Imus interview with Russert is played — Russert says Mitchell misspoke. Tape of Imus interview with Mitchell the next day is played — Mitchell says she has been trying to figure out what the heck she was talking about in that clip. She knows what she knew, and she knows she didn't know about wife — she was not one of people who knew who Joe Wilson was, and that's what she was trying to find out during that time period (i.e., who was envoy sent to Niger). She just misunderstood question, and screwed up. She says people weren't as focused on timeline then as opposed to now (what was pre- and post-Novak). There's nothing in her notes or memory that she knew. Imus bring up Russert, and Mitchell says, "It's not fair to ask him about what I said, or what I knew." (Wonder if Fitz will pick up on that.)

Walton: "This is nitpicking, at best. I don't see how this becomes relevant to Russert's credibility, that because he has made comments about this that he has bias."

Wells argues that because he's gone on TV saying he didn't know about wife, and Mitchell says something "that totally blows up" his story — since he's said that if she knew, whole NBC team would have discussed it — it "goes to the core" of Russert's credibility.

Walton says he doesn't even interpret Mitchell quote as saying she knew Wilson's wife works at CIA. Wells points out that Mitchell concedes this herself in second Imus interview.

Walton says it requires too many inferences by jury. Wells says, govt. has supplied plenty of evidence that requires inference — e.g. if Libby has an article in his file, he must have read it. Gets very wrought up, arguing that to deny defense right to confront Russert and then Mitchell with this is unfair and undermines the justice system.

Walton says he's not trying to undermine the justice system, and he's not happy at suggestions that he is.

Fitz says if we admit this, we might as well throw out "Whitmore on Evidence" (a textbook, apparently) and replace it with "Imus on evidence." More Imus snark follows — "throwing a bunch of speculationand TV cable shows in front of the jury," "claiming that someone would be embarrassed because of what was said on a Don Imus show" "there is no Imus exception to the hearsay rules,"

[WolverineDG]

28. "No Imus exception to hearsay"

:spray:

probably only hysterically funny to attorneys, but good one Fitz!! :loveya:

:rofl:

dg

[Straight Shooter]

33. LOL! "Imus exception." That's one for the State Bar bulletin board.

:rofl:

[ralps]

30. ***11:38

It's 11:38.

Wells says that Russert's reputation is at stake, so he would have temptation to be misleading. Walton says it's far-fetched — and then says he won't allow Russert to be confronted with it. Says he understand Wells' argument, and if he's overruled by higher court, fine, but he's "just not going to go there." He says if he allows this kind of evidence, trials would never end — if Wells is right, govt. would be allowed to start bringing in evidence to support Mitchell's credibility from NBC files, since NBC didn't report it. Wells says, maybe it was just a rumor, and that's all they have to prove.

Now wells brings up Gregory, says it's on record that Fleischer says he told

Walton says he does not want a trial on whether Mitchell quote is accurate. If appeals court says otherwise, fine. Walton feels he's bent over backward to be fair to Libby, he wants to move on. Wells asks for a few minutes. Russert is brought back in.

W: I just hae a few more questions. What did Eckenrose

T: The conversation.

W: What did you understand that to mean?

T: The conversation he had with me.

W: Do you recall that his request was to keep FBI questions

T: No, it was along lines of "I would appreciate it if you keep this conversation confidential."

W: (brings up FBI interview notes, apparently) Does that refresh your recollection, that you were just asked to keep questions confidential?

T: It refreshes my memory of exactly what I said to you.

snip

W: You never remember any conversation with Libby when he asked you to keep it out of record?

T: No.

W: You said that Libby was agitated

T: Yes (brief aside as to whether Libby used curse words — are hell and damn curse words?)

W: In your previous testimony to FBI and grand jury, you never said Mr. Libby used words "hell" or "damn"

T: I would include that in

W: Bad blood betwen

T: No.

W: Weren't you elated when Libby was indicted?

T: No.

Wells tries to play another Imus clip. Objection, with vigor — he's showing Imus intro, rather than just what Russert said.

Sustained. Pause while tape is fixed. It's 12:02. New thread coming up.

[helderheid]

4. Rec 1

:hi:

[ralps]

6. Hi helderheid, thanks

[Cerridwen]

7. Rec 2

How's your coffee? Need a refill?

:donut:

:hi:

[ralps]

8. Hi Cerridwen, Thanks & I'm on my 2nd mug of coffee!

[WolverineDG]

9. Hi ralps

Wow, so if I have a viewer complaint about "Countdown," does this mean I get to talk to Keith? :think:

Scooty Libber's going down.

dg

[ralps]

11. Hi WolverineDG, LOL off hand I would guess you would have to be someone

in the government, or a corporate CEO. Darn!! No phone call to Keith for me!

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Oh my...this is getting GOOD!

:popcorn:

[ralps]

13. Hi in_cog_ni_to, Yes it is!

[goclark]

14. Keep this kicked it is so good R

[myrna minx]

15. Ralps, that you so much for taking the time to do this everyday.

:hi: I'm bookmarking every thread!

[goclark]

16. Me too boomarked

Edit for a question: On Imus this morning, Mary Matalin was going full blast about the Libby trial.

She said that she had contributed to Libby's defense because he was INNOCENT.

She said that it was Armitage(sp.) that leaked the name, not Libby.

She said the trial should not even be going on and that poor little Libby had legal fees of over $1 million !

Is all that true?

[ralps]

20. Hi goclark, I have no idea, personally I wouldn't believe a thing that Mary

Matalin said!

[WolverineDG]

24. He's on trial for lying, not for leaking

fuck matalin, the rw tool.

dg

[blogslut]

25. She also said the yellowcake story was true!

Good rule of thumb: Don't believe anything that comes from Mary Matalin's lying lips.

[ralps]

27. Hi blogslut

[goclark]

35. How can Carville be married to that fool and

not be a foot soldier for BushCON?

:puke:

[myrna minx]

26. She is trying to muddy the water.

Libby is not on trial for the outing of Valerie PLame. He is on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice, which he will probably be convicted. She is one nasty person and I wouldn't believe a word she says. In fact, she says her name is Mary, well, I'd like to see her birth certificate because she lies so much, it could actually be Sue. :rofl:

[ralps]

31. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com-The Trouble With Mary

The Trouble With Mary
By: Christy Hardin Smith
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/08/the-trouble-with-mary/

It's just been one of those weeks for Mary Matalin, with all Cheney's her own words coming home to roost. The trouble with Mary is that she selected the meticulous note-taker Scooter Libby as her "go to guy," and that he dutifully scribbled down her every, venomous screed about Amb. Wilson and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Because, in Mary's world, anyone who would dare have the temerity to question the right of Dick Cheney to do whatever he pleased got what they deserved. Truth be damned.

Except now the truth comes out about Mary's manipulative media machinations. Her whole facade of public interest and loyalty to the boss and keeping you safe and every other bit of malarky she's thrown out to the public in her long career of press maneuvering has now been opened for public scrutiny. And it is not pretty.

This morning, she faced a bit of reckoning from an unlikely source: Don Imus. (Yes, I know. Color me shocked as well, but he asked some very good and skeptical questions. In quite the mocking tone, I might add — I believe Imus adopted the "Mary Skeptic" pose for today's broadcast.) Via Atrios:

snip
then Christy quotes from Atrios
Imus Talks to Matalin
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_04_atrios_archive.html#117093712379564271
Christy then continues

That's just a bunch of butt-covering, nonsensical blather, isn't it? And it smacks of that desperation that you can only find in the Beltway: impending power pariah status because you are about to receive a self-inflicted media shunning, cutting off all the self-promotion and party shilling opportunities with one pull of the television plugs. That moment of unbookability looming, panic filed the air, and a phone was dialed. Matalin wasnt scheduled to be a guest on Imus this morning. She phoned in the show to do this to herself.

Twice.

Here's a bit more from Matalin's impromptu calls to Imus this morning, again via Atrios:

snip
This FDL thread might answer our questions about Mary Matalin

[Spazito]

36. Armitage has said he leaked to NOVAK, what the bush cabal

are trying to hide is that the investigation is larger than who leaked to Novak, that is why the Libby defense tried SO hard to narrow the prosecution's case to only that question, they failed as have the bush cabal in still trying to "re-direct" the facts.

Edited to correct typo.

[ralps]

19. Hi myrna minx. you're welcome

[blm]

17. Russert KNEW the WH was lying about not leaking and PROTECTED them before the election

and allowed GOP operatives to have the airtime they needed to smear Joe Wilson as a liar.

He did that for his close friends, Mary Matalin and James Carville.

[ralps]

21. Hi blm, yes Russert is a WH Hack IMO

[flyarm]

18. GREAT JOB RALPS...AND EVERYONE ELSE!!

SORRY I MISSED THIS ..I WAS OVER AT FIREDOG FOLLOWING ALONG .........

FLY

[ralps]

22. Hi flyarm, Thanks

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. Kick!

:kick:

[ralps]

32. I need to leave for a little while, so if there is a new thread could someone

post it? Thanks I'll check back later.

[goclark]

34. Kicking

[ralps]

37. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Tim Russert, Five

Libby Live: Tim Russert, Five
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/08/libby-live-tim-russert-five/

Here's what has happened since the last live-blogging thread. We left off at about noon with an accusation by Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells, that there was "bad blood" between Libby and NBC News, led by Tim Russert. When Russert denied this, Wells asked, "Weren't you elated when Libby was indicted?" Surprised, Russert said no.

Wells then attempted to play another video clip from Don Imus's cable TV show (the fourth one in less than an hour). At the site of the aging radio host in the cowboy hat, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald objected vigorously — rather than hearing from the witness, we were seeing a TV show host's characterization of something.

There was a pause to re-edit the tape, during which the jury was excused and the two sides argued about whether the tape should be allowed at all.

The tape was played — it was from Oct. 28, 2005 with Russert saying "it was like Xmas eve here last night" just before the announcement of any indictments. Fitzgerald stopped the tape and said, this is just media excitement over end of case. He described the frenzy of speculation surrounding conclusion of grand jury term, said press conference had not even been scheduled , rumors of 22 indictments, 3 indictments, no indictments, people were taking photos of him getting coffee and writing about his shoeshine (Jane whistled and tried to look innocent), Sadly, although they walk right up to the edge, no one used the word "Fitzmas."

Walton thinks this is wild speculation. The tape is played again.

"Imus: We don't know anything, do we?

(Russert jokes, then says we expect major developments today — sources say prepare for surprises. We expect this will unfold in 2-4 hours, and we expect to hear from Mr. Fitzgerald in early afternoon.)"

Fitz stopped the tape, and noted that the banner says Rove not indicted — if there was bad blood, wouldn't it say Libby indicted?

Now Walton says maybe it's not prejudicial if there's a predicate of rumors that Libby would be indicted. Fitz doesn't think predicate is sufficient, emphasizes that Russert anticipated "surprises." There was a break for lunch… and now we're back. Live-blogging resumes now.

snip

[ralps]

38. ***1:46, 2:02

It's 1:46.

W: Do you recall whether the Today show reported that Libby would be

T: I don't.

W: Do you remember being on the Today show yourself and discussing possible charges against Libby?

T: I don't.

W: Do you deny it?

T: I don't deny it, I just don't deny it.

W: You were covering CIA leak, right? Had reported on it before? Were head of NBC news bureau?

T: (yes to all)

W: If Ann Curry had reported this on the Today show, would you know about it, based on pattern and practice?

T: This is credited to the NY Times, so not if we didn't have the story.

snip

Wells asks to approach the judge. Sidebar. It's 2:02.

W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"?

T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember.

W: Do you have a bad memory?

T: No.

W: You don't remember going on TV to discuss a historic indictment, where you were personally involved?

T: I do television a lot, a lot of stories and interviews.

W: (repeats very important, you were personally involved, etc… I'll type more when he says something different)

T: (is shown Today show transcript… ) I don't recall this. In fact, I see most of the news is about Harriet Miers' withdrawal, which I now realize was that same day, and I didn't recall that, either.

Wells starts to show him something else, and then… yes, another sudden sidebar.

Wells reads from the Today show transcript, where Russert says to Couric (surprise!) "It's huge… first time in 130 years."

Now he plays the Imus tape, with "like Christmas eve" line.

W: That is from the morning of Oct. 28th. Do you have a recollection of that?

T: No, I don't.

W: Do you recall what you meant by Xmas eve?

T: Don't remember specifically saying that, but a lot of times for news stories, there's a lot of anticipation, like the Bush-Gore court decision

[ralps]

39. ***2:02 Fitz redirect

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I'd heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

F: Any chance Xmas and surprises was personal joy at seeing Libby indicted?

T: Absolutely not.

F: Remember reading anything that day?

T: Possibly news articles.

F: Did you read indictment?

T: Yes, I think it was released after the news conference.

F: What did you read?

T: Parts invoving things I was claimed to have said.

F: What did you think of those things.

T: That they weren't true.

F: No further questions.

And with that, another sidebar. New thread comin' up.

[RedEarth]

40. kick

[ralps]

42. Hi RedEarth, Thanks

[goclark]

43. kick again

[ralps]

41. *** New Thread at Firedoglake.com- Libby Live: Tim Russert, Six

Libby Live: Tim Russert, Six
By: Swopa
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/08/libby-live-tim-russert-six/

Thought we'd be done with Russert by now, did you? You lose the bet. But we're just about done, after what seemed to this faintly biased observer like a devastating re-direct examination by Patrick Fitzgerald, which demolished hours of questions about Russert's feelings and memories (or lack of same) before the Libby indictment with this exchange:

Fitzgerald: Which is bigger news, a possible indictment or an actual indictment?

Russert: An actual indictment.

Fitzgerald then elicited Russert's clear memories of things that happened after the indictment was announced. Now it's time for juror questions.

NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. Even exchanges that look like verbatim dialogue are just the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. (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.

Walton reminds jurors that Plame's status as covert is not under consideration here, and they are not to speculate about it. Then he reads the questions

Walton (W): Had there been any discussions before Novak article of Wilson's wife

Tim Russert (T): No.

W: After his article was published?

T: Yes.

W: During deposition, were you given a list of questions ahead of time?

T: No.

W: Any script you were given?

T: No.

W: Did you approve or ban any questions in advance?

T: No, I answered what I was asked.

W: Did you relate any claims by Mr. Libby about Wilson's wife to Shapiro? (on July 8th, apparently)

T: Only remember talking to him about Chris Mathews.

snip

[ralps]

44. ***2:54, 3:15, 3:32

It's 2:54.

Government is now presenting additional evidence, including the guidelines about subpoenaing reporters.

Then they announce the testimony of a witness who did not appear (the testimony has been stipulated, or agreed to, by defense already).

The testimony: Deborah Heiden (sp?), executive asst to VP, was assigned to search for documents for request dated Oct 3, 2003. Among other places, she searched a safe that contained classified and non-classified documents. She found Govt exhibit 402, found in the file in a safe. Copies were provided Oct. 7, 2003.

At time she located 402, Heiden and another assistant, Ms. Field (sp? Mayfield??) were only people who had combination to the safe. Heiden does not recall placing the document in the safe. Handwriting on exhibit 402 appears to be VPs (lists other exhibits for comparison).

More exhibits and news articles — Wilson op-ed with underlining from Libby's files, Maureen Dowd column, etc., Libby's classified information non-disclosure agreement (jury is instructed only to consider whether it affected Libby's state of mind in testifying).

Also submits Washington Post articles from October 4, 2003 and October 12, 2003. Walton reminds jurors to consider these not for truth, but only possible impact on Libby's state of mind. Jurors are NOT to consider Plame's actual covert/non-covert status.

It's 3:15.

After the articles are read aloud, Fitz announces that the prosecution rests. Walton says the jury can go home. There are some side issues to be debated in front of Walton, so I'll hang out here a bit longer and see if there's anything newsworthy.

It's 3:32.

Walton hears out the defense about Andrea Mitchell, and whether she should testify. Wells says Mitchell hasn't been questioned under oath at all on her now-disavowed statement, and she should be. Walton answers that her lawyers have said she will contiinue to disavow the statement. When Wells implies they shouldn't take her lawyers' word for it, Walton says that the federal rules of evidence say they have to. (Ooops.)

Wells continues to protest. Walton asks if the government had a similar witness with a disputed statement that Libby was guilty, would they feel okay with him or her testifying?

Wells says the defense should be given more leeway than the prosecution, and this issue is so fundamental, that it should be considered and the testimony allowed. Walton says he might if she was a prosecution witness, making her credibility an issue, but Mitchell's overall story (that she wasn't leaked to) if anything supports Libby. He says that even if he's not allowed to confront Mitchell with the actual disputed statement, he ought to be able to get her story under oath, to see if Mitchell even heard a rumor about Wilson's wife.

Walton is trying to give Wells a long leash, but he's not agreeing. He says, "if we let this statement in, we've just gutted the hearsay rule." Wells says it's justified to relax the hearsay rule in this case. Walton says it's his job to be a gatekeeper for approprate evidence, and "I ought to serve some small function in this trial."

This is just dragging on — I don't expect much news from here on, the next post will be non-trial related. If anything important happens, we'll put up a short non-live postscript later today. It's 3:55.