Posted on 02/12/2007 8:30:00 AM PST by Bahbah
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!
Bttt
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.
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."
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.
Thanks for posting the JOM notes...they make more sense to my ignorant mind than the testimony at this time.
Ditto that for me.
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.”
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
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
THIS NEXT BIT MIGHT BE INTERESTING (haven't read it all yet) AS THERE ARE SOME OBJECTIONS AND SOME OVERRULLINGS GOING ON:
1:59
W Paragraph says CIA said counterproliferation sent him. Is it fair to say CIA said that.
Fitz Objection
Sidebar.
Novak with hand on chin, looking at screen.
Now sitting back, making his big grumpy frowning face. Puts on his glasses to get started again.
W: I want to see the front of the article. The date. Apparently there is no date.
W The article says Chicago Sun Times, July 14, 2003.
W When did you write your July 14 column
RN [voice slips] The morning of Friday July 11.
W After you wrote it, what did you do?
RN Immediately after finishing it, it was emailed to syndicate.
W What is it
RN Syndicate, sells these to indiv newspapers. An editor goes over it, after a while, calls me back, we discuss further changes I might want to make, changes the editor wants to make. Then in final version, is given to AP for distribution to clients who buy my column. Over 100 newspapers buy it.
W Based on your understanding, when 100 newspapers given column.
Fitz Objection sustained.
W Understanding of how it is distributed.
F Objection, incompetence.
Walton: how do you know?
RN I've been a columnist for 40-some years.
Walton: Overruled
RN Given to AP, it distributes to newspapers that buy it.
W When column given to over 100 newspapers
Fitz: objection
Walton: You don't know specifically what happened.
W With respect to usual pattern,
RN as soon as column is cleared, it is immediately given to AP it's on the wires within an hour.
W Usual practice, when would have it been on the wire.
Fitz Objection
Walton Sustained.
W WRT usual process, after you wrote article, what time on wire?
RN It depends on when I got it to the syndicate. My recollection is since I had busy afternoon, I wanted to finish it before noon, editing before 1, following usual practice it would have gone on immediately thereafter.
W Once it's on the wire, can they print it.
RN It is what is called an embargo, it is not to be printed until Monday morning's newspapers.
W Are people in newsroom permitted to review it.
RN All they have to do is look at it.
W No further questions
Good grief....Jane Skinner on Fox News just said that the Libby trial was about the "outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame"...
Ya know...you would think the NEWS people would at least have the correct reason for the trial...
OOPS, THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS:
:16
Oh wait, yes he does!!
W WRT the conversations you had with Libby, Armi, and Rove, when did you first testify about those conversations to Fitz.
RN [looks stumped, lets out breath] I first testified to Fitz, as differentiated from FBI
W Let's start with FBI
RN I haven't reviewed those dates, and I don't have a good memory for dates, a couple of months after investigation started, investigation started October 1, 2003. I talked to him subsequent to that, did not mention names of sources. I talked later, I can't give you exact date, at that time, attorneys informed that they would have waivers only for Armi and Rove. In other words, they knew my sources, there was no point in dissembling. That's when I first discussed with authorities.
W I'll show you a copy of GJ testimony, February 25.
F We'll stipulate to the date,
W Is that the first time you testified concerning Armi and Rove. And you said Armi was primary and Rove secondary. Did there come a time when you received a waiver from Libby. Do recall when that was. When did you testify to GJ about Libby?
F Objection.
Sidebar.
2:19
If they are going to be that ignorant, we hardly need an agenda driven media.
And this last bit:
"2:19
W One last question.
Novak looking pissed right now.
Fitz up"
When doesn't Novak look pissed, I ask you?
Thanks for the ping- read about Woodward's remarks earlier. This is all as clear as mud..
THERE MAY BE A PIECE OF THIS WHICH I CANNOT FIND, BUT HERE'S MORE TESTIMONY:
F Just to be clear, your story is not generally available for non-subscribers. AP distributes it to subscribers, who are embargoed, they print it on the date
F First meeting with Wilson
RN On MTP. The day of his op-ed.
F You did not become fast friends.
RN We did not exchange words. Most people in the green room quietly read. He was giving his opinion at some length about how things were done in the Clinton NSC, in a very loud voice, I thought that was an obnoxious performance.
F Did you share that experience with Rove that week.
RN I might have.
F Did you discuss 1999 trade delegation with Rove
RN Yes, that was related to Niger and uranium
F No specific recollection of talking about Wilson's wife.
RN I'm sorry.
F You have no specific recollection of talking about Joe Wilson's wife.
RN No
F But you did talk to him that week.
Redirect.
W: Fitz asked questions about column being sent on AP wire and being embargoed. To your understanding, reporters would be able to read the article.
RN I presume so.
W Some of your customers some of the largest newspapers. He starts listing them, Says Boston Globe
RN [corrects him] Boston Herald.
NO further questions.
Sidebar.
We're going to jurors questions.
Novak looks like he's comfortable that he's gotten through this. His is now doing his nose up in the air arrogant look. and rocking gently back and forth in the chair.
Still in sidebar
2:30
IT CONTINUES:
Now Novak sitting with his hand in front of his face looking at the screen, presumably the column.
Now Novak leafing therough the paper copy of his op-ed.
Libby's been storing his water bottle on the floor. Now he's drinking it.
Walton: Without relating what someone would have said in response to what you said. Did you, once you learned about Wilson's wife and the fact that she worked at the CIA, did you discuss it with anyone prior to your article.
Novak: yes, I spoke to Bill Harlow.
Fitz–just the names.
Walton: Harlow
RN Spokesman for CIA. I testified that I might have asked Libby about, but I don't have a clear recollection bc I don't have a clear response.
W Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.
RN A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.
W did you have conversations with him about it. Did you give him a draft of the article.
RN Yes.
W Mr. Holt had the article in his hand by 4:00 that day. And Holt is a lobbyist about town. Would you describe him as a gossip.
RN He talks to a lot of people, even me, he's a good news source.
W He talks to a lot of media people.
F Did you have an understanding about what he could do with the copy of the article
RN No sir. I didn't have an understanding with him. I had assumed he would not share it, there was not an agreement made between us.
Fitz, one moment.
2:38
FINISHES UP AND THEY GO TO A 10 MINUTE BREAK:
F Did he ever tell you he had shared it
RN Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out.
RN In those conversations I had with him on Friday.
F Your belief is that he told the WH on Friday that an interesting piece coming out.
RN Yes
Thank you.
10 minute break.
2:40
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.