Posted on 02/12/2007 8:30:00 AM PST by Bahbah
HERE IS A LONG ONE:
We've run out of witnesses for the day, I guess all the Pulitzer prize-winners who spoke to Libby and didn't speak about Wilson are done.
Now we've got to continue the memory issue.
Cline up, 3 categories of evidence. 2 potential categories of witnesses. One category, Witnesses from OVP. A representative witness, this witness is current NSA to VP [John Hannah], at the time we're talking about Mr. Libby's deputy. This is a person who took direction from Libby, met with him, briefed him, knew as well as anyone the issues Libby was grappling with. We want to put him on to describe nature of Mr. Libby's duties at the time, volume of info, the range of issues, AFAIK, govt has no problem with that. We would also want to ask him about specific issues about the 9 topics, he and Mr Libby were focused on. To covey to jury a sense of volume he was dealing with.
Bonamici. That's a pretty broad description. It's not clear to us from that description, there's no way to determine the info they want to elicit from Hannah. In the general sense, the volume of info, in terms of pages and numbers of issues, and a general sense of the range of issues. We can't tell what that means, or whether Hannah would be competent to testify.
C WRT Mr. Hannah, there were certain areas, IE middle east, where he was Dpty in charge of that area. For those areas, I'd walk though the details in form of leading questions. Other areas, where he's well aware of what was responsible.
Walton He has first hand knowledge about that first area.
C He was doing the ME stuff every day. For areas personally familiar with but did not have principle responsibility. We'd ask what the issue was, was it a focus of OVP
Walton You'll have to be more specific than OVP
C Mr Libby, that would be his testimony
Walton so long as he has first hand knowledge.
C He does, we'll lay that foundation before we move into it. The other cateogory of witnesses, morning briefers, we'd like to elicit from the briefer the items during the two weeks in June and July and the June 23, which is the Miller conversation. We're not getting into any details, bc we don't have them. We're not even going to elicit all the items, we're going to pick the ones that were in the 9 topics. With the exception of June 14, Schmall's briefing, the info that may or may not have been transmitted. for that one, I'd like to have him testify to topic summaries, so jury has range of information, so they know that if those words were spoken how it is he may have missed or forgotten about it. One line topic summaries. The brief descriptions that were in the terrorist list.
Bonamici. Back to Hannah's list. What precise topics, both generally and specifically. There was a huge amount of info covered in the 2.5 months of CIPA. There's no practical way to include everything. It seems to us that it's reasonable to get. This is something that is really brand new.
Walton, maybe you can discuss them.
C I don't have a problem describing what they'll be in some detail. Iran, Iraq, ME, Turkey. Small piece of Topic one, terroist threats.
Fitz Can I make a suggestion. When we went through the 2.5 months about what was coming in and what wasn't. Your honor gave deference to let in more levels of detail when it was let in bc the defendant was going to testify about that level of detail. All we're asking, since the narrative is laid out, if these are going to be leading questions, can we know what the questions are going to be. Cline could circle what he would cover. We can look to see if anything was only let in because your honor only let it in bc Libby was going to testify that he was consumed by it. It's not fair to us, having spent 2.5 months slogging through it, to suddenly say the outer limit is okay.
Walton, it would be appropriate for you all to meet, and go over what he intends to bring out.
Fitz nodding, Bonamici nodding.
Our level may be very small or large.
Bonamici. Back to the discussion that we had before. Evidence already come in about MIBs and they lasted half hours and a number of topics. WRT specific items that were covered you previously found there was a lack of foundation to explaining the importance that Libby attached to these briefings. The CIA made a decision to put this in, other than the issues that Libby requested f-up, there's no evidence that suggests Libby attached ANY importance on items he did not request f-up on. WRT June 14, that's something that your honor has not yet ruled on CIPA, so that would need to be addressed.
C In terms of foundation Schmall testified on Cross that he would select items that were of interest to Libby. With that evidence, along with evidence that Libby would read this, I think it is a fair inference that this was important to him.
Walton I don't know how it can be classified of significant to him unless he says that out of his mouth. If his deputy says he worked on the matter that he worked and spent X amount of time on it, the mere fact that he was briefed on it, it seems to me, it can't be done.
C The deputy will testify that the 9 topics were day in and day out of significance. Each of the topics falls within the 9 topics.
Walton if he was briefed on those topics, if his deputy says they worked on it.
B The morning intell briefings carry dates. There may be some dates that the deputy can talk about on which stuff was worked on. What we're trying to do is draw an inference that Libby received a briefing on a particular day, that w/o asking more, with none of that evidence to draw a link between that briefing and what was important to Libby. We're asking the jury to infer that he was CONSUMED by this.
Walton If at that time they were working on it on a daily basis.
C These were the issues. that's why back in the CIPA process, these really were the ones.
B We would suggest that only if there's additional foundation.
Walton, it depends on what the deputy says, if he can say that even though he may not have been briefed, he can say this was something that was higher on our agenda. I think that's probably sufficient for the jury to infer.
B We would ask for an opportunity to assess what Cline will give us. We need to know in advance.
Walton, I think it will probably be a sufficient foundation.
C One suggestion on statement. May I suggest you table the statement until you've heard from the other witnesses.
B We object. We can always address it later.
Walton My concern, if a party is going to be held to agree to submission, it's unfair. we want juries to decide cases based on facts. If a party will agree to facts with an understanding of how that evidence will be presented, that's fair game. My understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify. That would be the predicate for the vast majority of the information they jury is going to hear. To put his mental state before the jury is just unfair. I'll defer the ruling. I don't necessarily agree with govt's arguments in second paragraph, but the third paragraph I do agree with their redact re the last three paragraphs. They do indicate what defendant's state of mind was. In my view it wasn't clear that they were being asked to make that concession.
B The truth is we did assume that Libby was going to testify, and we did so because Mr Cline asked us to assume that. Everything we did was based on the asumption and it would be fundamentally unfair to hold us to an agreement we made based on those assumptions.
Fitz, May I approach for one minute.
4:02
This judge is a real piece of work. He insists he is not "forcing" Libby to testify, but he rules that the only way Libby can argue that he was greatly involved in weighty matters at the time of the relevant conversations {i.e. the "faulty memory" defense} is for Libby to personally testify that such is the case. Of course, anyone with common sense can understand that aides and assistants could establish those facts sufficiently for a jury to consider the defense.
This is what will get the case reversed on appeal.
Same here.
Maybe some kind soul will come along and give us the Cliff Notes until we can read it all later.
That and the fact that he won't allow Andrea Mitchell to be questioned on the "everyone knew" statement. (Don't know if he has made the ruling yet, but everything he has said indicates very strongly that if he will force her to testify at all the defence will be extremely limited in the questions they will be allowed to ask.)
I'm no lawyer, but the judge seems to have a very broad definition of "hearsay." If aides could testify that Libby had responsibility for areas a, b, and c, was working long hours, was attending numerous meetings, was briefed daily on various topics, was responsible for reporting to the VP, that should be good enough. The aides were THERE.
According to your snips from the transcript, the judge ended the discussion as follows:
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.
So, he didn't agree to admit these witnesses, but he is still open to considering it. On the other hand, he said earlier that he "didn't buy" the theory that these people were working together, even though they obviously were working together.
If Walton refuses to allow this testimony, it might be grounds for an appeal. Which, of course, might eventually get Libby off but would please the Democrats very well, since it would keep the whole thing alive for propaganda purposes, and they don't care what is actually said in court as they can continue to spin it as Republican dirty tricks.
Cliff notes--no way, but I will say this:
A number of reporters have testified that Libby did NOT discuss Plame with them during the critical period--Thus, the proseutor's theory that Libby was at the heart of a conspiracy to "out" 007 V. Plame is FOS.
Also, the discussions between Walton and the lawyers has been of interest. Defense wants to put in evidence of Libby's routine security briefings to show he was very busy with very important matters, and the prosecution stipulated early on that Libby was involved daily in a number of different such areas.
Now, the judge says, "well, when the prosection made that deal it was with the understanding that Libby would testify, right?" The defense says, "We had no such deal" the prosecution says, "Yeah, Judge, that's the ticket. We had an understanding, and we want to back out if he does not testify"
Defense says, "We have relied on the stipulation and there was no deal about Libby testifying"
It looks like Walton is out to cover Fitz-fong's backside on this.
Your sense of the matter is correct. That stuff ain't heresay. The aides would be testifying from first hand knowledge. Now, they may not be able to testify that Scooter "thought this or that was real important", but they could testify about the subject matter of the briefings, the length of time involved, whether "plame" was ever a part of such briefings, whether Libby took specific action and all that stuff. It seems to me that it would at least raise a question that Scooter had bigger fish to fry than Joe Wilson.
Yes, refusal to allow relevant witnesses for the defense, especially "hostile" or "reluctant" ones, guarantees appeal and almost likely acquittal. It's first time that I see prosecution trying to squash defense calling witnesses - if prosecution has airtight case, what damage can they do?
I suspect Walton, being a judge in DC, is trying to sneak in reasons for appeal, while looking "fair" to DC populace and trying not to rattle the DC media class too much.
Yes, if Libby is convicted and acquitted on appeal, we'll have status quo in Washington, Dems' apple cart is not upset, media gets a pass and a boost for their propaganda and Wilson's civil case may get some sort of a boost.
Meek Republican pundits and politicians didn't lay a glove on Fitzfong.
THIS WRAPS IT UP FOR THE DAY:
Walton Seems to me that it's proper to bring out the fact that she did not work with WINPAC
Fitz Here are the simple facts January 2000 forward, she worked at CPD and not at WINPAC. If the defense were to ask them, did you check whether she worked at WINPAC, we would ask if she worked at CPD.
Walton The defense inquiry was to show the accuracy of the info that he alleged to relay to others.
F We've alleged that he's also relayed CPD to other people, Mr Fleischer. There's no classified info involved. We're trying to show that some of the info was sometimes accurate. Even if it was also inaccurate.
Jeffress. As we've discussed before, we're not entitled to discovery on what her job was. Worked out an instruction. We're trying to establish a fact. It's a very specific fact that's necessary to combat Ms Miller's testimony. If Miller heard that, she heard that somewhere else.
Walton Defense only wants to bring it out for impeaching Ms Miller. If they're only bringing out for that purpose. Why can you bring out that she worked at CPD bc Libby allegedly said that to other people.
F First, in the earlier conversation, he said she worked at the bureau, she understood that to be Nonproliferation.
Walton if she said that she construed what he was saying as an indication that Plame worked in that division, it can only come out if it meets the force of what the Defense brings out.
F If he told her wrong one day, the other day it was close to what it says.
Jeffress, I remember showing her that NP is in State, not in CIA.
Walton, if she's saying that he told me that, if that were not in play, then I agree, If she says that he also said that she worked in CP even though there may not be an exact name of that bureau. It meets the force of what you're saying.
J All her notes show is "wife works in bureau ?"
Walton I'm not bound by what's in her notes. I jsut don't think it'd be fair to let you show where she did not work, if in fact her testimony suggested it gave a name to where she actually worked.
F Your honor, I can cite at least part of the transcript.
4:14
Walton Why should you be able to rehabilitate her consistent to what she thought rather than what he said? They're going to bring out the fact that she actually said that he said she worked at WINPAC.
[Of course, this all assumes that LIbby didn't specifically tell her WINPAC so she could leak that, without quite leaking Plame's CPD employ…]
Walton She's being impeached, based on what she said. How can she be rehabilitated based on her perception of what he said.
F He used the word bureau. She has also said she knew it was CIA. Doesn't it show that if her understanding of the conversation turns out to be correct? Doesn't that rehabilitate her memory.
F She based this on a conversation that she participated in. Understanding that wife worked in nonproliferation.
Walton, she specifically said he said WINPAC.
F We did bring it out, as to what her understanding was
Walton how can you do that without info on where she actually worked
F That's the point.
Walton, you may have been able to bring this out during your case. What you bring out to rehabilitate has to meet force of impeachment.
Fitz The rule of completeness, I've never seen before where we ask someone to come and say she didn't work in one place but did work in another. Why doesn't it go to the weight.
Walton they're saying if she got it wrong, it would be inconsistent since Libby knew where she worked. They're suggesting that should be used to discredit her testimony. I'm having a hard time concluding that once they do that you bring out what she assumed they said. It just doesn't seem to me to be appropriate rehabilitation.
Fitz the supposition is in the record.
Walton She said WINPAC but she also felt she was also saying CPD.
Jeffress What he said was that the wife worked in the bureau. She said, I thought he was using the word bureau to mean NP bureau, but I wasn't sure. And, there is no NP bureau in the CIA.
Beer thirty see you at 9:00 tomorrow.
Judge Walton has made several of these statements to the effect that "well an Appeals Court might overrule this" -- these strike me as cowardly weasel words from a man who recognizes that he is frequently erring on the side of helping the prosecution by limiting the ability of the defense to present their case. If the judge and the prosecutor actually cared about the FACTS they would support a broad presentation of the defense with strict legal instructions from judge to jury about how certain evidence may be considered.
Instead, the judge prefers to stack the deck against Libby, saying repeatedly that Libby can have another bite of the apple on appeal. Since appeals can only consider very limited issues of law and trial procedure, it is NOT helpful to the cause of justice to narrow the defense case excessively. Let the jury hear it all and decide!!
That's pretty despicable, really. People will trumpet a conviction, and people will remember it. They will not much note a subsequent reversal on appeal years down the road and even then it will be portrayed as a "technicality." That is a really rotten thing for this judge to permit.
Here is the foam at the mouth DU version:
Tin Man (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-12-07 05:37 PM
Original message
Armitage, Woodward, and the "End of an Affair"
Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 05:39 PM by Tin Man
Oh man, this Libby trial is opening lots of doors into the scope of the CheneyGate conspiracy, specifically the complicity of many heralded Washington reporters. Like Bob Woodward.
Today's testimony at the Libby trial calls into question the nature of Woodward's involvement in CheneyGate. Was he just a bit player, a non-event, as he had originally claimed - or something more sinister? Follow along with me for a couple paragraphs...
1) Does anybody here remember prominent NeoCon Richard Armitage's mea culpa last August, that it was he who had innocently and inadvertently disclosed CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity to Robert Novak? The suggestion being, that Armitage alone was responsible for PlameGate - and that there was no conspiracy in the OVP, and no ensuing coverup of the effort to discredit Wilson.
2) Today, at the Libby trial, we learned that Armitage was the source for BOTH Novak AND Bob Woodward. I guess this means that Armitage innocently and inadvertently slipped, not once, but twice. Some accident. But I digress...
3) And remember how, at the time of Armitage's mea culpa, the Corporate Media were so quick to accept and publish the claim as simple fact? Consider the 9/1/2006 WaPo editorial, "End of an Affair", in which the editorial staff so confidently dismissed PlameGate as much ado about nothing. It was all a mistake. There was no conspiracy in the OVP. Armitage was the accidental source of the whole affair. Hoo-boy, did the Post buy into that Armitage diversion - hook, line and sinker...
4) Kinda makes you wonder:
a) How could the distinguished Washington Post have been so thoroughly fooled?
b) Who among the WaPo staff actually authored the editorial?
c) And why, only for the first time today, did WaPo correspondent Bob Woodward confess his source was Armitage?
.
.
.
Holy shit! Did Bob Woodward write the "End of an Affair" editorial in the 9/1/06 Washington Post ? Might this editorial have been Woodward's "red herring" attempt to assist in the CheneyGate cover-up???
Not to mention the time and money Libby will spend on an appeal. Plus an appeal is always an uphill struggle.
Our DUer is wrong. Woodward said some time ago, right after Armitage came out of the woodwork, that he had heard it from him as well. This is not new. Poor Duer.
What is even worse is their inability to see how hard the WaPo works for the left.
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.