Do you need a ping to this? (Sorry, I was out.)
Not anymore, thanks. STARWISE emailed it to me.
MORE TESTIMONY:
Fitz back. Is it fair to say that the discussion about the Powell presentation did not involve allegations by Joseph Wilson.
DS Fair to say
Fitz Interview occurred in OEOB, you walked into building, during total interview, Cathie Martin was present, During an interview in the present of Cathie Martin, Wilson's wife not mentioned?
DS Correct
Sidebar
Walton: Did there come a time when you learned of Wilson's wife.
DS With the publication of Novak's column.
Walton: that was how you found out.
DS Yes.
Sidebar
Walton: Memory defense, what the defense can say if Libby didn't testify. I misspoke when I said Defense couldn't put on anything. There's a misperception by defense that I was definitively saying that anything admissable would be admitted into evidence. Obviously I was making my rulings predicated on the basis for info going before jury. There has to be an appropriate foundation on the info I ruled on to be presented. Out of thin air, just because I ruled on it doesn't mean it can come in. There are going to be restrictions. For example, it seems to me, unless he testifies, it will be impossible to argue that these matters were of greater importance than this info regarding Wilson and that he would not remember the event that's the subject of this trial. I just don't see how that argument can be made. He would be the foundation for presenting this to the jury. Whether there are other things that won't be admissible unless he testifies.
Bonamici. One preliminary issue is whether these issues can be discussed in open court. If we're going to get into classified info, we shouldn't do in open court.
Walton. We're only talking about stuff that is presumptively admissible.
B We filed under seal because we referenced to intell. We don't think there's anything that's classified. We think there's plenty of unclassified info and general info that can reasonably go in through different sources. The real question is what matters can be talked about WRT particular issues he was engaged in. WRT those matters, there has not yet been a sufficient link between particulars and things that mattered to defendant.
Walton: Specifics?
B The parties have broken out types of info into categories. One is the testimony of former colleagues. One is admitting relevant facts. Your honor very expressly ruled that matters in Morning Intell Briefings–except for stuff that Libby asked for f-up–could not be introduced.
Walton: If he was briefed on something–why wouldn't that be relevant. There will be restrictions on what is said about it.
B To read from 6A ruling, your honor said Morning briefings are not relevant, they merely represent what Intell Community thought was important.
12:15
STARWISE couldn't post the notes from firedoglake this week...and asked me to help her out.
I couldn't figure it out (Dumb me)...and so Bahbah is stepping in to help out.
I pinged you, because I noticed on last week's threads that you had a ping list that you used.