Posted on 02/13/2007 8:14:45 AM PST by Bahbah
SOME INTRODUCTORY BACK AND FORTH:
Just a reminder of some of the background here. When Fitz subpoenaed Judy and Cooper, he also subpoenaed their employers. Time eventually handed over Cooper's emails. But NYT said they had nothing. So whatever Abramson says today, she is going to say there was no documentation from this purported Judy Miller meeting. Who knows, though, whether we'll finally get a description of what status Judy was in July 2003, when she couldn't serve as a cut-out for Libby's leak of Plame's identity. Remember, they had a big knock down discussion to get to Judy's severance agreement, so Abramson may not be able to explain that in detail. Here goes. I'm not entirely sure that Abramson is first (the NYT folks don't know either).
Walton sounds sick—a bad cold or flu or something.
Walton: Addresses issue of whether Fitz can introduce Plame's CPD status.
Fitz: Sorry for your apparent cold. I apologize for failing to bring this to your attention yesterday. First, your honor had ruled that way at the prior CIPA proceeding. Your honor had clearly indicated
Walton as it relates to this witness?
Fitz Yes. February 5 at page 21. The court said, if the govt is going into rebuttal. It's only fair for the govt to bring that out. Then your honor said is the govt prepared to stipulate that she was not in WINPAC to introduce this.
Walton How was the issue presented to me?
Fitz I said she understood the term bureau meant nonproliferation.
Walton Did she say that the word he used was bureau and she construed that?
Fitz The only discussion is in the record here. She understood this. I would point out additionally, we understood, throughout the case, that unless the Defense did something, we couldn't introduce her status. But if they did, we would have put up a witness to explain that she was CPD, both for Judy and for Fleischer. If it's off the table that we can talk about her status, I think it's perfectly appropriate to say she doesn't work at WINPAC but at CPD. The protection that we not discuss Plame's employment was a shield, and now it's being used as a sword.
Walton Maybe you're right in the broader context. If he did tell other people that she worked at CPD, Mr Libby did provide info on where she worked. From a broader perspective I might agree with you.
Thank you Rheo!!
I second the kudos for Fedora!!
Yes...I think I will need an opinion from Clarice or even JOM...I am getting more confused, not less.
I am hoping that since Cheney and Libby won't be testifying, that means that Wells thinks he won't need them to get an acquittal.
If Andrea Mitchell is allowed to NOT testify, then I will KNOW that the Justice System in this country is BROKEN TOTALLY!!!
With all that on his plate, Libby was underpaid imo.
Y'all probably know this ... describes Scooter's bad memory issues, per John Hannah .. I've not read all the notes yet:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/13/D8N8V9S01.html
I hope the defense can bring up with the jury there, what Russert was promised by the attorneys. Prosecution said it was done verbally and defense is trying to get it in.
oops, judge says the defense should get something in writing regarding what Russert was promised.
Russert on the hot seat
Clarice Feldman
Tim Russert has got some explaining to do. At the close of the Libby Trial on Tuesday, the defense indicated it wanted to recall Russert to the stand to impeach a statement of his. The life of a TV talking head tends to leave a lot of evidence of what one knows and doesn't know.
Russert had claimed that he didn't know that the special accommodations worked out by NBC lawyers and the prosecutor to allow him to give his deposition with his lawyers present and not before the grand jury was a special deal, and that he did not know that witnesses before a grand jury were not allowed to have counsel present.
I think this remark he made on the August [6], 1998 CNN Larry King Live show, will certainly be one of the impeaching statements the defense offers up:
RUSSERT: It's been suggested by no less than the former governor of New York the other night, that now that the president has decided that he's going to testify before the grand jury, why do it in the Oval Office and why insist that his lawyer be there.?
Go into the grand jury without a lawyer, like every other American citizen, go
ahead, ask me any question you want and I'll give you an honest answer.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/russert_on_the_hot_seat.html
JOM has more on this.
Thanks, fifi. Good stuff.
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.