Replies

9:37

MORE PRELIMINARY FENCING:

Walton cedes the broad issue.

Fitz I think it's plainly clear if we had said we're calling someone from CIA to talk about Plame being CPD, if we're now piercing that line,

Walton It's an open question. I would have concerns that even though impeachment of Miller was limited to her, that's an issue we're going to have to address when we get to govt's case.

Fitz I'd hate to call jury in for rebuttal case, I'd hate to call just one witness. I think the line that had been drawn that we couldn't talk about her status.

Walton I don't think I need to rule now, I'd like my clerk to do some research.

Jeffress I've given Zeidenberg a stipulation. As far as this rebuttal issue, I want to make clear that I'm not presenting evidence of where she does not work.

Walton when it comes to rebuttal, I've got to make a decision on whether the info of where she does work should come in.

Jeffress We can argue that later.

Fitz My intention is to stipulate to two facts.

Walton I can't force a stipulation on the parties. If you don't, they have to call someone from CIA.

Fitz Once your honor rules, we can handle this.

Walton mentions that Mitchell will be here at 1:30. She was going to testify without the jury, first, so Libby's team knows whether her testimony would be to see if they can admit it. Wells was explaining to him whether or not she was going to, but he was not by the mike and then walked away from the camera. Helpful, Ted. Think of the media room!!!

Walton It would be my view that the only probative value that her statement would have would be if jury could consider substantive evidence. Since it's my view that it can't be used for that purpose, in my view it does qualify as hearsay.

9:48

Wells I don't to reargue my point. But I'd like to call her to talk about how aggressively she was working on the story. Once I show the intensity with which she was covering the story, I would have the right to question her whether she heard a rumor, and then I'd have the right to impeach her. [Sure seems like he's rearguing the point–btw Ted has his humble personality on right now, speaking real low and rationally.]

Wells I'm willing to sit on the record as is. I do believe I would have the right to impeach her. I'm not calling her as a subterfuge. I will accept that the record is closed. I will release her. My appelate record is protected.

Walton The intensity of what she was doing in and of itself doesn't add to your defense.

Wells If you accept that the intensity of her work is relevant, then I submit that the statement is admissible.

Walton The intensity doesn't mean anything UNLESS you're arguing she may have heard it. The mere fact that intensity of investigation doesn't help your case. You've got to couple the two for it to have any value in your case. You may perceive it as having probative value. It has nil value.

Wells That's why I'm willing to rest on the record with that understanding. [Sounds like we won't see Mitchell, sorry Tom Maguire.]

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.