Posted on 02/20/2007 6:22:45 AM PST by Bahbah
The Bottom Line By Christy Hardin Smith @ 5:00 am
Summations in the Libby trial will begin today, and hopefully conclude, although you can never be sure of that in a trial that has defense counsel asking for four hours and having that whittled down to three by the presiding judge. (And with pending motions from both sides requesting additional time for arguments that were filed over the weekend, I'm thinking we are not likely to finish today.) This morning, Jane, Pach, and I will be sitting in the courtroom to watch the closings, and Emptywheel will be manning the keyboard to give you the liveblogging of the proceedings along with us.
More at the link: http://firedoglake.com/
I have just started scanning through the related musings they have up and will bring in anything that I think might interest the list.
Our fdl poster has revisited her thoughts on the reasons why they became so obsessed with the Plame investigation and why it was of such earth shattering importance. She explains:
"Imagine that one day you wake up to the incessent ping of your beeper. It is still dark outside your window, and you slide out of bed, pad quietly down the hallway and try not to wake up the wife and kids, as you slip into your home office and place a call on a secure phone. You are told that your cover has been blown, that your family may be at risk. You have to make instant decisions for your own safety, that of your family, and of every asset you have in the field - and to do that, you have to prioritize which assets are more valuable and which you can afford to lose, if necessary. You have to decide then and there which of the people you cultivated, the ones you promised safety in exchange for information and cooperation, which of them may have to die because you may not have time to save them all.
Why has your cover been blown? Because you work as a CIA colleague of the wife of a man who dared to question the veracity of the President of the United States on a matter of national security, a matter of an exaggerated claim that was inserted in his State of the Union address to bolster his case for war in Iraq. And the President's cronies and hatchet men decided to out this man's wife for political payback, as a lesson to anyone else who would dare to question their decisions and as a means to staunch the bleeding from this initial salvo of criticism. Damn the consequences."
I haven't stopped laughing.
More here: http://www.firedoglake.com/category/firedoglake/
Thanks, Bah .. you have my ping list, right? George Tenet's name: was it even ever mentioned, and yet he sent THE referral letter?
Oh, good grief. I forgot to do the ping.
Apparently, the ball is rolling. This is from JustOneMinute:
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2007 at 07:07 AM
I can't see how the prosecution is going to go 3 hours. They are already up to Cathie Martin's testimony.
Libby Live: Zeidenberg’s Prosecution Summation One
NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.
Here we go. We're waiting for the jury now.
Walton: Good morning. B4 we proceed with the argument, I'm going to permit the Defense to introduce another piece of evidence.
Jeffress: IIPA.
Walton: Evidence concerning IIPA was presented at trial, statute presented as evidence. Libby not charged with violating IIPA, consider only for impact on state of mind. In other words, consider only if Libby had a motive to provide false info when he spoke to FBI. With that we will proceed. Govt may proceed.
3 minutes ahead of schedule!!!
Zeidenberg:
Morning ladies and gentlemen. ABout a month ago, both sides gave opening statements. Fiz told you what he expected evidence to show. He told you govt would prove that this case about lying. Evidence would show that Libby lied to FBI and GJ how he learned about Valerie Wilson, who he talked to about it, and what he said when he discussed Wilson's wife with others. Defense didn't have to give opening statement. On behalf of defense, Wells elected to give opening. He painted different picture, told you about WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby. Effort to make LIbby into sacrificial lamb so that Karl Rove would go free. You've heard witnesses testify, you've heard witness after witness, you've heard them testify about one or another conversation with Libby about Valerie Wilson during the time period that Libby claimed he had no memory of Wilson's wife. You heard Russert testify, take an oath and say he never spoke to Libby about Wilson's wife. In direct contrast to what Libby claimed. Now did you hear any evidence about a conspiracy to scapegoat Libby? If you draw a blank, it's not because of a problem with your evidence. I bring that to your attention to remind you that evidence is what happened on witness stand and introduced as evidence. Unfulfilled promises from counsel do no constitute evidence. Fitz told you this is case about lying, and I submit that is right. Not a case about bad memory or forgetting. Libby does claim he forgot 9 separate conversations over a 4 week period, but he also invents out of whole cloth, two conversations that never happened. His conversation with Cooper and his conversation with Russert. That's not a matter of forgetting or misremembering, it's lying. Talk to you about evidence and credibility of witnesses.
9:32
Commentary from an atty at JOM:
"I'm not sure if it's just the beginning, or if EW's leaving out portions, but it surprises me that Zeidenberg is doing very little to pre-empt the obvious defense arguments that prosecution witnesses have specific weaknesses, e.g. Miller's shopping bag archives, fleisher's testimony that he did not tell Pincus ("we don't dispute he did, but he just didn't remember" seems pretty weak). When I argue, I always want the jury to hear about the weak parts of my case from me.
Posted by: Patrick | February 20, 2007 at 07:19 AM"
More JOM commentary:
"Cboldt has some new filings up. It looks like Other Tom's prosecution/defense split is correct and that Fitz has reserved up to 50% of the prosecution time for rebuttal.
I told ya - the snake is going to whip the pink elephant to death in his close.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2007 at 07:22"
Summation Continues:
9:32
Zeidenberg
There will be things that you know from common sense. Use your common sense. When you weigh credibility, don't look in isolation, look together, how their testimony fits together, and how it first with documentary evidence.
Grossman told you (#3 person at State), how on May 29 outside of meeting he was approached by Libby who wanted info about a trip by an Ambassador to Niger. Grossman hadn't heard about it–it bothered him he didn't know about it. He was being asked about something he sould have been aware of. He digs around and finds some information. He finds out it was Wilson. He calls and tells him that info that day. Grossman wants a report. He wants something on paper. Goes on foreign travel, July [oops] 10 or 11, he's handed INR memo, date June 10 [Z has adjusted the way they're describing this to make it match Ford's testimony] He say that Valerie Wilson sent WIlson. Grossman thought it verged on impropriety, he thought it was bizarre. He sees LIbby within a day or two, he see Libby outside of Deputies Committee, says he looked into it, it was Wilson, he did report back, Grossman said another thing. There's something else you should know. Wilson's wife works at agency. Grossman thought important to tell Libby. And why wouldn't he, he had already been caught short, not knowing about Ambassador. He's reporting to VP COS, and he's going to hold back this information. When Grossman told this to Libby, it was the fourth time, in two days, that Libby had been told about Wilson's wife. The fourth time. I'm going to go through the first three, but first of all, want to talk about why you can rely on Grossman's testimony. #3 at State, a colleague of Libby, no confusion about this, I suggest there is no reason in the world he'd have to be biased against Libby. His testimony corroborated by INR report. Ford said unusual to have gotten a request about this subject. Grossman told you this was a zero on his radar screen. The only reason he looked into it was bc he had been requested.
The first, you know, was VP of US. VP told Libby, on what we believe to be is about June 11, you saw Libby's notes from June 11, where he wrote down that wife works at CP, as the result of a phone call with VP, in anticipation of article written by Pincus. Even though date has an approximation, just prior to June 12 Pincus piece. As I'll explain in a minute, we can tie that down. Libby learns on June 11. What else happens on June 11.
Call slip, Libby's call to Grenier. This was an unusual event, Grenier had never received a phone call from Libby before. Calls back about 2:00. Libby's upset with CIA. Some fellow talking to the press. According to Libby, this fellow is saying that he's been told by CIA that he was sent to Niger as result of request from OVP. Libby wants to know if true that Wilson sent, and if true that Wilson sent solely as result of interest from OVP. Grenier, like Grossman before him, when he gets request from COS of VP, he finds out about it. Libby is correct. Learns that interest not just from VP, but State and Defense. He also learns that Valerie Wilson, Joseph Wilson's wife ,worked in unit that sent him. Name's not used, but learned Wilson's wife worked at CIA. He was in dilemma. He's got 4:15 meeting with DCI regarding Iraq. Caught between calling Libby, remembers being torn. Decides he'll call Libby after meeting. Knock on door, he is pulled out. The first time in his life, pulled out of meeting with DCI. That is something you'll remember. Told that Libby wants him to call. Grenier realizes he's made a mistake. Matter of urgency. Grenier sees Libby 2-3 days a week, clearly this was pressing matter. Calls Libby outside meeting and gives him download. Tells him about trip, told him that there was interest from Defense and State. And Grenier tells Libby another fact, Wilson's wife works in unit that sent him. So that is the second person, that day, Mr Libby heard that from. First from VP, then from Grenier. Libby wants to know whether CIA will go public. Will they confirm publicly?
9:43
Grenier briefs Harlow, says they can confirm publicly, says not a problem. Libby says "great, have Harlow talk to my press aide." Harlow believes woman name of Cathie, it's Cathie Martin.
Want to talk abotu Grenier's credibility. Grenier wasn't sure he had shared the info on Plame. Unsure whether he shared it, but he knew he had gotten it, he wanted to err on side of caution. Now he testified at trial that he was sure. Want to remind you of how he accounted for that. Not memory of conversation, but memory of feeling of discomfort, that he had said too much, that he shouldn't have shared info about someone who may have been covert. He remembered unease about sharing the info. From that he could share what happened. He was quite clear in his own mind. But he didn't come clear right away. He didn't think it was important. H knew he didn't tell Libby his name. As press reports became public, reports about where Libby may have learned about it, that Libby may have learned it from press, Grenier felt duty bound to come forward, lay cards on table, and let you, Ladies and Gentlemen, sort it out.
Would have been easiest thing in the world not to share this. He doesn't work at CIA anymore. No animosity with Libby. No reason for him to come in here to put up with day of Cross-examination, except he thought he had info that was relevant. No reason to think that Grenier would fabricate that. Grenier second person.
Third person is Cathie Martin. Grenier puts Harlow on the phone with Harlow. Martin told you she remembers learning about Joe Wilson's wife from Harlow of CIA. She told you that Mr Harlow told her that Wilson former charge in Baghdad, and wife works in CIA. Martin told you that as soon as she got this she went into VP's office, and told them both exactly what she had just learned. That is the third conversation he had on June 11. This is corroborated by other witnesses. Also corrborated by Defendant's notes. Look at GX104, portion of notes,
[Ut oh! Our evidence screen isn't turned on]
Upper right corner, says CP. Wife works in that division. This is the note that Libby writes down from conversation with VP on June 11. Now let me just show you portion of same note. OVP and State and Defense express strong interest in issue. Off to the left, Libby's symbol for VP, VP told, get agency to answer that. It's clear from this note that Libby told by VP to get OVP and Defense and State, VP wants CIA to say that. And that, ladies and gentleman, explains why Grenier got pulled out of meeting with Tenet, that's why Libby had called Grenier, when he had never call him before, this was matter of urgency. VP wanted to get CIA to say this publicly. I suggest this note corroborates testimony of Martin and Grenier. This is exactly what Grenier told you Libby wanted. Grenier and Martin didn't have access to Libby's notes. Martin didn't remember date. But she always remembered sequence, she knew Wilson's name on July 6, she remember she got it from Harlow, got on phone after speaking with Deputy at CIA. from the testimony of those witnesses, clear that conversation with Martin and she immediately told Libby. Third time on June 11 that Libby gets that info.
Next day, Grossman tells Mr Libby, 4 times, less than 48 hours.
What happens next? June 14, Schmall, CIA briefer. There's only 2 people in that room. Take a look at Schmall's notes from that day. Schmall told you he only writes down questions of person he's briefing. Why was Amb told VP office question. Joe Wilson, Valerie Wilson.
Think about that question. That is the question Libby keeps trying to answer, and put to bed. That's the question public keeps asking about VP and this trip.
The JOM commentary continues:
Unless EW is inserting words, there is the spouse again. It was stipulated that Libby mentioned neither spouse or wife.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2007 at 07:23 AM
Plus, my reading of the closing so far shows that Zeidenburg is not drawing a careful distinction between the importance of "Wilson and the facts (or lack thereof)" and "Wilson's wife." The testimony showed the Mrs. Wilson was mentioned, but is pretty sparse in showing that Libby was focused on THAT specific fact.
Posted by: Patrick | February 20, 2007 at 07:26 AM
Attorneys, in closing argument, are prohibited from discussing facts that were not admitted into evidence during the course of the trial. They are allowed to use facts that were presented and argue inferences that can be drawn from such facts. It is done this way to make sure the jury is does not get misled or confused by extraneous issues.
MORE FROM THE SUMMATION
9:55
Schmall did not know their names. Libby knew more than his briefer. Schmall's testimony corroborates Martin's, Grossman's, and Grenier's testimony. Libby remembered this on June 14. Defendants say if you don't take notes, you can't remember it. Very few of us take notes in course of day. But in this case there are notes that Libby told Schmall that. There's no reason these notes should be questions. Fifth person Libby discussed Wilson's wife with. [shows a tree of who told Libby and who he told.]
Next person, Judith Miller, June 23. Ms Miller, NYT reporter. Taking notes, recalls that he was upset, angry with CIA, felt they were backtracking on what they said publicly before the war. Very familiar with Wilson. Said Wilson ruse, irrelevancy, should be ignored, Familiar with Wilson's trip, familiar with Wilson's wife. He said she worked in the bureau. From context Miller understood as reference in CIA that deals with non-proliferation. Ms Miller was 6th person that Libby talked to about Wilson's wife during that short span of time, June 11 to June 23, less than two weeks. [no discussion of Miller's credibility]
What's next? Ari Fleischer, July 7. An event that stands out in Fleischer's mind. He was leaving, only time he had had lunch with Libby. Fleischer's memory of it clear. Future employment plans. Libby thanked him for comment in gaggle. Miami Dolphins. Mr Libby said he had info that was hush hush and on the QT. Wilson wasn't sent by VP, but by CIA and that Wilson's wife works in counter-proliferation division, the same diviision that Libby was told about and you saw referred to in note from VP. Mr Fleischer took this as gossip, as info that was passged on, unsual, Libby didn't share info normally, he was not someone that Ari could get info normally.
WHY did Libby choose to share this info with PS on that date. If you think it was because conversation lagged and he had run out ofthings to say, or did he tell him that bc it was Ari's job to talk to the press, he could spread around without it ever coming back to him. I suggest it's the latter, gave it to him deliberately hoping Ari would talk to reporters. That's exactly what did happen. Gregory, Dickerson. Talks to them, tells people about Wilson's wife. No reaction from them. Don't write down in notebooks. No evidence they ever printed anything about this. Nevertheless, when Ari reads press accounts of criminal investigation, he is mortified, bc he sees that this info appears to have been classified, appears to have involved covert agent. Got a lawyer, got immunity. You should think about it–protects him only if he told the truth.
The only thing he can be prosecute about is lying. They never published. He said he had no recollection of talking about Pincus. You heard Pincus recalls telling Fleischer told him. We don't dispute Pincus' testimony. The fact that Ari doesn't remember all the reporters he spoke to about Wilson's wife, doesn't explain why he would fabricate lunchtime meeting with Libby. Irrefutable fact that Ari knew Valerie worked at CP at CIA. Who could he have learned about it. There's no illwill. You saw nice note that Libby sent. Why would Ari lie about that conversation. There's not a question about his memory. Ari is 7th person Libby discussed Wilson's wife during period he claims to have no conscious memory.
Next, David Addington, current COS. Former colleague. Used to be counsel.
SUMMATION CONTINUES
:06
Addington didn't remember date. But I'll explain how we can date it. Addington remembered unique conversation in anteroom. Libby shushed him. Addington soft-spoken man. Libby wanted to know whether President could declassify at will. Addington, yes, Navy v Egan. Libby mentioned Navy v Egan in GJ. Libby wanted to know what paperwork there would be at CIA if someone sent spouse on trip. It's clear who he's talking about. Who in the world would Libby be talking about? You can date it bc you know part about declassification, the NIE, that was doct Libby wanted to leak to reporter. He was going to leak it to Judy Miller on July 8. This conversation had to have happened prior on July 8. [Hey, Z, what bout the note?] Now, there was some suggestion when Addington was cross-examined, that Addington didn't mention word "spouse" when first cross-examined. Mr Addington right now works for VP. He used to be colleague. If he had a bias, which direction do you think it would be? Prosecution, or defense? No reason that Addington would come in here to talk about spouse being sent on trip if that is not his exact memory. He's a precise lawyer. He was clear on his memory. Addington the 8th person Libby spoke to.
The next, Judith Miller, AGAIN, on July 8. This was the meeting at St Regis hotel. This is where Libby was going to leak NIE. Highly unusual event. Only 3 people knew NIE was declassified; Pres, VP, and Libby. Tenet didn't know about it, Condi didn't know about it, Hadley didn't know about it. Just those three, Pres, VP, and Libby knew about it. And they're going to pick Judy to give it to.
They met at St Regis. She had her notes. She told you Libby was agitated, angry. She told about NIE, what was in there. Talked about Powell presentation. She told you ground rules changed in middle. First, referred to as SAO. Then rules change, I want to be referred to for this next portion as Former Hill Staffer. Libby didn't work on Capitol Hill, worked in OVP. Didnt want this next part to be linked with him or his office.
Conversation turns to Wilson and Wilson's wife. He tells Ms Miller that Wilson's wife works at WINPAC. WINPAC is section w/in CIA. Can you trust and corroborate Ms Miller's testimony [giggles in media room] When she first testified she didn't remember June 23 meeting. Can you find her testimony credible. A few things to keep in mind. Who is Judy Miller. Won Pulitzer. Libby had very nice things to say about her.
Think about this, NIE gets declassified, only 3 people know about it. They could leak to ANY reporter in US. This is exclusive. Libby handpicks one reporter, Judy Miller. Why? As he said in GJ, he thought she was a responsible, conscientious reporter. Remember the circumstances, hardly ordinary. Goes into GJ after 85 days in Alexandria County Jail, fighting subpoena. She didn't want to have to testify in this case. No access to notes. Asked only if she understands interview about July 8. She testified, as she told you, Libby talking about Wilson's wife working at CIA. Asked "is this the first you heard of it." She says, "I have a memory, but I can't place the source." She's asked to find the notes. Her notes in shopping bag under desk. Finds, THERE, I did know. Guess who her source on June 23 was? It was Mr Libby. She looks at notes and it refreshes memory. What's the other corrboration. Libby's June 23 calendar. Shows meeting with Judy. Look at Libby's calendar entry July 8. Private meeting at St Regis. That's the meeting that Miller told you about.
A couple of things I want you to think about. Remember how busy Libby was. Remember how he was doing work of two men. Yet he can block off several hours to meet with Ms Miller to deal with political PR matter. Tells you how pressing this issue was. What's the other corroboration. Show you portion of MIller's testmiony on June 23.
Want to show you document introduced as defense exhibit. Show you fax sent to Libby on June 9, this fax in Mr Libby's files was conveyed to Miller on June 23. "Initially referred to as clandestine guy. CIa sent Wilson out to investigate claim." This is what she took from what Libby told her. Take a look at exhibit. Fax to Libby sent June 9, 2003. This is the time period Hannah said Libby doing homework. Memorandum for VP. "In response to your question on sale of uranium to Iraq, we have tasked our clandestine source with ties to Niger govt." Clandestine guy, VP office, report 2002. Ms Miller able to accurately recount what Libby told her June 23 2003, able to come in here 2007 to tell you about fax sent to him by CIA. A couple things to take away. 1) Libby WAS doing his homework. 2) Libbby was able to remember facts from June 9 to June 23. Hannah said Libby has great memory for remembering facts that support argument. 3) Miller able to accurately get that info and tell you about it. Ms Miller was the 9th person who talked about Wilson's wife with Scooter Libby between June 9 and the time he says he was surprised to learn it as if for the first time.
Russert.
AND YES, THERE'S MORE
10:21
First, I want to remind you what Wells said about Russert. "I do not contend ANY of them are lying. He makes clear Russert one of the most respected reporters in US. I'm not arguing now that anyone is telling intentional lies." That's what he told you in opening. Then, in cross, for 5.5 hours, Wells tries to suggest to you that Russert IS lying, lying because he's trying so hard to go into GJ, lure of being deposed in lawyer's off is so great. And also lying, Wells said, bc of feud with VP's office. First recall about what Libby said in GJ. He referred to Russert 3 dozen times. You can read it, but I suspect your memory will remember those 3 dozen. He testified not that he thought it was LIKELY he learned of it from Russert, he was unequivocal, he remembers what he was thinking, he remembers what he was feeling, how it struck him, that Russert thought this info was important. Want to play a piece of that conversation. This very first clip is language charged in indictment.
Walton: You've consumed 59 minutes of your time.
[Plays Libby tape: Did you know that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. I was taken aback by it. I said no, I don't know that. Intentionally, bc I didn't want him to take anything as confirming what I said. I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning. I wanted to make sure I didn't confirm with him. I reminded him, Tim, off the record. Russert said to me, did you know Wilson's wife CIA. Then he said, "all the reporters know it." I said, I don't know that. Wanted to be sure I wasn't confirming anything. Struck by what he was saying. Didn't ask anything more, didn't want to be digging in on him. Then we finished conversation. F Why so surprised? L I was surprised that he knew it, and I didn't. Russert is one of the best of the newsmen, one of the most substantive of the newspeople, not only did he know it and I didn't, but also that he thought it was important.]
Ladies and Gentlemen, you now know that was made up. Russert took stand, remembered conversation. Had never received phone call from high govt official. Swearing. He's watching hardball, monitoring what's happening. Russert has clear recollection of this conversation. Russert never talked to him about . It never happened. Russert didn't know about Wilson's wife. He read about it in newspaper in column on July 14, same way Sanger, Kessler learned of it, they read it in newspaper. That conversation never happened. Now, Wells wants to suggest to you that Russert is fabricating, that he's saying he's certain when he's not. Lets just talk about motives.
I'm going to next thread
BEGINNING OF NEXT THREAD, SUMMATION CONTINES (remember, they have set aside several hours for this)
Zeidenberg
Russert treated exactly same as Woodward, Kessler, Pincus. Why would the lure of this be so great with Russert, but Woodward, Kessler and Pincus could resist. BC of feud? Bad blood? You'd have to believe that when Russert got call from Eckenrode, and he told Russert that Libby said Russert told him, that would have been his chance to stick it to Libby. He'd have to continue that lie. Evidence of the feud is completely absent from Trial. Wouldn't you think that Libby would have known about the bad blood when he went before GJ? Woudln't you think that Martin who said Russert was [an easy mark]? It's a sign of how desperate the defense is to discredit Russert that they would even suggest such a thing.He doesn't remember any of those other conversations. But this one, he says he remembers it perfect.
What's next. Cooper.
You remember COoper said at end of conversation. He said What have you heard about Wilson's wife sending him on the trip. Libby's response, "yeah, I've heard about that." Wells suggested that differences between LIbby's version and Cooper's version, is just difference between a few words. Cooper said, I heard that too. And Libby said, I heard that too, but I don't know if it's true? But is that the evidence in the case. Do you remember what Libby ACTUALLY said what occurred in that conversation? I'd like to play portion of what Libby said he said to Cooper.
Libby, then Cooper said, why did Wilson say it?
[Libby's GJ tape: I would have thought, off the record, that CIA wouldn't tell, who asked about it. Conversation VP has is supposed to be confidential. THey'd have said that CIA tried to do it. I wouldn't have thought that he heard this, but if it's possible he heard something unofficially, it was wrong. In that context, I said, off the record, reporters telling us that Amb Wilson's wife works at CIA. I don't know if true. But if it's true, it may explain why Wilson got some bad information at agency.]
By anybody's count, that is not a few words. By any account, that is not what Cooper said Libby said. He never told Cooper, I don't know if it's true. It's made up, made up out of whole cloth. Ladies and gentleman, Cooper could never have taked as confirmation the things Libby had told him. Cooper took this as confirmation. How could he have taken it as confirmation?
Mr Cooper corroborated by Cathie Martin. Martin was present. She never heard ANY Of what you heard Libby just hear it. She never heard, "I don't know if it's true." If she had heard it, she would have said something, because SHE knew it was true. Finally you heard from Cooper that this was a conversation that kept playing through his head. It was significant. Confirmation for a story that got a lot of attention. He is sure about what he testified. No reason he would say it if he weren't sure.
10:38
(I have to make a phone call. This thing is going to get away from me.)
JOM Commentary:
One does not reserve half the time for rebuttal in a solid case. Even Fitzgerald can feel it.
But, can the jury?
Interesting system.
Posted by: MarkO | February 20, 2007 at 07:38 AM
can someone explain why prosecutor gets rebuttal time but not the defense?
Posted by: hi | February 20, 2007 at 07:40 AM
Z is doing well with Russert, but he should address Russert's affidavit to the court. He knows Defense will pound that. I think he needs to take some steam out of that. Other attorneys may disagree, and I don't do criminal defense so I could well be talking out my #@$!$
Posted by: Patrick | February 20, 2007 at 07:40 AM
More JOM Commentary
With Cooper, I think he misses. As for Cathie Martin corroborating, didn't she testify that she was on a call, and didn't hear all of Libby's side of the conversation?
There are several big holes in the testimony of these witnesses. That leaves a lot of room for doubt especially if they aren't dealt with. It appears at this point, their plan is for Fitz to deal with it in rebuttal. We will see.
Posted by: Patrick | February 20, 2007 at 07:53 AM
SUMMATION CONTINUES
10:38
Some comments about charges. You're going to hear the term "materiality." Remember Agent Bond, talking about inevstigation. Remember nature of comments. Libby has tried to obscure where he learned this information. Doing an investigation into spread of classified info, if you learned about through classified channel, then spread it, it can eb a violation. If you heard about it as gossip, then it's not a crime. Think about how hard it is to investigation these charges if you hide how you found out.
Three separate statements. Want to make clear three things. [puts up three charged lies]
1) You can convict if you find any one of these three statements. You don't have to find that all three were false beyond reasonable doubt. You have to unanimously agree on any one.
2) Don't consider JUSt Russert's testimony. Consider all the testimony. When Libby says he was surprised. Consider all of them, From Martin to Grossman, all of it is relevant, and all should be considered.
Count Two, two counts of false statements. Just like with the first count, you just have to find either one of them is false. Not necessarily on both, though obviously, we think you should find him guilty on both.
Count Three, one statement.
Count Four, perjury count, that language is underlined. in instructions, you'll get underlined language.
Count Five four separate statements, all of which alleged as false. Just as with other one, you only have to find unanimously any of the four.
[Playing GJ testimony. In my mind, I didn't know if it was a fact. I said, reporters are telling that, I don't know if it's true. As I said, I don't know if he has a wife. F:DId the fact that you knew that the law could turn on this, that you said your source was a reporter. L No, it was a fact, it was a fact. It was important for what i was saying. F Next set of questions, if you did not understand it to be classified, why were you so deliberate that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it. L I didn't know it was true. I didn't want reporters to know that I said it. I didn't know if he had a wife, I didn't know if he;s married.]
[Libby's looking at screen behind him with the language on it, immobile. Jeffress passes Wells a note.]
[More GJ, Talking to the other reporters, I don't see it as a crime. I was telling other reporters what htey told us, I don't see that as a crime.]
Zeidenberg. Thus far, I talked about govt case. I want to talk abotu Defense testimony, and whether you should consider it credible.
In opening and cross, they've said that Libby was so busy that it's unreasonable to expect that he could remember snippet of conversation. Is it fair to ask him to remember that?
Want to come back to testimony he told about another conversation he had, with Karl Rove. This was end of week, horrible week. Wilson op-ed. All the questions, the firestorm starts. Next day, admin says 16 words shoulnd't have been in there. Pres in Africa, Libby has to deal with this. 11th is Friday. Libby talks about conversation he had with Rove about Novak. I want you to think of all the details that Libby is able to recall, w/o benefit of notes, that occurred at end of that week.
[GJ testimony: wasn't sure if we were going to get everything we wanted. During conversation, Rove said to me, conversation with Novak. Sense was it was recent. Told me that Novak had told him that, Rove, Novak had told Karl Rove that he was going to be writing–my sense was that weekend. He had run into Wilson in Green Room, the room that people sit in waiting to go out on television show, fruit and coffee, waiting for turn to go on the air. Rove told me Novak had run into Wilson, had a bad taste in his mouth. I've forgotten exactly what it was. Wilson turned him off. Also that NOvak had concerns how Wilson chosen. BC Wilson and Novak's view, Wilson had, might not be a fair and impartial reporter. Third thing, Novak told Karl that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Confirmation of sort from what I had heard from Russert, that all reporters knew. I told Karl that I had heard from Russert the same thing.]
Consider how amazingly sharp the details are? Libby can remember 8 months after, every detail of conversation that Rove had with Novak and what Novak told Rove, but he can't remember out of 9 conversation sthat he himself has about Wilson's wife, bc it's a trivial detail? The same trivial detail he learned from ROve, and yet he can remember it with no difficulty and no notes.
When you consider Libby's testimony, there's a pattern of always forgetting about Wilson's wife. He remembers Ari conversation, talk about future, Miami Dolphins, Remembers the Dolphins, doesn't remember talking about Wilson's wife. Remembers talking about NIE iwht Judy. Not abotu wife. Remembers talking about declassification with Addinton, but not the wife. Convenient pattern. Is that purposeful.
Libby can remember with specificity what he DIDN'T talk about. [Cheney's op-ed] "or did his wife send him on a junket?"These are questions Cheney wrote in his own hand. Those are the questions VP is asking. Ask yourself. VP has these quesitons Who is he going to ask about them. Isn't it obvious he's going to be working on them with his right hand man. And when Fitz asked, "didn't these come up that week?"
[GJ testimony: Keeps columns for a while. I don't know when he wrote them. You have to ask him about them. F You're saying these would happen much later. L ONly that part about the wife, that wouldn't occur that week. The part about the wife, I don't recall discussing with him, prior to learning again, about the wife. ]
Isn't that remarkable that he can remember that far back what he didn't talk about. The wife, He can remember that they didn't remember.
Want to talk for a moment about Mr Novak. Libby confused Russert with Novak. [Puts up the faces of Russerr and the MOST UNFLATTERING picture of Novak I've ever seen.] It wouldn't be easy to confuse these two. [switches the two pictures, laughs in the media room]
When Libby was asked about Novak, he said he hadn't talked to Novak for a year and a half. But now he says he might have confused it. If you thought an investigation was all about who linked to Novak. And you thought you might have learned it from Novak. Don't you think you would have remembered?
Now let's go to forgetting about VP telling you this. I want to suggest it's simply not credible to believe. It's ludicrous. Here is an issue that is front and center. Wilson is spurring headlines accusing WH of lying into war and VP is in hotseat. Libby is VP's right hand man. THey're asked questions over and over. Why did they send him. Libby gets an answer. The wife. Bad skinny, he calls it. He writes it down. He wants you to believe that VP and he didn't think important. But he wrote it down. He's doing the homework to school himself about Wilson. And he so completely forgets info about Wilson's wife that when Russert tells him about it, it rings NO BELLS? no memor? L&G It's just not credible.
INTERJECTING SOME MORE JOM COMMENTARY
This closing, if the FDL blogging is pretty accurate, strikes me as very disingenuous. Not only conflating the interested in Wilson and his trip with Wilson's wife. I saw he represented Ari Fleischer going from lunch with Libby to speaking to reporters, skipping days and memo reading. Evidently dismisses Fleischer's denial of telling Pincus as simply a memory lapse. Despite the assertion Z made up front that this isn't about memory lapse alone, I expect defense to show that is precisely what this is.
Posted by: Chris | February 20, 2007 at 07:58 AM
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.