Replies

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.