"III. Exclusion of the Testimony of Andrea Mitchell
At trial, defendant sought to impeach Tim Russert's testimony that he did not tell defendant that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA (2/7/07 PMTr.22,26) purportedly by showing that Ms. Mitchell knew of Ms. Wilson's CIA-employment prior to the publication of Robert Novak's column and may have conveyed that information to Mr. Russert.
Ms. Mitchell had made an out-of-court-statement which defendant argued indicated that she knew that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIa prior to the publication of Mr. Novak's column, and prior to defendant's conversation with Mr. Russert.
As the district court found, however, the prior statement was at best ambiguous, and the interpretation defendant was pressing had been publicly refuted by Ms. Mitchell on numerous occasions (((WHEN SHE THEN LIED TO COVER UP HER PREVIOUS STATEMENTS!!!).
Thus, it was clear defendant's sold purpose in calling Ms. Mitchell was to put the October 3, 2003 statement before the jury.
As the district court correctly held, the October 3, 2003 statement was not admissible as substantive evidence, and calling Ms. Mitchell as subterfuge to place her otherwise-inadmissible statement before the jury violated not only well-settled authority in the D.C. Circuit, but also authority from other jurisdictions. .................
~~~~~
fifi, I don't understand this footnote .. that defense turned down the option of questioning Mitchell?:
The defense requested and was granted an opportunity to question ms. Mitchell; however, defense counsel declined the court's offer to allow questioning under oath and outside the presence of the jury. 2/13/07 AM Tr. 18-23. See also 475 F. Supp. 2d at 82, n.8. Defendant thus waived the claim that Ms. Mitchell's account would differ from her attorney's representation had she been placed under oath.
~~~~~~~
The district court's evidentiary determination that the probative value of ms. Mitchell's testimony was minimal at best (as the jury would be asked to draw a string of speculative inferences), and was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion and unfair prejudice, is entitled to substantial deference.
Moreover, any error in excluding Ms. Mitchell's testimony is harmless, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HORSE PUCKEY !!!
I thought that Mrs. Greenspan had written an article, under her name Andrea Mitchell, where she mentioned that the ambassador was sent on the mission by CIA operatives (or some such thing). That article was published prior to Novak’s. I’m curious why the defense didn’t introduce it, or discuss it, as it was also relevant to Andrea’s (aka the drunk, due to her IMUS statemet) knowledge of what was going on.
NBC in the names of the spitter (Matthews), the crybaby (Gregory), the fat dim one (Russert) and the drunk (Mitchell) are all intimately involved in this. Not to mention, their great reporter (Schuster, or is it Scheister?) who got more of this story wrong than anyone else.
This whole case is NBC against the White House; to this day when this subject is discussed on NBC, they somehow forget to mention that the LEAKER WAS RICHARD ARMITAGE.
I will look forward to reading the take on Fitzy’s filing at JOM. I think Team Libby’s response to this filing is due on Tuesday, next week. The I guess a date will be set for a hearing?
What a lie. Do they think we can't see this. How does one obstruct an investigation where they already know the answers. I've been a lawyer for many years. When you hear anyone ssy we are a nation of laws, not of men, throw eggs, boo and hiss, realize it is not true and we only pay lip service to it.
The judge was going to permit limited questioning outside the jury’s presence. Not quite the same thing as a full examination before the jury.(At least not in this country.)