Is a defense attorney allowed to coach a “government” witness before a trial?

It’s just that from some of the non-official-transcript quotes, I got the feeling that Wells and Grossman have been doing some pre-trial colluding in regards to Grossman’s downplaying of Valerie Wilson’s central role in the Libby trial.

Of course, everything is in the early stages, but I find it highly doubtful that Grossman only talked with Libby for “30 seconds or less” after the June 11th meeting, during which Valerie Plame/Wilson was discussed.

Grossman had known Joe Wilson for years. Presumably, he would know Mr. Wilson had gotten married to Valerie Plame and they’d even had kids (maybe Grossman even attended their wedding?). Then, Grossman learns on June 10th or 11th that someone he knew was married to someone working for the CIA, someone (unbeknownst to Grossman before June 10th or 11th) with enough clout at the CIA to supposedly almost singlehandedly arrange for a “pro-bono” “junket” for their husband to Niger.

So, Grossman only spent “30 seconds or less” to report this “tidbit” of information to Libby? An “insignificant” tidbit of information that Joe Wilson (and his CIA special agent wife, Valerie Wilson) had kept secret from everyone, including supposedly Grossman and Libby before June 10th or 11th?

In other words, the constant and consistent downplaying of Valerie Plame/Wilson’s importance to the central issue in the Libby trial in both Wells’ questions and Grossman’s answers reeks of pre-trial collusion between Wells and Grossman.

Plus, it indicates part of Wells’ defense strategy, which is that “the wife” of Joe Wilson was so “insignificant,” how could any reasonable person possibly expect him to remember such an “insignificant” party to what the prosecution claims transpired. And if Grossman views CIA Agent Plame as being “insignificant” and barely worth mentioning or remembering (since she’s just “the wife,” then how could Libby be expected to remember someone so “insignificant” either?

Sounds to me like the cover-up has never really ended. And the Republican “talking points” are still being coordinated out of the White House in a continuing attempt to deceive us all.

Libby to Rove: “I wish I could quit you!

veslkid @ 113

Frank Probst @ 19

My summary of the opening statements:

Fitz: Libby lied.

Wells:
1. Libby forgot. And forgot again. And forgot again. And forgot again.
2. Ari is lying, because he got an immunity deal.
3. Judy is misremembering, because she looks like a shrew.
4. Tim Russert is misremembering, because…well, because he’s a really good reporter, but even they make mistakes.
5. Cathie Martin and Matt Cooper are probably misremembering, but I won’t know for sure until I hear exactly what they have to say.
6. I have more shit to sling, but you pretty little ladies on the jury shouldn’t worry your little heads about it. Nobody cared about the wife. You just sit back and let us manly men take care of things.

After they’ve managed to revive their jury consultant from his (or her) twenty minute seizure, I’m sure they’re going to be told to (a) knock off the sexism, and (b) put a woman in a high-profile position on Libby’s legal team.

Frank Probst @ 19: May I please have permission to post this on my blog?

The summary is spot on. The live blog is tremendous. The comments are invaluable. The timing is perfect. thanks to all…

Go for it. Add in “Karl Rove is framing him”.

Thanks Frank. Just checked out the FDL women at politics.com. WOW. Good Job!

Wow Fitz is a relation of mine.

Hi Mr. H. You are very, very proud of him I’m sure, and for a good reason. Put pat1.swf back on the Dingle site, will yah??? Thanks!

The Nefarious Leslie @ 72

RevDeb @ 69

I don’t know about anyone else, but there are 9 women on the jury. If I was one of those women, each time I heard “the wife” it would grate so hard on my nerves that I would write-off the atty who kept using it.

How stupid of him.

Yeah, I had that same thought.

I think even the Stepford Wives would be tired of it by now, and I believe most of these women are working professionals. I can’t see it scoring any points, but I don’t think Wells has much choice. Valerie Plame was the victim of a co-ordinated hatchet job. Wells needs to distract the jury (not to mention the media–she’s a blond white woman, after all) as much as possible from the fact that there’s a victim here. That’s a critical difference between this scandal and, say, Iran/Contra.

No, that’s absolutely the worst thing Well’s could do. The jury is not going to remain oblivious of Plame’s plight. It pissed Fitz off and he (I’d expect) will portray her as a sympathetic victim. A smarter move by Well’s would be to acknowledge reality instead of demeaning “the wife” further, perhaps mentioning something like; “Valerie Plame’s outing was a most unfortunate state of affairs but it certainly isn’t poor Scooter Libby’s fault, for heavens sake!”

Wow Fitz is a relation of mine.

Are you the cousin Gerry in Clare who put the picures on the net?

Funny how Wells has to rely on a mass amnesia defense, not just on Libby, but the memories of a half dozen of Libby’s colleagues and several reporters.

And it should be noted that he impugns the use of “associated” memory aids…suggesting that using these to recall a time or chronological sequence reference is flawed.

In fact, using such cues are more likely than not to IMPROVE RECOLLECTIONS. I hope that Fitz gets to cross-examine Libby’s “memory experts” on just these points!

RevDeb @ 102

perris @ 99

cathy @ 97

He used “the wife” for a reason. Who is he trying to get on his side? Which jury members would respond positively to it?

this is a GREAT point, the defense doesn’t have to convince everyone, he just has to convince one person, that’s it

would you like to be the one guy this is aimed at in the deliberation room with 9 angry women? I don’t think so.

nope. but would 9 angry women make him (whoever he is) more or less likely to convict? will be curious to have CHS or lhp comment on this….

Wells risks pissing off the majority of his jury with “the wife” tactic. He is trying to say that manly Joe Wilson (Hi AMbassador) is worht allthe time and effort we expended trying to discreditslime him, but “the wife” hardly is worht our studly notice.

This was a battle amoung men. Women get to sit on the sidleines with pleated skirts and pom poms.

Strange tactic.