![]()
We're all in back.
Libby's team has loaded up some super redacted memo to show on the screen.
Grenier, btw, is very dapper. Greying, nice suit, blue tie. His delivery was VERY credible (even if he didn't say anything about Plame for 2 years, the delivery of it was impressive). I think it was David Corn who said "you can tell he has done a lot of briefing." He's in the box, frowning a bit.
Jeffress is up with questions. He got Grenier's name right the first time.
J: You have never met with me or anyone. And that's because you declined to do that before this trial, is that correct?
G: I guess there was a request.
J: Do you know Valerie Wilson? Do you know Joe Wilson?
J: "The war in Iraq had been over … Saddam Hussein had fallen six weeks earlier." There was a problem arising with those who had relied on intelligence before the war. We had not found WMD, correct? The intelligence agencies had predicted that the WMD were there.
G: Referring to the NIE then yes.
J: There was some finger pointing going on.
G: At various points there was a lot of finger pointing.
J: The press was writing a lot about this in June and July.
G: This has been a point of controversy. Yes.
J: Do you remember Pincus' article in the WaPo?
G: I remember that article, yes.
Introducing article. Jeffress has a really accusatory, nasty tone.
J: Do you recognize this article?
G: I would have to read this.
J: Well, why don't you…
He's reading this.
G: Given the conversation the day before I understood where this was coming from.
J: Didn't you tell McLaughlin that this was an effort by the WH to put the blame on the CIA.
G: trying to recall…
[interrupts]
J: Can you answer my question?
Walton says he's trying to answer.
J repeats question in more detail.
G: I may very well have said that to the Deputy Director (McLauhglin)
G: My belief at the time was that the Admin was trying to suggest that "had they only known" that it was Wilson, they, the WH would have felt that was very compelling. The fact that this was not highlighted to them was a failing to the CIA. Which I thought was unfair, btw.
J First time you were interviewed December 10, 2003.
G I recall being interviewed, I couldnt' say it was the 10th.
J does this document refresh your memory
G It says January 5
J Look at the bottom, where it says date of investigation.
G This would indicate it happened on December 10 and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
J Turn to page 2 of that interview. If you would read the next to last paragraph on that page to refresh your memory about Pincus.
He's reading.
1:41
G: I don't think anyone would have blamed OVP for sending Wilson.
G: I thought this was an effort to place blame that no one had warned them that there was compelling evidence against Niger.
G: I would not have considered the report compelling evidence.
J: You're talking about the report on Wilson's trip.
J: That's because in the report it said an Iraqi trade delegation went to Niger. [this misstates what the report says]
G: I don't recall that part of the report.
J: You did not regard it as conclusive for what reason.
G: I never read the report. Explains this report wasn't going to be compelling bc the Nigeriens knew the Wilson report coming back.
G: Absent some indication there was some privileged relationship with these subjects, I would have found this report suspect.
J: You would not have figured this was the best way to collect the information.
G: When I first heard he went, it struck me as odd.
J: As this information came out was some of this information embarrassing to the CIA, about the tradecraft related to the report.
J admitting article into evidence. Walton giving warning that the article is hearsay. Jeffress is trying to argue that the CIA was embarrassed they had sent Joe. Note Grenier doesn't seem to be aware that Wilson DOES have a "privileged" relationship with the subjects, since he coaxed them to return to democracy.
J is summarizing the article, saying the CIA failed to share what it knew.
G: I'll let people read the paragraph for themselves.
J: The fabricated evidence refers to forged documents, the CIA had possession of those in 2002.
J: The CIA failed to discover that those were forged.
G: There are others who know a whole lot more about that situation.
J: You do know that the IAEA discovered they were forgeries in a matter of days.
J: That occurred some two months after the SOTU.
G: I'll take your word for it.
J: The CIA had failed.
G: In the case of this particular report, I've already explained that I didnt' think that was a fair criticism.
This is not working, IMO, because Grenier is not falling into Jeffress' traps.
J: Look at paragraph, CIA's decision to send an emissary.
1:51
J: Was it this statement in the article that caused you to have an opinion that WH was pointing a finger at the CIA?
G: Perhaps.
G; Where it says the CIA did not share—that's the finger pointing part.
J: Do you recall believing that Novak article was finger pointing on the WH.
G: That signaled a shit shift [updated: oops--not a transcript] in the PR strategy. Earlier suggestion that Wilson was reputable. At the time of the Novak column it seemed that there was a different tack, quite the opposite one, why should anyone believe Mr. Wilson.
J Did you discuss the Novak article with Harlow
G I don't recall if it was on the day it appeared, but I did discuss it with him.
J Did you say it was trying to avoid responsibility for Wilson's trip.
G They were trying to avoid responsibility for the truth about Iraq and Niger. Who was responsible for Wilson's trip wasn't really a question.
J pushing on "avoiding taking blame for Wilson's trip" again–he's trying to put words in G's mouth.
G I would like to state, I have the greatest respect for the FBI, but the FBI agent may not have gotten what I said exactly right. What is important is that my belief that the WH was throwing blame on the CIA–not for Wilson's trip–but for not having provided proper warning to the WH on this issue of Iraq's attempt to buy nukes.
J You talked about the nepotism issue.
J You interpreted that the source was in the WH.
G I strongly suspected it was someone in the WH.
J admits into evidence.
J Wilson's article caused some consternation with the CIA.
J Was it your belief that someone at the WH must have leaked this to Novak?
J Conversation with Libby. Do you recall that about two weeks after the column. July 31, you were interviewed by IG at CIA.
G I couldn't vouch for date.
J Have you see this before.
G is reading.
G I don't believe I've seen this report before.
J does that refresh your recollection.
G dates are a problem. I vaguely recall talking to someone from IG. I was interviewed by them on a number of issues.
J You discussed your conversation with Libby.
J You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.
G I don't see it reflected in here.
J You can stop reading that now. [he's putting dates up on the board]
2:03
J You did not mention to the investigators about Mr. Wilson's wife.
G I couldn't have told you either way. The thrust of what they were after, I don't think that was a particularly relevant issue.
G I don't think there's any reason why I would have mentioned that.
J You don't remember either way.
G I have no reason to think I did.
J Does it strike you that your recollection of these meetings is a lot more vague than your conversation with Libby on June 11.
G My recollection of a lot of conversations from that time is vague. My recollection of my conversation with Libby has vagueness attached to it.
G What is true about this is that I've spent a lot of time thinking about that conversation.
J The first time you were interviewed in this case was in December 2003.
J Do you recall that you met with a CIA lawyer, named Nancy to prepare for that interview.
G It's quite likely I met with one of the lawyers before I met with the FBI.
J Before meeting with the FBI, did you meet with CIA counsel.
G I don't recall. I don't remember if they came to me first or if there was an appointment. It's hard for me to recall.
J But you remember your call on June 11 but you don't remember whether you talked to a lawyer.
G It wouldn't be significant to me, if I did.
J Did you review any documents you could find to prepare for that interview.
G No, the only thing I reviewed was that message.
J You told the FBI that you did not recall telling Libby that Wilson's wife was married to a CIA officer. You told the FBI that you didn't discuss Valerie Wilson.
G I told them I didn't mention the name. I told them I couldn't recall clearly whether I said that or not.
J Look at the 302 (FBI report)
J Did you tell the FBI that you did not discuss Valerie Wilson.
G I think that there's some confusion in this report from the FBI. It says did not discuss Valerie with Libby. I think it's referring to my not telling Libby her name. Tries to show that the report is confused.
J tells him to stop reading, he's not allowed to read it.
G I believe I reported that in my conversation with Libby I couldn't recall clearly whether I told him that Plame was working in unit that dispatched them, that I may have, but didn't have a clear recollection, but that I didn't tell him Valerie Wilson's name, because I didn't know that. I learned of it at a meeting (points out that the meeting is referenced in the report).
J Do you remember my question. If you let me ask the questions and then you can answer them. [boy Jeffress is a big dick!]
G Can I testify that part of what I read is incorrect.
Walton: Not if you're not asked that.
J Turn to page 2. Do you recall telling the FBI that you did not recall telling Libby that Wilson was married to a CIA employee.
J You didn't recall telling Libby or you didn't recall whether you had told Libby.
G Not sure of the distinction, but either would be correct.
2:17
J Between FBI interview and GJ, you did not remember whether you told Libby.
G Did you tell the GJ that you had no clear recollection whether you told Libby it is possible that you may have done so.
G I was being conservative. I knew of one way that Libby may have learned of Plame.
J So you had a "growing recollection."
G my growing conviction was based on how I felt afterwards.
J none of this recollection happened between FBI and GJ testimony.
G Meetings I had did not discuss my upcoming GJ appearance or what I might say.
J you didn't recall hearing about Plame from CPD.
G that's what is reported. I will tell you that right now. It's hard for me to account for that. You may recall that when I appeared before the GJ the second time. I was startled.
J You testified that you hadn't heard of Plame
G No, that's not what I said. I didn't have a clear memory of whether the person from CPD had told me that.
J When you were read that testimony, that surprised you.
G Absolutely.
G I had a very clear memory of having been told that. What I couldn't remember was whether I conveyed that info to Mr. Libby. As I sat there, I remembered that and thought I had always remembered it. I was surprised. As is reflected in that transcript, I asked them to read it a second time.
J Testimony is wrong?
2:25
G [missed his response--but basically says he knew he was right the second time]
J When you went before the GJ a second time.
J your testimony was I would definitely want to change that.
G the part I would want to change is the part that's not up there. I wanted to change not having a clear recollection about CPD telling me of Plame. This part, no, I knew I had said that before.
J Look at page 10 of transcript of January 29. I'm sorry I meant July.
Interruption! Grenier lost his glasses. Everyone is running around the courtroom looking for his glasses. Someone found them. Jeffress says "It's a trick, I do that to all the witnesses." Everyone is still milling around. Fitz and Wells checking in. Fitz says, "would everyone check their papers." Fitz on his knees looking. "What is that laying right on the desk?"
2:37
It's unclear whether he has the glasses or not, though I think they're right there on the witness stand.
Here we go.
J Directs him to his July GJ testimony. You asked Mr. Zeidenberg at the time to read back your testimony.
G It's a different individual, but yes I asked him to read it back.
J I'm sorry, it's a different prosecutor.
J Your response was you would want to change that. You now had a clear recollection that the person in CPD told you about Plame. The second thing you would change was –were you asked the following question. You still have no recollection. No, I do have a recollection of having discussed that with Mr. Libby.
J does your memory get better with time?
G It depends.
J did you find a note?
G what improved was what I remember thinking and feeling afterwards. That only came to me afterwards. What triggered it and why, I don't know.
J And when did you forget that feeling?
G I didn't recall it.
J What triggered that feeling?
G I wish I could tell you.
J You read newspapers that said that someone learned of reporters. Was that Karl Rove?
G I'm not sure.
Jeffress introduces another article. Yup. Grenier has his glasses, now reading the article.
J Is that an article you read just before you went back to the GJ.
G What I read pertained to Mr. Libby.
J look at the last paragraph as well.
J Did you still have the opinion that someone in the WH was the source for Novak.
G What's significant here is that there was some dispute about what Libby knew. Which indicated that my recollection might be significant in the context of the investigation.
J This memory that you had. Where were you when that recollection came to you.
G reviewing how he recalled, feeling guilty. Admits his recollection was weak.
J were you sitting with someone McLaughlin or Harlow?
G No, they wouldn't have helped me remember.
J What prompted you to think about it?
G I would have thought that relaying the information would have been a mistake. I think we're confusing the issue.
J You would agree with me. You found no note. Still have no note. You didn't go talk to somebody who was participating in the conversation. You have no corroboration other than your memory.
G That's right.
J Do you recognize this document
G I believe it was described by the Prosecutor and he may have seen me
J Did you have an assistant
J Was your title the ADDOPS
J This email was sent by your executive assistant
G I believe it was, there are no names.
J It is agreed that this is your executive assistant
J Do you recall asking your EA to gather information on the story that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa
2:56
G There is reference in this to Joe Wilson. I KNOW I didn't ask her about that.
J Did Deputy Director ask you questions regarding whether Iraq sought uranium?
G I can say absolutely not
J where would your EA get information that the DDCI had asked you about Joe Wilson
J You have every confidence that you did not tell your EA that the DDCI had asked you about the Wilson trip
G I have no such recollection
J Do you have a recollection about SSCI asked you questions about the same issue
G Let's be careful of the broader issue. There's this more narrow issue on Joe Wilson. Did someone on SSCI ask me about the Wilson trip, before June 11.
J What had they asked you about?
G I made appearances on a lot of occasions. I don't recall having appeared before them in the days before June 11.
J Did you tell your EA that Congress is beginning to point fingers
G No
J Did you type your own emails?
G not as much as I should have. I was well known for not keeping up with emails. Both EA and secretary had an instruction to review my emails and put the important ones in front of me.
J did your EA work for anyone besides you.
G Sure. Would take tasking from one of other principals' EAs. That used to happen frequently.
J Would your EA carry out tasks on your behalf, and would your EA do that by email.
Defense Exhibit 72.
Sidebar.
3:02
J You were the Iraq Mission Manager in June 2003. When the forged documents were discovered there was an internal investigation and an inquiry from Congress.
G Yes, may have been a Congressional investigation.
J Did you read Congressional notification on Iraq in April 2003 regarding the purported Iraqi uranium deal on Niger.
Sidebar again.
J You probably don't recall the question.
G (restates the question perfectly) No.
J You saw Libby shortly thereafter.
G Yes
J You described it as primary policy meeting. You only attended the ones on Iraq. Mr. Libby attended all of them.
G That wouldn't surprise me.
J When you did see Mr. Libby, did you say something to him about maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Wilson's wife the other day.
G No, I don't think I did.
J You didn't mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. You didn't mention anything to Mr. Libby whether Mr. Wilson's wife was covert.
G No
J Covert in simple terms means undercover.
G Yes.
J CIA has lots of employees who are not covert.
G Yes
J You heard she was a "staff person" correct?
G No, I heard she was working in that unit. Could have meant staffer, an analyst on loan, could have meant a number of different things, didn't ask for clarification.
J Would you turn to your second GJ transcript.
J Did you tell GJ that the she was a staff person
J that didn't testify that you learned that she was covert
G Staff person has a number of different interpretations. Could be staff person from DO working in CPD.
J THe person you talked to gave no indication that Wilson's wife was covert. Correct?
G Yes.
J You testified you spoke with someone named Cathie.
G Yes
J You're certain that this conversation with Harlow and Cathie happened on June 11.
G I believe so, I know it was a female press person.
Fitz' team again
Z [I think this is Zeidenberg so I'll use Z] What was the point of the investigation when you had a meeting with IG.
G about the Niger forgeries.
Z Did it have anything to do with Wilson
G No
Z you were asked about an email from your EA, whether he'd make inquiries on your behalf. Did he ever get taskings from other EAs?
G I believe he did–they'd be asked questions by their other principals' EAs.
Z If the person at the CPD that you spoke to did not tell you Wilson's wife was covert. Why were you feeling uncomfortable.
G Because I knew that that person could be undercover. We were talking about a unit in DO the vast majority of whose employees are undercover.
Z Nothing further.
Sidebar
3:17



111 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
FITZ! And Christy and Marcy
Fitz!! FDL!!
Marcy!
The non-binding resolution passed.
Thanks so much for the initials. Yesterday’s dictation was hard to follow. :)
Many thanks EW for denoting who’s speaking!
What is the point of “Fitz!” to open every thread? And the comments are moderated?? Ugh.
Who/what is Robert Grenier?????
Thank you for seperating out the Q’s and the A’s. It much it much easier to read.
Anne @ 7
The first witness, testimony blogged here.
Marcy: Anyone get you a printer yet?
dqueue @ 5
No point – just a local tradition.
Saw that you referenced Lukery earlier (good taste) – so I just figured I’d give you an ‘oldschool’ reply.
FROM WIKI:
Robert Grenier, a longtime CIA officer who served as the CIA’s top counter-terrorism official for about a year, was fired from that position on 6 February 2006 by CIA director Porter Goss.[1] Grenier continues to work at the CIA.
In 2001, Grenier was the CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, where he helped plan covert operations in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. In the summer of 2002 he was promoted to the chief of the Iraq Issues Group, where he helped coordinate covert operations in support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Just from my perspective, whatever form is easier for the person live blogging is fine with me. This is not supposed to be an accurate transcript. IMO anyway.
You are doing an absolutely fantastic job. Just keep doing the best you can and we will follow along.
ccmask @ 12 –
Lordy! No way he didn’t know Valerie.
Not to be confused with John O’Neill:
John Patrick O’Neill (February 6, 1952–September 11, 2001) was a top American anti-terrorism expert who worked as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation until late 2001. In 1995, O’Neill began to intensely study the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of that plot. He subsequently learned of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and investigated the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen. Partly due to personal friction he had within the FBI and federal government, O’Neill left to become the head of security at the World Trade Center, where he died at age 49 in the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2002, O’Neill was the subject of a Frontline documentary named “The Man Who Knew.”
dwemer @ 8
DITTO THAT!! I’ll admit I was getting a bit confused as to who was saying what. Thanks Marcy. :o)
Just read through the last thread and comments and have a thought on the “memory thing.”
It is starting to sound lame. As I watch/listen to this, it is becoming apparent through both Grossman’s and Grenier’s testimony that Libby was totally honed in on this matter like a razor(phone calls to people he had never spoken to before, hauling people out of highly important meetings, playing his OVP office rank card…) and that it may be very hard for Wells to make the case that he was doing so many other important things which made it hard for Libby to remember this little distraction easily.
dqueue @ 6
The custom of beginning the thread with an invocation of “Fitz” began as a morph of a blogger convention of being “First!” to the thread. If you have not been first to a fdl thread, you could not possible know the joy attendant therein. “Fitz” was the reason many of us first came to fdl and it is part of our little culture. As shooter would say, “we’ve mad our decision.”
As to moderation of the comments, it is one of the most appreciated parts of our discourse here. Dissidence and discussion are encouraged but attempts to derail the blog with slamming or misrepresentation by trolls and other nefarious creatures are not tolerated. And for that, most of us are very thankful.
O/T, sorta, but tangentially related ultimately:
Of course, the WH will now blame the inevitable negative outcome of his “surge” on his congressional critics, who gave such “aid and comfort” to our enemies.
_
What is the point of “Fitz!” to open every thread? And the comments are moderated?? Ugh.
they are “moderated” because of trolls, spam, DOS attacks, etc…. most comments go up without moderation (only go to the mods if they contain too many links or certain words associated with spam)…
*********
I have a suggestion… lets make the newbies hit the paypal button before they can comment, thereby greatly reducing the number of off-topic and dump questions like “What is the point of “Fitz!” to open every thread?”
p.lukasiak @ 20
i so agree with this idea…
FYI – From the Boston Globe through Crooks and Liars.
Kerry bows out of Presidential race.
antonetteg @ 21
Yeah, let’s make it into a real clique, so that the kewl guys can hang out and chat away and anyone new needs to pay an initiation fee. That sounds like a good idea.
wrt Libby “showing the OVP card”, the OVP is the CIA’s customer. Grenier sat in meetings with Libby, he was familiar with who he was. When he knew Libby wanted information, he was delivering for his customer.
I don’t see anything wrong with the communication between Libby and Grenier.
lisadawn82 @ 22
Hallelujah!!!
Thanks for your great efforts. I’m putting my money where my mouth is and contributing $100 to defray your costs in this outstanding effort to bring us the best possible internet coverage of the Libby trial.
zeppo @ 23
i’m with you… welcome all newbies!
the more readers, the more impact.
Further to frogger ! 18,
The moderators filter out the tons of spam sewage and trolling sharks that would otherwise infest this site, and rescue the occasional comment that finds its way into the spam filters.
I would point out that live moderation is *incredibly labour-intensive* but repays in unparalleled commentor friendliness. We are incredibly fortunate that Ms Hamsher and Ms Hardin Smith have chosen to perform this great service.
Our mods are the lifeguards who keep the Lake so clean and pleasant for swimming.
For this we unceasingly thank our heroic moderators and our Ladies of the Lake. And now a chorus of Praise Jane, from whom all blessings flow!
G: That signaled a shit in the PR strategy.
I love this….
p.lukasiak @ 20
Please! One of the great things about FDL is that we are such an open community. Let’s all put the knives away. Just because we found FDl first doesn’t mean we have to run off new people.
we were all new here at some point – so let’s welcome the new folks. This is *the* go-to place for Plame-ology.
How many have never used their “what does EPU mean” mulligan?
This site is getting huge attention right now. I say that this is a damn poor time to start appearing to be dicks.
I know it’s just a typo, and I’m not criticizing. But I just love the way this line turned out:
>G: That signaled a shit in the PR strategy.
It certainly did!
I’ll hang out over here with selise and zeppo. As a relative newbie myself I’ve been made to feel extremely welcome. Greetings, newbies!
Marcy:
I would assume in this type of trial there are instantaneous transcripts being generated by the court reporters at the court house. Is that the case?
Does the court or anyone else have any intention of posting the transcripts at the end of each court day or before the session begins the next morning? This is not taking anything away from you, I was just wondering what the situation was there at the courthouse and what the media has access to.
Finally, aren’t some of the questions on cross beyond the scope of direct?
Thanks for your work.
By this time, anyone that thinks Libby had a job that was so important is like the Preznut is out riding his bicycle during working hours.
Is the whole administration nothing but bench warmers?
p.lukasiak@20,
It is tempting, but Queen Jane and Queen Christy have said absolutely no sort of membership or even registration, and this would be sort of a poll tax.
However, its probably a good idea to limit troll-food. Even if the trolls are nice enough to remove their shoes before they climb up on the table to shit in the punchbowl. Even if they say please and thank you.
And to refrain from OT stuff (yes, such as this commment) when the servers are smokin’ from keeping up with emptywheel and ReddHedd.
marcy wrote:What is important is that my belief that the WH was throwing blame on the CIA–not for Wilson’s trip–but for not having provided proper warning to the WH on this issue of Iraq’s attempt to buy nukes.
I thought Wilson had already debunked this to the wh and threatened if they did not respond, he would go public.
I agree with Selise and choochmac – the more the better. It’s hard enough as it is being a new commentator without outright hostility from the older participants.
I’m not updating right now, because the site is slow. But I’m keeping the notes.
Check back soon.
Sparkles the Iguana @
29
My favorite typo. Thought about fixing it, but I’m gonna let it
shitsit a while. . .The Live Blogging on the Libby trial has been awesome. There is a depth and width of information that is non-existant in MSM.
( Just your basic daily wrap-up.)
I’ll tell you what really blows my mind. That yesterday Senator Dodd actually blogged on your site. It shows you have an outstanding position in the community and I consider it a privledge
to share ideas with such a group of people..
Thanks and good luck. ( I was going to pose a question to the Senator but chickened out :)
When Judy testifies, are she and Scoots going to be able to pass notes, or should courtroom observers just look for winks and facial tics?
Lurking mod: please fix the last word’s spelling at my 11:17. Thanks
What is going on in the courtroom right now? Anything.
The FDL team is doing a great job blogging this trial, setting a high level of expectations for all future such events. Keep up the great work.
By the way, it is possible to purchase actual transcripts of the Libby trial at:
http://www.exemplaris.com
They are probably pretty pricey and I do not know how long delivery takes [and the website is not compatible with Foxfire!], so buyer beware.
I never have ;-p
But, I think newbies have as much right to be here as any else, ncluding me, free of charge or initiation rites.
Sparkles @ 29 & Joe @32
Yup! I LOLed
Thanks EW for all your hard work on this btw! Very much appreciated.
Is Fitz even in the courtroom today? Is he sitting? Is it Zeidenberg doing the questioning?
p.lukasiak @
20
Wow. Newbie hurt.
I agree with EW comment …. [boy Jeffress is a big dick!]
Why are lawyers allowed to do be disrespectful to witnesses like this? If I were a judge I’d give this asshole one stern warning…then I’d toss his sorry ass in jail! Hazing witnesses (even if they’re hostile witnesses should never be allowed).
I’ll be back later, but I leave you with this:
You are all looking way too closely for meaning in what is happening in court, parsing through the questions and answers, trying to figure out how it will effect the outcome, thinking the defense is scoring points with the jury. The defense isn’t – that is the way to bet (and on the odd chance that the million to one happens and he is not convicted, I’ll be wrong and admit it).
Evil Parallel Universe says:
January 24th, 2007 at 11:24 am
How many have never used their “what does EPU mean” mulligan?
I never have ;-p
Beautiful – and incredibly well-timed. But I guess that omniscience has its advantages, huh?
(fwiw, I never did either, but I hung here for a month or more before I figured it out.)
Wondering how Jeffress’ “accusatory, nasty tone” is going to play with this predominantly female jury – especially if he keeps it up going forward.
From my own limited jury experience (civil case), the nasty, accusatory tone used by the plaintiff’s attorney (I believe trying to indicate to the jury that the witness was either lying or hiding something) totally backfired.
I didn’t know until we got into deliberations, but just about every woman on that jury (including me) was APPALLED by this guy’s nastiness – and I believe it’s possible some might have voted against his client for that reason, even if he had made his case – which he didn’t.
So I say, keep it up, Jeffress!
choochmac @ 30
Thank you choochmac. Please don’t be bickering with one another while such important events are unfolding right before our eyes.
I would feel better if this merely said “top”, rather than “top, top, top”…..grrrrrr…..of course, he could be doing it of his own volition, I guess….
http://www.suntimes.com/news/s…..19.article
Evil Parallel Universe @ 51
I agree. A danger of this blow-by-blow live blogging. Much potential for micro over-analysis.
Bottom line: He LIED, repeatedly and proactively in affirmative detail.
Guilty as charged.
_
It seems clear that the defense has decided quite consciously to present a vigorous, aggressive tone to the process. They want to carry the day and paint Scooter as badly wronged; the lawyers are fighting for just vindication, in this narrative, and they are understandably roused at the government’s injustice.
This is pretty standard defense bar practice. In a trial, it’s all about how well you can sell it, how well you can carry it off. They’re selling it without flinching, and so the jury will have two very distinct narrative interpretations of events to weigh by the end.
One will be angry and passionate, but it could backfire if it comes off as dishonest or abusive. Fitz does his own calm, simplicity thing well, and it presents what could be a very strong, appealing counter to the Wells team approach.
Boy, how many times have we seen people STRESS that they did not give away Valerie’s name. That, in and of itself, seems to be of utmost importance. They feel fine with saying “his wife,” but not that wife’s name.
I still wonder if a connection will be made with Judy’s notation during her conversations with Libby of “Valerie Flame” and Novak’s Human Events Townhall article using the exact same incorrect nomen, “Flame.” You just can’t get “Valerie Flame” out of the Who’s Who and it seems to offer up the conclusion of a common leaker that got the name wrong.
Tinfoil hat on:
I get the sense that Greiner was trained in being cool under examination. I suppose CIA personel are trained to keep a steady head while under duress.
As one of the people whose name is in the “About Us” link at the top, let me please go out of my way to welcome our many new visitors, and say all questions are welcome.
We may not get to them in a timely fashion while this breaking news stuff is ongoing, but we’re glad to have you here.
Looks like FDL will be getting a daily pointer from Froomkin. Hey Dan, see you tomorrow at Timberlakes!
Pach @ #60 – Thanks!
Sparkles the Iguana @ 55
Saturday Night Massacre?
Pachacutec @ 60
Thank you! The server seems slow, so I’m going to give up my connection with hopes that someone else can discover this wonderful resource! Later!
A Humble Request
Per pluk above, FDL has bills like everyone else. Thanks ecoop for for your donation. The Jan 17 link above is the only time I ever recall FDL asking directly for support for FDL.
Marcy and Christy, I loved the YouTube/PoliticsTV of you two yesterday.
Here’s a link to our rockstars for anyone who missed it
Pachacutec @
40
My thought too when I read it……
Sparkles the Iguana @ 55
Win, lose or draw, what do you reckon Fitz’s career prospects are with his current employers? If this is indeed him, and he rides the case through this trial, he’s got my blessing to move on with his career–hopefully with some big dollars attached.
Sparkles the Iguana @
55
we’ve been expecting smears since, when???
only now?
Pachacutec @ 40
Maybe it’s I. “Scat-ter” Libby. And thanks for the excrement trial coverage!
Pachacutec @ 40
Mine was “look…shiny thongs.”
John Dickerson on Wells’ opening statement:
If I were on this jury….or any jury….this dude would bug the shit out of me. I hate it when lawyers do voices.
Thank goodness she didn’t misspell ‘can’t’.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 55
This is total idle speculation but it wouldn’t surprise me if Fitz himself is looking for a corporate job to jump to after the Libby and Conrad Black’s trials. After all, the dude has been embroiled in a high-stress, low-paying job for years. Whatever the outcome of the trial – he isn’t going to go far in any Republican administration because of the Libby trial, the Democratic political machine in Illinois doesn’t like him because he went after the Daley machine and the current governor, and he has no interest in going into politics. It is a shame because he is an excellent public servant – but I couldn’t blame the guy.
Dickerson is making shit up; sorry. Wells used different kinds of rhetorical constructions, but none of them came across as impersonations or voices other than his own.
But Dickerson has some real bad credibility history on this story.
Well if Grenier lost his glasses this clearly bolsters Libby’s memory defense. *g*
Just a heads up: we’re having server traffic load that has caused a hiccup or two, but our server managers are on it. Thanks in advance for your patience!
Thanks to the commenters who posted followup on Grenier’s background. Interesting to me that he was canned when Porter Goss took over at CIA. Due to ideological differences, or something else? How is Jeffries’ demeanor during this cross-examination? To read this, I perceive him as rather priggish, and not too endearing nor convincing…
Thanks for the friendly explanations about using “Fitz” to start a thread. Insofar as the less-friendly explanations, I assert that lurker, perhaps, but newb, I’m not.
It was more of a rhetorical question directly applicable to today, while the servers are getting hammered, the bandwidth completely taxed, and there are people frothing at the keyboard to say “Fitz!” as the servers churn and churn to answer hits. But really, thanks for all the thoughtful commentary. Besides which, who keeps score…
Insofar as my comment “Comments are moderated. Ugh.”, that was exasperation that the, in my opinion, meaningless “Fitz!” comments were not moderated away in this, the servers’ time of need.
Grenier is holding up well. Probably because he’s telling the truth. He’s carrying off the whole “I rembered based on a feeling” thing. Jeffress isn’t laying a glove on on him.
Thanks to EW for her fantastic work. I am getting that the defense’s strategy is incompetence. He’s incompetent, the witness is competent, the fbi, cia, state and defense. They are all incompetent. Either it’s incompetence or a conspiracy. It has to be incompetence because no one is competent enough to be conspiratorial. Well, that was a first thought.
Pachacutec @
75
Thanks, Pach!
This is why I love sites like FDL and Eschaton: We can shoot down bullcrap before it has a chance to become accepted as fact.
Regardless of what happens to Scooter, this trial seems like it will be really damaging to the Administration. It’s bad just from these two days. I still don’t understand why pardons haven’t stopped it cold.
Badwater @ 82
Jaysus, me either. Whatever the outcome, this trail proves the administration repeated lied about the Wilson matter – from the VP on down. And the amount of backstabbing, rivalries and sheer incompetence! This is the vaulted Bush machine? No wonder they couldn’t govern.
Badwater @ 82
they might be past the point of caring. their JAR is in the sewer. they are going ahead with their war escalation and probably a bombing campaign against Iran.
THEY’VE LOST THEIR MINDS. (to paraphrase Charles Barkley).
George H.W. Bush stopped a potentially damaging trial cold with pardons. Is this just another case to show how truly bad his son is at being President?
John Casper @ 66
Aww!! You guys are so cute. Marcy, with that “Cathie Martin is a female in a subservient role who got screwed over by her boss”, I don’t think you’re gonna be getting any offers from the networks. (So you should feel good.)
I’m printing out all of the Libby live blogging so I can read them later tonight. I was wondering, if all of you aren’t busy later, will you marry me? lol!
Some very effective undermining of the “nobody can remember anything” defense theory…
Just wanted to stop by and say what a great job all of you are doing. And Special kudos to Marcy and Christy!
Thank you!!
Steelthing, I’m just one of the infrequent commenters here but I want to thank you again for your generosity to FDL. You are truly a patron of the arts for a new kind of journalism.
Badwater @ 82
It’s a long, kinda involved thing – but basically, if Scoots is pardoned, he loses his right to take the 5th and is wide open to congressional subpoenas and the attorneys representing Joe and Valerie Wilson in their civil case.
In short, saving Scoots isn’t worth opening him up to tell all he knows – which he would have to do, if pardoned.
I thought the Defense did not want Mrs. Wilson’s covert status admitted in the testimony yet they are the ones bringing it up or is it that I am wrong about this.
punaise – you have mail.
I love the economy of Zeidenberg’s re-direct: it’s basically a signal to the jury that they’ve just heard a lot of (time-wasting) smoke and mirrors.
If they keep up this style of inquisition, Will Jeffress et al have to construct a huge conspiracy theory to account for all of these forgetful (but devious) witnesses? He has his work cut out for him.
jayt @ 91
How did George H.W. Bush get away with it?
QuickSilver @
94
I was just about to comment on the same thing; the re-direct for Grossman was the same way.
Very efficiently, in just a few questions, clarifying the context that Team Libby is trying so hard to distort. Real pros at work.
New thread upstairs
and another thanks to Steelthing (if you are still here) for the de-lurking generosity.
QuickSilver says
January 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I love the economy of Zeidenberg’s re-direct: it’s basically a signal to the jury that they’ve just heard a lot of (time-wasting) smoke and mirrors.
That’s why I was only mildly surprised to hear that there was minimal re-direct this morning.
Tough call as an atty – do ya go back and straighten everything out – or do ya just forget about it, as a way of signalling – ‘they never laid a glove on us’?
Trial lawyering – it’s an art.
Hey, Fire Dog Lake staff, especially “Empty Wheel”!
I can’t tell you how much it means to me to have a source that I can trust. I’ve had to learn that anything from the MSM must be taken with a grain of salt (sometimes pounds of it).
I’m hoping Libby’s trial will result in Cheney being charged with treason (it should have already happened) and either being impeached or resigning.
The testimony of Grenier as reported here seems to me very compelling. He is being portrayed in the liveblogging as not gicing Wells an inch.
If I were on the jury hearing someone say:
-I didn’t think my firm was being portrayed fairly.
-I had a sinking feeling so I kept mulling it over.
-I realized when it all blew up that my sinking feeling might really mean something.
I would identify with that guy and perhaps be grateful to him for doing something about the third sentiment rather than letting it slide (the far easier thing to do).
My question for you wonderful people who can hear him in person: Is he coming off as sincere as I hope? Is he really not giving in to Wells.
Thanks again guys for all that you are doing–sent a paypal the other day. –CJ
Regarding the effect different lawyers have on jurys, I sat through a nine day trial for my job – which the defense (my side) eventually won. The other attorney was really a jerk, sometimes hard on the witnesses – sometimes loud. Aarogant.
Our attorney was unfailing polite to all of the witnesses, and particularly gentle with the plaintiff when she took the stand, though he did continue to gently push for questions that were important.
I watched the reaction on the faces of the jury. They did not like the other guy, and watched our (nice) guy intently. Took a couple of hours to get a verdict for our side.
I can’t stay away from this stuff: a real world, political court drama unfolding in real time. Fitz methodical and thorough patience in preparing for this very moment is like masterful foreplay before slow intense intercourse.
Am I the only one telling myself to get a life?
Sweet Gumroot
froggermarch @ 18
But for the groundbreaking live-blogging of the Libby trial, could we pretend it’s for the good prosecutor???
….
G …We were talking about a unit in DO the vast majority of whose employees are undercover.
Z Nothing further.
Mmmmh? Team Libby just let that hang there?
{olo} @ 104
I was thinking the same thing. On the last question, no less. At the very least, the lawyer should have thrown in a softball question (”Are you a cat person or a dog person?”) so that that wasn’t the last thing the jury heard.
“Fitz on his knees looking.” [for glasses]
Salt of the earth!
Early there was a request about just who would within the executive branch, be allowed to have access to classified information.
The gist of the query was “Does simply having a particular level of Security Clearance” allow free access to that information.
The issue seemed to be whether any sort of criminal act occurred by the casual spread of Plame’s identity within the administration to people who had no legitimate reason to know her identity.
Here’s the relevant policy.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12968.html
There is a restricted “need to know” stipulation for the individual with a specified clearance level and such users of that information must guarantee that anyone that they pass the information to has a “need to know”.
This relates to Grenier’s concern about whether he had breached the classification wall relating to CIA officers when he disclosed Plame’s status to Libby.
He did the appropriate thing however. Any possible breach to an individual outside the “need-to-know” or who lacks Security Clearance must be reported to the appropriate supervisor. Grenier did this.
It seems that Libby (as well as Rove and Armitage) were blabbing away to Judy Miller, Cooper, Novak and a host of others who, by no reasonable notion, could be adduced as having proper security clearances and a legitimate need to know.
Pachacutec @ 60
Thank you…some of us have been participating on the political internets since the before The Horse came and went. That we are over here reading this great trial action now doesn’t actually make each one of us a Noob.
Am I the only one wondering if Joe Wilson is reading FDL’s excellent coverage of the Libby trial?
In the previous comment section, someone using the name “Joe Wilson” responded to someone stating that Mr. Wilson was a “lowly old diplomat” with the following: Lowly old diplomat? Thanks a lot.
Could have been snark from someone else, or maybe Joe Wilson is checking out FDL.
Anyway, if Mr. Wilson’s reading, you are an American hero in my book, just as everyone at FDL is an American hero.
And even though I doubt any Medals of Freedom will be forthcoming from the corrupt/lying/deceitful Bush administration, I believe a Bloggin’ Medal of Freedom is richly deserved and should be awarded all of you.
In post G No, I heard she was working in that unit. Could have meant staffer, an analyst on load,
I’m sure this was an analyst on LOAN.
For the history books, when this blog post becomes the record of what really happened.
Ha!