Fitzgerald’s troubled witnesses began having issues on day one. The last thing you want to do in your first witness is prove the oppositions argument that the witnesses are muddled, changed their stories and have no solid recollection of events …

“Were you asked to meet with defense attorneys. And did anyone with the prosecution go with you? Why did you do that?

I thought it was a fair thing to do. And I didn’t want to meet with them the first time yesterday.”

Witness tampering by Libby’s defense team, maybe?

I would presume that Fitz’s prosecutorial team would have known whether they were at a meeting held between Grossman and Libby’s defense team a week ago.

This question on redirect indicates to me that Fitz’s team wants it on the record that Grossman met with Libby’s defense team a week ago without prosecutors being present because prosecutors weren’t invited to be present.

This sounds highly suspicious to me and is the reason why I mentioned yesterday in a comment that some of the “dancing” going on between Wells and Grossman looked orchestrated.

Of course, without the full transcript, I may be making a false assumption, but the question asked on redirect indicates to me that Fitz’s team is laying the foundation for charges of witness tampering.

And just how many more of the prosecution’s witnesses met pretrial with Libby’s defense team without a prosecutor present or any notes being taken about what was discussed?

chicagomaggie @
152

long time lurker
fyi

I think pjf has been quietly relieved of his duties wrt US Attorney in Chicago. Note special counsel website does not refer to him as such; also, chicago US Attorney site no longer has his biography. Last Friday’s Chicago Sun Times had a blind item in Michael Sneed’s column referring to a top, top US Attorney on the street interviewing for a job with Chicago’s major firms.

Odd. He’s still here at the spec atty site and here. at the US Atty site. Can anyone confirm this news?

But if the current gov wants a spark to set the haystack on fire, that would be it.

I just got home from work or I would have responded sooner. Carol Lam is still listed as the US Atty in San Diego so the websites are up-to-date. HOWEVER, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed would probably have a hard time getting a job at the National Enquirer because she is too inaccurate even for that rag. And, it’s a safe bet, when Fitzgerald’s term is over, he won’t be staying in Chicago.

D @ 136

grossman needs to try to help out his buddy…make up a face to face meeting he supposedly had with libby

Wells can try to challenge Grossman’s memory but what you are suggesting is perjury and I think that is unlikely in the extreme. Making false statements is what got Libby where he is today. Do you seriously think that Grossman would want to follow his lead and end up in a similar situation? And for what precisely? His buddy?

I was under the impression that Armitage had already told the FBI that he had spoken to Novak (although not, apparently, Woodward) before he disclosed all of this to Grossman.

Thus, it seems an utterly absurd hypothesis that anything that Grossman could “make up” would exonerate Armitage. Armitage had already said that he had revealed all to the FBI (all that is except for the conversation with Woodward…which would be proabative that it wasn’t merely a “slip of the tongue” to one reporter).

But presumably Grossman only knew about Armitage’s “confession” to the FBI. Why would he want to embroil Libby in it, too?

I have always maintained that Fitzgerald…though “honest” is a extremist right winger in morbid unfounded fear of imganined “terrorists”.

In any case he’s not going to the trial turn into an case about Iraq and terrorism that reflects badly on Bush and his many wars.

whoops – wrong number!

a meeting which grossman’s testimony is inconsistent with his previous under the oath statement about how it occurred…

uh oh…concern troll alert.

the alleged inconsistency is in regard to a statement made during Grossman’s first interview with the FBI — i.e. NOT a statement made “under oath”

and we must always remeember:

don’t feed the trools ……..!

long time lurker
fyi

I think pjf has been quietly relieved of his duties wrt US Attorney in Chicago. Note special counsel website does not refer to him as such; also, chicago US Attorney site no longer has his biography. Last Friday’s Chicago Sun Times had a blind item in Michael Sneed’s column referring to a top, top US Attorney on the street interviewing for a job with Chicago’s major firms.

Odd. He’s still here at the spec atty site and here. at the US Atty site. Can anyone confirm this news?

But if the current gov wants a spark to set the haystack on fire, that would be it.