Whew. No break!?!?!?! And no word whether Ari was Pincus' source?
David Addington. bearded, glasses. Has a bit of nasal voice.
A I'm an employee of the vice president. I'm his COS. (No mention of torture or other unitary executive duties.)
A Started working for VP 12 noon January 2001. [this must have been the first day of admin]
A Grad Georgetown FS and Duke Law. 1981 grad law school.
A Select committee. Iran Contra. WH during Reagan. DOS for legislative affairs. Transition for Tower when he was going to be Defense Secretary, my next job was with House Whip, Dick Cheney, selected by GHWB to become Sec Def, went with him, minority staff directory senate intell comm. Cheney's PAC, Alliance for Leadership. Law firm Baker Donaldson. Partner. Finally SVP American Trucking Assc. Counsel to VP. And now COS to VP. I left out, excuse me, (interrupts to correct one detail)
[LONG LONG RESUME with lots of republicans]
F When did you first work with Cheney.
A early 1980s.
F were you aware controversy on SOTU
A I wouldn't say spring
F Were you involved
A Yes. Took place in COS office to VP, West Wing, larger office in OEB. Very small office, probably about the size of your table. Question asked, did Pres have authority to declassify information. The answer was yes. It's clear a President has authority, I cited a specific case. In that case, court said Dept of Navy v. Egan. Pres by virtue of role as Commander in Chief. Flows directly from Constitution and therefore I said Pres does have the authority even though there is a separate provision, although there are procedures, that would not prevent Pres from declassifying something. It's open and shut. Libby didn't give context. he just asked question about Pres' power.
F DId Libby give you an idea of what he was going to do with info
F Conversation about CIA paperwork
A Asked if someone worked at CIA, would there be records. Normal for him to ask me bc he knew I worked at the CIA. Kind of paperwork would depend on whether you were on the Operations or Analytical side. On operational side, CIA officers are not just free to use whoever they want, need to get approval, requesting permission to use someone, would generate paperwork approval. On analytical side there'd be a letter of instruction or contract. In any case, this is the govt, when you spend money, there's a money trail. I did tell him also it had been 20 years since I worked at the CIA.
F During this conversation did Libby ask why he was asking?
F Did he give you a name?
F Where did it take place.
A In that small office.
F Were they the same conversation?
A I believe so
F Is there a door to this room?
A is babbling away. It's a very small office and you couldn't have more than two people.
A At one point he extended his hands and put them down [as if to quiet him.]
F How did that conversation end?
A I remember him getting up and going out the door. Went into VP's office, following somebody–I think it was Hadley.
A After Wilson was on television after he did Russert's talk show. Once I knew that I knew the Wilson thing was going on. Before we went on the Reagan aircraft carrier trip.
THis guy mumbles and has no apparent neck.
F Why is it you're certain it took place after Wilson's appearance?
A That's when I became aware of it, I wondered if it was about Wilson–he didn't use the name Wilson.
F Prior to that conversation were you aware of that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.
A No mumble mumble mumble
F On the Ronald Reagan trip, the return trip, did you have occasion to talk to mr Libby.
A Talking about window seat on starboard side Edit McGraff, then Cathie Martin, not sure who had the seat on the far side of Cathie. Turned to Cathie, I drew his attention, said I 've got a statement from Tenet. Went on to talk to Cathie.
F asks him to keep his voice up.
F Fall 2003, did you play a role in document response? Describe role.
A About September 30, anyway it was the end of the month, DOJ started investigation of Wilson matter as it was called, they said please preserve all your documents. They sent that first to the WH, I called sent around a preserve notice. As a practical matter for us, requires preserving all records, most of that would have been preserved anyway. Not long thereafter we got a written request from Swartz requesting particular documents so I took his request, wrote up a memo to instruct employees in OVP you've got to write it up step by step, so you give them written instructions, they then search their files, they pull that together, they send that to me. I go through them to check that what's been produced matches what's been asked for. That process gets repeated as they have more requests. OVP doesn't run its own email system. Office at Central Administration. So I send a separate memo instruction, search OVP.gov. For documents, it's employee by employee, for email it's centralized.
F On two occasions, you checked to see that they're responsive. What do you do with materials that you determine not responsive.
A At one point they call up and say they want FBI to look at raw material from employees. Two employees came to me.
F How would you let them know what you want?
A In my case, I'd put the subpoenas on the back.
F 52 through 57, do you recognize the exhibits.
A Email to Swartz sending a copy of preservation email. Cover memo file copy of October 2003 instructions. Subpoena addressed to OVP dated 1/22/2004 and returnable to GJ lists docs requested. Letter to me as Counsel from Special Counsel, 1/23/2004, which puts a time limit explaining subpoena. Another GJ subpoena 1/3/2004 returnable 2/13/2004, attached to it a list of who they want. At least in stapled copy I have there is stapled to the back of it something that is a separate document a memo from me to deputy special counsel Ronald Ruse in which I said I had gotten email instructions. Collection of document certifications, each sheet is from a different person, when I send a memo to the staff, when they send it back to me there is the certification that they can find, Three boxes: I searched diligently and here they are, I searched diligently didn't find much, didn't have anything. A series of these signed by employees in OVP.
F enters into evidence. Leave those to the side. Secure your glasses. [Addington's glasses were falling of, laughter from all]
10 minute break.
There was an open mike for a bit during the break, where Fitz and Jeffress were talking about papers. They seem to be ones that Fitz hasn't introduced yet, they seem to have numbers in the 60s. It doesn't seem all that radical. In any case, Jeffress was alright with them.
Fitz with more identification exhibits 60-62, and 508 range.
F Can you rescribe generally 60-62.
A Letter from Swartz requesting production of list of documents. Subpoena to OVP 1/22/2004 returnable 1/30/2004. Subpoena from GJ 1/22/2004 returnable 2/4/2004. Request particular documents described in subpoena.
F Describe what 506-508. 511.
A A letter forwarding 11th production of docs as part of rolling process. In response to the DOJ request 10/3/2003. 12/24/2003, letter to Mr. Swartz to me, fourth production of documents, rolling production of documents. 3/5/2004 Letter from me as Counsel to Eckenrode responding to a letter dated 12/16/2003, forwards documents responsive to December letter, handwritten note, written by somebody not by me.
F offers into evidence.
A I haven't described 511 so I should do that. Letter to Eckenrode. Notes written by someone else.
F Look at thick papers. Were you recently asked to go through to gather correspondance regarding document production.
A Asked to gather all the memos I sent out.
F Does this appear to be the set you put together.
A Let me flip through it. There are a few redactions. But I produced it.
F Publish 53, turn to page 2. This describes the 10/7/2003 request. Relating to:
A) Wilson, his trip to Niger, his wife's purported relationship to CIA
B) Contact with any member of news media about wilson or his wife
C) A contact with any or all of the following: Phelps, Royce, or Novak
F Govt not contending there's been any withholding of documents. I don't want anyone to misread what we're doing.
F Was it your understanding that doct requests only concerned Novak, Royce and Phelps.
[Libby wants to contest the terms of the investigation, particularly from Fall, 2003, saying it was limited to Novak. I think Fitz is using this to establish the understanding of the investigation]
F If it related to Wilson or his wife, would that be responsive
A Yes, B.
F Shows date.
A sent out 10/3/2003. Those are my initials, next to my typed title.
Recess now, to talk through some legal issue.
Walton: Next witness is Judy judy judy. A few issues. Admissibility of Libby's Aspen letter, and 2 proper use of notes. Latter first. I don't understand the context. Is there a party that wants to use her notes in a way that they wouldn't normally use them.
Jeffress: They're not to be published to jury.
F: we have no intention of doing anything other than ordinary rules of evidence.
F Before openings, we said we wouldn't open with it and if we were going to seek to enter letter. It's not part of direct exam. Premature to decide on redirect.
Walton I wish someone had told me, we could have gone another 5 minutes.
Hey that was easy!! Beer thirty. See you tomorrow, folks!