
Back from lunch. Please please don't let this go on long. Fitz is preparing for redirect.
Walton: Did they feed you well? Not that good today?
Fitz May I proceed?
F In looking at the exhibits, you were asked questions about what Libby may or may not have been shown. Let's walk though what would have been brought to Libby's attention prior to October 14 2003. Let's go to attachment. September 30 letter--is this the first letter?
Addington: The first letter addressed to me.
A letter discussed earlier.
F Reads: Contacts with any member or representative of the news media about Wilson. There's no limitation on what columnist or journalist was being referred to. Goes to 10/2/2003. Goes to bottom. Another reference to all contacts with media relating to Wilson.
A corrects F for missing date.
F Returns to first page. Another reference to contacts with the media and Wilson.
F Certification by Libby, refers in first paragraph to 10/3/2003, documents coming out were complied with prior to October 7. One week before his first interview with FBI. Now a subpoena. Attachment A, in specifying is it fair to say there is no restriction to media. Shows that subpoena forwarded to OVP employees. Goes through the subpoena items. They include the July 12 conversations and all details regarding Wilson. Certification from Libby, from 1/30/2004, refers to subpoena dated 1/22 returnable 1/30. Certification on documents, returnable on 2/4/04. Another certification, date 2/5/04, return date 2/6/04.
A describing the different handwritings: Mayfield, Libby, and Addington.
F Indicates Libby had seen the subpoenas.
A Yes
1:45
F returns to the Libby sonnet/Cheney meat grinder document. Asking A how it would look when he found it.
There's a stamp at the top, that says, "treated as Top Secret/SCI, then crossed out, with declassified."
F walks him through how it looked when Addington got it. Has Addington talk though what Top Secret and SCI mean. Can documents be properly classified as "treated as Top Secret SCI" Is that a proper classification?
A President's EO doesn't use that phrase.
F Do you recall seeing any other document that were "treated as Top Secret/SCI"
F Did you put that marking there.
A No
F Do you know how it got there?
A On this particular page, no, but in the course of production, there were situations in which I received handwritten notes saying "treated as" some particular classification, when the govt came back later and asked for originals, from that I take it that when they made copies, they stamped that on there, but this one it seems like they stamped that on the original.
F Now asking whether Addington discussed the document with O'Donnell and Abu Gonzales. Explain difference between O'Donnel and your role.
A My client is VP in official capacity. Particular relevance in this case.
A is talking through govt attorney not being able to invoke attorney client privilege, naming everyone, including dissents.
He's going on for a long time.
A The reason it's important in this case, if you want to communicate to an attorney, you have to talk to your private attorney. It's important to be careful what you're asking and what you're answering. It's an artificial complexity introduced by the DC circuit.
F introduces second page of document, with reference to Rove.
F Senior staff becoming question of President's trustworthiness.
F Is this a page of Mr. Libby's notes.
F Entry, whose handwriting?
A His handwriting. I'm not looking at the whole document.
F New exhibit. I want you to see if there's anything else that happened in this senior staff meeting that he chose to note in this document--or note has happening at the Senior Staff meeting.
A Where it says senior staff, I think there's a real possibility that the entires of. The line where you refer to, next is 9/11 commissions, /House labor over time and disclosed/ veto threat foreign ops in subcommittee. Next line 9/11 commission wants drafts marked with President's. Other than a general staff meeting, you wouldn't be dealing with those issues in one meeting except at senior staff. That variety would be a general staff meeting.
F The first ones marked we on Wilson.
A Assuming the notes were chronological. yes.
F You didn't ask him what "it" was. Why didn't you ask him?
Objection sustained.
F Do you recall whether you told FBI, whatever you remember you did or didn't say to the FBI. Do you recall that you discussed a spouse of a person at CIA.
Juror questions. Sidebar.
1:58
Several juror questions
Walton Can you provide clarification why sometimes request for documentations was sent to Libby, and why, sometimes, it was not.
A I have to make a judgment who might have responsive documents. The first one was very broad. For some of the later requests, such as originals of Scooter Libby's documents, I' don't have to send them to the guys in the motor pool. There were a few requests for particular things, so I could go to the person who had that particular set of records.
Walton Are you familiar with practice of witnesses as far as reviewing information before they testify in criminal matter.
A If attorneys have access to records, they will review them.
Walton are you familiar to the practice of witnesses preparing for testimony
A I believe there is a rule about access to your own documents.
Sidebar
Walton, You're excused.
Five minute break. Then a meeting to discuss things before the witness testifies. I'll go up for their discussion--look for me in about 15 minutes or so.
2:07
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Buy Anatomy of Deceit!
A specific subpoena for July 12 conversations, eh?
Marcy Wheeler!! Yes!
Pat_AlexVA @
1
Is it better to buy it from Amazon through FDL? There’s a great independent bookstore round here I try to support…
shopgirl: Buy it both ways! FDL gets a cut of the price so that helps us a lot.
Yay, Marcy, and thank you for your efforts !
Trying to keep up with the trial and work is “hard work” ….. damn….
Thank you for the occasional posts with the important points….
Everyone in Phoenix was quite wow-ed by Jane’s and Marcy’s interviews on Sunday on Phoenix AAR.
Here is link and MP3 from the show:
Action Point - Marcy Wheeler interview
ccmask @ 5
Thanks!
Gotta go to class. Can’t stay away from this stuff. Aargh!
code help needed -
does F = Fitz? (used P for proesecution before)
A = Addington
to Shopgirlove @4: if your local independent bookseller CAN get the book, you could buy it through them, and send a donation to FDL via the Paypal or Credit Card link in the upper right corner of the homepage. But, you might wanna check to see when/if your local bookseller is going to get the book. I haven’t heard when it will be available at brick & mortar stores yet.
Thanks, Marcy, for your liveblogging.
First day I’ve had to read this live… just amazing!
EPU’d - sorta on topic :=>
Richmond @ 166
Is it me or when we go from Wells to Fitz, it feels like the fog has lifted. And the sentences make sense again.
Welcome back lurkers and visitors. We love having you here. We also want you to know that providing this coverage is not free nor do the Ladies of the Lake have a bottomless bank account or a sugar daddy to help pay the bills.
If you really appreciate this coverage, please visit the “Donate” section on the upper right hand corner of the sidebar. The community has already chipped in and we would like to extend that opportunity to our visitors.
Thanks.
LandOfTheFree @ 10
I will check–not sure I can wait too long!!
{{{{{{{{{{{Political Trivia}}}}}}}}}}}}}
On October 12, 2001, Judith Miller opened an anthrax hoax letter mailed to her New York Times office. The 2001 anthrax attacks had begun occurring in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, with anthrax-laced letters sent to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all in New York City, as well as the National Enquirer in Boca Raton, Florida. Two additional letters (with a higher grade of anthrax) were sent on October 9, 2001 to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy in Washington. Twenty-two people were sickened; five died. The crime has never been solved.
Miller was the only major U.S. media reporter, and the New York Times the only major U.S. media organization, to be victimized by a fake anthrax letter in the fall of 2001. Miller had reported extensively on the subject of biological threats and had recently co-authored a book on bio-terrorism, Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, which had been published on October 2, 2001. Miller also co-authored an article on Pentagon plans to develop a more potent version of weaponized anthrax, “U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits,” published in the New York Times on September 4, 2001, weeks before the first anthrax mailings.
One more time . . .
A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. . .
FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
That’s also how Marcy makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. (If she did it in the comments, her jewels would be scattered among our great questions and snark.) But have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 15 minutes to update, you can wait 15 minutes to reload.
And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, sheckles, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket up there on the right side of the page. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
So, it takes Fitz all of about 10 minutes to simply destroy what Team Libby tried to build for about 6 hours worth of testimony — that Libby might not have known that his conversations with Judy Miller and Matt Cooper were material to the case…..
jurors have GOT to be pissed off at wells by now….
That’s right Chewie, its Eliot Ness doing the talking now…
forgot to post my link to the unsolved anthrax trivia above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)
p.lukasiak @ 19
Especially if their lunches got cold. Making a jury wait for lunch with less-than-helpful Q&A is not typically seen as a way to get on their good side.
CCMask,
Let us not forget that the photographer who took the infamous “drunk and falling Bush daughter” picture was killed in Florida by anthrax.
-GSD
p.lukasiak @
19
So, it takes Fitz all of about 10 minutes to simply destroy what Team Libby tried to build for about 6 hours worth of testimony — that Libby might not have known that his conversations with Judy Miller and Matt Cooper were material to the case…..
jurors have GOT to be pissed off at wells by now….
I keep wondering if Wells — who seems to be at least a competent attorney, but is hamstrung by the utter difficulty of the task set him — was picked by Team Libby in the hope that Walton might go easier on a fellow black man. (Considering how much Wells has pissed off Walton from the beginnings of jury selection onward, I’d say that was a vain hope.)
To my law student roomie in the early 60’s who explained lawyering to me in such a clear way that I changed my major from pre-law to anything else at the first opportunity -> my undying gratitude.
Jane S. @ 14
Absolutely!
Phoenix Woman @ 24
Or maybe even the jury? I mean, I thought that was a big part in the OJ trial. Maybe Libby thought that they would get a large percentage of African Americans in the jury, given the racial makeup of DC.
Swopa @ 2
Judy I plus Judy II = 40 mins I wish someone had recorded. And, yeah, a specific subpoena for that day? How’d the prosecutors know to ask about that date way back when?
WTF?
Guy just can’t help himself, can he?
GSD: You mean the guy Johnson, I think, from the Enquirer?
Phoenix Woman @ 24
I keep wondering if Wells — who seems to be at least a competent attorney, but is hamstrung by the utter difficulty of the task set him…
As the phrase goes, you can’t buff a piece of shit. He may have a weak case in front of him, and is doing his best to defend his client, even though the evidence may not be on his side.
Of course, we’re still in the prosecution’s phase of the trial. When Wells starts calling defense witnesses, we’ll get a good idea of where this may go. Right now, things aren’t looking great for Libby’s team, but we’re only a few days into a six-week trial.
I mean Stevens.
LandOfTheFree @ 30
this is really something people have to understand, of course we think fitz is doing a better job then wells, we won’t really have any idea until fitz has to respond to wells presentation instead of the other way around
ccmask @ 29
The same publication that the editor (wife) rented to a few of the 9/11 suspects, possibly Atta(?)
Pat_AlexVA @ 1
I did! I got a notice yesterday from Amazon that it had been delayed, and a notice today that it had shipped. Weird, but I’m not complaining.
Robert Stevens.
A coincidence, maybe, a real wierd one, you bet.
-GSD
Redshift @ 34
Amazon has been doing that recently; I had the exact same thing happen two weeks ago… I got a delay notice, and the following day I got the shipped notice…
Mine says it should be here today!!! Whoo hoo!
Redshift @ 34
perris @ 32
Yes, and we also would be wise to keep in mind that we’re a little bit prejudiced in what we hear and read. Most of us believe Libby is very likely to be guilty of more than just perjury and obstruction. It’s difficult to check those assumptions and try to view this from the juror’s point of view, trying to presume innocence unless there is adequate proof of guilt.
That said, the comments about Wells spending a lot of time to build up a particular idea, then to have Fitz’s team able to shoot down the defense theory quickly, are well noted. This will surely be caught by (and make an impression on) the jury.
Richmond @ 13
When he told them he entertained Blair, I do not think they thought he meant “service” him. The impression that I got was that JG may have been at some party Blair attended and hyped it up to his frat bros. I got the impression they thought it might have really meant he watched the motorcade go by.
The date he gave for the entertainment, did line up with Blair in Washington IIRC. Whether JG did actually have anything to do with Blair is totally unknown, but as you say, it does make some sense as to why such a savvy politcal operator as Tony went so very wrong.
To me this is one of today’s points that sticks. Scooter knew in June, yet he told investigators he didn’t learn this until a whole month later from Punkinhead.
Here in black and white in Libby’s own handwriting is proof he lied to the Grand Jury.
At this point I’m wondering if maybe the defense shouldn’t already be helping the jury develop Scooter’s alibi, “I knew then forgot” or whatever story they’re going to try to spin.
Cause it seems pretty damning to have this just floating out there without a convincing explanation of the contradiction, especially as it could appear now like there was something shady going on when Wells tried to impeach the memory of witnesses who were making the same point.
GSD @ 35
From last thread:
none @ 98
I don’t think they have, I think they’re on the side of “sell my own mother to save my ass,” which is the same side they’ve always been on.
Well, Ari, anyway. Addington seems to just be answering questions in a straightforward way, not covering for anyone or going after anyone, which would fit with his history of being completely open about his ideas, no matter how insane they might appear to outsiders.
So does SCI stand for Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence or Scalable Coherent Interface?
Can someone explain the relevance of this exchange to me?
I noticed that Marcy bolded Addington’s response (which I also bolded). I think the legalese and Addington’s speaking style is confusing me. Is he saying that some documents may not have been initially stamped as “classified”, but they treated them as classified info, and therefore marked them as classified after-the-fact?
Also, what’s with the copies of documents versus originals? Are we to assume that if they couldn’t find originals, they used electronic copies of the originals?
This juror question may have interesting relevance to the above exchange:
I have a couple of questions for legal people:
1) How common is it for the jury to have an opportunity to ask each witness a question in a criminal trial. I have been a witness in two trials (1 criminal and 1 civil) and have watched a few trials, and have never seen it before. Is this something that is up to the discretion of a particular judge?
2) Which leads me to another bit of confusion. Yeterday Jeralyn Merrit (sp?) wrote that she would’ve objected about the fact that Ari was speaking directly to the jury. As I said, I have been a witness in two trials, and BOTH times I was instructed by lawyers to speak directly to the jury (not an easy thing to do, if you are nervous and not used to speaking in public). In one case, I was reminded during a break to try to remember to focus my answers toward the jury as it would improve my credibility (this was a civil case, and I was a witness for the defendent).
Are there any thoughts about this?
Hugh @ 43
Sensitive Compartmented Information.
From About.com:
Which, in this administration, probably means that you tell someone twice that it’s secret before you casually pass it on to them…
I disagree, regardless of where we are in the trial. You do know where this is going, and the defense’s performance (in terms of making a strong enough case to rebut “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” will only be marginally better, if at better at all, with it’s own witnesses, no Perry Mason-moments, let alone coherent testimony with respect to the actual charges.
So is Fitz through? It sounds like his last question never got answered, and then Walton excused Addington.
Wells managed to eat up some Judy-time today, with his page-by-page tactic, but Fitz gets to the point pretty quickly. I’m hoping he has time to bring out something that will get front page attention tonight.
Send this to Glenn Greewald and let him have a go at it. Does the word artificial mean a complexity that the President resents but which is reguired for justice to be delivered when resolving issues of executive authority?
melior @ 40
The trial is certainly turning out to be a fascinating prelude to the Presidential Pardons.
OT: Ari Fleischer’s schedule for July 7, 2003 shows that before he had lunch with Scooter, he had an hour-and-fifteen-minute appointment for a haircut.
Ta Dah
It’s here!
raven @
37
Liveblogging continues upstairs.
Commentary I hadn’t picked up before - the judge is black. And who actually buys into that because we’re fellows, you’ll ‘do right’ by me. The Law is paramount.
neil @ 49
“Artificial complexity” is Addington speak for “having to do something according to the Constitution.”
I noticed that Marcy bolded Addington’s response (which I also bolded). I think the legalese and Addington’s speaking style is confusing me. Is he saying that some documents may not have been initially stamped as “classified”, but they treated them as classified info, and therefore marked them as classified after-the-fact?
just a guess…but the nature of the specific document in question (what Libby/Cheney wanted McClellan to say that exonerated him) is not the kind of thing that would qualify for “top secret” classification….
p.lukasiak (50) — yup, you got that right, in a convenient little nut shell.
This is exactly why Fitz indicted Libby: he had solid, documented evidence that would be difficult to impeach. The testimony is only gilding the lily.
Or, if you will, frosting on the birthday yellowcake.
Swopa @ 52
He told Rocky, “Just take a little off the sides. I’ve got a big lunch date.”
Redshift @ 46
Scooter Can’t Invent
Wordsmith @ 55
for the record….the quote attributed to me is not mine.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 47
After six years of this administration, I have learned to be very cautious. I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic, but I think it’s safe to say that there is a lot of information yet to be released, and it may change the appearance of things.
For example, a few posts up I asked about what Addington was saying about documentation. I find that comment confusing (and perhaps I’m just confused), but if Addington is saying that through the course of gathering documents for the investigation, different people (unknown to him) are continuing to stamp documents “classified” and are indicating that the status of information changed from non-classified to classified AFTER the docs were used, it adds a wrinkle to the situation. Could this help to prove what Libby’s lawyers argued at the opening - that Rove was doing the dirty work and was trying to turn Libby into the scapegoat for his crimes?
(I realize that if this theory is correct, this doesn’t disprove the concept of perjury. However, it could damage the credibility of some witnesses, and could certainly make Libby look like a possible scapegoat who deserves a little sympathy/benefit of the doubt).
neil @ 49
“L’Etat, c’est moi” — whaddaya mean there’s a difference between serving the government’s interest and serving the king’s president’s/VP’s?
If I were Libby, I would so angry at this point that I’d be
considering going to prison for a period of time (if I had info
that would screw the administration and if I believed that
nullification is a lost cause). Would Fitzgerald go along with
a plea deal offer from him?
The discussion about “Sensitive Compartmented Information” (SCI) - was that relating to where Cheney says “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrfice the one asked to put stick his head in the meat grinder” (something like that) ??
How does a comment like that receive formal SCI status?
For all of you wondering whether Wells was hired for reasons other than his skills or reputation: I don’t think so. Wells has a deservedly good rep as a white collar defense lawyer. I think he’s just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Please clear this up for me:
It appears that Walton did some research during one of the breaks..came back and said that any leak after July 8 was not a leak because it had been declassified…am I right here?..can the president declassify info to cover their butts or is this just a coincidence?..this seems pretty important to me or am I way off base?…could someone who understand this please respond?
Shopgirlove @
16
I buy at brick&mortar store, but always try to give ‘em a good friendly elbow-in-the-ribs about putting the book(s) out front on their NEW BOOKS table, and urging them to order more, because they’re “going to wish they had, since this is going to sell fast.”
If books haven’t come in yet, I don’t specifically order one. But I do tell the salesperson I’ll check back, but also look elsewhere to see if another store might have it.
If copies HAVE come in, but are “buried” under “Politics” section in the bowels of the store, I either suggest they put some copies out front, or I’ve even been known to do that myself, heh.
That old game of politics comes in all forms; dive right in & try it in your hometown.
Last week when I visited our local Borders branch with above schtick, result was that, as I was walking back out the door, young salesgal was staring at “Anatomy of Deceit” promo on her computer muttering, “This looks i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g!” BA-DAH-BOOM! ;->
oops! back to lurk…
New thread
I thought I might be sufferring from hypoglycemia
Mickey @
25
p.lukasiak @ 50
Noted, but that was only after he was called back.
In my opinion the defense missed an opportunity to remind the jury of their explanation for why Libby changed his story, after originally omitting it.
A big fat lie in the defendant’s own hand hanging in the courtroom calls for a reminder of their cover story. Or at least if I was on the jury, so it would seem to me.
I assume Wells will hammer repeatedly on this during his presentation of the defense.
Landofthefree - You obviously can be as “paranoid” or circumspect as you want.
Personally, I think you are giving way too much credit to the specific evidence you site and its potential effect on the jury.
More importantly, and this is just my opinion, the whole scape-goat defense is meaningless to the outcome of this trial, even if the defense could prove it, though I don’t they can. And, if I really had to make a choice, the scapegoat defense makes the very likely outcome of a guilty verdict more likely. And for two reasons - 1. it doesn’t answer the specific charges for which he is on trial (whether he was set up or not, he lied), and I think the jury will just think Scooter was part of the larger conspiracy, which I don’t see invoking “sympathy” with the jury. You may have different opinions.
LandOfTheFree @
44
My take on this is that this PHRASE is not something that the Office of the President or other Agency would normally have used. It’s simply be “Top Secret” or “Classified” or some other direct statement. The use of the phrase might occur in documents prior to their actual designation by an authorized classifier…but it was ODD that it was PRINTED in that form on the document.
I think Fitz has some evidence that someone outside a normal channel of classification put that designation on the documents. Who that might be clearly seems important for Fitz to get on the record.
neil @
49
I guess it means that the President and VP are pissed off that they have to pay for their own private lawyers because their Counsels are employees of the “People of the United States of America”
and actually have a duty to protect the Constitution rather than the iridescent Mandrill arses of the Tyrant-in-Chief and his #2 if they act criminally!