We'll start today by finishing the testimony of David Addington–Mr. Unitary Executive. While we're waiting, let me explain what Fitzgerald seems to be doing right now with Addington. He has used Addington to submit all of the subpoenas to and document submissions from OVP for the first six months of the investigation. He's not doing this to prove that some documents weren't turned over. I'm fairly certain this relates to one of the challenges to the case Libby's team has posed. Libby's team argues that the early investigation related exclusively to the leak to Robert Novak. If they can prove that, they will then argue that lies about Cooper and Judy are not material lies–that is, not important enough to merit a false statements conviction. But Fitzgerald is using Cheney's own lawyer to prove that–no, OVP was well aware of the fact that the investigation related to any leaks relating to the Wilsons.
Just some reminders–I'm not a court reporter, I'm a dirty hippy blogger. So don't quote me as if I'm writing a transcript. Don't kill the servers by refreshing every 30 seconds (I'll post time stamps so you know when you SHOULD update). And buy my book.
Huh. Someone has put a battery and dime onto the overhead. It's down now.
Fitz is back in his light suit–it looks kind of seersucker-y.
Addington is up (I expect about an hour of Addington before we get to Judy–she'll come on just in time for the West Coast). Addington's got a maroon tie on. I've decided that he has the look and mannerisms of a Physics or CompSci professor. Every time Fitz asked him questions he'd just go on and on unprompted. There was none of the hostility I might have expected. Just sitting there calmly on the stand. Though he's on his second pour of water already, just waiting for the judge and jury.
Jury coming in.
Fitz: When we broke, published one exhibit, I'd like to publish one additional exhibit. Can you tell the jury what that is?
A: Subpoena from this court dated 1/22/2004, return date 2/6/2004.
Fitz: Attachment A describes all documents relating to discussion of the following (Addington to read).
A: 1) Wilson or his wife, 2) Valerie Plame Wilson or Plame, 3) stuff related to Wilson's trip including long list of reporters. [reading list of names into the record--it's the long list of journalists listed in subpoenas at the beginning of the investigation (including Jeff Gannon, which elicited some laughs here)
Fitz: Coversation about paperwork related to CIA employee spouse trip. Did you ever have a later occasion to discuss this.
A: Yes, right before investigation started.
Fitz: Describe what you recall.
A Larger office in OEOB, I knew it would have to do with the case. I reminded them that I was employee for the govt, our conversation wouldn't be privileged. He said, I just want to tell you I didn't do it.
F: What else was said?
A: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you'd ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you'd know. I told him you wouldn't know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him.
F Any further conversation with him about that?
F; Nothing further.
Wells: Libby told you I did not do it.
A Yes, but I came to him
Wells; you told Libby that anything he said to you would not be privileged.
A Not privileged in context of criminal investigation. (He keeps repeating this, of course not wanting to suggest there is ever any other limit on privilege)
W: He asked how you'd know if someone worked undercover.
A I don't know if he knew where in CIA I worked.
W You did not find anything unsual about that question
W with respect to document production, you were personally responsible for it. You personally reviewed and stamped each
A Yes, with some exception of documents I did not see that were marked privileged. I did not see the contents of those documents.
W You reviewed all of Mr. Libby's documents.
A All the ones I produced to the govt.
W Today you're chief of staff. You were promoted to that position. You reviewed Ms. Heiden's documents, and Vp's docs? You also attended witness interviews.
A Mayfield, McGrath, Ms Heiden.
W Based on your review of the docs you had knowledge of the case that was independent of what you knew personally
A I also saw the docs produced to the govt.
W You knew fairly early on that you were likely to be a witness in the case.
A I knew that when govt interviewed VP, they indicated they didn't want me to come, only his private attorney. Sometime in 2004.
W One of Libby's docs referrred specifically to you. You were a passenger on trip to Norfolk, AF2,
A I'm not sure that's the exact date.
W You were interviewed by the FBI, you appeared before the GJ wrt your personal knowledge. At the time you appeared in GJ, you had already reviewed hundreds pages of docs. You had also attended some witness interviews. WRT the docs that Mr Libby produced to you in response to subpoena. Is it correct that he produced hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes.
A Don't know the count. Total production so far was 12040 pages, a lot of that was Scooter's notes.
W His handwriting is difficult to read. You spent a lot of time reviewing Libby's notes.
A I wouldn't say I was able to understand all of it.
W Want to show you one of the notes and that you reviewed before your own GJ testimony.
Offering document and transliteration.
Handwritten note by Libby.
W You personally reviewed that doct, then you stamped it, then you turned it over to govt. The way you received the doc, you advised Mr Libby that there was a request for docs and he gave you that doc in response to request for docs.
A The same way the other employees would have done. He produced it or had his staff produce it but it came to me.
W You were requesting docs to give to govt.
A It's possible I received copy first,
W Date 6/12/03 with mark over 12. The doct you got shows the phrase CP/His wife works inthat div'n. Then it says telephone, VP re uranium in Iraq, Kristof NYT article. Took place at our behest--functional office, CP/--his wife works in that division. Did you come to understand that that exhibit showed that Libby had been told by VP that Mrs. Wilson worked in CP section of CIA.
A I didn't draw the conclusion from this document. I didn't do analysis. It says VP told him this, I didn't get this from this document either.
W It says telephone/VP.
A If I could see the original. I have no paper copy, xerox. I can't testify as to symbol before the dash means. I am familiar with the Y-looking letter I figured that that was his symbol for VP.
W You do see the CP/-his wife works at that dvision. Based on having worked at CIA.
A Based on working at CIA, I had no idea. CP often refers to Colin Powell. It strikes met that that might be counter-proliferation.
W You took this document to the government.
A Yes, in normal course of investigation.
W You know that Libby advised govt that VP had told him.
Objection sustained (hearsay).
W Want to show another document.
New document. Chickenscratch!!
W You testified yesterday a meeting with Mr. Libby in Libby's anteroom.
A Yes, he has a little office there.
W Is it your office today.
W How long meeting was. Approximately 2 minutes
A Very short meeting.
W You discussed two subjects
A We discussed paperwork at CIA and President authority to declassify.
W WRT to authority to declassify. If POTUS could declassify document on his own w/o going through the normal declassification process.
A I'm not sure he worded it like that. Part of that was me pointing out in EO, BC the authority is the Constitutional Autority of President, he could exercise that on his own. He simply asked COULD the president do it, the answer was yes.
W Any document or portion of a document. [Note Wells introduced the issue of documents, I think Addington originally referred to this discussion as relating to declassifying "something."]
A I said it could be anything, portion or the whole document.
W President could declassify document and distribute it to a small group of people, correct?
WRT some questions below. First, Wells is introducing the Cheney telling Libby note to prove that Libby wasn't hiding the news that Cheney told him–this goes to the issue of obstruction (That is, he's showing the Libby didn't hide this conversation, he willingly gave up that document).
And WRT any possible meeting at CIA. I don't know that that refers to a Plame at CIA meeting. I think it might go to the issue of whether, others (such as Harlow) who met her at CIA would have necessarily known she was covert.
Short Recess. I'll start a new thread. Figure at least 10-15 minutes. Jeralyn thinks Walton had to go do some research.