Go buy Anatomy of Deceit. Don't update crazily. And don't expect a transcript.
We're in sidebar. She's back to breathing. Looks down. She's wiping the sweat from under her eyes. Sees someone is laughing. Leans back. Someone made her relax.
Fitz pulls Jeffress back.
Judy sits back in the chair.
Wells now chatting up Jeffress.
Judy sees someone on other side of room, breathing, making funny faces.
J Ms. Miller, as I understand it, you were not actually ever shown a waiver that Libby signed
J You were only informed that he had signed a waiver. Were you informed that he affirmatively requested all reporters to come forward to testify. At the time you moved to quash subpoena. Did you file an affadavit. In that affadavit, did you represent to the court that,
M says she doesn't remember affadvit
J is it true that you were planning to write an article
M Sir I wasn't planning to write an article [ohh, angry Judy]
J Didn't you talk to the bureau chief
M I was not going to write the story. It was not my assignment.
J puts up affadvit from Miller
M Yes I signed it.
J You did contemplate writing one or more articles in July 2003, about issues related to Wilson.
M Yes, but not about Wilson and Plame, there were other things I wanted to pursue
J You said you met with several potential sources.
J Who were the others. Can you remember just one of them?
Judy wipes nose.
She's got her chin in her hand.
Now reading through something–looks like Kristof's article.
Judy back to looking straight ahead, now lookingfown, back to not breathing, bends forward t oget something. Arms folded. Eyes roll up into head. Looking down. Back to reading whatever is in front of her. Wipes nose.
Mr Bennett, an issue has arisen whether I should sustain or overrule the specific question asked to your client, asking her to name specifically sources that she would have acquired information from. You're not in a position to object, You're not even known to be here representing her. She's already said she doesn't remember the source. And now the specific question is being directed to her.
Bennett asks to excuse the witness. Walton agrees. [Bennett now at lawyer podium]
Walton: I don't know if you have a position. I appreciate you recognizing we're in a difficult position. I would object to any question asked There are no other sources she could testify about dealing with Wilson's wife Ms Plame, we would object to the identification her being asked about other sources from whom she got a personal waiver.
Walton Essentially, there is a distinction between her being asked indivs from whom she got info from anyone else, and it seems to me that it's fair game for her to have to respond to that question, whether she can remember anyone else. However, since the central issue is NOT whom she acquired info as to Mr. Wilson himself, a balance needs to be struck. Libby has a right to confront the witnesses against him THere is an interest the media has not to have to answer questions not directly related to this case. It seems to me overly broad to permit her to be questioned about sources that generally relate to Wilson himself. I don't see where it adds anything to the defense. It seems to me it steps over the line when she has been asked to name specific sources.
Bennett does your honor have a specific question.
Bennett I think I should be given a moment to talk to her, it's her position, and not mine.
Walton: That may resolve the issue.
Walton, I'll take five minutes.
We're at 7 minutes now, Bennett is still working over Judy.
Bennett We have no objection to that question being asked, I'd request if your honor would ask the question.
Walton, you want me to ask if she has a problem asking the question.
Bennett. No, you or they can ask the question
Fitz I hate to admit my ignorance, but what is the question.
Walton explaining the question.
Judy raises her finger waves and and shakes her head no.
Jeffress, Can you remember (reads the question back to her off mike)
Judy rolls her eyes.
Jury coming back in.
Judy looking down, composing herself (the break did her a world of good–old Bennett, just like a smart football coach getting a timeout when one is offered)
J I was asking you about statement in affadavit for court, about writing one or more article related to Mr Wilson's op-ed.
J I'm still reading
Fitz waves it off
J I'll start over You spoke and or met with several potential sources. Can you name one of those sources other than Mr Libby.
Walton, we've already discussed
Judy's getting annoyed. She just wants to get the question asked and get through it.
She's got her head to one side, she's looking down at something. I know she's not, but she looks like she's sneaking a peak at her blackberry. Slumps back in the seat. She shakes her head, rolls her eyes, wipes lint off her jacket, which may be velvet.
Sitting there with frown on face. Looks grumpy.
Walton: Ladies and gentlemen, there are additional legal issues I'm going to have to review before we finish questioning teh witness. Have a nice eventing.
Judy's got a set look to her chin, is talking to someone, arms crossed, and smiling. Jurors leave.
My objection under 403 is that Bennett didn't have any objection about Wilson and his wife, Defense wants to ask a question that is much more broad. There are a lot of issues [reporter tells him to slow down.] and I will slow down. That's not relevant. My understanding is the notebooks were turned into the court. My understanding is the first reference to the wife anywhere is June 23. The next reference is July 8, and after that there are stray references. One is tied directly to an interview–the conversation with Mr. Libby. I assume there are other conversations in the notebook. They're not relevant, To ask questions after it's already been decided prior to trial is to go fishing far afield, I'm not here to make the 1st Amendment argument. Not only don't I want to make it, others would prefer that I not make it.
J The only question is whether the question is proper and relevant. If defendant asks a proper question on impeachment substantively in his defense. There can be no balance.
Walton. The question has to be relevant to an issue germane to this litigation.
J The witness submitted an affadavit. I believe she will say that she can't remember a single one of those sources. I don't think it matters whether you say Ambassador Wilson.
Walton There's a lot in that op-ed piece.
J She testified and her interest was in how this man could have written such an article. She was interested in CIA sends ex-envoy.
Walton even if that's true, how is challenging her in this regard.
J Because it impeaches her credibility.
Walton it depends on what those sources provided information on. If they provided info in wider issues on Wilson editorial. That goes to collateral information. That goes to whether Libby was the first who related to her info on Wilson. And to then ask her to questions that may relate to other issues regarding what Wilson might have said, that goes really far afield.
J Why would it be in her affadavit
Walton just because her lawyers decide to put something into an affadavit, they don't control my judgment on what is relevant. If she says she went to jail for the purpose of protecting Libby.
J Mr Tate will testify that when Tate spoke with Mr Abrams represented both Cooper and Miller Abrams asked Tate about waiver. Both Abrams admits that Tate told him that in Libby's view both were free to testify. Abrams has written that in related discussion that Tate told him that, "are you kidding." Tate says it didn't happen that way. Putting that aside, Abrams is having the same conversation. Miller decides, I mean Cooper decides to testify. Mr Abrams told him, it's not just Libby, she has other sources.
Walton, that relates to different inquiry. The govt did bring up fact she want to jail, I think it would be inferred that she didn't believe Libby's was voluntary, if you have info that is different, but I do have a problem with the question that was asked. If she had other sources that related to other aspects of WMD 16 word issue, it seems to me I don't want this trial debating that issue. Once we do that I let govt to bring in other evidence that seeks to bolster her position. But I don't have a problem with that question wrt Wilson or his wife. If you're asking questions re sources and going to jail,
J The only thing he wrote about was his trip to Niger
Walton what if she received sources that related not to idenity of Wilson but relates to sources who may have told her things that related to his trip.
J If she does have sources unrelated to Wilson's oped, If she talked to someone and she does remember a source, we've tried since the beginning of this case, I understand she doesn't remember anyone who tell her about the wife. If I can find out the names of anyone who talked about Wilson, I can question whether they told her. She says she doesn't remember. VF and Victoria Wilson, She's got all sorts of references. She says
Walton, I don't have a problem with you asking her specifically about that
J I'm getting to that.
Wells, the balancing test should only take place if and when court is being confronted. At the moment, Ms Miller. It goes to classical traditional impeachment. That goes to impeachment. This is classic 101 impeachment, having nothing to do with the first amendment. I don't think we have any first amendment collision at the moment. I think she's willing to say, she doesn't recall. I think she's going to say, I don't recall. That's a great value to Mr Libby's right to impeach.
Fitz. There's no right to impeach on irrelevant issues. [going too fast] I'm sorry, I'll take a timeout. If [the war] is going to be tried in this trial, we've got to bring cots.
Bennett. Ms. Miller does recollect other sources on collateral issues. Ms Miller for years has been working on WMD, distortion of intelligence. She would remember those sources, but those are collatoral issues. They're not going to get this gem that they think they're going to get. She cannot recollect any other sources and she certainly can't remember discussing these issues before she talked to Mr Libby.
Wells put her in the witness box without the jury. Let her identify any of the sources. If she says she does have a recollection, your honor can rule, and we'll have a record.
Walton–her attorney has represented as an officer of the court.
Wells If Mr Bennett is representing as an officer of the court, that on articles she contemplated. The question I'm asking Bennett to represent as an officer of the court, how will his client respond to the question as described by the paragraph in teh affadvait.
Fitz. Still have my relevance objection.
Walton. The first paragraph relates to things we're not dealing with here. It wasn't just the yellowcake. She's being asked to provide sources that may respond to ANY of these issues.
Wells all I want to know (keeps interrupting Walton) All I want to know for purposes of impeachment, when you sign paragraph 5, do you remember the names. If she says yes, then we can put on the record, that we would have asked the next question. Right now, nobody knows. My impeachment goes to the affy.
Wells I have every right to confront here with a sworn affadavit and ask her whether she remembers anything in there.
Walton I might agree that if we were talking about the subject that you're addressing. Her lawyer would respond that there are other sources.
Wells if Bennett would represent it WRT question 5.
Fitz I can answer that. Did one or more sources. She testified that Libby did. [clever, not going to work.] This is all a tempest in a teapot.
Walton, I've gotta get out of here.
Wells. I'm just dealing with affy that talks about op-ed piece.
Walton I don't have a problem if you ask her regarding sources on Wilson and Wilson's wife. I think that's going to be my ruling. It'd have to be impeached on an issue that's relevant to this litigation. I understand from Bennett that that would require her to reveal sources she is unwilling to reveal.
Beer Thirty. Thanks Guys!!