
This is NOT Cooper on the stand. It's him speaking at Georgetown. In any case, here are some groundrules. I timestamp my posts–that will let you know when you should update (please err on the side of saving the servers). Also, treat this as a liveblog, not a transcript; I'm no court reporter! And finally, please buy my book.
Cooper leaning back, with eyes closed. He just doesn't seem flustered by this. I think he is just plain annoyed. As if, you know, maybe he wants to be done with this long ordeal. Cooper faced left side of courtroom. He has this disdainful look which makes him look worried. Now spinning around in the swivel chair.
Walton Apologize the delay, but I had to review a consent decree in voting rights issue.
Approach for one moment.
Sidebar. Cooper flipping through some papers.
Looks like he's trying to listen to sidebar.
Jeffress back up.
Walton Let me just give you a slight schedule change for tomorrow, one of my former clerks is leaving, so that's at 10. Ceremony is only a half hour, so I'll go to swearing in. We'll start at 10:45. I'm being told that they've already got breakfast for you. I'll ask counsel to be here by 10:30. I apologize for delay. I guess if you want to come in later, you can, but your breakfast will be cold. We need to coordinate with Marshalls, too, so you need to let us know.
Cooper arranging mike.
Jeffress: Do you remember call with Libby was actually two calls.
New exhibit.
J Record of phone calls from Edwards AFB. You see it reflects a pair of calls to your cell. Those calls are July 12, 2003. First one at 14:24. Lasted 13.25 minutes. Over 14:38.
MC Uh, yeah.
J Another call at 14:40, lasted 4.6 minutes.
J In fact, there were two, it was interrupted, and then he called you back. Do you remember what that interruption was.
MC I really don't. It was on his side, not mine.
J The first part was the on the record part of the call. The statement about Wilson's wife came in the second part of the call.
MC Came at the end.
J I'd like to show you your notes again. Looking at
had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it's ever
J Reads through note. Teasing about Cooper taking notes in his bed. You leave a lot of things out. If you had a question for Libby you'd probably type up what Libby said. If he said he had heard. You have the word "had." Is it possible you would have typed the word had instead of heard.
MC I might have. That's not my recollection of what he said.
J You type the word and and when people aren't saying it.
MC Not sure I'd accept your characterization.
J Let's look at your note-taking habits. [looking above, Speaking too fast for court reporter] We've seen many times you don't get to finish. You make a lot of typos, you said it's not SOTU. And the end of that paragraph. You meant to finish that sentence. He finished that sentence. It's just not in your notes. Look at next paragraph. We were not invovle should probably be involved.
[he's just ragging on Cooper's typing and sprawling on bed]
J So this is your best effort in a conversation taking place quickly to get down what you need, it's by no means complete or accurate in terms of what person is doing.
MC I wouldn't say it's unaccurate. I'm getting down as much as I could.
J Remember you have the note "notable." That's not what he said.
MC I can't recall whether he said, I believe it came from him.
J Let's look down here, see how you have "not sure it's ever."
MC I don't sir.
J Do you ever type an r when you mean to type an n?
New exhibit.
3:33
J I don't need to introduce these, but I do need to display them.
J Brings up page.
[Jeffress has found a note where MC clearly typed r instead of n]
J were you typing notes while you were talking to someone.
J You meant to type erroneous but you hit an "r" instead, so it became "erroreous."
MC Sure
J Shows him typing "eregy" instead of "energy" [on an aluminum tube story]
J Back to the Libby notes. If you had asked him if Plame had sent him on the trip, you could have referred to the Wilson thing.
MC That's not how I remember.
J Suppose you hit an r instead of an n
J Isn't it possible that Libby said, "I'm not sure if it's even true."
MC That's not my recollection
J What did he say next.
MC I don't know.
Cooper stoic.
J I's like to ask you some questions about. After you testified to GJ and as a matter of a fact, as you testified to GJ about Rove in this case. After you testified the second time a year later, you've talked many times on television about what you said. You've been asked many times about what you said to Mr Libby. Each time you said Mr. Libby said, "I've heard that too."
MC I've always qualified it to the effect of
J Did you write an article about it. Did you discuss what you heard from Libby.
J New exhibit.
3:40
J You wrote, Yeah, I've heard something about that,
MC I'm sure I did but I don't remember literally typing it.
J New exhibit.
Email to Bambi Wulf, change Libby quote to Yeah,
I've heard THAT TOO.
J Did your memory of the conversation change.
[this is the "slight discrepancy" Walton was referring to.]
MC My memory of the precise words has been cloudy. The "I heard it too" has always been more prominent.
Cooper now looking up, leaning back. Looks a little bored.
New exhibit.
Note to file. Is it a note that appears to have been typed at 2:44 at home. You typed this, probably on laptop at home, just after you spoke to him.
J This says to Nation.
MC This story ran in the "Nation" section. Duffy was one of the primary writers in this story.
Walking through the details in this.
On Deep Background, in the Strict Kissingerian Definition, You can Use in you Voice but without Quotations.
Includes
Denies emphatically the reports that the Brits handed intel directly to Veep.
In other words the administration is putting out the line that Wilson has omitted a key fact in his recent op-ed and public remarks and that even his own report allowed the possibility that Iraq was pursing uranium from Niger.
Doesn't know chain of custody.
The pissing match with Wilson is where the whole story could be by Mon or Tues so suggest we play it with prominence. At home if you have quesiton.
Makes MC read last sentence.
J Insofar as Libby, the pissing contest was whether Wilson got it wrong or not.
MC If I may elucidate. What struck me as a contradiction, on one hand, after Wilson published op-ed, the Admin did something that it rarely does, which is acknowledge a big error. That was a big deal, I was very struck by that. But then I was struck all week by statements that seemed to be disparaging Mr Wilson. They were saying you're right, it shouldn't have been. Then they were saying, he's a momma's boy, his report was bad.
J Who said he was a momma's boy
MC That's my paraphrase about the statement about the wife.
3:55
J starts to talk about forgeries.
Walton Before I forget, I'll just miss the swearing, we'll start at 9:30. The Marshalls have already ordered the food and if we don't get here, it'll be wasted.
J Do you recall the Admin saying that
MC quotes back 16 words.
J You remember after SOTU, the IAEA discovered documents purporting a deal had been forged.
MC Yeah, I remember that
J Remember Tenet released a statement on July 11 Do you remember Tenet saying the line shouldn't have been there in there.
J is that line, not sure if it's ever–is that the only line you don't know what it means. Shows his notes. You know what all that means
MC that's the on the record stuff.
J is walking through this paragraph, you put it into the note to the file
MC where it says "in a particular subject," I don't know what that refers to.
MC In years since, I've asked could that be the line about the wife, That's not the way I remember it.
J Next paragraph
MC refers to the whole thing with the Nigerien PM.
MC I htink that's referring to the thing with the PM. Saying that's consistent with president.
J "some piece he saw that was circulated."
MC Another thing I can't account for.
J If the "he" is the VP, would it be referring to
MC I wouldn't want to speculate, I don't know origin of those 7 words.
J Remember being asked about that sentence.
MC I think I got asked in that lawyers office meeting.
J You're right to correct me about that.
MC I think I was asked if that was the reference to the wife.
MC I can't remember what I said at the time, but I think I said that was not the wife.
MC My recollection is that the wife comes up at the end.
J that note is consistent about that
MC that's not really at the end, I'd say that's 2/3 of the way.
J Let's put the whole thing up.
4:07
J All that would appear in first 13 minutes.
MC sure
J Can you show what happens after that.
(Does a side by side)
J I didn't know we could do that. You don't know whether you said that Wilson quote in the first or second one.
MC My recollection is that it was the last thing before some pleasantries.
J Your recollection could be mistaken.
MC I seem to recall it that way, he was trying to get me off the phone. I squeezed a few more questions. I remember this being the last thing I was asked. That was how I described it.
J Do you remember being asked that you don't know, you're not sure.
MC I don't remember what I said in lawyers office.
J You were asked if you know what it refers to, you said you were not sure, you said, "This sentence feels a little out of context to me."
MC And that's true as you sit here today. Yeah, I cannot account for that sentence. I do have a distinct memory of what he said.
J There's not a word in your file having to do with Wilson's wife. You knew this info and that's why you asked.
MC I was hoping to hear more about it, I wouldn't say I was asking for a confirmation. I was trying to find out more about it.
J remember when you were really excited about it and you thought it should be included.
MC I wouldn't characterize it that way
J Isn't the fact that in the lengthy memo, note to file, everything that you've described is in this memo, except anything about Wilson's wife.
MC The Wilson's wife thing is not in the file.
J That means it was not confirmation
MC What I remember
J Are you answering my question or some other memo
MC What I remember is that I took it as confirmation.
J Why not in memo
MC I didn't write it down, but it is my memory, it is what it is.
J Let's compare what you did
4:14
Another email chain, Ignatius, editor at Time
J Concerns Rove.
MC Yeah, and others, it's sort of like your file wrt the Libby conversation
J A strartling charge from an SAO that we need to handle with some caution.
J We find that, don't get too far out. Wilson was not sent. [Jeffress reading from email]
J When I pressed the official, he said it was someone involved with WMD, his wife.
MC I sent this later in the day.
J You said Rove himself. Adi Ignatius responds. Interesting
J That's not a name you used earlier.
Walton, please approach.
J remember when we talked before about off the record.
MC I said off the record.
J Someone says something off the record, you can use that as confirmation
MC I took it to mean that, in this case.
J When they tell you something off the record.
MC YOu can't quote it, use it directly in a story, to try to elicit it, and I did take it to be confirmation of what I'd heard from Rove.
J What you'd heard from John Dickerson wasn't off the record.
Redirect!! Fitzgerald
F You believed your conversation with Libby would be exculpatory.
F on July 12, would you have taken it as confirmation if Libby had said that reporters were telling him that Mr Wilson's wife, and that he didn't know it was true.
MC No. I Would not have taken it as confirmation, on the contrary it would have stirred by competitive juices that other reporters were writing this.
F When did you learned Novak wrote this.
MC Tuesday Wednesday or THursday
F Reaction
MC Oh, it's out there, do we want to do a follow-up
F Did you ask follow-up
MC I should have
F WHy not
MC He was very anxious to get off the phone. I bid adieu and said goodbye.
F Did you also tell GJ that the conversation was at the end of the GJ
Objection sustained
F What did you tell them about timing.
MC I believe I said it was at the end.
Juror questions–sidebar.
4:24
Walton: One of the questions I'm not going to be able to ask, if I don't ask, don't speculate about what response would have been.
Walton: did you ever investigate by whom and why those documents were forged.
MC I think others did. I never looked into Niger forgery question in any detail. I cover WH this sort of had more to do with Italian embassy. For whatever reason it fell out of my purview.
Walton during the conversaton with Dickerson, did he relay any information to you that he had received over there.
MC Yes
Walton Did you think about substance of conversation with Libby before subpoena
MC No, I focused on it well before subpoena, once to write war on wilson question mark piece, and once when the disclosure of this CIA agent became a big deal, I had many conversations to reflect on my conversations with Libby and others.
Approach.
Walton The response that characterized Ms Wilson as CIA agent, you'll have to discount that, it's not an issue in this case, therefore you can't speculate about that.
Walton regarding 7/11/2003 email from you to Duffy one of the lines indicated Rove/P&C,
MC privileged and confidential. I thought it'd keep him from forwarding that to others.
Walton TB
MC A reference to Timothy Burger, the correspondant for handling intelligence issues.
Walton, Anything else
Fitzgerald No your honor.
4:40
Walton We're going to break, I've got issues to deal with. I'd hate having you wait around. You'll need to be at the designated point. Breakfast will be here when you get here. I'll get here as soon as I can. I'd ask counsel to be here at 10:30
[Stick around for legal fight]
4:44
Walton Regarding video. I've had an intern review Libby's testimony, nowhere did he say that he saw those statements. He knew about them or heard about them. It doesn't indicate that he viewed himself.
Fitz, ones he saw, and ones we admit through a person that authorized him. 801D2C. Start with statements before he asked for the clearing. GJ transcript. He admits he knows about public statement from McC, Mr Libby's aware of failure of WH PS to clear him BC one of the times he fails to clear him, the first time he tries to get cleared he's told the WH is not going to go down some list. As he watches it, the list is only about him. At a certain point, during this time, he is aware that his name is being asked and his name is not being cleared. When things explode in October, and being played, the WH is ordinarily circulated. the notion that he's the one person in teh world not watching McC making comments about him.
Walton That may be true, but he may have gotten written documents.
Fitz I don't mean this facetiously. Your experience is different than someone going on TV
Walton there's an assumption
Fitz they're asking, are you going to clear Mr Libby. The notion he'll keep track of hardball in July but he's not watching when the WH PS is not clearing him. It defies common sense. the notion that Libby would not be aware of Press Conferences.
Walton, It's clear, but we don't know the way he's keeping abreast.
Wells in GJ he had ample opportunity to ask Libby whether he watched these videos. Nobody has or will have Libby watching TV. There's no evidence. He's saying, let's make a leap. I don't want those very prejudicial videos on the screen. When you do look at them, it has a different image than looking at transcript. He had every oppty. Mr. Libby didn't watch them.
Fitz. It's not a limit on evidence that you can only introduce evidence asked about in GJ. Mr Wells opened that this is all about Libby being scapegoated, and thrown under the bus. People in the WH are trying to scapegoat me. Note shows him saying I did not leak classified info. I'm concerned people are trying to use me as a scapegoat. Mr Libby tells a source I never want to see my name in print. He's squirreled away with VP, and he says, I'm getting thrown under the bus, but he doesn't even watch. I think that defies common sense. We had no indication in GJ, that he thought he was being thrown under the bus. That defies common sense.
Walton I try to stay abreast of all the statements that are made in this case. A lot of things are made while I'm in court. So I have a news service that sends this to me, so I can stay abreast of what's going on in the case. HOw do I know that that's not how LIbby stayed abreast of it.
Wells it's a very different image. Fitz wants to creat an image that's not based on factual image.
Walton there's also potential argument that if someone is sitting in front of TV. Without there being clear evidence that he was watching the TV.
Fitz There's no denial he spent time paying attention. Mr Libby was also
Walton You've got his own words, as to what the situation was.
Walton, I'll think about it.
Fitz, If I could switch to the other two. Ones involving the clearing. Libby clearly describes in GJ, describes how he goes through with a statement that he wants McC to say. He says I spoke to mr McC and McC issues the clearing statement. If Libby had made statement himself, there's no question it'd be admissible. He deputized someone. Not hearsay if offered against a party, authorized by a party.
Walton. Anything on that one.
Wells Threshold for keeping them out.
Walton does he have to see them if he does something that is genesis for what was said. If subsequently, McC says that.
Wells, no it didn't work that way. McC does nothing. Libby has to talk to VP of the US, VP did whatever he did. McC is not Libby's agent. doesn't take
Walton VP has become his surrogage.
Wells, I don't know you'd have. … you'd have to
Walton, we'd need VP testimony
Wells, whatever he did he did not do it as Libby's surrogate. That's what I'm drawing a distinction.
Walton if I go to Chief Judge to have a statement disseminated, doesn't that become my statement. And Chief Judge CLEARLY is not my agent.
Walton, I'll have to review transcript.
Wells, I think you'll have to talk to President BUsh bc he's probably somewhere in that chain.
Fitz introduces opening statement. We already have evidence from Addington that when Bartlett responded, Bartlett responded, "that was your boss." No dispute that Libby asked VP to intercede, and Libby asked McC to respond.
Wells I don't think evidence will show that VP was his agent.
Fitz We have evidence already, if Wells ever calls VP, we can ask him about that. Statement issued by McC came from VP.
Walton if you could provide that to us.
Wells, he volunteered that
Walton. It's still evidence
Wells, Bartlett said, it's your boss that wanted it. I don't believe the facts–it's a link.
Walton, I'll have to look at transcript, and LIbby's testimony. To see if this was made at behest of Libby. It seems at least circumstantially that the statement made consistent with what Libby requested. One other matter.
Wells if theres a tape it should be the snippet of what was authorized.
Fitz There were questions from the press to which McC responded. Your honor, Libby's request was that he answer questions coming from him.
Wells, there's another issue I've agreed to put it off until tomorrow. I'm going to want some briefing and discovery.
Walton What is it
Wells We'll raise it in the morning.
Fitz Tomorrow: The videos, then Bond, then GJ, then another witness we need to discuss, then Russert, Conclude case late Monday or Tuesday.
Wells we could start on Wednesday
Walton if Govt will start Monday, I'd ask you start right away.
Jeffress, We're going to call Abramson from NYT, I think it'd be more convenient if we could know definitely tomorrow.
Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we're going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand.
Beer thirty.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Guilty!
ew!
Empty Wheel!
a tie! how good is that?! Hi Busted ;->
woo hoo Biodun, 3-way!
Hello everyone, thanks to you ladies for all of this!!!
I knew if i asked what was happening (EPU’d) the next blog would finally come, just like lighting a cigarette to make the bus come.
And of course,
FITZ!
How sweet is that?
A Zed during the Libby trial for my birthday!
OH HELL YEAH!
EPU’d . . .
RBG @ 188
Thanks for the reminder!
Happy Happy Birfday Bustednuckles!
Is it just me, or do I get the impression that Cooper is an arrogant little piece of work?
Deacon Blues @ 11
I’m getting the impression that he’s not gonna take crap off of Jeffress. After all Irving got him into this mess.
Tap Duncan @ 12
That’s my impression as well. As someone (Neil?) said on the last thread, Cooper is not letting Jeffress put words in his mouth.
Does anyone have an idea of who will be called to testify next? Is there a witness list anywhere that gives you an idea of who called in what order?
Thanks!
Tap Duncan @
12
Agreed, Tap Duncan. I’d prollly be pissed too, in Cooper’s shoes.
If I ever got into a trail like this, I would be toast. I can’t even read my own notes, I misspell words, transpose letters. And here they are, calling into question whether or not Cooper may have misspelled a word such that it changed the meaning of the sentence?
Kricky.
Is it just me, or do I get the impression that Cooper is an arrogant little piece of work?
Oh, he is. So is Miller. The corrupt ones are always the most arrogant, because they use their inflated self-esteem to pretend they are better than us and thus need not obey the same laws we do.
Much different from real journalists like Joe Conason, who I have met and who is a sweetheart.
His demeanor is 180 degrees from Judy’s.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 13
Although I do have to acknowledge his little paraphrasing at the end of the last exchange is kind of arrogant. Maybe that is what Deacon was reffering to.
I meant “trial”, not “trail”, of course.
See? What did I tell you?
Tap Duncan @ 19
What, the momma’s boy part? That doesn’t strike me as arrogant, personally; that is the basic tenor of a lot of the remarks that were being made about Wilson at the time.
Anatomy of Deceit:
(current) Amazon Sales Rank: 410.
The goal will be to crack 300 today and 200 tomorrow.
I wonder why they keep harping on the (false) idea that Wilson claimed he was sent by the VP and reported to them? Is this just court-of-public-opinion playing to the Fox News crowd, since this is an article of faith to them?
From the actual op-ed:
and:
How can repeated attempts to get witnesses to claim that Wilson said things he didn’t possibly help their case? And will Fitz eventually have to introduce the op-ed into evidence to get them to stop?
Tap Duncan @ 12
I remember reading that Cooper moonlights as a stand-up comedian in the DC comedy clubs. You gotta have a pretty thick skin to deal with the hecklers and so I guess it’s coming in handy now.
Is team Libby trying for jury nullification? They keep bringing up who outed her, IIPA questions, like if they can prove everyone knew she was CIA, then no IIPA violation. And if no IIPA violation, they who cares if Libby tripped up the FBI? Thus putting Rove in the dock because he has fessed up to outing her to Cooper.
In the midwest the deer go deep into the corn fields, gorging themselves on the tasty kernels, until Fitz comes along with a combine. Slowly, slowly, the deer, tangled up in corn stalks, is forced into a corner. Bam, bam, Bambi.
Happy hunting Fitz.
The aspens are dying from Republican pollution.
These characters are intermarried and intertwined like the ancient English aristocrats. Small wonder they demonstrate such disdain for the public.
“Denies emphatically the reports that the rbits handed intel directly to Veep.”
rbits???? ribbitts….frogs….French
Why deny emphatically?
Was that a typo in transcriptions or as spelled in the exhibit?
Cathie Martin, when asked about the “forgeries” at first said they came from the French..then corrected herself and said the Italians.
Why correct French to Italian?
Are they comparing Wilson’s story to the forgeries and saying Wilson ommitted saying the same thing the forgeries said in his own report? Is that the “pissing” contest?
There is something really fishy about the whole forgery thing.
What I find interesting about Coop’s testimony is that he says he told Libby that his testimony would be exculpatory. I suspect that the two of them had different ideas about what this would mean. If I were Libby, I would understand it to mean that Coop’s testimony would be, “Scooter who?”
Coop, on the other hand, seems to have meant that he would say that Libby was not the FIRST person to tell him about Plame and, in fact, didn’t actually tell him about Plame at all, but merely confirmed it for him.
I don’t think that Cooper comes off as arrogant. It sounds to me like he was well-prepared not to let Jeffress put words in his mouth, and not to get intimidated.
He comes off better than Judy Judy Judy because he doesn’t have a guilty conscience.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 13
I’m in on that. Cooper is holding his own pretty well. Not too tough though if Jeff is trying to nail him on typos from working on his bed.
Frank Probst @ 28
I think Cooper thought it would be exculpatory because he wouldn’t say that Libby told him that she was covert. How was Cooper to know that Libby was lying his ass off and not even admitting to have spoken to him about “the wife” at all?
Almost there, Marcy! Another stellar day. I make notes the way Coop does–half the time the shorthand is too short and I don’t know what the notation means. I think you could sense his frustration at not being able to tell Jeffress, definitely, what he intended to take note of. And one last thing… from what Cooper testified, it sounds like Fleischer was telling the truth about what he told Dickerson–that Wilson’s wife sent him and that she was CIA. I think that’s the only way to read it. How about you? Anybody?
Redshift @ 23
Well obviously they want to leave the impression that Wilson had a bad motive and that he lied. Just more of the same old smear.
IANAL, but Fitz’ redirects are a thing of beauty and brevity.
They keep referring to “Wilson confirmed wht the Pres. said – that the Iraqis did try to purchase uranium (in Niger)”. This is disingenuous in the extemem, as most here know. If the argument is to say the 16 words referred to the rebuffed 1999 attempt – how is that “recently”?
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
And they keep harping on this even when the WH took the 16 words back! Unbelievable.
Frank Probst @ 28
I agree. At the time I think Cooper was thinking he would tag Rove as the leaker and vindicate Libby.
CNN just mentioned “bloggers” covering Libby-Cheney-gate and specifically mentioned FIREDOGLAKE. But CNN did not say that how CNN has been so pathetically bad in their coverage (and MSNBC, FOX and the other corporate liars for Bush).
Of course it would be different if Judith Miller had been attacked by a mountain lion…
sue mullins @ 25
I don’t see how this would work. If I were on the jury, I’d find Scooter guilty on all counts, and I’d add that I thought Ari and Judy were probably lying, too.
Remember, Fitz was charged with finding out who leaked Plame’s identity to the press. We now know that no less than FOUR Administration officials did so: Armitage, Rove, Libby, and Fleisher. Armitage has described it as something along the lines of the worst mistake of his life and seems genuinely repentant about it. Fleisher was worried enough that he got an immunity deal. That leaves Rove and Libby. No, I do not think for one second that the jury is going to let him off the hook.
I’m with lititgatormom, btw. I think Cooper has come off pretty well.
We’re in a sidebar to fight over the juror questions. With these jurors, I expect we’ll have some good ones.
Frank33 @ 37
Not really. Judy Miller isn’t blond.
OT but related (bear with me)
Our blog, The Next Agenda (click on my name) is having a getogether on Saturday here in Toronto.
We are meeting at a restaurant called Dooney’s. I was checking out their site and came across their Dooney’ dictionary. Not many restaurants I know post such things, but this is apparently a writer’s restaurant.
Here’s what I found:
Snarkilicious!
After all the discussion about Dickerson and Doughty Pantload my first thought was that the pups at FDL would enjoy that!
Anyway, if you lurk over at TNA (and I know a few do) and want to come on Saturday just give us a wave over at the blog so p2p can reserve a big enough table or three. We can talk Plame.
I don’t see how this would work. If I were on the jury, I’d find Scooter guilty on all counts, and I’d add that I thought Ari and Judy were probably lying, too.
I was wondering something…. I’m not a lawyer and have been in a courtroom all of one time, when I didn’t get selected for some petty robbery trial. So, just hypothetically speaking, what would happen next if someone here in this trial WERE to be found later of lying/perjury. Is there some sort of referral that happens? If it is discovered during this trial (or any trial, I guess, as my question is very generic), what is the process then?
How many elephants are in the courtroom? My favorite and still completely unanswered: Why was Rove not indicted?
I see. Cooper refuses to be led into anything by Libby’s counsel — his digging in his heels comes off as a little arrogant if you don’t know the context. Still, there’s only three heroes in all this — a husband and wife, and a prosecutor trying to bring them some justice. The rest, reporters and government officials alike, treat this like it’s some kind of game, like who’s the most popular in high school. The bigger picture, what’s decent, what’s right, what the country needs to know, never occurs to them.
I would hate to be examined by Fitz. Better yet, I wouldn’t even want to take him on in a game of Chinese checkers!!! Or is that Asian-American Checkers? Either way, he’s too plotting, I love it!!
Here`s a bit of language analysis as to why the poor spelling argument is full of crap.
The word Cooper supposedly misspelled is even/ever. But all Jeffers examples of Cooper typing R instead of N are words that:
A. Have multiple syllables.
B. Already contain the letter R.
You are much more likely to mix up and replace letters within a word than add a new letter completly at random. Look at even and ever, not much to mix up there.
If you do add a new letter to the word, it`s likely you accidently hit the key next to the one you were aiming for. Look at your keyboard. How close are the R and N keys?
to me, because it goes to motive, this is the most damaging part of Cooper’s testimony….
If I’m a juror, I’m hearing this, and going “yeah… what these guys were doing with Wilson sounds fishy to me too”….
kristinejoy @ 43
There’s a big difference between not being indicted and not being indicted yet.
That r for n error sounds like MC turned over a printout of his notes and somebody OCR’d the printout. So the questioning is silly unless the error is in his original computer file.
OT but not really:
Here’s Bush about Cheney:
Go here to hear it on audio.
Sara in Stockholm @ 46
Great observation Susar (Susan) I have type with my nose so it gets very difficult.
kristinejoy @
43
…yet.
per p.luk’s MC quote just above, I keep getting surprised about the unsolicited testimony that goes beyond the narrow terms of the indictments to pull the curtain back on the bigger picture -the motive and the conspiracy.
“Yet” is the only answer I’m coming up with, too.
Nina Tottenberg just did a hilarious recounting of the Matalin-Libby notes. Drive time news: Russert hates Mathews!
kristinejoy @
43
Isn’t Wells trying to use this to Libby’s advantage, saying that if Rove isn’t indicted, it must be because Libby is being framed to protect Rove.
Jeffress’ harping on Cooper’s bad note taking doesn’t completely jibe with me. Wasn’t Cooper at the Chevy Chase Country Club when Libby called him from Andrews AFB? He wouldn’t have been typing on a computer…
Minor point. I need to re-read the testimony this evening…
Biodun @ 50
So Bush is calling Cheney an optimist?
I have to say I must agree, especially when Cheney said in 2004 that voting Democratic would guarantee another and more devestating terrorist attack.
Does Bush even understand what the allusion is of half full and half empty? That I doubt.
You might want to specify it’s the photo you’re talking about when you say “This is not Matt Cooper on the stand,” I was confused by that statement. At first I thought you were referring to the content.
And Klingon Scrabble, forgetaboutit! He has a weekly group that plays in DC. He kicked Condi out last year. She was supposedly very very good too.
Tap Duncan @ 45
I hate to say it, but it looks to me like Libby is gonna walk (not to mention he’d get a pardon even if convicted).
Jeffress is confusing the issue very well, I think. All the mumbo-jumbo about typing r’s not n’s, timing of cell phone calls, what Miller remembers or not… bringing up the whole op-ed discussion and the details of that issues diverting attention away from the real issue at this trial… Libby’s lying under oath. The jury (if it stays intact at all, before a mistrial) is going to be too confused by the defense, and they’ll have reason to doubt. Libby walks….
Linda @
27
Brits ???
zeppo @
16
I am guessing they are setting up for the Flame/Plame and the pronounciation discrepancies, to show that source was written not verbal => e-mail from Cooper.
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @ 59
I think it was specified in the previous thread. From one guitar playing bastard to another!!!
kristinejoy @ 31 asks why Rove was not indicted.
Damned if I know. Supposedly there was already an indictment drawn up. Something about that Viveca Novak testimony must have given Fitz doubts about whether he could prove intentional misstatement — that it was somehow more plausible that Rove genuinely, albeit erroneously, did not believe he was a source for Cooper even though Viveca Novak told his attorney that Cooper thought Rove was once of his sources BEFORE Rove’s second grand jury appearance. The theory being that, once Novak had given the heads-up to Rove’s lawyer, Rove must have really believed his own mistaken memory for him not to “correct” his testimony.
I don’t think I would have had reasonable doubts about whether Rove was intentionally lying. I think I would have concluded that Rove was just sticking to his guns and toughing it out. Because that’s what dickheads do.
I’m not sure, but I seem to remember Scooter having different counsel before indictment (while he was being questioned). Anybody?
Cause if his guys weren’t up to it… should’ve hired Luskin first!
If that’s what Wells is doing, he’s trying the wrong case. Rove isn’t indicted because he didn’t consistently lie to the Grand Jury.
Dude @ 61
The day of Wells’ opening statement, a commenter here pointed out that if juries are presented with two narratives, one very confusing and the other very straightforward, they will gravitate toward the latter. All these attempts at confusing the jury may just backfire.
About Rove not being indicted yet, doesn’t Rove seem to be in a much weaker position now,
(1) based on evidence that has emerged at the Libby trial and
(2) now that election has passed and he is no longer seen as critical to Republican electorial strategy (no longer considered God-like after poor performance in Nov 06).
Delay in indicting Rove may prove masterful plan?!
Dude @ 61
You’re forgetting that Walton allowed this jury to take notes, and ask questions. I hate to burst your bubble, but he’s toast.
Walton:”The response that characterized Ms Wilson as CIA agent, you’ll have to discount that, it’s not an issue in this case, therefore you can’t speculate about that.”
Que? Isn’t the issue that shouldn’t be discussed whether or not her position was ‘classified’ vs ‘covert’? Fitz stated in the indictment that the fact Plame worked at the CIA was classified when it was revealed. What am I missing here?
rbits=brits
Now wait, Walton IS going to be out tomorrow morning, then he IS NOT going to be out (since breakfast was already ordered), and now he IS back out again?
I shouldn’t take phone calls while following Marcy’s liveblogging!
Rich @ 69
Yeah, there’s a rich vien of testimony & evidence coming out now. Rove may get it in the neck yet.
If you ask me, this fits Tweety to a tee…or a tweet!
Tap Duncan @ #70:
I hate to burst your bubble, but he’s toast.
my favorite mixed metaphor of the day…
Why was Rove not indicted? Because Fitz flipped him.
He testified before the GJ five times if my own memory serves. That’s remarkable.
steve @ 72
Thanks for that, I can give my brain a rest trying to figure out an acronym. What a relief!!
James Robinson @ 77
..And he has an unbelievably good lawyer.
zeppo @
20
zeppo @
16
The jurrors are real people and there is will be a pool of typical common sense sitting in those twelve seats. They will be able to see themselves in the position of taking notes. It is something virtually everyone does.
I don’t think the speculatively and overly hyper-detailed arguments about mis-typing a R/L index finger letter will create unmanageable confusion.
slainte,
cl
The jury’s asking about the forgeries??? What did I miss, that would get them that interested in the forgeries????????????????
Sweet!
Muzzy @
71
Could be the use of the word “agent” (implied covert) as opposed to “analyst” (non-covert).
newtonusr @ 79
O.K., if Fitz flipped Rove, wouldn’t he be called as a prosecution witness? But he’s going to be called as a defense witness, I thought. Wasn’t that the big headline last week?
So, does the “Rove flipped” theory still hold water?
newtonusr @
79
Flipped Rove to get Libby? Isn’t Rove a more valuable target than Libby? I don’t get it?
janethepain @ 33
Constant lies about Wilson. Wilson testified his words were not lies but “literary flair.” “Literary flair” is not lies, its fibs. Fibs are not lies. Gimme another barkeep.
Sasha Sue @ 81
Jeffress brought it up on cross, that after the SOTU IAEA found the docs were forged.
> ..And he has an unbelievably good lawyer.
Or he is a better liar than any of the others, and a better liar than Fitz is a prosecutor. Everyone meets their match sooner or later.
FWIW, my guess is that the grand jury did indict Rove, but that Fitzgerald had the indictment sealed and quashed because he knew he could not win the case.
Cranky
After hearing of the amateur job of note-taking by reporters Miller and Cooper, how the heck does the NYT and Time get published any way?
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. No wonder so much of a “news story” is wrong and misplaced.
Libby’s attorneys have cast a harsh light on the messy practices of reporters. Thanks to Cooper and Miller, via their sloppy notes and poor memories, Libby might well walk.
Roberto in Utah
Tap Duncan @ 70
I’ve sat on 2 juries before, in both we took notes. I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I’m very sharp minded. Nevertheless, especially WITH notes of all the bs misdirection brought up in the trial, the conversation in the jury room gets way off point. Most people in the jury are regular joes or worse (in terms of critical thinking skills), and so they get confused.
In a trial where the VERY DEFENSE is to say that Libby himself was just forgetful, mistaken, confused, etc. about when he said what or heard what to/from whom, those jurors are going to be confused and sympathise enough to find reasonable doubt that maybe all of the people who took the stand were a bit confused of when/with who they talked about Plame.
I wish it were not so, but this is my fear.
Dude @ 61
If the jury is that easily confused, then there’s not much hope they can tie their own shoes.
Roberto – It would say more if Miller and Cooper had very different styles. The fact they are similar tends to shed light on what is probably the norm, not the exception. We’re just getting to look at the reporters standing there, Cooper in his grippers and Judy in her unmentionables. heh.
Rich @ 69
(1) Standard Fitz is to flip people one at a time up the ladder. But this time he couldn’t flip so he has to do trials up the ladder.
(2) Would not have worked if Republics won the elections. No way would Fitz predict election ahead of time and base strategy on it (especially the Senate.)
Edit: it seems this jury is taking better notes than Miller and Cooper.
The Nefarious Leslie @
86
I believe experts from the IAEA were asserting the Niger documents appeared to be forgeries in December 2002 or early January 2003, before SOTU & words, etc.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 68
Let’s hope so. Jeffress’ whole line of questioning is ah hmm. . . Who cares about Cooper’s typing? I can understand tweaking Miller on her memory, who wouldn’t? But this?
On the other topic. I’ve always had a perverse liking for Tweety. His show is the only right-leaning one I’ll watch. Regarding Father Tim Russert, I now feel totally justified in my real distaste for Meet the Press.
If you’re out there, hi Mr. Wilson!!
I don’t have cable, so I would love to hear tidbits from Shuster’s report, like will he mention the dislike Russert has for Mathews!
You can’t learn something startling on Thursday that you gave out on Tuesday.
Libby’s lawyers can try to baffle ‘em with B.S., but this is the crux of the matter.
Guilty.
I do not believe Rove has flipped. Although I do not attribute to Rove any honorable qualities whatsoever, I don’t believe he’d still be at the White House if he’d flipped. I’d think that he’d want to be as far away from the other conspirators as possible if he’d flipped.
Maybe I am attributing to much common sense to him, but he DOES have a good lawyer.
I think he wasn’t indicted because Fitz didn’t think he could eliminate reasonable doubt as the case then stood. See my post above @ 65. The short version: the Viveca Novak tip to Rove’s lawyer, prior to Rove’s 2d trip to the GJ, that Cooper was telling Time that Rove was one of his sources, should have led Rove to “correct” his testimony if he was intentionally lying. Since he repeated the “reporters told me” story after V. Novak tipped off his attorney, a juror might believe it was possible that Rove repeated the false story out of a genuine, albeit erroneous, belief that Cooper was mistaken. I think that’s a weak story, but I guess Fitz likes to bring sure thing cases.
Frank Probst @
38
I’m thinking that the only way Scooter gets off is if the jury is convinced that no one violated IIPA. Sort of the right wing argument that it doesn’t matter. Whatever, etc.
But if he is convicted, then Fitz flips Scooter, who testifies that the intent all along was to out Valerie Wilson because her unit in the CIA would not roll over on their WMD claims against Iraq and Iran.
My dream is that Scooter flips on Rove, the Preznit and Shooter.
Roberto Eder @ 88
Well Miller is obviously a L-I-A-R
Someone @ something:
Not if Libby can implicate Cheney.
FIREDOGLAKERS!!!!! this site ROCKS!! even CNN has to give it up to FDL! i dont understand all the legal maneuvers but the comment section is wonderful. and – EMPTYWHEEL – what can we say – URE SIMPLY AMAZINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!
kristinejoy @ 43: “Why was Rove not indicted?”
Rove appears to have introduced enough doubt via his GJ testimony on:
1) Whether or not he intentionally lied to the GJ, and
2) Whether or not he knew VPW was a *covert* CIA agent.
Fitz has always left open the door that – while unlikely – there may be further prosecutions wrt the Wilson matter.
Dude @89 (and others)
reports have Libby making definitive statements before the GJ – did you talk to Grossman about plame NO!, Grenier..NO! Ari.. NO!!!
Libby’s problem, no matter how much the jurors think that ‘everybody’ may be confused, will be reconciling NO (x11) with the stories of the 11.
In other words, if Libby didn’t leave himself an ‘out’ in his GJ testimony, he’s toast. If we finally see/hear his GJ testimony and there’s a lot of ‘well, we might have talked about that, I don’t really remember” then yeah, he walks…
But if he really did say NO NO NO, get out the butter and jam, pour the juice, and tell the waitress how you want your toast done…
Linda @
27
The forgeries were in French because many African countries have French as official language. honest mistake.
Wilson never saw the forgeries_he was told to check out docs he never saw. So he said they weren’t true, but said nothing about forgery because he could’nt know that for sure.
Redshift @
23
I sure hope Fitz will do just that because IMHO this ‘urban myth’ of the NeoConvictasphere will just go on forever festering in the body politik if Fitz doesn’t enter it into evidence and essentially dare the defense to refute it overtly or simply confirm it by it’s silence. The RightWingnuttian Fighting Keyboarders will have to invent new contortions of self-delusion to explain why Scooter et Al just sat there and validated what the OP-Ed actually said.
Dude @ 89
There is a difference between “the VERY DEFENSE is to say that Libby himself was just forgetful, mistaken, confused” and a credible SHOWING that Libby was “the VERY DEFENSE is to say that Libby himself was just forgetful, mistaken, confused.”
While the defense may show understandable sloppiness, it is still coming across as grossly exaggerating the importance or relevance of the mistakes of other people.
To succeed, Libby’s team needs to show that Libby (1) was confused and (2) it needs to show that the confusion is credible. Libby’s defense has a long way to go to establish both of those themes in the jury’s mind. Typos by Matt Cooper do not explain all the circumstances surrounding Libby’s lies to the GJ and obstruction of the investigation into the White House’s conspiracy.
Pathological liars need to pass the smell test and juries have a nose for that type of thing.
cl
Ed*ard Teller @
93
Agreed – but Jeffress, according to Marcy’s paraphrase, said after SOTU, not before.
kristinejoy @
43
Why did Rove’s lawyer claim Rove has a letter from Fitz saying he Rove won’t be indicted? AND HE WON’T LET US SEE THE LETTER!
The Nefarious Leslie @ 68
I agree. Last jury I served on — about a year ago — one side tried very hard to create confusion while the other told a simple, direct tale. We The Jury didn’t buy the confusion at all — it WASN’T confusing to us. We found for the straightforward and direct — very quickly too.
Rove not indicted? A couple months ago waynemadsenreport.com did give a reason. As I recall Madsen claimed Torturer-in-chief Gonzales would not allow Rove to be indicted.
Also another mis-spelling. Bush actually said Cheney has a “half-assed mentality” (I could not resist-forgive me.)
I’ll bite: why does Russert hate Matthews?
Rich @ 84
Flipped Rove to get Libby? Isn’t Rove a more valuable target than Libby? I don’t get it?
Patience, Grasshopper.
The charges against Libby stem from him committing perjury and obstructing the investigation of everyone involved in this mess. Fitz may have needed more information on record (being gathered in this trial) to go after others like Rove.
Rove is not necessarily > Scooter. Don’t forget that we’re seeing some interesting info that seems to indicate Cheney was leading the “let’s discredit Wilson” project. So, getting Scooter could be the first step in charges against his boss, the VP.
Or, I could be just making wild speculation. It may be that Fitz didn’t see the evidence to be able to bring valid charges against the others, and Scooter will be the only one to face a trial.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?!
Both Libby and Rove both admittedly did 2 things:
1. Signed one of those super duper iron-clad SF-312s non-disclosure of governement intelligence agreements which says breaking the agreement is a criminal offense, and,
2. Broke the agreement and hence the law.
So, why the trial?
Lock the fockers up, we have no idea how much damage they did to US security – perhaps very very significant.
Jesus, I hate these fockers.
Ok, one more time, I hate these fockers.
mui @ 100
Wait a minute, didn’t you mean L-I-A-N?
mui @ 100
And if you’re taking notes in bed, well, that would be L-I-E-R
Jeffries could use an fdl Plamegate tutorial. Marcy – tell him to “Buy the book, dummy!”
upstairs
Zig alert.
That Judy Miller June 23 date seems so much earlier than the convergence of dates in July, an outlier.
Outliers always carry a lot of information. That one seems to point to a bigger or different conspiracy.
does anyone here think the architects of this outing – rove and cheney – will ever take the stand – just asking
new thread up top
Ed*ard Teller @ 117
Unless it was deliberate, like a lot of other defense misstatements that have occurred thus far.
Looks like Fitz is getting near the end of his witness list. The one with Pumpkinhead should be fun.
zeppo @ 83
Rove’s a higher-level official than Libby, so Fitz wouldn’t flip Rove just to get Libby. If he’s flipped, it’s for evidence against a bigger fish than that, which to my mind just leaves Cheney. I don’t think he’d flip against his meal ticket (Bush), and I can’t think of anyone else who fits the bill.
James Robinson @ 77
DId Fitz have Rove dead-to-rights on 250 counts of obstruction?
So far we have heard a Fitz’s opening theory, and chronologies from witnesses. When does Fitz get to say, _this_ is when the obstruction occurred?
Cranky
Speaking of Literary Flair (which Joe Wilson has) (–and Scooter doesn’t), I think it’s waay too bad that the paragraph in the letter to Judy from Scooter about the Aspens and the twining roots in the West where she vacations didn’t get admitted. Perhaps some of our legal minds can explain why it got ommitted at a more leisurely time?
This is a trial about perjury. We’ve already heard from several witnesses that Libby told them Valeria Plame was Wilson’s wife and worked for one of the agencies. It doesn’t matter if he was “outing” her. This trial is based on Fitz’s belief that Libby lied about when he discussed Plame with others. So far we’ve had Grossman, some other guy (can’t remember his name), Addington (?), Ari, and Judy. That’s five so far that say under oath that Libby is lying. My guess is that Libby doesn’t testify because Fitz will ask him about every one of the meetings he had with these people and he will just have to lie more to keep his original lie in check.
Mr. H @ 112: “I’ll bite: why does Russert hate Matthews?”
Because he crossed to the other side?
So this line with typo in the notes:
“Denies emphatically the reports that the rbits handed intel directly to Veep.”
Should read:
“Denies emphatically the reports that the Brits handed intel directly to Veep.”
[Mod Note; thanks, it’s fixed.]
I wouldn’t trust Wayne Madsen any farther than I could throw him.
I suspect Rove of being flipped partly in large part because that’s how Fitz works. This perjury trial is just an effort to get the sand out of Fitz’ eyes, as he put it.
I agree that Fitz couldn’t possibly have predicted the result of the elections, but I don’t know if that would matter to him.
As for Rove, I think he was in a rough place before the election. On the one hand, I think Fitz scared him into at least some level of cooperation (I don’t find Wells’ assertion that he threw Libby under the bus at all implausible). I think Rove might very well have covered for Bush, and I think Fitz knows that.
Fitz is going to go Libby->Cheney->Bush, and maybe by then he’ll have enough evidence to get Rove on cleanup.
As for Rove leaving the Administration, he might. But then, he’s a very smooth liar in a hive of intrigue whose boss is the particularly vengeful son of a family you just don’t cross. If Rove had left before the election I suspect that it might not have gone well for him.
Now, of course, he’s totally screwed.
Gee, I wonder if the defense is using these sidebars (with their trascription and desemination to the world through FDL) to threaten the WH obliquely.
They are trying (sp?) this case not in the media, but in the blogs, perhaps?
Wells in GJ he had ample opportunity to ask Libby whether he watched these videos. Nobody has or will have Libby watching TV. There’s no evidence. He’s saying, let’s make a leap. I don’t want those very prejudicial videos on the screen. When you do look at them, it has a different image than looking at transcript. He had every oppty.
Recognizing this isn’t a transcript…if Libby plans to testify, Fitzgerald can ask him under oath whether he saw it, and if he did, can he not (IANA L) introduce it? And if Libby says no, this argument is moot. So couldn’t Wells just have said, “My client will testify he has not seen this” and put an end to it? Why the discussion about Fitz having already had his chance to ask?
Shorter me: is this also signalling Libby may not testify?
Quick question- can anyone point me to a quick link that has the Fitz/ libby charges? Thanks for your indulgence.
Redshift, supra:
WH/OVP took a big nasty bruise in the eye with Wilson’s congressional testimony and op-ed. WH had to backtrack on 16 words and it made them look bad.
That could not stand. They tried to impeach Wilson on the merits (NIE leaking) but that didn’t work so great. They still had to backpedal.
Only thing left to do was to get Wilson’s personal credibility impeached. They couldn’t do that either, though, because Wilson was a career diplomat with loyal service to his country under two administrations, two parties. His prior service also especially qualified him to do investigation into the intersection of Iraq and Niger.
So only thing left is to create a fake nepotism/favoratism angle. To do that, they need to first set up the meme that Wilson “lied” about saying VP sent him (even though that mischaracterizes Wilson). VP didn’t send him, because wife sent him.
It has a Rovian sting to it; can’t get your political opponent on the merits, so start a whisper campaign about his dark-skinned children. Only after today, I’m wondering if Matalin didn’t have a big hand in it too — or even a bigger hand than Rove. Wouldn’t put it past her.
Tweety, introducing Michael Isikoff, promotes his book Hubris, saying it is “all about this trial.”
Has he had on his show Marcy Wheeler, who also wrote a book “all about this trial”?
Valley Girl @ 135
Here you go. Bottom link on the page is the indictment.
So couple Wells statement above (not a transcript!) that “Wells, I think you’ll have to talk to President BUsh bc he’s probably somewhere in that chain.”
with the Cheney note’s original statement that he was “not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy the pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others”
and do you get the sense that Libby’s obstruction was directly at the behest of POTUS?
Professor Foland @ 134
Fitz has already suggested that the defense is trying to get around having Libby testify; last week, when Schmall (sp?) was on, Wells was trying to bring in some of the classified/memory issues, and Fitz was objecting on the grounds that Walton ruled those issues are only relevant if Libby himself testifies. And Wells, in his opening, said he speaks for Libby, and made no mention of him testifying.
Shorter me: Yes, quite possibly this is another signal that Libby won’t testify.
Thanks NefLes. I should print this out and read more carefully – probably will help me follow the intent of the questions more easily. Some commenters say that the trial is about perjury, but it looks to me that the charges are, in decreasing order of seriousness/ liability:
obstructing justice
making false statements
perjury.
? Can’t remember dif. bet. 2 and 3. (IANAL)
Valley Girl @ 141
IIRC, perjury applies to things said before the grand jury (under oath), and making false statements applies to things said to the FBI.
NefLes- thx- that makes sense. Am I correct in assuming that there is a top down order of “badness”?
litigatormom @ 29
I agree – I don’t think he comes off as arrogant. He seems to be very self assured and solid. He is coming off as a professional journalist who knows how to handle himself.
In sharp contrast to Judy, Judy, Judy who clearly has emotional issues and certainly didn’t seem to be very professional in either her demeanor or her actions. One wonders how she got to be so highly regarded as a journalist and I can certainly see how having powerful supporters and protectors helped her get farther in her career than she could have gotten by herself.
She also clearly is hedging the truth and seems to have a lot to hide.
I get the impression that she will be called back to answer some additional questions.
Poster above said: “I agree. Last jury I served on — about a year ago — one side tried very hard to create confusion while the other told a simple, direct tale. We The Jury didn’t buy the confusion at all — it WASN’T confusing to us. We found for the straightforward and direct — very quickly too”
I had the same experience on a jury recently. It was a very simple DUI case. The prosecution laid out a simple narrative; the defense tried to inject doubt, question methodology, competency of witnesses, etc. It just didn’t work — none of it was credible. And the attorney seemed like an ass which didn’t do his client any favors.
The jury was a VERY diverse group and yet it really affirmed my faith in the system. We all were able to focus on the facts, use our gut instincts for b.s. and reach a verdict.
Professor Foland @
134
It seems to me that both here, and in other sidebar conversations with respect to Cheney, that Fitz is making it clear that having Scooter and Dick testify is going to be painful to the defense.
kristinejoy @ 43
Because he finally – after five trips to the GJ – told Fitz the truth. Right now Fitz is focused on obstruction of justice & lying – but you can see how this trial lays the groundwork for a conspiracy charge that would include a number of key people – including and perhaps especially, Rove.
Me either, but I think the false statements were the lies he told to the FBI investigators, the perjury is lying while under oath before the grand jury. Obstructing justice is the result of the lying, could have obstructed by hiding/destroying evidence.
Trying to keep my EPU ercord going…
obDisclaimer: IANAL but I am a champion debater and I’ve followed this VERY closely.
IIPA don’t matter. The trial is about perjury and obstruction, and the judge has already ruled that Plame’s status as covert or not doesn’t matter EXCEPT in so far as it indicates what Scooterdog’s (what I call my pup on occasion) STATE OF MIND. That i, his motivaiton (or not) to lie to the GJ/FBI.
Fitz! presented five people who said they had discussions w/ Libby ABOUT Wilson/plame before the time he told the grand jury he knew anything about her.
Fitz! got testimony from those people showing that Libby was FOCUSED on the issue, that it was a MAJOR part of his days. It all goes to whether he would BELIEVABLY have any reason to lie about the disclosures. The fact of the disclsoures is not anywhere near as important as the CONTEXT of Libby’s state of mind AT THAT TIME.
The defense is doing something of a bait and switch but they haven’t ompletely abandoned the “memory defense” in part because they’d be kicked off the bar and squashed like bugs under Walton’s gavel if they did abandon it.
So they’re taking two parallel approaches:
They SAID they we’re going to go for “ah, he was too busy with important shit and just forgot, it wasn’t a big deal so it’s easy for him to forget about it.” But Fitz! pretty much blew that away with his first witnesses who all said Libby was focused and determined about it. Bringing up the IIPA stuff is their lame attempt (and they know it’s lame, believe you me) to erinforce the idea that it just asn’t a big deal, why would he lie? They HAVE to keep on that tatic even though they haevn’t any hope it will work.
SO…They are trying a parallel tactic, a jury nullificaiton tactic, by:
Sympathy for the Scoots for being so abused by the admin;
Sympathy for the Scoots by making him a victim of the nasty mean old feds
Interestingly, they keep trying to bring in “evidence” which Fitz! keeps objecting to and which Walton generally rejects as inadmissible, not relevant. I think they might betrying to buy sympathy from the jury for the Fitz! being a nasty fed andthe judge is in cahoots isn’t it horrible how they won’t let us present this very important evidence they must be in cahoots and out to get Libby! Alas for the D, the jury seems to sense the tactic.
He, thats just my non-attorney take. Your mileage may vary. Sorry Tennessee. Zoomfluxicon may not be for everyone, consult your dotor.
Valley Girl @ 143
Perjury is more serious than making false statements.
sue mullins @ 99
And I HATE this keyboard – I’m not THAT bad a typist, really I’m not!
I forgot to mentoin: if they DON’T put the Scoots on the stand, they’re toast. If they DO put him, they’re toast. They are DESPERATE people, DESPERATE. Their tactics are those of DESPERATE people.
Sadly, it looks like neither Libby nor Cheney will testify.
Notta Flatlander @ 149
I agree whole-heartedly, and I think the sympathy theory just might work, at least to get a hung jury. I can tell you that as I have observed this case, especially hearing about Rove, I am convinced that Libby got double-crossed and intentionally sacrificed. I started off thinking “lock him up” like the rest of you, but I am now hoping that Fitz will plead him out and flip him for some bigger fish, because I’ll be mighty pissed if this little piss-ant goes down so Rove can walk, when it appears Rove is a, if not the original leaker.
In EPUsville, I now think the memory defense is toast, and that the ‘Karl did it, and the bastards set me up’ defense is the operative one. And Libby won’t testify.
re: rove What ever happened to Jason Leopold’s (sealed) v (sealed)?
dab in PA @ 150
Thanks- where is obstruction of justice in the hierarchy?
andhowe @ 156
IT’S STILL SEALED
I don’t think the “sympathy” angle will work if Libby doesn’t testify. And the way it’s going now I don’t think he will. Nor Cheney.
Dude @ 61
I disagree. I find the cross-examinations SOOOO tedious, and seemingly pointless, that I sometimes just “zone out” and get irritated, wishing they would just shut up. The defense will really have to put some of this nit-picking into big-time focus during closing arguments for Libby to walk, IMHO. The witnesses for the most part, are sticking to their testimony on direct.
Valley Girl @ 157
I think it is the most serious. The other two charges are predicates for the obstruction. Fitz only has to prove for those two that he intentionally lied. IIRC, for the obstruction, he also has to prove that his lying impeded the investigation.
Marcy!!! Thanks for another riveting day!
#136 Joel
WH/OVP took a big nasty bruise in the eye with Wilson’s congressional testimony and op-ed. WH had to backtrack on 16 words and it made them look bad.
That could not stand. They tried to impeach Wilson on the merits (NIE leaking) but that didn’t work so great. They still had to backpedal.
Only thing left to do was to get Wilson’s personal credibility impeached. They couldn’t do that either, though, because Wilson was a career diplomat with loyal service to his country under two administrations, two parties. His prior service also especially qualified him to do investigation into the intersection of Iraq and Niger.
So only thing left is to create a fake nepotism/favoratism angle. To do that, they need to first set up the meme that Wilson “lied” about saying VP sent him (even though that mischaracterizes Wilson). VP didn’t send him, because wife sent him.
It has a Rovian sting to it; can’t get your political opponent on the merits, so start a whisper campaign about his dark-skinned children. Only after today, I’m wondering if Matalin didn’t have a big hand in it too — or even a bigger hand than Rove. Wouldn’t put it past her.
Yes, the only way they could impeach Wilson was through his wife. I remember watching Hardball and Chris M. said to Joe Wilson that he just got off the phone with Karl Rove and he says your wife is fair game.
Angel @ 159
I don’t think either will testify. Libby testifying would be suicidal. But I think a good closing argument could get the sympathy anyway. Just from observing, I can hear the backroom conversations between Cheney and Rove, later joined by Addington and the other cronies that testified. Well, sh_t, they made Fitz the special counsel. Some one’s head has gotta roll. Rove has got power and probably henchmen, as does Cheney. Ari is already out of the WH and smart enough to get a lawyer. If Libby doesn’t play the game, he loses his job, so he’ll be a sucker and play along. We can replace a COS. The prisoner’s dilemna gone bad for the weak link in the conspiracy. Hang him out to dry. I am sympathetic.
Thank God for Fitz.
Deacon Blues @ 44
That’s it in a nutshellmui @ 128
B/C if it was an attempt to influence Miller’s testimony, it didn’t work. The way to get it in is through Libby.kristinejoy @ 133
Ya Think? Christy said that someone with a WH IP address is refreshing often.
Hi There! (waving) Mr. Whitehouse person! Hi! Howya doin’? (more waving)Professor Foland @ 134
Wondering that myself
I think it was yesterday that Fitz made a comment during a sidebar that went something like “If we are going to put the war on trial we would need to bring COTS” – Anyone know what that was all about? Was the context Fitz implying the defense was going too far afield for these narrower charges? Why would defense even be attempting that? And what is COTS?
stingray @ 167
I thought he meant sleeping cots. Kinda snarky remark.
COTS:
Continuity of Therapeutic Sleep?
. . .Remember, Fitz was charged with finding out who leaked Plame’s identity to the press. We now know that no less than FOUR Administration officials did so: Armitage, Rove, Libby, and Fleisher. Armitage has described it as something along the lines of the worst mistake of his life and seems genuinely repentant about it. Fleisher was worried enough that he got an immunity deal. That leaves Rove and Libby. No, I do not think for one second that the jury is going to let him off the hook.
But also remember that Fitz got “plenary authority” when he asked for clarification of his mandata, which basically means that he’s free to roam!
Bob in HI
2snowmen @ 114
2snowmen, I’m not sure if anyone else has addressed this above, but with the caveat that IANAL or a constitutional expert:
Bush has been asserting, and Addington testified, that Bush has the ability to declassify whatever he wants to, and he doesn’t have to use the usual declassification procedures. In other words, he can take information that’s classified and tell someone to leak it, and they can’t be prosecuted for doing so because by telling them to leak it, Bush is de facto declassifying it.
And, IIRC, I read something several months ago (can anyone else confirm?) saying that Bush was giving Cheney that right as well.
So, Fitz is avoiding the argument–at least for now–as to what Plame’s status was and whether or not Libby (or Rove, or Armitage or Bartlett for that matter) were breaking a law by leaking it, and is just going after Libby for lying to the Grand Jury and trying to obstruct the FBI investigation. And gosh, look at all the creepy-crawlies that have come scurrying out just from this little spotlight into their corners!
John Forde @ 109
Yes– this means that there are likely to be some kind of conditions attached. (”Rove won’t be indicted UNLESS. . . “) In other words, they struck a deal. Jason Leopold explained all this on Truthout.org months ago. We don’t know what kind of box Fitz put Rove in, but if Rove wanders out of the box, then the deal’s off, and Rove can be indicted. Rove’s lawyer doesn’t want to show us the letter because it will show that Rove’s not innocent, and that he’s only off the hook for now.
I’m still pissed that Fitz let him in office for the Nov. 2006 elections, but hey, look what happened. Do you think maybe Rove might not have been fully engaged with election issues because he was dealing with the residue of his deal with Fitz?
I remain hopeful that justice will be served on Rove, too.
Bob in HI
What is Wells thinking with the following Quo
te? Are they after J. Miller about something?
“Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we’re going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand. “
It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. Thus the obstruction charge. I don’t think the jury will have sympathy for this nor the lying, which was part of the obstruction.
Tess @ 168:
I thought he meant sleeping cots. Kinda snarky remark.
Bingo, that must have been it.
Funny he would even entertain the idea instead of outright rejecting it, it’s almost as if he saying “okay, if you really want to!”
And funny that the length of such a trial has probably already occurred to him! :)
But the impression I got (too lazy to try find it) is the defense was willing to go quite deep about the NIE and the forgeries.
Frank33 @ 111
I don’t think he can do that. And I don’t think Fitz can be fired, either. Look up the extraordinary plenary authority given to Fitz by Comey way back when– Someone posted the details here on FDL on an old (i.e., last week) thread, but these details have been posted elsewhere, too. You might try searching the archives on “Comey” IIRC.
Bob in HI
stingray @ 167
When I read that yesterday I spent a good three minutes googling “COTS”, “COTS” with “legal” etc. before I realized how stoopid(tm) I was.
So nice to know I wasn’t the only one, not that I’m calling you stoopid(tm).
The Nefarious Leslie @
82
What you’re missing is that Plame’s status was not an issue in Libby’s indictment. What is at issue is Libby’s lying about when he knew about Plame. It will be an issue in the indictments that we hope are forthcoming, but not for Libby.
Bob in HI
Bob in HI
Recently posted at the Left Coast:
We’ll be missing you Molly!
the best comment i heard today was from nina totenberg: “this is jucy stuff”
I looked up Rule 29.
RULE 29 SEPARATION DURING DELIBERATION
Did Wells indicate J. Miller may have violated Rule 29?
Last commet before the end of the day.
Notta Flatlander @177:
You realized it a lot sooner than I did :) “COTS” normally means “Commerical Off The Shelf” in my world, wrt software.
And it went more like “If you want to put the war on trial we would have to bring in cots” come to think of it, so I expect it was just a snarky remark like Tess suggested.
Yes, was considering Googling it too! :)
stingray @ 182
The comment goes back to the voir dire, I am sure, where there were comments re: the war being /not being on trial. Very quick comeback.
andhowe @ 156
Its still the best assessment of that situation that I’ve seen.
Jason rocks!
Bob in HI
The comment goes back to the voir dire
voir dire?
Deacon Blues @
44
Deacon Blues @
44
stingray @
185
jury selection
you can heck prev. FDL posts to find the discussion about this.
Re Bob at 178 -”What you’re missing is that Plame’s status was not an issue in Libby’s indictment. What is at issue is Libby’s lying about when he knew about Plame. It will be an issue in the indictments that we hope are forthcoming, but not for Libby.
Bob in HI”
I got that part beforehand. I think Nefarious Leslie’s response is apt enough. It’s just that knowing “Plame” necessarily involves knowing she worked at CIA and it seems to me that Walton could have looked for a way to clarify that while still letting the juror ask the question. Maybe it was lost in EW’s translation and the juror’s question went right to the meat of her CIA status, in which case Walton’s response is understandable.
.
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to a motion for a judgment of acquittal. Apparently Wells will argue that the government will not make a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.
Linda @ 27
The Brits got the French version of the Italian forgeries.
http://news.independent.co.uk/…..325155.ece
Did Cathie Martin know????
J. Thomason @ 189
Wells is getting ahead of himself. Obstruction of justice can be based on Libby’s lying to investigators and therefore impeding the investigation. Wells probably was referring to an obstruction claim based on Scooter trying to influence Judy’s testimony. But I’m not sure the indictment even charges that.
Frank Probst @ 38
The worst TWO MISTAKES in his life…leaking to Novak, who used it…and leaking to Woodward…who showed that Armitage’s leak to Novak wasn’t the ONLY TIME he revealed Mrs. Wilson’s CIA ties to a reporter (contrary to his “genuinely repentant” confession to the GJ)!
Marcy,
I’m going to buy you some energy juice for your digits. You go girl!
Dude @ 61
I see it differently. The jurors are asking very astute questions that are being conveyed by Walton.
If the Defense simply tries to confuse the jury they’ll say “what is the relevance of that” and go with the most coherent and linear hypothesis provided.
If your idea was correct the best Defense Attorneys in the world would simply fill their case full of bizareely complex multiple scenarios that confuse juries.
It rarely works unless there is an underlying reason for the jurors to be attracted to one of those theories ~ as in the OJ case where the jury clearly had an expectation that the LAPD would try to set up Simpson. That worked beacuse the Prosecutions case was full of complexity and new forensic approaches (DNA analysis) that the Defense COULD easily muddle.
Fitz’s approach is very straightforward and based on both physical evidence and testimony.
But we have yet to see the Defense case fully laid out yet.
obstruction of justice- Libby is charged under Title 18 united states code section 1503
The .pdf of the charges is here
James Robinson @
132
Why?
Muzzy @ 188
Can Fitz use any info from this trial (Rove, Cheney &/or Bush) for further indictments???
In looking at the indictment it does appear the obstructtion of justice charges do flow from the alleged perjury before the grand jury. I am still wondering what Wells was referencing in citing Rule 29.
clueless@ 197 – There are many people in this forum who could give you a complete and correct answer but I believe the short answer is yes, as it relates to the substance of sworn testimony.
On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.
Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..525nj1.htm
I said it in the other thread but I’m pretty sure the so-called typos in Cooper’s notes are actually scanning errors, i.e. he printed out the notes and gave them on paper to Fitz or Wells and they ran them through optical character recognition. That r vs n error happens all the time when you do that.
Many thanks to FDL for the wonderful coverage, and to all the readers for illuminating and helpful posts. As a dimwit, I am quite lost and wish someone could give us a wrap-up each day about what happened and What It All Means. I’m sorry if I’m the only reader who can’t figure things out from the not-transcripts and apologize for being dim.
Valley Girl @ 157
The obstruction charges relate to lying to the Prosecutors/Investigators in interviews.
The Perjury charges relate to lying to the Grand Jury while sworn.
none @ 201
This would be quite funny if Fitz brings out the actual notes. puts them up in a digital photograph, and says…look there’s the “n” that Mr. Wells said was an “r”.
But I suppose the defense could argue that it was all a “dirty trick”…unless the copy that was presented by Wells was itself scanned and it was HIS copy that only had the misreads!
cinnamonape @ 203
Thx. Actually, I was trying to figure out if obstruction is a more serious crime than perjury/ false statements.
General observation: in attempting to assess the questions, comments, sidebars, and references by the defense attornies, it may be useful to keep in mind that they are setting up a set of conditions from which to launch appeals.
As many have noted here, so far about 5 folks have absolutely, flat-out contradicted Libby’s statements to the FBI & sworn testimony to the grand jury. Wells is trying to lay out many paths of appeal about the witnesses against Libby & their individual abilities to remember specific actions, words & published or aired comments. Anything the defense can do to get a contradiction, a prejudicial ruling or comment, a prosecutorial mis-step, may lead to workable “stuff” in the appeals process.
One issue that’s unresolved is how Judith Miller really learned about the Joe Wilson op-ed piece. Her story seems to be that none of her editors/superiors at the New York Times gave her the courtesy of a heads-up warning that they were about to publish an op-ed that would throw her WMD work under a bus, and she read it only after it was published. If true, this one-hand-doesn’t-know-what-the-other-is-doing behavior reflects badly on the situation at the Times, and seems bizarre conduct for any business. But if not true, who/what is she protecting? Perhaps Jill Abramson’s testimony will address it, but I’m not hopeful.
If I were a juror, I would have reasonable doubt as to Libby’s intentional perjury. Other witnesses seemed to have told different stories at different times and Cooper has given two different versions of Libby’s words to him. The defense showed both versions. Why should Libby be expected to have a perfect memory no matter what’s going on around him but others do not? I’m not yet convinced of guilt and Miller is still hiding something.
I wish this trial was actually about the initial charge that Fitzpatrick was given to investigate.