Hey Mary!! Here's your snake, baby.
A reminder of the housekeeping rules. I'll timestamp the updates, so you know when to expect one–don't go crazy with updates in the interim. Please treat this as a rough approximation; I'm no court reporter, but am sure developing an appreciation for the difficulty of their job (Slow DOWN, Fitz). And buy Anatomy of Deceit.
Maybe we'll actually get to Agent Bond and Libby's testimony huh? Then again, maybe I'll leave it for Monday, when Jane and Swopa will be here…
Walton in, Jeffress up addressing the nondisclosure agreements.
Paragraph in dispute: paragraph 3.
Jeffress: Two problems, this is the one that talks about what Bonamici was talking about this morning, it talks about the fact that he should have gone and asked somebody. Your honor has agreed to put it in for motive, but this will go to behavior he should have done. This is the paragraph that remains. This is the negligence standard. Your honor will recall, we've asked for discovery about what other people thought, the govt denied us discovery on that issue. If we're going to get into this standard. I think the govt trying to insert some additional violation, it would be highly prejudicial, he's not even charged with leaking classified information much less failing to check. We would object to putting any of the other agreements in. There's just no suggestion that her occupation was in some compartment. Bonamici pointed out that note (from Cheney) was stamped with a "treat as Top Secret/SCI." Miss Mayfield is the one who puts stamps on it, they just stamp everything. That's why it was done, it would be completely unfair in light of the testimony.
Walton. The testimony about that, wouldn't that be confusing to jury.
Bonamici, I don't agree with the characterization, about how it got the stamp. It bears an TS/SCI stamp.
Walton. Is there something in the record that the jury will consider to see whether there was a violation of these other agreements.
B: The jury will be asked to consider whether defendant had state of mind that he might have violated one of these agreements.
W: Will that end up being confusing.
B I don't think it's confusing, it's the crux of the govt case.
W They have to make some assessment?
J They would if Govt contending there were a violation. Why is an agreement regarding a certain compartment.
W Compartments, what are you talking about?
Some issue. should do in chambers. (Looks like CIA lawyer had an objection.)
Walton: I just talked to a security expert. And I think if jury doesn't have somebody who explains this, they'll be confused about whether there was a violation. As I understand it there was a violation of 5A, if they start looking at those, they'll become confused. Even given what was explained to me, I'd have to have some testimony in order to make the assessment you're asking for.
B: The jury is not going to be asked to assess whether there was a violation, only
Walton: Only whether he thought there was a violation.
Walton: What he did, is it from Govt's idea that he could have violated something without also violating 5A?
B: No, he would also violate 5A, including paragraph 3.
W: The issue they have to focus on is whether defendant would have thought that conceivably there was a problem,he would have obligation to check. It seems to me they focus on his mental state. If he had concerns about whether it was appropriate to reveal this.
B: The real issue here is that the defendant made up a story that took the classified nature of information out of the picture.
W: You're saying he did that because he throught there was a violation.
J There's no evidence he is worried about this.
B There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.
W: Conceivably, maybe it was only the political revelation, but maybe it did. And I don't think that that determination can be made. Question is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that he didn't want that out there. If he knows he signed a nondisclosure, that seems relevant. The jury has a right to be able to take that into consideration.
J How is the jury to evaluate this info. Are they going to be given law?
W They only look at Libby's conduct in assessing whether he felt it was inappropriate to disclose this. I don't think they have to make a determination of whether he violated this.
J They're arguing that he was worried that he hadn't done enough to find out whether her status was classified or not.
W What are you going to argue WRT paragraph 3.
B The defendant knows what's being looked at, as your honor just pointed out, there's a whole range of things he might have done, when he decided to make up a story. Addington testified that he provided defendant copy of statute that might come into effect. He understood that one of possible ramifications of conduct was a violation of this agreement.
W I think the question is sufficient to jury.
J All he asked Addington whether she was covert or not covert.
W I have an obligation not to disclose anything I understand that and if I don't do that, if I end up being prosecuted for a crime, the govt can present to jury that I had an obligation not to do, so long as they argue in appropriate way. Note for the record. I will permit govt to admit entire exhibit and preclude them from entering the others.
Walton: You're taking a toll on me today.
Jury IN!! Finally!!
While we're waiting for the jury to come in, counsel approach. Oh no!!!
Jury!! We finally have a jury!!
Walton: Good afternoon. Apologize profusely for the delays. Lots of legal issues. If you're angry with anyone about delays, be angry at me.
Fitz team (blond woman I don't know) entering the WH Transcripts. [Update: Kathleen Kedian]
She asks to Publish portions.
First shows that the transcript from Press briefing sent via email to Jennie Mayfield. It's the passage that shows McC refusing to exonerate Libby.
One more section from gaggle. Page 7. Full cooperation is full cooperation, the President directed WH to cooperate fully. Pres has always said that leaking classified info is very serious matter. He made it clear that if someone did this no one wants to know more than he does.
Second: Scott, you have said you went to Rove, Libby, and Abrams, why did you do this.
Now she's playing the clip of Scottie explaining why he asked them.
I had no doubt in the beginning, but that's why I asked.
The blond lawyer reads the press questions.
One more section from October 7 2003 transcript.
No one wants to get to bottom of matter more than President. If someone leaked classified info they will no longer be part of admin.
Publishing portions of transcript 10/10/2003 transcript.
Those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.
Can I follow up on that.
They assured me that they were not involved in this.
They were not involved in what.
The leaking of classified information.
Approach. [I think they're trying to enter the 10/12 followup on the 1X2X6 article]
Walton: We're going to have to take a break. You cannot consider the transcripts or video for truth. Only for state of mind. Jury out again.
A comment to all about couture. No one on the Defense team has a new haircut. Neither Wells nor Fitz are wearing their gray suits. Bonamici has the most interesting outfit. She's wearing a black sweater and a bright bright red jacket. Which makes her look very authoritative at the podium. [Cue Christy for her admiring comments about Bonamici's no-nonsense demeanor.
Walton: Waht's teh essential challenge to these–if they were found in Libby's records. They would be relevant to state of mind.
J He can be asked about state of mind. Let's take October 4 Washignton Post article. "The leak of a CIA agent has exposed." We are totally precluded from discovery on this. That would be so prejudicial for the defense I don't think we would be able to recover. The next one, talks about clandestine case officer. that same week, two top AOs disclosed her identity to 6 journalists. This is a trick, your honor. These cannot possibly go into evidence. You'll hear him testify in the GJ. To put in the articles themselves. We would deprive Libby of a fair trial.
Fitz This is not a trick to show state of mind. It is appropriate to consider Libby's state of mind. Libby was told by a CIA briefer that there are dangers in disclosing a CIA agent's identity. It's relevant to Libby's state of mind. They've told jury Libby had no motive to lie. That's a trick, to remove all the evidence that he had state of mind. He kept these aritcles. The jury's entitled to know what was in his head. That was in head and his file.
J It's in the GJ transcript. That's in the record. They're trying to prejudice the jury by putting in the actual articles. It is highly prejudicial.
Fitz The jury has a right to see what Libby saw before he testified. Coming from someone's files, what's in someone's state of mind. They want to stand up and say this is stupid. It's not stupid if you fear that you may have been involved in something, you switch your story that puts it on a journalist. These are form his files. They may be prejudicial in that they help us prove our case. But they're not unfairly prejudicial.
Walton It seems that in spite of the instruction. Since they do indicate what they say somebody who had conceivably committed a crime referenced to what's in the article. It does show notice that it's being said even if the allegations in the paper aren't true. They are relevant as to state of mind. If he was questioned in GJ and he has acknowledged that he read them, and if we could agree to what's in the article. I don't want to tie the govt's hands. but I don't want to throw stuff on the jury that relates to potential damage. And claim regarding disclosure of potential covert agent. If they kepe getting all this stuff, they'll reach conclusions that they wouldn't reach if they had this. [suggests putting a summary in there]
J May I suggest, once your honor listens to the whole GJ testimony.
F We're trying to show state of mind before Ms. Bond testifies as to his interview. First of all I don't think we're going to be limited to things that were said in GJ.
Walton. Let me just ask. Do you know of any cases of an analgous situation, where someone is charged with a crime that suggests the commission of another criminal activity that suggests it's unduly prejudicial.
F I recognize, In all the traffic, we gave notice. It's not other criminal activity. It's the crime for which he's accused of obstructing justice. He's about to be interviewed by FBI, what's in his files includes reference to statements beyond Novak. They've told the jury that he had no motive to lie, that he understood that there was only focus on Novak. He is reading about the investigation that he's about to obstruct. They're trying to redact out the motive. To remove that would unduly hamper us.
W The itming of the admission of them problematic. If they come in after I hear GJ testimony. I guess if you need to tesify that these were in fact found.
F In one of them, it may or may not have been his underlining. He remembers reading it. Half the time they say if it's in the grand jury we can't use it. The other half the time, they say we can't introduce stuff that wasn't in the GJ.
W I haven't had the chance to read anything to see if it puts the whole prosecution in jeopardy. Even though I think it does disservice. I hope the court does not interpret my willingness to adjourn as believing this is not admissible. This is right down main street.
Agent Bond taking the stand. Hey!!! A jury AND a witness!!! David Corn warns you not to get used to it.
Zeidenberg; Govt calls agent Debbie Bond.
DB: Deborah S Bond.
Z How you're employed
DB Agent with FBI. Employed 19 years.
Z How much of your career has been on white collar or public corruption.
DB 16 years. Been involved since 10/2003.
DB I'm the current case agent. I took over a year ago, when Jack Eckenrode retired.
Z What this was about.
DB The possible unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity to the media.
Z Determine in this investigation.
DB How it happened her name and employment got to the media. Trying to find out identities of those participating in disclosing her identity to media,whether they knew it was classified, what their intent was on disclosing information.
Z Identiy and intent–what underlying facts
DB We were trying to find out source. I could give you two examples. If they learn info from govt source and they went out and just told somebody we would think there was more likelihood they knew info was classified and they had an intent to do so. Another extreme they were out talking to someone and they gave them info, it'd be less likely it was intentionally disclosed info.
Z Other underlying facts.
DB People who knew her identity and name, and where they learned it, who they told, whether they learned it or discussed it for others, whether someone told them to disclose it to the media. If they told reporters, we wanted to know who they told.
Z Were you present for an interview with Mr Libby on 10/14/2003. Who else was present?
DB Inspector Eckenrode, (another agent) Libby and attorney. Took place in Libby's office in OEOB adjascent to WH. About 1/5 hour. Interview set up in advance. Seated at conference table, agents on one side, Libby and lawyer on other side. I sat across from him. Told him our names, credentials. He was told that we were there for investigation possible unauthorized disclosure. Libby's attorney present for entire time.
Z During interview, Libby give you documents.
DB Yes. He told us that in prep for interview, he had prepared a document and had it typed, 4 bullet points that Wilson was claiming in press.
Introducing exhibit. (Govt 10)
DB He prepared it for interview, Allegations Wilson was making
Z What did he tell you about bullet points
DB that they weren't true–he didn't believe they were true.
Z how many times referred to this doc.
DB 3 or 4 times.
Z did you talk about how he learned of Plame's id
DB he first learned about Plame from VP, during telephone call on or about June 12, 2003. Description of phone call. A handwritten note he claimed he had written during this conversation.
Z What did he tell you. Precise date.
DB On the note 6/12/03, line on top, meant approximately. Regarding an article by Pincus. Written for newspaper on June 12, he believed he talked about this note prior to that. He had written the date afterwards, within a couple of days, couldn't remember precisely when.
Z He dated it afterwards. He told you what about when.
DB A day or two before 6/12
Z What did he tell you VP told him
DB Libby told us that VP told him that AMb's wife worked in CP division. Libby explained that CP stood for Counter Proliferation.
Z Did Libby tell you where he tought VP learned this.
DB Yes–VP told him he received it from someone at CIA. He believed VP had learned it from Tenet. However he was not certain if it was Tenet or someone else.
Z Did Libby tell you what happened to memory.
DB He forgot it. When he heard it from Russert in July that he learned it for the first time. Not until Fall 2003 that he realized he learned of it in June 2003.
Z When he learned name of former Ambassador
DB Claimed to have learned as Joe Wilson,when he read Joe Wilson's op-ed on July 6. That's what he told us.
Z What about existence of envoy
DB after reading Kristof article.
Z Did you ask about other reporters.
Z David Sanger
DB Mr Libby brought up Sanger. He brought it up. Told him he worked at NYT.
DB Libby told us it was July 2.
Z Conversation with Miller
DB Libby told us he met with Miller on July 8 at St Regis.
Z What did he tell you
DB Prior to meeting with Miler, he had had discussion regarding 10/2002 NIE which Libby said VP wanted him to get to public. However. Libby knew info classified, went to Addington to discuss whether president had authority to declassify document. Addington told him Pres did, he felt he could go talk about it.
Z What did Libby say he did
DB During meeting he discussed NIE with her.
Z What else
DB They discussed a book she had co-authored Germs, and he answered questions about WMD, and in general Joe Wilson matter.
Z Was he asked if subject of wife came up.
DB Yes. He told us he had no recollection of discussing Wilson's wife with Ms Miller.
Z Conscious knowledge?
Z Did he tell you memory of Wilson's wife
DB Claimed he had no knowledge of Wilson's wife.
Z Subject of Matthews and Hardball.
DB Yes. Told us that he heard reports on 7/8 or 9, that Matthews was criticizing OVP and Libby and OVP. Libby believed that Matthews was misleading public and decided to call Russert. He believed that since MSNBC was under NBC that Russert could help convince Matthews to tell both sides of story. Russert works at NBC news, bureau chief at Washington. Told us he got in touch with Russert. Contacted Russert and vented complaints.
DB spoke with Russert on 7/10 or 7/11 2003.
Z What Libby told you
DB After he told Russert about what he felt about Matthews. Russert wasn't anything he could do, could call producer of Hardball.
Z what he said after he complained
DB Russert asked him whether Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Libby claimed that no, he did not know that. Libby said told him that all the reporters knew that. Libby told us that he didn't know that either.
Z Did he tell you what he understood?
DB Libby told us that reporters in DC area.
Z Reaction to news from Russert?
DB he was surprised, it was the first time he heard it.
Z Conversation with Rove?
DB Libby told us spoke to Rove July 11. Libby told us that he spoke to Rove WRT statement by Tenet and Joe WIlson matter. Libby told us Rove related to him that Rove had conversation with Novak that Novak told Rove he had seen Wilson in green room prior to TV program. Novak wasnt very impressed was planning on writing article about him. Libby told us that Rove had the understanding that Novak already knew that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.
DB [LIbby aware that Rove didn't tell Novak.not sure if this is right] After hearing this from Rove, he told Rove about his conversation about Russert.
DB July 12 trip. On return trip, he went to sit with VP to discuss matters with VP to tell on the record WRT Joe Wilson matter. Told us that he wrote notes, verbatim. Libby and assistant Mayfield and Martin went to office adjascent to lobby of Andrews AFC where they made calls to press. Said they call. Cooper, Glenn Kessler, Evan Thomas of Newsweek. Was able to get in touch with Cooper. Told us that he called Cooper and read verbatim what he had written and read them to Cooper. Lbby told us that Cooper asked him why Wilson continued to blame VP or say that VP sent him to Niger. Claimed he went off the record and told Cooper that Reporters were telling admin that Wilson's wife worked at CIA but that he did not know if it were true.
Z Any conversations with anyone else?
DB Left message to Thomas, spoke to him later. Told us he got in touch with Kessler was at zoo, he'd call back later.
DB Yes. Believed he contacted Mitchell after 7/10 more likely after 7/14, according to Libby Mitchell had made negative comments about OVP, and he wanted to discuss them. He said he spoke to her. Mr Libby told us he explained to her about . Mitchell asked question about why VP sent him to Niger. may have told her what reporters were telling him that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Said it in way that she wouldn't ask him how he found out, didn't want her to know he learned it from Russert. Libby told us he thought it might be awkward, if he said he learned it from Russert.
DB Told us he didn't speak to Novak week of 7/7. Talked to him later, around 7/25.
DB Asked him if he'd be available again. He and attorney would like to review documents prior to interview.
DB First interview on 10/14. Set up second interview. Eckenrode contacted attorney. 11/26 second interview, Wednesday before X giving. Same participants, same seating arrangements, same office.