Aha, we're not done with FBI agent Deborah Bond yet. She takes the witness seat.
The jury comes in, and Judge Walton apologizes for the long delay, asks to make sure they haven't seen any media reports on the case, and reminds them of the importance of not doing so — adding that media coverage is likely to increase (see the earlier thread), so be extra careful.
Wells: Last week, you testified about Mr. Libby's lunch with Ari Fleischer on July 8th.
Bond: I think you have the date incorrect. It was July 7th.
W: I apologize. You were asked about Libby's testimony that he adamantly denied discussing Mr. Wilson's wife at this lunch.
B: Yes.
W: I want to turn to the notes that were taken during the November questioning of Mr. Libby
(Speculation among the press of more mis-written letters — using a "t" instead of an "f", etc.)
B: Those are not my notes. (Oops, hold everything. Sound is turned off, and everyone starts milling around.)
It's 11:21.
To summarize a few minutes of back-and-forth… Wells' point is that the November notes don't mention Libby's denial of discussing Plame during the Ari Fleischer lunch. Bond explains to him who took those notes, that she only skimmed them, and that an FBI summary isn't a verbatim transcript.
Wells belabors the point that the notes say "Libby does not recall" discussing Wilson's wife. He says that in writing up a report of the interview, the FBI agent said Libby "adamantly denied" discussing Wilson's wife.
Bond says that they asked the FBI agent and verified the report. Wells says, but that's not what's in the notes, right? Bond admits this is true.
Wells displays the notes Libby took about being told by Cheney that Plame worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA.
Now he says he wants to talk about Libby's July 12 conversation with Judith Miller. Plays it up as a "very important" conversation with regard to the indictment. But says it's not mentioned in the FBI summary of Libby's interview.
It's 11:36.
Wells is now picking apart Bond's notes from her own interview with Libby, and says they don't mention the July 12 conversation with Miller either. Bond agrees. She's not happy with this.
Wells: The first time Mr. Libby was asked about the substance of this conversation was in the grand jury, nine months after he spoke with Ms. Miller.
Bonds: Yes.
W: Now I want to go to a different subject…. the November 2003 interview of Mr. Libby about the flight of Air Force Two. (Puts up a transcript of Bond describing the interview — her grand jury testimony, I think.)
Wells walks her through her answers as shown in the transcript — that Libby said he "may have discussed" Plame with Cheney on AF2 after supposedly hearing about her from Russert.
Now Wells pulls out Bond's notes, about which she was testifying. (Uh-oh…. Walton says, "These are your notes?" and then an objection. Pause.)
Wells points out that Bond testified that Cheney was "frustrated and upset" over the uranium issue in talking to Libby, but her notes just say "frustrated." ("'Upset' is your word, correct?")
More nitpicking detailed dissection of Bond's notes – Wells is trying to create doubt that Libby talked about Plame with Cheney, and establish that the only thing Cheney "wanted out in the press" were the talking points he wrote out for Libby.
It's 11:53.
Wells is now walking Bond through notes that say Libby "may have mentioned that the VP, do you want me to get something out on Wilson's wife. Libby does not recall." Wells says this was just an "anything's possible" statement based on FBI agent repeatedly asking, "Is it possible…"
Bond: Well, it's only in there once.
Wells: Let's move on.
Wells says, Libby doesn't explicitly claim that he didn't know anything about Wilson's wife between June 12 (when Cheney told him) and July 10 (when Tim Russert supposedly told him). Bond says, he said when he learned from Russert, that it was as if he learned for the first time.
Wells keeps hammering on, but he didn't specifically say he didn't know anything in that time period. Bond fumbles, trying to find a polite way to tell Wells that he's inventing a discrepancy that doesn't exist. Wells turns to a prosecutor and says, "Mr. Zeidenberg, you practiced her testimony, didn't you?" Gasps from the media room at that (implying that Bond should know what she's going to say).
Now Wells goes back to the "didn't recall" versus "denied" issue, emphasizing that just because Libby said he didn't recall any pre-Russert conversations about Plame doesn't mean he was denying them. He's doing this in a really painstaking and not-especially-nice way. I'll bet the jury is squirming more than agent Bond is (she's just stoically waiting for all this to be over).
It's 12:08.
The kicker on the above discussion: Wells cites part of Bond's own testimony where someone asks if she denies something and she replied, "I'm not denying it, I just don't recall it."
Wells wants to talk about Libby's conversation with Karl Rove (around July 11th), when Rove told Libby he had spoken with Bob Novak, who was writing an article on Wilson and knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. After this, Libby told Rove about his own miraculously similar conversation with Tim Russert.
Wells catches Bond in a misstatement from her previous testimony regarding that conversation, and has a good time playing with it. ("People make mistakes, right?" Bond said something wrong that she needed to see documents about, etc., etc.)
W: So, even if the Tim Russert never took place, Mr. Libby told you that he understood as of July 11th that Robert Novak knew Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA.
W: So there's no reason for Mr. Libby to make up a conversation with Tim Russert, since he already knew of a reporter — (Objection. Sustained. Change of subject.)
It's 12:21.
Wells walks through Libby's testimony that Colin Powell said during a Situation Room meeting, "Everyone knows Wilson's wife works for the CIA," and other information about Niger and uranium, on September 30, 2003, just two weeks before his Oct. 14th interview. More repetition of Libby's testimony on a few subjects. All Bond says is, "That's what he said."
I have no idea where this is going. Someone in the court says something unintelligible, and Wells says it's a good time for lunch. I agree.
It's 12:26. See ya in a new thread.
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

Swopa!
Fitz!
John Podhoretz of The New York Post has been reading FDL’s liveblogging:
Swopa
Please can you fill in the 1×2×6 discussion. In particular, who were all the reporters Fitzgerald listed? And was Fitzgerald suggesting that Rove and Fleischer were two? Did the defense have anything to say about why it was false, who 1 was, and so on? And what was the outcome of that discussion?
Swopa, you’re already doing a marvelous job. Thank you so much!
I’d also like to state that I’m looking forward to the additional remarks on today by Pach and Jane like some people look forward to Christmas morning…
-S
Walton rules that GJ tapes will be released: “Recordings of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby’s trial ruled Monday.”
I’m still predicting a far longer trial than most thought would occur.
OH BABY!!!
looks like there will be another agent subpeana’d me thinks
Swopa
Jane
Christy
Emptywheel
Fitz
and
everyone who bought Marcy’s book!
There was some discussion of the charges in the last thread. Here are three posts explaining the charges and the known evidence. IMHO, they have held up pretty well during the trial:
Charge 1, Obstruction
Charge 2 and 4, Lying about Russert and general Plame knowledge
Charges 3 and 5, Lying about Cooper and other journalist leaks
so what do they base their “wells rose to the task” stuff on?
but this is what I’m saying, when you are rooting for a boxer, all his punches seem to land in your eye, all his oponents are blocked
My prediction for the surprise witness: Cheney’s Lower Father
I read somewhere that Woodward was going to testify and it sounded like he was going to testify for the prosecution, but I am not sure about that. Would he have something for the prosecution?
The prior thread is currently blocked from accessing. Hope someone can fix it! Many thanks.
[Mod Note; refresh your screen and it should be back]
Am I wrong, or is Mr. Wells having a rough start??
Great job Swopa!
bellesouth @ 13
Woodward would say that he can’t be sure he didn’t tell Libby about Plame in June, which would allow Libby to argue that he may have just screwed up which journalist he learned of Plame from “as if it were new.”
Swopa: epu from last thread:
Big cheer for Swopa – enjoy the liveblogging experience! If you think you might break into shorthand for the people who are speaking, do you think you could post your key in the top of your blogpost? (like P = prosecution, L/GJ = Libby at the Grand Jury testimony, or something like that)?
_____________________________
MEC @ 6: good call. This is what happened with the Clinton GJ tapes, and I don’t see how Libby’s lawyers could argue that he would be unaware that when he gives GJ testimony, video may be released. I think it may give the jury a fair assessment of his demeanor while giving testimony, and if it makes the client look like he’s lying, that’s his fault.
Biodun at #3,
Apparently John Podhoretz feels the fdl scene is somehow disordered:
Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.
He’s as quick with psychiatric analyses as Sen. Frist is with medical ones. He’s loosely comparing emptywheel with Jill Carroll, about whose captive experience, Podhoretz had this to say:
It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days.”
Jeff @ 4
My take is that Fitz doesn’t HAVE TO list the reporters. Libby may not have known who all the second leaker spoke to. The reporter, or his source, could have discovered that the second leaker spoke to three, four, or even five reporters.
It only matters for Libby’s “state of mind” that he suspected that he was ONE…and had been identified, and probably “given up” by the other leaker (he suspected Karl Rove).
Thus Libby’s actions in going to Cheney after Scotty McLellan “exonerated” Rove makes very good sense! Libby thought Rove was talking to reporters and pointing to Libby…while at the same time clearing himself!
“Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.”
Sounds like a good description of our national political psyche…
One safe prediction; this will be a much bigger national audience than they have anticipated. The eyes of the nation are upon this event, watching much more closely than The Cabal might wish.
This is another atttempt by Wells to claim the lies Libby told weren’t material. Technically, the July 12 Judy conversation is included ONLY in the perjury (that is, GJ testimony, not FBI charge) and in the obstruction charge. But he’s trying to argue that, since Libby wasn’t asked in Fall 2003, then he can’t be charged on it. Unfortunately for him, the indictment language is quite specific that the FBI COoper lie pertains only to Cooper, while the GJ Cooper lie pertains to Cooper and other journalists.
IMO (NAL), I think this is weaker than the other attack they’re making on materiality. That one says the investigation originally focused exclusively on NOvak and therefore these lies are immaterial.
But then, particularly with the October 12 article being admitted, both are pretty weak.
wells is doing fine here
presque vu @
12
The colostomy bag?
got to go, see all later
Im loving having Emptywheel here making wise comments,thanks
Ed*ard @18 me thinks he was reffering to going back and forth from wingnutty sites to more reality based sites…
That Podhoretz article annoys me greatly.
“left-wingers who’d be happy to see Libby face a firing squad”
‘Scuse, please, but that is NOT what we are rooting for. We are rooting for the truth to come out. If Libby, God Forbid, actually has to do jail time because he did actually commit a crime, then isn’t that called justice? I thought that is what everyone in this country should be rooting for.
“I think you have the date wrong.”
“I apologize…”
FBI agent corrects the lawyer. Lawyer apologizes.
Nice set of dynamics for the jury, Mr. Wells.
Christy or emptywheel,
This last attempt where Wells attempts to say July 8th was the Libby lunch with Fleisher and Agent Bond corrects him to the 7th of July.
This is about the 4th attempt in the trial that Wells has mispoken a date to a witness and then says “I’m sorry, you are right…”
Is this standard lawyer tactics to try to impeach the credibility of the witness if they agree to his statement of date?
EPU’d…
radiofreewill posted this very useful box score at the lake couple of days ago. Thanks, rfw, it helped me a lot.
splunge @ 26
that was the platform he used to begin the metaphor. let’s see how jpod develops it under his various guises…
Apple Canyon 2 at 29 — It can be. Sometimes it’s an effort to confuse the witness or to get them to agree to something that the jury knows is inaccurate. But, as in the case of Agent Bond, it can backfire when you have a well prepared and accurate witness — because it then can make defense counsel look unprepared instead. Having met Agent Bond while I was in DC, it’s not a tactic that I would employ with her — she is very prepared and extremely detail-oriented, according to what some of the media folks tell me from their dealings with her in other matters. Not the sort of witness that you want to try and trip up like this, frankly. He’s better off with his “not in your notes” tactics (even though, frankly, the notes he’s arguing about are not HER notes…also much less effective as a tactic for that reason).
Clarice Feldman “Live” blogging of Live blogging:
IMHO, Clarice is insane.
(((((((((((((EW)))))))))))))))
Whew — finally got a chance during lunch to catch up on the proceedings so far today. Guess I haven’t missed too much yet.
Thanks, Swopa, for taking over for Marcy this week. Great job so far.
atrios has updated their blogroll, eliminating majikthise and warandpiece, two of my favorite sites……?
Wells is trying to create doubt that Libby talked about Plame with Cheney, and establish that the only thing Cheney “wanted out in the press” were the talking points he wrote out for Libby.
Wells seems to be defending Cheney better than he is Libby.
Ed*ard Teller @ 18:
zeppo @ 27:
Notice that John Podhoretz’s article in The New York Post was relayed through the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust’s website. Obviously The New York Post is now working for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.
ET you said something last night about sending me an e-mail?
Fitzmas @
33
LOL. I asked a detail, mostly of David Corn. And Clarice piped in and said, “Oh, I’m sure yadda yadda yadda.” Even more so than normal, she had NO FUCKING CLUE what she was talking about. SHe was just making stuff up. And she suggested I check the JOM threads for the details. Turns out she asked them my question–and learned she had no fucking clue. So she’s probably miffed that I exposed her rank ignorance and willingness to make stuff up about things about which she had no fucking clue.
If that makes me an old time prohibitionist, great!!! I’ll take out my hatchets and rip through the lies and obfuscations.
freom the Department of You Can’t Make This Kind of Sh*t Up – real Reuters headline from yesterday evening:
IRAQ: Children living without limbs lack support
http://www.alertnet.org/thenew…..a4e0fe.htm
Ed*ard Teller @ 35
He says it’s a work in progress, but that he will put sites up when he sees that a site he goes to is not on the rolls. cautions that the blogroll is for his use to go to sites he regularly reads.
RevDeb @ 38
I did – working on it, re starting UU place where I live.. I’ll finish it when I get back from Torquemama, my physical therapist.
Ed*ard Teller @ 31
Hi jpod! Punditing is hard work! And it just got a lot harder. Take 2 dramamine.
Today:
Last Friday:
Bond: I’ve been up here on the stand many a time, bud. You ain’t getting me into that “Well, do you remember what you were doing Valentine’s day 2003″ stuff, in any way shape or form.
Me thinks ET might live near me…
Wells deliberately gets the dates wrong to a) get a rise out of the witness and b)set a trap door for the witness to fall through.
Shouldn’t the judge at this point caution Wells about his tactics?
Slothrop at 46 — If this were a lay witness with little to no trial experience, then the judge likely would do so. But Agent Bond is handling things just fine by calling him on it. I think the Judge will let Wells stew in his own juices on this tactic.
Libby grand jury audio to be heard during trial
Lawyers argued recordings too sensitive to be released until trial ends
One of Libby’s lawyers, William Jeffress, said that playing sound bites of the defendant’s grand jury appearances in a public setting “seriously threatens Mr. Libby’s right to a fair trial.”
“Too sensitive”? Gee. Do I know what too sensitive means?
“the FBI COoper lie”, “the GJ Cooper lie”
Things have become so currupt in DC under this administration, even their lies have names?
These are from the Cooper family of lies…, then there’s the Wilson family and the Novak family, etc. ad infinitum.
The tangled web comes untangled, as we watch…
One thing is obviuous, the legal eagles here take for granted a lot of what seems like chaos to the legal laymen among us.
The experts just expect this legal wrangling as part of the sorting-out process, with a lot of breaks for behind-closed-doors negotiations that the everyday citizen might find, at best, distracting.
This is a very good lesson in participatory journalism, and in 21st Century civics in general.
Thanks for a chance to join in.
I’ll try to use your spellchecker henceforth, so all the “poundits” know for certain if it was intentional, or just another typo.
Later…
JEP
Stephen Dulaney @
36
Surely this was always the intent. The Scooter is already under the bus and it only remains to be seen how many wheels will hit him (other than Marcy); to keep the Evil Lord from having to enter the fray — that must be Wells’ prime directive, is it not?
presque vu @ 12
Or how about McC or Powell?
Just can’t wait to see who it is!!!
emptywheel @ 39
Please, make sure you go after the whine, not the wine.
Stephen Dulaney @
36
The odd thing about it is that, barring Cheney being put on the stand, the point is moot wrt Fitz’ case in chief. Libby is accused of lying about what he said to reporters, not vacillating on what he said about his conversation with Cheney (they couldn’t even say he lied, here, bc he fixed his testimony before charges). Therefore, he’s only raising it to fix the public record (lots of press covering this bit of testimony over the weekend), or because he recognizes how powerful the motivation is to hide this kind of conversation.
In either case, his attack on this particular point seems to be arguing from weakness.
Marcy, are you planning on a book-signing here in A2, maybe at Shaman Drum or upstairs at Border’s?
“Wells seems to be defending Cheney better than he is Libby.”
Look for that “between the lines” trend to continue, well past the Libby trial…
Wells keeps hammering on, but he didn’t specifically say he didn’t know anything in that time period. Bond fumbles, trying to find a polite way to tell Wells that he’s inventing a discrepancy that doesn’t exist. Wells turns to a prosecutor and says, “Mr. Zeidenberg, you practiced her testimony, didn’t you?” Gasps from the media room at that (implying that Bond should know what she’s going to say).
Well, this is an interesting strategy. Is this normal? Sort of an intentional insult of the witness, it seems to me. Boy, impugning an FBI agent?
Tannen @ 51
The mystery witness was (at least last week) reported to be a DOJ person who will explain the scope of the investigation and the seriousness of the obstruction charge.
Boring, I’m told.
Has anyone speculated on WHY Fitz asked for the tapes to be released?
emptywheel @ 53
My husband, a former defense attorney, argues that if Wells is worth his salt, he doesn’t give 2 hoots about Cheney. His only objective is to protect Libby and not play politics. And that Wells should have made the mantra to Libby, “Think only of yourself, don’t try to protect others.”
But, is Wells worth his salt?
HotFlash @ 60
And there lies the real question. This is a multi-dimension chess game. Anyone know if Fitz is a chess player?
So Wells’ “I apologize” is insincere. Do the members of the jury notice this? If so, how might it drive their opinion of him?
The Centerfielder @ 54
This Thursday, February 8, at 7:00 at Kerrytown Concert House. Technically, it’s through Common Language bookstore; the owners Keith and Martin are friends from the Dean campaign.
HotFlash @ 60
Jeralyn says he is a very well-respected defense attorney. I trust Jeralyn. To be honest with you, I hope my husband is right that Wells will urge Libby not to protect Cheney b/c I want to see “Shooter” on the stand.
HotFlash @
60
He is to Cheney.
Is Pach by any god-like chance in the small courtroom today? I’d love to know how the jury’s reacting to Wells’ handling of Agent Bond. Seems like his approach could very easily backfire and it certainly isn’t going over well in the media room.
RevDeb, Wells is supposed to be very good. I agree that it’s unlikely that Wells is knowingly defending Cheney at Libby’s expense. In the end, however, a defense attorney can only work with what he’s got, and it may be that Libby is giving him info that helps Cheney more than it helps Libby himself.
Is Cheney the Saltman?
Happy Days @
58
Fitz didn’t ask for them to be released. He fought, earlier, to have all of Libby’s GJ testimony introduced, which Libby’s team ALSO tried to prevent. But he was happy just to have the GJ testimony played at trial.
Media outlets were the ones fighting for Libby’s GJ tapes. The AP’s lawyer was there on Thursday arguing for public disclosure on this.
Slothrop @
62
I’m curious if it is as obvious in the courtroom as it is in writing. Any observations?
Jeff @
4
I have to talk with David Corn about it first. It was a VERY interesting moment. Fitz was speechless for several seconds before he talked about it.
emptywheel @ 63
Marcy – how long will you be there? I probably can’t be there until 8:45ish, and I’d love to meet you & get your book signed.
note to HotFlash – I sent you an email last night from an address that has the word “Muse” in it – did you get it?
Happy Days @ 58
I thought he didn’t have a dog in that fight.
The mystery witness was (at least last week) reported to be a DOJ person who will explain the scope of the investigation and the seriousness of the obstruction charge.
Boring, I’m told.
Then why would he or she be a “Mystery” witness?
Thanks for all your input!
Why is the time stamp only two hours ahead of me? (I’m on West Coast.)
new thread
“Mr. Zeidenberg, You practiced her testimony didn’t you?”
Where I practice that would have resulted in an immediate recess and a trip to chambers for an old fashion ass chewing and possibly worse.
litigatormom @
67
If Libby determines that his best interest is to protect Cheney and take the rap, what can Wells do about it?
I’m also curious how the jury appears to be reacting. Think about this for a moment:
- most of the jurors are female
- Wells has repeatedly referred to Valerie Plame as “the wife” (strategic to not mention her name, but also very dismissive to this professional woman to be referred to in this terminology)
- Wells is being a bit rude with this female FBI agent, continually “mixing up” dates for her to correct, trying to make “her notes” (which are not her notes) seem problematic, and then perhaps being a little sarcastic with apologies.
I can’t see the body language and the demeanor of Wells. If he seems to show a pattern of dismissive behavior towards women, I can’t imagine women on the jury will have positive opinions of him. That doesn’t bode well for him, unless he delivers a slam-dunk in his phase of the trial. (And no, I don’t mean a Tenet-like slam-dunk).
Seconded.
Swopa’s doing the “play by play,” emptywheel and Christy are going the commentary.
On Wells’ going over instances where Bond said, “I’m not denying it, I just don’t recall”:
Presumably, Wells is trying to draw a parallel between Bond and Libby. One, Wells seems to be “forgetting” that the statement “I don’t recall” can be perjurious (if the witness in fact recalls at the time he disclaims a recollection). Given Libby’s efforts to get Scottie to exonerate him just days before his first FBI interview, it’s hard to believe he really didn’t recall a whole month of acting as Cheney’s Special Agent in Charge of Discrediting Joe Wilson.
Second, repeated statements of “I don’t recall/have no recollection of talking about [X]” are quite from “I’m not denying it, but I have no independent recollection of talking about [X].” The former is tantamount to denial, the latter is “it could have happened, but I don’t remember it.”
HotFlash @
60
If he can lay the groundwork now that helps provide a legal defense for several administration members in the future, then the answer might be yes.
The charges against Libby here pale in comparison to potential charges in International Court as being part of a conspiracy to several, serious war crimes in potential trials.
I don’t think multi-millions donated for the legal defense were strictly for Scooter’s benefit.
Mods — perhaps your orientation might include a pointer to gabbly.com to lighten the server load? It’s not perfect but it’s real time chat around FDL. Possible disadvantage: You might lose some content-ful postings…
Someone around here (forget their handle) apparently knows it pretty well…
Never mind. Got it updated.
And as for Scooter protecting himself, hasn’t this been, from the start, one of those “fall-on-the-sword” exercises in willing self-destruction? Isn’t Libby playing the part of the last tin soldier, standing to the end in defense of his noble cause?
Isn’t that what the original lies were all about? Protecting Cheney? Look at the obvious, “qui bono.”
So wouldn’t it just make sense that, when all is said and done, there is nothing more important in this whole process than protecting Cheney. Scooter’s just a soldier. And all of this is just a baby-step.
But it may be the first step towards a Cheney impeachment, (that’s no baby-step) which would be a very cost-effective venue for uncovering most of the misdeeds of the Cheney/Bush administration. That would cut to the real culprits, instead of just tossing tin soldiers to the wolves.
Wells is now picking apart Bond’s notes from her own interview with Libby, and says they don’t mention the July 12 conversation with Miller either. Bond agrees. She’s not happy with this.
Bond not happy with…
a) Line of questioning
or
b) her notes omitted Miller conversation
rumi @ 82
Agreed, the millions weren’t just for good old Scooter. Although, since this is not a political campaign, the exact source of the $ is can remain unknown and unknowable, so far as I can tell.
Question, if Libby accepts a pardon (= admits wrong-doing) and then is shown to have conspired with, unh, certain others, to do whatever he was pardoned for, doesn’t that suggest that the others are guilty of wrong-doing too? If so, it puts more pressure on an acquittal for Scooter.
LandOfTheFree @72
I think the actual event goes 2 hours. We’ll retire for drinks afterwards, which may or may not be at the Aut Bar.
Tannen @74
Mystery witness bc they decided to call this person after hearing Wells’ opening, I think. ANd because there is/was some dispute about the scope of testimony.
LandOfTheFree @79
Keep in mind, though, that Wells’ attacks on Bond probably don’t come off as gendered. She is no nonsense and comes off as very tough. So I suspect it comes off as him attacking a witness, and that’s all. His attacks appear to be no different than what he did to Grenier, for example.
Happy Days @ 58
Fitz didn’t ask for the tapes to be released. The press asked for release (so we can hear clip after clip ad nauseum on the evening news). The defense doesn’t want that. Fitz expressed no opinion.
Revdeb – It’s not a chess game, or if it is then the defense starts out short many of the important pieces let alone the pawns.
I agree with Litigatormom – the defense is doing what it can with what it has (which isn’t a lot).
And I also don’t believe that Wells is “protecting” others and not giving the best defense possible, regardless of the amount of money raised. I’ve participated in trials where the defense spent mulitple millions of dollars b/c they could and that is what it cost.
If I were to believe anything, it would be that his client has constrained him from pursuing certain tactics/avenues. But I don’t even believe that is happening.
HotFlash @ 88
speculation and opinion only…
I’m in the camp that sees Scooter as taking one for the team here. I might see it differently as this trial being a way to introduce statements, concepts, dates, documents and other seemingly obscure references that can be used in future trials.
Another reason is to establish the unique executive authority powers that have been claimed by Bush/Cheney and set the record for what is discussable and what is not discussable/disclosable to the public. Part of that is to benefit the intel agencies/corporations that are being charged in at least 2 countries. Both of those investigations as well a few others have something in common. Those countries are seeking information that is deemed too sensitive to disclose (by BushCo) but is in the public domain as news reports.
The fine line between protecting legitimate state secrets and protecting illegitimate state criminals has been blurred beyond reason and comprehension.
Great job Swopa. Thanks, Marci, for the lunchtime reading @ 10.
Swopa @
71
Getting back to this — there WAS no outcome. The defense simply said it was utterly false (implying, why would Libby care about a false article). Fitzgerald said, we don’t agree. When he started getting pressed on what was true, he just froze for several seconds, then very nervously improvised his way through a “Hubris”-like 2×3 scenario. Life went on.
Thanks. But I thought you said he mentioned Rove, Fleicher and Libby, which makes three not 2; and you mentioned more than three reporters (Miller, Cooper, Novak, Pincus) – or were those your own additions?
I also wonder whether Fitzgerald is saying the report was not false in the sense that it turned out indeed to match what went on, roughly speaking, which is different from saying the report wasn’t false in the sense that 1 knew what s/he was talking about, and the two SAOs that 1 was talking about did indeed speak with multiple reporters, and 1 was basing his/her statement to the Post on just that knowledge.
In other words, 1’s story could be be true, and yet 1 told a falsehood. We don’t know.
MEC @
6
That’s it. Libby’s toasty-toast in this courtroom — and on appeal as well. Yeah, he’ll still appeal, but then if he does, the new trial will be ominously close to the 2008 elections — meaning that if Bush does pardon Libby or anyone else, the Republicans can forget about retaking the Senate, much less keeping the White House.
emptywheel @89: thanks – I’ll see if I can alter my work schedule to get down there earlier.
Thanks so much for the insight. It’s sometimes difficult to know how phrases may be delivered and the demeanor of the characters in the courtroom. Thank you for clarifying that Wells is not acting a bit dismissive of the women in particular – he’s just dismissive of everyone who isn’t helping his client ;)
Bipolar does not give one vertigo. Jerk.
Jane S. @ 64
My understanding is that if Libby actually encouraged Wells to conceal another individuals felonious acts…or said “I’m going to lie on the stand” that he would be violating the law himself (Attorney-Client Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Rule). Wells can’t suborn perjury, act to conceal evidence, or undertake a strategy that would expose his client to harm to protect another suspect.
jdm @ 86
Bond not happy with…
a) Line of questioning
or
b) her notes omitted Miller conversation
Wait a second! Bond could not have known about the details of Libby’s meeting with Judith Miller at THAT point since a) Miller had not testified and b) Miller only “found” her notes in 2004.
If Libby didn’t bother to volunteer the information about this meeting then Bond would not have known that Libby, in fact, and contrary to his testimony, did appear to have discussed “Wilson’s wife” and her job in the CIA with Miller.
How can Bond know about a meeting that Libby didn’t reveal?