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

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?

HotFlash @ 60

But, is Wells worth his salt?

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.”

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.

Jeff @ 4
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 @ 71
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.
————
Swopa @ 94
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.

Jeff @
4

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.