Tweet
The grand jury testimony of Lewis Libby begins with him stating his name, followed by this exchange:
Fitzgerald: And do you have a nickname?"
Libby: Yes, Scooter.
F: Can you give us a description of how you got the name Scooter?
L: Are we classified here? (explains, but very vaguely, saying it's a relatively common nickname in the South)
And away we go… presumably, there will be fewer interruptions in the replayed testimony. (Famous last words?)
NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. (2) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. My own previous writings on Plamemania can be found here. (4) My own notes will be in parentheses and italics.
F: Why don't you tell the grand jury what your titles and job descriptions are?
L: I have three job titles — Asst to President, Chief of Staff to VP, and National Security Adviser to VP. As NSA to VP, I offer advice to the VP, represent the VP in deputies' meetings on these issues and report back, communicate with WH staff on these issues and report back. I also occasionally communicate with the press on behalf of the VP.
F: What intelligence clearances do you have?
L: Top Secret and Secret Compartmented Intelligence (describes various "compartments," many of which he has access to)
F: What access to classified documents do you have?
L: I have a lot of access to classified documents. My day usually starts at 7am with an intelligence briefing, usually with the vice president… I also receive 30-40 pages of analyses.
F: Do you sometimes read the raw intelligence behind the summaries?
L: Yes.
F: Does the VP?
L: Umm… yes.
This is followed by a listing of the OVP communications staff, plus "on the record," "off the record, etc."
It's 3:30.
F: Introduces subject of Novak article… did you talk to Novak while the article was being prepared?
L: I think I only talked to him once in that time frame, about a week and a half after the article appeared.
F: (asks a follow-up question that I missed — sorry!)[update from comments: Did you have any contacts with Novak prior to July 2003?]
L: (something about whether he talked to Novak before article that I didn't catch — probably very worth parsing)[update from comments: Only other contact was about a year before the time in question.]
F: Introduces subject of Iraq, uranium, and Niger. Were you aware of doubts about this?
L: Yes, but I think it had to do with whether Iraq could actually procure the uranium, rather than whether they tried to get it.
F: Introduces Kristof NYT article in May 2003. Would you consider this an article critical of the administration?
L: Yes, it includes critical remarks.
F: Do you recall the administration's reactions?
L: My personal reaction was about a person involved saying the VP's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal. That certainly caught my eye.
F: (Cites some other criticisms)
L: (Agrees that they are criticisms)
F: Who did you discuss this article with?
L: With my deputy, and probably with the VP, although I don't specifically recall it. The day or two after it came out, I don't think I talked to anyone besides my deputy.
F: What about after that?
L: The content kept coming up — in early June, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was writing an article on the subject, and around then I talked to the VP, and our CIA briefer about whether we sent an ambassador.
F: Do you remember if sometime between early May and early June, you talked to Marc Grossman of the State Dept about the Kristof article?
L: No (implying he sees Grossman regularly, doesn't remember) I don't recall any conversation about this.
F: Is that something you would recall if you had discussed it?
L: (pause) I don't recall a conversation.
It's 3:45.
F: Asks about conversation with VP about Pincus article.
L: Tells about VP talking about ambassador, adding offhand that his wife works for CiA — rough quote: "There were no names at this point, so I didn't know who either the ambassador or his wife was." VP gave three talking points for Pincus — (1) we did not request a mission to Niger, (2) we didn't see any report until after the State of the Union, and (3) he had seen the NIE, which he considered more authoritative.
Cheney also mentioned that other departments (such as State) were asking about Niger, but that shouldn't be part of the talking points — only CIA should say that.
From context, Libby assumed that ambassador's wife worked in a "functional office" of the CIA.
F: Asks about Cheney offhand remark about wife
L: Just sort of, "Isn't this interesting"
F: Did he say anything about the wife having a role in sending Wilson on the trip?
L: I don't recall that.
Time for a jury break. It's 3:57.
(Ten minutes later…)
Walton: How long is the grand jury testimony?
Fitz: Eight hours total, then some exhibits, then Russert. (So long, mystery witness?) We're on target to finish Wednesday morning.
(GJ testimony replay begins again)
F: Let me go back to the conversation with your briefer, Craig Schmall. Was that before or after your conversation with the VP?
L: I don't think I have a date in my notes. I don't recall.
F: Was it in a daily briefing?
L: It might have been in a briefing, or in a phone call on the side.
F: Was the VP there?
L: Probably not — if it was in person, I wouldn't waste his time with my questions.
(F. whips out notes about Schmall briefing, shows them to Libby.)
F: Is that your handwriting?
L: Yes, sir.
F: Is it safe to say you have your own shorthand?
L: Yes, my apologies:
F: You are SL?
L: Yes.
F: The Vice President is this Y with a line over it?
L: Yes.
F: These type of notes, what would you do with them?
L: This type of note, save it in a file… some notes I take are action items, something I need to talk to the VP about that day. If there is something I want to save, I will copy it to a separate piece of paper and save that.
F: Would you cross off action items when they are done?
L: Usually, or if it wasn't done and not worth further attention.
F: This is a note that you kept from June 9th. Anything that made you want to keep this for your file?
L: Press requests about whether we had requested the mission.
F: Note says "No OVP request for mission" … this Q is Iraq, and AFT is Africa?
L: Yes
F: And "Was DR request in 3-03"?
L: According to Craig, Donald Rumsfeld had made a request in March '03.
F: Brings out other memo dated June 9, 2003. Walks through similarities to other note.
L: Yes, this is one I copied over.
F: With same indents and punctuation?
L: Yes, the indents mean something to me.
F: Do you have a practice of copying like this?
L: Yes, because then I would discard the first sheet
F: The first check on the item on theis page, does this show that the President was interested in the Kristof article and the State of the Union?
L: Yes.
F: Did you ever discuss the President's interest with the VP?
L: No.
F: Did you ever discuss it with the President?
L: No
F: Who would have told you about it?
L: Could have been senior staff meeting.
F: Brings up INR memo dated June 10, 2003. How did you hear of it?
L: At the end of September, there was a meeting in the Situation Room under the White House, and the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that a memo written by the State Dept. much, much earlier that discussed origins of Wilson trip.
F: When was the meeting?
L: A couple of days after the investigation became public (on Sept. 28, 2003), so Sept. 30th.
F: Did you ever see it?
L: Was handed to him during GJ testimony — handed it back on lawyer's advice since he hadn't read it.
F: Again asks whether Libby ever talked to Grossman of State Dept. about Wilson
L: Don't recall.
F: Anyone else you did speak to?
L: John McLaughlin of CIA — FBI mentioned Bob Grenier. I remember talking to Grenier about something, it could have been this.
F: Asks again about Grossman
L: Don't recall.
Short break to pass an exhibit out to the jury. (Whew!) It's 4:31.
F: Gives L. notes of conversation with Cheney. Explain the date:
L: June 12, but this symbol means I'm not sure.
F: What's this to the right?
L: It's a note later explaining that this is a telephone conversation with the VP about Iraq uranium and the Kristof article… it's indicating that this is something someone told the VP… and then this says the wife works for the Counterproliferation Division.
At some point he switches from telling me what someone else told him to talking points for the press — e.g., that we didn't know about forgeries until the IAEA said so. (these are the three/four points mentioned earlier — but "forgeries" somehow replaces the NIE as point three??)
F: Under the 12, were you correcting something?
L: Might ahve been an 18, then corrected it to 12… realized it wasn't the 18th. I couldn't tell without a microscope. (laughs)
F: Do you know how much later you added the material about VP, Kristof, Iraq, etc.? June, July, October?
L: Might have been June, but I don't know.
F: Before or after investigation began?
L: No.
F: Did you make notes on any documents after investigation began?
L: Nlo.
F: Why did you make the correction?
L: Because conversation was before Pincus article, which appeared 6-12 (talking points were for Pincus)
F: (Confirms that this was VP telling SL)
L: (Explains how his notations confirm this)
F: What was Cheney's tone in telling you about wife
L: Curiosity
F: And your reaction?
L: Curiosity. Might mean something, maybe not.
F: Do you remember talking to Grenier about Wilson's wife
L: No, not about that.
F Why might you have talked to him?
L: Wanted information from his boss McLaughlin, who was unavailable but VP wanted to know ASAP
F: Did you talk to Pincus?
L: Yes, and gave talking points
F: Whips out Pincus article
L: (reads) We could be the source for some of this, I don't know.
(They pick through lines in article)
F: "Cheney and his office did not know about the mission…"
L: Yes, I could be the source for that.
(Grand jurors take lunch break… media room pines for it to be true.)
F: When you spoke with Cheney, was there a problem with telling
L: Didn't think it was a point worth mentioning
F: VP thought it was intereresting enough to tell you, and you were interested enough to write it down… did you think it might elucidate Pincus?
L: wasn't a talking point Cheney gave me, and those seemed sufficient
F: Did you feel prohibited from mentioning it to Pincus?
L: No.
F: Can you rule out the possibility that you told Pincus about Wilson's wife?
L: I don't think I did. I have no recollection of doing it. I'm reasonably certain I did not. (Fitz asks several different ways, same response each time)
F: Conversaition with VP was before Pincus, right?
L: Yes.
F: And was first time you heard it?
L: Yes, although my recollection is not perfect.
It's 4:56.
F. trots out note from June 3rd saying to talk to Pincus… did you talk to Pincus about anything besides the June 12 article?
L: There were some Pincus articles in May, but I don't know what this note refers to. Had heard from Cathie Martin… Pincus article was in works for a little while (i.e., I think he means a June 3rd note could refer to the eventual June 12 article).
Judge Walton stops the tape — it's 5:00. School's out! See ya later.
178 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
fitz!
SCORE!!!!
Swopa, thanks for taking over transcription duty. You guys rock.
Oh yeah… FITZ!!!
There, I feel better now.
This seems out of sequence to me. Why isn’t Russert up first?
F : Are you a treasonous scumbag?
L : umm..yes.
You are doing great Swopa! Rock on.
many, many thanks to swopa!
Nice work Swopa. Thanks.
Frank Probst @ 4
I don’t know but Russert is absolute last. My guess is it packs a lot of punch to have the final witness blow Libby’s cover story just straight out of the water. And perhaps you get Russert right after you have the voice of Libby saying “Russert told me…”
Its SHOWTIME!
Juror question to Libby: Do you have any idea how guilty you look?
I hope this audio gets posted to the OSC website so I can listen to it later.
This testimony will be all of seven hours. Is that correct?
Jane S. @ 9
Makes sense.
portia.vz — I left you a response in the prior thread on your memory defense question.
wonder how scooter is reacting to the tape….
Frank Probst @ 4
Maybe Libby explicitly says during the Grand Jury testimony that Russert informed him of Plame. By showing this first, Fitz give Russert the opportunity to dispute Libby’s claim after.
Juror question to Libby: do you recall the lyrics to “Slow Ride”?
kingfish @ 16
Squirming in his seat would be my guess.
Maybe rubbing his thumb furiously?
Wow – Didn’t realize you would be live blogging even the GJ testimony – Thank you!!!
This is so awesome :)
Biodun @ 13
I would imagine it’s going to be pretty damning. It takes very little time to tell a straight story. On the other hand, it can take several hours to try to weasel your way out of an indictment.
This would be the time to be watching the jury’s reaction to everything on the tape. Can’t wait for Jane and Pach’s reports.
Dead Horse @ 17
Pumpkinhead will be a mushroom cloud.
What is the current buzz on whether Cheney will be called as a witness? Or will Libby sacrifice himself so that Cheney does not have to testify under oath, knowing the pardon will come later?
Presumably, it also takes time to show all the inconsistencies in the testimony, the changing stories, etc.
I can’t wait for the transcripts to come out.
litigatormom @ 25
Not just transcripts – the GJ audio tapes themselved will be made public as well.
corry342 @ 18
just the facts, please…
Keith O’s going to be great tonight, I have a feeling.
Did I read that correctly? When asked what his _name_ was he responded by asking if the session was classified? He thinks his name is a classified secret and only people with security clearances can hear it?
Cranky
bushworstpresidentever @ 24
Love your “handle.” General buzz around FDL is that the likelihood of VP testimony is way down… Also seems unlikely that Scooter will get pardoned except on Jan. 20 2009, because of firestorm that would result. JMHO on this summary of course…
Can someone pah-lease tell me I’m full of crap about the Cooper r-vs-n OCR theory, so I can stop worrying about it? Like, exactly where did the copy of his notes introduced in the courtroom come from?
The OCR theory is that Cooper handed over a printed copy of the notes, and somebody scanned them into a computer to turn them back into a text file, and the scanning software mixed up “r” with “n” as such software often does. So the errors he was questioned about are scanning errors and not typographical errors.
It looks like the r-vs-n stuff is being mentioned over and over, as if it’s going to be considered important. If I were on the jury I’d be writing this question (where did the notes come from) on a 3×5 card.
Dead Horse @ 17
BINGO!!
bushworstpresidentever @ 24
I don’t know if I’m qualified to say but EW has a good post where she makes a bold prediction Cheney will not testify. Her reasoning is that he might perjure himself and Scooter is protecting Shooter. Wells questioning of Agent Bond earlier today led some to believe he was trying to clear Cheney of the charge that he might have talked to Libby about leaking Plame’s name to the press. So some people in the know think Defense won’t call Cheney.
Cranky Observer @ 29
I think he was just warming up the grand jurists with a little humor before getting down to the more serious business of obstructing justice and perjuring himself.
Swopa’s doing great but I’m sure his fingers are getting pretty weary.
You guys have been terrific.
I especially enjoy the sidebar commentary and Walton’s comments.
Swopa, what is his tone like? Matter of fact, arrogant, bored, sincere?
Can you let us know if he gets into a heated exchange in front of the grand jury?
Thanks for the continual updates, they are so helpful.
*xyz @ 26
You mean I can download them onto my iPod and workout to the driving rhythms of Scooter Libby lying?
Q. How tall are you?
Q. Have you ever have sexual relations with a woman or man during your marriage other than your wife?
litigatormom @ 37
Anything you desire.
New visitors to FDL liveblog of Libby Trial, please read
The liveblogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Marcy is updating only every 15 minutes or so, and timestamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.
Peterr wrote:
A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. .
FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
That’s also how Marcy makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. (If she did it in the comments, her jewels would be scattered among our great questions and snark.) But have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 15 minutes to update, you can wait 15 minutes to reload.
And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, sheckles, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket up there on the right side of the page. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
************************
also…. please help defray costs for this liveblogging effort by donating (buttons at top right of page). While FDL people are doing this work gratis, FDL had to rent an apartment for them to stay at, plus there are meals, travel, and other expenses to be covered.
Donations with 7 cents added (i.e. $50.07) are used specifically to support this live blog effort. Other donations will be used to support the site in general (like paying for bandwidth, etc….)
Thanx
F: Introduces subject of Iraq, uranium, and Niger. Were you aware of doubts about this?
L: Yes, but I think it had to do with whether Iraq could actually procure the uranium, rather than whether they tried to get it.
Slime!!!
It occurs to me that one of the great things about the jury listening to Scooter’s GJ tapes in their entirety is the following:
In these tapes, Scooter seems to be lying/obfuscating about a whole lot of stuff, not just the stuff that he got charged with.
This includes, for example, his testimony about his conversation with Grossman.
So, although the legal bar for charging perjury may not have been met for every shady thing that Scooter said in his testimony, the fact remains that Scooter said a lot of shady things in his GJ testimony.
And the jury is going to hear it all on audio. This will definitely color the jury’s understanding of Scooter’s character…
none @
31
I think they are Cooper’s real notes–he made no objection to them. If I were Fitz, I’d have spent the time showing all the other times he got r and n correct, and showign all the other typing errors.
AFAIK, the notes were all related to issues in this trial, so they appear to have repurposed notes turned over for other reasons of discovery.
TalkLeft @
36
Pretty even and affable so far.
*xyz @ 42
From the horse’s mouth, as it were.
No offense to horses intended.
“Can someone pah-lease tell me I’m full of crap about the Cooper r-vs-n OCR theory, so I can stop worrying about it? Like, exactly where did the copy of his notes introduced in the courtroom come from?”
Interesting, but what benefit would the defense have pointing out these OCR errors?
Are you suggesting that THEY will suggest the prosecutor’s office made changes after they received Cooper’s papers? Or maybe they (defense lawyers) are trying to put that “doubt” into the minds of the jury, simply by inferring it with “slanted” questions rather than actually referencing it directly?
If true, the lawyers in this trial remind me of the Republican political strategists in the last election… disinform, confuse and deflect, until the jury (or the public) has no concept of where the defense (or the candidate) really stands.
This seems out of sequence to me. Why isn’t Russert up first?
because Fitz not only needs Russert’s revelant testimony, he needs someone to ask
“Did Scooter Libby tell you that Marc Grossman had told him about Valerie Plame? Did Scooter Libby tell you that Grenier had told you about Valerie Plame? Did Scooter Libby that Cathy Martin told you about Valerie Plame? Did Scooter Libby tell you that earlier that week he’d told Ari Fleisher about Valerie Plame? Did Scooter Libby tell you that earlier that week he’d told Judith Miller about Valerie Plame?”
In other words, Fitz wants to be able to restate his entire case before the Defense takes over — and he’s gonna use Russert to do it.
Have been out & about doing errands, etc., and managed to catch Marcy & Byron York on NPR while in the car. I SO wanted to call in and call Byron a ‘pantywaist’, but thot better of it.
I’m going to have to listen again. It just seems to me that Byron wants to downplay this entire incident as ‘no big deal’ since ‘it was Armitage anyway who outed Plame’ so let’s just move on.
Tannen @ 28
When is he not great? :)
SharonRB @ 49
Yeah – exactly!
RevDeb @ 22
Yes – waiting with baited breath
mc @
45
That would be a horse of a different color, then?
(grin, duck, run)
Jane Hamsher @
44
What Jane said.
(*suddenly realizes Jane and Pach are sitting behind him rather than in the courtroom*)
David Schuster on MSNBC just covered this bit of testimony from the GJ tape. He said the exchange about Libby’s contacts with Novak were important because the defense may try to say Libby confused a conversation with Russert, in which he purports that Russert ID’d Plame, with a conversation he had with Novak in same timeframe.
The missed Q&A here was apparently Fitz asking if Libby had any contacts with Novak prior to July 2003, to which Libby replies that his only other contact was about a year before the time in question.
Jon Ponder @ 54
Okay, that’s what I thought I heard, but I wasn’t sure. Thanks for the report!
JEP @ 46
The defense wouldn’t want to point out the OCR errors, they’d want to continue to let the jury think that Cooper was typing carelessly in bed because of his mind was someplace else, and therefore he was careless about the notes’ contents as well as their typing, so the jury shouldn’t believe the contents or Cooper’s testimony. Showing the OCR errors (if that’s what they are) would be good for the prosecution since it would mean Cooper wasn’t as careless a typist as he’s being made out to be.
Well, yeah, the govt has to prove guilt while the defense only needs to claim reasonable doubt, so confusion favors the defense and naturally they try to create it. If OCR artifacts really are a factor, though, it reminds me of the Dan Rather incident where he showed a copy of a supposed Texas Air National Guard memo about Bush’s being AWOL, and immediately the right wing blogosphere went nuts about the copy’s proportional fonts not existing on 1970’s-era typewriters that the national guard would have been using back then, instead of looking into whether the memo had been retyped somewhere along the way.
Marcy I’m not sure what you mean by “Cooper’s real notes”, i.e. in what physical form did he turn them over? A computer disk? Usually lawyers hand documents over on paper, even if the document originated on a computer.
I wonder if there will be a full seven hours of Libby GJ testimony in which he actually gives evidence and answers questions. I understand that GJ witnesses can ask for breaks, and even get up and leave the courtroom to consult with their lawyers.
That could mean that his testimony is shorter if the duration cited is “running time”. But if it’s “elapsed time” that’s a lot of material!
Great job Swopa, thanks.
I think that this will have the effect of boring every juror right to sleep. I think that perhaps the GJ testimony should have been read first and would then be referenced through the prosecution witnesses to show exactly where Scooter was obstructing etc…
Jon Ponder @
54
Wow. That may well be a blatant lie. Someone in OVP seeded the anti Frances Fragos Townsend smear prior to July 10. Reports said Addington and Libby led the efforts against her. WHo had that conversation with Novak?
We know that eventually Novak was asked about a Libby conversation. so this may well be a blatant blatant lie.
As opposed to his stories about Plame. Which were….
Ok, now this last bit is fascinating. From what I can piece together, this sounds EXACTLY like the conversation memorialzed by the Scooter Libby note we have with the funny date. Except, Libby here is testifying about it being about a response to Pincus’s article, not Kristof’s, which is what the note says it is.
So which is it Libby? Personally, I think the date on the note was a 19, and this was actually about responding to the TNR article, because it had a direct quote from Wilson.
Just my opinion, but may I list what I believe are the obvious lies in Scooter’s GJ testimony?
1. “and probably with the VP, although I don’t specifically recall it.”
2. “Just sort of, “Isn’t this interesting”
The first two obvious lies…
First, Libby takes pride in the fact that most people think he has a great memory, which I assume means he would never forget something as important as this.
Most juries will hear that lie ring hollow, live or memorex.
Second, Cheney referring to spouse Plame as “just interesting” means that actually, Cheney was quite adamant and wanted Wilson dealt with, or Libby would never have qualified the statement.
Once again, any jury might feel a great deal of skepticism towards the suggestion that such an important exchange would be “just interesting” to either of these men.
I love the idea of tapes – it’s so ‘Watergate’-ish and we know how well THAT worked out for the nutbag cons.
Is National Security Advisor to the Vice President a position that has been normal for the VP to have on staff? And I’m sorry, is there anyway in which a National Security Advisor could believably NOT know that ANY discussion about a covert agent (or any CIA employee) with uncleared individuals is problematic at best? I still don’t get how it is that Libby and Rove haven’t been charged with breaking the conditions of their sworn security clearances- even if Armitage was the first to discuss Plame with a reporter, they both clearly confirmed her to reporters. And why hasn’t Armitage been charged?
Damn, I step out of my office for just a minute and, well, I think Robert Goulet was here. It’s a mess in here.
PWT @ 59
But the prosecution can’t rely upon Libby taking the stand.
viget @
61
Re: EW That may well be a blatant lie. Someone in OVP seeded the anti Frances Fragos Townsend smear prior to July 10.
From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..1_pf.html/
.. Columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that Reno’s onetime protege could turn out to be an “enemy within.” …
epu’d from last thread for JEP:
JEP-
all stations all the time is how i look at those gathered around and in the firedoglake……we each have a piece of beach we explore and share what we gather…….is different everytime i come here, depends on who is jumping in the water, but always learn something new………is as varied a bunch of human beings as i have seen gathered anywhere……..is wonderful thing.
some others are at:
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
chatting off the ‘main link’ to ease the load on the server.
so, today is a little different because of speed (slow) of trial and that some are off chatting……
———————————————————-
and am adding to original epu’d post-
this chart someone offered the last week that i keep re-posting because it was helpful to me in tying in all of the testimony so far.
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews…..chart6.png
ok, back to reading, don’t want to dump server with extra ot chat.
go ((((fdl))))
d
viget @ 61
http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..X10401.PDF
To me it looks like the obscured and written over number is an “8″ not a “9″. I think Libby, after the fact, re-wrote it with “12″ and the squiggle.
My guess is that the Pincus article wasn’t mentioned simply because it was not written or brought to their attention that it was being written. This note was in response to the Kristof article; Condy wads, in fact, on “Meet The Press” using most of these “Talking Points” that same day!
Sorry, my comment (second paragraph in #67)) got mixed up with the comment I was commenting on #61.
Swopa @
53
So – they are in the pressroom with you, Swopa? Is no FDLer in the courtroom this afternoon?
Thanks for all you are doing!
Kathie
Scooter’s making snarky comments about his name and being “classified”? Bad joke, dude. Not funny.
But the story Addy told earlier about Scooter asking how you’d know a clandestine CIA officer if you met him/her at a party, that’s a real knee-slapper!
Good job SWOPA..that must be very difficult.
It seems to me that the Defense’s strategy is to interrupt testimony as often as possible to mar the flow of the narrative. Now, with a tape playing, they won’t be able to do that. Right?
No Blood for Hubris @ 73
Between this and the fact that ol’ Irving was not too pleased to tell the FBI his real name either, it really sounds like he has a real issue with his given name. I am not being snarky. It might be something pathological. Or maybe he was just teased mercilessly as a kid. (Now, that was snarky.)
Great job re: coverage. As for comments, you wishful thinkers are all in fantasy-land. Fitz has no case and the reality of that is all too evident unless you are determined to believe what you want to believe, not the reality of the testimony. Another Nifong prosecution.
KathieinMN @ 72:
John Forde, johnSwifty, and I are having lunch tomorrow at Sawatdee in the Warehouse District in Mpls, at 11:30. You’re welcome to join us.
Hillary’sTwin at 77 — Yes, that’s what people on the right were saying about the Safavian trial. And look what that got him. A guilty verdict. I suggest you keep watching and see where the jury goes — while you can never predict a verdict, you can say this: the hideously manipulative stench of Vice President Cheney’s CYA media operations are being exposed for what they are, and it is about time. Welcome to Public Accountability 101.
KathieinMN @
72
Since they’re just playing the tapes, everyone in the courtroom is just sitting around too, but they can’t go in and out and get junk food from the vending machines. I’m sitting between Pach and David Schuster, and behind Swopa and David Corn. I can be online, get up, walk around, chat, etc. Much easier than being in the courtroom when there’s no witness to watch.
Don’t tell Howie I ate a bag of Pach’s pretzels.
PWT @ 59
Oh no no no no no. Then the first version the jury hears is the lie. That’s never good.
You want them to hear a nice set-up as to what the truth really is, then you get the lie, then another truth just to hammer it home and show the contrast.
But you don’t want to lead with the lie, because then they’re more likely to take that as the truth and be more skeptical of your other witnesses.
Can someone please tell me ‘is there really an elite class somewhere in Oklahoma’? ;0)
cinnamonape, looked like an “8″ to me also. BTW, love your logical mind. ;)
He didn’t tell the truth about his stupid nickname. I am from the South, New Orleans, and Scooter is NOT a common nickname.
Is David Schuster as manly in person as he is on TV?
Here’s one that’s “not quite a lie”, more of an uncomfortable obfuscation.. Wish Fitrz had pushed once more for an actual response to the question…
“F: Is that something you would recall if you had discussed it?
L: (pause) I don’t recall a conversation.”
Can someone explain to me why if Libby admitted to the FBI early on in the process that the VP told him of Wilson’s wife, he can be charged now for lying about where he first heard the info. Why didn’t the Govt. confront him with that admission when he stated later in the process that Russert was the source?
JEP @ 85
I’m with you on that. Was the first thing that came to my mind too, “Why didn’t he push on that one?” Ah well. Maybe saving it? But to what end?
stingray @
68
And Libby and Addington were the big architects of that smear.
http://nationaljournal.com/abo…..216nj2.htm
Again, I’m new here.
Is that “Hillary’s EVIL Twin?”
Oooh. David Shuster!
(fans self)
It’s *teh HOT* in here, there must be some SHUSTER in the atmosphere!
Tithonia @
85
yes.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 79
geez, Redd, you be the last person I would think I would have to remind to “don’t feed the….” :) (((((((CHS))))))))
CHS – As you know, I believe you can predict. Although it may not be 100%, the strong odds, I’m on record on at least 90%, are that he will be convicted, cause the strong odds are that any defendant will be convicted.
What was your batting average as a prosecutor? ;-) I’m guessing it was way, way, way above the Mendoza line (as the Mendoza line applies to prosecutors).
Linda @ 67
http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..X10401.PDF
I think the “debriefing” refers to Wilson’s debriefings…he also had one “in the region” ~ one with the Ambassador “Bar” [= Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick in Niger].
There are references to the forgeries…they need to rebut that in their Talking Points.
My take is that the TOP part of the memo (AFTER the “dot”) are the actual events that Cheney is repeating to Libby.
“Took place at our behest - functional office(r)- CP/his wife works in that div’n.”
Then “Debriefing took place here mtg. in region”
And “OVP- Defense and State expressed strong interest in issue” This is arrowed with “Hold: get agcy to answer that”
All of the above points are true. But Cheney appears to want the CIA to say that they were approached by Defense and State…which led to the mission, not the WH or his office. Thus they would have been unaware of any report by Wilson and wouldn’t be sent one.
Then there are the talking points.
“1) didn’t hear(?) @ mission”
[although this last word could also say “Wilson”. There’s a squiggly letter that makes one the “s” look like an “l” IMO. Also note that the first letter looks more like W’s in the other words -starting with a downstroke- rather than his “M”’s that start on upstrokes.]
2) didn’t get report”
3) didn’t (?) any indication of forgery per (in IAEA”
IMO if Tenet, or whoever was Cheney’s CIA source, was complete enough to tell Cheney that his wife works in that div’n.”
“his wife works in that div’n.” that source would have also passed on “the Ambassador’s” name. Thus I think rather than “mission” that actually says “Wilson”.
S’more from the little fascist:
Bush sends $2.9 trillion budget to Congress
Big increases for the military, cuts for domestic programs
Jane Hamsher @ 91
color me green with envy
TeddySanFran @ 97
I thinks we needs to form a fan club~
i’ll fan you while you fan me….
JEP @ 90
You decide … we’re both lawyers, graduated from college in the same year, were reared as Methodists in suburban, middle class homes and tend not to remind people that we were once Goldwater Girls … from my perspective, I’m the twin who is not given to political calculation or pandering (quoting Ralph Nader re: the latter)and am not inclined to ignore the truth when it’s staring me in the face. Hence, my disappointment re: Fitz’s case, i.e, he doesn’t have a case.
Pardon OT, but http://gabbler.com/firedoglake.com has been overrun by trolls. I’ll go complain on their main website. Hope someone calls FDLers back when gabbler’s fixed their security holes.
Now back to the trial. Kudos to all FDL staff.
Problems with Gabbly – infested with techie trolls.
LOL Teddy, get in line! Shuster is teh hottie
Could someone please let me know whether the GJ tapes being played in court are audio or video?
LIEberman on floor of Senate droning on and on. Had to change channels.
my contempt for him is only equalled by punaise’s.
Well well well. I think I’m going to put a marker down on “Bush ordered it” after all.
Lieberman live on CSPAN2 lying about Iraq. OT, but anyone who wants to document the atrocities should feel free.
Streamed at cspan.org
Hey revdeb.
What did you think of Biden? I thought he was very good.
Troll @ 77: Fitz has no case
Only because of lies, obstruction, and perjury. Which is why Fitzgerald is targeting that first, in this case.
Fitz said he can’t see clearly until Libby stops throwing sand in his eyes. The hope is that the very real threat of 30 years in prison may yet prove to be a powerful incentive for better behavior out of Libby. Guess we’ll find out eventually if it is effective or not.
It’s a long way to go, but (speculating): IF Libby lied then there had to be a motive. IF he lied to hide that he had a role in outing Plame, there had to be a motive for outing Plame. IF he outed Plame in vindictive retaliation for the charge her husband Wilson had leveled, there had to be a motive for the vindictiveness. IF the retaliation was because what Wilson charged was at all true then there was a conspiracy at the very highest levels of the executive branch to fraudulently commit the country to war.
It may be something far more innocent but until the air clears completely, it’s hard for anyone to know the truth for sure. And we do all want the truth, and the whole truth, don’t we?
Until we know the truth, I think we would all do well to ignore further trolls about Fitz having “no case” to investigate. This is (potentially)critically serious – far beyond mere bumbling about in the OVP in response to Wilson’s op-ed.
*xyz @ 103
audio only
Biodun @
78
It’s the one on 4th street. Thai, yes…but, alas, no sushi. There is a sushi bar next door but (as I was teasing the boys), I’m leery about eating sushi from a joint named Koy.
The primary topic of discussion will, of course, gravitate towards the incredible dissemination of information provided by FDL.
That, and Al Franken has declared he’ll run against Little Normy Coleman!
*xyz @ 103
Audio
jayackroyd @ 107
I have little or no patience regarding NON BINDING resolutions, though Biden was mercifully short winded.
JANE!!!!
Sounds like you’re in mighty fine company. Had the pleasure of meeting David Corn on The Nation cruise last December. Got to meet Joe and Valerie Wilson too. Really nice people.
Methinks Fitzmas has a crush on Marcy.
Either Marcy, or Clarice. Hard to tell which.
Hillary’sTwin @ 77
Nifong?? You don’t get out much, do you? And you obviously don’t know jack about the law.
CHS @ 79 – Great response!!!
Has Victoria Toensing been frogmarched anywhere yet? I hear she looks fantastic in orange.
Hillary’sTwin @ 77
It’s John Podhoretz!
Perhaps Bush should cut the capital gaines tax to zero.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 119
Or negative 15.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 82
lol
Sparkles the Iguana @ 120
Been there
Done that
(It’s called No Bid Contracts)
Hillarys twin is probably drug addled gas bag rush limpaw lurking around. He’s so obsessed with her it just seems to fit that he would use her name. Go back to your drugs loser!
More money and more American G.I. blood for the Iraq war.
Lieberman lying. paraphrasing.
“On the eve of a battle that will be decisive”
If you believe that this battle is decisive you should resolve to support him and his troops. If our cause is hopeless in Iraq, and you should put aside this resolution and vote for a binding timeline. Have the courage of your convictions. Cut off the funds for or support the surge. An accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. On the eve of battle.
Now pressing the Republican talking points. Enemies of the US, terrorists, weakwilled americans i as the core of the fanatical goals of Islamists world wide–like Saddam.
“Actions have consequences, sometimes unexpected” said without irony.
Unbelievable.
What a hypocritical, lying sack of excrement.
RevDeb @ 104
and mine. just started listening now… can’t stand it.
“does not support our troops”
lies. lies. lies. all packaged in a “holier than thou” wrapping.
yuck. enough.
Remember, just say “no” to feeding trools.
Next two blatant lies.
F: Did you ever discuss the President’s interest with the VP?
L: No.
F: Did you ever discuss it with the President?
L: No
If these were true statements, Libby sure wouldn’t be qualified to be Cheney’s national security adviser. The suggestion that Libby didn’t share every tiny detail of Bush’s involvement or interest with Cheney is completely unbelievable, unless they want us firt to first believe these detail-obsessed book-cookers hired an outright doofus for one of the highest appointed political offices in the land.
But it is still early, so who knows where they might go with it. Considering how lofty his reputation has always been as one of the smartest guys in the room, painting Libby as a dumb jerk with a bad memory might be pretty hard for the defense to pull off, (except maybe for the “jerk” part, that might already be a given.)
Why do I get the feeling we’ll be talking about Rove here very soon, as just another step on the ladder to protect Cheney?
Wouldn’t a Cheney impeachment put all these cards on one table?
hmmmmm….
Fitz has Libby’s notes from Schmall briefing for June 9th.
Schmall’s notes for June 14th briefing mention Joe and Valerie.
So where are Libby’s notes from his June 14th briefing with Schmall?
Okay, we’re blowing this popsicle stand. See ya later.
“Brink of a decisive battle in Baghdad”
Who believes that?
And now he’s opposing cloture. Because this is so important. Not like Alito. No gang of 12 now.
What a freakin’ tool.
Cutting off funding for our involvement in the Iraq fiasco is not the same as cutting off funding for the troops.
Pardon the OT, but I just posted this over in gabbly.com’s support forum.
Subject: Overrun by trolls
Sorry if this has been asked and answered elsewhere — I just want to complain and then wait until others tell me this issue has been fixed.
gabbly.com/firedoglake.com was going great guns until some pimply-faced teenager(s) trashed it. Is there no way to defend against overlong usernames, names that don’t appear on the right-hand side so they can be muted, etc? Without that, gabbly’s useless for controversial (political) websites.
Swopa @ 130
wonderful liveblogging! thank you!
Swopa @ 130
won’t your lips start to freeze? ;)
JEP @ 90
What’s the difference supposed to be?
Swopa @ 130
Thanks, Swopa!
Sorry swopa. I was waiting to hear Collins so I could add her remarks to the blog I’m working on re the class II R senators.
Warner just bitch slapped Lieberman for saying that Warner Levin does not support the troops.
Now Levin, very pissed off.
And now I’ll shut up.
Great great work folks.I’ll bet there is no interest at all at the offices of the Pres.&VP.Probably all talking about Super Bowl with Snowjob. Jack Shadenfruede.
p.lukasiak @ 135
All it takes is to step outside for that to happen. No popsicles necessary. It’s cold and blowing like a son of a gun outside. Doors and windows rattling.
jayackroyd @ 131
He’s opposing cloture because it’s so important to allow the Goopers to drone on and on in a filibuster?
God. I hate him.
beth meacham @ 105
Yet to get the NIE declassified the “uninterested” President had to actually DECLASSIFY IT!
And remember…Libby was the “guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetance of others.”
Oh great. Giuliani files today. Rudy vs. Hillary in ‘08. I’m beside myself with excitement.
Jerelyn has some links to transcripts here.
Why would the techie trolls infest gabbly right now? Worrisome news, consider the implications.
Surely these infecting trolls aren’t open-sourcers, they must be working for “the man.”
If they work for someone and intentionally disrupt a blogsite, they are not only breaking internet ettiquette, they may be breaking the law.
litigatormom @ 141
That would be yes. The gall of speaking about the historic importance of the filibuster just fills me with rage.
new thread up top
“Brink of a decisive battle in Baghdad”
Who believes that?”
Careful, Uncle Joe might get his pal the Prez to conjur up a big battle for him, just so his words ring more true.
Biodun @
78
Wow – I would LOVE to – but I unfortunately have to be teaching during the day! Hoist one for me!
Kathie
Fitz’s interrogation has shown that Cheney already has spoken to someone in the CIA (or obtained from other sources) that has gave him detailed information on the mission that 1)Wilson was debriefed both “here” and “had a mtg. in the region”; 2) that his wife works in the CIA; 3) that she works in Counter Proliferation.
Libby indicates that Cheney already has quite a bit of information about the details of Wilson’s trip long before 6/12 (or 6/8). THAT’s interesting in showing just how important this was.
Libby says he thinks that Cheney’s source for the “wife” info is Tenet. But if Cheney already has spoken to Tenet why does he need Libby to seek out more information? Wouldn’t he know that the Ambassador was Wilson? Why would anyone leak out information that would be highly classified (that the wife worked in CP) but not even mention the name of the Ambassador. The latter was less sensitive, and more germane to the issue of rebuttal.
Revealing that this “mystery Ambassador’s wife” was in CPD FIRST is simply bizarre~ that sequence doesn’t make sense. It’s logically inverted. Of course Wilson’s identity came up….perhaps in the same leak as his wifes role in the CIA. But not her employment first.
BTW Fitz is opening up some interesting cans full of worms in this interrogation right before recess for the day!
I want to look at the exhibits he’s newly submitted, too!
KathieinMN @ 149
People go on lunch dates when it is sub-zero?!!!!
People in San Diego flake on you if it even sprinkles.
none @ 31
The reason for the focus on the r vs n never got answered, did it? My hunch was that it was an “r” and the next word would have been “declassified”.
Was that discussed by anyone? Thx.
RevDeb @ 141
I’m in Waltham, MA this week and I can’t believe how cold it is.
Close of debate on Iraq being voted now.
jayackroyd @ 154
From watching Reid & McConnell earlier, you’d thing the GOP was still in charge of the place!
Couple Republican crossovers, but well short…
jayackroyd @ 139
Lieberman seems to be pissing off everyone – gotta love it. His fellow Senators seem to have had enough of his sanctimonious crap. I will forever savour Hagel’s slapdown of Lieberman on MTP.
Rat @
88
Hope you guys come back and check this thread. Fitz did push on that question pretty hard, my paraphrase is really a condensed version of him asking more than once in different ways. Libby made clear through repetition that he wasn’t going to go past “I don’t recall a conversation.”
selise @ 127
I have two friends who recently returned from tours in Iraq. One is die-hard “loyal” and claims to have knowledge (though he won’t specify what) regarding Iran’s involvment in Iraq. (This is something I question seriously, given the vast amount of press regarding the lack of intel the US has in this regard.)
The other friend is so adamantly opposed to our being there it is utterly unreal. He also would tell you that supporting the troops is NOT the same as supporting Bush & Co. He would tell you that supporting the troops involves doing the RIGHT thing instead of muddling along pretending to know what you’re doing.
Goes to show, even among those who have served, that argument regarding “support the troops” doesn’t hold water.
Kudos on the blogging / paraphrasing–I am tired just reading it, having done some of this stuff in the past myself. Your brain must be fried. I look forward to the continued and continuing saga. Thanks to all you folks for the great work.
Hillary’s Twin @77.
My utter lack of knowledge about Law would fill the shelves in Langdell Hall.
What I know about logic, reality & politics is, however, substantial. Mr. Fitzgerald, to my very specific knowledge, has “a case” that he is presenting to another Grand Jury exactly on this subject of White House people exposing the identity of a classified CIA operative. That is, this prosecutor is moving forward toward further indictments even before this “throwing sand in the umpire’s eyes” perjury/obstruction trial is finished.
Whether Libby is convicted, or not, Mr. Fitzgerald continues with his investigation into “the case” Hillary’s Twin foolishly claims does not exist.
It would be useful, in a way, for all of those who are interested in the Libby trial to keep in mind that the prosecutor has a much bigger process moving along in the background. Libby is a sideshow. The main event is going on, now, under the radar.
My view is that Mr. Fitzgerald is using the Libby trial as a “shot across the bow” of the S.S. Bu$hInc & is also, at the same time, a feint to the left as his legal team moves straight forward on the main investigation. I have been told & read that it is really stooooopid to mess with Fitz!!! Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bu$h, etc., thought they were clever—-now they know otherwise. If Scooter goes down for 30 years, watch the other rats jump ship, even without Fitz forcing Libby to roll over. Har, har, har.
OK, we’re fair-weather weenies here in the land of AlwaysSpring. I feel no guilt whatever.
Besides, few of us would flake on a friend or a fellow firepup.
She said alliteratively.
I don’t understand why Hagel and Warner, at least, voted “no” on cloture. Maybe I’m not understanding something, but wasn’t this the resolution that Warner compromised on with Levin?
My feelings on the trolls on Gabbly — I don’t think they’re pimple-faced techies. The maturity level tells me they very well might be Freepers who were reading here and knew we were going over there. Just my 2 cents.
p.lukasiak @ 47
Is that why Fitz introduced the delicious tidbit about Russert being the White House’s bitch? And maybe some verbatims by Libby in GJ testimony! Get Russert all fired up about testifying and showing them who really owns Russert (my guess…Russert will CLEARLY indicate that only Russert owns Russert).
Fitz’ll keep poking Russert with a stick and Russert will turn on Libbey like a ferocious mongrel. Call in sick that day — Russert just might tear the joint up!
(sounds good anyway! keeping my fingers crossed.)
Jacqrat @ 91
Get in line honey.
Mike @
84
i’m from tennessee. agreed……..
As a non-lawyer, I am certain the lawyers on this site can answer:
1) why is fitz playing the GJ tapes?
2) 7 hours is a long time for the jury to remember anything
3) is there a later use?
4) what are the pros and cons of this move?
Deercreek36 thanks
“Hope you guys come back and check this thread. Fitz did push on that question pretty hard, my paraphrase is really a condensed version of him asking more than once in different ways. Libby made clear through repetition that he wasn’t going to go past “I don’t recall a conversation.”
Thanks for elucidating a bit more, Swopa, Libby’s refusal to clarify his answer should seem transparently deceitful to this jury. I get the feeling Libby was setting up a back-up “memory defense” from the git-go, whether by instinct or design.
Umm, I read the part about his security clearance. Unless he’s an idiot he knows what he can reveal. The level of his security clearance means he can’t reveal anything. Of course if he can, so can everyone else with at that level. Amazing.
“Wouldn’t a Cheney impeachment put all these cards on one table?”
Nite all…
p.lukasiak @ 47
Oh, that’s going to be so unbelievably SWEET. The Administration’s biggest ‘ho next to Jimmy “Jeff Gannon” Guckert himself is made the instrument of BushCo’s doom.
p.lukasiak @ 93
It’s OK when she does it, because she disembowels them with such authority that aside from a last nonsensical whine, they never show their faces here again.
And it’s so funny to see the tighty-whitey-righties insulting HRC because they think that we must worship Hillary. They all are deluded enough to swallow their masters’ Kool-Aid about her being an ultra-lefty. (Pssst: Don’t let ‘em know the truth, OK?)
Can we get the tapes up on the internet so that we can listen to them?
We need rain desperatly. It was in 80’s today
90 some place around here in So. Calif.
I think the birds are starting to build nests.
Snow level in the mountains way down. Everything is up side down.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 125
–Say, OKLAHOMA KIDDO — Have you looked over that hot head in Tulsa, who always has a Red Ass about the Bushies ? His blog is good. It is : Bartcop / just askin’ …
Forgive me, I am really late to the party. But why is this not being televised? Don’t get me wrong, I value this transcript and appreciate your hard work, but isn’t there a way we can see any of this?
fahrender @
167
I’ve got a friend from Memphis with the nick-name “Scooter.” Only one I’ve ever known. He got it at college in Colorado and it really stuck. Something to do with motorcycles.