Tweet
NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.
To explain my point in the last thread about Fitz catching Libby in a lie…
WP testified that Libby was one of his sources for the claim that "an aide to VP Cheney" asked for more information, which eventually led to Wilson being sent. But in fact, Cheney was the one who asked for more information. So Libby lied to Pincus to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip.
Now onto Woodward. Anyone remember who broke the story of Watergate? You think the guy who broke that story would sit on his knowledge of a leak for over a year?!?!? Nahhhh!
One big question I have on Woodward is whether Fitz will be allowed to point out that Libby leaked to Woodward exactly what he said he had to get Presidential authorization to leak to Judy Judy Judy two weeks later–but that when he leaked it to Woodward, he had no idea whether it had been declassified or not.
Fitzgerald up, objecting to putting Cue Card into evidence, particularly since it has been redacted to include just Wilson's name.
Jeffress: This is the document as it was redacted by Woodward to Fitzgerald to us.
Walton: That's all they were provided.
Fitz: That's all we were provided.
Walton: I think you can bring out that there was a lot of other information on it.
Waiting for the jury.
Jeffress up calls Woodward.
Woodward: Aqua tie. I do, loudly,
J: What do you do for a living.
BW: Assistant MG Editor for WaPo, and a book author.
BW Starting with Watergate most about Presidents or CIA or SCOTUS.
J Recipient of any Pulitzers? [Hey, how come Jeffress didn't ask this question of Pulitzer prize winner Judy Judy Judy??]
BW Shared in two
J June 2003, what were you working on
BW: Plan of Attack.
J How many sources
BW: Several hundred and 75 primary sources
J Was one Libby? When did you speak to Libby?
BW Lots of times?
J June 17 2003? How did that interview get arranged?
BW June 2 [note, Woodward never mentioned THIS meeting before], I was trying to interview VP Cheney, it looked like it had been arranged. 4 days before the June 27 interview, on June 23, I sent 16 pages of questions to Libby.
11:22
BW On June 23 (I think) Libby told me I had overplayed my hand, sent in too many questions.
J terms of this book?
BW Background, deep background. Post had given me a year to work on this book. I was going through questions to see if he could do the questions on deep background.
J Did you interview VP for book?
BW stumbles
J If it makes you uncomfortable, I'll withdraw that
BW Thank you.
J If a source told you info off the record, could you use info using that source?
BW You shouldn't. You know what somebody has told you, Off the record, but it should no be in the story.
J Condition of Deep Background in which Libby spoke to you on June 27, is that uncommon.
BW No.
J Before you met with Libby on 27, had you received info on Wilson's wife.
BW Two weeks before on June 23 [fucks up] I was doing a lengthy interview with Armitage.
J Can I interrupt, you said June 23.
BW, Sorry, June 13. On June 13 I interviewed Armitage for the book.
J Do you recall there was an article in WaPo by Pincus that discussed a former ambassador?
BW Yes, I read the article.
J Did you raise the subject, or did he.
BW I raised it, I knew it was Wilson [doesn't say how], so I asked Armitage why he had been sent.
J going to introduce tape from interview.
BW Could I just say one thing. This was a background interview, since this arose, Armitage has released me, he said I could testify about it, He has gone so far as to request that I present any info on it.
Tape and transcript.
Woodward drinking water. He looks much greyer
BW What's Scowcroft up tp
A Looking into yellowcake
A PFIAB
BW What happened there
A CIA is not going to be hurt by this one.
A Hadley and Bob Joseph know.
A We've got our documents
A George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech.
BW How come it was in the SOTU.
A Condi doesn't like to be on the hotspot.
A Why doesn't it come out. Everyone knows.
BW Why did they send him.
A Because his Wife's an ANalyst .
BW Oh, she's the chief WMD?
A No, she isn't the chief no.
BW High enough she can say, oh hubby will go.
A Not to my knowledge. His wife is a WMD analyst. HOw about that [redacted--shit?]
J You didn't write about this did you?
BW For the WaPo, no.
Now puts up the Q Card card.
BW A list of potential questions I did with Card on June 20,
J A week after your conversation with Armitage
J What does that say
BW Joe Wilson's wife
J What's the nature of what's in redacted portions
BW I'm trying to find out why Bush went to war in Iraq.
11:31
J Did you ask Card about Wilson's wife?
BW I did not, This interview was taperecorded. It did not come up.
J Did you take this list of questions for Card with you?
BW I believe I did
J What time did it start?
BW On 27, a week after Card interview, I have it as 5
BW It was clearly the end of the day, we had the Q Cheney questions to go through. What I do is take questions from earlier interviews and bring them to interviews that I'm doing, and in my Cheney-Libby file, this full list of questions from Card was in there, along with the Q Cheney 18 pages, 16 pages and maybe other list of questions. The subject of the NIE came up. I don't recall specifically whether the 16 words were discussed. I don't think there was public controversy beyond what had been appearing in the WaPo.
J Did uranium from Africa come up
BW yellowcake, which is a form of uranium oxide, did come up
J Did you ask any questions about Wilson's wife
BW Not that I recall
J is it possible you did
BW Yes
J Did Libby say anything to you?
BW THere's no doubt that Libby didn't say anything, I dictated a memo. I would have written it down. This was an interview where we're going through questions on the Cheney list. I'm seeing where we're going to go. Hopefully I'm going to be able to talk to Cheney. I'm also seeing what I can get from him.
J Going back to Armitage. When Armi said CIA not going to be hurt and we're clean as a whistle. Was he referring to 16 words?
BW Speech Bush gave October 7 in Cincinnati, what he told me was that Tenet got the reference to uranium, Africa removed.
J That removal of claim was being raised.
BW that's what I asked Armitage. How come if it was removed a version was in SOTU?
J Why did you get into Wilson's trip
BW We were talking about Cincinnati speech and NIE and this and other subjects. I'm interested in what was the intell. Why did the President go to war.
J You mean NIE October 2002. Some of which had been released and some was still classified.
BW I had a sense of what was in NIE.
J What Armitage told you, did that indicate to you she was covert.
BW Just the opposite, in that portion you played, you've redacted words that are offenseive. "In the raw it has a little more fire." What he said specifically was that Wilson's wife was an analyst.
Pass the witness.
Fitzgerald: When you were first interviewed, appeared in Lawyers office? Because member of media?
BW Not sure the reason, you and your lawyer arranged that.
F Nothing about testifying in lawyers office affected the substance. Two questions about tape. Is it fair to say all redactions are the firey words. They don't relate to covert nature of someone's employment.
BW Correct
F You say, why doesn't that come out, everyone knows.
BW Pincus' article did not name Wilson, I knew it Armitage knew it, and I was wondering why it was not disclosed at that time.
F Did you know that Wilson's wife was alleged to work at CIA? Were you referring to her CIA employ when you said everyone knows it?
BW No–I was referring to Wilson.
F Turning to doct in front of you, Q Card, one page or more?
BW Just one page.
F A number of other entries.
F You believe you brought Q Card with you to interview with Libby
BW Yes, we went through the Q Cheney card of questions.
BW I am certain I brought Q Cheney, I believe I brought Q Card, it is my habit to bring list of questions from one interview to the next.
F New exhibit.
11:43
BW Identifies Q Cheney questions, "that goes on and on and on."
F In this list of questions there's no reference to Wilson's wife.
F Do you recall that during interview on June 27, 2003, Libby was extremely defensive and protective of Cheney.
BW In my notes, when we got to the NIE. 4 months after invasion, no WMD had been found. Pres and Admin had said with great certainty we know WMD, part of the basis for this was the NIE, as I went through that with Libby, he was taking the position that the CIA had insisted that there were WMD. He was defenseive about things Pres had said publicly.
F Did you note that he went on and on and on about defending the VP?
BW I believe you have a copy of my notes, Libby released me like Armitage. And it says that when Libby talked about NIE he was very defensive. And one of the lines says he went on and on and on.
F This was for a book?
BW Correct
F And any articles would be released when the book was published. And you have no recollection of talking about Libby.
F Was it your understanding that all the reporters knew about Wilson's wife?
BW I have no idea.
Jeffress Would you expect someone who works for VP to defend boss?
BW Yes.
Jeffress goes back to transcript, focuses just on two lines of the interview.
J It's not you saying, "everyone knows it." That's him speaking.
BW correct.
Jury Question:
Walton: Is it your understanding that any other journalist knew about Plame.
BW The reporter working on it knew it. I told him.
Walton: gives another instruction not to consider the tape for the truth.
Fitz: One follow-up question. One reporter who might have known.
BW Walter Pincus.
Okay, this is done–I'll see you in the David Sanger thread.
11:52
73 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Marcy!
Awesome. Thank you Marcy! Ordered your book and sent a check to FDL.
Fitz ain’t on the Fritz (we hope)
Bernstein!
‘but that when he leaked it to Woodward, he had no idea whether it had been declassified or not.’
Treason?
EPU’d: “Mitchell blathered about Ammanpour being a target (early last spring) as blowback against the ‘insider shill rep’ being established . . . or, like any good Heather worth her salt, couldn’t resist the buzz of same”
Great Nickname for Mitchell: HEATHER. Let’s give it wings.
Heather Greenspan. Hehe.
Neil – inspired by Digby – we all stand on the shoulders of giants
JEP @ 5
Treason?
I agree — when releasing information (in a leak or elsewhere) that was once known classified, isn’t the presumption that it remains classified until verified otherwise?
One question that I do not know the answer to:
Why is this trial not on TV? Is it not permiitted in DC? Or, is it because of the court it’sin?
It’s very frustrating that with all the trash trials that have filled the airways, this one isn’t able to be seen.
Sorry to be so dense, but I’ve forgotten what 403 issues are?
I checked over at Rayne’s and didn’t see it on the list.
I’d love for Levin to haul Armitage to the hill to testify under oath….
Apologies for being O/T, but the “Iranian” mortar munitions allegedly found in the possession of Iraqi insurgents were probably taken from a UK ammo dump in Iraq and restenciled to look “Iranian”.
Since we’re dealing with the people who lied us into Iraq, I thought it was germane.
…tapping your toes?
In Europe, people gather in various town squares to drink and people-watch.
In the midst of the people-watching, musicians set-up and play.
If you tap your toes, the musician will come over to you at the end of the song with his donation box – it’s considered correct to give for the enjoyment.
We call it the ‘toe-tapping’ tax.
So, if you’re enjoying following the live-blogging of the Libby Trial here at FDL – ie, tapping your toes – please consider ‘giving’ to support the cause by using the ‘donation’ box that can be found at the end of each article.
Thanks, and
Go FDL!
I don’t think federal trials can be televised.
could someone tell me how the denfense thinks any of this helps them?
so far what I see is what fitz wants not what libby wants
Via Romensko
So who gets to testify as to the memory and credibility of Andrea Mitchell?
Terre at 11 — 403 refers to the Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 403: Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
“BW I’m trying to find out why Bush went to war in Iraq.”
Now THAT’S a cliffhanger!
Frank Probst @ 19
that is one amazing qoute from woodward and should really get tons of play
what I would give to have a televised interview with woodward right now
radiofreewill @ 14
Thanks for the reminder — new donation made a minute ago.
perris @ 16
They’re trying to do three things, I think.
1. Show that a lot of people were talking about Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, so it’s possible that Russert had heard about it before his conversation with Libby. I don’t think they’re getting much traction here.
2. Show that a lot of people were talking about Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, but Libby is the only one of trial, so he’s obviously being set up. This isn’t going well, either, since Libby isn’t charged with talking about Plame.
3. Smoke out all of the other people who are involved in the hopes of adding to (1) and (2), and in the hopes of getting a pardon before all of this gets too embarassing.
Phoenix Woman – caught this (you) over at Gilliard’s – sent your link and his to shills @ NYT and stooges at Newsweek
. . .and not a gd mention of Sunni/Saudi guerillas f’ing anywhere in their gruel !! !
Got Marcy’s book late Saturday in the mail. Finished it yesterday morning. Thanks for connect all the dots, EW. Excellent.
More pissed than ever now. Cheney is the Traitor in Chief in all of this.
_
J: What do you do for a living.
BW: Assistant MG Editor for WaPo, book author, court stenographer.
> could someone tell me how the denfense
> thinks any of this helps them?
> so far what I see is what fitz wants
> not what libby wants
The direct exams are also very short. Either Wells has one fantastic trick up his sleeve and is laying the groundwork for it. Or he has nothing, and is laying the groundwork for an appeal on legal reasoning or procedural grounds or both.
Cranky
perris @
16
Wells is apparently trying to do two things:
1) He wants to piss off Judge Walton so badly that the Judge blows a gasket, thus leading to either a mistrial or giving Wells ammo for the inevitable appeal.
2) He wants to confuse the jury by just burying them in bullshit. However, Fitzgerald is very, very good at sweeping away bullshit.
A quick illustration I did of Andrea Mitchell, brrrrrrrawk!
So, how did Armitage find out? If he knew she worked for the CIA and he knew what her area was, how come he didn’t know (or knows but doesn’t say) that she was a NOC? Presumably, someone told Armitage or he saw information about her. Does he know it’s classified? And if not, why not? Or does he trust Woodward so much (That deep throat secret must have really paid off) that he knows what he tells Woodward will not leave the room? (But it’s caught on tape, Richard)
And why does Woodward go on Larry King a year later and say, “Oh, it’s no big deal. No one got hurt.”
Didn’t Bobby call Fitzy a “junkyard” prosecutor?
It is a sad time when the only way the American People can learn the truth backed by real facts is through the criminal prosecution and trial of a member (former?) of the current administration. Conversely, if Mr. Libby must be sacrificed so that we can learn the truth, it is certainly a cheaper price to pay than the lives of over 3,000 fine young men and women sacrificed to support and maintain lies and deceit. Part of the blame for this debacle lies with our media who have been all to willing to sacrifice honesty in order to “get the story”
If our elected officials and our media refuse to ask tough questions and to demand responsive answers, then the entire idea of an educated populace is a unattainable fantasy.
Our elected representatives are too busy weighing the political consequences of doing the right thing to get to the truth, and our “free press” is too busy getting “a story” to determine if it is the true story. A request for anonymity from a government official should be the immediate subject of suspicion as well as should any alleged facts be met with skepticism if those facts can only be submitted upon condition of anonymity. Government officials are servants of the people. If what they speak is true, why should they be afraid to have their names attached to the truth?
watertiger @ 28
Very scary!
Hugh @ 25
Court Composer.
And, Mozart he ain’t.
_
Thanks Christy! @18
Think I’m gonna make my own, personal, little list, and use Rayne’s as a jump-off point.
“F Did you know that Wilson’s wife was alleged to work at CIA? Were you referring to her CIA employ when you said everyone knows it?
BW No–I was referring to Wilson.”
BLAM! There goes another right-wing talking point.
The mere mention of Armitage validates the wingers false claims that Armitage is to blame so Libby shouldn’t even be in court. This meme will be regurgitated by the MSM.
Frank Probst @ 35
If you were to check Roger Simon’s place (not that I’m recommending giving him clicks), you’ll find the wingnuts keep spouting their talking points, even after they’ve been discredited in court.
It strikes me that all of these journalists lack backbone. It’s about time that they said
directly something like. —on deep background
the aide said ————but then go on to
list the questions that they want answered and
to which no one is giving them an answer .
That would give the reader the real context– and point to the stuff they don’t or cannot talk about. Mostly, I think don’t as
jounalists seem to me to be enlisted by
this administration.
Because of Russert’s testimony, if I ever see
or hear that stuff about Big– whatever, I’m
liable to vomit. In addition, I looked at him this weekend and his perpetual grin is truly nauseating.
Bay State Librul @ 30
Yes. On either Larry King Live or MTP. If the latter, what a hoot.
The theory that this was some grand conspiracy to out a known undercover CIA agent is now utterly vaporized.
It sounds like the Libby doth protest too much.
hackworth @ 36
Remember: Libby is being prosecuted for lying and obstruction, not for leaking.
Fam Srancis at 40 — Why? Because Bob Woodward didn’t know anything? Please, entire encyclopedic volumes could be written about things that Woodward failed to follow-up on at this point in his career.
Fam Srancis @ 40
huh?
your comment, if I’m reading it correctly is like saying now that you got wet from water you realize water can’t get you wet
every shred of evidence is that this asset was NOT known, WAS working on VITAL national security concerns and the exposure is an act of treason, and it was a DELIBERATE attempt to get information to the public
at risk to national security, at risk to future operations and current
I can’t possibly believe you meant your post to read as it reads
Fam Srancis @ 40
Could your challenged mind explain what you are trying to say?
. Smoke out all of the other people who are involved in the hopes of adding to (1) and (2), and in the hopes of getting a pardon before all of this gets too embarassing.
Hell – why doesn’t Cheney just pardon him? Evidently he can instantly de-classify, just like the pres…. so …..
I’m sure he could talk GWB into signing off on it afterward.
“Um, Mr. President, I need for you to sign this. What is it? Oh, nothing of importance; just a little document my office put together. Yes, Sir, your signature goes – right – here!
Thank you Sir.”
Fam Srancis @ 40
then why did George Tenet, winner of the presidential medal of freedom, make a criminal referral to the justice department on his way out the door?
New defense witness is David Sanger. Marcy has a fresh liveblgging thread up and running, gang.
Troll alert! Especially if there’s no explanation of why theory has vaporized.
Fam Srancis @ 40
???
Armitage may have not known what Libby et al were up to.
And just because Libby doesn’t spill his guts with Woodward earlier doesn’t mean he isn’t up to his eyeballs trying to cover for the VP and outting Plame with every easy mark he can find. There may have been a reason why he didn’t spill it with Woodward. Maybe he just thought Woodward wouldn’t pass the information along. In fact, if I were Libby, I would be EXTRA cautious around Woodward, who has a prior reputation for taking down a previous administration. If Libby doesn’t spill it to Woodward, it might be because he knew it wasn’t exactly cool and groovy and he didn’t want to be caught in another Woodward Pulitzer prize winning story.
Trolls apparently aren’t totally and permanently intimidated from showing their stupidity here, but mostly!
theExile @
51
I have to admit, that was bizzaro land, a statement so opposite reality it’s as if the man was saying water is dry and believing it
is that the level of cognitive denial the neo fascists are nowadays?
jayt @ 46
“Oh, and don’t print, write it in cursive, sir.”
And puh-leaze, don’t feed the trolls.
I’d try to explain for you but I’ve misplaced my Trollish to English dictionar?
RevDeb @
17
Not to mention her sobriety!
Hugh @ 25
Oh, stenographer? Then he can help us live blog.
good going marcy! thx for all this hard work.
Wow, so Boob chokes or balks/stammers when asked if he talked with the VP…then kindly Wells withdraws the question if it makes poor Little Booby feel uncomfortable having to answer it! Awwwwwe isn’t that special.
Poor Booby chokes on questions regarding his mediawhorery because of his desperate need to preserve his access to power for writing his books.
Funny that is….
Bay State Librul @ 30
I’m in the minority in cutting him some slack on this. While I didn’t hear the interview, I believe the phrase was “junkyard dog,” in other words someone who will sink their teeth into a subject and not let go.
Lots of other stuff to pin on Woodward but not this one imo.
Terre, saw your comment and Christy’s followup on Rule 403.
Have now edited the blog to add link for 403.
CHS — any chance you have something on “5A”? I made a note of it nearly two weeks ago and can no longer remember what it might have referred to.
??
The talk of a pardon is premature. Wells is in the process of demolishing the entire NBC DC press corps and should be finished with that task later this week, with help from Don Imus. After that, a pardon, if required, might happen.
Hmmmm….looks like Comstack got word out to wingnuts to come post here…wonder if that directive came from perhaps a list of recent talkingpoints that may have been generated (true to the tradition, style and form) that Libby and/or Cheney have proven at this trial have done in massive quantities prior to this. Yes, both whom if anything this trial has proven beyond a shadow of any doubt, are most likely obsessed with every hard hitting, and or negative piece(s) of truthful information written about them.
Especially with rumors that Cheney may be testifying…need to trial run and roll out some of the true believers to muck-up the water here.
My son and I watched All the President’s Men last night. Basically Woodward’s at the stage of his life that Ben Bradlee was when Watergate broke. Too bad Woodward doesn’t have half the guts Bradlee did.
AZ Matt @ 32
Very funny. But I’m old enough to remember when Andrea Mitchell first appeared on TV. Jet black, kinky-curly hair and olive complected, wearing a snug, brown corduroy jacket. Meow.
Now, she’s just a republican double agent trying to pass herself off as a journalist. And Russet lacks all credibilty. All this makes me sick-at-heart.
Oh if only a giant hole could be opened in the earth and Timmeh, Woody, Andrea, Judy et. al. could be shived into it.
Terre @
34
Ditto on the thanks. As non-legal person, is it reasonable for me to read 403 as a broad brush failsafe for the judge to keep evidence on point?
David Ehrenstein @
65
Shived, then shoved. We want to make sure.
J Did you interview VP for book?
BW stumbles
J If it makes you uncomfortable, I’ll withdraw that
BW Thank you.
Initially I was surprised Fitz didn’t pounce on that exchange. BW is called by the defense (although in retrospect it’s hard to see why) and he refuses to answer a question!!!!????? Although the question was withdrawn, the whole thing smacks of some sort of deal between Woodward and Wells. If BW had testified to anything that Fitz thought harmful to his case, perhaps Fitz would have made BW feel a whole lot more uncomfortable on cross.
You don’t come to federal court to testify in a criminal trial and get to pick and choose the questions you will answer. You don’t tell half the story. Unless things changed since 1981 when I graduated from law school, you still have to tell the truth, and that means the WHOLE truth, not just the part the witness is comfortable with.
Since BW didn’t appear to hurt the prosecution, Fitz was probably smart to leave that one alone. If Cheney testifies, we may see BW mentioned again.
Fam Srancis @ 40
You’re right…it seems more like a grand conspiracy to out an UNKNOWN undercover CIA agent!
Repeated incidents through a variety of avenues that revealed her identity…and identity that was unknown. That the CIA requested the DOJ to investigate as a possible violation of the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act.
BTW~ If Plame wasn’t covert then why hasn’t the DEFENSE (or Rove, or Cheney or the White House) simply presented the evidence that she was a publicly open CIA employee working in non-covert activities.
That information would never have been declassified, would it! Look at all the effort they undertook to declassify the NIE…even asserting that they could INSTA-Declassify it!
But they can’t get the CIA to say that Plame wasn’t covert????
Nor can the media????
It’s pretty obvious that Plame was COVERT, and her specific activities still ARE classified.
cinnamonape @ 69
Of course we all know that Plame was covert, the fact that Armitage is not in jail right now is just an oversight, I’m sure…..
Beam me up Scotty…..
portia.vz @
29
And don’t forget he said something about “Scowcroft was working on it”.
Does that mean this conspiracy leads to Scowcrowft and maybe Ledeen being involved in creating the forgeries? I’ve thought that making that connection of the White House to the forgeries might be a little difficult, but here it looks like Armitage is pointing the way.
Bring Scowcroft to the stand for a few questions!
BTW, Armitage IS smart enough to know not to talk about a NOC to a reporter. If he said it was an accident that’s just a cover. Mark him down as one of those assigned to leak the story.
Just for the record, I hereby release and donate all rights to every comment I have heretofore blogged and will in future blog on firedoglake.com and its subsidiaries (with suitable speling an’ grammatical corrections), in case the FDL staff proceeds to write it up as a blogbook, etc.