
(Photo by REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst via Yahoo.)
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.
Thanks to Christy for finding this picture–I had a hard time finding one of Zeidenberg. Zeidenberg will be up first this morning. And since both sides are lobbying for more time, there's a chance we won't finish up today.
We've got a full house in the court room: Jane, Christy, Pachacutec, Sid Blumenthal, and others. And me, sitting here with you all.
Both teams are in the courtroom right now. Ted Wells looks all contemplative–probably getting into character for his Big Show this afternoon. Debra Bonamici looks like she hasn't slept for over a week–which she may well not have. Zeidenberg looks pretty dapper this morning.
Libby is standing by the defense table, hands in pocket, talking to his wife.
Okay, here goes. We'll have thirdy minutes of argument, then we'll get Zeidenberg.
Walton: [sounds like he's still fighting the cold] No objections to govt's proposed jury instructions. I understand you want to change the word "conversation" in instruction.
Bonamici: That won't be addressed in closing. The types of tapes, one is conversation and grand jury testimony and media publications. Suggestion govt made was to change description to audo recordings, to cover all three types of recordings jury has heard.
Jeffress: Introduced by witness.
Bonamici: In case of some, not introduced by witness.
Walton: Defense now prepared to waiver interrogatories on conversations amounting to violation of law.
Bonamici: We've requested an additional 15 minutes of argument time, without the special verdict form laying out conversations. We want to take the time to lay out which conversation relates to which count. When special verdict form did it, we didn't need to spend that time, but now we feel like we need to spend some time to lay thi sout.
Walton: Don't want to inhibit ability. I personally think 3 hours is long time in any case. I'll try to give each side more time, but I can't give you more than 15 minutes, because that'll take us beyond 5.
Jeffress: Walton introducing something.
Walton As I indicated, the appropriate thing is to have the IIPA admitted introduced into evidence, Appropriate to give limiting instruction on how it'll be used. I think I sent you a copy of what I drafted wrt limiting instructions, regarding the IIPA statute. I'd like to get started early, but the jury's not here yet. So let's take 10 minutes.
9:09
Here we go. We're waiting for the jury now.
Walton: Good morning. B4 we proceed with the argument, I'm going to permit the Defense to introduce another piece of evidence.
Jeffress: IIPA.
Walton: Evidence concerning IIPA was presented at trial, statute presented as evidence. Libby not charged with violating IIPA, consider only for impact on state of mind. In other words, consider only if Libby had a motive to provide false info when he spoke to FBI. With that we will proceed. Govt may proceed.
3 minutes ahead of schedule!!!
Zeidenberg:
Morning ladies and gentlemen. ABout a month ago, both sides gave opening statements. Fiz told you what he expected evidence to show. He told you govt would prove that this case about lying. Evidence would show that Libby lied to FBI and GJ how he learned about Valerie Wilson, who he talked to about it, and what he said when he discussed Wilson's wife with others. Defense didn't have to give opening statement. On behalf of defense, Wells elected to give opening. He painted different picture, told you about WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby. Effort to make LIbby into sacrificial lamb so that Karl Rove would go free. You've heard witnesses testify, you've heard witness after witness, you've heard them testify about one or another conversation with Libby about Valerie Wilson during the time period that Libby claimed he had no memory of Wilson's wife. You heard Russert testify, take an oath and say he never spoke to Libby about Wilson's wife. In direct contrast to what Libby claimed. Now did you hear any evidence about a conspiracy to scapegoat Libby? If you draw a blank, it's not because of a problem with your evidence. I bring that to your attention to remind you that evidence is what happened on witness stand and introduced as evidence. Unfulfilled promises from counsel do no constitute evidence. Fitz told you this is case about lying, and I submit that is right. Not a case about bad memory or forgetting. Libby does claim he forgot 9 separate conversations over a 4 week period, but he also invents out of whole cloth, two conversations that never happened. His conversation with Cooper and his conversation with Russert. That's not a matter of forgetting or misremembering, it's lying. Talk to you about evidence and credibility of witnesses.
9:32
Zeidenberg
There will be things that you know from common sense. Use your common sense. When you weigh credibility, don't look in isolation, look together, how their testimony fits together, and how it first with documentary evidence.
Grossman told you (#3 person at State), how on May 29 outside of meeting he was approached by Libby who wanted info about a trip by an Ambassador to Niger. Grossman hadn't heard about it–it bothered him he didn't know about it. He was being asked about something he sould have been aware of. He digs around and finds some information. He finds out it was Wilson. He calls and tells him that info that day. Grossman wants a report. He wants something on paper. Goes on foreign travel, July [oops] 10 or 11, he's handed INR memo, date June 10 [Z has adjusted the way they're describing this to make it match Ford's testimony] He say that Valerie Wilson sent WIlson. Grossman thought it verged on impropriety, he thought it was bizarre. He sees LIbby within a day or two, he see Libby outside of Deputies Committee, says he looked into it, it was Wilson, he did report back, Grossman said another thing. There's something else you should know. Wilson's wife works at agency. Grossman thought important to tell Libby. And why wouldn't he, he had already been caught short, not knowing about Ambassador. He's reporting to VP COS, and he's going to hold back this information. When Grossman told this to Libby, it was the fourth time, in two days, that Libby had been told about Wilson's wife. The fourth time. I'm going to go through the first three, but first of all, want to talk about why you can rely on Grossman's testimony. #3 at State, a colleague of Libby, no confusion about this, I suggest there is no reason in the world he'd have to be biased against Libby. His testimony corroborated by INR report. Ford said unusual to have gotten a request about this subject. Grossman told you this was a zero on his radar screen. The only reason he looked into it was bc he had been requested.
The first, you know, was VP of US. VP told Libby, on what we believe to be is about June 11, you saw Libby's notes from June 11, where he wrote down that wife works at CP, as the result of a phone call with VP, in anticipation of article written by Pincus. Even though date has an approximation, just prior to June 12 Pincus piece. As I'll explain in a minute, we can tie that down. Libby learns on June 11. What else happens on June 11.
Call slip, Libby's call to Grenier. This was an unusual event, Grenier had never received a phone call from Libby before. Calls back about 2:00. Libby's upset with CIA. Some fellow talking to the press. According to Libby, this fellow is saying that he's been told by CIA that he was sent to Niger as result of request from OVP. Libby wants to know if true that Wilson sent, and if true that Wilson sent solely as result of interest from OVP. Grenier, like Grossman before him, when he gets request from COS of VP, he finds out about it. Libby is correct. Learns that interest not just from VP, but State and Defense. He also learns that Valerie Wilson, Joseph Wilson's wife ,worked in unit that sent him. Name's not used, but learned Wilson's wife worked at CIA. He was in dilemma. He's got 4:15 meeting with DCI regarding Iraq. Caught between calling Libby, remembers being torn. Decides he'll call Libby after meeting. Knock on door, he is pulled out. The first time in his life, pulled out of meeting with DCI. That is something you'll remember. Told that Libby wants him to call. Grenier realizes he's made a mistake. Matter of urgency. Grenier sees Libby 2-3 days a week, clearly this was pressing matter. Calls Libby outside meeting and gives him download. Tells him about trip, told him that there was interest from Defense and State. And Grenier tells Libby another fact, Wilson's wife works in unit that sent him. So that is the second person, that day, Mr Libby heard that from. First from VP, then from Grenier. Libby wants to know whether CIA will go public. Will they confirm publicly?
9:43
Grenier briefs Harlow, says they can confirm publicly, says not a problem. Libby says "great, have Harlow talk to my press aide." Harlow believes woman name of Cathie, it's Cathie Martin.
Want to talk abotu Grenier's credibility. Grenier wasn't sure he had shared the info on Plame. Unsure whether he shared it, but he knew he had gotten it, he wanted to err on side of caution. Now he testified at trial that he was sure. Want to remind you of how he accounted for that. Not memory of conversation, but memory of feeling of discomfort, that he had said too much, that he shouldn't have shared info about someone who may have been covert. He remembered unease about sharing the info. From that he could share what happened. He was quite clear in his own mind. But he didn't come clear right away. He didn't think it was important. H knew he didn't tell Libby his name. As press reports became public, reports about where Libby may have learned about it, that Libby may have learned it from press, Grenier felt duty bound to come forward, lay cards on table, and let you, Ladies and Gentlemen, sort it out.
Would have been easiest thing in the world not to share this. He doesn't work at CIA anymore. No animosity with Libby. No reason for him to come in here to put up with day of Cross-examination, except he thought he had info that was relevant. No reason to think that Grenier would fabricate that. Grenier second person.
Third person is Cathie Martin. Grenier puts Harlow on the phone with Harlow. Martin told you she remembers learning about Joe Wilson's wife from Harlow of CIA. She told you that Mr Harlow told her that Wilson former charge in Baghdad, and wife works in CIA. Martin told you that as soon as she got this she went into VP's office, and told them both exactly what she had just learned. That is the third conversation he had on June 11. This is corroborated by other witnesses. Also corrborated by Defendant's notes. Look at GX104, portion of notes,
[Ut oh! Our evidence screen isn't turned on]
Upper right corner, says CP. Wife works in that division. This is the note that Libby writes down from conversation with VP on June 11. Now let me just show you portion of same note. OVP and State and Defense express strong interest in issue. Off to the left, Libby's symbol for VP, VP told, get agency to answer that. It's clear from this note that Libby told by VP to get OVP and Defense and State, VP wants CIA to say that. And that, ladies and gentleman, explains why Grenier got pulled out of meeting with Tenet, that's why Libby had called Grenier, when he had never call him before, this was matter of urgency. VP wanted to get CIA to say this publicly. I suggest this note corroborates testimony of Martin and Grenier. This is exactly what Grenier told you Libby wanted. Grenier and Martin didn't have access to Libby's notes. Martin didn't remember date. But she always remembered sequence, she knew Wilson's name on July 6, she remember she got it from Harlow, got on phone after speaking with Deputy at CIA. from the testimony of those witnesses, clear that conversation with Martin and she immediately told Libby. Third time on June 11 that Libby gets that info.
Next day, Grossman tells Mr Libby, 4 times, less than 48 hours.
What happens next? June 14, Schmall, CIA briefer. There's only 2 people in that room. Take a look at Schmall's notes from that day. Schmall told you he only writes down questions of person he's briefing. Why was Amb told VP office question. Joe Wilson, Valerie Wilson.
Think about that question. That is the question Libby keeps trying to answer, and put to bed. That's the question public keeps asking about VP and this trip.
9:55
Schmall did not know their names. Libby knew more than his briefer. Schmall's testimony corroborates Martin's, Grossman's, and Grenier's testimony. Libby remembered this on June 14. Defendants say if you don't take notes, you can't remember it. Very few of us take notes in course of day. But in this case there are notes that Libby told Schmall that. There's no reason these notes should be questions. Fifth person Libby discussed Wilson's wife with. [shows a tree of who told Libby and who he told.]
Next person, Judith Miller, June 23. Ms Miller, NYT reporter. Taking notes, recalls that he was upset, angry with CIA, felt they were backtracking on what they said publicly before the war. Very familiar with Wilson. Said Wilson ruse, irrelevancy, should be ignored, Familiar with Wilson's trip, familiar with Wilson's wife. He said she worked in the bureau. From context Miller understood as reference in CIA that deals with non-proliferation. Ms Miller was 6th person that Libby talked to about Wilson's wife during that short span of time, June 11 to June 23, less than two weeks. [no discussion of Miller's credibility]
What's next? Ari Fleischer, July 7. An event that stands out in Fleischer's mind. He was leaving, only time he had had lunch with Libby. Fleischer's memory of it clear. Future employment plans. Libby thanked him for comment in gaggle. Miami Dolphins. Mr Libby said he had info that was hush hush and on the QT. Wilson wasn't sent by VP, but by CIA and that Wilson's wife works in counter-proliferation division, the same diviision that Libby was told about and you saw referred to in note from VP. Mr Fleischer took this as gossip, as info that was passged on, unsual, Libby didn't share info normally, he was not someone that Ari could get info normally. WHY did Libby choose to share this info with PS on that date. If you think it was because conversation lagged and he had run out ofthings to say, or did he tell him that bc it was Ari's job to talk to the press, he could spread around without it ever coming back to him. I suggest it's the latter, gave it to him deliberately hoping Ari would talk to reporters. That's exactly what did happen. Gregory, Dickerson. Talks to them, tells people about Wilson's wife. No reaction from them. Don't write down in notebooks. No evidence they ever printed anything about this. Nevertheless, when Ari reads press accounts of criminal investigation, he is mortified, bc he sees that this info appears to have been classified, appears to have involved covert agent. Got a lawyer, got immunity. You should think about it–protects him only if he told the truth. The only thing he can be prosecute about is lying. They never published. He said he had no recollection of talking about Pincus. You heard Pincus recalls telling Fleischer told him. We don't dispute Pincus' testimony. The fact that Ari doesn't remember all the reporters he spoke to about Wilson's wife, doesn't explain why he would fabricate lunchtime meeting with Libby. Irrefutable fact that Ari knew Valerie worked at CP at CIA. Who could he have learned about it. There's no illwill. You saw nice note that Libby sent. Why would Ari lie about that conversation. There's not a question about his memory. Ari is 7th person Libby discussed Wilson's wife during period he claims to have no conscious memory.
Next, David Addington, current COS. Former colleague. Used to be counsel.
10:06
Addington didn't remember date. But I'll explain how we can date it. Addington remembered unique conversation in anteroom. Libby shushed him. Addington soft-spoken man. Libby wanted to know whether President could declassify at will. Addington, yes, Navy v Egan. Libby mentioned Navy v Egan in GJ. Libby wanted to know what paperwork there would be at CIA if someone sent spouse on trip. It's clear who he's talking about. Who in the world would Libby be talking about? You can date it bc you know part about declassification, the NIE, that was doct Libby wanted to leak to reporter. He was going to leak it to Judy Miller on July 8. This conversation had to have happened prior on July 8. [Hey, Z, what bout the note?] Now, there was some suggestion when Addington was cross-examined, that Addington didn't mention word "spouse" when first cross-examined. Mr Addington right now works for VP. He used to be colleague. If he had a bias, which direction do you think it would be? Prosecution, or defense? No reason that Addington would come in here to talk about spouse being sent on trip if that is not his exact memory. He's a precise lawyer. He was clear on his memory. Addington the 8th person Libby spoke to.
The next, Judith Miller, AGAIN, on July 8. This was the meeting at St Regis hotel. This is where Libby was going to leak NIE. Highly unusual event. Only 3 people knew NIE was declassified; Pres, VP, and Libby. Tenet didn't know about it, Condi didn't know about it, Hadley didn't know about it. Just those three, Pres, VP, and Libby knew about it. And they're going to pick Judy to give it to. They met at St Regis. She had her notes. She told you Libby was agitated, angry. She told about NIE, what was in there. Talked about Powell presentation. She told you ground rules changed in middle. First, referred to as SAO. Then rules change, I want to be referred to for this next portion as Former Hill Staffer. Libby didn't work on Capitol Hill, worked in OVP. Didnt want this next part to be linked with him or his office. Conversation turns to Wilson and Wilson's wife. He tells Ms Miller that Wilson's wife works at WINPAC. WINPAC is section w/in CIA. Can you trust and corroborate Ms Miller's testimony [giggles in media room] When she first testified she didn't remember June 23 meeting. Can you find her testimony credible. A few things to keep in mind. Who is Judy Miller. Won Pulitzer. Libby had very nice things to say about her. Think about this, NIE gets declassified, only 3 people know about it. They could leak to ANY reporter in US. This is exclusive. Libby handpicks one reporter, Judy Miller. Why? As he said in GJ, he thought she was a responsible, conscientious reporter. Remember the circumstances, hardly ordinary. Goes into GJ after 85 days in Alexandria County Jail, fighting subpoena. She didn't want to have to testify in this case. No access to notes. Asked only if she understands interview about July 8. She testified, as she told you, Libby talking about Wilson's wife working at CIA. Asked "is this the first you heard of it." She says, "I have a memory, but I can't place the source." She's asked to find the notes. Her notes in shopping bag under desk. Finds, THERE, I did know. Guess who her source on June 23 was? It was Mr Libby. She looks at notes and it refreshes memory. What's the other corrboration. Libby's June 23 calendar. Shows meeting with Judy. Look at Libby's calendar entry July 8. Private meeting at St Regis. That's the meeting that Miller told you about.
A couple of things I want you to think about. Remember how busy Libby was. Remember how he was doing work of two men. Yet he can block off several hours to meet with Ms Miller to deal with political PR matter. Tells you how pressing this issue was. What's the other corroboration. Show you portion of MIller's testmiony on June 23.
Want to show you document introduced as defense exhibit. Show you fax sent to Libby on June 9, this fax in Mr Libby's files was conveyed to Miller on June 23. "Initially referred to as clandestine guy. CIa sent Wilson out to investigate claim." This is what she took from what Libby told her. Take a look at exhibit. Fax to Libby sent June 9, 2003. This is the time period Hannah said Libby doing homework. Memorandum for VP. "In response to your question on sale of uranium to Iraq, we have tasked our clandestine source with ties to Niger govt." Clandestine guy, VP office, report 2002. Ms Miller able to accurately recount what Libby told her June 23 2003, able to come in here 2007 to tell you about fax sent to him by CIA. A couple things to take away. 1) Libby WAS doing his homework. 2) Libbby was able to remember facts from June 9 to June 23. Hannah said Libby has great memory for remembering facts that support argument. 3) Miller able to accurately get that info and tell you about it. Ms Miller was the 9th person who talked about Wilson's wife with Scooter Libby between June 9 and the time he says he was surprised to learn it as if for the first time.
Russert.
10:21
First, I want to remind you what Wells said about Russert. "I do not contend ANY of them are lying. He makes clear Russert one of the most respected reporters in US. I'm not arguing now that anyone is telling intentional lies." That's what he told you in opening. Then, in cross, for 5.5 hours, Wells tries to suggest to you that Russert IS lying, lying because he's trying so hard to go into GJ, lure of being deposed in lawyer's off is so great. And also lying, Wells said, bc of feud with VP's office. First recall about what Libby said in GJ. He referred to Russert 3 dozen times. You can read it, but I suspect your memory will remember those 3 dozen. He testified not that he thought it was LIKELY he learned of it from Russert, he was unequivocal, he remembers what he was thinking, he remembers what he was feeling, how it struck him, that Russert thought this info was important. Want to play a piece of that conversation. This very first clip is language charged in indictment.
Walton: You've consumed 59 minutes of your time.
[Plays Libby tape: Did you know that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. I was taken aback by it. I said no, I don't know that. Intentionally, bc I didn't want him to take anything as confirming what I said. I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning. I wanted to make sure I didn't confirm with him. I reminded him, Tim, off the record. Russert said to me, did you know Wilson's wife CIA. Then he said, "all the reporters know it." I said, I don't know that. Wanted to be sure I wasn't confirming anything. Struck by what he was saying. Didn't ask anything more, didn't want to be digging in on him. Then we finished conversation. F Why so surprised? L I was surprised that he knew it, and I didn't. Russert is one of the best of the newsmen, one of the most substantive of the newspeople, not only did he know it and I didn't, but also that he thought it was important.]
Ladies and Gentlemen, you now know that was made up. Russert took stand, remembered conversation. Had never received phone call from high govt official. Swearing. He's watching hardball, monitoring what's happening. Russert has clear recollection of this conversation. Russert never talked to him about . It never happened. Russert didn't know about Wilson's wife. He read about it in newspaper in column on July 14, same way Sanger, Kessler learned of it, they read it in newspaper. That conversation never happened. Now, Wells wants to suggest to you that Russert is fabricating, that he's saying he's certain when he's not. Lets just talk about motives.
I'm going to next thread
10:29
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

Fitz Baby!
F I T Z !!!
FireDogs in the courthouse! OOOH RAAAH!
Marcy!
This got EPU’d
Steve G is required reading this morning…
http://www.thenewsblog.net/200…..world.html
I watched “Born on the Fourth of July” last night, my wife was getting quizzed on it for a crisis intervention class. It sickens me that the same shit Ron Kovic went through is happening again, in spades. We never learn.
[Mod Note; Please stay on the topic of the current courtroom activities in the Live Blogging threads]
Oooh!
. . .and not just any Firedogs in the courthouse, it’s the f’ing Beatles of Plame in the courthouse -
J A N E !!!
C H R I S T Y !!!
M A R C Y !!!
P A C H A C U T E C !!!
P R O F. P R O P !!!
. . . ooh we’ve been very good little rabid lambs
and thanks Twisted for the Gilliard link – have been waiting for he and his community to weigh in on this tragedy
Go get ‘em ladies and gents!!!
IIPA?
Go Fitzie!!!
It seems to me that Walton is setting things up so the defense either has to stick to their time and make sure things move along, or end up with Fitz speaking alone tomorrow morning. Nicely done!
GO DAWGS!
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!!
From RBG and Peterr:
Merry Fitzmas
Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.
1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the
topic of the current live blogging.
2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum –
especially during live blogging.
3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that
comment to get caught in moderation.
4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3
quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for
the people behind the scenes.
5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to
keep things from getting caught in moderation.
6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes
life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.
Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.
Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?
Thanks.
Must. Not. Refresh.
Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress says the firing US attorneys after more indictments in the Duke Cunningham corruption case could be covering a trail that leads to the White House.
Marcy or someone who knows better than me…
Friedman was just on Imus complaining about the Libby trial in that, “Why would they send Wilson to Nigeria to find out about the yellowcake? What, he just went over and started questioning random people?”
Even I know that Wilson had contacts over there, and after being Amb knew people to talk to etc, but it really pisses me off that Friedman was able to perpetuate this BS.
Any way someone can email Imus & Freidman and set them straight? If anyone can point me towards a source that explains this, I’ll email them.
Thanks, and let me know-
before I cease and desist on the extraneous comments – I urge all firedogs to contact your congresscritter today (sidebar, breaks, recess, whatever) and demand answers and improved conditions for these soldiers and marines in the Dana Priest story -
contact your congresscritter today!
phone calls and faxes carry more weight than e mails
and write an LTE while you’re at it – so many of our friends and neighbors have not heard or seen this story
now commencining radio silence ; )
As to trolls, remember that gabbly is the place to call them names, not here. *waving to RGB*
Gabbly
Hey Jeffrey, waving back. RBG
FirePups can discuss today’s live blogging without impacting the FDL servers by opening a separate window or tab and going to URL:
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com/
Please save off-topic discussion for previous thread, or join us in the Gabbly chat. Thanks!
They haven’t got this evidentiary stuff worked out yet? It seems crazy that they have to keep working on that while the jury is waiting for stuff to happen. Didn’t all the lawyers work like fiends all weekend? Could they have gotten this stuff taken care of then? I guess the judge would have to be there for some of it but even still.
Boston1775 @ 9
Many questions are answered at Rayne’s handy Libby primer — who’s who and some of what’s what. Acronyms and jargon, play descriptions, etc.
Boston1775 @
9
Intelligence Identites Protection Act
You may also hear about a Standard Form 302, guidelines for handling classified material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ection_Act
wonder what’s going on with the IIPA? Seemed like Team Libby was arguing that all thru the defense portion…
meanwhile, completely ignoring the real charges…
Not OT.
MSNBC
CNN
Not one mention of Libby trial or closing arguments.
Wall to wall Anna Nicole.
And we wonder why we are in such a mess. And we wonder why everyone thinks this trial just don’t matter.
Email campaign to MSNBC and CNN
PLEASE HELP
9 Boston1775 says:
February 20th, 2007 at 6:18 am
IIPA?
Must be time to re-introduce Rayne’s Glossary including other points of interest:
http://rayne-today.blogspot.com/
Introducing the IIPA is one of those “prejudicial” items. Meaning when the jury reads it, they are more likely to convict Libby.
Nobody’s game face is that good. Libby completely detatched from reality.
He really thinks he’s a great man and everyone will see that.
I’m all tingly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oddball (23) — do you have a link to a reference that outlines the 302? I’d like to put that in the primer if you have it handy. Thanks.
Should that be “not a problem with your memory“? If so, Z’s nailing any potential residual memory defense with the jury.
Nice opening: It’s not about memory – it’s about lying.
I am simultaneously liveblogging it from the media room antechamber. Hi. It’s hard to keep up with the prosecutor :)
Anybody talking about Toensing’s hatchet job?
There it is: He “forgot” 9 separate conversations in 4 weeks, and invents 2 conversations out of whole cloth, with Cooper and with Russert, that NEVER happened. That’s not forgetting or misremembering, that’s LYING!
And that’s all that the prosecutiuon needs the jury to remember to convict this slimy traitor.
Rayne @
29
Rayne – does 302 pertain to CIPA?
CourtTV had a nice recap with Fred Graham wondering where the defense went.
-
cbl at 18
That’s what I was doing most of yesterday, writing not just my own congresscritters, but a big grabbag of any others who’ve stuck their noses up above the crowd for self-serving reasons (e.g., Hagel, Biden, Hillary, etc. etc).
When people write, I suggest they look for the little tabs, and be sure to request a personal answer from the critter.
And if any, in your view, appear to be working hard on the people’s business and showing some courage (e.g., Murtha), write them too, to offer thanks. Heaven knows they get enough negative pressure. Let ‘em know we notice their good deeds(!)
p.s., Dana Priest, bless her, seemed to be all over the telly yesterday. ;->
apologies – back to lurking…
Stephen Parrish — good question, I don’t know, I’m relying on oddball’s reference up thread at (23).
I think that may be a typo, I have an SF-312 in my glossary. Have “302″ listed as a rule of evidence.
But if there’s a Standard Form 302, I’d like to make sure I have it covered.
I love the vividness of the image of Libby having nine conversations in four weeks about the Wilsons—how do you forget that? I can’t believe, though, that Fitz didn’t bring into evidence the nine separate times that Joe and Val’s ears were seen literally burning elsewhere in DC at the exact moments those convos were taking place.
He’s reporting to VP COS, and he’s going to hold back this information.
?He’s NOT going to…
perhaps?
egregious (and others)- come join us !
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com/
I have been wondering how the Prosecution would take the morass of info and tie it into a comprehensible narrative.
This reads like the end of a good detective novel!
Wow – powerful opening statement goes right at the knees (and perhaps something a little higher than the knees) of Wells opening statement and the entire defense premise. It looks like they’ll encircle the defense claims with a very plausible sense of doubt, plus add all of their evidence. Brilliantly written statement so far that lends serious credibility to the notion that Libby intentionally lied repeatedly in order to obstruct justice.
I wish I didn’t have to go to work! Have a good day, everyone… I look forward to checking in for your summaries later today.
oddball 25
Wouldn’t worry too much yet. If they ignore Libby tonite, THEN I’d slam ‘em – HARD!
From live footage I saw this a.m., I’d rather that crazy gaggle of cameras stay in FL, & have the networks send “real” journalists to Prettyman Courthouse.
- if they don’t, blogs can make ‘em wish they had(!) ;->
FOURTH TIME
I love timelines, and Marcy’s timelines are great.
But Mr. Z. did a biggy, he intorduced Grossman first stating that Grossman was the FOURTH to tell Libby…
So Mr. Z. started a fresh jury off with the total… FOURTH time, and then backtracks to give all the story in chronological order.
Leasves no dout in the jury’s minds what the total would be, where if they’d been given the chronology without the introduction of FOURTH they might have wearied and not kept score for themselves.
Fitz and crew are keeping score and writing the numbers large.
Nice move, to introduce rock hard facts while the jury is fresh.
If there were a Pulitzer Prize for blogging, Firedoglake would win hands down.
Great work but one question: How is the jury reacting to this summation?
Just one: Yayyyy!!!!
Great start to the closing arguments! Thanks again for being there — all of you.
Marcy — you may need a bodyguard at the convention Saturday to keep the mobs away. You’re going to be such a rock star! Better come incognito wearing sunglasses,a hat and a trench coat with a big collar.
SharonRB
ya mean like this ?!?!
Thinking this morning about Cheney’s obsession with Wilson’s wife sending him on a junket. Does Cheney have any family member that he hasn’t placed in government? On 9/11, Lynn Cheney controlled the TV remote in the White House bunker. I’m guessing Cheney has sent more family members on junkets than he cares to count.
Wow to the livebloggers. Capturing long paragraphs is even harder than capturing dialogue, and you are doing a great job AFAICS.
Cranky
Marcy,
I’m in total awe of your ability to transcribe this summation. So far, it is very illuminating. I’m trying to imagine myself a juror. Team Libby has their hands full, to say the least.
NY Times up today with a Cheney-in-the-crosshairs story about the libby trial.
Free rein to commit treason. I sure hope this whole deal goes further up the food chain.
_
It seems like Zeidenberg has uttered the words ‘classified’ and ‘covert’ more times in a few minutes than during the the entire trial to date.
Add to twolf’s rules of the road:
Please help keep the FDL flame burning bright. Your contribution of any size matters. PayPal, online or snailmal…upper right corner.
And further on Building 18/Dana Priest’s reporting: email your local talk radio hosts. Ask them to make this the lead question every time they talk to any political official or spinner. Or call.
Ways we can all take back our democracy.
gabblers ( http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com/ )have pointed out site meter went from 5 to 8k in a big hurry -
lurkers and de lurkers – imagine just $5 – $10 from all those “hits’ !
get on it hippies !
Muzzy @ 54
I noticed that too, which is a signal for a possible motive? Perfury and obstruction to hide a bigger crime?
Also, it is worth noting that an officer of the court could not say that if it were not TRUE!!!!
oddball @ 25
Just more proof how much it really does matter… The mainstream media is an equal partner in this guilty mix, whether by complicity or complacency.
Again, it will be up to the blogs and bloggers to get this message “out.”
But don’t hesitate to write to Olberman with a related email, he’s on our side, but unfortunately, his parent company’s executives aren’t so loyal to the truth.
Maybe he’ll mention something to the effect when he covers the trial later.
Hammer dunk. “…and ONE!“
_
FYI — A “302″ is an FBI summary of a witnesses statements during an interview.
Excellent summation so far. Starts with unimpeachable witnesses, stresses preponderance of evidence that Libby had this front and center during entire period, only needs to then shift focus to what he told investigators and how it represents a completely different narrative that was intended to obfuscate.
That last piece of “evidence” (Libby not charged under IIPA) sounds almost prejudicial. He is almost certainly guilty under IIPA, but not charged with it because of the graymail defense. The liveblog description of Walton’s last-minute remark to the jury almost sounds like the jury is being told Libby is innocent of violating IIPA. Wells really got away with something here.
BINGO! If I were a juror this is what would convince me that Libby lied. Forgetting is one thing, but remembering things that never happened . . . .
Fitz told you this is case about lying, and I submit that is right. Not a case about bad memory or forgetting. Libby does claim he forgot 9 separate conversations over a 4 week period, but he also invents out of whole cloth, two conversations that never happened.
new thread
c’mon….
ZEIDENBERG!
New thread.
cbl @ 48
LOL – Exactly what I had in mind! The scarf is a nice touch instead of a hat.
Long-time lurker, new poster. Would very much like to contribute to FDL to help pay for costs associated with this terrific coverage. There was a suggestion at some point to contribute an odd amount (was it $50.07?)in order to designate it for Plame House, but I’m not sure I have that right. (Uh oh, the memory defense!)Please remind me. Thanks.
There is no need to add .07 to your contribution…but feel free to do so if you wish.
Comment 49 by SaltinWound is quite astute.
A lot of times, people think that others think the way that they themselves do. Cheney’s propensity to stack the government with his own relatives by birth and marriage very likely create a predisposition on the VP’s part to assume that Valerie Wilson had a similar nepotistic bent.
“A couple of things I want you to think about. Remember how busy Libby was. Remember how he was doing work of two men. Yet he can block off several hours to meet with Ms Miller to deal with political PR matter.”
cbl@18 thanks for reminding everyone to call their congressmen re:Dana Priest’s WAPO expose of the the appalling neglect of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. Remember, everytime anyone in the Bush admin. opens his mouth its to justify their actions by claiming to support the troops.
Oh yah: FITZ
My favorite line so far is this one:
Wrt Russert, Zeidenberg says “I’m not arguing now that anyone is telling intentional lies.”
I wonder what the definition of is?
I meant “I wonder what the definition of now is?