
(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.
Zeidenberg
Russert treated exactly same as Woodward, Kessler, Pincus. Why would the lure of this be so great with Russert, but Woodward, Kessler and Pincus could resist. BC of feud? Bad blood? You'd have to believe that when Russert got call from Eckenrode, and he told Russert that Libby said Russert told him, that would have been his chance to stick it to Libby. He'd have to continue that lie. Evidence of the feud is completely absent from Trial. Wouldn't you think that Libby would have known about the bad blood when he went before GJ? Woudln't you think that Martin who said Russert was [an easy mark]? It's a sign of how desperate the defense is to discredit Russert that they would even suggest such a thing.He doesn't remember any of those other conversations. But this one, he says he remembers it perfect.
What's next. Cooper.
You remember COoper said at end of conversation. He said What have you heard about Wilson's wife sending him on the trip. Libby's response, "yeah, I've heard about that." Wells suggested that differences between LIbby's version and Cooper's version, is just difference between a few words. Cooper said, I heard that too. And Libby said, I heard that too, but I don't know if it's true? But is that the evidence in the case. Do you remember what Libby ACTUALLY said what occurred in that conversation? I'd like to play portion of what Libby said he said to Cooper.
Libby, then Cooper said, why did Wilson say it?
[Libby's GJ tape: I would have thought, off the record, that CIA wouldn't tell, who asked about it. Conversation VP has is supposed to be confidential. THey'd have said that CIA tried to do it. I wouldn't have thought that he heard this, but if it's possible he heard something unofficially, it was wrong. In that context, I said, off the record, reporters telling us that Amb Wilson's wife works at CIA. I don't know if true. But if it's true, it may explain why Wilson got some bad information at agency.]
By anybody's count, that is not a few words. By any account, that is not what Cooper said Libby said. He never told Cooper, I don't know if it's true. It's made up, made up out of whole cloth. Ladies and gentleman, Cooper could never have taked as confirmation the things Libby had told him. Cooper took this as confirmation. How could he have taken it as confirmation?
Mr Cooper corroborated by Cathie Martin. Martin was present. She never heard ANY Of what you heard Libby just hear it. She never heard, "I don't know if it's true." If she had heard it, she would have said something, because SHE knew it was true. Finally you heard from Cooper that this was a conversation that kept playing through his head. It was significant. Confirmation for a story that got a lot of attention. He is sure about what he testified. No reason he would say it if he weren't sure.
10:38
Some comments about charges. You're going to hear the term "materiality." Remember Agent Bond, talking about inevstigation. Remember nature of comments. Libby has tried to obscure where he learned this information. Doing an investigation into spread of classified info, if you learned about through classified channel, then spread it, it can eb a violation. If you heard about it as gossip, then it's not a crime. Think about how hard it is to investigation these charges if you hide how you found out.
Three separate statements. Want to make clear three things. [puts up three charged lies]
1) You can convict if you find any one of these three statements. You don't have to find that all three were false beyond reasonable doubt. You have to unanimously agree on any one.
2) Don't consider JUSt Russert's testimony. Consider all the testimony. When Libby says he was surprised. Consider all of them, From Martin to Grossman, all of it is relevant, and all should be considered.
Count Two, two counts of false statements. Just like with the first count, you just have to find either one of them is false. Not necessarily on both, though obviously, we think you should find him guilty on both.
Count Three, one statement.
Count Four, perjury count, that language is underlined. in instructions, you'll get underlined language.
Count Five four separate statements, all of which alleged as false. Just as with other one, you only have to find unanimously any of the four.
[Playing GJ testimony. In my mind, I didn't know if it was a fact. I said, reporters are telling that, I don't know if it's true. As I said, I don't know if he has a wife. F:DId the fact that you knew that the law could turn on this, that you said your source was a reporter. L No, it was a fact, it was a fact. It was important for what i was saying. F Next set of questions, if you did not understand it to be classified, why were you so deliberate that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it. L I didn't know it was true. I didn't want reporters to know that I said it. I didn't know if he had a wife, I didn't know if he;s married.]
[Libby's looking at screen behind him with the language on it, immobile. Jeffress passes Wells a note.]
[More GJ, Talking to the other reporters, I don't see it as a crime. I was telling other reporters what htey told us, I don't see that as a crime.]
Zeidenberg. Thus far, I talked about govt case. I want to talk abotu Defense testimony, and whether you should consider it credible.
In opening and cross, they've said that Libby was so busy that it's unreasonable to expect that he could remember snippet of conversation. Is it fair to ask him to remember that?
Want to come back to testimony he told about another conversation he had, with Karl Rove. This was end of week, horrible week. Wilson op-ed. All the questions, the firestorm starts. Next day, admin says 16 words shoulnd't have been in there. Pres in Africa, Libby has to deal with this. 11th is Friday. Libby talks about conversation he had with Rove about Novak. I want you to think of all the details that Libby is able to recall, w/o benefit of notes, that occurred at end of that week.
[GJ testimony: wasn't sure if we were going to get everything we wanted. During conversation, Rove said to me, conversation with Novak. Sense was it was recent. Told me that Novak had told him that, Rove, Novak had told Karl Rove that he was going to be writing--my sense was that weekend. He had run into Wilson in Green Room, the room that people sit in waiting to go out on television show, fruit and coffee, waiting for turn to go on the air. Rove told me Novak had run into Wilson, had a bad taste in his mouth. I've forgotten exactly what it was. Wilson turned him off. Also that NOvak had concerns how Wilson chosen. BC Wilson and Novak's view, Wilson had, might not be a fair and impartial reporter. Third thing, Novak told Karl that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Confirmation of sort from what I had heard from Russert, that all reporters knew. I told Karl that I had heard from Russert the same thing.]
Consider how amazingly sharp the details are? Libby can remember 8 months after, every detail of conversation that Rove had with Novak and what Novak told Rove, but he can't remember out of 9 conversation sthat he himself has about Wilson's wife, bc it's a trivial detail? The same trivial detail he learned from ROve, and yet he can remember it with no difficulty and no notes.
When you consider Libby's testimony, there's a pattern of always forgetting about Wilson's wife. He remembers Ari conversation, talk about future, Miami Dolphins, Remembers the Dolphins, doesn't remember talking about Wilson's wife. Remembers talking about NIE iwht Judy. Not abotu wife. Remembers talking about declassification with Addinton, but not the wife. Convenient pattern. Is that purposeful.
Libby can remember with specificity what he DIDN'T talk about. [Cheney's op-ed] "or did his wife send him on a junket?"These are questions Cheney wrote in his own hand. Those are the questions VP is asking. Ask yourself. VP has these quesitons Who is he going to ask about them. Isn't it obvious he's going to be working on them with his right hand man. And when Fitz asked, "didn't these come up that week?"
[GJ testimony: Keeps columns for a while. I don't know when he wrote them. You have to ask him about them. F You're saying these would happen much later. L ONly that part about the wife, that wouldn't occur that week. The part about the wife, I don't recall discussing with him, prior to learning again, about the wife. ]
Isn't that remarkable that he can remember that far back what he didn't talk about. The wife, He can remember that they didn't remember.
Want to talk for a moment about Mr Novak. Libby confused Russert with Novak. [Puts up the faces of Russerr and the MOST UNFLATTERING picture of Novak I've ever seen.] It wouldn't be easy to confuse these two. [switches the two pictures, laughs in the media room]
When Libby was asked about Novak, he said he hadn't talked to Novak for a year and a half. But now he says he might have confused it. If you thought an investigation was all about who linked to Novak. And you thought you might have learned it from Novak. Don't you think you would have remembered?
Now let's go to forgetting about VP telling you this. I want to suggest it's simply not credible to believe. It's ludicrous. Here is an issue that is front and center. Wilson is spurring headlines accusing WH of lying into war and VP is in hotseat. Libby is VP's right hand man. THey're asked questions over and over. Why did they send him. Libby gets an answer. The wife. Bad skinny, he calls it. He writes it down. He wants you to believe that VP and he didn't think important. But he wrote it down. He's doing the homework to school himself about Wilson. And he so completely forgets info about Wilson's wife that when Russert tells him about it, it rings NO BELLS? no memor? L&G It's just not credible.
11:00
Want to talk about motive.
Wells told you, people don't lie for the heck of it. That's absolutely true. Is it conceivable that all 9 witnesses would make the same mistake in their memory.
Let's look at Libby's motive to lie, bc Wells told you there was no motive to lie. Think about what he was facing when he went to testify October 14. He knew investigation into unauthorized leaks. Knew he had talked to Miller, Cooper, and Fleischer. He knows those facts.
What else do we know he knows. [Oct 12 WaPo article] Newspaper article take from his files.
[reading and commenting from article] FBI Agents have begin by investigating events the month before the leak. Asking about events going back to early June. Investigators investigating how Plame's name got linked to Wilson and how it made way around govt. Govt officials had been trying for more than a month that Wilson's mission not as important. Time magazine, some govt officials have noted that Wilson's wife. That article would tell any intelligent perso, no question he is intelligent, that the FBI was looking for him. They were trying to find out who was scurrying around to find out about Wilson. That was Libby.
[Now goes to 10/04 article, with the B&J front, reading from article again] B&J leak. Talks about damange inadvertant disclosure of front company could form. Remember testimony of Schmall, CIA briefer. he told them disclosure is a serious business. People can get harrassed, people can get arrested, people can get killed. Addington testified that Libby asked him how you would know if someone was covert. Remember Addington's answer: You wouldn't know. Look at nondiclosure agreement.
[reading from it] UNauthorized disclosure of classified information can cause damage or irreperable injury to US. I understand that if I am uncertain, I am required to confirm that info is unclassified before I diclose it. I've been advised that any breach = termination of security clearance. He knows that, you can't even be negligent.
Recall what WH spokespman said, [video of Scottie] No one wants to get to bottom of matter more than pres, if someone leaked classified info, president wants to know, if someone leaked classified info, they will no longer be part of administration. Looking at that, no question that, at a minimum, he's going to be fired. Libby went to VP, said he wanted to be cleared the way Rove had been cleared.
[exhibit saying he wanted ot be cleared] He wanted to be cleared–and he got one. [shows Scottie tape] Those individuals have assured me they were not involved.
He has had WH stake its credibility on it, if they find out he was involved, he would have to retract that. Now the FBI comes. It appears that this woman was a covert agent. He can tell the truth and take his chances. Or he can lie. And L&G, he took the second choice. He made up a story that he thought would cover it. He knew he had a note learning of it from CIA. That's an official source. He had to come up with a way to account for that note, I forgot and learned anew for the first time. Russert told me that all the reporters knew it, and all I did was pass on gossip.
11:11
That is the story he told the FBI
L&G, this is a case about lying, Not conspiracy, No WH conspiracy, no NBC conspiracy; Libby not here because of bad conduct of others. He's here because of his own decision. He decided to lie to the GJ. When you consider all the evidence, the govt has established that the defendant lied to the FBI, lied to GJ, obstructed justice.
Thank you.
10 minutes recess–I'll start the Wells thread.
11:13
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

Z
M A R C Y !!!
FITZMAS!!1!
Tommy and others – we’re all over here, hoping it helps the servers
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com/
FITZ!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
. . .and remember to refresh judiciously – every 30 min max – ya damn junkies !
Go Fitzie!!!
Z is certainly connecting the dots!!
Great job Marcy!!
I love how this is all getting laid out in a clear, chronological manner in the wrap-up. If I were in the jury box, I’d sure be convinced and this would be making it so much easier.
FITZMAS!
Fitzie and Zeidenberg!!!!
Thank you FDL! :)
twolf1 @ 6
Here’s an invitation. When the server load gets high, as it may well get today — you may wanna join some of us at a live-chat on another server, over at http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.comIt’s a fun kinda chat-app. Using it doesn’t burden FDL’s servers at all. We’ve had as many as 65 folx in there at one point a couple weex back. It’s a good place to discuss any sort of Libby-related stuff at a far faster pace than is possible in these threads.
Rayne introduced it and imho it’s cool. Sometimes we get harrassed by hackers, in which case we retreat to a private redoubt. Others of us know how to get its URL to you without publishing it here. If you need its URL, please post your request in an FDL comment string.
If you wanna join us, C U over in chat-land. Remember, because Gabbly runs on a completely other server somewhere on the ‘net, using it takes some of the heavy load off the FDL servers!
Hint: Use two browser windows. Put the above URL in one, and the real FDL (this one) in the other. Position the windows where you can see both the chat about FDL and the real FDL. Refresh only the REAL FDL window.
Go FDL and Godspeed.
I wonder if Wells is staring at the nearest wall mounted fire alarm right about now.
The subtext in the early going perticulary is Libby’s comfort with lying.
He was comfortable with pushing responsibility away from the OVP, even when confronted with the fact that it did have a part to play in Wilson’s trip. His counsel is comfortable making something up about being thown under a bus by Rove, without even an embarrased nod to that argument in any part of the defense. They claim Russert had a motivation to lie, but present no evidence.
The point-by-point surgury in this summation is incredibly effective, but it is the overall redolance of the way the OVP operates that has to be seeping into the pores of the jurors.
Geez, Marcy, give Novak a break.
It’s not easy to take a good picture when you don’t reflect light.
Is that right? I thought a big point of the nondisclosure agreement stuff (SF 412 or whatever it was) is you can’t disclose or confirm classified info no matter what.
Zeidenberg is really hammering it home on the unlikelihood of Scooter’s pattern of forgetting some things and remembering others. Well done!
I’ve felt through the whole trial that the govt was doing a good job of showing the technical fact that Libby lied his head off, but not doing enough to say why Libby should go to prison if Libby didn’t leak classified info that got people killed. I’m afraid the idea that this is a political persecution might somehow stick. They need to defuse that and explain the importance of the obstruction, that Libby kept investigators away not only from past crimes but also from ongoing crimes.
WOW. Thanks for the live blogging. This is indeed being laid out very well by the prosecution.
EW:
Thank you very much for doing this.
You’re amazing!!
You could have been a court stenographer!
none @
16
IIRC, only a violation for IIPA, not for nondisclosure.
I yest go nauts at fitzmas, on that yolly holly day.
none @ 18
political persecution?This is a Rep. led DOJ bringing charges against a Rep. White House official.Your comment makes no sense.
scooter’s swaying aspens are turning into immobile prison bars.
Pick one FDL monicker and stick with it please.
Hmmm…
I find it curious that Z is closing on the certainty of that note being accurately dated. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence (Libby’s GJ testimony for one) to suggest that the note might have been in response to Pincus’s article (or the TNR article), NOT the Kristof article, and not in PREPARATION for the Pincus article.
And that as EW suggests in her recent thread at TNH, this makes sense that Dick would have found out more info about Plame AFTER Libby and Martin told him that she was Wilson’s wife and worked at the CIA.
I guess they’re just going with their interpretation that it’s for the Pincus article because it makes a nice story, for now at least. I wonder if Wells will challenge this, or at least try to sow confusion about it.
Personally, I like Fitz’s style better. All facts, no rhetorical flourishes. There is NO doubt in his arguments.
The door at 11:11 opens and shuts.
none @ 18
read Fitzgeralds comments from the indictment press conference
then
read two posts back about
“Why this matters”
All your questions are answered.
It’s all about the L-word!!!
viget @ 26
Thass why Fitz has the last word.
viget @ 26
He can’t really challenge it TOO much can he? What’s Libby going to do, tell them that he now remembers the REAL date of it? So Wells can challenge it, but he’s going to do that anyway…
I don’t mean to nit-pic, but did Z really have to insert that?
sigh
Terre @ 32
I am wondering if Marcy’s flying fingers just missed the “t”, that is this case is not about a WH conspiracy (among other things). A very important point to emphasize to the jury.
How can Libby and Wells explain this one:- “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.”
Hard to see how the defense raises any reasonable doubt- but we may be surprised.
Terre @
32
L&G, this is a case about lying, Not conspiracy, No WH conspiracy, no NBC conspiracy;…
I don’t mean to nit-pic, but did Z really have to insert that?
sigh
Terre, he’s not saying that there wasn’t a WH conspiracy. He’s just saying that it’s not what’s being tried here.
See, Wells and Co. want to muddy the waters by making the jury feel sowwwwy for powwwwr brwaaain-damaged widdle Scooter-wooter, doing what his mean boss Unka Dicky told him to do. This is done in the hopes that the jury will decide that pooowwrrr widdle Scooter-wooter is more sinned against than sinning and thus decide not to convict even though he’s manifestly guilty. (When you hear Fitzy talking disgustedly about “jury nullification”, that’s what he’s talking about: The defense convincing the jury to let a guilty man go free.)
Z. is reminding the jurors that far from being a poor widdle brain-damaged memory-deficient victim, Scooter Libby actively connived in the whole Plamegate affair — and lied under oath to conceal key facts about it.
as for the bold, fitz was given permission to go on record with this?
new thread
Zeidenberg rocks – in an old-fashioned way. He’s nailing the complexity down in plain view.
I figured out why Fitz hasn’t said anything about Toensing. ‘Cause she’s going to be indicted should evidence show the B-1 WaPo headline got through to a juror. And it just might show already. Probably a juror has quietly complained to Walton.
Marcos @ 23
It’s the rogue prosecutor theory, look at the Toensing crap in the Wapo during the weekend, an apparent blatant attempt at jury tampering, for example. There’s been plenty of GOP partisan attacks against Fitz as well.
perris @ 37
oh, I had to add this to the comment;
watch the neo fascists spin this, see how they will fly like pigs in the sky
this to me is not nearly strong enough
he needed to go into the ramifications of those lies
Ed*ard Teller @ 39
Walton should certainly instruct the jury to disregard the Toensing article and to let him know if they saw it. But I don’t see Toensing being indicted without proof of intent to influence the jury. Free press and all that.
I do not like this sentence of Zeidenberg’s – “No WH conspiracy.” HELL YES THERE WAS !
Does Libby look like he’s lost weight? I would not be able to eat if I were Libby.
Finally, motive! Very important to impress jury when alleging LYING, that REASON to lie is at heart.
Well done, Z!
Could some list the three charged lies at one point? thanks
Did the Prosecution really say there was no White House conspiracy? Please say that is not true when all the evidence suggests there was a conspiracy to out a covert agent to punish Wilson.
‘Speaking of Rove, here’s Wells presenting testimony not in evidence that the VP note saying not fair to sacrifice one staffer for another who stuck his neck out, meant one staffer = Rove, another = Libby’
That comprises b oth intent and consipring to cover it up.
The only reason one could think was put in was to get the talking point out on grounds for mistrial. Also to try and open a window of opportunity to strike this evidence down in a later trial reagardinmg IIPA instead of obstruction.
Marcos @ 23
Wait till Fitz gets his chance….he will show righteous indignation and will waive the flag and out these people for the crooks they are….”sand in the face” quote likely to be used in his final aruement to describe his frustration about the stonewalling done by these cowards.
I thought by WH conspiracy, he was referring to a conspiracy to let Scooter take all the blame (as Wells implied in opening). Not THE conspiracy that we all know existed.
Terre @
32
From the context of Z’s presentation I read it as refuting defense bullshit — ie
This is a case about lying,
not a case about “WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby and save Karl Rove,”
not a case about NBC conspiracy to “get back at Scooter Libby & OVP”
GE @
53
That makes sense.
The prosecution is being pristine about trying the case they have [not the one we want them to try].
Teresa @
52
Like what others have replied, I also took the non-conspiracies mentioned to mean conspiracies directed against Libby, rather than the original conspiracy directed against the Wilsons. Z’s summation first nailed Team Libby defense for their opening statements implying that there was some “protect Rove, scapegoat Libby” WH conspiracy. Major mistake to do that, and then not present any evidence to support the charge.
Very, very solid summation.
none @ 43
Toensig is the principal fundraiser for team Libby…and is licensed to practice in the District of Columbia.
That makes her a part of the Defense “team” and responsible for avoiding actions that can violate the terms for fair trials.
It may be that Judge Walton, like many others interested in the case, got a “heads up” about the Toensig op-ed before publication. Hopefully he was able to take actions to secure the jury, having staff call them to tell them not to read the Sunday papers at all…
He may have done a poll of the jury to discern if they had been exposed.
If he was able to do that he may have been able to avoid the issue and tell Fitz and Wlls in advance that jurors had been immunized from being tainted by it.
Still Toensig is technically “an officer of the Court” just as much as either of the main lawyers.
Imagine if either Fitz or Wells had published such bird-liner on the eve of the closing arguments? They would surely have been disbarred and the opposing attorney would have called for a mistrial, I suspect.
I think that Walton will have a little gift for Ms. Toensig once th main business of the day is completed.