FDL has crashed, so I'm going to liveblog the Libby trial here until we get FDL up again. Please recommend this up so people can find it.
Thanks.
This starts in a sidebar where they're discussing two things. First, Jeffress now wants all of Judy's notes; Walton says he'll review the notes again, but that he thinks there is nothing relevant.
And Jeffress wants to enter a TV appearance Judy made, saying she made inconsistent statements. There is a debate about the inconsistent statement. They will submit statements, then return.
F Focus on June 23
M My focus on those issues, watching soldiers being frustrated. How had this gotten so screwed up. The big picture. Mr Libby being in Washignton seemed much more focused on growing controversy over SOTU. And who said what to whom, inside baseball. And so from my standpoint it wasn't very productive.
F Your focus and his focus on July 8
M A broader story on how hunt had been so badly carried out and what had happened to underlying intell, Mr Libby seemed to want to focus on yellowcake. My focus was Bioweapons. This he said she said struck me was Washington politics not particularly relevant to issues I cared about.
F I need to approach before last question.
Judy and Jury gone
Fitz I don't know if you have a copy of this
Walton, I do, I just need to look at it real quick
Fitz This issue has come up from time to time: Aspens letter, it has been my view that is relevant I do think that cross sought to portray waivers at all time. What's of particular note here is the paragraph relating to waivers. Why, bc as "I am sure will not be news to you"
[Fitz is trying to enter Aspen letter into testimony, but not the weird Aspens paragraph.]
Fitz Mr Libby's testimony was that he had not told Judy that, but in this letter he said the others had not said he knew it, and how he expected her testimony to help them. We had testimony elicited by Jeffress on Armitage and Grossman talking.
Walton How would it be relevant to her testimony.
F She would authenticate it
Walton Are you just going to seek to have her authenticate it. I'm having some issue as to how the content of the letter would be relevant to her testimony. Ultimately it might be relevant if Libby testifies. I don't understand how the content will be relevant to what she has said.
F If the defense will stipulate to the authenticity.
Walton any challenge to authenticity
F Mr Jeffress asked Miller if Libby called I think this completes the picture. And followed up with a letter. So I think that makes this letter relevant
Walton I guess I'm missing how it makes it relevant. If you're suggesting there was collusion and that this letter was designed to affect what she would say and that it DID affect what she said. She did not testify in such a way that
F We don't think the letter worked.
F they jury's been told that he willingly let her testify.
Walton It's another issue we'll have to address. I don't agree that it's relevant since the letter didn't cause her to alter her testimony. The question of its admissibility does it suggest consciousness of guilt if it says he was saying she should testify in that way.
F It's not critical that it should come through this witness.
Walton we can address that at some point. I don't think it's relevant to her testimony.
J Let me just make a record--did you read his letter as an instruction to make her testimony consistent with the way others said.
Walton, I don't think that dictates the admissibility of the letter. I think it suggests he was trying to get her to say something inconsistent with what he believes she was going to say, if he was suggesting she should say something different, conceivably it might have relevance to his consciousness of guilt.
11:40
Jeffress trying to get the rest of the notes from Fitz, saying there are other references
Walton Mr Bennett—is there anything in there.
Bennett—no your honor, we gave you everything, and you judged they got what was relevant
Walton asks F about them
F I'm in the same position Jeffress is. Court has seen them, and there are no other references to the wife
Walton I need to reassure myself that there was nothing relevant. I need to look at them again. She'll have to remain available. We have the notes. She'll have to remain available.
Jeffress, I'd offer into evidence the video I played.
F Only available as impeachment.
Walton, If we were talking about prior inconsistent statement, the statement would come in for impeachment. An actual video tape, under those circumstance, it too can come in.
F I don't believe that it's inconsistent.
W It would have to be inconsistent
F I don't believe they were inconsistent, just entering them doesn't make them inconsistent.
W I did perceive it as at least being inconsistent.
J We can brief it later. I think I laid the foundation for inconsistency.
W My recollection was that there was a level of inconsistency.
11:59 back from break
They're in sidebar discussing the juror questions.
We're still in sidebar, at 12:04
Juror questions, offered by Walton
Walton Why didn't you or attorney contact Libby earlier.
M BC I was afraid of fishing expedition. It was only after I had both things.
Walton If you had had his personal waiver immediately, would you have testified
M I still needed agreement that it would be this one source on this subject. As soon as I got both, I went to testify.
Walton. Why did you make decision to go to jail.
M BC all of my reporting depended on my ability to protect sources. Until I had something written from Libby, not something his boss asked him to sign, I felt that as a professional matter, it was all I could do. I wasn't trying to be a martyr. You can't operate that way in DC, it was too important in national security reporting.
Walton Have you ever had memory losses like the memory loss you said you had with LIbby.
M When I was preparing my last book, there was an incident. I went back and found out the story was very different. I'd actually misremembered it. From taht time, I've been careful about notes, trying to be careful.
Walton Did you make agreement with Libby regarding sharing of info that might be a quid pro quo.
M No, only the way in which he was to be identified. There was no quid pro quo.
Walton. The notes that you found after you were asked to look for notes. Where did yo locate those.
M Right under my desk at NYT in shopping bag.
Walton IS that where you kept your notes.
M That's where I kept notes for a relevant period of time before I went to jail.
Walton is taht your standard method of archiving.
M I meant to archive them. I assumed I'd have time to take the notebooks home for safekeeping. That's why they were there. But the marshalls took me away right away.
Walton how many other notebooks.
M About 15 or 20.
Matt Cooper up now.
[I'm using MC]
MC Matthew Cooper.
MC Editor for Conde Nast portfolio, hasn't started publication yet. Used to work for Time, summer 1999, June 2006.
MC Began year as DPTY Wash Bureau Chief, then moved to WH correspondant. Moved to WH in June. At the time, it went to press on Saturday nights. Generally we took Sundays off, Mondays as well.
F When a mag went to press, when appear
MC On monday
MC Mag dated one week ahead, so on newsstands 14, it'd be 21st
F Writer v. Contributor
MC Many stories put together by a number of people. Many more might contribute to a story. Assemble files, sent off to writers, who would put them together.
F What would a file look like?
MC Electronic, the work from the week.
F Summer 2003 controversy involving Wilson
MC Watched Amb appear on MTP, Read op-ed on NYT
MC Became a big story. Also, as soon as WH, said 16 words should not have been in SOTU.
MC I had recently bc a WH correspondant. Set about finding out as much as I could. How did it wind up in speech thoroughly checked and vetted
F Mr Wilson's wife
MC Friday July 11, with Karl Rove, a member of WH staff.
MC Put in a call to Rove's office routed to office, at first, he wasn't there, was busy, but then put me through, we talked.
MC Ah sure, we're interested in Wilson story. And he immediately said, don' t get too far out, don't lionize or idolize him. He said a number of things would be coming out. He said DCI had not sent him. He said VP had not been involved. THen he said, it would come out who was involved in sending him. He said his wife. I until that point didn't know Wilson had a wife. I said the wife. He said she worked in WMD at the Agency, I took the CIA, not EPA. We talked a bit more, at the end he said, I've already said too much.
F HOw long
MC couple of minutes.
F Statement
MC Yes, I paid attention.
F Speak to Libby
MC THere'd been a lot of interest in VP, Wilson had said in oped that CIA asked him to do trip as a result of inquiry. Did he know about these 16 words. what was the behind the scenes story. made great effort to reach people in OVP. Cathie Martin said she'd hook me up to speak with Libby I did communicate some in advance. Spoke on Saturday July 12.
F Circumstances about that day
MC On deadline. They like to have these stories done on Friday. Going into Sat is exception. Secondly, some friends had invited us to Chevy Chase Country Club. This club prohibits blackberries or cell phones. I kept running out to parking lot, Libby was down at Ronal Reagan christening. My now late father in law was Reagans Amb to Austria he was at ceremony. Events are quite vivid.
MC We spoke by telephone. He called me on my cell phone.
12:25
MC Describes statement. Varying degrees of confidentiality. First on background. Was your office involved in 16 words into SOTU. No, his office was more focused on other aspect of SOTU, project bioshield. Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that. I asked what he had heard about Wilson's wife.
MC Mr Libby said, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that too." Pleasantries at the end, maybe another question or two in there.
F Groundrules?
MC I said on background, before I said Langley. Just before Wilson's wife, I said off the record.
F Did he say covert status?
MC No
F Did he indicate her affiliation was classified, Did Libby say who he had heard it from. Did he say he heard from reporters? Did you type notes?
MC No
F Following that conversation, was there a column
MC cover story: Untruth and consequences.
MC No mention in that story.
MC Only a truncated version of statement appeared in magazine. Got a call from Libby, I believe Tuesday, complaining that full statement had not appeared, told him I'd look into it. Sent them emails, I said I'd talk about it with them (editors). Did you end up doing something. In online version, we inserted the full statement. I think with notation that full statement hadn't appeared in printed version, then I subsequently, co-authored a piece called "A War on Wilson" in which we included the whole on the record statement.
12:30 recess for lunch
If FDL is up, I'll go back over there after lunch, otherwise I'll start a new thread.
Oops, there's more.
Wells Two evidentiary issues following conclusion of exam. Govt wants to play video clips of press secty McC making certain statements. We object to the playing of clips. McClellan, and agent bond, there will be an objection—the only relevance of those clips could be wrt Libby's state of mind. No evidence that Libby saw those clips, or reviewed those transcripts. They're lengthy.
Walton your concern. Libby not privy, no evidence of state of mind
Wells wrt one clip, where I believe McC cleared Karl Rove. Libby is asked a question, but I believe except for that there's no evidence that Libby saw that clip or any of the three others.
Walton essence of what these say.
Wells, let govt.
Walton What do these clips say
Fitz Clips aren't just clearing Rove. McC declining to clearing Libby. Mr Libby testified that he was aware that Rove had been cleared and he was aware he was not cleared it caused him to have conversations about why he should not be cleared. He was aware that McC was being asked. There are emails that when the name appears in the press, or circulated in VP. There are emails showing that they discussed references to Scooter. To say there is no evidence that Libby was aware of this. WH PS is being asked questions about him. And PS refuses to clear him. Notion that he wasn't aware. As a result, it's how we get to the so-called meat-grinder quote. I did not leak to Novak. VP endorses that note. It's the whole context of having McC clear him publicly. When he sits down on October 14, he has gone to VP who has had the PS tell the world that he did not leak this, it goes to his state of mind. It couldn't be more probative. Then he would have every reason to do what we allege that he did.
Walton, BC WH exonerated him it would show that he wasn't guilty.
Wells, In terms of core story. There's no dispute, I think facts show the opposite, that's what I opened on. What I’m objecting to is playing transcripts,
Walton I'll have to look at testimony to whether this suggests whether he was aware.
Wells he was aware. There's no testimony that he watched a 20 minute clip. They could infer it. There's a big difference from watching the clips. Basic facts will be before GJ testimony. That's only WRT one clip. There's one that says I think I heard it.
Walton I haven't seen it. I need to look at it. I could see how one may know what's taking place w/in White House. That doesn't mean they would have viewed what McC is saying on TV.
Wells the story is in the GJ.
Walton I would assume that WRT the one clip where he seems to say he did see it.
Wells he said he heard about it. I'm objecting. It's no different if you went to lunch. Chief Justice said something
Walton, hopefully it's about a raise.
Wells, This goes to Libby's state of mind.
Walton, I would agree for the actual clips to be relevant, I have to believe there is at least circumstantial evidence that he saw them.
Wells Second issue.
Fitz He wasn't asked, He was in DC, they failed to clear him. He wasn't asked exhibit number by number.
Walton if he's just being told about it—it would be what he has seen or
Fitz if Libby is aware of what happened on Hardball, it defies logic that he's not aware of this. Some of the statements, he's
Walton, Is McC going to say that.
Fitz, that note, VP, it was when he complained to Bartlett. Defendant testified when he went to VP, Mr. Wells opened as meat grinder. That it was an effort by Rove to throw Libby under the bus. For him to turn around and say we can't see it. If he has VP to tell PS
Wells He's mixing up what's going on. When you look at those tapes.
Walton, I'll have to look at GJ transcripts. Just bc you know about it, doesn't mean you saw it. I could see. I'll have to look at it.
Wells Somewhat easier, more traditional, Govt wants to introduce note that Libby took while conversation with Matalin, who used to be PS at OVP, during the conversation Matalin stated that Wilson's a snake, Mr Libby wrote it down.
Zeidenberg. These are from Libby's notes, dated July 10. He can't be held accountable for what she said. Mr Libby called Matalin for advice. On July 8 he wrote down notes in which Rove said, people are taking Wilson as a credible expert. 2 days go by, he calls Matalin for advice. She tells him, she gives him strategy. We need someone who can sum it up. This is fitting into Democratic story. It has legs. The story's not going away. We need to address Wilson motivation. The President should wave his wand. "Call Tim," Mary Matalin, he hates Chris, he needs to know it all. Underneath, Mr Libby's notes, Wilson's a snake. As a result, he calls Tim Russert. The fact that he would write that down goes to state of mind. Govt was interested in responding on the merits.
Walton a statement Matalin made, not Libby That's extremely prejudicial. [You think?!?!?!] That would buy into govt's theory that defendant had motive to harm Wilson, and that one of the things that he could do, It's very prejudicial that someone else's mindset.
Zeidenberg. Libby makes clear that in course of conversation, it is telephone conversation he tells FBI that Matalin has a colorful way of speaking. To the extent that they want to argue that that's what Matalin writes, an ad hominem attack about critic.
Walton Marginal probative value. Jury has to speculate that he was adopting her thought.
Zeidenberg. The question is if it's unfairly prejudicial
Walton If I believe someone's a snake.
Zeidenberg. The fact that he would write it down.
Walton. You ain't going to win that one.