|
Banned
|
This is excerpts from a "live blog"...the author is James Joyner. I chose his eyewitness account of the first 2 days of the "Scooter" Libby criminal trial, because of his conservative bias, not in spite of it. I've omitted most of his posts from this sequence of his trial filings that contained his opinion, and not his account of the trial proceedings. I've compared his account to another by a blogger with an obvious liberal bias. My intent is to draw the interest of folks who think that no crime was committed, and I don't know of a better way to do it. We can't discuss this unless we are on "the same page", and that has yet to come close to happening.....
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...us_irrelevant/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Judge: Valerie Plame Status Irrelevant
By James Joyner
Judge Walton has instructed the jury that Valerie Plame’s actual status with the CIA or the degree to which any revelations made by Scooter Libby put her in danger are totally irrelevant to the facts of this case. The only issue is whether the statements he made before the grand jury were factual and his state of mind in making these statements.
This is huge, as it would seem to undermine the defense’s quite reasonable stance that misstatements about something which is not a crime is not in fact perjury, since they would not be material to the case at hand.
Update: Later in the instructions, he was more specific about the definition of “material facts” as related to the perjury charge: Those which have a “natural tendency to influence the exercise of the grand jury’s decision-making process.” It must relate to “important fact” with “capacity to influence or effect” the grand jury. “Not necessary for government to prove that the grand jury was in fact misled.”
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...-_government_/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Opening Arguments - Government (Live Blog)
By James Joyner
The government started its opening arguments at 1037 am. Live blog below the fold. As always, major breaking news will get separate posts.
They take us to the day (July 6, 2003) Joseph Wilson’s NYT op-ed came out and argues that it was a devastating attack. He also appeared that day on “Meet the Press,” questioning the WMD argument and “igniting a media firestorm.” A day later, “the White House admitted” some things “should not have been said.” White House then “began to push back.”
This case is about Scooter Libby’s “obstruction of the search for truth” by “repeatedly lying” to both the grand jury and the FBI. Using the word “lie” or variants repeatedly.
Calendar as prop to hammer home time line. Can’t find something startling Thursday that you learned on Tuesday.
Repeated references to Iraq, the State of the Union, the Niger yellowcake controversy, and so forth as “background.”
Vice President learned from Marc Grossman on June 11, 2003 about the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame relationship. Bob Grenier told Scooter Libby that Plame worked in the unit responsible for sending Wilson on trip to Niger. He also got separate confirmation from Cathie Martin, most likely in June.
Libby also got morning intel brief from Craig Schmall on Saturday June 14, which included a discussion of Wilson, Plame, and the trip to Niger.
Monday June 23rd, Libby complained about unfair CIA leaks with Judith Miller, mentioning that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on background, attributable only to “a senior administration official.”
ALL OF THIS OCCURRED BEFORE the Joe Wilson op-ed. This was a direct attack on the integrity of the president and vice president about the most important matter of public policy.
Scooter Libby cut the column out and marked it up. Frustrated by what Wilson was saying. VP’s “right hand man” as both chief of staff and national security advisor.
Libby focused on this controversy “day after day after day.”
Timeline:
6 July: Wilson op-ed and MTP appearance
7 July: Libby tells Ari Fleischer Wilson’s wife works for CIA
8 July: Libby meets with Judith Miller again at St Regis Hotel dining room, defending Iraq intel and asks to be identified as “former Hill staffer” with regard to Joe Wilson wife story.
8 July: Libby talks with David Addington, WH lawyer, and asks vague question about CIA officer sending husband on trip
10 July: Libby calls Tim Russert to complain about Chris Matthews’ unfair treatment on “Hardball,” hoping Russert would intercede
11 July: CIA Director George Tenet
12 July: Makes on-record statement to Matt Cooper and Judith Miller at Cheney’s direction. Cooper asks “what have you heard about Wilson’s wife sending him on a trip?” and Libby answers “I heard that, too.” This was a confirmation of what Cooper had already heard.
“It should be noted, Novak relied on two sources, neither of which was the defendant.”
Late September: Criminal investigation announced about the leaks.
Grand jury had two missions: Find the facts of who leaked Plame’s CIA status to the press and to investigate whether a cover-up had occurred. Defendant swore an oath promising to tell the truth.
Fitzgerald played tape recorded testimony and displayed the court reporter’s transcript from Libby during the grand jury about his conversation with Tim Russert, saying that Russert had ASKED HIM about it. He says he answered “No I don’t know that.”
Fitzgerald interprets this as Libby lying to the grand jury and claiming he learned it from Russert. My take was that Libby was just lying to Russert in order not to be on the record confirming Plame’s status.
After another 10 minute break, Fitzgerald played a tape recording of Libby telling a grand jury that he had heard about Wilson from reporters. Which would appear to be true. He didn’t FIRST hear it there, though.
A third tape has Libby saying that he had told Matt Cooper that he didn’t know Joe Wilson had a wife. Which, again, doesn’t strike me as the same as lying to the grand jury.
Fitzgerald closed by saying that “this case is not about bad memory” and that “having a bad memory is not a crime.” It’s about lying under oath.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ing_statement/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Highlights ‘16 Words’ in Opening Statement
By James Joyner
Despite having repeatedly argued during voir dire that the Iraq War and surrounding politics were irrelevant to the case, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is repeatedly referring to the State of the Union address, the infamous “sixteen words,” Niger, uranium, and so forth during his opening arguments. He offered a disclaimer that it is “just background,” but it is nonetheless obviously going to be a major part of the trial.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...important_job/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Admits Libby Busy Man
By James Joyner
Prosecutory Patrick Fitzgerald took on a key defense contention in his opening arguments, stipulating that Scooter Libby was an important man with an incredibly important job. He nonetheless “made time to talk to the press” repeatedly because the Joe Wilson-inspired controversy was so important to Dick Cheney.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...enial_of_leak/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Fitzgerald Notes White House Denial of Leak
By James Joyner
Again belying his contention that this trial is not about politics, Patrick Fitzgerald highlighted and discussed at length in his opening statement Scott McClellan’s 29 September 2003 denial, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” He then noted a categorical statement from the White House the following month that Libby was [not] the leaker.
That has zero to do with whether Libby lied to a grand jury. It has everything to do with the political climate.
Further, as Fitzgerald already admitted, Libby was in fact not the one who told Bob Novak about Valerie Plame.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...nse_live_blog/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Trial: Opening Arguments - Defense (Live Blog)
By James Joyner
“My name is Ted Wells and I speak for Scooter Libby.” He is “totally innocent.” “He is an innocent man and he has been wrongly and unjustly and unfairly accused.”
No witness, no document, no scientific evidence will be produced saying that Scooter Libby lied, told them he was about to lie, or that he had lied. “It’s a weak, circumstantial evidence case about ‘He said, She said.’”
“People do not lie for the heck of it. When people tell an intentional lie it’s because they had done something wrong.” Scooter Libby had “no reason to lie.”
“Scooter Libby was not out pushing any reporters to write any stories about Valerie Wilson.”
“Scooter Libby did not have ANY KNOWLEDGE that Wilson’s job was covert” before Bob Novak’s column came out.
Scooter Libby was not concerned about any punishment but about “being a scapegoat” and “being set up” by “people in the White House” trying to “protect Karl Rove.”
Cheney note: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.” Wells asserts that Karl Rove was the “staffer” in question.
Libby’s job normally didn’t involve dealing with reporters. He was consumed with “the most important national security issues of this country” every single day. He “got thrown into the meatgrinder” of dealing with this “16 word controversy” but “al Qaeda didn’t go away.”
Wilson’s identify only became a big deal once the criminal investigation kicked in. “In real time–in June and July–in terms of Scooter Libby, Ms. Wilson, where she worked, was no big deal to him.”
Libby forced to talk to FBI without being able to talk to his staff to refresh his memory, under specific instructions to that effect from the FBI, on October 14–months later. “He did his best” to tell the truth and recall as best he could “three telephone calls” that took place in June “with specificity and with details” some “snippets” that might have been “20 seconds.”
Neither Russert nor Cooper have any notes about the conversations and Miller admits her memory is fuzzy and her notes are minimal, maybe “two words.” And the dispute is over varying recollections of a few words.
Confirmation is very important to reporters. The fact that Cooper and Russert didn’t write anything down is proof that “He did not confirm ANYTHING.”
This man has “always been ‘Scooter’” because “he’s always on the move.”
Scooter Libby had TWO JOBS - chief of staff and national security advisor for the VP. He had an incredible amount on his plate. To even go in to the details of what he did could “hurt the country,” so we won’t do that. But just remember, “he had a day job” in addition to “going into the meatgrinder.”
Libby did not leak to Robert Novak. “That is the article that said to the world ‘Ambassador Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and put it in the public domain.” There is “no dispute” on the fact that “Richard Armitage, who worked at the State Department” was Novak’s source. “It was Libby’s understanding that the investigation was about WHO LEAKED TO ROBERT NOVAK.” “He did not get that understanding from a dream” but rather from the Justice Department memo outlining the investigation.
“Was Cheney mad? You doggone betcha.” Because he was being accused on something he didn’t do. “Vice president Cheney is 100% correct” when he says he didn’t know anything about the Wilson Niger trip before Nick Kristoff referred to it obliquely in May 6, 2003.
Wilson “outs” himself in the July 6 NYT op-ed. No longer “unnamed ambassador.” Wilson claimed to have been sent my Cheney–which may have been his legitimate understanding–but it was not in fact the case. Cheney had no idea he had gone, let alone gotten a report. Wilson’s MTP appearance that morning went much further.
This is “how it has come that Mr. Libby is talking to various reporters” — he was on orders from the VP to rebut the idea that Cheney was hiding information from the Wilson-Niger report.
The Novak article comes out on July 14, revealing that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA. Much later learned that Powell deputy Richard Armitage was his source.
Novak had actually completed the article on July 11th and sent out to his syndicator so that it could be published. “Sent to over 85 newspapers.” “So this so-called secret…is in approximately 85 newsrooms.”
All the conversations under dispute here started on or after July 12th.
Break for lunch until 1340.
Court resumed precisely at 1340 with the prosecution taking issue with two things from the opening arguments made so far by the defense: the statement that “I can’t say what her status is” and a statement to the effect that there were things about which the government has said that the defense can’t bring out because of the classified nature of the information.
The judge ruled that the first issue is no big deal but that he was slightly concerned about the second. Wells said he would “fix it” in the remainder of his opening statement and the judge has reserved the right to make an additional statement if he still thinks there’s an issue.
Wells resumed his statement at 1:48 by returning to the Timeline of Events, which was accompanied by a graphic. The emphasis, with big red arrows and bright yellow font, is that the FBI testimony was 3 months and the grand jury testimony was 9 months after the phone calls in question.
This is not a case of, as the prosecutor put it, “learning something on Tuesday and forgetting on Thursday.”
In the first 15-20 minutes of Libby’s discussion with the FBI, he stated categorically on October 14 that he has learned it from the vice president and had a note to that effect.
Wells compares Libby’s recollection that Russert asked him on July 10 or 11 about Valerie Plame with Russert’s statement that he didn’t know until he read it in Novak’s column 3 days later. He points out that neither Libby nor Russert have any notes on the conversation and that their recollections were from three months after the fact. Given that other NBC reporters (David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell) already knew, it’s not at all unlikely that Russert would have heard something.
Gregory learned from Ari Fleischer on July 11. Mitchell stated on October 3 “it was widely known among the reporters who covered the intelligence community that Amb Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA” well before the Novak column.
“It makes no sense” to “cook up a story” involving “one of the most respected newsmen in America.”
There was no “protected conversation” with Russert because he wasn’t calling as a source but rather to make the equivalent of a “customer complaint” to Russert in his capacity as head of NBC News’ political bureau.
Further, there is a “Maybe Russert is Right and Libby is Wrong” [slide title] scenario that are still is not a lie: He confused Russert with another reporter with whom he had similar conversations that week, Robert Novak and Matthew Cooper.
The consensus in the media room is that the chain of people involved here is so confusing that there’s no way the jury is following it. As one reporter observed, “If Fitzgerald doesn’t keep it simple, he’s f****d.”
The phone call between Libby and Cooper took place while Libby was trying to board Air Force 2 on a Saturday when Libby is taking his family to see the commissioning of the USS Ronald Reagan. It’s his son’s 10th birthday. “A day off.” He’s not focused too much on talking to Cooper, just doing it because Cooper had been bugging the press secretary.
Cooper took notes but there’s “not a word about the wife — not a word.” “The notes don’t support Mr. Cooper’s recollection.” Further, Cooper didn’t mention Plame in an email report about the conversation to his editors. Conversely, Cooper’s notes about his conversation with Karl Rove extensively talk about “the wife.”
Judith Miller “testified repeatedly that her memory was bad.” “I’m just speculating.” “My memory is fuzzy.” “I might have been confused.” Further, Miller admits she might have brought up “Victoria Wilson” to trick Libby into confirming information.
“The Evidence Will Show The Russert Story Was Unnecessary” [slide title] Not only “illogical but intellectually flawed.” On the same day he talked with Russert, he had been told by Karl Rove that Novak has already written the story. So, he could have said “I heard it from reporters” by using Novak rather than making up a “false, phony story” about Russert. Prosecution’s theory “is just stupid.”
“There is a difference between Wilson’s charges and Wilson’s wife.”
Libby was known around the office as having a bad memory–smart as hell but a lousy memory. “He lived by his notes” which were copious. “In hundreds of pages of Libby’s notes, there is one line about Wilson’s wife.”
Several slides were introduced and then read verbatim about the Government’s stipulations as to the complexity and importance of issues Libby worked on as part of his duties as Cheney’s natsec advisor. This was stipulated to avoid having to introduce classified information. Buzzwords included AQ Khan, nuclear weapons, terrorism, al Qaeda, anthrax, Turkey, Iraq, and others. This is the crux of the defense’s case that Libby was so busy with incredibly important affairs of state that it’s easy to see how he could have forgotten some details about “the wife.”
During the week in which the phone conversations in question took place, Libby was distracted with worries about nuclear attacks, al Qaeda attacks, assassination attempts on the president and his staff, etc.
Summation: Libby didn’t lie and had no reason to lie. All the evidence is circumstantial.
The opening statement is concluded. The court is taking a ten minute recess. It’s not clear whether testimony will commence or court will adjourn after the return.
Following return from recess, the prosecution objected to the defense’s repeated reference to the fact that he was under restrictions pertaining to classified information as if the government was not. Judge Walter notes that the executive branch can rule on what is permissible to declassify or not, so are not hampered in a similar way. He does, however, think it “unfair” to suggest his “hands are tied” based on his own interpretation of the law.
The government is also concerned about Wells’ closing statement that “The only way you convict my client is if you violate your oath” went too far. The judge will instruct the jury that counsel’s personal views on what the evidence means is not relevant, only the jury’s conclusions.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc..._lousy_memory/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Defense: Smart as Hell But a Lousy Memory
By James Joyner
Libby’s counsel told the jury that his client was Libby was “known around the office” as having a bad memory–”smart as hell but a lousy memory.” As a result, “he lived by his notes” which were copious. That’s the only way that Libby could juggle all of his enormous responsibilities.
That set up this bullet point on the PowerPoint shown the jury: “In hundreds of pages of Libby’s notes, there is one line about Wilson’s wife.”
|
<b>Comment from "host"...this guy has a PhD, and he couldn't get Fitzgerald's first name right...it's Patrick, not "Peter":</b>
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ans_testimony/
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Marc Grossman’s Testimony (Pt. 1)
By James Joyner
The government’s first witness will be former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman who, as Matt Apuzzo sums it up, was allegedly asked on May 29, 2003 for information about the Joe Wilson’s travel to Niger.
There was a heated discussion between <b>Peter Fitzgerald</b> and Ted Wells about the scope of questioning, with Wells arguing that everything should be fair game in cross-examination because there is reason to believe that Grossman and Richard Armitage met the night before Grossman’s FBI testimony to “cook the books.” Judge Walter is inclined to agree that such questioning would be appropriate. Fitzgerald argues that conversation is not relevant to the line of questioning. Walter says it speaks to “where his loyalties lie.”
The witness was called at 3:58, which has the media room groaning.
Government questioning:
Grossman is now in the private sector but spent 29 years “as a Foreign Service Officer.” He finished up as the #3 man in the State Department, right below Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.
He interacted with Libby “several times a week” as part of the Deputies Committee (of the National Security Council). Maybe 10-12 people sat at the table and around 20 others sat in chairs around the room.
Government Exhibit #6 is a page from Grossman’s calendar for Thursday May 29, 2003. At 11:30, he attended a Deputies Committee meeting on Iraq at the White House situation room. His “best recollection” is that he talked to Libby either before or after either the 11:15 or 11:30 meeting and that Libby asked “if he knew anything about” a former ambassador’s trip to Africa and yellowcake. He didn’t but was embarrassed that he didn’t but would report back to him.
Upon returning to his office, he immediately asked Mr. Armitage to make sure he didn’t “get myself into any trouble.” Armitage “said he didn’t know anything about it either.” Grossman than sent emails to the Asst Sec for Research and for African Affairs to find out what State knew. Both said “they knew all about it.”
He took this information back to Armitage and asked if it jogged any memories and was answered in the negative. He then went to Libby and told him “yes, people at the State Dept knew about such a trip” and that Wilson had reported back to the government. He promised “a fuller report when I had it.”
He also contacted Wilson by phone to get more info. They were both longtime professional colleagues and members of the same university alumni association. Wilson “told me all about it.” His “recollection” is that he had talked to Wilson before Libby and relayed the info, including that Wilson though the Office of the VP had ordered the trip.
Grossman ultimately got a report on Wilson’s trip on June 10 or 11 from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). That report mentioned that “Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.” The context for this was that “Mrs. Wilson” chaired WMD panel and organized her husband’s trip. “I though this was pretty interesting. Kind of odd and remarkable that A) she worked at the Agency and B) she was involved in the organization of the trip.” He thought it was “inappropriate” that one spouse would arrange another’s trip.
He discussed this with Libby at the next Deputies Committee (”my recollection”) meeting, June 11 or 12 (there are meetings just about daily). “There’s one other thing you oughta know…his wife worked at the Agency.” Libby “listened to me and he thanked me.” He doesn’t recall the precise words of the conversation on either side. Grossman felt that “because he was senior to me” Libby deserved to “know the whole context.” Libby told him that the Office of the VP had nothing to do with the trip.
Armitage told him that he had told Novak about the Wilson-Wilson connection the night before his FBI testimony. Grossman was “shocked” but “appreciated the professional courtesy.”
Wells’ cross-examination:
You had one conversation with Libby about “the wife” that “lasted maybe 30 seconds”? “Yes, that’s correct.”
“You need the calendar to identify when you met with Mr. Libby?” Yes.
“Except for looking at the calendar and reasoning backward, you don’t have any recollection when the date was?” Yes.
“You have no present recollection” aside from this “reconstruction”? Yes.
Several questions about whether Grossman read a May 6 article by Nicholas Kristoff. He hadn’t and still hasn’t. No interest in “looking in the rearview mirror.”
“Do you find it strange” that neither he not Armitage read such a critical article about the State Dept? “I had about a billion things to do” and “couldn’t be troubled” to find out what happened in the past because he was so occupied by Iraq and other issues. (That’s Libby’s whole defense, of course.)
Grossman thought that the whole Wilson matter was a non-story at the time and the matter of “the wife” only “an interesting tidbit.”
There was no indication at the time that her status was covert or classified, much less conveyed to Libby as such.
Court recessed at 4:55 to resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...estimony_pt_2/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Marc Grossman’s Testimony (Pt. 2)
By James Joyner
The first full day of trial resumed with the continued cross-examination of Marc Grossman by Scooter Libby’s chief counsel, Ted Wells. Live blog below the fold, with any breaking news getting separate posts as well.
“You have no notes that you had such a meeting?” No.
“No emails?” No.
The emails were destroyed before investigation because the State Dept had a policy of destroying emails after 90 days.
Defense Exhibit 71: The INR report on the Wilson trip generated per Grossman’s inquiry pursuant to Libby’s question. Carl Ford, INR’s director, wrote the memo.
Paragraph one addresses “allegation” that INR had played a role in Wilson’s trip. “It is clear, however, that INR was not Amb Wilsons’ point of contact in either the Dept. or the intelligence community.” Nor was State a direct recipient of the report.nn”The reporting we have from his trip makes no mention of documents, fraudulent or otherwise.”
Another paragraph indicates that “Two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge on the issue” and that INR and State took strong issue with their dismissal of the Niger issue.
This launches a lengthy line of questioning about yellowcake and the nature of intelligence on Iraqi WMD, presumably with the intent of dispelling the notion that Cheney and company were intentionally distorting said intelligence. I’m quite surprised that the government is not objecting that this inquiry is irrelevant to whether Libby lied to the FBI or the grand jury about disclosing Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA ties.
After several minutes, however, the prosecution called for a sidebar after which the judge ruled that the document is hearsay from the standpoint of establishing the truth of the assertions contained therein.
Defense Exhibit 428 is a different memo that says essentially the same thing.
“Your first interview with the FBI was on Oct 17, 2003, is that correct?” Yes.
“Is it correct that on June 9, 2003 Mr. Wilson placed a telephone call to you in which he complained that he had seen Condoleeza Rice on MTP on June 8 and he was very upset about her comments?” Yes. “He told you that he was furious?” “Yes sir. He was really mad.” The substance was “He was mad at the way he had been described . . . as a very low level person and he was upset about that, sir.”
You made no mention about this in the June 11 conversation to Libby? “You kept those comments to yourself. You didn’t tell anybody, did you?” “No sir, I did not.”
Elmo is broken, impairing PowerPoint usage. Wells is now scribbling dates on a piece of paper and projecting them on an overhead projector.
Grossman can’t recollect specific dates and the prosecution has stipulated that events occurred on those dates. Judge Walter explains to the jury that they “may consider such facts as undisputed evidence.”
Oct 17, 2003: 1st FBI interview
Feb 24, 2004: 2nd FBI interview
Mar 12, 2004: Grand Jury appearance
“Do you deny that you told the FBI on Oct 17, 2003 that you two or three telephone conversations with Mr. Libby during which you gave him information” about the Wilson matter “and that you did not make any reference to a face-to-face meeting?” Witness does not recall.
Wells refers him to page 2, paragraph 1, of the FBI interview memorandum to “refresh your memory.”
“I don’t know what to tell you.”
“Does it refresh your recollection that you told the FBI a different story than you’ve told the jury today?”
The night before your Oct 17 FBI interview, you had a private meeting with Mr. Armitage? Yes. “You knew he was a subject of that investigation, correct?” “I knew he had been interviewed with the FBI, correct.”
Prosecution Redirect: (Commenced 11:23)
Clarified the nature of his relationship with Armitage. Noted that he had met with defense counsel before trial as part of discovery process.
Why did you have INR come up with a report on “unnamed ambassador” if it was so unimportant? “To answer Mr. Libby’s question.”
Judge opens to written questions from jury. (11:28)
Did State have anything to do with sending Wilson on trip to Niger? No.
Who sent him? CIA as far as I know.
What documents did you review in preparation for your testimony here? The grand jury documents.
Witness excused at 11:30. Court in 10 minute recess.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ier_testimony/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Robert Grenier Testimony
By James Joyner
The second prosecution witness is Robert Grenier, a former 27-year employee of the CIA who served as the Iraq Mission Manager from October 2002-2004. He was directly below the Deputy Director level and attended Deputies Committee meetings at the National Security Council as the “plus one” for his boss.
Live blog follows below the fold with breaking news also in separate posts.
Saw Libby “quite frequently” “at least twice a week and sometimes three times a week” at Deputies meetings involving Iraq. He was a “business acquaintance” with very little interaction.
“Do you recall a phone message from Scooter Libby on June 11?” He doesn’t recall on his own but has seen supporting documentation to that effect. “Exhibit 701 — A yellow ‘While You Were Out’ message from Scooter Libby.”
Did you often get calls from Libby? “First time it ever happened.”
What was the gist of the conversation with Libby? “CIA people had been complaining about the Office of Vice President.” Libby wanted to verify why Wilson was sent to Niger. “It was complete news to me. I had never heard of it before.”
When did he want answers? “From the context, as soon as possible.” “It was unusual for him to be calling me to begin with and he seemed serious.” Plus, he likely “wanted to get out in front of the story” since Libby had mentioned concerns over Wilson in the press.
He called “Kevin” at the counter-proliferation division (the #2 guy) and neither he nor the chief were available. He talked to someone else and left a message for Kevin. He got a response “probably within a couple of hours.” It was from someone he did not know but was “fully knowledgeable about what had happened.” He got confirmation that CIA had sent Wilson to investigate Niger uranium and went into some detail about the mission. Conveyed that State, Office of VP, and Defense had all “expressed interest” in the issue.
That person “mentioned” that Wilson’s wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip. “I am certain the individual did not tell me the name, only that it was Amb Wilson’s wife.”
At the next Iraq meeting, with DCI, he was called out and handed a note to call Libby. He was “chagrined” thinking he had failed Libby.
He phoned Libby and told him that CIA had in fact sent Wilson and that OVP was not the main driver behind the trip but that State and Defense were also instigators. Libby asked whether “CIA would be willing to reveal that publicly.”
Did you tell him about the wife connection? “I believe I did.” He thinks he told him “something to the effect” that the wife was “why Wilson was sent” but mentioned it “only in passing.”
As to a public announcement about the State/DoD impetus, he told Libby he needed to talk to Bill Harlow, the CIA’s Director of Public Affairs. He went right to Harlow after getting off phone with Libby, got permission, and called Libby back saying “we can work something out” in terms of “language CIA would be able to use with the press.” Libby “seemed pleased” and said Harlow and a OVP press person should work it out. “I believe…the name was Cathy.”
During FBI testimony, “do you recall if you talked about the topic of Mr. Wilson’s wife with Mr. Libby?” He told them that “if I think back, I think I would have said something to Mr. Libby but could not say for certain.”
At the grand jury? “That I may have” but wasn’t sure.”
Since then, have you given it any more thought? Yes. “I’ve been going it over and over in my mind.” Eventually, he came to “feel guilty” thinking “maybe I had revealed too much,” eventually revealing the identity of a CIA officer.
Break at 1222 for lunch. Cross-examination after lunch.
Grueling series of questionings based on reading FBI testimony back to him and asking if he can recall saying that.
Ditto the grand jury. “Do you recall telling the grand jury that you did not recall hearing from CPD that you had not even heard about Mr. Wilson’s wife before meeting with Mr. Libby?” No, “just that I didn’t have a clear memory.” He was “surprised,” on appearing before the grand jury a second time a year and a half later that he had said that.
Even the defense attorneys are annoyed by the constant “I couldn’t tell you without looking at the documents” about even matters such as which dates he appeared before the grand jury. I must say, Grenier’s coming across as very incredible.
“Do you find that your memory improves the further away you get from the event?” “Not all the time.” “What improved was not my specific conversation with Mr. Libby but my recollection of how I felt afterwards.”
Did you at any time after remembering that you felt guilty go and ask Libby not to divulge the information? No.
“If the person at CMD didn’t tell you Wilson’s status was covert, why did you later feel guilty?” “The vast majority of those employees are undercover.”
Testimony ended and witness excused circa 3:15.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...all_testimony/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Libby Prosecution: Craig Schmall Testimony (Pt. 1)
By James Joyner
The third government witness will be Craig Schmall, Libby’s regular morning briefer from CIA.
Live blog will appear below the fold with any breaking news also in separate posts.
Substantial discussion at sidebar before witness called as to the limitation of questioning in cross-examination. The basic agreement reached is that, unless the government brings an issue in during their questioning, the defense can only bring it in during the presentation of their case. Counsel agreed and the defense reserved the right to call him back.
He will be called after a brief recess (around 3:40) He was–precisely on time.
Government questioning:
Initial questioning to set timeline of Schmall’s employment with CIA (19 years) and his duties as daily intel briefer to first Scooter Libby and later VP Cheney. Briefings generally at 7 am, lasting 40 minutes, usually at VP’s mansion but occasionally in his office. Three binders as “briefing books” tabbed to call to attention those of specific interest to the briefing recipient (Cheney or Libby). Materials destroyed the next day.
Most of the 40 minutes was the principals reading with very little verbal briefing.
As briefing happened, Schmall would annotate table of contents with reactions, questions, and whether read/not. If couldn’t answer question, would mark with “T” to indicate that a tasker needed to go out to an analyst.
Attorneys stipulate that June 14, 2003 was a Saturday.
On that day, Schmall briefed Libby at his home. Exhibit introduced: Table of Contents from that brief.
Discussed visit from Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz, with Cruise wishing to convey concern about German treatment of Scientologists.
Note appended “The Amb told this was a VP office question? Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson”
Also, Libby expressed annoyance that a reporter had told him that “a direct source” had told him “analysts were feeling pressured pressured and bullied.” Schmall followed up with a peer who had presided over the meeting in question and was assured that, not only was there no feeling of pressure, they were quite pleased that VP seemed interested in their reactions.
Attorneys stipulate that JuLY 14, 2003 was a Monday.
This is day Novak column appeared in print. Table of contents from morning brief entered into evidence. Almost entirely redacted. Note “Did you read the Novak article? Not your problem.”
“Do you have specific recollection as to who asked question, ‘Did you read the Novak article?’” No. VP certainly attended, Libby probably. Schmall has no recollection of the details of the discussion.
Subsequent meeting was asked to offer his opinion on Plame leak. He noted that press “focusing on damage to Valerie Wilson and her career” but that there were serious operational consequences of the leak. Anyone connected to Plame overseas could be harassed and put in danger.
Defense Cross-Examination
Detailed discussion about how Schmall took notes and assigned taskers.
“Do you recall briefing Mr. Libby on Saturday, June 14 about…” various very important issues, presumably being read from the table of contents. There were 27 total items. The answer was “No, sir” to each question.
He then moved on to a list of terrorist threats from that same briefing. Same, same.
Presumably, Schmall is saying that he doesn’t specifically remember briefing Libby, not the items themselves. Many of them are significant events.
“I gather that those types of items would be briefed to Mr. Libby six times a week?” “Yes, sir.”
Discussion of Schmall’s January 8, 2004 interview with FBI. Told them that first time discussed the issue with Libby was after Novak article appeared? “Yes, that is correct.”
The next day, you sent email to colleague? Yes. “You told colleague that your memory of the events was quite poor, which probably extended the session?” Yes.
Asked whether he had mentioned anything about Valerie or Joe Wilson in said email, he couldn’t recall. Presented the email, he quickly read and noted he did not.
April 22, 2004 you had second interview with govt? Sounds about right. He does not recall that Patrick Fitzgerald, or any government prosecutors, were there, despite memoranda to that affect. “I don’t have any independent memory of that.”
April 24, 2004 sent email saying he was still looking for notes. “Still looking for any notes that would have triggered my memory.”
Sidebar after being asked whether anyone had asked for copies of the Tables of Contents–the only part of the daily brief that got retained–in the course of the investigation.
Witness excused until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
|
Quote:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc..._scientology_/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Scooter Libby Met With Tom Cruise on Scientology
By James Joyner
Scooter Libby’s CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, reports that he and Libby had a discussion on Saturday* June 14, 2003 about a visit from Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz, with the former interested in talking about Germany’s treatment of Scientologists. Libby was apparently quite excited about the visit.
*Counsel for both sides stipulated that June 14 was indeed a Saturday. I have verified that fact independently as well.
|
|