The Jury has been excused.
Fitz is complaining about two things. First, Wells' statement at the end that the only way he could lose is if people let their emotions about the war cloud their judgment. Walton is unconcerned about this.
Fitz is also complaining that the jury has twice heard the defense is restricted to certain things but it has not also been told that the government is under the same kind of handcuffs.
Fitz says that he can't also say whatever he wants to say about Plame.
Walton says, I understand, but the executive branch is the executive branch. I don't know whether it's appropriate to tell the jury that they should take that exec branch is restricted.
Fitz says, by arguing to the jury that he's restricted. All attorneys are obliged not to disclose what's classified.
Walton is concerned about the way it came out.
It's inappropriate to give the jury the impression that his hands are tied. I truly believe that the jury will have a full appreciation of the magnitude of his work. And that was the reason he had a faulty memory. I do think it's unfair that his hands are tied. But I don't think it's right to tell the jury bc the government's made its own decision. If the government wants to self-inflict itself with that, I don't think it's appropriate to tell the jury.
John Cline up!! Mr. graymail!
3:36
Walton's concern is that the jury would have the impression that Libby didn't have the chance to make his defense. He's basically saying that it's not appropriate to suggest Defense couldn't make its case. And that if Wells doesn't like it, it'll be reversed.
Wells: "I didn't do anything intentionally"
I met Mr. Fitzgerald's case on the merits. [Gosh, where have we heard this before?]
Walton: Sometimes it's impossible to un-ring the bell once it's been rung.
Fitz is saying, "we're not asking to admonish certain things, we're asking to have it be struck."
Fitz is complaining that Wells said the government made him read a script.
Fitz returns to his complaint that Wells the only way he could lose the case.
Wells, "I wasn't vouching for any witness."
Technically it is arguable.
It's quite another to say to a jury that the only way you conflict my client is that you violate your oath.
Walton will not comment specifically on the statement. Counsel cannot state their personal opinion about the evidence.
Oh, we are going to get the first witness--Grossman!! Okay. No break for the weary!
3:45
Alright, I think Christy is going to come back to this and explain it. I'm fried. Basically, Fitzgerald made his point. Wells is being all sheepish. It was not my intent to cross the line.
Now we're in a new dispute. Someone from Fitz' team wanted to exclude something from this cross bc it was hearsay. But then Wells gets up to tell how he wants to impeach Grossman:
The night before Grossman testified, Armitage visited Grossman. Tells him that he wants him to know he was the one who leaked to Novak. Mr. Grossman was "mixed up" in this matter in a different way. Grossman recognized that meeting with another witness could be construed as cooking the books.
Then Grossman goes back and reports to Armitage.
Wells has every right to go after Grossman.
Every time there was a conversation between Armitage and Grossman, Grossman goes back.
3:58
Walton buys Wells' argument. Fitz' guy is saying that Armitage telling Grossman he had already come forward, should make him more likely to be forthcoming.
Walton agrees with Wells.
Btw, there is no paper backup of Libby's request for info from Grossman.
Marc Grossman
Vice Chairman of the Cohen Group, business consulting for firms doing business abroad. Been there 18 months.
State Department, Foreign Service Officer for 29 years.
UnderSecretary of State for Political Affairs.
# 3 ranking position
From March 2001 to February 2005.
Colin Powell was his boss.
Rich Armitage next
Still establishing Grossman as third in line of the State Department.
How did he know Libby?
As COS for Veep.
Would interact with Libby several times a week.
Deputies Committee. Sometimes Grossman was sent to the Deputies Committee, having divided the responsibilities for the Deputy Committee with Armitage.
Those meetings held in Sit Room in White House.
Mid-twenties would be at the meeting.
Mr Libby sat one or two to the left of Grossman.
Government exhibit #6.
It is a page from Grossman's calendar.
May 29: 8:00 Chaired Iraq meeting
Going through his calendar.
11:15 Intelligence Program Deputies Meeting
11:30-12:30 Deputies Committee on Iraq. Had a conversation with Libby some time around one of those deputies committee meetings.
Libby asked if he knew about the travel of a former Ambassador to look at yellow cake. I said I did not.
I told him I would be very glad to look into it. I was a little embarrassed that I didn't know, because I should have known.
I said I would look into it and report back to him.
I said I would get back to him.
I took it was a perfectly legitimate and right question from the Vice President's COS.
4:09
Went to ask Armitage about it first.
Armitage said he didn't know a thing about it either.
Sent an email to Asst Secretary for Intelligence and Research [Ford] and African Affairs [Kansteiner]
African Affairs and INR both said they knew all about it. Got both of these emails back.
[Grossman seems almost sheepish, his shoulders raised, soft-spoken]
They said they knew it was Wilson, they knew he had reported back to the government.
Grossman went to Armitage with the information. Grossman then called Libby to give him "some of the answer."
I told him that "yes, actually people at State did know about such a trip."
Gave him Wilson's name. May have apologized that he didn't know. I told him that I had these two emails, fuller story yet to be told, I'd give a fuller story.
Reached out to Wilson, did it on the same day.
"I happen to know Joe Wilson, is it okay to just call him up"
Had known it other in Foreign Service, we both went to UCSB, he involved me in a couple of events.
Had contact with Wilson twice a year.
Armitage told Grossman to call Wilson.
Wilson told Grossman about the trip.
Spoke to Wilson before he spoke to Libby about Wilson being the Ambassador.
Told Libby about the conversation.
Wilson said that he thought the trip had been at the request of the OVP.
Grossman says he believes he relayed that to Libby.
INR memo
Wanted more info, just felt like it needed to be fuller
Would have requested for the memo to the executive secretary
Now looking at the rest of the week.
May 30, were you in office that day?
Grossman left for Madrid on Sunday June 1 then went to N Africa.
Returned back in office on June 9.
Don't recall whether report was waiting for him when he got back to the office. Got it either late on the 10th or 11th of June.
Grossman read the report.
Report was a full compilation of what the department knew, what our people had been involved with getting the trip organized.
Explains what INR is-research organization.
Information about Joseph Wilson's wife?
I recall reading Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.
Mrs. Wilson was in the Chair of those meetings. Plame described as WMD manager type.
According to the report, she was the organizer of the Ambassador Wilson's trip.
"I thought this was pretty interesting. Odd that she worked at the agency and was involved in the organization of the trip."
Grossman thought it was not appropriate.
He remembers telling Libby about it the next time he attended a Deputies meeting at WH. June 11, 12:00-12:45 Afghanistan Deputies committee meeting
Two more Deputies meetings, one on Indonesia at 12:00 and one on Iraq at 12:45.
I believe our conversation was on one of those days.
"I went up to him and I wanted him to recall that Wilson was involved in the trip. He ought to know that his wife worked in the agency. Happened just outside or just inside the meeting room. No recollection of where the conversation took place.
4:23
I think I said that there was one other thing that he needed to know--that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the agency. Meaning the CIA.
I phrased it that way because he was senior to me, it was my responsibility to make sure he had the whole context.
Mr Libby thanked me and he wanted to tell me something, he wanted me to know that OVP had nothing to do with organizing the trip. He would have returned to his office after the Deputies meetings.
Doesn't recall any conversation, would have been normal to "close the loop" with Armitage.
Prior to the FBI coming to see you, were you visited by Deputy Secretary Armitage? I was.
The day before, Armitage asked me to see him. Armitage wanted me to know that HE had told Novak. It was the "dumbest thing he had ever done in his life." He said it just before Novak left. He reported it fully to the FBI. He told me that he didn't want me to go to the FBI interview without knowing this fact.
I was really shocked. But I thought he had given me a piece of professional courtesy.
Did you relay what Armitage had told you.
They asked me if I knew anyone who might have told Novak. I do--told them about the conversation with Armitage.
No further questions.
4:28
Wells up.
Grossman looking a little sheepish. Boy does he look like an uncomfortable little kid. He's got gangly hands and big ears.
You had one conversation concerning Mr. Wilson's wife.
Only conversation was on or about June 11 or 12, right?
Yes sir.
That conversation probably lasted 30 seconds or less, right?
Yes.
Wells giving Grossman his grand jury testimony.
Your first conversation was May 29.
You need the calendar to identify when you met with Mr. Libby. You're only reconstructing it based on your examination of your calendar.
Is it fair to say that you are assuming that that is the date.
In terms of your present recollection, you don't have any recollection. You referred to that as "reconstruction."
When you reconstruct your testimony, you're talking about an analysis of the calendar. You have no present recollection of the date.
May 29, 2003, was your first conversation with Libby.
Libby asked him about the trip of an ambassador.
Grossman never read Kristof's article.
In all the years, you never looked at it.
I was trying to answer the questions people asked of me.
It became apparent to me that, yes, there was lot's of talk about a retired ambassador.
In connection with the lots of talk, did you know that the lots of talk had to do with this article.
Mr. Libby didn't ask you to commission a report?
No.
No discussion that the Ambassador's name was Joe Wilson.
Then you met with Mr. Armitage, Why did you meet with Mr. Armitage?
You told Mr. Armitage that Libby had asked a question.
Had Mr. Armitage not read the Kristof aritcle?
Do you find it odd that there was an article that was HIGHLY critical about the State Department, and neither you nor Armitage read the article?
I recognize that this doesn't sound so smart now. My whole job was to make sure what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan was right.
4:38
After you talked to Armitage you send an email to a Mr. Ford and Kansteiner.
Correct.
May 29.
Describe what INR is. State Department's research and intelligence.
Kansteiner in charge of Africa bureau.
I aksed if it rang any bells with them.
May 29, I think I called Joe Wilson.
Very first time he talked to Wilson about the trip.
Grossman believes he told Wilson Libby told him to look into the trip.
Grossman, I don't think anything else happened, I may have made interim call to Libby on May 29 or 30.
I told him I'd known Joe Wilson, and that's why I called him.
Did you tell him you went back all the way to college. No.
Did you tell him you had servedin the Foreign Service in similar capacities over the year. No.
1991 Grossman DCM in Turkey and Wilson DCM in Baghdad.
We only spoke when we were involved in evacuating American personnel from Kuwait.
You in fact knew Mrs. Wilson. Saw her at the gym. Yes.
I was invited to their house. He invited me there to breakfast and I went. (For a UCSB fundraising event.)
WRT May 29, there's no discussion about "the wife." Because you do not know about "the wife" until June 9 or 10.
You then go out of the country.
Grossman takes a sip of water.
Let's pin down the dates when you were out of the country.
Return from Tunis on June 6. Back in office on June 9.
Wells: One other thing happened on May 29. You asked Mr. Ford and Mr. Kansteiner to do a memo setting forth what they knew about Joe Wilson's trip. You told Mr. Ford and Mr. Kansteiner that the memo was being prepared in response to an inquiry from Scooter Libby. You told them, I want a memo prepared because Mr. Libby has asked me a question.
June 9, report's not ready. Then, you said you got the report on June 11 or 12. I think it came either the night of the 10th or 11th.
I want you to look at the report.
Grossman has a grimace on his face.
Is that a copy of the report you got on June 10 or 11.
Report does not say anything about the fact that Mr. Libby has requested information from the State Department. Anyone reading this report would have no idea that report's generation occurred because Mr Libby asked you a question.
Report refers to Valerie Wilson.
Here's the INR stuff that, from memory, was redacted before:
Joe Wilson played only a walk-on part in the Niger.Iraq uranium story.
But said he would only go if the department said the trip made sense.
There is absolutely no indication that OVP had anything to do in terms of requesting Mr. Wilson to go on that trip. There's no evidence that Cheney asked for this trip.
Report of Mr. Wilson's trip given to State and CIA. Grossman: As far as I know.
Armitage knows about the report and that Grossman was going to talk to Mr. Libby.
We want to test the credibility. Wells tries to bring up what Armitage said, objection sustained.
Very close working relationship. Close friendship with Armitage. just a professional relationship with Libby.
When you talked to Libby, it was either before or after one of these big meetings.
Involved issues of national security.
In terms of the way you personally had to prepare, it was like a final exam. Yes, five or six or them in a row.
In terms of how you viewed the importance of "the wife" did you view the wife as zero or less than zero importance?
I thought the whole thing was unimportant. I thought the wife was an interesting tidbit.
You didn't utter ANY words to Libby that her classification was classified or covert.
No sir.
Break for the evening!
Walton making a comment about lawyers stating his personal opinion in opening statement, you have to disregard.
Christy should have a recap tonight, with some good legal perspective. Pach will do something later in the week to talk about his professional opinion.
And I'll be back here tomorrow morning. I'm sure Well's is preparing to insinuate the Grossman was lying for Armitage.
Recess! Yeah! Recess! Beer thirty.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Fitz!
Fitz.
marcy… bought your book. can’t wait till it ships.
great job live blogging
Fitz!
Is it common for a defense attorney to try his case in the opening statement? That was a lot to chew on.
OT, but if there are any Douglas Adams fans here, I just found this amazing 87 minute lecture he did in California about endangered species before he died. Click.
Thanks for this amazing window into the events!
CHIMPEACH
terrific job today, ew!
In my opinion Wells’ opening statement had too many moving parts.
A long time ago a very fine trial attorney gave me some good advice concerning opening statements and trials in general. It was: “Pick a horse and ride him to town.”
this coverage is so unique - the only way I can say thanks is to send in another donation today so you can get those big mugs and lots of beans to keep you going.
must go to work, dang it. will have fun reading posts tonight though!
Fitz shouldn’t worry about striking Wells’ opening statement. Can you imagine how confusing it all was to people who haven’t followed this case? Like the juror who only reads the Bible? Wells’ opening statement was like trying to follow a three ring circus.
Lots of love to the liveblogging crew and all the firepups!
Hugs!
Happy Fitzmas!
Hang in there.You are making history.
And we are witnessing it.
Schadenfreude overload! The defense has just pointed out that our boy Ari, the White House’s former Supreme Bullshit Artist, had to negotiate an immunity agreement before he’d talk to Fitz. This is just too much fun!
Marcy - we spellbound! awesome work!
Lina on 12; isn’t that the point? Christy has mentioned the “no, look at all these shiny things” style of defense. Sounds like that Wells started out that way in his opening.
TeddySanFran @
9
Amen. You were awesome!
And the best part is, everyone else in the media room knows there’s an independent (if paraphrased) record of what happened.
My summary of the opening statements:
Fitz: Libby lied.
Wells:
1. Libby forgot. And forgot again. And forgot again. And forgot again.
2. Ari is lying, because he got an immunity deal.
3. Judy is misremembering, because she looks like a shrew.
4. Tim Russert is misremembering, because…well, because he’s a really good reporter, but even they make mistakes.
5. Cathie Martin and Matt Cooper are probably misremembering, but I won’t know for sure until I hear exactly what they have to say.
6. I have more shit to sling, but you pretty little ladies on the jury shouldn’t worry your little heads about it. Nobody cared about the wife. You just sit back and let us manly men take care of things.
After they’ve managed to revive their jury consultant from his (or her) twenty minute seizure, I’m sure they’re going to be told to (a) knock off the sexism, and (b) put a woman in a high-profile position on Libby’s legal team.
cheers to the bloggers and their techies…
so many VISITORS to the lake today, hard to keep the popper full… but welcome all
Awesome coverage. I just sent in a donation to FDL to help cover expenses. Thanks all.
Balrog @
5
Short answer - you betcha.
But it seemd to me that, from ew’s fine work, he has left himself an awful lot of work at trial, all of which must go perfectly, in order to back up that opening.
And by implication, should he fail to make the case for the points outlined in his opening - he is - well, the precise legal term for it is - “screwed”.
It’s only the first day and this trial is already making my head hurt.
I’m confused… the did they bring the jury back and questioning if Grossman begin? Or are they haggling over how defense can cross Grossman w/o Jury present?
Thanks for all the work you’ve done/are doing, Marcy, Christy, Pach, and company.
Marcy: The hair stood on the back of my neck, got goosebumps up and down my arms reading aloud to a friend Fitz’s opening statement as you typed it.
Oh. My. God. We’ve kicked it around for years now, talked it up and down and sideways, and yet it’s just not the same as seeing typed by someone you trust nearly verbatim from the prosecutor’s mouth: Cheney told Libby that Plame worked at CIA and against the spread of nuclear weapons.
Brava. So very glad you’ve been there to witness this for us, along with Christy and Pachacutec. Thank you.
Think Pelosi will bring up the trial to Cheney tonight? Watch for Cheney mouthing the words “go f*** yourself” during the SOTU.
Well, there’s my answer… on we go.
Goodbye Blue Monday
(yesterday was the day one might be most likely to commit suicide, if one were so inclined.)
Hello Fitzmas.
(can we name a day after Fitz when the dust has finally settled? You know, for the one day of the year when one is most likely to have a spontaneous orgasm because things have gone so swell?)
old gold @ 10
Yeah. I know legal briefs are structured like Wells’ opening. (Here’s theory A. If you don’t like theory A, try theory B on? No good? Okay, here’s theory C, which is A with a bit a B and some basting to hold it all together for the moment? Don’t like that one? Here’s all-new theory D …
But I don’t think that stuff is going to play with a jury. Give them a simple, coherent theory about what happened and why Scoooooter’s not guilty. Oh wait … he is guilty. That’s a problem …
BC
“The wife” belittles just like “she worked in the steno pool,” and it will also fail. Fitzgerald scored big by pointing out that if Libby was so important, why was he bird-dogged onto Plame?
Very much liked the line about “he wasn’t indicted for having a bad memory.” The memory defense can be crushed by the witnesses who can aver that Libby can remember the titles of all 79 Star Trek episodes.
Thanks, FDL—this live-blogging shows the web at its most-powerful and best. I’m heading for the PayPal button next.
Any expert opinion on what we might hear about the Niger forgeries during the course of the trial?
God, Marcy, go get yourself a gin and tonic and a backrub!
Bravo!!!
Bit NOLA @ 29
Fitzgerald’s birthday (12/22) coincides with “have an orgasm for peace” day. Is that close enough?
BLUE AMERICA is upstairs - hosting a LIVE CHAT with Senator Chris Dodd.
I mean - it’s one thing for the defense, on opening, to lay out a nice tight legal theory of defense on opening - and then say “and I’ll bring you the facts to support it” - and then there’s today’s performance.
Which essentially said - I’ve got these facts, and these facts, and these facts, and some more facts….
The failure to prove essentially any of these facts, which seemed to be all links in a chain, would most likely lead to that awful legal land of - “screwed”.
I like how Wells is simultaneously going for the “look how confusing this all is” defense and implying that it’s so confusing because the Feds have prevented him from presenting a more coherent case. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too.
I can see why Fitz would object: It’s very much in his interest to have any and all blame for the confusing nature of the defense’s argument resting with the defense.
Which means, basically, that Wells’ recourse is to load everything he has into a shotgun and shoot the jury in the face, if you will.
Ummmm I guess I am a simpleton here BUT…
Why didn’t Fitz charge Cheney as an unindicted co-conspirator?….or charge Rover then?….
Or Ari?….I know one of these guys has rolled and gotten immunity but still Fitz had wide latitude here and he just brought these charges against Libby….
I must be missing something becuz Fitz has the hammer on these guys and obstruction and perjury is the best he could do?
This concerns me, and I know he may bring other charges, but still….
If something else comes up during this trial can Fitz get a new GJ?
Curiously Concerned in Canada
Tooo much…. opening statements and the first live chat with a sitting senator. Arrrgh! Okay, better now. Way to go FDL!
Wow! Thanks EW! We don’t have TV reception where I live. Reading your liveblog is better by far (and addictive-hard to get any art done when I keep running to the computer every 15 minutes!)
Thanks to ALL at FDL!
Christy, any updates on Jane?
Marcy, really, terrific job — thank you very much.
And what watertiger @ 33 says.
Thanks again FDL. My recent donation and first to a blog was definately worth it.I can’t even begin to say how good it feels to be a part of such a great way to get the truth out to the people.
I’m as confused as Pat_AlexVA at 24 — the jury was dismissed but then there was a witness?
Any chance that Wells blasted the jury with 847 facts and examples early on so that later he can point out to them how hard it was to remember it all?
Cranky
jayt @ 36
Of course, Wells doesn’t have to prove any of his facts - he only has to create confusion and doubt about the prosecution’s narrative.
Maryb2004 @ 43
I think the jury was sent out of the room for a few minutes while Fitz complained about Wells’ opening, and then they were brought back in for Grossman.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 45
Of course, you’re right - but if you think that PJF won’t come back, on closing argument, and point out, in detail, the instances in which the defense failed to deliver on its earlier promise, well, that’d be mistaken.
Merry Fitzmas!
It’s as vicious-licious as can be!
It concerns me that the judge seems to be agreeing with Wells on most of the issues that Fitz brings up. Anything to be concerned of there?
Thanks so much Marcy and Christy and everyone here. This is just amazing!
Bit NOLA @
29
How about January 23rd? Fitzmas, forevermore?
Fantastic liveblogging, commenting too - fdl definitely the place to be
That fuck Cheney is goin down, and maybe his little chimp too!
Maryb2004 @
43
Judge Walton told the jury he takes a break every hour and a half because the court reporters work so hard…
Marcy has been blogging all day… there are a couple of gaps, but she is GREAT with time lines and chronologies. She’ll get all those steps lined up shortly.
Remember, this is live blogging, not a transcript.
jayt @ 47
He may do that - or he may not, since to repeat Wells’ points is only to reinforce them and risk multiplying the confusion. Obviously he will rebut any main points that were made repeatedly, but otherwise a lot of the bright shiny objects will simply be swept aside by the reiteration of Fitz’s own evidence.
And while Wells doesn’t have to prove his case in court, teh court of public opinion is also trying this case…
And if the early returns show anything, they’re losing that battle. There were a couple of Babs Comstock references earlier, she’s got her hands full now- Rove vs Libby, Bush’s brain versus Cheney’s Cheney…The Veep telling Libby what to leak and writing him a script…
And all this contrasts so well with Bush’s “fire anybody involved in teh leak’ statement…
As I said earlier at my usual hangout, if Bush knew about it (and if it was a Libby vs Rove battle how could he not) that puts teeth in the “Bush lied” meme…
Wells is bringing up the Kristof column. But it never came up on direct. Grossman was asked about an ambassador, confirmed it and never testified that he knew of any article. So why does this article even get into cross?
It’s going to take a while to absorb the breaking news from emptywheel’s coverage (Armitage tampering with witnesses???), but I just want to concur that the closing statement by Ted Wells in his opening argument, about a conviction only being possible if jurors let disapproval of the Iraq invasion color their judgement, is really quite outrageous.
It’s a real swipe at the jurors, and says, in effect: if I lose this case, it’s the jury’s fault for not doing their duty. Wells is telegraphing potential post-conviction spin to the media that feelings about the war will absolutely negate any possibility of a fair trial for his client.
No way, no how, Mr. Defense Attorney. I hope the jurors caught the specious spin on that statement, and don’t take it as true.
Canadianhoser (38) — Christy and Marcy are far more qualified to give an opinion, but I’m going to hazard a guess-timated answer to your question.
Fitzgerald strikes me as the kind of prosecutor who only presses charges when he has a solid case — rock solid, the kind vetted by multiple sources. His charges against Libby for perjury, false statements and obstruction are going to be nearly impossible to weasel out of because he is so careful.
But for the same reason he pressed no charges against any of the other apparent co-conspirators. Fitz, in the October 2005 presser announcing Libby’s indictment, used a baseball analogy and said that sand had been thrown in his eyes. In other words, he could not readily press unimpeachable charges against anyone else because of the obstructions put in way, including Libby’s perjury, false statements and obstructive behaviors. Had Libby simply told the truth, not been evasive and not messed with evidence, there probably would have been multiple indictments against co-conspirators.
And charging a seated executive is not something anyone should take lightly (even if Republicans have done so in the recent pass), without solid, multiply-sourced and vetted evidence. I give Fitz kudos for his professional restraint; you can see from his opening statement that he knew exactly what transpired, and would have done the right thing had sand not been kicked in his face. When and if he can bring charges, they will stick.
In the mean time, we should be setting impeachment proceedings in motion against Richard Bruce Cheney; we do not need the same standard to which Fitzgerald must work to do so.
Hey, hoser! I still have faith that these proceedings will turn over enough rocks that all of these guys will be heading for the airport and jobs as bellhops in the Caymans. Be that as it may…
Thanks, Everyone, for the ground-level view of this trial, together with the insites of ex(?)-lawyers. I’m off to PayPal, too. Get lots of sleep. Well, it would probably be ok to have a gin and tonic, and then get lots of sleep!
Cranky Observer @
44
Ya know how you go home and start babbling office gossip to your spouse? YOU know the petty situations inside and out, but your spouse is so confused he doesn’t want to hear about it? I think this is exactly what Wells is trying to do — lay out all the gossip at once to try to get the jury to get lost in the names and glaze over.
BUT, Fitz said something about “don’t worry, you don’t have to know all the names.” I think Fitzy is going to walk them through all the players piece by piece until they know it as well as Marcy does. By the end, they will feel confident rendering a verdict.
bellesouth @
56
Can anyone help with this?
BTW, hs anyone heard from Jane?
Emptywheet - amazing job - thanks so much!
Rayne @
26
Rayne - I passed your comment to ET in the late nite thread. Read on down a bit, there are several replys to your question. hth
Wow.
I am such a nerd. Actually following this line by line.
Shoot my computer.
Just kidding.
I thought–long ago and far away–that the Libby revelations might be the last straw for Bushco.
Thus shortening the fiasco/bloodbath in Iraq and keeping my son OUT.
He’s in Irag now and I hope this trial will help shorten the war by further exposing Bushco for the chickenhawks they are.
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 59
Canuck,
I really wish that was a possibility. But these guys have all
madestolen enough that they’re secure. Or if not, there’s always wingnut welfare for them.I really wish to God that they’d have to live a life just above the poverty line in the system they’ve created. Now that would be justice … no, make that Justice.
BC
Frank Probst @ 19
FP–I couldn’t agree more. Did he really use “the wife” over and over, or was that ew’s shorthand. If he did, what was Wells thinking?
Canadianhoser @
38
Who says he won’t? Don’t fall for the spin of “Libby was the only one charged…” The correct phrasing is “Libby IS the only one charged”. Present tense. The investigation is ongoing. Fitz likes to work his way up the ladder. The #4 man at the White House is currently on the hook for bullshitting the FBI and the grand jury. He won’t go after #3 (Rove) until he’s done with Libby. And he won’t go after #2 (Cheney) until he’s done with them both. #1 (Bush) is probably in the clear, as his “I’m too stupid” defense is all too believable.
Marcy, was there a theme to Wells’ statement, a phrase he kept repeating over and over? One that he may have mentioned in jury selection?
Were there things he repeated three times (called a trilogy)?
You mentioned Fitz did it with “The Truth Would Be” and I’m wondering what Well’s theme was? Or, if he didn’t have one. Thanks, Jeralyn
I don’t know about anyone else, but there are 9 women on the jury. If I was one of those women, each time I heard “the wife” it would grate so hard on my nerves that I would write-off the atty who kept using it.
How stupid of him.
Wells is bringing up the Kristof column. But it never came up on direct. Grossman was asked about an ambassador, confirmed it and never testified that he knew of any article. So why does this article even get into cross?
May actually be a good omen. Some judges stick tight to the rule that, if it didn’t come up on direct, it can’t be asked about on cross..
Other judges, not so much. - maybe Judge Walton’s a little loose on this rule.
I’ve written here that, if Cheney does in fact testify, it may not matter much, because PJF would be strictly limited to what was asked of him on direct.
BUT - if Judge Walton is loose on that rule, and allows a more wide-open cross-examination, an appearance by Richard Bruce Cheney, on the stand in Judge Walton’s court-room, all of a sudden is starting to sound, even to me, as it might be, oh, a little bit interesting.
RevDeb @ 69
Yeah, I had that same thought.
TalkLeft @ 67
Yes:
Three journalists, Three months. I forget the third part of the three. But it’s three three three.
“Three calls, Three Reporters, Three months later.”
Marcy, I Paypal-ed some money for a couple of drinks for you guys tonight. You deserve some relaxation! Thanks so much — you did great today!
3 phone calls
Beer Thirty, indeed! I wonder if there are any public happy hours planned in the DC area for you guys? I’d love to buy you a round!
Thank you Marcy.
That was AWESOME!
Thanks EW (I have to call you that!). Absolutely fascinating.
jayt @
71
I would imagine that Fitz could get in quite a bit under the category of general credibility questions. My two suggested questions are:
1. In the past twelve months, have you shot any old men in the face?
2. If so, did you consume any alcohol in the twelve hours prior to doing so?
I suspect he could get in a number of other questions under the category of general attitudes toward law enforcement officials.
Mr Cheney, in your opinion, how long after shooting someone in the face should the average citizen wait until they discuss the matter with the police?
Wells is bringing up the Kristof column. But it never came up on direct. Grossman was asked about an ambassador, confirmed it and never testified that he knew of any article. So why does this article even get into cross?
Two possibilities
1) It was mentioned in direct, but not mentioned by Marci since we all know about it….
2) AFAIK, it is permissible to bring up stuff not mentioned in direct in an effort to impeach a witness — which is what Wells was trying to do here….
Thanx Rayne…But still…my experience with Prosecutors is actually quite the opposite, with respect to restraint that is,even so…
You know the old saw about, ‘justice being seen to be done’ and all that, wont Wells be correct then in his argument that the real culprits have gotten away?…and his poor simple client Libby is left holding the bag? when Rover, the VP and possibly GWB have left the barn already…(I love ‘horse’ analogies…I loved the one about the opening statements and ‘riding one horse’)…
I concur that Fitz doesn’t seem to be a ‘restraintless’ prosecutor but still as a simpleton it concerns me….
superb work marcy. thnx.
p.lukasiak @ 80
Thanks!
Great job. Thanks for the look into the proceedings.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 72
I think even the Stepford Wives would be tired of it by now, and I believe most of these women are working professionals. I can’t see it scoring any points, but I don’t think Wells has much choice. Valerie Plame was the victim of a co-ordinated hatchet job. Wells needs to distract the jury (not to mention the media–she’s a blond white woman, after all) as much as possible from the fact that there’s a victim here. That’s a critical difference between this scandal and, say, Iran/Contra.
uncle toby @ 27
man, if palosi could get cheney to loose control that would SO excellant
Thank You so much Marcy for such excellent coverage. This is past exciting, I’m so thrilled for our wonderful FDL crew.
Here’s my three:
Toast, toast, toast.
jayt @ 22
It is customary to give the jury an outline of what you intend to prove. But it really comes back to bite you in the ass if you say you’re going to prove something, and then you don’t.
Is he going to have The Dick take the stand and testify that Libby was sacrificed by the WH in order to protect Rove, and that he, The Dick, was powerless to stop it?
I may have to take the day off from the work when that happens….
emptywheel
Let me just say that what you have produced is absolutely extraordinary.
Now, about that meal. What happens if 2 are Rove and Fleischer?
Pretty sure that Gregory was in Africa with Bush, and Fleischer.
Another nomination for best line of the day:
Marcy, you’re incredibly observant–and fast! Thanks to you, Christy, and Pach for all your great hard work, and a big fat toast to **Jane**!
Just an FYI Senator Dobbs is upstairs right now with Howie.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....hris-dodd/
Eureka Springs, AR @ 91
Lou Dobbs is a senator now?
I think you mean Christopher Dodd, D-CT. (An actual D representing Connecticut - sadly, you’ve gotta be clear about these things these days . . .)
Eureka Springs, AR @ 91
Actually Sen. Dodd is on Hardballs right now as we type.
The wife can be used in context thusly: The butler didn’t kill the wife.
For a man to refer to his wife as the wife is sexist. Male progressives understand this distinction whereas male R’s often do not. The wife is like the coffee table. It is a demeaning term. Seems to me that Wells used it in this way.
It doesn’t fly well with most women and some men. I don’t like it when I hear it.
hackworth @ 94
He could have used “Mrs. Wilson” without much effort. I hope that “the wife” think comes back to bite him in the . . . .
David Schuster coming up next on Hardballs, or so Tweety says.
He used “the wife” for a reason. Who is he trying to get on his side? Which jury members would respond positively to it?
RevDeb @ 95
thanks RevDeb, please let us cableless folks know what is said wrt libby trial.. much thanks!