
This is NOT Cooper on the stand. It's him speaking at Georgetown. In any case, here are some groundrules. I timestamp my posts–that will let you know when you should update (please err on the side of saving the servers). Also, treat this as a liveblog, not a transcript; I'm no court reporter! And finally, please buy my book.
Cooper leaning back, with eyes closed. He just doesn't seem flustered by this. I think he is just plain annoyed. As if, you know, maybe he wants to be done with this long ordeal. Cooper faced left side of courtroom. He has this disdainful look which makes him look worried. Now spinning around in the swivel chair.
Walton Apologize the delay, but I had to review a consent decree in voting rights issue.
Approach for one moment.
Sidebar. Cooper flipping through some papers.
Looks like he's trying to listen to sidebar.
Jeffress back up.
Walton Let me just give you a slight schedule change for tomorrow, one of my former clerks is leaving, so that's at 10. Ceremony is only a half hour, so I'll go to swearing in. We'll start at 10:45. I'm being told that they've already got breakfast for you. I'll ask counsel to be here by 10:30. I apologize for delay. I guess if you want to come in later, you can, but your breakfast will be cold. We need to coordinate with Marshalls, too, so you need to let us know.
Cooper arranging mike.
Jeffress: Do you remember call with Libby was actually two calls.
New exhibit.
J Record of phone calls from Edwards AFB. You see it reflects a pair of calls to your cell. Those calls are July 12, 2003. First one at 14:24. Lasted 13.25 minutes. Over 14:38.
MC Uh, yeah.
J Another call at 14:40, lasted 4.6 minutes.
J In fact, there were two, it was interrupted, and then he called you back. Do you remember what that interruption was.
MC I really don't. It was on his side, not mine.
J The first part was the on the record part of the call. The statement about Wilson's wife came in the second part of the call.
MC Came at the end.
J I'd like to show you your notes again. Looking at
had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it's ever
J Reads through note. Teasing about Cooper taking notes in his bed. You leave a lot of things out. If you had a question for Libby you'd probably type up what Libby said. If he said he had heard. You have the word "had." Is it possible you would have typed the word had instead of heard.
MC I might have. That's not my recollection of what he said.
J You type the word and and when people aren't saying it.
MC Not sure I'd accept your characterization.
J Let's look at your note-taking habits. [looking above, Speaking too fast for court reporter] We've seen many times you don't get to finish. You make a lot of typos, you said it's not SOTU. And the end of that paragraph. You meant to finish that sentence. He finished that sentence. It's just not in your notes. Look at next paragraph. We were not invovle should probably be involved.
[he's just ragging on Cooper's typing and sprawling on bed]
J So this is your best effort in a conversation taking place quickly to get down what you need, it's by no means complete or accurate in terms of what person is doing.
MC I wouldn't say it's unaccurate. I'm getting down as much as I could.
J Remember you have the note "notable." That's not what he said.
MC I can't recall whether he said, I believe it came from him.
J Let's look down here, see how you have "not sure it's ever."
MC I don't sir.
J Do you ever type an r when you mean to type an n?
New exhibit.
3:33
J I don't need to introduce these, but I do need to display them.
J Brings up page.
[Jeffress has found a note where MC clearly typed r instead of n]
J were you typing notes while you were talking to someone.
J You meant to type erroneous but you hit an "r" instead, so it became "erroreous."
MC Sure
J Shows him typing "eregy" instead of "energy" [on an aluminum tube story]
J Back to the Libby notes. If you had asked him if Plame had sent him on the trip, you could have referred to the Wilson thing.
MC That's not how I remember.
J Suppose you hit an r instead of an n
J Isn't it possible that Libby said, "I'm not sure if it's even true."
MC That's not my recollection
J What did he say next.
MC I don't know.
Cooper stoic.
J I's like to ask you some questions about. After you testified to GJ and as a matter of a fact, as you testified to GJ about Rove in this case. After you testified the second time a year later, you've talked many times on television about what you said. You've been asked many times about what you said to Mr Libby. Each time you said Mr. Libby said, "I've heard that too."
MC I've always qualified it to the effect of
J Did you write an article about it. Did you discuss what you heard from Libby.
J New exhibit.
3:40
J You wrote, Yeah, I've heard something about that,
MC I'm sure I did but I don't remember literally typing it.
J New exhibit.
Email to Bambi Wulf, change Libby quote to Yeah,
I've heard THAT TOO.
J Did your memory of the conversation change.
[this is the "slight discrepancy" Walton was referring to.]
MC My memory of the precise words has been cloudy. The "I heard it too" has always been more prominent.
Cooper now looking up, leaning back. Looks a little bored.
New exhibit.
Note to file. Is it a note that appears to have been typed at 2:44 at home. You typed this, probably on laptop at home, just after you spoke to him.
J This says to Nation.
MC This story ran in the "Nation" section. Duffy was one of the primary writers in this story.
Walking through the details in this.
On Deep Background, in the Strict Kissingerian Definition, You can Use in you Voice but without Quotations.
Includes
Denies emphatically the reports that the Brits handed intel directly to Veep.
In other words the administration is putting out the line that Wilson has omitted a key fact in his recent op-ed and public remarks and that even his own report allowed the possibility that Iraq was pursing uranium from Niger.
Doesn't know chain of custody.
The pissing match with Wilson is where the whole story could be by Mon or Tues so suggest we play it with prominence. At home if you have quesiton.
Makes MC read last sentence.
J Insofar as Libby, the pissing contest was whether Wilson got it wrong or not.
MC If I may elucidate. What struck me as a contradiction, on one hand, after Wilson published op-ed, the Admin did something that it rarely does, which is acknowledge a big error. That was a big deal, I was very struck by that. But then I was struck all week by statements that seemed to be disparaging Mr Wilson. They were saying you're right, it shouldn't have been. Then they were saying, he's a momma's boy, his report was bad.
J Who said he was a momma's boy
MC That's my paraphrase about the statement about the wife.
3:55
J starts to talk about forgeries.
Walton Before I forget, I'll just miss the swearing, we'll start at 9:30. The Marshalls have already ordered the food and if we don't get here, it'll be wasted.
J Do you recall the Admin saying that
MC quotes back 16 words.
J You remember after SOTU, the IAEA discovered documents purporting a deal had been forged.
MC Yeah, I remember that
J Remember Tenet released a statement on July 11 Do you remember Tenet saying the line shouldn't have been there in there.
J is that line, not sure if it's ever--is that the only line you don't know what it means. Shows his notes. You know what all that means
MC that's the on the record stuff.
J is walking through this paragraph, you put it into the note to the file
MC where it says "in a particular subject," I don't know what that refers to.
MC In years since, I've asked could that be the line about the wife, That's not the way I remember it.
J Next paragraph
MC refers to the whole thing with the Nigerien PM.
MC I htink that's referring to the thing with the PM. Saying that's consistent with president.
J "some piece he saw that was circulated."
MC Another thing I can't account for.
J If the "he" is the VP, would it be referring to
MC I wouldn't want to speculate, I don't know origin of those 7 words.
J Remember being asked about that sentence.
MC I think I got asked in that lawyers office meeting.
J You're right to correct me about that.
MC I think I was asked if that was the reference to the wife.
MC I can't remember what I said at the time, but I think I said that was not the wife.
MC My recollection is that the wife comes up at the end.
J that note is consistent about that
MC that's not really at the end, I'd say that's 2/3 of the way.
J Let's put the whole thing up.
4:07
J All that would appear in first 13 minutes.
MC sure
J Can you show what happens after that.
(Does a side by side)
J I didn't know we could do that. You don't know whether you said that Wilson quote in the first or second one.
MC My recollection is that it was the last thing before some pleasantries.
J Your recollection could be mistaken.
MC I seem to recall it that way, he was trying to get me off the phone. I squeezed a few more questions. I remember this being the last thing I was asked. That was how I described it.
J Do you remember being asked that you don't know, you're not sure.
MC I don't remember what I said in lawyers office.
J You were asked if you know what it refers to, you said you were not sure, you said, "This sentence feels a little out of context to me."
MC And that's true as you sit here today. Yeah, I cannot account for that sentence. I do have a distinct memory of what he said.
J There's not a word in your file having to do with Wilson's wife. You knew this info and that's why you asked.
MC I was hoping to hear more about it, I wouldn't say I was asking for a confirmation. I was trying to find out more about it.
J remember when you were really excited about it and you thought it should be included.
MC I wouldn't characterize it that way
J Isn't the fact that in the lengthy memo, note to file, everything that you've described is in this memo, except anything about Wilson's wife.
MC The Wilson's wife thing is not in the file.
J That means it was not confirmation
MC What I remember
J Are you answering my question or some other memo
MC What I remember is that I took it as confirmation.
J Why not in memo
MC I didn't write it down, but it is my memory, it is what it is.
J Let's compare what you did
4:14
Another email chain, Ignatius, editor at Time
J Concerns Rove.
MC Yeah, and others, it's sort of like your file wrt the Libby conversation
J A strartling charge from an SAO that we need to handle with some caution.
J We find that, don't get too far out. Wilson was not sent. [Jeffress reading from email]
J When I pressed the official, he said it was someone involved with WMD, his wife.
MC I sent this later in the day.
J You said Rove himself. Adi Ignatius responds. Interesting
J That's not a name you used earlier.
Walton, please approach.
J remember when we talked before about off the record.
MC I said off the record.
J Someone says something off the record, you can use that as confirmation
MC I took it to mean that, in this case.
J When they tell you something off the record.
MC YOu can't quote it, use it directly in a story, to try to elicit it, and I did take it to be confirmation of what I'd heard from Rove.
J What you'd heard from John Dickerson wasn't off the record.
Redirect!! Fitzgerald
F You believed your conversation with Libby would be exculpatory.
F on July 12, would you have taken it as confirmation if Libby had said that reporters were telling him that Mr Wilson's wife, and that he didn't know it was true.
MC No. I Would not have taken it as confirmation, on the contrary it would have stirred by competitive juices that other reporters were writing this.
F When did you learned Novak wrote this.
MC Tuesday Wednesday or THursday
F Reaction
MC Oh, it's out there, do we want to do a follow-up
F Did you ask follow-up
MC I should have
F WHy not
MC He was very anxious to get off the phone. I bid adieu and said goodbye.
F Did you also tell GJ that the conversation was at the end of the GJ
Objection sustained
F What did you tell them about timing.
MC I believe I said it was at the end.
Juror questions--sidebar.
4:24
Walton: One of the questions I'm not going to be able to ask, if I don't ask, don't speculate about what response would have been.
Walton: did you ever investigate by whom and why those documents were forged.
MC I think others did. I never looked into Niger forgery question in any detail. I cover WH this sort of had more to do with Italian embassy. For whatever reason it fell out of my purview.
Walton during the conversaton with Dickerson, did he relay any information to you that he had received over there.
MC Yes
Walton Did you think about substance of conversation with Libby before subpoena
MC No, I focused on it well before subpoena, once to write war on wilson question mark piece, and once when the disclosure of this CIA agent became a big deal, I had many conversations to reflect on my conversations with Libby and others.
Approach.
Walton The response that characterized Ms Wilson as CIA agent, you'll have to discount that, it's not an issue in this case, therefore you can't speculate about that.
Walton regarding 7/11/2003 email from you to Duffy one of the lines indicated Rove/P&C,
MC privileged and confidential. I thought it'd keep him from forwarding that to others.
Walton TB
MC A reference to Timothy Burger, the correspondant for handling intelligence issues.
Walton, Anything else
Fitzgerald No your honor.
4:40
Walton We're going to break, I've got issues to deal with. I'd hate having you wait around. You'll need to be at the designated point. Breakfast will be here when you get here. I'll get here as soon as I can. I'd ask counsel to be here at 10:30
[Stick around for legal fight]
4:44
Walton Regarding video. I've had an intern review Libby's testimony, nowhere did he say that he saw those statements. He knew about them or heard about them. It doesn't indicate that he viewed himself.
Fitz, ones he saw, and ones we admit through a person that authorized him. 801D2C. Start with statements before he asked for the clearing. GJ transcript. He admits he knows about public statement from McC, Mr Libby's aware of failure of WH PS to clear him BC one of the times he fails to clear him, the first time he tries to get cleared he's told the WH is not going to go down some list. As he watches it, the list is only about him. At a certain point, during this time, he is aware that his name is being asked and his name is not being cleared. When things explode in October, and being played, the WH is ordinarily circulated. the notion that he's the one person in teh world not watching McC making comments about him.
Walton That may be true, but he may have gotten written documents.
Fitz I don't mean this facetiously. Your experience is different than someone going on TV
Walton there's an assumption
Fitz they're asking, are you going to clear Mr Libby. The notion he'll keep track of hardball in July but he's not watching when the WH PS is not clearing him. It defies common sense. the notion that Libby would not be aware of Press Conferences.
Walton, It's clear, but we don't know the way he's keeping abreast.
Wells in GJ he had ample opportunity to ask Libby whether he watched these videos. Nobody has or will have Libby watching TV. There's no evidence. He's saying, let's make a leap. I don't want those very prejudicial videos on the screen. When you do look at them, it has a different image than looking at transcript. He had every oppty. Mr. Libby didn't watch them.
Fitz. It's not a limit on evidence that you can only introduce evidence asked about in GJ. Mr Wells opened that this is all about Libby being scapegoated, and thrown under the bus. People in the WH are trying to scapegoat me. Note shows him saying I did not leak classified info. I'm concerned people are trying to use me as a scapegoat. Mr Libby tells a source I never want to see my name in print. He's squirreled away with VP, and he says, I'm getting thrown under the bus, but he doesn't even watch. I think that defies common sense. We had no indication in GJ, that he thought he was being thrown under the bus. That defies common sense.
Walton I try to stay abreast of all the statements that are made in this case. A lot of things are made while I'm in court. So I have a news service that sends this to me, so I can stay abreast of what's going on in the case. HOw do I know that that's not how LIbby stayed abreast of it.
Wells it's a very different image. Fitz wants to creat an image that's not based on factual image.
Walton there's also potential argument that if someone is sitting in front of TV. Without there being clear evidence that he was watching the TV.
Fitz There's no denial he spent time paying attention. Mr Libby was also
Walton You've got his own words, as to what the situation was.
Walton, I'll think about it.
Fitz, If I could switch to the other two. Ones involving the clearing. Libby clearly describes in GJ, describes how he goes through with a statement that he wants McC to say. He says I spoke to mr McC and McC issues the clearing statement. If Libby had made statement himself, there's no question it'd be admissible. He deputized someone. Not hearsay if offered against a party, authorized by a party.
Walton. Anything on that one.
Wells Threshold for keeping them out.
Walton does he have to see them if he does something that is genesis for what was said. If subsequently, McC says that.
Wells, no it didn't work that way. McC does nothing. Libby has to talk to VP of the US, VP did whatever he did. McC is not Libby's agent. doesn't take
Walton VP has become his surrogage.
Wells, I don't know you'd have. ... you'd have to
Walton, we'd need VP testimony
Wells, whatever he did he did not do it as Libby's surrogate. That's what I'm drawing a distinction.
Walton if I go to Chief Judge to have a statement disseminated, doesn't that become my statement. And Chief Judge CLEARLY is not my agent.
Walton, I'll have to review transcript.
Wells, I think you'll have to talk to President BUsh bc he's probably somewhere in that chain.
Fitz introduces opening statement. We already have evidence from Addington that when Bartlett responded, Bartlett responded, "that was your boss." No dispute that Libby asked VP to intercede, and Libby asked McC to respond.
Wells I don't think evidence will show that VP was his agent.
Fitz We have evidence already, if Wells ever calls VP, we can ask him about that. Statement issued by McC came from VP.
Walton if you could provide that to us.
Wells, he volunteered that
Walton. It's still evidence
Wells, Bartlett said, it's your boss that wanted it. I don't believe the facts--it's a link.
Walton, I'll have to look at transcript, and LIbby's testimony. To see if this was made at behest of Libby. It seems at least circumstantially that the statement made consistent with what Libby requested. One other matter.
Wells if theres a tape it should be the snippet of what was authorized.
Fitz There were questions from the press to which McC responded. Your honor, Libby's request was that he answer questions coming from him.
Wells, there's another issue I've agreed to put it off until tomorrow. I'm going to want some briefing and discovery.
Walton What is it
Wells We'll raise it in the morning.
Fitz Tomorrow: The videos, then Bond, then GJ, then another witness we need to discuss, then Russert, Conclude case late Monday or Tuesday.
Wells we could start on Wednesday
Walton if Govt will start Monday, I'd ask you start right away.
Jeffress, We're going to call Abramson from NYT, I think it'd be more convenient if we could know definitely tomorrow.
Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we're going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand.
Beer thirty.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Guilty!
ew!
Empty Wheel!
a tie! how good is that?! Hi Busted ;->
woo hoo Biodun, 3-way!
Hello everyone, thanks to you ladies for all of this!!!
I knew if i asked what was happening (EPU’d) the next blog would finally come, just like lighting a cigarette to make the bus come.
And of course,
FITZ!
How sweet is that?
A Zed during the Libby trial for my birthday!
OH HELL YEAH!
EPU’d . . .
RBG @ 188
Thanks for the reminder!
Happy Happy Birfday Bustednuckles!
Is it just me, or do I get the impression that Cooper is an arrogant little piece of work?
Deacon Blues @ 11
I’m getting the impression that he’s not gonna take crap off of Jeffress. After all Irving got him into this mess.
Tap Duncan @ 12
That’s my impression as well. As someone (Neil?) said on the last thread, Cooper is not letting Jeffress put words in his mouth.
Does anyone have an idea of who will be called to testify next? Is there a witness list anywhere that gives you an idea of who called in what order?
Thanks!
Tap Duncan @
12
Agreed, Tap Duncan. I’d prollly be pissed too, in Cooper’s shoes.
If I ever got into a trail like this, I would be toast. I can’t even read my own notes, I misspell words, transpose letters. And here they are, calling into question whether or not Cooper may have misspelled a word such that it changed the meaning of the sentence?
Kricky.
Is it just me, or do I get the impression that Cooper is an arrogant little piece of work?
Oh, he is. So is Miller. The corrupt ones are always the most arrogant, because they use their inflated self-esteem to pretend they are better than us and thus need not obey the same laws we do.
Much different from real journalists like Joe Conason, who I have met and who is a sweetheart.
His demeanor is 180 degrees from Judy’s.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 13
Although I do have to acknowledge his little paraphrasing at the end of the last exchange is kind of arrogant. Maybe that is what Deacon was reffering to.
I meant “trial”, not “trail”, of course.
See? What did I tell you?
Tap Duncan @ 19
What, the momma’s boy part? That doesn’t strike me as arrogant, personally; that is the basic tenor of a lot of the remarks that were being made about Wilson at the time.
Anatomy of Deceit:
(current) Amazon Sales Rank: 410.
The goal will be to crack 300 today and 200 tomorrow.
I wonder why they keep harping on the (false) idea that Wilson claimed he was sent by the VP and reported to them? Is this just court-of-public-opinion playing to the Fox News crowd, since this is an article of faith to them?
From the actual op-ed:
and:
How can repeated attempts to get witnesses to claim that Wilson said things he didn’t possibly help their case? And will Fitz eventually have to introduce the op-ed into evidence to get them to stop?
Tap Duncan @ 12
I remember reading that Cooper moonlights as a stand-up comedian in the DC comedy clubs. You gotta have a pretty thick skin to deal with the hecklers and so I guess it’s coming in handy now.
Is team Libby trying for jury nullification? They keep bringing up who outed her, IIPA questions, like if they can prove everyone knew she was CIA, then no IIPA violation. And if no IIPA violation, they who cares if Libby tripped up the FBI? Thus putting Rove in the dock because he has fessed up to outing her to Cooper.
In the midwest the deer go deep into the corn fields, gorging themselves on the tasty kernels, until Fitz comes along with a combine. Slowly, slowly, the deer, tangled up in corn stalks, is forced into a corner. Bam, bam, Bambi.
Happy hunting Fitz.
The aspens are dying from Republican pollution.
These characters are intermarried and intertwined like the ancient English aristocrats. Small wonder they demonstrate such disdain for the public.
“Denies emphatically the reports that the rbits handed intel directly to Veep.”
rbits???? ribbitts….frogs….French
Why deny emphatically?
Was that a typo in transcriptions or as spelled in the exhibit?
Cathie Martin, when asked about the “forgeries” at first said they came from the French..then corrected herself and said the Italians.
Why correct French to Italian?
Are they comparing Wilson’s story to the forgeries and saying Wilson ommitted saying the same thing the forgeries said in his own report? Is that the “pissing” contest?
There is something really fishy about the whole forgery thing.
What I find interesting about Coop’s testimony is that he says he told Libby that his testimony would be exculpatory. I suspect that the two of them had different ideas about what this would mean. If I were Libby, I would understand it to mean that Coop’s testimony would be, “Scooter who?”
Coop, on the other hand, seems to have meant that he would say that Libby was not the FIRST person to tell him about Plame and, in fact, didn’t actually tell him about Plame at all, but merely confirmed it for him.
I don’t think that Cooper comes off as arrogant. It sounds to me like he was well-prepared not to let Jeffress put words in his mouth, and not to get intimidated.
He comes off better than Judy Judy Judy because he doesn’t have a guilty conscience.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 13
I’m in on that. Cooper is holding his own pretty well. Not too tough though if Jeff is trying to nail him on typos from working on his bed.
Frank Probst @ 28
I think Cooper thought it would be exculpatory because he wouldn’t say that Libby told him that she was covert. How was Cooper to know that Libby was lying his ass off and not even admitting to have spoken to him about “the wife” at all?
Almost there, Marcy! Another stellar day. I make notes the way Coop does–half the time the shorthand is too short and I don’t know what the notation means. I think you could sense his frustration at not being able to tell Jeffress, definitely, what he intended to take note of. And one last thing… from what Cooper testified, it sounds like Fleischer was telling the truth about what he told Dickerson–that Wilson’s wife sent him and that she was CIA. I think that’s the only way to read it. How about you? Anybody?
Redshift @ 23
Well obviously they want to leave the impression that Wilson had a bad motive and that he lied. Just more of the same old smear.
IANAL, but Fitz’ redirects are a thing of beauty and brevity.
They keep referring to “Wilson confirmed wht the Pres. said - that the Iraqis did try to purchase uranium (in Niger)”. This is disingenuous in the extemem, as most here know. If the argument is to say the 16 words referred to the rebuffed 1999 attempt - how is that “recently”?
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
And they keep harping on this even when the WH took the 16 words back! Unbelievable.
Frank Probst @ 28
I agree. At the time I think Cooper was thinking he would tag Rove as the leaker and vindicate Libby.
CNN just mentioned “bloggers” covering Libby-Cheney-gate and specifically mentioned FIREDOGLAKE. But CNN did not say that how CNN has been so pathetically bad in their coverage (and MSNBC, FOX and the other corporate liars for Bush).
Of course it would be different if Judith Miller had been attacked by a mountain lion…
sue mullins @ 25
I don’t see how this would work. If I were on the jury, I’d find Scooter guilty on all counts, and I’d add that I thought Ari and Judy were probably lying, too.
Remember, Fitz was charged with finding out who leaked Plame’s identity to the press. We now know that no less than FOUR Administration officials did so: Armitage, Rove, Libby, and Fleisher. Armitage has described it as something along the lines of the worst mistake of his life and seems genuinely repentant about it. Fleisher was worried enough that he got an immunity deal. That leaves Rove and Libby. No, I do not think for one second that the jury is going to let him off the hook.
I’m with lititgatormom, btw. I think Cooper has come off pretty well.
We’re in a sidebar to fight over the juror questions. With these jurors, I expect we’ll have some good ones.
Frank33 @ 37
Not really. Judy Miller isn’t blond.
OT but related (bear with me)
Our blog, The Next Agenda (click on my name) is having a getogether on Saturday here in Toronto.
We are meeting at a restaurant called Dooney’s. I was checking out their site and came across their Dooney’ dictionary. Not many restaurants I know post such things, but this is apparently a writer’s restaurant.
Here’s what I found:
Snarkilicious!
After all the discussion about Dickerson and Doughty Pantload my first thought was that the pups at FDL would enjoy that!
Anyway, if you lurk over at TNA (and I know a few do) and want to come on Saturday just give us a wave over at the blog so p2p can reserve a big enough table or three. We can talk Plame.
I don’t see how this would work. If I were on the jury, I’d find Scooter guilty on all counts, and I’d add that I thought Ari and Judy were probably lying, too.
I was wondering something…. I’m not a lawyer and have been in a courtroom all of one time, when I didn’t get selected for some petty robbery trial. So, just hypothetically speaking, what would happen next if someone here in this trial WERE to be found later of lying/perjury. Is there some sort of referral that happens? If it is discovered during this trial (or any trial, I guess, as my question is very generic), what is the process then?
How many elephants are in the courtroom? My favorite and still completely unanswered: Why was Rove not indicted?
I see. Cooper refuses to be led into anything by Libby’s counsel — his digging in his heels comes off as a little arrogant if you don’t know the context. Still, there’s only three heroes in all this — a husband and wife, and a prosecutor trying to bring them some justice. The rest, reporters and government officials alike, treat this like it’s some kind of game, like who’s the most popular in high school. The bigger picture, what’s decent, what’s right, what the country needs to know, never occurs to them.
I would hate to be examined by Fitz. Better yet, I wouldn’t even want to take him on in a game of Chinese checkers!!! Or is that Asian-American Checkers? Either way, he’s too plotting, I love it!!
Here`s a bit of language analysis as to why the poor spelling argument is full of crap.
The word Cooper supposedly misspelled is even/ever. But all Jeffers examples of Cooper typing R instead of N are words that:
A. Have multiple syllables.
B. Already contain the letter R.
You are much more likely to mix up and replace letters within a word than add a new letter completly at random. Look at even and ever, not much to mix up there.
If you do add a new letter to the word, it`s likely you accidently hit the key next to the one you were aiming for. Look at your keyboard. How close are the R and N keys?
to me, because it goes to motive, this is the most damaging part of Cooper’s testimony….
If I’m a juror, I’m hearing this, and going “yeah… what these guys were doing with Wilson sounds fishy to me too”….
kristinejoy @ 43
There’s a big difference between not being indicted and not being indicted yet.
That r for n error sounds like MC turned over a printout of his notes and somebody OCR’d the printout. So the questioning is silly unless the error is in his original computer file.
OT but not really:
Here’s Bush about Cheney:
Go here to hear it on audio.
Sara in Stockholm @ 46
Great observation Susar (Susan) I have type with my nose so it gets very difficult.
kristinejoy @
43
…yet.
per p.luk’s MC quote just above, I keep getting surprised about the unsolicited testimony that goes beyond the narrow terms of the indictments to pull the curtain back on the bigger picture -the motive and the conspiracy.
“Yet” is the only answer I’m coming up with, too.
Nina Tottenberg just did a hilarious recounting of the Matalin-Libby notes. Drive time news: Russert hates Mathews!
kristinejoy @
43
Isn’t Wells trying to use this to Libby’s advantage, saying that if Rove isn’t indicted, it must be because Libby is being framed to protect Rove.
Jeffress’ harping on Cooper’s bad note taking doesn’t completely jibe with me. Wasn’t Cooper at the Chevy Chase Country Club when Libby called him from Andrews AFB? He wouldn’t have been typing on a computer…
Minor point. I need to re-read the testimony this evening…
Biodun @ 50
So Bush is calling Cheney an optimist?
I have to say I must agree, especially when Cheney said in 2004 that voting Democratic would guarantee another and more devestating terrorist attack.
Does Bush even understand what the allusion is of half full and half empty? That I doubt.
You might want to specify it’s the photo you’re talking about when you say “This is not Matt Cooper on the stand,” I was confused by that statement. At first I thought you were referring to the content.
And Klingon Scrabble, forgetaboutit! He has a weekly group that plays in DC. He kicked Condi out last year. She was supposedly very very good too.
Tap Duncan @ 45
I hate to say it, but it looks to me like Libby is gonna walk (not to mention he’d get a pardon even if convicted).
Jeffress is confusing the issue very well, I think. All the mumbo-jumbo about typing r’s not n’s, timing of cell phone calls, what Miller remembers or not… bringing up the whole op-ed discussion and the details of that issues diverting attention away from the real issue at this trial… Libby’s lying under oath. The jury (if it stays intact at all, before a mistrial) is going to be too confused by the defense, and they’ll have reason to doubt. Libby walks….
Linda @
27
Brits ???
zeppo @
16
I am guessing they are setting up for the Flame/Plame and the pronounciation discrepancies, to show that source was written not verbal => e-mail from Cooper.
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @ 59
I think it was specified in the previous thread. From one guitar playing bastard to another!!!
kristinejoy @ 31 asks why Rove was not indicted.
Damned if I know. Supposedly there was already an indictment drawn up. Something about that Viveca Novak testimony must have given Fitz doubts about whether he could prove intentional misstatement — that it was somehow more plausible that Rove genuinely, albeit erroneously, did not believe he was a source for Cooper even though Viveca Novak told his attorney that Cooper thought Rove was once of his sources BEFORE Rove’s second grand jury appearance. The theory being that, once Novak had given the heads-up to Rove’s lawyer, Rove must have really believed his own mistaken memory for him not to “correct” his testimony.
I don’t think I would have had reasonable doubts about whether Rove was intentionally lying. I think I would have concluded that Rove was just sticking to his guns and toughing it out. Because that’s what dickheads do.
I’m not sure, but I seem to remember Scooter having different counsel before indictment (while he was being questioned). Anybody?
Cause if his guys weren’t up to it… should’ve hired Luskin first!
If that’s what Wells is doing, he’s trying the wrong case. Rove isn’t indicted because he didn’t consistently lie to the Grand Jury.
Dude @ 61
The day of Wells’ opening statement, a commenter here pointed out that if juries are presented with two narratives, one very confusing and the other very straightforward, they will gravitate toward the latter. All these attempts at confusing the jury may just backfire.
About Rove not being indicted yet, doesn’t Rove seem to be in a much weaker position now,
(1) based on evidence that has emerged at the Libby trial and
(2) now that election has passed and he is no longer seen as critical to Republican electorial strategy (no longer considered God-like after poor performance in Nov 06).
Delay in indicting Rove may prove masterful plan?!
Dude @ 61
You’re forgetting that Walton allowed this jury to take notes, and ask questions. I hate to burst your bubble, but he’s toast.
Walton:”The response that characterized Ms Wilson as CIA agent, you’ll have to discount that, it’s not an issue in this case, therefore you can’t speculate about that.”
Que? Isn’t the issue that shouldn’t be discussed whether or not her position was ‘classified’ vs ‘covert’? Fitz stated in the indictment that the fact Plame worked at the CIA was classified when it was revealed. What am I missing here?
rbits=brits
Now wait, Walton IS going to be out tomorrow morning, then he IS NOT going to be out (since breakfast was already ordered), and now he IS back out again?
I shouldn’t take phone calls while following Marcy’s liveblogging!
Rich @ 69
Yeah, there’s a rich vien of testimony & evidence coming out now. Rove may get it in the neck yet.
If you ask me, this fits Tweety to a tee…or a tweet!
Tap Duncan @ #70:
I hate to burst your bubble, but he’s toast.
my favorite mixed metaphor of the day…
Why was Rove not indicted? Because Fitz flipped him.
He testified before the GJ five times if my own memory serves. That’s remarkable.
steve @ 72
Thanks for that, I can give my brain a rest trying to figure out an acronym. What a relief!!
James Robinson @ 77
..And he has an unbelievably good lawyer.
zeppo @
20
zeppo @
16
The jurrors are real people and there is will be a pool of typical common sense sitting in those twelve seats. They will be able to see themselves in the position of taking notes. It is something virtually everyone does.
I don’t think the speculatively and overly hyper-detailed arguments about mis-typing a R/L index finger letter will create unmanageable confusion.
slainte,
cl
The jury’s asking about the forgeries??? What did I miss, that would get them that interested in the forgeries????????????????
Sweet!
Muzzy @
71
Could be the use of the word “agent” (implied covert) as opposed to “analyst” (non-covert).
newtonusr @ 79
O.K., if Fitz flipped Rove, wouldn’t he be called as a prosecution witness? But he’s going to be called as a defense witness, I thought. Wasn’t that the big headline last week?
So, does the “Rove flipped” theory still hold water?
newtonusr @
79
Flipped Rove to get Libby? Isn’t Rove a more valuable target than Libby? I don’t get it?
janethepain @ 33