Libby Trial: Grossman And Grenier

James Joyner has thoughts on Grossman:

Marc Grossman, who came across as cool and cooperative in yesterday’s testimony, is bumbling and unhelpful today. Defense attorney Ted Wells asked him why, in two separate interviews with the FBI prior to his appearance before the grand jury, he told them that he had relayed information about Joe Wilson’s Niger trip by telephone but he is now telling the jury that it was in face-to-face meetings. He can not explain this.

Marcy Wheeler continues her fine effort, delivering another non-transcript (1, 2).

Joyner on Grenier:

That person [the CIA officier relaying info to Grenier on the Wilson trip] “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.”

However, Grenier had a fuzzy memory as well:

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.

Ms. Wheeler has more - apparently it was only in the fullness of time that Grenier realized he had mentioned Wilson's wife to Libby - in early meetings with investigators and the grand jury, he was unsure and couldn't remember.  And incredibly, Libby forgot about it.

Geez, and these are the prosecution witnesses. 

An excerpt of Grenier on his memory issue follows the break.

From Ms. Wheeler:

January 2004

When you were first interviewed by FBI. Were you asked if you had discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. I'm sure the topic came up.

My response was that I didn't clearly remember.

I believe, thinking back that I probably had said I relayed this information to Libby. But I couldn't say for certain.

In connection with your GJ testimony 2004, do you recall what you said what your memory was about saying about Wilson's wife.

I said I may have.

Some time after you testified in the GJ in January 2004. Did you continue to think about that question?

I was going over it in my mind. I was hoping that I hadn't mentioned anything to Mr. Libby, I really didn't remember anything new. But what I did remember was the way I felt immediately after.

I briefly felt guilty, that I had relayed too much information. I was going through a mental justification about why it was alright to have relayed this to Mr. Libby.

What part were you having concerns about. Having mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, revealing the identity of an agency officer, although it was indirect.

I didn't know her name, so I didn't give her name, but by saying Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer. It wasn't absolutely necessary, that is information that we guard pretty closely, and if we don't have to say it, we don't.

You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him.

Did you come to any conclusions. It wasn't as if one day I had a revelation. But as I thought about it over time, as I remembered specifically I developed a growing conviction that I had said it, I said to myself wake up and smell the coffee.

What did you do. Initially, nothing.

I was very interested in whether I had relayed that info or not–I didn't think it was significant in the investigation. As I understood it, it was about passing classified info the press. How people knew what they knew was a moot point.

At some point did your understanding change?

At a certain point, Spring 2005, I saw stories that what Libby knew and how he knew it was an open question. Accounts he may have learned about it from the press rather than the other way around.

When I saw that it seemed to me that my info was potentially relevant.

Got in touch with lawyers at CIA, relayed info to them. Asked whether we should call Special Counsel.

Comments

[clarice]

It's rare that a witness admits his recollection was "refreshed" by "press accounts"--especially since they include more wrong information than I have ever seen in any story ever.

[topsecretk9]

--You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him.--

Who is "this person" he's talking about, Libby or Wilson?

[danking70]

Damn you TM. Another blog post...I thought you were in Rehab...

Looks like another long night playing catch up.

[Martin]

So he never denied telling Libby in the past and has just sworn under oath to the jury's collective faces that he presently believes he did tell Libby and that he felt "guilty" about disclosing an agent's ID to Libby.

Just what I'd like to hear if I'm Libby and I'm going with the I forgot defense. And remember it's an "I forgot' defense, not an "I never knew" defense.

Did Grenier ever testify that he forgot he knew Wilson's wife was CIA once he learned it? Nope. Don't conflate not being able to (or not wanting to) remember who you told what versus forgetting entirely what you know.

The former is possible, the latter...not so much.

[Chef Walter]

It's a CIA briefer. You have to have one. Powell had one and, like his SS detail, all African American, but she sure was mean on the radio interview about Powell. It's a requirement and they just screw the people they brief like Plame.

Grossman have face to face meeting with Plame? You know she's always been watched because of Aimes and has taken the bait more than once. Was Plame present during the meetings? Who does Plame brief?

CIA didn't want to talk to him. He approached them. Is he saying he is a problem?

[Other Tom]

Libby doesn't contend that he forgot entirely what he knew. He contends that he forgot from whom he learned it and when. So far, the first two prosecution witnesses have had similar and comparable problems with their memories. I don't think the defense could have dared hope for what's come out of these guys' mouths.

I infer that by "this person," Grenier means Plame. That is, Libby, with his clearances, my have met Wilson's wife professionally, and thus known who she was when Grenier referred to her.

[Cecil Turner]

Just what I'd like to hear if I'm Libby and I'm going with the I forgot defense. And remember it's an "I forgot' defense, not an "I never knew" defense.

Well, at least you came off the "they swore they told him" nonsense. They obviously don't remember. And yeah, if you were going with an "I forgot" defense, finding out everyone else forgot also is a bennie.

Don't conflate not being able to (or not wanting to) remember who you told what versus forgetting entirely what you know.

Piffle. Nobody asked Libby on July 14th what he remembered. He was trying to recollect where he first heard about it three months on. Fitz's case is that Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten, because he got told so many times. The first two times are dubious at best. Any honest person over 50 on the jury, and Libby walks.

[Chants]

"Don't conflate not being able to (or not wanting to) remember who you told what versus forgetting entirely what you know."

Or what a real credibility enhancer it is when when a witness on direct examination testifies that his memory improves with time. Not cross. Direct.

Woof.

[Martin]

Turner-you're being denser than usual. Are you actually denying G and G have sworn under oath that they did in fact tell Libby Wilson's wife was CIA?

Admittedly, we don't have official transcripts but that's not the way I read it. In any event, these witnesses are primarily establishing that Libby had a healthy interest in Wilson.

Cathie Martin and Fleischer will be along to establish he knew damn well who Plame was.

And I find your position that the Vice President COS was an elderly bumbling fool who couldn't keep track of relevant facts less than appealing.

[clarice]

Enhanced by news accounts, don't forget..Maybe David Shuster and Gregory were beaming messages into his cerebellum and causing all those neurons to connect into a synapse shouting "I recall, I recall."

[Sue]

if he didn't say anything about Plame for 2 years, the delivery of it was impressive)

LOL. EW is cracking me up. And I don't think she is joking.

[Sue]

but the FBI agent may not have gotten what I said exactly right.

OMG! I wish I could see Fitzgerald's face. ::grin::

[boris]

primarily establishing that Libby had a healthy interest in Wilson

But not in his wife.

[hit and run]

Interesting, Martin. The email address in your latest comment isn't the same as the usual.

Usually, mmorgan@psxlawfirmnox.com

This time, party@partyhard.com

Which is similar to one used by poster Don, party@hard.com

Not sayin' nuthin', its jus' interestin'

[clarice]

Not that there's anything wrong with that, boris (*)*Seinfeld

[Martin]

Right. That comes later as a tool to discredit him: the "boondoggle" defense. Though I think Cheney used "junket" in his personal annotations.

[clarice]

Sue--Never.Never.Never talk to an FBI agent when you have no videotape of the interrogation. Never.
That the Bureau still follows this old and faulty practice of relying on the notetaking skills and integrity and smarts of their agents to accurately record significant information is preposterous.

Wonderful that Grenier said this..opens up yet another fruitful avenue for the defense when it questions these bozos.

[Martin]

Funny how that works hit and run-ask TM to run the IP addresses if you want some real surprises!

[P]

Martin, you simply don't get it so your argument is foolish. You really need to do some homework on what this is about, we are way, way beyond the news medias orginal
charges. They've been thrown on the dustbin of unanswered dreams, like the Rove indictment and Bush Ntl Guard records.

Liby is not disputing he knew about the wife, he's disputing that he had to have perfect memory about what he did months earlier. And guess what, these witnesses memories are worse then Libbys'.

That's the point.

[clarice]

Let us in on the secret, Martin, we can't wait for the mystery to be solved using conventional methods.

[topsecretk9]

--but the FBI agent may not have gotten what I said exactly right.--

ranger mention in other thread that he's saying his GJ transcript isn't correct - or what he recalls testifying -

OK, thats hilarious on 2 fronts.

[Ranger]

So far, what I am getting from this is that he thinks the FBI's report does not reflect what he told them, and that in his in his second time before the GJ he was surprised by his own previous testemony. I guess it was for him as if he was hearing his own testemony for the first time.

[clarice]

Unbelievable to consider how much damage has been done to the Administration and the defendant by this nonsense.

[P]

""I guess it was for him as if he was hearing his own testemony for the first time.""

Then I guess Fitz was wrong, you can tell people something on Monday, and not remember it on Thursday.

[Dan S]

"Then I guess Fitz was wrong, you can tell people something on Monday, and not remember it on Thursday.

Posted by: P | January 24, 2007 at 11:46 AM "

Most of us who are over 50 would be willing to swear to THAT in court.

[clarice]

EW : Grenier admits he refused a request by defense counsel to talk to them.

Record shows he regarded Pincus article as an attack on the CIA statecraft.Also he found wilson report not "compelling"

"
: Absent some indication there was some privileged relationship with these subjects, I would have found this report suspect.

J: You would not have figured this was the best way to collect the information.

G: When I first heard he went, it struck me as odd.

J: As this information came out was some of this information embarrassing to the CIA, about the tradecraft related to the report.

J admitting article into evidence. Walton giving warning that the article is hearsay. Jeffress is trying to argue that the CIA was embarrassed they had sent Joe.
G: I'll let people read "

[Amilson]

Officially meet? I dont'know. Any type of meeting with Plame would be considered official. Joe would just use the wife excuse and so does she after they 'leak' her.

So, like, why did all the Russians and the trawler and the other guys show up after Plame does a drive by? I guess someone thought that was a meeting. So, if you met her, it was officeal.

EW cut off the link. She may be older and stuff.

[clarice]

FDL:
(J is Jeffrees BTW)
"J Conversation with Libby. Do you recall that about two weeks after the column. July 31, you were interviewed by IG at CIA.

G I couldn't vouch for date.

J Have you see this before.

G is reading.

G I don't believe I've seen this report before.

J does that refresh your recollection.

G dates are a problem. I vaguely recall talking to someone from IG. I was interviewed by them on a number of issues.

J You discussed your conversation with Libby.

J You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.

G I don't see it reflected in here."

So no record evidence that he told the CIA at the time when he was being questioned about it that he told Libby about Plame..BIG

[clarice]

Not only does this undermine his testimony but it is further evidence of the sloppiness of the investigation/trial preparation.
I have never seen anything as bad as this in a major DoJ prosecution. NEVER.

[clarice]

FDL:
"J Does it strike you that your recollection of these meetings is a lot more vague than your conversation with Libby on June 11.

G My recollection of a lot of conversations from that time is vague. My recollection of my conversation with Libby has vagueness attached to it.

G What is true about this is that I've spent a lot of time thinking about that conversation.
"

[hit and run]

I have never seen anything as bad as this in a major DoJ prosecution. NEVER.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, but how do you know you haven't seen something this bad.....and forgot about it! ;-)

[Alson]

at the time when he was being questioned about it ?

No record of what questioning. CIA was questioning or FBI was questioning about CIA questioning in the past at CIA or current, but past, FBI questioning about the CIA questioning or FBI questioning?

[lurker]

Then why hasn't DOJ step in to review Fitz's work and stop the investigation if they saw how bad it was?

Of course, NO AUTHORITY.

Will DOJ revise its procedures in assigning special prosecutors? That oversight is automatically builtin so that someone like Comey's cannot override the oversight?

[Javani]

"Unbelievable to consider how much damage has been done to the Administration and the defendant by this nonsense."

MSM was slanted to do that, but the confusing semi-retraction forced upon Tenet by the WH days after the Wilson article fed the fire.

Really, the reporting approach on this case should be comic not serious. I think when we'll see real trial lawyers discuss the case on Greta and such we'll see them laughing.

[Cecil Turner]

You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.

Gotta disagree, Clarice. It's not big, it's huge. That shoots "I believe I did" right in the a**.

[clarice]

Can you imagine the prosecutors not giving their own witnesses their prior statements before trial to review?
Can you imagine that they did not catch this major inconsistency?

I know I said a long time ago that the major failing of this Comey cobbled together special special prosecutor status is that there was no supervision whatsoever, making it even worse than the scrapped independent prosecutor statute which made the IP accountable to a Ct of Appeals panel.

UNBELIEVABLE.

[ight]

'It's not big, it's huge. That shoots'

be comic not serious..............
'
'Comey's cannot override the oversight?'

'but the confusing semi-retraction forced upon Tenet by the WH days after the Wilson article fed the fire.'

When did Tenet retract? Who else retracted at the same time?

[clarice]

EW provides us with more comic relief if you are not already splitting your sides with laughter:
"Interruption! Grenier lost his glasses. Everyone is running around the courtroom looking for his glasses. Someone found them. Jeffress says "It's a trick, I do that to all the witnesses." Everyone is still milling around. Fitz and Wells checking in. Fitz says, "would everyone check their papers." Fitz on his knees looking. "What is that laying right on the desk?"

[Ranger]

This guy is clearly career Intel. He wants it both say. 'The circumstances of the situation indicate that I possibly would have said something to him, but I don't specificly remember that I did (that way, no matter which is true, I'm covered).'

[jwest]

Reading the comments at FDL during the breaks…..

It seems a number of Hamsher’s regulars are upset that Walton is allowing a different viewpoint of events to be presented to the jury. They think it would be so much less confusing if Fitz could just explain what happened without Wells trying to muddy the waters.

One commenter wondered why Walton didn’t bar Wells from the courtroom.

They have a point. The justice system would be more efficient if it ran like FDL.

[Javani]

""Can you imagine the prosecutors not giving their own witnesses their prior statements before trial to review?""

Clarice, I'm not being critical, but...

Of course he didn't. That wouldn't help his case. So, "maybe" he communicated through Grenier's lawyer that his memory should be something else. If Fitz showed him the transcripts Grenier would be disinclined to "remember" more than he previously testified. Fitz isn't an amateur like Nifong.

""My recollection of a lot of conversations from that time is vague. My recollection of my conversation with Libby has vagueness attached to it.""

Hilarious. MSM is too invested in the Wilson-TruthTeller-Narrative to treat this trial as Washington Follies rather than a serious matter.

[Sue]

The justice system would be more efficient if it ran like FDL.

I second that with one stipulation. It only applies to people who post at FDL. ::grin::

[clarice]

Don't give Fitz any ideas..Given his (and the old Mary Jo White SDNY's office) expansive notion of obstruction of justice, he'll probably charge Wells with it

[Other Tom]

Martin: Are you feeling a bit ill, my lad?

If you have some relationship with a law firm, by all means don't give up your day job.

[Javani]

""Fitz on his knees looking.""

By god, is Fitz a mole for Libby, saying one thing, but by gesture indicating this trial should be treated as comedy?

[clarice]

Seems like there's a long side bar going on..

[clarice]

I think watching two of the high govt officials on the stand anyone writing a book on this case might want to use Cheney's characterization "Incompetents and Nitwits" as a title.

[Dan S]

*would pay lots for transcripts of the sidebars*

(Even after this is over!)

[Ranger]

Well, I hope at least one person on the pannel knows some intel people and can see though this guys story. They are always hedging their bets, leaving themselves enough wiggle room to jump to the other side, until it becomes clear which way things are going, then they were there all along, you just didn't notice them.

It makes sense for the field ops to operate like that, but the rest of them should just either tell you what they think is going on, or admit that they really have no idea and are just waiting for developments to help them figure it out.

[Rick Ballard]

The prosecution opened the gate on "covered".