NBC News And The Libby Trial

My guess is that NBC News is deeply divided on the Scooter Libby trial.  Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Shuster are undoubtedly rooting for convictions on all five formal charges and maybe a few more - David Shuster is probably right now working on a report describing how the jurors convicted Libby, exchanged high fives, then dropped their own unpaid parking tickets on the defense table as they walked out.

However, the cooler heads at NBC (i.e., everyone else) are probably crossing their fingers and hoping for acquittals all around, most especially on the counts involving Tim Russert.  Otherwise, the defense will appeal, Judge Walton's decision to keep Andrea Mitchell out of the trial will be a basis for the appeal, and NBC News will have to "report" on the Tim Russert situation for months to come.  This will be especially difficult for David Gregory, erstwhile "newsman", who has been duct-taped by the NBC lawyers and not allowed to comment on whether Ari Fleischer, a key witness against Libby, lacks credibility.

The gist of the Andrea Mitchell puzzle was this - on Oct 3, 2003 she said that it was "widely known" among reporters covering the Niger story that Wilson's wife was with the CIA.  However, in subsequent public statement she disavowed that, and NBC lawyers assured the court that under oath she would continue to disavow that; consequently, the judge ruled that her testimony would be confusing and invite the jury to speculate, so he kept her out.  (I am sure that is not a good summary and I welcome a better one but I did not follow his thought process.  Some background here).

Well - this will only be relevant if there is an appeal, but while NBC News "covers" this story, maybe they can cover Mitchell/Russert dilemma, and the rest of us can judge the reliability of Ms. Mitchell's various and varied public statements.

Here, for example, are the Two Faces of Andrea on the question of whether she has been involved with this investigation.  From Don Imus, Nov 23, 2005:

IMUS:  Have you been subpoenaed?

MITCHELL:  No, no - not at all.

IMUS:  Have you ever - have you talked to Fitzgerald informally?

MITCHELL: No - in no way. I was - I didn't have any knowledge about this. You know, one of the things that happened was that the Washington Post wrote an inaccurate story in the middle of this whole period, saying that I was one of the six people who had been leaked to before the Novak column. And that's how my name first got into this.

Which was not true. They didn't check with me. They didn't call me. I was in the office all day. It was a Sunday. They wrote the story on Monday morning.

"They didn't check with me. They didn't call me" clearly refers to the WaPo.  However, let's hear from Andrea on The Tim Russert Show, Oct 29, 2005:

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.

"I was called by the CIA" pretty surely means "FBI", based on the next sentence.  But what did she mean with "I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI..."? ; Did they say "We're with the FBI" and she just started talking?  Was it the old "Don't let 'em get a word in edgewise" ploy?

Well.  Arguably, she was referring exclusively to Fitzgerald and his grand jury when she told Don Imus that "in no way" was she involved with the investigation.   Still, this is easily settled - did she or did she not talk to the FBI?  The answer will certainly help us judge whether she was being careful with her words and parsimonious with the truth when she said "in no way".  IF she talked to the FBI then, yes way.  And if her public statements about her role in this case are not reliable, well, where are we?

That said, it is worth remembering that Fitzgerald seemed to play along in Russert's attempt to conceal his cooperation with the FBI, so there may be a bit of a public cover-up here as well.

And for completeness, here is her original NBC denial, as best I can tell.  This would be from Sept 29, 2003:

TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.

Even if we believe her and don't suspect she is simply trying to protect her source, "Administration official" does not exclude, oh, Joseph Wilson, whose home number she knew when she called on July 5 to book him for a July 6 appearance coinciding with his NY Times op-ed.

Comments

[Jeff]

her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.

And that administration official is most likely Dick Cheney, at Gerald Ford's 90th birthday on July 16.

My take on Mitchell is that she was called by the FBI (not the CIA) and she told them she had received no leak before Novak's column. My take on her suspicious comment is that she was answering an imagined question about Joe not Valerie Wilson.

But I advise you to keep hope alive for finding the elusive leakee who will show that in reality Joe Wilson blew the cover of his wife. I remember being promised five witnesses who would testify that he did so by the defense, and I remember being promised much along those lines by clarice. I didn't quite see any of it.

I saw Pincus - an earlier candidate - be pretty categorical about when and from whom he learned of Plame (hint: it wasn't from Joe WIlson).

But I'm sure that elusive person is out there somewhere. Maybe it's Mitchell.

[Chants]

In house counsel wanted this to go away a long time ago, back when they hired VT for an amicus brief.

Multiply now that want to the power of 10 (it goes to 11) and you may get a feeling of what NBC in house wants now.

Good post, Tom.

[Chants]

Jeff,

Why Dick Cheney? You got a slam on Clarice, but never followed up on why the leak is from Cheney.

[clarice]

There was no need to call the witnesses, Jeff, because this wasn't a leak case, was it?

But there is General Vallely open and on the record about it, and in one filing, Fitz said that both Kristof and Pincus worte their original stories after meeting w/ Joe and [redacted]..since Kristof met and interviewed Joe w/ Plame present and Pincus' story was written about a July 4 bash at Joe's home, it isn't hard to imagine who [redacted] is.

[Bruce]

Jeff: "And that administration official is most likely Dick Cheney"

As if an NBC BDS sufferrer wouldn't trumpet that every chance they got. What a laugh.

The only people worth covering up for are Plame,Wilson and Colin Powell.

[pldew]

Jeff,
How about Judy Miller? The detail about WINPAC doesn't appear anywhere but in her testimony, unless you count the various times Wilson put it out there--like Vanity Fair.

[OzJohnny]

Not a lawyer, just a casual observer, but all this talk about "being promised" this or that by the defense in opening statements seems a bit of a red herring to me. Seems the defense has no obligation, or even tactical need, to maintain consistency in arguments from the beginning to the end of a trial. Much like a terrorist, the defense only has to be right one time to raise reasonable doubt while the prosecution must be right every time.

It actually seems smart to me that the defense might claim it will bring X witnesses and argue Y theories of scapegoating in order to flavor the prosecution's presentations. Heck, doing that sort of thing might get the prosecution to enter a taped recording proving that Wilson leaked his wife's name since they figure the defense will prove it anyway. Heck, postulating conspiracy theories might make the prosecution wary of introducing too many reporters and WH/Gov officials that could feed a conspiracy explanation - and risk leaving unanswered questions about "but why is so-and-so not being questioned?" in large type and bold font and raising another reasonable doubt altogether.

Yep. The "being promised" talk seems more like a get-out-of-jail card: sure, Libby got off, but Wells was all over the place and didn't run a consistent case - If I had been on the jury...

[Chants]

"it isn't hard to imagine who [redacted] is"

Thence it is not hard to see the nascent leak of Plame to a journalist.

[clarice]

"Here are a few of the gems in this affidavit by Fitzgerald, an affidavit without which Judith Miller would never have been jailed.

Paragraph 9:

'Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and [REDACTED] spoke to several reporters including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post...."

Miller Appeals Ct Affidavit

[Jeff]

There was no need to call the witnesses, Jeff, because this wasn't a leak case, was it?

But surely you knew it was not a leak case when you promised us, positively guaranteed, clarice, that numerous witnesses would be called who would testify that Joe Wilson blew his wife's cover to them.

Vallely was on the list of witnesses/names possibly to be mentioned at the outset of the trial. I can't imagine why the defense didn't call him. Not one reason.

As if an NBC BDS sufferrer wouldn't trumpet that every chance they got. What a laugh.

Yes, because BDS sufferers regularly fall for the likes of Alan Greenspan. What a laugh indeed.

[clarice]

They didn't need to , Jeff..they were insurance..like Cheney. But the prosecutions witnesses fell flat on their faces from the very beginning and Wells' dashed to the finish line w/out them.

[Ralph L.]

Chants said: "In house counsel wanted this to go away a long time ago, back when they hired VT for an amicus brief."

If VT is Victoria Toensing, I wondered why I hadn't seen her pontificate on this for a while. Sneaky NBC.

[MayBee]

But surely you knew it was not a leak case when you promised us, positively guaranteed, clarice, that numerous witnesses would be called who would testify that Joe Wilson blew his wife's cover to them.

As if clarice had any more ability to promise what would happen at trial than Jeff or EW did. Do you feel you broke promises, Jeff?
As I see it, there were many predictions on both sides that were left unfulfilled. Now we'll just see if Fitzgerald goes after that conspiracy. Or if he really puts the screws to Cheney to admit what happened in his 1 on 1 conversation with Libby (Waas).

[Syl]

Jeff

You're not a lawyer are you. Wells would have put them on the stand if he felt he needed them. If he felt he had to establish, clearly, that there was a buzz about a CIA wife around town.

And perhaps if Andrea had testified, he might have.

But Wells got what he needed from Armitage's EARLY leak. And Russert screwed his own testimony with his memory problems and the talk to the FBI.

Wells didn't have to show more than Russert may have heard 'it' from Gregory via Ari...in face he didn't even push that hard at all.

Just sow doubt on everything.

Hey, he didn't even need Cheney and Libby to testify.

[clarice]

I think the amicus brief was a long time ago when the MSM lawyers were fighting the Subpoenas--they aregued that everyone knew about Plame and there was no underlying law which would have been violated by disclosing her identity. (That, as we know, was a Corn invention.)

[Syl]

As usual, Clarice said it better and shorter than I.

[Bruce]

Jeff: "Yes, because BDS sufferers regularly fall for the likes of Alan Greenspan."

Of course ... all marriages are between people with identical political views. Ha ha ha.

[Ralph L.]

The Greenspans married during Clinton's term, didn't they. I didn't attend because the Inn at Little Washington is so declasse, but I sent a nice check anyway.
Also, see Kissinger about power and sex.

[Ralph L.]

The Greenspans married during Clinton's term, didn't they. I didn't attend because the Inn at Little Washington is so declasse, but I sent a nice check anyway.
Also, see Kissinger about power and sex.

[topsecretkk9]

--You got a slam on Clarice--

Jeff and Co are obsessed with Clarice and i just love she could care less - and they just take themselves way too seriously.

[Syl]

Jeff

And that administration official is most likely Dick Cheney, at Gerald Ford's 90th birthday on July 16.

July 16th was WAY too late anyway. Do you think Andrea is a slacker? She would have made contact with administration officials immediately upon reading that column.

I'd say she spoke to administration official(s) no later than the afternoon of the 14th. Possibly even earlier depending on when she actually read the piece (off the wires) and she had plenty of home numbers in her little book.

I guess, besides not being a lawyer, you're not a journalist either. :)

[Ralph L.]

I'm certain I've heard this thread title before...could it be from American Doodler?

[MaidMarion]

By the way, the NBC lawyer was in the courtroom all day today (Feb 20) for the closing statements.

[Syl]

MM

Did he use his blackberry?

[Pete]

Jeff - you hit the nail right on the head. The notion that somehow Russert and Mitchell colluded to convict Libby is laughable. And the inference by Tom Maguire that they colluded to sink Libby and are somehow the "cooler heads" despite colluding is equally laughable.

The journalists in this case - Miller, Mitchell and Russert did all they could to protect the Bush administration. Russert sat on an explosive story which would have been negative to the administration had he revealed it before the 2004 elections. Russert fought the subpoena in order to protect Libby. Had the investigation remained under Ashcroft, Russert would not even have been forced to testify and the investigation would have gone nowhere.

Those in NBC who are not caught in this know what went on, and it is no surprise that they know how guilty Libby is.

[Pete]

But surely you knew it was not a leak case when you promised us, positively guaranteed, clarice, that numerous witnesses would be called who would testify that Joe Wilson blew his wife's cover to them.

And I remember those regulars here who were trumpeting that Cheney would appear in the trial and single handedly demolish Fitz.

Infact Cheney was too chicken to allow Fitz to cross examine him under oath.

[clarice]

They colluded to save Russert's reputation and to avoid subpoenas.

[Syl]

Pete

I know you only look at things through your own eyes, but please refrain from looking through other peoples eyes as if they are your eyes.

Russert and Andrea aren't colluding against the Bush administration (whether they want to or not). It's that corporate image they're protecting (or/and their corporate lawyers are)...under the guise of 'protecting sources'.

NBC doesn't want Andrea or David NEAR a courtroom...and they'll hang Libby to make sure they don't testify. That's a side effect they can easily live with. They also don't want it publicly discussed more than absolutely necessary that Russert gave up to the FBI without a fight.

[Syl]

Sigh.

I'm gonna nickname Clarice 'Smarter and Shorter'.

:)

[clarice]

Smooches--goodnight. I mean it.

[Tom Maguire]

And that administration official [who leaked to Andrea Mitchell] is most likely Dick Cheney

Oh, you are just goading us now, seeing as how Colin Powell is a personal friend who was invited to her wedding - she got it from Colin or Armitage and has been saving their skin ever since.

As to why the defense called (and didn't call) the witnesses they did - honestly, did anyone expect Grenier, Grossman, Schmall, and Fleischer to blow up so pitiably?

How about Russert - what, in his testimony, precludes him having learned about Plame on the 11th from the AP? Nothing. Will that be a problem for the jurors?

How about Edelman, who was in the indictment but so weak he never made it to the trial?

I think Wells was spot on when he told the judge he had no idea at the outset that the case was this weak.

[p.lukasiak]

Jeff, give it up. You can't win an argument with Clarice, because she doesn't understand the law....

for instance, she links to one of her own pieces in which she writes:

In these newly—released appeal documents Fitzgerald contradicts the claims he made on January 23, 2006 to Libby's counsel that Plame's status and history at the CIA as well as the harm to national security were not material to the charges in the indictment. When he sought Miller's testimony, he made representations to the effect that Plame was within the reach of the IIPA (Agee Act).

of course, there is no contradiction -- when Fitz was seeking Miller's testimony, it wasn't solely (or even necessarily) about proving that Libby was lying; Miller's testimony was sought as part of the larger (and still on-going) leak investigation--and of course IIPA considerations were relevant to that investigation.

Valerie's actual status, however, is irrelevant to the lying/perjury and obstruction charges against Libby -- and lest we forget, it was TeamLibby that ensured that the jury was not presented the evidence that "CPD" meant Covert Operations---and that when Libby was told by Cheney that Valerie was "CPD", it should have sent alarm bells off in Libby's head telling him NOT to discuss Valerie with anyone.

So don't bother arguing with Clarice or her devotees, Jeff, because they have no real command of the facts, and what few facts they do know about are "organized" according to the rules of logic of an alternate universe...

[clarice]

Well lefties--you've lost Jeralyn:

"Reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence form the bedrock of our criminal justice system. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It can arise from the evidence presented or the lack of evidence. It's not about which side you believe more. If you think both sides could be right, or one side is probably, but not convincingly right or even that it's possibly right, Libby is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The Government was terrific in its closing argument on Libby's motive to lie. Peter Zeidenberg laid out a methodical case that was easy to follow and made a lot of sense. Patrick Fitzgerald had all of the case evidence so committed to memory it flew off his tongue. But, the trial isn't about Libby's motive to lie. It's about whether he actually did lie about his conversations with two reporters or was simply mistaken.

Ted Wells' closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury. William Jeffress more than adequately established the memory problems of all the witnesses in the case. The bottom line is, who's to say Libby's faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?

In the end, this trial must be ruled by the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. The charges the Government brought against Libby are narrow and specific as to the exact statements about which he allegedly lied. In the end, no smoking gun was introduced to establish Libby lied as opposed to being mistaken. That lack of evidence presented must be held to work against the Government.

The smartest thing the defense did at trial was not to put Libby on the stand and subject him to what surely have been a withering cross-examination by Fitzgerald. The dumbest thing the Government did was charge too narrow a case and not indict Cheney along with Libby.

In other words, Fitzgerald missed the forest for the trees. Maybe he thought the case wasn't there. But in charging such a stripped down version solely against Libby, I have to believe at least one juror, like me, will have a reasonable doubt and refuse to convict.

Will I be disappointed if there's an acquittal? Yes, but in Fitzgerald, not the system. And if there's a conviction? Then I'll be disappointed in the Judge, for refusing to allow a memory expert to testify at trial. As much as I might prefer it otherwise, this case was about memory and reasonable doubt, not about the conspiracy that was proven to exist at the Administration's highest levels of power."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/21/23551/6143

[clarice]

Nobody knows the law , but lukasiak I guess, not VT, not Jeralyn Merritt and not me..Pity.

[clarice]

So Victoria doesn't know what she's talking about and is unethical; I'm a total peabrain and Jerelyn---come on I'll help you--a sellout to the warmongering Bushitlerites..LOL

[MayBee]

p luk- who do you think is the [redacted] that met with Wilson and Kristof at breakfast?

[Pete]

Russert and Andrea aren't colluding against the Bush administration (whether they want to or not). It's that corporate image they're protecting (or/and their corporate lawyers are)...under the guise of 'protecting sources'.

NBC doesn't want Andrea or David NEAR a courtroom...and they'll hang Libby to make sure they don't testify. That's a side effect they can easily live with. They also don't want it publicly discussed more than absolutely necessary that Russert gave up to the FBI without a fight.

Russert talked to the FBI because he thought that his testimony was not relevant and would not hurt Libby (after all he got no leak from Libby so he thought it was ok to talk). Once he found out otherwise, he clammed up. If Russert had sources to protect he would not have had the initial talk with the FBI.

Wells had the option to cross examine Andrea under oath. Wells did not take the option. So am I to assume that Wells wants to hang Libby? Wells could have called David Gregory too, but he did not call Gregory either. Is Wells in cahoots with the NBC lawyers?

The reason NBC does not want it discussed is because they do not want further embarrasment about how their reporters were somewhat allied with and being used by the Bush administration.

[p.lukasiak]

p luk- who do you think is the [redacted] that met with Wilson and Kristof at breakfast?

maybee, since Clarice has two bad habits (not linking to original sources, and misrepresenting what appears in those sources), I really can't speculate absent some proof that some "redacted" met with Wilson and Kristof for breakfast (or more specifically, that there is any evidence that "redacted" talked to Kristof. IIRC, in Wilson's book he describes how he spoke with Kristof while the two of them were alone in the room....)

[Pete]

And despite the initial interview with the FBI, Russert could have easily corrected any possible discrepancies in his testimony later.

Libby said that Russert told him that all reporters knew of Plame. And Libby said that he was surprised to hear that. Had Libby learned this information from Russert, he would not have been discussing with Cheney 2-3 days later whether they should leak Plame's CIA affiliation to reporters.

[p.lukasiak]

Jerelyn---come on I'll help you--a sellout to the warmongering Bushitlerites..LOL

The nice thing about Jeralyn is that she doesn't use completely specious arguments -- and its possible to have a rational discussion with Jeralyn, and rely on her representation of facts.

Jeralyn is an intellectually honest person, but she is also a defense attorney -- and in this case I think her perception of the facts in the case are being skewed by her instinct to support the defense case in any criminal matter.

[Ranger]

Wells had the option to cross examine Andrea under oath. Wells did not take the option.

Posted by: Pete | February 21, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Actually, I don't think that is true. As I recall, the Judge asked the NBC counsel a question, which the counsel then artfully failed to answer, and the Judge then decided that he would reject Wells' motion to question Mitchell.

As I recall, the NBC counsel stated that Mitchell will deny recieving any rumor about Ms Plame's CIA job. That of course does not answer the question of if she was told directly by someone who knew (possibly from reading the INR memo) Ms. Plames employment at the CIA and her role in getting Joe the gig.

[Ranger]

Wells could have called David Gregory too, but he did not call Gregory either. Is Wells in cahoots with the NBC lawyers?

Posted by: Pete | February 21, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Wells didn't need to call Gregory. Ari made the case for him. Ari said he told Gregory on the 11th. Russert said if Gregory knew, then he would have told him (Russert). Russert also said he (Gregory) did not tell him and that he did not know about Plame until the 14th. So, why call Gregory when Ari already put the nail in Russert's coffin.

[Pete]

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Monday he would permit the defense team to question Mitchell Tuesday, outside the presence of the jury.

This will allow her testimony to be in the court record and then the judge can rule on whether Mitchell would appear before the jury.

Prof Kim reported from the court - Scooter Libby defense attorney Ted Wells said he would not call NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify in the case

And why didn't Wells call Gregory?

[MayBee]

p luk- first of all, you may note that the article clarice linked is a year old.
Soo.....who do you think Fitzgerald redacted in that paragraph about Wilson and [redacted] meeting with several reporters, including Kristof and Pincus?

[Ranger]

maybee, since Clarice has two bad habits (not linking to original sources, and misrepresenting what appears in those sources), I really can't speculate absent some proof that some "redacted" met with Wilson and Kristof for breakfast (or more specifically, that there is any evidence that "redacted" talked to Kristof. IIRC, in Wilson's book he describes how he spoke with Kristof while the two of them were alone in the room....)

Posted by: p.lukasiak | February 21, 2007 at 12:45 AM

P.,

This is where you get yourself in trouble. Kristof wrote a column where he specificly stated that he had breakfast with both of them. He also said he knew Plame worked at the CIA, just not that she had ever been a NOC. He also claimed very specificly that though she did not provide any information about "this particular story" which leaves open the possiblity that she was a source for him on other intel related issues.

Also remember that Wilson was shopping himself around town and was being cited in newspapers as a "former ambasador with close ties to the CIA." What kind of "ties" do you think he used to support that claim?

Finally, Val's security clearance was suspended for a year and he was suspended from work without pay for a year. Any chance that all those unauthorized contacts with reporters (Breakfast in May, Party on 4th of July weekend) played a part in that decision?

There are many established contacts between Joe and Val and reporters, and sufficient evidence in the public record to support a circumstantial case that, in deed, among reporters, "everybody knew" that Val worked at the CIA.

[Ranger]

Pete, and if you recall, on that Monday, Judge Wells changed his mind after asking one quesiton to the NBC counsel.

Wells never got to question Mithcell.

There was much outrage from people here and commentator MarkO explained exactly how this kind of "hiding" of the facts using legal counsel is accomplished.

[p.lukasiak]

re: the question of Mitchell's testimony....

Wells could have called her --- but the judge made it abundantly clear that any effort by Wells to impeach her testimony by the defense would be disallowed. (as Clarice should have explained to you, you cannot call a witness in order to impeach their testimony). Nothing that Mitchell would testify to under oath (basically, she would have said under oath that she had no prior knowledge of Valerie Plame before the Novak column) would advance Libby's cause, so he didn't call her because he would not have been allowed to use her public statements that contradicted her sworn testimony against her.

(it would have been different had Fitz called her as a witness, of course --- the rule is that you can't deliberately impeach your own witnesses)

[Syl]

p.luk

and in this case I think her perception of the facts in the case are being skewed by her instinct to support the defense case in any criminal matter.

That's a pretty damn rotten accusation you make here, I guess you're accusing Jeralyn of not knowing the law either.

The law is the law. It is what it is. It's not something concocted ad hoc to fit your desires.

[Pete]

Wells didn't need to call Gregory. Ari made the case for him.

Wells specifically pointed to discrepancies about Ari, so Ari could not have made the case for him.

It would have been far more powerful to call Gregory on the stand and hear from him first hand. Why did Wells not call Gregory?

[MJW]

Pete, with regard to Mitchell, you seemed to have missed out on the courtroom events the following day (per FDL):

Wells: I don't to reargue my point. But I'd like to call her to talk about how aggressively she was working on the story. Once I show the intensity with which she was covering the story, I would have the right to question her whether she heard a rumor, and then I'd have the right to impeach her. [Sure seems like he's rearguing the point–btw Ted has his humble personality on right now, speaking real low and rationally.]

Wells: I'm willing to sit on the record as is. I do believe I would have the right to impeach her. I'm not calling her as a subterfuge. I will accept that the record is closed. I will release her. My appelate record is protected.

Walton: The intensity of what she was doing in and of itself doesn't add to your defense.

Wells: If you accept that the intensity of her work is relevant, then I submit that the statement is admissible.

Walton: The intensity doesn't mean anything UNLESS you're arguing she may have heard it. The mere fact that intensity of investigation doesn't help your case. You've got to couple the two for it to have any value in your case. You may perceive it as having probative value. It has nil value.

Wells: That's why I'm willing to rest on the record with that understanding. [Sounds like we won't see Mitchell, sorry Tom Maguire.]