Good Morning Plamaniacs!

Yet another open thread as we await Judge Walton's ruling.

The Times has coverage nearly as breathless as mine and uses the word "mistrial":

The day ended with an extraordinary argument by lawyers for both sides, as well as a lawyer for Ms. Miller, over whether Mr. Jeffress could ask her if she had other sources she spoke to about Ms. Wilson. The question, which was left unresolved by Judge Reggie M. Walton until Wednesday, threatened to derail the trial over the very constitutional issue that saw Ms. Miller go to jail in 2005.

Judge Walton seemed disinclined to allow questions about Ms. Miller’s other sources. “I appreciate that there is an interest the media has in not having questions asked that aren’t germane to this case,” he said. But if he does allow them, and she refuses to answer, she could be held in contempt once again and a mistrial could result.

The WaPo is more demure.  And Jeralyn Merritt had an excellent summary at the Huffington Post and her site, TalkLeft.  An excerpt:

Jeffress, being a skilled lawyer, began to test her credibility on her note-triggered memories. And that's what brought the trial to a standstill. She told him that she had no memory of discussing Valerie Plame Wilson before her June 23 meeting with Libby. He introduces a paragraph from an affidavit she signed, in which she mentions other sources for information related to Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed. Jeffress wants to know whether she can remember who those sources were and if so, he's going to ask her to identify them. Sidebar after sidebar results.

This isn't about the First Amendment, it's about Libby's right to impeach Miller's credibility, Wells argues. Fitz says asking her about sources related to the op-ed as opposed only to sources of information about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment is too broad and not relevant to the case. Bennett weighs in. They go back and forth, and I'm nodding my head in agreement with each of them as they argue opposite sides. The Judge leans toward Fitz's position but is clearly concerned about not wanting to infringe on Libby's 6th Amendment right to confront and impeach Miller.

Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She's repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose and taking sips of water. Finally, the Judge says he's going to sleep on it and he'll have an answer in the morning.

It's going to be a long night for Judy Miller. In the end, I think the Judge will split the baby, telling Jeffress he can ask about her other sources for information about Joseph and Valerie Wilson, but not other sources for the broader topic of everything in Wilson's July 6 oped.

What's the best that can happen for Libby? That the jury will conclude Miller's memory is so unreliable and selective they can't trust any of it. The worst? That some of the jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.

Well - if we do reach a mistrial, you heard it here first.

MORE:  if David Shuster also foresaw a mistrial, please don't even tell me.  And has anyone seen David Gregory, and has he commented on his alleged role as a leak recipient?  I'm also wondering if he has any tips for removing duct tape from the mouth - did he yank it quickly, go for the slow pull, soak it in water, or what?  Or is he still, uhh, tied up?

Comments

[sammy small]

How dare you utter the dreaded M word. That would be like reading the first 3/4 of the best mystery novel ever and then find the last 1/4 missing.

[P]

I would hope Wells et al spent the nigyht thinking of 12 other ways/questions to get at this information.

[Other Tom]

Tom, I guess the NYT bolsters your credibility on the mistrial issue (sorry, I couldn't resist). For my part, I think the likelihood is less than one percent.

[P]

"""That some of the jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.""""

Then why don't her notes trigger her memory of any other sources regarding Wilson??
Can't have it both ways....

[Sue]

Good Morning Plamaniacs!

Good morning, dear leader.

[Rick Ballard]

OT,

While we're waiting for kickoff - K.C. Johnson of Durham in Wonderland has an op-ed piece in the NY Post which carves up Duffy and the NY Times very nicely.

[Sue]

I hate it when I'm right. Walton isn't going to allow Wells to pursue her other sources.

[Appalled Moderate]

Mistrial? No way. This was too forseeable and neither Fitz or Walton would allow that stain on their careers. (And it would be seen that way -- reversals happen, juries act wierd, sometimes -- but a mistrial under these circumstances would point the finger directly at the prosecutor and judge.) The trial will go forward, and Judy will not be heading to jail again. The one day to consider...window dressing for the judge to demonstrate to the jury (if nobody else) that he is not slanting the trial a certain way.

And while the talkleft summary is a good one, I don't see the "note-based memory" playing particularly well with a jury which is not full of people who make their living through their notetaking.

[Sue]

Why doesn't Libby's lawyers argue the point of why anyone gave a shit about Wilson to begin with? Who sent him. That is in the op-ed.

[MayBee]

Sue- I think other Plame/Wilson sources in particular, can be asked about. Not all her other sources with regards to some imaginary post-op-ed article she was investigating.

[Sue]

She knew, prior to Wilson's op-ed, who Wilson was. Why is the judge making that a reference point?

[Jane]

Here is the latest about the dispute. Looks like Walton slept well:

Wells, In the last paragraph of this morning' New York Times, there's a statement that Fitzgerald is investigating Ms. Miller, the government has contended that Islamic charities tipped. She is not the subject or target of an investigation. But what I would like to do is–I believe we're going to want some discovery on this issue, to the extent that she could have been viewed as a subject, if that was viewed as intentional in any way, that would be an area that we'll make inquiry of. I've just read it, and I'd like to put the court on notice, we are going to ask for some discovery on it.

[Wells, is this news to you? If so, you've been living under a rock, not doing your job for the last two years.]

Fitz: With all due respect, the only thing new is an inaccuracy, she's never been a target or subject. We did not subpoena any reporter at NYT. Open record, lots of press attention on it. There's nothing new here, other than the story characterized her as being under investigation.

Wells: As I said, I just talked to Fitz, he indicated to me that there were letters to the Times, neither Miss Miller nor the Times were subjects of the investigation. "A very reputable paper has stated that there was an investigation." [Note, Jeffress will get up and argue against its credibility.] That is certainly something we'd like to explore on cross-examination. I'm just putting the court on notice.

Fitz: so the record is clear, info on that investigation has been public for a long time, there's ample information in public record.

Walton: we left with whether question was appropriate. My conclusion, it seems to me that scope of evidence that's relevant is constrained by what the issues are, in particular as it relates to the witness. When any witness takes the stand, their general credibility comes into issue. If there is evidence that definitively goes to her general credibility, obviously even though that challenge may be beyond that issue, if she had provided a false statement under oath, it would be appropriate to query her in reference to that false info, if she lied under oath before, then jury might conclude she would lie under oath again. If, in fact, there were other people she had spoken to on this issue, if there were in fact sources she had talked regarding that issue, because conceivably, it could be argued that she confused who she got the information from. The op-ed says nothing about "his wife." It's all about this trip, about his conclusions about the reasons we went to war, I'd assume in context of that broad scope, in reference to 5th paragraph of affadavit, specifically says she had never written an article about Wilson or Plame, she contemplated writing an article about op-ed, that op-ed says nothing about Plame. To ask a question about her sources this far afield would require her to reveal her sources, I don't think it's in any way relevant to this litigation. We need to make a record, in the event there's a conviction, in the event of an appeal. I assume as an officer of the court that she has sources that would provide info that is relevant to the broad scope of the topic of Wilson's op-ed.

Jeffress: One part of what your honor said is inaccurate regarding to her testimony. Your honor said she didn't talk to anyone else about Libby. She did, she can't remember the name of any person.

Walton: If that's true, I'd permit her to be queried about that.

Jeffress: With respect I think the court is cutting it too thin.

Walton: if you want to ask questions about Joe Wilson, I'll let you. I mean, that even goes beyond. The real issue here is the wife.

Jeffress: [raises voice] The real question here is her credibility. She will says that she believes the first time she heard about Wilson's wife was from Libby. She knows she talked to lots of people starting on July 6. If she's talking to lots of people, the likelihood is that somebody mentioned the wife. She will say that she cannot remember a single person about who talked to her about the name. I ought to be able to ask her about Mr. Wilson and who she talks to.

Jeffress: Do I understand your ruling that if she remembers someone besides Libby that I'm not entitled to ask her about that person?

Walton: How would that challenge her credibility.

Jeffress: Who were they?

Walton: if it's true that she can't remember those people, if she talked to other people about Wilson, they may have said something about the wife.

Jeffress: I submit that in an ordinary trial, when the whole issue is whether Libby said to her or she said to him, counsel would be able to ask, who else did you talk to.

[Jeffress is pretending this is an IIPA case]

Walton: I don't know whether a question about the op-ed would shed light on this. I don't have a problem if you ask questions about Wilson. It's plausible that somebody may have said something about the wife. If those discussions only had to do with whether the info in the op-ed was accurate or not.

Jeffress; I'm going to bring out that she had conversations with senior govt officials and not so senior govt officials about Plame, Joe Wilson, and this issue. I want to make sure I can ask that?

Fitz asks for a clarification.

J: She said Ms Plame and Joe Wilson.

W: It depends on what the issue is. If it's about Ms Wilson being responsible for sending Wilson to Niger.

F: Can we have the cite so we know what we're talking about?

J: I'm going to ask her that question.

F: The question is timeframe. Things happening in October. It's only relevant with things that happened after the column is published.

W: If she did have subsequent conversations, one could still review where she got the info.

F: This is a case where both Miller and Libby said he told her about Plame. This notion that we're depriving the defense of arguing that she told him, isn't right.

W: I don't think I'd be inclined to cut off inquiry based on Novak article.

[Sue]

If those discussions only had to do with whether the info in the op-ed was accurate or not.

She had Wilson's phone number in her notebook when she 1st met with Libby, June 23rd. She didn't know anything about an op-ed on that date.

[Cecil Turner]

And while the talkleft summary is a good one, I don't see the "note-based memory" playing particularly well with a jury which is not full of people who make their living through their notetaking.

Neither do I. And since this is the only reporter who claims Libby brought up Plame, and the only one whose timing of the conversation (July 8th but espectially June 23rd) specifically rebuts Libby's timeline (or at least beyond plausible confusion), it's essential for the Prosecution that she be believed. I don't see how any objective observer could conclude her memory was reliable enough to send a man to jail.

As to a mistrial, a hung jury is a form of that, right? I'd say the likelihood approaches 50%.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Fitzgerald introduced the Op-ed into evidence, how can the Defense not be allowed to question Judy about with whom she talked about it?

[Other Tom]

If the jury hangs and the judge concludes further deliberation won't cure the impasse, he can declare a mistrial, which is always a possibility. For the reasons, among others, stated by Appalled Moderate, it isn't going to happen at this stage of the trial.

[Cecil Turner]

Fitzgerald introduced the Op-ed into evidence, how can the Defense not be allowed to question Judy about with whom she talked about it?

I agree. And my unlettered impression from skimming some of the past cases (Brady, Giglio) is that higher courts tend to be more solicitous of defendants' rights, and spirit vs letter. Looks to me like a very winnable appeal.

[MayBee]

J The position you didn't want to find yourself in was testifying solely about one source and then them calling you again,

M About something else or someone else.

J Who was that someone

M I don't know, I didn't want to be in that position

eesh (FDL)

[Pofarmer]

Fitzgerald introduced the Op-ed into evidence, how can the Defense not be allowed to question Judy about with whom she talked about it?

Good point, and one of the central themes about the op-ed quickly became who sent Joe Wilson. Because, he said OVP, and the OVP said, "Wait a minute folks, we didn't send anybody!" Then Plame gets ferreted out. Some conspiracy.

[MayBee]

Tops! Sue ! Bureau! (via FDL)

M Some people refer to Nonproliferation Bureau, occasionally some people say NP bureau. It's sometimes called a division, a unit. normally when people say bureau they mean FBI, I was confused for a moment (laughs) and says I still am

J State has bureaus.

M There are many bureaus.

J State, INR

M I don't know if they're called bureaus.

J shows her org chart for State, does that refresh recollection that there are many bureaus at State (goes through a few). Does that refresh recollection that State has bureau of NP. But there is no such bureau at CIA

M I don't know that specifically.

J Is is true that when you said wife works in bureau, your testimony was necessarily trying to interpret this note you had not real recollection.

M I remember he used the word bureau

J Did you say to GJ your memory was fuzzy.

M First or second

J First, you didn't remember the meeting at all! So second.

M Yes

J do you remember you said you might have been confused.

M I don't remember, if you could show me the GJ testimony, that would be helpful.

GJ testimony: In this context did you understand bureau to refer to FBI. I might have been confused. It's in a parenthesis, it's very hard bc my memory is so bad on this. He wasn't sure.

J That's still true

M Yes, because I had forgotten this meeting entirely.

[cboldt]

-- Wells, In the last paragraph of this morning' New York Times, there's a statement that Fitzgerald is investigating Ms. Miller, the government has contended that Islamic charities tipped. --

Wells is insinuating that Fitz was using the Plame investigation as a lever to get Miller's testimony on the Islamic Charities cases; or the reverse, that Fitz was promising leniency on Islamic Charities if Miller would testify against Libby.

Wells wants to plant that attachment (between the two cases, Islamic Charities and Plame Leak) in he jurors' minds.

It's a good defense move. I'm sure some of the jurors would fall for it.

[Sue]

and one of the central themes about the op-ed quickly became who sent Joe Wilson.

It was an issue when Kristoff wrote his May article. It was an issue when Pincus wrote his article. It was an issue long before Wilson wrote the op-ed, which didn't say the OVP behested him. Wilson would have been a nobody had he not gotten the information out early that the OVP sent him, knew of his report and ignored to go to war.

[Rick Ballard]

Cboldt,

I don't think the jury heard that. They weren't in the courtroom.

[Sue]

Maybee,

They read our blog. ::grin::

[Other Tom]

Wells's remarks about this morning's NYT were outside the presence of the jury, right?

[jf]

I strongly belive that Judy Miller has known Plame for a long time and that she was a source for Judy's book "Germs". Since Fitz brought up the book - that was how Judy met Libby, it should be fair game for Wells to ask point blank: "Was Valerie Plame a source for your book?"

This would blow away the notion that she first heard of Valerie from Scooter. It is what she is trying desperately to hide. But it IS HIGHLY relevant.

[cboldt]

-- I don't think the jury heard that. --

Understood. I was talking strategy in general, not the tactics of obtaining presentation to the jury.

Wells and the defense are doing an outstanding job of sowing confusion and generating smoke. The more they transform this into a leak case, or prosecutor run amok, or any one of several strategic avenues (if reporters knew before Libby, then Libby is not guilty; etc.), the better. The best defense will have all of those possibilities swirling in the jurors' minds.

[hit and run]

J do you remember you said you might have been confused.

M I don't remember, if you could show me the GJ testimony, that would be helpful.

GJ testimony: In this context did you understand bureau to refer to FBI. I might have been confused. It's in a parenthesis, it's very hard bc my memory is so bad on this. He wasn't sure.

J That's still true

M Yes, because I had forgotten this meeting entirely.

I still say that at every point something like this occurs, defense should say, "you are now hearing this as if for the first time"

[Ranger]

J Did you say to GJ your memory was fuzzy.

M First or second

J First, you didn't remember the meeting at all! So second.

M Yes

J do you remember you said you might have been confused.

M I don't remember, if you could show me the GJ testimony, that would be helpful.

GJ testimony: In this context did you understand bureau to refer to FBI. I might have been confused. It's in a parenthesis, it's very hard bc my memory is so bad on this. He wasn't sure.

J That's still true

M Yes, because I had forgotten this meeting entirely.

Yeah, testemony like this really does not help the prosecution.

Plame was sooo memerable, no one would forget that bit of information, let along a whole meeting where it was discussed.

[Sue]

H&R,

He doesn't have to. The jury is probably going...huh?...at this point, they don't really know what the defense's argument is going to be. I'm sure they are thinking these people can't remember what they said 5 minutes ago, but don't realize the import of that thought just yet.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'She knew, prior to Wilson's op-ed, who Wilson was. Why is the judge making that a reference point?'

Judy got back from Iraq on June 8th, iirc. So, she'd have been able to read the feud between Pincus and Kristoff on June 12-13. She'd have had the opportunity to ask Kristoff who his 'two people directly involved' were.

If he told her about Wilson, why not Mrs Wilson.

[Great Banana]

What's the best that can happen for Libby? That the jury will conclude Miller's memory is so unreliable and selective they can't trust any of it. The worst? That some of the jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.

Uhh, doesn't that cut both ways? If her poor memory, only triggered by some notes, but not fully, is seen by jurors as being normal, won't Libby's poor memory, confusing who he talked to and when, also seem normal? Or, are we in la-la land where Libby's memory is expected to be perfect, but all of the people used as witnesses to prosecute them are allowed to have human memories?

- GB

[MayBee]

From FDL:
J You did ask people.

M I asked a number of people about that aspect of it.

J You have a reference to Valerie Flame (he spells out the name)

M It'd be helpful to see that note

J That's not her maiden name, her name is Plame. ANd she goes by Valerie Wilson.

M I don't know that.

J Where'd that come from?

M I dont remember,

J Not Libby

M I don't know, I don't think so.

J You have another entry. You do not believe that that came from Libby.

M I don't believe it did.

J Another reference to VF. Or Valery.

M I believe so, If you want me to say exactly where or when I'd have to see my notes.

J Do you know where any of those came from. You don't believe they came from Libby.

M I don't.

J Can you remember anyone else you talked to, about Wilson's wife.

M I've searched my memory I can't remember specific discussions about her.

J The more people you talked to about her, you learned to spell the name semi-correctly

[jf]

If Wells can't ask whether Plame was a source, surely he could ask whether Judy had been in contact with her prior to the Libby meetings.

[Ranger]

Ok, so let me get her testemony right:

I have notes. They support my independent memory of very specific details of a conversation I had with Libby that I completely forgot about in my first Grand Jury testemony.

I have notes. I've racked my memory and can't recall any specific time, place, or person involved in the conversations related to those notes.

Does that sum it up?

[azaghal]

For anyone with access to the print WSJ, there's a lengthy article re Miller's testimony and journalist credibility in general that starts on the front page of the second ("Marketplace") section. It's a refreshing contrast to the generally abysmal coverage in the MSM. I assume it's also accessible online (subscription only?).

[azaghal]

Big problem with Judy's notes and her claim to have a "note driven" memory: her notes are pretty sketchy to begin with and the defense will easily be able to portray her as extrapolating freely under prosecutorial pressure, with little or nothing in the notes to support her extrapolations. They've already started to do that in cross yesterday, and there will probably be plenty more.

Byron York also has a nice snapshot of Judy under cross.

[Sue]

M After July 6, after the article, I certainly would have asked people about the article.

M No, wait a minute, I'm not sure I knew, I was focused on Mr Wilson's charges. I can't remember when I started telephoning everyone. One of the first people I talked to about it was Libby bc he was the first major interview I had scheduled.

Interesting.

[danking70]

After all the prosecution witnesses we've seen and heard, is a memory expert even necessary?

[Sue]

J Do you recall saying you have contributed to articles relying on sources at highest level of govt.

M Correct

Jeffress checks with Wells, may we approach bench. Sidebar.

Hurry up! Turn the page! Who are they about to try and reveal?

[Martin]

It's so obvious Judy is protecting Cheney.

[MayBee]

I have to get to bed. Hurry!

Protecting Cheney doesn't help Libby. It would have to be someone outside of Libby's chain of command.

[Ranger]

It's so obvious Judy is protecting Cheney.

Posted by: Martin | January 31, 2007 at 08:15 AM

What makes that statement so funny is that you really beleave it.

So, quick trivia question Martin: Who is the only person so far to testify that they called and discussed Wilson's tirp with him directly?

That might be a hint as to where Judy got Wilson's phone number from.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I don't know why she doesn't just give it up. No one is going to hire this ditz after this pathetic performance anyway.

[MayBee]

Cheney knows everybody's phone number.
He has us all on speed dial.

[Rick Ballard]

If Mr. Big is Rove it helps the parallel track of the defense. Of course, with Miller, it could well be Mr. Small - back to Dan Bartlett or Fleischer. It works either way.

[Martin]

Ranger-Cheney told Judy to talk to Libby, plain and simple.

That's what Libby's heartfelt "I didn't do it" was all about.

I hope Wells has the guts to blow through his own clients probable instructions and expose the whole "scapegoat" mess for what it really is.

[american in europe]

She could be protecting Cheyney, but there are others who are equally plausible, maybe even more so. Powell, Armitage, Plame, Wilson, Kristof or someone else at the Times, some other journalist... the list is practically endless. And after all, Libby's ace in the hole is a Presidential pardon. Do you think he'd risk that by going after Cheyney? No, it's gotta be someone else...

[Dan S]

"Or, are we in la-la land where Libby's memory is expected to be perfect, but all of the people used as witnesses to prosecute them are allowed to have human memories?

- GB

Posted by: Great Banana | January 31, 2007 at 07:48 AM"

We've been in LaLa land for some time, GB. Starting with the hushing of Mr. A at State, and the sweeping under the rug of his role.

[jf]

Judy Miller spent 85 days in jail to protect sources other than Libby and now she can't remember who they are.

What a lying SOS.

[Ranger]

Matin, you're avoiding the question. Who is the only person so far to state under oath they called Wilson to discuss his trip?

He also happens to have been a "high ranking government official."

Judy already said she did not get Wilson's number from Libby, so who gave her the number? Where was it in ciruculation?

[MayBee]

How does "I didn't do it" become damning testimony?
How in the WORLD does that implicated Cheney?

Anyway, we aren't going to find out.

[MayBee]

Ha!
F:Did you ever speak to Joe Wilson

M No, I might have called that number, but I remember not succeeding

I love so much about that.
Of course you can't not succeed without calling.

[Dan S]

I just want Jeffress to pop out "Did you know Valerie Plame/Wilson before you met with Libby?"

Then Fitz will pop up and object and the jury will go "huh? What's wrong with that question?"

[Ranger]

F:Did you ever speak to Joe Wilson

M No, I might have called that number, but I remember not succeeding

I love so much about that.
Of course you can't not succeed without calling.

Posted by: MayBee | January 31, 2007 at 08:33 AM

Hard to imagine Ego Joe not calling her back. Can't imagine him passing up a chance to talk to a reporter at that point.

[Pofarmer]

Judy Miller spent 85 days in jail to protect sources other than Libby and now she can't remember who they are.

What a lying SOS.

Yep

[Sue]

Redirect? He stopped at that point? Well sheesh! The judge must have shut him down. I would have just blurted it and taken my lumps.

[Bill in AZ]

heh - Judy called the number and reached "Valery Flame"?

[Martin]

Libby's problem is Cheney's assured him of a pardon, but Cheney can't pardon people.

And even if Bush told him he'd pardon him, Bush can always renege. And Libby must be wondering why Bush hasn't done it already?
Libby's gambling if he won't rat out Cheney, and he must be getting mighty nervous.

That's what Cheney's delusional CNN interview was all about. Saying we're losing in Iraq cause the American people don't have stomach for the fight was coded language right to Libby!

[Dan S]

I'm thinking the same thing, Bill. That would be an interesting twist.

[cboldt]

At the conclusion of Miller's testimony, I think Fitz has presented all of the evidence that he has, that Libby knew of Wilson's wife, independently from hearing from reporters.

Cooper and Russert don't have Libby volunteering that information - their testimony is necessary foundation for what I see as the 2nd half of the prosecution's case.

[Dan S]

Martin,

There is no reason to pardon Libby if he's not found guilty. It's better for W. if that ends up being the case, isn't it? Even you BusHitler folks should be able to see that.

[Rick Ballard]

Who's up next? Edelman to confuse the timeline a bit? Or maybe Harlow?

[cboldt]

-- Who's up next? --

Cooper or Russert, is my guess. Followed by investigating agents and then GJ foreman or equivalent.

[sbw]

FDL server just went south. Can't load a page.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

In my sixty years, I've know a few people who have spent a night or two in jail, mostly for traffic violations or some minor misdemeanor offense. The kinds of things that in any other state but California would seem rather stupid or meaningless. Every one was shocked and traumatized by the experience, since they weren't habitual law breakers. Not one would chose to return even for a principle. Judy is either a masochist or she is more afraid of the source than she is of the horrors of a city/county jail.

[Chris]

EW gets excited in brackets:

F is it fair to say 2 streams reporting came in July 8

M I believe that's correct

[Score! Fitz just got Judy correcting Jeffress on one of his mistakes!! Jeffress had suggested it happened on June 23, she corrected him, she was right]

when her own transcription recorded Judy said:

M I don't remember whether two streams was first or second meeting.

[cboldt]

FDL appears to have trouble serving web pages, Rory hasn't posted anything past "Miller is taking the stnad," and Clarice is MIA.

[P]

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE:

"""I can't remember when I started telephoning everyone."""

TELEPHONE CALLS HAVE RECORDS. ALL OF THEM.
She certainly has the ability to see who she called during that timeframe.

[Sue]

Chris,

Not only that but Jeffress reminded Judy she didn't remember her June 23rd meeting with Libby when she testified about the July 8th meeting. There was no score.

[Sue]

cdboldt,

It is a conspiracy. We are getting too close to Cheney!

[Cecil Turner]

What a lying SOS.

Yep. Two things come across loud and clear: she's lying to protect someone, and it ain't Libby, because she has no problem at all shafting him. As a Prosecution witness, she was a disaster.

At the conclusion of Miller's testimony, I think Fitz has presented all of the evidence that he has, that Libby knew of Wilson's wife, independently from hearing from reporters.

Yeah, in June, no, July (7th! 7-12?, no, June). Now we've got one guy who said they never talked about Ms Wilson at all, and another who says Libby said "I heard that, too" (but failed to put it in his notes, and contemporaneously refers to another source when talking about Admin confirmation but mysteriously fails to mention Libby's supposed confirmation). If this is actually the standard for perjury, Fitz coulda picked whomever he liked of those he questioned . . . and obviously he did.

[P]

Wells should have asked about phone records. Does she have them, does her lawyer have them. Does Fitz have them.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'M No, I might have called that number, but I remember not succeeding'

What a logician!

She also doesn't understand that if she'd heard about Wilson's wife prior to June 23rd, but hadn't thought it important enough at that time to put it in her notes, then when she later reviewed her notes she wouldn't remember--through her 'note driven memory'--having heard it before.

I'm surprised the Defense didn't walk her through that logic, but I'll bet they don't forget to do so in closing arguments.

[AnotherBob]

Can some of the more knowledgeable comment about the issue of reporters and notes?

One of the things that always bothers me (going back to Watergate) is reporters seem to take the tack that once it's in their notebook, it's unassailable fact.

Does a court give "notes" such standing? Can the credibility or accuracy of reporters notes be questioned meaningfully?

[Ranger]

Wells should have asked about phone records. Does she have them, does her lawyer have them. Does Fitz have them.

Posted by: P | January 31, 2007 at 08:55 AM

I'm sure Fitz doesn't have them. It seems to be his policy to avoid collecting evidence that might controdict his theory of the case.

[Martin]

Well the FDL server is down. I'm sure all you people that cut and paste extended excerpts from EW chipped in, right?

[Sue]

Martin,

Told you once I don't chip in where I am not allowed to post.

[Martin]

to the tip jar, I mean. I know you chipped in to the overload.

[cboldt]

-- Can the credibility or accuracy of reporters notes be questioned meaningfully? --

Yes. It's up to the jury to weigh the credibility. The note-taker being a reporter is one factor, and it's arguable whether reporters as a class have better (or worse) note-taking accuracy than the average non-reporter note-taker.

[politicaobscura]

Martin: Web Police

lol

[boris]

Pretty well established now that it's ok to change testimony after reviewing "notes". When Libby takes the stand he can change his gj testimony now that he has "access to his notes". Don't know "what I was thinking when I baffled that gab to the GJ!". It's clear that note backed memory improves over time, so Libby now remembers everything.

[Sue]

Something no one has thought of just yet, but the jury is taking their own notes. Let's see, when they get into jury deliberations, how well their note taking abilities are and whether they all have the same memory with their notes.

[Martin]

Not at all PO-it's just you've got absolute retards like Ballard who constantly disparage EW while reading her stuff.

Now you'll really get to see how much the other live blogging totally sucks.

[Other Tom]

It's apparent that Cheney doesn't like what's going on at FDL, so he has ordered the server shut down. And he's got the black helicopters headed Martin's way as we speak.

[PaulL]

Jeralyn has this posted:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/1/31/113121/744

[Pofarmer]

It's still unimaginable to me that Libby wasn't allowed to see his notes at his GJ testimony. Was he the only one?

[Ranger]

I seem to recall one of Judy's fellow journalists complaining about how bad her note taking was. She was always having to ask for clerification from other journos about what her own notes meant, what they remembered of the events. They were complaining that at the end of the day, when they all got together to swap notes and double check, nobody could get any verification from her about what had happened. She was all take and no give.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Marin, I have not and will not go to FDL/EW sites. I prefer less biased sources.

[boris]

you've got absolute retards like Ballard

You're just jealous baecause we got him and you don't. You should talk to a therapist about that "sour grapes" syndrome thingy. Either that or your mommy.

[Ranger]

It's still unimaginable to me that Libby wasn't allowed to see his notes at his GJ testimony. Was he the only one?

Posted by: Pofarmer | January 31, 2007 at 09:08 AM

Worse than that, Fitz used Libby's notes to refresh the memory of other witnesses, thus ensuring that they couldn't be used later to impeach their testemony, while at the same time refusing Libby access to them to prepare his testemony.

[cboldt]

From Jeralyn ...

Fitz wants to introduce the Libby Aspens letter to Judy, which he now deems relevant, the Judge isn't convinced. Jeffress now wants access to all of her notes, and the Judge says he'll review them in camera again. .. Cooper next.

Team Libby has openly said that it would again subpoena the entirety of Miller's notes, so that move is no surprise. Fitz asking to introduce the Aspens letter is more aggressive than I would expect.

I was hoping for that internal "mini-trial" involving Tate, Abrams and Fitz. It seems the issue of reporter privilege and Libby expectation of privacy was short-shrifted, however.

[Rick Ballard]

Cooper's next. Perhaps a sterling performance will improve the jury's ability to refrain from laughing when they hear the word "journalist".

[GT]

The INR thing is pretty interesting if that's where Plame worked, it ties nicely.

Islamic charities? She was investigating domestic political groups. The 500 things Congress investigated and retired CIA employees started arond the time she had her problems. Maybe there weren't just Islamic 500 things, but her pals, which is why the complaint went to the intelligence committee about what NSA has always done. The research on domestic charities went to the NSA for a CIA investigation? CIA used NSA assets?

Telephone records needed from the reporter? Maybe the judge should call the new judges that will do what the NSA does when their charter is not renewed and they cease to exist?

[boris]

Libby expectation of privacy

Implausible.

[Jane]

Any word from Clarice? That wireless problem has turned out to be a bummer for her it seems.

[cboldt]

Miller Time: Libby Trial 1.31 Post 2

Rory O'Connor

Miller has been dismissed, Cooper has been called.

[Dan S]

They will probably break for lunch about now.

Which means I will too.

[cboldt]

Libby Live: Judy Five

Marcy Wheeler - Wednesday, January 31, 2007

[PaulL]

Rory:
*****
Fitzgerald now makes the case for offering the now-famous “Aspen letter” Libby sent to Miller while she was incarcerated. Judge Walton says he doesn’t understand its relevance at this point. Is the prosecution suggesting “some collusion?” asks the Judge.

We don’t think the letter worked,” responds Fitzgerald. The letter ‘intimates’ what testimony would be helpful to Libby, he posits
*****

I don't see what's so horrible about the Aspen letter. Libby tells Judy to testify, that he waived a year previously, and that it would be good for him if she did testify.

Of course I don't have the secret decoder to read what the text really says.