Agent Bond

Cross-posted at American Thinker:

The Libby trial finished for last week on Thursday with the start of the cross examination of FBI agent Deborah Bond, the interrogator who first questioned Libby. The cross examination revealed that Bond was hostile, that she had neglected to fully incorporate into her notes of the interview important portions of his testimony, most especially some matters that Libby's counsel had specifically asked be included. These were:

o Libby's statement at the initial interview that he had been unable to review his own notes;

o that his memory of the events was imperfect;

o that he was offering up just his present sketchy recollection; and

o that he could be more precise after he'd had an opportunity to review his notes.

(Neverthess, even in that initial interview when he was relying solely on his recollection he said he believed the Vice President had told him on about June 12, 2003 that Wilson's wife worked in counter proliferation.)

In his second interview, after he'd had an opportunity to review his notes, he volunteered to the FBI again that he'd first heard about Joseph Wilson's wife on June 12, 2003, when the Vice President told him. (I do not have transcripts of the trial testimony but there are summaries of the testimony provided by Firedoglake .)

Just One Minute trial mavens note that in the counts of the indictment relevant to the FBI interviews, once again the prosecution has far overstated the evidence in the indictment. We are also learning that the FBI still relies on the antique and inaccurate method of recording these interviews: the hand written notes of the interrogator, instead of videotapes. This process is surely inadequate and subject to bias.

This lack of an actual video or even audio recording of the interview is certainly going to appear more significant as the cross examination proceeds. This method of interview recording by interrogator's hand is also under fire in the Hamdania court martial, where the defense had put into evidence interview notes taken by members of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service at direct odds with affidavits sworn by those who provided those interviews.

At one time, before the more aggressive prosecution of those accused of making false statements to investigators, this technique with all its flaws may have escaped the scrutiny it deserved. The Libby case is a rare case, seemingly outside the Department of Justice practice: a case where he prosecution is seeking to convict on "lies" not made about any criminal conduct.

Azaghal, one of my favorite commentors and one most knowledgeable about law enforcement procedures and practices observes:

Fitz[gerald's] distillation of Libby's Russert related testimony bears little resemblance to his actual testimony. It sounds to me more like a man trying to provide as clear as possible an account of what transpired months previously to the best of his recollection, not someone trying to confuse. Given that he corrected his initial statements to the FBI, I don't see what interest of justice is served in pursuing him with a perjury or obstruction or false statement prosecution. The correction it seems to me obviates any obstacle to the investigators; therefore it's abusive to prosecute on such flimsy grounds. I should add, that in circumstances in which a witness has been directed by his superiors to cooperate and not assert his constitutional rights, the prosecutor should definitely take into account the entire sum of the witnesses testimony, the cumulative effect and merit of the information he provides--has it assisted the investigation overall. After all, even cooperating and immunized witnesses like Fleischer offer testimony that conflicts with other witnesses who have no reason to lie (Dickerson, for example), and there's no apparent reason why Fleischer should lie about anything--his recollection, like that of virtually everyone, is fallible. From what I've seen of Libby's testimony and from the FBI's testimony about his correcting his initial statements it seems absurd for the prosecution to claim that the meat of his testimony and statements to investigators was an attempt to derail an investigation. And that's especially true given what we know about the predication of the investigation--information that Fitz[gerald] concealed from courts of review, thus depriving these courts of information that could well have affected their decision regarding the disclosure of journalistic sources. In a situation like this, when the prosecutor doesn't exactly have clean hands himself, it's doubly abusive for him to bring such charges.

Do we really want a situation in this country in which, whenever the FBI comes knocking, the citizenry's first reaction is to lawyer up and assert their 5th amendment rights for fear of being prosecuted for any inaccuracies in what they might say? I doubt that the FBI itself wants that to happen, but the excesses of prosecutors like Fitz[gerald] and Comey will lead toward that becoming more the norm than it is."

Indeed, that is my advice to all of you under the present circumstances, should you ever be questioned in an investigation: Lawyer up, unless the FBI  gets honest and uses videotapes or prosecutors stop such nonsense.

And the next time there's a president who agrees to the appointment of such a "special special prosecutor" and demands the cooperation of all officials and staff with it, everyone working for him should resign and take the Fifth.

Working in the White House is hard, thankless, underpaid work. It is too much to ask that one should also agree to be a piñata for an unsupervised, unreasonable, utterly abusive proceeding like this.

This is precisely why Star Chambers were abolished.

Clarice Feldman

Comments

[clarice]

follow up question in juror's minds I suppose...then why didn't she tell that to the lawyer so Libby could make that statement on the record?

[topsecretk9]

--3:12
Walton has been given some questions by the jury.
Jury question to Bond:
“Why didn’t you write down (Libby attorney)Tate’s comments during interview?”
Bond:
“Libby was being interviewed, not Tate”
Bond says in other cases, it is her practice not to write down attorney’s statements in notes.

Jury asks why she didn’t take notes.
Bond id’s Agent Kirk Armfield as the agent taking notes, chalks it up to the fact that she took notes the first time, he took them the second time, no particular reason.

Wells going to Libby’s calendar now. Bond confirms that she remembers Addington’s testimony from this case. Addington testified that he sent out the request for documents to VP’s office employees on October 3, which was a Friday. Bond confirms that she was aware Libby, Cheney , and Mayfield left on October 3rd, flew to Philadelphia and then Wyoming, and didnt return till Monday the 6th. Libby’s calendar shows they returned to White House after 2:30pm, and then he met with his lawyer.

Libby produced the documents requested on Tuesday the 7th. Wells gets Bond to confirm that , within 24 hours of returning from Wyoming, Libby had produced the requested documents and given them to VP counsel Addington, and that the documents were certified by Mayfield. Bond confirms that Libby then had only 7 days after producing the documents to review them prior to his interview by the FBI. Wells gets Bond to confirm that complex cases often require longer periods to review documents sufficienty.

Calendar pages were then produced that showed Libby had 4 hours to review documents with his attorney on October 6, that there were no other appointments on October 7, and that the only item in Libby’s schedule on October 9 was an 8:45am meeting with his attorney.

Audio of testimony to begin next.---

Snotty answer again.

[azaghal]

Well, at some point the jury has to ask themselves 'why did the FBI have it in for this guy? what were they thinking when they wrote up those reports that skewed his testemony so much?'

Especially since he got the FBI agent to admit that they were looking for Novaks source, and they already had him when they interviewed Libby. Should have been a 'just a few questions to wrap things up' interview and it turned into the center of the entire SP's office.

Did you notice that he didn't ask Bond whether she knew about Armitage at the times she was interviewing Libby? I don't think the Prosecution will want to touch that one with a ten foot pole. Maybe the defense would prefer to leave that for the jury to wonder about--just remind them in the closing statement.

[topsecretk9]

Bond:
“Libby was being interviewed, not Tate”
Bond says in other cases, it is her practice not to write down attorney’s statements in notes.
------

Yeah, that's not going to fly.

Snotty - his lawyer isn't being interviewed - and everyone under the sun is thinking -- that's why people hire lawyers to make sure dipshits like you don't railroad them...and notice it's her practice -- wonder what FBI guidelines are?

[danking70]

David Corn has an post up. It's a laugher.

Novak On the Stand: A Fantasy

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/02/novak_on_the_st.php

[azaghal]

One of those, damned if you knew, Fitz is damned if you didn't, kind of questions. The jury will wonder about that: if the FBI knew about Armitage and they thought this was about Novak, why were they interviewing Libby, but if Fitz didn't tell the FBI about Armitage--why not?

[clarice]

Maybe she didn't know about it. Ot if she did, Wells doesn't know that and doesn't want to risk an unhelpdul answer.

Armitage told DOJ on Oct 3 and that appears to have been a closely held secret for a long time.
Better to have it come out of Armitage's mouth and leave the implication in the timeline at closing, I think, azaghal.

[Lesley]

From Clarice's Update at AT

"Significantly, Agent Bond confirms: Libby testified that on 9/30/03, Colin Powell told him that "everyone knows" about Wilson's wife, and that he (Wilson) was at the meeting where Wilson's wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger."

He (Wilson) was at the meeting where Wilson's wife suggested they send Wilson to Niger.???

Allowing that Libby's recollection could be in error, or Colin Powell's information was incorrect, I don't ever recall knowing that Joe Wilson was AT THE MEETING where Plame suggested he be sent to Niger.

I learning this as if for the first time.

[Rick Ballard]

"wonder what FBI guidelines are?"

Immaterial. What were Eckenrodes guidlines? Schwarz's? Dion's?

You have to know how each of the vigilantes perceived their roles in order to understand Agent Bond's crafting of the noose.

[Sue]

IANAL, I just play one now and again, but I'm thinking the questions from the jurors don't look good for Fitz's case. And defense hasn't even been up yet. Can I change my earlier prediction without anyone calling me on it?

[Ranger]

Oh, and 4 hours to review 250 pages of handwritten notes... yeah, that's pleanty of time to prepare for an FBI interview.

[topsecretk9]

--Can I change my earlier prediction without anyone calling me on it?--

Yes.

The way I look at it, if Sue is in revise you KNOW things aren't going good for Fitz. ::grin::

[clarice]

This is why when a laawyer is being skillful, the press oftens misses what has been done. (I have had cases where reporters whose only knowledge of law is from tv reported the case had gone terribly when I knew--and later events proved it--I had succeeded and was winning.
Let's review:
Bond has admitted she was investigating the leak to Novak.
Admitted that she told that to Libby.
Admitted she knew Armitage was the leaker.
We know Armitage confessed on Oct 3, the very day of the Addington letter announcing the start of the investigation.
We know that the record is left open as to when SHE knew about Armitage--
Therefore, it looks like (a) Libby was set up or (b) Both Bond and Libby were.

[Alcibiades]

At American Thinker:

Unfortunately for Patrick Fitzgerald, our conscientious reporters didn't even bother to take readable notes of the crucial conversations that have now placed Mr. Libby in the dock. Their memory for fleeting words heard many months ago is as just bad as anybody else's --- which is utterly dismal. The newsies never even bothered to use tape recorders, trained stenographers, personal organizers, or any of the other tools at the disposal of the merest junior attorney at the local ambulance chaser's office. It looks like they just followed each other's buzz, and if they all agreed on some conspiratorial version of events over that evening's booze, that had to be grist for the next day's headlines. This trial has therefore turned into an ordeal by baying newshounds. If Libby can sprint fast enough to survive their yipping and biting, he will be a free man. If not, he will be in jail.

Ordeal by baying newshounds, heh!

[hit and run]

azaghal:

if the FBI knew about Armitage AND they thought this was about Novak, why were they interviewing Libby

That's a very very good point......me thinks. Do we have enough to definitively say both are true (in the trial)? I added the emphasis on the AND because that is a point where the whole kerfuffle seems to fall apart.

I like how succinctly that puts...thx

[Alcibiades]

whoops, looks like I didn't close that tag properly. at least it didn't continue to the next post.

[Sue]

Top,

I will actually hold off changing my prediction until after we hear Libby's gj testimony. Libby might be his own worst enemy here.

[Ranger]

if the FBI knew about Armitage AND they thought this was about Novak, why were they interviewing Libby

Because the 2x6 story had "proved" that it was all a White House conspriracy. No need to limit yourself to the original scope of the investigation, there are scalps to be had and careers to me made or capped!

[hit and run]

Again, the distillation is helpful to the Plamaniacs with ADD:

Clarice:
Let's review:
Bond has admitted she was investigating the leak to Novak.
Admitted that she told that to Libby.
Admitted she knew Armitage was the leaker.

Thank you.

[Neo]

We ought to take the price of this trial out of Fitz's retirement pay, which should be soon.

I pity the fool. (but I can't stop laughing)

[azaghal]

Well, Bond says she thought it was all about Novak when she came on board, but at some point she knew that Novak was really about Armitage. At some point she knew both. Fitz is going to have to try to show that that common sense view of the investigation is beside the point, that there was very good rationale for keeping the whole thing running despite Novak/Armitage. But will we ever see a coherent explanation of that? He better come up with something along those lines, because the juror questions show they're thinking that way. Wouldn't you love to know what the questions were that the judge disallowed and admonished the juror to stop thinking about?

[Carol Herman]

According to the WSJ link to Paul Gigot, he surmises that the president will pardon Libby if the jury convicts.

[Dan S]

"Can I change my earlier prediction without anyone calling me on it?

Posted by: Sue | February 05, 2007 at 12:30 PM "

No, but we can be nice and say, "Wow, Wells, is good, he's even convinced Sue!"

[clarice]

Isn't that a great post by Lewis?

[clarice]

I'm having trouble getting to the site and posting on it.

[Alcibiades]

Looks like we're back.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

According to Talk Left, they are now playing the GJ testimony, 7 hours worth, for the jury as prep for Russert.

[Dan S]

Azaghal,

Juror questions Judge couldn't ask:

1) Why are we here if this is about Novak?

2) Can you dismiss the charges now?

3) Can we find the FBI agent guilty of lying under oath?

4) Can we find the prosecutor guilty of abuse of his power?

5) Can I go home now?

[Alcibiades]

FDL has resorted to making up juror questions now:

Juror question to Libby: Do you have any idea how guilty you look?

[Rick Ballard]

"Wouldn't you love to know what the questions were that the judge disallowed and admonished the juror to stop thinking about?"

1. I thought the prosecution went first. When do they get to talk?

2. Who appointed these clowns?

3. Is knitting allowed in the jury box?

4. This is "reality TV", right?

5. Do you know Judge Judy?

6. Which one is Libby again?

7. When will Tim Russert get to testify?

8. Could you ask the attorneys to speed it up a little?

9. What are you hiding from us when you send us out?

10. Which one is Joe Wilson? When will he testify?

[clarice]

I'm so glad we are back in business!! Charlie just set up a parallel site at Flares as a recovery center.

[Dan S]

I love this from Lewis:

"And any blogger who remembers Dan Rather, Reuters fauxtography, and a slew of New York Times fabrications, has to be utterly skeptical about the media narrative.

(That's why they call it a narrative, Counselor. It's a story. They make it up. It's not really that complicated.)"

[Carol Herman]

This morning, Clarice posted the link to the WSJ's Paul Gigot article. In it he says IF the jury convicts, THEN Bush will Pardon Libby.

If so, given how hostile the camps are, the press and donks, against rational people, and Bush; it would serve Bush with an opportunity to make a national speech of his pardon. And, point out ALL he found out AFTER Fitzgerald already "knew."

Long term, this can't be good for the press!

Nor have they been able to "sell" Kerry.

Can they "sell" a chat and run out of Iraq? Seems the President (like Abraham Lincoln, before him), is a stickler for ending "political shinanigans." (And, when Lincoln ran in 1860? He purposely sat at home. And, did not go around this nation campaigning. Douglas? On the other hand. He did. And, met with terrible hostility down south.) Lincoln felt that the press would stick the "slavery issue" around his neck, so he could wear it as an albatross. Yes. He put up with being called "an ape." And, ignorant. Un-schooled. History, it turns out, cleans up the garbage.

And, I don't think the FIB has recovered from Mark Felt's own admission that he was Woodward's "deep throat."

While I wonder what the odds are that Walton DISMISSES the counts. (Just to end the recoil that will hit the press.) A dismissal would "calm the waters," I think.

Did this site take a "type pad" hit?

[Dan S]

Yes, Carol, site was down for quite a while.

[clarice]

Dan s, one of the jurors is a retired waPo reporter--I am sure he found Cooper's testimony even more ridiculous than we did.

[Dan S]

If he's retired, he may still be from the era when reporting was a real craft, and reporters took pride in getting the facts, reporting them, and not trying to "create a narrative."

[Rick Ballard]

Did anyone hear what format was going to be used for the release of the audio?

[Dan S]

They're letting FIB handle it. I hear they're using their latest tech: flipcharts.

[cathyf]

For future reference -- when Ranger's post did the time-travel thing, a Typepad crash was inevitable within a couple of hours. This one was on the short side.

(What do these 6-apart people think? They can muck up typepad during the Libby trial? It could get real ugly around here really fast!)

[Carol Herman]

If FDL "made up" one of the unanswered juror questions to be about Libby looking guilty; she should check out that Sneddon lost his case. Even though lots of people think Michael Jackson looks "queer." Didn't matter to those jurors!

I also thought one of the biggest mistakes Bill Clinton made was not being gracious to Monica. After she, alone, held the HOUSE lawyers at bay. (By the way, ROGAN came home, and the district where I live? Kicked him out of office.) Don't discount mainstream America. Being the underdog in a case doesn't hurt ya. And, lynching rope really pisses off more Americans than you can count.

[centralcal]

Hi, barely able to follow today, busy at work, the JOM site down a lot.

Thought this was interesting from the MBA blogger today (listening to Libby GJ testimony replay):

"Fitzgerald asked Libby if he told Pincus about Wilson’s wife.
” I don’t recall, I dont think I did”

Fitzgerald really pressed this, over and over:
“Can you rule it out?”

Libby was teetering on a high-wire here. He stated over and over that he doesn’t recall saying that. He paused finally for a long time, and put an end to the thread of questioning by sayin that ruling things out is ‘odd phrasing’ to him, that he didn’t recall saying it, and that was that.

Overall, Libby answers everything carefully and qualifies everything based on his recollection or his notes. His testimony seems to be taken from Perjury Insulation 101, and it seems frankly more interesting to guess at Fitzgerald’s motives than to listen to Libby’s answers."

I hope to catch up this evening.

[clarice]

There's a new thread, horde.

[Dan S]

It's impossible to parody the left:

From the latest FDL post:

"In the Antarctic, when scientists want to study the air, water, and weather of ancient times, they drill down into the ice and take a core sample, which provides them with a perfect cross-section of each epoch. The Libby case is like an ice core sample of the Bush Administration's incestuous, manipulative, and deeply disingenuous relationship to the media and how they played the press like a concert violin in the run up to the catastrophic set of errors that is the War in Iraq."

[Bill in AZ]

Dan S - funny... the answer to their man made global warming nonsense is in those ice cores too. I thought they didn't like real science.

[hit and run]

My juror question that Walton disallowed:

--When are we going to get to vote to impeach Bush?

Followup,

--What, we're not here to impeach Bush? Then when do we get to go home, I'm missing American Idol.

[karris56]

" So let's see..On days where the direct ends in the morning and the cross continues into the afternoon, too late for deadline, we get little if anything of the cross in the msm and the blogger is not going to cover it much because cross examination is too hard? "

"Just report it. It's not like we give 2 figs for your analysis of it."

Posted by: clarice | February 05, 2007 at 11:26
Kinda reminds me of when Chris Matthews was covering the Libby case almost every day on Hardball until the leaker was made known to be Armitage. Then this story became as he put it "TOO COMPLICATED. " The msm till this day can only see this trial one way. Libby is guilty. Cheney is evil. Fitz is going to show how decietful they all are. They all try to top each other on how Cheney attacked Wilson thru Libby and others. Not once looking at the possibility that Cheney just wanted to show Wilson lied. No malice just truth. Even if they dont believe it at least show what hand Wilson played in all this . If this was done in the beginning like it should have I dont believe there would be a trial .

[JM Hanes]

karris56

Discussion has moved over to a new page, so I'm going to paste your bit on Matthews' "too complicated" into the "Libby Thread." It's just too perfect, and sooo typical! Matthews has always been completely out of his depth on anything even tangentially related to foreign affairs.

[RichatUF]

Pofarmer says...

How about Politicization of the Law?

The remarkable trinity of Politics, Law, and War...

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

from ranger

Had anyone heard anything about Powell peronally being at the meeting where Val suggested Wilson go? That is blockbuster. State knew from the very beginning who Val and Joe were. No need for an INR memo if Powell was there at the conception of the mission.

That's news to me. Tenet said that it was done at a low level. Don't understand why Powell would even be part of the interagency process. Powell-Cheney's unindicted co-conspirator...Rove you magnificant bastard

RichatUF

[paladin2]

What if gj forman is suprise witnesses, testifies and is asked if he knew Armitage was leaker. Either way he answers will be good for libby

[Ranger]

That's news to me. Tenet said that it was done at a low level. Don't understand why Powell would even be part of the interagency process. Powell-Cheney's unindicted co-conspirator...Rove you magnificant bastard

RichatUF

Posted by: RichatUF | February 05, 2007 at 07:34 PM

Sorry, it was a bad use of pronouns in the original report. Turns out HE referense is to Wilson being present at the meeting where Val recommended him for the mission, nor Powell. Confused a couple of us at when we first read it.

[Daniel]

In a way Russert is right. He says it was impossible that he asked Libby about Plame.
That is a ridiculous absolute comment. But as far as Russert is concerned it is true that it was and is impossible for him to admit that he asked Libby about Plame.

For, if he were to do so, it would open up a Pandora's box of woe for him. He would have to answer such questions as: from whom did you hear about Plame, and he would land on the same hotseat as Judith Miller.

The utter impossibility of his making this admission seems to have transmogrified itself in his mind to an impossibility that he could have made the etatement itself.

And why did he try to avoid testimony to the grand jury? Obviously it was to avoid answering truthful questions about his sources other than Libby with whom he must have spoken as the information was common knowledge.

So it was lie about his conversation with Libby, or go to jail, or disgrace himself in the journalistic community.

Fitzgerald played into his hand by asking for testimony only about Libby, as he did ultimately with Miller.

So Fitzgerald set up a situation in which witnesses had to either contradict Libby about conversations or face either jail or disgrace, and he then took their word against Libby's.

Though the contradictions in conversation were of little or no consequence to anyone, he then indicted Libby for contradicting these witnesses!

Is there any other reasonable interpretation of this mess?

Has anyone suggested the slightest reason why Libby should lie about these conversations? Misremember perhaps. Lie? After talking frankly to the grand jury for hours and hours?

On the other hand it is almost impossible to imagine Russert or Miller not lying about these things, as Russert says.