CommunityFDL Main Blog

Libby Live: David Addington Three


We've been in a break–it appears that Walton wanted to do some research on the last objection–over classification issues. As I pointed out below, Wells has put the word "documents" when it refers to declassification in Addington's mouth. But the issue may well have to do with this novel theory of declassification, in which a few select journalists get something. 

Just a reminder of emptywheel's rules: Not a transcript, Refresh judiciously, and Buy my book.

Walton: Let me give you a further instruction regarding the NIE. You have heard evidence regarding discussions Libby had with reporters. There is no dispute that President has power to declassify previously classified information. Nor is there dispute that at least by July 8 2003, this was done. Libby didn't do anything wrong when he discussed the NIE with reporters after July 8.

Wells back. Looking at Libby's notes.

W Prior to your interview with FBI, you reviewed this document.

A I'm not certain of the timing. I certainly saw it before I went to the GJ.

W Makes reference to you by name. Addington.

A Yes.

Addington on 1) declass 2) Wilson K

A The symbol K is often used to refer to a contract.

W You had a meeting with Mr. Libby where two subjects discussed, subjects were declassification, he asked some questions concerning information CIA might have WRT a trip.

A Only my recollection is they went in reverse order.

W Mr. Libby used the term spouse in portion dealing with CIA.  In that section of the note, there's no reference to spouse.

Wells approaching witness stand.

W WRT whether you had reviewed that document prior to FBI. You were interviewed on 2/12/2004.

A I wouldn't have remembered the date, I assume govt stipulates it was that date. 

W Review this document see whether that refreshes memory about reviewing doct prior to FBI interview.

A agrees he had reviewed

W It says Dept of Navy v Egan. Supreme Court Addington

W Two lines down declassify [it says AQ Khan in between]

W You recall reviewing these notes. You referred to Navy V Egan

A I cited it, I didn't hand him a copy of it. He has ADD, but I'm sure that must refer to me. 

W Two lines down from that it says declassify

A It says Declas, which I assume means declassify.

W Senior staff–looking at a reference to Rove.

W Reads

Uranium story: becoming a question of President's trustworthiness & eads al lnews. Turning to process: Rove: now they have accepted Joe Wilson as credible expert. Were 1 day late with getting CIA right response. 

A explains that senior staff, with Rove, this must be a note from Bush's senior staff meeting. 

W Do you have any personal concerns wrt Rove disclosing info to reporters. [not sure if this is right]

A No I do not. 

W No reference to spouse. There is another note that has the word wife, the first note I showed you.

W The note referring to discussion in anteroom does not mention spouse or wife. There's another one that refers to wife, correct?

W You testified yesterday that when Mr. Libby was asking you a question about CIA paperwork involved wrt trip, Mr. Libby said what would be involved if a spouse had been sent on a trip, by a CIA employee.

A That's my recollection.

W going to FBI interview. You were asked to describe my conversation with Libby.

A [looks up, remembering] Not sure I have an independent memory of that but that's what that paragraph says in this FBI document.

Objection, sustained.

W In your description to FBI in February 2004, you made no statement that Libby referred to spouse or wife.

A I don't have a memory about whether FBI asked that and what I have is the FBI write-up. 

W I showed that to you

A You shoved it over to me, I'm not sure I read it.

W What happened was…


W We sat there and read to you relevant portions.




Walton: In reference to several documents you've seen in this trial, portions have been blacked out. There are reasons: personal information, classified information, or the information may be irrelevant to these proceedings. 

W Mr Addington, is it correct that you don't have a specific recollection one way or another whether you told them you used the word spouse or wife wt conversation in anteroom.

A I don't remember what they asked and I responded.

W You have no reason to believe they didn't take down

Objection sustained

W In connection with your review of the documents, is it also correct that you had a practice of having discussions with WH counsel Abu Gonzales wrt certain of the documents you were collecting

A When I got a packet to release to govt, I'd share some of them. 

W Mr. Gonzales' job was to protect President.

A First, to protect Constition, second, to protect the institution of the President, and third, to protect legal interests of President.

W And yours was just wrt OVP

A I'd take package to him and he could go through it.

W You would report to him content of witness interviews

A Witness interviews I got to see didn't strike me as important.

W Do you recall doct in handwriting of VP that one staffer should be protected while another sacrificed.

A I don't recall it, I didn't hold back anything.

We're getting the copy of this.


Fitz notes that they're going to introduce the original later.

Addington reading the note on the screen.

Fitz is putting up the original.

W You recall reviewing this in evidence.

A I produced it to the govt.

W You personally reviewed it. It's your recollection that you may have had conversations about the document.

A I showed it to him, may have talked about it.

W You called Terry O'Donnell, counsel to VP. You told him you thought this was a very important document.

W Top half of document in Libby's handwriting.

A The word classified there looks like his handwriting.

W Bottom half in Cheney's handwriting. Writes;

Has to happen today. Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy.

W Can you make out what's crossed out?

A I can't tell. 

Walton reminds people to talk to each other, maintain proper decorum.

A Now that it's been expanded I can read it. Pres is scratched through. I read that as two words This Pres. 

W This Pres was crossed out by VP and note goes on to read.

that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others. 

W Did you come to have any understanding of what was meant.

Objection sustained

W You don't have personal understanding of what was meant, one way or the other. 

[Again, I wonder if Wells is trying to introduce this through Addington to avoid VP getting on stand.]

A verifies Scooter's note, but notes that "Tenet Wilson memo" is in VP handwriting.

A Explains that "The Vice President Has Seen" stamp is standard practice.

W reads though Libby's sonnet. You have no personal knowledge wrt what was meant by the words.

A When you put it that way, yes, I have no idea how they came to be written, but I can recall that Press Office had made some statement about Karl and I know this bc staff gets transcripts of statements. It would lead hearer to assume that whatever was bad Karl Rove didn't do it.

W They exonerated Rove publicly.

A Yes, I don't remember the words

W Press Sec had made a statement exonerating Karl Rove.

A Yes, reason it sticks in my mind, I had conversation with Bartlett by this point something had been said that included Libby. I made the comment to Bartlett, I don't know why you're making these statements about this case. He said Your boss is the one who wanted us to do it. There are there things Press Offices shouldn't do–intell, You can't talk about sources and methods. 2nd Rules of engagement. 3rd, what's going on in a criminal investigation, because you don't know, you haven't conducted the investigation. Those three subjects are not fit subjects for a press office to be talking about.

W When Bartlett said, Your boss, that's VP Cheney.

W WH went out and exonerated Karl Rove, just Karl Rove. They did not exonerate Libby. By exonerating Karl Rove in the media and the public it created a clear impression that Scooter Libby had done someting.

A I can't reach that conclusion. Not to me, what bothered me is that press offices should not be discussing what's going on in criminal investigations, they don't know. 

W He said the VP instructed him to clear Libby in the same way that WH cleared Rove.

A Let me repeat. Staff table in WH, he happened to be at the table. So was I. I didn't ask question why did you, I said you ought not be out there saying you did or didn't do something. He said, your boss is the one who wanted us to.

W Just the way the WH exonerated Rove.

Objection sustained.

W I want to go to another area.  You said that Mr. Libby came to you at the beginning of this investigation and said, I didn't do it.

A I didn't say he came to me, I went to his office and he said that.  

W While you were in his presence, he uttered the words, "I did not do it."

A I didn't inquire what "it" meant.

[media says, oh, no, what the meaning of the word "it" is ]

A I don't recall when it was, we all knew there was going to be an investigation.

W Looking back at the evidence documents. 10/3/2003, you indicated you were sending material that consists of 11 pages. Attached is the memorandum of instructions. Looks at memo of instructions.


W Now goes to document request. Contact wiht any member of media, or his wife's purported relationship with the CIA. Item # B is very broad. It connects to any member of news media. Correct? Item C is more focused bc it focuses on particular people: Royce, Phelps, and Novak. Now that's the document request, right? In terms of how the investigation is described, the investigation is described in a letter by justice department. 

A I made it part of the memo so they could read it.

W Libby would have received copy of memo of instruction. If we go to attachment one. That is letter from Bruce Schwarz, the first paragraph reads, thank you for your telephone call. "Concerning the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information in July 14 Sun Times and the July 22 edition of Newsday." If we go to the next page, we find the 9/30 letter from Christopher Wray, to Abu Gonzales. If we go back to the first page, it shows that Wray has written as follows: Criminal Div of DOJ are conducting an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosure of information in [Novak's article and Phelps and Royce's article]. The first paragraph in the letter from Mr. Wray states that FBI and DOJ are conducting investigation into Novak and Newsday article. Then it goes on, in the second paragraph, followed by 3 bullet points to describe scope of document request. Scope of document request is broader than definition of criminal investigation.

Objection sustained.

W If we go to the next letter that's part of the package, we see 10/2/2003 letter. And that letter is addressed to Leach, Deputy Counsel to Pres, signed by Schwarz, you understood that Schwarz worked directly under Wray. First paragraph is identical to Wray's letter. Letter from Schwarz states investigation into possible unauthorized disclosure of information in Novak and Phelps/Royce article. You understood that the refence related to article from Novak. 

A I don't know that I gave it thought. I saw that in WaPo, which was syndicated, I guess.

W Remember Fitz discussed documents relating to documents.

A describing letter to Counsel of President's notice regarding document preservation.

W You're sending to Libby and others in which you describe scope of document production.

A Nosir–that's a postmaster message, all that means is it's going out to everyone.  I forwarded his email to heads of offices to ensure staffs comply with instructions. This is standard thing at beginning of every investigation.

W I represent to you Libby interviwed by FBI 10/14/2003 and 11/26/2003. Is it correct that …

Fitz just handed Wells something. Wells is writing chronology.


W You can point to no other letters that described investigation in any different fashion.

A I don't remember any off the top of my head.

W certainly what was sent to you to Mr. Libby, what you gave to Libby were the two letters by Wray and Schwarz. In your instructions, you define scope as broader universe than how paragraph one defines investigation.

W Just for the record, Exhibit 54 not given to Libby.

A I'd have to see the instructions to see if I'd attached subpoena on back of that.

W There's no evidence that that document was given to Libby.

A I'd keep subpoena that came, a number of times, I would attach a copy of the document to the back. Whether there's a memo, I'd have to go the memo to see.

W Exhibit 55, that's a letter to you 1/23/2004, that letter was not given to Libby. If while I am reviewing all of the documents, if we get to any document that shows instructions. that Libby got, I want you to tell jury that.

A My memory would not be able to say every particular document without looking at it. Reviews another subpoena.

W set of certifications from employees 10/7/2003, signed it wrt having produced certain docs for later production to DOJ. Every time one of these employees produced in batch, they'd have to sign certification. 

A Technically he's not an employee of OVP, but his function was COS.

W G60 Schwarz states, in connection with investigation concerning possible unauthorized disclosure regarding Novak and Phelps/Royce. As of 12/16/2003, Schwarz still referring to Novak and Phelps/Royce article. Three weeks after Libby FBI interview date. Mr Libby did not receive this letter.

A I'd have to look at the instructions.

W G61

A a subpoena for contacts from July 12

A GJ subpoena 2/4/2004,  GJ 10/14/2005 looking for Libby's notes, 6/16 through 7/3. Note to Eckenrode.

A I'm certain this was not given to Libby.

A 3/18/2004 Letter to Eckenrode forwarding documents responsive to telephone request. I'm certain it was not given to Libby. 

Wells asks Fitz if that covers the universe of all documents relating to investigation.

W One second, I may be finished.



10 Minute Break–we'll be back around 12:00. We should finish up Addington before lunch. 

Wells back up.

W Fitz didn't enter this.

A I remember this document. I don't remember what all you agreed to. Giving them instructions on how to search for documents.

W Do you recall that exhibit 65 a number of docts that expand a fair period. Do you recall describing it as your file?

A I don't recall calling it my file.

W And when I was asking questions a minute ago, whether there was anything on the face of the docts but there may be some instructions somewhere. I want to go through what instructions exist so we can understand what docs were given to Libby.

Jeebus. We're reading through his fricking binder, page by page. 


One document to Libby. Fitz has no objection to display to jurors.  Just trying to get this introduced.

W Were you aware that at the end of Mr Libby's second interview Mr Libby was given a statement of waiver by FBI that defined investigation in broader sense beyond Novak and Newsday.

A Although I don't know the date, I do know at some point he was given a form to waive confidentiality with press people.

Shows him Libby's waiver.

A I believe I have seen it, but without the signatures. I may have asked Libby if he was willing to give me a copy, but it wouldn't appear with the handwritten notes.

Wells tries to enter into evidence.

Fitz I object at this time, for this witness.

Objection Sustained 


A desribes email to everyone on OVP. Tells them they've got to preserve documents.

A email to Libby with copy to Mayfield. Subject to special instructions unique to Libby as regards to subpoenas. His records are VP records, even though his paycheck comes from WH. The scope for documents was different for WH and OVP.

A memo by me to everyone in OVP noting two subpoenas and these are the instructions.

W Is it correct that you were describing the investgation as the investigation into possible disclosure of classified information. Your personal description of the investigation was tracking the document request. 

A I think I took it from FBI waiver of confidentiality.

Wells tries to introduce, Fitz objects, sustained.

W You took your description from the statement of waiver FBI

A Yes, but I see there's a reference to the wife, which wasn't in the waiver. It came form somebody's legal document. I didn't make it up onmy own.

Walton, nothing should be shown to jury until I admit it.

A note to Mayfield. A set of instructions on how to collect info.

Argh. This is tedious. Wells is still going through the damn binder document by document.


Recess for lunch. come back 1:30. 

Previous post

Libby Live: David Addington Two

Next post

Lights, Camera...