NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.

Well, that was unconvincing, to me, at least. The problem with Ted's schtick is that he went from a very rushed, though somewhat rational argument, to fake tears in about 16 seconds. Somehow that didn't convince me. The character was completely unconvincing. I'm not sure it helped.


Madness. Madness. Outrageous, THe govt brought a case abotu 2 phone calls. And they just want you to speculate. The defense wishes that were so. Saying it, Saying it loudly, pounding the table, doesn't change the facts.

Is this case about 2 reporters, that's it? This is about a one on one he said she said.

It's a he said he said he said he said she said she said she said he said (shows the graphic of nine people)

Is this the greatest coincidence in the world. Tat the only person he said he talked to forgot it. It's not one on one, it's all the evidence taken together.

Maybe the best example is to focus on Russert. He wants you to believe that Russert has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt When you saw witnesses on stand, you saw them look me in the eye, I'll tell you that Russert alone can give you proof beyond reasonable doubt. You don't need Russert to convict on Russert charge.  Now you're saying I've lost my mind. One part of this is, that I knew it as if it were new. No one wished this, but if Tim Russert were run over by a bus and went to that great newsroom in the sky, you could still find plenty of evidence that Libby was not surprised when he heard this from Russert. The first day he briefed about Plame, he told Schmall about. 

You know you're not surprised on Thursday, if you gave it out MOnday and Tuesday, you weren't surprised. If Tim Russert alone can prove it, then without Tim Russert.

One of the myths is that Wilson wasn't improtant.

Her name Valerie Wilson. She had a life before Joe Wilson, but to them she wasn't Val Wilson, she wasn't a person, she was an argument, she was a fact to use against Wilson. We keep hearing about merits. The two things Jeffress points out about Wilson. He said he wasn't sent by VP, 

THey said the wife was important. It cast suspicion that Wilson got sent because of "the wife."


What was important was who sent him. Waht was the answer. The Wife, A fact, an argument. Was she important as a person, no. Don't buy into this split. Oh, Wilson was hugely important,  Wilson's credibility was important. Karl Rove talking abotu it at meetings. But the wife argument was separate. Let's talk about that.

Argument made in opening.

[Schmall's notes]

This is important bc is corroborates. Grossman says he gave the name, Grenier, gave the name. Martin knew the name, she told them wife works there.

He testifies in GJ that he learned the name AT the op-ed.

What do you have here? Schmall doesn't know this. On Satuday, all the terrorist events in teh world. ALL that stuff, after talking about Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, WHY WAS THE AMB TOLD ABOUT VP.

Hannah said, I can't tell you if he read this.

That document does two things, it corroborates Grossman, Martin, Grenier, togehter. It's a fingerprint. THe defendant has wrapped around this issue. He's wrapped around the issue of who told him, He's wrapped himself around the issue of Valerie WIlson.

All this improtant stuff, he's bringing up Valerie Wilson.

Now July 14, comes from VP file.
Whatever else was going on, VP rips out Novak column, [Fitz holds it up] There's a paper copy VP kept in files.

412 is odd article we put in evidence don't talk about. MoDo column he's spending his time on July 14, writing points to respond to Dowd, she's very critical. He was scribbling notes, What he cites? Novak, 7/14.

The sheaf of articles he hand wrote Novak, July 13, he's writing response on Novak column.

What else do we have. Schmall. He's the eyewitness, doesn't read about Novak. What does VP and defendant, what is Schmall asked, did you read NOvak article. Novak article is about WIlson's wife, sorry to refer to it like that, but that's hwat she's been reduced to.

On July 14, VP had read Novak column, On July 13 Defendant column, defendant had read it.

Was it important before? We've heard about talking points. Therefore it couldn't have been important. They just running around not focusing on BP not sending him.

What's Exhibit 540, talking points on July 7, this is what Fleischer said,


You also heard talking points changed, the talking points changed. They changed when VP in office on capital hill, he dictates talking points. THe handwritten talking points in evidence.  She has that sheet, she retypes it, final version. light editing by Martin and LIbby. Now look at talking points. Second one looks like talking points form day before. Yesterday's talking points become number2. 

Then it picks up last talking point becomes 7.

When looking at how these 8 came about. 2 (3 bullets) and 7, from day before. Now look at 8. Cathie Martin wrote question mark. Came from NIE. Was declassified for July 8. THe VP is telling me to talk abotu it I don't know if it's classified. 

Let's focus on 3,  4, 5, 6.

[Ha!!! I did this already in a post!! Fitz!!]

 Wilson was unpaid for services. 

Fitz goes to CHeney's annotated op-ed.

Let's go back and look for number 5, Wilson never saw the docts.

Lo and behold, I was told that it referred to memo of agreemtn (underlines).

5 Came from this document, too.

Where did we get, Wilson provided no written report.

Again shows underlines on op-ed. Scratch off five.

Mr Wilson has said he was convinced Niger could not provide uranium from Iraq.

[Fitz is basically showing that all these bullet points come straight from stuff underlined by Cheney]

First bullet–It is not clear who sent Wilson.  "Or did his wife write him on a junket" A day or two after he writes this, he makes it the number one talking point. The question of who sent Wilson is important, it's the number one bullet. There's something funny. THey don't want to talk abotu the wife. What's going on the same two days.


Ari: He has only had lunch with Libby once before. He says this was weird, hush hush, on the QT.

What happens the next morning? Addington. What does the defendant talk abotu in a room with the door closed, telling Addington to lower his voice, asking what paperwork does a CIA send a spouse on a trip. 

What reason would he have to shush Addington if he's just talking about Wilson. Wilson's been on TV, He's out. Lower your voice to Addington, hush hush to Ari.

That's the meeting where Defendant was at a meeting with Judith Miller for two hours.

There was a focus of who sent Wilson on this trip. any effort to tell you it doesn't matter, I submit to you on June 14, Defendant thought Wilson's wife important, July 6, VP ripping it out of paper. The week before it was importnat. VP, bullet one, is who authorized. That question ,would be the key answer of Valerie Wilson.

Let's figure out if what Judith Miller said happened on July 8, happened. Couldnt' we have a lab experiment to see if it happened.

Let's put it up on the screen.  W/Defendant on July 8. I do have memory of someone before. The only entries that tie Valerie Wilson specifically o Iraq are two June 23, and July8.

This will prove I'm a geek, this will show defendant's memory, ou're going to find out where this came from. It was some of those CIA faxes that he had on July 8. You'll see how much recall he had. When you see this, it'll show her memory is accurate, his memory was accurate.

She says to strands of reporting.

DX64. fax sent on June 9. Remember he said it went to the Hill. Hannah said Libby was focused on Wilson. Defense put this in through Craig Schmall.

On this page, 2-3 of long document. Paragraph 2, talks abotu report, Niger planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq. Niger signed agreement. Now we see the third report. Remember she said he associated third report with Wilson. On 8 March 2002, obtained independently from sensitive source.  


This is the Joe WIlson trip. How do we know it? Be said he came back on March. How do you know Defendant knew that? How do you know he focused so deep on the weeds that he knew this?

Introduces the exhibit where Libby had marked Wilson by this same paragraph. Says that's his handwriting. He's figured out the sensitive source is Joe Wilson.

Go back to Miller's testimony once again.  She says he was discussing two streams of reporting. First was reports like that of Joe Wilson and then he said wife works at WINPAC. Here is this document, "Two streams of reporting." [bestill eriposte's heart!!]

The two streams of reporting came from sensitive source, here he is describing to Ms MIller, he talks about one trip, second trip, a third trip, linked to Wilson, later, two streams of reporting. Wow. She got it right. Defendant Libby got it right on July 8 from June 9, a month earlier.

Remember that one of the things that was tied up. CIA WINPAC received forged documents. Did Libby assume, right after the two streams of reporting. The documents show he was focused, knew when they referred back and forth. Miller told you what happened. THe defendant shows that you know. This shows you, remember how he says he needs to pool recollections. He was alone with her. What an amazing focus on Wilson at the time.

Let's move foward and talk abotu another witness. If you think this is nonsense.

THe best intell reporter you can thinkg of Walter PIncus, you got to his OCt 12 article, he talks about CIA's nonproliferation section.  Let's not focus on wordsmithing If it's good enough for Walter Pincus, it's good enough for others.

Let's focus on Cooper. They say if they were just fairminded, they're read Cooper's notes to reinforce Libby's notes.

Remember what the Perry Mason moment was. 

Cooper said no, I have a clear memory, it happened at the end. I was just throwing it out. It happened at the end. Defendant was trying to leave the airport. Would Cooper know there'd be five witnesses to corroborate him. Defendant in GJ, March 5, page 185, he says, "we were discussing things, he gave prepared statement. Talk about Tenet statement. 


Libby testified that the Plame reference came up after 1999 statement. Look where teh discussion of Tenet statement appears after that Perry Mason statement. Bring back to the stuff they don't want to focus on. If you listen carefully to GJ testimony, Defendant remembers that the first time the 1999 trip declassified, it came up in Tenet statement. That was the first time. not sure if it's ever been said before. You have Libby saying it happened after Tenet statement.

Third witness. Think about discrepancy between Cooper and Defendant. Cooper said he asked about the testimony. Cooper got lucky again. He's got to see ahead that LIbby's GJ testimony will corroborate.

Cathie Martin, one call or two calls, she knows that when she came back. Do you think for a moment, that the conversation that defendant described, I don't know if it's true, if it happened in front of Martin. She's very careful. When someone discussed NIE on July 8, she got nervous, she left the room, in part for that reason. When VP added NIE to talking point. She got nervous. When Wells asked her, you knew abotu Plame, It wasn't a huge revelation to me, but I knew it was huge deal that he disclosed it. SHe said, that's a big deal. You think she's going to sit there and listen to Libby talking abotu Wilson's wife? Everything corroborates taht it happened at end of call.

One more thing that corrborates. THe VP wrote week before that wife sent him on a junket. THe VP moves to number 1 talking point. You just think it's coincidence that Cheney was writing this.

There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the denfendant obstructed justice.  That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

Btw, maybe Russert and Cooper got confused.

How would the conversation have happeend on July 11, if Rove said, that I just found about Novak. What would libby have said? Oh, I found about it tomorrow from Matt Cooper.

Russert is a devastating witness. He remembers when he learned. He testified that he remembers askign people if they knew it. He remembers thinking about whether NBC should cover the wife.

Okay you forgot about the Buffalo news article. Russert is criticized by a lot of people. Let's get over it. This issue with the depostiion, that he gave the deposition with his lawyers. So do a lot of people. 


Shit, lost some.

Goes through why the NOvak thing doesn't work. Especially that He couldnt' have told Rove he learned of it from NOvak, too.

He picked someone high up in NBC. He picked someoen they woudl know he talked to. 

If he had picked Woodward, he might have gotten lucky. 

Remember situation. Interview. FBI interview Bond and colleagues there. WH had said Libby not involved.

Govt exhibit 20, govt guidlelines on dealing with Media.

No subpoena without express authorization from AG. If he can convince Agent Bond, "nothing here," it goes away. If he doesn't convince them to go to the AG for a subpoena. You know what, we would never hve heard Russert's conversation if he wasn't called at home. It could have been enough not to get the FBI to get AG to issue a subpoena. It could have worked if Russert never talked. When you look back, history always looks inevitable. They're talking about firing people. He had planted his feet. He had to come up with someone. He had to make sure to say, Russert, this is off the record. 

I would confess I have no idea how much time is left.




Marcy Wheeler aka Emptywheel is an American journalist whose reporting specializes in security and civil liberties.