Walton: We have a problem with one juror who for the first time has indicated that she has a problem being here for the length of the trial. Her employer will only pay her for 10 days of the trial. I don't know why she didn't tell us this previously, but we'll just have to see.Wells up. He's showing Fitz' guy something–looks like he's going to bring up the July 7 INR memo. Still waiting
9:33am ET
Update II:
Grossman, jury now coming in.
Wells: Mr. Grossman, yesterday you testified that the meeting you had with Mr. Libby during which you disclosed Plame was a face-to-face. And there were no other witnesses, there were no other participants. Correct?
Yes.
You have no notes, you did no follow-up memo. You cannot identify for the jury one piece of paper that documents your recollection.
You did not give Libby the INR Report?
You did not tell Libby that there was an INR Report?
Correct.
Following the less than 30 second discussion you did not have any other discussions concerning Mr or Mrs Wilson?
Correct.
WRT your initial meeting with Mr. Libby, you have no notes that reflect that you had such a meeting?
Nope.
There are no witnesses to your knowledge.
You have not one piece of paper that such a meeting took place. You said you informed Kansteiner and Ford, correct?
You said you would have sent emails to them.
And the emails have been destroyed?
Grossman: I don't think they're missing. State Department only kept emails through 90 days.
[Jesus, doesn't the govt archive this stuff??]
You cannot point to any documents that reflect that you advised Kansteiner and Ford.
9:40 am ET
Update III:
Now going to the INR memo .
Looking at the paragraph about the February 19 meeting.
Talking about Plame called a WMD manager–what does WMD mean?
Now goes to the first paragraph.
Talking about how the first paragraph talks about the "allegation" that INR had a role in Wilson's trip.
Why did Mr. Ford write this?
I don't know.
Talking about the passage: The two INR staff members who have been assigned is not here. INR not point of contact.
I understood it to mean Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to some other part of the government.
Wells getting Grossman to clarify that State not a direct recipient from the trip.
Looks at the line saying there was no reference to "fraudulent documents."
Wells is going to try to get Grossman to admit that he read Krsitof. Grossman doesn't see it.
This sentence says there was no mention of fraudulent documents.
Wells asks whether/when Grossman learned that certain documents had been forgeries.
I don't recall. I remember reading it in the press.
Now going to attachments–Rohn's notes.
The notes are up on the screen.
You understood that February 19 2002 was when the meeting took place.
Looks at paragraph that says "meeting apparently convened" by Valerie.
What does WSG refer to?
The whole government.
Looks at two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge. Wells is using Grossman to read through the notes–I guess they can't (or don't want to) call Rohn. So now Grossman is being asked to read for the jury.
Grossman: As I looked at it now. There were people at the CIA who wanted to send someone out there. State said, "listen, there's an embassy out there, let them find out."
You understand there was a disagreement between CIA and State [note, Wells is conflating all of CIA–not acknowledging differences between WINPAC and CPD]
Grossman says he only knows what is in the memo.
It was the position of the people in the State Department that the embassy could deal with the issue. Grossman–I have no idea what the position of the senior people at INR thought.
In answer to Pach–Wells is doing his meticulous rational guy personality, not outrage (yet).
Sidebar!
9:51 am ET
Update IV:
In answer to Mrs. K8, I don't think Grossman looks shifty. Just geeky; if he weren't in a suit he'd look like a stereotypical programmer or engineer. I'm really surprised this guy is a lifelong diplomat. They're in sidebar right now and Grossman has his head in his hands and he's reading through a binder of information [note–everyone associated with this trial gets binders!!] Grossman just smiled at someone. Sitting kind of sideways in his chair.
Walton sustains the objection. Not really sure what it was–I think that Wells was asking Grossman to comment on stuff he knew nothing about.
Now looking at the fourth paragraph. Describing the alleged contract.
Wells asks if Grossman knows what yellowcake is.
Now going to the report on Wilson's trip (you can click through the link above–the most interesting thing I found about it is they describing Baghdad Bob as a Algerian-Nigerien businessman).
Grossman says he only knows that it's listed as Tab 4. Says he only saw it as the attachment of the memo.
Grossman doesn't recall reading the report.
Do you understand that Tab 4 relates to what Mr. Wilson reported to CIA.
Yes sir.
Going to the Mayaki stuff. (This is how BushCo used this as "support" for their nukes case–note, they submitted this to the IAEA in February 2002 as "evidence" supporting their nuke claims; it's unclear who turned it over to them. The information has been guarded incredibly closely–it was probably Hadley, Libby, or Armitage/Wilkerson. Whoever did it, of course, shouldn't be claiming they never read the report on Wilson's trip.)
Wells asks Grossman to pronounce "Ibrahim"
Grossman says, "that's probably Ibrahim, no?" as if Wells is dumb.
Wells, is it correct that the report does reflect that at least in 1999 Iraq tried to buy nukes?
Another sidebar.
10:07 am ET
Update V:
Walton declares the document hearsay. "That document cannot be considered as evidence of the truth." The document is only revlevant as to the effect the document had on Grossman's state of mind.
Consensus here is that Wells is just trying to hopelessly confuse the jurors.
Introduces state department document, Ford to Powell memo. It's the July 7 version of the memo.
Grossman says it's "basically the same document."
Fitz' team objects.
Another sidebar.
Is it your understanding that the July 7 version of the INR memo was faxed to Powell on AF1?
Sir, I can't remember where they were going, but yes, that's correct.
10:13 am ET
Update VI:
I feel Wells outraged personality coming on–he's going to get into the Armitage visit to Grossman now.
Grossman asked for a glass of water.
There's now a piece of lined paper with the date October 17, 2003 written in red.
Walton questions whether Grossman is competent to say the INR memo was sent to AF1. That's hearsay.
Grossman was moved out, now he's coming back in.
Court reporter is now gone, she'll be right back.
Wells. Asking questions about the July 7 INR memo.
Grossman has his glass of water. Looks like a dixie cup.
Wells: you saw the redrafted report on the evening of July 7 or July 8.
It's possible. I don't recall.
Wells shows Grossman his GJ testimony.
Having refreshed your memory, you did see the report?
You and Mr. Armitage discussed the fact that Secretary Powell wanted it to be faxed to AF1.
You didn't physically do the faxing, but you understood it had been faxed to him. Mr. Armitage didn't go out and do the faxing either.
Conversation with Wilson on June 2003. Is it correct that Mr. Wilson complained that he had seen Condi Rice on MTP on June 8 and he was very upset about her comments. June 9, which was a Monday, you had a conversation with Mr. Wilson about MTP.
What he told you was that he was furious at the comments of Condi Rice.
Yes sir, he was really mad.
As I recall he told me that he was angry at the way he'd been described and that people weren't taking him seriously. He was angry that he'd been described as some low level person.
Did he tell you he was considering going public.
Yes sir.
You know, as of June 9 that Mr Wilson is furious with Condi Rice's comments and has indicated he may go public.
And then you talk to Mr. Libby and you made no mention that you had talked to Wilson.
I think that's true.
You kept the comments that Wilson was furious and might go public to yourself.
Is it correct that on June 10 you placed a telephone call to Mr. Wilson concerning the background wrt the Niger trip. I know I did call him to continue to get information. Is it possible that first time you called him was on June 10 (as opposed to May 29).
That's not my recollection.
Wells says, if you say this then your entire timeline is incorrect.
Objection sustained.
10:33am ET
Update VII:
Well just showed Grossman a document.
Does that document refresh your memory that the first time you called Wilson about the background on June 10?
It refreshes my recollection that I may have called him a second time.
Wells was trying to get him to admit that he was wrong about the May 29 date.
Well's handwriting dates is on the screen. Writing the dates of Grossman's testimony.
Bit of a squabble. Grossman doesn't know what the hell document Wells is referring to.
First interview on October 17, 2003.
Fitz' guy says, "I'll stipulate that his interview was February 24, 2004."
That solved it.
Grand jury interview March 12, 2004.
Walton explaining how Fitz' guy's stipulation can be considered undisputed evidence.
Did you advise Secretary Powell that you had had a conversation with Mr. Libby.
Is it correct that your testimony concerning your recollection of your conversations has changed over time since your first FBI interview.
With respect I haven't had a chance to see that interview. I've seen it here for the first time.
You have no recollection that you may have testified differently.
No sir.
Wells is reviewing his testimony from yesterday.
Apparently Grossman originally said these were all telephone conversations.
Having not read this, I…
Do you deny that you told the FBI on October 17, 2003, that you had two or three telephone conversations with Mr. Libby during which you gave him information and that you did not make ANY reference to a face to face meeting with Mr. Libby.
If that's what the document says.
Do you recollect that in your first interview with the FBI that you told the FBI that with giving info to Mr. Libby that you gave him information during two or three telephone conversations.
No sir, I don't recall that.
I'm going to see if it refreshes his recollection.
Sidebar.
10:42 am ET
Update VIII:
If you had an opportunity to review that report, would that refresh your memory.
Wells pointing him to his GJ testimony.
To answer Pach's question: Wells is at the podium–has been throughout the questioning.
I don't know how to explain this, all I can tell you is that my recollection is that they were face to face questions.
Does it refresh your recollection that you told the FBI.
Do you deny that I made the statement to the FBI.
I believe I made the same statement.
Do you recollect telling the FBI in your February 2004 interview that the first time you told Mr. Libby that Plame worked at CIA was on a telephone conversation.
I believe that I told him as I have testified here.
Would it refresh your recollection if I pointed you to your FBI interview.
I recall that it was face to face.
Wells asks if he denies saying it was on the phone.
I don't recall that. I recall it as I recall it.
Wells now going to when Grossman first learned of Plame's CIA employment before the INR memo.
If I did so I would have been wrong.
Did you say you learned about her employment at the CIA before the INR memo.
You told the jury yesterday that you had discussed with Mr. Armitage the report.
Do you recall telling the FBI that you had no knowledge that you know whether the INR report was disseminated to Armitage.
You told the jury a few minutes ago that you recall having a conversation with Mr. Powell on June 11 or 12.
Do you recall that you stated that you did not discuss with Mr. Powell.
I do not deny I said it. But I don't recall that.
You told the FBI something different than what you told the jury yesterday.
In terms of verifying the accuracy of your conversations with Mr. Ford and Mr. Kansteiner. You did not talk to Mr. Ford or Kansteiner. And the reason you did not do that is you understood it would be improper to talk to a witness.
I think I didn't do it because I sure there would be these emails and it would all be right there.
Did you recognize that it would be improper to talk to a witness. You did not realize it was inappropriate. Did you realize it could be construed as "monkey business" or "cooking the books."
Did you tell me when I interviewed you last week that you recognize that if you met with Ford and Kansteiner that that might be construed as "cooking the book."
You asked me if I thought that was true if I thought that about Armitage.
I don't recall us talking to Kansteiner and Ford.
You said to me that some people could see that way. I think what you said was fishy or wrong, and I said you certainly could see it that way.
You agree that if you spoke to Mr. Armitage it might be fishy.
YOU construe it as that, I understand why you say so, yes sir.
Mr. Wells, I see why you would say that, and fair enough.
10:55am ET
Update VIX:
You had a meeting with Mr. Armitage, one on one.
He wanted you to know before the FBI interview that he had disclosed the fact that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA to Robert Novak.
My recollection is that the conversation started with his reporting on his conversation with the FBI.
He Mr. Armitage had told the FBI that he disclosed to Mr. Novak that Plame worked at CIA.
And you knew at that time that there was an ongoing criminal investigation.
Armitage discussed with you that he did not view Mrs. Wilson's employment as covert or classified.
Sidebar.
Grossman looking away.
In response to p lukasiak: Wells just asked Grossman about Armitage's statements about Plame's status. That's what this sidebar is about.Wells is trying to introduce the idea that she wasn't covert by having Grossman repeat Armitage's words.
11:11 am ET
Update X:
Sidebar over. 25 minutes! Fitz' side must have won bc Wells backed off the covert question.
Mr. Grossman. Is it correct that after you met with Mr. Armitage and he disclosed to you the fact that he had been the person to disclose info concerning Ms. Wilson to Mr. Novak that you then were interviewed by the FBI. And is it correct that after you were interviewed you went back and discussed with him the questions the FBI had asked you.
Told him I had conveyed to them the substance of what he had said about his FBI interview.
One of Libby's lawyers whispering to Wells just after he finishes.
We both went to the same UCSB. I can't recall whether he had any contact there or not. How would you characterize your relationship.
Professional and he became quite active in alumni association.
Were you asked to meet with defense attorneys. And did anyone with the prosecution go with you? Why did you do that?
I thought it was a fair thing to do. And I didn't want to meet with them the first time yesterday.
You said the issue of Joseph Wilson and the wife can you tell us why you tasked INR to come up with a report.
I was trying to answer Mr. Libby's question.
Nothing further.
Wells calls lawyers to the bench. I figure they're going to talk about breaks and schedule.
Walton asking questions.
Did State have ANYTHING to do with her trip.
No, as far as I know.
The responsible agency was the CIA.
As far as you know did the State Department have anything to do with this.
What material did you review?
I reviewed my GJ testimony.
Did you review FBI statements. I was shown it in small bits.
Grossman dismissed.
10 minute break.
Update XI:
Fitz's lawyer mispronounces Grenier's last name, then corrects himself.
I'm employed by Kroll Incorporated in consulting group.
We're a risk consulting group, we provide info to business to help them manage their security risks.
I started there July 2006.
I was employed at CIA prior to that–for 27 years.
Started on January 14, 1979.
2002-2004, where were you working:
Starting in 2002 Iraq Mission Manager.
A new position created by Tenet, I was asked to be point person on Iraq. I was asked to coordinate what CIA was doing.
Did this include attending Deputies Committee Meetings.
Don't want to go into a long discussion of policy making process. Deputies Committee primary part of policy-making. Key security agencies are included. I would typically go as the "plus one." Where were these Deputy Committee meetings held–in the Situation Room.
Do you know Scooter Libby?
Yes. The very first time I saw him was at a Deputies Committee meeting in July 2001. Started seeing him on regular basis in 2002.
Those meetings were held quite frequently. The number of meetings over a given week evolved, at least two or three times a week. He was in meetings on Iraq, those meetings were held 2-3 times a week.
Their relationship was that of business acquaintance.
When he came out to the CIA when he came out with VP for "briefings."
June 11 phone message that Scooter Libby called.
I wouldn't have recalled the message. But I recall I got a message at my office.
202 456-9000 was Libby's number.
The message is up, he identifies the writing of his secretary.
That was the first time this had ever happened that he got a call from Libby.
1:15 PM on 6/11.
He learned he got the message shortly thereafter.
I placed the call to Mr. Libby.
He told me that there was an individual by name of Wilson "was going around town speaking to the people in the press" and claiming that he had been sent by the CIA. What else did he tell you.
He also said that Wilson was "claiming" that Wilson had been told that the only reason they were dispatching him was bc of interest expressed by OVP.
Did he tell you what he wanted.
He wanted me to verify for him whether or not there was truth to that story.
And whether it was true that CIA had done so was because of interest expressed by VP.
How did Libby refer to individual. By name or title?
By name. Joe Wilson, as I recall.
Did he say what Wilson's basis of knowledge for claim that VP had sent him.
People in CIA had told him this.
What was Libby's tone of voice?
Even, serious, concerned about this.
He sounded a ltitle aggreived. A certain accusatory tone when he stated this.
11:57 am ET
Update XII:
Libby sounded like CIA was complaining.
Libby mentioned that Wilson telling this story to the press.
Libby wanted me to verify whether or not this story was true.
What did you know of the trip.
It was the first I had heard of it.
Libby didn't say, but it was clear he wanted answers right away.
This was the first time he called me, it was probable that I would see him in the next day or two. To me it was the way he reacted when he said Wilson was speaking to the press, it suggested that he needed the info sooner rather than later so he could get out in front of this story.
I attempted to call an info who I thought would have info.
This individual was working in Counter Proliferation Division.
Who was it?
Kevin (using just first name)
There was a unit devoted to Iraq WMD. Kevin was Deputy Chief of that unit.
What happened when you called Kevin.
I spoke to someone besides Kevin. Since I also knew the Chief of that unit, I may have asked to speak to him. I asked this individual to convey these questions to Kevin. I don't recall who I was speaking to, I don't think it was anyone I knew.
I got a response shortly thereafter.
I'm very wobbly on sequence in time.
It was probably within a couple of hours.
I don't recall who I spoke to when they called back. I didn't know that person either. The person was fully knowledgeable.
This person explained that in fact we, CIA, had sent Wilson to Niger to get info to determine whether or not Iraq attempted to purchase uranium.
Did they give any more info?
Explained in a fair amount of detail when he went where he went, those kind of details.
While in fact OVP had been very interested in this, interest had been expressed also by State and Defense.
I felt I had all the information and more to respond to the request by Mr. Libby.
The individual at CPD, did they also bring up Wilson's wife.
Mentioned to me that she was working within the unit at CPD that had sent Wilson.
That's why they knew about Wilson and why he was sent. [not sure on this phrasing, sorry Jeff]
Did the Ambassador's wife's name come up?
No, I'm certain that person did not tell.
Was that info that was new to you?
Yes.
I didn't speak to Libby right away, I may have attempted to call his office. I had a following meeting at 4:15 that afternoon. I didn't get through to him.
What type of meeting. One of our regular Iraq update meetings where we briefed DCI the latest from Iraq.
12:05 pm ET
Update XIII:
I was concerned about not getting back to Libby before my 4:15 meeting.
What happened at the meeting.
Someone came to the door and beckoned for me to come out. Had a note from Libby to call him right away.
I had never been pulled out of a meeting with DCI before.
I thought oh dear, I had wanted to initiate the contact. I wanted to appear forthcoming.
Two reasons to be concerned about getting back to him.
1) Senior Admin official, want to be as forthcoming as possible.
2) it appeared that Libby thought CIA may have behaved badly with Wilson trip.
Called him back.
Got him on the phone.
Told him that it was true, CIA had sent Wilson.
How much else I said I don't recall. I may have mentioned debrief was written up.
Second major point I made the people had verified that not only OVP, but also requests as well from State and Defense.
What was his response to hearing that State and Defense had also been interested.
Asked if CIA would be willing to release that publicly.
I believe I did mention only in passing about Wilson's wife. In fact Wilson's wife works there and that's where the idea came from.
When in the context of the conversation. Pretty certain that first thing was that yes, we had sent Wilson, sequence after that was very difficult.
Why did you feel that that was a piece of info that should be passed to Libby.
I wanted to be as forthcoming as I could be.
It was an explanation as to why we had done this in the first place.
How was it germane to the story that Wilson's wife got sent?
Not only was she working at CPD, she was working in the specific unit that had sent Wilson.
If there was a question ,why him? Was because his wife worked there.
12:11pm ET
UpdateXIV:
Libby's only response was asking whether CIA could reveal the interest of State and Defense publicly.
Told him I had to ask Director of Public Affairs. He was in the meeting I just left. I may have said I could get him right away. I led him to believe I could get access to Director of Public Affairs right away. Director of Public Affairs was Bill Harlow.
I believe I hung up-did not keep him on hold.
Whispered to Harlow I needed him to come out, asked whether we could reveal it publicly to the press, he thought yes we probably could release it publicly to the press. We can publicly work something out. Work out language that CIA would be able to use with the press.
When you told that to Libby what did you do next.
Libby said that someone who deals with press would deal with Harlow on that issue.
Did Libby talk about the name or identity of the press person. It was woman. The name was Cathie.
What happened next was I put Harlow on the phone. I thought that he would be speaking with Libby. As soon as he got on the phone, he was speaking with a female press officer. I don't recall how I inferred it, it may be that he called her by name. I was a little bit surprised.
Is it fair to say that all of these conversations, the note and phone calls with Mr. Libby all occurred on June 11.
A few days later did you see Libby at a meeting.I remember seeing him at a meeting, I believe it was a deputies meeting.
He thanked me for the information said it had been useful.
When were you first interviewed?
Fall 2003
When to grand jury?
January 2004
When you were first interviewed by FBI, were you asked if you had discussed Wilson's wife with Libby> I'm sure the topic came up.
My response was that I didn't clearly remember.
I believe, thinking back that I probably had said I relayed this information to Libby. But I couldn't say for certain.
In connection with your GJ testimony 2004, do you recall what you said what your memory was about saying about Wilson's wife.
I said I may have.
Some time after you testified in the GJ in January 2004. Did you continue to think about that question?
I was going over it in my mind. I was hoping that I hadn't mentioned anything to Mr. Libby, I really didn't remember anything new. But what I did remember was the way I felt immediately after.
I briefly felt guilty, that I had relayed too much information. I was going through a mental justification about why it was alright to have relayed this to Mr. Libby.
What part were you having concerns about. Having mentioned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, revealing the identity of an agency officer, although it was indirect.
I didn't know her name, so I didn't give her name, but by saying Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer. It wasn't absolutely necessary, that is information that we guard pretty closely, and if we don't have to say it, we don't.
You went through a mental justification. Senior Govt official, has every security clearance known to man. He may have met this person in the course of his business, this person may have briefed him.
Did you come to any conclusions. It wasn't as if one day I had a revelation. But as I thought about it over time, as I remembered specifically I developed a growing conviction that I had said it, I said to myself wake up and smell the coffee.
What did you do. Initially, nothing.
I was very interested in whether I had relayed that info or not–I didn't think it was significant in the investigation. As I understood it, it was about passing classified info the press. How people knew what they knew was a moot point.
At some point did your understanding change?
At a certain point, Spring 2005, I saw stories that what Libby knew and how he knew it was an open question. Accounts he may have learned about it from the press rather than the other way around.
When I saw that it seemed to me that my info was potentially relevant.
Got in touch with lawyers at CIA, relayed info to them. Asked whether we should call Special Counsel.
Were you subsequently re-interviewed and go back to GJ.
12:23pm ET
Update XV:
What were you going to reveal?
We weren't worried about revealing that Wilson went on the trip–he had outed himself.
We also released info on State and Defense's interest.
Break for lunch for one hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment