Libby Trial: Cross -Examination of Robert Granier Part Deux

Here go, folks. Part two:

Libby's team has loaded up some super redacted memo to show on the screen.

Grenier, btw, is very dapper. Greying, nice suit, blue tie. His delivery was VERY credible (even if he didn't say anything about Plame for 2 years, the delivery of it was impressive). I think it was David Corn who said "you can tell he has done a lot of briefing." He's in the box, frowning a bit.

Jeffress is up with questions. He got Grenier's name right the first time.

J: You have never met with me or anyone. And that's because you declined to do that before this trial, is that correct?

G: I guess there was a request.

J: Do you know Valerie Wilson? Do you know Joe Wilson?

J: "The war in Iraq had been over … Saddam Hussein had fallen six weeks earlier." There was a problem arising with those who had relied on intelligence before the war. We had not found WMD, correct? The intelligence agencies had predicted that the WMD were there.

G: Referring to the NIE then yes.

J: There was some finger pointing going on.

G: At various points there was a lot of finger pointing.

J: The press was writing a lot about this in June and July.

G: This has been a point of controversy. Yes.

J: Do you remember Pincus' article in the WaPo?

G: I remember that article, yes.

Introducing article. Jeffress has a really accusatory, nasty tone.

J: Do you recognize this article?

G: I would have to read this.

J: Well, why don't you…

He's reading this.

G: Given the conversation the day before I understood where this was coming from.

J: Didn't you tell McLaughlin that this was an effort by the WH to put the blame on the CIA.

G: trying to recall…
[interrupts]

J: Can you answer my question?

Walton says he's trying to answer.

J repeats question in more detail.

G: I may very well have said that to the Deputy Director (McLauhglin)

G: My belief at the time was that the Admin was trying to suggest that "had they only known" that it was Wilson, they, the WH would have felt that was very compelling. The fact that this was not highlighted to them was a failing to the CIA. Which I thought was unfair, btw.

J: First time you were interviewed December 10, 2003.

G: I recall being interviewed, I couldnt' say it was the 10th.

J: does this document refresh your memory

G: It says January 5

J: Look at the bottom, where it says date of investigation.

G: This would indicate it happened on December 10 and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

J: Turn to page 2 of that interview. If you would read the next to last paragraph on that page to refresh your memory about Pincus.

He's reading.
1:41pm ET

Update 2:

G: I don't think anyone would have blamed OVP for sending Wilson.
G: I thought this was an effort to place blame that no one had warned them that there was compelling evidence against Niger.
G: I would not have considered the report compelling evidence.
J: You're talking about the report on Wilson's trip.
J: That's because in the report it said an Iraqi trade delegation went to Niger. [this misstates what the report says]
G: I don't recall that part of the report.
J: You did not regard it as conclusive for what reason.
G: I never read the report. Explains this report wasn't going to be compelling bc the Nigerians knew the Wilson report coming back.
G: Absent some indication there was some privileged relationship with these subjects, I would have found this report suspect.
J: You would not have figured this was the best way to collect the information.
G: When I first heard he went, it struck me as odd.
J: As this information came out was some of this information embarrassing to the CIA, about the tradecraft related to the report.
J admitting article into evidence. Walton giving warning that the article is hearsay. Jeffress is trying to argue that the CIA was embarrassed they had sent Joe. Note Grenier doesn't seem to be aware that Wilson DOES have a "privileged" relationship with the subjects, since he coaxed them to return to democracy.
J is summarizing the article, saying the CIA failed to share what it knew.
G: I'll let people read the paragraph for themselves.
J: The fabricated evidence refers to forged documents, the CIA had possession of those in 2002.
J: The CIA failed to discover that those were forged.
G: There are others who know a whole lot more about that situation.
J: You do know that the IAEA discovered they were forgeries in a matter of days.
J: That occurred some two months after the SOTU.
G: I'll take your word for it.
J: The CIA had failed.
G: In the case of this particular report, I've already explained that I didnt' think that was a fair criticism.
This is not working, IMO, because Grenier is not falling into Jeffress' traps.
J: Look at paragraph, CIA's decision to send an emissary.
1:51 pm ET

Update 3:

J: Was it this statement in the article that caused you to have an opinion that WH was pointing a finger at the CIA?
G: Perhaps.
G; Where it says the CIA did not share—that's the finger pointing part.
J: Do you recall believing that Novak article was finger pointing on the WH.
G: That signaled a shit in the PR strategy. Earlier suggestion that Wilson was reputable. At the time of the Novak column it seemed that there was a different tack, quite the opposite one, why should anyone believe Mr. Wilson.
J: Did you discuss the Novak article with Harlow
G: I don't recall if it was on the day it appeared, but I did discuss it with him.
J: Did you say it was trying to avoid responsibility for Wilson's trip.
G: They were trying to avoid responsibility for the truth about Iraq and Niger. Who was responsible for Wilson's trip wasn't really a question.
J: pushing on "avoiding taking blame for Wilson's trip" again–he's trying to put words in G's mouth.
G: I would like to state, I have the greatest respect for the FBI, but the FBI agent may not have gotten what I said exactly right. What is important is that my belief that the WH was throwing blame on the CIA–not for Wilson's trip–but for not having provided proper warning to the WH on this issue of Iraq's attempt to buy nukes.
J: You talked about the nepotism issue.
J: You interpreted that the source was in the WH.
G: I strongly suspected it was someone in the WH.
J: admits into evidence.
J: Wilson's article caused some consternation with the CIA.
J: Was it your belief that someone at the WH must have leaked this to Novak?
J: Conversation with Libby. Do you recall that about two weeks after the column. July 31, you were interviewed by IG at CIA.
G: I couldn't vouch for date.
J: Have you see this before.
G: is reading.
G: I don't believe I've seen this report before.
J: does that refresh your recollection.
G: dates are a problem. I vaguely recall talking to someone from IG. I was interviewed by them on a number of issues.
J: You discussed your conversation with Libby.
J: You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.
G: I don't see it reflected in here.
J: You can stop reading that now. [he's putting dates up on the board]
2:03pm ET

Update 4:

J: Was it this statement in the article that caused you to have an opinion that WH was pointing a finger at the CIA?
G: Perhaps.
G: Where it says the CIA did not share—that's the finger pointing part.
J: Do you recall believing that Novak article was finger pointing on the WH.
G: That signaled a shit in the PR strategy. Earlier suggestion that Wilson was reputable. At the time of the Novak column it seemed that there was a different tack, quite the opposite one, why should anyone believe Mr. Wilson.
J: Did you discuss the Novak article with Harlow
G: I don't recall if it was on the day it appeared, but I did discuss it with him.
J: Did you say it was trying to avoid responsibility for Wilson's trip.
G: They were trying to avoid responsibility for the truth about Iraq and Niger. Who was responsible for Wilson's trip wasn't really a question.
J: pushing on "avoiding taking blame for Wilson's trip" again–he's trying to put words in G's mouth.
G: I would like to state, I have the greatest respect for the FBI, but the FBI agent may not have gotten what I said exactly right. What is important is that my belief that the WH was throwing blame on the CIA–not for Wilson's trip–but for not having provided proper warning to the WH on this issue of Iraq's attempt to buy nukes.
J: You talked about the nepotism issue.
J: You interpreted that the source was in the WH.
G: I strongly suspected it was someone in the WH.
J: admits into evidence.
J: Wilson's article caused some consternation with the CIA.
J: Was it your belief that someone at the WH must have leaked this to Novak?
J: Conversation with Libby. Do you recall that about two weeks after the column. July 31, you were interviewed by IG at CIA.
G: I couldn't vouch for date.
J: Have you see this before.
G: is reading.
G: I don't believe I've seen this report before.
J: does that refresh your recollection.
G: dates are a problem. I vaguely recall talking to someone from IG. I was interviewed by them on a number of issues.
J: You discussed your conversation with Libby.
J: You didn't tell them anything about telling Libby about Plame.
G: I don't see it reflected in here.
J: You can stop reading that now. [he's putting dates up on the board]
2:03 pm ET

Update 5:

J You did not mention to the investigators about Mr. Wilson's wife.
G I couldn't have told you either way. The thrust of what they were after, I don't think that was a particularly relevant issue.
G I don't think there's any reason why I would have mentioned that.
J You don't remember either way.
G I have no reason to think I did.
J Does it strike you that your recollection of these meetings is a lot more vague than your conversation with Libby on June 11.
G My recollection of a lot of conversations from that time is vague. My recollection of my conversation with Libby has vagueness attached to it.
G What is true about this is that I've spent a lot of time thinking about that conversation.
J The first time you were interviewed in this case was in December 2003.
J Do you recall that you met with a CIA lawyer, named Nancy to prepare for that interview.
G It's quite likely I met with one of the lawyers before I met with the FBI.
J Before meeting with the FBI, did you meet with CIA counsel.
G I don't recall. I don't remember if they came to me first or if there was an appointment. It's hard for me to recall.
J But you remember your call on June 11 but you don't remember whether you talked to a lawyer.
G It wouldn't be significant to me, if I did.
J Did you review any documents you could find to prepare for that interview.
G No, the only thing I reviewed was that message.
J You told the FBI that you did not recall telling Libby that Wilson's wife was married to a CIA officer. You told the FBI that you didn't discuss Valerie Wilson.
G I told them I didn't mention the name. I told them I couldn't recall clearly whether I said that or not.
J Look at the 302 (FBI report)
J Did you tell the FBI that you did not discuss Valerie Wilson.
G I think that there's some confusion in this report from the FBI. It says did not discuss Valerie with Libby. I think it's referring to my not telling Libby her name. Tries to show that the report is confused.
J tells him to stop reading, he's not allowed to read it.
G I believe I reported that in my conversation with Libby I couldn't recall clearly whether I told him that Plame was working in unit that dispatched them, that I may have, but didn't have a clear recollection, but that I didn't tell him Valerie Wilson's name, because I didn't know that. I learned of it at a meeting (points out that the meeting is referenced in the report).
J Do you remember my question. If you let me ask the questions and then you can answer them. [boy Jeffress is a big dick!]
G Can I testify that part of what I read is incorrect.
Walton: Not if you're not asked that.
J Turn to page 2. Do you recall telling the FBI that you did not recall telling Libby that Wilson was married to a CIA employee.
J You didn't recall telling Libby or you didn't recall whether you had told Libby.
G Not sure of the distinction, but either would be correct.
2:17pm ET

Update 6:

J: Between FBI interview and GJ, you did not remember whether you told Libby.
G: Did you tell the GJ that you had no clear recollection whether you told Libby it is possible that you may have done so.
G: I was being conservative. I knew of one way that Libby may have learned of Plame.
J: So you had a "growing recollection."
G my growing conviction was based on how I felt afterwards.
J: none of this recollection happened between FBI and GJ testimony.
G: Meetings I had did not discuss my upcoming GJ appearance or what I might say.
J: you didn't recall hearing about Plame from CPD.
G: that's what is reported. I will tell you that right now. It's hard for me to account for that. You may recall that when I appeared before the GJ the second time. I was startled.
J: You testified that you hadn't heard of Plame
G: No, that's not what I said. I didn't have a clear memory of whether the person from CPD had told me that.
J: When you were read that testimony, that surprised you.
G: Absolutely.
G: I had a very clear memory of having been told that. What I couldn't remember was whether I conveyed that info to Mr. Libby. As I sat there, I remembered that and thought I had always remembered it. I was surprised. As is reflected in that transcript, I asked them to read it a second time.
J: Testimony is wrong?
2:25 pm ET

Update 7:

G: [missed his response–but basically says he knew he was right the second time]
J: When you went before the GJ a second time.
J: your testimony was I would definitely want to change that.
G: the part I would want to change is the part that's not up there. I wanted to change not having a clear recollection about CPD telling me of Plame. This part, no, I knew I had said that before.
J: Look at page 10 of transcript of January 29. I'm sorry I meant July.
Interruption! Grenier lost his glasses. Everyone is running around the courtroom looking for his glasses. Someone found them. Jeffress says "It's a trick, I do that to all the witnesses." Everyone is still milling around. Fitz and Wells checking in. Fitz says, "would everyone check their papers." Fitz on his knees looking. "What is that laying right on the desk?"
2:37 pm ET

Update 8:

It's unclear whether he has the glasses or not, though I think they're right there on the witness stand.
Here we go.
J: Directs him to his July GJ testimony. You asked Mr. Zeidenberg at the time to read back your testimony.
G: It's a different individual, but yes I asked him to read it back.
J: I'm sorry, it's a different prosecutor.
J: Your response was you would want to change that. You now had a clear recollection that the person in CPD told you about Plame. The second thing you would change was –were you asked the following question. You still have no recollection. No, I do have a recollection of having discussed that with Mr. Libby.
J: does your memory get better with time?
G: It depends.
J: did you find a note?
G: what improved was what I remember thinking and feeling afterwards. That only came to me afterwards. What triggered it and why, I don't know.
J: And when did you forget that feeling?
G: I didn't recall it.
J: What triggered that feeling?
G: I wish I could tell you.
J: You read newspapers that said that someone learned of reporters. Was that Karl Rove?
G: I'm not sure.
Jeffress introduces another article. Yup. Grenier has his glasses, now reading the article.
J: Is that an article you read just before you went back to the GJ.
G: What I read pertained to Mr. Libby.
J: look at the last paragraph as well.
J: Did you still have the opinion that someone in the WH was the source for Novak.
G: What's significant here is that there was some dispute about what Libby knew. Which indicated that my recollection might be significant in the context of the investigation.
J: This memory that you had. Where were you when that recollection came to you.
G: reviewing how he recalled, feeling guilty. Admits his recollection was weak.
J: were you sitting with someone McLaughlin or Harlow?
G: No, they wouldn't have helped me remember.
J: What prompted you to think about it?
G: I would have thought that relaying the information would have been a mistake. I think we're confusing the issue.
J: You would agree with me. You found no note. Still have no note. You didn't go talk to somebody who was participating in the conversation. You have no corroboration other than your memory.
G: That's right.

J: Do you recognize this document
G: I believe it was described by the Prosecutor and he may have seen me
J: Did you have an assistant
J: Was your title the ADDOPS
J: This email was sent by your executive assistant
G: I believe it was, there are no names.
J: It is agreed that this is your executive assistant
J: Do you recall asking your EA to gather information on the story that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa
2:56pm ET

Update 9:

G: There is reference in this to Joe Wilson. I KNOW I didn't ask her about that.
J: Did Deputy Director ask you questions regarding whether Iraq sought uranium?
G: I can say absolutely not
J: where would your EA get information that the DDCI had asked you about Joe Wilson
J: You have every confidence that you did not tell your EA that the DDCI had asked you about the Wilson trip
G: I have no such recollection
J: Do you have a recollection about SSCI asked you questions about the same issue
G: Let's be careful of the broader issue. There's this more narrow issue on Joe Wilson. Did someone on SSCI ask me about the Wilson trip, before June 11.
J: What had they asked you about?
G: I made appearances on a lot of occasions. I don't recall having appeared before them in the days before June 11.
J: Did you tell your EA that Congress is beginning to point fingers
G: No
J: Did you type your own emails?
G: not as much as I should have. I was well known for not keeping up with emails. Both EA and secretary had an instruction to review my emails and put the important ones in front of me.
J: did your EA work for anyone besides you.
G: Sure. Would take tasking from one of other principals' EAs. That used to happen frequently.
J: Would your EA carry out tasks on your behalf, and would your EA do that by email.
Defense Exhibit 72.
Sidebar.
3:02pm ET

Technical problem on the blogger. Now I am back up.. Here we go...

Update 9:

Bonamici and Cline up (B and C). W is Walton and F is Fitz.
Preparing for Schmall. Bonamici explaining that Libby's team wants to question Schmall about stuff relating to Libby's memory defense.
Cline. Schmall will talk about June 14. Wants to cross about briefing on that day. He doesn't recall any of the briefing on that day. He's still not going to recall them. Not putting documents into evidence. I want him to read the documents to the jury so they have context for the briefing.
B: We don't object to the Defense asking him if he recalls the content of the briefing documents.
Walton He remembers the Wilson related stuff. But he doesn't remember the briefing items.
B: Exactly, he just doesn't remember the particular items.
W: You're saying that Libby would not remember this alleged conversation? (To Cline)
C: It goes to both their memories. That there were 27 intelligence items.
W: I have no problem with you bringing up the number of items.
C: I'm not offering them for the truth, I'm offering them for the impact they would have.
W: I assume gov’t is not disagreeing that he was briefed on those items.
B: We're not disagreeing that.
W: if this is going to memory defense, the more appropriate time would be defense case.
C: We could call him back. This conversation happened during this briefing.
W: I think it's fair game if the suggestion is going to be made that he can't be believed that he told Libby about the items from the briefing. He can be asked whether he remembers having briefed Libby on these things. I don't know that you can introduce the substance of what he was briefed on.
C: We'll keep the substance for our case.
W: Govt have a problem with that?
B: No objection to that.
W: Second item?
C :We have substitutions for a number of things for June and July. This is the witness through whom they can come in.
[Hey this is a way for them to get it introduced without Libby–I wonder if they're getting cold feet on having Libby testify?!?!?!?]
Discussion about Tuoey rights–have to provide notice to agency, so the agency can assess whether there are any problems with the employee giving notice. I don't know if the Defense has complied with Tuoey rights.
W: Does the CIA know what he's going to be asked by the Defense.
C: They're briefings for which there are substitutions agreed upon.
Fitz: It may be during the period when he was the briefer.
W: He'd only be competent on those areas where he actually did the briefing.
5 minute break
3:31 pm ET

Update 10:

Cline and Fitz having a somewhat animated discussion.
Schmall looks kind of rat-like. He has a very small chin. Dark hair. A rust? color tie. Biggish ears. (What is it with these big-eared people).
Fitz is doing the questioning.
Schmall mger in Directorate of Intelligence.
F: What job you held in 2003?
S: Libby's morning intell briefer, later on became Cheney's morning intell briefer.
S: Mr Libby's MIB Summer 2002 until Fall 2003. Cheney until May 2004.
F: for the one year and change did their come a time when the practice you had included VP at same time.
S: Prior to that time, brief Libby in office, 5 days, at home on Saturday AM. Around winter, 2003 VP asked Libby to sit into VP meetings. Worked out schedule with VP briefer. Schmall on Monday Tuesday, Libby alone on Saturday.
F: When you briefed them together where was it?
S: usually at VP residence, occasionally at office. Begin at 7 AM, last about 40 minutes.
F: What would you bring?
S: 3 books or binders. (MIB for VP and Libby) plus my background book.
S: Briefing like this: analytic articles up front. Then a tab. Behind tab, stuff of specific interest for VP.
F: And you also had another tab for Libby,
S: In Mr Libby's book I would often have a third tab. I would get the books back the following day. The materials woul dgo into a burn bag. We'd destroy them properly. Table of Contents. VP Briefer developed a template for the briefing book. Breifing was mostly reading. Talking I'd do would be to tee up items. Here's why it's in the book. Once they started reading, we'd let them read. VP tended to do more of the talking–it was really his briefing session. VP did more of the talking. I'd make notes in the TOC. I'd note reaction to reading the items. I'd mark off if they'd read the item or if they skipped it, so I could provide feedback to HQ.
F: What if they asked questions you felt comfortable answering on the spot.
S: answer. If I didn't feel comfortable answering, I'd mark it down to take back to HQ. Things where they wanted a formal answer, I'd mark with T with a circle around it. Made it easier to find out which needed a tasking. I'd write it down right after the question was asked. I'd never offer my personal opinion, only if I was invited to.
F: We have a stipulation that June 14 was a Saturday. Have you looked at a redacted TOC for your briefing.
S: Would have involved Libby at his home.
Govt exhibit.
F: Have you looked at that document. Are there 3 questions or statements indicated on that document. Do you remember some of that independent of the document. Turn it over so it's not a distraction? Describe the two you remember.
S: The first one was a visit by Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruise.
S: Mr Libby told me about it–he was excited about it I was excited about it. Tom Cruise was there to talk to Libby about how Germany treats Scientologists.
3:51 pm ET

Update 11:

S: would have remembered the Tom Cruise conversation.
F: Second one
S: He was pretty annoyed about this. He told me that a reporter had talked to him and this reporter told him that a direct source had told him—the reporter—that analysts were feeling pressured and bullied at one of the recent briefings that Libby and Cheney had participated in. He was annoyed that someone was talking about this to a reporter.
F: Would that be proper—someone talking to a reporter about a briefing.
S: no
S: I talked to a manager who was present at the briefing. I asked her if she or her folks felt pressured. She said absolutely not. They were happy to talk directly to Libby and Cheney about their topics.
F: Do you refer the third part?
S: Not an independent memory.
F: has introduced this TOC, We've gone over the Tom Cruise and complaint about the briefing
Schmall reads from the TOC: "Why was the [ex. Schmall explains] Amb told this was VP office question? Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson."
S: Just Libby and myself were in the room that day.
S: No recollection of this conversation independently.
F: Stipulation July 14 2003 was a Monday.
F: Are you familiar with the Novak column from 7/14
F: Can you remember the conversation without your notes.
Fitz puts this into evidence. On screen. Shows notes.
"Did you read the Novak article. — Not your problem."
Has a circled T for Tasker for something underneath this.
F: hadn't read the column yet.
No
S: Had VP and Libby on TOC
F: Can't identify who asked the question.
No
F: can't say who said the words "Not your problem"
S: No.
S: Can't reconstruct the conversation.
Later read Novak article.
S: During a time when the issue of the leak was being talked about by the press and pundits. Took place at Naval observatory. Libby and VP wearing suits. What info does it give you about dates. Rules out August–Jackson Hole Wyoming.
F: What was said about Novak article.
S: Invited to offer opinion about leak
F: Did you know Plame
S: No
F: Have you ever met her?
S: No
F: Had no idea about damage caused by her being named.
S: Noted that the press and pundits talking about Valerie Wilson and her career, People were saying this was no big deal. I thought there was very grave danger to leaking name of CIA officer. Now that Valerie Wilson's name in press foreign intell in countries she worked have an opportunity to investigation all the people she worked with can be harrassed, lose their jobs, arrested, tortured, or killed.
F: did anyone say anything in response?
S: No
F: FBI interviews–had you interviewed any documents.
S :Poor state of memory. Hadn't reviewed the two documents.
Fitz is done.
4:02 pm ET

Update 12:

Walton new instruction, No evidence will be presented to you as to Valerie Wilson's status and whether or not disclosure posed a risk of damage to security. Her actual status, or damage, are totally irrelevant to your assessment of defendant's guilt or innocence. You may not speculate or guess about them. You may consider what Mr. Libby believed about her status.
Cline up for Schmall.
C: The goal of these MIBs to provide Libby and Cheney with the most significant intell available. Part of your job to select intell.
S: Yes, Some of it.
C: Some that would be routinely in there. And some they were interested.
C: You'd get to work at 2:30 AM, correct?
S: Yes.
S: Four hours to prepare books.
C: You're review latest intell and put together these briefing books.
S: Yes
C: Libby's book would have everything VP had, plus some
S: Yes.
C: Over time you developed a good undestanding of what issues he found important.
C: Terrorist threat information. Was there a name for that?
S :Yes.
C:Listing of terrorist threat best current intell on terrorist threat.
S: It listed every terrorist threat we were aware of.
C: Change and updated over time.
S: Yes.
C: Some on well-known terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda and some less well known.
S: Yes.
C: Reviewing the schedule for briefing. Familiar with the content on the other briefing books.
S: on days he did the briefing I'd come in at a normal hour, say 8
S: feedback session on what counterpart presented. Generally speaking, wouldn't attend all the feedback sessions.
C: Part of it to coordinate to not duplicate or follow up.
C: VP and Libby would read through materials. An interactive process. Sometimes you could answer on the spot, sometimes you would have to have an analyst ask about it.
S: Yes [to all questions]
S: we had a database where we'd list the materials, that database had space for taskers. The DI in general would be able to look at the Tasker that one or another shop needed to answer.
C: Those are the analysts, not the people in the field.
S: Briefings end at 7:40, I'd get back to HQ a little after 8.
C: Would you prepare briefing book.
S: Would prepare briefing report–it's the database.
C: Would you put important info there?
S: A lot of times it would end up on my TOC.
C: Any other place you'd record what happened in briefings?
S: Not formally or regularly. If it's something taht isn't really tasker, I might send an email or call them up.
4:12 pm ET

Update 13:

Talking about briefer’s meeting pooling what had happened during the morning meetings.
C: You'd take notes in the TOC. You'd use those notes to talk about this briefing at the DCI briefing.
C: You'd remind yourself to set taskings.
C: wrote notes you'd like to share with Libby or VP.
S: Things I could pass on, but didn't have an analytical report worth putting in the book. I'd pass on either first thing or maybe at the end. Just wanted to remind,something like a bombing in Indonesia about which we had no information.
C: Took your work seriously.
S: Yes sir.
C: Allowed them to address very serious issues. Terrorism, terroist threats, homeland security, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Middle East.
C: Going to the stuff that was blacked out.
C: Want to take you through those topics, to see if you can recall. Say yes or no.
C: Bomb defused in W residential compound
C: Police arresting someone in terrorism in country can't be identified
C: Nearly simultaneous explosions
C: East African terrorist group
C: Al Qaeda plot in US
C: Specific vulnerability
C: Middle East security plan
C: Country's security measures hampering AQ
C: A country's nuclear program
C: Iraq's porous borders present security threat
C:Violent demonstrations in Iran
C: A total of 27 items that day
[No to all these questions.]
C: review underedacted TOC
S: I didn't pay that much attention to specific items in briefing
C: This was very important stuff.
C: Challenge posed by Palestinian something
C: Libby asked some of them returned to him
S: That did happen
C: You don't recall any of them.
C: list of terrorist threats, but we can't name them. A concern over suicide operations in an international airport by AQ?
C: concern about terrorists providing support to AQ business gig
C: Suicide attacks in Iraq by terrorist group
C: About potential attacks against US embassy in Kenya
C: 11 pages of terrorist threats
S: It's not clear whether I gave that to him on that day–it wasn't listed on my TOC — there was a time we stopped putting it in the briefing book.
C: Unspecified group videotaping something at a university? [The Quakers!!]
No on all counts.
C: You don't recall anything that happened on June 14.
C: Those types of items kind of items briefed to Libby 6 days a week.
Shifting gears.
C: You knew Eric Edelman
C: He left to become Ambasador to Turkey
C: You would occasionally stop by and brief him too
S: Yes, when I was briefing Libby at EOB
C: May 2003. An article came out by Kristof.
S: Yes I recall.
C: You discussed it with Edelman.
S: I don't have an independent memory.
C: You faxed a series of items.
C: You addressed them asked them to be taken to Hannah and Libby.
C: Hannah took over after Edelman left.
S: Not sure, I don't know who took over for Edelman
C: You sent this to Edelman to be directed to Hannah and Libby.
4:25 pm ET

Update 14:

C: shows him the documents
S: The handwriting is not mine
C: you had someone fax these.
C: Put them to one side.
C: June 14 notes, July 14 not your problem, risks of exposing CIA employee
C: you became aware of investigation and asked to provide interview to FBI
C: First interview January 8 2004.
C: First time in trial
C: interview lasted about an hour
S: It's in the ballpark
C: Aware that Libby was one of the people they focused on
S: I don't know I was aware
C: Aware they asked questions about Libby, Edelman, and Cheney
C: during that interview, didn't say anything about that "not your problem" note
C: Or about Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson note
C: You had no memory of those notes or events
C: told FBI that the first you heard of Wilson's trip was around the time of Novak's article.
C: Told those FBI agents that you heard about the trip from a CIA employee, heard it from DDCI
C: you testified about this "dangers of exposing Wilson"
C: First time you discussed the Wilsons to Libby
C: Your best memory that the first time you discussed Valerie Wilson was after Novak.
C:Agents asked you to review any notes– Calendars and notes and official databases.
C: January 9 2004, send an email describing that interview
C: You said your memory was quite poor, which probably extended the session.
C: End of that email, after the interview, you remembered that Libby expressed irritation about conversation with reporter about Cheney's direct visits to the Agency.
C: Mr. Libby and VP would come out to CIA to be briefed. Sometimes involved Iraq and other topics. Would be an exchange of views.
C: Your understanding was that both sides viewed those sessions as valuable.
C: Libby's concern was that someone at CIA said Cheney was pressuring the analysts, Libby was upset because those weren't true.
S: Libby also upset because CIA talking to the press about conversations that shouldn't have been revealed.
C: Didn't say anything about Joe or Valerie Wilson.
C: Direct you to second page, review that see if you said anything on January 9 about the Wilsons.
C: There's no mention of the "not your problem" conversation
C: Another interview on April 22 2004, about 9 months after the events, at CIA HQ, two FBI agents
S: Don't know how many were there.
C: CIA lawyer there
C: Who else was there from the govt.?
C: Asks if one of the people at Fitz's table was there
S: maybe Debra (Bonamici)
C: You don't remember that Fitz and Zeidenberg were there?
S: No, I don't remember that
C: You're telling me Mr. Fitzgerald is forgettable.
S: I don't want to go that far.
Showing him the interview notes.
C: does that refresh your recollection of who was present
S: No, I don't have an independent memory, sir
C: Do you recall that Federal prosecutors were there
S: tell you the truth, no.
C: you're meeting for the second time, you knew it was important to get things right, you were determined to give your best memory.
C: You again didn't mention this June 14 Joe Wilson Valerie Wilson mention in TOC or comment on July 14, "not your problem"
4:39 pm ET

Update 15:

C: you were doing your best, but you didn't recall those two conversations
C: CIA lawyer asked you to follow up on some items
S: That's plausible
C: Review your files, see what triggered your memory about Libby's complaint about the Cheney pressure
C: mentioned that since the interview you had recalled the Libby complaint
C: You provided that info about Libby being irritated
C: CIA lawyer asks you to follow-up to see if you could figure out what triggered your recollection of that
C: You emailed back to that lawyer, still looking for notes.
S: Sounds plausible.
C: going over his email
C: take a look at the first sentence in your email, April 23 2004, you hadn't located those notes
C: You say in that same email you have found a note in July 14 that VP or Libby had asked if you read the article. This is the first time in the interviews that you made any mention of that TOC item. Mention it in your email only because you had just found that TOC.
Now reviewing how he keeps these TOCs
S: laughs
C: is there a story there?
S: No, I throw them in a binder
C: you'd shred the contents
S: except for the TOCs.
S: I'd put them in another binder
C: You still have it today
C: does it have the original notes that you took
C: You'd make it in pen
S: in whatever pen I had
C: Do those TOCs still exist
C: Has anyone ever asked you for those.
Sidebar.
4:46 pm ET

Update 16:

Walton recessing the jury. Ragging on one of the jurors for being late.
The sidebar seemed to be about the "original" of Schmall's notes from these days. I'm guessing Cline has an original that doesn't include it? Or that one of these didn't have the original?
Cline and Fitz talking.
Schmall, then Martin, we'll have a witness behind Ms. Martin. It seems like he's going in order of their chronology.