It's Wells' turn to be in his grey suit today, not Fitz. Though Wells' grey suit doesn't look seersuckery at all, as Fitz' did.
Walton's in: before we get started, we have a problem with juror 15. Employer said that if there's no law on the books that requires them to pay for jury service, then they won't pay. If she has to stay beyond today, other than what we pay for jurors which is $35/day.
Sidebar.
9:30 am ET
Walton's in: before we get started, we have a problem with juror 15. Employer said that if there's no law on the books that requires them to pay for jury service, then they won't pay. If she has to stay beyond today, other than what we pay for jurors which is $35/day.
Sidebar.
9:30 am ET
Update 2:
Walton: excuses juror 15.
Wells, In the last paragraph of this morning' New York Times, there's a statement that Fitzgerald is investigating Ms. Miller, the government has contended that Islamic charities tipped. She is not the subject or target of an investigation. But what I would like to do is–I believe we're going to want some discovery on this issue, to the extent that she could have been viewed as a subject, if that was viewed as intentional in any way, that would be an area that we'll make inquiry of. I've just read it, and I'd like to put the court on notice, we are going to ask for some discovery on it.
[Wells, is this news to you? If so, you've been living under a rock, not doing your job for the last two years.]
Fitz: With all due respect, the only thing new is an inaccuracy, she's never been a target or subject. We did not subpoena any reporter at NYT. Open record, lots of press attention on it. There's nothing new here, other than the story characterized her as being under investigation.
Wells: As I said, I just talked to Fitz, he indicated to me that there were letters to the Times, neither Miss Miller nor the Times were subjects of the investigation. "A very reputable paper has stated that there was an investigation." [Note, Jeffress will get up and argue against its credibility.] That is certainly something we'd like to explore on cross-examination. I'm just putting the court on notice.
Fitz: so the record is clear, info on that investigation has been public for a long time, there's ample information in public record.
Walton: we left with whether question was appropriate. My conclusion, it seems to me that scope of evidence that's relevant is constrained by what the issues are, in particular as it relates to the witness. When any witness takes the stand, their general credibility comes into issue. If there is evidence that definitively goes to her general credibility, obviously even though that challenge may be beyond that issue, if she had provided a false statement under oath, it would be appropriate to query her in reference to that false info, if she lied under oath before, then jury might conclude she would lie under oath again. If, in fact, there were other people she had spoken to on this issue, if there were in fact sources she had talked regarding that issue, because conceivably, it could be argued that she confused who she got the information from. The op-ed says nothing about "his wife." It's all about this trip, about his conclusions about the reasons we went to war, I'd assume in context of that broad scope, in reference to 5th paragraph of affadavit, specifically says she had never written an article about Wilson or Plame, she contemplated writing an article about op-ed, that op-ed says nothing about Plame. To ask a question about her sources this far afield would require her to reveal her sources, I don't think it's in any way relevant to this litigation. We need to make a record, in the event there's a conviction, in the event of an appeal. I assume as an officer of the court that she has sources that would provide info that is relevant to the broad scope of the topic of Wilson's op-ed.
Jeffress: One part of what your honor said is inaccurate regarding to her testimony. Your honor said she didn't talk to anyone else about Libby. She did, she can't remember the name of any person.
Walton: If that's true, I'd permit her to be queried about that.
Jeffress: With respect I think the court is cutting it too thin.
Walton: if you want to ask questions about Joe Wilson, I'll let you. I mean, that even goes beyond. The real issue here is the wife.
Jeffress: [raises voice] The real question here is her credibility. She will says that she believes the first time she heard about Wilson's wife was from Libby. She knows she talked to lots of people starting on July 6. If she's talking to lots of people, the likelihood is that somebody mentioned the wife. She will say that she cannot remember a single person about who talked to her about the name. I ought to be able to ask her about Mr. Wilson and who she talks to.
Jeffress: Do I understand your ruling that if she remembers someone besides Libby that I'm not entitled to ask her about that person?
Walton: How would that challenge her credibility.
Jeffress: Who were they?
Walton: if it's true that she can't remember those people, if she talked to other people about Wilson, they may have said something about the wife.
Jeffress: I submit that in an ordinary trial, when the whole issue is whether Libby said to her or she said to him, counsel would be able to ask, who else did you talk to.
[Jeffress is pretending this is an IIPA case]
Walton: I don't know whether a question about the op-ed would shed light on this. I don't have a problem if you ask questions about Wilson. It's plausible that somebody may have said something about the wife. If those discussions only had to do with whether the info in the op-ed was accurate or not.
Jeffress; I'm going to bring out that she had conversations with senior govt officials and not so senior govt officials about Plame, Joe Wilson, and this issue. I want to make sure I can ask that?
Fitz asks for a clarification.
J: She said Ms Plame and Joe Wilson.
W: It depends on what the issue is. If it's about Ms Wilson being responsible for sending Wilson to Niger.
F: Can we have the cite so we know what we're talking about?
J: I'm going to ask her that question.
F: The question is timeframe. Things happening in October. It's only relevant with things that happened after the column is published.
W: If she did have subsequent conversations, one could still review where she got the info.
F: This is a case where both Miller and Libby said he told her about Plame. This notion that we're depriving the defense of arguing that she told him, isn't right.
W: I don't think I'd be inclined to cut off inquiry based on Novak article.
[Wells, is this news to you? If so, you've been living under a rock, not doing your job for the last two years.]
Fitz: With all due respect, the only thing new is an inaccuracy, she's never been a target or subject. We did not subpoena any reporter at NYT. Open record, lots of press attention on it. There's nothing new here, other than the story characterized her as being under investigation.
Wells: As I said, I just talked to Fitz, he indicated to me that there were letters to the Times, neither Miss Miller nor the Times were subjects of the investigation. "A very reputable paper has stated that there was an investigation." [Note, Jeffress will get up and argue against its credibility.] That is certainly something we'd like to explore on cross-examination. I'm just putting the court on notice.
Fitz: so the record is clear, info on that investigation has been public for a long time, there's ample information in public record.
Walton: we left with whether question was appropriate. My conclusion, it seems to me that scope of evidence that's relevant is constrained by what the issues are, in particular as it relates to the witness. When any witness takes the stand, their general credibility comes into issue. If there is evidence that definitively goes to her general credibility, obviously even though that challenge may be beyond that issue, if she had provided a false statement under oath, it would be appropriate to query her in reference to that false info, if she lied under oath before, then jury might conclude she would lie under oath again. If, in fact, there were other people she had spoken to on this issue, if there were in fact sources she had talked regarding that issue, because conceivably, it could be argued that she confused who she got the information from. The op-ed says nothing about "his wife." It's all about this trip, about his conclusions about the reasons we went to war, I'd assume in context of that broad scope, in reference to 5th paragraph of affadavit, specifically says she had never written an article about Wilson or Plame, she contemplated writing an article about op-ed, that op-ed says nothing about Plame. To ask a question about her sources this far afield would require her to reveal her sources, I don't think it's in any way relevant to this litigation. We need to make a record, in the event there's a conviction, in the event of an appeal. I assume as an officer of the court that she has sources that would provide info that is relevant to the broad scope of the topic of Wilson's op-ed.
Jeffress: One part of what your honor said is inaccurate regarding to her testimony. Your honor said she didn't talk to anyone else about Libby. She did, she can't remember the name of any person.
Walton: If that's true, I'd permit her to be queried about that.
Jeffress: With respect I think the court is cutting it too thin.
Walton: if you want to ask questions about Joe Wilson, I'll let you. I mean, that even goes beyond. The real issue here is the wife.
Jeffress: [raises voice] The real question here is her credibility. She will says that she believes the first time she heard about Wilson's wife was from Libby. She knows she talked to lots of people starting on July 6. If she's talking to lots of people, the likelihood is that somebody mentioned the wife. She will say that she cannot remember a single person about who talked to her about the name. I ought to be able to ask her about Mr. Wilson and who she talks to.
Jeffress: Do I understand your ruling that if she remembers someone besides Libby that I'm not entitled to ask her about that person?
Walton: How would that challenge her credibility.
Jeffress: Who were they?
Walton: if it's true that she can't remember those people, if she talked to other people about Wilson, they may have said something about the wife.
Jeffress: I submit that in an ordinary trial, when the whole issue is whether Libby said to her or she said to him, counsel would be able to ask, who else did you talk to.
[Jeffress is pretending this is an IIPA case]
Walton: I don't know whether a question about the op-ed would shed light on this. I don't have a problem if you ask questions about Wilson. It's plausible that somebody may have said something about the wife. If those discussions only had to do with whether the info in the op-ed was accurate or not.
Jeffress; I'm going to bring out that she had conversations with senior govt officials and not so senior govt officials about Plame, Joe Wilson, and this issue. I want to make sure I can ask that?
Fitz asks for a clarification.
J: She said Ms Plame and Joe Wilson.
W: It depends on what the issue is. If it's about Ms Wilson being responsible for sending Wilson to Niger.
F: Can we have the cite so we know what we're talking about?
J: I'm going to ask her that question.
F: The question is timeframe. Things happening in October. It's only relevant with things that happened after the column is published.
W: If she did have subsequent conversations, one could still review where she got the info.
F: This is a case where both Miller and Libby said he told her about Plame. This notion that we're depriving the defense of arguing that she told him, isn't right.
W: I don't think I'd be inclined to cut off inquiry based on Novak article.
More on the Judy's testimony
No comments:
Post a Comment