Interesting day of cross-examination of three witnesses by prosecution and defense. Here are some of highlights of the day:
First testimony: Marc Grossman the ex-Under the Secretary of State:
The defense certainly attack the government witness, Marc Grossman's, creditabilty and memory. Grossman told two different stories in two FBI interviews: face to face meeting with Libby in June 2003 and Wilson and not phone conversation like he had told the FBI. Defense tried to win brownie points by painting Grossman as a person with a faulty memory and inconsistencies in his testimony.
Second Testimony: Robert Granier- CIA offical that sent Wison to Niger. He was a bit guilty on the stand about revealing information that was usually closely held by the CIA. On many times in cross-examination, the defense were very aggressive with Granier in questioning. But, Granier kept his composure. But, some highlights in favor of prosecution:
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.
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.
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.
Interesting that Libby would interrupt Granier's important DCI meeting to discuss Wilson and Granier felt compelled to respond to Libby since Granier initiate a call to Libby. Amd I wonder what Libby's schedule was that day to squeeze in that time to call Granier.
Third Testimony: Craig Schmall, Libby morning intell briefer. Schmall was named in the indictment of Libby:
The indictment quoted Mr. Libby as criticizing the CIA for "selective leaking" of various "intelligence matters."
Now, his testimony was more interesting. Some interesting tidbits that I picked up:
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.
Interesting. Libby and Schmall can remember Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruise yet Libby was overwhelm with work. Again, Fitz is raising doubts in the jurors' mind that Libby has a faulty memory.
And this one between Fitz and Schmall:
F: What if they asked questions you felt comfortable answering on the spot.
S: 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: 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 (Table of Contents)
Again, Fitz showing Libby being too preoccupied revolving Wilson. Of course, it either Libby or Cheney that made that comment on that note.
Overall, from the day of cross-examination, the defense was playing the blame game who did or didn't drop the ball on information on intelligence matters the CIA, and the government witnesses as not credible and inconsistent. Yet, the prosecution still maintaining the focus of the timeline of this case and the holes in swiss cheese in Libby's defense of faulty memory from the witnesses. The defense in some of the cross-examiniation were losing focus on what the purpose of their client's original defense in this case: the overwhelming of Libby's work. What shoulda , coulda, and woulda in intelligence matters and blame game with the CIA witnesses is really immaterial. And the Wells' opening statement about how Libby was a sacrificial lamb in this case and how Karl Rove was being protected leaves me wonder to how his Libby's defense team, according to the earlier filings, went from a faulty memory, no intention to lie to grand jury and investigators, and overwhelmed with work defense to Libby was a sacrificial lamb to this case and let's play the blame game with the CIA, government witnesses, and reporters. It make you wonder if the Libby defense team has a faulty memory of their own on what their defense originally was before this trial. I look forward to more surprises in store for tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment