I'm using this leftover question mark from Fitzgerald's unused mystery witness because … well, we have no idea what Libby is going to throw at us this morning. I've heard verying reports as to the first witness, including Cheney, Novak, Woodward, Sanger, Mitchell, Even Thomas, or Pincus (so I spent about 2 hours loading slugs up to ancitipate any possible witness; if I had to guess, it'll be some of the journalists). My best guess? We're going to spend the morning arguing motions and I'll have plenty of notice as to who is up first.
Walton up (jury not here) to deal with motions. We're going to start with the motion to quash Andrea Mitchell's subpoena.
Walton up (jury not here) to deal with motions. We're going to start with the motion to quash Andrea Mitchell's subpoena.
Wells: We wish to call Ms. Mitchell, and elicit testimony at a minimum that would show how intensely she was working on the Wilson story. When this story started, Russert was on vacation. Gregory is on the record as knowing Plame's identity. We have the right to show how intensely NBC was covering this story from which one can infer that she learned Plame's identity. "We think this case presents a different factual model" than any of the cases the government has cited.
Walton: But you want this to go to the truth.
Wells: No, what I want, to the extent that I have a wish list, my extreme wish is that your honor would treat it as residual evidence. But I have also said that if it is not treated as substantive evidence, it still should come in as impeachment evidence with a limiting instruction.
Walton: Impeaching her on what?
Wells: Impeaching her on her testimony that she can rule out that Plame worked at the CIA.
Walton: Assuming you can ask that, then what are you planning on doing with that, just argue it for that purpose? You're not going to seek to do the other, which is to suggest that she would have had conversations with Russert about it?
Wells: I could not do that if your honor limits it. I've made it clear that I have a more extreme argument that you treat it as residual evidence.
Walton: You've said a lot more in Chambers.
[Pachacutec is here–says he's doing Eddie Haskell]
Wells: I have every right to use it for impeachment. I want to start at that beginning, which makes it very unique from Johnson.
Walton: I don't buy the argument that it can be used for substantive purposes. But I'd like to hear what govt says about impeachment.
Bonamici: The question to be asked is what purpose would be served by impeaching their witness? Defense intends to ask about an unrelated subject–what Libby said to Mitchell, we presume that Defense would want her to be credible. This is a ruse to present the non-admissible testimony. They've got no reason to impeach, they're setting up a straw man so they can impeach.
Walton: But you want this to go to the truth.
Wells: No, what I want, to the extent that I have a wish list, my extreme wish is that your honor would treat it as residual evidence. But I have also said that if it is not treated as substantive evidence, it still should come in as impeachment evidence with a limiting instruction.
Walton: Impeaching her on what?
Wells: Impeaching her on her testimony that she can rule out that Plame worked at the CIA.
Walton: Assuming you can ask that, then what are you planning on doing with that, just argue it for that purpose? You're not going to seek to do the other, which is to suggest that she would have had conversations with Russert about it?
Wells: I could not do that if your honor limits it. I've made it clear that I have a more extreme argument that you treat it as residual evidence.
Walton: You've said a lot more in Chambers.
[Pachacutec is here–says he's doing Eddie Haskell]
Wells: I have every right to use it for impeachment. I want to start at that beginning, which makes it very unique from Johnson.
Walton: I don't buy the argument that it can be used for substantive purposes. But I'd like to hear what govt says about impeachment.
Bonamici: The question to be asked is what purpose would be served by impeaching their witness? Defense intends to ask about an unrelated subject–what Libby said to Mitchell, we presume that Defense would want her to be credible. This is a ruse to present the non-admissible testimony. They've got no reason to impeach, they're setting up a straw man so they can impeach.
More on the Libby trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment