Here's what has happened since the last live-blogging thread. We left off at about noon with an accusation by Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells, that there was "bad blood" between Libby and NBC News, led by Tim Russert. When Russert denied this, Wells asked, "Weren't you elated when Libby was indicted?" Surprised, Russert said no.
Wells then attempted to play another video clip from Don Imus's cable TV show (the fourth one in less than an hour). At the site of the aging radio host in the cowboy hat, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald objected vigorously — rather than hearing from the witness, we were seeing a TV show host's characterization of something.
There was a pause to re-edit the tape, during which the jury was excused and the two sides argued about whether the tape should be allowed at all.
The tape was played — it was from Oct. 28, 2005 with Russert saying "it was like Xmas eve here last night" just before the announcement of any indictments. Fitzgerald stopped the tape and said, this is just media excitement over end of case. He described the frenzy of speculation surrounding conclusion of grand jury term, said press conference had not even been scheduled , rumors of 22 indictments, 3 indictments, no indictments, people were taking photos of him getting coffee and writing about his shoeshine (Jane whistled and tried to look innocent), Sadly, although they walk right up to the edge, no one used the word "Fitzmas."
Walton thinks this is wild speculation. The tape is played again.
Imus: We don't know anything, do we?
(Russert jokes, then says we expect major developments today — sources say prepare for surprises. We expect this will unfold in 2-4 hours, and we expect to hear from Mr. Fitzgerald in early afternoon.)
Fitz stopped the tape, and noted that the banner says Rove not indicted — if there was bad blood, wouldn't it say Libby indicted?
Now Walton says maybe it's not prejudicial if there's a predicate of rumors that Libby would be indicted. Fitz doesn't think predicate is sufficient, emphasizes that Russert anticipated "surprises." There was a break for lunch… and now we're back. Live-blogging resumes now.
Wells says his team has looked for evidence that a Libby indictment was widely expected — he cites the NY Times front page that morning, as well as many other media reports (including morning news shows, etc.).
Fitzgerald reminds the judge of the redaction of reporters from a WH gaggle, says the frenzy in Oct. 2005 was even greater, that the excitement of newspeople that a major story is coming is much different than joy against one person's indictment out of personal animosity. Fitz says, are we going to explain to the jury all the other rumors that were in the air? He thinks it's unfairly prejudicial.
Walton says if Russert felt Libby had used him in a lie, a jury might fairly think there was some personal bias (umm, but if he was lied about, then Russert is telling the truth, so isn't bias irrelevant?). He adds that he consulted with other judges at lunch, and they shared his opinion that the tape was acceptable to show, and then the jury can decide how appropriate the defense argument is.
W: On Oct. 27, the day before Mr. Libby indicted, the press was reporting that he would be indicted.
T: I don't recall.
W: Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. (shows Russert the defense-team research)
T: I don't recall this.
W: Do you recall appearing on the Imus show the morning of the 28th?
T: (meekly) No.
W: Recall whether NY Times reported that Libby would be indicted? (reads actual text from NYT lead paragraph)
Fitz objects: "If we're going to read it, let's read it accurately." Sidebar.
It's 1:46pm ET.
Wells then attempted to play another video clip from Don Imus's cable TV show (the fourth one in less than an hour). At the site of the aging radio host in the cowboy hat, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald objected vigorously — rather than hearing from the witness, we were seeing a TV show host's characterization of something.
There was a pause to re-edit the tape, during which the jury was excused and the two sides argued about whether the tape should be allowed at all.
The tape was played — it was from Oct. 28, 2005 with Russert saying "it was like Xmas eve here last night" just before the announcement of any indictments. Fitzgerald stopped the tape and said, this is just media excitement over end of case. He described the frenzy of speculation surrounding conclusion of grand jury term, said press conference had not even been scheduled , rumors of 22 indictments, 3 indictments, no indictments, people were taking photos of him getting coffee and writing about his shoeshine (Jane whistled and tried to look innocent), Sadly, although they walk right up to the edge, no one used the word "Fitzmas."
Walton thinks this is wild speculation. The tape is played again.
Imus: We don't know anything, do we?
(Russert jokes, then says we expect major developments today — sources say prepare for surprises. We expect this will unfold in 2-4 hours, and we expect to hear from Mr. Fitzgerald in early afternoon.)
Fitz stopped the tape, and noted that the banner says Rove not indicted — if there was bad blood, wouldn't it say Libby indicted?
Now Walton says maybe it's not prejudicial if there's a predicate of rumors that Libby would be indicted. Fitz doesn't think predicate is sufficient, emphasizes that Russert anticipated "surprises." There was a break for lunch… and now we're back. Live-blogging resumes now.
Wells says his team has looked for evidence that a Libby indictment was widely expected — he cites the NY Times front page that morning, as well as many other media reports (including morning news shows, etc.).
Fitzgerald reminds the judge of the redaction of reporters from a WH gaggle, says the frenzy in Oct. 2005 was even greater, that the excitement of newspeople that a major story is coming is much different than joy against one person's indictment out of personal animosity. Fitz says, are we going to explain to the jury all the other rumors that were in the air? He thinks it's unfairly prejudicial.
Walton says if Russert felt Libby had used him in a lie, a jury might fairly think there was some personal bias (umm, but if he was lied about, then Russert is telling the truth, so isn't bias irrelevant?). He adds that he consulted with other judges at lunch, and they shared his opinion that the tape was acceptable to show, and then the jury can decide how appropriate the defense argument is.
W: On Oct. 27, the day before Mr. Libby indicted, the press was reporting that he would be indicted.
T: I don't recall.
W: Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. (shows Russert the defense-team research)
T: I don't recall this.
W: Do you recall appearing on the Imus show the morning of the 28th?
T: (meekly) No.
W: Recall whether NY Times reported that Libby would be indicted? (reads actual text from NYT lead paragraph)
Fitz objects: "If we're going to read it, let's read it accurately." Sidebar.
It's 1:46pm ET.
More on Russert's testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment