Summation of Libby Trial for February 12, 2007

Today's trial turns to defense witnesses. This was the journalist testimonies day.

Here are the highlights:

Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post had taken the stand. Pincus said that Libby did not leak Plame's identity -- but Ari Fleischer did.

But Fitzgerald cross-examines Pincus with this gotcha moment on Libby:

Fitzgerald: Goes to paragraphs starting "CIA's decision." Is it fair to say Libby was a source. I'll read you a line. "The CIA's decision was triggered by an aide."
Fitzgerald: Did Libby tell you it was the VP?
WP: He told me it was an aide.
F: That's clear in your mind
WP: Certainly did not.

Another lie by Libby..

Woodward whse source was Richard Armitage was told of Plame but not her CIA covert identity. This is a taped conversation between Armitage and Woodward :

A :Why doesn't it come out. Everyone knows.
BW: Why did they send him.
A: Because his Wife's an Analyst .
BW: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
A: No, she isn't the chief no.
BW: High enough she can say, oh hubby will go.
A: Not to my knowledge. His wife is a WMD analyst. How about that?

Next witness was columnist, Robert Novak. Novak said Armitage, was his primary source and Rove only a "confirming" source. On July 8, 2003, Armitage referred to Wilson's wife as "Valerie" and Novak then looked up his name in Who's Who to determine that her last name seemed to be Plame. He also goes on to say that he had no idea she was covert and called her an "operative" in his column probably because he was so used to using that term in relation to "political operatives." He talked to Libby around the same day and Libby did not mention Plame. Then, comes this interesting piece of information from Novak's testimony. Novak said he had quickly shared the column (pre-publication) with a lobbyist friend named Rick Hohlt. Novak thinks Hohlt told him later that he had mentioned to a White House contact at that time that a very interesting article would be appearing very soon. Here is his testimony to Wells and Fitzgerald:

Wells: Rick Hohlt. Who is Rick Hohlt.
RN: A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.
Wells: did you have conversations with him about it. Did you give him a draft of the article?
RN: Yes.
Wells: Mr. Holt had the article in his hand by 4:00 that day. And Holt is a lobbyist about town. Would you describe him as a gossip?
RN: He talks to a lot of people, even me, he's a good news source.


Fitz: Did he ever tell you he had shared it?
RN: Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out.
RN: In those conversations I had with him on Friday.
Fitz: Your belief is that he told the WH on Friday that an interesting piece coming out.?
RN: Yes

The next is Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post. His testimony is really interesting. He was asked about talking to Libby in July 2003. Kessler said he had taken the call from Libby while in the elephant house at the zoo, where he had taken his [Libby] children. Kessler said this helped make the chat memorable. Kessler goes on to say that Libby was able to focus on that call, but he did have to tell his 10- year-old son to watch the others and keep them from harm....Plame did not come up in that call, Kessler said. Interesting that Libby was focused on that call despite he had his 10 year old son at the zoo.

Another witness , Evan Thomas of Newsweek appeared on the stand very quickly. He stated that he too had talked to Libby in this time-frame and Libby had not leaked Plame's name.

Last witness was former head the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and who worked under Colin Powell, Carl Ford. Ford was on the stand for the June 10 or 11 2003 INR memo. A memo was drafted for former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa. The prosecution team, Peter Zeidenberg, crossexamines Ford concerning the INR memo to prove their case in the timeline:

Zeidenberg: Fair to say this report would have been delivered to Grossman, either on June 10 or July 11.
CF: It would have been hand-carried to his office. As soon as we could get it to him.

The Andrea Mitchell issue is still left unresolved. In the morning, Wells and Fitz debating on Libby's obstruction of justice charges. Smells like Wells is trying to get one of Libby's charges dropped or reduced. And the defense and prosecution are arguing over the defense's demand for more classified documents to for Libby's defense. As Ms. Bonamici from the prosecution team pointed out, the government was assuming that Libby was supposed to take the stand and that both sides came to a compromise of the claasified documents that Libby needed for his defense:

Bonamici: The truth is we did assume that Libby was going to testify, and we did so because Mr Cline asked us to assume that. Everything we did was based on the assumption and it would be fundamentally unfair to hold us to an agreement we made based on those assumptions.