Libby Trial: Grand Jury Testimony Part Three

First, the usual preliminary side issues. Walton says he will admit the October 12, 2003 Washington Post article (this one) in its entirety, overruling the defense request to redact the 1×2x6-related material (see yesterday's posts for details). Also the defense is claiming that Russert shouldn't testify tomorrow unless they get further information about what "accommodations" Fitzgerald made to allow Russert testify. The government says the affidavits in question deal with the broader investigation, and are protected under grand jury secrecy rules. (For example, a prosecutor says, the legal effort to force Russert's testimony involved "another reporter related to another part of the investigation." … Anyone out there want to track down the details?)
It's 1:49pm ET.

Update 2:

The Russert affidavit imbroglio bubbles on… the defense solves the mystery in the paragraph above, explaining that the other reporter was Matt Cooper. Walton seems intent on ruling in favor of Fitzgerald, but Wells suggests that maybe once he begins cross-examination the judge may want to reconsider the issue. Walton says if Russert testifies inconsistently with what the affidavits say, there's an issue — absent that, he asks, what is the rule or case law under which the defense has a right to the documents? Libby's lawyer Ted Wells insists that he thinks the documents are relevant, but doesn't answer the question about the specific legal rationale. (Is this just filibustering?)
But wait — defense attorney Bill Jeffress says that Russert's attorney will be called as a witness! Does this change things? I don't know. Walton says, let's move on to testimony.
It's 2:07pm ET.

More on the Libby trial.