Just a reminder of some of the background here. When Fitz subpoenaed Judy and Cooper, he also subpoenaed their employers. Time eventually handed over Cooper's emails. But NYT said they had nothing. So whatever Abramson says today, she is going to say there was no documentation from this purported Judy Miller meeting. Who knows, though, whether we'll finally get a description of what status Judy was in July 2003, when she couldn't serve as a cut-out for Libby's leak of Plame's identity. Remember, they had a big knock down discussion to get to Judy's severance agreement, so Abramson may not be able to explain that in detail.
Here goes. I'm not entirely sure that Abramson is first (the NYT folks don't know either).
Walton sounds sick—a bad cold or flu or something.
Walton: Addresses issue of whether Fitz can introduce Plame's CPD status.
Fitz: Sorry for your apparent cold. I apologize for failing to bring this to your attention yesterday. First, your honor had ruled that way at the prior CIPA proceeding. Your honor had clearly indicated
Walton as it relates to this witness?
Fitz Yes. February 5 at page 21. The court said, if the govt is going into rebuttal. It's only fair for the govt to bring that out. Then your honor said is the govt prepared to stipulate that she was not in WINPAC to introduce this.
Walton How was the issue presented to me?
Fitz I said she understood the term bureau meant nonproliferation.
Walton Did she say that the word he used was bureau and she construed that?
Fitz The only discussion is in the record here. She understood this. I would point out additionally, we understood, throughout the case, that unless the Defense did something, we couldn't introduce her status. But if they did, we would have put up a witness to explain that she was CPD, both for Judy and for Fleischer. If it's off the table that we can talk about her status, I think it's perfectly appropriate to say she doesn't work at WINPAC but at CPD. The protection that we not discuss Plame's employment was a shield, and now it's being used as a sword.
Walton Maybe you're right in the broader context. If he did tell other people that she worked at CPD, Mr Libby did provide info on where she worked. From a broader perspective I might agree with you.
Here goes. I'm not entirely sure that Abramson is first (the NYT folks don't know either).
Walton sounds sick—a bad cold or flu or something.
Walton: Addresses issue of whether Fitz can introduce Plame's CPD status.
Fitz: Sorry for your apparent cold. I apologize for failing to bring this to your attention yesterday. First, your honor had ruled that way at the prior CIPA proceeding. Your honor had clearly indicated
Walton as it relates to this witness?
Fitz Yes. February 5 at page 21. The court said, if the govt is going into rebuttal. It's only fair for the govt to bring that out. Then your honor said is the govt prepared to stipulate that she was not in WINPAC to introduce this.
Walton How was the issue presented to me?
Fitz I said she understood the term bureau meant nonproliferation.
Walton Did she say that the word he used was bureau and she construed that?
Fitz The only discussion is in the record here. She understood this. I would point out additionally, we understood, throughout the case, that unless the Defense did something, we couldn't introduce her status. But if they did, we would have put up a witness to explain that she was CPD, both for Judy and for Fleischer. If it's off the table that we can talk about her status, I think it's perfectly appropriate to say she doesn't work at WINPAC but at CPD. The protection that we not discuss Plame's employment was a shield, and now it's being used as a sword.
Walton Maybe you're right in the broader context. If he did tell other people that she worked at CPD, Mr Libby did provide info on where she worked. From a broader perspective I might agree with you.
More on Abramson's testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment