Don't miss Emptywheel's LIVEBLOGGING OF THE LIBBY TRIAL at firedoglake!

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/good-morning-from-dc/

Good Morning From DC

By Christy Hardin Smith @ 5:15 am

Good morning from the Prettyman Courthouse. Today begins opening statements in the Libby trial. I'll be sitting in the courtroom throughout proceedings today, and the amazing Emptywheel will be liveblogging as the action goes ahead.

(snip)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/libby-liveblog-instructions/

Libby Liveblog: Instructions

By: emptywheel @ 8:56 am

Here we go folks! We'll spend the first part of the morning doing jury instructions. Things to look for? There has been an active debate since the day Libby was indicted about how to refer to Plame's status and the relationship of her status to this case. Libby has wanted any discussion of classified (much less covert) status to remain unmentioned, since he has received only a CIPA summary of her employment status and has been indicted for lying, not for leaking. Whereas Fitzgerald has argued that her status is an important background piece to the case. Look to see how Walton has decided to split that baby.

One other heated debate relates to the relationship between the obstruction charge and the false statements/perjury charges. Libby's team made a move to yoke them, presumably so that if Libby were found innocent of lying, then he would by necessity be found innocent of obstruction as well.

And finally, there's a question about the scope of the investigation. Libby's team has indicated it may dispute the government's version of the scope of the investigation, particularly as it relates to the Fall 2003 part of the investigation. I suspect they're trying to argue that, at that point, the investigation related solely to the leak to Novak, so any leaks to other journalists would be non-material. Most of Libby's teams argument about this will come later–but watch to see how Walton defines the investigation.

Two housekeeping notes. First, remember this is not an official transcript. Where I use quotation marks, it is my own transcription of a person's statement. Otherwise, it is a rough paraphrase. If you need to quote something officially, wait for the official transcript please!

(snip - here's where it gets going! Go and read it!)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/libby-liveblog-fitzgeralds-opening-statement/

Libby Liveblog: Fitzgerald’s Opening Statement

By emptywheel @ 7:34 am

(snip - an excerpt simply cannot do this justice)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/libby-liveblog-wells-opening-statement-part-one/

Libby Liveblog: Well’s Opening Statement, Part One

By: emptywheel

(snip - again, you must read this yourself)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/libby-liveblog-wells-opening-statement-part-two/
Libby Liveblog: Wells’ Opening Statement, Part Two
By emptywheel @ 10:46 am (Jan 23)

Picking up after lunch.

To remind you of housekeeping. This is not a transcript. It is as close as I can get.

And I'll timestamp my updates. I'll try to update every 15 minutes. So don't overtax the servers by trying to update every two minutes.

Before the jury comes in, Fitzgerald lodges two complaints:

(snip)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/22/libby-trial-meta-bloggers-meet-the-press/#more-6709

Libby Trial Meta: Bloggers Meet the Press

By: Pachacutec
Monday, January 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am

(snip...) I want to speak in the same spirit of basic human respect and dialogue that has informally developed as I have gotten to know at least a handful of the big reporters in the Libby media room. In good faith, let me address some of the standard defenses offered of the criticisms we in the blogosphere typically make of the establishment media. These are some of the establishment's standard criticisms of our criticisms, followed by my responses. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting anyone has made these arguments to me this week. I'm just reprising some old standards.

Here they are, in no particular order:



(snip - much, much more)

(snip - Emptywheel is summarizing)

A decision is made that George Tenet, he's going to make a statement that says, in effect, that the CIA screwed it up.

The drafting on that statement is very contentious. Mr. Tenet is none too crazy about saying that the CIA screwed it up.

Mr. Libby is asked by the VP to get in the middle of drafting the statement. {This is Emptywheels' emphasis. He comments: "This is going to be significant."}

{emphases and comments are emptywheel's}
(snip)
Says Cheney: I want you talk with certain reporters. Give them an exclusive. (Wells is trying to suggest ALL the NIE leaks came at the order of Dick, even though Libby has testified differently. Game ON!)

Mr. Libby on July 8 was basically put in the spot, this is still the meat grinder. He was being tasked to go meet with Judy Miller. He makes disclosures to Ms. Miller. What the NIE showed is that at least with respect to the Iraqis trying to buy uranium, it was done in October.

Mr. Libby has to stay silent! (Wells is trying to pre-empt the most damaging parts of the grand jury testimony!)
(snip)

(snip)

Break for the evening!

Walton making a comment about lawyers stating his personal opinion in opening statement, you have to disregard.

Christy should have a recap tonight, with some good legal perspective. Pach will do something later in the week to talk about his professional opinion.

And I'll be back here tomorrow morning. I'm sure Well's is preparing to insinuate the Grossman was lying for Armitage.

Recess! Yeah! Recess! Beer thirty.

(snip)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/23/libby-trial-openings-and-on-to-witnesses/#more-6769
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm EST

Libby Trial: Openings And On To Witnesses

By: Christy Hardin Smith

(snip)

The first opening statement was given today by the prosecution, with Patrick Fitzgerald leading off for the government. His opening was concise, very tightly constructed, and left no doubt that he was very clear about the reasons for which he sought an indictment for I. Lewis Libby from the federal grand jury for the five count indictment returned last October. Fitzgerald's style presents as someone who puts together the pieces of the puzzle until they fit together as a tight whole — and he certainly tried to do that with his opening this morning.

The stage was set from the start of the opening with regard to pushback against Amb. Joseph Wilson, whose op-ed in the New York Times (and his earlier unattributed quotes to other journalists) went to the heart of the credibility of the Bush Administration's foundation — or lack thereof — for starting the war in Iraq. Fitzgerald walked the jury back to the "sixteen words" in the President's State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 — and the fact that Amb. Joseph Wilson's allegations brought the possiblity that the President lied to the American public in that speech right into the living rooms of average Americans.

(snip)

Wells began with a fairly well used defense attorney strategy in cases where the primary evidence will be via witness testimony and not through a lot of physical evidence (for example, forensic evidence, contemporaneous documents, and things like that). The "he said, she said" argument gets to the question of who the jurors will find most credible — and can be very convincing in terms of argument when you have few witnesses, most of whom are far from credible.

(snip)

Personally, I found Fitzgerald's very straightforward and methodically organized style more appealing today. I felt that Wells went on too long, in a disjointed and freewheeling style, and that he was not only losing members of the public and the press, but that he started losing members of the jury with too much repetition and attempts to muddy the evidentiary waters with some confusion and counterspin.

(snip)