Professor Kim's News Notes

In a recent New York Times article, Gary Rosen hopes Americans will find a way to moderate the debate over "values issues" this campaign season.

On the hot-buttion issue of abortion, however, presidential politicking and new legal gambits by abortion foes may make conversations on this issue as contentious as ever. Here's the latest from BlogHers and points beyond.

First a couple more headlines. Speaking before a conference of conservative religious broadcasters, presumed candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) again called for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the first two trimesters. Stacy at Arizona Congress Watch notes that Mc Cain and fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl were among the signers of a letter by fellow presidential hopeful Sam Brownback (R-KS) urging Pres. Bush to write Congress a letter "reaffirming his pro-life position." The goal is to deter the 110th Congress from passing pro-choice initiatives. Crosswalk, a conservative Christian news service, notes
that Mc Cain's stance is a change of heart that some pro-lifers aren't sure they believe:

"'People certainly grow in office,' Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at Family Research Council, told Cybercast News Service. 'If that is him growing in office, he's growing in the right direction.'

"But McClusky conceded that McCain's change of position could be politically motivated.

"'I'm sure 2008 has effected his decision also, in realizing that the base of the Republican Party is pro-life and a number of them don't consider him pro-life,' he said.

"'People can say whatever they want to say, but I'd like to see more action,' McClusky added."

Republican presidential contender Rudolph Guiliani has said that while he personally supports legal access to abortion, he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges who would likely overturn Roe. Ann Althouse argues that Guiliani's position isn't really inconsistent -- it's a defense of federalism (pejoratively known as "states' rights:")

"The idea is that constraining the scope of federal constitutional rights leaves more room for legislatures to regulate in ways that suit the preferences of the people in the difference states, and this power to make different law in different places is an aspect of freedom. The people in South Carolina might like things one way and -- look at the other state he chose to name -- the people of California might like something else."

Indeed, there is a lot of action on abortion laws at the state level. The Feminist Law Professors points to the Guttmacher Institute's 2006 national survey of state-level actions on reproductive rights issues.

Among the findings: tougher parental notification laws in several states and one state that requires that pregnant women be offered ultrasound pictures of their fetuses during abortion counseling.

Meanwhile, a proposed Tennesee law that would require the filing of death certicates for aborted fetus has drawn sharp, but [predictably] opposing comments from two prominent bloggers on the BlogHer rolls. La Shawn Barber calls the proposal "a great idea".
Zuzu at Feministe calls the proposal an attack on women's right to medical privacy:

"Oh, let’s set aside all this nonsense about death certificates only being able to be issued if there was a living person in the first place! Let’s set aside this nonsense about statistics already being kept on abortions! Stacey Campfield wants detailed information about those sluts who are getting abortions and escaping the consequences of sex, and he wants it now!"

Both posts have vigorous comment threads that are worth a gander.

In New York, A Bird in a Bottle reports on a debate between a pro-choice activist and the head of a group called "Feminists for Life" in Columbia University's student newspaper. Bird has serious issues with the FFL argument:

"[N]ot only does FFL think that the government and private universities should provide more support for teenage and college-aged women who do become mothers (with which i can agree), they also think that, once this support is there, abortion should be illegal. And this is supposed to be better?"

Framing opposition to abortion as a feminist position may be novel, but there's no question that media positioning is a powerful element in the debate. Jennifer Pozner at WIMN's Voices has taken to the lecture circuit to combat "media misinformation" on abortion and other "reproductive justice" issues:

"Media coverage of reproductive justice issues informs what the public believes is true about family planning, sex education, low-income women’s access to health care, anti-abortion legislation, clinic violence and more. Yet all too often, our most influential media outlets play political football with these issues, reporting their impact on politicians’ position in opinion polls, rather than on the women and girls whose lives they most affect."

There's a good chance Amanda Marcotte would agree. She's the feminist blogger whose pointed, irreverent fisking of the Catholic church's position on contraception on her personal blog led to accusations that she was anti-Catholic and a high-profile firing from her position as a blogger for the John Edwards campaign. Another Edwards staff blogger Shakespeare's Sister's Melissa Mc Ewan, who wrote about the Catholic church's long-standing opposition to gay rights, also got the axe.

Marcotte maintains that she and Mc Ewan were victims of a right-wing smear campaign led, in this case, by the Catholic League and prominent conservative bloggers and media personalities. According to Marcotte:

"The posts that sent Donohue into a well-financed swoon were on topics such as the right to abortion, the right to contraception and gay rights. Catholic League president [William] Donohue and the long list of culture warriors on the league's board of advisors are dedicated to stomping out those very rights McEwan and I were defending. It's unlikely they took issue with just the coarse, comedic vernacular that we used to defend those rights...."

The attacks on Marcotte and Mc Ewan won't go unanswered, promises Liza Sabater, publisher of Culture Kitchen. "We are working now harder than ever to create a Feminist Bloggers' PAC," Sabater told readers earlier this month.

Whatever your opinions on these issues, one thing is clear: Gary Rosen's wish for a kinder, gentler debate doesn't seem likely any time soon.

cross-posted at BlogHer

|

Feeling this one tonight...
|

|

February 13, 2007, 4:00 SLT (Pacific Time)
[Note: Second Life is a 3-D web-based platform used for a variety of educational, commercial and entertainment purposes. The New Media Consortium allowed me to hold a chat at their facility there Tuesday night to share my experiences at the Scooter Libby trial with students and others. NMC is an organization of universities, businesses and non-profit organizations dedicated to the exploration of education uses of new media. "You" refers to me. The other names refer to the avatars of various audience members. This transcript is generated by Second Life.]

[15:58] You: We're meeting here to talk about the Scooter Libby trial
[15:59] You: I'm one of the reporters who is covering the trial
[15:59] dga Kyomoon: what Media are you with
[15:59] You: I'm with the Media Bloggers Association. I also write for the Online Journalism Review
[16:00] dga Kyomoon: Are you doing to be talking about the implications of all these journalists spilling the beans?
[16:00] You: We can talk about that
[16:00] You: I wanted to let people know what it's like to be in the trial
[16:02] dga Kyomoon: Well maybe I'll take a seat. Do you mind if I sit next to you Scarlett?
[16:02] You: Thanks
[16:02] Scarlett Qi: Surely
[16:02] You: Hi Grendel
[16:02] dga Kyomoon: We're in a row here
[16:03] Grendel Malaprop: hi folks
[16:03] You: Would you mind if I record our conversation?
[16:03] Scarlett Qi: No that's fine
[16:03] You: Thanks
[16:03] dga Kyomoon: Is it off the record?
[16:04] You: No, actually, I am hoping that you will allow it to be published on the NMC site, as well as my blog.
[16:04] dga Kyomoon: \Only kidding. Go ahead.
[16:04] You: Thanks.
[16:05] You: I just got an IM from someone who asked who Scooter Libby is
[16:05] You: Should I start by explaining who he is and why he is on trial?
[16:05] Scarlett Qi: Sure... that would be a good warmup.
[16:06] You: Okay,
[16:06] You: Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
[16:07] You: He is on trial on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice
[16:07] You: He was accused of lying to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with journalists in 2003.
[16:08] You: The conversations concerned the identity of a CIA operative named Valerie Plame Wilson.
[16:09] You: Libby is accused of revealing this covert operative's identity to reporters to discredit an article written by her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson
[16:10] You: Wilson wrote an article published in July 2003 discrediting a claim by the Bush administration about charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger.
[16:11] You: You might remember that this charge was an important part of the rationale for the Iraq War.
[16:11] You: Libby is charged with revealing Plame's identity to several reporters, then lying about it.
[16:12] You: He says that he didn't lie, and if he did say something that wasn't true, it was because he was overwhelmed with work at the time.
[16:12] Scarlett Qi: Hmmm
[16:12] You: I've been in the courthouse this week as the defense put its case on.
[16:13] You: By the way, feel free to ask questions
[16:13] You: But let me start with a headline or two
[16:13] You: First
[16:13] You: It was announced today that Libby will not testify
[16:14] You: VP Cheney also will not testify
[16:15] You: I did watch testimony from Bob Woodward, columnist Robert Novak and several other prominent journalists and officials
[16:15] You: and I would be happy to talk about that
[16:15] You: But let me find out what interests you?
[16:16] You: I can also tell you about what it's like to cover the trial
[16:16] Alexender Poitier: I was wondering... How was it in the media room? Was it quiet and tense or was it looser and more relaxed than you anticipated?
[16:16] Scarlett Qi: I would love to hear what the journalists said that you observed, and also what it feels like to cover the trial.
[16:16] You: Both at times
[16:17] You: Let me describe the setup
[16:17] You: As you can imagine, the courtroom itself doesn't hold many people
[16:17] You: Most of us don't have credentials for the courtroom anyway
[16:17] You: and you can't use a laptop there
[16:18] You: The media room holds about 40 people
[16:18] You: There are 4 rows of tables
[16:18] You: and two screens in front
[16:19] You: and a wireless internet connection that can get dicey when everyone is filing at one time
[16:19] You: On one screen you can see the courtroom
[16:19] You: that is split into 4 quadrants
[16:20] You: one camera is on the judge's chair
[16:20] You: one is one the witness stand
[16:20] You: the others show the prosecutor and defense tables
[16:20] You: The other screen is where they display exhibits
[16:21] You: The reporters in the room are a mixture of journalists and bloggers
[16:21] You: During the trial, things are fairly focused
[16:21] You: But there are times when something happens and we start laughing
[16:22] Scarlett Qi smiles
[16:22] You: Today that happened when Jill Abramson from the New York Times was asked whether
[16:23] You: Judith Miller had ever proposed a story on Joseph Wilson
[16:23] You: She said she didn't remember Miller pitching such a story
[16:23] You: Then the prosecutor asked whether she sometimes spaced out when Miller talked
[16:24] Scarlett Qi: Sheesh!
[16:24] You: And Abramson said maybe
[16:24] You: That made us laugh
[16:24] You: Did you hear about Woodward's testimony yesterday?
[16:25] Scarlett Qi: No
[16:25] You: The profanity-laden audio they played in court?
[16:26] You: It turns out that Bob Woodward said he learned about Valerie Plame from Richard Armitage
[16:26] You: He was deputy secretary of state at the time
[16:26] You: they play an excerpt of the audio from his interview with Armitage
[16:27] You: Armitage is saying things like "Wilson's wife is a ("expletive deleted") WMD analyst!
[16:27] You: How do you like that (expletive deleted!)
[16:27] Scarlett Qi: wooo
[16:28] You: It went on for about a minute with them cursing back and forth
[16:28] You: I have a link to the audio on my blog
[16:28] You: http://professorkim.blogspot.com
[16:29] You: Today there was a lot of arguing about what evidence the defense will be allowed to submit
[16:30] You: They want to introduce lots of detailed information about all of the work on Libby's plate to prove that he was too busy to worry about Valerie Plame
[16:30] You: or that he might have forgotten what he told journalists
[16:30] You: But since Libby won't testify
[16:30] You: the prosecutors say it's not fair because they can't cross-examine him to find out his state of mind
[16:31] You: Is this the kind of thing you wanted to know?
[16:31] Scarlett Qi: Yes it's very interesting.
[16:31] Scarlett Qi: I can't believe Libby won't testify.
[16:31] You: Thanks
[16:31] Alexender Poitier: I think it's very interesting too, yes.
[16:32] Scarlett Qi: How they even do a trial without him?
[16:32] You: That was surprising to a lot of people
[16:32] You: He has a right to waive his right to testify
[16:33] You: It's been interesting to watch the defense lawyers' strategy
[16:33] You: The chief defense lawyer, Ted Wells
[16:34] You: has won acquittals for a lot of high-profile defendants
[16:34] You: Including several former government officials accused of felonies
[16:34] You: He's very dramatic in his presentation
[16:35] You: whereas the prosecutor, Fitzgerald is very dogged and earnest
[16:35] You: Wells has also tried to get witnesses in to testify to things that are arguably pretty speculative
[16:36] You: He wanted to get NBC’'s Andrea Mitchell to testify, but the judge ultimately wouldn't allow it
[16:37] You: Have you been following the trial at all?
[16:38] You: Oh -- I should mention something about the relationship between reporters and sources
[16:38] You: But please, Alexander, did you want to say something?
[16:39] Alexender Poitier: Oh, I was just going to say that I haven't seen as much coverage on a lot of the mainstream media news sites as I expected.
[16:39] Alexender Poitier: I thought for sure it'd be the top story, but it was overshadowed by other goings-on whenever I checked.
[16:40] You: It has been overshadowed, but between Iraq and a new presidential candidate being announced every other day, it's understandable
[16:40] You: The Washington Post coverage has been pretty strong, I think.
[16:40] Alexender Poitier: Yes, I did see quite a few articles from them around.
[16:41] You: Bloggers have really done yeoman work on this
[16:41] You: This is the first federal trial where bloggers have been allowed in
[16:42] You: We have a pooled feed through the Media Bloggers association
[16:42] You: http://scooterlibbytrial.com
[16:42] You: Our coverage is also picked up by the AP
[16:42] You: But there were a lot of major media outlets in the room with me
[16:43] You: Bloomberg, NPR, Newsweek
[16:43] You: ABC News
[16:43] You: just to name a few
[16:43] You: Fox News had a truck parked outside
[16:44] You: By the way, I should tell you about the security at the trial
[16:44] Alexender Poitier: Oh, how was that? It must have been insanely tight.
[16:44] You: According to the judge's order, you can't have any kind of recording device or camera
[16:44] You: Yes
[16:45] You: If you bring in a cameraphone, you can be found in contempt
[16:45] Scarlett Qi: wow
[16:45] You: But the marshals will hold things like that for you and lock them up
[16:45] You: I learned how dependent I have become on my cell phone
[16:46] You: I felt bereft (smile)
[16:46] Scarlett Qi smiles
[16:46] You: You also go through a full body scanner
[16:46] You: It's not that bad, actually
[16:46] You: and the marshals are very polite
[16:47] You: They also check your credentials before you come into the media room
[16:47] You: But it gets pretty relaxed after that
[16:47] You: Today the courts closed early because of the weather
[16:48] You: Our judge sent the jury home, but the lawyers stayed behind to argue their motions
[16:49] You: so we stayed behind about 90 minutes after the courts closed
[16:49] You: Now about reporters and sources
[16:49] You: A lot of the journalists who testified are veteran national security reporters
[16:50] You: I mean 35-50 year veterans
[16:51] You: confidential sources are their stock in trade
[16:51] You: They were very wary about only testifying about things that their sources had given them waivers for.
[16:51] You: Many of the journalists were given accommodations by the prosecutor.
[16:52] You: They got to testify in their lawyers' offices, instead of the grand jury
[16:52] You: They could have a lawyer with them while they testified
[16:53] You: That is something that you don't get when you testify before a grand jury
[16:53] You: These concessions were negotiated between the journalists' lawyers and the prosecutors
[16:54] You: When I say the journalists' lawyers, I mean the lawyers for the companies that the journalists work for.
[16:55] You: So it underscores the fact that small publishers really need a way to have legal protection.
[16:55] You: Because you need to be able to offer your sources confidentiality, and without a strong attorney, you might not be able to protect that promise.
[16:56] You: Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail over that issue.
[16:56] You: And there is a young videojournalist named Josh Wolf who has been in prison since September over this issue.
[16:57] You: He will probably be in jail until next July
[16:57] Scarlett Qi: Wow
[16:57] You: Yes, are you familiar with Josh Wolf' case?
[16:58] You: He has a website: http://www.joshwolf.net
[16:58] Scarlett Qi: Thank you
[16:58] You: You are welcome
[16:58] Alexender Poitier: Yes, it's rather frightening to think about. It makes one a bit more scared to be a blogger, journalist or just about anyone else disseminating news.
[16:58] You: One has to be very careful
[16:59] You: It's part of the reason that it is important to be well-informed about law and ethics
[16:59] You: Well I thank you for coming
[16:59] You: It's been about an hour, so I think we should wrap up now.
[16:59] Alexender Poitier: Thank you for giving us a glimpse into the trial!

Cross-posted to BlogHer

|

This is what happens when one is blogging in haste. I normally hold my posts so that I can recheck them for accuracy, but failed to do so this time.I made two important errors in my last post, for which I apologize.

First, I attributed comments about Tim Russert's credibility to Clarice Feldman, when they were in fact written by Tom Maguire.

Second, I incorrectly stated that Russert said he learned about Plame from Libby, a statement which should have been reversed.

Let me clear about this. I have no way of knowing whether Russert told the truth. What I am saying is that I think it is a leap of logic to say that because Russert said he would go to jail to protect a source, it does not follow that he would lie. One needs stronger justification to come to that conclusion.

Again, I apologize for my misstatements of fact.

|

Clarice Feldman is an attorney who has been deeply immersed in the Libby case for a while, and she has definite opinions. One of them is that she believes it's very plausible that Tim Russert lied about learning Valerie Plame Wison's identity from Scooter Libby. That's her considered opinion, and that's fine. But one piece of evidence she cites in support of her beliefs suggests to me that perhaps she doesn't understand the professional values by which journalists live.

Start with her explanation for how she thinks Russert ended up lying:
"

"Russert started with a little white lie to the FBI in November 2003, with the objective of concealing the fact that he (or Andrea Mitchell) had a source for the "Plame leak. Russert did not "lie" to the investigators; he misled them with carefully phrased testimony so as to avoid subpoenas, jail time, and the disclosure of NBC News sources.

"And it seemed like a little white lie at the time - Russert knew that Libby had not leaked to him, so he reasoned that his chat with Libby was not the sort of primary leak (government official *to* reporter) that investigators were seeking.

Russert maintained this charade with his deposition to the grand jury in June 2004, then blanched when he finally saw the indictment in October 2005 - the investigation had morphed from a search for leakers into a search for perjury and Russert had become a star witness..."

But in recent post on Russert's credibility, Feldman quotes Russert saying he'd be willing to go to jail to protect a source, then asks:

Well - if you would go to prison to protect a source, would you mislead investigators a bit to make sure they don't get the idea that you have a source? That has to beat sitting in jail."

I am not going to try to defend or explain a lot of what Russert has done in this trial, but I will say this -- as journalists, we're taught that we are not to be an arm of law enforcement. Protecting sources is an important value -- and yes,that means being willing to go to jail rather than reveal a source. But there is nothing in the journalistic creed that condones perjury. Quite the opposite.

|

Marcy Wheeler continues her invaluable live-blogging of the continuing argument over whether the defense can introduce evidence to the jury contradicting NBC News correspondent Tim Russert's testimony that he did not know that he and other journalists had been given special consideration when they were allowed to make sworn statements to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak case in their lawyers office, instead of in the grand jury room. Yesterday Libby defense attorney Ted Wells showed three video clips from Russert's 1998 television appearances in which Russert says that citizens are not allowed to have attorneys present when testifying before grand juries.

The prosecution objected to the introduction of this evidence, arguing, first. that it has nothing to do with the substance of Russert's testimony that he learned about Valerie Plame from Libby, and second, that it is unfair and improper to introduce this material without giving Russert a chance to respond. There was some discussion about actually recalling Russert. Russert's attorney is in the courtroom today at the behest of Judge Walton.

Walton also continued to say that his understanding was that any evidence that the defense wanted to introduce about the state of Libby's mind and memory was predicated on the assumption that Libby was going to testify -- an option that the defense took off the table yesterday. Because of that, he said he was still disinclined to allow the defense to present detailed information on the briefings Libby received from the CIA in mid-July 2003. Fitzgerald has argued that information about Libby's workload can't be used as evidence of Libby's mental state unless Libby himself explains what his mental state was.

The judge's ruling in these matters is expected at any moment.


|

Much of the DC area is shut down and more than 120,000 people are without electricity because of a frigid wintry mix of ice and sleet. Federal offices are opening two hours late, and that means the courthouse where the Libby trial is taking place will open at 10:00 am. Yesterday, Judge Walton said proceedings would resume at 11:30, but since delayed opening most likely affected other cases on the Judge's schedule this morning, what's actually going to happen is still not quite clear.

|

Last night, PBS' Frontline aired the first episode of "News Wars" a four-hour investigation into the state of journalism. The legacy of the Valerie Plame story and the impact of Patrick Fitzgerald's strategies for compelling journalists' disclosure of confidential sources are significant areas of focus. You can read the text of the interviews and watch the documentary online.

|

Ted Wells just announced that he and William Jeffers will not call the Vice President to testify. Libby also will not testify. The defense is prepared to rest tomorrow after entering evidence that includes evidence that the defense says will impeach Tim Russert's testimony. The judge expects that closing arguments will begin Tuesday.

Marcy at Firedoglake has extensive live-blog notes.

|

The trial is still in recess, and we are waiting to finding out whether we'll resume today, or whether the trial will be called on account of weather.

|

John Hannah inherited Scooter Libby's responsibilities as chief adviser to the Vice President on national security matters. The defense has called him to testify about the crushing nature of Libby's workload between 2004 and 2004, as part of their contention that any untruths that Libby might have told the FBI or the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak resulted from stress, not intentional deception.

Hannah said Libby had an "awful memory." He said that there were times when he presented his analysis of issue to him in the morning, only to have Libby repeat the same analysis to him "six or seven hours later" with no memory that the information had first come from Hannah. The attorney led Hannah through a long and tedious list of responsibilities Libby had, safes of classified documents for which he was responsible, meetings he regularly attended, weighty concerns before him, long hours they routinely put in. Libby often started work at 6:30 or 7:00 AM, and didn't leave before 8:00 PM.

The questioning turns to Libby's particular responsibilities in anti-terrorism issues, including monitoring dissent, monitoring Iran's ambitions, and supporting the administration's Middle East peace plan among other responsibilities.

Under questioning, Hannah confirmed that in early July, 2003, Libby and Vice President Cheney were involved in efforts to smooth relations with the Turkish government after 11 Turkish soldiers were detained by US forces on July 4. Hannah describes the situation as a "crisis" of "very high importance to the US government." Hannah estimated that it took a week to resolve the problem. According to CNN story, the Turkish troops were released on July 6.

Hannah said Libby was also involved in the Vice President's efforts with regard to the civil war in Liberia during that week.

Fitzgerald cross: (unless there are quotation marks, these are paraphrases): As Chief of Staff for the Vice President, would it be important to respond to criticism of the vice president?

Hannah: Not the language he would use, but it was important to "push back on those issues."

Fitzgerald: Cites a series of defense exhibits, doc

Fitzgerald: On June 9, did Libby ask what people in the VP's office knew about Wilson's trip to Niger.

Hannah: Yes. He found out that people in the vice president's office didn't know about it, that the trip had not been initiated at the Vice President's request.

Fitzgerald: But you did find a report on the trip by Ambassador Wilson.

Hannah: Yes.

Fitzgerald: When you went to share the information in this report, you came to realize that he already knew about it, is that correct?

Hannah: Yes.



Fitzgerald: Is it fair to say that what was important to the vice president was important to Mr. Libby?

Hannah: (after a bit of hesitation): Yes.

Defense redirect: The report didn't say anything about Mr. Wilson's wife, did it?
Hannah: "It did not, no."

Questions from Judge Walton about Libby's memory lapses. Hannah said Libby remembered arguments well, but sometimes forgot where the arguments came from.

Hannah: "It's hard. This kind of thing that I just described was a very regular pattern with Scooter. But he was very good at remembering his own arguments, key facts, key points that he wanted to make."

Hannah says the months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was particularly intense.

Judge: "Did you ever think that important national security issues were ever short-changed" because of Libby's memory lapses.

Hannah: "No, I think that would be an unfair criticism." He added that Libby handled his responsibilities as well as anyone in that position.

At 12:06, the Judge dismissed the jury so that he could discuss some legal issues with the attorneys. There will also be an afternoon recess because the judge has another trial -- just how long is not quite clear at this point.

|

On the stand: Jill Abramson, managing editor, New York Times. She was Washington bureau chief for the times in 2003. She is being questioned by prosecution attorney Debra Bonamici. The setup is this: in response to a question, Abramson said she has “no recollection” of former Times reporter Judith Miller suggesting a story on Joe Wilson’s wife and her connection with the CIA. Then prosecution attorney Debra Bonamici asks:

“In your dealings with Ms. Miller, I wonder if you found yourself sometimes tuning out of her conversation?”

Abramson: “It’s possible that I occasionally tuned her out.”

Abramson steps down.

Laughter in the media room.

|

Scooter Libby defense attorney Ted Wells said he would not call NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify in the case after Judge Reggie B. Walton said he doubted that her testimony would add anything of substance to the proceedings.

Mitchell has been a controversial figure in because of her October, 2003 television statement that it was "widely known" among journalists working the intelligence beat that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but she did not know that her job was classified until it became public in June, 2003. Mitchell quickly and repeatedly recanted that statement.

Walton had ruled yesterday that the defense could call Mitchell for a one-hour hearing before him, without the jury present. The defense contended that because Mitchell had been involved in covering the story of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, she might have heard a rumor about Valerie Plame.

|

Evan Thomas is Newsweek magazine's editor at large.

Thomas says he has talked to Scooter Libby about a dozen times over the years. He said he first talked to Libby about what the Vice President was doing during 9/11; later they talked about various issues surronding the war in Iraq.

Defense Attorney asks whether Kessler remembers talking to Scooter Libby on July 12, 2003. He says he does not remember a conversation. Attorney shows him a telephone record that lists a :35 second call to his extension that day. Under questioning, Thomas says he would have returned a call from Libby had he received it. Thomas said yes. Bottom line: Kessler does not recall talking to Libby about Plame that week.


|

Glenn Kessler is a veteran correspondent for the Washington Post.

Defense attorney: Asks about Kessler interviews with Libby during week of July 7, 2003.

Kessler said he interviewed Libby on July 12. He had sent an e-mail to Cathie Martin with questions, she responded with some answers and said "Scooter would follow up."

He received call from Scooter Libby while taking his three children to the zoo. He took the call in the elephant house with his two-year-old in harness, and while issuing periodic commands to his older children.

"Scooter said to me he was talking to me off the record." In previous conversations with Cathie Martin, they said that when Scooter said "off the record," he really meant, "on background."

Kessler said they spoke for 20-25 minutes. Attorney asks what subjects they talked about -- Kessler is reluctant to respond. Attorney rephrases to ask whether they generally discussed Iraq pre-war planning and security issues. Kessler says yes.

Attorney: Did Libby say anything to you about Joseph Wilson's wife?

Kessler: No.

Attorney: Did you say anything to him?

Kessler: No.

Attorney: Are you sure about that?

Attorney moves on to questions about Post's October 12, 2003 article. Attorney asks whether he was a source for any information in the article. He said no.

Fitzgerald redirect focused on two things. First, he had Kessler confirm that in Kessler's 2004 testimony for the grand jury, the focus was not on the entire list of topics he discused with Libby -- it was only on what might have been said between them about Valerie Plame. Second, Kessler reiterated his earlier sworn statements that he did not think he had discussed Valerie Plame with Libby. He said he recalled being surprised when he read about Plame's identity in Robert Novak's column a few days later.

|

2:10 PM: Testimony resumes.

There is some questioning about the lag time between when Novak files his columns and when they are published. The defense seems to be implying that journalists could have learned Plame's identity from Novak's column before it was published. Short answer is that Novak usually submits his columns on Friday at noon; it typically hits newsstands on Monday morning.

Wells asks when Novak first testified about the Plame leak. He said he first spoke to the FBI a couple of months after his column was published. He did not identify his sources at that time. Early in 2004, he testified before Patrick Fitzgerald. Because he had waivers from his sources at that time, he revealed his sources.

Patrick Fitzgerald's cross-examination:

Asks when Novak first met Wilson. He said it was in the Green Room of the studio where they were both going to appear on "Meet the Press." This was at the same time of the publication of Wilson's column. Fitzgerald asked Novak whether he disliked Wilson when he first met him. Novak said that Meet the Press guests are usually "circumspect," but Wilson was talkative and full of opinions. Fitzgerald asked whether Novak shared his impression with Rove. Fitzgerald said he might have.

Also asks whether Novak whether column is available to the public before Monday morning. Novak said it is embargoed.

Wells redirect: Wouldn't reporters at subscribing organizations (AP and Creator's Syndicate) be able to read your column before it was printed.

Walton: Did you discuss the information from Armitage with anyone other than Karl Rove?

Novak: Yes, your honor.

Walton: Who is that?

Novak: Says he spoke to a spokesman for the CIA.

Wells also asked Novak whether he shared a draft of his column on July 11 with lobbyist Rick Hohlt, whom Novak identified as a close friend. Wells said that he talked to Holt almost every day. Wells asked whether Novak considered Holt "a gossip." Novak said that Hohlt talks to a lot of people.

Fitzgerald asked whether he shared the column with Holt on the understanding that it would be kept confidential. Novak said he assumed that, but there was no specific agreement. Wells asked whether Holt told anyone about the column. Novak says Hohlt told him that he

Novak steps down.

|

1:35 pm: Robert Novak ie being questioned by lead defense attorney Ted Wells.

Wells asks what Novak was working on in July, 2003. He cites several stories, including a column about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Novak became interested in Wilson after Wilson published the July 6,2003 New York Times column, "What I Didn't Find in Niger". Novak's column, "Mission to Niger", was the first public identification of Valerie Plame's identity:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."

Questioned by Wells, Novak said his sources for that information were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove.

They then talked about the circumstances of Armitage's revelation to Novak. Novak said that he had sought an interview with Armitage since the beginning of the Bush administration, but had been continually rebuffed. In July, 2003 Armitage contacted Novak for an interview, which took place July 7. Novak asked why Wilson had been sent to Niger since he had been a

Wells asked whether Novak had a confirming source. He said that Karl Rove was the confirming source. He said he called Rove right after he returned to his office after interviewing Armitage. He thinks he spoke to Rove sometime around July 9th by telephone. He said he asked Rove quickly about several things involving the Mission to Niger. At the end of the conversation, he said he'd heard that Wilson's wife was an employee in the Counter-Proliferation division of the CIA, and that she'd suggested Wilson for the trip. Novak said Rove responded, "Oh you know about that, too."

Novak said he spoke to Rove two-three times per week, and he took Rove's statement as confirmation based on his way of answering questions in previous conversations.

Novak also spoke to Libby at that time. He asked for information that would help him assemble a timeline of the events surrounding the Niger mission. Novak said he might have asked Libby whether he knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He said he is sure that Libby did not say anything about Plame's identity.

[lawyers approach the bench, sidebar]

|

The Washington Post reported today that Post reporter Walter Pincus' testimony that he learned the identity of Valerie Plame from former White House aide Ari Fleischer contradicts Fleischer's testimony. Fleischer testified last month that he told two other reporters about Plame.

|

Questions focus on Sanger's interview with Libby in early July, 2003. [Attorney produces notes dated July 2] He said the interview was at his request, arranged with the press liaison for the Vice President's office at the time, Cathie Martin. Part of the interview was about the "16 words" controversy. During the interview, Libby did not talk about Valerie Plame. A subsequent July 8 article stating that the Adminstration's claim about Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium were based on "flawed intelligene." There was no mention of Plame in the article, and Sanger said the story was not based on information on Libby.

Fitzgerald redirect: Asks about the context of the Scooter Libby interview -- wasn't in reference to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. Sanger said he wanted to understand the state of the intelligence that went into the Powell presentation. Fitzgerald also asks Sanger whether the VP's press secretary, Cathie Martin, was in the room. Sanger said she was. So, Fitzgerald says, you are saying that in an interview with Lewis Libby in the Old Executive Office Building, in the presence of the Vice President's press secretary, Mr. Libby did not talk about Valerie Plame?

Sanger says yes. There are chuckles in the media room.

Attorneys approach the bench.

Judge: Ask Sanger whether he recalls when he learned about Valerie Plame's identity.

Sanger: "Probably would have been with the publication of [Robert] Novak's column."

Lunch recess -- no, not just yet -- another motion to be considered about the admissibility of a piece of evidence.

Def. exhibit 1051, 1798

|

The questions focus on Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. He said he interviewed several hundred sources, including 75 primary sources. He said he spoke to Libby "lots of times."

The attorney asked him about the circumstances of an interview on June 27, 2003. Woodward had sent in a list of possible questions running more than a dozen pages. Libby called him on June 23 and said that he sent too many questions, but that Libby would speak to him on "deep background" (meaning not for attribution) at 5:10 that evening. Under questioning, he explained the distinction between information obtained on background and information obtained "off the record." Information obtained off the record.

Said he interviewed Richard Armitage "two weeks before on June 23" -- and then when questioned, he said he met with Armitage June 13 -- two weeks before the June 27 interview.

In the June 13 conversation with Armitage, Woodward asked about the story that an envoy had gone to Niger and found no evidence to support the Iraq-yellowcake story. He said he knew that Wilson was the envoy, but wanted confirmation from Armitage. In response, Armitage told Woodward that Wilson's wife, who was a "WMD analyst for the CIA", was behind the decision to send interview. Defense plays one-minute excerpt from interview. (Def. exhibit 511A (audio), 511T (transcript)). In that excerpt, Armitage confirmed the identities of Wilson and Plame, and said Brent Scowcroft was "looking into the yellowcake thing."

Armitage said that CIA Director George Tenet got reference to Iraq and yellowcake removed from Pres. Bush's speech, October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati. Bush was trying to find out what the state of intelligence at that time. Their conversation was not only about the Wilson trip, but also about the National Intelligence Estimate.

Fitzgerald: Confirms that Woodward gave his initial deposition about these matters under oath in his lawyers' office, as opposed to the grand jury. He asked about the reference in the transcr

Why doesn't that come out?...Everybody knows" Woodward said that he referred to Wilson's identity. He did not know about Wilson's wife.

Fitzgerald asked whether Libby was defensive or protective of the Vice President during the June 27 interview. Woodward said that at the time, three months after the invasion of Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction had been found. Libby said that the Vice President's statements had been based on the National Intelligence Estimate, and "He was defensive about things the Vice President had said publicly."

Redirect:"Would you expect someone who works for the chief of staff for the VP of the United States to defend his boss?"

Woodward: "Yes"

Defense: Goes to Woodward Armitage transcript -- Points out that after Armitage tells Woodward that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, Woodward says, "Why doesn't that come out?" Armitage says, "Everyboyd knows it."

Attorneys approach the bench.

Question from Judge: As of June 27, 2003, do you know of other reporters who knew that Plame worked at the CIA?

Woodward: It's possible.

[Judge advises Woodward on hearsay.]

Fitzgerald: You just mentioned one reporter who might have had personal knowledge of Mr. Wilson's wife. Can you tell us who that was?

Woodward: Walter Pincus

|

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is on the stand. He is being questioned by the defense about his experience in journalism, as well as his experience in Army intelligence during the 1957. In response to questions from defense attorney William Jeffress Jr., he estimated that he has written "maybe a 1000" articles on national intelligence. He acknowledged "quite frequently" he honors sources' requests for confidentiality.

On Sept. 15, 2004, Pincus acknowledged that he testified about his confidential conversations with Lewis Libby after being told by his lawyers that Libby had signed a waiver granting him permission to disclose their conversation. The defense puts Lewis' signed waiver on the screen. Pincus was allowed to give a sworn deposition in the offices of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in lieu of testifying in front of the grand jury.

Pincus said he met Libby in 2002, and interviewed him for an article published in June, 2003.

Pincus acknowledged that these two paragraphs in the article were based at least partially on his conversation with Libby;

The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence on the matter, but the vice president, unlike other senior administration officials, never mentioned it in a public speech. He and his staff did not learn of its role in spurring the mission until it was disclosed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 6, according to an administration official.

Pincus said he wanted to speak to Libby because he had read New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff citing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's findings that there was no evidence of an effort by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger.

Pincus said he learned about Valerie Plame's identity on July 12 from Ari Fleisher, who asked why he was still writing about the Wilson trip. Pincus said that conversation was later reflected in this excerpt from an October 12, 2003 article that Pincus co-authored on the status of the leak probe:

"On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report."

Under questioning, Pincus said he did not remember the exact words Fleisher used to describe Wilson's trip.

In his 2004 interview with Patrick Fitzgerald, Pincus did not disclose that Ari Fleisher was the source of the information in the paragraph. He said that he believed strongly in the importance of maintaining confidential sources.

[Inexact quote]"It is fair to say that the first person who ever told you about Mr. Wilson's wife was Ari Fleischer?"

Pincus: "Yes."

Fitzgerald: cites paragraph in June 12 article making it clear that it was Libby who initiated the inquiry into Wilson's trip. Pincus acknowledges.

|

i have been thinking about what I can bring to the heavily-covered Scooter Libby trial, particularly since I am a journalist and educator who sometimes reports and blogs about law, not an attorney. I've solicited advice on this point from a number of sources, with the most specific advice coming from my colleagues on the Journalism History list.

Prof. Chris Daly of Boston University advised,"[T]he thing that I find lacking from most print versions is anything about the mood and body language of the principals. Evoke!" I'll do my best, Chris -- although the view I'm going to have in the media room will be limited. Only one blogger is allowed in the courtroom.

I will take up my duties tomorrow as the defense comes forward to mount its case, after weeks of claims and counter-claims about the veracity of claims made by Libby and leading journalists about who told whom first about the identity of Valerie Plame. One particularly critical set of counter-claims is between Libby's defense team and NBC's Tim Russert.

Over the last few days, defense and prosecution teams have exchanged dueling motions over the defense's desire to call NBC's Andrea Mitchell to the stand to testify about a statement she made in October, 2003 to the effect that Plame's identity as a CIA agent was widely known among journalists -- a statement she quickly recanted. The defense believes that Mitchell's testimony will cast doubt on Russert's testimony that he first learned about Valerie Plame from Libby by showing that he could have heard about it from a colleague such as Mitchell.

Among bloggers covering the trial, Clarice thinks the court to allow Mitchell's testimony. Jeralyn thinks it's too speculative.

I don't know either way. I've decided that in this and other instances, I'll try to pay attention to what's allowed and what's excluded. A attorney friend who has litigated in Federal Court explained to me that not only are a judge's decisions in this area critical because it determines what's presented to the jury, many of these decisions can't be used as grounds for appeal.

The other thing that I'm going to try to do, to the extent that I can, is try to make some sense of the webs of power at work here. The Libby trial not only tells us about the sometimes-cozy relationships between powerful journalists and their government sources. The bloggers who have become so intimately involved in the press coverage may be emerging as a new media power center. Or it may be that their prominence in this trial makes their already emerging power visible: many of the prominet bloggers involved were already well-known to the Beltway press corps.

I'm told there is not much socializing in the media room during the trial, so I'm not likely to find out how the traditional journalists feel about having us upstart bloggers around. I am told there is a fair amount of jockeying to get a seat, because not all of the seats in the media room have tables in front of them. With my disability, I can't really work with my laptop on my lap -- all the more reason for me to get to court early.

I do hope I'll be able to avoid the kind of run-in that Liza had with
Maureen Dowd when they were both covering the Democratic National Committee's meeting last month. Liza's retelling makes Dowd sound pretty rude and high-handed.

The final thing I'll be interested in what always intereste me in news stories -- looking for what's not being covered. I'll be looking at diversity issues as well -- they are not central to the trial, but it may be worth noting the degree to which we've managed to achieve diverse representation in assembling the expertise an issue that is not about race or gender. The goal of diversity efforts, after all, is to ensure that the best and the brightest of people of all backgrounds are available to tackle a problem, regardless of its nature.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.


|