Jeffress: “Do you remember that the call you had on July 11 with Mr. Libby was actually two calls?”
Cooper says yes.
The first was at 2:24 pm and lasted more than 13 minutes. Two minutes after that finished, there was another that lasted “4.6 minutes.”
In the first, Libby made his on the record statement to Cooper. They discussed Wilson’s wife in the second call, apparently.
The defense then examines Cooper’s notes of the conversations. Like Miller’s, they don’t reflect particularly well on the reporter’s methodology…
“They are by no means complete or accurate?” asks Jeffress,
“By no means complete,” corrects Cooper.
Jeffress continues to pick at Cooper’s sloppy notes and typos in an attempt to cast doubt on what his recollection says they mean. What exactly did Libby say to him? It’s pretty tough to say by examining the notes. We’ll have to decide whether to believe Cooper’s “recollection” is accurate — or not.
They then examine a draft of an article Cooper wrote that Libby told him, “Yeah, I’ve heard something like that.”
The final article was changed to read differently, however. This time, Libby was quoted as saying instead, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”
Cooper isn’t quite sure exactly what Libby said. Score a minor point, at least, for the defense.
They then look at an email from Cooper to Time editors about Libby’s remarks the previous day. Cooper cited Libby’s information coming “On deep background in the strict Kissingerian definition.”
Cooper concluded that the “Administration was putting out the line that Wilson had omitted a key fact” in his reporting on the Niger/uranium story. He then spoke of a “pissing match with Wilson” and suggested the story be given prominence.
Jeffress: “Are there other lines in your notes that you don’t remember what they mean?”
Cooper says he’d have to got through all his notes to answer.
By hammering on Cooper’s incomplete, typo-ridden, reporter’s shorthanded notes, the defense is attempting to cast doubt on his contention that Libby told him anything about Valerie Plame or her CIA connection. Cooper can’t explain the gaps in his notes and emails, but adheres to his contention that his recollection of what Libby said to him is accurate. Again, the defense may be scoring some points with the jury — but it’s far from a knockout.
Redirect by Fitzgerald: Cooper agrees the Libby conversation was off the record, and that he took it as confirmation of what he had heard earlier from Karl Rove. Cooper then confesses he did not read the Robert Novak article on July 12 that first outed Valerie Plame, but only saw it a day or two later.
Judge Walton then asks questions from the jury.
“Did you ever investigate about he forgery question vis a vis the Niger/uranium story?”
Cooper: No-that wasn’t my beat.
Walton: Did Dickerson tell you what he had heard in Africa?
Cooper: Yes.
A few more fairly inconsequential detailed questions about her emails, and Cooper is dismissed.
So is the jury. The attorneys stick around to argue over whether or not video clips of White House press spokesman Scott McClellan saying Karl Rove was not involved in the Plame matter – but conspicuously not “˜clearing’ Scooter Libby. Prosecution wants it in; defense doesn’t, on the grounds that it is not clear Libby even saw the television appearances in the first place.
Fitzgerald notes that the defense in its opening statement had claimed Libby was being scapegoated and sacrificed by people in the White House to protect Karl Rove. How could he not be paying attention to what the White House press spokesperson was saying publicly? “It defies common sense” that Libby would not have watched McClellan.
Defense: “There is no evidence that he saw them.”
Fitzgerald: “There is no denial that he was aware of them.” They’re trying to say that the White House was trying to “throw Libby under the bus,” he says, and Libby went to the Vice President and asked him to direct McLellan to say “˜the same thing about Scooter as he said about Karl.”
The Vice President then did so, apparently at the behest of Libby.
How can the defense oppose evidence that pertains to the opening argument to the effect that Libby was being sacrificed?
The judge says he’ll think about it overnight.
Now I remember why I finally decided NOT to go to law school!
