This post is a recreation of one I lost yesterday in a Hosting Matters server and cpu crash. I was pointing out in the latest cour transcript (H/T Tom Maguire) how it is appears evident that Marc Grossman has some credibility issues. Issues Fitzgerald is very much aware of. To summarize the contents: (1) the link between Grossman and Wilson seems to be quite extensive and their may be some documentation or emails linking the two, (2) it is now understoond Libby did not discuss ‘Plame’ with Miller during the first two meetings they had, and probably never used the name ‘Wilson’ (as we argued earlier), and (3) during the prior meeting between Woodward and Libby it seems understood Libby did not mention Plame, but Woodward may have (having heard it from UGO/Armitage), making Libby’s statements regarding the story coming to him from the press accurate. Not onto the gory details.
First off comes more details on how close Grossman and Wilson were, a connection we discovered a while back and posted on.

MR WELLS: … Libby and I told him certain things. Now let’s assume I want to show this jury that Mr. Grossman is not being totally truthful, that I want to show, for example, that Mr. Grossman went to college with Mr. Wilson and they were classmates and throughout their careers they traveled together through the State Department and the diplomatic arena from college right on through.

The word that still catches my eye is ‘traveled’. Given their close proximity (Turkey and Iraq) and their identical positions (Chief of Station) I would not be surprised if they literally travelled together and attended regional functions. I wonder if they travelled together to such events as ceremonies celebrating a new democratic government in a certain African country? But I think it is clear Team Libby may have some records of joint efforts, to say the least. And they appear to have more:

MR WELLS. … I want to give you a sample of just two emails that are classified so you will see the importance of these documents for purposes of discovery and how they may permit me to materially advance my examination of Mr. Grossman and to try to show that he is not being totally candid and that there are relationships that should cause the jurors to doubt what he said to Mr. Libby, when he said it.

Just a sample of two emails. If Grossman and Wilson were fairly close (big assumption here) then they would have each other’s email address. But more importantly, Joe Wilson admits to contacting someone in the State Department to warn Condi Rice to get the story straight. Wilson should be smart enough to know no one in State could threaten the NSA like that. That explanation for phone and email contacts always sounded like a lame cover story to try and spin discussions that might sound conspiratorial.

But the evidence seems to point towards inconsistencies in what Grossman knew compared to when he said he talked to Libby.

MR. WELLS: When he reported back, it may go to how 17 we cross-examine Mr. Grossman and other witnesses in terms of 18 what Mr. Libby was told by Mr. Grossman and when he was told it 19 because I may try to show that it is impossible that he told 20 Mr. Libby certain things or that he shouldn’t be believed and 21 that he has a relationship with Mr. Wilson.

Grossman is one of the key witnesses that builds the foundation for the obstruction charge, which in turn is the underpinning of the perjury and false statement charges. Destroy the foundation of count one and the case disintegrates. I mentioned Fitzgerald is aware of this, which is probably why he is attempting to limit the damage by holding back exculpatory information under various legal rueses.

THE COURT: It seems to me you could satisfy your ability to develop your defense along those lines by making specific Brady demands of the government in reference to the information that would seek to establish that relationship or information which honestly I think the government already is on notice of that, based upon what you just said, that if the government has information inconsistent with what Grossman is going to say, then obviously under Brady or Giglio they would have an obligation to produce that.

So the Grossman connection to Wilson is not marginal in anyone’s eyes. Not the defense, not the judge and not Fitzgeralds. There is one more snippet of interest on Grossman before we get to the bombshells about Ms. Miller.

MR. WELLS: Well, if I’m trying to show that Mr. Grossman should not be believed and I can show that what Mr. Grossman says he told Mr. Libby that either he could not have learned it by that particular date or it was wrong —

THE COURT: If the government has any information that would support that position, I will order that they turn it over because I think that would qualify as Brady.

MR. WELLS: But I have the right, Your Honor, not just as Brady, I have the right to get the information in — let’s just stick with Mr. Grossman’s files for a minute. Information in Mr. Grossman’s files about the trip that he would rely on in any way for purposes of his communication with my client for purposes of cross-examining him. I can’t see how it could be denied, the documents that he had or emails showing his discussion —

These hypotheticals always have some basis in reality, or point to something that clearly all are aware of. I think that Fitzgerald’s case may be in trouble here. And also it is in trouble with Ms. Miller. The key is in this exchange where we learn a lot about the content of three meetings from Miller (which I argued showed no discussion of Plame), as Fitzgerald admits. The first hint of something comes in the discussion of the NIE and the noting of July 8 (Libby’s last meeting with Ms. Miller)

MR. FITZGERALD: Judge, I am not alleging that there was anything illegal about giving over material in the NIE that was declassified by direction of a superior. But when someone says commit that it is background material, I don’t know what that means, background. We’re not alleging that he committed a crime when he talked to Ms. Miller about the NIE on July 8 and was told you can tell her so much and was told so much.

So keep in mind there is something important about that date. Then there are vague statements regarding the period before Jlu 8th, 2003:

THE COURT: That’s what you’re saying. You’re not going to challenge that. MR.

WELLS: No. What he said, he put in there, he slipped something in. He said as of July 8, because the government knows that one might make it —
THE COURT: But that was the conversation that he had with Ms. Miller on July 8.
MR. WELLS: Right. But the government knows there may be, there is certainly an argument that the government could make that there was an earlier conversation with somebody else maybe 10 days earlier.

To summarize, Fitzgerald is trying to protect documents he has under “Jencks” which means he is not obligated to turnover documents regarding a witness until the testify because he (Fitz) deems the witness to be tangential to the core case. But then things get interesting:

MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I’ll say this and I’ll
be very clear. I think there may have been two earlier disclosures that we’re not alleging or a crime that’s not the focus. We didn’t charge it. But what I want to be clear is —

…

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. The earlier one which was July 2 only the NIE was discussed, and that’s not particularly relevant but also in I think an earlier conversation we’re not getting into it may have come up once before then. It is not a focus of things. I think when we go through the grand jury transcript I’m sure that there maybe something that Mr. Wells raises as —

…

MR. FITZGERALD: Right. What I’m saying is that, look, that is not the focus of what we are doing and I’m not going to dispute that he was authorized on July 8. I don’t know what happened before so I am not going to stipulate that he was authorized on June 23 or July 2.

…

THE COURT: I’m sympathetic with you on that point because it does seem to me that conceivably you might want to tactically decide to bring out these discussions that took place earlier with Ms. Miller for the purpose of showing that at that time Mr. Libby said nothing about Ms. Plame and what he said earlier to Ms. Miller would be consistent with what he would have said before or at least it would suggest that really was important to him and not the outing of Ms. Plame. And therefore, the jury should not accept the testimony by Ms. Miller that Mr. Libby did, in fact, say something about Ms. Plame on this third occasion when on the two earlier occasions he did not.

These snippets run across many pages. Wells is trying to get a determination that the information Fitz is holding falls under Brady and should be turned over now. Fitzgerald is trying to claim it is Jencks material. What the judge is doing is discussing why the material could be seen as Brady in the last bit. But he is also basically acknowledging that the two earlier meetings with Ms. Miller have become irrelevant.

We all knew Miller’s notes and testimony were very vague on the matter of Plame. And that, in fact, I and others have argued that Miller knew the names Wilson and Plame when she went into those meetings, or possibly annotated her notes later with the names. But it was clear Libby did not divulge the names Wilson or Plame in the first two meetings. The way the judge is discussing this indicates to me that is a conclusion now shared by the judge, Team Libby and Fitzgerald – which is why Fitzgerald is resisting turning over the documents. In fact, that seems to be his argument for not turning over the documents.

And if that is not enough to cripple Fitzgerald’s case (he is now down to one meeting with Miller where there is clear dispute on whether Plame was discussed), Bob Woodward comes up to further destroy Fitz’s argument. Notice that it appears Woodward did tell Libby prior to his meetings with Miller about Plame – making Libby’s statements to Miller and Cooper that he heard ‘that’ from reporters completely true and supported:

MR. WELLS: Correct. Your Honor, it is even further because the first conversation is with Mr. Woodward before either of the Miller conversations. There is no dispute that during the conversation Mr. Libby did not mention Ms. Plame though Ms. Plame may have been mentioned by Mr. Woodward.

This is all fascinating because Wells is getting to this information by his demands to get information on the declassification of the NIE. He used that subject to get access to the records Fitz has regarding all his exaggerations in the indictment. The indictment tells a completely different (and apparently erroneous) story. And Fitzgerald near the end gets down right whiney:

MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, I will stipulate that the declassification happened. I don’t know when. The notion that we’re laying low in the tall grass and weeds I think is unfair.

You did this to yourself counselor. Fitzgerald is also borderline contempt of court. Fitzgerald is arguing and arguing about giving over information, and then turns around and says this:

MR. FITZGERALD: And he has it. It is the grand jury transcript. It is not a big deal.

Then why argue so strongly counselor? That seems like an out and out lie after arguing against giving information over.