We've Got a Potential Witness (and Mention) List

by emptywheel

There you are, ladies and gentleman, the list of all potential witnesses who may be called at Scooter Libby's trial. The most interesting surprise? Dougie Feith, propaganda artist extraordinaire. And yes, Karl is on there. Condi Rice is on there. George Tenet. Scottie McClellan. Andy Card. Adam Levine--who has said clearly that Libby and Rove were in charge of the Wilson response and who Hubris suggest might be 1--he's on there.

There are fifteen (oops, missed some) people from OVP, including Libby and Dick. Call me crazy, but this trial is probably going to shine more light on the dark corner that is the Vice President's office than anything we've seen before.

I'll comment more below, but for now I wanted to share this with you. This trial is going to be nuts!!!

Update: As cboldt notes, this is a list of everyone who may be mentioned at the trial, not witnesses. And per his request, here's the voir dire questions.

Update:

Here's a take on why certain groups of people have been called/will be mentioned.

People named in Indictment
David Addington
Dick Cheney
Matt Cooper
Eric Edelman
Ari
Robert Grenier
Marc Grossman
Bill Harlow (named as Cathie Martin's source)
Scooter
Cathie Martin
Judy Judy Judy
Novak
Turdblossom
Tim Russert
Craig Schmall
Joe and Valerie Wilson

Nothing surprising here--just all the witnesses we expect. Everyone but, presumably, Novak, Joe, and Valerie will definitely testify. The others would depend on what Walton allows/whether Novak has a real use at all.

Negotiations on Judy's testimony
Floyd Abrams
Robert Bennett
Joseph Tate

The fact that these guys are included suggests Fitz will be able to introduce details surrounding negotiations over Judy's testimony. Not included, though, is the NYT lawyer (Levine? I'll look for it) and Keller/Sulzberger).

Those who knew of the smear, but haven't been named in indictment
Dan Bartlett
Adam Levine

OVP people (asterixes are former OVP not known to be still-chummy)
Jennifer Field*
John Hannah
Debra Heiden
Carol Kuntz*
Emily Lawrimore
Mary Matalin
Jenny Mayfield* (witnessed Libby's end of the Cooper call)
Dean McGrath
Jennifer Millerwise
Neil Patel
Hannah Siemers

I've asterisked the ones who are former employees who aren't still chums (like Matalin and Millerwise) because they're more likely to offer interesting testimony about Dick. The rest may well be witnesses to Libby's business?

Those involved in fall 2003 response
Andrew Card
Scottie McClellan
Larry Thompson

I'm not positive about Larry Thompson. But we know Scottie was encouraged to say nice things about Scooter, so that may come up. I'm intrigued that Card is testifying. Don't forget, Card and Scottie got ousted about the time of the Rove non-indictment.

The Shiny Object that is Armitage--and those related
Richard Armitage
Carl Ford
Walter Kansteiner (will be called to talk about conversations with Wilson leading up to his op-ed)
Colin Powell
William Taft IV

Look, pretty shiny gossip-monger. As Mary has mentioned, the most interesting tidbit here is that Duberstein is not included.

People involved in the SOTU
Alan Foley
Bob Joseph

I'm intrigued to see Foley and Joseph, because it suggests there will be active discussion of how the 16 words got into the SOTU. Others involved are Hadley, Bartlett, Ari, and Condi. So there may well be extensive discussion of that?

Journalists whose stories that will be mentioned
Spencer Ackerman (June article that inspired Edelman to leak)
Mike Allen (1X2X6)
Massimo Calabresi (talked to Wilson after Cooper talked to Libby)
Jay Carney (all the Time fun--and maybe something he said to Cooper/receiving Cooper's email)
John Dickerson (will almost certainly be called to impeach Ari)
Sy Hersh (the Stovepipe article from fall 2003 may be introduced as evidence)
John Judis (June article that inspired Edelman to leak)
Glenn Kessler (Libby call on 7/12--will likely testify that he didn't learn of Plame)
Nicholas Kristof (the original column)
Chris "I'm not an anti-semite" Matthews (blamed Libby for the Niger claims; "fair game")
Andrea Mitchell (has been subpoenaed, will be forced to explain her dithering about her knowledge of Plame)
Timothy Phelps (the confirmation of Plame's status)
Walter Pincus (the June 12 article, as well as the July 12 leak)
Dana Priest (1X2X6)
Knut Royce (the confirmation of Plame's status)
David Sanger (received the NIE leak, has not been subpoenaed)
Evan Thomas (had a conversation with Libby, but Plame did not come up)
Woodward (see also shiny object, was leaked the NIE)

People involved in the investigation
Kirk Armfield, FBI
Deborah Bond, FBI
Jack Eckenrode, FBI
Gerard Francisco, Office of Special Counsel

Other Journalists (who may have been in Africa??)
David Gregory
David Martin
James Risen

Risen is a surprise. But I'd guess the other two were in Africa.

Others
Michael Anton (NSC)
Dougie Feith, Propagandist extraordinaire
Donald Fierce (Government Relations Consultant)
Hadley
Richard Hohlt (Consultant)
John McLaughlin
Condi Rice
Bruce Swartz (Attorney, DOJ--don't know whether he's investigation or Armitage)
Tenet (allegedly he told Cheney of Plame's ID, but I'm not sure I believe that)
Paul Vallely (Retired Major General, will say Wilson told him of Plame)
Wolfowitz

A big mix here. Some of them will, according to cboldt, claim Wilson told them of Plame. Others are unsure--a lot of NSC might relate to the SOTU, the response, or may have been in the June Grossman meeting where he briefed on Plame. Also, those who would have been in the situation room (like Condi) may be witness to something Powell said--Libby wasn't, but Condi might be.

Comments

[emptywheel]

First, let me say that I find it interesting that Card and Scottie are on the list. Remember, they both resigned about the same time. Card was involved in the slow-walking of evidence requests, giving time for the disappearance of 250 emails.

[Gary Reilly]

Yaay!

EW, I have been enjoying your track on this scandal from the beginning, and I am beside myself that you are there giving us the bird's eye view of history.

The Gang of 500 can't keep us in the dark and covered in manure like a field of mushrooms any longer.

[Mary]

No one has Duberstein on their lists? The guy who set up the Novak/Armitage meeting?

Any spec on what Thompson will be called to testify about? And Thompson, but no Ashcroft, even though Ashcroft was running the show through all the initial reports of FBI concerns.

Interesting list.

[mainsailset]

The list seems expansive for a perjury and obstruction case, but spot on for insights into a larger case coming up. Talk about setting the stage, better buy stock in Orville Redenbacker!

[cboldt]

Witnesses, and names that may be mentioned. We still haven't seen a list of witnesses, except it's pretty certain that Libby and Cheney will be on the defense, and Russert, Cooper and Miller for the prosecution.

Paul Valleley is on the list because Libby wants to raise the point that Wilson mentioned Plame, in other words, that Wilson himself may have been (probably was, IMO) a leaker.

Is the entire questionnaire available?

[John Forde]

I had the distinct honor & priveledge of spending some time with EW last weekend at the Media Reform conference and inhaling 'Anatomy of Deceit' in a single breath.

Marcy you Rock!

How surprised are you at how expansive the witness list is?

[ir]

Toronto Star has an article. Is the VP going to be subpeoned and have to testify in a criminal trial and what does that mean legally. Congressmen are banned for five years after being served by Plame.

[emptywheel]

cboldt

Posted. And thanks for the correction. Wanted to get the list out there quickly, then got into a meeting and couldn't fix it.

Mary

Yes, I think the absence of Duberstein is the biggest surprise.

[pow wow]

Important detail for scheduling, emptywheel, if we can trust this AP account today, as follows:

"Walton expects jury selection to take two to three days and has scheduled opening arguments to begin next Monday. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks."

Found that in Christy's link to MSNBC's AP photo of Libby that was in Pachacutec's first live-blogging thread today at FDL. Wanted you and looseheadprop to see it since your schedules are tight with regard to opening statements day. [I thought Walton might just go ahead and declare Monday the earliest date for opening, and this seems to confirm that he did in fact do so at some point recently.]

[Walter]

From the questions:

"Statement of the Case:
In July 2003, there were press accounts discussing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger (a country in Africa) and his criticism of the Bush Administration concerning the reasoning for the United States going to war in Iraq. In those accounts it was revealed that former Ambassador Wilson’s wife (Valerie Plame) worked at the Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA). After the articles were published, a federal investigation commenced to determine whether any violations of the law had been committed by the disclosure to the news media, and if so, who disclosed the information. Arising out of this investigation, was the issuance of the grand jury indictment charging Mr. Libby, who as I indicated was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agents and a grand jury resulting from statements Mr. Libby made during the investigation."

Looks like Libby got what he wanted on this issue. No mention of "classified" and a pretty limited description of the investigation. (Certainly not as broad as Fitzgerald's contention in other filings that the grand jury's purpose included investigating lies to the grand jury.)

[Mimikatz]

Isn't this the list to see if potential jurors have any relationship to people involved or potentially involved in the case to screen them out? That is standard practice.

[cboldt]

-- Looks like Libby got what he wanted on this issue. --

Tough call. The language he objected to to was "investigation into the possible leak of classified information," to which he proposed "investigation into the possible leak of alleged classified information." Libby's point being that the former language asserts somehow that the information was classified, or that the leak represented a criminal violation.

You indicate the following as being in Libby's favor ...

... determine whether any violations of the law had been committed by the disclosure to the news media, and if so, who disclosed the information.

This seems to say that first there was in fact a determination that the leak constituted a violation of the law. Because if there was a violation, then the investigation would move to who disclosed the information. The inference being that if there hadn't been a violation (the "if" condition not being met) then the investigation would not proceed to the "who" question. I think this is the wrong conclusion to draw (that is, I think the statement is not an accurate paraphrase of the investigation) FWIW, but some people will draw that conclusion by what they fancy to be "careful parsing" of the language.

[kim]

I didn't much like that question 17 in the voir dire, seemed like it was demanding that the jurors accept the defense theories of memory. But I'm no lawyer.

[Walter]

Kim beat me to it...

To say nothing of this (from the same list of questions):

"At this time, I want to ask you some questions about your beliefs or opinions about human memory:

(A.) Is there anyone who believes that everyone’s memory is like a tape recorder and therefore all individuals are able to remember exactly what they said and were told in the past?

(B.) Is there anyone who feels that a person could not honestly say something about a matter he or she truly believed to be the true when that person several months earlier actually said something totally different about that same matter?

(C.) Is there anyone who believes that it is impossible for a person to mistakenly believe that he or she was told something by one person when in fact the person was actually told the information by someone totally different several months earlier?

(D.) Is there anyone who believes that it is absolutely impossible for a person to believe very strongly that he or she has certain memories about something, even though it is determined that those memories are inaccurate?

Pretty far from the form jury instruction that Fitzgerald wanted.

[Carolyn in Baltimore]

Tough voir dire question: the Cheney one.
I could honestly answer genewrally that I could give a member of the Bush administration a fair trial. But how do you answer the Cheney question? He's been in the news for 7 years. If you pay any attention to the news one would have questions about his honesty - ie: variance between his pronouncements on anything and reported facts.
What would constitute a jury who has no opinion on the man?

I believe I am an open-minded person and would listen carefully. But I'd be blown off a jury so fast on this question. I could say I'd have an open mind but would have to say he has a history of at least saying things other than what other people are saying and that I would have questions.......

[Walter]

cboldt,

Quite correct. Many things could be read into the actual phrasing. I simply recalled the "classified" vs "allegedly classified".

"The inference being that if there hadn't been a violation (the "if" condition not being met) then the investigation would not proceed to the "who" question."

As the jury may not get to hear any evidence of "who" leaked to Novak, that could cut both ways.

[cboldt]

-- I didn't much like that question 17 in the voir dire, seemed like it was demanding that the jurors accept the defense theories of memory. --

Those questions are phrased in such absolute terms that I doubt anybody would disagree with them.

In the general sense, any one of us has probably switched sides, mistaken attribution, and otherwise have flaws in memory. That's one reason why humans take written notes or otherwise reduce material to tangible form.

The trial, on the other hand, is quite fact specific. What was the defendant presented with, how important was "Mrs. Wilson works at the CIA" to him, and do you believe him when he says he forgot?

[emptywheel]

pow wow

Yeah, Walton set aside all of Thursday for voir dire. From Pach's latest, it looks like they're going to need it.

Walter

I think I agree with cboldt. The instruction is different from what both proposed, but a juror might assume that, since the investigation got to teh "whom," it must have passed the "if" stage. Of course, that's true in general--if DOJ declares an investigation, then the if has passed. Assuming, of course, that the CIA has represented things fairly.

Also not surprised about the memory stuff--or bugged, really. Libby doesn't get to have his expert, so he needs to be allowed to present his memory case based on jurors' common sense (which is how Walton ruled). Better to have this than to have any verdict overturned.

[Walter]

Carolyn,

I'd go down on the news question. I mean really, no access to TNH, etc?

[Walter]

Hmmm. So the question conditions the jurors to believe that disclosure was (is) a crime.

That does lend more importance to establishing the disclosures to Judy Miller and Cooper. But once established, points directly at motive.

Careless drafting, fair and equal treatment, or a hint into J. Walton's understanding of the case?

I wonder if Fitzgerald would have (or did actually, in oral arguments) suggested or agreed to this wording?

[DanM]

Perhaps a stupid question, but is the POTUS not going to be mentioned at all during the trial (or is it just assumed that any potential juror has an opinion on the president)?

[Mary]

If you find anything else out about why Risen's name comes up - dish. *g* He was the other one I was going to ask about.
I'm still not certain why Thompson's name would come up, but Ashcroft's not. Oh well, it will be what it will be.

[Jeff]

Pretty sure Dickerson will not be a witness, and is probably on the list for key communications with Matt Cooper. Also, he will probably come up in the defense's cross-examination of Fleischer, I'd imagine.

[vachon]

Is this going to be on Court TV? I may have to get a VCR if it is.

Can you imagine if all those people are actually called and they have to testify? Be still my heart. Who needs chocolate when I can rerun Opening Statements? Don't get me started.

[William Ockham]

I am really curious about Richard Hohlt. He is a Republican lobbyist. What connection to the case does he have?