Judge Allows Release of Libby's Grand Jury Testimony

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:33:37 AM EST
Tags: Libby Trial Coverage (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Following legal arguments this morning in the Scooter Libby trial, the Judge ruled Libby's seven hours of grand jury testimony that will be played to the jury can be released to the media. Thanks to Swopa, who is live-blogging the trial for Firedoglake and Maine Web Report which is live-blogging for Media Bloggers Association for today's trial updates.

The Washington Post reports on the arguments and ruling here.

He's also admitting the two newspaper articles from the Washington Post to show Libby's state of mind.

Update: Wells scores one on cross: FBI Agent Deborah Bond's notes do not match her testimony about what Libby said about Ari Fleischer. He did not "adamantly" deny telling him about Valerie Plame's employment. She admits that denial is not in her notes and she should have used a different word than "adamently."

Agent Deborah Bond testified last week that, in his FBI interview Libby adamantly denied discussing a CIA operative's identity with White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Under cross-examination Monday, however, Bond conceded that FBI notes contain no record of such a denial. Rather, they say he may have discussed it but couldn't recall.

''Adamantly might not be the perfect word,'' Bond said.

< Eyewitness ID Reform Bill on Track in New Mexico | Rudy Files New Presidential Run Papers >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Allows Release of Libby's Grand Jury Testimony | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why was this even debated? (none / 0) (#1)
by seajane on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:15:56 PM EST

It's s purjury trial! How could the perjurous testimony be excluded? I don't understand how the defense thought they had a chance a eliminating this testimony.

: They didn't (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:22:43 PM EST

I think that the transcript was going to be allowed as well as the video. It was only a question of whether or not the public (MSM) was going to be able to get their hands on the video.

They didn't (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:19:16 PM EST

the issue was whether the tapes that were played for the jury would be released to the media for dissemination to the public, not whether the tapes would be introduced in evidence.