9:00 am Before the jury comes in, Judge Walton hears arguments from defense, prosecution, and an attorney for NY Times reporter David Sanger on whether Sanger should be subpoenaed to testify. The defense wants him very much because they believe he’ll testify that Libby did not tell Sanger about Plame during their conversation of July 2, which supports their position that Libby was not leaking to reporters during that period. The prosecution says if he testifies, they will use him to show that Libby leaked the NIE to him and then redacted that fact from his notes of the conversation, thus proving that Libby keeps track of what he says very carefully, and thus is generally unlikely to forget his conversations with reporters. Sanger doesn’t want to testify because it will violate his reporter’s privilege not to reveal sources. Walton rules that Sanger will have to testify.

10:00 am The jury comes in. Audiotape of Libby’s March 5, 2004, grand jury testimony resumes.

Some highlights [paraphrased] of his interrogation by Patrick Fitzgerald:

F: What was your reaction to Wilson’s op-ed?

L: [recapitulates the article's allegations and the administration's rebuttals]

F: Is it fair to say that it was an accusation against the administration?

L: Yes.

F: And that, if true, it implied that the President and the Vice-President lied to the American people in order to start a war?

L: Not quite. He said he just knew what was in his report, and there may have been other intelligence he wasn’t aware of.

F: Most people would interpret it as an attack.

L: People misinterpret things.

[F. puts up a copy of the op-ed]

F: Were you angry about the article?

L: Yes…well, I was concerned, but I was confident that the facts would clear us.

F: Were you upset?

L: I guess I was upset. I was distracted by the article. I didn’t like the article.

F: After reading it, did you discuss it with the Vice-President?

L: [pause] Yes.

F: You’re uncertain?

L: I didn’t see him for a day or two.

F: Was it by phone?

L: No.

F: Can you describe the first time you discussed it with him?

L: No.

F: Was the Vice President upset?

L: I’m sure he was upset somewhat.

F: Would you agree that it was the most serious attack on the administration’s credibility it had received during its term?

L: It was a very serious attack, but [blah, blah, blah]

F: Had anyone else come forward with a similar attack?

L: Well, there was a lot of criticism of the “16 words,” but no, I don’t recall anyone else mounting a comparable attack.

F: Is it fair to say that it was an important topic discussed on a daily basis during the week after July 6?

L: Yes.

F: What did the Vice President say about it?

L: He wanted to get all the facts out.

F: Did you discuss a physical copy of the article with the Vice President?

L: I don’t recall that.

[F. puts up a copy of the Vice President’s copy of Wilson’s op-ed]

F: Do you recognize the handwriting at the top?

L: It’s the Vice President’s.

F: Is the phrase “some intelligence was twisted” underlined?

L: Yes.

F: In the margin, there are some handwritten phrases, including: “Or did his wife send him on a junket?”

L: Yes.

F: Does the phrase “or did his wife send him on a junket?” refresh your memory of your conversation with the Vice President?

L: During this week, I no longer remembered this. I had forgotten it.

F: When did the Vice President tell you, “Or did his wife send him on a junket?”?

L: I don’t recall that conversation happening until after Novak’s article appeared.

F: [with a somewhat incredulous tone] So the Vice President didn’t ask you, “Or did his wife send him on a junket?” until after Novak wrote that his wife sent him on the trip?

L: That’s correct.

F: So between July 6 to July 14, you never discussed with the Vice President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and sent him to Africa?

L: Correct. I didn’t hear that until the 10th or 11th when reporters told us.

F: With whom did you speak on July 10th?

L: [stuttering a little] T-T-Tim Russert.

F: There was no discussion between July 6 and July 10?

L: I don’t recall discussing it. I was surprised when I heard it from Russert, so I infer that I didn’t discuss it.

F: On July 7, you had lunch with Ari Fleischer. What did you discuss?

L: It was a good-bye lunch. We talked about the Miami Dolphins—we were both fans—and we talked about his future, and that it had been fun working together. Also, we probably discussed the Uranium business.

F: Did the Uranium discussion include Wilson?

L: I don’t recall. I suspect it did.

F: Also on July 7, did you ask CIA briefer Craig Schmall about the Wilson trip?

L: I don’t recall.

F: So on the morning of July 7, you had a CIA briefing at 6:45, at 9:22 Cathie Martin emailed the Vice President’s talking points on Wilson to Fleischer, at 9:36 Fleischer held a press gaggle in which he repeated the talking points, and then you had lunch. Did you discuss Wilson?

L: I don’t recall it.

F: Did you discuss Wilson’s wife with Fleischer?

L: I don’t recall. I think I did not.

F: [with an incredulous tone] So immediately after the gaggle in which Fleischer addressed the controversy over the ’16 words,’ you remember talking about the Miami Dolphins quite clearly, but don’t recall whether you talked about Wilson?

L: That’s correct. There were a lot of conversations about the Wilson matter, but only one on the Dolphins.

F: Is it possible that you talked about Wilson’s wife with Fleischer?

L: I don’t recall it. I tend to think I did not.

F: You didn’t tell Fleischer, “This is hush, hush. This is on the QT”?

L: I don’t recall that.

[The tape has started again. More later.]